The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Movies XI+ (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=50)
-   -   What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=96398)

CuttingEdge100 June 16 2009 02:19 AM

What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Even though the ship has two hulls (engineering and primary), apparently the primary hull is incapable of separating, and acting as a lifeboat as was the intentions of Matt Jeffries.

The ship also does not appear to have any conventional lifeboats and instead just has shitloads of shuttlecraft which are used apparently as lifeboats.

The ship (due to the lack of a separating saucer or lifeboats, and instead requiring buttloads of shuttles) is apparently monstrous in size just looking at the shuttlebay. I think I also saw a size comparison of the new Enterprise with the USS Kelvin and it also reflected that the Kelvin was a very large vessel, and when in combination with the 800-man crew, in most likelyhood, is larger than the (original) Constitution-Class (Which as of 2265, 32 years after the Kelvin's destruction, was the largest class of ship in the Federation inventory)

The engineering-hull looks quite small in size (not to mention, it looks like the bridge would be in the way of the deflector field) compared to the primary hull.

The warp-engine looks gigantically oversized, and the back has a glowing blue exhaust even when not at warp (Considering the ship has regular impulse engines, the argument that this is an impulse engine is moot). Gene Roddenberry specifically said when he created Star Trek that he did *NOT* want to see flamin' rocket-like exhaust shooting out the back of the ship (granted he also said he wanted warp-engines in pairs but that view actually seems to have varied over time) something which has been maintained all the way up to Star Trek Nemesis (which in my opinion sucked)

The interior of the ship looks completely trashy and junky, particularly that gigantic elevator shaft that extends right down into the shuttlebay if I recall. In every Starfleet ship shown in Star Trek, even the NX-01 Enterprise did not look that crude, trashy and junky, nor did it have a long giant elevator shaft hanging down all the way into the shuttlebay like that. The turbolifts always seemed to be "behind doors" and you never actually saw the elevator shaft.

The point-defense cannons the ship has was never seen on any other Federation-Ship, and the sheer number of overall weapons was ludicrous for that timeframe.


While this isn't really a complaint, or a gripe about the Kelvin, I am wondering why the Kelvin didn't blow up after just one volley, or just one shot for that matter.

The Constitution Class vessel shown in TOS had been refitted two or three times from when it was first commissioned and was in most likelyhood fitted with far more powerful shields and weapons.

The Refit Enterprise in TMP, had substantially more powerful deflectors than the TOS Enterprise, and apparently it would seem that it's force-fields were several times more powerful than the K'Tinga's which themselves had more shielding and deflectors than the D-7's which were about rivalable to the Constitution-Class.

The Refit Enterprise first flew in 2272 or 2273, and Nero's ship, while not a fleet-vessel (Romulan in this case) would have most likely been around during the Dominion war, and during wars even transport ships are often fitted with guns, generally ones that can at least do a little bit of damage to defend themselves against hostiles. Considering Nero's ship was from 2387, 114 or 115 years after the Enterprise Refit (TMP), in which time, shields, and weapons technology has increased DRASTICALLY (Particularly during the dominion war and conflicts the Federation had with the Borg)

The difference in shielding capability and weapons capability the Kelvin would have had would have been virtually nonexistant compared to the Narada, and I'm just amazed the ship didn't get cut up in one volley...


CuttingEdge100

Jeri June 16 2009 02:21 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Well, you can just forget it; there's nothing to dislike about the Kelvin. ;)

DonIago June 16 2009 02:33 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
CuttingEdge - Captain Robau would like some words with you. :)

Hartzilla2007 June 16 2009 02:35 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

DonIago wrote: (Post 3087915)
CuttingEdge - Captain Robau would like some words with you. :)

And by words Robau means you begging his forgiveness for dissing his ship.

EnsignRicky June 16 2009 02:48 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
It did have a pretty flimsy autopilot.

Jeri June 16 2009 02:51 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 3087978)
It did have a pretty flimsy autopilot.

Uh oh; I think you have found something I could agree with. Poor George. Auto pilot has been "destroyed." That was a weird way of putting it; they usually say disabled or something. Destroyed is pretty emotive for a computer.

Hyperspace05 June 16 2009 04:58 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
To the OP:

You, sir, have no taste! :)

I also think you could have saved yourself some typing by renaming the thread "What I *like* about the Kelvin" - Because clearly that is a very, very, very short list. ;)

CinC_UFPForces June 16 2009 05:22 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Gene Roddenberry is dead.

Sector 7 June 16 2009 05:26 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

Jeri wrote: (Post 3087990)
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 3087978)
It did have a pretty flimsy autopilot.

Uh oh; I think you have found something I could agree with. Poor George. Auto pilot has been "destroyed." That was a weird way of putting it; they usually say disabled or something. Destroyed is pretty emotive for a computer.

This is probably the only thing I can agree to dislike about USS Kelvin. May Robau have mercy upon me. :scream:
OT: I think the OP missed the entire point of the Kelvin in the movie. I was MEANT to be seen as an 'old clunker' from the TOS past-- especially in comparison to the shiny new USS Enterprise. This was the main purpose of the Kelvin in the movie. Period.

npsf3000 June 16 2009 05:29 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
One question, why exactly cant the saucer separate - did you get that from the film or your imagination?

Jeri June 16 2009 05:33 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

Sector 7 wrote: (Post 3088499)
May Robau have mercy upon me. :scream:

We will both be in my prayers...

SilentP June 16 2009 07:04 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

Jeri wrote: (Post 3087990)
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 3087978)
It did have a pretty flimsy autopilot.

Uh oh; I think you have found something I could agree with. Poor George. Auto pilot has been "destroyed." That was a weird way of putting it; they usually say disabled or something. Destroyed is pretty emotive for a computer.

Did anyone notice though that George programmed the collision course which apparently was gonna last about 30-60 seconds, and then 'just sat back' to talk to Winonna, while the ship followed the course (which wasn't a straight line either)? It seemed like his presence was unnecessary for that last stretch :confused: or am I just reading the situation wrong?

johnsonalmighty June 16 2009 08:18 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

CinC_UFPForces wrote: (Post 3088483)
Gene Roddenberry is dead.

His Idea's of the future are become quite outdated fast, that and i like the "warp thrusters" on the new ships, it kinda makes sense at a subconceus level.

Messianni June 16 2009 08:35 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

npsf3000 wrote: (Post 3088513)
One question, why exactly cant the saucer separate - did you get that from the film or your imagination?

He made it up. The argument of "...as Matt Jeffries intended" is absolutely moot considering...

1. Matt Jeffries is dead.
2. Matt Jeffries did not design the Kelvin.
3. Matt Jeffries is dead.

His entire post is basically grasping at straws because it doesn't conform to 1960's standards.

Quote:

SilentP wrote: (Post 3088825)
Quote:

Jeri wrote: (Post 3087990)
Quote:

EnsignRicky wrote: (Post 3087978)
It did have a pretty flimsy autopilot.

Uh oh; I think you have found something I could agree with. Poor George. Auto pilot has been "destroyed." That was a weird way of putting it; they usually say disabled or something. Destroyed is pretty emotive for a computer.

Did anyone notice though that George programmed the collision course which apparently was gonna last about 30-60 seconds, and then 'just sat back' to talk to Winonna, while the ship followed the course (which wasn't a straight line either)? It seemed like his presence was unnecessary for that last stretch :confused: or am I just reading the situation wrong?

I gathered he was staying to buy enough time for all of the shuttles to escape and to make sure the Kelvin made it long enough to ram the Narada. There may not have been too much he could do, but had he tried to run to a shuttle he never would have been able to program the collision course and the Narada would have swapped the shuttles off like flies.

npsf3000 June 16 2009 08:45 AM

Re: What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin
 
Quote:

Messianni wrote: (Post 3088984)
Quote:

npsf3000 wrote: (Post 3088513)
One question, why exactly cant the saucer separate - did you get that from the film or your imagination?

He made it up.


Then the entire deal with no lifeboats can be explained that ideally you would separate.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.