Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Merge]

Re: Charting the Novel-verse

Thanks guys. I still don't see the nuTrek changes as any worse thanTMP, where everything looked different and everyone was out of character

There were some fans back then (before my time!) who were utterly furious at the changes made, that the Enterprise had "Klingon power units" for warp engines, that Spock turned so frosty to everyone without cause...

I remember when Enterprise started, a section of the fanbase went bananas. "Akiraprise" this, "canon" that. At least one of those people has, since the last film, decided in retrospect that Enterprise was actually "pure" Star Trek

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Double post.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

And yet the new movie has references to Archer and his fondness for dogs. And Troi and Riker were in that shitty series finale; Troi and Riker being from TNG, which was in the TOS universe.

And yet in "Unification" he acts nothing like his TOS counterpart acts. Of course, we could chalk that up to his character actually evolving, but apparently it's easier to explain changed behavior away by saying the guy's from a different universe

Then trying to have a meaningful discussion with someone like you is pointless. I'd rather argue with I-Am-Zim. At least he isn't entirely slavish to TOS.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Wooo. That's a toughie. Literally speaking, TOS should be considered the "true" canon. However, I rather like TOS-R and I, personally rather consider it "my" new TOS canon. It's not that different from the original. The Enterprise looks the same, only more realistic looking. The BoP's and Battle Cruisers look the same. I have no problem accepting TOS-R as "my" canon, and TOS as the true canon.

Visible hull plating? Sure. As long as it was symetrical, clean looking, and understated. The Kelvin's hull plating was random, crappy looking, and looked "patched" together. Phaser banks? Sure. As long as they looked like the ones on Deg3d's and Vektor's versions. Thrusters? Sure. Again if they are similar in appearance to Deg's and Vektor's. Glowing deflector? HELL FRAKKIN NO!!! Now, Deg's original TOS.5 Enterprise had a soft blue glow behind the deflector and that was pretty cool. But absolutely no glowing deflector on the lovely TOS Enterprise.

I can't answer that. There's no way to choose. I love the look of TOS. It's futuristic, colorful, simple, understated, and elegant in it's conservativeness. The interaction between the characters and the visuals is what made TOS so fun to watch. I can't choose which I prefer. I love both the characters and the look. I guess that's one reason I despise the look of AbramsTrek so much.

Well, personally, I've only read a couple of Trek novels and a few comics from the late 1970's. I have tons of reference materials, technical manuals, schematics, blueprints, etc. And I'm not into video games. Never have been. So for me, they have very little value. And I don't consider them canon. Neither does Paramount. But that's another issue. Others, OTOH, may put more stock in such materials than I do. And that's their prerogative.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Thanks....I think.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I see I'll have to have second thoughts and edit my posts quicker from now on

I didn't want to turn the thread into some sort of interrogation

I think this all comes down to the glowing deflector. I could buy that the TOS deflector "really" glowed all along, and that the TOS Enterprise had ball-turret phaser banks and that these things just weren't quite visible in the old grainy original TOS.

Assuming the TOS Enterprise "existed" exactly as we saw it in TOS and TOS-R I have this theory:
The NX-01 has more in common with the TMP Enterprise than the TOS one. The Kelvin has TOS and ENT/TMP design features. You know what this suggests to me? That if anything, it was the Connies that were deviant ship design - a weird experiment in minimalization hiding phaser banks, thrusters, photon tubes and smoothing everything out that didn't catch on, and was abandoned for whatever reason during the 2270 refit. Inside and out the rest of the entire Trek fleet fits together better without TOS's aesthetics.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Which of course, matters nothing. Hell, TNG characters in the ENT finale only made the shows worse and more idiotic than it already was.

Except that he didn't, but hey.

Oh, and here I thought these questions were about trying to understand different the viewpoints. I guess, you don't care about such things. But here we see you not caring one wit about understanding the viewpoint.

If you had cared and paid attention, you would notice that nowhere was any behavior given as a reason why it's a different universe. Complete gaps in knowledge he should have, that is given as just one reason amongst many with Old Spock did not come from the Prime universe.

In case you hadn't noticed, the answer 'no' equals not being slavish to TOS. If I was slavish to TOS, TNG wouldn't be considered by me to be in the same universe as TOS.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Except for that annoying problem, that in the TOS Enterprise's nacelle caps are not bussard collectors. They are the warp coils, or the space-time sink as they were called in the designs. The energy production, the anti-matter annihilation (and storage) occurred in the nacelles. Then, with TMP we see a huge leap technologically forward, where instead of there being one forward warp coil and one backward warp coil (the white cap at the end) the entire nacelle gets filled serially linked warp coils and a central warp core.

And guess what? You can see this as the TMP Enterprise, and the Excelsior, the Miranda, all TOS movie ships, have no more nacelle caps, either forward or backward.

Then the Ambassador-class era ships gain nacelle caps again, but these are Bussard collectors, something completely different than the warp coil nacelle caps of the TOS Enterprise. There are three pieces of evidence to support this:

1. The bussard collectors lack the characteristic twirling motion of the warp coil nacelle caps.

2. The ships with Bussard collectors still do not have the white backward nacelle cap.

3. Like Movie ships, the later ships keep the blue strip of energy ready to perform its function along the entire length of the nacelle; which the TOS-Enterprise did not have.

Thus, you see a clear design, and technology lineage; warp coil nacelle caps, serial warp coils and no nacelle caps; thus NO Bussard collectors, to serial warp coils and Bussard collectors.

Until Enterprise mucked it up.

Now, there's a problem with saying the TOS-R caps are just Bussard collectors; why did they remove them apparently no longer needed for the movie-era ships, and then as the ships grew even more advanced, suddenly need the Bussard collectors back? This, is not a clear design lineage.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Well, what you really mean is that it matters nothing to you. It matters to Paramount, CBS, and all the fans of ENTERPRISE, which apparently you aren't (but don't think I'm pinging on you, because I hate that show too. I however, accept it as part of the canon ST universe because, well, like it or not, it is.)

Tell that to Picard. He seemed to think that Spock's "cowboy diplomacy" was completely out of character for the man.

Oh, I care. I wouldn't be posting here if I didn't. I just haven't heard any rational explanation as to why a very few amount of people think Spock Prime is not the same guy from TOS. I've heard everyone's arguments, and have yet to be convinced. Don't take that for uncaring.

And again, other people have pointed out completely plausible reasons for things like Spock's apparent gap in knowledge.

I might have sounded a bit harsh to you on this point. For that I apologize.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

You're slipping. So why does the mining ship have to look like a bird of prey?

Still slipping.

You're still speculating.

So it's supposed to be a "Mining Bird of Prey?" Yes.... keep trucking 3d.

Not to Spock.

How do you know what they look like?

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Yeah, I've heard those fans of Enterprise. They spent there time cussing out the finale and who created even harder than I have.

Right. So a claim of change from a
TNG-character about one method that Spock used, is used to justify the claim of completely different behavior in TOS and the movies.

You do understand this does not compute, right?

They are not plausible reasons. Unless you're blind, you notice a staggering 9 year difference in age; and once he did know the difference he wouldn't be saying Kirk needs to command the Enterprise to set the time right.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

A lunatic in a giant invincible supership has just destroyed a founding member of the Federation. Spock would want Kirk, who he knows is the best captain ever in charge. Who else is proven (albeit in an obsolete alternate timeline) against impossible odds like Kirk? No one.

"Go back below decks, Lt. Kirk" would probably resulted in the destruction of earth and the entire Federation.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Sorry, no. James T Kirk, the guy who had a father and mother, that attended the academy as a model student and worked hard, that lived through events on the Faragut and the cloud creature, to finally become the captain of the Enterprise 8-9 years later, after he captained a different ship first, HE is the guy Spock knows that is one of the greatest captains he's served. This unknown copy, fresh out of the academy, that has none these experiences, he knows nothing about.

And no, it wouldn't mean at all it lead to destruction of Earth and the Federation; there's no reason to think so. There are other great captains in the fleet, and indeed during the subsequent events, Kirk barely did anything. The people around him did stuff, and even then, he only "succeeded" because Nero and his crew are complete idiots and buffoons who don't understand that shields block weapons fire and transporters so don't raise them in a fight and more such idiocies.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

We don't know what alternate Kirk did at the Academy in his three years there. We do know he's a genius (they said it twice).

And for the last time it's not 8-9 years! The TOS we saw started in 2264. That's six years after STXI's 2258. Plus travel time to the edge of the galaxy? Who says TOS was Kirk's first Enterprise five-year mission?

And please provide a quote if you can that backs up your assertation that Kirk Prime was captain of anything anywhere before the Enterprise. The writer's guides and Making of Star Trek don't count.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Please tell me you’re joking about nacelle caps being in any way important

You do know that all those technical manuals aren’t canon, right?

About the Nerada not looking like a traditional Romulan ship:
Comparing a warbird and a mining ship would be like comparing a sports car and a combine harvester. Built for different tasks, they (shock!) look different.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I think TOS started in 2265 (the 65 being equivalent to the 1965 when it was made). Plus Original Kirk attended the Acadamy as a teenager.

I think the timeline is a bit fuzzy. Riker mentions how young Kirk was when he made captain (younger than 30?) in one of the episodes where he's being pressured to accept promotion. If there is a reference somewhere to how long Kirk had been in charge of the Enterprise then the difference will give us an indication that he was captain of another ship in between. Even if he was only ever Captain of the Enterprise, he was certainly a captain for a while before the 5-year mission but he only mentions one 5-year mission in TMP.

I think the point is that Kirk was made a captain when he was older than 25 after spending 4 years at the acadamy (18-22) and then roughly 7 years as a sub-ordinate. He's older than NuKirk and far more experienced AND he's made decisions he regrets. NuKirk is definitely a very different animal and, based on what we've seen so far, is likely to end up with a higher body count than the original as he favours high risk strategies.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I think the events we saw at the beginning took place in the Prime Universe. There's nothing to say that the Kelvin wasn't a logical design evolution from the NX01.

After a Federation ship was destroyed by a Romulan ship in 2233, Starfleet learned about the Romulan/Vulcan connection much more quickly, and this started a whole chain of events which led to them becoming more militaristic, and designing bigger, beefier ships. As for Chekov being born in a different time.. well, maybe his parents conceived earlier in this timeline?

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I agree to an extent. A mining vessel should not, and probably would not look like a Warbird. They are built for different purposes. However, I find it implausible that a "simple mining vessel" would be five miles long and look like a tentacled killing machine from Hell. I think the menacing look and sheer size of the Narada is where the problem lies. Why would a mining ship be larger and seemingly more powerful than a Warbird from the same era? If the simple mining vessels of the 24th century Romulan Empire can dwarf a Warbird, why even have Warbirds? Just modify the giant squid mining ships for combat? They could swallow a Galaxy class starship and spit the charred remains out the plasma exhaust. The Romulan Empire would be invincible! Mwhahahahahaha!

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I can imagine that the vessel could be huge (space to carry large amounts of ore) and I can see why the engines would have to be powerful to power the drill (although that need not equate to higher speeds as issues such as the structural integrity field and engine integrity would limit these things). I can see why it would be sensible to have a cloaking device on board to avoid pirates. I can see why powerful tractor beams make sense, as do massive industrial transporters.

I can see no reason why the ship would need to be fitted with powerful weapons or powerful shields, let alone massively powerful weapons capable of carving up a fleet of 47 Klingon ships quickly followed by 7 Federation ships.

It would have been better to me if the destruction of the Kelvin had been keyed off something unique to a mining vessel (like mining charges or a blast from the drill rupturing the engines). If the Narada was kitted out with topical weapons from various TOS era aliens and staffed by multi-racial mercenaries collected over 25 years, Nero would have been a far more credible villain to me.

The mega-powerful 'simple mining vessel' from the future is a cheap excuse to justify making the vessel a threat. A threat I can buy, but a threat to over 50 ships without breaking a sweat not so much.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

One can be a huge fan of ENTERPRISE and still hate the finale, believe it or not.

What doesn't compute is how this is any different from how Spock acts in the movie.

If you lived to be 175, or however old Spock is by now, do you honestly think you'd remember the exact dates of things that happened when you were in your 30's? Especially when there's a history of Bendii Syndrome in your family? (No, Spock didn't show any signs of that in the movie, but it's still a valid excuse, if one were to even need such and excuse, which one really doesn't). And it was more like five years, not nine. And really, it's just an insubstantial thing to argue about. Abrams's job wasn't to be responsible for knowing every insignificant detail of Trek canon in an effort to cater to obsessive-compulsive fans. His job was to make a movie that would make lots of money and make Star Trek popular again. To more than just a few bitter TOS fans who hardly matter in the large scheme of things.