RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,262
Posts: 5,349,421
Members: 24,614
Currently online: 531
Newest member: robyn

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Ships Of The Line Design Contest
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Next Weekend: Shore Leave 36!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

True Trek History To Be Penned
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 24 2010, 07:16 PM   #136
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post

1. The dialog with military test in The Ultimate Computer facing of against the best the fleet has to offer.

2. The dialog in Bread and Circuses about how the Enterprise that Kirk commands isn't a mere spaceship that the traitor captain was commanding, a starship which was an entirely different thing.

3. How there are only twelve like it in the fleet; showing how advanced, new, and big it is.

And if I bother to rewatch the entire series I'm sure I can find more.
1. Again you're confusing "biggest" with "best".
And if it weren't the biggest, if there were bigger ships, with bigger power plants, and thus with bigger more powerful weapons, M5 would have had to prove itself against those as well; avoiding getting hit.

The fact that there are no larger ships for M5 to fight, is evidence for the Constitution-class being the biggest starship in the fleet.

2. The NX-01 was a starship 100 years previously. Spaceship probably applies to short-range vessels.
And small vessels, vessels with very little armaments - aka it doesn't have the power to level a planet with the ground. The larger crew and the responsibility means not just anyone gets to captain such a vessel.

And the reason the NX-01 is called a starship, is because the Enterprise writers were either idiots, or the idiot suits at the studio went to fuck with them.

The NCC-1701, is the FIRST starship to bear the name Enterprise, as mentioned in multiple subsequent series.

3. So what if there are only 12 connies? It's irrelevent to how big they are. At most it might suggest that some advanced components involved are hard to produce.
If it wasn't the biggest and most difficult starship to build; why are there only twelve? In a fleet that must be numbering thousands at least, a smaller ship would be built more often, and the larger ships would be built less often. There would be many more like it, if it wasn't the biggest ship to be built.

"It was the only ship we saw during TOS so it must be the biggest ever made" sounds small minded to me. Since when did technological advancement work that way?
Except that it wasn't the only ship we saw. We also saw enemy vessels, none larger than the Enterprise. Further, it isn't that it's the only one we've ever seen, it's also what is said about them, how many there are, etc. etc.
3D Master is offline  
Old May 24 2010, 08:10 PM   #137
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

That there were no larger ships in the vacinity at the time is hardly proof they didn't exist. Why test M5 against a 30-year old ship when you've got 5 of the most advanced models nearby? Starfleet wouldn't test against an obsolete design.

Blame useless writers all you want, but it was said in Enterprise that the NX-01 was a "starship". A few comments here and there don't stand up against an entire series. The NX-01 Enterprise had almost all the functionality of the 1701. If one's a starship, the other is.

There would be many more Consitiution-class ships if they were easier to build. Size doesn't matter here: Smaller, more complex engineering components with the same or better abilities as those on a larger ship would be more difficult to build than the bigger versions.

We don't know how many Kelvin-type ships were built. It could have been 3, it could have been dozens. Using "12 connies" as proof of an alternate universe when there's nothing to measure against is a waste of time.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 24 2010, 08:26 PM   #138
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Here's some starships facts:

1. In TMP, radio chatter acknowledged the U.S.S. Entente NCC-2120, a Federation class dreadnought from Franz Josoeph's Tech Manual. There was also a graphic in TWOK showing the silhouette of the Federation class dreadnought, a ship clearly larger than the Constitution class. Make of that what you will.

2. In TWOK, Spock clearly states that the Reliant, a smaller ship than the Enterprise, is faster and has more weaponry than the Enterprise. So size means jack shit.

3. Just because Kirk or whoever made a statement that there were only "12 [Connies] in the fleet," also means jack. For all we know, there were just twelve active Connies when he made that statement, but several dozen more could have been in the process of being constructed.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 24 2010, 09:48 PM   #139
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
That there were no larger ships in the vacinity at the time is hardly proof they didn't exist. Why test M5 against a 30-year old ship when you've got 5 of the most advanced models nearby? Starfleet wouldn't test against an obsolete design.
It wouldn't be an obsolete design, especially not if supported by the newer ships. The large ship, would have large power cores, and thus be able to fire more powerful weapons. It's a very tried and true fleet composition, several large ships with extremely powerful weapons, protected by smaller but more maneuverable ships. Allowing the larger ships to unleash the more powerful weapons, despite it's lack of speed and maneuverability.

So if you want to test M5 and you have larger more powerful vessels like such, you would test it against combined arms fleet composition.

Blame useless writers all you want, but it was said in Enterprise that the NX-01 was a "starship". A few comments here and there don't stand up against an entire series. The NX-01 Enterprise had almost all the functionality of the 1701. If one's a starship, the other is.
If the comments are part of the series that started it all, and offending series has problems up the wazoo and not just this one instance, then yes, the original comments stand up against that series.

There would be many more Consitiution-class ships if they were easier to build. Size doesn't matter here: Smaller, more complex engineering components with the same or better abilities as those on a larger ship would be more difficult to build than the bigger versions.
Bullshit. Smaller more complex engineering components is the hallmark of miniaturization and with it automation. The smaller components would be built at an equal past at worse, and as you can build more with the same pace as they are smaller, you would get components faster than the old version. The real bottleneck with ship building is the size of the ship.

We don't know how many Kelvin-type ships were built. It could have been 3, it could have been dozens. Using "12 connies" as proof of an alternate universe when there's nothing to measure against is a waste of time.
I disagree; but even if you were right, you still haven't dealt with the style, design and construction aestethics of 2280s in the Prime universe versus it flying around in 2230s.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Here's some starships facts:

1. In TMP, radio chatter acknowledged the U.S.S. Entente NCC-2120, a Federation class dreadnought from Franz Josoeph's Tech Manual. There was also a graphic in TWOK showing the silhouette of the Federation class dreadnought, a ship clearly larger than the Constitution class. Make of that what you will.
Which was a ship-class that was created after the Constitution-class. And I'm not so sure it is bigger. It seems it is a Constitution class with a third warp-nacelles to power more and more powerful weaponry. A dedicated warship.

2. In TWOK, Spock clearly states that the Reliant, a smaller ship than the Enterprise, is faster and has more weaponry than the Enterprise. So size means jack shit.
More weaponry, yes, NOT, however, more POWERFUL weaponry. Unless an older bigger ship still has a much older class of weapons that isn't as efficient with the energy, or can't deal with a certain of energy without burning out, a bigger ship, with bigger power cores, is capable of putting more energy into its weapons, and thus fire more powerful weapons.

3. Just because Kirk or whoever made a statement that there were only "12 [Connies] in the fleet," also means jack. For all we know, there were just twelve active Connies when he made that statement, but several dozen more could have been in the process of being constructed.
Which means exactly jack shit when it comes to a fleet of thousands and a ship-class that has been around for at least two decades.
3D Master is offline  
Old May 24 2010, 10:24 PM   #140
Peach Wookiee
Cuddly Mod of Doom
 
Peach Wookiee's Avatar
 
Location: Peach Wookiee
Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

Goodness, where has my brain been? Guys, this is being moved to the 11 forum!
Peach Wookiee is offline  
Old May 24 2010, 10:25 PM   #141
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
2. In TWOK, Spock clearly states that the Reliant, a smaller ship than the Enterprise, is faster and has more weaponry than the Enterprise.
Was that before or after the Enterprise had been caught by surprise and left badly crippled?
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 12:24 AM   #142
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

3DMaster: You're confusing "looks more advanced" with "more detailed CG".
The 1701 prime kept all it's features (thrusters, phasers etc) hidden. The Kelvin doesn't. The NX01 before it didn't, and the TMP Enterprise (and all later ships) didn't. Therefore: disguising exterior systems (which was Matt Jeffries intent) was a fad of the era, nothing more. Maybe some designer wanted the ship to look "less threatening" or something.
In the 23rd century they should be at the point of art-meets-technology. They can make whatever ship look however they want it to at the time.

About weapons: Remember TMP talked about big phaser improvements just a few years after the 5YM. Thus TOS' were likely improved over 2233's.

Even if Kelvin had powerful engines and weapons, there are any number of reasons you could invent as to why one wasn't at M5's little get-together. Long-range missions for one.

The Kelvin really is no harder to reconcile with TOS than ENT, TNG or any of the internal TOS contradictions were.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 01:05 AM   #143
-Brett-
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
Notice the differences? TNG Rommies have hair. They also have very pronounced eyebrow and forhead ridges. Abramsverse Rommies are bald and tatooed
So the Romulans can figure out warp drive, but somehow razor blades, needles, and ink are beyond them?

As for the ridges, they never made a bit of sense to begin with. If they can be introduced without any kind of explanation, they can be removed the same way.

We know from TNG and the TNG-era movies what the 24th century Romulan design aesthetic is.
We know what their military ships look like. Not the civillian ones.
-Brett- is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 01:35 AM   #144
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

3D Master wrote: View Post
Which was a ship-class that was created after the Constitution-class. And I'm not so sure it is bigger. It seems it is a Constitution class with a third warp-nacelles to power more and more powerful weaponry. A dedicated warship.
There's no proof that it was created after, other than the registry, which isn't chronological anyway because the Excelsior had a lower registry than the Entente but was a newer ship. Regardless, it is still contemporary to the Constitution class. And FJ's manual has the ship at 320 meters as opposed to the Connie's 289 meters (The third nacelle does not make the ship longer).

More weaponry, yes, NOT, however, more POWERFUL weaponry.
How do you know that?

Which means exactly jack shit when it comes to a fleet of thousands and a ship-class that has been around for at least two decades.
Where was it ever said in TOS that Starfleet had thousands of ships?
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 02:33 AM   #145
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
That bugged me too. NuKirk was clearly younger than the Captain Kirk that the Spock that we know should have remembered. And I'm sure OldSpock knew what year it was. He's pretty smart. Also, Nero probably told him what year it was when he had him prisoner on the Narada. Cuz that's what maniacal madmen do when they monologue their schemes to the good guy they've just captured. But yes, to our Spock, Kirk should have been a rank or two under Captain at that time. And OldSpock should have known that.
At the time, Kirk was probably 5 years younger than when he took command of the Enterprise. He wasn't wearing the gold tunic indicating rank (and, indeed, had on a big coat at the time further obscuring his clothing). But before I repeat myself, let me just quote an earlier post:

Harvey wrote:
In Star Trek (2009) Kirk is 25.38 years old when he meets Spock Prime, according to the stardates in the film. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't actually know exactly when Kirk took command of the original Enterprise. We can make an assumption based upon what we do know, however. We know that the Enterprise is on a five-year mission. We know that during the middle of the second season Kirk is 34 years old ("The Deadly Years"). We know that the five-year mission lasts for at least a year and half beyond that episode (approximately). We don't know when Kirk's birthday is, beyond a stardate in "Where No Man Has Gone Before." Since that stardate is found on a tombstone which gives Kirk the middle initial of "R." and due to the notoriously unreliable nature of stardates on Star Trek (1966-1969) this information doesn't help us. For all we know Kirk may have just turned 34 prior to "The Deadly Years" or he may have been about to turn 35.

Knowing all this information, we can guess that Kirk is somewhere in his early 30s when he takes command of the Enterprise in the original timeline, probably between 30 and 31.

Therefore, Spock Prime emerges into the past at an indeterminate point (Nero didn't know when he was either, which is why he must ask Robau). He meets Kirk, without a tunic indicating rank, at the age of 25.38 (Kirk may be "barely out of the academy" in the new movie, but keep in mind that due to the death of his father he delayed entry into Starfleet). Spock misjudges the age of his old friend, who he hasn't seen in decades, by five years. Big deal.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 12:14 PM   #146
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
3DMaster: You're confusing "looks more advanced" with "more detailed CG".
The 1701 prime kept all it's features (thrusters, phasers etc) hidden. The Kelvin doesn't. The NX01 before it didn't, and the TMP Enterprise (and all later ships) didn't. Therefore: disguising exterior systems (which was Matt Jeffries intent) was a fad of the era, nothing more. Maybe some designer wanted the ship to look "less threatening" or something.
In the 23rd century they should be at the point of art-meets-technology. They can make whatever ship look however they want it to at the time.
Except of course that it isn't true, I also said nothing about "more advanced". In fact, I was talking about design aesthetics, style, engineering style and techniques. The Kelvin has the exact same style aesthetics as the original series 2280s, just plain simple.

It also isn't until the 24th century that art-meets-technology. Both in the Federation as in the Romulan Empire. The Galaxy-class is a graceful curved swan; the D'deridex is a hawk swooping down on its prey. As time passes by the ships became ever more expressive in their design-aesthetic.

This universe has 2280s design aesthetic in the 2230s.

About weapons: Remember TMP talked about big phaser improvements just a few years after the 5YM. Thus TOS' were likely improved over 2233's.
In case you hadn't noticed, but TOS Enterprise a 60-year-old ship got those improvements in a refit. Unless the improvements are such a massive fundamental difference you can't upgrade older ships with them, older ships will get those improvements. Which was rather part of my point.

Even if Kelvin had powerful engines and weapons, there are any number of reasons you could invent as to why one wasn't at M5's little get-together. Long-range missions for one.
Yes, like five-year-mission of the Enterprise.

Oh, wait a minute.

The Kelvin really is no harder to reconcile with TOS than ENT, TNG or any of the internal TOS contradictions were.
It is equally hard to reconcile with ENT; as in not at all.

TNG, not so much.
3D Master is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 12:47 PM   #147
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

3D Master:
What exactly is your evidence that Kelvin has a 2280 design? I see a cylindrical nacelle, an external deflector, slightly off-white colouring. Inside I see levers, physical buttons, a Long Island power plant engine room...
On the 1701-A I see the engine and conference rooms of the 1701-D. Very 2280's. If they fit in 2280, the Kelvin bridge does in 2230.

We only ever saw one ship design from the 2260's. Why assume every Federation ship looks the same? Not every military ship today looks identical.

You say the TOS Enterprise is 60 years old at the time of it's refit? Do the math: 2270-2245=25.

The Federation is at design-meets-art during the 23rd century. Cars made now are made with unnecessary curves to "look good". Saying this ability will be lost in the future is just plain silly. The TOS saucer is far smoother than Kelvin's, anyway.

Don't conveniently forget that space is big. Often the Enterprise would be weeks away from subspace radio contact with Starfleet.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 03:26 PM   #148
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

There's nothing in TOS continuity to rule out ships larger than the Enterprise. In any event, TOS contradicted itself so often that almost anything can be justified.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 04:55 PM   #149
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
3D Master:
What exactly is your evidence that Kelvin has a 2280 design? I see a cylindrical nacelle, an external deflector, slightly off-white colouring. Inside I see levers, physical buttons, a Long Island power plant engine room...
On the 1701-A I see the engine and conference rooms of the 1701-D. Very 2280's. If they fit in 2280, the Kelvin bridge does in 2230.
Well, let's see: sharp-edged look of the saucer as opposed to the lazy curves of the TOS-Enterprise. Sharp-contrasting - deep - gridwork on the saucer as opposed to more gentle grid lines on the TOS enterprise. The style and connecting-style of the neck(s) to other parts of the ship. Glowing deflector dish, as opposed to the solid, simple dish of TOS-Enterprise. You know, ALL the things that have been noticed and said about the Kelvin even lovers of the movie ever since the first picture of the ship was released.

We only ever saw one ship design from the 2260's. Why assume every Federation ship looks the same? Not every military ship today looks identical.
Really? You ever checked out ships? The ship-classes themselves may look different, but the construction techniques you see in hulls of ships are virtually always identical. Only ships of different eras may show significant difference in construction techniques and styles, as new construction techniques only gradually change, and even then not immediately replace previous techniques. New materials change even slower, and they might force new techniques to be developed.

The Federation is at design-meets-art during the 23rd century. Cars made now are made with unnecessary curves to "look good". Saying this ability will be lost in the future is just plain silly. The TOS saucer is far smoother than Kelvin's, anyway.
Saying this quality will not have to be rediscovered for every brand new tecnhology, like starships and warp drive, THAT is silly. And no, the Federation is not like that in the 23rd century, the 2rd century is extremely utilitarian, chunks with no wasted space and form put together. It's the 24th century with the swan of the Galaxy class that you get to see art go in there. And that the TOS-saucer is smoother than the Kelvin is rather the point, as it is also smoother than the TMP saucer. Smoother doesn't always mean more advanced.

Don't conveniently forget that space is big. Often the Enterprise would be weeks away from subspace radio contact with Starfleet.
And?
3D Master is offline  
Old May 25 2010, 05:54 PM   #150
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

This is getting ridiculous. If Star Trek can present a single timeline that goes ENT-TOS-TNG-etc, say TOS all takes place in one universe (despite huge contradictions), then the Kelvin can happily fit between ENT and TOS.

The Kelvin looks they way it does because they updated the TOS look for a modern movie. It's big becuase the script required 800 survivors. If you can't accept these things and move on I'm suprised you survived the needless changes made in TMP, let alone Enterprise. Nonetheless, just like has happened since TOS, fans can make up excuses for every gaff, changed premise and outright contradiction if they want to.

I get that you don't want this film to hurt or make you re-evaluate your TOS worldview, but guess what? It's done. You don't like it? Fine - ignore it. End of story. Trying to "prove" to everyone your fanon viewpoint is the correct one using more and more obscure reasoning ("sharp edged saucer"?) is a waste.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 AM.

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