RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,867
Posts: 5,474,936
Members: 25,044
Currently online: 664
Newest member: DrawHQ

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 17 2014, 03:18 AM   #31
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Why would I provide proof?
Read my statement again: the story directly implies that it did. No subtlety, no fridge logic, no digging into director's commentaries, unfilmed scripts or deleted scenes. That's just the way it's written and just the way it's filmed.
I'm still trying to grasp your point. How does it "directly imply" it? You're not answering the question. Do you mean that the movie implies it because it looked like it was filmed in 2009 instead of 1966? Funny, because ENT looked like it was filmed in 2001, even though it was a prequel set 100 years before TOS.

Please explain to me like I'm five years old how this film implied that it was NOT in fact meant to represent the prime TOS universe up until Nero changes things.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2014, 09:16 AM   #32
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

"Going back in time you changed all our lives..."

"Beginning with the attack on the USS Kelvin, culminating in the events of today, thereby creating an entire new chain of incidents..."

I think those two lines spell it out canonically (and of course is supported by novels, comics and diagrams on the STO and IDW websites). That's not to say fans can't ignore it and read the situation another way if they prefer - in the 80's some were insisting the first few movies weren't a true continuation of TOS and using the term "alternate universe" to describe them - and they had no in-universe time travel justification at all! Or a future Trek production might totally change how it time travels work again (remember "Time Squared"?)
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2014, 09:31 AM   #33
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

^That's not what I meant. I know the timeline changed and a new continuity was created when Nero came back in time. My point was that before this incident took place, it was the same prime universe as TOS.

Perhaps that wasn't what Crazy Eddie was arguing; if I misunderstood him, I apologize.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 17 2014, 09:49 AM   #34
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^That's not what I meant. I know the timeline changed and a new continuity was created when Nero came back in time. My point was that before this incident took place, it was the same prime universe as TOS.

Perhaps that wasn't what Crazy Eddie was arguing; if I misunderstood him, I apologize.
I was supporting you in that. Just pointing out that fans have been re-interpreting Trek for decades - if Crazy Eddie wants to see it another way and feature that way in his Illustrated Guide to Starfleet, more power to him.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2014, 07:52 PM   #35
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^That's not what I meant. I know the timeline changed and a new continuity was created when Nero came back in time. My point was that before this incident took place, it was the same prime universe as TOS.
Which, again, the film directly implies through dialog. We don't know that for sure, because the characters who spoke that dialog could easily be wrong. But that's how it was written and presented by the directors.

OTOH, "Deckard is a replicant" is fridge logic loosely based on an unfilmed script and a dream sequence that was never properly developed. "NuTrek is a hard reboot" is fridge logic too, since neither of them actually have any story support within the film.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
^That's not what I meant. I know the timeline changed and a new continuity was created when Nero came back in time. My point was that before this incident took place, it was the same prime universe as TOS.

Perhaps that wasn't what Crazy Eddie was arguing; if I misunderstood him, I apologize.
I was supporting you in that. Just pointing out that fans have been re-interpreting Trek for decades - if Crazy Eddie wants to see it another way and feature that way in his Illustrated Guide to Starfleet, more power to him.
Actually the way I wrote up the Guide was a way of explaining exactly HOW it diverged from the TOS timeline. Obviously it has to do with the destruction of the Kelvin, but I felt the "Starfleet builds bigger ships to deal with the threat" explanation was way too simplistic.

My thinking was that the Kelvin was actually a relatively major starship for its time -- sort of a supercarrier of the TOS world -- the loss of which would have had serious implications for Starfleet's R&D priorities. Politics is sensitive to unexpected shocks like that.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 18 2014, 08:53 PM   #36
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which, again, the film directly implies through dialog. We don't know that for sure, because the characters who spoke that dialog could easily be wrong. But that's how it was written and presented by the directors.
The only thing established in dialogue was that the timeline changed after Nero's incursion. There's nothing in the dialogue that implies or otherwise states that anything before that point wasn't the same as the prime TOS universe, unless you can give me an example of dialogue that I might have forgotten. That is, unless your above quote means that you're agreeing with me, in which case, never mind
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 06:35 PM   #37
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which, again, the film directly implies through dialog. We don't know that for sure, because the characters who spoke that dialog could easily be wrong. But that's how it was written and presented by the directors.
The only thing established in dialogue was that the timeline changed after Nero's incursion.
Yes. And the change is implied to be a diversion from the TOS timeline.

There's nothing in the dialogue that implies
Of course there is. Spock's statement "Whatever else our lives might have been, our destinies have changed." You know and I know and the writers know that the "whatever else" Spock refers to is TOS; really, the only one who DOESN'T know that is Spock. Moreover, the presence of Spock Prime and his familiarity with the crew of the Enterprise and particularly with Khan implies that Spock Prime originally came from the TOS/Normal timeline.

Of course, as I said, the implication is flexible enough that one could ignore it if one were so inclined, since nothing in the storyline actually depends on the original timeline really being the TOS background. Suffice to say, it's what the writers want their audience to think, but it isn't necessarily true, and could change in future movies:

Abrams: How come half the fanboys are expecting me to reboot TNG all of a sudden?
Orci: They inferred that the new timeline we're working with branches from the original in such a way that it wouldn't have been different at all except for Nero's incursion.
Abrams: You lied.
Orci: Noooooo... I implied.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 07:34 PM   #38
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

^Again, I think we're miscommunicating with each other.

1. I know that the timeline changed in 2233, creating the alternate universe we see in the films.

2. Everything (offscreen) before the 2233 diverging point was taking place in the prime TOS universe.

So I'm agreeing with you...I think.

I originally brought this up because someone else was saying that everything before 2233 was actually in some other universe, not the prime TOS one, mainly because of the size of the Kelvin. To which I say that there's no canonical evidence that Starfleet didn't produce very large ships pre-2233, since we've never seen that period of time on screen until ST '09.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 19 2014, 07:41 PM   #39
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
^Again, I think we're miscommunicating with each other.

1. I know that the timeline changed in 2233, creating the alternate universe we see in the films.

2. Everything (offscreen) before the 2233 diverging point was taking place in the prime TOS universe.

So I'm agreeing with you...I think.

I originally brought this up because someone else was saying that everything before 2233 was actually in some other universe, not the prime TOS one, mainly because of the size of the Kelvin. To which I say that there's no canonical evidence that Starfleet didn't produce very large ships pre-2233, since we've never seen that period of time on screen until ST '09.
Actually we were talking about the directors not beating their audience over the head with plot background because they respect their viewers enough to make that connection for themselves. Thus the dialog strongly implies it's the TOS timeline that it diverged from (you agree, obviously) without needing to actually make the Kelvin look like a TOS ship.

But as you are fond of pointing out, the film doesn't establish it either way, it just implies it.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2014, 07:33 PM   #40
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Thus the dialog strongly implies it's the TOS timeline that it diverged from (you agree, obviously) without needing to actually make the Kelvin look like a TOS ship.
But the Kelvin does look like a TOS ship...if TOS had been produced in 2009.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 07:19 PM   #41
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

If TOS had Galactica 2.0's VFX animation teams and retained something of Matt Jeffries' and Andrew Probert's design sense.
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 09:35 PM   #42
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Think of how completely Starfleet changed the look of their ships between TOS in 2266-69 and TMP in 2273. Now, the Kelvin is a ship from 34 years prior to TOS. Add to that "In a Mirror, Darkly", which essentially called the TOS Defiant fantastic technology-meets-art, and there's more than enough wiggle room to justify the Kelvin's look in the TOS timeline.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 21 2014, 11:33 PM   #43
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Thus the dialog strongly implies it's the TOS timeline that it diverged from (you agree, obviously) without needing to actually make the Kelvin look like a TOS ship.
But the Kelvin does look like a TOS ship...if TOS had been produced in 2009.
So very true.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 22 2014, 03:50 AM   #44
DEWLine
Commodore
 
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Send a message via AIM to DEWLine Send a message via Yahoo to DEWLine
Re: USS Kelvin - is there an official size?

Daniel: You speak truth...
__________________
Yours,

Dwight Williams
Illustrator/Writer
DEWLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:00 PM.

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