A USS Kelvin Complaint Nobody's Made Yet...

[cooleddie74]

Or at least, not that I'm aware of. The ship only has one warp nacelle. This is in blatant defiance of Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design, which says warp nacelles have to be in even numbers. A rule which has been followed faithfully with the exception of the redesigned Enterprise D in AGT, but that can be written off as an alternate future that never happens. So what gives with the Kelvin and its odd-numbered nacelle?

Oh, please don't count the TBOBW kitbashes as legitimate ships. We neevr really got a good look at many of them and only very few of them are even decent designs anyway.

So we're now including as things that never appeared on screen into the continuity and excluding things that appear in alternate futures and things that never "got a good look" and ships that weren't decent designs even though they did appear on screen which is the only rule of Trekinuity.



Ok. Does that mean we can include slash fiction?

Well it is the 'Trek fandom way, after all. Get a 100 fans in a bar, and get a 100 definitions of what is and isn't canon. A grand unified continuity for all the past series is just a cute little story, nothing more.

As for slash fiction: no matter how much you wish it, their not going to canonize you Trip/Spock/Riker/Paris crossover time travel orgy fic.

GOOD.

Because it would clash timeline-wise with my Admiral Cooleddie/Dr. Helen Noel/Crewman Cutler three-way fanfic set in a vat of Orion jello.

 

[Shatterhand]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

 

[AudioBridge]

I like the Kelvin. I think it is a better design than the 1701's redesign. As a "fan", the look of the Kelvin is one of the few things I'm pleased with about new Star Trek design. It very much validates the great work Franz Joseph did in his technical manual. Some of it is canon, as both single and triple nacelled designs from his manual show up on monitors in the first three Trek films. A single nacelled class of ships called the Freedom class is briefly visible in a Next Generation episode. So, despite Roddenberry's effort to discredit the work he authorized by Franz Joseph, single and triple nacelle designs are Star Trek canon.

 

[SeerSGB]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

Good, good...all though I kept wishing for something along these lines:

"Listen you whiny little bitches, I know you're online blogging and posting and pissing yourself over canon. Guess what, I don't care. You're going to line up on opening day, like you virgins always do, you're going to spring for the music CD and the toys, then you're going to go online and bitch about how I 'raped' your childhood and you'll never spend another dollar on my 'abortion' of a movie. Then the very next paycheck do it all over again. And while your blowing your bagboy paychecks on merchandise for my vision of a Star Trek, I'll be getting blown about $1,000 a night hookers, and snorting cocain off the breasts of Zoe Saldana. Now line up you little whiny drones and bend over, cause there's a new Trek in town"

 

[Lord Lunacy]

If it furthers the story, then so be it, make a ship with one nacelle. This is a reboot of Star Trek afterall, and in reboots rules can be rewritten as the writers see fit. In any case, no harm or foul; they can just say the ships are slower with one nacelle etc. I'm sure they can come up with some technobabble reason for it.

 

[milo bloom]

I never accepted the "Roddenberry rule", especially since the old tech manual very clearly showed a couple of one-nacelled variants. As I said in another thread, to me the Kelvin looks like it fits better into the Trek-verse we know than the new Enterprise design does.

I still wish Abrams had made the "reboot" statement anyways just on general principle. It would have helped with the other issues I have with what I've seen so far (of course, if there's a temporal shenanigans explanation that'll be just fine too).

 

[Qonos]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

Good, good...all though I kept wishing for something along these lines:

"Listen you whiny little bitches, I know you're online blogging and posting and pissing yourself over canon. Guess what, I don't care. You're going to line up on opening day, like you virgins always do, you're going to spring for the music CD and the toys, then you're going to go online and bitch about how I 'raped' your childhood and you'll never spend another dollar on my 'abortion' of a movie. Then the very next paycheck do it all over again. And while your blowing your bagboy paychecks on merchandise for imy vision of a Star Trek, I'll be getting blown about $1,000 a night hookers, and snorting cocain off the breasts of Zoe Saldana. Now line you little whiny drones and bend of, cause there's a new Trek in town"

He should have just said this.

Abrams: I'm making a new Trek movie (Gives fans middle finger) Deal with it.

then the fans would have something to be legitimately pissed about.

 

[urbandk]

Didn't Gene R. also say that he didn't really consider Trek V canon, what with Spock's laughing Vulcan half-brother?

I wouldn't mind striking Trek V from canon, personally. :-/

As for the nacelle stuff... who knows? doesn't an even nacelle rule seem more than a little arbitrary?

 

[TOSTNGDS9VOYENT]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Even though he never actually said that, its pretty much what we've got. Now if all the Canonites could just come to accept what has happened. It doesn't matter, the movies been made, the shooting is done. And like a thousand other fans of a thousand other movies, we wait for the premiere!

 

[JoeZhang]

Now if all the Canonites...

Hum... what does that make the rest of us (or at least some of us?)

Rebootonites?

 

[urbandk]

Now if all the Canonites...

Hum... what does that make the rest of us (or at least some of us?)

Rebootonites?

It makes us Cling-ons

[link removed - no politics, please]

 

[trekkerguy]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

Good, good...all though I kept wishing for something along these lines:

"Listen you whiny little bitches, I know you're online blogging and posting and pissing yourself over canon. Guess what, I don't care. You're going to line up on opening day, like you virgins always do, you're going to spring for the music CD and the toys, then you're going to go online and bitch about how I 'raped' your childhood and you'll never spend another dollar on my 'abortion' of a movie. Then the very next paycheck do it all over again. And while your blowing your bagboy paychecks on merchandise for imy vision of a Star Trek, I'll be getting blown about $1,000 a night hookers, and snorting cocain off the breasts of Zoe Saldana. Now line you little whiny drones and bend of, cause there's a new Trek in town"

That would be so badass...

 

[M'Sharak]

Now if all the Canonites...

Hum... what does that make the rest of us (or at least some of us?)

Rebootonites?

It makes us Cling-ons

[link removed]

No politics, please. Do not want.

 

[3D Master]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

Yeah, and I'll give you the reason: he was too lazy and uncreative to bother to put in the effort to make it fit.

 

[RAMA]

Or at least, not that I'm aware of. The ship only has one warp nacelle. This is in blatant defiance of Roddenberry's Rules of Starship Design, which says warp nacelles have to be in even numbers. A rule which has been followed faithfully with the exception of the redesigned Enterprise D in AGT, but that can be written off as an alternate future that never happens. So what gives with the Kelvin and its odd-numbered nacelle?

I think this was moot once Franz Joseph got a seal of approval for the Saladin.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/sftm.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~ststcsolda/index.html

RAMA

 

[Michael]

Oh, how I wish J.J. and his boys had never, EVER suggested that their Star Trek movie was going to be respectful to canon. Sweet sh*t, what a stupid thing to do. He should've called a press conference or something, stood in front of reporters, webcasters, studio execs, and whoever else needed to know, grew some brass ones, and said:

"While my Star Trek movie has characters, settings, and thematic elements that very closely parallel established Trek lore, my movie is NOT set what fans would consider the current "canon". It is an independent, unique vision of the Star Trek universe, one that I hope attracts and inspires a whole new legion of fans and wins over some of the old ones. I wanted to create something fresh, exciting, and new and breathe life into a property that I feel has stagnated in recent years. I knew going into this that I was going to have detractors that were too loyal to the Star Trek they love to accept my changes. Pardon my brutal honesty, but if it fails to bring the old-school, die-hard Trek fans into the fold, I don't anticipate losing much sleep over it. This movie isn't just for them. I'd love for them to appreciate it in the spirit with which it's being made, but if they can't, there's not much I can do about it. What's done is done."

Arrogant-sounding? Yeah, probably. But it sure would've made it crystal clear that whatever minor details people are willing to shred the movie to pieces over are there for a reason.

Yeah, and I'll give you the reason: he was too lazy and uncreative to bother to put in the effort to make it fit.

I actually think it's the other way around: You are too lazy and uncreative if you can't look past some visual updates and minor changes of the continuity and make the new movie fit into the existing versions of Star Trek. It sure works for me.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Hum... what does that make the rest of us (or at least some of us?)

Rebootonites?

It makes us Cling-ons

[link removed]

No politics, please. Do not want.

Interestingly, the link is back...

 

[JoeZhang]

It's interesting how the definition of fundamentalism can be made to fit with a couple of minor tweaks:

Fundamentalist ideology typically centers on the following three beliefs:

(1)that there is is one set of Star Trek stories that contains the fundamental, basic and essential truth about humanity and the deities,

(2)that this truth is opposed by forces of evil (revisionists) which must be vigorously fought, and

(3)that this truth must be followed according to unchangeable traditions; and that those who espouse this idealogy have a special relationship with Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

It's interesting how the definition of fundamentalism can be made to fit with a couple of minor tweaks:

Fundamentalist ideology typically centers on the following three beliefs:

(1)that there is is one set of Star Trek stories that contains the fundamental, basic and essential truth about humanity and the deities,

(2)that this truth is opposed by forces of evil (revisionists) which must be vigorously fought, and

(3)that this truth must be followed according to unchangeable traditions; and that those who espouse this idealogy have a special relationship with Gene Roddenberry.

Alternatively, one might also conclude that this is just a way of putting down two groups you personally dislike, using only a single brush. Cute.

 

[JoeZhang]

It's interesting how the definition of fundamentalism can be made to fit with a couple of minor tweaks:

Fundamentalist ideology typically centers on the following three beliefs:

(1)that there is is one set of Star Trek stories that contains the fundamental, basic and essential truth about humanity and the deities,

(2)that this truth is opposed by forces of evil (revisionists) which must be vigorously fought, and

(3)that this truth must be followed according to unchangeable traditions; and that those who espouse this idealogy have a special relationship with Gene Roddenberry.

Alternatively, one might also conclude that this is just a way of putting down two groups you personally dislike, using only a single brush. Cute.

You could conclude that - I will be honest and say that religious fundamentalists tend to scare me - with their habits of attacking abortion clinics, crashing planes into buildings and shooting children who throw rocks at them. I'm equal opportunities, I dislike fundies of any strip. I hope this clearly that up for you.

The only two changes I had to make was adding "Star Trek" to the first bit and changing "god" to Gene Roddenberry - if such a minor change hits a nerve... well...