That's not the impression I got. I got the impression that they looked at the layout of the brewery, and thought "what parts of the brewery could we CGI-eject?" So we see a series of beer vats flying upwards. Pretty simple, and doesn't infer (to me) any further thought than that. Why yes, there are such people... but I think most of them have nice white coats with very long sleeves...
OMG Have you no respect for the Canon? The great and mighty Master Work laid out by Gene back in the mid 1960s? Clearly you do not. Any deviation from His Work is blasphemy most severe. There will be no reinterpretation of his works or use of your imagination to enhance the Star Trek experience. What is seen on screen is Most Holy and not open to debate, unless Gene declares it Non Canon. *** Yes I am kidding. SOME people (not Alpha_Geek) need to lighten up and stop taken this so seriously. I mean geeze it's a TV show about made up shit happening in pretend-land.... the ship is powered by a bunch of made up words and sillyness. We can guess, we can debate, we can come up with ideas but no one is right *or* wrong here.
Except they also went and CGId the engine room from which those cores were ejected in the first place, complete with a cieling and a row of ejection panels, and even screwed around with the design of those barrels to make them "glowy" ala TNG warp core. So SOMEBODY in this process obviously knows what a warp core is (and need I remind you that Orci and Kruzman are both long time Trek fans?) and made the decision to eject, not one, but several reactor vessels. If it had been as thoughtless as all that we would have seen a big glowy shaft drop out of the bottom of the engineering hull exactly like in Voyager and Insurrection.
I think you're missing my point. You're assuming, apparently, that someone sat down and "designed" the engine room, with everything being well-thought-out. I'm assuming that they chose a brewery, did a quick walk-through, took some snapshots, and sat down around a conference table where they said "and then we can eject these doohickies by CGI!" That then got passed to someone at the FX house, who proceeded to try, to the best of his/her ability, to make some form of logical sense out of that, and gave us the only shot in the flick that looked even partially "trekkian" in that area. And it was mere seconds of film time, barely noticeable on-screen... all we really see is "things shoot up" and then "things shoot out" and then "things explode." If you have a home copy and freeze-frame through the scene, you may pick out more, but really... there's not all that much to look at, is there?
It has five warp cores silly did you not see the movie. I personally have always thought that the TOS Enterprise has the central core like in the movies. A few engine room posters I have seen placed in the saucer near the impulse engines in per 1980 fan posters. The "Day of the Dove" if I remember right had the crew in the engine room in the secondary hull was one of the only ideas that was where the engine room was. Years ago I saw a stage photo or behind the scenes photo of the engine room with ceiling that was shaped more like a rounded edge going down it hinted it could be more behind the impulse engines in that photo. Key word hinted. It was not untill science of Star Trek came out was warp core even thought out.
Not at all. I'm just saying its apparent that SOME amount of thought must have gone into it, or else they would have simply duplicated special effects from the past 10 trek movies and 40 seasons of TV shows. They did something relatively original, and I severely doubt they went through the effort to create a CGI version of an entire brewery just to jettison some "doohickies" from it. Which I do, and I have examined that scene at great length over the past few months. It's a CGI interior, not a photographic one, and nothing they ejected resembles anything in the physical sets or anything you'd expect to see in a brewery (well, unless you're at a Heinkenen plant and they're brewing a batch using enriched plutonium...)
Remember in 'Galileo Seven' Kirk calling for full power on reactors two, four, and six? Maybe to increase power to the sensors? I alway took that to mean that the E had at least six antimatter reactors. And after FJ blueprints just assumed they were in the nacelles.
In "Catspaw", there's a similar scene calling for the use of reactors 1 through 3. The wording also rather suggests that there must be more reactors than just these three. Whether these are antimatter reactors, or perhaps fusion, fission or other such auxiliary reactors, is not clear from either context. Timo Saloniemi
"The Doomsday Machine" makes it pretty clear that the impulse engines use fusion reactors, so there's that. Also, while we've got references to "antimatter pods", and "warp engines", as far as anitmatter reactors go, we only have references in the singular. Thus, multiple reactors on board, but only one is matter/antimatter. So, the way I see the power setup, we have fusion reactors supplying energy for most ship functions, and one matter/antimatter reactor, later known as a "warp core", providing power to the ship's higher energy intensive functions, like powering the warp engines (which are in the nacelles; in fact, they're the whole purpose for the nacelles, to house the warp drive machinery away from the main hull).
Still favor multiples, if you have just a single reactor/warp core and it gets knocked out some how, why the entire ship would be helpless. What kind of moron would design a ship like that? Oh wait, yeah.
One, you have multiple fusion reactors to act as a backup. Two, the antimatter reactor is deep within the secondary hull, with safety systems out the wazoo, and an engineering crew on hand to keep things running smoothly, and thus very well protected. Now, if you want to make your ship easy to disable and/or destroy, go ahead and put the reactors up in the nacelles, and see what happens the next time you come across a Klingon ship with a wiseass gunner who wants to prove how good a shot he is (and before anyone brings up ST III, I'd like to remind folks that the problem there was that Kruge ordered the knucklehead to "target the engines" to disable the Grissom and instead, he had his "lucky shot" and hit something else, thus destroying the ship).
Well, let's consider a modern-day example... a nuclear power plant. We refer to this as a single facility. And on rare occasions, such facilities consist of only a single reactor. But more often, there are multiple reactors which make up the facility. And those reactors making up the facility may not be located very close together... what makes them a "facility" isn't proximity, it's the fact that they're all centrally controlled and coordinated. All we know for certain is that in some circumstances, during TOS, we get a clear reference to a "facility." That is in no way evidence that there is only a single "reactor" at any one location in the ship... just that there is a single "reactor system" (meaning common "organizational structure"). The "row of tubes" in Engineering could be a string of m/am reactors. Or there could be a single big reactor under the floor. Or there could be rows and rows of reactor chambers in the nacelles (as TAS showed us, and as I treat things). There is ZERO HARD EVIDENCE EITHER WAY. After all, the ship was never actually built... For me, I go back to MJ's intent... the "aerospace model." CRA and others support the "automobile model" where the nacelles are the tires, and the "engine" is elsewhere in the vehicle. But... in that automotive model... you talk about "the engine." Think about the engine in your car, however... it doesn't have just one cylinder, does it? It has four (if it's a little puttering golfcart of a car!) or six, or eight, or (if you have a high-end sports car) maybe twelve. Yet with all those "reaction chambers" (and that's a very appropriate term, by the way) in that engine, we still call it a single engine, don't we? Except that the whole point of m/am as a power source is that it produced a lot more energy per gram of reaction mass than fusion possibly can. Which is why we want our nuclear reactor power plants in the middle of New York City or Los Angeles, right? They've got "safety systems out the wazoo, massive engineering crews, and are very well protected, after all. Think that's a good idea? No? Why not? If you have shields and deflectors... how is having them in the nacelles making them any more vulnerable than having them in the main hull? Further, if you DON'T have shields and deflectors, how is having them in the main hull making them any more secure and protected than having them in the nacelles? Do you think that the shielding on the nacelles is, for some reason, less robust than that over the rest of the ship? Do you think that an unshielded secondary hull is going to provide any more impediment to a full-power weapons system than an unshielded nacelle? I think that the term "hot knife through butter" is probably appropriate...
A fine example of that is in STII, when it's pretty much uncontested that the M/AM reactor is in the secondary hull. Here, the Reliant's cutting beam brought down engineering with very little effort. Granted, they knew where to shoot but ship's weapons have at times been described as powerfull enough to level a planet, so I would have thought that nowhere in the ship would be especially safe from them. "Shields up Captain! Captain why aren't you raising the shields? I just need to press this one button! Capt- BOOM! Oh, never mind..."
As I have often commented at times like this: if you ever find yourself in the presence of a hostile weapon system accurate enough to target individual components of your ship, even through deflector shields and evasive action, it doesn't matter where you put the warp core.
But why make it easier for them to blow you up? At least keeping the breakable stuff inside instead of waaaaaaaay out on a couple of popsicle sticks shows you're making an effort.