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

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Was that before or after the Enterprise had been caught by surprise and left badly crippled?

 

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.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

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 what their military ships look like. Not the civillian ones.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

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).

How do you know that?

Where was it ever said in TOS that Starfleet had thousands of ships?

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

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:

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

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.

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.

Yes, like five-year-mission of the Enterprise.

Oh, wait a minute.

It is equally hard to reconcile with ENT; as in not at all.

TNG, not so much.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

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.

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.

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.

And?

 

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.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Unfortunately, the same can be said of those who embrace the abramsverse as the "new Trek" and try to discount the (sometimes) legitimate claims of those of us who don't share their opinions. Those who approve of the abramsverse and the (quite obvious) changes made to the TOS universe by JJA attemp to discount the claims from the other camp by simply saying things like "but guess what? It's done. You don't like it? Fine - ignore it. End of story", or something to that effect. And that's fine. However, those of us who would rather have our Star Trek the way it was instead of trying to force feed us this new alternate universe BS, prefer to actually give reasons for our arguments instead of just saying "I don't like this or that because it all sucks so get over it!" or something to that effect. Telling people that they need to get over it, or that it's done and there's nothing you can do about it, etc. etc. doesn't help the situation. So what if the discussion goes round in circles? That's what a discussion board is for. Discussion. One side is not going to change the other's opoinion. But that doesn't mean that the "haters", or "canonists" as we're often called, don't have a right to voice our opinions as well as the gushers do.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Getting? No, its been quite ridiculous for awhile now.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

It can't. Enterprise is nothing but continuity errors and horrifying lazy writing.

Except of course, that isn't a fanon viewpoint, it's simply the way the movie was written; and if you can't see the difference between the TOS-saucer and the Kelvin/TMP/nPrise saucer :shrugs: you need glasses. Even lovers of the JJPrise and the new Trek have pointed out the similarities.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

That may be true, but it is still a Paramount-authorized and official prequel to TOS, regardless of your personal feelings about the show. And on that basis, there's nothing to indicate that the Kelvin couldn't fit a design lineage somewhere between the NX-01 and the TOS Enterprise. It certainly looked fine to me.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

I disagree. Even if you take ENT into account, it still doesn't look like it fits within the design lineage at all.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

It does fit (as does Enterprise) if you accept that the look has been modernized. A visual update does not equal an alternate universe.

IMO the Enterprise in TOS-R should have had similar detailing to what we saw in the Kelvin - visible hull plates, thrusters, phaser turrets, weathering and so forth.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

But because it doesn't proves one thing: they aren't trying to create an ironclad, completely cohesive canon. It isn't designed to stand up to the level of scrutiny the fanbase examines it at.

The best we can hope for are occasional moments that make our assholes tighten with excitement because some prior event was referenced making us momentarily believe in a pure Canon but it is all just an illusion.

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

You know the rule: if it wasn't shown on screen it didn't happen.

Including bowel movements.

Also, Nero's wife has noticeable forehead ridges of the TNG class.

 

Re: Why did spock end up in the alternate universe??

Which they did. Including dialogue lifted directly from TWOK/TSFS and a character arc lifted from TNG, among many other things such as references to events first described in TOS episodes. In fact, the original deal was apparently something like "No Nimoy, no film". (Of course, that was clearly an attempt to generate viewers' interest through the appearance of an alternate Spock which they'd never heard of or cared about before, rather than the one they were already familiar with. )

 

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

And I disagree with you. So I guess that makes us even.