True as that is, what's with all the vitriol directed at Abrams et al for "technical inconsistency" with the TOS universe? There's a parade of people who keep complaining about how "They ditched established canon just so because they wanted it to look cool!" and saying it like it's a bad thing.
Eh, I take Abrams at his word and he never intended to be a lot of technical detail nor a slavish devotion to canon. Sticking to the theme of 'tech', though, there are things about the new movie that I find silly on its own merits, including the size of the ship of course. Red matter, of course, is still pretty frellin' stupid. I only get annoyed when someone (again, speaking pure in this tech forum) insists on applying the NuTrek material to classic Trek and gets all religious about it. I exclude NuTrek from Jaynz not just because I don't really like the tech in NuTrek as its presents, but really because it's a pain in the ass to get it to make sense alongside TOS and all the stuff from the 1970s and 1980s.
Don't forget that TMP had also ditched a lot of the established canon in trying to look more movie-like. Not to mention the ENT era, which theoretically should've looked like the 1930s Flash Gordon serials in order to remain consistent with TOS, but was instead based more on the past depicted in ST:FC. The problem with the JJ era primarily lies in making the primary designs look unusually vague and haphazard, not really in going for a different visual style. TOS was different from TMP, but both had been worked out to a lot more detail than is the case with today's productions. I don't suppose we would've had as many complaints if the designers had been able to demonstrate a more systematic approach to their ships.
If you're going just by "it's a prop for a movie" rationale, I'm not sure how the size of the ship is even an issue. They wanted something big enough that something similar to the TMP bridge module could have a physical window and so its shuttlebay could fit a huge number of small craft. To do that, you have to make the ship bigger. Seems logical to me. Really? I've always found it massively entertaining.
It is not logical if the ship resembles the TMP redesign, right down to window spacing. I'm still not sure if the ship has 20-odd huge decks or 30-odd regular decks, and I should be.
Or, the hell with it? I always thought it was a little odd that the sets (with all the Hollywoodisms that are included) should be seen as sacrosanct while the model and actual engineering work done for the shows are what gets shafted. But, looking at the NuTrek ship, you have a host of other issues, namely extremely varied VFX shots, numerous shots were completely different sets/designs are supposed to be the exact same thing (the hangar bay), some.. er... brewery artifcts... and Iowa suddenly looking like Southern California. It's fun as an intellectual pursuit, but when you're trying to be somewhat definitive or present a reference point, it can get fairly annoying. If I were to do a NuTrek Jaynz guide, for instance, I probably would use the Kelvin as a starting point and work from there, safely ignoring the inconsistencies with the original series.
There are a number of factors. 1) Previous Star Trek productions at least tried to be reasonably consistent. No, they weren't always successful, but at least there was an effort. With JJ, not only was there not an effort made, it seems that when an effort was made (coughcoughGeofferyMandelcoughcough), the person in question was immediately escorted off the studio lot. That's beyond not caring. That's showing an active disdain for anyone who's actually paying attention. 2) Trying to reconcile one side of the shop, where at least some effort was made to be consistent, with the other side, where wild inconsistencies appear to have been actively sought and encouraged, is on par with trying to reconcile the X-Men with Tom & Jerry.
Bullshit. Not matter how often you tell that tale, we simply do not know why Mandel was actually fired (and, no, Eaves doesn't know either - he was speculating back then).
Protomatter, while being a strained plot contrivance, was nothing more than an excuse for Genesis not working. It, in and of itself, wasn't a Maguffin upon which the very premise of your script rested, which is why we can take it a bit better. Even Genesis itself, while being the plot mover in TWOK, wasn't the actual plot. This is largely because the movie was really a character piece about Kirk with Kahn being the force of nature to show us Kirk's fallibility. Red Matter was just another plot device, very similar to the ones used in the recent movies (THORION RADIATION!). The problem is that the plot itself hinged on this magical substance, from the set up to the overall threat. Since the Red Matter was thrust into the foreground much more than Nero himself, it got a lot more attention.
^ Okay, okay! It was a tongue-in-cheek remark, and yes I agree that they could have done better. I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition!
Genesis is what got Khan off Ceti Alpha V. It's what he uses to get Kirk to come to him. It's what he tries to use to cause destruction and death. It's what kills him in the end. Yeah, totally different from the red matter...
ST-One, seriously? Do you haunt the entire BBS here just to find ways to defend the movie like that? Is it that personally important to you that you literally spend all day defending every aspect of that movie a year after its release? Eh, wasn't trying to be too snarky. I was just pointing out that how the Red Matter was handled, and how important it was to the plot overall, made it even a more stupid MacGuffin than most things we see in trek. The fact that so much of it relied on total utter unplausible bullshit within even Trek's confines didn't help any.
This is 2011, the movie came out nearly two years ago. And it doesn't need defending. Iwas simply pointing out that the red matter is just as much scientific bullshit as the Genesis device, and just as much a plot device.
Sorry, but "protomatter" was pulled out of someone's ass. It's the worst plot device in Trek, second only to Shran's jewel-theivery in TATV, and the Nexus of Generations. There was a need to explain why Genesis was destroying itself in STIII, so someone came up with this idea (which was brushed off one minute after it was introduced) even though it was made clear in STII that Genesis was developed by a team of scientists, of which Carol and David Marcus were just the heads. Are we really expected to believe that not a single one of those scientists would have known about some lethally unstable substance being incorporated into the matrix and not reported this (or at the least, not expect the project to have some severe repercussions)? Red matter, on the other hand, its goofy name notwithstanding, was an integral part of the movie. It's reaction with the Hobus star caused Nero & Spock to time-travel, caused Vulcan's destruction, and finally caused the Narada's destruction.
Damn right. There are many people on this forum who dedicate every waking hour thinking of ways to slip in a JJ stab simply because they don't like the film while conveniently passing over gaping flaws in Trek films they find acceptable. It's quite annoying.
Protomatter and Nexus would actually be judged and recognized as scientific terms. Protomatter is a plot device and so is a Nexus. But the practice of judging the validity of plot device is that of the amount of use along with the priority represented in the plot. SO... The Nexus was a far more frequently used and given a huge amount plot time and priority. (And never scientifically explained) Protomatter got one sentence in two movies. Red Matter isn't a proper scientific label for a tangible manufactured substance created for a specific purpose. It became the sought after object of destruction used in multiple occasions through out the film and like the Nexus never properly explained. So the Nexus and the Red matter are likely equally bad but Red matter would actually be worse as it is presented by a group of scientist dedicated to logic who apparently couldn't properly label it. The proper vague discription of Red Matter is Exotic Matter which is a type of Dark Matter...both descriptionis are vague because they've never been observed and exist only in theory or the most indirect observance. Once theory gives way to tangible testable and recreatable substance it would be given a proper descriptor like Soliton, or proton, or baryonic as a classification.