• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Trek Trailer with OZ

Or maybe, and I know this might be a shocking idea, they are expanding the range of designs because, well, they can (after all, who says there's only one proper "design" rule?).

Well, Roddenberry did lay down starship design rules when it came to how many nacelles a ship can have, but that's not the issue here.

I want to know what practical purpose a second deflector dish can serve? Especially since there are at least three starship designs which don't have one at all, why the hell does this one need two? I can't see any. Either Bad Robot is just trying to be kewl by adding a bunch of unnecessary shit, or whoever designed the ship is insecure about something.
 
I want to know what practical purpose a second deflector dish can serve? Especially since there are at least three starship designs which don't have one at all, why the hell does this one need two?

To compensate for the missing deflectors from the other ships. Balance must be restored. Plus, the damn things were taking up valuable space in the warehouse.
 
^Let's just forget about it then and carry on...



I think I might just boycott if no one comes up with a valid explanation for this deflector travesty.:klingon:
 
But did those rules even exist while Kirk was command? While I don't have an issue with the 'rule-breaker' Kirk we see in the new movies, it seems much more reflective of the pop-culture interpretation of the character that started with TWOK. The TOS version of the character was a 'big risk, big reward' kind of guy, but I never really saw him as a rule breaker. YMMV.

I've always believed this, too. The idea of Kirk as a rule breaker has become exaggerated over time. So was his messing around with time lines.

Kirk himself said he was the "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" type, so he was a risk taker. But at worst, he sometimes bent or massaged rules. A lot of times, he saw himself in a position where there probably wasn't a rule to follow, let alone violate. I think only the most bureaucratic and literal-minded types in Starfleet would think of Kirk as a rule breaker.
Whenever he faced a Prime Directive situation, he was never the one to have broken it in the first place. The Prime Directive allowed judicious actions to restore balance to cultures, and that was what Kirk did in "Bread and Circuses", "Patterns of Force", and "A Private Little War".

Now, I can bet a young Captain Kirk would be seen as a pain in the ass to the Starfleet Admiralty, and I bet trying to defend or vouch for him all the time wore Pike out.

But that's James T. Kirk. You wouldn't want every starship captain to be like him, but you come to realize you're damn glad you've got the one. As I posted elsewhere, I would suspect that at age 46 or 56, James T. Kirk, either James T. Kirk would try to stop that volcano from destroying the civilization on that planet. So that's very in character. The part of it that I think is seriously out of character for this or any Kirk, is
Kirk lied in his log to cover up some of what happened at the volcano. That bothers me more than an actual violation of the PD. Jim Kirk is not a boy scout, but he's never been a liar. He stands by the courage of his convictions, he doesn't cover them up in a log entry. The Kirk who lied in his log is the same Kirk who rigged the Kobayashi-Maru test and risked punishment just to make a point about its fairness? That lying part bothers me. That's a side of Kirk we never saw before. Kirk always had integrity.

Return of the Archons--Destroyed the Landru computer
The Apple--Destroys Vaal
A Private Little War--Arms one side with Flint-locks
A Piece of the Action--The Federation has to come back for its "cut."
The Search for Spock--Steals the Enterprise, defies Starfleet orders.

He's been a rule-breaker for a long time. But how did he stay in command? Probably by lying. Gene Roddenberry never addressed it in the series, but Jim Kirk does a lot of things we mere mortals couldn't get away with. And, often, like in Amok Time and The Menagerie, Kirk would be bailed out for defying Starfleet's orders by Starfleet saying "it's okay" after the fact.

There's no doubt he stretched rules but none of the cultures below were pristine. The natural development of all of them had been compromised long before Kirk showed up.
-- "Return of the Archons": The culture had already been polluted by the Archons 100 years earlier. Arguably, how can you interfer in the "natural" development of a culture that's already been compromised?
-- "The Apple": The argument was Vaal was stifling the natural development of the culture. It's unlikely that these people created Vaal. So this culture was probably already contaminated in the past.
-- "A Private Little War": The Klingons were already there.
-- "A Piece of the Action": Again, a culture that was previously contaminated by an earlier Federation ship.
-- "The Search for Spock": Yes, here he blatantly broke rules, because he felt a stronger obligation to Spock than he did Starfleet orders in that case. And in TVH he was willing to go back to Earth to face punishment. He stood up and pled guilty to all charges without a defense.

I think part of the leeway Kirk was given in the show to make largely autonomous decisions and interpret things for himself centered around the implicit idea of being in deep space, and not always in a position to consult "Starfleet lawyers" or poll the admiralty for a consensus about how to proceed in every crisis. As I said before, for Kirk, it was easier to apologize than to get permission.

But here's the most important part to me, and the thing I have the most trouble believing is in Kirk's character. In the real world, a captain who falsifies entries in his log can be charged with committing fraud. The log is considered the ship's history. It's often used in legal disputes as a record of events. In this case Kirk must've known, or at least thought he violated the Prime Directive, and falsified his log entry in order to avoid punishment. That coverup is more serious than the the mistake. That's what should've cost him his command.
 
Last edited:
^Let's just forget about it then and carry on...



I think I might just boycott if no one comes up with a valid explanation for this deflector travesty.:klingon:

Exactly! This calls for nothing less that for fans to boycott the movie and a petition to Paramount to remove Abrams and his ass clowns from authority over Trek. They no longer deserve the privelege of making Trek. The purity and sanctity of Star Trek is at risk. A True Fan know what I'm talking about.

But, I may be lenient if someone from Bad Robot takes the time to offer an explanation, provided it's perfectly canonically sound and doesn't rape my childhood.
 
I've always believed this, too. The idea of Kirk as a rule breaker has become exaggerated over time. So was his messing around with time lines.

Kirk himself said he was the "fools rush in where angels fear to tread" type, so he was a risk taker. But at worst, he sometimes bent or massaged rules. A lot of times, he saw himself in a position where there probably wasn't a rule to follow, let alone violate. I think only the most bureaucratic and literal-minded types in Starfleet would think of Kirk as a rule breaker.
Whenever he faced a Prime Directive situation, he was never the one to have broken it in the first place. The Prime Directive allowed judicious actions to restore balance to cultures, and that was what Kirk did in "Bread and Circuses", "Patterns of Force", and "A Private Little War".

Now, I can bet a young Captain Kirk would be seen as a pain in the ass to the Starfleet Admiralty, and I bet trying to defend or vouch for him all the time wore Pike out.

But that's James T. Kirk. You wouldn't want every starship captain to be like him, but you come to realize you're damn glad you've got the one. As I posted elsewhere, I would suspect that at age 46 or 56, James T. Kirk, either James T. Kirk would try to stop that volcano from destroying the civilization on that planet. So that's very in character. The part of it that I think is seriously out of character for this or any Kirk, is
Kirk lied in his log to cover up some of what happened at the volcano. That bothers me more than an actual violation of the PD. Jim Kirk is not a boy scout, but he's never been a liar. He stands by the courage of his convictions, he doesn't cover them up in a log entry. The Kirk who lied in his log is the same Kirk who rigged the Kobayashi-Maru test and risked punishment just to make a point about its fairness? That lying part bothers me. That's a side of Kirk we never saw before. Kirk always had integrity.

Return of the Archons--Destroyed the Landru computer
The Apple--Destroys Vaal
A Private Little War--Arms one side with Flint-locks
A Piece of the Action--The Federation has to come back for its "cut."
The Search for Spock--Steals the Enterprise, defies Starfleet orders.

He's been a rule-breaker for a long time. But how did he stay in command? Probably by lying. Gene Roddenberry never addressed it in the series, but Jim Kirk does a lot of things we mere mortals couldn't get away with. And, often, like in Amok Time and The Menagerie, Kirk would be bailed out for defying Starfleet's orders by Starfleet saying "it's okay" after the fact.
There's no doubt he stretched rules but none of the cultures below were pristine. The natural development of all of them had been compromised long before Kirk showed up.
-- "Return of the Archons": The culture had already been polluted by the Archons 100 years earlier. Arguably, how can you interfer in the "natural" development of a culture that's already been compromised?
-- "The Apple": The argument was Vaal was stifling the natural development of the culture. It's unlikely that these people created Vaal. So this culture was probably already contaminated in the past.
-- "A Private Little War": The Klingons were already there.
-- "A Piece of the Action": Again, a culture that was previously contaminated by an earlier Federation ship.
-- "The Search for Spock": Yes, here he blatantly broke rules, because he felt a stronger obligation to Spock than he did Starfleet orders in that case. And in TVH he was willing to go back to Earth to face punishment. He stood up and pled guilty to all charges without a defense.

I think part of the leeway Kirk was given in the show to make largely autonomous decisions and interpret things for himself centered around the implicit idea of being in deep space, and not always in a position to consult "Starfleet lawyers" or poll the admiralty for a consensus about how to proceed in every crisis. As I said before, for Kirk, it was easier to apologize than to get permission.

But here's the most important part to me, and the thing I have the most trouble believing is in Kirk's character. In the real world, a captain who falsifies entries in his log can be charged with committing fraud. The log is considered the ship's history. It's often used in legal disputes as a record of events. In this case Kirk must've known, or at least thought he violated the Prime Directive, and falsified his log entry in order to avoid punishment. That coverup is more serious than the the mistake. That's what should've cost him his command.

Good points. I can't wait to deal with more than rumors to more fully flesh out an example. I do like that the movie has us talking about this already.
 
Last edited:
And maybe this instance where Kirk lies and gets the book thrown at him is one where he grows as a commander and a leader? Maybe Kirk was elevated to command far too quickly and still has a lot left to learn? I have no problem with Kirk still finding his legs as a commander, he's still very new to the job.
 
I guess we've seen the first glimpse of the starship that appears to crash in San Francisco.
8548021963_54899be555_o.jpg

The flat nacelles seems to match up.
 
And maybe this instance where Kirk lies and gets the book thrown at him is one where he grows as a commander and a leader? Maybe Kirk was elevated to command far too quickly and still has a lot left to learn? I have no problem with Kirk still finding his legs as a commander, he's still very new to the job.

That's the most logical place to take the character. You have to remember he went from Cadet to Captain overnight because of Nero. I think the case could be made that Kirk is changed by not having a strong father figure, or really have anyone to respect in the chain of command, the way he was made Captain. He was facing penalty because of the Kobiashi Maru, bursts onto the bridge to tell Pike they are headed into a trap, gets promoted to First officer, beats up some security officers when he's told to leave the bridge, provokes Spock into getting the Captain's chair, and nowhere in there does he have to say "Sir." It felt cheap in the first film, at least it did to me. Remember, he's still the kid who races a car off the side of a canyon and takes on 4 guys in a barfight (which he loses). Prime Spock and Nero are telling him he will become a great Captain, and that he should have the Enterprise, without checking the stardate to see where he should be as a commander. That's feeding his arrogance that he's doing nothing wrong, needs no tempering of his character, the "leap without looking." Imagine if this were First Contact, and we gave Zephram Cochrane the warp engine without checking to see if he had the technical know-how to build it. Prime Spock pollutes the timeline to get all the people on the Enterprise that were there in his timeline. "Trans-warp beaming," etc.

I don't understand why Prime Spock didn't make the calculations to slingshot around the sun and fix the mistake he made, giving Nero no reason to go on his revenge tour, but c'est la vie. Star Trek 2009 has plot holes. The sky is blue. Rain is wet.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I realize it wasn't done deliberately, and I'm know I'm asking for trouble looking in these threads so close to release as more and more detailed info comes out.
 
Thanks. I realize it wasn't done deliberately, and I'm know I'm asking for trouble looking in these threads so close to release as more and more detailed info comes out.

I stared at the 38-minute preview thread for 5 minutes before I decided to go in and get the information. :drool::devil: I remember going into Insurrection blind, knowing nothing except it was about a "fountain of youth." That was satisfying because I wasn't looking for any plot points, everything surprised me. Contrast that to hearing that Vulcan had been destroyed in the last film and I wasn't shocked at all, the suspense didn't build. Still, I couldn't help myself and I had to get the skinny. I went against everything I have experienced. Maybe I will be more disciplined during the making of the third movie. :lol:
 
For that Newton-type starship, I read NCC-07. I am not sure what that is to the left of the 7. It's possible that a number was supposed to exist between the 7 and the (X). How else to explain the strange arrangement of the registry? I am frustrated that i am not able to read the name.

Boosting the contrast, there appears to be a dark smudge in between the 7 and whatever that last digit is. It's as if there was a number there and it was either removed or has faded away for some reason.

picture4ll.png

Maybe just a dash?

NCC-07-B ?



The registry is NCC-0718

(the Kelvin was NCC-0514)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top