^ You say "built" as though they finished it.
how big was nero ship?????
- Thread starter 1bulma1
- Start date
I guess the building of the second DS sorta retroactively justifies building the first, proving that resources and labor may be scarce but not that scarce.
The Trek universe could certainly use a few more megaconstructs. We've seen plenty of very large spacecraft and installations for aliens-of-the-week and for the non-heroic part of the Federation; it's high time to give some to the heroes and main villains, too. All the time keeping with the idea that Trek military hardware isn't particularly large and doesn't benefit from being large, of course...
Timo Saloniemi
The Trek universe could certainly use a few more megaconstructs. We've seen plenty of very large spacecraft and installations for aliens-of-the-week and for the non-heroic part of the Federation; it's high time to give some to the heroes and main villains, too. All the time keeping with the idea that Trek military hardware isn't particularly large and doesn't benefit from being large, of course...
Timo Saloniemi
i disagree, it was badly conceived ship, it had to look different and large, i think that was a brief cgi designers were given.
Them being Sc-fi fans, had probably watched Babylon 5 in their youth, clearly they couldn't put shadow crab as that would be intellectual property innit.
As to loads of surface area, i am sure you could design something more practical than that thing, totally illogical as Vulcans would say.
Maybe the arms could be maniplators for collection of something. Maybe they could be moved to expand radially away from the centerline of the ship, with field equipment on their tips so they could use force fields to net broken up ore. And like others have said, the cavernous interior would be for storing ore.
It's too bad they didn't demonstrate the purpose of those weird arms, perhaps in collecting starship debris, planet Vulcan debris, or something. Otherwise, your first reaction is: cool! So scarey! And your second reaction is: why the hell would a ship be built like that.
I worry that the Abram's team isn't that kind of detail oriented group while Trekkies are. My buddy Hal came up with 55 other problems with the Trek movie here: http://www.lancerkind.com/2010/12/29/why-trekkies-hated-the-09-star-trek-movie
It's too bad they didn't demonstrate the purpose of those weird arms, perhaps in collecting starship debris, planet Vulcan debris, or something. Otherwise, your first reaction is: cool! So scarey! And your second reaction is: why the hell would a ship be built like that.
I worry that the Abram's team isn't that kind of detail oriented group while Trekkies are. My buddy Hal came up with 55 other problems with the Trek movie here: http://www.lancerkind.com/2010/12/29/why-trekkies-hated-the-09-star-trek-movie
After watching the movie a few days ago, and after reading China Mieville's "Kraken", (http://www.amazon.com/Kraken-ebook/...C2&s=digital-text&qid=1294233765&sr=8-3-spell) the choice of tentacles on the ship gave me a "worshipers of the Kraken god vibe." Perhaps the Romulans (in the far future because we never saw this in STNG) became Krakonites.
The future Spock and Nero are from is 2387, eight years after Star Trek Nemesis.
I sort of like the idea that a mining ship would look fundamentally different from a combat vessel or a starliner.
There are certain similarities between Nero's mining ship from STXI and Paxton's mining ship from ENT "Demons", to be sure. Unusually great size; rough axial symmetry with the axis parallel to the direction of flight; fancy limbs coming out of the extremities; command center in the middle. Superficial, perhaps, or then suggestive.
Timo Saloniemi
There are certain similarities between Nero's mining ship from STXI and Paxton's mining ship from ENT "Demons", to be sure. Unusually great size; rough axial symmetry with the axis parallel to the direction of flight; fancy limbs coming out of the extremities; command center in the middle. Superficial, perhaps, or then suggestive.
Timo Saloniemi
Just glancing at the list, most of those things seem to be nitpicks based on fanon, preconceived notions of what things "should be" with little basis in the actual shows, and the inability of Hal to understand that this is a movie, where certain things are artistic flourishes (the silence when the woman gets spaced) or dramatically necessary to maintain the intensity of the film (the Sulu sword fight and Kirk's parachute breaking).
The use of silence in that scene was an artistic flourish. It served the purpose of acknowledging the scientific truth that there is no sound in space while amplifying the horror of that scene.
Similar threads
