Narada Tech Specs

[blssdwlf]

You could say the same about ALL the movies. Very rarely do the movies match up with any of the TV series except in the most general way (like sharing character names.) The movie series could be easily considered an alternate universe with the introduction of the ridged-head Klingons and with Kirk's death on the E-B vs him still alive after Scotty retires in TNG

Nimoy (Spock) in XI might have re-used a line or two from TWOK, but he also drops some unfamiliar stuff about Scotty and Kirk and his dad and also refers to everyone in the altered timeline as his universe in the end.

 

[Vincent Law]

I thought the in-universe reboot was a clever idea, and much prefer it to a clean break with the old. But I like STXI.


There's nothing to say any Star Trek episode or movie is from the same universe as the ones before or after. Even when direct references are made (like Nimoy reusing lines from Wrath of Khan in STXI, and mentioning his Kirk's time travels), you can argue "something similar may have happened in that timeline"

I could say the same about Wrath of Khan - Khan acts differently, he's dressed differently (when we meet him in WoK, he's wearing a belt buckle around his neck from a uniform that ...assuming it is the same timeline... won't exist for 15 years after his exile), his henchmen have changed and since Khan knows Chekov when Chekov clearly wasn't a member of the Enterprise crew during "Space Seed", I would have ample "proof" to back up my claims.

You could, but in this case it's much more obvious. One need only look at the Kelvin itself and all the differences from what had been established for that time period. The viewscreen windshields, the huge size of the ship, the rocket engine on the back of the warp nacelles, etc. From Nero's end of the timeline, one need only look at the Narda and the complete lack of any commonality with anything from the late 24th century TNG/DS9/VOY era, not to mention the Star Wars style holograms. While according to dialog Romulan holography wasn't supposed to be up to snuff with Federation holography, we saw in "Reunification" that they still looked very convincing.

I can certainly understand that the new franchise might want to set itself apart, but again, this is where a straight up reboot would have been better instead of attempting such a weak tie-in that actually ends up being such a large part of the story.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is it more obvious? Or have the past decades just made Wrath of Khan's changes seem less severe? Many of the concepts and changes it made to the Trek universe (physical missiles for photon torpedoes, a militaristic Starfleet etc) are taken for granted now - but they were a big change back then. I've got old Best of Trek books featuring Wrath of Khan articles ranging from "it's an alternate universe" to "Starfleet must have been in a catastrophic war in the time between TMP and WoK" to explain the differences between it and prior Star Treks. Similar happened when TMP came out ("change for the sake of change" like the new Klingons especially upset some TOS fans)

A more modern-looking spaceship at a time before TOS at the behest of a new director is no different to a recast actor or a changing cityscape (see: Romulus). Wonky holograms on a dumpy ship (with a flooded medical bay, ffs) compared with those in the pristine offices of the Romulan capitol city is hardly evidence of an alternate universe.

 

[Vincent Law]

The new movie is way more obvious in its changes. More modern interpretations of TOS in the form of "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" both strove to keep as much of TOS as possible, STXI didn't attempt to keep anything from the previous franchise aside from names. So yes, it is far more obvious, particularly in light of the fact that there is far more behind it which it is differing from. And this is far more than just making something look more "modern," it;s an entire change in the design ethic of everything from ships, to technology, to cities, to planetary atmospheres. Ships in Star Trek were never meant to have rockets, yet in this movie, all of them did, including ships like the Kelvin, which were around before the time travel plot device that is now used the same way the "will of the force" is used to excuse anything and everything in the Star Wars franchise. Star Trek ships have also always used warp nacelles for their FTL drives, yet neither Narda nor the "Jellyfish" (or whatever it's being called) have them, yet both seem to have warp drive. These aren't just minor changes, and neither is the sudden lack of quality in Romulan holography, which just happens to look like something out of Star Wars, along with so much else in the movie.

 

[Timo]

Umm, all of these arguments appear particularly ill-founded.

Starfleet warp engines have always come in a bewildering range of types, with glowing bits sometimes to the sides, sometimes to the top, sometimes astern (as in most STXI ships), sometimes in curious combinations. Enemy cultures (or Vulcans) have seldom utilized warp engines based on nacelles, and even Federation civilian designs more often than not lack an identifiable nacelle structure.

Changes in starship aesthetics in turn happen overnight all across the "regular" Trek universe, especially at the junctures of spinoff incarnations but sometimes within those as well.

Great effort was apparently made in STXI to closely imitate the TOS (and even the pre-TOS, pilot-based) feel for the teaser part of the show, including sound effects and props. Costuming and set-building in the main part in turn bowed dirt-deep to the bright colors and industrial shapes of TOS uniforms, GNDN tubes and grilleworks. The only major deviation appeared to be the bridge of the hero ship, establishing (as is traditional in Star Trek) yet another ill-fitting layer of nonsensical layout and dysfunctionality on the already awkward TOS original design.

As for "lack of quality of Romulan holograms", why should we expect military standards from bluecollar civilians in an oppressive society when Riker was so impressed with what he got in "Encounter at Farpoint" in his supposedly more advanced and equality-driven one? Amusingly, it's a gritty connection to realism as well: here in the real world, too, we have accepted a dismal drop in visual and sound quality in exchange for handheld mobility, an abyss from which our technology is only slowly crawling back up...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If the movie could not accomplish something for itself, it has failed. One should not have to read a novel or a comic book to get the full effect of something in a movie. The movie should stand on it's own, no matter what it is.

Tell that to Stanley Kubrick.

Personally I've seen to much anime to find the design to be anything other than humorous, but that is a personal aside.

Really? The first thing I thought of when I saw the Narada was "Hail Bodolza!"

The new movie is way more obvious in its changes. More modern interpretations of TOS in the form of "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly" both strove to keep as much of TOS as possible

That's because they were nostalgia episodes specifically intended to please existing fans. STXI was intended to generate NEW fans, with the understanding that existing fans would be along for the ride either way.

And they were right, obviously: even the people who hated the movie have still SEEN it, and many of them even bought the DVD.

 

[The Inquisitor]

^ I love it when fans who hate the film go buy the DVD anyway, just like comic shop guy off the simpsons. I honestly don't see why people take it so seriously, every trek film has a few holes here and there, I'm not arsed. Commando is one of my favourite films and that has a list of gaffes and plot holes longer than my arm! Doesn't stop me watching/enjoying it.

 

[Vincent Law]

Umm, all of these arguments appear particularly ill-founded.

Starfleet warp engines have always come in a bewildering range of types, with glowing bits sometimes to the sides, sometimes to the top, sometimes astern (as in most STXI ships), sometimes in curious combinations. Enemy cultures (or Vulcans) have seldom utilized warp engines based on nacelles, and even Federation civilian designs more often than not lack an identifiable nacelle structure.

Actually except for the lander seen in First Contact, all Vulcan ships have either used a ring or nacelles, and all warp-capable Federation designs have had nacelles. Likewise, all warp-capable Romulan ships have had nacelles, except for the remote-controlled "warflea" from ENT. None of them have had rocket engines. Back when the first Enterprise was being designed, that was the entire point, because the idea was to get away from the other sci-fi of the day, which pretty much all featured pretty standard missile-shaped rockets.

Great effort was apparently made in STXI to closely imitate the TOS (and even the pre-TOS, pilot-based) feel for the teaser part of the show,

The lack of effort is actually rather telling in that regard. The redone Enterprise certainly features a number of commonalities with the Kelvin and certainly looks like it came from the same design ethic, particularly with the bridge design, but there isn't much more than superficial commonalities between the Kelvin and what had been established for that era.

As for "lack of quality of Romulan holograms", why should we expect military standards from bluecollar civilians in an oppressive society

Because that was simply the state of holography at the time, and that was some decades prior to when the Narda was supposed to be from. Trying to pull the "bluecollar" excuse is about as effective as saying that it was the "will of the force" to use Star Wars style holography.

Tell that to Stanley Kubrick.

I would, were he alive. Not that he really needs to be told, because his movies do stand on their own.

That's because they were nostalgia episodes specifically intended to please existing fans. STXI was intended to generate NEW fans, with the understanding that existing fans would be along for the ride either way.

That isn't an excuse to half-ass anything. Either it should have made an actual effort to fit into existing continuity, or it should have been a clean reboot. No fans are going to be lost that wouldn't have been lost otherwise with a BSG style reboot, and it would have as much draw to a new audience. And depending on how it was written, even something made to fit within existing continuity could do just as well with new audiences, particularly if it had the kind of marketing that STXI had.

And they were right, obviously: even the people who hated the movie have still SEEN it, and many of them even bought the DVD.

I saw it if only to confirm what I had read about it. And now no one can make the claim that I am "bashing" the movie without having seen it. I haven't purchased the DVD though; I see little point in further rewarding a bad movie.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I would, were he alive. Not that he really needs to be told, because his movies do stand on their own.

And yet 2001: A Space Odyssey is still considered a cherished sci-fi classic, despite the fact that you have to read the book at least three times before you can figure out what the fuck is going on. Actually, 2010 is that way too. Come to think of it, to some extent, so is "Search for Spock."

Novels ALWAYS have more information that films, and they always will. The extra information doesn't always add anything to the plot (hence the omission) but once the plot has been fleshed out, having that information sometimes adds a bit of flavor to it.

That's because they were nostalgia episodes specifically intended to please existing fans. STXI was intended to generate NEW fans, with the understanding that existing fans would be along for the ride either way.

That isn't an excuse to half-ass anything. Either it should have made an actual effort to fit into existing continuity, or it should have been a clean reboot.

It IS a clean reboot. More importantly, it is NOT a nostalgia film and wasn't MEANT to preserve old styles for the benefit of existing fans. Even the "parallel universe" line is just an escape sequence for the maybe 10% of trekkies who even give a shit about canon (who, in turn, make up about 1% of the audience).

And depending on how it was written, even something made to fit within existing continuity could do just as well with new audiences, particularly if it had the kind of marketing that STXI had.

And the specific reason they SHOULD have tried to fit existing continuity is...?

I saw it if only to confirm what I had read about it.

But you still saw it, and the rest is inconsequential.

Just curious, but how many people went to see the Star Trek movie YOU made, produced, wrote and directed?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Where are these "rocket engines" on the STXI ships? I see glowing at the rear of the nacelles, as seen on DS9's Defiant, or the glowing spheres at the rear of TOS-R's Enterprise, but no "rocket engines". As for the Jellyfish, that's supposed to be their fastest and presumably newest ship. How dare it not exactly match vessels of 230 years prior! That's almost as bad as the Klingons having a warp-capable bird of prey without nacelles in Search for Spock.

A "clean reboot" is no more needed to explain a modern design ethic than it was to explain the recast Saavik in Search for Spock or Cochrane in First Contact. The pretend technology hasn't changed - the dilithium chamber and warp core are mentioned (there's even a yell of "we need EPS power now!" on the Kelvin), the phasers are like those in Wrath of Khan (only firing all at once), the photons like those in The Motion Picture, the shields are invisible just like STVI and much of Deep Space Nine. Nothing incompatible with prior Trek.

 

[Timo]

Actually except for the lander seen in First Contact, all Vulcan ships have either used a ring or nacelles, and all warp-capable Federation designs have had nacelles.

The ring is not a nacelle, and there are plenty of "Earth" Federation warp designs that lack nacelles as well (say, the freighters based on the design from "Heart of Glory", or the Defiant and her shuttles). Perhaps the most relevantly, the OTHER warp-capable space mining platform we saw, the Earth model from "Demons"/"Terra Prime", was nacelle-free and shaped quite unlike Starfleet starships. About 75% of Star Trek warp vessels are devoid of nacelles; it would be utterly absurd to ask for the Narada to carry a pair.

None of them have had rocket engines.

Nor did any STXI ship, of course. Again, it would be absurd to consider the "heat distortion" at the back end of the Kelvin nacelle a rocket engine when Trek has ample and indeed ubiquitous precedent for glowing lights being unrelated to rocketry.

..there isn't much more than superficial commonalities between the Kelvin and what had been established for that era.

Which is saying exactly nothing: the commonalities are about the same as between any TNG guest ship and the hero ship, due to the realities of set-building. If anything, STXI does better than any of the TV shows or preceding movies in this respect, naturally thanks to a big budget.

Because that was simply the state of holography at the time, and that was some decades prior to when the Narada was supposed to be from.

There is no common "state of the art" even here on Earth, much less in the interstellar sandbox of Star Trek. And in any case, the holograms Nero has are about the same quality as Riker's desktop soft porn disk from early TNG, only more portable (and thus representing an all-new technology unfamiliar to us).

But never mind that. Nero's starship is a jumble of dangling wires and haphazardly rigged viewscreens. Why should we require any particular element there to match Enterprise-D hotel lounge standards in elegance? It's both realistic and consistent with previous Trek portrayals of bluecollar hardware.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Vincent Law]

And yet 2001: A Space Odyssey is still considered a cherished sci-fi classic, despite the fact that you have to read the book at least three times before you can figure out what the fuck is going on. Actually, 2010 is that way too. Come to think of it, to some extent, so is "Search for Spock."

Not really. All those movies do stand on their own. I certainly never felt so confused by anything that I had to read something. The Search for Spock hardly compares to the others, though I can't way I was especially a fan of them, but what I said stands: a movie needs to stand on its own.

Novels ALWAYS have more information that films, and they always will. The extra information doesn't always add anything to the plot (hence the omission) but once the plot has been fleshed out, having that information sometimes adds a bit of flavor to it.

Except that when it comes to Star Trek, it usually just contains some silly theory the author has come up with to explain something that should have just as well been left alone.

It IS a clean reboot.

No, it isn't. It tries to be both by having the time travel plot. In this very same thread others have defended the position that because of this, the movie does have a connection back to the "prime" universe from the original franchise. I've seen this argued in other places as well. A clean reboot never would have bothered with such a plot in order to explain any differences, it simply would have been different.

More importantly, it is NOT a nostalgia film and wasn't MEANT to preserve old styles for the benefit of existing fans. Even the "parallel universe" line is just an escape sequence for the maybe 10% of trekkies who even give a shit about canon (who, in turn, make up about 1% of the audience).

Thank you for underlining my point. Frankly I feel 1% is much too generous an estimate.

And the specific reason they SHOULD have tried to fit existing continuity is...?

Because it would have been better than trying to have it both ways - the same reason a clean reboot would have been better.

But you still saw it, and the rest is inconsequential.

Pardon? Are you trying to say that because I saw the movie that this somehow negates any argument I've made about it? If so, that is quite laughable.

Just curious, but how many people went to see the Star Trek movie YOU made, produced, wrote and directed?

How many people saw The Wrath of Khan? How many people saw the pilot of the redone Battlestar Galactica?

Where are these "rocket engines" on the STXI ships?

On the rear of the nacelles - one can clearly see the flame effect, as on the rear of the "Jellyfish" and the Narda.

I see glowing at the rear of the nacelles, as seen on DS9's Defiant, or the glowing spheres at the rear of TOS-R's Enterprise, but no "rocket engines". [/quote]
The impulse engines on other Star Trek ships are not located on the rear of the nacelles and they do not have a flame effect, they have a glowing effect.

As for the Jellyfish, that's supposed to be their fastest and presumably newest ship. How dare it not exactly match vessels of 230 years prior! That's almost as bad as the Klingons having a warp-capable bird of prey without nacelles in Search for Spock.

The bird of prey nacelles are located on either side of the impulse engine. As for the Jellyfish, I guess it was the will of the force that kept it flying along at warp speeds.

A "clean reboot" is no more needed to explain a modern design ethic than it was to explain the recast Saavik in Search for Spock or Cochrane in First Contact.

Yes it is, if one wants it to make any real sense. The story in particular would need it.

Nothing incompatible with prior Trek.

Except everything I already mentioned.

The ring is not a nacelle,

It is as far as the function it serves - it holds the engine components for that ship's warp drive.

and there are plenty of "Earth" Federation warp designs that lack nacelles as well (say, the freighters based on the design from "Heart of Glory",

Which wasn't an Earth ship.

or the Defiant and her shuttles).

Which all had nacelles.

Perhaps the most relevantly, the OTHER warp-capable space mining platform we saw, the Earth model from "Demons"/"Terra Prime", was nacelle-free and shaped quite unlike Starfleet starships.

Which had several small outboard nacelles buried in its outer perimeter. It also wasn't shaped like Starfleet ships because it was a civilian mining structure which was never meant for interstellar travel. The only reason it was warp capable was so that the journey from Luna to Mars only lasted minutes instead of weeks or months.

About 75% of Star Trek warp vessels are devoid of nacelles;

Really? I certainly can't remember all that many. List them please.

it would be utterly absurd to ask for the Narada to carry a pair.

What's absurd is its appearance.

Nor did any STXI ship, of course. Again, it would be absurd to consider the "heat distortion" at the back end of the Kelvin nacelle a rocket engine when Trek has ample and indeed ubiquitous precedent for glowing lights being unrelated to rocketry.

Except that none of them had a flame effect, unlike every single STXI ship.

Which is saying exactly nothing: the commonalities are about the same as between any TNG guest ship and the hero ship, due to the realities of set-building. If anything, STXI does better than any of the TV shows or preceding movies in this respect, naturally thanks to a big budget.

"Better than?" Hardly. As for commonalities, I believe you are missing the point. The NX-01 probably has more commonalities with the TOS era than the Kelvin did, let alone the STXI version of the Enterprise.

There is no common "state of the art" even here on Earth, much less in the interstellar sandbox of Star Trek. And in any case, the holograms Nero has are about the same quality as Riker's desktop soft porn disk from early TNG, only more portable (and thus representing an all-new technology unfamiliar to us).

Not really. There was no portable projector in Narda, simply a kind of interface that allowed the Star Wars style projection to be moved about using hand movement. Rooms with unseen projectors are hardly any newer than VOY, and that's obviously what the case was supposed to be in Narda. But if you want to insist that the severe degradation in holographic technology which just happened to resemble what was seen in Star Wars was just the will of the force, so be it, but I can't agree with that assessment.

But never mind that. Nero's starship is a jumble of dangling wires and haphazardly rigged viewscreens.

Isn't it amazing how it resembled the look of pretty much every "scary" ship since Alien set the standard for that? They even had the water.

Why should we require any particular element there to match Enterprise-D hotel lounge standards in elegance? It's both realistic and consistent with previous Trek portrayals of bluecollar hardware.

The holograms? Really? Where?

 

[HotRod]

Federation or Earth ships without Warp "Nacelles" include the Holoship from Insurrection, the Maquis Raider, the Sarajevo from Enterprise, the Arctic Transport from Enterprise, aswell as a few others already mentioned.

 

[Timo]

It is as far as the function it serves - it holds the engine components for that ship's warp drive.

(As far as we know.) Which is meaningless for your argument wherein you insist that every starship in Trek must have cylinders dangling at the end of pylons in order to be valid, in spite of this never having been true of the Trek universe.

Which wasn't an Earth ship.

How do we know? DS9, VOY and ENT all show the Federation or Earth operating the type, often with a human crew. And again, it's meaningless for your argument, as the Narada wasn't an Earth ship, either.

Which all had nacelles.

None of them did. Cowlings, yes. Field windows, perhaps. Nacelles, nope. All you need for warp is a few glowy bits somewhere under lots of cowlings, which the Narada has. (Except that Kirk's original ship didn't even need the glowy bits!)

Which had several small outboard nacelles buried in its outer perimeter. It also wasn't shaped like Starfleet ships because it was a civilian mining structure which was never meant for interstellar travel. The only reason it was warp capable was so that the journey from Luna to Mars only lasted minutes instead of weeks or months.

Do you take pleasure in undermining your own argument? All of the above would appear to hold true for the Narada as well.

Except that none of them had a flame effect, unlike every single STXI ship.

No STXI ship had a "flame effect". The Kelvin at "damaged overdrive" mode had some sort of wavy effects in front of the blue glow of the aft warp grille (not an obvious effect of something coming out of the grille in a propulsive jet); the other ships did not.

The NX-01 probably has more commonalities with the TOS era than the Kelvin did, let alone the STXI version of the Enterprise.

Well, says you. I say differently. And I'm right.

There was no portable projector in Narada, simply a kind of interface that allowed the Star Wars style projection to be moved about using hand movement.

How can you tell? And why would you?

Isn't it amazing how it resembled the look of pretty much every "scary" ship since Alien set the standard for that? They even had the water.

And it's a complete coincidence that the Nostromo also happened to be an industrial platform...

That's gritty realism (or at least verisimilitude) for ya. A bit unlike the cartoon ships seen in most of Trek, but not too jarringly so.

The holograms? Really? Where?

Everywhere. Where a Starfleet ship has flat keyboards with sharp okudagrams, a "bluecollar" ship has stage grime on the push-buttons that activate the wobbly and staticky screens. It's only consistent, then, that the holograms aboard reflect the class difference as well.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[F. King Daniel]

The interior of the Narada was not entirely dissimilar to the Romulan drone ships seen in season four of Enterprise.

The only ship that had any kind of engine exhaust in STXI was the Narada - and far from "rockets" or "flame effects", it resembled the waste a Malon freighter dumps. The rest of the ships' engines glowed, and when a ship jumped to warp the glow brightened, just like in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

I also want to point out that by Vincent Law's rules, the Trek universe crumbles in on itself. For starters, there's no warp-jump effect in TOS, as seen on every other Star Trek series (ever since TMP stole it from Star Wars), the look of the technology stands apart from that seen in ENT, TMP, TNG, DS9 and VOY, and the phasers in "Balance of Terror" oddly act like photon torpedoes. That's not even counting the numerous blatant mistakes and retcons in the storylines, that render TNG and VOY, ENT and TOS and the rest incompatible.

It's all or nothing. Selective anal nitpicking fails.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And yet 2001: A Space Odyssey is still considered a cherished sci-fi classic, despite the fact that you have to read the book at least three times before you can figure out what the fuck is going on. Actually, 2010 is that way too. Come to think of it, to some extent, so is "Search for Spock."

Not really. All those movies do stand on their own. I certainly never felt so confused by anything that I had to read something.

Just as no one else here was confused by anything in STXI. Which I can think is more than I can say for 2001.

Except that when it comes to Star Trek, it usually just contains some silly theory the author has come up with to explain something that should have just as well been left alone.

In which case, the movie stands on its own.

In this very same thread others have defended the position that because of this, the movie does have a connection back to the "prime" universe from the original franchise.

Of course it does, it is Star Trek afterall. I

STXI is an in-universe reboot. An OOC reboot would have worked as well, but would have slightly alienated the 1% of the audience that actually cares about canon. Using a plot device to accomplish the reboot gives those fans a graceful exit, and they can choose to take it if they want.

Because it would have been better than trying to have it both ways

Why? 99% of the audience wouldn't have noticed, and the 1% that did would STILL complain about the minor they got "wrong."

Yes it is, if one wants it to make any real sense. The story in particular would need it.

And yet it DIDN'T need it, so where does that leave you?

Which wasn't an Earth ship.

Xhosa was. And the Miradorn scout ship in DS9 didn't have any nacelles either, despite being capable of warp six.

OTOH, Jellyfish isn't an Earth ship, why would you expect to see nacelles?

Not really. There was no portable projector in Narda, simply a kind of interface that allowed the Star Wars style projection to be moved about using hand movement. Rooms with unseen projectors are hardly any newer than VOY, and that's obviously what the case was supposed to be in Narda. But if you want to insist that the severe degradation in holographic technology which just happened to resemble what was seen in Star Wars...

Actually, the resemblance is considerably closer to Azetbur's communication rig in TUC, although in USAGE it is far more similar to the technomage from Babylon 5.

Frankly, I don't recall anything in Star Wars that looks anything like Narada's technology.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Selective anal nitpicking fails.

It's also disgusting and a little bit painful.

 

[Vincent Law]

(As far as we know.) Which is meaningless for your argument wherein you insist that every starship in Trek must have cylinders dangling at the end of pylons in order to be valid, in spite of this never having been true of the Trek universe.

I never made such a statement; please desist from putting words into my mouth. I stated that Star Trek ships have nacelles, you are the one who attempted to define that to the cylindrical type.

How do we know? DS9, VOY and ENT all show the Federation or Earth operating the type, often with a human crew.

Because it was never stated as such and stands in for an alien ship of the week as often as anything else.

And again, it's meaningless for your argument, as the Narada wasn't an Earth ship, either.

I never made such a limitation, you did. Narda is a Romulan ship, and Romulan ships also feature warp engine nacelles.

None of them did. Cowlings, yes. Field windows, perhaps. Nacelles, nope. All you need for warp is a few glowy bits somewhere under lots of cowlings,

No, they have nacelles. You can attempt to limit the definition, but that changes nothing.

which the Narada has.

Where? All I saw were rocket engines on the back.

Do you take pleasure in undermining your own argument? All of the above would appear to hold true for the Narada as well.

No, but I do see through your attempts to undermine my arguments by attempting to redefine the particulars.

No STXI ship had a "flame effect". The Kelvin at "damaged overdrive" mode had some sort of wavy effects in front of the blue glow of the aft warp grille (not an obvious effect of something coming out of the grille in a propulsive jet); the other ships did not.

Really? Because what I saw were blue flames, the same as on a Star Wars or BSG ship. In point of fact, if the impulse drive were put into overdrive, then why would anything associated with the warp nacelle do anything? Shouldn't the impulse engine on the back of the saucer have grown brighter?

Well, says you. I say differently. And I'm right.

I'm afraid not. You can deny the obvious if you wish, but that doesn't change what can be seen.

How can you tell?

Because that's what I saw.

And why would you?

Ask the people who came up with it. I'm going to guess something along the lines of, "it was cool."

And it's a complete coincidence that the Nostromo also happened to be an industrial platform...

Which doesn't change the rip-off aspect of it, nor the fact that having standing water all around on the floor of a space ship doesn't make any sense. I guess the space toilet must've backed up.

That's gritty realism (or at least verisimilitude) for ya. A bit unlike the cartoon ships seen in most of Trek, but not too jarringly so.

Everywhere. Where a Starfleet ship has flat keyboards with sharp okudagrams, a "bluecollar" ship has stage grime on the push-buttons that activate the wobbly and staticky screens. It's only consistent, then, that the holograms aboard reflect the class difference as well.

Except that you not only failed to answer my question, but you're also for the most part wrong. There were a few ships seen like that, but for the vast majority of TNG, DS9, and VOY, even the more "industrial, blue collar" ships had the fancy Okudagrams simply because those were much easier to make than push-button panels. Even a number of ships on ENT had them. But that still doesn't answer the question about where all these ghetto "blue collar" holograms were seen.

The interior of the Narada was not entirely dissimilar to the Romulan drone ships seen in season four of Enterprise.

Aside from being much larger, having a much more stereotypical sci-fi horror look with water everywhere and not really having all that much in common.

The only ship that had any kind of engine exhaust in STXI was the Narada - and far from "rockets" or "flame effects", it resembled the waste a Malon freighter dumps. The rest of the ships' engines glowed, and when a ship jumped to warp the glow brightened, just like in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

Flame effects could plainly be seen on the Kelvin, all the Starfleet ships which were essentially kit-bashes of that ship, the Enterprise, and the "Jellyfish".

I also want to point out that by Vincent Law's rules, the Trek universe crumbles in on itself.

Only when taken to extremes.

Selective anal nitpicking fails.

Apparently only when it comes to people criticizing this movie. Apologies, but this is absurd. I've seen probably every argument ever used to defend what is still just another bad movie, and very few have ever been very good arguments, and that's when it comes to the actual story and the characters, let alone these attempts to deny what I can literally be seen with my own eyes. Such conflict is pointless.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You really can't tell the difference between a rocket engine and a glow? Have you ever waved a torch around in a dark room? Did that create "flames" too?

"Pointless" is indeed the word.

 

[Saquist]

Narada was a simple bad guy ship, big powerful and menacing. there was really no design to it.