WHAT THE, NO, THIS SHIT, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS SHIT. SHIT.
New Enterprise May Have Nacelles That...
- Thread starter STARTREK11
- Start date
- Status
You won't see me complaining about canon contradictions. All J.J. has to do is give the word and it becomes canon no matter what we say.
It already has. In fact, I think it went through three refits before TMP. Now a fourth refit that will probably stick out as an oddity in the middle of the refit history? Adding another design for the Enterprise that doesn't look at all like Pike's original starship or Kirk's first ship design in WNMHGB, despite the fact that it is suppose to take place between both, is a little silly if not a stretch. Obviously no one outside the film's production has seen the new Enterprise, I'm just stating my view on drastically changing the NCC-1701.
I wouldn't have asked that and I never did. I just assumed that the Klingons either had another race with the forehead tumor look or that some genetic mutation/evolution occurred. It wasn't until DS9 showed us old TOS Klingons that I raised an eyebrow, and even then I simply shrugged and assumed it had to have been some sort of genetic mutation during TOS, which ended up being the case.
I wonder if we will see the Enterprise use saucer Sep if the new movie.
Well, given who the film's writers are, that may not be much of a stretch.
If I were to believe that you do have a source close to the SPFX company, and that he leaked such information, then I would guess that perhaps what he is referring to is the fact that nacelles appear to have something rotating inside the domed fronts, which are the bussard collectors. That has always been the case. I dismiss this so called "spoiler" (which was not hidden nor did we receive a warning!) as folly!!
From what we're hearing, the changes are more subtle than drastic. I mean, come on, it's the Enterprise. It's probably the most iconic starship in television history. They wouldn't mess with it too much. Probably they'll try to respect its basic shape and aesthetic and just add some more detail and texture for the big screen.
And yes, Gep is right -- the original ship's saucer separation was a last-ditch emergency procedure, meant for using the saucer as a lifeboat if the engines blew up. If there were still a secondary hull left to reattach the saucer to, it would require a spacedock construction crew to do it. The idea of reversible saucer separation was original to TNG -- and ended up being something of a flash in the pan, since they only used it three times.
I've always wondered about that; it seemed like a huge waste. Could the writers not come up with stories for that function, or was it primarily driven by technical concerns, what with the six-foot model being cumbersome to film in two parts?
I know that the four-footer that replaced the original filming miniature in season three (?) couldn't separate, which seemed like an odd decision. Wouldn't that have made it easier to film new separation footage, given the smaller size of the components?
On topic, I'm skeptical about reading too much into this info, given the previously mentioned nebulous nature of the source. And is this articulation suposed to be like what Voyager had?
In fact I have newsletters, fanzines (and "Best of Trek" volumes), dated from 1980, that say exactly that! It was hilarious the grief the improved makeup caused some fans, but it started to tone down by the time of the publication of "The Final Reflection".
I also have a fanzine featuring Mr Arex (of TAS) - and he's drawn with only two arms and two legs - because the author refused to agree that a tripodal alien was believable.
I'm also reminded of the "Save Spock" campaign ad in "Variety" before ST II came out, where the fans calculated the lost revenue of their blackban on Paramount's ticket sales, tie-ins and future VHS and Beta rentals.
We're sick unto death. What are you going to do about it?
Me? I'm going to keep enjoying looking forward to the new Star Trek movie, and will be going to see it on Boxing Day with a large group of my old Star Trek friends (if Oz gets it on the Boxing Day).
You, I guess, are free to wallow in your misery.
But a sexy green woman laying seductively on a couch in a reveling see though garment purring over comms for the captain to come and @Rescue@ her, seems like reason enough for that emergency sep...
Kirk" Pre.....pare saucer Sep"...
Scotty" But captain, it will take us 3 weeks and a star base to reattach the saucer to the rest of the ship"
Kirk" Hurry Mr Scott...Pants tightening...."
Please dont't shoot the messenger.
I did all you a favour by sharing information.
My friend says ILM are happy for him to unoffically share the info to wet people's appetites and to create a buzz but he is forbidden from giving actual shots,in others words he can discuss it in general terms and he got permission before blabbing about it.
Voyagers was more advanced and did not need rotating nacelles.This early Enterprise is less advanced and needs vectoring nacelles for higher maneuvering ability.It do's not have fancy fields but is more of a mechanical beast.
In this ship the impulse engines are integrated into the nacelles and you will see a red glow.
Did anyone try the simulation using the 4 pens and a cone for the secondary hull?
If you did then you will find it highly logical in much the same way that you have vectoring nozzles on the JSF,
higher maneuverability or that Russian plane I cant remember the name of.The Harrier is another example which can use vectored thrust for higher maneuverability in combat by braking suddenly when having the enemy on the tail,letting it overshoot then firing missiles at the enemies tail,etc,etc.
First of all, stories are driven by character, not technology. The writers came up with stories for Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and various guest stars or recurring players, not for the explosive bolts in the interconnecting dorsal. The only way this would've come up would've been if a plot built around characters and situations had happened to require it. We didn't see an episode about it for the same reason we never saw an episode about the clothing processor machines. It was a secondary technical detail, not something you'd build an entire episode around.
And yes, budget was a factor too, as well as practicality -- the miniatures they had weren't made to separate. They would've probably had to build a whole new one. Although I suppose they could've faked it by using a modified AMT model kit and only shooting it from a distance.
Larry Niven once wrote an episode proposal that involved the saucer separating and crashlanding, but it was a really bad story that would've never worked as well as being impossibly expensive, so he never even submitted it:
http://www.fastcopyinc.com/orionpress/articles/pastel_terror.htm
Why in the world is that an odd decision? You're thinking in TNG terms, the idea that saucer separation is some kind of expected procedure. We're talking about an absolute last-ditch emergency thing, an abandon-ship type of operation. There was no reason to expect such a situation ever to crop up, because saucer separation would only happen if the ship were essentially destroyed. After this, there would be no more starship Enterprise. And that's not the way TV shows were written back then. They were episodic, each episode able to stand on its own and be aired in any order. The first episode of a series usually began with the characters already in place and settled into their roles, and the last episode was usually just another typical episode like any other, with the status quo restored at the end. There was no more reason to build the miniature with the ability to separate than there was to build it with the ability to have flowers spring out of the bridge dome. There was just no reason to expect it to happen.
In fact, I just skimmed through my copy of the TOS writers' bible, and as far as I can tell, the concept of saucer separation isn't even mentioned in it. It's a deep-background detail that wasn't considered a significant capability of the ship. (Although it was alluded to in passing in "The Apple," sort of, when Kirk advised Scotty to jettison the nacelles and break out of orbit with the saucer if he had to.)
No, what the original post said was that the nacelles would rotate at the points where they connected to the struts. So if you hold your arms up in the air, pretending your shoulders are the secondary hull, your arms are the nacelle struts, and your fists are the nacelles, then the articulation point would be at your wrists.
But I agree with you -- hearsay is not evidence. We should remain skeptical.
Oy. As if there's anything remotely believable about the idea that aliens would look like humans with funny ears or eyebrows.
I am attempting, with a high statistical likelihood of being wrong, to enter multiple lines in my spoiler, using stone knives and bear skins. The warp nacelles, rumored to being positionable in multiple orientations, could be, in theory, dual-function, being warp-field generating while at warp, and impulse when sub-warp, since the two propulsion systems would only be used one at a time. And, Man, this is getting to be fun, typing all these lines. into the little box. The trick is: The box only SHOWS a couple lines, but if you keep typing, the lines just shift up and out of view as you type. You can type this much in the spoiler test entry box. No, THIS much.... well, okay *THIS* much...
Easy.
- Status
Similar threads
