New shuttle?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

This is like complaining about the layout (and size) differences in the bird-of-prey between ST III and ST IV. I never really cared that the bridge of the bird-of-prey looked different in those two films. The ships in each film resembled each other from the outside, plus both had the feel of being a Klingon ship. That is enough to put across the idea to the audience that they were the same ship.

I know there are people who try to justify the differences (such as the layout of the bridge) with various in-universe explanations and theories, but I don't understand why we need in-universe explanations at all.

I'm fine with the knowledge that Star Trek III and Star Trek IV were two different movies, and thus they did not NEED all of the details of the Bird-of-Prey to be the same for both films.

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

Personally, though I did enjoy the redesigned shuttles, I prefer the Kelvin ones due to the more TOS look. (this coming from a guy who LOVES the JJPrise)

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ I kinda did too, actually, although the transport shuttle from the Academy scene had some potential IMO and I was disappointing they didn't do more with it.

Either way, clearly we're getting the Kelvin shuttles back, and they went out of their way to build a physical set piece for it so it's likely we're going to see more of this thing in STXI.

Heh... and suddenly I remember back in 2008 when everybody thought those were supposed to be "fighters."

 

[Timo]

Clearly they do, or else they would have gone with a different model as they did in the first film. This is what you're not getting about this process: audiences notice the big obvious differences in style and structure that will tell you "two different shuttles."

You start from an odd assumption - that a similarity is being sought. Since we have only seen the hull of an auxiliary craft, without the nacelles (which will apparently be added in postproduction, or bolted on later), we can't tell if similarity is a goal. We can tell there's a deliberate odd kink in the silhouette, which would make no sense unless dissimilarity were a goal - and that goal is certainly still perfectly attainable!

The situation is completely different from the ST3/4 BoP issue, where two sets were decidedly trying to be the same fictional thing. In this case, there is absolutely no reason yet to believe the two props are trying to be the same fictional thing, apart from both being the generic Star Trek shuttlecraft we've seen ever since the mid-1960s.

That doesn't mean TPTB might not be trying to do what you think they are trying to do (and failing). It's just that at this stage, there's nothing to suggest that this NCC-1701 shuttle would be in any way related to the old NCC-O514 one. Except for that fancy dorsal aerial, which for all we know is a "Meyerism", uh, "Abramsism", intended to relate the Abramsverse shuttles to modern aircraft which are rife with such aerials.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

It's just that at this stage, there's nothing to suggest that this NCC-1701 shuttle would be in any way related to the old NCC-O514 one.

IMHO, from what I see, there's everything to suggest it's the same shuttle, because what we can see looks 95% like the Kelvin shuttle. I think you're the only one that's seeing something "radically different." NewtypeAlpha is right...if they wanted to create a new shuttle, why build something that looks 95% like the old one?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Maybe it's the shuttle Kirk was born on. He had it dragged out of the space trash, refurbished, repainted and tucked away in the Enterprise's gigantic multi-story shuttle bay.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Clearly they do, or else they would have gone with a different model as they did in the first film. This is what you're not getting about this process: audiences notice the big obvious differences in style and structure that will tell you "two different shuttles."

You start from an odd assumption - that a similarity is being sought.

It's not exactly an assumption, since similarity is ACHIEVED. I don't happen to think that similarity is accidental.

The situation is completely different from the ST3/4 BoP issue, where two sets were decidedly trying to be the same fictional thing.

And yet similar to the TMP/TWOK issue where the two bridges were identical, except for some minor differences, and same again in engineering. No explanation was given or sought as to why half the stations on the bridge were now in different locations, nor for the extra radiation room in engineering. Hell, even the uniform change remains to this day completely unexplained.

And here you are pointing out the "odd kink" in the roof of a shuttlecraft model, as if it is inconceivable that a production crew would choose to arbitrarily change the detailing on a set piece between films.

I mean, really? They changed the ENTIRE BRIDGE of the Enterprise from TVH to TFF and then expected us to believe they were the same room; how does an "odd kink" and a mysterious door even stack up to that?

That doesn't mean TPTB might not be trying to do what you think they are trying to do (and failing). It's just that at this stage, there's nothing to suggest that this NCC-1701 shuttle would be in any way related to the old NCC-O514 one.

If they weren't, they wouldn't be as similar as they are. From what we've seen they have considerably more in common -- physically -- than the Type-6 shuttle has with the TFF shuttle.

Except for that fancy dorsal aerial, which for all we know is a "Meyerism", uh, "Abramsism", intended to relate the Abramsverse shuttles to modern aircraft which are rife with such aerials.

Which is funny, because none of the other two shuttle designs from STXI had them.

 

[Timo]

I wonder what you think happened?

Director: "I want you to build me the shuttle from the first movie for real. You know, the one we see in the early scenes, the one we already built a doorway for, with those sliding doors?"

Carpenter: "Will do, boss. I'll go watch the movie, and have a look at the partial prop, too, the one with the sliding doors. And then I'll build you a prop with a hinged door."

Director: "Swell. You get a raise. Oh, and raise the roof while you're at it, too - I never liked the lines already established in the prop we already have, the one with the sliding door."

Really, the single established feature of the older shuttle is its sliding door, and you suppose the artisans "missed" that? Or had to "compromise" on that?

I guess that this is Captain Robau, then?

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Zoe+Saldana+reprises+role+Star+Trek+sequel+6v5dkUTTN1zl.jpg

I mean, he's in a bluish uniform'ish. And he looks exactly like Robau, when we take into account movie realities such as not being able to secure the same actor. Especially the presence of hair is something everybody but the diehard fans will overlook. And since Robau died in the first movie, odds are that he will feature prominently in this one, taking place in a later timeframe. The final telltale are the decals, uh, prosthetic ears, which reveal an obvious a priori desire to make him look like a human from the 2230s.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

So basically your argument is that because this shuttle, which looks extremely similar to the Kelvin shuttle, has a different door, it's a completely different shuttle? That's like saying a two-door Toyota Corolla is a completely different car than a four-door Toyota Corolla.

So they decided to change the door. I'm not seeing why this is such a huge deal.

 

[M'Sharak]

It's not as if we've never seen shuttles or starships existing in several variants of the basic model before, right? Same thing has been going on with military vessels and airships ever since the notion of a basic or standard model came along in the first place - the outward variations often indicate differences in intended purpose.

The door might be different, but we don't know that for certain. The roofline might be different, but it's hard for me to tell by how much. The overall shape is the same, though; what can be seen of the cockpit interior looks very much like what we saw behind Robau, and what differences I see between this one and the Kelvin shuttles are largely cosmetic - differences which could very easily be attributed to minor design upgrades or to task-specific modifications.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Really, the single established feature of the older shuttle is its sliding door, and you suppose the artisans "missed" that? Or had to "compromise" on that?

They either compromised or changed it intentionally for some obscure reason. Probably due to the need to be able to quickly push the door open after a crash, or push somebody out of it. Larger set changes have been made for less substantial reasons.

But as others have already said, it's an almost trivial cosmetic change that doesn't override the fact that the basic shape of this craft is nearly identical to the Kelvin shuttles from 30 years earlier. Minor upgrade or slightly different version, at most.

I guess that this is Captain Robau, then?

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/pc/Zoe+Saldana+reprises+role+Star+Trek+sequel+6v5dkUTTN1zl.jpg

I mean, he's in a bluish uniform'ish. And he looks exactly like Robau, when we take into account movie realities such as not being able to secure the same actor...

Are you going senile or do you really not remember what happened to Saavik?

 

[M'Sharak]

<snip>

Are you going senile or...

I'd like to see no more of that, please, newtype - it's a swipe at Timo personally and it's completely unnecessary to the question being asked.

 

[Timo]

What gets me here is the nonsensical assumption that when two things look vaguely alike, there must have been this huge deliberate effort to make them alike. And when the "result" of this "effort" is poor, this is only further proof that the effort was made.

It should be far more natural to assume that there never was any effort to create a replica of the 2230s shuttle. After all, there's no rational basis for assuming the director would want a 2230s shuttle in the 2260s. This is a completely separate issue from

a) having a new shuttle created on the cheap out of already existing partial props, and then justifying it in-universe as a "variant" of a previously seen craft - with several deliberate and obvious differences to convince the audience that this isn't the old thing, or

b) having a new shuttle created deliberately to suggest a "variant" of the old one, regardless of expenses, and again with obvious differences to educate the audience.

Nothing wrong with these two theories or assumptions (although the movie will probably tell if one of them is more right than the other). But everything wrong with claiming that the new prop must be a failed attempt at exactly recreating the old craft. Dissimilarity cannot serve as proof for similarity!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

What gets me here is the nonsensical assumption that when two things look vaguely alike, there must have been this huge deliberate effort to make them alike. And when the "result" of this "effort" is poor, this is only further proof that the effort was made.

It should be far more natural to assume that there never was any effort to create a replica of the 2230s shuttle. After all, there's no rational basis for assuming the director would want a 2230s shuttle in the 2260s. This is a completely separate issue from

a) having a new shuttle created on the cheap out of already existing partial props, and then justifying it in-universe as a "variant" of a previously seen craft - with several deliberate and obvious differences to convince the audience that this isn't the old thing, or

b) having a new shuttle created deliberately to suggest a "variant" of the old one, regardless of expenses, and again with obvious differences to educate the audience.

Nothing wrong with these two theories or assumptions (although the movie will probably tell if one of them is more right than the other). But everything wrong with claiming that the new prop must be a failed attempt at exactly recreating the old craft. Dissimilarity cannot serve as proof for similarity!

What you're saying makes very little sense to me. I can see clear as day that the new pic of this shuttle looks just like the Kelvin shuttle, minus how the door opens an a few insignificant other minor details.

Now you're saying that there's no reason why they would recreate the Kelvin shuttle for the new movie, just because it was a 30 year old design. But we saw these shuttles at the academy graduation, so there's irrefutable proof that they're still being used. But even if they weren't, are you privy to knowledge about the script that you know without a doubt that there couldn't be some kind of flashback scene involving this shuttle?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What gets me here is the nonsensical assumption that when two things look vaguely alike, there must have been this huge deliberate effort to make them alike...

There's nothing vague about it. It looks ALOT like the Kelvin shuttle, similar enough that its obviously meant to be the same design. The differences are superficial at best (hell, the Enterprise-E went through more meaningful changes between Insurrection and Nemesis).

The only one who made an issue of the differences was YOU, Timo. Everyone else here has noted that this is a design with obvious similarities and subtle differences. If they were going for a totally new design it should be the other way around, with obvious differences and subtle similarities (e.g. the smaller academy shuttle from STXI, which is suggestive of the Kelvin type but an undeniably new design).

It should be far more natural to assume that there never was any effort to create a replica of the 2230s shuttle.

Hardly a replica, but obviously the same class/design.

a) having a new shuttle created on the cheap out of already existing partial props, and then justifying it in-universe as a "variant" of a previously seen craft - with several deliberate and obvious differences to convince the audience that this isn't the old thing, or

b) having a new shuttle created deliberately to suggest a "variant" of the old one, regardless of expenses, and again with obvious differences to educate the audience.

You're again assuming the differences are the point. You have it completely backwards: the differences are insignificant and aren't meant to be noticed by the majority of the audience. The SIMILARITIES are what are significant, and this shuttle design, so far, is similar enough to the Kelvin shuttle to be effectively the same design.

But everything wrong with claiming that the new prop must be a failed attempt at exactly recreating the old craft.

That's my point. By Trek movie standards, it is a SUCCESSFUL attempt to recreate the old craft. The bigger problem for you is that apart from the gulwing door on the starboard side -- which we never saw in use in STXI and could just as easily have always been there -- we don't actually have a good enough view of this piece to tell exactly where that "kink" is, whether it's directly behind the fin or halfway back on the hull. For all we know, it's in exactly the same place as the CG model, in which case the differences you're pointing out are so subtle that they only exist from bad camera angles.

 

[Dukhat]

If they were going for a totally new design it should be the other way around, with obvious differences and subtle similarities (e.g. the smaller academy shuttle from STXI, which is suggestive of the Kelvin type but an undeniably new design).

After looking at the academy screencaps again, I was wrong: the Kelvin shuttle was not used at the academy; it was the other shuttle you're speaking of here (the Gilliam/Moore type). However, again that in no way precludes its use again for the new movie. It could be an older shuttle still being used, or used for a flashback scene.

Either way, even though I sound like a broken record, it still looks pretty much like the Kelvin shuttle to me.

 

[captainkirk]

To me it looks like an updated version of the Kelvin shuttle. Like the shuttle that they used for a few episodes of Voyager that seemed to be an updated Type-6 from TNG.

 

[Timo]

This discussion has definitely taken a turn to the absurd. We don't have to speculate on what the movie makers consider significant and what not - the shuttle itself tells us this.

TPTB made a choice: they took a partial prop that had a single pre-existing feature, namely, a pair of sliding doors - and ripped out that sole feature of the prop, replacing it with a two-piece hinged door. Clearly, the only thing of any significance here is the door, then - it mattered so hugely to TPTB that they concentrated their entire prop-building effort on making it different from the original.

The situation bears no similarity to those cases where episode or movie A introduced a character or item, and episode or movie B reproduced the character or item on the cheap.

a) We have no a priori reason to think anything is being reproduced. In general, different movies have different characters, props and plots. Even in Star Trek.

b) We already have much better parallels to what we're seeing here anyway. In ST:GEN, we saw a reuse of a shuttle prop that had been built for ST5:TFF. The story did not call for a reuse of the ST5 shuttle, but for a new shuttle; the old prop was used for cost-efficiency reasons, and deliberate effort was made to affordably modify it to hide the similarities. In-universe, we're free to speculate that the modified thing is related to the unmodified one, although we aren't forced to accept such a thing like we're forced to accept that the modified starship of TMP was related to the one from TOS, or that the modified Saavik was the old one.

Interestingly, the prop we are seeing is still clearly a partial one. Its modifications include a new doorway, some decals on the bow, and possibly a raised roof - but the glossy decals may be there for sheer fun, and the prop may still exist solely for the purpose of faking the doorway. The rest of the craft may once again be computer-generated; any similarity with the STXI shuttle could well be the result of there being no reason to tinker with the (possibly pre-existing) bow, as it won't be seen in the movie.

On the other hand, cost-cutting doesn't seem to be a feature of the modern Trek movies. Remember that these guys painstakingly designed and built dedicated sidearms and communicators for the brief 2233 teaser of the previous movie, items never even seen. They're that obsessed about detail.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

No offense, but I think your opinion about this is quite absurd. You are the only person so far who thinks this is a completely different shuttle when everyone else pretty much says that it's the same as the Kelvin shuttle with minor differences.

You are, of course, completely entitled to your opinion though, however absurd I personally find it to be. So it looks like we'll just have to wait until we see the movie to find out who's right.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

This discussion has definitely taken a turn to the absurd. We don't have to speculate on what the movie makers consider significant and what not - the shuttle itself tells us this.

TPTB made a choice: they took a partial prop that had a single pre-existing feature...

You lost me here. You and I both know that they had actually modified a completely DIFFERENT prop with the sliding doors to be used in only a handful of scenes. That prop was never meant to represent the Kelvin shuttle exclusively, and was only used for that purpose once.

They have now built an entirely NEW prop to represent the Kelvin-style shuttle. The single difference between this new prop and the CG model it is intended to represent is, apparently, the door (which we do not yet know IS a door).

So no, they did not "rip out" a piece of anything. They built something new, and built it differently than the old prop, which was itself designed to represent an entirely different craft.

Clearly, the only thing of any significance here is the door

That's absurd. On the entire design, the door is literally the ONLY difference in the entire design; this, to you, is the "only thing of any significance?"

It's already been pointed out to you that bigger differences have been made to entire sets that were supposed to represent the exact same thing; in this case, we're looking at a shuttle design that is at least thirty years old and not even an identified Kelvin shuttle.

And the door is the only significant detail to this design? That's just asinine.

a) We have no a priori reason to think anything is being reproduced.

Yes we do: the fact that from what we have seen of the new prop it is so far identical to the Kelvin shuttle in every detail EXCEPT the door. If it isn't a reproduction, it is a stupefying coincidence.

b) We already have much better parallels to what we're seeing here anyway. In ST:GEN, we saw a reuse of a shuttle prop that had been built for ST5:TFF.

No, the TFF shuttle prop was actually rebuilt into the Type-6 shuttle for TNG. The design we saw in Generations was a miniature and no full-sized prop was ever built. The miniatures used in Generations preserved the new nacelles and window arrangement that were present on the Type-6; it is similar only insofar as it was stretched to represent a slightly bigger shuttle.

the prop may still exist solely for the purpose of faking the doorway.

In which case they wouldn't have detailed its exterior, nor would they have put the Enterprise decals on the bow.

The rest of the craft may once again be computer-generated; any similarity with the STXI shuttle could well be the result of there being no reason to tinker with the (possibly pre-existing) bow

As no exterior set piece was actually built for the Kelvin shuttle, I can only assume you're once again implying that this is an old prop that is being modified for some reason.

On the other hand, cost-cutting doesn't seem to be a feature of the modern Trek movies. Remember that these guys painstakingly designed and built dedicated sidearms and communicators for the brief 2233 teaser of the previous movie, items never even seen. They're that obsessed about detail.

Yes they are, though not just for the hell of it. Most of the things they created for for STXI were intended to show up in the film but ended up getting cut for brevity or pacing issues. Ironically, the Kelvin shuttle prop wasn't one of them.