Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[trekkerguy]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

Nothing about those sets looks realistic, but whatever, I guess you're willing to overlook things like that when you want it to be cool.

I don't think they'll need to worry about the U.S. Navy wanting to take a look at these sets. The bridge set seems cluttered for no other reason than to fill space. Do you really need all those stations on the bridge?

It doesn't look like it has any more stations than the ENT-E. And you've only seen a couple shots of it and odd angles. You guys are far too judgemental of something you've not really seen enough of.

 

[Captain X]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

Really, what's anymore unrealistic about them than previous Trek?

Needless clutter, bright obnoxious displays, bright lighting shining right in the faces of the crewmembers manning the stations along the walls, the useless work lights, the barcode scanners, the hardwood floor, the circular cross-section of the corridors that waste a lot of space, the polished floors (as opposed to something with a lot of traction)

The adding of the glass dividers looks and feels more like a real life military vessel or station,

Not really, because on real military ships those glass dividers are information boards where information is actually manually written on them (backwards) in order to keep track of information, but on the STXI set they have these big computer circuit prints on them and are otherwise basically in the way.

the computers look more functional

Again, not really, just having a big display doesn't make a computer more functional. if you were to go strictly by functionality, the NX-01's computer consoles were probably the most functional.

and it being well lit instead of needing a frikkin flashlight on the bridge is more appropriate too.

Actually, in real life, the control rooms of ships tend to be dimly lit with blue light, and they certainly don't have a row of spotlights shining into the eyes of the people manning the consoles.

And yes it happens to be entertainment and scifi at that, I think I what things to look cool...

Then why bother making an argument about functionality? It's as pointless as arguing that "most" people won't know the difference, then going back on that when someone points out they wouldn't know the difference if it was an updated version of the existing design rather than something completely redesigned. You can't have it both ways.

 

[trekkerguy]

Actually I can. Because it all looks very functionaly setup despite your arguments and opinions(again you havn't seen enough of it in a decent shot to say it's cluttered in anyway), those lights do not seem to shine in anyones eyes and it's a starship... not a dungeon. And it does look very cool in my opinion.


Jolan Tru.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

Nothing about those sets looks realistic, but whatever, I guess you're willing to overlook things like that when you want it to be cool.

I don't think they'll need to worry about the U.S. Navy wanting to take a look at these sets. The bridge set seems cluttered for no other reason than to fill space. Do you really need all those stations on the bridge?

It doesn't look like it has any more stations than the ENT-E. And you've only seen a couple shots of it and odd angles. You guys are far too judgemental of something you've not really seen enough of.

First off, the bridge of the Enterprise-E made no sense in relation to the bridge on the Enterprise-D. A smaller ship needs more consoles to function?

Second, all I've heard was how out-of-time TOS was, how technology passed it by and how modern audiences would never buy it. So you give me something that looks less functional? If the bridge is symmetrical, there are six stations forward of the captain on the same level. I actually like the captain's chair, helm/nav console and the main viewscreen. But everything else is just plain bad.

I know nothing says new and advanced like bright, blinding white.

 

[trekkerguy]

Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

I already said Jolan Tru.

You guys have fun with the subject.
I have no interest in arguing opinion.

 

[Captain X]

Actually I can. Because it all looks very functionaly setup despite your arguments and opinions(again you havn't seen enough of it in a decent shot to say it's cluttered in anyway),

Actually I have, as there are quite a few shots of the bridge thanks to the releases and the trailer.

those lights do not seem to shine in anyones eyes

You must not be looking very well then, since the people sitting at the wall stations have a whole row of lights right at eye-level.

and it's a starship... not a dungeon.

So?

And it does look very cool in my opinion.

Oh well, not mine.

 

[trekkerguy]

Actually I can. Because it all looks very functionaly setup despite your arguments and opinions(again you havn't seen enough of it in a decent shot to say it's cluttered in anyway),

Actually I have, as there are quite a few shots of the bridge thanks to the releases and the trailer.

those lights do not seem to shine in anyones eyes

You must not be looking very well then, since the people sitting at the wall stations have a whole row of lights right at eye-level.

and it's a starship... not a dungeon.

So?

And it does look very cool in my opinion.

Oh well, not mine.

Quite a few shots at odd angles and spots on the bridge.
If that's your judgement fine then.

The lights seemed to be just over eye level or just below.
Even so, the type of light they are more than likely has little
effect on anyones sight, at most they may feel a warmth
on their faces since I doubt anyone would be looking into them.

So... it need not be dimly lit and the brighter design is very welcome.

I'm sorry it doesn't meet your aesthetic tastes. You can't please everyone.

 

[Captain X]

Quite a few shots at odd angles and spots on the bridge.
If that's your judgement fine then.

You can see at least a third of the bridge, but to be honest I could tell ti was over the top with the first photo that got released of it.

The lights seemed to be just over eye level or just below.
Even so, the type of light they are more than likely has little
effect on anyones sight, at most they may feel a warmth
on their faces since I doubt anyone would be looking into them.

No, it would bother their eyes, especially as there are displays immediately above and below those rather bright lights. I'm guessing you've never had to work long hours at a computer.

So... it need not be dimly lit and the brighter design is very welcome.

There's a reason the control rooms on ships are dimly lit with blue lighting, and it has a lot to do with strain on the eyes while looking at computer screens for long hours.

I'm sorry it doesn't meet your aesthetic tastes. You can't please everyone.

No, not everyone is easy to please, and not everyone is impressed by flashiness.

 

[trekkerguy]

Haha wow, I've never had so many people make
assumptions about me and my life and what I do in one day...

Yes, infact almost all of my jobs have had me spending
long hours in front of computer scr...
seriously why the fuck am I having to explain my life
and or jobs and experiences to everyone?


Jolan Tru.

 

[Captain X]

Really? Me to. And I don't know about you, but I never had a light directed anywhere near my face, and in fact I preferred to keep the light level low because I found it reduced the frequency of tension headaches. I also know a thing or two about design and what makes it good or bad.

 

[trekkerguy]

I'm ready for "Wrath of Khan Redux"

Who would make a good modern Khan?
More than likely all the Eugenics Wars and such still happen
so his ship must still be floating around out there

 

[Saul]

1. Every instance of time travel uses a different method and scientific rationale (warp-10 slingshot, Guardian of Forever, chronometric displacement, Bajoran Orb of Time, temporal Nexus, time vortex, etc.), and has a different result (self-fulfilling time loop, multiple parallel timelines, altered timelines that can be "repaired" through further meddling, etc.).

And I think the majority is correcting the prime timeline.

2. Through all the "Star Trek" series, there have been at least two dozen distinct and mutually exclusive timelines (not even including the self-fulfilling causality loops). For example, in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," it depicted the original timeline where the Federation was at war with the Klingons; Picard's decision to send the Enterprise-C back in time to save a Klingon outpost created the alternate timeline that we see in every other TNG episode, where Worf serves in Starfleet and the Klingons are allies.

? No the original timeline was the one where Worf serves in Starfleet. The timelibe changed when the Enterprise C was removed from the past where it had tried to save a klingon outpost. Although I would say that an alternate timeline was created when Tasha joined the Crew of the Enterprise C and Sela was born.

The entire series of "Star Trek: Enterprise" takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and the Enterprise-E went back in time to fight the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact." "Enterprise" episodes showed wreckage of the Borg sphere on Earth, and mentioned Cochrane's recollections of the Borg attack. (We can assume that after the Enterprise-E returned to the future, it returned to the "Enterprise" timeline, rather than the one it was in at the beginning of "First Contact.") So the movie "Star Trek: Insurrection" takes place in the future of the "Enterprise" timeline that was started in "First Contact."

Actually we can assume that this is the timeline as it always was and Picard and the Enterprise E had always returned to the past because at the end of the Episode Regeneration the Borg sent out a signal to the Delta Quadrant that would lead to the Borg's attack on outposts as seen in "The Neutral Zone".

The final episode of "Voyager" depicted Admiral Janeway creating a new timeline where the U.S.S. Voyager got back to Earth 20 years early. This alternate timeline was continued in the movie "Star Trek: Nemesis," as evidenced by Admiral Janeway's appearance in that film (when the Voyager and Captain Janeway would still be trapped in the Delta Quadrant for another 20 years in the "original" timeline).

No arguments with that one except that it's not an alternate timeline but the same one. It's the same situation as the new movie. Technology is changed or updated.

"First Contact" started in the "Generations" timeline, then passed through the Borg-assimilated-Earth timeline.

This is definatily the same timeline. The crew of The Enterprise E withness it themselves. They didn't go anywhere or move to another timeline, they were still in their own timeline when it changed before their eyes. Which is why I still have some problems with this new alternate timeline explaination.

My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).

In fact there is nothing, absolutly nothing to say that any of the last 5 movies took place in an alternate or new timeline.

There is no "official" "Star Trek" timeline.

There is one canon timeline that has tied all of the episodes and movies together. The new movie will not be tied to them.

 

[trekkerguy]

^^^ Almost all of your points ignored nearly perfect logic that explains why there is no single "official" Star Trek timeline.

It's all very fluid. Like a certain signature on this board says, once it's on screen... it is canon regardless of your wishes.

 

[DaveyNY]

^^^ Almost all of your points ignored nearly perfect logic that explains why there is no single "official" Star Trek timeline.

It's all very fluid. Like a certain signature on this board says, once it's on screen... it is canon regardless of your wishes.

LOL (oh lordy)

ummm... how convenient that you suddenly noticed my sig. here, when you apparently chose to ignore it as being my view of Trek XI during our previous conversations.

Also, if there is no Official "Single" Star Trek time Line, what do you call the Officially Sanctioned - "History Of Star Trek" by the Okudas??

That uses pretty much only facts taken from the TV Series and the Movies!

 

[trekkerguy]

^^^ Almost all of your points ignored nearly perfect logic that explains why there is no single "official" Star Trek timeline.

It's all very fluid. Like a certain signature on this board says, once it's on screen... it is canon regardless of your wishes.

LOL (oh lordy)

ummm... how convenient that you suddenly noticed my sig. here, when you apparently chose to ignore it as being my view of Trek XI during our previous conversations.

Also, if there is no Official "Single" Star Trek time Line, what do you call the Officially Sanctioned - "History Of Star Trek" by the Okudas??

That uses pretty much only facts taken from the TV Series and the Movies!

Trekguide's explanation fits right in with that.
The history of Trek moves in one direction, that
doesn't mean within that history timelines don't
diverge and converge to form the whole.

Kind of the way we write a post and go back
and edit it to add to or fix something.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ Yes -- In fact the libraries of Star Trek information such as 'memory-alpha.org' have entire separate articles on -- for example -- the Mirror Universe. In fact they have entire separate articles on the Mirror Kirk and Mirror Spock, et al. and their backgrounds and their histories (these backgrounds and histories are mainly from novelizations.)

Albeit, since much of this information was not 'on-screen' it is not considered canon. However, there is no denying that the Mirror Universe exists in "non-straight-line canon".

 

[DaveyNY]

^^^ Almost all of your points ignored nearly perfect logic that explains why there is no single "official" Star Trek timeline.

It's all very fluid. Like a certain signature on this board says, once it's on screen... it is canon regardless of your wishes.

LOL (oh lordy)

ummm... how convenient that you suddenly noticed my sig. here, when you apparently chose to ignore it as being my view of Trek XI during our previous conversations.

Also, if there is no Official "Single" Star Trek time Line, what do you call the Officially Sanctioned - "History Of Star Trek" by the Okudas??

That uses pretty much only facts taken from the TV Series and the Movies!

Trekguide's explanation fits right in with that.
The history of Trek moves in one direction, that
doesn't mean within that history timelines don't
diverge and converge to form the whole.

Kind of the way we write a post and go back
and edit it to add to or fix something.

^
^^ Yes -- In fact the libraries of Star Trek information such as 'memory-alpha.org' have entire separate articles on -- for example -- the Mirror Universe. In fact they have entire separate articles on the Mirror Kirk and Mirror Spock, et al. and their backgrounds and their histories (these backgrounds and histories are mainly from novelizations.)

Albeit, since much of this information was not 'on-screen' it is not considered canon. However, there is no denying that the Mirror Universe exists in "non-straight-line canon".

Those are good examples of DIVERGENT Time Lines, but they are not considered to be THE Time Line by everyone.

In their own way, even they are Straight-Line Time Lines from their point of view.

The Time Line that runs from The Cage to First Contact, bumps into those other Universes on occasion but returns by the end of the situation with very little significant changes from Our point of view.

Now, from FC on, even I believe that thing's have changed somewhat, but not to the degree that (apparently) Trek XI is going to do.

Perhaps, I'll have to use FC as the starting point for Nu-Trek.
Maybe the Borg showing up during ENTERPRISE made bigger changes than I realized.

 

[trekkerguy]

The logic in Trekguide's post make complete sense to me.

Basicaly the "Official" timeline is a myriad of timelines all wrapped up around eachother.

 

[Qonos]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

and it being well lit instead of needing a frikkin flashlight on the bridge is more appropriate too.

Actually, in real life, the control rooms of ships tend to be dimly lit with blue light, and they certainly don't have a row of spotlights shining into the eyes of the people manning the consoles.

um you know they are in space, right... you know there is very little natural light in space...
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/10_24_98/fob1.htm
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.lighttherapy.html

seeing as the lack of true sunlight would cause a more severe version of seasonal affective disorder the bright lighting of the bridge helps offset it.. sunlight also triggers the production of vitamin a and melatonin which help regulate the sleep cycle

 

[Captain X]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

Which is why the rest of the ship is brightly lit.