The Excelsior Bridge in III vs VI, The Ent-A bridge in IV, V, and VI. Vulcan has no moon vs TMP. The ages of Khan's crew.
To be fair, I don’t think he meant ‘position’ as a place or rank, but rather just his beliefs on this topic.
I don’t think the changed bridges were really evidence of blatantly ignoring established things. I think they just needed better sets because the old ones were either torn down between films, they weren’t good enough for rigorous use, or they weren’t positioned the way they needed to be for filming the actors at their stations.
The Bird of Prey bridge transformed from one Klingon bridge to another Klingon bridge while the ship had been parked for three months on Vulcan. There's no possible explanation for that other than 'they found another bridge' or 'Scotty was really bored'.
The Excelsior and Enterprise were in active service and it was years between their appearances, so their changes are easily explained. Giant orbs in the sky don't have to be moons. Khan's crew isn't a visual inconsistency it's just... weird. They said in dialogue that they were there for 15 years and Khan has clearly aged, so who even knows what's going on there.
Like I mentioned above, they wanted to mimic the bridge of the Enterprise to have the actors at their regular stations, which the original Klingon bridge was not designed for.
Yeah, just thought I'd double-check here, to better understand what he's saying.
And the links to those scholarly journals are…?
Just because it can be explained relatively easily doesn't negate the fact that the filmmakers did not explain the changes. The calculus is the same regardless of scale.
You'll have to link to the relevant posts one by one, X doesn't let you explore or read replies unless you're signed in. I'm slightly amazed it still allows direct linking/embedding of specific posts.
Of course, going back to the prior discussion, the Enterprise-A bridge, particularly in TUC, is pretty useful evidence of a larger ship. Those Micky Mouse ear turbo lifts just don't fit in the TMP external bridge module.
The Excelsior is different, because the bridge change between TSFS and TUC comes with a change to the model - a new, smaller bridge module that again makes the ship look much larger.
If you're going to disregard the notion that the production staff just moved the bridge pieces around thinking it would look better, then "embiggen all the things" is still a less reasonable option than sunken bridge.
I've had a fun time pointing out that the Enterprise-E bridge doesn't fit, for instance, but that's no reason to override known length as a first conclusion.
Just being pedantic, sorry, but this seems to be the thread for it:
The series was set any time between "1995 and 2995" (though "Space Seed" and other references obviously move it a bit further away from 1995 than the initial documents suggested).
The movie was set two and a half years later? Maybe? That's the only time frame we're given, anyway. It could be set the full decade later ("at the same pace") and Kirk was just logging a bunch of star hours we never got to see, but that doesn't seem to be the intent.
It isn't until The Wrath of Khan that we get a century firmly established, and not until The Next Generation that we can narrow it down to a series of decades (and rather contentiously so, among some corners of the fandom).
Here's the "scholarly attention" linked to in the X discussion above:
- It consists of two footnotes to the above article:
“Canon Policy: Quotes and Disputes.” Canonwars.com. http://www.canonwars.com/SWCanonwars-2.html. Web. 23 Nov. 2017. - “New Hopes,” Starlog #337 (Aug. 2005): 46–48. Partially scanned and archived at canonwars.com. Web. 23 Nov. 2017.
The second is the use of the Canonwars site to access a scanned Starlog article from 2005.
Last edited:
the Starfleet aesthetic can advance on Earth without changing how the Enterprise or Starbases look. They were built years before.
Really, dude? FFS, I knew it was being used as a distraction to talk about me versus talking about the facts, but I didn't expect someone to go as low as actually looking, but then pretending one item was all that was in the thread as a personal attack vector.
Ugh. Fine.
As I note in the thread:
"Note that "attention" usually just refers to being cited as a reference or footnote, I think, rather than anything more specific, unless otherwise noted. Still cool, though."
The list includes the journals Extrapolations, purportedly the original journal for academic study of science fiction, the Journal of Cinema and Media Studies (with note "For a detailed overview on the canon wars {...}", which also appeared in a book from Amsterdam University Press "Star Wars and the History of Transmedia Storytelling", the amusingly-Neryk-list-esque Journal of Fandom Studies, and as a reference specifically on Star Trek canon from some large book's appendix I have yet to uncover published on the MIT site.
So, as I said, my work on Trek and Wars canon policies is referenced in scholarly journals. I have not dug much further to see if it shows up anywhere else in that regard, but then there are many links and references on various boards and discussion forums where my work is also referenced and quoted, so the search parameters matter.
So there. Now, how about something other than eyerolls on the actual topic of the thread? Or should I take the efforts at distraction as evidence of concession?
Binary planet system, akin to Pluto-Charon. What he said was true, from a certain point of view.
