What I Don't Like About the USS Kelvin

[Hartzilla2007]

Still, with the firepower the Narada had, I'm amazed the Kelvin wasn't just blown apart in one salvo

Not really considering Robau was its Captain and he is a mega badass.

 

[Jeri]

The Narada's missiles were really slow looking. At the end, Spock was coming up on them head to head -- not the missiles chasing him, and they still looked slow.

You know, like one of those math word problems: If the Jellyfish leaves the station in Chicago at three o'clock going 45 miles an hour -- and the Narada's torpedoes leave Los Angeles at the same time, going 20 miles an hour -- how many sandwiches will Scotty have in the dining car?

 

[Creedence]

You know, like one of those math word problems: If the Jellyfish leaves the station in Chicago at three o'clock going 45 miles an hour -- and the Narada's torpedoes leave Los Angeles at the same time, going 20 miles an hour -- how many sandwiches will Scotty have in the dining car?

 

[M'Sharak]

The Narada's missiles were really slow looking. At the end, Spock was coming up on them head to head -- not the missiles chasing him, and they still looked slow.

You know, like one of those math word problems: If the Jellyfish leaves the station in Chicago at three o'clock going 45 miles an hour -- and the Narada's torpedoes leave Los Angeles at the same time, going 20 miles an hour -- how many sandwiches will Scotty have in the dining car?

Sandwiches from the future!

Pickle?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

The Narada's missiles were really slow looking. At the end, Spock was coming up on them head to head -- not the missiles chasing him, and they still looked slow.

You know, like one of those math word problems: If the Jellyfish leaves the station in Chicago at three o'clock going 45 miles an hour -- and the Narada's torpedoes leave Los Angeles at the same time, going 20 miles an hour -- how many sandwiches will Scotty have in the dining car?

Sandwiches from the future!

Pickle?

and the sandwiches have future condmints

 

[gimpy117]

not enough sombreros maybe?

 

[Johnnymuffintop]

The engineering-hull looks quite small in size (not to mention, it looks like the bridge would be in the way of the deflector field) compared to the primary hull.
CuttingEdge100

Deflector field being blocked by part of the hull? May I direct your attention to the Daedalus class?!?

 

[trevanian]

I for one rather like the fact that, for once, a Federation starship doesn't look like it's all immaculately clean and fresh from spacedock. I like seeing a ship that looks like it's got some actual history to it.

If not for Harve Bennett's insistence on the contrary, you could have gotten this 27 years ago, on STAR TREK II. He talked to Robert Butler -- who directed THE CAGE, as well as the HILL ST BLUES pilot and created REMINGTON STEELE -- about directing II, and Butler said he felt the same as ever, that you needed coffeestained uniforms and ships that looked worn, and if Bennett wanted things 'clean' then he wasn't the guy to direct it. (this was either in Pocket's STAR TREK INTERVIEW book or one of those unauthorized pioneer press books, if anybody needs a source.)

 

[cooleddie74]

not enough sombreros maybe?

If the Kelvin had been armed with Sombreric Torpedoes and Salsa Rays it would never have been beaten.

 

[Jeri]

Not to mention the molé-drenched phasers.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I for one rather like the fact that, for once, a Federation starship doesn't look like it's all immaculately clean and fresh from spacedock. I like seeing a ship that looks like it's got some actual history to it.

If not for Harve Bennett's insistence on the contrary, you could have gotten this 27 years ago, on STAR TREK II. He talked to Robert Butler -- who directed THE CAGE, as well as the HILL ST BLUES pilot and created REMINGTON STEELE -- about directing II, and Butler said he felt the same as ever, that you needed coffeestained uniforms and ships that looked worn, and if Bennett wanted things 'clean' then he wasn't the guy to direct it. (this was either in Pocket's STAR TREK INTERVIEW book or one of those unauthorized pioneer press books, if anybody needs a source.)

Well..not sure who you think was right, but Harve Benette, in my mind, saved TREK in 1982. KHAN, to me, is the best Star Trek movie to date.

Rob

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I for one rather like the fact that, for once, a Federation starship doesn't look like it's all immaculately clean and fresh from spacedock. I like seeing a ship that looks like it's got some actual history to it.

If not for Harve Bennett's insistence on the contrary, you could have gotten this 27 years ago, on STAR TREK II. He talked to Robert Butler -- who directed THE CAGE, as well as the HILL ST BLUES pilot and created REMINGTON STEELE -- about directing II, and Butler said he felt the same as ever, that you needed coffeestained uniforms and ships that looked worn, and if Bennett wanted things 'clean' then he wasn't the guy to direct it. (this was either in Pocket's STAR TREK INTERVIEW book or one of those unauthorized pioneer press books, if anybody needs a source.)

Except the fact that they didn't have the technology to make it realistic. Coffe-stained plywood and cardboard looks even less realistic then clean plywood and cardboard.

 

[trevanian]

I for one rather like the fact that, for once, a Federation starship doesn't look like it's all immaculately clean and fresh from spacedock. I like seeing a ship that looks like it's got some actual history to it.

If not for Harve Bennett's insistence on the contrary, you could have gotten this 27 years ago, on STAR TREK II. He talked to Robert Butler -- who directed THE CAGE, as well as the HILL ST BLUES pilot and created REMINGTON STEELE -- about directing II, and Butler said he felt the same as ever, that you needed coffeestained uniforms and ships that looked worn, and if Bennett wanted things 'clean' then he wasn't the guy to direct it. (this was either in Pocket's STAR TREK INTERVIEW book or one of those unauthorized pioneer press books, if anybody needs a source.)

Except the fact that they didn't have the technology to make it realistic. Coffe-stained plywood and cardboard looks even less realistic then clean plywood and cardboard.

If you don't mind my saying, that strikes me as an exceptionally stupid post, one that, if intended to be sarcastic, doesn't read as funny enough to count, and is otherwise just uninformed.

What exactly do visible ply- and cardboard have to do with ST II? They were re-using a 7-figure bridge set, a 6-figure hero miniature -- leveraging off the leftovers from a 40mil plus movie.

And as far as that goes, doing the worn 'junk ship' approach is the cheap and easy way to do spaceships, both inside and out. That's why amateur films leveraged more off the SW/ALIEN look than the 2001 look -- it is achievable through creative scavenging.

I was going to refer you to Joe Jennings for more on the TREK aesthetic in comparison to this look, but I'm sure he's too old to say anything you're likely to appreciate.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

What exactly do visible ply- and cardboard have to do with ST II? They were re-using a 7-figure bridge set, a 6-figure hero miniature -- leveraging off the leftovers from a 40mil plus movie.

And as far as that goes, doing the worn 'junk ship' approach is the cheap and easy way to do spaceships, both inside and out. That's why amateur films leveraged more off the SW/ALIEN look than the 2001 look -- it is achievable through creative scavenging.

It has to do with the fact that they didn't use CGI in that time; the technology wasn't available yet, or it wasn't cheap enough. If you need a set to look accurately weathered, you need to let it sit for a long time, or apply CGI. Just look at BSG's sets; in the first season, they were hardly weathered at all, it was only in the last season that the sets really came to life. I doubt either could have happened on STII.

Of course, you could always apply weathering the old fashioned way, but as far as I know, that's very time consuming to get it right.

I was going to refer you to Joe Jennings for more on the TREK aesthetic in comparison to this look, but I'm sure he's too old to say anything you're likely to appreciate.

If you really think age has anything to do with that, I assume you only accept information of people over 50, no matter what experience they have at hand about the subject? That doesn't seem very smart; even younger people can have informed opinions and experiences anyone can learn from.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Nah.

We're just a bunch of useless gits.

 

[cooleddie74]

Nah.

We're just a bunch of useless gits.

Ladies and gentlemen...the new Trek BBS motto.

 

[Sci]

If not for Harve Bennett's insistence on the contrary, you could have gotten this 27 years ago, on STAR TREK II. He talked to Robert Butler -- who directed THE CAGE, as well as the HILL ST BLUES pilot and created REMINGTON STEELE -- about directing II, and Butler said he felt the same as ever, that you needed coffeestained uniforms and ships that looked worn, and if Bennett wanted things 'clean' then he wasn't the guy to direct it. (this was either in Pocket's STAR TREK INTERVIEW book or one of those unauthorized pioneer press books, if anybody needs a source.)

Except the fact that they didn't have the technology to make it realistic. Coffe-stained plywood and cardboard looks even less realistic then clean plywood and cardboard.

If you don't mind my saying, that strikes me as an exceptionally stupid post, one that, if intended to be sarcastic, doesn't read as funny enough to count, and is otherwise just uninformed.

What exactly do visible ply- and cardboard have to do with ST II? They were re-using a 7-figure bridge set, a 6-figure hero miniature -- leveraging off the leftovers from a 40mil plus movie.

And as far as that goes, doing the worn 'junk ship' approach is the cheap and easy way to do spaceships, both inside and out. That's why amateur films leveraged more off the SW/ALIEN look than the 2001 look -- it is achievable through creative scavenging.

I was going to refer you to Joe Jennings for more on the TREK aesthetic in comparison to this look, but I'm sure he's too old to say anything you're likely to appreciate.

I for one love and appreciate the Star Trek aesthetic. I like "Starfleet Clean," as Ira Steven Behr called it.

But I also like and appreciate seeing that the new movie did something different, mixing Starfleet Clean (the bridge, sickbay, and other sets) with something much more down-to-Earth.

 

[Gepard]

If you need a set to look accurately weathered, you need to let it sit for a long time, or apply CGI. Just look at BSG's sets; in the first season, they were hardly weathered at all, it was only in the last season that the sets really came to life. I doubt either could have happened on STII.

What? It...what? You just apply paint. They didn't weather the live-action sets on BSG by matchmoving digital dirt on top of it in every shot. That's insane.

 

[Messianni]

If you need a set to look accurately weathered, you need to let it sit for a long time, or apply CGI. Just look at BSG's sets; in the first season, they were hardly weathered at all, it was only in the last season that the sets really came to life. I doubt either could have happened on STII.

What? It...what? You just apply paint. They didn't weather the live-action sets on BSG by matchmoving digital dirt on top of it in every shot. That's insane.

Exactly. Why would it have been that weathered right away, anyway? The Galactica was in regular service around repair facilities all the time and was going to be turned into a museum. Story-wise it wouldn't have made sense. There would be people to clean the ship, after all.

 

[trevanian]

What exactly do visible ply- and cardboard have to do with ST II? They were re-using a 7-figure bridge set, a 6-figure hero miniature -- leveraging off the leftovers from a 40mil plus movie.

And as far as that goes, doing the worn 'junk ship' approach is the cheap and easy way to do spaceships, both inside and out. That's why amateur films leveraged more off the SW/ALIEN look than the 2001 look -- it is achievable through creative scavenging.

It has to do with the fact that they didn't use CGI in that time; the technology wasn't available yet, or it wasn't cheap enough. If you need a set to look accurately weathered, you need to let it sit for a long time, or apply CGI. Just look at BSG's sets; in the first season, they were hardly weathered at all, it was only in the last season that the sets really came to life. I doubt either could have happened on STII.

Of course, you could always apply weathering the old fashioned way, but as far as I know, that's very time consuming to get it right.

Yeah, it is an art to 'break down' clothing to age them, that is why SKILLED craftsmen are employed to do this, just like skilled craftsmen light and photograph these things.

Why would you weather a practical set with CG instead of just doing it with physical tools? That's like
EDIT: oh I see these other folks pointed all this out already, thank christ.