Star Trek XI

[watchdog]

oh yeah I almost forgot, we get to see Kirk take the Kobiashi Maru, that was great.

[Airlocke_Jedi_Knight]

Yeah, simply amazing.

[watchdog]

Just finished reading the review on SDN, everyone there pretty much loved the movie but as I expected MW seemed to be looking for any reason to hate it, or at the least pan it as a crappy movie, he was extreamly offended by the fact that the ship was built on the ground and focused on that as being overtly stupid. Some one there even asked if it was better than the SW prequals and the one response was yes!
I might go to space battles next to see what they thought, at this point I kind of wish I had gone to see it a second time today.
I am interested in seeing where they eventually go with this reboot, I hope it will be like the latest Batman films where the next one will be even better than the last, maybe Admiral Archers beagle will rematerialize :D

[Mike DiCenso]

An increased crew count doesn't mean anything when even today sea-going ships, especially passenger liners, with far smaller gross registered tonnage (the measure of enclosed volume) than even modest sized starship can easily carry in the hundreds or thousands, if need be.

To me, it seems there's definitely something amiss when suddenly a small survey ship, like the Kelvin, carries more then twice the amount of people as the Enterprise.

The Classic Enterprise had an oft-stated crew of 430. Some other Connies had 400, and others had about the same as the Enterprise . Also I think you're getting a little ahead of yourself; the Kelvin is a pre-incursion starship, it would not have been affected by the timeline changes, and therefore you have figure out why the Kelvin needed
so many crew probably a significant science survey of some kind. It certainly isn't outside the realm of possibility for a 300 meter starship. Even the E Prime could carry 114 passengers above and beyond her 430 crew for about 544, and could do so for at least 2 weeks (TOS: "Journey to Babel", Season 2). That's only 256 below the Kelvin's crew size.

There is a debate going on the Trek BBS site over the purported new E's size, and someone even offered up a conflicting offical site number of 2,500' (762 meters). It was also pointed out and screencaps linked to showing the original TOS E's hanger deck. The thread and screen shots are all found here

Where was the 762m figure reported?

...And that hangar bay is positively tiny compared to the one on the Enterprise, you probably couldn't even fit more then a few shuttles in there, while the hangar bay on the new Ent had rows of shuttles on each other lining the walls. There are something like 9 shuttles seen in the new enterprise hangar bay when Kirk and McCoy first arrive on it.

Read the Trek BBS thread I linked to. The 2,500' number came from the viral campaign videos that switched around showing glimpses of the ship's interiors.

The same arrangement would work for holding those shuttles, though the smaller ones seen on the Classic E's hanger. The Alt E's hanger is different in that it essentially has racks that the shuttles can fly up and into rather than having to land onto the deck itself. As I said, given the modest size of the shuttles and how they scale up (the same Academy shuttle flies by the E while under construction on Earth), it is not big enough to justify a ship bigger than 400 or so meters. Basically I'd be willing to accept a size increase to around a Prime timeline Excelsior class size.

If the alternate E's size was pegged at 900 meters, the Narada would be much bigger than that. Here's a screencap of theE facing off with the Narada over Vulcan. Just that bow section alone is more than 4 km long (a ratio of 4.5 to 1 over the E), assuming a 900 meter E, and that is only the very most forward part of the ship, which if you look at the offical site's file on the ship shows that is not even half of it, maybe a third of the ship's length at most.

I'd have to disagree with you there, if anything that pic supports the 900m and 8km figures. The Narada is about 6 lengths of the Ent in that shot, which means we see 5400m of it, so a little over half is visible there, and that fits with the overall dimensions of the vessel seen in the movie.

No, that section of the Narada is 5.40 inches long, while the E is 1.07" for a ratio of no more than 5:1 or 5 x 900 = 4,500 meters, assuming a 900 meter E. If you go into the dossier section of the offical website, click on the Narada file and look at the image carefully, that section we see in the Memory Alpha screencap is only at most a third of the Narada's overall length.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

. I agree that they could have done more with Nero, I dont think his full reasons or motivations were explained enough, I already know the back story that was in the companion comic book, Link to the first issue;
http://mycomicpost.com/?p=12913

Your link doesn't work for me, all I get are a login page.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Just finished reading the review on SDN, everyone there pretty much loved the movie but as I expected MW seemed to be looking for any reason to hate it, or at the least pan it as a crappy movie, he was extreamly offended by the fact that the ship was built on the ground and focused on that as being overtly stupid.

Why am I not surprised at that? If he condemns Star Trek XI for that, he needs to do the same in return for Star Wars, since we see numerous examples of ships landing and launching from the surface, and in the case of one of the TCW comics, we see Munificents being built on a planet-side shipyard.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

The Narada, or a multi-kilometer long abuse of hair gel.

I'm surprised you didn't notice the strong resemblance between the Narada and certain Replicator cruisers.
-Mike

[watchdog]

Just finished reading the review on SDN, everyone there pretty much loved the movie but as I expected MW seemed to be looking for any reason to hate it, or at the least pan it as a crappy movie, he was extreamly offended by the fact that the ship was built on the ground and focused on that as being overtly stupid.

Why am I not surprised at that? If he condemns Star Trek XI for that, he needs to do the same in return for Star Wars, since we see numerous examples of ships landing and launching from the surface, and in the case of one of the TCW comics, we see Munificents being built on a planet-side shipyard.
-Mike

He kept going on about how much stress would be put on various parts of the ship due to gravity as well as the fact that they would have to expend energy to launch it into space, noting that building it in space would be cheaper and more efficiant, this mostly started when someone suggested that trek ships would need to be stronger than they thought they are to withstand the gravity stress durring construction. I'm assuming that he thinks Trek does not have anti-gravity devices on par with the repulsorlifts of Wars, he needs to quit complaining and go see this movie. His quibbling sounds like my ten year old nephew when I tell him about star trek and star wars.

[watchdog]

. I agree that they could have done more with Nero, I dont think his full reasons or motivations were explained enough, I already know the back story that was in the companion comic book, Link to the first issue;
http://mycomicpost.com/?p=12913

Your link doesn't work for me, all I get are a login page.
-Mike

I was afraid of that, the site seems to require logging on just to view their contents, no worries, direct links;
book 1
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=U9MCL8CD

book 2
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BQV2QMAD

book 3
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=UEK27C6J

book 4
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=G2R1V1PP

These are cbr files but you can change the file extention to rar (unless it is a cbz, make those into zip files) and can then extract them wherever you want.

[Sift Green]

I saw the Movie on Friday, and I have to say it is now my favorite Star Trek Movie.

I was rather impressed by the new Enterprise's rate of fire, I don't think I've seen anything with a similar rate of in Star Wars.

Anyways, who else wants Sulu's Sword?

[2046]

I feel like I went to see 1998's Lost in Space again.

More at the blog, but that about sums it up. Fun, but largely meaningless after the Kelvin scene and the boy Spock stuff.

the Kelvin is a pre-incursion starship, it would not have been affected by the timeline changes

I don't agree. I'm not even sure any of this is the same universe, but even if it were the Kelvin need not exist in our TOS universe. After all, start changing Kirk's life and you potentially change all the changes Trek has made in the 20th Century and before, so why should 2233 be normal?

[Mike DiCenso]

I don't agree. I'm not even sure any of this is the same universe, but even if it were the Kelvin need not exist in our TOS universe. After all, start changing Kirk's life and you potentially change all the changes Trek has made in the 20th Century and before, so why should 2233 be normal?

Why would the Kelvin change so radically until before the moment of the incursion? It makes little sense. We have very little information about starships before TOS, and this is a first look at one that is in the same timeframe as the U.S.S. Valiant mentioned as lost in "A Taste of Armageddon". Everything else seems to go more or less the way it did up until the Narada incursion. What changes after that are:

* Kirk grows up fatherless and becomes wild and out of control until he meets up with Captain Pike. Kirk winds up going into the Academy at an older age.

* Kirk also never serves on the Farragut under captain Garrovick. The Farragut is destroyed at the Battle of Vulcan instead.

* The Enterprise is apparently constructed later than in the prime timeline, and is somewhat bigger. The adventures of Pike and Spock on the Enterprise do not occur and the Narada's attack on Vulcan results in Pike being crippled (at least fora time) and Kirk becoming captain 7 years sooner.

* Vulcan's descruction at Nero's hands and the near-extinction of the Vulcan people.

* The death of Spock's mother has a profound impact on him, and even pushes the half-Vulcan, half-human into a relationship with Uhura.


Anyway, the intent of the producers and writers and what is mentioned throughout the movie indicates it is in the same universe, just a different timeline that results after the Narada's attack on Vulcan.
-Mike

[Mike DiCenso]

Just finished reading the review on SDN, everyone there pretty much loved the movie but as I expected MW seemed to be looking for any reason to hate it, or at the least pan it as a crappy movie, he was extreamly offended by the fact that the ship was built on the ground and focused on that as being overtly stupid.

Why am I not surprised at that? If he condemns Star Trek XI for that, he needs to do the same in return for Star Wars, since we see numerous examples of ships landing and launching from the surface, and in the case of one of the TCW comics, we see Munificents being built on a planet-side shipyard.
-Mike

He kept going on about how much stress would be put on various parts of the ship due to gravity as well as the fact that they would have to expend energy to launch it into space, noting that building it in space would be cheaper and more efficiant, this mostly started when someone suggested that trek ships would need to be stronger than they thought they are to withstand the gravity stress durring construction. I'm assuming that he thinks Trek does not have anti-gravity devices on par with the repulsorlifts of Wars, he needs to quit complaining and go see this movie. His quibbling sounds like my ten year old nephew when I tell him about star trek and star wars.

I'am not sure where he might get such an idea from. There is nothing to indicate that Trek technology was incapable of anti-gravity that could launch or land a large starship. But he's stil a hypocritte for failing to note the similar issue in Wars. More likely he doesn't like the implications of a Federation that can easily launch a starship of that size from a planet.
-Mike

[2046]

Why would the Kelvin change so radically until before the moment of the incursion? It makes little sense.

From my blog:

"Finally, this new timeline probably diverges quite strongly from the old one, beyond having a Federation with people named Kirk and Spock and a ship named Enterprise. Consider that once you start messing with a temporal "menace" like Kirk, you also mess with all the temporal incursions he has made, and those that follow on. Many of the time travels of Kirk occurred to times well before his own birth.

Consider that for a moment. Go back in time and blow up Kirk's Enterprise as soon as it pulls out of Spacedock, for instance, and you not only change the 23rd Century but even the 20th ("Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The City on the Edge of Forever", "Assignment: Earth", and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). This would likely also alter the 24th Century, meaning Picard's Enterprise, meaning "Time's Arrow" . . . in which case the 19th Century is altered, not to mention the 21st and 22nd (First Contact and the related "Regeneration"[ENT]). But of course, at that point the 20th Century gets even more altered, thanks to "Past Tense"[DS9], "Little Green Men"[DS9], "Future's End"[VOY], and "Carpenter Street"[ENT].

While you could argue, per Orci, that each of those events created a different universe, it is clear from all those episodes that Trek lives in a universe where each of those events and changes occurred."

[watchdog]

Why would the Kelvin change so radically until before the moment of the incursion? It makes little sense.

From my blog:

"Finally, this new timeline probably diverges quite strongly from the old one, beyond having a Federation with people named Kirk and Spock and a ship named Enterprise. Consider that once you start messing with a temporal "menace" like Kirk, you also mess with all the temporal incursions he has made, and those that follow on. Many of the time travels of Kirk occurred to times well before his own birth.

Consider that for a moment. Go back in time and blow up Kirk's Enterprise as soon as it pulls out of Spacedock, for instance, and you not only change the 23rd Century but even the 20th ("Tomorrow is Yesterday", "The City on the Edge of Forever", "Assignment: Earth", and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home). This would likely also alter the 24th Century, meaning Picard's Enterprise, meaning "Time's Arrow" . . . in which case the 19th Century is altered, not to mention the 21st and 22nd (First Contact and the related "Regeneration"[ENT]). But of course, at that point the 20th Century gets even more altered, thanks to "Past Tense"[DS9], "Little Green Men"[DS9], "Future's End"[VOY], and "Carpenter Street"[ENT].

While you could argue, per Orci, that each of those events created a different universe, it is clear from all those episodes that Trek lives in a universe where each of those events and changes occurred."

Many of those changes would not really affect 20th century Earth, Tomorrow is yesterday has the Enterprise being photographed by a 1960's era jet fighter causing Kirk to beam the pilot on board and later infiltrate his base. They hit the reset button at the end with the slingshot effect so it's like it never happened.
The city on the edge of forever it was McCoy going back in time that changed history requiring Kirk to follow and reset everything.
Assignment earth was with Gary Seven, without Kirk to interfere he would have still done exactly what he did in the episode.
And Star Trek 4 the only lasting effect was Scotty giving that guy the transparent aluminum formula and a scary UFO sighting by a whaling ship, it only screws the 23rd century and we don’t yet know what will happen in this alternate timeline yet.
I can’t speak for the rest of the Trek timeline and you probably have a point with the others, something made the Kelvin look completely different from what was seen in TOS and Enterprise, but Kirks on-screen time travel is not a problem really, and Spock prime will be there to nudge them in the right direction.


You know when I stop and think about it, it was probably that temporal cold war crap from Enterprise that changed things so drastically. Damn time traveling cold warriors.