www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'd go see a Trek movie that you wrote

I wouldn't - it'd probably be shit. Which, going by the evidence available, is what XI is going to be. I might be wrong - the fact that the Enterprise depicted looks nothing like the original may be a key plot point. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that it's meant to be the same ship, which does not bode well for the rest of the film.

Captain Seafort wrote:However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that it's meant to be the same ship, which does not bode well for the rest of the film.

It's all gloom and doom with you. You're like the Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells of Star Trek.

Lazar wrote:People don't care. Only a small core of Trek fans care.

I love Trek, and know a lot more about it than I should. You won't see me complaining unless the movie sucks.

Lazar wrote:

Yes. So what?

So, the E-nil obviously needs to be updated.

And, it is.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote: I'd go see a Trek movie that you wrote

I wouldn't - it'd probably be s**t. Which, going by the evidence available, is what XI is going to be. I might be wrong - the fact that the Enterprise depicted looks nothing like the original may be a key plot point. However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it appears that it's meant to be the same ship, which does not bode well for the rest of the film.

Yeah, you don't seem to do a lot of creative writing.

If it is the same ship, then this is what it looks like now. New canon, I guess.

And, about the TARDIS:











...Hell, you're right; I can hardly see the difference.

Lazar wrote:You could start here. Why did the Romulans magically grow cranial ridges and turn green around 2300? Why did the Talarians turn into a completely different species? How did the NX-01 get to Rigel and Kronos so fast? How come the Eugenics Wars weren't happening when Voyager went back to the 1990s? Where did Voyager get all those damn shuttles?

The Romulans are close enough in TOS and TNG as to be an insignificant variation within the species - you'd have been better off giving the Klingons as examples. As for the rest, sure it's not perfect, but the fact that there were a few contradictions does not equate to "never showing a great regard for continuity.

Like it or not, they weren't aiming for that level of canon-adherence. I think their reimagining looks great.

Great. So they're not interested in getting even the most basic things right. Even as a stand-alone design, the ships isn't that good - the engineering hull is far too small in proportion to the saucer and nacelles, a problem made worse by the fact that the neck attaches to virtually its full length

People don't care. Only a small core of Trek fans care.

I very much doubt that people would care if they replicated the original design, provided they used 2000s rather than 60s special effects.

There were a few rare one-off episodes where they visualized the TOS Enterprise very strictly, but when it came time to do a big project, they reimagined it considerably.

When they came to a big project they remained faithful to the original design. What do you think TOS-R was, a couple of episodes? They're redoing the entire series.

If the one that's supposed to be in the 2260s looks like it was designed in the 1960s, and the one that's supposed to be in the 2150s looks like it was designed in the 2000s, then they're doing something wrong.

Different aesthetics - which could easilly happen given that they're more than a century apart. The fact that modern camera equipment provides a far sharper image also has a lot to do with it.

I can't believe that you actually think the E-nil bridge looks more advanced! Padding is irrelevant - the lack of padding didn't make STVI look less advanced than STV [EDIT - I was actually thinking of carpets here. Whatever.] Everything on the TOS bridge is blocky and simplistic by our standards; the NX-01 bridge has much more intricate detail on the walls, doors and consoles; and crucially, you're asking us to believe that modern computer screens and graphics just disappear between 2150 and 2260.

Of course the E-nil's bridge is simple - this is a good thing. You seem to think that bare metal and some fancy squiggles make something more advanced. As for modern computers and graphics, when did we get a close enough look on either series to make any sort of judgement on that?

So, the E-nil obviously needs to be updated.

Why? You're effectively saying that ships should have gaps several metres wide between adjoining hull plates.

Tsukiyumi wrote:And, about the TARDIS:

*snip photos*

...Hell, you're right; I can hardly see the difference.

Like I said, they changed the console room constantly - you've missed out the wood-panelled one Tom Baker used, the TV-movie one, and probably a couple of smaller variations.

Look at the external appearence though - the new one is a darker shade of blue and doesn't have wheels. That's it. It isn't a completely different shape - it's still a police box. I think they've even got some of the discolouration in the same places.

Captain Seafort wrote:...the new one is a darker shade of blue and doesn't have wheels. That's it. It isn't a completely different shape - it's still a police box. I think they've even got some of the discolouration in the same places.

And, as far as I'm concerned, the new E-nil is close enough to not bother me.

I think the real test will be whether the moviegoing public at-large care.

Captain Seafort wrote:The Romulans are close enough in TOS and TNG as to be an insignificant variation within the species -

But all of the Romulans in TOS were ridgeless, and all of the ones in TNG were ridged. (Although it's true that Spock went undercover without ridges.)

you'd have been better off giving the Klingons as examples.

But at least, for them, they made a half-assed attempt to explain it away. How about Kronos, which was supposed to have only 50 years left of habitability? They continued to use the name Kronos in later Trek, and they never even mentioned the issue in passing. Or look at how females could be chancellors in STVI, but not in TNG, and they never even had one throwaway line trying to explain it. (Although in reality, of course, the Duras thing came before STVI.) Or look at the Ferengi and Borg in Enterprise.

As for the rest, sure it's not perfect, but the fact that there were a few contradictions does not equate to "never showing a great regard for continuity.

There have been more than a few contradictions. They really just don't care that much about continuity.

Great. So they're not interested in getting even the most basic things right.

They're not interested in remaining shackled by 1960s visuals. The basic things are the characters and the spirit, not the visuals.

Even as a stand-alone design, the ships isn't that good - the engineering hull is far too small in proportion to the saucer and nacelles, a problem made worse by the fact that the neck attaches to virtually its full length

Considering the fact that the neck needs to support the warp core and a turbolift shaft, it might make sense to have a bigger connexion.

I very much doubt that people would care if they replicated the original design, provided they used 2000s rather than 60s special effects.

Well it would have looked kitsch, but I don't think that was what they were aiming for.

When they came to a big project they remained faithful to the original design. What do you think TOS-R was, a couple of episodes? They're redoing the entire series.

When they came to a big new project. TOS-R is an improvement of an old project. It's not new material with new actors, and it's not a movie.

Different aesthetics - which could easilly happen given that they're more than a century apart.

No it couldn't! Why would they stop using modern computer interfaces?

The fact that modern camera equipment provides a far sharper image also has a lot to do with it.

No it doesn't. I'm talking about design features.

Of course the E-nil's bridge is simple - this is a good thing. You seem to think that bare metal and some fancy squiggles make something more advanced.

Yes, they make something look more advanced. Them, and modern computer interfaces. Face it, the TOS bridge looks like it was designed for a 1960s TV show with a modest budget. As an imagination of what the 23rd century will look like, it's outdated.

As for modern computers and graphics, when did we get a close enough look on either series to make any sort of judgement on that?

It's a fact: the NX-01 bridge has modern LCD-style computer screens with modern computer graphics on them. The E-nil computer interfaces look primitive in comparison.

Why? You're effectively saying that ships should have gaps several metres wide between adjoining hull plates.

I'm saying that the E-nil should meet the same level of detail that we find on the NX-01 or the Con-refit. What is so hard to understand about that?

Lazar wrote:But all of the Romulans in TOS were ridgeless, and all of the ones in TNG were ridged. (Although it's true that Spock went undercover without ridges.)

The latter is pretty clear evidence that it's variation between the species.

But at least, for them, they made a half-assed attempt to explain it away.

After how many decades?

How about Kronos, which was supposed to have only 50 years left of habitability? They continued to use the name Kronos in later Trek, and they never even mentioned the issue in passing.

The issue never came up. Sure they could have shoehorned it in, but don't try and pretend it's a direct contradiction the way the new ship is.

Or look at how females could be chancellors in STVI, but not in TNG, and they never even had one throwaway line trying to explain it. (Although in reality, of course, the Duras thing came before STVI.)

The whole of Klingon culture also changed from somthing sensible to space-Vikings. Evidently something serious happened, we just don't know what.

Or look at the Ferengi and Borg in Enterprise.

The key word being Enterprise.

They're not interested in remaining shackled by 1960s visuals. The basic things are the characters and the spirit, not the visuals.

Fine, I'm not asking that they use 60s-vintage cameras. All I ask is that they get one ship right - the ship that was as much a character as any of the crew.

Considering the fact that the neck needs to support the warp core and a turbolift shaft, it might make sense to have a bigger connection.

1) Who says the warp core goes through the neck, 2) since when did a turbolift need a neck dozens of metres wide.

Well it would have looked kitsch, but I don't think that was what they were aiming for.

It would have looked what?

When they came to a big new project. TOS-R was an improvement of an old project. It's not new material with new actors, and it's not a movie.

And? It was still a big project. They could have changed the appearence of the E-nil hpwever much they liked. They didn't.

*snip various bridge complaints*

So a cluttered, crowded bridge with bare metal, a briefing room at the back, and poor access to the controls is "modern" is it?

It's a fact: the NX-01 bridge has modern LCD-style computer screens with modern-looking computer graphics on them. The E-nil computer interfaces look primitive in comparison.

Most of the E-nil's interfaces were behind hoods, like Spock's, or Sulu's pop-up targetting scope. Much easier to focus on. You're looking at fanciness over effectiveness.

I'm saying that the E-nil should meet the same level of detail that we find on the NX-01 or the Con-refit. What is so hard to understand about that?

The fact that that level of detail shouldn't be visible. What part of "several metres between hull plates" is so hard for you to understand?

Captain Seafort wrote:The latter is pretty clear evidence that it's variation between the species.

It's evidence that they haven't thought things through very well. An inconsistency within an inconsistency. If they wanted us to know that ridginess and non-ridginess were in free variation, then they should have at least shown us one real non-ridged Romulan in TNG.

After how many decades?

Fine, you're supporting my argument then.

The issue never came up. Sure they could have shoehorned it in, but don't try and pretend it's a direct contradiction the way the new ship is.

It's an apparent contradiction that we need to work (on our own) to explain away. That kind of stuff starts to pile up, and it starts to indicate that the writers just don't care.

The whole of Klingon culture also changed from somthing sensible to space-Vikings. Evidently something serious happened, we just don't know what.

More inconsistencies with no explanation.

The key word being Enterprise.

Exactly - the entirety of Enterprise supports my argument that they didn't care about continuity.

Fine, I'm not asking that they use 60s-vintage cameras.

No one was talking about cameras.

All I ask is that they get one ship right - the ship that was as much a character as any of the crew.

Okay, then how come the new Kirk doesn't look like William Shatner? I mean, they changed the ship significantly between TOS and TMP (and as Bernd has explained, they really have almost no structural elements in common), and it went over pretty well.

1) Who says the warp core goes through the neck, 2) since when did a turbolift need a neck dozens of metres wide.

Well I was assuming that things would be set up similar to the Con-refit.

It would have looked what?

Kitsch. Cute, sentimental, unsophisticated.

And? It was still a big project. They could have changed the appearence of the E-nil hpwever much they liked. They didn't.

It was a tweaking of the original series and was marketed as such - it basically was a modified re-release. And they weren't trying to compete as a blockbuster movie, or even as a broadcast show.

So a cluttered, crowded bridge with bare metal, a briefing room at the back, and poor access to the controls is "modern" is it?

I don't give a flip about the briefing room or the size; I'm talking about the materials and the consoles. The NX-01 bridge may be more spartan, but it looks a hell of a lot more futuristic. Once again, which one looks like it was designed in the 2000s and which one looks like it was designed in the 1960s? Once you have the answer to that question, think through the implications a bit.

Most of the E-nil's interfaces were behind hoods, like Spock's, or Sulu's pop-up targetting scope. Much easier to focus on. You're looking at fanciness over effectiveness.

We never saw a single LCD-style screen or Okudagram or anything resembling modern computer interfaces.

The fact that that level of detail shouldn't be visible. What part of "several metres between hull plates" is so hard for you to understand?

Nobody here suggested gaps of "several meters" except you. So you think every other Trek ship design has been flawed because of that, and that they all should have looked TOS-style instead? You'd prefer that they didn't have visible phaser turrets or RCS thrusters, and that they just look like big smooth monochrome shapes that were whipped up for a low-budget TV series?

Even as a stand-alone design, the ships isn't that good - the engineering hull is far too small in proportion to the saucer and nacelles, a problem made worse by the fact that the neck attaches to virtually its full length

Right. Engineering must be tiny in the new E-nil.

Lazar wrote: Considering the fact that the neck needs to support the warp core and a turbolift shaft, it might make sense to have a bigger connexion.

Uh, where do you get the idea that the warp core is in the neck??

Federation ships have NEVER had the warp core (Engineering) in the neck.

That would be an extra, unnecesarily long distance for EPS conduits to back down the neck and out to the nacelle pylons and to the nacelles.

Have you seen ANY master systems displays or Trek blueprints?

[/rant ]


Anyway, that aside, I think you guys take this far too seriously. Its JUST show!!

I'm excited to see it, I'm probably going to see it, hopefully the day it comes out.

It will be different, yes, probably unlike ANYTHING we have ever seen on Trek. I'll probably be annoyed with some things like I was with the tiny differences between First Contact and Nemesis, but its a different director, with his own style. Hopefully his style will be awesome enough to make up for any differences. I suspect they will.

Also, I do hope we get to see a fleet engagement. I'm sick of the Enterprise being the only ship in a battle. I'm tired of being teased with fleets, like in Nemesis, where they were supposed to meet up with the fleet, only to end up fighting it one on one again. (Ok, DS9 had a lot of fleet actions but its been a while since I've seen it.)

Oh, and as I've been told, "the problem with Trek is Trekkies."

LaughingCheese wrote:Right. Engineering must be tiny in the new E-nil.

Engineering wasn't very big in TMP and TWOK either. But in any case, the engineering room doesn't account for a large proportion of the secondary hull volume, so we don't really have any indication of how large it will be.

Uh, where do you get the idea that the warp core is in the neck????

Federation ships have NEVER had the warp core (Engineering) in the neck.

The Con-refit and the Excelsior both had the warp core going through the neck. Look at any MSD or cutaway of them.

That would be an extra, unnecesarily long distance for EPS conduits to back down the neck and out to the nacelle pylons and to the nacelles.

EPS conduits connect the warp core to the nacelles, and they travel through the secondary hull. What I'm talking about is the warp core itself.

Have you seen ANY master systems displays or Trek blueprints?

Evidently you haven't.

EDIT - Wait, you think that the warp core is the same thing as engineering? NO! The warp core is the big glowing column in the middle of the room. Please get your terminology straight.

All I have to say is, while I would have preferred the ship to remain the same, I am fine with some modifications. But this thing looks plain ugly.

The NX-01 bridge may be more spartan, but it looks a hell of a lot more futuristic.

Um no. It had conduits hanging around. Modern battleships are more futuristic.
Bright and shiney doesn't make it futuristic... just bright and shiney.


I wonder what Jeffries would say about the new design...

As for the Warp Core going through the neck... it can't. If you look on the bottom of the E-A, you can see the wc ejection system in the middle of the hull, nowhere near the neck.
Dont know about Excelsior though.

stitch626 wrote:Um no. It had conduits hanging around. Modern battleships are more futuristic.
Bright and shiney doesn't make it futuristic... just bright and shiney.

You seriously think that the E-nil bridge from the 1960s looks more futuristic than the NX-01 bridge? I can't believe I'm having this argument! I don't even like ENT. You don't think Archer's chair looks more futuristic than Kirk's chair? You don't think LCD screens and modern graphics look more futuristic than 1960s buttons and switches?

As for the Warp Core going through the neck... it can't. If you look on the bottom of the E-A, you can see the wc ejection system in the middle of the hull, nowhere near the neck.
Dont know about Excelsior though.

Well bear in mind that LaughingCheese thought that "warp core" meant "engineering". But no, every cutaway and deckplan set of the Con-refit shows the warp core located at the front of the primary hull and going through the neck.

I dont care what the cutaways, which arent cannon, say. The model has the ejection system in the middle of the engineering section. The ejection system is for the core, which is straight. Therefore there is no way for the core to be in the neck!

stitch626 wrote: Um no. It had conduits hanging around. Modern battleships are more futuristic.
Bright and shiney doesn't make it futuristic... just bright and shiney.

Her bridge (and most of the interior) looks like a chrome submarine, not a bad inspiration for a starship. At least having conduits in the open makes for ease of maintanence, unlike the horror show that was the TNG era.