Re: Did JJs writers know anything about Star Trek?
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:46 pm
Also, I think this a more appropriate place for the newly split topic.
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
https://www.ditl.org/forum/
What would make you assume that?Atekimogus wrote:I guess I just always assumed that the Narada traveled back in time...but not back in time in their "own" universe but back in time into the "abramsverse".
"That's a big ship" is not "that's the biggest ship around". The one does not even imply the other. I've had that exact reaction to ships before now - saw a picture of a Type 45 once and said it almost word for word. That in no way implies that the Type 45 is the biggest ship in the world, or remotely close to being so.Captain Seafort wrote:There is, however, solid evidence that the Excelsior was something unusual for her time - McCoy's somewhat awed comment that she was a big ship. Yes, he's a doctor, not an engineer, and yes, it's not a detailed analysis of the precise dimensions of the Ex compared to her contemporaries, but it is coming from a Starfleet officer of many decades experience, who's seen pretty much everything the galaxy had to offer.
Personally prefer?Graham Kennedy wrote:"That's a big ship" is not "that's the biggest ship around". The one does not even imply the other. I've had that exact reaction to ships before now - saw a picture of a Type 45 once and said it almost word for word. That in no way implies that the Type 45 is the biggest ship in the world, or remotely close to being so.Captain Seafort wrote:There is, however, solid evidence that the Excelsior was something unusual for her time - McCoy's somewhat awed comment that she was a big ship. Yes, he's a doctor, not an engineer, and yes, it's not a detailed analysis of the precise dimensions of the Ex compared to her contemporaries, but it is coming from a Starfleet officer of many decades experience, who's seen pretty much everything the galaxy had to offer.
I just don't get why people seem so determined over this. A ship is bigger than they'd personally prefer... and so the entire universe must be re-written? Bizarre.
Yes. That's literally all it is.Jim wrote:Personally prefer?
Why is it? Until Star Trek II we'd never even seen a contemporary of the Constitutions, not once. And not until Enterprise did we ever see an actual example of a real life pre-TOS Starship - until then you had to rely on concept art and speculative models seen in the background to even know that the Constitution wasn't Starfleet's very first ship.As I pointed out, even according to this site, of KNOWN Federation ships of the time... it took nearly 90 years after the Kelvin for a ship to come along with anything close to similar size. Then another 40 years on top of that for something of no question larger size. To go off on a limb and take the position that maybe there were Federation ships that we have never seen/herd of that were considerable larger than than anything that we do know about is the bizarre point of view.
Well, there was the Botany Bay but I think your point still stands.Graham Kennedy wrote:And not until Enterprise did we ever see an actual example of a real life pre-TOS Starship
In most, if not all, other fields of technology we consider miniaturization to be a symbol - if not either the means or the end - of advancement in technology rather than than regression. Why not in this case? It's definitely as easy to posit that miniaturization and automation were the hallmarks of advancement until a certain point - say, the development of the Connie refit or Ex or so - when that avenue was exhausted and advancement produced size increases again; as it is to say, "This lineage can't be, it hurts my brain!"McAvoy wrote:But then we got by the 24th century where we ships over a hundred years old serving in the fleet who are smaller than the modern ships of the 24th centurycentury.
So why are these pre TOS ships so large then? What is missing between Enterprise and TOS?
Botany Bay wasn't a Starship.Mikey wrote:Well, there was the Botany Bay but I think your point still stands.
I think it's most likely just that different sizes result from different design goals. This is pretty much what happens today; nobody builds ships that are as big as we are able to build them, and ship sizes do not increase because we have gained the ability to build larger ships. We build ships that are as big as they need to be to accomplish the job they are built for, for the price the builders can afford.In most, if not all, other fields of technology we consider miniaturization to be a symbol - if not either the means or the end - of advancement in technology rather than than regression. Why not in this case? It's definitely as easy to posit that miniaturization and automation were the hallmarks of advancement until a certain point - say, the development of the Connie refit or Ex or so - when that avenue was exhausted and advancement produced size increases again; as it is to say, "This lineage can't be, it hurts my brain!"
Oh okay, so what you are saying is that you own site is useless garbage. Not your actual words, but the meaning behind what you are saying. Got it.Graham Kennedy wrote:Yes. That's literally all it is.Jim wrote:Personally prefer?
Why is it? Until Star Trek II we'd never even seen a contemporary of the Constitutions, not once. And not until Enterprise did we ever see an actual example of a real life pre-TOS Starship - until then you had to rely on concept art and speculative models seen in the background to even know that the Constitution wasn't Starfleet's very first ship.As I pointed out, even according to this site, of KNOWN Federation ships of the time... it took nearly 90 years after the Kelvin for a ship to come along with anything close to similar size. Then another 40 years on top of that for something of no question larger size. To go off on a limb and take the position that maybe there were Federation ships that we have never seen/herd of that were considerable larger than than anything that we do know about is the bizarre point of view.
But you think it's a bizarre point of view to assume that there had to be Starship designs that we'd never seen? Of course there have to be ships we've never seen.
I call it a personal preference because some people have seized on the fact that the "hero ships" have gotten bigger in each iteration from NX to E-D, and seem to have decided that it is Holy Writ handed down from on high that it must always have been so and must always be so. And people have become so completely invested in this opinion, which is entirely unsupported by anything whatsoever in canon - and now outright contradicted by it - that they are quite literally willing to dismiss what is put up there on the screen and simply pretend that it isn't so.
Joe Bloggs off the street thinking something is big and an experienced naval officer thinking something is big are two entirely different things. Moreover, it wasn't just an off the cuff comment - McCoy's tone clearly indicated that he considered the Ex something exceptional.Graham Kennedy wrote:"That's a big ship" is not "that's the biggest ship around". The one does not even imply the other. I've had that exact reaction to ships before now - saw a picture of a Type 45 once and said it almost word for word.
It's not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of previously established canon of what is considered "big". McCoy considered the Ex to be very big over half a century after the Kelvin, and Picard was "in awe" of the size E-D over a century after the neo-E, yet the Abramsverse ships were as big or bigger than the much later Primeverse ones. The two options available are to go Bernd's route, and assert that the extensive evidence of the ships' sizes should be ignored, or to conclude that something had already changed the Abramsverse before Nero and Spock's arrival.I just don't get why people seem so determined over this. A ship is bigger than they'd personally prefer... and so the entire universe must be re-written? Bizarre.
And compared to the Enterprise, it is. Is there any reason to think that's not what McCoy meant?Captain Seafort wrote:Joe Bloggs off the street thinking something is big and an experienced naval officer thinking something is big are two entirely different things. Moreover, it wasn't just an off the cuff comment - McCoy's tone clearly indicated that he considered the Ex something exceptional.
"Big" is a very flexible word. It literally tells you nothing at all about how big the thing is compared to anything else.It's not a matter of personal preference, it's a matter of previously established canon of what is considered "big".
No, the third option is to look at what the characters have said, and not make unjustified assumpions about what they meant. Then the "problem" completely goes away.McCoy considered the Ex to be very big over half a century after the Kelvin, and Picard was "in awe" of the size E-D over a century after the neo-E, yet the Abramsverse ships were as big or bigger than the much later Primeverse ones. The two options available are to go Bernd's route, and assert that the extensive evidence of the ships' sizes should be ignored, or to conclude that something had already changed the Abramsverse before Nero and Spock's arrival.
Because it looks and feels similar...but is still completely different. That along with the known fact of near endless parallel universes in the star trek universe......well...it just made so much more sense to assume they travel back into a similar parallel universe instead of the prime-verse. Or that the changes to the timeline also extended into the past......Graham Kennedy wrote:What would make you assume that?Atekimogus wrote:I guess I just always assumed that the Narada traveled back in time...but not back in time in their "own" universe but back in time into the "abramsverse".
What does, the Narada?Atekimogus wrote:Because it looks and feels similar...but is still completely different.
Meh, I don't think it will make any real difference. From the POV of the future of the prime timeline, the only change is that Spock is gone, and Romulus is gone. Spock... well, it's not like he's gonna be making any more guest appearances. Romulus? Just have a line about how the Romulans spent the last decade struggling to recover from the loss of Romulus and their capital world is now a different world. The sum total of that change is that you use a different word for the planet instead of "Romulus". Big whoop.It also preserves the prime-timeline virtually undamaged for use in the upcoming new Star Trek series