Page 2 of 8
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 03:30pm
by Bounty
What makes you think they would have done more except get destroyed futilely?
Nothing. I just would have liked to see it. Not sure how they could have squeezed it in without looking pedantic though.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:06pm
by speaker-to-trolls
Nothing. I just would have liked to see it. Not sure how they could have squeezed it in without looking pedantic though.
Having the broken wreckage of some ships/space stations/whatever floating around the Narada when he orders the drill turned on Earth would have done it, I think. I agree that there should have been some indication they were putting up a fight, even if they hadn't heard that this was the ship that imploded Vulcan, having that thing hovering over you trying to drill into the centre of your planet is something you'd try to stop.
You know, come to think of it the drill was taken offline by two men with hand weapons earlier on, the Narada probably should have been flinging missiles into the area around where it was going to deploy the thing, otherwise it would be really easy to disable for anything with any sort of weapon.
Oh. And to add to the list: In the Kobayashi Maru test they mention the Klingons decloaking, so if that's to be believed the Narada somehow did alter the strategic situation a great deal, since the original versions first instance of a cloak was a Romulan secret weapon years later.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:19pm
by General Zod
speaker-to-trolls wrote:
Having the broken wreckage of some ships/space stations/whatever floating around the Narada when he orders the drill turned on Earth would have done it, I think. I agree that there should have been some indication they were putting up a fight, even if they hadn't heard that this was the ship that imploded Vulcan, having that thing hovering over you trying to drill into the centre of your planet is something you'd try to stop.
That would have probably defeated the point of using Vulcan to call away all of the remaining Starfleet ships around Earth. We DO see their wreckage around Vulcan when Nero gets done with them, after all.
You know, come to think of it the drill was taken offline by two men with hand weapons earlier on, the Narada probably should have been flinging missiles into the area around where it was going to deploy the thing, otherwise it would be really easy to disable for anything with any sort of weapon.
They had to get close enough in order to do so. Getting close was the real problem, there.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:32pm
by Havok
Maybe we can just agree that there are enough changes that Spock and Nero didn't just travel back in time, but they actually jumped timelines, and the one they are currently in is different from much further back than the Kelvin.
The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me and one possible reason for their existence could be that WWIII never took place and humanity was able to progress faster than in the TOS timeline which would explain the size and design differences that are present even in the Kelvin.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:33pm
by Bounty
The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me
How's that? From the looks of things huge chunks of the world came out fine. People'll still want booze in the future.
There's plenty of, say, German companies that got bombed to shit and came back after the war.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:43pm
by VT-16
I'm not sure, but if you explain the Kelvin as a one-shot design in the TOS-timeline, then the Abrams-era timeline might have made newer ships after it as an extra precaution given the existence of very large and destructive threats like the Narada, which didn't presumably appear at that point in time. Unless I'm an ass who neglected other contradictions in this thread, that is.

Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 04:57pm
by Cecelia5578
Havok wrote:Maybe we can just agree that there are enough changes that Spock and Nero didn't just travel back in time, but they actually jumped timelines, and the one they are currently in is different from much further back than the Kelvin.
The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me and one possible reason for their existence could be that WWIII never took place and humanity was able to progress faster than in the TOS timeline which would explain the size and design differences that are present even in the Kelvin.
Or, rather, the 21st century in the JJverse timeline didn't feature as destructive as WW3/Eugenics Wars that happened in the normal Trek timeline, so there may have never been as great as revulsion against the old order-stuff like capitalism and militarism-to have given birth to a "new human/TMP novel version" faction like there was (semi) canonically.
I'm just glad the Enterprise wasn't built in SF somewhere-building massive spaceships in the Bay Area would, justifiably, bring out NIMBY reactions in lots of people. At least the Enterprise was being built in the middle of nowhere, not in a massive urban area.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 05:36pm
by Junghalli
speaker-to-trolls wrote:Having the broken wreckage of some ships/space stations/whatever floating around the Narada when he orders the drill turned on Earth would have done it, I think. I agree that there should have been some indication they were putting up a fight, even if they hadn't heard that this was the ship that imploded Vulcan, having that thing hovering over you trying to drill into the centre of your planet is something you'd try to stop.
Personally what I'd have liked to see is the Narada entering Earth's orbit and Earth's defense grid proceeding to open a giant can of whoopass on it, but it just sits there and takes and it and starts dismantling the defense grid. It would have made a lot more sense and it would have effectively conveyed the idea that Nero is actually as dangerous as he's being cracked up to be.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 05:39pm
by General Zod
Junghalli wrote:speaker-to-trolls wrote:Having the broken wreckage of some ships/space stations/whatever floating around the Narada when he orders the drill turned on Earth would have done it, I think. I agree that there should have been some indication they were putting up a fight, even if they hadn't heard that this was the ship that imploded Vulcan, having that thing hovering over you trying to drill into the centre of your planet is something you'd try to stop.
Personally what I'd have liked to see is the Narada entering Earth's orbit and Earth's defense grid proceeding to open a giant can of whoopass on it, but it just sits there and takes and it and starts dismantling the defense grid. It would have made a lot more sense and it would have effectively conveyed the idea that Nero is actually as dangerous as he's being cracked up to be.
Completely obliterating every Federation ship that came to Vulcan didn't convey the idea that Nero was incredibly dangerous?
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 05:47pm
by Junghalli
General Zod wrote:Completely obliterating every Federation ship that came to Vulcan didn't convey the idea that Nero was incredibly dangerous?
It did, but if there was actually a serious defense grid around Earth and the tentacle ship just shrugged off everything it could throw at it that would have reinforced the point very nicely.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 06:39pm
by AMT
Since I was the inspiration for the thread, I'd like to make one extra addition since most of the ones I've noticed have already been put in place
--Sarek seems to be part of the Vulcan Science Academy/Leadership Council thing rather then a Federation Ambassador.
Though he could be both, he seems to be Vulcan's Ambassador to Earth, from the movie.
--Kirk presumably doesn't take a cadet tour on another starship, since he didn't join the Academy until he was 25, and went through it in 3 years time before becoming Captain.
If I'm misremembering, please feel free to correct me.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 07:03pm
by Coyote
Kirk was 25 in the movie; so he joined as a cadet when he was 22.
Also, Chekov was 17, meaning he'd joined as a cadet at 14. So apparently, there are some interesting age-waivers allowed. I suppose you can enroll in a Starfleet education course as a minor, so long as you are not actually deployed to duty until being 17 or 18.
The fact that Chekov is bridge crew from the get-go, as opposed to not being there at all or, as it was retconned after TWOK, he was there, but a 'minor ensign in the background'.
In this version, they know all about the Romulans; Uhura speaks "all three dialects" of their language.
But in all versions, Kirk gets to hump the green chick.

Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 07:07pm
by Aaron
Coyote wrote:
Also, Chekov was 17, meaning he'd joined as a cadet at 14. So apparently, there are some interesting age-waivers allowed. I suppose you can enroll in a Starfleet education course as a minor, so long as you are not actually deployed to duty until being 17 or 18.
Perhaps he enrolled under a Soldier Apprentice Program equivalent, it was a CF program that allowed young teens to sign up and learn an actual trade in exchange for a set number of years in the service. IIRC it started at 15.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-09 11:47pm
by FedRebel
Havok wrote:
The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me and one possible reason for their existence could be that WWIII never took place and humanity was able to progress faster than in the TOS timeline which would explain the size and design differences that are present even in the Kelvin.
Japan was literally turned into a parking lot, coast to coast by the USAAF in '45, yet a number companies, such as Mitsubishi survived and some have become far more successful than they were before the war
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 12:06am
by FSTargetDrone
Speaking of things to survive the World War, how did the Golden Gate bridge survive? Is it a rebuild? Was this ever addressed in any Trek media?
I was amused to see that townies still exist, as does the term for them.
Also, there is no doubt now (if there was before, sorry, I may have missed it in another thread) but
Enterprise does indeed have a physical view screen/window on the bridge that allows one to look into the ship from the outside. Also, there was a line from someone about repolarizing the main viewscreen, though I forget if that was on the
Kelvin or the
Enterprise. I think I heard Pike say it? I assume this repolarization was to screen out extreme brightness.
Btw, we saw cracks in the bridge paneling and the viewscreen... I can see how a new main window could be installed relatively easily, but if the ship suffered enough twisting or some other physical shock damage that was severe enough to crack the
interior of the bridge, how was
Enterprise returned to service so quickly?
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 12:13am
by Worlds Spanner
Threshold question: How did the ship crack without tearing apart entirely, or at least decompressing?
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 02:03am
by FSTargetDrone
<post withdrawn..I think I misread the above>
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 02:46am
by weemadando
The best change - Scotty having an Ugnaut of his own.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 04:39am
by DesertFly
FSTargetDrone wrote:Btw, we saw cracks in the bridge paneling and the viewscreen... I can see how a new main window could be installed relatively easily, but if the ship suffered enough twisting or some other physical shock damage that was severe enough to crack the interior of the bridge, how was Enterprise returned to service so quickly?
The movie doesn't really give a time frame between the destruction of the
Narada and the relaunch of the
Enterprise. It's easily conceivable that it was 6 months or more between those two events.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 06:09am
by Bounty
They moved the bridge.
It just hit me. The bridge has *always* been on Deck One, centre, in the dome, but this Enterprise had the bridge embedded in the "collar" underneath the sensor dome, at the far-front edge. It even opened out into a corridor at the back.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 06:49am
by Gandalf
Havok wrote:The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me and one possible reason for their existence could be that WWIII never took place and humanity was able to progress faster than in the TOS timeline which would explain the size and design differences that are present even in the Kelvin.
I just assumed that the Nokia in the car was because it was a functioning antique, complete with old timey tunes.
The others could have easily been new companies that took names of institutions that they remember from the pre-WW3 days.
I'm still wondering why there's still a Republic of California flag in the background of SFA's tribunal.

Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 06:53am
by Androsphinx
FedRebel wrote:Havok wrote:
The idea that Jack Daniels, Budweiser, Nokia etc. survived a nuclear WWIII seems silly to me and one possible reason for their existence could be that WWIII never took place and humanity was able to progress faster than in the TOS timeline which would explain the size and design differences that are present even in the Kelvin.
Japan was literally turned into a parking lot, coast to coast by the USAAF in '45, yet a number companies, such as Mitsubishi survived and some have become far more successful than they were before the war
And even if the companies themselves didn't survive, went bankrupt or whatever, legacy and name-recognition would be big incentives for any other company in the industry to acquire the name rights.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 06:55am
by La Maupin
Bounty wrote:They moved the bridge.
It just hit me. The bridge has *always* been on Deck One, centre, in the dome, but this Enterprise had the bridge embedded in the "collar" underneath the sensor dome, at the far-front edge. It even opened out into a corridor at the back.
I noticed, and I personally thought that was pretty awesome. I mean yes, it still has the ARGH WINDOW INTO SPACE problem, but at the same time, for a change the bridge isn't in the "yes, clean me completely off the hull with one lucky hit" position."
And the false bridge dome on top of the real bridge? I thought that was pretty neat, too.
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 07:03am
by Zablorg
Something that's occured to me regarding the new Federation's warp speed; (and my memory of the movie is admittedly a little sketchy so feel free to catch me)
The Enterprise spent a considerable amount of time warping to regroup with the fleet somewhere, then when Kirk gets back on board they start heading back to Earth to catch Nero, and I assume they arrive at roughly the same time. Could we assume that the new warp speed is fast enough to spend more than a 14 kilometer walk's time going the opposite direction and then turn around and head all the way back and then some to Earth, while Nero was going through a straight course, and still catch up with him?
Re: Differences Between TOS and Abrams Version (SPOILERS)
Posted: 2009-05-10 07:20am
by Androsphinx
Zablorg wrote:Something that's occured to me regarding the new Federation's warp speed; (and my memory of the movie is admittedly a little sketchy so feel free to catch me)
The Enterprise spent a considerable amount of time warping to regroup with the fleet somewhere, then when Kirk gets back on board they start heading back to Earth to catch Nero, and I assume they arrive at roughly the same time. Could we assume that the new warp speed is fast enough to spend more than a 14 kilometer walk's time going the opposite direction and then turn around and head all the way back and then some to Earth, while Nero was going through a straight course, and still catch up with him?
Considering that the Enterprise goes to warp, has the Kirk-Spock argument and has Kirk thrown overboard onto a planet from where Vulcan is much larger than our moon is to us, I don't think there's any way to establish a coherent idea of warp speed.
More directly to your question, we have no idea how fast the mining ship can go, or how far apart the courses to Earth and the fleet are.