StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh sure, you're right that they're trying to suck in the nerds with trademarks AND make a totally new continuity, but it's not like everyone has to fall for it.

Junghalli wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:It makes no sense that Starfleet would just decide to make their ships vastly bigger and more powerful. If they could just decide to do that, why didn't they do it in the original timeline and squash the Klingons easily?

Well, there are very good reasons for using your resources to build more small ships instead of a handful of big ships. Larger numbers of small ships can cover more ground; be in more places at one time.

And this reasoning somehow doesn't apply to this new timeline? The Federation has no problem leaving most of its territory unpatrolled for some reason?

For the resources that went into Monsterprise you could probably build dozens of lesser vessels that could patrol dozens of systems instead of just one. My guess, if I had to maintain some continuity with TOS, is they could have built the Monsterprise in the original timeline but chose not to because it would have been a ridiculous waste of resources. In this timeline apparently for some reason a huge super-expensive monster ship looked attractive.

See above. As I said, it doesn't make any sense. The new continuity probably just gives the Feds far more resources than they had before (and probably better technology too), which is fine if you're treating it as a franchise reboot but not if you're desperately trying to kludge it into the original continuity.

Junghalli wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:It makes no sense that Starfleet would just decide to make their ships vastly bigger and more powerful. If they could just decide to do that, why didn't they do it in the original timeline and squash the Klingons easily?

Well, there are very good reasons for using your resources to build more small ships instead of a handful of big ships. Larger numbers of small ships can cover more ground; be in more places at one time. For the resources that went into Monsterprise you could probably build dozens of lesser vessels that could patrol dozens of systems instead of just one. My guess, if I had to maintain some continuity with TOS, is they could have built the Monsterprise in the original timeline but chose not to because it would have been a ridiculous waste of resources. In this timeline apparently for some reason a huge super-expensive monster ship looked attractive.

Perhaps having an entire fleet getting wiped out like files may turn them towards experimenting with a 'sturdier' ship design?

If numbers failed to have any major impact, an alternative would be building a new fleet that can have a better chance of survival against Nero's ship?

I actually wonder how accurate the 3000 feet comment is...sure it was from a VFX guy but in a very casual interview. We'll probably have a better idea after the movie comes out, and a still better one once the DVD is out and people do some scaling.

Anguirus wrote: Spoiler

Not only that, but according to the comics he spanked the combined Federation and Klingon fleets in a Neo-Wolf 359, overpowering the Enterprise-E and blowing the hell out of Worf. That "mining ship" is actually a real monster built with Borg-tech.

Speculation: Nero and his big-ass ship radically shift the balance of power to the Romulans. He shows up, nukes a Federation ship, then flies to Romulus with it and overnight makes the Romulans into a galactic power. Starfleet radically alters its plans for new ships, making them larger and more powerful, in an attempt to defend against another sudden Romulan attack. That neatly explains the Monsterprise.

Ugh...sounds horrible. I'm glad the comics aren't considered canon.

Ilya Muromets wrote:So, any possible in-universe explanations for the MASSIVE up-scaling of the Enterprise from you guys? I'm going with the events involving the Kelvin getting its ass kicked by Nero's ship prompted Starfleet to become more militaristic. A more militaristic Starfleet probably would have found the specs for the original Connie lacking given Nero's monster. So, they decided to make a completely new and huge design to place even more firepower (and possibly armor)?

I am not sure if this is the case. The Kelvin had a crew of 800 and a massive hanger bay.

StarshipTitanic wrote: The design goes against the trend in stretching and squashing ships characteristic of the TNG era. Look at the "hero ship" style from Excelsior to Enterprise D to Voyager to Enterprise E. Each iteration pulls the dish and engineering sections apart and shortens the neck.

Which makes them look sleeker and faster. This one is definitely (and appropriately) retro.

Can anyone point out the shuttle bay's position on the new Enterprise?

That posted photo looked as if it was at the stern, as on the Connie.

Darth Wong wrote:It makes no sense that Starfleet would just decide to make their ships vastly bigger and more powerful. If they could just decide to do that, why didn't they do it in the original timeline and squash the Klingons easily?

We should just assume that this is an entirely new continuity, ie- a "reboot" rather than clumsily trying to make it fit with the original continuity.

That's how it's being marketed. From having seen the movie, I can tell you that a LOT of scenes seen on screen in TOS would be quite impossible if they followed after this. Although as one preview articles pointed out, one of the characters practically *said* that they were in some sort of alternate universe.

In general, the XI Starfleet seems much more organized that the Starfleet we've all come to know and despise. As someone pointed out from screencaps 1701 (Or was it the Kelvin?) seems to be carrying a lot of shuttlecraft.

I have seen the film (in a theater, for free) so the following is a *very* mild spoiler, but as a military, SF really does seem more competent. Spoiler

Having now seen the movie, the 3000ft figure for the new Enterprise seems dead-on. It's frickin' huge, both inside and out.

Is it being huge a big deal, or is it just the large end of regular Starfleet ships? Is it really a 'monsterprise' as the conservative fans think, or just what ships are like in the 'new' Star Trek?

Here's an image posted by Jon in the "EW.com reveals new Enterprise" thread. (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8&t=128523)

If we look at the lights along the saucer rim and assume that they are similarly sized windows, the XI 1701 is significantly larger, although I can't promise that those are all individual windows and I'm no expert on comparing screen caps.

How is that even REMOTELY relevant to my question? I'm asking Bounty if the ship is particularly outsize or large IN UNIVERSE (ie a one-off megaship to kill Unicron or whatever) or if larger-than-TOS ships are the norm (since the only two ships I've seen appear to be much larger).

It's not, and I suspect it wasn't meant to be to begin with. What I THINK Worlds Spanner was trying to do was give us a comparison of the classic E-nil/E-A and the relaunch vehicle.

Indeed, I'm thinking of the main part of this thread where we try to compare the XI 1701 to any known scale. In response to Stark: Spoiler

Yeah, that's what I figured. That makes the desperate attempts to make it some Back to the Future-style divergent timeline impossible, which I personally enjoy.

Stark wrote:Yeah, that's what I figured. That makes the desperate attempts to make it some Back to the Future-style divergent timeline impossible, which I personally enjoy.

Does it? I don't see how that follows...

It suggests the differences are far more than are just caused by Nero's advent, so it's not 'old TOS continuity + Nero', it's totally different.

Stark wrote:How is that even REMOTELY relevant to my question? I'm asking Bounty if the ship is particularly outsize or large IN UNIVERSE (ie a one-off megaship to kill Unicron or whatever) or if larger-than-TOS ships are the norm (since the only two ships I've seen appear to be much larger).

The Kelvin and Enterprise are really big in the new movie. You don't get a great look at the Farragut but it seems to be of a similar size. The starbase is also huge. I think the just upsized the whole fleet for this movie.

Stark wrote:It suggests the differences are far more than are just caused by Nero's advent, so it's not 'old TOS continuity + Nero', it's totally different.

Oh, yes, absolutely. They've marketed it as a reboot and I certainly don't see it as having any continuity with preexisting canon.

Sadly that doesn't stop the fans...

Stark wrote:Sadly that doesn't stop the fans...

The fans have invested so much of themselves into their precious Star Trek continuity that some of them are obviously in denial now. I don't see why they should be: the tattered worn-out corpse of Star Trek needs to be put to bed. Best to start fresh.

Haven't any of these people ever done spring cleaning? It's like a breath of fresh air. Of course, that doesn't preclude the ability of the franchise owners to make a mess out of it again, but for now, it's an improvement.

I remember one of the other threads had references to people being terrified that the movie would make all of TNG non-canon or something absurd like that, and others had to reassure them that it's parallel so it doesn't impact the old stuff at all.

This sort of thing comes up a lot in comicbook movie threads too; people honestly can't let go of a different version of the same characters, and they constantly complain that 'the backstory is wrong' or whatever when it's not wrong; it's TOTALLY SEPARATE.

Honestly, the less this sounds like a traditional Star Trek movie the more I'm interested in seeing it.

Remember with regards to rapid fans of old, we're talking about the sort of people who will eat at/from the same restaurant and menu choice for twenty years and not be unhappy about it.

tim31 wrote:Remember with regards to rapid fans of old, we're talking about the sort of people who will eat at/from the same restaurant and menu choice for twenty years and not be unhappy about it.

woah hey I do that.

but its a diner, they don't have a large menu anyway

Stark wrote:Sadly that doesn't stop the fans...

Or the director + screenwriters, sad and deluded as they are.

In all seriousness, we know very little about the state of Starfleet in the "original timeline" circa 2233 so I'm not sure what has been proven or disproven. I certainly don't begrudge them an effort to reach out to fans with the "Back to the Future" hijinks whilst still changing shit that they want to change for the sake of spectacle and story.

I am pretty excited by some of the spoiler comments in this thread and look forward to some awesome spaceship pron. I also can't help but notice that 3000 feet puts the Enterprise in a bit more similar neighborhood to ships like the smaller Star Destroyers, the Battlestars, and the larger Babylon 5 fleet ships...a bit of peer pressure maybe?

Anguirus wrote: Or the director + screenwriters, sad and deluded as they are.

Oh yeah, promoters saying stuff about a movie that to get people to watch it - unheard of, I know. I hear author's intent doesn't count for shit?