NationStates Jolt Archive

We were SUPPOSED to get this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/USS_Enterprise_NCC-1701_ENT.jpg

What we are getting is this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg

Oh, and a boob grabbing Kirk, but somethings never change. :D

Alright fellow Trek fans, here's the new and 'improved' Enterprise, what's your take on it?

Looks like a 2009 Model Enterprise. Bet ts got more cupholders and better fuel economy too.

I like it. It's got sort of a future retro look to it. Of course, the quality of the actual film is still up in the air. :p

Using better effects to show the original Enterprise: Good

Redesigning the original Enterprise: Bad.

Most recent Star Trek Movies/series: Bad. To the point of unwatchability for original Trekkers.

Looks like a 2009 Model Enterprise. Bet ts got more cupholders and better fuel economy too.
It apparently does come equipped with handle bars and/or seat belts this time too. :eek: Blasphemy I tell you! Blasphemy! :tongue:

I remember the whining and bitching and moaning of quite a few trekkies when the early concepts of the Phase 2 Enterprise got out. I still think that the Enterprise model seen in Star Treks 1-6 was superior in every way to the model from TOS. I just hope they'll fix this to be a little more in line with what fans are expecting before the film is released.

I just looked at the trailer for the movie. I don't know whether to cry or puke.

Wait is that supposed to be the new Enterprise model?

Does that mean this new one will have the designation 1701-F?
What is the class?

It apparently does come equipped with handle bars and/or seat belts this time too. :eek: Blasphemy I tell you! Blasphemy! :tongue:

What? No Airbags or crumple zones?

Wait is that supposed to be the new Enterprise model?

Does that mean this new one will have the designation 1701-F?
What is the class?

It's apparently the original 1701.

It apparently does come equipped with handle bars and/or seat belts this time too. :eek: Blasphemy I tell you! Blasphemy! :tongue:

Hang on, how will the bridge crew be thrown around the bridge, when the inevitable happens?

It's funny how it only took about 60 years before seat belts were made mandatory in cars but later on in the future it took quite a lot longer. Advanced civilisation my arse. :p

Is it SUPPOSED to be the model they were in in the OS or is it supposed to be a slightly earlier version?

It apparently does come equipped with handle bars and/or seat belts this time too. :eek: Blasphemy I tell you! Blasphemy! :tongue:

I always wondered about that. don't you think it would be easier to keep crewmen from getting tossed out of their chairs if the seats had seat belts and they had to fasten them during a red alert.

Is it SUPPOSED to be the model they were in in the OS or is it supposed to be a slightly earlier version?
Considering that the movie is set in time after the Enterprise is launched (From Iowa apparently) and through the time when Kirk takes command, yes, it's supposed to be the Enterprise as seen in The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before.

I always wondered about that. don't you think it would be easier to keep crewmen from getting tossed out of their chairs if the seats had seat belts and they had to fasten them during a red alert.

I can see an argument that crew members might have to move around the bridge during a red alert (to render medical aid or take over a station from someone else for example). An "Oh SHIT!" bar they could grab on to when the deck started rolling would be better than seatbelts for that situation.

I just looked at the trailer for the movie. I don't know whether to cry or puke.
The old teaser trailer or did you manage to find a leaked new trailer?

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.

Its completely retarded.

I get it, youre set up to fail, so that your superiors get to see how you handle defeat.
Only, youre not really failing...its only a simulation, and everyone knows it. It doesnt matter what you do...youre going to lose.

I teach people to train thier dogs.

Rule #1:

Never set your students up for failure.

As to that point:

Kirk cheated. He hacked the system, and rigged it so he could win.
AND THEY GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ENTERPRISE?!

No way.

Immediate expulsion.

You dont get "points for creativity". You cheat...youre out on your ass.

How retarded.

The old teaser trailer or did you manage to find a leaked new trailer?

The old teaser I think, It was on IMDB. To be perfectly honest, I don't think I want to see any more.

They look pretty much the same. Except the top one is the Dodge to the bottom one's Chrysler.

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.

Its completely retarded.

I get it, youre set up to fail, so that your superiors get to see how you handle defeat.
Only, youre not really failing...its only a simulation, and everyone knows it. It doesnt matter what you do...youre going to lose.

I teach people to train thier dogs.

Rule #1:

Never set your students up for failure.

As to that point:

Kirk cheated. He hacked the system, and rigged it so he could win.
AND THEY GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ENTERPRISE?!

No way.

Immediate expulsion.

You dont get "points for creativity". You cheat...youre out on your ass.

How retarded.
Not really, the Kobiyashi Maru test is designed to see how a starship commander handles a no-win situation. Chances are, given from what we saw on WoK, the cadets don't know what they're going into. As for Kirk, it does make sense. Yes, he cheated, on his third time, but it showed a flair for changing the rules in order to win. Some of the best commanders in RL have thought that way, it's how they win battles and wars.

We were SUPPOSED to get this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/USS_Enterprise_NCC-1701_ENT.jpg

What we are getting is this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg

Oh, and a boob grabbing Kirk, but somethings never change. :D

Alright fellow Trek fans, here's the new and 'improved' Enterprise, what's your take on it?

My take on it is that I'm glad I don't plan to see the film, as I'm sure I would be entirely disappointed.

Bad Guy (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Trekneroship.jpg)

Seriously??? I thought the idea was to move away from over-the-top campy crap.

Meh...until they go back to the post-TNG/DS9/VOY era, something I don't expect to happen anytime soon, I'm completely uninterested anyways.

I can see an argument that crew members might have to move around the bridge during a red alert (to render medical aid or take over a station from someone else for example). An "Oh SHIT!" bar they could grab on to when the deck started rolling would be better than seatbelts for that situation.

Also, in many science fiction universes, spaceships are thought of, oftentimes, in a fairly nautical frame of mind. Even the name suggests that they are analogous to naval vessels. I don't know if USN ships have seat belts now, but as far as I'm aware, the bridges of most ships don't have seat belts.

I could be wrong.

It's apparently the original 1701.

Well see this is what pisses me off when franchises such as this begin changing the original story and messing everything up. This is simply atroucious and damn... ...I hate what Star Trek has become.

...I hate what Star Trek has become.

RAWR!!.. Angreh Blouman!

Ahem, well I've been wondering for a fair few years why they don't just continue the storyline after Voyager/DS9 kinda time - instead of trying to make the camp original storyline into something it just can't be.
:P
I mean seriously, you can't really tell me you took Capt. 'We come in Peace - Shoot to Kill' Kirk seriously at all??
:rolleyes:

RAWR!!.. Angreh Blouman!

Ahem, well I've been wondering for a fair few years why they don't just continue the storyline after Voyager/DS9 kinda time - instead of trying to make the camp original storyline into something it just can't be.
:P

Well that's exactly my point do it in the way the creator wanted it, it really started going downhill when Roddenberry died. And now they are trying to change the history and come up with new stories which then makes the previouis storylines bogus, and yet they are still there.

I mean seriously, you can't really tell me you took Capt. 'We come in Peace - Shoot to Kill' Kirk seriously at all??
:rolleyes:

Because of his rough and tumble attitude Kirk was clearly superior over Picard. :p

I liked TOS and I liked TNG but DS9 and Voyager was just shit, and Enterprise was just as bad.

Looks like a 2009 Model Enterprise. Bet ts got more cupholders and better fuel economy too.

Still, no safety belts and no fuses.

Because of his rough and tumble attitude Kirk was clearly superior over Picard. :p

I liked TOS and I liked TNG but DS9 and Voyager was just shit, and Enterprise was just as bad.

Kirk always annoyed me lol although I can't remember not laughing at his character or the acting ahem 'skillsz' of Shatner. I liked Picard's character more - plus they had a Doctor called Crusher hah, superb!

How comes you think DS9/Voyager was shit? I enjoyed a few episodes of Voyager and DS9 was very interesting, especially with all the Dominion? War (can't remember) arcs that went on.

Enterprise might've been better as a series not about Star Trek imo... I like the rugged future-y kinda feel.

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.

Its completely retarded.

I get it, youre set up to fail, so that your superiors get to see how you handle defeat.
Only, youre not really failing...its only a simulation, and everyone knows it. It doesnt matter what you do...youre going to lose.

I teach people to train thier dogs.

Rule #1:

Never set your students up for failure.

As to that point:

Kirk cheated. He hacked the system, and rigged it so he could win.
AND THEY GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ENTERPRISE?!

No way.

Immediate expulsion.

You dont get "points for creativity". You cheat...youre out on your ass.

How retarded.

They used the no winning outcome scenarios for training the people in charge of defending the Atlantic convoys in WWII. It was very successful, it gave the commanders a much more realistic and pragmatic approach, in such situations people need to be able to make a decision where there is no obvious choice and whatever you choose will lead to people dying. The important thing is to make a decision and not just freeze, and this is the kind of training that achieved that.

What the holy living FUCK is up with those nacelles?!

The Enterprise! YOU RUINED THE Enterprise YOU MONSTERS!

That's it. I've had it. I think we can officially call this the beginning of NuTrek, the reboot.

Old Trek now, Old Trek forever!

What the holy living FUCK is up with those nacelles?!
As far as I can tell, it's like someone decided that what they REALLY wanted was to do the refit version and made this... a marriage of the refit nacelles and TOS nacelles.

As far as I can tell, it's like someone decided that what they REALLY wanted was to do the refit version and made this... a marriage of the refit nacelles and TOS nacelles.

But it looks like a JET ENGINE on the front! :(

I'm telling you, we're going to have to be the standard bearers for OldTrek. It'll live on, in fan series like Star Trek: Hidden Frontier, Odyssey, and Helena Chronicles, plus fanfiction and such.

While NuTrek gets lots of new fans, OldTrek will be the real Star Trek.

Either that or we'll just whine a lot then tune in to NuTrek anyway...

Kirk always annoyed me lol although I can't remember not laughing at his character or the acting ahem 'skillsz' of Shatner. I liked Picard's character more - plus they had a Doctor called Crusher hah, superb!

Well TOS also brought to the front mainstream issues at the time and tried to have some sort of moral at the end of it. Kirk didn't really annoy me that much he was on the edge of the fronteirere coming up against new races that usually threatned the Enterprise and his crew. Picard was different and was usually a bit more diplomatic though when you are usually just running around getting people off planets and escorting diplomats around. Though I did enjoy TNG.

How comes you think DS9/Voyager was shit? I enjoyed a few episodes of Voyager and DS9 was very interesting, especially with all the Dominion? War (can't remember) arcs that went on.

Enterprise might've been better as a series not about Star Trek imo... I like the rugged future-y kinda feel.

They both had poorly wrttern story lines and continued to introduce new carachters. I couldn't take Voyager serisosly and talking about bad acting most of the Voygaer cast were poor at acting which when combined with poor writing wrecked it. DS9 just I think not that great a story line and I never really liked it. Of couse that is just my opinion but yeah I never did like either of them.

Enterprise, I shouldn't have passed judgement to early I did only watch a couple of them.

I'm not sure what to expect from this movie.

I don't care what people say, I liked DS9, and I liked the last few TNG movies. I did not like Voyager (most of the characters just got on my nerves, and Janeway is pathetic next to Picard, Sisko and Kirk). I've not seen Enterprise, but I'd sooner watch it than Voyager.

I think the reason Enterprise tanked was because Star Trek has always been about going forward, not backward. All of TNG, DS9 and Voy expanded on the Star Trek universe created in TOS. Enterprise was meant to "fill in the gaps", much like the three new Star Wars movies. But, as was the case with the aforementioned Star Wars movies, a prequel was not needed, and ended up ruining the storyline for the franchise. People don't want to see prequels, they want to see progress. With a prequel, you KNOW who can't die and who has to die. You basically know the ending before the beginning. So what's the point in watching, except for the storyline?

But here's the catch - Star Trek has never been about the storyline. It's always been about exploring space and meeting new aliens and moral ideas and so on and so fourth.

I'll watch the film, but I probably won't enjoy it.

We were SUPPOSED to get this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/USS_Enterprise_NCC-1701_ENT.jpg

What we are getting is this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg

Oh, and a boob grabbing Kirk, but somethings never change. :D

Alright fellow Trek fans, here's the new and 'improved' Enterprise, what's your take on it?

Okay, (pfffft sound) there goes another piece of my childhood, ruined because Hollywood doesn't have any new ideas.

Okay, (pfffft sound) there goes another piece of my childhood, ruined because Hollywood doesn't have any new ideas.

I guess I'll never understand. To me they look almost the same.

There's a new movie coming up? In any case, the new Enterprise looks like shit.

Come on, snap out of the denial.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg


You know the new Enterprise looks better.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg


You like it. You want it.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg


It's better, it looks more stylish, it's sleeker and meaner. You like it.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg


Just admit it.

Come on, snap out of the denial.

lol, but they need to keep consistent.

I can't wait to see how badly they fuck up the Galaxy class.

Now you people know how I felt when they screwed up Harry Dresden in that awful Dresden Files TV show!

Also, did anyone see picture of Kirk and Spock for this movie? Wow....

What the holy living FUCK is up with those nacelles?!

The Enterprise! YOU RUINED THE Enterprise YOU MONSTERS!

That's it. I've had it. I think we can officially call this the beginning of NuTrek, the reboot.

Old Trek now, Old Trek forever!

I didn't like the design of the Federation ships anyway. The protruding nacelles struck me as singularly horrible design in the event that anything vaguely threatening looks their way.

I didn't like the design of the Federation ships anyway. The protruding nacelles struck me as singularly horrible design in the event that anything vaguely threatening looks their way.

Indeed. All those struts linking the parts of the ship, too. They all look to me as though you could destroy the ship easily just by hitting the comparatively narrow 'neck' portion, or disable it by hitting the other struts.

Now you people know how I felt when they screwed up Harry Dresden in that awful Dresden Files TV show!

Also, did anyone see picture of Kirk and Spock for this movie? Wow....

NO, have you got a link wilgrove?

NO, have you got a link wilgrove?
http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/

With more here: http://trekmovie.com/category/star-trek-xi/

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/

With more here: http://trekmovie.com/category/star-trek-xi/

Much obliged.

And yeah what the hell.

So wait, they are all meant to be on the USS Kelvin before heading over to the Enterprise? That isn't in line with the storyline on that was mentioned on various TOS enterprises.

And considering the Constitution Class was meant to be the pride of the fleet and the Enterprise the flagship I am amazed at how good the inside of the Kelvin looks compared to the inside of the Enterprise.

I know that they can make it look better nowadays but come on, you shouldn't be going for the money they should be going for consistency and remain true to the story line and Roddenberry's vision.

As long as the unnamed ensign that goes down to the planet with the away team gets killed then I will be happier :p

Much obliged.

And yeah what the hell.

So wait, they are all meant to be on the USS Kelvin before heading over to the Enterprise? That isn't in line with the storyline on that was mentioned on various TOS enterprises.

And considering the Constitution Class was meant to be the pride of the fleet and the Enterprise the flagship I am amazed at how good the inside of the Kelvin looks compared to the inside of the Enterprise.

I know that they can make it look better nowadays but come on, you shouldn't be going for the money they should be going for consistency and remain true to the story line and Roddenberry's vision.

As long as the unnamed ensign that goes down to the planet with the away team gets killed then I will be happier :p
Not quite, the USS Kelvin is Kirk's father's ship. The shots of Kirk close to the age he was on TOS inside a ship is indeed the Enterprise. That's the bridge of the Enterprise for the movie.

I can confirm that a red shirt will indeed bite the dust during an away mission though. :D

Seriously??? I thought the idea was to move away from over-the-top campy crap.
Star Trek was always 100% pure camp. Seriously, it had the Shatner, exploding control panels, noise in space, alien mommies, hot aliens, lizard aliens that looked like giant rolls of carpet, and gibberish languages that apparently had "real" vocabularies and grammar rules.

It looks like a giant hair dryer. :eek:

What the holy living FUCK is up with those nacelles?!

The Enterprise! YOU RUINED THE Enterprise YOU MONSTERS!

That's it. I've had it. I think we can officially call this the beginning of NuTrek, the reboot.

Old Trek now, Old Trek forever!

They Changed It, Now It Sucks! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)

Ncc-1701wtf.

It looks like a giant hair dryer. :eek:

At least it'll come in handy then. :D

At least it'll come in handy then. :D

Perhaps. Especially for teh lulz.

Perhaps. Especially for teh lulz.

At last! A movie I can laugh at! :D

Looks rather like a reboot of the A to me, what with that blue dish on the front.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/

With more here: http://trekmovie.com/category/star-trek-xi/
Okay, so what we learn is:

1) The crew started their careers when they were 16 years old, by the looks of it. Space 90210, much?

2) Spock was born with a fake Nimoy nose.

3) The appearance of personalities in the first series was only an illusion, or else a bitter, bitter lie. This film will correct that history to be in line with the personality-lacking later series, thus proving that, despite ancient legends, it has never been fun to be in space.

4) That villain -- WTF? Romulan my ass. I can think of at least three, maybe four other sources they are blatantly and uncreatively ripping off for that character -- and none of them are TOS. And from just that one still, I can tell I want to bring an Oscar to Eric Bana, beat him senseless with it, and then give it a real actor in a different role.

5) The filmmakers are out to help me economize in these difficult times by encouraging me NOT to spend my money on them.

They Changed It, Now It Sucks! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks)
Except, of course, for when it does suck. Be open-minded if you like, but this is today's movie industry we're talking about, and I'm sticking with my Space 90210 prediction -- except with even less entertainment value.

You know, what's funny? The viilain's name means genius in Finnish. Which, results that Emperor Nero's name mean't Genius if you translate it from Finnish.

Except, of course, for when it does suck. Be open-minded if you like, but this is today's movie industry we're talking about, and I'm sticking with my Space 90210 prediction -- except with even less entertainment value.

I withhold judgment until I see it. Though the last few movies (Everything after First Contact) have sucked. I'm open to the possibility it won't be horrible.

At last! A movie I can laugh at! :D

Star Trek: The Blow Dryer Experience?:tongue:

Using better effects to show the original Enterprise: Good

Redesigning the original Enterprise: Bad.

Most recent Star Trek Movies/series: Bad. To the point of unwatchability for original Trekkers.

Then don't watch.





Yeah, that's what I thought.

Seriously, fanboys, at this point, you should be grateful there's any Trek going on at all. I'm a fan of the series, but a realistic one. I have no control over the design that those in charge of such things do, so I let it go and reserve judgment until I see the film or series or whatever.

I realize I'm pissing into the wind here, but for cryin' out loud, you're getting another installment. Relax. The people who make movies don't owe the fans a damned thing. If the fans don't like it, they won't be fans much longer. The people in charge will be sacked, and after some time goes by, the franchise will be reborn. Remember Batman, folks.

Star Trek 10: Greased Lightnin'!

Can someone explain to me why the Kelvan apparently has a webcam on top of it?

Or, for that matter, why the bridge of the Enterprise looks horribly tacky?

star trek 10: Greased lightnin'!

xi.

EDIT: Oh for fuck's sake, it's a Roman numeral! :headbang:

Its quite similar, but they've jazzed it up a bit. Seriously, what were you guys expecting? Its still recognisable. Chillax :)

it's only a movie...

it's only a movie...

It's only a model.

It's only a model.

Shhh!

it's only a movie...

What you fail to realise is that if ANYTHING from the original series is changed, the world sea level will rise by ten feet from fanboy tears. And the entire world computer network will crash as all the worlds' geeks commit collective suicide. Governments will collapse and the world will left be defenceless against invasion by vicious aliens who look strangely like humans wearing cheap masks and whose ships are made of a substance with remarkable similarity to cardboard. Not so unimportant now, huh?

What you fail to realise is that if ANYTHING from the original series is changed, the world sea level will rise by ten feet from fanboy tears. And the entire world computer network will crash as all the worlds' geeks commit collective suicide. Governments will collapse and the world will left be defenceless against invasion by vicious aliens who look strangely like humans wearing cheap masks and whose ships are made of a substance with remarkable similarity to cardboard. Not so unimportant now, huh?

William Shatner: You know, before I answer any more questions there's something I wanted to say. Having received all your letters over the years, and I've spoken to many of you, and some of you have traveled... y'know... hundreds of miles to be here, I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!

[ a crowd of shocked and dismayed Trekkies.... ]

I mean, how old are you people? What have you done with yourselves?

[ to "Ears" ] You, you must be almost 30... have you ever kissed a girl?

[ "Ears" hangs his head ]

I didn't think so! There's a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn't watch television! I LIVED! So... move out of your parent's basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it's just a TV show dammit, IT'S JUST A TV SHOW!

As someone who calmly lived through the Transformers nerd rage of aught-seven, I highly encourage everyone to calm down. Looks pretty slick to me.

as someone who calmly lived through the transformers nerd rage of aught-seven, i highly encourage everyone to calm down. Looks pretty slick to me.

omg flames on optimus prime! Kill michael bay!

omg flames on optimus prime! Kill michael bay!

I was more amused with the "Why isn't Megatron a gun omgwtf" crowd, who apparently hadn't had anything to do with the Transfomers since 1986.

Most recent Star Trek Movies/series: Bad. To the point of unwatchability for original Trekkers.

Didn't you love it when Frakes bragged about how they managed to get a car race in it, because action is what is so good about star trek?

I so wanted to punch him in the face. With brass knuckles. And didn't watch the movie in the cinema, of course.

I always wondered about that. don't you think it would be easier to keep crewmen from getting tossed out of their chairs if the seats had seat belts and they had to fasten them during a red alert.

Of course, not having any belts was actually more realistic. If a ship can't absorb the little shaking from a nearby explosion, how can you trust it to accelerate to lightspeed? Now obviously, we accept this because it just looks better if people get thrown about a little during a battle, but.. seatbelts? That's so ridiculous...
It's as if an action hero, after being severely wounded and then looking perfectly ok a few seconds later (which is usual) would get a contract with a hairspray vendor because he has this rock solid hairstyle...

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.
Kobayashi Maru

OP

There's a difference? Also, cry more. :p

We were SUPPOSED to get this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/USS_Enterprise_NCC-1701_ENT.jpg

What we are getting is this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg

Oh, and a boob grabbing Kirk, but somethings never change. :D

Alright fellow Trek fans, here's the new and 'improved' Enterprise, what's your take on it?

Both of em dont look futuristic at all...

Btw, sorry for the big pic but the Empire ships rulez...

http://www.st-minutiae.com/misc/comparison/comparison_large.png

Btw, sorry for the big pic but the Empire ships rulez...
Thanks for breaking the page with your thread-jack. Now get with the program or get lost!


Anyway, there is a solution to the mess. Just listen to this (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b8/Destructconstitution.ogg).

Blow the shit out of that Enterprise. And set phasers to maximum and roast those idiots who are responsible for this outrage. Gah.

To me, they look pretty much the same.

To me, they look pretty much the same.

Same here.

Same here.

Exactly.

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.

Its completely retarded.

I get it, youre set up to fail, so that your superiors get to see how you handle defeat.
Only, youre not really failing...its only a simulation, and everyone knows it. It doesnt matter what you do...youre going to lose.

I teach people to train thier dogs.

Rule #1:

Never set your students up for failure.

As to that point:

Kirk cheated. He hacked the system, and rigged it so he could win.
AND THEY GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ENTERPRISE?!

No way.

Immediate expulsion.

You dont get "points for creativity". You cheat...youre out on your ass.

How retarded.
The Kobayashi Maru scenario is designed so you can't pass. It is a test of character, not skill or tactics. The idea is to see how you react to the situation and deal with a no-win scenario.

I like it. It has a lot of elements that are reminiscent of the movie version of the Enterprise (in 1-6) which I always liked better.

We knew they were gonna update the look. I think it turned out pretty cool.

I do like the new NCC-1701. The TOS design being reused as is just doesn't work for me. I can see this version being refitted into the TMP version we see in the films much easier than I see it with the TOS vessel.

The Kobayashi Maru scenario is designed so you can't pass. It is a test of character, not skill or tactics. The idea is to see how you react to the situation and deal with a no-win scenario.

And, as we saw in The Wrath of Khan, he dealt with it as only Kirk could have.

Well I dont actually mind it, new one looks more realistic, although there isnt anything that bad with the original. It just looks more spacey, like it was properly designed by engineers and scientists etc.

And, as we saw in The Wrath of Khan, he dealt with it as only Kirk could have.

Changing the parameters is 100% Kirk's character.

"My G-d. Bones, what have I done?"

"What you had to do. What you always do, turn death into a fighting chance to live."

Changing the parameters is 100% Kirk's character.

"My G-d. Bones, what have I done?"

"What you had to do. What you always do, turn death into a fighting chance to live."

Excellent line, but the best one, for my money is:

BONES: Where are we going?

KIRK: We're going where they went.

BONES: Well, what if they went nowhere?

KIRK: Then this'll be your big chance to get away from it all.

Excellent line, but the best one, for my money is:

BONES: Where are we going?

KIRK: We're going where they went.

BONES: Well, what if they went nowhere?

KIRK: Then this'll be your big chance to get away from it all.

Great lines. I love Spock and McCoy's exchange in the film discussing Genesis.

On that topic, Nimoy said that the Spock-McCoy exchanges in the new film are excellent. It will be weird without Nimoy or DeForest playing those roles.

I loathe the new design. That alone is a good reason not to go see the movie.

Apart from all the other bad things I've heard, at least they could've stuck to the original design. I mean, those time-travel episodes of DS9 were so much fun exactly because of the reminiscence of TOS.

Not quite, the USS Kelvin is Kirk's father's ship. The shots of Kirk close to the age he was on TOS inside a ship is indeed the Enterprise. That's the bridge of the Enterprise for the movie.

Ah I see cheers.

That's even worse no consistency on the bridge.

I can confirm that a red shirt will indeed bite the dust during an away mission though. :D

Good, which raises another interesting point the uniforms and rank insigna should be made the same as in TOS

I loathe the new design. That alone is a good reason not to go see the movie.

Apart from all the other bad things I've heard, at least they could've stuck to the original design. I mean, those time-travel episodes of DS9 were so much fun exactly because of the reminiscence of TOS.

...and how those sets and designs paled in comparison, but do go on.

I realize I'm pissing into the wind here, but for cryin' out loud, you're getting another installment. Relax. The people who make movies don't owe the fans a damned thing. If the fans don't like it, they won't be fans much longer. The people in charge will be sacked, and after some time goes by, the franchise will be reborn. Remember Batman, folks.

They owe Gene Roddenberry and should remain faithful to his orginal storyline, not go around changing it.

It's only a model.

:D Gold

...and how those sets and designs paled in comparison, but do go on.
You're talking about something that's separated by about 100 years (in universe) time and 30 years time in real life.

For the in universe, it makes sense. I've had the pleasure of visiting early steamships and a tall ship in San Francisco as well as the USS Hornet and the difference between the two is astounding. I'm sure that if I ever got a chance to go aboard, say, the USS Ronald Reagan I would see greater changes and the Reagan and Hornet are only separated by about 50 years.

As for the TV aspect of it, sci-fi has come a very long way and so have the special effects. Look what Lucas did to Star Wars because he noted the drastic changes in what the SFX teams can now do as opposed to the late 70's.

You know, Ive always wondered about the training excercize that Kirk and all officers take, that has no winning outcome. I wont name it, becuase i certainly cant spell it.
Kobayashi Maru?

(yes, I am a Trek geek too)

This (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=61910) is why worrying too much about continuity in Trek is a Fool's Errand.

Well I dont actually mind it, new one looks more realistic, although there isnt anything that bad with the original. It just looks more spacey, like it was properly designed by engineers and scientists etc.

I always had a problem with the original series model in that the warp nacelle pylons always looked so flimsy, like they'd tear right off if the ship accelerated too hard.

It's a reboot. It's not the TOS, and it shouldn't be, because TOS was crap.

I always had a problem with the original series model in that the warp nacelle pylons always looked so flimsy, like they'd tear right off if the ship accelerated too hard.

I always had a problem with a lot of Star Trek "physics".

You're going from essentially a standing start, to over light speed, in less than a minute. No physical structure could withstand the acceleration, even if it were a solid brick of titanium.

The crew would be a thin layer of strawberry jam on the rear wall of the ship.

Turning the ship would do far more than make people lean this way and that.

Holes form in the ships during battle, but no one is wearing a space suit or worried about explosive decompression.

Direct hits on ships with antimatter weapons don't vaporize the entire hull in a fraction of a second - just some scorch marks.

They owe Gene Roddenberry and should remain faithful to his orginal storyline, not go around changing it.

Roddenberry was a hack.

Thanks for breaking the page with your thread-jack. Now get with the program or get lost!


Anyway, there is a solution to the mess. Just listen to this (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/b/b8/Destructconstitution.ogg).

Blow the shit out of that Enterprise. And set phasers to maximum and roast those idiots who are responsible for this outrage. Gah.

:hail:

Same here.

Exactly.

You guys are blind. Look harder.

I always had a problem with a lot of Star Trek "physics".

You're going from essentially a standing start, to over light speed, in less than a minute. No physical structure could withstand the acceleration, even if it were a solid brick of titanium.

The crew would be a thin layer of strawberry jam on the rear wall of the ship.

Turning the ship would do far more than make people lean this way and that.

Depending upon certain elements of canon--and a lot of non-canon books--there is the suggestion that it isn't so much they're accelerated to a certain speed in so much as they warp space around them. They accelerate at a much more reasonable pace, but it effectively sends them faster than light anyway.

You can't beat relativity. But you can BEND it.

As for the inertial effects, what do you think inertial dampeners are for? :p

[/fanwank]


Holes form in the ships during battle, but no one is wearing a space suit or worried about explosive decompression.
Force fields? [/morewank]


Direct hits on ships with antimatter weapons don't vaporize the entire hull in a fraction of a second - just some scorch marks.

Butbutbut it's made of special material! [/stupidity]

Yeah, Star Trek is very definitively soft, and I've not been able to enjoy it as much as I used to.

But darn it, it's very much something of my childhood. I grew UP on Star Trek. (Specifically, The Next Generation.) Picard was my main childhood hero. So I've gotten absorbed into the odd obsession Trekkies have with overall canon.

And while Trek contradicts itself on small little bits here and there, the vast majority of it is maintained, not only in the overall story and information and details about alien cultures and so on, but in the look and feel.

Up until now, no matter what the special effects capability was, the Enterprise has NEVER been touched. It's never been updated. Cheesy 60s stuff or no, it has an established look. It IS one of THE perennial images of Star Trek.

So to see it changed like this...to see what is essentially a reboot...that gnaws at me, and at a lot of other Trekkies too.

Call it dumb if you want. It is, ultimately, silly. But we all have silly things that mean a lot to each and every one of us, including you. To me, it's Star Trek. And I don't like what is being done to it. Not at all.

Roddenberry was a hack.

Was he? I'm curious as to why you think so. (Honestly, I am.)

This (http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=61910) is why worrying too much about continuity in Trek is a Fool's Errand.

No kidding. There's probably way more than those 30 minutes' worth, too.

I always had a problem with a lot of Star Trek "physics".

You're going from essentially a standing start, to over light speed, in less than a minute. No physical structure could withstand the acceleration, even if it were a solid brick of titanium.

The crew would be a thin layer of strawberry jam on the rear wall of the ship.

Turning the ship would do far more than make people lean this way and that.

Holes form in the ships during battle, but no one is wearing a space suit or worried about explosive decompression.

Direct hits on ships with antimatter weapons don't vaporize the entire hull in a fraction of a second - just some scorch marks.

Wait -- you're worried about the physics when the event ITSELF is impossible?

Just to pile on, why to Trek ships BANK TURN in the vacuum of space?

Was he? I'm curious as to why you think so. (Honestly, I am.)

The classic TOS episode "Spock's Brain" was penned to showcase how little Roddenberry knew about science.

And while Trek contradicts itself on small little bits here and there, the vast majority of it is maintained, not only in the overall story and information and details about alien cultures and so on, but in the look and feel.

Up until now, no matter what the special effects capability was, the Enterprise has NEVER been touched. It's never been updated. Cheesy 60s stuff or no, it has an established look. It IS one of THE perennial images of Star Trek.

So to see it changed like this...to see what is essentially a reboot...that gnaws at me, and at a lot of other Trekkies too.

Call it dumb if you want. It is, ultimately, silly. But we all have silly things that mean a lot to each and every one of us, including you. To me, it's Star Trek. And I don't like what is being done to it. Not at all.

What now? Enterprise-D looks only superficially like the TOS Enterprise. This Trek 11 retro Enterprise looks more like the TOS ship than NG's did, that's pretty obvious. You need to relax.

The classic TOS episode "Spock's Brain" was penned to showcase how little Roddenberry knew about science.

Ooooh.

Yeah, the guy didn't know much about science.

But he did create something culturally wonderful. If nothing else, we can give him props for that.

You guys are blind. Look harder.

It's you who are blinded by fandom. They added some tailfins and a few geegaws here and there. Same nacelle-strut design, circular deck structure (as opposed to NG's more oval appearance). Seriously, man, relax.

What now? Enterprise-D looks only superficially like the TOS Enterprise. This Trek 11 retro Enterprise looks more like the TOS ship than NG's did, that's pretty obvious. You need to relax.

You missed my point. The Enterprise-D wasn't a reboot. Neither was anything else in 24th century Trek.

This is, though. Up until now, the image of the original 1960s Enterprise had never been touched. That's what bothers me.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like it's something that'll consume my soul or something. But it DOES bother me, and I feel like saying so. If you think I need to chillax, well, meh. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Besides, it's a really poorly done design. If I was going to redesign the Enterprise, I would have done a lot better than this, lemme tell you.

First off, the deflector dish? Way too far forward. Knock that thing back.

Increase the size of the secondary hull.

Make the nacelles look like nacelles, not pregnant jet engines.

You missed my point. The Enterprise-D wasn't a reboot. Neither was anything else in 24th century Trek.

This is, though. Up until now, the image of the original 1960s Enterprise had never been touched. That's what bothers me.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like it's something that'll consume my soul or something. But it DOES bother me, and I feel like saying so. If you think I need to chillax, well, meh. http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Wow. You're completely in denial there. It wasn't changed as radically as it was for NG, but it was hardly "not touched". The jell-o mold nacelle caps went away, for one, and much detail on the nacelles were added in addition to them no longer being cylinders, as they were on TOS.

Come on. Relaaaaaaax.

EDIT: Link (http://images.entertainmentearth.com/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CDC17662lg.jpg) to a model of the Wrath of Khan Enterprise. The nacelles are nearly rectangular compared to the TOS ship. You're kinda wrong here.

You guys are blind. Look harder.

Why? One is a bit more sleek and has blue trim, the other is more stick like and has red trim. They look basically the same. I think the new one looks cooler, though I still think the design of Federation starships with all those weak looking connecting necks is a bit odd.

It's you who are blinded by fandom. They added some tailfins and a few geegaws here and there. Same nacelle-strut design, circular deck structure (as opposed to NG's more oval appearance). Seriously, man, relax.

Indeed. It's basically the same thing with more curvy lines and chrome.

Indeed. It's basically the same thing with more curvy lines and chrome.

Yeah. It's almost like they knew it had to look "retro" so they went all '50s Detroit on it.

The classic TOS episode "Spock's Brain" was penned to showcase how little Roddenberry knew about science.
Which would make sense if Roddenberry, ya know, actually WROTE it.

Which would make sense if Roddenberry, ya know, actually WROTE it.

I was going to say this but I wasn't to sure how many he wrote or if he actually wrote this episode or not.

Wow. You're completely in denial there. It wasn't changed as radically as it was for NG, but it was hardly "not touched". The jell-o mold nacelle caps went away, for one, and much detail on the nacelles were added in addition to them no longer being cylinders, as they were on TOS.

Come on. Relaaaaaaax.

EDIT: Link (http://images.entertainmentearth.com/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CDC17662lg.jpg) to a model of the Wrath of Khan Enterprise. The nacelles are nearly rectangular compared to the TOS ship. You're kinda wrong here.
The refit Constitution happened AFTER the TV series, not BEFORE it. This movie is set before the TV series and is supposed to be in cannon, not a reboot. This means that, somehow, it went from this look to the TV series in the original pilot, then changed again for the actual production, and then was refit for the movies.

Yeah, I'm seeing a bit of issues with it.

I was going to say this but I wasn't to sure how many he wrote or if he actually wrote this episode or not.
Gene L. Coon did.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Spock%27s_Brain_(episode)

I've never been able to see the sense in the shape of the Enterprise. The saucer looks like it's meant to have a centrifuge in it, but I guess that would have caused all sorts of problems so they went with artificial gravity.

Both the Klingon and Romulan vessels are more plausible. At least they look like they could be taken into atmosphere without bits coming off.

Gene L. Coon did.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Spock%27s_Brain_(episode)

Yeah cool, as I say I wasn't going to say anything because I wasn't sure.

I actually haven't seen this episode but I love this quote:

"I knew it, I should never have done it!"
"What?"
"I never should have reconnected his mouth."
"Well, we took the risk."'

- McCoy and Kirk

Depending upon certain elements of canon--and a lot of non-canon books--there is the suggestion that it isn't so much they're accelerated to a certain speed in so much as they warp space around them. They accelerate at a much more reasonable pace, but it effectively sends them faster than light anyway.


Yeah, the ship doesn't accelerate to or beyond light speed, since that would take an infinite amount of energy.

It seems more in line with the Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_metric).

In 1994, the Mexican physicist Miguel Alcubierre proposed a method of stretching space in a wave which would in theory cause the fabric of space ahead of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[1] The ship would ride this wave inside a region known as a warp bubble of flat space. Since the ship is not moving within this bubble, but carried along as the region itself moves, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation do not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at high velocity through flat spacetime. Also, this method of travel does not actually involve moving faster than light in a local sense, since a light beam within the bubble would still always move faster than the ship; it is only "faster than light" in the sense that, thanks to the contraction of the space in front of it, the ship could reach its destination faster than a light beam restricted to travelling outside the warp bubble. Thus, the Alcubierre drive does not contradict the conventional claim that relativity forbids a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. However, there are no known methods to create such a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, or to leave the bubble once inside it, so the Alcubierre drive remains a theoretical concept at this time.

Yeah, sounds like Star Trek to me.


You can't beat relativity. But you can BEND it.

As for the inertial effects, what do you think inertial dampeners are for? :p


Here's the thing though. The ships clearly can accelerate in the tens, hundreds, even thousands of gees - up to 30,000 m/s/s, in non-FTL travel. Based on what we see on screen.

Yet, even though their inertial dampeners are so incredibly powerful as to magically counteract such tremendous accelerations (that would indeed result in crew turning to jelly smears on the inside of the hull otherwise), but they can't manage to handle the relatively pathetic force from even minor energy weapons to keep the bridge camera from shaking?

Yeah, Star Trek is very definitively soft, and I've not been able to enjoy it as much as I used to.

But darn it, it's very much something of my childhood. I grew UP on Star Trek. (Specifically, The Next Generation.) Picard was my main childhood hero. So I've gotten absorbed into the odd obsession Trekkies have with overall canon.

And while Trek contradicts itself on small little bits here and there, the vast majority of it is maintained, not only in the overall story and information and details about alien cultures and so on, but in the look and feel.


Yeah, same here.


Up until now, no matter what the special effects capability was, the Enterprise has NEVER been touched. It's never been updated. Cheesy 60s stuff or no, it has an established look. It IS one of THE perennial images of Star Trek.

So to see it changed like this...to see what is essentially a reboot...that gnaws at me, and at a lot of other Trekkies too.

Call it dumb if you want. It is, ultimately, silly. But we all have silly things that mean a lot to each and every one of us, including you. To me, it's Star Trek. And I don't like what is being done to it. Not at all.


It's silly because they're trying both to reboot parts of it and claiming to stay true to the original. I saw that video of the guy getting all nipply about how they're using the original arrangement of the original orchestral score. I'm like great dude, it's the same cheesy 1960s orchestration, but why does it look all different and stuff?

I mean I have no problem with either changing things or not, but they shouldn't do one and say they're not.

Which would make sense if Roddenberry, ya know, actually WROTE it.

So what does it say when your writers are making fun of you publically and you're not swift enough to catch it?

Wow. You're completely in denial there. It wasn't changed as radically as it was for NG, but it was hardly "not touched". The jell-o mold nacelle caps went away, for one, and much detail on the nacelles were added in addition to them no longer being cylinders, as they were on TOS.

Come on. Relaaaaaaax.

EDIT: Link (http://images.entertainmentearth.com/%5CAUTOIMAGES%5CDC17662lg.jpg) to a model of the Wrath of Khan Enterprise. The nacelles are nearly rectangular compared to the TOS ship. You're kinda wrong here.

Again: missing the point.

The point is that this is supposed to be the Enterprise at a specific time in history, a specific time that--when revisited in the past--has been left essentially unchanged.

However, they are suddenly changing it.

...

Bah, why am I even arguing with you? You don't care. :tongue:

I'll relax. I won't change my opinion, but I'll relax.

I've never been able to see the sense in the shape of the Enterprise. The saucer looks like it's meant to have a centrifuge in it, but I guess that would have caused all sorts of problems so they went with artificial gravity.

Both the Klingon and Romulan vessels are more plausible. At least they look like they could be taken into atmosphere without bits coming off.
The Enterprise was never meant to go into an atmosphere. Real life reasons were due to limits in the budget--which was why the transporter came into existence in the first place--though I have no idea what the in-universe explanation is. I don't think one exists canonically.

Here's the thing though. The ships clearly can accelerate in the tens, hundreds, even thousands of gees - up to 30,000 m/s/s, in non-FTL travel. Based on what we see on screen.

Yet, even though their inertial dampeners are so incredibly powerful as to magically counteract such tremendous accelerations (that would indeed result in crew turning to jelly smears on the inside of the hull otherwise), but they can't manage to handle the relatively pathetic force from even minor energy weapons to keep the bridge camera from shaking?
Drama. What can you do, eh?

It'd be nice if that was consistent though. Maybe the "idea" is that the inertial dampeners are temporarily strained a bit due to the extra force of the weapons?

But then why only so little shaking?

I'm not about to try and pass it off as anything other than a television show being a television show.


It's silly because they're trying both to reboot parts of it and claiming to stay true to the original. I saw that video of the guy getting all nipply about how they're using the original arrangement of the original orchestral score. I'm like great dude, it's the same cheesy 1960s orchestration, but why does it look all different and stuff?

I mean I have no problem with either changing things or not, but they shouldn't do one and say they're not.

I agree, it is hypocritical.

See, the thing that bothers me about a lot of this is that the changes seem to be done more to look "cool" and "hip" to a new generation, rather than actually being worthwhile. If they were updates done in a way to respect canon while genuinely improving the design and so on, I'd probably still whine for awhile but I could eventually accept it.

But that's not what I see here. What I see here is basically--to quote someone else--them letting "Pimp My Ride" go nuts on the Enterprise both inside and out. I mean, have you seen that picture of the bridge?! My GOODNESS! Talk about TACKY!

The Enterprise was never meant to go into an atmosphere. Real life reasons were due to limits in the budget--which was why the transporter came into existence in the first place--though I have no idea what the in-universe explanation is. I don't think one exists canonically.

Also the shuttle pods were the ones that were meant to take the away team down to each planet. That proved costly on the budget and so the transporter was formed.

The Enterprise was never meant to go into an atmosphere.

The damn thing looks flimsy, is all. No matter how strong your materials, why not connect the four parts each to the other, forming a tetrahedron? That's a very strong shape.

This occurred to me when I was just a little kid. Probably the first time I ever saw the silly thing.

Real life reasons were due to limits in the budget--which was why the transporter came into existence in the first place--though I have no idea what the in-universe explanation is. I don't think one exists canonically.

First let me say I completely agree that canon is a bit bizarre. However, it's the only thing that makes ST the stuff of cults (cults in the fun sense.) After all those years of trying to keep the timelines and questionable science consistent this is a very stupid thing to do. I'm not seeing a single person here saying "hey, great idea" to that.

However, I did find some sketches from "the Cage" (not filmed, so not canon) where the ship was basically a big wheel. That suggests to me that they started with the idea of 'gravity' by centrifuge and abandoned it because it couldn't be made funky and would get them all sorts of problems -- views out of the ship always rotating for instance.

Well, remember, the design of the ship wasn't exactly made by a scientist or an engineer. It was made by an artist, and was designed intentionally to avoid a lot of the sci-fi cliches of the time, such as the huge cigar-ish rocket ship.

What ended up being created is beautiful looking from an artistic standpoint, and that was all that mattered for the show's purposes.

The refit Constitution happened AFTER the TV series, not BEFORE it. This movie is set before the TV series and is supposed to be in cannon, not a reboot. This means that, somehow, it went from this look to the TV series in the original pilot, then changed again for the actual production, and then was refit for the movies.

Yeah, I'm seeing a bit of issues with it.

Why? It's fiction. Why not just enjoy it? Or is it the whole "truth is stranger than fiction 'cause fiction has gotta make sense" thing?

Again: missing the point.

The point is that this is supposed to be the Enterprise at a specific time in history, a specific time that--when revisited in the past--has been left essentially unchanged.

However, they are suddenly changing it.

...

Bah, why am I even arguing with you? You don't care. :tongue:

I'll relax. I won't change my opinion, but I'll relax.

You're right, I don't. I'm not here to deny anyone their obsessions, but it is just a film. Judge it after you see it.

Heh, I can just imagine how that goes.

"Votes please." *holds up models*
"Big wheel -- no votes.
Flying saucer -- one vote.
Radio telescope thing -- one vote.
Big cigar -- two votes.

Right, pass the paddle-pop sticks!"

Why? It's fiction. Why not just enjoy it? Or is it the whole "truth is stranger than fiction 'cause fiction has gotta make sense" thing?

Star Trek enjoys a greater internal consistency than a lot of other fictional universes created by masses of people like Star Trek has been, so Trekkies tend to get upset about major canon being violated. It's why Enterprise was so reviled.


You're right, I don't. I'm not here to deny anyone their obsessions, but it is just a film. Judge it after you see it.
Righto, righto.

Here's the thing though. The ships clearly can accelerate in the tens, hundreds, even thousands of gees - up to 30,000 m/s/s, in non-FTL travel. Based on what we see on screen.

Yet, even though their inertial dampeners are so incredibly powerful as to magically counteract such tremendous accelerations (that would indeed result in crew turning to jelly smears on the inside of the hull otherwise), but they can't manage to handle the relatively pathetic force from even minor energy weapons to keep the bridge camera from shaking?
The in universe explanation is that the internal dampeners are of course tied into the engines and helm so when the helm calls for sudden acceleration, the dampeners, controlled by computer, are able to keep pace smoothly. Enemies however are rarely nice enough to send over the information on their attack patterns ahead of time so there is a slight lag.

The RL explination is of course that it is far more dramatic for that to happen, but then again most sci-fi I've run into (Including Star Wars, Han Solo should have been pulling Wookie hairs out of his mouth a number of times) do the same for the same reasons.

So what does it say when your writers are making fun of you publically and you're not swift enough to catch it?
How do you know he was?

Why? It's fiction. Why not just enjoy it? Or is it the whole "truth is stranger than fiction 'cause fiction has gotta make sense" thing?
More along the lines that the movie is billed as fitting into the established universe. It's the same reason why I had issues with Enterprise, a lot of what they did really didn't fit with what had been previously said. Yes, Star Trek sometimes plays very fast and lose with its continuity, but not to this extent. Furthermore, the way the Original Series was written, the Enterprise was presented as an actual character. The reason why the scene in STIII:TSfS of the Enterprise's destruction was so powerful is because the writers took time to give the ship a soul if you will. Conversely, the whole reason why in STIV:TVH they all ended up on the Enterprise-A is because without that ship, that particular ship, it wouldn't BE Star Trek.

Now, if it had been said that this was a reboot or re-imaging, that would be fine. I could accept the new ship. But we were told that it would fit within the established universe, and it doesn't.

More along the lines that the movie is billed as fitting into the established universe. It's the same reason why I had issues with Enterprise, a lot of what they did really didn't fit with what had been previously said. Yes, Star Trek sometimes plays very fast and lose with its continuity, but not to this extent. Furthermore, the way the Original Series was written, the Enterprise was presented as an actual character. The reason why the scene in STIII:TSfS of the Enterprise's destruction was so powerful is because the writers took time to give the ship a soul if you will. Conversely, the whole reason why in STIV:TVH they all ended up on the Enterprise-A is because without that ship, that particular ship, it wouldn't BE Star Trek.

Now, if it had been said that this was a reboot or re-imaging, that would be fine. I could accept the new ship. But we were told that it would fit within the established universe, and it doesn't.

Sure it does.

I find it odd that nobody's responded to my outing of the starship's banking turns. BSG got that shit right (the second time around). If we're so worried about a couple of extra pieces of metal on the hull, why is no one demanding the ships stop acting aerodynamically with no aero to dynamic?

Kirk cheated. He hacked the system, and rigged it so he could win.
AND THEY GIVE HIM THE FUCKING ENTERPRISE?!

No way.

Immediate expulsion.

You dont get "points for creativity". You cheat...youre out on your ass.

How retarded.

In the military there's an unwritten rule: If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough. Basically, you should never resign yourself to the situation at hand, you should always be looking for some way out of it.

The damn thing looks flimsy, is all. No matter how strong your materials, why not connect the four parts each to the other, forming a tetrahedron? That's a very strong shape.

This occurred to me when I was just a little kid. Probably the first time I ever saw the silly thing.


Indeed, I always thought it looked rather delicate, too. It never really looked, you know, solid. And that's quite odd, for a warship. The support struts for the nacelles and the neck structure always looked like they'd be incredibly inviting targets and comparatively weak.

I find it odd that nobody's responded to my outing of the starship's banking turns. BSG got that shit right (the second time around). If we're so worried about a couple of extra pieces of metal on the hull, why is no one demanding the ships stop acting aerodynamically with no aero to dynamic?

Well, a motorbike also banks to turn, and not for aerodynamic reasons. But of course that doesn't make sense either, because there's nothing to "steer" against by traction. The only way to change a ship's course in space is with radial thrust ... and it just doesn't look right to our ground based habits.

If you think about it, there is no sense at all to the engines on the Enterprise ... draw a line between the engines and the centre of mass of the shit (probably just 'below' the saucer) and you have to conclude that (a) the thrust doesn't come out along the axis of the engine, but worse (b) the ship would fly with it's nose tilted 'up' ... which it doesn't.

By Enterprise-D, they'd moved the engines down a lot closer to that plane of the centre of mass ... maybe too far! But they added "streamlining" so we're back to what you're objecting to.

Ya know what this is?

The sound of me not caring.

Indeed, I always thought it looked rather delicate, too. It never really looked, you know, solid. And that's quite odd, for a warship. The support struts for the nacelles and the neck structure always looked like they'd be incredibly inviting targets and comparatively weak.

I shouldn't be making fun really. Never had a TV as a kid, so when others were putting in their training as Trekkies I was mad for Lensmen.

"Ravening sheets of lambent flame!" and big stuff blowing up, followed by even bigger stuff blowing up.

E.E. Smith's idea of a warship was ... you guessed it, a sphere. It really wouldn't have made good film, because a sphere doesn't have any clues as to which way is forward. A sphere only looks impressive when it's sitting there being tough like the Death Star.

In the military there's an unwritten rule: If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough. Basically, you should never resign yourself to the situation at hand, you should always be looking for some way out of it.

Including getting out of things like KP or checking out that MBT without the CO's authorization? :p

Ya know what this is?

The sound of me not caring.

Excuse me, but could you please not care more quietly?

I shouldn't be making fun really. Never had a TV as a kid, so when others were putting in their training as Trekkies I was mad for Lensmen.

"Ravening sheets of lambent flame!" and big stuff blowing up, followed by even bigger stuff blowing up.

E.E. Smith's idea of a warship was ... you guessed it, a sphere. It really wouldn't have made good film, because a sphere doesn't have any clues as to which way is forward. A sphere only looks impressive when it's sitting there being tough like the Death Star.

Especially if it's bombarding your planet.

Spheres don't make for impressive space battles, though.

I don't know, I'm not making fun, just voicing something that always bugged me about the Enterprise and Federation starships in general. They're so flimsy looking.

Not trying to start a ST vs. SW war or anything, but Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Star Cruisers look like way better designs to me, in durability. Not that all SW ships are so, though. The Nebulon B frigates have that same flimsy, large areas connected by toothpicks look, though they are pretty cool looking. The Earth starships in Stargate, and the Aurora class vessels also look a lot less flimsy to me than the Enterprise.

Excuse me, but could you please not care more quietly?

Not really.

Including getting out of things like KP or checking out that MBT without the CO's authorization? :p

The first is the ancient and hallowed art of "shamming" and the second (the US Army doesn't really work that way, a vehicle commander can move his vehicle around the post largely at will) would be the ancient and hallowed practice of "acquiring" or "reallocating military equipment" if the tank belonged to someone else.

But seriously, the idea is that the military can't accept excuses, given the nature of the Army's work, so you need to find a solution, no matter how impossible it seems.

Not trying to start a ST vs. SW war or anything, but Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Star Cruisers look like way better designs to me, in durability.


That's because they follow a relatively sensible design of minimizing points of structural vulnerability and incorporate everything in a single hull rather than spreading it out across multiple hulls connected by comparatively flimsy mountings. They certainly look more solid.

Especially if it's bombarding your planet.

Spheres don't make for impressive space battles, though.

I don't know, I'm not making fun, just voicing something that always bugged me about the Enterprise and Federation starships in general. They're so flimsy looking.

We do agree on that.

Spheres will be the way to go.

Highest volume to surface area (unless you cheat and go Tardis)
The most obvious shape for a forcefield is spherical, so pack as much inside that as possible ... same shape.
Most critical parts go in the centre of the sphere ... hardest to get to regardless of which direction attack comes from.


But human aesthetics still expect a warship to look something like a boat. Or an aeroplane. The modular look of orbital platforms is starting to work its way into that expectation.

But after all that, there is a pacifist streak in ST which appeals to me. They fight only when they have to, and it's always some last minute kludge to get that little bit more out of the weapons, instead of tooling them up before the challenge is present. The ship looking vulnerable is a part of that, there's also something romantically sail-boat like about it.

I make fun of the science, but hey, they didn't have Arthur C. Clarke on the payroll or a Kubrick budget.

Not trying to start a ST vs. SW war or anything ...

It doesn't seem to take much. I'm backing off now!

Especially if it's bombarding your planet.

Spheres don't make for impressive space battles, though.

I don't know, I'm not making fun, just voicing something that always bugged me about the Enterprise and Federation starships in general. They're so flimsy looking.

Not trying to start a ST vs. SW war or anything, but Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Star Cruisers look like way better designs to me, in durability. Not that all SW ships are so, though. The Nebulon B frigates have that same flimsy, large areas connected by toothpicks look, though they are pretty cool looking. The Earth starships in Stargate, and the Aurora class vessels also look a lot less flimsy to me than the Enterprise.

Well, its differences in the fundamental makings of each universe. Seems there are design constrictions concerning FTL travel - the nacelles, their spacing and placement, having a hull somehow conducive to riding or creating warp bubbles etc. None of which the Star Wars universe seems to require.

Another difference is that the federation ships are supposedly only quasi-military in design, with strong emphasis on exploration, science, diplomacy and such. The Star Wars ships you mention are pure warship. Note the difference between Enterprise-style Star Trek ships and the later, Defiant-style class. The latter is undeniably 100% warship and built more like brick than usual:

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/eyh5/PageRef/startrek/defiant.jpg

Although it's still pretty and smooth, because it's the Federation, and that's how they roll.

I always thought the Cardassians had the sweetest designs. Kind of like lego manta rays.

Well, its differences in the fundamental makings of each universe. Seems there are design constrictions concerning FTL travel - the nacelles, their spacing and placement, having a hull somehow conducive to riding or creating warp bubbles etc. None of which the Star Wars universe seems to require.

Another difference is that the federation ships are supposedly only quasi-military in design, with strong emphasis on exploration, science, diplomacy and such. The Star Wars ships you mention are pure warship. Note the difference between Enterprise-style Star Trek ships and the later, Defiant-style class. The latter is undeniably 100% warship and built more like brick than usual:

http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/eyh5/PageRef/startrek/defiant.jpg

Although it's still pretty and smooth, because it's the Federation, and that's how they roll.

I always thought the Cardassians had the sweetest designs. Kind of like lego manta rays.

True, many Federation starships, including the much-loved Enterprise are also exploration and scientific craft. Star Destroyers, on the other hand, have one purpose and one purpose only: blowing shit up.

I like the look of the USS Defiant. Still Federation style, but definitely looks very suited to combat.

And the earliest point, about how ST and SW physics differ, yes, that's totally true. ST physics sort of exist.

Looks like a 2009 Model Enterprise. Bet ts got more cupholders and better fuel economy too.
The ship's fixed except for the cup holder and I think I can have that operational within 10 hours.
:D
Argh.

They've redesigned the original Enterprise. Why? They've made needless change to a beloved classic.

This just smacks of trying to stick their own stamp on someone else's universe, and its arrogant. And stupid. Pre-release, and they've already managed to piss off their fan base.

Any changes should have been slight. A little more detail, crew seat belts on the inside, that's about it. Why screw with what works?

I fail to see the difference between the two pics

a little more detail, crew seat belts on the inside, that's about it.
^^^this^^^

True, many Federation starships, including the much-loved Enterprise are also exploration and scientific craft. Star Destroyers, on the other hand, have one purpose and one purpose only: blowing shit up.

Quite right. The Federation favors multi-purpose ships where the Empire's approach is more combat-oriented. Though that doesn't excuse the fragile structural design of Federation ships. Or the poor computer security. Or the easily-breached warp cores.

I like the look of the USS Defiant. Still Federation style, but definitely looks very suited to combat.

I prefer the Akira. Heavier on the torpedo launchers, and it carries fighters. Excellent stand off bombardment capabilities. Though the Defiant is an excellent dogfighter. Akira battle groups with Defiant screening forces would be a formidable force indeed. I believe something like this was used to chase the Prometheus when the Romulans stole it.

And the earliest point, about how ST and SW physics differ, yes, that's totally true. ST physics sort of exist.

Not really. They use real terminology, but often in completely fictitious contexts. Though I suppose they score points for using anti-matter and space warp.

Quite right. The Federation favors multi-purpose ships where the Empire's approach is more combat-oriented. Though that doesn't excuse the fragile structural design of Federation ships. Or the poor computer security. Or the easily-breached warp cores.
I was merely talking about the structural design. It seems quite ill suited to combat, to me, mainly because of those skinny struts linking the components. But then again, being from a port town, I always thought of spaceships as their name suggests, as ships. And IRL nautical battleships are anything but fragile looking, so maybe more 'solid' spaceship designs are easier for me to feel some familiarity with.



Not really. They use real terminology, but often in completely fictitious contexts. Though I suppose they score points for using anti-matter and space warp.
Well yeah, but that's still more than SW. In that universe, they don't even bother at all. "Yeah, the spaceships can go faster than light because, well, they just can."

Well yeah, but that's still more than SW. In that universe, they don't even bother at all. "Yeah, the spaceships can go faster than light because, well, they just can."

Yes, Star Wars just accepts the tech as a plot device and backdrop without trying to explain how it works, at least not as much as Trek does. Of course, Star Wars doesn't have to deal with the embaresment of getting its explanations mixed up either.;)

Yes, Star Wars just accepts the tech as a plot device and backdrop without trying to explain how it works, at least not as much as Trek does. Of course, Star Wars doesn't have to deal with the embaresment of getting its explanations mixed up either.;)

So why didn't Yoda just explain the whole, midichlorian thing to Luke?

...ever?

*dons nerd hat*

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Structural_integrity_field
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Inertial_damper

Really, these articles don't go into the specifics, you'd have to read the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Generation-Technical-Unnumbered/dp/0671704273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226566319&sr=8-1) to understand just how critical these systems are to the operations of any ST ship.

As to the flimsiness of the nacell pylons and the structural connection between the primary and seconday hulls...that the very issue the Structural Integrity Field is supposed to address. Also, it's been largely consistently potrayed in Trek (at least since TNG) that a ship in a fight that has it's shields knocked out is as good as dead unless it can run away. It's not going to matter much if there is a "weakness" in a particular area if a well placed shot anywhere is going to destroy the ship.

I fail to see the difference between the two pics

This is the third person to say this little joke.

*dons nerd hat*

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Structural_integrity_field
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Inertial_damper

Really, these articles don't go into the specifics, you'd have to read the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Generation-Technical-Unnumbered/dp/0671704273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226566319&sr=8-1) to understand just how critical these systems are to the operations of any ST ship.

As to the flimsiness of the nacell pylons and the structural connection between the primary and seconday hulls...that the very issue the Structural Integrity Field is supposed to address. Also, it's been largely consistently potrayed in Trek (at least since TNG) that a ship in a fight that has it's shields knocked out is as good as dead unless it can run away. It's not going to matter much if there is a "weakness" in a particular area if a well placed shot anywhere is going to destroy the ship.

That is like saying since your car has airbags, you don't need seatbelts. Or that since you have a burglar alarm, you don't need a door with a lock.

In either case, we've seen several instances of penetrating shots doing damage despite shields, albeit weakened or compromised (Generations). So yes, even with shields up, structural, but not instantly fatal if not in critical area, damage can be caused.

That is like saying since your car has airbags, you don't need seatbelts. Or that since you have a burglar alarm, you don't need a door with a lock.

I have two guards with machine guns standing out the front, I don't need a lock on my front door.

*dons nerd hat*

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Structural_integrity_field
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Inertial_damper

Really, these articles don't go into the specifics, you'd have to read the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual (http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Generation-Technical-Unnumbered/dp/0671704273/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226566319&sr=8-1) to understand just how critical these systems are to the operations of any ST ship.

As to the flimsiness of the nacell pylons and the structural connection between the primary and seconday hulls...that the very issue the Structural Integrity Field is supposed to address. Also, it's been largely consistently potrayed in Trek (at least since TNG) that a ship in a fight that has it's shields knocked out is as good as dead unless it can run away. It's not going to matter much if there is a "weakness" in a particular area if a well placed shot anywhere is going to destroy the ship.

I would guess that the pylons are quite a bit sturdier than the rest of the ship, since they seem mostly structural support and not complex and delicate machinery as with the rest of the ship. Also since they're, in the old enterprise style, basically cylindrical tubes, they present a more curved surface to incoming weaponry, spreading out the impact across greater surface area.

The nacelles seem to be made of glass (of course the models really are, I think, at least in one episode of TNG I remember) and probably difficult to armor. In battles we see most of the time, ships do tend to go bye bye when their shields are down, unless of course major characters are on board. But they never seem to have their nacelle pylons severed in twain by phasers or blown away, leaving the nacelle to fly off unharmed. It's usually the warp core and thus total explosion, or one or more nacelles and then partial or total explosion, etc.

I recall reading on a site that there are two general types of warp drives in star trek, those with outboard nacelles, like the Federation has, and those with inboards, like small ships, Dominon vessels, the Defiant do. The latter are more secure since the vulnerable nacelles have armor and structure protecting them, but the outboard types make the magical space warp field more efficient and give better gas mileage and top speed.

Or something like that.

There is also armor in the series, all that duranium, tritanium, monotanium handwavium. Also 'hull plating' and 'polarized armor' and such. It seems these all provide defense against various weapons, though never enough to justify going without shields.

In short there do seem to be vulnerable places and less-vulnerable ones. The bridge is a good example, and usually located conveniently in the glass bubble right on top of the saucer section. Enterprise E had the "Battle Bridge" but we saw that like in one or maybe two episodes and that was it. Nice vulnerable target.

Lastly for extra geekery I will point out how in the Wrath of Khan, when Khan used Reliant to attack Enterprise for the first time, he "knew exactly where to hit us," according to Spock. He was referring to places in engineering, not the nacelle or bridge or pylons. I'd guess this is actually a more vulnerable spot than elsewhere because it's where the Chief Engineer of the ship is, and he has to be a major character so if he dies, the ship dies.

Unless it's a ship with no characters. I think that's the real dividing line here.

I've always liked to think, as Ssek said, that the nacells are placed on Federation ships because of the practicality of them. If you notice, nearly all Star Trek ships have the warp nacells in a similiar layout (Warbirds, Vorcha chass Klingon ships, Dominion battleships (not the bug ships), Federation ships of course). It is likely that such a layout is necessary for optimising fuel efficiency or warp field integrity or some nice easy explaination like that.

Since the Federation are more about exploration, they are more likely to put more focus on efficiency than on military practicality, so they likely design ships nacells the way they do with that in mind. I also read somewhere that the Federation likes to give off the image of being about exploration and peace rather than military might, and so the nacells could be placed like they are for symbollic purposes too.

But ultimately, the Federation can get down and dirty when they need to (see: Defiant) in ship design. So I think it's fair to conclude that the nacells seem so absurdly placed because they are better for exploration, not military conquest.

Lastly for extra geekery I will point out how in the Wrath of Khan, when Khan used Reliant to attack Enterprise for the first time, he "knew exactly where to hit us," according to Spock. He was referring to places in engineering, not the nacelle or bridge or pylons. I'd guess this is actually a more vulnerable spot than elsewhere because it's where the Chief Engineer of the ship is, and he has to be a major character so if he dies, the ship dies.

Unless it's a ship with no characters. I think that's the real dividing line here.

Disable the ship's engines and they're a sitting duck. Me I'd of targetted their impulse and warp drives first. Then you can sit back and lob torpedoes at them until you get bored.

Disable the ship's engines and they're a sitting duck. Me I'd of targetted their impulse and warp drives first. Then you can sit back and lob torpedoes at them until you get bored.

But they can still lob torpedos and fire phasers at you. Target their warp core, that way they have no power for weapons or engines. But you run the risk of destroying the ship that way. So you target the weapons, but then they run away. So you target the engines, but they can still attack you, particularly if your ship is not particularly maneuverable. If you're a bird of prey, you may have an easier time. But if you're a bird of prey against another bird of prey, targeting specific systems would prove more difficult. However, if you're a bird of prey against something like a Warbird, you might have too difficult a time getting their shields weak enough to target their engines.

And so on.

It's not just as simple as "destroy their engines and lob torpedos at them". That doesn't make for good drama!

But they can still lob torpedos and fire phasers at you. Target their warp core, that way they have no power for weapons or engines. But you run the risk of destroying the ship that way. So you target the weapons, but then they run away. So you target the engines, but they can still attack you, particularly if your ship is not particularly maneuverable. If you're a bird of prey, you may have an easier time. But if you're a bird of prey against another bird of prey, targeting specific systems would prove more difficult. However, if you're a bird of prey against something like a Warbird, you might have too difficult a time getting their shields weak enough to target their engines.

And so on.

It's not just as simple as "destroy their engines and lob torpedos at them". That doesn't make for good drama!

Well when you've got them by surprise you can disable their engines without much damage to your shields. So you can fall back recharge the shields and keep making attack runs with minimal risk.

Well when you've got them by surprise you can disable their engines without much damage to your shields. So you can fall back recharge the shields and keep making attack runs with minimal risk.

Ergo - the cloaking [plot] device

It's not just as simple as "destroy their engines and lob torpedos at them". That doesn't make for good drama!

Actually, I believe there is a blind spot just directly behind the Federation ships. Phaser banks seem installed in the saucer section, as are the torpedo bays. That means the rear lower quadrant, where the engineering section blocks the saucer, is a blind spot.

Kill the engines, and you can sit in the blind spot whittling the ship to death if you so prefer.

Actually, I believe there is a blind spot just directly behind the Federation ships. Phaser banks seem installed in the saucer section, as are the torpedo bays. That means the rear lower quadrant, where the engineering section blocks the saucer, is a blind spot.

Kill the engines, and you can sit in the blind spot whittling the ship to death if you so prefer.

Depends on the ship. As we saw in Nemesis, the Enterprise E was able to fire phasers in all directions.

Depends on the ship. As we saw in Nemesis, the Enterprise E was able to fire phasers in all directions.

That's true the Sovereign class is able to do that.

What I like about this ship is that it is contains a lot of elements form the movie version of Enterprise from the first 6 films, which seems to be more of the basis for the design of this ship than the original tv show version.

(My Trekiness is now about to be revealed in all its glory. You may want to shield your eyes.)

1)The alternating color rings around the saucer section. 3 dark metal, 2 light metal
2)The rectangular phaser emitters on the bottom of the saucer, positioned to the port, starboard, and forward of the center point.
3)The pattern of windows on the saucer
4)The running lights at the rim of the saucer on the top and bottom edges, forward.
5)The pattern of hull plates that don’t precisely match each other
6)The blue illuminated navigational deflector
7)The photon torpedo tubes on the dorsal “neck” connecting the primary and secondary hulls
8)The shuttle docking ports/airlocks on the dorsal “neck” and the secondary hull
9)Hull illumination spotlights on the port, starboard and forward of the center point, closer to the center than the phaser emitters
10)The black heat sinks on the warp nacelle pylons
11)Like the movie version, the front of the warp nacelles are NOT illuminated red (Although they may very well illuminate when the ship engages warp drive. In this photo, the ship appears to be stationary.) ALL other versions of the Enterprise from A-E have illuminated the Bussard Collectors at the forward end of each warp nacelle.

In fact, I see very little here that would seem to come from the original TV version.

I really like this one.

In DS9, when ships lost sheilds they were goners. The exception of course was the Defiant, but even she was lost when the Breen energy weapon took out all of her systems.

See "Sacrifice of the Angels" to see what happens to ships without sheilds or major characters aboard. The Miranda class vessels were eaten alive.

Depends on the ship. As we saw in Nemesis, the Enterprise E was able to fire phasers in all directions.

That's true the Sovereign class is able to do that.

Unless the phaser banks are somewhere else other than the saucer section, or it can shoot through it's engineering section without killing itself, no it can't.

We were SUPPOSED to get this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/USS_Enterprise_NCC-1701_ENT.jpg

What we are getting is this:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg

Oh, and a boob grabbing Kirk, but somethings never change. :D

Alright fellow Trek fans, here's the new and 'improved' Enterprise, what's your take on it?

The ship looks ok.

I'm still recovering from this...
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081015/Star-Trek-Movie/full-cast-in-character_l.jpg
Checkov, Kirk, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura.

Unless the phaser banks are somewhere else other than the saucer section, or it can shoot through it's engineering section without killing itself, no it can't.

Well, technically they use phaser arrays, not the older style phaser banks. The latter are actually fixed mounts, the former are "strips" along the hull, which seem to act as some kind of capacitor as well as emitters for the phasers. This is why you see the old Enteprise shooting from like one direction, that sorta ventral forward one, but the TNG Enterprise could and did shoot from multiple directions.

According to Memory Alpha's (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sovereign_class) description of the Sovereign class, it has

sixteen phaser arrays at key locations throughout the ship's hull. Seven dorsal phaser arrays were located on the primary hull, one extending around the saucer section, giving it an oval appearance. Six smaller arrays, covered the aft dorsal firing arcs and were located along the aft portion of the saucer section and above the main shuttlebay.

Four ventral phaser arrays were located on the primary hull, extending around in nearly a half circle on both the starboard and port ventral sides of the saucer section. A single phaser array was located along the ventral section of the engineering hull, running perpendicular to the hull.

During the refit, four were added to the trailing edges of her warp nacelle pylons (one dorsal and one ventral for each pylon).

So while it probably can't fire in *every* possible direction imaginable, but it sure does have significant arcs of fire.

The ship looks ok.

I'm still recovering from this...
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/081015/Star-Trek-Movie/full-cast-in-character_l.jpg
Checkov, Kirk, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu and Uhura.

In the background: Is that Chen or Cho or whatever his name is, from Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle?! WTF!!!:eek:

In the background: Is that Chen or Cho or whatever his name is, from Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle?! WTF!!!:eek:

John Cho... as Sulu.

John Cho... as Sulu.

Oh dear gods...:eek:

In DS9, when ships lost sheilds they were goners. The exception of course was the Defiant, but even she was lost when the Breen energy weapon took out all of her systems.

See "Sacrifice of the Angels" to see what happens to ships without sheilds or major characters aboard. The Miranda class vessels were eaten alive.

Shields are nice, but without Character Shields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_shield) you're boned!

Well, technically they use phaser arrays, not the older style phaser banks. The latter are actually fixed mounts, the former are "strips" along the hull, which seem to act as some kind of capacitor as well as emitters for the phasers. This is why you see the old Enteprise shooting from like one direction, that sorta ventral forward one, but the TNG Enterprise could and did shoot from multiple directions.

According to Memory Alpha's (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Sovereign_class) description of the Sovereign class, it has



So while it probably can't fire in *every* possible direction imaginable, but it sure does have significant arcs of fire.

According to your description, it still fits with the vulnerability I highlighted. The rear lower quadrant is a blind spot. Assuming that the arrays are capable of firing at any angle that doesn't intersect with the ships hull, a reasonable assumption unless you have idiot design staff, it has complete forward, and side coverage, but limited rear coverage which can only cover the area level with and above the phaser array.

A medium sized hostile ship approaching from behind and slightly below the engineering section would be in the Enterprise-E's blind spot. It's not a massive blind spot, but an important one if you manage to disable the engines.

Even if you used a large type hostile ship, which would be in the firing arc regardless due to its size, you want to approach from an angle where they can only return minimal fire.

Egads... I just realized.

the Roddenberry estate as well as paramount gave their ok... so what will end up being Canon after this and what will be discarded?

The "new" "original" Enterprise looks much too close to the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock. Not to mention Enterprise-A.

Reboots suck. This one's God-awful.

Star Trek 90210 sounds more accurate the more I learn about these guys...

The "new" "original" Enterprise looks much too close to the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock. Not to mention Enterprise-A.

Reboots suck. This one's God-awful.

The reboot has to be spectacular. I've always wondered... Star Trek can be more than just about the Enterprise. heck, they had Voyager and DS9. so why can't they focus on any of the other ships that they have?
Sure some were destroyed or ended up without a crew, but they still would have their adventures. why not focus on them?

Defiant
Farragut
Lexington
Yorktown
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Intrepid
Valiant
Kongo
Potemkin
Constellation
Republic

Egads... I just realized.

the Roddenberry estate as well as paramount gave their ok... so what will end up being Canon after this and what will be discarded?

Couldn't they just rationalize it as alternate versions of the same universe? Given that The Next Generation already established an infinite number of alternate universes?

Not that I expect them to do something more sensible. More likely they'll say this timeline has now replaced the original series.

Couldn't they just rationalize it as alternate versions of the same universe? Given that The Next Generation already established an infinite number of alternate universes?

Not that I expect them to do something more sensible. More likely they'll say this timeline has now replaced the original series.

they didn't do that for things like the Animated Series (which only recently became canon) and various novels. heck, they nitpick episodes as to which is canon and not.

I still think that best ST ever was the original series. Not as flashy as new ones, true, but best stories. TNG did good, not as well as TOS, but better than your average scifi series. DS9 was passable, it got better after it stopped aping Babylon 5. I watched first season of Voyager and then gave up in disgust. The "new start" ones I haven't watched due to the bile rising to my throat from just thinking of watching more than 10 seconds of it. x_X

they didn't do that for things like the Animated Series (which only recently became canon) and various novels. heck, they nitpick episodes as to which is canon and not.

And for some of us the Animated Series will never be canon. :tongue:

Umm, it's not the new old ship. It's some art by a fan and CGI artist named Gabe Koerner, whose concept art has caused this sort of thing before. It's nice work-just so happens to have absolutely nothing to do with the new movie.

It's nice work-just so happens to have absolutely nothing to do with the new movie.

Aww, but don't you know debates like this would never be as entertaining as they are, if unsubstantiated rumours weren't allowed to fly free?

Which reminds me... what's your source? :D

Umm, it's not the new old ship. It's some art by a fan and CGI artist named Gabe Koerner, whose concept art has caused this sort of thing before. It's nice work-just so happens to have absolutely nothing to do with the new movie.

You're referring to a different pic that came out about 5 months ago. this one does appear to be authentic.

I believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoZA4ZRO7Q&feature=related) is the model you're referring to.


The "new" "original" Enterprise looks much too close to the Enterprise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock. Not to mention Enterprise-A.

I like that about it.

It looks nice and chunky, however...the nacelles are just way too close to the saucer section, its very upsetting, they just look aaaaaghhh! every time I see them.

You're referring to a different pic that came out about 5 months ago. this one does appear to be authentic.

I believe this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoZA4ZRO7Q&feature=related) is the model you're referring to.



And that one looked far better than this piece of crap does. Seriously, if they'd gone with that, I'd've been sold.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8B1GNCSfX0

And then there's this:

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313

ABRAMS! YOU FUCK!

I mean, seriously! This is like everyone's worst fucking nightmare!

And then there's this:

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=313

ABRAMS! YOU FUCK!

I mean, seriously! This is like everyone's worst fucking nightmare!

Just reading about the clips.

It just gets worse and worse the more I hear about it. And Cardassian sunrises?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first time the UFP comes into contact with Cardassians in DS9?

Feel free to correct my spelling of Cardassian.

I'd rather have this (http://www.tomfoss.net/040707-N-5405H-050.jpg) Enterprise, than this (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg) one.

Just reading about the clips.

It just gets worse and worse the more I hear about it. And Cardassian sunrises?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the first time the UFP comes into contact with Cardassians in DS9?

Feel free to correct my spelling of Cardassian.
Never been established, but thought to be sometime in the 24th century. It was WELL before DS9 though.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Cardassian_history#First_contact

According to your description, it still fits with the vulnerability I highlighted. The rear lower quadrant is a blind spot. Assuming that the arrays are capable of firing at any angle that doesn't intersect with the ships hull, a reasonable assumption unless you have idiot design staff, it has complete forward, and side coverage, but limited rear coverage which can only cover the area level with and above the phaser array.

A medium sized hostile ship approaching from behind and slightly below the engineering section would be in the Enterprise-E's blind spot. It's not a massive blind spot, but an important one if you manage to disable the engines.

Even if you used a large type hostile ship, which would be in the firing arc regardless due to its size, you want to approach from an angle where they can only return minimal fire.

Assuming shields are up, and sensors are active, then a small ship would only have enough time to fire off one torpedo, if they are lucky, before the Enterprise adjusts it's angle by a few degrees and fires a volley of quantum torpedos. Your blind spot is just a few degrees away from the aft torpedo bays. No ship would have enough time to knock the shields out enough to get a torpedo through to disable their engines. This one blind spot you pointed out is dangerously close to certain doom for any oncoming ship.

I'd rather have this (http://www.tomfoss.net/040707-N-5405H-050.jpg) Enterprise, than this (http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/enterprise579_l.jpg) one.

I prefer this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/CV-6_Enterprise.jpg).

Never been established, but thought to be sometime in the 24th century. It was WELL before DS9 though.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Cardassian_history#First_contact

But even then that is before TOS.

This is the Enterprise I want to be Captain of :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b3/Soda_Creek_on_Fraser.jpg

I prefer this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/CV-6_Enterprise.jpg).Nah, that one uses fossil fuels.

why the fuck is the enterprise being built on the ground?
This movie will be total shit.

Cerean;14209218']why the fuck is the enterprise being built on the ground?
This movie will be total shit.

How else are they going to do the old tired cliche of Kirk riding past it?

Cerean;14209218']why the fuck is the enterprise being built on the ground?
This movie will be total shit.Where else would they build it?
...We've built all of our space-shuttles on the ground, and most* of them have made the trip safely.


*Yes, I know.

Where else would they build it?
...We've built all of our space-shuttles on the ground, and most* of them have made the trip safely.


*Yes, I know.

Actually that is a good point. But while the parts were constructed on Earth it was assembled in Space. What does he movie show?

Actually that is a good point. But while the parts were constructed on Earth it was assembled in Space. What does the movie show?Being built on the ground, in the trailers, anyway.
Hm. It's not perfect, sure, but what movie based on such a long running series would be?

Actually that is a good point. But while the parts were constructed on Earth it was assembled in Space. What does he movie show?
It being built on Earth... in Iowa.

I don't mind it being built on Earth as nothing beyond a throwaway line bout her being constructed in space by Roddenberry was ever said, but the fact that the ship was built in San Francisco is a very well established piece of cannon.

It being built on Earth... in Iowa.

I don't mind it being built on Earth as nothing beyond a throwaway line bout her being constructed in space by Roddenberry was ever said, but the fact that the ship was built in San Francisco is a very well established piece of cannon.My question still stands.
What movie could realistically be as good as Star Trek fans expect it to be*?
Has there ever been such a movie?

*It's like Halo 3 all over again.

It being built on Earth... in Iowa.

I don't mind it being built on Earth as nothing beyond a throwaway line bout her being constructed in space by Roddenberry was ever said, but the fact that the ship was built in San Francisco is a very well established piece of cannon.

Ah yes that is the major bad thing t=on the construction in this film is that it is in Iowa.

My question still stands.
What movie could realistically be as good as Star Trek fans expect it to be*?
Has there ever been such a movie?

*It's like Halo 3 all over again.
Let me put it this way. Was Pete Jackson's Lord of the Rings absolutely true to the books? No. Did it take liberties? Yes. Were fans annoyed, yes, yes they were. Is Pete Jackson's Lord of the Ring MUCH better than the 1970's cartoon, yes, yes it is.

That my point, there's bending it a bit, and then there's breaking it. I would be far happier if the director simply said, "We're doing a reboot" because then I would accept all the changes as a matter of course (The same with LotR). However, what we were told was that this would fit within the established universe with MINOR changes. So far the changes seem to be somewhat major.

Assuming shields are up, and sensors are active, then a small ship would only have enough time to fire off one torpedo, if they are lucky, before the Enterprise adjusts it's angle by a few degrees and fires a volley of quantum torpedos. Your blind spot is just a few degrees away from the aft torpedo bays. No ship would have enough time to knock the shields out enough to get a torpedo through to disable their engines. This one blind spot you pointed out is dangerously close to certain doom for any oncoming ship.

That is why your first act is to slice off the nacelles, which given the design style, is incredibly easy to do if you have anything decent for a weapon. An immobile ship is a doomed one.

Let me put it this way. Was Pete Jackson's Lord of the Rings absolutely true to the books? No. Did it take liberties? Yes. Were fans annoyed, yes, yes they were. Is Pete Jackson's Lord of the Ring MUCH better than the 1970's cartoon, yes, yes it is.

That my point, there's bending it a bit, and then there's breaking it. I would be far happier if the director simply said, "We're doing a reboot" because then I would accept all the changes as a matter of course (The same with LotR). However, what we were told was that this would fit within the established universe with MINOR changes. So far the changes seem to be somewhat major.I think I understand, but still.
Don't hype it too much, you might actually enjoy it.

That is why your first act is to slice off the nacelles, which given the design style, is incredibly easy to do if you have anything decent for a weapon. An immobile ship is a doomed one.

You think the Federation haven't anticipated that? Their shields would probably be strongest around there to stop just that sort of thing from happening. Moreover, I remember seeing phasers fired from just that area on a Soverign class ship. And any angle required for attacking the nacells is covered by either torpedos or phasers.

The reboot has to be spectacular. I've always wondered... Star Trek can be more than just about the Enterprise. heck, they had Voyager and DS9. so why can't they focus on any of the other ships that they have?
Sure some were destroyed or ended up without a crew, but they still would have their adventures. why not focus on them?

Defiant
Farragut
Lexington
Yorktown
Excalibur
Exeter
Hood
Intrepid
Valiant
Kongo
Potemkin
Constellation
Republic

Reliant
Pasteur
Excelsior
Hathaway
Stargazer
Galaxy
Dauntless
Prometheus
Voyager
São Paulo
Raven
Relativity
Milan
Proxima
Grissom
Berlin
Crazy Horse
Entente

or, for fun

Daring
Audacious
Suicidal Insanity
Lollipop (she's a good ship)

Ya know what this is?

The sound of me not caring.

Hey. Next time? Make the sound of you not posting.

This is the third person to say this little joke.

Probably not a joke then. You people are waaay too serious about this. See the film. Then bitch.

Where else would they build it?
...We've built all of our space-shuttles on the ground, and most* of them have made the trip safely.


*Yes, I know.

Clearly you don't. They ALL made the trip safely. Challenger and Columbia weren't on their first missions when they were lost.

I find it sad that you can get so upset about a minor design change on a fictional ship and then post so glibly about the death of actual human beings. I was a huge NASA fan as a kid. I was 15 when Challenger exploded. I cried twice. Once that day, and then a few years later when we all learned why. Money. Morton Thiokol engineers said "better not", NASA said "if we don't, we lose money". Fuckers. I stopped dreaming of space that night. I still like space fiction...just not as much as some of you do, I guess.

Clearly you don't. They ALL made the trip safely. Challenger and Columbia weren't on their first missions when they were lost. Then I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

I find it sad that you can get so upset about a minor design change on a fictional ship and then post so glibly about the death of actual human beings.I'm sorry, I'm not upset about anything.

Then I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me.

You're welcome.

I'm sorry, I'm not upset about anything.

Fair enough. Others seem to be. My apologies.

Reliant
Pasteur
Excelsior
Hathaway
Stargazer
Galaxy
Dauntless (*ahem* - slipstream?)
Prometheus
Voyager
São Paulo
Raven
Relativity
Milan
Proxima
Grissom
Berlin
Crazy Horse
Entente

Lollipop (she's a good ship)
Dammit, you're making me all hot & nerdy again. :p
So, no Orion on your list?

Dammit, you're making me all hot & nerdy again. :p
So, no Orion on your list?

Those were both the names of ships in Stargate


Orion was actually also the name of a RL British ship (probably several, actually, though I'm thinking of the dreadnought battleship one).

Those were both the names of ships in Stargate


Orion was actually also the name of a RL British ship (probably several, actually, though I'm thinking of the dreadnought battleship one).True ... and, it's Riker's first steady captain command past Enterprise.

True ... and, it's Riker's first steady captain command past Enterprise.
That's Titan, not Orion. The USS Titan.

Dammit, you're making me all hot & nerdy again. :p
So, no Orion on your list?

I could only go with the ships I'd seen or heard of. I'm surprised you weren't turned on by Entente. That was only mentioned by name on a transmission from The Motion Picture. But yeah, that list exhausts most of my ST geek cred.

You think the Federation haven't anticipated that?


They don't anticipate a lot of things, given how both ship and crew stumble from disaster to disaster, saved only by the plot.


Their shields


Fail fairly often actually. The structure is still a poor design.

But even then that is before TOS.

No it isn't.

Without any mention of Cardassians in anything 23rd century related, they probably didn't meet up with the Federation until the 24th. They did, after all, fight a war with the Federation, which concluded awhile before TNG began.

Probably not a joke then. You people are waaay too serious about this. See the film. Then bitch.

Are you serisouly telling me that you cannot see the difference between the Enterprise model in TOS and the Enterprise model in this new movie?

Clearly you don't. They ALL made the trip safely. Challenger and Columbia weren't on their first missions when they were lost.

I find it sad that you can get so upset about a minor design change on a fictional ship and then post so glibly about the death of actual human beings. I was a huge NASA fan as a kid. I was 15 when Challenger exploded. I cried twice. Once that day, and then a few years later when we all learned why. Money. Morton Thiokol engineers said "better not", NASA said "if we don't, we lose money". Fuckers. I stopped dreaming of space that night. I still like space fiction...just not as much as some of you do, I guess.

I understand why you lost interest in space, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet. We're going into space full time. The only question is when.

Are you serisouly telling me that you cannot see the difference between the Enterprise model in TOS and the Enterprise model in this new movie?

No. I'm saying I can see the difference, and it amounts to a few more added-on bits. I'm saying that the change is perhaps 5% of the overall design. I'm saying that all the canon fanboys are freaking out because that's what they do, and that there's not enough difference to get THAT upset over. Seriously. Fins, mouldings, lights, the dish is a bit father forward. That's all. One more time: relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax.

I understand why you lost interest in space, but I wouldn't give up on it just yet. We're going into space full time. The only question is when.

Thou sayest -- but I can't see how it can be afforded, or even if it matters anymore.

No. I'm saying I can see the difference, and it amounts to a few more added-on bits. I'm saying that the change is perhaps 5% of the overall design. I'm saying that all the canon fanboys are freaking out because that's what they do, and that there's not enough difference to get THAT upset over. Seriously. Fins, mouldings, lights, the dish is a bit father forward. That's all. One more time: relaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaax.

It's basically the difference between a 55 Chevy pickup and a GMC of the same year. Not a lot.

I think they're gonna pull a Star Wars and trash the Franchise. :p

I think they're gonna pull a Star Wars and trash the Franchise. :p

Worldwide Box Office Revenue:

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - $924,317,558
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - $649,398,328
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - $848,998,815

I'm betting they'd kill to "trash" the Franchise the way Star Wars "did".

Worldwide Box Office Revenue:

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace - $924,317,558
Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones - $649,398,328
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - $848,998,815

I'm betting they'd kill to "trash" the Franchise the way Star Wars "did".

My point is that the franchise still sucked.

My point is that the franchise still sucked.

It's your opinion, not your point.

It's your opinion, not your point.

Noted. But it still sucked. :D

It's your opinion, not your point.
I think you'll find it's an objective fact that the new films sucked.

*puts fingers in ears*

I think you'll find it's an objective fact that the new films sucked.

*puts fingers in ears*

I don't disagree that they were bad, but if grossing over $2.5 billion is the measure of "trashing" a franchise, I'm willing to bet that every producer in the world would just love to "trash" their franchise.

Reliant
Pasteur
Excelsior
Hathaway
Stargazer
Galaxy
Dauntless
Prometheus
Voyager
São Paulo
Raven
Relativity
Milan
Proxima
Grissom
Berlin
Crazy Horse
Entente they were not part of the original constitution class starships. ;)

or, for fun

Daring
Audacious
Suicidal Insanity
Lollipop (she's a good ship)

... this is Captain Temple of the Federation Starship Lollipop. Our 5 yr mission, to find the center and to see how long it takes to get there... :D

I don't disagree that they were bad, but if grossing over $2.5 billion is the measure of "trashing" a franchise, I'm willing to bet that every producer in the world would just love to "trash" their franchise.

*Sigh* its just a shame they have to trash the classics just to add to their coffers.

I don't disagree that they were bad, but if grossing over $2.5 billion is the measure of "trashing" a franchise, I'm willing to bet that every producer in the world would just love to "trash" their franchise.
Could one not argue that the 'trashing' wasn't in terms of cash, but of credibility?

just finished reading those clips...

all I can say is...

ugh...

just finished reading those clips...

all I can say is...

ugh...

Enough to make you cry, isn't it?:(

All you fanboys make me laugh. The film looks a hundred times better than anything that's preceded it. Face it, the original series was a load of shit. Especially aesthetically. It's about time a director of the franchise threw out the shit and started anew.

All you fanboys make me laugh. The film looks a hundred times better than anything that's preceded it. Face it, the original series was a load of shit. Especially aesthetically. It's about time a director of the franchise threw out the shit and started anew.

except he's not 'starting anew'. starting anew would be using a different ship with different crew and making a new 'hero' of the federation.

Thou sayest -- but I can't see how it can be afforded, or even if it matters anymore.

Considering how profitable space would be for the harvesting of resources, not to mention how beneficial to all sorts of scientific fields--and don't forget all the moolah involved--I don't see why we wouldn't, unless we'd rather screw ourselves over entirely.

In which case we might as well push the buttons and let the nukes fly now.

All you fanboys make me laugh. The film looks a hundred times better than anything that's preceded it. Face it, the original series was a load of shit. Especially aesthetically. It's about time a director of the franchise threw out the shit and started anew.
What makes you think that the cheesiness of TOS isn't part of what the true fans cherish?

I know I do, that's why I really enjoy watching the old episodes.

You can make something with astounding special effects and nothing that comes across to the viewer.

Or you can have something like old special effects that somehow connect with the audience.

(Sadly, the same holds true for way too many video-games in which graphics are killer and gameplay practically non-existant.)

(Sadly, the same holds true for way too many video-games in which graphics are killer and gameplay practically non-existant.)

Games these days are more about providing an immersive experience, than 80s-style addictive gameplay. I guess some people prefer old-school, but now that I've played the likes of Fallout 3, I'm not going back to that old button-mashing crap.

Back to the point, the enterprise is probably the ugliest spacecraft design in the history of sci-fi, and no amount of special effects will ever save it.

Back to the point, the enterprise is probably the ugliest spacecraft design in the history of sci-fi, and no amount of special effects will ever save it.
oh hell no.
The ships in Battle Beyond the Stars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080421/) is far uglier than any incarnation of the Enterprise.

Games these days are more about providing an immersive experience, than 80s-style addictive gameplay. I guess some people prefer old-school, but now that I've played the likes of Fallout 3, I'm not going back to that old button-mashing crap.

Back to the point, the enterprise is probably the ugliest spacecraft design in the history of sci-fi, and no amount of special effects will ever save it.
I disagree on both.

I'm old-school when it comes to games, and I think there are far worse designs than the Enterprise.

I always thought it made sense to separate the engines from the machine room from the living quarters.