Lieutenant
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 32
I know the JJ Abrams Star Trek is a rather touchy subject with most Trekkies, but I felt the need to get my pet peeves with the movie out there. I have three.

1. The warp "core" in the movie was multiple cores which doesn't make sense to me. Could anybody explain why they did the warp core this way instead of the standard warp core from all the other Star Treks.

2. The warp effect, not the effect of the ships jumping to warp which I actually think is pretty cool (I know blasphemy ), but the effect of them in warp which looks more like the hyper space thing from Star Wars. Now I'm no expert on warp theory but I don't think I have ever seen a ship going through some sort of corridor thing except when it is slip stream drive.

3. Now I know it is a brewery, but seriously Abrams, it would have been way cheaper to just build a set than renting a entire brewery. All those pipes and tanks did not say futuristic to me especially on a starship. It looked almost as if the entire enterprise was made of those pipes and tanks with a bridge, sick bay, and shuttle bay slapped on.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,507
# 2
09-25-2012, 06:11 AM
1. As seen in the Original series. Those canisters behind the fence could be the multple Warp Cores similar to the newest movie. Also remember that the USS Enterprise Aircraft carrier has 8 nuclear reactor cores, while Nimitz class ships which came much later have only 2 each.

2. Considering the amount of energy needed to bend Space/Time to achieve faster than light travel, I can't imagine the effect NOT being similar to what we saw in the latest movie. I think it's more unlikely that what we saw in the old series and it's spinoffs and movies was just too "clean" to be realistic, considering the amount of energies involved. But without proff either way, who's to know.

3. It was probably acutally cheaper to use the brewery for product placement rights (think Uhura's scene in the Bar where Kirk was hitting on her) plus if you had even seen a current tech vessel (and I've seen my share) this representation lloks more realistic. but that's just me.
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 906
# 3
09-25-2012, 06:35 AM
I have two, but the one main, over-riding, makes the freaking movie almost unwatchable:



LENS FLARE!!!!!!!!!!



I mean, I could barely tell what was going on the bridge of the Kelvin for the most part. I really wanted to put some mini-blinds or something on the viewscreen/window.

Second, kind of nit-picky, was the fact that the Enterprise was assembled totally on the ground and then somehow magically made it through the thick atmosphere at escape velocity without the rather flimsy nacelle struts breaking off. I know you could say it was all beamed into space, but in ST: IV, Scotty was having a heck of a time beaming just two whales and the associated water into the ship. I know, this is the Abrams-verse where the rules aren't the same, but still.

Overall, I wish they would have stayed with the original timeline, but if the franchise had to have a reboot to attract enough of the general population to stay afloat, then I guess an alternate timeline is better than nothing.
Career Officer
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 906
# 4
09-25-2012, 06:38 AM
One other thing, it seems a little odd that Kirk went from cadet to captain of the Federation flagship in one step. Granted, we have to get Kirk to captain or we can't rehash, I mean reboot the series, but still.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 423
# 5
09-25-2012, 06:54 AM
it was entertaining.....it was treklike, but not really trek
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 315
# 6
09-25-2012, 06:54 AM
I'll take a stab at this.

1) Remember that Abrams Universe is trying to mimic 24th century tech with existing tech. Imagine trying to install a nuclear sub reactor on a WWII Mark XII submarine. Keep in mind that deuterium and antideuterium fuel is used in the matter-antmatter reactors on starships, and it's known that at least one Starfleet ship used multiple warp cores. So There are lots of ways this could have been possible, including possibly having each container house a warp core M/ARA assembly and dilithium crystal all tying into the same conduits to boost total power output.

2) There is some precedent here, as we've seen the "going to warp" affect look like the Star Wars wormhole before the flash of light brings the streaking stars effect. Given the fact that these ships clearly use multiple warp cores, it's possible the effects are different.

3a) Concerning location. The biggest reason was time. Building a set requires renting a space, hiring artists, finding props, buying materials, and so on. Shooting on location is probably cheaper since the factory already exists, had all the scenes they needed, and didn't involve setting something up only to be scrapped after filming was complete. This probably was cheaper for them this way.

3b) I would contend that on a ship using patchwork engineering (see point #1) it doesn't make sense to hide these things behind panels and as they would have on other ST ships. They are likely to have a lot of repair work. It was probably also rushed into service, as it was the maiden voyage after all. On the other hand, why Uhura is working in the hypnotic chamber is completely beyond me, that part makes no sense. As a communications officer, you are likely to be working in a much quieter location, or in a position to relay orders to nearby departments easily.

for the record, I also didn't like the engineering rooms. If you haven't seen it, the art work for what they intended to build was fantastic. I hope they have a chance to build it into the next movie.
Kobayashi Maru
Join Date: Sept 2008


"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,592
# 7
09-25-2012, 06:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by collegepark2151 View Post
I have two, but the one main, over-riding, makes the freaking movie almost unwatchable:

LENS FLARE!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, I could barely tell what was going on the bridge of the Kelvin for the most part. I really wanted to put some mini-blinds or something on the viewscreen/window.

Second, kind of nit-picky, was the fact that the Enterprise was assembled totally on the ground and then somehow magically made it through the thick atmosphere at escape velocity without the rather flimsy nacelle struts breaking off. I know you could say it was all beamed into space, but in ST: IV, Scotty was having a heck of a time beaming just two whales and the associated water into the ship. I know, this is the Abrams-verse where the rules aren't the same, but still.

Overall, I wish they would have stayed with the original timeline, but if the franchise had to have a reboot to attract enough of the general population to stay afloat, then I guess an alternate timeline is better than nothing.
100% agree. Actually, I'll let go of it all because it's an alternate version except the bright lights almost everywhere on a ship. I think Abrams came out and lamented the choice to do that as well.
Kathryn S. Beringer - The Dawn Patrol

Solaris build - Veritatum Liquido Cernene
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 315
# 8
09-25-2012, 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by collegepark2151 View Post

Second, kind of nit-picky, was the fact that the Enterprise was assembled totally on the ground and then somehow magically made it through the thick atmosphere at escape velocity without the rather flimsy nacelle struts breaking off. I know you could say it was all beamed into space, but in ST: IV, Scotty was having a heck of a time beaming just two whales and the associated water into the ship. I know, this is the Abrams-verse where the rules aren't the same, but still.
Given we don't know what material was used or type of construction, it's hard to say. Visually it may look that way. But then if we went by visuals we might also say that putting multiple heavy jet engines on the wings of an aircraft will make it less sturdy, whereas in reality it has the opposite effect.

Those struts could be solid metal, whereas we know engineering and the saucer are going to be largely filled with air. That would make the struts the strongest portion of the ship. The same could be said about the "top heavy" neck of the ship that most people comment on.
Kobayashi Maru
Join Date: Sept 2008


"Holographic tissue paper for the holographic runny nose. Don't give them to patients." - The Doctor
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 930
# 9
09-25-2012, 08:48 AM
I found some of the concept art for Engineering off this Star Trek french website: http://forums.startrek-fr.net/viewtopic.php?pid=56838

Man, I hope they actually build this set for the sequel.
Member since November 2009... I think.
(UFP) Ragnarök Fleet - Logistics Division Vice Admiral T'Phira; Captain Selena; Captain Altecha; Captain K'Kera; Lieutenant Aydihe Tefx; Subcommander S'ena
(KDF) Lieutenant General Vokno (aka Lady Vokno); Lieutenant General Raylene
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,507
# 10
09-25-2012, 09:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by collegepark2151 View Post
I have two, but the one main, over-riding, makes the freaking movie almost unwatchable:



LENS FLARE!!!!!!!!!!



I mean, I could barely tell what was going on the bridge of the Kelvin for the most part. I really wanted to put some mini-blinds or something on the viewscreen/window.

Second, kind of nit-picky, was the fact that the Enterprise was assembled totally on the ground and then somehow magically made it through the thick atmosphere at escape velocity without the rather flimsy nacelle struts breaking off. I know you could say it was all beamed into space, but in ST: IV, Scotty was having a heck of a time beaming just two whales and the associated water into the ship. I know, this is the Abrams-verse where the rules aren't the same, but still.

Overall, I wish they would have stayed with the original timeline, but if the franchise had to have a reboot to attract enough of the general population to stay afloat, then I guess an alternate timeline is better than nothing.


I'll spot you the lens flasre, that was a bit annoying. as for point #2, i have 2 phrases for you that always seem to be forgotten when someone makes the arguement about the Entperise being built on the ground.

1. Sturctural Integrity Field- Keeps ship together during hi stress movments, I figure if it can keep the ship together while manuvering at impulse, or going to Warp Speed, then it can keep the ship together while on thrusters coming out of the atmosphere.

2. Inertial Dampeners - keeps everyone and everything inside the ship from going splat and ripping up the ineternals.

There is precedent in the TNG time frame of Galaxy Class ships being built on the ground.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:03 PM.