www.ditl.org

Tyyr wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:The universes have been diverging for a lot more than a quarter of a century - even if you ignore the size of the Kelvin, the neoE is about an order of magnitude larger than the E-nil. The difference that shows in the entire industrial base isn't something that can occur in such a short time. It's the equivalent of the Japanese building a half-million ton battleship instead of the Yamato because something different happened in WW1. That's impossible - the PoD would have to have been a century or two earlier.

I only said "at least" twenty five because it had to have diverged pre-Kelvin. How much farther back I dunno, but at a minimum it's 25 years.

Given that even just looking at the Kelvin would seem to indicate some pretty serious differences in the Geneverse and the Abramsverse, I tend to just run with the idea that Nero and co jumped into a completely different universe altogether, not just an alternate timeline that was changed as soon as the Narada appeared. It would handily explain all of the inconsistancies we see.

As to the windows, it matters little if you consider the Abramsverse to be a simple divergence or a new universe altogether. Even if the former, it's incredibly easy - almost de rigeur - to believe that the point of divergence was early enough, or the degree of divergence otherwise great enough - to mean large enough changes in design philosophy, materials, tech, etc., which would lead to the difference in window placement. The very fact of the existence of the Kelvin and its size v. role indicates this degree of divergence.

Or it's a combination of the two - it's an alternate reality, just as the MU is. It's linked to the original run, and is an offshoot of it, but has many differences, including the technological base. That doesn't mean that everything from the Geneverse can be thrown out, any more than you can completely ignore the prime universe when discussing the MU.

But you noticed yourself how the technology worked differently in the Abramsverse! If it still has any ties to the existing universe I can expect some "galactic constants" to remain untouchable. And one of the many constants that were changed without a good justification is the way ships are designed. And a ship whose dimensions are increased to an absurd extent by people who have no concept of how Star Trek works, with the shameful excuse that it is a parallel universe, simply doesn't work if it is still to be taken seriously. You can do that in the silly MU or with an alien ship of the week, but not with the lead ship, the iconic ship that the franchise was built around.

Also, if you ask anyone who has worked on it (such as Orci and Kurtzman), you will get a definite answer that the point of divergence is the arrival of the Narada in the 23rd century, not anything that happened prior to that. (This is not my personal opinion, but this is how it's supposed to be.) And that Star Trek Enterprise or anything else that we want to blame for creating the messy Abramsverse definitely still belongs to the Prime Universe. We can't go and create our personal timelines and insisting on them as if they were canon. Which is what many of you are effectively doing. You are re-interpreting the movie premise to fit with your ideas!

So the Kelvin is too big likewise. This can be an error, we can ignore it or we can say it's a wholly different universe to start with.

There a two options:

A) The Abramsverse is fully canon within the continuity of Trek as it has existed for 40 years. In this case any deviations need to be explained away or rated as errors that have to be ignored.

B) The Abramsverse is a completely new entity, in the same fashion as the BSG reboot. In this case we can readily accept the ship as being huge, because the original Enterprise has never existed in any timeline.

And one arbitrary concept that I disapprove of:

C) The Abramsverse is a different timeline/universe in the existing continuity, but for some reason changed to an extent that basic principles of how things look and work have been changed, and at some time that predates the point of divergence explicitly shown in the movie.

Making up any such arbitrary solutions is fanon to start with, and clearly a more comprehensive form of fanon than simply not accepting the contradictory size that the VFX people claim it is. It also opens a can of worms, because it only encourages anyone to make up personal theories that any events well within Old Trek have been the result of a time travel likewise. Actually, if I had to start working with such "fluent" rules of how things are supposed to work in any Trek universe/timeline, I wouldn't even bother and I had never taken care of the Star Trek in the first place. Because the uninterrupted continuity was one of the most important things that caught my interest in the subject. I don't know how you all have been involved in Trek discussions, but I thought the age of "fanon vs. canon" debates was over and we could finally settle on a common ground. It is sad how I must justify the whole principle all over again and ironical how I am effectively defending the Orci doctrine although I don't like it.

You yourself mentioned the strict defintion of canon; the creators' intentions may be what they are, but bear little on a canonical dissection of the evidence.

Bernd wrote:But you noticed yourself how the technology worked differently in the Abramsverse!

Just as phasers work differently to disruptors and warp drive works differently to slipstream. We've even seen variations between different types of phaser and different types of warp drive.

And one of the many constants that were changed without a good justification is the way ships are designed. And a ship whose dimensions are increased to an absurd extent by people who have no concept of how Star Trek works, with the shameful excuse that it is a parallel universe, simply doesn't work if it is still to be taken seriously.

Why not? You keep saying "it doesn't work like that", and providing no explanation why. Newsflash laddie - your interpretation about how Trek tech works is not the be-all and end-all of the subject.

You can do that in the silly MU or with an alien ship of the week, but not with the lead ship, the iconic ship that the franchise was built around.

What's the difference? A ship is a ship, whether it's Regency One or the neo-Enterprise.

Also, if you ask anyone who has worked on it (such as Orci and Kurtzman), you will get a definite answer that the point of divergence is the arrival of the Narada in the 23rd century, not anything that happened prior to that.

It's a point of divergence certainly, but when there's solid evidence of pre-Narada differences then those statements can be dismissed as an inaccurate description of the Abramseverse's relation to the Geneverse.

And that Star Trek Enterprise or anything else that we want to blame for creating the messy Abramsverse definitely still belongs to the Prime Universe.

I'm making no claims about where Enterprise fits in. It might be part of the Geneverse, the Abramsverse, or both, depending where the PoD is.

We can't go and create our personal timelines and insisting on them as if they were canon. Which is what many of you are effectively doing. You are re-interpreting the movie premise to fit with your ideas!

We're doing nothing of the sort, no one's put a pin in the timeline and said "that's where it changed". We're saying that there must have been additional changes prior to the Narada's arrival, based on the observed differences between the technology of the new film and the technology of TOS. If you think that making those observations, based solely on canon, constitutes "creating personal timelines" then I can't help you.

A) The Abramsverse is fully canon within the continuity of Trek as it has existed for 40 years. In this case any deviations need to be explained away or rated as errors that have to be ignored.

There's no question on this point - the Abramsverse is indeed canon, just as all the MU episodes, YE, YoH, etc are.

B) The Abramsverse is a completely new entity, in the same fashion as the BSG reboot. In this case we can readily accept the ship as being huge, because the original Enterprise has never existed in any timeline.

Contradicted by Nimoy's appearance, and the fact that he originates from the Geneverse.

C) The Abramsverse is a different timeline/universe in the existing continuity, but for some reason changed to an extent that basic principles of how things look and work have been changed, and at some time that predates the point of divergence explicitly shown in the movie.

Also know as what was depicted in the film.

Making up any such arbitrary solutions is fanon to start with, and clearly a more comprehensive form of fanon than simply not accepting the contradictory size that the VFX people claim it is. It also opens a can of worms, because it only encourages anyone to make up personal theories that any events well within Old Trek have been the result of a time travel likewise.

Hardly. Unless "someone using their eyes and their brain" is the new definition of fanon.

Because the uninterrupted continuity was one of the most important things that caught my interest in the subject.

You must hate Yesterday's Enterprise, First Contact, Year of Hell, and every other time travel episode then.

Captain Seafort wrote: Why not? You keep saying "it doesn't work like that", and providing no explanation why. Newsflash laddie - your interpretation about how Trek tech works is not the be-all and end-all of the subject.

I never claimed that I know how everything works and that my interpretation is the only correct one. I just point out that there are inconsistencies whose existence some people simply deny or worse, invalidate objections by changing the very premise how to assess them. That is M.W. style.

Captain Seafort wrote: What's the difference? A ship is a ship, whether it's Regency One or the neo-Enterprise.

Well, one is a silly fanboyish ship, the other one wants to be taken seriously. Which is why we have this discussion. Don't tell me you'd defend the size of the Regency One with such dedication.

Captain Seafort wrote: It's a point of divergence certainly, but when there's solid evidence of pre-Narada differences then those statements can be dismissed as an inaccurate description of the Abramseverse's relation to the Geneverse.

As soon as you say the point of divergence is at an earlier date you re-interpret the movie. That would be like saying "When the Enterprise-E went back to 2063 to fix the Borg incident it changed the timeline and the Dominion War would have never happened (or would have been lost for the Federation) for some reason without such interference." I too acknowledge the inconsistencies of the Kelvin and everything else, but I don't go and impose my interpretation on other fans. I rather claim that the ships are smaller, and that there are other errors in the movie which IMHO is the lesser evil. That way I can keep up my own principles and still cling to nuTrek being canon.

Captain Seafort wrote: I'm making no claims about where Enterprise fits in. It might be part of the Geneverse, the Abramsverse, or both, depending where the PoD is.

Okay. Sorry, I was just quoting a general idea that I'm reading about almost every day.

Captain Seafort wrote: We're doing nothing of the sort, no one's put a pin in the timeline and said "that's where it changed". We're saying that there must have been additional changes prior to the Narada's arrival, based on the observed differences between the technology of the new film and the technology of TOS. If you think that making those observations, based solely on canon, constitutes "creating personal timelines" then I can't help you.

But you expect everyone to acknowledge your personal opinion that
1) the change in the timeline happens before the Narada arrives (it doesn't matter when exactly), as opposed to the whole premise of the movie (which becomes pointless if we pretend that even without Nero's interference the lives of Kirk & Co. would have been totally different than we know!!!!).
2) that basic principles such as the look of the ship are different in the new universe (or better, that the ships still look like they did while they are now sixteen times as big), and that this is perfectly plausible.
You are free to make up arbitrary interpretations for yourself, but don't expect me to abide by them.

Captain Seafort wrote: Contradicted by Nimoy's appearance, and the fact that he originates from the Geneverse.

Why? Nimoy is only an actor last time I checked. If Richard Hatch had appeared as Apollo in the BSG reboot (perhaps there would be an explanation why Viper pilots are much older), would it be the same universe as the old one?

Captain Seafort wrote: You must hate Yesterday's Enterprise, First Contact, Year of Hell, and every other time travel episode then.

No. Only this time time travel is totally inconsistent with all previous depictions. I could go into great lengths explaining why, and I've already done that.

Bernd wrote:I never claimed that I know how everything works and that my interpretation is the only correct one. I just point out that there are inconsistencies whose existence some people simply deny or worse, invalidate objections by changing the very premise how to assess them. That is M.W. style.

There are inconsistencies in all Trek. What you're doing is ignoring or dismissing the clear evidence of the neoE's size based on window rows (an argumnet which others have already ripped apart), the bridge (which you state yourself indicates an even larger ship) and the fact that it's much bigger than the E-nil (which is irrelevant - nobody's claimed it's the original E-nil). I must also express my heartfelt thanks for the compliment of comparing me to Mike Wong.

Well, one is a silly fanboyish ship, the other one wants to be taken seriously. Which is why we have this discussion. Don't tell me you'd defend the size of the Regency One with such dedication.

If some idiot tried claiming it was the same size as the Negh'var, I certainly would.

As soon as you say the point of divergence is at an earlier date you re-interpret the movie. That would be like saying "When the Enterprise-E went back to 2063 to fix the Borg incident it changed the timeline and the Dominion War would have never happened (or would have been lost for the Federation) for some reason without such interference."

On the contrary, I'm not making any predictions about the timing or nature of the original PoD, nor am I suggesting that observed events would have happened differently due to earlier events (unless there's a clear, direct link between them). I'm making observations that Abramsverse tech is much more advanced than that of the Geneverse, and pointing out that such changes could not have occurred over such a short period of time.

I too acknowledge the inconsistencies of the Kelvin and everything else, but I don't go and impose my interpretation on other fans. I rather claim that the ships are smaller, and that there are other errors in the movie which IMHO is the lesser evil. That way I can keep up my own principles and still cling to nuTrek being canon.

In other words you start from the conclusion (that the Narada's arrival was the sole change from Geneverse to Abramsverse) and dismiss any evidence that points to additional changes. That's fucking stupid.

But you expect everyone to acknowledge your personal opinion that
1) the change in the timeline happens before the Narada arrives (it doesn't matter when exactly), as opposed to the whole premise of the movie (which becomes pointless if we pretend that even without Nero's interference the lives of Kirk & Co. would have been totally different than we know!!!!).
2) that basic principles such as the look of the ship are different in the new universe (or better, that the ships still look like they did while they are now sixteen times as big), and that this is perfectly plausible.

If you don't like what the film depicts, that's your problem. Pretending the differences don't exist doesn't change the fact that they're there.

You are free to make up arbitrary interpretations for yourself, but don't expect me to abide by them.

Arbitrary? What would you call ignoring scale of the technological differences between the Geneverse and Abramsverse if not arbitrary?

Why? Nimoy is only an actor last time I checked. If Richard Hatch had appeared as Apollo in the BSG reboot (perhaps there would be an explanation why Viper pilots are much older), would it be the same universe as the old one?

A nitpick, but point taken, I should have described him as Nimoy-Spock (or Spock-Prime), to differentiate the character from Quinto-Spock.

Only this time time travel is totally inconsistent with all previous depictions. I could go into great lengths explaining why, and I've already done that.

On the contrary. The film describes time-travel as creating parallel universes. This is consistent with examples such as YE-Redemption and FC, in which entities from one timeline continued to exist in another timeline. How would this be possible, unless they'd actually "jumped" from one parallel universe to another?

Bernd wrote:Well, one is a silly fanboyish ship, the other one wants to be taken seriously.

Let em amend this for clarity and accuracy:
"...one is a canon silly fanboyish ship..."

Bernd wrote:As soon as you say the point of divergence is at an earlier date you re-interpret the movie.

Hardly. It would be correct to say that as soon as you say the point of divergence is at an earlier date you interpret the movie. IIRC, nowhere in the film was there some voice-over stating, "On Stardate XXXX.XX, a parallel universe diverged from the original one." With that said, interpretations - especially ones like the one we're discussing, which is eminently based on evidence - other than yours, mine, or Joe Schmoe's are valid.

Bernd wrote:I too acknowledge the inconsistencies of the Kelvin and everything else, but I don't go and impose my interpretation on other fans. I rather claim that the ships are smaller, and that there are other errors in the movie which IMHO is the lesser evil.

And similarly, some of us claim a different interpretation - one which is hardly spurious, BTW. Disagreeing with you is hardly "imposing our interpretation on other fans," any more than you are imposing yours upon us.

Bernd wrote:But you expect everyone to acknowledge your personal opinion that
1) the change in the timeline happens before the Narada arrives (it doesn't matter when exactly), as opposed to the whole premise of the movie (which becomes pointless if we pretend that even without Nero's interference the lives of Kirk & Co. would have been totally different than we know!!!!).
2) that basic principles such as the look of the ship are different in the new universe (or better, that the ships still look like they did while they are now sixteen times as big), and that this is perfectly plausible.
You are free to make up arbitrary interpretations for yourself, but don't expect me to abide by them.

I'm confused. What's wrong with anyone wanting others to acknowledge their opinion? We all acknowledge yours, whether or not we agreee with it. If we didn't, this discussion wouldn't be occurring. And in light of the fact that there is no onscreen, concrete answer about the exact date of the divergence, the interpretations expressed here are no more or less arbitrary than any others. You have already said that there are points of evidence which you choose to ignore; isn't that arbitrary?

Sure, A circumstantial argument could be made that the appearance of the Narada was the point of divergence; but there is evidence that the actual point of divergence was much earlier. There was no dialogue during the film during the attack on the Kelvin indicating a sensor reading of a parallel univers beginning, or anything like that.

Bernd wrote:Why? Nimoy is only an actor last time I checked.

This is obtuse. Obviously, the reference is to the fact of the same character being extant in both universes.

Captain Seafort, I see no reason to discuss the issue further with you, as you have a different idea of the whole movie and there's neither common ground with my own principles, nor with the intention of those who made it.

Just one more thing I'd like to mention. If the ship had been designed to be 725m long in the first place, we wouldn't have this whole discussion. I still would complain about the ignorant people at ILM, who obviously thought it would be a cool idea if Trek could compete with other sci-fi franchises size-wise. But I would concede that within the boundaries of this possibly totally rebooted universe the ship could well be so long.

But the way it actually happened, the huge size is in no way reflected in the design. It is incredibly inconsistent, and as such totally unbecoming of a ship to bear the name Enterprise. And you can ask anyone who has been designing starships or worked as a 3D designer, no one approves the rash decision to change the scale of the ship (and I can imagine that Ryan Church is accordingly pissed too but that he can't tell us yet). Hell, it is a multi-million-dollar blockbuster movie, they don't even get some basics right, but some fans suddenly throw overboard all principles and pretend that everything is all right.

Oh well, there's still one more thing: I am grateful that no one around here told me to get a life and to get off the basement more often. That is the usual reaction of my opponents lately, who forget that they are nerds and who think they are cool kids now that Trek is mainstream.

Signing off.

Bernd wrote:Captain Seafort, I concede.

Fixed. Next time, just say as much earlier on and it would save you a lot of trouble.

Mikey wrote: I'm confused. What's wrong with anyone wanting others to acknowledge their opinion? We all acknowledge yours, whether or not we agreee with it.

No you don't. You dismiss nearly all of my evidence with the argument "It's a universe whose point of divergence predates the arrival of the Narada, and hence everything can look and work any way the producers want and what you say doesn't matter".

Mikey wrote: You have already said that there are points of evidence which you choose to ignore; isn't that arbitrary?

Oh. Arbitrary because I don't acknowledge something that wasn't in the movie?

Mikey wrote:

Bernd wrote:Why? Nimoy is only an actor last time I checked.

This is obtuse. Obviously, the reference is to the fact of the same character being extant in both universes.

The fact that the same actor appears in the same role doesn't mean that continuity has been preserved. Spock, like everyone else we believe to know in the new movie, is just a token character, not an indicator of a still existing continuity. Basically not any more than Starbuck & Co in neo-BSG, although in the latter case they are impossible to reconcile while in Trek it may still be an option. An option, not a necessity.

Bernd wrote:Captain Seafort, I see no reason to discuss the issue further with you, as you have a different idea of the whole movie and there's neither common ground with my own principles, nor with the intention of those who made it.

Strange, I'd have said that that represents a large part of the reason we are discussing it.

Just one more thing I'd like to mention. If the ship had been designed to be 725m long in the first place, we wouldn't have this whole discussion. I still would complain about the ignorant people at ILM, who obviously thought it would be a cool idea if Trek could compete with other sci-fi franchises size-wise. But I would concede that within the boundaries of this possibly totally rebooted universe the ship could well be so long.

What has the original OOU design size got to do with it's actual size IU?

But the way it actually happened, the huge size is in no way reflected in the design.

Other than the huge shuttlebay. And the bridge. And engineering.

And you can ask anyone who has been designing starships or worked as a 3D designer, no one approves the rash decision to change the scale of the ship (and I can imagine that Ryan Church is accordingly pissed too but that he can't tell us yet). Hell, it is a multi-million-dollar blockbuster movie, they don't even get some basics right, but some fans suddenly throw overboard all principles and pretend that everything is all right.

Or they decided that the smaller size wasn't consistent with the number of shuttles the ship would need to carry given their greatly expanded role in the Abramsverse, do they decided to fix the problem. You are, again, making vague references to "principles" without explaining the specifics of what those principles are or how they've been "thrown overboard".

No you don't. You dismiss nearly all of my evidence with the argument "It's a universe whose point of divergence predates the arrival of the Narada, and hence everything can look and work any way the producers want and what you say doesn't matter".

We dismiss your conclusions as flawed and consider most of the evidence you use to support them to be either irrelevant or outweighed by the preponderance of the evidence, but we do not fail to acknowledge your opinions. If that were the case then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

Oh. Arbitrary because I don't acknowledge something that wasn't in the movie?

The shuttlebay scene, the bridge, engineering and the Kelvin all were in the movie.

The fact that the same actor appears in the same role doesn't mean that continuity has been preserved. Spock, like everyone else we believe to know in the new movie, is just a token character, not an indicator of a still existing continuity.

Spock Prime looks the same as he does in the Geneverse. His recollections of his role in the Narada's arrival match what we know of Spock's actions on Romulus from Unification (why would Nero consider Spock to have betrayed him and Romulus unless there were significant ties between them). His memories of Kirk and crew correspond with TOS. Unless you have something solid to the contrary then this is good evidence that Spock Prime comes from the late 24th century Geneverse.

Basically not any more than Starbuck & Co in neo-BSG, although in the latter case they are impossible to reconcile while in Trek it may still be an option. An option, not a necessity.

Is Spock female? Did any of what we saw of Spock's home time directly contradict what we know of the late 24th century Geneverse? Since the answer to both these questions is "no", your analogy holds no water.

Bernd wrote:No you don't. You dismiss nearly all of my evidence with the argument "It's a universe whose point of divergence predates the arrival of the Narada, and hence everything can look and work any way the producers want and what you say doesn't matter".

Ah, here's the crux of the matter. Speaking only for myself; I have never said, implied, or intimated that what you say doesn't matter. If you happen to take the fact that I disagree with you as a dismissal of you're right to hold your own opinion, then there's an issue that I'd guess you have to resolve on your own. In fact, I enjoy your site immensely and have a great deal of respect for what you've done with it. No less is true in this case - I both respect and appreciate the fact that you have taken steps to arrive at your conclusion through logic and rationality. The fact remains that I still disagree with you on this point, but I honestly can't see any reason why you would take that the way you describe above.

Bernd wrote:Oh. Arbitrary because I don't acknowledge something that wasn't in the movie?

Erm... you mean like I did, which you described as worngly re-interpreting the movie?

Bernd wrote:The fact that the same actor appears in the same role doesn't mean that continuity has been preserved. Spock, like everyone else we believe to know in the new movie, is just a token character, not an indicator of a still existing continuity. Basically not any more than Starbuck & Co in neo-BSG, although in the latter case they are impossible to reconcile while in Trek it may still be an option. An option, not a necessity.

It's not a factor of the same actor. It's a factor of the same character. Aside from the obvious gender difference, Starbuck in nBSG wasn't written as the same character as Starbuck from oBSG.

If I could slip in here, I have a question...why is it, exactly, that the increased size of the Enterprise is such a sore issue? If it's mere personal preference, I can understand that, but preference is not truth or fact. I keep getting the impression from this debate that the smaller sized Enterprised should be taken as a universal truth or something; it MUST be this big, no bigger, no smaller, in any and all realities of the multiverse! Why? What about the bigger ship doesn't work? What concept or idea or belief does a larger ship violate that makes it worth such argument? As far as I could tell, the bigger size didn't change a thing about how the movie played out. There was no place in the movie I could point to and go "See, if they had kept the original size, that wouldn't have worked/would have been much easier/would have been much harder/would have been cooler/ect."

I ask out of pure curiosity, because I really don't see why it is such an issue.

Because its something for people to fight about.