www.ditl.org

I think we all have noticed that the new Kelvin, despite having 'new' bits like phaser turrets, looks much closer to canon TOS vessels than the new E-nil does.

I don't have the links off hand, but I've read that the Kelvin is from the timeline we all remember, and the E-nil is part of the new timeline.

It has been stated by Abrams that ST:XI is a Star Trek movie for fans of movies, not necessarily the core fan base.


Basically, I suspect from what we already know about the plot (which, for me is more than I generally care to know), it sounds like the plot will allow Abrams and crew to play in Roddenberry's universe and leave the original timeline intact.


Basically, what I'm saying is that, the Kelvin design should give us faith that if they wanted to be more conservative with the Connie design, I think they could have. But remember,


Whether or not we agree with those changes or the direction their going in is another matter.



I'm personally excited at seeing this new direction, so long as they keep the original time line intact, which it seems like they will, and so long as the movie isn't way more ed up than Iron Man was. I it when they mess up a great movie with unescessary scenes XD.

I think the Kelvin is supposed to be much older than the E-nil.

[mini-spoilers below!]

From what I've heard, the Kelvin is the ship Kirk's parents served on. Given that the ship was probably destroyed (and them killed) while he was still youngish, I'd say it's at least half a decade older than the Connie, probably as much as a couple of decades.

Erm, you guys are missing my point.....


The 'new' connie has all sorts of weird things about it; curving nacelle pylons and weird alien fins on the nacelles, and a tiny little engineering hull, 'streamlined' to near nothingness.

Much has already been said about this re-imagining though.


My point was that the Kelvin looks much closer to original TOS designs, therefore if the directors wanted to be more conservative I think they could have, but it just didn't happen in their script, the 'new' connie needs to be all new fangled.


Anyway, I was talking about looks, not sure what age has to do with it.

LaughingCheese wrote:

Anyway, I was talking about looks, not sure what age has to do with it.

Aesthetics change over time, we can see that in the existing Trek. That is what age has do do with the discussion.

Cpl Kendall wrote:

LaughingCheese wrote:

Anyway, I was talking about looks, not sure what age has to do with it.

Aesthetics change over time, we can see that in the existing Trek. That is what age has do do with the discussion.

Oh, true.

But the aesthetics of the new E-nil are pretty radical for mere changing design tastes.


Are you saying my points invalid?

Well, the Kelvin looks more like what we would consider a TOS-era ship, and the new E-nil looks more like a movie-era ship.

LaughingCheese wrote:
Oh, true.

But the aesthetics of the new E-nil are pretty radical for mere changing design tastes.


Are you saying my points invalid?

Nope. I figure the furhter back Nero goes, the more potential there is for drastic changes. I would like to think that there is a reason for the radical differences between already seen Trek ships but my personal opinion is that they just do it because they want to.

Well, rarely do IU and OOU reasoning agree. But yes, the age of ship does affect the look - not only through the changing of pure aesthetic sense, but also through technological additions; miniaturization of existing tech; etc. No, this doesn't make your point invalid, Cheese - it points to the fact that there definitely was a sea-change when the timeline was f***ed with.

Mikey wrote:Well, rarely do IU and OOU reasoning agree.

IU=In Universe, but what's OOU? Our Own Universe? lol

But yes, the age of ship does affect the look - not only through the changing of pure aesthetic sense, but also through technological additions; miniaturization of existing tech; etc. No, this doesn't make your point invalid, Cheese - it points to the fact that there definitely was a sea-change when the timeline was f***ed with.

I think I understand; but I'm thinking of a real life explanation, which is, Abrams and his gang just wanted to play in Roddenberry's universe, and the multiverse theory of quantum mechanics explains the changes they've made, while keeping the timeline we love intact.

The Kelvin, while maybe older, is a design from the pre-interference timeline, and thus is a more traditional TOS-ish ship.


What I'm trying to say is that from the design of the Kelvin it appears that they COULD have made the new E-nil closer to the original design, but like you guys have pointed out, they just want to do it different.

I was trying to give you guys some hope for this movie if anyone's still worried.

Personally, I'm optimistic that we will be pleasantly surprised by Abram's respect for the original time line, and that his plot will wittingly introduce us to a new vision of Trek.


Beyond that, there's always Netflix....

OOU = "Out Of Universe;" i.e., real-life explanations such as FX errors, writing gaffes, etc.

I'm agreeing with you; I believe that the different design of the E-nil is explained in a fairly non-threatening way as being due to development in an alternate timeline. That also gives me hope that I won't have to rationalize too much to accept this film.

Over all I do like the design they came up with for the E-nil and for all intense and purposes I'm treating this movie as a reboot of trek (a much needed one in my opinion, they could have done that with Enterprise and saved themselves some headaches).

Now however to me the Kelvin looks odd. I guess I got used to the usuall two nacells sacuer, and secondary hull design. Not saying I hate the design of her but just something about it just doesn't do it for me.

I can live with a single-nacelle design. It looks a bit odd and unballanced, though. I'd have made it with the nacelle coming out of the aft of the Saucer section, like a tail.

I kind of like the Kelvin. It's different enough to be eye-candy for the new film, but also shows room to evolve into more typical Starfleet designs.

And balance doesn't really matter in space.

Mikey wrote:And balance doesn't really matter in space.

It doesn't matter in the same way as it matters for a planetbound design, but you still need the main engines (at least the sublight engines) as close to the centre of mass as possible, both for ease of piloting and to avoid stressing the frame.