ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Warp Drive

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 27 2009, 6:32 pm

Interesting question. Here is one resource I found for this subject.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antimatter_sun_030929.html

Antimatter has tremendous energy potential, if it could ever be harnessed. A solar flare in July 2002 created about a pound of antimatter, or half a kilo, according to new NASA-led research. That's enough to power the United States for two days.

Laboratory particle accelerators can produce high-energy antimatter particles, too, but only in tiny quantities. Something on the order of a billionth of a gram or less is produced every year.

Nonetheless, sci-fi writers long ago devised schemes using antimatter to power space travelers beyond light-speed. Antimatter didnt get a bad name, but it sunk into the collective consciousness as a purely fictional concept. Given some remarkable physics breakthrough, antimatter could in theory power a spacecraft. But NASA researchers say it's nothing that will happen in the foreseeable future.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 27 2009, 6:49 pm

I am not meaning to post this reference for your understanding but it is for anyone who is wondering about this subject. I also did not realize but Alex Jaeger has previous experience with Star Trek and also other good science fiction movies. For anyone who does not know of his work here is information from his imdb page.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0415336/

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) (visual effects art director: ILM)
2. Star Trek (2009) (visual effects art director: ILM)
3. Transformers (2007) (visual effects art director: ILM)
4. Mission: Impossible III (2006) (visual effects art director: ILM)
5. The Island (2005) (visual effects art director: ILM)
6. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) (animatics compositor: ILM) (as Alex Jeager)
7. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) (concept artist: ILM)
8. Hulk (2003) (lead concept designer: ILM) (visual effects art director: ILM)
9. The Italian Job (2003) (concept designer: mini damage) (uncredited)
10. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) (visual effects art director: ILM)
11. Pearl Harbor (2001) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
12. Sweet November (2001) (concept artist: digital tears, ILM)
13. Galaxy Quest (1999) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
14. Wild Wild West (1999) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
15. Deep Impact (1998) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
16. Starship Troopers (1997) (visual effects art director: Industrial Light & Magic)
17. Spawn (1997) (concept/storybaord artist: ILM)
18. Men in Black (1997) (concept/storyboard artist: ILM) (uncredited)
19. Daylight (1996) (model maker: ILM)
20. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
21. Mission: Impossible (1996) (model maker: ILM) (uncredited)
22. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) (visual effects layout and storyboard artist) (special edition)

Art Department:

1. The Island (2005) (conceptual design: ILM)
2. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) (assistant art director: JAK/ILM) (concept designer: JAK Films)

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 28 2009, 2:42 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 28 2009, 11:44 am)
Quote (Narada @ Dec. 27 2009, 6:49 pm)
I am not meaning to post this reference for your understanding but it is for anyone who is wondering about this subject. I also did not realize but Alex Jaeger has previous experience with Star Trek and also other good science fiction movies. For anyone who does not know of his work here is information from his imdb page.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0415336/

1. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) (visual effects art director: ILM)
2. Star Trek (2009) (visual effects art director: ILM)
3. Transformers (2007) (visual effects art director: ILM)
4. Mission: Impossible III (2006) (visual effects art director: ILM)
5. The Island (2005) (visual effects art director: ILM)
6. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) (animatics compositor: ILM) (as Alex Jeager)
7. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003) (concept artist: ILM)
8. Hulk (2003) (lead concept designer: ILM) (visual effects art director: ILM)
9. The Italian Job (2003) (concept designer: mini damage) (uncredited)
10. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) (visual effects art director: ILM)
11. Pearl Harbor (2001) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
12. Sweet November (2001) (concept artist: digital tears, ILM)
13. Galaxy Quest (1999) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
14. Wild Wild West (1999) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
15. Deep Impact (1998) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
16. Starship Troopers (1997) (visual effects art director: Industrial Light & Magic)
17. Spawn (1997) (concept/storybaord artist: ILM)
18. Men in Black (1997) (concept/storyboard artist: ILM) (uncredited)
19. Daylight (1996) (model maker: ILM)
20. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) (visual effects art director: concept design/animatics, ILM)
21. Mission: Impossible (1996) (model maker: ILM) (uncredited)
22. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) (visual effects layout and storyboard artist) (special edition)

Art Department:

1. The Island (2005) (conceptual design: ILM)
2. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) (assistant art director: JAK/ILM) (concept designer: JAK Films)

One other film is the extent of his Trek experience...

Not to mention three Star Wars movies...

:logical:

Yes he worked on First Contact and also a few Star Wars movies. He also did Galaxy Quest and Starship Troopers. The point of naming these references is to show his experience and previous work. If there are fans who wish to nitpick because the collectors are meant to collect free hydrogen instead of space anti matter they may do so. However I consider that a secondary point to their overall ability and experience as visual effects art director.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 28 2009, 3:59 pm

Or why not hire an extra "Trek expert" like Okuda to keep track of the whole production. Even they make mistakes sometimes of course. And I would say the track record of any professional person speaks volumes of the work they create. I believe Alex Jaeger is very qualified even if they change something small or make an error. And what if this was a purposeful change? That is my opinion on this matter because I do not consider it a major issue. And if they feel they were in error they can change it in the future.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 28 2009, 4:40 pm

:cool:

I enjoyed to learn more about this production artist and others on his blog and also this article. So I am glad you brought up this topic.

http://alxartblog.blogspot.com/
http://www.awn.com/article....C1

GRKiller

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 125

Report this Dec. 28 2009, 5:11 pm

... or maybe he thought that "Hey, its a #### movie in which we're traveling in time, so does something as trivial as matter and anti-matter mixing really matter?".

Does it really bother anyone?

GRKiller

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 125

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 11:47 am

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 29 2009, 11:39 am)
Quote (GRKiller @ Dec. 28 2009, 5:11 pm)
... or maybe he thought that "Hey, its a #### movie in which we're traveling in time, so does something as trivial as matter and anti-matter mixing really matter?".

Does it really bother anyone?

And he would then be forgetting that something that seems trivial like that would be caught by many Trek fans.

Trek fans pay closer attention to detail than audiences they might otherwise be used to.

:logical:

Either way though, does that affect the quality of the film/writing/or directing? Hell, it might be explained away in the next film (that seems to be what happens in most Trek films anyways). People want to play the "J.J. is ruining Trek" card too often (and with trivial matters) but they fail to realise that most Trek films contain those types of minor errors.

Anyways, I was half-kidding in my original post. I realise that Trek fans analyze almost every little detail (see: Overanalyze) but I'll forgive something as minor as this.

GRKiller

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 125

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 11:49 am

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Dec. 29 2009, 11:46 am)
Quote (GRKiller @ Dec. 28 2009, 2:11 pm)

Quote
Does it really bother anyone?


Actually it does bother some more than you will ever be able to imagine...

"More than I'll ever be able to imagine"!?!?

It's that bad? I can imagine some pretty unbearably bothersome situations too.

GRKiller

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 125

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 11:56 am

Well, whether they explain it in the next film or not, its a minor oversight thats easily forgiveable and doesnt hurt the film in my book. Even a die-hard Trek fan could've made a slight oversight such as that.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 1:57 pm

This comment in the book does not hold much value because it is not on screen or part of canon anyways so it can easily be fixed.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 2:11 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 29 2009, 2:06 pm)
Quote (Narada @ Dec. 29 2009, 1:57 pm)
This comment in the book does not hold much value because it is not on screen or part of canon anyways so it can easily be fixed.

Just like the sizes given for the Enterprise, right?

:logical:

No actually that is different because those sizes are not incorrect so there is nothing to fix. It is true the book is not canon but the USS Enterprise is clearly shown on screen and it is shown to be the sizes which are given. And the next movie will also show the size of the USS Enterprise which is given. So there is nothing to fix.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 2:32 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 29 2009, 2:20 pm)
Quote (Narada @ Dec. 29 2009, 2:11 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 29 2009, 2:06 pm)
Quote (Narada @ Dec. 29 2009, 1:57 pm)
This comment in the book does not hold much value because it is not on screen or part of canon anyways so it can easily be fixed.

Just like the sizes given for the Enterprise, right?

:logical:

No actually that is different because those sizes are not incorrect so there is nothing to fix. It is true the book is not canon but the USS Enterprise is clearly shown on screen and it is shown to be the sizes which are given. And the next movie will also show the size of the USS Enterprise which is given. So there is nothing to fix.

You're tripping over yourself, Narada.

There are no sizes mentioned in the movie that corroborate the sizes given in the books.

Therefore, there is no canon size yet established for the ship. Only non-canon sizes that don't all agree.

So as you yourself stated, just like the "space anti-matter" comment, the size given "does not hold much value because it is not on screen or part of canon anyways so it can easily be fixed."

Hoist by your own petard, Narada. Sorry.

:logical:

Maybe from your perspective. I already thought this scenario through. It is obvious and clear. You act as if I am unaware of some double standards or caught by surprise by the dangers of using a source which can be both right or wrong. On the contrary.

- There are no times in the movie when they say how the nacelles function.

- There are many times when the USS Enterprise is shown on screen in relation to other objects.

And so there is where you are incorrect. The size of the USS Enterprise can be determined with on screen observations. But the way in which the nacelles work cannot. In addition there are other sources which give the values for the Enterprise.

In fact the way which you know how the nacelles are supposed to work are also from other sources. That is why multiple sources are used. When one is found to be off base or incorrect you can check it with other sources.

Now you can say the size of the Enterprise can be checked with other sources. Well I can easily say the new Enterprise is shown to be much bigger than the Enterprise shown on screen previously. There are also many sources which give the current size.

Sorry but from my perspective you are the one caught in a petard!

:logical:

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 2:38 pm

Not to mention the size of the Enterprise is also given on the Star Trek dvd but there is nothing that talks about the nacelles collecting anti matter. So there are multiple sources we can use for the size of the Enterprise but for the nacelle function so far there is only the Art of Star Trek book.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 2:46 pm

Yes I can concede to this error made in the Art of Star Trek book. However I do not concede that this error causes everything else to be in error. They should fix this for the technical manual or for anything else being published in the future. It is true the book is in error in this example even though the mistake is not on screen.

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Dec. 29 2009, 2:58 pm

Quote (TheChronicOne @ Dec. 29 2009, 2:51 pm)
Quote (Narada @ Dec. 29 2009, 1:38 pm)
Not to mention the size of the Enterprise is also given on the Star Trek dvd but there is nothing that talks about the nacelles collecting anti matter. So there are multiple sources we can use for the size of the Enterprise but for the nacelle function so far there is only the Art of Star Trek book.

So.. how big is the Enterprise, and why?

Something a big dummy like me can understand, please.. ?;)

I will summarize some of the main proof shown on screen. I have been meaning to give an outline with diagrams but maybe sometime I will get to that. Please allow some time for me to compose an answer. I will post in the other thread to stay organized.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum