Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
A monument to all our sins by thefirstfleet A monument to all our sins by thefirstfleet
Okay, now we're threading on shaky ground, but why not? Let me give you my recipe on how JJ Trek should have been made:

The beginning: In the far future, Romulan navy veteran Nierruwh (his name should be spelled like this) witnesses his homeworld being destroyed. Behind the tragedy is the Federation's negligence, or even malignance, in letting the Hobus supernova grow out of control and not doing anything to pervent the impending disaster. Nierruwh, one of the few survivors of the RSN (he's not a miner. How could a miner get a dreadnought and could conduct such elaborate strategies?), blames Ambassador Spock, a kindred soul, now a mortal enemy of his. In the wake of Hobus' wormhole solution, both Spock's ship and Nierruwh's IRW Narada (Why a Scimitar? Because 1, we know it as the pinaccle of Romulan tech 2, we are familiar with it 3, it makes much more sense than an upside-down Christmas tree) get sucked in the wormhole. The Narada arrives to the past to meet the USS Kelvin NCC-514 (no zero at the front of the registry number and looking like a proper TOS ship). The doomed crew of the Klevin look with terror upon the monster their Federation has created: a monument to their sins...



Models by me
Sun stock by :icona-j-s:
Add a Comment:
 
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
It's funny because JJ Abram's universe blatantly goes against Trek lore. Everyone forgetting what the Federation does in the 29th century?
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014
Abrams's blasphemy isn't real Trek at all!
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed, it can't even exist within Star Trek's lore. Not the way Abrams describes it, since timeships stop time incursions.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014
What saddens me is that so many people think that simply by changing it back to the Prime Universe will all of a sudden make the movies so much better.  If you ask me, it will actually make them WORSE, because the failings of story and direction will shine through even more.  At which point, the argument would be more along the lines of "how dare you make Star Trek fun", which is just as asinine.

People just hate new things,... which is the very antithesis of what it means to be a Star Trek fan.
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 11, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Trekkies have a right to hate it, considering JJ blatantly ignored Star Trek lore. An alternate universe caused by time travel isn't possible the way JJ Abrams describes it. 29th Century Federation Timeships patrol the timeline stopping anything from altering time. As soon as Nero appeared in the past he would of been destroyed by a waiting Timeship which is five centuries ahead of the Narada's technology.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014
The original draft had nothing to do with time travel.  It was a straight-up reboot, nothing more, nothing less.  But when purist fans whined, bitched and moaned about it, they had to throw in the stupid time travel scenario just to tie in the original somehow, some way.

I am as oldschool and life-long a Trekkie as one can be, and even I can say "screw lore, who frakking cares?"  The point of Star Trek is much more than timeline history.  And on top of that, the movie industry as it stands today is totally incapable of delivering what you may call "true Star Trek".  Hell, even look at how much your beloved "Wrath of Khan" was a departure from the original series.  From the standards of 1982, it was a blatant sci-fi action film, with even MORE space battle than either 2009 or Into Darkness.  Do me a favor, count off exactly how many times Enterprise fires its weapons in Into Darkness.

"Timeships" were something created by Voyager.  They didn't exist in TOS, TNG or DS9, and just how many times has the timeline been affected in each of those series'?  Where was a timeship when McCoy jumped through the Guardian of Forever?  Where was a timeship when the Enterprise C encountered the Enterprise D?  Where was a timeship when Sisko was forced to take the identity of Gabriel Bell?  And where was a timeship when Kirk and company traveled to 1986 to kidnap a pair of humpback whales?

"Lore" and "canon" are asinine reasons to pick apart a movie that has given the Star Trek franchise its greatest boost of popularity since the early 1990's.
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 12, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I would rather have a reboot than a terrible alternate universe which is just an excuse to bring Nimoy back as Spock and now Shatner is supposed to appear in the third movie.

Those events you mentioned were the events that led to the Temporal Prime Directive which is later enforced in the 29th century with the timeships and then even further in time in the 31st century. Kirk acts were within Temporal Prime Directive's parameters. Most of the other events fixed themselves thus required no need for a timeship to be sent to those points. However the Narada incident was something much larger which altered the course of Federation history thus one would be sent.

Just because numbers say it's more popular doesn't mean the movies aren't massively flawed in it's choices. If numbers were everything all we would get is Call of Duty the movie.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2014
But without the numbers, there is zero possibility of a new Star Trek series.  Star Trek's popularity was declining steadily since 2000, no new fans were joining, and old fans were leaving.  The entire franchise had stagnated horribly.  It needed an infusion of attention from a whole new generation.  And after the new viewers, whom had never given Star Trek a second look before, now find themselves intrigued by the new movies, what do they do?  They go back and watch the old shows, the older movies, and find even greater stuff to enjoy.  They find more series' and even more movies, and endless new frontiers to explore (as it were).  Now you have whole new generations of fans, as "Trekkie" as the rest of us,... but THEY are more open minded and accepting, while the "true Trekkies" spend all their time preaching hate, intolerance and paint their fandom in some cloak of exclusivity as if they are somehow "better" than newer fans.

I'm sorry, but that spits in the face of Gene Roddenberry's legacy even worse than any film could ever have.  And as for Shatner being in the third movie, did you not hear that Jonathan Frakes was going to direct it?  I suppose you will be against that idea too?  What is the big problem about having the older actors reprising their roles, or even portraying different roles?  These people (especially Nimoy, in his failing health) deserve our RESPECT, do they not?

The movies are nothing more than appetizer, to draw people into where Star Trek truly shines,... television.  Yes, Star Trek NEEDS a new Television series, but it could not GET one until its numbers rose back to a level that could sustain a TV series with just its fanbase.  If they tried making a "True Star Trek Film" (as the purists claim to want it) in 2009, it would have bombed in the box office so hard that Paramount would all but shove the entire franchise into the vault, never to be revived again.  And once they do that, they have their lawyers guarding it 24/7, ready to drop heavy lawsuits on anyone who attempts a revival.

Without Star Trek (2009): Star Trek Online would not exist, Star Trek Axanar would not exist, likely other independant productions like Star Trek Continues, Renegades, and Phase II would not exist, the franchise owes its very life to the new movies.  That doesn't mean you have to love them, nobody is asking that at all, BUT spewing hate against it to claim they "destroyed the franchise" is not only 100% false, but does even greater damage as it paints "Trekkies" as bitter hatemongers.  Is that REALLY the image we want new fans to see?  Is that how you want for us to be portrayed in the media?  We finally shed off the stigma of being always labelled as "nerds",... but now we're getting the label of "trolls".  Is that REALLY what you want?
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 13, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I am fine with Frakes directing it, however Shatner's appearance seems more like a money grab than anything else. Also Star Trek Online started way back in 2004 it has nothing to do with 2009's influence so calling BS on that. Given I play the game myself and the amount of hate the STO community has for 2009/Into darkness. Also the franchise was never truly dead, sure on TV media it was but Star Trek still had it's books and games still selling. I usually keep my beef with the JJverse to myself but I won't stand idly by when people have claimed it is the true Star Trek since a lot don't give TOS or even TNG any recognition. Many new "Trekkies" only see the new Trek as the real not the originals. 

A lot of Trekkies don't like the new interpretations of the original characters which is completely justifiably. It's like changing what everyone sees in Batman or any other much loved character. Since you are eliminating what people loved about those characters, sure some are really close to the originals like the new Mccoy. Also for such a big budget people can complain of the design choices made. They still could of done it much different than they did. There was nothing stopping them keeping it in the Prime Universe apart from JJ Abrams himself who didn't have much love for Star Trek. They say Into Darkness wasn't a remake of Wrath of Khan but it essentially was. It isn't just Star Trek which is effected by this. Fans want something new not essentially a remake which is the JJverse. 
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2014
Shatner's appearance is, quite frankly, the complete opposite of a money grab.  The man is a diva, even back in the 80's.  The amount of money they gotta pay him,... hell, I'm willing to bet that he is the one who demanded an appearance.  There is actually a sizable portion of the fanbase who are sick of Shatner.

As for STO, its proposition started in 2004 sure, but as the franchise was losing steam and Enterprise failed (and then sabotaged at the end), the project was pushed back, delayed, defunded, and the original studio given the project was driven out of business.  Paramount played politics with it, even after it got a new studio (and the choice was a dubious one to start off with).  Then when it was finally being worked on, it again got pushed back again, and again, and again, and again.  If you follow its development, it practically mirrors the production of the new movie.  Star Trek Online began closed beta testing in October 2009, open beta in January 2010... even though it was promised way back in 2007-2008.

"Many new "Trekkie's" only see the new Trek as the real and not the originals"
I don't know where you got that from, but that is either ignorance of the worst kind, or a blatant outright lie that has been fed to you.  Virtually EVERYONE I have talked to, who has been introduced to Star Trek through the new movies and liked them, has gone back and looked at TOS and TNG and found at least one of them enjoyable.  Some gravitate toward TOS, others claim TNG is better, but MOST say they like all of it.  I have never (and I do repeat NEVER) seen a single person who has stated that "the new movies are the real Star Trek".  The ONLY times that thought has even come up is from people trying to use it as a point against the new movies to perpetuate their hatred of it.

Ahh there's the "eliminating" thing again.  Do you not understand what "reboot" and "alternate reality" even IS?  It is, by its very nature, something separate that has no impact on the original, and can go off in its own direction WITHOUT destroying the original. 

And the Wrath of Khan thing, oh boy...  I have done many complete walkthroughs of both movies side-by-side to show just how different they are.  The ONLY things that Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness have in common is the name "Khan" (it isn't even the same character, since his entire backstory changes upon his revival), and the homage reactor scene (and yes, it was an homage, NOT a "rip off").  There is no Saavik, no aging theme, no Reliant, no Genesis, no nebula, no Regula, no David, no Seti Alpha anything, no quoting Moby Dick, I mean... do I really need to go on?

And besides, the last times Star Trek was in the theater (before the reboots) was Insurrection and Nemesis.  They followed the "canon" timeline (one of which even directed by an established Star Trek alumnist), and yet they both were colossal failures (when compared to earlier Trek films).  And even before Nemesis, the idea of introducing a new cast to play young Kirk and Spock was already in the works.  Gene Roddenberry himself said he wanted to see a new director take younger versions of his characters in a different direction.  He specifically said he wanted to see someone try something new with them.  Rod Roddenberry even took this video interview in question to JJ Abrams.

You say fans want something new and that is all well and good, but you have to consider how it can be made in the first place.  You can't just go to a movie studio and say "we want something new", and expect gold to just appear.  Hell, the studio will laugh in your face if you don't have (at the very least) a guarantee of box office draw and marketability beyond initial release.  Remember, if a movie cannot guarantee asses in the seats, they won't even touch it.  And after Nemesis' results, and the ratings from Enterprise, it was abundantly clear that the fanbase itself was no longer large enough to support a movie on its own.  They HAD TO reach out to newer audiences.  The main problem is,... it WORKED, and now older fans are bitter, even though newer fans enjoy the same things, and WANT to be part of the community.

The community, however, is pushing them away, and giving the rest of us a bad name.  Star Trek is supposed to be about inclusiveness, acceptance, tolerance, understanding, hope and love.  Are ANY of you "JJ Haters" expressing a single one of those ideals, in your mad rantings?  Hell, you are practically bigoted against new fans, because of false claims and prejudice.  As a life long Star Trek fan, I am personally ashamed of all of you.
Reply
:iconseraphimd-kiryu:
SeraphimD-Kiryu Featured By Owner Dec 14, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Actually Star Trek Online started its production in 2004 and was developed until 2008 by Perpetual Entertainment until the company went bankrupt, then Cryptic studios took over development July that year, beta only occurred in 2009 and then was released a year later. Nothing to do with other media.

Where did i get that from? well I do talk to people and a few others I talk to in like my local pub and other social places have said it, heck my own girlfriend doesn't recognize TOS or TNG just because you haven't met people like that doesn't mean they don't exist. Also concerning funding for a series if the third movie was able to bring enough popularity a series will most likely occur within the JJverse not the Prime universe. Also you keep bringing up Gene he maybe the father of Star Trek but a lot of his ideas were altered when it came to the franchise. Not everything we love about Star Trek came from him. That much I learned from the documentary on Star Trek I watched from some time ago.

Though I love how you make a snap judgement of me also, rather hypocritical. All I said is it merely couldn't exist how JJ portrayed it within Star Trek and that I didn't like some directions they went in. You then assumed that I spout hatred to new fans, I keep my reservations to myself considering I live with one of those new fans.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2014
I disagree. If you watch some fan productions set in the Prime Universe, they outshine everything made by Abrams. Of course, they need a good story first, without large plot holes and senseless visual orgy just for the sake of it. They have gone into great lengths of adapting TOS to the modern world, and most of them have succeeded. Phase II, Continues, Farragut, just to name a few... all better than the JJverse.
Reply
:iconkeiichi-k1:
Keiichi-K1 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2014
The issue isn't if they are "better productions" or not, because any TV based Star Trek production will outshine even the best theatrical release of this decade's film generation anyway.  There are different demands made upon the film industry than there are for television, that hamper much of what makes Star Trek "Star Trek"
A theatrical release must GUARANTEE box office draw, or a studio will not make it.  And before you say "better off not to do it at all", you cannot deny the positive impacts of the films.  Star Trek (2009) has introduced a whole new generation to Star Trek, and as a result, millions of people have gone back and given TOS a try and found themselves intrigued, so they watch the TOS movies, TNG and so forth, finding themselves becoming as devoted a Trekkie as the rest of us.

While productions like Phase II, Farragut, Continues, Renegades and Axanar are great (even incredible), there is no outlet for them to get into mainstream.  They currently appeal to only a niche audience, because only current Trek fans are aware of it.  They expand the franchise, but they do not expand the fanbase.  Star Trek NEEDS something big in the mainstream, as a hook to bring in new fans.  And, the films (even the earlier films) are nothing more than appetizer, to lead people toward the main course, that is Star Trek on television.

To those who say the movies aren't "True Star Trek", that is because they aren't supposed to be, nor CAN they be.  The film industry, as it stands today, simply cannot make Star Trek in the proper manner.  The Michael Bay era of big-effects filmmaking will simply not allow it.  But, without a big budget blockbuster film, there is no way to build the fanbase, which had stagnated badly by 2008.  Now, I would love more than anything to see the Star Trek film we all want to see, and that may eventually happen one day,... but until Star Trek returns to its commercial popularity that it had reached in 1991, Paramount would never green-light it.  They would never take the risk on a film that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Think about this objectively.  Were there enough Star Trek fans in 2008 to bring enough box-office draw to offset the cost of a big budget feature film that was "true Star Trek"?  Because you know such a film would not draw beyond its target audience.  In television, you can do that.  In theatrical release, you cannot.

As soon as the fanbase rebuilds and the franchise regains its former momentum, we can return to non-LCD (lowest common denominator) productions.  Hell, I'm anticipating Axanar could be the vanguard of that.

Even so.... hate is NOT the way to go.  It is NEVER the way Trekkies should behave.
Reply
:iconjohnnyharadrim:
johnnyharadrim Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014
Well, you can say the Romulan Star Empire conscripts troops- all able bodied Romulans must go through military service('Service guarantees Citizenship!') and can be called up in times of war. So Nero and his crew will have had military training and/or combat experience. Nero himself, judging by his tactics, is an RSN veteran. But cashiered out of service for injury/contract expired etc etc. So many reasons.

So he just happens to be on the other side of the Galaxy on mining operations when Romulus is blown to hell. He has this massive mining vessel (don't diss mining vessels, they're incredibly hard to destroy things because they have to function in the harshest environments, and probably because they're Romulans, would be heavily armed  and armoredanyway. Refitted with RSN weaponry, they would have outclassed anything in TOS), it can take a lot of hits, it has a planetary core drill which makes it easier to deliver red matter directly to a planet's core(!)
Modern day super tankers are bigger and heavier than even the largest naval vessels. They have double hulls, which makes them that much harder to sink than even a warship (seriously).
But yeah, the Narada does things that would put a TOS warship to shame.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2014
Hmm, it makes much more sense now...
Reply
:iconjohnnyharadrim:
johnnyharadrim Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2014
Just saying, in a warrior culture like the Romulans, even the tea lady has military training and experience, what more a bunch of roughnecks operating in the deep wilderness of space where anything can happen. With a ship designed to crack open planetoids.
Reply
:iconscattergunsniper:
Scattergunsniper Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013
Some one remind me why the movie didn't do this again...cause this is freaking amazing
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Oct 18, 2013
Thank you :D
Reply
:icondreamer-out-there:
Dreamer-Out-There Featured By Owner May 23, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I loled quite hard at the Xmas tree comment!!
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner May 23, 2013
LOL Thank you :D
Reply
:iconcommandox20:
Commandox20 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
It really just goes to show that the old Trek designs could have worked just fine on the big screen had they given them the right attention. Light them properly, throw a little flare on the hull, and it'll work.

Look at that Kelvin, if someone who's just a hobbyist (no offense intended by that tff) can get the TOS stuff looking that good. Imagine what paid, trained professionals could do?
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 30, 2012
Thank you very much.

And no offense taken, I am a hobbyist :D
Reply
:iconyuxtapuestoelmono:
Yuxtapuestoelmono Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
I think THIS makes WAY WAY WAAAAYYYY MUCH more sense that the JJ stuff, absolutely!!!.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Thank you very much!
Reply
:iconyuxtapuestoelmono:
Yuxtapuestoelmono Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
Thank you! :D
Reply
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
uh oh!? You're definitely straying into 'temporarily off instant fave' status. :( Until you come back to your senses... ;P

To paraphrase Dr. McCoy: "My god man, drilling holes in the space time continuum is not the answer. The time line must be repaired!' [link] :D
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Oh, this was epic :D
Reply
:iconcelticarchie:
celticarchie Featured By Owner Nov 21, 2012
It's the burp the machine makes that gets me, and Spock saying 'time line restored Captain', it just gives that satisfied feeling. :D
Reply
:iconnewdivide1701:
NewDivide1701 Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012
Nothing against the Scimitar design, but it felt more like a hyperbole more than anything else. 52 disruptor banks, 27 photon torpedo launchers, primary and secondary shields. It felt like they needed all this extra arsenal to give it a sense of invulnerability and a substantial threat.

At least a mining ship with powerful weapons from the future felt a LOT more legitimate in realism. Especially if those weapons were from the black market or something. Plus a miner who is not a military strategist helps a tonne, and adds the emotional impact.

I had often thought about the Narada being a D'Deridix class or Mogai class. But then again an upside down Christmas tree gets around the problem of which way is up on a ship.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
I kinda liked the Scimitar. It was like the Borg Cube, it showed that the Feds can quickly find themselves on the sad end of the food chain.
Reply
:iconnewdivide1701:
NewDivide1701 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
I too like the Borg cube that way.
Reply
:iconmajestic-msfc:
Majestic-MSFC Featured By Owner Nov 18, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I always wondered why the Kelvin looked as it did, I like the design but for it's purposes I never understood why so different as this was the point the timeline separates.

Nice re-envision.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2012
Thank you very much!
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
Ok, if you're out on shaky ground, I'll be daring and go out on my own "shaky" ground. I know J.J. Abrams take on Star Trek is very different, and rubs a lot of folks the wrong way and has it's own troubles. I think I've mentioned it before in other posts, but even given it's troubles and differences from traditional Trek, I like it. But then I liked at least some of Enterprise too (Particularly the fourth season. I wish all four seasons would have been like that. Then It might not have gotten canceled). This is my "shaky" ground. I've liked all the different versions of Star Trek, but each does have their troubles ( ST V: TFF, Spock's Brain, Some of ST: TNG 1st Season, Voyager's premise, Various eps of DS9 throughout it's run, etc.). I guess my point is this, that each has had problem parts, each has committed sins against itself, and none is perfect. Each is an attempt at adventure, and excitement, and of course the quest to keep a profitable, creative franchise going to the benefit of Paramount and the consumer.

I have to admit I'm anxious to see J.J. Abrams next installment and do hope it's good. I love seeing Star Trek on the big screen, and thought at the very least, J.J. Abrams and crew reminded the public at large why the Enterprise is the grandest of Sci Fi Ships and why Star Trek is Cool.

This all being said, I don't think you're on shaky ground at all. I really love your art, concept, and thoughts with this pic and take on Abrams version of Star Trek. Yes, if it were a perfect world, and if the public at large could accept it, this is how, Star Trek XI should have properly looked. I find this very appropriate and would have been amazing too to see up on the big screen. Your thinking and storyline does seem even better than Abrams version. At least better thought out anyway. And more in keeping with TOS style, format, and heading. I much prefer your spelling of Nierruwh. Maybe, like so much of the English language "Nero" is actually an English language bastardization of the actually correct Romulan"Nierruwh"? This is the thing about fantasy and the great thing about DA here, there's plenty of room for various versions and interpretations of all kinds of art, Sci Fi, Comic books, horror, fantasy, etc, etc, etc.

This too being said, I think I'll have my cake and eat it too in loving both Abrams version of Trek and your's too. :) How does this sound? :)

Whatever the case, Keep up the great work!!!! Your art and vision as always ROCKS!!!!! :D

Have a great one and much happy creating and revising to you good sir! :)
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
Thank you for the support! Now let's eat that cake :D
Reply
:icondinobatfan:
dinobatfan Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Sounds great to me!!!!! :D
Reply
:iconhatvok:
Hatvok Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The story and the picture are equally creative, awesome, and engaging. Great work. Great Scimitar too.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012
Thank you very much!
Reply
:iconathane:
Athane Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I like it. Nero always did seem like he was mad because they needed him to be mad. If i was sent that far back in time, my first response would be to head home and save the day, give my people all my future tech.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
The biggest problem with Trek movies is that they want to follow the path laid out by TWOK. Khan was a mad revenge machine because he had a reason. The only other credible villain was Chang from TUC. The others... no. Not even the Borg Queen.
Reply
:iconnuclear-fridge:
Nuclear-Fridge Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What's the betting that the 'Big Villain' in the next film will be just as hopelessly insane and fixated on vengeance?

It's become a (very) tired fixture of the franchise: the bad guy will, repeat will, be mentally imbalanced. That way, the heroes (or Captain Janeway) can destroy said bad guy without feeling guilty.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2012
Now, now, you made Captain Janeway sad :D
Reply
:iconnuclear-fridge:
Nuclear-Fridge Featured By Owner Nov 27, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
A little adversity is good for one's character, I think!
Reply
:iconagentofthenight:
agentofthenight Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Professional General Artist
If Nierruwh went back in time then the TOS era ships should be altered by his being there. So it wouldn't be much a David vs Goliath fight. They would be on an equal footing.
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
STXI was the only Trek movie where time travel influenced ship design (and, as many say, Picard's Borg-hutning that split the ENT timeline, but let's not go into that).
Reply
:iconcolourbrand:
Colourbrand Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Only gripe - not enough details on the Scimitar and the Kelvin's secondary hull could be slimmer.

Aside that this is sound - WAY better than the "upside down christmas tree!!" and would warrant powerful advanced weaponry.

Brilliant - now for all the vitriol to come at you for doing something different.....
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
One day, I'll become a modeler like Tobias Richter, and my models will be life-like. I promise...
Reply
:iconcolourbrand:
Colourbrand Featured By Owner Nov 17, 2012  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Least you can - I cannot model for toffee!

Anyhoo been submitting them at Ships of the line because its great work :D
Reply
:iconwolfcrest1701:
Wolfcrest1701 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Student Digital Artist
So much better.

You swapped lens flair for solar flair :)
Reply
:iconthefirstfleet:
thefirstfleet Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
LOL :D
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
Download JPG 4096 × 2214




Details

Submitted on
November 15, 2012
Image Size
5.0 MB
Resolution
4096×2214
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,538 (2 today)
Favourites
87 (who?)
Comments
112
Downloads
90
×