The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Future of Trek (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean. (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=148304)

TribblesAreAmok September 27 2011 02:26 PM

Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
I was wondering what you guys think of the treatment of space as and ocean? That meaning the ships don't travel in three dimensions in battle (but can out of battle) like naval warships. Or would you prefer the more realistic depiction of spacecraft moving in 3d space. I much prefer the more realistic 3D space battles as they are much more dynamic and interesting to watch.

Sean Aaron September 27 2011 03:15 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Quote:

TribblesAreAmok wrote: (Post 5251161)
I was wondering what you guys think of the treatment of space as and ocean?

If it was some kind of weird space fantasy where the ships used actual sails to "ply the aether" then that could be groovy, but otherwise I think it's pretty lame. If the show is set in space and is attempting any degree of believability then three dimensions should be utilised - hell even the crappy TNG films did that.

C.E. Evans September 27 2011 04:03 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat. I could see if the weapons range was only a few hundred feet, but if it's supposed to be a few hundred thousand kilometers, then we should only see enemy vessels represented as dots on a monitor screen, IMO.

TribblesAreAmok September 28 2011 04:34 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
to the above, I always thought that the ships simply are that big, or the viewscreens simply zoom in. to 2nd post, I do not mean literal boats, but the fact that in WOK it was a plot point that the enterprise flew under kahns ship.

Sean Aaron October 3 2011 01:48 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Treat space as 3D or make it a fantasy.

Caesar753 October 8 2011 03:30 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
I would prefer a more 3D approach to space in Star Trek, but I can see why it hasn't really been utilized. Trek fans, especially those with scientific backgrounds, know how space really works. The general public, however, doesn't care or pay attention to such things, which is why the issue was never really addressed on TV.

sojourner October 9 2011 02:14 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Only situations involving more than 2 ships are inaccurate. With 2 ships the only odd thing with how Trek portrays it is that both ships are oriented the same.

Gaith October 9 2011 02:21 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
So long as the story is compelling, I don't hugely care what the battles look like.

Relayer1 October 9 2011 07:07 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
IIRC the early Galactica reboot scenes were tiny ships fighting silently in space. I remember a shot of Galactica arriving which was little more than a fine bright line with a tiny dot at the end.

I liked it but it presumably wasn't as exciting for Joe Public...

JarodRussell October 9 2011 09:07 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
I always saw that sea-faring analogy more general. The spaceships and their crews in the 23rd century are a lot more like sailing ships and their crews in the 17th century. Planets are new shores, and space is the ocean between them. There's discovery, there's trading, there's dangers, there's myth and romance.

I guess that well devoloped interstellar traveling races would indeed create a proper coordinate system, so that ships would indeed travel in the same plane, relative to where they currently are. Every solar system has a specific plane, so if a ship is between two planets, it would probably move relative to that plane. If it's in orbit, the orbital plane or maybe the equatorial plane is the reference. If they are outside the solar system, the galactic plane will be the reference.

Auralis October 9 2011 09:30 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Take submarine combat as model to base combat on. Its largely the same, 3d environment, unseen enemy vessels, but located by sensors etc...
And you can make it very intense as lots of submarine war movie showed.

Bread October 10 2011 09:37 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
TWOK depicted both of these notions of a sea and 3D did it not?

The approach towards each other of the Enterprise and Reliant, just like two sailing frigates, passing to fire upon one another.

The battle in the Mutara Nebula was conducted entirely across 3 dimensions. Spock even alluded to 2 dimensional thinking before the Enterprise is manouvered through the 3 dimensions to ultimately defeat Reliant.

Kegg October 14 2011 08:43 PM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 5251349)
Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat.

And here's the problem, no?

There's no compelling reason to ignore three dimensions besides laziness or the conveinence of visual short hand (if a starship is 'upside-down' that might feel a little disorienting) and likewise, little reason for starships to bank and turn as if they're in an environment.

But if a starship battle is not something you can actually see, well, one either needs to rethink how to shoot starship battles in a manner that's dramatic, or fudge realism for the sake of an exciting image. Submarine only partially works here - ignoring that Star Trek has, of course, done this (the cloaking device began as a space analogy to submarines) any space fights where the ships aren't able to obscure vision of each other aren't going to be a lot like submarine battles.

The same argument can usually be made for sound in space, although I liked Battlestar Galactica's semi-solution of hearing the sound from within a given fighter or starship.

C.E. Evans October 15 2011 08:19 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Quote:

Kegg wrote: (Post 5289464)
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 5251349)
Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat.

And here's the problem, no?

There's no compelling reason to ignore three dimensions besides laziness or the conveinence of visual short hand (if a starship is 'upside-down' that might feel a little disorienting)...

Which is actually a compelling enough reason for producers and directors to do so. While science nerds may like the idea of seeing "upside-down" ships, I would gather most viewers do not--unless it's for dramatic purposes, and Trek has done that on occasion, especially since TNG.
Quote:

...and likewise, little reason for starships to bank and turn as if they're in an environment.
One reason I came up with is that it's to protect the crew from being smeared over the bulkheads because inertia dampers can only compensate for so much. Every starship probably can pivot on its axis, but it's not recommended at high velocities.
Quote:

But if a starship battle is not something you can actually see, well, one either needs to rethink how to shoot starship battles in a manner that's dramatic, or fudge realism for the sake of an exciting image.
But isn't that exactly what they do? We hear them call out distances of ships being thousands of kilometers apart and yet we see them fit nicely on our television screens only a few inches apart.
Quote:

Submarine only partially works here - ignoring that Star Trek has, of course, done this (the cloaking device began as a space analogy to submarines) any space fights where the ships aren't able to obscure vision of each other aren't going to be a lot like submarine battles.
Why wouldn't they be? If two ships aren't within visual range of one another, then they would have to be like submarine battles in which most of the action is inside the vessels. In that regard, the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" is probably one of the more realistic space battles filmed.
Quote:

The same argument can usually be made for sound in space, although I liked Battlestar Galactica's semi-solution of hearing the sound from within a given fighter or starship.
It's the old case of dramatic necessity versus scientific accuracy. It can be argued that there's no music in space too.

Kegg October 15 2011 10:18 AM

Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 5290536)
But isn't that exactly what they do? We hear them call out distances of ships being thousands of kilometers apart and yet we see them fit nicely on our television screens only a few inches apart.

Well, yes. But if you want to show them being thousands of kilometers aparrt, how do you make that interesting to look at, is the question.

Quote:

Why wouldn't they be? If two ships aren't within visual range of one another, then they would have to be like submarine battles in which most of the action is inside the vessels.
Not if they have sensors, remember. Unless your scrapping that technology, they've never been needed to be able to eyeball something with the naked eye to be able to know it's there.

Quote:

It's the old case of dramatic necessity versus scientific accuracy. It can be argued that there's no music in space too.
There's no music inside the starship either.

However music is not the same thing. It's a dramatic convention that is clearly disconnected from the actions on the screen - we know that nothing is 'making' the music. Conversely, using noises for starship battles is one of the many little ways Hollywood can ignore how something is supposed to sound (in this case, not at all) in favour of how it ought to sound.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.