View Single Post
Old May 18 2013, 10:39 PM   #27
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

datalogan wrote: View Post
Roberto Orci, in discussion on trekmovie.com has stated that the entire character arch of “John Harrison” was developed way before the idea came up to make him Khan. It was just a little added bonus that their “John Harrison” character back-story could be easily changed to incorporate the idea of getting “Khan” into the movie. So, apparently, their whole purpose was to just get the shock-and-awe of name recognition added to the pre-existing Harrison character. I think that can be served without this character ultimately having to be Khan Noonien Singh.
Even so, there are just too many ad hoc assumptions required to justify it. It's far, far simpler to conclude it's the same man who got cosmetic surgery, which is perfectly consistent with what we already know about him being given a false identity.


Christopher wrote: View Post
We've seen it used exactly twice -- that's not nearly enough to establish a baseline for its reliability.
Actually, this particular version of transwarp beaming was used twice in Star Trek 2009 [once to get Scotty and Kirk aboard Enterprise and once to get Kirk and Spock aboard the Nerada] and once in STiD.
Two times, three times -- statistically speaking, the difference is irrelevant. You'd need thousands of trials to say anything remotely responsible about its reliability.


Plus, I was really referring to all types of long-range transporters, so you also have to add in TOS "Assignment: Earth”, TOS “The Gamesters of Triskelion”, TNG “Bloodlines”, DS9 “The Jem’Hadar”, DS9 “Covenant”. All these uses and never a failure.
But those are separate inventions of very different civilizations, all more advanced than the 24th-century Federation. Yes, they demonstrate that it is theoretically possible to achieve the necessary precision, but they do not demonstrate that this particular technology is sufficiently near that point to be put into practice. It is far from compulsory for the novelverse to incorporate the movies' transwarp beaming into the 2380s timeframe. For all we know it could be another century before the technology becomes reliable enough to use.


I’ve never said it had to be put into everyday use. I just think it should be addressed/developed in the novelverse.
It could be, but I do not agree with "should." It depends on whether the story justifies it.


Coordinate error would be an inseparable part of what makes long-range transport dangerous—if that was caused by the tech itself. But all the evidence says otherwise. In every situation where long-range transporters were used with good coordinates inputted into the system (see the long list above) it works well.
Well, partly that's because highly improbable things always work in fiction. But the problem is intrinsic to the technology itself, just as the problem of fatal collisions is intrinsic to the technology of automobiles or the problem of falling out of the sky is intrinsic to the technology of aircraft. Once the technology becomes advanced enough, the risk can be minimized, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't intrinsic to the technology. Aegis, Triskelion, and Dominion tech are reliable enough because they've been around long enough to be perfected. But transwarp beaming is still a relative novelty, so it stands to reason that it's not perfected yet, and thus it's perfectly justifiable not to start using it in next year's novels.



Christopher wrote: View Post
some additional insight that nobody in the Prime universe has had yet.
Except that we know that someone did have that insight in the Prime universe. Scotty had it. And Spock knew about it. At least by 2387. That was established in the 2009 film.
No, they had enough knowledge to make it possible but risky. What I'm proposing is that Khan may have come up with some further insight that allowed the development of the portable unit seen in the film, taking it beyond what the Prime universe has figured out yet. Again, it's about the relative level of advancement of the technology. You're arguing as if the only two options are "doesn't exist at all" and "works perfectly." That's not the way progress works. There are a lot of stages between the initial, unreliable form of a technology and its eventual, mature form.


Christopher wrote: View Post
And I understand your reluctance. I’m just arguing that it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. Not if you want to be consistent with canon.
And I don't agree at all, for the reasons presented above.
__________________
Written Worlds -- Christopher L. Bennett's blog and webpage
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote