View Single Post
Old May 21 2013, 03:17 AM   #72
Lieutenant Commander
datalogan's Avatar
Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Christopher wrote: View Post
it would be redundant to have two unrelated technologies that achieve exactly the same effect.
Yet that happens all the time in Star Trek. Phasers and Disruptors. Transwarp corridors and tachyon eddies and Slipstream. Matter-antimatter warp drives in the Federation and singularity warp drives in the Romulan Empire. Etc.
Why not both subspace beaming and transwarp beaming? We already have other transportation technologies that achieve the same effect but aren’t either of these. Like Iconian Gateways or dimensional shifting.

Especially since we are seeing more and more that subspace beaming [unreliable and power-intensive] is different from transwarp beaming [less and less so as new movies come out contradicting that take on transwarp beaming].

Christopher wrote: View Post
No government or oversight body would approve a transportation technology for regular public use if it had only had three successful test runs.
You continue to ignore the other uses of the technology. Like for cargo or as a weapon.
Or in last-ditch efforts when you are probably about to die anyway, like when Scotty had to get off the ship in Indistinguishable from Magic.
These still need to be addressed even if the technology isn’t ready for every-day use, IMO.

Christopher wrote: View Post
I'm wishing that people would stop ignoring the existence of a near-identical technology in "Bloodlines"
I agree. People should address this outstanding issue. The fact that the tech hasn’t ever came up again in the 15+ years in universe in stories seems wrong to me.
Doesn’t this type of technology seem right up the alley of the Typhon Pact, who continues to try and find advantages over the Federation’s slip stream technology.

And, while the writer is at it explaining this, why not also explain the related tech of transwarp beaming and how Spock knows about it by 2387. After all, it’s at least similar and it is canon and can’t be denied.

Christopher wrote: View Post
tie-ins have to follow screen canon . . . Pocket Books does not have . . . much flexibility on that point . . . . That's not my opinion, that's just the way the business works.
The novelverse found a way to “reinterpret” canon in order to have Trip not die as was at least heavily implied in canon, if not established.
And I’m not even arguing for a “reinterpretation” for transwarp/subspace beaming. Just a better explanation of the effect on the universe of the tech that has already been established in canon--both “Bloodlines” and the new movies.
datalogan is offline   Reply With Quote