View Single Post
Old June 4 2013, 04:48 AM   #98
Paper Moon
Re: Into Darkness and the novelverse [SPOILERS]

Christopher wrote: View Post
Paper Moon wrote: View Post
My memory of "Bloodlines" is a little rusty, but from what I can recall and gather from MA, the subspace transporter would solve the distance problem posed by STID but not the relative motion problem posed by ST09 (and described in BoBW). So that leads me to think that the "transwarp equation" might have incorporated aspects of the subspace transporter, but be fundamentally based on a post-2379 discovery.
Maybe. What a lot of people overlook is that the '09 movie used "transwarp" differently than it had been used before -- instead of using "trans-" in the sense of "beyond," as in a velocity faster than warp drive, it was using it in the sense of "across," as in across the warp barrier -- beaming from a (relatively) stationary location to a ship in warp drive. However, Into Darkness apparently forgot this, since it showed "transwarp" beaming being used to get from Earth to Kronos.
Yeah, your explanation of the name makes sense, but I never really cared for this new transporter tech being called "transwarp". The term's been used so many times in Trek, it just feels a bit uncreative at this point.

I just figured that transwarp beaming was the next generation of transporter technology, with multiple new capabilities, one of which was the "transwarp" capability you described.

I agree that transwarp beaming does seem to be dangerous and somewhat impractical from how it's been used thus far, but I'm not sure it is so to the degree that you're implying. In STID, no one seems to react to Harrison's use of the transwarp transporter as if it were incredibly dangerous to do so. No one says anything like, "Wow, he must be nuts." So I'm not sure it was the writers' intention for the technology's use in these circumstances to be quite so extraordinary.
Given how many different writers with different assumptions have written Trek over the decades, you can't possibly reconcile all the inconsistencies unless you're willing to interpret things differently from how the writers intended, or to squint a little at some of the script details. Heck, there are countless detail-level contradictions throughout the canon, so the only way to be able to buy into the pretense that it's a single coherent universe is if you're willing to be flexible about details and gloss over the occasional inconsistency.

Besides, it's simple enough to rationalize just by the fact that they had more important things preoccupying them at that moment, like the murder of several members of the admiralty. And given that Harrison had just committed a couple of extremely violent acts, it kind of went without saying that he was fanatical, determined, and possibly insane. Heck, he was taking a huge risk by attacking a Starfleet facility so brazenly in the first place. So the fact that he'd take the added risk of using an experimental transporter wouldn't really have warranted surprise at that point.
True. Very fair points.

Going back to the Khan's Blood discussion momentarily... having just seen the film again for the umpteeth time... I'm gonna be a strict constructionist here and say that we never actually had it confirmed that Kirk died. Whatever his state was, he was viable enough for McCoy to believe it possible to preserve his brain functions by putting him in cryostasis. And all McCoy says was that Kirk was "barely dead." That's actually a pretty low bar as Trek goes (Yareena, Bareilů). 23rd century medicine may have a stricter medical definition of death than 23rd century generalized definitions of death. So Kirk may have been dead in laymen's terms, but not medically.

Or maybe that's overthinking it.
Paper Moon is offline   Reply With Quote