View Single Post
Old August 17 2013, 02:49 PM   #143
BillJ's Avatar
Location: alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post

You don't WASTE energy. That is why you wouldn't be running a goddamn holodeck while 70,000 light years from home. Just cuz you HAVE a certain tech doesn't mean you always use it, or that it is wise to use it all the time (look at modern movies, they use CG like it is going out of style, but we got better results 15 years ago when there was a mix of techniques.)
Seems like you're bringing issues that you have had with other installments of the franchise into the argument. Star Trek: Voyager definitely isn't my favorite installment of the franchise but, once again, I don't think you're thinking it through from the angle of the universe the franchise created.

The thing about being 70,000 light-years from home is that you have to think about crew morale. No matter how nice the ship, the majority of those 150+ crew that never go on Away Team missions are going to go stir-crazy looking at the same gray corridors for seventy-years.

You don't expend all this energy to build the deadliest thing imagineable on the ground of your homeworld either.
Who said they use anti-matter planetside? You can easily do that as a final step before testing. Bringing it aboard after you've moved the ship to orbit and have a self-sufficient habitat to work in.

Now I'm guilty of everything I told the other guy was fruitless to get mixed up in. We are so talking past one another that I might as well be speaking Eurish and you Esperanto. There's no debate as you call it when there aren't parameters common to both parties, and in this instance, I don't see any.
I don't think we're talking past each other at all. You seem to hold it against this iteration of the franchise that they didn't use real-world theories on how best to build a large interstellar spacecraft. I look at it as a universe that has its own rules and figure that a society that can manipulate gravity and matter may be fine building a starship on the ground. It's a universe that has its own rules about a great many things that likely would be problematic, if not totally impossible in our world.

Does it go against Roddenberry's intent that the Enterprise be built in orbit? Sure. But I'm okay with a different interpretation. It's entertainment after all. YMMV.
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Jean-Luc Picard, "Encounter at Farpoint"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote