View Single Post
Old September 29 2013, 06:52 AM   #131
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
Nerys Myk's Avatar
Location: Spock of Ages
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
It been a long held rule that promotional material is not canon.
This seems to be news to virtually every canon Trek publication and source, Memory Alpha included, all of which state landing ability as a special trait of Intrepid- and Nova-class ships. I suppose there will be a reason they don't count either?
There are no canon Trek publications or sources. Canon is determined by the copyright holders and their appointed caretakers. Its not my rule. Its the rule of the people who own Star Trek. Send a letter to CBS if you don't like it.

Nevertheless I'll give you this much: I overstated in saying that starships could not enter atmosphere, as they can for brief periods of time, and I'll give you that the "explicit" references I alleged in canon are on the whole more implicit... probably because nobody foresaw having to actually explain why starships couldn't hang out on the bottom of oceans.
That's how Canon works. It unknown till is known. As of the latest film a Starship can hang out at the bottom of the ocean. Though is not recommended, especially by Chief Engineers.

None of that, however, remotely begins to rescue the undersea sequence. And I daresay I still find your treatment of "canon" rather selective.
Again, its not my "treatment", its CBS's and before that it was Paramount's. As fans we don't get a say in what's canon. It not in our purview.

You won't like this, but blog entries with quotes from a scientist aren't canon either.
I'm not expecting the opinion of science to be "canon." Just for it to be relevant to something that actually aspires to be science fiction. My contention is that the Abramsverse Trek does not so aspire, because it's effectively interchangeable popcorn cinema and not science fiction. And if you don't find the opinions of scientists on scientific subjects relevant, then I'm sorry to say that it's hard to take stuff like this:
If we were discussing real life science I'd listen to a scientist, but were discussing a show that has always played fast and loose with science and makes stuff up. Trek only aspires to science when it fits the plot. It's not alone in that when it comes to filmed science fiction. Its not hard SF. Most SF films are "popcorn cinema". They are not mutually exclusive.

This scientist argument rests on Trek's ships being built with 21st Century technology. No futuristic metals, no shields, no structural integrity fields, no anti grav tech...
... all that seriously. It's precisely the kind of over-convenient and undercooked technobabble he was warning you about, and he's correct that it's a big part of what weighed down and eventually did in TNG-era Trek.
Which why I like TOS and NuTrek better. There's very little technobabble. Things happen and we figure there's a reason why without needing to hear any babble about it. We are free to speculate on the why but we don't need the characters to tell us.

There are actually multiple even worse problems with that opening sequence, like the idea of "freezing" a volcano with a "cold-fusion" bomb. I do not think "cold-fusion" means what the writers think it means...
Then you should concentrate on those rather than the ship being underwater.

Basically, when you find yourself having to explain away severe problems like this, you are in the position of defending Bad Writing. If you enjoyed the film despite this, that's your business, it's not my function to lecture you about what you should and shouldn't like. But people should not be trying to say -- as was my initial point -- that these are just the gripes of a few over-obsessive fanboys, because they aren't. Whether you're able to squint past them or not, things like this really are just major, major script flaws, and you don't have to be an obsessive fanboy to see that.
Sorry, but the ship under the ocean is not bad writing or a flaw. Because in that case we are dealing with the unknown. We have no idea what the technological limits of the Enterprise are. There are no manuals or specs we can refer to. We can't assume that just because we haven't seen the ship do something it can't so that thing. Given the level of technology demonstrated in past series and films its not out of the question the ship could submerge in an ocean.

So, I'd go with the cold-fusion thing next time you want to discuss bad science in Star Trek films.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote