RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,067
Posts: 5,432,088
Members: 24,926
Currently online: 588
Newest member: wod_freak

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 27 2011, 02:26 PM   #1
TribblesAreAmok
Cadet
 
Location: On your roof
Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

I was wondering what you guys think of the treatment of space as and ocean? That meaning the ships don't travel in three dimensions in battle (but can out of battle) like naval warships. Or would you prefer the more realistic depiction of spacecraft moving in 3d space. I much prefer the more realistic 3D space battles as they are much more dynamic and interesting to watch.
__________________
"Admiral! There be whales here!" -Scotty
TribblesAreAmok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2011, 03:15 PM   #2
Sean Aaron
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Send a message via AIM to Sean Aaron Send a message via Yahoo to Sean Aaron
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

TribblesAreAmok wrote: View Post
I was wondering what you guys think of the treatment of space as and ocean?
If it was some kind of weird space fantasy where the ships used actual sails to "ply the aether" then that could be groovy, but otherwise I think it's pretty lame. If the show is set in space and is attempting any degree of believability then three dimensions should be utilised - hell even the crappy TNG films did that.
Sean Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 27 2011, 04:03 PM   #3
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat. I could see if the weapons range was only a few hundred feet, but if it's supposed to be a few hundred thousand kilometers, then we should only see enemy vessels represented as dots on a monitor screen, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 28 2011, 04:34 PM   #4
TribblesAreAmok
Cadet
 
Location: On your roof
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

to the above, I always thought that the ships simply are that big, or the viewscreens simply zoom in. to 2nd post, I do not mean literal boats, but the fact that in WOK it was a plot point that the enterprise flew under kahns ship.
__________________
"Admiral! There be whales here!" -Scotty
TribblesAreAmok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2011, 01:48 PM   #5
Sean Aaron
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Send a message via AIM to Sean Aaron Send a message via Yahoo to Sean Aaron
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

Treat space as 3D or make it a fantasy.
Sean Aaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 8 2011, 03:30 AM   #6
Caesar753
Commander
 
Caesar753's Avatar
 
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

I would prefer a more 3D approach to space in Star Trek, but I can see why it hasn't really been utilized. Trek fans, especially those with scientific backgrounds, know how space really works. The general public, however, doesn't care or pay attention to such things, which is why the issue was never really addressed on TV.
Caesar753 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2011, 02:14 AM   #7
sojourner
Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

Only situations involving more than 2 ships are inaccurate. With 2 ships the only odd thing with how Trek portrays it is that both ships are oriented the same.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2011, 02:21 AM   #8
Gaith
Rear Admiral
 
Gaith's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

So long as the story is compelling, I don't hugely care what the battles look like.
Gaith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2011, 07:07 PM   #9
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

IIRC the early Galactica reboot scenes were tiny ships fighting silently in space. I remember a shot of Galactica arriving which was little more than a fine bright line with a tiny dot at the end.

I liked it but it presumably wasn't as exciting for Joe Public...
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2011, 09:07 PM   #10
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

I always saw that sea-faring analogy more general. The spaceships and their crews in the 23rd century are a lot more like sailing ships and their crews in the 17th century. Planets are new shores, and space is the ocean between them. There's discovery, there's trading, there's dangers, there's myth and romance.

I guess that well devoloped interstellar traveling races would indeed create a proper coordinate system, so that ships would indeed travel in the same plane, relative to where they currently are. Every solar system has a specific plane, so if a ship is between two planets, it would probably move relative to that plane. If it's in orbit, the orbital plane or maybe the equatorial plane is the reference. If they are outside the solar system, the galactic plane will be the reference.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 9 2011, 09:30 PM   #11
Auralis
Captain
 
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

Take submarine combat as model to base combat on. Its largely the same, 3d environment, unseen enemy vessels, but located by sensors etc...
And you can make it very intense as lots of submarine war movie showed.
Auralis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2011, 09:37 AM   #12
Bread
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: Southern Hemisphere
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

TWOK depicted both of these notions of a sea and 3D did it not?

The approach towards each other of the Enterprise and Reliant, just like two sailing frigates, passing to fire upon one another.

The battle in the Mutara Nebula was conducted entirely across 3 dimensions. Spock even alluded to 2 dimensional thinking before the Enterprise is manouvered through the 3 dimensions to ultimately defeat Reliant.
Bread is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2011, 08:43 PM   #13
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat.
And here's the problem, no?

There's no compelling reason to ignore three dimensions besides laziness or the conveinence of visual short hand (if a starship is 'upside-down' that might feel a little disorienting) and likewise, little reason for starships to bank and turn as if they're in an environment.

But if a starship battle is not something you can actually see, well, one either needs to rethink how to shoot starship battles in a manner that's dramatic, or fudge realism for the sake of an exciting image. Submarine only partially works here - ignoring that Star Trek has, of course, done this (the cloaking device began as a space analogy to submarines) any space fights where the ships aren't able to obscure vision of each other aren't going to be a lot like submarine battles.

The same argument can usually be made for sound in space, although I liked Battlestar Galactica's semi-solution of hearing the sound from within a given fighter or starship.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15 2011, 08:19 AM   #14
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

Kegg wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Realistically, ships should never be in visual range of one another during combat.
And here's the problem, no?

There's no compelling reason to ignore three dimensions besides laziness or the conveinence of visual short hand (if a starship is 'upside-down' that might feel a little disorienting)...
Which is actually a compelling enough reason for producers and directors to do so. While science nerds may like the idea of seeing "upside-down" ships, I would gather most viewers do not--unless it's for dramatic purposes, and Trek has done that on occasion, especially since TNG.
...and likewise, little reason for starships to bank and turn as if they're in an environment.
One reason I came up with is that it's to protect the crew from being smeared over the bulkheads because inertia dampers can only compensate for so much. Every starship probably can pivot on its axis, but it's not recommended at high velocities.
But if a starship battle is not something you can actually see, well, one either needs to rethink how to shoot starship battles in a manner that's dramatic, or fudge realism for the sake of an exciting image.
But isn't that exactly what they do? We hear them call out distances of ships being thousands of kilometers apart and yet we see them fit nicely on our television screens only a few inches apart.
Submarine only partially works here - ignoring that Star Trek has, of course, done this (the cloaking device began as a space analogy to submarines) any space fights where the ships aren't able to obscure vision of each other aren't going to be a lot like submarine battles.
Why wouldn't they be? If two ships aren't within visual range of one another, then they would have to be like submarine battles in which most of the action is inside the vessels. In that regard, the TOS episode "Balance of Terror" is probably one of the more realistic space battles filmed.
The same argument can usually be made for sound in space, although I liked Battlestar Galactica's semi-solution of hearing the sound from within a given fighter or starship.
It's the old case of dramatic necessity versus scientific accuracy. It can be argued that there's no music in space too.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15 2011, 10:18 AM   #15
Kegg
Rear Admiral
 
Kegg's Avatar
 
Location: Ireland.
Re: Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But isn't that exactly what they do? We hear them call out distances of ships being thousands of kilometers apart and yet we see them fit nicely on our television screens only a few inches apart.
Well, yes. But if you want to show them being thousands of kilometers aparrt, how do you make that interesting to look at, is the question.

Why wouldn't they be? If two ships aren't within visual range of one another, then they would have to be like submarine battles in which most of the action is inside the vessels.
Not if they have sensors, remember. Unless your scrapping that technology, they've never been needed to be able to eyeball something with the naked eye to be able to know it's there.

It's the old case of dramatic necessity versus scientific accuracy. It can be argued that there's no music in space too.
There's no music inside the starship either.

However music is not the same thing. It's a dramatic convention that is clearly disconnected from the actions on the screen - we know that nothing is 'making' the music. Conversely, using noises for starship battles is one of the many little ways Hollywood can ignore how something is supposed to sound (in this case, not at all) in favour of how it ought to sound.
__________________
'Spock is always right, even when he's wrong. It's the tone of voice, the supernatural reasonability; this is not a man like us; this is a god.'
- Philip K. Dick
Kegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
enterprise, ocean, science., space, starship

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.