Embrace or Reject?: "Space as treated like an ocean.

[C.E. Evans]

Kegg wrote:

---

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.

You can't. It's too big of a distance to fit on a television or movie screen.

The only real options are to either make the intension within the respective vessels (i.e., among the crewmembers) like TOS generally did or to fudge reality (mostly distances) for dramatic purposes like subsequent Trek shows have done.

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.

Huh? Why wouldn't starships suddenly no longer have sensors? Even submarines had sensors in the form of radar.

There's no music inside the starship either.

Exactly, so it's all about remembering that it's a TV show (or movie) meant for mass entertainment, so you have to accept that dramatic necessity will frequently trump scientific accuracy.

However music is not the same thing.

I disagree. It's a storytelling tool to establish a particular mood for a scene or to emphasize it.

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.

In other words, it's meant for dramatic purposes like music.

[Kegg]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

You can't.

Making it interesting is subjective, no? I wouldn't say one can't, just because it hasn't occurred to one.

Huh? Why wouldn't starships suddenly no longer have sensors? Even submarines had sensors in the form of radar.

For your argument to work you need to throw sensors out. Otherwise yes, it won't be like a sub battle because they reliably know where the other starship is.

I disagree. It's a storytelling tool to establish a particular mood for a scene or to emphasize it.

It's a different tool. Hollywood often makes guns sound like something other than what guns sound, makes swords sound different to what swords sound, and so on. Adding sound to space is on the order of that kind of fudging of reality, and is substantially different from music.

[C.E. Evans]

Kegg wrote:

---

Making it interesting is subjective, no? I wouldn't say one can't, just because it hasn't occurred to one.

It really is a case that you can't. In the part of my post you omitted, it really is as simple that it's too big a distance to show on any screen.

For your argument to work you need to throw sensors out.

First of all, what argument are you accusing me of, because I think you're talking about something I'm not. Secondly, why would I need to throw sensors out?

Otherwise yes, it won't be like a sub battle because they reliably know where the other starship is.

You've lost me now.

It's a different tool.

Not at all. It's used for dramatic effect rather than for realism.

[Galileo7]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

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.

Agreed. I always felt the refit Enterprise in TMP on the big screen of a movie theater was like a sailing ship of old Earth oceans.

[O'Dib]

I liked the sound in space solution of Serenity, where the battle was only heard because it took place in a nebula. Trek09 had exciting upside down takes, and solved the distance issue by making the enemy vessel immense.

[Keptin J D Reed]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

Huh? Why wouldn't starships suddenly no longer have sensors? Even submarines had sensors in the form of radar.

Tut tut tut. Submarines have Sonar. Well, they also have radar for when they surface, but for the purposes of detecting other submarines in the 3D environment you are discussing, they use Sonar.

I'll now stop being Anal and crawl back under the rock from whence I came

[Anji]

Bread wrote:

---

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.

Thank you! Yes, it did. And towards the end of the movie it actually does use some 3D effects to make you feel as if space is all around you.

And, space is an ocean. The analogy is entirely correct.

[C.E. Evans]

Keptin J D Reed wrote:

---

Tut tut tut. Submarines have Sonar. Well, they also have radar for when they surface, but for the purposes of detecting other submarines in the 3D environment you are discussing, they use Sonar.

I'll now stop being Anal and crawl back under the rock from whence I came

[Capt. Vulcan]

What about 1D? Everyone fight in a singularity!

[Maverisms]

I need to dig out my copy of '09 and check, but I don't recall there being many shots with two ships fighting each other on screen at the same time.

I know they did do it, especially the Kelvin scenes, but I don't think they did it often. It's not a far step from what they did to not showing ships side by side at all.

I have to come down on the side of the lazy production accusation. There are ways to do action and relate to the audience what is happening without Star Wars space battles.

[Kegg]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

It really is a case that you can't. In the part of my post you omitted, it really is as simple that it's too big a distance to show on any screen.

To show two ships at once, yes. To show them seperately, which is what the original series often did? Different wuestion.

Secondly, why would I need to throw sensors out?

Because if sensors remain that strategy makes no sense. You can't have a submarine battle when you know where your opponent is. This is where the cloaking device was needed as a handwave to have a space submarine battle. Simple as.

[C.E. Evans]

Kegg wrote:

---

To show two ships at once, yes. To show them seperately, which is what the original series often did? Different wuestion.

Huh? You did ask "But if you want to show them being thousands of kilometers aparrt, how do you make that interesting to look at, is the question."

You can't show ships thousands of kilometers apart on any screen unless you reduce the ships to really tiny points of lights only distinguishable from the background starfield by the fact they move. I don't think many viewers would find that interesting to look at or not for very long.

Your only real options is to either do it like TOS in which the camera cuts back and forth between ships or do it like TNG in which they show ships close together and don't pay too much attention to stated distances.

Because if sensors remain that strategy makes no sense.

What strategy?

You can't have a submarine battle when you know where your opponent is.

Why not? I think submarine battles occur when they know where their opponents are.

This is where the cloaking device was needed as a handwave to have a space submarine battle. Simple as.

Not simple at all, because you've totally lost me there. Cloaking devices can neutralize sensors, but that still doesn't mean starships shouldn't be equipped with them. If nothing else, starships need sensors in order to navigate between planets.

[AviTrek]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

Huh? You did ask "But if you want to show them being thousands of kilometers aparrt, how do you make that interesting to look at, is the question."

You can't show ships thousands of kilometers apart on any screen unless you reduce the ships to really tiny points of lights only distinguishable from the background starfield by the fact they move. I don't think many viewers would find that interesting to look at or not for very long.

Your only real options is to either do it like TOS in which the camera cuts back and forth between ships or do it like TNG in which they show ships close together and don't pay too much attention to stated distances.



What strategy?

Why not? I think submarine battles occur when they know where their opponents are.

Not simple at all, because you've totally lost me there. Cloaking devices can neutralize sensors, but that still doesn't mean starships shouldn't be equipped with them. If nothing else, starships need sensors in order to navigate between planets.

You're missing the point. Submarine battles occur where you know roughly where the enemy is but not exactly. When someone is talking about a submarine battle instead of battleships on the surface, they're talking about running silent to avoid detection, listening for a hint of where the enemy might be, and using thermal layers to mask your approach. None of that works when long range sensors give you the exact location and heading of the enemy.

[C.E. Evans]

AviTrek wrote:

---

You're missing the point.

No, you've missed the point because I'm talking more about starships than I am about submarines.

Submarine battles occur where you know roughly where the enemy is but not exactly. When someone is talking about a submarine battle instead of battleships on the surface, they're talking about running silent to avoid detection, listening for a hint of where the enemy might be, and using thermal layers to mask your approach.

I didn't think that needed to be said. But my question to the person I was talking to is why can't starships have sensors that can detect exactly where the enemy is?

None of that works when long range sensors give you the exact location and heading of the enemy.

Why is that a bad thing for starships? We've seen battles fought like that before in Trek many times.

[Kegg]

C.E. Evans wrote:

---

No, you've missed the point because I'm talking more about starships than I am about submarines.

You're using an analogy that makes no sense, however. If two starships can detect each other, they cannot have a fight in any way comparable to a submarine engagement.

It's that simple.