RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,817
Posts: 5,472,687
Members: 25,037
Currently online: 595
Newest member: Sebastian380

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Shatner Book Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Nov 20

Trek Original Series Slippers
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Hemsworth Is Sexiest Man Alive
By: T'Bonz on Nov 19

Trek Business Card Cases
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

February IDW Publishing Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Nov 17

Retro Review: The Siege of AR-558
By: Michelle on Nov 15

Trevco Full Bleed Uniform T-Shirts
By: T'Bonz on Nov 14


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 13 2013, 10:16 AM   #16
ROBE
Commander
 
ROBE's Avatar
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Don't get me started on Replicators!
ROBE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 10:55 AM   #17
Cid Highwind
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Germany
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

I think the problem here is not just the question whether this tech is less or more magical than any other Trek tech - the problem is that it just isn't good story-telling to allow such über-tech.

(And, yes, inventing an easy method for time travel and forgetting about it next week wasn't good story-telling, either. Just because Trek writers were lazy decades ago doesn't mean they need to keep being lazy today.)

I could accept the transwarp beaming of ST09: it could be explained as still being somewhat "short-distance", they could have hacked into internal sensors for greater precision and even then, there was some targeting error being shown. All of that was not the case with STID's transwarp beaming - and to add insult to injury, there wasn't even a good internal motivation for Harrison to beam to Qo'noS. The only motivation seems to be external - he needs to end up there so that Admiral Robocop can continue his plans of provoking war with the Klingons.

At times, it seems as if the script for this movie was written backwards: at some point, the characters need to be at some location - so an earlier scene brings them into position, whether there's probable motivation for them to act that way or not. This is lazy storytelling, and magical long-range transporters are just one of many products of that.
__________________
The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!
-- Shran
Cid Highwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 11:51 AM   #18
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

I'm okay with long-distance beaming as long as it's unreliable. Too few people have died (on screen) from transporter accidents. It would seem the most risky form of transport would be a sub-space/transwarp or ship-to-ship-at-warp and that would be the main reason why it isn't in common use. That way they can use it as ex-deus-machina of last resort--with a palpable risk that one or more of the crew will get scrambled like in ST:TMP or lost completely.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 12:12 PM   #19
ROBE
Commander
 
ROBE's Avatar
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Beam weapons, artificial gravity and starships with warp capability are all okay.
Other things are too "magic".
ROBE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 12:39 PM   #20
Cid Highwind
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Germany
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

That is still not the point...
__________________
The Andorian Mining Consortium runs from no one!
-- Shran
Cid Highwind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 03:12 PM   #21
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
I hoped it would be consigned to the dustbin like other amazing Trek feats like slingshotting around the sun to travel back in time
That was used at least three times.
  1. Tomorrow Is Yesterday
  2. Assignment: Earth
  3. STIV: The Voyage Home

It was also mentioned in Time Squared.
Yes I know but its not brought up every time it would be useful is it? You would use it every episode! Its ignored/forgotten about because it is an easy way out. Borg destroyed 40ships and killed 11000 people... lets slingshot around the sun and go back and tell them not to bother attacking! Apply same thinking to every episode. Now we have transwarp beaming in two movies back to back and I fully expect it to crop up in the third! Even though it has gone well beyond the realms of established Trek physics.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 03:20 PM   #22
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Define "established Trek physics" because it seems perfectly in line with the list I posted on the previous page. The Dominion could do it. Did DS9 suck because the kept "breaking the rules"?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 03:20 PM   #23
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Fans seem completely happy with 10 mile long starships, so transwarp beaming between solar systems probably goes hand in hand. "It's because of Nero."
We have huge Starbases already. There are no 10 mile starships anyway.. you are massively over exaggerating the size of the Vengeance Its about the size of a Romulan Warbird from TNG or thereabouts. There are huge Dominion battleships in DS9 approximately 5000m long.

Gojira wrote: View Post
Incredible and implausible technobabble and devices has a soild tradition in Star Trek.
Yes but these devices for the majority of movies and episodes did not break their own rules. On the spinoffs and later movies there was a 'science consultant' and a whole team of people who wrote the tech manuals etc making sure that the writers did not create something like Transwarp beaming because doing so would break the show! (Well now we can just use this super beaming every week instead of doing the usual stuff!)

ROBE wrote: View Post
Transporters are something I would scrap if I was doing a total reboot of Trek, they are like a Viking long boat carrying a mobile/cell phone.
They are too magical.
Not necessary to scrap them, just ensure they are used for short range 'hops' of no more than 50,000km and make sure they can't beam through shields. They where designed to get a landing party from the Enterprise to the planet of the week they are orbiting. Nothing more.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 03:22 PM   #24
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Define "established Trek physics" because it seems perfectly in line with the list I posted on the previous page. The Dominion could do it. Did DS9 suck because the kept "breaking the rules"?
I have to go back to work but I will respond later

Not got to your post yet
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 03:26 PM   #25
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

You mean... you will return to have your vengeance?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 04:30 PM   #26
throwback
Captain
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

From what I am reading, I think it's not a question of being lazy. I think it's a question of being spread too thin. JJ Abrams was involved in a great many projects.

In the years between the first movie and the second movie, JJ Abrams was involved in 10 film and tv projects, including Star Trek. When you are doing this much, and, in that short amount of time, there are has to be compromises. When I look at Nicholas Meyer, who created what is considered one of the best of the Trek films by several sources, he spent at least three years working on the project solely. (The film prior to ST: TWOK, Time after Time, was released in 1979.)

He seems to have a calendar that is less crowded for the next two years, during which he will be working on the new Star Wars film.
throwback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 05:42 PM   #27
anh165
Commander
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Yep, I think its really all about envy.

TOS era characters performing feats that Janeway/Picard/Sisko could not do.

Some people won't rest until the reboot trek returns back to using paper mache rocks again.
anh165 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 06:33 PM   #28
Mach5
Rear Admiral
 
Mach5's Avatar
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Wait a second... Kharrrison actually beamed form Earth to Kronos?

Why the fuck does Starfeet even bother building starships then?
__________________
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
― Bertrand Russell
Mach5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 06:54 PM   #29
SalvorHardin
Rear Admiral
 
SalvorHardin's Avatar
 
Location: Star's End
View SalvorHardin's Twitter Profile
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

Mach5 wrote: View Post
Why the fuck does Starfeet even bother building starships then?

Because transporters don't help you keep the balance or fight off the Klingons, Romulans or whoever else, when they come for you with their fleet.
And because you need starships and their facilities to explore unknown regions of space. You can't keep beaming people blindly hoping to hit a planet.
__________________

SalvorHardin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13 2013, 06:59 PM   #30
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Transporters in the nuVerse [SPOILERS]

anh165 wrote: View Post
TOS era characters performing feats that Janeway/Picard/Sisko could not do.
What exactly were those feats again, besides the slingshot time-travel?

In the TNG era they have all sorts of goodies that TOS didn't have: phaser-strips, photon-torpedoes that split apart into multiple warheads, holodecks that can become sentient, etc...

anh165 wrote: View Post
Some people won't rest until the reboot trek returns back to using paper mache rocks again.
Please, you're resorting to hyperbole.

This is supposed to be a prequel in the (if it were prime) late Pike-era. Doesn't it make sense that the tech should be a little less advanced, a little less perfected? It doesn't mean it has to look 60s, but it should feel somehow less advanced than even TOS, let alone TNG.

This actually makes space exploration feel more adventurous and daring. That's what the whole promise of, let's say, Enterprise, which was never fully realized because they made it feel too TNG-like.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 07:24 PM.

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