RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,889
Posts: 5,330,028
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 518
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 August 24 2013, 10:19 PM   #991
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
No, if the ship was tumbling, they would feel centrifugal forces away from the center of rotation. People wouldn't be "falling" all in the same direction (i.e. toward Earth).

Don't bother defending the scene. It was completely absurd.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:23 PM   #992
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
No, if the ship was tumbling, they would feel centrifugal forces away from the center of rotation. People wouldn't be "falling" all in the same direction (i.e. toward Earth).

Don't bother defending the scene. It was completely absurd.
No where near the most eye rolling in the franchise or even in the film era.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 10:59 PM   #993
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread



SeerSGB wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post

Don't bother defending the scene. It was completely absurd.
No where near the most eye rolling in the franchise or even in the film era.
But that's okay. Because J.J. Abrams wasn't making it.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 11:17 PM   #994
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
But that's okay. Because J.J. Abrams wasn't making it.

Has nothing to do with JJ. Don't put words in my mouth.

It has to do with the fact that people are making shit up to justify a dumb scene.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 11:23 PM   #995
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
But that's okay. Because J.J. Abrams wasn't making it.

Has nothing to do with JJ. Don't put words in my mouth.

It has to do with the fact that people are making shit up to justify a dumb scene.
In short: sci-fi fans.

The scene is not a stand out beyond being visually impressive and something we've not seen before in a Trek movie. The "quality" of the scene--the movie overall--is on average with prior Trek movies.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24 2013, 11:32 PM   #996
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post

It has to do with the fact that people are making shit up to justify a dumb scene.
It isn't the first "dumb" scene in Star Trek's illustrious history and it isn't the first time fans have attempted to justify something on screen that makes no sense.

Have you gotten equally outraged?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 01:12 AM   #997
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
Have you gotten equally outraged?
Do I have to voice my outrage about every "bad science" scene in this thread?
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 01:42 AM   #998
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

The whole concept of Star Trek and everything in it is absurd and mostly impossible so fixating on this dodgy gravity is illogical. Instead of dismissing it why not come up with an in-universe technobabble explanation instead?

Centrifugal forces and failing 'gravity systems' coupled with failed 'inertial dampeners' and the 'grav plating' randomly depolarising where causing havoc aboard ship. Easy
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 01:54 AM   #999
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Have you gotten equally outraged?
Do I have to voice my outrage about every "bad science" scene in this thread?
You're tap-dancing around the question.

Do you get equally outraged by bad science and fans attempting to explain it when those things happen in the various TV series and other Trek movies?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 02:18 AM   #1000
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
You're tap-dancing around the question.
Your question is designed to frame me as a "JJ hater," when that's not the point. FYI, the same crap happened in Disney's The Black Hole, and it was equally stupid then.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 02:24 AM   #1001
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
But that's okay. Because J.J. Abrams wasn't making it.

Has nothing to do with JJ. Don't put words in my mouth.

It has to do with the fact that people are making shit up to justify a dumb scene.
But Star Trek fans, in fact any sci-fi or space opera fans have always justified dumb or inadequate scenes in their shows. It's part of the fun of being a fan.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 02:27 AM   #1002
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I think these scaling issues we're arguing about may be the result of a similar war between the production team and ILM.

One of them clearly wants the ship to be bigger, and the other clearly wants it to be smaller.

Kinda ironic eh?
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 02:44 AM   #1003
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The ship was tumbling end over end, the internal gravity was not compensating either enough, or at all, not changing the direction of "up" so that no matter how the ship twisted, it kept applying gravity as if it weren't, gyroscopically speaking.
No, if the ship was tumbling, they would feel centrifugal forces away from the center of rotation. People wouldn't be "falling" all in the same direction (i.e. toward Earth).

Don't bother defending the scene. It was completely absurd.
No where near the most eye rolling in the franchise or even in the film era.
I find the endless turboshaft in TFF much more eyerolling, along with Scotty bonking his head.

The Enterprise falling out of orbit when they were out of power TOS (if it was in a stable orbit initially, it wouldn't need power to stay there).

Janeway and Paris turning into lizards.

Just few. Trek has never been high art, or scientifically accurate.
__________________
Remember: No Matter Where You Go, There You Are...88

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:01 AM   #1004
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

That scene was pretty cool when they are running through the corridors.


-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:02 AM   #1005
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
You're tap-dancing around the question.
Your question is designed to frame me as a "JJ hater," when that's not the point. FYI, the same crap happened in Disney's The Black Hole, and it was equally stupid then.
I'm just interested if you hold the rest of Star Trek to the same standard of science that you are holding the Abrams films too?
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
argument, size, 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 11:27 AM.

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