RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,359
Posts: 5,355,585
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 524
Newest member: glmrkills

TrekToday headlines

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Drexler TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Jul 26

Retro Review: His Way
By: Michelle on Jul 26

MicroWarriors Releases Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Jul 25


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 26 2013, 12:52 AM   #1051
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
Well therein lies the problem, I have no idea how much Star Trek you have seen but if it is just the reboot only then you are missing the point here.
I'm going to guess that I've been a fan probably for longer than you've been alive, through every incarnation of ST. I gave up on DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise through fatigue (and real life taking over). The episodes of TOS were at least written by competent sci-fi authors, and had a mild modicum of veracity.

The problem with ST09 and STiD is that they were written by hacks who had no understanding of simple science. I'm willing to forgive some of it in the interests of mindless entertainment (e.g. Lost), but I really expect a feature film to hire some science advisors.
Science advisors don't automatically make either a more scientifically accurate film or better film. Film is a visual medium and "This looks cool, let's do this" will always win over any a science advisor has to say.

As for TOS: I love TOS, but science wise, it's about on par with later day Trek and the reboot films. Looks cool wins over accurate. Hell, apply real science and there's no way for Spock to be alive.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 12:55 AM   #1052
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Oh here we go with the TOS is some holy canon bullshit again. How did Fry put it? "79 episodes, about 30 good ones.".

It's the same aging, cliched, heavy handed nonsense as a lot of 60's television and suffers from all the same basic problems as any Scifi.

And just because you've beed decaying longer of the rest of us, does not make your moaning and complaining any more relevant.

You pick on things that every version of Star Trek has suffered from. And please, scientific accuracy from a series with solar system sized bacteria and planet killing dildos? yeah, not really going to fly here.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 12:58 AM   #1053
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I agree the science is shit but is it not possible there is some fantastical 23rd century explanation that can be pulled out of a screenwriters ass here that fixes it? Something we didn't get to hear onscreen because they are too busy entertaining us instead?

The gravity generators blew a fuse and fecked everything up! Sending everyone flying all over the place! They drifted from the moon to earth because of Impulse maneuvering during the battle at 0.3c or some such technobabble bollocks. (though both ships are maneuvering at the same speed and relative to each other appear stationary)
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 12:59 AM   #1054
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

You know I really was enjoying that scene so much that I didn't care for anything else, it was satisfactory all around, I don't see how that would really change anything.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 01:07 AM   #1055
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

I personally don't need to hear a technobabble line that explains these events beyond 'gravity systems failing' - it is those systems imho that are messing everything up whilst simultaneously being caught in Earths gravity and plummeting toward the surface.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 01:43 AM   #1056
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
Well therein lies the problem, I have no idea how much Star Trek you have seen but if it is just the reboot only then you are missing the point here.
I'm going to guess that I've been a fan probably for longer than you've been alive, through every incarnation of ST. I gave up on DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise through fatigue (and real life taking over). The episodes of TOS were at least written by competent sci-fi authors, and had a mild modicum of veracity.

The problem with ST09 and STiD is that they were written by hacks who had no understanding of simple science. I'm willing to forgive some of it in the interests of mindless entertainment (e.g. Lost), but I really expect a feature film to hire some science advisors.
That's a rather condescending attitude. My favorite series is TOS, yet I'll be among the first to admit that TOS is among the worst Trek series when it came to internal consistency and science. And the best part is I LOVED THAT about it. It focused more on telling interesting stories than making sense, because TOS knew it was an adventure show, not a science commentary. That's why they hired the sci-fi writers not because they were good in science, but because they could write good sci-fi, and even then, it did not make up the majority of the TOS episodes.

What's probably the most popular TOS episode? The Trouble with Tribbles. Nothing deep science-wise there. Completely ridiculous, in fact. Yet, a tremendously fun episode to watch and my personal favorite.

Or how about the numerous times when the Enterprise finds alien civilizations that look so suspiciously like Earth's cultures? Bread and Circuses? Miri? A Piece of the Action? In Miri, neither the narrative nor the characters bothered to remark on how this planet could resemble Earth down to the tiniest minutiae, and it turned out to be insignificant except to make a statement about humanity. It IS ridiculous that such a significant finding is tossed aside considering they're on a scientific exploration, but the audience doesn't care.

In fact, the average TOS monster of the week is ridiculous on so many levels, and I wouldn't have it any other way! The gigantic (and spinning!) Fesarius cube in The Corbomite Maneuver being a mere few meters away from the Enterprise yet somehow avoiding colliding with it? The amoeba monster in The Immunity Syndrome that was so ridiculous that my biology teacher used it as an example to teach about the implausibility of bacteria sizes years ago?

TOS, and Star Trek, has never been about the science (well maybe it became a bit more about the science in TNG), it was always about a group of people going on fantastic adventures together.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 02:33 AM   #1057
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
Well therein lies the problem, I have no idea how much Star Trek you have seen but if it is just the reboot only then you are missing the point here.
I'm going to guess that I've been a fan probably for longer than you've been alive, through every incarnation of ST. I gave up on DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise through fatigue (and real life taking over). The episodes of TOS were at least written by competent sci-fi authors, and had a mild modicum of veracity.
Or perhaps you were just younger and more impressionable when you watched it. Take a look at the TOS analog of what's being discussed now, the Enterprise's fall to Psi 2000 in "The Naked Now". How well do you think that'll hold up to this kind of scrutiny?
The problem with ST09 and STiD is that they were written by hacks who had no understanding of simple science.
Lazarus would like a word with you, concerning the universe exploding if a single particle of matter and antumatter were to collide. Also Spock on the subject of copper-based blood and alien half-breeds. Also whoever it was who thought there was a discreet edge to the galaxy (which had an unexplained magic forcefield around it which inexplicably gives people Q-powers). And the guy who thought a transporter could split a man into good and evil halves. And those Halloween aliens. Care to point out a scientifically sound TOS episode?
I'm willing to forgive some of it in the interests of mindless entertainment (e.g. Lost), but I really expect a feature film to hire some science advisors.
Then I can only assume you've been constantly disappointed by 12 Star Trek movies?
__________________
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 August 26 2013, 07:02 AM   #1058
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong? This thread has become about that one scene in STiD. Let's focus, people.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:26 AM   #1059
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
First: there are no shockwaves in space, in the same sense as on Earth (in the atmosphere). Shock waves in space are purely particulate, which means the tiny little pieces of Vengeance that might have hit the Enterprise would have to have been enough to push it. Translation: not likely.
Yes, there are shockwaves in space. If you have an outburst of EM radiation and particles it has to go somewhere, whether there is air between you or not. There would be a lot more than tiny pieces bombarding the Enterprise as a result of the massive explosion. Your chance of avoiding getting hit is if the outer hull of the Vengeance absorbed most of the energy and went flying away in one piece. Dialogue would suggest otherwise.

It was established in TOS: Balance of Terror that you can use proximity blasts in Star Trek, and from there on space shockwaves have been quite common. Remember The Wrath of Khan or The Undiscovered Country?

ETT: The same story would have had better science in TOS for one reason – the budget would have not allowed for such a realistic shot of the Moon sitting next to the Enterprise, and you would have had no idea where the Enterprise was. Probably every TOS episode where the Enterprise had a close encounter with a planet made as much sense as that scene, they just didn't have to money to show it to you. Or do you really think they choreographed their orbital manoeuvres with precision back then?
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)

Last edited by YellowSubmarine; August 26 2013 at 07:36 AM.
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 07:43 AM   #1060
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong? This thread has become about that one scene in STiD. Let's focus, people.
I think the reason it became that way is because of the following two quotes (emphasis mine):

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
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 wrote: View Post
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.
When discussion was already in progress, the fans trying to justify the supposed incongruities were accused of "making sh*t up" and that they shouldn't "bother defending the scene". How can anyone discuss the scene if they are accused of making stuff up or if they are told they shouldn't bother?

Of course, those accused would be inclined to point out that as fans have been making stuff up to defend inconsistencies in Star Trek since the beginning of TOS (especially since TOS, since it seems to be the only one you regard as scientifically competent), why should they stop now?

That is where the topic went off into everything wrong with Trek, because if any discussion is to be made, it should be acknowledged that there have always been things wrong with Trek, and fans will always find ways to justify them, regardless of whether it's TOS, TNG or the Reboots.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 09:57 AM   #1061
Gonzo
Lieutenant
 
Location: England
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong? This thread has become about that one scene in STiD. Let's focus, people.
This thread was a discussion about the size of the NuEnterprise, when you lost the size argument you started picking holes in the science (or lack thereof) used in the reboot films as if its something special or new to Star Trek as a whole which it isn't, Star Trek is science fiction after all its not meant to be taken seriously.

You should not be surprised that other forum members then gave you examples of the same problems in all of the Star Trek media that has ever been made including TOS which is just as big an offender as the rest.

The "Lets focus people" comment is a bit rich coming from you as every time you lose the argument you say it doesn't matter and try to tell everyone to move on, as if you run this board and it never mattered to you in the first place.

Everyone on this board has been very patient and reasonable and has provided evidence and arguments to back up the fact that the NuEnterprise is 725m long even though they don't need to as the size has been officially confirmed from multiple sources, I cant do that with you WarpfactorZ, I just cant take you seriously as some of the statements you come out with make me laugh too much.
Gonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 10:07 AM   #1062
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

How did he lose the size argument when nobody else won it?
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2013, 10:17 AM   #1063
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Why the fuck does this have to become a discussion of EVERYTHING Trek has done wrong? This thread has become about that one scene in STiD. Let's focus, people.
Your own comment earlier:
The episodes of TOS were at least written by competent sci-fi authors, and had a mild modicum of veracity.
We just pointed out that Trek's science was just as flawed then as it is now. Forgiving one and not the other would be a double standard.
__________________
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 August 26 2013, 10:24 AM   #1064
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
How did he lose the size argument when nobody else won it?
I don't see anyone refuting the evidence I and others have posted in any kind of substantial way, nor has anyone even attempted to show how what we've seen would fit into an Enterprise smaller than 725m. Even with the supposed changing shuttlebay size and saucer corridor I've shown exactly why they look as they do.
__________________
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 August 26 2013, 10:51 AM   #1065
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

gerbil wrote: View Post
I love that we're arguing based on a design that's clearly either nonsensical or designed poorly in the first place. The placement of the turbolift on the bridge is ridiculous. Either the bridge is at a 30 degree angle to the front of the ship or the model is inconsistent with the set. Based on what we see later in the movies, it's obviously the latter.
The model is different and the bridge module completely changed, so what's nonsensical is assuming that both bridges are facing the same direction, wouldn't you say ?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
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.
One of the important aspects of enjoying fiction is giving a pass to things like that when possible. Otherwise most of it is crap. If you start nitpicking, even the best movies are horrible. Ad as Crazy Eddie said, we're much more likely to nitpick movies we already don't like, so I'd say we're kidding ourselves when we pretend that those nitpicks are the reason we don't like it.

No, you're all missing the point. There's a difference between speculative science (e.g. transporters, warp drive, replicators, etc...) and BAD SCIENCE (falling down inside a ship accelerating toward the Earth).
Transporters are probably bad science.

I didn't waste my time with that crap.
Speaking of crap, in Trek the inertial dampeners always work fine when the ship is accelerating at demented rates, but entirely off when they're getting shot at.

One could argue that a warp core breach on a giant starship (huge matter-antimatter explosion) is orders or magnitude above several torpedoes detonating...
Don't try to defend that scene !
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... 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 06:25 AM.

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