RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,892
Posts: 5,222,846
Members: 24,234
Currently online: 574
Newest member: evtclub

TrekToday headlines

De Lancie Joins Mind Puppets
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Cumberbatch One Of Time Magazine’s Most Influential
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Trek Actor Smithsonian Magazine Cover First
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Takei To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Yelchin In New Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

U.S. Rights For Pegg Comedy Secured
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Shatner: Aging and Work
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21


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 September 29 2013, 01:26 AM   #106
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Therin of Andor wrote: View Post
It can withstand wormholes, nebulas, giant amoeba and other space anomalies, but would "break apart" just by entering atmosphere?
I would actually say the canon explanation for this is pretty consistent on the grounds of spaceships being designed for space, and equipped to handle space-related hazards, whereas the attempts to discard it because SQUEEEE are rather more questionable.

It is called Great Movie Blockbuster Writing.
I'm honestly not arsed if you like the movie. It's cool to like processed sandwich spread, too; it's just not cool to claim it is caviar and denounce the rest of us as snobs when we tell you that is not the case.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already and we've yet to see even one person denounce you as a snob (nor, I suspect, will we. I do hope that won't come as too much of a disappointment.)

BigJake wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote:
That question has been answered by several people and in various ways.
I am sure it has. Unfortunately there is a difference between an answer and a good answer.
Well, then - it should be no trouble at all for you to simply run down the answers already tendered and point out which ones are the good answers and which are not. Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.
__________________
"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank and that settles it. I mean it does nowadays, because we can't burn him."
— Mark Twain, from Following the Equator
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:30 AM   #107
drt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

The transwarp beaming seems to be a one-way trip, from everything presented in '09 and ID, a very precise transporter lock is needed to beam someone up but not down, so it appears you can send somebody to another planet with the transwarp beaming, but I'm not sure there's a way to bring them back.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:35 AM   #108
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Now I just wanna rerun that "The Onion" report on the 2009 film one more time!
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:35 AM   #109
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already . . . Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.
Quoted without comment. I will leave who is actually "getting defensive" in this scenario as an exercise for the reader.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:40 AM   #110
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there, Charlie. You're getting defensive already . . . Diagrams, graphics, and other supporting materials which explain why would earn extra credit.
Quoted without comment. I will leave who is actually "getting defensive" in this scenario as an exercise for the reader.
Umm, M'Sharak was offering you some advice, in his position as Mod. AFAIK.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 01:55 AM   #111
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Well, not really my place to debate M'Sharak's moderating style, in that case. Sorry if it seemed like I was being a dick.

We can at least agree that that old Onion piece was darned funny. The line "Gene Roddenberry was the hack who created Star Trek like way back in the Forties or something..." is immortal.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 02:01 AM   #112
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
The technology is already different in this timeline and the tech came from over a century in the future.
A future in which it was never seen before an Abrams film either, because previous creators were smarter than to effectively break the setting and premise by introducing it.
It comes from a point in the future we've never seen. (post Nemesis)

Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.

The concept of sub-space transporting (which also covers vast distances) was explored in TNG:Bloodlines.
Unlike a normal transporter, which sends its signal through normal space and thus limited to a much shorter range, this transporter uses subspace. Compared to a normal Federation transporter, which had a range of about 40,000 kilometers, it has a range of several light years. A probe was once transported from a distance of approximately 300 billion kilometers this way.
Spatial trajector
The spatial trajector was a technology utilized by the Sikarians, a species native to the Delta Quadrant, which allowed them to transport to planets up to 40,000 light years away.
Sub-quantum transporter
The sub-quantum transporter was a flawed technology invented by Emory Erickson and studied by the Vulcan Science Academy. It was intended to be the replacement for the transporter used in the mid-22nd century. The sub-quantum transporter would beam an object or person from planet-to-planet, or any other distance, since the device had unlimited range. The system also required much less power to operate.
Translocator
The translocator was an extremely advanced high-energy transporter device created by the Nyrians of the Delta Quadrant.
It had a transportation range of ten light years.


I think it's design is more than adequate for limited submersion. If it can stand the various extremes of space a little water won't hurt it.
It is stated incredibly super-clearly in the entirety of pre-Abrams canon that a ship the size of the Enterprise cannot and does not land. Yes, "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" notwithstanding. The nacelle-and-saucers design not being particularly aerodynamic or grav-friendly would be a pretty good reason.
TIY is canon.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?

Does a ship with shields and anti-grav really need to worry about being aerodynamic or even subject to gravity?

And again: when not tempted by cool sea visuals and Zoe Saldana in a wetsuit, the creators of STID agree with this. That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere. Breaking canon is one thing, but they couldn't even manage it self-consistently.

There is again a term for that. It is Bad Writing.
I think a controlled entry into an atmosphere in an undamaged ship is different than an uncontrolled one in a damaged ship.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 02:09 AM   #113
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.
Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)

You will notice that all of the other examples you list are either specifically designed to have a fatal flaw in order that they not render starships superfluous, or are in the hands of non-Federation actors. There is a reason for that.

TIY is canon.
It is also not an example of the Enterprise landing, just of its surviving a very short spell in an atmosphere. It's really not as much of a counterexample as some are wont to make of it.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?
In fact I provided you a link to one of many quite unequivocal examples, from the promotional material for Voyager. You may have missed the edit, so have a look again.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 02:34 AM   #114
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
That's what the whole final-act "the Enterprise is crashing" thing is based on; the Enterprise was breaking up on entering atmosphere.
No. The final act was based on the Enterprise (nearly) crashing on the surface of the Earth because it lost all power after battling the Vengeance.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 02:39 AM   #115
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.
Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)
Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.

You will notice that all of the other examples you list are either specifically designed to have a fatal flaw in order that they not render starships superfluous, or are in the hands of non-Federation actors. There is a reason for that.
Yep and a fatal flaw can be found for Scotty' transwarp beaming too. It doesn't have to be the automobile.

TIY is canon.
It is also not an example of the Enterprise landing, just of its surviving a very short spell in an atmosphere. It's really not as much of a counterexample as some are wont to make of it.
I used it as an example of the ship operating in an atmosphere. Which you said couldn't be done. The ship also escaped said atmosphere.

Where is this super-clearly stated? Series, episode, movie?
In fact I provided you a link to one of many quite unequivocal examples, from the promotional material for Voyager. You may have missed the edit, so have a look again.
Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different". What else you got? Especially referring to the Enterprise in-universe.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 03:15 AM   #116
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 03:17 AM   #117
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Gary Seven used a transporter that took him from his homeworld to Earth.
Gary Seven was supposed to be setting up a futuristic espionage show where he worked for aliens advanced far beyond Federation technology. Breaking the premise of starship exploration was not a problem for him.

(Actually a shame that series never materialized, it could have been fun.)
Assignment: Earth is canon. No reason why the future UFP can't duplicate it.
Except that it eliminates any reason for Starfleet to exist, no. But since it does, prior creators did not do so. Wisely.

Yep and a fatal flaw can be found for Scotty' transwarp beaming too.
Scotty's transwarp beaming seems to work quite reliably.

I used it as an example of the ship operating in an atmosphere. Which you said couldn't be done. The ship also escaped said atmosphere.
As it had to. Very quickly. Because canonically that is not where starships are supposed to be.

Promotional material does not count.
That is rather conveniently selective of you, and kind of doesn't make me feel like you're engaging the conversation in good faith, to be honest. But here, have some science.

Note in particular something he says that I think is very worth paying attention to:

I suppose you could technobabble your way out of any criticism like this with structural integrity fields and blah, blah, blah, but come on - that's the sort of thing that eventually killed the TNG-era run of Trek. If we're already at that point two movies into the reboot, we're in real trouble.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:01 AM   #118
Khan444
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

plynch wrote: View Post
Judging the movie as a movie-goer: Meh. Not to my taste. But a decent big blockbustery effects-o-rama. It did well but not amazingly, as both articles mention, I believe.

As a Trek fan, I second both articles. Convoluted film, Spock on Skype (haha), some cold spy-ish dude named Khan. Spock yelling Khaaan, ridiculous. I saw it once in theater, won't buy it, and might not see the next, based on the first two. I'm not into all the "kewl," so it was lame to me. Make an original star trek movie next time: exploration, action, and philosophical. Some of the movies have done it. Many episodes have done it. Can the present production team do it? I have my doubts.

Maybe space exploration is not a good topic for the 2010s. It's not 1967.

Maybe the problem is "Trek" is now just a franchise owned by a corporation which wants to spin it into money. So it hires some currently "hot" producer/writers. There doesn't seem to be a human truly at the center (like GR or Berman) invested in this concept, desiring to use it to tell stories. Now it seems like, "Well, we have to make a third movie that grosses $XYZ, let's get it done and over with. YMMV
No, NONE of the MOVIES were focused on exploration, sorry to disappoint you. TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially. The TV SHOWS were about exploration and discovery. You can do that in a twenty plus episode season better than a two hour movie. The films have always been geared more towards a mass audience, so this is nothing new.
Khan444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:07 AM   #119
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Promotional material does not count. That was just some hey look at this hand waving trying to prove Voyager was "different".
Yep. I almost mentioned "Planet of the Titans", a proposal for TMP, in which we were to learn that, at the end of the 5YM, the Enterprise saucer had separated and softlanded on a planet, and was considered lost for a decade. IIRC.

The Mego model of TMP's Enterprise even incorporated a separation feature, and four legs on the saucer so it could land on planets.

Khan444 wrote: View Post
TMP came closest, and it was a failure both critically and financially.
No, it ended up doing very well financially. Probably from so many fans going back time after time.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 29 2013, 04:16 AM   #120
drt
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: State of Trek according to Entertainment Weekly

TMP wasn't a failure financially - corrected for inflation, it out performed every ST movie until '09.
drt is offline   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 09:30 AM.

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