RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,139
Posts: 5,433,821
Members: 24,934
Currently online: 518
Newest member: Emperor Khaless

TrekToday headlines

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 October 16 2013, 05:08 PM   #16
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: STID realistic?

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.
While that's true if one looks at something like electronics—where efficiency is gained by making things smaller—it's also easy to find many examples of improvements in technology leading to increased size.

wjaspers wrote: View Post
GoRe Star wrote: View Post
Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.
And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.
Nonsense. Star Trek, like any entertainment, has always employed only as much realism at any given time as is deemed desirable (and affordable) for purposes of getting the story across. Realism in Star Trek is no more gone now than it ever has been.

Kruezerman wrote: View Post
wjaspers wrote: View Post
]
And that of course was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this of course is now gone.
"Of course" is two words thank you.
Bear in mind that English isn't the first language for everyone posting here. His meaning was clear enough, and a minor nit like that really needs no picking.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2013, 05:09 PM   #17
Terror Grin
Captain
 
Terror Grin's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: STID realistic?

^ Starships seemed to move away from being ships and more toward mobile star bases as time went on IMO. Needs to be a balance between size and numbers tho. The resources of a Galaxy-class build could equal several smaller vessels covering more exploration area, for example.

--
As for realism in ID, there is a hyperrealism to the FX that hasn't been there before, but that is about it.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
Terror Grin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2013, 07:38 PM   #18
Shatinator
Commander
 
Shatinator's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia
Re: STID realistic?

Yes, it is completely unrealistic, communication not tethered by a cord, weapons based on light amplification and ships that (gasp) leave the atmosphere of of a terrestrial body!



or put another way...Ms. Foster (watch 30 seconds in)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sds7hTlaNaM

Indistinguishable from Magic, indeed
__________________
The
S H A T I N A T O R
Shatinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2013, 07:58 PM   #19
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: STID realistic?

Ovation wrote: View Post
Realism and Star Trek have never occupied the same solar system simultaneously. No reason to believe that will change any time, well...ever, really.
^^^
This - be it 'original'; 'TNG era', or Abrams Star Trek.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2013, 09:53 PM   #20
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: STID realistic?

wjaspers wrote: View Post
iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
The ships in STID are fucking huge.
They are not fucking huge, they are ridiculous.

But hey, let's face it, it is now "canon", so ST is now ridiculous, and you liked it, you embraced it , it is over and done for ST.
You are welcome.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 16 2013, 10:53 PM   #21
mswood
Rear Admiral
 
mswood's Avatar
 
Location: 9th level of Hell
Re: STID realistic?

On a purely visual level I think ENtetprise has felt more "Realistic" then any other trek , primarily due to set design and costumes. But it's not nor never been a show tied to realism.

As for ID, I didn't see anything that would make me think that universe's would be seen as more realistic.

But in fairness I can't say the same about Trek 2009. With most of Trek we have had a crew size (TOS, TNG, VOY less sure about DS9 and the Defiant).

So with the the exception of the Galaxy class ship, I never saw the ships holding anywhere near the shuttle facilities they would need. The Galaxy class had enormous interior space that coud easily hold dozens and dozens of various shuttles, and get them to the three shuttle bays.

At least with Trek 2009 (and without being told crew compliment) we see a fairly large supply of shuttles. So that in emergencies where the transporter is useless, a good number of crew could escape and escape in a manner more then just drifting in life boats which would seem to be extremely easy targets for threats to eliminate.

That is the one thing I think a larger ship does allow, that a long ranch ship should have, especially if those ships aren't seen as serious death traps.
__________________
My fandom will SALT and BURN your fandom!
mswood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 01:49 AM   #22
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: STID realistic?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
I don't know if it's realistic or whatever. But until Abrams came along, Star Trek's ships were pretty small compared to other sci-fi franchises.
They're bigger on the inside.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 09:45 AM   #23
rafterman1701
Commodore
 
Re: STID realistic?

Sci-fi is not about realism. It's about an illusion of realism. It's about how far you bend the rules. Trek has had a pretty consistent sense of realism over the years. No, it's inherently NOT realistic, but it has always operated within a certain set of rules for how far they go. I think the JJ stuff is just operating within a set set. The ships are bigger and faster. That's a simple fact. Travel takes a lot less time, the ship has a lot more space inside it. Yes, it's not more or less realistic than the prime universe, but it is quite clearly operating under a new set of restrictions.
rafterman1701 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 10:29 AM   #24
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: STID realistic?

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Is there any particular aspect of space travel in ID which people believe is truly 'realistic'?
I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.

No matter which way you want to rationalize this, such performances require the corresponding technologies that will use up internal space.

Since the ship has transporters and shuttlecraft those extra technologies look somewhat redundant.

On a "real" starship I assume they would rather devote available extra space to accomodate components that would improve warp speed and power output and the like.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 11:43 AM   #25
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STID realistic?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.
*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 12:08 PM   #26
JamesRye
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: STID realistic?

*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*

Add to that - Voyager flying around in 'fluidic space', the underwater flying village ship in Insurrection, and we saw the original Enterprise display atmospheric flight capabilities in Tomorrow is Yesterday.

I think a lot of the people that rag on the new films are wearing blood wine tinted goggles. Either that, or they were younger and more prepared to 'accept' the foibles of the older shows.
JamesRye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 02:35 PM   #27
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: STID realistic?

Yeah, I think the existing technologies aboard the ships in either universe can be adapted for short term atmospheric flight or submersion in a fluid environment. No need to add something new to explain it.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 04:12 PM   #28
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: STID realistic?

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 04:27 PM   #29
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: STID realistic?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.
*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*
That was a body in zero-gravity the TOS Enterprise encountered.

In STID the Enterprise had to cope with the gravity of the planet and the pressure of water (which reminds me: Why did the Enterprise submerge in water? Would it not have made sense to keep the ship in orbit around the planet instead?).

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 04:52 PM   #30
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: STID realistic?

My first full Trek show was TNG, and a Galaxy-class is roughly (ROUGHLY, for all you size queens) the same size as the JJprise, so I suppose I'm used to ships being that big. Heck, one of the reasons why the Intrepid is so small was so that Voyager would feel less safe and more imperiled than the Enterprise-D.

With that said, I wonder if my preferences of the past are being somewhat diluted or influenced now, in that these days, I have the tendency to think that the the TOS/movie Enterprise may be indeed too small for my tastes, akin to how 1940s and 50s pulp sci-fi depicted rocket ships of the 21st century as mere 20 foot towers. It has a crew of 400 after all, and its neck and pylons don't look very secure in hindsight, and a well-placed torpedo hit will go *through* a few decks (see TUC).
__________________
“You do not use science in order to prove yourself right, you use science in order to become right.”
Cyke101 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 04:44 AM.

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