RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,242
Posts: 5,438,852
Members: 24,958
Currently online: 500
Newest member: greatmovies

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

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


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 TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 31 2012, 05:01 PM   #16
StalwartUK
Commander
 
StalwartUK's Avatar
 
Location: England, UK
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

If they actually decided to do something with it it could've been interesting but they pretty much ignored it afterwards so today it just sticks out like a sore thumb.
__________________
StalwartUK
StalwartUK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2012, 05:22 PM   #17
Xhiandra
Lieutenant Commander
 
Xhiandra's Avatar
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

Holdfast wrote: View Post
My issue with the speed limit, and Forces of Nature as an episode, is that I really dislike what it says about man's relationship with technology. I have no problem with Trek commenting on environmental issues and suggesting ways for humanity to overcome them, but before Forces of Nature, the solution was largely one of further research, scientific development and increasing technological sophistication. Essentially, it admitted that technology can create problems, but posited that more technology can solve them, or at least kick the can down the road a long way. It's a very positive, optimistic message about our future.

(A prime example of what I mean would be The Voyage Home: "ouch, we wiped out the only species that can save us. No problem, we'll devise a way to travel back in time and bring them back, and have fun at the same time too". It's a very hopeful message and one I like.)

Forces of Nature says, "no, this problem means we have to slow down (literally, as it happens) and minimise the damage rather than find a way to overcome the problem through mankind's ingenuity". I don't believe that's the right attitude to take, but especially so in Star Trek.
Good analysis.
Indeed, it's uncharacteristic for Trek to take a post-modernist stance; and I agree that it's not the answer to environmental issues (be they real or Trek's): the solution is better tech, progression not regression.

As an episode, Forces of Nature just ends up being filler: neither very good nor very bad.
Xhiandra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 3 2013, 08:01 PM   #18
GalaxyX
Rear Admiral
 
GalaxyX's Avatar
 
Location: Canada
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

Xhiandra wrote: View Post
Holdfast wrote: View Post
My issue with the speed limit, and Forces of Nature as an episode, is that I really dislike what it says about man's relationship with technology. I have no problem with Trek commenting on environmental issues and suggesting ways for humanity to overcome them, but before Forces of Nature, the solution was largely one of further research, scientific development and increasing technological sophistication. Essentially, it admitted that technology can create problems, but posited that more technology can solve them, or at least kick the can down the road a long way. It's a very positive, optimistic message about our future.

(A prime example of what I mean would be The Voyage Home: "ouch, we wiped out the only species that can save us. No problem, we'll devise a way to travel back in time and bring them back, and have fun at the same time too". It's a very hopeful message and one I like.)

Forces of Nature says, "no, this problem means we have to slow down (literally, as it happens) and minimise the damage rather than find a way to overcome the problem through mankind's ingenuity". I don't believe that's the right attitude to take, but especially so in Star Trek.
Good analysis.
Indeed, it's uncharacteristic for Trek to take a post-modernist stance; and I agree that it's not the answer to environmental issues (be they real or Trek's): the solution is better tech, progression not regression.

As an episode, Forces of Nature just ends up being filler: neither very good nor very bad.
What I would have liked to see would be an episode dealing with how the Federation is seeking to find a solution for the problem.

The episode with that warp "wave" could have been a trial of a new technology meant to resolve this issue. From what I remember, that episode did not have a specific reason other that "traveling at warp via an external energy wave is cool" idea.
__________________
Top Gear America: Jay Leno, Adam Carolla, Tim Allen. DONE!
GalaxyX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 4 2013, 01:22 AM   #19
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

Seemed like it was ignored pretty much right away and Force of Nature was a terrible episode anyway.
__________________
"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 January 4 2013, 02:55 PM   #20
qbie
Ensign
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I had a problem with the episode which I couldn't put my finger on, until I read the Nitpickers guides..

The whole episode is about stopping warp drive through the area so a rift won't form and cause damage to the planet. So at the conclusion of the episode Serova creates a rift, therefore endangering her planet? That's a bit like saying 'If we put all this dangerous nuclear material here people will die' and then to prove your point, putting it there and killing everyone.

q
qbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2013, 12:46 PM   #21
at Quark's
Lieutenant
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

GalaxyX wrote: View Post

The episode with that warp "wave" could have been a trial of a new technology meant to resolve this issue. From what I remember, that episode did not have a specific reason other that "traveling at warp via an external energy wave is cool" idea.
Hmmm, I consider the Alexander-Worf story in that ep the primary reason for the ep being there. Even though probably more screen time is given to the 'soliton' plot, to me it ultimately felt like an excuse to get Alexander in danger after disobeying his father .... and then the "traveling at warp via an external energy wave is cool" idea applied to it.
at Quark's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 5 2013, 12:59 PM   #22
at Quark's
Lieutenant
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

qbie wrote: View Post
I had a problem with the episode which I couldn't put my finger on, until I read the Nitpickers guides..

The whole episode is about stopping warp drive through the area so a rift won't form and cause damage to the planet. So at the conclusion of the episode Serova creates a rift, therefore endangering her planet? That's a bit like saying 'If we put all this dangerous nuclear material here people will die' and then to prove your point, putting it there and killing everyone.

q
To me that felt like an act of desperation. She was concerned with the greater idea of warp engines damaging the fabric of space-time generally. Not only that specific region, although the effects were most severe there, because of that narrow corridor everyone had to travel through already.

Desperate to prove her point, she knew that the had to give a demonstration in a region where the effects would be visible at once, which could therefore not be a 'relatively unaffected' region of space. (This is speculation on my part, yes). So region-wise, she had no choice except there. And of course, the TNG crew most probably would have captured here before she could reach another candidate region anyway.

Was it a sane choice ? Don't think so. But someone willing to die herself only to give that demonstration must be viewed either as a person fanatically devoted to a cause , or as a mentally unstable person, anyway. So I don't have a problem with the ep as such for that, as such people do exist.

Just like in the real world, where we have people who could be labeled 'eco-terrorists'. She might just be an extreme example of those.

Last edited by at Quark's; January 5 2013 at 01:07 PM. Reason: sp errors
at Quark's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2013, 12:37 PM   #23
I-Am-Prepared!
Ensign
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I think it was ridiculous that they made "Warp 10" some transcendental state where you're everywhere at once...as if they somehow "knew" that when they were creating the warp speed scale. They've never substantively explained why the jump from warp 9 (which they zoom around at all the time!) to warp 10 should create such a leap. Easy hook for a story, but makes no sense otherwise. And it gave us Paris and Janeway and lizard babies. Enough said!
I-Am-Prepared! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 10:10 AM   #24
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

The Warp 10 being infinite velocity wasn't really a bad idea, but it was ultimately executed horribly or wasn't enforced that well. Ideally, it would have simplified the warp scale, avoided cumbersome-sounding warp factors in dialogue like Warp 187.4, and still allow the Galaxy to be a fairly large place that couldn't be traveled in just a few seconds. Warp 9.1 to Warp 9.9 would have been sufficient "speed of plot" velocities with Warp 10 an unreachable velocity, something that no vessel could really reach, no matter what. VOY's "Threshold" should simply not have happened in that light, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 11:32 AM   #25
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I-Am-Prepared! wrote: View Post
I think it was ridiculous that they made "Warp 10" some transcendental state where you're everywhere at once...as if they somehow "knew" that when they were creating the warp speed scale.
Why wouldn't they know? In the real world, we use the speed of light in much the same way. Or with temperatures, we know that zero Kelvin is the lowest possible, even though we've never achieved it. The scale is built around the theory.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 12:02 PM   #26
I-Am-Prepared!
Ensign
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

Start Wreck wrote: View Post
I-Am-Prepared! wrote: View Post
I think it was ridiculous that they made "Warp 10" some transcendental state where you're everywhere at once...as if they somehow "knew" that when they were creating the warp speed scale.
Why wouldn't they know? In the real world, we use the speed of light in much the same way. Or with temperatures, we know that zero Kelvin is the lowest possible, even though we've never achieved it. The scale is built around the theory.
But this is totally different, the jump from 9.9 to 10 is more than just another increase in speed...it's somehow a leap from zooming about really fast to suddenly being everywhere at once. Assuming this was known when the scale was created, then somehow this phenomena is fundamental to warp theory. But as far as I'm aware it's never really been explained *why* this is so. Whatever speed Warp 9.9999 is....why exactly does going anywhere beyond that land you everywhere at once? Let's pretend Warp 1 is the speed of light - what exactly *happens* from a scientific perspective at 10x the speed of light to cause such phenomena? I mean, Picard and crew zipped around to emergencies at Warp 9 all the time, and they weren't even close to being everywhere at once. It just doesn't make very much sense. But, as I said, this is TV and it *is* a good storytelling device, just a slightly boneheaded one. And a difficult one to realise and execute with any sense of realism.
I-Am-Prepared! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 12:38 PM   #27
at Quark's
Lieutenant
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

What was the real-world reason behind changing the warp scale for TNG, anyway? I believe I remember reading that they didn't want to muddle around with ever-higher warp numbers, but really, what would have been the harm in letting zip starships around at warp 17? By the time VOY ended, they wouldn't have been anywhere near ordering speeds like 'warp 8472' ....

Or did they want to keep warp speeds somewhat 'associated' with mach, for the audience ?
at Quark's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 02:53 PM   #28
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I-Am-Prepared! wrote: View Post
But this is totally different, the jump from 9.9 to 10 is more than just another increase in speed...it's somehow a leap from zooming about really fast to suddenly being everywhere at once.
It's infinitely fast, and it isn't sudden, it's a gradual increase. There's an enormous difference in speed between 9.9 and 9.99, another enormous difference between that and 9.999, and again between 9.9999.
Theoretically, Warp 10 should be impossible, but as a mathematical model by which to create a warp scale, it makes sense.


I-Am-Prepared! wrote: View Post
Whatever speed Warp 9.9999 is....why exactly does going anywhere beyond that land you everywhere at once?
Going beyond that would see you travelling at warp 9.99999. Then 9.999999, then 9.9999999, and so on.

If Warp 10 was possible, it wouldn't come "just after" 9.9999. Technically, if Warp 10 is infinite velocity, there should should be an infinite number of warp scale decimal places after the 9 before we got to 10.

Voyager portrayed that jump badly in 'Threshold'.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 04:23 PM   #29
Mr. Spook
Rear Admiral
 
Mr. Spook's Avatar
 
Location: ssosmcin
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I liked it in the old days when Warp Speed was just going really fast. "Warping out of orbit" was like leaving your driveway at 60 miles per hour. Thanks to TNG and wanting to have it all make sense, they did this warp field thing, with warping space and hoo hah, so at warp ten you became an iguana.

Ah for the days when Nomad made the Enterprise go to Warp 11.
__________________
"Tranya is people!"
Mr. Spook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2013, 04:58 PM   #30
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Was putting limits on Warp Travel a bad idea?

I would argue that the episode calls into question the techno-utopianism of Star Trek, and as such it is the most disruptive but perhaps also the most relevent episode (albeit not a very entertaining one) considering the direction we're heading now with the planet. Things have gotten so bad in the real world that we are devising rube-goldberg geoengineering schemes to prevent runaway global warming, schemes that are likely to only make matters worse than doing nothing at all. It is increasingly difficult to hold onto an attitude that there is always a techno-fix to environmental problems. That narrative made most sense during the space-age of the 60s, but it is losing traction. More cynical attitudes like what you see in Cameron's Avatar better reflect the way things are than Trek. I know this cuts to the core of Gene's vision of Trek, but holding onto this idea would make Trek more relevant than the retreat to feel-good comic book fantasy we have now in nu-Trek.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 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 06:42 AM.

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