RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,245
Posts: 5,348,450
Members: 24,612
Currently online: 657
Newest member: NeckbeardKnight

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


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 25 2013, 03:08 AM   #1006
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
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).
There's nothing in any of those scenes which indicates which direction they were falling, whether "towards Earth" or "towards the bow." The direction of the falls changes so much from moment to moment that it's literally impossible to tell what the ship's relative motion is at any given time, especially with its own gravity constantly malfunctioning.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:09 AM   #1007
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
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


Because some Trek fans have become completely anal and forget what the show was about to begin with.

"Roddenberry wanted an open format that allowed for a vast array of stories, all with human conflict at their center. He would tell his writers not to get overwhelmed with the enormity and foreignness of it, and spelled it out in the Star Trek Writer's Guide this way "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how his gun works when he pulls it from the holster" The gadgets should not take center stage; the stories instead revolving around the characters" - (These Are the Voyages Season One, page 23)


What a complete difference than TNG where it was all about the tech the tech to tech the tech, and having no conflict between the characters.



-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, 03:12 AM   #1008
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

cbspock wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
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


Because some Trek fans have become completely anal and forget what the show was about to begin with.

"Roddenberry wanted an open format that allowed for a vast array of stories, all with human conflict at their center. He would tell his writers not to get overwhelmed with the enormity and foreignness of it, and spelled it out in the Star Trek Writer's Guide this way "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how his gun works when he pulls it from the holster" The gadgets should not take center stage; the stories instead revolving around the characters" - (These Are the Voyages Season One, page 23)


What a complete difference than TNG where it was all about the tech the tech to tech the tech, and having no conflict between the characters.



-Chris
I have to admit you're right. Roddenberry changed the focus of Star Trek by the time of TNG. That's why I still feel that although TNG-onwards is still Star Trek, the shows are all remarkably different in style and focus compared to TOS.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:23 AM   #1009
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
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?
No, just ANY thread. You've had ample opportunity to do so.

The thing is, if you actually went through all of Star Trek and started nitpicking all the bad science that's gotten a pass over the years... by the time you were finished, you'd probably stop liking Star Trek.

We forgive the sins of Star Trek Into Darkness because it's a fantastic movie and the scene itself is very fun to watch; it's worthy of a of fridge-logic appeal in the court of believability. We don't extend the same leniency to, say, Star Trek Nemesis, because that movie sucked and its many errors just add fuel to the fire.

Sad to say, it's like a high school lunchroom. When you're popular and well liked, people overlook your flaws. When you're unpopular and annoying, people magnify your flaws as a way of putting you down.

cbspock wrote: View Post
Flake wrote: View Post
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


Because some Trek fans have become completely anal and forget what the show was about to begin with.

"Roddenberry wanted an open format that allowed for a vast array of stories, all with human conflict at their center. He would tell his writers not to get overwhelmed with the enormity and foreignness of it, and spelled it out in the Star Trek Writer's Guide this way "Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain how his gun works when he pulls it from the holster" The gadgets should not take center stage; the stories instead revolving around the characters" - (These Are the Voyages Season One, page 23)


What a complete difference than TNG where it was all about the tech the tech to tech the tech, and having no conflict between the characters.
And that, IMO, is what made TOS so iconic in the first place. The technology was cool, the ship was even cooler, but it has to be remembered that even the WRITERS didn't really understand how all of that shit worked and for the most part never bothered to delve into it. It's enough that a phaser does what it has been established to do more or less consistently; HOW it does this is hardly important.

This is something I think Abrams has gotten very very right in the last two films. Character-driven space adventure where the technology is just a means to an end and even the space battles turn out to be just a pretext for the next insane stunt that Kirk has to do in order to save the day. Cool scenes and cool tech are one thing, but none of it matters if the characters in the center of it all are weak or uninteresting, and STXI has some of the strongest characterization we've seen since TOS itself.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:28 AM   #1010
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

BillJ wrote: View Post
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?
It has nothing to do with the fucking Abrams films. It has to do with people trying to rationally explain something idiotic.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 03:35 AM   #1011
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
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?
It has nothing to do with the fucking Abrams films. It has to do with people trying to rationally explain something idiotic.
Again: Sci-Fi fans. This is just SOP for sci-fi and fantasy fans. Star Trek isn't any different, and the scene isn't any worse or better than any of the other silly and absurd stuff we've had to accept out of Trek.

nightwind1 wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
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.
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.
The grandfather of it all: Transporters. If you can accept Transporter (and Replicator) tech and the in show explanation for the tech, then you can accept all the other Magic-Science that comes along with the trappings of Trek.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 04:09 AM   #1012
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
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?
It has nothing to do with the fucking Abrams films. It has to do with people trying to rationally explain something idiotic.
You still haven't answered the question: do you hold the rest of Trek to the same standard?
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 04:42 AM   #1013
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The grandfather of it all: Transporters. If you can accept Transporter (and Replicator) tech and the in show explanation for the tech, then you can accept all the other Magic-Science that comes along with the trappings of Trek.
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). The best of the best - Asimov, Niven, and so on - could make the former believable, and stayed well away from the latter.

In fact, when fans called Niven on his big blunder (the instability of the Ringworld), he responded with several other novels to address it.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 04:57 AM   #1014
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The grandfather of it all: Transporters. If you can accept Transporter (and Replicator) tech and the in show explanation for the tech, then you can accept all the other Magic-Science that comes along with the trappings of Trek.
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). The best of the best - Asimov, Niven, and so on - could make the former believable, and stayed well away from the latter.

In fact, when fans called Niven on his big blunder (the instability of the Ringworld), he responded with several other novels to address it.
Okay, so basically: Anything absurd in TOS good; anything absurd in the new movies evil. Got it.

I mean after all, Transwarp Lizards, time travel, torpedoes to blow up stars, Alien Human hybrids. Yeppers, that all makes perfect sense.

A scene meant to look cool and convey a sense of danger and death?! Trek ruined forever.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 04:58 AM   #1015
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The grandfather of it all: Transporters. If you can accept Transporter (and Replicator) tech and the in show explanation for the tech, then you can accept all the other Magic-Science that comes along with the trappings of Trek.
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). The best of the best - Asimov, Niven, and so on - could make the former believable, and stayed well away from the latter.

In fact, when fans called Niven on his big blunder (the instability of the Ringworld), he responded with several other novels to address it.
We're not saying that it isn't bad science (that is, if it actually happened as you said), we're just coming up with ways to justify the supposed bad science as a fan would usually do. You said there was a problem with justifying what you deem to be bad science, but we said justifying bad science and inconsistencies has and always will be a fan thing.

Star Trek has always had examples of inconsistencies and poorly thought out science. Doesn't mean part of the fun isn't to come up with solutions for them. Sometimes Trek itself addresses inconsistencies (such as the Klingon foreheads), sometimes they don't, but I don't see what's wrong with trying to fill in errors in Trek. If fans succeed in explaining problems, it makes the shows more enjoyable, if they don't, at least it was a fun, enjoyable attempt. What's wrong with that?
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 05:05 AM   #1016
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

For all the debate about the nuEnterprise's size, let's not forget the conceptual Giantprise from the Phase II era. And that was when Gene was in the show.

I'll even say (get the pitchforks ready) going strictly on the shuttledeck and torpedo launcher sets alone give the impress that the refit 1701's official size is too small.

ComicGuy89 wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The grandfather of it all: Transporters. If you can accept Transporter (and Replicator) tech and the in show explanation for the tech, then you can accept all the other Magic-Science that comes along with the trappings of Trek.
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). The best of the best - Asimov, Niven, and so on - could make the former believable, and stayed well away from the latter.

In fact, when fans called Niven on his big blunder (the instability of the Ringworld), he responded with several other novels to address it.
We're not saying that it isn't bad science (that is, if it actually happened as you said), we're just coming up with ways to justify the supposed bad science as a fan would usually do. You said there was a problem with justifying what you deem to be bad science, but we said justifying bad science and inconsistencies has and always will be a fan thing.

Star Trek has always had examples of inconsistencies and poorly thought out science. Doesn't mean part of the fun isn't to come up with solutions for them. Sometimes Trek itself addresses inconsistencies (such as the Klingon foreheads), sometimes they don't, but I don't see what's wrong with trying to fill in errors in Trek. If fans succeed in explaining problems, it makes the shows more enjoyable, if they don't, at least it was a fun, enjoyable attempt. What's wrong with that?
Don't you get it, it's only fund and justified when we're doing it for the TOS / TNG era.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 11:30 AM   #1017
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The tumbling scene stars just after Sulu says they've been caught in Earth's gravity and are being pulled in. Then Spock states that gravity is failing. The external shots show the ship tumbling and crashing towards and into Earth. Nothing stuck out to me about it.
This scene deserves little defence.

The main reason it annoys me is because it was trivial to fix it. It would have been enough if that line said "Artificial gravity is failing. Gravity generators are going crazy" There, a tiny addition, and there's no longer a problem with it. The implication that they were somehow pulled by Earth's gravity took me out my suspension of disbelief and I couldn't enjoy the scene as much as I would have otherwise. I have watched astronauts on YouTube, and they don't fall towards the Earth (well, literally they do, but you know what I mean).

If the artificial gravity was buckling, the scene would be equally fun, enjoyable, whilst being realistic and not leaving me wondering "What? Why there are falling?" It is also a decent way to acknowledge the existence of artificial gravity, to familiarize the audience with it without the use of boring lengthy technobabble that ruined a lot of the old Trek (and was also quite often incorrect). It's just sloppy not to write it that way. I am sure they could have found a couple of thousand dollars in their 190 million dollar budget to weed out simple inaccuracies like this.

Contrast this with the weird black hole physics shown in STXI (another thing that I enjoy to complain about cause it makes little sense). They don't really bother me that much, because if you had realistic physics there, you'd totally ruin a few exciting scenes, not to mention the entire premise of the film. And the weird physics are easily explained if you imply that red matter breaks the conservation of energy, creating new mass for the black hole. Since it is from the future, the crew is unfamiliar with how it works, so it is also natural that there is no explanation in the dialogue, blah blah blah.

OTOH, this here has little excuse for being the way it is, and it is somewhat of a major hiccup. But whatever, I still explain it away with crewmen speaking off the cuff instead of the real reason. It is nowhere near as bad as the lack of acknowledgement of the thousands of dead in San Francisco, but it is certainly worse than than any inconsistencies in the starship proportions, size, or compartment placement (i.e. this entire thread and the aft nacelle one).
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 11:38 AM   #1018
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: Tennessee
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

YellowSubmarine wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
The tumbling scene stars just after Sulu says they've been caught in Earth's gravity and are being pulled in. Then Spock states that gravity is failing. The external shots show the ship tumbling and crashing towards and into Earth. Nothing stuck out to me about it.
This scene deserves little defence.

The main reason it annoys me is because it was trivial to fix it. It would have been enough if that line said "Artificial gravity is failing. Gravity generators are going crazy" There, a tiny addition, and there's no longer a problem with it. The implication that they were somehow pulled by Earth's gravity took me out my suspension of disbelief and I couldn't enjoy the scene as much as I would have otherwise. I have watched astronauts on YouTube, and they don't fall towards the Earth (well, literally they do, but you know what I mean).

If the artificial gravity was buckling, the scene would be equally fun, enjoyable, whilst being realistic and not leaving me wondering "What? Why there are falling?" It is also a decent way to acknowledge the existence of artificial gravity, to familiarize the audience with it without the use of boring lengthy technobabble that ruined a lot of the old Trek (and was also quite often incorrect). It's just sloppy not to write it that way. I am sure they could have found a couple of thousand dollars in their 190 million dollar budget to weed out simple inaccuracies like this.

Contrast this with the weird black hole physics shown in STXI (another thing that I enjoy to complain about cause it makes little sense). They don't really bother me that much, because if you had realistic physics there, you'd totally ruin a few exciting scenes, not to mention the entire premise of the film. And the weird physics are easily explained if you imply that red matter breaks the conservation of energy, creating new mass for the black hole. Since it is from the future, the crew is unfamiliar with how it works, so it is also natural that there is no explanation in the dialogue, blah blah blah.

OTOH, this here has little excuse for being the way it is, and it is somewhat of a major hiccup. But whatever, I still explain it away with crewmen speaking off the cuff instead of the real reason. It is nowhere near as bad as the lack of acknowledgement of the thousands of dead in San Francisco, but it is certainly worse than than any inconsistencies in the starship proportions, size, or compartment placement (i.e. this entire thread and the aft nacelle one).
This is a symptom of my only real problem with the movie: Everything from the point forward of where Khan hijacks the Vengeance and beams Kirk, Scotty, and Carol back to the Enterprise, felt rushed. They were trying to wrap up the story completely and were hauling ass to do it. We effectively shifted from one movie to another with that moment,and we weren't given enough time to really do it justice. So there were a lot of things that felt very first draftish and in need of a good polish.

The scene in and of itself is on par with Trek of the past. But the dialogue could have used some work. It was very much a spectacle scene.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
Good men don't need rules, The Doctor (A Good Man Goes To War)
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 02:55 PM   #1019
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

So the annoyance seems to be fixated on an absence of technobabble filling the blanks? We have clearly been brainwashed by 15 years of TNG era Trek

Last edited by Flake; August 25 2013 at 09:21 PM.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2013, 04:24 PM   #1020
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
So the annoyance seems to be fixated on an absence of technobabble filling the blanks?
What did I miss? Did anyone suggest Spock should have said how the primary power couplings failed after the ship rerouted power from the main phaser banks to life support, which caused power fluctuations in the warp core antimatter injectors, knocking off the internal inertial dampeners offline, leading to spurious shields remodulations and a plasma leak that caused the gravity plating to reverse polarity because of an overload in the secondary power conduits?

"Artificial gravity going crazy" is very weak by Star Trek's technobabble standards. It's almost like saying "sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads" contains too much obscure technical terminology.

Quite the contrary, the scene already had a contrived explanation which was technobabble. It might have been better off without it, but if you insist on keeping it in, there's no harm in making sure it at least makes sense, is there?

In fact, same scene without the aforementioned line:

Much better, ain't it?
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)

Last edited by YellowSubmarine; August 25 2013 at 04:43 PM.
YellowSubmarine 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 06:20 PM.

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