RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,113
Posts: 5,432,949
Members: 24,933
Currently online: 680
Newest member: karanfree

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 August 30 2013, 10:33 AM   #1141
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
Man, GRAVITY is going to be so refreshing. No cheating on the scale, no sound effects in space, and they don't swing the sun around 90 or 180 degrees to get it in a convenient position for the next shot.
Boring !

Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It'll probably be like the people who call the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy "realistic" when what it actually is would be more accurately described as "more realistic than most other comic book movies."
But is it ? You could fly a starship through the plot holes in that movie. For one, the plot doesn't make any sense unless the Joker has psychic powers.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 10:59 AM   #1142
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

^

trevanian wrote:
Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?
And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.
, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.
But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 04:01 PM   #1143
I Am Groot
I Am Groot
 
I Am Groot's Avatar
 
Location: I Am Groot
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Belz... wrote: View Post
Locutus of Bored wrote: View Post
It'll probably be like the people who call the Nolan Dark Knight trilogy "realistic" when what it actually is would be more accurately described as "more realistic than most other comic book movies."
But is it? You could fly a starship through the plot holes in that movie. For one, the plot doesn't make any sense unless the Joker has psychic powers.
I'm not looking to start a Batman tangent in this thread (I was just making an offhand point), and I'm not calling the trilogy realistic compared to the real world; I just said it's more realistic (especially in tone) than most comic book movies. I'm well aware that there are numerous plot holes in the films. Also, the Joker himself was in one movie, not the whole trilogy.
__________________
We are Groot and Locutus of Bored.
I Am Groot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 04:54 PM   #1144
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!

If you are determined to nitpick it will ruin the movie for you. Just accept that this is different and move on. Don't try and make it fit in with episode x, season x of show x because its not going to happen.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:18 PM   #1145
Kruezerman
Fleet Captain
 
Kruezerman's Avatar
 
Location: Transexxual...Transylvania
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

And you know when they make a show again (which I do believe they will) we can get back into it like that again. But not now, it's not fair, around four hours of film can't take the place of four years of television.
__________________
Here's proof that I can write something without using the word f**k.
Kruezerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:33 PM   #1146
Flake
Commodore
 
Location: Manchester, UK
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Why isn't it fair and why does it have to replace what came before? I don't understand that

Its new Star Trek from a new production team in a new continuity. It is essentially a reboot.
Flake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:42 PM   #1147
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)
/thread.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:46 PM   #1148
ComicGuy89
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post
It is clear that many people including myself have allowed themselves to get bogged down in minutiae over the years and this is all an epic hangover from the Berman era of Star Trek. (not his fault, just his era)

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!

If you are determined to nitpick it will ruin the movie for you. Just accept that this is different and move on. Don't try and make it fit in with episode x, season x of show x because its not going to happen.
"TNG Hangover" is a term i can see myself using.
ComicGuy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 05:50 PM   #1149
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Flake wrote: View Post

If you allow yourself to become immersed in something like Star Trek it means you are going to notice the inconsistencies and errors whereas a casual viewer will not. I noticed them all when I was in the cinema and it did impact on my enjoyment of the movie to the point of being pissed off. It is only in the weeks and months after release that I am gradually letting go of this 'TNG Hangover' and simply enjoying the show. If or when you do that you will undoubtedly enjoy this movie because it is great really!
I use to get bogged down in the non-sense. It got to such a point that I was no longer enjoying Trek. So I had to either let the non-sense go or let Trek go.

But I'm still hungover from Modern Trek. There was just so much of it in such a short period of time.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 06:36 PM   #1150
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
^

trevanian wrote:
Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?
And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.
, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.
But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.
You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?

If you know about the searchlights on the model not providing the real illumination (which has absolutely ZERO worth in mentioning here, because that really is a difference that makes no difference, it may even be a new standard for that notion, it is so irrelevant here), then you probably are aware of all these other valid notions that would have enhanced credibility AND visual interest (which is one of the points of my mentioning this in the first place, since adhering to science only works for entertainment purposes if it embellishes the story.)

And we have most definitely seen starships crumple -- your word -- and be torn open from impacts. NEMESIS anyone? And that's not even getting into what phasers and torps do in TWO & TUC?
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 07:20 PM   #1151
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

nIn Nemesis, the only reason it worked at all was because the Enterprise struck the shuttlebay doors, the weakest points of the entire ship, like kicking someones door down, try kicking the wall and see it that works as well.

The Enterprise was skinned and the Scimitar lost two doors, hardly the main structure crumpling.

And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons, which if they line up to nuclear yields of megatons, means it takes 60+ megatons to blow a hole in one of them.

And "non-trek"? really? why should I even be wasting my time with someone possessing such a hateful agenda against a movie.
__________________
"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 30 2013, 07:31 PM   #1152
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post

You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?
I simply have never watched Star Trek for actual science, I watch because I love the characters. I do love Hard Sci-fi, love reading books by Clarke and Asimov and Baxter.

I think on some level, what Star Trek is is really incompatible with hard sci-fi. Sometimes it can work (I like The Motion Picture) but is it something that I want out of Trek every episode and every movie? I've got to say no. I fell in love with Trek watching the Enterprise spinning down on a collision course with PSI2000, watching Kirk fight a giant lizard man, watching Spock fall in love thousands of years before he was born, watching the Enterprise crew fight an 11,000 mile-long single cell organism and so on.

Star Trek to me is a mix of fun action-adventure and pop sci-fi. YMMV.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 08:10 PM   #1153
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons,
What the heck is an isoton? Something similar to a ton, I guess? Because 'iso' sure isn't a standard metric prefix.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 09:08 PM   #1154
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

trevanian wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote:
Because I like something that tries to play things honestly, I should hate all of STAR TREK? Does that include TMP, where they try to keep the lighting for space realistic much of the time?
And had that kewl Star Wars jump to lightspeed, as well as warp stars gushing past the ship like dust motes. Plus, that "realistic" self lighting on the Enterprise took a great many liberties, since the light sources weren't actually on the model itself.
, like 2001 did, and if they chose to deviate, they didn't do so by having the ISS built intact on Earth and lifted into orbit by Dumbo.
But the ISS is tin foil compared to the Enterprise. We've seen Trek ships crash, collide, fall through unstable wormholes and all sorts of other things, and they've never crumpled, owing to canonically-established futuristic materials and structural integrity fields. Your comparison is invalid.
You're really intent on pursuing this? Do I need to weigh in on the even more realistic intents on TMP (with respect to perspective changes on objects approached at high-speed, spectral shifts as objects approach and recede, and the kind of dimensional warping that was later somewhat successfully implemented on TNG) that couldn't be realized due to switchover in VFX companies and inflexible delivery dates, none of which would even be considered for inclusion in this current era of what I guess I'd call NonTrek?
You're making excuses for the failings of what you like, nothing more.
If you know about the searchlights on the model not providing the real illumination (which has absolutely ZERO worth in mentioning here, because that really is a difference that makes no difference, it may even be a new standard for that notion, it is so irrelevant here), then you probably are aware of all these other valid notions that would have enhanced credibility AND visual interest (which is one of the points of my mentioning this in the first place, since adhering to science only works for entertainment purposes if it embellishes the story.)
I think, when someone cites the lighting in TMP as "realistic", it's very much relevent to point out that the lit parts of the ship don't match the light sources. The light source below the bridge module on the classic movie Enterprise (in the location of the window of the new version) couldn't light the name and number of the ship as seen. The idea of a self-illuminated ship is all well and good, but the execution was poor.
And we have most definitely seen starships crumple -- your word -- and be torn open from impacts. NEMESIS anyone? And that's not even getting into what phasers and torps do in TWO & TUC?
This is the kind of crumpling i was referring to, completely unlike what we've seen happen to ships in Trek.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30 2013, 10:21 PM   #1155
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Starship Size Argument™ thread

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
And torpedoes have a yield of many isotons,
What the heck is an isoton? Something similar to a ton, I guess? Because 'iso' sure isn't a standard metric prefix.
This:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Isoton

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
...

And "non-trek"? really? why should I even be wasting my time with someone possessing such a hateful agenda against a movie.
You shouldn't. Every single time discussion has gone down that alley, it has turned out to be a dead end; better just to leave it alone.

At the very least, it's a separate topic, and one which does not fit within the scope of this thread.
__________________
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
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 06:55 PM.

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