RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,298
Posts: 5,605,371
Members: 25,409
Currently online: 415
Newest member: jenyfer

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Tacking Into the Wind
By: Michelle on Mar 6

Star Trek: The Ultimate Voyage
By: T'Bonz on Mar 6

Harve Bennett Passes
By: T'Bonz on Mar 6

Quinto To Guest Star On Crime Show
By: T'Bonz on Mar 5

Star Trek/Doctor Who Parody Comic
By: T'Bonz on Mar 4

Nimoy Commemorative Magazine
By: T'Bonz on Mar 4

Saturday Night Live Trek Skit
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

Two IDW Publishing Trek Comics Previews
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

Shatner: Celebrate Life
By: T'Bonz on Mar 3

March-April 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 2


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 17 2013, 05:03 PM   #31
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: RIP Leonard Nimoy
Re: STID realistic?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 05:09 PM   #32
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: STID realistic?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
You mean you don't find a giant green hand, resurrected Lincoln, space amoebas, space whales, giant floaty heads, wormhole aliens, mystical orbs, countless alien Nazis, and omnipotent gods obsessed with foppish frilly shirts believable?
__________________
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 05:36 PM   #33
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: STID realistic?

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 of course was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.
Yeah. The realism got beaten out of Star Trek about halfway through Season 1, somewhere between "Miri" and "Shore leave", although it did have a few bright spots in between.

Cyke101 wrote: View Post
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.
Actually, we figured out over in Trek Tech that the Galaxy class is actually about 60% larger than the JJprize and uses its internal space a lot more efficiently. But I do take your point: we've SEEN big ships in Star Trek before, so it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

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
Hell, I've been saying that for years. The Galaxy class is twenty times larger than Kirk's little Constitution but is depicted to have basically the same mission. Never could wrap my head around that.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 06:22 PM   #34
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: STID realistic?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post

Cyke101 wrote: View Post
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.
Actually, we figured out over in Trek Tech that the Galaxy class is actually about 60% larger than the JJprize and uses its internal space a lot more efficiently.
Oh dear, 60% is more than *roughly*. I stand corrected!
__________________
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 06:34 PM   #35
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: STID realistic?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 06:52 PM   #36
BK613
Captain
 
BK613's Avatar
 
Location: BK613
Re: STID realistic?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
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
The space amoeba was 11000 miles (17702.8 kilometers) long and 2000-3000 miles (3218.7-4828.0 kilometers) thick. That makes it a planet-sized body in space complete with gravity and pressure (since protoplasm is mostly water). The E entered, maneuvered to the nucleus to plant the probe and then backed out, all while under dire power constraints.

Nope, can't get around it; TOS establishes the ability of starships (and shuttlecraft) to operated in 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
Can't help you there. Makes no sense to me either.
__________________
-------------------
"The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George Bernard Shaw
BK613 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 07:31 PM   #37
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: STID realistic?

Cyke101 wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
You mean you don't find a giant green hand, resurrected Lincoln, space amoebas, space whales, giant floaty heads, wormhole aliens, mystical orbs, countless alien Nazis, and omnipotent gods obsessed with foppish frilly shirts believable?
^^^
Well, there is the fact that (even at sublight Impulse speeds); Star Trek ships and personnel seem unaffected by any time dilation effects from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Also, it's amazing how often Star Fleet vessels completely loose all power, yet the artificial gravity never seems to fail.
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 07:36 PM   #38
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: RIP Leonard Nimoy
Re: STID realistic?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.
Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.
Again, Trek has never been so, IMO. Things play out by the dictate of the plot, not the most believable way.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 07:52 PM   #39
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: STID realistic?

Does it seem to be a trend these days where "realism" is more required in fictional movies and shows? I think maybe a lot of people look at something like the new Batman movies, while still not exactly realistic, if put on a spectrum from unrealism to realism, it would probably rank higher than most entertainment, like Star Trek. It certainly was trying to make things a bit less silly than some of the previous incarnations of Batman. Is that a trend that maybe people were expecting to see in these rebooted movies? Kind of like how you wouldn't expect to see neon colored tights on the X-men, you might expect some more realism in Trek too. I think in some ways these new movies did take a step forward there (aesthetically), and in others they might have taken some steps back (real world science) or at least sideways.

I think rebooting Star Trek would give the chance to allow for a higher place on that spectrum. It doesn't need to be yet another situation that's, "Star Trek has always been unrealistic, why expect it now?" That's not exactly setting the highest bar.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 08:03 PM   #40
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: STID realistic?

SeerSGB wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
SeerSGB wrote: View Post

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.
I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.
Again, Trek has never been so, IMO. Things play out by the dictate of the plot, not the most believable way.
So, if McCoy suddenly raped Janice Rand with no explanation, that wouldn't be too much of a stretch because Trek has never been believable in the first place? That's where I'm getting at. A fair example of something that is unbelievable in nuTrek is Kirk being promoted from a third year cadet to the Captain of the flagship of the Federation. To go back further, Riker's remark in the corridor in "The Neutral Zone" about the 20th century civies "not having much to redeem" is unbelievable because it's not consistent with his attitude towards them in the rest of the episode where he appears to enjoy their company.

My point is, if you're gonna present something, present it in a believable way. Spock throws Plomeek Soup at Nurse Chapel, that would be considered unbelievable under normal circumstances, but since the episode gets into why he's acting this way, it's perfectly believable.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 09:41 PM   #41
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: STID realistic?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
A fair example of something that is unbelievable in nuTrek is Kirk being promoted from a third year cadet to the Captain of the flagship of the Federation.
What's odd about that? Saavik apparently went from an officer cadet to chief science officer on USS Grissom. And she didn't even save the entire planet from a terrorist attack!

More to the point, the fact that Kirk kept screwing up is the main reason he wound up getting demoted. If Pike hadn't vouched for his abilities -- TWICE -- he never would have made it on the Enterprise at all.

My point is, if you're gonna present something, present it in a believable way. Spock throws Plomeek Soup at Nurse Chapel, that would be considered unbelievable under normal circumstances, but since the episode gets into why he's acting this way, it's perfectly believable.
And STXI went into why Kirk wound up getting command: because Pike himself had hand-picked him to command the ship. STID shows us it's a decision that Pike came to regret as Kirk really WASN'T ready when he took command and on some level even he knew this.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 10:03 PM   #42
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: STID realistic?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
A fair example of something that is unbelievable in nuTrek is Kirk being promoted from a third year cadet to the Captain of the flagship of the Federation.
What's odd about that? Saavik apparently went from an officer cadet to chief science officer on USS Grissom. And she didn't even save the entire planet from a terrorist attack!
So your point is that if a mistake was made by filmmakers in the past it should be okay to make that mistake again?

Not buying it. Being promoted to a captain takes more than blind luck and a veteran officer that "believes" in you. It would be been more believable to show a "X Years Later" subtitle the moment Kirk arrives on the bridge with a goldshirt. Simple as that. It wouldn't have hurt the film to do something like that, would it?

And STXI went into why Kirk wound up getting command: because Pike himself had hand-picked him to command the ship. STID shows us it's a decision that Pike came to regret as Kirk really WASN'T ready when he took command and on some level even he knew this.
It was one of the things I actually liked about STID, acknowledging the absurdity of that promotion and showing the consequences. I remember thinking "perfect, now Kirk is going to have to really earn it", and then five minutes later Pike dies and Kirk is immediately reinstated. Oy.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 10:23 PM   #43
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: STID realistic?

Terror Grin wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
(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
Can't help you there. Makes no sense to me either.
I think it was done to show that Kirk was still immature and reckless. It's my personal interpretation, but I won't speak for the writers.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 10:25 PM   #44
SeerSGB
Admiral
 
SeerSGB's Avatar
 
Location: RIP Leonard Nimoy
Re: STID realistic?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Terror Grin wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
(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
Can't help you there. Makes no sense to me either.
I think it was done to show that Kirk was still immature and reckless. It's my personal interpretation, but I won't speak for the writers.
That was my take too. Scotty was calling him out on it when Kirk reboarded the ship. It was Kirk doing something cause it was cool and fun. He needed to grow up, and the stunt with the ship was just a symptom/example of that.
__________________
- SeerSGB -
SeerSGB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 17 2013, 10:27 PM   #45
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: STID realistic?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Terror Grin wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
(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
Can't help you there. Makes no sense to me either.
I think it was done to show that Kirk was still immature and reckless. It's my personal interpretation, but I won't speak for the writers.
I think that works. What supports that is Scotty's objection to leaving the Enterprise underwater, showing that Kirk didn't listen to his chief engineer's recommendation.

EDIT: Pretty much what Seer says.
MakeshiftPython 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 02:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.