RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,852
Posts: 5,637,077
Members: 25,484
Currently online: 460
Newest member: mid83

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Dogs of War
By: Michelle on Mar 28

Takei Calls For Boycott
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

April-May 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

Quinto TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Shatner Remembers Nimoy
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Star Trek Delta Coin Pouches
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Takei Museum Fundraiser In Progress
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Star Trek 3 Villain?
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Montgomery Comic Book Signing
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24

Mulgrew To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24


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 June 1 2014, 02:08 AM   #166
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Ovation wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

Has Star Trek ever managed to keep any of it's technical details consistent?
The second dead-beat argument. Just because they have been inconsistent in the past, it's too much to ask to be consistent in the future?
Yes--if the complaint is ONLY applied to Abrams' films.
You seem to think that if Star Trek all have mistakes, then JJ's films cannot be singled out for special criticism. This would be mistaken. No one, for example, has perfect parents, but this does not mean that we cannot criticize particular parents for being bad in cases where their parenting is substantially poor compared to typical parents.

The question, therefore, is NOT "Do most films have flaws?" or "Do other Star Trek have flaws?", but rather "Is this film significantly flawed compared to other typical films and/or other Star Trek films?"

There are two substantive critical questions we can ask of JJ's Trek. 1. Do these films compare favorably to other Hollywood movies? 2. Do these films compare favorably to other Star Trek films?

Please note, if you think that nuTrek compares favorably to other Hollywood films and/or other Trek films, then you should also agree that we can apply this standard to nuTrek without necessarily biasing the experiment against the new movies.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 02:24 AM   #167
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
Now at the end of the '09 film we see the Enterprise fire a salvo of torpedoes from the neck of the ship
And thus you undermine your own argument that "everyone knows" that torpedo tubes can only fire one weapon at a time before having to be reloaded. Anyone who watched the PREVIOUS MOVIE should already know better.
No. What we see in the previous film suggests she fires like a semi-auto firearm...
Which works very much unlike a traditional "load it once and fire it" torpedo tube.

The oddball hypothesis that they stack four torpedoes in a tube at a time is out of left field.
Why? The small launchers (at least, what looked like launchers) in STXI loaded six to a tube. We know nothing whatsoever about the actual mechanism of EITHER launch system in the movie, but if the larger version is anything like the smaller one, we could be looking at a type of revolver magazine that can launch four torpedoes from a single aperture, rotating them into place one at a time (much like the Mk-13 and Mk-26 launch systems that were replaced by VLS).

And we would not say she is "mainly an exploration" ship if we only see her explore once, for five minutes.
Of course we would, if her Captain says she is mainly an exploration ship. It's kinda like how Ellie Driver never kills anyone other than Bud (and poisons Pai Mei in a flashback) but we still assume she's a professional assassin, since she repeatedly refers to herself as such and belongs to something called "the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad."

Again, if you see me drinking, you will have reason to reject my claim to being a teetotaler.
And if anyone had ever claimed Starfleet were PACIFISTS, that would be a relevant point.

Pike tells us it's a "Peace keeping and Humanitarian armada." "Peace keeping," is an historical euphemism...
Invoking jingoism to show evidence of joingoism is a circular argument.

They didn't need to be.
I agree.

Well, suppose we watched a movie about "police officers" who only do actual police work for five minutes (an opening segment which sets up a character moment and which is not essential to the plot) in the span of two films?
Like Die Hard 1 and 2?

Suppose, that for the rest of these two films our cops were doing Halo jumps into foreign countries
Die Hard 5...

engaging in ship battles
Die Hard 3 and 4...

We would conclude that they aren't "police officers" in any meaningful sense of the term.
Tell that to John McClain.

Well, if so, Scotty should not be surprised. "I though we were explorers with a significant military operational agenda and purpose" doesn't exactly give him the moral high ground does it?
I don't know that Starfleet actually has a military operational agenda and purpose.

Yes, let's do consider it! When cops are given special weaponry and are sold military surplus, when they're carrying around assault rifles and dressed in black, when they're told that they're fighting a war on drugs and a domestic war on terror we have to ask if they are properly acting as police forces.

It's literal enough when a two-year old child has to be put in a drug induced coma after the police throw a flash grenade into that child's crib.
In deed, sure, but in that case the police department is not LEGALLY a military organization even if they sometimes act like it.

And if you think about it, the subtext of STID raises the same kind of alarm for Starfleet: the increasing militarization of the exploration service is pushed as being absolutely necessary to combat the Klingon threat, but at the same time it runs contrary to everything Starfleet is supposed to be. That's the point of Kirk's closing monolog at the end: that one should not sacrifice one's guiding principles just because he's scared of his enemies.

Now, suppose that Sgt. Scott was a member of a Chicago SWAT team and suppose he quit in a moral fit when his unit took delivery of 72 high-power assault rifles. His complaint, "I thought we were about getting cats out of trees" would ring a little hollow, don't you think?
That's a good analogy, but look what you just did there.

The SWAT team is NOT a military organization. Not legally, not technically, not even logistically. So when Sgt. Scott finds out his helicopter is being fitted with ultra-top secret antitank missiles intended for use in the assassination of the cop killer who just fled to Cuba, what's his complaint?

"That's what scares me, Captain. This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because last time I checked, I thought we were policemen!"

For the record, I am 100% certain SWAT teams and police departments are not military organizations, as much as they do act like them. I am somewhat less sure about Starfleet, but Scotty and Khan's lines are pretty definitive IMO.

Mr. Scott should have recognized that his "Peace Keeping and Humanitarian Armada" (henceforth, PKHA) was already a blue-helmet military organization
Funny you mention that: technically, the the U.N. Peacekeepers are not a military organization either, but an organization that includes both civilian and military contributions from member states, specialized in the exact operation they are required to perform.

That, actually, is the whole reason why personnel assigned to the peacekeeping mission are required to wear this big obvious blue helmets. It's not to indicate membership in a military organization, it's to indicate membership in the peacekeepers whether or not they have been sent to that mission from a national military, from a police department, from the Red Cross or from the University of Pennsylvania's pediatrics department.

"I see your 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes" - he can "see" this, he says.
He's looking at the same graphic we're looking at. We don't even have to wonder what he sees, we can see it too.

He doesn't see the torpedoes, the computer does. Nor has he bothered to count them, the computer does that for him too; in fact, the computer hasn't even finished counting them when he says this. And even if we assume those blurry white lines on the graphic are supposed to be the ship's torpedo tubes (which I highly doubt) there are definitely not seventy two of them, as the graphic shows between 12 and 18 lines on each side of the ship. Even more importantly, the ANIMATION of the graphic appears to highlight the locations of those torpedoes along the length of those lines; if the rectangular indicators and the numbers that appear above them are supposed to indicate the locations of the torpedoes, then there are three torpedoes loaded into each of those launch tubes, lined up one after another (again, assuming those lines actually indicate the launch tubes themselves and not, say, magazine compartments of the weapons bay).

So show me where on the same graphic the computer indicates the torpedoes are all loaded into individual launch tubes with individual launch covers, and I'll let this one go. Otherwise, it stands as plausible and even likely that Khan's sensors located the torpedoes in the weapons bay and Khan simply assumed -- based on his superior intellect -- that the torpedoes had not been moved from their tubes. It would not be the first time he was wrong about something, and it probably will not be the last.

Because we have no positive evidence in the text confirming that Khan is wrong about things like "aft nacelles." Everything we're told suggests that he knows how these ships are laid out.
NOTHING suggests he knows how these ships are laid out. He explicitly states that the reason he knows the layout of the Vengeance is because he helped to design it. There is ZERO evidence he knows anything whatsoever about the layout of the Enterprise.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Yes, considering that IF Sulu fires them it would result in Kirk's landing party being blown up as well.
No, they are still in the Mudd Spaceship (en route) when Sulu makes his threat.
The threat to fire the torpedoes if Khan didn't surrender to Kirk's yet-to-arrive team?

If Khan tries to run away, Sulu can make good on his threat before Kirk arrives.
Why would Sulu do that? Kirk didn't order him to fire the torpedoes.

No, I am not sure. I am sure, however, that the Enterprise opened her ports
An action which was almost certainly meant to intimidate Khan in the event he had some kind of sensor capability.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!

Last edited by Crazy Eddie; June 1 2014 at 05:04 AM.
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 04:42 AM   #168
Ovation
Vice Admiral
 
Location: La Belle Province or The Green Mountain State (depends on the day of the week)
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
Ovation wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
The second dead-beat argument. Just because they have been inconsistent in the past, it's too much to ask to be consistent in the future?
Yes--if the complaint is ONLY applied to Abrams' films.
You seem to think that if Star Trek all have mistakes, then JJ's films cannot be singled out for special criticism.
No. I think it is unfair to forgive non-Abrams Trek films for errors that are equivalent in degree and kind to those found in the Abrams films while simultaneously refusing to grant the same leeway to the Abrams films. If one can identify errors that are different in kind and degree, then certainly those are up for fair criticism. Also, if one is equally critical of errors found in non-Abrams Trek films, then criticizing the ones in the Abrams films is fair game. But forgiving the "prime" films (and TV programmes) and not forgiving the Abrams Trek films for equivalent errors in degree and kind--not fine.


This would be mistaken. No one, for example, has perfect parents, but this does not mean that we cannot criticize particular parents for being bad in cases where their parenting is substantially poor compared to typical parents.

The question, therefore, is NOT "Do most films have flaws?" or "Do other Star Trek have flaws?", but rather "Is this film significantly flawed compared to other typical films and/or other Star Trek films?"
The answer to "Is this film..." is no and no. If we compare them to typical genre films or even to the subset of Trek films, we might find individual examples of each that are less flawed--but neither category as a whole can make that claim.

There are two substantive critical questions we can ask of JJ's Trek. 1. Do these films compare favorably to other Hollywood movies? 2. Do these films compare favorably to other Star Trek films?
1. Yes. 2. Yes.

Are they perfect films? Far from it (I would argue that few, if any, films deserve the label "perfect"). Does one have to like them? Certainly not. Are they above criticism? No. But each of them is more critically and publicly acclaimed than the average Hollywood film and even the average Trek film (if we go by aggregate critical reviews and audience responses--the only measures, imprecise though they may be, we have available). As such, I stand by my "Yes" responses.

There are films I personally enjoy a great deal that are neither critically nor publicly acclaimed (Alien 3 is one--I like it a lot more than Aliens, a film with a much stronger critical and public approval rating). I do not presume the majority is somehow too stupid to see why Alien 3 is better than Aliens. I accept that I have a minority position on the matter and I even accept that my preference is not based on some sort of objective measure. I simply prefer it. What I would not do is argue that Aliens is a failure as a sci-fi film or isn't a "true Alien film" simply because I don't like it as much as the other three films in the series (I am not counting the Predator crossover films, primarily because I have not seen them). On the other hand, I've seen dozens of attempts to argue that Abrams' Trek films are "not real Trek" or "much more poorly plotted movies than most other movies" or "are technically inconsistent because of the number of torpedo tubes" or any number of other variant complaints--the vast majority of which would be applicable to other films in general or other Trek films/episodes or both. It's fine to point out these various elements are bothersome (if they happen to be). It's hypocritical, or disingenuous, to suggest the Abrams films are somehow unique for having such issues.
Ovation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 05:14 AM   #169
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Which works very much unlike a traditional "load it once and fire it" torpedo tube.
Not really. One round in the firing tube at a time and reload after firing. With an Olde Tyme submarine the difference is that a crewman is part of the reloading mechanism. With a firearm reloading is entirely mechanical.

What matters, crucially, is that in the historical and cultural background of the audience there is not a mechanism of the variety you allege, so why would they infer it?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Why? The small launchers (at least, what looked like launchers) in STXI loaded six to a tube.
Where do we see this? Specifically?

Supposing this evidence is produced, we must ask if it is a magazine which is being loaded or simply if they are jamming all the torpedoes into a tube at once.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
We know nothing whatsoever about the actual mechanism of EITHER launch system in the movie,
Which is precisely why wild speculation on how they might work, speculation which runs to how audiences have seen roughly similar weapons work does not work in your favor.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
but if the larger version is anything like the smaller one, we could be looking at a type of revolver magazine that can launch four torpedoes from a single aperture, rotating them into place one at a time (much like the Mk-13 and Mk-26 launch systems that were replaced by VLS).
You're back pedaling? You want to redefine the "tube" as the magazine?

A firing mechanism with a revolving cylinder or stacked magazine still only feed into ONE tube. For there to be 72 torpedoes "locked and loaded" into 72 tubes, means the Enterprise has at least 72 tubes.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's kinda like how Ellie Driver never kills anyone other than Bud (and poisons Pai Mei in a flashback) but we still assume she's a professional assassin on account of she belongs to the "Deadly Viper Assassination Squad."
You speak of a minor character. It's not her movie. We don't see her doing other things (like practicing law or medicine) for 3 and a half hours and only killing people for only five minutes.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And if anyone had ever claimed Starfleet were PACIFISTS, that would be a relevant point.
It is relevant in this sense. Actions matter. What you call yourself is irrelevant if your behaviors tell otherwise.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Invoking jingoism to show evidence of joingoism is a circular argument.
I do not offer it as simply "slam dunk" positive proof. Rather, I noted how "Peacekeepers" are so often warriors. To claim a peacekeeping mission is very often a euphemism.

More importantly, peacekeeping operations (those that are not simply masks for military aggression) are historically carried out by the warships, tanks, planes, and soldiers of the militaries of various nations. Peacekeeping armadas are historically comprised of ships of war.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I agree.
So why would it matter whether they were consulted or not?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Like Die Hard 1 and 2?

Die Hard 5...

Die Hard 3 and 4...

Tell that to John McClain.
John McClain isn't a cop. He's an action figure. Increasingly so with each pathetic sequel.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I don't know that Starfleet actually has a military operational agenda and purpose.
The most conspicuous purpose of a military is to fight wars. Does Starfleet fight wars with her ships? We've seen Starfleet fight in wars throughout Trek. Marcus almost starts a war in the film we were watching. In TOS war breaks out with the Klingons (Errand of Mercy) and we are aware of previous wars such as with Romulans (Balance of Terror).

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
In deed, sure, but in that case the police department is not LEGALLY a military organization even if they sometimes act like it.
If Starfleet is already a de facto millitary, should Mr. Scott be surprised when it continues to do so, even if it is not a de jure military?

The armaments, the considerable armaments, of the U.S.S. Enterprise should signal to Scotty what she is built for, at least in significant part. He is on a ship of war (in whole or in part) regardless of whether the UFP refers to Starfleet as an Armada ducks or daffodils.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And if you think about it, the subtext of STID raises the same kind of alarm for Starfleet: the increasing militarization of the exploration service is pushed as being absolutely necessary to combat the Klingon threat, but at the same time it runs contrary to everything Starfleet is supposed to be. That's the point of Kirk's closing monolog at the end: that one should not sacrifice one's guiding principles just because he's scared of his enemies.
Yeah, I get it and I think it is a good message.

My point is simply that Mr. Scott should not be upset at the mere presence of torpedoes on a ship armed to the teeth. As I conceded, however, you have argued well in mitigating the upshot of this point. The torpedoes are experimental and Scott, despite the secrets, can guess that they're off on a dubious mission.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That's a good analogy, but look what you just did there.

The SWAT team is NOT a military organization. Not legally, not technically, not even logistically. So when Sgt. Scott finds out his helicopter is being fitted with ultra-top secret antitank missiles intended for use in the assassination of the cop killer who just fled to Cuba, what's his complaint?

"That's what scares me, Captain. This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because last time I checked, I thought we were policemen!"
Metaphorically speaking, Sgt. Scott should realize that his Apache helicopter, armed to the teeth with Hellfire missiles, hydra rockets, and 30mm cannon is a military helicopter. She isn't a mere Jetranger or HH-65 Dolphin.

Sure, he might legitimately complain about experimental weapons and the mission he suspects is lurking behind their delivery, but he would have to be a fool not to realize that he was already part of a force with a de facto military purpose.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Funny you mention that: technically, the the U.N. Peacekeepers are not a military organization either, but an organization that includes both civilian and military contributions from member states, specialized in the exact operation they are required to perform.
Let's keep the analogy straight. The UFP is like the UN. Starfleet is like the U.S. military deployed by the UN.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
That, actually, is the whole reason why personnel assigned to the peacekeeping mission are required to wear this big obvious blue helmets. It's not to indicate membership in a military organization, it's to indicate membership in the peacekeepers whether or not they have been sent to that mission from a national military, from a police department, from the Red Cross or from the University of Pennsylvania's pediatrics department.
And when the man with the blue helmet calls in an artillery strike on your location, you can console yourself that they're just keeping the peace.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
He's looking at the same graphic we're looking at. We don't even have to wonder what he sees, we can see it too.
And he designed the ship. Whatever information there is to extract, he knows exactly where to look. And what other graphics does he have at his disposal?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
He doesn't see the torpedoes, nor has he bothered to count them. The reason he knows there are 72 torpedoes is because the COMPUTER has counted them and given him the number in that neat little graphic on the right.

So show me where on the same graphic the computer indicates the torpedoes are all loaded into individual launch tubes with individual launch covers, and I'll let this one go.
I don't have to. I have the spoken line of dialogue. He can "see" that 72 torpedoes are in their tubes.

You must speculate that Khan is wrong, that he doesn't know jargon, that is a 20th century man, your are forced to argue that magazines are really "tubes" because you have to stand against the most obvious evidence supplied by the text itself.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The threat to fire the torpedoes if Khan didn't surrender to Kirk's yet-to-arrive team?
If Khan attempts to run before they arrive, Sulu might fire.

Also, Kirk has given orders at risk to his own life before.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 11:04 AM   #170
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Set Harth wrote: View Post
I don't follow any of that. The sabotage to the engines was discovered by everyone when the Enterprise was thrown out of warp.
Yes but it's Chekov who took the ship out of warp. He says so in the movie. Just pointing that out.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

Last edited by Belz...; June 2 2014 at 10:25 AM.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 02:53 PM   #171
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Belz... wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
I don't follow any of that. The sabotage to the engines was discovered by everyone when the Enterprise was thrown out of warp.
Yes but it's Checkov who took the ship out of warp. He says so in the movie. Just pointing that out.
I think Chekov was as surprised as anyone that the ship dropped out of warp. Chekov does say he takes full responsibility for the breakdown, which he should do at that point, since no one in engineering knows what happened. That said, Kirk is already suspicious of sabotage after talking with Khan, and immediately tells Chekov he thinks it's unlikely it's his fault the ship left warp and is broken down.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 03:37 PM   #172
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Chekov dropped the Enterprise out of warp.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 05:33 PM   #173
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Angmar
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Why would he do that? The ship dropped out of warp because of the malfunction caused by sabotage.
__________________
Just walk away, and there will be an end to the horror.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 05:38 PM   #174
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 05:43 PM   #175
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

BillJ wrote: View Post
I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Chekov dropped the Enterprise out of warp.
From dialogue:
Sulu : Engineering manually dropped us out of warp.
Kirk: Mr. Chekov, did you break my ship?
Chekov: I'm sorry, sir! I don't know what happened. The core overheated. I had to activate emergency stop. It must be a coolant leak; I need time to find it.
Edit: Ninja'd while I was transcribing the lines.
__________________
"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive."
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 07:09 PM   #176
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Chekov dropped the Enterprise out of warp.
From dialogue:
Sulu : Engineering manually dropped us out of warp.
Kirk: Mr. Chekov, did you break my ship?
Chekov: I'm sorry, sir! I don't know what happened. The core overheated. I had to activate emergency stop. It must be a coolant leak; I need time to find it.
Edit: Ninja'd while I was transcribing the lines.
Thank you both for confirming my memory!
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 1 2014, 07:11 PM   #177
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post
What matters, crucially, is that in the historical and cultural background of the audience there is not a mechanism of the variety you allege
Of course there is. It's in the previous film: the torpedoes fire one after another.

Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Why? The small launchers (at least, what looked like launchers) in STXI loaded six to a tube.
Where do we see this? Specifically?
Immediately before and during the battle of Vulcan.

Supposing this evidence is produced, we must ask if it is a magazine which is being loaded or simply if they are jamming all the torpedoes into a tube at once.
Hard to say since we never see the opening on the exterior of the ship. But given that the torpedo tubes don't correspond to any recognizable exterior feature, and given that each individual torpedo is only about the size of a howitzer shell, I would be VERY surprised if all six torpedoes had their own tube.

Which is precisely why wild speculation on how they might work, speculation which runs to how audiences have seen roughly similar weapons work does not work in your favor.
And yet, you're still assuming those audiences will be more familiar with Horatio Hornblower and WWII submarine movies than they will be with Star Trek. I don't think that assumption is justified.

You're back pedaling?
No. I've been saying for 10 posts now the ship probably doesn't have all of 72 launch tubes. If it does not, then there has to be a way for those torpedoes to be "loaded" multiple weapons to a tube.

You speak of a minor character. It's not her movie.
Makes no difference. You can safely believe what you are told about a character (or story element) until you see or are told something that contradicts this.

It is relevant in this sense. Actions matter. What you call yourself is irrelevant if your behaviors tell otherwise.
Starfleet's behaviors do not tell otherwise.

So why would it matter whether they were consulted or not?
I don't know. You're the one who mentioned them.

John McClain isn't a cop.
Yes he is.

The most conspicuous purpose of a military is to fight wars.
That is not the most conspicuous purpose of Starfleet.

If Starfleet is already a de facto millitary, should Mr. Scott be surprised when it continues to do so, even if it is not a de jure military?
Yes he should, in exactly the same way that police officers should be angry and offended about their SWAT teams being sent to assassinate terrorists abroad.

Metaphorically speaking, Sgt. Scott should realize that his Apache helicopter...
Scott's not flying an Apache. CHIEF MARCUS is flying an Apache. Scott's flying a specially modifed SH-60 that is specifically designed for policework and aerial surveillance and even has a built-in forensics lab installed in the back.

And he's objecting to the experimental and highly classified antitank missiles that have been attached to his purpose-built police helicopter, missiles that are clearly being attached with the intention of firing them at terrorists in foreign countries.

Let's keep the analogy straight. The UFP is like the UN. Starfleet is like the U.S. military deployed by the UN.
Possibly, although Starfleet's legal status vis a vis United Earth is VERY ambiguous.

And he designed the ship.
He designed the VENGEANCE, not the Enterprise.

I don't have to. I have the spoken line of dialogue. He can "see" that 72 torpedoes are in their tubes.
No he can't. I'm looking right at what he's seeing, and he is clearly not speaking literally. He is ASSUMING the torpedoes are still in their launch tubes because that is, more or less, the vicinity of the ship where his sensors find them.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The threat to fire the torpedoes if Khan didn't surrender to Kirk's yet-to-arrive team?
If Khan attempts to run before they arrive, Sulu might fire.
No, Sulu might not, because Kirk didn't tell Sulu to fire the torpedoes if Khan tried to run.

Also, Kirk has given orders at risk to his own life before.
This was not one of those times.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 03:23 AM   #178
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Are you again assuming the audience of Star Trek movie are more familiar with military history (and submarines, for that matter) than they are with Star Trek?
Are you again beating your spouse?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Immediately before and during the battle of Vulcan.
Right, the six-shooter thingees.

Are they loading up the phase-cannons? The hand phasers in the 09 film have a very mechanical and metallic sound when they fire (and the front of the gun swivels like it is reloading).

We don't really know what those things are.

Let's suppose, for the moment, that they are little torpedoes (you refer to them as the "small launchers") that are being loaded like bullets into a revolver's cylinder.

If so, then it would seem that in addition to having tubes for 72 torpedoes which are allegedly loaded in this fashion (just imagine how much larger that "six-gun" cylinder must be for the Khan torpedoes!), she also has additional "small launchers" as well! You have discovered that the Enterprise has even more weapons than I supposed! She's got all those phase canons, ginormous six-shooter cylinders, and small torpedo launchers too!

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But given that the torpedo tubes don't correspond to any recognizable exterior feature, and given that each individual torpedo is only about the size of a howitzer shell, I would be VERY surprised if all six torpedoes had their own tube.
We don't even know that those are torpedoes in the '09 film!

But let's say you're right. The "small launcher" is for torpedoes, right? They load 'em up like a six-shooter and they even fires them like a six-gun. How did you put it, "rotating them into place one at a time"? And this is because, as you say, you "would be VERY surprised if all six torpedoes had their own tube."

If so, only one torpedo can be aligned with the tube at a time! Thus when Khan says "I see all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes," he cannot be referring to torpedoes being in giant rotating six-gun cylinders (because only one torpedo can be in a tube at a time to fire - and it is very doubtful that each torpedo gets its own tube, right?). Thus the Enterprise must still have 72 torpedo tubes or you must maintain that Khan is wrong.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 10:26 AM   #179
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
I came to the conclusion that in the new Trek, there is a pathologic "I don't care" way of thinking when it comes to ship/technical details.
Is that supposed to be unique to this version of Trek ?

The second dead-beat argument. Just because they have been inconsistent in the past, it's too much to ask to be consistent in the future?
So you're in fact admitting that Trek has always had a "I don't care" way of thinking when it comes to ship/technical details. So why mention it at all ?
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 2 2014, 12:33 PM   #180
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: "...all 72 torpedoes are still in their tubes."

YARN wrote: View Post

Are you again beating your spouse?
Wow. That's a really fucking poor thing to say.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ 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 07:10 PM.

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