OMFG MASSIVE SPOLIERS: NeoTrek Engine Musings

Discussion in 'Trek Tech' started by Plecostomus, May 9, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    You people are hilarious. Carry on. :lol:
     
  2. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Wrong forum?
     
  3. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Not at all. :)
     
  4. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I don't speak emoticon, as you well know. Is that or your other post somehow related to the technical aspect of trek, or are you also replying in some fashion to the post that Cary and I were just addressing?

    In English, please.
     
  5. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    I find you and Cary thumping each other on the backs and harrumphing about your negative-nellyism and subsequent treatment--and in the wrong type of thread no less!--endlessly amusing. And, in the event I were to get some kind of response about being part of the clique in question, I say this as someone who is becoming ever more disenchanted with the new movie.

    Isn't like you guys were paying any more attention to the topic at hand. :lol:
     
  6. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Bullshit, we WERE on target, then diverting to address the post. You're the one who is out in left field on this.

    As to whether you like the movie or not, that's your business. It's how you act about it that is in question, or where you act out about it.

    But thanks for keeping it in my mother tongue (no sarcasm.)
     
  7. David cgc

    David cgc Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    California
    Not just a ship. In most buildings the electrical rooms, janitors closets, elevator machine rooms... heck, even the stairwells are far more spartan than the publicly viewable parts of the building.
     
  8. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    :techman:
     
  9. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    So how do you guys reconcile those hideously wasteful and ugly and shiny corridors with the spartan stairwell analogy, huh?

    Sorry I was away, but OPERATION REPO always trumps trekbbs.
     
  10. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    I was responding to someone telling me to take it out of here and into the "Trek XI forum." Which (1) was inappropriate, since we ARE talking "Trek Tech", and (2) isn't gonna happen for the simple fact that I don't want to subject myself to the bullshit that is par for the course in that forum.

    You really ought to be careful about mocking people who've been fucked over... it does tend to tie you to the people who did it. M'Sharak, blunted stated, FUCKED ME OVER, and knew he was doing so. He does that to people in there all the time. He's what I call a "bad moderator." But instead of fighting it, I've just walked away from it, and from him.

    I wonder... did you read the thread in question? What happened was simple... a reasonably polite interchange was going on, comparing "Watchmen" to the (then-upcoming) "Trek-XI." PTrope was arguing a point, and ST-One made a comment about him engaging in "arrogant assumption" or something like that. I responded to that by pointing out that, in English, that's not a valid construction. I also pointed out that I didn't appreciate the rather "graphic" nature of his avatar at the time (which he's since changed, by the way). Apparently, this last bit drove M'Sharak into a frenzy of shrieking rage...

    Seriously... read my post, linked below, and tell me that's a "bannable" post.

    http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=2746031#post2746031

    If you agree that it's "bannable," please explain why. If not... please explain how you justify mocking me for not grabbing my ankles and saying "thank you" to M'Sharak for that particular little example of "abuse of position."

    Sure, it's just a web forum. But it says a lot about a man when, if given just a TINY bit of power, he's that ready to abuse it. Thank God the guy will never have any real power in life...
     
  11. Gep Malakai

    Gep Malakai Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    I have no personal stake in your beef with M'. In my interactions, both public and private, I've found him to be one of the nicest and most personable people on this board, and one of the few with whom I've had any kind of meaningful personal conversation. But to each their own.

    I just found it funny and annoying you and trevanian got going on your thing in an unrelated thread and I couldn't resist jumping in and being a sarcastic snot. But you know that's how I roll. :cool: :p
     
  12. Gagarin

    Gagarin Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    Cary, I think I share a lot of sentiments with you on this - mostly I can live with this NOT being forced into the same continuity with the rest of the shows/films. I don't know if I'll go the "never happened" route (ala 'Rocky V' never happened for some Rocky fans heh), because it has happened, it just doesn't effect any of the other products for me. The past products may inform this product, but this product isn't going to help me "read" the past.

    So I'm quoting your post because I agree, and not because I feel like I'm arguing. =)

    Although I enjoyed the movie, and despite the technical/plot devices that made me scratch my head, or some of the strange production design shortcuts (seriously, Trek done better is just a bunch of pipes?) - I DO very much hate the currents that shout " HEY let's try and make it ALL work!"

    I don't know if I can seriously talk about something being IN CANON or NOT CANON anymore, but I'm willing to accept this Trek as something new and self contained.

    I can enjoy it for what it is. And I can look at Shaw's Enterprise for what it is, and I can look at Cary's for what it is.

    We DON'T need to try and make this all work people. I can't even imagine why it would be fun. I think it strips alllllll the marrow of goodness that's in TOS->ENT when we do that. It strips alllll the marrow of this movie if we do that.

    JJ may be making some poor decisions now (seriously, black hole? Red Matter? Blowing up Vulcan? The Enterprise being surprised by stuff when it comes out of warp?) and he may make some in the future (like Cary points to) - all the more reason to see this as self contained. THIS is the current version of Star Trek we'll get. Let's not bastardize it and everything else to make it "fit". We enjoyed comics for what they were. We enjoyed books for what they were. Sometimes they fit and sometimes they don't, because there's a weak "central plan". Let's not jam everything together.

    Certain fans of 'Wing Commander' have done that ('The Movie', 'Cartoon' ahem), and I don't think it adds anything to labor under the "EVERYTHING IS CANON AND WORKS AND MUST FIT TOGETHER" effort.

    Fans, enjoy this or not. But put down your "refit" theories.

    I have said this before - the technology and look and feel of the univerise is an attractive part of Star Trek. But Star Trek was NEVER about how the ships looked liked or if there was a 'Warp Core' or 'Plasma Conduits' or 'Tachyon Pulses" or how the bridge looks. It's amazing to me how Star Trek became the minuate when all along they wanted things to seem like they COULD work so they could get on with the story (at it's best).

    It's about people on an adventure. There's a certain way that looks --an iconic look even-- and works out - in space, on a big ship, doing exploring, doing shooting, risking certain death, and sometimes learning what it means to be human from the unknown.

    And hey, this movie(s) may have a shot of that.
    Or it might not.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2009
  13. Closet Trekkie

    Closet Trekkie Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    I can certainly appreciate the reasons why you're a fan, but you simply do not speak for all fans of the show. You love that Star Trek is a collection of compelling stories about people on an adventure. I'm sure we all feel that way, but for me, that's only a small part of the appeal.

    I love that Trek pays attention to that technological minutiae. It's a big part of the appeal for me. As an engineer, I love that someone is telling stories that I can appreciate in my quirky engineer way. It doesn't happen often. In fact, it doesn't happen at all in anything else that's as mainstream.

    THAT is why I'm a fan. I can find compelling stories of human adventure elsewhere, but I can't find any that are told with the same scientific sophistication and engineering charm as I find in the Trek universe. That so many scientists and engineers are fans, I think, speaks volumes for this "tech appeal".

    So while this "tech appeal" may not be the thing for you, I don't think you'll have much success convincing the rest of us that Trek's NEVER been about that.
     
  14. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Agreed.

    But then again, guys (to those Gep Malakai was talking about), if you have a beef with a moderator, talk it over with them. I was reading this thread with massive interest, until you two decided to highjack it and detail your frustration to anyone (not) willing to listen. It does not create more sympathy for you -- it does rather the opposite; grown ups don't whine like that. What's done is done; either you take it up with the source, or don't talk about it.

    Personally, I think the mods have done a great job. I've only been active in that forum again since the movie was out, but I've not seen any moderator clearly abusing his or her power. I have seen warnings dealt to people who twisted discussions to a personal level -- but that's exactly what the moderators are there for.

    So don't say you can't go in there: it's clearly possible in that forum to state your dislike of the movie in discussions, in a meaningful way, with good arguments; nobody will flame you for that. Just don't be one of those who accept no other viewpoints; most like the movie, as they have every right to. And don't be one of those who try to derail every topic with mass postings about how you hate the movie. Posts like that get warnings, and for good reason, for they add nothing to the discussions.

    Now, back on topic:

    I think the engine room looked superb. Oh, it was a massive departure, I'm sure we can all agree on that. And I also agree I miss something like a warp core; there wasn't a clearer metaphor for the massive power as a pulsating warp core was. But, it did look real to me. More real then any other Engineering room on Star Trek, without exception. The brewery might not have been the very best choice, but I doubt the producers had the run of the mill -- they had a budget to keep, even if it was a large one.

    I would have liked to see some more compartmentalization. The open space idea is nice, but totally unusable on something like a starship, where space is an absolute premium. But I could buy the fact that it wasn't really finished, because the ship was rushed into service and that some bulkheads and pretty shiny railings might not yet have been installed.
     
  15. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    ^^ Bulkheads are not something you just can install at a later date since they are a basic part of the load bearing structure of a ship, as for what an engineroom should look like I suggest you to visit HMS Belfast in London which is a WW-II era "light" cruiser it will tell you ALL about compartimentalization of engine rooms, Oh and probably will cause you to get lost at least 5 times.. :p
     
  16. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1359/1126729637_cced4b4571_o.jpg
    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/63/209406820_515b9f22c1.jpg?v=0
    http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/904264795_3905a9fda5.jpg?v=0
    You are right, now that's an engine room. :D

    Scale that up times 2, put a warp core in the middle and I'd think that's a believable Engineering.
     
  17. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    I've walked around that ship for hours, she's a 12.000 ton cutie.. ;)

    Btw, leuk, nog een Nederlander :cool:
     
  18. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    I HAVE gone that route, repeatedly, and with virtually no success. If you can't achieve results through traditional means, then you go public and try to shame them about it. Or, in this instance, it is only coming up because there was a question asked about our posts being made, OPENING IT UP again.

    And the grownup shit you proffer is just that, shit. A grownup gets results, or takes it; doing the latter over some ridiculous crap like this (as opposed to a realworld issue, where you might have to put up with crap in order to keep your family in a home) is slave mentality, and that ain't me.
     
  19. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    Why should the bowels of a ship look just like another crew-area?
     
  20. Santaman

    Santaman Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Why not?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page