Rebranding a Fan Film: Ship Design

[fireproof78]

Setting aside the metaphor, I do think the audience is smarter than most people give them credit for. I think people know when you haven't bothered to consider how the ship actually goes. Some people may not care, but that doesn't mean they didn't notice.

Yes, the audience is smarter than they are often given credit for, but the problem is, this nitpicking to a bit of an extreme. The engine is really only important to establish how they get from place to place (i.e. the pilot episode-"warp drive") and when its broken. Be consistent with how the engine works, and the audience won't notice.

I realize you're joking, but the punchline doesn't make sense for the following reasons:

a) I mostly drive to work alone, so who would I be talking to?
b) I drive an automatic.
c) It's an ICE car with no separate engine for going really fast, so the engine used is implied.

I have a reservation for a Tesla Model 3, and when people ask me about it, you better believe I'm going to mention that it's an electric car because it's an important distinction.

It's an important distinction with a one word difference in the description: electric engine vs. gas engine. That's it. So, the idea of having to distinguish make, model, and fuel source beyond the basics of "singularity drive" vs. "sublight" or "battery power" (as TOS referenced to a couple of times) will depend upon the needs of the story, not the story needing to know exactly how the engine works.

Besides that, it was a joke, and nothing kills a joke faster than having to explain it.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Yes, the audience is smarter than they are often given credit for, but the problem is, this nitpicking to a bit of an extreme. The engine is really only important to establish how they get from place to place (i.e. the pilot episode-"warp drive") and when its broken. Be consistent with how the engine works, and the audience won't notice.

Consistency of the type you describe comes from having a preconceived idea of how the engines function. You don't have to tell the audience how something works, but you have some concept of how it works and the rules it must adhere to before you can present a consistent presentation to the user. Otherwise, you end up retconning stuff later.

It's an important distinction with a one word difference in the description: electric engine vs. gas engine. That's it.

The distinction isn't the name. The distinction is their emissions and how their differences in operation have consequences for the driver's behavior. The engines have distinct names because it's important to distinguish between them.

Similarly, when talking about distinct names for FTL and sublight engines, the motivating question is whether or not there is a meaningful difference that must be expressed to the audience. In some cases it won't be, but it's always better to have an idea of what those systems are called and how they work so that you can potentially use them later where appropriate. Better to be prepared but not use it than to have to reconcile inconsistencies and retcon things later.

 

[fireproof78]

Which, again, brings me back to what kind of drive you want? There are so many examples out there in science fiction today, it would take less time for you to search them out, than it would be for me to list them out.

In addition, I think the distinction that is trying to be made is important to you, but not as important to the audience. If you lay the ground rules, then you can work within them-period. Once they are established, guess what? You'll be able to ignore them if the story calls for it.

But, I doubt it requires a long exposition scene. I think it will be a simple matter of them using the engines in a situation, much like an old diesel submarine might switch from their diesel engine to batteries. Beyond that is minutia.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Which, again, brings me back to what kind of drive you want? There are so many examples out there in science fiction today, it would take less time for you to search them out, than it would be for me to list them out.

This is a "rebranding" thread, so I think the context is something analogous to Warp Drive. Realistically, any FTL system probably needs insane amounts of energy, so they'll probably need a dedicated reactor core similar to the warp core in Star Trek.

In addition, I think the distinction that is trying to be made is important to you, but not as important to the audience. If you lay the ground rules, then you can work within them-period. Once they are established, guess what? You'll be able to ignore them if the story calls for it.

Huh? The details aren't important, but you can make ground rules and then throw them out? What?!?

But, I doubt it requires a long exposition scene. I think it will be a simple matter of them using the engines in a situation, much like an old diesel submarine might switch from their diesel engine to batteries. Beyond that is minutia.

It's not about exposition. Here's a metaphor:

Often, sets will be built with walls as high as twelve feet, even when the setting is inside a traditional apartment building that would never have walls that tall. Why? Because the set doesn't have a ceiling, so when you pull the camera back, there has to be enough wall to reach the top of the screen in all cases. This doesn't mean that the audience is going to see all twelve feet of the wall flats all the time, and it doesn't mean that the characters are going to constantly talk about how the walls are twelve feet high. It's not about wall porn. It's about having enough there to prevent the audience from seeing that it's a set. It's about giving you more angles to shoot the set from.

The same is true for world building, and in a space adventure, the hero ship is the center of your world. You may never need to name the engines, or explain how they work, or show them working, but you have options, and that's what's important.

 

[fireproof78]

This is a "rebranding" thread, so I think the context is something analogous to Warp Drive. Realistically, any FTL system probably needs insane amounts of energy, so they'll probably need a dedicated reactor core similar to the warp core in Star Trek.

So, singularity drive? Seriously, read David Gerrold's "Star Wolf" even the first chapter, and you'll have a great idea.

Huh? The details aren't important, but you can make ground rules and then throw them out? What?!?

Yes, that's a fundamental rule in film making. The rules are there, and you need to know them in order to break them. You don't get to break the 180 degree rule just willy-nilly. You need to know what it is and when it can be changed.

Similarly, in writing, you need to know your ground rules in order to break them, and change them as the story requires it.

It's not about exposition. Here's a metaphor:

Often, sets will be built with walls as high as twelve feet, even when the setting is inside a traditional apartment building that would never have walls that tall. Why? Because the set doesn't have a ceiling, so when you pull the camera back, there has to be enough wall to reach the top of the screen in all cases. This doesn't mean that the audience is going to see all twelve feet of the wall flats all the time, and it doesn't mean that the characters are going to constantly talk about how the walls are twelve feet high. It's not about wall porn. It's about having enough there to prevent the audience from seeing that it's a set. It's about giving you more angles to shoot the set from.

The same is true for world building, and in a space adventure, the hero ship is the center of your world. You may never need to name the engines, or explain how they work, or show them working, but you have options, and that's what's important.

You'll get no argument from me. Just that this arguing over minutia, when the audience may or may not see it, makes little sense, where there are so many sources to draw from.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

So, singularity drive? Seriously, read David Gerrold's "Star Wolf" even the first chapter, and you'll have a great idea.

Actually, I'm already working on ideas for a singularity as a power source, if that's what you're referring to. They're actually fairly tricky to manage. Very useful form a dramatic standpoint.

Yes, that's a fundamental rule in film making. The rules are there, and you need to know them in order to break them. You don't get to break the 180 degree rule just willy-nilly. You need to know what it is and when it can be changed.

Similarly, in writing, you need to know your ground rules in order to break them, and change them as the story requires it.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you, and this may merit it's own detailed philosophical discussion in another thread, but setting that aside for a moment, what does this have to do with deliberately avoiding the most basic, broad-brush aspects of how you get from point A to point B in your sci-fi universe?

You'll get no argument from me. Just that this arguing over minutia, when the audience may or may not see it, makes little sense, where there are so many sources to draw from.

I don't see how naming the most important system on your ship and having a loose idea of how it works counts as minutia. Arguing about the phase polarity of the drive plasma would be minutia. Do your engines need line of sight with each other? That's minutia. Knowing what to call the fundamental drive system that you need to fix to escape the exploding star is NOT minutia. In fact, you're probably going to have a dedicated station either on the bridge or in engineering (or both) just to monitor your FTL system...

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

In fact, you're probably going to have a dedicated station either on the bridge or in engineering (or both) just to monitor your FTL system...

The first three Starship Troopers movies managed just fine without even once mentioning or showing the "Cherenkov Drive".

 

[Matthew Raymond]

The first three Starship Troopers movies managed just fine without even once mentioning or showing the "Cherenkov Drive".

Okay, screenshots from the first movie:

Granted, it's not consistent across movies, but that's kinda the point: figure this stuff out in advance and have everyone on the same page from the beginning.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Okay, screenshots from the first movie:

Granted, it's not consistent across movies, but that's kinda the point: figure this stuff out in advance and have everyone on the same page from the beginning.

Like I said then... the first three Starship Troopers movies managed just fine without even once mentioning or showing the "Cherenkov Drive".

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Like I said then... the first three Starship Troopers movies managed just fine without even once mentioning or showing the "Cherenkov Drive".

Doesn't matter. "Star Drive" still counts as naming the FTL system. It's even in the script.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Doesn't matter. "Star Drive" still counts as naming the FTL system. It's even in the script.

Irrelevant. "Star Drive" is as bland and generic description as "FTL System" is. Which would make it ideal for a rebranded fan production as per the OP.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Irrelevant. "Star Drive" is as bland and generic description as "FTL System" is. Which would make it ideal for a rebranded fan production as per the OP.

How is that irrelevant? My objection was to there being NO name, not to the name being too generic. (I said myself that I'd be fine with "FTL" if BSG hadn't already made it synonymous with "Jump Drive".) Generic names are fine so long as they adequately describe the technology in the context of the universe. For instance, if you call your FTL engines "hyper engines", then show the ship moving in front of a star field with little bits of space dust zipping by and occasionally bouncing off the ship, that name doesn't make sense because it implies moving through hyperspace instead of normal space.

 

[fireproof78]

Actually, I'm already working on ideas for a singularity as a power source, if that's what you're referring to. They're actually fairly tricky to manage. Very useful form a dramatic standpoint.

Yes, it is. You might enjoy the book then.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you, and this may merit it's own detailed philosophical discussion in another thread, but setting that aside for a moment, what does this have to do with deliberately avoiding the most basic, broad-brush aspects of how you get from point A to point B in your sci-fi universe?

You asked for clarification on my post. I gave it. I thought it was fairly simple.

I don't see how naming the most important system on your ship and having a loose idea of how it works counts as minutia. Arguing about the phase polarity of the drive plasma would be minutia. Do your engines need line of sight with each other? That's minutia. Knowing what to call the fundamental drive system that you need to fix to escape the exploding star is NOT minutia. In fact, you're probably going to have a dedicated station either on the bridge or in engineering (or both) just to monitor your FTL system...

Because I've listed alternatives for naming conventions and none seem to be answering the question that's being asked.

And, I just have an Engineering section. The Engines are monitored from the Navigation station.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

How is that irrelevant? My objection was to there being NO name, not to the name being too generic. (I said myself that I'd be fine with "FTL" if BSG hadn't already made it synonymous with "Jump Drive".) Generic names are fine so long as they adequately describe the technology in the context of the universe. For instance, if you call your FTL engines "hyper engines", then show the ship moving in front of a star field with little bits of space dust zipping by and occasionally bouncing off the ship, that name doesn't make sense because it implies moving through hyperspace instead of normal space.

It's irrelevant if it was in the script or not. If it wasn't spoken or mentioned then it counts as a "no name". That's why it was changed from movie to movie without a hitch. Generic names are important in the context of this discussion because they don't institute a trademark/copyright violation. Using the term "Star Drive" won't get a fan film sued. "Cherenkov Drive" could. And the "little bits of space dust zipping by bouncing off" really is minutiae.

 

[fireproof78]

When in doubt, name if after the fictional inventor-the Hawking Drive.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

It's irrelevant if it was in the script or not. If it wasn't spoken or mentioned then it counts as a "no name".

Pretty sure it was spoken, albeit once. Plus you have the visual display on the computer screen in the same scene.

That's why it was changed from movie to movie without a hitch.

The Starship Troopers movies aren't the best example to argue over. The live-action sequels, in particular, are significantly worse than the first, which in itself is a bit dumber than its source material, so the diehard sci-fi fans who paid attention to such details in the first movie probably just checked out for the rest of the movie franchise.

Generic names are important in the context of this discussion because they don't institute a trademark/copyright violation. Using the term "Star Drive" won't get a fan film sued.

Very true. It's just a matter of "star drive" not being my personal cup of tea, but everyone else is free to do whatever they want.

When in doubt, name if after the fictional inventor-the Hawking Drive.

You mean like "Alcubierre drive"? That's the one I may end up using...

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Pretty sure it was spoken, albeit once. Plus you have the visual display on the computer screen in the same scene. The Starship Troopers movies aren't the best example to argue over. The live-action sequels, in particular, are significantly worse than the first, which in itself is a bit dumber than its source material, so the diehard sci-fi fans who paid attention to such details in the first movie probably just checked out for the rest of the movie franchise.

Pretty sure it wasn't spoken and thus it was easily changed. But I agree that the Starship Troopers movies aren't the best example to argue over. Let's find something else to argue then!
For example you said that...

Expanse doesn't have FTL at all. Perhaps you were thinking of the Epstein Drive, which is mentioned prominently in the series, along with its inventor. Oh look, it's the only drive on the ship and we know its name!

A) I never claimed The Expanse ships have FTL capability. I was discussing means of propulsion in general.

B) In reality, the "Epstein Drive" is never spoken by any character or mentioned (prominently or inconspicuously) in 22 of The Expanse's 23 episodes. It is only prominently shown/mentioned in only one episode where we get to see Solomon Epstein, the fictional inventor, and thus it's (the only time it is) essential to the plot. The Epstein drive isn't mentioned by any character in any other episode exactly because it isn't needed. It is secondary and trivial to the storyline.


Which brings us to the fictional inventor name. I wonder if a Star Trek-like fan production could get away with the "Cochrane Drive" without The Wrath Of CBS/P?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Back to ship design for a sec, Best of Trek had some fantastic pseudo-Star Trek art on their covers.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

A) I never claimed The Expanse ships have FTL capability. I was discussing means of propulsion in general.

My initial argument was that you needed separate terms for sublight and FTL to differentiate between them. Expanse doesn't need to do that because they have a single sublight drive system. The fact that the drive is eventually names was just icing on the cake.

Back to ship design for a sec, Best of Trek had some fantastic pseudo-Star Trek art on their covers.

The cover of Best of Trek #13 is begging to be redone in Space Engineers.

 

[fireproof78]

Still not sure what's wrong with "sublight" and "FTL" drives, respectively.

Or, if an alien species gave it to humanity, call it after them.