Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Even TOS had its examples. Generally interstellar travel was presumed to take a fair amount of time, but in "That Which Survives" you had the Enterprise make a journey of nearly a thousand light years in about 12 hours, which would allow getting from Earth to Alpha Centauri in 3-4 minutes. Though that's nothing compared to ST V, where a trip to the center of the galaxy was stated to take about 8 hours, although it took only 20-odd minutes of screen time with no breaks in the narrative.
Another egregious example I found when I did my TOS Star Trek Timeline is at the very end of "Arena": The Enterprise plots a course 500 parsecs back to Cestus III at warp factor one. Presumably Kirk ordered a speed increase after this, as at warp factor one, it would take the Enterprise 1,630 years to travel 500 parsecs (1 parsec = 3.26 light years). Even at warp eight (512 times the speed of light, according to The Making of Star Trek), it would take 3.18 years for the Enterprise to get back to its original location. Warp nine (729 times the speed of light) would be 2.23 years.
This is why I don't generally concern myself with warp speeds or math in general when watching Star Trek. I'm just looking to be entertained, not have all of the make believe science check out.
My head canon is, as on our planet, how Vonnegut once said something like "everyone wants to build, but nobody likes to maintain". So, it would stand to reason that, even though money isn't an issue, the time and energy it would take to upgrade all the little things, such as P.A.D.D.s is too great so it's never done. But there's always time and personnel for ship building, etc.
Also, maybe the Starfleet feels not upgrading in certain areas doesn't leave them vulnerable to sabotage because those things are so outdated who'd care enough to bother?
There should be realism within the rules of the universe the series or franchise is set in. Suspension of disbelief is very, very subjective, but if a story follows the rules established within the overall narrative of the universe the show is in (or even just within the same episode), you can usually have fun with it.
Tuvok called it the 'dictates of poetics' in "WORST CASE SCENARIO".
What do you mean "newfound?" Star Trek was one of the first SFTV shows to make any attempt at realism. Gene Roddenberry consulted with scientists and engineers and think tanks and tried to build the most credible future he could (allowing for budget-mandated poetic license such as humanoid aliens and Earth-parallel planets). He cared so much about character realism that he devoted the first three pages of the season 2 TOS writers' bible to a lecture about making sure the characters were written as believably as present-day people in realistic situations. If anything, you have it backward -- later Trek producers have rarely cared as much about realism as Roddenberry did.
Rather, it's called willing suspension of disbelief. It's not something the audience is required to do; it's something the storytellers have to earn by making the story feel convincing enough that the audience chooses to play along.
And the reason it's called suspension is because it's temporary. Even if we choose to suspend disbelief while we're enjoying the story, we're entitled to engage disbelief again afterward and critique the story's problems. So the fewer problems a story has, the less reason it gives us to go "Wait a minute, that shouldn't..." after the fact, the better.
What do you mean "newfound?" Star Trek was one of the first SFTV shows to make any attempt at realism. Gene Roddenberry consulted with scientists and engineers and think tanks and tried to build the most credible future he could (allowing for budget-mandated poetic license such as humanoid aliens and Earth-parallel planets). He cared so much about character realism that he devoted the first three pages of the season 2 TOS writers' bible to a lecture about making sure the characters were written as believably as present-day people in realistic situations. If anything, you have it backward -- later Trek producers have rarely cared as much about realism as Roddenberry did.
That's one of the aspects of Gene Roddenberry that I do appreciate.
His dedication towards realism, as much as you can get away with.
Now if we can only have space battles that aren't within spitting distance of each other and truly BVR (Beyond Visual Range) like the TNG Tech Manual states that all the major ships are capable of =D.
I know filming could be challenging, but it could set a new precedence for more realistic Trek Battles.
Babylon 5 showed what it could look like having realistic BVR Space battles with the "Battle of Gorash VII"
Now if we can only have space battles that aren't within spitting distance of each other and truly BVR (Beyond Visual Range) like the TNG Tech Manual states that all the major ships are capable of =D.
I've always found it ironic that TOS space battles were more realistic than later ones because of the limitations of the FX technology, because they almost never had two ships in the same frame, reflecting the realistic distances between them.
In TNG, the dialogue often stated the ships were thousands of kilometers apart even though the visuals showed them in naked-eye range just a few ship lengths apart. It drove home that what we were seeing was more symbolic than literal.
I've always found it ironic that TOS space battles were more realistic than later ones because of the limitations of the FX technology, because they almost never had two ships in the same frame, reflecting the realistic distances between them.
In TNG, the dialogue often stated the ships were thousands of kilometers apart even though the visuals showed them in naked-eye range just a few ship lengths apart. It drove home that what we were seeing was more symbolic than literal.
What was described isn't what was scene on screen.
They were able to do this way back then, around DS9 era.
The Expanse has shown plenty of BVR battles and what BVR space battles should look like:
What's Star Trek's excuse other than the VFX directors wanting it to "Look Cool" and resemble Star Wars with epic WW2 style battles when that level of range is the least realistic for their technology level.
The Atmosphere on the USS Enterprise-D was bright & cheery.
It doesn't need to be a "Grim Dark" atmosphere.
Space however, unless you're near a Star System, Planet, or Vibrant Nebula, should be darker.
Given the range of Phasers & Torpedoes, the STL battles should be measured in ranges of light-seconds on the outter edges of BVR battle.
Smaller Vessels / Fighters / Attack Drones should get closer to negate the advantages of bigger ships longer range with their higher manueverability and ability to dodge while delivering credible damage.
That kind of artistic license is nothing new. A lot of SF/fantasy visuals don't reflect reality -- for instance, energy beams in vacuum would be invisible, and explosions would not be roiling fireballs but more like quick spherical bursts of gas and debris. (Early Babylon 5 got that part right, but over time they made concessions to convention and added flame effects to the explosions.) And then you have TOS's Enterprise orbit shots where the ship visibly curves on its path around the planet, which would require the planet to be really tiny.
Heck, sometimes there are unrealistic visuals in mainstream fiction, like in driving scenes where they remove the rear-view mirror so it doesn't hide the actors' faces from the camera, or where the city-street scenery out the windows goes by at constant speed with no stopping for traffic lights.
What's Star Trek's excuse other than the VFX directors wanting it to "Look Cool" and resemble Star Wars with epic WW2 style battles when that level of range is the least realistic for their technology level.
Well, it really started with The Wrath of Khan, and that was going more for an Age of Sail naval battle crossed with a submarine movie, while Star Wars was going for aerial dogfights instead.
These days, the dominant aesthetic in action scenes seems to be just piling on as much stuff as possible. There's no space in space scenes anymore -- battle fleets are packed as close together as rush-hour freeway traffic.
A ship doesn't look nearly as threatening when it's out of visual range.
Imagine an episode where there's a catastrophic weapon/attack en route, unbeknownst to our crew, and we go back and forth between our heroes in ignorant bliss and the attackers watching and waiting.
Which makes sense; the ships aren't just bopping around looking for something interesting, they're being sent places on missions, and it stands to reason you'd want to send the closest ship to whatever crisis, and you'd want to have a lot of ships out there so none of them were particularly far from everything else. The trouble is these galaxy-trotting adventures where ships don't just go from A to B, but B to C to D to E to A again. And for some reason, they keep putting in specific time-markers even when they aren't necessary (ST09 and STID being particularly egregious, where lines seemed to exist only so we couldn't interpret that hours or even days took place between scenes while the ship was in transit).
The one that really bothers me is LDS referring to a twelve-hour trip as a "long-haul warp," letting everybody have a day off. Half the crew would be off-shift and/or asleep anyway, that's not even a full day. And they don't have multi-planet missions very often, or chronologically continuous seasons from episode to episode, if there was any of the shows that could just imply, yes, it takes time to get places, and a lot of the crews days are spent at warp, it'd be that one.
Given the range of Phasers & Torpedoes, the STL battles should be measured in ranges of light-seconds on the outter edges of BVR battle.
Smaller Vessels / Fighters / Attack Drones should get closer to negate the advantages of bigger ships longer range with their higher manueverability and ability to dodge while delivering credible damage.
The end result is more staring at screens (for both the characters and the audience); I can forgive good old-fashioned space dogfights. I'm sure the studio bean counters will love all this extra realism, however.
That kind of artistic license is nothing new. A lot of SF/fantasy visuals don't reflect reality -- for instance, energy beams in vacuum would be invisible, and explosions would not be roiling fireballs but more like quick spherical bursts of gas and debris. (Early Babylon 5 got that part right, but over time they made concessions to convention and added flame effects to the explosions.) And then you have TOS's Enterprise orbit shots where the ship visibly curves on its path around the planet, which would require the planet to be really tiny.
Heck, sometimes there are unrealistic visuals in mainstream fiction, like in driving scenes where they remove the rear-view mirror so it doesn't hide the actors' faces from the camera, or where the city-street scenery out the windows goes by at constant speed with no stopping for traffic lights.
But early B5 got it right along with "The Expanse". I'm hoping for a trend towards pushing for more realistic distances.
Hell even SRW (Super Robot Wars) Video Game Franchise has historically had it's battles where you rarely have the two combatants in the same frame short of some Super Robots flying up to do a melee attack and then backing up to it's original position.
That was far more realistic.
Well, it really started with The Wrath of Khan, and that was going more for an Age of Sail naval battle crossed with a submarine movie, while Star Wars was going for aerial dogfights instead.
This isn't the age of Sail where everybody is within literal spitting distance.
But that's what they want to show, because "Rule of Cool" Visual Effects.
These days, the dominant aesthetic in action scenes seems to be just piling on as much stuff as possible. There's no space in space scenes anymore -- battle fleets are packed as close together as rush-hour freeway traffic.
I completely, whole heartedly agree with you.
That's part of the problem with Hollywood, they favor Aesthetics over more "Realistic Portrayals" of Space Combat.
I honestly have no problem with "More Stuff on the Battle Field", that part is fine. If you saw how chaotic the "Battle of Midway" was IRL, imagine that, times 10-100x with more attack drones & fighters in the sky.
The Distances that they're fighting at though, remember at the end of DISCO S2 with Control vs Discovery & USS Enterprise?
They were within Baseball chucking range of each other.
I could get in a space suit, throw a baseball, and hit the hull of the enemy ships.
That's WAY too close!!!
The volume of stuff is never the real issue, I expect that level of drone and fighter saturation in the combat space, but the distances need to be MUCH greater. Especially with phasers able to travel at the speed of light according to the TNG tech manual. Distances measured in Light Seconds.
They only recently got phaser speeds correctly portrayed in ST:Picard Season 3 with the fleet battles.
And that trend only started in ST:Lower Decks.
A ship doesn't look nearly as threatening when it's out of visual range.
Imagine an episode where there's a catastrophic weapon/attack en route, unbeknownst to our crew, and we go back and forth between our heroes in ignorant bliss and the attackers watching and waiting.
The shadows managed to be VERY SCARY when we first saw them in "The Battle of Gorash VII", see above.
The Expanse managed to make their enemies bad-ass and threatening.
It's a matter of how you cut the shots together.
Here's a famous battle from the famouse Space Opera series "Crest of the Stars" turned into Anime form.
Crest of the Stars has a similar concept for FTL, but they travel through a alternate dimension called Planar Space where everything is 2D in nature but needs a special 3D-bubble to allow your vessel to exist.
Destruction of that Planar Bubble will literally kill everybody inside, so it's critical to maintain the Planar Bubble that allows FTL travel in the Universe for "Crest of the Stars".
That's their version of Hyper-Space.
=============================
For Star Trek:
The only time you should be so close that you are Face to Face in WVR battle is if you're having a "Running Battle" at FTL and need to merge Warp Bubbles or match Quantum Slip Stream paths or Transwarp Corridors and be near each other to use Beam Weaponry for Star Trek.
Torpedoes can cross vast distances and merge in and out of warp bubbles.
Long Range FTL battles would largely render Beam Weaponry Useless when they're far away.
The end result is more staring at screens (for both the characters and the audience); I can forgive good old-fashioned space dogfights. I'm sure the studio bean counters will love all this extra realism, however.
But early B5 got it right along with "The Expanse". I'm hoping for a trend towards pushing for more realistic distances.
Hell even SRW (Super Robot Wars) Video Game Franchise has historically had it's battles where you rarely have the two combatants in the same frame short of some Super Robots flying up to do a melee attack and then backing up to it's original position.
That was far more realistic.
This isn't the age of Sail where everybody is within literal spitting distance.
But that's what they want to show, because "Rule of Cool" Visual Effects.
I completely, whole heartedly agree with you.
That's part of the problem with Hollywood, they favor Aesthetics over more "Realistic Portrayals" of Space Combat.
I honestly have no problem with "More Stuff on the Battle Field", that part is fine. If you saw how chaotic the "Battle of Midway" was IRL, imagine that, times 10-100x with more attack drones & fighters in the sky.
The Distances that they're fighting at though, remember at the end of DISCO S2 with Control vs Discovery & USS Enterprise?
They were within Baseball chucking range of each other.
I could get in a space suit, throw a baseball, and hit the hull of the enemy ships.
That's WAY too close!!!
The volume of stuff is never the real issue, I expect that level of drone and fighter saturation in the combat space, but the distances need to be MUCH greater. Especially with phasers able to travel at the speed of light according to the TNG tech manual. Distances measured in Light Seconds.
They only recently got phaser speeds correctly portrayed in ST:Picard Season 3 with the fleet battles.
And that trend only started in ST:Lower Decks.
The shadows managed to be VERY SCARY when we first saw them in "The Battle of Gorash VII", see above.
The Expanse managed to make their enemies bad-ass and threatening.
It's a matter of how you cut the shots together.
Here's a famous battle from the famouse Space Opera series "Crest of the Stars" turned into Anime form.
Crest of the Stars has a similar concept for FTL, but they travel through a alternate dimension called Planar Space where everything is 2D in nature but needs a special 3D-bubble to allow your vessel to exist.
Destruction of that Planar Bubble will literally kill everybody inside, so it's critical to maintain the Planar Bubble that allows FTL travel in the Universe for "Crest of the Stars".
That's their version of Hyper-Space.
=============================
For Star Trek:
The only time you should be so close that you are Face to Face in WVR battle is if you're having a "Running Battle" at FTL and need to merge Warp Bubbles or match Quantum Slip Stream paths or Transwarp Corridors and be near each other to use Beam Weaponry for Star Trek.
Torpedoes can cross vast distances and merge in and out of warp bubbles.
Long Range FTL battles would largely render Beam Weaponry Useless when they're far away.
Studio Bean Counters should be happy that it saves "Render Time" with more Jump Cuts and easier on the rendering timeline / budget.
Not having all the ships together in one scene makes rendering that much easier.
The anime scene reminds me an awful lot of the Andromeda space battles.
Very rarely you'd see the Andromeda straf a Neitzschean fleet but for the most part battles were depicted on radar screens with drones for close combat, point defence turrets picking off missiles fired from long distances, and shots back and forth between individual shots of each ship but they wouldn't be within the same shot on screen
.
