What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It’s nice to have a reason (same with the Kelvinverse bridge), but it still seems like a weird tactical weak spot, given that (a) viewscreens give just as good visibility and (b) a hole in the screen means a hole right into space. (That said, I love the 32nd-century thing of the screen also being an instant spacesuit-derezzer, even if that also means it’s a forcefield instead of a physical screen, which makes it even more dangerous if power goes down. Well, maybe if it’s programmable matter it just freezes in place.)

That's why I never understood the need for placing the bridge on top like a Maritime Ship out on the sea in current day.

We have Camera's & Sensors, bury the Bridge near the center of the vessel, where your "Main Computer" should be.

This way you make it harder to take out the Bridge and it's easier to armor it on all sides.

It also makes latency in communication with the Main Computer MUCH shorter since you would be physically near by.

And we all know that latency in Computer Communications is a problem that should be solved.

There are additional benefits in moving the Bridge near-by into the Saucer section, near the Main Computer.

That shorter Communications distance makes it cheaper/simpler to armor the direct communications link/conduit to the Main Computer Room that distributes all the Fiber-Optic Cables to all the rest of the vessel.

This way, in a battle or crisis situation, it's near impossible to sever the link between the bridge and the main computer.

 

[fireproof78]

The Strange New World bridge set is, in my opinion, the best bridge we've had since the Refit Enterprise. It's bright, it's colourful, and it's functional. I also absolutely love the Bridge window. At last, an actual reason for the bridge to be at the top of the Saucer!

The window is a prime addition in my opinion.

 

[BillJ]

No love for the Voyager bridge?

First woman to lead a Trek series, and they give her a ship named after a minivan, then ripped out the center captain’s chair, for two identical chairs then put her on the passenger side.

Uh, no. Sorry, got carried away there.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Where I come from, the passenger side is the drivers side.

 

[BillJ]

Where I come from, the passenger side is the drivers side.

Yeah, I know some nations do it differently than we do. Considering it is an American show made for American audiences, the lay out always bothered me.

 

[XCV330]

It’s nice to have a reason (same with the Kelvinverse bridge), but it still seems like a weird tactical weak spot, given that (a) viewscreens give just as good visibility and (b) a hole in the screen means a hole right into space. (That said, I love the 32nd-century thing of the screen also being an instant spacesuit-derezzer, even if that also means it’s a forcefield instead of a physical screen, which makes it even more dangerous if power goes down. Well, maybe if it’s programmable matter it just freezes in place.)

I would just like them to be consistent with that kind of thing.. So having the window, or the bubble dome, etc for an exposed bridge implies a high level of confidence in the materials (or the forefields).. but when writers want to go for the cheap feels, they can have the screen start to crack like an egg when the ship is in distress. But that's just more nitpicking like exploding computer consoles, rocks in the ceiling, lack of safety harnesses, lack of safety features during battlestations (people in shirtsleeves getting sucked out of corridors into vacuum.. really? where's the forcefield spacesuits from TAS?)

 

[BillJ]

It’s nice to have a reason (same with the Kelvinverse bridge), but it still seems like a weird tactical weak spot, given that (a) viewscreens give just as good visibility and (b) a hole in the screen means a hole right into space. (That said, I love the 32nd-century thing of the screen also being an instant spacesuit-derezzer, even if that also means it’s a forcefield instead of a physical screen, which makes it even more dangerous if power goes down. Well, maybe if it’s programmable matter it just freezes in place.)

I guarantee you’ve put more thought into this than the writers ever did.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Yeah, I know some nations do it differently than we do. Considering it is an American show made for American audiences, the lay out always bothered me.

Nah, it’s interesting. I was thinking before you posted that I quite like the captain’s chair being decentralized, but when you put it as you do… I doubt it was intentional but Berman+the 1990s leaves room for doubt.

Now seen, it cannot be unseen.

 

[korblborp]

i think the "bridge is too big" thing started with the E. and then you have the Scimitar's two full levels and only having like 4 stations plus shinzon's chair...

abramsverse bridges were where it really started getting bad. the kelvin and jjprise bridges weren't bad, except the giant windows. but then we had the franklin, a tiny ship (esp. for abramsverse, but then it does predate the divergence) with a shuttlebay-sized bridge with a mix of klingon and go'auld aesthetics, and four stations plus captain's chair...

and then it kept going, to turning them into dark voids for some reason (with regular gouts of flame in times of distress)...

 

[korblborp]

It’s nice to have a reason (same with the Kelvinverse bridge), but it still seems like a weird tactical weak spot, given that (a) viewscreens give just as good visibility and (b) a hole in the screen means a hole right into space. (That said, I love the 32nd-century thing of the screen also being an instant spacesuit-derezzer, even if that also means it’s a forcefield instead of a physical screen, which makes it even more dangerous if power goes down. Well, maybe if it’s programmable matter it just freezes in place.)

if the viewport is an emergency backup, with slideaway shields, i would like it more. i think the jjprise even kind of has some infrastructure around it, like tracks, that supports this. of course, then it's never shown.

 

[BillJ]

I think if your shields are down, whether it be a wall or window, you’re going to have a bad day if a torpedo or phaser hits in your general area.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

While the bridge window is structurally stupid (without referencing technology that in the here and now is fictional), it is supported by a much larger conceit: that there is something to see. The ships are probably many times farther away than they appear. At least one episode, Matter of Honor, bears this out. But we humans want a cool action picture, not points of light across a vast, dark expanse. Even friendly ships would not get close to one another. Knowing this undermines the credibility of scenes that I love. So of the conceit is that I can see a whole battle in space in detail in my field of view, why not have a window?!

 

[BillJ]

While the bridge window is structurally stupid (without referencing technology that in the here and now is fictional), it is supported by a much larger conceit: that there is something to see.

May also feed a human psychological need to see outside.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The viewscreen window HUD combo on the Kelvin bridge in STXI was da bomb.

 

[HotRod]

I think if your shields are down, whether it be a wall or window, you’re going to have a bad day if a torpedo or phaser hits in your general area.

Yeah, we saw this in Nemesis with the Enterprise-E. Having a viewscreen instead of a window didn't help that poor bastard that got blown into space.

 

[korblborp]

really, we should see things like the tactical mode form TWOK more often

 

[CorporalCaptain]

really, we should see things like the tactical mode form TWOK more often

You mean in the Kobayashi Maru simulation? Yeah, they hit a homerun there, at least for being visually interesting in a film.

 

[137th Gebirg]

I think if your shields are down, whether it be a wall or window, you’re going to have a bad day if a torpedo or phaser hits in your general area.

Yeah, we saw this in Nemesis with the Enterprise-E. Having a viewscreen instead of a window didn't help that poor bastard that got blown into space.

Indeed - whether a wall is made out of transparent aluminum or duranium/tritanium, it won't stop a focused energy weapon or antimatter-laced projectile attack.

 

[fireproof78]

I think if your shields are down, whether it be a wall or window, you’re going to have a bad day if a torpedo or phaser hits in your general area.

TUC demonstrated that quite effectively, as well as ST 09. The torpedoes bust through the hull, window or no window. If the shields are gone it's a bad day.

I don't see anything tactically unsound about it if the bridge is on top of the ship.

But we humans want a cool action picture, not points of light across a vast, dark expanse.

I'll remember that the next time I'm stargazing at the points of light across a dark expanse and tell myself "you want something cool."

 

[HotRod]

I think the "Smart Windows" that we've seen with almost every ship since the Kelvin are the best of both worlds. They have the ability to act exactly like a standard viewscreen, while also potentially being useful in situations where a normal viewscreen isn't functional.

Hell, even Picard season 3 had the crew ordered to look out the windows and watch for the enemy.

Anything is better than the holographic viewscreen from First Contact.