What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

This is absolute nonsense. Every. Single. Production has protection bond insurance in case lead actors are hurt or pass away during production.

Pro Wrestling is VERY different, it's production style along with financing is different.

The Show "Must Go On", regardless if any talent is gone via injury/death.
And Yes, Wrestlers have died.
Production doesn't stop, period, every week, non-stop.

It can be just as bad to a narrative tv show as to a live wrestling show if an actor is suddenly hospitalized midway through filming and can't complete the scenes that were shot. If that happens to your series lead, you'll have to take a very expensive production shutdown until such time they're available again, or you roll the dice and see if a rewrite without them is possible (as with Oliver Reed in Gladiator).

Imagine what would happen if you lose 3x of your Lead Actors in 6 months time, all on seperate days?
And you have to film new shows every week.
Pro Wrestling is a completely different beast.

In streaming series, it's not as bad to production schedules. But, if you're a network show with a full 22-episode order? Taking any downtime during the season is the kiss of death.

Luckily most of TV production has moved to the era of Streaming, so having down time isn't nearly as bad as a full committment to a traditional TV series like in the old days of broadcast TV.

Streaming Shows gets done when it's done.

 

[korblborp]

there's a reason why we don't make battleships anymore. an antiship missile (that gets past CWIS, of course) can do more damage more precisely than all 9 16-inch guns on an Iowa, and the armored belt can't protect
that's not even getting to the nuclear ones.

and if i recall the math and descriptions i read on atomic rockets correctly, amongst other places, having more and thicker armor is *worse* for defending against super high velocity kinetic strikes, because you have more mass to dump energy into and convert to a kaboom, or something.

see how in the expanse, for example, projectiles whizz through whole ships, even the big dedicated battleships, maing small patchable holes rather than big unpatchable ones. heck, the big ships even have the bridge/CIC suspended in a big giant room to reduce the chances of it being holed, rather than armoring it up.

plus all the extra mass would affect maneuvering and fuel usage and such. yes, those things even effect star trek ships that use space distortions to move, and then they have to maneuver on thrusters smetimes anyway.

 

[BK613]

Even the ReFit connie isn't all that well armored IMO.

23rd Century StarFleet depended more on shielding than on a good mix of Armor & Shields.

StarFleet went head first into shields and forgot about Armor R&D for a while during that time frame.

24th centuries examples exist as well (the Borg slicing up the E-D like a roast in Q Who comes immediately to mind.) What good is armor anyway in an era where transporters exit?

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

there's a reason why we don't make battleships anymore. an antiship missile (that gets past CWIS, of course) can do more damage more precisely than all 9 16-inch guns on an Iowa, and the armored belt can't protect
that's not even getting to the nuclear ones.

But during that time, modern metallurgy slowed down compared to offense that was increasing.

IRL, Offense & Defense Tech increase at different rates.

The Steel of WW1 & WW2 era is nothing compared to what we have now.

Spoiler: Hydraulic Press Channel - Old VS Modern Armor

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

500 Ton Hydraulic Press shows you the difference of WW2 era Steel vs modern AR500 Armor + Titanium Armor.

This isn't even counting modern defense like Composite Armor (Chobham Armor) and the various things we pack in to defend against modern threats.

and if i recall the math and descriptions i read on atomic rockets correctly, amongst other places, having more and thicker armor is *worse* for defending against super high velocity kinetic strikes, because you have more mass to dump energy into and convert to a kaboom, or something.

Defense Technology, Doctrine, & Design has evolved with our understanding of new Offensive Weapons vs Defensive Tech.

It's always a Technological Arms Race that is never ending.

see how in the expanse, for example, projectiles whizz through whole ships, even the big dedicated battleships, maing small patchable holes rather than big unpatchable ones. heck, the big ships even have the bridge/CIC suspended in a big giant room to reduce the chances of it being holed, rather than armoring it up.

plus all the extra mass would affect maneuvering and fuel usage and such. yes, those things even effect star trek ships that use space distortions to move, and then they have to maneuver on thrusters smetimes anyway.

But "The Expanse" are bound more by Hard Science and doesn't have the tech that Star Trek has in their World Setting.
So there are limitations that they can't get away from that Star Trek easily hand waves away.

 

[CoveTom]

Scripted TV actually has a bit more luxury and leeway compared to what Pro Wrestling Storylines have to deal with and how dynamic things can change.

Er... Pro Wrestling *is* scripted TV.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

24th centuries examples exist as well (the Borg slicing up the E-D like a roast in Q Who comes immediately to mind.) What good is armor anyway in an era where transporters exit?

Near the end of the 24th Century, they still went back to R&D more Armor and have added it to their ships on top of existing Shields.

It's not Armor or Shields, it's Armor & Shields.

What gives you maximum survivability.

That's the route they decided to go.

Er... Pro Wrestling *is* scripted TV.

You know what I mean, traditional Scripted TV that is filmed in a short time frame and then edited & broadcast or released.

Where as Pro Wrestling is a Mobile Show that is released on a weekly cadence, LIVE!

 

[CoveTom]

You know what I mean...

In this thread, I have very rarely known what you mean...

All I know is that the Trek you are describing sounds very boring to me. And I like Star Trek: The Motion Picture. To each his own, though. Everyone is entitled to like what they like.

I do find it interesting, though, that you have gotten upset with TOS fans "gatekeeping" because you haven't watched TOS, but you seem to do the same thing in reverse to those who prefer the "classic" Trek and aren't interested in the current shows.

 

[korblborp]

a small cube, especially from a source known to be somewhat inconsistent in quality (or simply having the hardened face wrong way around, potentially), to getting squished slowly is not the same as a railgun strike or a giant shaped charge or a nuclear blast. or M/AM detonation, for that matter.

you'll notice we don't put chobham or ERA on surface warships, either. or titanium or ar500, for that matter.

But "The Expanse" are bound more by Hard Science and doesn't have the tech that Star Trek has in their World Setting.
So there are limitations that they can't get away from that Star Trek easily hand waves away.

but... your whole approach in this thread is about what is more "logical" and "realistic", and throwing away the conventions of Star Trek! that means leaning on hard sci more or else there isn't really a point?

 

[HotRod]

StarFleet went head first into shields and forgot about Armor R&D for a while during that time frame.

Probably because they realized that when you're throwing anti-matter warheads at each other, at fractions of the speed of light, there's not really much that any Armour can do to protect you.

You seem obsessed with realism in Star Trek, right? The most realistic thing Trek did was to create fictional technology to get around the real life science of what we actually do understand about the universe. Warp Drive, Transporters, Energy Shields, etc.

 

[Turtletrekker]

How many more laps is this race going to run?

 

[korblborp]

about thirty more

 

[CoveTom]

My controversial Trek opinion is that this thread deserves the full duration in the agony booth. Or perhaps at this point it is the full duration in the agony booth.

 

[Firebird]

about thirty more

It wouldn't be a Trek thread without it hitting 47.

 

[CoveTom]

It wouldn't be a Trek thread without it hitting 47.

47 is not a realistic enough number. Continuing to reference it just because TNG started that "tradition" is not logical. We need a good, modernized number with a 12 page mathematical proof to demonstrate why it is a proper number.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

a small cube, especially from a source known to be somewhat inconsistent in quality (or simply having the hardened face wrong way around, potentially), to getting squished slowly is not the same as a railgun strike or a giant shaped charge or a nuclear blast. or M/AM detonation, for that matter.

The point is that in the span of 80 years, armor technology could've greatly changed
The same applies to StarFleet & the UFP.

you'll notice we don't put chobham or ERA on surface warships, either. or titanium or ar500, for that matter.

Surface WarShip doctrine has completely changed, they care more about intercepting the incoming projectile than adding armor.

It's more about Stealth, Point Defense, Offensive Projection.
The Defense Onion Model is the modern Multi-Layered defense strategy that the West has Adopted.

I'm just taking that logic to the next extreme in my Head Canon since StarFleet/UFP wouldn't really be financially limited.
Only Imagination limited.

but... your whole approach in this thread is about what is more "logical" and "realistic", and throwing away the conventions of Star Trek! that means leaning on hard sci more or else there isn't really a point?

Yes, being Logical & Realistic, while still being within the Technological Lore of ST.
If some tech already exists, I'll use it for what I can get out of it.

e.g. I'm going to use the Spore Drive in my 26th Century Head Canon.
Despite how some people feel about it, I have no issues using it with proper in universe lore restrictions based on what we've seen & spoken about it.
Same with using other forms of advanced FTL beyond the standard Warp Drive:
- Quantum Slip Stream
- Transwarp Conduit Generators
- Transwarp Drives
- Co-Axial Warp Drives
- etc.

Just because a technology that exists in the past, doesn't mean I won't use it in my Head Cannon.
In fact, every previous technology will get used properly & revisited in my 26th Century Head Canon.

Every Teleportation Device from:
- Transporters
- Inverter
- Spatial Trajector
- TransLocator
- etc
All will get revisited.

Probably because they realized that when you're throwing anti-matter warheads at each other, at fractions of the speed of light, there's not really much that any Armour can do to protect you.

You seem obsessed with realism in Star Trek, right? The most realistic thing Trek did was to create fictional technology to get around the real life science of what we actually do understand about the universe. Warp Drive, Transporters, Energy Shields, etc.

And none of the "Existing Technology" would go away in my Head Canon, in fact the opposite will happen.
I will incorporate ALL Previous Existing Tech and add in a few new ones on top of that.

While maintaining as much realism as possible.

So you don't have to worry about anything that Current Trek has going missing if that's your main concern.

 

[fireproof78]

there are limitations that they can't get away from that Star Trek easily hand waves away.

Exactly.

It's ok for it to be unrealistic. TOS laid that groundwork. Android copies, mind swaps, literal Lucifer devil, parallel development of cultures reflecting Earth history literally, curing sadness with mind wipe, among others.

The foundation is in the weird. The ship design is meant to evoke something very different than sci-fi of the day as something technologically advanced yet capable.

If there is a desire for more realistic understanding the purpose behind the design language is essential. Otherwise, might as well make one's own world.

 

[cooleddie74]

The real windows are the ones we install on our computers along the way.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Exactly.

It's ok for it to be unrealistic. TOS laid that groundwork. Android copies, mind swaps, literal Lucifer devil, parallel development of cultures reflecting Earth history literally, curing sadness with mind wipe, among others.

I have no issues with those scenarios either.

The foundation is in the weird. The ship design is meant to evoke something very different than sci-fi of the day as something technologically advanced yet capable.

If there is a desire for more realistic understanding the purpose behind the design language is essential. Otherwise, might as well make one's own world.

I don't want to make my own world, I want to play within the Trek World.

That's the difference, I want to play & contribute into Trek.
I'll add to the existing lore & refine what exists.
Yes, ALL of it, nothing that currently exists will go away, so you don't have to worry about it.

The real windows are the ones we install on our computers along the way.

And what's your favorite Windows OS version?

 

[fireproof78]

That's the difference, I want to play & contribute into Trek.
I'll add to the existing lore & refine what exists.
Yes, ALL of it, nothing that currently exists will go away, so you don't have to worry about it.

I don't worry about things I have no control over.

If you play in the Trek world there are rules and conventions to recognize. A change and the statement "just because has never gone over well with this audience since TMP.

 

[korblborp]

Yes, being Logical & Realistic, while still being within the Technological Lore of ST.
If some tech already exists, I'll use it for what I can get out of it.

but you're not, you're insisting on reaching for hypothetical hyperstrength, hyperlight, materials that somehow will be the equal of the shields (or better), without hindering the performance of a ship.

i know armor tech and metallurgy have changed a lot and could still change. but within the technological lore of star trek, shields effectively are the armor, and point defense to a degree. plus, thek can be moved around somewhat and even come back, provided the generators and projectors aren't knocked out.

ablative armor just... goes away. and even if you keep replicating more on, that is another power drain, plus eventually your ship will just be surrounded by a cloud of hot gas that is now dumping the heat back into it.