• 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!

What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

The Bordens. WWI era PM Borden is on the 100$ (brown) bill. King is on the (red) 50$. Elizabeth (soon Charles) is on the (green) 20$ and all coins. Macdonald was on the (purple) 10$ bill but has been replaced by Viola Desmond. Laurier is on the (blue) 5$ (smallest bill denomination). Far enough back and the monarch was the face of multiple, perhaps all, bills (old Canadian currency is not among my specializations in history).

In Quebec it’s far more customary to refer to the bill colour than the name. Can’t speak to the rest of the country on this point (in my 40 years here, I’ve lived 36 of them in Quebec).
Thank you for all that! I knew King had been on one of the bigger denominations, but with the frequency at which the Bank of Canada has changed the bills in recent decades I wondered if King was still on one of the notes. I heard about Macdonald being replaced by Canada's own Rosa Parks, so that's very cool!

I think Terry Fox is also slated to go on a Canadian banknote?
 
That would be more time per page of script than any movies get. No studio in their right mind would okay a budget that overblown.
Then what's the usual ratio for 'Minutes of Content' to 'Filming Time' ratio?

I know TNG's schedule was grueling because they had 1 week to film 45 minutes before passing the plates off to Editing & working with the VFX team who should've been operating in parallel to some degree while filming was occurring before the Editing & Compositing step happened the week after.
 
Then what's the usual ratio for 'Minutes of Content' to 'Filming Time' ratio?
It really depends on the type of production and how deep the studio’s pockets are.

Pitch Perfect had 22 shooting days.
Anora had 40.
The Motion Picture went on for seven months.
Superman took nearly a year.
Cleopatra was 11 months, Spartacus about a year, Ben-Hur was 8 months.

A typical average I’ve heard on bigger productions is you’re lucky to make a page a day. Mid-range films that don’t have intensive action or special effects typically get a couple of months for filming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
Then what's the usual ratio for 'Minutes of Content' to 'Filming Time' ratio?

I know TNG's schedule was grueling because they had 1 week to film 45 minutes before passing the plates off to Editing & working with the VFX team who should've been operating in parallel to some degree while filming was occurring before the Editing & Compositing step happened the week after.
I believe Sonequa Martin Green, who was a producer for two seasons, has said a ten episode season takes five months, with the actors on set 10-11 days per episode, secondary filming going a day or two longer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
Opinion: Regarding Trek fandom, there’s little I find so irksome or hypocritical as when someone posts a mediocre fanvid that boils down to either fighting Klingons or a starship beauty shot with swelling music, and the comments are all “Amazing that a video like this captures the true spirit of Star Trek, unlike that crap that Secret Hideout/Paramount/anybody else feeds us!”
 
Here is a controversial opinion. Wesley Crusher was not that bad of a character. His most annoying moments come in season 1 before the show really found itself. He has been the lead in several episodes I like, though two of them I do have to admit happened after he was no longer a series regular.
 
It really depends on the type of production and how deep the studio’s pockets are.

Pitch Perfect had 22 shooting days.
Anora had 40.
The Motion Picture went on for seven months.
Superman took nearly a year.
Cleopatra was 11 months, Spartacus about a year, Ben-Hur was 8 months.

A typical average I’ve heard on bigger productions is you’re lucky to make a page a day. Mid-range films that don’t have intensive action or special effects typically get a couple of months for filming.
That's a giant band of time relative to the amount of minutes of actual content.
 
I know TNG's schedule was grueling because they had 1 week to film 45 minutes before passing the plates off to Editing & working with the VFX team who should've been operating in parallel to some degree while filming was occurring before the Editing & Compositing step happened the week after.

The current stuff is about 10-14 days of shooting for about 40 minutes of screen time. If prior Trek could shoot anywhere from 43 to 51 minutes of content in seven days, current Trek should be fine with a 10-14 day window.
 
Did someone mention the M-5?

Let's look at the Antares, versus the Enterprise.

The Antares had a crew of twenty.

Attached various points along TOS, various crew sizes were mentioned - 203, 428, 430...why?

The Antares is described as a transport, a survey ship, and a science probe...

The Constitution is described as a space cruiser, a heavy cruiser, and an exploration and research vessel.

Why?

Simple automation should be able to do most jobs. Smart automation, would be able to handle far more. Defining 'smart' as able to make use of sensor data to modify programmed behavior.

Larry Niven, anticipated a set circumstances where smart systems would fail in some unanticipated ways (A Gift From Earth)

So, a level of true Artificial Intelligence is required.

Problem: not the M-5, but Nomad. As is: where did a Nomad type Artificial Intelligence fail?

Answer: it didn't. It just wasn't fast enough to run at the speed required.

Why?

In a moment of time, far, far briefer, than a straight up Nomad could handle, and therefore far simpler in its independent logic, was now permitted. Speed equals simplicity. Smaller required database.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kkt
Simple automation should be able to do most jobs.

While I'm not Amish, I don't believe in automation taking over everything. To paraphrase Kirk, "People need to do certain things to remain people". I know I butchered that, I'm sorry.

People have to have things to engage them, and we aren't a one-size fits all in that department.
 
While I'm not Amish, I don't believe in automation taking over everything. To paraphrase Kirk, "People need to do certain things to remain people". I know I butchered that, I'm sorry.

People have to have things to engage them, and we aren't a one-size fits all in that department.
Were also not meant for paradise... Or something.
 
Here is a controversial opinion. Wesley Crusher was not that bad of a character. His most annoying moments come in season 1 before the show really found itself. He has been the lead in several episodes I like, though two of them I do have to admit happened after he was no longer a series regular.
If they had made him three years older and a Starfleet cadet on his first training cruise, I think there would have been nearly zero complaints, they don't need to change anything about his backstory - but it's obvious he was largely there to remind the audience "hey! families and civilians on this crazy ship!"
 
Well he was kind of a self-insert for Roddenberry as well though I doubt he was like Wesley when he was a kid. I think maybe Wesley is who he wanted to be as a kid.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top