I liked the old warp of TNG-Ent better. It was original to Star Trek.
The new movie rips off Star Wars with the going to warp shot. The warp vortex just reminds me too much of Stargate. Big Bangs don't impress me. The movie was full of them. Even the Phasers went bang.
It's certainly good to get rid of the streaking stars, as that never made sense. It's the one change I like.
And when I saw the new beaming effect, I burst out laughing. Here's why.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as3JMPx4FIU
Its kinda unrealistic, I think. First of all you wouldn't be able to see much beyond the bubble of space you're in at warp - not visually anyway. Secondly even at FTL the stars wouldn't be going by that fast.It's certainly good to get rid of the streaking stars, as that never made sense. It's the one change I like.
Why is everyone so hard on the streaking stars? I quite like warp being portrayed with a simplistic look.
This may be a bit of a strawman, but I find the new beaming effect to be no less plausible than the silly "two columns of light" beaming effect from TWOK - TUC, or Ardra's spiral beaming effect from TNG.
Its kinda unrealistic, I think. First of all you wouldn't be able to see much beyond the bubble of space you're in at warp - not visually anyway. Secondly even at FTL the stars wouldn't be going by that fast.It's certainly good to get rid of the streaking stars, as that never made sense. It's the one change I like.
Why is everyone so hard on the streaking stars? I quite like warp being portrayed with a simplistic look.
With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does the warp effect really have all that much weight?Its kinda unrealistic, I think. First of all you wouldn't be able to see much beyond the bubble of space you're in at warp - not visually anyway. Secondly even at FTL the stars wouldn't be going by that fast.It's certainly good to get rid of the streaking stars, as that never made sense. It's the one change I like.
Why is everyone so hard on the streaking stars? I quite like warp being portrayed with a simplistic look.
Its kinda unrealistic, I think. First of all you wouldn't be able to see much beyond the bubble of space you're in at warp - not visually anyway. Secondly even at FTL the stars wouldn't be going by that fast.Why is everyone so hard on the streaking stars? I quite like warp being portrayed with a simplistic look.
It's actually very realistic. You can look beyond the bubble, as the bubble is simply made of a different kind of space - sub space. With sensors based upon the same subspace, hyper-dimensional principles you can bypass the limitation of the bubble. This, in fact, is a necessity. If you cannot do this, you cannot unmake your bubble and the warp that is pulling you onward at FTL speeds from within it either - once started, you can never stop. This, in fact, is a major hurtle for the real life warp drive theory, even if we have potential means to produce the warp, the only way to undo the warp would come from an outside source. You would thus need a receiving station where you're going, and needed to have gone there at Sublight speeds before you could go their at warp drive.
As for the streaking stars, we don't, of course, see actual stars streaking by. This is simply an illusion generated by the warped space time and the subspace sensors piercing of that warp.
The elongated streaking stars I like a lot.
With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does any[/i] warp effect really have all that much weight?
Its kinda unrealistic, I think. First of all you wouldn't be able to see much beyond the bubble of space you're in at warp - not visually anyway. Secondly even at FTL the stars wouldn't be going by that fast.
It's actually very realistic. You can look beyond the bubble, as the bubble is simply made of a different kind of space - sub space. With sensors based upon the same subspace, hyper-dimensional principles you can bypass the limitation of the bubble. This, in fact, is a necessity. If you cannot do this, you cannot unmake your bubble and the warp that is pulling you onward at FTL speeds from within it either - once started, you can never stop. This, in fact, is a major hurtle for the real life warp drive theory, even if we have potential means to produce the warp, the only way to undo the warp would come from an outside source. You would thus need a receiving station where you're going, and needed to have gone there at Sublight speeds before you could go their at warp drive.
As for the streaking stars, we don't, of course, see actual stars streaking by. This is simply an illusion generated by the warped space time and the subspace sensors piercing of that warp.
The elongated streaking stars I like a lot.
No offense, but how could any of that be realistic/unrealistic if:
1. Subspace thus far is a fictional invention
Which is where we get Star Trek, and position that this stuff CAN be used to go to warp, see beyond, and undo the warping effect.2. even if Trek-style subspace is the basis for many real scientific theories (and I don't doubt that one bit), as you said, we're nowhere near close to testing out these theories?
If it is heavily based in real science with a little conjecture thrown in, then it is realistic to me. Remember, realistic does not equal REAL. Those are two very different things. You can call a racing game various degrees of realistic, in different areas, or not. Yet, no matter how realistic the game, it is never real.There's the difference between conjecture and "realism" that just might get down to semantics.
Star Trek the movie doesn't have a single hint toward realism at all, it's Trek Wars, fantasy from beginning to end, with not a single effort toward realism whatsoever. The effects of warp are a ridiculous miss match of a few tiny bits Star Trek, and the rest Star Wars. The they don't have FTL sensors, except some rinky dink research station on a frozen planet that doen't even get proper rationing, making it very much like Star Wars; calculate destination, go to hyperspace and wait to drop out, and the going to warp effect is just Star Wars as well.With that said, I'll just slightly bolster up Disillusioned's post:
With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does any[/i] warp effect really have all that much weight?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.