Another Ridiculous Point in STV:TFF

[T'Girl]

Perhaps "the center of the galaxy" is a metaphorical expression for the axis mundi, the spiritual center of the universe around which all the temporal world revolves, the still-point between time and eternity.

If you were to refer to "the center of the United States," to most people that wouldn't be a exact pinpoint just outside Lebanon, Kansas. It would be a general area.

For our heroes, traveling to the center of the galaxy might be just traveling towards the core.

Plus, there are pieces of dialog that would seem to indicate that when Kirk and others speak of "the galaxy," they're not talking about the entirety of the Milky Way, but something else, something smaller.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I don't mind out-of-date science, but sometimes less explanation is better. "Heisenberg compensator" tells us all we need to know; if they tried to explain how it worked, it would be clear that it couldn't possibly work. That's one of my big problems with Asimov's later FOUNDATION novels: he tries to explain psychohistory in great detail, and the more pages he devotes to explaining its nuances, the less believeable it becomes.

...Agreed! I don't know why writers feel compelled to "explain" their fantasy, other than for padding their stories - in prose, teleplays, whatever. You are absolutely right, it's enough for us to know what the thing does and to see it work (or not) is all that really matters. I don't know who they might be catering to, other than fanboys with that stuff, anyway ...

 

[Christopher]

Plus, there are pieces of dialog that would seem to indicate that when Kirk and others speak of "the galaxy," they're not talking about the entirety of the Milky Way, but something else, something smaller.

That's an interesting notion I hadn't considered before. Could you specify which pieces of dialogue you mean?

...Agreed! I don't know why writers feel compelled to "explain" their fantasy, other than for padding their stories - in prose, teleplays, whatever. You are absolutely right, it's enough for us to know what the thing does and to see it work (or not) is all that really matters. I don't know who they might be catering to, other than fanboys with that stuff, anyway ...

There are a lot of SF fans out there, myself included, who like explanations. We like science and we want our SF to be actual science fiction, not just fantasy. There is a whole, thriving subgenre of hard science fiction in which the explanations are a major draw to the audience, an audience that's stimulated by thinking about science and enjoys the mental exercise of contemplating how things work. Don't assume your own personal tastes are the only ones that exist or have any legitimacy.

 

[T'Girl]

That's an interesting notion I hadn't considered before. Could you specify which pieces of dialogue you mean?

Captain's log, supplement. We have beamed back to the Enterprise and immediately set out in pursuit of the alien vessel. It appears to be headed toward a largely unexplored section of the galaxy.

Referring to the Gorn starship. While "explored space" was ill-defined during TOS, would not the vast majority of the Milky Way still be considered unexplored? Kirk using "galaxy" might refer to a smaller bubble of knowledge surrounding the Federation, and not the galaxy in whole.

Captain's Log, stardate 1709.2. Patrolling outposts guarding the neutral zone between planets Romulus and Remus and the rest of the galaxy ...

Later the Earth outpost stations are referred to as a line. It is possible that the initial intent was that the neutral zone completely encloses Romulan space. But the graphic we're shown seem to be more of a wavy line, or a wall on space.

So, not so much the Romulan are isolated from the entire galaxy, just isolated from the galaxy that is Earth/the Federation.

KIRK: I swear that's a little orange blossom thrown in. It's unbelievable. Growth exactly like that of Earth on a planet half a galaxy away.

Again, things were ill-defined in TOS, but it is unlikely even then that the intent was that Kirk was fifty odd thousand light years away from Earth.

You could put it down to Kirk employing sloppy language, I suppose.

 

[Christopher]

Those are kind of a stretch. It boils down to most TV writers having no comprehension of the true scale of the galaxy. It's not as bad as the original Battlestar Galactica traversing multiple galaxies at sublight speeds in just over a year of story time, but TOS's writers definitely tended to treat the galaxy as a much smaller place -- or starships as much, much faster -- than the later shows have done. TFF is part of the same problem.

To be fair, though, part of what makes it difficult for writers is that there aren't really any good scale subdivisions between a single star system and a galaxy of several hundred billion star systems. Sure, the galaxy has arms, but those are just clumps of nebulae and star-formation regions within the stellar disk, and can't really be treated as separate "continents" the way some writers have tried to do in the past. So a lot of people may grasp that a galaxy is the next larger grouping beyond a star system, but not realize just how immensely larger it is, at least where our galaxy is concerned as opposed to one of the numerous dwarf galaxies that orbit it. The ratio of scale between the Milky Way galaxy and a single star system is not like the relationship between a state and a city or between a continent and a country -- more like a continent and a Post-It note. (At least if you define a star system based on its planetary disk or magnetosphere size. Take the entire Oort cloud into account and it goes from a Post-It note to a small city.)

The modern shows helped subdivide the galaxy a little by introducing the four-quadrant scheme, though that hardly makes a difference since it's still on the same order of magnitude compared to a single star system. But the original show didn't have such a scheme worked out, tossing words like "sector" and "quadrant" around without clear or consistent definitions.

 

[Hober Mallow]

There are a lot of SF fans out there, myself included, who like explanations. We like science and we want our SF to be actual science fiction, not just fantasy.

Oh, I'm right there with you. But even in science fiction, sometimes less explanation is better. "2001" the movie, in which very little is actually explained, is much better than "2001" the book, in which Clarke goes to great lengths to explain everything.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Don't assume your own personal tastes are the only ones that exist or have any legitimacy.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There's a difference between a comic book world and "lazy, nonsensical". And I think you're under selling the thought that goes into other TV shows and movies.

What thought? The basic drive of any sci-fi TV series or movie is to entertain. It is not necessarily hard science--particularly sci-fi TV/movies of the past 30 years, where spectacle took center stage.

The way they fail to use their technology properly (and the many ways that technology has been surpassed today).

Properly? You mean tech like transporters, warp drive, phasers, time travel, etc.? Tech man will never develop? Yeah--you cannot judge that which has as much chance of being real at anytime as the time travelling DeLorean from Back to the Future.

Ultimately, it is all a fantastic fiction, usually to get characters from point A to point B. Anything else, and you are watching a documantary, not science fiction. By the way, none of the above tech has been surpassed today. Oh, and don't get me started on the error-filled comparison between a cell phone and TOS communicators, as the latter did not need towers, satellites, etc. in order for a surface to orbiting vessel contact....and no drop outs simply because you drive around a freaking mountain.

Aliens being basically human with forehead bumps or weird colouring make it virtually impossible to take them seriously as life from another world.

Unless you have encountered an alien species, you are in no position to challenge the makeup. No one knows how life would look from another planet, so it is all acceptable conjecture in fantasy.

A complete reboot could make Trek vaguely realistic again, but right now it's on the level of comic book movies, with way too much to overlook to make it anything more. For every scientifically sound concept there are a dozen which are pure fairy tale (including many from thee earliest episodes. It's far from the fault of "later creators")

Please. Berman and his cronies created much that is just as implausible (the Borg, anyone?) as your criticism of older work, and let's not start on the JJ disasters, which are almost as scientifically sound as The Transformers.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There's a difference between a comic book world and "lazy, nonsensical". And I think you're under selling the thought that goes into other TV shows and movies.

What thought? The basic drive of any sci-fi TV series or movie is to entertain. It is not necessarily hard science--particularly sci-fi TV/movies of the past 30 years, where spectacle took center stage.

No argument here. I'm not saying it should be realistic, I'm just pointing out that it isn't.

The way they fail to use their technology properly (and the many ways that technology has been surpassed today).

Properly? You mean tech like transporters, warp drive, phasers, time travel, etc.? Tech man will never develop? Yeah--you cannot judge that which has as much chance of being real at anytime as the time travelling DeLorean from Back to the Future.

Yes I can. Time and again they fail to consistently use their technology based upon what we have already seen. Another illness episode? Someone horribly injured? We know the transporter is a cure-all, yet they never think of it. Shields about to fail? What about that 300% boost mod from "The Nth Degree"? Voyager's journey will take a lifetime? The other end of DS9's wormhole is 70 years away? TOS had Kelvan superwarp (not to mention the time/distance ratios of regular warp in TOS, TAS and the movies making it a month's journey, tops)

Ultimately, it is all a fantastic fiction, usually to get characters from point A to point B. Anything else, and you are watching a documantary, not science fiction. By the way, none of the above tech has been surpassed today. Oh, and don't get me started on the error-filled comparison between a cell phone and TOS communicators, as the latter did not need towers, satellites, etc. in order for a surface to orbiting vessel contact....and no drop outs simply because you drive around a freaking mountain.

Try basic stuff like a communicator that can text message, or access the ship's computer banks. Remember "Miri", where they had to beam down a special bulky blinking box to do just the latter?

Aliens being basically human with forehead bumps or weird colouring make it virtually impossible to take them seriously as life from another world.

Unless you have encountered an alien species, you are in no position to challenge the makeup. No one knows how life would look from another planet, so it is all acceptable conjecture in fantasy.

Fantasy, yes. Realistic extrapolations of aliens? No.

A complete reboot could make Trek vaguely realistic again, but right now it's on the level of comic book movies, with way too much to overlook to make it anything more. For every scientifically sound concept there are a dozen which are pure fairy tale (including many from thee earliest episodes. It's far from the fault of "later creators")

Please. Berman and his cronies created much that is just as implausible (the Borg, anyone?) as your criticism of older work, and let's not start on the JJ disasters, which are almost as scientifically sound as The Transformers.

Who's talking about Berman and Abrams? They merrily continue the comic book fantasy world established in TOS, where the transporter can split a man (or dog) into good and evil halves or we beam into an evil mirror universe.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing (I love it!), I'm just saying it's as much hard science fiction as the Marvel movie universe is. Even Christopher's novels, which go to such lengths to explain the workings of the Trekverse in a plausible way, share a universe with New Frontier, where a planet turned out to be an egg which hatched a giant space bird which could fly at warp 9.

 

[Christopher]

Oh, I'm right there with you. But even in science fiction, sometimes less explanation is better. "2001" the movie, in which very little is actually explained, is much better than "2001" the book, in which Clarke goes to great lengths to explain everything.

I disagree entirely. I like the book much better than the movie. The only reason the movie made any sense to me at all is that I read the book first.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Nobody ever seems to make much of a fuss over Caitlin Dar, it seems like. Granted, she's just along for the ride, in this adventure. But her fresh-fraced, almost idealistic optomism is, for a Romulan, surprising and - dare I say it - interesting. Where is this coming from? Perhaps, she was raised outside of the Empire. I find it very hard to believe she could've gotten even this far up the ranks, if she were truly so peace-loving. Although, sending someone like that off to parts unknown would make sense, regardless. But, oh well, she found love, at least - she's got Talbot taking showers, combing his hair and looking his best for her - AND she had her Secret Pain relieved and alleviated, thanks to Spock's brother! For somebody who's just tagging along, she cleaned up, pretty good, this outing ...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Yes I can. Time and again they fail to consistently use their technology based upon what we have already seen. Another illness episode? Someone horribly injured? We know the transporter is a cure-all, yet they never think of it.

No, the transporter is not a cure-all across every series, otherwise, in "Operation: Annihilate!" someone would have suggested using the transporter in some attempt to "restore" him to his pattern before the parasite attack, or in TAS' "Albatross," the shipboard virus would have lasted no more than the minutes required to get the crew to transporter room(s) to...you know the rest.

You are arguing about inconsistency, rather than a so-called "comic book" type of writing.

Shields about to fail? What about that 300% boost mod from "The Nth Degree"? Voyager's journey will take a lifetime? The other end of DS9's wormhole is 70 years away? TOS had Kelvan superwarp (not to mention the time/distance ratios of regular warp in TOS, TAS and the movies making it a month's journey, tops)

Again, inconsistency, which is not a matter of content.

Try basic stuff like a communicator that can text message, or access the ship's computer banks. Remember "Miri", where they had to beam down a special bulky blinking box to do just the latter?

Again, the communicator does not require satellites, towers and the avoidance of large bodies in order to function, or reach a ship in orbit. No cellphone can do that now, and is unlikely to anytime soon.

Fantasy, yes. Realistic extrapolations of aliens? No.

How do you know? That is the point--you cannot know, as there is no real world guide to the appearance of alien life forms, so criticizing the make up is being nitpicky about an unknown.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing (I love it!), I'm just saying it's as much hard science fiction as the Marvel movie universe is.

Funny you should mention Marvel movies, as the armor of Iron Man has real world interest by the military, and has for decades, while Captain America--the recipient of a genetic engineering program--is exactly what geneticists, nutritionists, GPs and health advocates around the world are interested in exploring.

So, if you reference Marvel, beyond the costumes, there are some hard, real life science theories/applications to be found---which only helps ST in the comparison.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yes I can. Time and again they fail to consistently use their technology based upon what we have already seen. Another illness episode? Someone horribly injured? We know the transporter is a cure-all, yet they never think of it.

No, the transporter is not a cure-all across every series, otherwise, in "Operation: Annihilate!" someone would have suggested using the transporter in some attempt to "restore" him to his pattern before the parasite attack, or in TAS' "Albatross," the shipboard virus would have lasted no more than the minutes required to get the crew to transporter room(s) to...you know the rest.

You are arguing about inconsistency, rather than a so-called "comic book" type of writing.

Shields about to fail? What about that 300% boost mod from "The Nth Degree"? Voyager's journey will take a lifetime? The other end of DS9's wormhole is 70 years away? TOS had Kelvan superwarp (not to mention the time/distance ratios of regular warp in TOS, TAS and the movies making it a month's journey, tops)

Again, inconsistency, which is not a matter of content.



Again, the communicator does not require satellites, towers and the avoidance of large bodies in order to function, or reach a ship in orbit. No cellphone can do that now, and is unlikely to anytime soon.

Fantasy, yes. Realistic extrapolations of aliens? No.

How do you know? That is the point--you cannot know, as there is no real world guide to the appearance of alien life forms, so criticizing the make up is being nitpicky about an unknown.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing (I love it!), I'm just saying it's as much hard science fiction as the Marvel movie universe is.

Funny you should mention Marvel movies, as the armor of Iron Man has real world interest by the military, and has for decades, while Captain America--the recipient of a genetic engineering program--is exactly what geneticists, nutritionists, GPs and health advocates around the world are interested in exploring.

So, if you reference Marvel, beyond the costumes, there are some hard, real life science theories/applications to be found---which only helps ST in the comparison.

You're arguing that the Marvel universe is realistic too? I give up. If you need to believe it's all plausible and realistic, go right ahead. I just want to be entertained.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I hear that the US Air Force's Project Interdimensional Norse Gods, a.k.a. P.I.N.G., is about to pan out for real.

 

[trevanian]

Oh, I'm right there with you. But even in science fiction, sometimes less explanation is better. "2001" the movie, in which very little is actually explained, is much better than "2001" the book, in which Clarke goes to great lengths to explain everything.

I disagree entirely. I like the book much better than the movie. The only reason the movie made any sense to me at all is that I read the book first.

While I spent decades trying to forget the book in order to help me re-appreciate more freshly the movie (which I'd seen over 20 times in the theater by the late 80s.)

Not knocking the novel here; the chapter about the nature and evolution of extraterrestrials was fantastic. But it doesn't really inform with respect to the film (except perhaps in the HAL section), it kind of distracts instead.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You're arguing that the Marvel universe is realistic too? I give up. If you need to believe it's all plausible and realistic, go right ahead. I just want to be entertained.

Continue to avoiding what was posted: real world applications and/or research into what was once pure fantasy (genetic engineering, armor for the military, etc.) takes the would-be bite out of your use of "comic book" as a negative.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wasn't using "comic book" as a negative at all. It's merely the way I view Trek. I think it's the only way one can take in all of Trek at face value, without having to play censorship games with things done or said in myriad episodes and movies.

 

[Christopher]

^And calling it "silly" just because it isn't what you personally would do is condescending and rude. I find it a challenging creative exercise to make logical sense out of what we see in the Trek universe, and I'm surprised by how many times I've learned something about real science that made the Trek science considerably more plausible than I would've expected.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Edited. I'm not trying to offend, just give my viewpoint.

 

[GalaxyX]

You mean tech like transporters, warp drive, phasers, time travel, etc.? Tech man will never develop?

NOOOO!!! Blasphemy!!!

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq1rdnyE3Ko[/yt]