Fixing the Films (JJ edition).

[Campe]

Two wrongs don't make a right! Bounty was far smaller and lighter than Enterprise of course, and used hydrogen thrusters to take off and land from what I recall.

Care to share where it's actually stated that the Bounty used hydrogen thrusters?

Would it really ultimately matter the size of a starship relatively to using impulse or thrusters within the atmosphere?

Would it make a difference to warp drive?

Probably not.

I come from a background of role-playing games where you have actual magic but you play within a defined set of rules. I suppose writers forgetting, reinventing, and expanding the rules beyond my expectations grates against that background.

Do you understand the idea of being indistinguishable from magic? If I took my iPad back, hell, even 100 years, and I showed them video on this small device, they would be wowed. If I took it back 500 years, they might think it was magic. The point being that we don't know how impulse or warp drive really work and if there are safeties in place to avoid damage to a planet's atmosphere.

Or as Chemahkuu states, it's simply for the sake of the plot. Yes, there is onscreen evidence to support the idea of warp drive not being used in the solar system, or in the atmosphere of a planet. Impulse too. But there is onscreen evidence support both of those being done even before Into Darkness. Maybe the warp drive in the solar system was just because of the Enterprise in TMP having brand new, untested engines? Maybe the discussion about impulse engines not being used in "The Circle" are only for Bajoran engines? And yeah, on the same argument, maybe Klingon warp engines have something that Federation warp engines don't that makes it safe to be used in atmosphere? BUT that's the only reference to that happening. Impulse in an atmosphere seems to happen a lot.

Again, all because tech of the 23rd and 24th centuries could be ultimately considered indistinguishable from magic from the eyes of a 21st century person.

 

[BillJ]

The Enterprise struggling to climb out of Earth's atmosphere in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was freaking cool.

+1

 

[Kemaiku]

The Enterprise struggling to climb out of Earth's atmosphere in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" was freaking cool.

+1

Yes, the Enterprise trapped by Earth itself, that was a novel idea and genuinely engaging at the time because for a short while we didn't know if she would manage.

In Into Darkness, we already know she can, and from her ascension to the spacedock in the first movie and relatively simple landing in the ocean, we know she can do even better in this new form.

TOS was a prime example of plot/drama before science, moreso than any of what has followed. Don't blame the rest of Star Trek for it's trend setting forebarer.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was a prime example of plot/drama before science, moreso than any of what has followed. Don't blame the rest of Star Trek for it's trend setting forebarer.

I wish the rest of it had more closely followed its trendsetting forbearer.

 

[Campe]

+1

 

[Kemaiku]

TOS was a prime example of plot/drama before science, moreso than any of what has followed. Don't blame the rest of Star Trek for it's trend setting forebarer.

I wish the rest of it had more closely followed its trendsetting forbearer.

It has tried to, at times. But it always tends to fall pretty short. I think the new films are gradually finding that balance again and with Beyond they might well have it pinned down.

But giving Trek such a hard time for being action and adventure while not paying attention to trivia is silly, TOS was all about that from the the first to the last episode. And had it got all five years, or Phase II it would have been the same.

 

[Pauln6]

Would it really ultimately matter the size of a starship relatively to using impulse or thrusters within the atmosphere?

Would it make a difference to warp drive?

Probably not.

Impulse in an atmosphere seems to happen a lot.

Again, all because tech of the 23rd and 24th centuries could be ultimately considered indistinguishable from magic from the eyes of a 21st century person.

Energy requirements would be the same but presumably the writers picked hydrogen because it is abundant and non-polluting. Plasma, I assume, is dangerous due to its great heat, and polluting. But either way you are right. When you look at the thrust required to get a rocket-shaped space shuttle off the ground, ships the shape and size of Enterprise don't really have any place in a planetary atmosphere and the tone of TOS lent support to that notion. Planetary landings are for shuttles! I just prefer the idea of the ship being built in space and living out its useful life in space. That's cooler to me as a concept. Others may think it's cooler for the Enterprise to rocket through the lower atmosphere shooting phasers and photon torpedoes at enemy vessels. That's not my preference for Trek.

I don't have an issue with magical technology in itself but it's a Pandora's box. I prefer it when the limits of the tech are more specific and clearer even if the actual capabilities still appear magical. So wide angle phaser beams are fine but why don't officers use them more often? Have them or don't but if you think it's more exciting to shoot one villain at a time don't have them and ignore them for no logical reason.

 

[BillJ]

Energy requirements would be the same but presumably the writers picked hydrogen because it is abundant and non-polluting. Plasma, I assume, is dangerous due to its great heat, and polluting. But either way you are right. When you look at the thrust required to get a rocket-shaped space shuttle off the ground, ships the shape and size of Enterprise don't really have any place in a planetary atmosphere and the tone of TOS lent support to that notion. Planetary landings are for shuttles! I just prefer the idea of the ship being built in space and living out its useful life in space. That's cooler to me as a concept. Others may think it's cooler for the Enterprise to rocket through the lower atmosphere shooting phasers and photon torpedoes at enemy vessels. That's not my preference for Trek.

Problem being, you have this society that has mastered manipulating matter and gravity. It is probably smarter and safer to build a starship on the ground then lift it into orbit instead of having hundreds of people operating in the vacuum of space.

I don't have an issue with magical technology in itself but it's a Pandora's box. I prefer it when the limits of the tech are more specific and clearer even if the actual capabilities still appear magical. So wide angle phaser beams are fine but why don't officers use them more often? Have them or don't but if you think it's more exciting to shoot one villain at a time don't have them and ignore them for no logical reason.

I want them to do what is best for an entertaining story. I can work the inconsistencies out in my head. That is one of the things I love about Star Trek.

 

[Kemaiku]

The Enterprise has always done exactly what the script has told her, not science, not reason, not logic for nearly 50 years.

Holding one aspect and one iteration of the ship to a higher standard than the other over totally imaginary "rules" is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Ithekro]

We held onto those notions for over 40 years that a starship should not fly in the atmosphere, unless it was Voyager, who still had a hard time of it. But the Pandora's box had been opened a long time ago...we just didn't put two and two together because we and the writers keep thinking in terms of rocket science.

Warp Drive is not rocket science.

A Starship uses its warp power and impulse systems to lower the ships mass via a subspace field. This mass reduction allows it to push the massive starships with ease using small thrusters. Translate this to an atmosphere and you have virtual antigravity. As long as the warp power is available and the shields or structural integrity field can keep the atmospheric friction from burning up the ship, or the winds from stressing the hull, the ship should be able to travel anyplace within its power limitations. If you can fly into a gas giant's clouds (or warp into Titan's atmosphere), a starship can withstand the pressure of water at less than a kilometer deep.

 

[Kemaiku]

We held onto those notions...

Fans really need to accept that headcanon does not mean a thing. I could have "held the notion" that every third door on the Enterprise led into a room filled with nothing but ice cream dispensers. What does that matter to the person writing the script?

 

[Campe]

We held onto those notions...

Fans really need to accept that headcanon does not mean a thing. I could have "held the notion" that every third door on the Enterprise led into a room filled with nothing but ice cream dispensers. What does that matter to the person writing the script?

Geez, if that was the case either we'd have a really fat crew, gravity (and calorie) defying ice cream or a lot of will against such things. Regardless, I want to serve on that ship!

 

[Kemaiku]

I truely believe, that some day we will see my vision of a crew of severely sugar addicted starfleet officers on a ship lost deep in the beta quadrant, slowly eating themselves to death.

 

[Pauln6]

The Enterprise has always done exactly what the script has told her, not science, not reason, not logic for nearly 50 years.

Holding one aspect and one iteration of the ship to a higher standard than the other over totally imaginary "rules" is utterly pointless and a waste of time.

True and the nitpickers' guides are hilarious. But all these threads are 'utterly pointless and a waste of time'. People invite opinions and a dozen other people rip them to shreds. If we stop playing the game we'd have to get girlfriends and jobs and stuff instead.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'm not a big fan of 'The Cage' and 'The Menagerie'. I think I've seen and read too much science fiction which advocates for the exact opposite sentiment - including Generations.

Plus, there's unfortunate implications all over the place. You're physically disabled and ugly! You might as well literally do nothing but daydream away for the rest of your life! Coz it's not like you could ever be happy or find ways to contribute to the world, nooooo....


And it kind of is a zoo. A zoo in the same way that animal preserves are a zoo. Pike is going to spend the rest of his existence in an artificial environment, that he can never leave, and is completely controlled by others in order to 'help' him. Which is...whatever in the context (he did choose it after all), but it's understandable why some people in the audience are leery of it.

I don't like that Pike died. But then again, I don't like it when any likable character dies. He does have some bragging rights though. 'It took Khan Noonien Singh in a gunship to take me down!' Better than falling down a gorge whilst trying to find a remote (check the cushions!) at any rate.

And he died with his surrogate son, ever in love with him and saddened at his passing, cradling him in his arms. That's better than being a burn-faced mute with no arms or legs in a wheelchair, 'living' with illusions. And people say that the Holodeck is bad...

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

 

[dswynne1]

Of course the starbase has transporters and a receiving pad isn't necessary for successful transport - the logic of the scene is tenuous but the flip side is that the ship isn't ready to leave yet anyway so no harm in a self-indulgent inspection. The scene does drag on (even if you fast forward it, it feels long) but I love the ship almost as much as Kirk so I will let it have a pass.

My objection to the Enterprise underwater scene and the (almost) crash scene later is more that it represents another step towards more magical technology. The massive ship can defy gravity with ease and without any kind of energy backwash. The more magical the technology, the more contrived the peril has to be to put the characters under pressure. The 'humanity' of the characters is what makes it exciting. Modern era action movies are falling into similar traps with their ludicrous CGI stunts. If i see another hero casually walking away from a massive explosion behind them, I may just scream.

Objection! Clearly, the witness is not being imaginative enough.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If i see another hero casually walking away from a massive explosion behind them, I may just scream.

How about non-walking and non-massive?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

If i see another hero casually walking away from a massive explosion behind them, I may just scream.

Damn you, Abrams!

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Awesome!

 

[Pauln6]

If i see another hero casually walking away from a massive explosion behind them, I may just scream.

Damn you, Abrams!

Ha ha - the Joker explosion is the worst. The stupidest thing about that is that his henchmen had to put enough explosives in the hospital in the first place - I mean Jesus were they going backwards and forwards for a week? How bad is hospital security in Gotham? They must have disguised themselves as Sunny & Sweet delivery boys.