How far is Vulcan?
- Thread starter xvicente
- Start date
That's a total joke.
By that logic the Model T was the peak of automotive engineering.
In it's time there was nothing competing against it.
Nor did the average viewer have near as much access to information as they do now.
The show's a classic, and people let details slide because of the era it was made in.
Which is the whole point of why later show's fell apart.
A failure to update and increase value of the product.
And that's why it's some novelty show that will be forgotten quite soon.
When you have a successful product you can get caught in the trap of it's successful so why do we need to change it. And tastes do change over time, but change should be made for the sake of change. Change the receipe and it could lead to negative feedback as people prefered the old taste.
Technical fictional details were not the downfall of Star Trek. By the time of Enterprise they were putting in more technical fictional details (like at least attempting to keep the ship's speed and distance traveled relatively consistant with the old Warp Factor cubed system).
The downfall was that after 18 years (start TNG 1987 to end ENT 2005), the writers were recycling plots and the audiance wasn't as interested anymore. At the end, the plots started to shift outside the recycled plots, but the audiance was gone already.
The downfall was that after 18 years (start TNG 1987 to end ENT 2005), the writers were recycling plots and the audiance wasn't as interested anymore. At the end, the plots started to shift outside the recycled plots, but the audiance was gone already.
No. Enterprise was not cancelled because millions of viewers turned it off in outrage because the freakin' travel times were inconsistent. Only a tiny minority of geeky fans like us would even notice or care about such a thing. And many other genre shows and films have succeeded with even more inept science or internal logic, as in the other examples people have been citing. Most people don't watch TV for the travel times or technicalities. They watch for stories about characters and relationships and emotions and conflicts and challenges. If they don't find those things satisfying, then all the technical accuracy in the world won't help a show.
A technicality here...
Those four days weren't defined to be "just". For all we know, Scotty was apologizing to Spock that with all the work needed to repair the ship after her last ordeal, four days was the best he could do, in contrast to the more usual half a day of travel.
Timo Saloniemi
Those four days weren't defined to be "just". For all we know, Scotty was apologizing to Spock that with all the work needed to repair the ship after her last ordeal, four days was the best he could do, in contrast to the more usual half a day of travel.
Timo Saloniemi
I think I raised that point in the same post, actually!
I'd much prefer a half day journey to Vulcan though - Warp 23 anyone?
I'd much prefer a half day journey to Vulcan though - Warp 23 anyone?
True, you have to for lack of a better term an emotional investment in the characters. As for technical accuracy, I think the more you are enjoying something the more forgiving you are when it comes to inconsistancies, the less you are enjoying it the more you can pick up on those inconsistancies. Thank being said however I think the characters need to be written in a consistant matter within how they are developed.
Because millions upon millions of people said, ``Sure I like this show's characters and stories and dialogue and music and the building action is great, but the writers clearly have no concept of how celestial mechanics works! Ditch this sucker of a show!'', is why?
Maybe Sulu meant one day and six hours?
It's like, super far. So you need to be super fast.
Yes. Or in the vernacular of my people, it's a purty fair piece down the road.
Speeds in the later Trek films seem to be significantly faster than those in 1 and 2: In those first films, it took several days to complete journeys. In ST3, what had been a 2 day journey to Regular One (adjacent to the Genesis planet) seems to take place overnight, and in a patched up ship no less! The 4 day / 1.5 hour journey to Vulcan has already been mentioned upthread, I think
By ST5 it is again a matter of hours to travel anywhere. In ST6 it could have taken days to reach Gorkon I suppose, but then we have Kirk claiming that they are a thousand light years from starfleet command. Hyperbole? Maybe...
By ST5 it is again a matter of hours to travel anywhere. In ST6 it could have taken days to reach Gorkon I suppose, but then we have Kirk claiming that they are a thousand light years from starfleet command. Hyperbole? Maybe...
A little something I made awhile ago, showing how insanely inconsistent Trek speeds are.
^Well, that graphic of UFP, Romulan, and Federation space is very, very outdated. They're nowhere near that huge. They pretty much all fit into that yellow dot in the middle.
Also, why does everyone assume the galactic rim in "Where No Man" was the outermost edge of the disk? Space is 3-dimensional! You can move perpendicular to the disk too. And the nearest face of the disk is no more than 1000 light years away, about 25 times closer than the rim. (Or 75 times closer, given recent evidence that the galactic disk is actually 1.5 times as wide as we thought.)
Also, why does everyone assume the galactic rim in "Where No Man" was the outermost edge of the disk? Space is 3-dimensional! You can move perpendicular to the disk too. And the nearest face of the disk is no more than 1000 light years away, about 25 times closer than the rim. (Or 75 times closer, given recent evidence that the galactic disk is actually 1.5 times as wide as we thought.)
Rim, by definition, does not mean just any face or border.
Now, if we were discussing border or edge, there'd be a bit more leeway in usage. To be honest, I can't remember the actual dialog. Perhaps rim isn't the word used.
The word "rim" does not occur in "Where No Man Has Gone Before." They only describe their location as galaxy "edge."
The problem comes from "By Any Other Name." Rojan describes the location of the energy barrier as being at the "rim" of the galaxy, and Kirk admits that they've been there. There are many ways to resolve the issue, including:
- It's the same place, on the outer circumference of the disk.
- It's a big barrier; Kirk meant the barrier, not the rim.
- Kirk was referring to another time besides "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (I don't buy this at all).
- Rim didn't mean outer circumference of the disk (could be, but hardly my preference).
- Squint, like we have to do for a lot of things.
The problem comes from "By Any Other Name." Rojan describes the location of the energy barrier as being at the "rim" of the galaxy, and Kirk admits that they've been there. There are many ways to resolve the issue, including:
- It's the same place, on the outer circumference of the disk.
- It's a big barrier; Kirk meant the barrier, not the rim.
- Kirk was referring to another time besides "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (I don't buy this at all).
- Rim didn't mean outer circumference of the disk (could be, but hardly my preference).
- Squint, like we have to do for a lot of things.
They call it the rim in "By Any Other Name", therefore it's the rim.
Similar threads
