• 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!

How long did it take the Narada to reach Earth?

EJA

Fleet Captain
Ok, the evidence from the film strongly suggests that the Enterprise's journey from Earth to Vulcan took no more than an hour or two (This issue has already been discussed elsewhere). Then, after destroying Vulcan, the Narada warps off towards Earth, but there is another big discrepancy here as it appears to take the Narada far longer to reach Earth than it did for the Enterprise to travel the same distance. Think about it: After the Narada warps off, Kirk is cast off on Delta Vega, the Enterprise warps off to the Laurentian sector, Kirk wanders around on Delta Vega for an indeterminate period of time before miraculously running into Spock Prime, who then explains to Kirk in detail how he has come to be there, then they travel to the Starfleet base and meet Scotty, beam across space to the Enterprise, which then reverses its course to go after Nero. I'm not sure precisely how long all this would take, but it would have to be significantly more than just one or two hours, and the Narada is still travelling in this time. Logically, by the time the Enterprise reached the Sol system, Nero would already have blown Earth away.
 
Logically, the journey from Earth to Vulcan took the Enterprise much longer than an hour - and then you have no problem.
 
Logically, the journey from Earth to Vulcan took the Enterprise much longer than an hour - and then you have no problem.

Well not only that. If you think about it, the film makes it look like it took less then an hour for the Enterprise to reach Vulcan at full warp from earth. So yes, you would have a point if the Narada went right from Vulcan back to Earth with no interruptions. However, Im sure it took time for them to repair the drill after Kirk and Sulu damaged it over Vulcan, and Im sure they had to wait for the slugs to do their thing to Pike, in order for him to give them Starfleet's defense codes.

As for the Enterprise, it probably took them a while longer to get back due to the fact that she could only hit about warp 4, at least according to the film, due to the damage to the nacelles and hill from the battle with the Narada over Vulcan.
 
I realise some people will probably disagree with me, but to me errors like this are one of the reasons why I reckon the new film ultimately fails. I do not deny that it is visually fantastic, but when one examines the logic behind a lot of what happens, it just falls apart, IMO far more so than with the majority of past Trek.
 
Umm, people, the Narada was a mining platform. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for her to be significantly slower than any other spacecraft featured in that movie?

Nothing in the plot would be jeopardized if the Narada moved, say, a hundred times slower than the Enterprise. Nero's ship was a juggernaut, not a speedboat. The one time we saw him trying to compete with another vessel in speed was when he was truly and well gone already, raving and ranting. And he didn't catch that vessel, Spock's hyperfast 24th century runner, much as we could surmise from the expressions on the faces of his crew already when he commanded the futile pursuit. Rather, Spock deliberately stopped and turned around, his intention all along having been to do a ramming attack on Nero (but preferably somewhere suitably far away from Earth, so that his half-home wouldn't be swallowed by the nasty side effects).

It actually surprised me on the third-or-so viewing that STXI holds together so much better than almost any other Trek movie in terms of plot logic. It has its whoppers and its exercises-left-for-the-audience, but it's not as bad as TMP (where our heroes rush to do something, then do nothing, and that's it), ST2 (where Khan acts all crazy and our heroes find it necessary to duel with him even though running away from him would be the smart choice), ST3 (the whole katra business, going back for Spock's body and going to Mount Seleya even when the parties involved lacked the pertinent facts), ST4 (our heroes, rather than a crazed villain, stumble through the illogic of time travel), ST5 (a rescue mission mounted by the only ship and crew incapable of it) or ST6 (a conspiracy aimed against itself, with silly schemes on phasers alarms and universal translators).

Timo Saloniemi
 
Nah, speed of plot. Logic isn't required here, it doesn't matter how fast ships go and what time it takes them to get from A to B. That can change within the movie, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it leads to another cool scene. If you do a 18th century movie about a Royal Navy ship, and the plot requires it to get from Cape Horn to Greenland in a day because they quickly need to get there and because on Greenland, the ship commander needs to have a personal confrontation with the villain, then so be it. And when they need to return to Cape Horn, because only there a sick crewmate can be treated, because of the drama, the journey takes several months again. Internal logic is the nasty enemy of a writer. It's much easier to ignore it.
 
Last edited:
Nah, speed of plot. Logic isn't required here, it doesn't matter how fast ships go and what time it takes them to get from A to B. That can change within the movie, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it leads to another cool scene. If you do a 18th century movie about a Royal Navy ship, and the plot requires it to get from Cape Horn to Greenland in a day because they quickly need to get there and because on Greenland, the ship commander needs to have a personal confrontation with the villain, then so be it. And when they need to return to Cape Horn, because only there a sick crewmate can be treated, because of the drama, the journey takes several months again. Internal logic is the nasty enemy of a writer. It's much easier to ignore it.

Internal logic makes a story much stronger IMO. The kind of story you outline is not how you write good fiction, and is ultimately damaging to the story.
 
How would this story be lacking in internal logic?

...there is another big discrepancy here as it appears to take the Narada far longer to reach Earth than it did for the Enterprise to travel the same distance.

Again, nothing requires the two ships to have the same top speed. And it's easy to believe the mining rig would be more sluggish than the warship. So why are we complaining?

Kirk thought they could catch Nero before he reached Earth. Spock thought they could go to the Laurentian system, contact the rest of the fleet, and then catch Nero. That's perfectly logical if Nero is flying a very slow ship. And the logic holds throughout the movie.

Timo Saloniemi
 
because stuff like this has happened ever since the early days of tos fans over the years speculated that there are such things as warp highways.

something like special sections of space that act like high speed corridors.
but at the same time some of them may have special qualities so only certain ships could use them.

some of them may also be highly classified .
and since objects shift through space their entery and exit points may change through the ages.

that an emergency corridor exists some point between vulcan and earth could go toward why the fleet got there so fast.
it may not be as stable as others so it would only be used for emergency transit.

with the destruction of vulcan that end may now be gone and enterprise went back a different way.

far quicker then nero who might not have known about all the corridors in this time period(only a limited number would be open to commercial shpping ect>>)
so enterprise could still beat him back to earth.

that corridors exist between a lot of the federation systems could even help explain why some of the freighters in the time of tos are still pretty slow. (warp one and less)..

but yeah it is all the speed of plot.
;)
 
Nah, speed of plot. Logic isn't required here, it doesn't matter how fast ships go and what time it takes them to get from A to B. That can change within the movie, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it leads to another cool scene. If you do a 18th century movie about a Royal Navy ship, and the plot requires it to get from Cape Horn to Greenland in a day because they quickly need to get there and because on Greenland, the ship commander needs to have a personal confrontation with the villain, then so be it. And when they need to return to Cape Horn, because only there a sick crewmate can be treated, because of the drama, the journey takes several months again. Internal logic is the nasty enemy of a writer. It's much easier to ignore it.

Internal logic makes a story much stronger IMO. The kind of story you outline is not how you write good fiction, and is ultimately damaging to the story.
I'm pretty sure that Jarod was being sarcastic there. Recall one of your own earlier threads about travel time and look for the phrase "speed of plot".
 
Doest it really matter that much to the plot? The story requires the Narada to get there first so it can be a threat to Earth. The Enterprise is required to arrive later to save the day. 1 hour...2 hours...a century. The result will be the same.
 
Nah, speed of plot. Logic isn't required here, it doesn't matter how fast ships go and what time it takes them to get from A to B. That can change within the movie, it doesn't have to make sense as long as it leads to another cool scene. If you do a 18th century movie about a Royal Navy ship, and the plot requires it to get from Cape Horn to Greenland in a day because they quickly need to get there and because on Greenland, the ship commander needs to have a personal confrontation with the villain, then so be it. And when they need to return to Cape Horn, because only there a sick crewmate can be treated, because of the drama, the journey takes several months again. Internal logic is the nasty enemy of a writer. It's much easier to ignore it.

Internal logic makes a story much stronger IMO. The kind of story you outline is not how you write good fiction, and is ultimately damaging to the story.
I'm pretty sure that Jarod was being sarcastic there. Recall one of your own earlier threads about travel time and look for the phrase "speed of plot".

I was merely paraphrasing what others, including writers, said.

Doest it really matter that much to the plot? The story requires the Narada to get there first so it can be a threat to Earth. The Enterprise is required to arrive later to save the day. 1 hour...2 hours...a century. The result will be the same.

See. If the story requires it, logic isn't needed.
 
...But it's nice that in this particular case, we have both the story and the logic.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Umm, people, the Narada was a mining platform. Wouldn't it make perfect sense for her to be significantly slower than any other spacecraft featured in that movie?

It was able to chase the Jellyfish, the fastest ship in the 24th century.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top