Spoilers marsh8472's Consolidated Continuity Thread
- Thread starter marsh8472
- Start date
@marsh8472 you have four separate threads about minor continuity nitpicks. You're fine to post about these, that's not an issue, but it's taking up a lot of the limited front-page space with one person's observations starting a new thread every time. To keep the visible topics varied, I've merged the four and kept your poll for the warp drive. You can post new observations in here.
DSC's warp speed effect looks similar to that used in the Kelvin timeline movies. Why aren't they among the pictured?
This is also where I mention that Star Trek only got a warp speed effect at all because of Star Wars.
And without a warp speed effect at all, TOS is the real continuity error here
And without a warp speed effect at all, TOS is the real continuity error here
I'm at a point in my life where I treat TOS as its own distinct thing separate from the rest of the franchise. For me, it is the top dog.
TOS is the best, and is also its own timeline 
But as you would probably say "it doesn't technically violate continuity because of the black swan fallacy"
The what now?
Will there be a thread on why the transporter effect looks different too? Obviously this is the same effect, but better. This is what happens when you ask visual effects people the same question 30 years later, and give them lots more money to answer it.
Apparently, even the simple TNG streaks were expensive at the time:
The Galaxy class starship Enterprise has a lot of windows that look out into space, giving many of our sets a wonderful sense of "really" being on a starship. This requires us to do a lot of bluescreen shots to show streaking "warp stars" whenever the ship is traveling faster than light. Naturally, these visual effects are very expensive. The result is that there have been a few times when budget considerations have forced our producers to find an excuse — any excuse — to have the captain take the ship down to impulse so that we can avoid the extra expense.
-TNG Technical Manual
Actually, the DSC "at warp" effect is extremely similar to the TNG "going to warp" effect, which was more impressive but rarely seen:
If you ask me, the VFX team has nailed it this time. This is what we should have seen all along. If you must have an in-universe explanation, then the answer is sensor calibration. Diane Duane puts it far more eloquently than I could, in "The Wounded Sky":
The problem with waiting around in space to see a starship go by is that, when a ship is in warp drive, she’s hardly there at all. The otherspace in which the warp field embeds her is just that-other; a neighboring alternate universe in which natural laws are different, and light moves many thousands of times faster than in the universe to which the six hundred eighty-three species of humanity are native. A starship in warp carries a shell of that otherspace with her, so that within it she moves at many multiples of lightspeed through the analogue universe, without really being in our universe at all, or running up against its intractably low speed of light. Within the ship, of course, sensors are calibrated to edit out the slight strangeness of the other-universal starlight, that all the humanities find so unsettling. Outside the ship, all there is to be seen of her passing is a tremor of starlight as space itself is shaken, wrinkles, and slowly smooths out again. At the heart of the shimmer, there might be the faintest, palest ghost of light, not even an image. An impression, a hint, maybe an illusion.
Apparently, even the simple TNG streaks were expensive at the time:
The Galaxy class starship Enterprise has a lot of windows that look out into space, giving many of our sets a wonderful sense of "really" being on a starship. This requires us to do a lot of bluescreen shots to show streaking "warp stars" whenever the ship is traveling faster than light. Naturally, these visual effects are very expensive. The result is that there have been a few times when budget considerations have forced our producers to find an excuse — any excuse — to have the captain take the ship down to impulse so that we can avoid the extra expense.
-TNG Technical Manual
Actually, the DSC "at warp" effect is extremely similar to the TNG "going to warp" effect, which was more impressive but rarely seen:
If you ask me, the VFX team has nailed it this time. This is what we should have seen all along. If you must have an in-universe explanation, then the answer is sensor calibration. Diane Duane puts it far more eloquently than I could, in "The Wounded Sky":
The problem with waiting around in space to see a starship go by is that, when a ship is in warp drive, she’s hardly there at all. The otherspace in which the warp field embeds her is just that-other; a neighboring alternate universe in which natural laws are different, and light moves many thousands of times faster than in the universe to which the six hundred eighty-three species of humanity are native. A starship in warp carries a shell of that otherspace with her, so that within it she moves at many multiples of lightspeed through the analogue universe, without really being in our universe at all, or running up against its intractably low speed of light. Within the ship, of course, sensors are calibrated to edit out the slight strangeness of the other-universal starlight, that all the humanities find so unsettling. Outside the ship, all there is to be seen of her passing is a tremor of starlight as space itself is shaken, wrinkles, and slowly smooths out again. At the heart of the shimmer, there might be the faintest, palest ghost of light, not even an image. An impression, a hint, maybe an illusion.
ehh no. I prefer to hone in on the issues and resolve each, not jumble up everything together. That's not very organized.
Remastered or Original?
The Original. Though there are elements of the remasters that I like. The Aurora from "The Way to Eden" comes to mind.
Well everybody else manages to comment little nitpicks and questions in the episode threads or indeed in the existing nitpick thread. I'm sure you'll manage with your own dedicated thread.
ehh no. I prefer to hone in on the issues and resolve each, not jumble up everything together. That's not very organized.
Similar threads
