Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

[Nerys Myk]

I can almost guarantee that any new speed limit short of infinite velocity would be broken almost immediately if the story demands it.

"If the story demands it." What does that even mean?

I thought it was kind of self-explanatory myself.

A sequence of good scenes connected without any sense is not a good story.

It depends on what you consider "without any sense". For most of us, it makes perfect sense for our heroes to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Anything else is just quibbling or nitpicking over things most audiences couldn't care less about.

Exactly. Time, speed and distance only matter if they figure into the plot. "He'll DIE if we dont get to location X in TIME!!!!!"

 

[Ryan8bit]

Borg ship came out of a transwarp conduit and has entered Sector 001. The Battle for Earth has begun, and Starfleet is losing ships left and right every minute. The Borg are now within reach of the Sol System. Unfortunately, the Enterprise is way over at the Neutral Zone at this time. How will our heroes save the day?

That's your scenario.

This is a decent scenario, particularly in working with what Star Trek already has to offer. Here's my thoughts:

Don't let the Borg or any enemy have the kind of technology that lets them instantaneously get to the heart of the Federation's defenses. If you make an enemy too strong or mismatched, that will create this kind of situation. Instead, create a limitation on their technology so that the Enterprise can get there.

Also redefine what the purpose is of your story. If the only purpose is for the Borg to arrive and for the Enterprise to make it there just in time to save the day, then just set up the distances so that they work out. Make the Borg conduit slightly closer to Earth than the Neutral Zone. Make the Enterprise not at the Neutral Zone. Make a distraction for the Borg that allows the Enterprise to get there in time. Make it so that the time to get to the Neutral Zone is only a couple hours, but make everything else fit accordingly. There's probably a hundred ways to get the ship there just when you want it without violating any rules and without losing anything pivotal to the story.

So try giving me one that can't be reasoned around creatively.

See, that's the thing--warp drive does behave how as the writers have established it. Writers have always fudged warp speeds and travel times in Trek. Every Trek series and movie has done it since day one.

As a result, Trek has maintained a consistency with keeping warp speeds vague and undefined. If anything, what's in error are the offscreen materials that says "warp x equals this" or "the Klingon Empire is x light-years away."

Something that is established is not so erratic or unpredictable. There is no establishment of what warp speeds are, so it does become the speed of plot or whatever each writer wants it to be, consistency be damned. I realize it's probably too late for Star Trek, but my suggestion is more of one that would be useful on a clean slate, sort of like the JJverse.

For the most part, Trek has maintained a general continuity. Looking at the whole of it--some 600+ episodes and nearly a dozen films, the continuity violations are actually few and far between. It's just that Trek fans tend to pick these things out and debate them over and over again.

I could think of a bunch of them off the top of my head, but it's not necessary to put that all here. I think that they are more apparent than you say. And a lot of them could have simply been avoided too.

Actually, the only series that tried to adhere to any known warp scale was VOY, and even then they found a way around it.

Enterprise and TNG did at times, but not always.

I think that someone is going to be in a really small minority of viewers. Even among Trek fans, there are very few of us watching the telly with calculators in hand to see if they got the non-canon warp factors right...

Very true, but be sure to give fans credit. Anyone who's smart knows that making a comparison between travel time between a planet and between a star system is going to be hugely disproportionate. No calculator needed.

And plus, I'm not saying that the show hinges around this, but that this way you could please both crowds: those who do and don't care about the details.

It doesn't matter what the spreadsheet is or what the math is. It will still get in the way of dramatic necessity because the speed of plot will always be faster or slower depending on the story. It's the "drawback" of any kind of series whose primary goal is entertainment rather than being 100% scientifically accurate.

And what I'm saying is that a primary goal needn't exclude a secondary goal, or that they're mutually exclusive. Need your ship to go slower? Make something break. Make the distance farther. Make someone intercept the ship. If you need it faster, do the opposite. It's not just some linear problem where the only solution is to just flub the details because of a lack of attention to said details.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Borg ship came out of a transwarp conduit and has entered Sector 001. The Battle for Earth has begun, and Starfleet is losing ships left and right every minute. The Borg are now within reach of the Sol System. Unfortunately, the Enterprise is way over at the Neutral Zone at this time. How will our heroes save the day?

That's your scenario.

This is a decent scenario, particularly in working with what Star Trek already has to offer. Here's my thoughts:

Don't let the Borg or any enemy have the kind of technology that lets them instantaneously get to the heart of the Federation's defenses.

But they do. That's what made them scary in "Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact." They popped up inside the Federation's defenses without any warning.

If you make an enemy too strong or mismatched, that will create this kind of situation. Instead, create a limitation on their technology so that the Enterprise can get there.

Or, you can simply have the Enterprise get there.

Also redefine what the purpose is of your story. If the only purpose is for the Borg to arrive and for the Enterprise to make it there just in time to save the day, then just set up the distances so that they work out. Make the Borg conduit slightly closer to Earth than the Neutral Zone. Make the Enterprise not at the Neutral Zone. Make a distraction for the Borg that allows the Enterprise to get there in time. Make it so that the time to get to the Neutral Zone is only a couple hours, but make everything else fit accordingly. There's probably a hundred ways to get the ship there just when you want it without violating any rules and without losing anything pivotal to the story.

So try giving me one that can't be reasoned around creatively.

Try reasoning the one I gave you. All you did was ignore it and present your own less dramatic version.

[highlight]FAIL.[/highlight]

See, that's the thing--warp drive does behave how as the writers have established it. Writers have always fudged warp speeds and travel times in Trek. Every Trek series and movie has done it since day one.

As a result, Trek has maintained a consistency with keeping warp speeds vague and undefined. If anything, what's in error are the offscreen materials that says "warp x equals this" or "the Klingon Empire is x light-years away."

Something that is established is not so erratic or unpredictable.

But it can prevent quite a few stories from being told because adhering to established distances and travel times can prevent our heroes from going to many places because it would be infeasible for them to go.

There is no establishment of what warp speeds are, so it does become the speed of plot or whatever each writer wants it to be, consistency be damned. I realize it's probably too late for Star Trek, but my suggestion is more of one that would be useful on a clean slate, sort of like the JJverse.

But even with a clean slate, didn't the JJverse still move their Enterprise around at the speed of plot?

For the most part, Trek has maintained a general continuity. Looking at the whole of it--some 600+ episodes and nearly a dozen films, the continuity violations are actually few and far between. It's just that Trek fans tend to pick these things out and debate them over and over again.

I could think of a bunch of them off the top of my head, but it's not necessary to put that all here. I think that they are more apparent than you say.

Not really, and like I said when you consider all the Trek has actually been produced over the past 40+ years, the errors are relatively few--Trek gets more things right than they do wrong, but we're not really interested in that.

Actually, the only series that tried to adhere to any known warp scale was VOY, and even then they found a way around it.

Enterprise and TNG did at times, but not always.

Try "very rarely".

I think that someone is going to be in a really small minority of viewers. Even among Trek fans, there are very few of us watching the telly with calculators in hand to see if they got the non-canon warp factors right...

Very true, but be sure to give fans credit. Anyone who's smart knows that making a comparison between travel time between a planet and between a star system is going to be hugely disproportionate. No calculator needed.

But most folks don't need any calculators the way things currently stand. This kind of stuff just isn't that important to many people, and that includes many Trek fans.

And plus, I'm not saying that the show hinges around this, but that this way you could please both crowds: those who do and don't care about the details.

It depends on what details are considered important and whether or not they get in the way of telling a story.

It doesn't matter what the spreadsheet is or what the math is. It will still get in the way of dramatic necessity because the speed of plot will always be faster or slower depending on the story. It's the "drawback" of any kind of series whose primary goal is entertainment rather than being 100% scientifically accurate.

And what I'm saying is that a primary goal needn't exclude a secondary goal, or that they're mutually exclusive. Need your ship to go slower? Make something break. Make the distance farther. Make someone intercept the ship. If you need it faster, do the opposite.

It makes things so less dramatic if the captain says "We're going to intercept the Borg. Set a course for Earth, maximum warp," and the helmsman says "Our ETA will be in three months, two weeks, four days..." And it would be nothing short of a cliche if the engines frequently broke down when our heroes needed them the most.

I'd rather have the fudge factors than that.

It's not just some linear problem where the only solution is to just flub the details because of a lack of attention to said details.

How can you flub details that haven't really been nailed down to begin with?


And isn't this really a moot issue anyway? I seriously doubt that any future Trek production--including Star Trek XII--will do anything differently when it comes to moving our heroes where and when they need to be in a story, regardless of the actual distances.

 

[Ryan8bit]

But they do. That's what made them scary in "Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact." They popped up inside the Federation's defenses without any warning.

Uh, no. They came from outside Federation space and had to make their way inward. Plenty of time for the Enterprise to go see what they were doing. I mean, they gave all sorts of warning.

Or, you can simply have the Enterprise get there.

But at what cost? Do you know what a deus ex machina is?

Try reasoning the one I gave you. All you did was ignore it and present your own less dramatic version.

[highlight]FAIL.[/highlight]

It is absolutely not fail. Tell me what the drama was in your scene. There wasn't any. The scene was simply, good guys at location A, bad guys at location B. Make A go to B fast like. The end.

This is like the exact opposite of drama, dude. I presented several options for how you can get around the very simple obstacle of time and distance creatively without losing anything at all. There was no drama to begin with, so how could it be less dramatic?

But it can prevent quite a few stories from being told because adhering to established distances and travel times can prevent our heroes from going to many places because it would be infeasible for them to go.

This is what I don't get. There are always limits to where someone can go in any story. Voyager couldn't go home, so they must have been terribly limited by established speeds and distances? Having these things does not hinder you unless you make it that way.

But even with a clean slate, didn't the JJverse still move their Enterprise around at the speed of plot?

Yes, and that's my point. They had an opportunity to make things make sense, but instead the science and logic of the movie was probably worse than almost any other production of Star Trek. Sure, everything else surrounding it was captivating and great, but it's all style with a dash of substance and hardly any logic. Those three components are not mutually exclusive.

But most folks don't need any calculators the way things currently stand. This kind of stuff just isn't that important to many people, and that includes many Trek fans.

So you're saying Trek fans of all people don't value continuity? Wow.

It depends on what details are considered important and whether or not they get in the way of telling a story.

With a creative story writer, nothing is impossible. It just depends on how much effort they want to spend.

It makes things so less dramatic if the captain says "We're going to intercept the Borg. Set a course for Earth, maximum warp," and the helmsman says "Our ETA will be in three months, two weeks, four days..." And it would be nothing short of a cliche if the engines frequently broke down when our heroes needed them the most.

You wouldn't always need the engines to break down or some simple lame reason every time. Again, creativity is boundless, and if you feel that the ship breaks too much, it's time to find another way to get it to do what you want.

And not every scenario would require a huge time frame to get there. No writer is that stupid. You either put the ships closer or further from where they need to be, or you have set speeds to begin with across the board that would accommodate this kind of thing.

How can you flub details that haven't really been nailed down to begin with?

By waving a magic wand that says a ship can be anywhere it needs to be should the plot warrant it. It's contrived and shoddy writing.

And isn't this really a moot issue anyway? I seriously doubt that any future Trek production--including Star Trek XII--will do anything differently when it comes to moving our heroes where and when they need to be in a story, regardless of the actual distances.

It is moot. I was just positing a theoretical "wouldn't it be nice if writers paid attention to these kinds of details?" Everyone is right that the speed will always be the speed of plot, but I think it's lame to have to accept that. It opens the door for having to accept all sorts of silly things... things beyond where disbelief can be suspended.

 

[Tyberius]

I do not think that time to distance was ever given in the new movie. We had editing. The movie simply could not be 24 years long. Some bits were left out.

But they do. That's what made them scary in "Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact." They popped up inside the Federation's defenses without any warning.

Uh, no. They came from outside Federation space and had to make their way inward. Plenty of time for the Enterprise to go see what they were doing. I mean, they gave all sorts of warning.

Or, you can simply have the Enterprise get there.

But at what cost? Do you know what a deus ex machina is?

It is absolutely not fail. Tell me what the drama was in your scene. There wasn't any. The scene was simply, good guys at location A, bad guys at location B. Make A go to B fast like. The end.

This is like the exact opposite of drama, dude. I presented several options for how you can get around the very simple obstacle of time and distance creatively without losing anything at all. There was no drama to begin with, so how could it be less dramatic?

This is what I don't get. There are always limits to where someone can go in any story. Voyager couldn't go home, so they must have been terribly limited by established speeds and distances? Having these things does not hinder you unless you make it that way.

Yes, and that's my point. They had an opportunity to make things make sense, but instead the science and logic of the movie was probably worse than almost any other production of Star Trek. Sure, everything else surrounding it was captivating and great, but it's all style with a dash of substance and hardly any logic. Those three components are not mutually exclusive.

So you're saying Trek fans of all people don't value continuity? Wow.

With a creative story writer, nothing is impossible. It just depends on how much effort they want to spend.

You wouldn't always need the engines to break down or some simple lame reason every time. Again, creativity is boundless, and if you feel that the ship breaks too much, it's time to find another way to get it to do what you want.

And not every scenario would require a huge time frame to get there. No writer is that stupid. You either put the ships closer or further from where they need to be, or you have set speeds to begin with across the board that would accommodate this kind of thing.

How can you flub details that haven't really been nailed down to begin with?

By waving a magic wand that says a ship can be anywhere it needs to be should the plot warrant it. It's contrived and shoddy writing.

And isn't this really a moot issue anyway? I seriously doubt that any future Trek production--including Star Trek XII--will do anything differently when it comes to moving our heroes where and when they need to be in a story, regardless of the actual distances.

It is moot. I was just positing a theoretical "wouldn't it be nice if writers paid attention to these kinds of details?" Everyone is right that the speed will always be the speed of plot, but I think it's lame to have to accept that. It opens the door for having to accept all sorts of silly things... things beyond where disbelief can be suspended.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't get it. Why would anyone think that placing the Enterprise in the Neutral Zone adds to the dramatic tension? It's just a name that has no particular relevance to the scene. If you want them to get to Earth fast, put them somewhere closer. Duh.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't get it. Why would anyone think that placing the Enterprise in the Neutral Zone adds to the dramatic tension? It's just a name that has no particular relevance to the scene. If you want them to get to Earth fast, put them somewhere closer. Duh.

They needed an assignment that keeps the Enterprise away from Earth that would be "worthy". Keeping tabs on the Romulans was it.

 

[Pauln6]

I don't get it. Why would anyone think that placing the Enterprise in the Neutral Zone adds to the dramatic tension? It's just a name that has no particular relevance to the scene. If you want them to get to Earth fast, put them somewhere closer. Duh.

They needed an assignment that keeps the Enterprise away from Earth that would be "worthy". Keeping tabs on the Romulans was it.

Disaster relief on Planet X would have been just as effective - do they carry out their established mission to help disaster survivors or run off to fight the borg, possibly abandoning people who need help? The distance from the borg battle and speed needed to get there is only relevant to the borg plot. It really IS lazy not to come up with a mission that keeps the ship close enough to do do something if you WANT them to do something.

I am surprised that they never came up with a diary indicating how fast it would take to travel between various key locations in the Trek universe to give the writers a better idea of where to aim.

I've never been majorly critical of the speed it takes the fleet to reach Vulcan, assuming that it took longer than we see on screen. I'm far more critical as to why nobody noticed the Narada BEFORE it got anywhere near Vulcan, why we have mention of Earth's defences as a threat but no mention of Vulcan's defences, why the Vulcans' impressive scientific minds are just smart enough to sit around on their backsides while their planet is being destroyed for possibly as long as a day, and the fact that the writers forgot that, regardless of how long it takes to get to Vulcan at maximum speed, it is going to take MUCH longer to get back to Earth at Warp 4-5, in fact so long that the Fleet in the Laurentian System could easily overtake Nero at Warp 9 and still have time for tiffin.

I just watched NuBSG's the Plan and, although I was frustrated that they didn't explain anywhere near half the things I would have liked, they did a great job of filling what had previously been plot holes using really simple, logical exlanations. It can be done. We get to see that actually, the Cylons were never sinister, tactical geniuses; they were stumbling around succeeding as much by luck than judgment, possessed of as many frailties as the humans. It was an interesting, clever spin.

 

[C.E. Evans]

But they do. That's what made them scary in "Best of Both Worlds" and "First Contact." They popped up inside the Federation's defenses without any warning.

Uh, no. They came from outside Federation space and had to make their way inward. Plenty of time for the Enterprise to go see what they were doing. I mean, they gave all sorts of warning.

Um, no. If they did, Starfleet would have been better prepared to deal with them. In both instances, they simply appeared out of nowhere one day.

Or, you can simply have the Enterprise get there.

But at what cost? Do you know what a deus ex machina is?

Do you know what a long drawn-out story is?

Try reasoning the one I gave you. All you did was ignore it and present your own less dramatic version.

[highlight]FAIL.[/highlight]

It is absolutely not fail. Tell me what the drama was in your scene. There wasn't any. The scene was simply, good guys at location A, bad guys at location B. Make A go to B fast like. The end.

Funny how most dramatic stories have relied on that--on the good guys getting there in time to stop the bad duys.

This is like the exact opposite of drama, dude.

No, "dude," it is exactly drama. Stop the bad guys while there is still time. How is that not drama?

I presented several options for how you can get around the very simple obstacle of time and distance creatively without losing anything at all. There was no drama to begin with, so how could it be less dramatic?

As I said above, there was definitely drama there. Your options included making the Borg weaker and slower from the moment they were conceived. I asked you to deal with them as they are. You didn't do that.

But it can prevent quite a few stories from being told because adhering to established distances and travel times can prevent our heroes from going to many places because it would be infeasible for them to go.

This is what I don't get. There are always limits to where someone can go in any story. Voyager couldn't go home, so they must have been terribly limited by established speeds and distances? Having these things does not hinder you unless you make it that way.

Exactly my point! The Voyager couldn't get back quickly home quickly because of how far away it was and the limits placed on it by the writers. That was it's story.

The Enterprise, being much closer to home, doesn't have that problem. It can go home quickly when necessary. It can tell those kinds of stories. Now, if we make the Enterprise suddenly unable to go home quickly, then the action has to go somewhere else. It's as simple as that.

It's all about what story that the writers and producers want to tell. Either about a lost ship in space, or a hero ship that goes about doing, um, heroic things.

But even with a clean slate, didn't the JJverse still move their Enterprise around at the speed of plot?

Yes, and that's my point. They had an opportunity to make things make sense, but instead the science and logic of the movie was probably worse than almost any other production of Star Trek. Sure, everything else surrounding it was captivating and great, but it's all style with a dash of substance and hardly any logic. Those three components are not mutually exclusive.

It boils down to what people want to see in Star Trek. Not everyone wants the same thing.

But most folks don't need any calculators the way things currently stand. This kind of stuff just isn't that important to many people, and that includes many Trek fans.

So you're saying Trek fans of all people don't value continuity? Wow.

Nice try, but you know full well what I mean. Not every Trek fan cares that our heroes shouldn't be able to move across the Galaxy as quickly as they do. They're more interested in the story and the characters than rather the ship shouldn't have been able to get there so quickly at Warp whatever.

It depends on what details are considered important and whether or not they get in the way of telling a story.

With a creative story writer, nothing is impossible. It just depends on how much effort they want to spend.

I'd rather they spend effort on plots and characters than how fast the ship should go. I'd sacrifice that detail in a heartbeat.

It makes things so less dramatic if the captain says "We're going to intercept the Borg. Set a course for Earth, maximum warp," and the helmsman says "Our ETA will be in three months, two weeks, four days..." And it would be nothing short of a cliche if the engines frequently broke down when our heroes needed them the most.

You wouldn't always need the engines to break down or some simple lame reason every time. Again, creativity is boundless, and if you feel that the ship breaks too much, it's time to find another way to get it to do what you want.

And not every scenario would require a huge time frame to get there. No writer is that stupid. You either put the ships closer or further from where they need to be, or you have set speeds to begin with across the board that would accommodate this kind of thing.

But why should they when the end result is the same? Why can't our heroes simply go where they need to be? And as I said in earlier posts, they generally are vague about travel times and distances to begin with.

How can you flub details that haven't really been nailed down to begin with?

By waving a magic wand that says a ship can be anywhere it needs to be should the plot warrant it. It's contrived and shoddy writing.

Others call it just getting to the point.

And isn't this really a moot issue anyway? I seriously doubt that any future Trek production--including Star Trek XII--will do anything differently when it comes to moving our heroes where and when they need to be in a story, regardless of the actual distances.

It is moot. I was just positing a theoretical "wouldn't it be nice if writers paid attention to these kinds of details?" Everyone is right that the speed will always be the speed of plot, but I think it's lame to have to accept that. It opens the door for having to accept all sorts of silly things... things beyond where disbelief can be suspended.

Like in every Star Trek movie and TV series?

 

[EJA]

NuChekov's line about pushing the engines to warp 4 to catch up with Nero was just plain idiotic, whatever universe you live in. The Enterprise would have to have been travelling somewhere in the warp 9.999+ region to get to any of the places it does in the time it takes in this movie.

 

[Pauln6]

Not every Trek fan cares that our heroes shouldn't be able to move across the Galaxy as quickly as they do. They're more interested in the story and the characters than rather the ship shouldn't have been able to get there so quickly at Warp whatever.

I'd rather they spend effort on plots and characters than how fast the ship should go. I'd sacrifice that detail in a heartbeat.

But why should they when the end result is the same? Why can't our heroes simply go where they need to be? And as I said in earlier posts, they generally are vague about travel times and distances to begin with.

The Simpsons works on multiple levels at least one of which is for the more discerning viewer... The two issues are not mutually exclusive - the writers just have to care what the more discerning fans think about this fictional universe and work with the established in-universe rules.

Just because writers in the past were so inconsistent doesn't make it right. Fans complained then too.

They should just establish warp corridors officially and end the debate.

 

[Pauln6]

NuChekov's line about pushing the engines to warp 4 to catch up with Nero was just plain idiotic, whatever universe you live in. The Enterprise would have to have been travelling somewhere in the warp 9.999+ region to get to any of the places it does in the time it takes in this movie.

Yes the problem with the movie isn't just that it contradicts 'established' speeds but that it also contradicts itself on multiple occasions - or at least fails to offer up any explanation for inconsistencies. I think the writers' failure to grasp the vast differences in speed between Warp 9 and Warp 4 is a prime example.

Why did Nero have no concern for Vulcan defences but worry about Earth Defences?
Possible Answer: Vulcan's defences damaged his ship so it had to travel slower to Earth.

If Nero was travelling so slowly why fly all the way to the fleet at Warp 3 instead of contacting them to head to Earth at Warp 9?
Possible Answer: I got nothing here. It was suggested that Enterprise's communications were out but Scotty should have had communications on the outpost. I'm not sure why nobody seems to have thought that contacting the fleet was important...

I still maintain that beaming Kirk to the outpost with Rand as a guard would have been more sensible and saved a lot of time and suspension of disbelief. Spock could be on site to avoid the ridiculousness of sitting in a cave for a day waiting for Kirk to arrive and he could have been working with Scotty to extend transporter range during his stay rather than for the 5 minutes we see on screen, the Enterprise would have had less time to travel away thus mitigating the stupidity of interstellar transportation with only a computer program, plus Rand would have got a role in the movie and could have stayed behind to contact the fleet after being 'persuaded' to help Kirk.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Not every Trek fan cares that our heroes shouldn't be able to move across the Galaxy as quickly as they do. They're more interested in the story and the characters than rather the ship shouldn't have been able to get there so quickly at Warp whatever.

I'd rather they spend effort on plots and characters than how fast the ship should go. I'd sacrifice that detail in a heartbeat.

But why should they when the end result is the same? Why can't our heroes simply go where they need to be? And as I said in earlier posts, they generally are vague about travel times and distances to begin with.

The Simpsons works on multiple levels at least one of which is for the more discerning viewer... The two issues are not mutually exclusive - the writers just have to care what the more discerning fans think about this fictional universe and work with the established in-universe rules.

That "writers just have to care" argument is really kind of paper thin, especially when it comes to a contrived device such as warp drive which has been used consistently as a means of getting across vast regions of space very quickly.

Examing the nuts and bolts of warp drive with a calculator...if that's what a more discerning viewer is, I'm glad I'm not one of them.

Just because writers in the past were so inconsistent doesn't make it right.

Definitely doesn't make it wrong.

Fans complained then too.

Fans will complain over everything, so that's not really saying anything.

They should just establish warp corridors officially and end the debate.

This is Star Trek. The debates never end.

And even if they did use warp corridors (of which I've always favored), it still won't stop folks from complaining that the ship traveled too fast here or too slow there...

 

[Pauln6]

Fans will complain over everything, so that's not really saying anything.

They should just establish warp corridors officially and end the debate.

This is Star Trek. The debates never end.

And even if they did use warp corridors (of which I've always favored), it still won't stop folks from complaining that the ship traveled too fast here or too slow there...

Lol. Nothing wrong with constructive criticism! At least Warp Corridors give them their 'a wizard did it' defence. Ship speeds within a warp corrdor are typically unhampered by dark matter and dark energy and can therefore exceed 'normal' warp speeds dependent upon the stellar conditions in the vicinity at the time. There is enough wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff in there for speed of plot to become canon methinks.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Um, no. If they did, Starfleet would have been better prepared to deal with them. In both instances, they simply appeared out of nowhere one day.

Jouret IV was described as one of the Federation's outermost colonies. How is that not on the outside of their space? Same goes for Deep Space 5.

Do you know what a long drawn-out story is?

False dichotomy.

Funny how most dramatic stories have relied on that--on the good guys getting there in time to stop the bad duys.

And if that's all the drama is, then it doesn't matter where the ships are located, what the distances are, and what the speeds are so long as they match up to the situation. Nothing is lost by this.

Your options included making the Borg weaker and slower from the moment they were conceived. I asked you to deal with them as they are. You didn't do that.

Nah, I never said to make them weaker or slower at all. I said to put them at a distance that suits the needs of the story or put the Enterprise where it needs to be.

Exactly my point! The Voyager couldn't get back quickly home quickly because of how far away it was and the limits placed on it by the writers. That was it's story.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the spreadsheet idea I suggested, yet for some reason you do.

if we make the Enterprise suddenly unable to go home quickly

Where did I ever say that it would be unable to go home quickly?

It boils down to what people want to see in Star Trek. Not everyone wants the same thing.

But some things that people want to see are not mutually exclusive.

Nice try, but you know full well what I mean. Not every Trek fan cares that our heroes shouldn't be able to move across the Galaxy as quickly as they do. They're more interested in the story and the characters than rather the ship shouldn't have been able to get there so quickly at Warp whatever.

Essentially what you're saying is that details don't matter. If they want something to happen, logic be damned. Stories fall flat if people are unable to suspend disbelief, and having a cohesive story can be very important. If they mess up on the science, smart fans are going to be pulled out of the story.

I'd rather they spend effort on plots and characters than how fast the ship should go. I'd sacrifice that detail in a heartbeat.

And my point is that it would be nice if they didn't have to sacrifice anything.

But why should they when the end result is the same? Why can't our heroes simply go where they need to be?

Because it shows a level of care and thought that is admirable. I love it when writers pay great attention to details while telling a good story. I also like a universe that is sensible instead of irrational because it makes a better playground for aspiring writers and game creators.

Others call it just getting to the point.

If getting to the point is all you care about, most shows and movies could be condensed down into 5 minutes.

Like in every Star Trek movie and TV series?

No, not every show. Some, yes, but not all. The best Trek is the kind that doesn't require needless suspension of disbelief.

 

[Pauln6]

I found this here: http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/EnterpriseNX.htm
The logic covers the Abrahmsprise as well as NX01.

"Using the speed figures given in the very same episode (and examined above), we can proof that - without further explanations - this whole scenario is not just unlikely, but actually impossible in this regard! 4 days at warp 4.5 - that works out to be 0.998 ly if using the TOS scale (and even with the TNG scale it's merely 1.6 light years), i.e. closer than the closest star to Earth, Proxima Centauri, which is 4.4 ly away. A very fine example for plot drive, isn't it? "

I don't think that writers should be given any credit for abusing science (not even Trek science). Get it right lads and lasses!

He also supports the use of warp corridors or 'Cochrane Factors' to increase or decrease standard warp speeds. They really should run with this idea. It also makes the navigator's job more important and interesting if they have to plot and verify a course through the less dense warp corridors to reach a destination as quickly as possible and makes zones like the Briar Patch an extreme example of a phenomenon found throughout normal space, which also covers our current (lack of) understanding about dark matter and dark energy.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Um, no. If they did, Starfleet would have been better prepared to deal with them. In both instances, they simply appeared out of nowhere one day.

Jouret IV was described as one of the Federation's outermost colonies. How is that not on the outside of their space? Same goes for Deep Space 5.

You don't get it. The Borg still took the Federation by surprise when they appeared. The best they could do was scramble forty starships at Wolf 359.

Do you know what a long drawn-out story is?

False dichotomy.

The point still stands.

Funny how most dramatic stories have relied on that--on the good guys getting there in time to stop the bad duys.

And if that's all the drama is, then it doesn't matter where the ships are located, what the distances are, and what the speeds are so long as they match up to the situation.

By George, I think he's got it. It doesn't matter. It's all about getting our heroes where they need to be in the story. Travel times and distances are only important if it pertains to the story, and even then 100% accuracy is not required.

Your options included making the Borg weaker and slower from the moment they were conceived. I asked you to deal with them as they are. You didn't do that.

Nah, I never said to make them weaker or slower at all.

Yes, you did. You said:
"Don't let the Borg or any enemy have the kind of technology that lets them instantaneously get to the heart of the Federation's defenses." = weaker

"If you make an enemy too strong or mismatched, that will create this kind of situation. Instead, create a limitation on their technology so that the Enterprise can get there." = slower

I said to put them at a distance that suits the needs of the story or put the Enterprise where it needs to be.

But the situation in the story was that the Enterprise was at the Neutral Zone and had to rush back to Earth because it was needed there.

Exactly my point! The Voyager couldn't get back quickly home quickly because of how far away it was and the limits placed on it by the writers. That was it's story.

Then you shouldn't have a problem with the spreadsheet idea I suggested, yet for some reason you do.

Because the spreadsheet doesn't matter as it will be tossed out the window at the first opportunity.

if we make the Enterprise suddenly unable to go home quickly

Where did I ever say that it would be unable to go home quickly?

By your continual referencing of a spreadsheet the writers should adhere to. It would always limit how fast and far our heroes could go in a particular story. If our heroes are hundreds of light-years way "out there", and something very urgent is taking place back home, there's no way our heroes can make it back to save the day in a feasible amount of time unless you either change the velocities or change the distances (make it a smaller galaxy). The alternative is to keep our heroes close to home at all times or not specify where they are at any given time.

It boils down to what people want to see in Star Trek. Not everyone wants the same thing.

But some things that people want to see are not mutually exclusive.

And they aren't mutually inclusive either.

Nice try, but you know full well what I mean. Not every Trek fan cares that our heroes shouldn't be able to move across the Galaxy as quickly as they do. They're more interested in the story and the characters than rather the ship shouldn't have been able to get there so quickly at Warp whatever.

Essentially what you're saying is that details don't matter. If they want something to happen, logic be damned. Stories fall flat if people are unable to suspend disbelief, and having a cohesive story can be very important. If they mess up on the science, smart fans are going to be pulled out of the story.

If by smart fans, you mean nitpickers, well they're going to be pulled out the story anyway (they usually are). Trek is still first and foremost a dramatic action-adventure series. It isn't a science show. There's some real science here and there, but there's always been way more pseudo/made-up science. They fudge over a lot of things for the sake of telling a story. They always will.

I'd rather they spend effort on plots and characters than how fast the ship should go. I'd sacrifice that detail in a heartbeat.

And my point is that it would be nice if they didn't have to sacrifice anything.

It depends on what is considered important.

But why should they when the end result is the same? Why can't our heroes simply go where they need to be?

Because it shows a level of care and thought that is admirable. I love it when writers pay great attention to details while telling a good story. I also like a universe that is sensible instead of irrational because it makes a better playground for aspiring writers and game creators.

What you consider irrational, others may consider sensible. And not everyone is an aspiring writer or game creator.

Others call it just getting to the point.

If getting to the point is all you care about, most shows and movies could be condensed down into 5 minutes.

Funny.

Like in every Star Trek movie and TV series?

No, not every show. Some, yes, but not all. The best Trek is the kind that doesn't require needless suspension of disbelief.

Um, all of Trek requires a "needless" suspension of disbelief. A race of Beatle-haired aliens, green-skinned women, William Shatner's hair, hello? Most of it ain't real, so it really just comes down to what you personally would like to see, and very few of us are into the same things. And what is considered the best Trek is always a matter of opinion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't get it. Why would anyone think that placing the Enterprise in the Neutral Zone adds to the dramatic tension? It's just a name that has no particular relevance to the scene. If you want them to get to Earth fast, put them somewhere closer. Duh.

They needed an assignment that keeps the Enterprise away from Earth that would be "worthy". Keeping tabs on the Romulans was it.

Disaster relief on Planet X would have been just as effective - do they carry out their established mission to help disaster survivors or run off to fight the borg, possibly abandoning people who need help? The distance from the borg battle and speed needed to get there is only relevant to the borg plot. It really IS lazy not to come up with a mission that keeps the ship close enough to do do something if you WANT them to do something.

I am surprised that they never came up with a diary indicating how fast it would take to travel between various key locations in the Trek universe to give the writers a better idea of where to aim.

I guess disaster relief isn't "sexy" enough. Plus I think making the mission a milk run, means they don't have the sort of dilemma you describe. They scoot off to defend Earth without worrying abandonning disaster suvivors.

Star Trek at its inception tried to keep things vague to avoid these sort of problems. A planet was as close or as far away as a story needed. The ship traveled as fast as needed too. Fans were the ones who started trying to pin things down to make it seem more "real". Some of the "behind the scene" guys did too ( some of whom were from fandom). The writers, not so much. They are more concerned with creating atmosphere, drama and tension rather than nerding out with formulas, charts and scales. I'm willing to bet even the guys who came from "behind the scenes" to become writers tucked their formulas, charts and scales in drawer in favor of drama, tension and atmosphere.

 

[Pauln6]

I guess disaster relief isn't "sexy" enough. Plus I think making the mission a milk run, means they don't have the sort of dilemma you describe. They scoot off to defend Earth without worrying abandonning disaster suvivors.

Star Trek at its inception tried to keep things vague to avoid these sort of problems. A planet was as close or as far away as a story needed. The ship traveled as fast as needed too. Fans were the ones who started trying to pin things down to make it seem more "real". Some of the "behind the scene" guys did too ( some of whom were from fandom). The writers, not so much. They are more concerned with creating atmosphere, drama and tension rather than nerding out with formulas, charts and scales. I'm willing to bet even the guys who came from "behind the scenes" to become writers tucked their formulas, charts and scales in drawer in favor of drama, tension and atmosphere.

Once again we have this assumption that drama, tension, and atmosphere and sensible science are mutually exlcusive. Potato / Potato (apply appropriate pronounciation or not as you wish). Maybe having sh**ty writers for too long has made people believe it isn't possible! Maybe it isn't...? I'm frightened - somebody hold me.

 

[Ryan8bit]

You don't get it. The Borg still took the Federation by surprise when they appeared. The best they could do was scramble forty starships at Wolf 359.

They surprised them as much as they couldn't see them coming right away and that an attack was imminent. But still a couple days passed in the instance of BoBW. That's hardly what I would call instant, which is what my original claim was.

The point still stands.

Uh, no it doesn't. That's the whole idea behind a logical fallacy. You present only two options, either we get a deus ex machina, or we get a long drawn out story. There are other possibilities.

By George, I think he's got it. It doesn't matter. It's all about getting our heroes where they need to be in the story. Travel times and distances are only important if it pertains to the story, and even then 100% accuracy is not required.

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing here, just in different ways. I just prefer an approach using more detail.

Yes, you did. You said:
"Don't let the Borg or any enemy have the kind of technology that lets them instantaneously get to the heart of the Federation's defenses." = weaker

And I've already said it was never instantaneous, at least until "Endgame", which is a piece of shit on so many levels that I'm content to ignore it. The writers of BoBW and FC knew not to make it happen so quick, and they were consistent with each other in terms of how the Borg invaded.

"If you make an enemy too strong or mismatched, that will create this kind of situation. Instead, create a limitation on their technology so that the Enterprise can get there." = slower

I just proposed exactly what the writers did.

But the situation in the story was that the Enterprise was at the Neutral Zone and had to rush back to Earth because it was needed there.

Ok, I wasn't going to assume that you surely meant First Contact, but now that you have, there are a lot of issues.

The whole RNZ thing was to establish that the Federation didn't trust Picard, which didn't really serve a purpose for the overall story except for maybe to make an undertone that he might want to go back to the collective. Let's never mind that the Federation's idea makes no sense for so many reasons and get on to the distances.

It doesn't matter if the RNZ is an hour away, or if you put them somewhere else (like defending Alpha Centauri, Vulcan, etc), as long as you are consistent in saying that those places are only an hour away. You can't later have a story that says that same place would be a day away.

Because the spreadsheet doesn't matter as it will be tossed out the window at the first opportunity.

Only by people who don't want to pay attention to detail, and take the easy way out. Again, this is a theoretical, "What if they weren't lazy in this regard?"

If our heroes are hundreds of light-years way "out there", and something very urgent is taking place back home, there's no way our heroes can make it back to save the day in a feasible amount of time unless you either change the velocities or change the distances (make it a smaller galaxy). The alternative is to keep our heroes close to home at all times or not specify where they are at any given time.

I'd rather have that alternative where the heroes are close to home when necessary. Perhaps missions could move outward and then back in, and repeat.

And they aren't mutually inclusive either.

Sorry, but do you know what mutually exclusive means? It either is exclusive or it inclusive, it can't be both. In this case, it is almost always able to be inclusive.

If by smart fans, you mean nitpickers, well they're going to be pulled out the story anyway (they usually are).

No, I just mean people with a different standard of what's sensible. For instance, in this movie, Spock seeing Vulcan in the sky pulled me out of the story for a moment. That isn't just some nit to be picked, and a ton of people recognized it. If someone isn't smart enough to recognize why this might be a problem, then they are just fine.

What you consider irrational, others may consider sensible.

The only people who consider a deus ex machina sensible are people who really just don't care about anything. They just wanna see some pretty moving pictures. If anyone considers "a wizard did it" as a sensible solution for any problem, then they should be relegated to a show that meets their intelligence and standards. And even still, I'm sure they have some sort of standard. Like ships not just appearing out of nowhere and things contradicting already established plot points.

And not everyone is an aspiring writer or game creator.

No doubt, but even someone who isn't can still appreciate intricacy.

Um, all of Trek requires a "needless" suspension of disbelief.

Not really. The things you do need to accept are the things you already laid out. As long as the writers define their show in a certain way, they should follow it. The needless part comes when things blatantly contradict science, logic, reason, and any of the aforementioned established rules.