Maximum speed of the NuEnterprise

[Nerys Myk]

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.

If thats the case then Trek has always had shitty writers. And its aways been more interested in drama than science. I'm not saying that you can't have sensible science and drama, just that Trek from the beginning hasn't been the place to find it. Drama and story in a SF setting. Not A Science show with dramatic elements.

 

[Set Harth]

For instance, in this movie, Spock seeing Vulcan in the sky pulled me out of the story for a moment.

From The Immunity Syndrome, we know that Spock has some kind of Obi-Wan-esque ability to sense the mass deaths of other Vulcans at interstellar distances. Add a bit of visual synaesthesia and you’re done.

 

[Nerys Myk]

For instance, in this movie, Spock seeing Vulcan in the sky pulled me out of the story for a moment.

From The Immunity Syndrome, we know that Spock has some kind of Obi-Wan-esque ability to sense the mass deaths of other Vulcans at interstellar distances. Add a bit of visual synesthesia and you’re done.

The whole mind meld sequence is full of images that Spock could not have seen or experienced as prsented. They would have to be Spock's mental re-creation of those events using understandable imagery.

 

[Ryan8bit]

For instance, in this movie, Spock seeing Vulcan in the sky pulled me out of the story for a moment.

From The Immunity Syndrome, we know that Spock has some kind of Obi-Wan-esque ability to sense the mass deaths of other Vulcans at interstellar distances. Add a bit of visual synesthesia and you’re done.

The whole mind meld sequence is full of images that Spock could not have seen or experienced as prsented. They would have to be Spock's mental re-creation of those events using understandable imagery.

While I don't mind these fan explanations, going to such great lengths to try and explain it is still going to pull me out of the movie.

 

[Set Harth]

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

Was it explicitly said in FC that the Enterprise was at the Neutral Zone at the beginning of the film, or is it just that they were dispatched there? ( Disclaimer: I'm going from an Internet script which might not be entirely accurate. ) If a specific location for the ship was not established, they could have been anywhere between the Neutral Zone and Earth.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Actually, IIRC, when Picard was listening to his classical music and Riker came into the room, Riker handed Picard a PADD and told him that they had just finished their first sensor sweep of the Neutral Zone. That implied that the Enterprise-E was at least clost to the NZ at that point.

 

[C.E. Evans]

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.

First of all, we don't know how long it took. They didn't specify. And secondly, it didn't matter anyway, because even in the time available, it wasn't enough.

The point still stands.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Uh, yes it does.

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.

First of all, warp drive isn't a deus ex machina. It's a storytelling device to get our heroes where they need to be in a timely fashion. Unlike a deus ex machine, tt doesn't magically resolve a story by divine intervention, it only enables our people to get from point A to point B very quickly. For most people, that's enough.

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...

I know I didn't say it was instantaneous.

"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.

In what instance?

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.

How many Trek fans--much less casual viewers--actually lose sleep over a detail like that? How many people care if it took our heroes a day to get to a place in one episode and only one hour in another--especially when no actual distances or travel times are actually given to begin with?

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?"

I think it would kill dramatic tension by making travel times too long to be feasible. You may like the idea of it taking our heroes weeks or months to save the day, but I think that does nothing short but kill the pacing and urgency of a particular scene.

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.

Kind of like what they did in TNG and the TNG movies?

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.

Sorry, I was having some fun with you there because "mutually exclusive" has been repeated numerous times in this thread by different people.

But it does kinda boil down to what details do people consider important for a good story? For some, it's keeping track of travel times and distances. For others, it's not.

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.

But, you see, that's just it, though. Different people have different standards of what's sensible. What might bother you may not bother others (and presumably vice-versa). Because there's no way to please everyone, not everyone will be pleased.

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.

Wow. Kind of insulted everyone who was unfortunate not to have seen "Where No Man Has Gone Before" there, didn't you?

I don't believe it bothered quite as many people as you think--especially those who had never heard of Delta Vega before. I was fully aware of Delta Vega's location in the second TOS pilot, but it didn't bother me in Star Trek XI because I had already accepted a lot of other things had changed dramatically in the movie, so this was nothing for me.

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.

I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most elitist thing I've heard on this board in a long time. That's very much like saying Star Trek should only be for a certain class of people. I don't agree with that at all. If anything, Trek's problem prior to Star Trek XI is that it had become for only a certain class of people (Trekkies) and it nearly killed the franchise, since no one else cared.

And not everyone is an aspiring writer or game creator.

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

There's intricacy and then there's being lost in minutae.

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.

By your standards, of course. Certainly others don't put Trek on that high of a pedestal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

From The Immunity Syndrome, we know that Spock has some kind of Obi-Wan-esque ability to sense the mass deaths of other Vulcans at interstellar distances. Add a bit of visual synesthesia and you’re done.

The whole mind meld sequence is full of images that Spock could not have seen or experienced as prsented. They would have to be Spock's mental re-creation of those events using understandable imagery.

While I don't mind these fan explanations, going to such great lengths to try and explain it is still going to pull me out of the movie.

Thats the writers explaination. Me, I figured as much by watching the film. Little of what I saw in the meld scene could be interpreted as literal, so I "stayed in the film".

 

[JarodRussell]

But there was no time given between the radio transmission of the first battle and when the Borg Cube reached Earth, could have been a few days.

I always imagined that a big battle fleet attacked the cube (similar to Wolf 359) lightyears away from Earth, was defeated, regrouped while the borg cube moved closer to sector 001, and attacked again.

 

[Ryan8bit]

First of all, we don't know how long it took. They didn't specify.

In the case of BoBW? We most certainly did. There were all sorts of figures about hours, nights/days thrown out that it's really hard to miss.

First of all, warp drive isn't a deus ex machina.

I never said it was. The deus ex machina is using it to say that ships can or cannot get from A to B depending on a writer's whims. That's the deus ex machina. It has nothing to do with divine intervention.

I think it would kill dramatic tension by making travel times too long to be feasible. You may like the idea of it taking our heroes weeks or months to save the day, but I think that does nothing short but kill the pacing and urgency of a particular scene.

I'd like to see you find an instance where I said I'd like it to take weeks or months. I provided a series of alternatives for it to work out, and for it to make sense.

But it does kinda boil down to what details do people consider important for a good story? For some, it's keeping track of travel times and distances. For others, it's not.

And I will say that it's a mix. I don't mean that it has to be an exact science, but that it should be consistent with what the show establishes.

Because there's no way to please everyone, not everyone will be pleased.

And we come back to the fact that these standards aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the distances work while still telling a good story.

I don't believe it bothered quite as many people as you think--especially those who had never heard of Delta Vega before. I was fully aware of Delta Vega's location in the second TOS pilot, but it didn't bother me in Star Trek XI because I had already accepted a lot of other things had changed dramatically in the movie, so this was nothing for me.

It wasn't that it was the name Delta Vega, it was that it was close enough to be a moon of Vulcan which is now a black hole. Basically they should have died fairly quickly.

That's very much like saying Star Trek should only be for a certain class of people.

It should set a high standard, and then it should trickle down to the people who don't have as high of standards. After all, if they don't care how things work, then it shouldn't matter to them.

Trek's problem prior to Star Trek XI is that it had become for only a certain class of people (Trekkies) and it nearly killed the franchise, since no one else cared.

That's wildly understating it. It wasn't only targeted at Trekkies. In fact, it alienated a lot of Trekkies with wrestlers, catsuits, focus on explosions, and just generally shitty writing and direction by the producers. Add to that a crappy network, an earlier oversaturation of Trek, and the general splintering of the fanbase and you have a bit more rounded perspective.

There's intricacy and then there's being lost in minutae.

And no one suggested being lost in it. It's possible to have the detail without it being smack-you-in-the-face apparent.

 

[Set Harth]

it was that it was close enough to be a moon of Vulcan which is now a black hole.

Except... according to other evidence it wasn't.

 

[C.E. Evans]

First of all, we don't know how long it took. They didn't specify.

In the case of BoBW? We most certainly did. There were all sorts of figures about hours, nights/days thrown out that it's really hard to miss.

Apparently it was hard to miss.

First of all, warp drive isn't a deus ex machina.

I never said it was.

You most certainly did. You even do it again below.

The deus ex machina is using it to say that ships can or cannot get from A to B depending on a writer's whims. That's the deus ex machina. It has nothing to do with divine intervention.

Which means that it isn't a deus ex machina but simply a storytelling element as I said. A deus ex machina is used to resolve a story by easily eliminating the conflict. Warp drive does not do this.

I think it would kill dramatic tension by making travel times too long to be feasible. You may like the idea of it taking our heroes weeks or months to save the day, but I think that does nothing short but kill the pacing and urgency of a particular scene

I'd like to see you find an instance where I said I'd like it to take weeks or months. I provided a series of alternatives for it to work out, and for it to make sense.

You keep implying that there should be a limit or spreadsheet on how far and fast a vessel should go. So unless you always arrange it that everything always conveniently happens within a feasible range of our heroes or that the ship moves at extremely fast warp speeds (like the writers currently do), they will always have a long voyage. Depending on where they are in the Galaxy--especially for a deep-space starship--it could weeks or months to get from point A to B, because space is very big.

But it does kinda boil down to what details do people consider important for a good story? For some, it's keeping track of travel times and distances. For others, it's not.

And I will say that it's a mix. I don't mean that it has to be an exact science, but that it should be consistent with what the show establishes.

But it has been consistent in that travel times do vary.

Because there's no way to please everyone, not everyone will be pleased.
And we come back to the fact that these standards aren't mutually exclusive. You can have the distances work while still telling a good story.

You just love saying "mutually exclusive" over and over again, don't you? Well then, this comes back to the fact that you can't please everyone.

I don't believe it bothered quite as many people as you think--especially those who had never heard of Delta Vega before. I was fully aware of Delta Vega's location in the second TOS pilot, but it didn't bother me in Star Trek XI because I had already accepted a lot of other things had changed dramatically in the movie, so this was nothing for me.

It wasn't that it was the name Delta Vega, it was that it was close enough to be a moon of Vulcan which is now a black hole. Basically they should have died fairly quickly.

Dramatic necessity/license. No different from how starship combat is depicted in which two ships appear to be moving within mere feet of one another, when they ought to be thousands of miles apart.

That's very much like saying Star Trek should only be for a certain class of people.

It should set a high standard, and then it should trickle down to the people who don't have as high of standards. After all, if they don't care how things work, then it shouldn't matter to them.

Wow. Even more elitism.

The problem with putting anything to too high a standard is that it will inevitably (if not constantly) let you down.

Trek's problem prior to Star Trek XI is that it had become for only a certain class of people (Trekkies) and it nearly killed the franchise, since no one else cared.

That's wildly understating it.

No, it's not overstating it.

It wasn't only targeted at Trekkies. In fact, it alienated a lot of Trekkies with wrestlers, catsuits, focus on explosions, and just generally shitty writing and direction by the producers. Add to that a crappy network, an earlier oversaturation of Trek, and the general splintering of the fanbase and you have a bit more rounded perspective.

A truly more rounded perspective would be that many people left because they simply lost interest in Trek after TNG ended. The decline started with DS9 and continued downwards from there. After awhile, it was mostly Trekkies that were keeping things afloat, and no franchise can survive for very long on just its core audience--especially one that was splintering with each new incarnation anyway.

There's intricacy and then there's being lost in minutae.

And no one suggested being lost in it. It's possible to have the detail without it being smack-you-in-the-face apparent.

Which is why for the most part, Trek has been intentionally vague about those kinds of details.

 

[Devon]

It wasn't that it was the name Delta Vega, it was that it was close enough to be a moon of Vulcan which is now a black hole. Basically they should have died fairly quickly.

No it wouldn't have. It's gravity would have stayed the same. Just as if the sun suddenly became a black hole (won't happen) we would stay in our orbit, we wouldn't be "sucked in."

A truly more rounded perspective would be that many people left because they simply lost interest in Trek after TNG ended. The decline started with DS9 and continued downwards from there.

I think this is pretty accurate, though a couple of small things to add to this. The ratings decline actually started after the midway point of TNG. However, I don't think DS9 benefited from the same star treatment with some of syndicated affiliates who would pre-empt network programming for TNG. I don't think DS9 would have had TNG ratings if it did, but I don't think it got everything it possibly could have either. My theory is that it was a bad cause/effect. DS9 started to get moved around to different time periods in some markets, people couldn't find it, people lost interest, this rubbed off on the later incarnations.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Apparently it was hard to miss.

Or you just weren't paying attention.

You most certainly did.

No I didn't.

Warp drive: the fictional technology that allows ships to travel between stars at speeds faster than we really could

Deus ex machina: travel times being inconsistent for that technology.

Which means that it isn't a deus ex machina but simply a storytelling element as I said.

I really think you just can't understand this concept. A deus ex machina is a storytelling element! It's just one that doesn't make consistent, logical sense. They're generally frowned upon, but mostly depending on the level of the logical leap.

You keep implying that there should be a limit or spreadsheet on how far and fast a vessel should go.

Which doesn't mean that the travel times will have to be long unless you build it in a very rigid way, or just can't work within the constraints of your own built system. If one week you want it to be a week's travel from DS9 to Earth, and later you want it to be a few hours... tough! You need to work within the confines that you set for yourself. There's always a way to tell your same story without condensing the whole galaxy into a place where ships can just pop up anytime they want to.

But it has been consistent in that travel times do vary.

That could easily just as well say that it's been consistent in its inconsistency. How long does it take to get to the center of the Milky Way?

You just love saying "mutually exclusive" over and over again, don't you?

I'm just trying to communicate a point, which you clearly can't comprehend. Let me take away the wordiness and just say that some things can co-exist, and some can not. Plot and science can co-exist. Both groups of people can be pleased.

Dramatic necessity/license. No different from how starship combat is depicted in which two ships appear to be moving within mere feet of one another, when they ought to be thousands of miles apart.

I can agree with that, but at least starships being close isn't a big wtf in terms of science.

A truly more rounded perspective would be that many people left because they simply lost interest in Trek after TNG ended. The decline started with DS9 and continued downwards from there. After awhile, it was mostly Trekkies that were keeping things afloat, and no franchise can survive for very long on just its core audience--especially one that was splintering with each new incarnation anyway.

Again, you're simplifying it. I said one of the factors was oversaturation, which is why things went downhill from the start of DS9. TNG was affected too. The problems didn't start as soon as it ended. Even I understated it (not quite as much as you did), but only because I feel like we're diverting too much from the topic at hand.

Which is why for the most part, Trek has been intentionally vague about those kinds of details.

And I understand why they felt the need to do that, or why most shows feel a need to do that. It's the constraints of working with network TV where there are no guarantees. On top of that, usually that kind of detail is not necessary, it's just nice.

 

[Ryan8bit]

It wasn't that it was the name Delta Vega, it was that it was close enough to be a moon of Vulcan which is now a black hole. Basically they should have died fairly quickly.

No it wouldn't have. It's gravity would have stayed the same. Just as if the sun suddenly became a black hole (won't happen) we would stay in our orbit, we wouldn't be "sucked in."

A problem I see with this is that while you're assuming the planet's matter is the only thing that makes up the black hole, that can't be true because they were able to form black holes in the middle of space. Whatever red matter is supposed to be, somehow it creates what's necessary for a black hole. Vulcan then is the black hole plus all the accumulated matter from the planet. So if something is able to implode the planet, any moon in orbit would definitely be affected.

None of this really matters though since the writers hadn't the slightest clue what a black hole really is.

 

[Deks]

Isn't it possible that the TransWarp project SF worked on the Excelsior in the original universe (movies) got pushed way ahead of the curve as a result of Nero's incursion and possibly some other people who had different perceptions on the aspect managed to get and surpass warp factors (by a few decimals) than what was achieved in TNG?

It wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Apparently it was hard to miss.

Or you just weren't paying attention.

No, it was that it wasn't an important detail to me.

You most certainly did.

No I didn't.

You truly did. In fact, three times now.

Warp drive: the fictional technology that allows ships to travel between stars at speeds faster than we really could

Deus ex machina: travel times being inconsistent for that technology.

I don't agree with that.

Which means that it isn't a deus ex machina but simply a storytelling element as I said.

I really think you just can't understand this concept.

No, I understand it perfectly. I just don't agree with your labeling warp drive as a deus ex machina.

A deus ex machina is a storytelling element! It's just one that doesn't make consistent, logical sense. They're generally frowned upon, but mostly depending on the level of the logical leap.

You're confusing a storytelling element with a plot device. Warp drive does not resolve storylines no more than a transporter or any other science-fiction element does. Yes, they're fictional inventions that enable our heroes to move to their destinations within a story extremely quickly, but magically solve a story, they do not. Frequently, they break down or simply can't be used when our heroes need them the most.

But I guess by your definition, a starship in general would be a deus ex machina, and if that's the way you feel about it, fine. I just see stuff like warp drive as standard tools of the trade, especially in Star Trek.

You keep implying that there should be a limit or spreadsheet on how far and fast a vessel should go.

Which doesn't mean that the travel times will have to be long unless you build it in a very rigid way, or just can't work within the constraints of your own built system.

In other words, fudge factors.

If one week you want it to be a week's travel from DS9 to Earth, and later you want it to be a few hours... tough!

Not really. Just have the ship go faster.

You need to work within the confines that you set for yourself. There's always a way to tell your same story without condensing the whole galaxy into a place where ships can just pop up anytime they want to.

I'd rather our heroes go where they need to go as determined by the story with any limitations as a result of that particular story.

But it has been consistent in that travel times do vary.

That could easily just as well say that it's been consistent in its inconsistency.

Exactly my point.

How long does it take to get to the center of the Milky Way?

Depends on local stellar conditions, I would think. You can get there very quickly or very slowly, depending on where you are in the Galaxy and whether you know a shortcut there.

You just love saying "mutually exclusive" over and over again, don't you?

I'm just trying to communicate a point, which you clearly can't comprehend.

You just totally ignored the part where I said I was joking with you there. Very well. Let me communicate my point to you then in a way you can comprehend:

It doesn't matter if it's "mutually exclusive" or not because the story will be written the way it is by whoever writes it.

Let me take away the wordiness and just say that some things can co-exist, and some can not. Plot and science can co-exist. Both groups of people can be pleased.

But ultimately you know full well that the science will have to give way eventually to the plot in order to tell the story. That is what I've been trying to tell you because everyone knows Trek isn't about 100% scientific accuracy. It's mostly made-up imaginary stuff with some real science used here and there for flavoring. By understanding that Trek's science is largely made up stuff--or as you like to put it, full of deus ex machinas--then the need to adhere to anything other than the speed of plot depends on how much of a stickler you are about such things.

Dramatic necessity/license. No different from how starship combat is depicted in which two ships appear to be moving within mere feet of one another, when they ought to be thousands of miles apart.

I can agree with that, but at least starships being close isn't a big wtf in terms of science.

It actually is no different whatsoever. In fact, it is the heart of what I'm talking about.

Dramatic necessity/dramatic license--the need to alter reality (or the laws of physics) for storytelling purposes.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret. When I was writing fanfics, I used to work out travel times and warp speeds. I did the math. I knew how far a ship could go at Warp 6 in one day or how long it could take a ship to get at a certain place at Warp 9.

But even knowing all that stuff, I also understood that there was also a need to fudge things periodically to move the story along. I couldn't have my ship spending a month to cross just one sector when I needed them in the Klingon Empire in a few days. I frequently made a conscious choice to take dramatic license to maintain the pacing/urgency of the story. Given a choice between scientific accuracy and being able to stop the bad guys before they committed a dastardly deed, I chose the latter. I think that most Star Trek writers--or at least Trek scientific/technical advisors--do try to have some semblance of scientific accuracy, but I do think there are times when science and plot aren't "mutually exclusive," and a choice has to be made. I think plot has to always win in those circumstances.

A truly more rounded perspective would be that many people left because they simply lost interest in Trek after TNG ended. The decline started with DS9 and continued downwards from there. After awhile, it was mostly Trekkies that were keeping things afloat, and no franchise can survive for very long on just its core audience--especially one that was splintering with each new incarnation anyway.

Again, you're simplifying it.

Dang right I'm simplifying it. I'm keeping it as basic as possible. The last thing I want is to debate about "Why Star Trek nearly died" because everyone has their opinion on that.

I said one of the factors was oversaturation, which is why things went downhill from the start of DS9. TNG was affected too. The problems didn't start as soon as it ended. Even I understated it (not quite as much as you did), but only because I feel like we're diverting too much from the topic at hand.

Which was why I was trying to keep it simple.

Which is why for the most part, Trek has been intentionally vague about those kinds of details.

And I understand why they felt the need to do that, or why most shows feel a need to do that. It's the constraints of working with network TV where there are no guarantees. On top of that, usually that kind of detail is not necessary, it's just nice.

Emphasis mine.

I can perfectly understand that you like things to fit together nicely, believe me, I honestly do, but I think the need for that is generally outweighed by a need to have our heroes go wherever they need to go in a story--regardless of where they are in the Galaxy--so inconsistency will kind of rule in that area.

 

[Ryan8bit]

No, it was that it wasn't an important detail to me.

Well, you said you missed it, so that implies that you weren't paying attention, not that you did pay attention and deemed it unimportant. Passage of time is a key concept in all storytelling, and it is most certainly important.

I don't agree with that.

You're going to have to explain then.

Here's an analogy using the transporters. The transporters themselves aren't a deus ex machina, because they're established as to how they work from the get go. What is also established is that they have a certain range. If a story were to negate that range for convenience, that is a deus ex machina. So not the device itself, but how the writer twists it.

You're confusing a storytelling element with a plot device.

You're the only one making that distinction and arguing semantics. They're essentially the same thing, and a deus ex machina applies to both.

Warp drive does not resolve storylines no more than a transporter or any other science-fiction element does.

Yes, they advance the storyline. As does a deus ex machina.

But I guess by your definition, a starship in general would be a deus ex machina

Don't be ridiculous.

Apparently I have to define everything for you. Deus ex machina: something which advances the plot of a story in an illogical way, sometimes when compared to the producer's established set of rules.

In other words, fudge factors.

Nope. These involve forethought and insight, whereas fudge factors do not.

I'd rather our heroes go where they need to go as determined by the story with any limitations as a result of that particular story.

So in a story where you needed someone to get from New York to LA quicker than the several hours it takes, you'd just what, say the plane flew a lot faster? That the laws of physics stopped working? Just ignore it and hope the audience doesn't catch on? People are going to catch on.

Exactly my point.

Ok, surely you must understand the irony in that statement. Saying "my plan is that I don't have a plan" is a contradiction of terms, and it's kind of silly.

Depends on local stellar conditions, I would think. You can get there very quickly or very slowly, depending on where you are in the Galaxy and whether you know a shortcut there.

No, you mean that it depends on the whims of a writer. For ST V, it was within days. For something like Voyager or "The Nth Degree", the implication is more along the lines of decades. Is this an acceptable inconsistency? No, not really.

But ultimately you know full well that the science will have to give way eventually to the plot in order to tell the story.

And that's going to come in the form of them having warp, transporters, phasers, etc. I understand the cutoff for when it becomes science fiction. However, there is bad science apart from those things, or even related to those things. If you take the time to establish how those things work, you don't contradict those workings later.

Dramatic necessity/dramatic license--the need to alter reality (or the laws of physics) for storytelling purposes.

Having ships closer together doesn't alter the laws of physics though.

I do think there are times when science and plot aren't "mutually exclusive," and a choice has to be made.

You mean "are" mutually exclusive. Name something from say, TNG, that excludes science deliberately just to tell a story.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No, it was that it wasn't an important detail to me.

Well, you said you missed it, so that implies that you weren't paying attention, not that you did pay attention and deemed it unimportant.

Um, no. It only implies that I deemed it unimportant.

Passage of time is a key concept in all storytelling, and it is most certainly important.

Not to the extent you propose, however.

I don't agree with that.

You're going to have to explain then.

I already did. You weren't paying attention.

Here's an analogy using the transporters. The transporters themselves aren't a deus ex machina, because they're established as to how they work from the get go. What is also established is that they have a certain range. If a story were to negate that range for convenience, that is a deus ex machina.

That is a horrible analogy. First of all, transporter ranges have never been established other than "we're too far away" or "we're within range." That could be anything as it could vary from episode to episode.

So not the device itself, but how the writer twists it.

Your definition again.

You're confusing a storytelling element with a plot device.

You're the only one making that distinction and arguing semantics.

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...

They're essentially the same thing, and a deus ex machina applies to both.

To you. Not to me. Or more, accurately, I don't share your definition of it as it pertains to Star Trek.

As I said before, I regard a deus ex machina as being something that comes out of the ether to resolve the conflict a story. It's not something that regularly advances the plot like warp drive or a transporter does. In Trekdom, Q and other godlike entities can be considered a deus ex machina when they pull our heroes out of harm's way; so can a sudden last-minute technobabble device built by the chief engineer that amazingly defeats the enemy just as our heroes are about to defeated themselves.

But I guess by your definition, a starship in general would be a deus ex machina

Don't be ridiculous.

I'm just going by what you say. It's an imaginary invention with lots of imaginary stuff that makes it able to do incredible (if not imaginary) things when called upon...

Apparently I have to define everything for you.

It would help if your definitions weren't so limited...

And cut the snarky remarks. It suggests you're getting agitated or upset...

Deus ex machina: something which advances the plot of a story in an illogical way, sometimes when compared to the producer's established set of rules.

Your definition. Not mine.

In other words, fudge factors.

Nope. These involve forethought and insight, whereas fudge factors do not.

I really wish you'd make up your mind. One moment you say things have to adhere to rules, and then you say rules don't have to be so ridgid unless the writers want them to be.

Okay, at this point I'm going to skip to the end, since it's mostly nitpicking and petty bickering over minutae now. We're quibbling over differences of opinions over what is and isn't acceptable in a story (although I'm more civil about it). That's getting us nowhere and isn't resolving anything...and I've passed my two-day topic debate limit anyway.

It should be quite obvious to you by now that I don't think Trek has to be as consistent as you do, especially when it comes to something like warp speeds and travel times. It may piss you off that our heroes generally move at the speed of plot, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It doesn't take me out of the story or kills my suspension of disbelief because I know there are ways to generally explain away such things (and I generally come up with them without even trying too hard).

 

[Ryan8bit]

Um, no. It only implies that I deemed it unimportant.

GUY 1: Hey, did you catch the baseball game last night?
GUY 2: No, I missed it.
GUY 1: Oh, that's too bad, our team won.
GUY 2: Well no, I saw it, but I just deemed it unimportant.
GUY 1: ???

Speech/text is important, especially when all we have here is just the words. You can probably see why I called you on this.

Not to the extent you propose, however.

Well, it matters in the context when I say it took a few days for the Borg to reach Earth, and you deny it.

First of all, transporter ranges have never been established other than "we're too far away" or "we're within range." That could be anything as it could vary from episode to episode.

It's a great analogy because they have been established. Check out "A Matter of Honor" from TNG. It was pivotal to the plot, and very much there. So my point stands.

Your definition again.

No, it's a distinction of common sense.

A combustion engine powers my car.
My car gets me to where I want to go.
The distance I travel by my car cannot exceed a certain amount.

Replace combustion engine with warp drive, car with starship, and distance stays the same. They're not at all the same!

If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black...

So no defense for the claim? You're mincing words to mean things that they are not. I have not done such a thing.

To you. Not to me. Or more, accurately, I don't share your definition of it as it pertains to Star Trek.

Ok, well the way I define it is how it actually exists in, y'know dictionaries and encyclopedias. From dictionary.com:

2. any artificial or improbable device resolving the difficulties of a plot.

The only thing that's subjective is what is artificial/improbable. I'm sure if you asked a lot of people here, you could come to a consensus on what is and is not probable in the context of Star Trek. If the producers establish how something works and then disregard it later, you're going to have a consensus that it is sloppy writing. I defy anyone to say that the difference between Star Trek V and TNG episodes like "Nth degree" isn't due to anything but sloppiness and poor forethought.

I'm just going by what you say. It's an imaginary invention with lots of imaginary stuff that makes it able to do incredible (if not imaginary) things when called upon...

But that's not what I said. You can have all sorts of imaginary things as long as they work consistently. For instance, if you have time travel, and you say that nothing can ever be changed, yet you have an episode where something does change, that's the kind of inconsistency I speak of. It doesn't matter that time travel is impossible as we know it, or that it's highly fantastical. It just means that the writers have to work within the bounds they set for themselves.

It would help if your definitions weren't so limited...

No, it would just help if you just knew what some fairly common terms meant. We can't communicate if you can't understand the definitions.

And cut the snarky remarks. It suggests you're getting agitated or upset...

I'm no more snarky than you're being. I didn't start the conversation off with [highlight]FAIL.[/highlight] and all sorts of other little provocative things. I just came down to your level.

I really wish you'd make up your mind. One moment you say things have to adhere to rules, and then you say rules don't have to be so ridgid unless the writers want them to be.

When you define your rules, that's when you have the opportunity to make them soft or rigid. If you want rules to be rigid, you establish distances, speeds, what kinds of variables can alter those speeds, and what math guides that. A more relaxed perspective would just be saying Vulcan to Earth: a few hours. No math, no calculators, just a simple fact.

Okay, at this point I'm going to skip to the end, since it's mostly nitpicking and petty bickering over minutae now.

I really wish you'd address the NY/LA analogy, and the one where I asked you to show me a good example of TNG where science (or breaking the rules) was at odds with telling the story, and yet was done deliberately. Those were important points.

We're quibbling over differences of opinions over what is and isn't acceptable in a story (although I'm more civil about it).

Everything was civil until you posted this:

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

[highlight]FAIL.[/highlight]

So, I'm sorry, but if you're going to drag it down to that level, that's where it's going to be.

It should be quite obvious to you by now that I don't think Trek has to be as consistent as you do, especially when it comes to something like warp speeds and travel times. It may piss you off that our heroes generally move at the speed of plot, but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It doesn't take me out of the story or kills my suspension of disbelief because I know there are ways to generally explain away such things (and I generally come up with them without even trying too hard).

To me it only does in instances like Star Trek V. Notice I said that I've dealt with it. It doesn't piss me off in most cases, but rather I just feel like it would be so much nicer if things just worked.

I take on this motto: "Isn't it nice when things just... work?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ve4M4UsJQo