STID realistic?

[Grendelsbayne]

I was reading an article this morning which was discussing their analysis of starship sizes on fictional shows/films across the decades - apparently ships got increasingly larger through the 80s and 90s and then started to shrink again. They attributed this to the idea that Science fiction in the 80s and 90s dared to dream big, trying to imagine what living in space would be like far in the future (their examples including Star Destroyers and the massive motherships from ID4), but that by the 2000s, the genre was settling back into a much more 'realistic' view of what space travel would be like. One of their examples for this increased 'realism' was STID.

Now, I don't really want this to turn into another discussion about who liked the movie or not, and I want to make it clear that I'm not saying the movie is bad just because I don't find it 'realistic', but I want to ask this one question:

Is there any particular aspect of space travel in ID which people believe is truly 'realistic'?

I just don't really see how that description applies here...

 

[iguana_tonante]

I was reading an article this morning which was discussing their analysis of starship sizes on fictional shows/films across the decades - apparently ships got increasingly larger through the 80s and 90s and then started to shrink again. They attributed this to the idea that Science fiction in the 80s and 90s dared to dream big, trying to imagine what living in space would be like far in the future (their examples including Star Destroyers and the massive motherships from ID4), but that by the 2000s, the genre was settling back into a much more 'realistic' view of what space travel would be like. One of their examples for this increased 'realism' was STID.

The ships in STID are fucking huge. The Enterprise is 3 times bigger than the original one. The Vengeance is one big motherfucker. Not to mention ST09's Narada, which is so big it's not even funny. They are not exactly city-ships, but they are still pretty large. So I don't see the link with ship "shrinkage".

 

[R. Star]

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

 

[T'Girl]

analysis of starship sizes on fictional shows/films across the decades - apparently ships got increasingly larger through the 80s and 90s

1977, Death Star, somewhat large.

 

[wjaspers]

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I don't think there's much realistic about any of Trek's ships. The odd shape, for starters. And the insanely enormous spacedock in the new movies and it's multistory city in the central sphere.

Looks damn cool, though

 

[wjaspers]

They are not fucking huge, they are ridiculous.

But hey, let's face it, it is now "canon", so ST is now ridiculous, and you liked it, you embraced it , it is over and done for ST.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.

Show me the realism of Kirk being beamed into good and evil halves or Spock being half-human despite having copper-based blood, cos you won't find any.

 

[Kruezerman]

]
And that of course was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this of course is now gone.

"Of course" is two words thank you.

Are you joking? Star Trek was never, ever, ever, ever, realistic. A ship with magical gravity? Transporters? Oh yeah, realistic all right.

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't know if it's realistic or whatever. But until Abrams came along, Star Trek's ships were pretty small compared to other sci-fi franchises.

 

[BillJ]

And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.

What was realistic about any of the shows?

I started watching Star Trek when I was four because it had great action, cool aliens and kick-ass spaceships. I continue to watch TOS, early-TNG and the Abrams films because they are fun to watch. Fun is an element that is sorely missing from most of Modern Trek.

And I'll take fun over realism every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If I want realism, I'll watch my nation default, kids getting murdered and the latest terrorist attack on the news.

 

[Franklin]

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.

Realism in starships? REALISM? In what context? Faster than light travel? Artificial gravity that makes life aboard the ship as comfortable as walking around a mall? Please don't tell me these things are really possible in any way that would approach 0.1% of how they are presented in ANY version of "Star Trek".

There isn't a reputable physicist out there who would say we'll someday traverse the stars like in "Star Trek".

I think ships probably got larger in some sci-fi (including Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which was the 1970s) as a concession to the reality that star travelling cultures would be in space for a long time. As the ship voyaged to wherever was intended at near-light speed, entire generations would live their lives out in those huge ships that were entirely self-sustaining worlds.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Sadly, it wasn't much realistic, but it was more realistic than most I've seen in Star Trek (if not all), so it will have to do. The improvement in special effects in recent years has contributed to the realism of films that lacked in other places, and that's generally a good thing. Things feel more real now. Also the darker theme and the character flaws contribute to the perception of realism, even if some of them seem contrived under closer scrutiny – and that's already much better than, say, TNG where nobody ever made a mistake.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

That mostly applies to smaller electronics though, and there's a purpose for them to get smaller.

With starships it makes sense for them to get bigger. With an improving economy would come better living accommodations for those aboard and that would include bigger living spaces and more recreational facilities. I'm not sure if that applies to a warship like the Vengeance, but it probably does at least for the Enterprises.

 

[Ovation]

Realism and Star Trek have never occupied the same solar system simultaneously. No reason to believe that will change any time, well...ever, really.

 

[M'Sharak]

As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

While that's true if one looks at something like electronics—where efficiency is gained by making things smaller—it's also easy to find many examples of improvements in technology leading to increased size.

Well if you're looking for realism, science fiction probably isn't your best bet. As technology gets better things have a tendency to get smaller, not larger.

And that ofcourse was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this ofcourse is now gone.

Nonsense. Star Trek, like any entertainment, has always employed only as much realism at any given time as is deemed desirable (and affordable) for purposes of getting the story across. Realism in Star Trek is no more gone now than it ever has been.

]
And that of course was what ST always was about, get realism into the show, and this of course is now gone.

"Of course" is two words thank you.

Bear in mind that English isn't the first language for everyone posting here. His meaning was clear enough, and a minor nit like that really needs no picking.

 

[BK613]

^ Starships seemed to move away from being ships and more toward mobile star bases as time went on IMO. Needs to be a balance between size and numbers tho. The resources of a Galaxy-class build could equal several smaller vessels covering more exploration area, for example.

--
As for realism in ID, there is a hyperrealism to the FX that hasn't been there before, but that is about it.

 

[Shatinator]

Yes, it is completely unrealistic, communication not tethered by a cord, weapons based on light amplification and ships that (gasp) leave the atmosphere of of a terrestrial body!



or put another way...Ms. Foster (watch 30 seconds in)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sds7hTlaNaM

Indistinguishable from Magic, indeed

 

[Noname Given]

Realism and Star Trek have never occupied the same solar system simultaneously. No reason to believe that will change any time, well...ever, really.

^^^
This - be it 'original'; 'TNG era', or Abrams Star Trek.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The ships in STID are fucking huge.

They are not fucking huge, they are ridiculous.

But hey, let's face it, it is now "canon", so ST is now ridiculous, and you liked it, you embraced it , it is over and done for ST.

You are welcome.