STID realistic?

[mswood]

On a purely visual level I think ENtetprise has felt more "Realistic" then any other trek , primarily due to set design and costumes. But it's not nor never been a show tied to realism.

As for ID, I didn't see anything that would make me think that universe's would be seen as more realistic.

But in fairness I can't say the same about Trek 2009. With most of Trek we have had a crew size (TOS, TNG, VOY less sure about DS9 and the Defiant).

So with the the exception of the Galaxy class ship, I never saw the ships holding anywhere near the shuttle facilities they would need. The Galaxy class had enormous interior space that coud easily hold dozens and dozens of various shuttles, and get them to the three shuttle bays.

At least with Trek 2009 (and without being told crew compliment) we see a fairly large supply of shuttles. So that in emergencies where the transporter is useless, a good number of crew could escape and escape in a manner more then just drifting in life boats which would seem to be extremely easy targets for threats to eliminate.

That is the one thing I think a larger ship does allow, that a long ranch ship should have, especially if those ships aren't seen as serious death traps.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

They're bigger on the inside.

 

[rafterman1701]

Sci-fi is not about realism. It's about an illusion of realism. It's about how far you bend the rules. Trek has had a pretty consistent sense of realism over the years. No, it's inherently NOT realistic, but it has always operated within a certain set of rules for how far they go. I think the JJ stuff is just operating within a set set. The ships are bigger and faster. That's a simple fact. Travel takes a lot less time, the ship has a lot more space inside it. Yes, it's not more or less realistic than the prime universe, but it is quite clearly operating under a new set of restrictions.

 

[Robert Comsol]

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

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.

No matter which way you want to rationalize this, such performances require the corresponding technologies that will use up internal space.

Since the ship has transporters and shuttlecraft those extra technologies look somewhat redundant.

On a "real" starship I assume they would rather devote available extra space to accomodate components that would improve warp speed and power output and the like.

Bob

 

[BillJ]

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.

*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*

 

[JamesRye]

*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*

Add to that - Voyager flying around in 'fluidic space', the underwater flying village ship in Insurrection, and we saw the original Enterprise display atmospheric flight capabilities in Tomorrow is Yesterday.

I think a lot of the people that rag on the new films are wearing blood wine tinted goggles. Either that, or they were younger and more prepared to 'accept' the foibles of the older shows.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, I think the existing technologies aboard the ships in either universe can be adapted for short term atmospheric flight or submersion in a fluid environment. No need to add something new to explain it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.

*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*

That was a body in zero-gravity the TOS Enterprise encountered.

In STID the Enterprise had to cope with the gravity of the planet and the pressure of water (which reminds me: Why did the Enterprise submerge in water? Would it not have made sense to keep the ship in orbit around the planet instead?).

Bob

 

[Cyke101]

My first full Trek show was TNG, and a Galaxy-class is roughly (ROUGHLY, for all you size queens) the same size as the JJprise, so I suppose I'm used to ships being that big. Heck, one of the reasons why the Intrepid is so small was so that Voyager would feel less safe and more imperiled than the Enterprise-D.

With that said, I wonder if my preferences of the past are being somewhat diluted or influenced now, in that these days, I have the tendency to think that the the TOS/movie Enterprise may be indeed too small for my tastes, akin to how 1940s and 50s pulp sci-fi depicted rocket ships of the 21st century as mere 20 foot towers. It has a crew of 400 after all, and its neck and pylons don't look very secure in hindsight, and a well-placed torpedo hit will go *through* a few decks (see TUC).

 

[SeerSGB]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

 

[Cyke101]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

You mean you don't find a giant green hand, resurrected Lincoln, space amoebas, space whales, giant floaty heads, wormhole aliens, mystical orbs, countless alien Nazis, and omnipotent gods obsessed with foppish frilly shirts believable?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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

Yeah. The realism got beaten out of Star Trek about halfway through Season 1, somewhere between "Miri" and "Shore leave", although it did have a few bright spots in between.

My first full Trek show was TNG, and a Galaxy-class is roughly (ROUGHLY, for all you size queens) the same size as the JJprise, so I suppose I'm used to ships being that big.

Actually, we figured out over in Trek Tech that the Galaxy class is actually about 60% larger than the JJprize and uses its internal space a lot more efficiently. But I do take your point: we've SEEN big ships in Star Trek before, so it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference.

With that said, I wonder if my preferences of the past are being somewhat diluted or influenced now, in that these days, I have the tendency to think that the the TOS/movie Enterprise may be indeed too small for my tastes

Hell, I've been saying that for years. The Galaxy class is twenty times larger than Kirk's little Constitution but is depicted to have basically the same mission. Never could wrap my head around that.

 

[Cyke101]

My first full Trek show was TNG, and a Galaxy-class is roughly (ROUGHLY, for all you size queens) the same size as the JJprise, so I suppose I'm used to ships being that big.

Actually, we figured out over in Trek Tech that the Galaxy class is actually about 60% larger than the JJprize and uses its internal space a lot more efficiently.

Oh dear, 60% is more than *roughly*. I stand corrected!

 

[MakeshiftPython]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.

 

[BK613]

I guess my reply is off-topic, because it's not the space travel I had issues with but after the obvious atmospheric flight capabilities suggested by ST09 the now added submarine capabilities.

*cough* The Immunity Syndrome *cough*

That was a body in zero-gravity the TOS Enterprise encountered.

In STID the Enterprise had to cope with the gravity of the planet and the pressure of water

The space amoeba was 11000 miles (17702.8 kilometers) long and 2000-3000 miles (3218.7-4828.0 kilometers) thick. That makes it a planet-sized body in space complete with gravity and pressure (since protoplasm is mostly water). The E entered, maneuvered to the nucleus to plant the probe and then backed out, all while under dire power constraints.

Nope, can't get around it; TOS establishes the ability of starships (and shuttlecraft) to operated in water.

(which reminds me: Why did the Enterprise submerge in water? Would it not have made sense to keep the ship in orbit around the planet instead?).

Bob

Can't help you there. Makes no sense to me either.

 

[Noname Given]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

You mean you don't find a giant green hand, resurrected Lincoln, space amoebas, space whales, giant floaty heads, wormhole aliens, mystical orbs, countless alien Nazis, and omnipotent gods obsessed with foppish frilly shirts believable?

^^^
Well, there is the fact that (even at sublight Impulse speeds); Star Trek ships and personnel seem unaffected by any time dilation effects from Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Also, it's amazing how often Star Fleet vessels completely loose all power, yet the artificial gravity never seems to fail.

 

[SeerSGB]

For me, it's not about how realistic, it's about how believable. When it comes to the latter, nuTrek fails for me there.

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.

Again, Trek has never been so, IMO. Things play out by the dictate of the plot, not the most believable way.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Does it seem to be a trend these days where "realism" is more required in fictional movies and shows? I think maybe a lot of people look at something like the new Batman movies, while still not exactly realistic, if put on a spectrum from unrealism to realism, it would probably rank higher than most entertainment, like Star Trek. It certainly was trying to make things a bit less silly than some of the previous incarnations of Batman. Is that a trend that maybe people were expecting to see in these rebooted movies? Kind of like how you wouldn't expect to see neon colored tights on the X-men, you might expect some more realism in Trek too. I think in some ways these new movies did take a step forward there (aesthetically), and in others they might have taken some steps back (real world science) or at least sideways.

I think rebooting Star Trek would give the chance to allow for a higher place on that spectrum. It doesn't need to be yet another situation that's, "Star Trek has always been unrealistic, why expect it now?" That's not exactly setting the highest bar.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Star Trek has never been remotely believable for me. Entertaining, fun? Yes. But believable, not a bit.

I'm talking about how things play out believably, not whether or not stuff like transporter tech is believable.

Again, Trek has never been so, IMO. Things play out by the dictate of the plot, not the most believable way.

So, if McCoy suddenly raped Janice Rand with no explanation, that wouldn't be too much of a stretch because Trek has never been believable in the first place? That's where I'm getting at. A fair example of something that is unbelievable in nuTrek is Kirk being promoted from a third year cadet to the Captain of the flagship of the Federation. To go back further, Riker's remark in the corridor in "The Neutral Zone" about the 20th century civies "not having much to redeem" is unbelievable because it's not consistent with his attitude towards them in the rest of the episode where he appears to enjoy their company.

My point is, if you're gonna present something, present it in a believable way. Spock throws Plomeek Soup at Nurse Chapel, that would be considered unbelievable under normal circumstances, but since the episode gets into why he's acting this way, it's perfectly believable.