The new "going to warp" effect

[SalvorHardin]

^ Yes...but what about the Enterprise being built on the ground ?

 

[cooleddie74]

^ Yes...but what about the Enterprise being built on the ground ?

Because Mighty, Mighty Robau willed it to be so.

 

[Cyke101]

No offense, but how could any of that be realistic/unrealistic if:

1. Subspace thus far is a fictional invention

It is not. Superstring physics, depending on interpretation and math, has either 11 or 27 dimensions. 1 is a dimension of time. 3 are the dimensions of space we know. 1 is a hyperspace dimension in which universes exist vibrating as a membrane. The 6 or 22 remaining ones are subspace dimensions.

In fact, subspace as a genuine scientific concept, existed BEFORE it was used in fiction.

Which is where we get Star Trek, and position that this stuff CAN be used to go to warp, see beyond, and undo the warping effect.

If it is heavily based in real science with a little conjecture thrown in, then it is realistic to me. Remember, realistic does not equal REAL. Those are two very different things. You can call a racing game various degrees of realistic, in different areas, or not. Yet, no matter how realistic the game, it is never real.

But validity of theory isn't the point, it's about what determines "realism" as opposed to theory and supposition, ie how can we actually infer something that hasn't been made visible yet. I'm very wary of what things are supposed to look like if we haven't the faintest of clues on what we'll see. X-Ray specs and infrared, maybe, but out and out "what you see is what you get" is something else entirely. Not too long ago, our "realistic" perceptions of the ocean floor and the lunar surface were totally different.

That is, I'm all for things being real and unreal, but in sci-fi, we really don't have a handle on the difference, and I don't think it should deter from the final product, either. Questioning authority and all that -- after a certain threshold, who is anyone to make the call of realism? That's the beauty of science, what we consider to be "real" gets revised all the time.

(By the way, i am definitely NOT calling anything you said as BS. I'm very much intrigued by superstring physics, but its applications to Trek have barely been discussed in-show and what the show describes as authoritative... there's even a thread in the TNG forums about how some TNG tech is already outdated in some form or another. Predictions are wacky like that. Fear not my friend, I trust you on many issues!)

To demand from any work of fiction, not only realistic and as close to real as you can get, but ACTUAL reality, and nothing may defer from reality, and anything we don't yet you're not allowed to use, is just false.

Especially in Science Fiction. That demand equals the end of Science Fiction.

Well, yes it's false. That's why I'm questioning it. For now, on what authority would anyone have to say about what something might look like? I'm all about suspension of belief, and I'm also all for implementation of fact into fiction, but to say something is definite is a bit off and defeats some of the purpose of artistic vision. Are any of the other sci-fi stories that came before invalidated? Perhaps not, but those are all mere predictions, not set in stone. Whether or not they hit the mark is largely irrelevant.

With that said, I'll just slightly bolster up Disillusioned's post:

With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does any[/i] warp effect really have all that much weight?

Star Trek the movie doesn't have a single hint toward realism at all, it's Trek Wars, fantasy from beginning to end, with not a single effort toward realism whatsoever. The effects of warp are a ridiculous miss match of a few tiny bits Star Trek, and the rest Star Wars. The they don't have FTL sensors, except some rinky dink research station on a frozen planet that doen't even get proper rationing, making it very much like Star Wars; calculate destination, go to hyperspace and wait to drop out, and the going to warp effect is just Star Wars as well.

In that sense, with "Star Trek" meaning, just this movie, you can toss it indeed out the window as having no weight.

The rest of Star Trek, proper Star Trek, this is very different.

I'd argue that we don't get much realism in Trek anyway, from the overly-contrived anomalies in Voyager to the gods in DS9 to Spock's katra and TOS/TNG's cosmological lifeforms. Even temporal physics seem to be at the mercy of the plot from episode to episode, changing at writer's whim (that includes ENT, which would logically use the latest time theories, and even then currently those theories are worked and reworked and revised). Prior to 2009, Trek had shown us no less than five warp effects, few of them being consistent with each other. If we can believe sound in space and close-range ship battles (and those aren't bad things at all), then I'm pretty sure the audience can accept all other kinds of unreality and thus various kinds of warp.

^ Yes...but what about the Enterprise being built on the ground ?

Because Mighty, Mighty Robau willed it to be so.

If I may paraphrase another post: Mighty Robau broke the laws of physics when he clenched his butt cheeks.

...and I'm off to the Robau thread

 

[JuanBolio]

It's actually very realistic. You can look beyond the bubble, as the bubble is simply made of a different kind of space - sub space. With sensors based upon the same subspace, hyper-dimensional principles you can bypass the limitation of the bubble. This, in fact, is a necessity. If you cannot do this, you cannot unmake your bubble and the warp that is pulling you onward at FTL speeds from within it either - once started, you can never stop. This, in fact, is a major hurtle for the real life warp drive theory, even if we have potential means to produce the warp, the only way to undo the warp would come from an outside source. You would thus need a receiving station where you're going, and needed to have gone there at Sublight speeds before you could go their at warp drive.

As for the streaking stars, we don't, of course, see actual stars streaking by. This is simply an illusion generated by the warped space time and the subspace sensors piercing of that warp.

The elongated streaking stars I like a lot.

Well, I'm not talking about subspace sensors - I'm talking about the ability to see visual light from beyond the bubble. Anything behind the ship would be red-shifted and warped to the point of invisibility, just as everything ahead would be blue-shifted and warped beyond the visual range. I think the new blue, bendy energy ripple coupled with blackness is far more realistic on a visual level.

With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does the warp effect really have all that much weight?

No, but every step in the right direction increases my enjoyment.

 

[Cyke101]

With as much as there is in Star Trek that isn't realistic, does the warp effect really have all that much weight?

No, but every step in the right direction increases my enjoyment.

Hear hear!

But right direction is largely subjective, no? I sometimes think that had TWOK's warp effect been eight star-shooting unicorns pulling the ship, that we would not only love it, we would also try to reconcile it with current scientific theory. And really, there's nothing wrong with either of that! That's what makes talking with fans so fun.

 

[TeutonicNights]

As for the streaking stars, we don't, of course, see actual stars streaking by. This is simply an illusion generated by the warped space time and the subspace sensors piercing of that warp.

It certainly looks like the ship is passing lotsa stars very fast, and when they drop out of Warp, those streaks "turn" back to stars (as seen on many occasions). How can that really be an illusion as in "it's really not as fast as it looks"?

All in all, I could live with an SW Warp. It has its advantages.

Ironically, what we probably would have gotten if oldTrek had continued would probably be the most versatile solution: Transwarp channels.

 

[Cyke101]

Ironically, what we probably would have gotten if oldTrek had continued would probably be the most versatile solution: Transwarp channels.

True, but "transwarp channel" doesn't have quite the same ring as "warp drive/factor/speed" I suspect this is why quantum torpedoes never really caught on with the fans on the same level as photon torpedoes, despite quantums having a ton of advantages.

 

[JuanBolio]

I really don't see a whole lot of visual similarity between the new warp effect and the Star Wars hyperspace effect, to be honest.

 

[TeutonicNights]

True, but "transwarp channel" doesn't have quite the same ring as "warp drive/factor/speed" I suspect this is why quantum torpedoes never really caught on with the fans on the same level as photon torpedoes, despite quantums having a ton of advantages.

I think a combination of a "slow Warp"+ B5-style Transwarp channels ("Warp Portals" maybe) might have been a good idea to start afresh.
They could travel between major systems fast, but in new territory they would be thrown back to a (preferrably slow-ish) kind of traditional Warp.

I really don't see a whole lot of visual similarity between the new warp effect and the Star Wars hyperspace effect, to be honest.

It's more similar to SW's hyperspace travel than to any other depiction of Warp in Trek.

 

[M'Sharak]

And when I saw the new beaming effect, I burst out laughing. Here's why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as3JMPx4FIU

It's just not the same without Mel Blanc.

^ Yes...but what about the Enterprise being built on the ground ?

I see what you did right there.

 

[JuanBolio]

I really don't see a whole lot of visual similarity between the new warp effect and the Star Wars hyperspace effect, to be honest.

It's more similar to SW's hyperspace travel than to any other depiction of Warp in Trek.

I'll buy that much, but to my eye they're still not terribly alike.

 

[Sci]

I love how people are getting all worked up over the "originality" of the warp drive effect in ST09. As though that's what makes it a good or bad movie. How dare one really good, fun sci-fi film give a visual tip-of-the-hat to another really good, fun sci-fi film!

 

[Cyke101]

I love how people are getting all worked up over the "originality" of the warp drive effect in ST09. As though that's what makes it a good or bad movie. How dare one really good, fun sci-fi film give a visual tip-of-the-hat to another really good, fun sci-fi film!

Could one argue that the TOS-films' warp streaks are similar to Superman's blur from the Donner films?

 

[Brandonv]

It's interesting how "faithfully" they copied the SW hyperspace.
I've only seen XI once, can someone tell me if the new Warp also gets you out of harms way like in SW? As in: Can another ship catch up with you and shoot you?

Though even the "no FTL sensors" in XI will change ST significantly. It will be interesting to see how this will be used in future films. They should not be able to spot other vessels while at Warp. Can they even stick with that? Or will they change it again for their story needs?

A lot of people are speculating that ships are now flying blind when traveling at warp, but the explanation I prefer is that the Narada had the technology to jam 23rd century sensors. The fleet flying toward Vulcan would have probably attributed their sensor blindness to whatever phenomenon was causing the seismic activity on Vulcan, not knowing that the Narada was waiting for them.

 

[TeutonicNights]

the explanation I prefer is that the Narada had the technology to jam 23rd century sensors. The fleet flying toward Vulcan would have probably attributed their sensor blindness to whatever phenomenon was causing the seismic activity on Vulcan, not knowing that the Narada was waiting for them.

That would make sense.
No FTL sensors would be an interesting new way for Trek though. The heroes having no clue what awaits them at their destination can be powerful.
Although "in reality", that would probably mean heavy usage of probes (since FTL communication obviously still exists).

 

[startrekrcks]

but how did it get up into space before Kirk was looking at it being built

 

[Cyke101]

but how did it get up into space before Kirk was looking at it being built

Kirk looked at it being built when he was 22. The Enterprise wasn't launched until he was 25, three years later, its first mission being the rescue of Vulcan. A lot can happen in three years.

 

[Kpnuts]

I really don't see a whole lot of visual similarity between the new warp effect and the Star Wars hyperspace effect, to be honest.

It's more similar to SW's hyperspace travel than to any other depiction of Warp in Trek.

I'll buy that much, but to my eye they're still not terribly alike.

Are you blind?

You can't see the similarity between:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8891/vlcsnap2009102623h26m49.jpg

[Oversized image converted to link. - M']

and

http://www.seds.org/archive/nodes/hyperspace.gif

[Hotlinked image converted to link. Please refer to TrekBBS policy concerning posting of images. - M']

??

Ok the Trek one is a lot more subtle with far less stars, but the effect is exactly the same.

 

[Jeyl]

^

And don't forget that the ships just accelerate really fast with next to no Star Trek like stretch, bleed or trail effect.

 

[Sci]

It's more similar to SW's hyperspace travel than to any other depiction of Warp in Trek.

I'll buy that much, but to my eye they're still not terribly alike.

Are you blind?

You can't see the similarity between:

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8891/vlcsnap2009102623h26m49.jpg

[Oversized image converted to link. - M']

and

http://www.seds.org/archive/nodes/hyperspace.gif

[Hotlinked image converted to link. Please refer to TrekBBS policy concerning posting of images. - M']

??

Ok the Trek one is a lot more subtle with far less stars, but the effect is exactly the same.

Dude, Trek was always doing the stretchy-star thing when it went to warp. Check out the warp effect from early TNG Season Two, with Wesley and Guinan watching out the Ten-Forward window as the ship went to warp.