The world-building of this new Trek universe

[BillJ]

You realize that variations on transwarp beaming have existed as far back as Assignment: Earth and That Which Survives?

I do and they were examples of the crew being wowed by technological feats that were beyond then-current Federation science.

They didn't look particularly wowed in That Which Survives. Those incidents along with his own tinkering probably encouraged Scott in the Prime Timeline to continue to work on the process. Plus we saw a variation of transwarp beaming in TNG as well. No one claimed the universe was going to fall apart because of it then.

 

[I am not Spock]

It's a reboot.

Someone is bound to bring up the FACT it ties back to the Original universe/timeline, whatever... Forget it. That was just a widget to tease us into going along with them. Now, anything goes.

The trick to getting your head around how this new universe works is to stop comparing it to how the old one did!!1one!

I agree.

It's reboot. The 'Nero incursion' stuff is an olive branch for the fans.

It is a new universe.

 

[YARN]

You realize that variations on transwarp beaming have existed as far back as Assignment: Earth and That Which Survives

If a super advanced alien race can do it, we're wowed at how powerful they are compared to our rugged ship and crew. We don't ask, "Why don't they do that thing?" if it wasn't their thing in the first place.

Starfleet possessing the secret of EZ-Bake Stargate technology raises the question of why they don't use it. Transwarp beaming is a game changer.

 

[pymfan2000]

You realize that variations on transwarp beaming have existed as far back as Assignment: Earth and That Which Survives?

I do and they were examples of the crew being wowed by technological feats that were beyond then-current Federation science.

They didn't look particularly wowed in That Which Survives. Those incidents along with his own tinkering probably encouraged Scott in the Prime Timeline to continue to work on the process. Plus we saw a variation of transwarp beaming in TNG as well. No one claimed the universe was going to fall apart because of it then.

I don't believe I even implied "the universe was going to fall part" or anything like that. That's hyperbole.

I was merely joining in with the discussion above that the writers might not have thought through possible ramifications of the introduction of new tech.

 

[BillJ]

Transwarp beaming is a game changer.

I simply don't think so. And even if I thought it was, Trek has had no problem burying game-changers in the past.

 

[BillJ]

I do and they were examples of the crew being wowed by technological feats that were beyond then-current Federation science.

They didn't look particularly wowed in That Which Survives. Those incidents along with his own tinkering probably encouraged Scott in the Prime Timeline to continue to work on the process. Plus we saw a variation of transwarp beaming in TNG as well. No one claimed the universe was going to fall apart because of it then.

I don't believe I even implied "the universe was going to fall part" or anything like that. That's hyperbole.

I was merely joining in with the discussion above that the writers might not have thought through possible ramifications of the introduction of new tech.

When you say "the writers don't care" or they only do things for "superficial" reasons, you've went beyond discussing in-universe ramifications.

 

[YARN]

Transwarp beaming is a game changer.

I simply don't think so. And even if I thought it was, Trek has had no problem burying game-changers in the past.

You're right, they can bury it. Then again, however, they might recast the part of Kirk or change the Enterprise to look like the Galactica or reintroduce Spock's mom without giving any explanation. They can do whatever they please, right?

So far, however, transwarp beaming moved the plot in two of these films and it has been commented in both films too.

If they stay consistent with their world-building, this tech ramifies as a game-changer.

 

[BillJ]

You're right, they can bury it. Then again, however, they might recast the part of Kirk or change the Enterprise to look like the Galactica or reintroduce Spock's mom without giving any explanation. They can do whatever they please, right?

Of course they can. CBS owns Star Trek, not me. But there's nothing they can do that can take what I already have away from me.

So if they do something I'm so against that its a deal-breaker, I'll move on. When the Trek itch presents itself I can always relive what I consider the good stuff.

I'm not so full of myself that I think Trek has any responsibility to cater to my tastes.

 

[YARN]

Of course they can. CBS owns Star Trek, not me. But there's nothing they can do that can take what I already have away from me.

So if they do something I'm so against that its a deal-breaker, I'll move on. When the Trek itch presents itself I can always relive what I consider the good stuff.

I'm not so full of myself that I think Trek has any responsibility to cater to my tastes.

So, what we have is (1) a prediction from you (they will bury it), (2) the fact that they have final say, and (3) the evidence of the last two films (where it is in plain sight and moves the plot). The prediction points in one direction. The fact points in neither. The evidence of the films point in the other direction. The question, therefore, is why do you think your prediction is more warranted than the evidence we have in the last two films?

Does it matter that much if they keep transwarp beaming? I think it changes the stories a bit. It no longer makes sense to use the Enterprise as an interplanetary pack mule (undercutting time sensitive mission duties vs. exigent circumstances type plots and also those plots where the Enterprise leisurely coasts along as a diplomatic ship with intrigue from unruly guests). But does it totally end Star Trek? No, it just means that you need a further excuse for these plots and you can now take advantage of being able to move your characters around faster. It changes the game, but it doesn't end it.

The tough part is when you're writing a script you now have an additional nagging question - "Why don't they use transwarp beaming?"

 

[BillJ]

The tough part is when you're writing a script you now have an additional nagging question - "Why don't they use transwarp beaming?"

Its not tough, not the least little bit. They're going to do whatever makes the script exciting. Why didn't Admiral Marcus simply beam the torpedoes to Kronos and detonate them? He could have wiped out the Klingon Empire with transwarp beaming. Why didn't he? Because that route simply isn't interesting.

 

[pymfan2000]

The tough part is when you're writing a script you now have an additional nagging question - "Why don't they use transwarp beaming?"

Its not tough, not the least little bit. They're going to do whatever makes the script exciting. Why didn't Admiral Marcus simply beam the torpedoes to Kronos and detonate them? He could have wiped out the Klingon Empire with transwarp beaming. Why didn't he? Because that route simply isn't interesting.

I would think that the rationale for inclusion in a script is more complex than "is it interesting or exciting". Surely, that's only part of the writer's thought process?

 

[BillJ]

I always thought it was incredible that in Star Trek VI that there was only one Bird-of-Prey that could fire when cloaked and they never built another one after that.

Did someone lose the plans?

 

[BillJ]

The tough part is when you're writing a script you now have an additional nagging question - "Why don't they use transwarp beaming?"

Its not tough, not the least little bit. They're going to do whatever makes the script exciting. Why didn't Admiral Marcus simply beam the torpedoes to Kronos and detonate them? He could have wiped out the Klingon Empire with transwarp beaming. Why didn't he? Because that route simply isn't interesting.

I would think that the rationale for inclusion in a script is more complex than "is it interesting or exciting". Surely, that's only part of the writer's thought process?

Why would it need to be anymore than that? The point of going to a sci-fi action movie is to be entertained. At least it is for me.

 

[YARN]

Its not tough, not the least little bit. They're going to do whatever makes the script exciting. Why didn't Admiral Marcus simply beam the torpedoes to Kronos and detonate them? He could have wiped out the Klingon Empire with transwarp beaming. Why didn't he? Because that route simply isn't interesting.

Excitement is predicated on suspension of disbelief. Suspension of disbelief depends, in part, on coherence (i.e., playing by the rules you've set-up for your world). If I am writing a story with vampires and in my story vampires cannot be more than 10 ft off the ground, my reader will lose "excitement" if I have my vampire piloting a plane. In place of excitement there will be confusion and frustration.

You don't have to have perfect consistency, but you do need enough coherence to keep the spell of the narrative working it's magic.

Transwarp beaming is a feature of our new Trek. It is thus something which screenwriters must now minimally consider in writing scripts. It is both a narrative opportunity (Hey, we could solve this problem with a transwarp beam!) and potential roadblock.

The thought that you can and should ignore the featured rules of the world you create is simply bad story-telling. And I would bet (were if feasible) dollars to donuts that our friends writing these movies are concerned with these questions.

 

[pymfan2000]

I always thought it was incredible that in Star Trek VI that there was only one Bird-of-Prey that could fire when cloaked and they never built another one after that.

Did someone lose the plans?

Just because there was something potential problematic in an older Trek work does not then mean that the new guys get a free pass on their stuff.

Pointing out the flaws in older stuff is misleading. That's not what the discussion is about.

 

[throwback]

Admiral Marcus wanted to start a war. If he sent the torpedoes to Qo'noS, the Klingons might not know who sent them. However, if he sent a ship - which was sabotaged in such a way that it would be stranded near or in Klingon space, and that captain then followed orders, which was to send 72 armed torpedoes onto Qo'noS, the Klingons would quickly locate the vessel, take out the vessel, and blame the Federation for the attack and go to war.

As for world building, I don't have problems with what has been established before. I do have a problem with a Klingon Empire that has a sensor net so porous that a lone Federation ship can sneak into or near Klingon space which can either torpedo their homeworld or send a K'normian trade ship to the surface. (I had a struggle to understand the geography of the action. Where exactly was the Enterprise - was the ship in the Neutral Zone or in Klingon space? And, how far from the Neutral Zone was the Klingon homeworld?)

The novel does a better job on the science aspect of the story. In the novel, I learned that Khan did a series of leaps to get to the Klingon homeworld, and that McCoy had to inject Kirk with medicines so that his body would accept the new blood.

 

[BillJ]

Pointing out the flaws in older stuff is misleading. That's not what the discussion is about.

Sure it is. If you were a Trek fan prior to the Abrams films, you put up with the same huge storytelling flaws that you say exist in the new films. Your holding the Abrams films to a standard that wasn't ever met by Star Trek to begin with.

 

[YARN]

Pointing out the flaws in older stuff is misleading. That's not what the discussion is about.

Sure it is. If you were a Trek fan prior to the Abrams films, you put up with the same huge storytelling flaws that you say exist in the new films. Your holding the Abrams films to a standard that wasn't ever met by Star Trek to begin with.

I think you're right on this one. In Trek (old and new), you can get away with quite a bit.

You cannot, however, get away with anything. And the more you cheat your own rules the more you diminish your own work.

I think transwarp beaming, since it has been featured in two films as both a technology and plot device is now prominent enough on the radar screen of audience expectation that it becomes a question you have to consider in the writer's room. It's not a crippling question, but it is a bit of game-changer.

 

[pymfan2000]

Pointing out the flaws in older stuff is misleading. That's not what the discussion is about.

Sure it is. If you were a Trek fan prior to the Abrams films, you put up with the same huge storytelling flaws that you say exist in the new films. Your holding the Abrams films to a standard that wasn't ever met by Star Trek to begin with.

Respectfully, sir, you're making some assumptions there. Who ever said as I fan I didn't call out older Trek on storytelling or science silliness? You're making an assumption there that I'm being hypocritical and giving older Trek a pass while taking AbramsTrek to task. I never said I did. I think you may be reading your own stuff into what I'm saying.

 

[BillJ]

Pointing out the flaws in older stuff is misleading. That's not what the discussion is about.

Sure it is. If you were a Trek fan prior to the Abrams films, you put up with the same huge storytelling flaws that you say exist in the new films. Your holding the Abrams films to a standard that wasn't ever met by Star Trek to begin with.

Respectfully, sir, you're making some assumptions there. Who ever said as I fan I didn't call out older Trek on storytelling or science silliness? You're making an assumption there that I'm being hypocritical and giving older Trek a pass while taking AbramsTrek to task. I never said I did. I think you may be reading your own stuff into what I'm saying.

Yet your still a fan, correct?