Aren't most of us posting here? Yes, I'm a Trek fan. My dad was an original series fan back in the day and he got me into the show when i was very young (late 70s, early 80s).
The world-building of this new Trek universe
- Thread starter davejames
- Start date
Then lighten up.
It's best to actually talk about the things the film did wrong (trust me its not a perfect film, but it is incredibly fun) and not try to insult the film makers and fans.
Then lighten up.
It's best to actually talk about the things the film did wrong (trust me its not a perfect film, but it is incredibly fun) and not try to insult the film makers and fans.
Good advice thanks! Best sometimes not to take oneself too seriously I guess.
I thought in part we were talking about what the filmamkers did wrong. I wasn't aware I had insulted the fans in any way in anything I typed. Certainly not intentionally....ask anyone who has been to a Trek con with me I love my fellow fans.
Regards the filmamkers I could perhaps have been more tactful in the wording of my critique. Point taken.
Here's the deal... the Vengeance has to intercept Enterprise before the Klingons find her, right ? Or they might repair the damage and leave (they almost succeed). So it can't be weeks before Marcus arrives after Kirk announces he has Khan. The Warp speed in ID is a direct consequence of the story.
I disagree with your first sentence and agree with the second. In the spirit of not confusing me, please in the future write posts I entirely agree or disagree with. Thanks.
In part, yes. But the writers are under no obligation to sustain it in the way you describe. It's not even a given that they will even think about it, which was your claim.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Clarify what you mean by "obligation." I don't know what you mean here. Legal obligation? Moral obligation? Practical obligation?
As for whether or not they think about the ramifications of the major plot points they introduce, I can only say that I think enough of the writers to believe that they're mindful of the moves they're making. You seem to think much less of the writers than I.
It doesn't give them a free pass either but basically they've nixed the idea of transwarp beaming. So people who don't like the idea of transwarp beaming should be happy. Abrams did what they wanted and there's still complaints.
The transporters were always too powerful. I remember watching an episode of TNG and seeing a Romulan beam straight onto the bridge of the Enterprise. Why not just beam a bomb aboard or a deadly pathogen?
And why do farming or mining or carpentry or basically anything if you have replicators? They seemed to be able to do anything in VOY. There seemed to be no restrictions.
And in FC the Borg went back in time to stop humans getting Warp but they were followed by Picard. Why not just go back in time again when Picard is not following you and do the same trick again without interference
YARN
Fleet Captain
True, writers answer to studios. Studios answer to ticket sales. Audiences buy tickets. Also, writers want to tell good stories that make people happy. Thus we have two ways in writers answer to the audience (a portion of which includes "fans").
No, they don't answer to fans in the sense that fans can or should directly dictate to them how to write, but let's not pretend they're not trying to please us. They want to entertain us, and (most of us) want to be entertained.
If the writers wrote a script and only a few people bought tickets to see it, both sides would be unhappy.
This isn't a canon question, at least not in the sense of "staying consistent with prior TV shows and film franchises." This is a question of how plot details internal to both films ramify. Again, part of what is important to the story (any story) is internal consistency.
Transwarp beaming is now in the mix in Star Trek.
They're trying to please the audience, not necessarily fans with an obsession for details like me.
Okay, then. Let me reprhase: a compelling, in-episode story is more important than cross-episode continuity.
Last edited by a moderator:
YARN
Fleet Captain
No, they're not going to sweat every small detail, but transwarp beaming is their detail and it is a detail they've hung a lantern on.
This not a small background detail, but rather a plot point in both of the films in the new franchise. We're not counting lights in the secondary hull or talking about the size of the ship, but a narrative detail which has been highlighted.
That's true, but "less important" does not mean "not important." Also, "compelling story" in a franchise means, in part, a story that fits into a larger overall story. It's not like we can cleanly separate the two concepts.
Suppose that Spock's mom shows up in the next film, no explanation - she's just there, because the writers feel that she would make for a good stand alone story. Would people complain? Would the writers even do this having so dramatically killed her off in Trek 09?
I don't think they bring back Spock's Mom is much the same way that I don't think transwarp beaming is (or should) disappear.
In your opinion. My guess is that we'll never hear from it again.
I believe that was explicitly included in my post.
And yet Star Trek has ignored previous established continuity dozens of time in the past.
I wouldn't put it past them.
YARN
Fleet Captain
We might not, but we should. It's been a plot point twice in a row now.
Well, it certainly is now, so fair enough.
Not all continuity is made equal. Consider three continuity points about Trek.
1. Vulcan has no moons.
2. Kirk's middle initial is "T".
3. The Enterprise can travel faster-than-light.
Now could a new Trek story disregard any of these points? Sure. Would the violation of #1 be less noticeable than the violation of #3? Absolutely. A slower-than-light Enterprise be a radically different sort of Star Trek.
Now, I am not saying that transwarp beaming is a #3 type continuity point (it isn't), but as it is established in the films, it is of greater importance than #1. That is, we're not talking about a purely tangential background fact, but a plot point which has been built up and exercised.
I wouldn't put it past them.
I don't think that's quite fair. They would not do that. They should not do that. I trust the writers to get a big detail like this right.
I dunno, maybe we never hear about transwarp beaming again and this is just another disappearing technology. I don't think it is out of turn, however, to note that this has been established as a part of the universe and that it has ramifications for future stories.
It's not a bid deal, but it is out there.
I said this in another thread (or was it this one?), but it should be said again - I thought this film did write transwarp beaming out of the Trek universe.
*Section 31 confiscates the equation from Scotty.
*Section 31 build the portable transwarp beaming device which Khan nabs on his way out.
*Section 31's R&D facility is destroyed by the suicide bomber.
Now it exists only as it did before - in Old Spock's head. Scotty may be able to re-write it from memory, but it's plausible that he can't.
*Section 31 confiscates the equation from Scotty.
*Section 31 build the portable transwarp beaming device which Khan nabs on his way out.
*Section 31's R&D facility is destroyed by the suicide bomber.
Now it exists only as it did before - in Old Spock's head. Scotty may be able to re-write it from memory, but it's plausible that he can't.
It seems silly that Section 31 wouldn't have backup files at another facility.
timelord technology?
True, but it's out of the hands of the Enterprise crew and non-S31 Starfleet.It seems silly that Section 31 wouldn't have backup files at another facility.
I would agree with YARN on this one.
With transwarp beaming, Starfleet now has the ability of the Iconians-- as Picard described them in stunning their enemies and becoming the thing of Legends because entire armies could appear out of thin air on a planet. This technology was presented by Picard so that the audience is meant to be convinced how amazing and advanced this technology is.
As others have said, however, I do think that this technology will be conveniently forgotten by future JJVerse movie writers, despite it being the greatest advance in space travel & exploration (and military tech) since warp drive. To not use transwarp beaming in a crisis from now on will require something going wrong. Excuses ("The tractor beam wasn't supposed to be installed until next week....", "The Enterprise is (again!) the only ship in the quadrant able to protect Earth", "We can't use a shuttle to rescue Sulu and his freezing team because the Props Department hasn't built a shuttle yet...")
I do love Trek in all its incarnations and I am aware of the many inconsistencies, shortcuts, and occasional sloppiness in past Trek story-telling. But forgetting about transwarp drive will be a big pothole to keep driving my 'suspension of disbelief' around.
With transwarp beaming, Starfleet now has the ability of the Iconians-- as Picard described them in stunning their enemies and becoming the thing of Legends because entire armies could appear out of thin air on a planet. This technology was presented by Picard so that the audience is meant to be convinced how amazing and advanced this technology is.
As others have said, however, I do think that this technology will be conveniently forgotten by future JJVerse movie writers, despite it being the greatest advance in space travel & exploration (and military tech) since warp drive. To not use transwarp beaming in a crisis from now on will require something going wrong. Excuses ("The tractor beam wasn't supposed to be installed until next week....", "The Enterprise is (again!) the only ship in the quadrant able to protect Earth", "We can't use a shuttle to rescue Sulu and his freezing team because the Props Department hasn't built a shuttle yet...")
I do love Trek in all its incarnations and I am aware of the many inconsistencies, shortcuts, and occasional sloppiness in past Trek story-telling. But forgetting about transwarp drive will be a big pothole to keep driving my 'suspension of disbelief' around.
