• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The World of Star Trek...

The prime directive also prohibited the landing party from just beaming up or saying things like behold, I am the arch angel Gabriel. But how do you all feel about transporters on the bridge and an AI aboard the next show?

Why would you need a transporter on the bridge with site-to-site transport and personal transporters? Hell, transwarp beaming eliminates the need for starships at all.
 
The prime directive also prohibited the landing party from just beaming up or saying things like behold, I am the arch angel Gabriel. But how do you all feel about transporters on the bridge and an AI aboard the next show?
Candidly although the term is never used the ship's computer is already some form of A.I.

The problem with the perception of computer intelligence is that the bar is always being raised---your desktop computer or laptop is already a simple form of A.I. . I think the popular idea of A.I. is a self-aware, self-directing machine practically indistinguishable from how a human mind works. From that standpoint Data is an A.I. only in a humanoid form. But there are differing levels of awareness and differing levels of intelligence for computers just as there are for biological creatures.

How self-aware and intelligent is an ant, a dog, a cat, a dolphin, an ape, an octopus? They all have a level of self-awareness and intelligence suited to their nature and ability to survive. In varying measure they can operate independently.

As human beings we like to think we are eminently adaptable to new situations, and we are, but we still draw on past experience and knowledge to guide us. In a sense our past experiences and acquired knowledge are our programming. Yet we are able to bridge, to make new connections and think in the abstract to form variations on existing ideas. Can a machine be programmed in similar fashion?

A starship computer isn't simply a regulator of existing functions, but also has the ability to make autonomous adjustments without the need for human input. Actually we have that already in aircraft control systems, most particularly in advanced fighter aircraft that by design are inherently unstable to allow for high maneuverability. Numerous in-flight adjustments need to be made to keep the aircraft stable, far more than the pilot can execute on a constant basis for prolonged periods. A starship navigational computer system would need to be similar yet even far more advanced particularly at FTL speeds. There would also be other systems such as engineering and life support.

Kirk orders Sulu to enter standard orbit and Sulu inputs the command sequences, but the helm/navigational computer would autonomously and rapidly make all the necessary adjustments to execute the maneuver. Sulu is basically telling the ship to "go here" and the helm/navigational system makes it happen. The only variables are if Kirk wants a particular position or particular kind of orbit altitude.
 
As human beings we like to think we are eminently adaptable to new situations, and we are, but we still draw on past experience and knowledge to guide us. In a sense our past experiences and acquired knowledge are our programming. Yet we are able to bridge, to make new connections and think in the abstract to form variations on existing ideas. Can a machine be programmed in similar fashion?

No reason why not. There are already computers designed to be capable of heuristic learning and evolutionary algorithms, adapting and optimizing their behavior based on their experience. There are websites whose software monitors users' activity and tailors search recommendations and ad selections accordingly, and some have touted these as a form of adaptive artificial intelligence, operating a lot like the learning behavior of living organisms.
 
Data tried to be aesthetically creative but fell short and could only synthesis various artistic approaches and styles together and mimic them.

I remember my dad telling me a story of a famous artist who had to take a test with other artists and he drew a large circle. When he was asked what was so remarkable about it, he told them to measure it and it turned out to be perfectly round.
 
What I miss from fandom in the 70's is we were all all the same page. We all just loved Star Trek. When the later shows came along it started to get bitchy "My Star Trek is better than yours".

As someone who came to fandom as a direct result of ST:TMP in December 1979, I can tell you there was often huge snobbery towards newcomers, despite fandom supposedly incorporating IDIC. And, looking back through back issues of the club newsletter, there was definitely displeasure from some fans about the arrival of TAS. So any bitchiness you perceived was probably always there, as in any social organization with passionate members, it just may not have obvious to you.
 
BTW the whole Kirk EVA scene is notably absent from theatrical prints of the SLV.

What theatrical prints of the Special Longer Version?

The SLV was aired on TV and released on VHS tape. Versions which lack Kirk-and-the-rafters are the original theatrical release or the Director's Edition.
 
Weirdly, I saw TMP as part of a Jerry Goldsmith retrospective some years ago, and the cut I saw was a weird mixture of what looked like the SLV and the Theaterical Cut, as if they mixed reels from the two prints. I was told by the theater that it was difficult to get a print at all. I half wonder if what I saw was the fabled cut done for screening on commercial air flights.
 
What theatrical prints of the Special Longer Version?

The SLV was aired on TV and released on VHS tape. Versions which lack Kirk-and-the-rafters are the original theatrical release or the Director's Edition.

Definitely the SLV, and probably the same print Maurice mentions. First time I saw it was 6/12/2010 at the Simply 70(mm) STAR TREK Spectacular at the Royal Theatre in West L.A. where 70mm prints of the first 6 Trek films were to be shown. Trouble was they couldn't locate a 70mm print of TMP (and there was some controversy -- never settled to my knowledge -- as to whether ANY 70mm prints were ever struck given the film's rush into theaters) so this ersatz 35mm print was substituted at the last minute (all of the other films got their scheduled 70mm screenings; III - VI looked and sounded great). I recall some discussion of the origin of this print but I forget where, but I can confirm that it (1) was beat to hell with horrible audio and (2) contained most of the SLV scenes -- minus the aforementioned Kirk EVA scene -- in the original full 'scope ratio. My guess is that it's a one-of-a-kind print created for a special screening somewhere, filed away in Paramount's vault, and issued for infrequent TMP theatrical screenings ever since.

I saw this print again at the Egyptian in Hollywood last year with an amazing intro by designer Richard Taylor where he showed some never-before-seen photos of discarded Phase II sets and miniatures (to show why they had to be replaced when PII became TMP).

Nowadays projecting the Blu-ray of the theatrical cut would certainly provide a more satisfying viewing experience (and I personally wish they would do that instead of projecting the DVD of the DE for the soundtrack event next week). Because of the sorry state of the print and the availability of the Blu-ray I'd be surprised if it were ever seen again unless someone just had to screen the SLV in theaters.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top