They didn't, though. Not according to canon. Which seems to be what we're arguing and all-important. Qo'noS is still the same planet, even after the explosion of Praxis in 2293.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
By "Canon Standards", no, there was no mention of moving Capitol Planets.
But by implication in universe with what you stated.
Mid-22nd Century Maximum Warp is "piss slow" commpared to Maximum Warp in the TNG era, if that's the case, it stands to logical reason that the locations were moved.
Why is that?
For your ease of reference = ST:Minutiae (Warp Speed Calculator)
From Earth to Qo'noS @ Warp Factor 4.5 (TOS Scale), traveling for 4 days, you only cover 1 Light Year in that time.
Not the 90 Light Years stated on screen for the distance between Earth & Qo'noS.
If a ship were to REALLY fly in a "Straight line" to Qo'noS from Earth, non-stop at Warp Factor 4.5, it would take ~360.72 Days to cover that distance.
Short of a Worm Hole, or other form of FTL Short-Cut, the travel time couldn't realistically be done in 4 days.
During the TNG era, if a StarFleet vessel was flying at Warp 9.9 at the speed Tom Paris claimed it was on-screen (about 4 billion miles (0.0007 light years) in 1 second).
You can cover ~59.4533632655968 light years in 1 day, or make it from Earth to Qo'noS in < 2 days.
So they were correct in travel time during TNG era, but majorly off during ST:ENT.
So either the Distance between Earth & Qo'noS is wrong during the time of ST:ENT, or their Capitol Planet was located else-where, some-where much closer.
Or there was a convenient Worm Hole to let them take a short-cut to Qo'noS in that time-frame.
Or the Writers "Majorly Goofed" and couldn't do basic High-School Level math.
Or....the plot required Archer's much slower Enterprise to get there within four days and there's no rational explanation other than speed of plot. This isn't hard science, it's Star Trek.
Does the plot make sense?
Do the characters act in a consistent and engaging manner?
Is the story fun?
These are the questions 95% (or more) of the audience gives a shit about. The technical data is only window dressing to maintain a sense of verisimilitude. It should never outstrip the primary fact that Star Trek is a fictional story made to entertain mass television-watching audiences. It’s not a technical treatise or fundamentalist manifesto.
Your average viewer couldn’t give two shits how long the Enterprise is, and that’s how it should be.
Do the characters act in a consistent and engaging manner?
Is the story fun?
These are the questions 95% (or more) of the audience gives a shit about. The technical data is only window dressing to maintain a sense of verisimilitude. It should never outstrip the primary fact that Star Trek is a fictional story made to entertain mass television-watching audiences. It’s not a technical treatise or fundamentalist manifesto.
Your average viewer couldn’t give two shits how long the Enterprise is, and that’s how it should be.
Harve Bennett, in his interview with William Shatner for Shatner's Star Trek Movie Memories book said that after he had watched the entirety of TOS he felt that, en masse, the episodes were about one third brilliant, one third good, and one third very bad. He also commented that he didn't think that was a bad ratio for a long-running television series.
I think I agree with his assessment and I think TNG and DS9 probably follow a similar ratio. I'm not sure that Voyager or Enterprise have a comparable number of episodes in the "brilliant" category. And other than Picard, I haven't watched enough modern Trek to comment.
I think I agree with his assessment and I think TNG and DS9 probably follow a similar ratio. I'm not sure that Voyager or Enterprise have a comparable number of episodes in the "brilliant" category. And other than Picard, I haven't watched enough modern Trek to comment.
Spoken like a typical American.
Nothing wrong with that, but, please at least try to understand the Metric System.
Those are basic ABC's of writing any plot.
You still have to get that aspect right, no matter the type of show you're doing for a mass market.
You know how most "Gun Guys" complain about typical Hollywood Action movies and how they get basic Gun Battles wrong on so many levels.
Or most "Car Guys" complain about any typical Hollywood Racing scenes that suck or get basic things wrong.
Or most "Martial Arts Guys" complain about any typical Hollywood Fight scenes that suck or get basic fights wrong.
Or most "Computer Nerds" complain about any typical Hollywood Computer scenes and how it doesn't make sense.
Same with "VFX Guys" complaing about Bad Hollywood VFX.
There's an entire YT Series from Corridor Digital called "VFX Artists React" that critique Good & Bad CGI.
There's going to be a Nerd for every aspect of your product, no matter what you do, if you do a sloppy or bad job at it.
Be it any endeavor that requires real skill, or basic knowledge of what you're talking about; you will get ragged on by the community of Nerds who know more about that stuff.
And rightfully so for doing a bad job at it or not putting in basic minimum effort to get basic aspects right.
There's a reason why there are Nerds for every aspect of life that can be useful for getting your show to past the basic sniff test.
Your Average Viewer will also skip your show if it isn't entertaining enough for them.
Not enough Love Scenes, Comedy, Drama, Fight Scenes, Action Scenes, etc.
It'll have stuff in there that you, as a ST Fan or Nerd won't care about, and you will complain about it because they're trying to target the "Casual Audience" and you might not fit into that demographic.
Remember ST:SNW's recent string of Comedy Episodes, many HardCore Pure-ist Trekkies weren't fond of it
They were bashing it, complaining about it.
But they might be targeting a more "Casual Audience" and you might not like it because it isn't "Trek Enough" for you.
Last edited:
I do kind of wish they’d explained how that happened. If you spend a whole movie declaring that the Klingons will basically have to up and move, and that becomes the basis for the beginnings of peace with them, it’s kind of a big deal that apparently something happened to make that move unnecessary. I’d have liked to see that story.
Figure it’s the length of your average lightsaber blade.
True, but I figure that far more peaceful relations with the Federation (and presumably at least one other regional or galactic power) allowed the Empire to devote more resources to fixing the damage caused by Praxis, and within years or at the most a few decades they ameliorated the environmental havoc wreaked by the explosion. By the time TNG rolls around a little over 70 years later Qo'noS has stabilized its economy and climate and peace with the Federation was a big part of the reason.
That absolutely works — but again, it seems important enough that it would’ve been nice to see it, or at least have Picard or somebody do some fast exposition about it in dialogue at an appropriate moment.
Lightsabers are the banana for scale of the future.
i think someone mentioned on another thread that it was decided to make it be caused by Section 31 in one of the recentish books
It's easy, a metre is 100 centimetres.
Technical Manual??
Technical Manual???
Voyager never had a Technical Manual.
The closest thing to a Technical Manual, is found on Cygnus x-1, and that is basically just copy and paste. And doesn't pay attention to the difference between a Galaxy class and an Intrepid class.
I am amazed that they didn't have a Galaxy class computer core onboard.
In sufficient care was achieved. Why? Because no fan pays attention to any details at all.
.
You think that's confusing, to me a meter is something you measure how much energy or gas you use.
True, but a line of dialogue, saying it will take 4 months to get to Kronos (or whatever) and then the next scene four months have gone by, they could have done that I guess.
True. A metre, however, is a unit of measurement for length. Problem solved.
Similar threads
