Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater?
- Thread starter tmosler
- Start date
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
That nifty Trek device used many times in TNG called "inertia dampeners," that somehow can manipulate the gravitational field of a planet.
That nifty Trek device used many times in TNG called "inertia dampeners," that somehow can manipulate the gravitational field of a planet.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Fluidic space doesn't count, the Delta Flyer is a shuttle, not a starship, and there were complaints about Xindi ships going underwater. I should know, I'm the one who made them.
I said Berman and Braga. Braga had nothing to do with Insurrection, thereby explaining why fandom didn't get in outrage.
Fluidic space doesn't count, the Delta Flyer is a shuttle, not a starship, and there were complaints about Xindi ships going underwater. I should know, I'm the one who made them.
You mean like village-sized holoship in Insurrection? No only did they do it, but they did it in such a bland fashion you forgot it ever happened!!
I said Berman and Braga. Braga had nothing to do with Insurrection, thereby explaining why fandom didn't get in outrage.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Because it's not really water, it's some sort of fictional substance.
Yes, that is the argument I'm going to use.
Because it's not really water, it's some sort of fictional substance.
Yes, that is the argument I'm going to use.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Do you mean "Inertial damper"?
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Yep that would be the techno-babble, thank you. In ST Insurrection Worf and Picard used them to help decelerate while locked onto Data's shuttle and keep him in tow.
So if they can be used for that - why not also use them as a way to power the ship underwater?
Yep that would be the techno-babble, thank you. In ST Insurrection Worf and Picard used them to help decelerate while locked onto Data's shuttle and keep him in tow.
So if they can be used for that - why not also use them as a way to power the ship underwater?
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Yeah, but Janeway was prepared to use the Voyager for that mission.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
But she didn't, therefore there was nothing to ignite (or dare I say detonate) fandom.
But she didn't, therefore there was nothing to ignite (or dare I say detonate) fandom.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I don't know. I don't think it really matters if she actually used Voyager to go underwater or if she just suggested that it could. I think the fandom could easily be riled up by something said on the screen if they felt strongly about something.
You may be strongly against it, but don't assume the rest of fandom is.
I don't know. I don't think it really matters if she actually used Voyager to go underwater or if she just suggested that it could. I think the fandom could easily be riled up by something said on the screen if they felt strongly about something.
Janeway's very suggestion that the Voyager could be modified to be seaworthy SHOULD be enough to detonate the fans if they really felt that strongly against Starship seaworthiness. However, it seems like they accept the idea, just like Star Trek fans have almost always accepted the the fictional technology presented to them.
You may be strongly against it, but don't assume the rest of fandom is.
Last edited:
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?
So, wait...have we reached a point where we whine about fandom not whining enough?
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I sure hope not - sounds like the formula for a perpetual whine machine. And if we're that far gone, I'm engaging the forum auto-detonate.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.
I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.
You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.
Fluidic space doesn't count, the Delta Flyer is a shuttle, not a starship, and there were complaints about Xindi ships going underwater. I should know, I'm the one who made them.
It sounds like it's your endless complaining about things that are inconsequential to whether or not there's a good story and your arbitrary rules for what counts or not (that amazingly always support your argument) that are the problem then, not everyone else.
I'm curious, what is your basis for insinuating that it's the same people who complained about ships going underwater during Berman and Braga's tenure that are now giving JJ Abrams a pass on the same? I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but when I saw the ships underwater back then I thought it was a cool change of pace from the usual ships flying through space routine, and I feel the same way here. The technical issues never seemed bothersome to me, given all the other fantastical things the ships are capable of.
You can't be serious. Are you putting on an act or something? Your excuses are ridiculous.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.
I don't care why she is under water i was just hoping she would stay there.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
Well, as cool as being under water is, I kind of like the idea of some space travel, too.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
I hate to resort to an overused internet posting cliché but--QFT.
Honestly, as someone who is a fan of both "hard s-f" and Trek, I urge everyone to A) not confuse the two and B) look elsewhere than Trek for depictions of truly plausible extrapolations of science.
I hate to resort to an overused internet posting cliché but--QFT.
Honestly, as someone who is a fan of both "hard s-f" and Trek, I urge everyone to A) not confuse the two and B) look elsewhere than Trek for depictions of truly plausible extrapolations of science.
Re: Will there be an explaination for how enterprise can go underwater
That's me alright
To be completely accurate, the original post I quoted was this:
To which I felt obligated to correct and state specifically that if Berman and Braga had done this "the uproar would have been deafening," as a means of mocking Trek fandom's irrational hatred of Berman and Braga which still lives strong to some degree today. After all, Berman and Braga use the term "Klingon Warbird" and I see some people using that as evidence that they are unfit to write Trek. Abrams uses the exact same term and no one cares.
As for the actual issue of starships underwater, from the technical point of view I couldn't care, as long as there's a story reason for it, I'm fine. Mind you, in the case of the Xindi ships, how they came to discover it's submersible abilities was some pretty weak logic. The conversation basically went like this.
"Let's take this ship underwater."
"Can it go underwater?"
"Nobody told us it couldn't."
So provided STID provides a logical story reason for the Enterprise going underwater I'll accept it.
My angry/irrational fanboy routine usually is an act, but this particular example has an element of truth to it. I was discussing Berman and Braga, and someone cites ann example to argue against me from something Braga had nothing to do with, which to me seemed similar to Trek Fandom's other nagging habit to claim both Berman and Braga were responsible for everything that went on in post Roddenberry, pre Abrams Trek, when in fact Braga had authority over very little of it. For the record, Braga was only responsible for Generations, First Contact, seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager, and the first three seasons of Enterprise. That's it.
That's me alrightTo be completely accurate, the original post I quoted was this:
To which I felt obligated to correct and state specifically that if Berman and Braga had done this "the uproar would have been deafening," as a means of mocking Trek fandom's irrational hatred of Berman and Braga which still lives strong to some degree today. After all, Berman and Braga use the term "Klingon Warbird" and I see some people using that as evidence that they are unfit to write Trek. Abrams uses the exact same term and no one cares.
As for the actual issue of starships underwater, from the technical point of view I couldn't care, as long as there's a story reason for it, I'm fine. Mind you, in the case of the Xindi ships, how they came to discover it's submersible abilities was some pretty weak logic. The conversation basically went like this.
"Let's take this ship underwater."
"Can it go underwater?"
"Nobody told us it couldn't."
So provided STID provides a logical story reason for the Enterprise going underwater I'll accept it.
My angry/irrational fanboy routine usually is an act, but this particular example has an element of truth to it. I was discussing Berman and Braga, and someone cites ann example to argue against me from something Braga had nothing to do with, which to me seemed similar to Trek Fandom's other nagging habit to claim both Berman and Braga were responsible for everything that went on in post Roddenberry, pre Abrams Trek, when in fact Braga had authority over very little of it. For the record, Braga was only responsible for Generations, First Contact, seasons 5 and 6 of Voyager, and the first three seasons of Enterprise. That's it.
Similar threads
