Star Trek

A general discussion forum, plus hauls and silly games.
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3851
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Star Trek

Post by JediTricks »

Sparky Prime wrote:I hated the "transwarp" beaming thing. That just screamed that they came up with it for nothing more than plot convenience, completely ignoring everything Star Trek had ever established about the technology. Transporter range, what's that? Can't beam onto a ship moving faster than the speed of light? Pssh. It's even more glaring when the first film goes out of the way to point out how difficult it is to lock on to a moving object in the first place.
The way a lot of that stuff felt was the way pop culture used to view Trek before the movies and TNG caught on, where regular non-fan people were familiar with the basic concepts of the show but didn't care about the underpinnings and thought behind them, so they treated those elements like a joke, like magic. To me, the way the '09 film plays out seems like it was written that way, by people who are familiar with it but don't care about it, they are simply elements to be used however they want - so when they write themselves into a corner one way, they can "magic!" their way out with another. Chekov is so amazing because he beams Kirk out while moving when nobody else could, Kirk carries so much momentum that he breaks the pointless glass floor, but somehow not all the momentum he had or else he'd have been strawberry jam all over the transporter room; yet as you said, they beam onto a ship at high warp from a stationary planet with little effort only 20 minutes later, and hardly the worse for wear - it's VERY clumsy to have those 2 scenes in the same film.
I thought about counting the Phoenix, but decided against because the stage 1 rocket and cowlings are shed when she breaks atmo, so the first stage stuff is what is really being aviation-like; while the post-orbit second stage ship borne from that discarded stuff has warp nacelles and exposed sections that wouldn't be feasible for in-atmo aviation.
True enough, but you have to figure they'd have to get back down to Earth and Picard said he'd seen the ship in the Smithsonian. Not sure how though, as you say it's not designed to be feasible for atmospheric flight.
Were I to speculate, I'd say the Phoenix's cockpit capsule was sent back down with the rest of the ship left in orbit to be retrieved later. But it isn't so obvious that it MUST be that way, they could have cheated their way back down - not seeing how that'd work though, it's just warp engines and a cockpit, can't picture it gracefully landing in any way or having landing gear at all, much less the flight systems capable of landing.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
andersonh1
Moderator
Posts: 6472
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:22 pm
Location: South Carolina

Re: Star Trek

Post by andersonh1 »

If Starfleet personnel can now beam halfway across the quadrant from Earth to Kronos, why do they need starships? Did anyone writing the movie not realize how uber powerful that technology is?

Trek works best when there are limits. The tech is already magical enough to solve most plot problems as it is.
User avatar
JediTricks
Site Admin
Posts: 3851
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:17 pm
Location: LA, CA, USA

Re: Star Trek

Post by JediTricks »

andersonh1 wrote:If Starfleet personnel can now beam halfway across the quadrant from Earth to Kronos, why do they need starships? Did anyone writing the movie not realize how uber powerful that technology is?

Trek works best when there are limits. The tech is already magical enough to solve most plot problems as it is.
Ha, you assume they wrote the movie with any thought at all.

I can't imagine how much power it should take to beam someone at faster than light speeds via subspace across the quadrant, seems like sending that much energy across space while maintaining its atom-perfect order would be a lot more than they've ever been shown having before.
Image
See, that one's a camcorder, that one's a camera, that one's a phone, and they're doing "Speak no evil, See no evil, Hear no evil", get it?
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Star Trek

Post by Shockwave »

Yeah the technology limits are a little absurd but it didn't bother me much. I kind of just write it off as "the physics in this Trek timeline work different". I know that's not great, but it doesn't ruin the rest of the plot for me. Plus, I also got the impression that those uses of the transporter were not typical and were mostly regarded as impossible by the rest of Starfleet. The thing that bugged me was the Enterprise hiding in the ocean. And on top of that, the whole "We can't launch without being seen" Really? How'd you get there to begin with? I'm pretty sure the natives could look up and see a giant starship sinking into their ocean just as well as they could see it rising out of it. Also, if the Enterprise isn't designed to handle atmospheric flight, it's sure as hell not designed for the pressures of ocean navigation. Damn it man, it's a starship, not a submarine!
User avatar
Onslaught Six
Supreme-Class
Posts: 7023
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:49 am
Location: In front of my computer.
Contact:

Re: Star Trek

Post by Onslaught Six »

Am I wrong, or didn't Future Spock give Scotty some advanced calculations that enabled the further transport?
BWprowl wrote:The internet having this many different words to describe nerdy folks is akin to the whole eskimos/ice situation, I would presume.
People spend so much time worrying about whether a figure is "mint" or not that they never stop to consider other flavours.
Image
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Star Trek

Post by Shockwave »

Onslaught Six wrote:Am I wrong, or didn't Future Spock give Scotty some advanced calculations that enabled the further transport?
You're not wrong.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5326
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Star Trek

Post by Sparky Prime »

JediTricks wrote:To me, the way the '09 film plays out seems like it was written that way, by people who are familiar with it but don't care about it, they are simply elements to be used however they want - so when they write themselves into a corner one way, they can "magic!" their way out with another.
I have to wonder how familiar the writers of these films actually are with any of the past Star Treks given that sort of approach. I mean, you'd think people that were that familiar with it would work with the established material rather than making something up that makes absolutely no sense with any of said material.
Onslaught Six wrote:Am I wrong, or didn't Future Spock give Scotty some advanced calculations that enabled the further transport?
Yes, the transwarp beaming equation future Spock gave them allowed them to beam someone onto a ship at warp, as well as across lightyears. I can see how this equation would make sense for beaming onto a ship at warp, as the reasoning behind it is that the spatial distortions caused by the ships warp field makes it virtually impossible, unless it's two ships matching speed. However, it makes no sense in terms of giving the transporters more range. A transporter signal degrades if transmitted beyond the limitations of the technology. Kinda like how a radio signal gets weaker the farther away from the transmitter you are. Just entering a fancy equation isn't going to solve that. Let alone things like establishing safe coordinates to re-materialize so you don't end up beaming into a wall or something (which the first film kinda shows with Scotty ending up in the water pipe). It's a limitation of the hardware involved with the transporter, not the math.
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Star Trek

Post by Shockwave »

I seem to recall seeing somewhere that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzmann all saying that none of them were Trek fans and were not really that familiar with it. So really I think this was kind of expected.
User avatar
Sparky Prime
Supreme-Class
Posts: 5326
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Star Trek

Post by Sparky Prime »

I remember seeing that Orci and Kurtzmann said in an interview they'd used TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" as inspiration for the first film. How they got time travel = new reality out of that episode I don't know. Abrams though, I've seen he'd said he wasn't all that familiar with the franchise, he's more of a Star Wars fan...
User avatar
Shockwave
Supreme-Class
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Star Trek

Post by Shockwave »

Sparky Prime wrote:How they got time travel = new reality out of that episode I don't know.
That actually kind of makes sense since when the Enterprise C came through the rift, the reality changed. And when it went back through the rift, everything changed back.
Post Reply