Star Trek question

[gocoogs]

you're right, the tribbles would have made it far too intelligent for the masses...

Star Trek has traditionally been a character driven drama with action/adventure elements; the reboot was nothing more than Transformers in outer space -- sound and fury signifying nothing.

Edited February 27, 2012 by gocoogs

[AeroCommander690]

Although I see the fun being poked at the Treky Nation,I feel the last movie did much harm to the series in general.Star Trek is an icon in science fiction that has some of the most loyal fans anywhere and this movie totally blew them off.The movie was totally done with the director not ever being aware of the series real impact as he admitted in a radio interview shortly after its release.Its trash and it has ruined the continuity of the franchise.

[toadwbg]

Well...if we want to talk ruined franchises, look no further than the Star Wars prequals!

I don't know if those 3 turds will ever be equaled in turd-ness again in my lifetime!

Sometimes I lie awake at night mentally writing my own alternate Star Wars prequals sans Jar Jar, talking heads of exposition, vomit-inducing dialog, and CGI storytelling....

[Ken Cartwright]

I just find it amusing when people say things like 'the ships cannot fly in a dense gravity atmosphere' when the ships in question do not actually exist. The whole thing is a work of fiction and is not trying to replicate any form of reality.

To put it another way, discussing how the P-51's in Red Tails couldn't have performed X manoeuvre shown in the film seems sensible to me - after all, we know that P-51's exist and we know what their flight envelope is. But discussing what a fictional spaceship in a fictional universe can or cannot do to me seems bizarre - if you accept that the Star Trek universe is fictional (which I sure hope everyone does), then why is it outside the realms of possibility in that fictional universe that the spaceships involved can indeed fly in a dense gravity atmosphere? After all, if the spaceship designers in the Star Trek universe can create ships which break the normal laws of physics as we know them, why is it also not possible for them to have created a way that allows these ships to fly in those denser atmospheres?

Vince

I don't think you're understanding the context of the discussion. I'm pretty sure no one is arguing whether or not these fictional ships could or could not do anything, they're discussing what was explained in earlier shows, and how a later show did something other than what was originally explained. It's a discussion about inconsistent story telling, nothing more.

[Kevan Vogler]

I like my Star Trek, but you can't blame the latest film for derailing the whole franchise.

To me, it was clear in the last few seasons of DS9 that some fresh writers were required. Once Next Generation had finished up and DS9 was all we had until Voyager came along, you could tell how tired and desperate some of the writers were getting, some episodes were like walking on carpet so worn that you could see the flooring under it.

DS9 also got bogged down in character relationships in later seasons to the point it was like a soap opera in space. It got to the point where if you missed an episode or two, you really were quite lost.

As much as some disparaged it. I quite liked Voyager once it got it's footings. Of the various spinoffs, it reminded me most of the original series and spirit. Most of the stories were encapsulated into one episode and the ones that took longer were two to three episodes at most. Voyager was a breath of fresh air and return to basics that I feel the franchise needed.

Don't even get me started on the Enterpirse spin off.

It can't be forgotten that one of the things that really made Star Trek tick was that Gene Roddenberry had connections to some very good quality Sci-Fi writers who really knew the nuts and bolts of the genre. The benefits of this became clear almost as soon as he passed away; the guys that took over didn't have those connections.

As for the reboot film; I won't say it's the best thing to happen to the franchise, but it certainly isn't the worst. Star Trek needed a boot up the backside if it was going to survive; a far worse thing IMO would have been for the latest film to be built around some obscure story line that only a die hard fan would get the full nuances of.

[GreyGhost]

I'm just the opposite Kevan, I found Voyager rather boring and predictable yet enjoyed the feel and freshness of Enterprise ...

I felt Enterprise was really starting to find it's "Sea Legs" when it was cancelled ... The series conclusion of Voyager felt so rushed too, I would have liked to have seen the crew assimilating to life at home ...

Gregg

[johnny_7713]

I just find it amusing when people say things like 'the ships cannot fly in a dense gravity atmosphere' when the ships in question do not actually exist. The whole thing is a work of fiction and is not trying to replicate any form of reality.

To put it another way, discussing how the P-51's in Red Tails couldn't have performed X manoeuvre shown in the film seems sensible to me - after all, we know that P-51's exist and we know what their flight envelope is. But discussing what a fictional spaceship in a fictional universe can or cannot do to me seems bizarre - if you accept that the Star Trek universe is fictional (which I sure hope everyone does), then why is it outside the realms of possibility in that fictional universe that the spaceships involved can indeed fly in a dense gravity atmosphere? After all, if the spaceship designers in the Star Trek universe can create ships which break the normal laws of physics as we know them, why is it also not possible for them to have created a way that allows these ships to fly in those denser atmospheres?

Vince

Star Trek's ships don't break laws of physics at random. They break certain very specific 'laws' (there are physical theories that state that a kind of warp drive would be possible, though it probably wouldn't work as shown on Star Trek) and obey others. There is all kinds of material (dialog, accompanying books) that lays down which laws they obey. If in a new movie they suddenly stop obeying those laws it creates a break in continuity.

What bothered me most about the movie was that Kirk should have failed his psych evaluation, rather than be given command of a starship.

[Kevan Vogler]

I'm just the opposite Kevan, I found Voyager rather boring and predictable yet enjoyed the feel and freshness of Enterprise ...

I felt Enterprise was really starting to find it's "Sea Legs" when it was cancelled ... The series conclusion of Voyager felt so rushed too, I would have liked to have seen the crew assimilating to life at home ...

Gregg

Fair points.

Enterprise did have potential in both story and character development. However, when they got bogged down in that whole Xindi story line, I was left cold. I'm not opposed to a story that you have to follow for a few episodes, but when it starts getting that complex and drawn out it starts to feel like they forgot they were making a TV series thought they were making a feature film instead.

Voyager, for me, was the perfect relief from the comlexities and overburden of sub-plots that DS9 had taken on. Kind of a "Less is more" way of thinking. DS9 had enough going on with the war against the Dominion and the Maquis on the side, it took on so many other sub-plots that it was like trying to follow a Tom Clancy novel, jumping all around and waaaay too much going on for it's own good.

I do agree that Voyager could have been fleshed out a bit more at the end, they left a couple of loose ends that I very much would have liked explained. However, I think ending it as they did was far better than trying to milk it dry. Next Generation could have ended a couple of seasons earlier with no harm done, it's stories were getting really quite repedative and predictable towards the end.

[vince14]

I don't think you're understanding the context of the discussion. I'm pretty sure no one is arguing whether or not these fictional ships could or could not do anything, they're discussing what was explained in earlier shows, and how a later show did something other than what was originally explained. It's a discussion about inconsistent story telling, nothing more.

I think you're misunderstanding my post. I've not got any issue with people discussing how the events of the latest movie may or may not affect something which has previously happened in the series, that's just debating the plot. But re-read post #4 from Mark - my point is that I personally find it bizarre that the workings of an entirely fictional spaceship in an entirely fictional universe could be debated as 'right' or 'wrong', simply because the whole thing is, well, fictional. So Mark may say that;

...in the original Star Trek, and physics, the ships cannot fly in a dense gravity atmosphere. The warp drive engines would not stay on their pylons. They would twist and break off. And never mind that anti-matter does not work in a oxygen atmosphere.

But then why couldn't someone counter that by saying 'In the Star Trek universe the laws of physics as we understand them do not apply - hence the warp drives and teleportation. Therefore in the Star Trek universe it is entirely plausible that the ships can fly in a dense gravity atmosphere. And anti-matter does work in an oxygen atmosphere in the Star Trek universe because the laws of chemistry are different too'.

That's the point I'm trying to make - if you accept that Star Trek takes place in a fictional universe, then anything is possible within that universe in order to advance the story. 'Warp Drives', 'Worm Holes' and 'Jumping to Lightspeed' are not meant to represent real things when they're used in fiction, they are plot devices to enable the story to advance. Otherwise, if they obeyed the laws of physics as we know them Captain Kirk would have died of old age long before he managed to meet a green skinned alien woman who says 'Show me more of this Earth-thing you call kissing'.

I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, and if people want to geek out on the technical details then go right ahead. It's just that when Scottie says 'Ye canna change the laws of physics!' I'm saying 'You can't Scottie, because you're a character. But the author can change the laws of physics in a fictional universe to suit the needs of the story'.

Anyway, each to his own. For me personally Sci-Fi is about ideas and concepts that reflect on what it is to be human, so I can forgive the inconsistencies in the stories.

Vince

[gocoogs]

Don't even get me started on the Enterpirse spin off.

Ironically enough, Enterprise is the only part of the established ST universe that remains unaffected by the Abrams reboot. Ain't that a kick in the teeth?

[vvac201]

Who cares??? As long as Kirk sleeps with some hot chick and blows something up, life is good!!!

Darth Tater

[johnny_7713]

I think you're misunderstanding my post. I've not got any issue with people discussing how the events of the latest movie may or may not affect something which has previously happened in the series, that's just debating the plot. But re-read post #4 from Mark - my point is that I personally find it bizarre that the workings of an entirely fictional spaceship in an entirely fictional universe could be debated as 'right' or 'wrong', simply because the whole thing is, well, fictional.

That's the point I'm trying to make - if you accept that Star Trek takes place in a fictional universe, then anything is possible within that universe in order to advance the story. 'Warp Drives', 'Worm Holes' and 'Jumping to Lightspeed' are not meant to represent real things when they're used in fiction, they are plot devices to enable the story to advance. Otherwise, if they obeyed the laws of physics as we know them Captain Kirk would have died of old age long before he managed to meet a green skinned alien woman who says 'Show me more of this Earth-thing you call kissing'.

I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, and if people want to geek out on the technical details then go right ahead. It's just that when Scottie says 'Ye canna change the laws of physics!' I'm saying 'You can't Scottie, because you're a character. But the author can change the laws of physics in a fictional universe to suit the needs of the story'.

Anyway, each to his own. For me personally Sci-Fi is about ideas and concepts that reflect on what it is to be human, so I can forgive the inconsistencies in the stories.

Vince

In Star Trek ships obeying law of physics X however quite often is something that happened previously, and may have even been an important plot point. If one episode Scotty says 'Ye canna change the laws of physics captain, if we fly into a dense gravity atmosphere* the nacelles will be ripped off.' and the next episode ships fly around through dense gravity atmospheres to their hearts' content with all nacelles firmly attached, then that's a break in continuity.

Although both the starship and the universe are fictional, the universe is implied to have a consistent set of rules. Discussing whether a starship's behaviour is internally consistent with the rules of the universe as disclosed by the creators (by means of dialog, previous events, or otherwise) then makes more sense. Saying the starship's behaviour is 'wrong' is really short-hand for saying the starship's behaviour is inconsistent with the previously revealed rules about how the fictional universe is supposed to work.

Of course as an engineer I also think it's fun to think up ways for the story to work with only a minimum number of broken physical laws. It's also fun to discuss what parts of Star Trek are and aren't in accordance with the known laws of physics. In fact most Star Trek stories would work fine (perhaps with minor tweaks) if you only break the 'laws' about FTL and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

*Whatever that would be supposed to mean, there's no such thing as a gravity atmosphere, at least in our universe.

[gocoogs]

What bothered me most about the movie was that Kirk should have failed his psych evaluation, rather than be given command of a starship.

Bingo. Kirk goes from problem child cadet to starship captain in what...a week? Two?

[fulcrum1]

Who cares??? As long as Kirk sleeps with some hot chick and blows something up, life is good!!!

Darth Tater

That's what I'm talking about!

I loved the Next Generation and DS9 as a kid, but after watching Firefly and Battlestar I had lost hope for Star Trek. It needed a reboot and the new one hit it outta of the park. I got tired of watching Khan, the Voyage Home, and Undiscovered Country.

[gocoogs]

Who cares??? As long as Kirk sleeps with some hot chick and blows something up, life is good!!!

Maybe...but it ain't Trek. The rebooted version bears about as much resemblance to the original series as the execrable Robert Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes flicks do to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

[Steve N]

Kirk goes from problem child cadet to starship captain in what...a week? Two?

Kinda reminds me of the way Lucas made pretty much everybody a "General" in the SW franchise. Bad enough he promoted Han Solo to that rank, then promptly put him in charge of a platoon-sized commando raid, but he totally lost me with General Jar Jar.

As for the new Trek movie, it got a heartfelt "meh" from me. It lacked any of the heart and soul of the original..the characters were just cardboard cutouts stumbling through generic action sequences. And what's with the d*** lens flares? For crying out loud..they've spent decades developing lenses and filters to prevent that sort of visual clutter.

SN

Edited February 27, 2012 by Steve N

[Ken Cartwright]

In Star Trek ships obeying law of physics X however quite often is something that happened previously, and may have even been an important plot point. If one episode Scotty says 'Ye canna change the laws of physics captain, if we fly into a dense gravity atmosphere* the nacelles will be ripped off.' and the next episode ships fly around through dense gravity atmospheres to their hearts' content with all nacelles firmly attached, then that's a break in continuity.

Although both the starship and the universe are fictional, the universe is implied to have a consistent set of rules. Discussing whether a starship's behaviour is internally consistent with the rules of the universe as disclosed by the creators (by means of dialog, previous events, or otherwise) then makes more sense. Saying the starship's behaviour is 'wrong' is really short-hand for saying the starship's behaviour is inconsistent with the previously revealed rules about how the fictional universe is supposed to work.

Of course as an engineer I also think it's fun to think up ways for the story to work with only a minimum number of broken physical laws. It's also fun to discuss what parts of Star Trek are and aren't in accordance with the known laws of physics. In fact most Star Trek stories would work fine (perhaps with minor tweaks) if you only break the 'laws' about FTL and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

*Whatever that would be supposed to mean, there's no such thing as a gravity atmosphere, at least in our universe.

Exactly. It's no different than something like, say, a spy novel where in one chapter it's made clear that a character is allergic to shellfish and it's a major plot point, and then in a later chapter he's eating shellfish with no problem - it's just not internally consistent, even though it's a fictional character.

I can't speak for the poster of post #4, but my assumption is that they were referring to what was shown in previous episodes, not trying to state something as fact, simply because the things the brought up were addressed in previous episodes.

[Skull Leader]

Just as an aside, the NX-01 Enterprise also functioned in earths atmosphere (one of the WWII Alternate reality episodes)

Yeah, season three of ST:E was kind of a waste with the whole xindi plot line, but I really loved seasons 1,2,&4. (yes, even "these are the voyages...")

[DutyCat]

I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, and if people want to geek out on the technical details then go right ahead. It's just that when Scottie says 'Ye canna change the laws of physics!' I'm saying 'You can't Scottie, because you're a character. But the author can change the laws of physics in a fictional universe to suit the needs of the story'.

Anyway, each to his own. For me personally Sci-Fi is about ideas and concepts that reflect on what it is to be human, so I can forgive the inconsistencies in the stories.

Vince

A purest dwelling in geek circles would tell you it is called SF, not Sci-Fi (lowest common denominator stuff, referred to as "Sciffy").

But more to the point...

It is about the human condition, as you said. I think that in a given isolated story you can define what works for the sake of the story, or create any plot device you need to to spin your tale. However...

Star Trek, for all of its compromises and production shortcomings, has always had an authentic feel as a result of its "universe" continuity and its conceptual lean towards the harder side of science fiction. When I watched Star Trek growing up, I saw a credible vision of our future in space....a fleet of space vessels boldly exploring the galaxy. It, along with intellectual fare like 2001, the Apollo missions, the Viking Mars landers, Voyager (or should I say V'ger), and the space shuttle on the horizon, made the whole idea plausible and exciting. And even if some of the later episodes were poorly written by hacks, the concept was original and its characterization was wonderful. There in lies its brilliance for all time. Star Trek's "rules" and story line continuity are an important part of what makes Trek what it is (was).

Which is why, even though Star Wars is more popular to the casual fan, to the scientifically inclined mind it pales in comparison to Trek. I never looked a Star Wars as anything more than a sword and sorcery fantasy wrapped in a science fiction facade. Nice to watch, but not visionary and inspiring.

The new Star Trek movie series has to go its own way; which means what sells to a mass market. We have to enjoy it for what it is. It is better than nothing. We were lucky to get what we got in the TOS and a few movies and TV spin offs. It was a product of its period. The Trek Nation can only savor it as the world is a different place now.

[phantom]

THe big thing I had trouble with on the new movie was Kirks promotion. I mean really you have a rank structure for a reason. Sulu could have taken over after Spock, as could the bald Commander sitting quietly through the entire movie.

Dang, if I was Sulu or any other commisioned officer I would have filed a grievence with the Star fleet local union. Having said this................................

I was appointed Company Sergeant Major over two people who out ranked me and had (in one case) 20 years longer service then I did. The one guy was a drunk and the other simply not a good Sr NCO hence I got the job.

[ALF18]

I think William Shatner said it best in his "Just for Laughs" festival version of a famous rant:

Especially the part where he says (at about 1:32 or so) "And I seriously mean it when I say Get a Life!"

Star Trek, in all its iterations, is just fun to me - suspend belief and don't sweat the details fun. Maybe I'm just too easy to please, but I enjoy them all.

ALF

[fulcrum1]

The science behind Star Trek and every other sci-fi flicked I loved came to an abrupt halt when I took my astrophysics courses in college. I wanted to belive!

[toadwbg]

Which is why, even though Star Wars is more popular to the casual fan, to the scientifically inclined mind it pales in comparison to Trek. I never looked a Star Wars as anything more than a sword and sorcery fantasy wrapped in a science fiction facade. Nice to watch, but not visionary and inspiring.

As a huge lifelong Star Wars fan I can't disagree. What was visionary about Star Wars was ground-breaking special effects, unique cahracthers (Darth Vader, Droids, Jabba the Hutt), and let's face it...TOYS! Love my Star Wars I do but it's not Shakesphere nor real Science Fiction :P

[phantom]

This is true, at least Patrick Stewart and oscar winner Klingon Christopher Plummer have Shakespeare influence. Crap, even the Shat has a past in Strattford doing Shakespeare.

[niart17]

...even the Shat has a past in Strattford doing Shakespeare.

Now THAT I want to see. I can hear him now...(in his best Kirk) "To Be....OR NOT....to be. That is the questionSpock. To....live...like you, with spears/stones/arrows...To Boldly Go...KHAAAAAANNN!!"

Trivia for the easy bonus, Anyone...Kirks last word?

Bill