View Single Post
  #29  
Old 07-24-2011, 01:33 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Not being rated for what uses? Having an established lock that was lost because of a planet collapsing under her?

The transporter system in the film generally operates in the same way that it did in TOS (although if one wants to complain about it's lack of ability compared to TOS itself one could always point out that the Abrams film takes place 8 years before TOS and so therefore actually legitimately could be an inferior system 'in-universe' that was later improved upon as it evolved) when people were being transported in the same way that we almost always saw them do.

Standing still and being stationary through the transport cycle.

In ST09 the two times it proved that it was more difficult, and highlighted that the system had limitations was when the person was in essential freefall (or where the lock that had previously been held on Amanda was lost because her position suddenly shifted thanks to the ground collapsing under her - losing a transporter lock or finding it difficult to establish a lock in the first place is not a new phenomenon in the field of transporting and it's the lock that's most important. Establishing it, keeping it.) or at least NOT standing or being motionless somewhere from the site they were being transported out from.

It's simply not the preferable method of 'safe' transport using the system.

The fact that this sort of falling is harder to lock onto is reasonably fine to accept and not particularly disproven by anything in TOS or later series because (certainly in TOS) I don't believe there was ever a time that they tried to beam anyone out in such circumstances.

Chekov's intervention in the matter only shows that it is something that is hard to do and sometimes doesn't work out, because of the limitations of the system and humans. Neither of which are ever infallible 100%. But sometimes restoration of the human factor might be able to do something. The fact that he was successful once and not twice reinforces that it's difficult but it is not in any way wildly inconsistent - it would be analagous to the season 3 episode of TNG 'Booby Trap' where Geordi and Leah Brahms compute the course corrections the Enterprise would need to make in order to escape from the trap, and when they run the simulation with exactly the same computer changes the ship simulates escaping one time, and yet doesn't on the second - despite doing the exact same thing. It ends up being human intervention that gets the ship out, not the high-falutin' computers.

Or even trying to make a shot from 100 feet away from the hoop. Sometimes, yep - sometimes nope.

Group transports and transports from shuttles were seen in obviously seen in TOS several times (Scotty only points out that doing it from multiple locations to one pad simultaneously is something that had not been tried before, because it was difficult - which again since we rarely saw it in Trek before would seem consistent, and it helps make him 'the miracle worker' anyway) as well, so in principle I don't think there's anything wrong or especially grievous with the ST09 issues either.
I agree. When Kirk and Sulu fell Chekov had time whereas when Chekov tried to get a second lock on Amanda there was a lot of blinking on his console so the gravitation was too strong and/or the rocks which inhibited beaming made it hard to get a second lock.
There was really enough techywacky in the movie to explain it. They made more of a fuss about it than usually. At least I don't remember that the first time people were beamed without having firm ground beneath their feet required any tech-xplanation. Not to mention the numerous times when people were beamed through shields or whatever.
Reply With Quote