View Single Post
Old 07-24-2011, 11:50 PM
Futureguy Futureguy is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,153

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.

IDK.......Look at the (debated) visual level of technical advancement of the nu-E over TOS. Even the first TOS-ish pilot had a seemingly reliable transporter, though granted it was not script-tested to the degree the one in STXI was. It's basic functionality and capability continued on to TOS. Only mentioned problem was transporting through "shields" and outside "TIY" there was only the implied use of the system ship to planet or vise-versa or ship to ship in an undisclosed range. But in TIY the transporter was definitely working at a level far above what STXI's was and that was my original point. Transporting at extreme warp from the Enterprise, with the earth moving up and by just as quickly and they nailed the transport of Capt. Christopher not only back to earth, but right back into his plane. Pretty good job whether it was the automated controls or (Scotty?) making the calculations. Add to that the fact that time was also advancing exponentially and till then, time travel had not been a factor in beaming. They just did it without question.

Can't tell me that for all the visual advancement of the ship design and systems between TOS and STXI, the transporter was a big thing basically inferior to TOS? I'm still not sure about the nu-E's warp capability being at least equal to TOS either, but that's another discussion.
Reply With Quote