[Saquist]

I never looked deeply into the whole thing was senseless as explanations go.
I can't pretend to take this seriously if the movie didn't...the book seems to have done a much better job with this plot device but it might as well be a improbability drive they way the movie described it.

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by Saquist

I never looked deeply into the whole thing was senseless as explanations go.
I can't pretend to take this seriously if the movie didn't...the book seems to have done a much better job with this plot device but it might as well be a improbability drive they way the movie described it.

.......Enterprise goes into "Improbability Drive" and the Narada becomes a giant Whale and plunges into the giant hole it just had dug on Earth. Problem solved, though the Jellyfish, along with Spock, becomes a bowl of petunias.

[brobertsumc]

In ST09 the issue is that the TARGET is traveling at warp. In "Tomorrow is Yesterday" the SENDER is traveling at warp, but the target is almost stationary in comparison (and not inside a warp bubble). The two scenarios are reversed. I suppose you could therefore reconcile the two by stating that the problem of "trans-warp beaming" involves beaming ONTO an object that is at warp.

[Saquist]

the thing is the expansion of the universe is miniscule to the speed of warp how it could possibly make that kind of differnce with transport?

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

the thing is the expansion of the universe is miniscule to the speed of warp how it could possibly make that kind of differnce with transport?

They aren't talking about the expansion of the universe at all, they are talking about the Enterprise warping the space, thus it is the space that is in motion

[Futureguy]

Originally Posted by brobertsumc

In ST09 the issue is that the TARGET is traveling at warp. In "Tomorrow is Yesterday" the SENDER is traveling at warp, but the target is almost stationary in comparison (and not inside a warp bubble). The two scenarios are reversed. I suppose you could therefore reconcile the two by stating that the problem of "trans-warp beaming" involves beaming ONTO an object that is at warp.

Also though, the sender is traveling, at warp, across time as well as space. Not only did they, in TIY, transport Capt. Christopher back to a place, they had to nail the exact time also. Up to that point the consideration of transporting in those extreme set of conditions had never been encountered. At the speed the Enterprise was traveling at the point C. Christopher was beamed to earth, the transporter range, relative to the Enterprise's speed and being "close enough" to earth to successfully transport, also should have been a no-go if STXI's transporters had been used before the "upgrade" they got during the movie.

His molecules were in danger of being spread over time, as well as space, because of the rapidness of the moving through time as well as space, and in a warp bubble at that, but they (TOS) did it without a blink. So essentially the transporter system and program used to run it were seemingly more advanced and established than STXI's.

There, in STXI, it was an effort even to lock on and transport a single person, to the detriment of Spock's mother. Almost like this technology was fairly new to this universe.

[horatio]

I think it is fair to criticize these extremes, Spock's mother vs. transwarp beaming. But let's not forget that there was enough (it wasn't too much either) techspeak, gravitation was too strong or whatever.

I liked the way they used the transporter overall, it was always embedded dramatically. The whizkid showed his skills but couldn't save Spock's mom and the miracle worker messed up twice before he got it right the third time.

[Saquist]

The whole transport thing in this movie made so much less sense. It's like playing a video game that forces you to aim rockets from an Apache manually when in real life you know there is radar and tracking to make sure that warhead gets to target. What kind of advanced society puts the fate of peoples lives in this sort of aim and shoot target lock? I thought I was watching Galaxy Quest for most of the movie and I don't think that's a bad description. GQ made fun of contrivances but 2009 actually used them seriously in the same way....It's like parody but ...not....but is...

[kevin]

For me, ST09 used contrivances pretty much as well as Star Trek in general has ever done (and like most times, it's usually done for the needs of the plot of the moment, and I would probably rather in this instance have the dramatic impetus and moment of Amanda's death in the film than anal attention to previous transporter systems) so while I'm aware we all pick and choose which contrivances 'bother' us, it's not something I'm going to find a major problem with.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by Saquist

The whole transport thing in this movie made so much less sense. It's like playing a video game that forces you to aim rockets from an Apache manually when in real life you know there is radar and tracking to make sure that warhead gets to target. What kind of advanced society puts the fate of peoples lives in this sort of aim and shoot target lock? I thought I was watching Galaxy Quest for most of the movie and I don't think that's a bad description. GQ made fun of contrivances but 2009 actually used them seriously in the same way....It's like parody but ...not....but is...

My sentiments exactly. The functionality of the transporter in STXI wasn't even consistent within the movie itself. It couldn't lock onto NuKirk and NuSulu in freefall but could lock onto NuSpock, NuPike, and NuKirk all at the same time even while NuSpock was traveling at ramming speed in the Jellyfish. Yet it couldn't hold a lock on Amanda while she was essentially standing still. And the STXI transporter reminded me of the "digital conveyor" from GQ. Even the controls were similar.