The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Do you think the writers should have studied Trek more
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-21-2009, 02:57 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
The one other technical thing that irritated me was the "transwarp transporter". That was simply rediculous and made no sense. If they can do that, why would they need starships?
At times starships = warships. Cant very well fight Klingons by beaming planet to planet. Nor can you beam to strange new worlds until you know that they are there.

Besides.... how did they do it? No idea except some convenient formula from the future and a miracle worker. Good enough. Now that they can, maybe the feds will start setting up a system and charge cargo shipping companies to use it. There is no free lunch, even when money doesnt exist for Joe Schmoe. How did someone figure out how to make transparent aluminum? Another fortunate formula from the future provided by same miracle worker. Programmed on an 80s era Mac no less.

Its certainly no worse than finding God at the edge of the universe where no ship can survive going through the great barrier... but somehow it did. Or turning the middle of a great big rock into a garden with a sun inside of it. Lets also not forget a very convenient ship that can fire while cloaked. Even tho cloaked ships cant it just happens to fit the facts. Therefore it can. Why didnt the Klingons apply the technology to all their ships afterwards? Who knows.

How about a dork of a human that got ultra smart and told a computer how to create a brain interface. Sure didnt take him long. No idea how he got that one to work either. Time travel by going really really fast? Really? Oh yes. A computer chip that gives a certain android emotions. How? No idea. It just does.

Anyways there are all kinds of ridiculous ideas.

"People cannot beam onto a ship far away traveling at warp."
"All things being equal I would agree with you. All things, however, are not equal. In this case people can."
"Oh, OK."
__________________
Never underestimate the power of a dark clown!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-21-2009, 04:34 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

I had no problems with transwarp beaming. "Transwarp" is just a generic term for anything that moves faster than conventional warp...so technically, Starfleet has had "transwarp communications" since at least the 22nd-Century (even though it's not called that). It's not that much of a stretch to reconfigure a transporter beam through Starfleet's subspace communications net, IMO.

It's even feasible that transwarp beaming has been around since the days of the initial Excelsior-Class Project, but wasn't considered a really safe means of travel because of its tendency to materialize some people inside of coolant tanks...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-21-2009, 05:06 PM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,990
Default

I think they studied the series just fine, they just made some creative choices that not all agree with. That's what happens when you reboot a franchise.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-2009, 05:16 PM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
It's even feasible that transwarp beaming has been around since the days of the initial Excelsior-Class Project, but wasn't considered a really safe means of travel because of its tendency to materialize some people inside of coolant tanks...
Indeed. Besides, based on Scotty's comments, I'd assume that beaming onto a faster-than-light ship has a strictly limited range, too, just like conventional beaming. The characters were just luck the Enterprise was still in range at the time.

In my reckoning, 'transwarp' in this context just refers to the fact that the target is moving at warp while the origin is not. Whatever's being beamed has to cross the warp barrier in the process - rather like a subspace radio call, I guess.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
It's even feasible that transwarp beaming has been around since the days of the initial Excelsior-Class Project, but wasn't considered a really safe means of travel because of its tendency to materialize some people inside of coolant tanks...
Almost like that one time in TNG where they did that near-warp-transport and I think it was Troi who commented after materializing that she felt like for a moment she was in the wall and Worf said something like "You were."
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-21-2009, 06:12 PM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
No.
Ditto.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-21-2009, 08:22 PM
Arctus Baran Arctus Baran is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Cardassian Sunrise, Porthos, Rura Penthe, Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Orions ... it sometimes felt like a poor copy-and-paste job or shall I say cherry-picking?
Never been a fan of cherries, never picked any on the fields during summer as a kid. I prefer a real meal.
so true, it's like they found a list of words, used them without
knowing their meaning. Too rough in their use, stand out too much.

I agree that they did research, but did not always know how to string it together. It mostly works in the alt-time, but if it was a movie continued from TNG, it would be too jarring.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-22-2009, 12:58 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
For all the silly feuding between "canonites" and "revisionites," the one thing about Star Trek XI was that the writers (or at least Orci) did study Trek lore--and then some. The establishment of Kirk being born in 2333 was from extrapolating his age from TOS; Kirk being born in Iowa from Star Trek IV; Spock's parents came from TOS, the TOS movies, and TNG; Kirk beating the Kobyashi Maru test from Star Trek II; the idea that Spock was bullied as a child was from TOS; Christoher Pike as Kirk's predecessor on the Enterprise, etc. The idea that Kirk's father was also a Starfleet officer came from a novel, not from from any onscreen reference.

They did their homework all right.

Changes from established lore were mostly intentional for the most part to establish how different this alternate universe was to the prime universe, IMO...
Agreed, they made specific decisions in making the approach theirs while also remaining consistent.

One can also add that Sarek's explanation of why he married Amanda is based on his words in 'Journey to Babel', and that his explanation that logic offers Vulcan's serenity comes from (now, I believe Shpockr posted this link a while back) a post-series comic by D.C Fontana.

http://www.startrekmovie.com/forums/...?t=9698&page=3 - see post #27

It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that you don't find that kind of historical information unless you research it properly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D View Post
The supernova plot device works fine if you assume it's just a supernova unlike anything ever seen. A logical assumption, since it works unlike any supernova ever seen. In a sci-fi universe wherein an over-mined moon can blow up, destroying a planet's ecosystem and having effects felt light-years away. The film's use of a supernova that becomes more powerful as it expands is not too outlandish by sci-fi standards; it's not like it'd need to actually consume the entire galaxy in order to destroy it, either: removing enough mass from one portion of the galaxy could destabalise it in the long term, or the rise in radiation could threaten life over a large area.

It could've been easily dealt with by a simple throwaway line in the film, of course; but my point is that the lack of an on-screen explanation doesn't mean it's a mere error. After all, the known supernovae most definitely don't threaten galaxies; the film's deviation from this is clearly intentional because it runs against conventional knowledge. The logical conclusion? The film's supernova is something unique.
Well said

Let's face it - bad science and Star Trek are best friends, there's also the fact that Gravity appears not to work the way it should in Generations during the climax of that film to add to the list.

Plus in the context of TOS where you can have a star system destroying Amoeba is a unique supernova really a stretch?

No, it clearly is not. And it's this fantastical nonsense that was through TOS that the writers brought to the film, instead of the po-faced and 'we don't do those kinds of stories now' attitude that modern Star Trek had in TNG and DS9.

It's why stylistically the film is absolutely TOS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
Besides.... how did they do it? No idea except some convenient formula from the future and a miracle worker. Good enough. Now that they can, maybe the feds will start setting up a system and charge cargo shipping companies to use it. There is no free lunch, even when money doesnt exist for Joe Schmoe. How did someone figure out how to make transparent aluminum? Another fortunate formula from the future provided by same miracle worker. Programmed on an 80s era Mac no less.

Its certainly no worse than finding God at the edge of the universe where no ship can survive going through the great barrier... but somehow it did. Or turning the middle of a great big rock into a garden with a sun inside of it. Lets also not forget a very convenient ship that can fire while cloaked. Even tho cloaked ships cant it just happens to fit the facts. Therefore it can. Why didnt the Klingons apply the technology to all their ships afterwards? Who knows.

How about a dork of a human that got ultra smart and told a computer how to create a brain interface. Sure didnt take him long. No idea how he got that one to work either. Time travel by going really really fast? Really? Oh yes. A computer chip that gives a certain android emotions. How? No idea. It just does.

Anyways there are all kinds of ridiculous ideas.

"People cannot beam onto a ship far away traveling at warp."
"All things being equal I would agree with you. All things, however, are not equal. In this case people can."
"Oh, OK."
It's even possible that the 'transwarp beaming' comes from the 24th Century Scotty. He may have had ideas about the formula in the 23rd but since he spent 80 years stuck in a transporter buffer (oh wait, there's another load of tosh designed to get a TOS character to miraculously survive into TNG times) he may have finalised it many, many years later.

And as you point out, it's basically a neat homage to IV as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
I think they studied the series just fine, they just made some creative choices that not all agree with. That's what happens when you reboot a franchise.
Again, this is correct. And it's the choices they made that cause the problems for some people.

A lot of the rest is quite in keeping with TOS.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist

Last edited by kevin : 11-22-2009 at 01:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-22-2009, 02:01 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

no no no...they re writers not gods....they wrote a fine script
__________________
B E H O L D T H E N A R A D A
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-22-2009, 02:55 AM
Captain Shaw's Avatar
Captain Shaw Captain Shaw is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 168
Default

The Movie was just perfect in my opinion...they did their homework WELL! They nailed the essence of Trek, and all the Characters!

Last edited by Captain Shaw : 11-22-2009 at 01:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.