Ah, yes. They probably would have been very dead.
Craster wrote:
Not sure it's necessarily flawed. Momentum is a function of an object, so moving it instantly from one point in space to another needn't mean that it would lose its momentum.
Indeed, but think of the implications.
In the situation above, Kirk and Sulu would die. People transported from ships with a different speed or heading would go flying across the room. Planet to ship transports would only be feasible if the ship was in geosynch. Plus they'd all get the bends
Inertial dampers and shit.
Travelling fast aboard a spaceship would indicate some sort of inertial compensator had somehow been invented, meaning that passengers on board a ship would effectively have zero momentum, so you could get around that.
Curiously enough, in practice in that time period being the first man across didn't mean death. The massive clouds of smoke obscured much aimed shot, and as long as you weren't cut down by grape or by sharpshooters cutting through wind-bourne gaps in the mist, and as long as you boarded on the heels of your own broadside whilst the enemy was still reeling, a captain would have an excellent 2/3rds* of a chance of getting out relatively uninjured.
A far more dangerous place in close ship or boarding actions is your own quarterdeck, which the enemy kept a heavy fire on. But yes, actions would always be with a gang of ratings, and frequently an all or nothing affair. If Trek were truly plausible in its copying of the old style, pretty much every able hand on the ship would beam over in two parties simultaneously to the two weakest points of the ship, the captain going with one team and the first lieutenant with the other, both with the aim of getting to the bridge and neutralising the ship deck by deck.
Again, this would be impossibly cool. I always loved the boarding action in Babylon 5's 'Severed Dreams', despite being a bit silly in its way, that was a top all out war episode.
A far more dangerous place in close ship or boarding actions is your own quarterdeck, which the enemy kept a heavy fire on. But yes, actions would always be with a gang of ratings, and frequently an all or nothing affair. If Trek were truly plausible in its copying of the old style, pretty much every able hand on the ship would beam over in two parties simultaneously to the two weakest points of the ship, the captain going with one team and the first lieutenant with the other, both with the aim of getting to the bridge and neutralising the ship deck by deck.
Again, this would be impossibly cool. I always loved the boarding action in Babylon 5's 'Severed Dreams', despite being a bit silly in its way, that was a top all out war episode.
All of this chatter is making me pine for a Star Trek: Birth Of The Federation 2. The original was a great idea, but horribly flawed (not to mention buggy). A properly done sequel could be the best Star Trek game EVAR!
Of course, the Borg have the right idea for interstellar ship design... bugger all those curves and shit, and everything as redundant as possible.
Remember Interplay's old TOS adventure games? They presented an interesting interpretation (enough with the 'inter' words already) of Star Trek combat. No longer was it like watching the elephant and the moon hanging from the mobile over a baby's crib shakily turning to face each other on their respective wires... instead, it was a fast-paced Wing Commander-style shootfest. Amusingly, either by design or by the engine's restrictions, the Romulan and Klingon ships couldn't actually cloak. They just turned black, and a slightly different shade of black to space. The canny player (me) noticed this faint movement and the odd star being blacked out as they searched for a cloaked foe, and started turning the contrast on their monitor up to easily blast them. You can just picture the enraged Klingons as torpedo after torpedo slams into their ship.
"Klau kalash! How are they seeing us?"
"I do not know, commander!"
*Captain stabs the commander in the face*
"GACHHHHHHHH!"
"Klau kalash! How are they seeing us?"
"I do not know, commander!"
*Captain stabs the commander in the face*
"GACHHHHHHHH!"
Huge bonus points for the Simpsons reference there.
Seeing this tonight, with any luck. Followed by a slap-up meatloaf at Frankie and Benny's.
Saw it. No meatloaf on the menu any more!
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
MetalAngel wrote:
Oh, and was I alone in hoping that, at the end, they were going to get dragged through the singularity and back into the 'proper' timeline?[/spoiler]
Yes, you were. Get to fuck fiddly, bloated, stately, olde Trek. Let's have some more of this new stuff.
Also, yes you can fit that many - if there's around 60 a shuttle. Theirs might be bigger, and be able to fit more people than the classic Trek ones. Which I never understood - I mean, there's essentially no lifeboat system for starships in classic Trek. Chances are you won't have anywhere to beam to in a disaster or attack, so having mass shuttle evacs is logical.
Reckon the crew of a starship must be around 1,000 with all that. Cor.
There must be planets just full of lazy bastards with huge frickin replicators plugged into their mouths.
nervouspete wrote:
Yes, you were. Get to fuck fiddly, bloated, stately, olde Trek. Let's have some more of this new stuff.
But it's still Trek. I doubt they'd be able to churn out stuff this entertaining for anything but movies, and apart from the somewhat shaking events of the movie I think things might settle back into more of a routine again and develop more or less as they did in the 'prime universe' anyway.
Quote:
Also, yes you can fit that many - if there's around 60 a shuttle. Theirs might be bigger, and be able to fit more people than the classic Trek ones. Which I never understood - I mean, there's essentially no lifeboat system for starships in classic Trek. Chances are you won't have anywhere to beam to in a disaster or attack, so having mass shuttle evacs is logical.
I don't buy that. The Kelvin was basically what, a Hermes/Saladin class scout or destroyer, right? Which has a smaller complement of crew, maybe 200 or so. And 60 to a shuttle? You'd struggle to cram that many into a runabout. If you were managing maybe 20 per shuttle that would fit with the crew size better, especially considering at least one was a medical shuttle... Weren't there escape pods in Enterprise?
Quote:
Reckon the crew of a starship must be around 1,000 with all that. Cor.
The Enterprise D's crew is over 1,000, because it's ridiculously huge.
Yes, but it's a story. Do they have to fit to a technical cannon? As long as things are consistent within its own stream, I don't think it matters and they can dream up things afresh. Yes, they're using the hardware that both timelines share, but new Trek can play with these things as far as I'm concerned.
I remember there being escape pods in Enterprise, they look less cool than shuttles though. And I reckon you could fit sixty in there, if they all squidged up. Personally, anything that allows higher battle death counts in Trek wins votes by me. Battleships slugging it out, yeah!
I remember there being escape pods in Enterprise, they look less cool than shuttles though. And I reckon you could fit sixty in there, if they all squidged up. Personally, anything that allows higher battle death counts in Trek wins votes by me. Battleships slugging it out, yeah!
I thought fitting into the 'canon' was important to Star Trek, yes. It's not really consistent within its own stream, as it's still the Star Trek universe as has always existsed, up until the villain arrives, so unless the Kelvin was built in five minutes to specifically go and see him, there's something wrong with it having 800 people on board.
PS: What was the explanation for building the Enterprise on the ground in Iowa, then? How did they get it up into space?
PS: What was the explanation for building the Enterprise on the ground in Iowa, then? How did they get it up into space?
MetalAngel wrote:
I thought fitting into the 'canon' was important to Star Trek, yes. It's not really consistent within its own stream, as it's still the Star Trek universe as has always existsed, up until the villain arrives, so unless the Kelvin was built in five minutes to specifically go and see him, there's something wrong with it having 800 people on board.
PS: What was the explanation for building the Enterprise on the ground in Iowa, then? How did they get it up into space?
PS: What was the explanation for building the Enterprise on the ground in Iowa, then? How did they get it up into space?
It looked cool. Anti-grav I guess, I dunno. To even build a structure like that you'd need repeller's or whatever they call 'em. I love the idea of Iowan plains filled with semi-built starships - though the orbital dockyards are far more sensible. (Even from the asteroid ore mining perspective.)
Did you see the live cast of the Hubble EVA repair job? It took the dude an hour to remove a bolt. That's why it was built on the ground.
Well I'm not surprised. Jeff Bridges is hardly astronaut material.
I did dream about the space shuttle last night. We were watching a launch live on TV and the pilot pushed the wrong button so instead of detaching the SRBs he detached the shuttle from the tank AND SRBs... which means it immediately ran out of fuel, which means it started falling back to the ground and the astronauts were frantically bailing out. The shuttle crashed back onto the Norwegian fairground it had been launched from (yes, I know).
Would the Enterprise be able to support its own weight on the ground, though? Could you not just brace yourself against something before activating your screw tightener, to ensure that you spin the screw, as opposed to yourself?
Would the Enterprise be able to support its own weight on the ground, though? Could you not just brace yourself against something before activating your screw tightener, to ensure that you spin the screw, as opposed to yourself?
MetalAngel wrote:
Would the Enterprise be able to support its own weight on the ground, though? Could you not just brace yourself against something before activating your screw tightener, to ensure that you spin the screw, as opposed to yourself?
It has done before, has it not?
When? I didn't think it was designed to land on planets, unlike Voyager.
MetalAngel wrote:
When? I didn't think it was designed to land on planets, unlike Voyager.
Kirk did ride past it on his motorbike..
That's not particularly it 'landing', more it not having ever taken off.
The more I think about this film, the less I like it. Below are some of the reasons it didn't deliver in my opinion. Feel free to challenge my criticisms or explain why I'm wrong. I'm sure it will be quite a challenge:
Edit: Apologies if some of this ground has already been covered; I didn't read the whole thread.
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
Edit: Apologies if some of this ground has already been covered; I didn't read the whole thread.
Also, the Vulcan kid who taunts Spock to get a human reaction became ridiculously emotional when they started fighting. He was screaming and gnashing his teeth and everything.
I saw Star Trek Begins Royale earlier... And honestly enjoyed every second of it. Even my girlfriend did, and she hates the whole idea of sci-fi and has never seen any Star Trek in her life. Yes, the film is full of inconsistencies and leaps of logic for nerds to pick over, but heck, it's a summer blockbluster movie for flip's sake.
grumpysmurf wrote:
Also, the Vulcan kid who taunts Spock to get a human reaction became ridiculously emotional when they started fighting. He was screaming and gnashing his teeth and everything.
I actually thought that was the whole point. Vulcans are an emotional race, they just train themselves to hide it. So the kids were trying to taunt Spock into displaying emotion, but it backfired when Spock fought back, and the kid he started beating up ended up displaying emotion himself. At least that's what I read into that scene.
Zio wrote:
grumpysmurf wrote:
Also, the Vulcan kid who taunts Spock to get a human reaction became ridiculously emotional when they started fighting. He was screaming and gnashing his teeth and everything.
I actually thought that was the whole point. Vulcans are an emotional race, they just train themselves to hide it. So the kids were trying to taunt Spock into displaying emotion, but it backfired when Spock fought back, and the kid he started beating up ended up displaying emotion himself. At least that's what I read into that scene.
Ah, that would explain it then. I thought Vulcan's *couldn't* display emotion unless they were half human (this is the first Star Trek thing I've seen).
Nobody has challenged my earlier criticisms though. Clearly I much be right on all counts. Either you can't refute the complaints I rose, or you can't be bothered replying - either way, the film is obviously less than stellar.
grumpysmurf wrote:
Ah, that would explain it then. I thought Vulcan's *couldn't* display emotion unless they were half human (this is the first Star Trek thing I've seen).
Interestingly (…!) Vulcans and Romulans are genetically the same species. The Romulans just got pissed off during some time in Vulcan history, fled into space and colonised a distant planet, dumped the overbearing logic from their culture and decided to create a world-conquering star empire as a diverting hobby.
Anonymous X wrote:
Yes, the film is full of inconsistencies and leaps of logic for nerds to pick over, but heck, it's a summer blockbluster movie for flip's sake.
Interesting list. Not quite to the level of 'in episode 4f22, we see Itchy play Scratchy's ribcage like a xylophone, and he strikes the same rib twice yet it produces two clearly distinct notes' either.
Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.
Oh and I like the Enterprise being built on Earth.
As for the coincidences of the crew coming together, that felt like destiny to me. Like it's an elastic, self-healing timeline, that always ends up at roughly the same place despite the rearrangement of the details. Plenty of history of that in SF.
Oh and I like the Enterprise being built on Earth.
As for the coincidences of the crew coming together, that felt like destiny to me. Like it's an elastic, self-healing timeline, that always ends up at roughly the same place despite the rearrangement of the details. Plenty of history of that in SF.
It must be a bit of a curse to be like that, I'll bet he just tutted his way through the whole film, the joyless fool.
Maybe not. I spotted a number of the things he points out, but I didn't harm the film for me. Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.
He obviously didn't get the latest memo.
Anyone played the terrible tie-in game on Xbox Live?
The menu (in which a gorgeously rendered Enterprise comes blasting out of warp) is the best part.
The rest is a horrendously sub-par top-down deathmatchy shooter just like Space War was almost half a century ago. With the added fun of the screen scrolling so you can't see enemies until you've nearly crashed into them!
The designers will undoubtedly be hung, drawn and quartered by Trekkies, while the Enterprise is the star of the Federation side, the Federation 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are the least convincing 'Star Trek-like' ships ever... or until you see the Romulan ships. One is the Narada, fair enough... but the Romulan 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are similarly indistinct 'black shard' shaped things. As opposed to, say, the Romulan warships seen in the old Star Trek (but then, I suppose, that never happened yet, etc etc etc).
But yes, it's shit, in the worst Ocean Software tradition.
The menu (in which a gorgeously rendered Enterprise comes blasting out of warp) is the best part.
The rest is a horrendously sub-par top-down deathmatchy shooter just like Space War was almost half a century ago. With the added fun of the screen scrolling so you can't see enemies until you've nearly crashed into them!
The designers will undoubtedly be hung, drawn and quartered by Trekkies, while the Enterprise is the star of the Federation side, the Federation 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are the least convincing 'Star Trek-like' ships ever... or until you see the Romulan ships. One is the Narada, fair enough... but the Romulan 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are similarly indistinct 'black shard' shaped things. As opposed to, say, the Romulan warships seen in the old Star Trek (but then, I suppose, that never happened yet, etc etc etc).
But yes, it's shit, in the worst Ocean Software tradition.
I didn't read all of that list. Yeah, there are a lot of inconsistences that I also noticed whilst watching the film, but it's an awesome film nevertheless so I couldn't give a shit.
I've been studiously not bothering to suggest going to see it - only to have my girlfriend say at the weekend, out of the blue, "Do you want to go and see Star Trek? Everyone says it's good."
Crikey.
Crikey.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.
I believe these questions were answered in the pre-film comic.
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.
Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.
Yes, but probably not with a modern oil rig.
No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.
Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years?
I did some quick research (
), and Nero went back in time 154 years (from 2387 to 2233), and Old Spock arrived in 2258, so he travelled back 129 years. Craster wrote:
No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.
Pft, RPG's would never take a battleship out in a million, billion years. They're huge, could shred a rig in a broadside and they only went out due to their slow vulnerability to air attack, and later, concerted missile attack. Despite that as long as the magazines aren't hit they can take a lot of dam...
Ah. Wait. It was one of those conversations wasn't it? Um, sorry.
(Takes nerd hat off, slithers away)
Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.
It was a heavy cruise (line)r, yes.
Craster wrote:
Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.
What? A Q-Boat?! Not if Picard can help it!
Ha ha ha!
Sorry, that's the nerdiest joke I've ever made.
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?
Oh but it messed with the precious canon by suggesting "our" Spock is now forever trapped in the other timeline. Also that the Enterprise shuttle bay was 500 times bigger than shown on TV.
