|
|
Post by Bogatan on May 27, 2013 18:40:08 GMT
I think Spock shrank the universe when he came back in time. I initially put down the shortness of the trip from Earth to Vulcan in the first film and Earth to Kronos in the second to bad editing as Jetty said something some Captains logs could have addressed. But then I watched Into darkness a second time and one of the characters, says something that specifies that the entire film from the day after the attack on Starfleet happens in a day. Which means the return journey was probably shorter than the average British train journey.
If the universe has shrunk that much then beaming across it isnt so odd.
If Spock hasn't shrunk the universe? then its all a bit silly as they seem to be digging a hole just to avoid adding a couple of sentences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on May 27, 2013 19:29:55 GMT
I missed the part that spoke of the first movie taking place within a day. (Could he have been talking figuratively?)
I shouldn't have to do this, because the writers certainly didn't, but one way of looking at the short warp trips, is to take and apply the theory of relativity, which no trek has done before. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time seems to slow down for you. What could be a trip taking weeks at high warp, to the crew could seem like hours or minutes.
Something else I learned from a Star Trek documentary recently on the history channel, is that Abhrams was not a star trek fan before he started filming Trek. Instead, he was a Star Wars fan.
It's been my experience that kids who grew up loving star wars exclusively, but "don't get" star trek, tend to not give a shit about sciencey stuff, and how plausible technology can be, or physics.
When you think a Lightsaber is the coolest weapon in the world, who cares that it's impossible? And when you see something go into "hyperspace" and be on the otherside of the galaxy in minutes, "Well isn't Warp the same thing?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on May 27, 2013 19:33:27 GMT
Also, Dispite not being a trek fan, I think he's shown remarkable respect towards the franchise (Especially the characters) problems and all.
Unlike another non-fan who took the reigns to a certain giant alien robot franchise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on May 27, 2013 19:54:41 GMT
I shouldn't have to do this, because the writers certainly didn't, but one way of looking at the short warp trips, is to take and apply the theory of relativity, which no trek has done before. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time seems to slow down for you. What could be a trip taking weeks at high warp, to the crew could seem like hours or minutes. This only applies to travel approaching light speed in standard space-time. Warp drive by definition alters those rules. Although we have only had a real world understanding of that process for a couple of decades, the basic idea of stretching and pulling space to get around has been around for a lot longer, hence why some of the basic terminology has crept into sci fi over the last 50 or so years, hence Star Trek using 'warp drive' as a plausible-sounding method of time-distortion avoiding FTL since it began. |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on May 27, 2013 19:58:36 GMT
I agree, and know the physics behind both lightspeed and warp fields/bubbles.
I'm just saying it's *some* sort of way to look at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on May 27, 2013 20:08:57 GMT
I missed the part that spoke of the first movie taking place within a day. (Could he have been talking figuratively?) Sorry I meant the second film mostly takes place over just a day or two. I think its Scotty saying something about only being sacked the day before. The First one isnt so clear, though taken at face value it's probably only a few days again at most. Also, Dispite not being a trek fan, I think he's shown remarkable respect towards the franchise (Especially the characters) problems and all. Unlike another non-fan who took the reigns to a certain giant alien robot franchise. It's only because the characterisation is so good that I enjoyed the 2 films. Thats not true, the second one especially would make a good generic scifi, but both are fairly bad star trek stories. Well the first one at least reminds me of the poorer Voyager plots, but saved from utter pointlessness by not hitting the reset button. Into Darkness has pretty good Trek stuff going on, sadly most of it is a straight rip of TWOK. The only vaguely unique element is the post 911 style setting and even Enterprise tried that. |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on May 27, 2013 20:42:41 GMT
I agree, the characterisations are great. It actually made me like Kirk. And how the actors were actually portraying the characters, and not just doing impersonations of the original actors, like you get in some remakes.
But McCoy steals it. Though I still sort of disagree with their new explination of his nickname of Bones.
Doctors used to be called Sawbones... especially in the western roots that TOS was founded on. Calling McCoy Bones is a bit unusual, but even in this day and age it's not a hard nickname to understand for our audiences.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 29, 2013 21:37:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on May 29, 2013 22:02:41 GMT
Don't get between him... and the Star Trek Wine!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on May 30, 2013 7:11:28 GMT
I must have the Mirror Universe one!!!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Jun 7, 2013 20:48:20 GMT
The Super-beaming was a bit too much thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Jul 3, 2013 15:33:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Aug 2, 2013 20:20:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 2, 2013 20:34:43 GMT
Damn it.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Aug 2, 2013 21:22:20 GMT
That is sad news. Very sad news.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Aug 2, 2013 21:40:32 GMT
:-(
|
|
|
|
Post by Shockprowl on Aug 4, 2013 21:19:08 GMT
The ultimate Klingon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Aug 29, 2013 19:14:12 GMT
Enterprise Season 3 isn't all that bad really.
|
|
Jim
Thunderjet
Micromaster Backside Monitor
Now in glorious Ultra HD 4K
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by Jim on Aug 29, 2013 22:10:32 GMT
Has anyone else picked up the first issue Star Trek Official Starships Collection part-works thing? I found a £1.99 model of the Enterprise-D, easily the one I would want most, utterly irresistible. It's a nice little model too, with display stand and box. Magazine is a bit rubbish, but I suppose these things usually are. I now just have to resist the OCD impulse to collect the rest - a movie-era NCC-1701 and USS Reliant might be hard to avoid though...
-Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Aug 30, 2013 6:28:55 GMT
I've got them preordered on BBTS.com, up to the first 8 so far. The first four will make it over here in september. The next four will be in december.
With the complete and utter death of DC Universe Classics (In all it's forms) this past week, I guess that will be my main toyline for the following years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Aug 30, 2013 8:08:56 GMT
I had all three of those from the Mattel range and they were great. I kept having to turn the Reliant over because it looks so much better with the Torpedo launcher under the ship as originally planned.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 30, 2013 9:10:21 GMT
I got the Enterprise-D model thing. Really is lovely. Recently saw some £20 Hot Wheels ship models and they were pish. The Art Asylum big ship toys look great but I haven't got room for them. Must admit, I am tempted to subscribe to the magazine thingy. I want those extra ships and plaque! Postal issues put me off a bit though  -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Fortmax2020 on Aug 30, 2013 9:28:57 GMT
What's the cost for the subscription? I'm tempted as well, but as I am moving a couple of times between now and the end of the year concerned about editions getting lost in the post too.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 30, 2013 10:02:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Aug 30, 2013 15:35:47 GMT
I had all three of those from the Mattel range and they were great. I kept having to turn the Reliant over because it looks so much better with the Torpedo launcher under the ship as originally planned. I am conditioned by those old orthographic plan books, the early novels, and the Starfleet Battles board game to expect Starfleet ships to be "Nacelles up" by default, so I can understand that. I have the Enterprise D and it is surprisingly good all things considered. Not really tempted by the Subscription, but I'll be interested to cherry-pick some of the future releases - Enterprise Refit, Reliant, K'Tinga, an Enterprise-C would be nice. Karl |
|
|
|
Post by Toph on Aug 31, 2013 1:29:59 GMT
I got the Enterprise-D model thing. Really is lovely. Recently saw some £20 Hot Wheels ship models and they were pish. -Ralph You did?!? I've been desparately trying to find them all summer! |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Aug 31, 2013 7:07:36 GMT
Yeah. Piles of them in FP when I popped through to Glasgow last week.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Aug 31, 2013 18:12:02 GMT
How big are the models? Even die-cast £10 seems steep.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Aug 31, 2013 18:39:51 GMT
How big are the models? Even die-cast £10 seems steep. I saw it in Smiths. 1.99 for a decent-sized 5 inch Enterprise (if we are talking about the same thing). |
|
Jim
Thunderjet
Micromaster Backside Monitor
Now in glorious Ultra HD 4K
Posts: 4,932
|
Post by Jim on Aug 31, 2013 18:56:40 GMT
The Enterprise D is about 13cm long by 10cm wide (across the saucer), and it is quite a good model. Not sure I would have paid £10 (I probably would. I love that ship!), but £2 is a steal and £6 for the next one seems about right.
-Jim
|
|
