I have to disagree with you on that. Ships capable of sub-surface operations are designed very different from starships. It isn't just about depth and pressure, its a completely different enviroment.
I'm going to agree with Trek21. A ship outfitted with force fields, shields, and all other sorts of elements to keep out the dangers of space, should be modifiable to exist under water. So it wasn't a stretch of the imagination at all. If you can believe people can be broken down to atoms and transported from point A to point B and rematerialized? You should probably also be able to believe that Starfleet's technology can handle a starship being submerged.
Again, I cite the SFA book starring Kirk, McCoy, and Spock about their first mission together as Cadets at various stages in their time at the Academy. Before you keep going, all I suggest is you read the book and compare how that writer treated that situation to how JJ did in his film. If you want, I can dig up the exact name of the book.
There is also the issue of a little thing called escape velocity. The closer to the core you are of a planet, the higher it'll be.
Also, starships aren't designed to be aerodynamic or hydrodynamic. Part of Voyager's landing sequence was adjusting shields/force fields for a 'fake' aerodynamic shape. Also, they had to use tech to keep the unbalanced ship from nose planting while sitting there on the landing struts since they were behind the center of balance for the hull.
There's a good reason things like modern day subs are shaped the way they are, no offense.
There's just one thing: the books, no matter how good they are, are only soft canon, ie they can be considered but can also be rejected. I'm not sure which I'd do personally, because I can't get my hands on it (and I know the title)
Also, I'm aware of escape velocity, but fiction (ANY fiction) can/will frequently disregard real world physics for drama, plot, and anything else they need. If I remember correctly, TNG had an episode [The Royale] that had Geordi state that a planet was -291 degrees C... which is physically impossible, because absolute zero is warmer than that, relatively speaking.
Matter-of-fact, Star Trek frequently uses technology that disregard the physics we understand, and instead use their own. So I think it's reasonable that the Enterprise can hide itself underwater (slowly), and using emergency power, can easily escape at a faster rate.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
I like Voyager well enough. But seriously? Threshold.
JJ Abrams' Star Trek, both of them, beat that kind of episode six ways to Tuesday. And Voyager has its fair share of klunkers along those same lines as that episode.
It's a fun series. But it has warts. Rose colored glasses may obscure those warts, but it's on Netflix Instant, give it a watch. And remember.
Ahh, the famous/infamous (depending on how you look at it) 'Warp 10' episode. According to the in canon physics, Warp 10 as per the TNG scale is infinite velocity. As per the episode, they were everywhere in the universe at a single moment in time and may or may not have actually reached the fabled 'Warp 10'. There's plenty of canons where they have similar FTLs, but the main point with those canons is the pilot is way passed modern humans in terms of evolution in order to be able to handle the strain. Plus, who's to say whatever mods to the warp drive they made to the shuttle were 100% safe?
Accelerated mutation into a new species is nothing new to Trek. TNG did that in 'Identity Crisis' where it was the alien's form of reproduction.
I don't wear 'rose colored glasses'. As I said in a previous post, I'm one of the first to point out faults in Trek. I regularly call TOS 'hippies in space', TNG 'peaceniks in space', and DS9 a 'rip-off of Babylon 5', just for examples. But, those were the prevailing 'word moralities' of the time. TOS was aired in an era where hippy culture was pretty much dominant. TNG aired in a time where the Cold War was ending and people were sick of all the 'brush fire' wars all over the globe.
I'm going to agree with Trek21. A ship outfitted with force fields, shields, and all other sorts of elements to keep out the dangers of space, should be modifiable to exist under water. So it wasn't a stretch of the imagination at all. If you can believe people can be broken down to atoms and transported from point A to point B and rematerialized? You should probably also be able to believe that Starfleet's technology can handle a starship being submerged.
Sadly, physics aren't on your side here, no offense. Farscape, for example, gives us an excellent example in one episode of a starship making a water landing and hiding under the surface. Moya not only leaked like a sieve, but she also, with all her 'space travel tech' like structural integrity fields, was still being crushed by the pressure. Starship frames aren't built like submarines. I'm no engineer, but I know enough that submarines are built to distribute the load and compress the frame until crush depth. Yes, a sub could, in theory, be modded to go into space, but going the other way would require a specialized modification after who knows how long in drydock to retrofit the hull.
As for the idea of leaving shields up, the constant 'attack' on them would be nothing but a massive power drain.
Voyager gives us a good example when the Delta Flyer (forget off top of head if it was the first or second one) had to be altered in order to enter that water planet in the one episode. They were unable to send Voyager herself or one of the other shuttles as they were unable to take the stresses involved.
There's just one thing: the books, no matter how good they are, are only soft canon, ie they can be considered but can also be rejected. I'm not sure which I'd do personally, because I can't get my hands on it (and I know the title)
Just saying, I felt the book I mentioned did the situation far better than JJ.
Personally, I would have preferred to see the 'post-Genesis' Borg arc with the revived Kirk and 1701-E (including the MU Kirk)....written by, IIRC, Shatner.
Also, I'm aware of escape velocity, but fiction (ANY fiction) can/will frequently disregard real world physics for drama, plot, and anything else they need. If I remember correctly, TNG had an episode [The Royale] that had Geordi state that a planet was -291 degrees C... which is physically impossible, because absolute zero is warmer than that, relatively speaking.
So you because some writer didn't do all his research properly (back then Kelvin wasn't as commonly used as it is today) about just how cold absolute zero is, you claim the typo (which is all it was) is viable as a reason to chuck Trek's long history of playing true with physics out the window? No offense, while Trek does have a habit of exploring 'theoretical physics', which are sometimes proven incorrect after an episode is aired, Trek's being 'up-to-date' practice was started by Gene himself.
Matter-of-fact, Star Trek frequently uses technology that disregard the physics we understand, and instead use their own. So I think it's reasonable that the Enterprise can hide itself underwater (slowly), and using emergency power, can easily escape at a faster rate.
Look mrshadowphoenix, I respect your opinion and everything; you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about how physics work (and obviously the opinion that they should always work that way).
But I don't think there's much more I can say. I think the Enterprise's entire underwater venture, including takeoff, is perfectly reasonable because the 23rd century has technology beyond our own, which is obviously capable of manipulation of our physics, as well as their own though to a more limited degree - and you do not, for equally valid reasons.
At this point, I can only agree to disagree
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Explain the physics of a Romulan Singularity core.
Lol, that's an easy one. A true singularity is generated by a combination of mass that, once past a critical value, is able to generate a strong enough gravitational field in order to be self sustaining. However, an artificial one, like used by Romulans, skips the mass part and uses artificial gravity technology in order to compress far less than critical mass into a singularity. They then use inertial dampening technology to remove the issue of having such a singularity in the first place from throwing off their navigational computers.
It is also theorized in the real world that one of the 'outputs' of a singularity as it consumes matter is anti-matter. Harness that and you have a free fuel source for matter/anti-matter cores. There's also a lot of various types of radiation those things pump out that could also be harnessed.
Do you suspend your disbelief long enough to allow that to happen? Then you can do the same for the Enterprise taking a swim.
I'm also not going to really get bummed by the new Man of Steel breaking all kinds of scientific sense. Since both Star Trek and Superman are fiction.
No offense, but while we can't replicate singularity based power in the real world at this point in time, the theoretical physics are viable. If you want a really physics laden answer, lol, let's actually get someone who majored in the subject.
While it is more or less a hobby for me, Trek got me interested in science in the first place. Every time I saw something in Trek or any show and wondered 'how did they do that?' I dug up everything I could on a subject.
Look mrshadowphoenix, I respect your opinion and everything; you obviously have a great deal of knowledge about how physics work
Thank-you.
(and obviously the opinion that they should always work that way).
Lol, you should talk to the group I RP with. They would not agree with you on that, lol.
But I don't think there's much more I can say. I think the Enterprise's entire underwater venture, including takeoff, is perfectly reasonable because the 23rd century has technology beyond our own, which is obviously capable of manipulation of our physics, as well as their own though to a more limited degree - and you do not, for equally valid reasons.
At this point, I can only agree to disagree
Only issue is that canon shows 24th century tech having issues with underwater adventures in starships. TAS was 23rd century also and still shows they had to use specialized craft to go underwater.
Its not just physics that are questionable here, its the fact canon itself doesn't support a starship like the JJ-prize suddenly developing gills when more advanced tech in the 'Prime' timeline couldn't do it with any ship at will.
The theoretical physics behind artificial singularities is not sound; by all current models of physics, gravity is a field effect caused by the distortion of space/time by the presence of mass. There is no way under our current models to generate "artificial gravity", let alone sufficient gravitation to create a singularity - and then to control it afterward; should you manage to make one, it should make a neat little artificial-singularity-sized hole right out through the aft end of your ship the first time you move.
Given artificial gravity, though, most of the objections to the underwater scene vanish - particularly anything relating to escape velocity, as you need not achieve that all at once if you can generate an artificial gravitational field around yourself. You can accelerate in any desired direction at any desired velocity, limited only by the structural soundness of your craft; if it is exceptionally delicate, you can cause yourself to fall "upward" at, say, 0.1g, until you're outside the atmosphere.
Let's face it, when we're looking at better than two hundred years' advancement from our science, particularly when you add in the thousand-plus-year headstart the Vulcans have, we're talking "sufficiently advanced technology" in a lot of ways. And structural-support fields capable of sustaining a starship underwater seem a lot easier to believe, from my viewpoint, than, say, using a variant on the tunnel-diode effect to project an energy pattern of a human being thousands of miles, then having it re-coalesce back into a human being without so much as a receiving structure...
Only issue is that canon shows 24th century tech having issues with underwater adventures in starships. TAS was 23rd century also and still shows they had to use specialized craft to go underwater.
Its not just physics that are questionable here, its the fact canon itself doesn't support a starship like the JJ-prize suddenly developing gills when more advanced tech in the 'Prime' timeline couldn't do it with any ship at will.
Well, despite being mostly consistent, sometimes ST canon doesn't match up with itself anyway I remember TOS was particularly bad in that regard, regarding the stardates
But I think I'd chalk it up to a difference in the attitudes of the times. When TAS and TNG came out, it was pretty much the 80's, and a lot of both shows did what we could only dream at the time (and in many cases, still do). Nowadays, people not only think we'd be able to do more in the future, but they're expecting new, fresh and exciting. Going up into space is expected/been done a lot, but hiding a starship under water isn't done very often.
And if not that, it might have been because of budget/implementation issues. I think a starship could handle underwater pressure if done properly, but no ship was ever given a proper chance to do so on TV/Films until Into Darkness.
Was named Trek17.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Well, despite being mostly consistent, sometimes ST canon doesn't match up with itself anyway I remember TOS was particularly bad in that regard, regarding the stardates
But I think I'd chalk it up to a difference in the attitudes of the times. When TAS and TNG came out, it was pretty much the 80's, and a lot of both shows did what we could only dream at the time (and in many cases, still do). Nowadays, people not only think we'd be able to do more in the future, but they're expecting new, fresh and exciting. Going up into space is expected/been done a lot, but hiding a starship under water isn't done very often.
And if not that, it might have been because of budget/implementation issues. I think a starship could handle underwater pressure if done properly, but no ship was ever given a proper chance to do so on TV/Films until Into Darkness.
The Delta Flyer did just fine underwater in VOY 30 Days.
In all honesty, the Delta Flyer and the runabouts were pretty much starships.
Well, yeah, any "long range" shuttle is really just a small starship. (Got Warp Drive? :P)
But yeah, equipping a starship for underwater would require modifications, but relatively minor ones. Mostly stuff like preventing the ship from venting waste plasma, and of course reconfiguring the shields and SIF...
@ Shadowphoenix: I've read several of Hawking's books on Quantum Singularities. There are two major factors he brings up in his works that are rarely mentioned in fiction.
1: Singularities have no real size. A Quantum Singularity with the mass of 20 suns is beleived to be physically smaller than a proton. The "size" that is most often referred to is the event horizon, but that's not a physical object.
2: Singularities are inherently unstable. Hawking Radiation is the process by which the Singularity slowly evaporates into the void. An artificially stabilized singularity could be fed matter periodically to offset the slow evaporation though.
3: The gravity well of a singularity prevents the singularity from evaporating. Everybody knows this right? Well, Hawking Radiation is energy emitted by Signularities, however Hawking Radiation is only a tiny fraction of what a singularity actually emits in a given time period. Most of the energy is reabsorbed by the singularity. If you used super tech to temporarily destabilize the gravity well, it'd go boom. Which is what happens to natural signularities when their mass drops below a critical threshhold. (The more massive a singularity is the slower it loses mass. Once the mass drops to a certain point, the escape velocity is lower than the speed of light and the singularity is no longer capable of reabsorbing the photons it is emitting constantly. As for how light moves faster than the speed of light... that's complicated. Hawking's theory has it that the speed of light is an average, and that a photon's actual speed is constantly in flux.)
Well, yeah, any "long range" shuttle is really just a small starship. (Got Warp Drive? :P)
But yeah, equipping a starship for underwater would require modifications, but relatively minor ones. Mostly stuff like preventing the ship from venting waste plasma, and of course reconfiguring the shields and SIF...
@ Shadowphoenix: I've read several of Hawking's books on Quantum Singularities. There are two major factors he brings up in his works that are rarely mentioned in fiction.
1: Singularities have no real size. A Quantum Singularity with the mass of 20 suns is beleived to be physically smaller than a proton. The "size" that is most often referred to is the event horizon, but that's not a physical object.
2: Singularities are inherently unstable. Hawking Radiation is the process by which the Singularity slowly evaporates into the void. An artificially stabilized singularity could be fed matter periodically to offset the slow evaporation though.
3: The gravity well of a singularity prevents the singularity from evaporating. Everybody knows this right? Well, Hawking Radiation is energy emitted by Signularities, however Hawking Radiation is only a tiny fraction of what a singularity actually emits in a given time period. Most of the energy is reabsorbed by the singularity. If you used super tech to temporarily destabilize the gravity well, it'd go boom. Which is what happens to natural signularities when their mass drops below a critical threshhold. (The more massive a singularity is the slower it loses mass. Once the mass drops to a certain point, the escape velocity is lower than the speed of light and the singularity is no longer capable of reabsorbing the photons it is emitting constantly. As for how light moves faster than the speed of light... that's complicated. Hawking's theory has it that the speed of light is an average, and that a photon's actual speed is constantly in flux.)
From what we have seen of the Delta Flyer and the runabouts do, yeah they are small starships.
If starships can survive event horizons of black holes and other severe gravimetric anomalies, going underwater shouldn't be a hassle at all.
And hey, look at that. Fiction! If you can believe in inertial dampening technology, you can also believe that a starship's shield can be modified to let it submerge. Maybe even making use of some of that same inertial dampening technology.
For what it's worth, in the movie, Scotty was not happy about the Enterprise being underwater. He complained that it wasn't designed to be underwater and the inference was that if it stayed underwater for much longer, there would be damage. He gave some specifics about the things damaging it, but I don't remember his exact words.
The impression I got was that they made some quick and dirty modifications to get it to survive underwater for a limited time.
Well, back in that era in canon, Earth Starfleet was the military branch. As I recall, that was before they were merged with the United Earth Space Probe Agency, which was the exploration branch of the time.
That's the beef I have with this. Starfleet was never a military institution. I think Archer even states that and he is downright disgusted by the thought to have military commandos on board of the ship - and exactly those pseudo space marines are who constantly safe the day afterwards. All hail the true american heroes I don't want to be offensive or anything, but I really disliked the MACOs and I'm actually pissed that STO decided to revive them which makes absolutely no sense - but I have decided that STO neither is canon nor has any consistent canon on it's own. It's an MMO, nothing more or less. And yes I know CBS stated that STO is "hard canon" at some point, but it f*ucks everything up so badly that we should just do a "threshold" on it, at least so I say (If I remember correctly, the mentioned voy-episoded was written out of "official" continuity at some point )
As for the 9/11 to Xindi arc equivilant, I say: Why not? After all, that arc is the show's best for pushing the characters to the edge and over it. Who can forget Archer's infamous 'interrogation via airlock' scene? That arc pushed all the characters in how far they would be willing to take things and how much of how true to who and what they were they were willing to compromise themselves. TOS dealt with the Cold War, with the Federation as the USA and the Klingons as the USSR, as that was when it was set. So what's wrong with Enterprise being relevant to modern events?
I don't opose to let real world events influence the shows, after all this is was made Star Trek what it once was. But the way how it was implement was really bad and felt more like a cash-in on the American zeitgeist at that time. But I'm not an US citizen and maybe this is why I feel this way.
To add to the current discussion regarding JJ-prise taking a swim: I just want to mention an episode of futurama in which the professor is asked how much atmospheric pressure the Planet Express vessel can take.
Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure.
Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?
Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.
This is the way I see it
JJ-Trek didn't ruin or kill Star Trek since it's something different. But it's just a shallow cash-in on a glorius past, downright offensive in parts. But that's what hollywood is anyway - how many original creations were produced in the last two decades?
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
My issue is with laziness and poor story telling, especially in a franchise as robust as Star Trek. Virtually any crazy effect you want can be done because it was established within the canon of the series. In the first movie, we take a well-known actual scientific phenomenon: A black hole. Only (for no reason other than plot necessity) it doesn't destroy you with an intense gravitational field, it transports you back through time.
But only once, because the plot demanded it. At the end of the same movie now it suddenly destroys ships, but only one at a time of course. Nero's ship must have temporarily plugged the hole.
Throughout the entire first movie, Kirk succeeds in doing only one thing: Getting his TRIBBLE throughly and utterly beaten, while being a pompus jerk in the process. I don't mind a cocky arrogant Kirk, as he should have a lot of growing up to do; my problem is he doesn't do it throughout the entire movie. The only character to show any development is Spock.
As for the second movie, we start off with a completely idiotic situation: The Enterprise is trying to stop a volcano from erupting which will destroy a race of primitive people. -Ok, cool. So how do we go about solving this: Submerge the ship in an ocean (OF COURSE!!!) And then have Spock feed a "cold fusion" device to the volcano in person, because OBVIOUSLY cold fusion is damned chilly and the volcano doesn't accept meals unless they are hand-delivered. The situation is clearly setup for the sole purpose of needlessly placing Spock's life in peril, so that Kirk has no choice but to reveal the Enterprise to the primitive people.
Why don't we look at something a little more obvious in the stupidity department: The aliens we see in the second movie are bright white and wearing light colored garments. So what does Kirk do? He steals something "they were kneeling to" and runs away while weraing a "disguise" that looks absolutely nothing like what the indigenous people are wearing. Hell, McCoy and Kirk aren't even painted up to look like the locals. Why is this happening? Just for the thrill of it, apparently.
My point being, the writters (and I must use that term loosely) clearly have no flipping idea what cold fusion is, how black holes work or even volcanoes for that matter. If you want to have these things happen to our heroes, that's great. But there is an entire universe of techno-bable that allows these things to happen. And furthermore if you want to throw these challenges at our heroes, then have them go about solving the problem in a manner that makes some iota of sense with canon that's available. If you want to say that the old trek solution doesn't work because of reasons A. B. and C. fine, but JJ-Trek has been reduced to nothing but a cheap Sci-Fi action flick with little to no depth to the story or characters. Just over the top effects, silly situations and the constant beating over the head that it is still called Star Trek.
This is why I feel JJ has ruined Trek. Awesome effects are nothing without a good story and that's what this new take on the franchise desperately needs: A strong story, without stealing directly from the previous movies. These are the same characters we came to know and love, only they are much younger and have a lot of growing up to do. There are a lot of good stories that could develop from that premise alone. Run with it.
Feel free to disagree, but its my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Foundry missions: "Salvaged" and "Preemption (Federation)" brought to you by the former "Tom_Riker01".
"An artist's growth depends upon accurate feedback." ~Data
That's the beef I have with this. Starfleet was never a military institution.
I fully admit I could be overlooking something here, but honestly, I can't think of a single non-military organization that uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
Sure there are some organizations that use some of those things, but I can't think of a single non-military institution that uses them all.
If that's not a military institution, I don't know what is.
I mean, Balance of Terror is about as military as you can get.
And then in the briefing scene in ST6, they talk about finding peace with the Klingons, one person asks, "Are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?"
The reply: "I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain..."
And Kirk actually says that's a terrifying notion.
So from a TOS perspective, it really sounds like exploration was just a division within a larger military organization.
So I think the "we're not a military organization" claims from Starfleet are more propaganda than anything.
If JJ runined Star Trek then Cryptic have stripped it naked, beaten it with a stick and violated it many times over while keeping it locked in the basement.
I would rather have had JJ making this game with a team of untrained monkeys, might have turned out a bit better than Cryptics attempt.
I fully admit I could be overlooking something here, but honestly, I can't think of a single non-military organization that uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
Sure there are some organizations that use some of those things, but I can't think of a single non-military institution that uses them all.
If that's not a military institution, I don't know what is.
I mean, Balance of Terror is about as military as you can get.
And then in the briefing scene in ST6, they talk about finding peace with the Klingons, one person asks, "Are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?"
The reply: "I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain..."
And Kirk actually says that's a terrifying notion.
So from a TOS perspective, it really sounds like exploration was just a division within a larger military organization.
So I think the "we're not a military organization" claims from Starfleet are more propaganda than anything.
The Starfleet Academy Book about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy meeting each other as Cadets was better not only showing the beginnings of the famous relationships the three would have in TOS and the films, but also showing how they had just met and those relationships having only just started. The book also managed to show how the three just clicked and, instead of writing a first encounter as if they had been lifelong friends from the start, it was able to foreshadow things to come that, as I read it....well, the old stand-by of 'start of a beautiful friendship' came across in that book with how Spock, Kirk, and McCoy even preferring to not be around one another at the start of the book except forced together by events outside their control. Sorry if I'm being cryptic, I don't want to spoil the book for any who want to read it and haven't yet.
If you are talking about Academy: Collision Course, I would say that is one crappy book. If people think that a 25yr old Kirk in command of the Enterprise is bad, this book shows that 17 Kirk, who was forced to enlist in Starfleet by a Judge because he was a bad boy hijacks the Enterprise and fights pirates by Jupiter.
Ah, if you had seen the episodes in particular that I referenced (especially the Dwight fire safety one since he does get called to corporate for almost burning down the building and killlng everyone in it), or really just generally you know most of what Michael Scott did for the first four seasons, you'd see it's a very apt comparison.
As well as me being funny.
I don't watch The Office because I didn't find Ricky Gervais funny, I don't find Steve Carrell funny, and the premise for the show walks the line between boring and ridiculous. Therefore I don't see your comparison, or your sense of humour.
You are not a Star Trek fan. You're justifying hurling bile at a man who has made the two most successful Star Trek films to date, beating out Nicolas Meyer's two entries into the series with his first production alone.
Frankly, with the way Star Trek fans have been treating Trek writers, actors, directors, and GAME DEVELOPERS since 2003, I don't see a reason why, if I was in Abrams' position, I would even want to respect the so-called "fans". A real fan of the franchise would see a real Star Trek film, presented in a digestible format with a design that appeals to the modern audience.
Star Trek as we seem to think it is, is both not viable and not even what Star Trek really is.
Star Trek has always had elements of action, depending on where it is used, the budget available during production, and the story being told.
In the Original Star Trek, Kirk was often in the centre of the action, taking on aliens and monsters face-to-face. As many stories exist where Kirk resolves a conflict with brute force, as diplomacy. The supposed lack of action stems from the limited budget.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the most critically acclaimed Star Trek film starring the original cast. Paramount was concerned that Star Trek fans would not enjoy seeing a dogfight in space. They were quickly proven wrong, and it is now one of the most memorable scenes in all of Star Trek.
Star Trek III attempted action with an aging cast, and failed, leading to a slower, less physically active film, and the transition to the technical science fiction drama was in motion.
As the TOS films and TNG progressed, this theme of replacing fights and space battles took a back seat to technological solutions, philosophical discussions, and acts of diplomacy. These have always been present, but in balanced terms with action and excitement.
DS9 revived some of this action in its latter seasons, gaining a lot of momentum. However, the producers overdid it, and placed the wrong actors (and by extension, the wrong characters) into action sequences. A 70-year old Captain Picard beaming over alone to a ship full of monsters and beating them to death with a broken rifle was both out-of-character and just poor decision making.
James T Kirk has always been rough-and-tumble. Nothing Kirk did in either Star Trek XI or XII was out of character. Seizing the upper hand and using it to force his adversary into submission or destruction is part of Kirk's persona. We're talking about a man who stole a cloaking device, committed to a fight with countless aliens, and destroyed a Klingon Bird of Prey during a peace conference instead of disabling it (when he clearly had defeated them and didn't need to vapourize the thing). His solution to curing Spock of some alien spores was to insult Spock to his breaking point.
The design of Star Trek has changed dozens of times since 1966. The spirit does not lie in "action vs drama". It's the marriage of the two in ways that draw in the audience. Abrams is the first to do so successfully in 15 years.
Chekov shown as a teeny bopper with a stupid accent
Sulu is the wrong nationality and shown as a complete moron
Scotty treated as comic relief and wrong accent
kirk is brutal sexist JERK with Iq of a cheese sandwich
Spock is muirderous sex maniac who is sexually harrassing a student
Uhura is shown as a TRIBBLE
mc coy is shown as incompetent , negligent and criminal
pike is shown as insane
they kill billions of people for no reason
play fast and loose with canon
mount rapid fire cannons on enterprise
engineering is a pumping station
At no point was any of this even remotely close to a logical explanation. This here kiddies above me is just a troll rant. This person will most likely reply with insults claiming he knows about Trek that all of us and we need to agree with his view. We are all now dumber having read his post. My apologies in advance.
this accent is a deliberately Silly fake
this chekov is not old enough to graduate
he is wesley for the next generation and he sounds Wrong
Chekov was brought in because they needed a man in his Mid twenties not a 14 year old
as to no one scottish accent
simon peg is doing northern english with an edge of yiddish
no scot sounds like that
also why is an alien from star wars working with him??
Anton Yelchin is actually from the former C.C.C.P. (Leningrad) So, in my opinion he is most authentic character on the bridge. I'm pretty sure he knows how to speak English with a Soviet accent.
I fully admit I could be overlooking something here, but honestly, I can't think of a single non-military organization that uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
Sure there are some organizations that use some of those things, but I can't think of a single non-military institution that uses them all.
If that's not a military institution, I don't know what is.
I mean, Balance of Terror is about as military as you can get.
And then in the briefing scene in ST6, they talk about finding peace with the Klingons, one person asks, "Are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?"
The reply: "I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain..."
And Kirk actually says that's a terrifying notion.
So from a TOS perspective, it really sounds like exploration was just a division within a larger military organization.
So I think the "we're not a military organization" claims from Starfleet are more propaganda than anything.
I quote Nichelle Nichols here: ""Portraying Starfleet as a military organization flew in the face of everything Star Trek stood for [....] At one point I forcefully but tactfully reminded Meyer and Harve [Bennet] that Starfleet was the philosophical descendant of NASA, not the Air Force."
A big problem is that you cannot find anything based in real life which represents what Starfleet is supposed to be. It is a paramilitary organization dedicated to exploration, science and, of course, defense but is always under civilian authority. Their ships are no battle ships but rather modular to fit a wide variety of tasks. In times of war we see more combat worthy craft (Constitution, Excelsior, Sovereign) which can be refitted for peacekeeping or exploration duties afterwards. But depite that, Starfleet has succesfully stand it's ground during numerous wars which does say something. People always confuse the non-military attitude of Starfleet with weakness, though at least I think they are mistaken by that. It doesn't help that popular culture hypes the military beyond belief these days, though
Just think about captain Picards statement regarding "war games" - he couldn't stand the outrageous thought of something barbaric like this and it was not Picard's personal attitude but rather starfleet's philosophy at that time. Quote: "Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration." Just think about how utterly overburdened Starfleet was when they faced an enemy which relied on ground combat - they didn't even have personell dedicated to tactical situation like this and instead sent poor officers to the frontlines who panicked at the first signs of combat. Even captain Archer was downright disgusted having MACOs on board the NX-01 - there was no "military" when TOS or TNG took place.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Therefore I don't see your comparison, or your sense of humour.
I thought I explained the comparison quite thoroughly? I'll do it once again:
The comparison is that at Dunder Mifflin one could do all those things and face no consequences. You said that such a comparison doesn't exist. I found one right off the top of my head. You don't have to take my word for it, you can go and watch the episodes, if you like. But the point I made is quite true. Dwight did, for example, set fire to the building. And almost kill the entire staff. Dwight wasn't fired for that. He wasn't even demoted from his semi-managerial position for very long. That compares quite effectively with everything you said about the new Star Trek.
I quote Nichelle Nichols here: ""Portraying Starfleet as a military organization flew in the face of everything Star Trek stood for [....] At one point I forcefully but tactfully reminded Meyer and Harve [Bennet] that Starfleet was the philosophical descendant of NASA, not the Air Force."
A big problem is that you cannot find anything based in real life which represents what Starfleet is supposed to be. It is a paramilitary organization dedicated to exploration, science and, of course, defense but is always under civilian authority. Their ships are no battle ships but rather modular to fit a wide variety of tasks. In times of war we see more combat worthy craft (Constitution, Excelsior, Sovereign) which can be refitted for peacekeeping or exploration duties afterwards. But depite that, Starfleet has succesfully stand it's ground during numerous wars which does say something. People always confuse the non-military attitude of Starfleet with weakness, though at least I think they are mistaken by that. It doesn't help that popular culture hypes the military beyond belief these days, though
Just think about captain Picards statement regarding "war games" - he couldn't stand the outrageous thought of something barbaric like this and it was not Picard's personal attitude but rather starfleet's philosophy at that time. Quote: "Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration." Just think about how utterly overburdened Starfleet was when they faced an enemy which relied on ground combat - they didn't even have personell dedicated to tactical situation like this and instead sent poor officers to the frontlines who panicked at the first signs of combat. Even captain Archer was downright disgusted having MACOs on board the NX-01 - there was no "military" when TOS or TNG took place.
I've heard this all my life, and I definitely respect the sentiment, but in application, Starfleet (especially TOS era Starfleet) has always functioned like a military organization in pretty much every way.
Perhaps that's for story reasons; every story needs conflict so we saw Starfleet in the midst of conflict more often than not.
That said, I can't think of any definition of a military that doesn't also apply to Starfleet.
Starfleet is a military (and other things). I think that's really hard to deny. The only argument against that is speeches from characters and actors. When you actually look at what Starfleet does, it's military in both its organization and application.
I think the problem is that actors like Nichols has a limited view of what a military is. Starfleet (IMO) is a military organization, but it's an evolved military organization. It does every single thing that every military organization has done since the beginning of civilization, and, yes, it's more. It's a military organization that actually lives by the philosophy that modern military organizations claim to live by.
Basically, if you're saying Starfleet is a military organization and much more, I'll concede that. But it's hard to deny it's military when everything about it is structured after the military. Again, it uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
And in ST6 they talk about "mothballing Starfleet," but mention they'll keep the exploration programs active. This was in reaction to the end of the war with the Klingons. If they weren't referencing a military organization when they referred to Starfleet, what were they referencing?
I understand where you are coming from and I admit that my understanding of military structures might be limited but your criteria for a military body also apply to organizations like the German Bundespolizei (Federal Police, Former: Bundesgrenzschutz, Federal Border Patrol). It applies to them: A paramilitary police department using ranks, are combatants in case of an armed conflict on home ground, have jurisdiction to perform investigations and arrests, defend the borders of the government etc.
I do think Starfleet's premise is a viable one without it being a military, but maybe this is the "evolution" you mentioned, I don't know
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I understand where you are coming from and I admit that my understanding of military structures might be limited but your criteria for a military body also apply to organizations like the German Bundespolizei (Federal Police, Former: Bundesgrenzschutz, Federal Border Patrol). It applies to them: A paramilitary police department using ranks, are combatants in case of an armed conflict on home ground, have jurisdiction to perform investigations and arrests, defend the borders of the government etc.
I do think Starfleet's premise is a viable one without it being a military, but maybe this is the "evolution" you mentioned, I don't know
Fair enough. I admit I could be getting hung up on linguistics here.
Comments
I'm going to agree with Trek21. A ship outfitted with force fields, shields, and all other sorts of elements to keep out the dangers of space, should be modifiable to exist under water. So it wasn't a stretch of the imagination at all. If you can believe people can be broken down to atoms and transported from point A to point B and rematerialized? You should probably also be able to believe that Starfleet's technology can handle a starship being submerged.
Also, I'm aware of escape velocity, but fiction (ANY fiction) can/will frequently disregard real world physics for drama, plot, and anything else they need. If I remember correctly, TNG had an episode [The Royale] that had Geordi state that a planet was -291 degrees C... which is physically impossible, because absolute zero is warmer than that, relatively speaking.
Matter-of-fact, Star Trek frequently uses technology that disregard the physics we understand, and instead use their own. So I think it's reasonable that the Enterprise can hide itself underwater (slowly), and using emergency power, can easily escape at a faster rate.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
Trip seems to disagree.
Accelerated mutation into a new species is nothing new to Trek. TNG did that in 'Identity Crisis' where it was the alien's form of reproduction.
I don't wear 'rose colored glasses'. As I said in a previous post, I'm one of the first to point out faults in Trek. I regularly call TOS 'hippies in space', TNG 'peaceniks in space', and DS9 a 'rip-off of Babylon 5', just for examples. But, those were the prevailing 'word moralities' of the time. TOS was aired in an era where hippy culture was pretty much dominant. TNG aired in a time where the Cold War was ending and people were sick of all the 'brush fire' wars all over the globe.
Sadly, physics aren't on your side here, no offense. Farscape, for example, gives us an excellent example in one episode of a starship making a water landing and hiding under the surface. Moya not only leaked like a sieve, but she also, with all her 'space travel tech' like structural integrity fields, was still being crushed by the pressure. Starship frames aren't built like submarines. I'm no engineer, but I know enough that submarines are built to distribute the load and compress the frame until crush depth. Yes, a sub could, in theory, be modded to go into space, but going the other way would require a specialized modification after who knows how long in drydock to retrofit the hull.
As for the idea of leaving shields up, the constant 'attack' on them would be nothing but a massive power drain.
Voyager gives us a good example when the Delta Flyer (forget off top of head if it was the first or second one) had to be altered in order to enter that water planet in the one episode. They were unable to send Voyager herself or one of the other shuttles as they were unable to take the stresses involved. Just saying, I felt the book I mentioned did the situation far better than JJ.
Personally, I would have preferred to see the 'post-Genesis' Borg arc with the revived Kirk and 1701-E (including the MU Kirk)....written by, IIRC, Shatner. So you because some writer didn't do all his research properly (back then Kelvin wasn't as commonly used as it is today) about just how cold absolute zero is, you claim the typo (which is all it was) is viable as a reason to chuck Trek's long history of playing true with physics out the window? No offense, while Trek does have a habit of exploring 'theoretical physics', which are sometimes proven incorrect after an episode is aired, Trek's being 'up-to-date' practice was started by Gene himself. See above part about Delta Flyer.
Physics don't need to be on my side here.
Explain the physics of a Romulan Singularity core.
Do you suspend your disbelief long enough to allow that to happen? Then you can do the same for the Enterprise taking a swim.
I'm also not going to really get bummed by the new Man of Steel breaking all kinds of scientific sense. Since both Star Trek and Superman are fiction.
But I don't think there's much more I can say. I think the Enterprise's entire underwater venture, including takeoff, is perfectly reasonable because the 23rd century has technology beyond our own, which is obviously capable of manipulation of our physics, as well as their own though to a more limited degree - and you do not, for equally valid reasons.
At this point, I can only agree to disagree
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
It is also theorized in the real world that one of the 'outputs' of a singularity as it consumes matter is anti-matter. Harness that and you have a free fuel source for matter/anti-matter cores. There's also a lot of various types of radiation those things pump out that could also be harnessed. No offense, but while we can't replicate singularity based power in the real world at this point in time, the theoretical physics are viable. If you want a really physics laden answer, lol, let's actually get someone who majored in the subject.
While it is more or less a hobby for me, Trek got me interested in science in the first place. Every time I saw something in Trek or any show and wondered 'how did they do that?' I dug up everything I could on a subject. Thank-you. Lol, you should talk to the group I RP with. They would not agree with you on that, lol. Only issue is that canon shows 24th century tech having issues with underwater adventures in starships. TAS was 23rd century also and still shows they had to use specialized craft to go underwater.
Its not just physics that are questionable here, its the fact canon itself doesn't support a starship like the JJ-prize suddenly developing gills when more advanced tech in the 'Prime' timeline couldn't do it with any ship at will.
Given artificial gravity, though, most of the objections to the underwater scene vanish - particularly anything relating to escape velocity, as you need not achieve that all at once if you can generate an artificial gravitational field around yourself. You can accelerate in any desired direction at any desired velocity, limited only by the structural soundness of your craft; if it is exceptionally delicate, you can cause yourself to fall "upward" at, say, 0.1g, until you're outside the atmosphere.
Let's face it, when we're looking at better than two hundred years' advancement from our science, particularly when you add in the thousand-plus-year headstart the Vulcans have, we're talking "sufficiently advanced technology" in a lot of ways. And structural-support fields capable of sustaining a starship underwater seem a lot easier to believe, from my viewpoint, than, say, using a variant on the tunnel-diode effect to project an energy pattern of a human being thousands of miles, then having it re-coalesce back into a human being without so much as a receiving structure...
But I think I'd chalk it up to a difference in the attitudes of the times. When TAS and TNG came out, it was pretty much the 80's, and a lot of both shows did what we could only dream at the time (and in many cases, still do). Nowadays, people not only think we'd be able to do more in the future, but they're expecting new, fresh and exciting. Going up into space is expected/been done a lot, but hiding a starship under water isn't done very often.
And if not that, it might have been because of budget/implementation issues. I think a starship could handle underwater pressure if done properly, but no ship was ever given a proper chance to do so on TV/Films until Into Darkness.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
The Delta Flyer did just fine underwater in VOY 30 Days.
Been playing STO since Open Beta, and have never regarded anything as worse than 'meh', if only due to personal standards.
In all honesty, the Delta Flyer and the runabouts were pretty much starships.
But yeah, equipping a starship for underwater would require modifications, but relatively minor ones. Mostly stuff like preventing the ship from venting waste plasma, and of course reconfiguring the shields and SIF...
@ Shadowphoenix: I've read several of Hawking's books on Quantum Singularities. There are two major factors he brings up in his works that are rarely mentioned in fiction.
1: Singularities have no real size. A Quantum Singularity with the mass of 20 suns is beleived to be physically smaller than a proton. The "size" that is most often referred to is the event horizon, but that's not a physical object.
2: Singularities are inherently unstable. Hawking Radiation is the process by which the Singularity slowly evaporates into the void. An artificially stabilized singularity could be fed matter periodically to offset the slow evaporation though.
3: The gravity well of a singularity prevents the singularity from evaporating. Everybody knows this right? Well, Hawking Radiation is energy emitted by Signularities, however Hawking Radiation is only a tiny fraction of what a singularity actually emits in a given time period. Most of the energy is reabsorbed by the singularity. If you used super tech to temporarily destabilize the gravity well, it'd go boom. Which is what happens to natural signularities when their mass drops below a critical threshhold. (The more massive a singularity is the slower it loses mass. Once the mass drops to a certain point, the escape velocity is lower than the speed of light and the singularity is no longer capable of reabsorbing the photons it is emitting constantly. As for how light moves faster than the speed of light... that's complicated. Hawking's theory has it that the speed of light is an average, and that a photon's actual speed is constantly in flux.)
My character Tsin'xing
From what we have seen of the Delta Flyer and the runabouts do, yeah they are small starships.
If starships can survive event horizons of black holes and other severe gravimetric anomalies, going underwater shouldn't be a hassle at all.
And hey, look at that. Fiction! If you can believe in inertial dampening technology, you can also believe that a starship's shield can be modified to let it submerge. Maybe even making use of some of that same inertial dampening technology.
Viola.
We have a submerged Enterprise.
No need to thank me.
The impression I got was that they made some quick and dirty modifications to get it to survive underwater for a limited time.
That's the beef I have with this. Starfleet was never a military institution. I think Archer even states that and he is downright disgusted by the thought to have military commandos on board of the ship - and exactly those pseudo space marines are who constantly safe the day afterwards. All hail the true american heroes
I don't opose to let real world events influence the shows, after all this is was made Star Trek what it once was. But the way how it was implement was really bad and felt more like a cash-in on the American zeitgeist at that time. But I'm not an US citizen and maybe this is why I feel this way.
To add to the current discussion regarding JJ-prise taking a swim: I just want to mention an episode of futurama in which the professor is asked how much atmospheric pressure the Planet Express vessel can take.
Professor Farnsworth: Dear Lord, that's over 150 atmospheres of pressure.
Fry: How many atmospheres can this ship withstand?
Professor Farnsworth: Well it's a spaceship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.
This is the way I see it
JJ-Trek didn't ruin or kill Star Trek since it's something different. But it's just a shallow cash-in on a glorius past, downright offensive in parts. But that's what hollywood is anyway - how many original creations were produced in the last two decades?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But only once, because the plot demanded it. At the end of the same movie now it suddenly destroys ships, but only one at a time of course. Nero's ship must have temporarily plugged the hole.
Throughout the entire first movie, Kirk succeeds in doing only one thing: Getting his TRIBBLE throughly and utterly beaten, while being a pompus jerk in the process. I don't mind a cocky arrogant Kirk, as he should have a lot of growing up to do; my problem is he doesn't do it throughout the entire movie. The only character to show any development is Spock.
As for the second movie, we start off with a completely idiotic situation: The Enterprise is trying to stop a volcano from erupting which will destroy a race of primitive people. -Ok, cool. So how do we go about solving this: Submerge the ship in an ocean (OF COURSE!!!) And then have Spock feed a "cold fusion" device to the volcano in person, because OBVIOUSLY cold fusion is damned chilly and the volcano doesn't accept meals unless they are hand-delivered. The situation is clearly setup for the sole purpose of needlessly placing Spock's life in peril, so that Kirk has no choice but to reveal the Enterprise to the primitive people.
Why don't we look at something a little more obvious in the stupidity department: The aliens we see in the second movie are bright white and wearing light colored garments. So what does Kirk do? He steals something "they were kneeling to" and runs away while weraing a "disguise" that looks absolutely nothing like what the indigenous people are wearing. Hell, McCoy and Kirk aren't even painted up to look like the locals. Why is this happening? Just for the thrill of it, apparently.
My point being, the writters (and I must use that term loosely) clearly have no flipping idea what cold fusion is, how black holes work or even volcanoes for that matter. If you want to have these things happen to our heroes, that's great. But there is an entire universe of techno-bable that allows these things to happen. And furthermore if you want to throw these challenges at our heroes, then have them go about solving the problem in a manner that makes some iota of sense with canon that's available. If you want to say that the old trek solution doesn't work because of reasons A. B. and C. fine, but JJ-Trek has been reduced to nothing but a cheap Sci-Fi action flick with little to no depth to the story or characters. Just over the top effects, silly situations and the constant beating over the head that it is still called Star Trek.
This is why I feel JJ has ruined Trek. Awesome effects are nothing without a good story and that's what this new take on the franchise desperately needs: A strong story, without stealing directly from the previous movies. These are the same characters we came to know and love, only they are much younger and have a lot of growing up to do. There are a lot of good stories that could develop from that premise alone. Run with it.
Feel free to disagree, but its my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
"An artist's growth depends upon accurate feedback." ~Data
I fully admit I could be overlooking something here, but honestly, I can't think of a single non-military organization that uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
Sure there are some organizations that use some of those things, but I can't think of a single non-military institution that uses them all.
If that's not a military institution, I don't know what is.
I mean, Balance of Terror is about as military as you can get.
And then in the briefing scene in ST6, they talk about finding peace with the Klingons, one person asks, "Are we talking about mothballing the Starfleet?"
The reply: "I'm sure that our exploration and scientific programs would be unaffected, Captain..."
And Kirk actually says that's a terrifying notion.
So from a TOS perspective, it really sounds like exploration was just a division within a larger military organization.
So I think the "we're not a military organization" claims from Starfleet are more propaganda than anything.
I would rather have had JJ making this game with a team of untrained monkeys, might have turned out a bit better than Cryptics attempt.
That's right, Its the Duck analogy.
If you are talking about Academy: Collision Course, I would say that is one crappy book. If people think that a 25yr old Kirk in command of the Enterprise is bad, this book shows that 17 Kirk, who was forced to enlist in Starfleet by a Judge because he was a bad boy hijacks the Enterprise and fights pirates by Jupiter.
I don't watch The Office because I didn't find Ricky Gervais funny, I don't find Steve Carrell funny, and the premise for the show walks the line between boring and ridiculous. Therefore I don't see your comparison, or your sense of humour.
@mrshadowphoenix:
You are not a Star Trek fan. You're justifying hurling bile at a man who has made the two most successful Star Trek films to date, beating out Nicolas Meyer's two entries into the series with his first production alone.
Frankly, with the way Star Trek fans have been treating Trek writers, actors, directors, and GAME DEVELOPERS since 2003, I don't see a reason why, if I was in Abrams' position, I would even want to respect the so-called "fans". A real fan of the franchise would see a real Star Trek film, presented in a digestible format with a design that appeals to the modern audience.
Star Trek as we seem to think it is, is both not viable and not even what Star Trek really is.
Star Trek has always had elements of action, depending on where it is used, the budget available during production, and the story being told.
In the Original Star Trek, Kirk was often in the centre of the action, taking on aliens and monsters face-to-face. As many stories exist where Kirk resolves a conflict with brute force, as diplomacy. The supposed lack of action stems from the limited budget.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the most critically acclaimed Star Trek film starring the original cast. Paramount was concerned that Star Trek fans would not enjoy seeing a dogfight in space. They were quickly proven wrong, and it is now one of the most memorable scenes in all of Star Trek.
Star Trek III attempted action with an aging cast, and failed, leading to a slower, less physically active film, and the transition to the technical science fiction drama was in motion.
As the TOS films and TNG progressed, this theme of replacing fights and space battles took a back seat to technological solutions, philosophical discussions, and acts of diplomacy. These have always been present, but in balanced terms with action and excitement.
DS9 revived some of this action in its latter seasons, gaining a lot of momentum. However, the producers overdid it, and placed the wrong actors (and by extension, the wrong characters) into action sequences. A 70-year old Captain Picard beaming over alone to a ship full of monsters and beating them to death with a broken rifle was both out-of-character and just poor decision making.
James T Kirk has always been rough-and-tumble. Nothing Kirk did in either Star Trek XI or XII was out of character. Seizing the upper hand and using it to force his adversary into submission or destruction is part of Kirk's persona. We're talking about a man who stole a cloaking device, committed to a fight with countless aliens, and destroyed a Klingon Bird of Prey during a peace conference instead of disabling it (when he clearly had defeated them and didn't need to vapourize the thing). His solution to curing Spock of some alien spores was to insult Spock to his breaking point.
The design of Star Trek has changed dozens of times since 1966. The spirit does not lie in "action vs drama". It's the marriage of the two in ways that draw in the audience. Abrams is the first to do so successfully in 15 years.
At no point was any of this even remotely close to a logical explanation. This here kiddies above me is just a troll rant. This person will most likely reply with insults claiming he knows about Trek that all of us and we need to agree with his view. We are all now dumber having read his post. My apologies in advance.
:rolleyes:
Anton Yelchin is actually from the former C.C.C.P. (Leningrad) So, in my opinion he is most authentic character on the bridge. I'm pretty sure he knows how to speak English with a Soviet accent.
:cool:
I quote Nichelle Nichols here: ""Portraying Starfleet as a military organization flew in the face of everything Star Trek stood for [....] At one point I forcefully but tactfully reminded Meyer and Harve [Bennet] that Starfleet was the philosophical descendant of NASA, not the Air Force."
A big problem is that you cannot find anything based in real life which represents what Starfleet is supposed to be. It is a paramilitary organization dedicated to exploration, science and, of course, defense but is always under civilian authority. Their ships are no battle ships but rather modular to fit a wide variety of tasks. In times of war we see more combat worthy craft (Constitution, Excelsior, Sovereign) which can be refitted for peacekeeping or exploration duties afterwards. But depite that, Starfleet has succesfully stand it's ground during numerous wars which does say something. People always confuse the non-military attitude of Starfleet with weakness, though at least I think they are mistaken by that. It doesn't help that popular culture hypes the military beyond belief these days, though
Just think about captain Picards statement regarding "war games" - he couldn't stand the outrageous thought of something barbaric like this and it was not Picard's personal attitude but rather starfleet's philosophy at that time. Quote: "Starfleet is not a military organization, its purpose is exploration." Just think about how utterly overburdened Starfleet was when they faced an enemy which relied on ground combat - they didn't even have personell dedicated to tactical situation like this and instead sent poor officers to the frontlines who panicked at the first signs of combat. Even captain Archer was downright disgusted having MACOs on board the NX-01 - there was no "military" when TOS or TNG took place.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
CBS has never, not once, ever stated STO is hard canon.
I thought I explained the comparison quite thoroughly? I'll do it once again:
The comparison is that at Dunder Mifflin one could do all those things and face no consequences. You said that such a comparison doesn't exist. I found one right off the top of my head. You don't have to take my word for it, you can go and watch the episodes, if you like. But the point I made is quite true. Dwight did, for example, set fire to the building. And almost kill the entire staff. Dwight wasn't fired for that. He wasn't even demoted from his semi-managerial position for very long. That compares quite effectively with everything you said about the new Star Trek.
I've heard this all my life, and I definitely respect the sentiment, but in application, Starfleet (especially TOS era Starfleet) has always functioned like a military organization in pretty much every way.
Perhaps that's for story reasons; every story needs conflict so we saw Starfleet in the midst of conflict more often than not.
That said, I can't think of any definition of a military that doesn't also apply to Starfleet.
Starfleet is a military (and other things). I think that's really hard to deny. The only argument against that is speeches from characters and actors. When you actually look at what Starfleet does, it's military in both its organization and application.
I think the problem is that actors like Nichols has a limited view of what a military is. Starfleet (IMO) is a military organization, but it's an evolved military organization. It does every single thing that every military organization has done since the beginning of civilization, and, yes, it's more. It's a military organization that actually lives by the philosophy that modern military organizations claim to live by.
Basically, if you're saying Starfleet is a military organization and much more, I'll concede that. But it's hard to deny it's military when everything about it is structured after the military. Again, it uses ranks, demands respect of the chain of command, has battles in ships, asks people to enlist, has a brig, gives commendations, is the first (and often the only) group to be sent to fight in a battle, and defends the borders of a government.
And in ST6 they talk about "mothballing Starfleet," but mention they'll keep the exploration programs active. This was in reaction to the end of the war with the Klingons. If they weren't referencing a military organization when they referred to Starfleet, what were they referencing?
I do think Starfleet's premise is a viable one without it being a military, but maybe this is the "evolution" you mentioned, I don't know
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Fair enough. I admit I could be getting hung up on linguistics here.