• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Tech Issues In The New Movie

Status
Not open for further replies.

Captain Robert April

Vice Admiral
Admiral
Finally sat down with the "Art of the Film" book while at Borders last night (suffice it to say that the book went right back on the shelf afterwards). Amongst the howlers, was the statement that if they'd done the original bridge it'd look ridiculous and small, and that the new ship looked more "functional".

Both sentiments, in my not-so-humble opinion, are full of crap.

Granted, the bit about the bridge is largely a matter of taste (I think rather telling that they never even tried a design approximating the original bridge), but the the ship, and some of the misconceptions about how things work, are another matter. Besides the pylons that look about as functional as tailfins on an old Cadillac, there's the statement that carries the old FJ concept of the warp nacelles acting as some sort of exotic jet engine, sucking in space-time in one end and out the other, and carries it one further by saying it sucks in interstellar antimatter and basically burns it.

Could they be any more clueless?

Have at it, kids.
 
Every new incarnatiopn of Trek uses everyday ordinary items at their disposal and decor. nuT looks exactly like something you would expect today.(grocery scanners on the bridge consoles etc) They could have done better though. I dont care what the excuse was to make it look different from the old series, the asthetics still sucked. They could have very easily done something more on the same path as what was done with Enterprise. That show did a great job on interiors. Plus Im surprised by all the love for this new enterpise exterior. When so many bashed the nx-01 for using styling cues from other ships. The nuEnterprise using elements from TMP. To bad its not nearly as elegant looking.:lol:
 
To defend the book somewhat, keep in mind that it's first-and-foremost an art book, and told from that point of view. They mention the concepts from the perspective of the art crew, and not a technical expert. For the book itself, it's a bit interesting in figuring out just what the prop-makers, etc, were thinking in going forward.

It's also pretty definitive proof that the people 'behind the scenes' really weren't scientifically saavy in the least.
 
Is this another flame bait thread?

I have to tell you that this newest movie did not change my opinion in the slightest about "classic" TOS TREK. TOS was a pioneer in dramatic science fiction television, and the fact that the industry saw fit to spin off a cartoon from it, six major feature films from it, and four other TV shows from it, should be indisputable testimonial of the remarkable accomplishment that this ground-breaking franchise is to this day. Of course, all TREK is not pure sci fi. There were elements of conventional drama and fantasy mixed in, and it was all built on an action-adventure backdrop.

The new TREK, or JJTREK, or whatever you want to call it, is first and foremost a flashy action-adventure flick that only passingly resembles the hourlong dramas of TOS. It looks like a video game, so it is a propos for its target audience: Generation Y, the Britney Spears generation. It's not really about sci fi either, in fact the franchise has proven itself over the last 25+ years to be an exercise in concept erosion. Where TOS was targeted at Vietnam War era Baby Boomers in a time of great national and world upheaval, the movies and TNG were targeted more to Gen X and had less of a sense of direction or history. It was sad, but the concept erosion started back then. By DS9, TREK was doing something that Roddenberry clearly would've objected to: making TREK into a war show. Granted, DS9 wasn't RAT PATROL or M*A*S*H in outer space, but its anti-septic, cloak-and-dagger concept of warfare seem to underscore how little the show's makers knew or understood about war. People like Berman would obviously be quick to point out that Vietnam was a long time ago, and Gen X wouldn't understand. The truth is, Berman didn't understand... or care...

It is a matter of record that Berman disparaged TOS as 60's kitsch. Once dismissing it as a "Kennedy camelot". (CINEFANTASTIQUE magazine, early 1990's) And therein lies the rub: the real issue here is that Berman was a studio executive who had TNG handed to him. He never had to create anything. He simply took over a spin-off series in a billion-dollar franchise. He and his minions on TNG and DS9 simply superimposed their own notions and politics over their work, effectively causing the franchise to change significantly. It was still a kind of watered-down mix of drama and sci fi, and it still had some appeal to the Baby Boomers, but it was increasingly about the post-Cold War state-of-mind of Gen X. Troi's appearance as the cat-suited busty eye-candy-on-the-Bridge did not lie; the tradition started with Sirtis was no accident. We're talking here about a show that made its debut just a few years after hardcore pornography-on-video permeated American households everywhere through those new gadgets called VCR's and DVD players. This trend continued all the way through ENT, and by that time it was painfully obvious to the by-now "older" TOS and even TNG fans what had happened.

There really doesn't seem to be that much of a leap, conceptually speaking, from ENT to the funky-looking JJprise. Looks to me like the Bermanian evolution of TREK is now complete. He set out to repudiate the original, and now he got his wish. JJTREK is a perfect reflection of its target demographic, many of whom were born either in the waning days of the Cold War or after the Berlin Wall fell. They grew up in a world where Neil Armstrong is just some name in a history book, the Soviet Union is just another fallen dictatorship, and the notion of a Prime Directive has taken a back seat to politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths about "nation building". Isn't it more fun to go out and get a body piercing, have a few beers, and piss off the balcony when nobody's looking? :rommie:

The bottom line is this: if you're a fan of TOS, and all its lore, then JJTREK isn't for you and it isn't even relevant for that matter. JJ & Co. are just the latest incarnation of what Berman and Co. set out to do over 20 years ago. Tracy Torme, a writer for TNG during its first year, said it best when he mused that maybe the audience will look at TNG and TOS and think "the Beatles was just Paul McCartney's band before Wings" to which he added "I kind of doubt it".

So, why get all excited about this?
 
Last edited:
Dunno - I love TOS first and foremost (although I think DS9 was better entertainment and better written), but I found JJ's movie quite passable. The pacing is all wrong for me, the story hinges too much on a string of coincidences, but the whole is close enough to an "alternate viewpoint into TOS", mainly because of the superb actors doing superb roles, that I'm quite willing to suspend things like disbelief and disgust.

Of the tech weirdness in the movie itself, as opposed to the art book, I was irked by the idea that transporters can't handle moving targets without man-in-the-loop. Other things are a bit inconsistent with the other shows, such as the speed of warp, but those transporter limitations don't make much sense even within the world of the movie itself. Everything else in the tech field I can swallow about as easily as the similar gimmicks and shortcuts in all the other Trek movies.

...Provided that the ship is about 300-350 meters long. ;)

Timo Saloniemi
 
Wingsley said:
Troi's appearance as the cat-suited busty eye-candy-on-the-Bridge did not lie; the tradition started with Sirtis was no accident. We're talking here about a show that made its debut just a few years after hardcore pornography-on-video permeated American households everywhere through those new gadgets called VCR's and DVD players. This trend continued all the way through ENT, and by that time it was painfully obvious to the by-now "older" TOS and even TNG fans what had happened.

Sometimes I don't quite get the antipathy toward sexed-up female costumes in modern Trek. People have seen what the women wore in TOS, right? And I don't just mean Uhura, I mean most of the female guest stars. You've seen "Blink of an Eye." You're not wearing that to a funeral.

Timo, I thought the transporter operator being necessary was kind of cool, although I don't pretend to know what a person could do better than a computer there.

I thought transwarp beaming was retarded. That whole section of the film is problematic for me.
 
^ There is a difference between daring costumes as a pattern that imitated the fashion craze-of-the-day (mini-skirts in the sexist 1960s) and making a deliberate choice of a different costume (catsuit) on a buxom actress (why not a standard unisex starfleet jumpsuit from the beginning?) in the 1980s. Clearly, it was more than just period-sexism and fashion at work in the later example. Or, to put it another way, you didn't see Dr. Crusher or Lt. Yar reporting for duty on the bridge wearing a catsuit.
 
that bridge was such a load of...

no matter where you sat you would always be "holding an arm up to block the glare" so you could actually see what the hell you're trying to do...


oh, and i'm still confused as to why a warp core needs so many water pipes, and steam chambers, and fermenting bins...
 
Well, this is the first time we saw a Starfleet engine room on a big starship. Until now, we've only seen control rooms, essentially office spaces with a few monitors and perhaps an access point or a couple. Surely there have to be coolant tubes somewhere there, so that a very short stretch of those can run through the control room and threaten to poison everybody there when it ruptures.

Timo Saloniemi
 
I will agree that the lighting seem counterproductive to performing ones tasks, given the layout oif the stations
 
Well, this is the first time we saw a Starfleet engine room on a big starship. Until now, we've only seen control rooms, essentially office spaces with a few monitors and perhaps an access point or a couple. Surely there have to be coolant tubes somewhere there, so that a very short stretch of those can run through the control room and threaten to poison everybody there when it ruptures.

Timo Saloniemi

i'm not sure what you mean by first time we've seen... but this IS the first time an engine design was purposely LEFT OUT. every other Enterprise has had and engine, and even recognition of need for some sort of coolant.
 
Besides the pylons that look about as functional as tailfins on an old Cadillac, there's the statement that carries the old FJ concept of the warp nacelles acting as some sort of exotic jet engine, sucking in space-time in one end and out the other, and carries it one further by saying it sucks in interstellar antimatter and basically burns it.

Could they be any more clueless?

Yes, because we all know that warp engines as described in TOS have been scientifically proven to work, which is why we have warp travel now.

Oh, wait a minute...we don't have warp travel, because it's only science fiction! :lol:

Seriously though, I agree with those horrible warp pylons. Perhaps they'd work in space, but when the Enterprise was on the ground in Iowa and had to contend with gravity, does anyone think that those flimsy pylons would have held up those massive warp nacelles? No way. (unless there was some science-fictiony-type answer to that, such as there was a "bubble of zero-gee" forcefield around the construction site or something.
 
At least they are better than the even flimsier things the TOS ship had, right?

Timo Saloniemi
 
Of the tech weirdness in the movie itself, as opposed to the art book, I was irked by the idea that transporters can't handle moving targets without man-in-the-loop.

I myself have rationalized that to be the effect of the artificial gravity well produced by the red matter. Chekhov, after doing the calculation resulting in a answer of "minutes" to Vulcan's destruction, used those same calculations to collect Kirk and Sulu back on the transporter pad and goofed a bit or wasn't fast enough with Amanda.
 
Works for me. Although it would be fun to see something more futuristic than joysticks used as 23rd or 24th century control devices... TOS had buttons. The TOS movies introduced levers. TNG shuttles and some other TNG consoles had those fancy hemispheres that looked like immobile trackballs. STXI could at the very least have used some sort of a virtual joystick, a Minority Report style "hand control" but without the need for a VR glove...

Timo Saloniemi
 
Even as a tech manual-loving person like myself, I don't understand why fans cannot resign themselves to the fact that the filmmakers and producers on XI just didn't give a shit about any of the "technical stuff." This is the movie with concrete floors, willy wonka pipes and radioactive decals on holding tanks in engineering... red matter... blinding white light and bar code scanners on the bridge. Trying to make sense of any of it is a fool's errand.
 
At least they are better than the even flimsier things the TOS ship had, right?

Note: The original ship is represented by a physical model, which contends with real gravity to this very day, and all things considered, those pylons, made out of solid 2x4's, are holding up pretty well.

Also, the attachment points of the original ship's pylons connect in a much more realistic manner (again, a by product of it being a real, physical object), whereas on JJ's ship, they're just stuck on the side, like the aforementioned tailfins, something you can only get away with thanks to CGI.

The idiotic notion that the Bussard collectors are there to suck up antimatter only magnifies the issue of how these guys didn't have a clue about the subject matter.
 
i'll put it this way:

TMP is now 30yo. i doubt in 30 years XI will still be talked about by trekkies the way TMP still is...
 
Even as a tech manual-loving person like myself, I don't understand why fans cannot resign themselves to the fact that the filmmakers and producers on XI just didn't give a shit about any of the "technical stuff." This is the movie with concrete floors, willy wonka pipes and radioactive decals on holding tanks in engineering... red matter... blinding white light and bar code scanners on the bridge. Trying to make sense of any of it is a fool's errand.

That's actually my point. Not even the worst piece of convoluted technobabble from any of the previous series or movies approaches the absolute technical incompetence and malpractice we were presented with in this film.
 
This is the movie with concrete floors, willy wonka pipes and radioactive decals on holding tanks in engineering... red matter...

OTOH, the TOS ship also had very blatant concrete floors (although they gradually got covered with silly carpeting), was infested with idiotic pipes, and had nonsensical labeling everywhere. When TOS moved to the silver screen, all these things got worse, not better. Why should we hold STXI to a different standard?

Note: The original ship is represented by a physical model, which contends with real gravity to this very day, and all things considered, those pylons, made out of solid 2x4's, are holding up pretty well.

So if a physical model of the new ship were to be made, out of steel rather than wood to better reflect what the thing looks like, are you saying that it wouldn't hold equally well? It has stronger-looking, broader pylons, which should have superior strength even in the task of holding against down-pointing gravity - and that's not the task the pylons would normally have. In terms of holding against aft-pointing gravity, which would be the usual role, they'd be slightly advantageous because of the increased chord.

Also, the attachment points of the original ship's pylons connect in a much more realistic manner (again, a by product of it being a real, physical object), whereas on JJ's ship, they're just stuck on the side, like the aforementioned tailfins.

Yet AFAWK, the TOS ship was never supposed to fight down-pointing gravity, so the design is all wrong. For fighting aft-pointing gravity, the side mounting is not disadvantageous.

And I really can't see how it would be any more disadvantageous than the TOS one in fighting down-pointing gravity, either. It's not as if being perpendicular to the secondary hull skin would really offer any structural advantages - or that the minuscule length of pylon that potentially continues within the hull would play any greater role in the TOS design than in the STXI one. If anything, the STXI design is the superior one in plausibly attaching to some sort of an internal keel, while the TOS design must have skin-deep pylons because the interior beneath the skin comprises of the shuttlebay cavity where no such keel can exist.

Timo Saloniemi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top