Thread: The Wings
View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
01-06-2011, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorko1 View Post
What about the ships always being right-side up?
What sense does it make that something has to be a right shape to better travel through space unless we're talking about a ramscoop ship that process interstellar dust into fuel?
To be fair, those two things are easily explainable, even if Star Trek did not do so itself:

In Star Wars, ships are always the right side up because their navigational computers align the vessel towards the galactic "disc", which is a reliable reference point. I would imagine it works similar in Trek, even if it's not stated there.

As for the shape - the idea that space is empty is a misconception. Space is filled by dust particles, which can and will exert resistance when an object travelling through it has sufficient speed, "ramming" enough of said particles simultaneously. It is also quite possible that there is a connection between a ship's shape and the warp bubble generated by the vessel.

It's not waterproof - but enough that you can explain it away with technobabble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
And if you want to include developing backgrounds: the TNG-BoPs, as you can see in many production comentarys for the episodes, were PUPOSLY filmed in diffrent angles ect to show that they ARE bigger ships.
Yes, but why? Not because the creators had any idea on how large the ship should be - they went with that size because, just like with the Defiant, they felt it looked better that way. They wanted the BoP's to seem more "threatening" to the large Galaxy, so they had to make them large, too. That's the same kind of narrator exaggeration that makes the dragon appear larger every time the story is retold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Well that TAS is NOT part of the canon is very clear and "decidet" for a long whie now.
Well, apparently not, for Memory Alpha (the prime fanbase resource for canon information) has recently reconsidered its stance on the subject based on this:

"With the release of The Animated Series DVD, the studio appears to have changed its stance, and is leaning towards the animated series being part of established Star Trek canon. Previously, The Animated Series was not considered part of established Star Trek canon by Paramount Pictures."
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Star_Tr...nimated_Series

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Of course, beside the fact that Lucas has proven not to be able to write good screenplays any more, he doesnt do it that way, he includes everything wich means that there are THOUSANDS of contradictions.
I see way less contradictions than in Trek that doesn't even gets its ship sizes and species looks (not talking about Klingons here - but remember how Trill looked in TNG?) right. Actually, there are zero contradictions. Any contradictions that did exist were either retconned or received an official explanation - that's the beauty of the Holocron, and its main purpose.

Other than that I know that those really old comics were declared non-canon because they were quite simply over the top, but that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
I personally lost my respect for that mans work wenn he statet laughing in the audio commentary of EpIII that they had to reshoot the scene where obi wan picks up Anakins Lightsaber in the end AFTER first screenings to a test audience because the FANS had to remind him that Old Ben gives that Lightsaber to Luke in EpIV.
When they reshot the scene this means that obviously it was spotted before public release, so I do not really think this is a problem. Again, look at what Star Trek has produced over the years - on the live screen. This includes the new movie as well (which is at least one thing where we seem to share the same sentiments) where the writers managed to show off their lack of understanding for the setting even in spite of the movie being a reboot. Magnificent.

And I say this without a desire to bash this franchise (otherwise I would not be here). I like them both and recognize that each has its values, but it is clear to me that SW has the more consistent canon. Otherwise we would not have debates such as this one about the wings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Of course it wouldnt be thinkable. If you have no common ground for discussion, how should you discuss details like that?
Uh... what? There is only one canon, ergo the common ground is there. The lack of it exists in Star Trek, which is why we both argue based on interpretations differing from each other, and neither of us has much in the terms of hard facts to point to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Also, THEIR techincal Data is Canon. But that means that every storytelling that comes has to stick EXACTLY to that data. That may even make it inpossible to tell certain storys.
Huh? Why? Do you mean it was necessary to rescale the Defiant? What purpose did this serve?

Every setting has limitations that prevent "certain stories". Star Trek is no different - just that these limitations are way more vague and liberal, thus creating thousands of contradictions, in turn hurting the immersion of the reader/watcher.

And yes, storytelling is what's important - but good storytelling works within the boundaries of a given setting. It simply makes the whole franchise less believable the more inconsistencies you encounter. Writers who are unable to make their plot fit to the world the story is set in should either find a new plot or a new franchise. Or a new job. It's as simple as that.

Of course you could also say that it merely is another style of storytelling, just like there are numerous variants of the Nibelungenlied. This all works fine as long as you are just watching/reading it for the story. This is not what we do here, though. We've moved beyond that and are trying to actively play in or discuss the setting in detail, and for this we need hard facts. Which in far too many cases do not exist, making such debates more of a nuisance than truly constructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
Thats NOT inconsistency. Again: recently in Mass Effect for example the same thing was done to the Normandy on purpose, and you cant say thats because of production problems, the could have made 20 new looking Normandys if they wantet.
Just that the new Normandy actually looks merely similar, not identical - and that its size merely doubled, whereas the K'vort grew 500% whilst keeping the exact same looks, including a photon torpedo launcher with a diameter of 50 meters, 10 meter windows and navigational lights as big as a grown man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
And, by the way: It is more likley that they did build copy the "bigs scaled" to "small scaled" not the other way arround.
Again, you can see it at the windows. It's just like the downsized Akira still having a number of decks only fitting into a ship four times its height.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstAngelus View Post
And again there are a lot of good reason why they should such a thing. Also, beeing another sized ship does not mean they are not relatives.
What exactly would qualify this relation? Merely the shape? A K'vort handles differently, has different weapons, vastly different interior layout and crew numbers, is used for different purposes ...

It's like saying a Perry frigate and a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser are relatives just because they both have an identically shaped rump, are painted grey, have one set of superstructure and swim on the water.