|
They did do a variant on it with the cryo people in The Neutral Zone and, of course, First Contact hit a lot of the same beats with mid-21st people, but yeah TNG didn't play around with time travel much. First Contact, Yesterday's Enterprise, and Time's Arrow are the only straight examples I can think of. I think it falls under the banner of things they avoided because they were too much like TOS. They were also pretty sparing with the evil computer gods, recycled prop planets, and kaleidoscope energy beings and never had a Mirror Universe espisode for the same reason
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Cat Hatter posted:Only if you want to go in circles, which is what happens when your center of mass is not in line with your center of thrust. I mean if you want to care about it, the whole idea of the nacelles—according to that TOS writer's bible document—was that one contained matter and the other had antimatter, and they're supposed to create a reaction in the empty space between them that generates the warp field. That document even said "We want there to eventually be a cool visual effect to make this clear, but we can't do that right now because budget and 60s". So any single-nacelle design (or really any design that puts things like the ship's hull between the nacelles) is operating without a knowledge of this bit of attempted original worldbuilding, or they've consciously decided to ignore it because too much time has passed without it being explained on-screen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, the change in what the nacelles do is one of the instances that makes me wonder how much even the writers really know about how this stuff is supposed to work and how current it all is. I'm pretty sure we've seen ships keep flying with only one nacelle (which would be impossible if they worked this way) and also it seems pretty explicit that the matter and antimatter is stored in the Warp Core. The other one that got me was finding out that each "Warp Factor" represents an 8-fold increase, because, frankly, it's always seemed to be written like it was a linear progression (even back in TOS). I was also pretty surprised to read that the turbolift moved horizontally as well as vertically, because, while that makes sense, I don't think I remember ever actually seeing it. I always thought it was just a fancy elevator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:03
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:I was also pretty surprised to read that the turbolift moved horizontally as well as vertically, because, while that makes sense, I don't think I remember ever actually seeing it. I always thought it was just a fancy elevator. Well, the only way you'd really see it is the little vwommy light panel, and sometimes that moves sideways as well as up or down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, the change in what the nacelles do is one of the instances that makes me wonder how much even the writers really know about how this stuff is supposed to work and how current it all is. I'm pretty sure we've seen ships keep flying with only one nacelle (which would be impossible if they worked this way) and also it seems pretty explicit that the matter and antimatter is stored in the Warp Core. The other one that got me was finding out that each "Warp Factor" represents an 8-fold increase, because, frankly, it's always seemed to be written like it was a linear progression (even back in TOS). I was also pretty surprised to read that the turbolift moved horizontally as well as vertically, because, while that makes sense, I don't think I remember ever actually seeing it. I always thought it was just a fancy elevator. https://youtu.be/_8dKbEzKuh8
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Warp factors were never consistent across TOS to Berman Trek. Different equations at different times, even different upper limits. Most of the time they were ignoring distances between places anyways and just stating numbers for dramatic effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:Warp factors were never consistent across TOS to Berman Trek. Different equations at different times, even different upper limits. Something I love about that writer's bible though is that it literally says "Stardates are bullshit, just make up a number". So then you get generations of nerds trying to construct elaborate systems of interpretation where they make sense
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:and also it seems pretty explicit that the matter and antimatter is stored in the Warp Core. actually antimatter is stored in antimatter containment pods, the warp core is where the m/am reaction occurs 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I've realized there's two kinds of people - DS9 people and Voyager people, because most everyone likes TOS and TNG to some degree. Nobody really cares for ENT that much. What the!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Something I love about that writer's bible though is that it literally says "Stardates are bullshit, just make up a number". I wish they'd do away with stardates altogether. They're utter nonsense, they make it impossible to tell how long events in a given episode take place, and, as you mentioned, the loving writers can't even figure them out. Just tell me what loving day and month it is. JJTrek has the right idea (stardate 2263.0123 etc) but they still use "stardate" when referring to something that's literally just the calendar date. Get rid of it!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
I was talking to someone a while ago about star trek, and he said he hated DS9. My response was something like, "You're probably one of those Voyager watching people, aren't you?" To my surprise, he actually hated Voyager more than DS9. He was all about TOS and nothing else. So I guess there are three kinds of people.  E: He actually said he liked the JJTrek movies too which was weird. I mean, STID? Really? I can get behind the 1st and Beyond, but ID? I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:What the!!! Ok fine, new Dr. Who, I'm told that old Dr. Who is actually legit
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Mogomra posted:I was talking to someone a while ago about star trek, and he said he hated DS9. My response was something like, "You're probably one of those Voyager watching people, aren't you?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
There are plenty of old rear end people who just like TOS and never gave the rest a good try because the first season of TNG was so bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Ok fine, new Dr. Who, I'm told that old Dr. Who is actually legit Doctor Who is one of those things where it's crucial to separate the fandom from the show before judging it. Who is solid. The modern fandom is relentlessly obnoxious (95% of the TVIV thread excluded).
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:There are plenty of old rear end people who just like TOS and never gave the rest a good try because the first season of TNG was so bad. Yeah, this guy was my age. Mid-upper 20s. I should have said that. Very strange.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Doctor Who is one of those things where it's crucial to separate the fandom from the show before judging it. Who is solid. The modern fandom is relentlessly obnoxious (95% of the TVIV thread excluded). The Doctor Who fanbase is just overall garbage. You get the modern who fans who are overly annoying. Then you have the old Who fans who do nothing but discuss random radio episodes no one besides them have listened to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Doctor Who is one of those things where it's crucial to separate the fandom from the show before judging it. Who is solid. The modern fandom is relentlessly obnoxious (95% of the TVIV thread excluded). Well, Trekkies are also terrible, it's just that they're mostly older now and Star Trek has been semi-dead for a long time. ST: Beyond was good but flopped in the box office because young people don't give a poo poo about Star Tracks and we're all becoming old farts here. I did try watching Dr. Who and saw the first 2 seasons of the reboot and it was just awful. Awful. Burping farting green baby aliens. A lady who is just a piece of skin stretched out. Some guy got a door in his head to expose his brain. The only good one was the one with the gasmask kids. I think Doctor Who is not for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I still watch and enjoy Dr Who.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:According to Ron Moore (who only worked on Voyager briefly, late in its run, and is biased in any case), the core DS9 writers had a solid working relationship (the cast was a different story), cared immensely about the quality of their show, and were given wide latitude by the executives to tell the story they wanted. Michael Piller (who is often credited with saving TNG) seems to have laid a solid foundation in the first two years, but the show got even better when Ira Steven Behr took over and Berman and Piller mostly left them alone. Voyager seems to have been a different story entirely. The writing staff fought like cats and dogs and the show's creators either couldn't agree on a vision or didn't hire the right people to carry it out... Just yesterday, I finally got around to listening to the Bryan Fuller episode of the Nerdist Writers Panel, and he talks a fair bit about his experiences with DS9 and Voyager. (The episode was recorded in 2014, before he got involved in the new series.) quote:And what was great about the Deep Space Nine writers’ room was that they were all fans of Star Trek and you were with people who loved the program, whereas on Voyager there was sort of an attitude of you know, [disgusted] “It’s Star Trek” and all, you know. And I was just like “What are you talking about? You’re lucky to be here.” So Deep Space Nine were the fans and then Voyager was a little bit of like, you know, “We’re better than this” and I was like “No you’re not. None of us are.” quote:On Deep Space Nine, Ira Behr was a very visionary showrunner. So when the executive producer Rick Berman would be like “I don’t like that idea” he’d be like “I don’t care. This is what we’re doing and this is why we’re doing it.” Where on Voyager we had so many great ideas for that show that were thrown out, and then it was just sort of like okay, it’s fait accompli, the idea’s dead, and I was like “Ira would have fought for that poo poo.” So on Voyager, toward the end, I was getting a little frustrated with how non-human everybody was. Because I’m like “They’re facing the Borg, they’re gonna be sitting in their own stool.” There’s no kind of reality to the human emotion of it. And that grew very frustrating for me because I didn’t know how to write it, I didn’t know how to write just purely technologically or informationally.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I kind of feel like Doctor Who's target audience is the kind of people who write erotic Harry Potter fanfiction. Some say "oh, you must not like British stuff", but no, that's not true at all. I just don't like Doctor Who and Harry Potter and the kinda poo poo weird anglophile nerds flock to. I like James Bond, Top Gear, Hitchhiker's Guide, IT Crowd, Simon Pegg's movies, Mr. Bean, an Idiot Abroad and a ton of other things than come from Britain so it's not like I'm biased against the UK. I mean hell, the US and UK have a lot in common given we speak the same language and we both have populations largely made up of fat, stupid, racist prudes. We're kindred spirits, you know! I would also say I like Monty Python too but I think its fans kind of ruined that for me, too. Jokes stop being funny when someone repeats them millions of times in high school.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
I think you might just not like British young adult stuff? Which is perfectly understandable, as most young adult stuff is loving terrible. Dr Who consciously wants to enthrall/terrify "tweens" and younger, so while you get the occasionally creepy episode (like the gas masks), it's boring zany poo poo most of the time. There's no British/US thing about it, though most older Brits remember being the target audience for the older series, and some of those are still legitimately creepy, so there's this huge nostalgia for it. The reboots target the same people but also play into the fact that it's absolutely perfect tumblr fodder, a show made for teenagers in an era when everyone is a teenager, "overturning social conventions" just enough that it's never actually challenging, liberal in that wishy-washy British Liberal Democrat way that doesn't really require effort or thought to sustain, solidly middle class and with tragic-but-not-seriously romances stapled on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I stopped watching Doctor Who years ago, but what you're saying, while not exactly inaccurate, is also only describing the show at its worst. Despite all its flaws, there's also some genuinely good poo poo in there. The next time they change showrunners I might give it another try.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:I wish they'd do away with stardates altogether. They're utter nonsense, they make it impossible to tell how long events in a given episode take place, and, as you mentioned, the loving writers can't even figure them out. Just tell me what loving day and month it is. JJTrek has the right idea (stardate 2263.0123 etc) but they still use "stardate" when referring to something that's literally just the calendar date. Get rid of it! That's a feature, though, not a bug. The source doc says the entire point of the randomized stardate system was to prevent the audience from being able to figure out when anything is happening or peg it down and find stupid timeline inconsistencies. They thought long and hard about how to solve the problem of using actual dates, and stardates is what they came up with. Then in TNG they "fixed" it by making them map back to actual dates again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Voyager seems to have been a different story entirely. The writing staff fought like cats and dogs and the show's creators either couldn't agree on a vision or didn't hire the right people to carry it out. My understanding is that a lot of the inconsistency in Janeway's characterization came from the producers never entirely agreeing on how she should be written, and instead of coming to a consensus or being handed a mandate, they just all basically wrote Janeway however they wanted her to be. Duckbag posted:They did do a variant on it with the cryo people in The Neutral Zone and, of course, First Contact hit a lot of the same beats with mid-21st people, but yeah TNG didn't play around with time travel much. First Contact, Yesterday's Enterprise, and Time's Arrow are the only straight examples I can think of. I think it falls under the banner of things they avoided because they were too much like TOS. They were also pretty sparing with the evil computer gods, recycled prop planets, and kaleidoscope energy beings and never had a Mirror Universe espisode for the same reason There were a couple of art department memos from early TNG that suggest that there was some uncertainty among staff as to how much of TOS had actually happened in TNG's past. In other words, that while in TNG there was certainly a Kirk and Spock on a past starship named Enterprise, it was not certain whether they had actually traveled through time, or had some of the other zany adventures depicted on the old show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:They did do a variant on it with the cryo people in The Neutral Zone and, of course, First Contact hit a lot of the same beats with mid-21st people, but yeah TNG didn't play around with time travel much. First Contact, Yesterday's Enterprise, and Time's Arrow are the only straight examples I can think of. I think it falls under the banner of things they avoided because they were too much like TOS. They were also pretty sparing with the evil computer gods, recycled prop planets, and kaleidoscope energy beings and never had a Mirror Universe espisode for the same reason I'm in the middle of the second in the Fifty Year Mission books and they state that time travel episodes were one of the many many many many things on Gene's no no list for TNG that Rick Berman mostly kept intact even after his death. In fact the only way "Cause and Effect" got approval was because the author sold is as a "time loop" rather than time travel. BTW, both of those books are awesome. Even as a super fan there's tons of insider stuff I'd never heard because it's almost all straight quotes from the people involved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
So how did Time's Arrow get approved, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:So how did Time's Arrow get approved, then? They don't get into it, but exceptions to every rule. I suppose it was sold more as a Guinan piece than a Time Travel piece.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:So how did Time's Arrow get approved, then? Jerry Hardin cornered Berman in the elevator and made squawking Twain noises until he caved in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:The Doctor Who fanbase is just overall garbage. You get the modern who fans who are overly annoying. Then you have the old Who fans who do nothing but discuss random radio episodes no one besides them have listened to. They get discussed in the thread because there's quite a few people in the thread like listening to them  Certainly more than have watched, say, The Sensorites. Gammatron 64 posted:Some say "oh, you must not like British stuff", but no, that's not true at all. I just don't like Doctor Who and Harry Potter and the kinda poo poo weird anglophile nerds flock to. I like James Bond, Top Gear, Hitchhiker's Guide, IT Crowd, Simon Pegg's movies, Mr. Bean, an Idiot Abroad and a ton of other things than come from Britain so it's not like I'm biased against the UK. I mean hell, the US and UK have a lot in common given we speak the same language and we both have populations largely made up of fat, stupid, racist prudes. We're kindred spirits, you know! Man you like a lot of terrible British things
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
lenoon posted:I think you might just not like British young adult stuff? Which is perfectly understandable, as most young adult stuff is loving terrible. Dr Who consciously wants to enthrall/terrify "tweens" and younger, so while you get the occasionally creepy episode (like the gas masks), it's boring zany poo poo most of the time. There's no British/US thing about it, though most older Brits remember being the target audience for the older series, and some of those are still legitimately creepy, so there's this huge nostalgia for it. The reboots target the same people but also play into the fact that it's absolutely perfect tumblr fodder, a show made for teenagers in an era when everyone is a teenager, "overturning social conventions" just enough that it's never actually challenging, liberal in that wishy-washy British Liberal Democrat way that doesn't really require effort or thought to sustain, solidly middle class and with tragic-but-not-seriously romances stapled on. Ah, that makes sense. I think we might be on the same wavelength, here. I don't even really hate Harry Potter per se, it's just something I find very little appeal in - it's something tailor made for teenage girls. Us guys don't have a monopoly on weird, creepy awkward nerds - plenty of women fall into that category too. It's just that they always seem to gravitate towards things like Harry Potter, Twilight and so on. I don't think I've ever met a straight guy who was really, really into Harry Potter. A good friend of mine growing up really loves Harry Potter, but he's also really gay and was in the closet for years. I never even heard of Doctor Who when I was a kid, but I grew up loving the poo poo out of Star Wars and Star Trek. The fact that they still hold up as an adult is a nice bonus. I also really liked Transformers as a kid as evidenced by my avatar, but while I am still very fond of that show, I would never, ever recommend it to an adult who doesn't have nostalgia goggles. I'm self-aware enough to realize that a lot of the things I love are really dumb and just because I like it, doesn't mean everyone else will. Farmer Crack-rear end posted:My understanding is that a lot of the inconsistency in Janeway's characterization came from the producers never entirely agreeing on how she should be written, and instead of coming to a consensus or being handed a mandate, they just all basically wrote Janeway however they wanted her to be. That what it certainly seems like. Kate Mulgrew always said she thought Janeway was bipolar with how inconsistent her characterization was. She was also told to act more wooden because she was too talented an actress. Good lord, the management behind Voyager was baffling and frustrating. MrL_JaKiri posted:Man you like a lot of terrible British things A lot of self-righteous Internet types with sticks up their asses hate James Bond because he's a chauvinistic sociopath and they're too busy foaming at the mouth with outrage to enjoy themselves. The same types also hate Top Gear because Jeremy Clarkson is a horrible racist old fart and the BBC pumped huge amounts of money into the show. I like Top Gear because it's a show kinda sorta about cars, but mainly because it stars horrible human beings like Jeremy Clarkson and had an obscene budget. I liked the Hitchhiker's guide books, but I will admit it totally doesn't translate well into a movie and for whatever reason, the adaptations of the books just fall totally flat. I guess it's all in the delivery. The IT Crowd is depressingly true to life. I like Simon Pegg movies like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead. They were funny. Mr. Bean is in fact dumb and terrible though, I have no defense for liking that one. It's a guilty pleasure. GET IN THE ROBOT fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Then in TNG they "fixed" it by making them map back to actual dates again. Did they? The only real significance I can recall from TNG stardates is that the second digit indicated the season.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
I thought I had heard that the extra digit was so they could map it back via a number of days to the real world calendar. Ah quote:A stardate is a five-digit number followed by a decimal point and one more digit. Example: "41254.7." The first two digits of the stardate are always "41." The 4 stands for 24th century, the 1 indicates first season. The additional three leading digits will progress unevenly during the course of the season from 000 to 999. The digit following the decimal point is generally regarded as a day counter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:A lot of self-righteous Internet types with sticks up their asses hate James Bond because he's a chauvinistic sociopath and they're too busy foaming at the mouth with outrage to enjoy themselves. Daniel Craig, for one Gammatron 64 posted:I liked the Hitchhiker's guide books, but I will admit it totally doesn't translate well into a movie and for whatever reason, the adaptations of the books just fall totally flat. The books are an adaptation 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I never even heard of Doctor Who when I was a kid Well done I guess?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Daniel Craig, for one I've only seen a couple Daniel Craig ones. Casino Royale was all right. Quantum of Solace was kinda lame and forgettable. Heard Skyfall and Spectre were good but I didn't go see them. When I say James Bond, I'm talking cheesy Sean Connery and Roger Moore ones. Goldfinger, Thunderball, that kinda stuff. Her Majesty's Secret Service is a good Bond movie with the worst James Bond. Pierce Brosnan is a good Bond but is in terrible movies. Goldeneye was his only good one. Connery is the best Bond. Hell, Sean Connery is the best everything. Those are my James Bond opinions. Also the episode of DS9 where Bashir pretends he's James Bond and pals around with Garak was good. cargohills posted:Well done I guess? Not really, it would only be an accomplishment if I lived somewhere that had it broadcast on TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Not really, it would only be an accomplishment if I lived somewhere that had it broadcast on TV. Most PBS stations had it, in addition to Monty Python in the late 80s early 90s. I knew what Dr. Who was as a kid because my parents watched it, and I had seen a few episodes but never really cared for it. Mind you this assumes you lived in the USA and was near someplace where people actually gave some kind of money to public television.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:I'm in the middle of the second in the Fifty Year Mission books and they state that time travel episodes were one of the many many many many things on Gene's no no list for TNG that Rick Berman mostly kept intact even after his death. On the subject of stock Trek plots, DS9 really liked "everyone plays out of character" episodes, didn't they. There's "alien influence causes weird personality shifts" (Dramatis Personae), "evil/alternate versions of the main characters" (all the Mirror Universe episodes), and episodes where they just play entirely different characters (Our Man Bashir, Far Beyond the Stars). I suppose you could also count Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang with the characters themselves intentionally acting as different people. e: That's not even to mention all the individual characters getting possessed by aliens, Pah-Wraiths, or being replaced by Changelings. Or Prophets appearing as other characters. Lord Hydronium fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Sep 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:31 |
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:On the subject of stock Trek plots, DS9 really liked "everyone plays out of character" episodes, didn't they. There's "alien influence causes weird personality shifts" (Dramatis Personae), "evil/alternate versions of the main characters" (all the Mirror Universe episodes), and episodes where they just play entirely different characters (Our Man Bashir, Far Beyond the Stars). I suppose you could also count Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang with the characters themselves intentionally acting as different people. That probably has something to do with DS9 being the series that had the most (any) established characterization for them to play off of, although you still saw it a decent amount in Next Gen for the characters who had characterization - Data in Masks, Picard in Inner Light, even Worf by S7 for Parallels. And the whole crew in the forgetfulness ray one I can't remember the name of, and the perfectly timed The Naked Now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2016 19:59
|
|