"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Star Trek Franchise |OT| To Boldly Go.....
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
It does almost line up with what voyager was going to have to travel 70+ years at max warp. (article says 95 to traverse galaxy diameter)
Now we know why Federation ships are big and comfy. There is A LOT of downtime between missions.
Given that ships have lifespans measured in decades the bulk of the fleet should look identical. There may be new designs scattered around of course.
Yeah that's generally the case though. Warp Drive means the Federation have only explored a fraction of the galaxy and they even point this out in TNG. The main plot point of Voyager is basically how slow Warp Drive is and why they spend so much time looking at alternatives like Transwarp and Quantum Slipstream.
I don't think this scale is accurate, not that it is consistent on screen.
From the Voyager episode "The 37s" I think we have the only direct warp speed to other speed comparison.
AMELIA: How fast?
PARIS: Warp nine point nine. In your terms, that's about four billion miles a second.
Light travels 186000 miles per second, so warp 9.9 is 21505 times the speed of light.
Of course Tom could just just be using hyperbole.
They used the TNG tech manual for those speeds so yeah it's going to be different than some of the stuff in the show and especially something like Voyager. Although the calculation of crossing the galaxy taking 90+ years at Max and Voyager taking 70+ years is really close. Voyager doesn't have to cross the entire thing so it makes sense that it's less
The Warp scale never been depicted consistently, or otherwise accurate to the tech manuals. Like, even internally of Voyager:
The 37s is ironically an example of the writers overestimating just how fast they needed things to be.
Ok, ok, this might be a bit mean, I'm sure writing for a big franchise like Star Trek is a really hard job. However, after seeing how they handwaved Discovery's advanced tech in a pre-TOS era, I'd say it's safe to assume that they won't waste any time over such details.
hopefully this means she can be a part of the Pike show cast 😊
There has never been a show that is as on-point when it comes to what really makes Trek the franchise it is than Discovery.
It's almost like people are missing the social commentary and progressive ideals being presented, and instead are upset that Discovery actually has commendable production values and properly directed action scenes instead of goofy dudes in weird costumes fighting guys dressed as lizards on sound stages that could have belonged to any public access TV show.
I love the shit out of every iteration of Trek (except Voyager), and that's why I love Discovery so much - it ratchets up what Trek is really about to 11, and still brings the series into the modern era with all the trappings that entails.
I don't think people are missing those things.
What a lot of people are angry about is how fucking dark Discovery is. There's no optimism, no hopefulness for the future, just week after week of "LOOK HOW FUCKING BLEAK AND DARK AND HORRIBLE EVERYTHING IS!!!!!!!"
Then as soon as they promise that it will get better they somehow do the exact opposite and make it even worse by collapsing the entire fucking Federation.
I don't know, I still think back to the first season finale and how unearned that conclusion felt. Basically:
The Federation was boned until the emperor of the Mirror Universe planted a planet-killer bomb into Qo'noS's core, thus holding the entirety of the Klingon homeworld hostage with space nukes; Burnham's fantastic idea is to play kingmaker and give this destabilizing power to someone indirectly associated with the original warmonger family, who promises to leave the Federation alone because she knows who paid her bills. On the back of this last-minute realpolitik tactic, made acceptable only because the Federation was willing to just blow up the planet without installing its own leader, Burnham makes an impassioned appeal to the better instincts of Starfleet, saying that idealism should win out against the darkness just so long as you force a regime change on a belligerent power first.
Oh hey, but fuck yeah science, am I right? That was a great line in that one episode or whatever.
(sorry, I don't mean to be so down on Discovery, I think it can be salvaged, but let's not kid ourselves about people criticizing Discovery because they've missed out on all the amazing social commentary and progressive values when the ending of their first season is... well, that. Genuine kudos for having a gay couple as main characters though.)
That's a very interesting reading of that finale which I disagree with entirely.
And I don't think the show needs to be "salvaged" given how critically and commercially popular it is proving to be, and basing that off of seemingly one part of one show is really weird to me.
Not every Trek franchise is for everyone, I guess. I can't fucking stand Voyager but I know people who adore it. Different strokes, I guess, no one's making some of y'all watch.
I don't get this. Discovery uses adverse scenarios in order to preach messages of hope and virtue. That's its thing. It gets to do that on a grand scale going forward.
To be fair, I guess I'm basing the "salvaged" comment more off of things that happened in the second season, which I liked less than the first. But you're also right in that it's been both critically and commercially successful, and while I hope the third season becomes something I'm more interested in, I am prepared for the possibility that it won't. And like you said, that's okay, it doesn't have to be for me.
I would be curious to know what your read on the finale was, though. I don't feel like I really got any of it wrong, especially after re-reading the Memory Alpha summary.
In some ways, I would argue that is potentially a flaw of Discovery, albeit from a different angle. Because yes, Discovery's method of exploring an idealistic future is by way of challenging that future - what happens when you face those who fundamentally don't agree with those values. The first season dealt with that largely externally, the second did it internally; the third seems set to have it be when the values themselves are no longer believed in by those who need to champion them. As an approach, it's an entirely valid one. Perhaps dark in methodology, but ideally, positive in outcome. Jett was abandoned for half a year on an asteroid with no way of contacting anyone for outside help... but it was because she refused to leave behind critically injured shipmates, saving them via some incredibly skilled application of her engineering knowledge. She saw the no-win scenario and said fuck it, I'll make them last as long as I can.
Thing is... that does kinda get tiring after a while, and requires the assumption that the idealistic future is one clearly established and affirmed, in order to then be challenged. For Discovery itself? Not so much, and I'd say it's largely banking on general pop cultural awareness of what Star Trek is and its assumed style of future. Constantly challenging Utopia without actually showing Utopia leaves it rather like there isn't really much of one at all. And well... that even bleeds into even the upcoming Picard show, it seems. Not that the Admiralty ever did much of a good job at preserving Federation ideals.
Last edited:
That's a pretty good point. I think it'll help if/when that Pike show comes along -- at least there will be something contemporary that will, ideally, espouse those values on a regular basis in a setting which more capably facilitates them.
It's not like they haven't had forever to get this shit hammered out. If they can sell Picard to other networks they can damn well sort out the second lot of these.
If I had to guess they just want more money than the international networks are willing to pay. I mean Netflix dumped them in the trailers section with no notification or announcement right before S2 of STD started, they clearly didn't think they were of note.
If I had to guess they just want more money than the international networks are willing to pay. I mean Netflix dumped them in the trailers section with no notification or announcement right before S2 of STD started, they clearly didn't think they were of note.
Just watched the new Short Trek. What a delight. Chabon continues to impress me. And both Peck and Romijn delivered masterful performances.
It might be beneficial and interesting to have a discussion about what each of us believe Star Trek is really all about. It is entirely possible that we simply have different perspectives
It'd be nice to have a familiar face (or rather a familiar mind) around while being so extremely disconnected from everything else we know.
I assume if neither platform wants to pay for them, CBS would have to eat the cost of giving them away (residuals and everything else probably) and there's no reason for them to want to do that for the international audience. lol
On the topic about what is "true" Trek, I think between TOS, the TNG era (and the variety within it), the TOS movies, the TNG movies, the JJ movies and now the new shows, it can't really be said that Trek is exactly one single thing anymore.
There are just aspects of Star Trek that some people like and others don't and there's a fandom that appreciates everything from VOY to TNG, Discovery, and now Picard. I love the universe it's already built, so I'm always interested in seeing what they can do with it, even if it's not always the allegorical Trek from TNG. And a franchise doesn't stay this big for so long by just being ONE thing to one audience. The truth is that, like Marvel and Star Wars (I know I know, to a much lesser degree), Trek depends mostly on having wide appeal outside of its core fanbase to continue and each new Trek series has found success by being relevant to the audiences of the moment.
I mean, Voyager is the most popular Star Trek on Netflix, so we clearly aren't here the best people to judge what is "true" Trek or what keeps it relevant. And outside of the internet, I haven't heard anything but great reactions about Discovery from people who've discovered it through Netflix (I'm outside the U.S.) and weren't even a fan of the franchise before.
For me, ST was really in danger of just staying stuck in the TNG era and too many fans just wanting to stay there forever. And I say this as a TNG fan like any other. It was my first Trek when I was a kid and I'm rewatching with my boyfriend for years and we've picked up the pace of our watch this year in anticipation for Picard; some episodes I've seen more than 10 times in my life.
I think there is a thing that makes Star Trek Star Trek, but for all we know, to the majority of the people who watch it and make it a success outside of fan circles, the best part of Star Trek is it's space opera aspect and not just its science fiction or allegorical aspect.
There are just aspects of Star Trek that some people like and others don't and there's a fandom that appreciates everything from VOY to TNG, Discovery, and now Picard. I love the universe it's already built, so I'm always interested in seeing what they can do with it, even if it's not always the allegorical Trek from TNG. And a franchise doesn't stay this big for so long by just being ONE thing to one audience. The truth is that, like Marvel and Star Wars (I know I know, to a much lesser degree), Trek depends mostly on having wide appeal outside of its core fanbase to continue and each new Trek series has found success by being relevant to the audiences of the moment.
I mean, Voyager is the most popular Star Trek on Netflix, so we clearly aren't here the best people to judge what is "true" Trek or what keeps it relevant. And outside of the internet, I haven't heard anything but great reactions about Discovery from people who've discovered it through Netflix (I'm outside the U.S.) and weren't even a fan of the franchise before.
For me, ST was really in danger of just staying stuck in the TNG era and too many fans just wanting to stay there forever. And I say this as a TNG fan like any other. It was my first Trek when I was a kid and I'm rewatching with my boyfriend for years and we've picked up the pace of our watch this year in anticipation for Picard; some episodes I've seen more than 10 times in my life.
I think there is a thing that makes Star Trek Star Trek, but for all we know, to the majority of the people who watch it and make it a success outside of fan circles, the best part of Star Trek is it's space opera aspect and not just its science fiction or allegorical aspect.
I mean other than TNG/VOY which ended up pretty similar style wise, none of the other star treks are anything like each other.
I've been slowly working my way through the second Typhon Pact boom, Seize the Fire, for months now and I'm still only about 60% of the way through. I'm really not finding the Gorn side of the story all that interesting.
I think when I'm finally done I'll switch over to the Voyager books for a bit. I bought all the relaunch ones when they were all 99p recently and I think it starts with the retelling of the Destiny trilogy from their perspective so that should be interesting.
I think when I'm finally done I'll switch over to the Voyager books for a bit. I bought all the relaunch ones when they were all 99p recently and I think it starts with the retelling of the Destiny trilogy from their perspective so that should be interesting.
What did Voyager even do during Destiny? I remember a chapter with Tom's dad
sending him a message right before the Borg wipe out the planet/Station he is on, a chapter where Tom receives the message, and then in the Azure Nebula they get rammed by a Borg vessel at the start of the battle and left for dead adrift with 1 nacelle for the rest of the story.
Eh, structurally and thematically the four "modern era" shows are very similar to each other because it's the same writing staff spread out across the four shows. Enterprise is basically another TNG, with a literal TNG ending. lol
Even DS9, despite it's war arc and "flawed humans" thing, has episodes could have been written in a hypothetical season 8 of TNG. I would say all the Klingon bullshit on DS9 is an extension of all the Worf bullshit from TNG for example.
I'm really looking forward to that one. I'll probably wait until one or two more ars out though before I restart my CBS sub.
Definitely wise. Forking over the cash for 1-2 of these per month is... sort of lol. But I've been rewatching TNG and DS9 recently anyway, and I don't have Netflix, so hey, why not.
Well I meant thematically, think about it
TNG: When the federation is at it's best
DS9: The cost of keeping it that way
VOY: Keeping to those ideals even when completely separated from the federation
ENT: How they came to those ideals in the first place
TOS: it was campy space adventures, not sure there was much of a theme until the movies but I'm sure others can chime in.
And now Disco: What happens when nobody believes in those ideals anymore.
Anyways that's kinda how I've viewed Star Trek, since we are discussing what Star Trek means to us.
Oh that's out today? Nice
A lot of TOS episodes are a like you say, but the best ones are all about struggling to be better.
For me that's always been the appeal of Star Trek and mostly it does still have that moral core, even if it thinks the evil universe is cool for some reason.
I don't know, I don't think you can divorce Trek from its production. TOS being a Roddenberry driven show, as with the first two seasons of TNG (well, one season and one season of recycled Phase 2 scripts) with the rest of TNG being a Berman-led and Pillar/Taylor supported show where Braga, Moore, Behr, Woolf and others cut their teeth.
Berman guided the overall direction of DS9, but was both busy with VOY and the movies to and allowed them somewhat freer reign. But it's also why season 7 had 13 episodes of episode-of-the-week stories.
Braga stuck with Berman on VOY and ENT and you can see their fingerprints over everything (and why Moore burned his relationship with Braga for a while and basically quit Star Trek).
So in that context, all of those shows have similar influences, particularly since Berman had so much control and also seemingly believed in the Roddenberry vision for a while (or so he claims). There is a utopian "do no evil" ethos across the shows, even in DS9 where there are clear lines drawn even when people do evil things - the whole point of In The Pale Moonlight is how Sisko compromises himself after all.
Berman guided the overall direction of DS9, but was both busy with VOY and the movies to and allowed them somewhat freer reign. But it's also why season 7 had 13 episodes of episode-of-the-week stories.
Braga stuck with Berman on VOY and ENT and you can see their fingerprints over everything (and why Moore burned his relationship with Braga for a while and basically quit Star Trek).
So in that context, all of those shows have similar influences, particularly since Berman had so much control and also seemingly believed in the Roddenberry vision for a while (or so he claims). There is a utopian "do no evil" ethos across the shows, even in DS9 where there are clear lines drawn even when people do evil things - the whole point of In The Pale Moonlight is how Sisko compromises himself after all.
