Weaver wrote:Shields that you cannot beam through, but which protect you from space debris - and through which you can beam if it's important to the plot.

Quit changing the rules. I don't care if it's fantasy, just stick with the fucking rules you make up.

Talking about shields..
In DS9 it seems, especially during the last two seasons, that everyone forgot they had shields.

My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

TopCat wrote:My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

So you like the TNG films, but not the series?

PensivePenny wrote:There are tons of things that are fake about ST. Which ones annoy you the most?

My list for ST (Star Trek) is very similar to my list for SW (Star Wars), DW (Doctor Who) and LotR (Lord of the Rings) amongst others. They're all very short lists; only 1 item: 'very very silly'. It's just my personal opinion.

In the latest run of ST films, Zoe Saldana seems almost too gorgeous to be real. Does that count?

archibald wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:There are tons of things that are fake about ST. Which ones annoy you the most?

My list for ST (Star Trek) is very similar to my list for SW (Star Wars), DW (Doctor Who) and LotR (Lord of the Rings) amongst others. They're all very short lists; only 1 item: 'very very silly'. It's just my personal opinion.

But your personal opinion is wrong, dammit!

Matthew Shute wrote:In the latest run of ST films, Zoe Saldana seems almost too gorgeous to be real. Does that count?

You're right. She's not a real person or even a real character. She's a sex object!

Weaver wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

tuco wrote:Its to give crew feeling of moving as no light could reach them at warp.

Honestly? Probably lack of sexual tension. Mentioning Risa is like saying pornhub. I've heard Roddenberry was against inter-personal conflicts and iirc Deep Space Nine introduced them.

Yep sex was a problem. Must have been all taking drugs. I liked it for what it was. It was fascinating to see how it advanced from cardboard scenery to reasonable sets. The light thing always got me. Travelling so fast they would have been in total darkness. Mind I have had always problems with Einstein.

Would they be in darkness? I always imagined that the stars ahead (10 forward) would be visible, but as the stars trailed them, they would go black or maybe be a streak?

Stars ahead would tend to shrink to a bright circle (massively blue shifted) centered in front, with an increasingly large blank space on the edges, leaving a bright (albeit massively red-shifted) circle in the rear.

The faster the travel, the more the distortion.

Of course, that's for visible light - but it's been pretty clear that the view screen on the bridge had computer compensation - which raises the additional question of why the streaking?

Cool! Thanks! I always find it distracting. It didn't look right to me but wondering what it SHOULD look like was probably the greater distraction.

In Next Gen and others, they make use of clear aluminum portals for direct viewing of the stars. Ten Forward, Captain's Ready room, etc. I never thought about the screen.... though. Good point.

PensivePenny wrote:In Next Gen and others, they make use of clear aluminum portals for direct viewing of the stars. Ten Forward, Captain's Ready room, etc. I never thought about the screen.... though. Good point.

In First Contact the viewing portals were simply force fields of some sort.

Sendraks wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:In Next Gen and others, they make use of clear aluminum portals for direct viewing of the stars. Ten Forward, Captain's Ready room, etc. I never thought about the screen.... though. Good point.

In First Contact the viewing portals were simply force fields of some sort.

Speaking of force fields... they can make a force field that can reinforce the ships hull, contain any manner of disease, chemical or energy, imprison the most vicious of creatures and yet they still wear space suits... which are clearly NOT pressurized. Yet, they can make a small tractor beam that can fit in your pocket.

An over-reliance on prosthetic foreheads. Although, I have learned to forgive this, after learning about the cost and difficulties of portraying believable aliens on a TV show.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

TopCat wrote:My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

So you like the TNG films, but not the series?

Ha, well spotted.

No, I meant of course, everything other than The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

I might make an exception for the prequel movie that has a young Kirk and Spock, but I haven't seen it so I can't comment. It would take quite a lot to sway me from my fundamentalist position that there's only One True Star Trek

LucidFlight wrote:An over-reliance on prosthetic foreheads. Although, I have learned to forgive this, after learning about the cost and difficulties of portraying believable aliens on a TV show.

Yes, good point. That's always annoyed me too. Plus, the Trills had forehead prosthetics initially in STNG. Then, they decided to go with sexy spots. While on the topic, the whole major evolution of Klingon appearance that took place between the original series and NG is finally swept under the rug in DS9 with a "don't ask, we don't like to talk about it."

Consistency!

PensivePenny wrote:

Weaver wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Yep sex was a problem. Must have been all taking drugs. I liked it for what it was. It was fascinating to see how it advanced from cardboard scenery to reasonable sets. The light thing always got me. Travelling so fast they would have been in total darkness. Mind I have had always problems with Einstein.

Would they be in darkness? I always imagined that the stars ahead (10 forward) would be visible, but as the stars trailed them, they would go black or maybe be a streak?

Stars ahead would tend to shrink to a bright circle (massively blue shifted) centered in front, with an increasingly large blank space on the edges, leaving a bright (albeit massively red-shifted) circle in the rear.

The faster the travel, the more the distortion.

Of course, that's for visible light - but it's been pretty clear that the view screen on the bridge had computer compensation - which raises the additional question of why the streaking?

Cool! Thanks! I always find it distracting. It didn't look right to me but wondering what it SHOULD look like was probably the greater distraction.

In Next Gen and others, they make use of clear aluminum portals for direct viewing of the stars. Ten Forward, Captain's Ready room, etc. I never thought about the screen.... though. Good point.

I think the whole "transparent aluminum" crap is just an attempt at a tie-in with whatever the silly whales movie was.

There's no good reason to think that aluminum would be the durable material of choice - first, because at any speed the ship would need incredibly effective shields to stop "incoming" particles and radiation (lest they simultaneously perforate the ship and irradiate the crew - let's have a race to see which kills us all first!) and second because aluminum simply isn't that durable - there is plenty of reason to think that already impressive glass science would continue to mature in the future and provide a much better, much more durable product.

Weaver wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Weaver wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Would they be in darkness? I always imagined that the stars ahead (10 forward) would be visible, but as the stars trailed them, they would go black or maybe be a streak?

Stars ahead would tend to shrink to a bright circle (massively blue shifted) centered in front, with an increasingly large blank space on the edges, leaving a bright (albeit massively red-shifted) circle in the rear.

The faster the travel, the more the distortion.

Of course, that's for visible light - but it's been pretty clear that the view screen on the bridge had computer compensation - which raises the additional question of why the streaking?

Cool! Thanks! I always find it distracting. It didn't look right to me but wondering what it SHOULD look like was probably the greater distraction.

In Next Gen and others, they make use of clear aluminum portals for direct viewing of the stars. Ten Forward, Captain's Ready room, etc. I never thought about the screen.... though. Good point.

I think the whole "transparent aluminum" crap is just an attempt at a tie-in with whatever the silly whales movie was.

There's no good reason to think that aluminum would be the durable material of choice - first, because at any speed the ship would need incredibly effective shields to stop "incoming" particles and radiation (lest they simultaneously perforate the ship and irradiate the crew - let's have a race to see which kills us all first!) and second because aluminum simply isn't that durable - there is plenty of reason to think that already impressive glass science would continue to mature in the future and provide a much better, much more durable product.

I agree with most everything you said, with one exception. This:

Aluminium oxynitride or AlON is a ceramic composed of aluminium, oxygen and nitrogen. It is marketed under the name ALON by Surmet Corporation.[3] AlON is optically transparent (≥80%) in the near-ultraviolet, visible and midwave-infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is 4 times harder than fused silica glass, 85% as hard as sapphire, and nearly 15% harder than magnesium aluminate spinel...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_oxynitride

Granted, it's more a ceramic, but "Transparent Aluminum" is a reasonable colloquial. What might we see in another 150 years?

TopCat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

TopCat wrote:My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

So you like the TNG films, but not the series?

Ha, well spotted.

No, I meant of course, everything other than The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

I might make an exception for the prequel movie that has a young Kirk and Spock, but I haven't seen it so I can't comment. It would take quite a lot to sway me from my fundamentalist position that there's only One True Star Trek

With one true Scotsman!

zulumoose wrote:

TopCat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

TopCat wrote:My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

So you like the TNG films, but not the series?

Ha, well spotted.

No, I meant of course, everything other than The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

I might make an exception for the prequel movie that has a young Kirk and Spock, but I haven't seen it so I can't comment. It would take quite a lot to sway me from my fundamentalist position that there's only One True Star Trek

With one true Scotsman!

Indeed! A truer Scotsman there never was!!

Star Trek is the One True Exception to the No True Scotsman fallacy, I thought everyone knew that?

LucidFlight wrote:An over-reliance on prosthetic foreheads.

Almost every extraterrestrial in every far-flung solar system that the Enterprise visits turns out to be... yet another humanoid with different knobbly bits on his face or head. H. P. Lovecraft would not have been impressed. I used to put it down to a chronic lack of imagination, but yes, I assume it has more to do with practical difficulties and cost.

Although, I have learned to forgive this, after learning about the cost and difficulties of portraying believable aliens on a TV show.

Star Trek should have had Elcor (from the Mass Effect video games). Those things were great.

TopCat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

TopCat wrote:My pet peeve would be: everything after The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

So you like the TNG films, but not the series?

Ha, well spotted.

No, I meant of course, everything other than The Original Series and the first 6 movies.

I might make an exception for the prequel movie that has a young Kirk and Spock, but I haven't seen it so I can't comment. It would take quite a lot to sway me from my fundamentalist position that there's only One True Star Trek

So, just verifying, One True Star Trek = Enterprise, TNG, Voyager, DS9 and films 7 through 10?

Thommo wrote:Star Trek should have had Elcor (from the Mass Effect video games). Those things were great.

Enthousiastic exclamation: The Elcor are great.
Disappointed rumination: To bad they are not in the Star Trek series.
Questioning: Maybe a similar species will be in a future series?