Banana Republic 1 wrote: » If they have personal transporters why didn’t Mikey S and Georgeo just beam to the door instead of walking through Canada ?
breezy1985 wrote: » I was thinking that at the time too
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » I was watching an episode of enterprise and noticed that a Vulcan ship was called the nivar same as the new name for Vulcan on std. After the last episode of std and the prime and Kelvin universe discussion I wondered how the Vulcan planet is still there, wasn’t it destroyed in the jj film.
~Rebel~ wrote: » Aren’t they in the prime universe, where Vulcan is fine, versus in the Kelvin universe where it’s kaput? Also it felt weird that they specifically called the Mirror Universe by that name... that’s what we call it cause it’s wacky campy upside down land, but doesn’t make sense for them to call it that too, any more than any other of the theoretically infinite timelines/universes.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » I don’t know but Romulus did explode wasn’t that which prompted the joining. There are so many plots holes in this it’s ridiculous.
~Rebel~ wrote: » Romulus being destroyed was in Picard waaay after the time of Kirk, TOS etc, so was unrelated to all that Kelvin nonsense.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » The Kelvin line came from that
corkie wrote: » "Romulus was destroyed in 2387 when its sun exploded in a supernova, splitting the planet in half." ^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Romulus Picard referenced the same event as in the 2009 film."The FNN interview begins with a capsule biography of Picard. The interviewer, Richter, asks him about the supernova that destroyed Romulus in 2387." ^^^ https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Remembrance_(episode)
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Picard on Amazon is muck, I’m talking about the first jj Star Trek movie that’s were the Kelvin timeline was introduced.
pixelburp wrote: » Shades of the 'aul "why don't they call the Avengers?" argument used in the various MCU once-off films; the obvious answer is "well then you don't have much of a story", but my headcanon simply rationalises that prolonged or constant use of the personal transporters can cause <insert medical issues here>. That and just pinging from one end of your ship to the other, rather than walking, would probably be a massive social faux-pax. And it'd just increase the possibility of horrible accidents with matter trying to occupy the same space.
Stark wrote: » I'm sure those things must have failsafe checks to prevent accidents like two people materialising in the same place. Otherwise Linus would have materialised in the space outside the hull by now.
pixelburp wrote: » Shades of the 'aul "why don't they call the Avengers?" argument used in the various MCU once-off films; the obvious answer is "well then you don't have much of a story", but my headcanon simply rationalises that prolonged or constant use of the personal transporters can cause <insert medical issues here>. That and just pinging from one end of your ship to the other, rather than walking, would probably be a massive social faux-pax. And it'd just increase the possibility of horrible accidents with matter trying to occupy the same space. One thing I've never quite got used to with Discovery as a series - and is something the future setting has only increased - is the ship designs. Or lack thereof. I've actually always liked Discovery's own design, eccentric as it is. The spinning is a bit dumb but the overall design works as something different, but still Trek. Nicer to look at than the Oberth class etc. The future ships though ... eh, I dunno. I kinda get what they're going for with the idea of reactive modules changing shape; that the ships themselves are programmable matter too. But the execution means my eyes are constantly trying to work out what I'm even looking at. Book's ship has a weird shape that changes so much; ít's like Michael Bay's Transformers, where the robots are big chaotic jumbles of metal.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Not much point trying to make sense of these things as the writers don’t Star Trek is no longer sci fi it’s just fantasy.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » The discovery was created years ago by actual Star Trek people, it was part of a comic or something. The new ships were created by this bad robot lot.
pixelburp wrote: » Sure, Trek often adds some hand waving technobabble - but I also bet it's not a 0% possibility either; that'd be impossible. So you'd imagine that heavy usage would only drive up the statistical likelihood of an Ensign zapping themselves into the bulkhead. That or just constant use giving you awful nausea, migraines or whatnot. Transporter tech is fantasy, let's not be coy here. Invented cos it was cheaper than making "shuttle lands on planet" FX sequences back in the 60s and just stuck since then. I believe the technology is kinda, sorta theoretically possible but the power requirements to dissemble and reassemble not just you, but the 32,000 species of bacteria that live on or in us, makes transportation the more outlandish technologies in Trek IMO. Far too many variables to juggle just to avoid disaster. And that's before you enter the philosophical quandary about the self; kinda nuked by the constant "transporter accident" episodes and Tom Rikers knocking about the universe Unless everyone in the Trek world has horrendous gut issues because their gut bacteria were zapped out of existence 100 transports ago :pac:
GreeBo wrote: » Agreed, but in a world where you have them, it seems mad that people dont use them all the time. Book and Burnham escaped by using them every 30s earlier this season. Based on the size of ships alone it would seem like they are required... It would actually make more sense if turbo lifts were just transporter pads actually.
pixelburp wrote: » More to that, why would you even need a standing army in Trek? Any unscrupulous race could just get one transporter, their most obsequious and decorated soldier and deliberately fudge their transporter's settings for infinite soldiers
Evade wrote: » Because that doesn't work.
pixelburp wrote: » Who says this magical box can't? It has frequently caused universe jumps, merged creatures, and duplicates of the original "pattern", so who says you couldn't intentionally hack the system so the transporter thinks it finished a cycle, allowing replication? If it's a machine, it can be hacked. It has bugs, those bugs can be intended. This is me speaking as a software dev who likes breaking things lol The tech is the most easily defined as magical so I wouldn't put any limits on what it can or can't do. Cos the writers frequently didn't
corkie wrote: » Talk of transporter's has me wondering why they didn't develop the "Spatial projector" or "Spatial trajector" Feature in Picard to get from and to different planets
