Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Trek Books, Games and General chat
Post Reply
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by McAvoy »

OK so we all know that everything in Trek is fake and does involve suspension of disbelief sometimes or most of the time to enjoy the show.

But if we try to do a In Universe look, like how something was designed or works within that universe, there are certain design elements that require a shrug.

1.) The big one, TOS. The way everything was colored or designed. Especially with all the Trek that follows it. Very especially if we are to believe Discovery is part of Geneverse.

2.) Extension of the above. The TOS Enterprise neck isnt that thick. It's about roughly the length of two medium sized cars in width. We got turbolifts going through there with structural members and hull plating. That neck would have very little usable space. Movie Enterprise isn't that much better either.

3.) How much to do we count writing inconsistencies as well as something we choose to ignore. Like the infamous line that Voyager cannot make photon torpedoes? Do we ignore that line and shrug?

4.) Shields. Shield bubble versus shield skin? Or the lack of shields. We can make up the reason why like they were depleted like in the Dominion War.

5.) Oberth's connecting pylons. Either the ship is bigger than we thought, or those pylons are two thin for turbolifts. Or that big secondary hull is unmanned. Or they use transporters.

Anything else? Design flaws that we ignore and just shrug? That we could come up with some sort of in universe explanation if possible but for the most part you just leave it alone.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by Captain Seafort »

Speed. TOS had them zooming around the galaxy willy-nilly, treating journeys of thousands of light years as a minor side trip.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
AlexMcpherson79
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 2:43 pm
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom.

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by AlexMcpherson79 »

Yeah... TOS had them all over the place (final frontier any....aaaaaahh it burns it burns!) But based on voyager it'd take 8 years to cross federation space?
User avatar
Danish1985
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:13 pm

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by Danish1985 »

*From the mists, an new member pokes his head out and draws a deep breath*
Agreed, the TOS concept of distance was shakier than a rubber bicycle. Even in later series, distance was not taken seriously. Remeber the ship of cadets in DS9? they were supposed to be circumnavigating federation territory in less than a year. A trip that would have taken at least 16 years by the TNG warp scale.

From the original post, The Oberth class. I've been watching ST since i was about 6. I saw Star Trek 3 when i was about 8 and spotted that straight off. I cannot see Starfleet engineers (or any engineer) ever designing a ship with a totally automated engineering section, considering just how insanely dangerous antimatter is and just how protective engineers get over their toys. That's all I'm brave enough to say right now.
No Regrets, No Fate, No Justice
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by McAvoy »

Another one is the TOS Enterprise nacelles pylons. They're even thinner than the neck. Almost feels like they could be severed in one good hit.

Of course the refit between the TOS and MOV Enterprise as well.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
RK_Striker_JK_5
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12986
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:27 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award, Cochrane Medal of Excellence
Location: New Hampshire
Contact:

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by RK_Striker_JK_5 »

The fact that TOS was basically building the setting willy-nilly from episode to episode?
User avatar
Danish1985
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:13 pm

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by Danish1985 »

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:23 pm The fact that TOS was basically building the setting willy-nilly from episode to episode?
I suppoose, at the time they were not expecting it to go anywhere. If i remember right, Gene Rodenberry did say in an interview he was very surprised with the popularity of Star Trek and it was also the sixties, a more relaxed time. When TNG started, it was the 80s, (which i vaguely remember) which was a much more uptight decade, so that led to the more precise in-universe science.

That's what i think anyway, it could all be codswallop.
No Regrets, No Fate, No Justice
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by McAvoy »

Danish1985 wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:30 pm
RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 9:23 pm The fact that TOS was basically building the setting willy-nilly from episode to episode?
I suppoose, at the time they were not expecting it to go anywhere. If i remember right, Gene Rodenberry did say in an interview he was very surprised with the popularity of Star Trek and it was also the sixties, a more relaxed time. When TNG started, it was the 80s, (which i vaguely remember) which was a much more uptight decade, so that led to the more precise in-universe science.

That's what i think anyway, it could all be codswallop.
Well it's not like TOS was a science heavy show. It was a science fiction show, using fictional science as a backdrop for episodes.

It was also a product of its time. Special effects were still crude even by 80's standards and budget reasons made certain things like props or alien worlds look fake for example. Like Jeffries going dumpster diving for set decorations.

TNG had the advantage of being post Star Wars and advances in special effects Technology as well as a more mature way of making TV shows. First two seasons of TNG does show that they were still figuring things out for 24th century Star Trek. Even then though, TNG was limited in their ways of making a TV show. Especially if you compare science fiction shows like today.

DS9 and Voyager had the advantages of a history of Trek already in place. ENT had the disadvantage of Trek being in place.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
Danish1985
Crewman
Crewman
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:13 pm

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by Danish1985 »

McAvoy wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:36 pm
Well it's not like TOS was a science heavy show. It was a science fiction show, using fictional science as a backdrop for episodes.

It was also a product of its time. Special effects were still crude even by 80's standards and budget reasons made certain things like props or alien worlds look fake for example. Like Jeffries going dumpster diving for set decorations.

TNG had the advantage of being post Star Wars and advances in special effects Technology as well as a more mature way of making TV shows. First two seasons of TNG does show that they were still figuring things out for 24th century Star Trek. Even then though, TNG was limited in their ways of making a TV show. Especially if you compare science fiction shows like today.

DS9 and Voyager had the advantages of a history of Trek already in place. ENT had the disadvantage of Trek being in place.
[/quote]


Very true! Mylar pompoms, water hoses, even digestive noises all used to create various effects. I love reading about how different effects were done for very little. I always wished i was that creative. I think they mention in the Enterprise-D tech manual that they took about $7000 out of the budget every time they created the warped stars effect.
What did you think of the remastered TOS? I thought it took away a lot of the charm of the cardboard sets and simple model shots.
No Regrets, No Fate, No Justice
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6225
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Design flaws - Suspension of disbelief

Post by McAvoy »

Danish1985 wrote: Mon Aug 31, 2020 2:57 pm
McAvoy wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2020 11:36 pm
Well it's not like TOS was a science heavy show. It was a science fiction show, using fictional science as a backdrop for episodes.

It was also a product of its time. Special effects were still crude even by 80's standards and budget reasons made certain things like props or alien worlds look fake for example. Like Jeffries going dumpster diving for set decorations.

TNG had the advantage of being post Star Wars and advances in special effects Technology as well as a more mature way of making TV shows. First two seasons of TNG does show that they were still figuring things out for 24th century Star Trek. Even then though, TNG was limited in their ways of making a TV show. Especially if you compare science fiction shows like today.

DS9 and Voyager had the advantages of a history of Trek already in place. ENT had the disadvantage of Trek being in place.

Very true! Mylar pompoms, water hoses, even digestive noises all used to create various effects. I love reading about how different effects were done for very little. I always wished i was that creative. I think they mention in the Enterprise-D tech manual that they took about $7000 out of the budget every time they created the warped stars effect.
What did you think of the remastered TOS? I thought it took away a lot of the charm of the cardboard sets and simple model shots.
[/quote]

Remastered is very hit or miss for me. For one, I think the CGI Enterprise looked too cartoonish or too much like a video game version of the ship. Honestly, the best way to CGI a ship is to do what they did with physical models. Bigger is better. Make the CGI model as big as possible because then you can make small flaws in the ship that makes it more realistic.

The intro sounds off to me which I know is because they had to re-record it. Just me, I like the original.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
Post Reply