Variable Geometry Nacelles

[Foxbat]

Back to the variable nacelle position; would it mayhaps be for atmospheric maneuvering to have a 'down' position? 'Up' for warp, 'down' for impulse and atmosphere. It's all I could think of...

[Mikey]

I never claimed that everything must have a mention in dialogue, Thorin, so quit frothing. I merely state the fact that, to use the present example, a major change in the VISIBLE technology of the hero ship from prior 'Trek franchises deserves an onscreen explanation. Would it necessarily happen in the "real" conversations aboard Voyager? Maybe, because part of her crew were Maquis who hadn't experienced that tech before. However, sometimes that "real life" aspect of written dialogue must be suspended to fulfill a repsonsibility to the audience.

Or are you going to claim that the variable geometry rpresented no change from the hero ships of prior franchises?

[Thorin]

I never claimed that everything must have a mention in dialogue, Thorin, so quit frothing. I merely state the fact that, to use the present example, a major change in the VISIBLE technology of the hero ship from prior 'Trek franchises deserves an onscreen explanation.

...No, it doesn't. Do you think the bridge layout changing from the Galaxy to the Intrepid deserves one? Every little change, regardless of how clear, doesn't deserve an onscreen mention. As Seafort said, it ruined the SW EU.

However, sometimes that "real life" aspect of written dialogue must be suspended to fulfill a repsonsibility to the audience.

No, it musn't. There is no responsibility to the audience. The only thing they have a responsibility for is entertaining. Then they have one, more minor responsibility, for continuity. The nacelles don't contradict contuinity, they are just an enigma (in canon). We just don't know what they do. It

Or are you going to claim that the variable geometry rpresented no change from the hero ships of prior franchises?

Of course not, you're just playing silly beggars now. But it doesn't require an explanation, or you'd end up, as I said, with every little thing that has ever happened or existed requiring a mention. Why did they not mention the Iraq War in First Contact? Why did they not tell us the precise number of people in Starfleet, in each division, and everyone of their jobs, their ranks, service numbers? Why? Because it doesn't advance the plot! It doesn't help in anything to entertain or develop characters! Just as talking about the nacelles doesn't deserve a mention. It is going to help in no way, and will, in fact, detract from the entertainment.

[Mikey]

But if those swinging nacelles were so minor a change as to not require a mention, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Thorin]

But if those swinging nacelles were so minor a change as to not require a mention, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Why? This discussion is to speculate what they could be for. It doesn't mean they deserve a mention.

[Mikey]

OK. Fine. A whole new addition to warp field technology, both theoretical and practical, is as unimportant as the placement of the bathrooms.

Besides, Voyager had crew aboard who were completely unfamiliar with the workings of this new advance. Why would they be brought up to speed? You wouldn't want to have your crew know what they were working on, would you...

[Thorin]

OK. Fine. A whole new addition to warp field technology, both theoretical and practical, is as unimportant as the placement of the bathrooms.

Precisely. Both do as much as each other to advance the plot, or develop characters, or in any way, shape, or form, entertain the viewers.

Besides, Voyager had crew aboard who were completely unfamiliar with the workings of this new advance. Why would they be brought up to speed? You wouldn't want to have your crew know what they were working on, would you...

All part of Janeway's 'master plan'.

[Mikey]

Precisely. Both do as much as each other to advance the plot, or develop characters, or in any way, shape, or form, entertain the viewers.

Wow. You're serious about that. I mean, my comment was about as sarcastic as I could make it online, but you really believe this... wow. *backs away slowly*

All part of Janeway's 'master plan'.

Stop, stop - my ribs can't take it. Honestly, do you have a real response?

[Thorin]

Wow. You're serious about that. I mean, my comment was about as sarcastic as I could make it online, but you really believe this... wow. *backs away slowly*

I'm not so idiotic as to not realise that your post was completely sarcastic, but it was completely correct, regardless of the obvious sarcasm. A whole new addition to warp field technology, which absolutely no one cares about, could possibly understand, or could even remotely make sense of, isn't mentioned. Let's have a paddy...!

Stop, stop - my ribs can't take it. Honestly, do you have a real response?

What do you want me to say? Your post made no sense - you managed to overdo the sarcasm (as normal) and it caved back in. Just because a very boring statement about an advance in warp field dynamics was not mentioned on screen does not mean it was never mentioned between anyone, ever. Pretty obvious, to be honest.

[Mikey]

Yes, yes, very pithy, but no real answer. The point isn't whether anything was mentioned between two fictional characters offscreen which means for all intents and purposes that it wasn't. The point is that this is a change more deserving of mention than your bathroom analogy, and the audience was let down. Whether you agree or not, a TV show's first responsibility is to its audience, and in this instance (along with many others*) Voyager failed in that responsibility.

To put it simply: we shouldn't be forced to speculate. The show should make it explicit. Sure, debating like this is fun, but if the franchise is going to introduce a change in the accustomed scheme of things, it should explain that change.


* - sorry. Couldn't help it.

[Captain Seafort]

To put it simply: we shouldn't be forced to speculate. The show should make it explicit. Sure, debating like this is fun, but if the franchise is going to introduce a change in the accustomed scheme of things, it should explain that change.

Why? Did they explain the reasons for the design differences between the Connie and the Miranda in excruciating detail? Did they explain the workings of each individual component the Reliant targeted in great detail? Did they explain the exact mechanism of the Genesis Device? Did they explain exactly how the Mutara Nebula interfered with their sensors?

Alright, I'm exaggerating for effect, but my point is that when you're talking about details that the characters should know as a matter of course it's very difficult to explain without veering into "as you know Bob..." territory. I refer you once again to the Star Wars EU, where every possible gap in the time line has been filled, in many cases to the detriment of the story, since inevitably when you're dealing with such a vast quantity of source data, contradictions slip in. By leaving out any explanation of the nacelles (for example) the writers avoided swamping the audience with information, and left themselves maneuvering room so they could use the nacelles' variable-geometry in a future episode without contradicting themselves.

[Thorin]

To put it simply: we shouldn't be forced to speculate.

That is the biggest load of tripe I've ever heard on this forum.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

To put it simply: we shouldn't be forced to speculate.

But then what would we talk about?

[Thorin]

The point isn't whether anything was mentioned between two fictional characters offscreen which means for all intents and purposes that it wasn't.

What?!?! In which case, people never went to the toilet. If it didn't happen on screen, it didn't happen. So most people never sleeped. A 45 minute episode takes in a week's worth of Trek, meaning that 6 days, 23 hours and 15 minutes of every week's very existance never existed - it never happened on screen, obviously it didn't!

The point is that this is a change more deserving of mention than your bathroom analogy, and the audience was let down.

It was no more deserving than the bathroom analogy. Both are as irrelevant to absolutely anything as each other.

Whether you agree or not, a TV show's first responsibility is to its audience, and in this instance (along with many others*) Voyager failed in that responsibility.

The first responsibility is to the audience - the responsibility to entertain, not provide useless 'facts' of a made up universe on every single little change to warp field dynamics, that couldn't possibly have any rational reason in this day and age, as it is theoretically impossible!

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Come to think of it, has Star Trek ever had a bathroom, or more specifically a toilet of some sort? On screen or even mentioned?