Post by Atrahasis on Dec 11, 2004 22:50:42 GMT -5
Guest-zerosnark said:
Wow. There is ALOT in this thread to digest.Regarding the port/starboard symmetry on sub tubes: Please bear in mind that the subs were small and the bow/stern areas (where the tubes were mounted) were not that much wider than two tubes lying together. . which is why multiple pairs were stacked. The tubes couldn't be mounted sideways simply because the subs were not *that wide*.
Now as for Canon footage from TOS: Looking at the battle sequences, the words "well thought out" and "consistency" don't really come to mind. Remember the shoe string budget these guys had to work with. . .and no CGI.
I go with SFB terms because Cole and crowd had more time to think things out . . .and actually developed a game system (warts and all=> gah, let's not start on the whole topic of fighters!).
As for the true role of the Fed Heavy Cruisers. . . I question the whole concept of the heavy cruiser. Given the exploratory nature of the ship. . .I think the term "heavy cruiser" is just a weakness in the BackStory. The terms "heavy and light cruiser" was created in the 1920 Washington naval treaty, and the last ships in the world BUILT with those type of designations were laid down in WWII -> less than 30 years later.
Hard to believe those type of designations would be around 400 years from now.
Anyone have the energy to figure out a whole designation scheme for Federation Starships? Or Klingon ships (which SURELY are different)
Well, it's easy to dismiss the things we see in Trek as due to lack of thought or budget, but the real creative challenge is to somehow make the things we see work within the larger framework. Moreover, I would strongly add that EVERY comment about how something in Trek does not make sense is made through the lense of a 20th/21st century mind, which in my opinion invalidates the comment almost right off the bat, because it's about the same as a 16th century mind trying to make sense of the 20th century. He can't do it unless he makes associations with things that he already knows, for example likening a space station to perhaps a balloon or a blimp.
In Trek's case, we have things that are presented to us that may not make sense right off the bat, but it's the exercise of trying to make sense of it all that will eventually enable us to break the mental bonds that tie us to the present era. That is, to try and imagine how a people more advanced than us have arranged their lives. This is a useful exercise, because there are many mental bonds of the present that prohibit us from progressing as a species, because we find it hard to see how we can solve nagging and persistent problems like hunger and conflict. But if we try to expand our thinking outside of the restraints of the present human mentality, you come up with solutions...whcih is a lot better and more interesting than defaulting to comments like "oh well they had a budget", which by the way isn't a sufficient explanation for some things in Trek, like details on diagrams which didn't really depend on a budget but indicates an imaginative process that was going on that we must now try to decode.