DWvsATJ commentary thread.

[Ted C]

Ted C wrote:

The neutronium hull has flat, reflective spots on it that shine when light hits them from the right angle, much like flecks of mica.

Not the worst explanation. Neither was the notion that Spock might have been (gasp) wrong? It's simpler to explain (people are fallible) than transparent neutronium.

Indeed. We know that people make mistakes, mis-speak, and use colloquial terms that not everyone understands, and you have to take all of these possibilities into consideration with character statements. Actually witnessing an event take place is considerably different.

Presumably the Klingon had a previous injury to that elbow, and passed out from the pain when Scotty hit it.

A stretch, but the simplest I've heard. You see what I mean about having to fill in a lot of gaps.

Gaps and gaps and gaps. Whatever theory you use to explain an event needs to be compatible with the rest of continuity, as well. If a theory explains situation A but is refuted by situation B, you need to develop a new theory that explains both.

Guess she's just lucky; they must have been just outside in the corridor where they could immediately respond to her call.

And carrying phasers (who knew they only needed five seconds to draw?).

Why would it take five seconds to draw a phaser? If they're ship's security, they should already have them.

Come to think of it, Pulaski called them because the alien bodyguard, Anya, threatened a patient? Picard might have already assigned security escorts to both her and Salia, since Anya was so obsessive about Salia's security. That would mean put armed guards in a position to respond to Pulaski's call very quickly. Speculative, but it fits the facts.

Actually the "ethnic cleansing" theory seems to work better for the forehead ridges, and given the redundancy of their biology, Klingons presumably have at least three different circulatory systems that run different-colored fluids (much like you have separate circulatory systems for blood and lymph).

Yes, except there are individual Klingons (Kang, Kor, Koloth) whose foreheads changed between TOS and DS9.

Plastic surgery to conform to the changed Klingon society; smooth heads were being exterminated, so they went to see plastic surgeons.

And what are the chances that every single phaser shot in Star Trek 6 hit the pink system (blood, lymph, whatever) and every single time after that, the phaser or ceremonial knife or whatever hit a different system? Maybe the loss of gravity somehow changed the blood...

Probably not loss of gravity, but possibly some other situational factor may have affected the blood's color. The atmospheric mix on a Klingon ship might not be the same as on Human ships, for instance (although still breathable by humans, of course), resulting in different colors due to chemical reactions.

Divergent timelines plague Star Trek. Their timeline obviously isn't ours, which explains why the Eugenics Wars never happened to us.

Exactly. And I assume they actually went to the center of the galaxy (by some means unavailable in later years) because that's where they said they went, and there's no canon indication that they lied or were wrong about something so major. I find it simpler to say they lost some ability (like a "warp highway") than to explain how they could have been wrong (or why everyone would have continuously lied to themselves and each other) about it.[/quote]

I do not necessarily assume they went to the literal center of the galaxy, though. They may be referring to some sort of figurative center instead of the literal center.

[Metrion Cascade]

Ted C wrote:

Why would it take five seconds to draw a phaser? If they're ship's security, they should already have them.

Come to think of it, Pulaski called them because the alien bodyguard, Anya, threatened a patient? Picard might have already assigned security escorts to both her and Salia, since Anya was so obsessive about Salia's security. That would mean put armed guards in a position to respond to Pulaski's call very quickly. Speculative, but it fits the facts.

I'm making fun of SF tactical skill with the "only five seconds to draw" bit. I do think the security could have been assigned to Anya, but why weren't they in the room already?

Exactly. And I assume they actually went to the center of the galaxy (by some means unavailable in later years) because that's where they said they went, and there's no canon indication that they lied or were wrong about something so major. I find it simpler to say they lost some ability (like a "warp highway") than to explain how they could have been wrong (or why everyone would have continuously lied to themselves and each other) about it.

I do not necessarily assume they went to the literal center of the galaxy, though. They may be referring to some sort of figurative center instead of the literal center.

Or perhaps this "great barrier" that they effortlessly crossed is actually hundreds or thousands of light years from the geometric center?

[YT300000]

And if visuals are to automatically be taken at face value, explain how:
<snip>

Those can all be explained. The only ones that can't be are that in TNG, on two seperate occasions, (don't remember the episodes) you see the film crew. Once, Deanna was talking to her mom in her quarters, and in the mirror you could see a camera boom and a part of a guy's head. On another occasion, in a supposedly empty room, a reflection on a crystal shows a guy with red hair and glasses sitting there.

[Metrion Cascade]

YT300000 wrote:

Those can all be explained. The only ones that can't be are that in TNG, on two seperate occasions, (don't remember the episodes) you see the film crew. Once, Deanna was talking to her mom in her quarters, and in the mirror you could see a camera boom and a part of a guy's head. On another occasion, in a supposedly empty room, a reflection on a crystal shows a guy with red hair and glasses sitting there.

Then please do, or point me towards answers. I've not heard great explanations for all of them.

[SirNitram]

And if visuals are to automatically be taken at face value, explain how:
<snip>

Those can all be explained. The only ones that can't be are that in TNG, on two seperate occasions, (don't remember the episodes) you see the film crew. Once, Deanna was talking to her mom in her quarters, and in the mirror you could see a camera boom and a part of a guy's head. On another occasion, in a supposedly empty room, a reflection on a crystal shows a guy with red hair and glasses sitting there.

I can explain it in-universe. TNG was pro-Federation propaganda filmed on-location.

[Metrion Cascade]

SirNitram wrote:

I can explain it in-universe. TNG was pro-Federation propaganda filmed on-location.

Which explains the sound and continuity (they foolishly used LCARS to keep track of their facts, all in numeric code), but not:

1.) Why we saw so many instances of the good guys breaking Fed law or disobeying orders.
2.) Why the effects were so bad.
3.) Why they don't kick ass in every battle. Or are they pacifists who get off on losing? Yes. Yes they are.

[Ender]

In TOS "Day of the Dove," Scotty knocks a Klingon unconscious by hitting him on the elbow. Strong SOB...

Presumably the Klingon had a previous injury to that elbow, and passed out from the pain when Scotty hit it.

Or he hit a pressure point and caused it.




MC, it comes down to this: Dialogue can be in error do to lies, incompetence, lack of all the facts, hyperbole, or emotional response.

Visuals will only be off due to a FX flub.


Given the problems available to the two, obviouly the visuals are superior because there is less to be wrong.

[Darth Wong]

The visuals vs dialogue issue never ends because too many people are ignorant of the following facts:

1) Visuals are objective. Dialogue is subjective.

2) Rational, objective conclusions can only be based on rational arguments from objective data.

3) VFX "errors" are easily distinguished from deliberate VFX choices.

4) Sci-fi TV and movie producers pay far, far more attention to visuals than they do to the details of technical dialogue.

Which of those facts do you care to dispute, MC?

[YT300000]

YT300000 wrote:

Those can all be explained. The only ones that can't be are that in TNG, on two seperate occasions, (don't remember the episodes) you see the film crew. Once, Deanna was talking to her mom in her quarters, and in the mirror you could see a camera boom and a part of a guy's head. On another occasion, in a supposedly empty room, a reflection on a crystal shows a guy with red hair and glasses sitting there.

Then please do, or point me towards answers. I've not heard great explanations for all of them.

They have been explained earlier in this thread, except for the Nemesis one (Italy pointing the other way). The two scenes were a few minutes apart, for some reason the station could have turned by then.

[Metrion Cascade]

YT300000wrote:

They have been explained earlier in this thread, except for the Nemesis one (Italy pointing the other way). The two scenes were a few minutes apart, for some reason the station could have turned by then.

Let's take a look at those explanations:

In TOS "Friday's Child," there's a space shot where the E-naught's registry number is backwards (mirrored). Maybe so you can read it in your rearview mirror.

No canon-friendly explanation attempted.

In TOS "The Doomsday Machine," stars are visible through the machine's neutronium hull in several shots. Clear neutronium? I like it, but...

Explained as an error on Spock's part, or hull reflections. Both satisfactory.

In TOS "Day of the Dove," Scotty knocks a Klingon unconscious by hitting him on the elbow. Strong SOB...

Explained as:
1.) Dumb Luck (TM) on Scotty's part - he hit a preexisting injury and the Klingon passed out. Okay, but this is on the order of Jerry Seinfeld trying the roommate switch and stumbling into a threesome opportunity. You'd think Scotty would also be able to defy the laws of physics and save the ship every time by sheer will...wait a minute...
2.) Scotty hit a pressure point. But in Star Trek 6, he didn't know that Klingons don't have tear ducts. Well, the one doesn't require the other. Okay. Satisfactory.

In TNG "Encounter at Farpoint," the Captain's Yacht is the source of a phaser beam.

Explanation:
The Captain's Yacht may not be canon. If any of the tech manuals depicting the Galaxy class are canon, then the Captain's Yacht is too. Satisfactory unless tech manuals are canon.

In TNG "The Dauphin," Dr. Pulaski calls security to sickbay and they show up in less than five seconds. Best response time I've ever seen from any security detail ever.

Explanation:
They were assigned to Anya's governess (Salia or something), and waiting outside. Satisfactory.

In TNG "The Host," the Trill have builtup foreheads, and their symbionts completely subdue the host personality. This as opposed to Jadzia Dax. A perfect example of the viewer having to extrapolate - say, that there are two humanoid races on the Trill homeworld, both compatible with symbionts. This in the absence of a "we don't like to talk about it" ala Worf's explanation of Klingon magic forehead ridges. Maybe it's the same thing that turned Klingon blood red after the events of ST6?

Explanations:
Trills are multiple races or altered their own foreheads. Satisfactory.
Klingons altered their own foreheads. Satisfactory.
Some environmental factor about Kronos One changed the crew's blood to pink. Satisfactory.

In TNG "In Theory," a female crewmember walks past LaForge around a corner and a scream is heard. But when LaForge goes to investigate, the woman (who has fallen halfway through the deck) is facing back the way she came. Guess she was able to turn 180 degress as she fell, so we could see how scared she was.

Explanation:
The woman turned around for some reason before she fell. Stretches canon, but doesn't contradict it. Satisfactory.

In TNG "Darmok," the forward photon torpedo tube fires a phaser beam.

Explanation:
The forward photon torpedo tube is also a phaser bank. Unsatisfactory.
The phaser banks carried by the Enterprise-D were all too wide for the same mechanism to be hidden inside the torpedo tube, and this placement makes no sense.

In TNG "The Game," the forward photon torpedo tube emits a tractor beam.

Explanation:
The forward torpedo tube is also a tractor beam emitter. This would be unsatisfactory, but tractor beam emitters are small enough that the beam may only appear to come from the torpedo tube, but actually come from just above or below it.

In TNG "The Next Phase," phased people can run and breathe and hear each other and sit in chairs and...

Discussed 'at length' elsewhere on SDnet. I'll look for this.

In "The Final Frontier," the turbolift shaft that Spock, Kirk, and McCoy use to evade Sybok's cronies is much wider than any turbolift, and over 80 decks high according to the numbering, which increases and actually decreases again as they keep flying upward.

No canon-friendly explanation attempted.

And yes, they DID go to the center of the Galaxy. Perhaps via a "warp highway" that's no longer there, but they did go. It doesn't matter that it looks wrong, any more than we can ignore Khan based on the fact that the Eugenics Wars haven't happened. It's fiction. Apparently the galactic core simply looks different in Trek.

Explanation:
Warp highway that no longer exists, or the "great barrier" is hundreds/thousands of lightyears across, such that it is barely beyond Federation space's 23rd century borders. The former is (barely) satisfactory. The latter is unsatisfactory - such a huge barrier wouldn't even colloquially be referred to as being at the center of the galaxy.

In "Generations," the Veridian sun dims seconds after Soran's probe is launched. I'll not even comment on how fast the probe must be, but what happened to the speed of light?

Explanation:
Federation "FTL" sensors recorded the image. This is not canonically stated, and would contradict the visible lack of a Starfleet officer on the platform from which the shot appeared to be taken. Picard could not have placed a recording device on the platform, as he could not reach it in the timeline that saw Veridian's destruction. Assuming the shot is actually from a slightly different location than the platform, this would still require another person or recording device. A person would have helped Picard. A device being beamed down is a possibility.

EXCEPT - all canon-friendly references to a Federation recording device become impossible in light of the fact that this timeline is erased (presumably with any recordings of it) by Picard and Kirk. Picard did remember both timelines, and could therefore have ordered a reenactment. He or the production crew could have made a mistake in depicting the launch. Convoluted as hell, and would likely require that all of Star Trek is in-universe footage, which is impossible. Certain timelines were completely erased. And other events that would not merit reenactment take place in locations with no Federation recording devices or sensors present.

SirNitram's amusing supposition that TNG was Federation propaganda runs into problems in light of this.

TNG "Cause and Effect" and VOY "Year of Hell" cannot be Federation footage OR reenactments based on eyewitness observations. Both involve timelines that were erased with no chance of recordings or memories surviving the erasures. "All Good Things" involved multiple timelines being viewed by Picard, but only his consciousness moved between them. He could not take recordings with him. But he could retell the story. Star Trek: First Contact may be Fed-filmed or generated from Fed sensor readings, as the Enterprise-E was protected from the changes in the timeline by a "temporal wake."

TNG "Clues" can still be Federation footage if Data transferred his memories of the Paxans to B4, which is unlikely.

TNG "Thine Own Self" can't be Federation footage or Data's retelling, since he doesn't remember any of it.

VOY "Unforgettable" is probably not footage (Kellen supposedly erased all computer references to her from Voyager's computer with a virus), and it is highly unlikely that Chakotay's written memoir was complete enough for such a detailed reenactment.

Various people have also had scenes that ended in their deaths and the destruction of their ships (presumably with any recordings): Capt. Ransom of the Nova, Lt. Cmdr. Data, Khan Noonien Singh, Lursa and B'etor, General Chang.

Another possibility, SirNitram, that may span every timeline, is that Q recorded everything. But if this were the case, there would be no inexplicable production mistakes.

In "First Contact," sparks that fly in the deflector dish scene immediately fall back towards the dish. Does it have external gravity that affects sparks but not drones or its own components?

Explanation:
An electromagnetic field that drew the sparks back to the hull. Unlikely (the acceleration looks wrong and some of the sparks bounce), but not impossible.

In "Nemesis," the Enterprise is facing east in the shot (Italy is in the background) just before Picard's last conversation with B4. In the next space shot, the Enterprise is facing west. Did they have to turn it around so the repair peeps could reach the other side? Or maybe Italy was upside down and they fixed it.

Explanation:
The shots could easily be hours or days apart, allowing the rotation of the drydock for one reason or another. Satisfactory.



Darth Wong wrote:

The visuals vs dialogue issue never ends because too many people are ignorant of the following facts:

1) Visuals are objective. Dialogue is subjective.

Inarguable.

2) Rational, objective conclusions can only be based on rational arguments from objective data.

Also inarguable.

3) VFX "errors" are easily distinguished from deliberate VFX choices.

This ignores the limitations of FX technology and assumes that things can always be depicted as the creators wish. Certain things (especially in TOS) were depicted not as they were imagined, but as the FX techniques of the time allowed. Sometimes the best FX choice available still forced flaws on the image. And does this mean we shouldn't try and explain the FX errors canonically?

4) Sci-fi TV and movie producers pay far, far more attention to visuals than they do to the details of technical dialogue.

This is obviously true of Trek and Wars, so I'll not look for some moot example of someone taking a different approach to a production.

[Metrion Cascade]

Wait a minute. Q wouldn't make mistakes with the visuals. But he could deliberately fuck with our heads and put in mistakes for us to obsess over.

Wow. A single canon-friendly explanation for every single inconsistency in Trek. It's all Q's retelling and he likes to fuck with us.

[Isolder74]

[joke mode]Well it take me about 2-3 hours to properly DRAW a phaser [/joke mode]

On the serious side when 6 feringi beam over into the Enterprise in Rascals They were able to take over the Enterprise without any opposition and Worf missed a Feringi by a mile! Federation troops capabilities for maintaining ship's security are laughable!

[YT300000]

Metrion Cascade: I didn't reply to the ones you label satisfactory.

In TOS "Friday's Child," there's a space shot where the E-naught's registry number is backwards (mirrored). Maybe so you can read it in your rearview mirror.

No canon-friendly explanation attempted.

I haven't seen the episode, and can't comment on it.

In TNG "Darmok," the forward photon torpedo tube fires a phaser beam.

Explanation:
The forward photon torpedo tube is also a phaser bank. Unsatisfactory.
The phaser banks carried by the Enterprise-D were all too wide for the same mechanism to be hidden inside the torpedo tube, and this placement makes no sense.

Hurried refit. While doing repairs to the damaged (off-screen) tube at starbase ###, they stuck a phaser array in there, so that it isn't such a great loss. After the episode, the tube was fixed, and they were swapped back.

{quote="MC"]In "The Final Frontier," the turbolift shaft that Spock, Kirk, and McCoy use to evade Sybok's cronies is much wider than any turbolift, and over 80 decks high according to the numbering, which increases and actually decreases again as they keep flying upward.[/quote]

Width is irrelevant. We haven't seen every shaft on every ship, so the wider than any turbolift remark is invalid. It may be a cargo lift. As for the numbering, the deck numbering system does not have to be 1, 2, 3... it could be anything.

Galactic core: It wasn't really the centre of the galaxy, it was only called that.

As for all those examples of why it can't be propaganda. They don't work. Why? Well, we were able to make these episodes (primitive 21st century us), so why not people 300 years in the future? Making a TV series isn't that hard. The propaganda doesn't have to be based on actual events.

[Slartibartfast]

In TOS "Friday's Child," there's a space shot where the E-naught's registry number is backwards (mirrored). Maybe so you can read it in your rearview mirror.

No canon-friendly explanation attempted.

If you want an in-universe explanation, this will do: since in the future, somebody had to take that shot with a camera (gasp!), then the shot got mirrored just like it is with our own camera. This is not a FX fuckup: there are no weird extra-dimensional beings with microphones and stuff showing around.

No technobabble explanation required. We fucked up with the camera in the XX century, they fucked up with the camera in the XXIII-whatever century.

[Lord Poe]

I find this appeal to idiocy about refusing to accept visuals over dialogue laughably pathetic.

Cascade is jumping through more hoops than the "EU isn't canon" whores in an attempt to validate an insipid point.

[Metrion Cascade]

Lord Poe wrote:

I find this appeal to idiocy about refusing to accept visuals over dialogue laughably pathetic.

Cascade is jumping through more hoops than the "EU isn't canon" whores in an attempt to validate an insipid point.

Nice strawman. I never said anything about "dialogue over visuals." In fact I was quick to agree that Spock could have been wrong about the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. And there are places where the dialogue is hard to reconcile, but you have to stretch like hell to justify such a huge mistake or deliberate lie. Like the two episodes of "Voyager" in which it's stated that changing course is impossible at warp speed when we've been seeing and hearing of it done (including by Voyager) for thirty years. Irreconcilable, but there's no way in hell that Tom Paris was wrong about it, or that he and Janeway deliberately lied to each other (a totally unmotivated lie they'd both know to be a lie, that nobody above crewman would fall for). It's the equivalent of Picard one day saying he's captain of the Death Star with no reason to lie and no chance that he's made an honest mistake. Everyone agrees with him, then goes on calling the ship Enterprise. It just doesn't work. Unless as I propose, all of Trek was retold by Q (including the timelines the Federation no longer knows about), and he's fucking with us.

My point was that the visuals don't always mean exactly what you take them to mean the first time you see them. At first glance, it looks like we're seeing stars through the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. Or maybe we're seeing reflections off of the Machine's (painted or otherwise coated) neutronium hulll. Or maybe we're seeing stars through a hull that Spock erroneously believed to be neutronium, while it's actually a transparent material.

[Lord Poe]

Nice strawman.

No, it's a direct label on your position, no matter how much you want to dance around it.

I never said anything about "dialogue over visuals."

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003

A good example of why I don't trust visuals for determining anything's capabilities in sci-fi.

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003

And if visuals are to automatically be taken at face value, explain how:

I see a lot of sarcastic dismissal by you for those that use visuals to determine capabilities. And I see nothing by you other than this pathetic straw grasping that refutes this practice.

In fact I was quick to agree that Spock could have been wrong about the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. And there are places where the dialogue is hard to reconcile, but you have to stretch like hell to justify such a huge mistake or deliberate lie.

Only, it seems, if you don't like the result of the most obvious answer the visuals show us...

Like the two episodes of "Voyager" in which it's stated that changing course is impossible at warp speed when we've been seeing and hearing of it done (including by Voyager) for thirty years.

You may want to get your facts straight. They were talking about warp maneuvers, and the dangers to the ship if attempted. There's no contradiction.

Irreconcilable, but there's no way in hell that Tom Paris was wrong about it, or that he and Janeway deliberately lied to each other (a totally unmotivated lie they'd both know to be a lie, that nobody above crewman would fall for). It's the equivalent of Picard one day saying he's captain of the Death Star with no reason to lie and no chance that he's made an honest mistake. Everyone agrees with him, then goes on calling the ship Enterprise. It just doesn't work. Unless as I propose, all of Trek was retold by Q (including the timelines the Federation no longer knows about), and he's fucking with us.

You're proceeding from a flawed premise. Again, research your facts before you presume to preach. Your stance falls irretrievably when you take into account the very existence of "Star Trek Enterprise", the ship, and its tech, when you compare it to Spock's assesment of technology 100 years before TOS in "Balance of Terror."

My point was that the visuals don't always mean exactly what you take them to mean the first time you see them. At first glance, it looks like we're seeing stars through the Doomsday Machine's neutronium hull. Or maybe we're seeing reflections off of the Machine's (painted or otherwise coated) neutronium hulll. Or maybe we're seeing stars through a hull that Spock erroneously believed to be neutronium, while it's actually a transparent material.

You know what? Pick a fucking stance and stick with it. There's nothing more annoying in these types of debates than a politician. You broughtr up the whole "Doomsday Machine" argument to criticize visual examples as evidence.

[Darth Wong]

And Metrion Cascade has just found out the hard way why we don't allow editing in this forum.

[Metrion Cascade]

Lord Poe wrote:

You know what? Pick a fucking stance and stick with it. There's nothing more annoying in these types of debates than a politician. You broughtr up the whole "Doomsday Machine" argument to criticize visual examples as evidence.

I don't have to do that. If I posit an idea, present it for criticism, and then it's disproven or evidence is presented that forces me to change my stance, I'll do that. What sort of idiot keeps defending something they're no longer convinced is true? It's like saying that if I'm a creationist, I can't learn or change my mind no matter how much the evidence for evolution requires it.

I conceded on several points (and listed why I was forced to concede), and changed my opinion to fit the evidence. My initial statement that visuals are useless was extreme, and as I first presented it indefensible. So instead of smacking my head against a wall, I admitted that I was wrong and conveniently listed why I was wrong. And I changed my mind. As many on this thread have demonstrated, it is not that the visuals are useless, but that the interpretation of them may have to be stretched to reconcile them with seemingly contradictory information. I conceded my original statement and agreed with them.

[Slartibartfast]

Maybe you should be more clear when you concede, instead of replying "yes, but", "maybe, but", "but this", "but that".

Everyone always has a big but.

[YT300000]

Maybe you should be more clear when you concede, instead of replying "yes, but", "maybe, but", "but this", "but that".

Everyone always has a big but.

Especially Hamel.

[aerius]

Well, I have to say that this is the most hilarious debate I've read in a long time. The entertainment value is definitely up there.