or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Star Trek Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Star Trek Thread - Page 58

post #2851 of 4088

How is it that death is still a thing in the 24th century?

 

I don't mean how is it that people get phasered to death, I mean, how is it that any human has to worry about dying of old age? Given the technology on the show, it seems like mortality as a concept should be functionally extinct for most people. Any time they wanted a character to contract a deadly illness, it always had to be some incredibly rare genetic defect or odd space bug. That's because "heart failure" "cancer" ETC no longer seem to be serious medical problems in the world of trek. 

 

If you look at what causes people to die as they get old, the various ways the human body breaks down or becomes susceptible to old age illnesses, none of those health concerns exist in the 24th century. People in Trek should be living hundreds if not thousands of years, and yet no one ever really seems to talk about that. I was watching an episode of TNG last night where a female admiral was talking about how she had no time to waste since she was now 100 years old. This part was played by a woman in her 60s. Let's assume then that most people in Trek live to be 150 or so, based on that actress' real age and the age of her character.

 

How come people can't live for millenia on end in Trek? Can someone with some tech knowledge of the show explain it? 

post #2852 of 4088

I'm guessing that the science exists to slow down the aging process, not stop it completely.

 

McCoy was in "Encounter at Farpoint" where Data says that he's 137 yrs old. And he looks pretty damn old.

 

IIRC, Vulcans live to 200 +/-

 

This reminded me of one of the TNG episodes that dealt with age as big ethical/moral issue. "Half a Life"

 

post #2853 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Sort of addressed in the episode "Who Watches the Watchers" when Picard takes a Mintakan woman to sick bay to show her that humans are not Gods, as someone in sick bay dies.

Nuria: "You do have limits. You are not masters of life and death."
Picard: "No, we are not. We can cure many diseases and we can repair injuries, we can even extend life. But for all our knowledge, all our advances, we are just as mortal as you are. We're just as powerless to prevent the inevitable."
post #2854 of 4088

Also, life extension would probably come with a whole host of ailments that humans who don't live to 150 would have trouble envisioning, simply because no one lives long enough for them to develop. There's probably a game of medical whack-a-mole as new syndromes develop for every few years of life extension.

post #2855 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Sort of addressed in the episode "Who Watches the Watchers" when Picard takes a Mintakan woman to sick bay to show her that humans are not Gods, as someone in sick bay dies.

Nuria: "You do have limits. You are not masters of life and death."
Picard: "No, we are not. We can cure many diseases and we can repair injuries, we can even extend life. But for all our knowledge, all our advances, we are just as mortal as you are. We're just as powerless to prevent the inevitable."

That is actually the episode that got me thinking about all this. I get what Picard was saying, but the person who died was someone who had been injured and was then unable to receive medical attention in a timely manner.

I had to wonder just how far one could "extend life" in the 24th century. Based on my knowledge of the show's tech (more extensive than the average non Trekkie, but by no means am I an expert) it seemed like if you ate healthy and were careful to avoid accidents, you should pretty much be able to live forever. Even if you came down with a deadly desease, you could simply freeze yourself and wake up unfrozen centuries later with your memories intact and the cure at hand (as we see in the final episode of the first season of TNG).

I do like Ben's answer though that new complications can crop up the older you get, so the elderly in Trek might be dealing with a host of conditions we can't yet imagine.
post #2856 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Yup, and while Picard showed someone who died of injuries his point stood that even though they can extend life there's always an end, still making them mortal. It's also kinda brought up again in GENERATIONS when Picard talks about mortality with Soran.

As far as I know you can live up to 150, not counting those who got frozen, got put in a transporter buffer, nexus, ect. Still, even those in their 80s get diseases such as Admiral Jameson in "Too Short a Season", who even used a drug to rejuvenate his body back to youth so he could accomplish a mission but of course that came with a price.

Speaking of that episode, it was originally drafted to feature Kirk and it would have been a sequel to the TOS episode "A Private Little War" where Kirk tries to right a wrong with the people he gave weapons to that resulted in a disastrous war that lasted even longer than expected. That's why you have the whole subplot with the youth drug so that as the episode progressed Shatner would wear less and less aging make-up and look more like his normal self. That's also why one-time TOS guest Michael Pataki was cast as a sort of nod to the old series. However by that point of the show most of the TOS cast were against TNG especially Shatner, who didn't want to return to TV Trek after doing movies. So the episode was rewritten, changing Kirk to Jameson (get it? get it?) and for whatever reason they kept the youth drug anyway, oddly.
post #2857 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Grimm View Post

Also, life extension would probably come with a whole host of ailments that humans who don't live to 150 would have trouble envisioning, simply because no one lives long enough for them to develop. There's probably a game of medical whack-a-mole as new syndromes develop for every few years of life extension.

 

This is the likeliest explanation, as that's pretty much what Alzheimer's disease is today.

post #2858 of 4088

Meant to post this awhile back...

 

Star Trek: Enterprise - Season One hits Blu-ray on March 26th

 

 

Also, Star Trek: TNG - Season Three will likely arrive sometime in May.

post #2859 of 4088
Thread Starter 
I'd get that just for the special features that Robert Meyer Burnett produced. He's done a great job so far on TNG and from what I understand there's a lot of candor, complaints about what a pain it was to work under UPN, the compromises, ect. Apparently Berman & Braga had something very different in mind for what ENTERPRISE, where the first season would be mostly set on Earth and it would lead up to the launching of the Enterprise NX-01 for the season finale. Basically THE RIGHT STUFF of STAR TREK, which is how I actually felt it should have been from the beginning and then the following seasons would be about humans finding their niche in the galaxy, being the new kids in town kind of deal before there was a Federation. Could easily follow-up with what we actually got in S4.

Of course, even if Berman & Braga got what they wanted would it be any damn good? Maybe not, but it would have been a hell of a lot more interesting to check out than a lot of the rehashed stories we got in S1/S2.
post #2860 of 4088

I wonder how sales are on these sets.  They have to be at least doing decently enough for Wal-Mart to continuously stock them.  The store around here burns through titles quick do to the small size of the section....and yet they still carry both TNG sets.

post #2861 of 4088

I watched the first two and a half seasons of TNG late last year and took a break for two months....mostly out of necessity due to moving and general holiday chaos.  At this point, I think I'll hold off on finishing Season Three until the Blu comes out, restart the season, and then just keep pace with the season releases from there on out.  Same goes for Enterprise, which I have never seen a single frame of.  With that in mind, I think I might finally dive into DS9.  I know I caught a few episodes back in the day, but I remember nothing about them.  This will be a fresh start.  I'll slowly plow through it and then brave Voyager afterwards.

 

Tonight is the night.  Emissary, I welcome you with open arms...

post #2862 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Enjoy "Emissary". Over the years it's grown as my personal favorite Trek pilot over "The Cage" (in fact Sisko's arc somewhat mirror's Pike's, though I think the former is handled better).

Apparently the TNG blus are selling well enough that CBS is already interested in restoring DS9 and VOY for blu, but nothing is greenlit yet cause they wanna see how this keeps up with further releases. Sooner or later they'll all be available in HD because of the fact that the STAR TREK brand name always sells, especially with its fan base.
post #2863 of 4088

I doubt they'll sink as much money for restoration in DS9 and Voyager simply because they are not as well known as the TOS and TNG. Those first two series are the crown jewels of the catalogue I'm sure in terms of sales and popularity.

post #2864 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Wouldn't underestimate, it's a given they won't get the same attention as the other two, but given they are Trek, CBS will likely see this is an opportunity to introduce to them to newer audiences since the idea is to eventually put them out for HD syndication much like they did with TOS in 2006, TNG should get that later once there are enough episodes finished to put on air.
post #2865 of 4088

I wonder if restoration on DS9 and VOYAGER will be easier or more difficult than TNG.

 

The early seasons of DS9 were produced much the same was as TNG at that point, with practical models shot on film.  But in the later seasons when Foundation Imaging got involved [after B5 wrapped], and CGI started to play a more integral role in the series- things could get a bit more challenging.  While the program Foundation used [Lightwave3D] is still out in the marketplace, there are any number of challenges associated with pulling up nearly 20 year old files.  Everything would have to be re-rendered from scratch, and in many cases the texture maps originally used on the models might not hold up to HD scrutiny.  So all those elements would have to be re-created as well.  Good thing is that if Foundation HAS comprehensive backups, then little would have to be "recreated". It could be really easy, but it could also be fraught with problems.

post #2866 of 4088

It has not been unheard of for Trek to turn to the fan community for high-quality reproductions of its assets.

post #2867 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Yup, I'm curious about how the CGI stuff will be handled too in the later seasons of DS9. So far for TNG the only thing they had to recreate from scratch for CGI was the crystal entity in "Datalore", as the original files for that was lost long ago. Won't have to be worried much since CGI was rarely used on the show, and here's the only time they ever had a CGI Enterprise on the whole how:



I don't expect to see that on blu.
post #2868 of 4088

CG Enterprise in TNG?  Is that really from the original broadcast?  I thought that was a low-resolution screengrab from the remastered version.

post #2869 of 4088
Thread Starter 
It's a screengrab from the episode "The Ensigns of Command" which aired in 1989. It's only a few seconds and that's the only time there was ever a CGI Enterprise-D on the show. For the remastered version they'll likely use a more recent CGI Enterprise model for that shot to live up to HD.
post #2870 of 4088

Being a curious person- I decided to do some digging.  It seems like this thread from the Trek BBS is ground-zero for this discussion.

 

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=85653&page=8

 

One guy claimed that it was CG cause he read it somewhere, a majority of others claimed it wasn't- just a lightly detailed model.  The original poster couldn't come up with a source, so I don't think it's definitive.

 

 

I've watch the clip a few times on Netflix and I'm not convinced it CG.  I think people forget just how bad CG was in the late 80s.  I think it would stick out WAY more than it does.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's an intriguing mystery...

post #2871 of 4088
Thread Starter 
No worries, I'll have to say I stand corrected because trevanian for me is the go to guy when it comes background info on Trek.
post #2872 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

Being a curious person- I decided to do some digging.  It seems like this thread from the Trek BBS is ground-zero for this discussion.

 

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=85653&page=8

 

One guy claimed that it was CG cause he read it somewhere, a majority of others claimed it wasn't- just a lightly detailed model.  The original poster couldn't come up with a source, so I don't think it's definitive.

 

 

I've watch the clip a few times on Netflix and I'm not convinced it CG.  I think people forget just how bad CG was in the late 80s.  I think it would stick out WAY more than it does.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, it's an intriguing mystery...

You can see the edged out curves on the ship.

post #2873 of 4088
Thread Starter 
If that is the 2 foot model instead of CGI then that edging effect might just be the result of interlacing as the show was produced on 480i video.
post #2874 of 4088

Yeah, there's just not enough detail at 480i to make any determination.  It's more likely to be jaggys due to aliasing.

post #2875 of 4088
On my first ever complete viewing of DS9, I just got to the point where Sisko gets his goatee, and I know Worf's arrival is just around the corner. I'm excited.
post #2876 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post
 Good thing is that if Foundation HAS comprehensive backups, then little would have to be "recreated". It could be really easy, but it could also be fraught with problems.

Foundation Imaging went under in 2002 and all of their assets were sold off. It's unlikely that anybody has comprehensive back-ups.

post #2877 of 4088
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

On my first ever complete viewing of DS9, I just got to the point where Sisko gets his goatee, and I know Worf's arrival is just around the corner. I'm excited.
Oh yeah, shit gets REAL.
post #2878 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post

Foundation Imaging went under in 2002 and all of their assets were sold off. It's unlikely that anybody has comprehensive back-ups.

 

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  It would be extremely surprising to me if on a large studio production like Star Trek, that suppliers like Foundation weren't contractually obligated to supply copies of all relevant scene, object, texture, and render files to Paramount.

post #2879 of 4088
Quark is played by the same actor who voiced Andrew Ryan in Bioshock!
post #2880 of 4088
I don't see why Dax couldn't be joined in the future if she got exiled. 50% of the Trill population can be joined. She could just put an ad on Craigslist for a new host and she'd have her pick of potential hosts to choose from. Who needs that symbiosis commission anyway? Just go outside of their system, problem solved.
post #2881 of 4088

ahem..."Quarkslist"

 

:)

post #2882 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

Quark is played by the same actor who voiced Andrew Ryan in Bioshock!

He also played Principal Snyder on Buffy.

post #2883 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydren View Post

He also played Principal Snyder on Buffy.


I read that but I never watched Buffy. I thought the Andrew Ryan connection was funny since Ryan's philosophy is so close to that of the Ferengi.

post #2884 of 4088

I've mentioned before how the Enterprise D was my favorite starship design from Trek, but now ever since I discovered that the original vision was compromised due to meddling from Roddenberry (I acknowledge that if anyone had the right to meddle it was him, except his changes seem to come from not understanding the philosophy behind the original design) I can't help but be annoyed with the fact the Enterprise D we got was flawed.

 

Check this out:

 

 

 

 

Originally the nacelles were designed to be smaller and compact, angled forward in line with the rest of the ship, so that the ship would have a sense of forward momentum. Roddenberry thought that unless the nacelles were larger, the ship would appear slow, a grave mistake I think. The original D design looks so much more high tech and advanced, and is much easier on the eyes since it's a unified design and not a ship where the engines were made larger for no good reason.

 

And I always thought the saucer separation was a bit underwhelming since the hull section looks pretty ugly all on it's own, so why did Roddenberry nix this much better, more badass original design?

 

post #2885 of 4088

Considering how little saucer separation ending up being used in the scope of the series (mostly ignored really), it doesn't bother me.

post #2886 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

Considering how little saucer separation ending up being used in the scope of the series (mostly ignored really), it doesn't bother me.


Yes but the problem of the oversized nacelles is present in literally every shot ever of the Enterprise D. The ship would have photographed much better if it had had nacelles of the proper length for that design.

post #2887 of 4088
I watched the two-parter "Chain of Command" last night, where Ronny Cox is made captain of the Enterprise to negotiate with the Cardassians. Meanwhile, Picard is sent on a secret mission to destroy a Cardassian WMD, but he's captured and tortured by Cardassian David Warner.

Great couple of episodes. I'd meant to only watch the first ep and go to bed, but I had to see how it turned out.
post #2888 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradito View Post


Great couple of episodes. I'd meant to only watch the first ep and go to bed, but I had to see how it turned out.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
There were four lights!

It is easily in my top three episodes, maybe the top one or two slot.
post #2889 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post


Yes but the problem of the oversized nacelles is present in literally every shot ever of the Enterprise D. The ship would have photographed much better if it had had nacelles of the proper length for that design.

 

I see the logic in what the designer was going for, but after so many years I'm afraid I can't see what they ended up going with as "wrong" per se.  If anything, the problem I see with the original design is that it almost seems too aggressive in posture, in the same way as the Bird of Prey.

I could say I like the little bit of balance extending the nacelles to the stern provides (in general I'm a much bigger fan of the movie era Enterprise), but again that could just be decades of familiarity talking.

post #2890 of 4088
The original version looks oddly front heavy, I think they made the right call.
post #2891 of 4088

Disagree pretty strongly with you on this one Hartford.  The changes make solid aesthetic and narrative sense.  Putting the bridge back adds familiarity, a sense of scale, and place to the ship and the action.

 

Rodenberry's justification for extending the nacelles makes plenty of sense as well. 

post #2892 of 4088

I can respect that there is disagreement with my take. I much prefer the shorter design, I think it has elegant lines and looks more high tech, but to each their own.

post #2893 of 4088
Thread Starter 
You gotta admit, for 1987 television it was pretty awesome to see moving figures in the observation lounge as the ship passes by.
post #2894 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I can respect that there is disagreement with my take. I much prefer the shorter design, I think it has elegant lines and looks more high tech, but to each their own.

 

The cleaner version is certainly more high tech looking.  To much for my taste though, it's sort of impersonal.

post #2895 of 4088

Like the looks of the proposed separated Saucer + Battle ship design: prefer the larger Nacelles. That's all I got.

post #2896 of 4088

Something that's always fascinated me was the Captain's Yacht.  It was designed into the Enterprise D, used in several scripts, but the budget never allowed for it, so it was always dropped.

 

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Captain's_yacht

 

It finally showed up with Insurrection.

post #2897 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber View Post

Something that's always fascinated me was the Captain's Yacht.  It was designed into the Enterprise D, used in several scripts, but the budget never allowed for it, so it was always dropped.

 

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Captain's_yacht

 

It finally showed up with Insurrection.

 

It was, but we never see it leave the ship or dock with the ship, so I had assumed it was just a different shuttle type till I read something on the internet. As far as budgeting, I never understood why those decisions were never justified in the long haul. Sure, it may be super expensive here, but we can parlay this set and fx cost across the next two seasons. But that requires them to have the scripts written long before the season starts.

 

 

I am amazed that any show is produced without having all the episodes of a season written. From budgeting, to creation, to filming, knowing where you are going, as little as a month in advance, can change acting choices or set design. In the great Season 5 episode where the founder infiltrates DS9, and has apparently been there a couple of episodes, the actor didn't know this till they filmed the reveal. There were a number of scenes he would have played differently had he known.  What if there is a writer's strike in the middle of a season?  Get those things in the can, then see what happens. You can always adjust a script for an actor, or for cost. It's like putting on a play that you will recieve the script for Act III during Act II. 

post #2898 of 4088

I just got up to season 5 on my complete DS9 watch through. 

post #2899 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Harford View Post

I just got up to season 5 on my complete DS9 watch through. 


I know, which is why I have tried to be as vague as possible making the point. Spot the Dominion spy :D

post #2900 of 4088
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTyres View Post


I know, which is why I have tried to be as vague as possible making the point. Spot the Dominion spy :D

Ha, I am going to have to steer clear of this thread till I've wrapped up DS9! Thanks for making the effort though.

 

I can't get the spoiler tags to work but I was sure Kassidy Yates was aligned with a different faction than was ultimately revealed. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Star Trek Thread