I Just Don't Get That!
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
I Just Don't Get That!
I watched Star Trek: Generations a while back and there’s a couple of things I just don’t get:
The first relates to a scene where the Enterprise is critically damaged and the crew are forced to perform a Saucer Separation followed by a crash landing. As per usual, the crew were catapulting around the bridge like pinballs, with random bodies flopping over consoles and flailing into walls. This seems all well and good, but the missus pointed out that with all their technology not one of the crew was wearing a seatbelt. This I think is a perfectly solid observation. If the Enterprise can accelerate to warp speed instantaneously without pancaking its inhabitants, surely the ship would be fitted with some form of safety measure in the unlikely event of a crash landing. I would think at the least some form of anti-gravity system. If, of course, this was disabled by a system’s malfunction, a manual backup system would surely come into play. Even an airbag popping out of a console or a nice, big, round, curtain airbag extending from the inner walls of the ship would be preferable to nothing at all.
The second thing I didn’t quite understand is why the crew had to dress up to go into the holodeck. You have a room which can create perfectly realistic and reactive 3D simulations, yet it can’t superimpose clothing onto the uniforms of the crew. It seems impractical that the crew would have the time to dress up and down – in this instance in naval attire – to go in and out of a simulator. The majority of those in the holodeck were senior officers – what if the Enterprise came under attack? It certainly wouldn’t be easy running around the ship with a cutlass flapping round your thigh!
Okay, the Star Trek universe is a fictional one but it’s also one which prides itself on the details. If you’ve advanced sufficiently to affect the very workings of spacetime then would it make sense for the technology to be so lacking in other areas? I mean we have airbags today!
So not wanting to put Star Trek solely under the microscope, have you ever watched a movie and thought, I just don’t get that?
The first relates to a scene where the Enterprise is critically damaged and the crew are forced to perform a Saucer Separation followed by a crash landing. As per usual, the crew were catapulting around the bridge like pinballs, with random bodies flopping over consoles and flailing into walls. This seems all well and good, but the missus pointed out that with all their technology not one of the crew was wearing a seatbelt. This I think is a perfectly solid observation. If the Enterprise can accelerate to warp speed instantaneously without pancaking its inhabitants, surely the ship would be fitted with some form of safety measure in the unlikely event of a crash landing. I would think at the least some form of anti-gravity system. If, of course, this was disabled by a system’s malfunction, a manual backup system would surely come into play. Even an airbag popping out of a console or a nice, big, round, curtain airbag extending from the inner walls of the ship would be preferable to nothing at all.
The second thing I didn’t quite understand is why the crew had to dress up to go into the holodeck. You have a room which can create perfectly realistic and reactive 3D simulations, yet it can’t superimpose clothing onto the uniforms of the crew. It seems impractical that the crew would have the time to dress up and down – in this instance in naval attire – to go in and out of a simulator. The majority of those in the holodeck were senior officers – what if the Enterprise came under attack? It certainly wouldn’t be easy running around the ship with a cutlass flapping round your thigh!
Okay, the Star Trek universe is a fictional one but it’s also one which prides itself on the details. If you’ve advanced sufficiently to affect the very workings of spacetime then would it make sense for the technology to be so lacking in other areas? I mean we have airbags today!
So not wanting to put Star Trek solely under the microscope, have you ever watched a movie and thought, I just don’t get that?
Guest- Guest
Re: I Just Don't Get That!
For me, that's probably the case with any film directed by David Lynch...
Skydriver- Posts : 1089
Join date : 2011-02-03
Re: I Just Don't Get That!
Halfway through Vanilla Sky, I remember saying to the missus.... " Just what the hell is going on!?"
Breadvan- Posts : 2798
Join date : 2011-05-23
Location : Swansea & Cardiff
Similar topics
» ADR i just dont get it / Who dont you get ?
» You dont know what you have until its gone
» 606 - the return?
» What I Dont Get Is...
» Dont believe the hype
» You dont know what you have until its gone
» 606 - the return?
» What I Dont Get Is...
» Dont believe the hype
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum