Nothing wrong with that
Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
- clearspira
- Overlord
- Posts: 5645
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:51 pm
-
- Captain
- Posts: 2948
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:43 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
I figured the hull plating was a powered layer on the outside of the hull, with the plating being used to strengthen the hull or to deflect, divert, disperse, or some other word starting with a d, energy weapon fire. And that "hull plating at 52%" meant that the plating system has taken damage and is at a little more than half its optimal effectiveness.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:37 pmYeah but... why is the metal now ''softer'' thanks to the system having less power? What does that actually mean in practical terms? I'm with Chuck. It seems damn contrived that the hull could take enough damage to become ''soft'' as in ''have a whole system that is weaved into the hull break down to the point that it no longer works'' but still have the hull otherwise be perfectly fine.Zatman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:16 am One nitpicky thing I disagree with is in Broken Bow, Chuck makes a big deal about the crew saying "hull plating offline" in that hull plating is a physical thing and being "offline" means "broken." I disagree, while yes, that is by definition what that phrasing means, throughout Enterprise, I always took it as a shorthand for the hull plating polarization system. Saying that would be quite a mouthful, and I don't know another way to say that that's much better; "polarization" is clunky when said rapidly in the heat of battle, "hardening system" might be ok. But the overall point is that they're clearly referring to the underlying system that supplies power to maintain the hull hardness, Chuck even makes reference to such a system. I know, it's a little contrived in order to have the historical Trek/scifi trope of shields progressively dropping, but it's also not entirely unrealistic (can I use that word for referring to scifi?) to have a powered system taking energy blasts, to become progressively less effective.
Same with the percentages. What you are actually saying here is ''the hull is now 52% soft''. That doesn't mean anything. The hull under such a system should be ''hard, soft, broken'', with ''soft'' being something that realistically should be true only whilst in ''ready status'' away from battle.
Now... if the hull wasn't becoming ''hard'' but was rather being surrounded by a force field then suddenly all of the problems go away. It is a system more primitive than a deflector shield which fits the era, we know that they in fact have force field tech from the episode with the cum creature, and you can apply energy percentages to it. But that is not what is happening.
Just my headcanon.
- TheStarWarsTrek
- Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:35 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
For the ROTJ review Chuck talks about how he likes the original version of the Sarlaac as opposed to the Special Edition version with the beak, saying that the original is almost Lovecraftian since you can't see what the mouth is attached to. I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer the special edition version. The original . . . well it looks like our heroes are going to be shoved into a bottomless pit. Sure the pit has teeth, and we see tentacles grab Lando and the alien mooks, but it never really felt alive to me. IMO seeing the beak snap at them blindly and hearing it screech makes it more alive and more clear that our heroes are being fed to a wild animal. And this might be reading too much into it, but IMO the beak makes me think of a Venus Flytrap, and drives home that the Sarlaac is a kind of plant/animal hybrid. EU authors latter made cross section drawings of the inside of a Sarlaac that really draw upon this idea.
- Yukaphile
- Overlord
- Posts: 8778
- Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
- Location: Rabid Posting World
- Contact:
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
I love the Special Edition too. It comes off as too nitpicky from the man who said we need to rein that in. Not that I mind, of course, we're all speculative fiction or even anime nerds, but even so, it's good to be aware of this.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
You're thinking about it the wrong way. While what you say is technically correct, look at it like this. If you have a long metal bar you and a buddy are holding up from both ends (let's say a 6ft long 1-inch diameter rod), it's probably fairly rigid and can hold its shape. However, if someone comes and sits on it, it will deform. But what if instead of simply holding it, you instead pulled outwards. Now when someone sits on it, it deforms less (or not at all if you're both Superman-strong maybe). That takes effort by you and your buddy. Now if a person stays sitting on it, eventually you'll start getting tired and lose the energy to keep its shape and it will deform just as it would with just support and no effort. If someone jumps on it, you'll tire out much faster or if someone heavy enough jumps on it, you'll simply be unable to keep pulling on it. That's how I imagine the hull polarization to be, it applies a constant energy to keep the hull more rigid during times when an outside force is expected, and if it's stressed, it can be pushed past its ability to maintain rigidity. It may even literally be pulling on the hull plates, think polarization by an electric charge to literally apply a force in tension across the hull as you and your buddy in the above example do.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:37 pm Yeah but... why is the metal now ''softer'' thanks to the system having less power? What does that actually mean in practical terms? I'm with Chuck. It seems damn contrived that the hull could take enough damage to become ''soft'' as in ''have a whole system that is weaved into the hull break down to the point that it no longer works'' but still have the hull otherwise be perfectly fine.
Same with the percentages. What you are actually saying here is ''the hull is now 52% soft''. That doesn't mean anything. The hull under such a system should be ''hard, soft, broken'', with ''soft'' being something that realistically should be true only whilst in ''ready status'' away from battle.
Now... if the hull wasn't becoming ''hard'' but was rather being surrounded by a force field then suddenly all of the problems go away. It is a system more primitive than a deflector shield which fits the era, we know that they in fact have force field tech from the episode with the cum creature, and you can apply energy percentages to it. But that is not what is happening.
- TheStarWarsTrek
- Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:35 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
Not really a "disagreement", but I'll put it here anyways. In the review of "Magicks of Megas-tu", the god like beings who were accused of being witches in Salem say that they were burned. Chuck correctly points out that the people accused of witchcraft in America were not burned. Paraphrasing, he says that the whole "Salem is famous for witches, witches are burned at the stake, so real witches with real powers were burned in Salem" is typical of Gene Roddenberry's reasoning. It may very well have been Gene's doing, but I've seen this misconception pop up in fiction about as often as the "10% of your brain" myth. So I wouldn't really say that reasoning is exclusive to Gene.
- CrypticMirror
- Captain
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:15 am
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
Yeah, didn't even Bewitched -the show about witches- say that Salem did witch burnings? I think it was just a pop culture assumption at that point, it was even a plot point in the 1942 movie "I Married a Witch" that Bewitched was partially based on. The perception really didn't begin to change until the internet came along so someone could say "Well, actually..." whenever it popped up.TheStarWarsTrek wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:22 am Not really a "disagreement", but I'll put it here anyways. In the review of "Magicks of Megas-tu", the god like beings who were accused of being witches in Salem say that they were burned. Chuck correctly points out that the people accused of witchcraft in America were not burned. Paraphrasing, he says that the whole "Salem is famous for witches, witches are burned at the stake, so real witches with real powers were burned in Salem" is typical of Gene Roddenberry's reasoning. It may very well have been Gene's doing, but I've seen this misconception pop up in fiction about as often as the "10% of your brain" myth. So I wouldn't really say that reasoning is exclusive to Gene.
-
- Officer
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:32 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
I think it’s probably closer to capacitor systems, like the phaser banks being able to be ‘run dry’. They have a large power surplus when not in combat, which they use to charge weapons and batteries, and as that energy runs out, they need to shift power around - they don’t have the sheer power generation capability of the TNG or even TOS era, so the batteries are only given whatever’s left after weapons and propulsion.Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 6:22 pmI figured the hull plating was a powered layer on the outside of the hull, with the plating being used to strengthen the hull or to deflect, divert, disperse, or some other word starting with a d, energy weapon fire. And that "hull plating at 52%" meant that the plating system has taken damage and is at a little more than half its optimal effectiveness.clearspira wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:37 pmYeah but... why is the metal now ''softer'' thanks to the system having less power? What does that actually mean in practical terms? I'm with Chuck. It seems damn contrived that the hull could take enough damage to become ''soft'' as in ''have a whole system that is weaved into the hull break down to the point that it no longer works'' but still have the hull otherwise be perfectly fine.Zatman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:16 am One nitpicky thing I disagree with is in Broken Bow, Chuck makes a big deal about the crew saying "hull plating offline" in that hull plating is a physical thing and being "offline" means "broken." I disagree, while yes, that is by definition what that phrasing means, throughout Enterprise, I always took it as a shorthand for the hull plating polarization system. Saying that would be quite a mouthful, and I don't know another way to say that that's much better; "polarization" is clunky when said rapidly in the heat of battle, "hardening system" might be ok. But the overall point is that they're clearly referring to the underlying system that supplies power to maintain the hull hardness, Chuck even makes reference to such a system. I know, it's a little contrived in order to have the historical Trek/scifi trope of shields progressively dropping, but it's also not entirely unrealistic (can I use that word for referring to scifi?) to have a powered system taking energy blasts, to become progressively less effective.
Same with the percentages. What you are actually saying here is ''the hull is now 52% soft''. That doesn't mean anything. The hull under such a system should be ''hard, soft, broken'', with ''soft'' being something that realistically should be true only whilst in ''ready status'' away from battle.
Now... if the hull wasn't becoming ''hard'' but was rather being surrounded by a force field then suddenly all of the problems go away. It is a system more primitive than a deflector shield which fits the era, we know that they in fact have force field tech from the episode with the cum creature, and you can apply energy percentages to it. But that is not what is happening.
Just my headcanon.
Plus, as materials take damage, they lose efficiency. As said, which is also a quantifiable value between maximum and zero.
As for hull playing being down, that’s just the power source(es) being knocked offline from the plating polarizers or plating itself, because, being physical, there are physical connections that are likely getting severed or overloaded.
-
- Captain
- Posts: 627
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:38 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
Sure, and if it was a venus flytrap, and above ground, that makes sense. But it was buried in a pit in the sand.TheStarWarsTrek wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:43 pm For the ROTJ review Chuck talks about how he likes the original version of the Sarlaac as opposed to the Special Edition version with the beak, saying that the original is almost Lovecraftian since you can't see what the mouth is attached to. I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer the special edition version. The original . . . well it looks like our heroes are going to be shoved into a bottomless pit. Sure the pit has teeth, and we see tentacles grab Lando and the alien mooks, but it never really felt alive to me. IMO seeing the beak snap at them blindly and hearing it screech makes it more alive and more clear that our heroes are being fed to a wild animal. And this might be reading too much into it, but IMO the beak makes me think of a Venus Flytrap, and drives home that the Sarlaac is a kind of plant/animal hybrid. EU authors latter made cross section drawings of the inside of a Sarlaac that really draw upon this idea.
But it was instead like an antlion den. Which is what makes sense for a predator under the sand. The flytrap mouth and tentacles don't make much sense for a big pit monster.
- TheStarWarsTrek
- Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:35 pm
Re: Areas where you'd respectfully disagree with Chuck
Well first of all I'm pretty sure it had tentacles even before the special editions. And any comparisons to real world animals/plants aren't going to be 100% accurate, since we're dealing with a fictional hybrid creature made more for spectacle than logic.RobbyB1982 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:28 pmSure, and if it was a venus flytrap, and above ground, that makes sense. But it was buried in a pit in the sand.TheStarWarsTrek wrote: ↑Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:43 pm For the ROTJ review Chuck talks about how he likes the original version of the Sarlaac as opposed to the Special Edition version with the beak, saying that the original is almost Lovecraftian since you can't see what the mouth is attached to. I'm probably in the minority here, but I prefer the special edition version. The original . . . well it looks like our heroes are going to be shoved into a bottomless pit. Sure the pit has teeth, and we see tentacles grab Lando and the alien mooks, but it never really felt alive to me. IMO seeing the beak snap at them blindly and hearing it screech makes it more alive and more clear that our heroes are being fed to a wild animal. And this might be reading too much into it, but IMO the beak makes me think of a Venus Flytrap, and drives home that the Sarlaac is a kind of plant/animal hybrid. EU authors latter made cross section drawings of the inside of a Sarlaac that really draw upon this idea.
But it was instead like an antlion den. Which is what makes sense for a predator under the sand. The flytrap mouth and tentacles don't make much sense for a big pit monster.
But it's weird that you compare it to an ant lion, and then say the flytrap/beak mouth and tentacles don't make sense. Ant lions grab at their prey with pincers, and even fling sand at ants that have escaped their jaws and are trying to climb back out of their sand pit. So having ways to drag prey into it's mouth, or a mouth that can move, makes sense.