One thing that always bothered me about Star Trek is how they get flung all over the place during battles and whatnot because they're not wearing seat belts. lol...
What say you? Was it a good idea to just skip the seat belts in Star Trek?
Yeah, you'd think they'd strap in as soon as red alert was sounded. Well, those that could... what's up with Worf's console? Are 24th century chiropractors getting kickbacks from Utopia Planitia or something?
shareI always thought Worf was going to get injured someday but then again, all Crusher had to do was run that little laser thing over him and all is better. haha...
Who needs belts when you have such good healthcare.
Maybe that's the problem: it's too easy to get fixed up, so pain is, if anything, an interesting diversion.
I've heard people theorize that the reason they're all explorers, and the reason why there's so much emphasis on 20th century (and earlier) art forms in Star Trek is because the Federation stopped being truly creative centuries ago and are bored and looking for amusement in the cosmos.
Yeah, the way the future is portrayed on Earth in Star Trek: TNG, there is no need for money, so as a result, there is probably no creativity as well. So, it would make make sense that 18th-20th century would be themes they used in TNG. Although, that could also be something the writers thought would appeal to an 80's (and 90's) audience.
However, one would think future trends would be more entertaining. There are a few episodes that touch on this but it's during the lifetimes of Picard and the crew.
But people have always been creative even when there's no money involved. Self-expression & inner growth are part of being human, and they don't necessarily require money. Indeed, money can sometimes hinder that.
Granted, in a culture that defines itself by money, it'll be important & a major incentive. But human beings were making art & artifacts & tools long before money was invented or even imagined. I make art for myself, simply because of the fulfillment it brings, without wanting or needing to sell it. If circumstances forced me to, then I'd change my mind. But I make it now without any financial incentive.
Owlwise,
That is commendable but I would think the Star Trek future is based more on socialist/commie ideas. In that, the world government promotes economical justice and as a result, people just do whatever the government tells them to do in their lives in the name of equality. This basically eliminates the incentive to do anything beyond what the gov tells you to do. Sure, people will play an instrument or paint and whatnot but why not get paid to do it?
And if you notice, many of the Star Wars: TNG themes seem to be centered around this kind of thought, that progressive ideas ultimately lead to economic fairness and less war etc..etc... I mean, they even go as far as to make almost everyone dressed the same on the Enterprise. haha...
I like Star Trek but yeah, I do see a little hidden agenda behind it. Still a great show but yeah....
".. there is no need for money, so as a result, there is probably no creativity as well.."
What kind of capitalistic money-grubber banker freemason do you have to BE to think like this?
Sorry, but your statement is 100% illogical and wrong in all possible levels.
First, money does not create creativity, or anything else. It's a tool for exchange (well, supposed to be), but it has been tied to 'accumulation of materialistic crap' as well, so if anything, it destroys creativity, because you can make more money with remixes, reboots, remakes and re-everything than creating something unique.
If YOUR statement was correct, there would be no sequels, hollyweird would only make unique movies and TV shows, and so on.
It's astonishing anyone can look at this world and see all the crap money has caused, all the creativity money has absolutely annihilated, all the people that have been murdered in the name of oil, money, corporate greed and so on, there's food fraud, ever-growing garbage dumps, recycle scams, shrinkflation, and a billion ways corporations scam people to make a buck, including making weak light bulbs and umbrellas that break quickly so you have to keep buying new ones.
Money does nothing, if you put a thousand (why is this not called 'ten hundred', by the way?) dollars on a table and leave it there for a thousand years, it will never create anything.
You need a SOUL for creativity, not money. The richest people in the world are not the most creative people in the world. Creativity is a calling inside of you, it's a divine touch that compels you to express your inner visions of beauty and wonder, it's not something you can buy, it's not something money somehow does or provides.
It's appalling how little people understand anything, but your statement has to be the most disturbing thing I have read all year, it's downright demonic. Basically it's worse than anything Gekko said in his speech in 'Wall Street' about greed. Equating money with creativity?!
avortac -
LOL! your post is funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
Don't you actually watch the show? Many times, something called "inertial dampers" are mentioned. That's a special kind of technology that prevents the crew from being flung against the back walls of the Enterprise every time it goes into warp, but it cannot adapt quickly enough to sudden impacts from phaser fire or torpedoes, that's when they get thrown about. If you're a nerd and a geek like me, you'll soon learn to keep track of such minutiae.
Can't say that I remember anything about inertial dampers. lol.
I guess I'm just not geek enough. But hey, at least it gave us some good gif images like this one...
https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.c618fac1d2fa7d0af69912a1222dd4ae?rik=EUyr9bQbqpeqog&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.giantfreakinrobot.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2014%2f06%2fstar-trek-motion-stabilized-04.gif&ehk=KaNKZ2mFonOq%2bHNHvCY7xeEnza7BVbXM3GQHJp7jDPI%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0
Yes they had the inertial dampers, but they never worked when they needed them to and don't get me started on the f8cking shuttles. Ha.
shareInertial dampers are a subsystem of the Enterprise, like any other part, that could get damaged and fail. I don't see what the problem is. It's part of the risks of being a Starfleet member.
But even with inertial dampers, it seems like they would secure themselves before battle. Especially when there are so many episodes showing them getting tossed all over the bridge.
shareYes, exactly this.
shareI mean, in the new Star Trek movies they are being blown out of the hull. You gotta think you should be able to strap the hell into something in case of a breach.
shareRealistically, you wouldn't need any 'inertial dampeners' (a silly idea anyway, especially in a show where you have to pretend to be falling down when someone shakes the camera - they should've either gone with the 'inertial dampeners', OR kept going with the crazy 'being flung around'-trick, but not both).
I mean, a planet has its gravity, but it's a relatively weak force. If you can generate your own gravity to a spaceship, and introduce an energy field around it (think of the crazy movements so-called 'UFOs' are known to be able to do historically in this planet's atmosphere), your own gravity and energy field separates you from any outside force, and the biggest ninety-degree turns won't affect the people inside the spaceship at all. Therefore, a bump on the surface that makes the craft shake, wouldn't make the people shake.
The only situation, where the Star Trek-like 'camera-shake-based' effect would realistically happen, would be if you are in a room that's in a gravity environment, like on a planet, and then that room, that doesn't have its own gravity, shakes separately from the planet, so the planet's gravity is pulling you towards itself, while the room is moving about.
However, a spaceship has gravity in every room, so it would be like shaking the planet Earth and expecting us to feel it or be flung about, which wouldn't, of course, happen.
So, only if they had a spaceship-gravity-separated room, like a 'building inside the spaceship', and then that building were to shake, would we get that effect - NOT, when the spaceship itself shakes for one reason or another.
However, maybe it's considered 'fun' to do that camera shake and have people thrown about all over the place, after all, it's television entertainment, not a documentary.
They didn’t in Spaceballs either and Dark Helmet got his shit jacked up when they came out of ludicrous speed.
shareLOL! I was thinking of Spacballs too.
At least Colonel Sandurz was smart enough to strap in. This had to be a knock on Sci-Fi TV shows/movies that were not doing this. It was great that Mel Brooks added this to Spaceballs.
That's what I was thinking of as well.
shareTrue that. Think of all those red shirts that could’ve been saved by seat belts.
shareIn the original show sometimes the seats weren’t even bolted down. I think there is a deleted scene in First Contact where they have automated seat belts appear suddenly.
shareIf you understand how actual space travel works (and not the NASA half-faked (or baked, take your pick) crap), you can realize seatbelts (I think it's one word) are not necessary.
Of course in a show like this, we stupidly get not only SOUNDS in space, but also G-forces in space - I don't know which is stupider.
In a real, actual spaceship, you generate your own gravity (this has to happen in Enterprise as well, though!), so any external gravity does not affect you. This means that no matter which way your ship is going, or how fast or slow acceleration it experiences, that will not affect you in the slightest.
This is also why the so-called UFO ships (I know I am confusing terminology here, but it's so stupid people can understand) can make such sharp, sudden turns and not have everyone inside the ship fly all over the place. No one feels the turns, because they have localized gravity and the energy fields around the ships isolate them from these kind of effects.
Space travel, as shown in this show, would be impossible with people flying around so much inside, when it should really be isolated so things like that would never happen, no matter how much the ship supposedly 'shakes' or whatnot.
Of course in the TV show, there's no proper energy field around the ship that would push asteroids and other things away from the ship, but I guess writers can't think of everything..
I guess seatbelts in this kind of weird form of space travel COULD be useful, but also painful.. then again, they don't have airbags, either..
In this kind of half-futuristic reality, they SHOULD be able to have some kind of 'force field airbags', but as I said, it's hard for a writer to think of everything.
Wow, this thread brought back some memories. haha..
Nice bump..
But yes, you are correct, the show is not perfect but seat belts would have made sense. I never liked watching them getting bounced all over the bridge. It always looked so corny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b8jsrDl89M
The Enterprise E has seatbelts
Hilarious scene. But it was a good deletion, its a terrible scene.
share