This is topic Phase pistols – continuity issues? in forum Other Television Shows at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/166.html

Posted by Commander Dan (Member # 558) on :
 
Does the introduction of “phase pistols” in Enterprise create a continuity issue with weapons used in TOS, The Cage? Why or why not?
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Didn't they use Phase Pistols in The Cage? Or were those "Laser blasters"?
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
I think continuity will be allright..

In the 2150s, mankind was using phase pistols and rifles. On a kill cycle they burn you, go through you and you die. On stun cycle you get charred and the energy knocks up your nervous system so you go sleep.

By the 2250s, beam weapons are being used. They are called 'lasers' but obviously do more than lasers as we know them today, indicating it was just a catchall name for beam weapons. The lasers stun, or kill and have a variety of settings for disintegrating things. Since the term 'laser' is misleading, they begin to be referred to as phasers since the energy is not light, but instead some type of phased beam, similar to the phase pulse that we used to shoot before we had the beam version.

In the hundred years since ENT, they apparently learned to collimate a beam of phased energy and also how to use it to disintegrate things and better control how it dissipates (i.e. vaporizing things instead of blowing holes in them, and variations like light stun, heavy stum) Also developed will be wide beam technology.

Probably the misnomer 'laser' popped up when we learned how to make them beam weapons, and was discarded for clarity later. And Trek weapons dont always have the best names... we never did find out why photon torpedoes were called that, being completely undescriptive of a matter/antimatter warhead, except that photons (light) are created by the explosion. But by that logic, i can buy photon firecrackers on the fourth of july right now
 


Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, even if the lasers of early TOS acted like phasers, maybe they were called "lasers" because a low-power laser beam delivered the nadions. Later, some other form of energy beam was used, and they became just "phasers".

But it still messes w/ the fact that Worf suggested that phasers didn't exist until the twenty-third century. Granted, they're technically calling these "pahse pistols", rather than "phasers". But that just sounds like semantics. They're the same thing. The "Broken Bow" script apparently even refers to them as "phasers" sometimes, suggesting that the writers don't even think of them as being any different (except maybe more primitive).
 


Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
What Worf said was ambiguous at best - he was answering an ambiguous question by Berlinghoff Rasmussen, who HAD to be ambiguous because he was out of his depth, pretending to be an all-knowing time traveler.

Worf could have meant that phasers came to be in the 22nd century, since the question concerned "the most significant advance after the 22nd century". According to ENT, phasers were an advance that was in existence after the 22nd century...

In "The Cage", the handguns were specifically identified as lasers, whereas the pedestal-mounted weapon was not. In "Where No Man...", the rifle was specifically identified as a phaser, while the pistols were not. The pistols were nearly identical to the "The Cage" lasers, though.

I suspect it was traditional in pre-TOS times to carry a mixture of weapon types: lasers for some roles, phasers for others. Bullet-throwers and plasma guns might have represented an older mix of technologies that was now out of the vogue, while phasers were a relatively modern technology, and handheld lasers were the promising brand-new superweapon, outperforming the hand phasers in some ways.

It just so happened that hand lasers did not pan out. Instead, hand phasers were improved to match the performance of the hand lasers, and were then chosen as the sole handheld weapon type for starship crews.

It seems so natural for us to assume that phasers would be more advanced than lasers, but there is not canonical reason to do so in the Trek context (some references concerning *shipboard* weaponry notwithstanding). Perhaps it was hellishly difficult to create a compact handheld laser, and the feat was not achieved until the 23rd century - whereas more primitive technologies like plasma and phaser weapons were compacted into handheld form far earlier, and then gradually evolved into more versatile forms than the theoretically better lasers.

Timo Saloniemi
 


Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Geez, leave me something to comment on, alright? 8)

Personally, I don't have a problem with some sort of rudimentary beam weapon, called a phase pistol (itself preceded by some sort of pulse-plasma gun), preceding another weapon called a "laser" (but which obviously wasn't a LASER) which was then in turn replaced by the phaser as we know it.

If they keep calling them "phase pistols" then fine. If it becomes shortened to just "phaser" then we're edging into continuity violation. There are already too many things just getting explained away by saying "they changed, then changed back again."

Despite that, I think that since we don't know

a) what the composition of the phase pistol beam is (yet!), and

b) what the composition of the laser beam was,

then there is room to manoeuvre. Provided that (a) does not turn out to equal (c) - the composition if the phaser beam as we know it. Because then, we have to assume that (b) also equalled (c) and it's just had three different names since the development of the rapid nadion effect.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
I still dont think that they use the term laser like we do today. It is simply a catchall term, but it was what was used to describe something quite different than a beam of JUST light.

Just like we call most plastic foam styrofoam, even though that refers to a specific type of industrial foam that is quite dissimilar to packing foam like UPS gives you.. and how you might call your cotton swabs q-tips even though they are the other brand, scotch tape, band-aids, making a xerox on a Canon copier.. etc.
 


Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Exactly. There's no way the TOS pilot's "lasers" were actual lasers, therefore it's just a term that came into use. In the UK we call a vacuum cleaner a "hoover" because Hoover are one of the biggest manufacturers of them. In a hundred years vacuum cleaners might all be called "Dysons."

Maybe the first proper replicators, to be seen on Enterprise, will be called "Xeroxes." 8)
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
Star Wars fans have had to deal with "lasers" that are clearly not lasers for twenty-five years, so a Trek "laser" that's, say, nadion-based isn't that hard to swallow. Both were called lasers in dialogue, and both act nothing like them.

In the case of Star Trek, though, we may just want to retcon laser out of "The Cage" entirely. Remember: unlike later series, that episode was a true pilot, and it never actually aired. If it weren't for the fan following, it would never have been seen at all. The producers changed the name laser to phaser before series production, even though as of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" they were still using the same prop. This, as we all know, was done because lasers can't do what the Trek weapons were intended to do. Had the terminology change never been made, we would see lasers clear through to Voyager, disintegrating things, stunning people, and being visible in space.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't have a big problem with tweaking a few things from early Star Trek. I assume that every time Kirk said "Earth Command" or "Space Central" or even "UESPA," he really said "Starfleet." I assume that when Kirk told Khan he had been frozen for two hundred years, he really said "two hundred and seventy." I assume that when they found Gothos, it was 450 light years away -- not 900 -- so that Trelane could view Napoleon with an optical telescope. It is, after all, fictional. So replacing an L with a PH for one word of "The Cage" doesn't bother me too much.

Preemptively responding to criticism, of course I wouldn't call any of these changes canon. Canonically, all of the above tweaks are irrelevant. In canon, there are no mistakes, there are only discrepancies waiting for a clever enough person to rationalize. I wouldn't try to use any of these fixes as factual arguements if they came up. But in our heads, in our personal Star Trek universes, we're free to do anything we want.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
*sniff* I was still hoping they would say UESPA
 
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
 
I think that there may be a reference to that in Enterprise somewhere along the line...
 
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Why should one line of dialogue in "Space Seed" - the two-hundred year one - be retconned in preference to the other line of dialogue which says the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990's? OK, wrong topic for such a discussion (which I'm sure has come up before), but I see where you're coming from. The "laser pistols" were seen in "WNMHGB" but went unnamed; the only reason Spock asked for a Phaser Rifle was for extra firepower. . .
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
Why should one line of dialogue in "Space Seed" - the two-hundred year one - be retconned in preference to the other line of dialogue which says the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990's?

It all goes back to what I always say: producer intent. The Eugenics Wars were supposed to be in the 1990s, period. These dates were given explicitly, which demonstrates this intent. All other figures (from "Space Seed," Wrath of Khan, and "Dr. Bashir, I Presume?") are the results of the series era not being set, and mistakes. Since the intent was for the 1990s, I'll stick with that.

quote:

The "laser pistols" were seen in "WNMHGB" but went unnamed; the only reason Spock asked for a Phaser Rifle was for extra firepower. . .

Right. But going back to the above: before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" was produced, the decision was made to change all references to laser into phaser. As such, if a line of dialogue in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" had referred to the laser-pistol props the actors held, it would have called them phasers. That was the whole point of the change! I always stick with the intent where it is known... where it isn't, I'll debate the pros and cons and rationalize and all of that. In the case of the Eugenics Wars, phasers, the Yamato registry, and such, the intent is known and so I don't get too bent out of shape over it.
 


Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
 
Hmm, demonstrating intent. . . you're not studying law by any chance? 8)

That's an interesting idea about the laser pistols, and I'll have to add your suppositions to my "laser pistol" page (which might need to have a rename!). Credit given of course. . .
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Vogon Poet:
That's an interesting idea about the laser pistols, and I'll have to add your suppositions to my "laser pistol" page (which might need to have a rename!). Credit given of course. . .

By all means.

I try to be careful not to give people the idea that I think producer intent is canon because it isn't. But I think there are more resources than canon available when you're dealing with constructed reality.

Incidentally, one intent-related area that I'm thinking about is Kirk's retirement with Antonia. I remember reading that Ron Moore wrote it intending it to be during the gap after the original series, but the years that found their way into the script clearly don't indicate that. I'd like to rediscover that interview (I think it was in an AOL chat) and see for sure.

Anyway, that's off-topic for this thread, not to mention this forum.
 


Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Kind of like the 1305-E issue.. Do we believe the writer's intent, or the art department's intent? The guy telling the story or the guys hanging up the signs?
 
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
 
Neither if I ran Trek as of this moment. But unfortunately I don't... so what should we do? Ignore it? Perhaps... Try to explain it? It may take a while...

I personally would do all of the above.
 


Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CaptainMike:
Kind of like the 1305-E issue.. Do we believe the writer's intent, or the art department's intent? The guy telling the story or the guys hanging up the signs?

In this case, we look at the "staff" intent, not that one any one person. Episodes are often rewritten, sometimes by a dozen people. That doesn't mean that we should accept what the first writer of the first draft wanted over the final episode. In the case of the Yamato, we have a well-documented timeline.

  • Writer, not knowing the registry system, writes 1305-E.
  • Okuda, acting in his assigned role as advisor, notes the mistake.
  • Line is dropped.
  • Line is re-added at last minute, without Okuda's awareness.
  • "Contagion" allows Okuda to correct the mistake.

    So we know that the writer's use of 1305-E was a mistake, we know that the mistake was initially corrected, we know that it was another mistake that allowed the line to get filmed. If this mistake had been caught, the line would have never been filmed. The intent of the production staff was that only the Enterprises get suffixes.

    In other words: mistakes are forgivable, and there's no sense in bending over backwards to accommodate them.
     


    Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
     
    Sorry. . . just have to say, I'm really quite proud of this:

    8)
     


    Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
     
    nice.

    I've decided what they call the weapons is the least of our problems, so ill go with it because it looked so cool
     


    Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
     
    That's pretty sweet, VP.

    Do we know for certain whether the pulse-plasma pistols we see early in the episode are more or less effective than the phase-pistols? Is one more powerful than the other? When Reed is breaking out the new guns he made it seem as though the idea of a variable setting weapon (Stun/Kill) was a novel idea to which the Captain and Tucker wouldn't be accustomed.
     


    Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
     
    Well, put it this way: B5's PPGs didn't have 'stun' and 'kill' settings. It's kinda hard to configure a burst of superheated plasma to not injure anyone. Again, I haven't seen the ep, so I don't know how the blasters fare in combat, or if any reason is given for replacing them other than "ooh, newer guns."
     


    © 1999-2024 Charles Capps

    Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3