RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,834
Posts: 5,327,216
Members: 24,551
Currently online: 530
Newest member: Mycroft

TrekToday headlines

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 21 2011, 11:33 PM   #226
Peach Wookiee
Cuddly Mod of Doom
 
Peach Wookiee's Avatar
 
Location: Peach Wookiee
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

It's obvious to you, nightwind1, but not to everyone. Let's dial it back, everybody. We have passionate fans on either side of the fence.

I, for one, LOVED Trek 2009. It's the movie I've been watching the most lately as it helps me stay awake when I'm working on a project. I like this alternate timeline/reality/universe quite a lot. But that doesn't mean I love the prime universe any less.
Peach Wookiee is offline  
Old December 21 2011, 11:45 PM   #227
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
RoJoHen wrote: View Post
It's not one or the other. Star Trek has been full of philosophy and science and morals, but it's also been full of plotholes, technobabble, explosions, and crazy battles.
I have to defend the techno-babble as being scientifically rooted. It is not just made up jargon, especially since TOS and TNG had science advisors on hand to help with that process.

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.
Their science advisors were often over ruled for the sake of drama and needs of the story. ST09 was no different. Though It's "reboot" is based on Many Worlds Interpretation. And as mentioned before the "black hole" used to travel in time is also based on scientific theory.

Made up stuff: Phasers, transporters, dilithium, viable human alien hybrids.....
There is a book called 'the physics of star trek' which I recently had the pleasure of reading, and in it the author, a prominent physicist, compares the physics and science of star trek to 'real life' physics and concludes that, not only does star trek (meaning TNG, TOS and VOY mainly) get the science right, but has predicted certain scientific phenomenon that has come to pass. So I see your statement as being fallacious, unless it is referring to that once in a while error of specifics.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 21 2011, 11:51 PM   #228
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Whatever Lawrence Krauss has written, he has certainly not written that phasers or warp drive exist, merely why they might be possible.

I think we have to distinguish between science, fictional technology based on real science and magic.
Trek is not hard but soft sci-fi. Some of its technology like impulse drive is based on fusion power, other technology like the transporter acknowledges a problem that would exist in real life via the Heisenberg compensator. Genesis or red matter are basically pure magic.

I think it is nice but not necessary that Trek tries to tie some of its fictional technologies into real science. The absence of it is certainly not a deal-breaker. Or is City on The Edge of Forever bad because it does not explain how the Guardian actually performs this neat trick? Is FC bad because we don't learn more about these funky chronitions that do the trick?
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline  
Old December 21 2011, 11:56 PM   #229
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Whatever Lawrence Krauss has written, he has certainly not written that phasers or warp drive exist, merely why they might be possible.

I think we have to distinguish between science, fictional technology based on real science and magic.
Trek is not hard but soft sci-fi. Some of its technology like impulse drive is based on fusion power, other technology like the transporter acknowledges a problem that would exist in real life via the Heisenberg compensator. Genesis or red matter are basically pure magic.

I think it is nice but not necessary that Trek tries to tie some of its fictional technologies into real science. The absence of it is certainly not a deal-breaker. Or is City on The Edge of Forever bad because it does not explain how the Guardian actually performs this neat trick? Is FC bad because we don't learn more about these funky chronitions that do the trick?

yes, this is an important point that is often overlooked. Star Trek, like Star Wars and Doctor Who, is soft sci-fi, not hard sci-fi.


The emphasis is on the story, not the potential realism of the technology or science involved.
sonak is offline  
Old December 21 2011, 11:58 PM   #230
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Anyone who doubts what I said about the science of star trek please give a reading to the physics of star trek. A reputable physicist wrote it. And while he admits that not everything is immediately conclusive in the field of trek science, he does fill in the gaps and terminology where it needs to be and explains how a leads to z, for example, when it comes to warp technology, just how much energy would be necessary, etc.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:00 AM   #231
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

The science is there to serve the needs of the story, not the other way around.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 12:08 AM   #232
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

I'd say it is nice as long as it stays in the background. It's like with a period piece, you want some technobabble in the background to make it feel like sci-fi. If it comes too much into the foreground we get one of these VOY 'tech saves the day' moments.
In my opinion ST09 managed this pretty well, the technobabble term "external inertial dampener" is quasi-explained via the image of a handbrake such that it does not feel like technobabble as code for insiders ... which is, if we are honest, a territory into which TNG and VOY sometimes moved into. Or in other words, the "Big Bang Theory" jokes about Trekkers are not totally unjustified.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:23 AM   #233
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).

Which is as a medium to express not only ideas but languages of reason. And science, like logistics, is a language of reason. Which is why it is a very important component of star trek that should never be brushed aside.

It shows that humans have evolved to seek out truth, in whatever form, through evolved systems of scientific exploration.

This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:27 AM   #234
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Two simple words: time travel.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 12:27 AM   #235
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).
And because market research showed that most fans are scientists in some form or another. I'm not kidding.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:28 AM   #236
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).

Which is as a medium to express not only ideas but languages of reason. And science, like logistics, is a language of reason. Which is why it is a very important component of star trek that should never be brushed aside.

It shows that humans have evolved to seek out truth, in whatever form, through evolved systems of scientific exploration.

This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.
I disagree, Trek is above all about enlightenment (to be strict it is about self-critical enlightenment as the bureaucracy of the Gulag and the concentration camp is also consequence of the enlightenment period) and not science.
Take TWOK, McCoy's rant about the Genesis device turns out to be correct in the next movie. Take the fuzzy 1990-2160 fictional history of Trek, science run amok via the genetic redesign of humans into Augments as well as the killing of people with radiation sickness has lead to immense suffering.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:29 AM   #237
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
I may have made a generalized statement regarding the mindset of a person who enters into such a film, but I did not call a single individual a name, once. Nice try at diversion though.
.
No, but you keep ranting that anyone who likes the new movie isn't really a Star Trek fan, has no taste, probably likes TRANSFORMER and TWILIGHT, etc. You've been on the attack against anyone who disagrees with you since your very first post.

Are you sure you aren't a Klingon?
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:40 AM   #238
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

And the ratio of meaningful philosophical conundrums, scientific educational dialog and meaningful plots definitely outnumbers the ratio of meaningless plot-holes.
And your comparing one two-hour film against seven hundred episodes and ten feature films. It simply could never hope to compare.
NONE of the other films were philosophically or scientifically void.

You can this, effectively, compare this film unfavorably to any of the other trek films and prove the points I made earlier.

Yes, that includes star trek V too, believe it or not.
No offense, but you seem far too forgiving of Nemesis and other Trek movies many people consider bad (not too many people think Star trek V is a good film) and are far too harsh on Star Trek 11.

Exactly how are Nemesis and Star Trek V good films, how are the plot holes in those movies forgivable?
The Overlord is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:45 AM   #239
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
This is what I liked so much about TNG. It didn't insult the intelligence of the viewer by coming up with things (like red matter for example) without at least trying to explain it in some rational, conclusive way. Episodes like cause and effect illustrate this.
:g uffaw::guf faw:

There's a reason it's called technoBABBLE, you know.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 12:48 AM   #240
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
The reason star trek employed so much scientific jargon is because it is in keeping with the premise of the show (TOS, TNG and VOY primarily).
And because market research showed that most fans are scientists in some form or another. I'm not kidding.
I think you have the cause and effect backwards. TOS made a lot of people science fans, and this fandom culminated with TNG and VOY.
trek_futurist is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
nemesis, philosophy, science, star trek (2009 film)

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.