RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,756
Posts: 5,216,420
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 880
Newest member: kasmuruis

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 23 2011, 02:31 AM   #316
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Tell us what's more cerebral
Well, the bad guys' giant heads for starters.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:13 AM   #317
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

I hate that I am walking back into this (well, I hate that I actually bothered to catch up on this thread, but that's a tale for another day). The OP has obviously made up his mind on everything, and the only remaining point in this exercise is to give the OP additional opportunities to remind us that we're wrong about everything we say that's not in agreement with his thoughts, but I had to address one thing.......
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

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.
I read it and the other ______of Star Trek books years ago. I think it came out almost 20 years ago. Had it been written today it would include chapters about the science in the new movies. No doubt covering time travel ( as seen in the new film), black holes/wormholes, alternate realities, Many Worlds Theory and perhaps the possible ways Red Matter works.(is it a form of exotic matter?)

The ______of Star Trek books tend to pander to the Trekkie market and use Trek as a platform to introduce the topic they cover to Trekkies and others who might otherwise pass on the subject. Often they work backwards show how science was inspired Trek rather showing how Trek was inspired by science.

The "science" behind phasers was gee we need a raygun. A raygun that can do everything the script calls for.

The transporter was just a way to get the story from one point to another quickly and cheaply. Just some handwaving about molecules was mostly what TOS said about.

Dilithium, (as used in Trek) made up.

The idea that humans and alien could produce offspring also impossible. The idea that they even look remotely like humans is also absurd.

Need I go on?
I believe the release date of this book is at least 5 years after TNG ended. There are a a few old technical manuals from TOS which precede my own birth by many years, perhaps you are referring to these. Anyway, here is one of many amazing paragraphs from this book, reminding one of just how close the star trek writers (with help from their science advisors) got it.

'Finally, the Star Trek writers added one more crucial component to the matter-antimatter drive. I refer to the
famous dilithium crystals (coincidentally invented by the Star Trek writers long before the Fer-milab engineers
decided upon a lithium target in their Antiproton Source). It would be unthinkable not to mention them, since they
are a centerpiece of the warp drive and as such figure prominently in the economics of the Federation and in
various plot developments. (For example, without the economic importance of dilithium, the Enterprise would
never have been sent to the Halkan system to secure its mining rights, and we would never have been treated to
the "mirror universe," in which the Federation is an evil empire!)
What do these remarkable figments of the Star Trek writers' imaginations do? These crystals (known also by their
longer formula— 2<5>6 dilithium 2<:>1 diallosilicate 1:9:1 heptoferranide) can regulate the matter-antimatter
annihilation rate, because they are claimed to be the only form of matter known which is "porous" to antimatter.
I liberally interpret this as follows: Crystals are atoms regularly arrayed in a lattice; I assume therefore that the
antihydrogen atoms are threaded through the lattices of the dilithium crystals and therefore remain a fixed
distance both from atoms of normal matter and one another. In this way, dilithium could regulate the antimatter
density, and thus the matter-antimatter reaction rate.
The reason I am bothering to invent this hypothetical explanation of the utility of a hypothetical material is that
once again, I claim, the Star Trek writers were ahead of their time. A similar argument, at least in spirit, was
proposed many years after Star Trek introduced dilithium-mediated matter-antimatter annihilation, in order to
justify an equally exotic process: cold fusion. During the cold-fusion heyday, which lasted about 6 months, it was
claimed that by putting various elements together chemically one could somehow induce the nuclei of the atoms
to react much more quickly than they might otherwise and thus produce the same fusion reactions at room
temperature that the Sun requires great densities and temperatures in excess of a million degrees to generate.
One of the many implausibilities of the cold-fusion arguments which made physicists suspicious is that chemical
reactions and atomic binding take place on scales of the order of the atomic size, which is a factor of 10,000
larger than the size of the nuclei of atoms. It is difficult to believe that reactions taking place on scales so much
larger than nuclear dimensions could affect nuclear reaction rates. Nevertheless, until it was realized that the
announced results were irreproducible by other groups, a great many people spent a great deal of time trying to
figure out how such a miracle might be possible.

Since the Star Trek writers, unlike the cold-fusion advocates, never claimed to be writing anything other than
science fiction, I suppose we should be willing to give them a little extra slack. After all, dilithium-mediated
reactions merely aid what is undoubtedly the most com-pellingly realistic aspect of starship technology: the
matter-antimatter drives. And I might add that crystals—tungsten in this case, not dilithium—are indeed used to
moderate, or slow down, beams of anti-electrons (positrons) in modern-day experiments; here the antielec-trons
scatter off the electric field in the crystal and lose energy.
There is no way in the universe to get more bang for your buck than to take a particle and annihilate it with its
antiparticle to produce pure radiation energy. It is the ultimate rocket-propulsion technology, and will surely be
used if ever we carry rockets to their logical extremes. The fact that it may take quite a few bucks to do it is a
problem the twenty-third-century politicians can worry about.'-Lawrence M. Krauss, The physics of Star Trek
Did you read the excerpt you posted at all? Or better yet, did you understand what you posted? The shorter version of that excerpt translates out to be:

"The Star Trek people made up Dilithium crystals to make their ships fly. Now, if you take their made-up plot device and combine it with my made-up hypothetical explaination, we can make theoretical science!!!!"

As someone who's read that book in the past, that book largely does nothing but spout theoretical stuff and try to come up with ways these various things might be possible. It doesn't prove that the folks on Star Trek were forward thinkers, just that they needed a device to do a job on their show, and someone was willing to invest time into coming up with ways it might be possible.

Trek 09 has plenty of issues, just like all the other movies. And if those issues are big enough that you can't enjoy the movie, that's your call. But I don't get the point of this thread other than to piss people off because you're obviously not going to be persuaded one direction or the other, and you're not going to win any allies for your cause by consistently coming out and insulting the folks who liked the new movie. Quite simply, this is not a discussion thread- this is a soapbox for you to preach to us Trek '09 loving heathens about the follies of our ways.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:29 AM   #318
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
re Roddenberry fighting to have a multi-ethnic cast on Star Trek.

Since this keeps coming up time and time again, I feel it's time to just reproduce the full text of the 1965 (before the series was greenlit) NBC memo that illustrates that Roddenberry had to do no such thing.

Here it is, emphasis mine:
NBC TELEVISION NETWORK

August 17, 1965

Mr. Gene Roddenberry
DESILU STUDIOS
Hollywood, Calif.

Dear Gene:

Census figures, in the mid-1960s, indicate that one American in every eight is non-white. It is reasonable to assume that this percentage also applies to the television audience.

I choose this statistic to call to your attention once again to NBC's longstanding policy of non-discrimination. Our efforts in the past to assure the fact that the programs broadcast on our facilities are a natural reflection of the role of minorities in American life have met with substantial success. I would like to congratulate those producers who have extended themselves in this regard and I invite all of our creative associates to join us in an even greater effort to meet this fact of American life.

NBC's employment policy has long dictated that there can be no discrimination because of race, creed, religion or national origin and this applies in all of out operations. In addition, since we are mindful of our vast audience and the extent to which television influences taste and attitudes, we are not only anxious but determined that members of minority groups be treated in a manner consistent with their role in society. While this applies to all racial minorities, obviously the principle reference is to the casting and depiction of Negroes. Our purpose is to assure that in our medium, and within the permissive framework of dramatic license, we present a reasonable reflection of contemporary society.

We urge producers to cast Negroes, subject to their availability and competence as performs, as people who are an integral segment of the population, as well as in those roles where the fact of their minority status is of significance. An earnest attempt has been made to see that their presence contributes to an honest and natural reflection of places, situations and events, and we desire to intensify and extend this effort.

We believe that NBC's pursuit of this police is pre-eminent in the broadcasting industry. It is evident in both the daytime and nighttime schedules and particularly in such popular programs as I SPY, THE ANDY WILLIAMS SHOW, THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E., RUN FOR YOUR LIFE, and many other presentations. While we have made noticeable progress we can do better, and I ask you for your cooperation and help.

Sincerely,

MORT WERNER
[Programs Vice President]

* As reproduced on pages 76–77 of the book Inside Star Trek by Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman, 1996 by Pocket Books
All that sounds like code for 'please continue showing black women as maid's and black men as servants'.

Especially all the stuff about how imperative it is to show black people in a way that is 'reflective of their role in society'. At that time, their perceived role in society was as servants and maid's.

Muhammad ali did more for black americans at that time than these TV executives did.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:32 AM   #319
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

KingDaniel wrote: View Post
However it came about, Trek's racial toerance message is a powerful one - and it's one that Star Trek '09 encapulates better than any Star Trek has before!
Complete and utter non-sense.

It makes Uhura look like a whore and minimizes sulu's role down to virtually nothing.

TNG, DS9 and VOY exemplified racial diversity a lot better.

It's one thing to like the movie for being a special effects extravaganza, but to be snow blinded into this misconception is just ridiculous.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:35 AM   #320
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

^As a reminder please.... outside of the "Big Three", what did any of the other TOS members really have to do in the first 6 movies that stood out compared to the new movie? In fact, what did the TOS members outside of the big 3 usually have to do in the series on a consistent basis?
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:38 AM   #321
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

snowman1701 wrote: View Post
^As a reminder please.... outside of the "Big Three", what did any of the other TOS members really have to do in the first 6 movies that stood out compared to the new movie? In fact, what did the TOS members outside of the big 3 usually have to do in the series on a consistent basis?
Fan dance.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:39 AM   #322
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Name the number of gay characters that Modern Trek had during a time when the awareness and acceptance of gay people was at an all-time high and were regularly being shown on TV? Here's the answer: 0.

TNG had two black actors in a cast of nine and had probably the most blatantly rascist episode of any TV show in the 80's/90's, Code of Honor.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:40 AM   #323
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Pretty sure the "cerebral" thing is a bit of a myth as well.
No.


Santa Kang wrote: View Post
The pilot was well received by the executives. They did have problems with some of the casting (Like GR casting his then mistress) and the character of Spock. Who, ironically would be the shows break out character.
They didn't want a woman as second in command. More evidence of intolerance for minorities.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:42 AM   #324
RoJoHen
Awesome
 
RoJoHen's Avatar
 
Location: QC, IL, USA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Pretty sure the "cerebral" thing is a bit of a myth as well.
No.

Well, I'm convinced.
__________________
I am the Quintessential Admiral.
RoJoHen is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:42 AM   #325
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Dude.... women aren't minorities.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:42 AM   #326
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Pretty sure the "cerebral" thing is a bit of a myth as well.
No.


Santa Kang wrote: View Post
The pilot was well received by the executives. They did have problems with some of the casting (Like GR casting his then mistress) and the character of Spock. Who, ironically would be the shows break out character.
They didn't want a woman as second in command. More evidence of intolerance for minorities.
For the hundredth fucking time, they didn't have a problem with a woman in that spot they simply hated that Gene cast his mistress. Gene didn't have the balls to tell his mistress she was getting the axe because she was a shitty actress. So he made up the nonsense about the executives not wanting a woman there.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:45 AM   #327
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
The female first officer myth was debunked long ago. NBC didn't like Majel Barrett not the idea itself.
Where do you people get this non-sense?

Gene Roddenberry himself cited many of these cases of network prejudice. Was he lying? And who are you to say he wasn't?
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:48 AM   #328
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
The female first officer myth was debunked long ago. NBC didn't like Majel Barrett not the idea itself.
Where do you people get this non-sense?

Gene Roddenberry himself cited many of these cases of network prejudice. Was he lying? And who are you to say he wasn't?
Google is your friend. Or you could read Inside Star Trek which was co-written by the Desilu executive (Herb Solow) in charge of the production of Star Trek, it's pretty well documented.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:49 AM   #329
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
horatio83 is another who needs to read Inside Star Trek. It counters alot of the spin GR produced over the years.
How do you know the writer of that book is not, as you describe it, 'spinning'?

Basically it's a matter of hearsay and who you choose to trust. I see no reason for Roddenberry to lie. He has every reason to keep the network execs on his side, and lying would not achieve this.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 23 2011, 04:50 AM   #330
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Santa Kang wrote: View Post
horatio83 is another who needs to read Inside Star Trek. It counters alot of the spin GR produced over the years.
How do you know the writer of that book is not, as you describe it, 'spinning'?

Basically it's a matter of hearsay and who you choose to trust. I see no reason for Roddenberry to lie. He has every reason to keep the network execs on his side, and lying would not achieve this.
Who's to say GR wasn't spinning? I see no reason for the author of the book to lie.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 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 10:34 PM.

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