RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,442
Posts: 5,507,499
Members: 25,133
Currently online: 502
Newest member: jokerone

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


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 XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16 2013, 11:16 PM   #106
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

You'll find a lot of credible scientists who are big Trek fans because of the "fun" science and the adventures it allows. However, find me three credible ones who say the biggest features of Trek science are possible or even a fraction of possible. Transporters as in Trek: never. Artificial gravity as in Trek: never. Warp speed as in Trek: never. Almost instantaneous communications over light years as in Trek: never. Time travel as in Trek: never. If they aren't concerned about it, I'm not going to be concerned. If the Enterprise is suddenly used like a submarine and starts traversing a planet's oceans, maybe that will be the breaking point for me. Oh. Wait -- .

Seriously, Trek is meant to be approachable, mainstream entertainment. It's pop music, not opera. Within that genre, whether one considers it to be like The Beatles or the Jonas Brothers is a matter of personal taste, but those are the parameters of comparison. Neither are Verdi, nor should they even be compared to him. As others have said, Trek is no more (or less) serious science fiction than "Star Wars", "Babylon 5", "Battlestar Galactica", or anything else of that type.

As far as Trek becoming Harry Potter goes, I think Q pretty much took it there whenever he appeared, and he's a very popular Trek character. We are never to understand how he does what he does with just a wink or a wave. He is a true wizard. Odo may have crossed the line, too.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:24 PM   #107
GameOn
Lieutenant Commander
 
GameOn's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Warp drive, transporters and interbreeding aliens are far from even semi-plausible.
I said they were presented as being semi-plausible not that they were semi-plausible. They are presented as pieces of technology that work in a certain ways to perform certain tasks and (usually) abide by the rules of the fictional universe they're a part of. Interbreeding aliens is dumb though even with the whole thing about aliens seeding humanoid life on planets 4 billion years ago in the TNG episode The Chase.

Last edited by GameOn; August 16 2013 at 11:37 PM.
GameOn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:40 PM   #108
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Warp drive, transporters and interbreeding aliens are far from even semi-plausible.
I said they were presented as being semi-plausible not that they were semi-plausible. They are presented as pieces of technology that work in a certain ways to perform certain tasks and (usually) abide by the rules of the fiction universe they're a part of. Interbreeding aliens is dumb though even with the whole thing about aliens seeding humanoid life on planets 4 billion years ago in the TNG episode The Chase.
They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Santa Kang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:50 PM   #109
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
My biggest being the supernova that threatens the galaxy and black holes that sends you back in time or destroy stuff depending on what the plot requires.
Star Trek's strong point has always been characterization, not science.

I mean, does anyone here actually believe that if you fly around the sun really fast that you can go backwards and forwards in time? Did anyone ever actually believe it?
There's a difference between fictional science and technology that doesn't exist and science that we know TODAY is completely wrong. Even if the future science and technology wasn't exactly right Star Trek usually tried to present it in a believable way that was consistent with the rules of its own fictional universe. Without this Star Trek ceases to be science fiction and becomes space fantasy with space magic.

Yep, using Black Holes is scientifically ridiculous...oh, wait, Stephen hawking says it isn't. (link)
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:53 PM   #110
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

What would Stephen Hawking know about black hole?
__________________
Nerys Myk
Santa Kang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:06 AM   #111
GameOn
Lieutenant Commander
 
GameOn's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.
Sure they bend and break science all the time in sci-fi to serve the plot but bad writing that randomly breaking the internal logic of the story or fictional universe ruins it. If you're going to use the argument that it's sci-fi so anything goes then we might as well just have the characters waving magic wands to make things happen.
GameOn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:12 AM   #112
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
They work as well and as consistently as the plot needs. Transporters work perfectly until they get in the way of a needed plot point. You can't go from complaining about a black hole that does what the plot needs and then ignore all the other time the "science" in Star Trek does the same thing.
Sure they bend and break science all the time in sci-fi to serve the plot but bad writing that randomly breaking the internal logic of the story or fictional universe ruins it. If you're going to use the argument that it's sci-fi so anything goes then we might as well just the characters waving magic wands to make things happen.
Yeah. Watch numerous TNG episodes where Geordi does effectively that to a piece of equipment; or Crusher does to cuts, broken ribs, etc. That kind of thing REALLY affected TNG's (and modern Star Trek's popularity with the audience and harder fanbase...oh, wait, that right TNG is 'real' Star tgrek and STID isn't in many fans eyes...
Noname Given is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:20 AM   #113
Opus
Commodore
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Location: Bloom County
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
If you're going to use the argument that it's sci-fi so anything goes then we might as well just have the characters waving magic wands to make things happen.
Like Tricorders.
__________________
Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982
Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:22 AM   #114
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

It simply comes down to some posters having the opinion that if it happens in Trek they like, they try desperately to explain it. If it happens in Trek they dislike, they act like it's a deal breaker.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:30 AM   #115
GameOn
Lieutenant Commander
 
GameOn's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Noname Given wrote: View Post
Yeah. Watch numerous TNG episodes where Geordi does effectively that to a piece of equipment; or Crusher does to cuts, broken ribs, etc. That kind of thing REALLY affected TNG's (and modern Star Trek's popularity with the audience and harder fanbase...oh, wait, that right TNG is 'real' Star tgrek and STID isn't in many fans eyes...
I'll happily criticise any episode that does that if I think it detracts from the story and breaks internal logic. Medical technology for treating injuries is pretty well established and fairly consistent. I have no problem with Abrams Trek movies being different I have problems with the quality of the writers.
GameOn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:32 AM   #116
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
It simply comes down to some posters having the opinion that if it happens in Trek they like, they try desperately to explain it. If it happens in Trek they dislike, they act like it's a deal breaker.
Yeah, there's a bit of a double standard there. Wrath of Khan is full of plot holes and pseudo-science, but it's still the best Trek movie ever. And Spock's very existence is an absurdity that puts underwater starships to shame, but who among us would want to do without him?

(I mean, seriously, a green-blooded, copper-based alien lifeform can breed with humans--despite a completely different blood chemistry? And people balk at building starships on the ground?)
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 12:51 AM   #117
Cinema Geekly
Lieutenant Commander
 
Cinema Geekly's Avatar
 
View Cinema Geekly's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

I can see where people could dislike the whole black hole thing in ST09 if it were a proper black hole.

But I think they writers went more than out of their to say this made up element thing allows them to make an artificial black hole. Right there it is already different from anything occurring in natural space, it was never intended to be used by Spock Prime to travel in time. Turns out that was a convenient side effect that played into the story.

Personally I haven't seen anything in Trek 09 or STID that is anymore ridiculous than dylithium crystals or the Genesis Device.
Cinema Geekly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 01:06 AM   #118
GameOn
Lieutenant Commander
 
GameOn's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Cinema Geekly wrote: View Post
Personally I haven't seen anything in Trek 09 or STID that is anymore ridiculous than dylithium crystals or the Genesis Device.
Red Matter?
GameOn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 01:14 AM   #119
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Red matter is no more ridiculous than the Genesis Device.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 01:24 AM   #120
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
Red matter is no more ridiculous than the Genesis Device.
Or the Nexus? Or Ilia, Decker,and V'Ger coming together in a giant sparkly orgasm?

Look, a lot of the "science" in Trek is more metaphorical than anything else. Like the transporter splitting Kirk into two different aspects of his personality. Or V'Ger as a case study of intellect without emotion. Or Garth's shape-changing ability reflecting his unstable personality.

Is it it hard science? Of course not. But it works on a symbolic, emotional level . . . like a lot of Ray Bradbury's stuff.

(He says channeling his inner English instructor.)
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; August 17 2013 at 01:41 AM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 04:55 AM.

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