RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,072
Posts: 5,432,331
Members: 24,928
Currently online: 446
Newest member: Escmymind

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 17 2013, 01:53 AM   #121
mattman8907
Lieutenant Commander
 
mattman8907's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

i was going through this thread and i gotta tell you, I'm not a trekker not by a long shot, i only saw one trek show from the beginning to the end and that was Enterprise and I enjoyed. I thought both Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness were good movies and i don't feel like rating them.
mattman8907 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 01:55 AM   #122
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
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?
What about it? If I wanted to go by real science I'd say its a form of exotic matter, the type postulated to create wormholes.

__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 01:57 AM   #123
Mutoid
Fleet Captain
 
Mutoid's Avatar
 
Location: CommishSleer
View Mutoid's Twitter Profile
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Cmon guys what are we doing here?

Lets all agree Star Trek is great.

Star Trek is not ridiculous, its not 'hard' science fiction but nothing ever is (except 2001:A Space Odyssey)
Mutoid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 02:17 AM   #124
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Star Trek has never been hard-sf, and that's never hurt it one bit.
It's never been Harry Potter in space either.
It has been from time to time.
In most of those instances, not the best of times.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 02:40 AM   #125
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
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?
Man, this is another one of those where you just got to take the Butch Cassidy approach and say to yourself, I got vision and the rest of the world need bifocals.

You could probably cite Occam's Razor, or trot out some existing real-world basis for zero-gee fab & assembly (as I have here repeatedly, and in some good company at times), and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 02:42 AM   #126
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
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?
Yeah but.. but.. but.. Gene Roddenberry's Vision and, well, and, philosophies and morals and.... Gene Roddenberry's Vision.
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 02:49 AM   #127
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Devon wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
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?
Yeah but.. but.. but.. Gene Roddenberry's Vision and, well, and, philosophies and morals and.... Gene Roddenberry's Vision.
A couple pages back I posted the following in response to that:

time travel via close flyby of gravity well has been a 'hard sf' staple going back to Van Vogt's FAR CENTAURUS, so yeah, I can buy off on the slingshot thing for a TREK movie just fine
.

supplemental: FAR CENTAURUS is a pretty damn fine story, dealing with a sleeper ship and time marching on while they sleep, and I highly recommend it. Found it in the semi-juvenile (they call it that, but I wouldn't) Silverberg anthology DEEP SPACE, which also has Chad Oliver's BLOOD'S A ROVER, a novella that I still find as moving as John Vernon's decision at the end of QUESTOR TAPES, and some other good tales.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:25 AM   #128
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

GameOn wrote: View Post
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.
"Technology" in Trek has always worked in whatever way the plot needed it to. By definition, it constantly breaks its own rules. Sometimes it takes X hours to go Y distance at Warp Z. Other times it takes 2X hours to go Y distance at Warp Z. This is a minor example, but the formula is reduced, increased, or changed as needed. Sometimes black holes do this, other times they do that; sometimes artificial gravity works one way, other times it works another; so on and so forth.

There is nothing at all scientific about Star Trek story telling.

GameOn wrote: View Post
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.
And as I said, the "internal logic" is always breaking for everything. I dare you to find one piece of techno-gizmo or scientific presumption that remains constant throughout all 800 (or whatever) hours of Star Trek. I would bet if you randomly picked three episodes and a device or scientific premise shared by all three, you'd find some kind of variance from one episode to the next.

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
Dumbledore is to his wand as Data is to his tricorder.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:34 AM   #129
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
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?
Man, this is another one of those where you just got to take the Butch Cassidy approach and say to yourself, I got vision and the rest of the world need bifocals.

You could probably cite Occam's Razor, or trot out some existing real-world basis for zero-gee fab & assembly (as I have here repeatedly, and in some good company at times), and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
No the answer will be they have mastered artificial gravity and tractor beams. ( as shown on the show and in the films). So they build on the ground where the construction crew is safer and less encumbered. Then use anti grav and tractor beams to lift it into space.

Still easier to swallow than the nexus, Genesis and dilithium.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:47 AM   #130
CorporalClegg
Admiral
 
CorporalClegg's Avatar
 
Location: Land of Enchantment
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
time travel via close flyby of gravity well has been a 'hard sf' staple going back to Van Vogt's FAR CENTAURUS, so yeah, I can buy off on the slingshot thing for a TREK movie just fine.
And old, harry fat guys making love to beautiful young women has been a staple of porn for centuries. That doesn't make it plausible.


Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
No the answer will be they have mastered artificial gravity and tractor beams.
Man has accomplished much greater feats with mules, pulleys, and some elbow-grease.
__________________
Konnichi wa!
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:56 AM   #131
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

CorporalClegg wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
time travel via close flyby of gravity well has been a 'hard sf' staple going back to Van Vogt's FAR CENTAURUS, so yeah, I can buy off on the slingshot thing for a TREK movie just fine.
And old, harry fat guys making love to beautiful young women has been a staple of porn for centuries. That doesn't make it plausible.

If you don't think some of the rich old 'harry' fat guys get plenty of hot action, then you don't know what makes the world go round. Hint: it's not love, and in the US it is mostly green.

If you don't find Van Vogt's stories plausible, that's your concern. I can't get into Tolkien, but I know lots of people love his stuff, and I ASSUME he knows something about what works in fantasy -- much as Van Vogt knew something about what worked in science fiction.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 03:57 AM   #132
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

This is simply dishonest...

trevanian wrote: View Post
...and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
I explained why I feel that building a large spacecraft on the ground isn't a deal-breaker in the ST universe and you simply ignore it, instead preferring hyperbole to actual debate.

BillJ wrote:
Why is it so outlandish that a society that can manipulate matter and gravity would choose to build space vehicles on the ground?

From a personnel standpoint, you wouldn't have to waste power bringing workers to and from orbit nor would you have to build orbital habitats to support workers and materials.

Under our current understanding, it would make sense to mine asteroids and build in space. With Star Trek's science, you can build a starship anywhere you damn well please.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:00 AM   #133
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
Red Matter?
Man, this is another one of those where you just got to take the Butch Cassidy approach and say to yourself, I got vision and the rest of the world need bifocals.

You could probably cite Occam's Razor, or trot out some existing real-world basis for zero-gee fab & assembly (as I have here repeatedly, and in some good company at times), and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
No the answer will be they have mastered artificial gravity and tractor beams. ( as shown on the show and in the films). So they build on the ground where the construction crew is safer and less encumbered. Then use anti grav and tractor beams to lift it into space.

Still easier to swallow than the nexus, Genesis and dilithium.
Once more, with the last erg of feeling. It is safer to build in space than on Earth, unless you've got everybody with their own personal antigrav rig. It is probably faster too, because you're working in microgravity and only have to worry about inertia mass and not the one gee going DOWN. Plus zero-gee fab offers all sorts of possibilities.

Genesis is just alchemy, in place of terraforming. It is silly as all get out. I don't know from crystals, but the nexus is the most arbitrary of plot devices, right up (or is it 'down'?) there with the 'science' of TSFS.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:04 AM   #134
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

BillJ wrote: View Post
This is simply dishonest...

trevanian wrote: View Post
...and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
I explained why I feel that building a large spacecraft on the ground isn't a deal-breaker in the ST universe and you simply ignore it, instead preferring hyperbole to actual debate.

BillJ wrote:
Why is it so outlandish that a society that can manipulate matter and gravity would choose to build space vehicles on the ground?

From a personnel standpoint, you wouldn't have to waste power bringing workers to and from orbit nor would you have to build orbital habitats to support workers and materials.

Under our current understanding, it would make sense to mine asteroids and build in space. With Star Trek's science, you can build a starship anywhere you damn well please.

You don't WASTE energy. That is why you wouldn't be running a goddamn holodeck while 70,000 light years from home. Just cuz you HAVE a certain tech doesn't mean you always use it, or that it is wise to use it all the time (look at modern movies, they use CG like it is going out of style, but we got better results 15 years ago when there was a mix of techniques.)

You don't expend all this energy to build the deadliest thing imagineable on the ground of your homeworld either.

Now I'm guilty of everything I told the other guy was fruitless to get mixed up in. We are so talking past one another that I might as well be speaking Eurish and you Esperanto. There's no debate as you call it when there aren't parameters common to both parties, and in this instance, I don't see any.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:05 AM   #135
Noname Given
Vice Admiral
 
Location: None Given
Re: The STAR TREK Movies, As Ranked By STAR TREK Con-Goers

trevanian wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
trevanian wrote: View Post

Man, this is another one of those where you just got to take the Butch Cassidy approach and say to yourself, I got vision and the rest of the world need bifocals.

You could probably cite Occam's Razor, or trot out some existing real-world basis for zero-gee fab & assembly (as I have here repeatedly, and in some good company at times), and the response is STILL going to be some variation on, 'in the future they will have starships that can feed the poor, so they can do ANYthing.'
No the answer will be they have mastered artificial gravity and tractor beams. ( as shown on the show and in the films). So they build on the ground where the construction crew is safer and less encumbered. Then use anti grav and tractor beams to lift it into space.

Still easier to swallow than the nexus, Genesis and dilithium.
Once more, with the last erg of feeling. It is safer to build in space than on Earth, unless you've got everybody with their own personal antigrav rig. It is probably faster too, because you're working in microgravity and only have to worry about inertia mass and not the one gee going DOWN. Plus zero-gee fab offers all sorts of possibilities.
Really, with all the hard radiation, the fact that a suit develops a leak, the fact that you have to be VERY careful as to the movements you make - and tire easily if you're not careful (that hasn't and won't change, man is man); it's easier/safer to build in space as opposed to the ground just using anti and artificial grav tech that they seem to have perfected?
Noname Given 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 08:56 AM.

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