If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by trek_futurist, Dec 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    His point was that in matter/anti-matter reactors you need something (like dilithium) to regulate the flow of particles from one chamber to another. He simply filled in the gaps, but essentially credits the writers with forthright vision for coming up with basic fusion principles before scientists came up with it!
     
  2. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Oh, I think I confused it with the meta-physics of star trek, which came out in 1999 I believe. Anyway, I don't think physics has advanced so much since then that most of the principles (especially those of relativity) are invalid now. If it came out in 1955 I might grant you that.
     
  3. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Not the point I was making.
     
  4. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    But it proves something amazing.

    That when science fiction writers team up with science advisors, they're basically writing the future!
     
  5. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

    TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

    In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.
     
  6. Balrog

    Balrog Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Location:
    Balrog
    And when it comes to the brilliance of TOS, one cannot credit Roddenberry without first mentioning the true savior of that show, the other Gene - Gene Coon.
     
  7. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Gene Rodenberry on technoabble, from "The Making of Star Trek" (and courtesy of TBBS user jayrath, because google keeps taking me to his post):
     
  8. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Any proof that "dilithium" came from a science advisor? From what I've read it came from slapping di in front of lithium, because lithium ( the original fuel) was a real element with real properties and di makes it twice as good and fictional.
     
  9. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Gene Coon, Matt Jefferies, Bob Justman and Sam Peeples all deserve massive amounts of credit for its success. :techman:
     
  10. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Sure, to idolize The Rodd is wrong and people like Fontana, Coon and Justman deserve more credit. But I doubt anybody would deny that the vision is Roddenberry's brainchild. The actual writing and producing of episodes on the other hand has been the work of many people.
    Let's phrase it like this, Roddenberry set some parameters for the franchise, it is about a future which is a bit better than our present. Even somebody like Meyer who clashed with Roddenberry returned to Roddenberryian vibes at the end of both his movies. They are woven into the basic fabric of Trek, you can't get them out.

    PS: We had virtually the same idea. Now the question is, who is the telepath? ;)
     
  11. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    I think TOS is Roddenberry's actual vision before he bought into the hype that he was changing the world and before his mental faculties began to deteriorate.
     
  12. Herkimer Jitty

    Herkimer Jitty Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Dayglow, New California Republic
    Not the point I was making. Once again, you've sidestepped to something tangentially related just so you can show how much a better trekkie you are than the rest of us. I was talking about the idea that all conflict and hardship would be squeezed out of humanity. Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables. It's moral and ethical, not economical.
     
  13. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    And we have a winner! :techman:
     
  14. nightwind1

    nightwind1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Location:
    Des Moines, IA
    Yeah, you need a carburetor for an engine to work... big whoop. It doesn't take much to figure that if you have an engine, you need something to regulate the fuel. Yep, lots of forthright vision there.
     
  15. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Sure, we can get into details like whether TNG is more utopian than TOS and which vision is better. I'd say they all have their advantages and disadvantages, I enjoy TNG's at its most utopian as much as DS9 during its darkest hours.
    I merely wanted to say that is the common denominator of all Trek incarnations is that it features a better future. Just like 1984 or Blade Runner features a worse future and Firefly features a future that is basically like the present.
     
  16. AdmiralScreed

    AdmiralScreed Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2011
    Guys, don't reply to Trek_Futurists's posts until he gives us proof that people who like ST09 are lesser fans than those who do not. He's just sidestepping the question and you guys are feeding into him by replying to all of his other nonsense.
     
  17. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    He could have made a lot more money making traditional westerns, which were extremely popular at that time, to my understanding. And this show was not, exactly, favored by TV execs. So what you are saying is complete and utter non-sense. Next..
     
  18. trek_futurist

    trek_futurist Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    You need to first define hardship.

    If by hardship, you are referring to basic human limitations, then there will always be some limits, albeit slimmer as time and technology (especially medical technology) advances.

    But then there is absolutely no reason to eschew our further evolution either. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to a life of less hardship, especially if our libidos are focusing their energies elsewhere, such as in the maintenance of technology, the charting of star systems, the diplomacy of burgeoning species.
     
  19. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Gotta love true believers.
     
  20. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    You really, really don't. Most are pompous blowhards.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.