How Star Wars Ruined Star Trek

[Amaris]

Even Star Wars didn't have something so staggeringly dumb as a supernova that could threaten the galaxy.

Why is that dumb?
http://www.universetoday.com/49401/could-a-faraway-supernova-threaten-earth/

Sure, it's range is 3,200 light years, but that's still a huge explosion, and if it's in a populated area, as it was in the Star Trek universe, then that sounds pretty dangerous to civilizations in our galaxy, wouldn't you think?

You'll accept warp speed as believable, transporters, DNA that goes crazy due to some experiment and then reverts back to its original configuration without causing instant death to the person in question, but a massive supernova that could threaten galactic civilizations is dumb?

Fascinating.

The galaxy is 100,000 light years across.

Yes, it is.

Again:

Sure, it's range is 3,200 light years, but that's still a huge explosion, and if it's in a populated area, as it was in the Star Trek universe, then that sounds pretty dangerous to civilizations in our galaxy, wouldn't you think?

Please read closely.

Keep in mind, also, that I'm only going by what we use in the real world. The Star Trek universe doesn't generally apply to our real universe, as many liberties are taken, so who is to say it isn't a subspace supernova?

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure anyone who likes the film will find ways to rationalize it, just as you would a film you like. I mean, if this annoys you, then you must have hated Star Treks I, II, III, IV, V, and VI, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis, because they all use concepts that would be considered silly if applied to real world physics. You have a good reason, I'm sure, but I just find it odd that you consider a massive supernova that could threaten many galactic civilizations to be the "dumb" aspect in the movie.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Dramatic license: it's important.

 

[Kruezerman]

Uh oh, Gene's Vision (TM) has returned! The one about peace and perfect people and no conflicts and bad things and all that shit.

Of course his REAL vision was lots of this: $$$

And titties. Seriously, dude liked women quite a bit.

 

[Amaris]

Dramatic license: it's important.

Apparently, hyperbole and dramatic license doesn't exist in the 23rd century.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Trekksters?!?

 

[Kruezerman]

Dramatic license: it's important.

Apparently, hyperbole and dramatic license doesn't exist in the 24th century.

Fixed that for you. That's why the episodes were so boring.

 

[Ghrakh]

Why is that dumb?
http://www.universetoday.com/49401/could-a-faraway-supernova-threaten-earth/

Sure, it's range is 3,200 light years, but that's still a huge explosion, and if it's in a populated area, as it was in the Star Trek universe, then that sounds pretty dangerous to civilizations in our galaxy, wouldn't you think?

You'll accept warp speed as believable, transporters, DNA that goes crazy due to some experiment and then reverts back to its original configuration without causing instant death to the person in question, but a massive supernova that could threaten galactic civilizations is dumb?

Fascinating.

The galaxy is 100,000 light years across.

Yes, it is.

Again:

Sure, it's range is 3,200 light years, but that's still a huge explosion, and if it's in a populated area, as it was in the Star Trek universe, then that sounds pretty dangerous to civilizations in our galaxy, wouldn't you think?

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

Keep in mind, also, that I'm only going by what we use in the real world. The Star Trek universe doesn't generally apply to our real universe, as many liberties are taken, so who is to say it isn't a subspace supernova?

Then I would have been OK with it. But you see, they decided the target audience (everyone) doesn't want to hear any of that Trek crap.

That's off the top of my head. I'm sure anyone who likes the film will find ways to rationalize it, just as you would a film you like. I mean, if this annoys you, then you must have hated Star Treks II, III, IV, V, and VI, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis, because they all use concepts that would be considered silly if applied to real world physics. You have a good reason, I'm sure, but I just find it odd that you consider a massive supernova that could threaten many galactic civilizations to be the "dumb" aspect in the movie.

I liked TWOK. And "threaten many galactic civilizations" wasn't what was said.

Please read closely.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Trekksters?!?

"The Trekksters of Trekelion"

 

[Amaris]

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

At light speed, unless it's subspace, at which point it moves considerably faster. As for the turbolift, note the word "turbo" in the name. If it were slower, would you have been more gratified?

Then I would have been OK with it. But you see, they decided the target audience (everyone) doesn't want to hear any of that Trek crap.

They? Who is they? Did they tell you that they made this decision? You were in the room while they discussed it? Oh, no wait, someone told you, and that person was in the room when it was being discussed. Er, wait, someone told you from someone else's source who was in the room when they discussed it, because there's no way you'd make this statement unless you had confirmation that such a thing was said. I mean, to do otherwise is to make it up, and this is a Star Trek board. We don't lie.

So would you have been okay if they would have made something up? Say, a quantum flux inversion field that created a subspace tear, causing a flood of tachyon particles to create a temporal vortex, resulting in the effects of the supernova to spread farther, faster?

Would that have assuaged your concerns that a dangerous supernova threatening the galaxy is dumb?

I liked TWOK. And "threaten many galactic civilizations" wasn't what was said.

Please read closely.

You liked TWOK? Genesis device. Creating an entire planet sized biosphere in minutes. 6 of them, according to Doctor McCoy, who would never use hyperbole to get his point across about the seriousness of the situation.

Protomatter. What is it? Well, it's unstable, but more importantly, what amazing quality does it possess that coupled with the Genesis device it can replicate living matter instantly?

Ceti Alpha 6 just up and exploded. I mean, you'd think a planet that was six months away from just blowing the shit out of itself would register on someone's sensor array! Of course, then there's the whole thing about the planet exploding. That's some shit, isn't it?

It's no wonder everyone hates TWOK. Who wants a movie that doesn't perfectly adhere to physics? It's almost like they wanted it to be... exciting. The bastards.

 

[nightwind1]

• The Star Wars Physics of the Red Matter

Genesis torpedo being able to create a living world? Going so fast that humans evolve into lizards?

• The Star Wars Physics on the Khan Blood and immortality.

Water that makes you live so fast you're invisible? A naturally occurring substance that give one psychic and telekinetic powers?

 

[Mudd]

Bad article - bad premise, bad logic. It serves a purpose for IGN as click-bait, nothing more.

BTW, there's nothing any more or less preposterous or scientifically implausible about interstellar transporters than about faster-than-light spaceships.

 

[DWF]

For a number of people the article rings true, but it's a question that should've been asked after TWOK came out. But I do think that the article might give an explaination for why Orci is no longer directing Star Trek 3, he was truely the only real classic Trek fan in the creative staff and not long after the news ofhim contracting Shatner for the new movie we get the news he's off the project. And Paramount wants the new movie to be closer to GOTG than the classic Star Trek.

 

[Mudd]

No one in a position to know anything has said that Paramount wants the new Trek to be like GOTG.

A million people on the Internet playing telephone and parroting that claim of Devin Faraci's does not make it a thing that happened, has ever been said by anyone involved, or is true.

 

[Harvey]

Nor do we know if Orci was fired, quit, or some other scenario. All we do know is that he isn't directing the film any longer.

 

[DWF]

No one in a position to know anything has said that Paramount wants the new Trek to be like GOTG.

A million people on the Internet playing telephone and parroting that claim of Devin Faraci's does not make it a thing that happened, has ever been said by anyone involved, or is true.

It's just my opinion of events, Abrams won't be directing Star Trek 3 so the article can be seen as mere hyperbole, but there's plenty of people who'd agree with it. Truthfully it's not Star Wars ruining Star Trek just "magic science" which had been discredited rather quickly. But it's not easy to ignore the effect Star Wars has had on Star Trek.

 

[DWF]

Nor do we know if Orci was fired, quit, or some other scenario. All we do know is that he isn't directing the film any longer.

And I don't believe I said he was fired or that he quit, just that he's no longer directing the movie.

 

[Ghrakh]

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

At light speed, unless it's subspace, at which point it moves considerably faster. As for the turbolift, note the word "turbo" in the name. If it were slower, would you have been more gratified?

Then I would have been OK with it. But you see, they decided the target audience (everyone) doesn't want to hear any of that Trek crap.

They? Who is they? Did they tell you that they made this decision? You were in the room while they discussed it? Oh, no wait, someone told you, and that person was in the room when it was being discussed. Er, wait, someone told you from someone else's source who was in the room when they discussed it, because there's no way you'd make this statement unless you had confirmation that such a thing was said. I mean, to do otherwise is to make it up, and this is a Star Trek board. We don't lie.

So would you have been okay if they would have made something up? Say, a quantum flux inversion field that created a subspace tear, causing a flood of tachyon particles to create a temporal vortex, resulting in the effects of the supernova to spread farther, faster?

Would that have assuaged your concerns that a dangerous supernova threatening the galaxy is dumb?

I liked TWOK. And "threaten many galactic civilizations" wasn't what was said.

Please read closely.

You liked TWOK? Genesis device. Creating an entire planet sized biosphere in minutes. 6 of them, according to Doctor McCoy, who would never use hyperbole to get his point across about the seriousness of the situation.

Protomatter. What is it? Well, it's unstable, but more importantly, what amazing quality does it possess that coupled with the Genesis device it can replicate living matter instantly?

Ceti Alpha 6 just up and exploded. I mean, you'd think a planet that was six months away from just blowing the shit out of itself would register on someone's sensor array! Of course, then there's the whole thing about the planet exploding. That's some shit, isn't it?

It's no wonder everyone hates TWOK. Who wants a movie that doesn't perfectly adhere to physics? It's almost like they wanted it to be... exciting. The bastards.

There are way too many strawmen here. Yeah I liked TWOK. The genesis device is "Trek Tech", part fantasy, part sciencey. "Trek Tech" has been a staple of Star Trek since since the beginning. I have no idea why you're equating it with a stellar phenomenon...

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's just my opinion of events, Abrams won't be directing Star Trek 3 so the article can be seen as mere hyperbole, but there's plenty of people who'd agree with it. Truthfully it's not Star Wars ruining Star Trek just "magic science" which had been discredited rather quickly. But it's not easy to ignore the effect Star Wars has had on Star Trek.

Except magic science has been a part of Star Trek since Gary Mitchell moved a Styrofoam cup with brain waves.

Pretending that red matter is any different from that or any of the other Trek gobbledygook of the last 50 years is disingenuous.

And of course Star Wars has influenced Star Trek. Star Wars has influenced a lot of things. But, according to thesaurus.com, "influence" and "ruin" are not synonyms.

EDIT:

There are way too many strawmen here. Yeah I liked TWOK. The genesis device is "Trek Tech", part fantasy, part sciencey. "Trek Tech" has been a staple of Star Trek since since the beginning. I have no idea why you're equating it with a stellar phenomenon...

Not to speak for J. But I think he meant the Genesis device as a direct comparison to red matter.

The God-like poof of the Genesis planet's existence was the comparison to your stellar phenomenon.

Or how a planet just ups and explodes and the "shock" is powerful enough to alter an adjacent planet's orbit to the point its atmosphere is radically altered.

 

[Belz...]

I only had to get to paragraph two before: "Gene Roddenberry’s beloved vision..." and I stopped reading.

I stopped reading when the author started talking about dumbing down Trek. Apparently he hasn't watched TOS in a while.

since some of you decided to toss out useless comments without actually reading the article beyond a paragraph or two, allow me to elaborate on what I was referring to:

• Seeing one planet be destroyed through normal vision on the surface of another planet.
• The Star Wars Physics of the Red Matter
• The Star Wars Physics on the Khan Blood and immortality.
• The fact that the 50th Anniversary is coming up and they're still trying to nail down a director.

How are those Star Wars physics ? Sounds like Trek physics, to me.

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

For those who read the tie-in comic: it wasn't a supernova of any type we know of today. It was a new phenomenon, traveling through subspace, if memory serves. I'm too lazy to fetch my copy.

 

[DWF]

It's just my opinion of events, Abrams won't be directing Star Trek 3 so the article can be seen as mere hyperbole, but there's plenty of people who'd agree with it. Truthfully it's not Star Wars ruining Star Trek just "magic science" which had been discredited rather quickly. But it's not easy to ignore the effect Star Wars has had on Star Trek.

Except magic science has been a part of Star Trek since Gary Mitchell moved a Styrofoam cup with brain waves.

Pretending that red matter is any different from that or any of the other Trek gobbledygook of the last 50 years is disingenuous.

And of course Star Wars has influenced Star Trek. Star Wars has influenced a lot of things. But, according to thesaurus.com, "influence" and "ruin" are not synonyms.

I agree with you there Star Wars certainly didn't ruin Star Trek as I said there's plenty of hyperbole in the article.