The New Movies Yea or Nay

[TRON JA307020]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I don't order mac and cheese in restaurants and I'm unsure what premium mac and cheese is. My mac and cheese litmus test is what my mother made from scratch.

Anything that is made in a restaurant or at home. My mom made mac and cheese a few times and I just didn't like it. I have had it other places, parties etc. and didn't like it. I don't know why but I just like the boxed stuff better. One of the only foods that I like better from the box actually.

All the chemicals from the boxed stuff has destroyed your taste buds.

Actually no. I am eating some now for lunch. Talking about it for 3 days has really given me a taste for it.

 

[Kor]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I could understand how using too much fresh cheese would make it too rich-tasting for some.
But to me, the orange powder just doesn't taste like real cheese.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I could understand how using too much fresh cheese would make it too rich-tasting for some.
But to me, the orange powder just doesn't taste like real cheese.

Kor

I grew up on the orange powder and it did the job for a long time. But then I grew up and ate real macaroni and cheese.

If I have to go back, you know I've fucked up badly!

 

[Mudd]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I like my science hypothetical but plausible.

Star Trek pretty much fails that test, then.

Not really. Not if we're talking about broad strokes and ignoring obvious and blatant exceptions to the general rule.

IOW, if we cherry-pick our data. Gotcha.

 

[Cromwell]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Star Trek pretty much fails that test, then.

Not really. Not if we're talking about broad strokes and ignoring obvious and blatant exceptions to the general rule.

IOW, if we cherry-pick our data. Gotcha.

No. If you're going to compare a series comprising hundreds of episodes with a single full-length film, then you can't just pull up a few exceptions from the former to trump all criticism of the latter.

Otherwise, the discussion becomes pointless.

Here's a good quotation from the NASA website:

"I'm a physicist, and many of my colleagues watch Star Trek. A few of them imagine some hypothetical, perfectly accurate science fiction TV series, and discredit Star Trek because of some list of science errors or impossible events in particular episodes. This is unfair. They will watch Shakespeare without a complaint, and his plays wouldn't pass the same rigorous test. Accurate science is seldom exciting and spectacular enough to base a weekly adventure TV show upon. Generally Star Trek is pretty intelligently written and more faithful to science than any other science fiction series ever shown on television."

...

So, with the former, the science tends to hypothetical but plausible, with certain exceptions.

This film, on the other hand, has no interest in plausibility (or even the consistency of it's own fictional logic).

Again, the black-holes are left confusing and unexplained. The supernova is left confusing and unexplained. And even little things like the turbo-lift is stripped of all plausible explanation.

If you like that, then, fine, that's great and I'm glad but why (oh why) is it necessary to pretend that there's no difference?

 

[BillJ]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

This film, on the other hand, has no interest in plausibility (or even the consistency of it's own fictional logic).

Again, the black-holes are left confusing and unexplained. The supernova is left confusing and unexplained. And even little things like the turbo-lift is stripped of all plausible explanation.

Not sure how the turbolift is no longer plausible... but okay.

http://www.bu.edu/clarion/guides/Star_Trek_Writers_Guide.pdf

Unbelievable. Why the correct answer? Simply because we've learned during a full season of making visual science fiction that believability of characters, their actions and reactions, is our greatest need and is the most important angle actor.

Build your episode on an action-adventure framework. We must reach out, hold and entertain a mass audience of some 20,000,000 people or we simply don't stay on the air.

Tell your story about people, not about science and gadgetry. Joe Friday doesn't stop to explain the mechanics of his .38 before he uses it; Kildare never did a monologue about the theory of anesthetics; Matt Dillon never identifies and discusses the breed of his horse before he rides off on it.

These are from the 1967-68 Writer's Guide. Roddenberry understood that they were trying to entertain people. The reason the supernova isn't broken down is because it doesn't add anything to the drama and slows down the pace of the film.

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

If people still mean that one scene of Spock in the turbolift in the 2009 movie, the shuttlebay end wall is in a direct diagonal to the base of the bridge, meaning a direct shaft could launch one up there much faster for those returning from a shuttle flight.

Which is something really rather needed in a big ship where your senior staff need to get from the hanger to the bridge in an emergency, which is *dun dun dun* when Spock used it.

Is that really more inplausible than faster than light sonar, I mean sensors and so on?

 

[Sindatur]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Not really. Not if we're talking about broad strokes and ignoring obvious and blatant exceptions to the general rule.

IOW, if we cherry-pick our data. Gotcha.

No. If you're going to compare a series comprising hundreds of episodes with a single full-length film, then you can't just pull up a few exceptions from the former to trump all criticism of the latter.

Otherwise, the discussion becomes pointless.

Here's a good quotation from the NASA website:

"I'm a physicist, and many of my colleagues watch Star Trek. A few of them imagine some hypothetical, perfectly accurate science fiction TV series, and discredit Star Trek because of some list of science errors or impossible events in particular episodes. This is unfair. They will watch Shakespeare without a complaint, and his plays wouldn't pass the same rigorous test. Accurate science is seldom exciting and spectacular enough to base a weekly adventure TV show upon. Generally Star Trek is pretty intelligently written and more faithful to science than any other science fiction series ever shown on television."

...

So, with the former, the science tends to hypothetical but plausible, with certain exceptions.

This film, on the other hand, has no interest in plausibility (or even the consistency of it's own fictional logic).

Again, the black-holes are left confusing and unexplained. The supernova is left confusing and unexplained. And even little things like the turbo-lift is stripped of all plausible explanation.

If you like that, then, fine, that's great and I'm glad but why (oh why) is it necessary to pretend that there's no difference?

But, if you're comparing the two, and someone says, but, they did the same thing in "X" episode that you're complaining about in the new Movies, it's disingenuous to ignore the previous episode, but, harp on it being a problem for the new movies. I don't know how old your quote there is, that you say is on the NASA Website, but, I'm pretty certain Babylon 5, (who had a NASA or Jet Propulsion Lab Scientist or Engineer on staff specifically as a scientific advisor) doesn't get beat out by Star Trek as far as being true to Space Science

 

[Cromwell]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Not sure how the turbo-lift is no longer plausible... but okay.

It's a minor complaint, I'll grant you. The black-holes and the supernova are more important issues because they're integral to the plot and to the premise.

These are from the 1967-68 Writer's Guide. Roddenberry understood that they were trying to entertain people. The reason the supernova isn't broken down is because it doesn't add anything to the drama and slows down the pace of the film.

Are you sure, are you speaking for the film-makers? Is that the reason they don't explain the black-holes, or the supernova?

Either way, it's one of the things that keeps me from enjoying it on repeat viewings.

Or, are you saying that Star Trek has always had an unscientific ethos? Or, that your source repudiates its basis in, again, hypothetical but plausible science.

...

Sorry, must've missed this one the first time around:

But, if you're comparing the two, and someone says, but, they did the same thing in "X" episode that you're complaining about in the new Movies, it's disingenuous to ignore the previous episode, but, harp on it being a problem for the new movies.

Well, no, because you're mis-characterising my argument. I'll make an analogy: if I like something with two-parts "A" and one-part "B", but dislike something with one-part "B" and two-parts "C", can my opponent make the argument that my criticisms of the latter are unfounded because I tolerate "B" in the former?

Or, to put it another, I do tolerate the sketchier elements of Star Trek and the occasional lapses in logic because it has so much of what I like (slow-paced, cerebral, science fiction). Since this new film doesn't have the latter, I'm less inclined to tolerate the former.

 

[BillJ]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Or, are you saying that Star Trek has always had an unscientific ethos? Or, that your source repudiates its basis in, again, hypothetical but plausible science.

I've been watching the original Star Trek for a really long time. One of the things they didn't do was breakdown nor explain anything of much consequence. It's tough to be scientifically inaccurate when you aren't trying to explain anything to begin with.

Did they have an unscientific ethos? No, I don't think they did. But they also didn't put science ahead of being entertaining and moving the story along.

In one of the most popular episodes, "City on the Edge of Forever", they didn't explain the Guardian of Forever. To even try would be a fools' errand and they understood that. Just like they didn't try to explain a giant space amoeba nor Apollo nor Gary Mitchell beyond being very, very vague. Enough to move the story along. Nor did they try to explain warp drive nor transporters beyond very vague notions.

Star Trek has had fans trying to work out various things for fifty-years. That isn't because it was all well thought out to begin with. If it was, there wouldn't be a need to seek explanations. YMMV.

 

[Cromwell]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I've been watching the original Star Trek for a really long time. One of the things they didn't do was breakdown nor explain anything of much consequence. It's tough to be scientifically inaccurate when you aren't trying to explain anything to begin with.

Well, I may be inclined to bow to your wisdom on that one, but I'm not exactly new to the Original. Though, of course, owing to my age, I'm viewing through the lens of "The Next Generation".

When someone says Star Trek, I think:

Did they have an unscientific ethos? No, I don't think they did. But they also didn't put science ahead of being entertaining and moving the story along.

I wouldn't be asking the reboot to do so either, but some lip-service wouldn't hurt. The film was certainly entertaining the first time around, but it's less and less comfortable to sit through with every sitting, if you're someone like me.

Maybe, then again, I've just got a hard-on for the Romulans and I'd have cared less about the illogic of the supernova if it had destroyed someone else's planet. Like the Tellarites... yeah, fuck those guys!

In one of the most popular episodes, "City on the Edge of Forever", they didn't explain the Guardian of Forever. To even try would be a fools' errand and they understood that. Just like they didn't try to explain a giant space amoeba nor Apollo nor Gary Mitchell beyond being very, very vague. Enough to move the story along. Nor did they try to explain warp drive nor transporters beyond very vague notions.

As I said, I just got finished re-watching "Patterns of Force"; that's the sort of episode I like.

Star Trek has had fans trying to work out various things for fifty-years. That isn't because it was all well thought out to begin with. If it was, there wouldn't be a need to seek explanations. YMMV.

Maybe, by the time I got there, they'd done all the work for me.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Fancy technology doesn't really need to be explained or accurate. You have to accept that there will be transporters, warp drive, red matter, etc. But sloppy existing science (such as the black holes, supernova, cold fusion, etc) is something that can be easily avoided without bogging down the plot. The movies aren't the first time there's been bad science in Trek, but they're very unabashed about it, and it happens with more frequency.

 

[BillJ]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I was 16 (and had a lot more hair) when TNG started in 1987. The first couple seasons have a special place in my heart, but it can never equal the original series in my eyes.

 

[BillJ]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Fancy technology doesn't really need to be explained or accurate. You have to accept that there will be transporters, warp drive, red matter, etc. But sloppy existing science (such as the black holes, supernova, cold fusion, etc) is something that can be easily avoided without bogging down the plot. The movies aren't the first time there's been bad science in Trek, but they're very unabashed about it, and it happens with more frequency.

The black holes have been explained to be pretty accurate (beyond the time travel element) by others, the supernova just has a subspace component ala the FTL Praxis explosion and "cold fusion" wasn't actually what was going on in the volcano, it was a nickname.

I've been explaining away poor science and plot holes in Star Trek for nearly forty years. Why would it suddenly bother me in the Abrams films?

 

[Cromwell]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I was 16 (and had a lot more hair) when TNG started in 1987. The first couple seasons have a special place in my heart, but it can never equal the original series in my eyes.

I was yet to be born.

 

[Smellmet]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

I was 16 (and had a lot more hair) when TNG started in 1987. The first couple seasons have a special place in my heart, but it can never equal the original series in my eyes.

I was 13 in 1987, and whilst I'm a massive TOS movie fan, thought that TNG was better in every way. My Star Trek fandom begun with TOS in the late 70s early 80s, however. Maybe I was too young to appreciate the series, but not the movies.

 

[Trekkin]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Not sure how the turbo-lift is no longer plausible... but okay.

It's a minor complaint, I'll grant you. The black-holes and the supernova are more important issues because they're integral to the plot and to the premise.

These are from the 1967-68 Writer's Guide. Roddenberry understood that they were trying to entertain people. The reason the supernova isn't broken down is because it doesn't add anything to the drama and slows down the pace of the film.

Are you sure, are you speaking for the film-makers? Is that the reason they don't explain the black-holes, or the supernova?

Either way, it's one of the things that keeps me from enjoying it on repeat viewings.

Or, are you saying that Star Trek has always had an unscientific ethos? Or, that your source repudiates its basis in, again, hypothetical but plausible science.

...

Sorry, must've missed this one the first time around:

But, if you're comparing the two, and someone says, but, they did the same thing in "X" episode that you're complaining about in the new Movies, it's disingenuous to ignore the previous episode, but, harp on it being a problem for the new movies.

Well, no, because you're mis-characterising my argument. I'll make an analogy: if I like something with two-parts "A" and one-part "B", but dislike something with one-part "B" and two-parts "C", can my opponent make the argument that my criticisms of the latter are unfounded because I tolerate "B" in the former?

Or, to put it another, I do tolerate the sketchier elements of Star Trek and the occasional lapses in logic because it has so much of what I like (slow-paced, cerebral, science fiction). Since this new film doesn't have the latter, I'm less inclined to tolerate the former.

TNG introduced the idea that Star Trek supernovas can (and will) blow up interstellar empires. Kinda like TWOK established that their nebula are big clouds in space. That's just how it rolls in the Star Trek universe, especially since it was shown long ago that Star Treks history is not ours, and therefore it can't be based in our future.

Since Trek falls pretty squarely in the 'soft' section of science fiction, all I require is for it to follow its own rules for how the universe works.

As for it being 'speculative,' how do we know they haven't just expanded the definition of what we now know as 'supernova'? How is that any less realistic than, say...humans evolving ESP ability. An ESP ability which can get a steroid injection when it's user goes past a galactic barrier, no less?

 

[Kor]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

^ and a galactic "barrier" that does not exist in the way in which it was depicted.

Kor

 

[nightwind1]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Fancy technology doesn't really need to be explained or accurate. You have to accept that there will be transporters, warp drive, red matter, etc. But sloppy existing science (such as the black holes, supernova, cold fusion, etc) is something that can be easily avoided without bogging down the plot. The movies aren't the first time there's been bad science in Trek, but they're very unabashed about it, and it happens with more frequency.

Kind of like Praxis blowing up and sending a shockwave through light years of space in STVI?

Or a bomb the size of my desk at work creating an entire Class-M planet?

How about having to whisper on the bridge so the enemy starship can't hear you across thousands of kilometers of space?

 

[Kemaiku]

Re: The New Movies Yay or Nay

Or how an EMP is supposed to "vapourise" oceans.