Yeah, the whole argument was about the SCIENCE of Star Trek and Star Wars. NOBODY equated that with the qualitiy of the movies except you. I was just talking about the portrayal of science. You just read it wrong.
Why is ship speed only a problem for fans with ST and STiD?
- Thread starter Turd Ferguson
- Start date
Yeah, the whole argument was about the SCIENCE of Star Trek and Star Wars. NOBODY equated that with the qualitiy of the movies except you. I was just talking about the portrayal of science. You just read it wrong.
So.
You either meant Star Wars science is concurrently bad AND not bad. Or you meant 'The science is bad, but Star War is not bad.'
One interpretation simply makes no sense. It's either innacurate, or it's accurate (Psst: it innacurate.)
The other interpretation means your defending Star Wars quality from an accusation that never existed. Unless you're the sort who takes 'it's inaccurate' as a slight.
Last edited:
Huh? Are you trying to make a petty argument out of something you just misunderstood?
I said the SCIENCE in old Star Trek and Star Wars was NOT shitty. Loose? Yeah. Completely wrong? No. In fact it was pretty spot on for the time they were conceived!
On the other hand the science in all three(!) JJ- Abrams movies (2 Trek and 1 Wars movie) IS shitty. Extremely shitty. The SCIENCE.
That doesn't make the movies themselves shitty by association. And nobody said so except you.
But it is a valid point of critizism.
Edit:
I would prefer it if you would type your text before hitting "publish", so people actually answer to the text that stands there, and not to what you wrote in afterwards. Also it's bad form to use "quotes" and then rip them off all context, so they fit better with your imaginary argument. You seemed to have missed the whole point, that nobody talks about the quality of the movies, but of the quality of the presentation of science in those movies. And that there's a vast space between "somewhat loose using artistic license to visualize something" and "completely shitty and disregarding of any factual science imaginable".
I said the SCIENCE in old Star Trek and Star Wars was NOT shitty. Loose? Yeah. Completely wrong? No. In fact it was pretty spot on for the time they were conceived!
On the other hand the science in all three(!) JJ- Abrams movies (2 Trek and 1 Wars movie) IS shitty. Extremely shitty. The SCIENCE.
That doesn't make the movies themselves shitty by association. And nobody said so except you.
But it is a valid point of critizism.
Edit:
I would prefer it if you would type your text before hitting "publish", so people actually answer to the text that stands there, and not to what you wrote in afterwards. Also it's bad form to use "quotes" and then rip them off all context, so they fit better with your imaginary argument. You seemed to have missed the whole point, that nobody talks about the quality of the movies, but of the quality of the presentation of science in those movies. And that there's a vast space between "somewhat loose using artistic license to visualize something" and "completely shitty and disregarding of any factual science imaginable".
Last edited:
Star Wars and Trek were made post-1966, not in the frigging Renaissance. Give the 'science of the era' some credit.
Prefer away.
Also - you added that in with an edit
You have no idea about how much our knowledge of space has improved since the late sixties, do you? You kow, there was something, called the space race inbetween. Also: Hubble. The first images of Earth taken from space. The "deep field". Extrasolar planets. And computer generated imagery.
"For their times" they often represented things visually wrong, simply because often people didn't knew how things actually looked back then (there were no computers to visualize how a wormhole would look) or, more importantly, the VFX of the time simply weren't up to the task
You will notice planets in those movies were handdrawn, even Earth, because there simply wasn't any imagery available.
But they were still "factual" correct, in that they were scientifically correctly represented correctly described. Orbit mechanics were alluded to. Planets were even drawn with an atmosphere layer compared to earlier movies.
JJ. Abrams' science is both factually and visually wrong. ALL of his science, not just the space stuff. And the factual wrongness is a VERY valid critizism of his movies, even though they are entertaining otherwise (well, two out of three).
Anyway, I'm off now, I think I have made my argument clear, but real life obligations call for me know...
Edit:
Yes, but I made clear what I edited. With this nifty "Edit:"-sign. You can use that too! It's for free. But I didn't change, overhaule and expand my whole argument in retrospect, because that wouldn't be fair to the discussion, would it?
"For their times" they often represented things visually wrong, simply because often people didn't knew how things actually looked back then (there were no computers to visualize how a wormhole would look) or, more importantly, the VFX of the time simply weren't up to the task
You will notice planets in those movies were handdrawn, even Earth, because there simply wasn't any imagery available.
But they were still "factual" correct, in that they were scientifically correctly represented correctly described. Orbit mechanics were alluded to. Planets were even drawn with an atmosphere layer compared to earlier movies.
JJ. Abrams' science is both factually and visually wrong. ALL of his science, not just the space stuff. And the factual wrongness is a VERY valid critizism of his movies, even though they are entertaining otherwise (well, two out of three).
Anyway, I'm off now, I think I have made my argument clear, but real life obligations call for me know...
Edit:
Yes, but I made clear what I edited. With this nifty "Edit:"-sign. You can use that too! It's for free. But I didn't change, overhaule and expand my whole argument in retrospect, because that wouldn't be fair to the discussion, would it?
Last edited:
No man, only you possess such hallowed knowledge.
I certainly never would have thought that the stupid science in 'The Enemy Within' boiled down to it just looking wrong. But now I've seen the light. Hallelujah.
Now excuse me, Data is being possessed by an evil mask. I'd hate to miss a minute of this exciting (and scientifically accurate for the time!) episode.
Well, about that.
"Factual science imaginable" is a self-contradictory fusion of two different things that don't go together:
1) Factual science. That's the body of of scientific knowledge as we know it right now, including all accepted theories.
2) Imaginary science. That's a supposed body of scientific knowledge incorporating facts or theories that are not currently a part of factual science. That includes imaginary properties of a make-believe and/or hypothetical universe, such as one used as the setting of a work of science fiction or fantasy. It also includes a hypothetical extrapolation of what factual science might look like in the future.
In short, "factual science imaginable" that is not "factual science" is nothing but "imaginary science" that is not in any way "factual."
You get no points for realism simply for adhering to imaginary science.
It's all magic.
It was a lot longer than that. Everyone changed uniforms, Kirk was unconcious for at least a couple of hours etc
No, it's not. That's just another way of saying the same thing."Any factual science you can think of". Better?
The space-battle scenes in Star Wars are engrossing and immersive in part because they were modeled after real-world dogfight footage. There were also realized by first-rate artists and technicians. George Lucas deserves credit as the creative genius driving all of that. If it seems realistic, it's for all those reasons.
Scientific plausibility did not take priority. Looking and sounding good on screen, engaging the audience, and capturing the imagination took precedence.
Absolutely Right™
People are insistent on criticizing nuTrek for doing things that oldTrek did also. It is illogical.
It's not illogical. Roddenberry was visionary or and artistic genius, whilst Abrams is a fuckwit hack pissing all over the work of better men gone by. It's all laid out in the True Fan's Manifesto.
I just love how literally any thread saying "JJ. Abrams has some serious issues regarding real science" IMMEDIATELY becomes "JJ. Abrams is a talentless hack who isn't understood by the true fans" in some hyperbole variant of false equivalency by some hyper-defensive kiddies (and grown-ups) that have never learned to cope with critizism 
It is in fact the True Fans who don't like what that hedonistic Star Wars Lover has done to Star Trek.
Honestly, many times in the TV shows, and movie travel time seems to be cherry picked out of the air all the time.
When it was done in Pure Trek it was a matter of artistic integrity on the part of the writing staffs. When it's done in Abrams filth it's because the writers (and director) are creatively bankrupt hacks.
The timeline in Empire Strikes Back makes no sense at all but that doesn't stop it being the best of the franchise for other reasons. I suppose the issue is whether the sum of the parts is better than the plot holes. STIV winds a lot of people up for similar reasons while many others love it as a good romp.
For me, Star Wars is a children's franchise enjoyed by adults whereas Star Trek is an adult franchise enjoyed by children. Thus, rightly or wrongly, I hold Star Trek to a higher standard and I get more irritated when something careless or childish appears on screen.
For me, Star Wars is a children's franchise enjoyed by adults whereas Star Trek is an adult franchise enjoyed by children. Thus, rightly or wrongly, I hold Star Trek to a higher standard and I get more irritated when something careless or childish appears on screen.
The Science in Science Fiction is almost always about 2% science and 98% bullsh...I mean fiction. ST is no exception.
Similar threads
