Litverse & Star Trek '09

[Jbarney]

The movie itself does that. Spock's account indicates that there was time between the supernova and Romulus's destruction for him to promise the Romulans help, arrange for the red matter, and launch the Jellyfish. That must've been a matter of days at least. The only way the supernova star could be within the same system is if it was a wide binary system with Romulus and Remus around the smaller, main-sequence member of the pair. It can't have been Romulus's own primary star, or the planet would've been destroyed within minutes.

I thought this was one of the worst parts of the film. I think I have a fair understanding of what science tells us about the life or death of stars. I thought the 09 Star Trek film version of the threat to Romulus (and beyond) was catoonish at best. The only way I have been able to rationalize it is that there is a MASSIVE amount of untold story that would need to be fleshed out in a few novels or comics stories. (Whatever the future license agreements are).

I would post a couple of my crazy rationalizing of those events (I do have a couple of ideas that I think work better than what we saw on film) but I know there are rules about not posting story ideas for writers....

However, the overall point you are making TOTALLY aligns with my reaction to that portion of the film. I remember sitting in the movie theater and thinking. "What?" So I haven't read any of the IDW stuff, I would love for them to at least touch on Red Matter, the star explosion, etc. I look forward to reading that continuity and a time when some of the writers who hang out here can give us background on what was scene on screen.

 

[Greg Cox]

On other hand, to be fair, THE WRATH OF KHAN never really explains why Ceti Alpha VI went boom because that's not really what the story was about. And TREK has always had its share of apocalyptic scenarios that probably don't bear up to close examination: "The Naked Time," "All Our Yesterdays," the exploding moon in TUC, in etc.

The point was rebooting the timeline and giving Nero a motive for revenge, along with reintroducing new versions of the classic crew. Red Matter was just the McGuffin as it were.

 

[Christopher]

The point was rebooting the timeline and giving Nero a motive for revenge, along with reintroducing new versions of the classic crew. Red Matter was just the McGuffin as it were.

But it wouldn't have been that hard to call up an astronomer and say, "Hey, give me a plausible scenario for how a supernova could destroy a planet." Roddenberry always consulted with scientists and engineers on TOS, even if he didn't always end up taking their advice. The Berman-era shows had Rick Sternbach and Mike and Denise Okuda as de facto technical consultants, and in later seasons they had actual credited technical consultants on staff, first Naren Shankar and then Andre Bormanis, both of whom graduated to producer. Keeping one foot in plausible science was always important to Roddenberry, which is why it frustrates me that almost all the Trek movies are so utterly fanciful and scientifically absurd. TMP is the only one that made any real attempt at credibility.

These days, there's actually a group in Hollywood that works to offer scientific consultation to moviemakers and get more plausible science into the movies, and I think we're seeing a trend toward better science in movies like Gravity, Interstellar, The Martian, Arrival, and so forth. There's no reason Trek couldn't get onboard with that, as Roddenberry would've wanted.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

There is a story that Orci and Lindelof actually did try to inject some actual science into Trek XI but were overruled by Abrams who was more concerned with being cool than with scientific accuracy.

 

[woodstock]

There is a story that Orci and Lindelof actually did try to inject some actual science into Trek XI but were overruled by Abrams who was more concerned with being cool than with scientific accuracy.

Reminds me of the Sprite commercial from a dozen years ago or so about a slug monster movie; execs talking about the marketing aspects, toys, videos, fast food meals, etc. At the end someone states "we don't have a script yet, but we can bang something out by Friday."

 

[Christopher]

There is a story that Orci and Lindelof actually did try to inject some actual science into Trek XI but were overruled by Abrams who was more concerned with being cool than with scientific accuracy.

That seems likely. Orci's online discussions about the movie indicated that he had a pretty good understanding of science -- like his explanation of how the coexisting-timelines model was more accurate than the erased-timeline model, which was why they assumed the two realities could coexist.

Of course, it was Abrams's prerogative as director to make those changes. Roddenberry himself often chose "coolness" or the equivalent over accuracy. Still, I would've preferred something "cool" that at least made some semblance of sense.

 

[Skywalker]

There is a story that Orci and Lindelof actually did try to inject some actual science into Trek XI but were overruled by Abrams who was more concerned with being cool than with scientific accuracy.

Well, that explains Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens...

 

[The Gatekeeper]

It has actually bothered me when the exploding Starkiller turns into a new star. I'm no expert, but I'm quite certain that's not how science works.

To say nothing of the fact that the entire heat and energy of a star is being absorbed into the planet, through it's atmosphere, yet it still stays snow covered and snowy.

 

[Christopher]

Well, that explains Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens...

Star Wars has always been fantasy. It's a sword-and-sorcery adventure dressed up with space-age trappings, and has never made the slightest effort at scientific plausibility. Come on, it had a giant monster living inside an asteroid in space. What was that thing supposed to eat?

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even the same genre. The former is science fiction, the latter is space fantasy (in Lucas's own terms). Abrams's "coolness first" approach is a perfect fit for Star Wars.

It has actually bothered me when the exploding Starkiller turns into a new star. I'm no expert, but I'm quite certain that's not how science works.

Again, Star Wars has never made the slightest pretense of being scientifically plausible. But where did you get the idea it turned into a new star? I just assumed the scene ended before the incandescent matter from the explosion had time to dissipate and cool. Heck, that's enormously more plausible than the laughably stupid way that Alderaan blew up. A whole planet being destroyed would not just go "bang" in a split-second and look exactly like a gasoline explosion. It'd be a slow, gradual process that might well heat the matter of the planet to white-hot incandescence, not unlike what happened to Starkiller Base. There are certainly some utterly nonsensical things about Starkiller, like the way the beam propagates FTL and is visible from different star systems, or the way it sucks in an entire star to power itself (what, does it use up a different star every time it fires, or does the star somehow reconstitute itself?). But the actual destruction scene is an improvement over what previous films in the series gave us.

 

[The Gatekeeper]

But where did you get the idea it turned into a new star?

I and everyone know interpreted it that way. Wookieepdia also claims that's what happened. It's near the beginning of the article:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Starkiller_Base

 

[Skywalker]

Star Wars has always been fantasy. It's a sword-and-sorcery adventure dressed up with space-age trappings, and has never made the slightest effort at scientific plausibility. Come on, it had a giant monster living inside an asteroid in space. What was that thing supposed to eat?

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even the same genre. The former is science fiction, the latter is space fantasy (in Lucas's own terms). Abrams's "coolness first" approach is a perfect fit for Star Wars.

You know we all already know this stuff, right?

 

[Markonian]

It's explicitly described as FTL in The Needs of the Many.

Actually, it's explained at length as a never-before-seen subspace-riding phenomenon. That's also why the devastation is not linear - it's a few systems that get hit here and there.

 

[Trekkin]

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't even the same genre.

Better put in a complaint to Amazon then. Cos guess who has Trek books sorted into the same genre as Star Wars tie-ins?

Take comfort in knowing that genre ranges from Frankenstein and 20000 Leagues Under The Sea, to Necromancer and Power Rangers novelisations.

 

[Christopher]

Better put in a complaint to Amazon then. Cos guess who has Trek books sorted into the same genre as Star Wars tie-ins?

Hey, it's George Lucas's own definition. He's never claimed that Star Wars is science fiction. He's always called it space fantasy. He even added the prologue "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away," to tell us right up front that the whole thing was a fairy tale. The problem is that the general public fails to look past the surface trappings and recognize the difference between a science fiction story and a fantasy story set in space.

Besides, most bookstores shelve science fiction and fantasy together anyway. There is, of course, overlap between the two, but that doesn't mean it's invalid to point out the existence of the distinction.

Star Trek and Star Wars have never been trying to be the same kind of story. Roddenberry wanted a credible adult drama set in a plausible future; Lucas wanted a swashbuckling fantasy for children of all ages set in a timeless realm of myth. Acknowledging the difference isn't a criticism of either franchise; on the contrary, it's showing respect for the distinct intention and identity of each one.

 

[Trekkin]

Genre doesn't determine 'the story' or its identity. Content determines genre. Because at the end of the day, genre is just a sorting tool based similarities between works.

Similarities like say...all the outer space swashbuckling adventures in both Trek and Wars .

I mean, Kirk literally duelled Trelane. And Sulu imitated Zorro for 20 minutes, and Pike got chased by knights in armour, and Picard was Errol Flynn, and NuSulu fences with Romulans, and DS9 had a magic sword destined for the one true King, and frigging hell. Did 5 decades of Trek writing staff have a huge, collective case of metal penis envy? A utopian future indeed, if you happen to be a god-darned blacksmith...

Anyway. As for Roddenberry and Lucas, both had lots of views regarding their franchises and their 'identity'. I always find it convenient how selective we can be in arguing which are worthy of respect.

 

[Christopher]

Genre doesn't determine 'the story' or its identity. Content determines genre. Because at the end of the day, genre is just a sorting tool based similarities between works.

In general terms, of course not, but we're not speaking generally. This conversation is specifically about what we expect of the science content in Star Trek vs. Star Wars. My point is that J.J. Abrams's fanciful approach may fall short of the level of scientific credibility we expect (or at least hope for) in Star Trek, but it's a perfect fit for Star Wars, which has always been pure fairy tale and has never used science and technology as anything more than the superficial trappings for a story based in myth and mysticism.

Anyway. As for Roddenberry and Lucas, both had lots of views regarding their franchises and their 'identity'. I always find it convenient how selective we can be in arguing which are worthy of respect.

Where in the world did you get the impression that I was talking about respect? I'm not saying one is better than the other -- on the contrary, I'm defending their right to be different, to be judged by the standards that are right for each individual work. Specifically, I'm defending J.J. Abrams's choices in The Force Awakens. I'm saying there's nothing wrong with how he treated Starkiller Base, because that movie is set in a fantasy universe that isn't supposed to make scientific sense to begin with. When it comes to Star Trek, which was intended by its creator to be plausible to the extent that didn't conflict with drama, it's justifiable to criticize bad science like the supernova in the '09 movie. But when it comes to Star Wars, which was intended by its creator to be a tale of sword and sorcery and myth and mysticism transposed against a space-opera setting, science isn't even a question. The fanciful things it depicts can't be considered bad science, because they aren't even trying to be science. So it's just not equivalent.

Heck, that's part of why I like The Force Awakens so much. It's probably my favorite Star Wars movie. The Trek movies Abrams directed had a lot going for them, but they had drawbacks that came largely from the fact that he was treating them like Star Wars movies, an approach that didn't quite fit the Trek universe. But once he got to do an actual Star Wars movie, his style worked perfectly.

 

[TheUsualSuspect]

Come on, it had a giant monster living inside an asteroid in space. What was that thing supposed to eat?

Passing space ships, apparently.

 

[Trekkin]

Where in the world did you get the impression that I was talking about respect?

Because you directly tied your argument to respecting the creators intentions for the show/movies?

Hey, it's George Lucas's own definition. He's never claimed that Star Wars is science fiction. He's always called it space fantasy.

...

Star Trek and Star Wars have never been trying to be the same kind of story. Roddenberry wanted a credible adult drama set in a plausible future; Lucas wanted a swashbuckling fantasy for children of all ages set in a timeless realm of myth. Acknowledging the difference isn't a criticism of either franchise; on the contrary, it's showing respect for the distinct intention and identity of each one.

Which is a strange thing to do with Star Trek. A show that started as a haphazard proto-anthology, and rather firmly put a pin in the idea of Trek having one intended identity when Roddenberry got the boot. Twice.

Star Trek is the product of committee, in the best way. Many writers bringing in different 'intentions', and growing an identity over the decades.

Star Wars, which has always been pure fairy tale and has never used science and technology as anything more than the superficial trappings for a story based in myth and mysticism.

Out of curiosity: What makes The Trouble With Tribbles and The Thaw part of the same genre, if not their 'trappings?'

The former especially fits the 'western' part of Trek's mission statement, better than most. Change the Tribbles to earth rodents and set it in the Old West , and you've got yourself an episode of Have Gun - Will Travel.

And the latter is a mix of Nightmare on Elm St and IT, set in SPAAAAACE. Although admittedly, IT already is science fiction.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not going to respond to this, except to say that it has nothing to do with the point I was actually making. My point was simply that there's nothing wrong with Abrams's fanciful approach to The Force Awakens because Star Wars has always been fantasy. I was trying to say something positive, something that was not meant to be judgmental but just the opposite, and I'm not going to get drawn into a pointless argument just because you don't like my exact choice of words.

 

[Trekkin]

I'm not addressing your comments about Star Wars. I'm addressing the ones about Star Trek. Namely, the parts about 'its identity.'

That's part of the topic, remember?

This conversation is specifically about what we expect of the science content in Star Trek vs. Star Wars.

I think your conclusions are incorrect, because I think you've misrepresented Star Trek. Or at least, been very selective in its representation. I think the franchise's are not so different as you claim - certainly not to the point of being seperate genres - and I've presented my reasoning and evidence as to why I disagree.

'Tis all.