Scientific weirdness in Star Trek

[F. King Daniel]

My favorite bit of “scientific weirdness” in Trek is when Voyager gets trapped inside a black hole, and escapes by blasting a hole in the event horizon.

Anybody else have a favorite bit of “scientific weirdness”?

Gotta be the Romulan supernova. Threatened to destroy the galaxy, had it's fiery wrath sucked up by a black hole and then gets retconned by ST Picard to Romulus' own star which means Spock's plan to save Romulus would certainly have doomed them to a freezing death

 

[Pauln6]

Gotta be the Romulan supernova. Threatened to destroy the galaxy, had it's fiery wrath sucked up by a black hole and then gets retconned by ST Picard to Romulus' own star which means Spock's plan to save Romulus would certainly have doomed them to a freezing death

i think the Star Trek Online team did a plot surrounding this. Mind you, given where Discovery season 3 went, and given that, to be travelling faster than light, the supernova must have been a subspace phenomenon, I suppose it's arguable that there could be a link. It would have been nice if they could have acknowledged some basic science in the movie, instead of urinating on it. TOS inspired people to train for STEM positions. I'm not sure what NuTrek might have inspired? Unsanctioned experiments on animals?

Or as my friend's 8 year old son said upon watching Star Trek 2009: "That's not how black holes work."

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not sure what NuTrek might have inspired? Unsanctioned experiments on animals?

While I cannot defend the shitty science of Star Trek (going back to TOS), I will point out that TOS explictly killed a dog in a transporter experient, whereas Scotty's dog may yet re-appear (and did in at least 2 official tie-ins)

Also "Magicks of Megas-Tu" starts with an amazingly awful misunderstanding of the Big Bang. But then goes on to be the second best TAS episode ever, so all is forgoven.

 

[Pauln6]

While I cannot defend the shitty science of Star Trek (going back to TOS), I will point out that TOS explictly killed a dog in a transporter experient, whereas Scotty's dog may yet re-appear (and did in at least 2 official tie-ins)

That was a sanctioned experiment to check a safety concern on living matter (or possibly an accident... I can't recall now). NuScotty's experiment did not require living matter - it was an experiment on increasing distance.

More troubling is why they would remove a specimen to the ship. The transporter filters out pathogens. The poor thing's natural biome was probably devastated.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not sure what NuTrek might have inspired?

Me and my wife.

 

[Warped9]

I’m not sure what NuTrek might have inspired.

In my case it was involuntary bowel movement.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I don't think it was that The Cage was necessarily light on action adventure; it was that there was no action/adventure sequence at the end of the episode as part of its resolution. The Action was mostly in the middle of the episode and the ending of the episode was a long intellectual like soliloquy.

Networks wanted the action properly spaced out and they always felt that an action sequence at the end of the episode was best, and it was better if the entire episode led up to that action sequence as the story resolution (which is probably why in the second pilot you have the big physical confrontation between Kirk and Gary Mitchell as GR realized how the network suits wanted the story action structured to keep an audience's attention/interest for the full 55 minutes and not turn that dial before the end.)

I mean if you really look at it Where No Man Has Gone Before is mostly a lot of talking up until the end fight between Kirk and Gary Mitchell; but with the action at the end, that's the last thing the network suits saw and remembered about the episode.

This is a really solid explanation of the differences between the pacing and story beats. Both pilots had lots of chatter and high minded ideas, both had a few minutes of screen time taken up by action/adventure.

The Cage: the kidnapping, the Kaylar illusion, the laser cannon sequence, Pike choking the keeper

Where No Man: the energy barrier, Kirk and Spock slugging Mitchell in sickbay, Mitchell force choking Kelso, the end fight

Pretty much the same amount of action but after the laser cannon bit, The Cage is all drama for the back half other than the keeper illusion. Okay, maybe you can count the keeper raiding the computer. But the true climax is a threat of suicide and a an illusion twist. WNMHGB had the action well spaced and gave us the "fight in the ditch" westerns loved to include. Now imagine if Pike and the Keeper had a brawl with bad stunt men and everything. Think it would have sold the series?

 

[Pauln6]

Me and my wife.

Spirk is a much hotter couple in NuTrek, that much is true.

 

[fireproof78]

Spirk is a much hotter couple in NuTrek, that much is true.

I shouldn't have posted at all. The opinions about Kelvin Trek are set in stone. My bad. Apologies.

 

[Pauln6]

I shouldn't have posted at all. The opinions about Kelvin Trek are set in stone. My bad. Apologies.

Well, they are enjoyable rollercoaster movies but the application of science, even Trek science, was very poor on many levels.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, they are enjoyable rollercoaster movies but the application of science, even Trek science, was very poor on many levels.

Mileage will vary. Felt pretty much like Trek science to me. And it inspired my wife to watch more Star Trek and explore some things she had not before largely because she hates science fiction. Inspiration means different things to different people, not just in hard sciences but psychology and sociology as well. That to me is what drives Star Trek 2009 is more psychological than physics.

 

[Warped9]

I always thought what drove JJtrek was bad drugs and excessive alcohol.

 

[Ssosmcin]

And it inspired my wife to watch more Star Trek.

I've heard that a number of times and I feel that is worth its weight in box office gold.

 

[fireproof78]

I've heard that a number of times and I feel that is worth its weight in box office gold.

I think that makes a big difference is when it can open up the door to a bigger universe. You had a wonderful branching from the old to the new in Spock and it worked excessively well.

Now, I know that the science behind the film is largely BS. But, it's Star Trek BS at least to me. It feels in line with weird anomalies and Star Trek's versions of black holes, from TOS to TMP to TNG. The laugh I get is how much Star Trek impacted my view of space travel and how learning about actual space travel proved Star Trek to be largely BS. That's why my BS sensitivity in Star Trek is so high. Discovering that TOS lied to me was probably the harshest lesson in exploring fiction in space travel.

Think it would have sold the series?

It would depend on how that impacted the characterizations. I recall reading in either Shatner's or Nimoy's Star Trek books that the term "too cerebral" was used to describe a lack of connection with the characters in the Cage. In other words, no one emotionally engaged with Pike and crew initially. So, unless the fight helped reframe Pike's character I'm not sure adding a fight with the Keeper would have sold it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Sound in space. Starships turning like sailing ships. Aliens being human, with similar language and comparable values but with silly ears or whatnot.

Let's start at the top. Star Trek is very silly when you think about it.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Well, if you look at it with those eyes, ALL sci-fi television is silly.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, if you look at it with those eyes, ALL sci-fi television is silly.

It is.

 

[Ssosmcin]

I tend to "see with better eyes than that" - apologies to Jim Cameron. Truly realistic Science Fiction on television, especially in the 1960's, was really not possible. So I don't think about the "silliness" unless it's truly ridiculous (mostly over in the Irwin Allen Productions).

 

[fireproof78]

I tend to "see with better eyes than that" - apologies to Jim Cameron. Truly realistic Science Fiction on television, especially in the 1960's, was really not possible. So I don't think about the "silliness" unless it's truly ridiculous (mostly over in the Irwin Allen Productions).

I don't think about the silliness either but it is part of the overall package for me. That's why my threshold for scientific oddities is quite high with most speculative fiction. It's all one piece for me now. I took Star Trek far more seriously than many of my peers in school and then studying about space travel in college proved that Star Trek wasn't quite what I thought it was. So, my thinking shifted in to a far more accepting mode of the silliness, unless completely and totally ridiculous (which Star Trek has crossed multiple times).

In other words, my eyes see it as close enough to work. Mileage will vary.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I always thought what drove JJtrek was bad drugs and excessive alcohol.

I've feeling that more drugs and alcohol passed through Roddenberry's body than the entire production team of Star Trek '09.