What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
And stupid.
Cronenberg's version of THE FLY is fantastic. Of course, I am a big horror fan. Horror today doesn't pack the same punch as it used to.
THE FLY, THE THING, RE-ANIMATOR, the Unholy Trinity (Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers)... it's been a while since we had something truly awesome. The first SAW was great... but it diminished exponentially with each sequel as it became more about how elaborate the traps can get versus the meaning of the traps.
THE FLY, THE THING, RE-ANIMATOR, the Unholy Trinity (Freddy, Jason, Michael Myers)... it's been a while since we had something truly awesome. The first SAW was great... but it diminished exponentially with each sequel as it became more about how elaborate the traps can get versus the meaning of the traps.
And the rated G transporter accident in TMP freaked me out more than anything in rated PG TWOK, including the Ceti eels.
Surely one of the strengths of the franchise is the way it can switch tones?
I wouldn't want every Trek to have a copious amount of gore in it, but done once in a while is okay.
You should try Alex Garland's new film, Men.
It scared the bejeezus out of me and I'm not normally scared by horror movies at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_(2022_film)
That scream came straight from the depths of Hell.
About techno babble....
If an episode uses some tech that we don't understand and it doesn't even exist, does it mean much if one says "negative wave guide deformer" doesn't exist?
It doesn't exist, yet, so perhaps in hundreds years from now it could be a thing.
If an episode uses some tech that we don't understand and it doesn't even exist, does it mean much if one says "negative wave guide deformer" doesn't exist?
It doesn't exist, yet, so perhaps in hundreds years from now it could be a thing.
Think about it this way. If you're reading a fantasy novel, is the setting more compelling if the author has a coherent idea about how the magic system works and its limitations/drawbacks, or if they just invent magic spells on an ad-hoc basis as needed for the plot?
"Soft" Magic Systems can work just as well as "Hard" Magic Systems, it depends on what the novel is focusing on. Yes, it can get too "soft" and your world loses cohesion, but there's nothing inherently wrong about either approach, imo.
Like if the techno babble is just there to keep the story going, there's nothing wrong about it, in my opinion. If it is the origin and solution of a problem, that's where it gets problematic.
Really gave McCoy's continual fears about it, scrambling his molecules, serious justification.
That's not the point. It's largely used inconsistently to make it sound like this is real tech. Except, it uses terminology wrong, gets things mixed up and is largely a word salad that makes no sense. Establish the tech and work within it.
Recently, @Maurice reminded me that Scotty just simply said things like "the warp drive is a hopeless pile of junk" instead of some technobabble BS.
I'm currently working on a STRANGE NEW WORLDS spec script and it's so easy to fall prey to the technobabble that means nothing and eats up pages. So now I've been practicing KISS (keep it simple, stupid) with the technical stuff.
I'm currently working on a STRANGE NEW WORLDS spec script and it's so easy to fall prey to the technobabble that means nothing and eats up pages. So now I've been practicing KISS (keep it simple, stupid) with the technical stuff.
That's true, however when it comes to magic that has little to do with reality. =)
There really should be a guideline that every writer could follow with future tech.
For example, In TNG the rule was warp 10 could not be reached.... until Traveler showed up....
And then in Voyager they couldn't again...
I have a better question.
If it was just a matter of navigation, as Torres said, how come Starfleet didn't find a way to use the transwarp later on? Even in the DISCO future, pre-Burn, they didn't have it. Centuries between the 24th century and the Burn, and navigation couldn't be cracked?
(They already solved the evolving part in "THRESHOLD". I can buy Voyager not being able to do it because trying to figure out the navigation may have been beyond their ability, but Starfleet itself? After centuries?)
If it was just a matter of navigation, as Torres said, how come Starfleet didn't find a way to use the transwarp later on? Even in the DISCO future, pre-Burn, they didn't have it. Centuries between the 24th century and the Burn, and navigation couldn't be cracked?
(They already solved the evolving part in "THRESHOLD". I can buy Voyager not being able to do it because trying to figure out the navigation may have been beyond their ability, but Starfleet itself? After centuries?)
The Burn never made sense. 1,000 years ago, we traveled on our own power, walking; animal power horse drawn cart or carriage, or horse back, by sea was wind power and/or man power. No look at how we travel. We can fly, we have planes that mover beyond the speed of sound, nuclear powered ships, electric cars. I can't imagine that Starfleet engineers, who a Vorta admittedly using hyperbole, said could turn rocks into replicators, couldn't find another form of FTL.
Finding it isn't the problem. It's sustainability. And, personally, while I admire Starfleet's ingenuity, they are also very slow to change at times. If something is considered reliable they will stick with it.
The Burn was actually one of the more creative things DSC has done as a concept. A galaxy-spanning dilithium disaster that cost untold numbers of lives and restricted many species to their own sectors and solar systems without warp capability? We can quibble about the cause but the actual Burn and its aftereffects were intriguing and I looked forward to learning more about it.
Similar threads
- Locked
