Is it just me or...
- Thread starter Tallis Rhul
- Start date
The series starts with a giant flaming bird hatching out of a planet. Just what exactly, in your opinion, has 'strained credulity' since then?
I love New Frontier, and I think fans overthink it. It's hardly any more ridiculous than TOS was.
^The difference is, any ridiculousness on TOS's part was unintentional. Roddenberry was trying to create a plausible SF universe grounded in character realism. It may often seem goofy by today's standards, but it was a considerable advance in realism over its predecessors and contemporaries in SFTV.
But it needs the bullets for interaction with other objects and to create realistic impacts, doesn't it? It's basically a computer game where the game engine is composed of real matter and real physics? Or is it?
It could also be purely holographic with forcefields, where everything is purely simulated, calculated first and then holographically projected. But then, as said, safety protocols make not much sense, because there every risky thing would not be included to begin with. A ball bouncing would work with or without the force fields, since it's just a holographic pre-calculated animation. In the other possible version, a ball bouncing would be a replicated, real ball, bouncing because of real physics.
Maybe it's a mix of both, but then a programmer would need to decide beforehand what would be a real replicated object, and what would just be a holographic simulation. So a bullet that kills you might be a mistake of a programmer who took his holodeck game too seriously.
Of course it doesn't need the actual bullets, since it can calculate what their effects would be and simulate those effects. Physics is all mathematics. You can simulate it accurately in a powerful enough computer.
After all, Hollywood doesn't use real bullets in TV shows and movies. It uses blanks in the guns and squibs -- small explosive charges designed to simulate the effects of a bullet hit, though generally to an exaggerated degree for clarity and spectacle -- at the points of impact. No projectile actually travels between the gun and the object or person that is "hit." Why should a holodeck be any different?
And I don't see why I have so much trouble getting across the obvious notion that having live ammunition involved in a game is simply off the table, period, no matter what. No one would be so insane as to put game players' lives in danger merely for verisimilitude in a recreational activity. If you're willing to compromise safety for the sake of accuracy, you've totally lost track of your priorities. If leaving out real bullets makes your simulation a little inaccurate, then for God's sake, LET IT BE A LITTLE INACCURATE! Accuracy is not worth putting people in danger! How can that not be obvious? Why do I even need to say it?
I don't think you're getting my point. I'm not talking about safeties in general. As I said, the question is, why would something that is invisible to the participants -- namely bullets in flight -- need to be simulated at all? Especially when they're dangerous?
That's not a "mistake." That's criminal endangerment. That's evidence of dangerous mental instability. And surely no programmer operates in a vacuum. If one holoprogrammer got so insanely carried away with pointless verisimilitude as to include live ammunition in a recreational program, surely that programmer's superiors would catch it and either fire the guy or ensure that he got extensive therapy.
The series starts with a giant flaming bird hatching out of a planet. Just what exactly, in your opinion, has 'strained credulity' since then?
I love New Frontier, and I think fans overthink it. It's hardly any more ridiculous than TOS was.
I agree - I have always loved NF. I love that it's funny and sometimes ridiculous. It's a nice break from other Star Trek stories. I pick up one of these books to laugh - don't really care about anything else.
I'm with Christopher. Serious and sincere can look like camp or silliness decades later, but the intent still matters. In the context of its time, the original Star Trek was generally forward-looking and seriously intended. (Maybe not so much under Freiberger, but even then, not too many episodes are as silly as Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea had become after a season or two.) It's up to the viewer to decide how to watch the show. I know some poeple only watch TOS for its camp value; I don't, any more than I watch TNG or any other Trek series that way. Hell, I can even watch Blake's 7 as a serious and sincere SF show. Well, most of the time.
PAD's being silly on purpose. His goal is significantly different from that of the original series writers, and it's being perceived accordingly by its intended audience. If you happen to like what he's doing, that's fine, but he's doing something very different from what the likes of Fontana and Coon had in mind.
I don't entirely agree. I think that New Frontier is designed in part to capture the less-serious spirit that TOS also encompassed in addition to its serious spirit. I'm not talking about the unintentional camp -- I'm talking about the intentional camp. The "Trouble With Tribbles" and "Piece of the Action"-type episodes, that were overtly trying to just cut loose and have fun. TOS could be deeply silly, and intentionally so, and I think that NF is trying to capture that.
^Yes, TOS had comedy episodes, but arising out of generally plausible circumstances and character reactions, and as an occasional variant within a universe that presented itself seriously and realistically. Funny things happen in real life, but telling a funny story in a believable setting is a very different thing from creating an entirely fanciful, exaggerated, or unrealistic setting.
True, "A Piece of the Action" wasn't entirely a realistic scenario, but it was no more implausible that strictly dramatic episodes like "Patterns of Force" or "The Paradise Syndrome," and it did offer a fairly coherent and rational explanation for its Earth parallels -- indeed, a considerably more credible one that the entirely serious "Miri" or the mostly serious "Bread and Circuses" had to offer. In fact, APotA presents a deadly serious scenario: a planet grossly contaminated by Earth influences, turned into a brutal, bloody, mob-ruled society as a result. The humor came from how Kirk chose to deal with the situation, how he and Spock made awkward efforts to fit in, etc.
So ST had humor, yes, but that doesn't mean it was a "camp" series like Lost in Space. It wasn't wisecracks and space gangsters and tribbles on a constant, unvarying basis. And when humor arose from the characters, it arose without compromising their believability as people.
True, "A Piece of the Action" wasn't entirely a realistic scenario, but it was no more implausible that strictly dramatic episodes like "Patterns of Force" or "The Paradise Syndrome," and it did offer a fairly coherent and rational explanation for its Earth parallels -- indeed, a considerably more credible one that the entirely serious "Miri" or the mostly serious "Bread and Circuses" had to offer. In fact, APotA presents a deadly serious scenario: a planet grossly contaminated by Earth influences, turned into a brutal, bloody, mob-ruled society as a result. The humor came from how Kirk chose to deal with the situation, how he and Spock made awkward efforts to fit in, etc.
So ST had humor, yes, but that doesn't mean it was a "camp" series like Lost in Space. It wasn't wisecracks and space gangsters and tribbles on a constant, unvarying basis. And when humor arose from the characters, it arose without compromising their believability as people.
I'm not contesting that. I'm just saying that I think New Frontier's goal is to capture the spirit of TOS's deliberate comedy and apply it more consistently in combination with earnest drama than other Trek series tend to.
Just finished 'Treason' recently and it's one of the uniformly best Trek novels that I've read in a while. I hate to draw a comparison, but the humour in NF of the plots and characters fits the series and doesn't jar - whilst the recent introduction of a NF-esque character such as T'Ryssa Chen in the TNG Relaunch, for me at least, jars with the feel and vibe of the series.
By saying it's quite light hearted there's also the ignoring of the very serious scenes that have occured across the novels. Selar giving birth and the depictions of the Redeemers (who I'd love to see more of, by the way) are two that stick out alongside the whole of Once Burned.
By saying it's quite light hearted there's also the ignoring of the very serious scenes that have occured across the novels. Selar giving birth and the depictions of the Redeemers (who I'd love to see more of, by the way) are two that stick out alongside the whole of Once Burned.
I do not consider T'Ryssa Chen to be an "NF-esque" character. I was going more for a Joss Whedon-type character. And to a large extent, she's a Christopher L. Bennett character. Her personality and sense of humor are a lot like characters I've written in my original fiction, and a lot like me.
I don't see the similarity. They both go for humor, but I find it to be a very different style of humor.
And T'Ryssa being a change of pace for the staid TNG was exactly the reason I added her there. Given all the cast changes, it was time to shake things up. I was going for an Ensign Ro kind of thing -- add a character who was a deliberate contrast to the rest of the crew, who added some spice and tension to the mix, who challenged the other characters to loosen up and move outside their comfortable ruts while at the same time being influenced by them to soften her rough edges and gradually become a part of the family.
By contrast, if she'd been in NF, she wouldn't have softened at all, but would've just stayed as extreme as ever, because every character there is taken to a behavioral extreme. Hell, in NF, Trys would've been the sedate and well-adjusted one. At least she's making a good-faith effort to bring her behavior into line and become more mature.
And T'Ryssa being a change of pace for the staid TNG was exactly the reason I added her there. Given all the cast changes, it was time to shake things up. I was going for an Ensign Ro kind of thing -- add a character who was a deliberate contrast to the rest of the crew, who added some spice and tension to the mix, who challenged the other characters to loosen up and move outside their comfortable ruts while at the same time being influenced by them to soften her rough edges and gradually become a part of the family.
By contrast, if she'd been in NF, she wouldn't have softened at all, but would've just stayed as extreme as ever, because every character there is taken to a behavioral extreme. Hell, in NF, Trys would've been the sedate and well-adjusted one. At least she's making a good-faith effort to bring her behavior into line and become more mature.
Laying aside issues with characters in other series' for a moment, it occurs to me that whilst some moments of the New Frontier novels are certainly light hearted, the overall novels they are contained within are certainly not the comedy pieces that some people are trying to push them towards.
As people have said, NF is very Whedon-esque - the plots are pretty serious and it's the quirks of the characters that provide the humour. Yes, those characters aren't the staid serious types previously seen in Trek but to downplay them to essentially sit-com characters is quite underhanded.
As people have said, NF is very Whedon-esque - the plots are pretty serious and it's the quirks of the characters that provide the humour. Yes, those characters aren't the staid serious types previously seen in Trek but to downplay them to essentially sit-com characters is quite underhanded.
True. NF contains some of the most intensely dramatic moments in all of TrekLit. The climax of Missing In Action had me so into the book that I completely forgot my surroundings; I remember my sister trying to get my attention and failing. Which almost never happens to me.
It continues to amaze me how much NF gets shit on, around here. It plays by a different set of rules, but they're consistent and well-crafted. Just because something is funny does not mean it is shallow.
It continues to amaze me how much NF gets shit on, around here. It plays by a different set of rules, but they're consistent and well-crafted. Just because something is funny does not mean it is shallow.
NF has one of the nastiest villainous races going, right up there with the Borg: the Redeemers. it'll be interesting if they ever get out of 221-G and try their evangelical crusading on the rest of the galaxy.
especially with their virus...
(don't spoil me on Treason, which someone nearly did above until i stopped reading.)
especially with their virus...
(don't spoil me on Treason, which someone nearly did above until i stopped reading.)
Isn't this the whole point of different series?
Generally speaking (VERY generally) it would help to enjoy religious, political, or dark science fiction if you like DS9.
If you like Klingons, read the Klingon Empire books.
If you like the idea of a single ship, cut off from home, read Voyager books.
If you like the original "strange, new worlds and new civilisations", read Titan.
If you like history (that's a broad term), or the idea of the "start" of the Federation, and humanity's first forays into space, read Enterprise.
If you like comedy, classic adventure, characters with attitude and a wild science fiction imagination, read New Frontier.
If you DON'T like any of the above themes, don't read those particular books.
Saying you like Star Trek no longer has the same meaning as it did 40+ years ago. Star Trek supports so many of its own genres and themes that it requires a little specificity. If I said I like films, that doesn't mean I like ALL films.
One of the greatest things about Star Trek is that you can pick and choose your series based on what you like. You shouldn't automatically expect to like every series in Star Trek just because you like Star Trek. And there aren't any rules to being a Star Trek fan that say that, just because you are a fan, you MUST read ALL Star Trek books.
Generally speaking (VERY generally) it would help to enjoy religious, political, or dark science fiction if you like DS9.
If you like Klingons, read the Klingon Empire books.
If you like the idea of a single ship, cut off from home, read Voyager books.
If you like the original "strange, new worlds and new civilisations", read Titan.
If you like history (that's a broad term), or the idea of the "start" of the Federation, and humanity's first forays into space, read Enterprise.
If you like comedy, classic adventure, characters with attitude and a wild science fiction imagination, read New Frontier.
If you DON'T like any of the above themes, don't read those particular books.
Saying you like Star Trek no longer has the same meaning as it did 40+ years ago. Star Trek supports so many of its own genres and themes that it requires a little specificity. If I said I like films, that doesn't mean I like ALL films.
One of the greatest things about Star Trek is that you can pick and choose your series based on what you like. You shouldn't automatically expect to like every series in Star Trek just because you like Star Trek. And there aren't any rules to being a Star Trek fan that say that, just because you are a fan, you MUST read ALL Star Trek books.
Similar threads
- Poll
