Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by M'Sharak, Sep 14, 2011.
And then there's Mauve!
That old compromisin', enterprisin', anything but tranquilizing,
Right on Mauve!
I get that!
I'm sorry I don't remember this movie being filled with a lot of "real science" moments, but I may not have as discerning an eye as you.
Care to highlight?
Well, one of the most obvious would be the supernova thing. We know what a supernova is and does, and what they say the supernova is and does isn't consistent with that.
If you're really interested, there was an interesting article written on both the good and bad science of the movie: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/
Well, there's plenty of ways to interpret the supernova line. It bothered me for about five minutes and then I decided that it was just a plot convenience and whatever.
The article was interesting, but honestly unless you're a physicist most of that stuff isn't going to register, so I don't see a problem here for the majority of the film-going public and I don't think it's a poor show by Trek standards.
Sometimes this answer is enough for me, depending on context. And it need not be McCoy, either. Simply insert the name of any other Trek character (Worf, Sisko, Paris, Hoshi, etc) and it works, because hey, hyperbole has its casual uses, too.
I never really said it was that much of a problem, and not really at all for a general audience. Also, I don't think it's really indicative of the quality of the movie. It really only reflects on how much thought the writers/producers put into it.
Orci and Kurtzman are pretty careless writers when it comes to that. Virtually all of the movies I've seen that they wrote had pretty bad blunders in them, reaching from every day knowledge to more complex science. They are not the only writers like that though.
Are you implying not a lot of thought went into it? I mean I don't think making physicists happy or realism would be top of the list when making a Star Trek or most other sci-fi/fantasy films; that doesn't mean they didn't put a lot of thought into the story, though.
I think it does because all of the "problematic" stuff in the movie could have been solved with a bit more effort, some of it would have even looked better on screen.
The bad science article on trekmovie has some of these. The gamma ray burst for instance. Or time dilation near the black hole. That would have made for pretty awesome shots. Aaand it would have been more accurate.
Of course not, it's Star Trek.
Yes, they didn't put that much thought into it for the reasons you suggest. Some writers go to great lengths to make sure their scientific or historical research is accurate, and some don't care. These decisions ultimately don't make much difference unless it extends into other areas of writing like the plot and characters. Those are probably debatable.
Personally, I like that attention to detail, and I admire it when I see it.
Lets try and lock down the shade shall we?
I'm leaning towards Wistfull myself.
All I need to know: Will there be sombreros??
I personally hope for 2012! I would love a December release date. It would be like the movie was a b-day present for me.
^and for Baby Jesus.
Let me settle this debate for you gentlepersons (along with every other debate of this kind across the internet):
There you have it. Teh internets has been explained.
My husband is a physicist and didn't seem to mind the "science" in the movie. It's science fiction after all, not the Science channel.
Separate names with a comma.