Am I the only one wanting a reboot that is a harder sci fi?

[Orphalesion]

Indeed not, but I think specifically with Star Trek it has this veneer of false hardness because it makes such extensive use of scientific terminology and concepts. I think that is why so many in Star Trek fandom are obsessed with "hardness". I doubt people in the Star Wars or Babylon 5 fandoms feel the same way, precisely because those franchises don't make a point of pretending to be harder than they are.

But we are talking about a Franchise that from it's very beginnings had Mobster planets, alien-hybrids and green skinned space babes.
(I'm not mentioning the warp drive, because I'm not well versed in the theories on that and have over the years read stuff that claimed that it was possible and stuff that claimed that it was impossible)

 

[Vale]

But we are talking about a Franchise that from it's very beginnings had Mobster planets, alien-hybrids and green skinned space babes.
(I'm not mentioning the warp drive, because I'm not well versed in the theories on that and have over the years read stuff that claimed that it was possible and stuff that claimed that it was impossible)

I know, my point is that Star Trek is soft as all get out, but for some reason people think it isn't because it uses the word "quantum" a lot and they run a diagnostic every five minutes.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Yes, you are.

 

[fireproof78]

No thanks,

I also don't get why so many people hold "Hard" SciFi as such an ideal. There's nothing wrong with soft scifi.

Who said something is wrong with it? It's not like both can't exist side by side. Star Trek has always existed with this veneer of realism that people sometimes want it to connect to the real world.

I doubt people in the Star Wars

Hahaha...that's cute.

 

[Lord Garth]

I wanted (past tense) a reboot reboot in the 2000s, similar to what BSG did, but it didn't happen and what's done is done. I like what they're doing now, so I consider it a dead issue until this era runs its course. Then we'll see what I think at that time.

 

[Orphalesion]

Who said something is wrong with it? It's not like both can't exist side by side. Star Trek has always existed with this veneer of realism that people sometimes want it to connect to the real world.

And yet you mock Star Wars in the very same post.
And as you said, Star Trek has had a veneer of realism, but in truth it never was anything close to realistic; as I said earlier Alien-Hybrids, Space Gods, Green Skinned Space Babes, Mobster Planets, Time Travel etc. have all been parts of the Star Trek lore since its very beginnings, take that away for some illusory "SciFi hardness" and it's not really Star Trek anymore.
I mean, if you want hard scifi there is the Expanse...

I wanted (past tense) a reboot reboot in the 2000s, similar to what BSG did

Eww. No. Ewww. No. Noooo. That's a Paddlin'!
NuBSG removed everything interesting and exciting about old BSG.
Or do you just mean a continuity reboot, that still has aliens and stuff?

 

[Steve Roby]

I doubt people in the Star Wars or Babylon 5 fandoms feel the same way, precisely because those franchises don't make a point of pretending to be harder than they are.

JMS, in fact, made a point of saying that B5 was going to be much more rigorous regarding scientific plausibility than Star Trek. Might have been on Compuserve before the show started. I asked, okay, then, why telepaths? There's less reason to believe in psychic powers and psi phenomena in the early 1990s than there was in the early 1960s, so how is that more scientifically plausible? His answer was basically that lots of old classic science fiction had psi powers. Which wasn't so much moving the goalposts as playing an entirely different game.

 

[Vale]

JMS, in fact, made a point of saying that B5 was going to be much more rigorous regarding scientific plausibility than Star Trek. Might have been on Compuserve before the show started. I asked, okay, then, why telepaths? There's less reason to believe in psychic powers and psi phenomena in the early 1990s than there was in the early 1960s, so how is that more scientifically plausible? His answer was basically that lots of old classic science fiction had psi powers. Which wasn't so much moving the goalposts as playing an entirely different game.

In the case of Babylon 5 we also know that...

Spoiler

ancient god-like aliens did it using techniques beyond our understanding, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But yeah, it was a deliberate homage to the sort of pulp scifi JMS liked growing up. Calling one of the main telepath characters Alfred Bester was also very much a shout-out to this.

I think the key difference with Babylon 5 is that nobody ever says anything like "synchronise the transporter's annular confinement beam to the warp core frequency" or "the temporal surge we detected was caused by an explosion of a microscopic singularity" or "energise the focal array and stand by to initiate the subspace tensor matrix". Star Trek pretends to be scientifically literate. Other space opera, including Babylon 5, does not. What JMS means is "I'm not going to dedicate swathes of dialogue to trying to explain everything with nonsensical technical jargon".

 

[fireproof78]

And yet you mock Star Wars in the very same post.

Pardon? Where did I mock Star Wars?

 

[Orphalesion]

In the case of Babylon 5 we also know that...

Spoiler

ancient god-like aliens did it using techniques beyond our understanding, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Also, there's soul stealers (that's one of the few things I remember from watching a couple of B5 reruns as a kid)

Pardon? Where did I mock Star Wars?

Someone mentioned the Star Wars fandom and you commented with:

Hahaha...that's cute.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, there's soul stealers (that's one of the few things I remember from watching a couple of B5 reruns as a kid)




Someone mentioned the Star Wars fandom and you commented with:

Not mocking Star Wars.

 

[Orphalesion]

Not mocking Star Wars.

Then what on earth did you mean by it?

Fact is, Star Trek is very far away from Hard SciFi and if you remove the less realistic elements it's no longer Star Trek.

 

[Vale]

Also, there's soul stealers (that's one of the few things I remember from watching a couple of B5 reruns as a kid)

During the first episode to feature the Soul Hunters there are three alternate viewpoints given on this:

• There are no souls. With the right technology one could preserve a record of someone's personality, mental state, and memories; but death is death, and nothing of the individual survives it. (This belief is espoused by Babylon 5's chief medical officer.)
• There are immortal souls. When someone dies their souls merge with the other souls of their people. These are recycled into future generations, so the same souls keep reappearing time and time again in different individuals. (This belief is held by the Minbari, and they fear and despise the Soul Hunters because they believe they permanently prevent souls from being part of this cycle.)
• There are ephemeral souls. When someone dies, the soul dies too. This soul can be captured and preserved, preventing it from being lost. (This belief is held by the Soul Hunters, who believe the loss of souls when there is the capacity to save and store them is an unconscionable crime.)

JMS left it deliberately vague as to what's really going on. It's also interesting that the Soul Hunter belief is somewhat similar to the medical officer's belief, except they couch it in quasi-spiritual terms and actually have sufficiently advanced technology to preserve them.

 

[Omega-Trekker]

It would be interesting to see a Star Trek episode, or a stand alone movie that's not Trek at all that finds a sentient underwater species on a moon like Enceladus. Imagine never having a sky and not knowing about galaxies, solar systems, planets or moons or even space, it's all a new concept. Then having something melt it's way past the "upper barrier" (the ice), and bringing all that knowledge with them to your small little enclave near the hot spot where all 'known life' has always existed.

What would be more depressing, never having known about "the outside" or having that knowledge knowing you'll never be able to be part of it.

 

[Orphalesion]

JMS left it deliberately vague as to what's really going on. It's also interesting that the Soul Hunter belief is somewhat similar to the human belief, except they couch it in quasi-spiritual terms and actually have sufficiently advanced technology to preserve them.

Do you mean the human belief in B5? Because in real life humans are very divided on whether souls exist and, if they do, what happens to them after the death of the body.

And honestly, the way you describe it; that it was left ambiguous on B5, is my favourite way for fiction to handle that topic. Just let the reader/watcher decide for themselves.

I really want to give Babylon 5 a proper watch one of these days, but I can't find it streamed anywhere.

 

[fireproof78]

Then what on earth did you mean by it?

Fact is, Star Trek is very far away from Hard SciFi and if you remove the less realistic elements it's no longer Star Trek.

That it's a cute but laughable idea that Star Wars are immune from wanting hard elements.

To me, Star Trek can incorporate some harder elements without losing its ideas.

 

[Vale]

Do you mean the human belief in B5? Because in real life humans are very divided on whether souls exist and, if they do, what happens to them after the death of the body.

...Yeah, being a human myself I had noticed that – in fact the station commander is undecided on what the truth is in "Soul Hunter". The sheer variety of human religious belief plays a small but important part of the later season one episode "The Parliament of Dreams" too.

I was referring to the Chief Medical Officer's belief. I'll edit the post to clarify.

 

[XCV330]

I'm not talking about making trek a pure hard sci fi, but how about uping the plausibility?

Nothing crazy but just getting things in line with modern theories.

How about revamping the races and astropolitics of the alpha quadrant?

Do something where ancient aliens have more relevance?

Congrats. the Expanse seasons 1-5 are available on Amazon Prime

 

[Orphalesion]

That it's a cute but laughable idea that Star Wars are immune from wanting hard elements.

Ah okay, no worries!

To me, Star Trek can incorporate some harder elements without losing its ideas.

But what elements? It already discusses real life scientific theories on occasion, what more is needed.
And what would it bring to the table from a narrative standpoint?

 

[fireproof78]

But what elements? It already discusses real life scientific theories on occasion, what more is needed.
And what would it bring to the table from a narrative standpoint?

Personally, I would prefer it take contemporary knowledge of science and technology and extrapolate further within Trek's own rules.