I thought beaming a guy into his past self was the more implausible part of that episode, myself.
Oh, wait.
Are B-4 or Data mentioned in any post-Nemesis Treklit?
- Thread starter bfollowell
- Start date
I thought beaming a guy into his past self was the more implausible part of that episode, myself.
Oh, wait.
Yeah, it's the novels with the big political element that are really pushing my buttons - Admiral or Ambassador Picard would be a good 'in' for more of those. Especially as Ambassador Spock is on borrowed time...
Unpopular as it would be in some quarters, the Data situation needs to be dealt with in the not too distant future. If he does become Captain of the Enterprise it wouldn't be straight after his ressurection.
Those are all pretty stupid really, if we're being honest.
Yes, literally one of the only two possible ways someone could even time travel in real life based on our current understanding of physics is mind-bogglingly stupid.
Also what David_cgc said.
I don`t mind Trys but I`m really tired of character having issues with the mother or father or...
Is every family in the future totally disfunctional?
Even in a totally functional family, some siblings will often have very different perspectives on certain events. My brothers moved interstate decades ago, but live in fairly close proximity to each other. When I hear them retell family anecdotes, I often wonder if we all grew up in the same house! Together, they now remember events very differently to those of my parents and myself.
Of course he did. That's the whole reason they brought back Leonard Nimoy, and had him quote familiar lines like "I have been, and always shall be, your friend." I mean, come on, if the film had been intended to be completely unconnected to the old timeline, it would not have included Old Spock at all. Some fans may like to imagine that it's unconnected, just like some fans a few years ago wanted to believe that Enterprise was in an alternate reality from the prior Trek series, and just as some fans back in 1987 no doubt insisted that TNG was in a separate reality from TOS (although frankly they would've kinda been right, because Roddenberry considered a lot of TOS apocryphal by that point). But the intent is clearly that Spock Prime came from the Trek universe we know and love; there was no reason for him to be in the story otherwise. That's official and it's what the tie-in authors are thus obliged to follow.
Many, many novels' claims have been contradicted by later canon. Hell, there's no way to reconcile Final Frontier's dates with TNG, DS9, VGR, or ENT, so you've got to be kidding if you're claiming it's valid as a canonical source.
Prior canon says nothing whatsoever about Kirk's father or how long he lived. The film contradicts nothing that's actually binding.
Because tie-in novels are obligated to conform to the canon as it exists at the moment. That's the way tie-in literature works, as a general rule. We exist to follow the lead established by the owners and creators of the core franchise, not to strike out in our own separate direction (unless it's clearly labeled as alternate, like Myriad Universes).
It's no worse than Genesis or Sha Ka Ree or thalaron radiation.
No, it isn't.
okay, correction:
time-travel through a black hole created from a supernova by magic red goo is mind-bogglingly stupid.
time-travel through a black hole created from a supernova by magic red goo is mind-bogglingly stupid.
^Unlike dilithium, whose ability to harness and focus the power of a cataclysmic matter/antimatter reaction is entirely believable.
^Unlike dilithium, whose ability to harness and focus the power of a cataclysmic matter/antimatter reaction is entirely believable.
Right.
This is a universe that has transporters. All the rest of this stuff is pretty logical by comparison, really.
^Unlike dilithium, whose ability to harness and focus the power of a cataclysmic matter/antimatter reaction is entirely believable.
Right.
This is a universe that has transporters. All the rest of this stuff is pretty logical by comparison, really.
Exactly why I don't consider Star Trek to be science fiction. Sci-fi perhaps, fiction with a bright candy shell of sciency words. The science terminology is slightly better than Lost in Space for example but the actual underlying sciece is just as silly.
Nope. Sci-fi is your usual TV "science fiction" Rubber masked aliens that react much the same as humans do. Ray guns. All the silly trappings.
Science Fiction uses actual science and extrapolates from there while not breaking any natural laws. No FTL. No Transporters. No carrot people.
You may use the term Hard Science Fiction if you like but to me sci-fi is the comic book equivalent of science fiction.
Science Fiction uses actual science and extrapolates from there while not breaking any natural laws. No FTL. No Transporters. No carrot people.
You may use the term Hard Science Fiction if you like but to me sci-fi is the comic book equivalent of science fiction.
Think of it this way, sci-fi is Science Fiction light. It looks like Science Ficiton but it doesn`t have any (or very little) actual science in it. See the difference? Two different but relaterd terms.
If you want to think that the science in Star Trek is in any way plausable, go right ahead. It`s about as scientific as creationism.
If you want to think that the science in Star Trek is in any way plausable, go right ahead. It`s about as scientific as creationism.
Similar threads
