I believe Klingons should be Humans and not Humanoid, but that's just me, and aliens that are not strange enough for good reason like the children of Tamara or some Voyager races, should just be another branch of Humanity. A walking metaphor is not very believable or real.
HBO/Showtime version of Star Trek
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
There are plenty of other shows on television that only feature humans. Perhaps you'd be happier watching them instead of Star Trek.
Exploring new life an strange new civilizations - why? What are we looking for that we haven't found yet? or do we just like strange things? People care about reality which is first and foremost the science.
Ironically Space 1999 handled it right. They treated aliens as they should be treated - extremely cautiously and carefully and seperately and not something to be embraced because they could quickly turn into enemies if they are not already. Hidden ulterior opposing agendas would not be unheard of, especially exotic ones that we can't even conceive of yet, like the Talosians. The Vulcans should be the centalized mystery of the next series with the Romulans and their split or offshoot.
Ironically Space 1999 handled it right. They treated aliens as they should be treated - extremely cautiously and carefully and seperately and not something to be embraced because they could quickly turn into enemies if they are not already. Hidden ulterior opposing agendas would not be unheard of, especially exotic ones that we can't even conceive of yet, like the Talosians. The Vulcans should be the centalized mystery of the next series with the Romulans and their split or offshoot.
No, people do not care about the "reality" or even the science all that much. That's why its called "fiction" and "escapist fiction". It's entertainment. While there is some merit to SF rooted/anchored in "realism", that isn't Star Trek. Again Vulcans aren't strangers, they are allies, brothers in arms and fellow travelers
While I don't think Trek should be hard sci-fi, Christopher would come down on you hard on you for calling it fictitious science. Sci-fi should definitaly be rooted in realism else it is fantasy and I would hate to see Trek labeled a fantasy because of how way out they became third season when GR wasn't there. It should be grounded in theoretical or extrapolated reality and science. Overextending the science and the aliens is death to the willing suspension of disbelief.
No, I don't think Christopher would. He knows what Star Trek is. Star Trek at best gave a hand wave to science. They dropped a few terms here and there to give it a certain verisimilitude but is was not a show about science. It didn't go into great details about how phaser, transporters or warp drive worked ( though later shows tried to). They just worked and did what the script needed.
well maybe it's time they shook up some of the conventions and ring some of the fantastical and fanciful elements out of Trek. It can only juggle so many conceits at once. Aliens are not a science and a huge conceit unless they're explained as distant brothers more literally and scientifically. They could be ancient, new, more advanced, etc. but they should be Human. Miri was Human. How do you explain her? Hotchkin's law of parallel alien biological development? Doesn't make sense.
A huge conceit to who???? The viewers don't really care ( and I'm sure many don't even know) that human-like aliens aren't very plausible. Then again neither is warp drive, artificial gravity, transporters and universal translators. Shall we putter along at sublight too?
"Aliens are not a science"? Are we missing a word there? And its "wring" by the way.
The bigger "problem" with Miri is she's from an exact duplicate of Earth, not that she's human.
"Aliens are not a science"? Are we missing a word there? And its "wring" by the way.
The bigger "problem" with Miri is she's from an exact duplicate of Earth, not that she's human.
Aliens are not a scientific extrapolation of any known theory so to the audience they are considered unreal and therefore not believable. Am I wrong about this? The bigger problem to me is why we keep searching out new life and new civilizations per say without a real reason for needing to do this.
Who is this "audience" you speak of? Did you take a poll? Do you really think that someone enjoying a movie, TV show or book really cares about it being "unreal" or "unbelievable" ( discounting the killjoys on the internet, of course) No, if the creators have done their job right, the audience is willing to suspend disbelief.
So you think aliens do not exist? That science can not and does not think them theoretically possible? They're probably more possible than us actually meeting them.
Why do we search for "new life and new civilizations"? For the same reasons we look for anything. Be it a new drug, a new device or what's around the next bend. Seems to be part of what makes us human.
Faster than light travel is most likely impossible. And don't get me started on the transporter. Or time travel. Let's just jettison all the fun stuff in sci fi because it's "unrealistic."
In fact, these characters should only have one interesting adventure in the entire run of the show. Otherwise, it would be unrealistic.
Yes although u could do it if u found a way to bend space.
Time travel definitely impossible though.
Indeed who has more then one great adventure
There will be a sex scene every episode... perfect for HBO!
at least one
There are theoretical ways to accomplish time travel just like there are theoretical ways to accomplish FTL travel, such as "bending space" (which is easier said than done).
For instance, if the theory that time does not actually exist, and is simply the product of the limitations of human perception, is true, then time travel is not only simple but mandatory.
Similar threads
