How Star Wars Ruined Star Trek

[Amaris]

There are way too many strawmen here. Yeah I liked TWOK. The genesis device is "Trek Tech", part fantasy, part sciencey. "Trek Tech" has been a staple of Star Trek since since the beginning. I have no idea why you're equating it with a stellar phenomenon...

What strawmen? Did McCoy not say the Genesis device could create an entire earth in six minutes? Did the planet Ceti Alpha 6 not explode a mere six months after Khan and his cohorts were marooned on Ceti Alpha 5?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It seems that the technology can be utter fantasy, and it's okay, but apparently stellar phenomenon can't be a part of that fantasy, even though it would have to be in order for the fantasy technology to work properly.

After all, the fantasy technology routinely changes the laws of physics in order to work. That requires a fantasy universe for consistency.

In Star Trek VI, for example, the Klingon moon Praxis explodes. Very shortly thereafter, we see this wave as it slams into the U.S.S. Excelsior, also in beta quadrant. Now, even if they were along the edges of the Neutral Zone:

1. Q'ono's is likely more than a few light hours away from the Federation/Klingon border. How did this wave travel that far so quickly?

2. How far would a blast wave from an exploding moon travel before the energy impact was reduced only to visible light?

See, you could ask these questions, because nothing in the film sets anything in stone. Since many of us are forgiving and are interested in being entertained, we'll accept that they occur, and enjoy the film for what it is.

If, on the other hand, we have a distinct dislike and bias towards the film, we're going to latch onto every single insignificant point and lambast it as reasons why the movie is dumb.

Not to speak for J. But I think he meant the Genesis device as a direct comparison to red matter.

The God-like poof of the Genesis planet's existence was the comparison to your stellar phenomenon.

Or how a planet just ups and explodes and the "shock" is powerful enough to alter an adjacent planet's orbit to the point its atmosphere is radically altered.

I mean it in a lot of ways, yours included, and you're fine.
My point is that fantasy technology works because of a fantasy universe.

To accept warp drive, instant destination wormholes, telepathy between various species, and time travel, yet mock something that exaggerates the danger a supernova can cause to galactic civilizations, is disingenuous. In short, for one to do so, they must strain gnats and swallow camels.

 

[Melakon]

• The fact that the 50th Anniversary is coming up and they're still trying to nail down a director.

I'd prefer the studio have a director they're confident can handle a project of this size and make a good film that can be in theaters by their commitment date, if they have doubts about someone who's never directed anything before. If it's not ready in time for the big 5-0, it's not the end of the world.

 

[Ghrakh]

My point is that fantasy technology works because of a fantasy universe.

Fantasy technology can work in a real universe.

To accept warp drive, instant destination wormholes, telepathy between various species, and time travel, yet mock something that exaggerates the danger a supernova can cause to galactic civilizations, is disingenuous. In short, for one to do so, they must strain gnats and swallow camels.

If nuKirk flapped his arms and flew from the enterprise to the moon, or they beamed to Andromeda, you would be going "Awesome!"

For those who read the tie-in comic: it wasn't a supernova of any type we know of today. It was a new phenomenon, traveling through subspace, if memory serves. I'm too lazy to fetch my copy.

Thanks for that info. Well, Santa Claus already mocked that. Just scroll back a few thousand words or so.

 

[Maurice]

• Seeing one planet be destroyed through normal vision on the surface of another planet.
• The Star Wars Physics of the Red Matter
• The Star Wars Physics on the Khan Blood and immortality.
• The fact that the 50th Anniversary is coming up and they're still trying to nail down a director.

First, your last "point" has nothing to do with the stated subject. A change in directors isn't germane to whether Star Wars "ruined" Star Trek.

Second, the first three bullets are no stupider or magical or ludicrous than:

• FTL telepathy ("The Immunity Syndrome", TMP)
• Transporters splitting people in two, yet they still function and have normal mass ("The Enemy Within")
• Parallel universes where, despite a history of assassinations, etc., the same characters occupy the same jobs on the same ship ("Mirror Mirror")
• The magical Genesis device, which turns nebulas into planets despite being designed to transform the surface of planets (TWOK)
• Warp speed capable gaseous entities ("Obsession")

I can go on and on, but the point is that anyone can cherry pick examples to try to prove one is dumber or more Star Warsy than the other. That doesn't make it so, nor prove that the one "ruined" the other.

The article is fucking rubbish.

 

[Amaris]

Fantasy technology can work in a real universe.

It can? So if I invented a tachyon inversion matrix that instantly transformed the planet Earth into a giant soccer ball, it would work for you, so long as the Moon remains in its orbit? I mean, what's the limit? What if I turned the entire universe into Jell-O using fantasy technology? Sounds good as long as light still travels at 186,000 miles per second?

Oh, wait! I forgot! Fantasy technology can get around that, too! So instead of having it take billions of years to reach the edges of the known universe (at which point the known universe will be bigger than the known universe from the previous billions of years), I can make it happen instantly with tachyons! Then I'll time travel back to 2014, and tell myself that a lime jell-o universe is awfully squishy. Fantasy technology makes everything better!

What's awesome is I still get to call it science fiction, at least according to your standards set here!

If nuKirk flapped his arms and flew from the enterprise to the moon, or they beamed to Andromeda, you would be going "Awesome!"

Why shouldn't he be able to beam to Andromeda? You just said fantasy technology is acceptable, and can work in a real universe.

Thanks for that info. Well, Santa Claus already mocked that. Just scroll back a few thousand words or so.

Oh, there was no mocking. I read the comics, and pulled some of my response from there.

 

[Ghrakh]

Fantasy technology can work in a real universe.

It can? So if I invented a tachyon inversion matrix that instantly transformed the planet Earth into a giant soccer ball, it would work for you, so long as the Moon remains in its orbit? I mean, what's the limit? What if I turned the entire universe into Jell-O using fantasy technology? Sounds good as long as light still travels at 186,000 miles per second?

Maybe that'll be in the next movie. But explained in the comics.

If nuKirk flapped his arms and flew from the enterprise to the moon, or they beamed to Andromeda, you would be going "Awesome!"

Why shouldn't he be able to beam to Andromeda? You just said fantasy technology is acceptable, and can work in a real universe.

Yeah, but then why have starships.

Thanks for that info. Well, Santa Claus already mocked that. Just scroll back a few thousand words or so.

Oh, there was no mocking. I read the comics, and pulled some of my response from there.

You're just backpeddling now.

 

[Amaris]

Maybe that'll be in the next movie. But explained in the comics.

You didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again in case you missed it:

So if I invented a tachyon inversion matrix that instantly transformed the planet Earth into a giant soccer ball, it would work for you, so long as the Moon remains in its orbit? I mean, what's the limit? What if I turned the entire universe into Jell-O using fantasy technology? Sounds good as long as light still travels at 186,000 miles per second?

Yeah, but then why have starships.

Why eat? Why sleep? Why die? That fantasy technology of the future makes everyone immortal, and can modify their biology to handle any need. So why do they go around eating, sleeping, and dying?

You're just backpeddling now.

There's no backpedaling here, at least not from me.

 

[M'Sharak]

To accept warp drive, instant destination wormholes, telepathy between various species, and time travel, yet mock something that exaggerates the danger a supernova can cause to galactic civilizations, is disingenuous. In short, for one to do so, they must strain gnats and swallow camels.

If nuKirk flapped his arms and flew from the enterprise to the moon, or they beamed to Andromeda, you would be going "Awesome!"

Let's not make things personal, 'K?

 

[CorporalClegg]

It can?

No. Because then it would be real technology.

 

[Amaris]

It can?

No. Because then it would be real technology.

Yep.

Tim Minchin said it best: "Do you know what they call 'alternative' medicine that works? Medicine."

Fantasy technology doesn't have to follow the universal laws of physics, hence as to why it's called "fantasy."

I find it interesting that someone could be okay with the whole concept of the Genesis device and its capabilities, but have a problem with Kirk beaming to Andromeda, or a supernova threatening a galaxy.

 

[Melakon]

You're just backpeddling now.

I don't think I've seen J. backpedal from anything in the last two years.

 

[Amaris]

You're just backpeddling now.

I don't think I've seen J. backpedal from anything in the last two years.

Correct. I'll gladly (or grudgingly) admit when I'm wrong, but I don't backpedal. Right now, I have no interest in backpedaling, only moving forward with my line of questioning.

 

[CorporalClegg]

You're just backpeddling now.

I don't think I've seen J. backpedal from anything in the last two years.

Only when he's dancin'.

 

[Ghrakh]

Forget it.

 

[Amaris]

I said "can" That doesn't automatically mean your dumbed-down examples become "should".

How are my examples dumbed down? Did I make more complex Jell-O universe statements earlier which needed to be restated in simpler terms? I do not recall as such. Did you mean to say "dumbed down" or do you mean something else?

You're quite talented at coming up with really stupid scenarios, I'll admit.

They're not stupid, they're fantasy scenarios. They don't need the shackles of reality to keep them from being possible.

You made no mention of the comics.

I said I got part of my answer from the comics, because I had read them. That would be the "subspace" part of the theory that I mentioned earlier.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I read the article. Personally, I don't believe that there is one contributor to anything. There are multiple contributors.

Star Wars revived the franchise in the late '70s. Paramount invested money into films, then television shows.

The issue is now that the audience, especially the international audience, have expectations of what an action-adventure film should be. Star Trek has failed in the past at meeting those expectations. Paramount wants a product that will meet those expectations, so the studio is doing what it can in ensuring that their product succeeds.

 

[fireproof78]

I read the article. Personally, I don't believe that there is one contributor to anything. There are multiple contributors.

Star Wars revived the franchise in the late '70s. Paramount invested money into films, then television shows.

The issue is now that the audience, especially the international audience, have expectations of what an action-adventure film should be. Star Trek has failed in the past at meeting those expectations. Paramount wants a product that will meet those expectations, so the studio is doing what it can in ensuring that their product succeeds.

Pretty much, this. Well said

If you look at history a particular way, Star Trek has lived in Star Wars' shadow for a number of years. TMP got the shot in the arm from Paramount after Star Wars debuted and made all of the money.

As far as ruining Star Trek, not really, except that Star Wars seems to have broader appeal to a general audience, which Trek 09 attempted to rectify, to some degree.

Beyond that, the two really can exist together in harmony and can be just as entertaining in their own right. One should not have to suffer for the other to succeed.

 

[Ryan8bit]

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

At light speed, unless it's subspace, at which point it moves considerably faster.

Whaa....??? Supernovas don't travel at the speed of light.

For this one, I just assume some techno subspace reason like was given in STVI. I wouldn't have minded if one was given.

 

[Amaris]

How fast does a supernova move? Faster than that turbolift that nuSpock took from the Shuttlebay to the Bridge?

At light speed, unless it's subspace, at which point it moves considerably faster.

Whaa....??? Supernovas don't travel at the speed of light.

For this one, I just assume some techno subspace reason like was given in STVI. I wouldn't have minded if one was given.

The particles that make up the light from a supernova move at the speed of light, including those delightful Gamma rays. The ejecta can move anywhere from 9,000 to 25,000 miles per second. It can have some good distance, too, before it begins to really slow down.

 

[Maurice]

At light speed, unless it's subspace, at which point it moves considerably faster.

Whaa....??? Supernovas don't travel at the speed of light.

For this one, I just assume some techno subspace reason like was given in STVI. I wouldn't have minded if one was given.

The particles that make up the light from a supernova move at the speed of light, including those delightful Gamma rays. The ejecta can move anywhere from 9,000 to 25,000 miles per second. It can have some good distance, too, before it begins to really slow down.

It doesn't slow down, it just spreads out more and more with distance until it's effectively not there.