http://m.au.ign.com/articles/2014/12/20/how-star-wars-ruined-star-trek
An interesting read and some details I never really connected before.
An interesting read and some details I never really connected before.
How Star Wars Ruined Star Trek
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
I only had to get to paragraph two before: "Gene Roddenberry’s beloved vision..." and I stopped reading.
Could you elaborate on some of those details and how connecting them to (whatever) changed the way you look at Star Trek? Or the way you look at Star Wars? Or, well... what is this thread about, in your opinion?
(Hint: it should probably be more specific and more original than "How Star Wars Ruined Star Trek".)
Counterpoint from Spock himself:
http://www.accesshollywood.com/leonard-nimoy-on-star-treks-enduring-success-star-wars-helped-us-a-lot_video_1564837
http://www.accesshollywood.com/leonard-nimoy-on-star-treks-enduring-success-star-wars-helped-us-a-lot_video_1564837
since some of you decided to toss out useless comments without actually reading the article beyond a paragraph or two, allow me to elaborate on what I was referring to:
• 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.
The thread title isn't my title. It's the title of the linked article. I never said I agreed with the title, but I wasn't about to use another title in the thread because then someone would complain about that instead.
"Nonsense?"
Great... How about explaining why? What's nonsense?
The topic's title or the content of the linked topic itself?
Personally speaking, Star Wars never ruined Star Trek for me and never will. I enjoyed the new movies, but at the same time, as the article notes, the current situation of whether or not the new movie will make it for the 50th anniversary, or more importantly, won't end up as some horrible cheese flick influenced by execs and their wild ideas as noted in the article, does raise some questions and possible concerns.
Perhaps it is all just worrying over nothing, but there is still the logical possibility of some of these issues happening, which some of them already have (ex: Still trying to get a director)
I would have figured some in here could figure these things out and comment accordingly by simply reading what the link entails without being spoonfed. Instead it seems people just wanted to comment on the thread title and not go any further because the title may touch on something they simply don't want to look into.
If that's the case, then why post and why not just move onto something else, ignoring this thread?
• 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.
The thread title isn't my title. It's the title of the linked article. I never said I agreed with the title, but I wasn't about to use another title in the thread because then someone would complain about that instead.
"Nonsense?"
Great... How about explaining why? What's nonsense?
The topic's title or the content of the linked topic itself?
Personally speaking, Star Wars never ruined Star Trek for me and never will. I enjoyed the new movies, but at the same time, as the article notes, the current situation of whether or not the new movie will make it for the 50th anniversary, or more importantly, won't end up as some horrible cheese flick influenced by execs and their wild ideas as noted in the article, does raise some questions and possible concerns.
Perhaps it is all just worrying over nothing, but there is still the logical possibility of some of these issues happening, which some of them already have (ex: Still trying to get a director)
I would have figured some in here could figure these things out and comment accordingly by simply reading what the link entails without being spoonfed. Instead it seems people just wanted to comment on the thread title and not go any further because the title may touch on something they simply don't want to look into.
If that's the case, then why post and why not just move onto something else, ignoring this thread?
IGN's writers were tasked with pushing this thing out to strike the "Badass Digest insider exclusive: the franchise is probably doomed, and also you'll die in 24 hours" pseudo-scoop while it was hot. Not a year ago they were running an article about how excited they were despite Abrams' departure from the films.
Last edited:
I've read the article prior to your linking it, actually, but I stand by what I said. It wasn't devoid of interesting content, though, so I don't want to come across as bandwagon attacking you or even the article itself, per se. Just... the timing is very amusing. The whole net seems like it's leaping down Trek's throat right now, which I mean, I get it, but I also have some experience in this industry and I know that it's largely a matter of the higher-ups seeing that one site's doom-and-gloom article is getting enough hits to justify making one of their own. That's how IGN operates, that's how many of these sites operate, and it just strikes me as kind of silly even despite my having worked briefly in the field.
There's reason enough for mild to moderate trepidation at the moment, but this big "let's buzzphrase label the problem as being Star Wars' fault" schtick I'm seeing in multiple places just rubs me the wrong way. I've always adored both franchises, I'm excited to see more content from both of them, and I don't think that JJ Abrams dropping from directing Trek is a dire enough statement to go about making clickbait titles like that.
Because it doesn't merit any kind of legitimate debate.
"Star Wars physics" isn't a real thing.
And neither is "Gene's vision."
Star Wars and Star Trek are cut from the same cloth. They always have been. They're both magical space adventurers dressed in costumes firing ray guns at sexy green aliens.
Attempting to distinguish them with phony pseudo doctrine is condescending at best.
It had a "moon."
Every so often I wish this forum had a "Like" button.
That's the thing, though: as the thread-starter, it's your place not only to post the link to the article, but to define the topic of discussion. There's nothing wrong with using the article's title as the thread title, but if you post only that and the link with no further explanation, leaving everyone else to "figure these things out," you run the risk of each person drawing a different conclusion as to what the thread is about.
By offering your own comment on the article in the opening post, you can indicate which direction you had it in mind that discussion should go. That's not spoonfeeding; it's just setting up the topic of conversation.
That's why I asked above what the thread was about, in your opinion. "An interesting read and some details I never really connected before" doesn't really give any hints concerning what you think about the article's content or why you found it interesting. It's cryptic. However, even a short explanatory paragraph of your own comments up front can help set the stage for the discussion you had in mind when you posted the thread.
A
Amaris
Guest
Why is that dumb?
http://www.universetoday.com/49401/could-a-faraway-supernova-threaten-earth/
Sure, it's range is 3,200 light years, but that's still a huge explosion, and if it's in a populated area, as it was in the Star Trek universe, then that sounds pretty dangerous to civilizations in our galaxy, wouldn't you think?
You'll accept warp speed as believable, transporters, DNA that goes crazy due to some experiment and then reverts back to its original configuration without causing instant death to the person in question, but a massive supernova that could threaten galactic civilizations is dumb?
Fascinating.
Dramatic license. Visually more appealing.
Seems like you might have a nice view from the planet hanging above Spock's hometown.
Meaning what? How is this different than protomatter or any other pseudoscience used in Star Trek?
How about Spock's corpse bring brought back to life because of the aforementioned protomatter/Genesis device? Scotty being brought back to life by Nomad? Are these "Star Wars Physics" too?
Yes they let the original director go. It happens. ( See Ant-Man)
The galaxy is 100,000 light years across.
Trekbeards
