Just ReWatched Generations and this bugged me...

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies I-X' started by jims kirk, Sep 21, 2008.

  1. blueziggy

    blueziggy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Apr 27, 2007
    stop bringing science fact into the context of a movie that uses made up elements. for all we know there could be trilithium and when it is combined with a star and heats up to the point of explosion it expands out like a popcorn kernel. the point is, when dicussin the future and future elements, technology, materials and the like you can basically make up anything you want because it cant be proven false.
  2. Smiley

    Smiley Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Feb 8, 2005
    Chandler, AZ
    ^There's a reason that this is sci-fi and not fantasy. Trek does use real science wherever it can. It uses cheats for dramatic necessity, but most of it is based on real-life discoveries and speculations. Some things are demonstratably impossible based on our current knowledge of the universe, and Star Trek should reflect that.
  3. blueziggy

    blueziggy Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Apr 27, 2007
    so then scientists have discovered trilithium?

    again i understand what you are saying, but the fact of the matter is when you use something imaginary (which trilithium is) and get imaginary results from it then you cant claim that it is not factually true because duh its imaginary.
  4. Nebusj

    Nebusj Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Jan 27, 2005
    Thing is, they say explicitly that it's the change in gravitational distribution in the sector which causes the Nexus to change its course. In fact, Data says that so we can count on it not being a simplification for the sake of anyone. However, we know how gravity works well enough to know that's not how gravity works.

    If you want to make up something, and attribute to it whatever effects your story needs, that's fine as long as the thing you make up seems thematically consistent and the rules seem non-arbitrary enough (another problem with the Nexus). But if you go around saying explicitly how it's supposed to work, when it can't work that way, and you want to bill yourself as having Real! Science! Content! as Star Trek fans like to claim, then you have to take the fall when you're just wrong.

    (#include ritual disclaimer that science fiction fans really are satisfied with a patina of scientific gloss and won't be deterred from liking what they like just because it doesn't make qualitative, much less quantitative, sense.)
  5. Saxman1

    Saxman1 Commodore Commodore

    Oct 21, 2005
    Wow, I tried watching this one last night and made it through about 45 minutes. It's even worse than I remembered. Data is completely annoying with the emotion chip and BTW, did they forget to play the light bill or something?

    I say this as a TNG fan: once the Kirk/Scotty/Chekov prologue is over it's all downhill. Definitely going to sell this one and the rest of the TNG movies on DVD. But that's me.
  6. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Mar 15, 2001
    Movies are shown on a huge screen in a dark theater, so their lighting schemes generally need to be more subdued than the lighting for TV shows, which are shown on smaller screens in rooms that are often more brightly lit.
  7. MeanJoePhaser

    MeanJoePhaser Admiral

    Aug 21, 2003
    Missile Command
  8. Peach Wookiee

    Peach Wookiee Cuddly Mod of Doom Moderator

    May 12, 2001
    Peach Wookiee
  9. Jax

    Jax Admiral Admiral

    Saving Picard, ENT-D crew and a planet a race of people on it don't count ? His first death saved The ENT B so not a waste there.