If you can suspend your disbelief in some fictional concept, why can you not do the same with bad science? Especially since said fictional concept is itself identical to bad science?If it doesn't add anything, then why include it?
It's more of a reinforcement or rather not subtracting from the plot. The way I see it is they have a few options:
1. Use good science with the plot
2. Use bad science with the plot
3. Use a completely fictional concept with the plot
Option 1 doesn't pull people out of the story while option 2 does. Option 3 is the kind of thing that already exists in practically every Trek story, yet most people can suspend their disbelief on.
In that case, your only recourse is to stop watching movies.Believe me, when things like that happen and I am aware of it, I am pulled out of the story.
Indeed, but PRODUCER emphasis has a lot to do with how a show is structured and how it deals with change. That's part of the reason TSFS had to bring Spock back, him being one of the pivotal characters of the series. It's also the reason TNG writers kept having to come up with ever more mysterious reasons for Worf to be back on the Enterprise (and at tactical no less) during the TNG films.I dunno, maybe it's just me, but I don't like stories that have boring characters of any kind, and I think a lot of people identify with that. Some people might only care about plot, some might only care about science/details, and some might only care about seeing pretty pictures on the screen. For me it's the whole package, but characters are first and foremost with plot in a close second place, and that's for every form of entertainment, CSI included.Star Trek lives or dies first and foremost on the strength of its characters, so anything that draws attention AWAY from those characters tends to reduce the effect of the story.
This contrasts strongly with, say, Voyager, which probably would have survived perfectly well even if half its major cast members had been killed off and replaced during the series.
Is it? You seem to be a big fan of the "no amount of detail is too much" school of explanation, yet you gloss over the fact that "event horizon" covers a broad range of phenomena beyond what we're obviously referring to (it also includes relativistic event horizons theorized by the point of view of an object moving close to the speed of light).Well, I meant in the context of a black hole. The event horizon described as the boundary of what we can see in the universe is pretty irrelevant to this discussion.Absolutely. Especially event horizons that do not form around black holes.![]()
You say "Event horizon" you say this with the understanding that I'll know you're talking about black holes; I could insist you provide the full precise definition every time you mention "event horizons," but in reality I fully understand what you're talking about anyway.
And we're just having a conversation where we can afford to be pedantic. Writers, especially in film, don't have that luxury.
If Geordi can't see behind the wormhole terminus, they're using the term correctly. I mentioned it earlier, but scientifically speaking we don't actually know what the event horizon of a black hole would really look like; it might not be black at all, in fact it might be shrouded in a thick halo of light from its photon sphere interacting with other in-falling particles. The only meaningful definition is YOU CANNOT SEE WHAT'S INSIDE IT.What I'd like to know is how a wormhole as depicted in Trek really has an event horizon? I don't care what Geordi said in "The Price" because they didn't use the term correctly.