• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

They've been up for a day, with thirty to go, and are halfway to their funding goal. :techman:
 
A story breaking some beloved piece of continuity is not the same as a plot that doesn't work. It's just annoying to trufans.
On the surface, that doesn't appear to address the story problem that transwarp beaming short circuits any need for starships, making Star Trek a degenerative case.

Transporters themselves obviate virtually every way in which the Trek future otherwise functions - they always have. Prose sf authors were criticizing this as a flaw in the series premise back in the 60s. Why has this never bothered trekkies?

BTW, humanity has possessed the technology to time travel with precision and reliability since at least the second year of TOS. Why does this have no effect on the Federation whatever?

("uh...um, the government passed a rule about it. Yeah, so there! Problem solved!")

Star Trek fans accept crap non-explanations for the logical foolishness with which Trek abounds except when they don't feel like it...and then call that "having standards." :guffaw:


The only sci fi writer to question teleportation was David Gerrold - a burnt out 60's degenerate. Top scientists and astronauts praised it. So Roddenberry out thought some sci fi writers. Big deal. It was the only way to get the characters in the center of the action quickly,
and time travel is changing things constantly. We just can't see it. Trek should have perameters that make it believable which is why GR consulted so many scientists during TOS. Or else it's fantasy.
 
The only sci fi writer to question teleportation was David Gerrold - a burnt out 60's degenerate.

15209230785_7c40ef685a_o.png


and

15209230785_7c40ef685a_o.png



You might want to just step away from the keyboard there for a while, junior.
 
I mean, that's someone's defense of Trek's implausibility? That a well-known writer who critiqued it on one occasion is a "burnt-out 1960s degenerate?"

I take offense on my own behalf and that of burnt-out old degenerates everywhere.
 
I mean, that's someone's defense of Trek's implausibility? That a well-known writer who critiqued it on one occasion is a "burnt-out 1960s degenerate?"

I take offense on my own behalf and that of burnt-out old degenerates everywhere.

Amen. In what way is Gerrold burnt-out or "degenerate"? He's still writing, still winning awards, and has never struck me as anything less than professional in my dealings with him. I don't know him well, personally, but I still remember having a very pleasant lunch with him at a WorldCon a few years back.

And I sure as hell hope that "degenerate" business isn't based on him being gay.
 
So now we're calling a dead guy, who produced three successful Trek movies, including THE WRATH OF KHAN, a burn-out and degenerate?

Not sure that's an improvement.
 
Harve Bennett is dead? Didn't know that. Loved the trilogy.

I'm more interested in seeing you defend your change of story that Dennis pointed out than changing the subject. Bold contradictions are so rare here.

What change of story. David Gerrold didn't think teleportation should work without a receiving booth. GR disagreed.

I think maybe people are objecting more to the personal attacks on Gerrold, then Bennett than any controversy about how transporters work.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top