Will the production team include scientific advisors?
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
No they didn't, none of the writers on this movie have ever claimed to love "technobabble", actually when speaking of the script Nimoy indicated it was quite devoid of it contrasting it with the bits of modern Star Trek he had seen.
Sharr
I'm all for sci-fi writers (the likes of Asimov, Bradbury, Niven, Sturgeon, Bova, Ellison) contributing tidbits of information to the film from a story-telling perspective, but the amount of that input that Abrams actually includes in this film should be limited to "concepts and ideas" rather than scientific explanations.
The von Puttkamer anecdote from TGT is a good illustration of the value of an advisor who is a sci-fi fiction author/science aficionado or expert (the author part being the more important characteristic, in my opinion)
The von Puttkamer anecdote from TGT is a good illustration of the value of an advisor who is a sci-fi fiction author/science aficionado or expert (the author part being the more important characteristic, in my opinion)
This sort of thing happened a lot on TNG/DS9/Voy, but some of us did try to keep it to a minimum. As many other folks here on the bbs know, I never wanted to bog the writers down with what is commonly known as technobabble (it's only babble if it doesn't make sense) or beat people over the head with the science and technology. A lot of the sci & tech could be simplified for general audiences, and a lot of it could simply be shown in action without mouthfuls of dialogue. If a writer or producer or a director caused something wacky to show up in dialogue or in the VFX, it wasn't my fault.
For the most part, I just wanted the spoken tech stuff and tech story bits to make sense and be interesting, and I have to say that TPTB were pretty good listeners. Yeah, things got changed for "drama" reasons, and we could only shrug and keep going. By the time they got to STEnterprise, it all kinda fell apart for me, especially the "sped-up" Stafleet technology and compressed distances. If interstellar travel times were truly as short as they seemed to be on STEnterprise (as well as a few instances on the other shows), Earth would have had the snot kicked out of it by various races, and more than just a few times. Getting the science and technology right doesn't take high-powered and/or costly consultants, but if you have a few folks available who understand literary and media SF, space technology, some general science, and can communicate that to the people running the show, you can create episodes like we saw in TNG, which is about as close as we could hope to get to literate SF on TV.Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
^ Well said, Mr Sternbach.
I honestly cant see them getting too bogged down with science in the new movie. Simply because most things have already been set up (transporters, warp drive, phasers etc) years ago.
I'd rather it be scientifically plausable rather than scientifically accurate. I think the new team seems to know what they are doing, can't see 'em throwing anything new in at this stage. I think they will play it safe.
Story first. Science later.
If we see Time travel in this movie then take your pick. Slingshot around the sun, Guardian of Forever, Wormhole, Black hole...I dont mind.
I honestly cant see them getting too bogged down with science in the new movie. Simply because most things have already been set up (transporters, warp drive, phasers etc) years ago.
I'd rather it be scientifically plausable rather than scientifically accurate. I think the new team seems to know what they are doing, can't see 'em throwing anything new in at this stage. I think they will play it safe.
Story first. Science later.
If we see Time travel in this movie then take your pick. Slingshot around the sun, Guardian of Forever, Wormhole, Black hole...I dont mind.
I got that. There's parts of that episode that make no sense except as flimsy references to contemporary events. That the 1960s are the first period of oppression that comes to Sulu's mind is absurd, given dozens of worse examples (but apt given the episode's message), the agitator briefly refers to the idea that his kind are forced to fight in the dominant race's wars... which is the only reference to any wars of any kind they may have conducted, and in the absence of any identification of an enemy they have or had, only makes sense as a Vietnam allusion.
But bad science is bad science. Star Trek has a lot of it. Big deal, it's fun.
Nope... could have sent a private message to ask xortex though? Its an evil chick from Flash Gordon.
Sharr
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
Asimov received $5000 along with several free trips to Hollywood plus expenses. JvP, on the other hand, wasn't paid a dime by Paramount. The studio's then parent company, Gulf+Western, was entitled to a "reasonable" level of gratis technical assistance from NASA just by virtue of the conglomerate paying federal taxes.
Well, at the very least writers who don't have gigs like Transformers, Mission Impossible III, Hercules and Xena on their résumés.
I don't think JvP wrote any actual dialogue for the film (which would have undoubtedly caused a huge stink with the WGA), but he must have had extensive discussions with GR during the script's evolution from In Thy Image to TMP considering he also served as technical advisor on Phase II.
TGT
Just out of an urge to nitpick, why should that be garbage?
Why shouldn't our intrepid explorers refer to things like "galactic north" and "galactic south", when such terminology appears highly intuitive and practical? Just because today's astronomers might do it differently doesn't mean future astrogators would have to stoop down to the same standards.
It sounds greater garbage to me that Trek people still keep talking about parsecs, when distances in warp-capable societies would much better be measured as multiples of lightspeed and time. Sure, lightyear is still an Earth-centric unit in that "year" is defined by the movements of that single wayside rock, but parsec is doubly damned by depending on both the obscure diameter of Earth's orbit and the arbitrarily chosen value of arc second.
Much of today's science must be junk in the Trek universe anyway, for warp or transporters to be possible. Why cling to antiquated terminology when obviously these future folks know so much better?
Sure, a scifi movie might need a terminology advisor. But for the purposes of Star Trek, there isn't much point in having that person be a science advisor.
Timo Saloniemi
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
^ Speaking of Earth-centric astrophysical measurement terminology, was ST:TMP the only Trek installment that depicted Starfleet employing the Astronomical Unit (AU)?
TGT
TGT
^
As far as I'm aware, TGT, the film does contain the only reference in Star Trek to 'AU'. I may be wrong, though.
I'm not saying it can't be rationalised. Star Trek fans can rationalise anything, long acquaintance to this board has taught me that. But the ability to provide a rationalisation does not negate the fact it was bad science to begin with.
Because! Look at those words you used: Terminology. Astrogator. Astronomer. These words all have Greek origins. You know, the Greeks? Some of them thought the sun was the centre of the universe, then Aristotle wisely dissuaded them of that notion? Smart guys, but the sciences in all fields is far beyond them today.
We still use their terms, though. It's easier than inventing new words, and old words have an aura of historicity about them.
As far as I'm aware, TGT, the film does contain the only reference in Star Trek to 'AU'. I may be wrong, though.
I'm not saying it can't be rationalised. Star Trek fans can rationalise anything, long acquaintance to this board has taught me that. But the ability to provide a rationalisation does not negate the fact it was bad science to begin with.
Because! Look at those words you used: Terminology. Astrogator. Astronomer. These words all have Greek origins. You know, the Greeks? Some of them thought the sun was the centre of the universe, then Aristotle wisely dissuaded them of that notion? Smart guys, but the sciences in all fields is far beyond them today.
We still use their terms, though. It's easier than inventing new words, and old words have an aura of historicity about them.
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
I think you mean Hipparchus, as Aristarchus of Samos was actually born over a decade after the death of Aristotle.
TGT
We do say "south" in reference to e.g. magnetic fields, though. Or "aurora" for that matter. We also speak of "meteors" without acknowledging the old misconception of a connection to meteorology. The old words exist, but their forgotten or indeed false original meanings have been replaced by new applications. "Galactic South" is a perfectly valid new application, and indeed nicely analogous with the "original definition of south": "That half of a rotating body that faces away from you when you see the body rotate counterclockwise".
Also, why is "southern part of the galaxy" more of a bunk term than "starboard" or "torpedo"? Those were applied on space adventures against real-world precedent, exactly because they have a history that can be misapplied on space adventures to great dramatic effect and intuitively obvious meaning.
Anyway, what originally prompted my nit was your choice of this bit of "bunk terminology" in specific - because it is not bunk terminology, and never was. Astronomers have long divided the galaxy into north and south, with the part of the sky that lies on the same side of the galactic plane as the constellation Sculptor as seen from Earth being called "galactic south".
The only part that 23rd century astronomers would do differently from 1960s ones is that they'd establish "galactic south pole" as lying below the center of the galaxy, not below Earth like the current terminology goes. That is, if they bothered to establish such a pole at all (since it's not a feature of 3D space but just a helpful reference point on the 2D night sky of Earth for the classic telescope user).
Timo Saloniemi
Also, why is "southern part of the galaxy" more of a bunk term than "starboard" or "torpedo"? Those were applied on space adventures against real-world precedent, exactly because they have a history that can be misapplied on space adventures to great dramatic effect and intuitively obvious meaning.
Anyway, what originally prompted my nit was your choice of this bit of "bunk terminology" in specific - because it is not bunk terminology, and never was. Astronomers have long divided the galaxy into north and south, with the part of the sky that lies on the same side of the galactic plane as the constellation Sculptor as seen from Earth being called "galactic south".
The only part that 23rd century astronomers would do differently from 1960s ones is that they'd establish "galactic south pole" as lying below the center of the galaxy, not below Earth like the current terminology goes. That is, if they bothered to establish such a pole at all (since it's not a feature of 3D space but just a helpful reference point on the 2D night sky of Earth for the classic telescope user).
Timo Saloniemi
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
If nothing else we can thank the Pythagoreans for their idea of the Antikhthon - the Counter-Earth - which eventually lead to the terrific 1969 film Doppelgänger (aka Journey to the Far Side of the Sun).
Not just Galileo. It also made life rather difficult for Giordano Bruno and Nicholas Copernicus.
TGT
^
The Counter-Earth is just a cool idea in general. I didn't know they made a movie based around it, but given the amount of fantasy scenarios that revolve on simplistic interpretations of Empedocles, I'm not surprised.
I don't follow. Are you saying this method is used by modern astronomers, or aren't you?
The Counter-Earth is just a cool idea in general. I didn't know they made a movie based around it, but given the amount of fantasy scenarios that revolve on simplistic interpretations of Empedocles, I'm not surprised.
I don't follow. Are you saying this method is used by modern astronomers, or aren't you?
It is a valid use, but not necessarily the only valid one. Today's astronomers also like to talk about "the south sky", which is an Earth-centric way of putting it, not galaxy-centric. That is, the axis of rotation that defines north and south in "south sky" is that of Earth, not that of the Milky Way. (Incidentally, those are rather opposite to each other!)
Trek folks would be more likely to follow the galaxy-centric precedent than the Earth-centric one, I think.
Timo Saloniemi
Trek folks would be more likely to follow the galaxy-centric precedent than the Earth-centric one, I think.
Timo Saloniemi
