The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I come as an Emissary to canonistas and revisionists...
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 12-05-2008, 05:50 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

The series Firefly dealt with sounds in space in a similar fashion. In the space scenes, there were no explosions or sounds. Just some camera shudders and musical score that highlited the absence of sounds. It worked quite well on that show. But there were comparatively fewer space scenes on that show as compared to Star Trek.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:24 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
And if suspension of disbelief weren't a good and even necessary thing for science fiction to work, they could have dancing puppets come out and sing that to the audience before the curtain rises.

When you're serving up the impossible, you better wrap it in as much plausible as you can, or ain't nobody gonna swallow it.
There's willing suspension of disbelief, and then there's borderline obsessive behavior. Postulating on engineering techniques which don't even exist is kind of... out there... unless, of course, one teaches at MIT or CalTech. In the engineering department. And you're discussing it with other professors. And you've got the applied knowledge to theorize about the future.

I say the Enterprise flies with fairy dust from Tinkerbell! After all, didn't Kirk reference Peter Pan in one of the movies? It was a clue!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:28 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
There's willing suspension of disbelief, and then there's borderline obsessive behavior. Postulating on engineering techniques which don't even exist is kind of... out there... unless, of course, one teaches at MIT or CalTech. In the engineering department. And you're discussing it with other professors. And you've got the applied knowledge to theorize about the future.

I say the Enterprise flies with fairy dust from Tinkerbell! After all, didn't Kirk reference Peter Pan in one of the movies? It was a clue!
Actually, I'm not a professor at MIT or CalTech, but I do have a degree in mechanical/structural engineering, so in a way, I am qualified to discuss fictional/future engineering techniques. And the Enterprise actually flies with sepcial effects and CGI. But fairy dust works too, if that's your thing. I'm sure my 2 y/o daughter would agree.

Last edited by I-Am-Zim : 12-05-2008 at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:29 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Warp...coils...not...REAAAALLL!?!?!?!?!

SAY IT AIN'T SOOOOO!

But seriously. The whole "it's not real" thing, it's getting old. We all know it's not real. We all know it's make believe. That's why it's called Science "FICTION". Get over it. You're not being funny anymore. It's bordering on insulting and patronizing. This is a discussion board. .
Yes, and everyone gets to voice their opinion. I'm not being patronizing, I'm voicing my opinion. But I will grant your point to a certain extent, and not read or post in any threads that only deal with technical issues. Threads such as this, which are about canonistas and revisionists, would seem to be fair game.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 12-05-2008, 06:55 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I really have to give to the Star Trek People. I've noticed on just about every episode there is a NASA or scientific advisor so they tend to do their homework on this stuff. It's meant to make sense.
Yes, it's well known that every effort is maintained to keep the science plausible, but for entertainment purposes it doesn't stop the writers ignoring some things or stretching it to limits.

Quote:
I've admired this about trek making science a weekly entertainment thing. For those that do listen and who's intrest is peaked they find that there are incredible thoughts of discovery and exploration.

So I secretly wonder why so many Trek fans think the genre is about social issues. It think Q actualy touched on it.

For that one fraction of a second, you were open to options you had never considered. *That* is the exploration that awaits you. Not mapping stars and studying nebula, but charting the unknown possibilities of existence.
I think Trek's strength is that you can both types of episode (plus a heck of a lot more), in the mix. TOS had a great many social commentary episodes because of the time it existed in, but it also had just fun episodes, and that continued into TNG ('Measure of a Man, 'Sarek', 'The Drumhead' are episodes that have more of a social bent than learning about technology possibilities, and they sit just fine alongside an episode like 'Evolution', which first told me about the existence of nanotechnology etc).

And science fiction has always been used as a way to commentate on the present world as much as it is about learning how the galaxies and universe works.

You have to have a mix of topic and subject, and I think that for the most part Trek balanced that out well.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 12-05-2008, 07:07 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Well said, Kevin. Whenever an "ingredient" gets used too much or abused, like technobabble in VOY as Deus ex Machina, one has to find the balance again. Is is great when Trek can sparkle interest in people, be it naotechnology and nuclear fusion concerning science or the epic of Gilgamesh concerning fiction.
But any in-universe rules are not supposed to be a straightjacket. Seriously, how often did someone get beamed through shields? More often than one could count, but that stuff was originally done as speed-up story device, so we should appreciate when the precise rules of e.g. the transporter have been expanded a little bit in later Trek, we should appreciate that Trek gets more epic in the process but not complain about bending and breaking of rules. Otherwise, creative constraint and finally creative death would be the result.

Concerning this movie, I don't understand why anyone is concerned about the 'rules'. The recent Kelvin update at the Intel site showed that they care about consistency of the technology without heading into the technobabble direction. Everything is shortly explained.
But of course there comes in fan-hybris, people who believe they know what a certain warp nacelle design would do or not do and so on ...
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:37 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yes, it's well known that every effort is maintained to keep the science plausible, but for entertainment purposes it doesn't stop the writers ignoring some things or stretching it to limits.
No it does not.
But that's how theory works aswell one is for entertainment another is research.

Quote:
I think Trek's strength is that you can both types of episode (plus a heck of a lot more), in the mix. TOS had a great many social commentary episodes because of the time it existed in, but it also had just fun episodes, and that continued into TNG ('Measure of a Man, 'Sarek', 'The Drumhead' are episodes that have more of a social bent than learning about technology possibilities, and they sit just fine alongside an episode like 'Evolution', which first told me about the existence of nanotechnology etc).
I have no problem with those episdoes.
I like social and scientific.
It's obvious some individuals just like drama.

Quote:
And science fiction has always been used as a way to commentate on the present world as much as it is about learning how the galaxies and universe works.
9 of the first season episodes are scientific in nature while tackling social issues 12 if you count certain other ones.

The second Season is 11 out of 26
The third Season is 18 of 25 episodes science fiction in there very nature. The amount of pure social issues or controversial issues is low. Social issues of war are quite predominant in the Early Trek.

It seems mostly science fiction. That's mostly why I tune in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Well said, Kevin. Whenever an "ingredient" gets used too much or abused, like technobabble in VOY as Deus ex Machina, one has to find the balance again. Is is great when Trek can sparkle interest in people, be it naotechnology and nuclear fusion concerning science or the epic of Gilgamesh concerning fiction.
Darmok really opened fandom up to literature like no other episode had done before. Only Star Trek II and VI really had any literary points of intrest. I really enjoyed them.



Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
Star Trek does cover many social issues (since science fiction seems to be a far better format to encompass such stories than just about any other genre), but no, it's not the "be all, end all" of the essence of Trek any more than "space battles", or "exploration." Star Trek is greater than the sum of its parts. Star Trek has a little something for everyone.
I can't disagreee
Science Fiction is a bit of a contradiction.
The whole concept is to show how the world has become better. Social issues aren't a major concern. Note that Trend in the original series. Everyone else had the issues not the Federation.

Quote:
I think some people (speaking of the U.S., and NOT the world abroad...so please understand my use of terms in context ) who might be in minority races, or might be of minority factions/socio-political groups cling to Star Trek, because in a way it gives them a voice that most other shows or even the news media might not. Yes, for the most part the stories are fairly sanitized, but if it gets a positive message out in the process for them, then boom.....people have seen it, and like it or not, the story and the idea is now in the social consciousness (at least of those who partake of Star Trek). And with no disrespect to anyone here, I think that's where Star Trek sort of gets its perceived status as a "social values" show.
That was hard to understand.
I think you're saying that minorities see Trek as a platform for turning the tides in they're favor.
I think you're right.





Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Warp...coils...not...REAAAALLL!?!?!?!?!

SAY IT AIN'T SOOOOO!

But seriously. The whole "it's not real" thing, it's getting old. We all know it's not real. We all know it's make believe. That's why it's called Science "FICTION". Get over it. You're not being funny anymore. It's bordering on insulting and patronizing. This is a discussion board. We are discussing a fictional universe. Even in a fictional universe, there are still rules. .
I was actually hoping that no one would draw attention to those comments. Stating the obvious is often used as a point of ridicule and ridicule serves no logical function.
It's emotionalism.

Science Fiction is about science.
Ridicule is about Drama

I know I'm in the right forum and thread for talking about Science.
If they want to start Drama they can do it among themselves.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 12-05-2008 at 08:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 12-05-2008, 08:42 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post


I know I'm in the right forum and thread for talking about Science.
If they want to start Drama they can do it among themselves.
You're in the right forum, but not the right thread. The title of this thread includes both canonistas and revisionists. Trust me, if you guys start a tech thread you won't find me in it... but as a revisionist, this seems a thread in which it is right and proper for me (and others) to post in a satirical (not dramatic) way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 12-05-2008, 09:11 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
It is quite true that sounds can't travel through the vacuum of space. Nor can smell, as pointed out by Mr. Spock to Chekov in "The Trouble With Tribbles". However, a movie with a lot of space battle scenes would be pretty boring if they stuck strictly to science, and there were no sounds. This is entertainment, not science class. You want realism, watch the Discovery channel. You want excitement and adventure, watch a movie.
THAT'S MY POINT!!!!!

The problem is that many movie critics today have become cynical and unforgiving towards recent scifi movies when they lack science and even say things like "it seems entertainment was more important than truly representing science". Meanwhile, scifi movies that are listed as "great" make even more science mistakes.

"Suspend belief" has become some sort of joke. Now the only safe scifi scenerio is a doctor giving a patient a prescription for medicine. Anything less mundane than that it's time for the supercynics to put on their capes and destroy the movie.

Criticisms about Star Trek XI seem to be a perfect example. People complaining that Star Trek XI is misrepresenting science for the sake of entertainment when that's what ALL THE STAR TREK MOVIES HAVE BEEN DOING.

You're right! It's entertainment. Time to put away the Science Weekly magazines, buy some popcorn and size large colas, sit back and watch the movie.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 12-05-2008, 09:15 AM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

I can't have large colas or popcorn, my Doctor says it's unhealty.

__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:57 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.