[GalacticCore]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

I honestly think people would have a problem if the movie just had ONE action sequence in the movie.


My question to you is this.

Now that the action sequences in Star Trek actually LOOK like action sequences they somehow make the movie worse for you how?

Hey Redshirts arent supposed to think, just stand there until they get killed. Or don't you know "canon"?

I wasnt the one that expressed the hope in this thread that this Trek universe will move back to TOS credo. In fact its a hope expressed in many posts by some of the action lovers of this movie. I like action, I also like a plot that makes sense and science fiction thats based on some minimal amount of credible science. There is hope if you continue to think about this RedShirt.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by GalacticCore

Hey Redshirts arent supposed to think, just stand there until they get killed. Or don't you know "canon"?

Sure. They are called canon fodder.

A very very old joke I know. But still relevant. As for credible science, was transporter or warp technology credible back in 1966? Except for some vague theories with major information gaps I dont think they were.

[RedShirtsRuS]

Originally Posted by GalacticCore

Hey Redshirts arent supposed to think, just stand there until they get killed. Or don't you know "canon"?

I wasnt the one that expressed the hope in this thread that this Trek universe will move back to TOS credo. In fact its a hope expressed in many posts by some of the action lovers of this movie. I like action, I also like a plot that makes sense and science fiction thats based on some minimal amount of credible science. There is hope if you continue to think about this RedShirt.

I actually laughed at that first part.

But I'm not a red shirt. I just sell em. Red Shirts R'us.

Please enlighten me on the minimal amount of "credible science" that goes on in TWOK. Because while I think terraforming may be theoretically possible, a nebula forming into a planet in a couple minutes is a beyond ridiculous notion. Not to mention there is a star that wasn't there before.

Why aren't you complaining about the bad science in previous Trek movies altogether?

There's a LOT of it.

Why are you ragging on this movie only?

In fact this movie's exploration of quantum universes is far more in line with actual science than the past movies' exploration of time travel and the like.

[MonsieurHood]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

I actually laughed at that first part.

But I'm not a red shirt. I just sell em. Red Shirts R'us.

Please enlighten me on the minimal amount of "credible science" that goes on in TWOK. Because while I think terraforming may be theoretically possible, a nebula forming into a planet in a couple minutes is a beyond ridiculous notion. Not to mention there is a star that wasn't there before.

Why aren't you complaining about the bad science in previous Trek movies altogether?

There's a LOT of it.

Why are you ragging on this movie only?

In fact this movie's exploration of quantum universes is far more in line with actual science than the past movies' exploration of time travel and the like.

You do have a point. Like I said in my first post, all the t.v. series, even TOS made mistakes they had to correct later, gloss over, or ignore. T.V. shows and movies are made by human beings, human beings are fallible, and therefore will make mistakes. It takes awhile to notice them, and usually, by that time, it's too late to go back and fix them. It's also important to remember that until we actually do build starships with some sort of faster than light propulsion system and finally go out and meet whatever's out there, it's still science "fiction". That having been said, Star Trek is the only sci-fi franchise that has had such a great track record for inspiring and predicting future technology and trends in science that actually, at least in part, panned out. No science fiction I know of has had such success in predicting the future since Jules Verne predicted the nuclear submarine, and men on the moon.

[RedShirtsRuS]

It's funny, earlier on, Star Trek was predicting actual future technologies, and now Star Trek has to spend time CATCHING UP to current technology and the scientific thoughts of today in order to create a believable story for people like GalacticCore.

It's kind of sad really. Back in the 60's, people like GalacticCore probably would call the communicator an example of "bad science", even though it would eventually lead to the invention of the cell phone.

Other than Warp Drive, shields and weaponry, we seem to be already outmatching 23rd century TOS technology in terms of our actual 21st century technology today.

This is what I meant when now, instead of predicting future technology and thought, Star Trek now has the task of catching up to current technology and thought.

And if they DARE try to postulate something that may seem incredible to us now, people like GalacticCore will come along and yell "BAD SCIENCE, BAD SCIENCE, BAD SCIENCE!"

It's a shame. How is Star Trek supposed to explore STRANGE NEW WORLDS when people only want our current scientific knowledge to be the only arbiter of truth? Our imaginations are also key in inventing new things. Remember that.

My main point is, if they say something that may sound crazy to you now in a Star Trek episode or movie from now on, let it go. Who knows? You just might be using that same technology yourself just half a century later. And if it is an impossible scientific thing that they have postulated in a movie or episode, then it meets the criteria for the fiction part of the term "science fiction".

It's all good.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by RedShirtsRuS

It's all good.

I cant imagine these super advanced holodecks for example are 'good science' because they are predicated on quite a few assumptions on how technology will progress in ways we have little real idea where to begin at. At least not something that visually/physically realistic in 200 years. I think in terms of the story humans didnt invent it. It came from someone else that did. I might be wrong about that.

But thats ok because they are fun fiction.

[Zardoz]

TOS was never made to really follow a continuity timeline, that's why they had Stardates on the original series. That way they didn't have to give a year or date for any episode. No one ever expceted the episodes to be seen more than 1-2 times when it was made originally.

The fact TOS took place in the 23rd century was only established in TWOK, not before it. GR wanted the veiwer to decide when the series took place, Nick wanted a specific time, Nick won.

TNG was the series that started cronoligical Statdates for episodes.

[Macon ACE]

Originally Posted by lordisaiah

Actually, the Khan/Eugenics Wars in the 1990's brings up a point about the Star Trek universe which I'd never really thought too deeply about until this new movie came out.

One of the oft cited criticisms of the new movie was it's redesign of set pieces, like the Enterprise, and the bridge, ect. Often the argument cited for doing these changes was that the original set pieces and design of the Enterprise reflected a "1960's" vision of the 23rd Century that was incompatible with real world advances from that time into the beginning of the 21st century. The response typically was "Doesn't matter, this is how the 23rd Century looks. Been that way for 40+ years."

It has now finally dawned on me that they weren't being "clear" with their meaning. The Star Trek Universe is a fictional universe true, but imagine it this way, the Prime Timeline for Star Trek started in the 1960's and developed in ways that are different from our real world timeline, just as the new movie's timeline was altered from the arrival of the Narada. Yes, certain things did happen that were the same, but for example, in the Star Trek timeline, the Shuttle Enterprise was refitted as originally planned and joined the active Orbiter fleet, hence why Sisko has a model of the ISS with the shuttle "Enterprise" docked at it, and why the Enterprise in the opening credits of ENT had the tiles of one of the active orbiters. In that timeline, the nuclear propulsion program for space craft was never canceled and resulted in the development of the DY-100 series of Sleeper ships in the 1990's whereas in our timeline, such a vessel is still considered decades away from even the development stage.

I know, clear as mud right....

No, not muddy at all. As a matter of fact, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea! How about: TOS takes place in a parallel universe that was created when the Enterprise suddenly showed up in low earth orbit in 1969 (Tomorrow is Yesterday). Even though they tried to cover their tracks, they weren't completely successful. In that timeline, they have the DY-100s and the Eugenics wars, and WWIII, etc.

How's that for a paradox?

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by Macon ACE

How's that for a paradox?

Hmmm. Well of course this timetravel+alt universe was used for the first time in this movie so as not to upset alot of people. Otherwise it would have used the same formula. They should have because it would have been past timetravel chickens coming home to roost. Yes you can say there is science behind it. But its quite convenient because of some peoples attachments isnt it? Not that they didnt do a very good job in this movie.

But anyways... as for using this same method to explain 1960's, why not? They just didnt know it at the time. Uh oh. But then you get into the science thing again. If today we see this is possible, shouldnt scientists in 22xx understand it better and accept its likelyhood? Certainly Spock should.

[Samuel]

Wait. I forgot. Enterprise has the timetravel+alt universe thing. Ugh!