STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:40 pm UTC

I don't think the new films are impenetrable to people who don't know Star Trek, knowing the callbacks and references isn't essential. Hasn't the criticism been the opposite, that they're too far removed from what Star Trek was. And you can't quite compare this Trek reboot to the BSG one as the latter is a TV series, which is a different beast to a film. And the original BSG doesn't have the same baggage that Star Trek does.
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:56 pm UTC

charliepanayi wrote:I don't think the new films are impenetrable to people who don't know Star Trek, knowing the callbacks and references isn't essential. Hasn't the criticism been the opposite, that they're too far removed from what Star Trek was. And you can't quite compare this Trek reboot to the BSG one as the latter is a TV series, which is a different beast to a film. And the original BSG doesn't have the same baggage that Star Trek does.


The biggest difference between the BSG reboot and the Star Trek reboot is the quality of the originals - the original BSG was cheesy 70s SF with a spark of something special; the original Star Trek was pioneering 60s SF which was one of a handful of programs that defined the genre. BSG had a much lower bar to reach, so much more scope to do its own thing.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Adacore » Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:40 pm UTC

Really, the original Star Trek was almost unwatchably cheesy sci-fi with a spark of something special too. Pioneering, maybe, but definitely cheesy. The difference with Star Trek is that it had sequels that weren't cheesy sci-fi before the reboot.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Jun 13, 2013 11:50 am UTC

Adacore wrote:Really, the original Star Trek was almost unwatchably cheesy sci-fi with a spark of something special too. Pioneering, maybe, but definitely cheesy. The difference with Star Trek is that it had sequels that weren't cheesy sci-fi before the reboot.


It also tried to be actual science fiction rather than space opera.

It's a little unfair to judge Star Trek as cliched when it originated a lot of the cliches (or at least introduced them to TV), while BSG was part of the post-Star Wars wave of TV SF, and has much less excuse...

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:47 pm UTC

Adacore wrote:Really, the original Star Trek was almost unwatchably cheesy sci-fi with a spark of something special too. Pioneering, maybe, but definitely cheesy. The difference with Star Trek is that it had sequels that weren't cheesy sci-fi before the reboot.

De gustibus. I netflixed TOS a few years back and found it to be surprisingly watchable.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Jun 14, 2013 8:26 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:It also tried to be actual science fiction rather than space opera.


I'm not quite sure what distinction you're drawing here because, in my experience the two are very much not mutually exclusive.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:22 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:It also tried to be actual science fiction rather than space opera.


I'm not quite sure what distinction you're drawing here because, in my experience the two are very much not mutually exclusive.


Science fiction cares about the science; space opera uses space as a setting, but focuses on sweeping drama rather than scientific details. It's the difference between Star Trek and Galaxy Quest, or between Star Trek and Star Wars (which may or may not be SF, but is definitely space opera).

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:07 pm UTC

Science Fiction doesn't give a rat's ass about actual Science, and often doesn't even care much about it's fictional science beyond "This is how it works because we say so". Which is why Fantasy and Sci-Fi are so closely linked - because there's often no real difference between a Space Marine with a Disintegration Gun and Wizard with a Disintegration Wand. Whatever they're shooting at is going to end up as a neat pile of dust on the floor.

Now, the various sub-genres.. hard sci-fi, for instance, are overly concerned with the tech. But Sci-Fi as a whole? It's just a framework to tell a story that involves devices that do not currently exist.

Besides, Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Arguing "Is this Sci-Fi or Space Opera" is like arguing "Is this Metal or is this Thrash" or even "Is this a domestic cat or a Maine Coon" - one's a subset of the other. If one can qualify as the second, it most certainly qualifies as the first.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Fri Jun 14, 2013 5:32 pm UTC

Also, Star Trek isn't even great about creating their own consistent set of science rules or exploring the implications. Lots of one-episode technologies or innovative uses of technology that should have a profound impact on the setting, but are completely forgotten after that one episode.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby eSOANEM » Fri Jun 14, 2013 6:20 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Besides, Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Arguing "Is this Sci-Fi or Space Opera" is like arguing "Is this Metal or is this Thrash" or even "Is this a domestic cat or a Maine Coon" - one's a subset of the other. If one can qualify as the second, it most certainly qualifies as the first.


Yeah, this was pretty much what I thought. Also, in my experience, space opera as a sub-genre is distinguished not by hardness but by the scale and the type of plots it tends to use. One of my favourite sci-fi authors writes hard(ish) space opera for instance.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Jorpho » Sat Jun 15, 2013 1:28 pm UTC

The whole sci-fi vs fantasy debate is being bludgeoned to death over here if you're into that.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Jun 16, 2013 9:46 pm UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:Besides, Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Arguing "Is this Sci-Fi or Space Opera" is like arguing "Is this Metal or is this Thrash" or even "Is this a domestic cat or a Maine Coon" - one's a subset of the other. If one can qualify as the second, it most certainly qualifies as the first.


Yeah, this was pretty much what I thought. Also, in my experience, space opera as a sub-genre is distinguished not by hardness but by the scale and the type of plots it tends to use. One of my favourite sci-fi authors writes hard(ish) space opera for instance.


It seems to come down to the definitions you're used to. My personal cut-off for SF is at medium-hard; other people only accept the hardest; others think LotR is SF...

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 2:22 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:Besides, Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Arguing "Is this Sci-Fi or Space Opera" is like arguing "Is this Metal or is this Thrash" or even "Is this a domestic cat or a Maine Coon" - one's a subset of the other. If one can qualify as the second, it most certainly qualifies as the first.


Yeah, this was pretty much what I thought. Also, in my experience, space opera as a sub-genre is distinguished not by hardness but by the scale and the type of plots it tends to use. One of my favourite sci-fi authors writes hard(ish) space opera for instance.


It seems to come down to the definitions you're used to. My personal cut-off for SF is at medium-hard; other people only accept the hardest; others think LotR is SF...


Star Trek seems like very soft SF. They use lots of technobabble, but they never try to lay out any sort of consistent system for their fictional science, usually just making up new words when they want some new effect to happen.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:29 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:Besides, Space Opera is a sub-genre of Sci-Fi. Arguing "Is this Sci-Fi or Space Opera" is like arguing "Is this Metal or is this Thrash" or even "Is this a domestic cat or a Maine Coon" - one's a subset of the other. If one can qualify as the second, it most certainly qualifies as the first.


Yeah, this was pretty much what I thought. Also, in my experience, space opera as a sub-genre is distinguished not by hardness but by the scale and the type of plots it tends to use. One of my favourite sci-fi authors writes hard(ish) space opera for instance.


It seems to come down to the definitions you're used to. My personal cut-off for SF is at medium-hard; other people only accept the hardest; others think LotR is SF...


Star Trek seems like very soft SF. They use lots of technobabble, but they never try to lay out any sort of consistent system for their fictional science, usually just making up new words when they want some new effect to happen.


Depends which version of Star Trek you're talking about - the original series did do the research; the Next Generation on used it as a magic wand for the tech writers to wave.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:03 pm UTC

Ah, that's a good point, the pointless technobabble did seem to ramp up as the franchise went on. But even the original series had multiple inexplicably godlike beings, including a machine that granted immortality and ran on fruit.

Edit: Also transporter errors that could somehow do things like split a person into their "good" and "evil" halves - that's right up there with Tuvix from Voyager. The "antimatter universe" was also handled in an utterly nonsensical way.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Dark567 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:19 am UTC

I fucking hated this movie. Mainly for one reason and one reason only:
Spoiler:
Your going to do the Spock/Kirk dies scene... And not make Spock/Kirk die?
Seriously JJ? Not gutsy enough to actually go through with it.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Adacore » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:31 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:I fucking hated this movie. Mainly for one reason and one reason only:
Spoiler:
Your going to do the Spock/Kirk dies scene... And not make Spock/Kirk die?
Seriously JJ? Not gutsy enough to actually go through with it.

Spoiler:
Well, it's not like it really lasted long the first time around either. The subsequent film was even called 'The Search for Spock', which kinda gave away the game a bit. Once you know that it's a remake of a story where the person that died comes back to life, there's no tension in keeping them dead for long.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby WibblyWobbly » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:56 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
Dark567 wrote:I fucking hated this movie. Mainly for one reason and one reason only:
Spoiler:
Your going to do the Spock/Kirk dies scene... And not make Spock/Kirk die?
Seriously JJ? Not gutsy enough to actually go through with it.

Spoiler:
Well, it's not like it really lasted long the first time around either. The subsequent film was even called 'The Search for Spock', which kinda gave away the game a bit. Once you know that it's a remake of a story where the person that died comes back to life, there's no tension in keeping them dead for long.

Spoiler:
Not to mention that if JJ Abrams actually did kill off Spock or Kirk permanently (in his franchise), I have a feeling he'd get death threats. Knowing some Trekkies, maybe an actual attempt or two. No joke. But I'd be surprised if it was ever seriously considered, especially for the reason Adacore just gave. We've already got a franchise that resurrected the sacrificial officer, if you did the whole Kirk/Spock death scene again and didn't resurrect the dead one, you'd have just as many people complaining they went too far off the original.

User avatar
charliepanayi
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 7:26 pm UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby charliepanayi » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:55 am UTC

Dark567 wrote:I fucking hated this movie. Mainly for one reason and one reason only:
Spoiler:
Your going to do the Spock/Kirk dies scene... And not make Spock/Kirk die?
Seriously JJ? Not gutsy enough to actually go through with it.


Not gutsy enough? You do realise they destroyed Vulcan in the previous film?
"Excuse me Miss, do you like pineapple?"

"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work, I want to achieve it through not dying"

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Dark567 » Wed Aug 07, 2013 1:51 pm UTC

Well, I liked the previous movie.....
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
drego642
Posts: 137
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:04 am UTC
Location: Connecticut
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby drego642 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:25 am UTC

Finally got around to seeing this movie just after I re-watched the prequel. The casting was great in both, I must say.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:33 pm UTC

Random Star Trek question:

Does the Federation still have a civilian government? In TOS and related movies it does, but TNG and onward Starfleet officers seem to fill every role of governance in the Federation.

There also seems to be a severe shortage of civilian ships and Federation member world fleets. Starfleet seems to be almost the only means of interstellar travel and military protection in the Federation, and I don't recall any evidence of them being subject to any sort of civilian oversight or Democratic process. Is the Federation a benign military dictatorship?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Aug 16, 2013 3:37 pm UTC

My recollection of Star Treks economy and work relations is that it's a bit handwavy. Like, individual success is rewarded, but there's no money, but everyone has a job, but no one is cleaning toilets. The government is perfect and fair and ubiquitous...

setzer777 wrote:There also seems to be a severe shortage of civilian ships and Federation member world fleets
Yeah, the available of transport is super dictated by plot. Plenty of ships when we want dramatic explosions, no ships when we need to get somewhere.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby WibblyWobbly » Fri Aug 16, 2013 5:00 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Random Star Trek question:

Does the Federation still have a civilian government? In TOS and related movies it does, but TNG and onward Starfleet officers seem to fill every role of governance in the Federation.


Yeah, there's still a Federation Council, and a democratically elected president, and even a judiciary. It's just not as much fun to watch. "Star Trek: Legislation" did poorly in focus groups.

setzer777 wrote:There also seems to be a severe shortage of civilian ships and Federation member world fleets. Starfleet seems to be almost the only means of interstellar travel and military protection in the Federation, and I don't recall any evidence of them being subject to any sort of civilian oversight or Democratic process. Is the Federation a benign military dictatorship?


I think it depends on which kind of Star Trek you're watching. In the movies, I think this is basically true, as movies want to be action packed and, again, most of the action is going to happen near the people with laser guns. But in "Generations", the incident that started the movie was the rescue of El-Aurian refugees from freighters. The "Kobayashi Maru" of much lore was supposed to be a human civilian freighter. Civilian transports popped up in TNG fairly often (although sometimes, they were used to ferry people back and forth to Starfleet ships, but they're still civilian transports), a Romulan mining ship was Nero's weapon of choice (after being weaponized) in the penultimate movie, and a few colony ships made their way into regular TNG episodes. You're right in that you don't generally see much of the civilian oversight for such ships or civilian fleets, but again, I think that's possibly just a nod to the rule of cool: it's not interesting to watch an episode on decisions made in the Bureau of Colonial Affairs. Unless someone transports Peter Capaldi into the 24th century to go Malcolm Tucker on their asses.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:07 pm UTC

It may help to think of space in Star Trek as being a bit like the Caribbean in Pirates of the Caribbean and the like - lots of semi-autonomous military vessels sailing around with notional government oversight, but, in practice, answerable only to themselves and any local officials.

Okay, subspace radio means that the Enterprise can (usually) telegraph home for instructions, which puts things closer to late 19th Century rather than 17th Century but it's still a setting where the individual starship captain is the Federation when it comes to decision-making - a serious military would support the man on the spot, giving them the benefit of the doubt for any questionable judgement calls, and not expecting them to call home for every little thing.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:19 pm UTC

Yeah, but I'm thinking in the broader sense too. As far as we can tell (post TOS era) there is no independent media (no media star ships, no embedded reporters), people just have to believe everything Starfleet tells them. Even when the war with the Dominion is looking very bleak, there's never any concern about public opinion. By all appearances, the admiralty of Starfleet has ultimate authority in the Federation.

Obviously it could just be leaving out boring stuff, but is there any evidence that the Federation has elected officials? Is there any reason to assume that it's democratic aside from the fact that it's described in utopian terms and we assume that must include democratic representation?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Dark567 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:33 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:Yeah, but I'm thinking in the broader sense too. As far as we can tell (post TOS era) there is no independent media (no media star ships, no embedded reporters), people just have to believe everything Starfleet tells them. Even when the war with the Dominion is looking very bleak, there's never any concern about public opinion. By all appearances, the admiralty of Starfleet has ultimate authority in the Federation.

Obviously it could just be leaving out boring stuff, but is there any evidence that the Federation has elected officials? Is there any reason to assume that it's democratic aside from the fact that it's described in utopian terms and we assume that must include democratic representation?
There is a president and executive branch that's headquartered in Paris, I believe they meet the president sometime in DS9 in an episode that featured changlings imitating high level politicians and Starfleet officers, in addition to an attempted coup by Section 31.

Also wasn't Jake Sisko working as a independent journalist in DS9 at one point? Although how independent can he really be as the son of high ranking officer....
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

waidh
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:29 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby waidh » Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:29 am UTC

DS9 shows an elected Federation President and when a Starfleet Admiral (IIRC, there was no connection to Section 31 mentioned or implied) wanted to take his place and flood the streets with phaser-rifle-wielding Starfleet officers to "strengthen" Earth (to counter the threat of changeling infiltration) it was a big deal and they explicitly said that he would replace the existing democratic government with a military dictatorsip.

When Jake Sisko started working for the Federation (not Starfleet) News Service, his first published article was about his fathers, presumably private, opinion on some political matter. Dad did not like that article.
During his time on DS9 under Dominion rule/occupation, Jake made a fuss about freedom of the press and freedom of speech (or right to protest, I'm not sure) implying those are important values in the Federation.

At the beginning of the movie Generations, as Admiral Kirk visits the Enterprise-B he's surrounded by a horde of reporters pointing bright lights, cameras and recording devices at him while bombarding him with questions.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Sat Aug 17, 2013 1:35 pm UTC

Ah, okay, I knew about the Generations scene (reason I said post-TOS era), but I never saw that DS9 episode.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Aug 18, 2013 4:38 pm UTC

It's been a few years, but DS9 is the one I recall going into the most detail about the Federation Government (though there wasn't much detail there) mostly as a way of contrasting it to the Cardassian, Dominion and Bajoran governments. And to the Klingon one, to a lesser extent, though TNG was the one that was all up in Klingon Politics.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

gladiolas
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:41 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby gladiolas » Tue Oct 29, 2013 3:44 am UTC

A comic book series is coming out, which is supposed to explain Khan's change in appearance. Are the recent comics any good?
Thanks.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby mosc » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:03 pm UTC

I avoided this thread because I was going through some personal shit and couldn't see the movie for a few months after release. Then things seemed to have died down in here. I like the discussion though so I'd like to drag some of it back up if y'all don't mind.

On the Sci-Fi stuff:
I find Sci-Fi to be very specific as an element. It's not generally the ONLY element in a story. I do think of it as a genre only in that certain things contain it and certain things don't. Sci-Fi to me is creating a fictional technology or technologies for purpose of highlighting some part of the human condition. You make people live longer with science fiction for the purposes of talking about aging as applied to the reality of the day, for example. Removing current technological limitations acts like a magnifying glass focusing down on specific human tendencies, strengths, weaknesses, interactions, etc. Want to talk about the joy of eating in a novel? Remove the nutritional intake from eating through SF. You get the idea. So to me SF is never really in isolation. I guess in it's purest form you get something like Farenheit 451. Still, even there it is mixed in with some character development, action, and drama.

Star Trek is two layers of Sci Fi. You get the first layer which sets up the opera, the episode to episode continuity and the "universe". The second layer is generally handled on an episode specific basis, best shown as an interaction with an alien culture that is in some way malfunctioning due to a specific technological limitation being twerked out of proportion. In terms of "hard" or "soft" sci-fi, I think this is some reference that the continuity between episodes is as much character driven as it is fictional technology driven. The ship (transporting, holodeckin', phaser bastin, shielded ball of capabilities and limits) becomes a known frame of fiction but so does the captain and the crew. How hard a Sci Fi that is seems to be based on how fixed they are at holding to consistency. I would argue Star Trek is the most consistent fictional technology ever written when you consider the scope of the content it covers. You can pick out counter examples if you want (you could with anything) but the sheer volume of stuff that IS almost always consistent is mind boggling.

The episodes themselves can be Sci Fi or not, within the frame of the heavily sci-fi ship. Sometimes they're purely character driven but even then that character may be an android or an alien or dealing with the aformentioned, etc. The "Data character episode" from TNG can be thought of as sci-fi less if you want but it's taking place in a very rigid Sci Fi frame and Data's whole dealing with "I'm an android" thing is really just an excuse to talk about what makes us human, how we categorize and analyze emotion, etc.

Star Trek is very pure Sci Fi to me. It can succeed at focusing us in razor sharply on a political, societal, or personal issue that people run into by stripping away so much of the surrounding frame. You want to have people watch a documentary where you talk existentially about happiness? Good luck. Now, instead you want to have an android trying to figure out happiness over the course of some wacky space adventure? Tickets please!

On the Federation Stuff:
I guess I'm more into this stuff that most folks on here. The Federation is pretty well described through all the different shows. The "Star Fleet" is not intended as a military, though it does serve that purpose. It's more like a state run maritime organization encompassing what is best described as a coast guard. It's leaders follow a military structure but have an appointment process through a civilian "federation" government. The Federation is a democracy with a president and a legislative body referred to as a counsel. Star Fleet does not run all the federation functions, far from it. Federation personnel run local governments, police forces, scientific research, commerce regulation, etc.

It's unclear what a purely military like federation arm would look like. There are several episodes dealing with star fleet's nature in relation to shifting towards or away from this role. I think it's pretty clear that the Federation did not intend star fleet as a peacetime military service but that it does rely on star fleet for much of the larger security needs. During the snapshots of war time (mostly DS9, the rest of it is very peaceful), star fleet has a lead military role without much federation oversight. As far as governance though, that is clearly not federation business. Federation Ambassadors are mentioned frequently when foreign policy questions arise, as is the executive branch of the federation (civilian). Also, glimpses within the admiralty board often referred to as "star fleet headquarters" often point to policy directives tied to the federation executive or counsel.

I would say calling it a military dictatorship is highly inaccurate. It is far less of a military dictatorship than, say, any current nation with major military power.
Last edited by mosc on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Dark567 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

mosc wrote:You can pick out counter examples if you want (you could with anything) but the sheer volume of stuff that IS almost always consistent is mind boggling.
Huh, I've always felt like Star Trek was the worst at this.... Time Travel has many different contradictory rules depending on the episode and series, as does the holodeck, warp speed and a bunch of other little things(Ridges on Klingons heads). Most other science fiction I always thought was more consistent. Star Wars always seemed pretty consistent with its technology and whatnot, and honestly most other sci-fi doesn't have the breadth of material to make the inconsistencies that Star Trek or Star Wars has.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby mosc » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:18 pm UTC

Star Wars content is 6 movies. The first three of which are inconsistent technologically with the second three. You have a couple other pieces of fluff that don't push much. Star Trek is like 15 movies and somewhere around 1000 TV episodes. The scope of material is too different to call out. Also, Star Wars rarely gets into it's technology preferring to leave things vague. Star Trek regularly tries to explain, in detail.

Because, you know, timing your Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs is so unbelievably insightful into the technology of hyperspace. I mean, does this actually make sense to you?? "On the A New Hope DVD audio commentary, Lucas comments that, in the Star Wars universe, traveling through hyperspace requires careful navigation to avoid stars, planets, asteroids, and other obstacles,[12] and that since no long-distance journey can be made in a straight line, the "fastest" ship is the one that can plot the "most direct course", thereby traveling the least distance.[12]"
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby setzer777 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:29 pm UTC

mosc wrote:I would argue Star Trek is the most consistent fictional technology ever written when you consider the scope of the content it covers.


I'm assuming you're only referring to film and television with this statement?
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Dark567 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:30 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Star Wars content is 6 movies. The first three of which are inconsistent technologically with the second three. You have a couple other pieces of fluff that don't push much. Star Trek is like 15 movies and somewhere around 1000 TV episodes. The scope of material is too different to call out. Also, Star Wars rarely gets into it's technology preferring to leave things vague. Star Trek regularly tries to explain, in detail.
I probably disagree with the technology being that different... but whatever. Really, nothing else in Sci-fi has anywhere near the breadth of Trek. So it has lots of room for inconsistencies. I just don't think even given that, that its very consistent. The time travel and inter-dimensional travel particularly irk me, because they are very inconsistent about it. Sometimes they have "Back to the Future" style time travel(STIV, First Contact) with multiple splitting timelines and sometimes they have "Bill and Ted" style time travel(a couple voyager episodes) where there is one consistent timeline.

I mean, I also think the new BSG is pretty consistent... but it also is only like 60 episodes instead of ~800 or whatever. And really that's the crux.... What else has the scope of Star Trek to compare it in consistency?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:43 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Star Trek is like 15 movies and somewhere around 1000 TV episodes.

12 movies and 726 episodes according to Wikipedia.

Star Trek does tend to keep things fairly consistent, but at least in part because it invents a new particle or field for each problem rather than reusing established ones - thereby removing one major source of potential inconsistencies. Next Generation notoriously didn't even include the technobabble in the early drafts of scripts - scripts would be turned in saying things like "If we [tech] then we might be able to escape!" - which is treating science fiction as a setting rather than as, y'know fiction about or featuring technology or science. It's the equivalent of a CSI script being turned in saying "When we [forensic] we discover that Jack was on the scene" or House saying "If we [treatment] and he gets better, we'll know it was [disease]".

One of the good things about the animated series was that the relative freedom from limitations on sets, props and wardrobe meant that they could (and did) do more science fiction.

User avatar
Yubtzock
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 7:37 pm UTC
Location: Breslau/Wrocław

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Yubtzock » Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:44 pm UTC

I think Stargate could be comparable. It's 17 seasons across 3 series (so roughly 400+ episodes) and like 3(?) movies.

The only inconsistencies I can remember though are with the first movie, but you can disregard what Daniel read in the ruins at first, because he did not understand it well back then yet. The alien, while getting blown up, looked like an Asgardian, not like a Gu... Space Snake, but well... it could have been that Ra was just rocking both bodies. Space Matrioshka.

There was also this 3-firemode gun that they retconned by simply sweeping it under the rug. Seriously, I had to stretch mentally quite a bit to put the method of operation for it in my headcanon too.

Unfortunately, Stargate had similar solutions for inconsistencies: each episode could be completely disconnected story-wise; ancient tech was so advanced it was just magic, so it could do whatever; they could just throw their problems and plot holes into a blackhole at some point (by calling 555-bhole on the 'gate).

I haven't watched enough Star Trek to be sure how well it compares though. I'm just writing this down to point out it might be your candidate for comparison with similar "volume".

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6290
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Jorpho » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:33 am UTC

Stargate kind of blew it with all those exotic foreign cultures being able to speak English. I suppose they could have done some sort of "The Stargate gets inside your head!" thing, but that's pretty weird even by Doctor Who standards.

rmsgrey wrote:One of the good things about the animated series was that the relative freedom from limitations on sets, props and wardrobe meant that they could (and did) do more science fiction.
I think the animated series being somewhat directed towards a younger audience allowed them to take considerably more fanciful leaps of logic, too. "The Counter-Clock Incident" is just crazy bananas no matter how you look at it.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: STAR! Trek into Darkness?

Postby Adacore » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:41 am UTC

Jorpho wrote:Stargate kind of blew it with all those exotic foreign cultures being able to speak English. I suppose they could have done some sort of "The Stargate gets inside your head!" thing, but that's pretty weird even by Doctor Who standards.

Well, they basically said "we acknowledge that people from other planet shouldn't be able to speak English, hence we are including a linguist in our elite four-man team. But having a TV show where the majority of the dialogue is in unknown alien languages would get boring fast, so for simplicity, English."


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests