Actually that is not true. There is a book out there called "The Science of Star Trek." The author talks to physicists and examines the posibilities of the technology and if it will one day be possible. Transporters/matter transportation is theorectically possible. In fact there are physicists at this moment researching this very notion. Warp travel is still much debated amongst physicists. It is based on faster than light travel. In fact there is debate about the existence of tachyons, faster than light sub-atomic particles. But the possibility exists otherwise there wouldn't be a debate. Star Trek is very much based on science. You have to remember people used to say the same thing about cloning and computers. Cloning, and computers that could sit on your desk and be in every household (not taking up entire rooms) was the stuff of science fiction. It is absolutely extrapolated from actual science, well scientific theories and conjecture anyway. Whereas Star Wars is very much fantasy, granted it is in the future and has ships, etc. But it is grounded in mysticism, "the force." There is no scientific basis for "the force," so it can't be called science fiction.
Heck, we already have the cool looking flip out communicators... we aren't far from having a single touch button phone pinned to our shirts. lol I could have sworn I read something a while back about teleportation being a breakthrough with teleporting atomic particles or something. And we also have a flying car now to boot. Today I read about some company that is pushing for civilian space travel in the very near future. What is they say about life imitating art? :wink:
odd...Because as long as mr flip communicator is in my pocket I have one touch capbility from the ear piece...
DS9 is by far my favorite of the Trek shows. I love how it got political with the whole Dominion war and all that. Amazing.
So if we have a flying car does that mean that the Jetsons was based on science? Or did someone just think that would be cool? Roddenberry was a hippie drug addict and Star Trek was based on his ridiculously simple minded and naive vision of the perfect future.
Gene Roddenberry wrote many more scifi series and books than Star Trek. And Star Trek has evolved a great deal from the original series. DS9, Next Gen, all of the movies are all a whole different animal than the original admittingly campy original series. The concepts that were being explored, beginning with Next Generation, are based on scientific theories and conjectures. Like I said read "The Science of Star Trek" and see what actual physicists have to say. This is the same argument people used 50 years ago when talking about cloning and computers. Everything is too farfetched until it becomes reality. Actually we are fighting over what constitutes science fiction. Now I am off to bed to enjoy the painkillers...
Star Trek was always campy. Wesley Crusher might be the worst character ever created. Every single alien race was nothing but a collection of stereotypes, with no individual characters other than those that were common to their race. Also my biggest problem with it is that everything is black and white, there is little to no gray area.
I saw it tonight - I thought it was an overrated piece of shit. Was there a plot? (BTW, the GI Joe trailer showed before Trek and I'm willing to bet it's probably going to be one of the worst movies of all time)
Just back from seeing it, as a person who always thought Star Trek was a bunch of nerdy mumbo-jumbo i must say it was awesome. If you're a fan of action or just good movies in general definitely check this out.
Yeah...sometimes you can just tell when a movie is going to blow....that one had bomb written all over it (EDIT G.I. Joe that is, not Star Trek, which was awesome)
Let's see, Summer 2008 - August Crap Check: The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (check) Swing Vote (check) The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (check) Star Wars: the Clone Wars (check) The Rocker (check) Death Race (check) Hamlet 2 (check) Babylon A.D. (check) Tropic Thunder (awesome movie) Disaster Movie (check) So, a 10% success rate last year. Your logic is sound
What was so awesome about it other than the CGI and other special effects? Honestly, I think that right now, people are just wowed by the non-stop action. The action was there...that's about it though. This movie had an incredibly weak plot, but that's okay - shit in space gets blown up! I felt like I was watching a made-for-TV movie... Pine as Kirk was annoying, but Quinto did a nice job as Spock. Pegg and Urban were also good. Every damn time Sulu came on screen I laughed - John Cho is Harold, not Sulu - and then Abrams tried to make Harold, I mean Sulu, some sort of badass ninja fully equipped with a Samurai sword. That was painful the watch. Eric Bana was decent as Nero, but he wasn't anything special. I thought it was garbage...I fucking hope McQueer doesn't mess up Terminator Salvation.
Good movie-Plot, charachter development, plenty of action but the action didn't detract from the plot or the charachters. Some nice campy moments. Not much not to like about this movie and if you happen to be a fan of Star Trek it worked better than any of the other Trek movies most of which pretty much sucked. I had to log on to priceline just to get a little James T. Kirk. Shattner should have at least done the voice over at the end. My wife loved it, works as a date movie.
