A friend of mine makes a very convincing argument that ST3 is anti-science and actually undermines ST2 in significant ways.

I liked the Robot Chicken SW episodes but haven't seen the show outside of that.

Wuzzle wozzle?

georgec said:

Wuzzle wozzle?

That's what passes for a post these days?

STII: TWOK - Genesis Planet is born, Spock dies

STIII: TSFS - Spock is reborn, Genesis Planet dies

I wonder if the symmetry was done on purpose or merely was the result of pure chance.

There's also the question of whether or not Khan's spirit was somehow sealed or reincarnated within the Genesis Planet, thus contributing to its unstable nature.

doubleofive said:

A friend of mine makes a very convincing argument that ST3 is anti-science and actually undermines ST2 in significant ways.

Yeah, it definitely is unscientific in a number of ways (Excelsior slowing down when the engines fizzled, regenerated Spock aging in surges along with the unexplained protomatter, etc.), but that doesn't detract from the experience for me.  Star Trek II is very unscientific as well: how does the Genesis device account for the gravity of an existing planetary body, or its proximity to its star (which would dramatically affect the viability and type of life that would exist)?  How could the Reliant not realize that an entire planet (Ceti Alpha 6) was missing from the solar system, or confuse Ceti Alpha 5 with it?  You'd think if Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, with would have pushed 5 closer to the star (which would justifiably account for a hotter environment).  But then, that doesn't mean it assumed the orbit of the 6th planet in the system, which would be further from its sun.  How could Carol Marcus not only pack an unrealistic Genesis device into a tiny package, but even drill out beautiful caves and tunnels in a day, faster than a corps of Starfleet engineers?  Nebula dust is not so dust to be like flying through a fog--it only looks dense when you're viewing it from millions+ lightyears away.  Plus they don't move like they have weather patterns or flash like strobe lights.  Nebulae don't exist in solar systems because they are either unformed matter (while a solar system has indeed already formed, and the existing gravity would have pulled it into some other form), or are created from supernovae.  Yeah, and silly me, I'm the kind of person that always thinks of these sorts of scientific problems.  I could easily let them disrupt my enjoyment, but I don't.  As for undermining ST2, I think SilverWook put it pretty well.

No disrespect to you or your friend.  I just feel compelled to come to TSFS's defense! :)

You misunderstand, D_E, he says it's ANTI-Science, not unscientific. And I'm not saying I agree with im.

STIII is unscientific, though. Of course, most of Star Trek is to one degree or another, and its not even the worst offender in the lot (TNG, I'm looking at YOU).

DuracellEnergizer said:

STIII is unscientific, though. Of course, most of Star Trek is to one degree or another, and its not even the worst offender in the lot (TNG, I'm looking at YOU).

They didn't mutate, they hyper-evolved. If they had only mutated, I'm not sure we'd still be talking about it.

The worst part for me is Warp 10 = infinity. You would occupy all points in space at the same time. There's no way they'd only be days away on a straight path TWICE.

Star Trek uses 'special science' as verified by Issac Asimov' film credit on TMP.

It's pro-Special Science and Anti-Normal Science.

The Special Science Advisory role fell into what they used to call a black hole back in 1979.