All Things Star Trek — Page 47

http://www.missionlogpodcast.com/

This place is cool. Just found it today.

Tobar said:

doubleofive said:

My friends have a great interview up with the writers of Star Tr3k. Check it out!

http://trek-fm.squarespace.com/commentary-trek-stars/87

 I think I pulled a muscle from cringing when Mike said Trek 09 was the best Star Trek movie of all time.

 So had this guy seen ever seen any Star trek before?  Star Trek 09 was a good big dumb summer action movie but Star Trek is about being more then big dumb summer action and given the choice between the last two movies and another season of Enterprise run by Manny Coto I'd choose another season of Enterprise and I hated Enterprise when it came on but it really turned around and in that last year felt more like Star trek then the last two movies.  Heck I like season four Archer of all people more then the spoiled brat they are trying pass off as  Kirk these days.

Even as a Star Trek action movie both of those films just lift directly from Wrath of Khan which was a much better film,has this guy even seen Wrath of Khan?

I am going into a full blown fan boy freak out here.

Not sure if you guys have seen this but I think it's brilliant :-)

Death Star destroys the Enterprise: http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/16/death-star-destroys-enterprise-special-edition

Love this. I am a fan of both but when i was a kid i never understood these debates. Star Trek ships have shields,lasers don't damage them,and they can fired while going faster then light speed. That means that they can fire while the ships from star wars can't even see them. The tech on star trek is just too far ahead for the battle to even last a minute. Sorry it doesn't end well for the ships of Star Wars:(

Yeah and as i kid I never understood how saying one set of fictional ships could blow up the other set proved that fictional universe was better.  Surely whichever one provides you with more enjoyment is the better universe.

Still I was a huge Star Wars fan but I never thought the Star Wars ships would stand a chance in that battle.

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.  I mean if the Empire's ships can travel that fast then there is no way Han could ever escape them with the falcon traveling at a mere point five past light speed and besides if we go by what is shown instead of dialog then in Star Trek five the Enterprise traveled from earth to the center of the galaxy in a couple of hours.

But the big one for me is that if you are not traveling at warp speed then any ship traveling at that speed just vanishes from you perspective(I assume this is how Han could escape so many times just by jumping to lightspeed a few seconds before the ships chasing him,they couldn't see him to follow)and by the time you aim at something it is not there any more,so how does the empire protect it's self from ships that can fire at them while traveling at warp speed? Also we saw that all it takes is a few shots from one small fighter to take out the bridge of the largest star destroyer in return of the Jedi. Then there is the problem of transporters just beaming bombs on to ships. Oh and even if we take Han's statement that it would take a "Thousand star destroyers" to blow up a planet as a figure of speech that still leave them way behind starfleet in terms of fire power.  Let's say Han was way off and it would only take one third of that number to destroy a planet.  Alright so we have around three hundred ship to destroy a planet. That sounds pretty good.  Except that Han's remake seems to imply that he finds it hard to believe the empire has that number of ships,at least the line is delivered in such a way that we are lead to believe Han a character who seems to know how things work in the universe at large doesn't believe there could be enough ships out there to do the job. Meanwhile we saw that many ship committed to a single battle several times on DS9 and it was made clear there were other fleets of equal size still out there.  Still even if the numbers are even it was made clear in several episodes of the original Star trek that the Enterprise has more then enough firepower to blow up planets without breaking a sweat they just choose not to.  So one Ship on the federation side has the same firepower as the super weapon that took the Empire two decades to build or equal to about three hundred of the empire's ships.

Sorry but between this,warp combat,the federation ships being safe from lasers,and the transporter as big a Star Wars fan as i am I think things are much more complex then that chart makes out and it doesn't seem to agree with anything we have seen or heard on screen in either franchise. Tech manuals are all well and good but if we go by dialog and what is shown on screen I don't think the Empire stands a chance. Oh and if you put Sisko at the head of the Federation fleet,watch out!:)

Now if you want to see the Empire wipe the floor with some other Franchise I think only the Vorlons on Babylon 5 would stand a chance and i don't think they would help the rest of the galaxy.  The Empire would crush any fleet in the B5 universe.

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.

I don't think Star Wars lasers are literal lasers. They travel slower than light and, except in the case of the Death Stars, they come in the form of bolts or bursts rather than beams.

Regardless, though, I wouldn't take the word of anything found on stardestroyer.net at face value. Michael Wong's got a less-than-subtle contempt for the Star Trek franchise and it blatantly shows; you can't trust his "facts" to be unbiased.

I'm sure if I wanted I could create a sci-fi universe with technology to put all before it to shame. But that doesn't create a better fictional universe IMHO. That said, I love Trek. But I've always preferred the tech of Star Wars for various reasons.

Okay firstly, the Empire should not be judged on the might of their ordnance but on their sheer ineptitude.

Remember that time they lost an entire space station because they left an exhaust port unguarded?

Or that other time they lost an even more powerful battle station because they flew it into battle with massive holes in its superstructure AFTER informing their enemies of its weaknesses?

All in all, I don't mind this sort of speculation for fun but let's remember who we're dealing with here ;)

Took a look at that website and then kinda wished I hadn't – I feel kinda embarrassed for whoever put in all that effort and then summed it up with “because I say so!”.

"Even with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the Federation like a bug. Accept it."

Now if you want to compare fleets let's talk Battlestar Galactica – that flagship alone has survived bombardment from nuclear warheads. A fleet of Battlestars? Game over, man.
 
I can't speak to the strengths and weaknesses of Babylon 5.

Frankly, I'd like to see a Star Wars vs. Star Trek site that was run by someone who liked both franchises equally. That way I'd know there's little to no bias colouring their conclusions. Unfortunately, most of the sites devoted to the debate seem to go pro-Wars or pro-Trek.

doubleofive said:

You have to hear Mike's side. I believe he feels that Trek 09 is the best movie, as in general audience movie. He and I just did a commentary on Wrath of Khan this weekend (coming soon), so he's familiar with it. I enjoy the hell out of 09 (see our conversation on "The Whole Pre-Re-Quel Thing"). It's fun and it's getting people interested in the franchise.

I disagree. It doesn't get people interested in Star Trek. It gets people interested in the Star Trek reboots, which really bear little, if any, resemblance to Star Trek.

I've talked to a lot of people during the past couple of years about ST 09 and ST(I)D (har har) and every single one of them felt that even though they liked the reboots, they don't feel like giving the TV series or even the older movies a chance. It's odd, but the Star Trek stigma is still a thing. Kind of funny how people seem to subconsciously realize that this new Star Trek has nothing to do with actual Star Trek, hence why it's OK to enjoy it and even admit that publicly ;)

Here's something else that's funny: I've been recommending Wrath of Khan to a buddy of mine (a programmer and generally speaking a nerd) ever since the first STID trailer came out, but he refuses to watch it. Why? Because it's Star Trek. He loved STID, though, and didn't have any qualms about watching it.

All of the above is even more amusing considering that those old Star Trek movies (aside from the first one) were made with a general audience in mind.

This brings me to the "best general audience movie" part. If by best you (or he) mean it's dumbed down (and thus easy to stomach by non-nerds) and just doesn't require any involvement on the viewer's part, emotional or otherwise, then yeah, it's the best "Star Trek" movie hands down. By that logic Bay's Transformers (shitty script, unsatisfying, downright incomprehensible action scenes etc. Just a badly made expensive piece of crap) is a masterpiece. If by saying "best" he refers to the quality of the movie... consider me baffled.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I might do that to get some fuel for the inevitable hate mail/post that will follow ;)

Oh, and btw: I enjoyed ST 09 for what it was.

edit: damn typos.

m_s0 said:

doubleofive said:

You have to hear Mike's side. I believe he feels that Trek 09 is the best movie, as in general audience movie. He and I just did a commentary on Wrath of Khan this weekend (coming soon), so he's familiar with it. I enjoy the hell out of 09 (see our conversation on "The Whole Pre-Re-Quel Thing"). It's fun and it's getting people interested in the franchise.

I disagree. It doesn't get people interested in Star Trek. It gets people interested in the Star Trek reboots, which really bear little, if any, resemblance to Star Trek.

I've talked to a lot of people during the past couple of years about ST 09 and ST(I)D (har har) and every single one of them felt that even though they liked the reboots, they don't feel like giving the TV series or even the older movies a chance. It's odd, but the Star Trek stigma is still a thing. Kind of funny how people seem to subconsciously realize that this new Star Trek has nothing to do with actual Star Trek, hence why it's OK to enjoy it and even admit that publicly ;)

Here's something else that's funny: I've been recommending Wrath of Khan to a buddy of mine (a programmer and generally speaking a nerd) ever since the first STID trailer came out, but he refuses to watch it. Why? Because it's Star Trek. He loved STID, though, and didn't have any qualms about watching it.

All of the above is even more amusing considering that those old Star Trek movies (aside from the first one) were made with a general audience in mind.

This brings me to the "best general audience movie" part. If by best you (or he) mean it's dumbed down (and thus easy to stomach by non-nerds) and just doesn't require any involvement on the viewer's part, emotional or otherwise, than yeah, it's the best "Star Trek" movie hands down. By that logic Bay's Transformers (shitty script, unsatisfying, downright incomprehensible action scenes etc. Just a badly made expensive piece of crap) is a masterpiece. If by saying "best" he refers to the quality of the movie... consider me baffled.

I haven't listened to the podcast, but I might do that to get some fuel for the inevitable hate mail/post that will follow ;)

Oh, and btw: I enjoyed ST 09 for what it was.

 Thank you.

I enjoyed Star Trek 09 but would never call it real Trek and ITD was one of the worst Sci-Fi movies I have ever seen and everything in it was just ripped off from a better movie or TV show.  Really I don't see how you can call it the best.  Heck the people I talk to who hate Star Trek and liked the movie when it came out seem to have forgotten about it or just see it as another throw away action movie that they had no reason to watch again once it was out of theaters,this is hardly good news for Trek. 

You want to see how to do a reboot for a show that had a bad reputation that gets general viewers to give the new show a shot? Look at Doctor Who.  This may be hard to believe but I became a fan in 95 so I know before the show came back it was viewed as a piece of low budget trash and it's fans were mocked even in some sci-fi circles.  I mean I knew people who would only admit they were fans on Doctor Who message boards on the internet because admitting you were a fan in public was the quickest way to get mocked at all times.  Then there was the fact that most people didn't even know what the show was.  But look what happened after the reboot,now it's on the cover of magazines,you can buy T-Shirts in Wal-Mart,and I know people who started watching the reboot but rank a classic Doctor as their favorite. So what happened?  Well In Doctor Who's case you had a smart producers who updated what needed to be updated like the format but also stayed true to what the show was about and kept The Doctor in character. It was marketed as a new show so people didn't need to know about the old one to enjoy it but because it stayed true to what the show was about and the character was not messed with when people went back and watched the classic episodes on DvD for the first time they were able to look past the bad special effects and see the things that they loved about the new show were there the whole time.  I know so many people who used to see Doctor Who as silly or didn't even know it existed who now watch the classic series without shame because it is part of the same universe as the new show that got them into the franchise.  if you ask me that is how you breath new life into a franchise. You don't dumb it down or rewrite the characters,you just update the format while staying true to the characters.

I heard that J. Michael Straczynski pitched the idea for a reboot of TOS to Paramount some years back, and I can't help but wonder how it would have turned out if they had gone through with making it*.

*Still probably better than everything I've read about Abramstrek. 

Here is the big problem with Abram's Trek,they are not exploring and Kirk is a selfish lying jerk who doesn't care about anyone but himself.  i was fine with that in the first movie.  I figured the first film needed to be an action film so the studio would back it and Kirk's character arc was that of a selfish person learning to look beyond himself and think of the greater good.  They did a pretty good job showing Kirk going from selfish and spoiled to hero and showing him bonding with Spock.  It's the second movie that ruined it.  It showed and Abrams and these writers have one trick up their sleeve,so it's another action movie and Kirk is an even bigger jerk and he is on the exact same character arc,except this time it doesn't feel right and we can't root for him. Since we saw him learn his lesson last time now it doesn't feel like growth it feels like he is being a jerk on purpose and just doesn't give two figs about his crew or his friends.  I tell you the reason I didn't feel anything when he died wasn't because it was a cheap rip off of one of the best death scenes in the history of film,and it had nothing to do with the fact that I knew he would be alive again in the next scene. No,I didn't care because I was rooting for him to die and I truly believe Khan would make the better hero.

Here is what the writers of the new trek just don't understand. The reasons we love Kirk and he has become a timeless character have nothing to do with internet memes about how awesome Kirk is.  We don't love Kirk because he beds green alien woman,we don't love Kirk because he kicks everyone's asses in fistfights,and we don't love him because he refuses to obey the rules.  No we love him because he has a strong moral core in addition to those things and without that moral core he is nothing. remember the framing device for Star trek is that these are entries from kirk's official logs that go to starfleet so every time he breaks the rules he is putting it in the ship's log,that is how much his word means to him.  He know it could cost him his job but he is not about to lie or put his crew in the position of having to cover up for him when he breaks the rules. If he breaks them it's for a good moral reason and his only defense he explaining why he felt the rules had to be broken that is one reason we love him.

If you really want to understand Kirk and why he is so popular watch Amok Time and really pay attention to what is going on. It's fifty-two minutes of showing the type of man Kirk is and why he is a hero.  Here like in ITD he violates orders to save Spock but he doesn't for a moment cover it up. Also he could have told Star fleet why he needed to go to Vulcan so he wouldn't get in trouble but he gave Spock his word that he wouldn't talk to anyone about the situation so when asked point blank what does he do? He doesn't answer the question but he also doesn't lie. Kirk will not do that unless there is no other choice because he is a man of his word and he knows that his crew and commanding officers need to be able to trust his word,so he just refuses to answer and he knows there is a good chance he will lose his command over this but he gave his word and he would rather lose his command then break his word or lie and that to me explains completely how he keeps his command because his commanding officers know he has good judgement and he will always tell them the whole truth,so they know if he says there is a good reason for violating orders it's true. That is also at the core of how he is able to defuse situations that could lead to war,he has a reputation as a man of his word and that is what is not covered by internet memes and it has more to do with why we love Kirk then anything they mention.  The Kirk from the original series is a fully fledged heroic character.  The Kirk in these movies is an internet meme come to life.

I wouldn't have a problem with the movies being all action if there was a TV show on with exploring but since there isn't these movies are painful to sit through in that way to,because they are the only Star trek out there and it seems unlikely Star trek will ever return to the small screen.  So for the rest of time and in most people's minds Star Trek is now just another big dumb summer action movie franchise and that is just sad:(

Tobar said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

Sorry but they stated lazers can't pass through deflector shields and the Star Wars ships can't fight at lightspeed or faster and some of those number are way off.  I mean if the Empire's ships can travel that fast then there is no way Han could ever escape them with the falcon traveling at a mere point five past light speed and besides if we go by what is shown instead of dialog then in Star Trek five the Enterprise traveled from earth to the center of the galaxy in a couple of hours.

 

The infamous "no lasers" argument.

In one particular episode of TNG, we heard the following exchange:

DATA: Sensors report a minimum range combat craft of the Squadron Class, twenty-six crew.

WORF: Captain, they have locked lasers.

PICARD: Lasers?

RIKER: That won't even penetrate our navigational deflectors.

Literary method: they seem to be saying that their navigational deflectors are immune to lasers, probably because lasers are supposed to be less advanced than phasers. Some people feel that this means any Federation ship could shrug off any laser, even a monster laser that can blow up planets. Others feel that Riker was factoring the ship's small size into account, and that his statement was not meant to be so over-arching. However, it is impossible to conclusively resolve this argument one way or another unless we can get some kind of official statement from the author on the episode, and that's not forthcoming.

Suspension of Disbelief: it is scientifically impossible for any kind of shield to block infinite amounts of laser energy, because the second law of thermodynamics prohibits 100% efficiency devices and light carries momentum equal to U/c, so there are two mechanisms through which increased power levels would eventually overwhelm any blocking system. Therefore, Riker was either an idiot or he was taking the enemy ship's small size into account when he made his statement. Case closed.

The Federation controls a portion of a single quadrant of the galaxy. The Galactic Empire controls their entire galaxy.

When the U.S.S. Voyager was flung to the other side of the galaxy they estimated it would take 75 years to make it back home.

In Star Wars their galaxy can be traversed from one end to the other in a matter of weeks.

 That still leaves Star trek five out there where an unfinished and damaged Enterprise was able to travel from Earth(A planet out near the edge of the galaxy)to the center of the galaxy in a matter of hours. One thing that I am surprised has not been brought up is maybe the ships have the same top speed or they are slow enough for the falcon with a top speed of point five past light speed to be one of the fastest ships in the galaxy,maybe the galaxy Star Wars takes place in is much smaller then our own.  Galaxies come in different sizes and all we know is that the Star Wars galaxy is far far away.  If it was much smaller then our own that would explain a lot of things including the falcon being fast despite it being too slow to get anywhere in our galaxy in under a few months or years,and all the planets seeming to be so close to each other.