http://gamingtrend.com
October 22, 2014, 10:05:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 10 Things I hate about Star Trek  (Read 3034 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Knightshade Dragon
Administrator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 21075



View Profile WWW
« on: July 21, 2007, 02:19:08 PM »

Raked shamelessly from Bitchslapp.com.  I think these are pretty funny and I thought I'd share. smile


10. Noisy doors.
You can't walk three feet in a starship without some door whooshing or screeching at you. My office building has automatic sliding doors. They're dead silent. If those doors went "wheet!" every time a person walked through them, about once a month some guy in accounting would snap and go on a shooting rampage. Sorry Scotty, the IEEE has revoked your membership until you learn to master WD-40


9. The Federation.
This organization creeps me out. A planet-wide government that runs everything, and that has abolished money. A veritable planetary DMV. Oh sure, it looks like a cool place when you're rocketing around in a Federation Starship, but I wonder how the guy driving a Federation dump truck feels about it?


And everyone has to wear those spandex uniforms. Here's an important fact: Most people, you don't want to see them in spandex. You'd pay good money to not have to see them. If money hadn't been abolished, that is. So you're screwed.


8. Reversing the Polarity.
For cripes sake Giordi, stop reversing the polarity of everything! It might work once in a while, but usually it just screws things up. I have it on good authority that the technicians at Starbase 12 HATE that. Every time the Enterprise comes in for its 10,000 hour checkup, they've gotta go through the whole damned ship fixing stuff. "What happened to the toilet in Stateroom 3?" "Well, the plumbing backed up, and Giordi thought he could fix it by reversing the polarity."


Between Scotty's poor lubrication habits and Geordi's damned polarity reversing trick, it's a wonder the Enterprise doesn't just spontaneously explode whenever they put the juice to it.


7. Seatbelts.
Yeah, I know this one is overdone, but you'd think that the first time an explosion caused the guy at the nav station to fly over the captain's head with a good 8 feet of clearance, someone would say, "You know, we might think of inventing some furutistic restraining device to prevent that from happening." So of course, they did make something like that for the second Enterprise (the first one blew up due to poor lubrication), but what was it? A hard plastic thing that's locked over your thighs. Oh, I'll bet THAT feels good in the corners. "Hey look! The leg-bars worked as advertised! There goes Kirk's torso!"


6. No fuses.
Every time there's a power surge on the Enterprise the various stations and consoles explode in a shower of sparks and throw their seatbelt-less operators over Picard's head. If we could get Giordi to stop reversing the polarity for a minute, we could get him to go shopping at the nearest Starship parts store and pick up a few fuses. And while he's shopping, he could stop at an intergalactic IKEA and pick up a few chairs for the bridge personnel. If you're going to put me in front of a fuseless exploding console all day, the least you could do is let me sit down.



5. Rule by committee.
Here's the difference between Star Trek and the best SF show on TV last year:

Star Trek:

Picard: "Arm photon torpedoes!"
Riker: "Captain! Are you sure that's wise?"
Troi: "Captain! I'm picking up conflicting feelings about this! And, it appears that you're a 'fraidy cat."
Wesley: "Captain, I'm just an annoying punk, but I thought I should say something."
Worf: "Captain, can I push the button? This is giving me a big Klingon warrior chubby."
Giordi: "Captain, I think we should reverse the polarity on them first."
Picard: "I'm so confused. I'm going to go to my stateroom and look
pensive."


Firefly:

Captain: "Let's shoot them."
Crewman: "Are you sure that's wise?"
Captain: "Do you know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I'll BEAT YOU WITH until you realize who's in command."
Crewman: "Aye Aye, sir!"


4. A Star Trek quiz:
Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and 'Ensign Gomez' beam down to a planet. Which one isn't coming back?


3. Technobabble.
The other night, I couldn't get my car to start. I solved the problem by reversing the polarity of the car battery, and routing the power through my satellite dish. The resulting subspace plasma caused a rift in the space-time continuum, which created a quantum tunnelling effect that charged the protons in the engine core, thus starting my car. Child's play, really. As a happy side-effect, I also now get the Spice Channel for free.


2. The Holodeck.
I mean, it's cool and all. But do you really believe that people would use it to re-create Sherlock Holmes mysteries and old-west saloons? Come on, we all know what the holodeck would be used for. And we also know what the worst job on the Enterprise would be: Having to squeegie the holodeck clean.


1. The Prime Directive.
How stupid is this? Remember when Marvin the Martian was going to blow up the Earth, because it obstructed his view of Venus? And how Bugs Bunny stopped him by stealing the Illudium Q36 Space Modulator? Well, in the Star Trek universe, Bugs would be doing time. Probably in a room filled with Roseanne lookalikes wearing spandex uniforms, walking through doors going WHEET! all day. It would be heck. At least until the Kaboom. The Earth-shattering Kaboom.
Logged

Ron Burke
EiC, Director of Gaming Trend
Gamertag:
Gaming Trend
PS3 Tag: GamingTrend
IkeVandergraaf
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2784


RRoD FTL! F MS!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2007, 03:04:47 PM »

Ever see this one?

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/blue-stripe-life-4.php
Logged

Gamertag = IkeV
I KNOW DEEP IN MY NMIND THAT THIS DISGUSTING WEBSITE THAT IS OBIVOUSLY OPERATED BY HIGHSCHOOL DROPOUTS LIVING PURPOSELESS AND JOBLESS LIVES
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15962


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2007, 03:31:43 PM »

ROFL

Excellent read before I wander off to work this morning.

EDIT: That link is absolutely and totally priceless.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 05:07:46 PM by Destructor » Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2007, 05:51:55 PM »

that's why I love Firefly.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2007, 05:58:48 PM »

Redshirt Blues
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2007, 02:38:25 AM »

Quote from: IkeVandergraaf on July 21, 2007, 03:04:47 PM


wait a minute, I thought links were for pussies?  nice try to trap us!
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2007, 12:24:31 AM »

So true.

I hate Star Trek so very much.
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
Kratz
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2007, 04:17:33 AM »

Add 'weird forehead and ears = Alien' to the list.

God I fucking hate star trek.
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2007, 12:37:36 PM »

No. You all are frigging idiots. Star Trek rules.
Logged
Thin_J
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3409


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2007, 12:45:26 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 23, 2007, 12:37:36 PM

No. You all are frigging idiots. Star Trek rules.

This is the first time I've ever hated you.
Logged

Xbox Live: Thin J
PSN: Thin_J
jimmyorr99
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 958


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2007, 01:04:48 PM »

I always kind of enjoyed star trek, but I'm more of a star wars guy. Definitely a great read though.
Logged

if you strike me down, i will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2007, 01:11:34 PM »

Quote from: Thin_J on July 23, 2007, 12:45:26 PM

Quote from: Calvin on July 23, 2007, 12:37:36 PM

No. You all are frigging idiots. Star Trek rules.

This is the first time I've ever hated you.

Dude! That's how I felt after I read your blasphemous post!  icon_evil
Logged
Laner
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4693


Badassfully


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2007, 01:13:47 PM »

Quote from: CeeKay on July 22, 2007, 02:38:25 AM

Quote from: IkeVandergraaf on July 21, 2007, 03:04:47 PM


wait a minute, I thought links were for pussies?  nice try to trap us!

No no - *following* links - *that* is for pussies.  I assume posting them is fine
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM »

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2007, 03:26:16 PM »

Quote from: Laner on July 23, 2007, 01:13:47 PM

Quote from: CeeKay on July 22, 2007, 02:38:25 AM

Quote from: IkeVandergraaf on July 21, 2007, 03:04:47 PM


wait a minute, I thought links were for pussies?  nice try to trap us!

No no - *following* links - *that* is for pussies.  I assume posting them is fine

that's why I called it a trap.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15962


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2007, 02:16:05 AM »

Quote from: Destructor on July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?

Because Science Fiction is based on science.

"The Force" in Star Wars is magic, and the "science" in Star Trek is predominantly technobabble.  I guess a more accurate description would be Futuristic Fantasy, but the term Science Fantasy is generally used to describe the genre.

I guess you could make the case that Star Trek is just as much scifi as, say, anything HG Wells wrote, and would have a pretty good point.  But Star Wars really falls right into the arena of fantasy.  Not that I'm bashing that, but distinctions do exist.

Then there is also "hard science" fiction, which is very tech heavy.  Some of it makes for really good reading, but for some reason it doesn't become as popular.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 02:39:47 AM by unbreakable » Logged
Kratz
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2007, 03:24:03 AM »

You could say that someone who cares enough to make that distinction is an incredible fuckin' dork.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2007, 04:57:20 AM »

Quote from: Kratz on July 24, 2007, 03:24:03 AM

You could say that someone who cares enough to make that distinction is an incredible fuckin' dork.

Well, duh.  What else do you call a 35 year old guy who regularly wears a Superman shirt?
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2007, 07:21:17 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 04:57:20 AM

Quote from: Kratz on July 24, 2007, 03:24:03 AM

You could say that someone who cares enough to make that distinction is an incredible fuckin' dork.

Well, duh.  What else do you call a 35 year old guy who regularly wears a Superman shirt?

a virgin?  Tongue
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2007, 01:04:22 PM »

Yeah. I have my superman logo where it counts. icon_twisted

Unbreakable, while you are right that the force is considered more fantasy based, that is only one aspect. The fact that space exploration, warp speed etc.. makes it Science Fiction as opposed to Fantasy Fiction. (lets not lose the word fiction in the description; there's already enough nutjobs who don't know the difference.. slywink)

Star trek may be technobabble, but when it comes right down to it, ER and Greys Anatomy and House all use medical babble; that doesn't make them non-medical dramas. Star Trek is all about the tech in a fictional context.

Oh, and Wesley Crusher. He's the mad bomb, yo. icon_lol
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2007, 01:19:58 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 02:16:05 AM

Quote from: Destructor on July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?

Because Science Fiction is based on science.

"The Force" in Star Wars is magic, and the "science" in Star Trek is predominantly technobabble.  I guess a more accurate description would be Futuristic Fantasy, but the term Science Fantasy is generally used to describe the genre.

I guess you could make the case that Star Trek is just as much scifi as, say, anything HG Wells wrote, and would have a pretty good point.  But Star Wars really falls right into the arena of fantasy.  Not that I'm bashing that, but distinctions do exist.

Then there is also "hard science" fiction, which is very tech heavy.  Some of it makes for really good reading, but for some reason it doesn't become as popular.

This is silly nit-picking. Star Trek is science-fiction, period. Its not "hard" science-fiction as you put it, because its not based predominantly on real-world science and the laws of physics projected into the future. Great, whoopdeedoo. It's still science-fiction. Have you ever bothered to check how many "science-fiction" ideas cooked up by Trek writers are now science-fact? That takes some fantasy away from it for me. There is also an excellent book that is a quick read called The Physics of Star Trek-sure some of the conclusions are that stuff like Warp Drive and transporters are purely in the realm of the imagination, but a lot of the ideas are grounded in completely valid, if theoretical science.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the distinction-there is no reason to try to find a way to discredit a series that basically invented sci-fi on TV and made it possible for us to have shows like BS:G and Firefly, and all the Trek spin-offs. It's science fiction. If it's not hard-core enough for you, tough luck, it still gets to be sci-fi.
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2007, 01:20:46 PM »

Quote from: Kratz on July 24, 2007, 03:24:03 AM

You could say that someone who cares enough to make that distinction is an incredible fuckin' dork.

Yeah, you could, except I'm incredibly fucking awesome and will take umbrage with the distinction. The contradictions are frightening.
Logged
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2007, 01:26:21 PM »

Keep this up and pretty soon we'll have a bunch of geeks arguing about Star Trek and Star Wars on the internet.  Nothing stereotypical about that.   paranoid
Logged
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11464


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2007, 01:45:15 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 02:16:05 AM

Quote from: Destructor on July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?

Because Science Fiction is based on science.

With this definition, I could disqualify all of the following from being science fiction:

Ender's Game
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Time Machine
The War of the Worlds
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Dune
Alien
The Matrix
Blade Runner
Terminator

I mean, if it has to be entirely based on real science, what is a science fiction book by this definition?
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 24, 2007, 02:30:18 PM »

Piotr's Pietry Dish of the Future.

Or HGttG. biggrin
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2007, 02:40:18 PM »

Quote from: warning on July 24, 2007, 01:26:21 PM

Keep this up and pretty soon we'll have a bunch of geeks arguing about Star Trek and Star Wars on the internet.  Nothing stereotypical about that.   paranoid

we could always argue why Batman's such a big pussy and Aquaman would kick his ass icon_wink
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2007, 02:41:09 PM »

Quote from: Purge on July 24, 2007, 01:04:22 PM

Yeah. I have my superman logo where it counts. icon_twisted

on the rear of your underwear?  Tongue
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2007, 03:00:08 PM »

You, sir, are sadly mistaken.

And Batman is better than some green-sequins-on-granny-panties-wearing poof.

(or is that Namor? sea creatures leave me confused)
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #29 on: July 24, 2007, 03:17:24 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 24, 2007, 01:19:58 PM

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the distinction-there is no reason to try to find a way to discredit a series that basically invented sci-fi on TV and made it possible for us to have shows like BS:G and Firefly, and all the Trek spin-offs. It's science fiction. If it's not hard-core enough for you, tough luck, it still gets to be sci-fi.

I'm not -making- the distinction, there -is- a distinction.  I really don't feel the need to rehash this, since it's a really old discussion.  But saying Star Wars (and to a lesser degree Star Trek) aren't actually scifi isn't trying to discredit it or bash it or hate it.  I love both series, but can appreciate the fact that they aren't science based.  Dilithum crystal warp cores have as much relation to science as a cruciatus curse or a magical singing sword.

Like I said, futuristic fantasy is a better description, but I didn't get to name it.
Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2007, 03:24:36 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 03:17:24 PM

Quote from: Calvin on July 24, 2007, 01:19:58 PM

I'm not sure why you feel the need to make the distinction-there is no reason to try to find a way to discredit a series that basically invented sci-fi on TV and made it possible for us to have shows like BS:G and Firefly, and all the Trek spin-offs. It's science fiction. If it's not hard-core enough for you, tough luck, it still gets to be sci-fi.

I'm not -making- the distinction, there -is- a distinction.  I really don't feel the need to rehash this, since it's a really old discussion.  But saying Star Wars (and to a lesser degree Star Trek) aren't actually scifi isn't trying to discredit it or bash it or hate it.  I love both series, but can appreciate the fact that they aren't science based.  Dilithum crystal warp cores have as much relation to science as a cruciatus curse or a magical singing sword.

Like I said, futuristic fantasy is a better description, but I didn't get to name it.

Yet you pick one or two things, and ignore dozens of other things that ARE based in real science, or have become real science, or have theoretical underpinnings that validates it as science-fiction. By your definition, nearly every single "sci-fi" book on the market is invalidated, because believe me you can find a dilithum warp-crystal style fantasy. Its "fiction" man. I am not sure where or when this was orginally hashed out and this internet maxim was created and the "distinction" was created, but frankly, logically, it's a crock.

I tell you what-tell me the book or tv show that is the definition of sci-fi. I guarnatee you we, you, me, the forum, whatever, can find your smoking gun of "dilithium warp-crystals". It's just completely contradictory.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2007, 03:33:39 PM »

Quote from: Purge on July 24, 2007, 03:00:08 PM

You, sir, are sadly mistaken.

And Batman is better than some green-sequins-on-granny-panties-wearing poof.

(or is that Namor? sea creatures leave me confused)

Namor has the green speedo and little wings on his ankles.  Aquaman is the guy in the orange shirt and green spandex.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
DamageInc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2412


Starts with s and ends with litting their throats


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2007, 03:40:18 PM »

Here is some real science, it's called a dictionary  icon_wink

fan暗a新y(fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan暗a新ies
1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy. See Synonyms at imagination.
2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
3. A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
4.
a. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements
b. An example of such fiction.
5. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
6. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
7. Music See fantasia.
8. A coin issued especially by a questionable authority and not intended for use as currency.
9. Obsolete A hallucination.
tr.v. fan暗a新ied, fan暗a新y搏ng, fan暗a新ies
To imagine; visualize.

fic暗ion(fkshn)
1.
a. An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
b. The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
2. A lie.
3.
a. A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
b. The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

The list was hilarious but I did enjoy most of the Star Trek shows when I was younger.
Firefly was definitely a great show as well
Logged

The freaks come out at nine and it's twenty to ten
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2007, 04:08:02 PM »

Quote from: Calvin on July 24, 2007, 03:24:36 PM


I tell you what-tell me the book or tv show that is the definition of sci-fi. I guarnatee you we, you, me, the forum, whatever, can find your smoking gun of "dilithium warp-crystals". It's just completely contradictory.

I'm not going to play along because it seems you are getting a little hostile about it, which wasn't my aim in discussing it.  If you don't like the concept of classification, that's cool.

Like I said, one can make the case that Star Trek isn't exactly fantasy- I wasn't entirely disagreeing with you.  But the point of the distinction is that technobabble, as a literary device, is no different from using magic.  The only thing which separates the two is the setting.

I don't know if you've read anything from Dragonriders of Pern, but while that series is categorized as fantasy, if you are familiar with it, it would be a somewhat better fit for scifi: the dragons are engineered lifeforms, Pern was settled by people from Earth, and they often come across lost technology.  It's been a while since I've read them, but I don't even recall there being ANY magic in it.

So categories aren't always clear cut, which is fine.


[edit] also, many writers have stated not even liking the distinction between scifi and fantasy, since so many works can drift between the two.  And how do you classify something like much of Zelazny's stories, which have both science and magic?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 04:11:42 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Calvin
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13895

President of G.R.O.S.S.


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2007, 04:41:57 PM »

Yeah I really don't mean to be hostile at all if it came off that way, I just found the particular distinction you were making overbroad for Star Trek (which obviously has a massively geeky place in my nerd heart biggrin )
Logged
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18580



View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2007, 05:08:49 PM »

Rather than hijack a humourous thread on Star Trek, I've created a new one based on SciFi vs. Fantasy.

* Purge finally takes his own preachy medicine
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 05:27:37 PM by Purge » Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
WarPig
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 187



View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2007, 05:16:07 PM »

Damn it, this is where I show my true colors, and they are not pretty.  Almost a fuscia/mauve that I don't like sharing.

The fundamentals of science are in almost every Star Trek gadget.  The concept of the "dilithium crystal" is to control the energy release from a matter/antimatter reaction.  Antimatter is real, they've made it at CERN.  We know the consequences of matter meeting antimatter in an uncontrolled reaction.  BOOM.  So, a way was written (see "fictionalized") to control the reaction.  The idea of a crystal doing so is simple; crystals in specific shapes have been used to coalesce/focus different forms of light/EM energy for a long time.  Why not something even higher?  It's not that large a leap in the theory.  Granted, it's nothing we can conceive of now, but, then again, neither were 3 1/2 inch floppy disks back in the 60's, and look where we got those.  Matter/energy conversion, particle weapons, and even warp theory all have solid bases in current science.  Hell, scoience may be used TOO much in many episodes.  There are some leaps, but this is supposed to be several hundred years in the future.  

Unbreakable - I agree about Star Wars.  There's not even an attempt at explanation (I'm throwing away the idea of "midichlorians" because they make me throw up a little bit every time I think of it) of the force.  Even their space ships and "science" is dropped in favor of storyline.  I'm not knocking it, either.  I love the Holy Trilogy.  There's no "what's better" argument to be had.  I simply disagree with the statement that Star Trek is fantasy more than science.  It's okay, we can agree to disagree.

I also agree with your statement about the "hard science" fiction.  Michael Crichton is a good example of an author in that genre, and his books had to get simplified significantly to become movies.  Oh, and I think Isaac Asimov is rolling in his grave at "I, Robot".  Just my opinion.
Logged

Unbreakable: "Stupid is the new ugly"
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2007, 05:22:24 PM »

I thought the saddest thing about "I, Robot" was that it was actually a pretty good story.  It's just a shame I have to hate it for bastardizing the source material, since now a 'real' movie based on the Asimov story will likely never get made.

I'd actually love to see his Foundation books made into a movie (or better yet, an animated series).
Logged
Pyperkub
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1569


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2007, 07:09:48 PM »

Quote from: wonderpug on July 24, 2007, 01:45:15 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 02:16:05 AM

Quote from: Destructor on July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?

Because Science Fiction is based on science.

With this definition, I could disqualify all of the following from being science fiction:

Ender's Game
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Time Machine
The War of the Worlds
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Dune
Alien
The Matrix
Blade Runner
Terminator

I mean, if it has to be entirely based on real science, what is a science fiction book by this definition?

Ender's Game - wrong - the science it is based on is that of learning, socialization, and military science
2001: A Space Odyssey - wrong again - the idea of a thinking, man-made being acting against us is classic science fiction - see frankenstein
The Time Machine - I haven't read this in a long time and can't comment one way or another
The War of the Worlds - Wrong - the science has to do with biology and the common cold taking down otherworldly invaders - hot science at the time.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - fantasy
Dune - very complex social, political, evolutionary and environmental science fiction
Alien - could be horror, but I'll go for sf, based on looking at what we know of evolutionary science and postulating a perfect warrior species.
The Matrix - sf - takes computer simulations and extropolates them to examine what reality is
Blade Runner - sf - once again looking at man made beings and what makes us human
Terminator - sf - once again looking at man made beings and what makes us human
Logged

Pardon me, but that is a .... damn fine cup of coffee.
wonderpug
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11464


hmm...


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2007, 07:42:34 PM »

Quote from: Pyperkub on July 24, 2007, 07:09:48 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on July 24, 2007, 01:45:15 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 24, 2007, 02:16:05 AM

Quote from: Destructor on July 23, 2007, 10:58:07 PM

Quote from: unbreakable on July 23, 2007, 03:25:08 PM

It's somewhat incredible how the two most popular Science Fiction stories (Star Wars/Trek) are actually Science Fantasy.

I'm curious - why do you use Science Fantasy and not Science Fiction?

Because Science Fiction is based on science.

With this definition, I could disqualify all of the following from being science fiction:

Ender's Game
2001: A Space Odyssey
The Time Machine
The War of the Worlds
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Dune
Alien
The Matrix
Blade Runner
Terminator

I mean, if it has to be entirely based on real science, what is a science fiction book by this definition?

Ender's Game - wrong - the science it is based on is that of learning, socialization, and military science
2001: A Space Odyssey - wrong again - the idea of a thinking, man-made being acting against us is classic science fiction - see frankenstein
The Time Machine - I haven't read this in a long time and can't comment one way or another
The War of the Worlds - Wrong - the science has to do with biology and the common cold taking down otherworldly invaders - hot science at the time.
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - fantasy
Dune - very complex social, political, evolutionary and environmental science fiction
Alien - could be horror, but I'll go for sf, based on looking at what we know of evolutionary science and postulating a perfect warrior species.
The Matrix - sf - takes computer simulations and extropolates them to examine what reality is
Blade Runner - sf - once again looking at man made beings and what makes us human
Terminator - sf - once again looking at man made beings and what makes us human

Eh?  I think you completely missed the point of this exercise.  I think all of those are science fiction, that's why I listed them.  But if we're disqualifying things from being sci-fi the same way we're disqualifying Star Trek:

Ender's Game - no scientific basis for faster-than-light communication, non-centrifigul artificial gravity
2001: A Space Odyssey - no scientific basis for an immortal star-child
The Time Machine - no scientific basis for time travel
The War of the Worlds - no scientific basis for advanced life on Mars, then or now
Close Encounters of the Third Kind - no scientific basis for hovering disc UFOs
Dune - no scientific basis for spice, sandworms, ornithopters, shields and laser-shield interactions
Alien - no scientific basis for multi-planet species symbiosis, pulse rifles, hypersleep
The Matrix - no scientific basis for magically floating hoverships
Blade Runner - no scientific basis for hovercars
Terminator - no scientific basis for time travel, sentient liquid metal
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.196 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.056s, 2q)