Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: JB73 on December 02, 2007, 03:48:02 AM
-
I am not a huge sci fi fan, but like Star Trek TNG...
watching an episode of the borg attack on earth I came across a thought that bothers me.
In all the sci fi I have seen where inter-planetary travel happens, and alien races exist Earth is the center of the human race (obviously). generally it is a hugely developed planet, and many ships in orbit.
I almost all sci fi things I have watched there are weapon technologies "banned" by the human civilization because they are immoral, or whatever reason.
wouldn't you as a civilization use any and all weapons as a last defense on your main world? wouldn't you have moon based, and other huge defensive emplacements in place in case of a threat?
it makes no sense for the "bad guys" to use more powerful weapons the "good guys" know about but refuse to use (other than to create artificial drama for a story).
this has bugged me for a long time I just never put a real finger on it. maybe thats why I don't usually like most sci fi, artificial drama written into the story that doesn't make logical sense,
-
(http://www.augustradio.com/vagina.jpg)
-
Well I'll try to tackle some of this at the risk of showing my total geekynes.
In TNG the weapons that were banned were subspace weapons. They were banned because of their unpredictable nature and the possibility of destroying the the good guys who fired it. Not a good thing especially if you fired it from your planet. The only reason I know this is one of the TNG movies where the badguys used a subspace weapon. Not sure which one. It was not one of the better movies, where they were in the briar patch of space and fighting the solan race. Anyways it almost ripped open the space time continuum destroying the whole area (as is the whole solar system)
The drawbacks of moonbase weapons is easy, attack a planet from the far side from the moon and you make the weapons based there useless.
Now the ships being in orbit always bugged me. Supposedly there is a HUGE space dock facilitie in orbit. (as seen in several TNG, TOs movies and TNG episodes.) Now in the movie ST First Contact there was a big battle with the borg cube and they lost a lot of ships. Also with a orbiting space dock/defense platform you have the same issue as with moon based weapons. If the baddys attack from the opposite side, they are rendered useless.
Finally at least in TNG they are a peaceful Federation and having orbital weapon systems and planetary weapons doesnt look very peaceful. Plus they depend on their starships for the majority of earths defenses (not a smart idea but, im not the one in charge)
Lastely if they had all theses defensive sheilds and weapons to defend the planet, they would blow the badguys outta the sky in the first 15 mins of the movie, and that would really suck for the movie goers
-
Damn, I was going to say it was in the script... but your version is much better.
-
In "War of the Worlds" it was the simple virus/bacteria that saved us.
Just cough on them.
-
TNG was one of the worst made Sci-Fi series ever made.
-
It has nothing to do with sci-fi, it is because the lawyers make the producers put in the morality lesson.
The good guys always fight fair even when outnumbered and losing and the bad guys always lose in the end.
You can see this reflected in real life, as in "if we fight like the enemy we will be no better than them".
-
In that specific episode, they killed the Borg in their sleep. Sounds pretty bad bellybutton to me.
-
(quote) I almost all sci fi things I have watched there are weapon technologies "banned" by the human civilization because they are immoral, or whatever reason.
wouldn't you as a civilization use any and all weapons as a last defense on your main world? wouldn't you have moon based, and other huge defensive emplacements in place in case of a threat? (unquote)
Yes and Yes with a couple caveats. As others have said, the fundamental reason for any restraint usually is to not use anything so powerful that its effects would destroy you as well as the enemy.
Side issues are whether to (1) use any weapon no matter how horrible if you are going to die anyway, (2) use only kinder and gentler weapons if you have the luxury of knowing you are going to win and want or need to minimize damage or suffering (e.g., to keep enough labor slaves alive).
-
Originally posted by john9001
You can see this reflected in real life, as in "if we fight like the enemy we will be no better than them".
Except when it's Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush, and then they get roasted for it.
-
The US has the technology to just start busting out nukes, chemical and biological weapons.
Now think about what would happen if we actually DID.
Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
As john9001 said, it's the moral high ground. If you become what you're trying to stop who actually wins in the end?
-
Originally posted by Tango
TNG was one of the worst made Sci-Fi series ever made.
Actually it is one of the best ... if not the best sci-fi series made. The series focused on the human condition and classic Star Trek morality plays set in the future. DS9 was also very good in this regard.
Originally posted by john9001
It has nothing to do with sci-fi, it is because the lawyers make the producers put in the morality lesson.
This is just plain wrong. Gene Roddenberry deliberately made the show about the human condition set in a sci-fi universe. Instead of focusing the show on fantastic effects or fanciful technology (like earlier sci-fi shows and movies) he made the stories about the people and their experiences. When Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) confronted Roddenberry and told him that he was just doing morality plays in a futuristic setting, Roddenberry laughed out loud and said "Shhhh ... The producers haven't figured it out yet".
-
That's more or less why I stopped watching Star Trek, Viking. If I want to be preached at I'll just go to church. I don't mind a little lesson thrown in I just don't much appreciate getting hit over the head with morality lessons.
-
The point of making a morality play is not to preach, but to highlight moral dilemmas by placing the characters in situations where they are forced to make hard decisions. Some shows have been to heavy handed in this for my tastes (like the new BSG and ST Enterprise), but I think the original Star Trek, TNG and DS9 got the balance just right. Voyager wasn't too bad either.
Your mileage may vary of course.
-
wild,
it's a wonder we feel safe in our world...what with all of our naval bases spread out, an ememy could just walk right in and wipe us off the map. guess we may as well close them all down.
don't ya think that a society that can achieve light speed could get a starship around the block in a millisec?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Viking
Actually it is one of the best ... if not the best sci-fi series made. The series focused on the human condition and classic Star Trek morality plays set in the future. DS9 was also very good in this regard.
this is why i've mostly stopped watching Sci-Fi. along with the usually terrible acting.
-
I don't think you can include DS9 with TOS and TNG as far as morality. Star Trek and TNG were both very idealistic, "Good guys in white hats." DS9, especially later in the series, was much more realistic in that the characters were highly flawed and made very gray-area decisions (especially Garak, who was one of the most fun to watch. Sisko was also capable of doing some underhanded things that neither Kirk nor Picard would have even considered). However I enjoyed all three shows (until Paramount proceeded to photon torpedo the series' credibility with Voyager, Enterprise, Insurrection, Nemesis and now the "Reimagined" original crew. The guy who played the Doom Guy has NO business cast as McCoy!)
I don't watch the new BSG at all because they ripped the heart and soul out of the original and changed things that had neither need NOR reason to be changed.
-
Every show you see on TV, the big screen or stage is about the "human condition". Why? Because it's the only condition we understand. It's our ONLY perspective. Whether you want to call it a morality play or drama is immaterial. The focus is the same from the time stories were first preserved to the present. It's all "exploring the human situation".
Look at whatever you want to watch but the "good guy" is going to win the vast majority of the time and if he / she doesn't, it's because their sacrifice was necessary (no other option left) for the rest of the population to win. If that makes it a morality play for folks, you might as well stay at home.
The only real difference are where the drama is set, future, past, present or some other dimension.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Actually it is one of the best ... if not the best sci-fi series made. The series focused on the human condition and classic Star Trek morality plays set in the future. DS9 was also very good in this regard.
It was SO corny. Everyone so squeaky clean and happy to be around each other.
Not to mention all the screw ups in the story lines. In fact I seem to remember a couple of books written about all the bloopers. It was like watching "Pearl Harbor" in space.
-
I liked TNG because of the characters, and counselor Troy was hot.
some of the "messages" we a bit too liberal for me, but I think Patrick Stewart was a good actor. Barclay was a fun character, as was Q. I hated Guynen, and the first doctor they had.
it was kitchy fun to watch, and not it filler in my tv watching.
-
You hated Beverly Crusher?:huh
-
dr. crusher....(droooooool)
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You hated Beverly Crusher?:huh
no the curly haired one in the first few episodes before Crusher.
-
Ya got your timing wrong Crusher was the doctor the first season, and then left the show for a season (when the lady from LA Law became doctor briefly) and then came back.
-
grande boobesas.
:aok
-
And to think my biggest Star Trek question was " how come they don't wear seat belts on the bridge?":confused: every other attack you see crewmen falling all over the place getting hurt. :rofl you would think in the 26th century that would not be a problem. :)
Can't wait for star trek 11 thats in the works.
Vonwojo
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Ya got your timing wrong Crusher was the doctor the first season, and then left the show for a season (when the lady from LA Law became doctor briefly) and then came back.
nerd alert.
:lol :aok :p
yeah though that chick... I forgot crusher was there at the begining.
-
Originally posted by Viking
This is just plain wrong. Gene Roddenberry deliberately made the show about the human condition set in a sci-fi universe. Instead of focusing the show on fantastic effects or fanciful technology (like earlier sci-fi shows and movies) he made the stories about the people and their experiences. When Nichelle Nichols (Uhura) confronted Roddenberry and told him that he was just doing morality plays in a futuristic setting, Roddenberry laughed out loud and said "Shhhh ... The producers haven't figured it out yet".
i think they did spice up the entertainment value of star trek after the very first episodes of the original series, which were a lot more cerebral.
-
Originally posted by wojo71
And to think my biggest Star Trek question was " how come they don't wear seat belts on the bridge?":confused: every other attack you see crewmen falling all over the place getting hurt. :rofl you would think in the 26th century that would not be a problem. :)
Was thinking about that just the other day.
I always hated the Enterprise-D from TNG. Any time a bad guy looked at it wrong " shields are down" or "weapons are off line". Chrysler must have built that low bid piece of ****:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by wojo71
Can't wait for star trek 11 thats in the works.
Alright, that's it. I've got the tar, feathers, and whip. Who's bringing the rack, straps, torches and pitchforks? We need to expunge this heretic before the blasphemy spreads any further.
-
I'm also looking forward to ST XI. JJ Abrams is directing.
-
Aw CRAP it's too late. It's spreading! We need a containment team STAT!
I don't care WHO'S directing. Gene Roddenberry HIMSELF could come back from the grave and with everything that he's handed Star Trek XI is STILL going to SUCK. By Abrams' own acknowledgment it's trashing any preexisting continuity (if there's even any LEFT after Voyager and Enterprise had their run at it) and some of the casting choices I just don't get (Karl Urban is NOT Dr. McCoy. That is LUDICROUS!!).
Star Trek did NOT need a reboot. It needed to be taken AWAY from the braindead Paramount execs who have completely run the franchise into the ground.
-
Here's what I don't get... the size of your freakout. If the movie sucks, it's not going to delete the stuff about Star Trek that you enjoyed, right? It's not going to come into your house and demagnetize your carefully hoarded cache of Beta max tapes filled with episodes of the original series you painstakingly taped off UHF back in the early 80s, is it?
If the movie is good, then great. Super duper and all that.
If it's bad, then . As terrible as Star Trek IX and X were, I still enjoy KHAAAAAAAAN!!!! and the other good ones.
-
My problem is the dumb kids who this may be their first or even only exposure to the franchise and for whom this defines what it is, as opposed to the REAL history (IMO this is how the Star Wars prequels caused the MOST damage. Now every time you see a lightsaber they have to do the frelling twirly sword dance instead of the kendo-style duels of the Original). All it does is lead to confused and blank looks when you sit the squeakers down with the original, and all the sudden big buff Eomer--er, I mean Dr. McCoy--was REALLY originally a scrawney, sarcastic, cantankerous older man. And when a company like Paramount decides to just toss the established history of a franchise that people have grown up with and loved into the garbage all for the benefit of the newcomers it's like a giant slap in the face to the older fans. I don't WANT Star Trek as envisioned for the ADD Pokemon Generation. I want the Star Trek people have loved for half a century.
This is precisely why I HATE remakes. This is why I picked up the dual-version of Star Wars Original Trilogy with the Un-frelled Original Han Shoots First edition on Disk 2. It's this attitude that "Yeah, ok the original was great, but we can really do it BETTER." Well if it needed to be made better it very frelling well wouldn't have been so great that you'd need to revisit it 40-odd years later, now would it? It's like saying the guys who DID make it originally didn't do it right.
This is just another attempt by Paramount to wring the last few cents out of a franchise that really should have been left alone after First Contact and DS9, and frankly a disgusting trend I wish Hollywood would grow the frell out of.
-
So, what you're saying, then, is "Won't SOMEBODY please think of the children?!"
(http://www.anvari.org/db/cols/The_Simpsons_Characters_Picture_Gallery/Helen_Lovejoy.jpg)
-
To HELL with the kids. It's their fault it's being screwed up in the first place. And then once they reboot the continuity they're going to KEEP using that version, and it's going to just keep snowballing until the entire original franchise has been entirely retconned out of existence.
-
A "Star Trek catfight" on the AHBB. I'd say "Now I've seen everything" but that's usually a harbinger of worse. Heh. ;)
-
So, you want to prevent this because of the children, but the children are at fault for what they're doing, but you want it anyways...
How terribly confusing. I know there's a point in there somewhere, but I'm just not up to the task of decyphering it.
;)
-
I should think it's self-explanatory:
Hollywood is catering to younger audiences. So they're rebooting franchises like Star Trek and BSG and tossing the old continuity out and making everything louder and shinier because there's SOME misguided notion that the same things that made these shows so popular in the FIRST PLACE don't hold true anymore, which is a sack of bullchit.
It's like Warner Bros. trying to reimagine Looney Toons, and not understanding why Baby LT and their "Extreme" version haven't caught on. They can't seem to realize that Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff and having a giant rock fall on his head will ALWAYS be funny and they don't NEED to reinvent the wheel to appeal to a younger audience.
The new versions have virtually NOTHING to do with the original except in name, leaving a skewed perspective on what the franchise REALLY was. More than that. It's a disservice to the fans that MADE the franchise a cultural phenomenon because they're tossing out everything that the series was LOVED for in the first place (hence why I don't watch the new BSG. The hope, courage, and honor of humanity banding together was replaced, in the miniseries, by a bunch of cynical and general nastiness with everyone at each other's throats. Not ONE thing was likable about it). There will also not BE a continuation of the original, and everything will revolve around the remake because the kids won't have a frelling clue what's going on, so everything in the original will then be retconned out, because I guess that's just easier than creating a new story that falls within the established history.
IMO it's also an insult to the original creators and is a "nice" way of saying "You got it wrong all along."
-
Ah, so you're assuming it's a series reboot?
-
Assume nothing. They've already stated it IS.
-
Linky?
-
I don't have a specific link, but it's been in about every casting/production update I've read and quoted from Paramount, Abrams, the cast, production staff members, and industry insiders. The one I'm thinking about specifically was an interview a month or so ago with either Abrams himself, or one of the writers, that they specifically stated they're not following the original continuity.
Going into full-on geek mode:
The concept of "When Kirk met Spock" AND setting the whole thing in Starfleet Academy by ITSELF kills continuity (Spock was on the Enterprise with Pike already). Also some of the main characters--ALL of which have been cast--would either not have been there or would be too young. Even if they DON'T take that approach, there's other problems.
A LOT about their casting decisions I don't see working. Using Captain Pike GREATLY limits the time setting and makes casting Checkov a problem because he'd be WAY too young at that time if they followed continuity (besides, he was basically right out of Starfleet Academy when he first appeared in TOS).
Honestly, if they wanted to do a prequel they should have stuck with either the original Romulan War concept. Actually, I thought it would be more interesting had they done something focusing on Bob April's command of the Enterprise since he's been alluded to in the media but never shown.
But until Paramount does a Sulu on the Excelsior movie like the fans have been screaming for for YEARS I've lost all faith in their ability to do ANYTHING worthwhile with the franchise again.
-
Let's circle back on this after the film comes out (assuming you go see it and don't go on protest), or when more info comes out. I'm not writing it off yet, I'd like more data.
-
oh man.
I was laughing so hard though this thread but as a Star trek fan myself I've been cringing at the time line violations in Enterprise. To see it get pillaged like this is truly saddening.
I'd have to say I'm with Saxman on this one. It's truly saddening to see something that has so much sheer effort and research and development as the Star Trek franchise get so utterly eviscerated is beyond tragic.
It would have been so easy to get it right. The story was already "written", all they had to do was present it.
-
The new Abrams trek looks seriously miscast...I can't decide whether its a spoof - or a serious remake...but it could end up being the O.C Trek on the starship Enterprise NCC-90210
eg:
Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz) : Scotty
Karl Urban (LOTR/The Chronicles of Riddick) : McCoy
Zachary Quinto (Heroes) : Spock
Bruce Greenwood (I Robot, The Core) : Christopher Pike
John Cho (American Pie/Harold and Kumar go to white castle) : Sulu
Eric Bana (Hulk/Munich) : Nero "The Villain"
Winona Ryder : Spocks mother
Chris Pine : Kirk
Tronsky
-
The whole continuity thing can easily be explained away:
A loose cannon of a star ship captain, maybe even "Captain (we come in peace, shoot to kill) Kirk" goes back in time and changes the Whole time line and obviously as you wouldn't notice its changed if you lived in the universe, it was never reported.
They always go on about time travel directives in TNG. ;)
problem solved
-
Yeah, the Winona Ryder one irks me as all the info I've seen describes her as being Vulcan. Y'know, never mind that Spock's mom (who Sarek was still with by the time of TOS) was human.
But the one that I don't like the most is Karl Urban as McCoy. Don't get me wrong he was a great Eomer in LotR. He's just WAY too young and WAY too buff for McCoy.
-
JB73 needs to get laid asap!!!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Let's circle back on this after the film comes out (assuming you go see it and don't go on protest), or when more info comes out. I'm not writing it off yet, I'd like more data.
I'd like to see more data, too.
Unfortunately, I don't think he's part of the new movie.
Runs away...
-
Originally posted by JB73
I almost all sci fi things I have watched there are weapon technologies "banned" by the human civilization because they are immoral, or whatever reason.
wouldn't you as a civilization use any and all weapons as a last defense on your main world? wouldn't you have moon based, and other huge defensive emplacements in place in case of a threat?
If we deployed such weapons he would come back and destroy human kind, don't you remember?
(http://monroelab.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/gort-descends.jpg)
-
Wesley Crusher is a dweeb.
That is all.
-
I have mixed feelings about TNG.
Being a TOS fanatic, I immediately hated it. Over time, they got a little better though. At first they were extremely 2-dimensional, simplistic, perfect, demi-gods without doubts or flaws. Yawn....
Later, the characters developed more complexity and depth. They also figured out you can't have drama without conflict and it gets boring to watch them cruise around the galaxy and resolve their differences through negotiation all the time. Sometimes you need to open up a can of whoooopasz!
I have developed a scientific method of determining if a rerun of TNG is going to be worth watching. You simple have to see if Riker has a beard or not. If Riker is beardless; don't bother. If he is whiskered then you might have a chance at it being a decent epsiode.
(Note: spawning another thread on related subject)
Wab