How to Have a Recreational Argument

« How to Make Fun of the Opposite Sex | How to Make a Public Service Announcement ... Again »

Reader Comments (52)

Surely you don't mean to imply Star Trek 2009 sucked?

Note from Scott: No! Just most episodes of Enterprise. I loved the 2009 Star Trek.

December 25, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTheSpaceCommunist

Ha ha, awesome.

This must be why I haven't seen the new movie yet.

December 25, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKelly

Ah, mundane geek arguments. My husband and I decided to have the Borg cube versus Star Destroyer debate while on a road trip. Then we hit a deer. We've never had the guts to resume the argument since.

December 25, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMichelle

Have had the same argument about Batman cannon.

If you follow the 1985 frank miller story "The Dark Knight Strikes Back" then anything after the death of Jason basically didnt happen. Which means that all the top Batman stories never happened. Of course now the series is rebooted again so basically nothing at all has ever happened.

The debate between cannon and non-cannon never seems to ever end.

Related note: based on the new timeline can we assume the Mirror universe is still around? The first time the regular universe and the Mirror one interacted was with Kirk. So logically in the new timeline the evil universe is still the same.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterisiah

There's only one logical conclusion: The '70s cartoon was canon but the 2009 movie was not.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJosh

Everything in proper Trek still happened, just in another timeline. Real Trek has now simply become an alternate universe, just like the Evil Universe where Spock has a goatee.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJota

The 2009 Star Trek was an awful film. Firstly, you have to accept that it happens in a different universe from the Star Trek one as it does not fit the Star Trek theme, or 'canon' as I have just learned to call it.

Secondly, it was riddled with stupid mistakes.

Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear.

Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball?

Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"?

How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over.

Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all?

Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock.

What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world?

The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes?

Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan?

When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry?

When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances?

The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then.

When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship.

Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole?

Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again?

Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series?

Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth?

And that is just off the top of my head. There was plenty more.

It was seriously dire pants.

Note from Scott: I disagree strongly with your opinion but I'm approving your post it in the spirit of bi-partisanship.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSimes

All this hasn't happened before, and it won't happen again.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

Are recreational arguments an attempt to channel addiction to self-righteous indignation?

As David Brin noted in an "Open Letter to Researchers of Addictiion" (2005) at www.davidbrin.com/addiction.htm

"While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again."

Glenn Reynolds made a similar observation 10 years earlier in "A Critical Guide To the Second Amendment" (1995) at www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

"Being right once is not the same as being right always. That is easy to forget, of course, as there are few pleasures more insidiously addictive than the belief in one's own moral and intellectual superiority."

# # #

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

More T'pol can't be that bad. Especially when combined with more blue decontamination showers.

MY GOD WHAT HAVE I BECOME!?

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterjh

Just in case anyone has any interest in reading the Batman storyline mentioned above:

I'm pretty sure Isiah is referring to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. It was released in 1986, and not 1985. Isiah may be getting the "Strikes Back" from The Dark Knight Strikes Again, TDKR's 2001/2 sequel. (The "Back" part probably crept in because of how deeply Empire Strikes Back is woven in to pop consciousness.) I didn't care all that much for The Dark Knight Strikes Again. I don't think many people did.

I don't mean to post this as a catty correction. I just figured it would save the uninitiated some confusion if they decided to seek out the title.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThurston

Simes,

Have you seen Red Letter Media's reviews of the 2009 Star Trek film?

redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09-short-film/ 2 minutes 16 seconds

redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/ 1 hour 7 minutes long

videos not safe for work or children

The short review is simply using a metaphor to describe what the movie did to Star Trek fans. The longer review is similar to his "Star Wars" reviews, in that he carefully deconstructs what is wrong with the plot. Given his review, I was actually shocked that he liked the movie. I do agree that like many bad movies, watching "Star Trek" (2009) is a "guilty pleasure."

My objection to the reboot is that, like most other prequels (the new "Star Wars" trilogy and "Babylon 5: In the Beginning" come to mind), J.J. Abrams shoe-horned every character into the story, even though it's not logical that the characters would have been contemporaries, all knowing each other since the beginning. ie, Kirk should not have been at the Academy the same time as Uhurua, Checkov, Sulu, etc. Or even as Spock and Scotty. And as a doctor, McCoy was not a line officer, and would not have been to the Academy at all. This is clearly stated in the "Starfleet Academy Reunion" comic book (around 1991), and obvious to anyone who knows how the Navy works.

As for The Original Series, recently I have found that I simply cannot watch them anymore. As a product of 1960s network television, many of the plots and story lines are not just way too cheesy and corny, but pretty bad. For whatever reason, I just can't overlook those flaws anymore. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical?

I think that what many of us love about "Star Trek" (and I still do) is (1) the characters and (2) the myth. The idea of couple of cool dudes like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty exploring outer space while sitting in a big chair in front of a big screen TV appeals to a lot of us *, even if the individual episodes weren't that good. The premise makes it possible to invent all sorts of stories and back-stories. This probably explains why "Star Trek" fan fiction has been a genre since the end of the series. The characters and the myth provide wonderful material for our imaginations to work with.

I also think that this is why at least half of the movies still hold up well: not because of the action or better special effects, but because they were character stories about characters we grew up caring about. The themes of life, death, dealing with change, growing up and growing old run throughout the movie series. "Wrath of Kahn" and "The Undiscovered Country" weren't about cool looking space battles.

And speaking for myself, the problem with the 2009 movie, in addition to all of the plot holes, is that I don't care about the characters. They're not the characters we grew up caring about, because they have been changed too much. For example, in the original, it was reasonable to assume that Kirk was hard-working and ambitious, always wanted and earned his captaincy. In the new movie, he's a whiny trouble-making self-centered teenager. Even though appointments to the Academy, and command billets, are highly competitive with no shortage of willing candidates, Starfleet comes begging to young Kirk: "Please please please, juvenile delinquent Kirk, join the Academy. If you do, we'll give you the keys to a star ship in a few years." Yeah, right. New Kirk isn't going to be a captain with a solemn sense of responsibility to his command, but a sense of entitlement.


* Back in the late 20th century, when I was working a tech support job and had access to a video projector hooked up to a computer, one of the first things I did was get a big office chair, placed it in front of the projector's screen on the wall in the conference room, and turned on the Windows 95 "star field" screen saver. It was a dream come true.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRobert

Simes, I think you would enjoy Star Trek more if you followed the advice in the original MST 3K theme song:
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes, and other science facts,
fa la la!
then repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show, I should really just relax!'"

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBill J

Congratulations, Scott.

Panel four is a Jeffries tube-full of awesome, but you have just proved that logic and rational arguments suck, and should be avoided.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJay in Oregon

The new Star Trek movie was very silly, and therefor completely in the spirit of the original series.

And where do I get a wife who will arge Star Destroyer vs Borg Cube? (Borg Cube by the way. Step 1: Slice up shield generators. Step 2: Teleport at will - in, out, all about... they can't stop you...)

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterOddball

The 09 ST was fantastic filmmaking. You Trekkies, all so enthralled with the OG ST, well guess why Star Wars was always more popular? Cuz the original ST was mad super boring.

Oh no, not the going-back-in-time thing, again. Oh dear. Bollocks you, that was handled really well.

Why wasn't Spock's wife rescued when she fell six feet but Spock was rescued while exploding in a 'Red Matter' fireball? How did Spock's MOTHER (pay attention homes) fall only six feet when .5 seconds after she fell they panned out to reveal the cliff face falling hundreds of feet away into oblivion?

Why wasn't the Enterprise able to escape the singularity when "We're already at warp speed"? Because it's hard as all madness/virtually impossible to escape a singularity maybe?

How the **** did the Romulan vessel and Spock's vessel go through a black hole? Give over. How is any of this possible? It's Sci-Fi. Give over.

Why should one vessel going through a black hole go back in time a convenient 25 years, and the other not at all? Because they wanted it that way. Obviously red matter doesn't exist, you can't create black holes in the heart of supernovas and it wouldn't lead through time. Again, suspend your disbelief if you're walking into a Star Trek movie.

Of all the moons of all the planets of all the systems in the galaxy, Kirk gets abandoned within a few hundred yards of Spock. Clearly Spock was marooned on a planet within view of Vulcan so he can see it be destroyed. HE EXPLAINS THIS. It is not at all a stretch that this would be the planet, and even the same side of the planet, where Kirk is jettisoned just as they head away from where Vulcan used to be.

What was Spock burning on that fire? It looked like wood to me. What wood would that be on that ice world? They have spaceships and all the aliens look like humans and speak English to each other on their homeworld, but you're worried about wood? Seriously?

The Enterprise warped into Titan's atmosphere then conveniently ended up next to the Romulan ship just above the Earth's atmosphere. We'll just pretend the few light minutes' distance doesn't exist then, yes? Sure--as long as we're pretending people can warp around the universe in almost no time flat, why not?

Why was Vulcan just 3 minutes from Earth at warp speed, yet Earth hours and hours from Vulcan? They were clearly taking their time to formulate a plan.

When the three of them plummeted through the atmosphere (and didn't we just know what would happen to the red shirt?) why was there no burning up on re-entry? If they create dropsuits for entering the atmosphere, you don't think they would engineer them to reduce friction and eliminate incineration? You can even see flame trails as they fall. Come on.

When the two of them were beamed up just before they hit the ground, they hit the transporter floor with the same force. Why weren't they killed? Why wasn't Spock's mother rescued under easier circumstances? It's safe to say they hit the ground with force, but clearly not the same force, or they WOULD have been killed. Weak complaint.

The singularity created at the end of the film was created at the edge of the Earth's atmosphere. So that's the Earth destroyed then. Fair enough.

When the medal gets dished out at the end, why is the Academy full of students? 7 out of every 8 were killed at the start of the film by the Romulan mining ship. Obviously not as when the ship was attacking San Francisco, you see cadets racing around in a panic. Is it so stretchy to say those were cadets not yet well trained enough to serve on a starship? Where do you pull 7 out of every 8 from??

Why is Spock flying around in a ship that holds a huge ball of 'Red Matter' when one drop can cause a black hole? Cuz he needed to use it to create a black hole, obviously.

Why are these rule-breaking children allowed out in a star ship again? Because they needed every trained hand available. Also, they're not children. Also, only Kirk broke a rule. ALSO they hadn't even reached the formal ruling that he cheated yet. ALSO he wasn't GOING to be allowed on the ship, except that McCoy did him a favor. Again, pay attention.

Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series? Because they didn't want the movie to be as boring and mundane as the TV series.

Messages were sent out about the Romulan mining ship; why did the Enterprise have to go to join the fleet at Wotnot, rather than the fleet just go straight to Earth? Why would they go straght to Earth?

None of your complaints make sense. Abrams accomplished the hard task of rebooting ST in a way that appealed to a wide audience, rather than the same clan of Vulcan ear-wearing Trekkies that have been lapping up increasingly boring series and terrible movies since the 70s.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterARMarks

I'm in favor of the 70's cartoon but against the 2009 movie. I won't go into as many details as the previous commenter, though. It just felt like a generic sci-fi action flik with some Star Trek references thrown in.

Mainly, I'm just prematurely old and cranky.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterknastymike

Oh, I LOVED the Star Trek cartoon when I was a kid.

As to "canon," (excepting the Kzinti dudes), I agree with the Agony Booth:


"No, the real reason I consider TAS canon is that it's a TV show called Star Trek, and it was made with the input of Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Deforest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, Walter Koenig, TOS story editor D.C. Fontana, TOS director Marc Daniels, TOS scriptwriters David Gerrold and Stephen Kandel, and TOS guest stars Mark Lenard, Roger C. Carmel, and Stanley Adams. Honestly, if that's not Star Trek, then I don't know what is.
 
"It would be tantamount to making an album with performances by John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr, produced by George Martin, engineered by Norman Smith and Geoff Emerick, with an album cover drawn by Klaus [f.....g] Voorman, and not calling it a Beatles album."

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRob

Nothing happened after the TV Star Treck of the 1960's. Except Seven of Nine and maybe any of the other women characters you care to throw in...

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterWorkinMan

TOS still happened or else Spock-prime would not have existed to go back in time. From all the other characters' perspectives it was an aborted potential future, but as far as shaping Spock's experience it was all necessary events.

On the plus side, V'ger never needed to happen.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterArtie

Although I would have to agree with Simes' articulated points, I just chalk all of it up to poor writing due to a script writer that has no idea of physics or science fiction (instead of future fantasy) and leave it at that. My biggest gripe with the 2009 movie was the massive lens flares everywhere. Good grief; Hollywood spent tons of money to eliminate that kind of annoying camera "effect" (i.e: problem) and Abrams has to stick it in there on purpose.

As for Enterprise, in its defense, I recently watched the entire series on Netflix. Yes, there are some bad episodes, but the same could be said for the Star Trek TOS. I rather liked some of the later episodes that tried to explain things, like why TOS Klingons looked all too human, or how come Vulcans seem more intolerant than in chronologically later shows. On the whole, I'd have to say I've seen worse, so give Enterprise a break.

But I will say the opening song suuuuuuuuucked. What were they thinking?

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThatJeff

I know it was arguably necessary exposition, but I refuse to believe that Rick didn't know what "canon" meant.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAdam S.

Simes, perhaps you should pick up a nitpickers guide for one or more of the Trek series? If you have this much of a problem with the "equipment oddities" and writing room conveniences from the 2009 film, I can't imagine you being a fan of any of them.

I understand many of your criticisms, what I really want to know is...
What (Science) fiction *DO* you like?

Anyone could answer that question actually. If you liked a specific episode of a long running series, say which one, as there are more people involved in TV than the cast, quality writing, directing, etc. are also important to the end product.

As for myself, I don't really care about oversights if the story is well written and characters engaging. (Not that the 2009 film was top in either of those categories)

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterYellow brick space road

Uhm...er...Wow. A lot of those complaints about 2009 Star Trek aren't even correct.

Nevermind that, apparently nobody has ever spoken this about stories, which also include movies and books and whatever:

—What makes a story is exceptionalism. That is, the reason a story happens the way it does is because it's full of events that conveniently happen to justify something else happening later. That's the only consistent logic to stories.—

So, if you tell a story without any exceptions (i.e. anything contrary to expectations), then it's not a story.

A flashback happens because the author forget to mention something, especially when using a typewriter. Flashback may also happen when the middle of the story is much more interesting and people wouldn't wait around if they had to go through the beginning first. When a story is really boring, they tell the ending first and hope you'll want to know the rest. Similarly for flash forwards. (This assumes a story is told in a universe with linear time.)

And, last but not least, a story is never the same when told more than once. Recall the stories about fishing and the fish getting bigger after each telling. Therefore, it should be no wonder why a story in a book isn't the same as a story a movie, or cartoon.

As such, a story is the stuffing of legends, and sometimes a legend is quite foul, though what kind isn't always apparent.

If we had a real culture, one that didn't make up stories willy-nilly and sell them, then we'd have more consistency. Though, history wouldn't be any less fictional.

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThom

Both true and also, horribly depressing.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNelly

The silliest thing about Star Trek is Spock. Despite being a supremely "logical" character who is baffled whenever humans make a knock-knock joke or say a flower is pretty, he's never the least bit surprised when the Enterprise encounters a planet where the natives not only look exactly like humans, but are for some barely-explained reason reenacting a very specific period of Earth's history. All of them. Forever. The only logical conclusion Spock could possibly reach is that he's in a TV series which needs to cut a few corners on the costume budget. Also, he never seems to notice that, of all the people who could have been put on charge of a starship with the power to destroy entire planets, they chose the nearest thing they could find to a human tom-cat. I think they're all lying to each other about who they are, while desperately hoping that the sensible people who rightfully own the Enterprise will never catch up with them.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterE. L. Wisty

@Thom: StarTrek aside, is "a story is the stuffing of legends" original or are you paraphrasing Joe Campbell? Either way, I'm borrowin' it. Also trying not to visualize too clearly a gigantic patchwork button-eyed monster called Legende, munching on Avon paperbacks for lunch and belching.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered Commentergobbler

V'ger is still going to happen, right?

I didn't see the new movie yet. Did the people in the 29th century who show up to stop you from changing the past show up?

Kirk always had a sense of entitlement. Well, nearly all the time.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRobert Carnegie

@Yellow brick space road: "What (Science) fiction *DO* you like?"

Any that is reasonably well written. I fell in love with sf 35 years ago when I discovered Asimov and have been demolishing books, films and magazines ever since, whenever I can find the time. I enjoyed Star Trek, Star Wars and Babylon 5 immensely.

I can suspend belief, but only up to a point. I can handle a couple or 3 bits of handwavium in a story and accept them. I can turn a blind eye to product placement and the odd bit of cheesiness. Travelling back in time and flying into black holes without getting squished were two devices bunged in the film because they could that spoiled the concept of the universe they were creating, especially after disregarding Newtonian physics completely.

But that 2009 Star Trek film was a straight-to-discount-DVD-bin film. It was inconsistent within itself. It did not pay any credence to simple physics - suspension of belief had to be taken too far. It did not conform to the Star Trek canon, did not follow the principles of good sf and was poorly made.

I am not a Trekker who gets dressed up and goes to conventions. I am not a mundane who cannot understand physics and know what is plausible and what is not. Nor am I offended because it was aimed at the mass audience (Flight of the Navigator and ET were damn good sci fi films aimed at the mass audience which I enjoyed). I am not offended because of some arbitrary standard.

It was a pants film. Pink nylon pants with frilly bits and three leg-holes pants.

Should I get drunk and then watch it again - would it be less bad?

Sorry, Scott. I respect your judgement and your original and hilarious gifts at presenting information in pictorial and written style. But by liking the 2009 Star Trek you have gone down in my estimation - you are now only 99.835796% perfect.

Have a Happy New Year. :-)

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSimes

Put me in the "2009 Trek sucked" category, although for different reasons.

Personally, I always thought the best Trek was late DS9 (during the Dominion war and the runup to it) and Wrath of Khan. This was the Trek that dealt the most with complex, adult themes and was generally well-made drama. For a more action-oriented Trek, I'd probably give the high honors to the third season of Enterprise (and they did try to work in complex themes with many of Archer's decisions, but it was more clumsy and heavy-handed).

But the '09 Trek was a mess of explosions and frenzy and silly things like an instant warp drive that takes you anywhere with energy requirements that don't make sense (that's certainly going to mess up future stories if it's possible) and giving some whiny brat command of the Enterprise because, well, he's Kirk so we have to put him in the chair somehow? Please, this group of whiny little punks shouldn't have been able to handle a Ferengi, let alone some deranged Romulan from the future. The Trek reboot was written more like adolescent fiction than sci-fi and there's already enough of that crap out there. The Star Wars prequels had more depth and were more watchable. And I didn't care for Zachary Quinto as Spock -- some actors can do well in a new, radically different role (John Lithgow's stint on Dexter comes to mind), but seeing him there just made me wonder why Sylar from Heroes was on the Enterprise. Hell, they probably could have made a crossover where Sylar was Spock's bastard love child and it would have made more sense than the 2009 Star Trek movie.

The Trek universe has always been hit or miss, with a lot of miss. I don't know what one would call the 2009 movie, but I don't call it Star Trek. They really should have just booted up an alternate universe -- they have infinite ones! (ST:TNG -- "Parallels"). The time travel was unnecessary and distracting. Telling not showing.

Of course, I also hated "The Voyage Home," so what do I know?

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSteve

Great comic. Way to start a Nerd Gihad.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterjaeddu

Well, I enjoyed the 2009 movie for what it was -- a fun, if a bit silly, retake of Star Trek.

Natter about black holes and redmatter technobabble aside, my main issue with the new story is Captain Kirk is no longer a grown man with years of adult military experience behind him, but a youngster just out of the Academy. It's just one step past "young Westley, take a seat, oh, at the Operations console here on the bridge."

The Kirk on the TV show had gone through trials and had made mistakes -- his actions while a newly minted officer serving on the FARRAGUT still haunted him years later -- and had learned to lead because he had already learned to follow. Captain Andy Hardy here is still wet behind the ears.

That said, the movie was _fun_ which the TNG movies -- excepting First Contact -- were not. And if handled well, the rebooted series will continue to be fun.

They got rid of the "living in Vulcan's shadow" problem efficiently.

They won't have to worry about V'Ger, or KHAAAAN, or the Space Whales, because they have Old Spock to give a heads-up on those. This clears the way to have new, exciting stories in the Star Trek universe.

I am looking forward to seeing the next Star Trek movie.

And I loved this comic! Well done.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRob

Thank you, Josh. TAS is canon, the reboot movie... I don't want it to be.

I liked watching the movie, but I hate the fact that they felt the need to reboot Star Trek. And if it is canon, that means that exactly two things happened in the real universe, and those two things entirely sucked: Spock was removed from the universe and stranded for the rest of his life in another timeline, and the Romulans were destroyed almost to a person. the Romulans were the best foreign race in Star Trek, until the last couple awful movies, and now they're just gone? It makes me mad to think about.

Now I want to vent about the movies that went out of their way to ruin all that was good about Romulans before the reboot atrocity, but I'll reign myself in.

Just wanted to throw in 2 cents:

Why was the bridge of the Enterprise so unlike the bridge of the same Enterprise of the TV series?

For similar reasons as the shipyards being planetside.
Since the Kelvin was attacked by this obviously ridiculously advanced starship, precautions had to be taken. As a result, ship design and style would also shift in response to this new threat.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered Commentermaztablazta

This instruction should've been titled "How to Create a Recreational Argument in Your Comments". :)

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKevin

"You can only ask the reader to suspend disbelief once--twice, if you're lucky--before they start to believe that you are a lazy writer." Theodore Sturgeon.

I get where you're coming from Simes, but Star Trek has always struck me as future fantasy, not science fiction. There isn't any 'science' that the show is based on, just a bunch of technobabble. That said, it's best watched without trying to get too annoyed with their inconsistencies. You want a ST movie that really annoyed me? How about the one where Picard and Co. try to stop Malcolm McDowell from blowing up a star, only to have him blow it up and meet with Kirk who's stuck in some sort of subspace thing. What bugged me about it is McDowell launches a missile from an Earth-type planet that reaches the star in seconds. Granted, it could have had a warp engine, but get this: folks on the planet instantly see the star implode/explode/whatever. It still should have taken the star's light time to travel to the planet--they had eight, nine minutes or more before witnessing the destruction. But enough ranting on ST physics.

What really burns me is when you have a show or movie that claims to be hard science based and yet they screw it up. Most folks don't notice the problems, but when I do, it just sits there like a big festering pimple, daring me to pop it. You bring up Babylon 5. (ugh) One of the early gripes I had with that show is they account for the station's gravity through spinning. I can handle that, no problem. However, if that's the case, why is it you never see the outer hull counter-rotating against the main body of the station? Physics says it should.

Or another gripe with Bab 5: Mike S claims he wanted all the scientific and military terms to be as accurate as possible. So why is it the crew can't figure out how to fire "Time on Target?" They sure loved to use the term, shouldn't one of them at least look it up in the official "How to Fight a War Guidebook" and learn what it means?

But enough ranting.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterThatJeff

This cartoon was great, because it not only spawned one of the longest posts I have ever seen to one of your BI's it also had a post which quoted David Brin. Wonderful.

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered Commentergreg

love this size of most of these comments, you really stirred up the hornets nest scott

December 27, 2011 | Unregistered Commentermashedpotatoes

If you ever want to recycle without doing an actual repeat, you could adapt this rather easily to the Highlander movies and tv series.

December 28, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterHari

Hari -
NOOO! There should have been only One! At least, as far as the Highlander movies go. The first was one of my all-time favorites. I stopped counting viewings in the forties.
I kind of liked the series once it settled down a bit. They eventually got some good story arcs and quite good guest stars going, like Roger Daltry, Randall "Tex" Cobb, and Roland Gift (from Fine Young Cannibals) to name a few off the top of my head.

December 28, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterdan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>