Comments on: Quinto & Kring Talk Trek/Heroes Connection + Abrams Talks Fringe/Trek Science

By: Harry Ballz

Harry Ballz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:15:10 +0000

#58

Hardcore sci-fi, Closettrekker?

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:36:46 +0000

#57—”softcore sci-fi”, Harry?

By: Harry Ballz

Harry Ballz — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:29:40 +0000

#54

Closettrekker, if Star Trek is considered “soft sci-fi” then I guess in ST:TMP the Enterprise entering V’Ger wouldn’t be classified as penetration?

By: Anthony Thompson

Anthony Thompson — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:39:16 +0000

Where’s his hat???

By: inm

inm — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:40:03 +0000

izbot – if interested for more, drop me a mail. a.q at gmx. net :)

By: closettrekker

closettrekker — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 01:25:46 +0000

#53—I did see that article. I don’t think that even the teleportation of matter is that much of a stretch. It is doing the same with genetic material as complex as a living being which creates a problem. The extreme temperatures required to break down such matter into subatomic particles would be far too destructive for those particles to ever be reordered back into the same complex structure. I think you would be hard pressed to find a scientist who would disagree. We all know why it was incorporated into Star Trek.
And yes, we certainly can agree that Star Trek generally does a good job basing its technology upon the reasonable progression of known science. But “transporters” and “warp drive” are elements for which we just have to suspend our natural tendancy toward disbelief in favor of good storytelling devices.

Someone once suggested to me that Star Trek is “soft sci-fi”, while something like “2001″ or “Alien” is better classified as “hard sci-fi”. That seems reasonable to me.

By: Gary Seven

Gary Seven — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:51:34 +0000

Hey Closet,

Upon rereading Abram’s statement, I think I may have misinterpreted it. Upon a second reading, he seems to me to be saying Star Trek is science fiction, and “Fringe” is almost just science. I think his emphasis on how “cool” and far away Trek’s ideas were gave me the feeling he was calling it fantasy. But now I don’t think he was doing that. But it did give me the feeling was deemphasizing the scientific basis behind Star Trek. I don’t know if he meant to do that, but that was the feeling I got.

Star Trek tries to be more scientifically accurate than most sci-fi shows. I think we may agree on that. By the way, the transporter does have some scientific basis:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/breakthrough-brings-star-trek-teleport-a-step-closer-451673.html
(Link has full article)

Data ‘Teleportation’ Uses Star Trek Technews.independent.co.uk — Physicists have teleported data a whopping 89 miles (from the Canary Island of La Palma to the island of Tenerife), which is 10 times further than the old record using “quantum entanglement” — the technology used in Star Trek teleporters. “Beam me up, Scotty!”

By: Izbot

Izbot — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:51:27 +0000

51. inm -

You found it!! So great that these historical documents have been preserved for future historians!

By: inm

inm — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:18:37 +0000

Nimoy and the Love-in…

http://www.instantkatra.net/nimoy_clippings/nimoy_1967_08_aug_tvmovie.jpg
http://www.instantkatra.net/nimoy_clippings/nimoy_1967_08_aug_tvmovie2.jpg
..etc. till…
http://www.instantkatra.net/nimoy_clippings/nimoy_1967_08_aug_tvmovie5.jpg

Enjoy.

By: closettrekker

closettrekker — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:56:36 +0000

#49—”Science Fantasy will generally ignore physical laws (i.e., magic) or invent its own structure of laws which have no necessary connection to known laws.”

Which is precisely what Star Trek did with the element of “transporter beams”…but anyway…

Wikipedia is a source of imprecise information that practically anyone may edit. That definition you presented is probably posted there by some 20 year old college student who enjoys science fiction. The author of that entry (whoever that is) is entitled to his interpretation, as are you, as am I, and as is JJ Abrams.

Ultimately, what science fiction means to me may be different from what it means to you. If you walk into a video store and visit the sci-fi section, you will likely find movies which you feel do not belong there, as I do. The questions for me are always, “how much suspension of disbelief does this require of me?”, and “is this based upon the progression of science we know?”, or “does it require that we throw out certain scientific laws?”.

I also believe that Star Trek has more elements of sci-fi than science fantasy. My point was simply that it certainly has elements of both.

” I did not include Star Wars as science fantasy because I did not want to get into one of those endless debates about Star Wars versus Star Trek. Nor will I get into any extended debate on this topic…”

Nor do I wish to debate ST vs SW. That was not the point. I simply presented you with an alternate perspective. LOTR is “fantasy”. SW is “science fantasy”.

Star Trek is closer to science fiction, but has major elements of science fantasy as well.

And I still don’t see how you determine that Abrams doesn’t see Trek as science fiction.