NationStates Jolt Archive


What is it with Sci-fi shows

Brockadia
16-09-2005, 01:41
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?
Secluded Islands
16-09-2005, 01:43
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

fantasy is appealing, that is why its science-fiction...
Kisogo
16-09-2005, 01:49
So you want all science-fiction to strictly follow science? Science as we understand it today even? Seems kinda strange to me. Also, in terms of getting facts straight, there have been a lot worse than Star Trek Voyager.
Phylum Chordata
16-09-2005, 01:49
Science fiction used to be written by those with a scientific bent. As it became more popular all sorts began writing it. That's why science fiction often seems kind of muddled these days.
Unabashed Greed
16-09-2005, 01:52
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

I would agree that Voyager was a bad show. But, overall I think Sci-fi has to have bits of fantasy involved when it comes to a television drama, otherwise you fall into the "Asimovian" trap, of making it too boring for the average viewer.

Take the new Battlestar Galactica, for instance. In the lead up to the mini-series, I was quite skeptical of the way it had been re-imagined. But, as the show has progressed, through two seasons, it has impressed me. That show is rife with fantastical elements, while being able to keep itself grounded in sci-fi. I'd say it's the perfect expression of the "slipstream" genre as it's translated to the television medium.
Super-power
16-09-2005, 01:52
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?
So I take it you're more of a hard science fiction fan then?
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 01:52
So you want all science-fiction to strictly follow science? Science as we understand it today even? Seems kinda strange to me. Also, in terms of getting facts straight, there have been a lot worse than Star Trek Voyager.
Farscape? at least voyager attempts to put some kind of semi-plausable science behind most of its fantasy.

i love voyager, just so y'all know.
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 01:54
I agree. The Good Doctor used to say that in a good sf story one impossibility was allowed, but when it all revolves around impossibilities, and magical resolutions to the story, that becomes fantasy.

I remember the first season of Seaquest was very good. Plausible science and good stories, but after that it became more and more fantastic.
Teh_pantless_hero
16-09-2005, 01:55
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?
There were alot worse things to complain about in Voyager, those things have been in the Star Trek universe from the beginning (well besides teh Klingon stuff because Klingons were evil bad guys, but that started in TNG).
Brockadia
16-09-2005, 01:55
I don't mind a little bit of stretching of science. What I have a problem with is when you start getting things like Kes' telepathy and all of Chakotay's crap, plus all of the other paranormal crap.
Dobbsworld
16-09-2005, 01:56
This is why I've turned my back on the medium of television - particularly the so-called 'science fiction' genre of television, as it invariably turned into a weekly sighing-fest of more or less continuous attempts to pander to my (presumably) low-brow, slack-jawed tastes.

I like the hard stuff. Gimme print media, Goddamnit. Screw the special effects and hip-hugging bodysuits.
Earth Government
16-09-2005, 02:00
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

Do you realize how insanely boring sci-fi based on modern science would be? Yes, you could make a damned good story in a hard sci-fi setting, but then it'd be little more than a glorified soup opera in space (see some storylines in neo-BSG, even though I love it to death).

Impossible and fantastical elements in sci-fi (FTL, artificial gravity, etc) make it that much more interesting.

Seriously, how boring would Star Wars have been if Vader's capital ship tore itself to shreds due to the stresses being placed on its frame within the first few seconds of the movie?

Then again, I do agree on Voyager era Treknobabble, it's rediculous.
Brockadia
16-09-2005, 02:07
Do you realize how insanely boring sci-fi based on modern science would be? Yes, you could make a damned good story in a hard sci-fi setting, but then it'd be little more than a glorified soup opera in space (see some storylines in neo-BSG, even though I love it to death).

Impossible and fantastical elements in sci-fi (FTL, artificial gravity, etc) make it that much more interesting.

Seriously, how boring would Star Wars have been if Vader's capital ship tore itself to shreds due to the stresses being placed on its frame within the first few seconds of the movie?

Then again, I do agree on Voyager era Treknobabble, it's rediculous.

Again, a little bit of stretching is fine. But there's a difference between FTL and Chakotay talking with his dead grandfather.
Earth Government
16-09-2005, 02:08
Again, a little bit of stretching is fine. But there's a difference between FTL and Chakotay talking with his dead grandfather.

Which is, again, a problem with Voyager (one of the WORST pieces of sci-fi, EVER), not "sci-fi shows".
Super-power
16-09-2005, 02:10
Yes, you could make a damned good story in a hard sci-fi setting, but then it'd be little more than a glorified soap opera in space (see some storylines in neo-BSG, even though I love it to death).
If you like hard sci fi I recommend just about anything Gundam (specifically those miniseries in the UC timeline - 08th MS Team was amazing).
Unabashed Greed
16-09-2005, 02:12
Which is, again, a problem with Voyager (one of the WORST pieces of sci-fi, EVER), not "sci-fi shows".

I couldn't agree more. Voyager really turned the genre into a laughing stock, at least as far as TV sci-fi is concerned. if it wasn't stupid crap like psychic power of the week, it was a heavy case of "new toy syndrome", where some kind of ridiculous invention, or weapon, or some other bullshit POS somehow saved the day.
CthulhuFhtagn
16-09-2005, 02:16
If you like hard sci fi I recommend just about anything Gundam (specifically those miniseries in the UC timeline - 08th MS Team was amazing).
Giant robots powered by people moving inside of them do not qualify as 'hard sci-fi'.
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 02:19
I couldn't agree more. Voyager really turned the genre into a laughing stock, at least as far as TV sci-fi is concerned. if it wasn't stupid crap like psychic power of the week, it was a heavy case of "new toy syndrome", where some kind of ridiculous invention, or weapon, or some other bullshit POS somehow saved the day.
And don't forget time travel. The first few uses of it in ST:TNG were ingenious, but by Voyager it had been severely abused.
Dobbsworld
16-09-2005, 02:19
I think Gundams are yet another symptom of what's wrong with television science fiction.
Vergor
16-09-2005, 02:20
So you want all science-fiction to strictly follow science? Science as we understand it today even? Seems kinda strange to me. Also, in terms of getting facts straight, there have been a lot worse than Star Trek Voyager.
true. besides janeway was hot :fluffle:
The Eidalons
16-09-2005, 02:24
The seminal shows for Sci-fi right now are of a fairly high quality: Stargate SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG. These shows are less about the technology and science aspect as compared to Clarke and Asimov's work, and quite frankly much less preachy, but it delves deeper into human emotion. I actually can connect with the characters in today's sci-fi, wereas yesterday's sci-fi was filled with stilted and often one dimensional characters.
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 02:24
Giant robots powered by people moving inside of them do not qualify as 'hard sci-fi'.
Didn't the US Army experiment with something similar in the sixties? Too unstable, though.
Eutrusca
16-09-2005, 02:24
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?
'Cause their scriptwriters are T3h suksorz!!!!! :D
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 02:27
Again, a little bit of stretching is fine. But there's a difference between FTL and Chakotay talking with his dead grandfather.
that was in a hallucinogenic-induced "vision quest" (read: wicked awesome acid trip) - not based in the hard 'science' you seem to pander after, and nor did it need to be.
i'd gladly sacrifice scientific realism to have a half decent and interesting sory, with good character dynamics and interesting ideas (which at least uses lame pseudoscience to add reality to the fantasy... i'm looking at you again, Farscape)


besides, star trek in general has always been more than just straight-forward sci-fi... if anyone sees it as such they are missing out such a massive point and part of the 'trek idea and franchise i actually feel sorry for them. roddenberry was something of an idealist - so first and foremost 'trek gives people hope - but more than that, he created a set of morality tales using sci-fi as the vehicle.
Sdaeriji
16-09-2005, 02:38
We do all notice the second word in the phrase science-fiction, right? If you're incapable of suspending disbelief in order to enjoy the program, perhaps you'd be better off reading the instruction manual to your VCR.
The Eidalons
16-09-2005, 02:44
We do all notice the second word in the phrase science-fiction, right? If you're incapable of suspending disbelief in order to enjoy the program, perhaps you'd be better off reading the instruction manual to your VCR.

But then he would not be able to complain anymore.
Freeunitedstates
16-09-2005, 03:55
i liked chakotay's stuff. almost everyone seems agnostic on the show, except for the aliens (?) this showed a lot of stuff from my own indian heritage, and i like seeing our great cultures get treated in a better light. for too long, the whites have made us look like savages and everything. even though they never kept a promise. oh, wait, they did keep a promise! they promised to take away our land, and they did!
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 11:55
We do all notice the second word in the phrase science-fiction, right? If you're incapable of suspending disbelief in order to enjoy the program, perhaps you'd be better off reading the instruction manual to your VCR.
lmao :p
ooh if i could i'd sig that right now ;)
Kanabia
16-09-2005, 12:02
Farscape? at least voyager attempts to put some kind of semi-plausable science behind most of its fantasy.

i love voyager, just so y'all know.

Hey, Farscape was good :mad:
Earth Government
16-09-2005, 12:04
If you like hard sci fi I recommend just about anything Gundam (specifically those miniseries in the UC timeline - 08th MS Team was amazing).

XD

Funniest thing I've read all week.
Mythotic Kelkia
16-09-2005, 12:16
You know, this reminds me of something: when did everyone start liking Voyager? I'm not a trekkie, but I thought the general consensus was:

ToS - good
TNG - quite good
DS9 - definately the best (which i'd agree with)
VOY - terrible, awful, boring, rubbish
ENT - ... well, let's just forget that one, shall we? ;)

So what's with all the Voyager lovers? Are they mentally ill, or just stupid? :p

and if you want real hard SF that is still fun, pick up the Firefly boxset. And then go watch Serenity when it comes out in cinemas later this month. Best. EVER.
Phylum Chordata
16-09-2005, 12:29
Firefly is hard? Well, ten out of ten for finally realizing that there is no sound in space, but its hardness is not what I enjoy when I slot it in my player.
Mythotic Kelkia
16-09-2005, 12:39
Firefly is hard? Well, ten out of ten for finally realizing that there is no sound in space, but its hardness is not what I enjoy when I slot it in my player. (emphasis added)

... that sounds wrong.

ahem. :rolleyes: But yeh, that's the beauty of it. It's not about the science.
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 12:46
DS9 - definately the best (which i'd agree with)
VOY - terrible, awful, boring, rubbish
ok this is getting on my nerves.
first off, DS9 sucks ass

second off, why does everyone seem to hate Voyager so much? i can (and have on these forums, many times) given reasons for why i think voyager is the best 'trek, but as of yet nobody has given reasons why they think its so shit :mad:
The Stars End
16-09-2005, 13:55
I thought the whole point of sci-fi was to take what we know now and push it a bit, use some imagination. I mean without Star Trek how long would mobile phones have taken to develop (just one idea thats come from sci-fi)....

Secondly although I think DS9 was a better 'flavour' of Star Trek overall, Voyager had some of the best individual episodes IMHO.
Oh and I need to see more Firefly, only seen a couple of episodes but it looks great so far
Kelikstadt
16-09-2005, 14:05
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

As a few people have already said: Science FICTION. But then there's also the fact that 'real' science itself is a load of crap. Did you know that there are 5 completely different theories of aeronautics? All 5 work but none of them agree with each other.
QuentinTarantino
16-09-2005, 14:09
Red Dwarf is the greatest Sci Fi show ever made.
Kelikstadt
16-09-2005, 14:14
YES! Red Dwarf rules! But then I would say that a parody of any genre is the best thing to come out of that genre. I love it when sci-fi shows make fun of the genre (eg: Red Dwarf, Galaxy Quest). In fact just imagine if Voyager was a parody. No-one would be complaining about it because it would just be too funny. (Although I must admit some Voyager episodes do seem a bit like parodies anyway).
Brockadia
16-09-2005, 14:16
Suspension of disbelief is one thing. A universe in which nearly anything you can imagine is possible is rubbish. I read fantasy novels, and I enjoy them greatly, when they are written by a good author, and the world in which they are set is governed by certain laws. Suspension of disbelief is having the ability to put yourself in a mindset of having that different set of physical laws. What it is not is putting yourself in a mindset of having no physical laws whatsoever, which seems to be the case in many sci-fi shows - especially ones which are SUPPOSED to be based on our own universe. In Star Wars, for example, I have no problem with "The Force" existing, because it is there, and has been established as part of the laws of the Star Wars Universe, and wasn't abused by George Lucas. "The Force" had its limits, which he stuck to, and thus suspension of disbelief is possible. However, when you have ST:V where one episode Kess learns telekinesis, and the next Bellana goes to Stovokor, then the next Chakotay speaks with his dead granfather, and they are newly breaking physical laws which had been established in the Trek Universe, that's when I start to lose interest. It would be like reading The Lord of the Rings, and suddenly halfway through the series we find out Frodo can actually breathe fire and Gimli is immortal à la Highlander. A little bit of stretching of science is fine. Establishing physical laws which are different from those in our universe is fine, but making up random shit that contradicts everything previously learned every single episode is just ridiculous.
Kanabia
16-09-2005, 14:22
Red Dwarf is the greatest Sci Fi show ever made.

Indeed. :D
Cromotar
16-09-2005, 14:31
Sdaeriji has had the best comment here so far. This is fiction, people.

I for one enjoyed ST: Voyager a great deal. I didn't care so much about the made up science because I knew that they had no intention of being scientifically accurate. Almost no sci-fi is. I mean, how interesting would a space battle be if you couldn't hear anything?

Things I get annoyed at are shows and movies that pretend to follow real science but are so far off it's staggering. That's actually one of the primary reasons I disliked both Spiderman movies.
Kanabia
16-09-2005, 14:45
I for one enjoyed ST: Voyager a great deal. I didn't care so much about the made up science because I knew that they had no intention of being scientifically accurate. Almost no sci-fi is. I mean, how interesting would a space battle be if you couldn't hear anything?

Sci-fi doesn't have to be space battle oriented- I for one thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was brilliant. I think the lack of noise in space really added to the atmosphere.

(Though that movie is a love/hate thing, really)
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 14:46
Sci-fi doesn't have to be space battle oriented- I for one thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was brilliant. I think the lack of noise in space really added to the atmosphere.

(Though that movie is a love/hate thing, really)
love here :)
Grampus
16-09-2005, 14:48
ok this is getting on my nerves.
first off...

second off...

Third off, where do these revisionist ne'er'do'wells get off writing TAS out of history once again?
Jester III
16-09-2005, 14:50
I liked Space: Above and beyond. Very realistic, down to earth (or space carrier ;)) and not delving into mystery.
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 14:51
I liked Space: Above and beyond. Very realistic, down to earth (or space carrier ;)) and not delving into mystery.
was that the one with the "chigs"? cos that was pretty damn good

kinda reminded me of predator meets Starship Troopers (a good sci-fi film imho)
Cromotar
16-09-2005, 14:51
Sci-fi doesn't have to be space battle oriented- I for one thought 2001: A Space Odyssey was brilliant. I think the lack of noise in space really added to the atmosphere.

I agree. But that's the only movie I can think of that actually utilized that. In just about every other movie/show in space, the laws of physics say that explosions in space are much louder because there's no air to get in the way.
Kanabia
16-09-2005, 14:57
I agree. But that's the only movie I can think of that actually utilized that. In just about every other movie/show in space, the laws of physics say that explosions in space are much louder because there's no air to get in the way.

Hmm...if they had a traditional space-opera where the silence was used effectively, it could be brilliant. Not likely in todays movie industry world of bigger explosions = bigger profit, though.
Utracia
16-09-2005, 15:01
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

If you want reality, stay away from the TV. Besides "Klingon prophesies and afterlife" is their religion. A ficticious one obviously, but their religion still. There are some much crazier faiths that us humans have managed to come up with back in the real world.
Pure Metal
16-09-2005, 15:02
I agree. But that's the only movie I can think of that actually utilized that.
i seem to remember The Forbidden Planet used it to good effect, though i'm not sure. i definatley remember their lasers didn't make shitty "pscheww!!" sounds :P
Amoebistan
16-09-2005, 15:08
Ringworld was good, as were the M/K War series. If someone could make them (novellas, novels, or simply the world) into an actually watchable movie, that would be great. They'd have to consult with the authors, of course, since most of them are still alive... Unlike the late Dr "I'm the best science writer in the world and second in SF only to Arthur Clarke" Asimov.

(Arrogant bastard.)

Or Cherry's Tales of Known Space. Or something. I mean, there's tons of great writing that just begs to be turned into visuals - Michael Whelan can claim some credit for inspiring people's visualisations of Known Space, it is true, and his paintings are gorgeous. (Hani - would you hit it?)

--------------------

Back to what I said before: the M/K conflict world begs to be created in, because all the stories roughly integrate to form a complete world. Any of you read the novella in which some Kzin aristocrat tries to recreate Christianity, tiger-style?
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 16:30
One of my favorite pet peeves (annoying things that never cease to amuse me anyway) in sci fi tv/movies is the asteroid fields. Billions of asteroids that keep crashing against each other and somehow still remain pretty much together instead of either a) coalescing, or b) dispersing.

Of course, only gets to me if I decide to be picky, and that depends on the movie.
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 16:33
Things I get annoyed at are shows and movies that pretend to follow real science but are so far off it's staggering. That's actually one of the primary reasons I disliked both Spiderman movies.
But Spiderman and all the other superhero comics/movies are modern fantasies. As far as I know they've never intended or pretended to be sci-fi; they simply replace magic with science to make it more accessible to the modern reader.
Iztatepopotla
16-09-2005, 16:38
But then there's also the fact that 'real' science itself is a load of crap. Did you know that there are 5 completely different theories of aeronautics? All 5 work but none of them agree with each other.
I assume you mean theory of flight. If they all work then they all agree with each other. They simply arrive at the same result using different means. Depending on your problem at hand you use one or the other.

It's like 3+3=6, but 2+4=6, and 2x3=6.
JuNii
16-09-2005, 19:00
You want real science in tv, stick to PBS, Discovery Channel, and The Learning Channel.

SCI FI is fiction. Flights of Fantasy. As Arthur C Clarke once said, "Any Tech that is Advanced enough will be seen as Magic."

Also of note, they (Star Trek) did have researchers to plot the most plausable and possible science for the show. I remember one interview with Kate Mulgrew said that her scripts first come to her with the Phrase "(insert science term here)" and as filming goes, they get notes as what gets inserted there from the research people.

Giant robots powered by people moving inside of them do not qualify as 'hard sci-fi'.
Powered? controlled yes, but not Powered...

and you do realize that they do have robots that will mimic a human (up to a point) when the human wears a special Sensor suit right?


oh, and Star Treck:TOS started the Vulcan Mind Meld, Time Travel, Dimensional crossings and made more "Scientific Mistakes" than Voyager.

and if you really want Science fantasy... remember LEXX?
Wesleiesm
16-09-2005, 19:07
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

Science fiction, does that mean anything to you?! It is supposed to be impossibleor supernatural, otherwise it would be science fact, and that would be boring.
Wesleiesm
16-09-2005, 19:10
And paranormal, pseudoscience crap? Star Trek Voyager was the worst for this, I think. Vulcan mind melds, Telekinesis, Klingon prophecies, Klingon afterlife, Dream worlds, it just goes on and on. Why can't these shows just stick to the science, and do their research to make sure they get their science right?

Science fiction, does that mean anything to you?! It is supposed to be impossibleor supernatural, otherwise it would be science fact, and that would be boring.
Cpt_Cody
16-09-2005, 19:42
Powered? controlled yes, but not Powered...

and you do realize that they do have robots that will mimic a human (up to a point) when the human wears a special Sensor suit right?
It still requires a giant leap of fate and an overflowing suspension of disbelief to believe that a giant armored man is in any way, shape or form superior to a fighter or tank using the same technology.

As to why Voyager sucked....

1)Technobable: TNG was pretty bad here, and quite a few in DS9, but VOY took it to whole new heights. If there was a problem on the ship, 9/10 times it will be sovled by re-routing the quantum energy flow through the flux capacitor, and the deflector dish was sure to be involved at some point. And if it wasn't the ship they were screwing around with, it was with the laws of physics. Warp 10 turns you into a lizard? There's a crack in the event horizon of the black hole? Nothing's too rediculas for Voyager.

2)Reset Button: No matter what happened to Voyager the previous episode, the ship was in tip-top shape by this week's adventure. By the time the vessel got back to Earth, you would have expected for there to be some differences in how she looked: some alien tech strapped to her, spots in her hull where the crew was forced to patch up their battle wounds, hell even a coat of paint. Instead, you'd never guess she just went from one end of the galaxy to another.

3)Cardboard Characters: None of the characters were interesting, no flaws or failings, just a bunch of 2D characters. All except Janeway, who apparently was suffering from split-personality: one episode she'll uphold the Prime Directive as the Word of God, next she'll trample all over it

4)Maquis? Who are they?: Supposedly these guys were suppose to cause a great deal of trouble for the other Starfleet personnel. But, lo and behold, once they put on that uniform, you couldn't tell the difference between the two, they never caused any difficulties for the people they saw as betraying them to the Carddies, and the only time you could actually tell they were there was if Chakotay remarked about it.

5)Unlimited Ammo. At the beginning of the series there was a big deal made about how the ship only had 40 torpedos and a half-dozen shuttles. By the end they'd have gone through nearly a 100 torpedos, and crashed almost twice as many shuttles as they started out with. Some people actually like it when the story stays consistent.

Those are just several of many, but I don't have the time to go through all thousand :D
JuNii
16-09-2005, 20:14
It still requires a giant leap of fate and an overflowing suspension of disbelief to believe that a giant armored man is in any way, shape or form superior to a fighter or tank using the same technology.Superior? maybe not, but more versitile... can lift objects readily, performe rescues that would normally take time and multiple vehicles... Easier weapon switch out... but it is more expensive and (in most Mobile Suit Cases) you are piloting a walking nuclear bomb.

As to why Voyager sucked....

1)Technobable: TNG was pretty bad here, and quite a few in DS9, but VOY took it to whole new heights. If there was a problem on the ship, 9/10 times it will be sovled by re-routing the quantum energy flow through the flux capacitor, and the deflector dish was sure to be involved at some point. And if it wasn't the ship they were screwing around with, it was with the laws of physics. Warp 10 turns you into a lizard? There's a crack in the event horizon of the black hole? Nothing's too rediculas for Voyager.

2)Reset Button: No matter what happened to Voyager the previous episode, the ship was in tip-top shape by this week's adventure. By the time the vessel got back to Earth, you would have expected for there to be some differences in how she looked: some alien tech strapped to her, spots in her hull where the crew was forced to patch up their battle wounds, hell even a coat of paint. Instead, you'd never guess she just went from one end of the galaxy to another.

3)Cardboard Characters: None of the characters were interesting, no flaws or failings, just a bunch of 2D characters. All except Janeway, who apparently was suffering from split-personality: one episode she'll uphold the Prime Directive as the Word of God, next she'll trample all over it

4)Maquis? Who are they?: Supposedly these guys were suppose to cause a great deal of trouble for the other Starfleet personnel. But, lo and behold, once they put on that uniform, you couldn't tell the difference between the two, they never caused any difficulties for the people they saw as betraying them to the Carddies, and the only time you could actually tell they were there was if Chakotay remarked about it.

5)Unlimited Ammo. At the beginning of the series there was a big deal made about how the ship only had 40 torpedos and a half-dozen shuttles. By the end they'd have gone through nearly a 100 torpedos, and crashed almost twice as many shuttles as they started out with. Some people actually like it when the story stays consistent.

Those are just several of many, but I don't have the time to go through all thousand :DMost of those I blame on the writers. Voyager had so much potential and they dropped the ball. It would've been interesting to see them out of Torpedoes, or even intergrating some aliens into their crew. heck, They could've destoryed their ship and obtained a totally different and alien ship... So much posibilities but so little touched upon... :( Never did like the 'Replicators' that started appearing in TNG...

oh and the Maquis? the first season had several attempts of the Maquis trying to... Mutany, but after a while tensions between the crew leveled out.
HowTheDeadLive
16-09-2005, 20:37
[QUOTE=JuNii]SCI FI is fiction. Flights of Fantasy. As Asminov once said, "Any Tech that is Advanced enough will be seen as Magic."[QUOTE]

Arthur C Clarke, actually. And the quote was "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic".
JuNii
16-09-2005, 20:42
SCI FI is fiction. Flights of Fantasy. As Asminov once said, "Any Tech that is Advanced enough will be seen as Magic."

Arthur C Clarke, actually. And the quote was "any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic".
Gahhh!, I keep getting the two mixed up...


thanks for the correction.
Cpt_Cody
16-09-2005, 21:33
Superior? maybe not, but more versitile...
On of many main weakness. Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. A tank can mount a heavier main gun then a mecha could and not worry about tipping over, a fighter can fly faster then an un-aerodynamic mecha could, ect.
can lift objects readily,
A crane can lift objects much quicker and heavier then a humanoid robot could, you don't see those attached to modern-day MBTs

performe rescues that would normally take time and multiple vehicles...
What can a Gundam do that a helicopter/hovercraft/ect. S&R team can't?

Easier weapon switch out...
Aircraft can already do that, and don't have to worry about not having enough hands to carry their weapons :D

Just admit it, even FTL is more realistic then mecha becoming viable on the battlefield. :D

oh and the Maquis? the first season had several attempts of the Maquis trying to... Mutany, but after a while tensions between the crew leveled out.
Name an episode where the Maquis actually cause a problem on Voyager rather then just mumble some stuff and go about being background extras. The fact that there wasn't an ongoing conflict between these completely opposite groups longer then the first season is damning enough.
JuNii
16-09-2005, 22:10
*Puts on Anime Otaku Hat*
On of many main weakness. Jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none. A tank can mount a heavier main gun then a mecha could and not worry about tipping over, a fighter can fly faster then an un-aerodynamic mecha could, ect.never seen a Mobile Suite tip over due to a heavy weapon being mounted. GunTanks did exsist (Track Mouted Mobile Suites) as a jack of all trades they could be deployed in varous missions without severe overhauling. their standard weapons included
1) Beam Rifle
2) Beam Sabre x2
3) Rocket Launcher (4 rocket pack)
4) Heavy Cannon
5) 2 vulcan cannons (head)
6) ammo reloads.


A crane can lift objects much quicker and heavier then a humanoid robot could, you don't see those attached to modern-day MBTsok, so 2 patrols, patrol 1 = consisting of 3 mobile suites 1 command vehicle, Patrol 2 is your standard armor unit. they come across a large bolder that blocks the path. Mobile suits can remove the obsticals without using explosives nor wating for a crane to arrive. in areas where search and rescue is also needed, while they will need to still wait for a crane, an MS suite there can 'act' like a crane for lifting of objects.

What can a Gundam do that a helicopter/hovercraft/ect. S&R team can't?didn't say the Gundam will Replace. just said the Mobile suites are more versitle.

Aircraft can already do that, and don't have to worry about not having enough hands to carry their weapons :D
really, so when a fighter craft is out of missiles and ammo, they can, (while in flight) pick up more weapons? wow... all the AF jocks I know never mentioned that.

while an MS can pick up a tree (or even a severed 'arm') and 'Club' someone with it, or can pick up another MS weapon and fire that.


Just admit it, even FTL is more realistic then mecha becoming viable on the battlefield. :Dwell, I am talking about SCIENCE FICTION here.

*takes off Anime Otaku Hat*

Now, I am in agreement that Mecha is useless in the battlefield. any mecha jock (pen/paper or pc) will tell you that the weak point of the lumbering mechs are the legs, they tend to be weaker and once removed, the mech is helpless.

Wiz Kids game, Mechwarrior, highlights the other weakness Mechs have. Low armor/High Cost. Tanks tend to have greater armor as well as Less cost to build and maintain. but as long as it's all fantasy and fun, then why not enjoy the mech.

Name an episode where the Maquis actually cause a problem on Voyager rather then just mumble some stuff and go about being background extras. The fact that there wasn't an ongoing conflict between these completely opposite groups longer then the first season is damning enough.considering the fact that the majority of the Marquis were FORMER STARFLEET PERSONNEL, any true trekkie (of which I am not) will point out it can be due to training, when faced with a common problem, putting aside petty arguments and working to solve that problem takes priority. even Chakotay fell right back into the Starfleet Routine when he realized that they do need to work together.

of course, if the writers were thinking, they could've used the strife between the two as a major storyline as well.
Cpt_Cody
17-09-2005, 06:31
*Puts on Anime Otaku Hat*
*Puts on Tanker Helmet*

never seen a Mobile Suite tip over due to a heavy weapon being mounted.
That just means that their weapons are all low-velocity, or use some sort of Treknobable that would send Trek's head spinning.

ok, so 2 patrols, patrol 1 = consisting of 3 mobile suites 1 command vehicle, Patrol 2 is your standard armor unit. they come across a large bolder that blocks the path. Mobile suits can remove the obsticals without using explosives nor wating for a crane to arrive.
But explosives aren't as expensive as it would take to actually develop a working Gundam and accomplish basically the same job.

in areas where search and rescue is also needed, while they will need to still wait for a crane, an MS suite there can 'act' like a crane for lifting of objects.
If S&R is going to involve having to move heavy objects (a collapsed building, for example) I wouldn't trust something as unstable as a mecha to be lifting too much.

didn't say the Gundam will Replace. just said the Mobile suites are more versitle.
But the statement was that they could perform S&R that would require multiple vehicles. Some form of hovercraft like a helicopter would be far more cost-effective for the job and not force us to attempt


really, so when a fighter craft is out of missiles and ammo, they can, (while in flight) pick up more weapons? wow... all the AF jocks I know never mentioned that.
An aircraft can switch out its weapons load for the mission it needs to accomplish, and with its external/internal hardpoints can mount more weapons.

while an MS can pick up a tree (or even a severed 'arm') and 'Club' someone with it, or can pick up another MS weapon and fire that.
At that point you might as well throw your arms up and surrender.


*takes off Anime Otaku Hat*

Now, I am in agreement that Mecha is useless in the battlefield. any mecha jock (pen/paper or pc) will tell you that the weak point of the lumbering mechs are the legs, they tend to be weaker and once removed, the mech is helpless.

Wiz Kids game, Mechwarrior, highlights the other weakness Mechs have. Low armor/High Cost. Tanks tend to have greater armor as well as Less cost to build and maintain. but as long as it's all fantasy and fun, then why not enjoy the mech.
Oh good, you're not a mecha-fanatic :D But it was fun shooting down your arguments, ya know ;)

considering the fact that the majority of the Marquis were FORMER STARFLEET PERSONNEL, any true trekkie (of which I am not) will point out it can be due to training, when faced with a common problem, putting aside petty arguments and working to solve that problem takes priority. even Chakotay fell right back into the Starfleet Routine when he realized that they do need to work together.
But still, these are people who saw the UFP as stabbing them in the back; they didn't so much as put up much of a resistance once the uniform was on

of course, if the writers were thinking, they could've used the strife between the two as a major storyline as well.
Of course, that would rely on the writers having common sense, and from recent experiences in Trek we all know how much they have of that... :)
Chykka
17-09-2005, 06:39
I'm all for absurd premises in Sci-Fi if it's done right. Farscape was masterful at it, while Babylon 5 almost completely avoided it (I know, I know, they had Jack the Ripper and King Arthur, but they made it believable). Both shows would be really hard to beat in terms of writing and overall awesomeness.

Now you get giant crocodiles and an encounter with Poseidon on SeaQuest, or make spring come out of a hole on Earth 2, then we have a problem.

(Although Earth 2 is probably one of my favorite shows ever.)
JuNii
17-09-2005, 17:39
*Puts on Tanker Helmet*kewl hat.


That just means that their weapons are all low-velocity, or use some sort of Treknobable that would send Trek's head spinning.most of their weapons are energy baised. tho they do have 'Slug throwers' won't argue velocity tho.

But explosives aren't as expensive as it would take to actually develop a working Gundam and accomplish basically the same job.Hmmm.... you'd use exploseives to remove a side of a building to rescue people trapped undernieth? wanna see a tank perform Flood victim rescues... and find a vehicle that can operate in both space/air/ground/and water. (granted the efficiency goes down in certain envrionments but it's still operational.)


If S&R is going to involve having to move heavy objects (a collapsed building, for example) I wouldn't trust something as unstable as a mecha to be lifting too much.granted, but we're talking Sci Fi here. so [by the powers of the writers] they won't be unstable. (unless the story calls for it) then again, a Mecha that can lift objects will already be there, thus again, no waiting for specialized units. i.e. cranes


But the statement was that they could perform S&R that would require multiple vehicles. Some form of hovercraft like a helicopter would be far more cost-effective for the job and not force us to attemptexcept you still have to wait. that time period can be the difference between life and death.



An aircraft can switch out its weapons load for the mission it needs to accomplish, and with its external/internal hardpoints can mount more weapons.not in the Air it can't not while the mission is already underway. they have to fly back to base, then get the reloads and weapon change outs....


At that point you might as well throw your arms up and surrender.or fight to the last. That's up to the pilot. going to hand to hand is something you really can't do in a tank....

great, the Idea of having a demolition Derby... Military Edition just popped into my head. :headbang:

Oh good, you're not a mecha-fanatic :D But it was fun shooting down your arguments, ya know ;)yea it's fun. I know some real Mech-heads that can actually give you stats, carrying capacity, armaments as well as all the differences between each type of Gundam. :D


But still, these are people who saw the UFP as stabbing them in the back; they didn't so much as put up much of a resistance once the uniform was onthe fun thing about the Gundam Universe is that there is no "Bad" side. The Colonies saw the UFP as being oppressive, and the UFP saw the colonies as Terrorists. that's why each series could be from the point of view from either Earth or Colony.


Of course, that would rely on the writers having common sense, and from recent experiences in Trek we all know how much they have of that... :) :( gotta admit tho, some of the Original stuff was good. Like "The Empath" "Balance of Terror" and several others that had a good storyline.

The big mistake of Voyager was that they got in contact with the Federation. I remember episodes of TOS where Kirk had to take responsibility for his actions because he couldn't readily call on STARFLEET and obtain permission. That made the Captains of the ships really the Masters of their Ships. Voyager had a chance to be the Darker/more adventurous of the Next Gen crews. but yeah, they blew it big time.
Cpt_Cody
17-09-2005, 17:52
Hmmm.... you'd use exploseives to remove a side of a building to rescue people trapped undernieth? wanna see a tank perform Flood victim rescues... and find a vehicle that can operate in both space/air/ground/and water. (granted the efficiency goes down in certain envrionments but it's still operational.)
Of course not, if it's S&R I'd prefer that people dig through the rubble as gently as possible to prevent a cave-in.

granted, but we're talking Sci Fi here. so [by the powers of the writers] they won't be unstable. (unless the story calls for it) then again, a Mecha that can lift objects will already be there, thus again, no waiting for specialized units. i.e. cranes
Alright, assuming it can lift heavy objects, but unless you're going to station mecha at every street corner in case a building collapses, it's going to take them just as much time to get to the accident site as another unit, and a helicopter or hovercraft isn't going to cost as much or be as complex as a mecha.

except you still have to wait. that time period can be the difference between life and death.
Wait for what? For the helicopter to show up? The mecha still has the same time constraints unless you wanna give everyone their own mecha :D

not in the Air it can't not while the mission is already underway. they have to fly back to base, then get the reloads and weapon change outs....
But of course the mecha is going to cost a lot more and be far more complex then a fighter craft for such a small advantage. For a mecha that can switch between dropping bombs and an AA missile, I could afford several bombers and enough fighters to protect them.

or fight to the last. That's up to the pilot. going to hand to hand is something you really can't do in a tank....
Going hand-to-hand is something you should avoid period. Range and killing power has made melee on the battlefield all but obsolete, and a giant 50ft Mecha swinging around a flamming sword is going to have twenty AT missiles spaming its ass before it gets within swinging range.

Indeed, TOS was teh shit, too bad Paramount has screwed over the Trek universe with Voyager and Enterprised :headbang:
Skid Dokken
17-09-2005, 17:55
if you want scifi grounded in reality, in cold hard science, go read some Michael Crichton.


its not space battles or anything, but nobody ever said scifi had to be futuristic... in fact, original scifi WASNT futuristic.
JuNii
17-09-2005, 18:03
Alright, assuming it can lift heavy objects, but unless you're going to station mecha at every street corner in case a building collapses, it's going to take them just as much time to get to the accident site as another unit, and a helicopter or hovercraft isn't going to cost as much or be as complex as a mecha.but the point is, a mecha on patrol that comes across this situation can respond right there.

BTW, not arguing cost, for I already admitted that Mechas cost too much.


Wait for what? For the helicopter to show up? The mecha still has the same time constraints unless you wanna give everyone their own mecha :Dthe who premise of the argument is that the mecha on patrol or sent out from the start is versitle enough to adapt to many situations without needing to be sent back for modifications.


Going hand-to-hand is something you should avoid period. Range and killing power has made melee on the battlefield all but obsolete, and a giant 50ft Mecha swinging around a flamming sword is going to have twenty AT missiles spaming its ass before it gets within swinging range.a 50ft Mecha does have the armor (sheild in Gundam's universe) and if, IF the pilot was smart, the AT missile launchers would've been taken out before hand. and who's to say that a tank would fare much better than a Mecha against 20 AT misslies...

Indeed, TOS was teh shit, too bad Paramount has screwed over the Trek universe with Voyager and Enterprised :headbang:I was always of the Opinion that Andromeda (also created by Gene Roddenberry) should've been adapted for Star Trek... the Federation Collaspes and each race becomes their own Government, and you have the Enterprise Omega being recovered... yada, yada, yada.

Going back to the start to make up for the "Tech" mistakes was just bad. and they made more in the process. I mean three days to get from Earth to the Kingon home world at Warp 3?!? and the fact that they totally removed the more Human looking Klingons, invalidating Worfs "we don't talk about them" mentality he showed in "Trials and Tribbulations"
Cpt_Cody
17-09-2005, 18:08
Meh, ignoring physics and all that, the Mecha does have versatility, but that doesn't make it any better then a dedicated craft of course ;) :D

a 50ft Mecha does have the armor (sheild in Gundam's universe) and if, IF the pilot was smart, the AT missile launchers would've been taken out before hand. and who's to say that a tank would fare much better than a Mecha against 20 AT misslies...
Well for one the Mecha is going to get spotted much sooner then a 3 meter tank, esp. if the tank has dug itself in. Second the tank is going to have much heavier armor because it has a much smaller surface area to cover then the mecha. Third, most AT missiles have multi-kilometer ranges while most mecha tend to engage at hundreds of meters at best (ex. in Battletech a long-range missile has a range of only 1.5km; your modern MBT could outrange it with its cannon alone)

I was always of the Opinion that Andromeda (also created by Gene Roddenberry) should've been adapted for Star Trek... the Federation Collaspes and each race becomes their own Government, and you have the Enterprise Omega being recovered... yada, yada, yada.
Had they had good writers for it, that would have actually been a good series...
Earth Government
17-09-2005, 18:25
You want real science in tv, stick to PBS, Discovery Channel, and The Learning Channel.

SCI FI is fiction. Flights of Fantasy. As Arthur C Clarke once said, "Any Tech that is Advanced enough will be seen as Magic."

Also of note, they (Star Trek) did have researchers to plot the most plausable and possible science for the show. I remember one interview with Kate Mulgrew said that her scripts first come to her with the Phrase "(insert science term here)" and as filming goes, they get notes as what gets inserted there from the research people.

...

You can't be serious.

I mean, honestly, "cracks in the event horizon"? Star Trek is notorious for fucking science in the ass like an virgin school girl under assault from a big escaped prisoner.

I have absolutely zero problems with sci-fi that has fantastic technology and magical flights of fantasy, but I do have a problem with sci-fi that tries to pass its fantastic technology off as real science and spends more time mis-using scientific terms than it does doing things important to a story -- like character development.
JuNii
17-09-2005, 18:32
Meh, ignoring physics and all that, the Mecha does have versatility, but that doesn't make it any better then a dedicated craft of course ;) :Dof course. which is why I never said that Mecha would replace anything.

Well for one the Mecha is going to get spotted much sooner then a 3 meter tank, esp. if the tank has dug itself in. Second the tank is going to have much heavier armor because it has a much smaller surface area to cover then the mecha. Third, most AT missiles have multi-kilometer ranges while most mecha tend to engage at hundreds of meters at best (ex. in Battletech a long-range missile has a range of only 1.5km; your modern MBT could outrange it with its cannon alone)unless you're talking Artillery, there are mecha armed with the Arrow missle system in Battle tech.

then again, I found that 4 LRM 5's will on average hit with more missiles than 1 LRM 20. Takes up a liitle more space and Kicks up a little more heat. so I rebuilt the Archer with 11 LRM 5's and it kicked butt. of course it had no short range weapons, but very few mecha got that close.


But since We're off the thread now... I'll be signing off and seeing you on the other threads.
JuNii
17-09-2005, 18:34
...

You can't be serious.

I mean, honestly, "cracks in the event horizon"? Star Trek is notorious for fucking science in the ass like an virgin school girl under assault from a big escaped prisoner.

I have absolutely zero problems with sci-fi that has fantastic technology and magical flights of fantasy, but I do have a problem with sci-fi that tries to pass its fantastic technology off as real science and spends more time mis-using scientific terms than it does doing things important to a story -- like character development.when talking about something as ever changing as science, you gotta allow for some mistakes. Like Andromeda being habitable. That's where Cochrane was suppose to be from, not from Earth. It was originally his warp flight from Andromeda to Earth that attracted the FIRST FEDERATION. not the Vulcans.
Earth Government
17-09-2005, 21:49
when talking about something as ever changing as science, you gotta allow for some mistakes. Like Andromeda being habitable. That's where Cochrane was suppose to be from, not from Earth. It was originally his warp flight from Andromeda to Earth that attracted the FIRST FEDERATION. not the Vulcans.

But cracks in the event horizon of a black hole?

Star Trek doesn't nor has it ever given two wits about actual science, just using just using big five dollar scientific words.