Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
A challenge: Defend SD.net!
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bernd: [QB] I am the last person who would deny general flaws in fiction such as Star Trek and Star Wars. But as I already mentioned in the previous thread that is now locked through my fault, I think that Curtis Saxton takes the whole issue a step too far. Call it over-analysis or over-interpretation or looking too closely. At some point we have to admit that it's only fiction and that we can't apply all of the rules exactly how they are in our real world. Curtis Saxton and Mike Wong pretend that everything must be understood just the way we see it. But stepping through single frames of a tape is not a valid method, as we are not supposed to see it that way. In a wider sense, ignoring that things may have been exaggerated or otherwise altered for the sake of drama or are just errors in the scipt or are mispronounced or are due to lacking VFX is not a valid approach. Have a look at Wong's arguments. As much as he seems to understand the principles of physics, as much as he pretends to take into account a background, he fails to grasp the very sense of the fiction. He is obsessed with quoting bad technobabble of Star Trek and with proving that all kinds of devices like the transporter are crap as depicted, but even if his analysis were fair or were true (which it isn't) would he make a point with that? Would the flaws of some concepts or even single statements in any way devalue Star Trek as science fiction? Of course, Star Wars is free of such flaws in his view, and even turbolasers, "1.5 over light" or the reactor that works "like a little sun" find a perfect explanation. Fine. I don't complain about that. If I were an SW fan, it would be content with that, knowing that it's only a show, made by people who sometimes make errors. But Wong makes it a dogma that Star Wars is free of errors (or at least, that errors may be explained), whereas Star Trek is all crap because some details are flawed. That's what I call, besides the ideological one-sidedness, a total failure to understand (science) fiction. Still, I know that his mis-assessment of fiction is intentional after reading a bit of his own novel which, surprisingly and paradoxically, is more balanced than the alleged scientifically correct parts of the site. Of course, he says he is doing Star Trek a favor by displaying it in a better light than it is. Must I be grateful now? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3