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 Boris: [QB] BTW, before you posted, I'd edited out the politics argument as I'd changed my mind about it, so I'll pass on that one. [QUOTE] Let me say that this is a perfect example of 1. first overanalyzing something (who gives a damn on a beam that is too fast for the eye to track its tip?)[/QUOTE]Someone used to looking at such weird phenomena in real life? [QUOTE] 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations. [/QUOTE]Someone used to making up complicated explanations? [QUOTE] Why not accept special effects as a real-world effect that is not perfect only due to the shortcomings of the equipment? Could I ever become so desperate that I had to care about totally irrelevant things? Maybe there should be a few hundred hours more of Star Wars, so that the fans care about the fiction as such again and not about its tertiary side effects. It's *not* a role model for Star Trek. [/QUOTE]But even that fiction is subject to close analysis. The logic of not separating the Enterprise in a number of dangerous situations. The logic of exploding consoles. The logic of children aboard that are constantly running the danger of dying, even though they're not old enough to choose (in "The Making of Star Trek", we learn that birth-control is in place aboard the Enterprise instead). The children were added because of the ideology that the ship explores, and doesn't fight. But it does fight, and ships often explode because the drama requires it. Should we ignore all the episodes with such plots likewise? [QUOTE] Oh man, I'm beginning to love Braga and his simplistic view of what may be on screen and what not. I mean, that man has a pragmatic approach. His silly ideas and plot rehashing anger me, but what alarms me almost more if a fan who takes everything literally comes along, doesn't hear the word "Ferengi" in the whole episode, and is happy because there was no error. In my view that's almost self-delusion. Just like Wong making up twisted explanations for everything flawed in Star Wars. Ironically, that way the "over-analyzers" will be with the "don't care" faction in the end and leave "generalists" like me all alone. Maybe Nimpim is right... [/QUOTE]Maybe the crew is incompetent and didn't ask about the name? Maybe someone asked offscreen and the Ferengi didn't want to tell the name? Maybe they did learn the name, and all information about that first contact was lost? Maybe Starfleet decided to keep it a secret for some reason, just as they kept the Borg a secret? Considering how well they've managed to kept Archer and his Enterprise a secret, I wouldn't be surprised if his logs are off-limits. There are many possibilities, and if we're serious about them instead of labeling them as errors, the writers might well do an episode based on one of them. One may overanalyze something by saying, for instance, that the Defiant actually changes size, but even there we have strange things like "One Little Ship" which require close consideration. BTW, I'm not going to defend Mike Wong's site. I'm defending the "overanalyzing" method that he adopted from Saxton. Boris [/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