posted
Something I notice is that this thread, despite all of my attempts, never gets to the point. What do you all think about it (about Wong, rather than me - although comments on the question are welcome too)? What would you write into Wong's guestbook?
quote:J/k, but about the criticism of Wong's and Saxton's chosen approach to ST/SW physics, isn't it just that you felt slightly worried that the letter-faithful crowd would outgrow our more generally-seeing crowd, not that we'd ever get to see an exact estimate of the real size of them two "crowds"?
Uhm, "exact estimate"?
I was yot asking anyone to defend himself, (and it's nothing to be ashamed of going there). I just wanted to hear opinions, or do you have none?
quote:For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand. The only reason for such a convoluted explanation were a few instances where the VFX people accidentally made things explode before the blaster shot arrived.
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?) 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations. 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.
Keep in mind that I am someone who received lots of angry e-mails from casual fans because I did not like the Akiraprise and the too early battlecruiser. But somewhere I must draw a line between what I care about and what not.
quote:Same here -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on...
I don't know where and how this argument is going to fit in. Are we talking about the fiction or the real world?
quote:All I'm saying is that if we stop being like Star Trek writers and look at what's actually onscreen, we can make the show more serious, just the way it was in the beginning.
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...
And yes, I know that I am taking this too far in the views of most people. But to me it matters more than political views, for instance, as I am primarily here to discuss about science fiction and not politics.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Just another attempt to provoke any response. If none of you is bothered by the style, the methods or the findings as presented on Wong's site, would anyone of you like to be in his incredibly extensive "hate mail" section? I mean, it's probably unprecedented that someone exposes critical comments (I assume without asking the people in question) in a dedicated section, and adds his two cents to any one of them, thus always having the victory on his side. And, to give his mischievous joy an additional boost, post it at his message board for all his minions to have a laugh about it. I admit that most "trekkie" arguments presented there are poor (a matter of selection from Wong's part for reasons we should be aware of), but should that be allowed?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
[Shatnerspeak]: "You've turned something I did as a lark for a few years into a colossal waste of time!!!"
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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?)
Someone used to looking at such weird phenomena in real life?
quote: 2. making up unnecessarily complicated explanations.
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.
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...
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.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: More examples -- we've seen the Empire destroy an inhabited planet, but the rebels did kill a great number of people on the Death Stars likewise, and we're talking about a lot of their former fellow citizens. How many Ewoks have been killed after the latter blew up over Endor, poisoning the atmosphere?
I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
Personally, I'd have just gone with "Hnnng!"
And as much as I dislike SW vs ST debates, I am going to guiltilly admit that I agree with Bernd here. I tend to dislike any site with a "hate mail" section, since they are almost always there to say "Look at the morons and how I am better than them! Laugh!"
quote: For instance, it is now official that the visible parts of blaster beams are not what does the actual damage, but rather an invisible beam travelling at c that arrives at the target beforehand.
Well, thank god for that. I was losing sleep panicing over, when I went frame by frame through the movies, some things exploded before the beam got to them. Now though, I can finally rest.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
I might as well pitch in with my own two cents...
I've generally avoided SD.net after learning about what it and its members basically stood for, but I did read some of their stuff out of morbid curiosity. I try to remember that everyone's entitled to an opinion, but frankly their rabid insistence that "Trek sux, Wars rulez" offends me.
First off, these are two separate works of fiction, which were never intended to coexist in the same universe. (The settings, not the shows themselves.) There is absolutely no point in coming up with arguments about whether a Star Destroyer can blow the shit out of the Enterprise. It's worse than useless knowledge; it completely destroys the fact that these are stories that are supposed to be enjoyed.
Furthermore, the attitudes and the length to which these guys go to "prove" their assertions -- not to mention the methods they use -- are quite disturbing. Anyone who tries to argue on their terms (that is, Trek is technologically more powerful than Wars) is immediately attacked as a whining fanboy with zero intelligence and an inability to see the "obvious."
Now, on the flip side, I will admit to generally enjoying two works of fan fiction that are published over there where the Federation gets its ass kicked. I enjoy the story not for the thrill of seeing the Empire beat up a supposedly inferior Federation, but for the interactions between characters that would never "really" meet. IDIC -- Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
To return to my argument about the attitudes that are prevalent over there, I'm going to present a perfect example: an excerpt from one of the pieces of fanfic that I mentioned above.
quote:Scene: Battle in Earth orbit.
The heavy turbolasers lanced out and the mighty emerald beams slashed through the starbase like scythes, tearing it into pieces, punching through the armored hull like paper. Explosions, hot plasma and debris tore through the deep gashes in the starbase. The weapons fire faltered and suddenly died as a massive explosion tore through the heart of the base, the great spinning top portion suddenly came loose, spinning away into the darkness trailing molten metal and hot gasses. The lower portion exploded like a roman candle, the very lowest stabilizing rod rocketed downward, driven by the force of the violent matter/antimatter reaction like nail into Earth�s atmosphere. The massive chunk of debris trailed through the atmosphere like a flaming arrow and descended into the clouds.
~~~~~ scenes cut ~~~~~
“Scooter, what do you see?”
Robert Scott Anderson, Scooter to his buddies, was staring out the window of his apartment across the bay, watching the deadly confrontation with a joyful expression.
“You should see this Timmy, they’re letting the Empire cross their lines of defense so that they can spring the trap on them. Once Starfleet has them where they want them, they’ll bitch slap them back to where ever it is that they come from. I mean come on, who are they to think they can conquer the Federation with LASERS?!” he answered derisively. “How’s the space battle going?”
“Well, according to the latest reports, the fleet is getting hammered.” Timothy Jones chuckled. “You have to love Starfleet intelligence, this disinformation campaign is really working. By making the Empire think that they’re destroying our fleet it lulls them into a false sense of security.” Jones replied with a braying laugh as he munched on some Doritos and stared at the holovision.
“To think, that asshole Wong said we should evacuate before the battle started.”
“What an ass, and give up these primo seats for Starfleet’s impending victory?” Scooter replied haughtily. “Hey after this is over, maybe they’ll finally accept my application to the academy.” Scooter wondered aloud as he glanced back at his best friend.
“Why not, they’ve only rejected you twice before, you know what they say, three times the charm.” Jones replied holding up a can of Soda to toast his buddy.
A low whistling sound slowly grew in volume.
“What the hell is that?” Jones asked.
“Maybe it’s the Starfleet smack down about to go into effect.” Scooter replied with a gleam in his eyes and quickly glanced out the window again. The whistling was definitely getting louder and now the building was shaking.
“What the hell?!”
Scooter slowly looked up and his eyes bulged as he saw the great fireball descending down on them. He turned to his friend, tears in his eyes.
“Timmy?”
“What?”
“Hold me.” Scooter begged.
The stabilizing rod from Starbase One plunged right through the tenement house and impacted into the earth in a multi megaton blast of fire and smoke. The blast leveled most of down town San Francisco.
The problem isn't necessarily that Mr. Wong is a fascist jerk himself -- as a purely theoretical exercise, I could perfectly understand the analysis of Star Wars technology and comparing the THEORIES to those same THEORIES from Star Trek. However, his entire site has gone much, much farther than that. Indeed, the passage quoted above was written explicitly for the purpose of making fun of pro-Trek visitors to that message board -- and the author himself admits this on the next page.
And on top of that, Mr. Wong seems to go out of his way to ensure that HIS views are hailed as the unassailable truth of science fiction -- and (perhaps illegally, certainly immorally) posts private e-mail discussions that are nothing more than flame wars as "proof" that Trek fans as a whole are fools for trying to support their show over Wars.
I can sum it up in just one phrase: "Can't we all just get along?"
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Finally some reactions on the intended topic of this thread.
Even if you all don't get the impression, I think that everyone should be allowed to enjoy any fiction the way he likes it. I can accept if Boris projects science fiction into the realm of the real world, while I myself strive to keep much of the illusion for myself. I don't think we really have a problem here. I can even live with those rabid fan boys and their stupid cross-over fiction, as it is easy to ignore them. They don't hurt anyone.
But Mike Wong does. He is twisting arbitrary scientific facts until they fit, and being a scientist myself, I will never accept that. I could live with his silly claims if it were all written from a naive fanboyish viewpoint, but the frequent insistence on "scientific" principles makes me mad. There is no excuse such as this all being a "scientific exercise". So it's fun to him to determine the amount of energy necessary to blast away the planet Alderaan as an exercise. What does it prove concerning the credibility or capability of the DS? Absolutely nothing. Moreover, if we observe the site, such excursions to science *without any additional arbitrary or custom-tailored border conditions* are rare among all the unproven assertions and propaganda.
As for the profoundness, any first-semester student should be able to do all the observations and calculations on Wong's site. That's a part of the scientific work, but not the decisive one. When Wong fails to see or does not want to see the function principle on the whole, he fails as a scientist. Actually, all his findings are "reverse deductions" (that's a word I just made up because I don't recall the exact term), meaning that he selectively produces input that suits his predefined conclusion.
I would enjoy this twisted science if it were a parody. But it is the original, and it is meant seriously.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:I'm going to have to quote the good Captain known as Michael here:
"science has conclusively proven what happens when an object of indeterminate size blows up with an indeterminate and unknown type of energy at an unknown distance from a moon of indeterminate size, and has an effect on a certain area which may or may not be completely populated and may or may not have been in orbit of something else and could quite possibly have been facing it, or not"
*lol* Exactly my point.
And thinking of the Endor issue again, what were you trying to say with that, Boris? That we should take into account (side) effects that the writers and VFX people may have neglected? Agreed. That's what I'm always doing as well, up to some extent.
But what gives it a bad taste is that, to some degree also on Curtis Saxton's unbiased(?) site, it is not used as an example that plots and VFX may be flawed, but converted into a fictional argument. It is used to re-interpret, even pervert the very meaning of the story along the lines "The rebels are just as evil as the Empire or even worse, when they kill millions of innocent people." It is quite obvious that certain SW Empire fan circles use every plothole, every ill-considered effect to prove that their (sick) personal view of the story on the whole is true. That doesn't even need to include Star Trek.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Isn't it sick that how Roddenberry destroyed the capitalism of TOS, the use of money, the conflicts between characters? He didn't care much about staying consistent with the show, a product by him and many different writers and producers (Gene Coon had pretty much taken over later on), and made it into what only he thought it should be in his old days. And whereas Saxton is trying to stay consistent with what was seen onscreen, Roddenberry wasn't even trying to show how TOS turned into TNG.
People do this all the time. There've been numerous cases where people took stupid stories that were never meant to be analyzed closely and made them into more interesting ones. Look at the comic "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" or the first two Batman movies and compare those to the Batman TV show or some of the 40s-60s comics. The DKR and the movies went wholly into the psychology of Bruce Wayne (why does such a rich, normal guy have the obsession of wearing a bat-cape at night and fighting crime?) As a result, DKR is an interesting story in its own right.
The movie "Mission: Impossible" broke the formula of the old show and chose to reveal the characters behind the mission, thus also creating an interesting story. One could argue that one could've made interesting stories in the old format likewise, but that's a creative choice, a kind of risk that Babylon 5 is taking all the time. JMS loves to set up seemingly simplistic stories and then turn everything upside down precisely by putting together the little background details that were never meant to be seen closely. And then if you go back and rewatch the original episodes, you can see the clues that led to the drastic shift.
Of course, most of these turns were planned out beforehand. But not all. DS9 did some of this with respect to the details of TNG, but not to such an extent.
I don't believe Saxton is trying to prove any sick views -- he's just looking at the show closely and drawing uncomfortable conclusions, although one could argue that he's interested in certain topics because of his profession, his political and other personal views, etc., but so is everyone. It's a way of creating derivative fiction, but it has been done before, even by Lucas. One might have said that "The Empire Strikes Back" was sick for perverting the original, comparably simplistic Star Wars movie by making Darth Vader Luke's father (this doesn't seem to have been planned). But it gave the entire story a whole another level.
BTW, I'm not saying that Saxton is imposing his views like Roddenberry -- what I'm saying is that imposing a new view or creating a story based on an overanalysis of old are two valid methods of creating new stories in a certain universe.
posted
Boris: No fiction remains invariant, especially not if it continued for years or even decades and/or by different people than the original staff. We may call that evolution if we like it, or "an insult to the fans" if we don't. That's not the point here.
On a side note, the movie MI was definitely an insult to the fans. Jim Phelps as a traitor? That's like Picard betraying the Federation. Not to mention the incredibly stupid scenes on the roof of the TGV... I didn't consider for a second to watch the second part.
The true problem is that fans are creating their personal universe and are using elements of the basic setting in an inappropriate fashion. "ST vs. SW", "The rebels are evil" or, to some lesser extent (since it can't be excluded) "Starfleet Tac Fleet and Starfleet Marines". As I said, everyone is welcome to create his personal extension of a fiction, but not to alter it and tell others with "scientific analysis" that they must accept that version.
I agree that Rodenberry, at latest since TNG, did everything to keep materialism and money out of his fiction. In no way does this mean that he wanted to pursue a 20th century version of communism. Those who claim something like that are completely lacking the imagination that is necessary to understand science fiction. Why do I have to wage a lonely battle here to defend the vision of Star Trek?
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
