posted
Boris: But, when you only have eight hours to deal with, there's a good chance you won't have to refer to anything to stay consistent. When you're dealing w/ nine movies, a three-season TV show, and three seven-season TV shows, it's a lot easier to forget a particular detail and screw it up.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
a final unity got all of the tech stuff right. why can't a game with a much bigger budget do the same?
posted
TSN: the Star Wars consistency standard has been set very high with the analyses of Robert Brown, Curtis Saxton, Brian Young, Mike Wong and others. Saxton has a PhD in astrophysics and uses that knowledge to observe and describe the properties of planets in the Star Wars universe, set physical limits to Death Stars etc. Mike Wong also has a degree in Applied Sciences, IIRC. Robert Brown uses his experience as a Kendo swordsman to analyse Jedi fighting styles.
They are strict canonists, in the sense that official material is acceptable only after it has satisfied onscreen evidence and real physics/biology/astrophysics/deck-plan design. This is definitely more than is done with Star Trek -- while we do microanalyze things like kitbash ships, we still rely on the official sources to provide the basic chronology, for instance.
We also assume that the official ways of explaining warp drive and tractor beams with technobabble is the way to fill in the blanks, as opposed to researching real physics and finding far-fetched theories that could do the job. Of course, few of us are scientists that are able to do that -- but it still is possible for anyone to at least fix the chronology in a way that's more consistent with the canon.
Sure, we also have a lot more footage to analyse, and it takes longer to bring everything in line with canon. But more realism may help -- although we do research real warships and navies from time to time, we really need more of that. After all, how long do you think the producers would hold on to their official theories if a real physicst came to them, analyzed canon evidence in detail, and derived some kind of an explanation? I'm not sure that Andre Bormanis does this very well -- he needs to be a lot more observant and analytical about the show.
[ March 23, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Um...does he? Do we? I'm pretty sure what you've just described is to fun as drowning in the Arctic is to a refreshing cold drink.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I had a more detailed explanation here, but I think it's enough if I say that fun doesn't always equal excellence, and that excellence should be at least required from the people who are paid to do their jobs on Star Trek (starting with the executive producers who set the tone for the whole thing, and then the writers).
I also suppose that Michael Jordan or Gary Kasparov got far in their respective games (after all, what we're doing here is just a game) by simply relaxing and having fun.
[ March 24, 2002, 08:37: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
