Pro socilaist movies...

[SuburbanFarmer]

LMFAO

Star Trek is not science fiction, guy. If you showed up at a real SF con with that, they'd laugh at you before having you escorted from the building. You need to go to a comic book or star trek convention to pretend like you enjoy real SF.

Cool, man.

I mean, most Sci-Fi cons are Star Trek cons, but... cool.

[Speaker to Animals]

You just don't even know anything about science fiction is all.

Do little events like Hugo, Nebula, and Locus ring a bell?

[Speaker to Animals]

There's nothing wrong with your fantasy shows. I just think we need to call them what they are: fantasy. They are fantasy stories set in space.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Triggered.

Ok, fuckstain. Does science fiction relate only to near-future, grimy war-torn dystopic fiction?

How many social issues were tackled by Star Wars/BSG compared to Star Trek? They did some (admittedly shallow) philosophical issues on almost every episode. Abrams came along, dumbed it down to drooling fuckwit boom screen time, and you call it the pinnacle of the series?

Why not just admit that you're simply incapable of grasping what Star Trek is about in the first place? It was never about the damn ship, transporter beams, or any of that. It was about people, man... People. You could have set it on a 15th century sailing ship, visiting various island tribes and had the same show (damn, that's a good idea )

[Speaker to Animals]

Triggered.

Ok, fuckstain. Does science fiction relate only to near-future, grimy war-torn dystopic fiction?

How many social issues were tackled by Star Wars/BSG compared to Star Trek? They did some (admittedly shallow) philosophical issues on almost every episode. Abrams came along, dumbed it down to drooling fuckwit boom screen time, and you call it the pinnacle of the series?

Why not just admit that you're simply incapable of grasping what Star Trek is about in the first place? It was never about the damn ship, transporter beams, or any of that. It was about people, man... People. You could have set it on a 15th century sailing ship, visiting various island tribes and had the same show (damn, that's a good idea )

No, genius. Science fiction relates to science. Science being the operative word modifying the word fiction. The work must at least attempt some fidelity to plausible science. This is why hard science fiction is science fiction that is extremely technical, whereas soft science fiction makes some leeway (usually by not explaining how something like an FTL drive works). Most works fall somewhere in between.

Star Trek is a fantasy. It has ZERO fidelity to any plausible science. When the spaceship is trapped in warp, Geordi saves the day by inventing some flux bubble tachyon pulse emitter that sends a pulse out to penetrate the warp bubble and cause the warp matrix to collapse, thereby sending the ship back into normal space-time. That's not science. They just made up shit to solve a problem -- i.e. magic -- which is fantasy.

They could replace their futuristic jargon with Dungeons and Dragons spells and it would be the same fucking story -- A FANTASY.

What matters to fantasy is that everything is internally self-consistent. Star Trek, for the most part, adheres to the rules of fantasy, not science fiction.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Triggered.

Ok, fuckstain. Does science fiction relate only to near-future, grimy war-torn dystopic fiction?

How many social issues were tackled by Star Wars/BSG compared to Star Trek? They did some (admittedly shallow) philosophical issues on almost every episode. Abrams came along, dumbed it down to drooling fuckwit boom screen time, and you call it the pinnacle of the series?

Why not just admit that you're simply incapable of grasping what Star Trek is about in the first place? It was never about the damn ship, transporter beams, or any of that. It was about people, man... People. You could have set it on a 15th century sailing ship, visiting various island tribes and had the same show (damn, that's a good idea )

No, genius. Science fiction relates to science. Science being the operative word modifying the word fiction. The work must at least attempt some fidelity to plausible science. This is why hard science fiction is science fiction that is extremely technical, whereas soft science fiction makes some leeway (usually by not explaining how something like an FTL drive works). Most works fall somewhere in between.

Star Trek is a fantasy. It has ZERO fidelity to any plausible science. When the spaceship is trapped in warp, Geordi saves the day by inventing some flux bubble tachyon pulse emitter that sends a pulse out to penetrate the warp bubble and cause the warp matrix to collapse, thereby sending the ship back into normal space-time. That's not science. They just made up shit to solve a problem -- i.e. magic -- which is fantasy.

They could replace their futuristic jargon with Dungeons and Dragons spells and it would be the same fucking story -- A FANTASY.

Future science is magic. Also, remember that the show was pretty damned accurate to science, as understood in the 70s.

It also predicted WAY THE FUCK more actual, current technology than any other show - flip phones, internet, tablets, tasers, and more. That makes it the most accurate sci-fi ever produced.
Also, the warp bubble idea still has legs, among theoretical physicists. Ion drive? Habbening. Transporters? Hello, quantum entanglement.

Please open your mouth again, on this topic. I so enjoy kicking those teeth in.

[Speaker to Animals]

Just stop and think about this for a moment. You could easily change the circumstances of any Star Trek script so that instead of using futuristic words, you use Dungeons and Dragons words. Instead of the ship stuck in a warp bubble, it's a spelljammer ship on it's way through the aether and is trapped a spellfield. Instead of the blind engineer saving the day with fake science words, he's a little gnome who casts a few spells he discovered in an arcane spellbook to break the spellfield and free the ship.

The only thing that matters is that the details are all internally consistent with the fictional world. That's fantasy.

If it were science fiction, you'd need some plausible explanation for how this stuff happens. The things you don't explain cannot then become major plot devices (BSG writers didn't create plot points around the detailed workings of FTL drives).

[Speaker to Animals]

Triggered.

Ok, fuckstain. Does science fiction relate only to near-future, grimy war-torn dystopic fiction?

How many social issues were tackled by Star Wars/BSG compared to Star Trek? They did some (admittedly shallow) philosophical issues on almost every episode. Abrams came along, dumbed it down to drooling fuckwit boom screen time, and you call it the pinnacle of the series?

Why not just admit that you're simply incapable of grasping what Star Trek is about in the first place? It was never about the damn ship, transporter beams, or any of that. It was about people, man... People. You could have set it on a 15th century sailing ship, visiting various island tribes and had the same show (damn, that's a good idea )

No, genius. Science fiction relates to science. Science being the operative word modifying the word fiction. The work must at least attempt some fidelity to plausible science. This is why hard science fiction is science fiction that is extremely technical, whereas soft science fiction makes some leeway (usually by not explaining how something like an FTL drive works). Most works fall somewhere in between.

Star Trek is a fantasy. It has ZERO fidelity to any plausible science. When the spaceship is trapped in warp, Geordi saves the day by inventing some flux bubble tachyon pulse emitter that sends a pulse out to penetrate the warp bubble and cause the warp matrix to collapse, thereby sending the ship back into normal space-time. That's not science. They just made up shit to solve a problem -- i.e. magic -- which is fantasy.

They could replace their futuristic jargon with Dungeons and Dragons spells and it would be the same fucking story -- A FANTASY.

Future science is magic. Also, remember that the show was pretty damned accurate to science, as understood in the 70s.

It also predicted WAY THE FUCK more actual, current technology than any other show - flip phones, internet, tablets, tasers, and more. That makes it the most accurate sci-fi ever produced.
Also, the warp bubble idea still has legs, among theoretical physicists. Ion drive? Habbening. Transporters? Hello, quantum entanglement.

Please open your mouth again, on this topic. I so enjoy kicking those teeth in.

You still don't understand. If a science fiction author is describing something that is so far advanced that he cannot explain it, then he typically does NOT explain it. He doesn't invent all this fake jargon to pretend like there is the fake science behind it all. He leaves that a mystery.

Most of the science fiction material that is set very far in the future doesn't concern itself with the technology at all for this reason. It is concerned with things like sociology, psychology, morality, and man's place in the universe. The further you get into unexplainable technology, the less central role that technology plays in actually creating the conflict.

[Speaker to Animals]

And with respect to FTL drives, the Pournelle's future history novels were all relatively hard science fiction, and he did come up with a plausible explanation for how these things work. They became major plotpoints and sources of conflict in numerous novels (i.e. why the Moties were trapped in their system).

[SuburbanFarmer]

And with respect to FTL drives, the Pournelle's future history novels were all relatively hard science fiction, and he did come up with a plausible explanation for how these things work. They became major plotpoints and sources of conflict in numerous novels (i.e. why the Moties were trapped in their system).

So then your main contention is that the Star Trek warp drive just doesn't feel real enough.