Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[J]

what's jms done?

[Thrillho]

Who is JMS?

[J]

J. Michael Straczynski

[jwhouk]

The reason why Star Trek embraces the fan stuff is that the show itself has its fans to thank for its continued existence. Without fanzines, fan fictions, conventions and letter writing campaigns, ST:TMP probably never would have been made.

[Kugai]

Exactly

And that's what's pissing the majority of the B5 Fanbase.  With the pissing contest going on between WB and JMS, and JMS and WB stomping on any possibility of a Fanbase work like those Trek has, B5 is being slowly strangled despite the fans efforts to get it going again.


And lets not mention the total frakup that was Crusade.

[hedgie]

Oh, gods, that was a disaster.  JMS is certainly a control-freak, and to some extent, I can respect that.  I wouldn't want my baby put through a blender, after all.  But seriously, he has taken it too far.

[J]

i know that jms is pretty stringent in what he wants from wb in order to continue with b5, but what's he done to stomp on fanworks?

off the top of my head, i know of at least 3 fan made videogames:
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/The_Babylon_Project
http://ifhgame.ru/
http://fieryvoid.drupalgardens.com/

[jwhouk]

Compare that to the mass quantities of works made out of the ST universe - all of the flavors and the reboot, too.

Okay, maybe not as much out of the reboot, but you get the point.

[Kugai]

Or the number of Fan Made Vids for the Reboot BSG Universe - such as this

[Kugai]

And. Prelude to Axenar is out.

[GarandMarine]

Holy shit that was incredible!

[Kugai]

And they're looking to make a Feature Film.

[Edit] Damn!  He's made that Vid Private.  anyway, here's a Link to their Kickstarter Campaign, which also has the Prelude Vid on it free to watch.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar  [/Edit]

[mustang6172]

Remember that TNG episode, "The Inner Light?"

Its writer decided to make a sequel:  "The Outer Light."

(click to show/hide)

Did the Romulans have no other ambitions for the Enterprise other than making it a night club?  They never really struck me as the hedonistic type.

How can Picard have another healthy relationship if he needs to keep dreaming about Eline every night?

[hedgie]

Hmm.  Romulans being Romans, then yeah, hedonism and decadence all the way.

[Lupercal]

So Star Trek Nemesis was the only feature film from the TNG crew I hadn't seen, and now I kind of wish I'd never seen it in the first place.

[Blue Kitty]

[Kugai]

[ReindeerFlotilla]

The reboot has a few issues, but I don't really think they rise to the level of abandonment of the principles behind Star Trek.

The biggest issue being the fact that Kirk killed Nero's crew.

Beyond that, I just don't see the argument that it's not in line with the old vision.

Take The example of Kirk violating the Prime Directive. One of the themes of Into Darkness was that Kirk hadn't earned his command. Violating the Prime Directive wasn't cavalier throw away. It was Kirk establishing that he wasn't fit for the Center Seat. And Starfleet busted him to cadet for it. When Kirk hands the ship over to Spock, he admits that he doesn't belong in command. Sacrificing himself to save the ship is Kirk reaching the end of the journey: accepting the no win situation.

Argue that transwarp beaming makes starships obsolete and I will agree. They play too fast and too loose with the technology. The product placement drives along the thin line of going to far, as corporations don't make a lot of sense in the post money economy. But even things like the war hungry Starfleet officer are fully in line with trek as it was. We've seen such men. And Kirk and crew stopped them. Hell, even Mickey Smith bombing Seection 31 to save his child fits. Section 31 is basically the anti-Starfleet. It thinks it self above and beyond the morality that the rest of the federation is built on. Maybe Mickey had grown disillusioned with breaking the law for the greater good. Maybe he felt like saving his child's life that way was karmic payback.

I have issues with the new trek. But no more than I have had with old trek. I would like to see Star Trek go on to engage in the more thoughtful storytelling it is capable of. But I also recognize that it can't do that and be a summer popcorn movie. Movie goers were confused by Inception, for Geordi's sake!

Right now, slick action is what Hollywood sells. I'm happy if that slick action is Star Trek, because it keeps the door open for all kinds of sci-fi.

[BenRG]

There are several excellent fan films for Star Trek on YouTUBE. I spent this weekend watching an animated trilogy (11 hours total) called 'Time Warp'. It wasn't a brilliantly original work of art (the fact that the animator couldn't find a voice cast and ended up voicing all the parts himself being particularly distracting). But the underlying story is well done. It could have done with tightening up in places but, overall, a Trek very much in the style of the golden age of TNG (season 4-6).

If it had a proper voice cast and the script was a bit more tightly edited, it would compare or even transcend the limp and flabby J J Abrams offerings. The characterisation is more generally likeable and sympathetic and, whilst pathetic in his motivations, the villain is far more interesting and believably threatening than the bald Romulan in ST-2009 or the False Khan of ST-ID.

IMHO, not only has the fandom sustained and maintained Trekdom during one loss of interest by The Powers That Be, it is quite possible that fan films and fan series may continue to sustain it during the current cynical period in official attitudes towards the show. Lots of people say this but, sometimes, it takes the fans to remind you why you loved a show. These fan works generally are better than the 'professional' productions at every level.

[Kugai]

Speaking of Fan Based Vids, here's a little put together Fan Made featuring the Enterprise D

The Romulan Incident Pt.1

The Romulan Incident Pt.2

[Akima]

Right now, slick action is what Hollywood sells. I'm happy if that slick action is Star Trek, because it keeps the door open for all kinds of sci-fi.

The trouble is, Star Trek keeps the door open mostly for bad science-fiction; the sort that is actually about as scientific as Harry Potter, and doesn't even play as straight by the rules of its own universe as Jack Vance fantasy stories.

[mustang6172]

Star Wars is about as scientific as Harry Potter.  Is Star Wars bad?

Yeah, I brought up Wars in the Trek thread! 

[Akima]

Is Star Wars bad?

Bad science-fiction, yes. For overall quality...  you tell me. Three out of six movies are simply terrible (the prequel trilogy), and Return of the Jedi is not that great. The first two movies released were pretty good, but every change forced on them since then has made them worse. So... overall... 2.5/6 at best? I have not read any of the novels or comics so I can't comment on them.

[BenRG]

Star Wars is about as scientific as Harry Potter.  Is Star Wars bad?

The thing to remember about SW is that it isn't really a sci-fi at all. It's a fantasy story transplanted from a sword-and-sorcery world to a blaster-and-ubertech galaxy. Lucas himself once said that the story has nothing to do with sci-fi concepts and is all about "the damnation and redemption of Anakin Skywalker". Sci-fi is merely the stage upon which a nearly background-agnostic redemption arc story is played out.

Back to the topic, I've noticed that new fanfiction (and even good fanfiction) is still being posted for ST-TNG. I guess that shows the longevity of these shows because the average age of fanfiction writers is such that they probably weren't even alive when the show was aired for the first time!

[Thrillho]

Is Star Wars bad?

Bad science-fiction, yes.

Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?

[Grognard]

here's my two pence... Let's Get Out There!



To The Stars!

[Aziraphale]

here's my two pence... Let's Get Out There!



To The Stars!

I recognize most of these. I'm not sure of the one below the SR71 (looks like an X3, but not sure) or the one sandwiched between the Soyuz and the Enterprise E.

[Akima]

I'm pretty sure the rocket-plane above the Space Shuttle is intended to be X-15. The vehicle above the Soyuz is an X-33. I don't know why the X-1 and SR-71 are there; as far as I know, no example of either aircraft ever reached an altitude that would qualify as space flight, even by the USA's relatively low threshold of 50 miles (264,000ft. or roughly 80,000m). If they are intended as "early steps on the road", where are the Montgolfier brothers' balloons (first crewed free flight 1783), Henri Giffard's dirigible (first powered flight 1852), the Wright Flyer, and so on?

Comparing the three Star Trek universe ships, you can see what I mean about not maintaining consistency even with the rules of their own fantasy physics. I believe the front of the warp nacelles are supposed to be Bussard ram-scoops*. OK, one can see a common thread between Phoenix and Enterprise, much as one sees forward-facing air-intakes on jet aircraft from the earliest experiments to the present day. Now look at Enterprise-E. The intakes are no longer radially symmetrical and face... up?

*I will leave aside the question of whether such scoops would actually work. Read the Wikipedia article.

[Kugai]

@Aziraphale

The Phoenix, Zephram Cochrans Warp Drive test vehicle.

Built out of a Titan Ballistic Missile, it was the first Human craft to achieve Warp Flight and led to First Contact with the Vulcans.

[BenRG]

I recognize most of these. I'm not sure of the one below the SR71...

That's an X-15, I think, which was designed to beat the Mach-5 barrier. It was the only aircraft before Burt Rutan's Spaceship-1 whose pilots received astronauts' wings.

[mustang6172]

@Aziraphale

The Phoenix, Zephram Cochrans Warp Drive test vehicle.

Built out of a Titan Ballistic Missile, it was the first Human craft to achieve Warp Flight and led to First Contact with the Vulcans.

The Soyuz, not the Apollo.

[Kugai]

Oh, sorry.

That's the Venture Star, Lockheed Martin's proposed replacement for the Shuttle.  It was to be a development of the cancelled X-33 Program which was officially canned in 2001

[Aziraphale]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Kugai]

No problem

Pity they never got to complete the Venture Star.  She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.

[Akima]

Ooops, I muddled up the Venture Star with the X-33 sub-scale prototype that was cancelled after a bunch of technical problems emerged. SSTO is extremely demanding from a structural and materials point of view. My favourite prototype was the VTOL McDonnell Douglas DC-X "Delta Clipper", which achieved more than the X-33 project at much lower cost. But... It didn't look swooshy enough for some.

She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.

That is what they said about the Space Shuttle when it was at a similar state of development to the Venture Star. It is remarkable how cheap hypothetical spacecraft are to operate.

[BenRG]

Re.: VentureStar. At the time of its cancellation, it was heading towards being a 2-stage design with a 'glide back' first stage. The key learning was that Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) for large vehicles will need radical new materials and engine technologies. Ironically, thanks to this project and also Delta Clipper, we are closer to having these. Not there yet though.

[GarandMarine]

Is Star Wars bad?

Bad science-fiction, yes.

Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?

Nope. Entirely different construction and build. Star Wars could be called fantasy, but most accurately, despite it's fantastic setting, Star Wars is a Myth Cycle. Quite literally the oldest form of story ever told. Star Trek actually is what one could call Soft Sci-fi for the most part because a fair amount of it's tech is not entirely plausible and/or unexplained, which is one qualifier for "soft" science fiction. The other qualifier is a focus on the soft sciences, the humanities, be they political, anthropology or sociology. Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell's 1984 could both be classed as Soft Sci Fi for their focuses on politics. The film District 9, with it's use of the medium to explore a variety of modern social and political themes would also be "soft". Star Trek floats between hard and soft and is an incredible piece of sci fi for it, with it's sheer scale, it's explored hundreds of thousands of themes and concepts, some of them a bit too often, all with a bright eye towards the future.

It's important to remember that the goal and purpose of Science Fiction is not to tell a story. It is to look at ourselves and our current state through the lens of the fantastic, and occasionally, to turn that lens on the grey mists of the future and based as we are now, speculate as to what might come.

While still telling a damn good story.

[Kugai]

There was, at one stage, a proposed development for an Airborne Launch System for the Shuttle.

This consisted of a carrying craft that, like the 747 that transported the Shuttle around, would carry the Shuttle to the edge of space using a mix of Jet and Scramjet propulsion where it would release the Shuttle then return to base for it's next mission.

No discarded Booster Tank, no SRB's, just a large manned aircraft/lifting body that could, like the Shuttle, be used as an Airborne Launch Platform and return to Earth for reuse.

[Grognard]

so what type of sci-fi would you consider the BOLO series to be?
especially considering it usually has an AI protagonist?

[Torlek]

She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.

That is what they said about the Space Shuttle when it was at a similar state of development to the Venture Star. It is remarkable how cheap hypothetical spacecraft are to operate.

The STS probably would have been able to deliver on a lot of the promises had the Air Force not pushed for a huge cross-range requirement and simultaneously pushed to keep titanium supplies from going towards the shuttle structure and heat shield. If the shuttle had had the metallic heat shield as originally envisioned Columbia wouldn't have happened and turn-around time would have been reduced a goodly amount. While they wouldn't have been able to reach the desired flight rate of multiple launches a week (Michoud couldn't produce that many tanks and ATK couldn't produce that many boosters, never mind stacking time in the VAB) for a couple of decades two or three launches a month would have been readily achievable.

The X-33 was a good idea that was killed by our grasp of materials science not being up to the challenge. Turns out composite structures like to de-laminate in the presence of liquid oxygen. I don't think we have a way around that one yet.
On the other hand, the DCX was never going to be able to deliver SSTO with any meaningful payload. There's no engines that are up to that challenge. The concept as a first stage, however, is perfectly sound. Hence why we see SpaceX planning to perform a first stage RTLS on their next Dragon flight. The future will be here soon.

[Thrillho]

Is Star Wars bad?

Bad science-fiction, yes.

Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?

Nope. Entirely different construction and build. Star Wars could be called fantasy, but most accurately, despite it's fantastic setting, Star Wars is a Myth Cycle. Quite literally the oldest form of story ever told. Star Trek actually is what one could call Soft Sci-fi for the most part because a fair amount of it's tech is not entirely plausible and/or unexplained, which is one qualifier for "soft" science fiction. The other qualifier is a focus on the soft sciences, the humanities, be they political, anthropology or sociology. Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell's 1984 could both be classed as Soft Sci Fi for their focuses on politics. The film District 9, with it's use of the medium to explore a variety of modern social and political themes would also be "soft". Star Trek floats between hard and soft and is an incredible piece of sci fi for it, with it's sheer scale, it's explored hundreds of thousands of themes and concepts, some of them a bit too often, all with a bright eye towards the future.

It's important to remember that the goal and purpose of Science Fiction is not to tell a story. It is to look at ourselves and our current state through the lens of the fantastic, and occasionally, to turn that lens on the grey mists of the future and based as we are now, speculate as to what might come.

While still telling a damn good story.

None of that gives me any indication why Star Wars is not sci-fi.

[BenRG]

On the other hand, the DCX was never going to be able to deliver SSTO with any meaningful payload. There's no engines that are up to that challenge. The concept as a first stage, however, is perfectly sound. Hence why we see SpaceX planning to perform a first stage RTLS on their next Dragon flight. The future will be here soon.

I'd be very interested to find out the payload to LEO you could get with a reusable spacecraft like Delta Clipper boosted by a reusable first stage like that used on the Falcon-9 v.1.1. SSTO is beyond our engineering capabilities right now; reusable TSTO, on the other hand just requires someone to fund and develop it. I suspect that the only reason SpaceX isn't trying it now is because it isn't easily compatible with their commercial goal of carving out their own chunk of the commercial satellite business; that requires an expendable second stage for maximum launch efficiency.

Back on topic, whoever wrote the Enterprise opening credits got right that cheap, routine space launch is a key to human space expansion. However, the story of the ISS (formerly Space Station Freedom) shows that this must be accompanied by a fully-funded applications programme to be worthwhile. There is no point building a space infrastructure if you're not going to build a moonbase, orbital power satellites or the like.

None of that gives me any indication why Star Wars is not sci-fi.

It's simple. Star Wars does not address how science and technology affects social and other human development issues. That is a critical element of sci-fi.

[Thrillho]

A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway. To be as crass as to use Wikipedia: 'Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life.' It uses at least seven of those.

[jwhouk]

That definition of Sci-Fi essentially is Star Trek.

[BenRG]

That definition of Sci-Fi essentially is Star Trek.

I think it's more of a case that, in its many decades of existence, Star Trek has managed to, at least once, match every possible definition of sci-fi. Coincidence or just the effect of despairing script-writers casting around desperately for some new story ideas?

[kryptoknight]

Sci-Fi can be applied to a wide variety of stories.  Heck, technically Knight Rider can be termed Science Fiction.  Dragonriders of Pern is Science Fiction even though it can be mistaken for Fantasy easily.

[Kugai]

Pern is a mixed bag really, you might best describe it as Science Fantasy/Romance.

[Akima]

A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.

Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.

At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.

[J]

i've got some thoughts on this topic, but no time to write them out right now.

so instead i'll just post this:

[jwhouk]

Seriously - if you look at some of the older ST fiction stuff - the "official" stuff that was published by Pocket Books after ST:TMP/ST:TWOK came out - you see some pretty decent sci-fi writing. A lot of it is a far sight better than most modern fanfic (which tends to fall into the Marigold-level).

And, if you look close enough, you may even find that a very well thought-of sci-fi author managed to work his way into one of them...