Re: star trek thread

[CC12 35]

hi

[Mrs Figg]

Star Trek Sequel Goes Where Mostly Scientists Have Gone Before, A Laboratory

Date: May 3, 2012 | Author: Brent McKnight

Science and science fiction are colliding head on, on the set of J.J. Abrams’ as-yet untitled Star Trek sequel. The production is currently filming scenes at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California. Don’t expect much news form the location, however, as security surrounding the film and crew are ultra-strict. No media, random stragglers, or really anyone who isn’t part of the production or facility staff, are allowed.

According to their website, the mission of LLNL is:


…strengthening the United States’ security through development and application of world-class science and technology to: enhance the nation’s defense; reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; and respond with vision, quality, integrity and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance.



Abrams and crew are filming in the lab’s National Ignition Facility (NIF), which is large enough to fit three full football fields. This is a place “where scientists are using ultraviolet laser light from the world’s largest laser to produce thermonuclear ignition at temperatures and densities similar to those in the sun.” I’m not entirely certain I understand all of that, but it sounds suitably advanced and impressive, technology wise, to stand in for a setting in the Star Trek universe. It will be exciting to see what they come up for this locale, and if audiences will be able to distinguish the actual lab from sets constructed specifically for the film.

“It’s very futuristic in there, so I can see how that would be a good backdrop,” said Dale Kaye, president of the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce.

[Pettytyrant101]

oh good theyve reduced ST science to just something that looks like a futuristic backdrop.
Is no bloody good having a fancy lab as a backdrop- the science needs to be in the story, in the plot, in the dialogue- where is belongs in ST.

[Norc]

I think I did understand your points Norc and you have to admit a good deal of them amounted to 'just because'- which isnt good enough for ST.
Go on just admit it, the science in it is a big pile of smelly shite and the plot has more holes than plot in it.

no, Petty, many of my points went straight pass you (due to lazy wording of it, i admit) but i just want to end this by saying there is a difference between film/fiction/story/sci-fi and reality. and the whole point with film, in my opinion, is to escape reality and not always be bothered by logistics and reality.

[Pettytyrant101]

But if your premise is built on reality and on using real science social issues and moral questions and extrapolating- and this is what your show is famous for doing for 40 years- then if you take that out its no longer the same show.
How can it be otherwise?

[Norc]

*facepalm* i'll leave it with that i said, i liked it okay, i am not bothered by the small errors, it would be so boring if it was all correct and realistic, cus then they would be just stuck on earth.

[Pettytyrant101]

so boring if it was all correct and realistic, cus then they would be just stuck on earth.- Norc

You cant get away with leaving on that note Norc! It managed for forty years to have science based tech and social/moral/political commentary without being earth bound.

It would be like if they decided the Doctor actually prefers just shooting and killing all the aliens he meets and having the TARDIS turned into a vesssel covered in guns and every week he just blows shit up and looks at the prety effects.
It might entertain some- but it would no longer be Doctor Who- same as what now passes for St is no longer St.

[Norc]

i can and will get away with that.

[Ally]

I agree with Norc. You don't make blockbuster films by sticking to the principles of the source material. As the LOTR movies demonstrate.

[Mrs Figg]

oh good theyve reduced ST science to just something that looks like a futuristic backdrop.
Is no bloody good having a fancy lab as a backdrop- the science needs to be in the story, in the plot, in the dialogue- where is belongs in ST.

[Pettytyrant101]

You don't make blockbuster films by sticking to the principles of the source material. As the LOTR movies demonstrate.- Ally

Sadly you seem to be right about that these days Ally- but incredibly things were not always this pathetic and shallow.

[Mrs Figg]

I much preferred the reboot to a couple of the last Star Trek films. some of them were tired and boring.

[azriel]

I like the reboots, I like the older films, I also like hunky guys being macho.

[Norc]

hear hear, Azriel

[Pettytyrant101]

Youre all wrong (why I expect anything else I dont know! ) expect for your comment Mrs Figg- 'a couple of the last Star Trek films. some of them were tired and boring'- which is only technically inaccurate in that almost all of them are. Trek makes okish films at their best- its not suited to the format.

[Pettytyrant101]

Didnt Norc promise cakes earlier? Have you burnt them?

[halfwise]

Most of the ST films were lousy. A few were quite good. In contrast I'd say half the TV episodes were quite good (except for the actors playing minor character aliens, which I swear were universally drilled in bad acting to be 'true to Star Trek'), 1/4 were watchable and 1/4 were hilariously bad. TNG had improved scripts over the original, DS9 was even better though in some ways it wasn't really Star Trek because the lead characters tended to be gritty rather than noble, but I liked that.

I wouldn't say Star Trek was ever firmly rooted in science, but at least they'd have scientific advisors so they knew to keep from outright violating science, or at worst to be aware of it. They would freely admit you heard a noise when the Enterprise went by just to make the audience comfortable, not because you'd actually hear anything in space.

[Norc]

Didnt Norc promise cakes earlier? Have you burnt them?

oreo cake, doesn't go in the oven took me like four hours.

[halfwise]

Oh, and though I haven't seen the newest reboot movie, the first one wasn't Star Trek largely because they never felt there was any noble purpose in what they were doing. Star Trek was always about presenting a better way for society to be. Once that is lost, you can feel it. Deep Space 9 had largely lost that, but made up for it by excellent writing and characters.

[halfwise]

Didnt Norc promise cakes earlier? Have you burnt them?

oreo cake, doesn't go in the oven took me like four hours.

That's soooo our little Norc.

[Pettytyrant101]

they'd have scientific advisors so they knew to keep from outright violating science, or at worst to be aware of it. They would freely admit you heard a noise when the Enterprise went by just to make the audience comfortable- Halfwise

About a fair mix between the two I would say- thing is there could be a transporter accident episode, some bright kid hears about the Hesinberg compensator, wonders what it is so googles it and finds out about Hiesenbergs Uncertainty Principle.

"Deep Space 9 had largely lost that"

That I dont agree with - for me DS9 was about what happens when that nobility and set of ideals exemplified by Picard is put to the test.

oreo cake- Norc

Arent oreo's cream sandwiched beween two dark biscuits.

[Norc]

yeah, but i made a cake out of them, whipped cream, cheese cream, sugar, fat, butter and chocolate mousse .

[Eldorion]

oreo cake, doesn't go in the oven took me like four hours.

[Eldorion]

Simulpost.

[Norc]

Didnt Norc promise cakes earlier? Have you burnt them?

oreo cake, doesn't go in the oven took me like four hours.

That's soooo our little Norc.

i'll post pictures tomorrow when it's eaten ^^ it's for my cousin