Awesome Thread

Oh, I love that episode. Not because of Penn & Teller but because of the "Day of the Dead" plot :)
 
MacGuffin said:
Oh, I love that episode. Not because of Penn & Teller but because of the "Day of the Dead" plot :)
Click to expand...

I didn't know it at the time i originally watched it. but that was my first introduction to the work of Neil Gaiman. afterwards i found out it was him i started finding out more about his work and that would end up with me discovering "The Sandman" comic book series.
 
Yeah, it did get interesting. First Penn & Teller who did not fit on B5 at all, then this!

I CAN'T MASTURBATE TO THIS!
 
Your in the wrong section for material to inspire that.
 

humans = awsome.
 
Night_Hawk said:
heh, the only one I've seen outside the internet is the Futurama one.

It's a full time job avoiding watching star trek and star wars... I'm not into sci fi anyway.
Click to expand...

Your enjoyment of Futurama must be severely limited since all the show creators and writers are huge sci-fi geeks and especially Star Trek. You must miss 3/4 of the references. Not to mention you must have no idea why Zapp Brannigan is funny at all.

cap3.png
 
Last edited:
Labcoatguy said:
AKA, The Force, to be specific to this discussion.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. In the Star Wars universe we are never given explanations as to how things that might be possible work which makes it even less Sci-Fi worthy.

NERD RANT

For example in Star Trek it's pretty well established how transporters work, how warp drive works, and there are several episodes devoted to it. There are rules to it and they actually have grounding in our current theories.

In Star Wars, we don't get any explanations how anything works, it just does. We don't know how hyper drive works, we don't know what fuel they use (in fact we see them fueling fighters before the battle of Yavin and never again), we don't know how a light saber works. Luke gets in his X-wing and just goes to Dagobah.

STAR TREK NERD RANT

(The reboot of Star Trek, the 2009 movie, is very Star Wars like in its mindset -- lots of goofs and "whatever" moments that never would have passed muster in old Trek. For example, just so they could make the shuttle bay look big some grunt at ILM scaled the ship bigger and bigger to where it's officially way too gargantuan and is bigger than the Enterprise D -- but they didn't scale up the rest of the ship's details like windows and doorways so the crew would feel like midgets. By the size of the windows and the decks, clearly the ship is meant to be roughly the same size as the original Enterprise, but then you have to throw out the cavernous shuttlebay scene. In fact nobody inolved in the movie is even willing to give an actual size and there have been contradictory statements made. Watch the Plinkett review for more examples like the turbolift botching).

http://img14.imageshack.**/img14/7221/comparisongab.jpg
 
Last edited:
How does Danny sit down, with balls that big???

 
janstett said:
It's worse than that. In the Star Wars universe we are never given explanations as to how things that might be possible work which makes it even less Sci-Fi worthy.
In Star Wars, we don't get any explanations how anything works, it just does. We don't know how hyper drive works, we don't know what fuel they use (in fact we see them fueling fighters before the battle of Yavin and never again), we don't know how a light saber works. Luke gets in his X-wing and just goes to Dagobah.
Click to expand...

No it is not explained, because it would get in the way of the actual story, which is what drives all six films. That is why Star Wars has universal appeal to many genres, whereas Star Trek seems to appeal to a much narrower audience. Apples and Oranges, neither is superior.

If you want to know more about the Star Wars Universe, it is not going to be handed to you passively. You got to do some research, because it is all there, you just got to know where to look.

Oh, and by the way: Here is the article on Hyperdrive.
 
Last edited:
Jay said:
No it is not explained, because it would get in the way of the actual story, which is what drives all six films. That is why Star Wars has universal appeal to many genres, whereas Star Trek seems to appeal to a much narrower audience. Apples and Oranges, neither is superior.

If you want to know more about the Star Wars Universe, it is not going to be handed to you passively. You got to do some research, because it is all there, you just got to know where to look.

Oh, and by the way: Here is the article on Hyperdrive.
Click to expand...

This. Spent a lot of hours reading articles on lots of stuff on the Wookiepeedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
janstett said:
STAR TREK NERD RANT

(The reboot of Star Trek, the 2009 movie, is very Star Wars like in its mindset -- lots of goofs and "whatever" moments that never would have passed muster in old Trek. For example, just so they could make the shuttle bay look big some grunt at ILM scaled the ship bigger and bigger to where it's officially way too gargantuan and is bigger than the Enterprise D -- but they didn't scale up the rest of the ship's details like windows and doorways so the crew would feel like midgets. By the size of the windows and the decks, clearly the ship is meant to be roughly the same size as the original Enterprise, but then you have to throw out the cavernous shuttlebay scene. In fact nobody inolved in the movie is even willing to give an actual size and there have been contradictory statements made. Watch the Plinkett review for more examples like the turbolift botching).

http://img14.imageshack.**/img14/7221/comparisongab.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's just sloppy production design.

Star Trek always suffered from having "too many cooks", if you know what I mean. But many of the Trekkies are also a bit weird. When Babylon 5 came out, JMS was actually instructed by Star Trek fans, that the things he does in B5, are wrong, because Star Trek showed very clearly, how things will be in space travel of the future :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I thought those commentators were hilarious! :rofl:
 
Jay said:
No it is not explained, because it would get in the way of the actual story, which is what drives all six films. That is why Star Wars has universal appeal to many genres, whereas Star Trek seems to appeal to a much narrower audience. Apples and Oranges, neither is superior.
Click to expand...

That's rather my point, that they are apples and oranges -- one is sci fi, one is fantasy. We don't get any technical realism in LOTR because it's clearly a fantasy world. As is Star Wars. Oh heck even in LOTR we get an explanation on how the ring was created and why it needs to be destroyed and how it can be destroyed, which is more than we get in Star Wars.

Even on the rare occasion they try to show some scientific cred, they blow it -- e.g. the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs. And then the fanbois contort themselves to make it make sense. Oooh, due to gravity wells caused by stars on the route the race is about distance. Come on, give me a break!

Any technical explanations come from the EU and fan community, not from the Prime creator GL. Not only does GL get parsecs wrong, he often refers to hyperdrive as "light speed" in the script when clearly to traverse a galaxy in reasonable time it would have to be much, much faster than light speed and much, much faster than the Warp technology of Trek.

I've spent countless hours on Wookipedia, but as I said the gaps are filled by EU and fanboys. Which I used to have no problem with, except Lucas has no problem destroying what's been laid down in the EU, so I don't really give it much weight anymore. There's no real point to investing energy into the EU aside from shits and giggles.

The Millenium Falcon's crappy hyperdrive is a major problem throughout ESB yet we never get, as exposition to the audience, how hyperdrive works. It's just some magic problem, don't worry about it. Exposition could have been useful since it's always failing and putting the characters at risk, and we get throwaway bad dialogue about "bad motivators" and "polarized negative power couplings" that are just gobbledygook screenplay filler, used so the character has words coming out of his mouth.

I was watching all the films on the Spike TV marathon the other day, and another example of this hit. In ROTS Anakin pilots the doomed starship at the end of the battle and lands it safely. Only two problems -- it burns up on reentry, when we've never seen any other starship EVER burn on reentry in the entire rest of the saga; and they land on a RUNWAY on Coruscant when in the entire saga we've never seen any starship land on a runway because they all, without exception, take off and land vertically; why would they even HAVE a runway on Coruscant? Heck I don't think we've seen a single ship with wheels, they all have skids. Ships only burn up on reentry when it's needed for dramatic effect, apparently. It's just the Star Wars mindset; don't think.

Another example being how R2's body couldn't physically fit in the wing of a Jedi Starfighter. Don't think.

Even when Lucas tries to put science behind the fantasy, he blows it. Mitichlorians, anybody?

I love Star Wars (or at least I did before the latest "Nooooooooo" addition to the end of Jedi), but it's pretty clear it's fantasy with a light coat of sci fi paint.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top