Sexiest Women of Science Fiction,

[Gerald]

What more could be desired, one to begin the year with life ....

http://www.life.com/image/53371795/in-gallery/54021/sexiest-women-of-science-fiction#index/0

[Rhodes]

Nice!:yeah:

[gimpy117]

they had Uhura (zoe Saldana) but not Galia!!! oh for shame. Zoe is too skinny anyways

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yPWyFZEdY0s/SiQysiG3zpI/AAAAAAAAKl0/3cHBq3Khtqs/s400/gaila2.jpg

now thats a woman. I don't care if shes painted green...ill take her either way

but I do like all of the Battlestar picks. Especially Scakhoff...gor that tomboy appeal, and don't forget summer Galu.

[Reece]

Seven of Nine had to be there!!:oops::03::yeah:
http://www.startrekdesktopwallpaper.com/new_wallpaper/Star_Trek_Voyager_SevenOfNine_JerryRyan_desktopwal lpaper_800.jpg

[Platapus]

But no mention of Constance Moore <pout> :cry:

[breadcatcher101]

I like the movie "The Attack Of The 50 Ft. Woman".


I'll leave it at that, hee hee.

[gimpy117]

But no mention of Constance Moore <pout> :cry:

ehh...im not into people my gandfather thought was hot. but to each his own. :arrgh!:

[Platapus]

ehh...im not into people my gandfather thought was hot. but to each his own. :arrgh!:

I am going to hit you with my walker!


These dangburn kids these days.

[gimpy117]

I am going to hit you with my walker!


These dangburn kids these days.

sorry had to do it :D

I am the young gun here

[CaptainHaplo]

Scully and 7 of 9

Now if I could just get shirley manson to fit into the bed.....

[Reece]

Scully and 7 of 9

Now if I could just get shirley manson to fit into the bed.....
You can share Scully with Mulder, 7 of 9 is mine!!:x:yep:

[TLAM Strike]

How is Wonder Woman Science Fiction? :-?
(Star Wars isn't generally SciFi either but its normally grouped as such so I'll let it go)

No Amanda Tapping or any of the other Stargate Women? Her, Torri Higginson, Rachel Luttrell, Lexa Doig, and Jewel Staite deserve mention! :stare:

Also Gigi Edgley of Farscape...

I guess if we are talking Farsscape Claudia Black should be somewhere on the list too... :hmmm:

[Raptor1]

How is Wonder Woman Science Fiction? :-?
(Star Wars isn't generally SciFi either but its normally grouped as such so I'll let it go)

No Amanda Tapping or any of the other Stargate Women? Her, Torri Higginson, Rachel Luttrell, Lexa Doig, and Jewel Staite deserve mention! :stare:

Also Gigi Edgley of Farscape...

I guess if we are talking Farsscape Claudia Black should be somewhere on the list too... :hmmm:

Star Wars isn't science fiction? What is it then?

[the_tyrant]

Star Wars isn't science fiction? What is it then?

Space western?:hmmm:

[Reece]

Star Wars isn't science fiction? What is it then?
Reality!:hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Star Wars isn't science fiction? What is it then?

Fantasy set in space.

[Raptor1]

Any particular reason for that? Sure, it has some important fantasy elements, but it still has many more (And still largely critical) science fiction elements...

[TLAM Strike]

Any particular reason for that? Sure, it has some important fantasy elements, but it still has many more (And still largely critical) science fiction elements...

Simply based on how Lucas wrote it. Science Fiction generally relies on a base of current scientific theory or a set of fictional theories on how the universe works. None of that was in Star Wars, it was added later by others (like in the "Essential Guides" books). You can really see this in the famous Kessel Run line in Star Wars or the escape of the Falcon in Empire where stuff just doesn't make scientific sense.

That's not to say that Star Wars is bad its just not real Sci Fi more of a something in between Scifi and Fantasy. Its whats called now a "Space Opera", in fact Space Opera's definition was mostly changed by Star Wars. Before Space Opera was hacky, poorly written, trashy stuff set in space. Star Wars showed it could be good.

[Gerald]

I like the picture, #20

[tater]

Trek is crap as "real" science fiction, too. Just as fantasy as Star Wars.

That said, they completely neglected Firefly.

http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/inara13.jpg

http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/Kaylee21.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

The mentioned Summer Glau's roles in both the Terminator TV series and Firefly, but only mention Morena Baccarin in V (not Firefly).

And how could they leave out Gina Torres???

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Gina.jpg

[TLAM Strike]

Trek is crap as "real" science fiction, too. Just as fantasy as Star Wars. Well this is where the difference between "hard" and "soft" sci-fi comes in to play. Genneraly speaking Soft Sci Fi makes up its own in-universe rules to abide by (the last few Star Trek shows mostly forgot this but in generally they maintained some kind of in show consistency while ignoring the other past shows). Hard Sci Fi on the other hand uses real universe rules and simply discusses future actions and technologies that are possible but as yet unbuilt.

Examples:

Hard Sci Fi, The USS Discovery in 2001 and 2010 flies through space in a normal Newtonian fashion, like say the real life Apollo spacecraft or the Voyager probes. This is an example of real universe consistency that is the hallmark of hard sci fi.

Soft Sci Fi, the Enterprises (nil to E), they all have the same method of propulsion the Warp Drive. Its fictional but all ships in the Star Trek Universe use it (mostly). This is an example of in-universe consistency that is the staple of soft sci fi.

You can have Sci Fi without real science, but there must be Science somewhere even it its fictional. Star Wars fails this test because simply blasters shoot because the story requires them too. Star Trek succeeds at this because phasers shoot due to a explained scientific manner albeit a fictional one.

That said, they completely neglected Firefly.

http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/inara13.jpg


Morena Baccarin was on the list. ;)

[Raptor1]

The difference between science fiction and isn't in how much of the science is explained to the audience, it is in how much its fictional elements are explainable by science in-universe. Star Wars' blasters (and everything else except the Force) are presented as something that runs on some fictional scientific theory just like Star Trek's phasers, but it would've been extremely odd if somebody went and started explaining how they work in the middle of the movie, since that's hardly relevant.

Speaking of which, how much of how Star Trek's technology works was actually explained in the original series itself?

[Gerald]

The mentioned Summer Glau's roles in both the Terminator TV series and Firefly, but only mention Morena Baccarin in V (not Firefly).

And how could they leave out Gina Torres???

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Gina.jpg Probably because they know you like her, Steve :DL

[ReFaN]

http://www.squaremans.com/?p=63

Here is a Article about Star wars not beince Scifi.

[tater]

trek is crap. In NG virtually every episode was "solved" by the addition of some new technology. 40 minutes of setting up some problem (often a failure in their incredibly unreliable ship), then in the last few minutes problem solved by put_some_stupid_name_here_and_add—"genic field" to the end.

"We're going to drown in crap as the toilets malfunction! Aaaaaah! Wait, just rearrange the poopygenic field unit!" Happy banter ensues.

Bleech.

[Weiss Pinguin]

tl;dr

http://www.scificool.com/images/2009/03/morena-baccarin-v-2.jpg

[Jimbuna]

http://www.supernaturalcrime.com/Art/starcrash_01.jpg
Caroline Munro as Stella Star in 1978's Starcrash

[UnderseaLcpl]

The mentioned Summer Glau's roles in both the Terminator TV series and Firefly, but only mention Morena Baccarin in V (not Firefly).

And how could they leave out Gina Torres???



Likely by virtue of the same blindness that led them to exclude Jewel Staite. Did extreme cuteness and innocence in a young, attractive woman somehow become un-sexy when I wasn't looking?
http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/Kaylee21.jpg
At least tater has his head on straight:yeah:

Anyone who has seen her performance as Katewinnit Lee Fry in Firefly and doesn't think she is one of the most adorable creatures in existence is an enemy of all that is good and just in this world:O:

Oh, well...at least they included Summer Glau. No force in the 'verse can stop her, you know:DL

[TLAM Strike]

The difference between science fiction and isn't in how much of the science is explained to the audience, it is in how much its fictional elements are explainable by science in-universe. Star Wars' blasters (and everything else except the Force) are presented as something that runs on some fictional scientific theory just like Star Trek's phasers, but it would've been extremely odd if somebody went and started explaining how they work in the middle of the movie, since that's hardly relevant. None of the science behind Star Wars was created for Star Wars, it was made later by other authors. As for Star Trek (even the movies) there are several times when they go about explaining technologies.

Speaking of which, how much of how Star Trek's technology works was actually explained in the original series itself? Quite a bit actually.

Lets compare Star Wars to Star Trek. Propulsion technology this time.

Star Wars:
"Punch it!" -Han Solo
"The Hyperdrive Motivator has been damaged, its imposable to go to light speed!" -C-3PO
"Horizontal Boosters! Alluvial dampers...! Well that's not it. Bring me the hydrospanners!" -Han Solo
(That last one is the most technical line in Star Wars related to engines, and its jibberish, Horizontal Boosters might be something related to thrusters, Alluvial deals with sediments as in dirt and sand, Hydrospanner is a type of wrench.)

Star Trek
SPOCK: There is one other possibility, Mister Scott. The final decision, of course, must be the captain's, but I believe we must have it ready for him. The Enterprise is propelled by matter-anti-matter reactors. The barrier we must traverse is negative energy.
....
SPOCK: The barrier we must penetrate is composed of negative energy.
SCOTT: I have opened the control valves to the matter-anti-matter nacelles. On your signal, I will flood them with positive energy.
KIRK: What?
SPOCK: When we engage the barrier, the ship will explode. The Kelvans will be stopped here.

-By any other name (TOS)

KIRK: Then use your imagination. Tie every ounce of power the ship has into the impulse engines. Discard the warp drive nacelles if you have to, and crack out of there with the main section, but get that ship out of there!

SCOTT: Sir, I'm going to switch over everything but the life-support systems and boost the impulse power, but that's just about as dangerous.
-The Apple (TOS)


SCOTT: Captain, the impulse engines' control circuits are fused solid.
KIRK [OC]: What about the warp drive control circuits?
SCOTT: Aye, we can cross-connect the controls, but it'll make the ship almost impossible for one man to handle.
-The Doomsday Machine

(Engines and weapons this time)
SPOCK: From the outpost's protective shield. Cast rodinium. This is the hardest substance known to our science.
(He crushes it with his hand)
SPOCK: Lab theorises an enveloping energy plasma forcing an implosion.
KIRK: Comments?
SPOCK: Obviously, their weaponry is superior to ours, and they have a practical invisibility screen.
MCCOY: You're discussing tactics. Do you realise what this really comes down to? Millions and millions of lives hanging on what this vessel does.
SPOCK: Or on what this vessel fails to do, Doctor.
KIRK: Yes, well gentlemen, the question still remains. Can we engage them with a reasonable possibility of victory?
SCOTT: No question. Their power is simple impulse.
KIRK: Meaning we can outrun them?
STILES: To be used in chasing them or retreating, sir?
KIRK: Go ahead, Mister Styles. I called this session for opinions.
STILES: We have to attack immediately.
KIRK: Explain.
STILES: They're still on our side of the Neutral Zone. There would be no doubt they broke the treaty.
SULU: Attack, without a visible target? How do we aim our phasers?
STILES: Aim with sensors. Not accurate, but if we blanket them
SULU: And hope for a lucky shot before they zero in on us?
STILES: And if we don't? Once back, they'll report that we saw their weapons and ran.
...
KIRK: Full astern! Emergency warp speed! KIRK: Do we have emergency warp? SULU: Full power, sir. It's still overtaking us. If we can get one phaser working, sir, one shot might detonate it.
KIRK: Navigation?
STILES: Estimate it'll overtake us in two minutes, sir.
...
SULU: Ten seconds to impact. Captain, It's dissipating, sir.
STILES: It must have a range limit.
-Balance of Terror

KIRK: Estimate damage on Lexington, Spock.
SPOCK: Hit in engineering section. Possible damage to her impulse engines. She's still maneuverable on warp drive.
...
SPOCK: Probably true, Captain. It works faster, thinks faster than we do. It is a human mind amplified by the instantaneous relays possible in a computer.
-The Ultimate Computer

SCOTT [OC]: Captain, the matter-antimatter
KIRK: Belay that order. What is it, Scotty?
SCOTT: The anti-matter pods are rigged to blow up the moment we go into warp drive.
KIRK: Scotty, that bomb he planted. Can you dismantle it?
SCOTT: Not without being blown halfway across the galaxy.
KIRK: Give us every ounce of power you can from the impulse drive, and find a solution to the bomb. Kirk out. Mister Sulu, stand by to make your manoeuvres smartly. She'll be sluggish on response.
...
SCOTT: I've got bad news, Captain. The entire dilithium crystal converter assembly is fused. No chance of repair.
SCOTT [OC]: It's completely unusable.
KIRK: No chance of restoring warp drive?
SCOTT [OC]: Not without dilithium crystals. We can't even generate enough power to fire our weapons.
...
KIRK: They're trying to force a fight. Scotty, what's our energy status?
SCOTT: Ninety three percent of impulse power, sir.
SPOCK: We can still manoeuvre.
SCOTT [OC]: Manoeuvre? Aye. We can wallow like a garbage scow against a warp-driven starship. Our shields will hold for a few passes, but without the matter-antimatter reactor, we've no chance. Captain, can you not call Starfleet on this emergency?
...
SPOCK: The necklace.
KIRK: What kind of jewels are in this?
ELAAN: They call them radans. The necklace is supposed to bring you luck. It is of little value. They are common stones.
SPOCK: These are common stones? (scans them) See, Captain? Here and here.
KIRK: You may have just saved our lives. Mister Spock, do you think Scotty could make use of dilithium crystals?
SPOCK: No doubt, Captain.
...
SPOCK: Captain, these are crude crystals. There is no way to judge what the unusual shapes will do to the energy flow.
SCOTT [OC]: Aye, that could blow us up just as effectively as...
-Elaan of Troyius

But that is TV not movies you say...


Kirk: Explanation, Mr. Decker: Why was my phaser order countermanded?

Decker: Sir, the Enterprise redesign increases phaser power by channeling it through the main engines. When they went into anti-matter imbalance, the phasers were automatically cut off.
...

Ross: Why has the Captain ordered self-destruct, sir?
Scotty: I would say, lass, because he thinks -- he hopes -- that when we go up... we'll take V'ger with us.
Ross: Will we?
Scotty: When that much matter and anti-matter are brought together? Oh, yes; we will, indeed.
-Star Trek: The Motion Picture


Dr. Marcus: Project Genesis. A proposal tothe Federation.What exactly IS Genesis? Well, put simply, Genesis is life from lifelessness. It is a process whereby the molecular structure is reorganized at the sub-atomic levelinto life generating matter of equal mass. Stage One of our experiments was conducted in the laboratory. Stage Two of the series will be attempted in a lifeless underground; Stage Three will involve the process on a planetary scale. It is our intention to introduce the Genesis device into a preselected space body, a moon or other dead form, instantaneously causing what we call the Genesis effect. Matter is reorganized with lifegenerated results.Instead of a dead moon, a living breathing planet, capable of sustaining whatever life forms we see fit to deposit on it... The reformed moon simulated here represents the merest fraction of the Genesis potential, should the Federation wish to pursue the experiments to their logical conclusion. When we consider the cosmic problems of population and food supply, the usefulness of this process becomes clear. This concludes our proposal. Thank you for your attention.

Spock: The prefix code?
Kirk: It's all we've got.
...
Spock: Reliant's prefix number is one-six-three-zero-nine.
Saavik: I don't understand -
Kirk: You have got to learn WHY things work on a Starship.
Spock: Each ship has its own combination code...
Kirk: ... to prevent an enemy to do what we're attempting; using our console to order Reliant to lower her shields...
-Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
... in case you missed that one that was the action movie of the original Star Trek Movies!!





trek is crap. In NG virtually every episode was "solved" by the addition of some new technology. 40 minutes of setting up some problem (often a failure in their incredibly unreliable ship), then in the last few minutes problem solved by put_some_stupid_name_here_and_add—"genic field" to the end. NG? As in TNG? As in the most cerebral show of the bunch, where dozens of episodes are decided by debate?

Lets take a list of Episodes not decided by inventing some technology...
Encounter at Farpoint
Code of Honor
The Last Outpost
Justice
Hide and Q
Haven
The Big Goodbye
Datalore

Ahhh screw it! The ENTIRE first season on TNG has no solve the problem with a new technology plot!

[tater]

Anyone who has seen her performance as Katewinnit Lee Fry in Firefly and doesn't think she is one of the most adorable creatures in existence is an enemy of all that is good and just in this world:O:

Yep.

I'm a huge fan of "cute" I have to say. So a character that is cute+smart is pure win (that was pretty much my wife-selection process, lol).

[Kongo Otto]

At least they had two of the Doctors Companions in their listing.
Personally i am missing Karen Gillan aka Amy Pond.

http://files.hiscifi.com/images/karen-gillan-new_doctor_companion2.gif

[Raptor1]

None of the science behind Star Wars was created for Star Wars, it was made later by other authors. As for Star Trek (even the movies) there are several times when they go about explaining technologies.

That still doesn't make it fantasy, it just makes it very 'soft' science fiction. I would accept that it is partly fantasy because there are major fantasy elements (That is, which are presented as supernatural in the Star Wars universe itself), and I would say that it is indeed somewhat of a mix between science fiction and fantasy because of that, but just because its science is left unexplained in the original material doesn't mean it's not science fiction.


Quite a bit actually.


Was just wondering, since it's been ages since I've seen any of the original Star Trek series and I don't remember much of it.

BTW, IIRC the Hydrospanner was used as a type of wrench even in the movie.

[Sailor Steve]

Speaking of which, how much of how Star Trek's technology works was actually explained in the original series itself?
Gene Roddenberry actually addressed that in his book The Making Of Star Trek. When somebody asked him why he never explained how the phasers worked he said he replied "Does Dick Tracy (a popular newspaper comic strip at the time) explain how his snub-nosed .38 works before he shoots the bad guys? Then why should Kirk?"

[Sailor Steve]

At least they had two of the Doctors Companions in their listing.
Which brings us back to the wonderful discussion on what is or isn't "real" science fiction. There is no problem in the universe which cannot be solved by reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. And problems which suddenly can't be solved that way can be fixed with the sonic screwdriver. Any remaining problems can be blasted by K-9.

I'm a huge fan, by the way. On the first I started rewatching the entire series, one episode per day. And yes, I started at the very beginning, with An Unearthly Child.

[Kongo Otto]

Which brings us back to the wonderful discussion on what is or isn't "real" science fiction. There is no problem in the universe which cannot be solved by reversing the polarity of the neutron flow. And problems which suddenly can't be solved that way can be fixed with the sonic screwdriver. Any remaining problems can be blasted by K-9.

I'm a huge fan, by the way. On the first I started rewatching the entire series, one episode per day. And yes, I started at the very beginning, with An Unearthly Child.

I am a huge fan too. Sad that it never had been aired in Germany except the first two Seasons from the new series. So i bought all Seasons at Amazon in English language, few years ago.
Unearthly Child with William Hartnell as the first Doctor, was aired in 1963, two years before my birth.
For me its a piece of TV History.
Do you have the Episode "Marco Polo" from the first Sason? It wasnt at the first season which i have from amazon, the booklet said it was lost over the years.

[Sailor Steve]

IDo you have the Episode "Marco Polo" from the first Sason? It wasnt at the first season which i have from amazon, the booklet said it was lost over the years.
Marco Polo was one of the many (and I do mean many) which were lost when someone cleaned out the storage at the BBC back before they had a clue that someone might want to watch them again someday.

You can read some of the episodes as 'Photonovels' at the home website http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/classic.shtml, since many production photographs are still around and someone actually cares enough to restore the stories.

Also, some episodes have been restored via the fact that not only do the photos still exist, but also the soundtracks. Marco Polo is one of these.

I have rounded out my collection by purchasing the novelisations of the missing episodes, many of which were written by the original screenwriters.

[TLAM Strike]

That still doesn't make it fantasy, it just makes it very 'soft' science fiction. I would accept that it is partly fantasy because there are major fantasy elements (That is, which are presented as supernatural in the Star Wars universe itself), and I would say that it is indeed somewhat of a mix between science fiction and fantasy because of that, but just because its science is left unexplained in the original material doesn't mean it's not science fiction. Well if someone wrote a physics paper on how the "One Ring" in LOTR works does that make it Science Fiction? No, we have to look at what the writing was intended as. Star Wars was not made to show how society deals with development of things like Blasters, Death Stars, and Hyperspace, it was meant to tell the story of a Farm Boy and Princess doing battle with a evil empire.

The best way to understand this is to look at Star Trek: The Next Generation (the series not the movies). On TV this is the best example of what Science Fiction is IMHO. It deals with society's reaction to new technologies, developments in science, interactions with less advanced cultures. TNG was the show that "answered the questions" of "what if?". The other Star Trek series less so (even my beloved DS9).

[tater]

I've seen every TNG episode. I think TNG was pretty terrible SF compared to, say, the 500+ SF books I've read.

The notion that it explores societal reaction to technology, or even current events through the "safe" lens of fantasy/SF is marginal at best, IMO—at least the claim that it does so "well."

The plots are remarkably predictable. Races are pretty much universally stereotyped (and stupid—look, its the planet of the bartender people! (you can tell because they have a bottle opener on their foreheads, and they can instinctually mix drinks)).

They have techno-problems, then in the last few minutes they make up a new technology to fix it. Crap like the "prime directive" is simply crap (and inconsistently applied, like everything else in ST). After the first season of TNG, virtually every single later problem could have been solved in seconds using technology they made up in season 1, then forgot about. I won't even get into the absurdity of time travel, but suffice it to say that time travel hopelessly breaks a SF universe.

[Raptor1]

Well if someone wrote a physics paper on how the "One Ring" in LOTR works does that make it Science Fiction? No, we have to look at what the writing was intended as. Star Wars was not made to show how society deals with development of things like Blasters, Death Stars, and Hyperspace, it was meant to tell the story of a Farm Boy and Princess doing battle with a evil empire.

The best way to understand this is to look at Star Trek: The Next Generation (the series not the movies). On TV this is the best example of what Science Fiction is IMHO. It deals with society's reaction to new technologies, developments in science, interactions with less advanced cultures. TNG was the show that "answered the questions" of "what if?". The other Star Trek series less so (even my beloved DS9).

If someone wrote a physics paper on how the Ring in LOTR works it wouldn't make it science fiction, since the Ring isn't supposed to be explainable by science within the LOTR universe. Just because no-one wrote a physics paper on blasters (Originally) doesn't mean it's immediately comparable to the Ring.

You're right that Star Wars doesn't deal with the effects of blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. However, it does tell the story of a farm boy and a princess doing battle with the evil empire in a setting which includes blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. If you take those elements out, then it would be something else.

As you said, Star Wars is a space opera, but space opera is (as it is now) a subgenre of science fiction...

[TLAM Strike]

You're right that Star Wars doesn't deal with the effects of blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. However, it does tell the story of a farm boy and a princess doing battle with the evil empire in a setting which includes blasters, Death Stars and hyperspace. If you take those elements out, then it would be something else. You are getting it, now reverse that; take Holodecks, Warp Drive, Phasers out of Star Trek and what do you have left? Nothing. That has to be the test of Sci Fi, if you take the Science and Technology out of the story is there a story left?

I've seen every TNG episode.
<Snip>

Go back and watch them again... I don't think you understood them the first time... :-?

What you said made me die a little inside. :stare:

Curious, what would you consider good sci fi on TV? :hmmm:

[Weiss Pinguin]

Gene Roddenberry actually addressed that in his book The Making Of Star Trek. When somebody asked him why he never explained how the phasers worked he said he replied "Does Dick Tracy (a popular newspaper comic strip at the time) explain how his snub-nosed .38 works before he shoots the bad guys? Then why should Kirk?"
Heh, reminds me of this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Expospeak), and this story (http://www.shrovetuesdayobserved.com/flight.html) :hmmm:

Also,
http://www.fpusadailyplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Quorra.jpg

[Raptor1]

You are getting it, now reverse that; take Holodecks, Warp Drive, Phasers out of Star Trek and what do you have left? Nothing. That has to be the test of Sci Fi, if you take the Science and Technology out of the story is there a story left?

Well, if you take the science fiction elements out of Star Wars, then it completely loses the point and becomes fantasy. As I said, Star Wars is partly fantasy since it does indeed have many fantasy elements, but it is certainly not "not science fiction", since it is defined by its science fiction setting.

[MaddogK]

Did someone mention Gina Torres , and NOT Vicky Pratt ?
http://rnd2pics.com/view2.php?q=Cleopatra%202525&url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QKvShm7j1pE/SwQzXjx-BZI/AAAAAAAAAec/pYRMJx88SuQ/s1600/cleopatra2525trio.jpghttp://www.voyager.cz/download/images/cleopatra2525trio.jpg
http://rnd2pics.com/view.php?q=Cleopatra%202525&url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QKvShm7j1pE/SwQzXjx-BZI/AAAAAAAAAec/pYRMJx88SuQ/s1600/cleopatra2525trio.jpg

[tater]

I can't imagine actually liking any of the new ST stuff. I saw some DS9, but thought it was pretty dumb, as was whatever that other ST was, and Enterprise.

Forget the "science" aspect (as I said, I have a moderately large SF library of ~500 books (I've read slightly more that that since I have been loaned SF books by friends) so I'm not "anti" SF by any possible stretch. ST has crap stories. It is internally inconsistent (grossly).

We used to watch TNG in my shop when we worked late (some station had 2 back to back every evening here) and we used to play a game where we'd try and solve the plot during the commercial 15 minutes in using technobabble from any episode in any earlier episode. We never failed. They developed virtually everything... invulnerable shields (they flew through a sun as I recall), or there is always time travel (slingshot at will since "real" ST (Enterprise Incident?)).

First few seasons of B5 were decent though the time travel broke that as well, hopelessly. I liked the recent BSG from a storytelling POV. I also like Firefly (haven't seen all of them) as story telling. I've seen all ST:TOS multiple times, and all TNG at least once, enough DS9 to get a feel, and I could only stomach a couple voyager or whatever it was. Bottom line is that the biggest problem with ST is the lack of consistency. If you develop an invulnerable shield, then virtually every episode later needs to address that change. Since episodes were written by different people, there is no such consistency in the ST canon so it is a mess. And while the Feds might be ridiculous about not using time travel that doesn't mean anyone else will be

Example: find out where Borg started, go back in time, and wipe them out before they leave home. Done. Oh, wait, stopping a genocidal race is "wrong" because the PD says so. Riiight. Better for billions to die.

Nope, since time travel is possible in ST, then the BORG will also go back in time and enslave everyone before they are even space faring. OF the Romulans will use it. Bottom line is that time travel breaks everything. IMHO, adding time travel instantly makes whatever it is pulp at best (I like good pulp, but ST aint good pulp).

[antikristuseke]

Did someone mention Gina Torres , and NOT Vicky Pratt ?
http://rnd2pics.com/view2.php?q=Cleopatra%202525&url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QKvShm7j1pE/SwQzXjx-BZI/AAAAAAAAAec/pYRMJx88SuQ/s1600/cleopatra2525trio.jpghttp://www.voyager.cz/download/images/cleopatra2525trio.jpg
http://rnd2pics.com/view.php?q=Cleopatra%202525&url=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QKvShm7j1pE/SwQzXjx-BZI/AAAAAAAAAec/pYRMJx88SuQ/s1600/cleopatra2525trio.jpg

That show was never made, for mentioning the unmentionable we shall now burn you at the stake.:nope:

[Gerald]

That show was never made, for mentioning the unmentionable we shall now burn you at the stake.:nope: You mean like it was made with the witches in the Middle Ages, :timeout:

[MaddogK]

That show was never made, for mentioning the unmentionable we shall now burn you at the stake.:nope:

BULLS**T, I used to watch it regularly. Of course it was hard to call it sci-fi when they were acting out my fantasy.;)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206476/

[Spoon 11th]

Fail. The list is missing Jane Seymour from the original Battlestar Galactica.

[TLAM Strike]

I can't imagine actually liking any of the new ST stuff. I saw some DS9, but thought it was pretty dumb, as was whatever that other ST was, and Enterprise.

Forget the "science" aspect (as I said, I have a moderately large SF library of ~500 books (I've read slightly more that that since I have been loaned SF books by friends) so I'm not "anti" SF by any possible stretch. ST has crap stories. It is internally inconsistent (grossly). Yes Trek is inconsistent, show me anything that has run as long as it and is still consistent. Pointing out that episode X doesn't match up with episode Y doesn't necessary mean its bad. Is the story its self good or important or exciting you should ask?

We used to watch TNG in my shop when we worked late (some station had 2 back to back every evening here) and we used to play a game where we'd try and solve the plot during the commercial 15 minutes in using technobabble from any episode in any earlier episode. We never failed. They developed virtually everything... invulnerable shields (they flew through a sun as I recall), or there is always time travel (slingshot at will since "real" ST (Enterprise Incident?)). Tomorrow is Yesterday was the episode for the Slingshot Maneuver, and yea time travel will solve most problems except when it doesn't. (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Year_of_Hell_%28episode%29)

And while the Feds might be ridiculous about not using time travel that doesn't mean anyone else will be There are several episodes that deal with this. Most of the plot of Enterprise was about this! Basically there is a Federation agency(s) in the future that work to prevent this (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Relativity_%28episode%29).

Example: find out where Borg started, go back in time, and wipe them out before they leave home. Done. Oh, wait, stopping a genocidal race is "wrong" because the PD says so. Riiight. Better for billions to die. "I, Borg" dealt specifically with this problem. As did several other episodes.

Picard: "The Prime Directive is not a matter of... degrees, it is an absolute... we have to be cautious. What we do today, may profoundly affect the future. If we could see every possible outcome..."
Riker: "... we'd be gods, which we are not. If there is a cosmic plan, is it not the height of hubris to think we can or should interfere?"
-Pen Pals (TNG)

(BTW Stuff like that is what TNG is about, not technobabble)

Because...

DUCANE: The Pogo Paradox.
SEVEN: A causality loop in which interference to prevent an event actually triggers the same event.
DUCANE: Excellent. Can you give me an example?
SEVEN: The Borg once travelled back in time to stop Zefram Cochrane from breaking the warp barrier. They succeeded, but that in turn led the Starship Enterprise to intervene. They assisted Cochrane with the flight the Borg was trying to prevent. Causal loop complete.
DUCANE: So, in a way, the Federation owes its existence to the Borg.
SEVEN: You're welcome.
-Relativity (Voy)

Nope, since time travel is possible in ST, then the BORG will also go back in time and enslave everyone before they are even space faring. OF the Romulans will use it. Bottom line is that time travel breaks everything. IMHO, adding time travel instantly makes whatever it is pulp at best (I like good pulp, but ST aint good pulp). There are several episodes that deal with that. Parallels and the "Neu Trek" for example. Basically that if you travel back in time you create a separate reality different than the one you left, and every possible event that can occurs does in a separate reality. This is both Star Trek Science and real life theoretical science.

Also if you get in to real hard core sci fi, time travel becomes interconnected with any FTL travel.

[antikristuseke]

BULLS**T, I used to watch it regularly. Of course it was hard to call it sci-fi when they were acting out my fantasy.;)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0206476/

I will not accept your evidence for the existance of that show, you are clearly delusional, such crap could never be made!:88)

Yes, I know its real, but it was so **** I don't want to remember it.

[MaddogK]

Fail. The list is missing Jane Seymour from the original Battlestar Galactica.
+1
List is missing Lucy Lawless from Battlestar Galactica.

...too bad the costumes from Xena are also missing from BSG.:wah:

[Gerald]

http://i.imgur.com/4Fy2A.jpg

[AVGWarhawk]

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2008/0417/20080417__20080420_E01_AE20NICHOLS~p1_200.JPG

[MaddogK]

For all you trekkies:
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.waterholes.com/%7Edennette/wallpaper/bmp/st_dsis.jpg&sa=X&ei=YT0mTdTJLYrKnAfS5PnUBA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGc3drjAf8n2Aru9pRV45xqD3UaXg

[The Third Man]

Which is why you will never have a real (non-fiction) woman. :har:

[Growler]

For all you trekkies:
http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.waterholes.com/%7Edennette/wallpaper/bmp/st_dsis.jpg&sa=X&ei=YT0mTdTJLYrKnAfS5PnUBA&ved=0CAQQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNGc3drjAf8n2Aru9pRV45xqD3UaXg


I like how the aiming point is in nice contrast to the actual "protection" of the armor.

[tater]

Those ST episodes that "solve" problems only work for the credulous. Maybe fans that own uniforms. I've seen all of them, and while I can't name the ep names (happily), they were not convincing to me.

ST is pretty awful, sadly. I actually watched a TNG the other night for a while, and was reminded of how much I disliked it. Reminds me of how awful Star Fleet Battles became. I never played with any race not mentioned in the original series, myself, and I never used any "new" ship types (allowed smaller ships for roms and klinks, plus the old tech manual fed stuff like DDs and scouts). The more they added, the worse—and more boring—it became.

Saying they solved the time travel nonsense with Enterprise is funny, since in a universe that allows time travel, someone, someplace in the universe will eventually screw up the big bang force freeze out and make a universe where time travel is NOT possible. Niven wrote a funny essay on that once (it's a sort of infinite monkeys typing Shakespeare argument). In addition, even within the ST "known" universe any hostile force need only go back and change stuff. They can do this at will, at any point they want. The notion of policing it is absurd. Time travel is a weak plot device (sorry, Harlan) and ruins everything.

Doesn't mean it's not sometimes fun (I prefer TOS, campy though it may be), but claiming it is more that fluff is a sign you care too much about a TV show, IMHO. Any random pick in my SF library is better than any ST:TNG episode. by a wide margin (I'll admit, I only kept good books, and dumped crappy ones).

All ST space combat is silly, BTW. Sad for those of us that dig space combat. When engagement ranges are SHORTER than mid 20th century naval combat... you're doing it wrong.

[MaddogK]

keeps their enemies confused while the disruptor gets drawn.

Tater: Star Fleet battles was great in it's original form, until about expansion 3 (mid 80's), I used to play the tholians quite a bit.

You also forget about the 'reunification' miniseries within TNG, if ST:TNG never existed except those 4 eps I'd be happy.

[Growler]

Is that a disruptor in your pocket, or... oh, nvm. <BANG!>

[Platapus]

http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/Kaylee21.jpg

A winner! :yeah::yeah:

[Gerald]

http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/Kaylee21.jpg

A winner! :yeah::yeah: I agree with fully, :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

People are starting to repost the same pictures, without quotes. Not reading the thread?

Did someone mention Gina Torres , and NOT Vicky Pratt ?
One can only refer to what one has seen.

[Gerald]

Is there any flexibility in its posting,of course we reading...

[TLAM Strike]

Doesn't mean it's not sometimes fun (I prefer TOS, campy though it may be), but claiming it is more that fluff is a sign you care too much about a TV show... I think you are concentrating too much on the fluff and not the "deeper meaning" of TNG. Yes its crazy plots and people with rubber foreheads but its there to tell a story about the human condition, TOS and TNG were the only two Star Treks to really do that. After TNG it all became technobabble and alien of the week.

IMHO. Any random pick in my SF library is better than any ST:TNG episode. by a wide margin (I'll admit, I only kept good books, and dumped crappy ones). I would say that Written Sci Fi is almost always better than TV and Movie Sci Fi. Just because you can do stuff you can't do in a 1 hr show or 2 hr movie. You will never see a ten year military STL expedition to Lalande 21185 in a movie!

All ST space combat is silly, BTW. Sad for those of us that dig space combat. When engagement ranges are SHORTER than mid 20th century naval combat... you're doing it wrong. Agree with you there! I've never seen Space Combat done right in any sci fi TV show or Movie except for one early episode of (shudders) Andromeda...

Star Trek, ridiculous.
Star Wars, the same.
Battlestar Remake, good looking, got the weapons right but totally wrong in execution.
Stargate, much like Battlestar.

Fighter planes don't fight in visual range any more neither should space ships!


Actually the only time ST got space combat right was in TOS. Specifically Balance of Terror and The Ultimate Computer plus a few others.

BTW have you ever checked out Projectrho.com? I've dropped that name around here before and I think you would like it.

[Sailor Steve]

IActually the only time ST got space combat right was in TOS. Specifically Balance of Terror and The Ultimate Computer plus a few others.
"Target coming into range, Captain! Ninety thousand kilometers!"

[MaddogK]

People are starting to repost the same pictures, without quotes. Not reading the thread?


One can only refer to what one has seen.

My bad, post #44, girl on the right.
:)

[Sailor Steve]

My bad, post #44, girl on the right.
:)
Oh, no. I knew what you meant there. I was the one who brought up Gina Torres, but didn't mention the other because I had never seen that show, nor heard of her.

That was what I meant. :D :damn: :rotfl2:

[tater]

I agree on some early ST (TOS) combat.

First few seasons B5 had it right, too. Centauri ship fires. Cut scene to to Narn ship FAR away on limb of planet cut in half. Way BVR. 10s of thousands of km, min.

[Gerald]

My bad, post #44, girl on the right.
:) No big deal..

[TLAM Strike]

"Target coming into range, Captain! Ninety thousand kilometers!"

Sulu misplaced that decimal point a few places. The RCS thrusters on the Space Shuttle (the ones they use for station keeping and docking) can be spotted by another ship with present day passive detection systems at ranges in excess of 100 million kilometers. :03:

[Growler]

Sulu misplaced that decimal point a few places. The RCS thrusters on the Space Shuttle (the ones they use for station keeping and docking) can be spotted by another ship with present day passive detection systems at ranges in excess of 100 million kilometers. :03:

ooo... source? I want to read this shi-!! (Seriously - this is cool to me.)

[Gerald]

This is hard stuff, :DL

[Sailor Steve]

Sulu misplaced that decimal point a few places. The RCS thrusters on the Space Shuttle (the ones they use for station keeping and docking) can be spotted by another ship with present day passive detection systems at ranges in excess of 100 million kilometers. :03:
Sulu wasn't talking about detection range. Sulu was reporting effective weapons range.

Don't you know anything? :O:

[Platapus]

I always got a chuckle when watching the original Battle Star Galatica when the officer would report that the cylons were 40 microns away.

Talk about waiting until you see the whites of their eyes. :o:o

[Gerald]

Sulu wasn't talking about detection range. Sulu was reporting effective weapons range.

Don't you know anything? :O: Are u sure,this is serious :o

[TLAM Strike]

Sulu wasn't talking about detection range. Sulu was reporting effective weapons range.

Don't you know anything? :O: Still short range. 1 Light Second would be a more likely an effective weapons range (approx 300,000 km) since the Phasers on the Enterprise can fire in a barrage pattern and (somehow) detonate in proximity.

ooo... source? I want to read this shi-!! (Seriously - this is cool to me.) http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.php

[Sailor Steve]

Still short range. 1 Light Second would be a more likely an effective weapons range (approx 300,000 km) since the Phasers on the Enterprise can fire in a barrage pattern and (somehow) detonate in proximity.
I knew you were making this up as you went along!

1. The targetting computers weren't that accurate back in the old days.

2. Phasers don't detonate - that takes a photon torpedo.

3. I saw it in the show, so there!

4. My BS mojo juju magic tech is both prettier and shinier than yours, so there again!

[TLAM Strike]

I knew you were making this up as you went along! well how do you think I appear to know so much about everything!

1. The targetting computers weren't that accurate back in the old days.http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/88/apollo27stempleunderatt.jpg
They seem to be able to hit a specific building on a planet from orbit... seems accurate to me...

2. Phasers don't detonate - that takes a photon torpedo.KIRK: Battle status?
SULU: All stations manned, Captain.
STILES: Phaser weapons energised. Set for proximity blast.-Balance of Terror (TOS)


:O::O::O:

[Onkel Neal]

Trek is crap as "real" science fiction, too.




Say what? :06:

Sulu wasn't talking about detection range. Sulu was reporting effective weapons range.
Don't you know anything?

Are u sure,this is serious :o


:haha::haha::haha: :yeah:

[Wolfehunter]

I knew you were making this up as you went along!

1. The targetting computers weren't that accurate back in the old days.

2. Phasers don't detonate - that takes a photon torpedo.

3. I saw it in the show, so there!

4. My BS mojo juju magic tech is both prettier and shinier than yours, so there again!This^^ :yeah: They used photon torpedoes for barrages. Phaser for precise targets.

One of my favorits Scifi chicks. is Natasha henstridge..
http://ecw.twentyeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/natasha-henstridge.jpg

[tater]

Say what? :06:


ST is very "soft" SF.

The base rule for "hard" SF is to break as few laws of physics as possible, and follow the chain of "what-if" for those you do (based on how you explain them in the first place). FTL is gonna be a given for most SF, but the goal should be to break as little as possible. ST (particularly TNG) breaks new laws almost every episode. They use made-up technobabble as a plot device constantly (a sign of terrible writers), then more new "______-genic fields" constantly to fix the problem they set up weakly in the first place. ST got so bad that no given writer even had a clue that their plot was already solved by another weak writer's physics breaking invention.

ST is no more "hard" than Star Wars, IMHO, and no more consistent.

[tater]

The RCS thrusters on the Space Shuttle (the ones they use for station keeping and docking) can be spotted by another ship with present day passive detection systems at ranges in excess of 100 million kilometers. :03:

This is true. The notion of a spacecraft hiding is nonsense. Even just the temperature of the crew compartment (by definition some sort of comfy "room temperature" for humans) makes it visible in IR very far away using IR telescopes. Throw in any sort of drive capable of pushing it at high speed and ships don't hide.

[TLAM Strike]

This^^ :yeah: They used photon torpedoes for barrages. Phaser for precise targets.
http://ecw.twentyeyes.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/natasha-henstridge.jpg

Except in Balance of Terror the writers hadn't "invented" photon torpedoes yet. So phasers have a depth charge like proximity fuse as a result.

Considering they are a particle weapon you can do funny things with them.

[Sailor Steve]

They seem to be able to hit a specific building on a planet from orbit... seems accurate to me...

-Balance of Terror (TOS)


:O::O::O:
I think "from orbit" can be classified as "point blank".
:O::O::O::O:

Some mouth-breathing dweeb once tried to rope me into an argument about which movie Batman would win a fight. My answer? "Whichever one the screenwriters said would win!"