[ SECRET POST #2632 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2632 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Patrick Stump / Fall Out Boy]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Men in Black, Agent Coulson]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Twin Peaks]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Defenders of Berk/How To Train Your Dragon 2]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Lily Allen]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Attack on Titan]


__________________________________________________



09.
[The Brittas Empire]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Panic! at the Disco]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Frozen]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

01. http://i.imgur.com/OeX61KV.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

but it's still silly made up science

it's okay to like something and know that it's silly

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah but I think there's also a certain "Star Trek sucks because it's not REAL SCIENCE" hard science fiction exceptionalism point of view in SF fandom sometimes. And that point of view is dumb (as is pretty much all hard science fiction exceptionalism). Star Trek science is definitely silly and it's full of technobabble.

[(Anonymous)]

to the op: trudat
to this reply: trudat

[(Anonymous)]

People can appreciate it and still acknowledge that it's pretty silly. Personally, I find the silliness to be part of its charm.

[iceyred]

This. It's just not Star Trek if they're taking themselves too seriously.

[elaminator]

+1.

[intrigueing]

I was always under the impression that most mockery of Star Trek science was pretty affectionate and appreciative?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm the lone Trekkie in a house full of Star Wars fans, but the science isn't really the thing we argue about. Because while Trek had some interesting technological ideas for the 60s, its relationship to things like physics was ... questionable at best. That was never really the point? It's TV Space Opera, accurate science isn't the point here.

Trek was ground-breaking in terms of sociology and storytelling, in putting this particular collection of characters in the same space and then sending them on these kind of adventures. Most of its most daring statements were social rather than technological in nature. I'm fairly sure whatever tech or alien biology or interesting space wedgie they needed to drive their plots, they pretty much just made up on the fly, and it was awesome that way.

This is a show with giant amoebas from outer space, aliens with copper-based blood that apparently mate just fine with humans, a character whose sole purpose is apparently to break the laws of physics at least once an episode, and the less said about Spock's Brain the better.

It is also one of my favourite shows of all time and I'll fight anyone who says different.

[(Anonymous)]

+100000 to everything in this comment.

[silverr]

Because while Trek had some interesting technological ideas for the 60s

and somewhere there is a list of all the technology that TOS either inadvertently predicted, or downright inspired.

ETA: Plus, one word can shut up some SWars fans, and that word begins with "M"

[intrigueing]

A+ to this whole comment

[forgottenjester]

Well, some of what they wrote was based on scientific theories* of the time and some were just made up for funsies. Star Wars, on the other hand, is all funsies. Are they both ridiculous? Yup. Is that bad? Nope.

*That were later proven to be wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

Silly science, sure, but it inspired a lot of people to become scientists and engineers as well as work for NASA. That's where it really counts.

[(Anonymous)]

How on earth do Star Wars fans have the higher ground, here?

[nyxelestia]

Does anyone seriously insult the science? I know a lot of people make fun of it, but most sci-fi tends to have weird science. Star Trek pushed it into sheer ridiculousness because they used science as a plot crutch so often, but it's hardly like Star Wars had a lot of accurate science itself.

[(Anonymous)]

If it's coming from Star Wars fans, they're being remarkably hypocritical. Considering that Star Wars has all the hallmarks of a space fantasy, including monarchies, princesses, innocent farmboys, dark lords, orders of mystical knights, and a grand unifying force underlying the universe that's divided into light and dark and involves prophecies of mystical balance. Along with the space ships and laser swords and robots and aliens, yes.

Most of the Star Wars fans I know admit that fairly readily. Trek is a space western, Wars is a space fantasy, and they're both damned enjoyable. So shush with the 'parasecs are a measurement of distance' and 'Spock is biologically impossible' and enjoy the ride, yes?

[(Anonymous)]

I'm apparently going to the the lone voice of dissent, so anon it is.

I enjoy Star Wars as a space fantasy, not sci-fi. There is magic (the "force") and basically nothing is expected to make sense. Star Trek, on the other hand, has the technobabble. And while I'm willing to accept some things (especially in the older shows, so before they knew better about some scientific laws), I am not willing to accept others. In the most recent movie, the Enterprise going underwater and not cracking from the pressure when it is made for space (with its vacuum) and not for deep sea irks me so much. Because there was really no reason for it to have to happen like that, so why do it? At least pretend to be following the laws of science, please? (I mean, I still generally like the shows/movies. Except for the last one. It just bothers me at times. Whereas I never try to apply the laws of science to Star Wars.)

OP

[(Anonymous)]

I'm glad there's a cool discussion around this.

I agree that the science is silly and fun but I've some acquaintances that are 100% Star Wars fans who constantly tear into how "dumb" Star Trek is. I never have the patience or gumption to stand up to them- also I would probably get upset if they just kept taking the piss, and that would be weird.

I'm glad to see so many people come out with love for the show. I think I've just been surrounded by negativity.

[(Anonymous)]

I watch and immensely enjoy Star Trek for the characters, moral message and the (mostly) Utopian look at the future of us.

I love Star Wars because it's a Hero's Journey set in space and I'm a fucking sucker for things like that, right down to the beautiful princess and the slightly shady older fella The Hero meets on his journey.

The science of either Universe was the LEAST draw for me (although lightsabers and Holodecks are the shit), and I'll never understand the brianiac brigade going to into spasms over inaccurate technobabble.

[(Anonymous)]

I dunno about ST/SW, but having done my time on a Doctor Who forum (and never again), oh the grown-up joyless fanboys who would moan about the "bad science" of a new episode. What the fuck do you think you're watching?

[lotesse]

Sing it sister! Classic Trek has a power, a vision, that few sfnal works manage to attain. Bad fx and all, I still think it's among the very best things we've managed to make - and the disrespect people show it galls me pretty hard, too. Spoiled brats don't know how to use their imaginations.

[rbhudson]

That's without even mentioning how ground-breaking it was socially (ie. Kirk & Uhura kissing)

This seems relevant

[(Anonymous)]

Mitchell and Webb showed it can always be worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5lxpNec3UAg

[(Anonymous)]

overrated melodrama.