Slashdot Mirror
Why Charles Stross Hates Star Trek
daria42 writes "British sci-fi author Charles Stross has confessed that he has long hated the Star Trek franchise for its relegation of technology as irrelevant to plot and character development — and the same goes for similar shows such as Babylon Five. The problem, according to Stross, is that as Battlestar Galactica creator Ron Moore has described in a recent speech, the writers of Star Trek would simply 'insert' technology or science into the script whenever needed, without any real regard to its significance; 'then they'd have consultants fill in the appropriate words (aka technobabble) later.'"
Charles is NOT A MERRY MAN!
Yes, anti-plot. Very dangerous stuff. It's red and even though it only takes a few drops of anti-plot to take out an entire world, Spock flew around in a ship with enough of it to take out just about every populated planet of significance. 'Cause you just never know when you'll need more anti-plot.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
So essentially, he should repeat to himself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"?
What the A-Team taught me was that all it takes to build an impregnable armored vehicle is a few empty 50 gallon drums. We'd have this Afghanistan thing wrapped up tomorrow if they could just ship a bunch of vans, empty 50 gal. drums and a welding torch or two over there.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
What happens if you mix plot and anti-plot together?!
Battlefield Earth.
Extremely nerdy hard-science nerdy nerd kings are bitching about old TV shows because they were using almost made-up theoretical science as a plot device to advance the lives and drama of fictional characters for our entertainment...
Here's an article for you: Slashdot member deathtopaulw hates hard science fiction writers because they have no concept of fun and their minds exist only to crunch numbers and dwell on what is and isn't possible in a finite and boring universe.
Look at that, nobody cares either.
...why exactly? How is ST any different from any other sci-fi series like BSG or Firefly? It's not as if those show have any less technobabble or are any less characters-first-technology-second.
It's simple, Stross is just annoyed that his talk at Mountain View about his book "Halting State" has received a mere 6,200 views while Leonard Nimoy's toe tapping dance number "Bilbo Baggins" has garnered more than a million views and taken the country by storm.
My work here is dung.
..and if they had McGuyver it'd be sorted in 10 minutes with his bootlaces.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
You know, there's not a lot of rationale for saying someone's wrong on matters of preference, but man, you are just totally and completely wrong.
No, the TRUE one reason not to like Star Trek is the fact that they solve 95% of problems by reversing the polarity of something.
Yeah. They reversed the polarity of capitalism 300 years ago.
Ob. Futurama reference:
And so, the Trek fans were killed in the manner most befitting virgins.
[Guy on mountain throws a Trek fan into a volcano.]
He's dead, Jim.
[Repeat]
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
There's no money in them.
If you literally weren't paid that's one thing. Otherwise it should be a matter of professionalism that you don't publicly denounce work you're actively still doing.
I do them because, as Gore Vidal said: "Never pass up an opportunity for sex or to be on TV."
Ah, in that case you have no professionalism or credibility. Are you married? Do you ever plan to be? I hope your current or future wife realises you plan to have sex with whomsoever provides the opportunity.
You're the sort of person that can't tell the difference between Myth Buster's and good science television.
Seriously, go read the book - The Elegant Universe, then watch the video again. You'll see the difference.
I have read the book you arrogant little man. Have you? I've also got a masters degree in astronomy, which didn't come from watching documentaries, and which I did for myself without intention of making it my career.
The point is it takes 3 hours to see the documentary, and longer to properly read and digest the book. The visuals in the TV program complimented the understanding I gained from the book very nicely. It also allows me to share the information with anyone willing to give me 3 hours, but who might not want to spend significant time reading. Still neither the book nor the documentary will make you a Quantum Dynamacist or an expert in String Theory. For that you need several years at University and an aptitude for higher level math and physics.
Each level of education has it's place.
Get some self respect and credibility, stop behaving opportunistically and then you might not be so cynical.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer