- TheAsterisk
- |
- Noble Member
Posted by: ROBERTO jh
In fact, Star Trek is very scientifically accurate (for a sci-fi with lazer beams). They have great scientific advisors to ensure the validity of the technology in the universe.
Unless you consider Q, or Apollo. (For all of the Covenant Hierarchs' sermons, I don't think Halo actually tries to present us with genuine deities.)
Also, Trek has telepaths (Troi, etc.), healers, Pokemon-style "evolution" ("Tranfigurations", TNG), and an an old woman who suddenly turns into a hairy monster and snarls at Worf in sick bay. TOS also has an entire planet of National Socialists (filter catches the more succinct term) and a scene and dialogue with Abraham Lincoln, but that's so bad it's good.
Trek is just as much fantasy as anything else, but from TNG on it likes to be pretentious and verbose, dropping jargon and buzzwords with little proper context. They do the woo, too, but instead of having a "ghost" in an episode, they might have a "corporeal energy being" which looks like a glowing ball of gas and speaks directly into crew members' minds or something.
All things considered, Star Trek's apparent engineering practices (only active and no passive controls, centralized systems with no backups or auxiliaries, severe excess reactivity, etc.) are far worse than the science and ideology in the show, but I'll save that gem for another time, perhaps.
[Edited on 05.11.2011 6:44 AM PDT]