Idiot on Spacebattles

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-03-06 04:11am

Isolder74 wrote:I'm pretty sure ILM is in the credits as well

ILM was working on TESB at the time.

Post by **Dalton** » 2005-03-06 05:50am

They did, however, do stock footage for TNG and the effects for STII: TWOK.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2005-03-06 09:25am

I was again active at spacebattles, and already got some doubtful replies:

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthrea ... ost1986327

At most that is cratering (from what i can see on the pic). Cratering a nickel-iron asteroid 500 meters in diameter only requires 590 kilotons. Federation fighters pack more of a punch then that.

Reaction to me shwoing the picture of Jango's seismic change destroying asteroids.

Jango's seimic charges are so OBVIOUSLY not DET that it's not even funny, so if you want to bring firepower examples, I suggest to skip this one.

Well, a shockfront destroying asteroids, how can this be a NDF-weapon?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-06 12:05pm

Tribun wrote:
Jango's seimic charges are so OBVIOUSLY not DET that it's not even funny, so if you want to bring firepower examples, I suggest to skip this one.
Well, a shockfront destroying asteroids, how can this be a NDF-weapon?

I'm sick of people classifying weapons as "DET" or "not DET". It's a fucking stupid acronym because energy is always transferred. The only question is whether there's an exothermal chain-reaction which contributes extra energy, so the real question is "chain reaction or no chain reaction", not "DET or no DET". Don't allow Darkstar's bullshit to influence the terms of the debate.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2005-03-06 11:57pm

But Mike, acronyms are kewl. Didn't you know? Kewl rules all debates. At least at Spacebattles, anyway.

atomic danny · Post by **atomic danny** » 2005-03-07 05:09am

Dalton wrote:They did, however, do stock footage for TNG and the effects for STII: TWOK.

They also did the effects for Star Trek 3, 4, 6, Generations & First Contact

Though i gather not many people like star trek here

, well thats what it sounds like. Why is it i get the feeling there was a massive party that enterprise is cancelled and there will be no more Trek ever again

. Whats the latest figures 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 Tonnes for a Photon Torpeodo

(jk)

Seriously though even if star trek never had existed, wouldn't at least some of the sci fi be different, since i know that some of them have used trek quotes

and ideas from trek. (i never said that sci fi came from trek

)

Kruk · Post by **Kruk** » 2005-03-07 05:38am

DW - what is the difference DET-NDF or chain reaction-no chain reaction? It's two ways of speaking about the same thing. Almost. NDf is not cleared (read - we dont know what NDF is). And it's shorter to write. Not to mention that most people understood what NDF-DET is while CR is not as clear.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2005-03-07 05:51am

atomic danny wrote:
Seriously though even if star trek never had existed, wouldn't at least some of the sci fi be different, since i know that some of them have used trek quotes and ideas from trek. (i never said that sci fi came from trek )

Well of course, there is no denying that Star Trek has had an impact on Popular culture, so yes, things would be different if it had never existed, but it doesn't mean sci fi would never have 'evolved' to where it is now, Star Trek has Star Wars to thank for its reinvigouration, if it wasn't for 'A New Hope' they'd never have put out the Motion Picture, if it wasn't for Star Wars sequels, would we ever have gotten TWOK and more etc?

Star Trek is an amalgamation of ideas from all the sci fi that came before it, hardly anything written in it was original, so not as much sci fi as you think used 'ideas from trek'- aside from horrid use of psuedoscience perhaps.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-03-07 02:18pm

Kruk wrote:DW - what is the difference DET-NDF or chain reaction-no chain reaction? It's two ways of speaking about the same thing. Almost.

Not quite. DET is a brute force mechanism used to destroy something. NDF relies on the molecular composition of the target to achieve destructive results.

Kruk · Post by **Kruk** » 2005-03-07 02:31pm

Depends or not. We dont know what NDF is, how it works etc. We have only theories, better or worse. So I think NDF is a little better then CR, esspecialy when it goes about Trek weapons.

Other thing NDF is native to St universe, and applying it to other is a little... strange.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-03-07 04:37pm

Kruk wrote:Other thing NDF is native to St universe, and applying it to other is a little... strange.

Actually, it's the leading theory on Stargate's Zat'nik'tel's.

Star-Blighter · Post by **Star-Blighter** » 2005-03-09 01:42am

General_Paul wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:
General_Paul wrote:Without the Original Series of Star Trek there to rocket Science Fiction into the lexicon of Modern America, Star Wars might not have happened.
Don't be a fucking idiot. Trek was a failed TV show that barely limped into its third season. "2001, A Space Odyssey" launched sci-fi into the public conciousness in the late-60's, not Trek. FFS "Planet Of The Apes" had more of an influence on sci-fi than Trek did.

And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Star Wars may not have happened had it not been for "Flash Gordon".

Dude, what the hell? I give an idea, and you call me a fucking idiot. Well ya know what, you're an uneducated rude asshole, how's that?

He's kinda right though, as both 2001 ASO and planet of apes made great strides in science fiction and Flash Gordon IS one of the reasons SW is here today.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-09 02:00am

Kruk wrote:DW - what is the difference DET-NDF or chain reaction-no chain reaction? It's two ways of speaking about the same thing. Almost.

No it isn't, since "DET" technically applies to everything and is a meaningless term. Chain-reaction is not.

NDf is not cleared (read - we dont know what NDF is). And it's shorter to write. Not to mention that most people understood what NDF-DET is while CR is not as clear.

Bullshit. Most people understand what a chain-reaction is; NDF and DET are acronyms that no one outside of the little "vs" debating circle will understand, and DET is a bullshit acronym that was made up by Darkstar to make it seem as if one needs to justify it as a mechanism even though it's the natural behaviour of all energetic systems.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-09 02:03am

General_Paul wrote:
Lord Poe wrote:
General_Paul wrote:Without the Original Series of Star Trek there to rocket Science Fiction into the lexicon of Modern America, Star Wars might not have happened.
Don't be a fucking idiot. Trek was a failed TV show that barely limped into its third season. "2001, A Space Odyssey" launched sci-fi into the public conciousness in the late-60's, not Trek. FFS "Planet Of The Apes" had more of an influence on sci-fi than Trek did.

And if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Star Wars may not have happened had it not been for "Flash Gordon".
Dude, what the hell? I give an idea, and you call me a fucking idiot. Well ya know what, you're an uneducated rude asshole, how's that?

Anyone who actually thinks that Star Wars owes its existence to Star Trek is an idiot. Appealing to rules of decorum is a waste of breath.

Kruk · Post by **Kruk** » 2005-03-09 05:44am

Darth Wong wrote:Anyone who actually thinks that Star Wars owes its existence to Star Trek is an idiot. Appealing to rules of decorum is a waste of breath.

Heh, one thing I agree with You.

Abut DET i NDF - I was speaking about vs discussions. Who else, beyond "vs"-people care about power, how phasers are working and the numbers? No one.