Wednesday, May 13, 2009

I've seen the new star trek movie twice now. It's an enjoyable movie. I like how they're rebooted the series and managed to incorporate time travel without worrying about paradoxes. But I don't think it's as good as First Contact. I'm not sure I'll ever like Kirk as much as Picard. Hearing my captain say "I don't believe in no-win situations" would be a little disheartening if I was a crew member. Being braver and thinking further outside the box isn't going to create a victory out of every situation. See pretty much the entire Next Generation series for examples.

Also the science in this movie was worse than the usual trek stuff. They didn't make up much technobabble, but Spock creates a black hole to stop a supernova, gets sucked into a black hole but then just reappears in space, and for some reason Nero needs to drill down and create a black hole in a planet's core to destroy a planet. Seems like a black hole on the surface should be good enough. At least they didn't try to explain the red liquid.

(from an article about how the Army has videogame combat-simulation setups in malls to entice potential recruits)
Naturally, critics are out in full force, including a former Army staff sargeant, Jesse Hamltion, who accuses the Army of misleading kids with deceptive, unrealistic scenarios. Hamilton notes that recruits are unlikely to see active combat and that "the only way to simulate the heat is holding a blow dryer to your face."


Rachel said...

I guess if the black hole is INSIDE the planet it gets destroyed instead of jumping through time and space. If it were on the surface maybe it would just get sucked into another dimension or something

joe said...

Black holes are usually pretty small. Not big enough to suck in a planet without destroying it or protect a planet from a supernova.

But I guess it's just a movie :(

KVM Switches said...

blog is presented in a nice way!!