Yeah, it's like The Tyra Banks Show in space.

I totally disagree. What you are talking about is Star Wars.

Star Trek as a generalization is science fiction.

I'd like to see them take a stab at redoing "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". A damn good episode that could be expanded on quite a bit.

I just hope they don't take the same path that superhero movies seem to be on where they start bringing in multiple unrelated characters and storylines and make one big mess of things. Either take ONE classic and run with it, or better yet, come up with something completely new.

I wouldn't mind seeing something with political intrigue or a popcorn movie.

You don't expect Hollywood to start coming up with new ideas at this point, do you? There wouldn't even be a new-universe-Trek if that were the case!

I disagree, but don't care enough to debate it.

I will say that the technological explanations on Star Wars and Trek are on the same level- i.e. totally made up.

True. However, in the case of Star Trek: Top Ten Star Trek Techs Made Real

I thought a lot of the tech on star trek (the newer ones) was from their total misunderstanding of various scientific journals, as opposed to the "it just kinda works for whatever reason" that powers star wars tech.

I really hope you're joking, because that means that the infamous technobabble of Voyager had even more work put into it than I thought.

Really? How much Star Trek have you seen?

How many trek technologies actually came to fruition?
How many star wars technologies?

The technologies of and more importantly the theories of Star Trek are based on real physics and real theories.

Besides the point of science fiction isn't to be totally based on real science but to have some plausibility and grounding in real science while expanding upon that with imagination.

Seriously, I thought even Joe 6 Pack knew that Star Wars was fantasy and Star Trek is science fiction.

Now that I will agree with. Voyager was not consistent in their technobabble and had very little science fiction. Deep Space Nine was more of a space opera. Next Gen and the Original Series was definitely much better science fiction.

But as a whole Star Trek is definitely science fiction.

Um, all of it? I missed seasons 2 and 3 of ENT, but really, who's counting that?

That has nothing to do with whether or not something is science fiction. Just because the military has a "pain gun" does not mean that the crucio spell from Harry Potter is real.

I would say that, overall, warp drive is the only technology that was based on a "real" scientific theory, and that it was misunderstood. Everything else was made up and given a technobabble explanation later.

See above.

Also contrast Trek with something like Space: Above and Beyond or Babylon 5 and you'll begin to understand why I don't consider Trek to be science fiction.

Okay...

And yet, it is also a game show and a species.

I love when Star Trek goes to a planet and we're all "Ooo, it's an Ireland planet. This is like the Irish thing." And then later in the episode Picard makes a big speech about how once on Earth we had an Ireland and it was shitty and there was much bloodshed but then we all started loving one another and abolished money and everything became hunky dory.

James Cromwell is usually in these episodes.

If that is your stance, and you claim to have seen all of Star Trek, then I can only assume that you are not at all familiar with physics.

Completely off the top of my head (I'm sure there are sites out there that will list hundreds more), I can think of several things familiar to any Trek fan, besides Warp drive, that are based on real-world physics or real-world physic theories:

1) Plasma drives
2) Tachyon particles
3) Gravitons
4) Antimatter
5) Wormholes
6) Slingshot effect
7) String theory
8) Extra/Multiple dimensions
9) Ion propulsion
10) I could go on for days

Just because Star Wars features space travel and ray guns doesn't make it science fiction any more than Trek featuring antimatter or wormholes.

Let's go by definitions then. I'm quoting wikipedia. Not the best source but still. Can be taken as an generally accepted definition.

"Science fiction is a genre of fiction. It differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically-established or scientifically-postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation). Exploring the consequences of such differences is the traditional purpose of science fiction, making it a "literature of ideas".[1] Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternate possibilities[2] in settings that are contrary to known reality."

"Rod Serling's definition is "fantasy is the impossible made probable. Science Fiction is the improbable made possible.""

No, but the way they explain it does. For example.

Star Wars: "lightspeed" has no definition of speed. When they were chasing the Millenium Falcon they hit light speed and the guy said something about "they could be halfway across the galaxy by now"

Star Trek: Even the worst scientifically improbable series Star Trek Voyager was consistent in their speed calculation and how long it would take to reach Earth.

And by your definition antimatter and wormholes actually exist. Space travel and ray guns are too generic of a definition but I bet you would be hard pressed to find ANY even pseudoscientific let alone actually scientific term in Star Wars.

We're quoting Wikipedia now? Okay, I'm out. We can resume talking about the next Trek movie.

SHUT UP! Harry Potter is too real! Shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup!!!!

I can't believe this is what pulls me into this discussion...but, the hyperdrives in the Star Wars 'verse go to lightspeed first just to enter hyperspace, after that it's a different scale of speed. And the "halfway across..." comment can be taken as a colloquial expression, the same way we call a well hit baseball flying a "country mile".

I am SHOCKED that a Star Trek movie discussion thread has turned into a nerd debate on Science Fiction. Shocked.

This thread, in visual form:

why is the one Trek guy blowing the troopers a kiss?

Cuz he's gay. And honestly..I think the Trekkers might win that fight. We all know Storm Troopers can't aim for shit.