The top 6 Star Trek science mistakes

Slate:

…as a scientist, I can’t help but notice that every now and again, just sometimes, maybe, Trek ventures into some pretty dicey science territory. Let me be clear: I have no problem with faster-than-light travel, time travel, teleporters, the Universal Translator, or anything like that. Every genre has a conceit, a gimme, and in scifi that means advanced tech that we can’t necessarily explain today. That’s fine, and as long as it’s internally consistent in the story I’m happy.

My beef is usually when the plot relies on some error in science, or when the tech is used inconsistently.

In honor of the release of the latest Star Trek movie today, this should get the Trekkies all wound up.



  • http://diskgrinder.tumblr.com diskgrinder

    Star Trek can shit off. Dr. Who forever and I’ll fight anyone in Norwich who disagrees

    (Not really, I’m a cream puff)

    • LTMP

      Dr. Who is probably the best television ever. Maybe not every episode, but even the worst are in the top 10%.

      I still love Star Trek though.

      • DanPierce

        I, also, love Star Trek.

        Except for Voyager.

      • http://diskgrinder.tumblr.com diskgrinder

        I agree.

        Of course I do.

        My three sons and I sit down on a Saturday and watch the excellent plot holes develop

  • G

    SHHAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNNN!

  • http://twitter.com/Moeskido Moeskido

    The best Trek stories didn’t rely on scientific accuracy. They relied upon two opposing characters in a locked room. Like any other genre.

    And then there are stories that rely on a big budget to make lots of noise without using words that are too hard to understand.

  • http://diskgrinder.tumblr.com diskgrinder

    But if you want meat with your thin wine, check out last dr. Who with John hurt.