Could the "Warcraft" movie completely over-shadow the "D&D" movie?

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think the Warcraft movie will over-shadow the D&D movie, because Warcraft (or at least World of Warcraft) is a much stronger known brand with a lot bigger active fanbase (e.g. people that pla ythe game).

But I suspect that if the D&D movie fails, it will fail on its own merits (or lack thereof), just as the last ones.

In fairness, the recent Star Trek films have had as much "science" as Mad Max, too.

With recent, you mean the last... 12?

 

[delericho]

With recent, you mean the last... 12?

11, I think. I've not watched the first one in a long time, but I don't think it was too bad on that front - certainly much more a science fiction film than the more recent action fare.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Deathstrike]

Star Trek: The Motion Picture

The whole story about what happens if one of Earth's space probes (Voyager 6) gets intercepted by an alien race and is sent back to Earth (on steroids!)

How the transporters are not always 100%, and same with the warp engines.

Star Trek is full of science. From deflector shields to artificial gravity to universal translators to medical scans/beds to discovering new life and new civilizations ....

Of all the science fiction out their, Star Trek is one that takes science seriously.

But even so, like so many, when it comes to science fiction and fantasy, it is us being able to suspend reality and enjoy the film, video game, novel, TV show for the entertainment it provides.

No..not really.
The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.
Trek is notorious for ignoring the laws of physics. It was never about the science- Trek is a morality play. Its about the journey and what the journey tells us about ourselves. It fails in almost every way as science fiction- you could call it sci-fi, though.
It successfully presented an interesting worldview and a philosophy of acceptance and better living through science, but the science wasn't exactly a science.

 

[Ryujin]

No..not really.
The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.
Trek is notorious for ignoring the laws of physics. It was never about the science- Trek is a morality play. Its about the journey and what the journey tells us about ourselves. It fails in almost every way as science fiction- you could call it sci-fi, though.
It successfully presented an interesting worldview and a philosophy of acceptance and better living through science, but the science wasn't exactly a science.

Massive? It was designed pretty much to the scale of the American aircraft carrier of the same name. That vessel doesn't generally surf a tsunami.

 

[MechaPilot]

No..not really.
The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.

The Enterprise D, which was larger than all the previous ones, is 642.5 meters long and weighs 4.5 million metric tons (according to Wikipedia, and that's likely drawn from the info in the Star Trek tech manual that was released). By contrast, the moon is 3.675 x10^19 metric tons; 8.167 x10^12 times more massive than the Enterprise D.

It's alwo worth noting that geosynchronous orbit is not necessarily standard procedure. Several instances exist of a ship entering into "standard orbit" around a planet. Standard orbit is never particularly defined as to distance from the planet (though it clearly is within transporter range) or the planetary latitude it corresponds to. Plus, geosynchronous orbit simply means that the ship remains directly above a specific point on the planet. It makes no mention of the distance from the planet.

Trek is a morality play.

That is very true.

 

[Ryujin]

The Enterprise D, which was larger than all the previous ones, is 642.5 meters long and weighs 4.5 million metric tons (according to Wikipedia, and that's likely drawn from the info in the Star Trek tech manual that was released). By contrast, the moon is 3.675 x10^19 metric tons; 8.167 x10^12 times more massive than the Enterprise D.

It's alwo worth noting that geosynchronous orbit is not necessarily standard procedure. Several instances exist of a ship entering into "standard orbit" around a planet. Standard orbit is never particularly defined as to distance from the planet (though it clearly is within transporter range) or the planetary latitude it corresponds to. Plus, geosynchronous orbit simply means that the ship remains directly above a specific point on the planet. It makes no mention of the distance from the planet.

The Wikipedia entry matches the information at this site:

http://www.ussenterprise.co.uk/enterprise/ente/entetech.htm

It does, however, conflict with this site:

http://www.kasper-online.de/en/docs/startrek/ncc1701d.htm

To give that some sense of scale the CVN-65 USS Enterprise aircraft carrier (Length: 342.29 m, Beam: 40.54 m, Draught 11.89 m) displaces a mass of 85,000 Tonnes.The Enterprise-D should be within a few multiples of that, unless it was supposed to have a neutronium hull. The series suggests either duranium or tritanium, which I wouldn't think has the density of a collapsed star. Even the warp core of a Romulan military vessel, which uses an artificial singularity as its power source, won't have an effect on anything outside of the core unless the systems break down.

Now if anyone wants to discuss the business of "red matter", that's a different thing all together. It's also not from what I would call "Star Trek" anymore

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now if anyone wants to discuss the business of "red matter", that's a different thing all together. It's also not from what I would call "Star Trek" anymore

Star Trek is full of pseudo-science stuff like that IMO. Proto-Matter, that can somehow be used to turn a dead planet into a viable ecosphere (at least for a time, because "proto-matter is unstable").
Theta Radiation, Subspace. Genetics in Star Trek...

The thing that probably doesn't make Star Trek fantasy is mostly the structure of the stories and their content. It's often examining what these fantastic concepts might do to a society, or how you deal with it, and it's not just a fantastic background where you tell your regular war story or your regular heroic journey.
I would also almost count the "morality tale" aspect of Star Trek what makes it more science fiction, since a lot of science fiction seems to deal with that, too (but other genres do that, too).

 

[Umbran]

No..not really.
The Enterprise is a massive ship. If it were to enter into a geosynchronous orbit around an inhabited planet ( which is a standard Trek procedure) the planet would be torn apart. Tsunamis would drown everyone.

Not even close. The original ship was only 289 meters long. The Empire state building is taller! In the new movies, she's 725m long. The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is taller.

Those buildings aren't causing massive tidal effects, so neither will the Enterprise.