No more than any other storyline. Remember, part of the movie took place in Iowa, which is very much part of our universe.
It was a modified part of Iowa, and it doesn't seem to be the leading point of the universe (sort of like LEXX actually has present-day Earth but the way they portray it [just another stupid planet] makes it insignificant, and the universe remains unique).
Watchmen are closer to their own universe because they have an alternate reality, but people basically think and function the same.
Dark Knight is just on everyday Earth place and all Earth principles continue to work.
The main difference is can typical human concepts be applied to the given universe or no. Such as stereotypes, cultural things...
I could go deeper into this but do you really want to?
The main difference is can typical human concepts be applied to the given universe or no. Such as stereotypes, cultural things...
Yes they can. As a matter of fact, cultural things play a huge part in Star Trek. Human traits will always apply. It's why I don't think universe is the word you were looking for.
I understand what you are saying, but not why you said it the way you did.
As a matter of fact, cultural things play a huge part in Star Trek.
Well, I don't think people in our world will go for a green-skinned woman in a heart-beat, and a lot of situations in ST would make a normal person go "Oh shit I'm fucked." but due to technological advancements that doesn't really happen. People can actually go to space without wearing suits. That sort of modifies the whole outlook on what space is like, and they did this in SW as well.
Quote from "goodguy8705" »
Human traits will always apply.
To a certain extent. Humanism, pity, mercy, kindness, etc. are extinct in LEXX outside of some exceptional areas. And must proper Vulcans don't really experience emotion.
Quote from "goodguy8705" »
It's why I don't think universe is the word you were looking for.
That would be semantics, usually, the word "universe" is the one used. It doesn't literary mean universe.
By using Star Trek, you are using the literal version of the word universe as it literally takes place in a universe full of planets that don't exist.
I'm not, sorry. The term "universe" basically means a collection of "stuff". The Warcraft universe, for instance, will be all Warcraft, which, I believe, is just a planet, bu it's still referred to as a universe. Universe is a setting in which a given story takes place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_universe
Doppel sorta understands what I'm getting at.
Quote from "goodguy8705" »
Either way, you like it because it takes place in the future, not a different universe.
Time doesn't matter. LEXX takes place in the present and it's still a standalone universe because Earth is not the point of the show. ST is not the future as much as it's a certain idea of what the future may be like while I seriously doubt we'll have a future like that. If you take Brave New World, it's sort of also the future, but a very different one.
I know what universe means. Need I remind you that I'm a native english speaker who writes.
And I know what you mean. The point is, Star Trek isn't all that different from what you consider our universe. Aliens are just an allegory for different races. The differences between human culture and klingon culture is not so different than an exaggerated difference between asians and mexicans. Sure the traits differ and are wider in scope, but they aren't new concepts that don't already exist.
You enjoy the exaggeration. It has nothing to do with what universe it is. I understand that the term universe is used to describe these differences, but I don't believe that the differences are large enough in scope and extent to be described as a wholly different universe.
Separate universes are allegories. Unless they're separate for the sake of being separate (I've seen a couple of these but they're only interesting from the scientific standpoint). The ST universe is separate enough for me, perhaps not for you.
LEXX was totally out there God knows where God knows why, with different technology, different culture, different planets and starts, everything, but it's still a dystopian allegory on our world, the way it was made. The things mentioned is what makes it separate. ST is not as separate but separate yet.
Well, I don't think people in our world will go for a green-skinned woman in a heart-beat, and a lot of situations in ST would make a normal person go "Oh shit I'm fucked." but due to technological advancements that doesn't really happen. People can actually go to space without wearing suits. That sort of modifies the whole outlook on what space is like, and they did this in SW as well.
To a certain extent. Humanism, pity, mercy, kindness, etc. are extinct in LEXX outside of some exceptional areas. And must proper Vulcans don't really experience emotion.
That would be semantics, usually, the word "universe" is the one used. It doesn't literary mean universe.
umm... i would have fucked that green skinned chick lol... she was bangin... just imagine her as a tan woman xD
evrything is as should be..im at least glad they made another film.
for a moment there I thought my precious star trek was going to go
the way of the grave and perhaps it wont.
I enjoyed the begining scene in the movie where kirks father sacrificed his life to save his wife and his son who was in the process of being born. It sets the stage for the kobayashi maru scenario, which i myself am very fond of. I base a lot of my life off of the philosophy of the no win scenario and how it shows character in a positive or negative way of how you chose to react to a no win scenario or how you chose to deal with the consequences of your decisions and how you move on afterwards.
hmmmmm...very hard question...but it has to be data!
please add also who is ur worst character..mine is...laforge
Sorry. was in a hurry for the least favorite character, but i have to agree with you fully. Data was my favorite character and laforge was my least favorite.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
My least favourite character.. umm.. based on the series I've watched and characters I know rather well I'd have to say O'Brien.
Don't like O'Brien? He's totally, likable. I think actually that he's my favorite Star Trek engineer of all time.
I think one of my least favorite characters was Ensign Kim from Voyager. He was totally useless in every way. And being useless is one thing, but he wasn't even enjoyable to watch.
My favorite character might be Captain Sisko. He had a lot of charisma but he could also serious the fuck up when the situation demanded it. And his pep talks to his crew rivaled those of Picard's.
My least favourite character.. umm.. based on the series I've watched and characters I know rather well I'd have to say O'Brien.
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for that.
Because... I would have to consider myself one of the most open-minded people I know concerning everything Star Trek (I actually liked Star Trek V, as an extreme example), and I find it difficult to believe that a fan of the franchise could find enough wrong with the O'Brien character to label him their least favorite.
He's an "every man" kinda guy, and he knows his job inside and out, having "saved the day" on more than one occasion because if it.
A character strong enough to play major roles in two incarnations of the Star Trek universe (TNG, and DS:9).
I'm not attempting to devalue your opinion with respect to this character; I'm just interested in why you feel the way you do.
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for that.
Because... I would have to consider myself one of the most open-minded people I know concerning everything Star Trek (I actually liked Star Trek V, as an extreme example), and I find it difficult to believe that a fan of the franchise could find enough wrong with the O'Brien character to label him their least favorite.
He's an "every man" kinda guy, and he knows his job inside and out, having "saved the day" on more than one occasion because if it.
A character strong enough to play major roles in two incarnations of the Star Trek universe (TNG, and DS:9).
I'm not attempting to devalue your opinion with respect to this character; I'm just interested in why you feel the way you do.
I've only seen every episode of Voyager and Enterprise. TOS I've only seen tidbits of. I've seen maybe 30% of TNG and DS9. Based on that I suppose I couldn't really get to know the characters all that well. I have no valid reason to choosing O'Brien. He just always annoyed me. Maybe he reminds me of someone in rl or something.
Based on Voyager and Enterprise I'd have to say my favourite character would be T'Pol and my least favourite Harry Kim. Although I liked that entire crew. Was so sad when it was canceled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Watchmen are closer to their own universe because they have an alternate reality, but people basically think and function the same.
Dark Knight is just on everyday Earth place and all Earth principles continue to work.
The main difference is can typical human concepts be applied to the given universe or no. Such as stereotypes, cultural things...
I could go deeper into this but do you really want to?
Yes they can. As a matter of fact, cultural things play a huge part in Star Trek. Human traits will always apply. It's why I don't think universe is the word you were looking for.
I understand what you are saying, but not why you said it the way you did.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
To a certain extent. Humanism, pity, mercy, kindness, etc. are extinct in LEXX outside of some exceptional areas. And must proper Vulcans don't really experience emotion.
That would be semantics, usually, the word "universe" is the one used. It doesn't literary mean universe.
By using Star Trek, you are using the literal version of the word universe as it literally takes place in a universe full of planets that don't exist.
Either way, you like it because it takes place in the future, not a different universe.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Doppel sorta understands what I'm getting at.
Time doesn't matter. LEXX takes place in the present and it's still a standalone universe because Earth is not the point of the show. ST is not the future as much as it's a certain idea of what the future may be like while I seriously doubt we'll have a future like that. If you take Brave New World, it's sort of also the future, but a very different one.
And I know what you mean. The point is, Star Trek isn't all that different from what you consider our universe. Aliens are just an allegory for different races. The differences between human culture and klingon culture is not so different than an exaggerated difference between asians and mexicans. Sure the traits differ and are wider in scope, but they aren't new concepts that don't already exist.
You enjoy the exaggeration. It has nothing to do with what universe it is. I understand that the term universe is used to describe these differences, but I don't believe that the differences are large enough in scope and extent to be described as a wholly different universe.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
LEXX was totally out there God knows where God knows why, with different technology, different culture, different planets and starts, everything, but it's still a dystopian allegory on our world, the way it was made. The things mentioned is what makes it separate. ST is not as separate but separate yet.
umm... i would have fucked that green skinned chick lol... she was bangin... just imagine her as a tan woman xD
gamma11 > east
evrything is as should be..im at least glad they made another film.
for a moment there I thought my precious star trek was going to go
the way of the grave and perhaps it wont.
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I think one of my least favorite characters was Ensign Kim from Voyager. He was totally useless in every way. And being useless is one thing, but he wasn't even enjoyable to watch.
My favorite character might be Captain Sisko. He had a lot of charisma but he could also serious the fuck up when the situation demanded it. And his pep talks to his crew rivaled those of Picard's.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning for that.
Because... I would have to consider myself one of the most open-minded people I know concerning everything Star Trek (I actually liked Star Trek V, as an extreme example), and I find it difficult to believe that a fan of the franchise could find enough wrong with the O'Brien character to label him their least favorite.
He's an "every man" kinda guy, and he knows his job inside and out, having "saved the day" on more than one occasion because if it.
A character strong enough to play major roles in two incarnations of the Star Trek universe (TNG, and DS:9).
I'm not attempting to devalue your opinion with respect to this character; I'm just interested in why you feel the way you do.
I've only seen every episode of Voyager and Enterprise. TOS I've only seen tidbits of. I've seen maybe 30% of TNG and DS9. Based on that I suppose I couldn't really get to know the characters all that well. I have no valid reason to choosing O'Brien. He just always annoyed me. Maybe he reminds me of someone in rl or something.
Based on Voyager and Enterprise I'd have to say my favourite character would be T'Pol and my least favourite Harry Kim. Although I liked that entire crew. Was so sad when it was canceled.