It isn't. I've often said that Stargate is my favourite sci-fi series, because it looks like fairly mindless entertainment but it's actually well written with a very cohesive universe.Darth Hoth wrote:How is Trek any different from, say, Stargate in this respect?Starglider wrote:I give Trek credit for merely trying simply because it's so rare for visual sci-fi to use science as a integral part of the stories rather than just filling the backdrop with futuristic techology.
SG-1 actually does pretty well with scientific accuracy, when the script is specifically about a scientific problem; better than Trek in fact. Even the ascended beings, while implausible, are an improvement on Trek; Stargate explicitly defines them as wave patterns existing in subspace that can be created (e.g. the Asuran ascension attempt) and canceled out (e.g. Merlin's weapon) by technological means. Frankly it's hard to imagine how you could do better job of rationalising the existence of 'energy creatures', within the constraints of a popular TV show.Both have some episodes where a non-standard problem (no antagonist that can be bashed to make things well) is fronted, which the heroes confront with "science" (translation: Ghostbusters-style jargon and special effects) and defeat by dreaming up a technobabble solution (preferably one that includes a little lightning effects). SG-1 is shock full of this crap, especially the early seasons.
This principle applies here.
