User Avatar Image

Star Trek... the Next Thread

posted by BagginsKQ on - last edited - Viewed by 2.8K users

**IRISHMILE EDIT** ok here is your Star Trek thread instead of talking about it on the Kings Quest section.. Enjoy.. we will now return to your previous conversation.............
** END IRISHMILE EDIT**

I'd surely like to ignore the last Star Trek movie (what kind of writer destroys "Romulus and Remus" in an offscreen/minor incident, rather than focusing on it as a major movie in its own right/Why ignore 60 years of Star Trek time travel mechanics? I.E. if you change time, your previous timeline ceases to exist/paradox created, I.E. City on the Edge of Forever (Original Series), Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG) or Past Tense on DS9, etc, thus the need for Temporal Prime Directives, and an agency that monitors for changes in the timeline?)

http://www.tunequest.org/star-trek-2009-permanency/20090604/

...or the last episode of Enterprise...

Oh well... unfortunately all future Star Trek shows and movies will take those into account... Nothing I can do about it...

140 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • Star Trek in its past state was amazing, but very very tired and old and needed a facelift for a new generation (one it probably should have gotten years ago). Star Trek 09 was exactly what Star Trek needed. It's the end of an era, yes, but to quote one of my favourite TNG episode titles "All good things must come to an end." But only to make room for new good things! You don't have to accept it or even acknowledge it, the original series is still there and always will be. As well as Star Trek Online if you want that universe to continue. But ST 09 wasn't near as bad as you're saying it was.

    And yeah, King's Quest didn't live on throughout the years like Star Trek did. It didn't wear out its welcome, it just took a few wrong turns toward the end.

  • Yeah, Star Trek had been around for over 40 years before it got the 2009 Facelift. King's Quest is still only 28 years old.


    Bt

  • http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87042770d5/arguments-on-why-star-trek-2009-was-an-abomination

    Hahah

    It's interesting if you go to many trek fan websites... The movie pretty much divides people about 1/4, that thinks its a bad movie, another 1/4 that thinks the movie destroyed everything that Star Trek stands for, and another 1/4 that like the movie was awsome, and another 1/4 that like the movie, but have 'reservations' about certain details...

    The movie clearly divided the Star Trek fandom...

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert

  • @MusicallyInspired said: Star Trek in its past state was amazing, but very very tired and old and needed a facelift for a new generation (one it probably should have gotten years ago). Star Trek 09 was exactly what Star Trek needed.

    Totally agree with this. I enjoyed the hell out of ST 2009 and thought it was perfect for moving the franchise forward.

    @MusicallyInspired said: Frankly perfect for the ADD riddled populous...

    Baggins, you gotta balance the ADD with the OCD. ;)

  • @BagginsKQ said: It's interesting if you go to many trek fan websites... The movie pretty much divides people about 1/4, that thinks its a bad movie, another 1/4 that thinks the movie destroyed everything that Star Trek stands for, and another 1/4 that like the movie was awsome, and another 1/4 that like the movie, but have 'reservations' about certain details...


    People, especially Trek fans, have no idea what they really want. People complained when DS9 aired because it was supposedly a Babylon 5 clone; People complained when Voyager aired because it felt too much like TNG-Revisited; People complained about Enterprise because it had too much fan service.

    Trek fandom was already divided. Star Trek 09 wasn't going to change that.

    "The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert

    Why are you listening to anything Roger Ebert has to say? He's obviously a professional troll. Don't you remember when he put on his blog that "Video Games will never be art"? There was nothing to gain by it except to rile up the gaming community, so he's not going to say something nice if being mean will get more attention.

  • I still don't like DS9. I like exploration, which Voyager epitomized. TNG will always be the greatest Trek that ever trekked, though.

  • I didn't care about DS9 much, nor watch it really, when it aired... then, when I was in college, I decided to watch the whole show from beginning to end. (It is Star Trek, after all.)

    Now, I like it quite a lot.

  • I still need to sit through it. I started following it during the final season right to the end. Finales are always fun to watch. I have to start from scratch with it. Currently going through a Stargate marathon right now, though. After that's done we'll start TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent, and ST 09. Hopefully by then the new ST movie will be out lol.

  • DS9 is my favorite Trek series by far. The overarching storyline is pretty much awesome from start to finish--and the characters and mythos were fleshed out so much more deeply than in TNG or TOS. I loved how DS9 really went in-depth with the cultures of many of the various Trek universe races. TNG didn't do that nearly as much. In fact, DS9 was really the first Trek series to actually HAVE an overarching storyline--and it did it exceptionally well, too.

  • I loved Trek 2009. It was awesome. I love seeing new takes on classic franchises--and Star Trek was in DESPERATE need of a new take.

    Only a pedantic fanboy gets his panties in a knot complaining about the new movie REPLACING the originals. The originals are all still there. They haven't changed.

    I want to see this new Trek's take on the Klingons!

Add Comment