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
  • Wow... This thread turned nerdier than even i thought possible.... Just kidding...

    But you may want to just start a star trek thread because this thread has turned way off topic.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: Also, I heard the next movie is going to feature Kahn. While that would be neat, I have to wonder if that's wise. Now that Trek has a brand new universe I'd love to see them do new things not re-tread older ground. Plus there's only one Ricardo Motalban, and he's dead.

    I agree with this and reiterate that Trek fans have no idea what they really want. If the next movie really does have Khan Noonien Singh in it, then there will be an inevitable hailstorm of backlash from critics and fans alike who will complain at length about it being unoriginal.

    ...on the topic of creating a Trek thread, someone other than myself will have to do it because I don't feel like making a thread about my favorite TV franchise only to have people complain endlessly about how they believe DS9 and Voyager to be massive loads of suck. You can believe it; I just don't want to personally OP a thread that invites people to do so en masse.

  • I was more thinking someone should just split this conversation into a new thread.

  • @MusicallyInspired said: I was more thinking someone should just split this conversation into a new thread.

    AAAAAAND done.

  • @Chyron8472 said: Why are you listening to anything Roger Ebert has to say? He's obviously a professional troll.


    As someone who owns 10 books by Roger Ebert, as well as someone who reads his blog, subscribes to his Twitter feed, and reads all of his reviews, I object to this characterization based on two viewpoints.

  • I've been watching TNG backwards over the past three weeks (starting with All Good Things) to ensure that I've seen every episode. I intend to, once finished, alternate between Voyager and Enterprise to ensure I've seen all of those. Then I'll alternate DS9 and TOS. And then I'll definitely be sure I've seen every Star Trek thing ever.

  • I loved the recent film and I can't wait for the next one. And I like all of the series, to varying degrees. For instance, I rank DS9 at the top of my list and the original at the bottom (though that's mainly because I watched them a fair while after I started watching TNG and got into Trek). I even like all the films, though some more so than others (like I feel that the Final Frontier is the worse thing to happen to Star Trek). I also try to go through one of the series every year (and all the films as well, though that's more like every couple of years or so), often more than one. I think I'll rewatch DS9 to start with this year.

    So I think it's safe to say I'm a fan of Star Trek. And proud of it. Though I'd also say that I'm not an obsessive fan who feels like it's all real and that everything must be fitting to one person's idea of what they wanted to make nearly 50 years ago. I also don't get mad when changes are made or contradictions happen.

  • @Rather Dashing said: As someone who owns 10 books by Roger Ebert, as well as someone who reads his blog, subscribes to his Twitter feed, and reads all of his reviews, I object to this characterization [that he's a troll] based on two viewpoints.

    Explain to me then why he suddenly decided to declare that video games are not and never will be art; and then when people stood up and told him to play various games that could prove to him otherwise, he basically said that to do so is pointless and no one would ever dissuade him from his opinion (regardless of the fact that the evidence he had gathered was woefully incomplete)?

    He's a professional critic. He should be professional when considering his viewpoints. In this case, however, he was stubborn about it for no apparent reason, he started the whole thing with no apparent cause (beyond purposely making people mad), and he basically belittled the entire gaming community as though their activity of choice was stupid and unworthy of further consideration beyond watching someone else play a game or two for a few minutes. So, yes--I will hold it against him and call him a troll.

  • @Chyron8472 said: Explain to me then why he suddenly decided to declare that video games are not and never will be art; and then when people stood up and told him to play various games that could prove to him otherwise, he basically said that to do so is pointless and no one would ever dissuade him from his opinion (regardless of the fact that the evidence he had gathered was woefully incomplete)?

    He's a professional critic. He should be professional when considering his viewpoints. In this case, however, he was stubborn about it for no apparent reason, he started the whole thing with no apparent cause (beyond purposely making people mad), and he basically belittled the entire gaming community as though their activity of choice was stupid and unworthy of further consideration beyond watching someone else play a game or two for a few minutes. So, yes--I will hold it against him and call him a troll.

    Have you actually READ the article to which you are referring? He was talking about a very specific definition of art--and by that definition, video games don't qualify. It's not a matter of opinion--they simply don't fit the criteria as that article had defined it.

Add Comment