User Avatar Image

Star Trek... the Next Thread

posted by BagginsKQ on - last edited - Viewed by 2.3K 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
  • User Avatar Image
    Vainamoinen Moderator

    @Chyron8472 said:

    People used to complain that Berman was holding Trek back from trying new things. Now that the franchise has a fresh start, people complain because it's not what they are used to.

    It also occurs to me that people cite one episode or movie and say "that is the epitome of Trek," and use it to explain why Abrams sucks; yet at the same time, they complained about Trek long before the reboot.

    Very true. When the first JJ movie came out, trekkies complained about "too much action". While I could see the problem with the movie itself, action overload is hardly a point of critique we haven't experienced before in Star Trek movies! I mean, it's not as if we haven't actually had Captain Picard and Captain Kirk both fistfighting Dr. Soren in Generations as the supposed finale. :p

  • All I'm saying is that I wish it was easier to talk about what we love about Star Trek without having to wade through all the bitching that Trek fans seem to love doing.

    I was trying to find a quote from the ENT episode "Breaking The Ice" today, and the top Google Search result was to the blog of some guy who took it upon himself to pick the entire episode apart and explain why it was stupid and contrived.

  • Whaaaaaaaaaaaa..... HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? WHY HAVE I STARTED A THREAD?

    Well, that's four years of carefully never starting a thread ever down the drain... I was special in my special lack of doing anything!

  • It's Star Trek - we'll probably have gone back in time and changed things about a dozen times before the week's over. Just you wait and see.

    EDIT: Oh look, it appears that a parallel dimension version of myself crossed over and changed history so there is now only the original Star Trek thread. Fascinating.

  • @Chyron8472 said: There is a Voyager episode about why Vulcans suppress emotions, as well it is explored a bit in Enterprise.

    As I have said, Trek needs new fans, and making another Prime Universe show or movie isn't going to do it. Now that the reboot uses a different timeline, the characters and their culture can be explored in new and different ways without restrictions imposed on them by the Prime universe.

    People used to complain that Berman was holding Trek back from trying new things. Now that the franchise has a fresh start, people complain because it's not what they are used to.

    It also occurs to me that people cite one episode or movie and say "that is the epitome of Trek," and use it to explain why Abrams sucks; yet at the same time, they complained about Trek long before the reboot.

    This is untrue. What was wrong with Star Trek wasn't the Prime Universe or the lore it established, it was just bad characterization and writing. Voyager, interesting premise, bad writing. I mean continuously bad writing. Periods of brilliance mixed with nonsense.

    DS9, even if it wasn't true sci fi for a lot of its later stretch, was great stuff. Interesting characters, interesting places, moral dilemmas, conflict you could become invested in. That'll keep people watching.

  • @Chyron8472 said: There is a Voyager episode about why Vulcans suppress emotions, as well it is explored a bit in Enterprise.

    As I have said, Trek needs new fans, and making another Prime Universe show or movie isn't going to do it. Now that the reboot uses a different timeline, the characters and their culture can be explored in new and different ways without restrictions imposed on them by the Prime universe.

    People used to complain that Berman was holding Trek back from trying new things. Now that the franchise has a fresh start, people complain because it's not what they are used to.

    It also occurs to me that people cite one episode or movie and say "that is the epitome of Trek," and use it to explain why Abrams sucks; yet at the same time, they complained about Trek long before the reboot.

    Fuck off. I want people to acknowledge this great episode exists. The most JJ Abrams is going to explore is the possibility of a wallet that can hold trillion dollar bills.

  • @Secret Fawful said: Fuck off. I want people to acknowledge this great episode exists. The most JJ Abrams is going to explore is the possibility of a wallet that can hold trillion dollar bills.

    Are you... serious? The new Star Trek engages the very real moral dilemma of preemptive striking, the moral justification of murder without trial, the use of drones to kill foreigners abroad, the declaration of guilt of a citizen without a fair hearing,and the unilateral declaration of war in general. These are all very real, modern issues we're having to grapple with in foreign policy today.

  • @DAISHI said: Are you... serious? The new Star Trek engages the very real moral dilemma of preemptive striking, the moral justification of murder without trial, the use of drones to kill foreigners abroad, the declaration of guilt of a citizen without a fair hearing,and the unilateral declaration of war in general. These are all very real, modern issues we're having to grapple with in foreign policy today.

    As comic relief. When the original did it, I stop and listen. When the Abramsverse does it, thanks to the tone he sets, the entire audience is too busy laughing at that rapscallion Spock. Literally every line Spock said in my theater was met with giggles. It sets these issues up, but it doesn't explore them in any real depth. I liked that it added the set up, but by the time the movie was over, it was all forgotten. These weren't lessons the characters learned. It didn't stick. It just made for a cute little ending speech.

    CUTE. LITTLE. Ending speech.

    Cute....and little.

    EDIT: You do kind of have a point. Sort of. Maybe. I refuse to acknowledge further lest I come close to saying I'm wrong. OH NO NOT THAT

  • @DAISHI said: This is untrue. What was wrong with Star Trek wasn't the Prime Universe or the lore it established, it was just bad characterization and writing. Voyager, interesting premise, bad writing. I mean continuously bad writing. Periods of brilliance mixed with nonsense.

    DS9, even if it wasn't true sci fi for a lot of its later stretch, was great stuff. Interesting characters, interesting places, moral dilemmas, conflict you could become invested in. That'll keep people watching.

    That blog which picks apart Star Trek episodes which I mentioned earlier--one of the things it complained about was "missed continuity" in that the episode in question failed to directly refer to the Vulcans' behavior during the immediately preceding episode. Nevermind that it was still the first season, or that Enterprise was largely aiming for episodic stories up until Season 3.

    Yes, Voyager did have some stupid moments, like the Doctor's conclusion that Paris and Janeway had evolved to humanity's next evolutionary stage (being giant salamanders) after Paris broke the Warp 10 barrier. Then again, there was an episode of TNG where the whole crew "de-evolved" (and that episode was quite good, even if Barclay inexplicably became a spider); plus there are all the deus ex machina bits at the end of various TNG episodes just to get the crew back to status quo for the next episode... so such contrivances aren't found in Voyager alone, nor does it make the show bad for it. Sure, the conflict between Starfleet and Maquis was underused in Voyager, and the Borg became severely underpowered and inept for the sake of plot, but the series as a whole was fairly decent.

    The one thing I disliked about TNG was that it took a firm stance on religious faith as being outmoded and archaic superstitious nonsense. Whereas DS9 greatly explored the beliefs of the Bajorans, and what it really means to have faith in God. (I am not inviting people to troll me on this subject.)

  • Never been a big Star Trek fan. I did enjoy the two newest films though. They made me want to try and get into the series. Still couldn't do it. I just can't get through any of the episodes.

    However, I did catch some of the older movies on Sci-Fi before going see "Into Darkness". One of them was Nemisis and I thought that one was cool.

    I find it weird that I can sit through a Star Trek movie and get invested but I can't even watch a single episode without getting bored.

Add Comment