Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd first like to say how articulate and knowledgeable a lot of these posts are. I never liked anything Star Trek, but I do like the reasons a lot of you have put forward as to why you do like Star Trek.

I love dark, I love abysmal, I love thinking the worst that humanity can do. Crossed is my favorite comic book if that tells you anything

But it kinda brings a ray of delight to me that so many really want to see something, I dunno, uplifting? That's cool.

Only way I could ever watch Trek would be if Patrick Stewart played every character a la Eddie Murphy. That dude is a legend among men.

And for what it's worth, I didn't like the Abrams reboot any more than I liked the one's that came out in the 90's. Resurrection was one I think? There definitely were Borg. God I am nervous for the new Wars.

I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.


Except when Picard became a Borg, that was fun.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.

To be fair, TOS did have Star Trek: The Motionless Picture to compete for the boring award.

 Ahtman wrote:

Except when Picard became a Borg, that was fun.

Locutus was the business! The original Borg literally scared me as a kid. Then Voyager & <barf>.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.

To be fair, TOS did have Star Trek: The Motionless Picture to compete for the boring award.

I actually liked how different that movie was from the show. Much more "campy 70's sci fi" complete with wonky music. It was better than Insurrection at least...

TMP is confusing for me because it is a terribly-paced, hokey film while also being a brilliant time capsule of a weird era in film and sci fi. The movie has some amazing special effects, and uses them to test the audience's will to endure. Who doesn't love male gazing the Enterprise? It also has some ill conceived effects that fail horribly, such as the wormhole. The characters are very stylized and often stilted. Remember Ilia announcing her oath of celibacy? Or Kirk and crew laughing at McCoy for not wanting to use the transporter just minutes after Sonak and some other poor bastard went all Brundlefly? The film is almost surreal.

I just don't know how I feel about it.


Insurrection, on the other hand, is a pile of crap. At least Nemesis was a spectacular failure. Insurrection is like the coke whore sister of Jeffrey Dahmer.

^^ Hahahahaha, well put.

Lets not even discuss Generations.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.

And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?

 Breotan wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.

And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?

And how many times did Wesley save the ship? (Not that that is Sesame Street stuff)

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.


Except when Picard became a Borg, that was fun.

I think that hits it right on the noggin.

 Peregrine wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"

3. It's a continuation of Kirk's story. Wrath of Khan is fundamentally a story of Kirk's past catching up to him. His certainty in being the hero has left him an enemy that he didn't even bother to remember. His habit of sleeping with everyone has left him a son who hates him. His overconfidence gets his ship crippled in a trap he should have avoided. The rest of the movie (and the ones that followed) is about Kirk growing up and trying to fix his mistakes. And you just can't do that with a young Kirk.

So the logic is that it's bad because a character called Khan is in it, and it isn't as good as Wrath of Khan? But NONE of the Trek movies are as good as Wrath of Khan, so that's a pretty damn high bar to set. One of these days I'll get around to watching Space Seed.

Personally I enjoyed the nods to previous Trek in Into Darkness. Each to their own.

Watching TNG now it actually comes off as less Hippy and a lot more Campy to me. Kind of Star Trek reveling a bit too much in itself. I mean, there was an episode where it took them 45 minutes to realize the solution to the crisis of the week was to turn the computer off and turn it back on. That was probably really clever back in the mid 80's but today it's like a really sloppily written episode of the IT Crowd XD

 Khornholio wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.

And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?

And how many times did Wesley save the ship? (Not that that is Sesame Street stuff)

The thing I remember is that every other episode they'd be faced with Menace/Dilemma X, and Geordi or Wesley would "reconfigure the main deflector dish" to create plot resolution. Because technobabble. Which is fairly terrible writing.

The show was on a long time, and its fans remember the standout episodes. But there was a ton of repetitive mediocrity in between.

I quit watching it after a few seasons. It was just...boring. I would occasionally try a new episode and would turn it off after about 15 minutes.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.


Except when Picard became a Borg, that was fun.

Agreed...and note how that's closely tied to the personalities of the shows' captains.

During some past election season, I made a post here about which ST captain you'd most like to have a beer with. And just imagine trying to have a beer and normal conversation with Picard. Good lord. It'd wouldn't just the boredom, it'd be the lecturing!

Meanwhile, imagine how that'd go with Kirk. It'd be like The Hangover in spaaaaaaace!

STOS: Our bars have green slave girls, drunk Irishmen fighting Klingons, and the occasional incorporeal serial killer.
ST DS9: Our bars have holosuites, real booze, floozies, terminal alcoholic aliens, and gambling.
Babylon Five: Our bars have real booze, alien food, floozies, gambling, and lots of bar fights. We're really into bar fights leading to fights all over the station. If you talk shop you have to buy everyone a drink.
BSG (Moore version): We don't have a bar. We just sit around and drink ourselves silly. EVERY>>>SINGLE>>>DAY.



STTNG: We have a very nice wine tasting bar but its fake alcohol. Real alcohol might make us appear human. Our waitstaff is ugly and preachy. Gambling is strictly forbidden. We have a strict noise rule as well.

gorgon wrote:

During some past election season, I made a post here about which ST captain you'd most like to have a beer with. And just imagine trying to have a beer and normal conversation with Picard. Good lord. It'd wouldn't just the boredom, it'd be the lecturing!

Beer? With Picard? That's where you're going wrong, sir! Picard will lecture you over beer, but brew up a nice pot of tea and you can while away the hours discussing morals, science and why everyone seems to hate his films despite them all being decent...

Nemesis and Insurrection were not good

First Contact though I'd put up as the best Star Trek film after Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home.

Eh, I liked them.

At the very least they were better than Star Trek V

For me-from best to worst- Wrath of Khan, First Contact, Undiscovered Country,Generations, Search for Spock, Star Trek motion picture (the risks of teleportation bit was pretty good)Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis .

TV show wise it's probably TOS, DS9,Voyager, TNG and Enterprise.

It is great to see all these different opinions and beliefs on what Star Trek should be. I think the idea of Star Trek works best as a television show. But the showrunner worries me. A lot.

Movie Order for me:

Wrath of Khan,
Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country
First Contact
Search for Spock
Star Trek Reboot 1
Generations

Series:
DS9
TNG
TOS
Voyager

Disliked or unwatched shows/films are not mentioned.

I own one Star Trek movie and one movie only: The Wrath of Khan.

No wait. I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.

 Ahtman wrote:
I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.

They are pretty. I saw them both in IMAX. JJ Abrams is a good visual director (minus the excessive lens flair). But Into Darkness was the most disappointed I have ever been about a film. I was really crestfallen and even Idris Alba is not enough for me to not be hesitant for the next movie.

 Ahtman wrote:
I own one Star Trek movie and one movie only: The Wrath of Khan.

No, wait. I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems, the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.

Into Darkness was pants IMO. Didn't like Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal at all. They should've got someone who at least bore some resemblance to Ricardo Montalban as a younger man for Khan.

 Frazzled wrote:
STOS: Our bars have green slave girls, drunk Irishmen fighting Klingons, and the occasional incorporeal serial killer.
ST DS9: Our bars have holosuites, real booze, floozies, terminal alcoholic aliens, and gambling.
Babylon Five: Our bars have real booze, alien food, floozies, gambling, and lots of bar fights. We're really into bar fights leading to fights all over the station. If you talk shop you have to buy everyone a drink.
BSG (Moore version): We don't have a bar. We just sit around and drink ourselves silly. EVERY>>>SINGLE>>>DAY.



STTNG: We have a very nice wine tasting bar but its fake alcohol. Real alcohol might make us appear human. Our waitstaff is ugly and preachy. Gambling is strictly forbidden. We have a strict noise rule as well.

To be fair to TNG, the characters seem to skip the entire bar/out for drinks stage in seduction and move right into Troi's quarters (or Riker's). That ship was like a coed dorm after finals.

You must have watched a different show than me. I remember it being the opposite of that.

I remember Data playing the violin and stuff for a packed audience.

Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!

 gorgon wrote:
You must have watched a different show than me. I remember it being the opposite of that.

Troi was directly based on the sexed-up character from TMP. Deltan-->Betazoid. Sexy mind powers-->uh, kind of. Oath of Celibacy-->nope. Advanced social-sexuality-->naked weddings and stuff. A lot of it is only implied in the show, but it's there. Riker trying to nail any sapient that came across his path was almost a running gag. TNG suffered a lot from telling instead of showing or indirect references to a lot of the social norms, and it wasn't terribly consistent, but Roddenberry's 60's woo-woo ideas about sex and permissiveness were all over that show.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I remember Data playing the violin and stuff for a packed audience.

Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!

They had holodecks. After a few months I'm sure the crew was so out of ideas and spunk that a robot violinist was a novel change of pace.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!

Because... diversity. Data is an "innocent child" and in this way served as a metaphor for mentally handicapped people. The way Data was trying to integrate into Trek society has analogies to the way people with down's syndrome, autism, and other "special needs" try fit into modern society. Thus episodes with LaForge teaching Data how to paint and Data playing the violin for an audience. All this at the same time he was a master intellect, indestructible, wise beyond his years, and still bringing a child-like perspective to every situation.

Oh, in case you're wondering, the Pinocchio analogy doesn't really work because they only used it once or twice before declaring him a "real boy".

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
You must have watched a different show than me. I remember it being the opposite of that.

Troi was directly based on the sexed-up character from TMP. Deltan-->Betazoid. Sexy mind powers-->uh, kind of. Oath of Celibacy-->nope. Advanced social-sexuality-->naked weddings and stuff. A lot of it is only implied in the show, but it's there. Riker trying to nail any sapient that came across his path was almost a running gag. TNG suffered a lot from telling instead of showing or indirect references to a lot of the social norms, and it wasn't terribly consistent, but Roddenberry's 60's woo-woo ideas about sex and permissiveness were all over that show.

I guess those *themes* were there surrounding that one character, but overall I found that show to be remarkably sterile and 'action'-less at the same time. I don't know how anyone would call TNG a sexy show.