[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Star Trek: Pick your side... (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 5/20/2013 2:49:21 PM EDT
|
I hated the 09 remake so much I can't tolerate even having it on in the background. Star Trek isn't Star Wars and, from what I've heard, the new movie is just another wild edition of JJ Abrams McBlockbuster BS with characters named Kirk and Spock.
I'm a little curious to watch it to see if Uhura and Spock actually engage in Anal in the turbolift since I'm not sure where else they can go with their Young and the Restless antics. Maybe someone knows if they actually go the distance in the new film. I'll admit it. I grew up on TOS and TNG. It's what I know and love. I've heard talk that Star Trek may come back to TV as a high quality series and if the movies help make that happen, then I can't really complain. Please, no weird, idiotic premises such as traveling 30K light years to get back home, confinement to a space station (with Wormhole!), the character Harry Kim, etc. ETA: To rank them, I'd do this: TNG- 10 TOS- 8.5 DS9- 5 Voyeurger- 3 Enterprise- Never watched. Sounds like crap. Movies, from best to worst: 2, 8, 6, 4, 3, 7, 1, 5, 9,10 with the last two being mostly garbage (especially the execrable Nemesis) and 5 being worth keeping around for the encounter with 'God' scenes. 2,8,6, and 4 are sci-fi classics that are very effective. The first reboot was a joke that its intended audience apparently didn't get. Good CGI doesn't make nonsense less campy, and there was plenty to go around- including a brazen nod to the Galaxy Quest 'Chomper' scene when Kird was floating through a transparent man-sized tube and had to be drained before he hit the sake-inspired 'shredder'. |
|
The first reboot movie was alright. I'm not singing its praises or anything but it was entertaining to watch. Haven't seen the newest one but it seems interesting.
I probably watched every single episode of TNG while I was growing up and First Contact is probably my favorite movie. Not a Star Trek nerd by any means though. |
|
Quoted:
I hated the 09 remake so much I can't tolerate even having it on in the background. Star Trek isn't Star Wars and, from what I've heard, the new movie is just another wild edition of JJ Abrams McBlockbuster BS with characters named Kirk and Spock. I'm a little curious to watch it to see if Uhura and Spock actually engage in Anal in the turbolift since I'm not sure where else they can go with their Young and the Restless antics. Maybe someone knows if they actually go the distance in the new film. I'll admit it. I grew up on TOS and TNG. It's what I know and love. I've heard talk that Star Trek may come back to TV as a high quality series and if the movies help make that happen, then I can't really complain. Please, no weird, idiotic premises such as traveling 30K light years to get back home, confinement to a space station (with Wormhole!), the character Harry Kim, etc. ERMAHGURD! No in depth interstellar policy discussions!?!?! No diatribes in Klingon?!?!?! No Shatner overacting and chewing the scenery every fucking chance he gets??!!! NOT STAR TREK!!!!!!1!! |
|
Was it so different when TNG hit the airwaves back in 1988 or so? Actors age. Eventually you have to accept the fact that in order to keep a franchise running, you have to change things about it, including but not limited to the actors involved. I like TOS. I like TNG. I like Voyager. I like DS9. I like Enterprise, what episodes of I've seen. And I like the reboot, so far. I don't demand that it all remain the same. CJ |
|
Of the new efforts, Deep Space 9 gets my vote as being most imaginative. Yes, some of the episodes were terrible, but some of them were also great.
Shame they never made a DS9 movie. Maybe they did, and I missed it. Probably reading an Honor Harrington novel instead of watching TV. |
|
So how did you fell about Enterprise? I have liked each of the Star Trek series. When you look at the entire Federation it is all of the little cogs making the wheel go around. The new movies are simply away of getting the box office sales without having to start a new tv series and get the name recoginition. |
|
Quoted:
Was it so different when TNG hit the airwaves back in 1988 or so? Actors age. Eventually you have to accept the fact that in order to keep a franchise running, you have to change things about it, including but not limited to the actors involved. I like TOS. I like TNG. I like Voyager. I like DS9. I like Enterprise, what episodes of I've seen. And I like the reboot, so far. I don't demand that it all remain the same. CJ The hardcore TOS nerds were never going to like the reboots anyway, regardless of what they were like and who directed it. If it wasn't an exact replica of TOS, they were going to hate it. ETA: Voyager was lame. 
|
|
Quoted:
I hated the 09 remake so much I can't tolerate even having it on in the background. Star Trek isn't Star Wars and, from what I've heard, the new movie is just another wild edition of JJ Abrams McBlockbuster BS with characters named Kirk and Spock. I'm a little curious to watch it to see if Uhura and Spock actually engage in Anal in the turbolift since I'm not sure where else they can go with their Young and the Restless antics. Maybe someone knows if they actually go the distance in the new film. I'll admit it. I grew up on TOS and TNG. It's what I know and love. I've heard talk that Star Trek may come back to TV as a high quality series and if the movies help make that happen, then I can't really complain. Please, no weird, idiotic premises such as traveling 30K light years to get back home, confinement to a space station (with Wormhole!), the character Harry Kim, etc. Star Trek is shackled by a zealous primary fanbase that is over-attached to 30+ years of legacy story and show history that hasn't aged well. The original show was painfully a product of the 60s and 70s. TNG, from what I've seen of it, wasn't much better and only started to adapt to modern storytelling, modern viewers, and modern society in a very begrudging way and only then at the bare minimum. Haven't seen Voyager. Deep Space 9 stirred up a lot of flak because almost the entire show was built on stories that acknowledged the fundamental problem: Roddenberry's idea of a neo-socialist society that "somehow worked because of technology removing scarcity" was still fundamentally flawed and wasn't palatable to modern society. The world has outgrown it, mostly by having to endure the bruises of the failures when people try it for real. It's the same problem Superman has to deal with in modern day. The heroic, virtuous icon that doesn't have any flaws, confronts the ignorant / corrupt / evil and always wins without compromising a moral code... yeah. Right. Everybody goes "I knew that guy and they got beat up by real badguys, or were secretly an asshole and screwed everybody, or they were a spectacular failure and it ended really bad. Write a character we can actually believe." But if the Star Trek franchise wavers from that, or tries to untie itself even a little from all the dead weight of that and 35 years of jumbled plot lines and character threads, the core fanbase screams bloody murder, and gets a lot of publicity for it. But that fanbase alone can't make movies and TV shows financially successful. So they have a choice... make fan service movies that are completely incomprehensible to anybody who isn't a hardcore fan and won't be profitable, or piss off the loudest part of their fanbase in order to make money. Crappy position to get stuck in, but they chose wisely and brought in somebody who wasn't afraid to make a legitimate movie instead of a $250 million fan film. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hated the 09 remake so much I can't tolerate even having it on in the background. Star Trek isn't Star Wars and, from what I've heard, the new movie is just another wild edition of JJ Abrams McBlockbuster BS with characters named Kirk and Spock. I'm a little curious to watch it to see if Uhura and Spock actually engage in Anal in the turbolift since I'm not sure where else they can go with their Young and the Restless antics. Maybe someone knows if they actually go the distance in the new film. I'll admit it. I grew up on TOS and TNG. It's what I know and love. I've heard talk that Star Trek may come back to TV as a high quality series and if the movies help make that happen, then I can't really complain. Please, no weird, idiotic premises such as traveling 30K light years to get back home, confinement to a space station (with Wormhole!), the character Harry Kim, etc. Star Trek is shackled by a zealous primary fanbase that is over-attached to 30+ years of legacy story and show history that hasn't aged well. The original show was painfully a product of the 60s and 70s. TNG, from what I've seen of it, wasn't much better and only started to adapt to modern storytelling, modern viewers, and modern society in a very begrudging way and only then at the bare minimum. Haven't seen Voyager. Deep Space 9 stirred up a lot of flak because almost the entire show was built on stories that acknowledged the fundamental problem: Roddenberry's idea of a neo-socialist society that "somehow worked because of technology removing scarcity" was still fundamentally flawed and wasn't palatable to modern society. The world has outgrown it, mostly by having to endure the bruises of the failures when people try it for real. It's the same problem Superman has to deal with in modern day. The heroic, virtuous icon that doesn't have any flaws, confronts the ignorant / corrupt / evil and always wins without compromising a moral code... yeah. Right. Everybody goes "I knew that guy and they got beat up by real badguys, or were secretly an asshole and screwed everybody, or they were a spectacular failure and it ended really bad. Write a character we can actually believe." But if the Star Trek franchise wavers from that, or tries to untie itself even a little from all the dead weight of that and 35 years of jumbled plot lines and character threads, the core fanbase screams bloody murder, and gets a lot of publicity for it. But that fanbase alone can't make movies and TV shows financially successful. So they have a choice... make fan service movies that are completely incomprehensible to anybody who isn't a hardcore fan and won't be profitable, or piss off the loudest part of their fanbase in order to make money. Crappy position to get stuck in, but they chose wisely and brought in somebody who wasn't afraid to make a legitimate movie instead of a $250 million fan film. Prepare to get flamed dude. Nothing brings out the flamethrowers like the truth...
|
|
I really like TNG and TOS. I haven't watched enough of VOY, ENT, or DS9 to judge them. I really enjoyed both of the new movies.
There's one episode of DS9 that I have seen that drives me bonkers, though: 'The Siege of AR-588'. Starfleet's tactics and equipment for fighting on the ground are just... impossibly bad. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I like the one where they're on Hoth and Captain Spock rides the Klingon to save Princess Peach Don't be stupid. He was going to rescue Daisy 'cause Dennis Hopper turned her dad into a cantaloupe. I thought he only turned her vagina into a cantaloupe? |
|
Quoted:
I really like TNG and TOS. I haven't watched enough of VOY, ENT, or DS9 to judge them. I really enjoyed both of the new movies. There's one episode of DS9 that I have seen that drives me bonkers, though: 'The Siege of AR-588'. Starfleet's tactics and equipment for fighting on the ground are just... impossibly bad. Is that the one with the landmines and shit? Yeah that was dumb. DS9 overall was pretty decent, but some of the stuff left anybody with any sort of common sense scratching their heads. |
|
Quoted:
Is that the one with the landmines and shit? Yeah that was dumb. DS9 overall was pretty decent, but some of the stuff left anybody with any sort of common sense scratching their heads. Yeah. The subspace mines that sort of phase in and out of realspace at random. They'd be ten thousand times more useful if you just buried them in the fucking ground and set them off when someone slammed their fool-ass boot into it. |
|
I'm a big fan of TOS. It's by far my favorite of the ST series.
And I love the new movies. Let Star Trek evolve. I know some ST fans don't like the new rendition, and I understand their concerns and their devotion to cannon, but the series has to grow. I felt the ST universe had become stagnant. I lost interest sometime during the Voyager series, and I never thought I'd feel that way about my beloved Star Trek. I'm excited again about Star Trek. I can't wait to see what they do in the next film. |
|
I like the new and the old.
Of the old, I liked DS9 and Enterprise a lot more than TNG and Voyager. TNG and even Voyager had it's moments, but IMO, not as good as the follow on shows. I like the first reboot, have not seen Into Darkness yet. I'm a sci-fi fan, not some stuck in the mud canon idiot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hated the 09 remake so much I can't tolerate even having it on in the background. Star Trek isn't Star Wars and, from what I've heard, the new movie is just another wild edition of JJ Abrams McBlockbuster BS with characters named Kirk and Spock. I'm a little curious to watch it to see if Uhura and Spock actually engage in Anal in the turbolift since I'm not sure where else they can go with their Young and the Restless antics. Maybe someone knows if they actually go the distance in the new film. I'll admit it. I grew up on TOS and TNG. It's what I know and love. I've heard talk that Star Trek may come back to TV as a high quality series and if the movies help make that happen, then I can't really complain. Please, no weird, idiotic premises such as traveling 30K light years to get back home, confinement to a space station (with Wormhole!), the character Harry Kim, etc. Star Trek is shackled by a zealous primary fanbase that is over-attached to 30+ years of legacy story and show history that hasn't aged well. The original show was painfully a product of the 60s and 70s. TNG, from what I've seen of it, wasn't much better and only started to adapt to modern storytelling, modern viewers, and modern society in a very begrudging way and only then at the bare minimum. Haven't seen Voyager. Deep Space 9 stirred up a lot of flak because almost the entire show was built on stories that acknowledged the fundamental problem: Roddenberry's idea of a neo-socialist society that "somehow worked because of technology removing scarcity" was still fundamentally flawed and wasn't palatable to modern society. The world has outgrown it, mostly by having to endure the bruises of the failures when people try it for real. It's the same problem Superman has to deal with in modern day. The heroic, virtuous icon that doesn't have any flaws, confronts the ignorant / corrupt / evil and always wins without compromising a moral code... yeah. Right. Everybody goes "I knew that guy and they got beat up by real badguys, or were secretly an asshole and screwed everybody, or they were a spectacular failure and it ended really bad. Write a character we can actually believe." But if the Star Trek franchise wavers from that, or tries to untie itself even a little from all the dead weight of that and 35 years of jumbled plot lines and character threads, the core fanbase screams bloody murder, and gets a lot of publicity for it. But that fanbase alone can't make movies and TV shows financially successful. So they have a choice... make fan service movies that are completely incomprehensible to anybody who isn't a hardcore fan and won't be profitable, or piss off the loudest part of their fanbase in order to make money. Crappy position to get stuck in, but they chose wisely and brought in somebody who wasn't afraid to make a legitimate movie instead of a $250 million fan film. Prepare to get flamed dude. Nothing brings out the flamethrowers like the truth... I couldn't care less. I'll frakking drop a Battlestar on their asses if they trot out their sissy overblown NOAA research vessel Federation crap. 
|
|
Quoted: Was it so different when TNG hit the airwaves back in 1988 or so? Actors age. Eventually you have to accept the fact that in order to keep a franchise running, you have to change things about it, including but not limited to the actors involved. I like TOS. I like TNG. I like Voyager. I like DS9. I like Enterprise, what episodes of I've seen. And I like the reboot, so far. I don't demand that it all remain the same. CJ This. |
|
Quoted:
It's not Star Trek without pretentious writing. Back in the Elder Days Harlan Ellison, Ted Sturgeon, and Richard Matheson were stalking the earth. The reboot is just some words to introduce the next action scene. Well, in fairness, back then they were essentially shooting a stage play on a TV set with some cuts to VFX shots. Theater has always been about pretentiousness. City On The Edge Of Forever worked because it was a stage play with sci-fi sets and window dressing. TNG suffered a lot because most of the writers, actors, and crew came from a theater background and instead of pushing out the edges and really leveraging the strength of TV / film, they basically made 7 seasons of 45-minute stage plays with a giant VFX budget. Compare TNG to something that was born from the ground up as a film creation. Like Battlestar, or even Farscape or some of the Stargate series. They really start to flex the muscle of the TV medium in ways Star Trek never even attempted until maybe Enterprise, and even then only hesitantly. |
|
The first Star Trek and its movies were the best. The JJ Abrams stuff is the best after that. THe Next Generation and its spawn all suffered from a shocking lack of charisma in all the characters. The only character I really liked in The Next Generation was Picard, I wouldn't have given two shits if the rest died painfully in a fire. It went down from there to a low point with Enterprise, where I actively wanted the characters to die in a fire.
And TNG really hasn't held up well at all. Its like a floating love hotel, flying through space and towing a massive deus ex machina that automatically turns on to make sure their super peacenik decisions all work out perfectly. |
|
I prefer the reboot, the first movie was sort of weak but still was one of the better Trek movies, Into Darkness may be the best Trek ever, though TWOK is arguably a better film I never enjoyed it nearly as much.
TOS was great for its day, brilliant concepts with weak execution acting and effects-wise, TNG got pretty good eventually, DS9 was the best before the reboot, but it still had the whole TNG/voyager style to it which is pretty dated now. I think Into Darkness proposes a new series the way it ends, rather than another film, and I'd be all for that. Get the right people involved and the reboot crew and universe have the potential to be the most entertaining Trek ever. I'd prefer a series I think, it's the natural format for the genre. Most of the legitimate criticism I've heard about Into Darkness has more to do with the "blockbuster movie" format than any real failings of the reboot itself, it's a much better movie than the first one was, and the way they went about writing it, while not perfect, has a certain genius to it. |
|
I break it down like this.
*The origianl series is hokey but enjoyable *TNG didn't get really good until after Rodenberry died and they became a little less free love hippy space commune. *Haven't seen much of DS9 seems like a attempt to go babylon 5 to me (I love that dam show). *I came into the Star Trek universie with Voyager so I have fond memories of it. *Enterprise while enjoyable sometimes pissed me off to much it was sorta like they threw away all established cannon from prior series o the point someone whos only casually watched them is like WTF? It was the star trek equivalent to the star wars prequels aka it sucked. *I enjoy the reboot haven't seen the new one yetits interesting seeing the nods to the original characters they are based on. I just hope they don't take the series and Michael Bay it. Who needs plotline when you can have explosions!.... But Zoe Saldena meow if thats a bit of a Michael Bayism putting her in there then bra freakin vo I approve of that little bit. |
|
I now realize that I truly was not there in both the 60s and the 70s. If you can remember anything that happened in either decade, you weren't really there.
For the record, TOS was purely a 60s product. It didn't last until the 70s, though thanks to syndication, this is where most people saw it, over and over and over. My local station didn't even carry TOS for the first couple of seasons, it was 1969 before I saw my first episode. I really wish that they had chosen Leslie Nielsen instead of William Shatner for the captain. Though Shatner didn't do all that bad. |
|
Quoted:
Was it so different when TNG hit the airwaves back in 1988 or so? Actors age. Eventually you have to accept the fact that in order to keep a franchise running, you have to change things about it, including but not limited to the actors involved. I like TOS. I like TNG. I like Voyager. I like DS9. I like Enterprise, what episodes of I've seen. And I like the reboot, so far. I don't demand that it all remain the same. CJ +1 I liked all except DS9. I thought DS9 was kinda meh. Where's the "I like both" option? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was it so different when TNG hit the airwaves back in 1988 or so? Actors age. Eventually you have to accept the fact that in order to keep a franchise running, you have to change things about it, including but not limited to the actors involved. I like TOS. I like TNG. I like Voyager. I like DS9. I like Enterprise, what episodes of I've seen. And I like the reboot, so far. I don't demand that it all remain the same. CJ +1 I liked all except DS9. I thought DS9 was kinda meh. Where's the "I like both" option? Pshah. TOS = TNG > DS9 > Enterprise > Voyager |
Keep 'em coming. I don't feel the need to pick sides on my scifi.
|
TV series rankings
I liked TNG the best, followed by Voyager, and TOS. I didn't get hooked on DS9 but thought it was okay. I disliked Enterprise. Movie Rankings The original cast was the best with Shatner, Nimoy, Kelly, Doohan, and Koeing. The movies with TNG cast wasn't as good. The new Star Trek movies are okay but the original cast is much better. It's not a Star Trek movie without Shatner. |
|
You know what I would like to see the reboot do? I would like to see the reboot explore the idea that not all of humanity wanted to go along with space communism, said "FUCK YOU" and left to set up a separate human society not part of the federation.
An Interstellar Republic, if you will. |
|
Quoted:
You know what I would like to see the reboot do? I would like to see the reboot explore the idea that not all of humanity wanted to go along with space communism, said "FUCK YOU" and left to set up a separate human society not part of the federation. They were called the Maquis, and the Federation treated them like shit. |