The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   General Trek Discussion (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Why Star Trek Sucks (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=231976)

King Daniel Into Darkness November 29 2013 01:49 AM

Why Star Trek Sucks
 
CLICK!

An ancient article from 1994(!) which I bumped into while looking for some anti-Trek stuff for another thread. The weird thing is, I agree with much of what's said here. It pretty much lists my grievances with Trek from the start of TNG until the Xindi attacked Earth in Enterprise. The morals are trite, the people frequently act unrealistically and the aliens are often dumb. And the jazz music is awful!

The science stuff I don't care about. Trek is science-fantasy, whether fans choose to accept it as such or not.

And weirdly, despite agreeing with so much of the article.... I still love Star Trek. It's silly, it's flawed and it's goofy, but it's so often fun.

What I very strongly disagree with is the writer's treatment of Trek fans at the end of the article.

Sran November 29 2013 02:06 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
I agree with some of what's written as it relates to The Next Generation. I've always found Deep Space 9 to be a realistic look at a future society, as it takes the problems and concepts of our recent past and applies them to the twenty fourth century. I do wonder what DS9 may have looked like had it aired after September 11, but as it ended more than two years before the terrorist attacks occurred, it's an accurate extrapolation of events moving forward from 1999.

--Sran

nureintier November 29 2013 02:15 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8953477)

The science stuff I don't care about. Trek is science-fantasy, whether fans choose to accept it as such or not.

It's a fictional universe, and that's why I can accept some of the wacky stuff. It's supposed to be enjoyable to watch, and some of these aspects make for fun plot devices. Seems like nitpicking to me (or unrealistic expectations of Trek being hard science fiction and focusing on accuracy of technology, whereas Trek spends a lot of time dealing more with the characters and society). I'm sure most people recognize the fact that a lot of the stuff is unrealistic and has fantasy elements.

Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8953477)


And weirdly, despite agreeing with so much of the article.... I still love Star Trek. It's silly, it's flawed and it's goofy, but it's so often fun.

What I very strongly disagree with is the writer's treatment of Trek fans at the end of the article.

Agreed with all of this.

The Wormhole November 29 2013 03:03 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
What a waste of time. The article basically consists of "the world of Star Trek doesn't conform to how I view the world around me and is therefore crap." Whatever, the guy obviously doesn't like Trek, that's obvious. And he's not required to, but it would be better if he just admitted "I don't like Star Trek" rather than wax on about having standards which Trek apparently doesn't meet.

The note at the top claims the article was written in 1994. Yet Voyager is mentioned a few times with an episode's plot even referenced. Voyager started in 1995 and that episode mentioned also aired in 95. Was this guy so busy worrying over how out of touch Star Trek was to bother looking at a calendar?

billcosby November 29 2013 03:12 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Quote:

The Wormhole wrote: (Post 8953639)
Was this guy so busy worrying over how out of touch Star Trek was to bother looking at a calendar?

Truly the definition of irony. You worry about something being out of touch until you're out of touch. That's actually pretty hilarious if he truly got the year wrong. It'll warrant a visit from Temporal Corrections, or whomever they were on DS9.

Anyway, I appreciate the offer, but between my group of friends and my fellow posters here, I think I'm sufficient for opinions on how Star Trek sucks. ;)

The Wormhole November 29 2013 03:32 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Quote:

billcosby wrote: (Post 8953678)
Quote:

The Wormhole wrote: (Post 8953639)
Was this guy so busy worrying over how out of touch Star Trek was to bother looking at a calendar?

Truly the definition of irony. You worry about something being out of touch until you're out of touch. That's actually pretty hilarious if he truly got the year wrong.

The very first sentence on that page:

Quote:

This article has been on the web since 1994.
Voyager premiered January 16, 1995. The episode Phage, which is the Voyager episode where Neelix gets holographic lungs referenced in the bit whining about Trek's bad science aired February 6, 1995.

Lance November 29 2013 04:30 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
I have to be honest: while I think he goes a bit too hard on Star Trek (and goes for the obvious attacks, re: for example the well-worn 'Deanna states the obvious' criticism), there are other parts of the article where he definitely has a point.

From the article:

Quote:

We have the Klingons, equally on par with the federation technologically, yet ruled by a singular fuedal warlord society. They can create impressive starships that are a match for the Federation, yet they know nothing of personal hygene or dental care. They know computers, but seem to have no patience to deal with any technology or people -- which would be neccesary for technological development. Klingons seem more prone to smashing computer screens in frustration, rather than being capable of making them or programming them.
This is a fair comment. While I think Klingon honor and society does make for an interesting tapestry, it does also somewhat clash for a supposedly space-faring species to be so reliant on what (on the outside) sometimes appears to be an apparently medieval mindset. At least in TOS the Klingons were a believable opposite to our own culture, and it was much easier to believe in them as being a technology sophisticated, space-faring (if somewhat brutal at times) people. The later incarnations of Trek sometimes went too far IMO in portraying them as primitive and backwards, to the point where it does rather undermine their credibility somewhat.

teacake November 29 2013 04:31 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
I have read the article and I agree! Star Trek does suck!

I have renounced it forever.

BigJake November 29 2013 04:45 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Nothing especially surprising. I think I actually remember reading that same article back in the day.

However:

Quote:

weirdcrap guy wrote:
The best science fiction movies, in my opinion, are . . . Terminator 2: Judgement Day, Aliens, and maybe Jurassic Park

:vulcan: This is the same guy complaining about how TNG isn't highbrow enough to go beyond quoting Shakespeare. I am Calling Shenanigans.

CaptPapa November 29 2013 05:27 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Brown Matter :p

Melakon November 29 2013 05:28 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Quote:

Lance wrote: (Post 8953849)
. . .From the article:

Quote:

We have the Klingons, equally on par with the federation technologically, yet ruled by a singular fuedal warlord society. . .
This is a fair comment. . .it does also somewhat clash for a supposedly space-faring species to be. . .an apparently medieval mindset. At least in TOS the Klingons were a believable opposite to our own culture, and it was much easier to believe in them as being a technology sophisticated, space-faring (if somewhat brutal at times) people. . .

This may be why I was never wild about the Angry Klingons of the TOS films, or their 24th century descendants. When we first meet Klingons in 'Errand of Mercy", their culture and personality is modeled on the Soviet Union. Kor is quite a charming fellow, but knows when to be the tough guy. He and Kirk are reflections of each other, much the same, but different due to their cultures. Perhaps they're the genuine mirror universe of Terrans.

Angry Klingons became more prominent in the films, though when relations with the USSR began to ease, we started seeing men of honor among them shown. TNG had already picked up on Good and Bad Klingons, and began playing up the Honor and Glory and Loyalty shtick to operatic proportions.

Meanwhile, those more expensive TOS aliens the Romulans, were also shown to have a commander as noble and crafty as Kirk himself. They're later involved in an episode based on the Pueblo Incident, though they're the victim of Federation spies.

So by the 24th century, Honor has been snatched away from the Romulans, and given to the Klingons. This sort of leaves the Romulans floundering for a while until they decide to become better at espionage and sneakiness than the humans.

Then the Cardassians showed up and seemed to be a composite of Klingons and Romulans.

teacake November 29 2013 06:35 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Hey now what about the Shakespeare quoting erudite Klingons of TUC?

Those ones were the best.

kennysmith November 29 2013 06:38 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
what one that person didn't say. what one is so bad?.

Quote:

teacake wrote: (Post 8954074)
Hey now what about the Shakespeare quoting erudite Klingons of TUC?

Those ones were the best.


teacake November 29 2013 07:01 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Azetbur ftw.

Lance November 29 2013 10:07 AM

Re: Why Star Trek Sucks
 
Revenge is a dish best served with croutons.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.