Read & Reread "Greater Than The Sum"- My Opinion (Spoilers)

[Dayton3]

^Who can say what Star Trek will be in the future?

Would anyone 30 years ago have figured that a number of Trek novels would feature large scale space warfare? Not me.

What might the future bring? What if the next David Drake or David Weber started writing Trek novels that were allowed to be published and they moved Star Trek to a highly militaristic viewpoint with a very "old fashioned" type of society evolving on Earth and in the Federation?

Say these novels became very popular selling in the millions of copies?

Inevitably, such a different vision of Star Trek would come to the fore as those types of novels would be demanded more and more.

Don't ever claim "but it isn't Star Trek".

Todays Star Trek "isn't Star Trek" when looked at from the Original Series or even the early ST:TNG perspective.

[ATimson]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

You seem to want a version of the show that never existed and is entirely against ever single principle and idea ever seen on screen.

I would say that TOS, and even TNG and Voyager, usually concentrated on the planet-of-the-week plot in lieu of stories stemming from their characters. So I can see where he gets his preference for "a focus on 'the plot' or 'the mission'."

Damned if I can tell where he gets the rest of it.

[JD]

Yeah, it has changed, but it's baisic principles, and goals have not.

[danjamesb]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

^Who can say what Star Trek will be in the future?

Would anyone 30 years ago have figured that a number of Trek novels would feature large scale space warfare? Not me.

What might the future bring?

[...]

Don't ever claim "but it isn't Star Trek".

Todays Star Trek "isn't Star Trek" when looked at from the Original Series or even the early ST:TNG perspective.

No-one's claiming that Star Trek hasn't changed, or that it isn't varied.

Look at Arena, Sub Rosa, In the Pale Moonlight, Tsunkatse and Carpenter Street - each one of those episodes is tonally and thematically different to the next.

What we're saying is that the fundamental concepts on which all incarnations of Star Trek are based - a better future, acceptance of life in all its forms, etc. - are in direct opposition to some of your own views.

[Dayton3]

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

Note, when I say "all male cast" I'm referring to an "all male MAIN cast".

Female guest stars and minor characters are fine.

Remember, the early years of "Law & Order" (which are considered quite good) featured an all male main cast.

Certain movies such as the original "The Longest Yard" had all male main casts (there were only two women with speaking roles at all in The Longest Yard).

It seemed to do quite well.

[Dayton Ward]

^ So you're not for co-ed prison football teams.

Well, I suppose that's okay.

[Dayton3]

Dayton Ward wrote:

---

^ So you're not for co-ed prison football teams.

Well, I suppose that's okay.

Thanks Dayton.

Hey, do you remember a few years back when you were getting the hate messages intended for me?

[Daddy Todd]

You guys, lay off Dayton3. He's hetero; says so himself.

I, on the other hand, am gay, and I'm BEGGING you to quit trying to lump him in with us non-hets.

Like Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise, I'm more than happy to take him at his word and accept that he's not one of us.

You guys get to deal with him...

[JD]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

Note, when I say "all male cast" I'm referring to an "all male MAIN cast".

Female guest stars and minor characters are fine.

Ok what? Why would female guest and minor characters, be ok? Could there be female non-Starfleet main cast members?

[Dayton Ward]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

Thanks Dayton.

You're really going to have to learn when I'm being sarcastic.

Hey, do you remember a few years back when you were getting the hate messages intended for me?

I got a couple, but it was worked out.

[Turtletrekker]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

That is contradictory crazy talk. In more ways than one.

[JD]

Daddy Todd wrote:

---

than happy to take him at his word and accept that he's not one of us.

You guys get to deal with him...

Great, thanks.

[JoeZhang]

JD wrote:

---

Ok what? Why would female guest and minor characters, be ok? Could there be female non-Starfleet main cast members?

Someone has to serve the coffee.

[cardinal biggles]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

Note, when I say "all male cast" I'm referring to an "all male MAIN cast".

Female guest stars and minor characters are fine.

Remember, the early years of "Law & Order" (which are considered quite good) featured an all male main cast.

Certain movies such as the original "The Longest Yard" had all male main casts (there were only two women with speaking roles at all in The Longest Yard).

It seemed to do quite well.

You're comparing a football comedy and a cop show to Star Trek? You really are grabbing at straws, Dayton.

Trek has evolved over the years, but it'll be a long time (i.e. we're all dead) before it moves so far off its core principles that you can legitimately compare it to a David Drake novel and say they're the same.

Your vision of what would be a better future is obviously at odds with 40+ years of Star Trek, so again, why do you bother? This isn't an attempt to be exclusionary, it's simply wondering why you claim to like something that doesn't tell stories in any way, shape, or form that appeals to you.

[William Leisner]

Dayton3 wrote:

---

I'm all for a better future.

I just think it would be better portrayed with an all male cast.

So, "better future" = "women as second-class citizens", hmm?

Note, when I say "all male cast" I'm referring to an "all male MAIN cast".

Female guest stars and minor characters are fine.

Someone needs to do the cooking and cleaning, right?