RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,859
Posts: 5,328,633
Members: 24,554
Currently online: 545
Newest member: Kastrol

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 26 2010, 03:45 AM   #151
baxart
Commander
 
baxart's Avatar
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Tora Ziyal wrote: View Post
Luther Sloan wrote: View Post
29. Porthos should have had an episode where the entire crew depended on him for their very survival. Perhaps everyone gotten shrunken down in size and they had to use Porthos in order to get to a certain part of the ship to help save the day.
Sounds good to me!
I heard they actually turned down a number of scripts with the "Porthos saves the day" plots.
baxart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 03:53 AM   #152
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Luther Sloan wrote: View Post
Shazam! wrote: View Post
In fairness, the Episode IV: A New Hope bit was added for the 1981 re-release.
Shazam:

Yes this is true.

In fact, George Lucas originally wrote a movie storyline that was intended to be just one movie (Which was released in 1977). However, once he began writing the screenplay for the movie, it got to be too long, so he decided to break it into multiple films (3, representing the original 3 Star Wars movies). He completed the screenplay for just the first, and completed the film. However, in the meantime he had to develop a story line to explain the history of the characters in the movie. It wasn't really his intent to make movies out of the backstory, but it provided a history of the fictional worlds that he had created to explain how the circumstances in the story came to be. After the success of the first film, Lucas considered converting his backstory into more films. So after a short period of four years, he established the original Star Wars as the fourth chapter in 1981 and eventually produced the three prequel films many years later.

So was it Lucas's original intent from the beginning to create a prequel series? No.

However, was their enough pre-established back story information to do a prequel series? Yes.

Did it seem natural within the story that there might have been some prequel story or story lines to tell? Yes.

Was the re-wording of the 1st Star Wars (in the opening crawl) as the 4th chapter established early enough (as if it was supposed to be there)? Yes. I believe four years is a short enough time to establish new rules for a fictional universe.

Although Lucas didn't intend to make the prequels from the very beginning. Things flowed together naturally enough (in the early years of Star Wars) as if the prequels were supposed to be a part of the saga, though.

I mean, if he decided putting chapter numbers into the original trilogy after it was totally completed... then it would have been a bit after the fact. However, seeing he established the numbering of the chapters close enough to Empire Strikes Back's release, it helped redefine or fine tune the original story early enough at the beginning of the Star Wars saga (as if it was originally supposed to be there).

I mean, the numbering of Star Wars was kind of like a work in progress, for me. At least that's my take on it, anyways.

In other words, it was by a lucky coincidence that he had the stones already set into place for a prequel series (even though it was not originally conceived of at the very beginning).

I mean, does it really matter if he thought of making a prequel series a few years later or at the very beginning?

For me, there is no difference and the result is still the same. Whether Lucas intended to create a prequel series or not; the stones were already laid out and it was quickly established for us to expect a possible prequel series some time in the future if things went well.
That was not the point (though I don't blame you if you've forgotten by now why this discussion started in the first place). The point was that watching Star Wars (A New Hope), The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi without having previously watched the SW prequels is DEFINITELY NOT the same or in any way similar to watching DS9 from season 3 finale.

Watching the original trilogy first without having watched The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith is actually more akin to watching Battlestar Galactica first without having seen Caprica. (Except that Caprica doesn't suck.)
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 05:55 AM   #153
Diddle
Lieutenant Commander
 
Diddle's Avatar
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

I hate Deanna Troi, more than any other character from any series ever. (All series that I ever watched, I mean it. Ever.)

I don't care about Spock or any other Vulcan whatsoever, besides Vorik and TOS Sarek.

The whole Klingon concept of Honor bores me to no end.

I don't think Data is all that great of a character.

I think most of TNG plots were terrible, even though it's still my favorite series.

I think Garak is overrated. (I did loved him first I watched DS9, but then he just meh'd me)

I think Barclay is much more interesting than more than a half of the TNG's main cast.

I find Worf 80% of the time just comic relief and the other 20% he's either being way too awesome, or way too annoying.

I find every Q episode to be particularly bad exactly because Q alone is my favorite character.

Ezri's character was terrible, but I sort of like the way the Natalie(?)-what's here name- portraits her.

I think Weyoun is cooler than the whole DS9's main cast combined. Twice.
__________________

Diddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 01:57 PM   #154
Danny99
Vice Admiral
 
Danny99's Avatar
 
Location: Cookstown, Ontario, Canada
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Penta wrote: View Post
3. Utopia bores me. If I could go back in time, I'd do my damnedest to try to convince the TNG writing staff how the whole "Federation as Utopia" and "moneyless economy" ideas of S1 are so bad for storytelling that, regardless of their source, they need to be ejected.
I agree with this statement.

Any good dramatic series needs conflict. DS9 had it the best example of dramatic Trek. During the war, the Starfleet officers had to choose between their morals and complete annihilation.

No one (or almost no one) wants to watch a show where everything is perfect and characters laud their morals over the viewer.
__________________
The poster previously known as canadaboy_32
Danny99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 02:27 PM   #155
RobertScorpio
Pariah
 
Location: San Diego
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

canadaboy_32 wrote: View Post
Penta wrote: View Post
3. Utopia bores me. If I could go back in time, I'd do my damnedest to try to convince the TNG writing staff how the whole "Federation as Utopia" and "moneyless economy" ideas of S1 are so bad for storytelling that, regardless of their source, they need to be ejected.
I agree with this statement.

Any good dramatic series needs conflict. DS9 had it the best example of dramatic Trek. During the war, the Starfleet officers had to choose between their morals and complete annihilation.

No one (or almost no one) wants to watch a show where everything is perfect and characters laud their morals over the viewer.
I don't agree with this at all. If you want a crappy Earth future, there are plenty of scifi books/movies that depict just that.

Not too many of them depict a future that is bright. And that bright future TOS depicts is one of the reasons sited time after time by fans of the original show as to why they liked it. Its probably the reason why after all these spinoffs TOS is still the most recognized of all the other shows combined..its not even close.

Count me in that catagory.

But I can understand those who don't like that utopian aspect of the show.

Rob
RobertScorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 03:59 PM   #156
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

"Bright future" is not the same as "utopia." You can depict a future where Earth is a united world and the capital of the galaxy's largest interstellar alliance, and that's optimistic enough. You don't need to go ahead and make it a picture-perfect utopian paradise.

But since that has been established, the idea can still be workable. Earth itself can be utopia, but the rest of the galaxy can be hell. Indeed, even TNG seemed to depict this, with every Starfleet ship that wasn't the Enterprise ending up damaged and or gettng its crew killed.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:19 PM   #157
Penta
Commander
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
But since that has been established, the idea can still be workable. Earth itself can be utopia, but the rest of the galaxy can be hell. Indeed, even TNG seemed to depict this, with every Starfleet ship that wasn't the Enterprise ending up damaged and or gettng its crew killed.
I'm not so sure re TNG. And besides, most of the ship damage that did happen took place on the extreme frontiers or beyond it.

The way I see it, though...That isn't what was even implied, Wormhole, at least not by the TV series. It wasn't just Earth that was utopia, it was the whole Federation (with the exception of Turkana IV that was never explained, or I think waved off as not being part of the UFP anymore), the whole human species.

Which to me kills off so many good potential storylines. It's just plain boring that there's no darkness. There's no struggle.

"But they do struggle...struggle to improve themselves!"? Pah. That's new-age BS, not something you can build dramatic stories on.

TNG asked us to believe that in no more than 80 years, in less than one human lifespan using TNG's own numbers, human nature was almost totally changed. I choked on that, as I suspect others have, as well.

I had hoped it was an early-TNG artifact, Gene Roddenberry being old and doddering...But then it shows up again in DS9, however jokingly, and again in FC.

And I just despair, because it sucks a lot of the fun potential out of the Trek universe. There's a lot of fun to be had with aliens, yes...But some of the most fun, to me, happens when the aliens aren't in the room. When it's humans, dealing with human problems.

I don't mind optimism. The thought of a United Earth and mankind actually exploring space at FTL speeds? That's optimism, to me. (The former far more than the latter, actually, because the former is so hard for someone who's thought about it to believe.)

What TNG posited...Actually, more like forced down our throats...wasn't optimism, it was delusion.
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:20 PM   #158
Luther Sloan
Captain
 
Luther Sloan's Avatar
 
Location: Section 31 Headquarters
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

DE:

Uh, whatever you want to believe. Hey, that's your opinion and that's totally cool with me.

Let's just say it's my "Unpopular Star Wars Opinion" and leave it at that.


baxart wrote: View Post
I heard they actually turned down a number of scripts with the "Porthos saves the day" plots.
Baxart:

Dog gone it.



Luther Sloan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:42 PM   #159
22 Stars
Commodore
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

AMG wrote: View Post
Luther Sloan wrote: View Post
And More...

15. Star Trek 4, the one with the whales, was a light hearted fun little film and is better than all of the TNG movies put together.
I agree. So does my mom. That's three of us, at least.
Count me in!
22 Stars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:45 PM   #160
Kpnuts
Commodore
 
Kpnuts's Avatar
 
Location: London
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

- I find Yesterday's Enterprise to be over-rated and boring
- I like TNG: "Masks"
- I thought the visual effects in Nemesis were the worst of any TNG movie
- I like Enterprise season 2
Kpnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:47 PM   #161
RobertScorpio
Pariah
 
Location: San Diego
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Penta wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
But since that has been established, the idea can still be workable. Earth itself can be utopia, but the rest of the galaxy can be hell. Indeed, even TNG seemed to depict this, with every Starfleet ship that wasn't the Enterprise ending up damaged and or gettng its crew killed.
I'm not so sure re TNG. And besides, most of the ship damage that did happen took place on the extreme frontiers or beyond it.

The way I see it, though...That isn't what was even implied, Wormhole, at least not by the TV series. It wasn't just Earth that was utopia, it was the whole Federation (with the exception of Turkana IV that was never explained, or I think waved off as not being part of the UFP anymore), the whole human species.

Which to me kills off so many good potential storylines. It's just plain boring that there's no darkness. There's no struggle.

"But they do struggle...struggle to improve themselves!"? Pah. That's new-age BS, not something you can build dramatic stories on.

TNG asked us to believe that in no more than 80 years, in less than one human lifespan using TNG's own numbers, human nature was almost totally changed. I choked on that, as I suspect others have, as well.

I had hoped it was an early-TNG artifact, Gene Roddenberry being old and doddering...But then it shows up again in DS9, however jokingly, and again in FC.

And I just despair, because it sucks a lot of the fun potential out of the Trek universe. There's a lot of fun to be had with aliens, yes...But some of the most fun, to me, happens when the aliens aren't in the room. When it's humans, dealing with human problems.

I don't mind optimism. The thought of a United Earth and mankind actually exploring space at FTL speeds? That's optimism, to me. (The former far more than the latter, actually, because the former is so hard for someone who's thought about it to believe.)

What TNG posited...Actually, more like forced down our throats...wasn't optimism, it was delusion.
Roddenberry's idea is very simple; Humans had come together, and had gotten over our petty little quarks of racism/sexism ect ect ect. I am not a big fan of Roddenberry's, but it is his creation. If the writers couldn't write around that simple little rule (and on DS9 they did find ways) then they shouldn't write for Star Trek.

However, I do understand that there are those who do not like that aspect of GR's creation; but he did create it. If a certain writer doesn't like it, and cant work around it, then go write for Marvel comics or something. But I think GR's idealistic (thats what it is) view of humanity should be respected.

It can't be explained any simpler than that.

Rob
RobertScorpio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 04:50 PM   #162
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Diddle wrote: View Post
I don't care about Spock or any other Vulcan whatsoever, besides Vorik and TOS Sarek.
Vorik?! You like Vorik, of all the Vulcans?

I think we've found another really unpopular opinion. If I may ask... why? What's so great about Vorik? It really puzzles me that someone could actually prefer him to Spock.
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 05:01 PM   #163
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

Penta wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
But since that has been established, the idea can still be workable. Earth itself can be utopia, but the rest of the galaxy can be hell. Indeed, even TNG seemed to depict this, with every Starfleet ship that wasn't the Enterprise ending up damaged and or gettng its crew killed.
I'm not so sure re TNG. And besides, most of the ship damage that did happen took place on the extreme frontiers or beyond it.

The way I see it, though...That isn't what was even implied, Wormhole, at least not by the TV series. It wasn't just Earth that was utopia, it was the whole Federation (with the exception of Turkana IV that was never explained, or I think waved off as not being part of the UFP anymore), the whole human species.

Which to me kills off so many good potential storylines. It's just plain boring that there's no darkness. There's no struggle.

"But they do struggle...struggle to improve themselves!"? Pah. That's new-age BS, not something you can build dramatic stories on.

TNG asked us to believe that in no more than 80 years, in less than one human lifespan using TNG's own numbers, human nature was almost totally changed. I choked on that, as I suspect others have, as well.

I had hoped it was an early-TNG artifact, Gene Roddenberry being old and doddering...But then it shows up again in DS9, however jokingly, and again in FC.

And I just despair, because it sucks a lot of the fun potential out of the Trek universe. There's a lot of fun to be had with aliens, yes...But some of the most fun, to me, happens when the aliens aren't in the room. When it's humans, dealing with human problems.

I don't mind optimism. The thought of a United Earth and mankind actually exploring space at FTL speeds? That's optimism, to me. (The former far more than the latter, actually, because the former is so hard for someone who's thought about it to believe.)

What TNG posited...Actually, more like forced down our throats...wasn't optimism, it was delusion.
Well, if you want an extreme in the other direction, there's always Ron Moore's BSG where he positied....actually forced down our throats (til it came out our ass) that humanity was an evil bunch that isn't worth saving.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 05:06 PM   #164
DevilEyes
Rear Admiral
 
DevilEyes's Avatar
 
Location: basking in the warmth of the Fire Caves
View DevilEyes's Twitter Profile
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

^ Except that it wasn't. And claiming that just shows that 1) you didn't watch the show, 2) didn't pay attention, or 3) was always prejudiced against it and trying to read everything in it that way.

I really wonder how you would explain the purpose of characters like Helo is, or Lee with his idealism, what's the purpose of Adama backing down from assassinating Cain - and even Cain backing down from assassinating Cain, or Roslin deciding not to let Baltar die, or why there was so much attention paid to the friendship between Adama and Tigh, or his fatherly relationships with his crew (Starbuck, Athena), the Cylon-Human romances like Helo/Athena, etc.
__________________
Treason, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

my Buffy/Angel rewatch
DevilEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2010, 05:46 PM   #165
Penta
Commander
 
Re: Unpopular Trek Opinions — What Are Yours?

RandyS wrote: View Post
Well, if you want an extreme in the other direction, there's always Ron Moore's BSG where he positied....actually forced down our throats (til it came out our ass) that humanity was an evil bunch that isn't worth saving.
But when it comes to Trek, I don't want either extreme. I don't mind optimism...I just mind when the optimism is so extreme. Because then it stops being optimism and starts being delusional. It stops being science-fiction and moves into space fantasy.

And...RobertScorpio...

Why? GR's been dead for (almost) 20 years. Trek was never entirely his, anyway. No TV series ever is one person's. He only gets creator credit for all the spinoffs because of WGA rules anyway, as I understand it.

What makes his revisionism (and that's frankly what it is - the differences in tone between TOS and TNG are stunning; he even admitted it was revisionist, if I recall correctly) Holy Writ?

Because it's Gene Roddenberry? Not even remotely an answer! Never mind the way it puts someone very, very flawed on a sort of pedestal, what makes him different from every other TV producer?

If Star Trek is anybody's, I'd argue it's the fans' creature by now; you can't even call it Paramount's or Viacom's, really, given that the IP's been split up like a Solomonic baby and doesn't really have one entire owner.

The way I see it, TNG's producers and writers should have sat down and explained to Roddenberry (who was not, I've understood, particularly involved, especially after season 2 or so), very diplomatically and politely, that Trek could not both accommodate his oft-changing views and be a viable property in the long run. That they had a fiduciary duty to the folks who actually owned Trek (Paramount, at the time) to focus on it being a viable property...And that would mean that the obvious Writer on Board stuff (see: The stuff I've mentioned) had to go byebye.

I mean, all due respect to the guy, but that's the thing. He was not clever about it, it didn't make for good TV...It wasn't even very subtle. It was beating-you-over-the-head unsubtle, it leaves massive holes in the setting, and it kills so much drama for so many plots.
Penta is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM.

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