RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,216
Posts: 5,437,687
Members: 24,952
Currently online: 494
Newest member: secondhandmeth

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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 > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 22 2011, 03:08 AM   #271
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Sure, to idolize The Rodd is wrong and people like Fontana, Coon and Justman deserve more credit. But I doubt anybody would deny that the vision is Roddenberry's brainchild. The actual writing and producing of episodes on the other hand has been the work of many people.
Let's phrase it like this, Roddenberry set some parameters for the franchise, it is about a future which is a bit better than our present. Even somebody like Meyer who clashed with Roddenberry returned to Roddenberryian vibes at the end of both his movies. They are woven into the basic fabric of Trek, you can't get them out.

PS: We had virtually the same idea. Now the question is, who is the telepath?
I think TOS is Roddenberry's actual vision before he bought into the hype that he was changing the world and before his mental faculties began to deteriorate.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 03:12 AM   #272
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Just because you do not have a currency based system as incentive to grow, does not mean you shrivel up and die. You simply replace one incentive with a better one. In this case space exploration, and having anything you could possibly imagine at your fingertips. It is folly to assume money is the only worthwhile incentive available. Generationally, you would witness an increase in selflessness, due to the expansion of the human capacity to give and the knowledge that working together leads to the greatest patterns of growth (something evidenced by the human genome project, that is, the fact that working together, as opposed to 'competition' may yield the greatest results, especially in scientific advances).
Not the point I was making. Once again, you've sidestepped to something tangentially related just so you can show how much a better trekkie you are than the rest of us. I was talking about the idea that all conflict and hardship would be squeezed out of humanity. Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables. It's moral and ethical, not economical.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 03:14 AM   #273
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post

Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables.
And we have a winner!
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 03:44 AM   #274
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
His point was that in matter/anti-matter reactors you need something (like dilithium) to regulate the flow of particles from one chamber to another. He simply filled in the gaps, but essentially credits the writers with forthright vision for coming up with basic fusion principles before scientists came up with it!
Yeah, you need a carburetor for an engine to work... big whoop. It doesn't take much to figure that if you have an engine, you need something to regulate the fuel. Yep, lots of forthright vision there.
nightwind1 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 03:48 AM   #275
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
I think TOS is Roddenberry's actual vision before he bought into the hype that he was changing the world and before his mental faculties began to deteriorate.
Sure, we can get into details like whether TNG is more utopian than TOS and which vision is better. I'd say they all have their advantages and disadvantages, I enjoy TNG's at its most utopian as much as DS9 during its darkest hours.
I merely wanted to say that is the common denominator of all Trek incarnations is that it features a better future. Just like 1984 or Blade Runner features a worse future and Firefly features a future that is basically like the present.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 04:26 AM   #276
AdmiralScreed
Captain
 
AdmiralScreed's Avatar
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Guys, don't reply to Trek_Futurists's posts until he gives us proof that people who like ST09 are lesser fans than those who do not. He's just sidestepping the question and you guys are feeding into him by replying to all of his other nonsense.
AdmiralScreed is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 04:54 AM   #277
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

BillJ wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.
This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.
He could have made a lot more money making traditional westerns, which were extremely popular at that time, to my understanding. And this show was not, exactly, favored by TV execs. So what you are saying is complete and utter non-sense. Next..
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 04:59 AM   #278
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Just because you do not have a currency based system as incentive to grow, does not mean you shrivel up and die. You simply replace one incentive with a better one. In this case space exploration, and having anything you could possibly imagine at your fingertips. It is folly to assume money is the only worthwhile incentive available. Generationally, you would witness an increase in selflessness, due to the expansion of the human capacity to give and the knowledge that working together leads to the greatest patterns of growth (something evidenced by the human genome project, that is, the fact that working together, as opposed to 'competition' may yield the greatest results, especially in scientific advances).
Not the point I was making. Once again, you've sidestepped to something tangentially related just so you can show how much a better trekkie you are than the rest of us. I was talking about the idea that all conflict and hardship would be squeezed out of humanity. Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables. It's moral and ethical, not economical.
You need to first define hardship.

If by hardship, you are referring to basic human limitations, then there will always be some limits, albeit slimmer as time and technology (especially medical technology) advances.

But then there is absolutely no reason to eschew our further evolution either. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to a life of less hardship, especially if our libidos are focusing their energies elsewhere, such as in the maintenance of technology, the charting of star systems, the diplomacy of burgeoning species.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 05:05 AM   #279
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Gotta love true believers.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 05:07 AM   #280
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
Gotta love true believers.
You really, really don't. Most are pompous blowhards.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 05:12 AM   #281
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

Non-sense. Plenty of interviews with both him and Majel confirm that they wanted to use star trek as a vehicle to portray a humanity that is better than it is now. This is further evidenced by his involvement in TNG as executive producer, up until his passing. He really wanted to perfect his vision, so in some ways TNG can be seen as a furtherance of his vision.
This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.
He could have made a lot more money making traditional westerns, which were extremely popular at that time, to my understanding. And this show was not, exactly, favored by TV execs. So what you are saying is complete and utter non-sense. Next..
You actually think that Roddenberry didn't want to make money?

You know what else was popular at that time? Space exploration. You know who America's newest heroes were? Astronauts. So a show taking the tropes of Westerns set in space would be something the execs would look at. They liked it enough to green light a second pilot. A somewhat unusual move in those days.

To quote Khan, " I know something of those years. Remember, it was a time of great dreams, of great aspiration".
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is online now  
Old December 22 2011, 05:16 AM   #282
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Just because you do not have a currency based system as incentive to grow, does not mean you shrivel up and die. You simply replace one incentive with a better one. In this case space exploration, and having anything you could possibly imagine at your fingertips. It is folly to assume money is the only worthwhile incentive available. Generationally, you would witness an increase in selflessness, due to the expansion of the human capacity to give and the knowledge that working together leads to the greatest patterns of growth (something evidenced by the human genome project, that is, the fact that working together, as opposed to 'competition' may yield the greatest results, especially in scientific advances).
Not the point I was making. Once again, you've sidestepped to something tangentially related just so you can show how much a better trekkie you are than the rest of us. I was talking about the idea that all conflict and hardship would be squeezed out of humanity. Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables. It's moral and ethical, not economical.
You need to first define hardship.

If by hardship, you are referring to basic human limitations, then there will always be some limits, albeit slimmer as time and technology (especially medical technology) advances.

But then there is absolutely no reason to eschew our further evolution either. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to a life of less hardship, especially if our libidos are focusing their energies elsewhere, such as in the maintenance of technology, the charting of star systems, the diplomacy of burgeoning species.
That's nice.

How does liking ST09 not make someone a real Star Trek fan?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 05:39 AM   #283
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Santa Kang wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

This is essentially non-sense. Star Trek was a vehicle for Roddenberry to make money. TNG was not his endeavor alone as D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold and Tracy Torme all sued to get their names added to the 'Created by' credit and later settled for an undisclosed amount, to protect Roddenberry's 'legacy'. Rumor has it many of the first and second season scripts were being rewritten by Roddenberry's attorney which led to dysfunction in the writer's room.

TNG essentially succeeded in spite of Roddenberry, who was pretty much delusional by the time it rolled around.

In addition, Roddenberry only got the job to lead a new Star Trek series after people like Leonard Nimoy and Greg Strangis turned down the opportunity.
He could have made a lot more money making traditional westerns, which were extremely popular at that time, to my understanding. And this show was not, exactly, favored by TV execs. So what you are saying is complete and utter non-sense. Next..
You actually think that Roddenberry didn't want to make money?

You know what else was popular at that time? Space exploration. You know who America's newest heroes were? Astronauts. So a show taking the tropes of Westerns set in space would be something the execs would look at. They liked it enough to green light a second pilot. A somewhat unusual move in those days.

To quote Khan, " I know something of those years. Remember, it was a time of great dreams, of great aspiration".

I'm not saying Gene Roddenberry didn't want to make money, that would be foolish, because money means the continuation of his medium.

BUT

He could have made money a lot easier doing traditional television.

Now let me remind some of you from the older generations what was NOT popular back then. Racial tolerance! And that is one of the first things Gene fought to represent in the bridge crew!
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 05:40 AM   #284
trek_futurist
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post

Not the point I was making. Once again, you've sidestepped to something tangentially related just so you can show how much a better trekkie you are than the rest of us. I was talking about the idea that all conflict and hardship would be squeezed out of humanity. Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables. It's moral and ethical, not economical.
You need to first define hardship.

If by hardship, you are referring to basic human limitations, then there will always be some limits, albeit slimmer as time and technology (especially medical technology) advances.

But then there is absolutely no reason to eschew our further evolution either. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to a life of less hardship, especially if our libidos are focusing their energies elsewhere, such as in the maintenance of technology, the charting of star systems, the diplomacy of burgeoning species.
That's nice.

How does liking ST09 not make someone a real Star Trek fan?
Because it doesn't make treksense.
trek_futurist is offline  
Old December 22 2011, 05:43 AM   #285
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009....

trek_futurist wrote: View Post
Herkimer Jitty wrote: View Post
trek_futurist wrote: View Post

You need to first define hardship.

If by hardship, you are referring to basic human limitations, then there will always be some limits, albeit slimmer as time and technology (especially medical technology) advances.

But then there is absolutely no reason to eschew our further evolution either. There is no reason why we cannot adapt to a life of less hardship, especially if our libidos are focusing their energies elsewhere, such as in the maintenance of technology, the charting of star systems, the diplomacy of burgeoning species.
That's nice.

How does liking ST09 not make someone a real Star Trek fan?
Because it doesn't make treksense.
How does liking ST09 not make someone a real Star Trek fan? This time, with at least one paragraph, and without any glib catchphrase words.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
nemesis, philosophy, science, star trek (2009 film)

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 04:42 AM.

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