If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... - Page 19

BillJ · December 22 2011, 03:08 AM

horatio83 wrote:

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.

Herkimer Jitty · December 22 2011, 03:12 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

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.

BillJ · December 22 2011, 03:14 AM

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

Hardship defines us. Without it, we're meat vegetables.

And we have a winner!

nightwind1 · December 22 2011, 03:44 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

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.

horatio83 · December 22 2011, 03:48 AM

BillJ wrote:

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.

AdmiralScreed · December 22 2011, 04:26 AM

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.

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 04:54 AM

BillJ wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

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 · December 22 2011, 04:59 AM

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

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.

Nerys Myk · December 22 2011, 05:05 AM

Gotta love true believers.

Admiral Buzzkill · December 22 2011, 05:07 AM

Santa Kang wrote:

Gotta love true believers.

You really, really don't. Most are pompous blowhards.

Nerys Myk · December 22 2011, 05:12 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

BillJ wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

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".

Herkimer Jitty · December 22 2011, 05:16 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

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?

trek_futurist · December 22 2011, 05:39 AM

Santa Kang wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

BillJ wrote:

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 · December 22 2011, 05:40 AM

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

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.

Herkimer Jitty · December 22 2011, 05:43 AM

trek_futurist wrote:

Herkimer Jitty wrote:

trek_futurist wrote:

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.

December 22 2011, 04:26 AM	#276
AdmiralScreed Captain Location: Minnesota	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.

December 22 2011, 05:05 AM	#279
Nerys Myk Admiral Location: House of Kang, now with ridges	Re: If you don't think Nemesis is better than Star trek 2009.... Gotta love true believers. __________________ Nerys Myk's Midnight In Never Land A novel of Dark Fantasy @ Amazon.com

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US