The End of Star Trek on TV

[JirinPanthosa]

Cersei arranged for King Robert to have strong wine to drink while hunting. That's how he got killed.

Robert went hunting right before Before Ned was going to tell him about Cersei's affair and illegitimate children.

That's how she got him out of the way.

Huh, seems like a really imprecise method of murder for a man you have constant access to, if the murder is time sensitive. Is that made more explicit in the book than the series?

I think there are a wide variety of stories you can tell in the Star Trek universe. DS9 showed humanity with more warts than in TOS and TNG but at its core it was still an idealistic show. Paradise Lost is basically a distillation of the show I described. DS9 always preferred a peaceful solution to a violent solution when one was at all possible and looked at the universe with hope and wonder. The only case it was even willing to entertain hurting innocent people was when the entire future of their way of life was at stake.

Without that sense of hope and wonder and a strong moral center, I don't see how you can call it Star Trek.

 

[Darren Mooney]

Enterprise really started to get interesting with season 4, when Brannon and Braga were replaced as head writers by Manny Coto. But, by then it was too late, audiences had already had enough.

Let's be fair, though. While Star Trek fans might have loved the fourth season for its continuity and fan service, it was not as if those elements make good television of themselves.

The fourth season was pandering to those reduced viewing figures, not remedying them. I don't think it was "too late", because that implies that it could have worked if it arrived earlier.

I suspect that had the show tried that in its first two years it might have been better-loved by fans, but would have lost viewers just as quickly. If not quicker.

And that's the problem with a chunk of the fandom, imho that they have this extremely narrow view of what kind of stories the franchise is "allowed" to tell, what characters "can" or "should" be used and what constitutes "real" Star Trek.
This in turn causes the franchise to be stale and in love with its own past.

I agree entirely. The next Star Trek showrunner should not look to Star Trek fandom for advice. I want a showrunner who doesn't give two shrugs about "the base", realising that the "the base" is a couple of hundred extremely vocal fans on the internet, and has nothing to do with actually providing what is necessary for a television franchise to succeed. Which is a much larger number of people who really like the show, rather than a core who will never be satisfied until a few years after you go off the air and they can feel nostalgic.

Look at Doctor Who, there are extremely vocal and vicious elements of fandom who have always objected to every major change in the franchise. (There are those who refuse to acknowledge the new series, those who refuse to accept that Moffat is different than Davies.)

What kept that franchise alive (and made it thrive) was the realisation that you need to grow the base, rather than pander to existing fans. Compare the insular approach of the wilderness years to the "come one, come all" attitude of Davies and Moffat.

(Which is a large part of the backlash to both - "Davies turned the show into a soap opera!" or "Davies has a gay agenda!" were two of the most frequent criticisms of the Davies era, while "Moffat is telling stories that are too complicated!" or "Moffat is moving away from the characterisation of the Davies era!" are the two more popular mainstream criticisms of Moffat, ignoring the somewhat questionable tumblr crowd.)

I think a version of Star Trek that is going to survive has to basically treat us as "nice to haves" rather than "essentials." It needs to throw out any and all expectations, refuse to get bogged down in continuity, and be utterly unafraid of doing its own thing.

 

[Orphalesion]

Look at Doctor Who, there are extremely vocal and vicious elements of fandom who have always objected to every major change in the franchise. (There are those who refuse to acknowledge the new series, those who refuse to accept that Moffat is different than Davies.)

What kept that franchise alive (and made it thrive) was the realisation that you need to grow the base, rather than pander to existing fans. Compare the insular approach of the wilderness years to the "come one, come all" attitude of Davies and Moffat.

(Which is a large part of the backlash to both - "Davies turned the show into a soap opera!" or "Davies has a gay agenda!" were two of the most frequent criticisms of the Davies era, while "Moffat is telling stories that are too complicated!" or "Moffat is moving away from the characterisation of the Davies era!" are the two more popular mainstream criticisms of Moffat, ignoring the somewhat questionable tumblr crowd.)

I think a version of Star Trek that is going to survive has to basically treat us as "nice to haves" rather than "essentials." It needs to throw out any and all expectations, refuse to get bogged down in continuity, and be utterly unafraid of doing its own thing.

That's one of the reasons why Doctor Who is still going strong after years and years. The show has time and again completely reinvented itself. It's a common saying in the Who fandom that the different series are so varied that almost anyone is bound to find one they like.
I, for instance are not a big fan of the "New WHo" trend of mostly having the Doctor + one, always female, sidekick, but I do rather enjoy the Fourth Doctor
.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Cersei arranged for King Robert to have strong wine to drink while hunting. That's how he got killed.

Robert went hunting right before Before Ned was going to tell him about Cersei's affair and illegitimate children.

That's how she got him out of the way.

Huh, seems like a really imprecise method of murder for a man you have constant access to, if the murder is time sensitive. Is that made more explicit in the book than the series?

I think the story goes is that Cersei knew that Robert insisted on hunted boars at close range and making the kill by himself.

So she made sure his squire, (one of her cousins) kept giving him wine while they hunted. I believe in the show, Robert himself admitted 'it was the wine'.

I think there are a wide variety of stories you can tell in the Star Trek universe. DS9 showed humanity with more warts than in TOS and TNG but at its core it was still an idealistic show. Paradise Lost is basically a distillation of the show I described. DS9 always preferred a peaceful solution to a violent solution when one was at all possible and looked at the universe with hope and wonder. The only case it was even willing to entertain hurting innocent people was when the entire future of their way of life was at stake.

Without that sense of hope and wonder and a strong moral center, I don't see how you can call it Star Trek.

I think introducing moral greyness would force the writing to be more creative and original. It becomes easy to fall back on cliches and old story ideas when you keep following the older formats.

Returning back to G.O.T, there's a character called Tyrion, a dwarf, who is considered the moral voice of the show. He's smart, moral, considerate. Cares about the poor, the downtrodden.

He also curses, insults (bad people), visits prostitutes, and has to take rough measures with (bad people) in order to keep his position and survive.

He's considered by almost all fans to be the more courageous and moral characters of the show.

An example of creative and original writing.
It's kind of true

 

[Orphalesion]

Returning back to G.O.T, there's a character called Tyrion, a dwarf, who is considered the moral voice of the show. He's smart, moral, considerate. Cares about the poor, the downtrodden.

He also curses, insults (bad people), visits prostitutes, and has to take rough measures with (bad people) in order to keep his position and survive.

He's considered by almost all fans to be the more courageous and moral characters of the show.

An example of creative and original writing.
It's kind of true

Well I do no agree that "visit prostitutes" and "curses" by itself equals automatically deep characterization/creative writing. It fits Tyrions character and in both the show and the book we get reasons for why Tyrion acts the way he does. That's what makes it good characterization.
Though I do agree that the characters in game of Thrones are much more three dimensional and interesting than the Star Trek ones.
Even if we leave Tyrion out of it, there's Cersei, Jaime, Sansa, Margaery, The Queen of Thorns, Brienne , Yara and Theon Greyjoy, Littlefinger... and that are only the ones that
play prominent parts right now and I happen to like/find interesting. If we get into all the others....
They are all very different, with different ideals, morals, personalities, goals and methods how to reach those goals. Yet all of them have in common that we understand what makes them tick that from watching the show/reading the book we could describe them like real people without even using their roles in their descriptions (just like you haven't used "Nobleman" or "Adviser to the King" in your description of Tyrion.)

Now let's try that with Troi without using "counselor" or "empath"...yeah.....or better yet with Chekov without without using "helmsman" or "Russian"...yeop

You did use "dwarf" in your description and Tyrion's deformity is a central part of his character, but only a part and it was one of the things, along with his family life that has shaped him into the man he is in the story.
Do we get the feeling that either her psionic abilities or her overbearing mother shaped Troi into who she is. No. Lwaxana might as well not exist whenever she's not on board and when she is she is comic relief and Troi's psionic abilities have nowhere near the impact on her behaviour towards others they should have.
In Trek....we don't really get to see what makes characters tick most of the time. In a lot of the shows the characters seem to be their jobs and/or species first and then characters as almost an afterthought. Even in many storylines in Trek the characters rarely take center stage, but rather are just tools to drive the plot forward with the writing focused solely on the dilemma at hand rather than how that dilemma causes the characters to react.
Now I understand you need both plot and characterization to have a good piece of fiction but Star Trek is too light on the "interesting, deep characters" part a lot of the time.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Wasn't that basically Quark's function in DS9? Characters like Tyrion aren't what I object to so much as characters like Jack Bauer.

@Darren Mooney

On the other hand, what is the point of the franchise surviving if it bears no resemblance to the original show? Do you want to see just anything with the Star Trek label on it, or do you want to see the spirit of the show survive? If the show is called Star Trek but is just an action show, then the only reason to even call it Star Trek is for brand recognition.

 

[eyeresist]

In Trek....we don't really get to see what makes characters tick most of the time. In a lot of the shows the characters seem to be their jobs and/or species first and then characters as almost an afterthought. Even in many storylines in Trek the characters rarely take center stage, but rather are just tools to drive the plot forward with the writing focused solely on the dilemma at hand rather than how that dilemma causes the characters to react.

I agree that the old "plug the characters into the plot of the week" approach is defunct, or ought to be if we want Trek to continue. Ideally the stories matter to the characters in an essential way (romance of the week doesn't count). DS9 was actually forced into a new approach by its format, as a space station couldn't be encountering new species with allegorical problems for the crew to solve on a weekly basis (not without becoming The Love Boat, anyway). That forced the writers to go deeper into character development, as well as look at social and political events on an ongoing basis.

So the ship format is actually a risky proposition. A new ship show would need careful forethought to avoid falling back into old habits.

 

[Darren Mooney]

On the other hand, what is the point of the franchise surviving if it bears no resemblance to the original show? Do you want to see just anything with the Star Trek label on it, or do you want to see the spirit of the show survive? If the show is called Star Trek but is just an action show, then the only reason to even call it Star Trek is for brand recognition.

But who gets to decide what is and isn't "Star Trek"? Who acts as gatekeeper to true Trekkian values?

There are fans - include Majel Barrett Roddenberry - who claimed that the final seasons of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine were not "Star Trek" because they went against Gene Roddenberry's ethos.

There were members of the production team who claimed that Star Trek: The Animated Series was not "Star Trek."

The "spirit of the franchise" is so ambiguous as to be meaningless. More often than not it's a crutch to beat parts of the franchise that people don't agree with. The "spirit of the franchise" is inherently subjective and personal.

Personally, I consider The Omega Glory and Friday's Child and The Apple to be bigger violations of "the spirit of the franchise" than most of the ideas suggested here. I'd never suggest they aren't worthy of the name "Star Trek" or aren't really Star Trek or are Star Trek in name only.

(I personally consider it to be a violation of "the spirit of the franchise" that there has not been an openly gay or transgender major character by this point. But others might disagree with me or take umbrage. But I'd argue those cases on their own merits.)

So I'd rather whoever is producing Star Trek do whatever they want with it, and leave it to individual viewers to make up their own mind about what exactly constitutes "the spirit of the franchise" and whether the new Star Trek is in keeping with it.

Living in fear of "violating the spirit of the franchise" might have cost us the Dominion War or the Xindi arc, which - despite their flaws - I think try to ask real probing questions about the franchise. Trying to police what is "true Star Trek" is one of the reasons that The Animated Series is so little-seen.

That is the core of my skepticism towards gatekeeping.

I have 700+ hours of Star Trek. Even if the next thirteen or so don't fit comfortably, I will always have those 700+. I would rather whoever takes control of the franchise try to tell their own story in their own way than watch them try to satisfy some ambiguous and nebulous concept that - to me at least - boils down to an attempt at gatekeeping.

(To pick an example, I don't mind the JJ Abrams's films. They're fun summer blockbusters. They aren't Amok Time or The Offspring or The Measure of a Man, but they convinced my better half to watch those episodes. Which is great. More than that, she loves the Abrams films, and I'd feel really crappy trying to tell her they're "not true Star Trek" or something similar - because that's something people have to decide for themselves. They will be Star Trek to her, just like The Offspring or The Measure of a Man.)

But, of course, each's own.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I would agree that Trek needs to learn to show the same love to its secondary cast that it shows to its main players. DS9's really the only Trek to get that right.

There is an example of a show that completely changed the concept of the show but ended up being a much better show in Battlestar Galactica. 2003 Battlestar Galactica is an incredible show, but can you really call it the same franchise as the original Battlestar Galactica? No, you can't, and the only reason they called it Battlestar Galactica was for the brand recognition. It would have been just as great a show if it didn't have characters and ships named after characters and ships from the original.

So, if you do have a great idea for a new show, but it's completely unlike Trek, it might be a great show, but it's certainly not the same franchise just because you call the characters Kirk or Picard and call the ship Enterprise.

Just like, if you wrote a show about an aspiring cook named Jack Bauer trying to succeed in a big restaurant in New York and called it 24, it might be a great show, but it wouldn't be 24.

 

[Darren Mooney]

I would agree that Trek needs to learn to show the same love to its secondary cast that it shows to its main players. DS9's really the only Trek to get that right.

There is an example of a show that completely changed the concept of the show but ended up being a much better show in Battlestar Galactica. 2003 Battlestar Galactica is an incredible show, but can you really call it the same franchise as the original Battlestar Galactica? No, you can't, and the only reason they called it Battlestar Galactica was for the brand recognition. It would have been just as great a show if it didn't have characters and ships named after characters and ships from the original.

So, if you do have a great idea for a new show, but it's completely unlike Trek, it might be a great show, but it's certainly not the same franchise just because you call the characters Kirk or Picard and call the ship Enterprise.

Just like, if you wrote a show about an aspiring cook named Jack Bauer trying to succeed in a big restaurant in New York and called it 24, it might be a great show, but it wouldn't be 24.

I would consider Battlestar Galactica 2003 to remain true to "the spirit" of Battlestar Galactica. It's an exodus story with pretty heavy religious overtones. To me, that's part of the franchise "deal." But that's an example of how subjective talking about something like "spirit" can be.

(It also seems that - even if one accepts it is nothing but "brand recognition" - the show would not have been greenlit without it. Given that the reboot is (up until the last few episodes) so broadly loved, it would seem a tragedy to lose the series on so intangible a distinction.)

More than that, though, this ignores the fact that times change. There is an entire generation of fans to whom "21 Jump Street" is Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum. Even if the films don't adhere to the "spirit" of the television show, who are we to tell that generation that their conception of 21 Jump Street is "wrong" or "invalid"?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Enterprise really started to get interesting with season 4, when Brannon and Braga were replaced as head writers by Manny Coto. But, by then it was too late, audiences had already had enough.

Let's be fair, though. While Star Trek fans might have loved the fourth season for its continuity and fan service, it was not as if those elements make good television of themselves.

The fourth season was pandering to those reduced viewing figures, not remedying them. I don't think it was "too late", because that implies that it could have worked if it arrived earlier.

I suspect that had the show tried that in its first two years it might have been better-loved by fans, but would have lost viewers just as quickly. If not quicker.

And that's the problem with a chunk of the fandom, imho that they have this extremely narrow view of what kind of stories the franchise is "allowed" to tell, what characters "can" or "should" be used and what constitutes "real" Star Trek.
This in turn causes the franchise to be stale and in love with its own past.

I agree entirely. The next Star Trek showrunner should not look to Star Trek fandom for advice. I want a showrunner who doesn't give two shrugs about "the base", realising that the "the base" is a couple of hundred extremely vocal fans on the internet, and has nothing to do with actually providing what is necessary for a television franchise to succeed. Which is a much larger number of people who really like the show, rather than a core who will never be satisfied until a few years after you go off the air and they can feel nostalgic.

Look at Doctor Who, there are extremely vocal and vicious elements of fandom who have always objected to every major change in the franchise. (There are those who refuse to acknowledge the new series, those who refuse to accept that Moffat is different than Davies.)

What kept that franchise alive (and made it thrive) was the realisation that you need to grow the base, rather than pander to existing fans. Compare the insular approach of the wilderness years to the "come one, come all" attitude of Davies and Moffat.

(Which is a large part of the backlash to both - "Davies turned the show into a soap opera!" or "Davies has a gay agenda!" were two of the most frequent criticisms of the Davies era, while "Moffat is telling stories that are too complicated!" or "Moffat is moving away from the characterisation of the Davies era!" are the two more popular mainstream criticisms of Moffat, ignoring the somewhat questionable tumblr crowd.)

I think a version of Star Trek that is going to survive has to basically treat us as "nice to haves" rather than "essentials." It needs to throw out any and all expectations, refuse to get bogged down in continuity, and be utterly unafraid of doing its own thing.

Look at Doctor Who, there are extremely vocal and vicious elements of fandom who have always objected to every major change in the franchise. (There are those who refuse to acknowledge the new series, those who refuse to accept that Moffat is different than Davies.)

What kept that franchise alive (and made it thrive) was the realisation that you need to grow the base, rather than pander to existing fans. Compare the insular approach of the wilderness years to the "come one, come all" attitude of Davies and Moffat.

(Which is a large part of the backlash to both - "Davies turned the show into a soap opera!" or "Davies has a gay agenda!" were two of the most frequent criticisms of the Davies era, while "Moffat is telling stories that are too complicated!" or "Moffat is moving away from the characterisation of the Davies era!" are the two more popular mainstream criticisms of Moffat, ignoring the somewhat questionable tumblr crowd.)

I think a version of Star Trek that is going to survive has to basically treat us as "nice to haves" rather than "essentials." It needs to throw out any and all expectations, refuse to get bogged down in continuity, and be utterly unafraid of doing its own thing.

That's one of the reasons why Doctor Who is still going strong after years and years. The show has time and again completely reinvented itself. It's a common saying in the Who fandom that the different series are so varied that almost anyone is bound to find one they like.
I, for instance are not a big fan of the "New WHo" trend of mostly having the Doctor + one, always female, sidekick, but I do rather enjoy the Fourth Doctor
.

That`s why I like what Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman have done in the new movies; by shaking things up having Vulcan be destroyed with only 10,000 people be left alive, making Kirk a troubled youth, having Uhura fall in love with Spock (and be front and center instead of always being in the background), etc. We need somebody to be like that for a future TV show, and yes (Darren Mooney or Orphalesion) you`re right, the show-runner has to be bold in telling these fans where to go if they complain about any radical directions in a future Star Trek show.

However, I think that you`re wrong about Star Trek: Aurora; even with the (female) Vulcan sidekick, it is different just for the concept of having the show be about a civilian space freighter pilot and her first mate. And the other Star Trek concept I mentioned is also different (even with the starship and Starfleet setting) just for having a female alien starship captain instead of the usual human male or female lead character.

 

[Richard Baker]

I really liked 'Star Trek:Aurora' - Star Trek is a big universe and it was great to see another side of it. Not every series needs to have a hero ship with a hero captain saving the Earth/Universe - some of the better TOS shows were having the Enterprise doing a routine thing and something wrong happens. IMO 'Lower Decks' was one of the best TNG shows because it really gave you the feeling of being on the ship as a person, not the hero.

Trek seems to have written itself into a corner further with each new series- TNG jumped ahead so we could meet new aliens, DS-9 went to the Gamma Quadrant to meet more new Aliens, ST-V went to the Delta Quadrant to meet even more new Aliens and ST-E tried to have us meet the old aliens for the first time but violated canon too often (plus having us meet more new aliens which we never heard from again (or were kept nameless)).

I would love to see a new series on TV again instead of the movies- they always have to have everything happen in two hours instead of a season(s).

 

[martok2112]

Star Trek is many things to many people. Unfortunately, some people have essentially turned it into religion of a sort, and thus why you have the fanboy arguments of "This is the 'true spirit of Trek' as envisioned by Roddenberry!"..... "No, this is the true spirit of Trek as embraced by (insert fan faction here) which is so much better than Roddenberry's inane and go-nowhere 'vision'!"...."What?! You dare speak out against The Great Bird?! Blasphemy! You are not 'true fans'! You are pretenders and heretics!"

Thus why I turned my back on fandom. I love all aspects of Trek, even though I lean more toward the action-adventure side. But I don't need Egbert McFanboy of the Parents' Basement Dweller's Society of America to tell me "what it takes to be a fan", or that he's "more fan than thou!".

 

[ThankYouGeneR]

Nice.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Star Trek is many things to many people. Unfortunately, some people have essentially turned it into religion of a sort, and thus why you have the fanboy arguments of "This is the 'true spirit of Trek' as envisioned by Roddenberry!"..... "No, this is the true spirit of Trek as embraced by (insert fan faction here) which is so much better than Roddenberry's inane and go-nowhere 'vision'!"

Sad, but true. Everyone has their own idea of what Trek shouldn't be anymore, what it should be instead, and what it must never be.

...I don't need Egbert McFanboy of the Parents' Basement Dweller's Society of America...

Quote of the Day

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Star Trek is many things to many people. Unfortunately, some people have essentially turned it into religion of a sort, and thus why you have the fanboy arguments of "This is the 'true spirit of Trek' as envisioned by Roddenberry!"..... "No, this is the true spirit of Trek as embraced by (insert fan faction here) which is so much better than Roddenberry's inane and go-nowhere 'vision'!"...."What?! You dare speak out against The Great Bird?! Blasphemy! You are not 'true fans'! You are pretenders and heretics!"

Thus why I turned my back on fandom. I love all aspects of Trek, even though I lean more toward the action-adventure side. But I don't need Egbert McFanboy of the Parents' Basement Dweller's Society of America to tell me "what it takes to be a fan", or that he's "more fan than thou!".

Amazing how I said the same thing years ago, and everybody was upset. Nice to see somebody come around.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Well I do no agree that "visit prostitutes" and "curses" by itself equals automatically deep characterization/creative writing. It fits Tyrions character and in both the show and the book we get reasons for why Tyrion acts the way he does. That's what makes it good characterization.
Though I do agree that the characters in game of Thrones are much more three dimensional and interesting than the Star Trek ones.

Sometimes, I think the Trek characters, were a little too ideal.

For the most part, TNG characters were almost always right, always proper, never swore (as in "he's such an a-hole!") never got drunk (on purpose) never pigged out on food and so on.

And these tend to be the things that make characters interesting and funny, which G.O.T more openly embraces.

At least in the long run -- at the time, TNG was definitely popular and cutting edge. But in hindsight, how is it's re-watch ability today? Would this same format work the next time around?

You did use "dwarf" in your description and Tyrion's deformity is a central part of his character, but only a part and it was one of the things, along with his family life that has shaped him into the man he is in the story.
Do we get the feeling that either her psionic abilities or her overbearing mother shaped Troi into who she is. No. Lwaxana might as well not exist whenever she's not on board and when she is she is comic relief and Troi's psionic abilities have nowhere near the impact on her behaviour towards others they should have.

But here's the thing; I don't think Trek would even use a dwarf or smaller person, as a main hero character, simply because of how the old format worked.

And that usually means the hero being tall, handsome, slim, smart, brave, moral, ethical, wise etc, etc.

Those are great qualities, but now you have to wonder if it's getting worn out.

Tyrion, of all people, was the frequent show stealer.

A few months ago, in a certain episode, he gave a rant/speech about being a dwarf that made headlines and had people talking Emmy.

 

[Orphalesion]

Sometimes, I think the Trek characters, were a little too ideal.

For the most part, TNG characters were almost always right, always proper, never swore (as in "he's such an a-hole!") never got drunk (on purpose) never pigged out on food and so on.

And these tend to be the things that make characters interesting and funny, which G.O.T more openly embraces.

Again I do not agree that "swearing and getting drunk on purpose" makes a character automatically interesting, nor that a well mannered character is automatically boring (or are you calling Margaery and the Queen of Thorns boring? )
These characteristics add to Tyrion's appeal because they make sense for his character and thus make him appear more real, but that doesn't mean that every character needs to whore and booze in order to be engaging.

If those characteristics made a character instantly interesting and deep then 13 year old fanfiction writers would have the deepest characters imaginable.

I agree that a character, to work, be interesting and relateable, needs to have flaws but those flaws can take many shapes not just those specific for Tyrion or the carnal vices.
And I agree that the Trek characters had too few flaws. But that doesn't mean that I think that every Trek character should walz around the galaxy swearing and whoring (not that there can't be one or two that do)

But here's the thing; I don't think Trek would even use a dwarf or smaller person, as a main hero character, simply because of how the old format worked.

And that usually means the hero being tall, handsome, slim, smart, brave, moral, ethical, wise etc, etc.

Those are great qualities, but now you have to wonder if it's getting worn out.

Tyrion, of all people, was the frequent show stealer.

That was not my point. My point was that GOT has characters who's background and facets actively influence their behavior in the present plot, while most of Trek does not. Tyrion might get a able as "dwarf" in Universe, but he refuses to let it own him and the reader/watcher knows he is so much more, in Trek characters often are their label and that's it.

 

[martok2112]

Nice.

10-q. 10-q!

Star Trek is many things to many people. Unfortunately, some people have essentially turned it into religion of a sort, and thus why you have the fanboy arguments of "This is the 'true spirit of Trek' as envisioned by Roddenberry!"..... "No, this is the true spirit of Trek as embraced by (insert fan faction here) which is so much better than Roddenberry's inane and go-nowhere 'vision'!"

Sad, but true. Everyone has their own idea of what Trek shouldn't be anymore, what it should be instead, and what it must never be.

You'd think that there was a middle ground.....somewhere.

...I don't need Egbert McFanboy of the Parents' Basement Dweller's Society of America...

Quote of the Day

10-q. 10-q!

Star Trek is many things to many people. Unfortunately, some people have essentially turned it into religion of a sort, and thus why you have the fanboy arguments of "This is the 'true spirit of Trek' as envisioned by Roddenberry!"..... "No, this is the true spirit of Trek as embraced by (insert fan faction here) which is so much better than Roddenberry's inane and go-nowhere 'vision'!"...."What?! You dare speak out against The Great Bird?! Blasphemy! You are not 'true fans'! You are pretenders and heretics!"

Thus why I turned my back on fandom. I love all aspects of Trek, even though I lean more toward the action-adventure side. But I don't need Egbert McFanboy of the Parents' Basement Dweller's Society of America to tell me "what it takes to be a fan", or that he's "more fan than thou!".

Amazing how I said the same thing years ago, and everybody was upset. Nice to see somebody come around.

This was a feeling that had been festering for a long time. I think it started, for me, when I was talking with a guy who played StarFleet Battles, while I was more accustomed to the FASA RPG/Starship Tactical Combat Simulator. He started proclaiming his purist nature, citing that "Klingon battlecruisers do not have photon torpedoes." When I tried to remind him that Paramount seems to think otherwise, he started all his "Gene Roddenberry this....canon that..." stuff. I had to just kinda tune him out. I mean, I've loved Star Trek all my life, and it was just disheartening to have my Trek cred be questioned just because I embraced more than one idea or ideal about Trek.

But that was just the start....eventually it came down to TOS vs TNG that. And then the Star Wars special editions suck. And then Prequel SW Trilogy sucks compared to the Original Trilogy. And then Battlestar Galactica. And then....well....the list goes on. I think it really came to a head with the whole JJ Abrams Trek movies, and how "you weren't a true fan if you even remotely supported AbramsTrek", and shite like that.

I love all of Star Trek, all of Star Wars, all of Battlestar Galactica (and yes, I even have a soft spot in my heart for Galactica 1980...lol). I'm simply not a fan of any of it, anymore. I just love it.

Once upon a time, I was proud to proclaim my fandom of all those things....but sadly, fandom has become religion, and, well, I might be a spiritual person, but I'm not religious. . Religion is social control. Sorry, I don't like being dictated to, whether you're a priest in the Holy Church, or a prophet of Roddenberry.

Trust me, Shaka, I'm right with ya' right there.

 

[T'Girl]

^ It's alway nice to have someone-some group to gang up on and hate.