It came out in 2011 so I may be off in my remembrance of Rod Roddenberry's Trek Nation. I did find the documentary on the free TUBI TV app (they also have Free Enterprise for those who like their Trek spicy). Enjoy and feel free to fact check me.
Has the Red Angel moved the show out of the Prime Universe?
- Thread starter Hoity Toity
- Start date
I remember being really disappointed by how Rod Roddenberry presented himself. I also seem to remember Majel being a bit hostile in the documentary, IIRC.
All I remember is the really awkward interview with that one George guy.
I think part of the disconnect seems to come from what elements makeup or are necessary for a prequel to be a prequel and successful in its execution. In my opinion, the elements of TOS that are most important are the characters, the events, and the organizations, not the technology specifics or presentation.
It will never be 100% accurate and I don't expect it to. But, it follows through on the intent of Star Trek in my view.
It will never be 100% accurate and I don't expect it to. But, it follows through on the intent of Star Trek in my view.
I always remember the bit with her upset and asking him why is he doing this?
I seem to recall most, if not all, the interviews being awkward.
That's why, I personally, am resistant to acknowledge him as an authority on Star Trek.
It is not so much accuracy. It is we do not want either a sequel or a prequel to upset the applecart of our own interpretations of the object of our devotion. We are fearful that we will be Bill Cosbyed whereby you admire someone for decades only to have something revealed that retcons your estimation or at the very least a Greedo shoots first revisionism. Discovery is mixed bag for me. I applaud Ethan Peck's Mr. Spock and find Rainn Wilson's Harry Mudd offensive and revisionist. "Have to take the bitter with the sweet" as Don King would say.
Huh? What about "cloaking devices" and "time crystals" makes DISCO less TOS-like? TOS has more than it's share of WTF pseudo-science. I can easily imagine "time crystal" in a TOS episode. And I don't have to imagine a cloaking device in one.
Accuracy, in this instance, includes personal interpretation of the material, which is its own mixed bag. I have fought with myself for many years because my interpretation of Trek differed widely with others in my circle, namely TOS was awesome and TNG sucked. It required a bit of effort to acknowledge that whether I admired Trek or not it could still be appreciated as something adding to the larger world of Star Trek.
That's part of why I struggle with individuals and their interpretations of Trek-it is a weakness of mine. I don't see what in later iterations of Star Trek take away from TOS. So, I'll freely admit that part of these conversations is seeing different POVs rather than insisting mine is right. But, I know I can come across as argumentative when I just prefer the free exchange of ideas.
Probably a common situation for TOS Fans of our generation who didn't think TNG was the best.
Similar here. TOS is the best! I wouldn't say TNG on TV sucked just their last 2 feature films. DS9 is second to TOS. Voyager and TNG are close to the same. Maybe TNG by a hair. Enterprise I despise and it added nothing to anything. It was an exercise in pure laziness and couldn't reach mediocrity with it's "best" episode.
The only difference between everyone else's evaluations and mine, however, is that mine is the correct one.
I found that when I accepted the fact that everyone else was wrong and not to hold it against them then that inner "struggle" went away. I mean, I understand and appreciate that you all are doing the very best you can.
Sorry, it's late and I'm making myself giggle.
.
TNGers did have DS9 and Voyager and even ENT to continue without needing to go through the stages needed for acceptance of anything actually NEW and DIVERGENT. That's a whole lot years and content to not have to work ones brain into the kind of mental flexibility that's needed to accept Star Trek in all its varied forms, so perhaps this new age is even tougher on them that it was on us in '87. I've encountered many of them who have a hard time enjoying TOS as well, so I think the later day, "this isn't TOS" is a front for them.
Should be interesting in a couple years when there's 3 Star Trek shows circulating, none of which fit their definitions of what Trek was during their "Golden Age", to see how the conversation changes.
TNGers did have DS9 and Voyager and even ENT to continue without needing to go through the stages needed for acceptance of anything actually NEW and DIVERGENT. That's a whole lot years and content to not have to work ones brain into the kind of mental flexibility that's needed to accept Star Trek in all its varied forms, so perhaps this new age is even tougher on them that it was on us in '87. I've encountered many of them who have a hard time enjoying TOS as well, so I think the later day, "this isn't TOS" is a front for them.
Should be interesting in a couple years when there's 3 Star Trek shows circulating, none of which fit their definitions of what Trek was during their "Golden Age", to see how the conversation changes.
To be honest and fair, there is such a thing as being too "flexible" and "accepting." To accept everything invites an audience to be taken for granted and a decline in quality. Those folks aren't fans. They are leeches. They are the problem and not the solution.
3 different Star Trek shows airing in 2 years from today. I dont think so. I'd say we would be lucky if there are 2 new ones.
I think $ is going to come in to play now that Netflix is no longer willing to pay the bill. Also lots of noise out there about CBS and budgets. Picard and Disco maybe, S31 IDK.
Ive marked my calander, we shall see.
4 if your count the animated 'Lower Decks' series. And who says Netflix isn't going to contribute to Picard, Section 31 or any animated series for Global distribution rights?
I don't know. I see the problem isn't a quality issue. The Berman/Baraga era was consistent in quality for on average for 17 years.
My problem is the a sameness of what was offered, from Encounter at Farpoint to These are the Voyages, it was the same show with minor variations from time to time, hardly evolving at all.
I will accept a wide divergence in "quality" if there enough variety to make it interesting. I've enjoyed some really objectively bad shows because of the freshness they offered, at least for a while, but they need to evolve to keep me interested.
Sameness, on and on. Nope. Thats the killer, no matter the level of overall quality that sameness is presented at, IMHO.
Says who?
Zephram Cochrane in FC is surely meant to represent Gene. Responsible for the “Star Trek”, worshipped by Barclay (who is a stereotype of fans), an alcoholic womaniser whose vision is overstated...
Last edited:
I have to disagree, I think there was a definite difference in quality between the shows.
DS9 was VERY different to TNG or Voyager
TNG had tremendous distribution, DS9 was more of a sleeper side project which wasn't given near the same marketing. Voyager was a flagship show on network TV but seen as "tng lite" and Enterprise suffered from a poor first two seasons which doomed it by the time it got good.
TNG - Great and great visability
DS9 - Great and different but poor visibility
VOY - Middling to good TNG lite and great visibility
ENT - Average first 2 seasons and TNG lite, great and different last 2 seasons, average visability
Insurrection and Nemesis being very dissapointing movies, added to the watering down of quality and visability of on air shows was what did Star trek in, and tbh I'm not convinced about CBS all access as a distribution medium for Star trek. Right now they see it as an investment but it remains to be seen if it'll be able to carry the all-access platform
Can we just let Gene rest in peace.
Death of the author just means that the consumers interpret only the text (in this case, the show) and disregard off-page/off-screen author input.
It's the only way I can still read Harry Potter, but it doesn't always work. Marion Zimmer Bradley would be a good example of how death of the author isn't always possible. I threw away her books because she was a monster, and I cannot read anything that woman published anymore (they were bad books, anyway, and I last read one when I was twelve). Usually, the discussion is much more harmless and involves personal priorities. Do I care what an author says or don't I? Take Stephenie Meyer. According to her, her sparklepires are great and selfless people. The text however tells me that they're psychopathic abominations. Her interviews mean nothing to me, as the text says something completely different (and I know all that because I'm in an anti).
In ST's case, however, I think the content can be interpreted regarding or disregarding authorial intent. It's a choice, but either method of interpretation is a valid literary consumption technique.
It's the only way I can still read Harry Potter, but it doesn't always work. Marion Zimmer Bradley would be a good example of how death of the author isn't always possible. I threw away her books because she was a monster, and I cannot read anything that woman published anymore (they were bad books, anyway, and I last read one when I was twelve). Usually, the discussion is much more harmless and involves personal priorities. Do I care what an author says or don't I? Take Stephenie Meyer. According to her, her sparklepires are great and selfless people. The text however tells me that they're psychopathic abominations. Her interviews mean nothing to me, as the text says something completely different (and I know all that because I'm in an anti).
In ST's case, however, I think the content can be interpreted regarding or disregarding authorial intent. It's a choice, but either method of interpretation is a valid literary consumption technique.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Its like I said yesterday in the other thread, there are those who cant seem to accept that some legitimate Star Trek fans are not enjoying the show and seem to think they need to have their minds changed for them.
@Locutus of Bored put it plainly yesterday in the other thread but they still cant seem to help themselves.
Similar threads
