Spoilers The Bastardization of Star Trek

[MadDokK]

No more than any other "magical" solution for the anomaly of the week. They examined the problem. Found the rules that applied and used them to engineer a solution.

I'll comment more generally below. I think my specific problem I have is with the "magical" stuff it's just that - magical. Some weird phenomenon they put into the series. I'm a fan of quantum physics and astrophysics. A quantum field is something like the higgs field, or magnatism. So they just threw the words "quantum probability field" to get credability with the word quantum while pulling something so unbeleivably fake out of their ass. I think I would've had less of a problem if it was just completely made up without trying to act like it's plausible by throwing the word quantum in front of it.

As opposed to a transporter beam splitting Kirk into his good and evil halves? Or Q creating a "Robin Hood" fantasy for Picard or crew? Or a Bajoran orb causing Sisko to become a 1950s pulp SF writer?

Trek has never been rigorously hard-SF all the time. It slips into the Twilight Zone sometimes.

Which is a good thing, IMO. Makes for a wide variety of episodes and approaches. Means you get everything from "The Trouble with Tribbles" to "In the Pale Moonlight."

I never watched TOS, but there are plenty of other examples that show you're right.

A subspace anomaly that makes everyone sing to music they can hear coming from a place they do not know is no more absurd than a negative energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy that gives people with ESP potential godlike powers, or a warp drive malfunction that takes the ship to a place where the crew becomes able to objectify their own thoughts. The bonus is that at least with the singing, we can be boldly amused in ways we've never been amused before. So....

Oh, phooey, I got ninja'd, more or less.

Again, never watched TOS.

If you don't like newer Trek productions, fine, but why does it seem like some people feel the need to create a thread where they talk about some standardized idea of what Star Trek is, and then feel the need to mention the always online crowd to validate their dislike of the latest Star Trek production? You don't like SNW or Picard, okay, great. Why do you concern yourself with ensuring your reasons for disliking a show align with RMB's or Nerdrotic's reasons for disliking the same show? Do you think they care about your opinions?

I enjoy all of the new series, though am irritated at some of them for how it was done (more on some episodes/series, less on others). I don't specifically care if my reasons align with one person or another (I have no idea who you're talking about). My thoughts on this have been building and none of my friends are into star trek so I wanted to get the opinions of people who enjoy the same show. I don't know what the source of your reaction is, but I highly doubt it's me.

Yes I wish they’d get back to “plausible future science”, like finding Amelia Earhart in the Delta Quadrant and Beverly fucking her grandma’s sex ghost.

Yeah. I stepped in shit - no getting around it.


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I said they tried to make it plausible and stepped in shit. I never watched TOS which seems to have plenty of magically false examples, but others pointed out plenty of things in the series I have watched. I was wrong. This is exactly why I posted; I've watched these shows and have wondered if my incredulous views were shared by others. I see that while some understand where I'm coming from, it's not a widely held viewpoint. I hope with these perspectives I can enjoy the episode more the next time I watch it.

I'd like to pivot back to some points in the first post.

There's been a LOT of commentary on my views of the latest star trek musical rendition. I'm now curious as to how people view the new Guinan, Q, and what I perceive to be their mistake by pretending the 18th century time travel episode never happened. Someone mentioned Q's interest in Picard during TNG which is certainly true. Nevertheless, I can't reconcile a Q as played in TNG with the Q in Picard. While they are different series, they are both the same character portrayed along the same timeline. Same with Guinan.

Shows change, but TNG depicted Guinean as being an eloquently poised person having centuries of knowledge and wisdom with endless patience and understanding. Picard plops them in a time between both of the times shown in TNG and she's absolutely nothing like her character. Same thing with Q. He literally exists outside of time yet is dying and just wants a friend. Maybe I'm just as off on these points as I was with the other, though I'm interested to hear what you all think.

 

[The Wormhole]

I perceived to be the bastardization of the Star Trek canaan

Canaan?

TNG was way ahead of it's time addressing things like a maternal society, an androgynous species,

LOL, no. TNG's handling of an androgynous species is something that horribly dates the series these days.

The Borg all of a sudden becomes benevolent?

Yeah, you weren't paying attention to that episode.

This last episode nine almost caused me to throw my laptop through a window.

Then switch to decaf.

Does anyone consider me to be off base here?

Yep.

Am I the only one that's watched this unfold and thought, "what the hell are they doing?"

There are others, but they're a vocal minority.

With a series based in plausible future science,

Wut? Star Trek's grasp on science has always been extremely laughable. I mean, travelling at warp 10 causes people to mutate into salamanders because that's the next stage in human evolution. Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that's plausible future science?

To be clear, I actually love Threshold, fun episode. But it's not winning any awards for scientific accuracy. Nor is the rest of the Trek franchise.

I can't believe I seem to be alone on this. All of you really watched this stuff happen without a second thought? None of this bothers anyone?

That's right, I loved the musical episode. Fun episode. And in the end, that's what I really want from my Star Trek. Fun. Which SNW delivers in spades.

Shows change, but TNG depicted Guinean as being an eloquently poised person having centuries of knowledge and wisdom with endless patience and understanding. Picard plops them in a time between both of the times shown in TNG and she's absolutely nothing like her character.

People change too. Guinan in S2 of Picard was someone going through a rough period in her life. It happens. Her attitude appropriately reflected that.

 

[cooleddie74]

Kirk was a rigid, academically-minded "stack of books" and "grim" when a Cadet at the Academy. Hardly the Kirk we see in Paul Wesley and almost all of William Shatner's run in the role.

 

[fireproof78]

I think I would've had less of a problem if it was just completely made up without trying to act like it's plausible by throwing the word quantum in front of it.

That they inherited from Voyager.

 

[HotRod]

I think my specific problem I have is with the "magical" stuff it's just that - magical. Some weird phenomenon they put into the series.

Have you seen Star Trek?

I never watched TOS

Guess not.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'll comment more generally below. I think my specific problem I have is with the "magical" stuff it's just that - magical. Some weird phenomenon they put into the series. I'm a fan of quantum physics and astrophysics. A quantum field is something like the higgs field, or magnatism. So they just threw the words "quantum probability field" to get credability with the word quantum while pulling something so unbeleivably fake out of their ass. I think I would've had less of a problem if it was just completely made up without trying to act like it's plausible by throwing the word quantum in front of it.

So, you’re saying it’s Star Trek? It’s been slapping words like “quantum” on to things since the beginning with out any regard for the science behind it. A bit late to start complaining about now.

 

[JoseNoodles]

I enjoy all of the new series, though am irritated at some of them for how it was done (more on some episodes/series, less on others). I don't specifically care if my reasons align with one person or another (I have no idea who you're talking about). My thoughts on this have been building and none of my friends are into star trek so I wanted to get the opinions of people who enjoy the same show. I don't know what the source of your reaction is, but I highly doubt it's me.

I never claimed your comments were the sole cause of my response. I was also responding to cal888's comments about Popcast and Robert Meyer Burnett. However, the first bit of my comment was a response to your initial statement about certain aspects of Picard and SNW that you feel have "bastardized" Star Trek. Again, I get that maybe those episodes didn't sit well with you, but I feel like you come on too strong trying to make it seem like they've corrupted some absolute idea of what Star Trek is. You might not like them, but others have. All the Star Trek series have tried different things, because let's face it, this franchise wouldn't have lasted very long if all the shows were exactly the same, just with different actors. There might be aspects of Star Trek you enjoy and wish were more prevalent across different shows, and that's fine, but that's not the same as saying they constitute an ideal form of Star Trek. You haven't seen all Star Trek series by your own admission, and that's fine too, but then it makes the presentation of your views seem hyperbolic.

 

[Farscape One]

I have only been able to glean a few posts, but one thing struck.

The original poster mentioned that there is a 'wrong way to write' STAR TREK. That implies that there is a right way to do it.

That's a falsehood.

There's no real right or wrong way... only what works or doesn't work for you as a viewer.

Take the latest SNW episode, a musical. I hate musicals, and it's an episode I will never watch again. (A first in the franchise for me.) However, I did appreciate the character work and how it was weaved into the plot. But a lot of other people love it, and that's a great thing. There are episodes I love that others hate, and that's normal... especially with a franchise approaching 900 episodes.

My point is that it is still a part of the franchise, just like other shows that some don't like. NONE of it is wrong.

IDIC... infinite diversity and infinite combination.

 

[DaveyNY]

I liked this thread better when the discussion was about booze.

Instead of about WHY I HATE STAR TREK.

 

[cooleddie74]

[*Takes a shot*]

 

[DaveyNY]

It's after 9PM here and I'm old ...

<*sips my ginger ale*>

 

[HotRod]

I liked this thread better when the discussion was about booze.

I'm trying to decide which Scotch I'll have tonight. Anyone care to offer a suggestion?

 

[DaveyNY]

Start on the left and work your way over to the right.

 

[HotRod]

Start on the left and work your way over to the right.

That's one hell if a Sunday night. Good thing tomorrow's a holiday.

 

[Farscape One]

I'm trying to decide which Scotch I'll have tonight. Anyone care to offer a suggestion?

All.

 

[DaveyNY]

That's one hell if a Sunday night. Good thing tomorrow's a holiday.

What holiday where you are?

 

[Lord Garth]

I like Vodka, I like Red Wine, sometimes Rum is nice to mix things up. But Vodka and Wine are my go-tos. Dry is better than sweet.

What? Did you think I was going to talk about something else?

Oh, yeah. That thing. Dark and Serialized, that's what I want. That's what I like. Silly sometimes. Sometimes. And NONE of it is realistic. I suspend my disbelief.

Now let's get back to talking about drinks!

 

[valkyrie013]

A nice scotch, a rye whisky, or potato vodka..

There are literally 889 episodes of star trek.. Some are good, some are great, some are okay some just suck hard vacuum. But I like each series as each has its merits.

Now .. Like trying new food.. You don't know if you'll like it unless you try it.
I love that they try new ways and new directions.. Sometimes it flops sometimes it's great.

One of the things that got star trek canned in 2005 was it doing the same thing over and over again..

 

[fireproof78]

I have only been able to glean a few posts, but one thing struck.

The original poster mentioned that there is a 'wrong way to write' STAR TREK. That implies that there is a right way to do it.

That's a falsehood.

There's no real right or wrong way... only what works or doesn't work for you as a viewer.

Take the latest SNW episode, a musical. I hate musicals, and it's an episode I will never watch again. (A first in the franchise for me.) However, I did appreciate the character work and how it was weaved into the plot. But a lot of other people love it, and that's a great thing. There are episodes I love that others hate, and that's normal... especially with a franchise approaching 900 episodes.

My point is that it is still a part of the franchise, just like other shows that some don't like. NONE of it is wrong.

IDIC... infinite diversity and infinite combination.

Exactly. It's one thing to not like a show. It's quite the leap to say a different approach is wrong in an ostensibly variety platform.

As @Greg Cox noted Trek is not an orthodoxy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies