Rewatching TOS After SNW
- Thread starter Odo
- Start date
Of course we can.
Whether or not it is beneficial is a whole other debate. To my mind, TOS always stands on its own but SNW does that wonderful aspect of a prequel of "Oh, I never realized" that gives a different color to past TOS episodes. Maybe not original intent but that's ok by my book since what's on screen doesn't always communicate exactly what the author intends.
Sure. For me its about themes. Are the show thematically comparable. For me the answer is yes. I like to joke about "Gene's Vision" but there a vision and idealism to Trek and SNW exemplifies that.
Optimism. It's all about that no matter our flaws we can become better.
I think there are aspects that can't be compared, like effects, lighting, camera movement, etc.
But the stories, characters, motivations, messages... absolutely.
I didn't know Jefferies designed anything but the ships.
I'm sure he meant Bill Theiss.
You're absolutely right and I am ashamed for what I have done.
I will now credit Robert Fletcher for the design of the Motion Picture Enterprise in penance.
It's been a long road, getting from there to here.
It's been a long time, but my time is finally near.
And I can feel a change in the wind right now. Nothing's in my way.
And they're not gonna hold me down no more.
No they're not gonna hold me down.
.
Why not? Comparing and contrasting different artistic or fictional works against each other is a basic part of analysis and criticism. The difference in approaches of creators in different eras writing for different audiences give added perspective to the ideas and elements of the work. You can gain a greater appreciation and insight into both works by exploring how they relate to each other, what they have in common and where they differ.
Creativity is a dialogue between works from different eras. Every creative work is on some level a response to works that came before it; for instance, TOS was influenced by everything from pulp science fiction to Shakespeare to Westerns to WWII movies (and lived experience), and by Gene Roddenberry's aspiration to create a science fiction show that rivaled the most sophisticated adult dramas of the day like Gunsmoke and Naked City and offered a deliberate contrast to cheesy kid-oriented sci-fi like Lost in Space, so that TOS was in a dialogue with its own contemporaries as well as its predecessors. And a couple of generations of newer works, in turn, have been informed by TOS -- not just later Trek series, but Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, Babylon 5, Stargate SG-1, The Orville, etc. Part of understanding fiction is exploring that ongoing dialogue between past and present works that explore the same concepts, genres, or themes.
How so?
That's an ironic observation, given that TOS/TAS made it clear that the Federation did use money. Kirk talked a couple of times about his crew earning their pay for the week, there were capitalist characters like Harry Mudd, Cyrano Jones, and Carter Winston, Flint was rich enough to buy his own planet, etc. The "no money" idea wasn't introduced until The Voyage Home and then developed in TNG/DS9.
Anyway, since the Enterprise is a military vessel, I don't see how it would reflect the civilian economy one way or the other. Everything on it would be government-funded anyway.
until TNG, i just saw the TVH stuff as talking about physical paper money and coins, not the existence of a monetary system. even Farpoint had money in TNG if i recall correctly.
All true. But boy, TNG later took that idea and RAN with it.
There are about 100 pages of people arguing about this here.
Also...
WHAT did you call the Enterprise?!?
Did they? It didn't really come up all that often. There was Picard saying in "The Neutral Zone" that material needs no longer existed and people lived for self-enrichment. But beyond that, references to the subject were cursory. In "Manhunt," Picard said he kept forgetting the need to carry money in Dixon Hill's world (which was a callback to "The Big Goodbye"), and in "Unification," Riker told Amarie he wasn't carrying any money. But that was about it, just a couple of throwaway references, which I'd hardly call running with it. There were also a number of episodes mentioning that money was used outside the Federation, e.g. in every Ferengi episode, "Captain's Holiday," "Gambit," "Firstborn," and "Preemptive Strike."
Really, this is an idea that only came up infrequently in Trek, just in a handful of episodes. But its importance gets blown out of proportion when people talk about the franchise.
EAS has a good article on it, Pros and Cons, there's more evidence for money than against it
Ex Astris Scientia - The Economy of the Federation
Whether there is still money and free enterprises in the society of the future
www.ex-astris-scientia.org
Something a lot of people miss is that there's a difference between a society that doesn't need money and a society that doesn't use money. It's not that it doesn't exist, just that people don't need it to fulfill their basic needs and lead a comfortable life. It's more of an optional thing.
Not to mention the difference between the ever-decreasing ubiquity of taking physical money in a physical wallet versus having digital credits tied to your identity.
Sure. But if you had money you could buy baseball cards.
Similar threads
