General Trek Questions and Observations
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Definitely. Especially given the number of us who watched it as kids.
Same. Posts just read as pseudo-intellectual bloviating and I’m not sure what it’s all about now.
Time for other threads!
Buyer's market. You want to sell stories. Too little attention paid to the details, and you get garbage.
There are some that claim comicbook level is fine...
If you want a prime example, go read Ben Hurr, by General Lew Wallace. It is an eye opener.
Then compare with current high level writing.
Then make sure, as you process the difference, to have a clear line to a toilet. I am not joking. I assume that most of us have a fairly decent education.
What I am arguing against is standard Hollywood fare.
Their basic assumption is that we are total idiots. That we will buy anything. The point is not to "buy" just anything.
There are some that claim comicbook level is fine...
If you want a prime example, go read Ben Hurr, by General Lew Wallace. It is an eye opener.
Then compare with current high level writing.
Then make sure, as you process the difference, to have a clear line to a toilet. I am not joking. I assume that most of us have a fairly decent education.
What I am arguing against is standard Hollywood fare.
Their basic assumption is that we are total idiots. That we will buy anything. The point is not to "buy" just anything.
Great. Everyone else here is arguing what Star Trek has already done and been relatively successful at, going straight to the TOS writer's Bible on how to write a Trek story.
If you want all the tech details perfectly right then Star Trek failed in TOS and it's no wonder it only lasted 3 seasons. Hacks.
No, you missed the point that a person's mind cannot yet be scanned to make sophisticated computer programs, which is how Daystrom made the M-5. In other words, computers have not reached the level of the M-5. Next.
Provide examples of books written within the last 4-5 years that you consider to be 'high level writing'.
So, this was the problem for seasons 5 and 6 or Voyager? That's the only seasons of that show that both Berman and Braga oversaw.
@Richard S. Ta read the first chapter of Ben Hurr, then look at any book written in last twenty plus years...
In order to get high quality work, there has to be a high quality foundation.
Star Trek TOS, had a much better understanding than some later versions.
In order to get high quality work, there has to be a high quality foundation.
Star Trek TOS, had a much better understanding than some later versions.
Is there someplace where I may read the best examples of your fiction using this approach?
I'm all for that. SNW is the best thing to happen to Trek since the 80s. Maybe earlier.
Star Trek TOS made stuff up all the time and was inconsistent in its timeframe much less technology.
And how is a comparison to a work from the 19th century even relevant?
By the way, it's Ben-Hur, with one "R."
Ben Hurr, you know, down in Marketing. He used to date Lisa in QA? He's the guy who gets into those Civil War reenactments. He always talks about his Funko Pop collection.And how is a comparison to a work from the 19th century even relevant?
By the way, it's Ben-Hur, with one "R."
Hell, even TNG couldn't keep its own lore and timeline of character histories straight at times. The Klingons were a part of or in political union with the Federation in Season 1 and then in Season 2 they never were.
Any book written in the last twenty years?
Any book?
I suppose you’ve read them all?
Your posts are starting to sound pretty silly TBH.
I’ve read plenty of fine quality books published in the last twenty years, thanks.
And you still can’t give me examples of ‘high literature’ from recent years.
Answering a simple question with an unrelated, ridiculous blanket statement does whatever your ‘argument’ is supposed to be no favours at all.
You think they’d know that, being such an educated individual who only reads ‘high literature’ and all.
Last edited:
Ben-Hur is a good yarn, even today. Lots of good yarns published before, and many more since. It doesn't stand out as a notable example of "quality literature."
I like Double Star better than most of RAH's better known works. He could tell a story. By the time of Stranger in a Strange Land - also a good book, but not as good a tale - he'd become uneditable, and his own notions of discipline were, ah, idiosyncratic.
I like Double Star better than most of RAH's better known works. He could tell a story. By the time of Stranger in a Strange Land - also a good book, but not as good a tale - he'd become uneditable, and his own notions of discipline were, ah, idiosyncratic.
I’ve read the complete works of Shakespeare including the sonnets.
I’ve also read the complete works of Charles Bukowski.
Both have value.
I don’t see either as being somehow ‘high’ or ‘low’. Just different authors in different times with different voices and styles.
I’ve also read the complete works of Charles Bukowski.
Both have value.
I don’t see either as being somehow ‘high’ or ‘low’. Just different authors in different times with different voices and styles.
Dude, you're overplaying your hand. There are tons of good books and good TV out there. Your problem is that you aren't a fan of modern storytelling, which is fair enough, but don't decide everything is rubbish because it isn't for you.
Strange New Worlds isn't for me. Many Trek folks seem to like it, let them have their fun. It isn't hurting anyone.
Since I can't message you. Sorry, I just saw this
Similar threads
- Locked
