Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
TOS and TNG.
I actually think TOS’ “Immunity Syndrome” is very close in tone to TMP. It does lack a fair bit of the colour and dynamism of TOS, but it’s still my favourite Trek film. It’s almost like a meditative experience for me (albeit with horrendously jarring moments like the transporter disaster and the death of Ilia).
1970s laugh track + 2010s cropping for faux widescreen that was never intended by the director at the time = hard to digest what's otherwise genuinely amusing at times. But it's an interesting point being told - replace Frank with "Star Trek" and everyone around him with the fans citing various incarnations and voila, it's popcorn time! With butter and/or salt and/or caramel and/or fudge and/or blueberry and/or dingleberry and/or every other flavor people may or may not want...
Funny, that's when Voyager improved just a little bit by unloading a bland and boring character.
Plenty of continuity to be seen.
Yet it was a far superior show than Voyager, especially in its later two seasons.
They breathed new life into the franchise and 2 out of 3 of them were profitable.
TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY
That episode was at least a bit funny, something which can't be said about ENT with it's bland and boring characters, the horrible DSC with its even more bland and boring characters and bad stories, the NuTrek movies which messed up a lot of things and the gloomy PIC with its torture scenes.
Ah, you just had to come up with that one.
The first three seasons were better than the three characters show we got later. Still, even later Voyager was better than what came after it.
Plenty of continuity to be messed up, like the destruction of planets belonging to established Trek races.
I must admit that I gave up on ENT after five episodes. But I can't imagine that the later episodes were any better. Bland and boring charaCters, messing up established Trek history and a design that definitely not looked like pre-TOS, rather like some non-Trek series.
Just because a series happen to be profitable doesn't mean it have to be good. Just look at today's bland, adapted and boring popular music. It sells, but it is crap.
All of them? Dark stuff too? People dying for no reason? War crimes by the heroes?
I don't know what you watched but you and I clearly didn't watch the same thing. The episode I reference, while funny, also made Kirk look ridiculous, and Federation diplomatic corps look even more ridiculous for not figuring out a Klingon spy.
This is where I guess I differ from those who are opposed to Nu-Trek. Everything that is supposedly "bad" I can find in all of the past Treks so my objection to current Trek is hard because it could equally be applied to past Trek.
How would you know when you only watched 5 episodes of Enterprise?
How can you mess something up when it's an alternate universe?
If you're talking about Vulcan, that was an alternate universe. If you're talking about Romulus, how the hell is that a continuity problem.
So you basically know nothing about Enterprise, yet you choose to judge it.
Actually, Enterprise generally fits quite nicely into canon. Plus, the sets and designs were some of the absolute best in the franchise.
A general observation, but reflected in the opinion you're replying to, is the double standard often put against newer Trek versus older Trek.
Recasting is problematic! Except for Saavik.
Destruction of planets is too dark! Except in the Doomsday Machine or The Undiscovered Country.
Characters would never behave in an unethical manner! Yet, we see the heroes engage in some questionable behavior, especially in DS9, violating orders, or altering people's minds.
While I am loathed to state that Red Letter Media had a point with their 2009 film review they actually made a point: the movie reflects tropes throughout the TOS series; it just does them faster.
It's crazy to me the carte blanche given to past Trek.
Yup.
NO.I want more Star Trek.
But,
and
Even TOS, TNG, Ds9 and the early seasons of Voyager have bad episodes, I won't deny it.
The difference is that the bad episodes were fewer than in the NuTrek series and movies when they were mostly bad.
Not to mention the characters and the actors. few good characters in series and movies after VOY and i don't know how they produce actors in those days.
Note that this isn't only about Star Trek. It's the same for all series and movies made after 2010.
Back in the days I watched a lot of series. Besides Star Trek it was NCIS, NCIS LA, NCIS New Orleans, CSI, CSI MIami, CSI New York, Stargate GG1, Stargate Atlantis and many more.
The only series I watch occasionally now is NCIS. Unfortunately the original characters are gone but they still come up with decent episodes. Besides from that, nothing!
The only series I actually have liked in recent years was Yellowstone. A pity that they messed it up in the last episodes.
I highly doubt that became any better.
When the alteranet universe takes over the scene and become the only thing produced, then I consider ity a mess-up.
maybe not a continuity problem but the totally unnecessary destruction of one of the iconic Star Trek species whic will leave a big hole in future plots.
depends on what you mean with "knowing". I do know a lot about how the series "progressed" and knowing that, I haven't found any reason to watch it again. I doubt that the characters became any more interesting and the best one was killed off.
They did mess up a lot of established Trek history and the sets and designs looked more like a prequel to Babylon 5 than TOS. I didn't like the sets and design, it felt wrong.
They definitely steamrollered all the non-canon tie-ins from the era (novels, manuals etc), but I thought the sets and outfits were an excellent mix of what was then the present, and TOS. I look at it now and see the flatscreens are REALLY early-2000s dated, but they put blinking coloured squares onto them and every console even had cooling fans built in!
Watch it and find out. Seasons 3 and 4 are better than any season of Voyager, and dare I say, better than many of the seasons of TNG and DS9. At least in my opinion.
But that hasn't been the case in almost 10 years.
It added to the story. Just as in real life, Empire's will fall. How does it leave a hope? If anything it presents further opportunities to tell stories about the fall of the Romulan Star Empire. Just because you lack the creativity to see the potential in storytelling, doesn't mean some writer can't craft an interesting story involving Romulans.
Again, you've watched 5 episodes out of 98. Plus the 5 you watched were from when the series was still finding its legs. Watching and experiencing a show is a far different and better experience than simply reading pages of Memory Alpha.
Not really. The show was never going to look as dated as TOS, but they did an excellent job of creating an era that looked like it could be our future, while incorporating a great many things that did feel like primitive versions of things seen earlier in the franchise. There has yet to be an Engine Room set made that looks half as good as the one made for the NX-01.
Sure, but that's Star Trek for you. TOS is very distinctly 1960s, TMP is totally the 1970s. The other TOS movies plus early TNG are very obviously 1980s, and the rest of TNG, its movies, DS9 and Voyager are clearly 1990s. It might take place in the future, but it's still a reflection of the time it was made in.
Granted, in the case of Enterprise, it was purposely creating a sort of "modern day" look for space opera, which was extremely common in the 2000s, as we had Stargate also trying to create a "typical sci-fi look" with contemporary technology as well as Nu BSG. It's kind of the appeal of 2000s sci-fi.
If only they had unloaded two.
You need to be more specific. Chakotay? Kim? Neelix?
Kim. Chuckles and Neelix both had their moments.
Bad is bad. That there's more content doesn't make it less bad or dark or whatever.
But, I know we differ because I love many of her newer Trek characters too and that goes a long way for me.
Back in the day I watched more too. Now I don't. Not for lack of interest in content but as I get older TV has less appeal.
So, I don't find that a referendum on content and just not a priority. But, that's me.
Gods no.
Similar threads
