Are you a purist?

[Anwar]

Nope, I don't regard any Trek as "purer" than the rest whether TOS came first or not. I watch them all, I see the flaws in them all, and I see great things in them all (the amount varies, but each one had them). I don't see the point in wasting your time over what is and isn't "pure" in a continuing series set over a lengthy time period, I mean the whole point of having a setting like that is growth, change and variety.

 

[Neopeius]

Those who adapt last longer...

I strongly suspect you will not be a Trek fan any longer than me.

In fact, since you're older, I will likely last longer than you.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^^ I agree. Although every so often someone tries to shoehorn those things anyway.

This kind of attitude tends to bother me. Why can't Archer or TNG be brought up in this forum?

If you bring in later series, you have to accept assumptions about the universe which the original authors and producers never had in mind when making the first series.

As T'Bonz said, there is a forum for discussing Trek as a whole--General Trek. For those who want to reset the clock and discuss the Trek universe as it existed from 1966-1979, there is the TOS forum.

No, she said this:

This kind of attitude tends to bother me. Why can't Archer or TNG be brought up in this forum?

They can be, of course, and are.

Agreed. The occasional mention won't break the forum.

For the most part, discussion on more than one Trek show should go in GTD. But every now and then, someone wants to talk about another show in comparison only to TOS and would prefer to address only the TOS forum denizens.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

"Does it matter now which one's right?"

"Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them is their hate."

"Do you suppose that's all they ever had, sir?"

"No. But that's all they have left."

Underrated episode.

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

 

[CaptainStoner]

Underrated episode.

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

Come now, that's harsh. Not even just a little Lt. Yar?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

Come now, that's harsh. Not even just a little Lt. Yar?

None!

(If he goes around the back so my manager doesn't see, I can let him have fifteen minutes with Wesley--after Worf gets done with him, of course.)

 

[Anwar]

Meh, you can keep Crosby to yourself. Her, S1 Yar and Sela...

 

[T'Bonz]

Meh, you can keep Crosby to yourself. Her, S1 Yar and Sela...

Word.

Why the Romulans didn't execute her so I could enjoy that is beyond me.

 

[Neopeius]

This kind of attitude tends to bother me. Why can't Archer or TNG be brought up in this forum?

If you bring in later series, you have to accept assumptions about the universe which the original authors and producers never had in mind when making the first series.

As T'Bonz said, there is a forum for discussing Trek as a whole--General Trek. For those who want to reset the clock and discuss the Trek universe as it existed from 1966-1979, there is the TOS forum.

No, she said this:

They can be, of course, and are.

Agreed. The occasional mention won't break the forum.

For the most part, discussion on more than one Trek show should go in GTD. But every now and then, someone wants to talk about another show in comparison only to TOS and would prefer to address only the TOS forum denizens.

Um. Yeah. 　Okay.

Hey！My post count just went up！

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Meh, you can keep Crosby to yourself. Her, S1 Yar and Sela...

Oh, I agree--I never found her more than marginally attractive and, let's face it, the years have not been kind. I was just pointing out that, as bad an episode as "Battlefield" is, it's hardly Star Trek's nadir as Dennis would have it. Now had he said "And the Children Shall Lead"...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

If you're suggesting that Yar sucked harder I'll reluctantly concede a lack of, um, "hard data" in that regard.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you bring in later series, you have to accept assumptions about the universe which the original authors and producers never had in mind when making the first series.

As T'Bonz said, there is a forum for discussing Trek as a whole--General Trek. For those who want to reset the clock and discuss the Trek universe as it existed from 1966-1979, there is the TOS forum.

No, she said this:

Agreed. The occasional mention won't break the forum.

For the most part, discussion on more than one Trek show should go in GTD. But every now and then, someone wants to talk about another show in comparison only to TOS and would prefer to address only the TOS forum denizens.

Um. Yeah. 　Okay.

Hey！My post count just went up！

Congratulations?

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

If you're suggesting that Yar sucked harder I'll reluctantly concede a lack of, um, "hard data" in that regard.

Seriously, though, I mean to imply that "Code of Honor" is a far worse outing than "Battlefield." The latter has me shaking my head at its lack of finesse and dubious moral equivalences, the former makes me want to join Public Enemy in a rousing chorus of "Burn Hollywood Burn." To wit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6MlwT1lBk0

 

[Noname Given]

Actually, it sucked harder than anything Trek ever did post-TOS. But a nice exchange there, nonetheless.

Anything? Just for that, Dennis, you'll have no treaty, no vaccine and no Lieutenant Yar!

If you're suggesting that Yar sucked harder I'll reluctantly concede a lack of, um, "hard data" in that regard.

What, now were arguing wether Data can get 'hard'?!?

/ducks

 

[Anwar]

Well, he's "Fully Functional"...and the other colonists got embarrassed over how he walked around naked. Why would they feel that way unless he WASN'T a Ken doll?

 

[AxelFoley]

Kind of. TOS is by far the show I love the most. I only enjoy some episodes of TNG & DS9. Haven't seen much of VOY or ENT. I strongly suspect I will never get into any other Trek shows the way I'm into TOS.

 

[RAMA]

Those who adapt last longer...

I strongly suspect you will not be a Trek fan any longer than me.

In fact, since you're older, I will likely last longer than you.

I'm really, really healthy. :-) Barring unforseen car accidents I'll beat you.

RAMA

 

[Loqutus]

I think of myself as a purist. Conformist, and all around stick in the mud. Nuff said

 

[SpocksBondmate]

Yes, in a sense, I suppose I am. I mean, I love TOS and TNG and think they are truly amazing. However, I do also enjoy certain episodes - not all - of DS9, VOY, and even (higher authority forbid) ENT. Therefore, I suppose I am not a purist when you look at it that way. My loyalty can go either way, and I am proud to say that!

 

[bismarck_1892]

Simple question. Are you a purist when it comes to Star Trek?

There really isn't a right or wrong answer. Indeed, you might still be considered a purist if you think TNG is the be-all-and-end-all of Trek.

My signature basically illustrates my perspective although there have been things in TNG and DS9 that I've liked in terms of ideas and individual episodes.

Anyone?

If the movie would not have destroyed Vulcan, and as such making it a complete Reboot, I would not have been too disappointed. However, I'm completely pissed with the film.

I'm not sure if that makes me a purist though since I was pretty much okay with the other changes.