And I see that in present day stories. It hadn't changed that much.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
This. The old days are on such an extreme pedestal because they are not viewed as they are but as they made us feel.
This has become my tedious hobby-horse topic, but I still don't get how DS9 gets grouped in with TOS/TNG/Voyager as "good old optimistic Trek". From season 5 onward it's way closer to Discovery S1 than TOS/TNG in tone, intent, and structure. Plus, both DS9 and Disco have the same posturing "stand aside, fools, and watch us mature writers bring your pitiful kiddy franchise up to scratch" attitude toward previous Star Trek shows.
Simultaneously I don't get how SNW could reasonably be excluded from the "classic optimistic Trek" mold, and I'm saying that as someone who has a lot of increasingly-strong criticisms of the show.
It makes me wonder what would have happened if Discovery had released in the mid-90s - would everyone have been like "oh yeah, what a breath of fresh air"? Or if season 5 - 7 of DS9 released today, would people be like "yet more tedious Kurtzman Trek grimdark slop"? Or if SNW was made in 1995, would it have been "peak Trek"? I think the timing of these shows does a hell of a lot to affect their perception.
Simultaneously I don't get how SNW could reasonably be excluded from the "classic optimistic Trek" mold, and I'm saying that as someone who has a lot of increasingly-strong criticisms of the show.
It makes me wonder what would have happened if Discovery had released in the mid-90s - would everyone have been like "oh yeah, what a breath of fresh air"? Or if season 5 - 7 of DS9 released today, would people be like "yet more tedious Kurtzman Trek grimdark slop"? Or if SNW was made in 1995, would it have been "peak Trek"? I think the timing of these shows does a hell of a lot to affect their perception.
A lot of Star Wars fans hate the sequel and prequel trilogies because they don't offer the same spiritual experience as A New Hope.
I took that as a challenge.
I created an AI asking "What if Star Trek: Discovery was released in the 90s?" (I noticed they dialed back the chrome considerably).
Last edited:
Aha, I love the Babylon 5 style set!
What if Disco were a 90s show?
But I think we can all agree Section 31 belongs in the scrap heap.
I want to be clear that this is what I hear when someone tells me that nobody else can play Kirk. This is not my opinion at all.
The 90s had some really depressing shows. Remember, it was the time of grunge and the Crow.
Lots of shows were shot at night too during this time, leaving them extra grainy. They're smart enough now to shoot with good lighting to keep detail and then darken in post.
Shatner and Nimoy and the rest of TOS cast were great, and vital to the success of the show. However, I'm not going to say no other actors are ever allowed to play Kirk and Spock. Shakespeare's plays were cast in the 1500s and 1600s, and yet we still have different actors playing King Lear and Hamlet. Not only because the original actors are no longer available, but because each actor makes the character their own.
We didn't have the tech back then to darken in post that we have today (We had night filters ... and that was it.)
Basic CGI was hella expensive back then.
It looks like there's no room for people to sit at any of those consoles. What are the consoles for if no one can operate them?
I'm not setting an impossible standard. It's already there.
"New iterations" should be new shows with new character instead of meaningless reboots.
I mean, why watch a reboot when toe original is available on DVD and streaming?
I have confidence in what i do.
In fact, Star Trek should need someone like me who has good ideas and a bit of humor.
Are you kidding. Just compare DS9 with DSC and PIC and you will see the difference.
DS9: Good actors, good characters and good stories.
DSC: mediocre actors, lousy characters and bad stories.
PIC: Good actors, bad stories and characters which didn't live up to the expectations.
And as I've written before, I haven't found many good new series to watch.
The only one I watched regularily in recent time was Yellowstone, maybe because I could identify with the people who wanted to preserve their ranch.
It's not all about feelings and nostalgia. It's also about quality.
Note that I didn' get the chance to watch all of DS9 until around 2010 and then the rot had already started in many movies and series. Still, I thought that DS9 was the best I've ever seen.
Please, don't compare a quality series like DS9 with DSC.
DS9 was a great series with great characters and a great story. DSC was plain boring with boring characters and bad stories.
Then it would have pulled the plug of Star Trek for good, just like Stargate Universe did with Stargate.
I haven't watched it. Does it really exist?But I think we can all agree Section 31 belongs in the scrap heap.
I would love to see a Section 31 series with Sloan in charge.
Or a Star Trek NCIS.
There's actually a big difference.
If Hubert Humpedink was a great actor in 1600 who participated in many Shakespeare plays, no one could see him act in year 1700 and couldn't compare him with Herman Kerman who was a great actor in year 1700, playing about the same Shakespeare plays and same roles as old Hubert did in 1600.
But we can see Shatner and Nimoy on DVD or streaming today and watch their brilliance in TOS and the TOS movies compared with their "successors"
I would like to see a new series with new characters set in the 24th century shortly after PIC.
But with more of the 90s Trek storytelling and optimism than what the gloomy PIC had.
90s Trek was a mixed bag.
Are you talking about the sunny optimism of Voyager and TNG? Or are you talking about the politicking, backstabbing Machiavellianism of post-S5 DS9?
It really is. That is the problem. No matter what CBS makes, they will never be able to replicate who you were when you experienced these shows. You are now a different person yearning for some false utopia.
Last edited:
Eight pages of piranhas looking for blood.
There are lots of things I disagree with Lynx about. That doesn't mean I think he should be piled on for eight pages straight. Which, let's be honest here, is just for people's entertainment at his expense.
There are lots of things I disagree with Lynx about. That doesn't mean I think he should be piled on for eight pages straight. Which, let's be honest here, is just for people's entertainment at his expense.
Similar threads
