A little bit of everything does not make a good Star Trek nor a good dinner. Why can't Star Trek be anything with some kind of ship seeking out new life forms and civilizations (the baddies and the goodies)? I.e. another property shoehorned in to fit the form and style of TOS and Gene's vision? I'm not suggesting that you slap the label (name) Star Trek on any half decent attempt at a space opera that comes along, but certainly there probably are a lot of great things being written that could don the moniker if desired and still embody the spirit and essence of Star Trek and not just in name only. There would have to be a reason/threat why mankind ventures so far out into the stars other than a rescue mission like TOS.
I'd love it if STAR TREK would name the ship on one of its next shows the U.S.S. Wavecrest. I just like the sound of it. In fact, that should've been the name of the ship Riker got in Nemesis, instead of the Titan.
Yep. I believe in Star Trek as an infinity concept. There are so much space out there to stick in the same stories over and over again.
a year after taking command of the titan. riker is assigned to the wavecrest. a definate upgrade given the titan was a pig with lipstick.
That is kind of bullshit, there are huge sections of the Alpha Quadrant that has not been visited or explored yet such as the space between Cardassian space going all the way to the area around the Bajoran wormhole and Dominion space. Then there is the Beta Quadrant, a lot of space "behind" Romulan and Klingon territories has also not been explored either, all the way to the border with the Delta Quadrant. The exploration angle is why I got into Star Trek in the first place, the adventure and mystery. But I am not sure what can be done right now after the first four series (I am not a fan of Enterprise and Discovery) that is really new. The space is there but it also needs to be filled in in an interesting way. I think it is time that old warp drive is retired and future Starfleet vessels are equipped with Transwarp (or just call that Warp drive if the higher execs insist on it because of the name recognition), and that distance and speed is no longer a major issue any more, most of the galaxy would be open for exploration now.
Who here believes that story is the most important part of a Star Trek episode or movie? So what makes a good story? Thoughts?
Yes, characters make good stories (good writers help a little too ) and developed characters are even better. However, too much emphasis on character development results in stories like Next Gen's Data's Day, Sub Rosa, and Dark Page, just to name a few clunkers. I love Next Gen but sometimes I'd wished they just stopped all the blah, blah, blah, and got back to more good old fashioned exploration episodes.
Quantum slipstream is becoming more common in the Litverse. 300ly per hour is pretty damn good, compared to conventional warp.
The he said/she said convoluted mind twist. Everybody had something to say about everything. Come to think of it Troi should not have only been the councelor but she should have been the communications officer and a full Ambassador to justify her sitting on the bridge. There really should have been one center seat and a smaller bridge, but..I'm off topic. Story to me should be about things and ideas.
My belief is.. and I take star trek as being in an alternate universe that's essentially a post-nuclear holocost tale. As I see it, moving forward is in the very bones of post-war human society. Like the Romulans, Earth must expand, and they've given that part of their impetus to the Federation, which itself has the Romulan war as its reason for existence. Going back a bit: Humanity was getting close to having a star drive when the Eugenics Wars happened in the 1990's (or else the Eugenics Wars spurred the development of the DY-class onward) . After that, the collapse of civilization in areas, finally World War 3 and the Post Atomic Horrors Earth was circling the drain. Most of the world's cities were destroyed, the death toll incredible, and odds for unity were grim. The Phoenix flight changed everything. That, coupled with Vulcan contact reopened the high frontier in a way it had never been before. A flight to Jupiter could take less than a day. Colonies were not only possible but viable. Humanity HAD To move outward because it had to do something, and going outward was a lot less guilt-burdened than looking back, and it came with rewards. Two hundred, three hundred years later, humans in the federation are still the same shell-shocked people gazing upwards and realzing they are not alone, knowing there is both hope and fear in that. So they go forward. Our world is the one that looked back.
One of my favorite episodes. Good A story (the wedding), good B story (the Romulans). Character details on four characters. One of the Federation's enemies comes out ahead, which given that they're supposed to be viable opponents, should happen more often (50% of the time?). Which is ridiculously and unnecessarily fast. 20 hours to cross the federation (size from FC), another 20 hours would see you bypassing millions of unexplored star systems. Would make any problems within the story far to easy to solve. Troi's the federation council's mandated political officer.
I've asked you this before but you never seem to have an answer. What's Star Trek's story? And please try to answer before your thread gets locked yet again for asking the same question at least three times now.
I didn't mean to say Star Trek had a story other than it's premise of going where no man has gone before and the initial story arc of going on a rescue mission. My idea of what is not a good story is episodes like A Night in Sickbay with Phlox cutting his toenails. I'm sure there are many podiatrists out there who loved that episode.
So then if you had to answer your own question of "who believes that story is the most important part of a Star Trek episode or movie," then I assume you would answer "no" since Star Trek has no story, only a premise.