What if Worf was the captain of the Enterprise C?
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Money, women, money, drink, drugs, women, did I say money?
Thank God!
The Star Trek Motion Picture novelization's depiction of how Roddenberry REALLY wanted 23rd century folk is HILARIOUS.
I don't think so....
Less pew pew, more shagging please....Sex Trek!
Wait until Discovery is 30 years old, then introduce it to someone in their 20s, then you will be comparing like with like.
Last edited:
Bottom line, this is Star Trek series #7, made sixteen years after the last one. Of course it looks and plays differently than the earlier series. That's a good thing. TOS and TNG and DS9 were great, but we've already done that. DSC is reinventing STAR TREK for the 21st century, which is what it should be doing.
Honestly, the biggest problem with ENTERPRISE was that, despite all the advance hype about it taking place in an earlier, grittier era of space exploration, it basically felt like TNG or VOYAGER with the deck chairs rearranged. Like it or not, DSC is just more of the same.
And, please, let's not project our own opinions onto the entire audience or make sweeping generalizations about what "the fans" think of DSC. We are individuals, not a collective.
Honestly, the biggest problem with ENTERPRISE was that, despite all the advance hype about it taking place in an earlier, grittier era of space exploration, it basically felt like TNG or VOYAGER with the deck chairs rearranged. Like it or not, DSC is just more of the same.
And, please, let's not project our own opinions onto the entire audience or make sweeping generalizations about what "the fans" think of DSC. We are individuals, not a collective.
I agree, although I felt like the first several episodes of Enterprise did a decent job giving me the vibe of an earlier time in Star Trek history. Unfortunately, this quickly fell by the wayside, and it wasn't until the end of the second season/start of the third that I was especially eager for more episodes again.
I think someone said it best with, "Enterprise is when they had the possibility of radically changing the formula around so their first instinct was to make it as generically Star Trek as possible."
Bingo. Just waving a magic wand and declaring a utopia by fiat isn't idealism; it's escapism. Or as Sisko put it: "it's easy to be a saint in Paradise."
But out on the final frontier, things aren't going to be that simple . . . .
Admittedly, this is why we never have (or rarely have to be specific) shows on Earth.
Because Earth is apparently non-stop Spring Break.
Because Earth is apparently non-stop Spring Break.
But I bought everyone matching T-shirts!Bottom line, this is Star Trek series #7, made sixteen years after the last one. Of course it looks and plays differently than the earlier series. That's a good thing. TOS and TNG and DS9 were great, but we've already done that. DSC is reinventing STAR TREK for the 21st century, which is what it should be doing.
Honestly, the biggest problem with ENTERPRISE was that, despite all the advance hype about it taking place in an earlier, grittier era of space exploration, it basically felt like TNG or VOYAGER with the deck chairs rearranged. Like it or not, DSC is just more of the same.
And, please, let's not project our own opinions onto the entire audience or make sweeping generalizations about what "the fans" think of DSC. We are individuals, not a collective.
It's perhaps worth noting that we NEVER saw 23rd century Earth on TOS . .. or at least not until the movies. Because, ultimately, the show was about exploring the wonders and dangers of the final frontier, not about life in a peaceful utopia.
It's why I prefer Meyer Trek.
The future is very nice but the very threats OUTSIDE of the Federation prevent it from being perfect.
The future is very nice but the very threats OUTSIDE of the Federation prevent it from being perfect.
I never said it couldn't be liked, but it definitely feels dated to those I've shown it to under the age of 20. My nephew, who was 14 yrs old two years ago when I introduced him to it, liked it, but he said that-- not just FX-wise, but production, acting, stories-- "felt very 80s quality." And by that he meant not as good as the best stuff made today, as he was watching things like Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Sherlock, Hannibal, Game of Thrones...
EDIT: sorry meant to be responding to this:
"What are you talking about!? I just introduced TNG to someone in their 20s this year and she loved it. That's the difference between a quality show and STD."
The best of TNG was produced when the writers were more willing to enter a tug-of-war with Roddenberry and his ideas (even after his passing).
What's this? Like the fourth or fifth time that's happened? Trek is dead. Long live Trek.
