Mind you, Enterprise ended on a non-War Path with a whole season of philosophy and politics and Mirror Universe.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
You missed the point completely. It’s not about the characters ideas, it’s about the 2 shows underlying message and philosophy.
Well... I don't know if I would agree with that. We spend half the season dealing with scenarios that involve a lot of shooting at each other to solve the problems, one of said arcs is setting up what would have likely taken hold in season 5 and 6; The Romulan War. Archer and most of the crew are war weary and there's just a very down atmosphere to a lot of it.
i am really having issues getting to this trek its so dark and they sear i mean come on.
OK back on track i just think its to dark i watched star trek to see a bright future and to get away from the darkness in the world if i want dark i watch HBO shows.
I like Idealism and i know that the issues with that on ent and it made ppl tune out but i think there going to far the other way. I mean good writing and if it dint have star trek in the title i would probable love but it meant to be trek in Prime uni 10 years be for Kirk . I not sure what is so off about it but it just seams to miss the trek mark for me I will keep watch and see how it gose as i am only 4 episodes in But i don't rush home from work and go OMG new trek like i did with other star trek shows.
(side Note what was Wrong With the TOS klingons )
OK back on track i just think its to dark i watched star trek to see a bright future and to get away from the darkness in the world if i want dark i watch HBO shows.
I like Idealism and i know that the issues with that on ent and it made ppl tune out but i think there going to far the other way. I mean good writing and if it dint have star trek in the title i would probable love but it meant to be trek in Prime uni 10 years be for Kirk . I not sure what is so off about it but it just seams to miss the trek mark for me I will keep watch and see how it gose as i am only 4 episodes in But i don't rush home from work and go OMG new trek like i did with other star trek shows.
(side Note what was Wrong With the TOS klingons )
I think the plan was:
Season 4: Romulan War
Season 5: Federation establishment
I like the Klingon-Federation War but oddly my biggest issue is it's NOT the focus versus the very Treky but silly Fungus Drive until now.
Yes the drive is a bit strange and seams out of place it like hay new tec but we will never see in star trek after this show coz the future show are already written.
and why are the set/ships so dark?
even the non crazy drive one is dark and cold looking ?
and why are the set/ships so dark?
even the non crazy drive one is dark and cold looking ?
Not believable with contemporary makeup effects. Even GR changed it as quickly as possible.
He certainly understood personal gain. But I don't think he understood economics well enough to come up with an entire moneyless society that actually made sense under the least bit of scrutiny.
And this is just one of the areas where his ideas for the future were quite different from his personal life: no smoking or drug abuse, equality for women, etc. Perhaps he recognized his personal faults as something that humanity should work toward surpassing. As Nietzsche famously wrote, "Man is something that shall be overcome."
Kor
Last edited:
Wait, are we complaining about sarcasm now? Fuck me up the goat ass, is Star Trek not allowed any form of naturalism to character interactions? People are complaining about the use of profanity, writers allegedly told the actors they can't say "oh my God" and now sarcasm is being frowned on?
And I'm not sure anyone does - a post scarcity economy with no money is so beyond our experience as 21st century humans that we find it very difficult to write it. That's why a) it was never really explained and b) they constantly reverted to money and scarcity as plot points. The only way you can do it is through a handwave and not too close scrutiny. It mostly worked outside of DS9 because they never really had stories where paying for things or obtaining goods was prevalent. But then DS9 came along with shops and a bar and a race that love money, and suddenly the Federation's economics began to look pretty flimsy!
That thing they had caged up at the end of the episode? I didn't see any trunk on it.
It’s an elephant...as designed by Neville Page.
Clearly, Starfleet officers are only allowed to quote Shakespeare and deliver inspirational speeches about how evolved they are. (That's sarcasm, btw.)
And, seriously, since when was there no sarcasm on Trek? Even putting aside all the banter on TOS, I seem to remember B'Elanna and the EMH getting pretty snarky on VOYAGER sometimes. And Seven was the queen of dry, deadpan put-downs . . ..
At his point I'm as tired of hearing about the overly vaunted "Roddenberry Vision" of Star Trek as I am about how Star Trek 'invented' cell phones and teleportation.
This 'Cult of Roddenberry' is interesting as a niche social/cultural phenomena. It should prove to be an interesting dissertation topic for some anthropology or related major - specifically how it might relate to the development of the perception of religious figures.
Star Trek has evolved beyond the vision of one man. The development of Star Trek - even during the TOS era - owes to many other writers and idea people aside from him.
This 'Cult of Roddenberry' is interesting as a niche social/cultural phenomena. It should prove to be an interesting dissertation topic for some anthropology or related major - specifically how it might relate to the development of the perception of religious figures.
Star Trek has evolved beyond the vision of one man. The development of Star Trek - even during the TOS era - owes to many other writers and idea people aside from him.
I think a lot of Star Trek fans respect Roddenberry's vision but even many casual fans know he was a figure with personal flaws.
Also, Trekkies hate the franchise more than anyone else.
The vision is just another excuse.
I think 50% of the EMH's dialogue is sarcasm, and that was even BEFORE he grew into a developed character throughout the show.
EMH: Please state the nature of the medical emergency.
TORRES: Why do you always have to say that?
EMH: I can only speculate about my programmer's motives. Perhaps he thought I might be summoned for important reasons.
TORRES: Under the circumstances, don't you think you really ought to change your programme?
EMH: Now there's an interesting concept. A hologram that programs himself. What would I do with that ability? Create a family? Raise an army?
TORRES: I know a little about holographic programming. I could probably reprogram you.
EMH: That makes me feel particularly confident.
TORRES: Has anyone ever told you, you have a lousy attitude?
I just watched two episodes of Star Trek Continues.
In both, I was profoundly impressed with the morality of the tale. Here is something to consider: is Trek perhaps better when it isn't naturalistic, but rather when it's characters are 'big damn heroes', making a moral stand? I watch Discovery, and am aware that it may be heading for a deeply cathartic parable about peace in the long run, but in all honesty, I was entertained more by this fan productions scripts, given more to think about, than the episodes of the actual Star Trek on TV in our era.
I've always suspected that Star Trek's ideals were important to it's success.
Does it perhaps lose something key, when it forgets what made it successful?
In both, I was profoundly impressed with the morality of the tale. Here is something to consider: is Trek perhaps better when it isn't naturalistic, but rather when it's characters are 'big damn heroes', making a moral stand? I watch Discovery, and am aware that it may be heading for a deeply cathartic parable about peace in the long run, but in all honesty, I was entertained more by this fan productions scripts, given more to think about, than the episodes of the actual Star Trek on TV in our era.
I've always suspected that Star Trek's ideals were important to it's success.
Does it perhaps lose something key, when it forgets what made it successful?
It's being continuously rewatched for fifty years now, clearly whatever StarTrek was is what people want. And STD is not filling the void.
The term "Roddenberry's Vision" is meaningless, not to mention it presumes Star Trek was made entirely by Roddenberry with no significant, defining characteristics of the show's perspective from other collaborators, like Gene Coon, Dorothy Fontana, Nimoy, etc and so forth.
Enterprise arguably killed the franchise until now. Whatever else you say about the series, the characters were fairly flawed, conflicted with one another, and made pretty poor decisions at time.
The whole idea of "perfect characters with no conflict" only existed really on TNG for the first two years or so - during the period the show largely sucked.
