Most dated Star Trek episode or movie

[Joel_Kirk]

Interestingly, the white people who complain about this episode usually want to claim that the episode is racist because a black man has interest in a white female.

Which would indicate they didn't pay attention to the storyline, the leader wasn't personally attracted to Yar, he simply saw her as someone who could be manipulated into killing his wife. According to the story this wasn't the first time he attempted this.

It wasn't sexual desire, it was greed. he wanted his wife's property

How is two women fighting over man more racist than what we saw in Amok Time? Or when Scotty tried to fight Apollo over Carolyn. Or Kirk fighting Flint over Rayna. Or Rojan fighting Kirk for Kelinda's attentions and succeeding.

Given all the "white planets" we saw on screen, we should have seen many more "black planets," not just the one.

Racist my ass.

 

[RandyS]

Most Dated: "The Way To Eden"

Most Timeless: "The Inner Light" [They could broadcast this, and they likely will, in a century and its heartfelt story will still touch emotions]

So, in 100 years it'll still be annoying the hell out of people?

In what way is it annoying people?

It annoys the hell out of me. I've never liked that episode. And I hope I'm alive in 100 years, just so I can say the same.

 

[SPCTRE]

So, in 100 years it'll still be annoying the hell out of people?

In what way is it annoying people?

It annoys the hell out of me. I've never liked that episode.

... because?

 

[{ Emilia }]

So, in 100 years it'll still be annoying the hell out of people?

In what way is it annoying people?

It annoys the hell out of me. I've never liked that episode. And I hope I'm alive in 100 years, just so I can say the same.

Well, I guess it's important to have some goals in life!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

THE VOYAGE HOME feels the most "dated," to me. It's completely forgettable. The humour is lame, the action is weak and to cap it all off, if that's the phrase, there is no tension in this movie. Nothing's really at stake, other than bussing a tank of whales in the invisible ship of makebelieve. It's not even that they visit the 80's that dates it, it's the script, the ad libs and Nimoy's direction. There's nothing pan-generational about this film. It's of it's day - that's it and all about it.

I couldn't disagree more. It's like saying that BTTF is dated.

I showed this movie to a non-fan who was born the year after this film takes and he loved it. He'd see it in theater. It's a great time, with some perfect humor, tension, and some profound things to say about humanity and about the characters. It might take place in the 80's but it is the most timeless film they've made!

 

[Greg Cox]

THE VOYAGE HOME feels the most "dated," to me. It's completely forgettable. The humour is lame, the action is weak and to cap it all off, if that's the phrase, there is no tension in this movie. Nothing's really at stake, other than bussing a tank of whales in the invisible ship of makebelieve. It's not even that they visit the 80's that dates it, it's the script, the ad libs and Nimoy's direction. There's nothing pan-generational about this film. It's of it's day - that's it and all about it.

I couldn't disagree more. It's like saying that BTTF is dated.

I showed this movie to a non-fan who was born the year after this film takes and he loved it. He'd see it in theater. It's a great time, with some perfect humor, tension, and some profound things to say about humanity and about the characters. It might take place in the 80's but it is the most timeless film they've made!

Exactly. This is the best TREK film to show to your non-Trekkie friends and relatives . . . .if they can get through the first ten to fifteen minutes of dealing with loose ends from the previous films.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

It also has some interesting things that most people don't think about. The question to Spock (How do you feel?) is a nice bracket for the entire film. The idea that coming home means looking into our past and see how far we've come or haven't come. It's about how our heroes can solve problems using teamwork and smarts rather than phasers and fighting. It's about facing our short-sightedness.

Plus, the franchise at the time was often restricted to shooting on studio sets, so the film feels big because they were able to get out on location. I think seeing familiar sites through new eyes helps make the film age well and become accessible to everyone!

 

[Jonas Grumby]

This is the best TREK film to show to your non-Trekkie friends and relatives...

I think that's true. It's readily assessable and enjoyable to anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with TOS. And maybe even to someone who doesn't know anything about Trek at all (I haven't tried that experiment yet ).

Also, I know at least one Trekker (a friend of mine who's an even bigger Trekkie than me) to whom that broad accessibility is actually the problem. He doesn't say it outright, but if you've heard him talk about TVH enough and you know him well enough to read between the lines, his major complaint with TVH is: Trek should be for Trekkers, dammit!

 

[Gul Re'jal]

I think "Mudd's Women" is incredibly dated in its gender politics. Despite the token presence of Uhura, it's written under the assumption that the Enterprise crew is entirely male and hasn't seen a woman in ages. The women are pure commodities, mail-order brides who have no prospect for achievement in life beyond marrying a rich man. And the happy-ending moral is that if a woman really believes in herself, she can become a perfect wife, as beautiful and domestic as her husband needs her to be. Even by 1966 standards, it's backward.

Exactly my choice for exactly same reasons (which I would never dream to express as well ).

 

[Silvercrest]

It also has some interesting things that most people don't think about. The question to Spock (How do you feel?) is a nice bracket for the entire film. The idea that coming home means looking into our past and see how far we've come or haven't come.

No argument here, and it's a good question to ask Spock, but — it makes no sense at all for a computer to be asking it. Particularly a Vulcan computer. What kind of response would it judge as "correct"?

It's better to assume Amanda just slipped the question into the test to have an excuse to speak to him (particularly since his response at the end of the movie is directed at her). But she still pretends the computer is doing the asking. "You're half human. The computer knows that." Uhh, what? Jeez, just talk to your kid. Don't insult his intelligence.

What? OP topic? "Dated?" uh, uh, the punk on the bus.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

What? OP topic? "Dated?" uh, uh, the punk on the bus.

If there's any scene I wouldn't take out, it's that one.

then I'd leave the film as it is!

 

[Greg Cox]

Also, I know at least one Trekker (a friend of mine who's an even bigger Trekkie than me) to whom that broad accessibility is actually the problem. He doesn't say it outright, but if you've heard him talk about TVH enough and you know him well enough to read between the lines, his major complaint with TVH is: Trek should be for Trekkers, dammit!

Sadly, that's a far from uncommon attitude. Even on these very boards, you don't have to look hard to find sentiments along the lines of "Screw the general audience! Trek is not for the unwashed masses!"

I swear, some of us think that "popular" and "accessible" are dirty words . . ..

 

[TheGoodStuff]

So, in 100 years it'll still be annoying the hell out of people?

In what way is it annoying people?

It annoys the hell out of me. I've never liked that episode. And I hope I'm alive in 100 years, just so I can say the same.

So in context then, 'people', actually meant 'me'.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

It also has some interesting things that most people don't think about. The question to Spock (How do you feel?) is a nice bracket for the entire film. The idea that coming home means looking into our past and see how far we've come or haven't come. It's about how our heroes can solve problems using teamwork and smarts rather than phasers and fighting. It's about facing our short-sightedness.

As much as I love the JJverse movies, something tells me (and I can see why) people will be regarding this movie as better than those ones simply because of the 'solve problems using teamwork and smarts rather than phasers and fighting' parts of Star Trek that are in the new movies.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Most dated? "The Way to Eden," hands down.

THIS.

As well, this kind of stupid episode had been on TV for a while (and was the plot of a 1968 movie also made by Paramount.) Nobody making it seemed to notice that said space hippies had no Vietnam War to bedevil them, no threat of nuclear Armageddon to destroy them and no having lived in the 20th century on Earth in the United States for them to even be getting any idea about how 'unnatural' society was. Also, nobody seemed to notice that the lead hippie is an old man by hippy standards and might have been told to get lost or go away (another thing shared with the above-mentioned movie, which has an old man in a bowler hat among a bunch of young flower children!)

As I've said before, real hippies would tell these people to get lost if they saw how good the 23rd century is on Earth-and even if there are rebels against the established order, why would they dress and believe in the same anti-establishment philosophies of the late 1960s? A misfire all around, and stupid to boot.

Why would the Space Hippies need to have the same experiences/background/motevations as the real hippies? There have been "counter cultures" through out history. Of course the Space Hippies were supposed to invoke the 60s hippies, because that's how Star Trek works. It makes commentary on current society.

 

[Melakon]

The Space Hippies were about as close to real hippies as Dobie Gillis' Maynard G. Krebs was to real beatniks.

 

[dub]

Even on these very boards, you don't have to look hard to find sentiments along the lines of "Screw the general audience! Trek is not for the unwashed masses!"

I swear, some of us think that "popular" and "accessible" are dirty words . . ..

Well, on the other hand, there are those who use popularity as an argument for how "great" a film is. Popularity is certainly not bad, but it's by no means an immutable measure of how great a film is. Otherwise, we should all agree that the "Fast & Furious" movies are "great." End of discussion.

"The film was awful, eh? Ha! Well it made $X, so your opinion is silly" is also a sentiment you don't have to look too hard to find around here.

 

[Greg Cox]

"The film was awful, eh? Ha! Well it made $X, so your opinion is silly" is also a sentiment you don't have to look too hard to find around here.

True enough.

 

[Silvercrest]

What? OP topic? "Dated?" uh, uh, the punk on the bus.

If there's any scene I wouldn't take out, it's that one.

then I'd leave the film as it is!

Oh, I wouldn't take it out either. It just happens to be a very "eighties" character.

 

[Vandervecken]

Also, I know at least one Trekker (a friend of mine who's an even bigger Trekkie than me) to whom that broad accessibility is actually the problem. He doesn't say it outright, but if you've heard him talk about TVH enough and you know him well enough to read between the lines, his major complaint with TVH is: Trek should be for Trekkers, dammit!

Sadly, that's a far from uncommon attitude. Even on these very boards, you don't have to look hard to find sentiments along the lines of "Screw the general audience! Trek is not for the unwashed masses!"

I swear, some of us think that "popular" and "accessible" are dirty words . . ..

Now that Abrams has Trek, I don't think you have anything to worry about on this score. It's ALL for the unwashed masses.