Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by King Daniel Paid CBS Plant, Sep 14, 2013.
Thank you for that, very well put.
I find your remark outrageously offensive but I'm at a loss to present evidence to the contrary.
But since you mentioned it, I'd say that the claustrophobic submarine atmosphere and the constant threat of being exterminated and at battle stations is somewhat incompatible with the original heart and soul of Star Trek which was to explore the wonders of space and handle challenges with creativity and imagination but not necessarily with the better charged phaser bank or the better loaded photon torpedo.
I don't know. It seems to be that you're coming dangerously close to making "real" STAR TREK sound like spinach, that it's something we should consume because it's Good for Us, and God forbid there should be (gasp!) sex and violence.
The way I see it, Star Trek movies and episodes (and books) are more than just a delivery mechanism for delivering Positive Social Messages. That's not art, that's propaganda, and about as dramatically interesting as a Sunday school lesson.
You seem to be leaving fun, excitement, entertainment, and, yes, sex appeal completely out of the equation.
And, honestly, the idea that there was no sex and violence on TOS makes me giggle. Hell, the very first episode featured a green Orion belly dancer and was all about the Talosians trying to get Pike to mate with Vina--and later offering him a selection of females to breed with! And the very first episode to air had the Salt Vampire luring people to their doom by appearing as attractive members of the opposite sex . . . .
Sex and violence have been part of Trek since Day One.
I think there is nothing wrong with the items you mentioned as these can add flavor and else to a good story. That is, that you have a good story to tell and don't just use "Sex sells" and other eye candy trying to hide that you can't or don't tell a good story.
Absolutely. But the way some people talk, "real" Trek is first and foremost about promoting some sort of positive message, and all other artistic considerations are secondary to how closely it adheres to some sort of "utopian" party line.
Whether any given production is actually well-written, dramatically compelling, and, yes, entertaining often seems to be seen as irrelevant . . . as though it's the idea of Star Trek that matters, not the storytelling.
Totally agree. Obviously when I say it was traumatic I'm not talking about now, but for the time and context (show kids watched) it was quite shocking.
Gotta stand up for nuBSG. To my mind, it was infinitely more compelling than the old version . . . which never really appealed to me. It's practically the poster child for how to make a remake that is even better than the original. IMHO.
I never could get into nuBSG because of its "down-to-earth" approach. A show about people NOT from Earth (and as it turned out, 150 thousand years in the past), but then everything was from Earth. English names and alphabet, contemporary props, etc... . Way too weird.
There was a good version of BSG in 1978 I guess the one I saw was a different show.
Yeah. At least Star Trek isn't weird right? Almost every species is humanoid with frightingly familiar societies and customs, inter-species babies, every civilization developing Warp Drive roughly at the same time, Earth the center of a vast Federation only 200 years after first contact...
And I agree with Greg Cox, BSG was infinitely better than the old one, and in some ways better than Star Trek.
If you were a kid in the 70's, the old Battlestar was a fine show. But that was back then...
Referring to what exactly?
That was part of its charm. Sometimes they went overboard with it, like when they started quoting Shakespeare, but otherwise the "down to Earth" approach is one of the more appealing things about nuBSG.
Yeah, but all their papers, photos and books had the corners cut off.
Now that's a story I need to hear.
Yes, Star Trek was definitely a vision of the future which qualifies as "utopian" and maybe had too much of it.
I vividly remember how I had to overcome my scepticism regarding Babylon 5. Here you had real people with real problems (drug and alcohol abuse) but the core message was get involved, stand up for what you believe is right but be smart and consider the long-lasting consequences of your actions.
However, the nuBSG protagonists had severe problems to reflect on such considerations and - interestingly - seldom had to pay a price for their actions which IMHO is just as naive as the original BSG presentation had been as a whole.
It had Muffit II. That alone is enough to destroy any show.
It was totally sexist.
The only good thing about it were the hot pilots in sexy uniforms and coolish ships.
Well, Cally lost her life because of her neurotic bigotry, and thanks to her collaboration and personal betrayal, Ellen Tigh woke up with a brand new prosthetic body. On the plus side, Gaeta got his itch taken care of.
I was thinking more along the lines of constant insubordination, threatening superior officers and Ms. President.
They didn't even seem to have a penalty for that like depriving the offenders of their food rations.
Yeah, the constant forgiving attitude towards the main characters who stepped out of line became more of a joke as the series went on.
^Like I said, Gaeta received treatment for his itch because of his insubordination.
Separate names with a comma.