nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth!

[MrPointy]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Dude, seriously - fuck Roddenbery's book.

Dude, seriously - I have tried, and the paper cuts were excruciating.

I'm sure Gene would have appreciated it. In a way, that's like the precursor to people using the holodeck.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

That's right -- nuTrek utterly destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth!

Roddenberry shared his vision of Earth and humanity, and JJ and crew ignored everything! The word of Roddenberry was dismissed!

What was ignored?

Well, there's a whole list...

- James Kirk was named for his mother’s “first love instructor,” not his grandfather!
- George Kirk as just another of his mother's love instructors.
- Kirk's academy class had less "intellectual agility" than previous classes.
- "New Humans" who are willing to meld their own identities and individuality into a group consciousness versus rare "Primitives" like Kirk who still follow ancient customs like taking the last name of your father. In fact, using the father's surname is quite rare among most humans.
- Humanity moving beyond primitive monogamy and becoming swingers.
- The Federation installing cybernetic implants (senceivers) in Starfleet member's heads.
- A lower Mediterranean Sea because the Mediterranean Alliance built the Gibraltar hydroelectric complex!
- TOS isn't really canon but is instead a grossly exaggerated version of events in which the crew were portrayed as larger than life and the events were distorted by a misguided Starfleet PR campaign.

Where was this in the new film?

This was the official vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth from Gene Roddenberry, shared with us in 1979, and now it has been totally betrayed!

Now don't go screaming "not canon!" because this is the word of Trek's creator himself, as bestowed upon us in the official movie tie-in of the pinnacle of Star Trek at its absolute purest: Star Trek: The Motion Picture!

Ummmm...okay. We are all entitled to our own ideas on this matter. But this kind of reaction from this 'faction' of Star Trek's fan base is exactly what Paramount hoped for. They just hope you get off the bus and make room for a new breed of fans. This was their intent, I think, all along. Anger the hardcore fans do much that they just give up on trek and walk away, and take with them, thier defiant voices.

me? I've been watching since season 3 of TOS. I think TREK XI has saved Star Trek from the ash-pile of history. And many of the things that you and others list as what is the core of GR's trek, and that were changed by this movie? I am glad they were. I think TREK needs to get off the soap-box and concentrate on making good-fun movies. GR didn't like KAHN or any of the movies they did with out him (favoring the JFK story)...I am glad his power over TREK was taken away from him. TREK improved the further it got away from him...IMO.

Rob

 

[Ovation]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Turn on your sarcasm detector to 11. It makes a lot more sense that way.

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

... me? I've been watching since season 3 of TOS. I think TREK XI has saved Star Trek from the ash-pile of history. And many of the things that you and others list as what is the core of GR's trek, and that were changed by this movie? I am glad they were. I think TREK needs to get off the soap-box and concentrate on making good-fun movies. GR didn't like KAHN or any of the movies they did with out him (favoring the JFK story)...I am glad his power over TREK was taken away from him. TREK improved the further it got away from him...IMO.

The fact that you started watching Trek during its "Turd" Season is telling. You clearly hated the first two seasons when Roddenberry was in charge, and you only started watching when Fred Freiberger took over the show and corrupted it to his heretical vision.

Go back to your thread on Uhura's underwear.

 

[Irishman]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

And also, Gene probably wouldn't have given DS9 the go-ahead, and that's the best of the lot (IMO).

DS9, putting it mildly, was a Babylon 5 ripoff.

Wrong thread. This is the thread in which I complain about official tie-in books and Borg-enhancements being made non-canon by those who hate Star Trek, not B5 fans who hate Star Trek.

No, back on topic...

I have decided that, of my initial list, the worse offense is the character assassination of James Kirk's mom compared to Roddenberry's vision for her.

Roddenberry wanted her to have no last name and be a New Human who had many sexual partners, the first of which was named only James. It was for this love instructor that she named a son she happened to have with a particularly good lay named Kirk.

Now Abrams and company have ruined the character, turning her into a Starfleet officer and the loving wife of her husband, George Kirk. They went even further as to give her a last name, which no good New Human would even have -- it hinders the group identity.

Kirk's mom should be as Roddenberry envisioned: New Age and easy.

You're misunderstanding me. I didn't like B5 either, so your dismissal is unfounded on those grounds.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

... me? I've been watching since season 3 of TOS. I think TREK XI has saved Star Trek from the ash-pile of history. And many of the things that you and others list as what is the core of GR's trek, and that were changed by this movie? I am glad they were. I think TREK needs to get off the soap-box and concentrate on making good-fun movies. GR didn't like KAHN or any of the movies they did with out him (favoring the JFK story)...I am glad his power over TREK was taken away from him. TREK improved the further it got away from him...IMO.

The fact that you started watching Trek during its "Turd" Season is telling. You clearly hated the first two seasons when Roddenberry was in charge, and you only started watching when Fred Freiberger took over the show and corrupted it to his heretical vision.

Go back to your thread on Uhura's underwear.

GR, back in the 60s, was some what normal. Seasons one and two are great....season three not so. But most people in the know, meaning not you I guess, know that his ultra-liberal views started to come to life in the 70s. He seemed to think he created this great liberal show (TOS), but Gene L Coon and Harve Bennett saw the military side of it as well.

At least I like Uhura's underwear. The fact you don't? Well...fill in the blanks if you musk..I mean... must.

Rob

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

[double post]

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

GR, back in the 60s, was some what normal. Seasons one and two are great....season three not so. But most people in the know, meaning not you I guess, know that his ultra-liberal views started to come to life in the 70s. He seemed to think he created this great liberal show (TOS), but Gene L Coon and Harve Bennett saw the military side of it as well.

All I have to say is that the Bible contains two completely contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Look at all the suffering this has caused! Which one is canon? Which one violates canon? Having two different visions for a creation story -- whether Genesis Chapter 1 vs Chapter 2 or Roddenberry vs Abrams -- is problematic to say the least. Trek should not make the same mistake the Bible does. Trek is better than that. We should stick with the creation story written first -- that of Roddenberry -- and consider the latter one heretical,

At least I like Uhura's underwear. The fact you don't? Well...fill in the blanks if you musk..I mean... must.

I have filled in the blanks, and my professional psychology training, which I received in an introductory class in high school, suggests a few possibilities.

 

[Guartho]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Go back to your thread on Uhura's underwear.

What I wouldn't give to be a thread on Uhura's underwear.

All I have to say is that the Bible contains two completely contradictory creation stories in Genesis.

Where do people get this? Telling the story twice, once with more detail, is not contradictory. Genesis 1 has the "Previously on Battlestar Galactica" version. Genesis 2 is the response to the audience's "we want to know more details about the creation of people" requests.

 

[Kross]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Yup, because its not like "Measure of a Man", "The Inner Light", "The Drumhead", "Tapestry" are some of my favorite episodes.

Edit: That was aimed at Cheapjack. Forgot to include his post.

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

All I have to say is that the Bible contains two completely contradictory creation stories in Genesis.

Where do people get this? Telling the story twice, once with more detail, is not contradictory. Genesis 1 has the "Previously on Battlestar Galactica" version. Genesis 2 is the response to the audience's "we want to know more details about the creation of people" requests.

Please tell me: were animals created first, or were humans?

 

[Guartho]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Please tell me: were animals created first, or were humans?

Humans are animals. Were squares created first or rectangles?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

When has this become a discussion about the Bible?

 

[Augustus]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

What is going on?
Gene's acid trip movie ideas? Uhura's underwear? The creation story???

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Come in and join the fun.

 

[Guartho]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

When has this become a discussion about the Bible?

Page 7.

Anyway...

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

---snip---

19 Now the LORD God had formed [<-- past tense] out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Looks like, according to Genesis 1 and 2, the rest of the animals were created first, and then humans. Although Genesis 2 could be strictly interpreted to not give a specific sequence for man relative to animals at all. It definitely does not state in any way that man was created first. It just talks about him first because Genesis 2 is about man where Genesis 1 is about the world.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Gee, thanks. I should have said "why" instead of "when".

 

[Guartho]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Welcome to discussion forums. Very often threads will derail into tentatively related minutia, especially when someone makes a flawed analogy. Extra especially when the flawed analogy compares the topic at hand to an incorrect statement of fact.

 

[SonicRanger]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

When has this become a discussion about the Bible?

Page 7.

Anyway...

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

---snip---

19 Now the LORD God had formed [<-- past tense] out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

Looks like, according to Genesis 1 and 2, the rest of the animals were created first, and then humans. Although Genesis 2 could be strictly interpreted to not give a specific sequence for man relative to animals at all. It definitely does not state in any way that man was created first. It just talks about him first because Genesis 2 is about man where Genesis 1 is about the world.

Chapter 2 also says that "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up" when God made Adam.

In Chapter 1, vegetation was created on the second day, and humans on the sixth. In Chapter 2, humans are created before vegetation.

Canon violation!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Welcome to discussion forums. Very often threads will derail into tentatively related minutia, especially when someone makes a flawed analogy. Extra especially when the flawed analogy compares the topic at hand to an incorrect statement of fact.

I was not attacking you. I'm on your side. It's just a surprising turn, that's all.