So we're in agreement that both VOY and nuTrek are shit, glad we got that covered.


I will concede that some parts of Voyager were shit. They had some really bad or senseless episodes and poorly-thought out concepts. However, the same can be said of all the Trek TV series.So we're in agreement that both VOY and nuTrek are shit, glad we got that covered.
![]()
Yeah, that's the joke. She'll be dead by the end of the series.So? That would be in keeping with her 9-year lifespan.JANEWAY: HA! We made in seven years!!
KES: Ack! (falls to floor dead)
Have people forgotten that Tom was in medical training as well, and assisted the Doctor on occasion?
Yeah, that's the joke. She'll be dead by the end of the series.
I'd say they're Star Trek done as comic book movies (with a fair amount of Star Wars under the chassis -- themes of destiny, culminating medal scenes, STID even gives us a Millennium Falcon-style shuttle chase on the surface of Kronos). Trek always had its share of pulp, but the gestalt of nuTrek is more purely pulp than it's ever been.
Pure pulp can of course be plenty entertaining... which is why even the worst Star Wars has always made money. It only irritates me to the extent it does in the context of Trek because whatever heights Trek climbed or depths it sank to in days of yore, it was a vessel for a more diverse kind of storytelling than that. I think that's the core difference some people feel between nuTrek and its predecessors. Certainly it's the core difference for me.
Thing is... Roddenberry admittedly lifted plenty from pulp science fiction magazines of the 50' and early-60's.
I wonder if some of the divide over the Abrams films could simply come down to folks who like serious drama played straight vs. folks who like to have a fun time with bigger than life heroes?
I don't want serious drama, I want fun adventures in space. That's what Star Trek does best, IMHO.
STII: Ranks high, if not often the highest. It's a naval battle, "action", movie in space.
I don't want serious drama, I want fun adventures in space. That's what Star Trek does best, IMHO.
Paramount hasn't had anything legally to do with Trek in years.Sadly Paramount has the last words and the words are bigger than life heroes aka the quantity. That is were the money is. The money is not in serious drama but the sad truth is, the serious drama is where you can find a better and a more quality film.
STII: Ranks high, if not often the highest. It's a naval battle, "action", movie in space.
But does the "navel battle action" represent a good chunk of the film like the action does in the JJ Abrams films. I don't think so. For all the talk of Star Trek II being a certified action film, there's really not a whole lot of action in it when compared to other films that are about action. The surprise attack from the reliant and the battle in the Mutara Nebula are pretty much the only action pieces in the film. There's a ton of character moments with lots of dialogue, something that JJ's films seems to rush through or only cover the minimum amount in order to get the idea across.
There's a ton of character moments with lots of dialogue, something that JJ's films seems to rush through or only cover the minimum amount in order to get the idea across.
I don't want serious drama, I want fun adventures in space. That's what Star Trek does best, IMHO.
JJ's films have just as many wonderful character moments as any other Trek.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.