Post 1979 Trek....

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by Warped9, Jun 27, 2009.

  1. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Every so often my sig ellicits a response along the lines of, "You're obviously a hater of anything after 1979 so basically your opinion is suspect and/or irrelevant." Or words to that effect delivered with varying degrees of intensity.

    What the sig actually means is I feel that with few exceptions Star Trek lost it way after 1979 in my opinion. It doesn't say that I found nothing to like after '79 but that I never found anything consistent related to Trek. I've liked aspects or parts of films. I have liked individual episodes of TNG and DS9. I've liked some ideas I've seen introduced. On a more consistent basis I've liked Babylon 5 and the two Stargate series as well as the first season of Earth Final Conflict.

    Many years ago I recall talking with someone who considered 2001: A Space Odyssey the only genuine science fiction ever made. He totally discounted everything else including the 2010: Odyssey Two sequel. Suffice to say I found that really bizarre. But then it's perhaps little more bizarre than some folk's puzzlement over how I could dismiss broad swaths of Trek made after 1979.

    Few people I've ever met like positively everything about something they like. Few people I've met seem to feel compelled to collect absolutely everything related to a subject of interest. More I usually I've found more people tend to be selective in their likes and dislikes.

    We like what we like for our own particular reasons. My perspective and my sig is far less offensive than many things I've seen posted around here or things I've seen imprinted on T-shirts worn in public.

    Why do some get so up-in-arms about this? Why do some take it as a personal affront that someone else, someone they don't even know, might not like what they like? Why the big deal?

    I've no illusion that Star Trek will ever again be what it once was. It was a product of a particular group of people coming together at a particular time that can never again be duplicated in quite the same way. And candidly I wouldn't want it remade exactly that way again, mostly because you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

    My perspective is that I wish something would come along to evoke the sensibilities we once experienced with Star Trek in those long ago days. I don't apologize for liking how it was done then and wish we could see more of that kind of thinking. And, of course, there will be inevitable disagreement over whether this can happen or has even has happened.

    My opinion and preferences cannot possibly affect anyone else's enjoyment of whatever they like. Certainly their opinions don't affect my enjoyment of what I like.

    Still, it gets tiresome sometimes to have your views used like an accusation as if you're promoting bigotry of some sort. Like what you like, state your opinion, and leave me to like what I like.
     
  2. Warp14

    Warp14 Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Location:
    The Ghetto Of Tucson
    I found most Trek post-79 to be profoundly disappointing. Hell, much of post season 2 TOS is disappointing as well.
     
  3. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I can understand why people would be offended.

    Point one is, probably, that you're on a Star Trek forum here. If it were anywhere else, most wouldn't even notice, but since it's here, it would be like posting at a Christian forum with a signature "Christianity. RIP 200 BC". You are, in effect, referring to anything aside from your personal pick as irrelevant. It's like saying "you are not real Christians if you believe in more then the Old Testament". There are bound to be people to get up in arms over that.

    Then there's the fact that it's in your signature. If you post it once or twice, in a discussion, most people wouldn't mind, even if it offended them. However, by having it in a signature, people will read it every single time they see one of your posts. Having something that offends them repeated to them continuously is bound to get them disagreeable.

    And the fact that people often interpret things not exactly how you might have intended them to be interpreted.

    Yes, you have the right to offend; as everybody has. However, you can't seriously believe that effectively stating the same offending thing over and over and over again, in a place specifically for those who would be most offended by that, should get no notice at all? That's just silly.

    And that might be the reason people assume you're offending them on purpose. Thus, they'll naturally react some time.
     
  4. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Off-topic: I love your signature; especially comparing oldschool Star Trek fans with abusive husbands -- seeing as the amount of nitpicking and bashing there is in the Trek community. They can never be pleased; so the producers made the right choice with the movie, you're right about that. Glad you liked it too. :D
     
  5. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I have modified my sig. I dropped the added line, "Contemporary Trek has failed." That part really set some people off. Even though I dropped it I still stand by my perspective that overall I feel contemporary Trek has failed. Not in a commercial sense, obviously, yet in an overall critical sense.

    Then, of course, the world has also changed. Part of growing older is the realization that much of society becomes less and less tailored to you as you age out of a given demographic.

    There's also the matter that when you like something there's a possessive aspect to it. I try (and sometimes falter) to avoid getting defensive over my preferences. I've found I don't gain anything from getting upset over someone not likeing something I like.

    Yet one thing I love about TOS was that it was multilayered. I was initially drawn to the colour and spectacle and adventure. Yet as I got older I didn't grow out of it because I learned that there were other aspects to it that I was only dimly aware of before. I really think this is one of the great strengths of TOS.
     
  6. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    It's ironic that STAR TREK started out in TOS as a pioneering, somewhat experimental TV show that explored a futuristic galaxy in which not only do humans of all the nations of Earth work together and get along in a high-tech Federation, but humans also work with aliens as well. While there was quite a bit of violence in the galaxy, Roddenberry and Coon and company came up with a great show that was killed after only three years, was cast into syndication, and wound becoming the great sleeper of the 1970's.

    Reviving the show in a movie was bound to be a dicey proposition; when you start out with a TV show, changing it into anything else (including a cartoon) is going to stir up controversy and criticism. Looking back though, I'm sure almost everyone was thrilled to see the movies hit the Big Screen back then because we wanted to see STAR TREK make a comeback. Look at what's going on now in the wake of Michael Jackson's passing (talk about timing!); there are fans of his around the world that are coming out of the woodwork, and many are from Generation Y that aren't even old enough to remember Jackson in his heyday. TREK and Jackson share a common legacy in that they both were nearly cast aside, but they still became a hit despite an entertainment establishment that did not respect either of them. Many younger TREK and Jackson fans may not realize that both were controversial from the start; I grew up with people in a small town that passionately hated both because they were so different from anything that came before.

    Hard to believe after all the imitations both have spawned, isn't it?

    Opinions are like belly buttons (or other parts of the anatomy); everyone has 'em. Expressing opinions about entertainment in an entertainment forum is bound to ruffle feathers. Looking at this in a Michael Jackson context, I thought Jackson put out his best work in the 1970's, culminating in his 1979 album "Off the Wall". Singles like "Don't Stop Till You Get Enough" and "Rock With You" weren't just great disco-era tunes, Jackson cleverly bridged the musicianship of Rock music with disco; something few artists ever attempted to do back then or since. Even then though, I could tell he was getting carried away in his own hype: I remember seeing a feature of Jackson on ABC's 20/20 newsmagazine. One unforgettable clip showed Jackson on a stage in some huge concert arena facing tens of thousands of screaming fans and cooing gently to them "Oh, I wanna rock!" I could see he was getting weird back then, and his subsequent albums and spectacle seemed to bear that out. I still maintain that it was all downhill after "Off the Wall". Imagine expressing that in a Michael Jackson forum. (No thank you.) :rommie:

    I can see where people can be irked by your old sig. I somewhat agree with you, though, on the old sig's intent. STAR TREK, like Jackson, has been subsumed in hype. Specifically, TREK has suffered from concept erosion. As violent as TOS could be, it was clearly about exploration of our galaxy and ourselves. The movies and subsequent series, especially DS9, seemed to take that violence to a new level. (DS9 became a war series, something that smacks of direct repudiation of the original premise of STAR TREK.) Also, I look back on the movies and wonder if TREK really makes sense as a motion picture. Sure, you can pour millions of dollars into actors, sets, costumes and FX, and make it look way cooler than anything from TOS, but I look back and wonder if the soul of an episodic drama series didn't get lost as a result.

    I do differ with you a little in that I feel that drawing the line at 1979 seems to allow for TMP, as if the first movie itself did not represent major concept erosion. I feel it did. While it's true that the characters all rang true to the original, I look back on it and I don't see why it was necessary to rebuild the Starship Enterprise, put the actors in all-new costumes, and basically splash the whole Universe in the obvious disco-era influences of STAR WARS. The super-detailed ships, super-funky sets, disco-fashion (right down to Uhura's afro), and booming orchestra seemed ridiculously overwrought then and since. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, which came out two years earlier, still has better staying power as a great sci fi movie.

    It is a little surprising that people would pick your old sig out from some of the pushier ones on here (not mentioning any names, of course!) as "offensive". Maybe I'm going easy on you because I largely agree with you, but there's really nothing that abrasive about your old sig.

    Bottom line: it's (supposedly) a free country, and it's disappointing that you felt you had to change an opinionated sig. While I don't entirely agree you, I see your point enough that you were contributing a legitimate point of view, far less abrasively than some I see on this forum.

    And something else to consider: for all the millions of dollars Paramount has sunk into revival movies and new TREK series over the last 40 years, after all those attempts, at the end of the day they've produced shockingly few "classics" to compete with the likes of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, APOLLO 13 and STAR WARS. True, some great stories have been told, like "The Measure of a Man" or "First Flight", but they should not have been this rare.
     
  7. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk Cartoon Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Vasquez Rocks, Bajor
    I dont think this place is supposed to work that way ;)
     
  8. T'Bonz

    T'Bonz Romulan Curmudgeon Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2000
    Location:
    Across the Neutral Zone
    Well, part of the problem is that when someone is on a board where fans of a show hang, if something negative is said about a show, people will always get up in arms.

    My attitude towards fan boards like this is this: I talk almost exclusively about what I like. I don't waste my time debating with others over things I like. Why? Because would I change someone's mind by doing so? Hardly likely. So who needs the aggravation?

    For instance, I can't say that I dislike TOS stuff (other than a few "clunk" episodes,) so I'll use Voyager as an example. I just hate and loathe Seven of Nine. No, not Jeri Ryan the actress. She's just fine. The lameass character.

    Now I could do like some fans do and go into the forum and anytime someone praised her (and the character has her fans,) I could rebut that, with my very good reasons why she sucks.

    And the odds are, I'd piss off people. Hell, I can think of a few people right off of the top of my head who would hate that.

    But why bother? Life is too short to fight online. Bad enough to fight in real life.

    Where some get into trouble here is by doing that. "I have the right to speak up," you may say. Certainly you do! We all do! You also have the right to be in the minority. I bet I am when it comes to Seven of Nine! :lol: However, at the end of the day, I'm not into the drama that would come with constantly fussing over it. Oh, I have no doubt I could shout down the masses. I'm strong. But again, why bother?

    In a perfect world, we could all express our opinions and others would say "That's cool, I agree!" or "I don't agree, here's why..." WITHOUT the latter getting defensive.

    This isn't a perfect world. So - unless I want to fight constantly, I'm not going to be stating my "dislikes" other than in a situation where I know it won't be problematic. But like I won't pour gasoline on a raging fire, I'm sure as hell not going to post stuff that will make things hot for me.

    That's my call. It makes my online life, here and elsewhere, mostly tranquil. And I'm secure in my thoughts on the shows and movies and not at all upset if someone disagrees. That's fine. If you don't like Sarek or Spock, I might think you're an ass, but I can't be bothered to argue over it.

    The point of this long post is that if you're determined to knock heads with people, you're going to get a headache.
     
  9. BrownShatner

    BrownShatner Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Well, you are essentially handing people an "instant comeback". Rather than engage with whatever you're saying, it's intellectually easier for people to dismiss it in entirety, solely based on your sig slogan.
     
  10. BrownShatner

    BrownShatner Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Well, you are essentially handing people an "instant comeback". Rather than engage with whatever you're saying, it's intellectually easier for people to dismiss it in entirety, solely based on your sig slogan. I had assumed that you intended to be a bit confrontational about this and it didn't bother you.
     
  11. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Um... :vulcan:
     
  12. DiSiLLUSiON

    DiSiLLUSiON Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I do believe the old testament was finished on 200 BC, as such, the analogy with the old and new testaments and old and new trek seemed logical. :o
     
  13. plynch

    plynch Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    Actually, Christianity, RIP A.D. 313 would be a better analogy, maybe. Christianity was a fringe sect that got sanctioned, then authorized by Constantine. It became a very different thing - fashionable but flaccid, some would say.

    I could actually go with ST: 1966-1969. As I've posted elsewhere, it was a great, serial vehicle for storytelling (pointed out by D. Gerrold). Created by a postwar humanist liberal in the Cold War and Space Age. Fertilized by classic sci-fi and writer/producers with roots in the golden age of television.

    You're just not gonna get that vibe in the 80s, 90s, 2000s. Now we get Transformers in Star Trek clothing. I just watched Galileo 7 (note the reference to the NASA "Mercury 7" in the title) with my 10 year olds. We all loved it.

    I have no prob with your sig. I've been close to abandoning this BBS after about 6 months of being active. It's so argumentative, esp re ST XI. You like what you like, I'll like what I like. Good philosophy. Be well.
     
  14. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    Dude, there was no Christianity 200 years BEFORE CHRIST.
     
  15. Smiley

    Smiley Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    Chandler, AZ
    Thank you for removing the second part of the sig. Saying something to the effect of "major TOS and TMP fan" is fine and dandy, but saying the rest of Trek has "failed" is needlessly inflammatory.
     
  16. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    ^^ I still think it's true, but I'm tired of the needling.
     
  17. Sovay

    Sovay Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Vulcan
    I don't see it as inflammatory per se, it's just an opinion. Perhaps an unpopular one but still a perfectly valid one. I like some post 79 trek, I love all the TOS movies, and the fact that someone on the board does not like them really doesn't bother me. Variety is the spice of life :)
     
  18. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    I find most TOS and TOS-based Trek after season 2 to be disappointing, until the Abrams movie which is generally an improvement over the previous TOS-based films.

    "Modern era" Trek on television, the 24th and 22nd century shows, is a different animal in many respects and it is what it is. I liked a lot of it as I watched it, though to this day I haven't seen all - what, 700 hours? - of it.

    There are only three or four second year TOS episodes that I like as much as the best of the first year shows. There are no first-rate third year stories, IMAO, although there are a few that are good.
     
  19. plynch

    plynch Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Location:
    Outer Graceland
    First half (pre-Gene Coon) of first season is a different beast. More pauses in the dialogue, more shadows, more danger, more isolation (less Starfleet). Like sci fi told via Star Trek. Then it gets chucklier. Then after Amok Time or so, they start grinding out "Star Trek" shows: Kirk and Spock visit the _____ planet.

    Believe it or not I would give Spectre (style and music) and Empath (ethical dilemma) a "first rate" rating from season three, but to each his/her own.

    The movies post-1979 do seem to me to be in keeping with different aspects of the original series, action here (II), lighthearted there (IV), etc. If anything, TMP is a thing unto itself, certainly different feeling from the series. Though I like it as a film.
     
  20. trevanian

    trevanian Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    EMPATH is really a love it/hate it ep for most.

    I had seen every other TOS ep at least five times (some more like 15) when I finally saw EMPATH all the way through, and since that day in 77 or so, it has been my favorite TREK ep, though I probably rewatch DOOMSDAY and BOT and ULTIMATE COMP and MIRROR MIRROR a lot more often.

    I think there are a few very effective 3rd season eps, like DAY OF THE DOVE, but usually there's just something wrong, like nobody around to give it a proper rewrite, or nobody around to just kill the script and go to another one.

    Production value-wise, I actually like a lot of season 3, just for the RP on the bridge and location shoots.