Post 1979 Trek....

[Gary7]

How about this:

My favorite STAR TREK era: 1964-1979


That way the point is made without coming across as "after 1979, there was no Star Trek". You have admitted that Star Trek does exist after 1979. There are episodes in various ST series that you liked. But what you enjoy the most is the pre 1980 era. And that's fine, nothing wrong with that. As T'Bonz stated, it's choosing the tone. Positive on what you like versus negative on what you don't like or believe in.

Unless the underlying preference is to periodically get "WTF" e-mails from people because of that tone, so the point can be reiterated, as in this thread (or this one: "What's keeping me out of the theater...")

 

[gottacook]

As a frequent watcher of TNG first-run, especially during 1991-93, I sometimes couldn't help but marvel at the fact that here I was watching NEW Star Trek episodes, nearly 25 years after I first saw the show (I'd seen about half the third season on NBC first-run as well, age 12).

I mention this because, as much as I liked the films up till then (with the exceptions of TFF and the script and acting of TMP), they didn't have anything like the long-term effect of a TV series, wherein character could be explored at more leisure, and where each story need not be a huge personal crisis for a cast member and/or a threat to Earth itself. (I must be tired of Trek movie plot devices - I haven't bothered to see any Trek film after First Contact; this is not a fact I'm particularly proud or ashamed of, having been preoccupied with raising children since then.) I don't mean to say that all Trek TV series are worthwhile, but TNG at its frequent best certainly was, and so was the occasional stand-alone DS9.

[I'm not quite sure how this thread got onto "The Empath," but that is one of the two episodes I've owned for a long time (on VHS). I recognize that all of the composers who worked on the series were a very important factor in making the show a pleasure to watch in reruns for decades, but among them George Duning is THE MAN. Without his infinitely supple and poignant "Empath" score, that episode would be unwatchable. He produced what must be the longest segment of dialogue-free music ever in any Trek episode, during the fourth-act bringing-McCoy-back-from-the-brink scene.]

 

[EEE]

[
I had seen every other TOS ep at least five times (some more like 15)

Cheer up! You're young. You'll have plenty of time to catch up after we die!

 

[plynch]

How about this:

My favorite STAR TREK era: 1964-1979

That way the point is made without coming across as "after 1979, there was no Star Trek".

I like the provocation. It sure provoked me to think more than if it were just worded as a preference or "favorite." The way it is worded now is like a thesis to be refuted and defended, both of which I have done in my head.

(I would ultimately have to refute though I certainly see the point of the sig., as per my post, above.)

 

[Greylock Crescent]

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.

You do have to realize, though, that your sig is a very clear statement of bias (my own personal bias would probably be slightly in favor of TNG). Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. Anyone reading your posts will know exactly what perspective you're coming from: Namely that you value the best of what Trek had to offer up to '79 and that, in your view, Trek never quite came close to those ideals afterward.

In a sense, I think you're right. There is a very different direction for Trek, post '79. What it boils down to for fans is: Do you like the different direction? Do you think it ever got away from the "heart" of Trek. Your sig provokes the question and, IMO, that's a good thing. Truth in advertising and honesty in point of view are constructive. As long as your posts themselves aren't inherently dismissive of the value of post '79 Trek, I don't see why there should be a problem with either your sig or your bias.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

You do have to realize, though, that your sig is a very clear statement of bias (my own personal bias would probably be slightly in favor of TNG). Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. Anyone reading your posts will know exactly what perspective you're coming from [..]

Yes. But there's a difference; it's not simply a statement, it's a recurring thing; you're essentially saying it to every person over and over again with each post you make.

That makes it more then a simple statement. It's like the child who wants candy.

But then, I'm against signatures of any sort -- they're wholly distracting and unnecessary.

 

[Anwar]

How about this:

My favorite STAR TREK era: 1964-1979

Like you said, it's all in the presentation and whether you want to be condescending or not. Your take on it is much more tolerant, so if that's what Warped9 wants then it works. Personally I like it.

 

[JarodRussell]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek. Things started kicking at this point. And it wasn't that also Roddenberry's opinion, too (like the Klingons were always supposed to have ridges, and post-1979 Star Trek finally had them)?

And since 1979 there has been so much more Star Trek, with much more impact, than the original show. Khan's return (Khan wouldn't be remembered had it not been for TWOK), Spock's death, the destruction of the Enterprise, 21 Seasons of TNG, DS9, VOY. The entire production value was boosted, Star Trek got more serious and more believable with TMP, TWOK and everything that followed.

And then I love how The TOS movies, TNG, DS9 and VOY fit together. It's one consistent, epic, space opera. The story of 4 Starfleet crews over the span of a century exploring the galaxy. Awesome.

TOS from 1966 doesn't fit in there somehow. Every time I've seen the old TOS look in TNG/DS9 I cringed because it looked cheap. But since there are the 6 1/2 TOS movies, and the knowledge that TOS was ALWAYS supposed to look like it did in TMP... yeah, Trek begins with TMP for me. And the original series is the great backstory that, unfortunately, doesn't have the same set design/style.

 

[trevanian]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek. Things started kicking at this point. And it wasn't that also Roddenberry's opinion, too (like the Klingons were always supposed to have ridges, and post-1979 Star Trek finally had them)?

And since 1979 there has been so much more Star Trek, with much more impact, than the original show. Khan's return (Khan wouldn't be remembered had it not been for TWOK), Spock's death, the destruction of the Enterprise, 21 Seasons of TNG, DS9, VOY. The entire production value was boosted, Star Trek got more serious and more believable with TMP, TWOK and everything that followed.

And then I love how The TOS movies, TNG, DS9 and VOY fit together. It's one consistent, epic, space opera. The story of 4 Starfleet crews over the span of a century exploring the galaxy. Awesome.

TOS from 1966 doesn't fit in there somehow. Every time I've seen the old TOS look in TNG/DS9 I cringed because it looked cheap. But since there are the 6 1/2 TOS movies, and the knowledge that TOS was ALWAYS supposed to look like it did in TMP... yeah, Trek begins with TMP for me. And the original series is the great backstory that, unfortunately, doesn't have the same set design/style.

Maybe if you just turned the pic off and LISTENED to TOS you'd get what the other guy is talkin' 'bout. Literally and actually, there is more to TOS than meets the eye, which is WHY it has inspired so much afterbirth (tho only part of DS9 out of all the rest really lives up to it.)

 

[Warped9]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek.

This is amusing really. I mean, c'mon. How can pre '79 Trek not be the real thing? TOS established it all. It is the real deal. You may prefer what came later, but it cannot be any more "real" than the original.

 

[plynch]

The TOS movies AFTER TMP actually seem to be very in keeping with the less cerebral tenor of the network show.

Maybe TMP is really an outlier -- what GR WANTED Trek to be if not network-constrained. More "cerebral" than even The Cage. (I like TMP a lot by the way.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TMP is enormous failed pretension, with some really nice visual stuff.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek.

This is amusing really. I mean, c'mon. How can pre '79 Trek not be the real thing? TOS established it all. It is the real deal. You may prefer what came later, but it cannot be any more "real" than the original.

Well, you could always say TOS had the right idea, but post-TOS actually made those ideas reality.

 

[Sharkey]

TMP is enormous failed pretension

I'm sorry Dennis. Can you clarify that term?

 

[Kelso]

Warped9, I think you should change your sig back and the whiners should grow a thicker skin.

 

[Spider]

Warped9, I also see no reason for you to change your sig, unless you are getting soft in your old age.

At the same time, T'Bonz's post has merit. Probably 80% of what has been produced under the "Star Trek" name I don't like, but I won't be going into those forums to rag on everyone about what they like, and what I dislike. Hell, I don't even like everything about the original series but it still remains my favorite along with the middle years of TNG. After that, well, in keeping with what T'Bonz said, the less said the better on my part.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

You do have to realize, though, that your sig is a very clear statement of bias (my own personal bias would probably be slightly in favor of TNG). Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. Anyone reading your posts will know exactly what perspective you're coming from [..]

Yes. But there's a difference; it's not simply a statement, it's a recurring thing; you're essentially saying it to every person over and over again with each post you make.

That makes it more then a simple statement. It's like the child who wants candy.

I agree that there is a difference -- but I think it's a positive one. The statement itself isn't explicitly offensive. Obviously some do see an implied offense, but I don't see it that way (and I'm much more of a post '79 Trek fan than a pre '79 fan). There's nothing juvenile about it. Rather, I like that the OP's sig clearly defines a point of view. I haven't been here long enough to know the OP's point of view offhand and it's refreshing to know precisely where someone is coming from.

 

[plynch]

Warped9, I think you should change your sig back and the whiners should grow a thicker skin.

yup

 

[trevanian]

TMP is enormous failed pretension

I'm sorry Dennis. Can you clarify that term?

Even differentiating failed pretension from successful pretension would be helpful.

 

[Warped9]

I regard the post-1979 Star Trek as the REAL Star Trek.

This is amusing really. I mean, c'mon. How can pre '79 Trek not be the real thing? TOS established it all. It is the real deal. You may prefer what came later, but it cannot be any more "real" than the original.

Well, you could always say TOS had the right idea, but post-TOS actually made those ideas reality.

You could say that. But I would be very much in disagreement. I think the focus was lost for the most part during the '80s and onward.