I've always hated the idea of "hard-core Trek" as if it was some kind of quantifiable thing. It's like saying one lake is wetter than another.
Rumor: ‘Star Trek 3′ to Feel Like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy
- Thread starter xavier
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Star Trek is closer to fantasy than science fiction. It just has more science sounding words to make it have the appearance of realism.
For example:
"The Force"
vs.
"Quantum Flux Inversion Field"
"I've never heard of a differential magnetomer. How does it work?"
--Jadzia Dax
Star Trek in a nutshell.
--Jadzia Dax
Star Trek in a nutshell.
A
Amaris
Guest
Bingo.
Never would have been able to place this quote had I not rewatched its episode today.
Agreed.
I watched "Battle Lines" recently as well. I wouldn't have thought of the quote if I hadn't. I decided to finally watch DS9 again for the first time in many years. I'm finding getting through season 1 to be ... difficult.
A
Amaris
Guest
I'm a Niner, but the first few seasons are my favorite. Once the Dominion War got rolling, I still enjoyed the series, but it lost that "on the edge of the frontier" feel for me.
Same. Last time I watched it through was 2010, and before that was essentially when I was a kid and it was new. I had the same problem with S1 and early S2 back then, but it reasserted myself as my favorite show ever later on, so I'm excited to go forward.
Santa, while I obviously disagree with that, I can see where you're coming from. I prefer the feeling of 4-7 for sure, but it's definitely a different one, especially from 5 onward.
A
Amaris
Guest
It does feel different. I think it's because Sisko shaved his head.
I do want to stress that I still like seasons 4-7, they're just not as much my favorite as the first three seasons. I did love it when they got the Defiant. That was cool! Otherwise, I much preferred the earlier seasons.
Oh, I still loved Ezri, too. Oh, and the Kira/Odo relationship was so sweet (I'm a hopeless romantic!). So there's still lots to love later on. In short, when DS9 pops up on TV, I'm a happy camper regardless of season.
I'm amused by the concept that kids do not understand Star Trek. I was 8 when I first saw "Let this be your last battlefield" and understood the aspects of racism just fine.
Similarly, the themes running through 09 and ID are as prescient and relevant as what I felt at 8 years old, both the sense of adventure as well as the underlying commentary.
The idea that explosions are only for kids and that in order for Star Trek to be Star Trek is must be Shakespearean in its depth and verboseness is limiting, in my opinion. There is obviously a healthy balance to be struck between the tone of TMP and Nemesis, but one is not more Trek or less Trek because it has more action or less action.
Similarly, the themes running through 09 and ID are as prescient and relevant as what I felt at 8 years old, both the sense of adventure as well as the underlying commentary.
The idea that explosions are only for kids and that in order for Star Trek to be Star Trek is must be Shakespearean in its depth and verboseness is limiting, in my opinion. There is obviously a healthy balance to be struck between the tone of TMP and Nemesis, but one is not more Trek or less Trek because it has more action or less action.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yes, this. I got into Star Trek when I was 4. I fully understood what I was watching by the time TNG began airing (I was born in 80). It really wasn't that difficult to grasp. Why do some people make it seem like Trek is high art? Yes, it has laudable ideas, some strong concepts, but too complex for children it is not. It's a science fiction TV show, not the entrance exam for MENSA.
Probably the only issue that any TOS episode addressed effectively, for me.
Exactly and it would not have tried to be back then when families usually still shared one TV and before the internet wa widely available shows had to try to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, hence kid appeal characters like Wesley or Boxey from the original BSG in shows where they didn't really fit into.
I am not 100% sure but I think I read somewhere that part of the reason Chekov was introduced in TOS was to appeal to the female teenage demographic. Is that true?
He was introduced for the younger demographics. Originally, he was to be English, but Roddenberry made him Russian to recognize the fact that the Russians were the first in space.
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Pavel_Chekov#Background
Yes, from what I have read in Koening's autobiography. His hair was also a wig originally, for test shoots, and a more Beetles' look was selected, again, to appeal to the younger crowd.
I tell you what, the writers of SF should go back and read Heinlein's young adult books to understand how to get children to enjoy science fiction. It hardly has to be a Star Wars retread to work
Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun movie, good for what it was. But its appeal is not compatible with Star Trek's. I wish Paramount would realize fun and smart are not mutually exclusive.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep. Shows like Star Trek had something for everyone: cool space battles, mystery, intrigue, exploration, comedy, and drama. That's why its appeal is so broad. Star Trek isn't about only a select few understanding its story, it's appeal is that everyone got a chance to see themselves in the show, and having fun with that concept.
Masiral already answered that question, but yes. It is true.
You don't see a ressemblance already ?
It's okay, we British got a suave supervillain 50 years later.
Similar threads
