Spoilers Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1x03 – “Vitus Reflux”
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Nitpicking the nitpick: She's a Ni'Var of Romulan descent.
I do appreciate that even the Barry Atwater Surak is a recreation of a Vulcan who lived almost 2,000 years earlier, so even the gold standard for Vulcan austerity and calm is a projected replica.
I could be mistaken, but I believe I've read that that's what will be addressed next week.
I remember it being the first one I enjoyed from beginning to end, and thinking that it was the first time they didn't seem to be looking over their shoulders at TOS for cues. It was a show that didn't fit the original Star Trek's format.
And then had to hear the haters at conventions dismiss it as "a rip-off of 'Piece of the Action'" because, you know, wardrobe.
Except that, to go all in-universe (which I cordially dislike, at best), we never saw Surak or Kahless or Lincoln - just what Spock and Kirk imagined those people to be like. Spock's got an idealized notion of Surak? No way!
"Where No One Has Gone Before" first made me really involved with TNG, and "The Conspiracy" was the first TNG episode to make me bite my nails ... but the first time I realized I no longer considered TNG a mere filler as long as there were no TOS re-runs must have been in the middle of season 2, "A Matter of Honor" and "The Measure of a Man".
She's a Romulan.
They got anything to say about racist, ageist, sexist and homophobic "fans"? The kind who couldn't find the core ideas of Star Trek with a compass and a map?There are some very good and perspicacious observations in this Reddit post:
Are We All Too Cynical for Star Trek?
The franchise’s evolution since the 1960s reflects disconcerting trends in American society.www.thebulwark.com
Last edited:
Here we go..
It's not Spock that convinced everyone the Vulcans were Elrond. It was Spock and his father. Who even at their most feuding were both portrayed as greatly admirable individuals.
So much so that the jerk elves are considered mostly a product of ENTERPRISE and very controversial.
A lot of fans sided with the Vulcans against Archer whenever the latter was supposed to make a big speech about how the Vulcans were holding us back.
True: Mark Lenard did a fantastic job of conveying Sarek's gravitas and dignity, despite all his problematic behavior in "Journey to Babel": shunning his son over his choice of career, hiding his medical condition from his wife, etc.
And, unfortunately, we had a lot more experience with Spock, than Sarek or T'Pau, who present as far more isolationist, and arrogant than Spock would at times. The Vulcans were always aloof and dismissive of humanity and other races, but Spock gets the lion shared of the lift of the positive perception of Vulcans, as well as Tuvok.
Not to mention Saavik.
Valeris was a prominent Vulcan pre-2001 and ENT that soured some fans on the species, but she was still engaging and interesting enough to be a good character that could effectively help drive a story.
Klingons were described as members in the 26th century. But they likely left the Federation after the Burn or maybe even earlier there's centuries of stories sat there for the telling
On the Zoom call, I think I stated that the freedom of streaming to be R-Rated causes the showrunners to be less creative.
My example being it would have been infinitely funnier if instead of flipping off the cadets, the Romulan had given the sarcastic Vulcan salute or some other alien hand gesture.
My example being it would have been infinitely funnier if instead of flipping off the cadets, the Romulan had given the sarcastic Vulcan salute or some other alien hand gesture.
It would not.
Incongruity is what makes a bit like that funny. What you suggest would be mildly ironic to the nerdy minority that even caught it.
Can you give me a concrete example of double standards.
A concrete example of a type of story (like silly episodes) or plot elements (like immature characters) that people liked in classic Star Trek but hate in NuTrek.
1) Please don't say "Tapestry".
"Tapestry" is one of the most liked TNG episode. The immaturity of fresh academy graduates is a core element in the episode. But people don't like "Tapestry" because of the immaturity of the characters. Same thing for "The First Duty".
If the argument is: "In two of the most liked TNG episodes, immature fresh academy graduates and immature cadets are a core element. Let's make an entire show about immature cadets! Why do people not like our show about immature cadets?"
Then the analysis of why people like these TNG episodes is completely wrong.
2) Classic Star Trek had silly episodes (Qpid). People always called out silly episodes in classic Star Trek. The average fan of classic Star Trek doesn't like TNG because of Qpid.
Where are the fans who like classic Star Trek because of the silly episodes (Qpid, If Wishes Were Horses) but now don't like NuTrek because of its silliness?
Last edited:
Exactly. They could have done kissing noises with their lips while wagging the salute at them or something. Not sure why
You know, this might be the core of my issue with STA. It's not clever. By the numbers characters, by the numbers episodes, unclever humor and muddled writing. I've yet to see anything I haven't seen done better elsewhere.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
