Yeah but they're not supposed to be LCD screens like the ENT ones, they're meant to be part of the amazing futuristic computers and are just very obviously CRT's recessed into the wall in a way that shows way more obviously on modern TVs.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
You cannot fault a thing for its time. Tech is moving so fast any more. We went 50 years on old CRT TVs, with in ten of HD we had digital HD, Ultra HD and so forth. Flat screens get constantly flatter and now they roll up. You cannot keep up with it.
It's people in PJs pretending to be in space, enjoy the story.
Note that Picard's computer talks all the time, KIrk's computer talks on special occasions, Archer's computer doesn't say a word, but understands speech...
They don't have a talking computer but they have the UT which is basically a computer that repeats what you're saying in another language...
Thanks
I'm a big fan of Robert Heinlein. "Farmer In The Sky" was the very first science fiction book I ever read when I was six or seven and it blew me away with it's descriptions of Jupiter and its moons.
The National Library Services for the Blind has that Patterson bio of Heinlein in audiobook form but I haven't gotten around to listening to it yet.
Robert
DSC recreated the desktop computers with datatape slots from TOS but since those look comparatively bulky by today's standards they made them a screen you look down at while retaining the slot to insert a duotronic tape. Although they largely recreated the three-sided desktop viewer from TOS in "The Trouble With Edward(SHO)" with few changes other than adding little grill details to the inside of each screen's surrounding cowl.
I am not a big fan of the godlike creatures in general, I think they're kind of a cheat. Q for example can do anything he wants, or undo for that matter. In the finale, he could run three contradicting timelines without any question of coherence or consistency. But that's a very early flaw in the franchise, the second pilot after all was about a man who spontaneously turns into a god.
DS9 is the worst Trek series.
That was far less controversial when it first came out. Like green slime, it grew on people.
Basher in 1970: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! Fred Freiberger is the Devil!"
Basher in 1995: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! Rick Berman is the Devil!"
Basher in 2020: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! Alex Kurtzman is the Devil!"
Basher in 2045: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! The current Executive Producer is the Devil!"
This is what 2045 is going to look like. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention to how these things unfold. This also, effectively, makes Current Trek no different than any other Star Trek that's come out since 1968.
"But this time it's different!" Nope. Actually, it's not.
Basher in 1995: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! Rick Berman is the Devil!"
Basher in 2020: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! Alex Kurtzman is the Devil!"
Basher in 2045: "Gene Roddenberry is my Hero! The current Executive Producer is the Devil!"
This is what 2045 is going to look like. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention to how these things unfold. This also, effectively, makes Current Trek no different than any other Star Trek that's come out since 1968.
"But this time it's different!" Nope. Actually, it's not.
Last edited:
No producer of Trek has ever been a "hero" to me. Just someone with a really cool vision of television and movie science fiction that grabbed my attention and held it. The more you learn about some of the people who helped create Trek since 1964 the less you want to idolize them as people and just appreciate the universe they and others managed to cobble together over the decades and just accept that - in real life just as inside the Trek universe - flawed people can come together to create amazing things and leave it at that.
Nobody complained about Freiberger in 1970. Most people never heard of him. Gerrold kind of made him a scapegoat a few years later in 73.
All this "things never change / history repeats itself / what has happened before will happen again" is faux profundity, usually gassily unobservant.
All this "things never change / history repeats itself / what has happened before will happen again" is faux profundity, usually gassily unobservant.
Sour Grapes look good on you.
He should. He acted like a total asshole towards everyone when Star Trek was going his way during the ENT and Kelvin Years. The way he treated people who had an opinion different from his? The way he harassed other posters?
He's getting exactly what he deserves with how much he "actively dislikes" the current output. Karma's a bitch.
"You keep using that phrase..." etc.
Always very satisfied by your responses, though.
You should at least charge rent.
FWIW, Star Trek is going my way now. What I've seen of Lower Decks is fine. Picard was enjoyable. Loved the last three Star Trek movies. Looking forward to SNW. On balance, Kurtzman's done a decent job for 12 years or so, given that he doesn't care all that much about the property as such. The fact that STD is narratively awful, and really a pretty poor excuse for a modern TV series given the resources that the studio pours into it is, you know, c'est la guerre. But there's no reason not to say it.
Last edited:
His importance waned as early as 1981. Had TNG not been launched he'd have probably remained in the back seat and pretending to drive.
Similar threads
- Locked
