Which is "YOUR" Star Trek?

[Locutus of Bored]

The one with the spaceships and the aliens.

Since I was forced to choose only one, I chose TNG, since it's what I grew up on along with the TOS movies, and those are the two crews I feel most affectionate for. Though DS9 is my favorite all around series.

But I find things to enjoy in all the series and movies to varying degrees, so I wouldn't exclude any.

 

[publiusr]

TAS for me. There seemed to be no limits…

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

TAS now has 100% more votes than Lower Decks, Picard and the TNG movies!

 

[aj1981]

My first memories of Star Trek were repeats of TOS on BBC2 around 1986 when I was 5 that brought me into the this fantastic universe but overall its a very close call between DS9 and TNG for "My Trek" with DS9 just winning.

TNG was a staple of Wednesday tea times but DS9 came along during my teen years and I fell in love with rich stories and fantastic acting. The layered characters and allegories of real world events created a detailed world plus shone a brighter light onto existing races such as the Klingons, Ferengi, Cardassians and even the Romulans more than TNG ever did. Unlike TNG, actions had consequences and I've always preferred the serialised approach.

My teens were not a pleasant time for me as my mum had very severe health issues, was seriously bullied at school and in later life found I have high functioning autism and ADHD which made life difficult. Trek (and wrestling) became my safe space and I'm very emotionally connected to it as a result.

I'm grateful to have grown up during the first runs of these great shows and now I get to share Trek with my sons who are also autistic (how I found out about myself). My eldest son adores TOS, TNG and VOY (in that order) but steadfastly refuses to watch DS9 as "its too dark". He doesn't care for Discovery, Picard or Lower Decks but is massively looking forward to Strange New Worlds. My youngest loves TNG but his favourite is Prodigy due to his love of animation and I'll admit I've enjoyed it immensely alongside him.

 

[at Quark's]

I would guess most people's trek would be the Trek they saw first, or at least, in a formative period of their life. It is for me, at least.

For example, I've never really been able to get into TOS. It's from an era before I was born (1973) ; an era therefore with role patterns essentially alien to me. Too 'cowboy' style for this European. Scenes are spun out too long, too hammy and 'dramatic' sometimes for my tastes. Many concepts that are trivial now must have been revolutionary back then, but I can't see them with a fresh eye. In short, I can't really enjoy it when I watch it -and I've tried many times-, even though I can recognise its quality.

Grew up with TNG. Initially my favorite series, in retrospect I think it is a bit bland; too upright and limited.

I guess DS9 is my Star Trek. Much in the same vein as TNG, but without the limitations I listed there.

Voyager: Sometimes enjoyable, healthy dose of humor, but also with serious issues. Lacking on character development and focusing too much on the 'big three' in later years. In the earlier years they at least tried to be original, and I regret they dropped so many issues (resource scarcity, conflict between the crews) from that era so easily.

ENT: mixed bag. I liked seeing an 22nd Alpha Quadrant very different from the 'federation home quadrant'. Season 1 and 2 were perhaps too episodic and 'light' (would have liked to see more on earth's political development and the situation leading up to the foundation of the Federation), and perhaps Season 3 was too 'heavy' (all that expanse stuff going on without many 'lighter' episodes in between). I think season 4 struck the balance just right - when we really started seeing developments that would lead to the formation of the Federation. Regrettably, it was canceled at that point, just as the series started to become good.

DIS: I enjoyed the seasons I saw, as a series in its own right. Still have difficulty fitting it into the Trek framework, however.
PIC: have only seen one season and it was too dystopian for me. However, only having seen that one season, I'd like to suspend judgement for now.

Haven't seen the remaining series.

 

[CoveTom]

TNG. No question.

It was my "coming of age" series, debuting when I was 11 and ending when I was 18. It was the series I watched religiously, week after week. And although many people feel it hasn't aged well, I still love it every time I go back to it.

Also, if we want to get into the weeds a bit, I still love the production style and values of TNG. I know many people find things to deride about it. But the set design, the lighting, the costume design, etc. All of it appeals to me more than any other Trek show does. And even though the lack of CGI limited what they could do, it was the last Trek series to really rely almost entirely on models and motion control, and I still love that style of visual effects. And although there are some exceptions, I think the TNG cast has the most talented actors of any Trek cast.

Plus, I still like the episodic, "adventure of the week" format. Not everything has to be serialized with complex plot arcs. Kinda excited that Strange New Worlds is going back in that direction.

 

[JN2849]

Roddenberry/Berman Star Trek is real Star Trek. TOS and TNG are what immediately comes to mind when I think of Star Trek, but really everything from this era belongs together.

JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot are nothing but cultural vandals.

 

[Mage]

All of it.

Next.

 

[JesterFace]

@CoveTom
Interesting that we share so much opinions about TNG.

the set design, the lighting, the costume design, etc. All of it appeals to me more than any other Trek show does. And even though the lack of CGI limited what they could do, it was the last Trek series to really rely almost entirely on models and motion control, and I still love that style of visual effects.

Agreed.

You mentioned some say TNG hasn't aged well, but you said it has aged well. I agree.

I think the episodic nature of the series is much better than some major plot that is in every episode.
But, there's also something continuing in TNG if one wants to find it, from 'Encounter at Farpoint' to 'All Good Things...', the trial on humanity.

I sound like a TNG fanboi with this kind of post but.... what's wrong with that.

 

[Orphalesion]

But the set design, the lighting, the costume design, etc. All of it appeals to me more than any other Trek show does.

I actually agree with this too. And I think it was a big part that drew me to it. TNG is just a very pleasant looking show. The ship is the only one that actually looks like it was designed and built for long-time habitation. A lot, if not most of the utensils and objects that are shown manage to look sufficiently exotic to be from the future without looking silly (and without just using boring completely 2020s looking stuff and claiming some total BS nonsese about how object designs supposedly don't change over the centuries...PIC!) and I'm also a huge fan of most of the civilian clothes, it all just combines into a universe that looks believable, sufficiently alien and very consistent in design, colours, shapes, lighting, interior design...everything.

Though I also suspect the 80s aesthetic helping making it look "alien" to me, since I wasn't around for the 80s :-P

 

[F. King Daniel]

Roddenberry/Berman Star Trek is real Star Trek. TOS and TNG are what immediately comes to mind when I think of Star Trek, but really everything from this era belongs together.

JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot are nothing but cultural vandals.

Wow this post brought those 2010's memories flooding back!

I'd say something about the rampant sexism, homophobia and other flaws of Roddenberry/Berman Trek but I fear those into such namecalling might not take too well to their nostaliga being questioned. To say nothing of the light it may shed upon their personal beliefs.

 

[Farscape One]

Wow this post brought those 2010's memories flooding back!

I'd say something about the rampant sexism, homophobia and other flaws of Roddenberry/Berman Trek but I fear those into such namecalling might not take too well to their nostaliga being questioned. To say nothing of the light it may shed upon their personal beliefs.

So if someone said they don't like Burnham or Janeway as a captain, but prefer Kirk or Archer, they are sexist? If someone prefers Picard over Sisko or Burnham, they are racist? If someone prefers Bashir/Ezri over Stamets/Culber, they are homophobic?

That kind of closed-minded thinking is exactly why so many people don't like liberals in general.

 

[1001001]

So if someone said they don't like Burnham or Janeway as a captain, but prefer Kirk or Archer, they are sexist? If someone prefers Picard over Sisko or Burnham, they are racist? If someone prefers Bashir/Ezri over Stamets/Culber, they are homophobic?

That kind of closed-minded thinking is exactly why so many people don't like liberals in general.

Let’s drop the political insults. Save them for the appropriate forums.

 

[Lord Garth]

Roddenberry/Berman Star Trek is real Star Trek. TOS and TNG are what immediately comes to mind when I think of Star Trek, but really everything from this era belongs together.

The '60s and '90s are two very different eras. All the way around.

If you really want to divide up Star Trek by production regimes, it should go:
1. Roddenberry (TOS up to TMP)
2. Bennett/Meyer (from TWOK to TUC at least one of them was always involved)
3. Latter-Day Roddenberry (really TNG Seasons 1-2 but could go up to his death)
4. Berman (1989 or 1991 up to 2005)
5. Abrams (the films since 2009)
6. Kurtzman (the streaming series)

 

[Farscape One]

Wasn't trying to be insulting, but automatically assuming a person's personal beliefs based on their favorite era of STAR TREK is insulting.

I'll rephrase...

Assuming homophobia, racism, etc. based solely on their favorite era is closed-minded, and says more about YOU than the person offering their view on what their favorite era is.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I was just matching the "cultural vandals" energy

 

[fireproof78]

I'm trying to figure out what a cultural vandal is? And how does one vandalize Star Trek?

 

[Farscape One]

I've never even heard of that phrase until now. I'm not really sure what that even means.

 

[JN2849]

I've never even heard of that phrase until now. I'm not really sure what that even means.

You may not have heard the phrase, but you’re certainly familiar with the its rampant practice. Cultural vandalism is a natural outgrowth of iconoclasm. Cultural vandal is a noun, and refers to those who practice cultural vandalism.

It’s a touchy subject, so I won’t pursue it any further in this forum, but there are readily available definitions for all of this stuff if one is so inclined to learn more.

 

[Kor]

The concept of cultural vandalism has to do with destruction of objects of cultural/historical significance. Apparently the term has been co-opted in recent years to refer to an entertainment property being taken by new production staff in any direction that the individual using the term does not personally like.
...Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever because the original works are still intact.

But anyway, TOS is my Star Trek for many reasons. The remote 'frontier' feel that later Trek never quite nailed down, the sleek minimalist aesthetic, the heart and the characters, the fascinating themes that were explored. Then there was its relation to the literary science fiction of the time. To me, the best literary SF was from the 50s to the early 70s. Also as something of a cinematography enthusiast, I find the filmic look of TOS to be quite gorgeous. And perhaps the thing that draws me to TOS most is the fact that it's a product from before my time, which automatically makes it much, much more compelling than the vast majority of the slop from my generation.

Kor