Pardon the pun, but I think there's more than enough room in the franchise, for "the best of both worlds". You don't have to completely sacrifice one for the other.
Your Opinion: Is "Star Trek" Better or Worse Without Gene Roddenberry?
- Thread starter Moviefan2k4
- Start date
No one is saying that is the case, but it's clear some prefer one over the other. Some hard core Trek fans prefer cerebral stories, some casual fans prefer mindless action.
Variety is the spice of life. It's good to have options m
I’m not so sure. I’m pretty certain Gene would have despised the light and comedic tone of SNW. It’s one of the reasons Gene Coon parted ways with Trek, he brought a lot of humour to his tenure and Roddenberry hated that and wanted a more serious tone and formality among the crew.
Yes and no. First Contact, 2009 Trek and into darkness all have a place in Star Trek. I suppose what I really don't like is the unrelentingly dark Treks. Or the ones that end badly. Or the ones that just plain are poor quality. It's not purely a black and white opinion, as Star Trek itself should never be. I'm out and about right now so a more detailed answer will be provided later on.
So...Balance of Terror is out for you?
Last edited:
By 1982 Roddenberry was more an albatross than a flying eagle and by Season 3 of TNG we was shoved aside so that Berman - for all his many flaws - could run the franchise. And we're better off for it. Gene had his day, but by the 1980s those glory years were behind him.
Do you find Balance of Terror unrelentingly dark?
42.
Unrelentingly? No. That would be more Deep Space Nine at times, but not really my experience with other Treks. But, Balance of Terror did not end happy. It was, and still is, one of the episodes that hits me the deepest, moves me the most, and ends the most tragically.
ETA: Whoops, failed to include the second part of the quote I felt was relevant. Edited.
Last edited:
A DS9/baseball reference, or something else?
Something completely different.
Douglas Adams?
Yeah, Balance of Terror certainly is not an upbeat episode at all. Impending war is looming over everyone's heads for the entire thing and it ends with a woman being widowed.
AND Kirk not having any real comforting words to tell her, wandering off down the corridor almost shellshocked himself.
Balance of Terror is an individual episode of a largely optimistic series. You could also ask me if the Season 1 and 2 finales of Strange New Worlds were no-goes for me. Truth is, when it comes to the shows, I judge them based on their collective whole, and not based on specific episodes. If it helps, Balance of Terror is not one of my favorite TOS episodes, but it doesn't affect my love for TOS because there is also The Trouble With Tribbles. Another thing to take away from all of this is that there are exceptions to every rule.
EDIT: As an added thought, Balance of Terror prevented a war. Deep Space Nine actually went to war. THAT is the biggest difference between "Gene's Trek's" and the others, IMO.
I suppose that illustrates the exception, given the sheer number of wars that happened in TNG.
I am so glad storytelling-wise that DS9 went to war with the Dominion. It helped make that series one of the best in the entire franchise.
Similar threads
