All Star Trek Discussion Thread ("Into Darkness" trailer released)

[MetalJunkie]

All they had on the gangster planet was ONE book. And from that, they had the speech patterns, the clothes, CARS, GUNS, the architecture. There's no denying it's a lazy excuse to go cheap on props and costumes.

I wouldn't say it was a lazy excuse.  They had a terrible budget and were forced to go with cheaper avenues. They had to cut all sorts of corners just to keep the show afloat as long as they did. Hell, even the switches on the Enterprise consoles are jelly beans and bottlecaps.

If anything, I'd say they did a hell of a job with the limited means they had.

[El Barto]

I'm only counting internal explanations, not the fact it's an old show that they didn't think anyone would care about in 40 years. If the show has plotholes, it has plotholes. When an entire franchise is built upon a series, I won't give it any leeway. It has far too much to answer for in later series.

Fine.  Then your problem should be with Roddenberry's silly ass predicating his new franchise on something he didn't take seriously to begin with.  TNG was intended to be a new franchise. TOS was supposed to be non-serialized sci-fi. 

And TNG didn't need poor explanations for such blatant period pieces because they had the holodeck and Q to provide any excuses they need.  They both did the exact same thing, TNG just invented a common explanation for it.

[Adami]

How can you say they both did the same thing (not that I agree) but then give one a pass and criticize the other non stop?


Also, I know TOS was never intended to be a franchise and stuff. I don't hold it responsible with inconsistencies with other Star Trek's. I hold it to be responsible for consistency within itself. And it rarely ever provided that.

[BlobVanDam]

I'm only counting internal explanations, not the fact it's an old show that they didn't think anyone would care about in 40 years. If the show has plotholes, it has plotholes. When an entire franchise is built upon a series, I won't give it any leeway. It has far too much to answer for in later series.

Fine.  Then your problem should be with Roddenberry's silly ass predicating his new franchise on something he didn't take seriously to begin with.  TNG was intended to be a new franchise. TOS was supposed to be non-serialized sci-fi. 

And TNG didn't need poor explanations for such blatant period pieces because they had the holodeck and Q to provide any excuses they need.  They both did the exact same thing, TNG just invented a common explanation for it.

That's not the same thing though. It's not just the fact they both had period pieces, it's that when you build an entire episode upon a premise that doesn't work, that affects the entire episode and story.
I'm pretty sure the percentage of times that TOS did period episodes through time travel or planets identical to Earth was a lot higher than TNG anyway. TOS relied on it far too heavily, and it was very noticeable. Later Trek series also used time travel as an excuse to get away with present day stuff, but they just did it a lot better.

Also, I know TOS was never intended to be a franchise and stuff. I don't hold it responsible with inconsistencies with other Star Trek's. I hold it to be responsible for consistency within itself. And it rarely ever provided that.

This, although I still hold it responsible for inconsistencies with other Trek.

[Adami]

All they had on the gangster planet was ONE book. And from that, they had the speech patterns, the clothes, CARS, GUNS, the architecture. There's no denying it's a lazy excuse to go cheap on props and costumes.

I wouldn't say it was a lazy excuse.  They had a terrible budget and were forced to go with cheaper avenues. They had to cut all sorts of corners just to keep the show afloat as long as they did. Hell, even the switches on the Enterprise consoles are jelly beans and bottlecaps.

If anything, I'd say they did a hell of a job with the limited means they had.

I don't hold the show responsible for it's budget. Sweaters for uniforms? I'm fine with that. Virtually no props? I'm fine with that. Bad special effects? Fine with it.

However, bad stories? Budget isn't an excuse. Bad acting? Budget isn't an excuse. Bad directing/writing? Budget isn't an excuse. The fact that each episode only tries to make sense within itself with no concern for other episodes? Not a budget issue.

[El Barto]

How can you say they both did the same thing (not that I agree) but then give one a pass and criticize the other non stop?

First off, I don't criticize TNG non stop.  In fact, as I keep telling you people, my opinion of it has improved a fair amount since I've been rewatching it.  When I see very good episodes, I come here to discuss them.  I don't come here to complain about the terrible ones unless they really outdo themselves; like FOD.

Secondly, I could do that because, despite sharing some of the same issues with nonsensical stories, TOS had interpersonal character development that TNG went far out of their way to avoid.  While I won't argue that TOS had some pretty crappy story concepts, TNG had some pretty crappy characters.  I guess it might come down to whether or not you'd prefer to see generic characters that you can't relate to in a good story, or interesting characters muddling their way through crappy stories.  At least TOS had the occasional great story.  TNG never had a better crew.

[Adami]

What development did TOS really have? Bones, Kirk and Spock argued a lot, but that was about it. Yes, their chemistry was pretty god damn amazing, but did it actually develop in the television show? Is Spock too different in the last episode than he is in the first? Bones started off as a good ol' boy who didn't care much for logic, he ended the show as a good ol' boy who didn't care much for logic. Kirk started off as ladies man who bent the rules to serve his need. He ended the show as a ladies man who bent the rules to serve his needs. I'm not sure what development actually took place. The movies, sure that's different, but the show?


Also TNG had a great deal of development for characters like Data, Worf, Picard, etc. You might personally dislike most TNG characters, but some of them had some real development. Granted none of these shows had the character development of DS9.

[BlobVanDam]

I don't recall any character development in TOS. It only had 3 main characters, and they all remained identical throughout the series. And two of them bugged me endlessly with their narrow minded '60s values (although I like them for the humour value anyway).
TNG had a wider range of characters getting screen time and had a lot of development. Troi was mildly annoying, and Wesley was just a completely shit in every way (and they eventually got rid of him), but aside from that, I don't see any real problem with the crew at all.

[El Barto]

What development did TOS really have? Bones, Kirk and Spock argued a lot, but that was about it. Yes, their chemistry was pretty god damn amazing, but did it actually develop in the television show? Is Spock too different in the last episode than he is in the first? Bones started off as a good ol' boy who didn't care much for logic, he ended the show as a good ol' boy who didn't care much for logic. Kirk started off as ladies man who bent the rules to serve his need. He ended the show as a ladies man who bent the rules to serve his needs. I'm not sure what development actually took place. The movies, sure that's different, but the show?


Also TNG had a great deal of development for characters like Data, Worf, Picard, etc. You might personally dislike most TNG characters, but some of them had some real development. Granted none of these shows had the character development of DS9.

I agree with all of that.  It was chemistry that I was looking for in TOS, rather than development.  And you're correct about the TNG characters developing.  However, they still never became very interesting, and in some cases became worse.  Data and Picard were both very good characters, and actually had some good chemistry between them.  The rest sucked at the beginning, and while they did change, still sucked by the end of it. 

And if you really want to get down to it,  when the show ended Geordi was still blind and couldn't get laid.  Troi was still a whiny cunt.  Worf was still a pussy (though definitely more interesting).  Riker was still an unambitious womanizer.  While their characters were flushed out a bit, their key attributes never really changed.

[Adami]

So outside of some bad characters, your main argument can be boiled down to that no other ST had the same dynamics that kirk, spock and bones had?

I mean, you do indeed have a point. They had gold, and no one else could quite catch that. However it's a shame since the shows offer SO much more and varied things that it'd be a shame to see it mostly as a lack of one thing.

[The King in Crimson]

I'd argue that the O'Brien and Bashir dynamic was much, much better handled than the McCoy, Spock and Kirk dynamic.  Then again, I think the latter only really works all that well in the movies and not in the series.

[Adami]

O'Brien and Bashir were probably one of the best if the not the best relationship in Star Trek, everything worked.


And McCoy and Spock were good in the show too, even in the last episode I watched.

(as they're all about to die)
Spock: It would seem that I was incorrect
McCoy: Well at least I lived long enough to hear that

[El Barto]

So outside of some bad characters, your main argument can be boiled down to that no other ST had the same dynamics that kirk, spock and bones had?

I mean, you do indeed have a point. They had gold, and no one else could quite catch that. However it's a shame since the shows offer SO much more and varied things that it'd be a shame to see it mostly as a lack of one thing.

Not entirely.  My point is that they all had some shitty stories.  Some shitty plot holes.  Some shitty acting.  People act as if 80% of TOS was shit and 80% of TNG was awesome.  I think the episode quality ratio of both is about equal.  In light of that,  I think, as do you apparently, that the K/S/M dynamic adds a great deal to TOS which none of the other shows had.  Comparing a crappy TOS episode with a crappy TNG episode, I give the edge to TOS for that reason.  To me, it's more important than modern special effects and stories that fit into a nice, tidy dogma. 

There's also a very different atmosphere at work between the two.  I'm growing more and more contemptuous of Roddenberry's view of the TNG era.  They're all just so damn wonderful all the time.  It's not as interesting or as entertaining as TOS, where they have a much more wild-West mentality.  They had problems, they had flaws, and there was always something that was looking to kill them.  TNG focused more on interpersonal relationships with people I just don't care for.  His view of the future was so enlightened that they really bore no commonality with us. 

The issue I was referring to about the holodecks being so squeaky clean is a good example of that.  Quark rent's his Vulvan Love Slave shack by the hour for people who get it.  These federation people recreate green pastures so they can read Keats and bask in their own smugness.  These are just not the sort of people I want to have anything to do with.

[rumborak]

I just don't see how you can say TOS and TNG had the same good/bad ratio, unless you impose the artificial constraint to only consider the first three TNG seasons.

Btw, what was that supposed plot hole in The Inner Light? The resurrection of dead characters at the end? Hardly. It emphasized what the culture viewed as a most important feature: the interpersonal bonds.
Without it the episode would have just ended with a rocket launch.
IMHO The Inner Light is one of Star Trek's finest.

rumborak

[Adami]

Obviously Bart is a bit bias against the very nature of TNG and others, so his opinion on the matter is understandable from that perspective. However, to satisfy my own curiosity I am going to look through the episodes of TOS and TNG (the first 3 seasons) and find out the percentage of what I consider to be good to what I consider to be bad.

[rumborak]

I always considered early TNG at its worst when they were just reshooting old TOS episodes, e g. The Naked Now.

rumborak

[Adami]

ST TOS good episodes got 56% of the total episodes..........and that was me being very generous.

ST TNG good episodes got a 86% of the total episodes.




Granted I don't hate much of it by default. I don't care if they get along. I don't mind the holodeck breaking from time to time. I don't hate every character aside of Picard and Data. I don't hate Q and so forth. So I have a feeling Barts numbers will be very different.

[rumborak]

Watching These Are The Voyages right now (I had watched it before). One thing I noticed, other than that Riker and Troi look as if they partied for 5 days, is that apparently they didn't have the original TNG set anymore. looks close but not the real thing.

rumborak

[Adami]

Watching These Are The Voyages right now (I had watched it before). One thing I noticed, other than that Riker and Troi look as if they partied for 5 days, is that apparently they didn't have the original TNG set anymore. looks close but not the real thing.

rumborak

Not familiar with that episode. Enterprise ends with Terra Prime.


Got it?

[El Barto]

I just don't see how you can say TOS and TNG had the same good/bad ratio, unless you impose the artificial constraint to only consider the first three TNG seasons.

Btw, what was that supposed plot hole in The Inner Light? The resurrection of dead characters at the end? Hardly. It emphasized what the culture viewed as a most important feature: the interpersonal bonds.
Without it the episode would have just ended with a rocket launch.
IMHO The Inner Light is one of Star Trek's finest.

rumborak

It's perfectly reasonable to only compare TNG's first three seasons.  Everybody would agree that the show was better after it got it's traction.   It's also entirely possible that if the 1960's era Roddenberry thought he'd get an automatic 6-8 year run, like the 80's version, there might have been significant development with the characters.  He certainly had no qualms about growing them a great deal with the first few movies.  Maybe I'll tally up the poor, average, great episodes of both shows later.  I think most of both series were mediocre.  Some dogs and some great ones mixed in. 


I hit on the problem with Inner Light a couple of times in the last two pages.  I still think it was a great episode.  I just think they tacked on the neat and tidy ending when it wasn't necessary.  Picard could have died of old age shortly after the rocket launch surrounded by his family, woken up on the bridge, and then pieced everything together.  Maybe there's a helpful plaque in the probe that says "Historical Marker:  On this date in 2164. . ."  Would have been more dramatic and wouldn't have raised questions that didn't need raising. 

[rumborak]

Watching These Are The Voyages right now (I had watched it before). One thing I noticed, other than that Riker and Troi look as if they partied for 5 days, is that apparently they didn't have the original TNG set anymore. looks close but not the real thing.

rumborak

Not familiar with that episode. Enterprise ends with Terra Prime.


Got it?

But damn seriously, what were they thinking. Trip's death is so contrived.

rumborak

[Adami]

As Rumbo pointed out, TNG at its worst was essentially TOS take 2.

Also it at least attempted to preserve consistency and logic, while TOS essentially said screw it.

Time warp? Shields referred to as Screens? Few days journey to the edge of the Galaxy and back? Warp like...14 or whatever? Phasers suddenly being the same as Torpedo's? Time Travel whenever they felt like it? James R. Kirk?

[El Barto]

Sure it did.  All available at memory-alpha.

First off, shields are screens, and the terms are interchangeable.  It's even in the freaking definition.  "Deflector shields or screens, generally referred to simply as shields, were a type of force field that surrounds a starship, space station, or planet to protect against enemy attacks or natural hazards."  I'm betting you heard Picard and Riker call them screens at some point or another. 

Picard referred to warp speed breakaway himself.  Just because they didn't do it in an episode doesn't mean they don't recognize it as legitimate in canon. 

Warp speed is made up.  Therefore, it's technically TNG that fucked up the canon with that.  They opted to blow off established canon because warp 10 maximum sounded cooler than warp 17.9.  They explained this away by recalibrating the scale.  Their decision, not TOS's. 

The galaxy is very wide, flat at the edges and bulbous in the middle.  Nobody ever said they were exiting the edges.  And in another instance of latter programming blowing off inconvenient canon, Voyager was fairly nonsensical in relation to other established galactic dimensions.  Fifty thousand light years would have still been within the Alpha quadrant, according to their own charts.

The phasers and torpedoes thing is valid.  Chalk that one up to Desilu for being tight.  You should throw in Romulans using Klingon ships while you're at it. 

And this is me being through with being a Star Trek nerd.  I feel like Comic Book Guy, and don't much care for it.  We prefer different era's, most likely based on what we grew up watching.  That's that. 

[Adami]

Actually (with regard with maximum warp) TOS already declared in one episode that warp 8 was pushing their engines to the max.

And the whole "I assume Picard did it too" doesn't hold water. I never heard him do it. But that doesn't matter much.

They reached the edge of the galaxy, they said so themselves. Not sure how else to interpret it.


EDIT: With your last point, I agree. I've said something similar a few times. Yet I'm pretty your repressed man crush on me keeps you coming back. And I can't blame you. When I look in the mirror sometimes I argue Star Trek with myself.

[El Barto]

Which edge?  The one at the top of the bulbous part, or the far edge of the disk?

As for warp speed, 1701D had more than their fair shares of pushing things passed the safe engine limit.  Just like in TOS, it was always somebody onboard making it happen.  Weirdo traveller that's hot for Wesley or Andromedans trying to get home.  That's a constant in any show.  Assigning it the arbitrary number is TNG's fault.  I don't think you can fault TOS for blowing off canon because TNG changes it 30 years later. 

[chknptpie]

Picture from TNG panel!

[Adami]

I saw the big cast reunion one. It was really great (at least on youtube) to see them all together again. They really seem to like one another.

But Brent Spiner's intense dislike of Star Trek is still funny.

"So Brent, do you think we need a reboot of ST TNG?"
"It depends who you by we..............WE (pointing at himself) don't!.......they (points at audience) might"

[Adami]

Watching the episode where Kirk is tried for the death of a crewman (Because the other dozens of death weren't important?)

Spock just referred to himself as, and I quote "Vulcanian".

[El Barto]

While discussing TNG with my brother over a couple of bowls, I figured out the source of my objection to those guys and Roddenberry's vision of the future.  The fundamental problem is that they've all evolved past any interest in vice.  This creates two problems.  One, it makes them inherently uninteresting, particularly to a person such as myself who considers the ability to responsibly (and occasionally recklessly) engage in vice to be a healthy, redeeming quality.  I don't expect them to be hedonists, the TOS guys certainly weren't, but at least some healthy interest in having a good time, which they seem to equate almost entirely to exploration.  The other problem with them is that they're condescending assholes about it.  They're very clear that they're better than we are and we all suck.  I find that rather insulting. 

They play poker with chips even though they have no concept of money.  No risk, no reward.  They drink whiskey and beer with no alcohol.  If these guys are so advanced, then why didn't they just find a way to mitigate the problematic effects and let people catch the occasional buzz to unwind?  The only time they really have any interest in getting laid for the sake of just getting laid is when they're under the "deleterious effects" of something that was completely beyond their control.  Actually, Riker seems to be the one guy with a healthy interest in the ladies, which suddenly gives me a reason to like him.  Even still,  he's a little too virtuous about it.  Ever see any fat people in the federation?  With the exception of pride, do you ever see any of the 7 vices portrayed by somebody here without him being characterized as a crazy person that has to be dealt with immediately?

Really, these people are no longer human.

Coincidentally, I've just realized why Andy is so fond of the Star Trek universe.  They're exactly what he strives to be. 

[Adami]

I get your objections, they make total sense. I guess we'll agree to disagree (again).


I still really think you should watch Battlestar Galactica (the remake). They drink, they smoke, they do drugs, they lie, they cheat, they steal. There are mutinies, rebellions, suicide bombings, coupes, executions, genocide etc. You'll love it.

Plus it's the greatest Sci-Fi show in history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvYVR6XXsHA

[El Barto]

Not looking to pick a fight with you, but I am curious which part of that you disagree with.  That they're uninterested in vice, that they're condescending about it, or that vice is an important quality that they suffer for lacking?

And BS is high on my list of things to get into. 

[Adami]

Not looking to pick a fight with you, but I am curious which part of that you disagree with.  That they're uninterested in vice, that they're condescending about it, or that vice is an important quality that they suffer for lacking?

And BS is high on my list of things to get into.

I don't need my tv show people to be the kind of person I am or people I see around me. I personally don't drink, don't smoke, don't gamble, don't sleep around (well, in theory), and have a high standard of morality and ethics. So I am fine with TNG people being the way they are. But you and I are very different people. I see a culture that has evolved beyond those things and I look at it as something positive and so forth. You see it differently.

I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right or that I'm wrong and you're right. Although I'm right.

I'm just saying your vision of the future differs from mine. It feels weird typing it since you already associated people who like it with Andy (which was a low blow dude). And they are a little condescending of it. But it doesn't bother me since I'm not the kind of person to whom they are being condescending.

[El Barto]

As a future shrink, don't you see some benefit to the id, which they seem to be completely lacking?

[Adami]

As a future shrink, don't you see some benefit to the id, which they seem to be completely lacking?

lol I'm not looking at it as a future therapist.

[rumborak]

Yeah EB, while your criticisms are completely justified, I agree with Adami that however there *was* at least a vision. Most modern SciFi is just the usual vice&crime that might as well play in Brooklyn. Roddenberry envisioned a society where we had moved past the things that so routinely destroy us. His execution might have been unbelievable and clumsy, but the idea of it is what draws TNG fans to it.

Besides, TNG wasn't always as squeaky clean as you make it out to be. Chain of Command being a perfect example.

rumborak