re: So wait - there's another crappy Star Trek movie coming out?

quote:

---

Yet the last one, made more the the first five combined.

---

Inflation, dude, and Wrath will be fondly remembered long after Darkness has faded completely.

quote:

---

But Star Trek never truly had the vibe of a Western (for example, as Star Wars and Firefly did). It was always more of a smart, extended Twilight Zone episode rather than a scifi environment with traditional western themes.

---

Firefly, I'll agree 1000% percent. Star Wars? It's always seemed much more WWII than Western to me.

I definitely got the Western feel from Star Trek, but I can definitely see the stories being analogous of Twilight Zone as well (Kohms & Yangs, anyone?).

quote:

---

Star Wars? It's always seemed much more WWII than Western to me.

---

No idea where WWII is coming from - you have a boy out in a frontier town - bad guys come and kill his people, so he leaves everything to go fight them.

If anything, Star Wars is more fantasy than scifi, in vibe - "the Force" as a religion - with magical abilities. Not much contemplating the meaning of humanity or our place in the universe - the science fiction elements are just the structure around which to tell fairly simplistic stories (although Star Wars and Empire did so very well).

Very much like Star Trek is in the Abrams era - action beat, special effects, pause - nothing is learned, relationships aren't strengthened, the universe, rather than being explored or explained, it hung like a black light poster for effect.

quote:

---

By all means, let's instead pine away wistfully for old Star Trek

---

By all means, go to the theater like a lemming to see the same formulaic shite you get in any variety of other movies. Familiar characters are just a way to get you there. There is nothing new to see.

quote:

---

The alternative to remaking and reinventing the property and characters is death of the franchise

---

Yeah, because TNG was such a flop. Absolutely no one liked it.

shite, even DS9 and Enterprise were pretty successful, if not movie-worthy.

quote:

---

Yeah, because TNG was such a flop.

---

The first 3 seasons absolutely were. It was headed towards cancellation until the Borg plot rescued them.

quote:

---

DS9

---

Decent enough series but suffered from command structure where a single captain was responsible for the fighting of a galactic war rather then you know...admirals...

quote:

---

Enterprise

---

The fans killed this show. Rewatching even the first season the writing was far and away better then that tripe that Voyager was and in most cases TOS....and that's damn high praise coming from a TOS fanboy like myself.

But you know Star Trek fans...bitching and moaning is what they do best.

quote:

---

Faggy movie board circle jerk - activate!

---

Didn't you give me some heart to heart talk about trolling on here not too long ago?

quote:

---

Meh - there was a lot of fighting - Sisko was operationally in charge of the Bajoran sector - he should have been frocked a commodore, for sure - they were trying to hold the Bajoran alliance, plus his special relationship with the prophets was the key to the defense of the sector.

Made infinitely more sense than a punk kid going from midshipman to O-6 in about 45 minutes.

---

Not so much so. Hell in WW2 there were plenty of General officers who started the war as 0-6s and became generals due to the expansion of the military (I believe Ike was a colonel in 1941). Either way it was poor writing on their part for "dramatic" purposes.

And I always considered Cadet Kirk's promotion a contrived plot point...something they corrected briefly at the beginning of the second movie. Kirk definitely matured as a character during the 2nd movie and by the end he certainly was "the captain".

Cannot wait to see where they take his character in the 3rd one.

quote:

---

quote:

---

DS9

---

Highly underrated - probably better on balance than TNG - more consistent, and with much, much better recurring villains (something that TOS and TNG struggled with, other than Q. They wanted a recurring Klingon captain in TOS, but casting problems always croopped up with the previous ones.)

---

I would go even a step beyond that. While DS9 was an offshoot of TNG, the whole Changeling/Dominion storyline from the Gamma quadrant ended up becoming a major deal in the Star Trek Universe.

I liked DS9 more than TNG because of the darker nature of the series, plus it had an overall story arch that spanned its entire run.

quote:

---

But, I argue that Gul Dukat is probably the finest villain in film/television history - certainly the most fully developed, 4-dimensional anatagonist that I can think of.

---

I also liked Garak, I wish they had given him a bit more of a Dexter-esque sadism and more opportunities to showcase it.

quote:

---

You understand that senior officers like Ike, Bradley and Patton making rank in the 1940s is not quite analagous as Midshipmen Snuffy graduating from Annapolis in 1942 and commanding the Enterprise (CV-6) at Midway 2 weeks later, right Rob? (And not in an emergency, where everybody is killed for just a few hours - they give the whole ship to him, permanently after that - )

Please admit that's a big, big difference...

---

I was speaking more to ds9 rather then star trek 2009. As much as I enjoyed that movie...plot holes like his promotion were painful.

quote:

---

The only characters with staying power on TNG are Picard, Data and Q. The rest are wholly uninteresting and disposable (JMHO).

---

I agree with...I'd go further and say the Picard Q dynamic was probably the best of the entire star trek series spanning 50 years.

I simply could not get enough of them sharing the screen.