- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best Star Trek series?
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:22 pm to hogNsinceReagan
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:22 pm to hogNsinceReagan
I've just recently started watching Star Trek series. So far I've almost completed the entire TNG run, and have watched most of the first seasons of TOS and Enterprise. I'd have to give TNG The nod so far, with TOS a surprisingly close second. Enterprise is fun, but not nearly as good as the other two.
0
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:28 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
quote:
if you ever spent anytime watching Discovery
No and no plans.
I paid money to CBS Streaming service to watch this series and I am still infuriated over how they have handled Trek.
The acting is fine, but the way they have gone off the reservation with the canon is intolerable. Star Trek has spent 50 years of making the Klingons into a proud warrior race with a rich and spiritual culture and this abomination of a show turned them into a nomadic group of whiners with a horrible makeup change...Enterprise established very nicely how the Klingons came to look like like humans to tie things up for the TOS era only for this group of writers and producers to screw that up...
Then there is this whole "Spore Drive" concept where the Federation is purposely exploiting a sentient lifeforms as a propulsion fuel which is an unbelievable taboo that was allowed to be written into the show.....I get pissed just thinking about it...
I am just hoping the next Star Trek series that Patrick Stewart will be involved in will be more in line to what is expected of a Star Trek series..
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:39 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
I paid money to CBS Streaming service to watch this series and I am still infuriated over how they have handled Trek.
The acting is fine, but the way they have gone off the reservation with the canon is intolerable. Star Trek has spent 50 years of making the Klingons into a proud warrior race with a rich and spiritual culture and this abomination of a show turned them into a nomadic group of whiners with a horrible makeup change...Enterprise established very nicely how the Klingons came to look like like humans to tie things up for the TOS era only for this group of writers and producers to screw that up...
Then there is this whole "Spore Drive" concept where the Federation is purposely exploiting a sentient lifeforms as a propulsion fuel which is an unbelievable taboo that was allowed to be written into the show.....I get pissed just thinking about it...
I am just hoping the next Star Trek series that Patrick Stewart will be involved in will be more in line to what is expected of a Star Trek series..
While I'm not a fan of the nu Klingons look the producers claim they will fix this in season 2.
I really did enjoy the storyline...without giving spoilers I thought it was a good direction.
What I disliked...strongly...was how they ended the war. Was too much for my suspension of disbelief. I enjoyed Discovery a good bit overall (Loved Captain Lorca) but the writing in the last few episodes could be considered...missing in action.
It's canon and I accept it...but season two needs to be tighter.
I did love Mudd episodes though and am looking forward to the "Short Treks" with an episode all about him.
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:47 pm to asurob1
quote:
I did love Mudd episodes though and am looking forward to the "Short Treks" with an episode all about him.
I'm holding out until the new season premieres before I start up my subscription again. I'll watch the short Treks then.
The series was hit and miss but the hits far outweighed the misses.
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:48 pm to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
I'm holding out until the new season premieres before I start up my subscription again. I'll watch the short Treks then.
The series was hit and miss but the hits far outweighed the misses.
Ill probably pay it again...I mean it's only six bucks...thats a lot cheaper then going to a movie and I have seen some shitty movies lately.
Posted on 9/24/18 at 2:54 pm to asurob1
quote:
While I'm not a fan of the nu Klingons look the producers claim they will fix this in season 2.
I really did enjoy the storyline...without giving spoilers I thought it was a good direction.
What I disliked...strongly...was how they ended the war. Was too much for my suspension of disbelief. I enjoyed Discovery a good bit overall (Loved Captain Lorca) but the writing in the last few episodes could be considered...missing in action.
It's canon and I accept it...but season two needs to be tighter.
I did love Mudd episodes though and am looking forward to the "Short Treks" with an episode all about him.
The fact that the producers have to "fix" things is the first tell...
You have a problem with how they ended the war and I have a problem with how they started the war...It's too much of a mess to dwell on...needless to say nothing in the 50 years of Star Trek have every mentioned any of this and it is like they are inserting these happenings by force rather than the nature flow of the Star Trek canon wit "make it work"
Had Discovery been written to occur 20 years after Voyager this show would have worked..they could have come up with a genetic mutation or some and that causes the social and political tapestry of the Klingon Empire to unravel....problem solved.
It's going to take a whopper of "linguistic legerdemain" to fix the mess that has been created
Posted on 9/24/18 at 3:04 pm to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
The acting is fine, but the way they have gone off the reservation with the canon is intolerable. Star Trek has spent 50 years of making the Klingons into a proud warrior race with a rich and spiritual culture and this abomination of a show turned them into a nomadic group of whiners with a horrible makeup change...Enterprise established very nicely how the Klingons came to look like like humans to tie things up for the TOS era only for this group of writers and producers to screw that up... Then there is this whole "Spore Drive" concept where the Federation is purposely exploiting a sentient lifeforms as a propulsion fuel which is an unbelievable taboo that was allowed to be written into the show.....I get pissed just thinking about it...
Sounds horrifyingly bad. Glad I skipped/am skipping it.
Posted on 9/24/18 at 3:56 pm to Ace Midnight
I agree with you on DS9, but it suffers from early seasons in both writing and trying to figure out what type of show it wanted to be. But once Worf shows up, and it decided it wanted to do season long arcs with story and character development, it’s a great show.
You should check out Star Trek The Next Conversation with Andrew Secunda and Matt Mira. They just made it through BoBW part I and II and I’m doing a watch along as I probably haven’t seen the show outside of bits and pieces in 20 years.
You should check out Star Trek The Next Conversation with Andrew Secunda and Matt Mira. They just made it through BoBW part I and II and I’m doing a watch along as I probably haven’t seen the show outside of bits and pieces in 20 years.
Posted on 9/24/18 at 4:07 pm to hogNsinceReagan
TNG and it’s not close
Posted on 9/24/18 at 5:20 pm to hogNsinceReagan
quote:
Star Trek ain't star wars but I'll give it a shot.
Star Trek is never on the level of ESB, but overall there is a much higher success rate vs. Star Wars
Posted on 9/25/18 at 6:50 am to The Easter Bunny
quote:
Star Trek is never on the level of ESB, but overall there is a much higher success rate vs. Star Wars
Meh. TWOK is comparable to ESB as a film. And Star Wars was terrible at character development - mostly 2 dimensional, with a little bit (over time) with Luke. Yes, the prequels "developed" Vader by neutering and ultimately ruining him.
Absolutely nothing like (real) Spock, Data, the Doctor (the part human or artificial human characters with some sort of conflict about humanity - the "Pinocchio effect", reverse with Spock of course, if you will, seem to evolve into the strongest characters).
ETA: Or a plethora of other characters mentioned, notably Garak and Dukat from DS9, Tuvok, even Seven of Nine and T'Pol had decent arcs.
This post was edited on 9/25/18 at 6:52 am
Posted on 9/25/18 at 8:55 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
quote:
Star Trek is never on the level of ESB, but overall there is a much higher success rate vs. Star Wars
Meh. TWOK is comparable to ESB as a film. And Star Wars was terrible at character development - mostly 2 dimensional, with a little bit (over time) with Luke. Yes, the prequels "developed" Vader by neutering and ultimately ruining him.
Absolutely nothing like (real) Spock, Data, the Doctor (the part human or artificial human characters with some sort of conflict about humanity - the "Pinocchio effect", reverse with Spock of course, if you will, seem to evolve into the strongest characters).
ETA: Or a plethora of other characters mentioned, notably Garak and Dukat from DS9, Tuvok, even Seven of Nine and T'Pol had decent arcs.
^^^^^^^^^
This!
If you take away the special effects and the awesome music score, no Star Wars film can stand solely on the story or the acting whereas the best Star Star Trek episodes were the character driven...It's not even close.
This post was edited on 9/25/18 at 8:56 am
Posted on 9/25/18 at 10:57 am to CU_Tigers4life
Truth
Posted on 9/26/18 at 8:41 am to CU_Tigers4life
quote:
If you take away the special effects and the awesome music score, no Star Wars film can stand solely on the story or the acting whereas the best Star Star Trek episodes were the character driven...It's not even close.
To be fair, it is tough to do the kind of character development that TOS had with ~90 hours than classic Star Wars films did with about 6.
Before they went off the rails on a crazy train with the prequels (and after), the original Star Wars team (writers, directors, actors) did about as good a job as they could with character development. Lucas deliberately made them 2-dimensional so the characters themselves would be familiar in this (heretofore) unfamiliar setting.
Not to diverge too far, but that's why Firefly was such an interesting twist - highly complex, mysterious characters (much more like guest characters on a Trek series), but in a familiar setting (clearly Serenity was an homage to the Millennium Falcon).
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News