About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was a fan of the original as a kid, and TNG as well. Never got into DS9, tried to get into Voyager but didn't find it compelling, and really tried to like Enterprise, since I am also a Scott Bakula fan, but I think they were missing some important dynamics.

For me, it was all about the characters. I thought the 'captain' of DS9 was a bit of a poor copy of Patrick Stewart's excellent Picard character. And although I didn't mind Janeway, I thought the Vulcan and half-klingon on the show were pretty terrible, and other than the doctor, none of the other crewmen were even intersting. Sure, I wondered, along with all the others, what Jeri Ryan looked like naked and all, but without an engaging character, who cares? Like any attractive woman with a crap attitude, she soon became ugly. As for Enterprise, you get the feeling that the captain and trip should have been one character. And WHY he wasn't doing everything in his power to impregnate that gorgeous, buxom Vulcan on his ship, I'll never know. Otherwise, same deal, no memorable characters. News flash--sacrificing engagin 'real' characters to satisfy some PC requirement is a recipe for disaster.

As regards stories, the writers of Enterprise seem to have forgotten that Enterprise was supposed to be taking place BEFORE the original series. TIme travellers, new alien species, and use of tech that was nowhere seen on the original series really had me scratching me head. Why didn't Kirk have the knowledge and tech of earlier ships? (My guess is that Star Fleet knew that he was such a stud that they HAD to unleash him on the universe with both hands tied behind his back; otherwise, it wouldn't have been a challenge.) Bakula never got a script that allowed him to seem real, or to have that raw edge that Shatner portrayed Neither did Trip, so it got pretty boring, even with Joelene-with-pointed-ears was a sight to behold.

Overall, I'm sad to say that I am not terribly upset that there is no new Trek. But based on others' comments, I really might have to consider picking up Babylon 5 for a viewing, though it always looked rather ridiculous to me. And, Battlestar Galactica has been the finest surprise I could have hoped for--head and shoulders better than I expected.

But for the best sci-fi series ever to air on television, check out Joss Whedon's Firefly. Spectacular.

Post 1

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I couldn't disagree more about the Jerry Ryan character, Seven of Nine. She is fascinating. Toward the end of the run of "Voyager" she did fall prey to ST's irrepressible politically-correct gooeyness. But at her best and most assertive she is riveting to watch. As I comment at Daily Pundit, "give Seven of Nine her own show about how she makes her way on earth, and I will be the #1 fan. 'Star Trek' saves itself when it allows a character to come on board saying how full of crap 'Star Trek' is.... I also think it would be insane not to do a feature film about Seven of Nine."

Post 2

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I'd watch a Jeri Ryan Seven of Nine show, too, because she has to shower some time, right?

Post 3

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Resistance is futile.

Post 4

Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some thoughts from someone who consciously has never liked Star Trek particularly much:

I think, from the outside looking in (as I say, I'm not a fan) what's happened to Star Trek is the same as what happened to Doctor Who in the 1980s. It's becoming more and more a programme made for the fans, in other words for a clique of science fiction afficionados, rather than for a general audience. As such, it's full of technobabble and the like, but lacks any appeal to broader themes that might appeal to a non-sci-fi fan audience.

I read somewhere the exec producer of the new series of Doctor Who, Russell T Davies (also highly regarded for the original British Queer as Folk and Casanova among other things), saying that Star Trek was dying because it was failing to connect emotionally with its audience. The producers and writers of the new Doctor Who are making it their conscious purpose to produce a show that appeals to the heart and the head. That's why Doctor Who is back and is hugely successful so far, while Star Trek is dying.

To me, Star Trek was always an example of rationalism writ large. Not so much the original series, but the newer series. They just never seemed to be able to have any fun. Tom Baker once remarked that the characters on Star Trek looked like they'd all just eaten a pot of prunes and it was a mile to the nearest toilet (or words to that effect)!

Don't mean to come across as gloating at the death of Star Trek or anything like that, but these are my thoughts on why Doctor Who is back and Star Trek is dead. I've always in my own mind seen Doctor Who as a fundamentally different formula to Star Trek and I think it's really interesting, philosophically, to look at those differences.


Post 5

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> As such, it's full of technobabble and the like, but lacks any appeal to broader themes that might appeal to a non-sci-fi fan audience.

Is 9/11 a theme relevant to a larger audience? A major thread of "Enterprise" was the hunting down of the aliens who "tested" a device against earth, resulting in the death of millions. "How far will you go to save the earth?" was one of the "dilemmas" that the captain had to deal with. Turns out the answer is pretty damn far. Cuz if your home planet blows up you got nothing to come home to.

It was too fannish in the first season, with too much "here's how it all started" crap. In media res is better. But I think the major problem with "Enterprise" is that it didn't have a charismatic enough cast and was too often too clunky craftwise. Yet it also had real interest and potential that manifested itself strongly on occasion. The sparks flying between Tucker and Ta-pow! as the series developed made it more interesting to watch, and that really could have gone somewhere. But the plug was pulled before the latest attempt to revise the show's direction could take hold, and the thing between Tucker and Ta-pow! was dropped like a wet towel just in time for the disappointing series finale.

As for "Dr. Who"...do shoe-box time machines really work?


Post 6

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 3:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Scott: Really check out Babylon 5 and you will find Star Trek boring as hell :) I have always been a friend of more real and dirty universe, where you can see the whole variety of mankind's children. I also watched the original Star Trek, TNG (I was a fan of it during my youth) and DS9 (which got better in the later seasons, because the captain develloped an iron fist in his rulings). However, I must admit after the Ron quit DS9 as a writer and didn't get offered the job at Voyager, I dismissed Star Trek and rightly so.

The new enterprise was a bad trip after the first two or three episodes. It degenerated in poor copy of 9/11 and this whole plot with the Xana-something evil race was just awful.One of the problems was that I couldn't discern which character was which, even after the first three episodes. They didn't cast very characteristic actors, but rather a bunch of milk-faced (is this correct in english?!) look-alike clones, except for the captain. I couldn't quite get the hang on the different personalities and with the visuals being so alike, it was just no fun to continue.

I think Battlestar Galactica is quite the best SF-show out there. It is not only a panorama of society and this is what SF is really about, it also has a kick-ass dark-realistic look to it that gives you always the impression of looming danger. And Ron pulled a lot of cool actors aboard, like Mary McDonell and James Edwards Olmos . I'd say I wait eagerly for the second season, which will have a hard time to trump the first season's final.

If you ever can lay your hands on Jeremiah, you could also see a SF work, that has a sort of brilliance to it that most shows cannot achieve. It is sad to see that Mr. Strazynski had to leave the project behind, because there was lot of potential in it.


Post 7

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 10:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max:

"I think Battlestar Galactica is quite the best SF-show out there..."

I agree. I would suggest you take a look at the cancelled-after-one season Firefly series, if you are a sci-fi fan. Absolutely GREAT. Very different from Battlestar, but great.

Battlestar is great. I have to stretch to find any criticsm but if I haver to, I'd say I'm not crazy about Katie Sackhoff as Starbuck. She has little stretches there where she is a pretty bad actress, like where she does her patented eye roll (over, and over and over). When it is obvious an actor is trying to establish a signature move or expression, they arent doing it well. I dont hate her, but she is uneven.

The fellow who plays Apollo seems rather milquetoast to me.

Like I said, I have to stretch to criticize and that's about it, but by and large, friggin' phenomenal series!

Edward James Olmos is awesome, and Mary McDonnell are awesome, and the guy that plays Baltar is wonderful for the role--perfect!

I cant WAIT to see what happens to Adama and the Cylon chick that shot him! Talk about a GREAT season cliffhanger!

Post 8

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 11:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I will take a look at Firefly. I have heard about this show, but I couldn't get my hands on it. Mostly, I must admit that I am more of a fan of SCI Fi TV-series (couldn't get the hang on movies, because they are too short to really explain a society), but even here I like only some. For example, the old Battlestar Galactica was surely great in technical applications, but it was made for children rather than adults.

Post 9

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Being a member of that elite fraternity, deltakappamania, I would like to add my 'support' to a possible Seven of Nine show. That was the only character that had any development going for it. Seriously, compared to her and the doctor, the rest of the Voyager cast had no acting depth (Captain Janeway did have her moments).

I've watched only a few episodes of Babylon 5. I find the setting too grim. I think Farscape outdoes it [especially in acting] and most of Star Trek. I never cared much for DS9 or Enterprise.

The SF episodes of The Twilight Zone outdoes most of these shows, but it could be nostalgia working its thing on me.
Scott DS: Well, I'd watch a Jeri Ryan Seven of Nine show, too, because she has to shower some time, right?
I think the "sonic showers" of Star Trek does NOT require full undress... but we can always hope.

Edited for stupidly omitting the essential 'not'.
(Edited by num++
on 5/28, 12:50pm)


Post 10

Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 12:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ah useless, all of you!

I can write a huge long essay saying why Paramount officials should die a horriable death for canceling Enterprise but let me make this simple. Card has never liked Star Trek, he made that clear back when TNG was running. Two, no ST captain was never meant to be like another (Scott), in the beginning Sisko hated Picard and hell, he wasn't even a captain.

I've seen every epp of every Star Trek series, Bablyon 5, Firefly, and the new Battlestar Galatica. Acting wise, DS9 defined what a drama should be. In regards to consistancy, its Babylon 5 but thats only because JMS wrote most all of the episodes. I'd have to give the graphics to BG but that's only because its the newest. B5 graphics sucked most of the time because they used CGI at a time when models looked much better.

Finally Card just wants to see his Enders universe made into a series (or movie series). Won't happen, hard sci-fi is my favorite genere but I don't see it escaping the novel form except in crappy made for tv form.

Post 11

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 12:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
All you Trekkies suck ass!

Star Trek, in reductio, licks the sweat off a dead man's balls!

The Federation is run by a bunch of limp-wristed, angst-ridden, rude-boy socialists!

Gimme the Galactic Republic, (and at a pinch, the Empire) over those hapless, jerkoff, bum-smacking Feds anyday!

All you Trekkie mofos check out this link:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/

Suck my light sabre, bitches!!

Lord Elliot
(Edited by Ross Elliot
on 5/29, 12:11am)


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Please...
A federation ship would blow the holy snot outta one of your star destroyers. Gimme the Starfleet Pegasus with its shields, cloaking and photon torpedoes vs your floating brick with horribly innacurate lasers and 3 redundant layers of inner hull for protection... lol You better hope the force is with your sorry ass...

Post 13

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 1:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Konnen sie mein arsch geschniffen, FedBoy?

What fictional facts do you have to back up your ridiculous assertion?

Gonna bring my Death Star on in to lay some cruel whoopass on ya!

Lord Elliot

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Huh, there is a lot to argue and discuss between my last post and now... well, let's start :D

First, Ross, should that be a semi-attempt on speaking German? "Können sie mir mal am Arsch riechen?", would be much beter :)
The fact that Star Trek took some of the nowadays believed to be right assumptions about the how the universe could be work, is the root of stephens assessment that a Star Trek ship could deal with a Star Destroyer, but that only holds true if the damage capacity of a phaser >> a laser. So, I don't want to start that kind of discussion, because we all know where it will end.

Tech-wise, I'd say that Babylon 5 has the most interesting and real techniques that have even been given credit by the NASA. The idea of organic ships, the use of newotnian physics, all those facts clearly speak for Babylon 5. (not to mention the idea of using crystaline structures as a form of hard drive)
Battlestar Galactica had also some interesting points, because of its quite retro-looking workstation and the limit to high-tech-gibberish. (Also a sign for the focus on story, drama and human society)

Star Trek is the best of the rest with Star Wars, Andromeda (was that the shows name?! with this Hercules dude) and Farscape. I never got the hang on Farscape, because the acting and the loneliness were things I thought were stupid. I mean this ship had a crew of 10 people and could travel and fight on its own, not likely. I just watched several episodes and got bored, but perhaps I missed the best ones...

@Clarence:

I grant that the CGI were still in its boots, but I think there were never space-battles that were so realistic and could be so divers, not to mention the architecture on the different race's planets (the mavelous blue of the esoteric Minbari, or the romantic/french Centauri). I also think that as an epic saga, Babylon 5 outmatched most of the Star Trek franchises (except perhaps DS9). It was full of symbolic, prophecies, drama and conflict. It was about the stupidity of being for order or for chaos, but to be for oneself. It was about the rise of a totalitarian movement on earth and about the demise of a religious caste system. Although B5 was not as real and bloody as Battlestar Galactica, it was one of the best shows I have ever watched from start to end. I grant that there are some weak episodes, but the others are trumping that easily.

I'd also like to add Jeremiah to this whole discussion, because I perceive it to be of interest. The setting goes like this,  after a virus of the military wiped out all the men and women over the age of innocence (which means adults), the kids are left to fend for theirselves. It shows why anarchic societies are not a solution and why some sort of government might be needed, at least to organize defense. It is again (during its two seasons) about the rise of a free society, while a much stronger force of authoritarian origin tries to oppress them and rule the US.


Post 15

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 12:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
scott, I would also like to point out, that fire-fly will have a follow-up called Serenity.
If you get a chance to see the movie, I'd like to know your opinion, because I won't have a chance to see it in Germany any time soon.


Post 16

Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 5:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding the post about how Star Wars is better because the crew of the Enterprise is a bunch of socialists- it's worth mentioning that sadly BOTH franchises were created by socialist nutjobs. George Lucas and Gene Roddenberry were BOTH liberal wackos.

Is it any surprise that Star WArs fans believe the movies belong to THEM when it was LUCAS who spent the millions to make them? Consider the ideology in the Star Wars Universe: you work, just for the hell of it- and you get whatever you want for free. Basically it was THAT, vs the police state of the Empire. Sounds like Europe to me.

Roddenberry was unfortunately much more obvious, as his characters always mention how the future has been settled with no desire for material goods, just for the "good of humanity".

I will admit it though- I'm a Trekkie. The plots weren't the most mind-blowing, but I loved the characters, the villains, and somehow the way the show and movies were done( I've never seen DS9, Enterprise, or Voyager, and have NO desire to) really pulled me in.

Star Wars- I'm sorry to say it but, you can spray as much deodorant on a pile of crap, an' you'll just wind up with a really nice smelling pile of crap. I like Episode 1, I liked Episode V...and that's it. I like about 4 of the characters, and that's it. I think Lucas tried to hide lousy acting and SEVERELY botched storylines with loads of special effects- yeah, it worked back in the Cheezy '70s, but it doesn't work today. Y'want Star Wars, done right? It's already been done- Tolkien wrote the series in the '50s...perhaps you've heard of it: LORD OF THE RINGS.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Max:

"Können sie mir mal am Arsch riechen?"

Thanks, Max. Perhaps you could email me privately and let me know exactly what you said? I speak a conceited form of pigeon high-German and it often lets me down in the most crucial of situations :-)

Re Star Wars v Star Trek: well, it's a no-brainer. The Empire whoops the Federation's ass everytime. You simply can't beat superior gigawatts (witness Iraq). I mean, to wank on for a second, does anyone truly believe that a Star Destroyer is going to be threatened by a Fed Starship with it's (ooooh, run, hide, run) phasers and photon torpedos?

And, the Prime Directive? I mean, what a flaccid piece of shit that is. America, let alone the British Empire (including my own beloved country of New Zealand) would never have come into existence with that as it's guiding principle.

Kirk, Picard, et al, spent so much time appeasing the natives they never really came to experience the joys of semi-violent colonisation ;-)

Ross



Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Thursday, June 2, 2005 - 9:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah the prime directive was pretty dumb. I always found it even more stupid that the backward natives wouldn't be happy to advance their civilization... doesn't sound like any humanoids I could conceive of. Just another socialist dream of the midieval utopia that we lost. Thomas More would have loved Star Trek.

But Ross if you get to use your galaxy empire, I get to use the whole Star Trek galaxy. The dominion with their entire quadrant of genetically engineered super soldiers would annihilate your storm troopers (remember Trek guns don't just wound you, they dematerialize you!).

And for your Death Star (which can barely hit a planet), a Borg Sphere which can time travel and is immune to all laser fire by the second shot would easily outmatch it. It's not even close, even with all the Force on your side. Just another case of science kicking religion's ass.

Post 19

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don't forget, the Star wars universe has magic :D

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.