NationStates Jolt Archive

I just have to ask this, seeing as how I need to know how many Trekkies there are that visit these boards. So I ask: are you a lover of Star Trek?
Of course, I am; as you can see by my country name, my favorite series out of the five is Star Trek: The Next Generation. I like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise as well, and I'm an avid reader of all of the books, including the TOS novels.

Option 2 for me.

Eh. It's not bad if nothing else is wrong. They always get into some shit. Not enough people die though.

"What does god need with a Starship?"

I love StarTrek... infact i'm watching The Next Generation Right now

"You have not experenced Shakespere untill you have read it in the origional Klingon"

In *all* versions, is that the writing varies from a B+ to an F.

I would vote three, but I don't want to endorse the use of leet (if that's what you call it :confused: )

I don't see why people don't like Star Trek though; what's not to like?
(Keep in mind I grew up on it, so I'm probably biased.)

I don't see why people don't like Star Trek though; what's not to like?

The vision of the only hope for the human race's future as a quasi-military crypto-fascist state?

The fact that at the end of every episode all the characters have their reset buttons pressed and revert back to type for the start of the next episode?

The dull banality of the vision of the future that has never managed to step beyond the original idea of 'Wagon Train to the stars"?

The original Star Trek was the best of all.

Who can resist Abe Lincoln duking it out with Ghengis Khan? Kirk outmaneuvering the slower than molasses in January create, the Gorn? Or the original Wraith of Khan episode?

*happily fondles his ST:TNG Year 1 DVD set he received for Xmas.*

MAKE IT SO!!!

i do lke some star trek especially voyager but in my mind star wars is better as i am a MASSIVE fan

The vision of the only hope for the human race's future as a quasi-military crypto-fascist state?

The fact that at the end of every episode all the characters have their reset buttons pressed and revert back to type for the start of the next episode?

The dull banality of the vision of the future that has never managed to step beyond the original idea of 'Wagon Train to the stars"?
Crypt-facist? What are you talking about? Starfleet is simply the military arm of the Federation; the Federation itself is completely Democratic.

Crypt-facist? What are you talking about? Starfleet is simply the military arm of the Federation; the Federation itself is completely Democratic.


Wrong.

Starfleet is not a military organisation.

Who said so?

Gene Roddenberry.

I think Star Trek is overrated.

*dives for cover among a hail of phaser blasts*

i do lke some star trek especially voyager but in my mind star wars is better as i am a MASSIVE fan

Yeah-Star Wars is way better. But Star Trek is O.K.

It's ok. I prefer Star Wars.

of course it's a military orginzation... what geve you the idea it wasn't?
It's essentialy the Navy... theres a Federation ground force as well

The StarTrek Future seems pretty good to me, (on earth, and the federation at large, atlest) no more; war, poverty, famine, ect... there are trouble spots, but those get worked out pretty simply

I love Start Trek, have watched it since the original was on TV. DS-9 is the best of the Start Trek series.

Having said all that it is time to retire the franchise. There are no more stories to tell. Let it go into hibernation for a few decades.

of course it's a military orginzation... what geve you the idea it wasn't?

The fact that the guy who invented it claimed it wasn't (ie. Roddenberry)... so if that is a non-military organisation what are we to make of the rest of the society?

I like Star Trek, but I've read none of the books and I don't think the movies are really good.

My favourite is DS9, they seemed to have the deepest, most human stories. They also had all the action, effects, galactic evil plots that made the other three series appealing.

Enterprise, I'm sorry, but it's sh*t.

Wrong.

Starfleet is not a military organisation.

Who said so?

Gene Roddenberry.
Whoops; of course; can't believe I forgot that. Still, I don't understand how it's facist in any sense; if anything, the Federation is an example of true communism.
And anyone who says Star Wars is better needs to get their head examined, in my mind. Star Wars is good, yes, but Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon.

Whoops; of course; can't believe I forgot that. Still, I don't understand how it's facist in any sense; if anything, the Federation is an example of true communism.

Fascism is a political system. Communism as practised in the background of ST is an economic one. There is no contradiction.

Star Trek is sci-fi for the anorak/trainspotter brigade. Dramatically I find it extremely trite and simplistic and otherwise gets bogged down in all this subjective waffle about technology that doesn't even bloody exists.

Every week a ludricrous phenomenon is solved by reversing the particle flow through the flux capacitor using the warp core, or whatever. It actually manages to make sci-fi either really rather dull, which should be quite hard.

Fascism is a political system. Communism as practised in the background of ST is an economic one. There is no contradiction.
You're missing my point. There is no dictator in charge of the Federation. You have the commander-in-chief of Starfleet, yes, but he or she or it depending doesn't control the Federation; an elected President does. Then there's the Federation Council, which is essentially their version of Congress. I don't see how they are facist in any sense of the word.

The vision of the only hope for the human race's future as a quasi-military crypto-fascist state?

Yeah, the whole "big centralised interstellar government" thing is kind of disturbing, yet Earth is a sort of pleasant, somewhat bland paradise. Their economic system also makes no sense. They do not have money, but they have capitalism.

I would vote three, but I don't want to endorse the use of leet (if that's what you call it :confused: )
d00d, itz teh h@rc0r3 1337!!!!11!

The original Star Trek was the best of all.

Who can resist Abe Lincoln duking it out with Ghengis Khan? Kirk outmaneuvering the slower than molasses in January create, the Gorn? Or the original Wraith of Khan episode?
Yeah, the original series definitely had the quirkiest, most vibrant creativity about it even if the stories were usually cheesy.

I like Star Trek... but I liked it a lot more as a kid when it was just Kirk shagging his way around the universe shooting at stuff. Heh. Every boy's dream, right?

Yeah, the original series definitely had the quirkiest, most vibrant creativity about it even if the stories were usually cheesy.

I wouldn't mind seeing a computer remastering of the original series using CGI and blue screen technology to insert better sets, aliens, and graphics. They could even give the Klingons head ridges.

Yeah, the whole "big centralised interstellar government" thing is kind of disturbing, yet Earth is a sort of pleasant, somewhat bland paradise. Their economic system also makes no sense. They do not have money, but they have capitalism.


d00d, itz teh h@rc0r3 1337!!!!11!


Yeah, the original series definitely had the quirkiest, most vibrant creativity about it even if the stories were usually cheesy.
No, they don't have capitalism. You're forgetting that Star Trek is more than the Federation; it's an entire universe to it's own. The Federation itself has a moneyless economy because it's so able to provide for it's citizens that they don't need money; even in Kirk's time they weren't able to manage that though. No, the people who do have money and practice capitalism frequently are the Ferengie; contrary to popular belief, they are not members of the Federation. Take it from me; I understand every facet of this stuff.

Every week a ludricrous phenomenon is solved by reversing the particle flow through the flux capacitor using the warp core, or whatever. It actually manages to make sci-fi either really rather dull, which should be quite hard.

At least in Doctor Who they had the honesty to use the same piece of technobabble to solve different problems. All together now:

"I reversed the polarity of the neutron flow..."

I just have to ask this, seeing as how I need to know how many Trekkies there are that visit these boards. So I ask: are you a lover of Star Trek?
Of course, I am; as you can see by my country name, my favorite series out of the five is Star Trek: The Next Generation. I like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise as well, and I'm an avid reader of all of the books, including the TOS novels.


You like Enterprise? Then you are not a true fan of the Star Trek series.

I wouldn't mind seeing a computer remastering of the original series using CGI and blue screen technology to insert better sets, aliens, and graphics. They could even give the Klingons head ridges.

I'm no fan of Star Trek, but you might as well digitally remaster Indiana Jones - with Ewoks!!!

You like Enterprise? Then you are not a true fan of the Star Trek series.
Woah, there; do not say that of me. I'm probably one of the most devoted fans of Star Trek in existence; I grew up on it. Hell, back when I had no friends, I lived the stuff; I've even cos-played as Picard a few times. I happen to like Enterprise; yes, it has it's faults, but I've been giving it the benifit of the doubt for the most part.

You're missing my point. There is no dictator in charge of the Federation. You have the commander-in-chief of Starfleet, yes, but he or she or it depending doesn't control the Federation; an elected President does. Then there's the Federation Council, which is essentially their version of Congress. I don't see how they are facist in any sense of the word.

Fascism does not necessitate that there be a single head of state: rather it relies on the readiness to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. We see time and again that the only ethical messages that the ST franchise puts out through its narratives are those which reinforce this viewpoint.


No, they don't have capitalism.

Paging Harry Mudd.


The Federation itself has a moneyless economy because it's so able to provide for it's citizens that they don't need money...

Yet again and again we see the existence of money within the Federation.



__________
PS. 'FaScism' not 'facism'.

Fascism does not necessitate that there be a single head of state: rather it relies on the readiness to sacrifice the few for the good of the many. We see time and again that the only ethical messages that the ST franchise puts out through its narratives are those which reinforce this viewpoint.




Paging Harry Mudd.




__________
PS. 'FaScism' not 'facism'.
As I said, that was back in Kirk's time; read my entire post. The current 24th century Federation has eliminated money.
And I disagree with you completely on that, but I guess it's a moot argument; this is one thing you just can't convince people on.

Didn't notice you edited your post; you didn't read my entire post. The Ferengi are the ones who use money, as do other races that are not members of the Federation; you're probably basing that off of Deep Space Nine, which is a crossroads of species; most of them aren't member races of the Federation, so they would still use money.

As I said, that was back in Kirk's time; read my entire post. The current 24th century Federation has eliminated money.



The construction you used made it unclear to me exactly what you were saying at first reading, but...

Star Trek IV:

Dr. Gillian Taylor: Don't tell me you don't use money in the 23rd Century.

Kirk: Well we don't.

I used to love Star Trek, but it has turned to crap with the latest show and the last to movies. Yet I continue to watch each week and anticipate each new movie. :(

The construction you used made it unclear to me exactly what you were saying at first reading, but...

Star Trek IV:

Dr. Gillian Taylor: Don't tell me you don't use money in the 23rd Century.

Kirk: Well we don't.
True; he did say that. I think it's a case of pinning down exactly where it happened. About then would probably be right for the time; when I said Kirk's time, I was referring to the Original Series, rather than the movies. I have to say honestly that there's a bit of a contradiction going on, but that's what happens when you have such a large franchise. I tend to pin it down to about 2305, but that's me, and I base that on the books as well as all of the canonical material.

Yet again and again we see the existence of money within the Federation.


Of course you see money (or rather a form of barter using precious metals or rare compounds) again and again in the Federation, since the Federation is an alliance of planets who necessarily engage in trade with non-Federation planets eg the Klingons, the Ferengi.

I am of course a fan of Star Trek although I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie - I draw the line at just watching the shows. Star Wars is ok as entertainment but the technobabble is worse (and even more contrived) than that used in Star Trek - hydrospanner, hyperdrive motivator - ha! :rolleyes:

Of course you see money (or rather a form of barter using precious metals or rare compounds) again and again in the Federation, since the Federation is an alliance of planets who necessarily engage in trade with non-Federation planets eg the Klingons, the Ferengi.

I am of course a fan of Star Trek although I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie - I draw the line at just watching the shows. Star Wars is ok as entertainment but the technobabble is worse (and even more contrived) than that used in Star Trek - hydrospanner, hyperdrive motivator - ha! :rolleyes:
Some technobabble in both has basis in fact, such as the hydrospanner; that's a name for a specific tool designed by NASA for spacewalks. It gives you the kind of power that's difficult to achieve while wearing an EVA suit.

I just have to ask this, seeing as how I need to know how many Trekkies there are that visit these boards. So I ask: are you a lover of Star Trek?
Of course, I am; as you can see by my country name, my favorite series out of the five is Star Trek: The Next Generation. I like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise as well, and I'm an avid reader of all of the books, including the TOS novels.

Agreed, TNG rocks....

#2 is DS9
#3 VOY
#4 TOS
#5 Enterprise

Fav ST books of all time...
#1 Vendetta (The Doomsday Machine Mk2 kicks fucking ass!)
#2 Dark Mirror
#3 Q-Squared

Q-Squared, definitely; that prompted me to look into Quantum theory after I read it. Since then, I've been a firm believer in the multiverse theory.

Of course, I am; as you can see by my country name, my favorite series out of the five is Star Trek: The Next Generation.

#2 is DS9
#3 VOY
#4 TOS
#5 Enterprise



Only five series? You've forgotten one there, the pair of you.

Only five series? You've forgotten one there, the pair of you.
Oh, you mean the Animated Series? Most Trekkies don't take that into account; it wasn't very popular or well liked.

I actually quoted the "Imzadi" poem at my wedding...the in-laws were impressed, to say the least...

Oh, you mean the Animated Series? Most Trekkies don't take that into account; it wasn't very popular or well liked.

Trekkie revisionism strikes again.

Wrong.

Starfleet is not a military organisation.

Who said so?

Gene Roddenberry.

Well I'm not sure what Roddenberry said, but there is a way you could both be right. Starfleet is not just for military operations. They do exploration, research, humanitarian aid and diplomacy. If that is all factered in, Starfleet could be considered simply the space arm of the federation, fulfilling all aspects of that role, not just military. If Roddenberry meant that, then both of you are right.

Trekkie revisionism strikes again.
What's that supposed to mean? It simply wasn't well liked, well popularized, or even really well known. It hardly constituted anything at all. There's no "Trekkie revisionism" anywhere. If you want to accuse anyone of that, accuse Rick Berman. Oh, wait...he's been on the staff ever since the beginning of TNG, and has handled the production of everything since the fifth season of TNG. They praise his work on DS9 and Voyager, yet they hate anything he does on Enterprise. It's ridiculous.

What's that supposed to mean?


The implicit claim you made that there were only five series. Something being unpopular or disliked does not make it unhappen.

The implicit claim you made that there were only five series. Something being unpopular or disliked does not make it unhappen.
Oh. Well...you're right; I admit my mistake. It's just that when we talk about it, we commonly leave out the Animated series because of the points I mentioned.

I love Star Trek, mainly TNG, DS9, and Voyager, though. I don't like the original series or Enterprise very much.

Trek started to slip with the introduction of Voyager, and only now after three seasons has Enterprise now gone up to the level of "so-so".

This is the best example of beating a dead horse, Trek needs a break from idiots like Berman who've done their best to run it into the ground.

Woah, there; do not say that of me. I'm probably one of the most devoted fans of Star Trek in existence; I grew up on it. Hell, back when I had no friends, I lived the stuff; I've even cos-played as Picard a few times. I happen to like Enterprise; yes, it has it's faults, but I've been giving it the benifit of the doubt for the most part.Did you ever stop to think that your Star Trek addiction ever caused you too have no friends? Or did that elude you while you were going over minute facts that will keep you busy til you 45 and still living in your parents basement. Sorry for being so harsh, but wake up all of you, Star Trek was a way for a couple of guys to make big bucks, not a political statement about the future and all that sh*t. If you want something to waste your life on spend it on something productive to society, such as computer programming, cure for cancer, human-care center, etc.

Trek started to slip with the introduction of Voyager, and only now after three seasons has Enterprise now gone up to the level of "so-so".

This is the best example of beating a dead horse, Trek needs a break from idiots like Berman who've done their best to run it into the ground.
:headbang:
I hate it when people say Berman has been running it into the ground. He's been running the shows practically since the beginning of TNG, and definitely since the fifth season. Just look at DS9; was it bad? No. And he ran that whole series, in addition to Voyager.

Did you ever stop to think that your Star Trek addiction ever caused you too have no friends? Or did that elude you while you were going over minute facts that will keep you busy til you 45 and still living in your parents basement. Sorry for being so harsh, but wake up all of you, Star Trek was a way for a couple of guys to make big bucks, not a political statement about the future and all that sh*t. If you want something to waste your life on spend it on something productive to society, such as computer programming, cure for cancer, human-care center, etc.
Excuse me, sir, but I found that very insulting. First of all, I'm seventeen, not forty-five. Second of all, I had no friends because of a lot of different issues, far beyond my "addiction" as you call it. Third, Star Trek is a cultural phenonmenon; do you realize how many people it has inspired to work with the Space program, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and all that? Almost every single person there today was inspired by it. And please, don't you ever insult me like that again.

:headbang:
I hate it when people say Berman has been running it into the ground. He's been running the shows practically since the beginning of TNG, and definitely since the fifth season. Just look at DS9; was it bad? No. And he ran that whole series, in addition to Voyager.

Yeah, and during TNG there were competent writers, GR was there (at least in the beginning) and no one was willing to piss on his memory afterwards. The DS9 writing staff practically had to fight tooth and nail against Berman to actually get a story arc going for DS9, who thought the show would be better in an episodic format. Give him a bunch of yes-men and hacks like Braga, and you get crap like Voyager and Enterprise.

Yeah, and during TNG there were competent writers, GR was there (at least in the beginning) and no one was willing to piss on his memory afterwards. The DS9 writing staff practically had to fight tooth and nail against Berman to actually get a story arc going for DS9, who thought the show would be better in an episodic format. Give him a bunch of yes-men and hacks like Braga, and you get crap like Voyager and Enterprise.
Now I honestly thought that Voyager was wonderful, but that's me. I like Enterprise, but lately I haven't; and, in fact, I didn't really get into it until the Xindi story arc.

I like Star Wars and Star Fox better. Idea!, I'll make a Star Fox poll!

Star Trek would be a whole lot better if it weren't for some critical inaccuracies. For some reason, just about every sentient species that is encountered is either an ethereal superbeing or normal-sized humanoid. It tends to get tiresome after that much monotony. Let's not forget how ridiculous some of the tech is. Let's go several times the speed of light with hardly any effort and without worrying about running into space trash that would wreck havoc on our shields!

Still, the show is has good entertainment value.

Star Trek would be a whole lot better if it weren't for some critical inaccuracies. For some reason, just about every sentient species that is encountered is either an ethereal superbeing or normal-sized humanoid. It tends to get tiresome after that much monotony. Let's not forget how ridiculous some of the tech is. Let's go several times the speed of light with hardly any effort and without worrying about running into space trash that would wreck havoc on our shields!

Still, the show is has good entertainment value.

Well, generally it's called suspension of disbelief. Basically what you see is real, even if it seems outlandish (like, destroying a planet :D )

Yeah, and during TNG there were competent writers, GR was there (at least in the beginning) and no one was willing to piss on his memory afterwards. The DS9 writing staff practically had to fight tooth and nail against Berman to actually get a story arc going for DS9, who thought the show would be better in an episodic format. Give him a bunch of yes-men and hacks like Braga, and you get crap like Voyager and Enterprise.
How very true. Bermen and Braga are shite.

Star Trek would be a whole lot better if it weren't for some critical inaccuracies. For some reason, just about every sentient species that is encountered is either an ethereal superbeing or normal-sized humanoid. It tends to get tiresome after that much monotony. Let's not forget how ridiculous some of the tech is. Let's go several times the speed of light with hardly any effort and without worrying about running into space trash that would wreck havoc on our shields!

Still, the show is has good entertainment value.

Like other sci-fi genre's don't do the same thing...

*bump*

I'd always thought of Star Trek as a good way to introduce people to Science Fiction concepts - with the understanding, at least in my mind, that the 'real deal' - that is to say, written SF - would later be read and enjoyed by those SF noobies.

Unfortunately, Star Trek seems instead to have retarded the growth and development of SF, especially all throughout the countless spin-offs and franchises. It's not about opening up people's minds, it's about moving product.

Feh. Give me a dusty old paperback novel by James Blish over T'Pol's titties any day.

I have been a Star Trek fan from the beginning (Star Wars is a shallow cartoon by comparison), but it is time to retire the franchise. They have been recycling ideas for decades now. The last real spark of creativity was DS-9, which successfully developed secondary characters and had real conflict driving the stories.

Enterprise only continues to survive in direct proportion to the number of episodes in which they get Jolene Blalock to take off her clothes.

Feh. Give me a dusty old paperback novel by James Blish over T'Pol's titties any day.

I trust that the irony of James Blish having been responsible for 'novelising'* TOS is not lost on you here? But, yeah, I'd much rather read Black Easter or The Day After Judgement than some dodgy piece of hackwork strung out from TOS, which is not to damn all the novels, but I'm pretty sure that taken as a whole they don't stand up as well as other original works.




*'short storyizing', I guess, but hey, you know...

I trust that the irony of James Blish having been responsible for 'novelising'* TOS is not lost on you here? But, yeah, I'd much rather read Black Easter or The Day After Judgement than some dodgy piece of hackwork strung out from TOS, which is not to damn all the novels, but I'm pretty sure that taken as a whole they don't stand up as well as other original works.




*'short storyizing', I guess, but hey, you know...

The ref was deliberate, glad to see it wasn't lost on anyone...and yes, there's other works by Blish that satisfy to a much greater extent than his TOS novelizations. Blish served, or rather should have served, as the bridge between the sputum of Trek and the vast realms of interesting SF that exists out there.

DT.

I just have to ask this, seeing as how I need to know how many Trekkies there are that visit these boards. So I ask: are you a lover of Star Trek?
Of course, I am; as you can see by my country name, my favorite series out of the five is Star Trek: The Next Generation. I like DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise as well, and I'm an avid reader of all of the books, including the TOS novels.

Afraid in Sci-Fi universe, Star Wars tops Star Trek quite easily. Once had a nice picture of the Enterprise being blown up by a Star Destroyer. Quite a beauty that was...

Afraid in Sci-Fi universe, Star Wars tops Star Trek quite easily. Once had a nice picture of the Enterprise being blown up by a Star Destroyer. Quite a beauty that was...

Hmm, which is more excruciating to sit through? A double feature of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or the first in the series of Star Wars movies, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones?

That is a pretty wretched group of films, but I think the Star Wars movies are just slightly more unwatchable.

I like both Star Trek and Star Wars but Star Trek will always be first in my heart having grown up with it. :)

Afraid in Sci-Fi universe, Star Wars tops Star Trek quite easily.

Face it though, 90% of Star Wars is actually closer to fantasy than to science fiction, sure there are a couple of technological trappings, but at its core it remains a tale of magic, princesses, castles and swordfights.

Hmm, which is more excruciating to sit through? A double feature of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or the first in the series of Star Wars movies, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones?

That is a pretty wretched group of films, but I think the Star Wars movies are just slightly more unwatchable.
Oh god, please don't mention The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier...those were horrible.
Then again, many people think the same of Generations and Insurection, and I love both of those. Except for the fact that they destroyed the Enterprise-D; I'll never get over that loss. >_>

Hmm, which is more excruciating to sit through? A double feature of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or the first in the series of Star Wars movies, The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones?

That is a pretty wretched group of films, but I think the Star Wars movies are just slightly more unwatchable.

Well, ST:V is admittedly wretched, but in so manys, so wretched as to amuse profusely. Witness Kirk's question, 'What does God need with a starship?', Uhura's post-menopausal fan dance, and David Warner playing the usual sodden Brit ambassador in the bar.

ST:TMP is just slow. Damn slow. Slow enough that the 'Director's Cut' is actually SHORTER than the cinematic release...

But those two Star Wars movies just bit. Hard. Even worse than the excremental 'Return of the Jedi'. Feh.

Face it though, 90% of Star Wars is actually closer to fantasy than to science fiction, sure there are a couple of technological trappings, but at its core it remains a tale of magic, princesses, castles and swordfights.

When Lucas wasn't ripping off Akira Kurosawa, Rudyard Kipling, or Isaac Asimov, I guess...

Face it though, 90% of Star Wars is actually closer to fantasy than to science fiction, sure there are a couple of technological trappings, but at its core it remains a tale of magic, princesses, castles and swordfights.

I suppose the idea of transporting your body instantly to another location is any les fantasy then Star Wars technology? Star Wars uses the more realistic shuttles.

I suppose the idea of transporting your body instantly to another location is any les fantasy then Star Wars technology? Star Wars uses the more realistic shuttles.
That transporter technology, by the way, isn't instantaneous; the process takes about five seconds. Plus, it's already been duplicated somewhat in real life, though in a much more primative fashion.

I suppose the idea of transporting your body instantly to another location is any les fantasy then Star Wars technology? Star Wars uses the more realistic shuttles.

Actually, there was a Kenstate Experiment recently that managed to 'beam' a photon from one location to another a couple of metres away.

Star Trek is awesome!! I only like TOS, however.

My fave Star Trek movies are, in order: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. All the other movies- especially the fifth one- totally blow.

Afraid in Sci-Fi universe, Star Wars tops Star Trek quite easily. Once had a nice picture of the Enterprise being blown up by a Star Destroyer. Quite a beauty that was...

That's ok, shortly after that image came out, I put out one of the Ent-E, the Defiant and Voyager blowing up that same Star Destroyer.

BTW: Anyone follow "The Furry Conflict" ?

There has been a lot of discussion about whether Starfleet is a military organisation...

Let me give you the Definition from the Star Trek Encyclopaedia, as written by Michael Okuda and Denise Okuda.

Starfleet: Deep-space exploratory, scientific, diplomatic, and defensive agency of the United Federation of Planets. Starfleet was chartered by the Federation in 2161 with a mission to "boldly go where no man has gone before." The most visible part of Starfleet is its interstellar starships. Additionally, Starfleet maintains a far-flung network of starbases to support deep-space operations.

United Federation of Planets: An interstellar alliance of planetary governments and colonies, united for mutual trade, exploratory, scientific, cultural, diplomatic, and defensive endeavours, founded in 2161. In 2373, the Federation comprised more than 150 member planets, spead across 8,000 light-years. Membership in the Federation was predicated on a number of factors, such as the existence of a unified, planetary government. By the 24th century, the acquisition of wealth ceased to be the driving force in the lives of the majority of Federation citizens.

Federation Council: Governing Body consisting of representatives of the members nations of the United Federation of Planets. The council chambers are loacted in the city of San Francisco, on Earth.

That's ok, shortly after that image came out, I put out one of the Ent-E, the Defiant and Voyager blowing up that same Star Destroyer.

BTW: Anyone follow "The Furry Conflict" ?
Ooo...will you please post the image here?

Star Trek is awesome!! I only like TOS, however.

My fave Star Trek movies are, in order: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. All the other movies- especially the fifth one- totally blow.

TOS had some great stories (at least the first two seasons), but was hampered by a small budget and the technology of its day. How would you feel if they took the entire original series and digitally remastered it using CGI and blue screen technology to bring the ship and bridge more in line with Enterprise and ST:NG? They could also replace the various Christmas-tree-lights "entities" and cheesy looking aliens with something a bit more cutting edge.

I would rather see the franchise putting its money into revamping TOS rather than recycling old stories in Enterprise.

Sorry Guys, I don't like it all that much.

TOS had some great stories (at least the first two seasons), but was hampered by a small budget and the technology of its day. How would you feel if they took the entire original series and digitally remastered it using CGI and blue screen technology to bring the ship and bridge more in line with Enterprise and ST:NG? They could also replace the various Christmas-tree-lights "entities" and cheesy looking aliens with something a bit more cutting edge.

I would rather see the franchise putting its money into revamping TOS rather than recycling old stories in Enterprise.
I agree, though the problem would be integrating the old footage of the main actors; after all, we can't have all of them rerecord their dialogue now; De Forrest Kelly is dead and James Doohan is all but gone.

Sorry, Ogiek & PIcaRDMPCia, I'd have REAL problems with 'Lucasizing' TOS. I love it, loved it ever since I was a wee bairn, and throwing a bunch of CG at a classic old TV show just does not warm my heart in the least.

The emphasis was on the story and the characters. The effects may have been sub-par by today's standards, but were quite acceptable, if not notable, for its' day.

I grew up watching the show in black and white, btw. TOS was remarkable insofar as it was one of the last television programs filmed with both colour and black and white TVs in mind. True, the outrageous saturated colours and lighting were absent, and it came as a real jolt when I finally found out the bridge was trimmed in red - but, on occasion, I'll turn down the colour on my set, change the aspect ratio to NTSC, and watch it on DVD - for nostalgia, but also to see how it translated to black and white again.

You know, in some ways it looks better? Little details, like the shadow cast by the grille over the top of the door to the bridge, start looming larger. They actually did a lot of work with light and shadow to provide visual interest for b&w viewers. Remarkable.

Let people like George Lucas second-guess themselves all they want. Love TOS for what it is - not for what some money-men would like it to be - yet another round at the trough. It's kinda hokey, and no, it doesn't quite look the same as the other series - but it was original. The original. And if the future looks half as bright, warm and inviting as TOS, then I'll someday die a happy death knowing it.

I voted #1. I have been watching Star Trek since I was 3 (I can still remember the first episode I had ever rememberes seeing form TNG, "The Naked Now". True it was recycled from TOS, but it is one of the few things I remember clearly from the tender age of 3.

Anyway, I liked TOS, as it was original. TNG was good. They came up with the Borg, the ultimate superpower IMO. However, Berman brought down the quality of that series.

DS9 was good, as it was actually headed by Ira Behr, not Berman. The character development is way beyond the other 4 series.

Voyager was actually halfway decent with some of the concepts, like the planet that was in hyperaccelerated time (to the point where 1 day on the planet was equal to 1 second in space), etc. As long as Voyager wasn't recycling form previous Trek, it was good.

I won't even talk about Enterprise since it sucks so bad.

Onto the movies: My favorites are the Wrath of Khan, the Undiscovered country, and First Contact.

Khan was the ultimate Trek villian IMO, as he was able to hijack a Starfleet ship and nearly blow up another had it not been for Spock's ingenuity. Undiscovered Country showed that even militant empires like the Klingons couls get along with peace lovers like the Federation.

IMO, First Contact was the heyday of Star Trek. It was a well-done movie, dealing with issues ranging form saving timelines to discovering more about humanity.

Sorry, Ogiek & PIcaRDMPCia, I'd have REAL problems with 'Lucasizing' TOS. I love it, loved it ever since I was a wee bairn, and throwing a bunch of CG at a classic old TV show just does not warm my heart in the least.

The emphasis was on the story and the characters. The effects may have been sub-par by today's standards, but were quite acceptable, if not notable, for its' day....

I can respect that. What did you think of the DS-9 episode where Sisco went back in time to TOS Tribble episode?

The original Star Trek was the best of all.

Who can resist Abe Lincoln duking it out with Ghengis Khan? Kirk outmaneuvering the slower than molasses in January create, the Gorn? Or the original Wraith of Khan episode?

Space Seed, and it is Wrath. The Wraith of Khan is probably going to make an appearance in the next movie though. ;)

And yes, I agree that the original series is the best.

Bones, who is that guy in red's name?

Jim, I don't have a clue.

Hmmm, OK. You, you and you, whom I've never met before. I want you to walk down that path with the plants that look like swords and blowguns. Bones, you, me, and Spock will walk over here to this strip club full of green animal women.

I voted #1. I have been watching Star Trek since I was 3 (I can still remember the first episode I had ever rememberes seeing form TNG, "The Naked Now". True it was recycled from TOS, but it is one of the few things I remember clearly from the tender age of 3.


I've been watching Star Trek since I was born as well ... though I was in high school when the Naked Now came on, it is likely I actually saw the Naked Time very early on.

I'm enjoying watching my original series boxed set. (I own the VHS for the first few seasons of the Next Generation, but my heart is still with the original series.)

As for my favorite film: Star Trek: the Motion Picture. It doesn't have the action of the series, but it is the closest thing Star Trek has done to 2001: A Space Odsessy. I like the tension between Decker and Kirk, and it is clear that much of the Next Generation actually owes back to Star Trek II (the series) and TMP.

@PIcaRDMPCia:

Since you say you are a big fan of the star trek series can you pls give me a link to a site about star trek. I’m interested in the politics and history of the races. I tried the old fashion way by using google but I couldn’t find what I was looking for.

Star Trek.com (http://www.startrek.com)

LCARS (Library Computer Access Retrival System) (http://www.lcarscom.net/) Turn your speakers on for this one

Good Trek History Database (http://www.mjs-startrek.com/)

A Very Janeway Site (http://www.janeway.org/)

Yes, thank you, Aligned Planets.

Unless you have any others to add to that? I just grabbed some out of my favourites - I'd love to see any other links though!

Actually, no, I don't, unfortunately.

I have others fettered away somewhere