TV: The All - Encompassing Star Trek Thread. Debate Long + Prosper

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
In terms of Garak and DS9, if TNG is my favorite because it was the most nostalgic, DS9 was probably the best written, and Garak was the best character in Star Trek. Loved some of the dialog in the series, like Garak criticizing the Boy who Cried Wolf, the Rootbeer scene, the stuff at the end of In the Pale Moonlight. The 90s really was a special time to be a trek fan.
I love the discussion with Bashir from Improbable Cause about the Boy who Cried Wolf story, and have used his interpretation of it before. :laugh:

Garak - "Are you sure that's the point Doctor?"
Bashir - "Of course, what else could it be?"
Garak - "That you should never tell the same lie twice"
 
A TNG episode which I think doesn't get enough recognition is "Who Watches the Watchers". I know it angered a certain group of people, but it's a fantastically written episode.

 
A TNG episode which I think doesn't get enough recognition is "Who Watches the Watchers". I know it angered a certain group of people, but it's a fantastically written episode.




did it really?

I really enjoyed this one. i know it kind of bugged me (and i think it's the Roddenberry fact) that it was poo poo about religion. like. Picard's indignant speech how he will not let these people go backwards, (ie: religion is backward)

but fastforward a few years another another captain does become a religious leader (and then embraces his part in it).
 
did it really?

I really enjoyed this one. i know it kind of bugged me (and i think it's the Roddenberry fact) that it was poo poo about religion. like. Picard's indignant speech how he will not let these people go backwards, (ie: religion is backward)

but fastforward a few years another another captain does become a religious leader (and then embraces his part in it).
Evangelicals hated this episode and were very angry about it.

There is a big difference between this and Sisko becoming the emissary of the prophets though. The prophets were clearly established to be a real species of alien that had taken a protective interest in Bajor, and Sisko was pretty reluctant to be their representative in any way for a long time.
 
Evangelicals hated this episode and were very angry about it.

There is a big difference between this and Sisko becoming the emissary of the prophets though. The prophets were clearly established to be a real species of alien that had taken a protective interest in Bajor, and Sisko was pretty reluctant to be their representative in any way for a long time.

I know. but i think it was more the spiritual aspect that Sisko had an issue with for the longest time - but i think real alien or not - Sisko grew to have a true and complete faith in them (to the point that he knew that nothing would happen to Jae in the Reckoning).
 
I love the discussion with Bashir from Improbable Cause about the Boy who Cried Wolf story, and have used his interpretation of it before. :laugh:

Garak - "Are you sure that's the point Doctor?"
Bashir - "Of course, what else could it be?"
Garak - "That you should never tell the same lie twice"

Improbable Cause is one of the most quotable episodes in the franchise.
 
A TNG episode which I think doesn't get enough recognition is "Who Watches the Watchers". I know it angered a certain group of people, but it's a fantastically written episode.

I really like that episode and I'm probably part of that "certain group of people." I recall being a little uncomfortable with the message, but it's really only in a speech at the end of the episode that it's spelled out and one scene doesn't spoil an episode (unless it involves the crew turning into lizards and having lizard sex, of course). Also, it's sort of par for the course with Star Trek. Everyone knows that Roddenberry was anti-religion and conceived a post-religious society, so, it's one of those things where, if you're religious and a Star Trek fan, you just accept it and try to not let it spoil your enjoyment.

If I may get philosophical for a moment, it's kind of ironic. Christians often get characterized as rebuking science, suggesting that religion and science don't mix, and here you have Star Trek, conceived by Roddenberry as a future in which religion has been rebuked in favor of science, also suggesting that the two don't mix. In other words, it's not just one side that thinks that the other is a threat to it. It's unfortunate. It'd be interesting to see futuristic sci-fi that actually shows religion and science co-existing in harmony, with neither side seeing the other as a threat or immoral/backwards. That's a utopian vision of the future that I'd like to see, especially since it's more realistic. Religion isn't going to go away just because we start traveling the stars, after all.

All of that said, there's some relief in the fact that Roddenberry made Star Trek a post-religious society, because, except for rare cases like Who Watches the Watchers, it made religion a non-factor. As much as that choice keeps religion out of Star Trek, it also keeps Star Trek away from religion. Considering Roddenberry's views on religion, it's likely best that he held them back from making their way into the show's episodes and allegories very much. That's especially the case for religious viewers, but probably also for non-religious viewers who wouldn't appreciate religious story lines and elements much, either.
 
TOS's issues with religion were always kind of weird. I sometimes felt like Roddenberry was asked by the very 60s standards & practices board to not denounce modern religion (ie christianity mostly) too much since society was a lot less secular than it was by the time of TNG.

Balance of Terror had the aborted wedding ceremony conducted in what was obviously a ship's chapel (and the would-be bride also prayed/mourned in there after her intended groom was killed in the Romulan attack) and said chapel had an odd sorta-cross-shaped pulpit and a wall decoration that looked vaguely cross-like as well.

Sulu made reference to the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" as a blessing to Rand in one episode and while it could probably be a sort of secularized statement, it does also point to some amount of absorbed religious iconography after humanity gets out into the galaxy-at-wide considering Sulu is canonically Earth-born-and-raised.

There's also that running subplot in Bread & Circuses about the rebels against the it's-totally-not-the-Roman-Empire-we-swear-guys-it's-aliens ruling class who are categorized as "Sun Worshippers". Spock pointedly denounces that sun worship is a primitive superstition, and Uhura eventually corrects him by noting that they're actually worshipping "The Son of God". This revelation of Space-Roman-Jesus gets no such rebuke from Spock or anyone else, as if it's a more "acceptable" religious practice. Part of it might be the anthropological awe of the situation, as I believe Spock ponders the value of being able to watch a planet which gives them the opportunity to observe a living Roman Empire and the rise of an allegorical Christ-like messiah, but it's notable that compared to TNG pretty pointedly beating the 'superstitous nonsense' drum that TOS operating under the anti-religion Roddenberry's direct control showed a greater degree of latitude in accepting certain amounts of faith. I also recall that TNG episode with the Edo God (which was some sort of supercomputer space station or something?) being a little scornful of religion.

That said, I really don't want to have this thread turn into a theological debate or argument about the merits of quashing/exploring religion on Star Trek because that's a total minefield that is beyond the scope of this board.

In a related fun fact though: Angela Martine, the crewman who was supposed to be married in Balance of Terror turned out to be one of the very few extra/background TOS Enterprise crew members who had multiple appearances with dialogue (discounting extras and stand-in type background guys like Leslie and Hadley). She showed up again in Shore Leave (the one with the weird planet that made fantasies real, including the giant white rabbit, Kirk fighting with the guy from the academy, and a Zero strafing and killing a crew member only to have her show up alive later because it's all fake, lolz. She actually is that crew member killed by the Zero. the script apparently lists her as a different name (Mary Teller), but after casting the same actress that played Martine, her name spoken in the episode is changed to "Angela" to presumably make her the same crew member (some records credit her character as Angela Martine-Teller, which would tie together the script name somewhat with the other character, and imply that perhaps she got married to someone else in the period between Balance of Terror and Shore Leave. Though that was only 10 episodes and it was generally accepted that each TOS and TAS season encompassed about 1 year of the Enterprise's 5-year mission). The same actress was again cast as yet another different-name-in-the-script character for Space Seed, though her scenes were cut and it was never said if they would've fixed her appearance in that episode to be Angela Martine again. She also was cast again as a different character for the TOS finale, Turnabout Intruder, though this time the different name actually made it to air (here she was named Lt. Lisa and was a communications officer instead of an operations one. So unless she got married again and changed divisions, it's not the same character.)


Also, I just discovered in researching the above that as an in-joke, the male and female crew members that the bad guy in ST: Beyond kills to demonstrate his new weapon were named in the script as Martine and Tomlinson, making them the alternate universe versions of the doomed married couple from Balance of Terror. This was apparently entirely Simon Pegg's doing.
 
There's also that running subplot in Bread & Circuses about the rebels against the it's-totally-not-the-Roman-Empire-we-swear-guys-it's-aliens ruling class who are categorized as "Sun Worshippers". Spock pointedly denounces that sun worship is a primitive superstition, and Uhura eventually corrects him by noting that they're actually worshipping "The Son of God". This revelation of Space-Roman-Jesus gets no such rebuke from Spock or anyone else, as if it's a more "acceptable" religious practice.

I forgot about that, which is odd, because that's one of my favorite TOS episodes (as corny as they are, I happen to quite like the "totally not Earth history, but looks just like it" episodes). I do think that you're probably right that Roddenberry had to tip toe around religion a lot more in the 60s than in the late 80s. Also, he may not have been quite as staunchly anti-religion in the 60s as he was in the 80s. Regardless, something like the "twist" in Bread and Circuses could've been a bone thrown to make some people happy and allay concerns about the show and/or him being anti-religion. Even if it was true, it could've been professional suicide to voice it too greatly back then.
 
I forgot about that, which is odd, because that's one of my favorite TOS episodes (as corny as they are, I happen to quite like the "totally not Earth history, but looks just like it" episodes). I do think that you're probably right that Roddenberry had to tip toe around religion a lot more in the 60s than in the late 80s. Also, he may not have been quite as staunchly anti-religion in the 60s as he was in the 80s. Regardless, something like the "twist" in Bread and Circuses could've been a bone thrown to make some people happy and allay concerns about the show and/or him being anti-religion. Even if it was true, it could've been professional suicide to voice it too greatly back then.
Not to dive into this minefield much on the entertainment board, but religious fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism was starting to become a much more prevalent issue in the 80s than it was in the 60s as well. Star Trek has always tried to reflect on societies issues of the day.
 
So is anyone a fan of Star Trek The Animated Series? How many have seen it?

I've watched a good chunk of the episodes when they were shown as a marathon on our Sci-Fi channel equivalent a few years ago.

They were interesting in concept, but the ultra-cheap Filmation quality production values of the time period, the often phoned-in acting quality, and a general sense that they weren't attracting anywhere near the caliber of writing TOS got in its 2 good seasons made it a bit of a chore to watch.

There were a few good episodes here and there and I do applaud that the freedom of animation let them do more spectacular or interesting things than they could do on a live action series (like really crazy alien desigsn such as Lt. Arex.) but most of the time it's hard to get past the terrible visuals (human characters often lacked detail, were stiffly animated, and had limited ranges of motion to save on budget. Color was also all over the map because it turned out that the series' primary director was ****ing colorblind. Like actually medically colorblind.), stiff and disinterested line readings from several cast members (if you ever wanted a sedate William Shatner to juxtapose against his over-dramatic stage acting from the live action series, here you go), and large amounts of silly not-giving-any-****s from the writing staff.
 
Are any of you familiar with Star Trek Continues? A web based fan made production of the original series. I saw a few episodes years ago and was surprised at the quality of the settings and overall feel. I really enjoyed the effort they put into making the episodes. I just checked for more and was surprised to see their site. You can watch them all there it looks like.

Star Trek Continues
 
I wonder how much money Paramount would have to pay Rian Johnson to get him to take over the Trek movie franchise?
 
I wonder how much money Paramount would have to pay Rian Johnson to get him to take over the Trek movie franchise?
What has he done that shows he would be a great fit for Star Trek? I don't want another action/adventure take on the franchise, as that has never been the core of Star Trek. If I feel like watching Star Wars, I'll watch Star Wars.
 
What has he done that shows he would be a great fit for Star Trek? I don't want another action/adventure take on the franchise, as that has never been the core of Star Trek. If I feel like watching Star Wars, I'll watch Star Wars.

Looper was great sci-fi. High concept executed well.
 
What has he done that shows he would be a great fit for Star Trek? I don't want another action/adventure take on the franchise, as that has never been the core of Star Trek. If I feel like watching Star Wars, I'll watch Star Wars.

I agree. There's nothing like Star Trek, so no past work qualifies you. I'd rather have someone who's never done sci-fi before but "gets" Star Trek to be behind it. For example, Seth MacFarlane has never done anything close to sci-fi, yet The Orville is the closest thing to capturing the essence of Star Trek that I've seen in two decades. That doesn't mean that I want MacFarlane in charge of Star Trek. It merely proves what a true fan can accomplish, despite not having a compatible resume.

Ideally, though, rather than someone who successfully copies past Trek, we need a dreamer behind the franchise again. I don't mean a child of an illegal alien (unless that child of an illegal alien also loves Star Trek), but someone who has a vision and passion for a positive future similar to Roddenberry's, but with his or her own ideas on expanding on it. We need to get back to the franchise being idea-driven, rather than money-driven. Everything has to come down to money, but the best products come from love of the product and trusting that it'll be rewarded with sales, rather than from making something that you know that people will buy, regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blender
there has been a lot of fan made trek stuff that makes you take a pause and wonder if it's a real thing. i'll never understand why Hollywood is so stubborn on things like this. there are other franchises that fall in the same umbrella.
 
Looper was great sci-fi. High concept executed well.
Looper was a decent movie and solid sci-fi. I'm just frustrated in general with the constant drive from some fans, and the studio it seems, to place people who are either associated with Star Wars or want to make a Star Wars movie in charge of Star Trek. Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's an action/adventure franchise set in space. Star Trek isn't Star Wars, needs to stop trying to be Star Wars, and it comes off as pathetic and desperate when it tries to imitate it.

I agree with Osprey that what the franchise really needs again is someone with vision to drive the franchise forward. They also need to be respectful and appreciative of the franchise though so that their future vision will be authentic to Star Trek. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer brought this to the franchise for the movies, Rick Berman and Michael Piller brought this to TNG, Ronald D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr with the support of Berman and Piller brought this to DS9. Since then the franchise has really lacked this force in any way whatsoever.
 
Looper was a decent movie and solid sci-fi. I'm just frustrated in general with the constant drive from some fans, and the studio it seems, to place people who are either associated with Star Wars or want to make a Star Wars movie in charge of Star Trek. Star Wars isn't sci-fi, it's an action/adventure franchise set in space. Star Trek isn't Star Wars, needs to stop trying to be Star Wars, and it comes off as pathetic and desperate when it tries to imitate it.

I agree with Osprey that what the franchise really needs again is someone with vision to drive the franchise forward. They also need to be respectful and appreciative of the franchise though so that their future vision will be authentic to Star Trek. Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer brought this to the franchise for the movies, Rick Berman and Michael Piller brought this to TNG, Ronald D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr with the support of Berman and Piller brought this to DS9. Since then the franchise has really lacked this force in any way whatsoever.

I think Rian Johnson is one of those forces. He's extremely creative and competent. Unlike Abrams who has become derivative and tired - although to be fair when he first started he was creative as well. I think that's just the nature of the beast though. It happened to Bennett, Meyer and Berman as well - everyone eventually runs out of ideas and falls back too much on what they know. The key is to get these people on the upswing, and Johnson is very much on the upswing.
 
I'm so missing some decent Star Trek I haven't seen I've been watching Voyager.. lol. It's dated and clunky at times but some of the concepts are well executed.

Only say the pilot of the new series and it looked like more of the same of the current gen movies. What we need is someone leading a series that's understands why TOS, TNG and DS9 were successful and had so much staying power.
 
I think Rian Johnson is one of those forces. He's extremely creative and competent. Unlike Abrams who has become derivative and tired - although to be fair when he first started he was creative as well. I think that's just the nature of the beast though. It happened to Bennett, Meyer and Berman as well - everyone eventually runs out of ideas and falls back too much on what they know. The key is to get these people on the upswing, and Johnson is very much on the upswing.
When Abrams started what, making movies/TV, or Star Trek?
 
When Abrams started what, making movies/TV, or Star Trek?

Movies/TV.

Alias was great. (Heck even Felicity was a decent drama).

Lost started off great, so did Fringe. Then everything started dropping off. Latter seasons of Lost, latter seasons of Fringe, Super 8, TFA, etc.
 
Movies/TV.

Alias was great. (Heck even Felicity was a decent drama).

Lost started off great, so did Fringe. Then everything started dropping off. Latter seasons of Lost, latter seasons of Fringe, Super 8, TFA, etc.
I agree, was just making sure we were on the same page there. :laugh:
 
I agree, was just making sure we were on the same page there. :laugh:

For once! ;)

But back to my original point, that's why I feel it's important to scoop someone like Johnson up and give him creative control of the franchise while he still has fresh ideas and hasn't been completely churned through the Hollywood assembly line yet. Berman and Braga were good for Star Trek for about 7 years before they completely burnt out.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad