# Star Trek Discussion Thread



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Nov 10, 2011)

Some random Star Trek thoughts I want to present for discussion.

SFDebris on Enterprise ep Regeneration

Despite script problems: it's good.


----------



## Comic Book Guy (Nov 10, 2011)

There ought to be a thread, whatwith the movie and all. . .

But, I might as well say this, since we're on first page.

The only downside of the new movie and it revitalizing the whole ST film franchise is that --

It'll be a long while before we get a Star Trek on-going television show.


----------



## Ash (Nov 10, 2011)

The best thing we could do is disallow JJ Abrams from making another movie and forget that last one ever happened.

Other than that, I think there was little hope of making another series for a while. Enterprise's cancellation was a good sign that the franchise needed a cooldown. The 2009 movie is what happens when you try for warp 12 instead.


----------



## Mikaveli (Nov 10, 2011)

Are you kidding me? Abrams film was fucking great. It was really good.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 10, 2011)

I loved the new Star Trek movie, I never understood why some people hate it so much.


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

It was less of a Star Trek movie, more of a teen gangbang adventure film. In space.


----------



## G. Hawke (Nov 11, 2011)

Ash said:


> It was less of a Star Trek movie, more of a teen gangbang adventure film. In space.



...I am sorry, this is an utter load of crock.

I CAN understand why some Trekkies/Fans might find it not exactly their cup of tea, but to disparage it simply because it refuses to adhere to some archaic/unbending notion of what a Trek movie MUST be, and instead chooses to be well acted, well written and bloody awesome fun is downright ridiculous.

Personally as someone who has seen WAY too much of Star trek(except DS9, for some reason I never got around to it) I'll take this new version any bloody day.

And here I'll add the obligatory statement that taste is subjective and everyone is welcomed to a personal and differing opinion.


----------



## martryn (Nov 11, 2011)

The new Trek movie, and the revitilization or reimagining of the franchise, is only a positive thing.  Let's face it, Voyager was utter crap, and DS9 suffered from radical swings in quality.  The only amazing Trek show was TNG, but those movies were unneeded and wasteful.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2011)

Ash said:


> It was less of a Star Trek movie, more of a teen gangbang adventure film. In space.



What about it wasn't a "Star Trek Movie"?  I've seen every Star Trek movie, every series, read some of the books and comics and I loved the new movie.


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

I'm sure lots of people like it. It's meant for people to like, what with the cool chicks, lots of cool laser fights and cast made up of cool popular people. Kinda like a Michael Bay film. It was made to appeal to a wide audience range, you know, so anyone can come in and be a cool Star Trek fan too.

Except, no. Star Trek has never been some generic action series that college kids love watching while wasted. Star Trek is a bold, dramatic, inspirational science fiction series. It always has been. That's what brought people into the franchise in the first place. Uhura's ass had nothing to do with it. It might have in the beginning, but it's not what people stayed for. Hell, Enterprise delved into the sex appeal more than once, but at least it stayed true to the premise. 

So yeah, people can like whatever they want. It was a fun movie. I enjoyed it, myself. But I don't consider it what a good movie in general is supposed to be, and I certainly don't consider it canon to Star Trek.

I also liked Vulcan right where it was.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2011)

Ash said:


> But I don't consider it what a good movie in general is supposed to be, and I certainly don't consider it canon to Star Trek.



You don't consider it canon to Star Trek?  And what if from now on all series branch out from this story?  Nothing in Star Trek is ever canon again?

Speaking as someone who has seen almost all there is to Star Trek that movie had a much better story than some of the shit story lines that have emerged over the years.  Do you not consider any of them canon either?



Ash said:


> I also liked Vulcan right where it was.



I didn't really give a shit about Vulcan one way or the other as a planet.


----------



## EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! (Nov 11, 2011)

I'd place Star Trek 09 above all ST movies 
except for II, IV, First Contact and Galaxy Quest.


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> You don't consider it canon to Star Trek?  And what if from now on all series branch out from this story?  Nothing in Star Trek is ever canon again?
> 
> Speaking as someone who has seen almost all there is to Star Trek that movie had a much better story than some of the shit story lines that have emerged over the years.  Do you not consider any of them canon either?



All the series and the ten movies were as official as they can be, even Voyager, unfortunately. They all followed the same timeline and were set in the same universe. Sure the new movie was approved by Paramount and whoever owns the franchise at the moment, but if it were canon in the TOS-VOY timeline, it will presumably undo everything that happened in the shows/movies. All of it would never happen. TOS most of all. It makes no sense to consider the new movie anything but a spinoff or reboot unless you want to toss a hundred years of lore, character development and story out the window.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I didn't really give a shit about Vulcan one way or the other as a planet.



Amok Time matters._ It matters_.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2011)

Ash said:


> All the series and the ten movies were as official as they can be, even Voyager, unfortunately. They all followed the same timeline and were set in the same universe. Sure the new movie was approved by Paramount and whoever owns the franchise at the moment, but if it were canon in the TOS-VOY timeline, it will presumably undo everything that happened in the shows/movies. All of it would never happen. TOS most of all. It makes no sense to consider the new movie anything but a spinoff or reboot unless you want to toss a hundred years of lore, character development and story out the window.



This is hardly the first time there has been time travel in a Star Trek story that irrevocably changed the past.  Granted this was the most extensive but so what.

And what is wrong with a reboot?



Ash said:


> Amok Time matters._ It matters_.



I guess.  In the grand scheme of the Star Trek storyline there are much much more important episodes.


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> This is hardly the first time there has been time travel in a Star Trek story that irrevocably changed the past.  Granted this was the most extensive but so what.
> 
> And what is wrong with a reboot?



As I said before, the series didn't need a reboot. It needed a break from four series running one after the other, and this is not the type of reboot it needed. It could have gone without being so ostentatious. But that's just my view.



Tsukiyomi said:


> I guess.  In the grand scheme of the Star Trek storyline there are much much more important episodes.



Yes, but that one was one of my favorites.


----------



## G. Hawke (Nov 11, 2011)

Wait, I am pretty sure the movie did not wipe out years of canon.

The movie was set in a separate timeline, an alternate universe divergent from the original series and everything that came from it.

That means technically TOS existed as is, _alongside_ whatever that comes henceforth from the movie timeline.

At least that is my take on it. *shrugs*


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2011)

Ash said:


> As I said before, the series didn't need a reboot. It needed a break from four series running one after the other, and this is not the type of reboot it needed. It could have gone without being so ostentatious. But that's just my view.



I disagree, if very much needed a reboot.  It had been a long time since a decent Star Trek movie or TV show and starting over seemed a wiser choice than trying to incorporate all existing stories with their many contradictions and plot holes.



Ash said:


> Yes, but that one was one of my favorites.



And nothing is stopping you from re-watching it anytime you want.



G. Hawke said:


> Wait, I am pretty sure the movie did not wipe out years of canon.
> 
> The movie was set in a separate timeline, an alternate universe divergent from the original series and everything that came from it.
> 
> ...



That depends I suppose on how time travel works in the Star Trek universe.  Does going back in time and changing the past destroy the original timeline?


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

Enterprise existed. The "Admiral's prized beagle" Scotty transported somewhere was Porthos, Archer's dog 

Star Trek Online also followed the movie with Vulcan's destruction and everything, and I think it takes place on the TNG+ era. I'm not too sure about that because I only played it for a few hours. Plus, I wouldn't take any stock in this game's involvement to the story in any official sense.

If it were in a separate universe then it wouldn't be such a big deal. I could live with it if that were the case (though I still wouldn't like it).


----------



## Ash (Nov 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I disagree, if very much needed a reboot.  It had been a long time since a decent Star Trek movie or TV show and starting over seemed a wiser choice than trying to incorporate all existing stories with their many contradictions and plot holes.



Movies, yes. ST 9 and 10 could have gone better. But I liked Enterprise very much. It's my second favorite series, and many people were upset by its cancellation. But given some time, the series could have started fresh in another time and place. Not smack in with the whole Borg/Dominion arcs, but still close to home, like what Enterprise did. Unfortunately Enterprise was in the wrong place at the wrong time.



Tsukiyomi said:


> And nothing is stopping you from re-watching it anytime you want.



I know that. I have the DVD.



Tsukiyomi said:


> That depends I suppose on how time travel works in the Star Trek universe.  Does going back in time and changing the past destroy the original timeline?



Usually time travel has worked in causality loops. Everything that happened had already happened due to future interference, so in the end NOT going back in time would have altered the timeline. Or something. There haven't been many cases of major changes.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Nov 13, 2011)

SFDebris reviews Rocks and Shoals

Kinda funny that Keevan gets annoying character, especially when you remember how he died.


----------



## Dream Brother (Sep 9, 2012)




----------



## Detective (Sep 9, 2012)

I suppose since Into Darkness is literally attached to the ST title, the subtitle would be: the search for the undiscovered punctuation country of Colon.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Oct 14, 2012)

SFDebris reviews The Magnificent Ferengi

I have a higher oppinion of the Ferengi than he does. I do agree with him as far as the original TNG Ferengi went, they were a bad farse of capitalism. But I like what DS9 did with them. Hell, I believe Armin Shimmerman's main reason for taking the roll of Quark was to undo the damage he helped do to the Ferengi in The Last Outpost. 

The only DS9 Ferengi episode I don't care for is Latinum and Lace. And even that episode, arguably DS9's worst, managed to evolve Ferengi society.


----------



## Castiel (Oct 14, 2012)

Finished DS9 last month, amazing show


----------



## Furious George (Oct 14, 2012)

Still making my way through TNG, season 5.

Too much awesome for words. 

Can you IMAGINE how much more fanatical TNG's fanbase would be if they had the internet when it first aired?


----------



## Detective (Oct 14, 2012)

Furious George said:


> Still making my way through TNG, season 5.
> 
> Too much awesome for words.
> 
> Can you IMAGINE how much more fanatical TNG's fanbase would be if they had the internet when it first aired?



Oh Fuck, I would have loved that. 1200 page First version Threads of discussion for each ep. Then some guy like Tazmo would automatically make a new one, for the 2nd act of the same episode.

TNG is Best Trek, Bro. Best.

Warp 9.... Engage!


----------



## Furious George (Oct 14, 2012)

Detective said:


> Oh Fuck, I would have loved that. 1200 page First version Threads of discussion for each ep. Then some guy like Tazmo would automatically make a new one, for the 2nd act of the same episode.
> 
> TNG is Best Trek, Bro. Best.
> 
> Warp 9.... Engage!



lol exactly.

I almost want to start a "Shaka, when the walls fell" meme to replace "fail" but I know it wouldn't catch on.


----------



## Detective (Oct 14, 2012)

Furious George said:


> lol exactly.
> 
> I almost want to start a "Shaka, when the walls fell" meme to replace "fail" but I know it wouldn't catch on.



Make it so, Number One.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Oct 15, 2012)

Furious George said:


> Still making my way through TNG, season 5.
> 
> Too much awesome for words.
> 
> Can you IMAGINE how much more fanatical TNG's fanbase would be if they had the internet when it first aired?



Yeah. Would've spread like wildfire. Then again... leaks might've occurred. I was waiting with baited breath for Best of Both Worlds II.


----------



## Furious George (Oct 20, 2012)

Just watched SFDebris review of Ensign Ro.... 

Two things that makes me think twice about watching his reviews anymore. 
1). He seems to like Ensign Ro. 
2). He seems to not like Riker.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Oct 20, 2012)

Furious George said:


> Just watched SFDebris review of Ensign Ro....
> 
> Two things that makes me think twice about watching his reviews anymore.
> 1). He seems to like Ensign Ro.
> 2). He seems to not like Riker.



Neither comes up all that often. The character he hates most is Neelix, and he can be fair to even Neelix on those occations when he gets a good episode.

I'd suggest keep watching.


----------



## Bolt Crank (Oct 21, 2012)

Furious George said:


> Just watched SFDebris review of Ensign Ro....
> 
> Two things that makes me think twice about watching his reviews anymore.
> 1). He seems to like Ensign Ro.
> 2). He seems to not like Riker.



What's wrong with hating Riker?


----------



## Furious George (Oct 21, 2012)

Bolt Crank said:


> What's wrong with hating Riker?



Don't know if this is a trick question or not.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Oct 21, 2012)

After a very long week SFDebris finds his Inner Light


SFDebris try's to defend a relationship between two members of Voyager and fails miserably


----------



## Furious George (Nov 6, 2012)

On season 7, TNG.

So, Troi and Worf have a thing now?  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Worf once say that human women were too fragile for him? Considering Troi is probably the most fragile woman on the Enterprise every night must end with a trip to Crusher's ICU area. 

Inconsistency is so alarmingly inconsistent.


----------



## Dream Brother (Nov 6, 2012)

I don't really watch many video reviews -- .


----------



## Furious George (Nov 7, 2012)

*Finished TNG*.

Overall I enjoyed it.* I think the series was best when the episodes were more dialogue-heavy and about diplomacy... pretty much any episode that lets Patrick Stewart get on his soapbox.* Ironically enough this is one series where I prefer the preachy episodes. Data-centric episodes were always a treat. Great development for the character, great acting from Brent Spiner, great commentary on what constitutes humanity. 

I think on a whole the series got worse as it went on, becoming more about hokey science fiction, bad romance and action-oriented plots than having diplomatic encounters with those kooky aliens. *The characterization also really waned with time, particularly Riker (a once more humble Kirk-type becoming a love-sick bully) and Worf (may as well have put a "I'm wrong" sign on him after the 1st season)*.

Still, watered-down TNG characterization is much  stronger than typical characterization.* I really came to care for the Enterprise crew and that care keeps you watching, even in the episodes that aren't very well-written.* Good characters, pretty good performances all around (barring Troi), good morals and excellent special effects for its time. Pretty easy to see why this series is worshiped.

8.5/10

_Best Season Award_ definitely goes to *Season 3*. All of the best episodes went in here, like The Offspring, Defector and the unforgettable Best of Both Worlds part 1.

Next is *Deep Space Nine*.


----------



## Dream Brother (Nov 7, 2012)

DS9 is my favourite ST series.

TNG does have its moments. I really dislike Troi, but apart from her I think the characters (and their interaction) work well. They just make for a good combination, and Data's antics are particularly enjoyable.


----------



## John (Nov 7, 2012)

DS9 is my favorite as well. If I had to rank them:

1. DS9
2. TNG
3. TOS
4. ENT
5. VOY


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 7, 2012)

Wasn't Voyager the one with Seven of Nine and the Doctor? That series was great. Dunno why people hated on it. Enterprise seemed the weakest series to me and even it had its moments. 

On the subject of the cybernetic people, for some reason all of my favorite character arcs in Star Trek so far have involved artificial persons or cyborgs.


----------



## Dream Brother (Nov 7, 2012)

I still need to see TOS. From what I've seen of the others, I would rank them as:

DS9
TNG
VOY












ENT

(To be fair to ENT, I've only seen a handful of episodes from the series, but I didn't like any of them.)


----------



## Furious George (Nov 8, 2012)

Got through with the fist DS9 episode.

It was well-written. Good stuff. 

This crew seems a lot... _angrier_ than the TNG crew and I don't know if I like that.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 23, 2012)




----------



## John (Jan 10, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]oICkkw9pq1I[/YOUTUBE]
If you haven't seen the new gag reel from the blu ray release of TNG season 2 I suggest you check it out. I've heard that Michael Dorn has a great sense of humor and it's funny seeing how much he cracks up during his lines. The last clip with him singing with Gene Roddenberry is hilarious. It's apparent that the cast had a great time filming this series.


*Spoiler*: _Mirrors in case the first link is removed_ 



[YOUTUBE]54tm8f6VPD8[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]C6pOTKDg3sE[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ERlhkznqkHI[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ZL0cpIAtIkE[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Jan 27, 2013)

SFDebris Reviews Yesterday's Enterprise

Another 10 for TNG.


----------



## Ash (Jan 27, 2013)

I've been meaning to re-watch all of DS9, if I can pull myself away from the video games.

Ah, DS9. The best Star Trek anything. Ever.

Edit: Then again, I need to finish watching ToS one of these days. Once I finish season two and three, I'll pretty much have watched every episode of every ST, with the exception of TAS. I may be missing a couple TNG episodes, since I only watched them on TV when they were on.


----------



## Ryuji Yamazaki (Feb 17, 2013)

To rate the movies in order for me;

Wrath of Kahn
The Undiscovered Country
First Contact
The Voyage Home
Search for Spock
Nemesis
Generations
The Final Frontier
Insurrection
The Motion Picture


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 31, 2020)

Can I watch the Enterprise series and then the new Trilogy or do I need to watch all the other movies and tv series as well?


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 31, 2020)

Sherlōck said:


> Can I watch the Enterprise series and then the new Trilogy or do I need to watch all the other movies and tv series as well?



You can basically start from Star Trek (2009), because that represented a very pronounced shift in tone and aesthetic that has defined everything that's come since. While Picard has some allusions to The Next Generation and Voyager, you don't need to have actually seen those to know what's going on.

So basically:

1. Star Trek (2009)
2. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013)
3. Star Trek: Beyond (2016)
4. Star Trek: Discovery (2017-)
5. Star Trek: Picard (2020-)

Enterprise (2001-2005) was made by the pre-2009 creative team and is therefore very different from "modern" Star Trek in style, so it's not necessary for you to have seen it to understand the modern iteration.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 31, 2020)

mr_shadow said:


> 4. Star Trek: Discovery (2017-)
> 5. Star Trek: Picard (2020-)



But aren't these two series part of original timeline while the new movies are part of alternate timeline?


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 31, 2020)

Sherlōck said:


> But aren't these two series part of original timeline while the new movies are part of alternate timeline?



The creators claim so, but they are* much* closer to the "alternate timeline" in visual style and story themes than to the "original timeline". Discovery also blatantly contradicts a lot of established canon (like having holograms in a pre-Kirk era).

To keep your sanity it's best to imagine that Discovery either takes place in the alternate timeline or in a third timeline altogether. Whoever takes over as showrunner after Kurtzman will probably retcon this to be the case.

Picard is in a sense a sequel to Star Trek (2009), because it continues the story of the "future" that Spock travelled back from to create the new timeline. You can understand Picard just fine with just the information provided in ST09.


----------

