-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
For The Star Trek Original Series Die-Hards
- Thread starter Panther_99FS
- Start date
Hello Panther_99FS,
Fair: That is a matter of opinion.
Non-biased: This was completely non-biased. I had formed no judgments going in. If anything, I was more in favour of giving it a chance because of the Star Trek name so any bias would have been positive.
When shopping for a product, I typically look for the unfavourable reviews and look at the specific complaints to see if they have merit or relevance to me.
With this show, it was so much easier because instead of just relying on opinion, there is actually footage to support the reviews and I thought the reviews were very relevant and on the mark. Harsh as I commented earlier, but on the mark.
Hello Penzoil3,
This is hardly arrogant. Everyone goes through life making decisions about whether or not to select a product.
When you go to a Library or Book Store, how do you select the books you want?
I don't just select based on title, though I may pick up a book based on title and flip through it to determine if I actually want it.
If it is a novel, the dust jacket summary is a pretty good place to start.
If it is non-fiction, one presumably has a pretty fair idea what the topic will be and one can evaluate the coverage the book has on subjects one does know about.
The evaluation of this show failed on both accounts.
You don't need to buy a book and read it in its entirety to make a decision.
Would you buy a book or even bother borrowing a book when you already know that the contents isn't what you want?
In the case of STD, just consider a couple factors: (hopefully no plot spoilers here)
The idea of Subspace Radio was that it was faster than a ship could travel but it was not instantaneous.
As a plot device, it gave the Captain of a Starship the independence that is lacking in the modern world and is more in line with the Age of Sail.
The Captain often cannot get guidance from higher command and must make crucial decisions on his or her own.
With instantaneous (and holographic!) communications, that plot device is gone.
So what we are left with is a contradiction: If instantaneous holographic communication was available 10 years before TOS, then what happens to all the stories in TOS that depended on it such as "The Menagerie"?
In the case of a well known character, Sarek of Vulcan, we see a few New contradictions.
Sarek seems to have no problems with his protégé Burnham becoming the exec of a starship and yet he could not handle his own son Spock joining Starfleet. In fact, Sarek did not accept Spock's decision to join Starfleet until well after TOS. So what sense does it make that 10 years before TOS, he is supporting Burnham doing the same thing?
Consider how contract proposals are evaluated. One has to decide whether the contractor is capable of doing the project and whether the project will be the quality you want. To refuse a contract based on seeing just a little past performance is pretty common.
How is that arrogance? This is just how life works.
Some people just want a coffee table book for the pictures.
Not everyone is interested in the same things.
- Ivan.
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
Well...I guess logically, one can be so biased and narrowed minded that they don't even see it themselves....
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
I rest my case. He never even watched it.
Yes, and now he's backtracking and trying to explain his lack of episode and plot knowledge with some long winded "explanation"....
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
I agree with you here since you didn't know of Burnham's court martial nor did you know how she made it to First Officer/Commander in the first place...
You do have a great imagination though!
Hello Panther_99FS,
But the question is whether you agree that the descriptions line up with what is in the show? Or should I include links to a few video clips to remind you if you are not so observant?
Actually what is the point? Others here already have posted links to reviews that cover these points and you ignore the evidence there.
I knew about the court martial. It just was not relevant to the discussion at the time or the point I was trying to make.
Court martial was after Burnham did something stupid. I was arguing why she was unsuited for a position where doing something stupid would have serious consequences.
Hindsight is perfect but to understand the decisions being made, you must work from the information that the characters have at the time they are making those decisions.
Any comments on the inconsistency of:
"You can't kill the Klingon because you will just make him into a Martyr."
.....
Gosh Darnit, After telling you all so many times why you can't kill that Klingon, I will just have to shoot him myself!!!
Where is the logic in that??? Or did I just imagine that scene too?
Don't worry, there is a LOT more of that kind of silly stuff in the show.
- Ivan.
But the question is whether you agree that the descriptions line up with what is in the show? Or should I include links to a few video clips to remind you if you are not so observant?
Actually what is the point? Others here already have posted links to reviews that cover these points and you ignore the evidence there.
I knew about the court martial. It just was not relevant to the discussion at the time or the point I was trying to make.
Court martial was after Burnham did something stupid. I was arguing why she was unsuited for a position where doing something stupid would have serious consequences.
Hindsight is perfect but to understand the decisions being made, you must work from the information that the characters have at the time they are making those decisions.
Any comments on the inconsistency of:
"You can't kill the Klingon because you will just make him into a Martyr."
.....
Gosh Darnit, After telling you all so many times why you can't kill that Klingon, I will just have to shoot him myself!!!
Where is the logic in that??? Or did I just imagine that scene too?
Don't worry, there is a LOT more of that kind of silly stuff in the show.
- Ivan.
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
What I've noticed is that everyone that has issues with Discovery grew up with TOS.
I enjoy Discovery for what it is - without comparison.
The younger generation (i.e. new fans) could care less about the TOS, or the Lucas Star Wars, or the 1978 Battlestar Galactica...
FOO FIGHTER
Charter Member
Exactly!!! Because there is no comparison. If it is not going to be Star Trek, STOP calling it Star Trek?
I have issue with it because it is a steaming pile of political correctness created by politically correct idiots who don't know a damn thing about ST or even good science fiction!
Also, there is a good way and a bad way to depict Trek a few years before Kirk's era. The people behind Discovery obviously chose the bad way. Some of the fan produced fiction that takes place before TOS makes Discovery look like a bad joke.
Then why continue those franchises? If they are so alien to the "new fans", then why are they still making movies/TV series about them? Why is Han Solo, Chewbacca and Leia in the new Star Wars film if nobody knows who they are? Why is Luke going to be in the next one? Is Disney relying solely on those "old guys" to go see it?
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
It is Star Trek but I believe this is a key point that you're missing:
TNG/VOY/DS9 all got away with elaborate sets and technology because the setting was so far in the future from TOS, that it was deemed "plausible".
However, when you set the stage for pre TOS series, the re-envisioned Star Trek technology clashes with 1960s television technology available in the 60s. ENT faced this issue.
So I would debate that if in the 1960s, today's filming/CGI technology were available to Gene Roddenberry back then, then TOS would have looked really different - i.e. TOS would have looked more like ENT, JJ Abrams "Kelvin" universe, or Discovery...
And as far as your issues with political correctness are concerned, well news flash - TOS had it's own issues with PC too!!!....(Uhura and Sulu as officers & Kirk kissing Uhura)
FOO FIGHTER
Charter Member
I think you are the one missing the point.
It is not about budgets, sets or CGI, it's about quality and substance. TOS endures because it was good sci-fi set in a positive future where humanity had finally pushed beyond it's own stupidity and explored space united. Having minorities on the show wasn't PC, it was the right thing to do and helped to create that positive future. The writers/producers/directors/actors didn't force their brand of politics into your face every week either. Roddenberry didn't come out and say "I hate Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon and their supporters so I'm going to alienate half the viewing audience".
When you start messing with the original formula of something that was once great, you begin to degrade it. Giving Sarek a daughter (whether she was adopted or not), making Sulu gay or turning Boomer and Starbuck into women all in the name of PC is going to dilute that formula and make it sour. If they want strong women or gay characters then create some, don't destroy the originals.
The new Galactica was less sci-fi and more soap opera dripping with over the top sex, drama and never ending plot twists (that seems to be a staple now). Those are the viewers that it attracted and that allowed it to stay afloat as a mini-series. The follow on series Caprica, went right down the toilet and died a quick death.
For the record, ENT tanked because it sucked, period. The cast members even complained about the direction the show was taking. When you have the hot Vulcan chick naked in the shower in the pilot episode, well you kinda know which way the show is gonna go.
Again, if the studios aren't going to stay true to Star Trek, then call it something else. Don't try to lure people in with just the name.
It is not about budgets, sets or CGI, it's about quality and substance. TOS endures because it was good sci-fi set in a positive future where humanity had finally pushed beyond it's own stupidity and explored space united. Having minorities on the show wasn't PC, it was the right thing to do and helped to create that positive future. The writers/producers/directors/actors didn't force their brand of politics into your face every week either. Roddenberry didn't come out and say "I hate Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon and their supporters so I'm going to alienate half the viewing audience".
When you start messing with the original formula of something that was once great, you begin to degrade it. Giving Sarek a daughter (whether she was adopted or not), making Sulu gay or turning Boomer and Starbuck into women all in the name of PC is going to dilute that formula and make it sour. If they want strong women or gay characters then create some, don't destroy the originals.
The new Galactica was less sci-fi and more soap opera dripping with over the top sex, drama and never ending plot twists (that seems to be a staple now). Those are the viewers that it attracted and that allowed it to stay afloat as a mini-series. The follow on series Caprica, went right down the toilet and died a quick death.
For the record, ENT tanked because it sucked, period. The cast members even complained about the direction the show was taking. When you have the hot Vulcan chick naked in the shower in the pilot episode, well you kinda know which way the show is gonna go.
Again, if the studios aren't going to stay true to Star Trek, then call it something else. Don't try to lure people in with just the name.
Just one observation regarding Sulu. In TOS he was "still in the closet." It was only in the other films that he was open. Since George Takei is gay, I'd say that TOS was deliberately inhibiting him in the name of being PC for that period of time. 
We should also keep in mind that the Federation's fleet were vessels of exploration on scientific missions, they were not "military" although they did have weapons for protection. That is why the ships were aesthetically pleasing, in stark contrast to the ships in Battlestar Galactica which were designed as a utilitarian weapons of war, with no pretension to be otherwise.
We should also keep in mind that the Federation's fleet were vessels of exploration on scientific missions, they were not "military" although they did have weapons for protection. That is why the ships were aesthetically pleasing, in stark contrast to the ships in Battlestar Galactica which were designed as a utilitarian weapons of war, with no pretension to be otherwise.
FOO FIGHTER
Charter Member
I don't know when exactly George Takei 'came out' after the TOS, that is irrelevant to the character of Sulu. Making Sulu gay in the last movie for the sake of being PC is utter stupidity and was done solely for political purposes. It has already been firmly established in the earlier TOS movies and novels that Sulu has a biological daughter. George Takei himself is/was against making Sulu gay on the grounds that it ruined the continuity of the Trek universe and diluted the character from what he was originally intended to be. Simply saying 'it is an alternative Trek reality' just to make up some jumbled political mess and slapping ST on it ain't cutting it. Again, TOS had substance & quality and was not the whiz bang, flash in the CGI pan the latest nonsensical movies are.
Star Fleet is the Federation's military with an arm for exploration. Think of it as being the navy and NASA rolled into one entity. That is why you have commodores, captains, commanders and so on in uniform, conducting themselves with a military bearing. Do you think the Klingons & Romulans only want to bring milk & cookies to the Federation? There has to be some FORCE there to check them. Remember, Kirk and the Enterprise are on a five year mission of exploration, what were they doing before and after that?
Star Fleet is the Federation's military with an arm for exploration. Think of it as being the navy and NASA rolled into one entity. That is why you have commodores, captains, commanders and so on in uniform, conducting themselves with a military bearing. Do you think the Klingons & Romulans only want to bring milk & cookies to the Federation? There has to be some FORCE there to check them. Remember, Kirk and the Enterprise are on a five year mission of exploration, what were they doing before and after that?
MrZippy
SOH-CM-2025
Chasing every green Orion slave girl they could find! Ain't nuttin' better than that!
Where's Gaila when we need her?Attachments
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
I don't remember the exact episodes, but Capt. Kirk made the statement more than once that Starfleet was a scientific organization. Capt. Picard made similar statements over the course of the series.
DS9's "Defiant" was the only pure military starship Starfleet had at the onset of the Dominion War.
FOO FIGHTER
Charter Member
I don't remember those exact episodes either.
He did say:
"I'm a soldier not a diplomat." - Errand of Mercy
"Out here, we're the only policemen around. A crime has been committed." - Arena
The episode 'The Ultimate Computer' involved war games between the Enterprise and three other Star Fleet ships. There's also the on going flexing of muscles and threats between Star Fleet and the Klingons.
As I have stated before, every movie and TV series that followed the TWOK was just sci-fi with the Star Trek name attached to it (IMO). While each series had a decent episode or two, overall they failed to reflect the charm and substance of the TOS. And it's interesting to note, those episodes that raked in the ratings dealt with the TOS. Those that come to mind are: "Yesterday's Enterprise" (NG), "Relics" (NG) and "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9).
He did say:
"I'm a soldier not a diplomat." - Errand of Mercy
"Out here, we're the only policemen around. A crime has been committed." - Arena
The episode 'The Ultimate Computer' involved war games between the Enterprise and three other Star Fleet ships. There's also the on going flexing of muscles and threats between Star Fleet and the Klingons.
As I have stated before, every movie and TV series that followed the TWOK was just sci-fi with the Star Trek name attached to it (IMO). While each series had a decent episode or two, overall they failed to reflect the charm and substance of the TOS. And it's interesting to note, those episodes that raked in the ratings dealt with the TOS. Those that come to mind are: "Yesterday's Enterprise" (NG), "Relics" (NG) and "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9).
Hey Guys,
I thought that the "Dominion Wars" episodes from DS9 were pretty good in general.
I do wonder a bit about how much shorter the lifespans of ships tend to be in a fleet battle as versus single ship battles.
In a fleet battle, shields tend to be pretty useless and one or two good hits are often enough to cause a catastrophic explosion.
Enterprise / M5 fought FOUR other starships: Lexington, Excalibur, Potemkin, Hood.
Regarding USS Defiant as the first pure warship in the series, one has to remember that it was the first ship in the series that was not permanently manned. It was not on constant patrols and exploration in remote locations and thus would not need to be nearly as self sufficient.
What I find amazing in the movies after TWOK is the incredible transformation of Captain Kirk et al. from savvy explorers who have managed to survive in many alien environments and cultures into a bunch of bumbling fools unable to blend in with something from the history of their own planet.
Could it be advanced case of senility?
- Ivan.
I thought that the "Dominion Wars" episodes from DS9 were pretty good in general.
I do wonder a bit about how much shorter the lifespans of ships tend to be in a fleet battle as versus single ship battles.
In a fleet battle, shields tend to be pretty useless and one or two good hits are often enough to cause a catastrophic explosion.
Enterprise / M5 fought FOUR other starships: Lexington, Excalibur, Potemkin, Hood.
Regarding USS Defiant as the first pure warship in the series, one has to remember that it was the first ship in the series that was not permanently manned. It was not on constant patrols and exploration in remote locations and thus would not need to be nearly as self sufficient.
What I find amazing in the movies after TWOK is the incredible transformation of Captain Kirk et al. from savvy explorers who have managed to survive in many alien environments and cultures into a bunch of bumbling fools unable to blend in with something from the history of their own planet.
Could it be advanced case of senility?
- Ivan.