I don't think we've ever used Rabbits pumped up on Viagra to root out Russian saboteurs.
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
I don't think we've ever used Rabbits pumped up on Viagra to root out Russian saboteurs.
jlee562
Sr Member
Human obsession with "cute" things; unforseen consequences; the limitation of human perceptions.
But look, even if you wanted to argue that there was no allegory in this particular episode, I really don't understand how you can't just concede the point that Gene's vision was that ST would be about humanity.
I mean, for heaven's sake, it's not like he didn't say it explicitly:
"[By creating] a new world with new rules, I could make statements about sex, religion, Vietnam, politics, and intercontinental missiles. Indeed, we did make them on Star Trek: we were sending messages and fortunately they all got by the network."
nickytea
Master Member
It likely doesn't matter as he is a pathologically contrarian. Once one discovers one's "online forum persona", not matter how ill advised, it becomes ingrained. A word of caution though, when all you can do is argue the negative, you likely have already lost the argument and if you lack the grace to concede when you are wrong, you are really lost in the sauce.
Although the tribble/rabbit analogy was funny.
Or the tribbles were the proverbial fly in the ointment which provided, along with Cyrano Jones, comedic relief while advancing the story. Or tribbles were allegories for over indulgent Americans.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
Or tribbles were allegories for over indulgent Americans.
Bingo.
I would have summed up the metaphor of the Tribbles with one word:
Excess.
Kevin
nickytea
Master Member
Because I like aliens that look and act different from us. That's what makes them 'alien'. If everything was supposed to be a metaphor on humanity, nothing would be strange or new.
I think we take elements on what makes us human a bit too much for granted when it comes to Star Trek. Emotions, senses and conflict are not traits exclusive to only humans. Other animals have similar traits to ours like happiness, sadness, anger, fear. Ants will enslave other ant colonies, birds will build homes in trees, penguins will teach their young how to walk, dogs will play gently with one another ect. I find it goofy that when an alien in Star Trek has traits similar to how a lot of living things on Earth behave that it should automatically be labeled as a metaphor on humanity. If there are aliens like the ones we see in Star Trek out there in the universe, what makes us human is no longer 'human' exclusive.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Gary Seven was trained by the Celestial Intervention Agency which is an unofficial branch of the Time Lord Bureaucracy.
You know, if that's all it takes, every story ever written should be labeled as stories about humanity.
Except Gary Seven is human, never travelled through time nor had any space faring vehicle that took him to other worlds. Why does everyone compare him to the Doctor?
Hey, I never thought about it - but yeah... he has the little pen and everything.
And Trek was most surely Gene's vision - as in, there has to be the guy who says "Know what would be cool - a starship Earth" and people get in line to follow. You should never try to subtract from the creator, stare at a blank page, then put something on it that will have the longevity this show has. It's like that moron Solo wrote all about in his book - how HE created Star Trek and Gene was on the sidelines cheering him on.
nickytea
Master Member
First, I hardly suggested that my response to someone else's one-word summary would constitute conclusiveness, or "all it takes." Second, you were the one to reference this episode specifically. I doubt anyone would hold it an ideal reference for Trek's potential.
Let's be clear, you're the one that said "metaphor on humanity." I said metaphor. When talking about humanity, you continually reduce the term to to its barest literal form.
The way Star Trek uses metaphor as a storytelling device, at its best, personifies our internal attributes in an external aggressor or antagonist that we can more specifically define ourselves against. Looking at the "aliens" as a literal exploration of biological forms reduces the audiences potential experience with the story. With this, I must remind myself that many Trek fans look to it as a window rather than a frame. Unfortunate.
Again, Jeyl, I find myself in a place where your selective and manipulative discourse tactics strain my compassion. Going to have to take a break from this one.
I'll be back when someone's willing to have a frank, respectful conversation.
Two Star Trek series that were created after Gene Roddenberry died, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, both ran for seven seasons. Not bad when compared to his Star Trek series that ran for only three seasons.
And I'm not subtracting Gene as the creator of Star Trek. I'm just saying he wasn't a good Star Trek writer
Mola Rob
Sr Member
If you like aliens that look and act differently from us then you should avoid Star Trek like the plague. Most of the aliens look like humans with face paint applied or a piece of latex stuck to their heads and their behavior is usually based on one single human trait. TNG was the biggest offender of this in my opinion.
It sounds like you have big problems with many of the things that fundamentally make Star Trek what it is so why the heck do you bother?
Last edited:
I would hardly say that Star Trek Into Darkness has the fundamental elements that makes Star Trek what it is. I just like Star Trek better when humans are treated as just being a part of a greater diverse universe like everyone else rather than being treated as the center of the universe and our heroes say things like "HUMANITY IS SO AWESOME WE WILL ONE DAY BE COMPARED TO ANGELS AND GODS!". Even TNG moved away from such silly aspects after Gene Roddenberry passed away, as unfortunate as it is.
I'm not afraid to say Star Trek is one of my all time favorite franchises, but I'm also not afraid to admit I hate almost half of it. When Star Trek is good, it's fantastic. When it's bad, it can get embarrassingly offensive.
Star Trek Into Darkness may seem like a sure winner as a roller coaster action film, but it will never have the variety of story telling that a full fledged series would have offered. If you really want to put the franchise to the test in what makes Star Trek 'Star Trek', it's got to be a series. Being confined to one movie every three to four years with the intention of trying to appeal to every single person on this planet is not something that's open to great story telling. It's Star Trek playing it safe, and even direction like that doesn't always guarantee success.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Not everyone compares him to the Doctor because I don't and haven't. Everyone would require 100% and since I abstain your statement is invalid.
The Time Lords took in humans, trained the spunky little apes for generations (as was confirmed by Gary's dialog except for naming the Time Lords) and then he was beamed across the universe the same way the unnamed Time Lord was in the Jon Pertwee story introducing the Master,Terror of the Autons, where he is simply transducted (a process similar to the transporter but much more advanced) to his location by way of and etherial beam.
Almost exclusively because of the universe that Gene created. Let's be fair, TOS was ahead of it's time and in syndication/films made a fortune. TNG through it's run averaged 10 million viewers a night. DS9 and Voyager, both TNG spin offs, COMBINED averaged 5 million. Hardly runaway successes.
You may prefer the non-mainstream and that's totally fine. But the fact of the matter is that the most successful Trek shows have been Gene's. In no small part because of the human focus I'm sure.
Similar threads
