Mola Rob
Sr Member
Modify it so it fits with any Trek movie. :lol
Star Trek Into Darkness (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Dave Porter
- Start date
Modify it so it fits with any Trek movie. :lol
The baku was a strange civilization AND a strange species. Never in my life will I ever find a species so selfish that they would rob the galaxy of advanced medical knowledge just so they can enjoy their technology free life style (even though they clearly have technology to make metal tools).
Mola Rob
Sr Member
Yes but the Enterprise was not on a five year mission in any of the Trek movies.
Yes it was a trick question.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
LOL! I was wondering why I was having debating club flash backs instead of sci-fi con flashbacks. :lol
Force Commander
Sr Member
That has to be one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
"Spock...everybody's human."
"I find that...insulting."
"I find that...insulting."
You know what else is funny? Gene Roddenberry's idea of a perfect human captain being a child hating French Marxist who surrenders to the first new alien life form he encounters and complements his officers for not saving children.
But I digress. I love the alien characters in Star Trek. Worf got to be one of my favorites because he had story arcs that spanned two whole series. And Garrak, DS9's shifty tailor? Love'em. Giving Star Trek alien characters the spotlight really does help broaden and expand the trek universe into something much more meaningful for the human characters to inhabit. Without them being characters on their own, than they start to become more charactacture like.
See? Even Kirk gets it.
SSgt Burton
Sr Member
If this isn't the most trollish statement I've heard yet I don't know what is!
:thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown :thumbsdown
Kevin
Zombie_61
Master Member
So, here's the problem with both of these statements. The events in J.J.'s Trek '09 movie took place before the Enterprise and it's crew began it's five-year mission. And the events in all of the previous Trek movies took place after the five-year mission was completed. So the mission statement doesn't apply to any of them, and doesn't appear to apply to the upcoming movie.
How many times did we see Earth on TOS though?
Not very much.
Even above the mission statement is the title of the entire franchise....
"Star Trek"
What does that mean?
A difficult and long journey to the stars.
Kinda makes "Star Trek: The Voyage Home" seems like a really silly title
DARTH SABER
Master Member
So now there's a specific number of times that earth can appear in TOS, and Abrams Trek just happened to cross the line?
yeah, TOS can do no wrong.
apparently the amount of times that Earh was the focus in TOS is the perfect amount of times earth should have appeared in the show and an exception to the rule.
As soon as earth appears in New Trek it is too many times and completely and utterly in acceptable.
It seems these "rules" are written in the fan rules book on the spot the minute TOS's flaws are compared to New Trek.
Yes, that's what it means...of course we'll just let those Earth episodes from TOS slide, of course.
Lets not forget that all of the films also hold the title of "star trek" and many of those films feature earth.
Who said I was talking about Kirk? And here I assumed you all would know about our famous french starfleet captain.
*15 minutes into the first episode of TNG*
Picard: Lieutenant, signal this on all languages and all frequencies, we surrender.
*Officially welcoming Riker*
Picard: I would appreciate it if you could keep me from making an ass of myself with children. I'm not a family man, Riker. And yet, Starfleet has given me a ship with children aboard. I don't feel comfortable with children.
*To Q*
Picard: I know Hamlet. And what he might say with irony I say with conviction. "What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculty. In form, in moving, how express and admirable. In action, how like an angel. In apprehension, how like a god...""
Q: Surely you don't see your species like that do you?
Picard: I see us one day becoming that, Q.
*later*
Riker: I could have saved that child.
Picard: You were right not to try.
*Talking to 20th Century humans*
Picard: Mankind is no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want. The need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy.
Again, a french captain who surrenders to the first alien he encounters, has an open distaste for children, believes we will one day be like angels and gods yet commends his crew for letting children die, and preaches marxism like it's the only way mankind can get ahead in the game. Now if you're a marxist, that's perfectly fine. I have nothing against marxism or it's beliefs. What I detest is how it's portrayed here as it depicts it like humanity should all conform to it when it should simply be a preference. Another problem? I bought season one on BluRay, and the main character is telling me that wanting to possess something is primitive and infantile.
Except that in TOS, Earth was only depicted as Earth of the past or a replica of Earth. NOT their modern day Earth that is under attack by some evil force that our crew must stop as seen in the last two movies. Even the Doomsday Machine episode never put Earth in direct danger, yet that still didn't stop CBS' trailer department from stating that it was.
https://twitter.com/feedthekappa/status/284434672958722048
Ted Geoghegan: "JJ Abrams himself just contacted my friend's wife about screening ST2. Thanks to everyone. A little misty-eyed here."
Wasn't Roddenberry a fairly enthusiastic socialist? I assumed he was, at any rate; the Starfleet agenda seems annoyingly utopian a lot of the time.
greatwazoo42
Master Member
Picard was given flaws for several reasons: 1) to give the rest of the main characters things to be good at instead of him, 2) to give him opportunities to evolve as a person in front of the audience so we can follow his progress and keep watching the show, 3) so he wouldn't be considered a ripoff of Kirk who was damn near perfect in every way (just ask him and he'll tell you), Etc.
No. When it came to money, Gene not only wanted his share of Star Trek, he wanted other people's share to. If you look up the original Star Trek theme, it lists Alexander Courage and Gene Roddenberry as the two people who created it. What part of the original theme contains Roddenberry's contributions? Nothing. You see, Gene wrote lyrics for the theme even though he never intended to use any of it. Why? Because by doing so he would get half of the theme's royalties and a credit as the creator of the theme.
Similar threads
