Star Trek: Alpha to Delta Quadrants & Everything In Between

[GFLPraxis]

Indeed. And is bizarrely proud of that fact.

Season Three was when STNG came into its own, better plots, excellent character development, (better uniforms, too); it featured some brilliant episodes.

I've been trying to get my wife in to Star Trek TNG for a while (she liked the original series, and the 2nd, 4th, and 6th movies). Each episode of TNG was like pulling teeth, and I was skipping the lame episodes.

Until we hit season 3. Now, she's watching episodes without me and always wants to see the next episode. The quality gap is staggering.
[doublepost=1495652695][/doublepost]

One of the few Voyager episodes I have watched. It's a good story IMO. I enjoyed it.

Voyager has a lot of good episodes IMO. It's just that the best of Voyager isn't as good as the best of TNG, and the worst of Voyager is worse than the worst of TNG.

I disliked Voyager when it was fresh compared to TNG, but kept watching.

Could barely watch Enterprise. Enterprise, and the newer films, made me look back at Voyager very fondly. It's not that bad.

 

[obeygiant]

Looks pretty good.

 

[Peace]

Looks pretty good.

It does look pretty good but why another female Captain ?

 

[C DM]

It does look pretty good but why another female Captain ?

If it was a male captain, would the question be, why another male captain?

 

[obeygiant]

It does look pretty good but why another female Captain ?

Edgy I guess?

 

[Number-Six]

Looks pretty good.

It bugs me a lot that they show that hologram when technically it wasnt introduced until more than a century later

And those Klingons look nothing like Klingons, they look like gorilla soldiers from planet of the apes

 

[BenTrovato]

Not sure if anyone posted yet but yesterday was the day the last TNG episode ever aired.. All Good Things on May 23, 1994. Probably my favourite of all time. Still remember where I was watching it and being sad that there wouldn't be any new episodes.

http://www.startrek.com/article/10-things-you-should-know-about-all-good-things

 

[mobilehaathi]

Well I'm dissapointed, but not surprised, by the Discover trailer. It just looks like generic space action to me, similar to the recent movies. Oh well.

 

[ActionableMango]

why another female Captain ?

I don't see the problem with that, but in any case the captain of the Discovery is played by Jason Isaacs, who is male.

The captain seen in the trailer, played by Michelle Yeoh, is the captain of Shenzhou. I assume that Shenzhou is not the "main" ship in the story, given that the show is named Discovery. So if you dislike female captains, I suppose you can at least take comfort that she's not captaining the titular ship.

 

[Peace]

I don't see the problem with that, but in any case the captain of the Discovery is played by Jason Isaacs, who is male.

The captain seen in the trailer, played by Michelle Yeoh, is the captain of Shenzhou. I assume that Shenzhou is not the "main" ship in the story, given that the show is named Discovery. So if you dislike female captains, I suppose you can at least take comfort that she's not captaining the titular ship.

It's not that I dislike female Captains.
It's just that I'm old school Star Trek. And for a long time having a female Captain was weird.

 

[phrehdd]

I've been trying to get my wife in to Star Trek TNG for a while (she liked the original series, and the 2nd, 4th, and 6th movies). Each episode of TNG was like pulling teeth, and I was skipping the lame episodes.

Until we hit season 3. Now, she's watching episodes without me and always wants to see the next episode. The quality gap is staggering.
[doublepost=1495652695][/doublepost]
Voyager has a lot of good episodes IMO. It's just that the best of Voyager isn't as good as the best of TNG, and the worst of Voyager is worse than the worst of TNG.

I disliked Voyager when it was fresh compared to TNG, but kept watching.

Could barely watch Enterprise. Enterprise, and the newer films, made me look back at Voyager very fondly. It's not that bad.

Seems that the S.T. universe is rather relative. Revisits of some shows seem better than when first viewed and then some. I remember how much I struggled in the first season of TNG. When a friend (first two episodes) asked me my take on the show (as he had not seen it yet) I said it is strange in that the it looks like an anorexic version of the Love Boat captain is running the Enterprise along with his 2nd, Potsie from Happy Days (when Frakes was without his beard). Yeah, not too kind on my part but again it was all new to me at that time. While many love Q, I hated the character (though the actor is brilliant) and never watched those episodes again.

 

[ActionableMango]

Seems that the S.T. universe is rather relative. Revisits of some shows seem better than when first viewed and then some. I remember how much I struggled in the first season of TNG. When a friend (first two episodes) asked me my take on the show (as he had not seen it yet) I said it is strange in that the it looks like an anorexic version of the Love Boat captain is running the Enterprise along with his 2nd, Potsie from Happy Days (when Frakes was without his beard). Yeah, not too kind on my part but again it was all new to me at that time. While many love Q, I hated the character (though the actor is brilliant) and never watched those episodes again.

The show really took off starting with season 3. I thought it was just the writers and the actors taking two years to get their legs, but now that I've seen the documentary Chaos on the Bridge (on Netflix at the moment), I know it was basically due to severe office conflict at the studio.

If you are a TNG fan it is worth a watch.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

It's not that I dislike female Captains.
It's just that I'm old school Star Trek. And for a long time having a female Captain was weird.

Well, in ways, I'm "old school", too, but Mr Spock was a revelation (imagine being an intellectual and yet holding a senior position as a bridge officer) - and a role model - and, for a long time, as a woman, I longed to be able to see female characters on TV or in the movies, that weren't either morons, mothers, love interests, or eye candy.

Indeed, as an undergraduate, I think I had one female teacher in my entire degree programme; and later, when I joined the faculty, obviously, the numbers increased, in fact, they doubled with my arrival.

So, more female captains, please.

Indeed, recall the pilot of the very first Star Trek; I seem to recall a female captain, in that, too.......

Besides, one had to hope that the twenty-third, and twenty fourth centuries were somewhat more advanced in their thinking and cultural development than was the world where the writing of such worlds took place.

 

[phrehdd]

Well, in ways, I'm "old school", too, but Mr Spock was a revelation (imagine being an intellectual and yet holding a senior position as a bridge officer) - and a role model - and, for a long time, as a woman, I longed to be able to see female characters on TV or in the movies, that weren't either morons, mothers, love interests, or eye candy.

Indeed, as an undergraduate, I think I had one female teacher in my entire degree programme; and later, when I joined the faculty, obviously, the numbers increased, in fact, they doubled with my arrival.

So, more female captains, please.

Indeed, recall the pilot of the very first Star Trek; I seem to recall a female captain, in that, too.......

Besides, one had to hope that the twenty-third, and twenty fourth centuries were somewhat more advanced in their thinking and cultural development than was the world where the writing of such worlds took place.

We fully concur on the future not being tied to gender to lead and get the job done.

Let me ask you (and anyone else here) - On Voyager, there were episodes where Captain Janeway's authority was challenged to the point of mutiny. It seemed at times to be due to the mixing of two crews and other times Janeway being challenged as an individual with strong gender overtones. Any thoughts on this? If the latter is true is that simply a reflection of the writers trying to relate Janeway's challenges to those of women of our era and for some of us, that is a let down.

 

[Number-Six]

Well, in ways, I'm "old school", too, but Mr Spock was a revelation (imagine being an intellectual and yet holding a senior position as a bridge officer) - and a role model - and, for a long time, as a woman, I longed to be able to see female characters on TV or in the movies, that weren't either morons, mothers, love interests, or eye candy.

Indeed, as an undergraduate, I think I had one female teacher in my entire degree programme; and later, when I joined the faculty, obviously, the numbers increased, in fact, they doubled with my arrival.

So, more female captains, please.

Indeed, recall the pilot of the very first Star Trek; I seem to recall a female captain, in that, too.......

Besides, one had to hope that the twenty-third, and twenty fourth centuries were somewhat more advanced in their thinking and cultural development than was the world where the writing of such worlds took place.

The captain was male in the first pilot. It was the first officer that was female. But she was not a moron or love interest and not eye candy either (although I wasn't alive in the 60s, so maybe she was - but she was still smart and in a position of power as the first officer)

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The captain was male in the first pilot. It was the first officer that was female. But she was not a moron or love interest and not eye candy either (although I wasn't alive in the 60s, so maybe she was - but she was still smart and in a position of power as the first officer)

Ah, yes, - I wasn't entirely sure and thanks for clarifying - she was the first officer, not the captain.

However, to cast a woman in such a position was considered very controversial then, and I seem to recall reading that Gene Roddenbury wasn't terribly happy about it.

 

[MacUser2525]

I seem to recall reading that Gene Roddenbury wasn't terribly happy about it.

Fail to see why she was to become his wife eventually and he wanted her around enough to have her as Nurse Chapel in the series after being axed as Number One..

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Fail to see why she was to become his wife eventually and he wanted her around enough to have her as Nurse Chapel in the series after being axed as Number One..

True.

But, either, he didn't see a female first officer as credible at that time, or, perhaps, feared negative audience reaction if the idea was followed through on; now, granted, this negativity could have been the studio, but I do recall having read that there was a negative response to the idea of a female first officer.

 

[MacUser2525]

True.

But, either, he didn't see a female first officer as credible at that time, or, perhaps, feared negative audience reaction if the idea was followed through on; now, granted, this negativity could have been the studio, but I do recall having read that there was a negative response to the idea of a female first officer.

I find it hard to believe he was that adverse to things like that after all he was the man who had the first inter-racial kiss on TV in the script hardly an acceptable action at the time.

 

[Roller]

True.

But, either, he didn't see a female first officer as credible at that time, or, perhaps, feared negative audience reaction if the idea was followed through on; now, granted, this negativity could have been the studio, but I do recall having read that there was a negative response to the idea of a female first officer.

According to The Making of Star Trek, NBC asked Gene to drop the Number One character. Gene had thought that including a woman with command responsibilities would be interesting, but test audiences reacted very negatively. After all, this was 1964. In some respects, the character was more Spock-like than Spock himself. She delivered many of her lines in a monotone, whereas we got to see Spock smile when he encountered the vibrating plant.

Despite their adverse reaction to Number One, audiences liked the actress, so she remained in the series along with Leonard Nimoy. Majel Barrett didn't marry Gene until about five years later.

 

[IronWaffle]

Jeez, the things you find when looking for something completely unrelated.

 

[Huntn]

Jeez, the things you find when looking for something completely unrelated.

Robot Chicken can be amazing!

 

[jdoll021]

I daresay that others may wish to discuss "Enterprise"; personally, I thought it the poorest show - or TV series - in the entire franchise by a considerable margin, and failed - completely - to utilise the latent potential in its cast for ensemble acting. Besides, I don't think the lead (Scott Bakula as Jonathan Archer) was all that credible - he struck me as a poor actor, with a poorly conceived and written part.

With that, I shall throw this thread open, and extend an invitation to all who would like - or who wish to join in to please feel free to do so.

Thank you for this. I was just thinking this morning how it would be nice to have a forum to discuss things like Star Trek so seeing this was a pleasant surprise.

As for ST: Enterprise, I kind of disagree. Sure, the first and second season were rocky, but that has usually been the case for Star Trek and any TV show really. I think my biggest problem with Enterprise was that throughout the other Star Trek series, we got subtle hints (particularly during ST: OS) that the 22nd century was an era of relatively primitive space travel for all species, not just Earth. Having poor Enterprise with it's "low grade particle weapons" and "spatial torpedoes" getting beat up by all of these ships with phasers, disrupters, and photon torpedoes gave me a sense that the Enterprise really shouldn't have lasted more than a day. I understand that they were trying to give it a feeling of being outmatched and relying on their wits, but I think a better approach would've been to take a page from the ST: OS episode "Balance of Terror." In that episode, you had a very "battleship vs. submarine" feel and the timing of that episode was excellent and the writing top notch. They should have made the battles in Enterprise more "submarine vs. submarine" with all sides relying on "primitive" spatial torpedoes with atomic warheads and limited viewing capabilities (a la periscope). It would have added something of a "thrill" factor to the battles. Instead, it ended up being "let's show off our fancy CGI!" If you wanted to do that, then you should have developed a post TNG era series.

Incidentally, given how far effects technology has come (and how affordable), I don't see why they can't start a new series that takes place well after TNG. I found Doug Drexler's Enterprise J to be an interesting concept (more so the idea of it being a city sized, galaxy hopping ship). I think Star Trek should take a page from Stargate: Universe and do some galaxy hopping and really explore "strange new worlds." The only thing necessary to make something like that good is to keep that ****** of a CEO at CBS (Les Moonves) off of it and let the creative team do their jobs! Les has got to go!
[doublepost=1496766550][/doublepost]

Return of the Archons

"Come for the Festival, are ya?"

One of the biggest contrasts between "The Purge" and "Return of the Archons" is that at the end of Archons, they succeed in helping their society return to something more healthy and include a subtle message that essentially says "People are not bad, they do not need to be imprisoned or controlled and can be trusted to not burn it down in acts of mindless debauchery."

That theme is either completely missing from the Purge movies, or so terribly communicated out as to be completely lost in the fact that the Purge movies really just reinforce the notion that "people are bad and will burn it all down in acts of mindless debauchery if they are not controlled or imprisoned." That's ultimately my problem with The Purge movies and why I don't watch them and never will.
[doublepost=1496766927][/doublepost]

According to The Making of Star Trek, NBC asked Gene to drop the Number One character. Gene had thought that including a woman with command responsibilities would be interesting, but test audiences reacted very negatively. After all, this was 1964.

I think Gene should have pushed back on this, particularly if the "test audiences" were old white men (and by old, I mean 40 and up). Given that, in the Andy Griffith Show, they had an episode where Sheriff Taylor and the town men were originally hesitant to allow a woman to run for city council, but by the end of it, he stands up and say "can any of us think of a really good reason why she shouldn't run?" And after the men were like "well, uh, no?" He was like "well, then I don't see why we can't just let her give it a try." The outcome being that the lady won the council seat. I think the real problem for Star Trek was that NBC was (and in many ways, still is) an "old boys" club. I don't think TNG would have been half as good if it hadn't gone straight into syndication. No network exec interference to worry about!

 

[Huntn]

Thank you for this. I was just thinking this morning how it would be nice to have a forum to discuss things like Star Trek so seeing this was a pleasant surprise.

As for ST: Enterprise, I kind of disagree. Sure, the first and second season were rocky, but that has usually been the case for Star Trek and any TV show really. I think my biggest problem with Enterprise was that throughout the other Star Trek series, we got subtle hints (particularly during ST: OS) that the 22nd century was an era of relatively primitive space travel for all species, not just Earth. Having poor Enterprise with it's "low grade particle weapons" and "spatial torpedoes" getting beat up by all of these ships with phasers, disrupters, and photon torpedoes gave me a sense that the Enterprise really shouldn't have lasted more than a day. I understand that they were trying to give it a feeling of being outmatched and relying on their wits, but I think a better approach would've been to take a page from the ST: OS episode "Balance of Terror." In that episode, you had a very "battleship vs. submarine" feel and the timing of that episode was excellent and the writing top notch. They should have made the battles in Enterprise more "submarine vs. submarine" with all sides relying on "primitive" spatial torpedoes with atomic warheads and limited viewing capabilities (a la periscope). It would have added something of a "thrill" factor to the battles. Instead, it ended up being "let's show off our fancy CGI!" If you wanted to do that, then you should have developed a post TNG era series.

Incidentally, given how far effects technology has come (and how affordable), I don't see why they can't start a new series that takes place well after TNG. I found Doug Drexler's Enterprise J to be an interesting concept (more so the idea of it being a city sized, galaxy hopping ship). I think Star Trek should take a page from Stargate: Universe and do some galaxy hopping and really explore "strange new worlds." The only thing necessary to make something like that good is to keep that ****** of a CEO at CBS (Les Moonves) off of it and let the creative team do their jobs! Les has got to go!
[doublepost=1496766550][/doublepost]
One of the biggest contrasts between "The Purge" and "Return of the Archons" is that at the end of Archons, they succeed in helping their society return to something more healthy and include a subtle message that essentially says "People are not bad, they do not need to be imprisoned or controlled and can be trusted to not burn it down in acts of mindless debauchery."

That theme is either completely missing from the Purge movies, or so terribly communicated out as to be completely lost in the fact that the Purge movies really just reinforce the notion that "people are bad and will burn it all down in acts of mindless debauchery if they are not controlled or imprisoned." That's ultimately my problem with The Purge movies and why I don't watch them and never will.
[doublepost=1496766927][/doublepost]

I think Gene should have pushed back on this, particularly if the "test audiences" were old white men (and by old, I mean 40 and up). Given that, in the Andy Griffith Show, they had an episode where Sheriff Taylor and the town men were originally hesitant to allow a woman to run for city council, but by the end of it, he stands up and say "can any of us think of a really good reason why she shouldn't run?" And after the men were like "well, uh, no?" He was like "well, then I don't see why we can't just let her give it a try." The outcome being that the lady won the council seat. I think the real problem for Star Trek was that NBC was (and in many ways, still is) an "old boys" club. I don't think TNG would have been half as good if it hadn't gone straight into syndication. No network exec interference to worry about!

The problem with Enterprise and Voyager, they both lost me in the first season. A very high bar was set from Next Generation.

 

[jdoll021]

The problem with Enterprise and Voyager, they both lost me in the first season. A very high bar was set from Next Generation.

Do you recall the first season of TNG? It was hit and miss. I remember reading that Patrick Stewart hadn't unpacked his bags for months because he didn't think the show would last. There was also a lot of behind the scenes drama. Even for a good episode like "Where No One Has Gone Before."

http://dianeduane.com/outofambit/20...next-generation-where-no-one-has-gone-before/