DVD Talk
The more I watch other science-fiction shows, the lamer Star Trek gets [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The more I watch other science-fiction shows, the lamer Star Trek gets


RKillgore
01-15-07, 09:06 PM
When I was growing up, I would turn on reruns of the original Star Trek as soon as I got home from school. At the time, it was some of the best sci-fi had to offer and it went a long way with what it had to work with. Then, Star Wars came out and made science fiction popular (or at least, more marketable) again. The results of that, like Buck Rogers and the original Battlestar Galactica were shiny and flashy, but not much substance.

Then, thanks to the popularity of the Star Trek movies, Star Trek: The Next Generation debuted. Sure, I could see some goofy bits and some lame stories, particularly at the beginning, as it was finding its legs, but I faithfully watched and enjoyed it.

I never got into other comparable sci-fi programs at the time, but thanks to DVD and recommendations from my brother, I started by watching Babylon 5.

Now, because of Babylon 5, I see Star Trek's episodes, for the most part, maintaining the status quo. Babylon 5's credo, to tell a five year story and that characters change due to the events and circumstances they have gone through make Star Treks characters look stagnate by comparison. Also, the Enterprise's crew was mostly humans and if there were any aliens, there would be some intentional highlight of the fact, whereas B5 had all kinds of aliens just milling around in the background.

That was the start of it. After watching Firefly (admittedly a western set in space) and seeing the characters with talents and limits (like an excellent pilot that is also somewhat of a coward or an engineer that's useless with a firearm), I realized that in the Star Trek world, almost anyone can do almost anything. Worf can cobble together a personal force field from spare parts or Troi can command a starship.

Right now, I'm watching DVDs of the new Battlestar Galactica. There, they make sure not to have the "magic buttons" that Star Trek has, where technology can do anything. Injured people take time to heal on BSG, where as Star Trek medical technology has people back to normal thanks to an injection or a little device stuck on the forehead. And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters?

Groucho
01-15-07, 09:23 PM
Bear in mind that sci-fi television is evolutionary. Without the original Star Trek paving the way, those other shows would not have existed. Additionally, I think several of the original episodes stand up today as good yarns, if you're willing to overlook some of the hammy sets and wobbly acting.

Filmmaker
01-15-07, 09:34 PM
To RKillgore, I can only say....







...bleh.

wendersfan
01-15-07, 09:47 PM
http://www.doctorpundit.com/images/uploads/khan.jpg

DVD Josh
01-15-07, 10:11 PM
Bear in mind that sci-fi television is evolutionary. Without the original Star Trek paving the way, those other shows would not have existed. Additionally, I think several of the original episodes stand up today as good yarns, if you're willing to overlook some of the hammy sets and wobbly acting.

Exactly right. You wouldn't any of these so-called "better" shows without Trek. They were the originators of the television genre, and years ahead of their time.

What you call "lame", I can "innovative".

HE Pennypacker
01-15-07, 10:13 PM
I'm inclined to agree with the OP. Kudos for making a thread about this.

das Monkey
01-15-07, 10:31 PM
RKillgore

And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters?
Because they were a peaceful exploration vessel, not a warship?

Here's what pisses me off about <i>Star Trek</i>: out of all those crewmembers, why couldn't we get more love triangles? I mean, really. Week after week, shows like <i>Battlestar Galactica</i> continue to deliver better than <i>90210</i> ever did, but the best we got with <i>Trek</i> was maybe Work/Riker/Troi. [Yawn] Stop with all the groundbreaking social commentary (like anyone cares that your stupid show inspired a generation to do something meaningful with their lives), and make with the soap opera already.

das

milo bloom
01-15-07, 10:43 PM
Bear in mind that sci-fi television is evolutionary. Without the original Star Trek paving the way, those other shows would not have existed. Additionally, I think several of the original episodes stand up today as good yarns, if you're willing to overlook some of the hammy sets and wobbly acting.


My wife and I have enjoyed watching the Remastered classic Star Trek episodes here lately, with her seeing some episodes for the very first time. The new FX, really go a long way to smoothing out some of the ham and cheese.

But regardless, Groucho makes an excellent point here. Today's shows reach those lofty heights because they're standing on the shoulders of giants.

Mopower
01-15-07, 10:47 PM
I loved Trek when I was younger. But now TOS and TNG are almost sleep inducing.

Filmmaker
01-15-07, 11:10 PM
Because they were a peaceful exploration vessel, not a warship?

Here's what pisses me off about <i>Star Trek</i>: out of all those crewmembers, why couldn't we get more love triangles? I mean, really. Week after week, shows like <i>Battlestar Galactica</i> continue to deliver better than <i>90210</i> ever did, but the best we got with <i>Trek</i> was maybe Work/Riker/Troi. [Yawn] Stop with all the groundbreaking social commentary (like anyone cares that your stupid show inspired a generation to do something meaningful with their lives), and make with the soap opera already.

das

Always intrigued (and pleased) to see one of TREK's greatest critics be, at the same time, one of its staunchest supporters!

kvrdave
01-15-07, 11:29 PM
I also enjoy BSG, Firefly, etc., but Trek is like Shakespeare....everything since has relied on it in some way.

Okay, Shakespeare relied on a lot of things before him as well, but hopefully the point is made.

Numanoid
01-16-07, 12:24 AM
Here's what pisses me off about <i>Star Trek</i>: out of all those crewmembers, why couldn't we get more love triangles? I mean, really. Week after week, shows like <i>Battlestar Galactica</i> continue to deliver better than <i>90210</i> ever did, but the best we got with <i>Trek</i> was maybe Work/Riker/Troi. [Yawn] Stop with all the groundbreaking social commentary (like anyone cares that your stupid show inspired a generation to do something meaningful with their lives), and make with the soap opera already.

dasYou owe me a new sarcasm detector. Mine just exploded.

bloopbleep
01-16-07, 01:08 AM
When I was growing up, I would turn on reruns of the original Star Trek as soon as I got home from school. At the time, it was some of the best sci-fi had to offer and it went a long way with what it had to work with. Then, Star Wars came out and made science fiction popular (or at least, more marketable) again. The results of that, like Buck Rogers and the original Battlestar Galactica were shiny and flashy, but not much substance.

Then, thanks to the popularity of the Star Trek movies, Star Trek: The Next Generation came debuted. Sure, I could see some goofy bits and some lame stories, particularly at the beginning, as it was finding its legs, but I faithfully watched and enjoyed it.

I never got into other comparable sci-fi programs at the time, but thanks to DVD and recommendations from my brother, I started by watching Babylon 5.

Now, because of Babylon 5, I see Star Trek's episodes, for the most part, maintaining the status quo. Babylon 5's credo, to tell a five year story and that characters change due to the events and circumstances they have gone through make Star Treks characters look stagnate by comparison. Also, the Enterprise's crew was mostly humans and if there were any aliens, there would be some intentional highlight of the fact, whereas B5 had all kinds of aliens just milling around in the background.

That was the start of it. After watching Firefly (admittedly a western set in space) and seeing the characters with talents and limits (like an excellent pilot that is also somewhat of a coward or an engineer that's useless with a firearm), I realized that in the Star Trek world, almost anyone can do almost anything. Worf can cobble together a personal force field from spare parts or Troi can command a starship.

Right now, I'm watching DVDs of the new Battlestar Galactica. There, they make sure not to have the "magic buttons" that Star Trek has, where technology can do anything. Injured people take time to heal on BSG, where as Star Trek medical technology has people back to normal thanks to an injection or a little device stuck on the forehead. And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters?
its because we all grew up, its just like when I read old marvel comic books by Frank Miller thought it was the greatest stuff in the world and would recomend it it to non-comic book readers not realizing the books they were reading were far more advanced. Star Trek will always have a place in my heart because it taught me to dream, that human civilization gets better and thier is hope.

superdeluxe
01-16-07, 01:18 AM
Hindsight is always 20-20.

RKillgore
01-16-07, 01:33 AM
And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters?
Because they were a peaceful exploration vessel, not a warship?


das
And those phasers and photon torpedoes are for? Between ST:TNG and DS9, how many times did the Federation go to war, three, four?

I really do know the answers to my questions and that ST:TNG was a stepping stone to what we have now. Not to mention that ST:TNG was awesome (before someone says I'm backpedaling, remember, I said I faithfully watched and enjoyed ST:TNG) and made the afore mentioned Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica from the late 70's look even cheesier.

Like I said, I grew up watching ST and know its place in television history and not just within the sci-fi genre. Also, that its story structure is built on being based on episodes rather than a spanning story because that's the way television was written and also works better for syndication. You don't want viewers to drop into an episode and be immediately lost because they didn't know what happened before.

And the real answer that the Enterprise didn't have fighters is that the special effects would have been too expensive and/or time consuming.

Yeah, those are the real but boring answers to my previous points. But watching these successors makes me think how great it would be to hear Picard order, "Deploy fighters!" and give Worf more to do rather than report that shields are down 40%.

Gunde
01-16-07, 02:04 AM
(like anyone cares that your stupid show inspired a generation to do something meaningful with their lives)
That seems like a stretch....

devilshalo
01-16-07, 02:29 AM
And those phasers and photon torpedoes are for? Between ST:TNG and DS9, how many times did the Federation go to war, three, four?

And the real answer that the Enterprise didn't have fighters is that the special effects would have been too expensive and/or time consuming.

Yeah, those are the real but boring answers to my previous points. But watching these successors makes me think how great it would be to hear Picard order, "Deploy fighters!" and give Worf more to do rather than report that shields are down 40%.
There were various classes of ships and most were made for exploration, not warfare. If you look at the last Enterprise D, it was a galaxy class ship. They had enough weaponry to hold its own against any threat, but wasn't meant for full scale assault. I guess if they really needed to, they could seperate the saucer and use the shuttles as defensive fighters.

The one class made for battle was the Defiant.

sven
01-16-07, 02:52 AM
I didnt need to watch a single second of any other Sci-Fi show to know how lame Star Trek is. Well the newer crap atleast. The original series is always good for a chuckle.

bloopbleep
01-16-07, 04:50 AM
the new Battlestar Galactica was great the first season realy hasn`t excited me as much as Heroes or Lost this season and Babylon 5 was made a longtime ago, it doesn`t seem as cutting edge as it was. I am sure thier will be some new show in the future that will make Heroes or Lost lame as they make Star Trek seem that now. thats how it goes we all get older and wiser.

Filmmaker
01-16-07, 07:48 AM
That seems like a stretch....

...and yet it's not.

Chew
01-16-07, 08:33 AM
I'm curious to see if, 20 years from now, the line becomes: "the more I watch other science-fiction shows, the lamer (the new) Battlestar Galactica gets".

Red Dog
01-16-07, 08:48 AM
There were various classes of ships and most were made for exploration, not warfare. If you look at the last Enterprise D, it was a galaxy class ship. They had enough weaponry to hold its own against any threat, but wasn't meant for full scale assault. I guess if they really needed to, they could seperate the saucer and use the shuttles as defensive fighters.

The one class made for battle was the Defiant.


Not to mention, Ent-D had families on it, so you would hardly call it a warship as such.

Ayre
01-16-07, 08:57 AM
Battlestar Galactica takes it self seriously. It is allowed to thanks to the the shows that preceded it. Star Trek comes from a time when the western set the mold. Comedy, romance and action in a camp setting. ToS wasn't that far different that Bonanza. It is often compared to Wagon Train in space.

Just because they both take place in the future doesn't mean they are comparable. Compare Star Trek to a western. Compare BSG to war drama. Star Trek was episodic, BSG is serial.

When you stop believing that BSG world is real, the show crumbles.

When you start believing that the Star Trek world is real, you should seek professional help.

al_bundy
01-16-07, 09:06 AM
new BSG is pretty good but it has enough dumb things about just like ST did. I was watching a season 2 rerun and Adama is listening to the presidential debate on a 1960's era US Army communications system that is obsolete by our standards.

and where do people there get all the nice fashionable clothes? not like they had their wardrobe with them.

lordwow
01-16-07, 09:15 AM
And those phasers and photon torpedoes are for? Between ST:TNG and DS9, how many times did the Federation go to war, three, four?

I really do know the answers to my questions and that ST:TNG was a stepping stone to what we have now. Not to mention that ST:TNG was awesome (before someone says I'm backpedaling, remember, I said I faithfully watched and enjoyed ST:TNG) and made the afore mentioned Buck Rogers and Battlestar Galactica from the late 70's look even cheesier.

Like I said, I grew up watching ST and know its place in television history and not just within the sci-fi genre. Also, that its story structure is built on being based on episodes rather than a spanning story because that's the way television was written and also works better for syndication. You don't want viewers to drop into an episode and be immediately lost because they didn't know what happened before.

And the real answer that the Enterprise didn't have fighters is that the special effects would have been too expensive and/or time consuming.

Yeah, those are the real but boring answers to my previous points. But watching these successors makes me think how great it would be to hear Picard order, "Deploy fighters!" and give Worf more to do rather than report that shields are down 40%.

First, I can only think of once, maybe twice throughout TNG/DS9 that war broke out. Obviously, DS9 had the Dominion War, which was the central plot of the series. TNG had the Borg, but the "war" only lasted about 2 episodes. (The Borg were only in about 8 episodes of TNG, they just made a big impact in those episodes).

TNG, unlike nearly every other sci-fi series, is about exploration rather than warfare. As a few people pointed out, the primary mission of Galaxy Class starships were exploration and first contact, not battle. Keep in mind, before the Borg arrived, there wasn't much action in the Alpha Quadrant since the Romulan/Klingon war ended right after the destruction of the Enterprise-C. Look at a majority of the episodes of TNG, they're almost always trying to help civilizations out, not attack or defend something.

I honestly don't care for TOS, I think it's incredibly boring, but I love TNG to this day. Does it have the action of an SG1 or a BSG? No, but that's the point. And as you said RKillgore, TNG was a precursor. What other scifi shows were on in 1987 when it premiered? Not much. Also, as mentioned what's the last good EPISODIC sci-fi show you've seen? SG1 was episodic to start, but has now become completely serial. TNG held up in an era where serials were not as common as today.

I personally think that seasons 3-6, and some of 7 of TNG are some of the best and most innovative scifi of all time, but ya, a lot of the new scifis shows have had some much more thrilling battle sequences and "love triangles" but I still watch TNG a lot and enjoy it.

Jason
01-16-07, 06:04 PM
Exactly right. You wouldn't any of these so-called "better" shows without Trek. They were the originators of the television genre, and years ahead of their time.

What you call "lame", I can "innovative".

the original Star Trek was innovative. TNG? Maybe a little. By the time they started Voyager, they were just going through the motions.

Nick Danger
01-16-07, 06:47 PM
I watched a few episodes of TOS in the 70s. I didn't see what the fuss was all about. I'd already read all the classic science fiction of the 30s - 60s, and from the science fiction standpoint, ST was exploring issues addressed in print 20 years earlier.

Besides, it's unfair to compare ST-TOS with modern television. Compare it to its contemporaries, like Twilight Zone and Outer Limits. They both stomp Rodenberry.

lordwow
01-16-07, 11:45 PM
the original Star Trek was innovative. TNG? Maybe a little. By the time they started Voyager, they were just going through the motions.

TNG not innovative? What?

Filmmaker
01-17-07, 07:57 AM
I'm curious to see if, 20 years from now, the line becomes: "the more I watch other science-fiction shows, the lamer (the new) Battlestar Galactica gets".

I'm already hearing this complaint now, that BSG is pulling a GREY'S ANATOMY and quickly moving from an innovative dramatic piece to a primetime soap opera.