|
The more I watch other science-fiction shows, the lamer Star Trek gets
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? |
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.
|
To RKillgore, I can only say....
...bleh. |
|
Originally Posted by Groucho
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.
What you call "lame", I can "innovative". |
I'm inclined to agree with the OP. Kudos for making a thread about this.
|
• RKillgore • And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters? 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 |
Originally Posted by Groucho
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. |
I loved Trek when I was younger. But now TOS and TNG are almost sleep inducing.
|
Originally Posted by das Monkey
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by das Monkey
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 |
Originally Posted by RKillgore
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? |
Hindsight is always 20-20.
|
Originally Posted by RKillgore
And for as big as the Enterprise-D was, why didn't they carry a small fleet of fighters?
Originally Posted by das Monkey
Because they were a peaceful exploration vessel, not a warship?
das 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%. |
Originally Posted by das Monkey
(like anyone cares that your stupid show inspired a generation to do something meaningful with their lives)
|
Originally Posted by RKillgore
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%. The one class made for battle was the Defiant. |
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.
|
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.
|
Originally Posted by Gunde
That seems like a stretch....
|
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".
|
Originally Posted by devilshalo
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. |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by RKillgore
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%. 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. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.