Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Michael Dorn appears a lot on Game Shows. So thus, I often see a lot of him as non-Worf and I must say he really doesn't look like Worf at all. Just the mouth matches.

Otherwise, I'm not really a big trekkie at all, but I'm familiar with the entire cast of both TOS and Next Gen and I'm certainly able to watch it and follow along, but maybe I have seen about 5 episodes of the whole series. I have seen Star Trek Generations and First Contact and I loved them, but I didn't see any others except for the Wrath of Khan once, but I didn't really find it that memorable, I just need to rewatch it.
 
A Horga'hn, a statuette used on Risa to advertise a desire for a sexual activity called Jamaharon, is an "attraction sign" in Star Trek. (Memory Alpha - there's a wiki for everything)
 
Last edited:
>you will never teleport to a party on Risa and pick up a girl/guy as a Q

If the world of Star Trek were real, we would've had a manned mission to Saturn in 2009. We'd also have WW3 coming up in less than 40 years from now. And there's a Mars colony in 2103.*

*(I have this "Star Trek Chronology" book I got in the 90s that I'm referencing here.)
 
Last edited:
ToroidalBoat said:
>you will never teleport to a party on Risa and pick up a girl/guy as a Q

If the world of Star Trek were real, we would've had a manned mission to Saturn in 2009. We'd also have WW3 coming up in less than 40 years from now. And there's a Mars colony in 2103.*

*(I have this "Star Trek Chronology" book I got in the 90s that I'm referencing here.)
Click to expand...

Eh, I think WW III happened in the 1990s in the Star Trek timeline.
 
Grand Number of Pounds said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek#21st_century

In TOS WWIII was in the '90's, but WWIII ended in 2053 according to First Contact.

If Star Trek is still around in 40 years I'm sure they'll say WWIII happens sometime in 2100.
Click to expand...
Star Trek deviates a great deal in terms of historical continuity from reality. In the 1960s they conceptualized the world would become embroiled in war within just a decade or two. Which is largely why they predicted that in the 1990s there'd be a "Eugenics war" revolving around being able to make supermen in a laboratory rather than through selective breeding.

Actually a great deal of Star Trek's best episodes deal with that period in time. Khan Noonien Singh is from there. There was a two-parter episode in Ds9 where Sisko and the gang go to war torn Earth. It's pretty great lore.
 
I wish the writers would've made it so that transporters create a stable wormhole or some other process to transport someone whole, instead of taking the person apart, turning them into energy, and reassembling them. Sounds to me like it kills the person in the process and makes a duplicate of them (although I'm guessing that the writers meant for the process to simply rebuild the person).
 
ToroidalBoat said:
I wish the writers would've made it so that transporters create a stable wormhole or some other process to transport someone whole, instead of taking the person apart, turning them into energy, and reassembling them. Sounds to me like it kills the person in the process and makes a duplicate of them (although I'm guessing that the writers meant for the process to simply rebuild the person).
Click to expand...
Well it's sort of more complicated than that. The transporter technology sorta scans the person into a pattern buffer. Which is sorta like the pattern of their molecules stored onto a computer, and it reassembles them based on that. Although that's a really simplified explanation of a much more detailed process. The pattern buffer has also been regularly used in episodes to revert a person adversely affected by a transport to their original state.

None of the shows really go into the philosophy of whether a person is really the same person after beaming them. Enterprise was given the opportunity to do so but... they didn't. There were also episodes that detailed transporter accidents related to the pattern buffer. Like the one episode where Riker was cloned during a transporter accident and the clone is found living in an abandoned facility for years.

The origins of the transporter as a narrative device are actually very interesting. Originally Roddenberry conceived they'd exclusively use shuttles to transport to a planet. However because of the limited budget of the show they were forced to use a "transporter" system because it was cheaper to implement. And later it became one of the most notable fictional elements in the franchise.
 
Still, no matter how you spin it, a person is taken apart and put back together. I haven't really seen the ENT series, but it's too bad they didn't go into the philosophical implications of transporting.

I knew about the limited budget thing. Funny how stuff like that can spur the development of really creative concepts. It may have even inspired some real science also, although at this point, only the properites of single subatomic particles can be "transported" if I understand it correctly.
 
Last edited:
Has anybody seen the rifftraxes of the movie shatner directed and the "generations" film? I've only seen the "best of" reels fans make but they both look like god awful movies that make no sense.
 
sparklemilhouse said:
Has anybody seen the rifftraxes of the movie shatner directed and the "generations" film? I've only seen the "best of" reels fans make but they both look like god awful movies that make no sense.
Click to expand...
Trek V (the one Shatner directed) is dumb, but it does catch some parts of the TOS experience that had gone unused in the movies so far, like "Kirk climbs rocks" and "your god a shit".

If it had been done when they were younger and with a better budget it could have been pretty good. But Grandma Uhura's fan dance and the low sfx budget hurt it a hell of a lot.

The rifftrax of them is a rifftrax. Not bad, but low-hanging fruit even compared to SciFi MST3k.
 
Star Trek is always character driven and Voyger forgot that.

Kirk+Spok+McCoy= win. Doing anything anytime. They could just be sitting down taking a shit but the dialogue between them would be awesome.

TNG almost any of the actors can be paired up for awesome scenes.

DS9 is a bit more problematic as they only have a few good character. Quark, Garrick and Dukat are the only ones that come to mind.

Voyager? Can't think of one single character that I could give a shit about

Enterprise was a different beast, it was a story driven more and more as it went on. Moving almost into action movie territory near the end.

TLDR

Star Trek writers forgot the most important rule as time went on so the franchise floundered and died.
 
dcisp said:
Trek V (the one Shatner directed) is dumb, but it does catch some parts of the TOS experience that had gone unused in the movies so far, like "Kirk climbs rocks" and "your god a shit".
Click to expand...
I always thought Star Trek V had the most promising "Trek-like" concept of all the movies but was dragged down by poor writing and a lot of odd production choices. The "alien posing as a god" is a classic Star Trek story but they had to tack on shit like Spock's estranged half-brother.
 
Sweet and Savoury said:
Star Trek is always character driven and Voyger forgot that.

Kirk+Spok+McCoy= win. Doing anything anytime. They could just be sitting down taking a shit but the dialogue between them would be awesome.

TNG almost any of the actors can be paired up for awesome scenes.
Click to expand...

This is why I think TNG is the best, although TOS is fucking phenomenal. They're both among the best TV ever made. I think TNG just narrowly edges out TOS because the ensemble cast and characterizations really made the show. It was also a lot better at developing character over lengthy story arcs, while TOS was mostly episodic.

I think a lot of subsequent shows outside the SF arena were influenced by TNG.

You could actually say the cast of TNG was a lot better as actors, but I think it would be unfair to compare Patrick Stewart with the William Shatner of the 70s. Yes, Shatner was a ham actor and pretty one note, but he was also the perfect Kirk, even though Stewart is clearly the superior all around actor. (Shatner developed a lot as an actor and, for that matter, as a human being, after the TV show ended.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom