Forum archives » General Discussion » Star Trek

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »

User #61587
June 8, 2006 6:19 PM

i like deep space nine and voyager, but the original two shows sucked major ass! next generation only got kind of good after the borg showed up, but even then it sucked. i can't stand the people who like the original! that thing was a peice of hot steaming shit!

Post #224608link

Humpenstein
June 8, 2006 6:40 PM

Good point

Post #224610link

dcomposed
June 8, 2006 6:42 PM

I like the original, I think that shit is bananas.

Post #224614link

fpd
June 8, 2006 6:57 PM

Like you, my favorite series would be Voyager and DS9, but I have still enjoyed all of the others. Back in the 70s, when I began watching Star Trek, only the original series was around, and it was better than anything else I could find on TV. I watched each new series as it came out. I was initially disappointed with the Next Generation, but I grew to appreciate it. It was the only new Star Trek series on TV at the time, which was a big selling point, and I came to appreciate the characters of Data and Jean-Luc Picard, though I could have done without Riker, Troi, Dr. Crusher, or Geordi. Both DS9 and Voyager had better casts. DS9 benefitted from storyarcs and ongoing subplots that carried through several episodes, and the added element of political intrique made it more interesting. I especially liked what it did with the Mirror Mirror universe from the original series. I liked that Voyager brought back genuine exploration, which the original series had been more about than the Next Generation was. Janeway may be my favorite captain, and the holographic doctor is one of my all-time favorite Star Trek characters. I also appreciated the strong female leads, such as 7 of 9 and the klingon woman who married Tom Paris. They were much more refreshing than Uhura, Nurse Chapel, Beverly Crusher, or Deanna Troi. The latest series, Enterprise, was not as good as its immediate predecessors, though it was generally better than the Next Generation. It had only one strong female lead in the vulcan woman; the Japanese communications officer was cute but mainly a background character. At least her Mirror Mirror version was exciting. Archer was a good captain, and Tripp was a good character, but Dr. Phlox was annoying in the way Neelix was and generally a waste of a main character.

Post #224620link

biped
June 8, 2006 7:15 PM

quote:
i like deep space nine and voyager, but the original two shows sucked major ass! next generation only got kind of good after the borg showed up, but even then it sucked. i can't stand the people who like the original! that thing was a peice of hot steaming shit!

You're a total fucking dumbass if you don't like original TREK or NextGen. I can't stand your dumb fucking ass. Fuck you.

Post #224624link

User #60395
June 8, 2006 8:41 PM

biped chill out dont be a baby abot everything on this forum

Post #224628link

ivytheplant
June 8, 2006 8:45 PM

Are you going to let sebra talk to you that way?

Post #224631link

biped
June 8, 2006 8:47 PM

quote:
biped chill out dont be a baby abot everything on this forum

Eat shit, you insignificant little mouse turd.

Post #224633link

umfumdisi
June 8, 2006 9:22 PM

The original Star Trek was goofy fun. I can't stand the rest of its spawn.

Post #224639link

AngryAmerican
June 9, 2006 4:18 AM

what's 'star trek'?

Post #224646link

biped
June 9, 2006 5:07 AM

I'm in a much better mood this morning, so please substitute "bunny-humping" for the F-word in my earlier posts. :)

Post #224649link

User #61587
June 9, 2006 9:16 AM

you suck. only losers like the original fucking star trek. and you are an insignificant mouse turd, i'd tell you to fuck your mother, but that's actually fun and i don't want you to do anything fun, because you are a fat fag who likes to suck on William Shatner's cock, and then complain that it's bigger in the show than in the movie fuck you. dark plots and good FX are better than overrated 1960's crap that got canceled in the first run.

Post #224677link

AngryAmerican
June 9, 2006 10:24 AM

wow. geeks can get so angry about crap that doesn't matter.

Post #224686link

biped
June 9, 2006 12:44 PM

quote:
you suck. only losers like the original fucking star trek. and you are an insignificant mouse turd, i'd tell you to fuck your mother, but that's actually fun and i don't want you to do anything fun, because you are a fat fag who likes to suck on William Shatner's cock, and then complain that it's bigger in the show than in the movie fuck you.

Well, I admit that I was a bit overly belligerent in my first post, although you did say in your opening statement that you "can't stand the people who like the original", so you were sorta asking for it. And you're wrong to cavalierly dismiss the original series.

quote:
dark plots and good FX are better than overrated 1960's crap that got canceled in the first run.

It got cancelled in the third season, not the "first run"--partly because of a bad time slot, and partly because TV networks didn't know much about
"demographics" yet--and shortly thereafter went on to become the most successful syndicated show on TV and spawn six feature films. It had good effects for its time, especially for a low-budget TV series that couldn't cook up expensive space battles in a computer every week, and it certainly had its share of dark plots.

Post #224693link

mandingo
June 9, 2006 1:11 PM

quote:
quote:
biped chill out dont be a baby abot everything on this forum

Eat shit, you insignificant little mouse turd.
as opposed to Significant M. Turd, our 23rd president

Post #224695link

Zaster
June 9, 2006 4:12 PM

If only fusion power could be initiated by geek rays. I could make a fortune off all of you fuckers. You wouldn't need to do a damn thing except stand there and rotate.

Post #224709link

ivytheplant
June 9, 2006 5:50 PM

quote:
If only fusion power could be initiated by geek rays. I could make a fortune off all of you fuckers. You wouldn't need to do a damn thing except stand there and rotate.



Says the guy with Lexa Doig as his avatar...

Post #224717link

areallystupidguy
June 9, 2006 10:18 PM

Original - 5 stars
The Next Generation - 5 stars
Deep Space Nine - 4 stars
Voyager - 3 stars
Enterprise - 3 stars
The Motion Picture - 4 stars
The Wrath Of Khan - 5 stars
The Search For Spock - 5 stars
The Voyage Home - 5 stars
The Final Frontier - 2 stars
The Undiscovered Country - 4 stars
Generations - 3 stars
First Contact - 4 stars
Insurrection - 3 stars
Nemesis - 3 stars
Trekkies - 11.8 million stars

Post #224734link

DragonXero
June 9, 2006 11:15 PM

I like the original for its camp and innovation.

And anyone who wants to dispute the original series' quality special effects, take a look at Battlestar Galactica. Star Trek TOS ran from 1966 to 1969. The original BSG ran from 1978 to 1980. Frankly, the special effects used in both are hardly any different in quality, and BSG only had improvements because of effects borrowed from Star Wars (ANH - 1977).

The Next Generation certainly wasn't the pinnacle of amazing special effects in its first few seasons either. I believe CGI wasn't even a factor in most episodes of the first few seasons of TNG.

To make matters worse, TNG, DS9 and several episodes of other Trek series borrowed plots from TOS and its movies. Sure the stories weren't very well-told, nor the special effects superbly-executed, but just about any documentary on the original Trek will tell you why. The original show actually had a fairly limited budget compared to other series of the time. I believe Bonanza (1961-1972) even had a better budget than Star Trek.

So before you go dismissing the original Trek as boring and lame, think about how much the newer ones had to work with compared to the original. Writer experience, audience acceptance of the genre, technological advances, budget increases, and a familiarity with the name. And frankly, Voyager and Enterprise bored the shit out of me. DS9 began feeling like a Babylon 5 ripoff very quickly after the first couple seasons.

TNG is my personal favorite, but frankly, I think the original is still awesome.

Post #224738link

ivytheplant
June 10, 2006 12:04 AM

I liked that one where the alien was deceiving them and they had to stop its evil plot.

Post #224741link

BigFrank105
June 10, 2006 9:41 AM

Too bad Kaenash is gone, I'm sure he'd have LOADS of fun facts to contribute here!

Post #224749link

HCRoyall
June 10, 2006 2:48 PM

quote:
Too bad Kaenash is gone, I'm sure he'd have LOADS of fun facts to contribute here!
I am offended by the use of Kaenash and fun in the same sentence.

Post #224763link

Humpenstein
June 10, 2006 3:32 PM

Fun for the whole family.

Post #224765link

User #61587
June 12, 2006 11:05 AM

yes but the original was so happy and retarded. deep space nine and voyager were dark and cool.

Post #224850link

biped
June 12, 2006 11:20 AM

The original series was just as dark as the later ones. It sounds like you've only seen the comedy episodes.

Post #224853link

Inflatable_Man
June 12, 2006 11:27 AM

I hate all the Star Treks. They're all equally gay. It's not so much the actual shows that piss me off (although they do suck), but the culture that surrounds it, such as 30 year old virgins creating their own Klingon dictionaries or babies fresh out of the womb being dressed up to look like Spock. The only entertaining thing that's come out of this four decade geekfest debacle is this.

Post #224855link

AngryAmerican
June 12, 2006 12:52 PM

huzzah!

Post #224860link

biped
June 12, 2006 1:44 PM

When you don't like Star Trek, you're only hurting yourself.

Post #224864link

Zaster
June 12, 2006 4:02 PM

What I don't get is that Star Trek takes place hundreds of years in the future, and yet people still get old and die of bumblefuck diseases. Most of them don't even have scary cybernetic super-powers or huge, pulsating brains. What's up with that?

Post #224868link

biped
June 12, 2006 8:00 PM

quote:
What I don't get is that Star Trek takes place hundreds of years in the future, and yet people still get old and die of bumblefuck diseases. Most of them don't even have scary cybernetic super-powers or huge, pulsating brains. What's up with that?


The Gamesters of Triskelion have huge, pulsating brains. In fact, they are huge, pulsating brains. Spock and several of the alien guest stars on the show have scary cybernetic super-powers. And while they still get old, the Star Trek characters suffer from futuristic diseases like the one McCoy was striken with in "For The World Is Hollow, And I Have Touched The Sky." It isn't a "bumfuckle" disease at all.

Post #224875link

umfumdisi
June 12, 2006 9:41 PM

quote:
quote:
What I don't get is that Star Trek takes place hundreds of years in the future, and yet people still get old and die of bumblefuck diseases. Most of them don't even have scary cybernetic super-powers or huge, pulsating brains. What's up with that?


The Gamesters of Triskelion have huge, pulsating brains. In fact, they are huge, pulsating brains. Spock and several of the alien guest stars on the show have scary cybernetic super-powers. And while they still get old, the Star Trek characters suffer from futuristic diseases like the one McCoy was striken with in "For The World Is Hollow, And I Have Touched The Sky." It isn't a "bumfuckle" disease at all.

I believe we've found something biped cares about.

Post #224881link

DragonXero
June 12, 2006 11:56 PM

Star Trek is a disappointing future for one reason, and one reason alone: They still haven't cured baldness. Both Kirk and Picard were bald/balding, and Kirk used a freaking tribble to cover his up.

It is, of course, possible, that Picard was simply proud of his chrome dome. Sisko even voluntarily razed his locks. In fact, the least folically-impaired series was Enterprise. And even then, they still had no cure for "bad actoritis". I kept waiting for Al to appear and start smacking Ziggy around all while telling Sam that the only way to leap to the next body was to explore strange new worlds and make it with strange blue-skinned babes.

Post #224885link

biped
June 13, 2006 5:48 AM

quote:
I believe we've found something biped cares about.

Post #224895link

User #61587
June 16, 2006 8:58 PM

quote:
quote:
I believe we've found something biped cares about.


here's some math for you, Deep space nine=good, spook=gay, you=nerdy homosexual, me=cool person who happens to have sex with his sister. there we go. is that cleared up?

Post #225121link

biped
June 16, 2006 9:12 PM

It sure is! Thanks, Mr. Cool!

Post #225126link

User #61587
June 16, 2006 9:18 PM

quote:
It sure is! Thanks, Mr. Cool!
don't sarcasticly surrender to me! i'm not done degrading you yet! you will now read my latest comic! 355710

Post #225129link

Zaster
June 16, 2006 9:27 PM

Oh my. It seems this thread is currently in orbit around the Retardo nebula. :(

Post #225130link

biped
June 16, 2006 9:42 PM

quote:
don't sarcasticly surrender to me!

Oh, I wouldn't think of it, sir.

Post #225132link

fpd
June 18, 2006 7:45 AM

quote:
What I don't get is that Star Trek takes place hundreds of years in the future, and yet people still get old and die of bumblefuck diseases. Most of them don't even have scary cybernetic super-powers or huge, pulsating brains. What's up with that?


Sometime in the recent past in the Star Trek universe, there was a war between ordinary humans and genetically enhanced humans. The genetically enhanced humans, similar to the Nietzscheans in Andromeda, were led by a guy named Kahn, later to be seen in the "Space Seed" episode and in Wrath of Kahn. The ordinary humans won, and one consequence of this was a future full of ordinary humans without genetic enhancements. The prevailing sentiment against genetically enhanced humans may have carried with it a sentiment against cybernetically enhanced humans, which would explain the lack of scary cybernetic superpowers.

Post #225191link

xxausrottenxx
June 18, 2006 8:07 AM

i think what everyone is forgetting is that 'star wars' kicks so much more ass than star trek

Post #225193link

User #61587
June 18, 2006 8:28 AM

quote:
i think what everyone is forgetting is that 'star wars' kicks so much more ass than star trek
i think you're all forgeting that biped rapes children that he lures into the basement with promises of candy and toys. oh, and revenge of the sith and empire strikes back are the only two good star wars the others ae crap.

Post #225194link

Rabid_Weasle
June 18, 2006 9:09 AM

lol, saying things that other people like are not good is teh funneh!!!!11

Post #225203link

Inflatable_Man
June 18, 2006 9:29 AM

Revenge of the Sith blew. People only say it's good because it's *marginally* better than those two other gay, donkey punching, felch-fest prequels.

The only good Star Wars was New Hope, Empire and the first half of Return. The second half is when the syphillis started affecting Lucas's brain. Of course he only got worse over time...

Having said that, Chewie still skeets all over Data.

Post #225204link

DragonXero
June 18, 2006 9:37 AM

I'd say Revenge of the Sith was more than marginally better than Episodes I and II.
And there were a few redeeming qualities about the first two episodes, though one of those things is destroyed before it has a chance to kick some real ass. Darth Maul was a cool badguy. Lucas should have kept him and had Jar Jar bisected instead.
I think 2 and 3 could have kicked a lot more ass had they chosen an actor to play Anakin, rather than some guy they found outside the studio.

Post #225206link

HCRoyall
June 18, 2006 9:50 AM

They had all sorts of new diseases and conditions in Star Trek. Cancer no longer existed, nor did AIDS or Ebola or anything like that.

But Star Wars was better. Because it had lightsabers.

Post #225209link

fpd
June 18, 2006 10:25 AM

The Star Wars movies have consistently been better than the Star Trek movies, though I think the Star Trek Saturday morning cartoon from the 70's may have been better than the Star Wars Saturday morning cartoon from the 80's. My memory of both cartoons is too foggy to say for sure, but I think the Star Wars cartoon focused too much on the inanity of C3PO, and the Star Trek cartoon was more serious. But when it comes to the Star Trek TV shows, there is no live-action Star Wars TV show to compare them with, and it's not fair to compare TV shows with movies, since they are made under different constraints. I think Star Trek ranks among the best science fiction TV shows, though I would hesitate to rank it above Doctor Who, Farscape, or the new Battlestar Galactica. Unlike some people, I am a fan of the science fiction genre, not of one particular sci fi franchise. I enjoy Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, and many others. So, wherever Star Trek stands among the various sci fi franchises, I have enjoyed it and appreciate it.

Post #225215link

finn34
June 18, 2006 9:47 PM

I personally hated the first iteration of Star Trek. The Next Generation is by far the best. Deep Space 9 kinda sucked. Voyager rocked all kinds of ass, as did Enterprise.

The whole series, regardless of iteration, does become very formulaic. The movies were generally better -- giving the writer(s) more time for developing cohesive narratives, I suppose.

Post #225269link

DragonXero
June 18, 2006 11:05 PM

quote:
I personally hated the first iteration of Star Trek. The Next Generation is by far the best. Deep Space 9 kinda sucked. Voyager rocked all kinds of ass, as did Enterprise.

The whole series, regardless of iteration, does become very formulaic. The movies were generally better -- giving the writer(s) more time for developing cohesive narratives, I suppose.


Also, the budget was more than lunch money.

Post #225278link

biped
June 18, 2006 11:48 PM

Dissing original Trek in comparison to the later series that were built upon it is like putting down Thomas Edison for not inventing laser light shows for rock concerts.

Post #225286link

fpd
June 19, 2006 7:51 AM

The basic idea behind Star Wars is an epic conflict between good and evil, and the basic idea behind Star Trek is exploration. The idea of an epic conflict between good and evil works well for the movies, which allows the story to focus on the climactic moments without getting bogged down by the details of everyday life. The idea of exploration works well for a TV show, because it allows for a wide variety of stories without having to worry about story arcs or what to do between climactic moments.

Like Star Wars, some science fiction TV shows have been more about epic conflicts between good and evil than about exploration, but they usually haven't been as good as Star Trek.

One example is the original Battlestar Galactica. The Cylons have destroyed the 12 colonies of humanity, and they are fighting against the evil Cylons for their very survival. But too many episodes of the original Battlestar Galactica failed to focus on this conflict, and when I watched it on TV as a kid, I didn't really understand what the show was about. I simply knew that it was a science fiction show about people on a spaceship. In contrast, I easily understood what both Star Wars and Star Trek were about, and I was familiar with both before Battlestar Galactica came on TV.

Another example is Andromeda. Also created by Gene Roddenberry, the show superficially resembles Star Trek. Both are about the captain and crew of an interstellar spaceship. But this show mainly focused on the conflict between good and evil, particularly in the form of the Magog and their evil god from some other dimension. The fourth season ended with a climactic conflict with the Magog, and then the last season lost its way, and the show was no longer as good as it used to be.

The conflict between good and evil has been a staple on some other science fiction TV shows, but to continue coming out with good stories, they have had to share the focus with exploration or political intrigue. Star Gate SG-1 has combined the conflict between good and evil with exploration of the galaxy, and it's now one of the longest running science fiction shows on TV. The new Battlestar Galactica began with the same conflict as the old series but has managed to put more wrinkles into it and make it less black and white. The new season will actually be playing out a different kind of conflict than the original series ever dealt with. Some Cylons have had second thoughts about destroying humanity, managed to become the new Cylon leaders, and believe their mission is now to serve humanity, much like the Humanoids in Jack Williamson's novel. Doctor Who has had various conflicts between good and evil, especially with the Daleks, but it has been its heavy emphasis on exploration that has made it the longest running science fiction show on TV.

To sum up, I think the idea behind Star Trek is a great one for TV, and the various Star Trek series have handled it well, especially the original series and Voyager. Some series, such as DS9 and Enterprise, have focused more on the conflict between good and evil, but even these have had exploration to fall back on, because the main mission of Star Trek crews has been peaceful exploration, not war. The idea behind Star Wars works best in the movies or in TV shows with limited durations, but something more is needed to keep a TV show going year after year. Star Wars makes for better movies than Star Trek, but Star Trek has more of what it takes to last as a successful TV series.

Post #225305link

Forum archives » General Discussion » Star Trek

« Prev Page 1 of 2 Next »
stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks