Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Star Trek is Our Business

24567100

Posts

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Dont forget about Whale Trek. Whale Trek is great. Its also right after the conclusion to Wrath of Khan.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Stravinsky0Stravinsky0 Registered User
    Now I'm seriously getting a hankering to rewatch all the movies. I'm currently in the middle of a complete series rewatch. I've completed The Original Series, the Animated Series, TNG, and I'm around season 5 of DS9.

    fc1dd9174a9dd419.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    I think Im going to rewatch DS9 after I finish up TOS/Animated Series. I mean, I did just finish watching it like a year or so ago, and Im probably a month or so away from finishing TOS/Animated, so maybe I'll rewatch the movies first...I feel like its been a while since Ive watched those.

    camo_sig2.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    Richy on
    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    Also don't forget the best Star Trek movie: Star Trek VI.

    Although there are little, tiny things about The Undiscovered Country that bother me.

    The Klingon woman says the undiscovered country is the future even though the undiscovered country is actually death. If you're going to reference Shakespeare do it right!

    I can't imagine Klingons liking Shakespeare. I mean maybe they'd go for Titus Andronicus, but Hamlet? That's a play where a guy learns his father was murdered and then he mopes and whines and contemplates suicide and doesn't do anything. Although maybe the Klingons changed the play around and maybe their version is more badass.

    The scene where Chekov makes a long speech about Russian epic cinderella, etc. is pretty painful.

    When I was a kid I loved the scene where the crew-members have to carry on a conversation in Klingon, now it kind of makes me cringe. At the risk of sounding like a nitpickity neckbeard: why couldn't the Klingon sensors tell it was a federation ship? Is it really likely that nobody on the entire enterprise could speak Klingon? Since when does anybody in the Star Trek universe use paper books for anything?

    I find it highly unlikely that the Vulcans would know anything about Nixon or Earth's Cold War. I'd have a hard time cutting the Nixon joke though because it's really funny. On the other hand I might cut the line where Spock implies that his ancestor is Sherlock Holmes. It's a cute joke, but if you're going to winkingly break the fourth wall in a movie like Undiscovered Country, the joke needs to be really worth it.

    I have never understood what Kirk means when he says "you should've trusted me."

    It's really dang convenient that
    Spoiler:

    Anyway, uh, this post turned out way longer than I was expecting it to. Also it makes it sound like I'm more down on Undiscovered Country than I am. It's an amazing, suspenseful, dread-filled movie. The scene where the Klingon ship is attacked is one of my favorite scenes in all of cinema.

    jBEKRTH.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    The part where it's about a person who's sexuality is condemned by her society just being a normal person trying to live her life normally and wanting exceptance? And the sad ending where her society crushes her free will to make her fit their image of what she should be?

    You know, the same way Let That Be Your Last Battlefield is obviously about racism despite the fact that neither of the aliens are black or white.

    I mean, you gotta be fucking goosely obvious (or really young) to miss that the episode is about gay rights. And shit, I've heard a few stories (a few on this board) from people who found it moving because of that.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    wandering wrote:
    It's really dang convenient that
    Spoiler:

    That part makes a bit more sense when you realize that, originally, Valeris was going to be Saavik, the Vulcan scientist from Star Trek 3. The actress refused to have her character become a traitor, so they swapped her for a new character, unfortunately IMO. But having Saavik be aware of, and share into, Kirk's hatred of the Klingons for what they did to David makes far more sense since she was friends with David and she was there in person when the Klingons killed him.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    Yeah. I don't know anybody who didn't get the message of that episode. It's pretty easy to say it should have been stronger from our position almost two decades removed. Practically the entire marriage equality movement happened in that time frame. To claim it isn't about gay rights is to be blind to the metaphor used.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    Yeah. I don't know anybody who didn't get the message of that episode. It's pretty easy to say it should have been stronger from our position almost two decades removed. Practically the entire marriage equality movement happened in that time frame. To claim it isn't about gay rights is to be blind to the metaphor used.

    Oh, I see the metaphor. I just think it's weak. But more importantly, I think that an episode that neither shows nor mentions the existence of homosexuality being held as a strong statement for gay rights is ridiculous. At best, I'd call it a whisper for gay rights, and I'd consider myself generous to call it that.

    To take skype's parallel with Let This Be Your Last Battlefield. Racism was a hot topic in the 60s. Desegregation was a recent event, King had just been assassinated, black people were still being treated as second-class citizens by a lot of businesses and people, even though the laws were changing for equality (and needless to say each change was a battle against fierce opposition). In this context, Star Trek made an episode that didn't fuck around and said clearly "racism is stupid and will lead to our destruction". They didn't make up fictional colours, they showed racism that was quite literally around white/black lines. Their "metaphor", if you can even call it that because it's so blatantly transparent, was to have people black on one side and white on the other as a way to show that skin colour is a skin-deep difference.

    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.

    Richy on
    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.
    Riker certainly was prodding something with his ten-foot pole. :winky:

    Steam ID: Hahnsoo, Steam Name currently: Hahnsopolis | PSN: Hahnsoo | Monster Hunter Tri: Hahnsoo, E8HJCA
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.

    This is five years before Ellen, in your comparison it's like making the Battlefield in the 50's.

    Which would have been a totally awesome way to get Star Trek cancelled and blamed on the gays/blacks.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Honestly if you like The Motion Picture you'll probably love Wrath of Khan as its about a hundred times better.

    Probably. But they were very different movies, TMP was all pretty, slow-moving spectacle and imagery that reminded me of The Abyss or 2001: a space oddysey. WoK was just a straight-up movie; it had a story, it told the story, the story was good and no faffing about. I liked both, but I hear some hated one of the other for being "too slow" or "too actiony."
    Spoiler:

    Welp, this is based on dusty memories and wild assumptions, but the takeaway I had with Star Wars was that tech was pretty stagnant, any really good tech was developed by the rebels because Evil is Dumb and hates smart people, and the Empire COULD have made better fighters, it just really liked to focus its resources on "Compensator-class" vessels.

    As for Star Trek, I could *swear* that the default maquis ships were referenced as heavily-modified (insert name here)-class cargo-haulers. Basically they had taken a bunch of Cessnas and stuck guns, armor, and upgraded engines on them using industrial replicators for the parts and terraforming/infrastructure specialists and expatriot Starfleet for labor. Which is another thing, the imagery never seemed to make it clear, but the dialogue always implied that the colonists included FAR more than just farmers, since it takes a lot more than farming and ranching to make a viable planetary colony.

    But again, I'm mostly inferring.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    Yeah. I don't know anybody who didn't get the message of that episode. It's pretty easy to say it should have been stronger from our position almost two decades removed. Practically the entire marriage equality movement happened in that time frame. To claim it isn't about gay rights is to be blind to the metaphor used.

    Oh, I see the metaphor. I just think it's weak. But more importantly, I think that an episode that neither shows nor mentions the existence of homosexuality being held as a strong statement for gay rights is ridiculous. At best, I'd call it a whisper for gay rights, and I'd consider myself generous to call it that.

    To take skype's parallel with Let This Be Your Last Battlefield. Racism was a hot topic in the 60s. Desegregation was a recent event, King had just been assassinated, black people were still being treated as second-class citizens by a lot of businesses and people, even though the laws were changing for equality (and needless to say each change was a battle against fierce opposition). In this context, Star Trek made an episode that didn't fuck around and said clearly "racism is stupid and will lead to our destruction". They didn't make up fictional colours, they showed racism that was quite literally around white/black lines. Their "metaphor", if you can even call it that because it's so blatantly transparent, was to have people black on one side and white on the other as a way to show that skin colour is a skin-deep difference.

    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.

    It used "androgonous & gendered" to represent "straight & gay" in order to both slip past the censors and so that the straight audience would connect with the character and understand her struggle.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Richy wrote:
    shryke wrote:
    Eh, that's a pretty ridiculous interpretation. Especially since the only reason Riker wasn't making out with a dude is cause the producers chickened out.

    It's not a ridiculous interpretation, in fact it's not an interpretation at all, it's esentially what's shown on screen. They chickened out on making it an episode about homophobia. Instead it's this nonsense about a woman boldly going where countless women have gone before.

    Sure, if you are silly enough to ignore the fact that they aren't women but actually androgenous. The actors playing them are just women. But they are, you know, acting.

    Her species was androgenous, but she personally identified as a female. And she was attracted to Riker, a male. Hell, when she describes her society's underground gender movement she mentions that there are both those who identify as male and are attracted to females, and those who identify as female and are attracted to males.

    Please go ahead and point out the part that's a bold statement for gay rights. Or any kind of statement for gay rights. Hell, I'll give you partial credit for finding a part that acknowledges that gays exist.

    Yeah. I don't know anybody who didn't get the message of that episode. It's pretty easy to say it should have been stronger from our position almost two decades removed. Practically the entire marriage equality movement happened in that time frame. To claim it isn't about gay rights is to be blind to the metaphor used.

    Oh, I see the metaphor. I just think it's weak. But more importantly, I think that an episode that neither shows nor mentions the existence of homosexuality being held as a strong statement for gay rights is ridiculous. At best, I'd call it a whisper for gay rights, and I'd consider myself generous to call it that.

    To take skype's parallel with Let This Be Your Last Battlefield. Racism was a hot topic in the 60s. Desegregation was a recent event, King had just been assassinated, black people were still being treated as second-class citizens by a lot of businesses and people, even though the laws were changing for equality (and needless to say each change was a battle against fierce opposition). In this context, Star Trek made an episode that didn't fuck around and said clearly "racism is stupid and will lead to our destruction". They didn't make up fictional colours, they showed racism that was quite literally around white/black lines. Their "metaphor", if you can even call it that because it's so blatantly transparent, was to have people black on one side and white on the other as a way to show that skin colour is a skin-deep difference.

    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.

    It used "androgonous & gendered" to represent "straight & gay" in order to both slip past the censors and so that the straight audience would connect with the character and understand her struggle.

    I think the problem is that for the time, it was a better message but looking back it seems like the pussy way out.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    @amanfromearth (typed this on my phone, so there'll probably be an interjectory post):

    Assuming a trend towards progressivism as time goes by, I'd say that's almost always going to be the case when something that was targeted at a mainstream audience while simultaneously trying to push a progressive message is viewed in hindsight.

    I mean, look at 'Guess who's coming to dinner?' Pretty easy to look at it now and say they stacked the deck to push their message: gosh, Joanna wants to marry a successful, articulate, idealistic doctor. Scandalous! Marry a nearly perfect character who's only single 'problem' to overcome is the social issue you want to address.

    TNG did just fine, for the time. Shame they weren't brave enough to cast male actors (at least they cast with a fair degree of androgeny--outside of the love interest in question, that is) but there's no denying it's a story about sexual identity and the expression/repression thereof.

    As a guy who grew up going to Catholic schools who watched the original airing, I can't fault it much unless I measure it against the state of the media, LGBT movement, and public discourse of today.

    Ego on
    Erik
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well to be fair, I wasn't saying I agreed, just trying to clarify things.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    ...that's right, you aren't Richy! Go away, non Richy guy!

    (alternatively: whoops, I need to pay better attention to authors of posts when I'm on the phone.)

    Well, let's consider my post to expound on your clarification of the act of addressing progressive issues in popular mainstream media. That sentence really rolls off the tongue.

    Erik
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Like Shakespeare, but classier it is!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    That was taking a stance. The Outcast does nothing remotely like that. It invents fake genders that are oppressing us poor heterosexuals and ignores gays completely. It prods the issue of gay rights with a ten-foot pole and calls it a day.

    This is five years before Ellen, in your comparison it's like making the Battlefield in the 50's.

    Which would have been a totally awesome way to get Star Trek cancelled and blamed on the gays/blacks.
    I think you underestimate the audience of the 1990's. They made an episode where Picard angrily shouts "Religion is stupid and evil grrr!!!" I mean if that didn't kill TNG...

    With that said, the fact that "The Outcast" was unbold is nothing to get riled up about.

    jBEKRTH.png
  • shutzshutz Registered User regular
    edited December 2011
    It's kind of hard to decide what needs to be spoilered and what should be well-known, by now. If you haven't seen the first 6 Star Trek movies, just skip over this post entirely (and come back once you HAVE seen those movies, if you're interested.) I've still spoilered a major event in the movie series, just in case, and I remained vague where I could, while still making my point for those in the know.
    wandering wrote:
    I find it highly unlikely that the Vulcans would know anything about Nixon or Earth's Cold War. I'd have a hard time cutting the Nixon joke though because it's really funny. On the other hand I might cut the line where Spock implies that his ancestor is Sherlock Holmes. It's a cute joke, but if you're going to winkingly break the fourth wall in a movie like Undiscovered Country, the joke needs to be really worth it.

    If you ever read Nimoy's second autobiography, "I Am Spock", you learn a few things:

    - Nimoy came up with the basic idea for the movie
    - He went to see his friend Nick Meyer (who directed Wrath of Khan, and wrote most of Star Trek IV -- mostly the parts that occur in 1986) and they then hashed out the plot together, while walking up and down the beach at Cape Cod.
    - Nimoy himself came up with the line "Only Nixon could go to China" during that meeting, and Meyer ended up using it in the movie.
    - Meyer is a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. As an aside,
    Spoiler:

    Spock is half-human, and is often shown to have quasi-encyclopedic knowledge (with a few convenient holes left for comedy purposes.) Him knowing about Nixon and the Cold War seems reasonable to me.
    Richy wrote:
    wandering wrote:
    It's really dang convenient that
    Spoiler:

    That part makes a bit more sense when you realize that, originally, Valeris was going to be Saavik, the Vulcan scientist from Star Trek 3. The actress refused to have her character become a traitor, so they swapped her for a new character, unfortunately IMO. But having Saavik be aware of, and share into, Kirk's hatred of the Klingons for what they did to David makes far more sense since she was friends with David and she was there in person when the Klingons killed him.

    Again, based on I Am Spock, I can tell you that they actually were hoping to get Kirstie Alley back (for the two of you who might not know, she played Saavik in Wrath of Khan, while Robin Curtis played Saavik in Search for Spock and did a short cameo in The Voyage Home) but her agent quoted an amount that was so ridiculous (way more than, say, DeForest Kelley would be paid for that movie) so they quickly decided that it was better to go for a new vulcan female instead. Also note that Kim Cattrall had been in the running to play Saavik originally in Wrath of Khan.

    I agree with your idea that the link with David would have made Valeris/Saavik's actions make more sense, or at least, it would have given them an extra emotional resonance.

    The main problem with Undiscovered Country (which makes me feel that Wrath of Khan remains the better of the TOS movies) is that it's a missed opportunity. Again in I Am Spock, Nimoy writes that his initial reason for coming up with his "Tchernobyl in space" idea for a Star Trek movie was that he wanted a chance to finally explore Klingon culture in more depth. He felt that Kirk and McCoy should be helped in their escape attempt by an actual Klingon prisoner (ideally a political prisoner) but the director, Meyer, overruled him on that. Nimoy describes the film as a "Mandchurian Candidate in space", which kind of makes sense.

    shutz on
    Creativity begets criticism.
    Check out my new blog: http://50wordstories.ca
    Also check out my old game design blog: http://stealmygamedesigns.blogspot.com
  • wanderingwandering Registered User regular
    It's a shame Kirstie Alley didn't stay on, she was a much better Saavik than Curtis.

    jBEKRTH.png
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    Garak is awesome

    that is all

    And to think, Garak was supposed to have but a single little appearance at the start of the show.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    wandering wrote:
    I think you underestimate the audience of the 1990's. They made an episode where Picard angrily shouts "Religion is stupid and evil grrr!!!" I mean if that didn't kill
    When was this?

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote:
    wandering wrote:
    I think you underestimate the audience of the 1990's. They made an episode where Picard angrily shouts "Religion is stupid and evil grrr!!!" I mean if that didn't kill
    When was this?

    There were a couple of episodes dissuading belief in the supernatural. I think "Devil's Due" and "Who Watches the Watchers" would be among the more notable examples.

  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Registered User regular
    I doubt that crazy religious fundamentalists would have specifically singled out Star Trek. There was so much on TV to hate at that time, after all. :D

    Steam ID: Hahnsoo, Steam Name currently: Hahnsopolis | PSN: Hahnsoo | Monster Hunter Tri: Hahnsoo, E8HJCA
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    Also when people watch characters dispute religion in a show they don't connect the fake religion with the religion they practice.

    When Picard says "I will not plunge these people into the dark ages of superstition" they attach it to beliefs they don't believe in.

    Quire.jpg
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote:
    wandering wrote:
    I think you underestimate the audience of the 1990's. They made an episode where Picard angrily shouts "Religion is stupid and evil grrr!!!" I mean if that didn't kill
    When was this?

    There were a couple of episodes dissuading belief in the supernatural. I think "Devil's Due" and "Who Watches the Watchers" would be among the more notable examples.
    I remember those well and I don't recall Picard angrily railing on religion.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Lucid wrote:
    Lucid wrote:
    wandering wrote:
    I think you underestimate the audience of the 1990's. They made an episode where Picard angrily shouts "Religion is stupid and evil grrr!!!" I mean if that didn't kill
    When was this?

    There were a couple of episodes dissuading belief in the supernatural. I think "Devil's Due" and "Who Watches the Watchers" would be among the more notable examples.
    I remember those well and I don't recall Picard angrily railing on religion.

    While not a religion episode, there was also this bit from Hide and Q.



    Although that may just have been him being annoyed at Q.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    The Science Channel is airing Trek Nation, a documentary about Star Trek made by Gene Roddenberry's kid, and while its basically a story about a son learning about his father it has a lot of interviews with fans, writers, and actors. Being on the Science Channel itll probably be aired multiple times in the coming weeks (maybe its to verify previous findings?).

    camo_sig2.png
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Watching "Court Martial". My Law & Order viewing makes me :? at some of the Federation's legal protocols.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Watching "Court Martial". My Law & Order viewing makes me :? at some of the Federation's legal protocols.

    ........"Watching Iron Eagle. My Afterburner play makes me :? at some of the flight maneuvers depicted."

    Neither show has much of a connection to actual technical reality.

    Trogg wrote: »
    Not as positive as AIDS and cancer, but positive nonetheless.

    PSN: QuipFilter
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    While not a religion episode, there was also this bit from Hide and Q.



    Although that may just have been him being annoyed at Q.

    Yeah that's just Picard's normal reaction to all of Q's stunts. I mean, if that's the standard for TNG taking a stand against something, then it's equally against mariachi bands :P

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Garak is awesome

    that is all

    And to think, Garak was supposed to have but a single little appearance at the start of the show.

    He's a fun character who really gives the Cardassians some depth. While devious and ruthless as fuck they're not all jsut plain evil

  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote:
    While not a religion episode, there was also this bit from Hide and Q.
    Spoiler:
    Although that may just have been him being annoyed at Q.
    Yeah that's just Picard's normal reaction to all of Q's stunts. I mean, if that's the standard for TNG taking a stand against something, then it's equally against mariachi bands :P
    It's hard to miss TNG's anti-mariachi stance. I mean, how often did they show up as the good guys?
    It may have been a bold stance to take at the time, but today it just seems trite and a little lacking in backbone.

    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    They kinda pussied out on the outcast. A bunch of the cast and crew wanted it to be much more direct with their message.
    Yeah, that episode was the essence of subtle. Much like TOS episode with the half-black, half-white dudes.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • AtomikaAtomika genius of the restoration Registered User regular
    Hey, Peter Weller has been cast in the new Star Trek movie.


    Star Trek can always use more Robocop.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    Hey, Peter Weller has been cast in the new Star Trek movie.


    Star Trek Everything can always use more Robocop.

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Watching "Court Martial". My Law & Order viewing makes me :? at some of the Federation's legal protocols.
    What, you have a problem with a random Starfleet officer being able to decide whether or not an artificial lifeform has rights under Federation law?

    I'm kind of convinced that the Federation is really just a military dictatorship with a puppet civilian government. Starfleet seems to have almost no civilian oversight.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Watching "Court Martial". My Law & Order viewing makes me :? at some of the Federation's legal protocols.
    What, you have a problem with a random Starfleet officer being able to decide whether or not an artificial lifeform has rights under Federation law?

    I'm kind of convinced that the Federation is really just a military dictatorship with a puppet civilian government. Starfleet seems to have almost no civilian oversight.

    Yeah it kind of looks that way. I think you see the Federation President once that I remember (Star Trek VI) and various ambassadors other times, but you never really see any tools of Federation governance besides Starfleet.

  • Stravinsky0Stravinsky0 Registered User
    a5ehren wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Watching "Court Martial". My Law & Order viewing makes me :? at some of the Federation's legal protocols.
    What, you have a problem with a random Starfleet officer being able to decide whether or not an artificial lifeform has rights under Federation law?

    I'm kind of convinced that the Federation is really just a military dictatorship with a puppet civilian government. Starfleet seems to have almost no civilian oversight.

    Yeah it kind of looks that way. I think you see the Federation President once that I remember (Star Trek VI) and various ambassadors other times, but you never really see any tools of Federation governance besides Starfleet.

    At least one episode of DS:9 (when Ben is back on earth dealing with the Dominion threat) involves the civilian government, specifically the Federation president, in which it's clear that the Starfleet military is under the control of the civilian government. Of course...
    Spoiler:

    fc1dd9174a9dd419.png
This discussion has been closed.