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] Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise

1356799

Posts

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    A star trek Tv Series would be competing with the fact that there are 600 episodes of star trek already. Not to mention half a dozen other series with competing premises. BSG, Firefly, Babylon 5, Farscape and Stargate to mention the top 5. Thats post apocalyptic, wild west, epic saga, strange worlds/Aliens and Modern-day earthlings meet the universe premise right there.

    Thing is, are any new episodes of these shows being made? They're popular and in syndication, sure, but a hypothetical new Trek could start another wave of Sci-Fi shows.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    No, but its cheaper to buy an episode of one of them, then it would be to buy a new episode of a new star trek series.

    As for wave of sci-fi shows. Don't bet on it. There was a "wave" of such shows back in the early 90s. Anyone remember Space rangers?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    No, but its cheaper to buy an episode of one of them, then it would be to buy a new episode of a new star trek series.

    As for wave of sci-fi shows. Don't bet on it. There was a "wave" of such shows back in the early 90s. Anyone remember Space rangers?

    I'm still not sure where you're coming from. A new series means it would - barring being screwed by the network - be shown at a timeslot usually reserved for first-run shows. I don't really see a new show being in direct competition with a syndicated one, at least not for the first few episodes.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Its the seen it all before vibe, any star trek series would have to compete with TNG/DS9/Voy. 600 episodes worth of competition. That would bite into ratings no matter what, because casual viewers don't really care which space show they watch. And Star Trek? Not a cheap show to produce. If it doesn't get major viewers its sunk.

    Its the law of diminishing returns. It was the reason Enterprise was made instead of another show in the TNG era. Its the reason 11 was a reboot of the timeline.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Its the seen it all before vibe, any star trek series would have to compete with TNG/DS9/Voy. 600 episodes worth of competition. That would bite into ratings no matter what, because casual viewers don't really care which space show they watch. And Star Trek? Not a cheap show to produce. If it doesn't get major viewers its sunk.

    Its the law of diminishing returns. It was the reason Enterprise was made instead of another show in the TNG era. Its the reason 11 was a reboot of the timeline.

    I'm going to call bullshit right there.

    Viewers like to watch franchises they already know. There's a reason Star Trek got higher ratings than much better shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape. It's the same reason we have CSI: Every Goddamn City in America and a dozen Survivor series.

    And within Star Trek, if you think viewers don't care whether they're watching TNG or Enterprise, I've got a ratings chart to show you.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • MblackwellMblackwell Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Mmm Trek. My big problem is that basically every series after TNG slowly became more and more about walking around having pointless conversations about how terrible everything was. It started with DS9 actually, it became like watching a Soap Opera. Poor O'Brien!

    DS9 just got friggin boring after the first couple seasons... and Voyager should have been canceled after what, Episode 3? Enterprise... I didn't even watch honestly. You really couldn't tell if they wanted Bakula to be Sam (Quantum Leap) or not.

    Music: The Rejected Applications | Nintendo Network ID: Mblackwell

  • NightslyrNightslyr Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    jclast wrote: »
    They had plenty of potential conflict that was ignored in that half of their crew were Maquis.

    Large group of separatist rebel terrorist? We can squander that! Yeah I totally forgot that.
    DS9 gets the Maquis foisted upon them just so they can play a significant role in Voyager without having to spend a lot of episodes introducing them and what they're about.

    In the end, the DS9 Maquis get wiped out off-screen and that's still more than what they did with them on Voyager.

    Yeah. I liked the idea of establishing the Maquis on TNG and DS9 before Voyager. It's just a shame that went almost nowhere.

    Another reason why I'm interested in the Janeway-thrust-into-the-role-of-captain angle: If you had Chakotay as someone who was already a commander for many years, possibly about to become a captain himself before he joined the Maquis, then you have a dynamic of an inexperienced captain dealing with a first officer who could easily assume control if he wanted, so this would force her to adapt to the situation and emerge a better character for it. However they instead went with the strong captain that everyone's glad to follow, which is a shame. And then they couldn't keep her character consistent.

    I'd rather see Janeway start as not a particularly good captain. She's not a living legend like Picard, or a budding war hero like Sisko. Instead, she's merely pretty average. She commands a ship without much prestige attached to its name, running boring courier missions, doing some short term research within Federation space (playing research mop up after ships like the Enterprise make the initial discovery), that sort of thing. She's the captain of a ship no one really wants to be assigned to, the one that always rendezvous with the famous ships to drop off/pick up diplomats.

    When the Maquis/Caretaker shit goes down, she's forced to step up. She's forced to examine herself, her drive, her dedication. Was this what she really wanted? Would she be better off handing things off to a seasoned warrior like Chakotay? Would he force her to relinquish command, with or without her consent?

    I just think that the dead captain idea is too cliche. You can have the same or similar conflicts without relying on it.

    My PA, PSN, XBL, Origin, and Steam names are the same. 3DS Friend Code: 1607-1682-2948
    steam_sig-400.png
    Stack Exchange | http://www.mpdevblog.blogspot.com
  • WotanAnubisWotanAnubis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    They could probably do a low budget sitcom about a bunch of Young Wesley Crushers in Starfleet Academy getting into wacky hijinks.
    DS9 already did that.

    They all got blown up by Jem'Hadar.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Its the seen it all before vibe, any star trek series would have to compete with TNG/DS9/Voy. 600 episodes worth of competition. That would bite into ratings no matter what, because casual viewers don't really care which space show they watch. And Star Trek? Not a cheap show to produce. If it doesn't get major viewers its sunk.

    Its the law of diminishing returns. It was the reason Enterprise was made instead of another show in the TNG era. Its the reason 11 was a reboot of the timeline.

    I'm going to call bullshit right there.

    Viewers like to watch franchises they already know. There's a reason Star Trek got higher ratings than much better shows like Babylon 5 and Farscape. It's the same reason we have CSI: Every Goddamn City in America and a dozen Survivor series.

    And within Star Trek, if you think viewers don't care whether they're watching TNG or Enterprise, I've got a ratings chart to show you.

    What? Enterprise had lower ratings then TNG? TNG that started in 87 and ruled the roost almost all alone in the sci-fi tv world until 94? You say that when Enterprise went on the air almost 10 years later(after DS9,VOY, B5, FARSCAPE and Stargate sg1 ) it got worse ratings. Wow, what a surprise.

    Are you really claiming that the fact that a viewer could watch over a 600 episodes of 4 other star trek series series had nothing do with it. And that it won't have a real effect on a new series?

    Franchises are a real thing, but there is/was such a thing as franchise fatigue. You see it with CSI: EGCIA and you see it with Real Whores of whatever city. Sooner or later the law of diminishing returns sets in.

    A new star trek is going to have to face that problem.

    Edit: I would like to add that a casual viewer is in my mind someone that thinks Kirk vs Picard is your only choice for Captain.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    There is a disturbing lack of Kirk in this thread.

    kirk-inspirational-awesome.jpg

    That's better.

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Bro!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    I wonder sometimes if the realities of television production in HD combined with the modern expectation of TV shows having near-movie-quality effects means that any discussion of a future Star Trek series is kind of moot. Doctor Who is a huge hit in its native UK, nabbing a percentage of the viewing audience unlike almost anything we have here, and they still have to constantly take advantage of re-using sets and monsters and being very sparing with visual effects and location shoots to cut costs.

    Yes but that's traditional for Doctor Who. It's always had a threadbare budget. I'm fairly sure the older series used every quarry in Wales at some point.

    They could probably do a low budget sitcom about a bunch of Young Wesley Crushers in Starfleet Academy getting into wacky hijinks.

    I would expect a PM from Braga about this at anytime.

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I thought the creation of this thread meant RedLetterMedia did another funny Star Trek review.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The idealism of the original show and TNG come off as incredibly corny and dated. Yeah, I get that Rodenberry had a vision of what humans should be, but the franchise never really did anything to explain how humans were able to change their inherent nature to such a point that basic human failings like greed, jealousy, envy and such were stamped out.

    The setting is what it is, but so much of it is so eye-rollingly naive that it's tough to watch it in light of more recent, and realistic, science fiction. Rodenberry's vision is the vision of a naive nerd who doesn't really understand what makes people tick.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The idealism of the original show and TNG come off as incredibly corny and dated. Yeah, I get that Rodenberry had a vision of what humans should be, but the franchise never really did anything to explain how humans were able to change their inherent nature to such a point that basic human failings like greed, jealousy, envy and such were stamped out.

    The setting is what it is, but so much of it is so eye-rollingly naive that it's tough to watch it in light of more recent, and realistic, science fiction. Rodenberry's vision is the vision of a naive nerd who doesn't really understand what makes people tick.

    I am not sure which version of Star Trek you were watching, but people are still motivated by normal human emotions all the time in TNG. Look at some of the best episodes of TNG - The Best of Both Worlds, The Inner Light, Yesterday`s Enterprise, All Good Things..., all of them involved people confronting our human follies and overcoming them. Revenge, pride, greed, wrath... all that shit gets explored pretty regularly.

    It can be hard to recognize those emotions though, since they are presented in a post-scarcity environment. But that is one of the draws of science fiction, it explores controversial issues under the mask of technology.

    I also reject your notion that optimism is some dated, unrealistic notion. Not every TV show, indeed not every sci-fi show has to present humans as absolute shit in order to create the image that we're flawed. You can create compelling characters with flaws and diverse motivations that aren't alcoholics or self-destructive. We do not live in the middle ages, and we don't need every sci-fi show to portray a medieval future or a future where everyone comes home and beats their spouse and kids.

  • Saint MadnessSaint Madness Registered User
    edited May 2011
    They could probably do a low budget sitcom about a bunch of Young Wesley Crushers in Starfleet Academy getting into wacky hijinks.
    DS9 already did that.

    They all got blown up by Jem'Hadar.

    And nothing of value was lost.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Rodenberry's vision is the vision of a naive nerd who doesn't really understand what makes people tick.
    Oops, forgot that psychology came to a consensus that humans are all inherently assholes.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Rodenberry's vision is the vision of a naive nerd who doesn't really understand what makes people tick.
    Oops, forgot that psychology came to a consensus that humans are all inherently assholes.

    Gentlemen please! You can't argue about Rodenberry here, this is the internet!
    Dr.%20Strangelove.JPG

    I think it wouldn't be unfair to say that Rodenberry's vision for TOS was simplistic, but with TNG and the rest it was given a chance to expand and evolve a bit. And in the end it still feels lacking, but it does it's job of giving us a platform to inspire mankind towards something greater if we can only hold off on killing each other long enough for cooler/more intelligent heads to prevail.

  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Rodenberry's vision is the vision of a naive nerd who doesn't really understand what makes people tick.
    Oops, forgot that psychology came to a consensus that humans are all inherently assholes.

    Nah.

    That's history.

    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.

    Sure, they were better people than now, but it was an understandable progression. Didn't feel... sterile.

    Also, the prime directive is kinda, as shown in TNG, a crock of shit. No wonder Kirk ignored it all the time.

    2MyOx.png
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I know he's been mentioned a bit already, but here's SF Debris' take on the Prime Directive, which I agree with.

    As for how likely Rodenberry's ideal is, I think you're missing the point: I've always seen the ideal as something to aspire to. It's about setting an example to try and better ourselves. We may not live up to it, but we can have a good shot at it.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    As for how likely Rodenberry's ideal is, I think you're missing the point: I've always seen the ideal as something to aspire to. It's about setting an example to try and better ourselves. We may not live up to it, but we can have a good shot at it.
    I get that point. But, in terms of world-building, Star Trek does a shitty job of explaining how humanity gets from how we are today to how people act in the Federation.

    I think it's a major failing of the show's ideologicaly that the writers never plausibly explain how and why human beings got there from here.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    That's something I agree with. Terrible backstory. There was some nuclear holocaust apparently that only wiped out people in the millions.

    I can understand the technology issues(some things not so advanced anymore) as that's all relative to modern tech and how imaginative the writers are.

    Replicators, transporters, and near limitless energy would drastically alter a lot though.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    That's something I agree with. Terrible backstory. There was some nuclear holocaust apparently that only wiped out people in the millions.

    I can understand the technology issues(some things not so advanced anymore) as that's all relative to modern tech and how imaginative the writers are.

    Replicators, transporters, and near limitless energy would drastically alter a lot though.
    The backstory is a mess. Are the Eugenics Wars the same thing as WWIII? How bad were the nuclear wars? They couldn't have been that bad if the Earth was building warp-capable starships by the Enterprise timeframe.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?


    Well, one thing, as shown in Relics, is that they actually got drunk. No synthol, just the hard stuff.

    A lot of times people went charging into a situation without thinking it through, and this was treated as normal.

    I mean, think of Kirk's speech in "A Taste of Armageddon". The emphasis on "Today", the whole "Yes, we all still have the potential to be mass murderous bastards, but we don't have to be." idea as compared to Picard's general attitude of "We're past that now. ".

    Just that kind of thing.

    2MyOx.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    That's something I agree with. Terrible backstory. There was some nuclear holocaust apparently that only wiped out people in the millions.

    I can understand the technology issues(some things not so advanced anymore) as that's all relative to modern tech and how imaginative the writers are.

    Replicators, transporters, and near limitless energy would drastically alter a lot though.
    The backstory is a mess. Are the Eugenics Wars the same thing as WWIII? How bad were the nuclear wars? They couldn't have been that bad if the Earth was building warp-capable starships by the Enterprise timeframe.

    They were bad enough to turn everyone into midgets and make cowbells high technology.

    asianmidgetcowbell.jpg

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    As for how likely Rodenberry's ideal is, I think you're missing the point: I've always seen the ideal as something to aspire to. It's about setting an example to try and better ourselves. We may not live up to it, but we can have a good shot at it.
    I get that point. But, in terms of world-building, Star Trek does a shitty job of explaining how humanity gets from how we are today to how people act in the Federation.

    I think it's a major failing of the show's ideologicaly that the writers never plausibly explain how and why human beings got there from here.

    It bothers me that some alcoholic haphazardly achieved warp travel, then the Vulcans showed up and fixed everything, and within that alcoholic's lifetime we were a major player in galactic society. So not only is our future history really ill-defined, it suffers from severe human-centricity- taking it for granted we would naturally assume a position of great influence.

    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    That's something I agree with. Terrible backstory. There was some nuclear holocaust apparently that only wiped out people in the millions.

    I can understand the technology issues(some things not so advanced anymore) as that's all relative to modern tech and how imaginative the writers are.

    Replicators, transporters, and near limitless energy would drastically alter a lot though.
    The backstory is a mess. Are the Eugenics Wars the same thing as WWIII? How bad were the nuclear wars? They couldn't have been that bad if the Earth was building warp-capable starships by the Enterprise timeframe.

    They were bad enough to turn everyone into midgets and make cowbells high technology.

    asianmidgetcowbell.jpg

    God save us all, the nuclear wars were so bad they had to use the Strategic Midget Reserves.

    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • ThomamelasThomamelas Bro!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

    The Trouble with Tribbles comes to mind. At one point the bridge staff manages to get into a bar fight with some Klingons. It's pretty dumb but very human.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

    The Trouble with Tribbles comes to mind. At one point the bridge staff manages to get into a bar fight with some Klingons. It's pretty dumb but very human.

    But... they insulted the Enterprise!

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

    The Trouble with Tribbles comes to mind. At one point the bridge staff manages to get into a bar fight with some Klingons. It's pretty dumb but very human.

    But... they insulted the Enterprise!

    Also Kirk, but nobody cared about that.

    Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Logically indefensible, but intuitively sensible. Things done because you aren't really human if you don't do them.

    Also, in TOS, the Prime Directive felt a lot... looser.

    More "See? Be careful with your cultural detritus, and don't get other people drawn into your wars. We don't need more messes. Also, DAMMIT KIRK!"

    TNG, it was a religion. Full on, kill or die for it level.

    2MyOx.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

    The Trouble with Tribbles comes to mind. At one point the bridge staff manages to get into a bar fight with some Klingons. It's pretty dumb but very human.

    But... they insulted the Enterprise!

    Also Kirk, but nobody cared about that.

    Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Logically indefensible, but intuitively sensible. Things done because you aren't really human if you don't do them.

    Also, in TOS, the Prime Directive felt a lot... looser.

    More "See? Be careful with your cultural detritus, and don't get other people drawn into your wars. We don't need more messes. Also, DAMMIT KIRK!"

    TNG, it was a religion. Full on, kill or die for it level.

    TNG still had the crew talking and arguing about the Prime Directive and how (or even whether) to enforce it.

    VOY was full-on Church of the Prime Directive mode, including Janeway cutting off debates with "shut up you interfering heathens and obey my commands, so sayeth the mighty Prime Directive!"

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    All cynical jokes aside, I find TOS, on rewatching, a lot more believably human than TNG. Drinking, fighting, acting like idiots in the way people act like idiots.
    Not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate?

    The Trouble with Tribbles comes to mind. At one point the bridge staff manages to get into a bar fight with some Klingons. It's pretty dumb but very human.

    But... they insulted the Enterprise!

    Also Kirk, but nobody cared about that.

    Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking of. Logically indefensible, but intuitively sensible. Things done because you aren't really human if you don't do them.

    Also, in TOS, the Prime Directive felt a lot... looser.

    More "See? Be careful with your cultural detritus, and don't get other people drawn into your wars. We don't need more messes. Also, DAMMIT KIRK!"

    TNG, it was a religion. Full on, kill or die for it level.

    TNG still had the crew talking and arguing about the Prime Directive and how (or even whether) to enforce it.

    VOY was full-on Church of the Prime Directive mode, including Janeway cutting off debates with "shut up you interfering heathens and obey my commands, so sayeth the mighty Prime Directive!"

    Sadly, none of that can top (or bottom?) Phlox and Archer in my eyes.

    If there is a new Trek series, I hope they have a good hard rethink about how the Prime Directive works.

  • timspork's ghosttimspork's ghost Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Also TOS had an episode where Kirk, McCoy, and Spock were captured on a planet and Scotty was just going to fucking murder evey god damn person there if they didn't release them. The Enterprise apparently had enough weaponry to eradicate life on a planetary scale.

    What was more awesome was that there was actually an established regulation for doing this.

    24e13f17-d73e-4e19-9d07-efe663ab6306_zps30f3e2af.jpg
    (3DS Friend Code) 5472-6198-4568 (PSN) timspork (Steam) timspork
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I think TNG is being misrepresented somehow.

    The prime directive wasn't portrayed as an absolute, indeed many questioned it. Even Picard wasn't completely adherent to it. The show wasn't trying to portray it as an all encompassing in universe ideology. It always seemed more like hard guidelines they followed, but people still challenged. In fact, that seems like the only time they used it in the show, was to challenge it. Perhaps giving the message that we don't have any more unquestioned authoritative ideology similar to religion.

    It's like that episode where some scientist woman wants revenge on the Crystalline entity. Picard argues that as an intelligent being it has every right to exist. Sure it's somewhat of a threat in that humans can get in its way, but if they just decide to go around killing whatever threatens them in the galaxy, they're the Dominion essentially.

    Also, in TOS didn't they have rules involving executing people for violating the prime directive? That doesn't seem so loose.

    I think the dying for things in TNG was more representative of the notion of self sacrifice. Something sorely lacking in modern society. Picard was seriously the ballsiest captain in that he was always willing to put himself on the line for his ideals, the Federations, and his fellow shipmates. Kirk was too, but it wasn't delved into as much for him.

    and I don't know, it seems more believably human to me that officers in a military like organization wouldn't go around getting drunk and starting fights on duty. Especially those of higher rank. Makes more sense to be seeing discipline than hijinks. TOS had louder characterization essentially, while TNG had more muted these are regular people doing their job kind of characterization.

    The holodeck probably curbed a lot of the need for flipping out anyways. Speaking of which, if there's ever a new series, no more holodeck episodes. They were almost always terrible.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas Bro!Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Also TOS had an episode where Kirk, McCoy, and Spock were captured on a planet and Scotty was just going to fucking murder evey god damn person there if they didn't release them. The Enterprise apparently had enough weaponry to eradicate life on a planetary scale.

    What was more awesome was that there was actually an established regulation for doing this.

    It's not so much that they had enough weapons to do so. It's that they had the force multiplier that was Scotty.

  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    They let whole damn societies, even species, die for the Prime Directive on TNG. Planets worth of people just because "whoops! Can't interfere!" The only way people get to not die? Legal loopholes and outlaws.

    Meanwhile, Kirk went to the gangster planet and took over, when it was only the gangster planet because of accidental P-D violation.

    The legal action taken against Kirk? Nothing. (Okay, this is in large part because he's Kirk, and Starfleet at the time liked to keep any scandals as quiet as possible.)

    The rule exists to protect other societies from Federation meddling so they can find their own feet. Fair enough, and it prevents things like the Krogan uplift in Mass Effect from screwing everyone over. The starfleet rules still had enough leeway to save planets, wreck really, really shitty cultures, and get rare life saving tech via fair trade rather than just swiping it.

    TNG, it was considered better for a species to go extinct than for the Feds to save it, even if it could be done more or less invisibly, and it was planet pupulon fifteen.

    Also, yeah. Scotty is kinda the all time champion of getting the most out of tech. He broke a warp 10 engine so hard, reality rewrote itself to make the engine impossible.

    2MyOx.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    chiasaur11 wrote: »
    Also, yeah. Scotty is kinda the all time champion of getting the most out of tech. He broke a warp 10 engine so hard, reality rewrote itself to make the engine impossible.

    Warp 10 is possible. Turns out all you need is for Neelix to tell a dumb story while serving you coffee.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    When did species get wiped out because of it in TNG? I don't remember this. I remember the one with Data and that kid who came from the dying planet, but didn't he save her, and cause the Enterprise crew to help her planet?

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    When did species get wiped out because of it in TNG? I don't remember this. I remember the one with Data and that kid who came from the dying planet, but didn't he save her?

    Most episodes start with the Prime directive telling the crew they should just float around and do nothing all day and end with the crew saving the world in question when Piccard makes the rationalization that the Prime directive doesn't apply and is stupid.

    Most of this was in Season 1 though with the arrogant Piccard and beardless Ricker, so they shouldn't count as cannon.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • chiasaur11chiasaur11 Never doubt a raccoon. Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    DanHibiki wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    When did species get wiped out because of it in TNG? I don't remember this. I remember the one with Data and that kid who came from the dying planet, but didn't he save her?

    Most episodes start with the Prime directive telling the crew they should just float around and do nothing all day and end with the crew saving the world in question when Piccard makes the rationalization that the Prime directive doesn't apply and is stupid.

    Most of this was in Season 1 though with the arrogant Piccard and beardless Ricker, so they shouldn't count as cannon.

    Agreed on season 1 being dumb and stupid. I really wish that sort of thing was swept away with it.

    Wasn't. Season 7, Homeward.

    Worf's brother is on a research station on a planet that's being wiped out. His request?

    "Dude, this planet has a totally kickass culture, and we could totally save the last batch of them without them noticing a thing! Prime directive shouldn't apply when it's an extinction scenario!"

    Picard's response?

    "Nope! Prime directive!"

    And he leaves them to die. Worf's brother smuggles them to the holodeck, though, preventing total extinction. But Picard is mad the Prime Directive is broken.

    Mind, lot of good episodes of TNG. But that version of the Prime Directive can and should be forgotten.

    2MyOx.png
This discussion has been closed.