PDA

View Full Version : ENTERPRISE: The Star Trek Thread



Tycho
12-05-2001, 03:04 AM
Well, with "Cold Front" we've hit our 10th episode in the new Star Trek series.

What do you guys think?

JEDIpartner
12-05-2001, 09:35 AM
I'm enjoying it! :D

master jedi
12-05-2001, 05:30 PM
I think it sucks.

Magnolia-Fan
12-05-2001, 09:16 PM
I like the new series, although the past few weeks I have found that the excitement is starting to wear off.
I'm still watching it though, and that really says something, because (aside from "Generations"), I haven't liked Star Trek since TNG was cancelled. I think I would have liked DS9, but I didn't see most of the episodes, so I couldn't follow it's serial-type story.

Master Jedi, Sorry to hear that you "think it sucks."
Any particular reason?

Tycho
12-05-2001, 09:20 PM
Master Jedi, did you like any of the Star Trek series? If so, which one?

What do you think is Enterprise's problem?

I like the new show a lot. It's very realistic to me, but I am a Niner true and true. (In that regards, you need to be patient with DS9's first two seasons until the show really got going in the 3rd, and then the 4th. Then all hell broke loose and they were in a war that lasted 4 years for sure! First Klingons, then the Cold War with the Dominion became a very Hot War indeed).

LTBasker
12-05-2001, 09:22 PM
I didn't get to see the one episode I've been waiting for. I got see about half of it because I had fallen asleep and woke up during the middle of it. And I forgot to type it when they replayed it. :( So far from what I've seen, I don't really enjoy that much, yea they've got funny jokes and stuff floating around, and I wish Porthos was in more and more scenes... It's more like a sci-fi series using Star Trek as it's foundation and then Berman and Braga make their own things up regardless of when they happened or if this or that would really seem like Star Trek.

master jedi
12-05-2001, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Tycho
Master Jedi, did you like any of the Star Trek series? If so, which one?

What do you think is Enterprise's problem?


I htink the previous Star Trek shows were good. All they did was reconfigure a control panel or something to get out of their problems. Plus whenever the ship was hit everybody fell in a different direction.

I haven't watched enought of Enterprise to make a fair judgement but what I have seen sucked. Like the acting.

I'm just not a big trek fan.


If you can clear me up on something: is it trekker, trekkie, or trekkist?:confused:

LTBasker
12-06-2001, 12:47 AM
Trekkie is the stereotypical version, Trekker is prefered by some, I've heard some uses Trekken, never heard of Trekkist tho.

Wolfwood319
12-06-2001, 01:01 AM
Aside from the original and TNG, I really never watched the shows. I saw 2 of the first 3 episodes, and for the most part I didn't care for it much.

I am a far cry from a Trekkie or Trekker or whatever. I don't think I own a single Star Trek item. But I do enjoy the first 2 series, and watch them whenever there on, on syndication.

Did Star War fans ever get a name like Trekkies, I can't recall?

JediTricks
12-06-2001, 02:53 AM
"Cold Front" was last week, tonight's was a rerun of episode 003, "Fight or Flight".

I've heard "Star Wars Geeks" and the sickening "Star Warriors", but I prefer just "fan" or even nothing over those -- although I do chuckle at "Star Warts". ;) I've been a Trekkie all my life, and I think "Trekker" sounds like someone takes their Trek too seriously (and that's saying something from a guy who has 2 replica PADDs with interchangable screens and the Playmates USS Defiant next to his bed :D).

LTBasker
12-06-2001, 06:12 AM
I've been using Warsie or Warser from time to time.... Kinda catchy, but I don't think everyone would prefer SW fan titles that were coined from ST ones. Especially with how annoying it gets when someone will say Trekkie and do it while referring to SW fans.

Tycho
12-06-2001, 07:40 AM
I don't know if I should admit this, but I wished I had the USS Defiant toy next to my bed, also....

LTBasker
12-06-2001, 07:44 AM
The Voyager toy is better, it's got motorized folding nacelles! :D Not that I have it or anything... :cry:

Tycho
12-06-2001, 07:58 AM
Now that I look back on it, I wished I would have collected all, or at least most of the Playmates Electronic ships.

One thing I'd really go for is a mock-up or finished proto-type (that's painted) of the Kazon Raider that fit an action figure.

I only collected Star Trek basic carded sized figures - but always imagined it would be so cool if they could have made a toy line like Star Wars.

I went so far as to design toys for them - from a full (not to scale) Defiant where you removed the top and the whole ship was the bridge playset. A similar Voyager (Doc would need his mobile emitter). And I designed a DS9 Station playset, about the size of the GI Joe Terror Dome (remember that?) The Station would only be the TOP HALF, (obviously not to scale) and would include two levels with Ops and Quark's, and on the tri-arms, horizontal spokes mind you, would have a brig for prisoners, sickbay, etc.

A Romulan Scout ship for one figure could have been done, as could have a Klingon Bird of Prey that sat one figure. A Maquis fighter (Chakotay's?) might've sat 2 figures, or 4. A Cardassian ship and Ferengi pod were possible.

And in another truly large playset, similar in size to the DS9 one I proposed, a Enterprise-D ship could be made, the whole Saucer the bridge / ready room / sickbay, and the hull engineering, shuttle bay. The whole thing boxed could be smaller than that 21st Century Toys battle tank for their 12" line.

Species 8472 could have a ship. A Borg ship like Hugh's from TNG could be made to 'stand' 4. Etc. Etc. Etc.


But I think their market research told them they were making these figures for adult collectors who never opened them.

Too bad. MAYBE they would have attracted more kids... It was a great line!

master jedi
12-06-2001, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Wolfwood319

Did Star War fans ever get a name like Trekkies, I can't recall?
We did get a name. They even made a show about us with the same name. You all remember the show 'Freaks and Geeks'?:p

Obi-Don
12-06-2001, 07:54 PM
I have the USS Enterprise E by my bed until we got a new bedroom set and was told into the closet with that.I didn't fight it to much unless it came to the Star Wars stuff then there would be a problem. I to wished that I collected all the ships but they were really high at the time and are even higher now.Who knows if I find some at a price I can handle,I'll may try and get a few more[But don't tell my wife:D ]

JediTricks
12-07-2001, 03:12 AM
Basker, I don't agree with you about the Playmates Voyager, the folding nacelle trick requires a TON of battery power (that thing died on me like a week after I put new batteries in), and it has huge lumps under the main shuttlebay where the gearing is. The Defiant on the other hand, is nearly perfectly accurate and the nose section with the deflector pivots.

The Playmates ships were mostly fantastic stuff, they're definitely some of my favorites, but it seems like they took unnneseccary liberties at times - like the First Contact Ent E whose main shuttlebay lit up or the transforming Ent-D from "All Good Things..." that has no main impulse drive. However, compared to the Trek toys before Playmates, there's almost none and they weren't very big, so Playmates can afford to take liberties (luckily, the Insurrection Ent E fixed the shuttlebay/impulse problem).

Playmates also did a couple Shuttlecraft vehicles that held figures and a Runabout - all were pretty nice.

The box for the Ent D bridge playset, I remember it, it was nearly as big as that 21st Century Toys M3 tank - it was sarcastically big.

The ships were only around $30 when they were released, I got my Defiant for $9 when it went on clearance! I too wish I had an Excelsior and a Klingon Bird of Prey and Deep Space 9 and a few others, naturally they are the most expensive, but I have high hopes for the ships from the upcoming Art Asylum line.

LTBasker
12-07-2001, 03:30 AM
Well like I said I don't have it. ;) The only Playmates ships I had, I had to throw away because they severely smoked damaged during a house fire some years back. I only had the Ent-D, Klingon Vor'Cha and Goddard Shuttle, but now none of those 3. :(
I'd really like to get Voyager and the rest of them, but that would take alot of money. :cry:

Did your hear about the new Trek figures? Click here (http://www.americandreamcomics.com/sys-tmpl/artasylumstartrekinterview/) to see the interview AmericanDreamComics did with the company that will be doing them. Unfortunetly, the figures are going to be 7" and therefore not compatible with the regular Playmates figures. :(

Tycho
12-07-2001, 03:13 PM
Thank you for that interview Basker. It was really interesting.

I wish we could show the company that the fans want figures on scale with the last basic assortment size for Playmates. I don't know if that is a true fact, but speaking personally, I would feel I'd HAVE to collect them if they were the same size, and continualy update my Trek dioramas. It's too bad my Enterprise figures I might buy will never meet my more obscure DS9 characters like Grand Nagus Zek for playtime.

I understand why one company might want to distinguish itself from another, but there was a factor to weigh in that it could've been smart to make them the same size.

Today we have Star Wars figures that are made by HASBRO which are on scale and marginally compatible with figures made by KENNER. I only see it saving money for a company.

Art Asylum could've even bought the molds from Playmates for the Runabout, etc. and yes Tricks, I have all the ships that held the basic figures, and the playsets, I just wish they made more. Don't you? That'd been awesome!

BTW, I love my Enterprise D bridge playset! That is the way you make toys!

JediTricks
12-07-2001, 10:07 PM
Figures.com also posted news (http://209.197.117.27/databases/action.cgi?setup_file=fignews2.setup&category=actionfigures&topic=101&show_article=41) from the Asylum about the Trek license. I like the idea of the starships! I don't care if they have gimmicky interaction or not though, just so long as they exist and there are ships from all the series right away. The figure scale is too big for my tastes and it'll take a lot of convincing to get me to buy 'em at that size.


Tycho, as for the vehicles the figures could get into, I thought they did a nice job, but I didn't really want to see much more - maybe a TNG type 2 shuttlepod or a Sphinx or a Workbee, but not out-of-scale stuff. The problem was, it was SO expensive for the playsets that it became prohibitive.

JediTricks
12-07-2001, 10:41 PM
BTW, I forgot to mention, on the Enterprise episode with the comet-walk, there was a very strange thing that rewrites Trek history as well as this new show's pre-history...

The only time we've ever seen the pre-Federation Enterprise before this show was conceived was in Star Trek:The Motion Picture, where it was shown in a small picture along with the other crafts named "Enterprise". This was totally different from the shape of the NX-01 we see in the current show, but the thing of it is, the shape of that TMP "Enterprise" was the exact shape of the Vulcan ship in this ep - the ship with the giant ring around it! There's even a listing for this pre-fed Enterprise in the Star Trek Encyclopedia with a CG-rendered version of that ship (the ST Encyclopedia is way before this Enterprise show was conceived) and it looks nearly identical. Is that weird or what?

vulcantouch
12-07-2001, 11:36 PM
stick w/a classic; i've never heard any alternate term for "trekkie" that wasn't insufferably pretentious :p
tycho: i bet you could make a figure-fitting kaz raider from a kaz raider model, just fashion the top into an opening cockpit :)
playmates ships i got: cube ($10), sphere ($10), ds9 (gift), vorcha ($10; if i ever get off my can it might be fun to take out its sound fx & install em into my tmp klingon ship model, cuz i already have an mm of the vorcha but not of the tmp kbc; the cool sounds are a big reason i got these) :)
dammit, more lame trek Figures :dead: forget That, bring us some more trek Micromachine ships, dammit :frus:
"cold front" introduces the possibility that Entwerprise might actually become more than just intermittently interesting, as opposed to something that i've been half-watchin while doing something else just to get it under my belt cuz it's trek. has anyone heard about its ratings? i still say that if it does better than voy or ds9 it's pure racism & sexism, that audiences don't embrace trek unless it's got a white male top dog. after all, ds9 & voy were both way cooler than ent has Yet to get-
vt

Tycho
12-07-2001, 11:54 PM
I disagree with the last comments you made, VT. There are a lot of factors that make or break a Trek show.

DS9 was my favorite always. It had a lot going on, and the on-going war story was unparalleled in Trek history. Maybe the Temporal Cold War will attempt to recreate that type of feeling. It will be a while before we can tell if they're any good at it.

As to the Captain characters being the leads, the characters viewers watch and identify with the most each week? Maybe for some, but certainly not for all.

The character I identified most with in recent Trek shows was Tom Paris - a crew member but part of an ensemble cast, so there was much more going on to keep me hooked, than just keeping up with what Tom was doing from week to week. Sometimes he did nothing at all. Harry and Tuvok I also identified with more than many other characters. On DS9 it would be Odo and Worf, though Bashir was closest to my age (on DS9 that is).

Sisko was a single-parent and a widower, and though seriously cool, I had very little in common with him. It had nothing to do with him being a black male or not.

Janeway was a complete step away from me, but I loved learning of her adventures from week to week. Only in her decisions in the big chair did I ask "is that what I would do?" - and Tom rarely got to take command of the ship.

LTBasker
12-08-2001, 01:30 AM
Tom Paris rules. :D Who's face do you think was there before the stormtrooper got plopped on in my avatar? :rolleyes:

I think one other reason why ENT isn't very good is because it can't give you the "real-ism feel" that you got while watching TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY and watching all the ships, the reason for this is because they don't use the ol' model in front of screens trick, the Enterprise prop is all CGI. :cry:

If Asylum was watching carefully, they'd see Playmates Trek figures really started to fail in sales when they started releasing the 6" figures and those First Contact Zefram and the other peg-warmers flooded the shelves and due to their size and boringness, never sold much. Who reallys want to not be able to do a display of their Saavik figures beating up T'Pol? :crazed:

I think I read on an ST board somewhere that the first Captain of the Enterprise was Captain (something) April. :stupid:

Tycho
12-08-2001, 02:45 AM
Jonathon Archer is captain of an experimental ship of a different class than the Constitution Class than came about years later.

The first captain of the Enterprise NCC-1701 can still be Captain Robert April.

Lt. George Samuel Kirk served on that ship, before he led a team of colonists.

He had two sons. James is the younger one.

But meanwhile, Captain Christopher Pike took command of the Enterprise until he was promoted to Fleet Commodore.

James T. Kirk was then promoted to captain so he had enough pay credits for alimony to be paid to Capt. April's grand-daughter, and Pike's daughter. They sent him out in space so that he couldn't continue to bolster the earth's overpopulation.

vulcantouch
12-08-2001, 11:28 AM
the former refers to inherent merit, while the latter's a popularity yardstick. the two are not synonymous. an example of the former: Citizen Kane. example of the latter: It's a Wonderful Life :p
remember the phenom tng was? how iconic both it and tos remain in pop culture? yet neither of them were as artistically accomplished as ds9. ds9 was simply more involving, more enduring, more stylin, more Fun. but when the public (or most trekkies) think of trek they think of kirk's & picard's treks, not ds9 or voy. neither of the latter were ever widely embraced or celebrated the way tng or tos was. if Entwerprise is able to buck that trend without being a Better show than ds9 or voy, there can be only one reason for that.
i'm not sure if "identifying" with the captains is the make-or-break issue for these audiences (but if a certain skin color prevents that kind of identification, that again makes my point) so much as it is whether they buy into a certain credibility or authority from the center seatwell. kirk & bakula possess no more "credibility" or "authoritativeness" than janeway or sisko. so again, if Ent's audience success plays out as i delineated, it can only mean trekkies ain't no less prejudiced than anyone else-
vt

Tycho
12-08-2001, 07:20 PM
If you're Vulcan, I'm sure you're aware of the scientific method.

If the variable you are testing is white-male favoritism for Star Trek's center seat, all other aspects have to remain constant, right?

In other words,

you need a white female commander of an alien space station caught in the middle of the battlefield between two or more large superpowers

or

you need a black male captain with a single starship lost in deep space

or

you need a black male captain of a Federation flagship with a Klingon and Android amongst the bridge crew, etc.


Eventually Star Trek (if it endures for another 28 years - 4 shows) should tap different choices for the Captain.

an alien Captain would be the MOST controversial: a Vulcan would be the top choice, then several recurring characters such as Worf as Captain, or Nog - the first Ferengi Captain.

a new female (human) captain could be ethnic: a black captain like the one in ST:IV of the Saratoga. She also could be Mexican, an 'exotic race' like Indian (not meaning Native American), or she could be Asian (recurring character like Hoshi Sato?)

a new male captain probably should be ethnic (black - possibly, though I'm all for movies starring Avery Brooks as Sisko. However, LeVar Burton could make an interesting captain, when 'Geordie' is just a little bit older... but remember the character wants to retire and take up writing -unless the galaxy needs him) A Latino Captain would be fine and very unique if the character were significantly less-reserved than Chakotay. They would be VERY different characters. An Asian Captain could have or should be tapped while George Takei can still walk (LOL) and a Captain Sulu mini-series would likely be the first show many fans would want to see with an Asian male Captain. However, I am a Harry Kim fan and Garret Wang is more likely to be able to play an action hero type that would be identifiable with youths watching. Harry is experienced way more than Archer or Travis Mayweather, or even maybe all TNG or DS9's crew since Mr. Kim has been out there in the Delta Quadrant. His wartime experiences were not the same as a Niner's, but Voyager faced the Borg and Hirogen - pretty good for experience I think?

In other roles the First Officer has been Vulcan male, human white male, Bajoran white female, and Native American male, and finally female Vulcan. Human white female seems to be sort of untapped, and Cmdr. Shelby comes to mind. Again, a black female or Asian female is possible. How would a show go with a female Captain and a female First Officer (assume Tom Paris is still married and NOT on the ship! Same with Riker....)

The Second Officer has been a helmsman, an Ops Android, a lady scientist or a Klingon, a Vulcan tactical officer, and a human tactical officer. A male-dominated role in the analysis save for maybe Jadzia Dax - though Worf stepped on her toes a lot.

The Doctor is best off being an ethnic female for a variety. Dr. Ogawa from TNG comes to mind. Or Dr. Saalar (spelling - Susie Plakstone's 1st character on TNG).


The engineer should be Asian, due to lack of an Asian engineer in Star Trek, and the modern stereotype of Asians excelling in that field. It is at least a stereotype that is complimentary, though Star Trek has avoided casting in that direction....

Another pilot or combat officer who is female should be cast. Sort of like Tasha Yar or Jadzia Dax.

Star Trek is great at breaking the mold and showing all of us succeed in the future. This has been fun just pointing out areas Trek casting has not yet explored.

How would a ship with a predominantly female cast go over? Sort of spin it like Charlie's Angels (in the media) but write the episodes like normal Trek...

Female (black or Asian Captain), (white First Officer), an Asian-Indian princess for a Tactical Officer- she could be Deltan so she'd only look human, an Asian female doctor.

Male - Asian engineer requiring a very masculine male action hero type that asserts himself in some relationship with the female captain (Harry - an engineer?) but must also be very believably smart and scientifically capable.

Male - white (to win viewers I suppose) doing, well something...
Perhaps in a controversial role such as a Section 31 agent stranded on board. Should be a younger character who's frustrated because he has to learn to respect these women, but can't stop trying to get it on with them...(not the Captain, but does make the EXO vulnerable for conflict in the show).

What do you think? (as if we need another Star Trek show, let alone Charlie's StarFleet in space....)

LTBasker
12-08-2001, 11:11 PM
How 'bout Worf with his own series as a Captain with a type 2 Defiant or the Enterprise-F in 2400? He'd be old, yea, but it's Worf. :D

Tycho
12-09-2001, 02:47 AM
If it was a show entirely cast out of recurring characters (who would do the show in the first place) - using characters from the last 3 Treks that could possibly serve together in the same century, it would be fun to make a 'dream crew.'

Captain Riker
First Officer Worf
Tactical / 2nd Officer Tuvok
Doctor Joe Hologram
Pilot Tom Paris
Engineer B'lanna Torres-Paris
Counselor Deanna Troi

The only problem is that Tuvok and Worf are equally capable of being promoted to Captain.

LTBasker
12-09-2001, 03:22 AM
Yea that could work. I think Tuvok though would probably want to stay as a Lt. Commander so that Worf who's had more experiance in command with The Defiant and various Runabouts and also serving on the Ent-D, and E could be the Commander and Tuvok would be Security Chief. Riker's always deserved the Captain's chair, theres no doubt about that. Tom and B'ellana's baby could be a "naomi wildman" type of character. :p

Actually that whole crew listing for the next Enteprise sounds very possible. I wonder just how many fans would've rather of seen that type of series instead of Enterprise. And to think, they could've kept a tradition alive... It seems for a little while there on every new Trek series they had a character from the last series on there. McCoy was on the pilot of TNG, Picard was on the pilot of DS9, and Quark was on the pilot of VOY. Janeway or Chakotay could've been on the pilot for this one.

JediTricks
12-09-2001, 06:02 AM
According to Sci-Fi Channel, Enterprise's ratings from 11/12 to 11/18 was 4.5% HHR (that's the percentage of total TV-watching households), which isn't too shabby, as I understand it. It beat out other genre shows like Smallville, Dark Angel, Buffy, and Angel for that week, though X-files was higher with 5.9, though that was the season premiere.


I think the writing, pacing, and seettings of DS9 and Voyager have more to do with their lack of popularity as the prejudice accusation; to accuse the latter of being the primary reason for their ratings downfall is beyond oversimplification - that's not to say they may not be factors, but I simply don't think they're the primary reasons. DS9 was virtually unapproachable for many Trekkies because of its dark nature and slower storytelling style, not to mention that things STARTED negative. Voy was simply written and conceived poorly IMO, with no Federation and dull characters who didn't come into their own until season 3 or 4; not to mention the problems with the whole "anti-charismatic constant enemy" in the Kazon.

LTBasker
12-09-2001, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by JediTricks
According to Sci-Fi Channel, Enterprise's ratings from 11/12 to 11/18 was 4.5% HHR (that's the percentage of total TV-watching households), which isn't too shabby, as I understand it. It beat out other genre shows like Smallville, Dark Angel, Buffy, and Angel for that week, though X-files was higher with 5.9, though that was the season premiere.

Actually...if you think about it, that's not much of a comparison. :D

Tycho
12-09-2001, 02:17 PM
Don't get me wrong: I really like Enterprise and think it is a brilliant concept. The Trek universe is richer for it.

Captain Riker's crew that I suggested could be a conglomerate movie crew as well as a TV crew (if Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner are truly done with the roles - or if it just isn't time to let the rest of the crews 'grow up.' It's the first 3 cast members that may be the problem :

Jonathon Frakes is (am I wrong?) Creator, Executive Producer, sometimes Director, as well as Head Writer / Senior Script Editor for ROSWELL, an arguably well-rated show with constantly increasing appeal. He may be too busy, and too involved in what he's doing now. To me, these roles Frakes has are far more interesting and involved than just acting, and he has proven himself more than capable of handling them.

Michael Dorn may well be sick of 11 or 12 years of putting on the Worf make-up, no matter how much he likes the character.

I think Tim Russ had commented in an interview that it was time to do something else, maybe even more logical for his career.

As these 3 would likely be the focused-on stars of the show, they would experience intense schedules no doubt. I was just wondering how Dr. Ogawa would fit in with my dream crew, versus the Holo-Doc. She is a married professional character too, and her husband might be on board. How would all this play off Riker and his decisions he makes as Captain? Might be interesting.

Meanwhile, on Enterprise:

Capt. Archer - a little dorky, but pre-programmed to be tough when he needs to be. I think he's operating from a rule book he set up for himself, and doesn't do as much spontaneous thinking like Kirk's "I know - let's destroy a society as they've known it."

Cmdr. Tucker - a cool action hero, who might be a hot head without his training, so he always seems a little on the edge of starting a fight, but he's got good control of himself and some well-adjusted values. He's my early favorite.

T'Pol - carries with her any excuse to be a snotty b;tch but is the "reluctantly learning to accept human characters" all Star Trek shows save for TNG seemed to necessitate having (Spock, Odo, Tuvok, though one might argue the same for Worf). Data accepted humans enough to want to be one, so I'm not talking about the traditional 'outsider' character in general.

Hoshi Sato - might prove interesting, as she's the first Trek character completely scared of everything (save for maybe Neelix - but Hoshi is not a comedic character). So far though, she seems really bored on the job. Is that the actress (Linda Park) or is it the character (Hoshi that is supposed to be bored as she doesn't really want to be there)? I hope it's the latter and the character grows rather than the actress quits.

Malcolm Reed - the latest bloomer of any of the characters, he likes to blow stuff up and is likely the father of all SF security protocals. Maybe he even starts Section 31? I'd like to get inside this guy's mind a little. However, he's not Admiral Piett or General Veers - he tolerated Travis sitting in the Captain's chair and didn't reprimand him (just embarrassed him a little). [uh the Imperials keep their captains working and don't let them rest in chairs, and furthermore, if it were Piett or especially Veers, well can you say "torture and execution for insabordination?"

Travis Mayweather is cool so far and like a cross between Tom and Harry. He was really good in that show with the freight haulers fighting the Nauskicaans.

The Doc is ok - his mannerisms are either too effeminate for my tastes for a male character, or too condescending as he might feel he's so much more enlightened than humans, or T'pol as well for that matter. He is not as annoying as Neelix, but as he always seems to threaten me with going that route, I am witholding even a preliminary opinion about the doctor.

vulcantouch
12-16-2001, 11:51 AM
. . .i don't think such speculation sheds any light on the question at hand ("pure thinking doesn't concern itself with 'what might have been'" -tain to garak, andy robinson's A Stitch In Time novel :cool: ). one thing i do like about entwerp is that instead of splitting its time among Nine principle characters it wisely pared the number down to seven. w/the prev. 3 shows, esp. tng, it always seemed like there was unnecessary redundancy, and the distinguishing traits (specialty, interests, personality) of each principle could've easily been redistributed among other characters. it seemed as though the tng show intuitviely understood this, which resulted in unintentional cast attrition. too bad it didn't stop with wesley & yar, even though they were certainly the least watchable castmembers, which imo is the Real reason wes is reviled (http://salon.com/tech/feature/2001/12/12/wheaton/print.html). thankfully (& surprisingly), i recently got to revise (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=22752#post22752) my blanket opinion of wheaton, who it turns out has actually been fightin a good fight of late (see prev link) :Pirate:

jt: "the writing, pacing, and settings of DS9 and Voyager have more to do with their lack of popularity. . . Voy was simply written and conceived poorly IMO, with no Federation'
-i dispute all those contentions; tng, with its ponderous federation setting, serves well enough as a foundation for the next 2 shows, but is not in itself as watchable. there did seem to be a pervasive problem with voy's sound mix (a key deficit for b5 as well, from what i could tell; both as opposed to ds9's more encompassing ambience, which really drew you in).

"DS9 was virtually unapproachable for many Trekkies because of its dark nature and slower storytelling style, not to mention that things STARTED negative"
-which i found a riVeTing VariaTion on rottenberry's paradigm :cool: so, i say lotta trekkies are race&gender-biased, & you say they're weenies who can't handle a bit of grimness; po-tay-to, po-tah-to ;)

"'anti-charismatic'. . . Kazon"
-anticharismatic? as in "third-worldesque backwards"? :crazed:

"dull characters who didn't come into their own until season 3 or 4"
-as opposed to tng, whose characters gelled right away? :rolleyes:
to me the litmus test of a show's progress is how many "keepers" it churns out, i.e. do i wanna retain a VTape copy of an episode to rewatch it in the future. for me, here's about how many keepers the first five seasons of each show offered:
tng: 4, 3, 5, 8, 13
ds9: 4, 13, 24, 24, 24
voy: 5, 9, 16, 16, 20
as you can see, imo both ds9 and voy got better faster, and maintained a higher final plateau than tng :)

"Enterprise's ratings from 11/12 to 11/18 was 4.5% HHR "
-ok, so what i wanna know is, is that better or worse than voy? :)
vt
np: stevie wonder, "higher ground"

LTBasker
12-16-2001, 04:09 PM
Rottenbary? I wouldn't go about saying that, without him we never would've gotten it in the first place and therefore we'd have no STMMs at all. :(

DS9 was ok, but Brooks seemed to be acting as if he were in a highschool classical play rather than a sci-fi TV show but the best part about DS9 was that it was more in sync with TNG. Berman really started warping Trek w/ VOY and w/ ENT it's so warped not even superman could even begin to bend it back into shape. VOY wasn't that bad and it was tuned in with the earlier shows but not by much, and ENT seems to be in it's own little universe with Star Trek as it's carrier.

JediTricks
12-16-2001, 11:40 PM
VT, seeing as you are primarily a DS9er more than a trekkie, I don't think you can speak for or contend with:
"the writing, pacing, and settings of DS9 and Voyager have more to do with their lack of popularity. . . Voy was simply written and conceived poorly IMO, with no Federation' since you're not the average trek-watcher. Popularity comes from the largest group of people who watch, not the smaller ones. And to claim that TNG is unwatchable shows just how little of a trekkie you are, to me, TNG is the benchmark for all Trek except for TOS and movies 1-4.

As for the sound on B5, it really wasn't mixed for TV, they often pushed well past the limits of TV-broadcast sound.

"so, i say lotta trekkies are race&gender-biased, & you say they're weenies who can't handle a bit of grimness; po-tay-to, po-tah-to"
I didn't say they can't handle it and I didn't say they were "weenies", what I said is that Trekkies, the group of people which you virtually ain't, found it unapprochable because of its dark nature and its slower storytelling style - that is so far removed from your accusation of "race/gender bias" that it defies logic how you consider these 2 statements to be potato/potato.

The Kazon were as boring and ill-conceived as any alien on TOS, it had nothing to do with their "anti-Alpha Quadrant ways", in fact, they felt like they wanted to be a clone of TOS's Klingons, except without a central system of government.

I should have said "dull characters who didn't even start to come into their own until season 3 or 4", Voyager's characters didn't really come to life till the end of season 4 IMO. Don't expect your litmus test to match that of others VT, your numbers don't even come close to most of my trekkie friends who keep eps on tape (I don't keep ANY of 'em on tape).

Ent's ratings are higher than Voy's.

vulcantouch
12-18-2001, 12:04 AM
-i Knew it! i Knew it! :dead: too many of my fellow trekkies are such clueless, milquetoast Weenies. it takes cojones to look within and acquire even the most basic clarity into oneself, cojones they, for all their professed ideals, Lack :p

"to claim that TNG is unwatchable shows just how little of a trekkie you are. . . seeing as you are primarily a DS9er more than a trekkie, I don't think you can speak for or contend with. . . Trekkies, the group of people which you virtually ain't"
-funny; i always figured a Niner, i.e. someone with a strong taste for ds9 (guilty as charged :cool: ), was a Subset of trekkie, rather than a category entirely separate from it. your implication to the contrary is, i spose, an amusing, mildly proVocaTive notion (should i feel insulted at your questioning of my "trekkieness"? uh, maybe when i get around to it ;) ), but, alas, nuthin more :p

"Don't expect your litmus test to match that of others VT"
-such an expectation would not only be, i agree, foolish, but also undesirable:

"your numbers don't even come close to most of my trekkie friends . . .since you're not the average trek-watcher"
-in light of this discussion, an inadVertanT compliment if ever i heard one :D the implication of which is, alas, also based on flawed assumptions:
>that only Average trek tastes define Valid Trekdom, and;
>that one must sport average trek tastes, or be an "average trek-watcher" in order to be in a position to incisively critique average trek tastes.
i reject both assumptions. in a crowd, the taller man can see farther, over the heads of those of average height. he can see patterns by which the average-heighters congregate and interact. just because the average-heighters don't discern these patterns doesn't mean said discernments are not accurate. it doesn't mean said patterns aren't there.
i ain't tawkin bout Prevailing taste, i'm tawkin about Superior taste. matters of taste are Not entirely relative. and i, Vertical Tastemonger, have discerned and concluded that the trekkie majority not gettin on board with soulbruthah sisko or hardmama kate the way they do with crackabwahs koik, pickered or acher can only be due to their hypocritical limitations, about which they remain in denial. it's not a conclusion i enjoy coming to, but the only possible alternative- the nebulous "there's no accounting for taste"- continues to sound like hollow, defensive, unconvincing excuse-making.

"I didn't say they can't handle it and I didn't say they were 'weenies'. . . it defies logic how you consider these 2 statements to be potato/potato"
-oh Come now, after all our years of correspondence i think you Know by now when to Not take me Literally :rolleyes: i also think you know that the point i'm really driving at with my deftly-cadenced riposte is that, whether lotta my fellow trekkies are weenies who can't handle a bit of grimness Or are obliviously race-&-gender-biased, either way they're damnably flawed and limited re trek connoisseurship.
formalist aesthetic theory notwithstanding, art & audience are intricately linked. thus, an effective critique of one must often deal with both. thus, i do not hesitate to cast a merciless eye onto fellow trekkies when i think doing so helps get at a more precise view of a phenomenon that has real effects on all trekdom, as this one does: let's face it, No future trek franchise will feature anything But a white guy in charge; the paramount suits cast just as unsentimental an analytical eye upon trek business results as i do (albeit for different motives), and their future choices will reflect said ugly truths. they will come to regard the ds9/voy era as "trek's interesting, insufficiently profitable experiment". so relaaax, jt (it does sound like i've hit close to the mark, as i Do detect an unmistakable, humor-impairing defensiveness on your part, which would account for your misreading of my po-tay-to-ism, as well as your over-generalization that i claimed "tng is unwatchable" :sur: ), you can be assured that trek will never again go where no white man does not first go, and the disturbing criticism of your fellow trekkies from rogue opinion-mongers like me will fade into the past. quite simply, the issue will never have Occasion to be raised anew.

"slower storytelling style"
-plz elaborate; you mean multi-ep arcs, or within-ep plot progression? both? neither?

"felt like they wanted to be a clone of TOS's Klingons"
-indeed, but that doesn't mean they were unwatchable, just unoriginal :)

ltb: "Rottenbary? I wouldn't go about saying that"
-he's just a man, man; no less flawed and no less immune to valid criticism than lucas, berman, you, me or almighty jt ;) if callin him rottenberry helps get the ball rollin re such healthy iconoclasm, so be it :) was it mere coincidence that tng got more watchable exactly when rottenberry's health began failing, which resulted in his increasingly suspect dramatic instincts having much less grip on the show's reigns? not to me it weren't :sur:
vt
np: hardrive, "deep inside"

Emperor Howdy
12-18-2001, 12:27 AM
Well....all I gotta say is that one with the kid who does naughty things like make people's mouths disappear and ends with "I want to stay......(stay...stay...stay...stay)" was a cool episode. I also liked the "Nomad....Nomad....Nomad" droid. Oh yeah, and the episode with the green monster Kirk has to fight in the desert is a classic. Oooh...and the one where Spock and "JIM!!" fight to the death......wow.....those were the days. I never really got into those series with the chick and the black guy, though............................................ .................................................. ....:eek: DOH! :eek:


*NOTE: The previous post was only a joke. There is no need to ostracize me. I was only making light of the argument that people didn't like the newer series based on a black or female captain. I am not a racist. On the contrary, I think it would have been totally cool if that female captain had carried on Kirk's tradition of having her shirt sliced open during every fight scene!

*NOTE: The previous post was only a joke. There is no need to ostracize me. I was only making light of the fact that James T always got his shirt torn open in battle. I am not a chauvinist. Besides..she's old.

*NOTE: The previous post was only a joke. There is no need to ostracize me. I like old people. My grandmother is old. I love my grandmother.

*Note: The pre....wait.....I'm not even goin' there.

vulcantouch
12-18-2001, 12:30 AM
;)

Tycho
12-18-2001, 02:30 AM
'NINER soundoff:


Long Live the DEFIANT!


Need I say more?

JediTricks
12-18-2001, 03:08 AM
In terms of ratings, I was referring to Voys most recent season ratings, not season 1 - I don't think you can judge UPN's ratings cows based on their major season 1 hype vs. their decrepit season 6 and 7 sneezes of advertising.

-in light of this discussion, an inadVertanT compliment if ever i heard one one which is, alas, also based on flawed assumptions:
>that only Average trek tastes define Valid Trekdom, and;
>that one must sport average trek tastes, or be an "average trek-watcher" in order to be in a position to incisively critique average trek tastes.
i reject both assumptions. in a crowd, the taller man can see farther, over the heads of those of average height. he can see patterns by which the average-heighters congregate and interact. just because the average-heighters don't discern these patterns doesn't mean said discernments are not accurate. it doesn't mean said patterns aren't there.
i ain't tawkin bout Prevailing taste, i'm tawkin about Superior taste. matters of taste are Not entirely relative.Ah, but you forget the main thing, in this discussion, you are accusing the majority of Trekkies of possibly being racists/sexists, so to say that your view is superior to others, and thus theirs is the one that is flawed does not fit within the parameters of this discussion, although it is the opinion of nearly every trekkie I know that their sole opinion is superior to all others' - so in that, you are in the main group. :D

I still say that your faith in your opinion-superiority is doing a disservice to those you are maligning in this case and that this same faith in said opinion-superiority has created a tunnel-vision which gives you yourself the very prejudice you accuse other Trekkies of having - shortsightedness. I could say that I flip on a lightswitch every day and light appears, therefore the lightswitch creates the light in a room, but that statement is not only inaccurate, but also fails to take in several other factors that may account for the appearance of light in the room. Perhaps the switch only allows current to reach a lamp to activate, making the real source of the light; or perhaps the switch causes a shade on the glass roof to open to let ambient light in; or perhaps the switch does nothing and is simply thrown at the same time every day that the sun slides out from behind a building that had been previously obscuring it to cause light to enter the room's window. There are many things to take into consideration when making a statement, jumping to a conclusion based on an arrogant, short-sighted, and under-researched opinion is rarely one of those things where logic is abound.
oh Come now, after all our years of correspondence i think you Know by now when to Not take me LiterallyFunny, after all these years of correspondence, I would have thought you wouldn't put words in my mouth.

I think you're limiting the audience to your poorly slanted view of them, and it is that same kind of arrogant, self-superiorized know-it-allness that leads Paramount execs to having risks like the star of a Trek show being Cmdr Sisko, a depressed black guy with a so-so career, and begging to throw said risks out the window in the fear that the audience is too _______ (fill in the blank with whatever opinionated prejudicial adjective that limits and maligns Trek and Trekkies you can think of). Too bad people like Paramount execs who are in charge of Trek can't see past the numbers and get to know what the audience REALLY is willing to accept and wants to see, but it doesn't matter, the target audience members are all only sheep with one opinion at a time, right? ("Emergency alert, sarcasm at maximum levels! She can'na take much more o' this, cap'n!")

BTW, how you can put Voy in the same category as DS9 as far as Trek risktaking is beyond me, DS9 was a great idea stolen from another great concept (Babylon 5, pitched to Paramount a few months before Paramount claimed they came up with the idea of the next Trek being about a space station with darker, edgy tones); while Voy was merely "Lost in Space" with a Trek spin. If they really thought it was a risk worth taking, they would have shelved it for 7 years and cooked up another standard show like TNG to get audiences who felt disenfranchised with Trek after DS9 back into the game.

"slower storytelling style"
-plz elaborate; you mean multi-ep arcs, or within-ep plot progression? both? neither?The latter really, plus the aforementioned "not going anywhere"-ness of life on a non-Starfleet space station.
"felt like they wanted to be a clone of TOS's Klingons" -indeed, but that doesn't mean they were unwatchable, just unoriginalI thought it was both, the Klingons were only entertaining in TOS (imo of course) because they were this campy bad guy race, while the Kazons had none of the campiness that made the TOS Klingons charming. Hell, even their Kazon hair was lame! :D

Tycho
12-18-2001, 11:51 AM
'Niner soundoff:

(and to get back to the discussion on hand - everyone lost me on what Lampshades and electicity in the attic has to do with this...)


DS9 was bold enough to not 'go anywhere' but instead the crew stood their ground and dealt with the consequences of their actions from one show to the next, as well as the most impressive array of secondary/recurring characters (many of them seriously dangerous villains and spies).

StarFleet and Star Trek was first premaced as space exploration. Now all of the sudden the Gamma Quadrant is opened up right before them - only the Dominion is going to put an end to their little Star Trek. Their only option? Stand their ground and fight or the only thing Captain Sisko, Commander Worf and crew will explore is death!


DS9 pushed Trek to the wall and you had to have the stomach for the fight if you were going to stay their and handle it (seasons 3 - 7).

LTBasker
12-18-2001, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch

ltb: "Rottenbary? I wouldn't go about saying that"
-he's just a man, man; no less flawed and no less immune to valid criticism than lucas, berman, you, me or almighty jt ;) if callin him rottenberry helps get the ball rollin re such healthy iconoclasm, so be it :) was it mere coincidence that tng got more watchable exactly when rottenberry's health began failing, which resulted in his increasingly suspect dramatic instincts having much less grip on the show's reigns? not to me it weren't :sur:
vt
np: hardrive, "deep inside"

Berman, eh? Critisize on! and on and on and on and on and on. ;)

vulcantouch
12-18-2001, 12:05 PM
-on this we easily agree :) but since agreement can get so Monotonous, let's try to put that minor agreement behind us, and instead emphasize our common disagreements:

"your faith in your opinion-superiority is doing a disservice to those you are maligning"
-the possibility of which concerns me not, cuz i seek neither to serve nor disserve Them. i seek to serve the clarity of trek perception. if casting arrogant, widely-disputed aspersions seems to help with that, i got no problem with it. clarity takes no prisoners :Pirate:

"faith in said opinion-superiority has created a tunnel-vision which gives you yourself the very prejudice you accuse other Trekkies of having - shortsightedness"
-i accuse them more of inadequate taste and insight into themselves rather than short-sightedness. at any rate, tunnel-vision and short-sightedness are two different things. and only the latter is even related to sentimental haze, which is what i adopt the tunnel-vision to effectively circumvent in this case.
prejudice, blank-slateness; short-sightedness, far-sightedness; tunnel-vision, fisheye-peripherality. all these perceptual emphases have their uses; none are inherently invalid. if one wishes to make a precise hit upon a well-hidden target, one will not succeed without using tunnel vision.

"in that, you are in the main group :D"
-indeed; but the groupins that really count are:
>who is honest with himself about the "arrogance" with which he holds his opinions; after all, clarity begins at home ;) and:
>which opinions really Are superior.
re the latter, i am content to call em as i see em, make no apologies and let time, and my astonishing reliability to date, speak for itself re my opinions :D

"the audience is too _______ (fill in the blank with whatever opinionated prejudicial adjective that limits and maligns Trek and Trekkies you can think of). . . you are accusing the majority of Trekkies of possibly being racists/sexists"
-as one with a general distaste for playin the race card, i tend to refrain from trafficking in such charged terms when they obscure rather than illuminate the issue. again, my accusation is that too many trekkies are race&gender biased in such a way that turns em off any show where a white guy ain't captain, and that their idealized, congratulatory "evolved trekkie" self-images, in which they've invested heavily, serve their ongoing denial re this.

"I could say. . . the lightswitch creates the light in a room, but that statement is not only inaccurate, but also fails to take in several other factors"
-not sure how this analogy applies, cuz no one here has yet cited a single "other factor" which even begins to convincingly explain the result. "they don't go anywhere"? "non-federation milieux"? "darker nature"? "dull characters"? "written & conceived poorly"? "slower storytelling style"? all of these ring hollow no matter how many times i hear them repeated. in addition, the last 3 apply More to tng than ds9 Or voy.

"under-researched opinion is rarely one of those things where logic is abound"
-"logic is the Beginning of wisdom, not the end" -spock to valeris, st6 :) you are free at any time to counter my mix of "under-researchedness" and intuitive, trans-logical leaps with any mixture of "adequate research" and "logic" you wish, and i will happily give serious consideration to whatever you come up with :)

"I think you're limiting the audience to your poorly slanted view of them"
-and I think it is They who have limited Themselves to my dim view of them. they remain perfectly free to surprise me at any time; it's not like I'm stoppin em :)

"Paramount execs who are in charge of Trek can't see past the numbers. . ."
-it's not an exec's Job to see past the numbers, which is his limitation but also his strength. he sticks to what he knows cold. it's the Artist's job to see past the numbers, to find a way to acheive around them. but in this context, neither artist nor exec is responsible for the numbers themselves; the audience's own limitations are.

"and get to know what the audience REALLY is willing to accept. . . the target audience members are all only sheep with one opinion at a time, right?"
-to the extent that they behave as such, You Betcha. as for the conveniently vague notion of "what the audience is Really willing to accept": "you can't judge people by what they say or think, only by what they do"- kira to ziyal, ds9's "by inferno's light" :o

"DS9 was a great idea stolen from another"
-i wouldn't know, & don't much care, cuz what i do know is that we're All thieves, and what really matters is Results- in this case, artistic result. ds9 acheived, b5 didn't.

"how you can put Voy in the same category as DS9 as far as Trek risktaking is beyond me"
-oh? i thought it obvious i refer to the risk of top-dog demography.

"Voy was merely 'Lost in Space' with a Trek spin"
-as opposed to tng, which was merely rottenberry's sleep-inducing personal wet-dream? :sur: didn't you just get done taking Me to task for My "prejudice", "opinionatedness", "disservice", "tunnel-vision" and "short-sightedness"?
you're Really contending that voy was Merely lost in space with a trek spin? really? Really? :rolleyes:

"audiences who felt disenfranchised with Trek after DS9"
-an ironic notion if ever there was one :sur:

"Klingons were only entertaining in TOS because they were this campy bad guy"
-while it's admittedly a large part of the appeal of trek in general and tos in particular, campiness ain't everything, and it ain't all there is to trek :)

"to say that your view is superior to others, and thus theirs is the one that is flawed does not fit within the parameters of this discussion. . . it is that same kind of arrogant, self-superiorized know-it-allness that leads Paramount execs to having risks. . . and (then) begging to throw said risks out the window "
-i'm afraid i don't follow either of these statements; plz clarify :)

"I would have thought you wouldn't put words in my mouth"
-"'woulda' & a nickel'll git ya a hot cuppa JACK SQUAT!" -chris farley's matt foley :D besides, i didn't put words In your mouth, i just kinda held em up Next to yer mouth :D
vt
np: vanessa daou, "taste the wine"

JediTricks
12-19-2001, 02:41 AM
Not interested, we've danced too many dances where VT doesn't listen because VT is "too superior". If VT's opinion is that DS9 and Voy had less fans primarily because Trekkies are race/gender biased without taking other issues into account, then VT is an elitist who is more than willing to make a harsh accusation, but is unwilling to look further than the snap judgement that got him there.


Enterprise needs to get some friggin' new eps under the saddle soon, I'm sick of this "December doldrums" crap that the lack of Nielsen counting causes - everything's a friggin' rerun this month!

Obi-Don
12-19-2001, 08:24 AM
Every one of the Star Trek shows had is good and bad shows,but all in all I enjoyed them all.The new show needs more EPs and badly if this one is to take off. Just when I was starting to get in to it they started showing reruns:frus: .And really most of the reruns are not really worth watching again so soon.Give us new shows.

vulcantouch
12-19-2001, 10:51 PM
one lousy, cool-losin' paragraph's the Best you got in response to my generous, rollickin reply? you havin a bad day or somethin? my np was "taste the wine", not "state mere whine" :rolleyes: no matter, i'll make the best of what's there:

"VT doesn't listen"
-all one need do is witness my tireless, point-by-point response to every pertinent comment you uttered, which is Hella more'n can be said for this last response of Yours :o or does the JicTionary define "listen" as a synonym of "concur"? :rolleyes:

"without taking other issues into account"
-don't just Say that i haven't taken other issues into account, Show that i have not done so :rolleyes:

"VT is an elitist"
-and you've a Knack for the obvious ;) alas, pointing out what i myself've already made unabashedly clear isn't much of a rebuttal.
that said: would you, like me, prefer female companionship that Is potty-trained, as opposed to Not being so? if so, Potty Callin The Crapper Brown, we're All elitists :p

"(vt) is unwilling to look further"
-i am perfectly willing to look as "far" as i deem worthwhile. it is You who is "unwilling"- namely, to go to the effort necessary to Convince me to "look further","change my mind" or whatever it is you really sought to accomplish here.
unlike me: i have no interest in changing anyone's mind. my interest is simply in presenting my position and hearing what others have to say in response. it is a test of my opinion, to see how it weathers clashes with divergent views.
the result, always interesting, can include: immediate, total subversion, which indicates unworthiness; immediate acceptance, which indicates timeliness or trendiness; initial opposition followed by gradual, nagging acceptance, which indicates vanguardism, precision and endurance; little or no response, a context-based indication; a combination of the above possibilities; or, as in this case, overpassionate, out-of-context reactions, which typically indicate more about an opinion's listener than its merit :sur:

"the snap judgement that got him there"
-damned if that don't sound like. . . like. . . a Snap Judgment of my eValuaTive process :o

"Not interested"
-"yer makin me cry" -space hippie adam (charles napier), tos' "way to eden" ;)
"not interested", "jt forfeits to vt"; po-Tay-to, po-Tah-to :D

"we've danced too many dances"
-np: yello, "the evening's young" :)
any other wallflowers out there fancy a spin on the floor with Prince Smarming? :D
vt
p.s. to ltb: "Berman, eh? Critisize on! and on and on"
-happily; you berman-haters Do seem to be enjoyin yerselves ;) alas, No berman-hater (jt included) has yet explained to me Why they hate him so much so i could join in :(

Tycho
12-20-2001, 01:56 AM
I agree with Jedi Tricks that this argument is getting old.

I started this thread to discuss Enterprise's new episodes and when December re-runs are over, I am going to start a new Enterprise thread because you both drove me nuts trying to follow your circular arguments (especially V.T. though we have the same fondness for DS9 and might do well to have a Niner thread though I have nothing to say about that show right now).

Meanwhile, let me remind you all that there are Star Wars fans than like Star Trek, and probably even more Star Trek fans that like Star Wars - let's give them an Enterprise thread they will look forward to coming in to visit each week after every NEW episode (as in hasn't aired yet).

Thanks guys. I know you'll understand.

JediTricks
12-20-2001, 10:05 AM
"one lousy, cool-losin' paragraph's the Best you got in response to my generous, rollickin reply?"
It wasn't going to be even one character, but I know how you get all antsy if your ego goes unanswered. :p

"-don't just Say that i haven't taken other issues into account, Show that i have not done so "
See the following paragraph for the evidence, you simply write off any possible "other factors" as being "hollow" seemingly on the sole basis that you're unwilling to accept them. You want others to show you the courtesy to respond seriously to your comments? Maybe you should do the same.

"-not sure how this analogy applies, cuz no one here has yet cited a single "other factor" which even begins to convincingly explain the result. "they don't go anywhere"? "non-federation milieux"? "darker nature"? "dull characters"? "written & conceived poorly"? "slower storytelling style"? all of these ring hollow no matter how many times i hear them repeated. in addition, the last 3 apply More to tng than ds9 Or voy."

You claim that these possible factors are too "hollow" for you to believe, yet this same audience who you are claiming is too shallow to accept a black man or a white woman as the star of a Trek show. So even though YOUR hollow reasoning - that one fact equals the whole story - is "how it is, someone else's comments which you see as being hollow are somehow substandard; what's that expression, "trying to have it both ways"?


Enterprise is dead for at least 2 more weeks, gotta fill this section with SOMETHING. So either we all bicker with VT who sits around printing out discussions, or we show off links to brickshelf galleries of incredible Lego customs of the NX-01.
http://brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=6463

vulcantouch
12-20-2001, 10:48 AM
-to which said argument might shake its cane at you and croak, "it beats the hell outta the alternative, you impatient young whippersnapper!" :dead: ;)

"trying to follow your circular arguments"
-trying? as in not succeeding? if so, i think i see the problem :o i'm always happy to help clarify any comprehension problems so feel free to axe :)
circular, eh? if so, maybe jt was right to compare this to a dance :) but i'm afraid i don't find your "circularity" accusation self-evident so perhaps you could elaborate. after all, simply calling an argument circular cuz you think it's circular sounds kinda. . . Circular, if i Do say so, my Dayum seff ;)

"I am going to start a new Enterprise thread. . . let's give them an Enterprise thread they will look forward to coming in to visit"
-seein as how i ain't the thread-startin police you can do what you like as far as i'm concerned; but i know i ain't the only one who continues to enjoy this thread right here, so thanx for startin it :D

jt: "you simply write off any possible 'other factors' as being 'hollow' seemingly on the sole basis that you're unwilling to accept them"
-on the contrary, i've given these other factors every chance to convince me; i now "write them off" cuz they continue to ring hollow. i spose it's My doing that they continue to? :rolleyes:
i first heard someone offer the opinion i presently advocate during ds9 season 4. at the time i considered it premature. that was 1995. how much longer am i sposed to wait before makin up my mind? :rolleyes:

"See the following paragraph for the evidence"
-that's yer evidence? all yer doin is writin off my "writin off" of them other factors. why's my "writin off" automatically less valid than yours? :rolleyes:

"'trying to have it both ways'?"
-how so? it goes without saying that my opinion is my opinion. belaboring every assertion with "in my humble opinion" is not only unnecessarily redundant and bad writing style but disingenuous, in that it attempts to imply a self-humility or self-doubt that does not exist (let's face it, we All hold our opinions decisively, confidently, "arrogantly", or we do not hold them at all). it's like using the word "arguably" (as in "tng is Arguably the best trek"); an attempt to weasel in an opinion without taking responsibility for it. that's what I call tryina have it both ways :stupid:
changing minds was never my aim. i simply seek the honest clash of divergent opinions, as i invariably find the result both entertaining and instructive. where you see mere heat, i also see light :)

"either we all bicker with VT who sits around printing out discussions, or we show off links to brickshelf galleries"
-if those be our only two options, i adVocaTe the former :D but speakin of legos, you still haven't answered my quextion (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=24081#post24081) :sur:
vt
np: "september song"

JediTricks
12-22-2001, 10:02 AM
VT, you claim that those reasons "ring hollow", yet you yourself have admitted that the storytelling style of DS9 is darker than TNG, and "they don't go anywhere" was the staple cry of DS9-dislikers in seasons 1 and 2 since the station just sat their at the wormhole, so you can't argue that there is some validity to others' opinion there (yes, they had runabouts, but the majority of the stories were set on the station); as for "slower", while that may be your opinion that the majority is wrong and are fools for not seeing it your way, the meter of many early eps were played out slower with more political intrigue and twists and turns than TNG or TOS. As for "poorly written and poorly conceived", that was a popular opinion about Voyager, not DS9, and I'd like you to explain to me why that opinion is wrong. (I'd like you to be able to explain how any preliminary opinion based on personal reviewing of evidence is wrong without using egotistical or belittling reasoning, but that'd be impossible. :p)

"-that's yer evidence? all yer doin is writin off my "writin off" of them other factors. why's my "writin off" automatically less valid than yours?"
Because you're simply writing them off as hollow even though they're opinions of value to the majority we're talking about - I'm not asking you to be egalitarian towards anybody, but to denounce the oppinions of those you consider bourgeois without even so much as a consideration of both the fact that they are as entitled to their opinions as you are to yours and the fact that the discussion isn't about YOUR opinions, but about theirs, it makes you look as shallow as those you accuse. Thus, my opinion of your role in this discussion goes down several pegs and the comments in question appear meritless.

"-how so? it goes without saying that my opinion is my opinion..."
When you refuse others, especially a large majority of the focus of this discussion, the same courtesy, you are trying to have your say without affording that to others.

Not only that, but in specific, you are talking about an audience you are claiming that for DS9 and Voy, based on ONE piece of evidence without taking into account a large variety of other factors such as timing, quality, style, audience, company support, etc., that this audience is so shallow that they are motivated to not watch as often simply because of the race or gender of the stars of the shows, yet when you are shown opinions many of this same audience have made about these shows which are alternate reasons to not watching besides the "prejudice" charge you lay upon them, you claim those reasons to be hollow - so you accuse them of being shallow, yet if they have shallow reasons for not watching that don't jive with your theory, those reasons must be unacceptable. If your audience is so shallow that they fit your opinion of them, then hollow reasoning will fit into the patterns of their opinions and your blanket statement doesn't fit the discussion.

"i simply seek the honest clash of divergent opinions, as i invariably find the result both entertaining and instructive."
It seems different from here, and I doubt I'm alone in that view with anybody who's been reading this discussion since the first post. It seems that you want to accuse the majority of the Trek audience of fitting into a heinous profile you've concocted based solely on one factor, while simultaneously brushing off any other factors as being trivial simply because you have neither the desire nor interest in empathizing with said audience or even weighing all the factors together. You seem to prefer making a cutting, eyebrow raising statement backed with prejudice rather than even considering the possibility that your test is flawed.

"quextion"
I was talking about the regular plates with Lego studs, though I'd love to have more smooth plates too.


I will bicker no further about this issue, the data, when taken as a whole, suggests no strong conclusion of mass-prejudice as to why audiences didn't flock to DS9 or Voy that I can see; this has become the argument of what the 3 blind men describing an elephant thought they saw -- each man was shown to a different part of the elephant to feel:
- the first blind man was given only the trunk, he proclaimed that he was touching a large hose;
- the second was given only the leg, he thought he was experiencing a pillar;
- the third was given only the tail, he was sure he had a fraying rope;
Since eacy only took in part of the evidence without experiencing the entire elephant, they could not come to an agreement as to what they were in the presence of since each believed themselves to be the right simply because they didn't take in the unity that was the elephant.

vulcantouch
12-22-2001, 03:38 PM
-seein as how you've made this promise before, i'll blieve it when i see it ;)

"you yourself have admitted that the storytelling style of DS9 is darker"
-which is hardly the same thing as admitting that darker storytelling is a deficit :rolleyes:

"'they don't go anywhere' was the staple cry of DS9-dislikers. . . so you can't argue that there is (no) validity to others' opinion"
-oh, but i Can; the staple cry of audiences who rioted at the 1919 premiere of stravinsky's Rite of Spring was that it was a cacaphonous, outrageous, unartisic assault on the ears. history has shown them to be provincial middlebrows whose opinions were ultimately invalid. i make the same sort of assertion here. i claim to not only predict the long-term historical response more accurately, i also claim to understand why the present confusion exists.

"the meter of many early eps were played out slower with more political intrigue and twists and turns than TNG"
-so, you're contending that ds9's political intrigue played out more ploddingly than the utopian, antiseptic, technobabble-heavy plots of the majority of tng eps?

"As for 'poorly written and poorly conceived', that was a popular opinion about Voyager"
-popular opinion and accurate opinion are two different things, a distinction going back to my earliest assertions here. artistic merit is not a democratic matter; it is not determined by majority opinion.

"I'd like you to explain to me why that opinion is wrong"
-which would be kinda like trying to "explain" why teri hatcher's purtier than minnie driver. nonetheless, i'll attempt to do so using anti-voyers' own justifications for why they favor the white-guy treks:
>voy renewed the exploration paradigm tos and tng fans Claim to prize, in that it removed us from the increasingly-familiar alpha quadrant tng strode and re-strode with nary an objection from same fans; and
>voy developed and expanded upon the borg (tng's most resonant and popular aliens) with greater depth and complexity than tng ever approached :cool:
by contrast, tng offered memorable portrayals by stewart & spiner (even though it did take both of them about 1-2 years to really nail their characters, as opposed to voy's players, who hit their marks right off), a few dozen slammin episodes and a lot of forgettable blandness.

"I'd like you to be able to explain how any preliminary opinion based on personal reviewing of evidence is wrong without using egotistical or belittling reasoning, but that'd be impossible"
-esp. when such distinction resides all too often in the eye of the beholder; for example, could these words of yours not be considered an "egotistical or belittling" characterization of my assertions? not that it would Bother me, which is one of the differences between you & me; i keep my concerns about giving or taking offense to a bare minimum :) )

"you're simply writing them off as hollow even though they're opinions of value to the majority we're talking about. . . the discussion isn't about YOUR opinions, but about theirs"
-so "majority" opinion can never be hollow? it can never be rightfully called hollow?

"without even so much as a consideration of both the fact that they are as entitled to their opinions"
-who sed anything about not entitled?? everyone's got a perfect Right to hold any boneheaded opinion they want. how does my calling said opinions boneheaded infringe on That? :rolleyes: am i supposed to preface every statement of disagreement with a plodding, obvious and redundant "while i respect your right to your opinion i happen to disagree"? and if i don't, and the other guy runs off scared cuz i didn't follow such a childish protocol, that's somehow My fault?

"it makes you look as shallow as those you accuse"
-"looking shallow" might only concern me if i were attempting to change minds. i am not. i figure that my opinion will endure and prevail or die and be forgotten on its own merits regardless of any "lobbying" efforts on my part. my only function is to present it as clearly and competently as possible. diplomacy, much less convincing others of my "depth", doesn't enter into that.

"the comments in question appear meritless"
-geez, Tawk about writing stuff off :eek:

"When you refuse others, especially a large majority of the focus of this discussion, the same courtesy, you are trying to have your say without affording that to others"
-how exactly am i refusing others their say? i say they're bourgeois boneheads, they say i'm an elitist bonehead. we both get our say and everybody's happy :)

"brushing off any other factors as being trivial simply because you have neither the desire nor interest in empathizing with said audience or even weighing all the factors. . . you are talking about an audience. . . based on ONE piece of evidence without taking into account a large variety of other factors such as timing, quality, style, audience, company support, etc."
-again, don't Tell me i'm not taking other factors into account, Show me. Explain how "timing, quality, style, audience, company support, etc" impact the result in ways you say i'm not taking into account.

"you claim those reasons to be hollow"
-more precisely, i claim they Ring hollow which, in light of other factors, i attribute to their being unconvincing excuses motivated by a desire to preserve one's evolved trekkie self-image.

"those reasons must be unacceptable"
-"unacceptable"? i'm not sure what that would mean in this context. i'm saying they continue to ring hollow.

"If your audience is so shallow that they fit your opinion of them, then hollow reasoning will fit into the patterns of their opinions and your blanket statement doesn't fit the discussion"
-plz clarify, i don't follow :confused:

"I doubt I'm alone in that view with anybody who's been reading this discussion since the first post"
-even if majority opinion Did determine this discussion's merit, are you not being presumptive in saying "anybody" else reading it shares your opinion of it?

"rather than even considering the possibility that your test is flawed"
-how would you know what i've considered? via the use of Prejudice? :eek: because at this point i express my pov confidently, you assume i arrived at this point without considering such possibilities? or is it that i'm supposed to continue to consider such a possibility til the end of time? if the latter, not gonna happen. sooner or later the time comes for a person to make a choice, and it has, and i have. if you aim for me to remake it, you'll have to Convince me to do so.

"this has become the argument of what the 3 blind men describing an elephant"
-except that, in citing this analogy, you're implying that neither of us sees the truth; at the same time, even though neither of us see the truth, somehow i see that truth less than you do? is that not trying to have it both ways? how is it so different from the arrogance you criticize in me? :happy:

"you want to accuse"
-want's got nuthin to do with it. i'm just sayin the shoe fits.

"You seem to prefer making a cutting, eyebrow raising statement"
-prefer? it's more that i have a talent for it ;)
vt
np: deee-lite, "music selector is the soul reflector"

JediTricks
12-23-2001, 07:37 AM
"-seein as how you've made this promise before, i'll blieve it when i see it"
Whee! Ok, I'll bicker some more just for you. :p

"-which is hardly the same thing as admitting that darker storytelling is a deficit"
While you and I and Tycho may agree that the darker storytelling worked very well for DS9, that doesn't mean others did... "People are afraid of change" - James T. Kirk

""'they don't go anywhere' was the staple cry of DS9-dislikers. . . so you can't argue that there is (no) validity to others' opinion"
-oh, but i Can... i claim to not only predict the long-term historical response more accurately, i also claim to understand why the present confusion exists."
You are being too philosophical, as if the stories didn't go anywhere. The reference here isn't that the populous thought each story was a dead end, it's that the characters rarely left the station to visit strange new worlds. That is factual, the crew rarely left, and the opinion is that many people who tuned out did so because they didn't like the crew not going anywhere.

"-so, you're contending that ds9's political intrigue played out more ploddingly than the utopian, antiseptic, technobabble-heavy plots of the majority of tng eps?"
- Not "ploddingly", merely too different from what they considered Trek. I rarely hear people say that the intrigue elements of DS9 were monotonous or heavy-handed, just that it didn't fit in with their preconceived notions of what Trek should be. Good TV and good Trek are not synonymous.

"-popular opinion and accurate opinion are two different things, a distinction going back to my earliest assertions here. artistic merit is not a democratic matter; it is not determined by majority opinion."
Ah, but we're not talking about artistic quality, the focus you created has been about the populous' prejudice towards Ben Sisko and Kate Janeway specifically.

">voy renewed the exploration paradigm tos and tng fans Claim to prize, in that it removed us from the increasingly-familiar alpha quadrant tng strode and re-strode with nary an objection from same fans"
Bzzt, no, sorry, you don't get that right. You're using seasons 3 through 7 here, season 1 is the primary season that got audiences interested or disinterested. I'll even give you season 2, but there wasn't much exploration there.

">voy developed and expanded upon the borg (tng's most resonant and popular aliens) with greater depth and complexity than tng ever approached "
You are nearly the only Trek fan I know who didn't dislike how Voyager rewrote the Borg.

"by contrast, tng offered memorable portrayals by stewart & spiner (even though it did take both of them about 1-2 years to really nail their characters, as opposed to voy's players, who hit their marks right off), a few dozen slammin episodes and a lot of forgettable blandness."
Hmm, once again, your opinion is the only one in play even though you are focusing solely on the opinions of others. We are talking about the majority of watchers, not about how you perceived things. If Voy nailed their characters right off and TNG took 2 seasons to get there, then explain how Voyager's ratings declined throughout its first 2 seasons steadily in these "perfect cast" seasons while TNG rapidly rose to become the highest-rated syndicated show of all time even though the cast wasn't on the money yet. Gender bias can't possibly come into play that much because Voyager started out very strong and they had this so-called "perfect cast".

"so "majority" opinion can never be hollow? it can never be rightfully called hollow?"
Not at all, if you truly believe the majority opinion is hollow, then that's what you believe; but how can you say that they are hollow while hollow opinions are beneath them? If you truly believe them to be so hollow, then hollow reasoning should be easily ascribed to them and thus, racism and gender bias aren't the only possible hollow reasons for why they didn't watch.

"-who sed anything about not entitled?? everyone's got a perfect Right to hold any boneheaded opinion they want."
You did when you said that the reasons many claim to not like DS9 and Voy are too hollow to be acceptable alternatives to your charge of racism/sexism.

"my only function is to present it as clearly and competently as possible."
Yet when your opinion is challenged as not being complete, how can you claim it is competent without further expanding your point accurately?

"-how exactly am i refusing others their say?"
When you claimed that their reasons were too hollow to accept for why they didn't watch.

"-even if majority opinion Did determine this discussion's merit, are you not being presumptive in saying "anybody" else reading it shares your opinion of it?"
Re-read my comment in question: "I doubt I'm alone in that view with anybody who's been reading this discussion since the first post" I said I doubted I was alone with anybody who has read this, not that everybody who read this agreed with me, merely that I'm not alone in that "anybody" grouping.

"-how would you know what i've considered? via the use of Prejudice? because at this point i express my pov confidently, you assume i arrived at this point without considering such possibilities?"
Because you've been challenged in your viewpoint on this and your only response has been that other reasons for the lower ratings "ring hollow" and it MUST be racism and sexism that caused the lower ratings.

"-except that, in citing this analogy, you're implying that neither of us sees the truth"
No, what I was implying was that you refuse or are unable to see the situation as a whole, instead picking one segment and coming to a conclusion based on that. If you have seen the elephant as a whole, as the sum of the evidence, you certainly haven't given that impression here. You strut around making a judgement that most Trekkies didn't watch DS9 and Voy solely because they're racist/sexist based on the comment that the ratings for the "white man shows" are higher than the others - no other evidence has been shown. You certainly come off sounding like someone making a snap judgement rather than an informed statement to me.

I'm not saying I know the truth as it absolutely is, but I am saying that I've heard many convincing reasons for why many Trekkies I've met didn't watch Voy and/or DS9 as frequently as TNG and NONE of them came off anywhere near your analysis. Hell, many of them (before season 5 of DS9 which got too muddy with Klingon and Dominion wars) said that they'd like to see a show with Sisko as a starship captain on a Starfleet starship.

Obi-Don
12-24-2001, 06:45 AM
I for one ,not tring to jump in the middle of this,would like to say.I liked the Sisko character and most of the others from DS9 and Voy.I always look at as just another part of ST.No I didn't enjoy them as much as TNG but that was me. To me its just TV and its just a story just as is Star Wars. You have to treat it that way. Not everyone will like the same story. And for what ever the reason is thats thier opinion. I see no point in puting anyone down or forcing a arugument over a story or a Tv show. Take it as it is to You and enjoy the ride. If you don't like the story or the show.Close the book or turn the channel. But let me have the right to like or dislike.

Reading what the post are saying here,I must admit.I agree with parts both are saying and some parts I don't.And some parts just leaves me lost.

JediTricks
12-25-2001, 04:53 AM
What I think sets Voyager and DS9 apart from TNG and ENT most is the Trek patented optimism which seems lower in Voy and DS9. Ent seems to have more optimism than everything but TOS at times, although it has some grim moments too, which works on the level it is at. I think if Ent is going to go to the place I think, where the whole series culminates by the crew erasing most of their actions from history to save the cosmos, then it works well, but if it's straightforward, then I think the show needs to start slowly shrugging off some of the darker stuff as humanity heads towards TOS and TNG.

Tycho
12-25-2001, 06:10 AM
You know I liked DS9 and Voyager better than TNG, so I'm biased, but I have the right to proceed (and I don't feel like anyone's challenging that either) -

but I don't think that just because they were darker shows, that DS9 and Voyager departed from Star Trek's optimism at all.

1) Voyager is easier: in spite of being way out of Federation Space, for the most part, Capt. Janeway did not depart from StarFleet's protocals and enlightened philosophy. So much to the extent that I was relieved on a continuing basis any time Chakotay got her to bend a little and break the rules...

They showed that humanity's best (SF officers - and even Maquis with SF's guidence) could oversome impossible odds and the darkest reaches of foreign space.

2) DS9 - was obviously very bloody, cumulating in even a permanent, recurring character's mutilation (Nog) and a full-cast member's murder (Jadzia). But hey? What's so unoptomistic about that? We learned that with modern-day holographics the disabled can be fooled into liking life again, and that Bashir could finally find love with Dax, one small homicide notwithstanding.

More seriously, concerning my favorite show - Nog does persevere and overcome his handicap and go on to become a stronger SF officer. Worf learns to overcome the tragedy of the death of his wife and persevere to reclaim his Klingon heritage in the finest Klingon and SF traditions. Sisko most clearly learns there's life after loss. And in the end, Gene Roddenberry's Federation wins. Yeah, they suffered a graphically bloody war, but they won and came out stronger than before. Even so did Cardassia. I mean the war was entertaining and great for those of us digging spaceship dog-fights and all that attracts us to Star Wars, but Star Trek had a higher purpose and plotline in doing this on DS9 and as dark as it was, you might have missed the light! On my favorite Trek, it burned gloriously!

vulcantouch
12-26-2001, 01:48 PM
cmon, admit that it's as much for your own enjoyment, you're startin to get in the swing of this, which likely accounts for your latest reply being your most substantive yet, in that much of it stands well enough on its own with nary a reply from me :) as for the rest, Wheee indeed :D:

"Good TV and good Trek are not synonymous"
-an intriguing distinction; would you not say the latter is a subset of the former? or would you agree with a local film critic, who observed that when evaluating trek films it's better to ask whether it's good trek rather than whether it's a good film?
personally i see merit in both povs, and don't much mind remaining indecisive re choosing between them :)

"season 1 is the primary season that got audiences interested or disinterested"
-interesting notion, but how does it account for the 4th season spikes when ds9 bought in worf and voy brought in 7o9? how also does it explain how tng's snoozer of a 1st season didn't keep It from attaining icon status?

"You are nearly the only Trek fan I know who didn't dislike how Voyager rewrote the Borg"
-oh? remind me to introduce you to a wider VarieTy of trekkies ;)
Rewrote? "janeway Wrote the Book on the borg"- barclay, voy's "endgame" :) tng's had a coupla gripping, seminal borg eps, but cuz of budgetary restraints & the limitations of their dramatic focus, they could only scratch the borg's surface. which left lotta blank slate for voy to scribble on :)

"The reference here isn't that the populous thought each story was a dead end, it's that the characters rarely left the station to visit strange new worlds"
-you say I'M bein too philosophical? :rolleyes:

"Ah, but we're not talking about artistic quality"
-oh but we Are tawkin bout it, insofar as it continues to be cited as an excuse for popularity disparities :happy:

"We are talking about the majority of watchers, not about how you perceived things"
-that's a false dichotomy. i'm tawkin about how i perceive the majority of watchers.

"If Voy nailed their characters right off and TNG took 2 seasons to get there, then explain how Voyager's ratings declined throughout its first 2 seasons steadily in these "perfect cast" seasons while TNG rapidly rose to become the highest-rated syndicated show of all time even though the cast wasn't on the money yet"
-two words: Trekkie Slumming. trendoids find it novel to hang out for a while in milieux different from what they usually find comfortable, congratulating themselves on their open-mindedness all the while. but when the initial exotica wears off, most revert to provincialism and return to their usual tastes. trekkies are not exempt from such trendoidism.

"I'm not alone"
-so who cares if you are? or if i am? what impact has it on our accuracy? accuracy's what matters here :)

"when your opinion is challenged as not being complete, how can you claim it is competent without further expanding your point accurately?"
-i'm not claiming my opinion's "competent", i'm saying my opinion's Accurate. i'm claiming my Presentation of my opinion is competent.
i'm not sure how such an quantifiable adjective as "competent" would apply to such a intuitive area as the former. not every accusation of "ringing hollow"'s gonna lend itself to literal, methodical justification. but in no way does that necessarily impact its accuracy, nor does it infringe on another's entitlement to cite said hollow-ringing reasons. you and i are not two engineers debating how much reinforcement a bridge strut needs. "completeness" of justification doesn't enter into instinct. it is what it is, and time will bear it out, or not.

"racism and gender bias aren't the only possible hollow reasons"
-indeed, but i'm still waiting for these other, more convincing "hollow reason" explanations to be cited :)

vt: how exactly am i refusing others their say?
"you claimed that their reasons were too hollow"
vt: who sed anything about not entitled?
"You did when you said that the reasons many claim to not like DS9 and Voy are too hollow to be acceptable"
-i'm not sure what "acceptable"'s sposed to mean; "convincing" is the issue. my saying others' reasons ring hollow and unconvincing in no way constitutes an infringement of their "entitlement" to cite said reasons. they're free to cite em, i'm free to say they ring hollow, everybody's happy. no one's say is being refused.
perhaps you are confusing tolerance with ValidaTion. only the former is required here. others shouldn't need Me to validate their opinions. that's Their job.

"your only response has been that other reasons for the lower ratings 'ring hollow'"
-indeed; i've thus far seen no occasion or need for any other response :)

"I'm not saying I know the truth as it absolutely is"
-oh, but it Is your analogous implication that, even though you are a blind man, you can see that i too am a blind man like yourself, rather than an eagle-eyed bird circling around said elephant? :rolleyes:

"You strut around making a judgement"
-as do we all; might as well put a bit of swagger into that strut, so that the rest of us can have a good laugh if/when we take a fall :D

"If you have seen the elephant as a whole, as the sum of the evidence, you certainly haven't given that impression here. . . no other evidence has been shown. . . You certainly come off sounding like someone making a snap judgement rather than an informed statement"
-an admirably direct, confident statement of your opinion; i congratulate you :)

"I rarely hear people say that the intrigue elements of DS9 were monotonous or heavy-handed, just that it didn't fit in with their preconceived notions of what Trek should be. . . 'People are afraid of change' - James T. Kirk"
-tryin to make my point For me, are ye? ;)

od: "its just TV and its just a story"
-worry not: i don't think any of us are losing sight of that, even as we debate the larger issue of subtle factors that influence audience tastes.

"I see no point in puting anyone down or forcing a arugument"
-i'm not putting down anyone Specific, which y'all may not be understanding so i'll state it explicitly: i speak here in General terms, cuz i'm discussing General audience trends. i'm not accusing you, jt, tycho or any other Specific person of the unconscious racial & gender bias i contend accounts for voy's & ds9's lower acceptance. i am perfectly willing to allow for the possibility that y'all have reasons for not diggin ds9 or voy as much as whiteguy treks for reasons of taste that have Nothing to do with captain demographics, cuz i have no way of seeing into yall's hearts in so as to inform these kinds of allegations about specific individuals i've never even met ;)
large groups, however, are another story, as their net movements & behaviors follow trends and motivations which lend themselves to precise analysis. were this not so, marketing departments would have long ago been discredited as a waste of company money, rather than the coveted profit maximizers they are. likes and dislikes, and the reasons behind them, are predictable. i'm saying trekkies are not exempt from this predictability. it's why a gal like jolene blalock was picked for tpol rather than, say, heather mattarazzo.
as for "forcing" an argument, i ain't doing that either. all remain free to let me rant unopposed, agree, disagree or ignore me altogether :)

"If you don't like the story or the show.Close the book or turn the channel. But let me have the right to like or dislike"
-worry not: the present discussion doesn't even come close to infringing on such freedoms.

"some parts just leaves me lost"
-i'm always happy to clarify, quextions welcome :)
vt

JediTricks
12-27-2001, 01:42 AM
I'm currently suffering through the horrible, scream-enducing pain of an impacted molar for xmas, so I am going to ditch my usual reply style in place of one single point that I am able to focus on:


"large groups, however, are another story, as they move & behave predictably according to trends and motivations which lend themselves to precise analysis. were this not so, marketing departments would have long ago been discredited as a waste of company money, rather than the essential profit maximizers they are. likes and dislikes, and the reasons behind them, are predictable. i'm saying trekkies are not exempt from this predictability."

I believe that Trekkies are different from other groups that suffer from "mob mentality" because while Trekkies are a group, the main thing that keeps them together isn't getting together to share a common interest, that's just an afterthought to their singular trekdom, which is mostly not shared at all, or shared with a small gathering of people on rare occasions. Trekkies seem like they isolate themselves while watching Trek, and only later share with a group about their previous isolated experience. So while they are sharing the experience, it's not like a soccer game where they're sharing it in the same place at the same time in the same way, each Trekkie embarks on experiencing Trek primarily by themselves, and then get together to form a "group of loners".


Just something to think about, when Paramount was considering ideas for new Trek, many Trekkies wanted Sulu as captain of the Excelsior as the next Trek show, that's just one more thing that makes me think the "racism" charge doesn't hold true.

Obi-Don
12-27-2001, 07:19 AM
The one thing that I liked about Star Trek was that anyone could be what they wanted no matter the race or sex. I also think that is the main reason most like it. To me racism comes from the viewers and not from the shows. I know there are a few stories where this is present. But all in all,racsim is not very present in the Federation and thats what makes it great to me.

JediTricks
12-31-2001, 07:17 AM
Obi-Don, there has always been a little racism thrown into Trek, but most of it was towards races of other worlds rather than different-colored skin toned people from the same world (Roddenberry was trying to represent our modern-day world). In TOS, the racism was often a bit heavy handed in its handling, but usually treated pretty well (even in that silly 3rd season ep with the Riddler, Frank Gorshin ;)).

Obi-Don
12-31-2001, 09:39 AM
I agree,but what I liked about it was that is was shown to be wrong. Thats one of the many reason I liked and still like ST. I guess the real sad thing is you can't get a way from racism anywhere. You just have to deal with it and show people that is wrong. Hell! we are all people on this starship Earth no matter what we look like. I also feel if we could do away with all this silly hatered,we would already be out there exploring space instead of killing each other for what they look like or believe. I don't think this what GOD had in mind for us.IMO

JediTricks
01-02-2002, 09:50 PM
Hmm, according to Trek, God merely wants us to move starships closer to the galactic core. ;) But you are right I think, Trek succeeds mainly by taking those negative elements of our modern lives and showing that either we learn to put them past us or our futures will suffer.

vulcantouch
01-02-2002, 11:36 PM
and now there's word that bakula's been nominated for some people's choice award as fave tv drama perfomer on the basis of, what, all Ten hours of ent episodes that've thus far aired? am i Really sposed to believe he's That much more appealing than sisko or janeway?? :rolleyes: btw, re this topic you guys did see my #36 Humpost (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=27041#post27041), right? good :)

"I believe that Trekkies are different from other groups"
-the very crux of our disagreement; re this matter, i do not. like many groups, trekkies profess one thing & do another :(

"they isolate themselves while watching Trek, and only later share with a group"
-not sure how this neccesarily inhibits their mob mentality, in that:
>sharing strikingly homogenous sensibilities to begin with, they will inevitably give similar reactions whether in groups or in isolation; and
>whatever singular reactions they may've had while viewing in isolation will often be subverted & replaced with the group mentality when communing w/fellow fans at a later time.

"many Trekkies wanted Sulu as captain"
-a vocal contingent might've Thought they wanted it, or might've simply enjoyed hearing themselves say they wanted it. but whether they'd want it if they'd actually Gotten it is something we'll now never know, cuz like i sez, with the results of the ds9 & voy "experiments" decisively confirmed by ent's otherwise-inexplicable higher popularity, it'll Never happen. neither sulu, nor his daughter, nor his mama'll ever sit in no trekfranchise captain's chair, cuz trekkiedom at large simply won't get behind it.
no hurry on yer reply to post 57 above jt, it can wait til yer toofus gets better ;)

od: "racism comes from the viewers"
-couldn't agree more :(
vt
np: african dream, "young & free" (eightball dub)

LTBasker
01-03-2002, 01:46 AM
Many fans may have wanted Sulu, but George Takei is too old to play that young of a Sulu and plus he probably wouldn't be interested anyways. I think I said this before but alot of fans also wanted the new series to be based on an Akira class ship... and Berman did that, except he ripped the idea and created Enterprise... Otherwise it would've Star Trek had he stuck with an Akira and placed it after Voyager. :p Personally I would've liked to of seen that and with the Delta Flyer implemented into designs for new and more reliable shuttles.

Tycho
01-03-2002, 02:03 AM
I've said this before:

Strand a black male captain in the Delta Quadrant, do another show with a white male captain stranded out there, etc. and compare them.

Or put a female (Kira now?) in charge of DS9, or make it a white male's new post, and have an occupation and an ongoing war and see what happens.

Put a black male in command of a prototype ship in the 22nd century and do another show with a woman captain in charge in that time period.

Otherwise you all are just comparing apples to .... to power tools. You all know how to do a scientific experiment. Only the variable (the captain) can change to generate comparable results that validate this argument. Otherwise you're just wasting people's time.

JediTricks
01-04-2002, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by LTBasker
Many fans may have wanted Sulu, but George Takei is too old to play that young of a Sulu and plus he probably wouldn't be interested anyways.He's not too old, look at the age Picard was supposed to be, Takei did a fantastic job in his Voyager ep as captain of the Excelsior. As for wanting it, he most certainly did and had Nimoy on his side pressing Paramount to make it happen - at one point, Berman had Nimoy banned from the lot over this.

Obi-Don
01-04-2002, 03:20 AM
Had nemoy band from the lot? Is he crazy? Mr. Nemoy is a more well known than Berman[who?] and is one of the reasons why ST took off in the first place.Not forgoing Shatner and the others.

I like the new show,don't get me wrong.But Sulu as a captain IMO would have done better.

LTBasker
01-04-2002, 04:25 AM
Ah, ok, I agree with ya on the Voyager episode, and it wouldn't of been bad seeing the beginning of the Excelsior (maybe it'd even explain in the best detail as to why the Enterprise-B and the Lakota were Excelsior variants) and hey, maybe they would've even of been able to get Tim Russ to join in. Ya know, if Rick Berman had any brains at all (and if he does they're probably dying of lonliness) he would have Enterprise on for about 3-4 seasons (2 seasons is too short, even for Enterprise) but before canceling seeing if the correct people want to do an Excelsior prequel series. I doubt it'll have a chance of happening tho. :\

Tycho
01-05-2002, 03:17 AM
I like Enterprise and think I could enjoy 7 years of it. It's a good show.

I would have liked Excelsior because Sulu is a a Classic hero of mine and he did do a great job on his Voyager episode, didn't he?

I'd like to see him as Captain, but occasionally need to pilot the ship himself, as Sulu was Classic Trek's main-man at the helm.

Meanwhile, I think they should be definitely separate shows. Sulu can't cross over to Enterprise and time-travel is used enough in all Trek shows - even a major plot point in Enterprise. Sulu isn't going to be born for probably 90 years after Captain Archer's first voyage. LOL - little Hikaru will read about each episode at Starfleet Academy.

But I first and foremost wanted the Excelsior show to still happen for justice to George Takei and his fine contributions to Trek and humanity (racial dignity causes, etc.) over the length of his celebrity status. If George wanted it, then fine: I'd support him.

Jedi Tricks was right when he invoked Picard's age in the discussion. We would have seen a more refined, enlightened (almost 24th Century) Sulu - experienced from his cowboy days on the Enterprise and disregarding orders in his earliest captaincy of the Excelsior. (Though I'm sure Capt. Sulu would only follow those orders he saw fit to - just like Kirk did as Sulu's role model).

vulcantouch
01-05-2002, 12:28 PM
it was his least convincing turn as sulu i can recall, and i've long been a fan of his no-nonsense presence & cool voice. but here he was all puffed-up and intimidated-looking. michael "kang" ansara outclassed him at every turn. maybe george should stick to simpson voicework ;)

tycho: "You all know how to do a scientific experiment"
-and apparently you know how to draw a specious, inapplicable analogy, as if this were the kind of thing we'd either "put to the scientific test" or remain forever clueless about. it is not. sometimes every what-if answer ain't there in concrete form, but that doesn't mean an intuitive leap won't yield equal results in their absence.

"Otherwise you're just wasting people's time"
-no, i'm "wasting" My time. other people "waste" their own time in choosing either to pay attention or ignore.

tycho: "I've said this before"
-as have i (1st sentence, post 34 above); Tawk about wastin time, just repeatin oursevs ;)
vt

LTBasker
01-05-2002, 01:07 PM
Since no one else said it, I will: Touche! Touche! Touche! Times how many times it's needed! :rolleyes:

Tycho
01-05-2002, 03:09 PM
Vulcantouch, I acknowledge the possiblity your arguments about the how's and why's of each shows' success or lack thereof MIGHT be true - and there is some intelligence put in making the generalities you base your arguments on (for lack of the ability to do the experiment we talked about - black male capt lost in space, white female commanding station, etc.)

But because we can't do the experiments, you can't PROVE inescapable evidence. Yes, I know "that is just what the racists would point out." It isn't fair. That's true. And since I'm a white male I MUST be a racist or something. Fine.

But I am sick and tired of the "race card" being employed by those who perceive themselves as ethnic minorities, or any kind of minority, for the purpose of self-pity or personal, racial status self-righteousness.

I am "a bleeding heart liberal" who supports some "affirmative effort" (and I've accepted being turned down for an EQUALLY QUALIFIED ethnic person for jobs already - because I was TOLD they don't look good hiring another white male - but I have limitations! I'd like innercity kids to have heroes other than sports figures, comedians, and gangsta rap stars to have as role models: people like General Powell in real life, and Captain Sisko in fiction. The job/occupations are just stereotypes, but I bet you (on an intelligent guess) if you asked a bunch of black grade school kids to name a famous black doctor, a famous black lawyer (besides Clarence Thomas), a famous black engineer, etc. - they would be hard pressed for examples. I can't name any specific caucasion ones myself, but I know "the great Scott Bakula plays a captain," so in many ways we are all victims of what sells in the media. But I have a passion for public service and I have a white-male role model that's easy to look for any year in our nation's White House. That is WHY we need to show other ethnic groups or genders in roles as important as Sisko's or Janeway's. I am just fine with that. There will be a shift in the United States population over our lifetimes where whites, especially in California where I live, are NOT the majority. Changes in leadership roles in all professions in life will reflect that. - Moreso when the majority steps up and fills those roles.

If you want racial divide "and your kind to get yours," don't worry - it'll happen and if Star Trek survives and stays a dream of all enthnicities, one day we'll be wondering who the next Token Gringo will be when they cast the 7th or 8th series. (If the concept can be recycled that long).

Meanwhile, "life is as it is" - but I've never accepted that and I personally work hard and sincerely want to make it better for all people. But [to Vulcantouch] work within your favorite group and work towards Paramount's acknowledgement rather than play the race card in a discussion group where people here want to be your friend and just share a comradery centered around each new episode (or I certainly don't mind the "Remember when...stories from the War on Deep Space Nine).

But I understand. Tom Paris is my most identifiable Star Trek character because he looks like me (moreso than just being caucasian, is around my age if I were in StarFleet, and has faults and flaws, interests and sexuality etc. just like me). If I were black, I'd say Sisko was a bit too conservative to identify with for example, and maybe Geordie would be who I'd most identify with - and do on the age level, the desire to be a professional, some of the loneliness he feels, etc. (part of Sisko's thing was he was a parent and a wartime captain. The younger Sisko with Curzon would have been fun, eh?) What I understand is that some people want to identify themselves in the characters they regard as heroes, or just "cool people" and Star Trek's largest audience I think is white males between 50 and 20, or something close to that. So the show is cast proportionately to the audience maybe - but maybe the audience would expand if the show were cast differently. But I would not argue it would then be cast "better." That is relative to who the roles go to, individually. Just like it comes down to all human beings as individuals - not their "race card."

Just be an individual here and share with fans your thoughts on Enterprise's new episodes on a weekly basis. I will start a new thread upon the release of the first new episode that gives us something to discuss. The race argument here serves no more purpose. We already realize and at least I empathize with you feeling that whatever ethnic minority you might belong to, or even just with your own 'white liberalism,' you feel audience response and casting went hand and hand to 'slow racial breakthroughs on Star Trek casting.'

Great. You made your point. What good can anyone else here do about it even if we agree with you? You got my sympathy. That's all I can give. Let's talk about something else, as the more we rehash this (and I'm sure you deserve at least 2 or 3 more rebuttals beyond THIS post of mine) - but the more I have been becoming sick of this. When the time comes to give up, people who are overwhelmed eventually do find it easy to say, "I'm a white male, I'll just look out for my own." There are days that those 'playing the race card' nearly push me to that point.

If so you'll lose the support of those like you (like-minded like me), and I'll just re-register in the Republican Party, LOL.

JediTricks
01-06-2002, 02:31 AM
Obi-don, Berman thinks he is the producer of Trek, and sadly, he's right. He was hand-picked by Roddenberry in the '80s to take over the whole thing, but many say this was when Berman was a huge brown-noser and kept his personal ideals to himself. Basically, Nimoy and Berman have butted heads a lot and were the heads of each camp, with Berman having the edge in the Paramount exec hierarchy and supposedly having vocal distaste for Nimoy and classic trek. Nimoy, on the other hand, wasn't a team player and had the backing of the Trekkie audience, so he had some power and say in issues of Trek. With all this political in-play, you'd think we were discussing the Cardassians.


Basker, I too would love to know the Trek-universe explanation for the Excelsior-class variant, the real-world one is simply that Generations producers wanted it to look somewhat different.

That idea of using Tim Russ would have been really cool, a very slick tie-in to Voyager (all the new shows have had tie-ins to their previous series except Enterprise, which tied in with "First Contact", a respectable move IMO ;)). Have Tuvok come on a few times a season and show his brash behavior.

vulcantouch
01-10-2002, 11:16 PM
let's see if i can do this with under ten emoticons (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2764) (what next, limiting the number of exclamation points cuz That doesn't "look good"? :rolleyes: )

tycho: "since I'm a white male I MUST be a racist"
-sed who, me? even if i were to narrow assignation of such traits to individual trekkies, why would i do so to a self-proclaimed fellow niner such as yourself?

"I personally work hard and sincerely want to make it better for all people. . . work within your favorite group"
-such "work" is best left to those with a talent and passion for it, which is not me. my talents lie in other areas, as, in this case, dispensing oracular clarity which such "workers" and "groups" can consult when, in the course of their workins and groupins, they lose their own clarity & need a refill :)
though they can be misused like any other tool, iVory Towers have their uses and, together with the occasional foray into the gutter, comprise my ideal placement :cool:

"If you want racial divide 'and your kind to get yours'"
-my kind? i've never identified much with whatever demographic group i happen to fit into, whether that be cardassian, mexican, irish, american, amoral, agnostic, straight, male, 18-34 age or any other. (i instinctively shun such affiliations & identifications, which imo serves to preserve my clarity.) that, together with the fact that caring's never been one of my strengths, means i don't really care whether "my kind" gets theirs or not. i'm simply callin it as i see it. racial division exists regardless of whether i "want" it to or not.

"I am sick and tired of the 'race card'"
-as i say in post 44 above, i share this distaste. but i have a stronger distaste for being dishonest about what my gut tells me. lesser of two distastes, in this case.

"The race argument here serves no more purpose"
-so you consider the two longer paragraphs in your last post to be without purpose? you wouldn'ta written em if not for this "race argument".

"your own 'white liberalism'"
-i'm afraid it's been a long time since right, left Or middle accurately characterized my outlook.

"people here want to be your friend"
-if you're implying that the present discussion somehow impedes that, i'm not sure what the word "friend" is supposed to mean to me in this context. in others it means trust, honesty, tolerance. does it instead mean "concurrence" or "non-offensiveness" here?

"Just be an individual here"
-i imagine anyone'd have a hard time arguing i've done anything here But ;)

"share with fans your thoughts on Enterprise's new episodes"
-assuming i have any; sometimes i just don't, know what i mean? nuthin worth sharin anyway.

"you can't PROVE inescapable evidence"
-i ain't tryin to Prove anything. this ain't about Prove, it's about which judgment call's gonna stand the test of time.

"you'll lose the support of those like you"
-support from others was never the point. an assertion is true, partially true, or untrue, whether people support it or not.

"What good can anyone else here do about it even if we agree with you?"
-agreement or "doing good" was never the point. speaking my mind was. if what i'm saying has merit, its speaking is "good" in itself. otherwise, i'm just a harmless yammering nincompoop :crazed:

"Let's talk about something else"
-it's not like I'm stopping us; it takes 2 to tango yknow :kiss:

jt: "would love to know the Trek-universe explanation for the Excelsior-class variant"
not sure but the "production standpoint" explanation was obvious: cowling extensions were added to ent-b's drive hull so nexus could rip a kirk-snatchin gash in its side w/out damaging the excelsior model. the other build-ups (saucer impulse engines etc) were added to lend credibility to this "upgrade"-
vt

Tycho
01-11-2002, 04:53 AM
tycho: "since I'm a white male I MUST be a racist"
-sed who, me? even if i were to narrow assignation of such traits to individual trekkies, why would i do so to a self-proclaimed fellow niner such as yourself?

WELL THANKS VT


though they can be misused like any other tool, iVory Towers have their uses and, together with the occasional foray into the gutter, comprise my ideal placement :cool:

WHAT ARE IVORY TOWERS?

racial division exists regardless of whether i "want" it to or not.

IT ALWAYS WILL - IT'S NATURAL FOR OUR SPECIES TO DISTINGUISH AND DISCRIMINATE. IT'S AN INSTINCTIVE PART OF NATURAL SELECTION. CHILDREN HAVE LESS TROUBLE WITH THIS BEFORE SEXUAL COMPETITION KICKS IN, THEN TOLERANCE HAS TO BE TAUGHT ALL OVER AGAIN, LIKE IT WAS NEVER LEARNED.

"The race argument here serves no more purpose"
-so you consider the two longer paragraphs in your last post to be without purpose? you wouldn'ta written em if not for this "race argument".

I GUESS IT GOT INTERESTING.

"people here want to be your friend"
-if you're implying that the present discussion somehow impedes that, i'm not sure what the word "friend" is supposed to mean to me in this context. in others it means trust, honesty, tolerance. does it instead mean "concurrence" or "non-offensiveness" here?

THOSE TRAITS YOU MENTIONED ARE GOOD QUALITIES IN A FRIEND, BUT HERE IN FORUMS, I THINK IT MEANS SOMEONE YOU ENJOY TALKING TO AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONVERSING WITH.
DIFFERENCES ARE ALWAYS INTERESTING, IT WAS THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS BEGINNING TO SOUND ALWAYS THE SAME.

I appologize for writing in all caps. I wasn't implying a shouting connotation, but it is late as I type this and I am too lazy to add quote brackets and end brackets around everything through this...

JediTricks
01-12-2002, 06:42 AM
Tycho, that's why I used alternate colors for VT's comments when I used them in my posts. :D


VT, are you sure about that? The Excelsior model in ST:G was a new model, I believe, AND it was gashed anyway in a section that would have existed on the ST3 model.

JediTricks
01-12-2002, 06:43 AM
Tycho, that's why I used alternate colors for VT's comments when I used them in my posts. :D


VT, are you sure about that? The Excelsior model in ST:G was a new model, I believe, AND it was gashed anyway in a section that would have existed on the ST3 model. Plus, on the main systems board, shown at the back of the Ent-B's bridge, those extensions next to the main deflector aren't on the drawing because they were added after the main systems board was done up.

LTBasker
01-12-2002, 11:08 AM
The Ent-B isn't the only Excelsior variant, the U.S.S. Lakota also is an Excelsior variant, I think it was in DS9.

Hey ya know, since we're most likely never gonna get a series done about the Excelsior, maybe Trek 11 should be a prequel with Sulu and the Excelsior? That'd kick. :D

SithDroid
01-12-2002, 12:50 PM
The new show is pretty good. I actually like it. However I believe that somehow continuity is going to get messed up. With all the Star Trek series and movies it can be hard to keep track of it all. I don't like the idea of the ship being called the Enterprise. That doesn't fit with the continuity because we never heard of this other Enterprise before in any of the other series or movies. All we ever heard of was NCC -1701, then A, B, C, D, and E. Now all of a sudden were supposed to believe that there was another Enterprise with a different serial number. I don't buy it. At least get off of the whole Enterprise thing. Other than that I quite like the show. Also if you notice in the Star Trek Generations movie when Sauron hits the Klingon woman in the face, she starts to bleed. Notice the color of her blood, it's red. And as we all know from Star Trek VI, Klingons have pink blood. Who overlooked something like that. I normally don't notice something so minor, but htere were a couple things in that movie that irked me. Anyone else ever notice any continuity errors or mistakes in the movies?

Data rocks!

JediTricks
01-13-2002, 08:54 AM
Basker, the Lakota from DS9 was simply a reuse of the CGI model built for ST:Generations. It's identical to the Ent-B except for the name and numbers painted on the ship.

Generations was a very cheap-out movie, besides the blood issue, they reused footage the Bird Of Prey blowing up sequence from ST6.

SithDroid, my pre-Voyager research (that is, researching info, especially books, before Voyager was put on the air) found that Star Trek: The Motion Picture has a drawing and mention of a pre-NCC-1701 Enterprise, but it looks SIGNIFICANTLY different from the one on "Enterprise".

BTW, I got to thinking last night, why is it that Trek has ditched the classic "dorsal" spine between the saucer and engineering hulls on major ships? USS Voyager, the Ent-E, the Defiant, and now the NX-01 are all without this dorsal section, although supposedly, the Ent-E can do saucer separation similar to the USS Prometheus.

LTBasker
01-13-2002, 04:03 PM
Technically the Ent-E and Voyager do have it, just not like earlier ships have it. Probably due to Berman wanting more "sleek" ships to make them look faster and aerodynamic to boost ratings.

The pre-Federation Enterprise, there is actually a canon list I saw of Enterprises before the Federation and rather oddly, nothing was listed for the 2150's :D If I can find it I'll post it here.

vulcantouch
01-14-2002, 01:02 PM
-aren't i always? ;) of course, what you're really axing is if i know it for a fact. the answer is no; it just makes sense to me, so much so that i'm willing to bet a fistful of black, 2X1 lego plates that i'm right ;)

"that's why I used alternate colors"
-and you claim to not understand my boldface use (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=31174#post31174)? :rolleyes: btw, feel free to change my "comment color" from that puke green to a bluish VioleT, a la my aVaTar you skillfully executed : )

tycho: "WHAT ARE IVORY TOWERS?"
-dictionary remarks on "ivory towerism" include: "inclined towards remote, solitary withdrawal, contemplation and abstention from human affairs. . . an often complacently blind preoccupation with what is wholly or nearly wholly speculative or theoretical or abstract or esoteric. . . a nonrealistic, often escapist or visionary attitude marked by studied aloofness from and lack of concern with practical matters, everyday activity or urgent problems. . . a dreamy attitude often marked by limited vision or narrow-mindedness"
in other words, it's typically meant as a pejorative :eek: not that I mind; though it might be overly philospohical & ivory-towery of me to say this, everything's got its drawbacks : )

"IT ALWAYS WILL. . ./~/. . . LIKE IT WAS NEVER LEARNED"
-excellent points, to which i might add that the racial division instinct's not Entirely bad, in that it's partially responsible for giving rise to & maintaining the diVersiTy of human form around us. VarieTy be da spice o life, be it not? : )

"IT MEANS SOMEONE YOU ENJOY TALKING TO AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONVERSING WITH"
-you mean you haven't Enjoyed tawkin w/me? :cry: ; )

"I GUESS IT GOT INTERESTING"
-all right then, maybe we can stick with this here thred then? more convenient that way : )
vt

JediTricks
01-14-2002, 09:06 PM
-and you claim to not understand my boldface use (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=31174#post31174)? :rolleyes: btw, feel free to change my "comment color" from that puke green to a bluish VioleT, a la my aVaTar you skillfully executed : )
The color pattern with HTML text is not as easy to match as in graphics programs like photoshop. However, as I just posted over there, it's not that I don't understand what you're getting at, that was a mistake of typing "should" instead of "shouldn't", I can't figure out why you're so angry that you can't have as many bold words as you want (because you can).

-aren't i always? ;) of course, what you're really axing is if i know it for a fact. the answer is no; it just makes sense to me, so much so that i'm willing to bet a fistful of black, 2X1 lego plates that i'm right ;)
well, I dunno what I could put up against that, but I'm fairly confident I saw or read somewhere about the making of the Ent-B being only based-upon the Excelsior, however, I don't have any solid materials to back that right now so a wager without proof is just a whizzing contest.
"Austin... I am your father."
"Really?"
"... No, I can't back that up."

vulcantouch
01-14-2002, 10:11 PM
you don't Have to put up anything aginst it, cuz you got the plates comin anyway since i didn't satisfy you w/media pkg :0 but if you really wanna put up somethin you can badger the manager into reinstatin my damn bottomless cuppa 'moticons (http://sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?threadid=2764), waitress :p
vt

JediTricks
01-15-2002, 09:13 PM
So it has been explained, so shall it be fixed.

vulcantouch
01-15-2002, 10:47 PM
. . .widda Smile :D

JediTricks
01-17-2002, 10:07 PM
I finally got 1 of the 2 remaining "MUST HAVE" Playmates vehicles on my list yesterday - Klingon Bird of Prey. The lights are great, but the sounds are kinda 'eh'. While it is missing some sculpted details, this ship lives up to its heightened aftermarket desirability. I couldn't believe how big this sucker is compared to the Ent-D.

Now all I need is an inexpensive Excelsior-class and I'm set.

Tycho
01-18-2002, 12:55 AM
Congratulations Tricks! I know you wanted that BoP.

Is it green or is it more brown (rusty)? I know what the ship looks like, but I've seen them both colors on the show...I think.

Anyway, how do you like the paint job?

LTBasker
01-18-2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by LTBasker
The pre-Federation Enterprise, there is actually a canon list I saw of Enterprises before the Federation and rather oddly, nothing was listed for the 2150's :D If I can find it I'll post it here.

Here's the list, so far from what I've heard it's canon but I dunno.

2106 S.S. Enterprise is launched under the United Earth Space Probe Agency.
2107 Enterprise commissioned, leaves Sol system on first mission.
2128 The Enterprise enters a two year refit period.
2130 Enterprise returns to exploratory service under UESPA.
2131 25th anniversary of the S.S. Enterprise; historic visit by United Earth Council.
2138 S.S. Enterprise becomes the first vessel to cross the Mutara Sector.
2143 Enterprise retired and mothballed at Tranquility City, Sol IIIA.
2202 The Starfleet Museum begins to refurbish the S.S. Enterprise.
2205 S.S. Enterprise placed on display in the Starfleet Museum.

:D

Tycho
01-18-2002, 02:19 PM
So Basker, in terms of the "new cannon" established by Archer's show, is this the first ship AFTER the NX - Enterprise?

What happened to the ship that looked like the USS Pasteur (Beverly Picard's ship in All Good Things?) Wasn't that an old moth-ball ship they pressed into service in the future because the Klingons or Romulans destroyed many of Starfleet's ships in the future? But wasn't the model-type of the Pasteur ever supposed to be an Enterprise?



It kind of looks like this: O-/'''''

LTBasker
01-18-2002, 05:21 PM
Oh yeah you mean Daedalus class. Those were in service before Kirk's time but not too before, they were like along the lines of some of the first Federation ships. Hence why they have only 3 digit NCC registrations. :) And just for the record, Beverly's U.S.S. Pasteur is an Olympic class. :cool:

The S.S. Enterprise is supposed to be before Archer's time as the first Enterprise space exploration vessel. Archer's Crew & Enterprise takes place in 2151 but as you can see there is no Enterprise listed. Also I don't think this canon list is new...

Tycho
01-18-2002, 06:24 PM
So theoretically, Capt. Archer and Trip could go and visit an earlier Enterprise, the SS Enterprise at the museum, the next time they swing around earth?

And that would be this old ship that looks like the Pasteur?

What does the SS stand for?

How about NX - that is the experimental ship code, right? Like the Defiant of DS9 as well.

OK - so why is Kirk's the USS Entersprise?

United Space Service? = USS?

And what is USESPA - United Earth Space Probe Agency?

OK - then they became StarFleet exactly when? Before Archer's time then I guess.

So why aren't the ships the SF Enterprise, SF Voyager, etc.?

Jayspawn
01-18-2002, 06:51 PM
Anyways, I thought the last Episode was pretty good. The one about Lt. Reed and the disapearing ship.

LTBasker
01-18-2002, 07:38 PM
So theoretically, Capt. Archer and Trip could go and visit an earlier Enterprise, the SS Enterprise at the museum, the next time they swing around earth?
-Nah, unless the next time they swing around Earth is in 51 years. ;)

And that would be this old ship that looks like the Pasteur?
-No, this is a probe, I don't think it has a picture anywhere, the Daedalus class ships are later on.

What does the SS stand for?
-Space Ship

How about NX - that is the experimental ship code, right? Like the Defiant of DS9 as well.
-NX on ships is the testing ship, yes, like every Starfleet ship class has a ship that is named after the class, like for example the Defiant, it's class is the Defiant and the first ship of it's class was the U.S.S. Defiant and it had an NX registration to show it was the testbed for that class. Now some ships when put into full service have their registration codes changed, like the U.S.S.Excelsior's NX-2000 registration changed to NCC-2000.

OK - so why is Kirk's the USS Entersprise?
United Space Service? = USS?
- U.S.S. stands for United-Space Ship, as in the United Federation of Planets.

And what is USESPA - United Earth Space Probe Agency?
-Yeah, after the Vulcans arrived and humans wanted to explore so the UESPA was formed and it was the stuff that sent out probes like Friendship One (Voyager episode) and sometimes the probes would be regular ships which humans lived on.

OK - then they became StarFleet exactly when? Before Archer's time then I guess.
-According to what Picard says in First Contact after they go back in time, Starfleet AND the United Federation of Planets was formed in 2161, but in Enterprise, Berman changed it to where Starfleet was already formed.

So why aren't the ships the SF Enterprise, SF Voyager, etc.?
-Because they're United-Space Ships for the United Federation of Planets. :D

Hope that helps. :)

JediTricks
01-19-2002, 01:05 AM
Thanks Tycho, the pics on the box I saw online has it dark green, but it's virtually identical to the BOP from the Star Trek MM III set version (as opposed to the nicer IX Generations set one). The main green color is too bright without heavy weathering, but the weathering paint that is there is nice where it is. The uses of red are VERY nicely done, no slop at all. The silver is a bit too light, so again, weathering could help that. Unlike the MM versions, this one's guns seem quite substantial.

SS stands for "StarShip", duh! ;)

NX and NCC are pretty confusing, it used to be NCC = "Naval Constitution Class" and NX = "Naval eXperimental", but it's all messed up now.

USS = United federation of planets Space Ship (as I understand it, basically, Roddenberry took USS and NCC from modern US ships' registries without thinking through how they'd work on the show)


As for "The Silent Enemy", I thought the ep was pretty good. The b-story seemed a bit ridiculous in the midst of all this tension, but the A-story more than made up for that. Still, the senior staff and bridge crew rarely seem to be at their stations on this ship. Trip funneling the excess power into the SIF was pretty cool, he shoulda said something afterwards like "I think the ship just got a meter smaller!". The aliens were disappointing as all get-out for me, but the ep wasn't about them, so I forgave. Still, I don't wanna see them again, they didn't do it for me. The ep reminded me of the TOS ep "Balance of Terror (http://www.startrek.com/library/tos_episodes/episodes_tos_detail_68678.asp)".

Tycho
01-19-2002, 01:40 AM
Yeah, it did harken back to 'Balance of Terror' in more than a few ways - as well as 'The Enterprise Incident' with them installing new technology just in the nick of time to survive a battle.

I started a different thread - Star Trek Enterprise - etc. to talk about the new episodes without new folks being extremely put off by the "Tricks/VT/ and I admit Tycho" debate about racial casting and fandom in Star Trek.

That thread focuses a lot on when they should get new technology, and what should be done with Hoshi Sato.

Hope you take a look and enjoy the start of a new simpler thread over there. I don't think they should be combined, as like I said, this gets to be a lot to read and while the thread here is about Star Trek, there are so many issues discussed that it's wiser to start over for new episodes so the latest Trek thread isn't "dated."

LTBasker
01-19-2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by JediTricks
NX and NCC are pretty confusing, it used to be NCC = "Naval Constitution Class" and NX = "Naval eXperimental", but it's all messed up now.

USS = United federation of planets Space Ship (as I understand it, basically, Roddenberry took USS and NCC from modern US ships' registries without thinking through how they'd work on the show)


In an interview somewhere it said that Gene took the NC part from U.S. ships and the CCC from Russian or German ships (I think German, can't remember though) and then put them together to get the NCC but never came up with what it stood for. As for the NX, I dunno where that came from. I guess he just did the same way as the NCC, he took N from NC, and then put X for experimental.

The U.S.S. part, Picard said it in one episode I've seen (I'm not sure if Gene was alive or not when the episode was made) he said "This is the United Space Ship Enterprise" which I assume that U.S.S. stands for and I thought since it was United Space Ship instead of Unite Star Ship it stood for a star ship of the united space in the United Federation of Planets

JediTricks
01-20-2002, 09:02 PM
That Picard line sounds like a season 1 blunder. ;)

vulcantouch
01-21-2002, 11:15 PM
piller quoted in latest ish of cinefantastique, which wraps up voy's final season (btw jt, plz lmk re this quextion (http://www.sirstevesguide.com/vbportal/forums/showthread.php?postid=32379#post32379) :) ):
". . .when you look at the reaction people had to ds9, they sort of grumbled, saying, 'well, it doesn't go anywhere'. the bottom line is, i always felt that the ds9 critics, the people who said it doesn't go anywhere, were taking an easy shot at something that seemed obvious, but i don't think it was really at the heart of whatever their problems were. i think essentially star trek audiences wanted the same thing they had seen before. . . i think essentially the first reaction to anything different is, i'm a little bit uncomfortable and i don't know why, so i'll pick the first thing that comes to mind: it doesn't move. with voyager, we had an oddly similar reaction from some people who said, 'well, it moves, but it is moving in the wrong direction. star trek should not be about coming home. star trek should be about going out and exploring brave new worlds.'. . . (but) we set off the voyager crew to the far reaches, where they would have to be alone out there. in a sense, that was a return to the original challenge, i think, of star trek's first show. . ."
"there was a certain chemistry on ds9 that i thought worked very well. but for whatever reason, audiences just did not gravitate to that as much as tng. i think ds9, frankly- because of the great storytelling week after week on that series- will be discovered over time, the way the original star trek was"
amen bruddah :cool:

tycho: "to talk about the new episodes without new folks being extremely put off"
-anyone who'd let themselves be put off by such a VibranT discussion doesn't sound like a terribly interesting conVersanT to me, so i'll prolly stick to this thred right here, where the action & the history is :cool: nice pasteur btw :)

jt: i once traded a playmets kbop someone gave me for the borg cube i currently have :D
vt
np: ultra nate, "rejoicing" (b-boys gospel stomp mix)

JediTricks
01-22-2002, 01:22 AM
If Mike Piller can't see the problems with Voyager, I guess that explains a lot - he can't see that he basically helped create "Star Trek: Gilligan's Quadrant".

However, it seems like Piller is just "going with his gut" in that statement of something amiss in the criticisms of DS9 - I think he's projecting his feelings as a template as to why those who disagree with him are wrong.


Ugh, Playmates Borg Cube! Definitely at the bottom of my list. How could you?!? ;)

vulcantouch
01-23-2002, 12:31 PM
and btw, no one has yet explained to me why i should despise berman, thus depriving me of alotta fun venom :(
actually, within the context of the article piller's less than clear about his "gut". he's not drawing confident, unequivocal conclusions like i am. instead, it's like he's talking out loud to help himself sort things out. my excerpts were chosen & posted within the context of our race/sex discussion here, to point up the difficulty even a trek producer has in facing the truth about what's behind popularity differences.
playmates borg cube may not look like much, but the sound fx are great- "zeuuooooom, zeuuuooommm"- if it's good enuf for annika "newt" hansen it's good enuf for me ;)
vt

LTBasker
01-23-2002, 04:18 PM
Well I don't know why you should hate Berman, you've got your rights to your opinion.

Although I hate Berman because he's taking Roddenbary's Star Trek series which is supposed to mean something and he's turning it into his own little cash machine as much as he can no matter how much originality and creativity out of it, not too mention Star Trek seems like it was once meant for the whole family to watch but now it's just directed at people that are 13 years or older. Berman's taking everything that would appeal to anyone easily amused (I don't mean everyone who is watching is easily amused) but like loading it down with CGI, sex and just cheap gimmicks like making the Enterprise NX-01 out of an Akira class. Fans wanted an Akira class to be the next series if they did it after Voyager, so Berman took it, had it modified so it would be similar to the Akira class but not the Akira class and so it would be a cheap way to get people to watch it. So in my opinion he doesn't give a care as long as he gets money in his pocket by using Star Trek as his own platform for his own thing so he wouldn't have to make up some new thing so he wouldn't have to worry about his doing poorly while a new Star Trek series would do/is doing great. In otherwords, he's like the biggest freeloader ever. :D

That's the best I could do, I just couldn't find a lot of words to describe things so it didn't come out the same. :(

Tycho
01-23-2002, 09:57 PM
If you refer to the sex as the T'Pol / Trip Tucker scene in the decontamination room during the pilot show - that worked for me!

I went and checked out Jolene Blalock's pics in Maxim after that. And she's a native San Diegan - my town. How about that?

I think sex is feared that it is wrong to expose it to children - like it's not the nature of our species to learn everything we can - especially forbidden knowledge kept from children.

Your kids (if you have them) search through your private things at home when you aren't around. Parents think their kids are such angels, but they are human. That's why they're always finding Daddy's handguns, etc.

In Europe, kids can see nudity and / or softcore porn on public television - and it hasn't corrupted their society or caused "Satan's Demons to possess their good citizens" as this church a girl took me (on a date?) to, suggested.

That using sex as bait for an intelligent, thought-provoking show is not cheap either. It need not be constant - that is. And that's why the Britney Spears phenomenon is that much simpler than Star Trek. However, to say that Sex isn't thought-provoking, and key word provoking, and should be left out, isn't really called for. It's simple bait for me - and I like that aspect of my "simple-mindedness" if that's what it is. However, I think it's just natural-mindedness in reality.

I mean, as this is a Star Wars forum, a more provactive scene with Han and Leia in The Empire Strikes Back could have worked, though I understand the current ratings standards wouldn't allow that to pass for the movie to still be promotable for children. We just got these things backwards or aren't ready for that yet in today's society. [I used "we" liberally to not necessarily include you -the readers here - and it definitely didn't include me.]

LTBasker
01-23-2002, 11:23 PM
Nah I don't believe all that hoo-hah about the Satan's demons crap. I wasn't talking about sex like that, I'm just talking about if people are so against sex exploitions, why promote it as a way to get an audience? Plus it did seem that Star Trek was intended for a whole family, but making it more sexy makes it seem more like they could lose an audience and future trek-viewers. I do have a different point of view on sex though, but this is neither the forum nor the subject to voice it. It's just all the "sexy" stuff you see on TV lately that is just thrown into things when it doesn't make sense to put it in just because it'll get ratings is getting old and stupid and it just shows people don't have any originality to get ratings on their own. That is how I meant cheap.

EDIT: I forgot to add this. Ok 1. not all kids go through their parent's private things, 2. I saw those Maxim pics of Jolene Blalock and yet I still didn't like her, 3. I'm 15 so even if I did have kids and they were going through my "private" things I bet they would get bored fast cause to me if it was private, especially a gun, they would need number combinations, keys galore and a voice message to be able to get into my "private" things... I'm not over-protective, but if I want something hidden, I hide it. :D

Tycho
01-24-2002, 12:34 AM
As to sex in Star Trek, and so on, "Blood Fever" on Voyager was one of the single sexiest episodes of Star Trek ever- and it involved yours and my favorite characters: Tom and the ever-sexy B'Elanna. What a show!

As to kids and stuff - well, if you're 15 your world is much larger than it was when you might have been all engrossed with things your parents did or were interested in. Plus, as a teenager, I'm sure you know everything that might occur down to even X-rated movies. That's neither good nor bad. If whatever you might be interested in doesn't harm anyone else, then go for it! (I'm actually talking about teens in general - though certain things like smoking, drugs, etc. are going to be harmful to yourself and thus best avoided).

But as to little kids, age 12 or under, especially younger, they want to know everything about their parents - child's easily influenced years, etc. You've heard all that, I'm sure. So they learn about whatever it is they want to and sex is as tempting from day 1, when they learn that boys are different than girls. I was very exploratory since pre-school and my first concocted schemes to get girls out of their clothing. Uh...since then I haven't changed save for the fact that I want to act like I'm still in pre-school, but the girls I want to fingerpaint with now are in their 20's. :D

Anyway, let's not be so supressed as a society - let's get sex out in the open. America has a far greater teen pregnancy rate than Europe - go figure. Meanwhile, what about violence?

Teaching that anger, hate, and rage are natural emotions, and learning that with Conflict Resolution skills and gaining experience in verbal confidence with self-expression are things that can manage that.

A personal handgun is 1) either not needed for any reason or 2) no good to you when you need it if it is locked in a combination box and the ammunition is stored somewhere separately. For self defense, the only good gun is a loaded and easily accessable one. Now ever since Han shot Greedo first, I thought that blasting someone you can't stand would be a great way to get rid of them, but I've learned more self-control than Han did. (I've trained in martial arts for 5 years and I might have waited for Greedo to make another mistake - he was stupid - and then disarmed him without killing him. Sending him back to Jabba tied up in knots probably would have only delayed the outcome though - Rancor Food - but heh - Han wasn't going to get prosecuted for that and had no respect for the Empire that was "The Law." - Something might have been said for Tatooine's local authorities, but Jabba controlled them anyway. I suppose someone could use this rationale for gunning someone down in Florida's Republican districts or Gary Condit's hometown, but overall, we're not as directly oppressed by our oil-energy company Empires as Han's fellow civilians were by their Emperor.)
Meanwhile, in Texas or Montana, kids have far greater access to firearms but there is no correlation showing them to have more incidents than here in Santee, California or El Cajon - each high school shooting site 20 minutes from me - and one friend shot, and one incident AT my brother's high school. And the same thing happened in Colorado, Maryland, New York, etc. All states with far stricter gun control laws than Texas or Montana, the Dakotas, or Kentucky.

So again, I'm a little more confident in my ability to defend myself without a gun, than maybe people who feel they need one. But what good is it going to do if it's unloaded and locked up? Finally, what can I do to defend myself if I can't get close enough to take a weapon away from an assailant, or avoid finding cover to not get shot? I am for education, conflict resolution, more child counseling and teaching of respect for others, but allowing permits for civilian concealed weapons. Parents can and should be held responsible for how their kids handle their weapons, but society should nurture our children better too, or we'll have Columbine as an example of how to reduce the teacher to student ratios.

But we got into gun control from kids getting into their parents stuff or television shows, and getting exposed to sex versus having Star Trek as an option for family viewing.

I summarize by saying that when families are together watching Trek or whatever, it is the perfect time for talking about sex, conflict resolution, and other issues that the show can serve as an easy introduction to versus having to start an awkward subject with your children on your own.

Kids will find their parents' pornos, handguns, cigarettes, alcohal, whatever. My father was US Navy Intelligence. I was all about learning how to play spy. Never underestimate children. It is a credit to their developing intelligence that they want to learn. They will grow and struggle against their parents' repressions no matter what. First they learn to be sneaky. When they are teens, they are tired of that and want to be respected in the open with what they want and desire in life. Then they learn rebellion.

If I ever have children, I want to have built more trust and respect with my kids so I can loan them the car, the house for a party, or the handgun for target practice. And I don't need child-protective locks on their computers for the internet. Heck - if they met a predator online and didn't have the sense to not go and meet them - then they'd probably blow the dude away!

Everyone here hopes I don't have kids now, probably. Don't worry. Me too (I think).

LTBasker
01-24-2002, 03:27 AM
As to sex in Star Trek, and so on, "Blood Fever" on Voyager was one of the single sexiest episodes of Star Trek ever- and it involved yours and my favorite characters: Tom and the ever-sexy B'Elanna. What a show!
- Yeah that was a pretty funny episode, I wonder if that's the "safe" Klingon version. :rolleyes:

As to kids and stuff - well, if you're 15 your world is much larger than it was when you might have been all engrossed with things your parents did or were interested in. Plus, as a teenager, I'm sure you know everything that might occur down to even X-rated movies. That's neither good nor bad. If whatever you might be interested in doesn't harm anyone else, then go for it! (I'm actually talking about teens in general - though certain things like smoking, drugs, etc. are going to be harmful to yourself and thus best avoided).
- Well first of all, my mother and father were never married so I never knew my father, and second, yeah I know plenty about all that, and actually learning the way I did (my own way... in otherwords I was able to get make use of the adult access on AOL :rolleyes: ) kinda gave me a different opinion on it, I suppose in a good way.

But as to little kids, age 12 or under, especially younger, they want to know everything about their parents - child's easily influenced years, etc. You've heard all that, I'm sure. So they learn about whatever it is they want to and sex is as tempting from day 1, when they learn that boys are different than girls. I was very exploratory since pre-school and my first concocted schemes to get girls out of their clothing. Uh...since then I haven't changed save for the fact that I want to act like I'm still in pre-school, but the girls I want to fingerpaint with now are in their 20's.
- Actually in pre-school all I did was have a clear mind until it came to food, or sleeping. :happy: 'Course that's no problem cause we would have swimming lessons and only the first people to make it to the single bathroom were the ones who got to change in there, that is if they wanted to change in there, all the other boys and girls changed in the same room, heh.

Anyway, let's not be so supressed as a society - let's get sex out in the open. America has a far greater teen pregnancy rate than Europe - go figure. Meanwhile, what about violence?
- Yeah we shouldn't be so supressed and getting it out in the open more would be good because it wouldn't make it sound so "forbidden" in ways that other people put it and so the urges in younger teens might go down a bit therefore creating less teenage pregnancy. But then again there are alot of people who would probably take it too strongly or some groups would probably try to protest against it.

Teaching that anger, hate, and rage are natural emotions, and learning that with Conflict Resolution skills and gaining experience in verbal confidence with self-expression are things that can manage that.
- Who needs to teach it? It comes naturally. :D

A personal handgun is 1) either not needed for any reason or 2) no good to you when you need it if it is locked in a combination box and the ammunition is stored somewhere separately. For self defense, the only good gun is a loaded and easily accessable one. Now ever since Han shot Greedo first, I thought that blasting someone you can't stand would be a great way to get rid of them, but I've learned more self-control than Han did. (I've trained in martial arts for 5 years and I might have waited for Greedo to make another mistake - he was stupid - and then disarmed him without killing him. Sending him back to Jabba tied up in knots probably would have only delayed the outcome though - Rancor Food - but heh - Han wasn't going to get prosecuted for that and had no respect for the Empire that was "The Law." - Something might have been said for Tatooine's local authorities, but Jabba controlled them anyway. I suppose someone could use this rationale for gunning someone down in Florida's Republican districts or Gary Condit's hometown, but overall, we're not as directly oppressed by our oil-energy company Empires as Han's fellow civilians were by their Emperor.)
Meanwhile, in Texas or Montana, kids have far greater access to firearms but there is no correlation showing them to have more incidents than here in Santee, California or El Cajon - each high school shooting site 20 minutes from me - and one friend shot, and one incident AT my brother's high school. And the same thing happened in Colorado, Maryland, New York, etc. All states with far stricter gun control laws than Texas or Montana, the Dakotas, or Kentucky.
- "Guns don't kill people...unless made faulty. It's the person behind the trigger." And on the Han&Greedo part I think he was defending himself, I mean if you said "over my dead body" and someone said "that's the idea" I think you could take it as a death threat. ;) True martial arts is the better way to go instead of just killing in cold blood... But the fact that stands is it wasn't the weapon or the skill, it was the person with the weapon.

El Cajon is 20 mins away huh? Can ya egg my ex-girlfriend's house for me? j/k :D

So again, I'm a little more confident in my ability to defend myself without a gun, than maybe people who feel they need one. But what good is it going to do if it's unloaded and locked up? Finally, what can I do to defend myself if I can't get close enough to take a weapon away from an assailant, or avoid finding cover to not get shot? I am for education, conflict resolution, more child counseling and teaching of respect for others, but allowing permits for civilian concealed weapons. Parents can and should be held responsible for how their kids handle their weapons, but society should nurture our children better too, or we'll have Columbine as an example of how to reduce the teacher to student ratios.
- Ya know I don't get why the goverment hasn't learned yet that this matter would possibly go down if home security alarms were made available to everyone.

But we got into gun control from kids getting into their parents stuff or television shows, and getting exposed to sex versus having Star Trek as an option for family viewing.
I summarize by saying that when families are together watching Trek or whatever, it is the perfect time for talking about sex, conflict resolution, and other issues that the show can serve as an easy introduction to versus having to start an awkward subject with your children on your own.
- Well maybe that wouldn't exactly be the best time... I mean who wants someone trying to teach you something educational while you're watching TV? :happy: I'm not saying sex is bad, just my point is that if shows want ratings, can't they come up with some original way to get ratings? Like with a plot or something? Were the sonic shower scenes really necassary in Voyager? They seemed to be just...there. The shower scene in Enterprise with Bakula at least gave a funny view of what was going on. The lotion scene in Broken Bow just didn't seem right because it just seemed there as a ratings booster without any real sense... I can't really describe what I mean.. :frus:

Kids will find their parents' pornos, handguns, cigarettes, alcohal, whatever. My father was US Navy Intelligence. I was all about learning how to play spy. Never underestimate children. It is a credit to their developing intelligence that they want to learn. They will grow and struggle against their parents' repressions no matter what. First they learn to be sneaky. When they are teens, they are tired of that and want to be respected in the open with what they want and desire in life. Then they learn rebellion.
- Underestimate them, shoot I'm still sneaky and love it! :D True I do want to be respected, but can't I have my cake and eat it too? :cool:

If I ever have children, I want to have built more trust and respect with my kids so I can loan them the car, the house for a party, or the handgun for target practice. And I don't need child-protective locks on their computers for the internet. Heck - if they met a predator online and didn't have the sense to not go and meet them - then they'd probably blow the dude away!
- Locks are for them over-protective people, true I did mention alot of locks in my last post, but if ya want it hidden then hide it, like an embarassing picture or something that even in the trash you would worry about someone seeing it. ;) If ya get a gun, I don't think the children shouldn't know about it, I mean that tweaks more curiousity about it. Just lay down the lines on it, it's dangerous and until they have the proper training with it, they aren't allowed to use it, sure they might not listen but it depends on how you treat them, and ya know if you actually spend time with your kids and don't just ignore them and don't care what they're doing, then it could prevent them from not listening to ya... just my suggestion.

Everyone here hopes I don't have kids now, probably. Don't worry. Me too (I think).
- Keep your genes in your jeans until valium becomes oxygen and we're all too knocked out to notice . :p

Tycho I really think you took what I said the wrong way, I don't find sex bad, it's just it's getting annoying (to me anyway) when used just to get people to watch something, we can all blame MTV for the overuse. :crazed:

VT: I hope you don't mind me stealing your way of responding to posts. :D

Well that was fun... :happy:

JediTricks
01-24-2002, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by vulcantouch
and btw, no one has yet explained to me why i should despise berman, thus depriving me of alotta fun venom :(
actually, within the context of the article piller's less than clear about his "gut". he's not drawing confident, unequivocal conclusions like i am. instead, it's like he's talking out loud to help himself sort things out. my excerpts were chosen & posted within the context of our race/sex discussion here, to point up the difficulty even a trek producer has in facing the truth about what's behind popularity differences.
playmates borg cube may not look like much, but the sound fx are great- "zeuuooooom, zeuuuooommm"- if it's good enuf for annika "newt" hansen it's good enuf for me ;)
vt I was not saying Piller's a bad guy, though I do think he has made some decisions for Trek that are way off beam, what I was saying was I don't buy this "speak only from the gut" thing he was projecting there, it's often too much internal projection and not enough scientific method.

Mandalorian Candidat
01-24-2002, 04:00 PM
OK, if someone has already brought this point up please don't get postal on me. I'm not reading through the 70+ replies to find this out.

Why are the Klingons in the same makeup they are in from TNG and the later series? Why don't they look more like the ones from TOG? Yes, I know that whole wannabe patchup job the scriptwriters did in the tribble episode of DS9, but that didn't explain anything.

Anybody want to tackle this issue?

Tycho
01-24-2002, 08:21 PM
First, welcome to the Star Trek thread Mandalorian Candidate.

Second, I don't really want to tackle this one. You nailed the issue exactly as the powers that be have left it. But that one Deep Space Nine episode did, as you said, attempt to point that out.

I wish they would tackle it. They could show what is happening to the Klingon people during this time - on Enterprise. Berman and company said they weren't opposed to it, they just didn't have a good story to use for it. I'm glad they are at least looking for a good story.

We could make up our own, and I think I thought of a good excuse for it before, but I don't recall it at the moment.

I just also wish they would tackle this one. We all know they didn't have the make-up budget back in the 60's. We also know that everyone likes the new Klingon look and to suddenly revert to "velcro" or whatever, after all the progress that has been made with looks for the Andorians for example, I think would have also been a mistake.

Maybe they started with Klingons a little too early - but they were there - right at the heart of the pilot episode - and WHY the ship launched early. So I guess they wanted new fans to see the Klingons they always thought were cool and not lose any viewers.

They still can write something that will answer these questions for us in the FICTIONAL universe though. I think it's a great creative challenge if they want to do more with the Klingons.

Perhaps humans save Klingons by giving blood or something and it causes some genetic mishaps that make Klingons start to appear more human in later generations. In order to prove they are warriors, all of these descendants of affected Klingons join the KDF (Klingon Defense Force) and consequently, that's what you see in all the Classic Trek episodes. Eventually, most die honorable deaths - but those like Kang, Kor, and Koloth that survive and live long enough, eventually grow more distinctive Klingon features. Maybe the human blood slows the evolvement of their pronounced cranial features, etc.???

When Worf says "It was a deeply personal thing," he means that Klingons who humans helped through selfless acts of blood donations or relief, or whatever, are embarrassed that they needed assistance. Especially in the era Trouble with Tribbles took place in - as every other Klingon could tell by looking at them that their parents were "Weak and dependant on human help" or something.

It also could have just been a Klingon-human inter-bred colony, which eventually is abandoned, and the half-Klingons all signed up for KDF service to prove they were Klingon enough.

These are very simple stories to tell. Hope Berman doesn't blow it and get some dumber idea. They gotta handle the Klingons carefully.

Well, what do you think?

SithDroid
01-24-2002, 09:17 PM
I was hoping that since this series took place before the original Star Trek that they would just have a lot of Christmas lights flashing in the background of their cardboard looking bridge.:D

If anyone years from now were to watch them in continuity order, they would go, Wow this Enterprise show's real cool, then for TOG boy what happened to the cool set and special effects, then for TNG wow this is still a little bit more raw than the beginning, but at least the stories are good, then for DS9 and Voyager wow cool sets and aliens, but what happened to the Enterprise.

Jayspawn
01-27-2002, 10:32 PM
I believe Berman said that he was not going to get into the topis of why modern Klingons like Worf look nothing like TOS Klingons like Koloth. Which sucks. Because I think they could explain it if they want to. Lazy Berman!

SithDroid
01-27-2002, 11:20 PM
I agree. It would make a great story and it's not like it isn't possible. They are being lazy.

JediTricks
01-28-2002, 01:05 AM
I think that TPTB are saying that if Roddenberry had the money and the technology in the '60s, that the Klingons would look as they do in modern Trek, so when you watch TOS, you're supposed to use your imagination to add head ridges and metallic costumes and fangs and such, and thus there is no need for an explanation. Of course, DS9 changed all that with their Tribbles episode, so I guess it'll remain a mystery for now.

I suppose on ENT, the plot could involve the Klingons genetically altering certain military factions to confuse their Human enemies or something, but it seems like DS9 kinda ripped the whole issue to shreds by making it stick out so badly and then having Worf acknowledge that there was something to it and he didn't want to discuss it. Even stranger is the DS9 characters that DIDN'T recognize those TOS people as Klingons, since that's something I'd think would be in the history books (between TOS and TMP, Klingons went from being swarthy guys with big eyebrows to forehead-ridged aliens, but we'll pretend it's not a significant change in our chief enemy's history?!? BAH! Damn that DS9 ep!!!).