Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Film School Rejects)   If the internet had existed when Wrath of Khan hit theaters   (filmschoolrejects.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Wrath of Khan, Star Trek, plot holes, Leonard Nimoy, trekkers, The Sound of Music, Gene Roddenberry, Walter Koenig  
•       •       •

6449 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 21 May 2013 at 9:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



90 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-21 02:27:40 PM  

Confabulat: gilgigamesh: Confabulat: Sgt Otter: He doesn't go full batshiat crazy until they maroon him on a rock and his wife dies, after "Space Seed."

Uh, he stole the Enterprise way before then.

Well yeah, because that is a pragmatic move for a despot seeking to get his mojo back.

But after 15 years stranded on Ceti Alpha, he's gone insane and is interested solely in a murderous revenge campaign against his white whale.

Always with the whales isn't it.


Interstellar Whale Probe sees what you did there, and is coming to blast the ever loving fark out of your oceans.
 
2013-05-21 02:32:37 PM  

chewielouie: Carth: mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.

Sorry people who didn't like ST:ID but you're a minority. A very vocal one, but with 86% faovirable rating among critics and 89% among viewers you can whine all you want people enjoyed the movie.

This. I especially like the attempts by some Farkers to make people who liked Star Trek Into Darkness feel stupid for doing so.


Gimme the dunce cap then cause, fark it. I enjoyed the damn film alot. Sure there were clumsy bits (how did they get the Enterprise under the ocean without being seen?) and you could see the Deus Ex Machina ending with Khans blood if you had at all been paying attention from the moment Kirk entered the containment unit but so what? Did anyone really think Kirk was going to die for real?

 Overall I like it better than any other ST film I've seen other than WoK itself, and even then it's only because the film isn't complete without having seen WoK so it can hardly be seen as superior.

Nerdrage on haters, this nerd has embraced ST with actors who can actually do action Wout looking ridiculous and that avoids the fuzzy communist attitude that Roddenberry tried to push. Don' like it? Quit watching.

Nerdrage away folks
 
2013-05-21 02:53:38 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: io9 totally tore the movie a new asshole: (warning: spoilers)


That was amusing for sure but even as a Trek fan (not a Trek nerd mind you) I thought the movie was very enjoyable and I *liked* the references to Wrath of Khan.
 
2013-05-21 03:03:48 PM  
The degree of JJ Abrams apologism on the net this last week has come to toxic levels.
 
2013-05-21 03:11:11 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: The degree of JJ Abrams apologism on the net this last week has come to toxic levels.


C'mon, nerd. It's an enjoyable movie. Why, theaters only had to clean the front edge of every seat because of how exciting and action-y it was. And that's more important than any criticism you could have because of plot, characters, or Star Trek.

And if you still don't like STID, then just lay back and think of England while watching it.
 
2013-05-21 03:43:42 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: The degree of JJ Abrams apologism on the net this last week has come to toxic levels.


I'm not apologizing for liking a movie that either A) you haven't seen; or B) you did see, which would be odd behavior for someone determined to hate a movie. There's obviously C) that you just watched it illegally or read reviews online instead of forming your own opinion, but I'll hold you to a better standard than that.

Why do you think anyone needs to apologize for liking a movie? I don't. Do you? Weird.
 
2013-05-21 03:44:52 PM  
My favorite part of STID was when anikin was fighting that bad guy on top of the flying car and then had to jump down to a lower car being flown by Obi Wan but then he almost fell but didn't fall. That was super awesome. Then they had water rocket boots to swim down to submerged star ship. No one in the entire production of a $280m movie thought that sounded retarded.

Hated ST09, really enjoyed this one, but it was stupid as hell
 
2013-05-21 04:17:12 PM  

FuryOfFirestorm: io9 totally tore the movie a new asshole: (warning: spoilers)


I haven't seen the movie yet... please tell me this synopsis is not true... please!!
 
2013-05-21 04:25:51 PM  

mekki: Sorry, ST;ITD defenders. Using the argument of, "Oh, yeah, well The Wrath of Khan was a bad movie too" doesn't make your movie any less lousy by default.

Honestly, I don't think the new movie would be getting such flack if it had stayed away from cribbing so much from The Wrath of Khan and done something original. They could have created a whole new villain or used a lesser known and developed one and built a whole new mythology around him/her. Give something the new versions to call their own.


Maybe in the JJ Abrams reboot series, odd numbered films are good and even numbered are bad.  And yes I know they don't use numbers, but I'm just using this as an example.

/I liked it though
//it wasn't Insurrection or The Final Frontier bad
 
2013-05-21 04:31:01 PM  
That was cathartic.  When did "nerd culture" get boiled down to "you're stupid for liking things?"
 
2013-05-21 04:39:21 PM  

das_klaun: That was cathartic.  When did "nerd culture" get boiled down to "you're stupid for liking things?"


It has been for a while. It's either "You're stupid for just now liking stuff I've liked for years and was picked on because of it." or it's "You're stupid for liking new things loosely based off the old stuff I like."

There's just no pleasing some nerds.
 
2013-05-21 05:40:50 PM  
Well, considering I've heard that it's both TOO much like the original and NOT ENOUGH like the original, I just have to assume that the truth falls somewhere in-between.  There really wasn't anything I didn't like, because I got over the little things.  Can't wait to watch it in IMAX and own it on Blu-ray.

/watched Star Trek growing up but never obsessed over it
 
2013-05-21 06:12:54 PM  

frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.


Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.
 
2013-05-21 06:15:17 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.

Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.


If the movie didn't contain Spock's death, I doubt it would be so popular.
 
2013-05-21 06:37:02 PM  

bborchar: B.L.Z. Bub: frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.

Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.

If the movie didn't contain Spock's death, I doubt it would be so popular.


Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.
 
2013-05-21 06:45:17 PM  

Khellendros: FeedTheCollapse: huh, I knew about the rumors that Khan would be in the new movie, but I didn't know it was an official thing until I read this thread. I'll probably see the movie when it comes to Redbox or something, but the more I hear about it, the less I like.

I seem to be in a minority (on Fark) who liked the last film, despite some glaring flaws, but everything I've seen from the new film just seems like Generic SciFi Action Film with the names of Star Trek characters grafted on top. It doesn't strike me as a reinvention so much as "not originally written as a Star Trek script."

The problem is the nerdrage group is expecting a traditional Star Trek movie with the "elements that made it classically Star Trek".  They fail to realize they're never going to get that, because that formula is gone and sells TERRIBLY.  It killed the TNG movies, which had only one success in four attempts, and the last two TV series clunked pretty badly outside of the core enthusiast group.

The formula that worked for Trek 20+ years ago is gone.  It's not coming back anytime soon.  The new direction is to go the way of the Marvel movies - big budgets, big effects, nostalgia moments, lots of polish, with big twists on old favorites.  Studios will always take Transformers movies over a Gatacca.  They make money, jump demographic groups, and allow for mass marketing beyond the intellectual movie-goer.  That's what they want, and honestly, it's what Trek needs right now (yes, I realize how sad of a state that is for the general public to have to say).

Trek's franchise fatigue was killing it, and they needed something new.  This is it.  Sure, it may turn over to something headier in later iterations, but let them get established financially and get a new fan base in place.


So much this. Deep Space Nine was the last Trek series to do anything new and interesting. The bean counters reacted to it not being a mega-ratings monster like TNG by saying "Maybe people don't like it because it's not Monster of the Week, Problem of the Week, Aesop of the Week, status quo is God, sail off into the stars, rinse and repeat next week style of TOS and TNG! We'll make ANOTHER Trek series that goes back to the amazing formula that everyone loved and demands!". And so Voyager became TNG Lite, Trek comfort food. You tuned in every week and knew you were getting the same thing each time. And Enterprise... ugh, raping the canon of the franchise, anyone? Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis played like two-hour big-budget TV episodes, and had a host of their own individual problems, the biggest of which was they were all (and First Contact, too) "The Picard And Data Show! Also starring these other people".

The franchise was circling the drain. It needed fresh blood and energy to survive. Abrams provided it, and while it's not exactly like what came before that's a good thing. The franchise can try different directions, take chances, retell old stories with new twists while making new stories. At its core it's still Star Trek. It's merely evolved to adapt to today. Franchises that don't evolve die out.
 
2013-05-21 06:51:41 PM  

bborchar: Well, considering I've heard that it's both TOO much like the original and NOT ENOUGH like the original, I just have to assume that the truth falls somewhere in-between.  There really wasn't anything I didn't like, because I got over the little things.  Can't wait to watch it in IMAX and own it on Blu-ray.

/watched Star Trek growing up but never obsessed over it


I liked while I was watching it but like it less having thought about it after.  I guess the problem I have is not that it's "not enough like the original."  In fact, I'm pretty sure a cliched tagline would be "Not Your Father's Star Trek."  And I could be fine with that.  The problem I have is that, even though the creators have set up this alternate universe in which literally anything can happen, they went and cannibalized the most beloved film in the series for pieces that it didn't know what to do with.  It's like they wanted to do their own thing, but wanted to do fan service at the same time.  Instead it just comes off as bad fanfiction: "What if the Federation found Khan before the Enterprise did and forced him to help them develop weapons and then the Federation tries to start a war with the Klingons and only the Enterprise can stand in the way and Kirk and Khan have to team up to stop them, only Khan betrays Kirk and tries to destroy Starfleet?  Awesome!"
 
2013-05-21 06:58:10 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: bborchar: B.L.Z. Bub: frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.

Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.

If the movie didn't contain Spock's death, I doubt it would be so popular.

Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.


It's not bad, just not that good. The only really good things are Ricardo Montalban's performance and Spock's death. Also, the plot isn't spectacular; aside from the "Genesis" idea, there isn't much "high concept" sci-fi to it, it's just one long chase sequence.
 
2013-05-21 07:11:38 PM  

B.L.Z. Bub: It's not bad, just not that good. The only really good things are Ricardo Montalban's performance and Spock's death. Also, the plot isn't spectacular; aside from the "Genesis" idea, there isn't much "high concept" sci-fi to it, it's just one long chase sequence.


Whatever. At least the plot makes sense, which from everything I've read is more than can be said for STID.
 
2013-05-21 08:03:46 PM  

ThatBillmanGuy: bborchar: B.L.Z. Bub: frepnog: gilgigamesh: Just rewatched WoK last night, and realized that Khan and Kirk are not once in the same room together. All the tension and sparring between them is via communicator.

what is really bad is when you learn that not only were they never in a room together but their scenes were shot months apart with Khan acting against some chick.

damn movie magic.

Aside from Khan, the acting in that movie is laughable. Kirk literally does the "jaw drop" expression when Khan first shows up on the communicator. It's an overrated movie I'd say.

If the movie didn't contain Spock's death, I doubt it would be so popular.

Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.


I never said it was a bad movie, I said that everyone remembers it for the Death of Spock.  Without it, it would have been just another Star Trek movie.  I agree that the acting is subpar compared to movies today, though.  It's a classic, and we forgive those things because of Nostalgia (like Star Wars).
 
2013-05-21 08:07:35 PM  

gilgigamesh: B.L.Z. Bub: It's not bad, just not that good. The only really good things are Ricardo Montalban's performance and Spock's death. Also, the plot isn't spectacular; aside from the "Genesis" idea, there isn't much "high concept" sci-fi to it, it's just one long chase sequence.

Whatever. At least the plot makes sense, which from everything I've read is more than can be said for STID.


Helps if you actually watch the STID instead of going off "what you've read".  It makes sense, it's just whether you can accept the changes and get over the minor plot holes.
 
2013-05-21 08:17:43 PM  

gilgigamesh: B.L.Z. Bub: It's not bad, just not that good. The only really good things are Ricardo Montalban's performance and Spock's death. Also, the plot isn't spectacular; aside from the "Genesis" idea, there isn't much "high concept" sci-fi to it, it's just one long chase sequence.

Whatever. At least the plot makes sense, which from everything I've read is more than can be said for STID.


Try experiencing it yourself instead of making assumptions from what others say.
 
2013-05-21 08:18:41 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: I get that, though I think the complaint of "the only resemblance to TOS begins and ends with the names of the characters" is certainly a valid complaint: If it doesn't resemble Star Trek beyond the characters' names, why bother calling it Star Trek? It kind of strikes me as taking a risky script and making it more sellable by changing all the names to something recognizable (albeit in a relatively cult sense).


This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.
 
2013-05-21 08:36:50 PM  

mjbok: FeedTheCollapse: I get that, though I think the complaint of "the only resemblance to TOS begins and ends with the names of the characters" is certainly a valid complaint: If it doesn't resemble Star Trek beyond the characters' names, why bother calling it Star Trek? It kind of strikes me as taking a risky script and making it more sellable by changing all the names to something recognizable (albeit in a relatively cult sense).

This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.


Because prequels and interquels have been done before, and are bound by the fact you have to take into account what is set after them (though that didn't stop Enterprise from shiatting all over established canon). And it would have been more of the same, for the hundredth time.

Abram's Trek is free to do what it wants, to go where it wants, without having to worry about what's been established, because it's set in a universe/timeline that's still being created. TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY still exist and are still doing their thing in the Prime universe/timeline. As someone said upthread, the old formula just doesn't work anymore. Trek was stagnant, the franchise limp, it needed to evolve and do something different. Yes, not everyone will be happy with it, but it's better than letting the franchise die and fade away, and the only ones who are major Debbie Downders are the super-nerds mired in nostalgia and demanding everything be how they want it to be.
 
2013-05-21 09:00:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Because prequels and interquels have been done before, and are bound by the fact you have to take into account what is set after them (though that didn't stop Enterprise from shiatting all over established canon). And it would have been more of the same, for the hundredth time.


Sequel route or concurrent (both non-Kirk) would have worked.  I honestly would have respected it more if they just said, "fark it, we're rebooting it" and not had the stupid prime/non-prime timelines.  It would have been more legitimate (to me).  As it was they messed around with people's ages and still (20 years after the timeline split) they end up together on the Enterprise.  They should have just done an origin story, and erased (or ignored) the existing history.  They tried to have it both ways, which feels like an easy out, a writer's crutch, a cheat.

Star Trek (09) would have been a decent action film by itself.  They could have had Ensign Martin (improbably) get command of the flag ship of the Federation and it would have been better (once again to me).
 
2013-05-21 09:21:56 PM  

mjbok: Keizer_Ghidorah: Because prequels and interquels have been done before, and are bound by the fact you have to take into account what is set after them (though that didn't stop Enterprise from shiatting all over established canon). And it would have been more of the same, for the hundredth time.

Sequel route or concurrent (both non-Kirk) would have worked.  I honestly would have respected it more if they just said, "fark it, we're rebooting it" and not had the stupid prime/non-prime timelines.  It would have been more legitimate (to me).  As it was they messed around with people's ages and still (20 years after the timeline split) they end up together on the Enterprise.  They should have just done an origin story, and erased (or ignored) the existing history.  They tried to have it both ways, which feels like an easy out, a writer's crutch, a cheat.

Star Trek (09) would have been a decent action film by itself.  They could have had Ensign Martin (improbably) get command of the flag ship of the Federation and it would have been better (once again to me).


How is it "not as legitimate" by being an alternate universe/timeline? It's still basically a reboot, except without saying that everything that came before never happened. Nero's actions caused things to happen differently in the new universe/timeline, but some things are meant to be across all continuums (the Imperial universe had everyone on the Enterprise in the same positions, despite the vastly different way their universe played out).
 
2013-05-21 09:33:55 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: How is it "not as legitimate" by being an alternate universe/timeline?


That's why I included the (to me).  I know this movie wasn't written for me, but much like the prequels it doesn't mean that we can't complain about it.

An alternate universe and alternate timeline are two different things.  The Prime timeline wasn't even the same before Nero in this version of events anyway.
 
2013-05-21 10:33:07 PM  

mjbok: FeedTheCollapse: I get that, though I think the complaint of "the only resemblance to TOS begins and ends with the names of the characters" is certainly a valid complaint: If it doesn't resemble Star Trek beyond the characters' names, why bother calling it Star Trek? It kind of strikes me as taking a risky script and making it more sellable by changing all the names to something recognizable (albeit in a relatively cult sense).

This is the problem I had/have with the reboot.  They used a lazy writing out to get things to be how they wanted, completely changed things that based on the timeline split point shouldn't have changed, etc.  I'm not a huge Trek fan (have seen most of TOS, all of TNG, and a handful of the rest), but saw all of the pre-reboots in the theater.  That means I saw more Trek movies in the theater than any other series.

There was no reason not to have the new Trek either be:  unseen stuff within the five year mission (other than no one can die) or have it be different Trek.  It could be the same time period, during the B or C Enterprises, or even post Picard E.  Or F, or G...there just was no non-$ reason to make it Kirk's Enterprise.  It would be like if the BBC started the Doctor Who revival with a flashy remake of An Unearthly Child.


to clarify: I don't have a problem with them rebooting the series in an alternate timeline... i just don't think they've really done much with the idea. It feels more like they're trying to make Star Trek to be Star Wars. That's necessarily a bad thing, but it just strikes me as the films being named Star Trek solely for some kind of name recognition than a genuine interest Star Trek.
 
2013-05-21 10:37:43 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: to clarify: I don't have a problem with them rebooting the series in an alternate timeline... i just don't think they've really done much with the idea. It feels more like they're trying to make Star Trek to be Star Wars. That's necessarily a bad thing, but it just strikes me as the films being named Star Trek solely for some kind of name recognition than a genuine interest Star Trek.


Considering that JJ is a self-proclaimed non-Trek fan (or was), this shouldn't be surprising.
 
2013-05-21 10:43:18 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: to clarify: I don't have a problem with them rebooting the series in an alternate timeline... i just don't think they've really done much with the idea. It feels more like they're trying to make Star Trek to be Star Wars. That's notnecessarily a bad thing, but it just strikes me as the films being named Star Trek solely for some kind of name recognition than a genuine interest Star Trek.



ftfm
 
2013-05-22 12:40:58 AM  
Star Trek Online is free-to-play, pretty popular, and takes place in the Prime universe post-Romulan destruction. Plus it has Leonard Nimoy narration.

People who complain that the new Treks are retreading old ground can just play the damn game if they want that universe. It's happening right now.
 
2013-05-22 12:54:58 AM  
Just saw ST-ID ... Loved it. Wife loved it.

/Star Trek nerd
 
2013-05-22 03:39:09 AM  

ThatBillmanGuy: Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.


Not suddenly.  I've always thought the entirety of Star Trek was overrated crap.  TOS was probably awesome in its day but its day was a long, long time ago.  The acting was by and large amateur theatre bad, and if it aired these days people would laugh it off as shallow "monster of the week" "CSI in Space" crap.

/Watched TNG because I had a crush on Wil Wheaton
//It was better than TOS in that the actors could actually act
///Also better scripts, better character progression
 
2013-05-22 04:19:31 AM  
I think we're missing the real problem here.

Would Ebert have put spoilers like that in his review?
 
2013-05-22 09:48:07 AM  

if_i_really_have_to: ThatBillmanGuy: Seriously? So Wrath of Khan is a bad movie now? I liked Into Darkness a lot more than I expected to, but it doesn't suddenly make all of the old stuff into overrated crap, like all of Fark is suddenly trying to claim, apparently.

Not suddenly.  I've always thought the entirety of Star Trek was overrated crap.  TOS was probably awesome in its day but its day was a long, long time ago.  The acting was by and large amateur theatre bad, and if it aired these days people would laugh it off as shallow "monster of the week" "CSI in Space" crap.

/Watched TNG because I had a crush on Wil Wheaton
//It was better than TOS in that the actors could actually act
///Also better scripts, better character progression


Star Trek has never been "overrated" by anyone but its most devoted fans.  TOS was always terrible and honestly at the time I don't believe that many people thought otherwise.  The draw of Trek has little to do with the actual quality of the provided programming; rather, it is the universe created and that people would love to live in it.  As far as TNG being better, well of course it was.  The acting was better ( in some cases anyway.  TONS of people on that show could act no better than any of the original show's cast), the set design was superior and the show actually got 7 seasons so it had time to grow beyond the horrid first seasons (which are mostly just as bad as the original show) and become a decently written show.

The truth is this - as a lifelong Trek fan, Trek was just stagnant.  The people in charge of the IP had pretty much just dropped the ball.  The shows mostly sucked (DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help, Voyager always sucked, Enterprise was an abomination), the movies sucked (ALL of the TNG films suck, even the good one, First Contact, SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS).

I knew JJ had done well when I sat in the theater in 2009 watching Star Trek for the first time and within the first 15 minutes I already cared about the characters and shed tears for them.

Stop with the "bad fan-fiction" crap.  JJ's Trek IS Star Trek now, so you'd better all get used to having FUN, EXCITING Trek movies that actually DON'T SUCK.
 
2013-05-22 10:10:56 AM  

frepnog: DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help


Have to disagree with that. DS9 was a lot better than TNG. The writing was better, the action was better and humans actually acted like humans.
 
2013-05-22 10:36:04 AM  

Mugato: frepnog: DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help

Have to disagree with that. DS9 was a lot better than TNG. The writing was better, the action was better and humans actually acted like humans.


I can't get behind that.  I am not saying the show had no value, and it did ok, but most Trekkers IMHO don't lend much credence to the show beyond "yeah, I watched it some".  There are few if any DEVOTED DS9 fans.  Trek is about TOS, TNG, JJ Trek and the movies and shows that those situations brought about.  No one wanted a DS9 movie and it would have failed had one been filmed.
 
2013-05-22 10:55:19 AM  

frepnog: Mugato: frepnog: DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help

Have to disagree with that. DS9 was a lot better than TNG. The writing was better, the action was better and humans actually acted like humans.

I can't get behind that.  I am not saying the show had no value, and it did ok, but most Trekkers IMHO don't lend much credence to the show beyond "yeah, I watched it some".  There are few if any DEVOTED DS9 fans.  Trek is about TOS, TNG, JJ Trek and the movies and shows that those situations brought about.  No one wanted a DS9 movie and it would have failed had one been filmed.


I enjoyed DS9 until they brought Worf in, then it became the Worf show.  I completely stopped watching when Jadzia died, because she was one of the better characters.  I have no idea how it ended, nor do I want to.  I agree about the rest, though.  We stopped watching a few episodes into the first season when aliens said "This drink is like your water"...WHAT???  Aliens that can breathe the same air as humans don't have effin' water???  Of course, it dove into more stupidity by getting a guy pregnant with an alien baby.  We cut it off and never watched it again.
 
2013-05-22 01:21:18 PM  

frepnog: No one wanted a DS9 movie and it would have failed had one been filmed.


A DS9 movie would have been awesome. The Dominion War, Section 31....Star Wars and James Bond all rolled into one. Yeah, you're right, it wouldn't make a dime. But it would have been awesome.
 
2013-05-22 04:06:24 PM  

frepnog: Mugato: frepnog: DS9 was never really all that good, retooling didn't help

Have to disagree with that. DS9 was a lot better than TNG. The writing was better, the action was better and humans actually acted like humans.

I can't get behind that.  I am not saying the show had no value, and it did ok, but most Trekkers IMHO don't lend much credence to the show beyond "yeah, I watched it some".  There are few if any DEVOTED DS9 fans.  Trek is about TOS, TNG, JJ Trek and the movies and shows that those situations brought about.  No one wanted a DS9 movie and it would have failed had one been filmed.


Eh, too bad for them. I got tired of the same-old same-old Monster of the Week, Problem of the Week, sailing off into the status quo, no one really develops style of the other Trek series when they made Voyager specifically because they thought DS9 wasn't getting TNG-level ratings because it wasn't the same old stuff. DS9 could and did actually tell over-arcing stories, develop the characters to a degree no other series did, weave intricacies and plot lines into a web that had repercussions all through the series. There was little status quo, and no character was sacred. "In The Pale Moonlight" is one of, if not the, best episodes in all of Trek.

bborchar: I enjoyed DS9 until they brought Worf in, then it became the Worf show. I completely stopped watching when Jadzia died, because she was one of the better characters. I have no idea how it ended, nor do I want to. I agree about the rest, though. We stopped watching a few episodes into the first season when aliens said "This drink is like your water"...WHAT??? Aliens that can breathe the same air as humans don't have effin' water??? Of course, it dove into more stupidity by getting a guy pregnant with an alien baby. We cut it off and never watched it again.


DS9 didn't become "The Worf Show". He was a lot more involved in the plot than he was in TNG, but that's because he barely did anything in TNG. For seven seasons and four movies Worf was that big surly Klingon who fired the Enterprise's weapons, and that was it. The most we got to see of any other facet of him was when other Klingons were involved. That was the nice thing about DS9 it focused on the actual characters as much as it did on the plot. Worf got more character development in 3.5 seasons of DS9 than he did in all of TNG. And let's not forget Miles O'Brien, the occasionally-seen transporter operator of TNG who became a very central character in DS9. Even the villains were very well-done and fleshed out, there are few other Trek bad guys who come close to Gul Dukat's level of intricacies.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report