TetsuoShima Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 In one way, I hate DS9 for ruining Star Trek. In a way TNG was about good vs. evil, DS9 changed that into, we're all evil, some just a bit more than others. At least there was still fun to be had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 lmao in no way did DS9 ruin star trek lol the truth is TNG was to squeaky clean and did not really reflect what the human race is really like, DS9 probably was a more accurate reflection of what we are like to a certain degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Science FICTION, it is not meant to reflect exactly how things are now. Star Trek is about hope to me. So making it seem like humans still have so much to learn after 400 years is dissapointing. I'd rather hear about how wonderfully good we might become after 400 years, then hear about things going horribly wrong. If I want to view thing going horribly wrong, I may as well watch the evening news... *rolleyes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Yeah I agree with with what we like us to be like in 400 years, but the stark reality is this aint gonna happen, humans are to confrontational in nature and greedy. Humans will never be like the humans showin in star trek, if anything humans are more like klingons and the Ferrengi, we always get into wars with each other, we forsake things like the well being of others, the enviroment in the name of aquiring wealth. Gene had a very good vision when he created star trek and as much as we would love to see us evolving in this manner its gonna take much longer than 400 years to acheive (if it is ever acheived at all). To be honest humans will probably be much more like the humans in battlestar galactica than Star Trek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USWhoFan Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 To be honest humans will probably be much more like the humans in battlestar galactica than Star Trek. So true. :thinking: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 USWhoFan I notice you got promoted again! I'll check the promotion thread to see if this was recent or if I've simply been gone too long. May I wish you a belated congratulations! I think the star trek utopian vision for humanity is achievable if society is willing, otherwise it will continue as it has all this time. DS9 showed that not all is rosy in the star trek universe, which makes sense because the flagship is much better than a rundown space station on the fringe. I would have preferred that star trek keep more to a theme of exploration than the constant conflict that we saw on ENT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I agree with TetsuoShima - Star Trek was about hope. The notion that the peoples of Earth would grow up and stop being squabbling children. The fact the reason for that was "oh, a bunch of pointy earred guys showed up." As far as I can tell... Somehow I don't think it'll be quite that easy but it IS fiction and it was more about the exploration of that morality than how it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I would have preferred that star trek keep more to a theme of exploration than the constant conflict that we saw on ENT. very true, only snag is would star trek run for as long as it did if it was only "exploration" as we had this with TOS, TNG and Voyager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I would have preferred that star trek keep more to a theme of exploration than the constant conflict that we saw on ENT. very true, only snag is would star trek run for as long as it did if it was only "exploration" as we had this with TOS, TNG and Voyager. Not with Berman and Braga at the helm. Even Jeri Taylor wasn't that great either. Micheal Piller (I think that's his name) was good. He made TNG awesome without it being another ENT. Something tells me star trek would not have lasted long at all if it was all ENT back in the 1980s. Ugh, they could have at least come up with a more original name for the fifth series than enterprise. 'Hey Berman and Braga, what should we call the new series? Please don't call it Grand Caravan in the tradition of Voyager.' 'No no, nothing that mundane. We'll just call it Enterprise.' 'Uhhh, we already had six ships called enterprise. Shouldn't we come up with something original?' 'Of course not, that would take effort. We can't do that.' 'Just don't name the captain George W. Bush.' 'D'oh! Now we need a new script.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 5, 2008 Share Posted April 5, 2008 Yeah, Enterprise was never going to be a success. The very CONCEPT was flawed and with the likes of Berman and Braga at the helm... well, it was never going to be headed anywhere except down the swanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Underscore Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Enterprise had its charms. But, as I mentioned in another thread, its concept is far too tired. A ship. Exploring. Only this time we, the audience have to act surprised when we meet a race that we've known about forever, and they're just meeting. That charm dissolves rather quickly. I'd say, three seasons too quickly, hm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Even Enterprises theme tune was pants lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now