Posted on 08/11/2016 9:59:59 PM PDT by TBP
To boldly go . . . back to 1995!
Wednesday at a Television Critics Association panel in Beverly Hills, Calif., Bryan Fuller, executive producer of “Star Trek: Discovery” (premiering in January on CBS, then airing on CBS All Access), revealed that a woman will be the new show’s main character.
But this isn’t the typical self-righteous Hollywood back-slappery that launched a thousand Medium.com essays. Nor is it the Girl Power! casting of summer’s “Ghostbusters” flop, nor the newly announced all-female “Ocean’s Eight” caper. “Star Trek” has always done diversity the right way.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“and actively discourage others to skip too”
Let the skipping begin.
Picard was ill-conceived. He was about as French as William Shakespeare.
TOS:
The yardstick by which almost all other science fiction shows are measured. Thank you writers for stealing the show from Roddenberry and making the three personalities we all know and love (Kirk, Spock, and Bones) the main impetus of the series. With some great side characters like Scotty, naturally.
TNG:
Sucked for the first two seasons. Was closer to Rodenberry’s vision of an ensemble cast, which sucked. Eased away from that, became better. Picard still talked too damn much. Less diplomacy, more photon torpedos please. Q and his ilk were terrific recurring characters. Klingons and their lives and politics were intriguing. Finally, the Borg made for good old supervillians that were plain evil - kind of like Nazis, in space.
Deep Spam Can:
Good drama, good sci-fi, but Star Trek without a starship? Meh. Still watchable. Sisko was badass, the Ferengi were an interesting Randian viewpoint cast as an alien society, the Cardassian/Bajoran/Jem’Hadar conflicts were a decent exploration of warfare and genocide themes.
Voyaj-her:
Couldn’t take one season of this one. Too many goofy alien species, too much of a dumb premise, too much RESPECK MAH CULCHAS, the GRRL POWAR of an obvious token female captain, a holographic doctor, and a black Vulcan made it completely off the rails for me. Introduction of regular space T&A to boost ratings confirmed my assessment of the series.
Enterprise:
Meh. Not bad. Broke canon. Decent characters. Tried to re-capture some of the TOS magic, but nothing could ever do that. Once again, gratuitous T&A showed that the producers had no confidence in the series and no respect for the audience.
BTW, as an instant watch/don’t watch guide for TNG, anytime you see the Will Riker character WITHOUT a beard, turn the channel.
Janeway sucked. I could not stand that show and wanted to airlock her character most of all- which is what her second officer should have done if he had any testicles. I grew up watching repeats of TOS and TNG and my favorite was DS9, but she made watching Voyager grating and insufferable.
If they are going to create a new Star Trek, of all the previous shows to copy don’t make it Voyager.
Yes! Absolutely correct. And it is because of this she was an incompetent commander who should have removed by her second before the end of the first episode.
Yes I agree. Evolutionary science has proven that men are leaders. Not women. Although there are few great female leaders in history, they are an exception rather than the rule. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Joan of Arc all come to mind.
Serious? I can’t stand Janeway.
I received some insider info on the new series.
I episode 1, she will try to parallel park the Enterprise and wrecks it. The rest of the season will be filmed at the dry dock and focuses on girly stuff.
Star Trek has historically handled hot button political topics cleverly and with class. Janeway was a quality captain because they didn’t spend a single moment on “she’s a woman” and just let her focus on being a good Captain.
The new show Supergirl suffered from this exact “just a girl” preaching thing in its first few episodes. It got much better when they cut that junk out and just let her be the heroine she is. Hopefully a Star Trek learns from that lesson without having to go through it on its own.
Mostly crap. There were a few gems, but mostly crap.
I've been introducing my children to the original series. I've been noticing a lot of stuff in the original series that I don't like and hadn't previously noticed, but it's still worlds better than the later dreck that was produced under the "Star Trek" franchise.
Which doesn't prove that it was good.
I see all sorts of things wrong with the reboots, but I still found them entertaining.
What I find annoying with movies supposedly set in the future is the need to keep using demonstrably obsolete technology. In the Last movie, for example, (Star Trek Beyond) it shows the ship being overwhelmed by "swarm bots", but current technology would make short work of such an attack, so how much more so would it be able to do so in the future?
If we had a laser powerful enough to fry each bot individually, we could target and fry such a swarm before it could move close enough to pose any threat.
But then, there goes your plot. Such a plot simply wouldn't work with a future grounded in reality.
Ask the Romans.
I liked Captain Pike.
This is a normal aspect of pretty much any Hollywood production. Yes, Star Trek is big on pushing internationalism, Socialism, and U.N. Control, but it is not the only show that does this. Everything they make nowadays, does this.
Picard was the best by far...
I liked Sisco next...
Kirk...
Archer was a better version of Janeway... but still dangerous to his crew and the ship.
Janeway was a hazardous ditz... always getting the crew in trouble because of the so-called prime directive...(in the GAMMA quadrant?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.