Skip to comments.Does Star Trek Even Make Sense?
Posted on 05/01/2003 10:58:43 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
click here to read article
The liberal duo of Brandon Braga and Rick Berman have ruined Star Trek.
Tammy Bruce explains it all in her book, The Death of Right and Wrong.
Spock, yes, but Leonard Nimoy, no.
I used to belong to his fan club. He's an idiot lib.
I checked out Bakula's Trek but couldn't stomach it. And after seeing the lady captain actress on Craig Kilborne's show cheerleading the audience to vote for Gore, I stopped watching her spinoff.
No matter what, Captain Kirk did the right thing. Sure, he ended up in hot water for breaking the retarded Prime Directive all the time, but in the end he was always proven correct. In contrast, Captain Archer could be replaced with Kofi Annan, and no one would be able to tell the difference.
Fortunately for those of us who would like a real return of Star Trek to the American vision of TOS, Enterprise's ratings are really bad, and the last TNG movie bombed. Perhaps after this series ends we can take a 10 year break and start over.
1. It is a fresh start, the temperal cold war should be a hint that they are not going to follow the old time line.
2. It is NOT ladened with political correctness, it has a little now and then, but nothing like ST:Next Generation, DS9 or Voyager.
3. They are not the biggest boys on the block and they know better than to act like it.
4. The human characters actually act like humans and not like wooden pc riddeled puppets.
5. Archer reminds me of Kirk, except that he smart enough to know better than to screw every pretty alien female that he meets. Die hard Terkies, you have to admit that Kirks love life did can back to haunt him on a couple of occasions.
6. Trip is a gentleman, who acts like a gentleman. And he has a sense of humor and is pro-life to boot.
7. In the Enterprise series there is not always a happy ending, there ARE unintended consequences, like in Cogenitor. Trip meant well but things happen.
8. The show is somewhat linear, in that what happens in the last episode is carried over to the next episode.
9. No one really wants to use the transporter. The crew of the Enterprise is intellegent enough to know that it is not a good idea to screw around with your own molecules.
10. The doctor of the Enterprise has come up with the most creative way yet to use a tribble, as petfood for his many animals.
This woman is so right, it's wrong.
TNG was just awful:
1. Data the android held rank in Starfleet. How would you like to compete for rank against, or serve under a robot?
2. Will Stryker was a 14 year old Ensign that hadn't even been to the Academy yet. How would you like to serve under that?
3. Counselor Troi was an empath who Picard had to get say-so from before he could use his weapons against aliens. A liberal psychologist is the prime commander in Starfleet's navy, to put it another way. Jim Kirk just said 'Fire!'.
4. Semi-domesticated Klingons manned the guns on Picard's ship. Not in Jim Kirk's navy, they didn't.
Old Star Trek had it right: When they got shore leave, it was all about finding sex and drinking yourself into a stupor like REAL sailors do. I saw none of that in TNG.
I always like the space westerns best. I was never too interested in guys painted half white and half black, or space hippies looking for paradise.
My single most favorite episode from TOS was "the Doomsday Machine." The guest star was William Windom, as Commodore Decker, Captian of the Constellation. It was a great screenplay, with fine acting, and a compelling story.
A close second would be the episode about Captain Kirk's duel with the reptilian Gorn. I'm a geologist and am very familar with the "Vasquez Rocks" area where the battle scenes were shot. I realy enjoyed the slithering reptilian dialog ... "I will be mericful, Kirk." And then the cliffhanger, will Kirk outwit his physically superior opponent with technology!
What makes the TOS characters better is the tension between McCoy and Spock, with Kirk in the middle. He emoted, sure, but it was honest, and you ended up rooting for the guy in the end, no matter how overacted it was. Picard & Lameway, on the other hand, always have this need to try to understand and negotiate. Had Kirk encountered those fuzzy-haired guys in Voyager, he would've shot first and negotiated later. "You want technology? Here, have some....ZAP!" Case closed.
What bothers me about Enterprise is that it is supposed to be set before TOS, but the characters act like the ones in TNG, and later. Nobody seems to have any balls, except Tripp; he seems to be the brashest of the lot, which should reflect the world at that alleged time: energetic, headstrong, etc, not the "Well, let's tread cautiously and not upset the gays who might be watching..." What they need is a villain who won't negotiate, who doesn't care to "understand" earth, or Archer, or anything, and who can pretty much kick their butt. No political correctness, no niceties, no prisoners.
TOS was written at a time when the underlying political situation was that the American way is the best way: cold-war Klingons could go pound sand. Nowadays, nobody has the right to call "foul" because of multiculturalism and the misguided belief that all cultures are as valid as the next one. (Maybe an episode where everyone is invited to shore leave by the Planet of the Cannibals.....) Archer doesn't emote, except to his dog, and that makes him a sorry captain. At least Picard and Janeway got pissed every once in a while. This guy, though....yeesh.
The producers need some testosterone shots or SOMETHING.
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.