It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
drealmer7: that bad
absolute shit
being shit
being shit
being shit
shit (95% anyway)
big pile of shit
you have some serious issues, dude!
avatar
drealmer7: that bad
absolute shit
being shit
being shit
being shit
shit (95% anyway)
big pile of shit
avatar
LootHunter: you have some serious issues, dude!
Indeed.
avatar
LootHunter: you have some serious issues, dude!
avatar
macuahuitlgog: Indeed.
my only issue is that people think absolute shit is good
avatar
drealmer7: it is that bad
avatar
macuahuitlgog: It can't be that bad because in many ways, it is like the previous Star Trek series. It follows a similar recipe. You have a Vulcan on the bridge who is a true Vulcan. Not emotional. You have a brilliant engineer chief. You have a doctor that is similar to McCoy. Of course, his character lacks depth compared to McCoy because he is just A.I. but he is similar to McCoy. You have a starship. You have exploration. You have battles. The series stays true to Star Trek lore. It just seems to me, you personally can't stand Captain Janeway and some other main character. Maybe her face or voice triggers an a negative emotional response in your brain.
There was so much more to Star Trek than just a Vulcan and a Doctor on a ship. The trimunitive of Kirk, Spock and Bones was such a great dynamic because, in an abstract sense none of them were complete persons. Kirk was brash and impulsive, Spock logical and rational and Bones passionate and moral. Taken together they were the Id, Ego and Super-Ego of the Enterprise. All three were needed to properly run the ship, and by splitting these personalities this way it allowed the series to show conversations and arguments that would have otherwise only been an internal dialogue. As to the adventure of the original series, yes it was scifi but it was also a western and a swashbuckler. The stories drew from classic themes and therefore resonated with it's audience. The Enterprise crew discovering a planet where they find an alien who visited Earth and was mistaken by the ancient Greeks as a god is not very different from the story of Odysseus encountering Circe or the cyclops. The Enterprise also had to deal with savage marauders and sleazy salesman that would have fit into any western novel or movie.

When TNG came along they lost a lot of these factors. They made Picard the conscience of the ship while Riker was the impulsive one and Data was clearly their attempt at Spock part 2. They also brought in more characters and archetypes such as the warrior Worf. However these characters were much more fleshed out, which allowed for deeper character development but lost some of the feeling from TOS. Also TNG had a lot more involvement with Starfleet than TOS. When Kirk was out exploring strange new worlds and seeking out new life and new civilizations he was, for all intents and purposes, Starfleet. Whatever he did or said would be the basis for how newly discovered worlds would see Starfleet. In a crisis situation he needed to make a decision and be entirely responsible for the results. He didn't have the luxury of opening a subspace channel to Starfleet to ask for advice. I imagine it would have been very similar to someone like Sir Walter Raleigh representing the entirety of Britain while searhing out El Dorado, no calling the Queen to find out how she would want a situation handled. This changed in TNG where Picard was seen as a competent captain because there is only a 17% chance that he would ever need to consult Starfleet before making a decision.

I was hopeful that Voyager, with the setup of having the ship completely cutoff from the rest of Starfleet, would get back to the more classic style of Star Trek exploration. Unfortunately the writers chose not to create real situations where problems would arise naturally, instead focusing on trying to sound more sci-fi like and throwing out as much useless jargon as they could. The conflict of any given episode was usually something along the lines of "oh no, our sensors couldn't detect the sub-delta radiation coming off the nearby anti-neutrino field and now our dilithium core is de-atomizing at the atomic level!" Then of course the only way to fix this nonsensical technobabel is with equally absurd sci-fi sounding word salad. "If we can realign the main deflector to emit an inverse theta field at the exact moment the quasars within the anti-neutrino field are in flux it might be enough to create a sub temporal hole where our dilithium can re-ionize itself and hopefully give us enough power to escape." I don't know if this was simply due to lazy fanboy nerdgasms or arrogant persiflage by the creators, but it made the show entirely unwatchable for me.
Hey, can someone tell me what ST series to watch after TNG (to be in the right order)?
avatar
Crosmando: Hey, can someone tell me what ST series to watch after TNG (to be in the right order)?
DS9 is the next series that was made. After DS9's first season, Voyager started. You should be able to watch the 2 shows independently since they take place on opposite sides of the galaxy. No crossover episodes were ever made to my knowledge.
avatar
BenKii: DS9 is the next series that was made. After DS9's first season, Voyager started. You should be able to watch the 2 shows independently since they take place on opposite sides of the galaxy. No crossover episodes were ever made to my knowledge.
Thanks.
avatar
BenKii: No crossover episodes were ever made to my knowledge.
Technically, the Deep Space 9 station appears briefly during the Voyager pilot, and in a later Voyager season someone mentions in passing something that is happening in DS9, but nothing that requires previous knowledge of the other show.

There were a couple of crossovers between TNG and DS9 but all of them ended conclusively in their respective shows.