• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Star Trek

As an 'old school' fan of Trek I think, as Pete says, it's playing in to the 'adult humour cartoon trend' which IMO is waning. I like - not love - Lower Decks for it's references and digs at the whole franchise. Without the humour, it's nice to see a take on the not-heroic members of Star Fleet.
All the latest meant-to-be-serious iterations of Trek, such as Discovery, leave me disinterested with disgust.
They've rinsed all the light-heartedness and wonder and optimism out of the franchise, replaced it with introspective doom, paranoia and darkness in a study of what's gone wrong with the whole Federation thing and how one character - Michael Burnham - is the saviour of it and mankind, leaving everyone else as incompetent opposition. The writing feels like fanfic from a teenage Goth.
For instance, Star Fleet is still a military organisation, right? So how much back-talk, insubordination, disobeying orders and cussing would they get away with on one ship, let alone the Fleet itself?
Yeah - I geddit; this is a grown-up thing, right? Teens can rebel against authority so, by extension, an adult who has gone through a rigorous training and selection process to make them professional officers ... only to get behind a console and show the teachers ... er ... senior officers what they're doing wrong!
*boke*
All in my not-so-humble opinion, o'course. ;)
 
I've not seen Lower Decks or Strange New Worlds, but Discovery and Picard left me cold. It's like someone who has never seen the show skimmed over the Memory Alpha site, and got the typewriting monkeys to bash out the complete arse gravy that is Discovery and Picard.
 
I found Picard to be saddening.
Take a wise and caring much-loved hero, age him, and put him in a world the polar opposite to the one in which he went through struggles and pain to 'do the right thing'.
Every episode seemed to force his character more and more into insignificance. Why have a titular hero if you're going to mock and torture that character, with no redemption or grace? In fact, let's hold him up to ridicule in every episode - "What's up, granddad? Never used a phaser before? Just shoot 'em!"
It was just another "Let's take the old Star Trek universe, turn down the lighting, and make it grim with no possible optimism."
 
Being a life-long Star Trek fan is something of a roller-coaster ride.
The magic of TOS and the powerful stories in TNG were definitely the peaks for me. DS9 had its ups and downs (more up than down), but Voyager was just bumping along the bottom with some wince-making comedy characters and gross overuse of the holodeck. Enterprise was OK - just, but Discovery plumbed the depths once more. Picard started off far too slowly, but the nostalgia kick just about kept the momentum going into a surprisingly upbeat and fun second series. After the huge disappointment of Discovery, SNW once more saw Star Trek at the top of its game. None of the three cartoon versions really figured on my radar, although I would like to revisit the original animated series sometime.
 
So, Kirks glasses that he gets as a gift from Bones and then pawns in 'The Voyage Home'.
I think it is Scotty who is with him who says something like "But they were a gift from Bones, Jim!"
And Kirk replies with something like "And they will be again, that's the beauty of it."

So those glasses.....is that one pair of glasses that never had a 'beginning' date, never actually got made but have just existed eternally going round and round in a time loop?
Or does a pair already exist and Kirk has just added a future pair back into the time period that they travel back to, thus creating 2 of the same object THAT MUST NEVER MEET!
 
Trevp666 said:
So, Kirks glasses that he gets as a gift from Bones and then pawns in 'The Voyage Home'.
I think it is Scotty who is with him who says something like "But they were a gift from Bones, Jim!"
And Kirk replies with something like "And they will be again, that's the beauty of it."

So those glasses.....is that one pair of glasses that never had a 'beginning' date, never actually got made but have just existed eternally going round and round in a time loop?
Or does a pair already exist and Kirk has just added a future pair back into the time period that they travel back to, thus creating 2 of the same object THAT MUST NEVER MEET!
Click to expand...

That scene always annoyed me too.
Or as Spock would say "most illogical Captain."
 
Trevp666 said:
So, Kirks glasses that he gets as a gift from Bones and then pawns in 'The Voyage Home'.
I think it is Scotty who is with him who says something like "But they were a gift from Bones, Jim!"
And Kirk replies with something like "And they will be again, that's the beauty of it."

So those glasses.....is that one pair of glasses that never had a 'beginning' date, never actually got made but have just existed eternally going round and round in a time loop?
Or does a pair already exist and Kirk has just added a future pair back into the time period that they travel back to, thus creating 2 of the same object THAT MUST NEVER MEET!
Click to expand...
blessmycottonsocks said:
That scene always annoyed me too.
Or as Spock would say "most illogical Captain."
Click to expand...
+
Coal said:
Or was it meant as a throwaway gag, not meant to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
It was Spock and Kirk, and it was meant to be a demonstration of time travel - glasses left in the 1980's will be given as a gift in the 2280's to be left in the 1980's, etc...
 
Dinobot said:
+

It was Spock and Kirk, and it was meant to be a demonstration of time travel - glasses left in the 1980's will be given as a gift in the 2280's to be left in the 1980's, etc...
Click to expand...
So, with a mysterious (but never explained) relationship between whales and 'some destructive alien force' is resolved by time travelling humans from the future, who travel back into the present day, kidnap a bunch of humpback whales, park an invisible spaceship in a public place, just happen to invent transparent aluminium along the way, take the whales back to the future...and the glasses gag is the biggest issue anyone has with the plot?
:rofl:
 
Dinobot said:
It was Spock and Kirk, and it was meant to be a demonstration of time travel - glasses left in the 1980's will be given as a gift in the 2280's to be left in the 1980's, etc...
Click to expand...
Okay so Spock and Kirk then - I knew I didn't need to look it up cos someone on here would put me straight.
So anyways....that's my whole point, if it is the very same pair of glasses then they are just repeating the same loop of time - for the glasses their existence is perpetual, unending, timeless. They have no beginning and no end, and their existence is infinite, and creates a paradox that should not be able to exist. How can something exist that was never created, and only exists because of the time travel? For had they not travelled back in time and left that pair there, then that McCoy of the future would not have been able to give those glasses to Kirk.

If that pair of glasses is not the same pair, but merely a pair of identical design, then he has introduced an additional (future) version of a pair of glasses back into a period of their own past (assuming they were originally made at some date prior to the 1980s).

And the remaining option is that it IS the same pair of glasses, but an additional pair of the same pair of glasses, which is now co-existing as both it's younger version and older version at the same time.
Much like when Spock meets his older self in the more recent Star Trek films, although his older self is from a different future.
And stuff.
 
Trevp666 said:
Okay so Spock and Kirk then - I knew I didn't need to look it up cos someone on here would put me straight.
So anyways....that's my whole point, if it is the very same pair of glasses then they are just repeating the same loop of time - for the glasses their existence is perpetual, unending, timeless. They have no beginning and no end, and their existence is infinite, and creates a paradox that should not be able to exist. How can something exist that was never created, and only exists because of the time travel? For had they not travelled back in time and left that pair there, then that McCoy of the future would not have been able to give those glasses to Kirk.

If that pair of glasses is not the same pair, but merely a pair of identical design, then he has introduced an additional (future) version of a pair of glasses back into a period of their own past (assuming they were originally made at some date prior to the 1980s).

And the remaining option is that it IS the same pair of glasses, but an additional pair of the same pair of glasses, which is now co-existing as both it's younger version and older version at the same time.
Much like when Spock meets his older self in the more recent Star Trek films, although his older self is from a different future.
And stuff.
Click to expand...
The answer to all of your questions is Yes.
 
Trevp666 said:
Okay so Spock and Kirk then - I knew I didn't need to look it up cos someone on here would put me straight.
So anyways....that's my whole point, if it is the very same pair of glasses then they are just repeating the same loop of time - for the glasses their existence is perpetual, unending, timeless. They have no beginning and no end, and their existence is infinite, and creates a paradox that should not be able to exist. How can something exist that was never created, and only exists because of the time travel? For had they not travelled back in time and left that pair there, then that McCoy of the future would not have been able to give those glasses to Kirk.

If that pair of glasses is not the same pair, but merely a pair of identical design, then he has introduced an additional (future) version of a pair of glasses back into a period of their own past (assuming they were originally made at some date prior to the 1980s).

And the remaining option is that it IS the same pair of glasses, but an additional pair of the same pair of glasses, which is now co-existing as both it's younger version and older version at the same time.
Much like when Spock meets his older self in the more recent Star Trek films, although his older self is from a different future.
And stuff.
Click to expand...
They are an example of ouroboros glasses, and the less said about the better, lest it summon Mothman!
 

Wikipedia Star Trek Into Darkness controversy​

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(An excerpt of the January 30, 2013, xkcd cartoon by Randall Munroe about the extended talk page discussion)

From December 11, 2012, until the end of January 2013, a stylistic disagreement unfolded between editors on the English-language Wikipedia as to whether the word "into" in the title of the Wikipedia article Star Trek Into Darkness should be capitalized. More than 40,000 words were written on the article's talk page before a consensus was reached to capitalize the "I".

Controversy​

Director J. J. Abrams planned to release the film Star Trek Into Darkness in April 2013. Its title did not contain a colon after "Star Trek", such as in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and eight other Star Trek films. The "I" was to be capitalized in Abrams's April release, but Wikipedia's manual of stylestipulates that prepositions fewer than five letters are not to be capitalized.

The discussion which would decide if Wikipedia should lowercase or uppercase the "I" in the word "into" in the film's title unfolded at the article's talk page from December 11, 2012, to January 9, 2013, and then was picked up again from January 13 to January 31, 2013. The dispute to either adhere to or make an exception to Wikipedia's guideline stretched to over 40,000 words.

A major area of the controversy concerned whether or not "Into Darkness" was a subtitle of Star Trek Into Darkness, which was not clear without the colon. If it were a subtitle, as with every other Star Trek film with a title longer than two words except for Star Trek Generations, then Wikipedia's manual of style would recommend that "Into" be capitalized as the first word in the subtitle. The opposing side argued that it would violate Wikipedia's policy against original research to assume that "Into Darkness" was a subtitle, that Star Trek Into Darkness may have been intended to be read as a sentence, and that it would support the studio's marketing strategy to allow "Into Darkness" to be interpreted as a subtitle. If "Into Darkness" were not a subtitle, then Wikipedia's manual of style would recommend that "into" be uncapitalized as a four-letter preposition. Furthermore, the uncapitalization camp argued that Abrams said that the film's title would not have "a subtitle with a colon".

The side in favor of capitalization further argued that both secondary and primary sources used a capital "I". In an outburst, an unregistered Wikipedia vandal wrote "READ THE GODDAMN OFFICIAL WEBSITE,[a] YOU POMPOUS IDIOTS". As a compromise, the lead for the article initially read "Star Trek into Darkness (usually written as Star Trek Into Darkness) ..." before consensus was reached for the capitalization of "I".

Reaction and aftermath​

On January 30, 2013, Kevin Morris wrote in The Daily Dot, "When it comes to world class pedantry, few groups can challenge the prowess of Wikipedians and Star Trek fans".

During the dispute, cartoonist Randall Munroe wrote and drew a January 30, 2013, xkcd comic strip making fun of the edit war, depicting an editor who resolved the edit war by rewriting the title as "~*~StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs~*~".

A month after the conflict had ended, the dispute was still interfering with Google searches for Star Trek Into Darkness—searches for the film would return the title with a lowercase i, even though by that point the argument had been decided in favor of the capitalized I. Morris commented that the incident shows the impact small groups of Wikipedia editors can have, especially in situations more severe than a simple capitalized letter.

The 2016 Christian Science Monitor article "The Source Code of Political Power", by Simon DeDeo of Indiana University, used the debate as one example of how Wikipedia is an evolving system of ideas and found comparison to the Talmud. Accordingly, DeDeo opined that Wikipedia was moving towards increased complexity, refinement, and bureaucracy.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Star_Trek_Into_Darkness_controversy
 
You'd have thought it would have been simply and quickly resolved by ....ooooh...I dunno....maybe asking JJ if it should be capitalised or not?
 
Trevp666 said:
You'd have thought it would have been simply and quickly resolved by ....ooooh...I dunno....maybe asking JJ if it should be capitalised or not?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it would have to be asked by - and the reply published by - someone other than the person editing Wikipedia. (Original research not allowed!)

Also, the question would have to be "is it a subtitle?" Sunce Wikipedia does not blindly follow non-standard capitalization in such matters.
 
It should be noted that neither of these resources uses the two word onscreen title of the Abbott and Costello film "Meet Frankenstein".
 
Um. Our high school teachers taught us that into, an insignificant preposition, should not be capitalized in titles.
 
I was taught English Language - got 'O' levels an' everything - but I have never remembered more than basic grammar terms; things like 'insignificant preposition' mean nothing to me. :)
 
Whether or not the grammatical requirements dictate that the 'i' in 'into' shouldn't be capitalised is irrelevant - the use of the word in the title of the film was decided by JJ Abrams, in much the same way that 'happiness' is mis-spelt in 'The Pursuit of Happyness' and also in the way both 'inglorious' and 'bastards' are mis-spelt in 'Inglourious Basterds'.
It was deliberately chosen to be used like that, possibly in some sort of artistic direction.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
Today's Guardian tells of the proposed ST plot that never came to fruition - and probably just as well!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...tain-kirk-and-the-resurrection-that-never-was
Click to expand...
He keeps rabbiting on about plot holes but fails to spot the one in his own argument.

He discusses the story idea of Kirk's father being resurrected from transporter buffers after a failed attmept at a transport from the USS Kelvin as it is destroyed. Somehow leaving the transporter buffers intact. From this he seems tothink that the transporters keep a copy of every person who has used them. Its a buffer, it holds them then spits them out, no copy kept.

I realise I may be over thinking this...
 
stu neville said:
Though as mentioned they did use the device in the TNG episode Relics, which actually works OK, the difference being Scotty's ship was drifting rather than having been destroyed.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was an enjoyable episode - but mainly due to the nostalgia kick of seeing Scotty again.
There was also the STTNG episode featuring the socially awkward Reginald Barclay. He overcomes his fear of transportation to discover multiple missing crewmembers trapped in the transporter.
I could see then that the transporter, rather like the holodeck, was in serious danger of becoming an overused deus ex machina (one reason why I lost interest in Voyager).
 
Also there was an episode (I think in Voyager) in which the transporter is used to recombine the two versions of a crew member (created by an alien for nefarious purposes) using patterns previously stored.
I think.
Was it B'ellana Torres?????
 
Oooh....Ooooh....
Also with Kirk in TOS when he gets split into two versions of Kirk - one good and one evil.
 
Trevp666 said:
Also there was an episode (I think in Voyager) in which the transporter is used to recombine the two versions of a crew member (created by an alien for nefarious purposes) using patterns previously stored.
I think.
Was it B'ellana Torres?????
Click to expand...
There was also one where Tuvok and Neelix get combined to become 'Tuvix'.
 
Them pesky transporters. I can see why McCoy doesn't trust them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top