RAH coined the term 'future history'. All his novels + characters/events were interconnected in a precise timeline.
|
|
|
What ruined star trek?
- Thread starter bigpoppa
- Start date
RAH coined the term 'future history'. All his novels + characters/events were interconnected in a precise timeline.
TNG tried to be everything for everyone, and that was it's downfall. It meandered all over the place, upholding the prime directive, breaking the prime directive, abandoning Riker . . .
I Prefer a more pure science-fiction to science-philosophy and the newer but ever proliferating formulaic science-romance.
As far as authors go, I'd put my vote towards Asimov.
p.s. some of Heinlein was just weird and more towards fantasy. Grok!
From famousauthors.org:
"
Possibly the most popular of the “The Big Three of Sci-Fi”, Asimov was a biochemistry teacher by profession and a prolific science fiction writer. He published over 500 books with books included under ever section of the Dewey Decimal Classification except for philosophy. His three major series of novels set the stage for modern sci-fi novels much like Heinlein.
Best Books:
Foundation Series
Galactic Empire Series Robot Series:
I Prefer a more pure science-fiction to science-philosophy and the newer but ever proliferating formulaic science-romance.
As far as authors go, I'd put my vote towards Asimov.
p.s. some of Heinlein was just weird and more towards fantasy. Grok!
From famousauthors.org:
"
Possibly the most popular of the “The Big Three of Sci-Fi”, Asimov was a biochemistry teacher by profession and a prolific science fiction writer. He published over 500 books with books included under ever section of the Dewey Decimal Classification except for philosophy. His three major series of novels set the stage for modern sci-fi novels much like Heinlein.
Best Books:
Foundation Series
Galactic Empire Series Robot Series:
Enjoy all three. I find Clarke and Asimov to have a more Utopian attitude about the future, where as RAH tended to look at it with more of a 'what would humans really do in this situation?' approach.
That's why I consider Alien to be the best Sci-fi movie made to date (actually a Gothic horror, to be precise). The future ain't gonna be Star Trek. It will be corporations out for profits and people just trying to make bank. Scott borrowed heavily from RAH for the screenplay. Nefarious corporations considering their employees expendable to the bottom line. Parker and Brett balking at investigating the distress signal, and Dallas reminding them doing so is in their contract and they'll lose their shares (pay) if they don't is a perfect example of what it will most likely end up being.
And I've always been a Giger fan.
And I've always been a Giger fan.
KLR Junkie
Well-known member
To return to the title question, I don't think that Star Trek has been ruined at all. Every iteration has been completely different, appealing to audiences that have changed over time. In general, people these days are more aware of science, especially fictional science so the methods used in the older shows don't work as well.
As a little kid I loved watching reruns of TNG but they just don't hold up very well from a technical point of view. The scientific principles underpinning the TNG universe are changed all the time so that the writers could move the story along. It's not something that I noticed as a kid but it really stood out when I started re-watching it a couple of years ago. Voyager suffers from the same problem.
DS9 stands alone as a more procedural/personality driven show that I think stands the test of time a bit better just because it's not as focused on the science part of science fiction.
I was quite enjoying Enterprise before it was cancelled, if only for the different spin it put on the Star Trek universe (no all-powerful Federation to back them up, just flying by the seats of their pants). The decision to use the Vulcan as the sex symbol was questionable. You'd think that an advanced alien race would be able to create more realistic fake boobs...
The JJ Abrams movies were OK. Good action but probably would have benefited from including a bit more Trek lore instead of trying to appeal to a wider audience.
As for Disco, they didn't do themselves any favors by placing it immediately prior to the Kirk era. It forced them to go sideways to avoid screwing up the Trek universe timeline too much. As a result the story-lines are a little, different, shall we say than other Trek shows. Not bad, just different.
Sorry for the essay, I'm bored at work today.
As a little kid I loved watching reruns of TNG but they just don't hold up very well from a technical point of view. The scientific principles underpinning the TNG universe are changed all the time so that the writers could move the story along. It's not something that I noticed as a kid but it really stood out when I started re-watching it a couple of years ago. Voyager suffers from the same problem.
DS9 stands alone as a more procedural/personality driven show that I think stands the test of time a bit better just because it's not as focused on the science part of science fiction.
I was quite enjoying Enterprise before it was cancelled, if only for the different spin it put on the Star Trek universe (no all-powerful Federation to back them up, just flying by the seats of their pants). The decision to use the Vulcan as the sex symbol was questionable. You'd think that an advanced alien race would be able to create more realistic fake boobs...
The JJ Abrams movies were OK. Good action but probably would have benefited from including a bit more Trek lore instead of trying to appeal to a wider audience.
As for Disco, they didn't do themselves any favors by placing it immediately prior to the Kirk era. It forced them to go sideways to avoid screwing up the Trek universe timeline too much. As a result the story-lines are a little, different, shall we say than other Trek shows. Not bad, just different.
Sorry for the essay, I'm bored at work today.
bigpoppa
Well-known member
Ds9 is probably my favorite tv show after the wire, the characters were magnificent,
I would agree with others that good sci fi is sci-philosophy, most trek stuff in the 21st century has too much lense flare and not enough good writing.
Fancy explosions, shiny starships, and corny romance cant make up for great storytelling
I would agree with others that good sci fi is sci-philosophy, most trek stuff in the 21st century has too much lense flare and not enough good writing.
Fancy explosions, shiny starships, and corny romance cant make up for great storytelling
sburns
Well-known member
Yeah, that kind of ruined it for me.
I disagree, Picard comes across, wrong, as, the Captain, of the, Enterprise, for me; while sex sells, it doesn't satisfy.
The only thing good there was Q.
Dirty Frank
Well-known member
Hate me if you want but reading the title "what ruined star trek" i cant help but think reaching puberty did it for me.
|
|
|
|
|