Maybe?
I never liked Voyager as much as the other series' but I didn't find it to be unenjoyable.
When this country wasn't ready for Bruce Lee to play an Asian guy, Bruce Lee was still alive.
He died 40 years ago. Almost to the day.
|
Voyager's constant movement through the Delta Quadrant prevented much in the way of recurring themes or characters, which other Trek shows (particularly DS9, but also Next Gen, with Lwaxana Troi, or Enterprise with Shran) got to play around with.
I'd rather see a Star Fleet Academy teeny soap opera / schoolyard hijinks show, than another 'space trek.' Don't run away from the Federation setting (as Voyager did), embrace it.
And, for once, if the big bad threatens Earth, it might even be relevant to the cadets / teachers / etc., since the show will be set on Earth, instead of the increasingly forced rationales for why a ship named Enterprise stationed a zillion light years away has to constantly be re-routed across the galaxy to deal with a threat to Earth, as if it's somehow the only ship in Starfleet...
Or, heck. I'd settle for a decently written Star Trek cartoon. Time to bring back M'Ress and the three-legged dog-dude!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asian actors still have a hell of a time getting decent roles in Hollywood. They still prefer to whitewash a cast, or yellowface a white actor, rather than allowing actual asian actors. It's very odd.
Honestly? I'd prefer the new Trek dies. It has none of the flavor of the original show, none of it's spirit, none of the hope that humanity could be better. It's just lens flare and women in there underwear and everyone dies.
That, and I'm still bitter than by How Trek Works that J.J Abrams deleted all the original shows.
|
So absolutely no interest in a Series called Star trek: Kelvin with Tahir reprising his role as Star fleet Captain Richard Robau - perhaps with Kirk's Dad as his number two. With a Voyager type mission where they are out on the fringes of expanding federation space ending in the encounter with Nero and the Kelvin's destruction?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. I'd be interested in Michael Dorn's project about the adventure's of Worf's first command, though. 'Cos Michael Dorn. And Worf. And good Trek, not boobs and lens flare Trek.
Voyager?
New Trek?
Why not kick me in the head and the crotch?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was a bit confused by the OP. Since such a show would take place in Federation space, it wouldn't really be anything like VOYAGER, not to mention taking place in the Abramsverse.
As a STAR TREK fan, I think there should be a new show and it should be set in the Prime universe. The Abramsverse is nice for a side-trip and all, but it's retreading ground previously explored, only with less morality and character development and more giga-lens-flared explosions. The only TV show in the Abramsverse I'd like to see would be one with the film cast in it every week, and that's never going to happen.
For the next STAR TREK show, there would seem to be two alternatives. The first would be a new show that would pick up in real-time since the end of the 24th Century shows (i.e. if the new show started in 2020, it'd be 19 years since the end of VOYAGER, 21 since the end of DS9 and 26 since the end of TNG). The new show would have an all-new cast and would steer away from repeating the prior shows, but it would have scope for exploring a few dangling elements: the now-homeless-and-angry Romulans discovering that the Federation tricked them into a war, for example. The trick here would be to appeal to existing fans whilst not geting into a continuity frenzy that is offputting to newcomers. This is why I think I don't think a USS Titan or Captain Worf series would work. Bring in TNG/DS9/VOYAGER characters for the very occasional cameo (like Tom Riker and Q in DS9, or Lt. Barclay in VOYAGER), but no more than that.
The other alternative - which may actually be the better idea overall - would be to do the NEXT NEXT GENERATION and shoot ahead another 80-100 years with a whole new cast and a whole new situation and jettison all the prior baggage away.
Wouldn't want voyager rehash but would love to see new universe star trek show.
Nope. I'd be interested in Michael Dorn's project about the adventure's of Worf's first command, though. 'Cos Michael Dorn. And Worf. And good Trek, not boobs and lens flare Trek.
I would love to know what star trek you were watching. Because there was tons of sex and boobs in almost every incarnation.
Nope. I'd be interested in Michael Dorn's project about the adventure's of Worf's first command, though. 'Cos Michael Dorn. And Worf. And good Trek, not boobs and lens flare Trek.I would love to know what star trek you were watching. Because there was tons of sex and boobs in almost every incarnation.
I wouldn't say tons. Some, sure. Epsiodes where Deanna Troi ends up naked with her mother 'cos the Ferengi stole there clothes, for example, spring to mind, or the infamous 'four lights' with a naked Picard. It was hardly an every episode situation, however. Well, in the first four series...I never watched much Enterprise.
In the space of two movies, the reboot has put most of female characters in there underwear. Just two movies.
Also, lens flare.
I think a Star Trek vs. Aliens vs. Predator movie would be badass.
|
|
I could barely stomach Voyager. I never want to see a show done with the same premise.
Bu then I am in a minority who LOVED enterprise.
Me too. I'd rate 'em;
Deep Space NineEnterprise
Classic Trek
Next Generation
the cartoon series
a root canal
Star Trek / Buffy the Vampire Slayer crossover slashfic
Voyager
Enterprise only beats out the original series because it had something of a plot and arc, while Star Trek varied between awesome episodes and cringeworthy stuff (Brain, brain! What is brain?), sometimes back to back.
|
|
Honestly? I'd prefer the new Trek dies. It has none of the flavor of the original show, none of it's spirit, none of the hope that humanity could be better. It's just lens flare and women in there underwear and everyone dies.That, and I'm still bitter than by How Trek Works that J.J Abrams deleted all the original shows.
Thing is... after decades of reality being shoved in our faces, a lot of folks can no longer accept the facile and smug optimism of Trek, particularly as exemplified by Picard and Kirk.
Trek had been moving away from that long before Abrams. DS9 showed plenty of the dark side of Future Earth when the Federation was put into stress by the Dominion, as well as prejudice against the augmented Bashir. One might suggest that Abrams just simply finished what DS9 had begun.
I think the problem is polarization. A future can be hopeful and optimistic and have moved beyond many of the issues that face us today (resource limitations, hunger, tribalism, etc.) and *still* have occasionally grim situations show up and not be all pollyanna.
Instead of viewing the Federation future as some sort of rosy-colored utopia (that would utterly lack potential for drama), it's just moved on and has a completely new set of problems to deal with, and not just those 'other' races that haven't developed in a similar direction, but also with people inside the rosy future itself who want things to be different.
New prejudices will form, as our 'tribes' grow ever larger. The sorts of people who used to hate jews or blacks or gays will now be biased against Klingons or shapeshifters or genetically modified humans or whatever. New resource scarcities will exist, as Klingons and humans argue over who gets to mine dilithium on the Organian planet, and new economic and status disputes will crop up between races who care about such matters, such as the Ferengi. No matter how faux egalitarian things may be, in general, one needs look only as far as Lwaxana Troi, daughter of the third house, holder of the sacred whatever it was, to see that class and status and breeding are still factors for some Federation cultures, and it's been a part of Trek since they introduced Spock's family and made a big deal about how T'Pau attended his wedding because his family was such a big to-do in Vulcan society.
It seems like a reflection of the 'Erastil can't be LG' or 'Asmodeus can't have Paladins' arguments, an assumption that a 'good' thing can't have morally complex and even, by our personal views 'bad' elements and still be good, or, vice-versa, that a 'bad' person or organization or entity can't also have some good or right or even justifiable features. Everything has to be an over-the-top caricature of 'good' or 'evil,' which kind of trivializes the entire concept, and results in people (or organizations) being seen as some sort of monolithic machine, and not something more complex and confounding and ill-suited to being shoved into a box and categorized, like a human being, or a human-made society.
Of course the Federation is going to have ugly parts. It was made by people, and people come in all shapes and sizes and values and beliefs, some of them amazingly contradictory, *within the same individual.*
Anything with Jeri Ryan in a corsets I would watch.
Have you checked out Body of Proof?
Honestly? I'd prefer the new Trek dies. It has none of the flavor of the original show, none of it's spirit, none of the hope that humanity could be better. It's just lens flare and women in there underwear and everyone dies.
The new Trek is unlikely to "die" at this point. It is way too popular.
I don't like some of the changes J.J. Abrams made either, but the idea of a new Star Trek series, set in the "new timeline" might gain some traction (and pick up some of the new fans created by the movie).
Currently the reboot movies are limited by the fact that they are movies. This means that they do not have time for complex stories or deep character development.
So, consider the following:
This would provide some opportunities to develop and explore this new (slightly darker) Star Trek universe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly? I'd prefer the new Trek dies. It has none of the flavor of the original show, none of it's spirit, none of the hope that humanity could be better. It's just lens flare and women in there underwear and everyone dies.That, and I'm still bitter than by How Trek Works that J.J Abrams deleted all the original shows.
Thing is... after decades of reality being shoved in our faces, a lot of folks can no longer accept the facile and smug optimism of Trek, particularly as exemplified by Picard and Kirk.
Trek had been moving away from that long before Abrams. DS9 showed plenty of the dark side of Future Earth when the Federation was put into stress by the Dominion, as well as prejudice against the augmented Bashir. One might suggest that Abrams just simply finished what DS9 had begun.
I don't mind it going darker. DS9 is actually my favorite series. The episode where Sisko is confessing that he tricked the Romulan's, ensuring thousands of them would die, into the Dominion war is exceptional. But when I'm talking about the hope being gone, I'm talking as much about Rodenberry's vision that everyone is equal as the darker storylines.
It is...depressingly obvious when you watch the movies that they do not share the equality philosophy that the other series had. Women are pretty much there to be in there underwear and get a few minor plot points tossed your way. Non-white characters such as Sulu tend to get even less of a part than they did before. And if you're the apex of human genetics, you certainly have to be a white guy. And I'm not the only one who feels this way - check out what Levar Burton feels about the show for one of the more vocal Trek actors, but he certainly isn't alone.
There's really nothing Trek in the new movies. The character names and ship design is about it. JJ deleted most of the Mythos so he wasn't constrained by it, and can now do his own thing, but I view them in a similar way to the Resident Evil movies - OK for brainless action movie, but not anywhere near the series they were meant to be part of. Albeit somewhat better than those. Nothing can get it wrong quite as badly as the Resident Evil movies.
It is...depressingly obvious when you watch the movies that they do not share the equality philosophy that the other series had. Women are pretty much there to be in there underwear and get a few minor plot points tossed your way. Non-white characters such as Sulu tend to get even less of a part than they did before. And if you're the apex of human genetics, you certainly have to be a white guy. And I'm not the only one who feels this way - check out what Levar Burton feels about the show for one of the more vocal Trek actors, but he certainly isn't alone.
I agree. J.J. Abrams has a lot of (conscious or otherwise) racist and sexist issues.
There's really nothing Trek in the new movies. The character names and ship design is about it. JJ deleted most of the Mythos so he wasn't constrained by it, and can now do his own thing, but I view them in a similar way to the Resident Evil movies - OK for brainless action movie, but not anywhere near the series they were meant to be part of. Albeit somewhat better than those. Nothing can get it wrong quite as badly as the Resident Evil movies.
Remember also, that he was not a Trekkie (or Trekker or however you say it) when he was hired for the project.
However, deleting some of the Star Trek canon was not completely bad! Star Trek had developed Continuity Lock Out, so it was difficult to attract new fans.
Well, he deleted Original, Next Generation, DS9 and Voyager, along with all the movies up to the reboot...so a big Enterprise fan might be OK with it? And before someone says, 'but he didn't delete it, he set up an alternative timeline' check out every Star Trek episode involving time travel where they can't get back because the future has been changed by the actions in the past.
Honestly, going 'I'm not a Trekkie (or however you write it) and want to do my own thing, so I'll remove the entire series and write my own thing' seems both arrogant and lazy. There are ways he could have set up his alternative reality without messing about with the original, but frankly probably didn't know enough to bother trying. It wouldn't be so bad if he kept the spirit of the show present, even in the darker, grittier setting, but...
I'm really not looking forward to the guys version of Star Wars. I've always been a bigger Trek fan, but I like Star Wars.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Abrams did not delete anything, and it's getting tiresome to hear people say that.
Spock and Nero's trip to the past created an alternate timeline*. That timeline did not delete the Prime timeline, but it exists alongside it. However, it is not possible to access the original timeline from within the new one as they have become separated. Maybe the Guardian of Forever or Q could do it, but why would they? More to the point, Spock seems resigned to remaining in the Abramsverse to help atone for his mistakes in the past.
The continued existence of the original timeline is proven by:
1) The continued existence of Spock Prime. The original timeline collapsing would also result in Spock Prime (and Nero and his crew) vanishing, if not immediately than within a certain period as with the particles that temporarily shielded the Enterprise-E from the changed timeline in FIRST CONTACT but would have dissipated eventually.
2) The continuation of the 24th Century novels and computer games, particularly STAR TREK ONLINE. Though both the novels and ONLINE take place in their own splinter-timelines, Paramount could have ruled the cessation of all such projects to focus on the Abramsverse. This they have not done.
3) Paramount/CBS would arguably not be spending $9 million per season ($63 million in total! Or almost as much as a season of GAME OF THRONES) on the revamped STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION box sets for a series that has been retconned out of existence.
4) The comic book prequel for the movie, ruled as canon by the film's own writers, shows the TNG/DS9/VOYAGER timeline continuing to exist after Nero goes back in time.
* There is also an alternate fanon explanation that Spock and Nero's journey may have accessed a pre-existing different timeline. This would explain the differences pre-existing Spock and Nero's arrival or which cannot easily be explained by it, such as Khan's different appearance, the different appearance of the Klingons and their homeworld, and the different appearance of Federation technology and ships.
I'm really not looking forward to the guys version of Star Wars. I've always been a bigger Trek fan, but I like Star Wars.
I think Abrams, by himself, is a perfectly adequate director. Where I have problems is with 'Team Abrams', which also incorporates writers like Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof. Oddly, they're all adequate-to-good on their own or with other partners (as long as that partner isn't Michael Bay), but when in a team they just seem to get carried away with indulging themselves and not actually making good material. I think that was part of the problem with the two previous STAR TREK films.
However, with VII Abrams is working with Michael Arndt, who is a really good scriptwriter, and being advised by Lawrence Kasdan, who worked on and co-wrote EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI. I think that he has a much better chance of making a stronger film with such a team, rather than his familiar old gang.
I know the JJ and his folks claim it didn't delete the timeline. But watch any trek episode where they go back in time and change events. Yesterday's Enterprise, where reality was changed by the Enterprise C surviving (and being corrected by it returning, albeit with the slightly whacky alternative universe Tasha Yar), Past Tense, the Visitor and Time's Orphan in Deep Space Nine, Future End and End Game in Voyager...I'm sure there plenty of others. Hell, go watch First Contact. There's a scene in that where the Borg have altered the present and the entire Earth is Borg. Those establish a few rules.
1 - By going back and changing events, you change the future. Vulcan blowing up spring to mind as a fairly major change.
2 - Things from one timeline survive in another. See, Tasha Yar returning with the Enterprise C.
3 - Time can be brought back to an original point if it's close enough. See Sisko taking over the role of Gabriel Bell in Pat Tense.
Spock Prime is seen in rule 2, and thus proves nothing, as the timeline where the Enterprise C was sent forward in time no longer exists but Tasha Yar had a child, who of course went and screwed with Picard.
Point 3 has been removed by the destruction of Vulcan and the near extinction of the Vulcan people.
So yes, JJ can say what he wants. And the Marketing Machine. By the actual rules established in Trek itself, however, the Prime Timeline went bang with Vulcan.
The only current explanation is that, yeah, it's actually not Spock Prime and Nero wasn't from the Prime timeline either. Which is possible. It would also explain why all the ships are so damned shiny and reflective. But JJ seems intent that it's really Prime Spock. So, yeah. If it's Spock Prime, by Trek Rules, no more Prime Timeline.
...what do you mean, I'm a titanic geek?
You're talking about the malleability of one timeline. However, parallel-existing timelines also exist in the TREK universe, such as the ones seen in 'Parallels' plus, y'know, the whole Alternate Universe sub-plot running through DS9 and ENTERPRISE.
Based on the other changes, I think it's much more likely that Spock and Nero not only went back in time, but sideways into a pre-existing parallel universe as well. That would then not have any bearing at all on the Prime universe.
As we seen in both the canon prologue comic and STAR TREK ONLINE, in the Prime universe Vulcan has not been destroyed and Romulus remains obliterated (whilst in the Abramsverse it's the other way around). And, as much as we might wish otherise, Paramount and Abrams have, for the time being, final say and Word of God over the franchise. If they say the Prime timeline still exists, it still exists. That does not compel them ever to re-use it, of course, and it doesn't rule out further future reboots.
True. It's simply a case of by the rules they've established, it should have happened that way. And it annoys me that JJ was too lazy to do anything to prevent the issue other than 'By the power of LAWYERS, I handwave this away!' I know JJ wasn't a Trekie, but he could have at least asked someone if there might be a problem.
Me, for example. I have very reasonable fees.
You're talking about the malleability of one timeline. However, parallel-existing timelines also exist in the TREK universe, such as the ones seen in 'Parallels' plus, y'know, the whole Alternate Universe sub-plot running through DS9 and ENTERPRISE.
Actually, the Mirror Universe that you are referring to, is a different Universe, not a parallel timeline.
However, the TNG episodes Parallels and All Good Things (though less so, since Q was messing with things.) both support your original contention that once timelines diverge, they can continue independently.
Parallels supports it a bit, but only in that other realities can happen and you can jump between them. But that's also supported by the evil mirror universe. It's not shown to be the result of any kind of time travel, just divergent histories. It's possible for timelines where those events happened to exist - however, if someone changes time they alter that entire timeline. It doesn't form a new one. See Yesterday's Enterprise for that one.
And no, I'm not at all biased because the Enterprise C's captain was Rachel Garrett. Nope, not at all.
The only way for JJ to have his cake and eat it it too is if Spock Prime and Nero went back in time to an alternative universe's history. Which could actually have been explained, but eh, easier to use the handwaive.
Although Khan suddenly being too awesome to be non-white is never going to make sense.
Parallels supports it a bit, but only in that other realities can happen and you can jump between them. But that's also supported by the evil mirror universe. It's not shown to be the result of any kind of time travel, just divergent histories. It's possible for timelines where those events happened to exist - however, if someone changes time they alter that entire timeline. It doesn't form a new one. See Yesterday's Enterprise for that one.
And no, I'm not at all biased because the Enterprise C's captain was Rachel Garrett. Nope, not at all.
The only way for JJ to have his cake and eat it it too is if Spock Prime and Nero went back in time to an alternative universe's history. Which could actually have been explained, but eh, easier to use the handwaive.
Although Khan suddenly being too awesome to be non-white is never going to make sense.
good god, ricardo montalbon would be considered white as the day is long in my familys country, this non white khan thing is getting old. Cumberbatch is an amazing actor and did a fine job. And yes alternate universes continue and endure even if we are not there to watch them.
It is...depressingly obvious when you watch the movies that they do not share the equality philosophy that the other series had. Women are pretty much there to be in there underwear and get a few minor plot points tossed your way. Non-white characters such as Sulu tend to get even less of a part than they did before. And if you're the apex of human genetics, you certainly have to be a white guy. And I'm not the only one who feels this way - check out what Levar Burton feels about the show for one of the more vocal Trek actors, but he certainly isn't alone.Which Trek were you watching? In TOS, women were suited for either Answering Hailing Frequencies, Being seduced by Kirk, or Pining after Spock. In fact the last episode ever film featured a woman who was a villain mainly because she couldn't accept that women were not "fit to be Starship Captains". TNG wasn't much better. It dressed the Counselor in mini skirts, portrayed the Doctor as a suburban housewife. And then every Trek series afterwards the main female character dressed for fan service. The minorities of the orignal show practically screamed tokenism.
also this. Jon, you are viewing trek through some of the most grognardiest lenses I have ever seen, and I have a friend who has her picture with everyone from shatner to doohan and had to be bribed to watch voyager.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Although Khan suddenly being too awesome to be non-white is never going to make sense.
I completely agree. If everything before Nero was unchanged, then Khan should have been unchanged. He should still have been a from Northern Inida, probibly a Sikh (see Space Seed). You could change when he was revived, but all that from before would remain the same. In other words, while the actor playing him really should have been Hindi (and with the rise of Bollywood, several highly talented ones are available).
But then, why even do the Wraith of Khan story (and thereby invite comparisons)? Did Paramount order it be done?
Why create "Star Trek science officer 0718"? If Abrams wanted to split the roles of First Officer and Science Officer, it would have been an opportunity to introduce another female character (and address the somewhat legitimate criticism that the case is currently "too male").
I think it really has more to do with problems of Sexism and Racism. Two things that DO NOT BELONG in any incarnation of Star Trek.
I'm not saying Trek was perfect. But did another show even try to have a female officer in the first officer role at that point in time? How often did we see a male character topless compared to a female crewman in a bikini? It wasn't as bad as a lot of TV, even today. Game of Thrones springs to mind...the number of fully clad guys having sex with naked women is kinda mind boggling. Who doesn't get undressed for sex?
And yeah, some of the costumes are fairly dumb. I'd mention that male crew wear those miniskirts too in the Next Generation, but it doesn't happen often enough to make it much of a big deal.
I will say that, as a general rule, Trek treats women a lot better and more progressively than the new movies.
|
|
also this. Jon, you are viewing trek through some of the most grognardiest lenses I have ever seen, and I have a friend who has her picture with everyone from shatner to doohan and had to be bribed to watch voyager.It is...depressingly obvious when you watch the movies that they do not share the equality philosophy that the other series had. Women are pretty much there to be in there underwear and get a few minor plot points tossed your way. Non-white characters such as Sulu tend to get even less of a part than they did before. And if you're the apex of human genetics, you certainly have to be a white guy. And I'm not the only one who feels this way - check out what Levar Burton feels about the show for one of the more vocal Trek actors, but he certainly isn't alone.Which Trek were you watching? In TOS, women were suited for either Answering Hailing Frequencies, Being seduced by Kirk, or Pining after Spock. In fact the last episode ever film featured a woman who was a villain mainly because she couldn't accept that women were not "fit to be Starship Captains". TNG wasn't much better. It dressed the Counselor in mini skirts, portrayed the Doctor as a suburban housewife. And then every Trek series afterwards the main female character dressed for fan service. The minorities of the orignal show practically screamed tokenism.
You promised to marry her dressed as Uhura? Frankly Captain Janeway was a black glove thug when it came to her own ethics. The only reason she gave Seven of Nine any freedom was so she could swap the leash to another hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which Trek were you watching? In TOS, women were suited for either Answering Hailing Frequencies, Being seduced by Kirk, or Pining after Spock. In fact the last episode ever film featured a woman who was a villain mainly because she couldn't accept that women were not "fit to be Starship Captains". The minorities of the original show practically screamed tokenism.
Remember when it was made. The point is that Gene Roddenberry was trying, something that very few shows at the time were doing.
TNG wasn't much better. It dressed the Counselor in mini skirts, portrayed the Doctor as a suburban housewife. And then every Trek series afterwards the main female character dressed for fan service.
This criticism has more traction. Paramount was running things by this point; however, the fact is that Hollywood still has too many problems with both Race and Gender.
Worse, the use of "fanservice" in the later series was notably "Ham Handed." It was obviously "tacked on" rather then organic to the characters.
To be absolutely candid, the only reason the original pilot had "Number One" as a character, was that Roddenberry was doing Majel Barett at the time and he created the part for her. So of course given male attitudes at the time, the only way a woman could be acceptable as a leading role is that she had to have the emotions of a calculator. (and of course, like all other women on the ship, secretly pining to get the Captain in bed.)
Your cynicism is running away with you. This may be why Majel Barett was cast in the role, but it isn't what the character was there. There were a LOT of other places he could have used her.
I'd watch anything with Capt Janeway.
It was still better than most shows back then. Hell, it's better than half of them today.
How many of the named female cast members in the Reboot end up in there underwear? Bar Kirk and Spocks mothers, I believe it's all of them...and I can't remember if those two were named on screen. I don't think they were, actually.
How many of the named male crew ended up in there underwear?
I'm not arguing that Star Trek was the perfect show. I'm saying it tried to be better, and sometimes was. Not always. Just sometimes.
But by trying it's done a lot more than the new movies.
It was still better than most shows back then. Hell, it's better than half of them today.
How many of the named female cast members in the Reboot end up in there underwear? Bar Kirk and Spocks mothers, I believe it's all of them...and I can't remember if those two were named on screen. I don't think they were, actually.
How many of the named male crew ended up in there underwear?
I'm not arguing that Star Trek was the perfect show. I'm saying it tried to be better, and sometimes was. Not always. Just sometimes.
But by trying it's done a lot more than the new movies.
I think you and I are reaching the same point (at least on this issue) in our arguments.
There were LOT of other place he could have used her.Ah God...you went there...
I was referring to "using her as an actress." No I did not intentionally go there.
|
|
If the new version of Star Trek doesn't portray a positive future as in TOS and TNG, I'm not interested in it. If others like it, fine. Enjoy!
What TNG were you watching? Resources and decision making were not spread equally among all...and member worlds continued to be vile cultural backwaters.
I always wanted to see Star fleet cut off from Earth. Either by Earth's Destruction or an election terminating earth's membership in the federation it created. Maybe Earth is warped to an entirely other Galaxy setting in motion a new Trek Era.