Star Trek discussion

edited September 2011 in General Chat
There is a thread about Star Wars, so I'm creating one about Star Trek.
Anything Star Trek, not just games.


First, I've been looking around for downloadable Star Trek games to no avail. It would seem that I'm not the best at taking care of my old PC game media, and as such am not able to readily locate my Armada, Armada II, Away Team or A Final Unity CDs.

Fortunately, I often made disc images of games that I own, but it still would be rather nice if I could buy these online, or to expand my library with such as Starfleet Command or Bridge Commander.
«1

Comments

  • edited September 2011
    Some of the old Star Trek Original Series adventure games were tops. That 25th Anniversary one is awesome.
  • edited September 2011
    You never could tell the difference between a dicrystalline ethoriter and a dicrystalline etherizer being implemented to the FTL drive core when it was being used in the enterprise!

    If someone can explain me how this can be explained according to the anthropic priniciple i will give you a subspace transgenic biopunk i bought from a Star Trek store.

    :p
  • harrisonpinkharrisonpink Telltale Alumni
    edited September 2011
    Everlast wrote: »
    You never could tell the difference between a dicrystalline ethoriter and a dicrystalline etherizer being implemented to the FTL drive core when it was being used in the enterprise!

    If someone can explain me how this can be explained according to the anthropic priniciple i will give you a subspace transgenic biopunk i bought from a Star Trek store.

    :p

    It's really quite obvious. One sits directly behind the deflector dish and enables the ship to take tachyon pulses and "invert" them. Any time Picard uses an "inverse tachyon beam", it's directly caused by the dicrystalline ethoriter. The dicrystalline etherizer attaches to the front of the ram scoop allowing ionized hydrogen particles to be collected and used to flood plasma conduits in case of warp core breach.

    It's simple, really.
  • edited September 2011
    I was never really into Star Trek, but since the shows popped up on Netflix I've been watching them constantly. I like TNG a lot, and the other series are all okay. TOS holds up surprisingly well. I watched one episode of the Animated Series, and I think I'm done with that. I like Enterprise more than I expected, but I'm kind of sick of it by now. Still not crazy about Voyager, although it slowly grows on me. DS9 isn't on Netflix yet so I've only seen a couple of episodes of that.

    I like how every episode of TNG seems to be genuinely thought-provoking in some way, in terms of universal issues that you can relate to. Voyager seems to be trying to do that, it just doesn't do it nearly as consistently or as expertly. Enterprise occasionally tries but it seems to mostly be straightforward adventure stories by comparison.

    Interestingly, the first episode I ever saw of any Star Trek series was several years ago, and it was the TNG episode "Family," in which Picard visits his brother in France, and Worf is visited by his parents. Just that one episode, completely out of context. It's a good episode now that I know what was going on, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the worst possible entry points to the series. Not sure how that happened. I basically completely forgot about the experience until I rewatched it on Netflix.

    I'm starting to slow down now, since I've watched every Q episode, nearly every cross-series cameo episode, every Borg episode (of TNG, not all the Voyager ones yet), and most of the episodes that I've seen recommended in various top 10 lists. If anybody here has any suggestions of hidden gems among the shows, I'll check them out.
  • edited September 2011
    I do love DS9. There's a lot of character development and recurring guest stars. It also discusses religious belief, which TNG unfortunately treats as archaic.

    I'm actually a fan of all the series, except for TOS. Many of TOS' plotlines are extremely similar to each other (eg. an alien/robot attacking or invading the ship; a robot killing/controlling all life it encounters which can only be defeated by telling it that itself is evil; the away team on a planet is being killed off except for the senior staff; etc.) and it may be renown for addressing certain social issues of its time but I'm not old enough for those to speak to me like they might have to my parents.

    And of course there's the rule that the even numbered Trek movies are the best (ie. Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Nemesis) with the exception of the newest movie, Star Trek XI (2009), which is one of my favorites.
  • edited September 2011
    Enterprise started strong, broke down in the middle then picked up a bit. There were two or three key cast members who disagreed with the producers and directors about the direction of the show, which was also tied to network meddling.

    DS9 sort of lost the point of Star Trek, in a good and bad sense, depending on where you stand. If you like Battle Star Galactica and Babylon 5 and the more action oriented (while still meaningful) direction, then those were good for you. If you enjoyed the more idealistic TOS and TNG shows that tried to portray a more idealistic/ambitious humanity and that focused on capsule shows in which classic science fiction ideals were written, you were one of those that was irked.
  • edited September 2011
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    And of course there's the rule that the even numbered Trek movies are the best (ie. Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, First Contact, and Nemesis) with the exception of the newest movie, Star Trek XI (2009), which is one of my favorites.

    I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard that Nemesis was relatively terrible, so the alternating-curse kind of broke at that point. I'm still mildly interested in seeing it. I've seen all of the other "good" films, as well as Star Trek 3 and Generations, both of which I thought were not that bad. And I found The Voyage Home to just be absurd, though it had a couple of good moments I just couldn't get over the whale thing.
  • edited September 2011
    I never agreed with the rule in the first place. I founf The original film being better than Voyage home, for instance.

    Also DS9 is the best series of the lot that I've seen (excluding Voyager, enterprise and animated. I've heard they weren't that great anyway.). I felt that TNG was limited with what they could do. Every other episode seemed to be about somwone getting possessed by some gaseous alien who boarded. DS9 provided better character development and could regularly introduce new characters and have old ones return.
  • edited September 2011
    The reason people didn't like the first movie was because it meandered while pandering to the Space Odyssey crowd. Was just too indulgent.
  • edited September 2011
    I think the sequel to the 2009 movie is coming out next summer.
  • edited September 2011
    LuigiHann wrote: »
    I haven't seen it yet, but I've heard that Nemesis was relatively terrible, so the alternating-curse kind of broke at that point. I'm still mildly interested in seeing it. I've seen all of the other "good" films, as well as Star Trek 3 and Generations, both of which I thought were not that bad. And I found The Voyage Home to just be absurd, though it had a couple of good moments I just couldn't get over the whale thing.

    Nemesis had potential. It would have succeeded had they given the movie to Frakes, but instead they let a non-fan direct, and then Rick Berman bled the heart out of the movie by chopping away at it to get the movie "just under two hours". Yes, that was his goal, as moronic as it sounds.

    I loved Star Trek 2009, and I can't wait for the next one. I'm glad that they're taking their time with it and working for a better movie, not just a rush-job to please the suits.

    Oh, and best DS9 episode? In my opinion, "Far Beyond the Stars" is a winner.
  • edited September 2011
    Fans complain about Nemesis because Data
    dies. There are books and comics out that apparently make B-4 into Data again with the information transfer Data did in the movie.

    Well, you know what? Data wanted to be able to die. Have none of these people ever seen the 2-part TNG episode "Time's Arrow"? In it, Data's head is found in a cavern confirming that Data would at some point go back in time and then die. Geordi asks Data about it, and Data says that he wants to be mortal. He doesn't want to out-live all his friends countless times over. He finds comfort in his apparent mortality. Further, Data is on a quest to find his own humanity and many consider there to be no better show of one's humanity than to sacrifice oneself for the sake of another as Data did in Nemesis.

    All of this befits Data. I don't see why people have a problem with it.
  • edited September 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    DS9 sort of lost the point of Star Trek, in a good and bad sense, depending on where you stand. If you like Battle Star Galactica and Babylon 5 and the more action oriented (while still meaningful) direction, then those were good for you. If you enjoyed the more idealistic TOS and TNG shows that tried to portray a more idealistic/ambitious humanity and that focused on capsule shows in which classic science fiction ideals were written, you were one of those that was irked.

    I like TNG and DS9 both. I never could get into other sci-fi shows. They're just not Star Trek. I can't... I don't know what it is, but I love Trek and don't care much for any of the other shows. Granted, I didn't watch DS9 much when it was on the air, but that was because the series started when TNG was still running, ended when Voyager was already running, and the first iteration of the title theme/opening credits was too long/slow. Then I went to college and took time to watch every episode online, and now I love it.

    In behind the scenes footage of DS9, they talk about how not all the galaxy is idyllic such as humanity and Earth had become by that time. Other races in the galaxy have problems that haven't been solved yet, and chief among them are the Bajorans, who had just come out of a 50 year long occupation by Cardassia.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited September 2011
    Chyron8472 wrote: »

    All of this befits Data. I don't see why people have a problem with it.

    I found Star Trek X to be seriously boring (after a fabulous Star Trek VIII and an OK Star Trek IX). My critique would not be that Data
    dies, but that it adds nothing to the narrative and that they essentially use his twin brother as a cheap alternative, so actually no great loss is felt. That was storytelling at its worst. But, granted, I only saw that movie once and never felt the need to do it again.
  • edited September 2011
    I think Star Trek X is the only of the TNG movies I've seen. All I remember was being extremely confused and also mildly bored, especially since I'd just watched all the TOS films.
  • edited September 2011
    I never understood the appeal of DS9. It was so dramatically different than anything else Star Trek that was ever made. It wasn't about exploration, befriending new worlds, discovering strange phenomena. It was about politics between the Federation, Bajorans, and Cardassians. And then shortly after it became a war story about the Dominion. In light of those facts, it's almost exactly like the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Done better, no doubt, but still not my cup of tea. I never did warm up to any of the characters either. Just not likeable at all. Except for Worf when they brought him on.

    I loved Voyager. People say the first couple seasons were the best, and while I agree they were good, I think that the series only got better as it went along. It had its drab points which is why it's not the best series, but it definitely had enough highlights to keep it afloat for me. TNG will always be the best, though.
  • edited September 2011
    I have to say I'm just about nerd level obsessed with Star Trek, though not as much in recent years (mainly due to the lack of anything new). And I've never bothered myself with the animated series. And I find it a struggle to watch most of the original series. But I grew up with all the other series and most of the films and love them all to varying degrees from DS9 at the top and Enterprise at the bottom (only just though, it's a close thing with Voyager but as a whole I enjoyed Voyager more than Enterprise, despite the huge advantage Scott Bakula gave Ent.). I watch those series at least once a year, always leaving DS9 for last as there isn't much in the TV & film world that I like more than the last 9 episodes of the last season (hell, it's hard to beat the entire last 3 seasons, especially the 7th).

    As for the films, I do enjoy watching them all, again some more than others. After my most recent spell of going through them all a few weeks ago I got to pondering (again) my order of preference. This is what I came up with (just using numbers as I'm lazy): 6, 8, 11, 2, 3, 1, 7, 4, 10, 9, 5.
  • edited September 2011
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    I like TNG and DS9 both. I never could get into other sci-fi shows. They're just not Star Trek. I can't... I don't know what it is, but I love Trek and don't care much for any of the other shows. Granted, I didn't watch DS9 much when it was on the air, but that was because the series started when TNG was still running, ended when Voyager was already running, and the first iteration of the title theme/opening credits was too long/slow. Then I went to college and took time to watch every episode online, and now I love it.

    In behind the scenes footage of DS9, they talk about how not all the galaxy is idyllic such as humanity and Earth had become by that time. Other races in the galaxy have problems that haven't been solved yet, and chief among them are the Bajorans, who had just come out of a 50 year long occupation by Cardassia.

    I like both of them for different reasons, but DS9 and Voyager certainly took Rodenberry's concept of an evolving humanity that had drawn nearer to a peaceful ideal and hammered on it. Obviously you've thrust that humanity into a conflict with the Bajoran and the Cardassians so not all things can be fruit and flowers (and interestingly enough that conflict formed the basis for conflicts in Voyager at the start of its run), but there's still a bit of that grandiose concept that got gnawed away in the process. Again, whether that's for better or worse is up to perception. I had plenty of B5 friends who loved DS9 but disliked TNG. Though for my money B5 is far better than DS9.
  • edited September 2011
    Another thing DS9 did (and now also Star Trek Online) is pit the Klingons against the Federation. Isn't that, like, impossible considering a certain episode in TOS where an alien species forced the two to co-exist in peace because they were too dangerous to the galaxy to be at war? And threatened to take action if they broke that peace? I've never seen the episode myself, but I've heard people talk about it.

    Also, is J. J. Abrams EVER going to make those other Star Trek movies?? Last I heard all the actors had signed up for a 3-movie contract. Star Trek the movie was released...and then nothing. Just Abrams saying "I don't want to do anything unless I'm really excited about it" He shouldn't have gotten everybody's hopes up.

    I loved his Star Trek. Nice and fresh. And a perfect way to reboot the series. Alternate universe. And for everyone else there's still Star Trek Online.
  • edited September 2011
    I'm watching Star Trek RIGHT NOW! (TOS)

    Discuss.
  • edited September 2011
    I love TOS. It's my favorite Trek series, just barely ahead of TNG. Even though the writing definitely got stale by the third season, the characters were so well-balanced and engrossing they managed to keep it afloat.

    Anything post-TOS is a different animal to me. I still love TNG, DS9 and Enterprise, but they don't feel the same as classic Trek. Maybe it's just because I grew up with TOS (one of the few things me and my dad share our enthusiasm about).

    I hated Voyager. I found none of the characters likable and many episodes felt like repeats from stories/themes that had already been covered in the earlier series. The extremely wooden acting didn't help either. Boring!

    I've also never agreed with the theory that only the even-numbered movies were any good. I loved The Motion Picture and The Search for Spock, whereas I felt The Voyage Home and Nemesis were particularly lacking (I still don't get why TVH is so popular, it's completely ridiculous).

    Bad Star Trek video games have always been a dime a dozen (Star Wars games are the same way), but I agree that 25th Anniversary was pretty damn good.

    ^ Btw, Alcoremortis, are you watching the classic versions or the remastered episodes of TOS? I still can't decide which I like better. The new version obviously has the advantage in terms of picture clarity, but there is a certain charm to the old special effects that is lost in the CG adaptations IMO.
  • edited September 2011
    I'm watching the remastered ones because those were the ones I could find. They're pretty decent in my opinion. I've had more than my share silly special effects with Doctor Who anyways.

    Also, in my opinion, The Voyage Home is great because it's ridiculous. I really love it when shows/movies don't take themselves so seriously. And the humor in that episode was spot on, making it the most memorable (and quotable) Star Trek movie that I have seen. Then again, I am a Doctor Who fan first and foremost so I guess I've always taken a bit of a lighter view of Scifi. I don't really understand super drama and seriousness, being a light hearted soul of joy and innocence.
  • edited September 2011
    Star Trek 25th Anniversary, Star Trek Judgment Rites, and Star Trek TNG A Final Unity are all fantastic games and all with the original voice actors filling their roles. I still weep for Secret of Vulcan Fury.
  • edited September 2011
    Star Trek 25th Anniversary, Star Trek Judgment Rites, and Star Trek TNG A Final Unity are all fantastic games and all with the original voice actors filling their roles. I still weep for Secret of Vulcan Fury.

    GREAT GAMES. Think I'll do a Let's Play of 25th Anniversary :)

    Final Unity used to flabbergast me as a kid!
  • edited September 2011
    Another thing DS9 did (and now also Star Trek Online) is pit the Klingons against the Federation. Isn't that, like, impossible considering a certain episode in TOS where an alien species forced the two to co-exist in peace because they were too dangerous to the galaxy to be at war? And threatened to take action if they broke that peace? I've never seen the episode myself, but I've heard people talk about it.

    The Organian Peace Treaty, imposed by a society of beings so advanced they could halt the actions of Humans and Klingons throughout the Galaxy. As far as I understand, the Organians continued their advanced evolution to a point that they departed the Galaxy.
  • edited September 2011
    I also like Star Trek Armada 1 and 2, and Star Trek Away Team.

    I have heard Starfleet Command 1 and 2 are good, but have never played them.


    You know, another reason why I think I never liked TOS so much is because I never really cared for various overacted scenes (such as in "The Naked Time" when Sulu is attacking people with a rapier in the corridor). I guess that's another advantage TNG has over TOS for me: Patrick Stewart is a much better actor than William Shatner.

    Don't get me wrong, he was great in the movies (except Star Trek V, of course) but in the show, he's just not nearly as good as Picard.
  • edited September 2011
    Also, is J. J. Abrams EVER going to make those other Star Trek movies?? Last I heard all the actors had signed up for a 3-movie contract. Star Trek the movie was released...and then nothing. Just Abrams saying "I don't want to do anything unless I'm really excited about it" He shouldn't have gotten everybody's hopes up.

    I loved his Star Trek. Nice and fresh. And a perfect way to reboot the series. Alternate universe. And for everyone else there's still Star Trek Online.

    Number 2 is in pre-production now and JJ has confirmed he will be directing it.
  • edited September 2011
    FINALLY some news. Thank you! :)
  • edited September 2011
    You're welcome. Of course, going into pre-production now mean that we're looking at either December 2012 or Summer 2013 as release dates.
  • edited September 2011
    It's better than..."sometime in the future".
  • edited September 2011
    I'm going to be ignorant. The new TOS sucks, it takes a 50 year universe, spanning over intertwined series and all the sudden just reboots everything. The only thing Star Trek about it is the characters, and even they are totally inaccurate and reinvisioned and full of plot holes that under artistic license, some guy can just say it's my own vision.

    The franchise is 50 years old, the universe is huge, you don't do that to a thriving universe, franchise, that reptilian mother fucker. It's one of the worse things I've ever seen with film, for some guy to come along and claim the entire star trek universe as his alternate universe. It's a kick in the balls and I don't understand how you guys can go on and on about star wars but arent enraged by this atrocity!

    He took Gene's vision and made his own universe...that doesn't bother any of you? It bothers me...who does this visual effects twat think he is? It's an outrage...and you forgive too easily...

    It doesn't even feel like a Star Trek movie, and they cram Leonard into just to remind us that they are raping the original series and entire franchise, they're like...remember that other Star Trek universe, that has nothing to do with this stupid fake universe because it's some BS alternate universe...??
  • edited September 2011
    A well known news source begs to disagree.

    Completely accurate and serious news report.
  • edited September 2011
    A well known news source begs to disagree.

    Completely accurate and serious news report.

    That is gold.

    GOLD!
  • edited September 2011
    It is not a Star Trek movie, doesn't feel like one, doesn't make me think, it's a insult and a disgrace , and if he had any true vision he wouldn't lean on some body's elses's and rape it to be his own sex slave...

    Bad movie, poor poor concept, weak, let star trek die please so we can bury it in some decency. It totally derailed the universe and that's unacceptable.

    Who the hell does this guy think he is?

    CGI is crap, who cares? Because it's eye candy that means something is going for it? Please...


    This is not Gene's vision, it's JJ's money whore vision, rebooting an entire trekkie universe. If you like this movie, sorry, you're a disgrace to trekkies around the world.

    He took the universe as his own, he has no right, damn right fans own it more than he does. If he had any creativity he'd make his own movie series, instead of raping something as famous as Rod Sterling work...

    He can go dig himself a hole. People call him a visionary, I think he's a HACK
  • edited September 2011
    The problem with the Prime universe (from whence came old Spock) is that there is so much established canon spanning so many shows and movies, that it limits a screenwriter's ability to create new and fresh material without stepping all over the toes of the rest of the canon material.

    The new movie's plot inconsistencies and apparent differences occuring prior to the Narada's arrival not withstanding, the TNG series outright explains that creating a new universe does not negate the old one. As Data himself said in the episode Parallels, "For any event there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow, but there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen do happen in alternate quantum realities."

    So, to follow the events of an alternate universe doesn't negate the Prime universe, but it does allow for new and fresh stories to be told that aren't bound by every previously established rule regarding the events of the Prime timeline.

    I, for one, understand and support what has been done.
  • edited September 2011
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    The problem with the Prime universe (from whence came old Spock) is that there is so much established canon spanning so many shows and movies, that it limits a screenwriter's ability to create new and fresh material without stepping all over the toes of the rest of the canon material.

    The new movie's plot inconsistencies and apparent differences occuring prior to the Narada's arrival not withstanding, the TNG series outright explains that creating a new universe does not negate the old one. As Data himself said in the episode Parallels, "For any event there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow, but there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen do happen in alternate quantum realities."

    So, to follow the events of an alternate universe doesn't negate the Prime universe, but it does allow for new and fresh stories to be told that aren't bound by every previously established rule regarding the events of the Prime timeline.

    I, for one, understand and support what has been done.

    Quoted for truth, I couldn't have put it better myself with a hundred silly pictures and videos.
  • edited September 2011
    I kind of wish that the new movie series could spin off into a new TV series, since a TV show would allow them more opportunities for throwbacks and homages and cameos. But really I have no problem at all with the "time travel reboot." I think it's a clever solution to the continuity problem, and Spock Prime's role in the film was handled quite respectfully of the original series.

    I mean, probably the best Star Trek movie so far, First Contact, was based around an idea that required them to take a character from TOS and recast him and totally redesign the character beyond recognition, and it was perfect.

    I really like most of the new cast, I hope that in the sequel they work a bit more on making Sulu resemble his TOS self a bit more. He never had a huge role in the series but George Takei sort of brought a cool dignity to the role and sometimes a really cool sense of dry humor, and John Cho doesn't really convey that at all for me. It was nice that he got to fence, though. The rest of them all do a pretty good job of being what I would expect them to be.

    And speaking of accurate and serious videos, I do sort of feel bad for William Shatner being left out of the film. Here's his reaction to the recasting of Captain Kirk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRQvfMX38q8
  • edited September 2011
    As I recall, in the behind the scenes section of the Star Trek (2009) DVD, Abrams talks about how Star Wars is comparatively more action and Star Trek is comparatively more cerebral/intelligent, so what he thought the Star Trek franchise needed was to have a bit of Star Wars injected into Trek.
  • edited September 2011
    I understand where Abrams is coming from and I liked his movie, but I miss old Trek.
  • edited September 2011
    Hopefully, they don't inject too much Star Wars into Trek. I don't want to be having "Kirk shot second" arguments or anything like that.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.