|
|
Post by jaiven on Jan 7, 2005 17:30:25 GMT -5
It's simple really. one word says it all!! "CONSISTENCY" Lucas has pretty much kept the Star Wars story line mostly consistant with what he has already established. Dick Vermin(Rick Berman) the Exec Producer of Paramounts Star Trek has destroyed the entire series known as Star Trek, by doing as he pleases and ignoring what has already been done and established as Star Trek History. So, while Star Wars will live a much longer life, I am saddened as a Sci-Fi Fan, that Star Trek has fallen into the great Chasm of T.V. and Movie Doom. Never to live again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calaveylon Angavel on Jan 7, 2005 18:50:52 GMT -5
 That's sad..... It's been officially announced that there will be no more Trek movies (Data was "killed" in the last one). The current Trek show is alive only at the fan's request, but sooner rather than later an executive will pull the show off the air.
|
|
|
|
Post by gyerenfeli on Jan 7, 2005 19:12:38 GMT -5
Between the episodes, the movies, and the Star Trek experience at Vegas, do you know how many times the Borg queen has been killed? And in how many quadrants of the galaxy she's killed in? It's crazy wirth inconsistencies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aston Jor-Cello on Jan 7, 2005 19:21:38 GMT -5
In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, all I can say is, "Ah, that's a shame". LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by gyerenfeli on Jan 7, 2005 20:47:05 GMT -5
I can hear the saddness in your voice.  I also never really cared for the origional Star Trek, just because it's so fake. And the spin-offs aren't much better. One moment, there's a huge explosion on the bridge that nearly kills the ensign standing there, but the moment the smoke clears, there's no sign that anything happened except the other officers helping the wounded off the bridge. At least in Star Wars, there's scarring left on the wall. |
|
|
|
Post by lazlototh on Jan 8, 2005 0:07:58 GMT -5
I hate to agree, but y'all are right. I love Star Trek, having been a fan since about 1979...
*cleans eyeglasses*
I have yet to watch an episode of Enterprise, though I have seen bits and pieces here and there. Does anyone see that NX-01 looks remarkably like a primitive Akira class cruiser (a la Next Gen or DS9) as opposed to a Daedalus class which is pre 1701 era Enterprise? I am kinda geeky that way but I tend to notice things....
Canon in Star Trek got lost with the endless EU stories and the lack of plot control in the spinoffs. It is sad since the show had so much potential and having a built-in fan base from the 60s and original syndication. Especially since Rodenberry's passing, I feel his vision of ST was lost. I don't want to get to deep here but darn...
Not to mention some really great sci-fi shows coming on (quite a few) like Firefly, B-5, Stargate SG-1, though one I miss is Space: Above and Beyond... How could ST compete with the amazing quality competition out there?
I agree, Lucas has maintained a tight control on Canon (with some minor continuity errors but I say again minor), with some small protests here and there about licensing. Oh well. At least the ultimate storyline is in pretty good shape...
|
|
|
|
Post by Leda EmBorr on Jan 8, 2005 3:44:22 GMT -5
"Canon in Star Trek got lost with the endless EU stories and the lack of plot control in the spinoffs."
I definitely agree with you there, Lazlo... and I think LFL has done a fantastic job keeping a handle on plot and timeline consistencies, despite a few very minor things.
My dad loved to watch Star Trek and it was the first SciFi I had ever watched. I think I've seen every episode of the original, although it didn't captivate me as Star Wars did. But the show was very intellegent for it's time, and was responsible for introducing quite a few new ideas to the general public. I liked the Next Generation, but not at first... and I enjoyed some of the movies... like First Contact and the Journey Home.
Trek and Wars are very different.... while both are Science Fiction, I think ST is more science/technology oriented, while SW is a space fantasy. And George Lucas is still orchestrating the whole thing, while Gene Roddenbury is no longer with us. So that makes a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ani-Chay Pinn on Jan 8, 2005 11:31:55 GMT -5
Well, speaking as a Star Trek fan of the original series from it's original airing.....the Trek people have just let the franchise get stale. I watched Enterprise for a bit, but it was too tiresome to bother with. Even Scott Bakula in tight, blue, Starfleet underwear wasn't enough to keep my interest. I do NOT think that consistency is the killing feature for Trek. The SW EU didn't seem to know where it was going in the 80's and early 90's and some ideas seem to have been negated when TPM came out. Mid-to-late 90's onward, it looks the EU has been policed more for consistency, BUT if Lucas really wants something in the next movie or whatever, I don't think he'll let discontinuities with the EU stop him. I have noticed that the SW EU books have quite a few name authors, while many Trek books come from newbies. I just assume that SW pays better and looks for quality. SW and ST just rely on different strengths, and they rise and fall on them, too. ST, coming out more frequently on TV, is best as a CHARACTER driven franchise. You can't help inconsistencie with history and such, because it's set in Earth's future, but as long as the charcters are strong and evolving, it's doing fine. Alas, the writing for Trek has always been a bit lazy; often some of the best character developments came from the actors, not the writers, even in the original series. But the writing in the latest Trek projects has become so lame, so re-treaded from previous shows that even good character actors can't save it. SW, coming out in movies every now and then, is a UNIVERSE driven franchise -- the EU, coming out more frequently in books and graphic novels, is definitely more character driven, but it has a much smaller audience than the main movie product. SW is set in a fantasy world, so it's just easier to maintain consistency when you're in charge of all the rules. And even though SW is clumsy with character-driven plots -- like telling love stories -- it's not hurt so much by it because that's not where it's strength is anyway. Oh, those Jedi look good.  So, Star Trek is failing in it's character depths, where it needs to be most substantial, while Star Wars is still most creative on it's big-universe, mythic story strengths. |
|
|
|
Post by JediMistressDragon on Jan 8, 2005 17:30:18 GMT -5
I hate to say it, but both are falling from what the originals were, and I was a fan of both the Original Trek (still the best, except for DS9) and though like the prequels, they can't toucvh, plus yes, Lucas has done inconsistancies from Trilogy to Prequels. But i don't put down both, as I am a fan of both. Shoot, I can put down Battlestar Galactica (the original) as I hated that show, but I don't as hubby is big fan of it and got to be good friends with Richard Hatch.
In a world of getting good genre-based shows or movies that get bumped off and all, I don't put down anything, even the going downhill Trek, or the prequels like many have over the years. If you don't like something, then you don't like, but I don't say one is better than the other, just not my cup of tea.
Sorry to get on my soapbox, but today at a Star Trek (Starfleet) meeting I was saying that Older Trek fans where more than that-we started out with the books and Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, then original Trek, from there came Star Wars and so forth. I've seen a change over the years on one versus the other. If it's not your cup of tea, it isn't, but really one isn't better than the other.
Me? I love them both and both have brought much into today's world with words, quotes, etc...
JMD
|
|
|
|
Post by Jauhzmynn Enz on Jan 10, 2005 1:48:19 GMT -5
I like 'em both too.
Star Wars was the first sci-fi movie, shoot first MOVIE I'd seen. I was blown away.
Then I watching reruns of the orginal ST. Then all the other old black/white classics. I enjoy most scifi /fantisy things.
Yeah ST and sometiems SW can have inconsistancies, but each serves a purpose. If it can for a moment dump me into another universe and I come out learning something, then it was well worththe trip.;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Xana on Jan 10, 2005 23:50:31 GMT -5
Hmmm..... and I just joined Starfleet............  I heard there was more than one Borg Queen. ?? Or am I mistaken? Between the episodes, the movies, and the Star Trek experience at Vegas, do you know how many times the Borg queen has been killed? And in how many quadrants of the galaxy she's killed in? It's crazy wirth inconsistencies. |
|
|
|
Post by Jauhzmynn Enz on Jan 12, 2005 16:37:30 GMT -5
Yep. more then one Borg queen. Might be that they've queens in stasus so when dies they install the next one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xana on Jan 12, 2005 23:00:11 GMT -5
Are they clones?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jauhzmynn Enz on Jan 13, 2005 10:00:22 GMT -5
Humm, I don't think so. The actress' were differant in the faces and bodies a little. Eventhough they wore similar oufits. Just might be differant queens.
|
|
|
|
Post by JediMistressDragon on Jan 13, 2005 10:34:02 GMT -5
No, Borgs used living beings with cybernetic implants (geesh, have Ive been watching and reading loads of scifi-LOL) and I assume the queen is like any queen bee or ant--a need of a hive and voice for the computer who is the real control of the Borg, which the Borg really are.
At least what I can understand.
You joined Starfleet, Xana, which ship are you with? Bill and I are with the USS Cheapeake in Richmond--need to rejoin Starfleet though. But the Cheapeake people are a good group--not just Star Wars, members love all types of SciFi and fantasy, like Star Wars, LOTR, Angel/Buffy, etc....
Pam
|
|
That's sad..... 
