Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
I just watched Star Trek TOS 'Space Seed'
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:55 pm    Post subject: I just watched Star Trek TOS 'Space Seed' Reply with quote

To all those who think the original series of Star Trek is superior... you're wrong. It's awful. Even in it's context it's bad.
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 236
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You like Rick Berman's Star Trek.

I like Roddenberry's.
_________________
Irony is asking government to fix the problems it caused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1232
Location: Jefferson, USA

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like DS9, that bring's Roddenberry's Star Trek into Rick Berman's.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16119
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TOS is so good, many of the episodes were retold in TNG. I'm not sure if I would rate Space Seed among my favorites, but Khan is certainly one of the best villains, and was in one of the better movies.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know cokey mentioned "context", but I don't think he gives it sufficient consideration. Star Trek was a low-budget show and never became a hit until well into its days as re-run material. The ridiculous sets, costumes, and even a lot of the crappy acting are results. What was amazing about it was that it was ahead of its time as a television show in terms of vision, both scientifically and culturally. You know what other high-tech wizardry was on TV at the time? Batman. Have you ever seen the original Batman? Other shows that were actually popular? All very old-school stuff: Mayberry RFD (black-and-white sitcom about a small town sherrif), Gomer Pyle USMC (black and white sitcom appealing to WWII vets), Gunsmoke (black and white good-guy U.S. Marshal keeps the peace). If you were a hipster, maybe you watched Beverly Hillbillies (Hollywood mockery of rednecks), Carol Burnette or the edgy Laugh-In. Oh, there were a few good sci-fi movies (such as 2001 and the under-appreciated THX-1138), but nothing anywhere as near as far forward-looking or expansive in scope. They reinvented human society four hundred years into the future, using a sophisticated technological forecast and creative designs, and they addressed virtually all of the current social ills as they were seen at the time: racism, sexism, imperialism, nationalism, ignorance, greed, hunger, etc., etc. Compare that to its contemporaries, such as Lost in Space. "Danger, Will Robinson!" :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
All very old-school stuff:


The Invaders happened around the same time IIRC
_________________
Easy .. easy .. easy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, as did "Land of Giants" and "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", which I also saw as reruns. :lol:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

need i say it?

Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
_________________
wswartzendruber wrote:
Well, every group has its nutjobs, and the Second Amendment crowd is no exception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2588
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember watching most of those shows when they were originally on.

But you left out Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits.

As far as the original star trek, it was hyped to Desilu Productions as space meets wagon train.
And it kind of was. There were many so-so episodes, a few good ones and a sprinkling of crappy ones. :lol:
The biggest problem was Shattner thinking he was/is an actor and his huge ego.

The next gen was better from a character development standpoint IMO.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
I know cokey mentioned "context", but I don't think he gives it sufficient consideration. Star Trek was a low-budget show and never became a hit until well into its days as re-run material. The ridiculous sets, costumes, and even a lot of the crappy acting are results. What was amazing about it was that it was ahead of its time as a television show in terms of vision, both scientifically and culturally. You know what other high-tech wizardry was on TV at the time? Batman. Have you ever seen the original Batman? Other shows that were actually popular? All very old-school stuff: Mayberry RFD (black-and-white sitcom about a small town sherrif), Gomer Pyle USMC (black and white sitcom appealing to WWII vets), Gunsmoke (black and white good-guy U.S. Marshal keeps the peace). If you were a hipster, maybe you watched Beverly Hillbillies (Hollywood mockery of rednecks), Carol Burnette or the edgy Laugh-In. Oh, there were a few good sci-fi movies (such as 2001 and the under-appreciated THX-1138), but nothing anywhere as near as far forward-looking or expansive in scope. They reinvented human society four hundred years into the future, using a sophisticated technological forecast and creative designs, and they addressed virtually all of the current social ills as they were seen at the time: racism, sexism, imperialism, nationalism, ignorance, greed, hunger, etc., etc. Compare that to its contemporaries, such as Lost in Space. "Danger, Will Robinson!" :roll:
It wasn't ahead of it's time, Dr Who was doing the same things 5 years earlier - with what looks like the same creaky sets lol. What got me was the acting, it was atrocious
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does Doctor Who doing something similar (and even more low budget) five years later make Star Trek 'not ahead of it's time'? Explain that logic to me, please.

No really. Not only do I want to understand, but I am interested in what kind of mental process allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
The next gen was better from a character development standpoint IMO.

Next Generation was how many years later, with a massive budget, and in a different "serial" format unused back in the sixties and seventies except for soap operas (because nobody but housewives would ever waste that much time watching TV).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
How does Doctor Who doing something similar (and even more low budget) five years later make Star Trek 'not ahead of it's time'? Explain that logic to me, please.

No really. Not only do I want to understand, but I am interested in what kind of mental process allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.
do you mean 4 years earlier? Explain that to me, please.
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Butts McCokey wrote:
Dr Who was doing the same things 5 years earlier


No, the two shows are completely different.
_________________
Easy .. easy .. easy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John-Boy
Guru
Guru


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 439
Location: Desperately seeking moksha in all the wrong places

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
The next gen was better from a character development standpoint IMO.


Voyager was better from a Janeway pov.
_________________
Easy .. easy .. easy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-Boy wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:
The next gen was better from a character development standpoint IMO.


Voyager was better from a Janeway pov.
I love how the ST captain thing is pretty much the same as the good ol' emacs vs. vim.

But yeah, Janeway is epic. As was Archer.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
John-Boy wrote:
Anon-E-moose wrote:
The next gen was better from a character development standpoint IMO.


Voyager was better from a Janeway pov.
I love how the ST captain thing is pretty much the same as the good ol' emacs vs. vim.

But yeah, Janeway is epic. As was Archer.
are you crazy? Janeway and Archer were the two worst. It goes like this:

1. Picard
2. Kirk
3. Sisko
4. Janeway
5. Archer
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anon-E-moose
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 2588
Location: Dallas area

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John-Boy & mdeininger

I could never get Janeway out of my mind as Mrs. Columbo.

And when I would see Archer I always expected some Quantum Leap.

:lol:

Actually I pretty much quit watching the star trek universe after the first season of DS9.
The wife liked them, but I wasn't that enamored of them.

Edit to add: I did like many of the characters from the spin-offs/follow-ups/prequels but not the shows in general.
_________________
Asus m5a99fx, FX 8320 - amd64-multilib, 3.15.9-zen, glibc-2.19, gcc-4.9.2, eudev
xorg-server-1.16, openbox w/lxpanel, nouveau, oss4(2011)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anon-E-moose wrote:
John-Boy & mdeininger

I could never get Janeway out of my mind as Mrs. Columbo.

And when I would see Archer I always expected some Quantum Leap.

:lol:

Actually I pretty much quit watching the star trek universe after the first season of DS9.
The wife liked them, but I wasn't that enamored of them.
Like the first season of TNG, the first season of DS9 was atrocious. In fact it wasn't until Sisko shaved his head and got a beard that it started getting good circa half way through season 2/start of season 3
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16119
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
I know cokey mentioned "context", but I don't think he gives it sufficient consideration. Star Trek was a low-budget show and never became a hit until well into its days as re-run material. The ridiculous sets, costumes, and even a lot of the crappy acting are results. What was amazing about it was that it was ahead of its time as a television show in terms of vision, both scientifically and culturally.
I guess I'll have to cut him some slack. People say similar things to me regarding the Beatles, but I just don't hear it. They're not horrible, they're just not particularly good, so I don't understand the appeal.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16119
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Butts McCokey wrote:
[are you crazy? Janeway and Archer were the two worst. It goes like this:

1. Picard
2. Kirk
3. Sisko
4. Janeway
5. Archer
Kirk
Archer
Spock
Other NCC-1701-A Captains
Sisko
NCC-1701-B Captains
NCC-1701-C Captains
non-Picard NCC-1701-D Captains
Picard
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Butts McCokey wrote:
[are you crazy? Janeway and Archer were the two worst. It goes like this:

1. Picard
2. Kirk
3. Sisko
4. Janeway
5. Archer
Kirk
Archer
Spock
Other NCC-1701-A Captains
Sisko
NCC-1701-B Captains
NCC-1701-C Captains
non-Picard NCC-1701-D Captains
Picard


Crunch
Morgan
Stubing
_________________
I, for one, am glad to be living on a planet with 776x the mass of the super-massive black hole at the center of the milky way just to keep Neptune in its daily orbit around the Earth.
auf alten Schiffen lernt man Segeln.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1571
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
I know cokey mentioned "context", but I don't think he gives it sufficient consideration. Star Trek was a low-budget show and never became a hit until well into its days as re-run material. The ridiculous sets, costumes, and even a lot of the crappy acting are results. What was amazing about it was that it was ahead of its time as a television show in terms of vision, both scientifically and culturally.
I guess I'll have to cut him some slack. People say similar things to me regarding the Beatles, but I just don't hear it. They're not horrible, they're just not particularly good, so I don't understand the appeal.

They made quite an innovative jump. There sound was noticeably different than what came before. Hearing it now after the fact, we don't notice it as anything unusual.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Butts McCokey
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3327

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
pjp wrote:
Bones McCracker wrote:
I know cokey mentioned "context", but I don't think he gives it sufficient consideration. Star Trek was a low-budget show and never became a hit until well into its days as re-run material. The ridiculous sets, costumes, and even a lot of the crappy acting are results. What was amazing about it was that it was ahead of its time as a television show in terms of vision, both scientifically and culturally.
I guess I'll have to cut him some slack. People say similar things to me regarding the Beatles, but I just don't hear it. They're not horrible, they're just not particularly good, so I don't understand the appeal.

They made quite an innovative jump.
unlike TOS
_________________
Since the bible and the church are obviously mistaken about where we came from, how can we trust them with where we're going?

"An eye for an eye will make us all blind" - Gandhi

Cold is gods way to tell us to burn more Catholics
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Butts McCokey wrote:
[are you crazy? Janeway and Archer were the two worst. It goes like this:

1. Picard
2. Kirk
3. Sisko
4. Janeway
5. Archer
Kirk
Archer
Spock
Other NCC-1701-A Captains
Sisko
NCC-1701-B Captains
NCC-1701-C Captains
non-Picard NCC-1701-D Captains
Picard
Huh, good point, Janeway wasn't actually in command of an NCC-1701-*.

Can't give a ranking myself, but that about sounds right. All of 'em had their moments though.

Btw @Cokey: Archer is awesome. I mean, c'mon, he had awesome scenes like: "say that's a really nice ship you have there, I'd really like that engine" - "sorry, can't trade for that, we need it to get home" - "well, sucks to be you but I'll have to insist; here's some food so you won't starve. probably."
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum