|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 26 2007, 12:10am
Post #1 of 26
(757 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Are you a devoted Star Trek fan?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Multiple answers allowed!
One of the threads on Movie recently segued into a Star Trek discussion, and it made me think about how that series occasionally finds its way into other discussions around here. It seems that there may be a correlation between Tolkien fans and Star Trek fans.
So I'm wondering who here are "devoted fans" of one or more Trek series, "devoted" meaning that you go a bit beyond just enjoying watching them: you can give cast bios, or name episodes and describe them, or know some trivia regarding them, or own episodes or action figures, or have a Tribble - that sort of thing!
And there are two questions to go along with this:
1. What is it about Star Trek, that attracts you to it - its fantastical nature, its pseudo-science, its relationships, its philosophies, etc.? Do the same things also attract you to Middle-earth?
2. Are there similarities between any aspect of Star Trek and any of Tolkien's works?
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 26 2007, 12:18am
Post #2 of 26
(520 views)
Shortcut
|
that we got to see other worlds and people, and as a kid (watching repeats of the original series) I *loved* the idea of all of space being open to journey through. My one regret about living at this time of human history is that I won't get to see space travel become the norm for humans.
I suppose the greatest similarity between ST and LOTR is that they both feature a disparate group of people journeying together for the good of the wider civilisations. Viewers/readers can identify with different characters and feel a personal link to the stories. That's also one of the attractions I had for Firefly.
|
|
|
sevilodorf
Tol Eressea
Jun 26 2007, 5:21am
Post #3 of 26
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
Belonged to Star Trek Fan Club, have the Federation patches somewhere in a drawer to prove it.
Watched Star Trek daily for years and years and years... Also Star Trek TNG but bowed out of Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise (though Scott Bakula and Quantum Leap were also a daily thing for a while)
Star Trek .... voyage where no man has gone before... the idea of going "out there"... I was ten when I watched the landing on the moon.
The series developed characters and created a world that I greatly wanted to visit.
|
|
|
Alcarcalime
Tol Eressea
Jun 26 2007, 10:19am
Post #4 of 26
(512 views)
Shortcut
|
I have been a fan of Classic Trek since it came out. I watched a few of Next Gen, but didn't care for it. I liked Deep Space 9. I've never seen the others because we don't get cable or satellite.
I guess you can call OhioHobbit and me fanatics. I bought him the Trimensional Chess set from the original series. He doesn't have any one to play it with, though; I am not a chess kind of person! No patience! We have various models and patches and lots and lots of books about the series and stars. The funny thing is that we don't have duplicates of things like we do for Tolkien. We focused on different things from Star Trek in the before time (before we got together).
|
|
|
Idril Celebrindal
Tol Eressea
Jun 26 2007, 5:13pm
Post #5 of 26
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Its mostly positive vision of the future
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I like the Star Trek franchise because it offers a vision of the future that's mostly positive, although not without its problems. The Federation of Planets is a democratic entity that rules in a generally benign way. Although bad things often happen and the cast faces many challenges from external and internal enemies, they usually manage to work together to deal with them, solve problems, and make things better. It's a great antidote to the dystopian and xenophobic currents in popular culture.
I loved TOS and followed TNG and DS9 pretty closely, but never really got into Voyager and Enterprise.
|
|
|
Aerlinn
Lorien
Jun 26 2007, 5:45pm
Post #6 of 26
(501 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I should have also marked DS9...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Oops. Oh well.
I lived and breathed TOS from about 1985 on, read everything, and my state of mind when TNG was announced was not unlike my state of mind when the LotR films were announced - I think the words "giddy panic" about fit. But Uncle Patr - I mean, Patrick Stewart (no relation) and the new ship had a similar effect as the sight and sound of Gandalf rolling into the Shire singing "The Road etc" - It was going to be All Right. (Well, not all - Wesley...) It got better as it went along, unlike TOS (with less and less Wesley). I liked DS9 a lot as well (even though I loathed Worf and rooted for his death with every episode). Voyager lost me fairly quickly (being as I am NOT an adolescent boy of any age, 7 of 9 did nothing for me), and much as I adore both Scott Bakula and beagles I couldn't tolerate Enterprise.
Why did (does, I guess) it mean so much to me? Because at its best it was where we were supposed to be going. Moving easily from planet to planet, the excitement of exploration alive as it hasn't really been for a couple of centuries, all of Earth united under a single president and indeed a whole United Federation of Planets. It was a perfect community aboard those two Enterprises: intelligent, dedicated people all devoted to the same mission. And their ship, and their captain. All of which was even upon close scrutiny worth being devoted to: something I'd already found out at age 16 is awfully rare hereabouts. I wanted - want - that. It's one reason TORn became very quickly important to me, and why disillusionment when it comes is so hard.
There's peace in the 23rd and 24th centuries, unless the Klingons or Romulans (etc.) were around, and that was so simple: they hated us for no real reason and we had to defend ourselves, and we *tried* to talk to even them! Humanity has evolved beyond pre-emptive war in the future. People live up to what they're supposed to be in the future, as individuals and as a United Earth.
And the opportunities! The farmboy from Iowa became the youngest starship captain ever. The misfit halfbreed becomes the most valuable science officer in the fleet. The Luddite doctor learns to take rock creatures and green-blooded pointy-eared so&sos in stride. I wanted to go to Starfleet Academy in the worst way. My efforts to learn exactly what the science behind warp technology could be were laughable, but earnest. I wanted the Enterprise even more than I wanted the TARDIS, or Shadowfax, and that's saying something.
Similarities between ST and LotR... Can't say it better than Ataahua. There's hope, framed in the setting of "our" past rather than a possible future...
And here we are with thirty year old space shuttles and a half-baked space program, with the funding to NASA being cut almost off-hand at every opportunity. At least twenty years ago when TNG began it looked a little more like we might actually get there one day. Now... well.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Jun 26 2007, 5:47pm
Post #7 of 26
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
1. What is it about Star Trek, that attracts you to it - its fantastical nature, its pseudo-science, its relationships, its philosophies, etc.?
The Original Series was a mature series about adults in adult situations. It took science fiction seriously unlike immature kiddie oriented travesties like The Adventures of Will Robinson, The Adventures of Boxie the Boy Wonder, and The Adventures of Wesley Crusher. It had a beautiful spaceship that went to exotic places (unlike DS9) that had a competent and professional crew (unlike Voyager) that faced the universe with confidence and optimism (unlike Enterprise). It featured a crew representative of Earth's heritage. And best of all, it had Nichelle Nichols in a miniskirt.
Do the same things also attract you to Middle-earth?
I most definitely do not like Aragorn and Boromir in miniskirts. Also there are no spaceships. Plus the hobbits start out as childlike amateurs. But at least the Fellowship is integrated. (But Gimli and Legolas are mostly the token aliens in a story about the World of Men seen through the Eyes of Hobbits).
2. Are there similarities between any aspect of Star Trek and any of Tolkien's works?
How many people can speak both Sindarin and Klingon? I think the main similarity is that there was an extraordinary and believable and, most importantly, a *desirable* secondary world that was created for both works. You can read LOTR and view TOS and get the sense that there is a lot more to the world than what is just on the page or on the screen. The difference is that Tolkien did it alone while Roddenberry got the ball rolling and then let others run with it. (Both professional and fan-nish writers.) One can only imagine how much richer Middle-earth would be if Tolkien had allowed others to do such. Paramount turns a blind eye and in some cases even lends a helping hand to the most blatant cases of copyright infringement while the Tolkien Estate lawyers play Whack-A-Mole with anyone who dares to copy a freaking map!
|
|
|
weaver
Half-elven
Jun 26 2007, 7:44pm
Post #8 of 26
(470 views)
Shortcut
|
|
two kinds of fantasies, I guess...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'd say that both Trek and LOTR provide frameworks in which the ideals we'd all like to think we can live by are shown to us in ways that make us aspire to them. The characters are heroic, courageous, loyal, and able to overcome their doubts and fears. Doing the right thing results in good triumphing, at least for awhile.
Both also took on the big issues -- what is the source of evil and what is the proper response to it, what is your responsibility to others, how to deal with differences and conflicts, etc. Both provide guidance in how to handle these things in everyday life by exploring them in the framework of a fantastic past or a fantastic future.
I'm wondering if Trek lost some of its appeal for many as it moved away from fantasy and toward more "real" stories -- because it then becomes just one more drama, and not able to play the role that a good fantasy can play in terms of taking you outside yourself to a place where you can sort things out and then return, recovered, to face things again in the here and now.
One of Roddenberry's big mantras was that all of the conflict in the story had to come from "outside" -- that the good guys lived in peace and harmony with each other. The course of the series was away from that and by the end, those kinds of perfect harmony moments started to feel cheap and false in both Voyager and Enterprise. This may be due to the formula getting too predictable, but it probably also has to do with the fact that Trek was always a reflection of its time,as a good friend often points out to me -- despite all the awful things going on in the world in the 1960's, there was a sense of idealism in our ability to confront those things that is replaced by cynicism, satire or irony today. Though many of us remain private idealists, perhaps, the culture no longer supports that kind of thinking as a whole.
I have always loved Trek, and could find value in its worst episodes, for the most part. For me, Original Trek was much about humanism -- of not letting technology rule you, of the value of emotions, of the importance of friendship and comaraderie, of the need to have a dream to strive for. TNG took those things to the next level, and presented them in a more polished context. DS9 was a wonderful variation on these themes. Voyager gave us our first woman captain, plus more inventive looks at technology in terms of Seven of Nine trying to rid herself of her Borg past, or the Doctor, a creation of a machine, trying to get past his programming. Enterprise was a show of struggle, with an unengaging captain, and poor attempts to be "sexy" which were perhaps forgivable on their own, but not together. It is the only one of the series I could not connect with, as it did not inspire or entertain me.
I do hope the series re-invents itself, and the best hope for that in the interim is probably the fans themselves. The books, the Internet shows, etc. are the place where it lives right now, until the right team finds a way to look at it in a fresh light, and to use the Trek framework to give us a new future fantasy for these times.
Those are my musings, anyway -- thanks for posting this poll on two of my favorite things!
|
|
|
Alassëa Eruvande
Valinor
Jun 26 2007, 8:12pm
Post #9 of 26
(476 views)
Shortcut
|
Calm down, I know what a Tribble is! 
Having said that, although I've seen some of the Star Trek movies, and watched a few of the original episodes on tv, I can't say that I'm a fan. I never watched any of the newer tv incarnations, either. And it has been years since I've seen anything Star Trek, movie or tv.
It isn't that I don't like ST, I'm just not that interested. I don't know why, because I like Star Wars, so it's not a space thing or an alien thing. It's just not my cup of tea. I know enough about it to get a few of the cultural references often thrown out, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Wynnie
Rohan
Jun 26 2007, 10:51pm
Post #10 of 26
(528 views)
Shortcut
|
I'm not sure I'd use the word "devoted", but your definition seems to fit me, with respect to the first three series. I've seen all the shows at least a couple of times, seen all the movies, I own videos of 4 episodes & 2 movies, I've attended talks given by James Doohan (I've got his autograph somewhere) and Patrick Stewart (topic wasn't actually ST, but the audience did bring it up in the Q & A). Couldn't get into Voyager because I found Captain Janeway's voice so grating. Watched a season of Enterprise but never got hooked.
I think I was originally a more casual fan, but fell in with friends whose enthusiasm was contagious. My interest has been dwindling again in recent years; I've seen too many other sci-fi shows I like better. But who knows if I would ever have even watched them but for my fondness for Star Trek.
|
|
|
deej
Tol Eressea
Jun 27 2007, 6:44pm
Post #11 of 26
(455 views)
Shortcut
|
I was never a big fan of any of the other shows, including the original (I know that's a terrible thing to say!), but I loved ST: TNG from the first episode. I do also enjoy all of the films, except for 5th one where they meet 'God'. I think it is true what they say about the only good Star Trek films being the even numbered! And that Riker's acting got better on TNG once he grew the beard!
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jun 27 2007, 8:54pm
Post #12 of 26
(454 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Couldn't really call myself a fan...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I really enjoyed the original series, and the movies starring those characters (except the last one where they were trying to see God-it had such a pathetic plot as to be cringe-worthy.)
|
|
|
Wynnie
Rohan
Jun 27 2007, 10:21pm
Post #13 of 26
(452 views)
Shortcut
|
I think it is true what they say about the only good Star Trek films being the even numbered!
That pattern held up for years, but was finally broken; Nemesis, the tenth, has to be one of the worst.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jun 27 2007, 11:19pm
Post #14 of 26
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*whispers* I liked Nemisis... /
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
RosieLass
Valinor
Jun 28 2007, 5:27am
Post #15 of 26
(490 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I used to be pretty passionate about the original series.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I bought books and joined the local fan club and went to a few cons. (Sci fi cons are *exactly* like the one in Galaxy Quest, except without the alien spaceship crashing through the back wall!  )
I watched TNG and mostly enjoyed it, but towards the end of the series, it got a little sanctimonious and preachy, so I was beginning to lose interest. I've seen a few episodes of DS9, but didn't watch regularly. I haven't seen any of Voyager or Enterprise. And I've seen all of the original cast movies, but none of the TNG cast movies.
The franchise is suffering from an excess of sequels, and it's my firm belief that now Gene Roddenberry is gone, the concept should be retired.
|
|
|
CAhobbit
Rohan
Jun 28 2007, 11:26pm
Post #16 of 26
(433 views)
Shortcut
|
even if the ending was set-up to be anti-climatic (with the way characters played in the ending events). "Insurrection" is by far the worst out of all the Star Trek films (IMO) with the first one coming in a close second.
|
|
|
Alassea Elensar
Rivendell
Jun 29 2007, 1:08am
Post #17 of 26
(561 views)
Shortcut
|
I've loved Star Trek right from the start, when I would sit and watch it with my dad. I loved everything about it; the technology, the alien worlds, and vision of a future with no poverty, war or power struggles (at least on Earth). Like Ataahua, my biggest regret is that I'll not be around to see a time when space travel is as common or as easily done as our present vacations. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hop on a spaceship and go to another world for a vacation? Or commute to work by shuttle, even though your job may be on Mars? And don't even get me started on transporters!  Also, I wonder if we would've had flip-up cell phones (communicators) or computer floppy disks if ST hadn't come up with them first.
I liked TNG even more, even though it spoiled me for the original series (TOS). After TNG, TOS seemed made of cardboard. The new USS Enterprise was bigger, fancier and came equipped with holodecks! What I wouldn't give for one of those! And I liked the crew, even though they couldn't come near the original trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy (truthfully, however, I like Picard more than I like Kirk). My favorite character from TNG is Data, and many of my favorite episodes revolved around him.
All that being said, I have to admit, though, that my favorite ST series is DS9. Sure it's a bit darker than the TOS or TNG, but what diversity! We saw more aliens and alien cultures on that series, I think, than on the other two combined. It took me a little while to get used to the new look of ST when DS9 first came out, but once I did, I couldn't get enough. I loved every character on the show -- even Worf, who wasn't nearly as annoying as he was on TNG -- and some of the episodes were the best of the entire franchise (the only unfortunate thing about DS9 is that most of the episodes must be seen in order, or else you could get confused very easily). DS9 was the first tv series that I bought on DVD, and is still the only Trek series I have on DVD (other than one season of TNG). Trekkie that I am, though, I have, on VHS, every Trek episode they've made. Taped 'em myself, one by one. 
I *still* miss DS9. I'm so sorry that no DS9 movie was ever made. 
Voyager I liked, but it was a bit of a disappointment. Some of the aliens were outright laughable (Kazon, anyone?), and the continuing story of the ship and crew trying to get home became a bit tedious, but it did have a few excellent episodes (Blink of an Eye comes to mind).
Enterprise I just couldn't get into, although I tried for two and a half seasons. The only character I found interesting was Dr. Phlox, and TPTB didn't seem to have a clue, resorting to bringing in aliens that weren't even supposed to be heard of until much later. I still taped them all, though.
I hope that they'll be able to get the Star Trek franchise up and running again some day, but only if they can do it well. Enterprise was almost embarrassing.
Where I live we get several airings of Star Trek daily, mostly TNG and Voyager (with one TOS, one Enterprise and a couple of DS9s thrown in), and I watch as often as I can. I'm a member of the Star Trek fan club, have an ST credit card (!), have been to a few conventions over the years, and used to participate in trivia games online (before AOL discontinued them). So, yes, in answer to your original question, I guess you could call me a devoted fan of Star Trek
(This post was edited by Alassea Elensar on Jun 29 2007, 1:10am)
|
|
|
silneldor
Half-elven
Jul 1 2007, 10:26pm
Post #18 of 26
(442 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Although i enjoyed the original series,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
i came away with a better feeling each time with the Next Generation. I guess i could say it was warmer and more reflective. The shows after that were too sensationalized and overtly warlike and shallow. It seemed like it was for a younger set mentality sad to say.
|
|
|
Curious
Half-elven
Jul 2 2007, 8:21pm
Post #19 of 26
(422 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I did like the original series, although I wouldn't call myself a huge fan. I love
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
the way the original series captured the naive optimism of the early 1960s in the U.S. Even though that optimism ran into rough reality in Viet Nam, it also accomplished some great things in its time.
Tolkien read science fiction but never was optimistic about the future, and did not have much tolerance for the American Empire, any more than he did for the British or Soviet Empires. I also think Star Trek lacks the spiritual tone of LotR. Star Trek also often was topical and allegorical, dealing with issues in the headlines of the time, but setting them in outer space.
Star Trek and LotR share a high moral tone, a clear division between good and evil, and a happy ending. The heroes are somewhat like boy scouts, although the TV show did its best to imply, within the censorship of the time, that Kirk, at least, had an active sexual life.
|
|
|
Aerlinn
Lorien
Jul 3 2007, 4:29pm
Post #20 of 26
(418 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Sometimes the censorship slipped a little...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
[quote]within the censorship of the time[/quote]
My favorite example being when someone took Uhura's hand and called her "Fair maiden". She pulled her hand away, annoyed, and said "Sorry, neither." Hee.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 3 2007, 4:38pm
Post #21 of 26
(401 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Which one is that in? I must see it...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
hee hee.
|
|
|
Aerlinn
Lorien
Jul 3 2007, 4:55pm
Post #23 of 26
(416 views)
Shortcut
|
Though recent news items have changed the perspective in that a little.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Jul 3 2007, 5:17pm
Post #24 of 26
(408 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Okay. Darn it--I KNOW I've seen that one..
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but I missed that reference. Hope it comes on again, although they are not showing here now.
|
|
|
Lossefalme
Gondor
Jul 5 2007, 4:54pm
Post #25 of 26
(392 views)
Shortcut
|
1. What is it about Star Trek, that attracts you to it - its fantastical nature, its pseudo-science, its relationships, its philosophies, etc.? Do the same things also attract you to Middle-earth?
2. Are there similarities between any aspect of Star Trek and any of Tolkien's works?
1. Well, Captain Picard doesn't hurt! I think that both the relationships and the philosophies of Next Gen appeal to me. I have to admit that Jean-Luc probably appealed to me initially, but after that I just really thought it was a well-done show.
2. I can honestly say that I never related the two, but that doesn't mean a relationship doesn't exist. There is probably a good reason why so many Tolkien fans are Trek fans, too. Now that you have presented the question, I do think that many of the values espoused are similar and so are the basic themes.
Good poll, dernwyn!
|
|
|
|
|
1
