Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,834
# 21
09-10-2012, 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
Kirk broke the rules when he believed the rules were preventing him from acting for the greater good or when compliance would endanger the ship. Nearly all of his actions were broken down to almost naive levels of black and white, and even his questionable acts like arming peaceful natives were never deplorable in the given circumstances (in that case, warlike natives armed by the Klingons).

Sisko broke the rules to win a war. Deplorable acts but with extremely high stakes.

Janeway, however, on several occasions broke the rules for no gain to the greater good or the good of the ship, while on others enforced them to the detriment of the greater good or the good of the ship, punished free speech and used rank and intimidation to silence dissent. She committed deplorable acts with low stakes and frequently with acceptable alternatives.

Archer, meanwhile, also committed deplorable acts, with high stakes (lower than Sisko's but higher than Janeway's) and usually without alternatives.


One of these things is not like the other.
sorry but the excuses dont justify the means they all boke the rules one committed genocide sorry no excuse for that at all not matter how you would like to justify it

Last edited by daan2006; 09-10-2012 at 09:19 AM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,924
# 22
09-10-2012, 10:00 AM
I'm happy Mr. Dorn is so enthusiastic in still wanting to play Worf and I would love to see more into Klingon culture. But I think his idea needs somekind of plot that would convince CBS (especially profit-wise) to invest in another Trek TV show that isn't new-Trek.


Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Dorn about the STO Foundry and use that to make webisodes?

We seen the UGC teams nicely pull it off, and Mr. Dorn could use that to convince CBS and at the same time gather a fanbase to support the idea in going into production.
NO to ARC!

Season 9.5 = STO's NGE is Here! Welcome to the Grind!

New Crafting = It's not Crafting, is an overblown Reputation System.
Ensign
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 25
# 23
09-10-2012, 10:03 AM
why not a series about a klingon captain during the fed/klingon war?

-kicking fed-asses all the time

maybe we would see more kdf players in the game and cryptic would care a bit more about the klingons
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,700
# 24
09-10-2012, 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by owenfelix69 View Post
I have just seen on the net that Worf (Michael Dorn) has put his name and idea out there for a new star trek show, i was wondering if anyone has more information about this, if you think its a good idea and what you might like to see from it

If this is true i would like to see the prometheus as the main ship, with Worf as its Captain.

I think that theres a gap in the market right now for a good sci fi show and would love a new star trek show to come out
Every TV season, some high profil;e name comes forward with an idea to re-introduce Star Trek to TV. However, CBS has declined every one, and the thinking is that they will continue to do so as long as Paramount is doing the recast big screen Star Trek film series (the cast was signed to a 3 feature deal and if the upcoming Star Trek film does well, they'll at least do the third, see how it does and go from there).

But, my point? you won't see another Star vTrek series for TV be seriously contemplated until teh film series has run its course. Until then CBS is content to remaster the existing non-HD series into HD format and make money selling the Blu-Rays (and new HD syndication packages) to local high definition stations and cable networks.)

Star Trek on TV (if it ever returns at all) is still years (5 to 10) away (IMO)
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=91861979000&dateline=  1340755546
PWE Drone says, "Your STO community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,425
# 25
09-10-2012, 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanftd View Post
Why do I get the impression people don't like janeway as a captain due to her being a woman, only captain I really see getting slagged yet also the only woman, ohhhh contravertial.
I'd slag Picard and Archer too.

I enjoy WATCHING Picard, Archer, and Janeway. Disagree pretty dramatically with all three, particularly on ethics.

I did once get called out at a party for saying I thought Kirk and Sisko were the captains I agreed with morally.

Compare what Sisko was willing to do for his crew to what Janeway was willing to do.

I think they pushed Janeway into some weird moral paradoxes. She was willing to kill Tuvix to get Tuvok back. She wasn't willing to do anything questionable to get the ship home and they kept ramming that issue home. So she'd breach the prime directive constantly based on her personal moral code but would never even consider bending it to save the lives of her crew until future Janeway (who I LOVED) did it for her. If she'd been Admiral Janeway from Endgame the whole time, she'd probably be my favorite Captain.

I think the writers were too married to the premise of the show.

I mean, DS9 was supposed to be a stationary show but they bent that by including the Defiant and a war... and stretching the premise improved the show.

If they'd had Janeway make a questionable decision and get home? There's an interesting plot. There were always rumors that they might get home early and deal with the fallout of the Maquis crew, etc. That would have been GOOD. I also think it would have been more interesting to have Janeway make a risky choice that gets them home but then there are consequences to that, like a threat to the Federation. I think they bent her character out of shape just to keep Voyager lost.

Enterprise also got better once they relaxed the format and got away from the idea of not doing big, direct prequels.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 236
# 26
09-10-2012, 10:20 AM
Ten Forward please.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 427
# 27
09-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirsitsalot View Post
Really... Three years after Trek '09 and only a limited number of photos and no real info to speak of about the sequel... The money is REALLY there alright.

The MONEY is wherever they end up RELEASING the next Star Trek production. If they do a TV series, sponsorship will ensure profit.

If they do direct DVD sales, if they produce something like 13 hour-long episodes as part of an extended story arc, then they will make a lot of money on sales.

Look how successful Game of Thrones has been in DVD sales. Not everyone gets HBO. A Trek series made for DVD would work even without airing the episodes on TV. All they have to do is promote it heavily in every official and unofficial Star Trek / Science Fiction web site they can find, and people will be lined up on release day to get their hands on it. Base the viability of a second season on the sales.

Just saying...

Money is wherever people are interested in spending it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by raj011 View Post
Its not going to last long, every true trek fan wants the prime verse back. I love the JJverse movie and can't wait but at the same time I want the prime verse to be shown. Its not set in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerobang View Post
i think IF there is going to be a new show, with a new setting and everything, then they might make it so different that it will work for both Universes or Fanbases.

like... 26th+ century for example.


ENT works for both timelines, because it is set in the past, the more you go into the future the less important the details of the past shows become.


but personally i think there is still enough demand for the prime universe (this games survival is proof enough).
It just depends who the next guy is after JarJar Abrams that gets to play with the license on the big screen.
Like it or not trek '09 made more money than the last three trek movies before it combined. These people don't give a flying feck about us fans, they'll go with lowest common denominator, easiest profit, least risky option every single time. That means they'll go with the almighty reboot.

Even if.... and it's a miniscule if, we get a show in the prime universe, it will be a stinker. They will bleed the universe we enjoy of any reason we appreciate with shoddy scripts that give us LOLScience! and pander to mindless action crowd. We'll have to sit there and grin and bare it as we wretch our way through twi-trek.

Mark my words, trek as we know and love, trek as we want to see come back... is dead.

It's Dead, Jim.
Joined August 2008

Last edited by cormoran; 09-10-2012 at 10:40 AM.
Commander
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 333
# 28
09-10-2012, 02:41 PM
[quote=stoleviathan99;5659321]I'd slag Picard and Archer too.

I enjoy WATCHING Picard, Archer, and Janeway. Disagree pretty dramatically with all three, particularly on ethics.

I did once get called out at a party for saying I thought Kirk and Sisko were the captains I agreed with morally.

Compare what Sisko was willing to do for his crew to what Janeway was willing to do.

I think they pushed Janeway into some weird moral paradoxes. She was willing to kill Tuvix to get Tuvok back.

I think you mean to get tuvok and nelix back, im sure as spock said, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.


i personally thought janeway was good, they couldnt have them all the same.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,425
# 29
09-10-2012, 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanftd View Post
i personally thought janeway was good, they couldnt have them all the same.
I think Archer suffered because they made him an inferior version of the others for the most part. I suppose some of that was needed for a prequel -- to show growth -- but I think it would have been better to make him more distinct.

I've said it before but they should have given him a wife.

Everyone else seemed wary about relationships, aside from Sisko and even then he was different for key reasons.

There's almost an implied idea in Star Trek that a captain can't be married or have a family unless they're stationed on a base.

I think that would have been a good thing to setup Archer as a "negative example" of. The concern there would be that he might be unlikable if he's a bad husband or a bad captain but I think he could be good at both but just strained enough that later captains would avoid it. Especially if the whole arc was setup so that, in the finale, he chooses family over his captaincy.

Plus, if you look at Scott Bakula's existing work, he's just better at playing a committed husband or boyfriend than a swinging romantic. Stewart COULD have played that role too but I think he likes playing the swinging romantic more and it gave Picard hidden layers.
Ensign
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3
# 30
09-13-2012, 07:23 AM
As long as there will be Borg in it

The borg are just badass... and if they tie it somehow in a paralel universe I can ignore how Janeway mutilated them in VOY. I will always ignored the emergence of the borg queen and her supposed destruction just out of principle.

Last edited by stealthednl; 09-13-2012 at 07:26 AM.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM.