Star Trek is better than everything

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

I believe that I have finally achieved Kolinahr after this thought of total logic dawned on me - which is that Star Trek is the greatest franchise of all time.

Think about it, it has the best music, the best acting ensemble, the best stories, the best characters, the most memorable dialogue and there's a wide variety of content that spans almost 50 years.

And most importantly, Star Trek is the benchmark by which all others are measured. And these have all failed the test. The Tolkiens, the Nolans, the Game of Throneses, the Marvels, the Potters, even the Star Warses... they're nothing compared to the unparalleled magnificence of Roddenberry's mythic wagon train to the stars.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

I agree. There really isnt anything that rivals Star Trek in it's longgevity and versatility combined. Doctor Who is older, but has only really existed on TV. James Bond never had a TV series. Star Wars doesnt even come close to Trek when it comes to the acumilated hours of quality storytelling.

There really is no comparison!

[BloodBoal 7536]

[Glóin the Dark 1131]

And most importantly, Star Trek is the benchmark by which all others are measured.

Is this really true? It's naturally a benchmark for fans of Star Trek, and can obviously be seen as a benchmark in terms of longevity and sheer quantity of material. But I've never got the impression of it being used as a general benchmark of quality.

As to whether it is actually the greatest, I must remain agnostic for now, since I haven't really seen any Star Trek other than the two most recent films.

[BloodBoal 7536]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

I haven't really seen any Star Trek other than the two most recent films.

Your opinion holds no value!

[Glóin the Dark 1131]

(I've heard it's crap, though. )

[Wojo 2445]

Better than everything? Star Trek is not better than sex. Or less perfect than Lore.

[Incanus 5569]

Oh lordy, another one of these Star Trek threads. They should form a new subforum for this stuff so we decent folk should not have to see this on daily basis. Everything else gets lost in the flood of million different Trekkie threads.

[Wojo 2445]

You're one of those Star Trek fans, aren't you? You must be a devil with the ladies.

[Incanus 5569]

Hello! Look at the gorgeous piece of Romulan tail. Set your phasers to stunning!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

[Incanus 5569]

Oooh mama, those eyebrows!

[Wojo 2445]

The fabulous Dina Meyer is stunning in everything, and it's a shame we don't see her in more movies. Starship Troopers FTW.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

Maybe you can get her to a holo suite and play Vulcan Love Slave

[Wojo 2445]

You mean, rub my finger? Ooh boy that's hot.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

I bet she does a mean Oo-mox!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6478]

I do believe there's hope for you yet.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

And you people... you're all super nerds. On some kind of quote trek.

[Incanus 5569]

There already is a Star Trek quote thread. This is the thread where you can sing the glories of the Trek with fellow fans.

And quote Star Trek, naturally.

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

Row, row, row your boat... gently down the stream.

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily.

Life is but a dream.

[BloodBoal 7536]

[KK 3251]

What is this nonsense??

[BLUMENKOHL 1064]

I believe that I have finally achieved Kolinahr after this thought of total logic dawned on me - which is that Star Trek is the greatest franchise of all time.

Think about it, it has the best music, the best acting ensemble, the best stories, the best characters, the most memorable dialogue and there's a wide variety of content that spans almost 50 years.

And most importantly, Star Trek is the benchmark by which all others are measured. And these have all failed the test. The Tolkiens, the Nolans, the Game of Throneses, the Marvels, the Potters, even the Star Warses... they're nothing compared to the unparalleled magnificence of Roddenberry's mythic wagon train to the stars.

Tolkiens, Potters, Star Wars, Marvels, aren't even in the same league in terms of pushing people to think about things that don't come easy. They're abstracted so far to traditional good and evil and us vs. them survival writing that it's just not part of their inherent literary nature. They're ancient and basic tales, for people who fear the tiger prowling in the woods. Yes even Marvels, despite the modern setting.

It explains Star Trek's comparative failure in places where people can't afford to eat, while things like Potter, Tolkien, and Star Wars are ubiquitous hits. They're ancient and basic tales. To appreciate Star Trek, you need your shit together. Hence we see Star Trek's greatest popularity in the most technologically and economically prosperous countries: US, UK, Germany, Japan, Scandinavian countries...etc.

Game of Thrones, I don't think will have the legs to last like Star Trek, but it certainly pushes people to confront certain realities about themselves and the world in which they live.

Some of Nolan's stuff, for example his recent Interstellar, tries to push people to think about philosophical and scientific topics that don't come naturally, but again, legs are problematic again.

It's not just legs, but being able to survive decentralized ownership, and great as well as shitty ownership. Star Trek has not only thrived, but thrived despite some periods of horrid handling.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

You are right, i do not have a brother.... I have a half brother.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

What is this nonsense??

It's how we all feel, Mr. KK.

[BloodBoal 7536]

[KK 3251]

Remember BB, you were once not a Trekkie, but a Tolkienite....don't forget your roots!!

In all seriousness, I have nothing against ST at all, how can I, when I haven't seen anything but JJ Abrahms' subpar films? (Though I can see why that might be reason enough....hehe). But I do sometimes wonder if the Trek fans make the franchise out to be more meaningfully profound than it actually is...again, haven't seen it, wouldn't know.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

Oh, some unquestionably do.

I think Lost did much of what Star Trek has tried to do, and more, better. Now I like the franchise, it was a cornerstone for me when I was a kid. And still is. But to hold it up as a pillar of a certain type of storytelling that doesn't happen anywhere else is silly. I think a huge part of it is the nostalgia factor. The same reason some people goofily adore certain boring scores and films.

It's got a lot of heart, it has a lot to say (though sometimes it wants you to think it's more profound than it is), it invites you in. And it's quotable. And it's yielded great music. That's why I love it. It made me think things that most kids my age didn't think.

But please. We all know Nolan is better.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

No we dont!

Star Trek is bigger then Jesus!

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

Star Trek is a series of many well-told stories with allegorical significance to the real world.

Tolkien's works are pages depicting characters walking millions of miles and eating and more walking and more eating and a load of irrelevant setting descriptions interspersed with incomprehensible poems that I bet even the most devoted fan skips or skims.

[BLUMENKOHL 1064]

I don't normally pull the age card...

But you two (KK and TheGreyPilgrim) are probably too young to know this. You weren't alive, and you simply don't know the cultural phenomenon that Star Trek was in STEM, at least in America. Simply, a massive chunk of your 21st century technological world was made by people who were inspired by Star Trek to get into science and technology. Most kids in college in science and engineering in the 80s, and 90s were there in part because Star Trek kindled their interest in science and engineering. It was rare to find someone who wasn't a Trekkie in those programs.

Those kids from the 80s and 90s are making your world now.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

Yes!

[Dixon Hill 4232]

Blume you and I are the same age I believe.

[BLUMENKOHL 1064]

Then you were probably too busy not paying attention!

[KK 3251]

TGP is from your generation, not mine!!

And I get that, and it's effects, but I've seen many, including some here who try to instil some sense of deep profundity and philosophy to the show, when I wonder if it's really a lot simpler than that. An entertaining sci-fi series like Doctor Who, but less silly.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

The Roddenberry vision is deep and profound. I just don't agree with the idea that it's unique.

But as far as decade spanning franchises go? Yeah, it is.

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

I don't find much philosophical or allegorical in Doctor Who. Rather it's more of an exercise in taking some of the most mundane things in our existence (like plastic garbage bins, graffiti or angel statues) and putting a supernatural spin on it.

[KK 3251]

Right, that was the only show with a similar legacy I could think of on the spot. But I always viewed ST as more along those campy lines, but with shades of philosophy and stuff in it. But the way you describe it, you make it sound like a less ambiguous 2001 or something...

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

I don't even understand 2001. To me it's just a bunch of pretty pictures.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

Draxy baby seems to love his soaps, as far as I can tell. It's only natural then that he'd claim the most soapy part of geekdom as his most beloved.

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

Dove cleanses like no other shower wash.

[Dixon Hill 4232]

Would Victor Newman make a good Starfleet captain?

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

Ronn Moss would be captain of the USS Forrester.

[Glóin the Dark 1131]

...pages depicting characters walking millions of miles and eating and more walking and more eating...

You say that almost as though it's a bad thing.

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

...pages depicting characters walking millions of miles and eating and more walking and more eating...

You say that almost as though it's a bad thing.

This is actually riveting and engaging reading for some people?

[Dixon Hill 4232]

Riveting, no. Engaging, yes.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10254]

Right, that was the only show with a similar legacy I could think of on the spot. But I always viewed ST as more along those campy lines, but with shades of philosophy and stuff in it. But the way you describe it, you make it sound like a less ambiguous 2001 or something...

Star Trek was never campy. It's always been too serious for that. Even in the 60's.

[Unlucky Bastard 7770]

See, you're the fantasy equivalent of Star Trek fans who read starship manuals and engineering books. None of that is of any interest to me because it's of no consequence.

If I sit down and attempt to read about characters endlessly walking and stuffing their faces, the text has completely lost me and I go and pick up a shorter, punchier pulp novel instead.

[Uni 306]

As usual, I stand betwixt two extremes. . . .

Star Trek as the best franchise ever? I gotta go with you on that one, yup. Certainly the longevity, the applicability of the stories, the love for the characters among a truly epic fanbase, the (overall) quality of the productions. and, of course, the music, among other factors, have lifted it to a legitimately legendary status. I would have to agree that it stands above other franchises—Star Wars and the James Bond films—for the reasons mentioned. I'm a lifelong fan myself, and it's hard to imagine a world without Trek.

But let's draw some intelligent distinctions here, yes?

And most importantly, Star Trek is the benchmark by which all others are measured. And these have all failed the test. The Tolkiens, the Nolans, the Game of Throneses, the Marvels, the Potters, even the Star Warses... they're nothing compared to the unparalleled magnificence of Roddenberry's mythic wagon train to the stars.

First off, pulling the likes of Tolkien and the Potter series into this discussion blurs what you're saying. It's apples and oranges. Those novels aren't franchises; they're literary works by a single author that were adapted into film versions. It's on a completely different scale. And to say they've failed some sort of "test," and that they're "nothing" compared to ST? Utter nonsense. In what universe can you call either of these works failures? They've been, each in their own way, unprecedented successes. When it comes to fantasy, it's Tolkien who's the benchmark by which all others are compared (including Martin's Game of Thrones). And if you really want to get nitty and gritty about it, what Tolkien accomplished far outstrips Roddenberry's creds. Star Trek became a success through collaborative effort, other people's money, and not a little bit of luck (without syndication, it would've died the same death most T.V. shows did back in those days). Tolkien, on the other hand, spent his entire life—from the age of 19 until his death—creating an entire world from scratch, a world that's captivated ours on the same level that Star Trek has. Roddenberry didn't do it alone; and, in fact, accounts show that often times his was the weaker vision among his colleagues. The best shows arose from great science fiction writers and directors spinning their magic out of Roddenberry's central idea. When the Great Bird took too much of a heavy hand, things tended to bog down a lot. (That's how TMP became the drag that it was, and why TNG didn't really take off and become a truly great series until Gene took a less hands-on role in the project.)

Roddenberry had done T.V. before ST, and that was just another series he started and helmed as a part of the studio process. It became something huge, of course, but not solely because of him. Comparing his story to that of Tolkien, or even Rowling—a single mother who single-handedly created an entirely new subset of young adult literature—doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does this:

Tolkien's works are pages depicting characters walking millions of miles and eating and more walking and more eating and a load of irrelevant setting descriptions interspersed with incomprehensible poems that I bet even the most devoted fan skips or skims.

If that's how you view Tolkien, you'd do best to leave him out of discussions like this altogether. I've read the books from beginning to end a total of 14 times—and no, I didn't skim through the poems, which are some of the best elements of the story and far from incomprehensible to engaged readers. You may not care for the books, and that's fine. To each his own. But to say it's an outright failure because you're a Trekker turns your assertion on its ear by default.

Now, again . . . before the feedback starts, I'd call your attention back to my initial paragraph. I'm not sticking it to ST here. I love all the shows and movies, and have seen them all enough to tell you where all the quotes in this and the other threads come from (right down to the episode and season). I used to attend StarCons, fercryinoutloud—back during the first run of TNG, which made them a kick. I've seen Nimoy and many others, met Colm Meaney, and even rubbed shoulders with John de Lancie. And as much as I love Star Wars and the James Bond movies, I think you're right—Trek is the best franchise going, and I frankly don't think anything in the future will be able to compare with it (because they'll still be doing ST whenever said future franchise kicks off its first season!). I'm just saying we should keep franchise competition among the franchises, that's all.