Do Star Trek movies make you ponder the beauty of life?

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by theedgeoflight

No. Star Trek TNG did though. I'd love to live in a star ship like the Enterprise and travel the galaxy.

Then when the citizens of the Federation came to believe nothing could spoil their world, along came the Dominion and then a galaxy wide war. On the show they *almost* lost. But the general perception of the Federation as paradise was pretty damaged.

Many 'alternatives' proposed by fans do have them losing. I happen to like the new movies and the darker and less rosy portrait of the early Federation, with Section 31 not hiding in the shadows so much. It would be less a prime target of other empires since it would expect to have to keep defending itself.

The authorized books also portray a very tumultious aftermath with lots of little wars and constant threat now that the Federation is no longer magically immune from them.

The beauty of the world they see in tng was that it was the height and a the generations running it had grown up in that rarified place. Then they get to see the crumbling. TNG appealed to that need for a place which is good and safe and honorable which seems so well built that it could never crumble. The Federation was a good empire. Everything rises and everything falls. I find the falls fascinating since we can see echos of our own world here and there.

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by ColoGuy

Understood.....but I would go with Kirk. Fistfights, hot ladies, and breaking stupid rules to save the universe.

It was a nice series of steps with the captains. First, Archer. This is the beginning, with no tradition to uphold or break. Every experience is new. They were the generation that made the rules, and didn't always follow them when it didn't work out.

Then Kirk. The height of innocence. Taking Archer's world further into new places as technology lets them go further. Being the explorers and the diplomats, or at least eventually the diplomats. Making rules and breaking them as needed. A sense of youth and energy and wonderous discovery.

Then Picard. The matured empire. Treaties, affiliations and shared interests have drawn the diseperate together. Worlds which are up and coming wish to become a part. Exploration, but its careful and there are no cowboy captains like Kirk. The Federation percieved as the height of civilization. The perception that they were so powerful and good that not only would no enemy want to resist, but they really have no reason to. A renassainse which nobody believes is about to end.

Then Sisko. Raised in the world of paradise but already damaged goods from the Borg invasion. His trip to the dark strengthed by working with the Bajorans, coming out of fifty years of occupation. They do not understand paradise, and neither does Sisko anymore. And he and his crew sitting on the frontier are the first to see the beginnings of the crumbling of paradise.

The Dominion war, casting a dark shadow over everything and sending them back to Archer's uncertain existance world without the dreams.

To each their own, but my favorite is DS9, and I find the 'world' which follows the war fascinating, since nothing is the same. Its really the saga of an empire and its life and changes, and the different kinds of decisions each stage offer. And at the end, a question of how much survives and how long.

I don't see the new movies as replacing the origional but a view from a slightly darker lens of a parallel universe, where the dream is much less inspired and the paradise isn't going to look much like it did with the origional universe. Just the public knowledge of Section 31 so early on, giving them and their absolute views a place at the table will make it come out very different since it won't be pretending to be paradise.

[D. Scott]

Sure does. How can a fan not think of taking a trip on the Enterprise? And perhaps an evening game of chess with Captain Picard or a drink with Lt. Worf? They even have youtube channels with the engine sound on a long playback. Its relaxing and good for when you are doing work on the computer.

[TamaraSavannah]

I remember the irony of the TNG episode "The Hunted" where in the teaser, Riker is saying how the world they are interviewing is a little bit too stuffy for his taste.....and the Federation was pretty stuffy itself.

Or how about in "Ensign Ro" where they are sitting around the briefing table and Ro has to tell them that they don't have a clue about the situation?

A thing about TNG over the seasons that was very irritating was watching Picard do things that should have had him relieved from command or, at the very least, was very out of character. Such as when he abandons his fleet command to go after Data and then strips the ship of crew, including himself, to go search for him on the planet while in a war zone. Then counter that with the 1st season episode "The Arsenal of Freedom" where La Forge says he wouldn't have left the ship if he thought it could be attacked.

I suppose, however, Star Fleet is very forgiving such as was demonstrated in "Tapestry" where in the alternate reality, Picard is no more than an O-2 with how many years of service?

TNG, at times, was utopia to the point of insanity.

But, since this is the movie section, how do the movies fit in?

I've only seen the first TNG movie, "Generations" and it was much like the show, just without the faults built up over the years. I didn't watch the reboots, which leaves TOS movies. TMP was essentially a reintroduction to the TV series with bigger and better things, so that can be left out. V and VI were terrible, V being slightly better if the main cast weren't in the scene, so they probably should be left out as well. Which leaves II, III, and IV.

II, TWOK, was probably the best (PROVIDED it's not the director's cut, then it's terrible) because in relation to this thread, it showed us a world that was not Enterprise and it showed us a success story. In reverse order, that success story was Kyle, from lowly crewman to a Lt. Commander. We saw Reliant, something of a match for Enterprise (Reliant class are weighted for research missions where hostilities may be encountered while Constellation class are weighted for hostilities were research may be required, nutshell speaking), and Captain Terrell, a very capable leader who was not a Kirk. It was a universe that was similar to what we know in reality.

III, TSFS, puts us in similar circumstances in that Captain Estaban is again not like Kirk....nor is Captain Styles. It's just that they are the kind of leaders one would probably like to avoid, one way or the other. TSFS, however, also showed us that our perfect Trek world was beginning to slip and perhaps in a very bad way. Two photo torpedo hits against an unshielded Klingon fighter at point blank range and the only damage they caused was to make it reel? Should have blown it to bits. If we don't put it down to bad movie making, then our perfect world is fading. Finally, that's not even counting Federation Security locking up people who are talking about things TPTB don't want the public to know about.

IV, TVH, was pretty good and kind of hard to fault........up to the 2nd to last act, Kirk's sentence. Kirk commits major crimes, even if they are for the right reason, and only gets a slap on the wrist. It was the reinforcement of what Kirk always is when seen from an alternate viewpoint: "A military commander, obviously the glory boy of the fleet, who enforces rules and regulations to the letter......but only when it suits his purpose.". This leads to a very interesting question of how can someone with a reputation of Kirk's maintain discipline on his ships? Is there something about the Star Trek universe that makes the underlings so obedient that such things as disobedience is hardly, if ever seen?

Fortunately, we don't get time to ponder such. We just have to see their perfection and enjoy.