No Right Answer: Best Space Series Ever

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Two questions:

Who are you?

and

What do you want?

Ok. Three questions, where' s Babylon 5? I guess you need the appearance of a competition which B5 wouldn't have afforded.

Babylon 5 bored the shit out of me, I watched like 5 or so episodes and gave up.

IMO:

Firefly>SG1>TNG>Farscape>DS9>SGA>BSG>VOY>TOS>SGU>Enterprise>Babylon 5

To be fair to TOS I didn't watch it until after TNG so it was a bit dated which probably effected my view of it a bit.

First, it is John Crichton
Secondly,
"I wish you people would stop pointing guns at me!"
"I have got to stop pointing guns at people."
"A monumental black hole. A swirling headstone marking the spot where we used to live and play and slaughter the innocent."

Setting aside the sudden cancellation before s5, which was at first taken up alongside s4, I would have to go with that show. I have watched the others, some more than others but that one, I kind of like that one a bit more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNA17K572oo

My heart says Star Trek: The Next Generation, but my head is saying Babylon 5.

ZZoMBiE13:
Michael Chriton was a great character.

Evidently not great enough for you to remember his name.

Count_A'ight:

Michael Chriton became a better space pirate than Han Solo ever was.

Good grief!

Old Father Eternity:
First, it is John Crichton

Thaaaank you.

Guys. Michael Crichton was an author. He wrote Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain and a bunch of other stuff. Despite being a whacked out conspiracy nut, and a stubborn denier of climate change, he was a pretty cool guy.

He was nowhere near the level of John Crichton cool ;p.

OT: This is one of those time I'm very content with the name of the show describing the situation. There really is no right answer here. For me, if I absolutely had to pick I'd take Farscape. The fact that that means ruling out Firefly, Babylon 5, the first two series of BSG and the Dominion war arc of DS9 is immensely difficult. They're all great shows.

But damn, was Farscape awesome. They are still releasing movies that have less real looking and believable aliens/creatures than that show. And I don't think I've ever seen a protagonist as likably insane as John Crichton. And for the record, (plasma) pulse pistols that use tasty vegetable oil for ammunition are pretty much the coolest guns ever.

I'm actually at something of a loss these days. Between Mass Effect ending... the way it did, and the lack of any TV show that compares with any of the ones mentioned (man, I really did not appreciate the 90s/early 00s at the time) I am utterly starved for good sci-fi. I'm slowly working my way through Breaking Bad, and that's holding my interest. Agents of SHIELD has me intrigued, and I'll watch the new series of Homeland when it starts this weekend. But apart from that, I am dry of good current pop culture.

Man, I miss shows like this. Why can't JMS get off his ass and write some 'Babylon 5: Next Generation' or something?

I've met Patrick Stewart, and where was firefly? This episode needed more firefly!

Does anyone actually LIKE Chris Pine?

Skeleon:
...I'll amend my earlier post about Firefly: That was one of the few TV shows that actually took care to display space more realistically than most other shows.

You're joking, right? It still had magic gravity, engines that are always on, and the same ridiculous speed-of-plot nonsense as, well, pretty much every other show. At least Trek and its ilk had the indistinguishable-from-magic handwave option open: Firefly deliberately cultivated a low-tech look despite breaking some pretty fundamental principles of physics and engineering. Not that it's particularly surprising, of course, because (a) these things are expensive to portray with verisimilitude, and (b) pretty much nobody in the industry gives a shit about doing so.

And I think you'll find that Blake's 7 was the best. ;)

"But, uh...final word...we need a new space opera."

Damn right, we do. Something that combines the world building and sense of scale of Star Trek with the character drama and interpersonal interactions of Battlestar Galactica.

Basically: Doctor Who with a bit more dramatic adventure and socio-political themes, but with a bit less camp[1].

[1] Don't blow up at me. I'm not badmouthing Doctor Who. I absolutely adore that series. However, we don't need a DW clone.

And then all of a sudden a huge tear in space the warp opens up and the Warhammer 40k universe comes spilling out. First the Imperium of Man start to invade and take over every world peaceful or not it'll all be part of His Imperium. Everything that is not human will be annihilated, by holy Exterminatus The the madness of chaos and all the horrors of the warp rape the minds of all sending them crazy and deamons possess countless worlds and madness and panic takes hold. People start to turn on one an other, for the promise of power from the chaos gods. Or just simply of crazed paranoia. Then Necron start to wake up all over space and start their purge of all things living. Tyranids hive fleets swarm over every world leaving lifless rocks after every world consumed of all bio-matter. Orks will take full advantage of the wars taking place looting all the shiney new federation tech and BSG tech. And just generally looking for a good fight. I could go on fact is.

WARHAMMER 40K universe pisses all over your StarTrek/BSG universe.

in fact...... That is what the new space opera should be. Warhammer 40k done in the same style love and attention to detail as Game of Thrones. perhaps set during the great crusade leading up to the Horus Heresy when shit really goes down. ^.^

octafish:
Two questions:

Who are you?

and

What do you want?

Ok. Three questions, where' s Babylon 5? I guess you need the appearance of a competition which B5 wouldn't have afforded.

Cut them some slack. These are the same guys who included Lost in a "Show you must watch before you die" (which actually won).

Therumancer:

Skeleon:

SupahGamuh:
I haven't seen any of the Star Trek series (yet), but I definitely saw Babylon 5 and I'm dissapointed it's not mentioned even once. As much as I love BSG, I have to say that Babylon 5 is just better in every single aspect.

Hm, true. Didn't even think of that. Especially once Earth Gov starts turning into a fascistoid government, things start really heating up. A lot of political intrigue and interesting stuff going on there. BSG was a nice action show and the interpersonal stuff and drama had a lot of focus there, but for bigger political stuff you'd best turn to B5 (or possibly DS9, although I never liked that quite as much as B5).

B5 was great but suffer from year to year renewal which didn't like the creator handle the story arcs quite the way he wanted, he did a couple of season endings with the expectation that he might not get renewed (we have at least two episodes showing things well into the future both of which were later rendered non-canon by the show's continuation). It also had a problem with some really uneven acting, I tend to think "Claudia Christian" (Ivanova) is pretty terrible as an actress even if the character is basically okay. Also they seemed to have difficulty keeping anyone around reliably for the "Resident Telepath" role.

Also the follow up series ended in a bad place, which I didn't care for.... and I was always kind of surprised that Bester never seemed to get his (though I give them credit, that character was a magnificent bastard).

Claudia Christian is awesome, as an actress and as Ivanova. When she left in season 5, the show almost fell apart. It took me about 3 or 4 runs through the entire series to figure out what was wrong with S5 until it finally occurred to me it was Ivanova's absence.

And yeah, these guys have obviously never seen B5. If they had there would be no way BSG would make the cut. They probably haven't seen Red Dwarf either.

About Farscape... guys, it wasn't that great. Aside from the aliens and puppets, which I will admit were the possibly the best we've seen in sci-fi, everything about Farscape was distinctly average to above-average. Apart from that, it was barely sci-fi. It was an space action show.

LordLundar:
As far as I'm concerned Babylon 5 outmatches both. It's presents realistic handling of realistic situations in a sci-fi setting. There's no "perfect society" like Star Trek or "suddenly aliens that want to destroy us" like BSG or so many other alien Sci-Fi dramas. Nope, major story development is all based off real events that have actually transpired and could transpire again in a more natural evolution of what becoming a level 4 space society would be. It's not post apocalyptic but it's also not pristine perfection either.

To add, It is probably the only series that would come up with new methods of visual and auditory presentation, limit them to a couple of uses to give them the impact that's needed then stops using them so it doesn't water down the effect. I've lost track of how many times the same effects were used in either of your choices which got to the point of "this again?" level.

So yeah, narrative depth that derived from the real world without being about the the real world, a solid balance of visual and auditory effects to give it the most impact, and oh yes, A story with so many minor, major and critical arcs to make your head spin but structured in a manner to make it understandable. B5 wins my vote, hands down.

I'm just joshing you. I never really got into Babylon 5 mainly because of the commericals for it that I saw while watching my dad's beta taped from TV collection of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. UPN didn't do much to catch my interest and I really thought it wasn't worth my time. I saw an episode and I still didn't see much to it. Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek, though.

Hutzpah Chicken:

Blasphemy! :P

Hutzpah Chicken:
I'm just joshing you. I never really got into Babylon 5 mainly because of the commericals for it that I saw while watching my dad's beta taped from TV collection of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. UPN didn't do much to catch my interest and I really thought it wasn't worth my time. I saw an episode and I still didn't see much to it. Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek, though.

You might want to give B5 another look then, considering it and DS9 had a number of similarities and it has been argued that each influenced one another.

To be honest, I wasn't even interested in the series myself until after it finished airing. Once I got into it though I was hooked.

There's also something to be said that when the Executive producer (J. Michael Straczynski of too much stuff to mention fame) kills off a signature character and when asked why responds with "If I killed off some nobody no one would care!" That takes balls and it's something all to rarely seen in TV shows.

Da Orky Man:

Darth_Payn:
TNG won, as I predicted. STAR TREK, as a whole, has in spades what BSG lacked (aside from that picture of the 3 women in skimpy outfits; where's you guys find that?): hope and optimism. That's what keeps the viewers coming back for more, because we want a better tomorrow. That and BSG would take up to a year off between seasons. Also, what's this
"Patrick Stewart was" business? Patrick Stewart IS.

Ne1butme:
If you're going to select star trek, then at least go with the best version of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Superior storytelling to TNG.

And yet you have Sir Patrick Stewart playing John Oliver as your avatar?

To be fair, two of the most popular shows currently being broadcast are Breaking Bad (Ok, until a couple of days ago) and Game of Thrones. Neither of those series has a large quantity of hope in them, and certainly less than BSG. Being hopeful doesn't make a good tv series anymore.

I'd argue that being constantly bleak makes a worse one. I pretty much wrote off TV for an entire decade because of how bleak things got. I realize good things happening is unrealistic, that's why I watch TV. If I wanted to see bad things happen I'd look out the window. I don't even need to watch Breaking bad to see a meth empire, there's multiple labs and dealers on my home street.

DS9: is the "best" series of Star Trek, my favorite is ToS but that series has no legitimate end.

DRTJR:
DS9: is the "best" series of Star Trek, my favorite is ToS but that series has no legitimate end.

Not unless you count the the sixth movie, but then they were only counting the shows themselves here. Anyone who likes Star Trek and hasn't seen that movie owes it to themselves to watch it, though. It's the best of the bunch, with TWoK unfairly getting more love because it came earlier in the series.

IMO: BSG is the better series for one simple reason, and you guys touched on it, but didn't really make a big enough deal of it. In BSG, there was a level of continuity that just wasn't there in TNG. For example, at some point around midway in the series, the Galactica is hit by a nuke. You see the large scar from that nuke for the rest of the series. It doesn't magically disappear like battle wounds did in TNG at the beginning of the next episode. By the end of the series, the ship itself was coming apart due to the battles it had been in and lack of materials to fix it. That's good stuff, it's way more realistic that TNG, where everything just magically resets for the next hour.

For that reason alone, I thought BSG told a much better story. I like Star Trek and all (I have all of the DVDs in boxed sets), but you always knew the main characters were going to make it through unscathed to the next episode (with a very few exceptions, looking at you Denise Crosby). That was not the case in BSG, where main characters could and did die from time to time, or might lose body parts. That gave the show an edginess that I liked a lot.

Lawnmooer:
I was thinking Farscape all through this episode...

Such an amazing series (That I must've watched hundreds of times by now), it has characters you grow to love - Both the Protaganists and the Antagonist (Scorpius is a really interesting bad guy) - They all have original motivations, which end up changing throughout the series (For people aboard Moya, they start out just wanting to get home, and end up becoming like family to each other and end up trying to bring peace to the universe), all the aliens are unique with stereotypical traits seen between them with exceptions to those stereotypes (Such as PK Tech girl)

The only other space show that's kept up with the amount of viewings as Farscape from me is Red Dwarf but series 7, 8 and 9 kind of let it down somewhat (The rest of it is really awesome... Though as it's also more about the comedy rather than space drama, it probably wouldn't win this particular topic)

I saw the title and said, "Farscape". I love Farscape. I also love how they use Crichton as a ground for the viewer. When the series started this guy is thrown through a wormhole into a universe that makes no sense to him and then the viewer learns about this universe as the character does. I think compared to a lot of other sci-fi this show was a lot more "alien" in content compared to Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica.

castlewise:
Shouldn't Stargate: SG1 be in the running. IMHO its very underrated.

They addressed that in the rules since SG1 didn't wrap up in the show but took two movies to wrap up the loose ends it breaks the third rule and is disqualified from the particular comparison.

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:
DS9: is the "best" series of Star Trek, my favorite is ToS but that series has no legitimate end.

Not unless you count the the sixth movie, but then they were only counting the shows themselves here. Anyone who likes Star Trek and hasn't seen that movie owes it to themselves to watch it, though. It's the best of the bunch, with TWoK unfairly getting more love because it came earlier in the series.

Wrath of Kahn is an amazing film! Undiscovered country is a fitting end to ToS and a proper send off but TWoK is everything that made Trek Great, an amazing story that was both old and new in SPACE!

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:
DS9: is the "best" series of Star Trek, my favorite is ToS but that series has no legitimate end.

Not unless you count the the sixth movie, but then they were only counting the shows themselves here. Anyone who likes Star Trek and hasn't seen that movie owes it to themselves to watch it, though. It's the best of the bunch, with TWoK unfairly getting more love because it came earlier in the series.

Wrath of Kahn is an amazing film! Undiscovered country is a fitting end to ToS and a proper send off but TWoK is everything that made Trek Great, an amazing story that was both old and new in SPACE!

I have to disagree though, because TWoK wasn't quite /everything/ that made Trek great, but TUC was. If one day it's the only piece of of the original series that still exists, future generations will still have a pretty darned good idea of what it was all about. Whereas Khan, while an excellent story told within the universe, kind of does its own thing with it.

Also, The Motion Picture is a better TNG movie than any of the actual TNG movies. VI and I are my two favorites in the whole series, then II, III, IV, V[1], with the TNG movies all far enough behind that it doesn't really matter how I rank them.

Edit: And I realize the TNG movies were generally better put together than The Final Frontier was (Generations aside, that is), but the problem is they fall into the same basic trap that Trek '09 does: they're well put together action movies, not well put together Star Trek movies, and especially not well put together Star Trek: The Next Generation movies.

[1] For execution. On premise it's number 1

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Not unless you count the the sixth movie, but then they were only counting the shows themselves here. Anyone who likes Star Trek and hasn't seen that movie owes it to themselves to watch it, though. It's the best of the bunch, with TWoK unfairly getting more love because it came earlier in the series.

Wrath of Kahn is an amazing film! Undiscovered country is a fitting end to ToS and a proper send off but TWoK is everything that made Trek Great, an amazing story that was both old and new in SPACE!

I have to disagree though, because TWoK wasn't quite /everything/ that made Trek great, but TUC was. If one day it's the only piece of of the original series that still exists, future generations will still have a pretty darned good idea of what it was all about. Whereas Khan, while an excellent story told within the universe, kind of does its own thing with it.

Also, The Motion Picture is a better TNG movie than any of the actual TNG movies. VI and I are my two favorites in the whole series, then II, III, IV, V[1], with the TNG movies all far enough behind that it doesn't really matter how I rank them.

Edit: And I realize the TNG movies were generally better put together than The Final Frontier was (Generations aside, that is), but the problem is they fall into the same basic trap that Trek '09 does: they're well put together action movies, not well put together Star Trek movies, and especially not well put together Star Trek: The Next Generation movies.

TMP, The Final Frontier, and Nemesis all earn my ire for a singular reason, their failures were almost bad enough to sink the entire franchise. A franchise that I want back on the small screen. Doctor Who is alive and well bopping about time and space, and yet no one is boldly going were no man has gone before? Why is this? It's because Nemesis and Enterprise failed and we suffer from those.

[1] For execution. On premise it's number 1

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:
Wrath of Kahn is an amazing film! Undiscovered country is a fitting end to ToS and a proper send off but TWoK is everything that made Trek Great, an amazing story that was both old and new in SPACE!

I have to disagree though, because TWoK wasn't quite /everything/ that made Trek great, but TUC was. If one day it's the only piece of of the original series that still exists, future generations will still have a pretty darned good idea of what it was all about. Whereas Khan, while an excellent story told within the universe, kind of does its own thing with it.

Also, The Motion Picture is a better TNG movie than any of the actual TNG movies. VI and I are my two favorites in the whole series, then II, III, IV, V[1], with the TNG movies all far enough behind that it doesn't really matter how I rank them.

Edit: And I realize the TNG movies were generally better put together than The Final Frontier was (Generations aside, that is), but the problem is they fall into the same basic trap that Trek '09 does: they're well put together action movies, not well put together Star Trek movies, and especially not well put together Star Trek: The Next Generation movies.

TMP, The Final Frontier, and Nemesis all earn my ire for a singular reason, their failures were almost bad enough to sink the entire franchise. A franchise that I want back on the small screen. Doctor Who is alive and well bopping about time and space, and yet no one is boldly going were no man has gone before? Why is this? It's because Nemesis and Enterprise failed and we suffer from those.

I'll give you the other two, but TMP was actually a box office success that revitalized the franchise. It's remembered as a failure today because it picked up an undeserved bad reputation somewhere during the 80's or 90's, but it made close to three times its budget in the US alone. Source for the budget thing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm

Edit: Also, the biggest box office success until at least the '09 movie, adjusted for inflation, was actually The Voyage Home. Part of the reason The Final Frontier was so bad was Shatner wanted to do something serious, like The Search for Spock, but Paramount thought something sillier and more comedic, like The Voyage Home, would make more money. That infighting is why the tone is so schizophrenic.

Edit Edit: Correction, it turns out that TMP was actually the highest grossing in inflation adjusted dollars until Trek '09, with IV being the highest in un-adjusted dollars, and second highest in adjusted. Trek '09 is now the highest in both, but Into Darkness still ranks below IV. Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

[1] For execution. On premise it's number 1

LordLundar:

Hutzpah Chicken:

Blasphemy! :P

Hutzpah Chicken:
I'm just joshing you. I never really got into Babylon 5 mainly because of the commericals for it that I saw while watching my dad's beta taped from TV collection of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. UPN didn't do much to catch my interest and I really thought it wasn't worth my time. I saw an episode and I still didn't see much to it. Deep Space Nine was the best Star Trek, though.

You might want to give B5 another look then, considering it and DS9 had a number of similarities and it has been argued that each influenced one another.

To be honest, I wasn't even interested in the series myself until after it finished airing. Once I got into it though I was hooked.

There's also something to be said that when the Executive producer (J. Michael Straczynski of too much stuff to mention fame) kills off a signature character and when asked why responds with "If I killed off some nobody no one would care!" That takes balls and it's something all to rarely seen in TV shows.

This is why I went off Trek, and I'm surprised I didn't go off it earlier. What's the point of putting characters in danger every episode when you know they're not going to die, ever? Half the B5 crew either died or left, and you didn't know who it would be. Tasha Yar was an exception but really, the characters in Star Trek were invincible.

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I have to disagree though, because TWoK wasn't quite /everything/ that made Trek great, but TUC was. If one day it's the only piece of of the original series that still exists, future generations will still have a pretty darned good idea of what it was all about. Whereas Khan, while an excellent story told within the universe, kind of does its own thing with it.

Also, The Motion Picture is a better TNG movie than any of the actual TNG movies. VI and I are my two favorites in the whole series, then II, III, IV, V[1], with the TNG movies all far enough behind that it doesn't really matter how I rank them.

Edit: And I realize the TNG movies were generally better put together than The Final Frontier was (Generations aside, that is), but the problem is they fall into the same basic trap that Trek '09 does: they're well put together action movies, not well put together Star Trek movies, and especially not well put together Star Trek: The Next Generation movies.

TMP, The Final Frontier, and Nemesis all earn my ire for a singular reason, their failures were almost bad enough to sink the entire franchise. A franchise that I want back on the small screen. Doctor Who is alive and well bopping about time and space, and yet no one is boldly going were no man has gone before? Why is this? It's because Nemesis and Enterprise failed and we suffer from those.

I'll give you the other two, but TMP was actually a box office success that revitalized the franchise. It's remembered as a failure today because it picked up an undeserved bad reputation somewhere during the 80's or 90's, but it made close to three times its budget in the US alone. Source for the budget thing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm

Edit: Also, the biggest box office success until at least the '09 movie, adjusted for inflation, was actually The Voyage Home. Part of the reason The Final Frontier was so bad was Shatner wanted to do something serious, like The Search for Spock, but Paramount thought something sillier and more comedic, like The Voyage Home, would make more money. That infighting is why the tone is so schizophrenic.

Edit Edit: Correction, it turns out that TMP was actually the highest grossing in inflation adjusted dollars until Trek '09, with IV being the highest in un-adjusted dollars, and second highest in adjusted. Trek '09 is now the highest in both, but Into Darkness still ranks below IV. Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

The problem of TMP is that it tried to be 2001 a space odyssey as well as Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy hated doing TMP soo much his condition to signing on to TWoK was that Spock died. The studios were wearied that another Trek project would ruin them because TMP had a monstrous budget, the filming of TWoK did several great things not only on a budget but also with the fact that Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner were never in the same room during filming yet the those two actors shared such great chemistry despite that. That is what makes some of the best Trek, creating art under such great adversity, aslo the uniforms that appeared in TWoK became one of the most icon ones in franchise history.

[1] For execution. On premise it's number 1

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:
TMP, The Final Frontier, and Nemesis all earn my ire for a singular reason, their failures were almost bad enough to sink the entire franchise. A franchise that I want back on the small screen. Doctor Who is alive and well bopping about time and space, and yet no one is boldly going were no man has gone before? Why is this? It's because Nemesis and Enterprise failed and we suffer from those.

I'll give you the other two, but TMP was actually a box office success that revitalized the franchise. It's remembered as a failure today because it picked up an undeserved bad reputation somewhere during the 80's or 90's, but it made close to three times its budget in the US alone. Source for the budget thing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm

Edit: Also, the biggest box office success until at least the '09 movie, adjusted for inflation, was actually The Voyage Home. Part of the reason The Final Frontier was so bad was Shatner wanted to do something serious, like The Search for Spock, but Paramount thought something sillier and more comedic, like The Voyage Home, would make more money. That infighting is why the tone is so schizophrenic.

Edit Edit: Correction, it turns out that TMP was actually the highest grossing in inflation adjusted dollars until Trek '09, with IV being the highest in un-adjusted dollars, and second highest in adjusted. Trek '09 is now the highest in both, but Into Darkness still ranks below IV. Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

The problem of TMP is that it tried to be 2001 a space odyssey as well as Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy hated doing TMP soo much his condition to signing on to TWoK was that Spock died. The studios were wearied that another Trek project would ruin them because TMP had a monstrous budget, the filming of TWoK did several great things not only on a budget but also with the fact that Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner were never in the same room during filming yet the those two actors shared such great chemistry despite that. That is what makes some of the best Trek, creating art under such great adversity, aslo the uniforms that appeared in TWoK became one of the most icon ones in franchise history.

Which is funny, because the only time they didn't look totally doofy was in that one episode of TNG where Picard had a vision of what his life would have been like if he had never needed an artificial heart. Somehow they finally managed to make the things look cool. But still not as cool as the ones in TMP :P

And for the rest, I do see what you're saying, I just personally prefer TMP and TUD (though not in that order) to TWoK. It's a good movie, but it really doesn't need to be a Star Trek movie to work. It could have just as easily been set in the 17th century and be about a marooned pirate trying to get revenge against the man who left him to die. You could give it points for being universal, but it's just missing something for me that keeps it from being the perfect Trek film. The biggest thing is the surface narrative really is the biggest thing the film has going. It explores themes of growing older, friendship, and revenge, but that's just it: they're themes, not a message. Star Trek without a message isn't really Star Trek.

Plus, you know, Kirk doesn't get into a fistfight with an alien twice his size or have sex with a weird alien chick. He does that in The Undiscovered Country :P

And then he gets into a fistfight /with himself/ (or rather, that alien chick shape shifted into a copy of him), which is just beyond awesome. And then there's that message about the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union, which truly was the "undiscovered country" at the time and oh god I've got to rewatch it again, dammit XD

Blood Brain Barrier:

This is why I went off Trek, and I'm surprised I didn't go off it earlier. What's the point of putting characters in danger every episode when you know they're not going to die, ever? Half the B5 crew either died or left, and you didn't know who it would be. Tasha Yar was an exception but really, the characters in Star Trek were invincible.

Yeah see, that's where B5 had depth to it. Most other shows with key and/or favoured characters means they are largely untouchable. For B5 that simply means they were a bigger target. NO favored character got through the series untouched. Whether killed of physically, becoming emotionally dead or going dark persona, or suffering some mental breakdown that they have to work through, Everyone was affected over the course of the series.

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

I'll give you the other two, but TMP was actually a box office success that revitalized the franchise. It's remembered as a failure today because it picked up an undeserved bad reputation somewhere during the 80's or 90's, but it made close to three times its budget in the US alone. Source for the budget thing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm

Edit: Also, the biggest box office success until at least the '09 movie, adjusted for inflation, was actually The Voyage Home. Part of the reason The Final Frontier was so bad was Shatner wanted to do something serious, like The Search for Spock, but Paramount thought something sillier and more comedic, like The Voyage Home, would make more money. That infighting is why the tone is so schizophrenic.

Edit Edit: Correction, it turns out that TMP was actually the highest grossing in inflation adjusted dollars until Trek '09, with IV being the highest in un-adjusted dollars, and second highest in adjusted. Trek '09 is now the highest in both, but Into Darkness still ranks below IV. Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

The problem of TMP is that it tried to be 2001 a space odyssey as well as Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy hated doing TMP soo much his condition to signing on to TWoK was that Spock died. The studios were wearied that another Trek project would ruin them because TMP had a monstrous budget, the filming of TWoK did several great things not only on a budget but also with the fact that Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner were never in the same room during filming yet the those two actors shared such great chemistry despite that. That is what makes some of the best Trek, creating art under such great adversity, aslo the uniforms that appeared in TWoK became one of the most icon ones in franchise history.

Which is funny, because the only time they didn't look totally doofy was in that one episode of TNG where Picard had a vision of what his life would have been like if he had never needed an artificial heart. Somehow they finally managed to make the things look cool. But still not as cool as the ones in TMP :P

And for the rest, I do see what you're saying, I just personally prefer TMP and TUD (though not in that order) to TWoK. It's a good movie, but it really doesn't need to be a Star Trek movie to work. It could have just as easily been set in the 17th century and be about a marooned pirate trying to get revenge against the man who left him to die. You could give it points for being universal, but it's just missing something for me that keeps it from being the perfect Trek film. The biggest thing is the surface narrative really is the biggest thing the film has going. It explores themes of growing older, friendship, and revenge, but that's just it: they're themes, not a message. Star Trek without a message isn't really Star Trek.

Plus, you know, Kirk doesn't get into a fistfight with an alien twice his size or have sex with a weird alien chick. He does that in The Undiscovered Country :P

And then he gets into a fistfight /with himself/ (or rather, that alien chick shape shifted into a copy of him), which is just beyond awesome. And then there's that message about the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union, which truly was the "undiscovered country" at the time and oh god I've got to rewatch it again, dammit XD

TWoK isn't just about one man's (who read way too much Moby Dick) obsession over the man who left him to die, it's the story of one man feeling as if he is though and that gallivanting around the cosmos is a task for the young and Admiral Kirk feels old, and by meeting Carol Marcus and his son Kirk not only beats his greatest external enemy in Khan it's also about the greatest enemy off all men Time. If it feels as if the story of Wrath of Khan could have happened every were may be true but it is made stronger the fact that it's about James T. Kirk and Khan Noonien Singh, we know the history of these two men and Why Khan is so hell bent on killing Kirk. The fact the story stands on it's own makes it a good movie based on an existing proberty what makes it great is from where it builds it's foundations.

DRTJR:

Owyn_Merrilin:

DRTJR:
The problem of TMP is that it tried to be 2001 a space odyssey as well as Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy hated doing TMP soo much his condition to signing on to TWoK was that Spock died. The studios were wearied that another Trek project would ruin them because TMP had a monstrous budget, the filming of TWoK did several great things not only on a budget but also with the fact that Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner were never in the same room during filming yet the those two actors shared such great chemistry despite that. That is what makes some of the best Trek, creating art under such great adversity, aslo the uniforms that appeared in TWoK became one of the most icon ones in franchise history.

Which is funny, because the only time they didn't look totally doofy was in that one episode of TNG where Picard had a vision of what his life would have been like if he had never needed an artificial heart. Somehow they finally managed to make the things look cool. But still not as cool as the ones in TMP :P

And for the rest, I do see what you're saying, I just personally prefer TMP and TUD (though not in that order) to TWoK. It's a good movie, but it really doesn't need to be a Star Trek movie to work. It could have just as easily been set in the 17th century and be about a marooned pirate trying to get revenge against the man who left him to die. You could give it points for being universal, but it's just missing something for me that keeps it from being the perfect Trek film. The biggest thing is the surface narrative really is the biggest thing the film has going. It explores themes of growing older, friendship, and revenge, but that's just it: they're themes, not a message. Star Trek without a message isn't really Star Trek.

Plus, you know, Kirk doesn't get into a fistfight with an alien twice his size or have sex with a weird alien chick. He does that in The Undiscovered Country :P

And then he gets into a fistfight /with himself/ (or rather, that alien chick shape shifted into a copy of him), which is just beyond awesome. And then there's that message about the end of the cold war and the collapse of the soviet union, which truly was the "undiscovered country" at the time and oh god I've got to rewatch it again, dammit XD

TWoK isn't just about one man's (who read way too much Moby Dick) obsession over the man who left him to die, it's the story of one man feeling as if he is though and that gallivanting around the cosmos is a task for the young and Admiral Kirk feels old, and by meeting Carol Marcus and his son Kirk not only beats his greatest external enemy in Khan it's also about the greatest enemy off all men Time. If it feels as if the story of Wrath of Khan could have happened every were may be true but it is made stronger the fact that it's about James T. Kirk and Khan Noonien Singh, we know the history of these two men and Why Khan is so hell bent on killing Kirk. The fact the story stands on it's own makes it a good movie based on an existing proberty what makes it great is from where it builds it's foundations.

But like I said earlier, the difference between the way Khan does it and the way Star Trek usually does it is that it explores a theme, but it doesn't have a specific message that the entire thing is built around, except maybe that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few, or the one. And that was a really small part of the movie as a whole, the stuff about getting older was much bigger, and even it was less central than, you know, Khan wanting revenge, for the sheer sake of getting revenge. The themes weren't really tied into the main story all that well.

Terragent:
You're joking, right? It still had magic gravity, engines that are always on, and the same ridiculous speed-of-plot nonsense as, well, pretty much every other show. At least Trek and its ilk had the indistinguishable-from-magic handwave option open: Firefly deliberately cultivated a low-tech look despite breaking some pretty fundamental principles of physics and engineering.

"More realistically" of course doesn't mean "realistically". Also, you're giving Star Trek the better treatment here because at least they were consistently using magic? I don't understand.
We get to see the magic gravity in Firefly shutting off when the engine breaks down, so it's clearly tied to their technology also. Just because at the ass-end of the Verse they act like bandits and cowboys, doesn't mean they don't have access to Alliance tech. Plus, isn't it better to at least get the sound-thing right? Magic technology or not, there shouldn't be sound in other space.
And for a show like Star Trek that prides itself (according to its creator) on scientific accuracy and consulting - unlike Firefly - to get that basic thing wrong - unlike Firefly - is pretty sad in my book. Hell, Firefly isn't even supposed to be scientifically accurate since it's basically Western in space.

RonHiler:
IMO: BSG is the better series for one simple reason, and you guys touched on it, but didn't really make a big enough deal of it. In BSG, there was a level of continuity that just wasn't there in TNG. For example, at some point around midway in the series, the Galactica is hit by a nuke. You see the large scar from that nuke for the rest of the series. It doesn't magically disappear like battle wounds did in TNG at the beginning of the next episode. By the end of the series, the ship itself was coming apart due to the battles it had been in and lack of materials to fix it. That's good stuff, it's way more realistic that TNG, where everything just magically resets for the next hour.

For that reason alone, I thought BSG told a much better story. I like Star Trek and all (I have all of the DVDs in boxed sets), but you always knew the main characters were going to make it through unscathed to the next episode (with a very few exceptions, looking at you Denise Crosby). That was not the case in BSG, where main characters could and did die from time to time, or might lose body parts. That gave the show an edginess that I liked a lot.

I agree with this completely. I've seen BSG 3 times over and am watching TNG right now. While the nostalgia is great (I remember several episodes I saw in my childhood) I don't think I'll ever care to run through TNG again. An episode here or there, sure, but it is more of a procedural than a series. I'll watch BSG every few years for the rest of my life because it tells a complete story, not hundreds of fractions of a story.

Despite its issues I'd put BSG up there with Game of Thrones and Sons of Anarchy. Multi-character centric shows that each tell an arching story with several running threads, a largely depressing atmosphere, tons of development, and not afraid to shy away from action or controversy. Because it is all one story people remember all of it, the good and bad. With Star Trek fans can choose to remember the best while ignoring the worst episodes. Because of the nature of the beast BSG is not going to be as well remembered as TNG, but it accomplished more and deserves more respect for having the balls to actually tell a story.

Star Trek TNG was a big waste of time. Characters could die so easily and come back, most episode were uninteresting so much that the show made space boring, the federation was almost always morally better than anyone else and each episode pretty much meant nothing. There is no point to a good show that resets every episode. (Yes I know it wasn't every episode) Even shows like Friends and Big Bang Theory has more continuity than TNG.
The same problem occurred with most of s1 of Babylon 5 until J Michael Straczynski was given the all clear to write most of it himself. And Sinclair was not a great character. Then things change for the best.
DS9 and sort of Voyager had things moving. But it still suffered from the same fate. Under the Pale Moonlight as an episode should have resulted more repercussions for Sisko, or a small change in character and his decision making processes. But no, it was star trek, and characters can't change. A robot, a hologram and a borg were the only ones that could.
Maybe the characters are like the federation, meant to be the epitome of humanity. But it misses the point of being human. Our greatest achievements happens when we overcome our weaknesses. Probably why I liked DS9 the best, the federation wasn't squeaky clean anymore. And Section 31 was great.

StarGate SG-1 is the best space series ever. You are all wrong except of those people who agree with me.

UrinalDook:

ZZoMBiE13:
Michael Chriton was a great character.

Evidently not great enough for you to remember his name.

Count_A'ight:

Michael Chriton became a better space pirate than Han Solo ever was.

Good grief!

Old Father Eternity:
First, it is John Crichton

Thaaaank you.

Guys. Michael Crichton was an author. He wrote Jurassic Park, The Andromeda Strain and a bunch of other stuff. Despite being a whacked out conspiracy nut, and a stubborn denier of climate change, he was a pretty cool guy.

He was nowhere near the level of John Crichton cool ;p.

OT: This is one of those time I'm very content with the name of the show describing the situation. There really is no right answer here. For me, if I absolutely had to pick I'd take Farscape. The fact that that means ruling out Firefly, Babylon 5, the first two series of BSG and the Dominion war arc of DS9 is immensely difficult. They're all great shows.

But damn, was Farscape awesome. They are still releasing movies that have less real looking and believable aliens/creatures than that show. And I don't think I've ever seen a protagonist as likably insane as John Crichton. And for the record, (plasma) pulse pistols that use tasty vegetable oil for ammunition are pretty much the coolest guns ever.

I'm actually at something of a loss these days. Between Mass Effect ending... the way it did, and the lack of any TV show that compares with any of the ones mentioned (man, I really did not appreciate the 90s/early 00s at the time) I am utterly starved for good sci-fi. I'm slowly working my way through Breaking Bad, and that's holding my interest. Agents of SHIELD has me intrigued, and I'll watch the new series of Homeland when it starts this weekend. But apart from that, I am dry of good current pop culture.

Man, I miss shows like this. Why can't JMS get off his ass and write some 'Babylon 5: Next Generation' or something?

Fair enough.

With Tom Clancy dying yesterday, my friend and I were having a chat about various authors and I guess my mind smooshed the two together.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here