| Which is your Favourite? |
| The Original Series |
|
16% |
[ 12 ] |
| The Next Generation |
|
39% |
[ 29 ] |
| Deep Space Nine |
|
23% |
[ 17 ] |
| Voyager |
|
12% |
[ 9 ] |
| Enterprise |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 73 |
|
Joker
Sinn Fein
Joined: Mar 20, 2011
Age: 24
Posts: 7593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 12:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The Borg are awesome and kinda aspie in a way wish we could assimililate the NTs  |
|
| Back to top |
|
murasaki_ahiru
Sea Gull
Joined: Jun 07, 2008
Age: 31
Posts: 238
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't mind DS9 personally. Has a lot of good characters that you love to hate and love them even if they are bad (Weyoun you likeable bastard).
_________________
DISCLAIMER: Any posts posted on walls/threads are not meant to offend,they are my opinion/s and mine alone. If you feel insulted by them then use the compose button to discuss it with me.
Cat dead, details later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 11, 2012
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Personally for me, DS9 was easily the best of the TNG era series (I haven't watched many episodes of TOS & ENT so won't include them in this decision).
The reason why a lot of people prefer VOY & TNG over DS9 is that the story plots often are resolved within the 45 minute episode. We get that closure and return to status quo at the conclusion. Hence single episodes tend to be more enjoyable, and suitable for re-runs. To a certain extent you could randomise the order of episodes in a season and not really notice and each story line and plot is resolved before moving onto the next.
The main characters don't really show that much deep development as the series progresses, and recurring characters are few and far between and often are pretty hollow. The actions that characters made did not really carry any repercussions in future episodes. The major story lines were placed into 2 part 'feature length' episodes. Think about the Borg and Wolf 359 and the Klingon Civil War in TNG and a Year of Hell in VOY. Although Voyager did have more of an underlying story progression, the nature of the show, returning home and travelling in one direction, meant that stories had to be left behind, hence long term plots were not an option.
DS9 however is much more like a soap opera in its structure, in that along with the primary story line that is concluded within the 45 minutes, there are often several story lines that are revisited in later seasons, especially those regarding recurring characters. The multi episode arcs built momentum over the series which made the series a lot more captivating. The final chapter is a 9 episode arc building up to the final episode. Looking outside the main cast, characters like Michael Eddington, Quark, Garrak, Rom, Dukat, Weyoun & Kai Winn appeared in multiple episodes and were all crucial to the shows development.
Another benefit of DS9 was due to its ethnic diversity (ie not everyone being starship officers) it allowed for the boundaries to be pushed and for the types of stories to be expanded. The TOS series written by Gene Roddenberry pushed boundaries by assembling a cast with ethnic diversity all equal as officers, be it the white Kirk, african-american Uhura, Russian Pavel Chekov or Asian Sulu. Boundaries were pushed again such as homosexuality (Quarks gay kiss and Jadzia's brief love with another woman), racism (Ben Sisko as Benny Russell), Black Ops with Section 31, revolution/terrorism (the rise of the new Cardassian movement), religion (Pah Wraiths & Prophets), war refugees (Skrreeans), womens & workers rights (Ferengi Episodes) and the morality of war (In the Pale Moonlight). For me this made the series a lot more interesting and enjoyable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3230
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Star Trek spaceships are phony. All the flight decks are parallel to the thrust rather than perpendicular. |
|
| Back to top |
|
tb86
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 08, 2010
Age: 26
Posts: 1165
Location: South Wales
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
brawnybalboa says
| Quote: | | Boundaries were pushed again such as homosexuality (Quarks gay kiss and Jadzia's brief love with another woman), racism (Ben Sisko as Benny Russell), Black Ops with Section 31, revolution/terrorism (the rise of the new Cardassian movement), religion (Pah Wraiths & Prophets), war refugees (Skrreeans), womens & workers rights (Ferengi Episodes) and the morality of war (In the Pale Moonlight). For me this made the series a lot more interesting and enjoyable. |
I think that's one of the reasons I love DS9, though at times I don't really think about it. It's mostly because of character development, strong stories and at times awesome action and sfx. The whole religion and science thing was kinda interesting, though I'm not really a religious person as I don't belong to any religion or go to church. I guess I'm keeping my options open. Also when did Quark have a gay kiss. Was it in that episode with the female diguised ferengi or the one where he had a sex change operation in order to fill in with his mother. Because technically it's not portraying that kind of stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 11, 2012
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tb86 wrote: | | I think that's one of the reasons I love DS9, though at times I don't really think about it. It's mostly because of character development, strong stories and at times awesome action and sfx. The whole religion and science thing was kinda interesting, though I'm not really a religious person as I don't belong to any religion or go to church. I guess I'm keeping my options open. Also when did Quark have a gay kiss. Was it in that episode with the female diguised ferengi or the one where he had a sex change operation in order to fill in with his mother. Because technically it's not portraying that kind of stuff. |
It was the episode where he had a sex change and kissed the owner of the cola company in front of brunt.
| androbot2084 wrote: | | Star Trek spaceships are phony. All the flight decks are parallel to the thrust rather than perpendicular. |
The space shuttles had flight decks parallel to thrust, and they were very phony..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
androbot2084
Phoenix
Joined: Mar 24, 2011
Posts: 3230
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
CSBurks
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 30, 2012
Posts: 685
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DS9 was my favourite. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13191
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 11, 2012
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| androbot2084 wrote: | | The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
The dictionary definition of spacecraft (encompassing the noun spaceship) is as follows:
a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earths atmosphere or in orbit around the earth
Hence saying that the space shuttle is not a 'real' spaceship is an incorrect observation.
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now. |
How can you say that NASA wasted its time devoted to the construction and development of the space shuttle programme? How can you say that 'real' spacecraft could have been built in its presence?
The aim of NASA was not to visit the Moon, or Mars using the Space Shuttles, but to design a reusable space vessel that could be used for multiple missions as opposed to single use like the Apollo Missions or the Gemini Programme. At the end of the day it is a greater technological leap which requires a more sophisticated, more visionary design.
Sure the Space Shuttle Programme did not bring us to Mars as people may have wanted. In the same way that the Heinkel He 178 (first Jet Fighter) was not deemed good enough to be an operational figher. However in the same way that the Heinkel opened the door to the idea of Military Jet aircraft, the Space Shuttle can open the door to a move towards space craft which are fully reusable, much like those we see in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who etc |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13191
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brawnybalboa wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
The dictionary definition of spacecraft (encompassing the noun spaceship) is as follows:
a vehicle designed for travel or operation in space beyond the earths atmosphere or in orbit around the earth
Hence saying that the space shuttle is not a 'real' spaceship is an incorrect observation.
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | androbot2084 wrote: | | The space shuttle is not a real spaceship because it can't go to the Moon but rather the space shuttle is just a high flying airplane. |
And to think, we wasted decades flying this "high flying plane," when we could have been building real spacecraft, and maybe we would have reached Mars by now. |
How can you say that NASA wasted its time devoted to the construction and development of the space shuttle programme? How can you say that 'real' spacecraft could have been built in its presence?
The aim of NASA was not to visit the Moon, or Mars using the Space Shuttles, but to design a reusable space vessel that could be used for multiple missions as opposed to single use like the Apollo Missions or the Gemini Programme. At the end of the day it is a greater technological leap which requires a more sophisticated, more visionary design.
Sure the Space Shuttle Programme did not bring us to Mars as people may have wanted. In the same way that the Heinkel He 178 (first Jet Fighter) was not deemed good enough to be an operational figher. However in the same way that the Heinkel opened the door to the idea of Military Jet aircraft, the Space Shuttle can open the door to a move towards space craft which are fully reusable, much like those we see in Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who etc |
I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 11, 2012
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds. |
But then of course, we have to look at the reasons why man travelled to the moon in 1969 on the Apollo Missions. We have to remember that the Cold War was at its peak, and that the well publicised Space Race was as much an expensive piece of propaganda as it was a carrier for the technological development of rocket technology than it ever was for human exploration. The USSR put the first satellite into orbit (Sputnik) and the first man into space (Yuri Gagarin), so Kennedy promised a man on the moon before 1970. Which was achieved (unless you believe the hoax theories out there). In the last 20 years since the fall of communism, there has been no need for flashy Space Programmes to put us back on the moon, hence there has been no effort to return man back.
With that aside, we have also seen the massive development of robotics. Why add the complication and risk of putting a man on the moon when you could put a robot? You would not need oxygen tanks, water, food, toilet facilities, space suits etc etc. Also since the 1969 moon landing we have had well publicised disasters, Apollo 13, the two space shuttle disasters, not to mention numerous failed Russian and Chinese Launches. Hence the aim has been to put unmanned vehicles on the Moon, Mars & Venus which we have managed with increasing frequency for the past 20 years. We also have to look at the fact the USA & Russia invested in putting a full time research station into orbit (MIR then the international Space Station), hence responsible for the majority of the usage of the Space Shuttle's 135 missions. Not to mention the Hubble Space Telescope and the development of ground based telescopes.
There is an underlying obsession within the general public of visiting other worlds, but at the end of the day it is an extremely expensive venture which other than for propaganda reasons has little value of return. The decision for MIR, Hubble, Space Shuttle etc was the next logical step. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13191
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brawnybalboa wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | I didn't mean to imply that the whole shuttle program was a waste, but you have to wonder how many years were wasted flying those things around the atmosphere, when we could have been developing something that could take us to other worlds. |
But then of course, we have to look at the reasons why man travelled to the moon in 1969 on the Apollo Missions. We have to remember that the Cold War was at its peak, and that the well publicised Space Race was as much an expensive piece of propaganda as it was a carrier for the technological development of rocket technology than it ever was for human exploration. The USSR put the first satellite into orbit (Sputnik) and the first man into space (Yuri Gagarin), so Kennedy promised a man on the moon before 1970. Which was achieved (unless you believe the hoax theories out there). In the last 20 years since the fall of communism, there has been no need for flashy Space Programmes to put us back on the moon, hence there has been no effort to return man back.
With that aside, we have also seen the massive development of robotics. Why add the complication and risk of putting a man on the moon when you could put a robot? You would not need oxygen tanks, water, food, toilet facilities, space suits etc etc. Also since the 1969 moon landing we have had well publicised disasters, Apollo 13, the two space shuttle disasters, not to mention numerous failed Russian and Chinese Launches. Hence the aim has been to put unmanned vehicles on the Moon, Mars & Venus which we have managed with increasing frequency for the past 20 years. We also have to look at the fact the USA & Russia invested in putting a full time research station into orbit (MIR then the international Space Station), hence responsible for the majority of the usage of the Space Shuttle's 135 missions. Not to mention the Hubble Space Telescope and the development of ground based telescopes.
There is an underlying obsession within the general public of visiting other worlds, but at the end of the day it is an extremely expensive venture which other than for propaganda reasons has little value of return. The decision for MIR, Hubble, Space Shuttle etc was the next logical step. |
I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
brawnybalboa
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: May 11, 2012
Posts: 74
Location: Caerdydd, Cymru
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | | I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream. |
Well the majority of people settling the American West were doing so either to escape tyranny and oppression, to seek religious freedom, to make their fortune in the gold rush or simply to settle to make a living off the land. Also in this case there were already resident humans, the first nation indians in Canada and the American Natives whom territory they were claiming as their own. In much the same way the american dream was not anywhere near the reality these settlers met, many dying poor, or disease, at the hands of each other or natives, space travel will be similar. Travelling all that way to find an in hospitable rock that cannot support life.
But living the sci fi dream. Touche. Maybe one day in the distant future we will venture and colonise other parts of the solar system. I hope we do in the next 100 years, but this is unlikely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 13191
|
| Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| brawnybalboa wrote: | | Kraichgauer wrote: | | I tend to think the public's desire to reach other planets is fired by the same spirit that made people settle the American west. On top of that, it's just fun to imagine going into space, and living a sci-fi dream. |
Well the majority of people settling the American West were doing so either to escape tyranny and oppression, to seek religious freedom, to make their fortune in the gold rush or simply to settle to make a living off the land. Also in this case there were already resident humans, the first nation indians in Canada and the American Natives whom territory they were claiming as their own. In much the same way the american dream was not anywhere near the reality these settlers met, many dying poor, or disease, at the hands of each other or natives, space travel will be similar. Travelling all that way to find an in hospitable rock that cannot support life.
But living the sci fi dream. Touche. Maybe one day in the distant future we will venture and colonise other parts of the solar system. I hope we do in the next 100 years, but this is unlikely. |
But plenty of people still managed to survive and even thrive in the American west - my people back then, for instance.
I'd love to see human colonization of other planets, too, but I don't know if I'll see it in my life time. Who knows, though. Newt Gingrich could be the president of the astro-colony!
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
