Yet another example of how William Shatner changed the world.
Gene Roddenberry, actually.
Agreed, I was referring to this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_William_Shatne...
I've been sitting on that one for a while now. And my mind just goes "wtf".
This time it's the tractor beam.
Some of the others include the cell phone and the iPad.
Wars is the gritty sci-fi that would have preceeded the level of technology found in Trek. While Enterprise did a bad job of showing that (a good concept poorly executed), no one can really deny that the flashy and clean Trek-tech would have had to progress through the grittiness of Wars-tech.
There are many things I find faulty with Trek, chief among them is the lack of star-fighters. I've always found it absured that a ship which houses at least a half-dozen armed and shielded shuttles wouldn't launch them to better attack enemy vessels.
I also find the starfleet personal weapons in Trek a bit far-fetched. Firearms have their shapes for a reason, and any personal projectile/energy weapon will benefit from the same shape (both in the weapon's efficiency and ease of learning to use it).
By the same token, the ubiquitousness and appearance of droids in Wars is a bit unrealistic. We clearly see that bionic limbs can be given pseudo-flesh coverings (when Luke's hand is replaced), droids that are intimately part of human life (like medical droids) and those that have very heavy interpersonal roles (like protocol droids) should be given a more life-like apprearance to make them more user-friendly.
And lets not forget the technological stagnation of Wars. Very little technological change seems to have occured between the eras we've seen. Hell, the ship you fly on in the KOTOR rpg is identical to the Millenium Falcon save for its paint job, and that happens how long before episode IV?
So they both have significant problems, but each is good at what they do.
Now now boys, both Trek and Wars have their place.
Yes, with Star Trek on top.
Kinky.
Now now boys, both Trek and Wars have their place.
Yes, with Star Trek on top.
Kinky.
It's good to be back.
Now now boys, both Trek and Wars have their place.
Yes, with Star Trek on top.
eh. they're both good.
Wars is the gritty sci-fi that would have preceeded the level of technology found in Trek. While Enterprise did a bad job of showing that (a good concept poorly executed), no one can really deny that the flashy and clean Trek-tech would have had to progress through the grittiness of Wars-tech.
DS9 and, at least until they "forgot" that they could run out of resources, Voyager, would like to talk to you for a moment.
I've seen them both, and they're both ok. DS9 is gritty by circumstance, with their tech being more akin to beta versions of TNG tech. Voyager is likewise gritty by circumstance with a lack of resources being their only downside.
There are many things I find faulty with Trek, chief among them is the lack of star-fighters. I've always found it absured that a ship which houses at least a half-dozen armed and shielded shuttles wouldn't launch them to better attack enemy vessels.
Okay, first off, DS9. They deployed runabouts agains the Jem'Hadar several times. Also, the warships in Star Trek had enough power, that, unless it was built as absurdly as Jem'Hadar Warships or the Defiant, couldn't damage their shields at all, and, if you remember, the Jem'Hadar fighters, even with a bajillion of them with their shield-disrupting weapons, still had to set up a Warp Core breach and suicide ram it en masse to take down a Galaxy, and they are one of the most common large ships. And they're SCIENCE and EXPLORATION vessels, not warships.
DS9 was about a space-station not a ship. The Enterprise D had at least 6 shuttles on board that could have tipped the balance of power in countless battles seen throughout the TNG series (where one-on-one and two-on-one ship battles were commonplace). As for the purpose of federation vessels, I agree with you, but their commanders are as militarily trained as U.S. Navy captains (perhaps more so) to whom launching shuttles as fighters would be an easy decision.
I also find the starfleet personal weapons in Trek a bit far-fetched. Firearms have their shapes for a reason, and any personal projectile/energy weapon will benefit from the same shape (both in the weapon's efficiency and ease of learning to use it).
Two things. One, it's been established that certain things in Star Trek have to be ordered and connected right, just like Dilithium proccessing in a ship, two, the hand Phasers in TNG were shaped well, I'd say, and three, people get locked into an idea. Think about how long it took for one-wing bombers to take off, so to speak.
that arguement doesn't wash. The hand phasers of TOS were pistol-shaped.
DS9 was about a space-station not a ship. The Enterprise D had at least 6 shuttles on board that could have tipped the balance of power in countless battles seen throughout the TNG series (where one-on-one and two-on-one ship battles were commonplace). As for the purpose of federation vessels, I agree with you, but their commanders are as militarily trained as U.S. Navy captains (perhaps more so) to whom launching shuttles as fighters would be an easy decision.
The Defiant and the Dominion War beg to disagree with you. How many episodes was the Defiant fighting in? A lot. All three (or four, depending on how you count) battles for DS9, the, like, 10+ episodes in or around Dominion space, the assaults on San Fansisco and Cardassia, the Tal-shiar and Obsidian Order assault on the Dominion, I can go on. And DS9 had about four main Danube-class runabouts, which were used.
As I already said, DS9 was a space station. They had to use fighters, and there was no way around it for the writers. That renders DS9 moot for the purpose of this point.
The Enterprise D, by comparison, was more like a battleship with light carrier capabilities. Yes, I know the federation doesn't call them battleships, but that's what a ship is when it has some of the most powerful combat capabilities in the fleet; whether it be called such or not.
that arguement doesn't wash. The hand phasers of TOS were pistol-shaped.
The first one does, the second one does, as that Phaser was based on the ENT Phaser, which was based on a gun.
The ordering of internal parts argument doesn't wash. The pistol shaped phaser worked in TOS and was comparable in the power it displayed. Also, other energy weapons have gun shapes (notably klingon disruptors) and are just as effective.
Your second argument was that they were shaped well. as that's subjective at best, it can be completely thrown out. But if you want to discuss it anyway, there are clear elements as why that is not so. First, it's harder to aim that way. Second, the weapon fits very crappily in the holsters they wear (they always look like they're about to fall out, and they flop around when the wearers run). Third, the weapon has no trigger guard (I often imagine security personnel accidentally setting one off the way people accidentaly call someone on their cell when they sit down).
Your third argument about being locked into an idea is a valid one, but it only reinforces why hand-held weapons would have a pistol shape.
Dude, I'm one of the biggest Trekkies you'll ever meet.
While I share your enthusiasm for the show, being such a die hard Trekkie can blind one to valid criticisms.
As I already said, DS9 was a space station. They had to use fighters, and there was no way around it for the writers. That renders DS9 moot for the purpose of this point.
No, the Defiant was also one of the big parts of the show, and you can't ignore that. Also, it was one of the biggest stations for trading in the quadrant, and always had allied ships near it, especially after the Klingon-Federation-Romulan alliance, and there were, at minimum, like ten Birds-of-Prey, along with the Defiant, and the station, at the end, was a match for a good chunk of a fleet. So, no, they were not necessary, but mostly useless.
The Defiant wasn't a large part of the show; it became a large part of the show when they shifted to telling stories that often carried them far from the space station. Idk if this was in response to fan criticism, if the writers just ran out of "local" stories, if the runabouts didn't seem iconic enough for the show, or if it was a logical outgrowth of Sisko eventually being promoted to captain. Regardless of the reason, DS9 is moot to the Enterprise D discussion.
The Enterprise D, by comparison, was more like a battleship with light carrier capabilities. Yes, I know the federation doesn't call them battleships, but that's what a ship is when it has some of the most powerful combat capabilities in the fleet; whether it be called such or not.
No, not at all. The Galaxy-Class, such as the Enterprise D, the Oddessy, the third Eccelsior, etc. were not even, or barely, a match for a Romulan D'deridex-Class Warbird, the mainstay of the Romulan Forces, and were superior to the Jem'Hadar Battleship (or Cruiser, I can never remember the difference) only in shielding a speed. It was an even match for the Birds-of-Prey, only because of their prefered tactics, and inferior to a Klingon Cruiser. It's deflectors, shields, tractors, and scanners were all superior. It was an obscenely large science vessel.
Please not that I never said the Enterprise D was one of the most powerful ships in the Trek-verse, merely that it was one of the most powerful ships in Starfleet. If your stongest ship is a canoe with a muskeeteer at the bow, that is still your battleship; eventhough no one would use that name for it.
Defiant-class was an ACTUAL warship, built as such, and is more powerful than anything in the federation, except, maybe, a Sovereign class, before Voyager's ending, obviously.
None of that changes the fact that, as the flagship, the Enterprise D was the cream of the crop. The defiant's military abilities would be refinements of those of the Enterprise D, putting them close together in ability. Now the defiant may have had greater military power, but that is because it was developed after the Enterprise was. Given a little time, I have full confidence that Laforge could have easily tweaked the Enterprise's abilities to put them , if not on equal footing with the defiant, then within striking distance of the Defiant's abilities.
Again however, this tangent is moot. My issue was that the Enterprise didn't use "fighter shuttles" in battle as it logically should have. If you look at the TNG episodes, when the Enterprise was engaged in ship-to-ship combat, most often it was in one-on-one or one-on-two battles where fighter shuttles would have made a considerable difference.
Yet another example of how William Shatner changed the world.
Gene Roddenberry, actually.
Chinese Scientists, actually.
Star Trek is SciFi, Star Wars is Fantasy. They are almost entirely dissimilar and judging one on the merits of the other is foolish.
My issue was that the Enterprise didn't use "fighter shuttles" in battle as it logically should have. If you look at the TNG episodes, when the Enterprise was engaged in ship-to-ship combat, most often it was in one-on-one or one-on-two battles where fighter shuttles would have made a considerable difference.
The Enterprise didn't have "fighter shuttles" to use in battle. The shuttles on the Enterprise would have been useless in any battle against any ship that might stand a chance of damaging the Enterprise's shields. The only thing launching their shuttles would accomplish in battle would be to waste lives and resources. The shuttles didn't have the speed, shielding, or firepower to effect the outcome in any meaningful way.
Star Trek is SciFi, Star Wars is Fantasy. They are almost entirely dissimilar and judging one on the merits of the other is foolish.
That's probably why I've never really cared about Star Trek – I have very low tolerance for techno-babble.
I remember reading a comparison of Enterprise and Millennium Falcon by Jeremy Clarkson in "I Know You Got Soul". Needless to say the chapter was named "Millennium Falcon" ;)
Battlestar Galactica far surpasses Star Trek and Star Wars.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
.That being said, I'm still furious that they cancelled Firefly.
Word.
You were expecting something different when a thread contains science fiction and tractor beams?
On a forum site dedicated to D&D.
www.dailymotion.com/video/x930vt_william...
There are many things I find faulty with Trek, chief among them is the lack of star-fighters. I've always found it absured that a ship which houses at least a half-dozen armed and shielded shuttles wouldn't launch them to better attack enemy vessels.
And how are they supposed to fight vessels moving many, many, many, MANY times faster than they can go? By the time they exit the Enterprise, the enemy has moved beyond the range of the shuttles/fighters.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVekNsgUqn4
But I'm with EE: "[T]hey turned a laser beam inside out" is crazy to read. Like wait ... what?
This applies to both Star Trek and Star Wars fans...
www.dailymotion.com/video/x930vt_william...
SNL? Prisons exist for people like you!
You know you liked it.
This applies to both Star Trek and Star Wars fans...
www.dailymotion.com/video/x930vt_william...
SNL? Prisons exist for people like you!
You know you liked it.
Nah, it wasn't funny.
Why? are you 30-something year old who hasn't kissed a girl?
I doubt anything else in that video will.
Edit: finished watching it. And I think I agree with my earlier assessment: SNL wasn't funny in the 80's either.
It was a piece of junk put into space, Inferior to everything that existed in it's time. It sucked next to the Vorcha, Warbird, NeghVar, hell a BOP could handle D prettty solidly.
The Excelsior, is a much better example of a federation battle cruiser. (resolute enough to take on a Defiant). Infact the Excelsior's design was so good they are still using it even in STO's timeline as a primary warship. The thing is a gunboat from hell and only the Defiant is as well armed fedside. The Sovereign is a good ship I guess, but alas we will never get to see the Sovereign full capabilities.
The Enterprise F is in paramount's development as we speak (and I know what more than likely the design is going to look like..... and frankly it looks stupid compared to E)
My issue was that the Enterprise didn't use "fighter shuttles" in battle as it logically should have. If you look at the TNG episodes, when the Enterprise was engaged in ship-to-ship combat, most often it was in one-on-one or one-on-two battles where fighter shuttles would have made a considerable difference.
The Enterprise didn't have "fighter shuttles" to use in battle. The shuttles on the Enterprise would have been useless in any battle against any ship that might stand a chance of damaging the Enterprise's shields. The only thing launching their shuttles would accomplish in battle would be to waste lives and resources. The shuttles didn't have the speed, shielding, or firepower to effect the outcome in any meaningful way.
I disagree.
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed. Now they didn't have the same maximum speed, I don't deny that, but battles in TNG rarely occured at speeds beyond low warp (which the shuttles were capable of); and most of the battles I can recall actually happened at impulse speed.
The efficacy of their weapons against larger ships is certainly an issue, but lets explore it. How many times have we seen ships transfer power from their aft to their forward shields (or dorsal to ventral, etc.)? This is a viable tactic in the battles we've seen, but with a half-dozen shuttles swarming around it there is a very real danger in a ship transfering power from one shield location to another. Also important is that shuttles could coordinate their fire to strike the same spot.
Virtually the only part of your argument that seems fully accurate to me is the shield power of shuttles. We've seen shuttles take weapon hits before. Usually they can take 1, maybe 2 before being debilitated (and heaven help them if they get hit by a torpedo), but that's where pilot training comes into play. If the shuttles are assisting the main ship in battle, the enemy craft will likely be targeting their most powerful weapons at the main vessel (which minimizes the threat of shuttles being targeted by torpedoes).
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
size and speed are relevant when targeting concerns come into play. even if you can perfectly hit anything you can target, you will have a harder time attacking things that are small and fast because you will have a harder time targeting them.
I think, MechaPilot, that argument would be more convincing if I ever saw an attack miss in Star Trek. I mean, I'm not a fanboy and haven't even seen close to all the episodes ever, but accuracy just never seemed to be a problem.
Here you go: Battle of Cardassia. plenty of misses, and most of them are when firing on smaller ships.
Battlestar Galactica far surpasses Star Trek and Star Wars. That being said, I'm still furious that they cancelled Firefly.
+ 1
Is that really typical of ship-to-ship combat, though? Seeing that many ships at once already puts it into the "outlier" category as far as my knowledge of Trek goes.
Battles that size are not typical, they are significant military engagements whereas most of the conflicts in TNG involved a handfull of ships (and that's counting those on both sides). Nevertheless, it does show how mobility plays a role in ship-to-ship trek combat.
So I don't think it's as simple as "they should use shuttles as fighters".
Yeah... so I'm not convinced. In small-scale ship-to-ship combat, like what you normally see, it's entirely possible that most shots would still be hits because there just aren't enough targets for the targetting computers to have trouble locking on. Using small ships may only be practical in the really big fights.
So I don't think it's as simple as "they should use shuttles as fighters".
It can also be situational EE.
A battlefield with celestial debris can be perfect for shuttles to dart around in the way they did around the larger ships in the video.
Also, shuttles can fly between/around enemy ships with little risk of attack; lest a missed shot from one of the enemy ships hit another enemy ship.
I'm not saying they should use shuttles as fighters all the time, but it never happened once in the entire TNG series (to the best of my recollection).
I'd actually like to see the enterprise dacked out as an aircraft carrier in treck. If your going to name the main ship after one use it as one.
No crappy treck shuttles as warships either; make them closer to the BSG viper MK7, or the A-wings from SW6.
Or the F-302's from stargate (which has the best starship as fleet carrier designs IMO).
Or the F-302's from stargate (which has the best starship as fleet carrier designs IMO).
Having never watched the TV show due to the dislike of the movie I'll just nod my head.
Which movie? Because the series is actually quite different from the theatrical Kurt Russel, James Spader film.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good. You have to consider when it was out. Now, Galactica 1980 was bad, I heartily admit.
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
size and speed are relevant when targeting concerns come into play. even if you can perfectly hit anything you can target, you will have a harder time attacking things that are small and fast because you will have a harder time targeting them.
I will concede this argument due to your vastly superior and quantitive experience in space combat.
And if I recall, the introduction of shield technology in Trek made fighter technology obsolete.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good.
"Not as bad" is not the same thing as "good".
You have to consider when it was out.
Not really. What matters to this discussion is looking at these various properties from the contemporary perspective. BSG seemed okay back then cos I was a stupid kid and didn't know any better. Even before the new BSG my adult self recognized what dross it was, it just seems all the more so when compared to that masterpiece (albeit flawed).
Now I am no trekkie (or trekker, or whatever the hell you're suppose4d to call them), and in retrospect Star Trek can seem as cheesy as hell, but that show still holds up. It is 45 years old this year and was on the slate alongside some of the most classic series in TV history.
And really, the whole "context" argument doesn't hold up. Sure there was some complete crap around at the time (Love Boat, Three's Company, BJ and the Bear) the original BSG was also contemporary to such TV classics as All in the Family, MASH, and WKRP in Cincinnati.
In terms of objective reflection, shorn of nostalgia and irrespective of context, the original BSG was really just awful. That someone could take that disco-tainted relic and turn it into one of the best dramatic series of the past decade is nothing short of miraculous.
Now, Galactica 1980 was bad, I heartily admit.
No, Galactica 1980 was an unmitigated piece of
. "Bad" doesn't even begin to describe how unbelievably terrible it really was.Which movie? Because the series is actually quite different from the theatrical Kurt Russel, James Spader film.
Yep. The key difference between the movie, SG1, Atlantis and even Universe (what? I like it fine) is that SG1, Atlantis and Universe are good.
But yes, the series all take a very different approach than the movie did. I do find that the series - especially SG1 - follow the same path as the good Star Trek series in that the first season is trash and the rest are good. The first season of SG1 was, IMO, trying too hard to follow the movie. Once they decided to simply allow the show to become its own entity, though, things got pretty damned good. I also liked SG-1, till it got stupid - mostly, when they brought Daniel back from ascension (permanently - I really liked the episode when O'Neil is being tortured and Jackson shows up - was it real, or just in his head? It was a great episode, either way!). I lost interest completely after that. But up until then, I thought they did a great job expanding the universe and making great stories.
Not even Ben Browder and Claudia Black could bring me back ... and man oh man do I loves me some Farscape. <3
I did like the parody they made in one episode when Black's character was pitching all the ideas for TV shows and the guy was like "WTF is that?" LOL. But I got tired of the "bigger, badder" enemy formula, and Browder's character was just O'Neil, but dumber. Poor Ben.
Farscape is better than all y'alls shows!!
I've not seen much Farscape but I can determine from what I've seen that I'd rather see SG1.
Though as I've seen pretty much every ep, I'd likely watch the Farscape over it simply because I haven't seen Farscape much yet. ;)As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good.
"Not as bad" is not the same thing as "good".
It's all personal taste. I have very fond memories of watching the original BSG as an 8 year old boy. So yes, the time frame is relevant. Maybe not to you, and how you choose to judge it, but for me, it was quite excellent. And watching it today brings back those great memories.
See, they got me back when they brought those two on. Claudia Black was awesome. I loved Vala. But the dood was an O'Neil clone - and even closer than you happen to think, IMO. His dumbness was like O'Neil's - exaggerated and more a part he played. He was smarter than he came off. But whatever, I liked the last few seasons.
I've not seen much Farscape but I can determine from what I've seen that I'd rather see SG1.
As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
Oh, I liked Vala when she was a guest star and not part of the show, but I liked her more than Browder's character. I don't care if it was an act, he was just an O'Neil clone and I disliked that. Not to mention that Daniel was just terrible and Tilk (or however it's spelled) got worse and worse, IMO. But I really enjoyed it before all that!
As for Star Trek ... I watched NG like all the time when I was younger. I watched DS9 some, but never Voyager. I actually enjoyed Enterprise because I felt the stories were good and it lost some of the staleness that I felt a lot of the other series had. But, then again, I prefer Star Wars, so I believe it when people say Enterprise isn't "really" Star Trek, and I'm cool with it - it's probably why I liked it! ;)
Farscape isn't for everyone, I'll admit. But I'm really not a "true" nerd, in the fact that I actually think other people can value other shows over my preferred show, and that it's pretty much just a matter of tastes. Farscape consistently made me laugh, cry, love, and hate, and all around care about the characters and their universe. I really liked the sense of humor and the writing and how not everything was explained and how everything was interconnected, and how things from season 1 show how far ahead the writers were thinking, and a whole bunch of stuff. And the Jim Henson Company just really sealed the deal - now those were aliens! <3 To be honest, the first two episodes, IMO, were probably the worst in the series, so they are a hurdle to get through.
I enjoyed Firefly and also wish it had been given a fair shake (I will also mention the fact that Farscape was cancelled on a cliffhanger 4th season, after being promised a 5th, and that it was the effort of the fans that brought a miniseries to finish the story :thumbsup
. It definitely had personality and looked to be better than any of the other shows, excepting Farscape. ;)Both the Firefly and Farscape RPGs were terrible, though. LOL.
I actually haven't seen the end of BSG, but I've got it on my Netflix Instant Queue, and have every intention of watching it again to the end. But it doesn't hold a candle to Farscape. ;)
While the final episode of BSG had some huge holes it wasn't all that bad. I still think it should have been broken up into 4 episodes to expand on the information but forth. Numbers 1 - 3 could have been the battle and the final one could have been exploring the new world. Leave the last 15 min exactly as is.
Those last 15 minutes are what killed it for me. Just ... lame. Oh well, to each their own, ya know?
Oh, I liked Vala when she was a guest star and not part of the show, but I liked her more than Browder's character. I don't care if it was an act, he was just an O'Neil clone and I disliked that. Not to mention that Daniel was just terrible and Tilk (or however it's spelled) got worse and worse, IMO. But I really enjoyed it before all that!
I liked her on the team, too. Somebody had to take up the funny slack O'Neil left when he bailed and I thought she did that wonderfully. I can see what you're sayin' about the rest, though. Daniel did get progressively more annoying (and snotty). Teal'c (I had to look it up
) was ok, though. Still, they got me back into the show enough that I was sad when it finally died.As for Star Trek ... I watched NG like all the time when I was younger. I watched DS9 some, but never Voyager. I actually enjoyed Enterprise because I felt the stories were good and it lost some of the staleness that I felt a lot of the other series had. But, then again, I prefer Star Wars, so I believe it when people say Enterprise isn't "really" Star Trek, and I'm cool with it - it's probably why I liked it! ;)
DS9 was by far the best (after season 2). Voyager was crap until the last episode and Enterprise, I hate to admit, has its moments (thank you Micha). Still, I don't think either of those really add to the franchise and I'd rather they never happened.
Farscape isn't for everyone, I'll admit. But I'm really not a "true" nerd, in the fact that I actually think other people can value other shows over my preferred show, and that it's pretty much just a matter of tastes. Farscape consistently made me laugh, cry, love, and hate, and all around care about the characters and their universe. I really liked the sense of humor and the writing and how not everything was explained and how everything was interconnected, and how things from season 1 show how far ahead the writers were thinking, and a whole bunch of stuff. And the Jim Henson Company just really sealed the deal - now those were aliens! <3 To be honest, the first two episodes, IMO, were probably the worst in the series, so they are a hurdle to get through.
The little I've seen seemed pretty ok. My friend was watchin' it before D&D for a while and I'd catch some. I didn't like the love story/clone thing that went down but other than that it seemed ok enough. I'd not not watch it, if that makes sense.
I enjoyed Firefly and also wish it had been given a fair shake (I will also mention the fact that Farscape was cancelled on a cliffhanger 4th season, after being promised a 5th, and that it was the effort of the fans that brought a miniseries to finish the story :thumbsup
I actually haven't seen the end of BSG, but I've got it on my Netflix Instant Queue, and have every intention of watching it again to the end. But it doesn't hold a candle to Farscape. ;)
It's worth seeing, I guess. Just prepare to be disappointed.
Overall the series was amazing. It just all fell apart at the end (IMO). Still, worth seeing. Just not something I'll ever watch again. it was like I invested all that time watching the show, getting into the characters and following all the twists and the end? I was like '**** you, what a waste of time'. I'm just not able to do it again. Heh. As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
The end of BSG is the "flaw" part of the "flawed masterpiece" I mentioned earlier.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
Damn skippy. It was a truly unique gem. Fox was too stupid to realize what they had.
I have very fond memories of watching the original BSG as an 8 year old boy. So yes, the time frame is relevant. Maybe not to you, and how you choose to judge it, but for me, it was quite excellent. And watching it today brings back those great memories.
I too have fond memories of watching it was a lad, but that doesn't mean it wasn't crap. What you are describing is called "nostalgia", which is why I said if you remove that emotion from the equation and look at it with an unbiased eye the show was pretty dire. Boxy and Muffet alone are enough to make any sane human want to tear their own eyes out.
The end of BSG is the "flaw" part of the "flawed masterpiece" I mentioned earlier.
And it's a damned shame they went out that way, too. Oh well, at least everything up to that point was beyond good.
Damn skippy. It was a truly unique gem. Fox was too stupid to realize what they had.
It all makes sense when you look at the way television has evolved. Anything unique is just not allowed (for the most part - thankfully FX has a different take). I mean, how many Law and Orders or CSIs do we have now? And cop dramas? Hell, at one time we had ER and Chicago Hope - basically the same show but different names. Now? Now they use the same friggin' name. They only make what people have shown they already like. It's pathetic. There's just not much room for brilliance anymore. It's above the masses, I'm afraid.
Back to FX for a minute, I think it's my favorite non-educationish network on cable. They have some truly good shows that don't fit exactly anywhere. From It's Always Sunny to Archer to the absolutely brilliant Louie, they are the small ray of hope in an abyss of sameness. Hopefully these shows will get bigger and bigger and be recognized more widely and hopefully that recognition will pay off for the networks and an era of innovation can save us from the repetetive nonsense we're stuck with now. I doubt it cuz, more likely, it'll make networks make copies of these shows and ruin the whole damned thing, but I can hope, right?
I too have fond memories of watching it was a lad, but that doesn't mean it wasn't crap. What you are describing is called "nostalgia", which is why I said if you remove that emotion from the equation and look at it with an unbiased eye the show was pretty dire. Boxy and Muffet alone are enough to make any sane human want to tear their own eyes out.
And you are still describing personal preference. I simply enjoy it for what it was then, not what it is now. "Nostalgia" does not make something bad nor good. Cassette tapes were fantastic "back then." I still have some, even if for "notalgiac" purposes. But because they are obsolete does not make them patently bad.
And Boxy and Muffet were not good contributions to the series, but outside of them, it was a damn fun ride.
The episodes with Count Iblis were epic.
Essentially, I agree to disagree.
Those last 15 minutes are what killed it for me. Just ... lame. Oh well, to each their own, ya know?
I liked her on the team, too. Somebody had to take up the funny slack O'Neil left when he bailed and I thought she did that wonderfully. I can see what you're sayin' about the rest, though. Daniel did get progressively more annoying (and snotty). Teal'c (I had to look it up
DS9 was by far the best (after season 2). Voyager was crap until the last episode and Enterprise, I hate to admit, has its moments (thank you Micha). Still, I don't think either of those really add to the franchise and I'd rather they never happened.
The little I've seen seemed pretty ok. My friend was watchin' it before D&D for a while and I'd catch some. I didn't like the love story/clone thing that went down but other than that it seemed ok enough. I'd not not watch it, if that makes sense.
It's worth seeing, I guess. Just prepare to be disappointed.
The whole last season of BFG was just a big **** you fans to me. The scene of the Galactica broken, but triumphirant in the final episode was Epic as was the final fight before it. But my god that season was SO BAD. It had so much "because the Plot Says So" in it that I found myself using the excuse I used for things like Eldar Prophecy, or an LKH novel. "I started this crap. I am going to finish it!"
Vala was awesome. I thought her and Daniel played off each other perfectly. Did you know I still haven't seen the final episode of SG1? I was working the night it went off the air, and sci fi has been real dodgy about replaying the last season. Which makes me sad. I missed most of that season!
Agreed with DS9. Sisko got to be at his most awesome when he got his Pimp Hand.. (aka the Defiant) Enterprise, did have some gems. But it's hard to sift through so much garbage and I'm still fine with Zb or anyone saying "it never happened" as far as the franchise went. Because really it might as well not have. Which is sad because the potential the show had was huge.
Fun thing about Star Trek, unfortunately we're going to get an Enterprise F soon. Paramount a while back asked the STO community to design the next Enterprise... I must say in advance I had no part what so ever in the creation of the near abomination that some how won the contest. *I suspect ****s were involved.. that or the voting poll was rigged* Fortunately the winner isn't gauranteed to be the next one and several of the top finishers are being moved into consideration. (which is very good because there is one that absolutely Floored Me and everyone I showed it to. I didn't get to submit my own in time for the contest...again sadly, however lets just say I had to order a New Excelsior model... and I'm going to need another Sovereign model kit later for what I did to those two ships in the process.) Why this is sad for me as we never got to see E really. It kept getting stuck in Crap Films. And it was by far the coolest looking Enterprise (and still is if the Contest Entries were any indication).
www.startrekonline.com/enterprise/galler...
1332 = fugly near abomination that won.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Farscape is perfect D&D material, if your DM is on acid. I love how weird it was.
And to think, "A laser beam turned inside out" is apparently the easy way to explain it
I don't know, it kind of makes sense to me.
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
size and speed are relevant when targeting concerns come into play. even if you can perfectly hit anything you can target, you will have a harder time attacking things that are small and fast because you will have a harder time targeting them.
I will concede this argument due to your vastly superior and quantitive experience in space combat.
Oh. well thank you very much. that's exceedingly reasonable of you. and for my part I'll admit that the shuttles of Trek are far inferior (combat wise) to the veritechs I have been fighting in for the last decade or two.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
That's pretty much everyone's feelings that saw it.
A true masterpiece study in ship design that entry.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
That one was nice, but I actually like 1338 better. It's not as smooth and clean, which is a direction I would prefer Trek to go in. I also think 556 had promise in breaking the circle/oval model that is a bit too overused in my opinion.
No matter what look they go with for the new ship, I REALLY hope they take their tech examples from the most recent film. The starship battles were much better and their weapons made a lot more sense to me.
So I don't think it's as simple as "they should use shuttles as fighters".
Yeah... so I'm not convinced. In small-scale ship-to-ship combat, like what you normally see, it's entirely possible that most shots would still be hits because there just aren't enough targets for the targetting computers to have trouble locking on. Using small ships may only be practical in the really big fights.
So I don't think it's as simple as "they should use shuttles as fighters".
It can also be situational EE.
A battlefield with celestial debris can be perfect for shuttles to dart around in the way they did around the larger ships in the video.
Also, shuttles can fly between/around enemy ships with little risk of attack; lest a missed shot from one of the enemy ships hit another enemy ship.
I'm not saying they should use shuttles as fighters all the time, but it never happened once in the entire TNG series (to the best of my recollection).
I'd actually like to see the enterprise dacked out as an aircraft carrier in treck. If your going to name the main ship after one use it as one.
No crappy treck shuttles as warships either; make them closer to the BSG viper MK7, or the A-wings from SW6.
Or the F-302's from stargate (which has the best starship as fleet carrier designs IMO).
Or the F-302's from stargate (which has the best starship as fleet carrier designs IMO).
Having never watched the TV show due to the dislike of the movie I'll just nod my head.
Which movie? Because the series is actually quite different from the theatrical Kurt Russel, James Spader film.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good. You have to consider when it was out. Now, Galactica 1980 was bad, I heartily admit.
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
size and speed are relevant when targeting concerns come into play. even if you can perfectly hit anything you can target, you will have a harder time attacking things that are small and fast because you will have a harder time targeting them.
I will concede this argument due to your vastly superior and quantitive experience in space combat.
And if I recall, the introduction of shield technology in Trek made fighter technology obsolete.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good.
"Not as bad" is not the same thing as "good".
You have to consider when it was out.
Not really. What matters to this discussion is looking at these various properties from the contemporary perspective. BSG seemed okay back then cos I was a stupid kid and didn't know any better. Even before the new BSG my adult self recognized what dross it was, it just seems all the more so when compared to that masterpiece (albeit flawed).
Now I am no trekkie (or trekker, or whatever the hell you're suppose4d to call them), and in retrospect Star Trek can seem as cheesy as hell, but that show still holds up. It is 45 years old this year and was on the slate alongside some of the most classic series in TV history.
And really, the whole "context" argument doesn't hold up. Sure there was some complete crap around at the time (Love Boat, Three's Company, BJ and the Bear) the original BSG was also contemporary to such TV classics as All in the Family, MASH, and WKRP in Cincinnati.
In terms of objective reflection, shorn of nostalgia and irrespective of context, the original BSG was really just awful. That someone could take that disco-tainted relic and turn it into one of the best dramatic series of the past decade is nothing short of miraculous.
Now, Galactica 1980 was bad, I heartily admit.
No, Galactica 1980 was an unmitigated piece of
. "Bad" doesn't even begin to describe how unbelievably terrible it really was.Which movie? Because the series is actually quite different from the theatrical Kurt Russel, James Spader film.
Yep. The key difference between the movie, SG1, Atlantis and even Universe (what? I like it fine) is that SG1, Atlantis and Universe are good.
But yes, the series all take a very different approach than the movie did. I do find that the series - especially SG1 - follow the same path as the good Star Trek series in that the first season is trash and the rest are good. The first season of SG1 was, IMO, trying too hard to follow the movie. Once they decided to simply allow the show to become its own entity, though, things got pretty damned good. I also liked SG-1, till it got stupid - mostly, when they brought Daniel back from ascension (permanently - I really liked the episode when O'Neil is being tortured and Jackson shows up - was it real, or just in his head? It was a great episode, either way!). I lost interest completely after that. But up until then, I thought they did a great job expanding the universe and making great stories.
Not even Ben Browder and Claudia Black could bring me back ... and man oh man do I loves me some Farscape. <3
I did like the parody they made in one episode when Black's character was pitching all the ideas for TV shows and the guy was like "WTF is that?" LOL. But I got tired of the "bigger, badder" enemy formula, and Browder's character was just O'Neil, but dumber. Poor Ben.
Farscape is better than all y'alls shows!!
I've not seen much Farscape but I can determine from what I've seen that I'd rather see SG1.
Though as I've seen pretty much every ep, I'd likely watch the Farscape over it simply because I haven't seen Farscape much yet. ;)As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
The new BSG, yes. The original was a piece of
For a late 1970's series, it was actually quite good.
"Not as bad" is not the same thing as "good".
It's all personal taste. I have very fond memories of watching the original BSG as an 8 year old boy. So yes, the time frame is relevant. Maybe not to you, and how you choose to judge it, but for me, it was quite excellent. And watching it today brings back those great memories.
See, they got me back when they brought those two on. Claudia Black was awesome. I loved Vala. But the dood was an O'Neil clone - and even closer than you happen to think, IMO. His dumbness was like O'Neil's - exaggerated and more a part he played. He was smarter than he came off. But whatever, I liked the last few seasons.
I've not seen much Farscape but I can determine from what I've seen that I'd rather see SG1.
As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
Oh, I liked Vala when she was a guest star and not part of the show, but I liked her more than Browder's character. I don't care if it was an act, he was just an O'Neil clone and I disliked that. Not to mention that Daniel was just terrible and Tilk (or however it's spelled) got worse and worse, IMO. But I really enjoyed it before all that!
As for Star Trek ... I watched NG like all the time when I was younger. I watched DS9 some, but never Voyager. I actually enjoyed Enterprise because I felt the stories were good and it lost some of the staleness that I felt a lot of the other series had. But, then again, I prefer Star Wars, so I believe it when people say Enterprise isn't "really" Star Trek, and I'm cool with it - it's probably why I liked it! ;)
Farscape isn't for everyone, I'll admit. But I'm really not a "true" nerd, in the fact that I actually think other people can value other shows over my preferred show, and that it's pretty much just a matter of tastes. Farscape consistently made me laugh, cry, love, and hate, and all around care about the characters and their universe. I really liked the sense of humor and the writing and how not everything was explained and how everything was interconnected, and how things from season 1 show how far ahead the writers were thinking, and a whole bunch of stuff. And the Jim Henson Company just really sealed the deal - now those were aliens! <3 To be honest, the first two episodes, IMO, were probably the worst in the series, so they are a hurdle to get through.
I enjoyed Firefly and also wish it had been given a fair shake (I will also mention the fact that Farscape was cancelled on a cliffhanger 4th season, after being promised a 5th, and that it was the effort of the fans that brought a miniseries to finish the story :thumbsup
. It definitely had personality and looked to be better than any of the other shows, excepting Farscape. ;)Both the Firefly and Farscape RPGs were terrible, though. LOL.
I actually haven't seen the end of BSG, but I've got it on my Netflix Instant Queue, and have every intention of watching it again to the end. But it doesn't hold a candle to Farscape. ;)
While the final episode of BSG had some huge holes it wasn't all that bad. I still think it should have been broken up into 4 episodes to expand on the information but forth. Numbers 1 - 3 could have been the battle and the final one could have been exploring the new world. Leave the last 15 min exactly as is.
Those last 15 minutes are what killed it for me. Just ... lame. Oh well, to each their own, ya know?
Oh, I liked Vala when she was a guest star and not part of the show, but I liked her more than Browder's character. I don't care if it was an act, he was just an O'Neil clone and I disliked that. Not to mention that Daniel was just terrible and Tilk (or however it's spelled) got worse and worse, IMO. But I really enjoyed it before all that!
I liked her on the team, too. Somebody had to take up the funny slack O'Neil left when he bailed and I thought she did that wonderfully. I can see what you're sayin' about the rest, though. Daniel did get progressively more annoying (and snotty). Teal'c (I had to look it up
) was ok, though. Still, they got me back into the show enough that I was sad when it finally died.As for Star Trek ... I watched NG like all the time when I was younger. I watched DS9 some, but never Voyager. I actually enjoyed Enterprise because I felt the stories were good and it lost some of the staleness that I felt a lot of the other series had. But, then again, I prefer Star Wars, so I believe it when people say Enterprise isn't "really" Star Trek, and I'm cool with it - it's probably why I liked it! ;)
DS9 was by far the best (after season 2). Voyager was crap until the last episode and Enterprise, I hate to admit, has its moments (thank you Micha). Still, I don't think either of those really add to the franchise and I'd rather they never happened.
Farscape isn't for everyone, I'll admit. But I'm really not a "true" nerd, in the fact that I actually think other people can value other shows over my preferred show, and that it's pretty much just a matter of tastes. Farscape consistently made me laugh, cry, love, and hate, and all around care about the characters and their universe. I really liked the sense of humor and the writing and how not everything was explained and how everything was interconnected, and how things from season 1 show how far ahead the writers were thinking, and a whole bunch of stuff. And the Jim Henson Company just really sealed the deal - now those were aliens! <3 To be honest, the first two episodes, IMO, were probably the worst in the series, so they are a hurdle to get through.
The little I've seen seemed pretty ok. My friend was watchin' it before D&D for a while and I'd catch some. I didn't like the love story/clone thing that went down but other than that it seemed ok enough. I'd not not watch it, if that makes sense.
I enjoyed Firefly and also wish it had been given a fair shake (I will also mention the fact that Farscape was cancelled on a cliffhanger 4th season, after being promised a 5th, and that it was the effort of the fans that brought a miniseries to finish the story :thumbsup
I actually haven't seen the end of BSG, but I've got it on my Netflix Instant Queue, and have every intention of watching it again to the end. But it doesn't hold a candle to Farscape. ;)
It's worth seeing, I guess. Just prepare to be disappointed.
Overall the series was amazing. It just all fell apart at the end (IMO). Still, worth seeing. Just not something I'll ever watch again. it was like I invested all that time watching the show, getting into the characters and following all the twists and the end? I was like '**** you, what a waste of time'. I'm just not able to do it again. Heh. As far as the new BSG goes, I was with it until the end. The end so fantastically failed as to taint the series for me. It was lazy, stupid and totally lame and, unfortunately for me, erased most of the good there was. I can't watch it again because I know where it's gonna go and I just don't want to go there again. I can watch Stargate, I can watch Trek (obviously only the real Trek stuff - OS, NG and DS9). I can't watch BSG. So it's just not as good because of that. They had something amazing and they blew it all to hell.
The end of BSG is the "flaw" part of the "flawed masterpiece" I mentioned earlier.
Firefly, though, is the best. It was truly amazing and wasn't given a fair shot.
Damn skippy. It was a truly unique gem. Fox was too stupid to realize what they had.
I have very fond memories of watching the original BSG as an 8 year old boy. So yes, the time frame is relevant. Maybe not to you, and how you choose to judge it, but for me, it was quite excellent. And watching it today brings back those great memories.
I too have fond memories of watching it was a lad, but that doesn't mean it wasn't crap. What you are describing is called "nostalgia", which is why I said if you remove that emotion from the equation and look at it with an unbiased eye the show was pretty dire. Boxy and Muffet alone are enough to make any sane human want to tear their own eyes out.
The end of BSG is the "flaw" part of the "flawed masterpiece" I mentioned earlier.
And it's a damned shame they went out that way, too. Oh well, at least everything up to that point was beyond good.
Damn skippy. It was a truly unique gem. Fox was too stupid to realize what they had.
It all makes sense when you look at the way television has evolved. Anything unique is just not allowed (for the most part - thankfully FX has a different take). I mean, how many Law and Orders or CSIs do we have now? And cop dramas? Hell, at one time we had ER and Chicago Hope - basically the same show but different names. Now? Now they use the same friggin' name. They only make what people have shown they already like. It's pathetic. There's just not much room for brilliance anymore. It's above the masses, I'm afraid.
Back to FX for a minute, I think it's my favorite non-educationish network on cable. They have some truly good shows that don't fit exactly anywhere. From It's Always Sunny to Archer to the absolutely brilliant Louie, they are the small ray of hope in an abyss of sameness. Hopefully these shows will get bigger and bigger and be recognized more widely and hopefully that recognition will pay off for the networks and an era of innovation can save us from the repetetive nonsense we're stuck with now. I doubt it cuz, more likely, it'll make networks make copies of these shows and ruin the whole damned thing, but I can hope, right?
I too have fond memories of watching it was a lad, but that doesn't mean it wasn't crap. What you are describing is called "nostalgia", which is why I said if you remove that emotion from the equation and look at it with an unbiased eye the show was pretty dire. Boxy and Muffet alone are enough to make any sane human want to tear their own eyes out.
And you are still describing personal preference. I simply enjoy it for what it was then, not what it is now. "Nostalgia" does not make something bad nor good. Cassette tapes were fantastic "back then." I still have some, even if for "notalgiac" purposes. But because they are obsolete does not make them patently bad.
And Boxy and Muffet were not good contributions to the series, but outside of them, it was a damn fun ride.
The episodes with Count Iblis were epic.
Essentially, I agree to disagree.
Those last 15 minutes are what killed it for me. Just ... lame. Oh well, to each their own, ya know?
I liked her on the team, too. Somebody had to take up the funny slack O'Neil left when he bailed and I thought she did that wonderfully. I can see what you're sayin' about the rest, though. Daniel did get progressively more annoying (and snotty). Teal'c (I had to look it up
DS9 was by far the best (after season 2). Voyager was crap until the last episode and Enterprise, I hate to admit, has its moments (thank you Micha). Still, I don't think either of those really add to the franchise and I'd rather they never happened.
The little I've seen seemed pretty ok. My friend was watchin' it before D&D for a while and I'd catch some. I didn't like the love story/clone thing that went down but other than that it seemed ok enough. I'd not not watch it, if that makes sense.
It's worth seeing, I guess. Just prepare to be disappointed.
The whole last season of BFG was just a big **** you fans to me. The scene of the Galactica broken, but triumphirant in the final episode was Epic as was the final fight before it. But my god that season was SO BAD. It had so much "because the Plot Says So" in it that I found myself using the excuse I used for things like Eldar Prophecy, or an LKH novel. "I started this crap. I am going to finish it!"
Vala was awesome. I thought her and Daniel played off each other perfectly. Did you know I still haven't seen the final episode of SG1? I was working the night it went off the air, and sci fi has been real dodgy about replaying the last season. Which makes me sad. I missed most of that season!
Agreed with DS9. Sisko got to be at his most awesome when he got his Pimp Hand.. (aka the Defiant) Enterprise, did have some gems. But it's hard to sift through so much garbage and I'm still fine with Zb or anyone saying "it never happened" as far as the franchise went. Because really it might as well not have. Which is sad because the potential the show had was huge.
Fun thing about Star Trek, unfortunately we're going to get an Enterprise F soon. Paramount a while back asked the STO community to design the next Enterprise... I must say in advance I had no part what so ever in the creation of the near abomination that some how won the contest. *I suspect ****s were involved.. that or the voting poll was rigged* Fortunately the winner isn't gauranteed to be the next one and several of the top finishers are being moved into consideration. (which is very good because there is one that absolutely Floored Me and everyone I showed it to. I didn't get to submit my own in time for the contest...again sadly, however lets just say I had to order a New Excelsior model... and I'm going to need another Sovereign model kit later for what I did to those two ships in the process.) Why this is sad for me as we never got to see E really. It kept getting stuck in Crap Films. And it was by far the coolest looking Enterprise (and still is if the Contest Entries were any indication).
www.startrekonline.com/enterprise/galler...
1332 = fugly near abomination that won.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Farscape is perfect D&D material, if your DM is on acid. I love how weird it was.
And to think, "A laser beam turned inside out" is apparently the easy way to explain it
I don't know, it kind of makes sense to me.
The shuttles are smaller, and therefore harder to hit while traveling at the same speed.
Actually size and speed are only relevant when your attacks move slower then the speed of light. I don't think Phasers are slow moving? Though I could be wrong, since I'm not a Trekkie
size and speed are relevant when targeting concerns come into play. even if you can perfectly hit anything you can target, you will have a harder time attacking things that are small and fast because you will have a harder time targeting them.
I will concede this argument due to your vastly superior and quantitive experience in space combat.
Oh. well thank you very much. that's exceedingly reasonable of you. and for my part I'll admit that the shuttles of Trek are far inferior (combat wise) to the veritechs I have been fighting in for the last decade or two.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
That's pretty much everyone's feelings that saw it.
A true masterpiece study in ship design that entry.
The one that floored me? 869. It's new and Retro at the same time. I love it. If we're going to go for a total departure from E (and I suspect that's the goal to further "save the franchise") then I want that one.
Yeah, looking at the two, 869 is my choice as well. Just way, way better. Classic, elegant and still new enough to be an obvious advancement.
That one was nice, but I actually like 1338 better. It's not as smooth and clean, which is a direction I would prefer Trek to go in. I also think 556 had promise in breaking the circle/oval model that is a bit too overused in my opinion.
No matter what look they go with for the new ship, I REALLY hope they take their tech examples from the most recent film. The starship battles were much better and their weapons made a lot more sense to me.