Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[ST1-LCN] Re: Star Trek on DVD

Expand Messages
  • luigi10151
    ATA a Lennon loving hippie, that explains a lot lol. Just don t try to give me any brownies and we ll be fine :P I don t think Gene s vision of the future is
    Message 1 of 46 , Oct 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      ATA a Lennon loving hippie, that explains a lot lol. Just don't try to give me any brownies and we'll be fine :P

      I don't think Gene's vision of the future is the hippie paradise you would like. I think Gene probably didn't believe in hippie values, wasn't there even a TOS episode where hippies were the enemies and Kirk had to snap them to their senses?

      One of the most obvious differences from Lennon's "imagination" was there are countries in Star Trek, at least the idea of countries in the sense of sovereign states. There's the Federation, Klingon Empire, Romulan Empire, etc, and all of them have their own territory, borders, wars over said borders, etc.
      Even in the human-centric Federation, you still have divisions and sub-group ownership of land. It's still just a collection of sovereign worlds. Sure worlds aren't divided, but galaxies sure are. Everybody gets along well, but who would deny that Earth belongs to humans or Vulcan belongs to vulcans? People haven't learned to live in peace in Star Trek, they just scaled up to literally galactic proportions.

      Which brings me to something else, there's still lots to "kill and die for" in the Star Trek world. Humans may play down religion as silly in Star Trek, but they still kill pretty often in the name of their values. I don't know how many times Kirk was all hyped up about going to war just because the Klingons wanted to conquer a planet. He was willing to go to war, risking lives, because he believed in something. No negotiating, just preparing for war. Nobody else objected either. Not really a hippie "lets all peace out man" attitude is it?

      Also, people did have possessions in Star Trek. Money is another issue, but they did have possessions. Even on a starship, they had their own rooms. In those rooms they had their own books, decorations, etc. Kirk owned reading glasses, a house out in the woods, and at least one antique Dickens novel. Sisko's dad owned a restaurant. Picard's family had it's own wine fields. I wonder how many apartments they could have made if the Picard family stopped being greedy and gave up all those acres? :P

      --- In star-trek-one@yahoogroups.com, The Sweetest <avcor23@...> wrote:
      > > Kirk's Enterprise had a non-denominational chapel, where you could get
      > > married and be religious, be spiritual, be one with the deity or belief
      > > system of your choice, and not be surrounded by its trappings.
      > >
      > > That's the kind of future I'd like to see for religion.
      > >
      > > Andy
      > [ATA}So what you are saying is that you see a future where religion is
      > not as relevant as it is today for many people. A future in which you
      > are not forced to do things based on twisted perceptions of what
      > someone says a deity wants; meaning that there will be "Nothing to
      > kill or die for and no religion too"
      > I don't know if that was the future GR was proposing when he created
      > Trek. He wanted us to take a starship and journey into space boldly,
      > where there is "no Heaven" and for that matter "no Hell below us"
      > only ground under our feet and "above us only sky" and "all the
      > people living for today".
      > A united Earth, where "there's no countries" and "all the people
      > living life in peace"
      > Of course, reflecting about a Trek-like future, it would be almost
      > impossible not to talk about the moneyless society with humans, very
      > likely, bartering things; with "no possessions" and "no need for greed
      > or hunger." just "a brotherhood of man" with "all the people sharing
      > all the world".
      > But in the end it is just a tv show and no matter how much one could
      > argue that such a futire might be possible, all expectations about
      > that future are just that; expectations and wishful thinking. But I
      > like to think that the dream is there and that others share it as
      > well.So I guess "you may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only
      > one. And "I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as
      > one."
      > A Trek-like future for all of us. Imagine that
      > :-)
    • KAJ
      The dinosours were really more of a secondary (or lower) story line.  Haven t watched this weeks episode yet, but i will.  The chick (Skye) is hot;) And yes,
      Message 46 of 46 , Oct 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The dinosours were really more of a secondary (or lower) story line.  Haven't watched this weeks episode yet, but i will.  The chick (Skye) is hot;)

        And yes, i realize she is only 16 (the character) but i looked her up and she is mid 20's, so its ok for me to drool.  I want to see her in a next generation uniform.  Blue;)

        From: Beth <mccall3815@...>
        To: star-trek-one@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2011 2:59 PM
        Subject: [ST1-LCN] Re: Star Trek on DVD


        > [ATA]I know. Security, anomalies, temporal disruptions, hovering
        > aliens and all sort of things that...Oh well...I will try to go
        > outside and play more.
        > :-p

        -----Hovering aliens here as well, quite annoying sometimes. :-p

        > [ATA}Certainly, you are correct. My take is that I don't mind time
        > travel every now and then, but sometimes is used too much. And I agree
        > about the temporal directive. And don't get me started in the temporal
        > thing in ENT.
        > But in the case of Terranova, I don't mind at all the time travel
        > thing; just the dinosaur thing. Why not put the premise 10000 or maybe
        > 100000 years ago? Although I guess one can see how the show could be
        > boring without the dinos.

        ----I didn't watch it, not my cup of tea. If I want to see dinos I can watch Jurassic park. So what's wrong with the Temporal Prime Directive?


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.