'Star Trek' Began Filming 50 Years Ago

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
When you think of Star Trek, the newest movies come to mind, but that isn’t the real story. Star Trek, the TV series, started out on a shoestring budget and barely made it to the screen. If you remember the first airings of the TV show, you are now officially old. :D Happy 50th anniversary to Star Trek and to all of her descendants.

More importantly, Roddenberry's vision of a united human race standing together regardless of race, color or creed has inspired countless fans, including many of today's scientists, engineers, astronauts and visionaries. Live long and prosper!
 
Live long and prosper. There's just so much about this show that's inspired me over the years, I think that noting like it pop culture has ever been so entertaining yet so positive and hopeful.
 
I remember watching that first episode when I was 9 the day it first aired, and I was crushed when they didn't renew after season 3.
 
I remember watching these on a black n white tv. Still enjoy watching the episodes.
 
Star trek is one of those rare entertainment pieces that changed the world.
I mean, its no Battlestar Galactica, but yeah if you're into socialism and don't mind the discrepancies about there being currency and not being currency and what motivates anyone to work instead of just living in a holodeck paradise where you are God and there's infinite blowjobs available at the snap of a finger then yeah I guess.
 
I mean, its no Battlestar Galactica, but yeah if you're into socialism and don't mind the discrepancies about there being currency and not being currency and what motivates anyone to work instead of just living in a holodeck paradise where you are God and there's infinite blowjobs available at the snap of a finger then yeah I guess.

W.T.F.? You should really have someone take a look at that stick shoved up your a**
 
I mean, its no Battlestar Galactica, but yeah if you're into socialism and don't mind the discrepancies about there being currency and not being currency and what motivates anyone to work instead of just living in a holodeck paradise where you are God and there's infinite blowjobs available at the snap of a finger then yeah I guess.

So what vision of the future do you have? What hope do you do see? If you have none, that's why it's called science fiction and why you'd have never been able to conceive of something like Star Trek. Even if you hate socialism it would be illogical to hate dreams.
 
So what vision of the future do you have?
I'm not talented enough to write science-fiction, but I am intelligent enough to notice discrepancies or conflicts in an imaginary universe. Unless perhaps you can explain it to me why they sometimes say there isn't currency, then say there is currency, and some people work horrible grueling and dangerous jobs as minors on an asteroid, when supposedly in a universe of plenty without competition for resources you could live like a king. It just doesn't make sense or take into account human nature.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone might take a low ranking job on the Enterprise as they could work their way up and eventually have a command of their own and go on adventures and what not. But why would anyone do any of the boring and monotonous jobs we've seen with no obvious career path to something glorious that would make it worth the sacrifice? And what kind of morally bankrupt HR department would keep giving Kirk more red-shirts, since he goes through them faster than a roll of toilet paper..

Battlestar Galactica canon simply doesn't have those "does this make any sense at all" conflicts with itself.
 
I'm not talented enough to write science-fiction, but I am intelligent enough to notice discrepancies or conflicts in an imaginary universe. Unless perhaps you can explain it to me why they sometimes say there isn't currency, then say there is currency, and some people work horrible grueling and dangerous jobs as minors on an asteroid, when supposedly in a universe of plenty without competition for resources you could live like a king. It just doesn't make sense or take into account human nature.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone might take a low ranking job on the Enterprise as they could work their way up and eventually have a command of their own and go on adventures and what not. But why would anyone do any of the boring and monotonous jobs we've seen with no obvious career path to something glorious that would make it worth the sacrifice? And what kind of morally bankrupt HR department would keep giving Kirk more red-shirts, since he goes through them faster than a roll of toilet paper..

Battlestar Galactica canon simply doesn't have those "does this make any sense at all" conflicts with itself.

I suggest reading the books then, movies and TV shows alone are not going to give you everything. Oh, and the Federation itself does not use money. However, those within are not confined to that standard if they wish to do so.
 
I mean, its no Battlestar Galactica, but yeah if you're into socialism and don't mind the discrepancies about there being currency and not being currency and what motivates anyone to work instead of just living in a holodeck paradise where you are God and there's infinite blowjobs available at the snap of a finger then yeah I guess.

Wow, you always seem to be critical about much with very little to go on. Bitter much? :confused:
 
BTW, remember Ronald Moore, he's the one that brought you the reimagined Battlestar Galactica but before that he scripted 27 of Star Trek TNG's episodes and was supervising and co-executive producer (the best Trek of the franchise IMO), as well as Deep Space Nine, and while he was hired on as producer for Voyager, he outright quit after only two episodes because of how nonsensical and bullshit he perceived it to be... in his own words:

"I think the audience intuitively knows when something is true and something is not true. Voyager is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spic-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? That kind of bullshitting the audience I think takes its toll. At some point the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn't act like this."

So face facts Trekkies, BSG is superior because it shows a more plausible universe in which humans are still... HUMAN! Flaws and all.
 
I can't believe anyone would even compare BSG (the remake) to Star Trek. It's one thing to give characters a few flaws,but the characters in Battlestar were so flawed they quickly became unlikeable and boring. By the end of the series I wouldn't have cared if the Cylons had wiped out the lot of them.
 
I mean, its no Battlestar Galactica, but yeah if you're into socialism and don't mind the discrepancies about there being currency and not being currency and what motivates anyone to work instead of just living in a holodeck paradise where you are God and there's infinite blowjobs available at the snap of a finger then yeah I guess.

Wow! Congratulations I suppose. Oui!
 
So face facts Trekkies, BSG is superior because it shows a more plausible universe in which humans are still... HUMAN! Flaws and all.

We're talking about science fiction so facing facts would not be logical. At any rate, what you don't like about Star Trek is why some do. Star Trek isn't about confining the human condition to current realities, it is all about the possibilities. It's not about what is but about what if. It isn't about fatalism but hope. A future where humans and other species can be anything and do anything in a universe of infinite diversity in infinite combinations.
 
I can't believe anyone would even compare BSG (the remake) to Star Trek. It's one thing to give characters a few flaws,but the characters in Battlestar were so flawed they quickly became unlikeable and boring. By the end of the series I wouldn't have cared if the Cylons had wiped out the lot of them.
Which is a valid point of view, as you're allowed to side with the Cylons which is what gives the show more depth. They were wronged after all, and have reason to have "daddy issues", and who is to say the time for organics is over and evolution dictates that Cylons will be the next decedents? Has humanity changed enough to be worthy to be forgiven, or would the universe be better if populated by Cylons, or are Cylons just as bad? Its like in cowboys vs indians, if its too painfully forced on you who the good guys and bad guys are, they are doing it wrong IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I've seen every single episode of every Star Trek ever made (yes, including Voyager) as I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but with Star Trek a lot of times you have to force yourself to turn off your brain when it comes to continuity and human behavior and look past the socialist statist propaganda that just doesn't make sense (a huge benevolent socialist government with the aim of spanning the universe, everyone works for the government, nobody gets paid, no one acts in self-interest, etc). And it doesn't even make sense in a universe where there is no competition for resources why there is so much warfare, why the Klingons are on the brink of economic collapse at multiple points even though they are allies of the federation (send them some replicators and they could produce unlimited food, housing, cars, entertainment, etc), and how the Ferengi even fit into the universe (although I think we know, the only reason they exist is to mischaracterize capitalism as evil and destructive).

And despite being on for 50 years, they are intentionally VERY vague about the dirty aspects of how their socialist "world order" government actually works. From what we can tell, the Federation is just as bad as the Borg. ASSIMILATE! That is their goal with all foreign cultures but for what purpose or gain, but then they don't mention that it appears that they lose all autonomy to the Earth government in major decision making, who also happens to control virtually the entire military force of the quadrant via Star Fleet which is under their command. How is that really any different than the Soviet Union? All the research ships, space stations, pretty much any project that is large and of value is property of the government (which is overwhelmingly human dominated), so individual planets and cultures don't have any real power.

That's kind of why I was surprised that a show like Voyager could have so many seasons, but a show like Firefly that simply promotes freedom but without the socialist agenda gets cancelled by the Hollywood elite after just a season... mmhmm.

federation.jpg

All hail the socialist Terran Empire; selfless duty for the motherland!
 
Did you just learn the word Socialist, because you sure can't seem to help yourself dropping it every few minutes. You should go look up Marxist next, go have a field day with that one!
 
Don't get me wrong, I've seen every single episode of every Star Trek ever made (yes, including Voyager) as I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but with Star Trek a lot of times you have to force yourself to turn off your brain when it comes to continuity and human behavior and look past the socialist statist propaganda that just doesn't make sense (a huge benevolent socialist government with the aim of spanning the universe, everyone works for the government, nobody gets paid, no one acts in self-interest, etc).

I've seen every episode and movie of the Star Trek franchise of this isn't at all what I take away from it. There's PLENTY of times people act badly and in their own selfishness in the Star Trek universe, not necessarily for material gain as indeed material wealth isn't that important in a society that can create most material goods with little to zero cost and effort. Remember, this is a society where gold is worthless because it can be easily replicated, at least in the TNG universe. Latinum can't be easily replicated thus it has high value but doesn't seem to have much value beyond being rare and hard to manufacture.

The 24th Century Federation is a highly advanced technical culture. Warp drive, anti-matter reactors, transporters, phasers, quantum torpedoes, replicators. Compared to our technology, it's magic much as current technology would be magic to those living in the mid-18th Century, which is roughly the same 350 years in the past that the 24th Century Federation is in the future from current time. 350 years ago slavery was considered an invaluable economic tool by many and bloodletting a standard medical procedure and today those things are almost universally considered barbaric.
 
Did you just learn the word Socialist, because you sure can't seem to help yourself dropping it every few minutes. You should go look up Marxist next, go have a field day with that one!

He's equating socialism to advanced technology. If food, clothes, medicines, etc. can be easily replicated there's just point in most economic pursuits compared to our time. The basics of life for Federation citizens are basically free not because government is providing them but because of advanced technology.
 
He's equating socialism to advanced technology. If food, clothes, medicines, etc. can be easily replicated there's just point in most economic pursuits compared to our time. The basics of life for Federation citizens are basically free not because government is providing them but because of advanced technology.
Don't speak for me, because you're wrong. Advanced technology has NOTHING to do with the problems of their currency free nonsense utopia.

Either resources are limited or they are not. If resources are unlimited, then there can be no competition, and thus no need for an economy based on currency. If not all resources are unlimited, then there is competition and need for trade, and that means you have a traditional economy again where limited resources are traded using currency as an intermediary. People with more currency have more power and thus control in society, and people would fight for that power. You've now introduced the concept of socio-economic status, and the utopia BS is crumbling apart.

Even today there is virtually no one that goes hungry in a developed nation no matter how poor they are, as we have an overabundance of food thanks to technology. In fact, those suffering most from obesity are in fact the poorest in our country. But people will want more than just food. And if everything isn't unlimited and can simply be replicated, as clearly it is not, then you end up with haves and have nots, and conflict especially if the haves are not distributing those limited resources evenly with the have nots. But that gets back to the motivation for distribution of limited resources and power... what motivates people to do those menial repetitive thankless jobs that still have to be done in the Star Trek universe? We saw minors working in dangerous uncomfortable conditions and mercenaries stealing and so forth. Why? To enable Picard to enjoy his "Tea Earl Gray Hot" in comfort? No way.

Which is moot anyway, as you can't tell me that most people wouldn't simply create themselves a small holodeck box back on Earth, which for all intents and purposes can be infinite the span of a galaxy in which they can live with the power of Q (Dr Who style, its bigger on the inside). Why would children with access to that instead of playing go and study all day to become scientists and what not and listen to some twat bark orders at them and work at a slaves pace (notice how everyone is always under crazy time pressure in Star Trek with little free time) from morning to night? To impress a girl? You can have five sex slaves at the same time on the holodeck. To someday be captain of a small vessel on routine patrols after a life's career of servitude, pfft, like Barclay showed you can make yourself the captain and go wherever you want with tremendous realism... so real in fact that you can make the AI sentient as they accidentally did on TNG by uttering a few words without thinking.

If the canon don't fit, you must acquit. :D
 
Don't speak for me, because you're wrong. Advanced technology has NOTHING to do with the problems of their currency free nonsense utopia.

I'm not speaking for anyone but myself but again this is science fiction. Warp drive, transporters, replicators, solid holographic projections, time travel, intelligent extraterrestrial life, it's ALL nonsense currently in reality. And that's the point.
 
I'm not speaking for anyone but myself but again this is science fiction. Warp drive, transporters, replicators, solid holographic projections, time travel, intelligent extraterrestrial life, it's ALL nonsense currently in reality. And that's the point.
I guess that's where personal preference comes into play, as I don't mind different rules for fictional universe, as long as they are consistent and make sense. If you tell me there's magic or the force, cool, I'm down. If characters could very simply use a magic spell or force move that they've recently shown they can, but they don't because the writers were dumb and had to refrain to move the plot along, then I have a problem... or in the case of Star Trek want to promote a socialist one-government utopia where money doesn't exist, but then kind of realize that's crap and you can't write a story around it so they go all wishy-washy, then I have a problem.

I'm just bothered by conflicts and inconsistencies within the fiction's self-imposed rules.

But I think the allure of Star Trek to many is that they like to turn off their brains, pretend they are still being intelligent by hearing quasi-scientific banter like "realign the multi-convection phase coils and fire on my command", and suck on the lolipop sweet lie that is a future where humans don't act like humans and you picture yourself going on adventures like a sea-captain of yore while still having the security of an empire's support behind you with moral highground in all matters, and not really picturing yourself as a red-shirt or unfortunate bastards that has to always do what they are told and never get to get off the ship on the landing parties of the "ruling caste" officers. Its fun as long as you remain stupefied and try not to think to much... and that's how I try to enjoy them too, but just saying its definitely got issues and a pretty hardcore political agenda to shovel that can be a hard pill to swallow if you're not already chugging the liberal koolaid.
 
the best episode was when they went to this planet and fought along side abraham lincoln.
 
But I think the allure of Star Trek to many is that they like to turn off their brains, pretend they are still being intelligent by hearing quasi-scientific banter like "realign the multi-convection phase coils and fire on my command", and suck on the lolipop sweet lie that is a future where humans don't act like humans and you picture yourself going on adventures like a sea-captain of yore while still having the security of an empire's support behind you with moral highground in all matters, and not really picturing yourself as a red-shirt or unfortunate bastards that has to always do what they are told and never get to get off the ship on the landing parties of the "ruling caste" officers. Its fun as long as you remain stupefied and try not to think to much... and that's how I try to enjoy them too, but just saying its definitely got issues and a pretty hardcore political agenda to shovel that can be a hard pill to swallow if you're not already chugging the liberal koolaid.

All successful science fiction requires some leap of faith or believable suspension of reality. Apparently Star Trek doesn't do that for you and you have some political ax to grind about a society that doesn't even exist, at least not now.

Star Trek was born in the world of the 1960s which certainly was liberal and progressive era particularly in matters of race and Star Trek pushed the boundaries there with a black female bridge officer, a interspecies child in Spock. The leading computer genius of the 23rd Century, Richard Daystrom was black. But he's a prime example of everyone not being a government automaton and having lots of self-interest. His M-5 computer destroyed an starship and killed hundreds because of megalomania and need to recapture his fame and fortune after having revolutionized computing with his discovery of duotronics when he was only 24.
 
Apparently Star Trek doesn't do that for you and you have some political ax to grind about a society that doesn't even exist, at least not now.
You misunderstand. I don't have a political ax to grind, the WRITERS do, at least in some episodes it is laid on exceptionally thick (beyond the whole premise of the Star Trek universe), and those are the ones I have to sigh and try to look past the propaganda as its shoveled on hardcore. Its the a-political episodes that I do enjoy as a sci-fi fanatic.

Perhaps Star Trek can evolve catering to a new audience and abandon that political agenda. The latest Star Trek movies for example, lens flares and all, did just that... which is why I think some liberals hated it, lol!

BTW, the Star Trek hardcover is on sale today only: http://slickdeals.net/f/7451186-star-trek-federation-the-first-150-years-hardcover-book-14?v=1

Use the code HOLIDAY30 for 30% off, comes out to $14.
91sQpNRGIGL.jpg
 
Holy crap, please delete that photo, I meant to post the tiny thumbnail and can't edit. :(
 
Seasons 1 and 2 of the original series (TOS) were pretty good, season three went downhill thanks to a smaller than expected budget plus Roddenberry leaving the series. Season 1 of Star Trek: The Next Generation was ok, season 2 got better, seasons 3-6 rocked, and season 7 sucked. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine started out slowly, improved with the competition from Babylon 5, but isn't seen anymore. I stopped watching during Star Trek: Voyager because the writing became worse and worse, and I barely watched Enterprise. Don't ask me why, or otherwise, I will have to hand you a List of Lists.

Ah, yes, Star Trek was fun while it lasted, but I'm glad to have moved on to other things.
 
You misunderstand. I don't have a political ax to grind, the WRITERS do, at least in some episodes it is laid on exceptionally thick (beyond the whole premise of the Star Trek universe), and those are the ones I have to sigh and try to look past the propaganda as its shoveled on hardcore. Its the a-political episodes that I do enjoy as a sci-fi fanatic.

Simply casting women and minorities in prominent roles would be seen by many as a political ax to grind, especially when the show appeared in the 1960s. In any case I'm not much into the Thought Police. People will express themselves and there's always going to be those that don't like what they say or how that say it. That's probably one of the reasons why Star Trek has endured,

The last movie did make some poignant traditional political Trekkie points, the Prime Directive and Kirk's causal disregard for it and militarization. The idea of non-interference is an extremely touchy political point as well as military conflicts with old enemies.
 
Seasons 1 and 2 of the original series (TOS) were pretty good, season three went downhill thanks to a smaller than expected budget plus Roddenberry leaving the series. Season 1 of Star Trek: The Next Generation was ok, season 2 got better, seasons 3-6 rocked, and season 7 sucked. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine started out slowly, improved with the competition from Babylon 5, but isn't seen anymore. I stopped watching during Star Trek: Voyager because the writing became worse and worse, and I barely watched Enterprise. Don't ask me why, or otherwise, I will have to hand you a List of Lists.

Ah, yes, Star Trek was fun while it lasted, but I'm glad to have moved on to other things.

Enterprise failed to use Star Trek history well and came up with a lot of stuff that it didn't need to. The episodes where the history was used well were excellent but unfortunately they didn't do that until the forth season when it was too late.

Two of the best were "Regeneration" where the crashed remains of the Borg sphere in the TNG movie "First Contact" came back to life and started reeking havoc. Then there was a tie in to the TOS episodes "The Tholian Web" and "Mirror, mirror" called "In a Mirror, Darkly" where the 23rd Century USS Defiant from "The Tholian Web" gets sent back to the evil 22nd Century universe referenced in "Mirror, mirror". Both were fantastic and used the history very creatively.
 
Simply casting women and minorities in prominent roles would be seen by many as a political ax to grind, especially when the show appeared in the 1960s.
That was the specific intent of the writers, and was most certainly done with a political agenda and they've said as much. One that most people would agree was a good thing... and that's the issue here, is whether or not you AGREE with all of the politics they spoon feed you in each episode.

For example, Star Trek producer Roberto Orci is a 9/11 "Truther", with quotes prior to "Into Darkness":
"Oh, so you think it’s a coincidence that the fire department commander said they were going to ‘pull it’ just before World Trade Center Building 7 collapsed, despite it having never been hit by a plane?”
Making it clear that he does not buy the official story and believes 9/11 involves a US government conspiracy of some sort. And you betcha his political beliefs were inserted into the Star Trek franchise, as is usually the case. After all, the plot is basically that the leader of the Federation military, aka Starfleet, and his supporters were very security conscious after the destruction of Vulcan, and believed that war was inevitable. As such, they recruited a villain, Khan, to design weapons for them to have a tactical advantage for an invasion of the Klingon empire. The US government also worked with and trained Al Queda for military purposes when it served them. And so Khan, aka Osama Bin Laden, starts off by convincing a vulnerable person to suicide bomb on his behalf. Later he flees to Kronos, but its all a little bit too convenient since Khan didn't really destroy Starfleet HQ anymore than Osama destroyed the Pentagon, and instead just gave them a bloody nose, and why did he go to the one place Starfleet wanted him to? The retreat to Kronos is a bit of a coincidence, as it gives Starfleet the excuse to send Kirk over to kill Osama... er Khan... and thus the evidence, so that the Klingons will respond destroying the crippled Enterprise, giving Starfleet the prelude to war they wanted, just at a time that the secret uber-badass warship is launched and operational.

That makes Khan, aka Osama, just a patsy that was used by the Starfleet/US military industrial complex, to fight a war in Kronos/the middle-east. Voila, you have truther politics turned into a movie.

Yet, believe it or not, that's actually really lightweight political propaganda for the franchise compared to many other films and series. So the question is, do you really need that much subliminal brain-washing going on in your sci-fi movies to enjoy them, or rather is that something that actually detracts? If it matches your political ideology, then you will absolute love it and tell people to STFU and stop over-analyzing it. If you don't, then yeah you get annoyed.
 
Yet, believe it or not, that's actually really lightweight political propaganda for the franchise compared to many other films and series. So the question is, do you really need that much subliminal brain-washing going on in your sci-fi movies to enjoy them, or rather is that something that actually detracts? If it matches your political ideology, then you will absolute love it and tell people to STFU and stop over-analyzing it. If you don't, then yeah you get annoyed.

I watched Star Trek as a kid and it inspired me to learn about computers and I know tons of others that were inspired to get into math or science or technology because of this show. I know the show made political statements but where you see liberal politics that you don't like, I see something that made me curious about the world and motivated me to learn.

Something that's inspired millions to want to learn and become productive and self-sufficient members of society can't be all that bad. I've always found it ironic when conservatives complain the "liberal brainwashing" of Star Trek when it's had such a profound impact on so many people becoming successful and not needing government to provide for them.
 
We need a new Star Trek TV series!

Its always on the minds of execs at Paramount last I heard. Now that JJ is gone off to possibly enrich or destroy Star Wars.. Star Trek might get a new series. Problem is that it would likely be an "edgy" version because the demographic would be the young and it would mean the end to the "all together and for one" kind of drive for Star Trek. Reality shows have ruined TV. Only a few shows are worth a damn anymore.

Frankly I wouldn't mind an edgy Trek on HBO but if its on CBS then it'll be junk. Just like everything else on Network TV.
 
Actually Star Trek didn't air until the 1966 season, as the original pilot "The Cage" didn't air until 1988.

So technically the 50th Anniversary is going to be in 2016, which culminates with the release of the new Star Trek 3.
 
Back
Top