Star Trek... Inspirational Posters?

Noryungi writes "Hot on the heels of Despair dot com, here comes... the Star Trek Inspirational Posters!. Imagine a mind-meld of Mr Spock, Despair's demotivational attitude and the Linux Distro Parodies, and you have one heck of a funny site. If you are a true Trekkie, don't click on the link, as this is certainly going to offend you..."

Comments

You must be too young

[DaFork]

I grew up watching Star Trek, so I retain an affinity for it to this day. Although I am not a hardcore Trekkie, I still watch the show when it is on TV. To understand why the original series is the way it is, you have to understand what was going on culturally in the US during the time it was being aired.

Even though it is 40 years old, over the top, campy, and hilariously non politically correct, I find it better than most of the crap on TV nowadays (or perhaps I am just too old).

Re:You must be too young

[kfg]

. . .hilariously non politically correct. . .

Think back, Dude, and I think you will discover that it defined political correctness of the time.

It's a remarkable cultural document.

KFG

Re:You must be too young

[tverbeek]

"Was Star Trek one of the first shows aired in color?"

No, color was gradually introduced over the course of the early 1960s, and most primetime shows had switched to color by the time Star Trek debuted. It was still a novelty in those days, and Trek's primary-colors palette was designed to take advantage of it, but it had plenty of "in living color" competition for the attention of viewers (well, as much competition as two other networks could offer). On the other hand, keep in mind that the majority of homes still had black and white TVs (meaning the only way many viewers could identify expendable security officers was by the darkness of their shirts). So I wouldn't pin much of its appeal on color.

Trek's novelty came mostly from new-to-TV special effects, its relatively serious approach to sci-fi (contrast with "Lost in Space"), and its flirtation with ideas in an era of "Gilligan's Island", "I Dream of Jeannie", and "Gunsmoke".

Re: Not Minuses

[DumbSwede]

I wouldn't consider: over the top, campy, and hilariously non politically correct, to be strikes against a show.

Re:On purpose?

[Bogtha]

How are the slashdot editors supposed to know which sites have limited bandwidth?

They could email and ask? When you can take small websites completely offline with the amount of traffic Slashdot gets, it's irresponsible to not give any warning or caching, especially when your excuse is that you just can't wait six hours for this "cool breaking story". Hands up everybody who just couldn't wait another six hours to see Star Trek posters?

Or, if you want the techie approach, something similar to robots.txt would be simple for high-traffic websites like Slashdot to respect.

Re:I can't believe no one pointed this out yet.

[JWW]

Sorry, I think that was a test to see if you were "easily offended".

You didn't pass. You might want to avoid the link. However, since the link totally broken, its a moot point now.

Re:Weird

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"It's beyond me while people always fall in love with such crap. Or is it a some kind of relax when you turn off your brain partially and watch Star Trek for example?"

I never really enjoyed FireFly or Farscape. Is that because my tastes are 'superior' to everybody else's, or is it because everybody else is getting something I'm not? I'd love to go with the former, afterall it's more flattering. Chances are, though, it's the latter. My point is that I wouldn't go around elevating myself because I don't like a popular show.

Re:TNG

[JabberWokky]

I think he's come to terms with the fact that he was fifteen and the writers overused his character. His actual acting wasn't that bad -- and that's with him as a young'un actor next to the likes of Patrick Stewart. The recent stuff he's been in (the crazy homeless guy in CSI, for example) has been downright good. Wesley was a poorly handed character, but not due to Wheaton's performance.

--
Evan