Slashdot Mirror


Today Marks The 50th Anniversary of 'Star Trek' (ew.com)

Dave Knott writes: Today marks the 50th anniversary of the first television broadcast of Star Trek. The first episode of the science fiction series was aired on September 8, 1966. From its humble beginnings, Star Trek has gone on to become one of the best-loved and most successful television concepts of all time, an enduring pop culture touchstone that changed science fiction forever and spawned multiple series and movies that continue to this day. What does Star Trek mean to you? Are you a trekkie/trekker? What are your best memories of the series, and how has it affected your life?

204 comments

  1. Before the reboot by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before the reboot it was awesome.

    I even have books that most trekkers don't know about like "Spock Must Die".

    After the reboot, having kirk and spock looking longingly at each other and Uhura emerging as a the true power in the ship just makes me hope that trek passes away.

    --
    _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    1. Re:Before the reboot by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Yes. The reboot has been a great big sack of nothing in terms of social issues. Putting a gay character onscreen a year after gay marriage has been legalized all over the U.S. is hardly daring filmmaking.

    2. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talking of books I have a star fleet medical manual from 67-68 time frame about 100 pages. Was both a counter-cultural and a true medical manual. Example true first-aid for humans. And then for the gorin, valcun, ...

    3. Re:Before the reboot by vbraga · · Score: 1

      "Spock Must Die" is awesome!

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    4. Re: Before the reboot by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I think the name was Gorn. The dialog was pure Shakespeare. But I nominate the boulder as best supporting actor.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Before the reboot by irrational_design · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm the opposite. I watched some episodes from each of the Star Trek TV series and I think I saw most of the movies, but it never really caught my fancy. But I've _really_ enjoyed the rebooted Star Trek movies. Speaking to other I've found that most Trekkies really don't like the Star Trek reboot, while those who were not Trekkies before like the rebooted movies. Maybe that indicates the rebooted movies aren't "real" Star Trek. I don't really know since I've never been a Trekkie ;-)

    6. Re:Before the reboot by joybiswas389 · · Score: 1

      www.bdtechnews.tk

    7. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Memory prime is the best.

    8. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's because the reboot isn't "Star Trek," it's the cast of One Tree Hill in Starfleet uniforms.

    9. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. You have to slow down the video in order to catch all of the nuance and subtle context. Cinema Magnifique, says this writer.

    10. Re:Before the reboot by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Spock Must Die! was a brilliant novel (disclaimer: James Blish fan here). Too bad it could never have been canon, due to locking up the Klingons at the end.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Before the reboot by rtb61 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Reality is 'Jar Jar A' pretty much killed Star Trek with the crap he produced (not dumbed down by the way, simply as smart as he is capable of producing, strictly second set work). As can be seen by the last entry that pretty much every just ignored, why bother, more of the same crap, Star Trek is dead, we need a new anniversary for it's funeral. Jar Jar is now killing off Star Wars, nepotism, pays for more PR=B$ in main stream media, than anything else, trying to make incompetent spawn look great. How many picked up on the change in box office revenue where package deals (junk food and even premium food in upmarket cinemas, sales) where included in the revenue claims, to hugely inflate them (basically tripling the numbers), typical main stream media PR=B$ nepotism.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Before the reboot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      After the reboot, having kirk and spock looking longingly at each other and Uhura emerging as a the true power in the ship

      Weird and a waste of time on every level IMHO. In the original Uhura, Scotty and so on were all awesome at what they did which is enough for everyone who doesn't want to put their "mark" on the story by adding an unlikely twist.
      To me it seems like stuff that would have been hounded out of fanfiction ended up in the recent movies.

    13. Re:Before the reboot by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe that indicates the rebooted movies aren't "real" Star Trek. I don't really know since I've never been a Trekkie ;-)

      Hey, you figured it out. It's not that you like the new Star Trek and don't really care for the old Star Trek -- it's that you just don't like Star Trek. But you like action sci-fi movies, and these just happen to have characters and settings that were borrowed from Star Trek.

    14. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's just an action movie. It doesn't have any of Roddenbery's morality tales. The reboots are for adolescents - they make the early Star Wars look like adult oriented stories.

    15. Re:Before the reboot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Fans of the two are very different. The new movies are just action flicks set in space. The originals are dramas with big ideas and an interesting model of the future.

      For example, the original shows are post-race, post-feminist, there is no money or personal wealth for most people, Star Fleet is a meritocracy with a nominally military structure but that's as far as it goes. The new movies don't really have any of that, and in fact Uhura has been relegated to the nagging girlfriend.

      You can't really compare the two. And by the way, the original movies mostly suck. Try Next Generation from season 3 or 4 onwards. The Drumhead is one of my favourite episodes, along with Darmock.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re: Before the reboot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You got that backwards, in that scene Shatner is the supporting actor. And he hardly qualifies for "best".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    17. Re:Before the reboot by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The reboot feels a lot like a bunch of crappy Mary-Sue fanfic characters thrown together.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Before the reboot by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 1

      After the reboot, having kirk and spock looking longingly at each other and Uhura emerging as a the true power in the ship

      Weird and a waste of time on every level IMHO. In the original Uhura, Scotty and so on were all awesome at what they did which is enough for everyone who doesn't want to put their "mark" on the story by adding an unlikely twist. To me it seems like stuff that would have been hounded out of fanfiction ended up in the recent movies.

      Are you complaining that it's crappy or are you complaining that the reboot isn't exactly like the original down to the dialog, set designs 1960s special effects and the grainy texture of mid to late 20th century recording technology? I certainly have some issues with the reboot, such as a Cadet Kirk being promoted to captain of one of Star Fleet's capital ships but the reboot still isn't that bad. The original series had some gaping plot holes and various plot defects as well.

    19. Re:Before the reboot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Are you complaining that it's crappy or are you complaining that the reboot isn't exactly like the original

      Both really.
      Crappy plus a totally different setting where starships can park underwater, belts can teleport you across the galaxy and Klingons are weaklings to beat up on. A vast way from "exactly" - why stay in orbit in hundreds of episodes when you can just land in a lake?
      The reboots are not self-consistent even within the span of an hour or two.

      The reboot depends both on fan memory and then brings in complete rejection of it. The Khan remake is beyond understanding without seeing pre-reboot trek yet depends on being in a totally different universe.
      Instead of doing a totally new story or doing something that could exist in the original setting Abrams just took the earlier story, turned it inside out and backwards then shat all over it. It was amazed that somebody could make a film with that cast and still have it turn out as crap.


      I'm a B5 fan and not a trekkie and really loved Galaxy Quest which shamelessly made fun of Trek, but the Trek reboot is just crap SF feeding off a captive audience IMHO.

    20. Re: Before the reboot by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      With the actor for Chekhov in the reboots dead, and declining revenue and angry fans, the best thing they could do would be to patch up the alternate timeline with a time travel finale to their television show. Then they could go back to the real timeline. Or even the mirror universe would be cool.

    21. Re: Before the reboot by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      People keep saying there was no money. Harry Mudd sold stuff for money all the time.

      Also, the first airing was on September 6th, in Canada, nor September 8th in the US. If US ratings had matched Canadian ratings over the 3 year run, the Enterprise would have completed its 5 year mission. The show had cheesy special effects but it didn't need CGI to distract viewers from lousy (or nonexistent) storylines, or the too-earnest political correctness infusing everything that made me avoid the next generation after 1 episode.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    22. Re:Before the reboot by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Reality is 'Jar Jar A' pretty much killed Star Trek

      Yes, especially when he regenerated into the Doctor and crashed the Delorean into the side of the Star Gate whilst fleeing Serenity.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    23. Re:Before the reboot by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Star Trek: Usually explores morality at it's core. Plot built around a moral conundrum. May be fleshed out with action and explosions at times, but really, the show is about exploring humanity more than it is exploring space.

      Reboot Star Trek: Just string a bunch of action sequences together and add a bunch of computer generated graphics. Plot optional.

      I don't have a problem with action movies. Look at how popular the super-hero movies are. Star Trek was never about action and explosions; it was a more thoughtful show. This may have made it rather niche (TNG was criticized as being a show about people sitting in meetings making decisions) and sometimes Star Trek blows chunks (like anytime they try and do romance)- but JJ's Star Trek was simply not Star Trek- it was spiderman in space..

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    24. Re:Before the reboot by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      I think that you are thinking about Gandalf

    25. Re:Before the reboot by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      The reboot is ageist as hell. Everyone's about the same age.

      To be fair, the real ages of most of the principals on TOS were fairly close, but the portrayed ages varied, from the aging Doctor and mature Senior Engineer, to the Captain who's young for his rank and reputation, down to seasoned junior officers and bottoming out with a junior Ensign and Yeoman. And then there's the Vulcan, who's likely on par with Scotty in terms of chronological age, experience and wisdom but presumed biologically pubescent. All of whom have come up through the ranks, though many faster than average.

      In contrast, the reboot is basically a bunch of kids boost a starship. No separate careers coming together over the years, no earned ranks, essentially just a mob of fratboys running into each other all at once.

      It's utterly cringe-worthy.

    26. Re: Before the reboot by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      No he traded commodities, in TOS he traded his slave girls for lithium crystals, not money.

    27. Re:Before the reboot by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the remastered versions of TOS before you call their recording technology grainy texture. TNG however was shot on video so there the source material is lacking in quality but not for TOS which was shot on film.

    28. Re:Before the reboot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Star Trek isn't really suited to movies. There is an ensemble cast and not enough screen time to give most of them any real development or insight. The new ones have the added hindrance of needing to stop for massive action sequences and making it hard to see the actor's faces with bad lighting and fast editing.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Before the reboot by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Agree, agree, agree...except for sp of Darmok. ST:TNG before s3 is indeed very tough to watch. Troi in her cheerleader outfit, but even the lighting on the set looks more like Match Game or something. Luckily BBC America still has plenty of re-runs.

      --
      I come here for the love
    30. Re:Before the reboot by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      You mean when he was using the Triluminary ?

    31. Re: Before the reboot by LocalH · · Score: 1

      TNG was shot on 35mm. CGI was done on video however.

      --
      FC Closer
    32. Re:Before the reboot by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Are you complaining that it's crappy or are you complaining that the reboot isn't exactly like the original down to the dialog,

      Naw, they're totally Trek-like. That second one really got exactly what I always loved about Spock just perfect: the way he'd fly into a rage and then hold his enemies down and punch them in the face over and over again, almost killing them with his bare hands.

      The original series had some gaping plot holes and various plot defects as well.

      The second reboot movie (Into Darkness) is by far the worst, as there's more hole than plot. But really the new movies are just...bad (the new one, Beyond, is the least bad though). And I mean that just from a Screenwriting 101, story point of view. For instance, in every single damn movie the motivation of the bad guy is "REVENGE!!!!!" I was really hoping that in three movies you could find some conflict in the Star Trek universe that doesn't center around a jilted bad guy who wants revenge against Star Fleet/Humans/Vulcans. Nope.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    33. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a lot of Kirk engaging in fisticuffs and snagging alien women while engaging in morality plays.

    34. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the Enterprise engineering spaces look like an oversize water treatment plant vs a starship engine room... Once the Startrek franchise got "JJ'ed", its down the tubes as far as I'm concerned....

    35. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is just as well: we pay to be entertained, not preached to, and especially by mediocre authors like Roddenberry. The rebooted Trek is cool, it's more popular than the original has ever been and its audience is not made up of socially inept weirdos. Nobody wants their franchise associated with a bunch of aging losers that nobody wants around. Get over it.

    36. Re:Before the reboot by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, Star Trek works maybe better in terms of character development as a series. I mean, look at TNG and how the characters evolved over time. Riker especially. Sure, a lot of it was the actors settling in and getting a "feel" for the character, but it's nice to see that they do develop and get their edges and quirks, and we maybe get to explore their flaws a little and how they might overcome them. That is of course easier done in a weekly 45minute show than in 2 hour movies once in a while.

      But I'm sorry, the "new" enterprise characters are as bland as the TOS characters were. One-dimensional, flawless heroes with zero identification chance. It just doesn't click.

      And them being younger than me didn't really help either. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re: Before the reboot by phorm · · Score: 1

      Honestly, the movies on their own weren't nearly as cerebral as people seem to remember. A lot of more political stuff was actually in the TV series,but then people have had years to dig and expose political meaning.

      If you dig deep, even the newer movie has some interesting subtexts: treatment of veterans, PTSD, promotion and rank versus being in the action, etc etc

    38. Re:Before the reboot by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      To me, two of the best hours ever shown on television are "City on the Edge of Forever" from the original series and "The Inner Light" from the Next Generation. I can forgive a lot of the other drek that aired in TOS and NG for those two episodes alone.

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    39. Re:Before the reboot by Phusion · · Score: 1

      I just rewatched The Inner Light last month and it still holds up. Gotta love a lot of those TNG episodes, the ones after they get rid of that horrible Dr. Polaski and bring on the Bev.

      --
      640k ought to be enough for anyone.
    40. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep saying there was no money. Harry Mudd sold stuff for money all the time.

      The point isn't that people couldn't/didn't use money. It was that the vast majority in the Federation didn't use money because it was a largely post-scarcity society. For things that were still scarce, meritocracy or a simple FIFO with level of rationing was included. In the end, though, there's always people with the means to buy and get ahead of the line.

    41. Re:Before the reboot by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      ... why stay in orbit in hundreds of episodes when you can just land in a lake?

      Or, more specifically, if you're trying to hide from an indigenous species w/o optical technology, like telescopes, why hide in the ocean right next to their town when you can hide in orbit (with less power and potential ship damage) to boot? Other than way-cool special-effects being more important in a JJ Abrams film than, well, anything else.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    42. Re:Before the reboot by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Dr Polaski wasn't my favourite, but I never liked Dr. Crusher. There was something about her that really irritated me. There's usually one main character on each series that I really don't like.

      I never liked Bones. (OK - this is a stretch... he was OK- but I'm trying to make a point so had to include him)
      I never liked Dr. Crusher. (I think it was her voice)
      I never liked Quark (or any Ferrengi - too flat, stereotyped and cliché)
      I never liked Tom Paris (too cheesy, and probably the worst actor from any series).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    43. Re:Before the reboot by homes32 · · Score: 1

      Thatt is a book I enjoy very much.

    44. Re:Before the reboot by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was Scorpius?

    45. Re:Before the reboot by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

      After the reboot, having kirk and spock looking longingly at each other and Uhura emerging as a the true power in the ship just makes me hope that trek passes away.

      Trek was very transgressive for its day. It doesn't seem like it now, because a lot of their pie-in-the-sky stuff, like women and minorities completely accepted in the workforce, a commitment to diversity as a positive good, respect for other cultures rather than insisting on transforming them into clones of ours, became standard societal orthodoxy in the last 50 years. But back in the 1960's these were really radical ideas. The same year Trek started, freaking George Wallace won 5 states running on a platform supporting Jim Crow. They only got away with putting this on TV by making it obvious fiction (putting it in space).

      If you have big problems with the newest Trek due to it depicting socially transgressive things (homosexual feelings, women with authority), I have to wonder if you would really have been a fan back in 1968 either.

    46. Re: Before the reboot by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Cyrano Jones, in "The Trouble with Tribbles", after giving Uhuru a tribble, says that "A tribble is the only love money can buy." Money is still used in the Star Trek universe.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    47. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That second one really got exactly what I always loved about Spock just perfect: the way he'd fly into a rage and then hold his enemies down and punch them in the face over and over again, almost killing them with his bare hands.

      It's not Nancy! If it were Nancy, could she take this??

    48. Re: Before the reboot by slew · · Score: 1

      People keep saying there was no money. Harry Mudd sold stuff for money all the time.

      The point isn't that people couldn't/didn't use money. It was that the vast majority in the Federation didn't use money because it was a largely post-scarcity society. For things that were still scarce, meritocracy or a simple FIFO with level of rationing was included. In the end, though, there's always people with the means to buy and get ahead of the line.

      Many episodes in TOS point to a currency based system...

      "Mudd's Women", Mudd babbles about miner's being rich enough to buy a planet or a starship...
      "The Devil in the Dark" they also talked about the horta making the operation a 1000 times more profitable and making they embarrassingly rich
      "The Trouble with Tribbles" there were credits for tribbles and drinks...
      "Requiem for Methuselah" asserted Holberg 917-G (the planet) was purchased only thirty years earlier by Brack, a private investor...

      All of this suggests some sort of monetary system that goes along with a socialist system to take care of basic needs with a number of super wealthy private concerns that are mostly heredity. I see no evidence of a Meritocracy or FIFO behavior for scarce resources, but basically a barter economy or cash on the barrel head.

      My theory is that all you see in star trek episodes is the "star-fleet" view of an economy and if you have ever been in the active military in the US, you won't be surprised how some quasi-military economy works. For basic things (food/shelter), the military kind of operates post-scarcity (even though there's lots of scarcity) with on-base housing and PX. There's still currency/money, however, there are many things that you might want and probably can't buy with money in the military and barter (goods and/or influence) is the way to obtain those things. As a result, if you are a lifer, there's less of a reason to accumulate too much money and you spend your time figuring out where you want to be stationed and what type of promotion you want to get before you retire. If you are not a lifer, you either get out quick, or perhaps, spend your time making your self a nice landing zone for when you resign and use (or abuse) your military-contacts as a private concern...

      That being said, the way the economy works in a quasi-military organization (like star fleet) says nothing about how the economy as a whole (like the federation) works...

    49. Re:Before the reboot by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Throw in "In the Pale Moonlight" from DS9.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    50. Re:Before the reboot by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was Jar Jar Abrams who killed the franchise, all the next gen movies before these ones were terrible and did more harm to the franchise than this. They were equally stupid, violent and poorly written as any of Abram's turds, except with the original, 70-something cast.

    51. Re:Before the reboot by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      For example, the original shows are post-race, post-feminist, ...

      Were they? I don't remember any female starship captains, except the sexy Romulan babe in "The Enterprise Incident."

    52. Re:Before the reboot by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      It's actually the Annheuser-Busch brewery. Yes, the engine room of the new Enterprise was designed for the manufacture of expensive packaged urine-substitute.

    53. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't see the new movie. Is this a huge spoiler that was modded up, that some cunt is now the boss? If so, fuck you, and I hope you quit star wars for good and your books burn in a fire.

    54. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet you loved the new Ghostbusters...

    55. Re:Before the reboot by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Those last Star Trek movies of the original era were definitely not good but they just sort of bruised the franchise rather than beating it to death with really stupid cheetos versions. People still were interested in Star Trek (hence the reboot sellout was possible), they just wanted better stories, the reboot crap, the last movie, simply zero interest, nobody cared, now that's dead. nepotism is really screwing up the industry, crap remakes seems to be all they are capable of, squeeze blood out of franchise dead weight stone and nothing but dust left, which they still try to squeeze just one more time to end up with nothing. Likely they will jump on game franchises and try to get money out of them with crappy stories and lots of advertising.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    56. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star trek, the original series, NG, voyager and DS9 is some of the shittiest, sloppiest and most juvenile sci fi ever. If you think it was good, your not as smart as you think you are. The new movies at least made the one thing about it good. The old fans that don't like the new stuff are like a bunch of Comic book guys. Your all fucking idiots.

    57. Re:Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek: Usually explores morality at it's core. Plot built around a moral conundrum.

      Well perhaps juvenile morality or if your 5, at best. It was sloppy, poorly written and not even self consistent.

      Star Trek was never about action and explosions; it was a more thoughtful show.

      If you really think the new trek movies don't have plots or that they are bad. Then the originals were fucking terrible. Seriously watch it again now your older than 6.

    58. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > TNG was shot on 35mm. CGI was done on video however.

      Quantel Harry, IIRC. There was very little CGI on the screen besides engine glow, transporter and phaser fx. All of the ships were miniatures. They did model some stuff like the "crystalline entity" in 3D software.

    59. Re:Before the reboot by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I find the new Kirk particularly unbelievable. Spock is kind of okay but a lot of the humour from the original came from him being the straight man, where as the new one is oddly sarcastic. The relationship between the two of them is weak too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    60. Re: Before the reboot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see no evidence of a Meritocracy or FIFO behavior for scarce resources, but basically a barter economy or cash on the barrel head.

      Colonists get planets but there's never discussion of them having to buy the planet. There is, instead, an expectation (one could call it a barter) that they'll do something clearly productive with it.

      My theory is that all you see in star trek episodes is the "star-fleet" view of an economy...

      I wouldn't entirely disagree with that view, but then we have Jake Sisko who shows no sign of having made money and yet clearly does eat at the Replimat or otherwise try to buy (good) spice pudding all over Earth when they visit. Since Star Trek follows Star Fleet, though, I'd concede we can never be fully sure of just how much money or barter is a real necessity. I'd just note that things like planets are (relatively) scare, it's reasonable to believe that some jobs (mining) might actually pay people specifically because it's undesirable work, and some other things (planets) might be often given to colonists, used for mining, or sold to individuals that show no sign of doing anything directly productive but have shown merit (in money/credits/whatever) to indirectly earn that thing.

      So, perhaps it's all UBI? :) Or Star Trek was written with a lot of writers, there wasn't a real consensus on how resources were allocated, and in the end we have people saying "no money" who probably mean it more in the basic-needs-are-met, money-not-really-required sense. That, to me, what fundamental post-scarcity means. It doesn't mean just because there's enough planets for everyone that you don't ration them and setup some sort of rules that require money to purchase some of them. Otherwise, you'd run into stupid situations like people building resorts on dilithium rich planets.

    61. Re: Before the reboot by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Sounds more that lousy continuity was rampant among the screen writers in the 60ths.

    62. Re:Before the reboot by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      this from the nitwit that can't spell you're

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  2. Wouldn't be me without it. by Master+Moose · · Score: 1

    Some of my earliest and fondest television memories were watching TOS re-runs. Spock was my 1st TV hero.

    --
    . . .gone when the morning comes
  3. Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The crew of the Enterprise are a bunch of glorified social workers, bringing their bland enlightenment to the alien noble savages. Give me Blake's 7 any day.

  4. Gotta say it by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    KKKHHHHHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

    Okay, for the benefit of Slashdot's ironically named lameness filte - you have to understand that some things just require yelling.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Gotta say it by quenda · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or as William Shattner just had to say:

      I'd just like to say... GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it's just a TV show! I mean, look at you, look at the way you're dressed! You've turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME!

      I mean, how old are you people? What have you done with yourselves?
      You, you must be almost 30... have you ever kissed a girl?

      I didn't think so! There's a whole world out there! When I was your age, I didn't watch television! I LIVED! So... move out of your parent's basements! And get your own apartments and GROW THE HELL UP! I mean, it's just a TV show dammit, IT'S JUST A TV SHOW!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    2. Re:Gotta say it by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Someone's pissed he doesn't get a cut from the merchandising, it seems.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Gotta say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Settle down, i was a comedy skit. sheesh.

  5. Still believe DS9 to be the best by ArtemaOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Next Generation was amazing, DS9 is still my favorite, but the original series broke so much ground it is mind boggling. One of my favorite stories is of Ohura and Kirk kissing. The producers didn't want to do it, so Shatner convinced them to film both scenes, the kissing first. He then proceeded to screw up every take without the kiss until they were running low on film, which was quite expensive. The producers were forced to take that step forward in history.

    1. Re: Still believe DS9 to be the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Next Generation was good until you realized every problem could be solved by recalibrating a certain technical setting on the ship. Though, the security guard dying to a lump of tar was unexpected.

    2. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Shatner] then proceeded to screw up every take without the kiss until they were running low on film

      You sure that was intentional? :-)

    3. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      DS9 discussion recently on Ars Technica.

    4. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Never attribute to political correctness what can be sufficiently be explained with bad acting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      They aired Episode 1, "The Man Trap" on TV today.

      Uhura was flirting heavily with Spock on the bridge and not reciprocated. So Kirk was definitely not her first choice.

    6. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Ars is blocked and work and I can get to slashdot. Quite the downgrade, but that's just the way things are for now.

    7. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What Deep Space Nine does that no other Star Trek series can

      Enlarge / Deep Space Nine is on the wormhole front in the Dominion Wars, yet its main characters remain fundamentally humane and strive for peace.

      Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

      We all have people in our lives who are so important that theirdeaths wouldbe tragic at an existential level. Recently, one such person in my life almost died. It wasn't one of those things where he narrowly escaped from sniper fire in a starship fight and we could raise a glass of synthaholin Ten Forward afterwards.He was plugged into life support machines for over a week, unconscious, with doctors shaking their heads and urging us to "be patient." Medical staff said completelyterrifying things like "I think he'll probably make it."

      I had plenty of time to imagine how my life would be utterly different without him. He's part of the family I've found with my circle of nerdy friends, and losing him would be like losing, well, part of my family. Part of me. Every night when I came home from the hospital,there was only one thing I could do that didn't make me want to cry. I watched Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

      I never really thought of ST:DS9 as a comforting show, or even a particularly brilliantone. I grew up on Star Trek: The Next Generation, so DS9 is definitely "my" era in Star Trek, and I have hazy memories of enjoying it in college. Still, I never really loved DS9 the way I loved Data and Picard and TNG's ongoing wonky obsession with maintainingthe Prime Directive onwhat Guinan called a "ship of peace." Yet in my darkest emotional hour, DS9 was what did it for me. Ithink that'sbecause theshow combined everyday stories of awfulness and political meltdown with an aggressive hopefulness about the future. Call it Utopia ex machina.

      War and peace

      How do you get a message of universal social democracy out of a world whereBajor struggles with post-colonial poverty while their former oppressors, the Cardassians, team up with the Romulans to start a war on the Dominion? And how do you wrest a sense of justice out of a story where one of the main characters, saloonowner Quark, successfully exploitseveryone, including his own brother?The answer is: awkwardly.

      I keep thinking about "Past Tense," that two-part episode in season 3 where Sisko, Dax, and Bashir go back to "primitive" Earth in 2024 and take part in the Bell Riots to liberate the walled shantytowns called Sanctuaries. In fact, Sisko has to take the place of rebel leader Gabriel Bell when the real man is killed because the DS9 ganghas altered the timeline slightly. There's this very 1990s Star Trek moment where Bashir is tending to the sick in a Sanctuary and is completely shocked by how horrific the health care is. "How could they let it get this bad?" he asks Sisko,who replies that humansdidn't stand for this kind of injustice for longbecause of people like Gabriel Bell.

      Sisko explains to Bashir that humans of the 21st century rebelled against the government that kept impoverished people in ghettos.

      Thatkind of dogged Utopianism in the face of our present-day reality comes across as frankly a little bit weird. It seems absurd to imaginewe'll go from a world of ghettos to one whereit's "obvious" to all humans that eliminating poverty is the only way forward. And today it's even harder to swallow the idea thatspace station captains of tomorrow willconsider what amounts to an Occupy activist as the foundational hero of human civilization.

      But as I watched with my sadness-blunted brain, DS9 kept me stumbling onward with its optimism. Episodes vacillate betweengoofy stories of mirror universes, mystical Bajoran prophesies, and darktales of the Dominion W

    8. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Have also been watching TOS for the first time. After mostly seeing her in the movies, it surprises me just what a sex kitten Uhura is. She's way more attractive than the token blonde.

    9. Re:Still believe DS9 to be the best by Lotus456 · · Score: 1

      But I thought Uhura was a blonde!

      --
      "It's a good computer... for I to BM on!" - apologies to Triumph, the insult comic dog
  6. Only Kirk is still kicking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kirk/William Shatner: Alive
    Spock/Leonard Nimoy: Died Feb 27 2015
    Bones/DeForst Kelley: Died in 1999
    Scotty/James Doohan: Died in 2005

    1. Re:Only Kirk is still kicking by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Sulu and Chekov have been deleted from this timeline before Bones, Scotty and Spock died.

    2. Re:Only Kirk is still kicking by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Only Kirk is still kicking

      Well, yeah, if you mean "out of Kirk and the ones who have died."

      Walter Koenig, George Takei, and Nichelle Nichols are all still alive.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Only Kirk is still kicking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIP Gene Roddenberry
      Majel Barrett Roddenberry
      Grace Lee Whitney
      Mark Lenard
      Ricardo Montalban
      Alexander Courage
      Jeffrey Hunter
      William Campbell
      Matt Jeffries
      Bill Theiss
      John Colicos
      Bjo Trimble
      Yvonne Craig

      lots of other names you know thanks to Star Trek...

  7. Bad opinion theater by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kate Mulgrew was the best Kirk.

    COME AT ME

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Bad opinion theater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She'll always be Mrs. Columbo to me.

    2. Re:Bad opinion theater by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Kate Mulgrew was the best Kirk.

      COME AT ME

      I know you're joking, but it really is a shame Voyager did such a bad job in the casting. Without all the awful actors Voyager would have been a good show. The doctor was the only good actor on that show. (I had a fondness for 7 of 9, but it might not have been because of her acting ability).

      Compare the actors from TNG to Voyager- there is a huge gulf in acting ability. Voyager probably had better writers but the poor acting made it go flat.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    3. Re:Bad opinion theater by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      The actors were, by and large, fine; they just had utter shit to work with. You be trippin, son.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Bad opinion theater by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Really?

      Kate Mulgrew an equal to Patrick Stewart?
      Robert Duncan McNeill *shudder* an equal to Brent Spiner?
      Tim Russ anywhere near as good as Michael Dorn?
      Robert Beltran *ugh* as good as Jonathan Frakes (ok he wasn't the best either)

      The actors chosen for Voyager were absolutely terrible. I actually quite liked voyager (after first few seasons) but that is DESPITE the acting. The acting was wooden and amateurish.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:Bad opinion theater by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Really? Kate Mulgrew an equal to Patrick Stewart?

      Better. Patrick Stewart is a world-class actor, but he never seemed much like a Captain to me. That job requires you to come down on people like a ton of bricks when they screw things up, and I think he's just such a nice guy the best he knew how to pull off was about 15lbs of bricks. Mulgrew could do it.

  8. Early on, in the iTunes Store by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Back when the iTunes Store first started selling TV shows, you could get each entire season from TOS for about $12 each. At the time, they weren't on Netflix or anywhere else I could locate; so even though money was tight right then - I bought all three (and immediately stripped out the DRM).

    The price jumped dramatically just a Week or two later... but I'm still amazed the seasons were ever that cheap.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  9. Good plot hooks by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TOS set the technology up with some really good plot hooks. Things like:

    You can't beam someone onboard while the shields are up.
    You can go to distant planets, but it still takes considerable time.
    The transporters are sensitive, finicky things that tend to break.

    All of these make great places to hang plot from, such as:

    So item #1 makes for a tense situation when you're in a shuttlecraft (or on the planet) while the ship is facing off an enemy.
    Item #2 means you might not get there in time (KIRK: Make a challenge. Warn that ship off. UHURA: Trying to, sir. They don't acknowledge.)
    Item #3 means you might get stranded on the ship after you've set it to blow up.

    Compare with the modern reboot movies, where you can beam from Earth to another planet using a transporter the size of a duffel bag, starships that can hide underwater, and magic serum from Khan's blood that will bring someone back from the dead.

    The modern reboot movies think sacrificing the technology makes for good plot, but it's just the opposite: Good plot will be based on the limitations of the technology.

    Consider: How can anyone get emotionally involved in someone's death, knowing that they can be brought back to life now using Khan's blood?

    (Let's not mention a red liquid that can turn a planet into a black hole, delivered by hand using a big syringe. Or a cold fusion bomb that can't be remote armed, has to be assembled and armed by hand while standing at the place of detonation. Or a bomb the size of a class ring that can take out a building. Or beaming from a planet onto a ship that's been at warp for a couple of hours using a formula that considers the ship and the planet stationary while the space between them moves.)

    1. Re:Good plot hooks by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Or a power loss causing the ring of floating objects in orbit to plummet. After the idiotic body surfing from one ship to another.

      And then there was the giant wrestling thing with the ships core - which Galaxy Quest Firmly slapped down years earlier because the whole notion was stupid.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    2. Re: Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Galaxy Quest the greatest ST film ever!!

    3. Re:Good plot hooks by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or a power loss causing the ring of floating objects in orbit to plummet. After the idiotic body surfing from one ship to another.

      And then there was the giant wrestling thing with the ships core - which Galaxy Quest Firmly slapped down years earlier because the whole notion was stupid.

      My favourite from Galaxy quest was the chompers. After beaming onboard the Enterprise, Scotty is inside the coolant tube heading for the spinning blades of death.

      As the review "Everything Wrong With Star Trek" points out, [the spinning blade contraption] is just as useless and stupid as the chompers in Galaxy quest, except *this* star trek movie isn't a parody.

    4. Re: Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iirc, transporting at warp was something tos Scotty did

    5. Re:Good plot hooks by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that... It seems to me that in the pre-reboot series they could overcome any technical limitation simply by reversing the polarity.

    6. Re: Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Iirc, transporting at warp was something tos Scotty did

      Not splitting hairs to say that based on how the transporters are supposed to work all you should need is a high enough bandwidth data connection between the two ships traveling at warp speed to beam from one to the other, shields or no. The ability to transport between transporter pads should be only an ultra high bandwidth data connection affair. Beaming down to the planet where there is not a receiving pad is a whole other issue as the re-assembly is being performed by the ship from hundreds of miles up in orbit and in motion at orbital speeds whilst the person materializing on the ground is not moving relative to the surface of the planet.. but when you transport someone who is falling back on to the ship, they always tend to hit the transporter pad with a Thump! Totally implausible!

      The "You can't beam up while the shields are up" is a plot device just like the "Romulan and Klingon ships cannot fire when cloaked." and are both are equally stupid. The TNG Romulan warbirds were supposedly powered by a captured singularity, so it is not a power limitation therfore there is no reason that the weapons and the cloaking device could not be powered at the same time otherwise the ship could not travel at warp whilst cloaked (warp drive surely takes way more energy than shielding or weapons do..) But we are looking for logical inconsistencies in fiction like we do in reality and that breaks down at some point inevitably. Heres another example: If full ship phaser power is enough to vaporize a continent, (as was mentioned in the dialogue of "The Cage") a warp core breach should produce a big enough explosion to destroy an Earth sized planet, or at the very least render it uninhabitable due to radiation and temperatures. Despite this, we have seen several versions of the Enterprise and other star ships have warp core breaches and no planet was ever destroyed in the event or experienced an extinction level event. (Hell in the Franklin in the latest movie was embedded in rock and completely powered down but still maintained antimatter containment somehow... No Boom!)

      This type of silliness is akin to aliens stating what constellation they come from, when none of the constellations from the perspective of their planet would make any sense to anyone else but that species, save for them being from a system within a hundred or so lightyears from the perspective in question.. (For instance the sky of proxima centauri b would be very similar to the sky around the sun minus there being an extra star in the sky (Sol somewhere in Cassiopeia ) and Proxima being very prominent along with Alpha Centauri A and B close by. Star names being used by Aliens is just as crazy as them speaking English.. but that is on the writers to explain or demonstrate..

      I think that the science people who advised the writers needs more education in physics.. but there is a line where such things can be overthought or it ends up costing the dramatic elements of the story in a negative way. People would suspend disbelief a lot easier in the late 1960s than they do now.

    7. Re:Good plot hooks by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The absolutely stupidest and most implausible technology was the "Genesis Project" that instantaneously caused 4 billion years of evolution by launching one projectile. Oh, and it was created by one person working alone.

    8. Re:Good plot hooks by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Consider: How can anyone get emotionally involved in someone's death, knowing that they can be brought back to life now using Khan's blood?

      They explored resurrection in a couple of episodes of Voyager.

      In one episode (Mortal Coil) Neelix is killed on an away mission. Seven performs some Borg magic and he's back again but haunted by the afterlife.

      In another (Ashes 2 Ashes), Harry's girlfriend returns a couple of years after dying, having been reincarnated as an alien and having to choose.

    9. Re: Good plot hooks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, and it was shown time and again that it is a BAD idea to do so and if it's not an emergency you should NOT do it. You should have a Scotty operating the beamer if you wanted to have a chance for success, too.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re: Good plot hooks by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3

      based on how the transporters are supposed to work all you should need is a high enough bandwidth data connection

      As I understand it, it's actually supposed to transport your original matter, rather than just taking you to bits at one end, junking your mass, and reassembling you from a pool of matter at the other end. Otherwise how would it work when one end of the transport is not on a pad?

      "I'm sorry Commander Riker, we ran out of carbon while you were coming in, so we printed your dick a bit smaller."

      "You can't beam up while the shields are up"

      I always thought that one was down to the effect of shields, rather than a power limitation - or else, again, why is it usually impossible for other ships to send in boarding parties via transporter when your shields are up - they don't have their power being drained by *their* shields. Which makes sense - shields block beams of energy, the transporter beam is a beam of energy, therefore beaming through a shield means you get scattered into a burst of microwaves.

      "Romulan and Klingon ships cannot fire when cloaked."

      Again, probably not due to a power limitation - we're talking about a system that bends all radiation emissions around the ship, negating even active sensors (but ... not enemy weapons fire.. maybe it's energy handling ability is limited) - firing a weapon from inside such a field could feasibly have some complex and unpredictable effects. Maybe the radiation gets bent right back at you. Maybe it blows out all the cloaking systems if you do it, causing console explosions across the ship that kill all your crew.

    11. Re: Good plot hooks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Beaming with the shields up does make sense when you consider beaming a transfer of information by means of a beam (hence the name), which a shield designed to block incoming damage by lasers and similar devices would make impossible. If you want to question something, then questioning how your own beam weapons are able to function while your shields are up would be a far more sensible question.

      As for why cloaked ships cannot fire weapons... good questions, I have no idea how the cloaking device of Romulan and Klingon ships allegedly work (side note: For some odd reason my browser's spellchecker seems to not know Romulan but does know Klingon. Google is racist, it seems). IIRC it was something about bending light (and other means of detection) around the vessel, which would be somewhat in sync with the idea of using a singularity as an energy source. In this case it could well be that the effect has a detrimental effect on their own beam weapons. Doesn't explain why they can't launch torpedoes, though.

      In the end, though, what matters is that it makes a great plot device and increases tension and drama by offering limitations for the technology used and giving the writers something to work with. And that's pretty much all that really counts.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Good plot hooks by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      And if everything failed, send a reverse tachyon impulse through subspace.

      Let's be honest, like it or not, but 99% of all problems were solved by technobabble.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re: Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      According to the NCC1701-D technical manual. Transporters provide their own matter. Two transporter pads will indeed simply transfer data, however the data must be in complete sync so that quantum state can be restored (cargo transporters have more leyway, but can not transport living material without modifications). I am guessing going at different warp speeds would make this data channel go out of sync.

      Beaming without a transport pad works with a transport-emitter which are placed around the ship hull. The tranport-emitter is a scaled up version of a transporter-pad. It can transport through solid materials, but not if they are to thick, or if there is too much electro-magnetic interference. I am guessing that the forcefields used in assembling and disassembling are electro-magnetic themselves.

    14. Re:Good plot hooks by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      IIRC Genesis was more akin to nano-engineering on a planetary scale, taking the target apart and reassembling it into preprogrammed forms, including life-forms. Not all that implausible in context... except of course the glaring deus ex machina that is the "Genesis energy", used to imbue life, and miraculously bringing Spock back from the dead.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    15. Re: Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case you want your shields to protect you from a boarding party entering your ship.

      As for your own weapons, either their head protrude outside of the shield, or shields can be controlled to have holes in them at the moment they fire.

      However in Star Trek they are talking about shield frequencies and knowing the shield frequency would allow you to shoot through the shield. So the phasers would shoot at the same frequency as your own shield. Like how in old fighter planes the guns would be in sync with the propellor so it would shoot between the blades.

      Phases like lasers may be a coherent single frequency beam, but a transporter beam is high bandwidth, therefor you could not tune the transporter beam to pass unharmed through your own shield.

    16. Re: Good plot hooks by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 1

      Practical reasons, at least after The Undiscovered Country. If you fire while cloaked, it just takes a tracking torpedo. If you fire while cloaked with your shields up, you aren't really cloaked anymore. Cloaking devices are much less useful than they're made up to be in Star Trek (exception of the whole phasing cloak thing, which worked really well but happened to be illegal.)

    17. Re:Good plot hooks by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Eh, I could actually see a reason for that machine, except the reason would require similar machines inside the tubes themselves which means the scene still doesn't work.

    18. Re: Good plot hooks by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      I'm presuming that the matter being used is sub-atomic, where you don't have to worry so much about too much sodium and not enough carbon, But then I always assumed that they were taking E=mc^2 to its logical conclusion so actual physical matter in any form wouldn't be required to start with.

      As for beaming through shields, I can't walk through closed doors, either.

    19. Re: Good plot hooks by rfengr · · Score: 1

      (Hell in the Franklin in the latest movie was embedded in rock and completely powered down but still maintained antimatter containment somehow... No Boom!)

      Yeah, but remember in TOS they had to beam down anti-matter (contained in a magnetic bottle)? Spock said something about it have more energy that 1000 cobalt bomb. Those magnetic bottle are self powering. What few anti-matter atoms that escape are enough to power it, constantly re-generating the H field. It's a self sustaining feedback loop.

    20. Re:Good plot hooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you even watched NG+DS+V? Because all that stuff you don't like is in there as well. It was and always has been a pretty poorly written show and possible the worst thing to happen to sci fi EVER. The movies are at least fun, and no the plots are not worse than the shows. Not by a long shot.

  10. Live long and distribute wealth by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    This moment deserves a hearty Nanoo Nanoo!

    1. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Kirk outlived Mork...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by lord_mike · · Score: 1

      Shatner will outlive them all...

    3. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live prong and lobster!

    4. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Denny Crane!

    5. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You know the saying, only the good die young.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kirk outlived Mork...

      Shatner looks remarkably good for his age.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE-3sem1GJk

      I mean, Brent Spiner even looks older than Shatner in the 50th anniversary video.

    7. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

      Love long and perspire!

    8. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Jeri Ryan still looks pretty good too...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re:Live long and distribute wealth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people just age better than others.

      Look at Patrick Stewart - he's 76, almost 10 years younger than Shatner, but looking at them you'd think the opposite.

      Gates McFadden, Michael Dorn, Colm Meaney and Marina Sirtis have all aged well. OTOH I saw Denise Crosby on The Walking Dead, and didn't recognize her until she spoke!

  11. Unfortunately the new stuff is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully they cut out the gay scene for sulu at the last minute in the newest movie or it would have been a complete disaster. Even George Takei was against it, telling hollywood you don't need to shoe-horn your agenda into everything.

    1. Re:Unfortunately the new stuff is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, we certainly wouldn't want to see "shoehorned agendas" in STAR TREK of all things.

  12. Share your most memorable scenes or episodes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...for me, it's probably the time Spock looked into that glowing box, and was blinded for a good while.

    Reminds me of my first goatse encounter.

    Ranked second is the fantasy planet that they didn't know was a fantasy planet, and wasted lots of time trying to solve the puzzle while trying not to get distracted by all the old friends and lovers that kept popping up. Psych!

    For me, it's a metaphor for working my tail off at work on projects that probably won't be appreciated and will likely be PHB'd into mediocrity anyhow.

    Learn to enjoy the journey and the personal satisfaction itself instead of expecting kudos or gold. If you don't expect them, then you will be pleasantly surprised when they actually appear.

    1. Re:Share your most memorable scenes or episodes by Evtim · · Score: 1

      "Elementary, my dear Data" from TNG branded itself in my memory...at that time I was not very well versed in philosophy and science; somehow it moved me very much. The exchange at the end between Picard and Moriarty was ground shaking. The actor playing Moriarty was superb! I think, therefore I am - the one criterion that really matters....wow!

    2. Re: Share your most memorable scenes or episodes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So a rock creature is standing on the bridge of the Enterprise looking like Abraham Lincoln and referes to Lieutenant Uhura as "negress", and he then apologizes for the poor choice of words. She explains that in her century "they have learned not to fear words."

      Now, as a gay man who remembers seeing "Charlie X" in b&w because that's what my parents had in 1966, I would like to live long enough to see that, but I expect it will remain a valiant aspiration.

  13. fav episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Mine was the one where Princess Lea walked into the TARDIS for the first time and met Captain Sinclair for the trip over to Clavius to check out the monolith. That was before they knew it was made by the Cylons, but they didn't know how safe it was and I remember a robot going, "Danger, Will Robinson!" to warn them. In the end the Reavers showed up and fought with the Cylons in some simulation until Kirk made them face the reality of their war.

    Way ahead of its time.

    1. Re:fav episode by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      LSD and the SyFy Channel don't mix, dude.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:fav episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do when you're watching John Carpenter's "The Thing"! :)

  14. I loved star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but Then star trek died and went to hell thanks to JJ Fuck face i make shitty action movies and destroy quality franchises adams

    fuck that guy so fucking much for destroying a legacy

    1. Re: I loved star trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet thanks to the reboot movies the franchise is more popular now than it has ever been. Eat crow, nerd.

    2. Re: I loved star trek by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Let's see how it does 2-3 decades from now.

      Any movie that just got out with latest technology and effects will do great in cinema. If it has a good franchise name to its back, only the better. But what when the new car smell is gone?

      Yes, the studio probably won't give a shit. Do they care that people still love to watch old Star Trek movies and keep watching the shows? Nah. They already sold the DVDs and BluRays, they don't really care whether you watch them or whether they collect dust on the shelf, they got their money out of it.

      And that's really a pity. Because that's what makes or breaks franchises. A fan base. A fan base is income you can rely on. They WILL come to watch your next installment of the franchise, whether it's good, whether it's crappy, whether it's 3 hours of watching paint dry, they WILL pay for the ticket and they WILL buy that BluRay. And then the remastered edition, and the director's cut, and they will buy a new movie ticket to watch the same movie they already have seen because it has 10 more seconds "that change the whole meaning" of whatever scene or character development of ... fuck, whatever. They buy that ticket!

      Bottom line: You WANT a huge fan crowd. They are your cash cows. You can milk them forever and they will be like flour bags. Even if empty you can still beat them and something will come out of them. You also don't need to do much to please them. Just pretend to take them serious, have them dress up for your movie premieres and make sure you show off just how much everyone loves your movie franchise. Don't worry, they'll LOVE to appear in your ads.

      They are essentially free advertising... as long as you can ensure that they stay PG and "family friendly". Which isn't really a big problem for Star Trek, just make sure that the "serious" fans get all worked up over those that dare to "sully" the pristine wholesome experience. They'll even do the policing for you.

      So yes, having nerds that care for your movies is a pretty good thing. They are free PR, marketing, IP "tarnish" protection and so much more. Wait, no, they're not free. They PAY YOU for having that privilege.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Logical fallacy by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    Iirc, transporting at warp was something tos Scotty did

    When a ship is travelling away from a planet, considering the ship and planet stationary and space itself as moving doesn't quite make logical sense now, does it?

    1. Re: Logical fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does if the metric of the space itself is changing , so there is more, um , space between them. Like it's, what's the word now... oh yeah, warping.

  16. Boldly went by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outlandish, sometimes fascinating plots, transporters, tricorders and warp drives, absurd aliens, Russians and Americans working together to spread peace through the universe with fists, phasers and photon torpedoes, "Illogical captain", "The engines'll never take it ", "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?" But mainly Uhura's thighs.

  17. Barely mentioned anywhere... by lord_mike · · Score: 2

    The news essentially ignored it. There is nothing on TV, no show marathons or special programs. Google didn't even do a doodle for it. What a bummer... I didn't even find out about it until I saw a buried story about the 50th anniversary. I guess Trek really has fallen off the face of the earth, and its influence has truly waned. That is a real shame.

    1. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Google. Unless you're a gay jewish black transgendered atheist single mom who cured cancer thanks to your cold fusion reactor, you ain't getting a doodle. Google stopped being relevant long ago.

    2. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think, honestly, that's been the case for a long time. Trek's influence really waned and ended in the 1990's. Probably well before The Next Generation even ended, since the show was fairly clearly running on fumes by the time it finished.

      There are people who will praise DS9 but the show had no mainstream appeal (or viewership), the two series that followed it are best forgotten, and other than the outlier that was First Contact, the Next Generation based movies generated no wide appeal either.

      And it has to be said, especially to the people who drone on about Abrams dishonoring the franchise or whatever shrill wording people go with: the only reason First Contact succeeded was because it's exactly the same kind of movie as the Abrams ones were. It was just made a lot cheaper than they are.

    3. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... considering that the rebooted Star Trek is full of such perfect, politically correct Mary Sues, Google should be all over it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Germany, even one of the main news show on TV was (partly) presented in klingon.

      https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/sendung/tt-4709.html
      (from 23:44 on)

    5. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the H&I Network has been airing all five shows since August, including the animated series!

      http://www.heroesandiconstv.com/allstartrek/

    6. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few events for it, but not as widely known about. My wife and her parents went last night to this showing https://airandspace.si.edu/events/screening-man-trap

      The museum also has events today (Sep 9) and tomorrow (Sep 10) to celebrate over the weekend.

    7. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BBC America was playing the first three episodes in order last night starting at 8:30 EDT. SyFy was running a movie marathon too with Trek related bumpers.

    8. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those of us that get our entertainment over the air, as in the original Star Trek, there was a 6Hr tribute that repeated 4 times on the DECADES channel. It aired Sept 8, 2016. I haven't looked at my DVR recording, but there were quotes indicating that some of the material was from the 40th anniversary and a smattering of newer stuff.

      There was also a segment celebrating the 50th Anniversary on CBS SUNDAY Morning. Yeah, I know, CBS Sunday Morning?! But where do you expect us greybeards that saw TOS when it originally aired to hang out?

      Cable/Streaming is not all!

      Rabbit Ears! FTW!

    9. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news essentially ignored it. There is nothing on TV, no show marathons or special programs.

      It's been all over cnn.com all week, though that may not qualify as "news" anymore. Pretty much every radio station in my area has been mentioning it this week too. And just scrolling through the channel listings for a few seconds last night, I passed one movie marathon and a special on The Smithsonian Channel. If all of this was that easy to find without looking for it, it seems clear that you're wrong on these points.

    10. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by blivit42 · · Score: 1

      The Smithsonian Channel heavily advertised a 2 hour special sort of about the 50th anniversary of Star Trek for several weeks before it aired, and it has been airing frequently this past week. It is about a sci-fi / pop culture museum in Seattle working to get a 50th anniversary exhibit completed, as well as the team at the Smithsonian restoring the original filming model of the Enterprise for display at the Air and Space Museum. And a bunch of not-so-great "we sort of have Star Trek technology now, but not really" science bits. Overall, worth a watch for the interviews with various people involved in the production (and/or disposal of the original props).

      BBC America has also been showing Seasons 1 and 2 in their restored HD glory since yesterday, and will continue on today. The image and color quality look great, and the re-generated special effects are also pretty well done. Definitely worth a watch!

    11. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the SyFy channel was having a Star Trek movie marathon last night.

      --
      Nevermore.
    12. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

      BBC America ran Seasons 1 & 2 of TOS starting at 8pm last night.

    13. Re:Barely mentioned anywhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The news essentially ignored it. There is nothing on TV, no show marathons or special programs. Google didn't even do a doodle for it. What a bummer... I didn't even find out about it until I saw a buried story about the 50th anniversary. I guess Trek really has fallen off the face of the earth, and its influence has truly waned. That is a real shame.

      Wikipedia did the 'Did you know...' in ST references for 9/8 @08:00 and 16:00 UTC.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions

  18. Star Trek by LocutusOfBorg1 · · Score: 1

    Star Trek is the best franchise ever made. Resistance is futile

  19. Did you watch the original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many other Slashdoters are old enough to have watched the original screenings. I suspect I might be one of a small minority.

    1. Re:Did you watch the original? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      There's a few of us still alive.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Did you watch the original? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup.Original viewer of Star Trek, Lost In Space, Outer Limits, (The Zantis... Ugh!), and of course- The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo Launches. Then, went into Nuclear Physics, smashed a few atoms for NASA among others, and just recently retired.
      If I had watched Westerns and Lawrence Welk, I would probably have ended up as a Propane Salesman or a Slashdot Editor.

  20. Savior during puberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a very, very hard time as a teen at school, but then I discovered Star Trek and an amazing community online, a chat. Spent A LOT of time there and they all welcomed me without a problem. It didn't matter that I was a 13 yo teen with acne, as it was the 90s and a text chat. It provided a community where real life failed, I was engaged there for 7 years. So whenever I watch TNG, DS9, Voyager today, it gives me a really good feeling, it's my goto place when life is bad.

    1. Re:Savior during puberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also found consolation in Trek when I was in junior high... it helped ease the pain for some reason. Of course, it was a secret indulgence, as I tried desperately not to look like the nerd I was, but it helped get me through some rough years.

    2. Re: Savior during puberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Losers tend to get along well with losers. No surprises, really.

    3. Re:Savior during puberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also found consolation in Trek when I was in junior high... it helped ease the pain for some reason. Of course, it was a secret indulgence, as I tried desperately not to look like the nerd I was, but it helped get me through some rough years.

      Helped me too. Not as much as the cocaine, but it helped.

    4. Re: Savior during puberty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably why you and the mirror are such close friends.

  21. Earliest Star Trek memory by istartedi · · Score: 1

    It was in re-runs (I'm not *that* old) and The Changling came on. That's the "I am Nomad" episode if you're like me and had to google it. I was a kid though. I just saw the first part. I think it took a while for Star Trek to "click" since I was a kid and some things went over my head. The thing that makes this episode stand out is not even the episode itself. I only saw the first part that evening. There was this *thing* on the transporter pad and... we had to go out to dinner. I didn't want to go out; but I was a kid so of course I had to go with the rest of the family. For all I knew, it might never come on again. Pissed me off! Fortunately, it did come on again many times and at some point in my later childhood or teens, the little logic battle in there was something I came to appreciate. I don't like the part at the end with Uhura re-learning how to read though. Why did Nomad wipe her memory clean anyway? If it wanted to learn, you think it'd have a copy of the data and could restore it. It always bothered me...

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  22. As Spock says... by antdude · · Score: 1

    "live long and propser". Star Trek forever even if its newer ones suck.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  23. I celebrated by watching The Man Trap by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    ...followed by this thought: "Has it really been 50 years? Have I become this old?"

    It has, and I have.

    I first saw Star Trek TOS in black and white, in Caracas, dubbed into Spanish. This must've been around 1973 or 74. Later on I got to see most of TOS in color and in English. Read a lot of the novels, watched all the films, saw all of Next Generation.. and then I lost interest.

    What Trek taught me? IDIC, which I have to remind myself of -- I am prone to dislike diversity, then I remember IDIC. That little show taught me logic is not an inflexible thing, there must be wiggle room for the human element. At times I have been known to try to completely shut down all emotion and try a twisted version of logic. That didn't end well for me.

    Above all, Trek, to me, is a bit like Beethoven's music: No matter how rough the beginning and middle acts are, the last act ends with hope, or a least a bad joke or lame pun. Some times, hope is all one has left.

    That little show which lasted only three seasons because the network didn't know how to measure its popularity in a relevant way sure Lived Long and Prospered...

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    1. Re:I celebrated by watching The Man Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm nearly 50, and Trek was canceled before I was old enough to know what it was.

      However, it went into syndication and my father was a fan, so one of my earliest memories is playing Star Trek with a childhood friend. My younger brother's crib was the Enterprise. :)

    2. Re:I celebrated by watching The Man Trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...followed by this thought: "Has it really been 50 years? Have I become this old?"

      It has, and I have."

      Maybe instead of indulging in masturbatory space fantasies that will never happen, we should have focused our resources towards life extension and anti-aging.

  24. Purposeful life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Star Trek is a nice fantasy of a life with a purpose of exploration, helping humanity,seeing wonderous things and pushing oneself to ones limits.

    Instead of a life of working at doing something that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Get up, go to work, spend most of your waking life there and for what? To work on some product that just siphons off someone's hard earned money?

    Ask yourself, does your work help the World or are you just contributing to our shallow consumerist culture that is hastening the destruction of our environment?

    1. Re: Purposeful life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care a millifuck. My job puts food on the table, a roof on my head and enough spare income to indulge on what I really like. It's even a nice job. I don't care about the world and the world does not care about me. And rightly so. In the long run we're all dead so I just enjoy the ride. The rest can be damned. :)

  25. What Star Trek should be by Archfeld · · Score: 2

    http://startrekcontinues.com/

    JJ and the reboot of 'Star Trek' make mediocre action films, but they aren't Star Trek anymore.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  26. It was the day science fiction got real by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a very young boy, I exhausted the children's area of our small-town library in no time. With my parents' permission and a wonderful librarian, I was allowed to start getting books from the Adults' floor. I was a complete science fiction addict. I went through the whole section. I was even allowed to read stories like Farmer's "The Lovers" and Sturgeon's "Venus Plus X", which at the time were considered very definitely not for children.

    I was thoroughly familiar with concepts that are now almost trite, but at the time were pretty much limited to the science fiction community: preserving time lines to preserve reality, the implications of faster-than-light spaceships, matter transmission, parallel universes and a lot more. Television science fiction (except Outer Limits and Twilight Zone) bored me to tears, and Lost In Space made me sick. My parents couldn't figure out why I loved SF books so much, but had no time for "Fireball XL-5".

    Then, just as summer was winding down, the networks started promoting the new TV shows for the coming season. And there was Star Trek. Even the very limited "trailers" made it clear this was going to be something different. It delivered in spades. All of the stuff I'd been reading about was brought to life, and I got to watch my family and friends catch onto the same things that had held me spellbound for a good part of my short life. And most important, Star Trek made it clear that we'd get through all the evil and ugliness we saw around us...Vietnam, the assassinations, the Cold War. It was looking pretty bleak there, for a while.

    And it also did what science fiction was supposed to do: hold up a mirror to problems in our own world we didn't often discuss openly. Plus (huge bonus) some of the seriously imaginative science fiction writers whose work I loved were writing episodes. My mother, who was a tough, capable woman, cried like a baby at the end of "The City at the Edge of Forever", and my dad was very quiet. They'd both lived through WWII (my dad served with the RAF), and they both knew just how close Hitler came to winning.

    But it was that first view of the first promo I remember best...when my sister and I were sitting on the living room floor playing a card game and I looked at the TV and just couldn't believe what I was seeing.

    All these years later, I know how lucky I was to see it happen through a child's eyes.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:It was the day science fiction got real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is a great post. Thank you.

    2. Re:It was the day science fiction got real by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You're very welcome.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  27. No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fuck Google....

    ... I'm afraid I'm going to have to decline your kind invitation to have coitus with Google, in view of all the crap that's floating around on the internet I'm pretty sure I'd catch something really nasty.

  28. Happy Anniversary Star Trek ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wow. To think of all us technical and scientific people, and military and air & space people - who really got their start in STEM & IT not because of a university degree, but by a Dream - Trek Lovers WANT Star Trek to be REAL. The exploration, the technology, the meeting alien species. People love the bright vision for the human race. A functionally better world vision almost completely lost after ST:TNG . Happy Anniversary to all Slashdot readers and bloggers who have fond memories of dreams of the future... some dreams now real science ! :-)

    1. Re: Happy Anniversary Star Trek ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up. I got into the military to kill people, and later went into a career in aerospace engineering because I wanted to make the killing more efficient. My designs probably proved their worth in the kilodeaths range by now. Screw your bright vision of the future: all I care for is leaving broken corpses strewn among the smoking rubble. Not because I gain anything from that, mind you: I just like the massacre.

  29. Not the first showing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The first episode was shown two days earlier in Canadia. So TFS is wrong - it's talking about the first showing in the US (typical US-centric approach).

    1. Re:Not the first showing by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      Yuppers! CTV...and I was tuned in 10 minutes early to make sure I didn't miss one second of it. And it converted my whole family into SF fans, too.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  30. What was once uncool, becomes cool. by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm very close to 40.
    When I was a kid I watched reruns of ToS on TV and some of my dads VHS tapes he got suckered into buying at $30 a pop from some subscription, with only 3 eps per tape. I loved it and I enjoyed sporadically watching TnG as it aired.
    Eventually I became a dumb angsty later teen and thought Star Wars was what's cool and Trek was dumb / lame.

    As I've gotten older (well 20 years later) and every god damned movie and TV show has taken on a "dark edgey tone" and I've finally started to not give a shit if someone calls me a dork! or nerd! I can accept Star Trek as god damn cool, because it was so out there, it's camp, it's silly, it's great. The humour can be fantastic and the nerdiness I don't need to feel ashamed about. When Star Trek is funny I laugh with it, when it's bad I laugh with it "oh that silly old Star Trek!"

    At the core of Star Trek though is that Roddenberry philosophy of an almost utopian future. I can respect that, more and more as I age. As I see the world around me slip in to eventual chaos, the environment becoming a disgrace, capitalism, greed and globalization becoming more intense, the world is becoming a very very dark place and I think it's not going to end well, Star Trek is a welcome, fantasy relief of what would happen if almost all humans all did the right thing, for humanity and the universe not just for themselves.

    Heck when I see a 1966 show talk in metres and kilometres and not have smoking on the show despite the lost potential revenue from product placement because that's how it would be in the utopian future, I can see why Gene is so lauded as a visionary.
    A great show that I'm finally proud to say I'm a big fan of.

  31. Big celebratory fireworks in North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Greatest and most glorius fan Kim Jong-un organised historys biggest celebratory fireworks measuring 5.3 magnitude to honor all trekkies.

  32. Best memory eh? by ctrlshift · · Score: 2

    Say what you will about The Search for Spock as a whole; that sequence in which Kirk steals the Enterprise and escapes spacedock is one of the most engaging I can think of in all of cinema. Everything from "Don't call me Tiny" to "The doors Mr. Scott!" "Right sir! I'm working on it!", "Oh, I'll have Mr. Adventure eating out of my hand." all the way up to "Kirk, you do this, you'll never sit in the captain's chair again." It's an incredibly emotionally charged scene that is simultaneously tense, funny, and thrilling even though it takes place at 1/4 impulse power, there's no lens flare, and nobody gets choked or murdered or even shot at. That's classy fucking filmmaking. And scoring too! James Horner's finest work in my opinion.

    1. Re:Best memory eh? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2

      Also the fact that the entire original series, and the movies leading up to 3, were about Kirk wanting nothing more than his career and ship, but he throws it all away, without a second thought, for Spock. No debate, no waffling, doesn't even think about it.

      And on the other hand, no hamming it up, no chewing the scenery, no 'Dammit, I LOVE this ship, but SPOCK...NEEDS....ME.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:Best memory eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding, and I intend to recommend you all for promotion... in whatever fleet we end up serving!"

  33. Mirror universe will never be on the big screen... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Or even the mirror universe would be cool.

    Not in this incarnation anyway.
    Too confusing for "mainstream audiences" while being completely outside of what said audience knows about Star Trek and feels comfortable with based on the cultural osmosis alone.
    While watching Star Trek characters jumping around on dirt bikes like Evel Knievel as "Sabotage" by Beastie Boys blares out of the speakers.
    You know... Star Trek.

    Similarly, patching up of the time line will never happen.
    For the same reason that Robert Duncan McNeill plays the same character on TNG and on Voyager - but it is a different character on Voyager.
    Royalties and copyright.

    Which is the underlying reason for reboots instead of sequels.
    If you make things different enough you don't have to pay any of the "old people", you just pay the "new people", whom you've gotten to work for a pittance.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  34. So Lost in Space is also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... coming up on its 50th aniversary? I have read that it got better ratings. And it is as much of a cultural touchstone. That would be "Beam Me Up, Scotty" v. "Danger, Danger, Will Robinson."

  35. changed my life, and my children's by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

    When I discovered that my girlfriend liked Star Trek, I bought a small color TV so I could entice her to come to my apartment to watch the original series. We both cheered when NBC announced that there would be a third season.

    We were married in 1968 and had two children. We raised them in a very technology-friendly household. They played with my Apple II when I was at work. Today they both have Computer Science degrees and good jobs in the industry.

    When my son got married I ended the customary father-of-the-groom speech with “live long and prosper” and the hand gesture. My son, his new wife, and all of their friends, understood me.

    So, yes, you can say that Star Trek changed my life.

  36. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, reality here. Yesterday was the 8th. This article was posted at 11:30 PM.

    Kindly fuck you.

  37. In the last month... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hearing about how it will be Star Trek's 50th anniversary ate up a ton of bandwidth I might not otherwise have used. Otherwise, the 100% fictional story had had almost no affect at all on my life, except in my job. I do PC support for a large corporation and I run into what I call the Star Trek Effect quite often. This is when a user expects a PC to do something it could not possibly do and I am tasked with making it do whatever they want.
    When I was young it was a moderately entertaining science fiction television show. Now it is a thorn in my side.

  38. My favorite stories by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of stories looking back Trek TOS floating around because of the 50th anniverseray. My favorites are:

    Lucile Ball was the first trekkie. Yes, Lucile Ball, your new geek overlord.

    MLK said he was a Trekkie. Wouldn't let Michelle Nickhols leave the show. MLK, blerd before it was cool.

    1. Re:My favorite stories by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'm sorry, I forgot where I was for a minute. Let me summarize those links nobody will click on..

      Lucile Ball was the first trekkie [blastr.com]. Yes, Lucile Ball, your new geek overlord.

      Basic gist here is that it was her production company that initially got it produced and sold, and the one person at that company that was sold on the vision of the show was in fact Lucile Ball herself. At one point her whole board voted to can the show, because they were a small company and already had 3 shows on their plate. There would have been no Trek. She vetoed them.

      MLK said he was a Trekkie. Wouldn't let Michelle Nickhols leave the show. [npr.org] MLK, blerd before it was cool.

      Ms. NICHOLS: I went in to tell Gene Roddenberry that I was leaving after the first season, and he was very upset about it. And he said, take the weekend and think about what I am trying to achieve here in this show. You're an integral part and very important to it. And so I said, yes, I would. And that - on Saturday night, I went to an NAACP fundraiser, I believe it was, in Beverly Hills. And one of the promoters came over to me and said, Ms. Nichols, there's someone who would like to meet you. He says he is your greatest fan.

      And I'm thinking a Trekker, you know. And I turn, and before I could get up, I looked across the way and there was the face of Dr. Martin Luther King smiling at me and walking toward me. And he started laughing. By the time he reached me, he said, yes, Ms. Nichols, I am your greatest fan. I am that Trekkie.

      (Soundbite of laughter)

      Ms. NICHOLS: And I was speechless. He complimented me on the manner in which I'd created the character. I thanked him, and I think I said something like, Dr. King, I wish I could be out there marching with you. He said, no, no, no. No, you don't understand. We don't need you on the - to march. You are marching. You are reflecting what we are fighting for. So, I said to him, thank you so much. And I'm going to miss my co-stars.

      And his face got very, very serious. And he said, what are you talking about? And I said, well, I told Gene just yesterday that I'm going to leave the show after the first year because I've been offered - and he stopped me and said: You cannot do that. And I was stunned. He said, don't you understand what this man has achieved? For the first time, we are being seen the world over as we should be seen. He says, do you understand that this is the only show that my wife Coretta and I will allow our little children to stay up and watch. I was speechless.

      Yes, MLK was a (self-identified!) Trekkie.

  39. Math Geek says you're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 50th Anniversary should actually be the day the series order was picked up by NBC. (Or maybe pilot production authorized by Desilu.) Or maybe the first day the Great Bird of the Galaxy first thought up a pointy eared alien and a big damned hero captain!

    History is replete with turning points, Valeris.....

    Live long, and prosper.

  40. I favor TOS by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    TNG, DS9, others never did much for me. Maybe it's because female crew of TOS had the sexy shirts, go-go boots, big hair, thick mascara.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  41. nice but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes nice but where can we watch it ????!!

    1. Re:nice but by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

      BBC America...

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  42. Trekkin' by Phusion · · Score: 1

    So, I was born in '82, that being said, when I hit double digits or so, Star Trek:TNG was the new hotness and I didn't care for "Kirk chases green women" episode #306, so I grew up along with TNG. Sometimes my mom & dad would take me over to a family friend's house to watch TNG the night the new episodes aired and we had kind of a Star Trek dinner party. I have very fond memories of sitting in dark or dimly lit rooms, various beige boxes blinking in the distance, watching TNG in my room or with friends. Like many others have stated, the early seasons are hard to watch, the main point of contention for me is Dr. Polaski, boy does she suck. Anyway, it doesn't hold the same magic it did when I was a kid, but I rewatched The Inner Light recently and was still captivated and entertained. When the first new Trek movies came out, my IRC friends (no more geek friends IRL) and I all agreed that it was good hollywood fluff, decent visuals (OW DAMN IT JJ, CUT DOWN ON THE FSCKING LENSE FLARE) and pretty decent as a standalone sci-fi flick, but it wasn't Star Trek. Much like Star Wars, either the old spirit of the franchise is dead or the creator (RIP Gene... ) is and Hollywood doesn't give a fuck, they just see dollar signs, so the bloated corpse is dragged through yet another galaxy far, far away. With any luck, the new TV series will be decent...

    --
    640k ought to be enough for anyone.
  43. Re: Happy Anniversary Star Trek ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah riiight, Internet Tough Guy. I believe you. Now back away from the DOOM.

  44. Congratulations! by howlingmad · · Score: 1

    Qapla' ! :-)

  45. Re: Happy Anniversary Star Trek ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lighten up, Francis...

  46. It's sad by Toshito · · Score: 1

    that the 50th anniversary of Star Trek generates so few comments on Slashdot...

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
  47. I am a fan by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    because I grew up watching it, and bought the anthology done by James Blish so I had every episode almost etched in memory banks. I bought the making of star trek, from Roddenberry himself, who explained how thorough they were about the ship, even down to how laundry was supposed to be done on the ship: the washing machine or whatever it was, would beam the clothes to the dryer, without the dirt. And yes, he even described how salt and pepper shakers would work in the future.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:I am a fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I bought the making of star trek, from Roddenberry himself

      I'm assuming you mean Roddenberry sold you a copy, since Steven Whitfield wrote the book. :)

  48. It Made Me Think the Future is Bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Gene Roddenberry's real contribution to pop culture was providing us with the idea that the future will be great. It instilled in us a measure of hope and optimism that most people get only from their religious beliefs.

    Star Trek TOS was significant because the writing was great, which is something that American television doesn't usually have. To get good writing, most of us have to look to British shows like Doctor Who and Red Dwarf. I've been watching American science fiction TV my whole life and the only examples of excellence I can think of are Star Trek TOS episodes "City on the Edge of Forever" and "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky", the 5th season of TNG, the Voyager episodes "Tuvix" and "The Year of Hell", the first season of Heroes, and Firefly.

    Star Trek did the best job of inspiring us to bring that bright future into reality. James Doohan often remarked about the volumes of fan mail he received that described how the character of Scotty inspired many people to become engineers.

    Harlan Ellison wrote "City on the Edge of Forever" which is arguably the best episode of Star Trek ever produced. He is well known for elevating sarcasm and bitterness to an art form. He said that most of science fiction on television and in the movies is "crap". I tend to agree. I'm not a fan of the man but I do appreciate his often excellent work.

    When I was young I often found myself hoping that science fiction would get better. I remember sitting down to watch something like Buck Rogers, Greatest American Hero, or Galactica 1980, week after week, hoping that maybe "this episode will be good". Even though I was a stupid teenager at the time I still knew that those shows sucked. I didn't see how those TV shows were heralding the future. I wish I heard at the time what that mountain of crap was trying to tell me.

    Going beyond script writing, though, I always felt that the future would be awesome and bring us incredible wonders, thanks in part to Star Trek. Like most people, I wanted us to walk on distant planets, to have flying cars, and to reach new plateaus of excellence in my lifetime.

    While I thank Roddenberry and everyone who worked on Star Trek for that sense of optimism that contributed to my great childhood, my heart sinks when I contemplate the future that has come to pass. We live in a surveillance society, we cannot trust our own phones or computers, the internet is becoming a cage instead of a platform for free expression, terrorism is increasing all over the globe, and we're losing our freedoms and our rights at an ever increasing rate.

    With the upcoming presidential election, where there is no lesser of the available evils, I'm more afraid for the future of America than ever before in my entire life. Never Hillary, Never Trump, Jill Stein's been arrested and charged, and Gary Johnson's been buried by the press for his Aleppo blunder just like Dan Quail was buried because of the way he spelled "potatoes" that one time. We're left without any viable options.

    Ultimately, did Gene Roddenberry do us a disservice? Was the dream of Star Trek actually a lie? Were we wrong to be optimistic? Are we unable to choose a destiny that avoids a post-apocalyptic dystopian future? Have we wasted all those years being hopeful about the future, discovering far too late that we had our heads buried in the sand while the world disintegrates around us? Are the "preppers" and the gold bugs hiding in their bunkers REALLY the ones who are right?

    1. Re:It Made Me Think the Future is Bright by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 2

      I concur - my own dark sense of optimism was formed at the Age of 2 thru 4 during the initial run of the show. After that, I refilled periodically with reruns...

      I think this is what differentiates this 'border' generation (tweeners) - they were at the right age to absorb and appreciate Star Trek deeper than they consciously knew at the time. These are the people holding together the technological world today as the boomers go off and retire not really understanding it, and the generations that have followed never knowing a world without the technology they depend upon - and take for granted every day.

      That being said, there are many people doing amazing things to help solve problems, and accomplish the piece parts that can make up a better world when put together. In fits and starts progress is being made - so I can't complain really. I continue to stand by my dark optimism.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  49. A couple documentaries! by antdude · · Score: 1

    VideoSift shared an over 1.5 hours YouTube video showing "Building Star Trek (Full Episode)" -- "When 'Star Trek' first aired, it expanded the viewers' imaginations about what was possible. Today, many of the space-age technologies on the show have gone from science fiction to reality. Join us as we celebrate a show that continues to inspire..."

    A three years old 47 minutes YouTube video showing "The Real Story: Star Trek (Full Episode)" -- "Meet Star Trek's producers, the first Trekkies, and Mr. Spock himself to discover the true story of Star Trek's history and how its vision of the future has influenced today's technology..."

    Star Trek is 50 years old! "Live long and prosper." :D

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).