New "Star Trek Continues" episode

Muad would have loved this one.


An infestation of alien nanites causes Kirk and McCoy to believe they've been dropped into the middle of the American Civil War.

Really? I didn't even know that such an episode was even in the pipeline.

I enjoyed it. Vic has a good feel for Kirk, and Chuck Huber's McCoy is solid. The story was good, the special effects were good enough to where I didn't notice them, and we get to see Dr. M'Benga! If you haven't watched it yet, I recommend it.

My wife usually disdains fan films, but she commented that this one had a better script than half the original series.

I hate to mention it but as far as I can tell it doesn't have a space battle.

Star Trek without a space battle is like Emergency without a fire. ER without sick and injured people or Seinfeld without humor.

Star Trek Continues is probably better than a good 70% of the studio-produced Trek (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, etc.)

That actor looks so much like William Shatner I could hardly tell it wasn't him for the most part of the episode

How can you have been a Star Trek fan for forty years and not have a clue what Trek is about?

I think he's a closet Star Wars fan

Pretty sure he's just trying desperately hard to reestablish his brand.

I mean, just look at that post. Really look at it. It's not remotely subtle.

I'm Star Trek is about different things to different people.

That said what do you "think" Star Trek is about? And if you say "exploring the human condition" or something similar then I want you to define just what the hell that means.

After all, I've pretty clearly defined what I watch Star Trek for.

Well, I don't really watch it these days. But I watched it for mental stimulation. I like the fact that the show used to ask questions. That it set dilemmas relating to social issues, moral issues, race issues and so on. It was a show that, for the most part, never took it's viewers for idiots (well, up until Voyager anyhow). If you're too stupid to know what "exploring the human condition" means then I pity you.

I see very little stimulation in two ships shooting at each other unless it otherwise contributes to a larger story.

For example? Seriously. I've heard for years all this about how Star Trek was about social issues and moral dilemmas but amazing that those seem to seldom be mentioned.

You can have exciting episodes featuring space battles and fistfights and still have meaningful context. Such as "Arena" which shows that sparing a helpless enemy is both honorable and a sign of strength rather than simply killing them.

Seldom mentioned? Stupid comment. There are so many episode that deal with all kinds of topics that it would take me forever to list them all. Take this list of the top 100 episodes and look at the top 30. At least 20 of them have intelligent themes. How many of those themes are you able to spot?

Sometimes I wonder if Dayton really watched Star Trek. Or maybe he's like the Star Wars fans that came aboard during the prequal era because "lightsabers are cool!"

A disproportional number of them also have some kind of starship combat. Don't believe me, count them yourself.

So you can't answer by question then?

I disagree with your analysis and the very foundation of your question. And given that I still watch the original series where as you by your own admission do not, then obvious my opinion is more current and relevant.

Also, given the list you linked to as a number of Voyager episodes.........that about says it all about those list makers.

I referred to the Top 30 in the list. I didn't compile it.

So you're honestly advancing the notion that Trek is about space battles, yes?

I think Star Trek is, or can be, about a lot of things, including starships going pew-pew at each other. But you can get pew-pew in a lot of places, and with a bigger dedicated budget; it's the other things that make Star Trek special.

"Exploring the human condition" has to do with exploring and talking about what it means to be human in this existence. Our individual and group traits, both perceived strengths and weaknesses that result from being human or simply from being alive, and how they interact with typical or extraordinary life situations, and how we try to exploit or cope with those traits in ourselves and others. I'm trying to be very general here because there's a lot of ground to cover, which may help explain why you apparently haven't had a satisfactory answer.

TL;DR: Decisions, actions, and beliefs, and how they are affected by our limitations, beliefs, and environment. How's that?

In "The Conscience of the King", Kirk thinks he's onto a mass murderer who disappeared many years ago. There is a lot of the human condition being explored here, so let's use this as an example. Kodos found himself in charge of a starving settlement with no expectation of relief. What do you do in that situation? The desire for all to live, versus the desire for at least some to live, versus the desire to not kill (especially those for whom he was responsible), versus the desire to protect the settlement he was in charge of, these are all perfectly understandable, laudable desires that had to be weighed in light of the famine environment and in light of the belief that no relief was coming soon enough to make a difference. Kodos decided that some had to die. How then do you make that choice? Delegate the decision to others and hope for volunteers? Spare women and children first? Kodos decided to kill according to his beliefs as to who was least fit to survive, shortly before relief arrived. In so doing, even if he was not a monstrous man, committed a monstrous act. And so the episode invites us to explore how a normal, perhaps even admirable man, could commit a monstrous act and come to be seen as a monster by society.

And that's before we actually get to the action in the episode, of how Kirk has to deal with ideas of revenge, evidence, mercy, and justice, or how Lenore admires a father whom everyone else thinks is a monster and cracks under the strain.

I guess, but I've never seen you be this transparently, shamelessly troll-baity before in your phrasing.

Of course not. Even in my wildest dreams I never envisioned space battles occurring in a majority of Star Trek episodes in a given year.

I guess I'm most partial to Season Two of the original series that IIRC featured the Enterprise firing on a target with hostile intent or being fired upon with hostile intent in 8 out of the 26 episodes given or take.

But conflict is the essence of drama and honestly I have little regard for character driven conflict. I prefer external conflict that the crew works together to oppose and triumph over. I am uncertain why that is so hard to understand.

In other words, you prefer a faceless villain whose motivations are never known? Because if the villains were fleshed out and in any way interacted with the protagonists, this would invariably result in character driven conflict? Thus in your mind "Silent Enemy" of Enterprise is the very definition of great drama, while the arc between Dukat and Sisko on Deep Space Nine is an example of poor storytelling? Just asking to make sure where you stand.

I do prefer not to dwell on the motivations of enemies. I think this is one thing that modern American society does way too much of already.

Terrorists behead 20 people in Egypt, people start talking about "what could motivate them"

Guy shoots up a school and kills 10 people, everyone wants to know "why he did it".

WHO CARES!!!!

The acts themselves are what is important. Not whatever is running around in their heads.

I hated the part of Deep Space Nine where Sisko, Odo, Worf, and O'Brien are infiltrating the Klingon awards ceremony and you have a Klingon bragging to everyone about beheading the helmsman of a starship they boarded.

And we're supposed to have these people as allies and supposedly friends. It is enough to make you utter that right wing expression

"Kill'am all and let God sort'em out".

You're so fucking stupid.

Knock it off.

Try saying that a few more times outside the Red Room if you dare.

You should probably knock it off, too.

You don't see me flaming people shootER

Not here, no, but you should remember what forum this is and keep your posts on topic.

That goes for anybody, BTW.

Oh I see. What you mean is I shouldn't have commented about space battles right?