596
Dear Lemmy, why Star Trek??
(programming.dev)
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
The Star Trek TV shows are far superior to any of the movies anyway.
Even starting with the original series' movies, they tried to make them more action-y than philosophical to appeal to a broader audience, and while they're a lot of fun, I rewatch the shows WAY more for a reason.
This is how alienated I am. I assumed the original main product was movies rather than shows.
And now that you know, feel free to join us in the rabbit hole!
Oh yeah, it's TV for sure. The original ran from 1966-69 with 79 episodes, and that was going to be it because they had never heard of a "fandom" before.
Then, they realized that people were showing up to conventions and obsessing over the show, so they finally made the first movie in 1979 and then started the next show in the 80s (which ran for like 140-150 episodes).
The TV series is the main draw, with any movies along the way just being a bonus.
everything made after 1989 is them (still) trying to make up for dropping a big huge giant turd ball that summer.
Lol, you mean you didn't like them singing Row Row Row Your Boat around the campfire? Or Uhura's sexy fan dance? How about Scotty running into a crossbeam like he's in the Three Stooges?
Plus the movies were alternating hit and miss. The first was so-so, Wrath of Kahn was good, Search for Spock was meh, Voyage Home was my favorite, etc
Same. Every time I watch one of the movies (outside of wrath of khan), it feels like I'm watching the worst, most dumbed down episode of any given trek season.
Imo, TOS is the exception because while the series is obviously great, the movies are where those characters really shine. Khan is great and establsihed the film franchise but The Undiscovered Country is nearly a perfect film.