Calling all Trekkies, calling all Trekkies. Please tell me someone is out there. I have been searching far and wide and can't seem to find anyone who likes Star Trek. I love all Star Trek shows (besides that new show Enterprise). I think the characters and the storyline are just fantastic. It doesn't hurt that my three favorite charcters (Spock, Data and Quark) are Jewish. Here are some of my favorite episodes.

ST:OTS='A Taste of Armageddon', 'The Cloud Miners', 'Requiem For Methusela', 'A Piece of the Action', 'Turnabout Intruder', and 'Amok Time'.

ST:TNG= 'A Matter of Honour', 'Elementry, My Dear Data', 'Datalore', 'Starship Mine', and 'First Born'

The list just goes on.

If there are any Trekkies out there, What are your favorite episodes?

star trekking across the universe

its life jim but not as we know it

I loved "the trouble with tribbles "

didnt like deep space 9 as they didn't go anywhere, I love all the series where they are travelling somewhere

A few years ago I attended the funeral of a colleague, who unbeknown to us, was a very keen 'trekkie'. It was a cremation, and quite serious as these things should be. That was until the final part of the service when the curtain drew across the coffin, and the 'exit music' started to play. This was "Star trekking across the universe', and had been specified in his will. Can you imagine a keener trekkie than that?
Did you know, by the way, that Captain Kirk never said "beam me up Scottie"? He always said "beam me up Mr. Scott".

I grew up with TNG, watched DS9 and am addicted to Voyager. Yes, I watch Enterprise, but just to keep up with what's going on and some of the episodes are pretty good... Never really liked the original series, though, and DS9 seemed to get too much like a soap opera for my taste.

After the original series stopped it took me a long time to get used to anything different, but once I realised they were really continuations of the same thing I got into all the new series equally. I particularly like the 'other dimension' episodes where worlds are found outside the physical universe, especially the Q continuum, and also the time shifts where beings live in a different time stream and the crew eventually find a way to tune into it. It seems to represent many fairy stories about other worlds not far away but right next to us, but only currently available to a few lucky individuals. Also the spiritual and social messages of growth and co operation make a good point on top of the characters and general entertainment. I liked Spock, Picard, Dax and Data the most so far, but sometimes a new character will also grow on me. We're a few years behind on UK TV at the moment, and I just hope the rumours about pulling the series once Enterprise finishes because of poor ratings don't materialise...

Glad to know that there is someone else out there.

I love "Star Trek: The Next Generation." By far, that's my favorite series. I adore Picard, and Data is one of the best TV characters ever created! I love all of the episodes with Q, and some of my additional favorite episodes include Encounter at Farpoint, The Best of Both Worlds, Time's Arrow, Frame of Mind, Schisms, Ship in a Bottle, Yesterday's Enterprise, The Measure of a Man, All Good Things ... there are just too many great TNG episodes! I also love episodes that involve the Holodeck. That place never ceases to amaze me. "Enterprise" can't even compare to TNG.

So who else considers TNG their favorite Star Trek series?

I don't think that you can compare TNG and TOS. The Original series has so many great episodes, but it was cheaply made, with bad acting. Still, there is something compelling about it. TNG is well acted, has great effects, and good stories. I think TNG is the best Trek show, but TOS is awesome as well.

Littlewoman2, you named some great episodes. I love the 'Best of Both Worlds' two parter and Yesterday's Enterprise. I didn't like Schisms so much because I thought it was corny, but even the worst TNG episode is better than the best Enterprise episode. That show is just terrible.

Q rocks. My favorite line from him was in the episode 'Deja Q' when he has become human. He says to Worf, "Eat any good books lately." I was dying from laughter. A great scene from that episode is when Guinan jabs a fork into Q's hand and says "Seems human enough to me."

Once I got used to a new series after the original, I accepted each variation as it came, and funnily enough (I don't recall episode names, only stories) I just watched one with scenes in it as I described just now, the TNG where the nervous wreck Barclay saves the Enterprise at the last minute (30 seconds in fact). The addition of everyday human problems, which are timeless, into the future is a nice touch and adds to the scope of the new technology and species. Something for everyone really!

Another thing I like about TNG is the way it projects Earth's future: Earth is totally at peace, all countries are in unison with each other, ethnic and racial groups are not battling each other anymore, and society does not revolve around money like it does now. Of course, the Enterprise crew still encounters these problems while they're in space, but at least Earth has risen above such problems.

And, eytank, I totally agree about the "Deja Q" episode! One of the best! TNG has some great comedy--better than anything on sitcoms today. I also love the episode when Q gives Data the ability to laugh! Hilarious!

Very true littlewoman2. It an idealistic look at Earth's future, and I think its obtainable if we all don't destroy ourselves with Nuclear Weapons first. Even in the Star Trek world, you do see that before such a utopia is reached, there will be terrible wars. In 'Encounter at Farpoint', Q becomes a character from a time period of Earth when the soldiers were controlled with drugs (perhaps an allusion to Vietnam?). In a few episodes World War III and IV are mentioned.

I loved the scene when Q made Data laugh. That was the end of the episode 'Deja Q', where he gains his powers back, he appears on the bridge in the full regalia of a Maraca player . And how great was the last scene in 'All Good Things...' when as Q's chair is slowly retracted, he stretches out his hands and says "See you out there". Great way to end the series.

Well, I'm a Trekker too, and my favorite series would have to be TNG. I started watching it in the early 7th season, and I have been hooked ever since. My favorite character is Riker, but all the characters have definite strengths also.

My favorite episodes are:

"Disaster", "Future Imperfect", and "Best of Both Worlds"

I also love all the other series, in order of "DS9", "Voyager", "TOS", and even "Enterprise" somewhat. I think it could be better, but hey it's Star Trek.......Actually, if it weren't for T'Pol (and sometimes even with her), I've had times where I forgot it was part of "Star Trek". Has that happened to anyone else? Maybe it's just me.....

Anyway, I'm glad to know that there's a lot of people that love Star Trek. It's just great to know.

7 of 9..............mmmmmmmmmmmmm yes, resistance IS futile!
My wife loves Jean Luc Picard, something about bald, commanding men in uniform (maybe I should shave my head?)

Woody156, I love Jean-Luc Picard also, and I'll tell you why. First, his voice is very attractive and sensual to me. Second, I love the fact that his character is extremely well read. He loves great literature and frequently makes reference to classic novels, poems, and plays. Third, he appreciates classical music. Fourth, both his intellect and integrity are strong. Fifth, on the rare occasion when he is wrong, he eventually admits it and learns from his mistake. Sixth, back to his voice again. I just love hearing the sound of his voice.

I'm sure that's more than you wanted to know! However, I wish more men in this world were like Jean-Luc. Thankfully my husband possesses a few of his character's noble attributes!

Quote:

---

7 of 9..............mmmmmmmmmmmmm yes, resistance IS futile!

---

Ditto
Don't forget about Marina Sirtis (Deanna Troi). Of course the reading my mind thing might be a problem. Come to think of it, you really don't need to be a mind reader to know what I'm thinking.

Still?

I have love all Trek series up to Enterprise.

I have only really watched the first and half the second series of Enterprise. I realised I was really having problems with Enterprise when I was asked who my favourite crew member was and my answer was 'the dog'.

I cannot stand T'Pol and Archer. Trip is a loudmouth but a bit better than T'Pol and Archer. Malcolm Read is what the American writers think an Englishman is like - I am glad that the writers didn't make him an Australian (he probably would have been as appalling as Steve Irwin is). I think Hoshi and Dr Phlox had great potential but the writers wrecked them. Travis what-ever-his-last-name is terribly under used.

So the dog is my favourite - he is so cute.

I'd like to say immediately that I enjoyed many episodes of the original series and several of "The Next Generation". This post is about the nature of the program as I see it, in response to this snippet only:

Quote:

---

I think that’s the appeal of Star Trek. It is believable. In an interview, Nimoy said that Star Trek was Science Fiction, not Science Fantasy.

---

So skip it if that sounds uninteresting.

I disagree with Nimoy. I don't know the context of the statement, but perhaps he was contrasting "Star Trek" with the phenomenally popular "Star Wars". Neither is what I'd call science fiction, neither is what I'd call believable. That doesn't mean they aren't entertaining.

Reading about Star Trek online I find that people have trouble with the unexplained technology, leading to questions like "How did they get to violate relativity with 'warp speed'?" "How do the transporters reassemble molecules and what happens to personality during the process?" Ad infinitum. The writers are adept at explaining what happens with so-called technobabble. Perhaps far enough into the future these controversial (controversial for science nerds, anyway) things will all come to pass, even the "holograms" that can project light you can feel and we'll all be able to get something for nothing by asking a replicator to make us lunch. It could happen.

Even so, one does have to draw the line between genres somewhere, and I use a very simple rule for determining what constitutes science fiction: If sound is portrayed as traveling in a vacuum, it's not science fiction. Obviously, this isn't to be found in any textbook. The dictionary definitions I've seen for science fiction don't distinguish between science fiction and fantasy at all. Rather, science fiction is considered a form of fantasy that uses imaginary technology to give it a facade of plausibility. This is not a satisfactory definition if one wants to distinguish between, say, Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" and Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom. So I came up with my rule of thumb, which is shorthand for "please don't blatantly violate physical laws without explanation and call it science fiction." "2001", "Bladerunner", and "A Clockwork Orange" qualify, so far as I can tell-- there are no blatant violations that I recall, although I suppose the androids and action scenes in "Bladerunner" are problematic. At some point, one must simply suspend disbelief. "Star Wars", "Star Trek", and "The Matrix", however, disregard what the average viewer knows (or should know) about science, and thus do not qualify as science fiction-- not by me, anyway.

With so many different incarnations, it's hard to pin down exactly what "Star Trek" is. At various times it's used social commentary, light fantasy, or elements of genre fiction to entertain. "Star Trek" is a series of fantastic adventures set in an imaginary universe. In other words, a space opera, science fantasy, or, perhaps most simply, a television drama.

I edited this post because it was unclear. The point that I'm trying to make is that I disagree with the idea that "Star Trek" and its spin-offs are science fiction. I'm not trying to say that it is inferior to other entertainments because it happens not to be science fiction.

Quote:

---

I disagree with what Nimoy said about Star Trek being science fiction as opposed to science fantasy. I don't know the context of the statement, but perhaps it was comparing Star Trek to the more popular Star Wars. Neither is what I'd call science fiction, neither is particularly believable.

---

I think that you have completely misunderstood what I was saying, and missed what Star Trek was all about. You are hung up on the unimportant details, like; its impossible for a ship to go light speed because that would create a black hole that would destroy it. It sounds like you care more about good science, than good acting and good characters. You don't watch a science fiction movie or show because it is scientifically accurate. I'm not attacking you, but I believe in something called willing suspension of disbelief. It might be true that no sound is heard in space, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the show for what it is. As I said above. The believability of the show comes from the fact that you knew that these were people just like us, real people. They had families and normal problems.

I thought your point (and maybe Nimoy's) was that because Star Trek is science fiction it is more believable and thus more enjoyable than similar programs and films.

I can enjoy fantasy. I would prefer, though, that fantasy weren't so often mislabeled as science fiction, exactly because it hinders my suspension of disbelief. It's like when a movie began as a gritty slice of life drama and somewhere in the second act someone behaves out of character without explanation-- I find it derails my enjoyment. The same thing happens when the hero of a movie hops in his personal spaceship (about the size of a Ford) and crosses a galaxy, apparently in less than a day. I get distracted trying to explain it to myself.

I approach any purported science fiction with doubt, which hinders belief even more. One just has to assume the movie, book, or film might be fantasy. That's just how things are. However, when somebody claims an entertainment is science fiction and not fantasy and therefore superior to its competitors, I apply the old sound in a vacuum test. If it fails, it may be superior entertainment, but it is not science fiction.

As Robert A. Heinlein put it:

Science Fiction is speculative fiction in which the author takes as his first postulate the real world as we know it, including all established facts and natural laws. The result can be extremely fantastic in content, but it is not fantasy; it is legitimate--and often very tightly reasoned--speculation about the possibilities of the real world. This category excludes rocket ships that make U-turns, serpent men of Neptune that lust after human maidens, and stories by authors who flunked their Boy Scout merit badge tests in descriptive astronomy. --"Expanded Universe"

There are good reasons why "Star Trek" so often violates established facts and natural laws. The transporter was introduced to save money because they couldn't afford to shoot planetary landings every episode, for instance. Early episodes actually didn't have sound effects for the photon torpedoes-- it was dumbed down for the audience who couldn't accept a few moments of silence. The "holograms" that are indistinguishable from reality-- well, I suppose the idea was just too much fun to pass up.

It may be that science fiction simply cannot be a successful TV show. I don't recall any, although some individual episodes qualify-- including those of "Star Trek" and its spinoffs. I realize that I'm in the minority in requiring science fiction to contain some actual science but I prefer to make the distinction. It's worth making.

Quote:

---

If sound is portrayed as traveling in a vaccuum, it's not science fiction.

---

It's also pretty boring if it's not portrayed that way.
Scifi movies/tv are supposed to be about storytelling, not teaching physics. You can probably count on one hand the movies that made good use of "real space science", like 2001. (Although, imo, while that movie is a great story, it drags as a film. But that's Kubrick )

I understand your point, and agree with it to the extent that if something is truly ridiculous, it'll make me say, "Oh, come on! ". But it doesn't make me think an entire movie is worthless.

Oh, and as for Heinlein--his grasp of hard science may have benn great, but I think his grip on reality was a little, um, loose. His books got pretty darn unreadable.

Just my opinion, of course.

Good points. I'd like to make a couple of my own, or underline ones I've already made.

I don't think "Star Trek" is a bad show. I don't roll my eyes every time the writers change the rules to create drama. It's what I think of as a space opera and is about as enjoyable for me as any TV drama. Knowing some of the events in "Star Trek" couldn't happen and that the the explanations are gibberish doesn't stop some scientists from also being fanatical trekkers.

A great deal of science fiction-- probably most-- doesn't have scenes set in outer space, so my little rule is silly if taken literally. It's shorthand. I can think of several popular science fiction movies, and individual episodes of shows that are both good television and good science fiction, too.

It may be that wooshing spaceships is an accepted convention of the genre in its motion picture form and that a show can be unrealistic in this one aspect and still qualify as science fiction. Still, the line has to be drawn somewhere. Fiction is divided into genres and apparently there's a division between science fantasy and science fiction-- Nimoy seemed to think so, anyway. Trekkers usually like to draw the line somewhere between their show and "Star Wars". I disagree and would draw the line somewhere closer to "The Andromeda Strain", "Contact", "The Day the Earth Stood Still", and "2010".

Some would say all of Heinlein's writing is unreadable. I've read quite a bit of it, though, including his published correspondence, and I haven't noticed any loose screws. Opinionated, yes; egocentric, maybe; crazy, no. By the way, "Friday", one of his late books, is still generally well thought of by his fans, so it's not as if he completely lost it as an author.

I see that everyone has concentrated on the science part of Star Trek but what made it innovative in the beginning was that we had a united earth, had friendly contact with aliens, and that the crew of the Enterprise was multi racial and that uhura was a role model for many black actresses.The series set the tone for future dramas which involved racial equality.
OK it may seem dated now and technology and science has come a long way but it was good escapism, and I believe we should view it as good clean fun and not try to look to hard at its shortcomings