What is your favorite Star Trek series

What is your favorite Star Trek series

  • The Original Series (1966–69)

    Votes: 15 25.4%
  • The Next Generation (1987–94)

    Votes: 27 45.8%
  • Deep Space Nine (1993–99)

    Votes: 6 10.2%
  • Voyager (1995–2001)

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • Enterprise (2001–05)

    Votes: 2 3.4%
  • I prefer the movies

    Votes: 7 11.9%

  • Total voters
    59
17,621
7,287

Main Question or Discussion Point

What is your favorite Star Trek series and why. Who was your favorite character?

I go with Next Generation because it's what I grew up on however Spock as best character.
 

Answers and Replies

110
19
To be honest I hate the star trek series( bring the hate!) but I Love the movies.
 
17,621
7,287
To be honest I hate the star trek series( bring the hate!) but I Love the movies.
Added that option :)
 
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
12,124
8,483
I go with Next Generation however Spock as best character.
That's exactly the point where it gets hard to answer. E.g. I like Scott Bakula very much, but TNG better. And besides Leonard Nimoy, I also liked James Doohan and Nichelle Nichols. TOS was fine when I was a kid, but as of today it has some severe disadvantages. And although I'm not a big fan of DS9, I like Armin Shimerman's role. Someone give me a die.
 
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,231
785
What is your favorite Star Trek series and why.
You mean there was more than one series??? :biggrin:

I go with Next Generation because it's what I grew up on
And thus I have to go with TOS. The Enterprise floats over my desk every day.

Enterprise Over Desk.jpg
 
135
63
I love TOS but it's a little too heavily earth-politicized for my taste. I was born in 1986 so some of my earliest childhood memories are TNG. Because of this, I ended up viewing TOS well after I was acquainted with TNG and found a lot of the plotlines (i.e. a planet just like earth where the Roman Empire never fell) a little too much of a social commentary for my liking. I don't mind political plotlines in fiction (even when they're allegories of real-life events) but I'd much prefer the "chess game" with the Romulans to literally finding a planet ruled by Nazis.

That said, in a fair fight with all else being equal, Kirk would take Picard to the woodshed. I also love Spock and McCoy more than Data or Crusher (Scotty vs. La Forge is a wash, Riker doesn't really have a counterpart since Spock was technically the first officer). So TOS characters are better but TNG plotlines are better.

EDIT:
I voted for TNG for the above-stated reason but then realized I had forgotten TNG comes with Wesley Crusher (the Jar Jar Binks of the Star Trek universe) and would like to change my vote...
 
Last edited:
Wesley Crusher as the ST Jar Jar Binks is incredibly accurate thank you hahhaha
 
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
Same as XZ I grew up with TNG, TOS never really gelled with me. It seemed as subtle as a brick and too far on the silly side of things, having said that voyager is probably my favourite, I'm a sucker for the castaway story (and am pining for a similar series, it could be done so much better today) and the crew becoming family was great to watch. Above all though Picard rules.
 
DrClaude
Mentor
7,022
3,186
Weird Al said:
Only question I ever thought was hard
Was do I like Kirk or do I like Picard
(Probably the only music video containing the Schrödinger equation.)
 
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
12,124
8,483
(Probably the only music video containing the Schrödinger equation.)
But we have Heisenberg compensators in Star Trek! If I remember correctly, at least twice.
 
539
144
...having said that voyager is probably my favourite, I'm a sucker for the castaway story
I didn't particularly like the Voyager series, and even the basic concept was flawed. They were stranded 70,000 light years from Earth. Now if you watch their ship move through space, stars fly by fairly quickly. Let's say on average stars are 5 light years apart and the ship traverses this distance in one second. So to traverse 70,000 light years would take 70000/5 = 14000 sec or about 4 hours.
 
539
144
TOS was the first series I watched, and as with most things that tends to give it more weight, e.g., Sean Connery is the real James Bond !!!

I think acting-wise, things peaked with TNG, and while Spock will always retain his place in the Star Trek pantheon, I thought Data was an intriguing character.

I tended to dismiss the subsequent series, admittedly without giving them much of a chance, but recently I started getting into Enterprise and found it interesting, especially the early relationship with the Vulcans. After a while, however, it grew a bit tiresome as there was hardly an episode where ships weren't firing on each other a la Star Wars or there wasn't a shootout with phaser pistols, and it seemed every encounter with aliens ended up badly.
 
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,423
1,113
I love TOS but it's a little too heavily earth-politicized for my taste. I was born in 1986 so some of my earliest childhood memories are TNG. Because of this, I ended up viewing TOS well after I was acquainted with TNG and found a lot of the plotlines (i.e. a planet just like earth where the Roman Empire never fell) a little too much of a social commentary for my liking. I don't mind political plotlines in fiction (even when they're allegories of real-life events) but I'd much prefer the "chess game" with the Romulans to literally finding a planet ruled by Nazis.
The whole reason Roddenberry created the original Star Trek was to do social commentary. At the time it originally aired, there were a lot of issues that were "verboten" to discuss on a TV series. Gene thought that if he could coat such social commentary with a SF "sugar coating", he might be able to slip it past the TV censors. For the most part, it worked.

For me, TOS will always have a special place, as it the only Star Trek I ever had for a long time, though as a show, TNG was probably better. A part of the reason for this was that TOS was sold to the network as an "action-adventure" show, and this limited somewhat what type of episodes they could make. TNG was allowed to be a drama. TNG was what TOS could have been if some of its fetters had been removed.
 
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
I didn't particularly like the Voyager series, and even the basic concept was flawed. They were stranded 70,000 light years from Earth. Now if you watch their ship move through space, stars fly by fairly quickly. Let's say on average stars are 5 light years apart and the ship traverses this distance in one second. So to traverse 70,000 light years would take 70000/5 = 14000 sec or about 4 hours.
Of all the things that shouldn't be taken seriously in Star Trek I think warp drive takes the biscuit. They never use it consistently, despite having behind-the-scenes lore about how fast each warp factor is exactly. The captain will yell out a number and they'll travel at the speed of plot. My head canon for warp was that cruise speed and max speed were very different. Sure you could gun the engines to tens of light years an hour but the wear and tear/fuel use scales disproportionately, to the point where it will blow out after a few hours/days travel. Taking a more sedate pace (like merely 1,000x light speed) means you can run near indefinitely, aside from fuel and routine maintenance.

Speaking of which the political maps always annoyed me in Star Trek. The federation was apparently 150 planets but was drawn to be over 8,000 light years wide at its widest point. Unless each planet was a state capital presiding over hundreds of stations and other minor colonies that means they are claiming millions more systems than they actually use (or could police). Not to mention it should take years to get from one side to the other.
 
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,423
1,113
I didn't particularly like the Voyager series, and even the basic concept was flawed. They were stranded 70,000 light years from Earth. Now if you watch their ship move through space, stars fly by fairly quickly. Let's say on average stars are 5 light years apart and the ship traverses this distance in one second. So to traverse 70,000 light years would take 70000/5 = 14000 sec or about 4 hours.
The stars flying by was more of a bowing to psychology than anything else. You saw the same effect in TOS with stars showing apparent motion on the viewing screen. Even at the highest warp factor, the apparent motion of the stars would be too slow to be noticed. However, people are psychological predisposed to associate visible movement with fast speed. If you were to show the stars for all intents and purposes motionless in these scenes, the audience would have no sense of the ship moving and these establishing shots would be lacking. They ran into the same problem when shooting the opening credit sequence for the Original series, where the Enterprise flies by with a "swish". They knew full well that it would not have made a sound in the vacuum of space, but when they previewed the shots without the "swish" it came out flat. We expect something flying by quickly to make a sound, and when it doesn't, no matter whether you know that is accurate, it just doesn't "feel" right.
So the answer is to show moving stars when they really wouldn't be and a spaceship making swish as it flies by.
 
539
144
The stars flying by was more of a bowing to psychology than anything else. You saw the same effect in TOS with stars showing apparent motion on the viewing screen. Even at the highest warp factor, the apparent motion of the stars would be too slow to be noticed.
I didn't know that there was no connection between the maximum speed the ship was capable of and the displayed motion of the stars. I was going by the latter, but have since read numerical estimates for the different warp speeds. So I guess the basic story line now makes more sense (while the view from the ship's windows makes less :smile: ).
 
Aufbauwerk 2045
I voted for the original series.

I wonder if anyone will vote for Enterprise. I never watched it until a colleague recommended it. For me it ranks second only to the original.
 
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
The stars flying by was more of a bowing to psychology than anything else. You saw the same effect in TOS with stars showing apparent motion on the viewing screen. Even at the highest warp factor, the apparent motion of the stars would be too slow to be noticed. However, people are psychological predisposed to associate visible movement with fast speed. If you were to show the stars for all intents and purposes motionless in these scenes, the audience would have no sense of the ship moving and these establishing shots would be lacking.
The warp effect from the latest film was quite good. It showed a literal warp bubble around the ship that distorted the background like a lens. Combined with some flaring at the back it gave the impression of rapid movement without real stars whizzing by
 
17,621
7,287
TNG also had "Q" which was a great character. Was he in any of the other series?
 
fresh_42
Mentor
Insights Author
2018 Award
12,124
8,483
TNG also had "Q" which was a great character. Was he in any of the other series?
TNG (8), Voyager (3) and Deep Space 9 (1).

John de Lancie also played a role on Stargate SG-1 (5).
 
Janus
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
3,423
1,113
TNG also had "Q" which was a great character. Was he in any of the other series?
He showed up in a couple episodes of "Voyager".
 
990
342
I watched the show when it was on TV the first time around. I almost never sat through the whole show.
 
135
63
TNG also had "Q" which was a great character. Was he in any of the other series?
Voyager and DS9. In Voyager he wanted very much to father a child with Captain Janeway. She refused him and he went back to his ex-wife to mate; however, Janeway did agree to be the child's godmother.
 
379
249
So the answer is to show moving stars when they really wouldn't be and a spaceship making swish as it flies by.
This is one reason (among many) why Kubrick's 2001 still lingers: he depicted space as silent and made it work. But agree w/ all your other points; the sci-fi genre for TV and movies modifies reality in favor of story-telling.
 

Related Threads for: What is your favorite Star Trek series

  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
933
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
724
Top