Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

What is your favorite Star Trek series

Tags:
  1. The Original Series (1966–69)

    10 vote(s)
    26.3%
  2. The Next Generation (1987–94)

    20 vote(s)
    52.6%
  3. Deep Space Nine (1993–99)

    3 vote(s)
    7.9%
  4. Voyager (1995–2001)

    2 vote(s)
    5.3%
  5. Enterprise (2001–05)

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  6. I prefer the movies

    2 vote(s)
    5.3%
  1. May 3, 2017 #1
    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 3, 2017 #2
    To be honest I hate the star trek series( bring the hate!) but I Love the movies.
     
  4. May 3, 2017 #3
    Added that option :)
     
  5. May 3, 2017 #4

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  6. May 3, 2017 #5

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You mean there was more than one series??? :biggrin:

    And thus I have to go with TOS. The Enterprise floats over my desk every day.

    Enterprise Over Desk.jpg
     
  7. May 3, 2017 #6
    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: May 3, 2017
  8. May 3, 2017 #7
    Wesley Crusher as the ST Jar Jar Binks is incredibly accurate thank you hahhaha
     
  9. May 3, 2017 #8

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  10. May 4, 2017 #9

    DrClaude

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor


    (Probably the only music video containing the Schrödinger equation.)
     
  11. May 4, 2017 #10

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

    But we have Heisenberg compensators in Star Trek! If I remember correctly, at least twice.
     
  12. May 4, 2017 #11
    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.
     
  13. May 4, 2017 #12
    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.
     
  14. May 4, 2017 #13

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  15. May 4, 2017 #14

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  16. May 4, 2017 #15

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. May 4, 2017 #16

    fresh_42

    Staff: Mentor

  18. May 4, 2017 #17
    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: ).
     
  19. May 4, 2017 #18
    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.
     
  20. May 5, 2017 #19

    Ryan_m_b

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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
     
  21. May 7, 2017 #20
    TNG also had "Q" which was a great character. Was he in any of the other series?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: What is your favorite Star Trek series
  1. Star Trek (Replies: 20)

Loading...