Star Trek - one thread for all things Trekkie
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Thanks for the review -- are you going to read Eternal Tide? I am waiting for you to tell me whether Janeway and Chakotay find eternal bliss together.
I bought it and it's waiting on my Kindle...I actually read through the prologue and I started chapter 1. I have to babysit my niece today so if I get the chance I will read more of it. My fingers are crossed but I'm so nervous at the same time. Some of the reviews said there is a twist at the end that Janeway fans will love, so I am not sure what to make of it
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Yes, so I'm about 30-35% of the way through "Eternal Tide". Q and other Q's make appearances...good grief. It's confusing. BUT:
JANEWAY LIVES! Sorta. haha.
JANEWAY LIVES! Sorta. haha.
ROFL! Sort of?!
I love Q. One of the books about him revealed that Trelayne, from ToS episode "The Squire of Gothos," was actually a baby Q! I loved that because I love Q and I loved Trelayne, too.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Well...right now she's stuck in the "moment between life and death". Like, she's technically died, but she hasn't gone on into the afterlife. It's weird. Q (Jr.) gave her two options of either continuing on into death, or coming back to life and righting her wrongs. Basically, I think she has to right the wrongs Admiral Janeway committed in "Endgame". At least, that's what I understand. It's confusing.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Star Trek: Voyager, "The Eternal Tide" Review
Okay. Where to begin? First off, as you obviously know, Janeway returns from death in this book. And it's fairly convincing as Trek resurrections go. Second, the reunion between her and Chakotay: I was nearly giddy with glee. I don't remember them sleeping together in the previous books, but I may have been so mad at Janeway dying that I've just forgotten. Anyway. The book was better than the one before it, though I hated, repeat, HATED the homosexual undertones of Captain Eden's "uncles" (obviously, they were not her uncles, but instead two fathers). That is the only gripe I have with this book because I have certain beliefs about that, and had I realized this was part of the story, I would have found a cheaper version of it on something other than Kindle. But, Janeway and Chakotay's reunions were probably the best thing in the entire book, because, well, we were denied it for 7 years on the show. Oh, and did I mention that B'elanna announced she was pregnant with her and Tom's 2nd child?! I love it. I loved all of their interactions in both books; true to their characters.
My rating: 4/5 if not for the homosexual undertones. 2/5 because of those tones.
Okay. Where to begin? First off, as you obviously know, Janeway returns from death in this book. And it's fairly convincing as Trek resurrections go. Second, the reunion between her and Chakotay: I was nearly giddy with glee. I don't remember them sleeping together in the previous books, but I may have been so mad at Janeway dying that I've just forgotten. Anyway. The book was better than the one before it, though I hated, repeat, HATED the homosexual undertones of Captain Eden's "uncles" (obviously, they were not her uncles, but instead two fathers). That is the only gripe I have with this book because I have certain beliefs about that, and had I realized this was part of the story, I would have found a cheaper version of it on something other than Kindle.
But, Janeway and Chakotay's reunions were probably the best thing in the entire book, because, well, we were denied it for 7 years on the show. Oh, and did I mention that B'elanna announced she was pregnant with her and Tom's 2nd child?! I love it. I loved all of their interactions in both books; true to their characters. My rating: 4/5 if not for the homosexual undertones. 2/5 because of those tones.
Wait.... what are you reading? Voyager books? I take it it's stories about their time after they return to earth?
Sir Cabbage
New member
Watched the original 'Wrath Of Khan' to compare to the new one. Pretty different. Ending was a bit 'oh no - what?!'. Also who said the actor was Asian? Didn't look it to me. Khan and his group looked like an '80s band. It dragged a little and maybe I wasn't concentrating enough, but the new film I think I quite prefer.
It dragged a little and maybe I wasn't concentrating enough, but the new film I think I quite prefer.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Yes, these books take place 3-4 years after Voyager got back to the Alpha Quadrant; they now have slipstream capability, which is basically like the Borg's transwarp. They are able to travel even faster through space, and the majority of both of these two books takes place in the Delta Quadrant. I should also mention, not sure if any of the summaries did, that the Borg have been obliterated.
Watched the original 'Wrath Of Khan' to compare to the new one. Pretty different. Ending was a bit 'oh no - what?!'. Also who said the actor was Asian? Didn't look it to me. Khan and his group looked like an '80s band.
Nobody said the actor was Asian; he was hispanic in a role that was one of an Eastern Indian (Khan wasn't hispanic, white or Asian; presumably, he had his origin(s) in India). This is no mark against you, but frankly the new film is a piece of trash in comparison to the classic Khan film. This of course, can only be attributed to the fact that the people who flat out love the new film have most likely never seen the originals, nor do they appreciate them. There are a few exceptions to this of course, but Abrams should be whipped for his degradation of the Khan storyline.
He can't even come up with his own original dialogue; not so great of a movie if you can't even write new dialogue, OR come up with an original plot.
I still say there should be some Voyager films, even if they don't use the original actors (the only one they might be able to use is the original Doctor, Robert Picardo). I'd love to see an Enterprise film also.
Sir Cabbage
New member
Ahh, that's where I probably got muddled.
I did appreciate the original and it is a shame the new film is just taking many of the ideas of this rather than being a different Trek adventure. However, I suppose it does help people become aware of the original and so watch it, like I did.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Ahh, that's where I probably got muddled.
I did appreciate the original and it is a shame the new film is just taking many of the ideas of this rather than being a different Trek adventure. However, I suppose it does help people become aware of the original and so watch it, like I did.
It may do that, but what it also does is skew people's perceptions of the originals, meaning that they view the originals as purely cheesy in comparison to the new ones. I mean, yes, the original stuff is kinda cheesy, but it had more depth/heart to it than the new stuff does, and frankly, nobody can top Gene Roddenberry's original work(s).
Every Trek series had its cheese, but each series also had incredible moments that were pretty deep. DS9 had some really, really good heartfelt episodes mixed among the Trek-ness.
Sir Godfrey
Pelegrin Crucis
I thought I would jump into the Wrath of Khan vs. Into Darkness discussion. I frankly do not like either film. Wrath of Khan was too morose for my taste because of the "brain bugs" (been long time since I've watched it, hence the lack of true name of the insect). Into the Darkness is equally disturbing in It's morbidity and focus on death. While Benedict Cumberbatch was a rather good villain, there are scenes like him crushing of a captain's skull that felt more than a little demonic. Granted such violence is warranted, it still felt like overkill.
I frankly was most offended by two scenes in Into Darkness. The first was the opening scene on the Class M planet with the white faced people and their worship of the Enterprise. This harkens to "Chariots of the gods" and has been the belief Hollywood has been using like propaganda in their films. The second offensive part was when Kirk pulls a Wrath of Khan Spock salvation of the Enterprise and the crewmembers (Chekov I believe says it) say "It's a miracle," and Spock responds "there are no such things." This was an obvious attack on a fundamental belief of the Christian faith. Christians believe in miracles in the time of Jesus and sects of Christianity believe (myself included) that they happen today.
Finally, I felt the philosophy of death in the film is completely anti-Judeo Christianity and any other monotheistic religion. The depiction is that you die and there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell. This is very Darwinist and Atheistic. It frankly ruined the film for me.
I frankly was most offended by two scenes in Into Darkness. The first was the opening scene on the Class M planet with the white faced people and their worship of the Enterprise. This harkens to "Chariots of the gods" and has been the belief Hollywood has been using like propaganda in their films. The second offensive part was when Kirk pulls a Wrath of Khan Spock salvation of the Enterprise and the crewmembers (Chekov I believe says it) say "It's a miracle," and Spock responds "there are no such things." This was an obvious attack on a fundamental belief of the Christian faith. Christians believe in miracles in the time of Jesus and sects of Christianity believe (myself included) that they happen today.
Finally, I felt the philosophy of death in the film is completely anti-Judeo Christianity and any other monotheistic religion. The depiction is that you die and there is no afterlife, no heaven or hell. This is very Darwinist and Atheistic. It frankly ruined the film for me.
Last edited:
**Spoiler alert**
Huh, I didn't get any of that anti-religion from the film. The white-faced people just seemed like a throw-away exciting start to the film with a little comedy packed in (worshiping the Enterprise! Could there be more of a violation of the prime directive?). And I didn't notice that there was any denial of the after-life -- I mean, there was no one preaching a funeral saying we would all be together in heaven one day, but then, that would have been inappropriate? Or do you mean, because they had that potion that could rejuvenate Kirk, and he didn't have any 60 Minutes in Heaven story to tell? That, again, would have been out of place.
I think the sacrifice the screen writers made in that regard -- a resounding silence about afterlife while Kirk was dead -- was worth the trade-off to re-create the Spock sacrificial death scene from Wrath of Kahn, and if you aren't straining too hard to make it a literal endorsement of religion or life after death, you can even see it as a kind of allegory of the death and resurrection of a Savior. Maybe you see what you want to see?
As for Wrath of Kahn film, I loved it. I'm a huge Ricardo Montalban fan, and I've seen the Space Seed episode of ToS so many times ... I thought the movie was very good, and I thought Into Darkness was a very nice tribute to the Kahn saga in the new time-line. FWIW
Huh, I didn't get any of that anti-religion from the film. The white-faced people just seemed like a throw-away exciting start to the film with a little comedy packed in (worshiping the Enterprise! Could there be more of a violation of the prime directive?). And I didn't notice that there was any denial of the after-life -- I mean, there was no one preaching a funeral saying we would all be together in heaven one day, but then, that would have been inappropriate? Or do you mean, because they had that potion that could rejuvenate Kirk, and he didn't have any 60 Minutes in Heaven story to tell? That, again, would have been out of place.
I think the sacrifice the screen writers made in that regard -- a resounding silence about afterlife while Kirk was dead -- was worth the trade-off to re-create the Spock sacrificial death scene from Wrath of Kahn, and if you aren't straining too hard to make it a literal endorsement of religion or life after death, you can even see it as a kind of allegory of the death and resurrection of a Savior. Maybe you see what you want to see?
As for Wrath of Kahn film, I loved it. I'm a huge Ricardo Montalban fan, and I've seen the Space Seed episode of ToS so many times ... I thought the movie was very good, and I thought Into Darkness was a very nice tribute to the Kahn saga in the new time-line. FWIW
Aravis Kenobi
New member
Well, SirG. I still have not seen this film, but allow me to make a few observations on the religious points you've mentioned:
First, Star Trek has always, ALWAYS, made a point of denouncing the validity of Christianity. This is evident when Dr. McCoy calls the events in Genesis a mythology in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (this is during the discussion of the 'Genesis device'; McCoy says something to the effect of, "You don't believe the mythology that the world was created in 6 days, do you Mr. Spock?").
Second, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is another excellent example of how the Trek writers regard Christianity.
Third, Kirk has always been more of an agnostic than anything. Does it matter if Kirk had no afterlife experience? I mean, good grief: I was just watching an episode of Voyager today, ("Emanations"), in which one of the Starfleet crewmembers denounced an afterlife. He basically stated that there is no real answer to the question, "is there an afterlife?". So that philosophy of no afterlife, whether it's heaven or hell, is something that has ALWAYS existed in the Trek universe. It just has. To become angry with ONE film over reiterating something that has been present since 1966 is kind of ridiculous (and it's ignoring a basic tenant of Trek philosophy).
No, I don't agree with a lot of the principles present in the Trek universe. Neither do I agree with most of what's present spiritually in the Star Wars universe. But it's there. At least Abrams got one thing apparently right: he has transferred [successfully] the spirituality created by Roddenberry into his own films.
Oh, and on the matter of the alien culture worshiping the Enterprise: this is also NOT new to the Trek universe. The only other example I can think of similar to this is the Voyager episode "In the Blink of an Eye", where Voyager is stuck in orbit above a planet, and they become the center of the culture's religious views. This is just the one off the top of my head; I'm sure there are others scattered throughout the franchise.
I don't find ST necessarily anti-Christian. Remember in the ToS episode "Who Mourns for Adonais," Apollo is reminscing about when he and the other "gods" ruled the earth, and Kirk says humans don't need multiple gods anymore -- they find the One enough (as if one God is worshiped on earth). And in the "Bread and Circuses" episode, Uhura discovers the "sun worshipers" who are being oppressed by the ancient Rome-like establishment are actually "Son" worshipers. ToS tipped its hat to theism, and in that case, to Christianity -- Uhura has such a happy look on her face when she realizes these people are worshiping the Son of God. And while McCoy does call the Creation story ancient mythology, I think CS Lewis might call it the same: a poetic account of how God created the world. And what McCoy says to Spock in Wrath of Kahn is more like, "Ancient mythology says God created the earth in 7 days -- now, watch out! Here comes Genesis, we'll do it in 7 hours!" I find it telling that he knows the "ancient" mythology that the earth was created in 7 days, and he expects that Spock (or anyone else) would know the same story. It's clear Judeo-Christian teaching has survived and is recognized in the ST universe.
Aravis Kenobi
New member
I disagree. To call anything in the Bible a 'mythology' or just a 'poetic account' borders on the line of heresy, IMHO, especially coming from a Christian. I guess I'm one of the few who takes the Bible at its word; except for parts of it which we KNOW to be pure imagery (i.e. Revelation), I believe the Bible literally.
Also, I'm pretty sure that while theism really only applies to Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong), most religions of the 1960s revolved around ONE deity anyway (you know, Kirk COULD have been referring to Islam, which only has one god). So to say that TOS only deferred to Christianity is probably not accurate, since it's a well known fact that Roddenberry was practically an atheist (I'm pretty sure he was a humanist too, but I'm not sure if that's the correct term for what he was).
All of Starfleet crew members know about 'ancient mythology', or events in the Bible. Several times, 'creation' is referenced (with snickering seriousness) throughout the various series and films. I have always seen, and will always see, the Trek viewpoint on Christianity as being: it's a religion based on mythology with no ground in science. You have to keep in mind: every character in Trek pretty much bases their reality on science. If it's not scientifically proven, it can't be real. The two exceptions to this rule that I can immediately think of are Sisko and Kira. Most every other character 100% believes in scientific fact only, and they laugh off 'mythology' like Christianity.
It might be recognized, but it's laughed off as being silly and ridiculous. That in my mind is no more commendable than something like The Golden Compass.
Also, I'm pretty sure that while theism really only applies to Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong), most religions of the 1960s revolved around ONE deity anyway (you know, Kirk COULD have been referring to Islam, which only has one god). So to say that TOS only deferred to Christianity is probably not accurate, since it's a well known fact that Roddenberry was practically an atheist (I'm pretty sure he was a humanist too, but I'm not sure if that's the correct term for what he was).
All of Starfleet crew members know about 'ancient mythology', or events in the Bible. Several times, 'creation' is referenced (with snickering seriousness) throughout the various series and films. I have always seen, and will always see, the Trek viewpoint on Christianity as being: it's a religion based on mythology with no ground in science. You have to keep in mind: every character in Trek pretty much bases their reality on science. If it's not scientifically proven, it can't be real. The two exceptions to this rule that I can immediately think of are Sisko and Kira. Most every other character 100% believes in scientific fact only, and they laugh off 'mythology' like Christianity.
It might be recognized, but it's laughed off as being silly and ridiculous. That in my mind is no more commendable than something like The Golden Compass.
Mrs Gil-Galad Took
New member
Okay I got Netflix and because I live in Holland it means Netflix wasn't available till last month. Then it came to Holland. The ST series are listed on it as well. I never and I mean never ever have watched ANYTHING from Star Trek. Yes I do know who Kirk is, I do know who Picard is, I do know who Janeway is and of course Dr Spock but where should I as a beginner start if I want to watch the series? From the beginning or can you start with another serie or would I miss a storyline if I do?
the original series is mostly seperate from TNG, DS9 and Voyager (the next generation shows).
Me personally, I recommend you start with the Next Generation in the order I listed, as the stories are more interesting then the original series.
Although you can watch them seperately, since they have independent storylines for the most part, although you will see the occasional crossover (like Picard in the first episode of Deep Space Nine for example).
I recommend starting with TNG though, even if it's only a few episodes, just to get a feel for the difference of the next generation.
Me personally, I recommend you start with the Next Generation in the order I listed, as the stories are more interesting then the original series.
Although you can watch them seperately, since they have independent storylines for the most part, although you will see the occasional crossover (like Picard in the first episode of Deep Space Nine for example).
I recommend starting with TNG though, even if it's only a few episodes, just to get a feel for the difference of the next generation.
I kind of agree with Buckmana, although I love The Original Series. The Original Series was made in the early 1960's and it is kind of cheesy. I love it because I grew up watching it as a child, but I don't know if you were seeing it for the first time if it is a good introduction to ST. Start with TNG, and if you like it, you can go back and discover TOS. I am so glad you got Netflix. Yay! And happy to see you here Nessa! XO