Non-cape tv show

[Guest]

Kirk being the captain made him not just a figure of authority, but an *intimidating* figure of authority, to the point where, in the famous episode where he gets split into good and evil halves, Spock demands that he not inform the crew in order to make sure nobody thought the Captain was compromised. His position mattered that much.

I really liked that episode, especially the concept of how Good Kirk was weak and unfit to command the ship. He needed his Evil half to be Captain and to lead. I didn't understand that as a kid, but I totally do now.

The selfish desire for power that you see in our modern day politicians and such would be the same sort of ambition for someone like James T. Kirk to be able to become the youngest Captain in Starfleet. And the toughness to make decisions that could send men (and women) to their death if necessary. All this would come from his Evil side I think.

Basically. I don't think of it as his good and evil side though, so much as his superego and id. The "evil" Kirk is really just his primal, instinctual side. He wants to drink, fight, and get his dick wet. That's the side with the courage to act when the consequences could be dire while the other side is paralyzed with indecision and fear.

But neither of them are fit to be captain by themselves. This is something a lot of people miss. When primal Kirk has to get on the transporter with moral Kirk, he freaks out and tries to stop it because he's afraid of what will happen, even though they'll both die for sure if they don't get put back together. Primal Kirk really isn't braver than the moral Kirk. He's just willing to say "fuck it" and act when the correct answer is unclear, which is a vital trait in any leader with a difficult job. But he needs the moral Kirk to help him make the smart decision. Moral Kirk would think and think and never decide because he can't handle the consequences of being wrong, primal Kirk would go on pure gut instinct and do something stupid that would get him killed. Combine their best aspects and you get a real leader.

Fuck, show writers were so much better back then.

[Kugelfisch]

TOS was way better than many fuckboys today give it credit for. Most of those soyboys have never watched it and would squirm at Kirk actually being a man, overwhelming them with feelings of insecurity. All you often hear from those faggots is "lol Spock's Brain" but they really only watch the woke JJ cancer.

[Rushy]

TOS was way better than many fuckboys today give it credit for. Most of those soyboys have never watched it and would squirm at Kirk actually being a man, overwhelming them with feelings of insecurity. All you often hear from those faggots is "lol Spock's Brain" but they really only watch the woke JJ cancer.

Preach.
I'm not really sure what happened to Roddenberry that he made The Motion Picture and early TNG so bland and awkward.

[Keith Chegwin]

Simple. Star Trek was always good in spite, not because, of Roddenberry.
If you can ever get your hands on it, which I think you can because I think it's still in print, read Harlan Ellison's original script for The City on the Edge of Forever. Ellison introduces it with basically an 80 page essay on why Roddenberry is shit and why the aired episode ended up being so far from Ellison's intentions. Basically, Roddenberry didn't want them to face any kind of conflict in the 23rd century. Ellison's original 'villain' for the episode was an Enterprise crew member who was selling drugs to the other crew members and Roddenberry came in and said 'In the 23rd century they wouldn't do drugs' or some other nonsense.

[Guest]

Ellison's also the world's biggest faggot getting raped in hell and dp'd by Beelzebub as we speak. Fuck that douche.

[Rushy]

Simple. Star Trek was always good in spite, not because, of Roddenberry.
If you can ever get your hands on it, which I think you can because I think it's still in print, read Harlan Ellison's original script for The City on the Edge of Forever. Ellison introduces it with basically an 80 page essay on why Roddenberry is shit and why the aired episode ended up being so far from Ellison's intentions. Basically, Roddenberry didn't want them to face any kind of conflict in the 23rd century. Ellison's original 'villain' for the episode was an Enterprise crew member who was selling drugs to the other crew members and Roddenberry came in and said 'In the 23rd century they wouldn't do drugs' or some other nonsense.

At least Roddenberry wouldn't have let Discovery happen.

[Keith Chegwin]

Ellison's also the world's biggest faggot

No, that's you

getting raped in hell and dp'd by Beelzebub as we speak.

>believing in hell

Fuck that douche

Please, we don't want to hear about your sexual fantasies

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

I'm not sure how Roddenberry thought his original vision of a conflict-free future would be all that interesting.

Another fun Kirk moment for me is in the episode with the mafia planet, where he basically turned the Federation into the planet's godfather. If only the franchise kept those bizarro worlds.

And what's more, his crew actually felt like a legitimate, living crew in the old episodes - something that *no* Trek series was able to replicate. Kirk being the captain made him not just a figure of authority, but an *intimidating* figure of authority, to the point where, in the famous episode where he gets split into good and evil halves, Spock demands that he not inform the crew in order to make sure nobody thought the Captain was compromised. His position mattered that much.

I'd say the role of the Captain was way more vital to the ship than it is in later eras, considering space was a lot bigger and more unexplored back then.

A new rumor going around is that Star Trek: Discovery will also explain the origin of the Borg.

Afaik, the most popular fan theory puts the blame on either V'ger, or that enigmatic machine civilization that upgraded the original Voyager probe.

Of course, Destiny will probably ignore both and focus instead on the Borg Queen and her woke years as a normal human.

SpoilerShow

The TNG incarnation is neither human nor old enough to have been alive in the TOS era, but when did Destiny ever care about anything?

[Rushy]

I'd say the role of the Captain was way more vital to the ship than it is in later eras, considering space was a lot bigger and more unexplored back then.

Then Enterprise should've arguably emphasised that, but Archer wasn't nearly as authoritarian as Kirk, even during the season where he was hunting alien terrorists. Not to mention Discovery, which is just... well, fucked.
It's really only the 60s Trek where you get that naval kind of feeling from the crew. The TOS movies had a little bit of a naval tinge to them with the uniforms and Spock's funeral, but they also pretty much turned the main characters into a superhero team that went from one ship to the next.

[Keith Chegwin]

At least Roddenberry wouldn't have let Discovery happen.

I'm not entirely convinced of that. Firstly, I seem to remember reading somewhere that he floated the idea of doing a Star Trek prequel and secondly, part of the reason that Star Trek ending up being so successful was that he managed to rope a lot of top science fiction authors, such as Harlan, Robert Bloch, Richard Matheson and others, into writing scripts for him.

Today's science fiction writers are bunch of faggots who write nonsensical drivel and then jerk each other off and give each other Hugo awards for writing books about demisexual transgender butterfly kin who comes to terms with their gender identity, or some nonsense, and most of the good science fiction authors are either dying or dead. So there's not really much of a talent pool to pick from.

I'm not sure how Roddenberry thought his original vision of a conflict-free future would be all that interesting.

Roddenberry's problem, largely, is that his kind of fiction doesn't really adapt to television. His original Star Trek pilot was rejected for being too cerebral and that's probably one of the milder examples.