Just found out this shit has been going on since 1966... The fuck...

Just found out this shit has been going on since 1966... The fuck? How are they still coming up with new stories to tell?

Attached: Star-Trek-The-Original-Series-cast.jpg (1200x822, 242.33K)

catgirl ninja degenerates.

It ran from 1966 for just a few years, then it took all the way to the end of the '80s for another series to pop up. Running it non-stop in one way or another is a recent thing.

>has been going on since 1966
Star Trek hasn't gone on uninterrupted, there were many stops to production and many years no new stories were being written.

You should have posted a picture of Dr. Who, but even then they take breaks every season.

They aren't. Discovery isn't so bad if you pretend it's in the Trek '09 universe. But Piccard is just awful.Trek is going through worse franchise rape than Star Wars. At least with Trek there's more than 3 good movies. There's 3 good TV shows, two of which ran for 7 seasons (DS9 and TNG). All the TOS movies are good except 5, and Generations/First Contact are good.

And even Doctor Who had a huge gap between the 80s and 2005.

>Discovery isn't so bad if you pretend it's in the Trek '09 universe.
They claim it to be in the Roddenberry universe though, which means all of the continuity errors are still narrative endingly bad.
Even as a generic scifi show it sucks, because they stole concepts from other scifi without crediting them for the idea.

fucking christ people, that's some cringey prime nerdistan here

The moment you have to "pretend a series is in the xxx universe" to like it, it's shit tv. Any show should be able to stand on its own merit without a multitude of "in" references and obscure bullshit that can only be understood by the kind of people who own books with USS Enterprise blueprints. That's what made TNG good TV: regardless of what you knew about Star Trek, it was a pretty good sci-fi series.

I thought it just wasn't very good and BBC didn't bother keeping the masters, so most of it is lost media.

>that's some cringey prime nerdistan here
Who made you the leader of the mean girls?
You're just chastising us for using arguments that you get, but are too ashamed of to use yourself out fear for being perceived as a nerd.
We're on a Laotian zero gravity pottery fancy site user, no one gives a shit if you're a nerd here.
I do agree with you on TNG, that show was good because it stood in it's own merit while respecting the old show.

The original and next generation are classics. After that they degrade in quality and people debate if the series is actually good or not. Ds9 has gained popularity over the years for some reason despite having one of the most retarded nonsensical endings.

they're able to keep coming up with new stories to tell because Star Trek is about humans on a spaceship exploring the galaxy all the while exploring what it means to be human.

People who don't use these arguments do not do so out of fear of being perceived one way or another, user. They just don't have to rely on cringey bullshit to justify their appreciation of a show.

You're still trying to tell me what the social rules are user, saying you like something because you like it is fine.
Saying that you like something because it respects something else that you like through its references and adherence to the canon involved is also fine.
Your negative opinion on people who know specifics about a show and use them to argue whether or not it was well done is also fine, but it is just that, your subjective opinion.
Trying to get me to change my behavior because of your personal cringe limits is not okay, that's you acting like a pushy bitch.

I'm not trying to get you to change your behaviour. I'm calling you out for making up inane bullshit.

> I'm calling you out for making up inane bullshit.
Examples of something I made up then?
Because they did fuck up the continuity by introducing cloaking tech about 300 years too early and they did steal the water bear intergalactic travel thingy from another show.

very good examples right there.
>introducing cloaking tech about 300 years too early
who gives a flying fuck, it's not real

I give a fuck because a cohesive narrative is a nice thing to have in a show or movie.
If everything is just "Fuck it, we're making shit up as we go" you get bad story writing and shitty acting, because nothing is defined.
You might be dumb enough to enjoy disjointed narratives with flashy lights and condescending speeches that break the fourth wall and deigns itself worthy of telling you your shit stinks, but I'm not.

>who gives a flying fuck, it's not real
what a stupid fucking argument

>Any show should be able to stand on its own merit without a multitude of "in" references and obscure bullshit that can only be understood by the kind of people who own books with USS Enterprise blueprints.
Putting words in my mouth. Discovery sucks because it's a prequel to TOS. It basically steps on the toes of the entire message of hope and optimism for the future TOS had. It's a dark gritty war drama. Like I said, if you pretend it's a prequel to Trek '09 it's way better.
>That's what made TNG good TV: regardless of what you knew about Star Trek, it was a pretty good sci-fi series.
Bingo
That's why Discovery and Piccard suck. They don't stand on their own. They're propped up by what came before. If they didn't have the name Star Trek, no one would know it exists.

I don't know but I'm seeing a good pair of thighs and breedable hips

I'd fuck the shit out of Lt. Uhura