Trekking to the fridge
May 6th, 2004 by Kelson. Posted in Sci-Fi/FantasyIn light of the recent announcement of boxed sets of the original Star Trek (Region 2, but Region 1 sets are on their way next year), I found myself thinking of some of the fizzier nicknames for the shows.
Since Next Gen came out just a few years after the New Coke fiasco, the names Classic Trek and New Trek stuck. Early in DS9’s life I remember hearing someone refer to Diet Cherry Trek. Which leads to an obvious question:
What types of soft drink are Voyager and Enterprise?
Related Posts
- Linkage: Authorship, Allergies & Alternate History
- Frozen Shows
- Automattic Stats, or PHP 5.2.2 vs. WordPress XMLRPC
- The Trill of the Chase
- Geek Rivalries
23 Responses to “Trekking to the fridge”
By Daniel on May 8, 2004
I’d have to say Voyager is 25 cent generic cola and Enterprise is carbonated water.
By Kelson on May 8, 2004
Ouch!
I was just talking with Katie, and we started thinking about other sci-fi shows: Babylon 5 would have to be Pepsi, because of the intense Trek/B5 rivalry, and Farscape would have to be something like Mountain Dew or Dr. Pepper, because it’s so different from either of the other series.
By Daniel on May 8, 2004
I’d say Mountain Dew, what with all that caffeine, and all the crazy stuff that happens.
I suppose Harry Potter is Sprite, LOTR is 7-up. . .
By Katie on May 10, 2004
Hey…….I like 25-cent generic soda.
The books-first category has to be more expandable than just clear sodas. LOTR as Nehi Orange and Harry Potter as Cactus Cooler? Or maybe Shasta?
…..and if B5 is Pepsi, what happens to Moxie?
By Daniel on May 10, 2004
Well, in a lot of ways, I liked Voyager. But ultimately. it was cheap, and there’s much better stuff out there.
By Kizi on Jul 18, 2004
I suppose that makes Doctor Who a Supermarket brand cola then.
By Kizi on Aug 21, 2004
I don’t actually think Farscape is that different. It’s the same ingredients as, say, Voyager, but done in a completely different way.
By Daniel on Aug 21, 2004
Two or three of the same ingredients, anyway. Most of the ingredients are different.
By Kelson on Aug 21, 2004
I don’t know. Thomas Kinkade and Salvador Dali both use paint, and both have painted landscapes, but the end results are vastly different.
I only watched Voyager occasionally, but Farscape would regularly do things that no Trek would even consider.
By Kizi on Aug 22, 2004
That’s what I mean. But to say that Farscape as a formula is any different from Voyager (which I haven’t watched that devotedly either), just isn’t true.
By Daniel on Aug 22, 2004
Voyager and Farscape have two things in common:
1. They take place on starships.
2. The crews are lost in space looking for home.
That’s it. They’re much more different than the same, when it comes to character, plot, setting, pacing, costumes, special effects, make up, acting, directing, casting, you name it. What similarities there are between the shows are trivial and have practically nothing to do with what happens from one episode to the next.
Pick ANY one episode of each show, compare the two, and you’ll find the differences far outweigh the similarities.
By Kizi on Aug 23, 2004
You misunderstand me. My point is, if Gene Roddenberry made Farscape, you’d get Voyager. If the makers of Farscape made Voyager, you’d get Farscape. What makes Farscape brilliant and unique is not the formula itself, but the people who make it.
By Daniel on Aug 23, 2004
Okay. That’s better.
I guess the misunderstanding stems from the term “the formula,” which is vague and doesn’t really identify what part of the show you’re talking about.
By the way, Gene Roddenberry had nothing to do with Voyager. His contributions to Star Trek were higher quality.
By Kizi on Aug 25, 2004
What’s wrong with Voyager? (I haven’t seen the last three seasons)
By Daniel on Aug 26, 2004
Well, for one thing, it wasn’t interesting enough to compel you to watch the last three seasons.
For another, the characters were simplistic and bland. As was the storytelling.
By Kizi on Aug 26, 2004
It’s no worse than Enterprise.
By Daniel on Aug 26, 2004
That’s not saying much.
By Kizi on Aug 28, 2004
Well, I sat down and tried to think of something good about Voyager. I couldn’t.
By Daniel on Sep 1, 2004
Seven of Nine was fun to look at.
By Kizi on Sep 2, 2004
Reasons to like Voyager:
1. The holographic Doctor.
2. Janeway
3. The Borg
4. Seven of Nine
5. The crew
6. Err
By Daniel on Sep 6, 2004
1. The holographic Doctor–Yes, at first, and only occasionally thereafter, but the writers did a poor job of developing his character, so he was basically little more than the same schtick every time he showed up. Neurotic Data with more ego and less intellect.
2. Janeway–In concept, yes. In execution, no. Ultimately, she was little more than the person who made the decisions.
3. The Borg–They were much scarier in Next Gen.
4. Seven of Nine–No argument there.
5. The crew–This was perhaps the worst written crew of any Star Trek show ever. They were all simplistic and one dimensional cliches. Janeway, the bossy captain; Chakotay, the level-headed first officer; Paris, the thrill-seeking pilot; Torres, the temperamental Klingon; Doctor, the curmudgeonly doctor; Tuvok, the serious Vulcan; Neelix, the obnoxious pep-talker; Kim, the timid newbie; Kes, the wide-eyed child. Blah. Even when these characters “developed,” it was from one simple cliche to another. Boring boring boring.
By Kizi on Sep 6, 2004
The Borg are a crass copy of the Cybermen.
By Todd Derscheid on Dec 30, 2004
“Neelix, the obnoxious pep-talker; Kim, the timid newbie; Kes, the wide-eyed child.” There you go, all those characters sucked, and watching them gave me physical pain.