Reddit Reddit reviews The Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers

We found 14 Reddit comments about The Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Arts & Photography
Books
Performing Arts
The Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers
ISBN13: 9780440505716Condition: NewNotes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Tracking provided on most orders. Buy with Confidence! Millions of books sold!
Check price on Amazon

14 Reddit comments about The Nitpicker's Guide for Next Generation Trekkers:

u/begege · 20 pointsr/DaystromInstitute

Honestly? Here - this will tell you like every single inconsistency in the entire series - there's tons of them: http://www.amazon.com/Nitpickers-Guide-Next-Generation-Trekkers/dp/0440505712

The moon is very populated in Star Trek - but special effects cost money - like making the moon look like it's covered in colonies. TNG is back before good CGI so it's not like they could just have their 3d populated moon model and throw it into any scene they wanted quickly with computers. The special effects utilized in TNG are expensive techniques - minor details like making sure the moon colonies are visible often just get ignored.

u/_badwithcomputer · 12 pointsr/startrek

I remember having these books


When your universe has multiple editions of encyclopedias published it is sort of expected.


Though at the same time when the writers have access to the same encyclopedias in order to maintain continuity.

u/SovAtman · 9 pointsr/startrek

> We all need to be more respectful no matter what side of the argument we land on. If you don't like something about some incarnation of the franchise, by all means voice that opinion, but please don't insult the artists who have spent time making it. Don't insult your fellow fans who might actually enjoy it. And don't try to invalidate it by re-labeling it.

I really appreciate the call to be more respectful, and that "true trek" is this pretty flexible and personal metric, people watch it for different reasons. I think part of it is that there's plenty of trek fans that just enjoy, fulfillingly or not, being really analytical about the whole thing. I remember being a kid watching Voyager, loving it, but then also nitpicking it with my friends the next day. It's really a big part of the passion.

I mean this is a thing and it's a freaking text book and I had it as a kid and read it for fun.

This is different than how civil our approach is, and whether we're being respectful, but ultimately it's a pretty big sign of passion that you'd care this much to get into it.

> I am a real fan of Star Trek. And I am pretty sure that if you are taking time to post in this forum, you are too.


So yeah, that's beautiful.


But I do want to say in defence of nitpicking, whether you think its fair or not: since it's very inception Star Trek has been surrounded by people in the industry who just really did not like it and wanted to change it. From the network down to the directors, and sometimes the cast itself. They politically and professionally disagreed with so much of it. The sets, costumes, stories and message. It's something that, to me at least, starts to explain a lot when you see it, and I started to see it a lot more places than I expected when I knew to look for it. There's tons of anecdotal stories about the whole thing from the cast and crew. But I think what kind of tied it together in a sorta shocking way was watching the Chaos on the Bridge documentary in which you see former working mates, decades after his death, still kinda shit-talking Gene straight to the camera.

Now the thing is before I watched this I had very little background knowledge about Trek's production, I just watched the show as a kid, loved Janeway and Picard, and only kinda got back into it years later when a partner got me back into the reruns. I caught this documentary just channel surfing on TV and the thing I remember was the producers, directors and writers still kinda condemning Gene for many things he chose that ultimately turned out to be true. How he went through teams of writers because just nobody could understand writing a show not based on interpersonal conflict, until he could collect a group willing to at least give it a shot, and from their spawn the whole franchise.


I guess my feeling is this. It's unfair to fight with fans about what is and isn't Trek. But there are people in the industry who aren't fans, or maybe make a pretty poor justification for it, who are making decisions that manifest in the franchise. And you can see the changes. You can. Sometimes they're small, sometimes they're huge, but we can see them and it hurts. Because for different reasons it can be things that are very important to people. Maybe it's little things like Uhura not getting to wear her rank or larger things like destroying one of Star Trek's most iconic homeworlds just for shock value and a rarely-referenced plot device ("they literally blew up logic" was what my partner said at the time). But the issue is these aren't just mistakes and negligence on some people's part, these issues are in the series because a portion of those people actually believe this is how the show should be. They've disagreed with the iconic efforts the show has made since its inception.


The new ST: Beyond was really reassuring. Regardless of the volume and form fan criticism has taken is justified, it seemed like they listened. Hell, they even did reshoots, and they fixed some things. The characters are softer and more balanced, the message is more positive, the tech is more serious while still being fun, and Uhura gets a freaking rank again (not to mention better screen time). But the new movie opens (minor spoiler) with a toast between McCoy and Kirk in which McCoy says “To perfect eyesight and a full head of hair". Which seems quaint and anachronistic in a way that perfectly represents the efforts of the new Trek movies. But I gotta say I kinda was instantly reminded of this quote from Patrick Stewart, who was genuinely emotional about his early baldness when he was a young actor:

> [Stewart] expressed gratitude for Gene Roddenberry's riposte to a reporter who said, "Surely they would have cured baldness by the 24th century," to which Roddenberry replied, "In the 24th century, they wouldn't care."

Yeah I seriously doubt this opening "toast" in ST:B was a direct shot at the later Captain of the Enterprise (and his Chief Engineer). I just think it was maybe oddly careless. And I do kinda believe the production behind Star Trek now probably believes being bald sucks and would still suck for the crew of the Enterprise. But beyond that maybe it means they wouldn't make the same argument Gene did, and would have never cast the same actors (or roles) a second time-around.

As much as I enjoyed ST:B, I'm afraid that some carelessness and the rare intentional malice is around in the franchise. And not because of the fans, but because of the non-fans who want to "be fans" of a thing they never liked in the first place.

But yeah I appreciate your post as it pertains to this forum, I just don't think there's no place for discussing Star Trek's tekkyness by people who care about it. It's how we do it that's important though.

u/AngrySpock · 4 pointsr/DaystromInstitute

As with all nitpicking threads, I feel the need to shout out to Phil Farrand's Nitpickers Guides from the 90s. Here's the one for TNG. He also did TOS, TNG Vol. 2, and DS9 through Season 4. He did one for some of the X-Files too.

OP, if you like finding the little inconsistencies in Star Trek, I highly recommend seeing if you can find these guides.

u/[deleted] · 3 pointsr/scifi

If you are a fan of star trek (particularly TNG), you should already own this book.

u/DrMcRobot · 1 pointr/startrek

I think you'd enjoy this book.

u/VonAether · 1 pointr/pics

You have to understand the mind of a nerd.

Numerous books and websites exist to nitpick Star Trek episodes. Do the people who buy these books hate Star Trek? Not at all, we do it because we love it so much.

Likewise, the programmers among us aren't ripping apart your cake because we hate it. We're picking apart the code syntax because it's a fucking awesome cake. Keep up the awesome work.

u/stacecom · 1 pointr/startrek

I have volume 1 and 2 of this. You would like it.

u/sillyquiet · 1 pointr/DaystromInstitute

This sort of thing has a long, long history in Star Trek fandom.
I wouldn't get too upset about it; like the cliche about there being no light without darkness, it's easier to recognize and laud good Trek when we identify what makes for bad Trek.