Author Topic: star trek  (Read 332833 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #840 on: October 05, 2017, 09:45:28 PM »
The concern is less about the type of episode like Charlie X aka the scenario, but again, the tone. The audience is left to come to their own conclusion. Should Charlie be put of his misery as a danger to mankind? Or should they keep trying to quell his god powers and at least try to have him transition back into human society as his birth right? Or maybe they were right to let him go and let him be his with the kind that did that to him? It is possible to come to each of these conclusions - even killing Charlie - as ethically sound and justifiable. What is the right answer? TOS lets you decide for yourself in spite of what happens.

TNG doesn't do that. Like you said, it devolves into lectures about what's right and it often lacks the tact, subtlety, and depth that is presented in TOS.

A big reason DS9 is so good is that it reverts back to TOS styled story depth. The character of Quark himself is a great example. It's possible and fairly reasonable for someone to not like Quark due to his misogyny and greed. But we are also lead to the possibility of empathizing with him in spite of this. You have episodes where Jake goes on a battlefield just to get a story and witnesses true terror, war, and death. But he was also lead there through his own selfishness to put himself and Bashir willingly in danger just for a good scoop.  Essentially, it's possible to find Jake selfish and immature, but also empathize with him because of those very qualities. Jake isn't a perfect person much like how the scenarios in TOS aren't perfect scenarios with bow wrapped endings. And I find a lot of the time thinking,"was that the right thing to do?" at the end of the episode just like with TOS.

TNG is a great show but its tone is extremely different from other Trek shows. Where there always only one answer and you get a moral of the day lecture at the end of it.

I won't begrudge someone preferring TNG for that reason but for my own tastes it's a step below TOS and especially DS9.

At the same time this makes me appreciate it a little more. Because being different has its own virtues and merits. Which is why I'm willing to give Discovery a fair chance despite episode 2 being dog shit.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #841 on: October 05, 2017, 10:06:24 PM »
I'm not sure any of those are possibilities for the crew of the Enterprise to decide, like most early TOS episodes they were essentially defeated. They had no agency in the decision or real solution, they were trying to buy for time.

In the TNG episode, Picard finds a loophole to leave it up to the boy. In DS9 Sisko simply orders him to the parents Sisko's chosen. Both had agency. Though I agree that Picard of a different season, especially the first one and a half seasons would have been less understanding.

Your comment at the end there reminded me of something I wanted to post earlier when it was mentioned, the first two episodes of Discovery are supposed to be effectively one two-part pilot episode. They were both going to air on CBS originally. At one point they even were talking about a two-hour premiere showing as a throwback to the prior shows getting that. I don't know what happened to that considering they released them both the same night.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #842 on: October 05, 2017, 10:29:06 PM »
Anyways been rewatching DS9 season 5 and last night made it to the episode where Kira's surrogate cardassian father comes. I love Kira so much. So much depth to her. She's a better example of what I want out of Trek than Quark. Is it right to be a terrorist when your people have been enslaved, imprisoned? If yes, at what cost? But if you're going to be a terrorist soldier for the movement is it right to do the dirty deeds, killing innocents? Does this make you a bad person when the race that has enslaved you has killed millions? If so, at what cost? Is it right to hate them? To the point where you run away from your problems rather than facing them because every day is another battle? I love Kira. I always say Worf is my favorite Star Trek character but she sometimes takes that place easily for me.

I really can't wait for Star Trek Discovery episode 4. I can't stop thinking how fun a character the Security Chief is. What a fun ass bitch. "Vulcans should stick to logic." Yaaaaaasssss bitch! :bow :lol
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #843 on: October 06, 2017, 12:10:57 AM »
My security chief is lighting up Reddit. People don't know what to think of her. She owns. I knew she'd be divisive. Lots to think about with this character.


https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/74ax62/starfleet_says_we_have_to_feed_the_animals_does/
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #844 on: October 06, 2017, 12:25:05 AM »
She's like the only thing I had in the like column for that episode

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #845 on: October 06, 2017, 09:35:53 AM »
Someone made a cool gallery of images from EP 3!

https://m.imgur.com/a/IatZ6
IYKYK


Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #847 on: October 06, 2017, 12:20:46 PM »
Jonathon Frakes directed an orville episode last night.

It was not good....but to be fair it was not good in the exact same way that TNG episodes were not good when they would introduce a random one episode love interest type which is what the episode was.


seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #848 on: October 06, 2017, 12:39:13 PM »
So wait, in the opening she's on a shuttle to a mining camp with a bunch of other scrubs? So starfleet both lack their own military prison, and are not just cool with slave labor but subject their own members to it?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #849 on: October 06, 2017, 12:45:28 PM »
So wait, in the opening she's on a shuttle to a mining camp with a bunch of other scrubs? So starfleet both lack their own military prison, and are not just cool with slave labor but subject their own members to it?

???

:confused

This is nothing new. Tom Paris was sent to prison. Same place as Bashir's father.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Penal_colony

Federation is advanced but they still have prisoners. This is the era before TOS. Federation having a mining prison is perfectly in line with that era's federation.
IYKYK

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #850 on: October 06, 2017, 02:58:58 PM »
I haven't seen TOS, but from that memory alpha article it makes it seem like the federation penal colonies were insane asylums?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #851 on: October 06, 2017, 04:18:52 PM »
Well, no. They were for all criminals and were used for labor or any other type of thing. Around the time of TOS they started to use more rehabilitative type of "punishment". But labor prison definitely fits the timeline of pre-TOS especially for a mutineer. By TNG they were able to successfully rehabilitate prisoners rather than use confinement;etc.

Even then. Ensign Ro in TNG was a prisoner I recall and that included labor work.

Speaking of Ro. Michael reminds me of Ro. Hopefully she gets as awesome.
IYKYK

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #852 on: October 06, 2017, 04:35:07 PM »
Jonathon Frakes directed an orville episode last night.

It was not good....but to be fair it was not good in the exact same way that TNG episodes were not good when they would introduce a random one episode love interest type which is what the episode was.



Is there an episode of the Orville where a leading female member of the crew gets abducted by alien tribals written by Katharyn Powers yet?

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #853 on: October 06, 2017, 09:27:42 PM »
Frakes has also directed a Discovery episode.

He also directed "Sub Rosa"

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #854 on: October 06, 2017, 10:35:29 PM »
Can't stop thinking of Discovery after ep 3. I'm hooked now. I might have to watch it again tomorrow. This is the first time I've ever had to wait week to week for Trek and it's maddening.

This article sounds great!

https://trekmovie.com/2017/10/06/exclusive-alex-kurtzman-on-pushing-edges-of-canon-and-planting-seeds-for-star-trek-discovery-season-2/
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #855 on: October 06, 2017, 11:02:15 PM »
Frakes has also directed a Discovery episode.

He also directed "Sub Rosa"

He also directed some nice episodes of Leverage, IIRC.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #856 on: October 07, 2017, 04:10:54 AM »
They got him for Castle and Nathan Fillion geeked out on him. :lol

He's done some other stuff like Burn Notice, NCIS, Falling Skies, etc. so he must not be too bad of TV director. Though he doesn't have any "tells" that I've ever noticed like how some people shoot certain stuff.

I watched a youtube of him and Marina Sirtis at a recent con (which somehow continues to be a great comedy duo all these decades later) and they were waiting for her to finish a call or something so he was just talking about the last thing he had done which was direct some show and that led to him talking about how he quickly became more interested in directing than acting around his Trek days. Though I guess he's back doing voice acting now too, he said he really enjoyed doing Gargoyles back in the day. Plus they get mad residuals so he can do it all for fun.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 04:19:09 AM by benjipwns »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #857 on: October 07, 2017, 04:29:27 AM »
a few years ago they were showing the 1980's Patrick Swayze mini-series North and South in some marathon on some channel, it's about Swayze and some other dude's friendships up to, through and then after the civil war which they're on opposite sides of...and my parents were watching it, i didn't really know what it was and after a few minutes suddenly this handsome fellow strolls in:



i was like, that Q and his time travel antics are at it again...then i remembered!

Quote
Colonel Thaddius Riker was a soldier in the Union Army during the American Civil War.
...
During the campaign, Colonel Riker was wounded at the Battle of Pine Mountain, Georgia, in late June 1864. He was carried back from the front line by another soldier who was actually discovered, in 2372, to be a Q who eventually referred to himself as "Quinn". They were photographed together shortly after this incident.

Without the actions of Quinn, there would have been no William T. Riker, which would have allowed the Borg to assimilate the Federation. (VOY: "Death Wish")
:lawd making up phony canon

now, if you'll excuse me, i need to write this into the canon for after i get hired to save the franchise following Discovery bombing:

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #858 on: October 08, 2017, 12:13:17 AM »
Just enjoyed the About a Girl episode of The Orville.  I imagine people who were expecting galaxy quest are continuously disappointed, but as a current Star Trek with overtones of complexity from TOS, it is really starting to shine.

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #859 on: October 08, 2017, 11:48:01 AM »
Orville Ep5

it's definitely the weakest episode so far, not terrible though.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
The practical joke was the real star of this episode. :dead
[close]
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 04:28:22 AM by D3RANG3D »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #860 on: October 08, 2017, 11:49:42 AM »
yeah it's the first time one of the jokes worked for me lol

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #861 on: October 08, 2017, 07:05:07 PM »
We talked about Frakes, but Robert Duncan McNeill (Tom Paris) directed the second episode and Brannon Braga himself directed "About a Girl" which means more Trek directors than not.

Orville got hurt by FOX's advertising which made it look more like a comedy than it is and got us Galaxy Questers probably too demanding, it's still kinda stuck with too many longer jokes I think which maybe Seth feels he needs to do, it'd do better with lines/quips and the overall vibe of the crew than with longer setups like the elevator joke in the episode prior. I like the sci-fi stuff quite a bit actually, that same episode's twist was fun and very Trek.

I know Seth tried to downplay the advertising after and said he wanted to do a homage show to where I wonder if the writing isn't like him doing the serious-ish stuff and then having some low rent Family Guy castoffs punching up the scripts with the dumb jokes to meet FOX's expectations. Though Seth has to have the power at FOX to be able to take control of a show like this considering the interference he ran for both American Dad! and The Cleveland Show against the network.

It's doing ratings comparable to Empire's premiere season apparently so hopefully it gets an early renewal and they can start fixing it up like American Dad experienced. It's obviously his baby. And Seth obviously can bring in tons of names to guest. So it could be increasingly exciting as it goes on.

But man are some of the reviews both brutal and totally missing the point:
Quote
Liz Miller writing for IndieWire compared the series to Star Trek, calling it a rip-off and "Creatively, Morally, and Ethically Bankrupt". She criticized the lack of creativity, the blatant imitation, and was surprised that the show is "uninterested in being a comedy".
:rofl

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #862 on: October 08, 2017, 09:38:12 PM »
Orville got hurt by FOX's advertising which made it look more like a comedy than it is and got us Galaxy Questers probably too demanding, it's still kinda stuck with too many longer jokes I think which maybe Seth feels he needs to do

I think the humour of the show has basically been in line with the humour that Macfarlane has displayed in previous works. His humour is strongly based on referential style humour (remember that nostalgia thing we all remember fondly) or fish out of water style humour. (what if regular dudes were in the wild west with how much it sucked to live back then!)

And subtly is not a strong suit of his. The jokes are going to be broad and generally not over the head of any portion of the audience. I'm not insulting him with that. That's just his track record. And while its not my favorite style of comedy, when he's on his game with it, it seems to attract a certain audience.

Orville has mostly been fine in the humour department when it reduces the number of jokes in an episode. In a perfect world the jokes that are there would be a lot smarter but I just don't think that is his style or strength.

But like I said, I think the show is mostly fine in the humour department. They just need to dump the stuff that doesn't work as they move into the future. Like the green blob voiced by Norm MacDonald. Less is more in this regard.

Trek has always had a sort of stuffiness attached to it which is fine but the best possible compliement I can give MacFarlane is that his humour can serve to ground the show. Trek can often feel too clinical. And humour helps to soften that.

Galaxy Quest works because it was a satirical homage to trek. The Orville is not satirical. It is absolutely an homage to TNG. So they just need to find that right balance of humour so that it has comedic touches and elements without it being obnoxious. Most of the time I've been fine with it. Occasionally the humour is cringey but hopefully MacFarlane gets a second season to respond to the inevitable feedback.

Trek shows tend to improve by their very nature because they tend to amp up what works and remove what doesn't as they go along.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #863 on: October 08, 2017, 10:53:39 PM »
Fairly mediocre episode of Discovery this week after enjoying the first three episodes quite a bit. Not Horrible. Just a meh one. Having to wait a week for serial style shows kind of sucks. Normally I just binge them after a season is done but I'm too big a trek fan to wait that long.

Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #864 on: October 09, 2017, 02:13:15 AM »
can't wait to hear queen's reaction to the latest ep    :picard

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #865 on: October 09, 2017, 03:07:17 AM »
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #866 on: October 09, 2017, 03:43:43 AM »
I really liked ep 4.

Two legacies handed down. From T'kuvma to Albino Klingon. Georgiana to Michael. Today's episode was a story about legacy. I really thought it was very Trek-y. Michael is tasked with doing actions for war when she's an explorer at heart. At first I was wondering where they were taking the episode, but I really think it worked in the end. It felt like one of those one off episodes where there's a central theme in the episode and it tackles that. Pretty good episode although a step below ep 3. Still, we're on the right direction. one thing has to be said is that it felt episodic and not like a serial episode. That episode could have been in any ST series. Thumbs up.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Poor Tardigrade! :( Poor baby!  :'(

WHY DID THEY KILL OFF MY SECURITY CHIEF. NOW WE WON'T GET A "MICHAEL YOU WERE RIGHT, EXPLORATION AND PEACE ARE THE WAY WE SHOULD DO THINGS" SCENE FUCK WHY INTRODUCE AN INTERESTING CHARACTER ONLY TO KILL THEM OFF?!
[close]
« Last Edit: October 09, 2017, 03:58:30 AM by Queen of Ice »
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #867 on: October 09, 2017, 03:57:36 AM »
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #868 on: October 10, 2017, 09:35:00 AM »
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #869 on: October 10, 2017, 10:10:59 AM »
Why is not one talking about discovery :(

Good thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/759sa4/its_not_darker_its_just_serialized/

Thread's about star trek. The Orville's also about star trek.

…but in related news, I picked up a Netflix subscription today, and I can already see a mess of shows that I won't need to buy on iTunes now, just so I can keep up in Japan!

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #870 on: October 10, 2017, 10:21:16 AM »
Said nothing of Orville. Just commenting that it feels like Stoney and I are the only people watching discovery and talking about it.
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #871 on: October 10, 2017, 10:43:33 AM »
Said nothing of Orville. Just commenting that it feels like Stoney and I are the only people watching discovery and talking about it.
To be more clear, Netflix is the channel for Discovery in Japan, so I'll be able to contribute shortly.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #872 on: October 10, 2017, 12:16:32 PM »
It's fully serialized, and even using the ol' USA two-part season format, not going to watch it weekly but at the act breaks. Especially after the pilot.

The harder part is going to be pulling this off with the show that returns tomorrow. But it's the one that taught me this is the better way.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #873 on: October 10, 2017, 01:19:41 PM »
Why is not one talking about discovery :(

Good thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/759sa4/its_not_darker_its_just_serialized/


its serialized so some people are going to wait to binge watch it, If you aren't using internet methods to watch it you would have to subscribe to that cbs subscription service to see it, etc. People will eventually watch it. It's Trek.


While its still very early in the season, my overall impressions are still quite strong. I enjoy it. The serial nature of it is also a big draw. We discussed this earlier and while I love the episodic nature of the old shows, a serial show is just the modern way to tell a story for modern audience. Its more engaging from a week to week perspective to see how things progress.

As far as the positives, the lead character for me has been the strongest positive from day 1. Some people like Burnham. Some people don't like Burnham. I'm firmly on the side of really liking the character from jump. She is a flawed character but a character that wants to do the right thing, is alienated from the crew, and is still finding herself. That's what your protagonist should be. They shouldn't be a finished product of awesomeness. They should grow and burnham gives room to grow and show conflict. The actress is doing a great job with the role imo, and its good for Trek that the main character isn't just the captain of the ship. I always thought Voyager blew what should have been a very interesting character in Tom Paris that was presented in the pilot, by immediately shaving off any conflict and just magically making everybody on voyager get along.

I also like the tone of this Trek. It does feel darker. It does feel more dangerous. And I appreciate that. The show just doesn't feel like a re-tread of that era of TNG/Deep Space/Voyager, etc. It feels like its own thing. With its own sensibilities. While I still want it to incorporate some more specific aspects of the old school trek, I've realized that I didn't want just another version of those old school shows. The Orville is fine and its an unabashed and unapologetic homage to TNG, but I would have been disappointed if this show had taken a similar route.

The show despite being in a long line of trek shows currently feels fresh and exciting and that's a very good thing for Trek. I stopped watching Trek on TV in the bad old days because it no longer felt fresh and it was no longer exciting.


As far as things I don't like or am questionable about....

I'm not sure about spending so much time on the Klingon side of the story. Not because the acting has been bad or anything. But mainly just because I'm not sure this show has the bandwidth to tell a Trek tale and also the tale of the enemy and do them both justice. Not saying it can't happen or that the goal isn't noble. I'm just wondering if by the end, the klingon story will feel fulfilling in the same way the federation story will most likely.

My other critique is one of my original ones. In such a strong serialized nature show, will they be able to create compelling side or one off content that the old trek was known for. With an impending timeline of destruction, its hard to spend the time and go off and do interesting side stuff. Everything is going to press into conflict with the Klingons. And maybe that will be the strong focus on this season. But at some point, I want there to be some down time, so they can do different kind of stories that aren't centered solely around conflict with the klingons.   

That's pretty much my opinion of the show so far. i personally don't care about things like redesign of klingons, or whether the show is committing enough to trek bible lore, or time period setting. My focus is mainly on whether the show "hooks" me or not. So far its hooking me. Hopefully that continues.

As I've said in the past I'm pretty happy with discovery and the orville for that matter. After a drought of Trek and those awful trek movies (my opinion), I have two shows that scratch that itch. I need to start watching the expanse. Lots of people seem to have good things to say about that show.   


benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #874 on: October 10, 2017, 01:39:42 PM »
My other critique is one of my original ones. In such a strong serialized nature show, will they be able to create compelling side or one off content that the old trek was known for. With an impending timeline of destruction, its hard to spend the time and go off and do interesting side stuff. Everything is going to press into conflict with the Klingons. And maybe that will be the strong focus on this season. But at some point, I want there to be some down time, so they can do different kind of stories that aren't centered solely around conflict with the klingons.
They don't intend on doing that. (That would not be fresh or exciting at all and give people a reason to skip episodes. It's also why they had Fuller leave for writing in too many distracting, allegorical or complex story elements.) This season is about the war with the Klingons. The downtime will be inbetween this season and next season. As next season, probably in mid-to-late 2019, will be a fully serialized season dealing with the outcome and effects of the war. The third season is intended to pick up from where that one ends.

The stuff you're looking for will be in the comics and novels. (The second of the latter will take place ten years before the show!)

Himu

  • Senior Member
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #877 on: October 11, 2017, 06:20:52 AM »
Watched the first episode of Star Trek: Discovery today.

I am loving it. I don't give a shit about re-writing Klingons /again/. I don't care that the tech is clearly more advanced than TOS. I don't care about them having the same robot on the bridge that The Orville has. It's fresh new Star Trek, and I am super excited to see so much care and energy, and having something serialized straight out of the gate.

Michael Burnham is a solid, interesting character, more nuanced and challenging than Tuvok's largely straight-up Spock imitation. The actress carries the role with understated grace. Saru is a fascinating take on biologically driven cowardice as a survival instinct, reminiscent of Larry Niven's Puppetmaster race. It's great to see Doug Jones get closer to center stage, even if he's still in a heap ton of make-up. I thought I saw Anthony Michael Hall as the holo-admiral, but it turns out to be a lookalike, Terry Serpico.

Going to watch ep. 2 soon. So far, so good…

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #878 on: October 11, 2017, 09:04:02 AM »
Nobody liked ep1 and 2 and if for sure gets better after so if you already like it you'll be in love with it.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #879 on: October 11, 2017, 10:56:40 AM »
Nah. I liked ep 1 a lot. I hated ep 2. 3 and 4 are pure Trek.
IYKYK

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #880 on: October 11, 2017, 03:36:59 PM »
I was bored so I watched the pilot movie for enterprise last night. I had never seen a single episode of that show. I was completely checked out of Trek at that point and just burned out on the whole franchise.

Its funny to watch now because its pretty clear they had kind of lost their way and had no idea who they should be exactly targeting as their audience. First of all that intro song.  :leon



An intro song and credits don't matter obviously but its just a sign that they were stretching hard to find their audience. It's like watching a Dr. Who episode from the disco era or something.

There is also a hilarious "sexy" shower scene that is just lol.



The basic concept of Trek in that era is actually interesting to me. And meeting a lot of the staple trek aliens for the first time is an interesting idea. At its core that's a pretty compelling idea to me. But you can tell the franchise is kind of running on fumes by this point and it can't match the ambition of the concept. Bakula seems okay as the captain. Dude is always likeable so I doubt he was the issue but since I didn't actually watch it, I'm not exactly sure what was its downfall beyond just general trek fatigue at that time.

I'll probably watch it along with discovery to fill that weekly void of waiting for the next episode.



« Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 03:41:39 PM by Stoney Mason »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #881 on: October 11, 2017, 05:01:28 PM »
On season 6 of DS9 rewatch. The God-tier season. :rejoice

Rewatching it I can understand why people don't like it. It's very dark. It's not hopeful. Federation is pushed to making gray choices. It isn't the future you would like to live in like it was with TNG. And yet, that's why I love it.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #882 on: October 11, 2017, 10:15:02 PM »
came across the real new star trek release for the bore:

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #883 on: October 11, 2017, 11:06:13 PM »
came across the real new star trek release for the bore:
(Image removed from quote.)
:teehee

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #884 on: October 12, 2017, 01:12:20 AM »
i can honestly say i was not at all looking for this specific thing

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #885 on: October 12, 2017, 03:05:48 PM »
Watched a few more enterprise episodes. I'm surprised. I actually kind of like it. I was expecting a real dumpster fire. It hasn't been that. I like the era. I even like most of the cast.

Outside of the pilot most of the episodes have been random standalone "lets go meet aliens" type plots which tend to be my favorite in trek so maybe it helps that it plays into my bias of what I want. I like that they don't have a solution for everything and they aren't the most technologically advanced compared to some other races unlike in most of the other treks. I like that they have a complex relationship with Vulcans whom they seem to resent at this time period for holding them back.

Like I said, I never followed enterprise when it was on so I never followed the fandom to understand their reception but I had assumed it was just a bad trek show. I certainly like it more than early voyager and probably more than early deep space nine. Maybe it goes off a cliff or something with plotlines as it goes on though or something...

I know in general everybody was feeling Trek fatigue at that time. I definitely remember that because I felt that way. Maybe that played a good portion into its reception.


chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #886 on: October 14, 2017, 12:41:16 AM »
Coincidentally, I've started watching Enterprise as well. I finally subscribed to Netflix here in Japan — it's only been here 2 years, but I thought I could get by on Amazon Prime. I WAS WRONG.

All the Star Trek, ever, is on Netflix. It's fantastic! I will probably diatribe all over this in the future, but I've had a long trek drought that is now being sated.

I'm only five episodes in, but Enterprise seems like a good show with a different direction from other Trek shows, with the possible exception of TOS. There's a grittiness and practicality to it, and again the occasional throwing of hands in the air when they don't know what to do. I like the cast, I think I'm going to be watching this instead of The Orville.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #887 on: October 14, 2017, 12:46:18 AM »
When I said "all the trek, ever," it even includes Filmation's animated series that went two seasons. I had never seen it.

I started with s1e1 Beyond the Farthest Star - it is an incoherent mess. I will resort to a guide for any valuable episodes.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #888 on: October 15, 2017, 03:55:27 AM »
Due to my illness, it's been nothing but TV around here, and I'm up to episode 12 of Enterprise now. Bakula is great, the bridge crew chemistry is fabulous, they haven't done any more extraneous "decontamination gel" scenes (though they've taken every chance they can to show of Jolene Blalock's figure (not that I'm complaining)), and the stories have been good.

It's been, more than TOS and possibly more than TNG, an ensemble show. There have been episodes which allow a spotlight to fall on each of the main cast, and a few of the secondary crew have even come into it for a bit.

On that, a sad note: I was wondering why I haven't seen anything further from Kellie Waymire, who played Crewman Cutler. She reminded me of a friend from college. I googled and it turns out she's my age, or would be; she passed from a cardiac arrest in 2003. Good god, she would have been only 33!

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #889 on: October 15, 2017, 10:15:27 AM »
I loved Trip, T'Pol, Hoshi, Malcolm and Travis from Enterprise.

Himu

  • Senior Member
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #891 on: October 15, 2017, 04:08:41 PM »
I loved Trip, T'Pol, Hoshi, Malcolm and Travis from Enterprise.
I liked this but then I realized you said Travis when you meant Phlox and had to unlike it.

I assume the Bakula love didn't need to be stated.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #892 on: October 15, 2017, 04:26:36 PM »
the bridge crew chemistry is fabulous
I still don't know if this was intentional. But it is very different from TNG/DS9/VOY where the crew has just gotten together and they meet each other as we meet them basically. And on the latter two we go through an extended period of SHOULD WE TRUST SO AND SO even though they never actually give reasons not to. (Except Garak. And Seska.)

Bakula has pre-existing relationships with many of them most notably Trip and Hoshi which is why he gets them for the ship, Travis and Malcom are said to be the best available and it's clear that Malcom at least has been spending time with Trip (and Travis) on the ship prior to the series and has met with Bakula. Even Phlox is taken on board because we see Bakula deliberately choose him, and then he sticks around and he gets along with everyone. T'Pol is there in her Vulcan role, but she's never set off like Seven or The Doctor or early Data as they all try to make her part of the crew, or in other cases call her out for not being part of the crew, while she also is the one with the role of calling out the others for their lack of familiarity with the space/species/etc. they're exploring.

T'Pol arguably also is the only true "first officer" in the series since Spock (who technically isn't in that role for TOS but serves it in the films), as she serves as Bakula's sounding board regularly and they debate privately but present (usually) a united command front. Chakotay gets his balls removed immediately and Kira is often forced to acquiesce to Sisko until their relationship reached a point where they're basically in sync anyway when Sisko ranks up into badass. Picard casts around for ideas but often leans on the expert in the field and debates are rare. Riker's role was somewhat different as shown in the command structure of that ship among all of them really, probably because of Picard's style. I mean, after the first season or so when he's kinda weird.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #893 on: October 15, 2017, 10:11:55 PM »
Yeah, exactly!

Beardless Riker is basically a Kirk stand-in, waiting to be reigned in by Picard's stately, by-the-book manner. I never understood what Chakotay was supposed to be, other than having a cool face tattoo, which is quickly superseded by 7-of-9's badass FACE DEVICE. Okay, to be honest, Chakotay suffered from the same thing Worf did: "show how tough the _____ is by having it beat up Worf!" In this case, "Show how tough Janeway is, she can override even this handsomely tattooed Native American refrigerator!"

I like that Archer consults with T'Pol frequently, she gives him the information she's allowed, and it is RARELY the thing Archer wants to hear.

I finished the "Dear Doctor" episode yesterday, with the beginnings of what would become the Prime Directive. It gave me goosebumps. I'm such a damned nerd.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #894 on: October 15, 2017, 10:13:35 PM »
Holy shit, tonight's Discovery was fantastic.
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #895 on: October 15, 2017, 10:18:17 PM »
Holy shit, tonight's Discovery was fantastic.

Ooh, a new episode! I have been wondering when the Netflix' "NEW EPISODE" banner would actually be true!

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #896 on: October 15, 2017, 10:25:29 PM »
The show is pure Trek! Tonight we had: ethical dilemma, badass captain, great character moments and drama. It felt self contained yet still pushed the serial storyline forward. It was utterly fantastic and the fact it's not on the air where it deserves and is hidden behind some fucking stream service pisses me off.

This is shaping up to be the best first season of Star Trek since TOS. Every episode is better than the last. I cannot wait for next weeks.
IYKYK

naff

  • someday you feed on a tree frog
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #897 on: October 15, 2017, 10:50:57 PM »
I didn't really 'get' Discovery til the 3rd episode. I was still going to keep watching it, but ep. 3 gave me hope i would genuinely enjoy the show. At first i was not enthused, and thought it was going to shape up to be a low budget abrams-verse tv knock-off akin to a fairly generic syfy channel production with a high budget sheen and star trek branding. Glad the latest eps are proving that wrong  :hump

spoiler (click to show/hide)
I really thought the Security officer had potential alongside Michael. Felt strange to get rid of her so unceremoniously. I wasn't sad to see Michelle Yeoh get the boot, stiff af in the first few eps.
[close]
« Last Edit: October 15, 2017, 10:55:33 PM by naff »
◕‿◕

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #898 on: October 15, 2017, 10:51:20 PM »
I like that Archer consults with T'Pol frequently, she gives him the information she's allowed, and it is RARELY the thing Archer wants to hear.
One thing I thought they did well was setting up T'Pol's multiple and shifting loyalties, she starts off only telling them what they need to know and reporting back to the Vulcan's everything, but she slowly starts to recognize that she may have a more ideal and independent role to play. One of season four's better arcs is like the capstone of her character arc.

Quote
I never understood what Chakotay was supposed to be, other than having a cool face tattoo, which is quickly superseded by 7-of-9's badass FACE DEVICE. Okay, to be honest, Chakotay suffered from the same thing Worf did: "show how tough the _____ is by having it beat up Worf!" In this case, "Show how tough Janeway is, she can override even this handsomely tattooed Native American refrigerator!"
Well, the whole Maquis crew thing was mostly ignored, they were supposed to disagree and provide conflict. But Janeway and Torres finish each others sentences in the second episode, she's made chief engineer, and it's never brought up again except for a random episode where Tuvok can order them around due to lack of discipline, and then Seska's arc which was just stupid. They never did any serious kind of mutiny episode despite Janeway's endless opportunities for the other 170 people on the ship to go hey, wait a minute here....just that reveal of Tuvok's entirely sensible simulation program.

The funny thing with Chakotay was that he always came across as the more reasonable and patient commander who had made a principled decision to join the Maquis; while Janeway was impulsive and stranded both crews as a result and regularly made shady line crossing or proposals that Chakotay and Tuvok would meekly oppose in private but then support as the second-in-commands.

Robert Beltran has all kinds of interviews and stuff out there, especially after the show ended, where he talks about how terrible the character and show writing was and how bad it got with especially Chakotay or Kim. And I've seen Garret Wang say similar things and noted how Jeri Ryan was arguably the best of them all because she came in halfway through the show, given the role of Seven, essentially made into a co-star with Janeway and The Doctor, not to mention a blatant sex symbol, and that initially many of the cast kinda shunned her since she was getting stuff actually written for her as a character and Mulgrew was never particularly nice to her, but Ryan never complained and eventually won over most of them even if they still all hate the character of Seven, they were able to separate Ryan from Seven. You'll often see that in interviews, they're asked what they hated and all say Seven but quickly say something nice about Ryan. :lol

I think Robert Picardo is the only one who gives a different answer and admits it's because it gave him a whole bunch of extra scenes and a new aspect to his character being her mentor. I think I watched a panel once where he answered first and gives a non-negative answer about Seven and Wang cuts in with something like "yeah, because you got to spend a whole bunch of time with Jeri in that outfit, acting, unlike the rest of us" :rofl

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #899 on: October 15, 2017, 10:53:31 PM »
I didn't really 'get' Discovery til the 3rd episode. I was still going to watch it, but ep. 3 really gave me hope i would genuinely enjoy the show.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
I really thought the Security officer had potential alongside Michael. Felt strange to get rid of her so unceremoniously. I wasn't sad to see Michelle Yeoh get the boot, stiff af in the first few eps.
[close]

I don't think there's much to "get". Eps 1 and 2 were pilots. 3 and up are the real show.
IYKYK