Author Topic: star trek  (Read 334808 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #780 on: September 25, 2017, 11:49:38 PM »
One concept that almost assuredly would never be done but I'd love to see would be a season set within say the Romulan Empire or Klingon Empire or whoever. And that's it. No Federation.

But with lots of all the other races within those territories. It's silly that the show has always acted as if The Federation and The Dominion are the only star empires that we're to believe have multiple races within them. The Klingons and Romulans may dominate all the levers of power, just like the Founders in the Dominion or the humans and Vulcans do in the Federation (:teehee) but there's obviously other races in all that territory.

Even the Son'a are shown to have multiple subjugated races in Insurrection. And they were like the white trash tier of Alpha Quadrant powers.

Hell, actually now that I think about it, powers on Voyager were shown to have more diverse makeups.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #781 on: September 26, 2017, 12:40:39 AM »
I mean I knew it would be shit (and when I said shit I obviously meant a shit star trek, not shit on it's own) and here it is. Seems like an okay time waster but it's not what I need trek to be, and yes I'm going to trigger some of you, The Orville is actually better trek.

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #782 on: September 26, 2017, 01:44:53 AM »
Go fuck yourself benji!

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #783 on: September 26, 2017, 01:32:12 PM »
Hey the President of the Federation is that weird dog nose alien dude in DS9 :maf

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Though everyone knows the best President was Scott Bakula
[close]

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #784 on: September 27, 2017, 01:16:34 AM »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #785 on: September 27, 2017, 01:20:09 AM »
"except when she can't"

:lol Troi :lol

IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #786 on: September 27, 2017, 02:26:26 AM »
I liked the first episode.

Things I like:

- Good sense of discovery. We start on an alien planet with our two leads stranded on a planet. Classic Star Trek situation. Then we have contact with an unknown object that forces the Federation to see what it is. Exploring the unknown, that's what Trek is all about. I loved that and gave the show a sense of danger and adventure even if it was impossible for the main character to die then.

- Some good dialogue.

- Really good production values.

- Great monologue from first officer.

Things I didn't l like:

- The title sequence. Star Trek series opening with the ship not in the stars and space? What kind of fuckery is this?

- The design of the Klingons, holy shit. My favorite non-human ST race...butchered! The fact they don't have hair, the crazy face shape, it's all shit.

- The fact it's a prequel. It doesn't make any sense at all. What about Kitomer? Why the fuck would Klingon's team up for this? We have a long time between TOS and TNG and Klingon's and the Federation were at peace that entire time. Why is this necessary? This is stupid. I feel the show would have been so much better if it took place like 50-100 years after Voyager/First Contact. Keep the general outline of the show: Vulvan influenced human lead, Federation meets some new life form whose first inclination is for war. This would be interesting because it'd show Klingons and how their honor and combat lust has evolved over the years while still allowing them to have a new race of blood thirsty fuckers. The premise isn't bad. What's bad is the redundancies: another Klingon war isn't necessary, and if they wanted it to be a prequel making the villains Klingon isn't necessary.

- I balk at TNG's lack of drama, but that much discord between Federation officers makes no sense.

Still, I liked what I saw despite my complaints and look forward to episode 2.
IYKYK

Yeti

  • Hail Hydra
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #787 on: September 27, 2017, 09:12:24 AM »
Vulvan influenced human lead,

So the lead is a Kirk/Riker archetype?
WDW

Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #788 on: September 27, 2017, 12:34:29 PM »
can someone explain the sandstorm opening to me?

they say they can't contact the ship because of the storm, so they trace the federation symbol (I think?) into the sand, which is supposed to alert the ship to their location... except 1. wouldn't the sandstorm blow away the footprints?? and 2. how could the ship even see it as the planet was covered in clouds (in the scene it shows the ship literally appearing through the clouds...)

did I miss something or was this just shitty writing?

Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #789 on: September 27, 2017, 12:35:50 PM »
Vulvan influenced human lead,

So the lead is a Kirk/Riker archetype?

lol no

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #790 on: September 27, 2017, 01:32:54 PM »
can someone explain the sandstorm opening to me?

they say they can't contact the ship because of the storm, so they trace the federation symbol (I think?) into the sand, which is supposed to alert the ship to their location... except 1. wouldn't the sandstorm blow away the footprints?? and 2. how could the ship even see it as the planet was covered in clouds (in the scene it shows the ship literally appearing through the clouds...)

did I miss something or was this just shitty writing?

They had an hour until the storm would hit them. The footprints I can maybe see. But yeah, I have no idea how the ship caught it, but whatever.
IYKYK

toku

  • 𝕩𝕩𝕩
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #791 on: September 27, 2017, 02:08:02 PM »

Rahxephon91

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #792 on: September 27, 2017, 10:29:11 PM »
Kind of sucks that they kill off Michelle Yheoh. Kind of wanted to watch it solely because she was in it.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #793 on: September 28, 2017, 01:26:11 AM »
Thanks, various dickheads, for including spoilers without spoiler-tagging it.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #794 on: September 28, 2017, 07:29:02 AM »
Quote
Alex Kurtzman answered a question about balancing what to keep from classic Star Trek with what new elements to bring in for Discovery:
Quote
First and foremost, the defining factor of Roddenberry’s vision is the optimistic view of the future. He envisioned a world where all species, all races came together to not only make our world better, but to make every world better. I think that is something that can never be lost in Trek. Once you lose that, you lose the essence of what Star Trek is.

That being said…we live in very different times. Every day we look at the news and it is hard. It is hard to see what we see. I think now more than ever Trek is needed as a reminder of what we can be and the best of who we can be. Star Trek has always been a mirror to the time it reflected and right now the idea that – the question is how do you preserve and protect what Starfleet is in the weight of challenge like war and the things that have to be done in war is a very interesting and dramatic problem. And it feels like a very topical one given the world where where we live now.
I keep coming back to this Kurtzman quote, been turning it over on idle moments since I came across it while posting that post. There's something about it that is incredibly fascinating to me as to how he sums his vision of the dramatic concept of this series.

And he's obviously way more successful than I am. Bobby Roberts is probably more successful than I am in any of this. But it seems like it belies a fundamental misunderstanding of not only Trek as a franchise (or really any series), but the history of the real world and also producing successful dramatic story. Even more than that his own notions of what Trek is supposed to be literally two seconds earlier.

I only have Kurtzman's Trek to go off of, but he comes off with desiring a fetishistic glamorization of war for its bad parts. "The things that have to be done in war." And in the other quote how the second season will bring with it from the war "the things that are left behind; the casualties, the things that have grown in Starfleet as a result of the war"

He says Roddenberry's vision is optimistic, which okay fine, but then he says "we live in very different times. Everyday we look at the news and it is hard." And it's like what in the holy fuck. Gene served in World War II even if most of it was in the US. The show came about literally a couple years after the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the two superpowers to nearly annihilate each other. A President had just been assassinated. The Civil Rights Movement had passed its glory days and was entering into the reaction period of the later 1960s. And that nuclear annihilation was hanging over everything. Even if we just take something dominating the media zeitgeist like the position of minorities for example, in the United States, it's terrible and imperfect and yes, hard. But it's a far cry from the events happening in the 1960's in the United States. It's a far cry globally from where we were as humanity in the 1960's. Practically nowhere is it as hard as then.

And then he goes on to talk about how you preserve Trek's optimism in the face of a war; how it has to mirror the times. But it can't.

We aren't in a war now.

Not a real one.

Not like the one or the world everyone associated with old Trek lived through before they got to Trek. Nothing on that scale. Just take the main cast ffs: George Takei spent time as a kid in an internment camp, his Japanese relatives died in the Hiroshima bombing. Jimmy Doohan fought in and was seriously wounded during D-Day. DeForest Kelley barely avoided having to serve overseas being just young enough to get to serve in the US. Both Shatner and Nimoy came from Jewish families that fled Eastern Europe because of oppression/war. Nichelle Nichols was not only black but a woman. And that's the actors who for the most part all had fairly charmed lives to get to their positions (even Nichols family was well off enough that her dad was a mayor! A black mayor in the 1940s!) while the rest of the people doing the show had all kinds of experiences. Literally everyone involved came through the Depression. You're probably not going to find anyone to write for, let alone star in the show today who has those level of experiences. There's only so many Rob Riggles around who can fall into the industry right after being a deployed Marine and even he (and John Oliver's awesome wife) didn't see the war of the type we're talking about for the show.

"The things that have to be done in war." DS9 dealt with this, and in the only way possible, an endless tragedy for everyone. Everyone's morals and morale is broken, an entire species has nearly been wiped out and the show makes us feel for them despite them being the bad guys from day one (and despite their two representative characters for the end story arc being the most blatantly grey or worse characters on it), another race was targeted for deliberate genocide (let alone what the Federation was going to let happen in the Gamma Quadrant as a result from the Dominion collapsing), pretty much all the main characters relationships have been shattered during and by the war and personal sacrifices are made to the very end. The Romulans aren't friends now because of the war and don't stick around to celebrate. The Klingons are putting on a brave face, but as the show multiple times indicates they are finished as a power, maybe for generations, because of the war and their ways. (Their entire government was overthrown just recently in a conference room by their new Federation ambassador.)

There's no optimism and "a reminder of what we can be and the best of who we can be" in weighing the challenge of war and "the things that have to be done." There can't be. War is inherently a failure, a disaster. Especially an intergalactic one.

You have literally the universe given to you and you want to explore war? You'll never explore it even on the level of something like Homeland has done. You can't deal with the consequences like you claim other than to revel in the suffering of certain characters. Real war tears apart societies on a level you can never do on a show where you want to keep the main cast and keep the main premise well past it.

And again DS9 already did all this and pushed it to the brink of where it could go before we tumble over an event horizon of no return. The Federation was literally prepared to commit genocide and bring about the collapse of an entire civilization that had the potential to kill untold trillions because it could not fight the war indefinitely. (And they didn't even know what havoc Janeway was unleashing in the Delta Quadrant at the time.) An idea which, by the way, you'll recall was already less successfully attempted by two "bad" powers. And for all the wartime ethics "In A Pale Moonlight" toys around with which Garak rightly points out has been a line they've crossed many times in the past and Sisko knew he would be crossing from the start, in the end, Sisko risks literally everything, trillions upon trillions of lives, on Bashir successfully getting the cure from Sloane's mind AND Odo being able to convince the Founders to end the war in exchange. DS9 had to end because they couldn't cover the aftermath of what they DID do, especially on Cardassia, let alone wrestle with what they nearly did.

If your Trek is premised on exploring "the things that have to be done in a war" because we "live in very different times ... the news ... is hard" and your previous Trek films featured a faction of the Federation determined to be prepared for the next war (after untold billions died to a Romulan ship from a future alternate timeline) that is utterly ruthless and prepared to slaughter anyone to pursue this goal pre-emptively then I'm not sure how your Trek is going to ever be optimistic or about exploration or about really anything but just brutal terrible suffering for everyone in just crudely and clumsily handled ways.

You can't do a Trek Band of Brothers then follow those same people into charting nebula, visiting planets full of drugs that blast everybody in the face and meeting aliens who base their entire society around a gangster novel. Let alone stop in the middle of it to play some baseball with jerkass Vulcan crews. Wait.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #795 on: September 28, 2017, 07:45:31 AM »
Quote
Noting that the Klingons historically represented the Soviet Union, becoming friendlier with the protagonists of Star Trek as the Cold War ended, Harberts stated that in Discovery they and Starfleet would represent different factions within the modern United States, explaining that "what we really wanted to do too is understand two differing points of view and really explore it ... I frankly love what they represent. Not in terms necessarily of all the messaging, but in terms of learning about them and learning why they are who they are and making sure they aren't just the enemy. And then finding a way to come together. How do we bring everyone back together? What do we do? What does it take? It is a big challenge for us, but that is what season one is all about."
Quote
Berg elaborated that "one of the themes we are exploring is universal and is a lesson I feel like as human beings we have to learn over and over again—is you think you know ‘the other,' but you really don't. You have to sort of cognitively re-frame or break or deviate from your own point of view to really understand. You have to forget what you knew before. One of the big steps in that journey is how to understand yourself. You have to understand yourself before you can better see others. The show is called Discovery and it is called Discovery for a reason, because our characters are on a journey."
Quote
"One of the driving forces of this war was to not vilify either side. The show is often told from both points of view ... there are significant sections of the narrative that are purely from the Klingon point of view and in Klingon. That allows the audience to participate in the debate of who is right and who is wrong."
—Executive producer Akiva Goldsman on approaching the Federation-Klingon war from both sides
okay but what about the half of the season with harry mudd in it

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #796 on: September 28, 2017, 12:20:47 PM »

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #797 on: September 28, 2017, 07:59:41 PM »
I liked about half of the first episode, and I'm gonna hold of going too in depth for now, but I have to say; this show is shot in seemingly the absolute most obnoxious way possible. The lens flares in shots that have no direct lightsource, the camera never sitting the fuck still ever, the CONSTANT dutch angles -  it's like if Vince McMahon was directing a big budget sci-fi show.

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #798 on: September 28, 2017, 08:16:02 PM »
Space Seed  :whoo :lawd

I'm about ready to skip to the Wrath of Khan movie now

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #799 on: September 28, 2017, 10:00:21 PM »
IIRC their script for the third one got thrown in the trash and they broke up shortly after that, never to be heard from again

Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #800 on: September 28, 2017, 11:57:37 PM »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #801 on: September 29, 2017, 12:45:21 AM »
here we go bois

BobFromPikeCreek

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #802 on: September 29, 2017, 06:49:14 PM »
Can't wait to watch. Mike's opinion is the one I've been waiting for.
zzzzz

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #803 on: September 29, 2017, 07:53:04 PM »
the CONSTANT dutch angles
The funny thing about this is that both TOS and Batman used these originally on purpose in a specific way. Batman used them to signify they were the villains scenes (Batman, Police HQ, etc. are straight) and Trek pulled them out for "weird science stuff is happening" to where even now I'm doubting my own memory as to how often they descended into them constantly by the third season.

Both shows have sorta the same budgetary arc and introduce a new regular to bring in the hip kid viewers (Chekov, Batgirl) and the third season essentially only has preexisting sets or some oddly shaped walls they threw together and painted. TOS got away with a lot because of the way they could reconfigure and shoot the same hallway set (to where this became standard practice on TV, let alone Trek) but Batman was stuck with that half a street set they couldn't change anything but the signs or something. Reminded me of Seinfeld before they got their larger New York street sets (and hijacked others from other shows) and you have that like half a block section of the street they reuse most notably in the episode where George and the other bald guy get into the parking dispute.
IIRC their script for the third one got thrown in the trash and they broke up shortly after that, never to be heard from again
Kurtzman is co-creator of STD and one of the writers. The only reason he probably isn't the showrunner nor directed any episodes is because he had to go direct The Mummy.

The only thing Orci's managed since they broke up was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_(U.S._TV_series)

Kurtzman wasn't coming back for the third movie anyhow and Abrams was out because of Star Wars and not knowing how long that would take, so Orci wanted to write and direct it and pulled a powerplay gamble with Paramount thinking he had leverage which is what led to them asking Simon Pegg to do a script from scratch who was like "fuck yeah" and Orci still wasn't budging so Paramount was like, okay...we'll just go hire the Fast and Furious guy to direct. Orci got himself so shitbinned by Paramount they didn't even invite him in for producer credits STD let alone anything else, only Kurtzman.

But Into Darkness was always supposed to lead into a Federation-Klingon War under Orci and Kurtzman's outline which the comics were working off of. (That's why they're in the movie too, to introduce them.)

Until Pegg and Jung started completely from scratch, even beyond scratch since Pegg said they considered the whole Khan blood thing to be non-canon. :lol

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #804 on: September 29, 2017, 07:55:30 PM »
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/09/29/star-trek-discovery-divides-fan-base-with-controversial-nfl-protest-pic.html
Quote
The cast of "Star Trek: Discovery" caused controversy among their fans when they took a side on the heated #TakeaKnee debate.

One of the show's stars, Sonequa Martin-Green, posted the picture of the cast on Instagram earlier this week kneeling with the caption, "#StarTrekDiscovery #takeaknee."

The snap was met with a heated exchange from social media followers.

One user lashed out at the cast writing, "Hi! We are Star Trek Morons. We have no originality. We TakeAKnee because most NFL dimwits with 8th-grade level mentality do it too!"

Another said their actions turned them off from watching the series, "I'm a Star Trek fan but not of your show. #notwatching."

But someone defended the political stance, "Bravo Star Trek Discovery crew, I have a good feeling Gene Roddenberry would agree with you. And bye fake fans our show doesn't need you!"
Quote
kathyannsummers  This is sad. I had looked forward to watching this series but can no longer plan to do so. Hello, goodbye.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #805 on: September 29, 2017, 07:57:36 PM »

COFFEE STAIN

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Mike's theory that it actually takes place after DS9 and in the Abramsverse :lawd
[close]

Re: star trek
« Reply #806 on: September 30, 2017, 12:47:45 PM »
I disagree strongly that Discovery is beautiful. Throwing a bunch of color filters, dutch angles and stupid ass lens flares so Senpai Jones will notice you does not equal beautiful. It's straight garbage, visually speaking. Irredeemable garbage. Absolute fucking trash.


Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #807 on: October 01, 2017, 11:48:32 PM »
no one watch the new ep yet?

I'm waiting it to come on a ... streaming service... myself  :doge

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #808 on: October 02, 2017, 12:38:31 AM »
^ It's already on streaming services lol. I'll watch it tonight

Jenkem

  • MARANAX INFIRMUX
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #809 on: October 02, 2017, 01:14:26 AM »
I watched it.. this feels even less like Star Trek than the previous 2 eps... the new captain is a total dick, and the science researcher is a dick.. EVERYONE IS A FUCKING ASSHOLE IN THIS SHOW..

I thought there would be some redemption arc with Michael or some means to make the audience root for her, but the first thing she does is act like a jerk (6 months after she was arrested) and breaks into a science project on the ship... 

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #810 on: October 02, 2017, 01:21:08 AM »
Even if it becomes more of a clusterfuck, it's star trek, i'm a trekkie. I'll hate watch it so I can slander it online at the very least.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #811 on: October 02, 2017, 02:03:34 AM »
Even if it becomes more of a clusterfuck, it's star trek, i'm a trekkie. I'll hate watch it so I can slander it online at the very least.
As your attorney I'm required to inform you that it's only slander if it is not only damaging but also false.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #812 on: October 02, 2017, 02:06:00 AM »
Even if it becomes more of a clusterfuck, it's star trek, i'm a trekkie. I'll hate watch it so I can slander it online at the very least.
As your attorney I'm required to inform you that it's only slander if it is not only damaging but also false.
As your attorney I'm required to inform you not to dispense legal advice to, let alone legally represent others on the internet as you don't possess a license to practice law in any "official" jurisdiction.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #813 on: October 02, 2017, 02:54:25 AM »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #814 on: October 02, 2017, 02:56:29 AM »
In other news, The Orville continues to be great. Episode 3 and 4 are quite a bit better than the first two. Bore star trek thread #triggered

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #815 on: October 02, 2017, 03:27:53 AM »
In other news, The Orville continues to be great. Episode 3 and 4 are quite a bit better than the first two. Bore star trek thread #triggered

It's early on both but I'm enjoying Discovery and Orville.

I think the first Orville episode was the worst by quite a bit. Episode 2, 3, 4 have been fine. The humour is still often hit or miss for me but the actual show is pretty solid. I like that Discovery isn't necessarily TNG 2.0 but if someone is looking for TNG 2.0, the Orville is serving that audience fine. The show has a point of view and a heart. That's pretty much all you can ask for when it comes to general entertainment.

Discovery episode tonight was enjoyable for me also.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #816 on: October 02, 2017, 12:16:12 PM »
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Things I liked
- The security chief


Things I didnt
- First mutineer? No. Fucking. Way. Stupid thing to just make the event more dramatic.
- The prison transport failing so miserably, do they not have standards?
- Letting the prisoners fight.
- Bitching over fucking seating and beds, fuck this petty drama
- Bad lighting during action likely to cheap out on effects
- Talking to herself in the tube, falling down into a Marvel superhero pose 
- Spore bullshit  :confused
- Shadowy starfleet shit  :picard
[close]
:six:

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #817 on: October 02, 2017, 03:13:43 PM »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #818 on: October 02, 2017, 03:23:29 PM »
I'm with Rich. Michael is the worst Star Trek main character I've ever seen. Holy fuck.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
So the captain dies and you KILL YOUR PRISONER, and you're the person who came up with that plan so he's not turned into a martyr?!

IS SHE distinguished mentally-challenged? WHY DID SHE WASTE MICHELLE YEOH'S DEATH LIKE THAT?

Holy crap.
[close]
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #819 on: October 02, 2017, 03:30:56 PM »
"Now...we are at war."

What the fuck because YOU KILLED THE DUDE



I literally said,"BITCH, FIRST OF ALL--" when she said that

Ep 1 was ok and I liked it. Episode 2 WHAT THE FUCK
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #820 on: October 02, 2017, 03:41:25 PM »
Also, given that these Klingons value their dead. WHY DID SARU NOT FUCKING BEAM HIS BODY OVER AND USE THAT AS THE CURRENCY TO SUE FOR PEACE

afaoisdfja;idf;aslkjflasjdf;asfa

This show is not Star Trek. Trek is about the details. I am going to give ep 3 a shot but I hope to GOD that it isn't a waste of my damn time.
IYKYK

Cerveza mas fina

  • I don't care for Islam tbqh
  • filler
Re: star trek
« Reply #821 on: October 02, 2017, 03:49:30 PM »
Really enjoying this so far, wife likes it too :)

Episode 3 was good stuff.

Nice that not everyone is cookie cutter good like in some shows

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #822 on: October 02, 2017, 03:52:13 PM »
Am I supposed to empathize with Michael in ep 3? I'm not sure if I am but it's pretty hard to?

On the other hand, that Chief of Security is my kind of character. :bow
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #823 on: October 02, 2017, 04:07:48 PM »
Holy shit. Ep 3 is very Trek. Slow dialogue. Crew talking about shit. Mysteries. I hope this show isn't as bipolar as the first three eps. :lol Because I like ep 3 a lot. How did they go from ep 2 to this? :lol
IYKYK

Boredfrom

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #824 on: October 03, 2017, 11:59:42 AM »
I decide to watch Star Trek, my only experience is some episodes from the final seasons of Voyager and DS9.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: star trek
« Reply #825 on: October 03, 2017, 12:35:29 PM »
I decide to watch Star Trek, my only experience is some episodes from the final seasons of Voyager and DS9.

Watch TOS, TNG, DS9, Wrath of Kahn, and Voyage Home. Don't bother with the rest.
dog

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #826 on: October 03, 2017, 12:40:07 PM »
ST6 surely? 

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #827 on: October 03, 2017, 12:54:45 PM »
I decide to watch Star Trek, my only experience is some episodes from the final seasons of Voyager and DS9.

Watch TOS, TNG, DS9, Wrath of Kahn, and Voyage Home. Don't bother with the rest.

Um. Star Trek VI.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #828 on: October 03, 2017, 01:11:14 PM »
All of the Star Trrek VI are worth watching except maybe the first.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #829 on: October 03, 2017, 02:58:03 PM »
VI is the best Trek film after Khan. :ufup

And sometimes I even feel its better.

Also, I mean if you're watching II and IV, you might as well stick the middle part in there with III. No, it's not great. Yes, everything on the Genesis planet is terrible. Christopher Lloyd clearly doesn't want to be in the movie. But Kirk rounding everyone up to hijack the Enterprise is awesome! The Excelsior dickwad of a Captain is great. Them playing an engine sputtering noise for STARSHIPS IN SPACE is the best sound effect ever used in Trek. Also, the trick they play on the Klingons on the Enterprise is old hat because everyone started using it, but Kirk did it first here and the way it's shown is great.

And again, I gotta throw in First Contact, especially for someone who is just getting into Trek. As a concluding arc to Jean-Luc's dealing with his Locutus experience, all the great fun that happens on Earth with the dual plotlines, "THE LINE WILL BE DRAWN HERE" and "you smashed your little ships" and the silly cameos. It's a fun dumb action romp at its core but yet it includes all those kinds of little Trek touches, of the films it's the only one to have something for all the TNG characters, even Lt. Broccoli. It immediately blasts into its plot, doesn't wring its hands over any of the time travel stuff (even has a throw back to IV's "how do you know he didn't invent it?" iirc) yet deals with how it will effect the Enterprise crew ("find an obscure location for us to live out") if they fail as they send off all the escape pods. The Borg Queen isn't even hot garbage like she is on Voyager, she's acting as a spokesperson for the Collective more than a weird individual leader with seemingly her own motives like she does on Voyager, plus she's dealing with a unique situation, how to assimilate Data, a non biological lifeform. And they tie it into Picard's story and ultimately his actions in Best of Both Worlds by her (or the Collective's) need for Data to be accepting of the assimilation rather than resist it. (And I want to say they may even provide a MacGuffin like they need Data for his access codes or something? Because the skeleton crew does hold down their advance rather successfully for much of the film and Data did do some kind of speed locking out earlier in it.)

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #830 on: October 03, 2017, 03:05:31 PM »
VI is better than Khan.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #831 on: October 03, 2017, 03:06:22 PM »
Then again, I feel like you could edit Nemesis down to a pretty enjoyable 45 minutes to an hour.

The opening shots (which are awesome), THE WEDDING, some inbetween crap to introduce Shinzon, cut out literally everything but the space battle, fin.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Maybe insert a joke flashback when Picard sends an order to Troi at the conn and when she looks down it's her crashing the D in Generations.
[close]

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #832 on: October 04, 2017, 04:18:53 AM »
Then again, I feel like you could edit Nemesis down to a pretty enjoyable 45 minutes to an hour.

The opening shots (which are awesome), THE WEDDING, some inbetween crap to introduce Shinzon, cut out literally everything but the space battle, fin.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Maybe insert a joke flashback when Picard sends an order to Troi at the conn and when she looks down it's her crashing the D in Generations.
[close]


Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Re: star trek
« Reply #833 on: October 04, 2017, 10:34:23 AM »
All of the Star Trrek VI are worth watching except maybe the first.

Uh, V is straight garbage.

Oh god, that's right. You're religious so of course you like it. ::)
yar

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #834 on: October 04, 2017, 10:53:53 AM »
Why are you so mean about it?

I actually forgot V exists. :lol
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #835 on: October 05, 2017, 03:13:16 PM »
All of the Star Trrek VI are worth watching except maybe the first.

Uh, V is straight garbage.

Oh god, that's right. You're religious so of course you like it. ::)
I can't even, you've gone too far here. It has the single greatest line ever scripted.

"What does God need with a starship?"

Actually, is the film really all that positive towards religion outside of considering it in context of "final frontiers"? Sybok is portrayed a con man who gets his comeuppance by being conned by the being he perceives as God. The Big Three (and Scotty) all reflect on their faith when confronted with it and ultimately reject it, especially Kirk, even Spock who is shown to be very eager to pursue religion throughout the TOS, and McCoy who is most positive towards it due to his inherent and pre-existing faith ultimately decides to side with Kirk and Spock over Sybok/"God" and is the one who addresses "God" (and earlier Sybok) with the most anger:
Quote
Sybok: Why? Why have you done this to my friend?
"God": He doubts me.
Spock: You have not answered his question. What does God need with a starship?
"God": [shoots Spock with lightning; then addresses McCoy] Do you doubt me?
McCoy: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.
Though arguably this whole plotline messes up another one that takes more after II and is seen in the camping scenes, all the Trio scenes throughout, etc. although they do backwards fit it in with Spock and McCoy's "visions from Sybok" both relating to their family. Kirk states early on that men like them, they don't have families, and that he knows he'll die alone. And at the end Kirk admits they do, when he calls Spock his brother and suggests McCoy is one too.

But like everything, from the effects, to the direction of scenes, to the editing, the film is a mess. It never fully explores any of its plotlines. Shatner has in recent years actually stopped being as defensive about V and started to suggest he never liked the God plot but couldn't think of a better (and more like TOS) "Final Frontier" for the crew since it was initially supposed to be their final film. (Though he's always blamed things on the budget and studios he was required to work with more than anything. He's also refused to do a director's cut, the rumor was they even offered him one with new CGI effects like TMP got.)

Also, it's got this:

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #836 on: October 05, 2017, 07:28:09 PM »
I've been slowly watching s1 of TOS, and enjoying it. Watched Charlie X in one sitting last night and, Queen, you are right about that bittersweet stuff. That's a rough ending for an episode, and I was flummoxed trying to figure out how Picard would have reacted to it.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #837 on: October 05, 2017, 07:48:45 PM »
Yup. Really big on the tone of TOS. TOS is full of that type of shit where there's no right answer and the audience is left to their own conclusions about what was well and truly right. To be fair, TNG has the occasional Ep like this. The one where the kid tries to be an android aka Data to run away from his feelings after the death of his family one such episode. But it's rare. Most of the time TNG develops a moral delimma and it says,"no, THIS is right." There's much less room for interpretation in TNG usually as it's typically all about smelling its own ass fumes which can be good or bad depending your perspective and even depending on the episode.

This is why TNG is IMO the most comfort food Trek. And I think that's why it remains endearingly the most popular. At the same time I think a lot of modern audiences don't give TOS nearly the same amount of credit due to its aged production (I mean look at that awful set).
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 08:07:35 PM by Queen of Ice »
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #838 on: October 05, 2017, 08:55:27 PM »
TOS had a contemporary target that informed its first seasons episodes, much like Seinfelds "no learning, no hugging" was a reaction to other sitcoms, everyone involved in Trek did not want it to be Lost in Space which because of the two pilots and then the long wait for approval (plus the smaller scale of the community) they got to see much of the first season before they really got to work on Trek. The actors, Gene, the sci-fi writers who wrote the episodes (including Lost in Space's original head writer), etc. all saw Trek as enabling stories bigger than just the crew's stuff of the week.

Funny enough though, I don't know if you guys have watched much Lost in Space which also ran three seasons before getting cancelled and had increasing budget slashes (like Trek and Batman) as I never really had outside of a couple episodes but that one network that plays nothing but old shows had a Saturday Night lineup for a while that was Batman->Star Trek->Lost in Space->Get Smart and I wound up having it on a lot. Which is kinda irrelevant information but in any case I wound up watching quite a bit of it and like Trek it gradually descended into plot madness and guest stars and shit like Vikings showing up. And the best part is because they've got the two kid actors you can tell as they increasingly lose faith in the series. :lol

And also the whole Dr. Smith and Robot stuff was weird because they'd occasionally give them continuity or little mini-arcs, and then suddenly they're back to flanderized versions of their first season characters. Also the whole part where he tried to kill the entire family and everyone is just cool with this and the son becoming friends with Smith because they play practical jokes on him every now and again. (Including ones that are horrifying if the show was based on any actual science, there's one where they lock him outside the airlock with just an oxygen thing and HAHA HE'S SO COLD OUT THERE WE'LL LEAVE HIM A FEW HOURS.)

Plus the whole character became such a hit because he thought the lines were garbage and it wouldn't last so he started ad-libbing and playing over the top. Which, along with the kids and robot getting increasing air time, eventually upset the lead actor so much he quit acting all together. They considered doing a fourth season with neither the mom nor dad actors wanting to return (which would have saved more than enough to do the season), so it would have been the creepy murderous villain, a questionable robot, some kids and the pilot dude on the ship. Which totally should have been done.

By TNG, Gene's vision and control of what the Federation should be changed significantly. As did the writers he had access to. Gene re-wrote so many scripts that the entire writing staff left, Dorthy Fontana claims Gene shoved her aside for Tracy Torme, and the replacement compromise Maurice Hurley wasn't any better liked because he was doing the same thing that Gene got kicked upstairs for before the writer's strike hit. Michael Piller basically rebuilt the writing staff from scratch which is the real reason TNG changes so much with the third season. Piller though the development of the crew was as or more important than whatever goofy thing they'd run across that week that would never be seen again after Picard lectures it.

That's what I find most distinct about early TNG, and then as it starts to fall apart near the end, is how many episodes final acts are Picard lectures somebody. It's like Kirk and his shirt. Picard does a lot more listening in the middle seasons, unless it's Q or Wesley. He even does a lot of the fake out non-lecture. Or they play up his lecture like when he has to play a role for the Klingons, or when he's quoting Shakespeare to fake his love for Luxana or he's reading treaty terms so the hostile aliens will concede to his demands rather than take more of it.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #839 on: October 05, 2017, 09:04:24 PM »
TNG does a variation on "Charlie X" in "Suddenly Human" although the kid isn't a god.

DS9 also does a custody episode in "Cardassians" and Janeway dumps all those Borg kids off somewhere.