Author Topic: star trek  (Read 334811 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1020 on: November 17, 2017, 01:17:51 AM »
 :jeanluc

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1021 on: November 19, 2017, 12:19:12 PM »
Watched The Motion Picture and Wrath of Khan in recent days.

I still like both of them for different reasons.

I understand the complaints about the motion picture with slow pacing and shots of space and ships that go on forever ala 2001 but I still like that movie. I think its a nice sci-fi story where the main plot would feel interesting even if it wasn't in a star trek movie. I like that its basically a space mystery story without any big bad guy doing evil deeds that needs to be punched in the face. I forgot how Kirk is kind of a dick in this one and seizes command of the ship without a hint of remorse so that was funny.

Wrath of Khan is also quite good and one of the few Trek movies with a big bad guy who needs to be defeated that works because of the history of Khan and the original episode. Khan therefore feels legitimate and you understand his beef. He isn't a paper tiger that is built up just to be knocked down. It feels personal and its rare that Trek movies can make that kind of confrontation. Meyers is also great at just making a good popcorn movie. The pacing and tempo feel lighting fast compared to Motion Picture. The movie has a great flow to it. Some parts almost feel like Alien. Some parts feel Trek. Some parts feel like the Horatio Hornblower. Meyer knows his job is to make a good popcorn flick that is less moody and slow than the motion picture and he delivers.

Some interesting bits I didn't know. I had no idea the motion picture budget was so massive. It was 46 million which is just mammoth in 1979 dollars. The budget of Khan was 11 million by comparison. Motion Picture made slightly more at the box office but that budget was a big albatross. 

Quote
According to Bennett, he was called in front of a group including Jeffrey Katzenberg and Michael Eisner and asked if he thought he could make a better film than The Motion Picture, which Bennett confessed he found "really boring".[22] When Bennett replied in the affirmative, Charles Bluhdorn asked, "Can you make it for less than forty-five-fucking-million-dollars?" Bennett replied that "Where I come from, I can make five movies for that."


This also tickled me. Kirk didn't like When Kirstie Alley cries at Spock's Funeral.

Quote
Kirstie Alley was somewhat uncertain if other fans would accept a Vulcan female and she endeavored not to make the unemotional female character seem too much like "a bitch," by concentrating on the emotionality of Saavik's Romulan heritage, which accounts for her crying on screen at one point. (The Making of the Trek Films, 3rd ed., p. 170) Nichelle Nichols said about the performance decision to show Saavik shedding tears, "That was Kirstie's idea, a beautiful touch." (Beyond Uhura, p. 251) However, William Shatner was alarmed by this behavior during filming and asked Meyer if he was going to "let her do that." (The View from the Bridge - Memories of Star Trek and a Life in Hollywood, hardback ed., p. 118) The director related, "[Shatner] said, 'Well, Vulcans can't cry.' I said, 'Yeah, well, that's why it's going to be so distressing when this one does.'"


Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1022 on: November 19, 2017, 02:49:25 PM »
The gutted budget really opened my eyes when I was reading about it a few years back. Crazy that such a classic can come from so little. Really inspired me and hammered home that better budget does not make a better movie.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1023 on: November 19, 2017, 07:21:40 PM »
 Two fantastic episodes of enterprise last night: one is the obvious HIV/AIDS analog episode, which neatly framed the arrogance and prejudice of the Vulcans, and then another arrogant Vulcan episode featuring my favorite Andorian, Jeffrey Combs, and a new favorite, Tall Hot Andorian Lady, played by the actress who was on TNG as Worf’s half Klingon fiancé and also a Vulcan too. :drool

Have to say, Wesley Crusher is a lot less annoying in the second season. Maybe the hatred is overblown.
I think there is a formal name for it in Star Trek fandom, but they had this problem with both Wesley and Worf. Several writer independently thought it would be a good idea to have Wesley save the ship. Several writers  independently decided a good way to show how tough that monster is would be to have it beat up the Klingon security officer. And result: Wesley is insufferable, and Worf looks easy to beat, as it happens every other week. 

I’m seeing a similar thing do this on enterprise: Malcolm Reed, the tactical officer, it seems like occasionally someone wanted to show a sensitive side of the tactical officer, but he instead comes off as overly emotional, whiny, pessimist.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1024 on: November 19, 2017, 07:27:32 PM »
Wesley Crusher actually gets worse. Is he a space demigod yet?

IMO TNG S2 > S1
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1025 on: November 19, 2017, 07:32:03 PM »
 He gets worse just before the situation sorts itself. But, yeah, that was just about the worst return to form in the entire series.

 I remember giving up during season one, skipping season two, then coming back for season three and thinking, “Wow this is amazing! I guess it got better!”

Then going back and watching season two, and realizing it was a very gradual improvement.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1026 on: November 19, 2017, 07:34:15 PM »
Nog is Wesley done right.
IYKYK

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1027 on: November 19, 2017, 09:00:27 PM »
I forgot they remastered all the old TOS episodes. That gives me a reason to watch some of my favorite episodes again along with the movies.

For some reason I had completely erased that from my brain even though I remember being excited when it was announced all those years ago.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 09:16:58 PM by Stoney Mason »

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1028 on: November 19, 2017, 09:42:28 PM »
I forgot they remastered all the old TOS episodes. That gives me a reason to watch some of my favorite episodes again along with the movies.

For some reason I had completely erased that from my brain even though I remember being excited when it was announced all those years ago.
They're pretty neat. The actual updates to effects are subtle, and completely in-line with the aesthetic. The only place I found them noticeable are in the final credits, where the type treatment over the episode's live-action still imagery is less crisp than the treatment displayed on still images of the effects.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1029 on: November 20, 2017, 05:11:52 AM »
The updated matte paintings for backgrounds are less obvious than all the CGI space crap or any space blasting but do more for the show and fit better.

The infamous example I've mentioned before being the opening shot from "Arena":


the tinfoil background in the original even clips over the fortress wall :lol

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1030 on: November 20, 2017, 05:23:32 AM »
The TNG remasters did a lot of that kind of subtle stuff you wouldn't think of, along with the major impact from simply moving up the original film to HD, that made shit sparkle.



Coax

  • Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1031 on: November 20, 2017, 05:34:50 AM »
The TNG remasters did a lot of that kind of subtle stuff you wouldn't think of, along with the major impact from simply moving up the original film to HD, that made shit sparkle.
(Image removed from quote.)(Image removed from quote.)

Looking at it the color of the original helped the doorway blend with the ground, but maybe it's not supposed to look that, I'm no Star Trek geek.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1032 on: November 20, 2017, 05:51:35 AM »
It all generally looks better in action.

That particular scene stands out because it's in the pilot and in the original all the trees and river and stuff are lifeless most of it even frozen, while they're moving in the remaster. It's also supposed to be this big pilot scene about how realistic the holodeck is and so on.

TNG they also did a lot of editing out of visible equipment, re-framing or filling in the edges/ceilings of the set that were visible, etc. One instance I remembered from seeing it back in the day they removed the visible hands of someone who reaches in to take the glasses they set on a table so they don't knock them over while Riker gets his lovin' on with the lady. :shh

FatRiker

  • Junior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1033 on: November 20, 2017, 09:25:56 AM »
The TNG remaster is really good. The new visual effects are so good that you don't notice that they're new effects, which is what I personally want from this kind of thing. The end result is a show that looks like an incredibly clear and sharp version of what I thought I remembered watching back in the 90s on TV or VHS.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1034 on: November 20, 2017, 11:38:06 AM »
I watched a couple of remastered tos episodes last night and its nice.

I think a remaster of those interests me more over TNG simply because of how old it is.

Its also just fun to watch tos again anyway as its my favorite trek.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1035 on: November 20, 2017, 06:33:24 PM »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1036 on: November 21, 2017, 03:13:21 AM »
I know the post is from 2007 but the part at the bottom about how they deny the feud actually changed in the years before Nimoy's death, and the instances I saw Shatner actually was the more remorseful one. (I guess he's also privately tried to go around and not apologize but apologize to all the others though Takai keeps changing his mind on whether or not Shatner has apologized.) That it wasn't until they were doing the movies that he began to appreciate how important both Spock and Nimoy, along with DeForrest, were to his own performance and his own stardom.

We all know Shatner directed V because he had it put in his contract after III that he got a film for every one Nimoy got, Nimoy did IV so Shatner got V. But I saw an interview in more recent years where Shatner says he should have never done that, that Nimoy was a better director of the whole cast and not being in that role let him focus on his performance. Whereas Nimoy had the ability to compartmentalize the two roles much better. Also Shatner admits he didn't really understand the roles of a film director compared to a TJ Hooker episode director. Outside of stuff he was producing like TekWar Shatner never directed again until this last decade when he got into doing documentaries, whereas Nimoy actually directed legitimate box office movies for a time.

Most of the stories from the cast infighting and jealousy are really about that third season (and part of the second) when the whole edifice of the show came crumbling down. They knew it was dying. Which was part of why Nimoy was the least willing to accept his Trek stardom for a long time. He had become too tied to it.

That Roddenberry story is illustrative of why they pushed him off TOS, the films and TNG. If they had that meeting the next day Roddenberry might have changed his mind.

Actually some of the stuff I'm thinking of might have been in that recent oral history of Trek. Shatner in that does a lot of reflective "we should have featured Sulu and Uhura more" stuff. I think that "star" meeting is discussed and Shatner says something about how he was too dumb to realize that Trek was the star.

I think TNG's success really changed Shatner and Nimoy's impression of the franchise and their own roles in it. They were the most negative by far towards TNG when it began, though they've kinda whitewashed that since, but then quietly started to accept it as a legitimate heir.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1037 on: November 21, 2017, 03:14:42 AM »
This book:


I haven't read the second half actually, should look into it:

FatRiker

  • Junior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1038 on: November 21, 2017, 03:54:55 AM »
I haven't fully read the second book yet, but what I read was pretty good.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1039 on: November 21, 2017, 04:02:35 AM »
I need
IYKYK

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1040 on: November 21, 2017, 07:29:39 PM »
Watched Searched for Spock and Voyage Home.


I didn't remember anything from Search for Spock outside of the fact that David dies. This one was a tough re-watch for me. It's boring for a really long time. The whole setup and kid spock again on planet is boring to me. McCoy having Spock's mind is handled in a goofy manner. The movie only picks up its energy when the confrontation begins between Kirk and the Klingons when he arrives at the genesis planet and that's an hour into the movie. The drama and follow through with that is good but then that ends and they go revive spock. That part is fine. It's emotional enough even though you know what's going to happen every step of the way.

This one isn't as good as I remember it from my memories. It's mostly boring. It's slow in the frustrating way without an overly interesting premise to carry it through like the motion picture. If you are not a die-hard Trek fan this seems like it would be pretty much unwatchable as the main thing holding it together is your fondness for the characters. It's a very inside baseball Trek movie. I don't imagine myself going back to this one in the future whereas I can always pop in Trek 1 and 2 and find some enjoyment.

Voyager Home is really just an excuse to get the crew in a fish out of water situation in the 80's. The plot is sort of meaningless at best and ridiculous at worse. I didn't really pick up on that the first time back in the day. That being said,  its a fun romp. It's clearly written as a comedy. The clear intent isn't to be some piece of trekian sci-fi but an adventure to enjoy with characters you like. It's probably the most balanced Trek movie in how it handles the cast. Everybody is given something fun to do that shows some of their character. It's kind of amazing in a way because it shows how broad Trek and movies were back in the day. That you could take the franchise and say lets make a comedy adventure movie and have it work is pretty crazy. You couldn't have done that with any Trek show since then or the current batch of Trek movies. It just wouldn't work and the general audience wouldn't accept it imo. But in that time and with those characters, you absolutely could. The movie works better than it has any right to with its premise and its still legit funny.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1041 on: November 21, 2017, 08:37:17 PM »
McCoy having Spock's mind is handled in a goofy manner.

It's also strange, because one of the reasons for the Vulcan Nerve Pinch is that Nimoy felt it was strange if Spock got physically violent, so what if he could pinch a nerve and due to some alien energy applied at specific places, Spock could just quietly knock enemies out…? So the canon reason McCoy's nerve pinch doesn't work is that he's not Vulcan. He's a human trying it, so it doesn't work.

As a consequence, I was stunned in ST:Discovery when a human managed to pull off a nerve pinch in the very first episode.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1042 on: November 21, 2017, 09:46:44 PM »
There are a few scenes where Spock's Katra speaks through Bones and its supposed to be a little spooky but it was just eye-roll inducing every time they do it.

I'm also watching tos episodes when I can squeeze them in but I won't bother commenting on them as much as the enterprise seasons.

I'm watching them in production order which is interesting. I never did that before. I watched TOS in syndication like any kid did in that era. You watched what ever random episode happened to be on that day. So even though I've seen every single episode many times, it was always in a random stew. So the development of the show and how it sort of built on itself and adjusted itself over time is a new thing to me.

Like Yeoman Rand and the original purpose of her character and the shady stuff that happened to her and how she was forced to leave the show is completely new to me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/05/04/star-trek-actress-grace-lee-whitney-who-alleged-sexual-assault-by-tv-executive-dead-at-85/

Watching each episode and then reading information/reviews on each one is teaching me stuff that is old news to others but new to me because outside of just watching the show I never dabbled in the behind the scenes stuff.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1043 on: November 21, 2017, 10:36:36 PM »
I decided on my last rewatch production order is better. I never liked aired order, but there's also "stardate order" and neither one feel right. Production order like you said, the show actually develops.

I've mentioned it before, but like you I always saw random TOS episodes until later in my life, the most interesting thing to me in the first half of the first season (production order) is just how lively the ship is. Crewmen working on things. Dudes carrying a pipe to somewhere. Uhura talks to a guy in the hallway and it's just little chat chat/flirting that doesn't mean anything. Random extras will be in the turbolift when main characters get in to take it to the bridge or whatever. "Redshirts" were more than just guys to killed on the away mission. Actually, IIRC, redshirts have a pretty good survival rate even on those in the first season. A decent number of random one episode crew members are in the episodes. And even if they're silent roles you get Kirk sometimes addressing them by name or they come over and huddle with Kirk/Spock/Sulu as they plan whatever escape or thing.

By the time you get to the third season, feels like there's 20 people on the whole ship. And other than Scotty they all hang out on the bridge.

Reading Memory Alpha's entries after are good for that background info as they quote from most of the old production books that are out of print. The Compendiums had a lot of stuff, TNG has some really detailed episode pages on MA.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1044 on: November 22, 2017, 09:41:23 PM »
The real problem with The Borg is that they had to create an even more frightening and ruthless villain to ever seriously take them down, Kathryn Janeway.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1045 on: November 22, 2017, 10:44:49 PM »
The borg were cool. Voyager just ran them into the ground so that I don't want to see them for a long long time. I'm glad discovery can't use them because of the time period.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Although that didn't stop enterprise.
[close]

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1046 on: November 22, 2017, 10:52:56 PM »
Enterprise didn't do it as badly as I feared they were going to, but it was still one of their more poorly handled reference to the lore episodes. Compare to the Ferengi one where they never really get a good look at them or anything, assume it's some kind of space pirates, etc.

BUT, they could have:
Quote
Writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens pitched a story to be used for season five of Enterprise which would have followed up on the events in "Regeneration". They intended to bring actress Alice Krige back to Star Trek as a Starfleet medical technician who makes contact with the Borg seen in this episode. This was to result in the creation of the Borg Queen first seen in First Contact, which was played by Krige

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1047 on: November 23, 2017, 12:20:17 AM »
Enterprise didn't do it as badly as I feared they were going to, but it was still one of their more poorly handled reference to the lore episodes. Compare to the Ferengi one where they never really get a good look at them or anything, assume it's some kind of space pirates, etc.

BUT, they could have:
Quote
Writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens pitched a story to be used for season five of Enterprise which would have followed up on the events in "Regeneration". They intended to bring actress Alice Krige back to Star Trek as a Starfleet medical technician who makes contact with the Borg seen in this episode. This was to result in the creation of the Borg Queen first seen in First Contact, which was played by Krige

That might've been cool. I've had a soft spot for Krige despite the Borg Queen misstep, because she got naked in a horror movie I saw as a kid, which affected my adolescence in unexpected ways.

Thanks for the spoiler-tag, Stoney. Someone had already spoiled that for me, even before benji danced too near it.

FatRiker

  • Junior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1048 on: November 23, 2017, 01:28:21 AM »
Enterprise didn't do it as badly as I feared they were going to, but it was still one of their more poorly handled reference to the lore episodes. Compare to the Ferengi one where they never really get a good look at them or anything, assume it's some kind of space pirates, etc.

BUT, they could have:
Quote
Writers Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens pitched a story to be used for season five of Enterprise which would have followed up on the events in "Regeneration". They intended to bring actress Alice Krige back to Star Trek as a Starfleet medical technician who makes contact with the Borg seen in this episode. This was to result in the creation of the Borg Queen first seen in First Contact, which was played by Krige

That might've been cool. I've had a soft spot for Krige despite the Borg Queen misstep, because she got naked in a horror movie I saw as a kid, which affected my adolescence in unexpected ways.

Thanks for the spoiler-tag, Stoney. Someone had already spoiled that for me, even before benji danced too near it.
As much as I like Alice Krige, and I don't mind the Borg Queen, that episode would be a bit too fanwank or Small Universe for me. After reading a bunch of the episode synopses they were pitching, I feel ENT season 5 was going to approach fanfiction levels of callbacks. I wouldn't have expected a 2-part Code Of Honor prequel story to happen, but I'd be less surprised than I'd like to if it did happen.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1049 on: November 23, 2017, 11:54:00 AM »
The real problem with The Borg is that they had to create an even more frightening and ruthless villain to ever seriously take them down, Kathryn Janeway.

Anytime I've heard Janeway brought up it's almost always to hate on her  :lol I'm actually thinking of avoiding Voyager because it's the trek show that I remember seeing advertised, watched an episode of once and hated it to the point of avoiding watching Trek till now.

Then again, I was like 8 then.

Voyager rightfully gets beat on. And for me its the least interesting trek show of them all. But Mulgrew is a very good actress. And whatever inconsistencies that people feel Janeway has may or may not be valid, she is still an interesting character and captain.

I wouldn't fault anybody for skipping Voyager but she is not the problem with that show and the actress was the best actor on it imo. The problem with that show is a fundamental disconnect from the premise of the show and the reality of the show. It's a show that needed to be darker and gritty but it wasn't. It was a show about hitting the reset button as often as it could.

At minimum it should have been tonally as dark as deep space nine. But it wasn't. Season 3 of enterprise should have basically been generally what voyager was like. A hard trek into an inhospitable environment. 

« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 12:00:54 PM by Stoney Mason »

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1050 on: November 26, 2017, 03:16:16 AM »
I am up to season three of enterprise, and just hit what I think is the second stinker episode in the series so far. Extinction: The one where in airborne virus converts any race into an now-extinct race of sac-breathing, primate-like aliens.  The idea for the virus was interesting, but the idea that the airborne virus has no effect it has nothing to work on, as well as having a guardian race that affects to contain the virus, but gave absolutely  no warning and no kind of bacon or sign that the planet is quarantined is the first of many plot holes.  Actually, if they wanted to make it such a dark show, why not have the containment race instead be a hunter race that previously hunted this race to extinction, but now required them to make their own prey beasts?

I’m also noticing in season three that Captain Archer is being written as shorter tempered, less tolerant, and more obsessive.

 Overall though, I think the show has a better hit to miss ratio than next generation. Some truly fantastic episodes, including First Flight: a bottle episode adding history and rivalry between Archer and A G Robinson.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1051 on: November 26, 2017, 11:34:46 AM »
I’m also noticing in season three that Captain Archer is being written as shorter tempered, less tolerant, and more obsessive.

That increasingly becomes the case as the season goes on. This is basically the 9/11 season.

As far as that extinction episode, I think its just weird when Trek does those de-evolution episodes where everybody has to wear shitty make-up and act like cavemen. I'm pretty sure next gen had one of those episodes and I remember thinking it was weird there too.


Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1052 on: November 26, 2017, 12:11:27 PM »
Watched Trek 5 & 6 over the holidays.


I still like Star Trek V: The Final Frontier for specific reasons. Probably not as much as I remember liking it. It's still probably the 2nd worse one (The worst for me was search for spock) out of the original six movies but it still crosses over into something that I would re-watch in the future if bored.

Basically I like two aspects of it that allow me to enjoy it. I like the idea of a zealot who kidnaps the crew to find god and instead finds an evil powerful alien entity. That is classic trek material. This movie also has a strong emphasis on the relationship between the triumvirate of Spock, Bones, and Kirk. And that is the defining relationship of TOS so I get enjoyment out of that.

I understand the complaints. It's a messy movie. There is a lot of dumb stuff in it that waters down those two core ideals of the movie. Sybok being Spock's brother is dumb and unnecessary. The way everybody just flips, even people on the crew who have been with Kirk their entire careers is handled clunky. The way the great barrier is built up as these unbreachable thing that suddenly they are able to breach for no explainable reason other than the plot saying so is incredibly lazy. Basically there is a lot of bad stuff here. But for me those two big good things are enough to find the journey worthwhile despite all the admittedly bad stuff.


Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country's first half is maybe the best first half of any of the Trek movies. The setup and idea is great. Playing off the Klingon's killing Kirk's son and his mistrust of Klingons is good stuff. And the plot setup of the murder and the little mystery that ensues are very good.

The second half is a little lazy by comparison. Christopher plummer has all the elements of a great bad guy for example but it never feels like that confrontation is as epic as it should be. Kirk shows up at the end and saves the day and gives a little speech that feels more fitting as an end to a trek episode than what was really the end of the TOS franchise (ignoring Generations).

It tries though and it goes for all the nostalgia touches and if its not the perfect sendoff its a least a good one. The best thing I can say is that the movie is memorable. For whatever reason, this is the one of these movies that I could remember beat for beat the most. There are trek movies that come after this that I literally can't tell you one thing that happens in it off the top of my head, but this one I had a strong memory of for some reason.
 


benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1053 on: November 26, 2017, 10:10:27 PM »
VI and First Contact have the advantage of using twin plots that I'm surprised Trek films haven't used more often as its easier to fit the whole crew in. You have stuff going on on the ship and then stuff going on with others on a planet. VI has the whodunnit on the ship while Kirk and McCoy are in the prison and escape on the planet, FC inverts it by putting the action scenes on the ship. Kirk and Spock thus both get to shine. In FC they split up the ensemble pretty decently so that Picard gets Worf (and Beverly for a rare instance of the doctor entering self destruct codes) to help fight while Riker get Troi, Geordi, Broccoli, etc. for some comedic stuff.

Beyond had a similar feeling when the crew was scattered upon landing and it was jumping between them all. And IV did have the stuff like Scotty's "hello computer" and Chekov asking for the nuclear wessels, etc.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1054 on: November 26, 2017, 10:27:16 PM »
Watched Enterprise's Twilight episode last night, effectively this series' Yesterday's Enterprise. Very enjoyable, through-and-through. I felt like I got a whole tour of those characters' lives and motivations. I'm sad that they didn't touch on Mayweather though.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1055 on: November 26, 2017, 11:50:26 PM »
Watched Enterprise's Twilight episode last night, effectively this series' Yesterday's Enterprise. Very enjoyable, through-and-through. I felt like I got a whole tour of those characters' lives and motivations. I'm sad that they didn't touch on Mayweather though.

Yeah that was a good episode. Jolene Blalock was really good with T'pol imo when she was given good material. (which wasn't always the case)

You also are fortunately by a few episodes I hated.

Rajiin was an embarrassing and sexist episode imo. Everybody comes off incredibly dumb in that one. One of the worst episodes of the show.

Impulse was the zombie vulcans they went to rescue on the ship. Silly episode.

Exile was a beauty and the beast episode but in this case, the beast was a stalker, harasser alien with not a single redeemable quality and predictable plotline.

I did not like those three episodes and it sourced me a bit on the early part of the season, but it never gets that bad again during the season imo.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1056 on: November 27, 2017, 12:16:07 AM »
I kinda really want to see RedLetterMedia re:view both STD and The Orville after their respective first seasons.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1057 on: November 27, 2017, 12:32:42 AM »
I think Blalock did the best Vulcan since Nimoy really. Which isn't saying much. Tim Russ is a great actor and funny guy but Tuvok was such a crappy stereotype most of the time.

Enterprise kinda drifts past it because it wasn't in the plans truly until the fourth season, but I don't consider a spoiler as they had adopted it before they ever explicitly said. But the Vulcans on ENT are not the fully logical followers than Spock and forward practiced, they were only partially there and distrust Earth still. Which at this point should be obvious to both you guys.

Even still they point out that T'Pol has stronger emotions than most Vulcans because they hadn't yet figured out how to square the duplicitous actions of the Vulcan High Command with Trek's later characterization of the Vulcans, this is arguably the best part of the fourth season. Also, T'Pol's dealing with nothing but humans and her...later indulgences help keep her on edge.

They were clearly trying to go for a Kirk/Spock dynamic, and oddly to me, I think they actually nailed it better than intended. Because we came into Kirk/Spock when their relationship was established, we get to see Archer and T'Pol develop theirs. From the antagonism early on, with her playing know it all and keeping stuff from him, while he tries to be the brash adventurer. And even by the second season they've already come to establish that trust and her as his primary adviser with the understanding they'll disagree; plus she starts to disobey the Vulcan orders and chooses Archer and the crew many times.

They also did better probably having just worked on trying to integrate Seven into the crew, so the stuff like having T'Pol go to Movie Night initially on suggestion (from Phlox and Archer I think? I know Phlox was shown as it being one of his favorite things to do on the ship) but then of her own volition thereafter and even talks about the movies with others works much better than some of the haphazard crap they did with Seven, really treating her like an ignorant child rather than having a different social framework.

I also liked that they tweaked her sarcastic and facetious comments from being biting and critical of the crew to more friendly and joking, but Blalock/T'Pol still plays them entirely straight so the crew can't really tell. There's a later Voyager episode where Tuvok does the same thing and Tom Paris makes a comment about how he thinks that was a joke and Tim Russ just stays straight-faced, but they never made it part of the character like T'Pol. (To be fair TOS played around with this, especially McCoy and Spock. But they never had established the characters differently and moved towards it, which made ENT different. If anything they instead soften McCoy after having made him too stubborn (and borderline racist) against Spock rather than alter Spock.)

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1058 on: November 27, 2017, 12:55:00 AM »
Quote
One influence on the Ferengi was what Herb Wright described as Gene Roddenberry's "sex fetish." In early first season discussions between them about developing the Ferengi, Roddenberry let Wright know it was his intention to make the species well-endowed. "He wanted to put a gigantic codpiece on the Ferengi," Wright stated. "He spent 25 minutes explaining to me all the sexual positions the Ferengi could go through. I finally said, 'Gene, this is a family show, on at 7:00 on Saturdays. He finally said, 'Okay, you're right.'"

 :leon

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1059 on: November 27, 2017, 01:03:31 AM »
Yeah, I always remember McCoy being a racist (specist?) southerner, and am kinda boggled that he's meant to be so charming.

Watched Enterprise's Twilight episode last night, effectively this series' Yesterday's Enterprise. Very enjoyable, through-and-through. I felt like I got a whole tour of those characters' lives and motivations. I'm sad that they didn't touch on Mayweather though.

Yeah that was a good episode. Jolene Blalock was really good with T'pol imo when she was given good material. (which wasn't always the case)

You also are fortunately by a few episodes I hated.

Rajiin was an embarrassing and sexist episode imo. Everybody comes off incredibly dumb in that one. One of the worst episodes of the show.

Impulse was the zombie vulcans they went to rescue on the ship. Silly episode.

Exile was a beauty and the beast episode but in this case, the beast was a stalker, harasser alien with not a single redeemable quality and predictable plotline.

I did not like those three episodes and it sourced me a bit on the early part of the season, but it never gets that bad again during the season imo.
Rajin was really bad; like, really in-poor-faith fanservice bad. The slave merchant has just a bunch of females on display; my first thought honestly was, "Wait, all the races are male dominant? Why aren't there scantily clad buff dudes around?" Which is probably my UC Santa Cruz background working overtime, but still. The slave merchant also looked like he was cosplaying a Dragonball Z character, you know the one. They even had to put the woman in a different revealing suit in the final scene. It also had the weird bit where Archer enters the jail cell with someone who can disrupt brains, and with no other guards present he leaves the door open behind him. Baffling.

The space zombie vulcans in Impulse were going to happen since they Chekov's gunned them before leaving earth. I was happy to see it wasn't something they unleashed on the whole Enterprise crew, as I'd feared. Blalock worked pretty well with the script she had, I felt. But, yeah, dumb.

Exile's Beauty and the Beast was so utterly transparent that I was relieved to see just how creeped out every member of the crew was by him, and enjoyed watching it play out appropriately rather than the original really stalker-ish, male-chauvinist manner of the faerie tale. But overall still a middling/poor episode. I remember there were a few Crusher/Troi episodes where some fanboi alien gets fascinated and has to be shut down. I never like them.

But that Extinction episode was just stunningly workshop-acting "now you're a gibbon" bad. It was as bad and dumb as Cogenitor was surprising and smart.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1060 on: November 27, 2017, 01:12:14 AM »
At least Gene lived long enough to see his wife perform oo-mox on a Ferengi. Then Picard recite Shakespeare sonnets to her.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1061 on: November 27, 2017, 01:13:33 AM »
Quote
In 2012, Ronald D. Moore remembered Gene Roddenberry performed a rewrite on "Ménage à Troi" and added a questionable description of fruit during the picnic scene on Betazed; "Mrs. Troi reaches into the picnic basket and brings out an oskoid, which is a long cylindrical piece of fruit with veins going down the side and offers it to Riker to take a bite."

Director Robert Legato remembers, "The script was written by Gene Roddenberry's secretary [Susan Sackett, along with her partner, Fred Bronson], and Gene's wife [Majel Barrett] was in it, so he was on the set all the time. It made me nervous. The first day, when I had to get out there and tell everyone what to do, I looked out the corner of my eye to see how Gene was reacting. But they were so nice. Gene was so supportive, and Majel was great; if you want to try it three different ways, she will.
excellent

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1062 on: November 27, 2017, 01:16:22 AM »
If I wrote for The Orville, I'd find it hard not to mine these old episodes pages for rejected content.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1063 on: November 27, 2017, 01:16:46 AM »
Came across what I thought was the first truly great episode of Enterprise. There have been plenty of good to very good episodes of the show but arguably not so many where I could easily put it in a time capsule and say this is as good as it gets for various reasons.

Dear Doctor was a very good episode and similar to the one I'm talking about. Shockwave both parts are very good episodes. But Cogenitor is to me what Trek is about. A good moral dilemma that is evenly balanced on both sides so its hard to feel good with whatever decision is made.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Cogenitor_(episode)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogenitor

I have a weird tick where if a piece of entertainment makes me tense, sometimes I'll just pause it and come back to it later right in the middle of the episode. It's odd. I wish I didn't do it, but its my way of dealing with an overload of tension. Sometimes just a minute is enough. Sometimes it takes 10 minutes. Sometimes I'll stop and come back to it the next day. This episode made me take three of those little breaks. I think this episode tensed me up because it telegraphs where its going super early so the tension builds to an inevitable easy to see climax that is still satisfying. But dealing with the tension the whole episode causes my little tick to surface.


btw this might be the shittiest trailer of all time for anything. If this is how they advertised the show, no wonder people tuned out. Completely misses the point of the episode.



I went back through the thread to find this, which I tried to only skim when I first saw it, due to possible spoilers. Hot-damn, that is a seriously inappropriate trailer. :lol

I'm surprised that you felt the ending was telegraphed. I knew things were not going to go well, but I didn't think things would go that far. No-one is innocent in that episode, except "Charles," which is kind of the whole point.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
I honestly expected Archer would grant asylum and that they'd have no further contact with the more advanced Vissians, maybe humans forgoing their free technical advice in favor of being "right" in granting asylum. Nope.  :'(
[close]

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1064 on: November 27, 2017, 01:30:17 AM »
Oh when I say telegraphed I meant more that this was going to head to a breaking point between the races rather than the specific ending. You keep waiting for the family to kind of blow up at Trip and such. But that episode was handled much smarter than that. That specific ending is a gut punch which I wasn't expecting but that's what makes it great. 

They didn't cheat the episode like I thought they would. Where the aliens learn the folly of their ways and just give in to the morally superior humans. They gave the very worst example of what could have happened instead of giving one or both sides a happy ending. And that final reveal between Trip and Archer is just great.

It's a much better prime directive cultural contamination episode than they generally do because its personal and it has a big cost. It's not abstract.

At first I found myself annoyed by Trip overly involving himself in their culture and then you root for him as you really understand the situation and then dat ending. 

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1065 on: November 27, 2017, 01:42:24 AM »
If I wrote for The Orville, I'd find it hard not to mine these old episodes pages for rejected content.

I'm pretty sure they do....

I'll always say I like the orville and I'm a firm believer in the idea that sometimes execution is more important than originality but every SINGLE orville episode has been a remix of combined trek episodes. And I mean every single one.

One of my hopes for that show going forward is that they truly find their unique voice and not just remix and sample trek plotlines. 

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1066 on: November 27, 2017, 09:52:43 AM »
Christ, that religious suicide bombers episode was a little on-the-fucking-nose, don't you think?

It's even more offensive because they went so far out of their way to make all the religious aliens effectively caucasian. Yeah, yeah, they're suicide bombers because of a weird, meaningless differentiation between two religious sects — but whatever you do, don't make any of them brown, that'd be beyond the pale (so to speak).   ::)

Then I got Jeffrey Combs again in a wonderful Andorian appearance that also progressed this needlessly complex Xindi plotline. I liked it.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1067 on: November 28, 2017, 03:30:23 AM »
Harbinger s3 e15
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Kind of a weird, one off episode with character growth“ but otherwise annoying. Trip and T’pol finally experience the combination of the sexual tension that has been a hallmark of the relationship the season. That’s great, but then T’pol seems  to uncharacteristically refuse to take responsibility for her own emotions, consequences of her actions, etc. Still, kind of titillating to see that much of JoLene Blalock’s butt.

The other part between the Marines and Malcolm was tremendously telegraphed, and further cements Malcolm as a petty officer more than a lieutenant.
[close]

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1068 on: November 29, 2017, 03:25:09 PM »
Watched Generations. Man you feel acutely aware you wasted two hours of your life when you are done with this one.

 :goty2


It sucks. Really badly. So much worse than any of the prior six films. Might as well point this out right off the bat.

Quote
Moore described Generations as a project with a number of required elements that the film "had to have".[13] Berman felt that including the original cast of the previous Star Trek films felt like a "good way to pass the baton" to the next series.[12] The studio wanted the original cast to only appear in the first minutes, with Kirk only recurring at the end of the film. Other requests included a big Khan Noonien Singh-like antagonist, Klingons, and a humorous Data plot.[13]

Quote
Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley declined to appear as Spock and Leonard McCoy. Nimoy (who was offered the job of directing the film) felt that there were story problems with the script and that Spock's role was extraneous[6]—"I said to everybody concerned [...] that if you took the dozen or so lines of Spock dialog and simply changed the name of the character, nobody would notice the difference."[7] The Next Generation producer Rick Berman said that "Both Leonard Nimoy and DeForest Kelley felt they made a proper goodbye in the last movie [Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country]".[8]

The script fucking sucks. The movie is constructed in the way a lame TV episode is in that everything blatantly sets itself up so on the nose so you can connect the dots. Kill picard's nephew early in via dialogue. Pay it off later in shitty Dickens-esque nexus xmas scene. Give Data emotion chip. Pay it off later in shitty enterprise scene where he finds spot and sheds tears. I mean a good script has setup and pay-off but its subtle. This movie hangs a big sign on everyone's neck and says, HEY DUMBFUCK, here is the pay-off for that stupid thing we set up earlier! There is nothing subtle in this film.

Data's "funny" emotion scene stuff is so broad and so embarrassing. Picard is given emotional scenes that aren't earned and make you cringe. Malcolm McDowell and his character suck. The only reason we are even supposed to care is because they need to drop in a plot point that a nearby planet we never see is gonna be destroyed so better save those people! They destroy the enterprise in a meaningless combat scene with klingons just to up the stakes even though none of this has any weight or consequence to it. It's just there to pad out time and have action.

This is the real first time you see the limitations and the burn out in that era of Trek start to begin imo. You have a movie that feels like it would have made a bad episode. It doesn't look or feel like a motion picture and it has none of the scale of one. There is also a blandness here that was always a little bit there in TNG. Don't get me wrong. I love TNG. But at its worse there was a blandness to the show because some many of the characters were disposable and didn't really have distinct personalities. TOS had a lot of flaws. It was campy and corny at times. But it was never bland. It may have had some bland minor character but it knew to spend 90% of its time focused around the personalities of Kirk, Spock, and Bones who weren't bland. This movie just sucks and it's in unfortunate era of time, that they just couldn't let go of TOS and try to embrace what made TNG good. Instead this movies serves no one well. Both TOS and TNG come off looking bad.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1069 on: November 29, 2017, 05:13:19 PM »
I finished s3 of Enterprise. The Xyndi War was an interesting way to spend a season. Good recurring villains, consistent peril, the continuity of having the ship maintain its condition over the last 4-5 episodes: all of these felt accomplished, and new to the series. Somehow I couldn't wait for the situation to be solved. I binged more of this season than I've done for any other show.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1070 on: November 29, 2017, 10:06:40 PM »
I had my share of issues with Season 3 but giving it a season long arc definitely gave the show a momentum that the prior trek shows hadn't had.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 10:11:24 PM by Stoney Mason »

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1071 on: November 30, 2017, 12:22:42 AM »
Definitely.

I'll admit to being so accustomed to the one-and-done format of Trek that Enterprise managed to surprise me repeatedly by leaving the ship in increasingly bad shape. The first two times I was waiting for some kind of time-loop to manifest, or for Daniels to come in and wave a magic penis around and have it reset. NOPE, just a completely f'ed up ship, struggling to complete its mission. Pretty awesome.

The Xyndi reveal, the Expanse's true nature, that was some pretty good stuff.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1072 on: November 30, 2017, 06:55:25 PM »
Watched "The Emissary" earlier and never expected to find a klingon girl to be so attractive.

On the first episode of the third season and TNG really improved. Didn't expect a clipshow to end the second season though.
What's a clipshow?

That Emissary actress is Suzie Plakson, and she is fantastic. She was also a Vulcan in TNG at one point, nails it, and goes on to play an Andorian in Enterprise, which is also pretty great.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1073 on: November 30, 2017, 07:11:44 PM »
Quote
"Shades of Gray" is the 22nd episode of the second season of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: The Next Generation, the 48th episode overall. It was originally broadcast on July 17, 1989, in broadcast syndication. It was the only clip show filmed during the series and was created due to a lack of funds left over from other episodes during the season.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: star trek
« Reply #1074 on: November 30, 2017, 07:14:52 PM »
Watched "The Emissary" earlier and never expected to find a klingon girl to be so attractive.

On the first episode of the third season and TNG really improved. Didn't expect a clipshow to end the second season though.
What's a clipshow?

That Emissary actress is Suzie Plakson, and she is fantastic. She was also a Vulcan in TNG at one point, nails it, and goes on to play an Andorian in Enterprise, which is also pretty great.

They just show clips from previous episodes. IIRC, there was a wraparound where Riker almost gets killed by some aliens and then he has "flashbacks" while he clings to life. The reason for it was there was a writers' strike near the end of the season, and they had to cut it short.
©@©™

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1075 on: December 01, 2017, 03:21:20 AM »
The writer's strike is also the reason for the episode "The Child" which was a recycled Phase II script, like The Motion Picture was. I think it contributed to another "recycled script" episode that season too.

It's also why the second season is four episodes short. Well, five actually, because that one's a clip show. (The 22* episodes of season two are the lowest for a non-premiere season of Trek until Enterprise's fourth season. All other seasons of Trek have 26 episodes except for TOS and ENT season three which have 24 and ENT season four which has 22.)

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1076 on: December 01, 2017, 03:54:55 AM »
Voyager is pretty bad, but it's not nearly as awful as I remember.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1077 on: December 01, 2017, 07:09:06 AM »
Voyager has some truly great Trek. (Like, to take a example from someone who has moved up in the world since....the Bryan Fuller written episode "Living Witness")

But almost none of it requires it to be on Voyager. Swapping a lot of VOY's best for TNG's worst could be done to make one great show and one garbage bin for example.

And outside of The Doctor, everyone has drastic characterization problems to where nobody truly progresses. And ultimately part of that is the shows main problem, it never lets itself dare chase any premise out of a safe little box that resets the characters, the ship, the torpedo count, the shuttles, etc. at the end of the episode. So you mainly get a lot of disappointment that makes it seem even worse than the mostly mediocre it is.

VOY is building off TNG because DS9 couldn't do the same kind of stories, it was tied into its local part of the universe, so there is some advancement in considering premises and ENT built off VOY in a similar manner but the prequel premise added its own problems.

"Dragons Teeth" is a perfect example of all of Voyager's inherit problems within a good Trek episode. Nothing requires it to be the Voyager crew, TNG could do this episode with a few parts changed around. But the central premise, the discovery of a landmark technology from a "lost race" whose society and civilization were ruined by hostile powers who have already butted heads against the crew provides the opening hand, then you get the turn, that the "lost race" was defeated because of their past actions and now they plan to seize Voyager (or the Enterprise) to begin the rebuilding of their empire, and finally the river, where the ships escape and Seven/Janeway acknowledge they most likely reignited a major interstellar war after hundreds of years of peace.

But Voyager as a show can't follow up on this, it has to continue its relentless travel towards the Alpha Quadrant. And unlike ENT, or "Year of Hell" or even the Equinox, we're never allowed a ship that's truly hurting, low on resources, etc.

They screwed up with the Kazon because there was no reason for a race that scavenges for parts to be such a long term antagonist across so much space, especially a particular tribe of this race and your former crewmember (who had a baby!) and then overcompensated by going in the other direction with everyone but The Borg. The one time it somewhat worked was when they had the Hirogen for only a period of a season as semi-recurring in small groups or solo, and they had to ruin that by capping it with not only a two-part Holodeck episode centered around World War II starring a whole host of Hirogen, but then suddenly three years later run into one of these same faction of the Hirogen's outposts. (I'd also like to point out that in that Holodeck episode, at the end of the first part (or at the middle if it's viewed in the two hour format, I dunno what's on the DVDs/streaming, it originally aired as two hour format then reruns were split), they use actual explosives to blow a hole through multiple decks of the ship. Nobody seems much to care. The very next episode starts with Tom Paris in the holodeck pretending to be a 1950's car mechanic.)

The Delta Flyer alone makes a mockery of the show's potential as showing a true journey into the unknown, but then there's the fact that they REBUILD IT COMPLETELY after losing the first one.

And everything about the Maquis crew immediately mocks the shows premise of having to integrate them.

I won't take credit for the idea as a whole, but I did start in the little GAF TrekTalk orbit the joke about the show actually being about a villain and Janeway is that villain character. I've since seen articles and stuff expounding on that reconsideration of Voyager from that perspective and how it makes it a totally different show. I was mainly working off Janeway's constant double standard with Federation Rules that always fit whatever she wanted including more than once basically suggesting genocide*, along with the fact she kept Harry Kim an Ensign for the entire run while promoting other characters.

This joke is only really seriously added onto when you consider how her actions in the Finale are arguably one of the most questionable or vile acts ever shown by a Starfleet Captain, let alone main character of a series, on screen, especially when compared to the poignancy of the Kim/Chakotay/Doctor episode where Voyager is frozen in ice that explores a similar theme. Janeway's motivation is sacrificing untold trillions or more so that Tuvok can get home quicker for an eventual treatment for a future illness. During which she breaks every rule in the book, informs people in the past of their future, TAKES WITH HER ADVANCED WEAPONRY, alters decades of history at that point, all to speed this up, something she had just a year prior in our time chewed out and destroyed the Equinox for daring to do on her watch. Oh, plus the other half of her motivation is just to stick her dick in the eye of the Borg Queen (no Cream avatar) and probably plunge the Delta Quadrant into horrific warfare for centuries*.

*To be fair, significant levels of the Federation leadership (along with the Cardassian and Romulan leaderships earlier) were also willing to commit genocide of The Founders and plunge the Gamma Quadrant into chaos to win/prevent the Dominion War. So Janeway was seemingly cut out to be more of a high ranking insane Starfleet Admiral of the Week than a series helming Captain anyway.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1078 on: December 04, 2017, 09:56:44 PM »
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/12/05/tarantino-might-make-a-star-trek-movie

Quote
File this under today's most unexpected news - a new rumor suggests Quentin Tarantino is planning to make a Star Trek movie at Paramount.

Sources close to Deadline say that Tarantino has cooked up a "great idea" for a Star Trek movie, and after sharing his idea with JJ Abrams (who 'rebooted' the series in 2009), a plan has reportedly been put in place to assemble a writer's room to begin building a script. If all goes to plan, Tarantino may direct the film, with Abrams attached to produce.

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #1079 on: December 04, 2017, 10:19:44 PM »
:thinking