Author Topic: star trek  (Read 210540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #120 on: January 28, 2013, 02:33:16 PM »
im so sad that im 4/7ths finished with DS9 and only shit Voyager awaits me after

i'll have to watch the original series next

I'm gonna go Voyager -> Enterprise -> Original Series -> First Six Movies.  End where I started.

Yeti

  • Hail Hydra
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2013, 05:56:42 PM »
I kind of gave up on Voyager midway through season 4. I'll come back to it later though.
WDW

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #122 on: January 30, 2013, 09:07:04 AM »
lwaxana troy again ajsbdnrjendhdn

Honestly, she's a great character. She elicits such a reaction from fans; ST:TNG needed its own non-defeatable heel character, and there she is...

Read Q In Law by Peter David. Q marries Lwaxana, gives her the power of Q, but then dumps her. The Q prevent him from taking the power away from him so she proceeds to kick his ass all over the ship. It has one of the greatest Worf one-liners ever:

Quote
"She's really beating the stuffing out of him," observed Riker. "What do you think we should do?" "Sell tickets," rumbled Worf.

I think I've read most of the Peter David TNG books; they're very good.

I am starting to really dislike Worf. He learns nothing. He never changes. He's prone to being fooled and making the same and simple mistakes. Hell he even gets beat up sometimes. I liked him better in TNG.
Sadly, I think Worf falls prey to writers wanting to show how tough the monster is by having it best Worf. Instead, basically Worf just looks like he's the only person to get beat up all the time.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #123 on: February 02, 2013, 01:07:46 AM »
i think i agree with you momo. ds9 overall has better writing and even maybe dialogue.... but im gonna be honest. i think i like TNG better. the cast is just so much more memorable, the aesthetic more enjoyable, even a better sense of humor. i think DS9 is objectively better, but TNG is just special man. i cant even justify it tbh
My man :bow

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #124 on: February 04, 2013, 03:14:16 AM »
worf in by inferno's light :bow2


Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #125 on: February 04, 2013, 04:25:21 AM »
If you were any other man I WOULD KILL YOU WHERE YOU STAND

Worf :bow

Re: star trek
« Reply #126 on: February 04, 2013, 05:53:26 PM »
i think i agree with you momo. ds9 overall has better writing and even maybe dialogue.... but im gonna be honest. i think i like TNG better. the cast is just so much more memorable, the aesthetic more enjoyable, even a better sense of humor. i think DS9 is objectively better, but TNG is just special man. i cant even justify it tbh

The cast was endearing to me because each member represented or subscribed to the spotless morality of the Federation in their own way. They were always going forward to become better than what they were, valantly seeking to improve the lives of others without infringing on their natural rights or asking for anything in exchange outside of knowledge. I felt I could trust any of the cast members with my life.

DS9, on the other hand, spoiled the Federation's innocence and, by extension, those of the characters as well, by retrofitting Federation moral and political system with semblances of Machiavellianism, particularly during the Dominion War where favorable ends started justifying crude means. We've seen it with some of Sisko's decisions that resulted in the deliberate killing of unsuspecting individuals. We've seen it with the introduction of Section 31. The notion of a pure Federation was cast in forever doubt, and while some praised the gritty direction of the series, others like myself call it for what it is - a cop out to boost ratings. Because the Federation was supposed to be perfect and ideal but its purity was forever tarnished in the name of "realism" -- when, in fact, this realism is only applicable to today's world and today's people, not to those in the future who're, by Roddenberry's original vision, supposed to be more advanced, civilized, and enlightened.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2013, 02:00:56 PM by Nintendosbooger »

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #127 on: February 07, 2013, 11:57:04 PM »
TOS is rather campy, but I'd still recommend it over most of Voyager. As much shit as I give Voyager it has it's moments, thing is you have to wade through buckets of crap to get there

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #128 on: February 08, 2013, 12:14:19 AM »
i think i agree with you momo. ds9 overall has better writing and even maybe dialogue.... but im gonna be honest. i think i like TNG better. the cast is just so much more memorable, the aesthetic more enjoyable, even a better sense of humor. i think DS9 is objectively better, but TNG is just special man. i cant even justify it tbh

The cast was endearing to me because each member represented or subscribed to the spotless morality of the Federation in their own way. They were always going forward to become better than what they were, valantly seeking to improve the lives of others without infringing on their natural rights or asking for anything in exchange outside of knowledge. I felt I could trust any of the cast members with my life.

DS9, on the other hand, spoiled the Federation's innocence and, by extension, those of the characters as well, by retrofitting Federation moral and political system with semblances of Machiavellianism, particularly during the Dominion War where crude ends started justifying favorable means. We've seen it with some of Sisko's decisions that resulted in the deliberate killing of unsuspecting individuals. We've seen it with the introduction of Section 31. The notion of a pure Federation was cast in forever doubt, and while some praised the gritty direction of the series, others like myself call it for what it is - a cop out to boost ratings. Because the Federation was supposed to be perfect and ideal but its purity was forever tarnished in the name of "realism" -- when, in fact, this realism is only applicable to today's world and today's people, not to those in the future who're, by Roddenberry's original vision, supposed to be more advanced, civilized, and enlightened.

I like your thoughts, here. I'd heard it said before, but not this well, and usually by rabid Trekkies. It does dim the light a bit, to think that the shipmates and UFP may not always have the most pure intent at heart.

Then again, this was present in TNG to some degree, with UFP Admirals going rogue, covering up their dirty past, etc. But I honestly can't recall if that was during the DS9/TNG overlap, or discrete.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: star trek
« Reply #129 on: February 09, 2013, 01:01:10 AM »
Green alien girls. :drool
@

benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #130 on: February 09, 2013, 02:52:52 AM »
Diana Muldaur shows up a couple times.

Dr. Pulaski  :drool

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #131 on: February 09, 2013, 03:24:38 AM »
In season 6 of DS9 and the space breeding ain't any less weird.  A half-ferengi, half-cardassian hellspawn better not show up. 

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #132 on: February 10, 2013, 01:35:34 PM »
I forgot thow weird TOS Klignons are if you watched TNG first :lol

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #133 on: February 11, 2013, 05:21:28 AM »
:lol

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #134 on: February 13, 2013, 01:15:07 AM »
does section 31 ever show up again? as much as I like the idyllic federation from TNG and parts of DS9, the thought that it's supported by men who do what's necessary is compelling.  the three members you see are all human.  I'm left wondering if it's an exclusively human run group.  A 'can't risk other species leaking the information' sort of thing.


benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #135 on: February 13, 2013, 01:22:44 AM »
There's some books about it, and they play some parts in the DS9 Relaunch.

They're hinted at in an Enterprise episode or two, not directly referenced or anything but a whole "HEY REMEMBER THESE FELLAS? HUH? HUH? *WINKS*" deal. That would seem to imply they predate the Federation.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: star trek
« Reply #136 on: February 15, 2013, 03:03:34 PM »
dog

Re: star trek
« Reply #137 on: February 15, 2013, 04:19:32 PM »
does section 31 ever show up again? as much as I like the idyllic federation from TNG and parts of DS9, the thought that it's supported by men who do what's necessary is compelling.  the three members you see are all human.  I'm left wondering if it's an exclusively human run group.  A 'can't risk other species leaking the information' sort of thing.

Yes. Check out Enterprise.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #138 on: February 17, 2013, 01:50:36 AM »
They keep giving us these episodes where Tupac loses his shit because of some vulcan bs too, at least keep that gimmick to once a season smh

It was the first time a Vulcan had been seen on the bridge crew since TOS, and the writers were chomping at the bit to use it.

I'd put my money on rushed schedules or a lazy Head Writer; the same thing that has Wesley save the ship every other episode, and has Worf being beat to hell all the time. Instead of an exceptional moment which highlights the character, it becomes a constant, and ironically ends up defining the character as the opposite of what's intended (badass security office, hypercompetent crew who would not /normally/ be shown up by a somewhat bright high school student).

benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #139 on: February 17, 2013, 01:58:31 AM »
I did like the concept of having to address pon farr away from the Alpha Quadrant. I don't think they figured out how to do it in any way that made much sense though. Like they skimmed the summary of Amok Time before writing either.

Enterprise's turn had the same problem.

Quote
Especially with Janeway, there is no fucking way someone's reliance on starfleet principles would make them turn down so many routes to get home quick.
It's not Janeway's adherence to Starfleet principles, the Prime Directive or anything. It's because she's the villain and stranded/kept them there because it made her the most powerful person among their "tribe." Everything she does over the entire series is based around this central goal of maintaining her power*.

I've never understood why people considered DS9 the darkest Star Trek.

*Except for keeping Harry an Ensign, that was just because she despised him.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 02:08:16 AM by benjipwns »

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #140 on: February 17, 2013, 09:10:44 PM »
Gowron challenging Worf, after Worf handed him his ass last time they fought.  Gowron even fronts with "you'll regret killing me." come on...just shoot him with a phaser from across the room.  Worf ain't too bright, but he's in another league than the rest of the doofus Klingon race.

Re: star trek
« Reply #141 on: February 17, 2013, 10:29:35 PM »
The notion that the Klingon Empire is on par, technologically speaking, with the Romulans and the Federation is odd. I mean, they're a race of warriors, and they stress the warrior way of life even outside of the military institution, so the idea that there are competent scientists, engineers, and physicians in a society that isn't very conducive to non-violent avenues of intellectual advancement is peculiar.

What's even more strange is that the Vulcans, who are mentally superior to virtually everyone, are technologically (and therefore, militarily) inferior to all the major powers.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 10:36:57 PM by Nintendosbooger »

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #142 on: February 17, 2013, 10:51:34 PM »
I can buy the vulcan thing with the conceit that humans are more emotional, and therefore more creative.

The Klingon empire might make sense if, say, they created a weapon powered by a warp drive, and another advanced race sought to make contact, and the klingons murdered and stole their technology.  The cochran guy from First Contact made a warp drive from a nuclear missile, so there's some precedent there.  Although, ezria tells worf that it's been a very long time since the klingons weren't corrupt.  I haven't watched TOS or Enterprise yet, but maybe a long, long, long time ago the klingons weren't dumb brutes.

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #143 on: February 19, 2013, 02:25:30 PM »
All in all DS9 was really good.  Still think TNG is better, but that's a show that appeals more to my sensibilities.

Easier to list my problems with it than everything I liked.  Didn't care for the maquis, even if it led to some good episodes.  Thought they were cheap, and the way they dressed was stupid.  Odo went back and forth between acceptable and annoying; overall the weakest of the cast, to me.  Everything about the pahwraiths and Dukat after his defeat.  In my mind Dukat's story was over when he debased himself in front of Sisko when they were marooned on that planet.  He didn't need to find space-satan and do all the cartoonishly evil stuff in the final season.  And after a point the stories about the Ferengi got tiring.

Actually I'll point out out part that surprised me: Jake.  Not that he was the best character or anything, but there were so many ways to ruin a 'son' character, and they managed to avoid falling into cheap traps.  I mean, if Jake turned out like Alexander, it would've been awful.

and voyager is making a bad first impression.  none of the characters stand out in a positive way.  tom paris is uncomfortably smarmy.


chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #144 on: February 20, 2013, 08:48:40 PM »
Voyager was supposed to be about going back to the original series' type of drama, exploration of an unknown territory, and that type of bridge crew.
Paris, I think, was supposed to be the male/libido/scoundrel portion of Captain Kirk, while Janeway was the stern, authoritarian portion of Kirk.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: star trek
« Reply #145 on: February 20, 2013, 09:14:48 PM »
And I guess Neelix was supposed to be an anthropomorphic Tribble. :yuck
@

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #146 on: February 22, 2013, 01:23:33 AM »
I'm in season 2 and yeah it's bad.  If I wasn't committed to watching star trek, I would've dropped it already. 

Deep Space 9 took some time to hit its stride and become spectacular, but it was always pretty good with great characters and nice ideas.  TNG got me hooked from episode 1.

Cindi Mayweather

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #147 on: February 22, 2013, 01:34:53 AM »
How many eps per day do you watch Escha?
JAZZ

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #148 on: February 22, 2013, 01:36:07 AM »
i finished voyager. It sucked. there were like 10 legit great episodes. 7 seasons of trash

almost afraid to watch enterprise
:bow

enterprize is worse imo :bow

benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #149 on: February 22, 2013, 10:53:14 PM »
i was on season 4 and skipped to 7.
Doubt you want to go back but here's a few from season four, five and six I think are alright or better* or too stupid to miss or whatever you might go back for if a synopsis catches your fancy:
Year of Hell*
Message in a Bottle
Living Witness*
The Omega Directive
One
Hope and Fear
Night
In The Flesh
Timeless*
Counterpoint
Latent Image
Bliss
The Disease  :lol
Demon/Course: Oblivion
The Fight :poop
Someone To Watch Over Me  :-*
Relativity
Equinox*
Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy
Dragon's Teeth*
The Voyager Conspiracy
Pathfinder*
Blink Of An Eye
Fair Haven/Spirit Folk  :yuck
Ashes to Ashes
Live Fast and Prosper
Fury
Life Line*

Re: star trek
« Reply #150 on: February 25, 2013, 09:50:41 AM »
Anyone else thought the relationship between Worf and Deanna Troi at the tail end of the series to be odd? It definitely set Riker fans at odds with the Klingon. But what was more bizzare is the fact that Riker and Troi married in Star Trek: Nemesis. I mean, how does Riker manage to get sloppy seconds from a son of Mogh?

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #151 on: February 25, 2013, 01:33:10 PM »
yeah, at first I thought it would be a 'what if' story in Parallels only.  Last episode of voyager I watched had Tom and Kes in a relationship, with Harry in a relationship with their daughter, despite the women in this scenario being like 3 and 1 years old respectively.  Similar situation there.

Then when they continued it into the very last episode, where one possible future had Troi dead, and that was a wedge between Riker and Worf's friendship? No one mentioned it in Generations.  Don't remember anyone mentioning it in Deep Space 9.  And in Nemesis, Worf is just 'there' not really fazed by the marriage  I guess he realized that every woman he ends up is doomed.
 
I was confused by Julian and Ezri's relationship, too.  It went something like: Ezri matters for a few episodes, sleeps with Worf, mind scan shows she's in love with Julian, and then they're together.  But the kernel of the relationship stemmed from Jadzia's feelings for Julian, which were outweighed by her feelings for Worf or something? sure, whtever.
 

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #152 on: February 25, 2013, 08:48:50 PM »
I try to ignore the Trek movies, at least as far as dealing with the whole bridge crew goes. The movies are about Picard and Data, to the unfortunate exclusion of the ensemble cast's dynamic, which is what really made for the best of the TV episodes.

There have been a few write ups about how weird the wedding stuff was, including one by Wil Wheaton, I think...

But, yeah, it's a weird left turn which ignores where the series was going, but that's mostly true for all TNG movies.

benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #153 on: February 28, 2013, 06:40:20 AM »
For TNG you just have to ignore any of that shit. You watch First Contact because it's badass. You watch Nemesis maybe because you want to see one of the best Trek space battles in the midst of one of the worst Trek plots.

Insurrection is a two-part TNG episode. Generations is dogshit, worst of all the Trek films, come at me.

That Moore chat relays how they confused All Good Things and Generations since they were being written at the same time. I can't imagine how. One was all the good ideas, one got all the bad ones.

I'll save my dumb ramblings about TOS movies until you guys get there or whatever. (VI is the secret best, shhhh.)

Just saw this for the first time:

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #154 on: February 28, 2013, 06:51:39 AM »
I agree about First Contact and Insurrection.

Nemesis is a steaming pile of diarrhea, served on a silver platter of production value.


benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #155 on: February 28, 2013, 07:07:44 AM »
The production value of Nemesis sucks too  :lol

But dat battle. It doesn't even make sense but it's too stupidly cool.

I like some of the music too. And the commentaries where they're all trying to say that Stuart Baird wasn't horrible to work with even though he thought Geordi was an alien. (Racist?)

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #156 on: February 28, 2013, 08:09:11 AM »
Yeah, okay, it sucks in Nemesis, but its better than the tv show... :lol

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #157 on: March 04, 2013, 03:59:19 AM »
voyager got better, never great.  deeper I get into star trek, the more confused I get by the negative response to the 2009 film.

so far enterprise is HD, widescreen, and wtf is this intro?

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #158 on: March 04, 2013, 10:24:48 AM »
deeper I get into star trek, the more confused I get by the negative response to the 2009 film.

For me the appeal of Star Trek was never the action. It had action but it was never the action of most traditional action movies.  I think that 2009 film isn't really what I like from Star Trek. But whatever. It seemed very popular and any Star Trek film probably has to be more like that for mainstream audiences.

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #159 on: March 04, 2013, 02:51:46 PM »
I understand and mostly agree with both of you.  I like TNG and DS9 more than Star Trek 09, and a Star Trek movie that felt more like those would be swell.  But Voyager and most of the TNG movies, especially Nemesis, were in such a low place that Star Trek 09 comes off like a big step up from what came before.  I can appreciate it more as a fun movie with the Star Trek license, even if it's not totally faithful to Star Trek.  I dunno.  Maybe Enterprise will be really good and I'll retract this.

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #160 on: March 04, 2013, 10:11:26 PM »
decon chamber  :wtf


did gainan oil down riker off camera? or does this get phased out by the 24th century?

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #161 on: March 04, 2013, 10:24:55 PM »
decon chamber  :wtf


did gainan oil down riker off camera? or does this get phased out by the 24th century?

I am missing the reference. Was this in an episode, or are your referring to some Ted Danson action for Riker?

Boogie

  • The Smooth Canadian
  • Icon
Re: star trek
« Reply #162 on: March 04, 2013, 10:44:14 PM »
decon chamber  :wtf


did gainan oil down riker off camera? or does this get phased out by the 24th century?

I am missing the reference. Was this in an episode, or are your referring to some Ted Danson action for Riker?

Bakula Enterprise had a "decontamination chamber" that they went through after away missions, which was just a blatant excuse to get T'Pol naked and all oiled up.
MMA

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #163 on: March 04, 2013, 10:46:34 PM »
T'pol or however you spell that oils down the engineer dude in Enterprise

I remember because the only thing I liked of the show was T'pol

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #164 on: March 04, 2013, 10:47:05 PM »
Boogie'd

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #165 on: March 05, 2013, 01:38:35 AM »
:fans_self

 :-[

benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #166 on: March 06, 2013, 04:35:30 AM »
deeper I get into star trek, the more confused I get by the negative response to the 2009 film.
I actually dislike Star Trek as a film more than I dislike it as a Star Trek film. If that makes any sense. (And like it more than Generations and V at the very least.)

II and VI and First Contact are all films I like enough alone (especially the first two) that get kicked up another level due to being Star Trek.

I dislike Star Trek for its dumb incoherent plot. And beyond that the action just isn't interesting enough to catch my attention. I do love many of the little Star Trek "touches" to it. I actually think Pine and Urban are better than Quinto. I kinda liked Pike. I hatteeeeddd Nero and everything involving him, especially since it wasted Bana and wrecked up the plot.

And I still think tying it to the original continuity is what introduced half the plot holes. Beyond that my "fanboy" hate is tied to the ship, it's too big, bright, etc. I loved the tight naval/sub versions that II, VI, First Contact and Enterprise show. (And the Defiant of course  :-*.)

I am kinda slowly getting excited for Into Darkness despite everything that's telling me no. I hope that with no pressure to establish their version and such they can just do something great that maybe pulls in Trek. That said, I haven't liked anything from any of these guys (except I used to watch Crossing Jordan :-[) and doubt that'll start here.

And the name, especially the name.  :-\

 :-\

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #167 on: March 08, 2013, 09:07:44 AM »
Yeah, after The Hulk, and 2009 Star Trek, when watching HANNA the other night, I was completely surprised that Bana can act.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #168 on: March 08, 2013, 12:54:57 PM »
Bakula Enterprise had a "decontamination chamber" that they went through after away missions, which was just a blatant excuse to get T'Pol naked and all oiled up.

Reminds me of this episode which at the time was touted as a big social deal by the marketing people but was really just a way to slip in some lipstick lesbian kissing in an episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejoined
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_kiss_episode

« Last Edit: March 08, 2013, 12:56:32 PM by Stoney Mason »

Re: star trek
« Reply #169 on: March 08, 2013, 01:00:16 PM »
Could never hope to get the GF to watch Star Trek. That's like breaking someone into RPGs by having them play Wizardry first.

So, the past few nights, I've had her watch Battlestar Galactica. So far, she can tolerate it and she hates sci-fi with a passion. No goofy looking aliens for her to laugh at in BSG, so that's a big plus. The Cylons are perfect -- they're killer robots, she can understand killer robots. The tech-speech isn't overwhelming to her, either.

Hopefully, once we're done with this show and she becomes better acclimated to the theme of space travel, I can sneak a few TNG episodes into her TV diet. Who knows, maybe she'll even give Star Wars a try (she's never watched any of the movies). Sigh.

Wish me luck.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #170 on: March 08, 2013, 01:13:23 PM »
I've noticed females tend to like BSG more. It's relatively accessible. They generally have to have some innner nerd in them though to get into Star Trek.

cool breeze

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #171 on: March 08, 2013, 01:52:28 PM »
yeah, BSG is mostly regular drama.

First episode of TNG is out there with Q testing the enterprise crew, freeing a captive space jellyfish, and that's without getting into the show's premise.  There aren't as many touchstones to ground TNG in our ordinary lives.

also, Enterprise is a really unengaging show.  TNG, DS9, and occasionally with Voyager, I'd be so taken that I solely focus on the episode instead of my work.  With Enterprise, nothing is particularly intriguing or entertaining, so I end up concentrating on my work.  Can't even muster up any criticism of it.


benjipwns

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #172 on: March 08, 2013, 05:15:50 PM »
It's well past time for the Joey in space then:

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: star trek
« Reply #173 on: March 08, 2013, 05:56:38 PM »
TNG is Barney Miller in space.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've been repeating this for years hoping just one person would realize what a brilliant insight this is.  Validate me!
[close]

Re: star trek
« Reply #174 on: March 13, 2013, 07:35:07 PM »
holy shit ray wise in who watches the watcher

i wish he had been able to play the hulk at some point. him or klaus kinski would be fantastic.
this was a great episode all round, i love when they completely fuck the prime directive. i would totally worship the picard.
thx

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #175 on: March 14, 2013, 09:03:03 AM »
Picard. Man, what a stud.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #176 on: March 14, 2013, 09:21:31 AM »
I'd have liked to see Bakula in a Lord of Illusions sequel. That movie is severely under-appreciated.

Re: star trek
« Reply #177 on: March 14, 2013, 04:15:58 PM »
So I watched 'The Captains' last night, really interesting.


5)Avery Brooks. this dude is cool as hell but he's also weird as shit. he has this allegorical/metaphorical way of speaking sometimes that actually just makes him seem like Ben Sisko IRL. I feel like he might be a little crazy.

He was weird. He's like a former black militant turned music scholar.

jiji

  • Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #178 on: March 15, 2013, 11:45:37 AM »
5)Avery Brooks. this dude is cool as hell but he's also weird as shit. he has this allegorical/metaphorical way of speaking sometimes that actually just makes him seem like Ben Sisko IRL. I feel like he might be a little crazy.

Seems like the dude spent a little too much time with the Prophets. I mean, he's cool as hell, but at the same time, crazy as hell. I don't know how he sobered up his demeanor enough to play Sisko. Unless the way he is in The Captains is something that's developed since he was on DS9.

And did anybody else cringe every time Shatner tried to make the conversation about himself and started to tell some unfunny, non-sequitur anecdote? The dude thinks he's likable and funny and relevant but he really is just That Guy. I watched the roundtable discussion disc that came with the TOS movie BD set, and Shatner does about the same thing there, but the editors didn't let him monopolize the end result.
OTL

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Re: star trek
« Reply #179 on: March 15, 2013, 12:07:15 PM »
3)Patrick Stewart is just god.

He's amazing in anything.

"But it was too late. I'd already seen everything."
@