Author Topic: star trek  (Read 329541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #660 on: September 12, 2017, 10:38:33 AM »
Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."

It has iconic characters. A great captain. Its unique in relation to TOS after it finds its wings. And has a decent size number of classic episodes.

And part of understanding and enjoying any tv show is being partially aware of the era and context it was born. TNG was a great show in its day. I don't care if a person watches it now and applies a modern filter to it because that is inevitable. But judging any piece of art relative to its era and restrictions is also important.

Same as with TOS. A personal pet peeve of mine is when people overly criticize tos without taking into account the era. Not that those criticisms can't exist or aren't valid. But without talking about the era and context, its kind of missing the point.

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #661 on: September 12, 2017, 03:44:53 PM »
Do I start with the 1968 pilot and just keep watching until it feels right to watch another spin off or is there some other order I have to follow to get into this?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #662 on: September 12, 2017, 03:50:06 PM »
Go in production order. Finish TOS then watch TNG. Then DS9. Go in order as there's an actual timeline and will help you appreciate storylines. Watch TOS movies after finishing TOS to bridge the gap between TOS and TNG.

Enjoy. Trek has flaws but man I love me so Trek.
IYKYK

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #663 on: September 12, 2017, 03:50:40 PM »

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #664 on: September 12, 2017, 03:50:57 PM »
Do I start with the 1968 pilot and just keep watching until it feels right to watch another spin off or is there some other order I have to follow to get into this?

I love TOS (The original series) but for younger people it may not be to your liking. You can just start with the TNG (The next generation) and watch others after that if you want.

TNG kinda sucks the first few seasons but it sets you up in the universe and lore that most of the other shows tend to follow.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #665 on: September 12, 2017, 03:53:07 PM »
I disagree with most young people on TOS. Watch TOS first season and see how you like it. If you don't like it, skip to the movies. If you like it, continue on. Decide for yourself on TOS.

Also the idea of skipping entire seasons for TNG isn't something I suggest because there are some great episodes in earlier seasons like Q Who, The Measure of Man, and Matter of Honor.

The best way to handle it, rather than skip entire seasons, is to consult an episode guide until you hit season 3. You should still watch the pilot to understand the premise and get introduced to the characters though I think.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #666 on: September 12, 2017, 03:59:07 PM »
Maybe I just get the love for TOS more cause my wife is a "TOS>all" type of fan. Either way y'all got me about to start a DS9 rewatch tonight while I play Yakuza. Should be fun!


Also as far as watching order, skip the original TOS pilot and watch the rest in order. Trek is all about taking the good with the bad. Episode guides are good for subsequent rewatches, but you should watch it all for your first time.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #667 on: September 12, 2017, 04:03:16 PM »
Yeah, skipping around...I'm not one for that. It feels... I dunno, wrong. Decide for yourself. People told me to skip all seasons 1 and 2 of DS9 and I loved every bit of those seasons (besides the TNG esque episodes). Sometimes what you like is different from everyone else. Trek is a YMMV thing, so skip only if you feel you have to.
IYKYK

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #668 on: September 12, 2017, 04:57:22 PM »
Just watched the TOS pilot. Interesting.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #669 on: September 12, 2017, 05:13:17 PM »
how so
IYKYK

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #670 on: September 12, 2017, 05:18:37 PM »
Just watched the TOS pilot. Interesting.

Which pilot?

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #671 on: September 12, 2017, 05:22:39 PM »
I assume he means The Cage. The restored version of TOS lists it as episode 1 now

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #672 on: September 12, 2017, 05:54:50 PM »
Yes, The Cage.

how so

The whole thing is rather sad. This race of super intelligent beings traps the captain in an attempt to use him for an Adam and Eve scenario with a disfigured woman who survived a shipwreck, and they're pretty much doomed to die because naturally, the captain won't stay under false pretense. Though I did enjoy how reality and illusion collided with each other (always have in fiction).

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #673 on: September 12, 2017, 06:02:23 PM »
Yes, The Cage.

how so

The whole thing is rather sad. This race of super intelligent beings traps the captain in an attempt to use him for an Adam and Eve scenario with a disfigured woman who survived a shipwreck, and they're pretty much doomed to die because naturally, the captain won't stay under false pretense. Though I did enjoy how reality and illusion collided with each other (always have in fiction).

TOS is full of sad sci-fi stories like that. Part of why I love it. It can be depressing. Interested on your thoughts on The Man Trap. If you like The Cage, TOS may be your type of bag. I like The Cage as well.

Stories like that are a big reason I'm confused why people say TNG is an extension of TOS. TOS feels way more darker to me.
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #674 on: September 12, 2017, 06:21:42 PM »
Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."
Stoney said what I'd hoped to say, except better and more concisely.

The point about appreciating a work from the context of its time is also important, and I feel like you're not crediting TNG for setting up the world in which DS9 can happen. There is no DS9 without TNG.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the idea of continuity happening in a syndicated show blew my mind. I grew up watching shows which were designed to be re-run in syndication without a viewing order or context. There was never character growth, and references to previous happenings in the series were rare. Having TNG take place in a storyline with persistence was incredible for me and my fellow college geeks. Now that TV commercials even have their own continuity, and EVERYTHING on TV seems to be serialized, I think it's impossible to appreciate its origins.

One thing TNG does right that TOS does not is embrace the ensemble nature of its bridge crew. Pretty much everyone gets the spotlight for an episode or two during the any season, and in most episodes that spotlight lands individually or in pairs for the bulk of the episode. TOS tends to be The Kirk Show, or frequently The Kirk and Spock Show, but it was rare to follow Scotty, Uhura, or Bones through a story. Ironically, the big fuckup of the TNG movies is that they try to turn it into The Picard and Data Show every time.

Re: star trek
« Reply #675 on: September 12, 2017, 06:24:43 PM »
The only hard skippable episodes of TNG are the various holodeck episodes, The Outrageous Okona and any episode in which Wesley saves the day.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #676 on: September 12, 2017, 06:35:51 PM »
I agree that TNG spotlighted its crew better but I feel like I still TOS' cast more?

Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."

It has iconic characters. A great captain. Its unique in relation to TOS after it finds its wings. And has a decent size number of classic episodes.

And part of understanding and enjoying any tv show is being partially aware of the era and context it was born. TNG was a great show in its day. I don't care if a person watches it now and applies a modern filter to it because that is inevitable. But judging any piece of art relative to its era and restrictions is also important.

Same as with TOS. A personal pet peeve of mine is when people overly criticize tos without taking into account the era. Not that those criticisms can't exist or aren't valid. But without talking about the era and context, its kind of missing the point.

I understand and appreciate these things. I think I'm hard on the show but I still like it? It's like we have a bad relationship. I feel like TNG has too many holodeck episodes, and that the cast is too clean. There's nothing like how the show hinted that Bones is an alcoholic for instance. And although Beverly got more episodes dedicated to her than Bones, I like Bones more.

For the time, yeah, it's good. But I think my critcisims - using the holodeck as a story crutch, lack of serialized continuity between episodes, overly predictable episode format, and the cast being lacking are fair. I'll agree the characters are iconic but I wouldn't necessarily call them good or interesting, but that's an entirely subjective thing. I do like Picard though. And Worf. And Ensign Ro.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #677 on: September 12, 2017, 06:56:04 PM »
Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the idea of continuity happening in a syndicated show blew my mind. I grew up watching shows which were designed to be re-run in syndication without a viewing order or context. There was never character growth, and references to previous happenings in the series were rare. Having TNG take place in a storyline with persistence was incredible for me and my fellow college geeks. Now that TV commercials even have their own continuity, and EVERYTHING on TV seems to be serialized, I think it's impossible to appreciate its origins.

This is actually one of my complaints about TNG. It felt like nothing matters. It feels like a procedural like Law in and Order but in space. I actually think lack of contuity is one of its biggest flaws. TOS I'll give you, because it's a 60's show. TNG came out a decade after something like Roots. So I hold it to a higher standard. What contuity? For the most part there isn't much. Things don't matter. Picard can become a Borg and kill people and barely anyone mentions it again besides the episode where he goes back to his farm. After that he's cured and everyone forgets. They have a ship therapist and it would have been nice to see the occasional scene where she's helping Picard or someone sort their problems. But nope. PTSD cured in an hour, brehs. So for the time, yes, I think it's absolutely worth criticizing. Data makes a daughter and it's not mentioned again. This is why Worf is my favorite character on the show. His problems of family and honor are on-going. He mates with someone and then he has a son. He helps Kahless' clone. He helps Gahren get his seat at the head of the council. Characters who have feuds with his family come back. I love his character and I love his continuity. But Picard lives an entire life on a planet that existed 1000 years ago and it's mentioned in passing while flirting with a chick inside the reaches of the ship so they can be alone.

TNG is far too episodic.

More quotes from my time at neogaf that explain why I'm conflicted on TNG:

Me:

Quote
Parallels - another "everything is changing on the enterprise but I'm the only one who see it!" esque episode in the tradition of Remember Me and Phantasms. Not even my love for Worf saves this episode. I'm utterly fatigued with TNG and want it to end already. Episode is terrible. Solve the mystery! The mystery will be solved by the end of episode. Nothing matters.

I'm not sure if my idea of good Trek runs contrary to what others find to be good Trek or what, but I hated it. I've hated every episode I've seen in season 7 so far even going down the list of suggested episodes posted before.

Jeffzero:

Quote
I doubt your idea is totally removed from mine. You like strong characterization and ongoing story arcs that are given their just dues, right? Real "space opera" fare? That's me in a nutshell; there are just some assorted one-off TNG-style eps which I also dig

Me:

Quote
Yes!

One offs aren't inherently bad either. A good one off example would be The Survivors. Or the episode where there's a malfunction at a Federation monitoring post and an alien civilization thinks they're Gods. Or the one where Data has to convince a planet that is going to die to evacuate. Where the mystery is worth solving and isn't just a bunch of random bullshit.

Sometimes you need them to pad and give the universe texture, but it rarely ever really does. Honestly, I can't blame some people for thinking Star Trek is boring.

Me:

Quote
The Pegasus - solid episode with some chips in its armor. It is fully willing to grand stand and navel gaze a moral high ground despite the fact that the very illegal technology they moralize is so awful, actually saved them from doom. Never is this viewpoint considered with any authenticity and it fully encapsulates TNG's worst flaws: its pretentious view of order with zero consideration for opposing viewpoints despite its willingness to have philosophical episodes such as this. In this universe, black and white prevails under 100% certainty. Still a good episode despite that.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #678 on: September 12, 2017, 07:18:23 PM »
"The Cage" is great, I love that they put it as the first episode in the remasters on the streaming services so people will watch it. It has a lot of nice touches.

I actually think it helps the show "develop" as you go to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then beyond in not just the sets and effects and so on but in how it differentiates itself from other sci-fi contemporaries. The start of the show very much has a less powerful Enterprise and crew. Kirk has to legitimately bluff his way out of battles and situations. He has to figure out situations and how to exploit them.

That fades away as the series goes on.

Because of its age I always suggest you watch the whole first season and then if you're wavering, just watch the best rated episodes of the next two. And not ever the service's rating but something like imdb's plus a rather well known internet reviewers (even though he's actually kinda terrible imo) and especially a hardcore Trekkie:
http://www.jammersreviews.com/st-tos/
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/tos2.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/tos3.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/tos.htm
Quote
I have a long-term memory for everything related to Star Trek and it influences how I look at anything new. In this regard, I can explain the ratings as follows:

 10 points: among the best Star Trek episodes ever, simply awesome

 5 points: average Star Trek episode, quite a fun to watch but with some flaws

 0 points: among the worst episodes ever, almost a waste of time but at least it's Star Trek

I go as low as one or zero points, because a rating system makes no sense if there is an accumulation in the upper half and the lowest ratings remain unused.

Reason I suggest those two are that Jammer and Bernd (especially Bernd) have very different takes on Trek than the standard fan or imdb scorer. Much like here me, Himu, Andrex, etc. all have different takes on what makes great Trek great. There's often a general consensus, like everyone agrees on "The Best of Both Worlds" for example. But "Frame of Mind" has only recently risen beyond fans like Jammer and Bernd, it's still down around like 35th on imdb and I have an old magazine that ranked all the TNG's after it ended (have one for Seinfeld too) and it put it at like 101st and called it boring garbage, etc.

Not saying you should skip low scored episodes that sound interesting or sit there with these guys ratings on hand and chart everything but if you were not feeling it and did want to cut down the number of episodes, I personally don't have many complaints with using those to cut out ten episodes or so from each season as they'd probably jive with what I often would find myself zone out during. And you can use them for TNG season 1 and 2 too. Actually, they're great for TOS/TNG 2-3 and 1-2. And if you ever get to Voyager and Enterprise they're pretty good for slicing out episodes of Voyager seasons and the first two seasons of Enterprise.

The one lone exception I might make is like the first few episodes of each series I consider worth watching, even TNG's first four or five. I feel there's a value in experiencing how they first presented the series. In TNG's case their second episode being one of the most amazing decisions of all time. :lol (Voyager has an epic garbage second (or third) episode iirc too, Enterprise has a decent one I want to say where they first visit a planet, I forget what DS9's is)
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 07:42:09 PM by benjipwns »

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #679 on: September 12, 2017, 07:31:06 PM »
TNG is far too episodic.

I like TNG being very episodic in the same way I like TOS being episodic. 

Which is different than saying I wish shows today were more episodic. I like that shows today are serial. That makes them much more entertaining to watch in the here and now when you watch them as binge tv which everybody does nowadays.

But the downside of that being I find serial TV makes me not watch the shows as much in the long term. I can randomly plop out an episode of TNG and TOS and sit and watch it for 45 minutes and thoroughly enjoy myself.  I've always been able to do that since I was a kid.  Some episodes I've seen dozens of times in that regard. I don't have to overly concern myself with the context of that episode within the big picture. They are nice simple short stories in that regard.

The more something becomes serial the less inclined I am to pull out random episodes just to watch and enjoy because watching one of those kind of episodes doesn't feel complete in the same way.

So I'm glad TOS and TNG existed in a highly episodic era of television, even though I'm happy the current era of television is highly serial by comparison.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #680 on: September 12, 2017, 07:39:26 PM »

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #681 on: September 12, 2017, 07:42:12 PM »
Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the idea of continuity happening in a syndicated show blew my mind. I grew up watching shows which were designed to be re-run in syndication without a viewing order or context. There was never character growth, and references to previous happenings in the series were rare. Having TNG take place in a storyline with persistence was incredible for me and my fellow college geeks. Now that TV commercials even have their own continuity, and EVERYTHING on TV seems to be serialized, I think it's impossible to appreciate its origins.

This is actually one of my complaints about TNG. It felt like nothing matters. It feels like a procedural like Law in and Order but in space. I actually think lack of contuity is one of its biggest flaws. TOS I'll give you, because it's a 60's show. TNG came out a decade after something like Roots.

That's an absurd comparison. Roots was a TV miniseries, adapted from a novel. It had a planned endpoint. TNG is an open-ended series. The only TV shows which had continuity at the time were soap operas, which were never designed to be syndicated, just made on-the-cheap, and run endlessly, serially.

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #682 on: September 12, 2017, 07:57:29 PM »
TOS is full of sad sci-fi stories like that. Part of why I love it. It can be depressing. Interested on your thoughts on The Man Trap. If you like The Cage, TOS may be your type of bag. I like The Cage as well.

I think you nailed it earlier when you compared TOS to Twilight Zone. A lot of the stories feel like they'd be at home there. Interesting tales of sci-fi/supernatural with a moral backbone to them, or sometimes just a twist you didn't expect.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #683 on: September 12, 2017, 08:00:29 PM »
TNG does start to pick up the character/universe growth and stuff as the show comes to an end since they knew it was ending. Stuff like Troi trying to enter command rank and take her job more seriously after Jellico calls her out basically (and it's more subtle and used less often but Riker also starts down this path after Locutus and Jellico), fleshing out the Romulans AND Klingons and not going back, Worf becoming more than a dude to throw around, even Chief O'Brien actually becomes more than background filler, etc.

Yeti

  • Hail Hydra
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #684 on: September 12, 2017, 10:06:28 PM »
O'Brien's always been my favorite TNG character. In a sea of moral paragons of humanity, he's just this average, hell, lesser than average workaday schlub. He's so out of place, I love it.
WDW

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #685 on: September 12, 2017, 11:50:15 PM »
O'Brien's always been my favorite TNG character. In a sea of moral paragons of humanity, he's just this average, hell, lesser than average workaday schlub. He's so out of place, I love it.

I like O'Brien just fine, he's a relatable dude. He's good at his job, but he's not really got a stick up his ass about being on the Federation flagship.

His ball-and-chain, constantly hormonal, always angry wife — she can die in a fucking fire.

Which leads to my foremost complaint about TNG, which is that they're a bunch of yuppies who put their career before family, which I've found to be my ultimate source of personal fulfillment. They're always choosing to pursue their Federation career over any chance of real love, intimacy, or furthering their genetic or even memetic lineage. This, for me, is the worst message TNG can provide, particularly since their audience has its fair share of emotionally stunted or socially awkward viewers.

In a way, O'Brien and his happiness at work makes more sense when his shrew wife is the one waiting for him when he gets home.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've not seen all of DS9. She may have suffered early character problems the same way Wesley Always Saves the Day, or Worf Always Gets Beat Up. Perhaps her bitchiness was meant to be a clever one-off by a writer and it instead turned up several times in a season…?

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #686 on: September 12, 2017, 11:51:38 PM »
They even showed him being racist towards Cardassians.

Plus he was also a veteran of over 200 battles, had the memories of a 20 year prison sentence implanted and died while sending himself back in time to replace himself. :american

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Which is arguably still not as weird as Harry Kim being a some alternate universe Harry Kim though.
[close]

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #687 on: September 12, 2017, 11:54:31 PM »
The Man Trap

First things first, Lt. Uhura (sp?)  :heartbeat :heartbeat :heartbeat :heartbeat


What a twisted tale of love. Clayton falls in love with the last of a shapeshifting alien species out of pity and the fact that it resembles his wife Nancy, who it killed, who also happens to be McCoy's old flame. As cheesy as some of the actions scenes were (can't help their age), I was really into it. The show seems to have found it's groove now that Kirk and his crew have centerstage, but I can't help but wonder if Pike and his crew will make a return somewhere down the line.

Definitely gonna binge this on the weekend.

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #688 on: September 12, 2017, 11:58:28 PM »
Nah, Keiko sucks in DS9 too

"Miiiiiiiiiiiiiilllleeeessssssss"

Shaddup >:(

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #689 on: September 13, 2017, 12:03:38 AM »
Nah, Keiko sucks in DS9 too

"Miiiiiiiiiiiiiilllleeeessssssss"

Shaddup >:(

She's really justabout unforgiveable.

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #690 on: September 13, 2017, 01:21:00 AM »
Poor Charlie.  :goty2

Last surviving member of his group, leaving him abandoned as a young boy. Given Godlike powers to keep himself alive, but he doesn't even know how to be human. Ends up going right back to the beings that "saved" him. He never stood a chance.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #691 on: September 13, 2017, 03:23:34 AM »
TNG is far too episodic.

I like TNG being very episodic in the same way I like TOS being episodic. 

Which is different than saying I wish shows today were more episodic. I like that shows today are serial. That makes them much more entertaining to watch in the here and now when you watch them as binge tv which everybody does nowadays.

But the downside of that being I find serial TV makes me not watch the shows as much in the long term. I can randomly plop out an episode of TNG and TOS and sit and watch it for 45 minutes and thoroughly enjoy myself.  I've always been able to do that since I was a kid.  Some episodes I've seen dozens of times in that regard. I don't have to overly concern myself with the context of that episode within the big picture. They are nice simple short stories in that regard.

The more something becomes serial the less inclined I am to pull out random episodes just to watch and enjoy because watching one of those kind of episodes doesn't feel complete in the same way.

So I'm glad TOS and TNG existed in a highly episodic era of television, even though I'm happy the current era of television is highly serial by comparison.

You know what. I was in the middle of writing a rebuttal to this when I decided to look at the episode descriptions of seasons 3-6 on wikipedia. And...you're right. I'm wrong. I was being really hard on TNG. I think the final season or so probably left a bad taste in my mouth? I got utterly burned out on the show. As I looked through the episodes list, I kept saying,"man, I love that one. And that one. And that one."

I guess my love for DS9 (which I like about every episode on besides Move Along Home which is terrible) as well as the bad taste it made in seasons 6 and 7 (although they have the occasional great episode) made me judge it too harshly.

I don't mind episodic shows. DS9 for instance isn't completely serialized. I guess I was focusing on a handful (or two) of bad episodes or specific type of episodes I abhor (the crew gets turned into kids and everyone thinks they're cute and incompetent, let's watch them save the day!) rather than the kind of episodes I loved about it.

To be more positive and fair to TNG, I'm going to list episode I adore that aren't the typical Chain of Command, Inner Light, Darmok;etc. along with their description to hopefully give an idea as to why I love them.

"The Ensigns of Command" - Data (Brent Spiner) must persuade a stubborn colony to evacuate their homeland under threat of a powerful and mysterious race.
"The Survivors" - The Enterprise investigates the last two survivors of an annihilated world, as the entire surface has been transformed to dust except their one little house and garden.
"Who Watches the Watchers" - Counselor Deanna Troi (Marina Sirtis) and Commander William Riker (Jonathan Frakes) must rectify the damage done when two primitives from Mintaka III catch a glimpse of a Federation observation team and eventually conclude that Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart) is a god.
"Suddenly Human" - Picard must help a human boy, raised by aliens, to decide his fate.
"First Contact" - Riker is hospitalized during a botched pre-first contact mission. Xenophobia results in increasing hostility toward his presence.
"Night Terrors" - The Enterprise is trapped in a rift, the crew succumbs to REM sleep deprivation, and Deanna has a recurring nightmare.
"Ensign Ro" - After an attack on a Federation outpost, Picard is sent to locate a Bajoran terrorist with the help of Ensign Ro Laren.
"The Wounded" - A rogue Starfleet Captain jeopardizes the Cardassian peace treaty.
"Hero Worship" - Data saves the life of an orphaned boy who begins to emulate him.
"Imaginary Friend" - A child's imaginary playmate takes on physical form and threatens the well-being of the Enterprise.
"I, Borg" - The Enterprise rescues a Borg survivor, whom Geordi names 'Hugh'. Picard plans to download a destructive computer virus to Hugh so the virus will spread throughout the collective when Hugh is sent back.

Season 5 is IMO the best season of the show.

I guess I'm saying that I think TNG would be way better if it ended a season earlier maybe. Season 7 drained me and season 6 wasn't the best either.

Nobody, don't mind me. I'm a negative nancy. TNG is great. I just have a tendency to fixate on specific flaws of something and can't see the forest because of a few really, really ugly and rotten trees. A personal failing of mine.

Sorry everyone.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 03:38:55 AM by Queen of Ice »
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #692 on: September 13, 2017, 03:28:22 AM »
O'Brien's always been my favorite TNG character. In a sea of moral paragons of humanity, he's just this average, hell, lesser than average workaday schlub. He's so out of place, I love it.

I love O'Brien but feel like he's underused on TNG besides The Wounded.  He shines the most on DS9 where he's fully used to his potential. I really wish Ensign Ro became a regular character. I love her.

Also you never really made the claim for why TNG is good. You just supported why it is a historically significant show. Historically significant doesn't necessarily mean "still good."

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the idea of continuity happening in a syndicated show blew my mind. I grew up watching shows which were designed to be re-run in syndication without a viewing order or context. There was never character growth, and references to previous happenings in the series were rare. Having TNG take place in a storyline with persistence was incredible for me and my fellow college geeks. Now that TV commercials even have their own continuity, and EVERYTHING on TV seems to be serialized, I think it's impossible to appreciate its origins.

This is actually one of my complaints about TNG. It felt like nothing matters. It feels like a procedural like Law in and Order but in space. I actually think lack of contuity is one of its biggest flaws. TOS I'll give you, because it's a 60's show. TNG came out a decade after something like Roots.

That's an absurd comparison. Roots was a TV miniseries, adapted from a novel. It had a planned endpoint. TNG is an open-ended series. The only TV shows which had continuity at the time were soap operas, which were never designed to be syndicated, just made on-the-cheap, and run endlessly, serially.

Yeah you're right.
O'Brien's always been my favorite TNG character. In a sea of moral paragons of humanity, he's just this average, hell, lesser than average workaday schlub. He's so out of place, I love it.

I like O'Brien just fine, he's a relatable dude. He's good at his job, but he's not really got a stick up his ass about being on the Federation flagship.

His ball-and-chain, constantly hormonal, always angry wife — she can die in a fucking fire.

Which leads to my foremost complaint about TNG, which is that they're a bunch of yuppies who put their career before family, which I've found to be my ultimate source of personal fulfillment. They're always choosing to pursue their Federation career over any chance of real love, intimacy, or furthering their genetic or even memetic lineage. This, for me, is the worst message TNG can provide, particularly since their audience has its fair share of emotionally stunted or socially awkward viewers.

In a way, O'Brien and his happiness at work makes more sense when his shrew wife is the one waiting for him when he gets home.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I've not seen all of DS9. She may have suffered early character problems the same way Wesley Always Saves the Day, or Worf Always Gets Beat Up. Perhaps her bitchiness was meant to be a clever one-off by a writer and it instead turned up several times in a season…?

Keiko isn't that bad in DS9. She goes away to Bajor to be a herbalist. She becomes a teacher to the kids and is an inspiring figure imo. But yeah, she's horrible in TNG.
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #693 on: September 13, 2017, 08:47:22 PM »
Awww, thanks, QoI!

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #694 on: September 16, 2017, 08:39:01 PM »
The character analysis of Kirk in the back to back episodes of The Naked Time and The Enemy Within  :lawd

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #695 on: September 16, 2017, 10:26:44 PM »
How are you liking Star Trek?
IYKYK

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #696 on: September 16, 2017, 11:52:07 PM »
How are you liking Star Trek?

Very much after 9 episodes. Some of the stories are a lot more tragic than I expected (the nurse's fiancee episode for example), but it's very engaging. The 2 episodes I listed in particular are just . Bringing everyone's biggest feelings and traits to the surface is one thing but learning that Kirk never really knew how to love and the only thing he has to resemble love being the ship is crazy. Then examining the dichotomy of his leadership with the ying and yang of his "good" and "evil" sides that ultimately need each other to be an efficient captain had me captivated.

Maybe I've been starved for some good TV to watch but I'm really enjoying this, and I might finish all 3 seasons before the month ends.

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #697 on: September 16, 2017, 11:53:27 PM »
Sidenote: Miri is apparently the "shes actually 3000 years old" girl of the 60s  :teehee

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #698 on: September 17, 2017, 12:03:05 AM »
How are you liking Star Trek?

Very much after 9 episodes. Some of the stories are a lot more tragic than I expected (the nurse's fiancee episode for example), but it's very engaging. The 2 episodes I listed in particular are just (Image removed from quote.). Bringing everyone's biggest feelings and traits to the surface is one thing but learning that Kirk never really knew how to love and the only thing he has to resemble love being the ship is crazy. Then examining the dichotomy of his leadership with the ying and yang of his "good" and "evil" sides that ultimately need each other to be an efficient captain had me captivated.

Maybe I've been starved for some good TV to watch but I'm really enjoying this, and I might finish all 3 seasons before the month ends.

Yeah, TOS is interesting. It can be cheesy while at the same time making a powerful statement. Great, classic show.

And you see how much this show influenced things? Flip phones. Inspired by Star Trek portable coms. The diverse cast. All that shit. Such a groundbreaking classic of all classics.

Love TOS and feel sorry for anyone who can't get into it.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #699 on: September 17, 2017, 12:51:58 AM »
Late but Star Trek beyond was GREAT.
IYKYK

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #700 on: September 17, 2017, 12:55:41 AM »
Late but Star Trek beyond was GREAT.

It's probably the best of the Kelvin Timeline films, but I found it problematic.

What'd you like about it?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #701 on: September 17, 2017, 01:02:17 AM »
It has the Star Trek adventure that I crave so desperately for. I loved Kirk's monologue in his data entry. Classic Trek, there.

It has a few snags here or there but it seemed to understand Trek of at least a particular side of it.

How was it problematic? I feel like the Edison reveal came too late in the movie and there were some loose ends (like the chick who held on to the object was brutally murdered and no one cares). Also, I'm not sure how Krall's powers worked or why he looked like a lobster.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #702 on: September 17, 2017, 02:14:50 AM »
Finally getting to that DS9 rewatch. I forgot that Sisko punks Picard immediately upon meeting him :rofl

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #703 on: September 17, 2017, 02:38:16 AM »
It has the Star Trek adventure that I crave so desperately for. I loved Kirk's monologue in his data entry. Classic Trek, there.

It has a few snags here or there but it seemed to understand Trek of at least a particular side of it.

How was it problematic? I feel like the Edison reveal came too late in the movie and there were some loose ends (like the chick who held on to the object was brutally murdered and no one cares). Also, I'm not sure how Krall's powers worked or why he looked like a lobster.

Yeah, that'll do for starters, thanks!

As for what didn't work in Beyond that isn't already on your list:
  • No reasonable explanation about the alien woman who drags the Enterprise into a trap! She's an alien! Her story sounds suspicious! It'll drag our best ship into a bad situation in that nearly non-navigable nebula!
  • WTF, there's no stranded ship here. Just a big, imposing, unidentifiable monstrosity. BUT LET'S LEAVE OUR SHIELDS DOWN WHILE WE THINK ABOUT IT.
  • We don't know what it is, but let's shoot at it instead of falling back and repositioning.
  • Let's wait forever until trying to warp out of danger. What's that? Too late?
  • The Enterprise is destroyed AGAIN. Is this like a fucking hobby now? Hundreds dead, I presume. All on Kirk's miserable initial tactical decisions.
  • In the finale, Kirk has complete control of the situation, only to have it reversed because he wants Krall to tell him why he's so angry.
  • That aquarium Starbase is the least practical design for anything I have ever seen, including a coffee cup with the handle on the inside of it.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT!  It has a great sense of adventure and daring-do, the character interaction is fun, and the send-offs for Spock and Chekov are touching. I also loved the Captain's Log monolog from Pine, and I like him as Kirk. He is a different kind of Kirk, which is hilarious considering that Bones, Scotty, and Spock are by-the-book re-creations of the original characters.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #704 on: September 17, 2017, 02:40:01 AM »
Krall (and the other two crew members) found life-extension technology that took from others but twisted physically those who used it.

The hole in that whole thing for me was where all his other dudes came from. I suppose he could have rounded them up over time with the offer of extended life and striking at the Federation.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #705 on: September 17, 2017, 02:52:51 AM »
Yeah the movie is full of holes after you watch it but it's so fun while watching it I didn't mind.

Another thing is the who music to destroy alien ships thing. Straight out of macross out here what the fuck.

I think the reveal that it's a federation dude was a mistake because it makes none of the villains make any sense. How did he get that army? How did he get that technology? All they say is that he had infinite life. But nothing about where he got that military strength. All we can do is conclude that it was due to his war like mentality and they were spoils. But even then, how he came to be so powerful is a giant question mark.

Enjoyable movie but not original six films quality. But it doesn't have to be to be enjoyable. After Into the Darkness almost anything is better. But I'm so starved for Trek that I felt great watching it.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #706 on: September 17, 2017, 02:59:41 AM »
It was on the planet, left behind with drones and other equipment. He explains it in his last captains log that they find on the Franklin.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #707 on: September 17, 2017, 03:07:15 AM »
Ah.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #708 on: September 17, 2017, 07:33:32 AM »
The other writer (not Simon Pegg but Doug Jung) said they had some other stuff in there about how the technology was all from a peaceful race as part of the theme about the corrupting of intentions but they stripped back stuff for pacing after realizing the length they were getting into with all the plotlines. And that fleshing out Jaylah was ultimately more interesting.

In a way the movie almost seems like a shot at Orci's nonsense for Into Darkness and his overall vision of AbramsTrek as this terrible place filled with lying duplicitous warmongers setting up false flags so they can slaughter billions on the regular and Starfleet becoming an advanced war fleet with conquest as its true goal. Orci's third movie would have been about the war against the Klingons he was setting up, especially in the comics which he partially edited. But his old partner, Kurtzman has thankfully transplanted that war into Discovery's first season!

On the plus side though, Kurtzman wasn't the rabid 9/11 truther of the pair. :doge

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #709 on: September 17, 2017, 06:46:51 PM »
Go from being a crewman on the SS Enterprise to being stuck on a ship with a talking baby alien brehs

Bailey  :snoop

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #710 on: September 17, 2017, 06:51:53 PM »
PIKE  :crazy

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #711 on: September 17, 2017, 07:31:23 PM »
Thanks for the BEYOND insights and explanations. I agree, it's a fun romp despite its holes.

I'm more thankful, though, for the insight about something else that was bothering me: the Federation's "best" turning on their own. I think that had sat wrong with me since Into Darkness. Warping and twisting the vision of a "conflictless" Federation into something so political and murderously backstabbing sits wrong with me. There's a place for that kind of overarching paranoia, but it's not Star Trek.

Even in TNG, when there was strife among the troops, like Jellico, or that hot little blonde spitfire, Cmdr. Shelby, it was due to a tonal difference in command style. The one instance of actual betrayal in TNG is the result of physical invasion by mind-controlling worms.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #712 on: September 17, 2017, 07:45:29 PM »
Even in DS9, the security director who betrays them does so because he feels he's doing what's best for the federation.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #713 on: September 17, 2017, 08:09:51 PM »
Eddington? He was a terrorist, though.

Speaking of security officers, I forgot about this other one they had (Primmin). Been a while since I've seen S1 and it's really pretty good. I'm on Move Along Home now, the one where they get trapped in the weird alien game and it feels a lot like a TNG episode. However the crew goes at it a totally different way than the TNG crew would. Odo tells Starfleet rules to go blow, Quark figures out a way to make money at the same time, it's an interesting change from the earlier shows.

The whole show is a change from the very start in that the crew and the station are basically the underdogs the entire time and are basically always outmatched militarily so it feels like a big change from the shows focusing on the flagship being able to battle its way out of a lot of situations. Reminds me a bit of what I liked about Enterprise.

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #714 on: September 17, 2017, 08:19:19 PM »
Oh shit it's the Nagus! One of my favorite side characters. Also seems to be the first episode where Rom is portrayed as a real dope and bad Ferengi.

Mr. Nobody

  • Groovy.
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #715 on: September 17, 2017, 08:36:34 PM »
The Menagerie 1 and 2

All that just to give a mutilated Pike a send off to live with Veena in fantasy.

Goddamn this is depressing

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #716 on: September 17, 2017, 10:32:54 PM »
The Menagerie 1 and 2

All that just to give a mutilated Pike a send off to live with Veena in fantasy.

Goddamn this is depressing

I'll also agree with you and Queenie that there just weren't many depressing TNG episodes. It tended toward "The Federation's stance is correct!" on everything, even when it was a subjectively awful decision.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #717 on: September 17, 2017, 11:37:31 PM »
Just felt like TOS was a deeper show with more vague outcomes of what was correct or wrong to do. TNG at times felt pretentious, as if the federation had all the answers. Very weird interpretation of the federation in TNG. But this also allowed it to have great episodes like  Measure of a Man. So it's double edge for sure and how you like it or not depends on your subjective opinion.
IYKYK

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #718 on: September 18, 2017, 12:52:48 AM »
Watched "Family" (TNG) last night, what a great ep. Takes place right after Best of Both Worlds and Jean-Luc's breakdown at the end with his brother his heartbreaking. It needn't be said that Stewart fucking nails it.

This also cleared up a lot of the haziness I had about Jean-Luc's family which I've had since Generations, lol.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #719 on: September 18, 2017, 12:53:57 AM »
Family is excellent and the only time the show deals directly with the psychology of his time as a Borg.
IYKYK