Author Topic: star trek  (Read 338520 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #600 on: June 13, 2017, 11:55:19 PM »
That's not actually LeVar Burton in the first pic, is it?

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: star trek
« Reply #601 on: June 14, 2017, 01:47:48 AM »
dog

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #602 on: June 22, 2017, 05:56:09 AM »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #603 on: July 16, 2017, 12:44:04 AM »


 :heart these kind of character moments, and in just three minutes

watching Chris Pine in Wonder Woman made me think back on AbramsTrek (especially since he was basically playing Kirk for half the movie or more lol) and how much more Beyond had anything even close to moments like this among the crew and Jaylah...but from the man behind the Fast and Furious franchise, what else would you expect...makes me wonder what's going to happen regarding the films, don't think I've seen anything in months outside of how Chekov won't ever be recast in memory of Yelchin (speaking of people who finally got some useful and enjoyable character screen time in Beyond) but they may just be running silent to push Discovery

I should watch Beyond again, haven't seen it since, saw Amazon advertising its FREE FOR PRIME MEMBERS STREAMING DEBUT the other day or it was somebody else, maybe it was Microsoft in which case I'll just...you know...x265BluRay of course sillies!

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #604 on: July 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM »
Star Trek Beyond is up on Hulu.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #605 on: July 16, 2017, 05:32:44 AM »
that vr star trek game shows how the dude at ops really would act: https://clips.twitch.tv/FaithfulIncredulousPotTBCheesePull

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #606 on: July 16, 2017, 08:19:41 AM »
Star Trek Beyond is up on Hulu.

going to piratebay now

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #607 on: July 16, 2017, 08:20:31 AM »
O wait you said beyond not discovery.  who cares.

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #608 on: July 16, 2017, 08:22:08 AM »
O you were replying to someone else.  im an idiot.  IGNORE ME.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #609 on: July 16, 2017, 09:16:34 AM »
O wait you said beyond not discovery.  who cares.
i don't come down to where you work and knock the multiple tentacles out of your mouth :bolo

Madrun Badrun

  • twin-anused mascot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #610 on: July 16, 2017, 09:19:32 AM »
will no one save me from these tentacles?

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #611 on: July 23, 2017, 05:20:29 PM »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #612 on: July 23, 2017, 05:25:30 PM »

toku

  • 𝕩𝕩𝕩
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #613 on: July 23, 2017, 08:01:38 PM »
looks so much better than discovery

we live in a trash timeline

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #614 on: July 24, 2017, 12:22:36 AM »
Imagine I told you in 2006 that the next good Star Trek film (and only one over a twenty year span) would be in a reboot universe of Kirk/Spock and from the guys who just put out Shaun of the Dead and Tokyo Drift

now I'm probably going to have to add that the guy behind the cancelled FOX cartoon Family Guy would put out a better hour of Trek TV and it'd hit the air before the next Trek TV series :lol

spoiler (click to show/hide)
couldn't say Trump is President, that'd be too unbelievable :doge
[close]

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Re: star trek
« Reply #615 on: July 24, 2017, 01:09:03 AM »
looks so much better than discovery

we live in a trash timeline

It's not really that crazy when you realize that the best Star Trek movie of the past 20 years is Galaxy Quest.
dog

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #616 on: July 24, 2017, 01:19:39 AM »
:lawd

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #617 on: July 25, 2017, 04:08:42 AM »


 :rofl at trying to take the ship to warp

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #618 on: August 12, 2017, 05:41:06 AM »

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #619 on: August 12, 2017, 05:48:44 AM »
He says he's going to do a DS9 one in the comments, but with this:

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #620 on: August 12, 2017, 05:57:20 AM »
please god no.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #621 on: September 11, 2017, 10:56:24 PM »
Bump this thread so we can talk about how TNG sucks and trigger tasty
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #622 on: September 11, 2017, 10:57:24 PM »
Funny enough, Trek and wrasslin is a good comparison. Gene was basically Vince McMahon in that he wanted his say in everything related to Trek and had to be the final word. Even as the world of sci fi evolved around Gene, he refused to change and kept on the path that was correct to him even if it was corny/hacky/old fashioned. Sure, Gene had plenty of people around him to help guide things to be a bit better and he had plenty of solid as hell hits on his own. But his refusal to change lead to plenty of complaints and upset fans.

Of course the Trek story was a bit different in that some excellent stuff came after Gene passed, but also Trek post-Gene hasn't been quite the same. It's definitely become a totally different product from his vision.
Even funnier is that the Trek that people associate fondly with Gene, namely the TOS seasons, Gene immediately passed the buck on shortly after they started filming and he wasn't even involved in the show after the first season. He was a toxic micromanager who could not compromise with anyone, even when his fandom and the network barely saved the show for him the first time, Gene would still go on the warpath over HIS VISION and ditched the show. When he wasn't even showrunner in the first place, somebody who couldn't even be credited since she was a woman like Dorthy Fontana did more editing than he ever did. And then he spent decades taking shots at the third season when the thing got trashed by budgets as hard as the Batman TV series did.

The best example of the budgets are not only how many episodes are set on the Enterprise, but watch one of the first ten episodes set entirely on the Enterprise and then any from the third season. The ship is populated up the wazoo in the first season, dudes working on conduits, dudes handing off documents to others, just chatting, etc. The third season feels like there's the bridge crew, Scotty and maybe five red shirts on the entire fucking ship. Even by "Space Seed" it feels like this. Khan conquers half the ship because there's nobody even there. :lol

All Good Things is a better TNG movie than any of the actual TNG movies. Solid gold.

Himu, that is what you should be comparing to the TOS movies IMO.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
The ending scene where Picard actually shows up for poker, after being absent for the show's entire run... :delicious Possibly my favorite Star Trek moment of all time. Possibly tied with the Best of Both Worlds cliffhanger.
[close]


That said, I love Q and Picard's final scene more:
spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

I actually love that Q and Picard got two great serious moments as the show wound down, especially how this one gets recalled in "All Good Things..." as part of Q's whole framework of lessons:

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #623 on: September 11, 2017, 11:00:02 PM »
Nah. Ds9 has a more character focused thing. I love characters. I watched Trek in order. TOS first, then TNG, and then DS9. Has nothing to do with contrarianism. I just like what I like and I'm honest about it. :yeshrug

The TNG sucks thing was hyperbole for laughs. I don't think it sucks but I also don't think it's that good either.

Anyways, although it's crudely written with some typos and I can't edit it...but I don't feel like writing it again.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=193523987

Also, me on Lower Decks:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=189716585

My problems with TNG has nothing to do with contrarianism. I truly struggled to finish it. I blazed through DS9 like it was nothing.

I definitely understand why you aren't into TNG as much as most fans considering what you want from Trek. It does have me curious on your opinions on Voyager and Enterprise though. For all its faults, Voyager feels to me like a show where you do get to know the characters and you can feel the crew grow closer together as a family. It's 100% not the normal type of Trek and truly has some awful episodes (the Rock vs  Seven wat) but it shows the extremes that a crew could go through and keep the ideals of the Federation intact, and how they fail at it as well. (thinking of episodes like Year of Hell) And it leads to the finale of Voyager being the best series finale they did. In the end Janeway will still sacrifice literally everything for her Voyager family.

Enterprise is a show with almost an entire crew that is exploring space for the first time and basically not having a goddamn thing to guide them. It's very rough but imo it's a fun take on Trek and I think it could have been so much better with more cash and more time invested into it.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 11:04:23 PM by nachobro »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #624 on: September 11, 2017, 11:01:17 PM »

Quote
Seems like contrarianism because TNG is so beloved and DS9 is more overlooked.

Nah. Ds9 has a more character focused thing. I love characters. I watched Trek in order. TOS first, then TNG, and then DS9. Has nothing to do with contrarianism. I just like what I like and I'm honest about it. :yeshrug

The TNG sucks thing was hyperbole for laughs. I don't think it sucks but I also don't think it's that good either.

Anyways, although it's crudely written with some typos and I can't edit it...but I don't feel like writing it again.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=193523987

Also, me on Lower Decks:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=189716585

My problems with TNG has nothing to do with contrarianism. I truly struggled to finish it. I blazed through DS9 like it was nothing.

For Tasty. Of course, I don't expect him to actually come at my actual arguments and instead he will take one line and then post a meme.
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #625 on: September 11, 2017, 11:04:18 PM »
It's hilarious how poorly they explained Q not just sending Voyager home and also how he had more of a character arc in like six appearances than practically the entire cast. :lol

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #626 on: September 11, 2017, 11:04:33 PM »
Q on TNG :rejoice :rejoice :rejoice :rejoice

Q on every other fucking Star Trek show :kobeyuck :kobeyuck :kobeyuck :kobeyuck

Galaxy Quest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Star Trek

Correct, but only because 90 minutes of solid gold is probably more valuable than a septic tank with 50x the amount of gold flakes floating in it.


Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #627 on: September 11, 2017, 11:05:08 PM »
It's hilarious how poorly they explained Q not just sending Voyager home and also how he had more of a character arc in like six appearances than practically the entire cast. :lol

People say TNG is a mixed bag and I'm like, have you seen Voyager? :lol

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #628 on: September 11, 2017, 11:05:29 PM »
Also let's laugh heartily at the fact Enterprise ended with a TNG episode. :crowdlaff

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #629 on: September 11, 2017, 11:06:56 PM »
that fucking ending was some goddamn horseshit i dont want to talk about it :maf

but that theme :rejoice


Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #630 on: September 11, 2017, 11:08:05 PM »
Nah. Ds9 has a more character focused thing. I love characters. I watched Trek in order. TOS first, then TNG, and then DS9. Has nothing to do with contrarianism. I just like what I like and I'm honest about it. :yeshrug

The TNG sucks thing was hyperbole for laughs. I don't think it sucks but I also don't think it's that good either.

Anyways, although it's crudely written with some typos and I can't edit it...but I don't feel like writing it again.

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=193523987

Also, me on Lower Decks:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=189716585

My problems with TNG has nothing to do with contrarianism. I truly struggled to finish it. I blazed through DS9 like it was nothing.

I definitely understand why you aren't into TNG as much as most fans considering what you want from Trek. It does have me curious on your opinions on Voyager and Enterprise though. For all its faults, Voyager feels to me like a show where you do get to know the characters and you can feel the crew grow closer together as a family. It's 100% not the normal type of Trek and truly has some awful episodes (the Rock vs  Seven wat) but it has shows the extremes that a crew could go through and keep the ideals of the Federation intact, and how they fail at it as well. (thinking of episodes like Year of Hell) And it leads to the finale of Voyager being the best series finally they did. In the end Janeway will still sacrifice literally everything for her Voyager family.

Enterprise is a show with almost an entire crew that is exploring space for the first time and basically not having a goddamn thing to guide them. It's very rough but imo it's a fun take on Trek and I think it could have been so much better with more cash and more time invested into it.

Thanks for understanding. It sucks because I actually really liked TNG at first but then the more I watched, it just kept going on and on. It also has 7 seasons compared to TOS' 3 and I just find it a big slog. Which sucks because again, there are so many great ideas in it and episodes that I love but I couldn't ever watch the series ever again. Don't think it's shit or anything but I really think it's flawed.

DS9 however, was made for me.

I haven't seen Voyager since I was a kid. I liked it then but I was a teenager and teenagers are stupid. I watched it with my dad every week along with that crazy cop show with the dude who has super powers so I have a lot of nostalgia for Voyager.

I haven't seen Enterprise and frankly after finishing DS9 I kind of don't have faith in another Trek show because I doubt any of them will be as good but I'll give it a fair shot after I give Voyager a fair shot.

Hopefully Voyager is serialized like DS9 and not episodic like TNG or I'll go crazy.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 11:14:41 PM by Queen of Ice »
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #631 on: September 11, 2017, 11:10:08 PM »
It's hilarious how poorly they explained Q not just sending Voyager home and also how he had more of a character arc in like six appearances than practically the entire cast. :lol

Q is a bad character. I remember one TNG ep where they're Robin Hood and Q makes them play some game? God, that fucking show and its stupid bullshit.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #632 on: September 11, 2017, 11:10:27 PM »
that voyager opening is solid af too



and yes, voyager is basically one giant story arc about the ship trying to get home. they find ways to fit in all the normal types of trek episodes and do plenty of exploring but the show does boil down to "we have to get home, together".

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #633 on: September 11, 2017, 11:11:53 PM »
Yeah that's all I remember: the premise.

And yeah voyager has an amazing intro.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #634 on: September 11, 2017, 11:13:35 PM »
however tasty does have a good point in that voyager is the most inconsistent of the trek series. there's some truly unwatchable stinkers in that show :lol

edit: I also have a soft spot for voyager cause I'd watch it weekly with my uncle (also we'd watch The Pretender, what an awful show in retrospect) so I hope it sticks with you because of that.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #635 on: September 11, 2017, 11:16:09 PM »
Yeah, I believe it. I think I remember it sucks for two seasons until seven is a regular? Idk
IYKYK

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #636 on: September 11, 2017, 11:16:49 PM »
(thinking of episodes like Year of Hell) ...

Enterprise is a show with almost an entire crew that is exploring space for the first time and basically not having a goddamn thing to guide them. It's very rough but imo it's a fun take on Trek and I think it could have been so much better with more cash and more time invested into it.
I like Enterprise in part because it actually does these parts of Voyager better than Voyager did.

Year of Hell was proposed as an entire season of Voyager, and that's arguably what the third season of Enterprise became. Even if the Xindi were the worst idea ever.

There's an episode of Enterprise where they're headed through a nebula or something and the only thing that can protect them are the warp nacelles. Voyager did a similar episode but just had Seven and the Doctor active trying to make things creepy as everyone else slept. While on Enterprise they showed how they fit the entire crew into those, made a makeshift bridge to operate the ship, showed the chef going along handing out dinner, etc. and started to deal with how that kind of conditions would effect the crew, when they veer course wildly into some dumb action. Which was a real problem on Enterprise from day one.

Hell, Voyager even did as many "LOOK ITS KLINGONS YOU KNOW KLINGONS" and "LOOK ROMULANS!" and other garbage episodes of STUFF YOU RECOGNIZE ON TREK when they were supposed to be nowhere near any of those. (And Enterprise even at least took some concerns like never outright identifying the Ferengi, or getting a good look at them, etc.)

But then I also love the Bakula.

And Empress Hoshi. :uguu

And needing to decontaminate with T'Pol. :phil

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #637 on: September 11, 2017, 11:17:01 PM »
If anything this makes me want to break out my YouTube TV™ DVR recorded eps of TOS and watch em. :preach

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Or just watch it on Netflix. :doge
[close]

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #638 on: September 11, 2017, 11:17:19 PM »

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #639 on: September 11, 2017, 11:18:15 PM »
Yeah, I believe it. I think I remember it sucks for two seasons until seven is a regular? Idk

Seven also sucks tho :thinking

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #640 on: September 11, 2017, 11:18:48 PM »
Yeah, I believe it. I think I remember it sucks for two seasons until seven is a regular? Idk
Sorta. After Seven shows up the show does change a bit. A lot more episodes become "How do we fit Seven into this episode?" :lol Astrometrics, fuck outta here. They even retconned shit to make NX-01 have astrometrics after that.

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #641 on: September 11, 2017, 11:19:06 PM »
Q is a bad character.
:mindblown :stahp

Q is only a bad character outside TNG. Otherwise he's a great foil to Jean Luc.


nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #642 on: September 11, 2017, 11:23:05 PM »
I like Enterprise in part because it actually does these parts of Voyager better than Voyager did.

Year of Hell was proposed as an entire season of Voyager, and that's arguably what the third season of Enterprise became. Even if the Xindi were the worst idea ever.

There's an episode of Enterprise where they're headed through a nebula or something and the only thing that can protect them are the warp nacelles. Voyager did a similar episode but just had Seven and the Doctor active trying to make things creepy as everyone else slept. While on Enterprise they showed how they fit the entire crew into those, made a makeshift bridge to operate the ship, showed the chef going along handing out dinner, etc. and started to deal with how that kind of conditions would effect the crew, when they veer course wildly into some dumb action. Which was a real problem on Enterprise from day one.

Hell, Voyager even did as many "LOOK ITS KLINGONS YOU KNOW KLINGONS" and "LOOK ROMULANS!" and other garbage episodes of STUFF YOU RECOGNIZE ON TREK when they were supposed to be nowhere near any of those. (And Enterprise even at least took some concerns like never outright identifying the Ferengi, or getting a good look at them, etc.)

But then I also love the Bakula.

And Empress Hoshi. :uguu

And needing to decontaminate with T'Pol. :phil
Phlox is so awesome too. Basically all Trek doctors are great characters. Pulaski is secret top tier as well in TNG :mynicca Queen you had to at least like her, right? She's basically Bones!

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #643 on: September 11, 2017, 11:27:42 PM »
Q is a bad character.
:mindblown :stahp

Anything overly supernatural in Trek is stupid to me. It's like a gag reflex, I'm sorry. Q episodes in DS9 are trash too. Right, like I want to see Q try to court Luwaxanna.

The only good Q episode I can think of is Tapestry.

Sigh. I just looked at a best of TNG list and these are some really good episodes. Maybe I'm being too hard on TNG. I love these episodes to death so maybe it's my expectation that the rest of the show match the quality of say, Inner Light. But it doesn't. And that pissed me off because that shit is too fucking good. I just don't know how to fucking feel about this show. On one hand...Chain of Command. On the other....Night Terrors.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #644 on: September 11, 2017, 11:29:21 PM »
Right, like I want to see Q try to court Luwaxanna
I know, everyone knows that she's supposed to be with Odo

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #645 on: September 11, 2017, 11:30:31 PM »
So my favorite Trek character might be Kira. Don't kill me.
IYKYK

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #646 on: September 11, 2017, 11:37:06 PM »
Sisko is probably my favorite. DS9 is just full of excellent characters but he stands out. Running a station in the middle of nowhere with a son, somehow becoming a god to an entire race of people, dealing with a million clashing personalities in your crew and keeping civilians happy as well, getting involved in and eventually running a war against a new enemy, and realizing you gotta do some shady shit to make it happen all put together with Avery Brooks chewing the scenery like no tomorrow makes him perfect. :playa

Plus being a cajun cook as well, the dude can't be beat :delicious

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #647 on: September 11, 2017, 11:38:13 PM »
I think he overacts but yeah, good choice.
IYKYK

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #648 on: September 11, 2017, 11:39:10 PM »
TOS has "supernatural" stuff out the wazoo too though. 🤔

Humans turned gods, a time portal god, literal Greek pantheon gods. :lol

nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #649 on: September 11, 2017, 11:45:21 PM »
on a side note, the Marky Mark classic flick The Big Hit also has Avery Brooks doing some excellent overacting.


benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #650 on: September 11, 2017, 11:47:32 PM »
Phlox is so awesome too. Basically all Trek doctors are great characters. Pulaski is secret top tier as well in TNG :mynicca Queen you had to at least like her, right? She's basically Bones!
Even Karl Urban's Bones has been immune from the Abramsverse!

And they should probably try airing clips of him ad-libbing in place of The Orville:

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #651 on: September 11, 2017, 11:49:18 PM »
TOS has "supernatural" stuff out the wazoo too though. 🤔

Humans turned gods, a time portal god, literal Greek pantheon gods. :lol

I know it does. I don't always like it. Something about TOS sometimes makes it easier to digest because of how the characters act. Like the ep where the dude tries to become a God and Kirk fist fights him like a gangster. :lol Sometimes the supernatural can be fun or funny but I never find Q fun or funny. Just annoying. So I guess it's less supernatural elements inherently. I'm mixed on it in TOS. But I never really like the supernatural for itself. On my list of reasons for liking Trek it's probably at the bottom.

Sometimes it's tolerable, sometimes it's ugh.

This is probably my biggest problem with Star Trek as a franchise as a whole: it's just inconsistent. Say what you will about Simpsons, it was consistent for about 9 seasons. I like every Seinfeld season except arguably 1. I value consistency and Star Trek as a franchise has far too many ups and downs. :beli I know it comes down to executive meddling and creative direction changes or whatever.

The only Trek that did it for me the entire run is DS9 so far.
IYKYK

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #652 on: September 11, 2017, 11:52:42 PM »
Consistency is great of course, but sometimes it can lead to homogenization. Some of the more "out there" ST plots probably wouldn't have been approved if the producers had a more strict hand of things (think Roddenberry, but for weird ideas instead of "the human ideal.")

Also this is dumb to say, but the sucky parts of ST make you appreciate the great stuff even more.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #653 on: September 11, 2017, 11:57:10 PM »
Looked to see if there were any clips from that Enterprise episode, "the Catwalk" and only found something from it that made the episode even more disturbing.

At some point between now and 2152 we lose headphones and volume control, just a heads up:


nachobro

  • Live Más
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #654 on: September 12, 2017, 12:00:23 AM »
At some point between now and 2152 we lose headphones and volume control, just a heads up:
blame apple

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #655 on: September 12, 2017, 12:01:26 AM »
Consistency is great of course, but sometimes it can lead to homogenization. Some of the more "out there" ST plots probably wouldn't have been approved if the producers had a more strict hand of things (think Roddenberry, but for weird ideas instead of "the human ideal.")

Also this is dumb to say, but the sucky parts of ST make you appreciate the great stuff even more.

Well, I get that. But it feels like most people are into the out there stuff while I'm trying to watch for characters. I dunno. Why I like Trek seems to not be why others like it? Which is why I clash on it a lot.

That's true about the sicky parts but sometimes they're too hard to get past because they can get really bad. How Trek can go from top tier tv to b movie MST3K esque in a matter of episodes has never sat well with me and one reason I was looking forward to the new series was better quality control. And we know what's going on there. Sigh.
IYKYK

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #656 on: September 12, 2017, 02:16:20 AM »
Watched the first episode of The Orville.

The critic reviews of it have been brutal. I assume that is based off of being able to view many episodes.

The first episode is not as bad as the reviews would lead you to believe. I'm not saying its great or even good. The first episode feels average but the reviews led me to expect dumpster fire.

It's exactly what you would expect it to be. It's a star trek clone that wants to you to take it seriously but also be funny.

It's not a family guy take on star trek. It's never as crass as family guy but its also never really as smart as it needs to be to really land  like it should. It feels like knock off b grade star trek.

I'm enough of a sci-fi space opera nerd that that level of quality is fine enough for me probably depending on where it goes but it doesn't exactly give confidence that it will ever be an especially good show. Just one of those shows that a genre fan might like.

Oh, the special effects are terrible. I don't care at all about that. The appeal of these type of shows are the ideas not the special effects to me. But just thought I would mention it, so your expectations are in check if you decide to give it a try.

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #657 on: September 12, 2017, 02:53:32 AM »
I see a lot of "this sucks because it's not this other thing I like" in this thread. TNG was reviving a beloved series for a then-modern audience, on a new network, at a time when geekery was not de rigueur like it is nowadays. It defined a good portion of what came after it, or at least set those parameters.

The first season sucks. The second season sucks slightly less. From the third season is when it really comes into its own, knows what it's about.

DS9 suffers similar stumbling blocks out of the gate. It's the grittier side of Federation Space, and it was meant to have a Casablanca or even Berlin during the Cold War feel to it. Eventually it gets there, and surpasses it, but it makes me feel like any Star Trek series struggles with itself except TOS, which is-what-it-is from the outset.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #658 on: September 12, 2017, 03:20:51 AM »
I see a lot of "this sucks because it's not this other thing I like" in this thread. TNG was reviving a beloved series for a then-modern audience, on a new network, at a time when geekery was not de rigueur like it is nowadays. It defined a good portion of what came after it, or at least set those parameters.

The first season sucks. The second season sucks slightly less. From the third season is when it really comes into its own, knows what it's about.

DS9 suffers similar stumbling blocks out of the gate. It's the grittier side of Federation Space, and it was meant to have a Casablanca or even Berlin during the Cold War feel to it. Eventually it gets there, and surpasses it, but it makes me feel like any Star Trek series struggles with itself except TOS, which is-what-it-is from the outset.

I like DS9 from the beginning. I liked all of season 1 except the awful TNG-esque episodes. Love season 2.

My problems with TNG go into more than wishing it was something it wasn't, although there is that.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #659 on: September 12, 2017, 10:24:45 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."
IYKYK