|
The best thing about watching TAS is when you are watching it is you think you are in some sort of fever dream and on something, but its just the show. Just watching the loving thing is an experience in itself.
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:The best thing about watching TAS is when you are watching it is you think you are in some sort of fever dream and on something, but its just the show. Just watching the loving thing is an experience in itself. I really need to get around to that sometime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
I really wish Star Trek: The Experience was still a thing. I was lucky enough to go when I was about 15-16, and right to the gift shop at right about the time when VHS was getting phased out for DVD and all the VHS tapes were on sale, so I managed to snag a lot of TNG episodes on VHS, like "All Good Things", "Elementary Dear Data", "Yesterday's Enterprise", etc. Sadly Best of Both Worlds and Measure of a Man were sold out, but nowadays I have those on DVD anyway and Netflix is now a thing. I saw some Klingon actors and I was like "Yes! Today is a good day to die!" and they were like "K'pla! This young human knows honor!" pounded their chests and the lead one firmly put his hand on my shoulder. It was cool and fun and it's sad it's gone forever.  I heard there's some prince out in Qatar or something who wants to make a 1:1 scale refit Enterprise, though. Blade_of_tyshalle posted:My understanding of this stuff is that DelRey is just publishing the books, it's LucasBooks who actually devises the storylines and manages the EU. The Star Wars Expanded Universe is so pants on head stupid, I really don't even like thinking about it anymore as it makes my head hurt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:Yeah, the menu did suck and the food was lovely. I remember sitting at a booth there and it had one of those borg circular light jazz things hanging next to it and it kinda just looked slapped on--what the hell is this thing doing in Quark's bar? Also, I went 11 years ago and was underaged at the time so I couldn't even order a drink It was basically an Applebee's, but all the kitsch hanging on the wall is Star Trek-themed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
One giant reason to never read Star Wars EU - the douchebag that helped ruin Dune has done a bunch of work in it.
bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:One giant reason to never read Star Trek EU - the douchebag that helped ruin Dune has done a bunch of work in it. Oh poo poo, Kevin J. Anderson is making lovely Trek books too? I thought he just took giant smelly dumps on Star Wars and Dune from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Oh poo poo, Kevin J. Anderson is making lovely Trek books too? I thought he just took giant smelly dumps on Star Wars and Dune from time to time. poo poo I meant Star War. He has not written any Trek to my knowledge. bobkatt013 fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:25
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:The best thing about watching TAS is when you are watching it is you think you are in some sort of fever dream and on something, but its just the show. Just watching the loving thing is an experience in itself. TAS really starts driving you nuts after you've seen that same running animation reused for the 20th time or heard one of the 3 music tracks they have set on repeat. But, you can't stop watching because under all of it there's an actual well written (for the most part) story. Except when it's a loving crazy story like the Devil in the center of the universe one, holy poo poo. Apple Jax fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Oh poo poo, Kevin J. Anderson is making lovely Trek books too? I thought he just took giant smelly dumps on Star Wars and Dune from time to time. Oh, he also took a huge poo poo all over the entire body of Jules Verne's work. He wrote and published, no poo poo, Captain Nemo fanfiction in which every Jules Verne book was actually about Captain Nemo having adventures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:34
|
|
|
Irish Joe posted:If its been translated into Chinese, give him a copy of the Lost in Space movie. If not, just shine a strobe light in his eyes while making "pew pew" sounds. Chinese people watch movies with subtitles, never dubbed, so I don't know what you mean by translate. What brand/speed of strobe light should I get?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
TAS has the awful, awful cheap-rear end animation you would expect from a 1970's Hanna-Barbera cartoon (in fact, it's below Scooby-Doo quality, it's like He-Man levels of bad) but the actual actors reprized their roles, its often written by the same people who wrote for TOS like D.C. Fontana and even Larry Niven of Ringworld fame. For a kid's show in the 1970's, while it will have its dumb moments, it's often surprisingly well-written and adult. In one episode, they encounter Orion pirates that would rather commit suicide than be captured. I can't believe that actually got past the censors! Plus, there's an episode (that's honestly pretty bad) where they go to the center of the universe, wind up in Salem, Massachusetts and BEFRIEND SATAN. How the hell did they get away with that? I think TAS is worth watching, for if nothing else, it's very short (only has about 22 or so episodes) and each episode is only about 20 minutes long. After watching TOS, I didn't feel like I had enough, and TAS is good for that. As said before, Star Trek Continues \ Phase II \ whatever tend to have very good sets, costumes and production values, and that one episode of Star Trek Continues really does feel like a TOS era script and would totally work within that show, the actors always just leave a lot to be desired in those fan films. Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Oh, he also took a huge poo poo all over the entire body of Jules Verne's work. He wrote and published, no poo poo, Captain Nemo fanfiction in which every Jules Verne book was actually about Captain Nemo having adventures. Oh Jesus loving Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:To be fair, Firefly did the shaky cam and snap zoom, and did them well. Well IDK if I'd say Firefly did them well (in that I honestly don't remember it being used much outside their cgi shots), but overall those things don't bother me. I just would rather they not become the default since it's lazy and works in certain stories better than other- e.g. nobody is going to shoot a rom-com like that aside from the Duplass brothers I guess?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Then again, I thought the movie was great and doesn't have nearly the number of issues people claim it has. And I typically line up with this thread's general tastes in Trek, so... Yeah, that's great! It's the legion of people who shoot down critical discussion that gets me. My way of looking at it is, fantastic Great Job if you've enjoyed the movies, just don't expect me to also love it simply because you do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:TAS really starts driving you nuts after you've seen that same running animation reused for the 20th time or heard one of the 3 music tracks they have set on repeat. But, you can't stop watching because under all of it there's an actual well written (for the most part) story. Except when it's a loving crazy story like the Devil in the center of the universe one, holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
rypakal posted:I really wish people would stop saying this. Nobody kills animals. They replicate meat. I know this is from awhile back, and I'm probably  hard by mentioning this, but... what about gagh? The Enterprise is shown to be capable of producing it on several occasions, and it's usually eaten live. In this particular case, they're not just replicating meat, they're replicating an entire living creature. That they then kill. By eating.I really wish they had pursued the whole "replicating a living, breathing creature" thing, because that could have produced some interesting episodes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:TAS really starts driving you nuts after you've seen that same running animation reused for the 20th time or heard one of the 3 music tracks they have set on repeat. But, you can't stop watching because under all of it there's an actual well written (for the most part) story. Except when it's a loving crazy story like the Devil in the center of the universe one, holy poo poo. That episode is amazing as it is so batshit insane and has to be seen to believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Someone do a TAS writeup and I'll put it in the OP Bonus points if you use the KIRK IS A JERK gif
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Azurrat posted:I know this is from awhile back, and I'm probably I don't think they were ever able to produce it live. Just dead gagh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:As said before, Star Trek Continues \ Phase II \ whatever tend to have very good sets, costumes and production values, and that one episode of Star Trek Continues really does feel like a TOS era script and would totally work within that show, the actors always just leave a lot to be desired in those fan films. The problem with a lot of the fan films is indeed the acting. Especially on the TOS era ones. They meticulously recreate the 60s sets, do the special effects as good or better (which is amazing considering how much it must've cost to produce the show back in the 60s), and often get actual pro writers from Star Trek. But the actors aren't great, and even when OK they usually fail to capture the characters well when they imitate Kirk and the rest. Granted, there's a bit more of a precedence for recasting the original characters since JJTrek, but the best option for the fanfilms would just be to do episodes with a different ship of the same era. Starship Exeter tried that and was decent, but they couldn't get more than one complete episode off the ground. That's another issue though, the pacing. It takes so long to do the episodes they have to often go through a revolving door of cast because people move, lose interest, drop out, etc. Phase II has had like 6 Spocks and every single character has been played by more than one actor. Even the guy who runs it, who plays Kirk stepped down. And while he looked nothing like Shatner, he at least had the Shattitude...whereas the new guy looks eerily like Shatner, but is wooden as hell and the voice is off. Not to mention they get so far ahead of themselves they have something like 5 episodes in various stages of filming, production, and planning but haven't turned out a complete episode in around 2 years ("Still working on polishing the effects for the third act! We'll have it out sometime in the next month or so!") I mean, I guess I shouldn't bitch too much, as the episodes are free to us, cost these guys a lot personally to make and the studio is looking the other way big time. But they'll never be any sort of "replacement" for televised Star Trek anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
Astroman posted:The problem with a lot of the fan films is indeed the acting. Especially on the TOS era ones. They meticulously recreate the 60s sets, do the special effects as good or better (which is amazing considering how much it must've cost to produce the show back in the 60s), and often get actual pro writers from Star Trek. But the actors aren't great, and even when OK they usually fail to capture the characters well when they imitate Kirk and the rest. Granted, there's a bit more of a precedence for recasting the original characters since JJTrek, but the best option for the fanfilms would just be to do episodes with a different ship of the same era. Starship Exeter tried that and was decent, but they couldn't get more than one complete episode off the ground. I watched a couple of episodes of Phase II and yeah, while the acting is fairly cringeworthy, they also aren't completely terrible. I've definitely seen worse (there was this one fan series I remember seeing back in like 2002 that consisted solely of the "actors" sitting in front of the camera in poorly-made costumes against a green screen that would show whatever setting they were supposed to be in (bridge, ready room, engineering, whatever). I'm trying to remember the name of it. Edit: found it. Give the first episode or three a watch just to see some of the world's worst acting (especially the commander dude): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Hidden_Frontier Anyway re: Phase II, the main guy behind it apparently ran into JJ Abrams on Paramount's lot one day during production of Trek 09 and was immortalized as an extra: Drone fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:Someone do a TAS writeup and I'll put it in the OP This still makes me laugh 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:Yeah, that's great! It's the legion of people who shoot down critical discussion that gets me. When discussing a movie, I don't really care if the other person likes it because everyone has different tastes and whatnot. The problem lies with the fact that, especially with this movie, people seemed to love pointing out things they disliked about the plot as objective flaws, when there was nothing objective about them at all. The movie actually does a good job of avoiding actual plot holes. And it isn't just the people arguing in favor of the movie that shoot down critical discussion. I stopped trying to show how the film actually justifies a lot of the plot elements that people bitched about after being completely ignored four or five times. It's not worth arguing about after a certain point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
That's it "it's not worth arguing about after a certain point", but try taking that into the CD thread, my god
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:TAS has the awful, awful cheap-rear end animation you would expect from a 1970's Hanna-Barbera cartoon (in fact, it's below Scooby-Doo quality, it's like He-Man levels of bad) Pretty sure TAS and He-Man were done by the same animation company, Filmation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Astroman posted:They meticulously recreate the 60s sets, do the special effects as good or better (which is amazing considering how much it must've cost to produce the show back in the 60s)...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:That's it "it's not worth arguing about after a certain point", but try taking that into the CD thread, my god Yeah, that thread got really, really bad. Once the "Why is Khan white?" and "OMG a bra!" arguments got started, that thread became nearly gas chamber worthy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
a travelling HEGEL posted:Yeah, an entire 50¢. Star Trek actually hired something like five different effects houses in order to get their special effects done on time, and it was probably the best work that could be done short of a major feature film production.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
I think the thing about JJTrek is that it directly condemns on many aspects of the original franchise. If that upsets you because you like (those aspects of) the original franchise, obviously you're not going to like the movie. For reference, I think SMG explains what JJTrek 09 condemns extremely well: specifically, the aesthetics and viewpoints of the later TNG movies, like Nemesis. The movie opts instead for a kind of hopefulness and bright aesthetic and the over-coming of no-win scenarios. SMG hints towards *some* of what Into Darkness deals with, but I'm not sure he's on the mark and some of his posts in the CD thread seem a bit scattered. But where I think he's on the mark is the way Into Darkness deals with the time or continuity between "now" (2013, or the 1960s when Star Trek first came out) and 2250 or whatever when we first meet (the first) Kirk. I think the movie is condemning the utopianism without the solution. Like, you can't just say, "yeah sure, we built a utopia and everything's great and we don't need money. Oh, yeah, we had those eugenics wars and stuff, but, like, we got over it... Somehow." Into Darkness deals with all those things: Khan's problem with the Federation is partly legitimate, because the Federation itself isn't totally perfect, and even Kirk has to learn some humility. Yes, we should embrace what the original series did well (e.g. hopefulness towards a better future, a Russian and a black woman on the bridge in a 1960s tv show) but the attitude of "ah yes, and now everything is perfect! No more problems! Nope! No sir!" is gonna lead you into trouble. You have to go "into darkness," and deal with those troubling aspects, while still maintaining the hopeful aesthetic and trying to overcome those problems (as opposed to devolving into nihilism and darkness for the sake of darkness). This is why, for example, Kirk survives (also: duh), and why the movie ends with the beginning of their 5 year mission or whatever. It's also why I like the ongoing theme of Kirk's (and Bones's) interactions with women revealing him to constantly be a leering creepo, and he constantly gets "dressed down," whether literally (in ST09), or in other ways, as when Carol Marcus calls him out on his gaze and Kirk looks like an idiot*, and then in the very next scene when Bones acts like a creepo with corny lines, everyone rolls his eyes at him doing so and tells him to stop, and Carol is the only one able to accomplish anything. * I think condemning that scene for e.g. the "Male Gaze" misses the mark. The male gaze is very much about about pleasure in voyeurism (as well as fetishism and narcissism), i.e. repressing the fact that you, the movie viewer, are the creepy observer. The active male character stands in for you, watching the passive female object so you can pretend "Oh I'm not looking at her, Active Male Character is!" In the scene, Carol is clearly the active one, and she draws attention to Kirk's leering gaze, telling him to loving stop already. That said, the way to improve the scene would be for her to break the 4th wall or something, like somehow draw attention to the audience's own leering gaze. (But that would be a bit out of place unless done quite subtly, so I dunno.) DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:This still makes me laugh There is also this one  also 
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
DirtyRobot posted:I think the thing about JJTrek is that it directly condemns on many aspects of the original franchise. If that upsets you because you like (those aspects of) the original franchise, obviously you're not going to like the movie. Yeah, I'll admit that I'm too much of a stick in the mud to enjoy JJTrek because it really shits all over TOS. But, what truly bugs me the most about the new films is talking with non-trekkies about them. I've had friends tell me they're 'woah so excited for the new trek movies' because Bennedict Cumberbunch and Zachary Quinto and What's His Name are sooooo dreamy and how they love the new movies because "the actors in the original weren't as hot and were really terrible actors". And my fragile little heart simply can't take hearing that. Edit: To end this post on a lighter note, here's a trek cake, enjoy: 
Apple Jax fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
What the gently caress Shatner was a total dreamboat in TOS ask my mom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:Yeah, I'll admit that I'm too much of a stick in the mud to enjoy JJTrek because it really shits all over TOS. As for the quality, the main shift was that those guys were closer to the theater, I think - but then, most people were.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
Sprat Sandwich posted:What the gently caress Shatner was a total dreamboat in TOS ask my mom. Nessus posted:In their time, which to be fair is coming on fifty years ago, they WERE the hot guys. Cumberpatch prays, I'm sure, that he'll remain as handsome as Patrick Stewart :armfold: But really that is kind of an interesting phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Apple Jax posted:poo poo, you guys don't have to tell me that. Weird baby-face Quinto, boring Cucumberbrunch and that other guy wish they were anywhere close to young Nimoy or Shanter's level. You take that back about Quinto.  No arguments on Cumberbatch though, the guy is like a human weasel. Seriously, what the hell is going on with his face? It's too blocky and thin, like it's kinda compressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Circutron posted:You take that back about Quinto. I am OK with Quinto. In some ways I actually liked Pine's version of Kirk, at least after the first film, than movie-era Shat. More of a human, less of a Shatner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Pine is dreamy. Quinto has a weird nose. Cumberbatch is weird as a whole but has a badass voice. Dudechat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
I didn't like Simon Peg as Scotty. He was too manic. I loved Karl Urban as Bones, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Sprat Sandwich posted:Pine is dreamy. Quinto has a weird nose. Cumberbatch is weird as a whole but has a badass voice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Lowen SoDium posted:I loved Karl Urban as Bones, though. If there's only one thing I like about the new movies it's Karl Urban. The only better fit for the role would have been DeForest himself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Cumberbatch's voice is the big draw. The only real problem I have with the JJTrek actors is that Pine is incapable of Shatner's smug confidence, and Quinto plays Spock too stiffly. Someone said it in an earlier thread, but the thing about Spock is that he's incredibly chill.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:25
|
|
