|
I like Vic
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
The ratio of the time Vic spends singing in DS9 to the time spent complaining about Vic singing in DS9 should shame you all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
This is a thread which was once moderated by a literal convicted pedophile, and yet the anti-Vic squad sickens me more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Am I the only one who thinks they should just continue the DS9/Voyager timeline instead of trying to do retro shows? You can't have the 60's back. It's done. TNG/DS9/Voyager is littered with a bunch of garbage that needs to be ripped out of the setting, though. Even at least as early as the 70s, people were figuring out that the transporter was too powerful, so what does TNG+ do? They add even more poo poo the transporter can do, and then miniaturize it so it can fit in a shuttlecraft, or a rifle (???) or a loving lapel pin. (?????????) And then Voyager somehow got bored with that and said "add more  "I just don't see a lot of value in the old TNG/DS9/VOY timeline. I don't mean that as "those shows were all terrible, forget everything about them", but rather that they didn't really do a good job of building a coherent setting that enhances future Star Trek-brand stories. We don't need to reference I, Borg or In The Pale Moonlight or Year of Hell in a new series. It's okay to have more than one timeline. You can't have the 90's back. It's done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:TNG/DS9/Voyager is littered with a bunch of garbage that needs to be ripped out of the setting, though. Even at least as early as the 70s, people were figuring out that the transporter was too powerful, so what does TNG+ do? They add even more poo poo the transporter can do, and then miniaturize it so it can fit in a shuttlecraft, or a rifle (???) or a loving lapel pin. (?????????) I have Voyager on the background lately, last night they needed to beam someone off a planet and the enemy ship took one shot at the shields and suddenly "they shot out our transporters" this implies the transporters have something that can be easily shot from the outside that disables them but also disables it on all of their shuttles and cargo bays and everywhere. Hell it feels like 90% of the time they forget shuttles exist as a separate warp core/transporter system would solve most problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Vic and Ezri both suffer from being shoved in too late in the series run. The writers latched onto them to tell stories they felt they couldn't with the existing cast, but the compressed time frame makes it feel... forced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:TNG/DS9/Voyager is littered with a bunch of garbage that needs to be ripped out of the setting, though. Even at least as early as the 70s, people were figuring out that the transporter was too powerful, so what does TNG+ do? They add even more poo poo the transporter can do, and then miniaturize it so it can fit in a shuttlecraft, or a rifle (???) or a loving lapel pin. (?????????) I do think the easier and smoother way to explain it is a small fixed wormhole generator or something just to stop people from whining about how the transporter murders them constantly and feeling clever. "gently caress you! It overlays two separate areas in space temporarily!" This also seems like you'd avoid all the magical transporter healing possibilities, or dumb poo poo like putting it into an elite super no-scope insta-kill JFK assassination rifle. Thomas Riker can be explained by a verteron storm. Where is my money, CBS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
In the end of Star Trek 13, did they ever address why they didn't just beam Krull and his doomsday device out of the orbital and into space, or otherwise use transporters to solve the easilly transporter-solvable problem instead of having Kirk punch the bad guy with punching? I mean it's okay to have a action chase but do they at least throw out a line about how they can't get a tranporter lock because of the plobtonium particle interference or w/e?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:In the end of Star Trek 13, did they ever address why they didn't just beam Krull and his doomsday device out of the orbital and into space, or otherwise use transporters to solve the easilly transporter-solvable problem instead of having Kirk punch the bad guy with punching? I mean it's okay to have a action chase but do they at least throw out a line about how they can't get a tranporter lock because of the plobtonium particle interference or w/e? Probably some technobabble thing happened. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:And then Neelix is a uniformed ensign just fucks it all up. There was a line where they accused Voyager of rampaging through the quadrant and assimilating people into their war machine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Met posted:There was a line where they accused Voyager of rampaging through the quadrant and assimilating people into their war machine. Forcing a space-pedo into the senior bridge crew, not so much. Also, you defended Neelix you monster. You're worse than The Trekposter That Shall Not Be Named
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Vic Fontaine is and always will be loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Vic Fontaine is and always will be loving terrible. You have no honour! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The thing with the transporter, I think, is that it is pretty much literally a dramatic convenience so they can have stories without having to deal with all the nitpicky bullshit of shuttling up and down and other such things, which would need to be the case if they didn't have transporters. I can also see the narrative point of not wanting your ship story to have to, by necessity, become a "carrier" story due to the need to constantly have loving shuttles and fighters or whatever zipping around. ZZZZZ BORING. I mean, yeah, we've all heard the story, the transporter was a fabulous dramatic device for getting Our Heroes into the thick of the story immediately, and avoided expensive/hokey special effects shots of ships/shuttlecraft landing and taking off and poo poo. It's cool, it was a legit good idea to come up with even though it went awry. I'm not necessarily saying no transporters, but there's gotta be limits that get stuck to. Make it so you can't miniaturize it down to a shuttlecraft (let alone a loving rifle or lapel pin); it takes a hell of a lot of power and a bulky physical apparatus, etc. I will say "no holodecks" though because gently caress that noise, you want to get the crew in jeopardy while wearing pinstripe suits then you hoke up a gangster planet, damnit. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Also I'm pretty sure that Star Trek solved the transporter murder problem already by clearly demonstrating that souls are literally real in Star Trek and they follow the transported body.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's because Star Trek shouldn't take 3-4 minute long breaks to feature a loving terrible lounge singer. That's why I hate Vic. Look, I'm willing to accept that maybe Vic Fontaine's character might not be the greatest thing DS9 ever did for SOME people, but stop insulting James Darren's singing
Kibayasu fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
There's this pretense by superfans that the show's tech is consistent in the continuity. It isn't. It doesn't matter that transporters are OP. But even then, they've been writing ways to take the transporter out of the stories when necessary, or make their efficacy less than certain, since the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
I kinda wish they did have to use shuttles. I always found scenes that involved shuttles getting shot at or stuck in weirdo atmospheres more fun than "welp transporters broke I guess."
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I kinda wish they did have to use shuttles. I always found scenes that involved shuttles getting shot at or stuck in weirdo atmospheres more fun than "welp transporters broke I guess." This was definitely something Enterprise did, using shuttlepods a lot and relying on transporters more as a way out of extremely tight spots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Also I'm pretty sure that Star Trek solved the transporter murder problem already by clearly demonstrating that souls are literally real in Star Trek and they follow the transported body. So was one of the Rikers literally a soulless copy?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Riker contained twice as much soul as the average person, and the transporter accident was actually caused by the soul's need to split into two intergalactic sex machines.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
The transporter exists, at least to my knowledge, only because they hadn't finished a shuttle prop in time for a story where they wanted to get people someplace else..
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
The thing that would've helped a lot with the transporter as a plot device would be establishing wide-range jamming as ubiquitous and easy. Say that even communicators jam an enemy transporter by default (so you have to be captured and have the badge taken off and crushed dramatically)
MikeJF fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Don't bother with warp drive, just beam ships from place to place
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Don't bother with warp drive, just beam ships from place to place Just travel from place to place with a giant splashy ring.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Veotax posted:So was one of the Rikers literally a soulless copy? That's "soulless minion of orthodoxy".
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Veotax posted:So was one of the Rikers literally a soulless copy? Oh that one's simple, the transporter just grabbed a Riker from a parallel universe. So instead of swapping places, there's just a universe where Riker tragically and mysteriously disappeared during transport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The thing that would've helped a lot with the transporter as a plot device would be establishing wide-range jamming as ubiquitous and easy. Say that even communicators jam an enemy transporter by default (so you have to be captured and have the badge taken off and crushed dramatically) drat minovsky particles! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Now the nerd in me is wondering if it would be faster/cheaper to just build a series of transporter relays between stars and planets instead of building a whole lot of ships. Though obviously if they go light speed that's out and I guess it was only the new movies that kind of established the "speed" at which transports travel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
JJ Trek invalidated the need for Starships in the first movie when Scotty invented infinite distance transport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Oh that one's simple, the transporter just grabbed a Riker from a parallel universe. So instead of swapping places, there's just a universe where Riker tragically and mysteriously disappeared during transport. This is practically how time travel in Timeline worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Now the nerd in me is wondering if it would be faster/cheaper to just build a series of transporter relays between stars and planets instead of building a whole lot of ships. Though obviously if they go light speed that's out and I guess it was only the new movies that kind of established the "speed" at which transports travel. I assume there are relays between Earth and Moon and maybe even Mars and poo poo. The max range in TNG era was always given as 40,000km, roughly geosynchronous orbit. Earth to Vulcan - next door neighbours in interstellar terms - would require 3.9 billion relays. Space is really mind-bogglingly big. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Am I the only one who thinks they should just continue the DS9/Voyager timeline instead of trying to do retro shows? You can't have the 60's back. It's done. Nope, I fully agree. In fact what I've said for years is that I want ST:TNG:TNG and set it 100 years or so past VOY (or the video game even) so that it's as alien and different to us as TNG was to TOS 30 years ago. Make that poo poo look even more futuristic than JJ Trek, WOW us in 2016!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
In the 29th century, everyone uploads themselves into the cloud and uses retro filters so everything looks like an Atari game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:TNG/DS9/Voyager is littered with a bunch of garbage that needs to be ripped out of the setting, though. Even at least as early as the 70s, people were figuring out that the transporter was too powerful, so what does TNG+ do? They add even more poo poo the transporter can do, and then miniaturize it so it can fit in a shuttlecraft, or a rifle (???) or a loving lapel pin. (?????????) Who cares about the technology? Not the writers that's for sure. The implications of it all were problematic as hell dating back to The Cage. No reboot or prequel or alternate universe can change the fact that technology in Trek is always exactly as magical as the plot (and the production constraints) requires it to be, no more and no less. The original continuity deserves to be continued because DS9 left it in such a fascinating place. The Romulans and the Federation allied with each other for the first time in their centuries-long history. What happens with that? Does the detente with the Dominion hold? Does Bajor join the Federation? What does the Klingon empire look like under Martok's rule? Will the Cardassians rebuild? What does post-occupation Betazed look like? Will those that lived through the war spend the rest of their lives looking for changelings behind every tree? How does Ferengi society adapt? There are zillions of interesting stories to tell in this universe and there's no inherit reason to let the technobabble get in the way of doing it. There just isn't the will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Yeah, but all of that requires a lot of setting knowledge for a show that's 25 years gone to have an impact. They'd either spend a ton of time catching people up and while they were doing that all of us supernerds would complain that things are moving too slowly and they're dumbing it down OR they wouldn't explain the backstory enough and lose all dramatic impact and us supernerds would say that it's their fault for having bad writing. You just can't make Trek like you make a big TV drama; it'll turn it into something that's definitely not Star Trek. Deep Space Nine is great but it's far from the mean of what people want out of Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Zurui posted:Yeah, but all of that requires a lot of setting knowledge for a show that's 25 years gone to have an impact. They'd either spend a ton of time catching people up and while they were doing that all of us supernerds would complain that things are moving too slowly and they're dumbing it down OR they wouldn't explain the backstory enough and lose all dramatic impact and us supernerds would say that it's their fault for having bad writing. You just can't make Trek like you make a big TV drama; it'll turn it into something that's definitely not Star Trek. Deep Space Nine is great but it's far from the mean of what people want out of Star Trek. ...You know that trying to just do Voyager and mediocre TNG is what killed Enterprise? Audiences do, in fact, want Star Trek to feel like TV drama that was made in the year it was actually made, and thankfully Fuller seems to at least agree on that front, hence the heavy serialisation Discovery is supposed to have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
DS9 isn't even that different than TNG or Voyager, it just has serialization and more consistently written and entertaining characters. If things are supposed to improve with time than DS9 is exactly where you want to go after TNG, and Voyager and ENT to a lesser extent are a step back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Television was a lot different in 1987, and anything Star Trek made today, no matter the exact setting, would have modernized storytelling unless it's just absolute poo poo. Generally the issue with Voyager/Enterprise was that they were still cribbing from a 20-year old playbook of storytelling. I don't really understand why there is a faction of fans insisting that the new show has to look like 1960's low-budget rubbish, the new Trek movie sets generally work and I would argue are even great for the most part. Star Trek should always look like the future, not a constant that can be measured for the benefit of lovely nerds. I will say that nuTrek's engineering section might be a little too Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
The problem with Voyager/Enterprise weren't necessarily the ideas, it was absolutely the execution being botched and the writing was poor. It's very frustrating that they took good ideas like having a ship cut off from Starfleet and lost in the Delta Quadrant and messed it up. That and how Enterprise was pretty bland until the 3rd season, and it's not really until the 4th season that we get actual 'founding of the Federation' stuff like we were all promised. It also occurs to me that the Starfleet/Maquis internal ship conflict was continued for the series about as well as Archer's grudge against Vulcans was. Meaning both poorly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 01:56
|
|
