|
drat, the D's rear end looks so fat from that angle. Doctor Butts posted:I always thought the TNG music in the first season or so was over rated heavily by this forum. Agreed, I think most of it sounds a bit campy. Also holy poo poo I forgot what a douchebag Keevan is, good lord. Kudos to that actor for channeling the pure essence of smug.
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
EX-GAIJIN AT LAST posted:The RTD years with Eccleston and Tennant, and I'll be honest, especially the fandom, killed all my enthusiasm for Doctor Who. Even though I thought it got much better the first season after RTD left, I never ended up watching any more after that anyway. I grew up with the old show, but unless you can view it with the proper context it might be difficult to enjoy. You've got to recall the imaginative powers you had as a child to overcome the deficiencies and see what they meant to show you, not what the budget allowed them to show. And I'm not talking about like you have to do with B5; the old Doctor Who is like that times 10. I'm often told by people I trust that I would very likely enjoy old Doctor Who way more than new Who. I don't mind cheesy retro sci-fi, and I think old Who is probably a lot more genuine and I should give that a shot. There's just something I find so offputting about the new Who. Maybe I have some kind of subconscious thing where I give old cheesy sci-fi a pass - I enjoy TOS, 1950's B movies, Godzilla flicks and original Battlestar when they're actually fighting Cylons and not focusing on that terrible little kid or finding other humans in space. Forbidden Planet and the Day the Earth Stood Still are cool movies I like. I think where my line gets drawn is when things go into Sci-Fi original territory, and that's kind of the realm of NuWho. I see bad cgi, midi music soundtracks and painfully unfunny attempts at "zany" humor and I'm just taken the hell out of it. I think the last one might be the kicker. It tries so hard to be WACKY and ZANY whereas sweaty Japanese men in lizard costumes and cavewomen going "BRAIN BRAIN WHAT IS BRAIN?!" aren't purposefully trying to be dumb. They just are. And that's what endears me.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ-ATwRq5KY
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:That brings back memories. It was a big deal when I was a kid sitting in the theater and the Borg cube showed up to wreck everyone's poo poo like that. I know I saw movies before them, but it was a huge deal for me to see Generations and First Contact in theaters as a kid. I remember exactly what candies I had and where my folks and I sat in the theatre and the pure spectacle of it all. Seeing the Defiant (!) on the big screen was a huge treat. I had a bit of a Roy Orbison/Steppenwolf phase for a while there, thanks to FC.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't care what that Red Letter Media rear end in a top hat says, First Contact is good Trek. Good action (I think the decision to dispense with the big Cube fight early and treat the borg more like a creeping infection was really, really smart), good continuity with the rest of Trek, interesting science fiction (I know time travel plots never make any sense, but meeting drunk rear end in a top hat Cochrane is still great), good use of the ensemble, lots of heart. What's not to like? Well, I guess some people don't like the borg queen (she is a little too sexy-evil),Picard is kind of crazy in it (I don't agree that he's out-of-character though. Dude is having PTSD flashbacks the whole time, of course he's not his usual philosophical self.), and the direction is a little pedestrian (though it's still a joy to see TNG with a big screen budget and sensibility). I gotta say though, that this "secretly a bad movie" crap feels like revisionism. Maybe it's because I was a kid and not a jaded uberfan, but I thought First Contact was a sheer joy to watch in theaters (and it's great on rewatch too). Really, I'd say First Contact is the pinnacle of the Berman era, a celebration of how far they'd come and the cultural phenomenon they'd built. I'm not sure people who never saw Best of Both Worlds would have even known what the hell was going on in it, but that's not the point. That movie was a love letter to the fans (complete with characters from every Star Trek show, including TOS, if you count Cochrane -- though he's not really the same character), the most iconic villain of that era, and a deep dive into the series' mythology. Sadly, First Contact also seems like the point where everything started going wrong. They gave us everything we hoped for and, afterward, all they could serve up was more of the same. If there ever was a series that became the victim of its own success, it's Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
First Contact is not so much bad as it is not a very good Trek movie, and no, Captain Picard doesn't make any sense in it, and no, the plot doesn't make any sense. It is the best TNG movie, which is not a high bar. Also, RLM doesn't hate it so much as just point out these facts and remark that it's a mediocre movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Honestly Generations is the best TNG movie, comparatively speaking. It has the Enterprise D, it has the cast as we know and love them, (including Guinan) it's well lit, it's still vaguely Star Trek. The plot and its odd contrivances are no worse than a mediocre two-parter episode, and Shatner's presence isn't really a dealbreaker IMO. Welp that's my terrible opinion. First Contact was hella badass and fun to watch in Theaters though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
DarthJeebus posted:Honestly Generations is the best TNG movie, comparatively speaking. It has the Enterprise D, it has the cast as we know and love them, (including Guinan) it's well lit, it's still vaguely Star Trek. The plot and its odd contrivances are no worse than a mediocre two-parter episode, and Shatner's presence isn't really a dealbreaker IMO. Welp that's my terrible opinion. Yeah it's hard to hate it so much as hate how they wrote out Shatner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Really, I'd say First Contact is the pinnacle of the Berman era, a celebration of how far they'd come and the cultural phenomenon they'd built. I like First Contact as an action film (a lot, actually), but I don't think this makes much sense. It doesn't feel like TNG at all, even though all the characters are there. I watched it kind of recently after watching some of TNG and it's actually jarring how different the tone and feel is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
My biggest issue with First Contact is it has zero emotional resonance. Even if you want to say Picard is not acting out of character here when he's freaking out, he sure as gently caress is when he's just all smiles to Lily after she breaks him out of the funk by referencing Moby Dick. One half assed apology to Worf and a quick joke about the length of the alphabet and you would think he just got done with a spa day from his demeanor. No tears shed or internal conflict about the crew you could have saved by giving up earlier. Worst yet, he's rewarded for this behavior by not really having to sacrifice anything in the end that he cares personally for. It's all wrapped up a bit too neatly in a bow. My biggest problem with the TNG movies is they didn't do the same thing for the setting that the TOS movies did. Part of that isn't fair because TNG was a much more sophisticated show to begin with than TOS so it's a lot harder to take things to the next level. But when TOS jumped from show to movies, you had an episodic program with a more or less 1 dimensional universe get fleshed out into something much more coherent with depth. The complexity of the story telling took a huge jump, the cinematography took a huge jump, and production design took a huge jump. I was almost as if TOS was acutally just an in universe low budget reinactment of the exploits of Kirk with artistic license and the TOS movies were us watching the real deal. TNG showed no such jump. Generations had interesting cinematography, but the rest were shot in a very pedestrian fashion. The special effects straddled an awkward point in that they were better than the show and could do a bit more, but the budget really wasn't there to take it to a full next level. Insurrection is often the one that people say is really just a two part episode, but I feel like that fits for pretty much all of them. They never fully cleared the fog of TV with the movies, so they didn't have the same grandiose feel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
It probably helped that the TOS movie production crew was vastly different from the TOS tv production crew. You don't have the same circumstances with TNG.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
I don't know why they didn't just set a TNG movie in the middle of the dominion war. Even for the general moviegoing public, they could have come up with some action-oriented storyline that was still grandiose enough to be 'blockbuster' worthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:
Yeah, nu-Who just seems so... soulless, like everything about it has been manufactured to pander to a specific audience without really challenging them or having its own point of view. You gotta have over-the-top music and cheesy-iconic monsters. You've got to have aliens attacking London again and people getting killed by bad effects. You've got to have quirky young people overacting and lots of implausible sci-fi hand waving. That's what Doctor Who is so that's what they do, but it's all fake. If you deliberately make your monsters look hokey and cheap, it just looks like if you don't care about quality. If you knowlingly recycle the same plots and cliches, it just makes you look like a lazy writer. If you intentionally cast a bunch of shameless hams and put a bunch of silly-sounding nonsense in their mouths, it just makes you look like you have no respect for your audience's intelligence. The original show was constrained by its time and budget, but strove mightily to overcome its limitations. The new show doesn't have those same constraints, but chooses to wallow safely within the limits of the original format, and there's really no excuse for that poo poo and all the knowing winks in the world won't change that. I feel there's a real lesson there for Trek. I liked Beyond, but all the references to other Trek series got to be a bit much, when taken together. These new movies have been swimming in familiar waters and living off of preexisting audience goodwill. There's so little there that's not just a warped reflection of a story we saw twenty, thirty, fifty years ago. Even Star Trek can't run on nostalgia forever, and I think people are getting fed up with the wheel-spinning, water-treading, laurel-resting mythology masturbation. Discovery's setting makes me worried. I'd love to see any era of trek on TV again, so long as its done in a way that respects modern sensibilities and gives us something genuinely new to watch, but if this series turns out to be just another blinkered, unambitious nostalgia-fest content to spoonfeed us a steady diet of everything we loved before (with a few progressive fig leaves, like a gay character, for flavor), then Star Trek we continue to be something that belongs to the past, and might as well stay there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:I don't know why they didn't just set a TNG movie in the middle of the dominion war. Even for the general movie going public, they could have come up with some action-oriented storyline that was still grandiose enough to be 'blockbuster' worthy. But DS9 wasn't popular with the masses which means it's illegal to include anything about it or any of the world building they did in the movies. Voyager was more popular so you get Admiral janeway as some fan service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:It probably helped that the TOS movie production crew was vastly different from the TOS tv production crew. You don't have the same circumstances with TNG. Yeah. With TNG they pretty much just directly shifted from TV straight to the movies and I really think that hurt them for giving the movies a grand scale. On a different movie note, I'm torn. I just got a shiny new OLED tv and a UHD blu-ray player and everyone keeps saying ST:ID is an absolutly reference disc. Yet, I'm having trouble making myself spend even MORE money on that movie. On one hand I feel like I can justify it by saying if I spend money on these UHD blu-rays, it might prompt them to release others (such as ST:II which got the full 4k HDR treatment in the new master.) On the other, spending another $30 bucks on that movie makes me slightly ill. I will say, the remasterd ST:II on regular blu-ray looks absolutely stunning on this TV. There's lots of film grain to be sure, but the colors pop like crazy and there's a surprising amount of detail there. I don't even know how many times I've seen this movie and I'm picking out details that I've never really seen before. I REALLY hope Paramount gets their head out of their rear end and actually releases it on UHD. I don't really expect much jump in detail since the film stock used was so grainy in a lot of scenes, but I really want to see Mayer's HDR grading on the movie. It should look stunning during the battle scenes and in the Mutara Nebula. That disc just has to be coming, there's literally no other reason for them to go back and do a 4k transfer with HDR grading otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Admiral Bosch posted:I don't know why they didn't just set a TNG movie in the middle of the dominion war. Even for the general moviegoing public, they could have come up with some action-oriented storyline that was still grandiose enough to be 'blockbuster' worthy. I think they were told the dominion war story would be over by the time the movie came out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I'm often told by people I trust that I would very likely enjoy old Doctor Who way more than new Who. I don't mind cheesy retro sci-fi, and I think old Who is probably a lot more genuine and I should give that a shot. There's just something I find so offputting about the new Who. Duckbag posted:The original show was constrained by its time and budget, but strove mightily to overcome its limitations. The new show doesn't have those same constraints, but chooses to wallow safely within the limits of the original format, and there's really no excuse for that poo poo and all the knowing winks in the world won't change that. Quoting just the relevant portions here so this post isn't a mile long, but essentially this is correct: new Who is, in a word, self-conscious. It's basically a celebration of its own popularity. There are some really good episodes on the new show, I want to give credit where credit is due, but for the most part it's "isn't the Doctor awesome" rather than the old show mostly just telling far-out sci-fi tales using the Doctor as a vehicle. That's not universally true but it's accurate enough to give you good odds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
The thing about Doctor Who is that it's very hit and miss, to a ludicrous degree. Imagine a marathon of the very best of Trek but with an episode of the very worst in between every one. That's Who, essentially.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:The thing about Doctor Who is that it's very hit and miss, to a ludicrous degree. Imagine a marathon of the very best of Trek but with an episode of the very worst in between every one. That's Who, essentially. I think there might be more bad Trek episodes than good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I think there might be more bad Trek episodes than good. Well, yeah. Most of anything usually tends to be poo poo, that's just simple statistics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Yeah. With TNG they pretty much just directly shifted from TV straight to the movies and I really think that hurt them for giving the movies a grand scale. They begged for a break and some time, but the studio wouldn't let them. It just kept squeezing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I think there might be more bad Trek episodes than good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
You're being too charitable. At least a third of all Trek episodes are just boring schlock that is murder to watch, but too bland to be memorable and in many ways that's worse. We know stuff like Angel One, Code of Honor, and The Last Outpost are hot garbage and a few like Datalore, The Neutral Zone, and The Measure of Man are genuinely good, but think of of all those TNG season 1-2 episodes that don't get mentioned at all. Are they secretly quality entertainment? Or are they just bad in a way that's not even fun to make fun of. The worst directing I've ever seen in Star Trek occurs in a season 1 episode I can't even remember the name of (I think it had a derelict ship in it, or something?). Among other flaws, it had a complete blocking failure where one of the extras wandered right through the shot and they left it in. I've been hoping I could find that scene again, because it's hilarious, but I have no idea which episode it was because the only part I remember had nothing to do with the plot or characters, and I'm not about to start trawling through season 1 again to find it. There are dozens of other episodes like this from the beginning and end of TNG, from TOS's third season, from every season of Voyager and Enterprise, even a few on DS9. They're bad, or at least not good, but it's sort of hard to come up with any objective measure of them because they blend in with the general tapestry of boring generic Star Trek stories so well that it's almost impossible to remember what actually happened in that particular episode. Frankly, I'd much rather finish an hour of TV with a bad taste in my mouth than get to the end and realize it made no impression at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
You're circling around what I was saying. I wouldn't file those episodes as Bad because they're too bland to be classified as anything. Threshold is bad and everyone in this thread can give you a one sentence summary of the plot and why the episode is awful. I doubt you could find five posters here to do the same for Hero Worship without looking it up to remind themselves what the episode's about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Their point is that ironic enjoyment of something negative and the thinking/discussion it inspires trumps no enjoyment whatsoever, and therefore bland counts as the baddest of bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
No, I disagree. I think Threshold isn't just memorable because it's bad, it's memorable because it had ambition. They were trying to say something about life or humanity or whatever. They had award-winning effects and got legitimately good performances out of their actors. There were fun and interesting moments in the script before the schlock and technobabble overwhelmed it and when the episode fails, it does so in a way that's unique in the annals of Trek. In many ways, that episode is memorable because of what's great about it rather than what's terrible and if you took out the wild, misguided, arrogant idiocy that made them think Transwarp --> Salamander sex was a story worth shooting, you wouldn't make it into a good episode, it would just become a bad episode that had nothing interesting about it at all. Also, I did have to look up Hero Worship (because that title is terrible), but I actually really liked the boy that takes Data as a role model. It's not a great episode, but it's not one of the really crappy ones I had in mind. Toobreak it down for you, there are two kinds of boring forgettable episodes. There are those that are genuinely mediocre, but still have enough ambition, basic quality, and the core of an interesting idea to be better than Threshold, and we tend to remember those, even if we're fuzzy on the plot, but there are also boring, forgettable episodes that don't have ambition, basic quality, or anything to say and are totally unmemorable because of it (think of how many TOS season 3 episodes are basically never discussed). I would say that many of these latter episodes are as bad if not worse than Threshold but tend to get a pass simply because no one can think of anything to say about them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Question - how many people, even knowing the shows lacked consistent quality, watched Voyager and Enterprise from beginning to end?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
EX-GAIJIN AT LAST posted:The RTD years with Eccleston and Tennant, and I'll be honest, especially the fandom, killed all my enthusiasm for Doctor Who. Even though I thought it got much better the first season after RTD left, I never ended up watching any more after that anyway. I grew up with the old show, but unless you can view it with the proper context it might be difficult to enjoy. You've got to recall the imaginative powers you had as a child to overcome the deficiencies and see what they meant to show you, not what the budget allowed them to show. And I'm not talking about like you have to do with B5; the old Doctor Who is like that times 10. Don't worry, it's gotten worse rather than better. (Also there's an animated Power of the Daleks out soon)
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Question - how many people, even knowing the shows lacked consistent quality, watched Voyager and Enterprise from beginning to end? I live and breathe this poo poo and even I checked out on Enterprise somewhere during it's third season. I'm pretty sure it's the only series that's full of episodes I've only seen once or bits and pieces of in passing during reruns
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, nu-Who just seems so... soulless, like everything about it has been manufactured to pander to a specific audience without really challenging them or having its own point of view. You gotta have over-the-top music and cheesy-iconic monsters. You've got to have aliens attacking London again and people getting killed by bad effects. You've got to have quirky young people overacting and lots of implausible sci-fi hand waving. That's what Doctor Who is so that's what they do, but it's all fake. If you deliberately make your monsters look hokey and cheap, it just looks like if you don't care about quality. If you knowlingly recycle the same plots and cliches, it just makes you look like a lazy writer. If you intentionally cast a bunch of shameless hams and put a bunch of silly-sounding nonsense in their mouths, it just makes you look like you have no respect for your audience's intelligence. I feel like you're being a bit harsh on the revival, or rather it's had the flaws you mention in general but not all at once or under the same showrunner. RTD very much set out with Big Ideas and Big Moments in mind and didn't really care about the structure to get there. As long as it made emotional sense then the plot being complete bobbins meant little. He also liked to sprinkle progressive social policies in ("The Gay Agenda" was a common online complaint). Moffat on the other hand seems to be pandering to the people-who-make-gifs-of-The-Age-of-Ultron crowd, which has resulted in the core non-nerd audience in the UK being lost somewhat (viewing figures have fallen away in the last few years). He also seems to like mocking his audience; in the latest series of Doctor Who the arc plot was about something called The Hybrid that would destroy the Time Lords or something. I didn't speak to a single person whose reaction wasn't "this Hybrid stuff is clearly bullshit, I wish he'd stop mentioning it", it was seriously rubbish and shoehorned in. Then, in the final episode, the Doctor says it's basically all rubbish anyway and no more attention is paid to it (the point was to emphasise that the Doctor cares more about Clara than about some prophecy, but what it actually did was make everyone in the world rise in unison and shout Then why did you waste our loving time with it then) Side note: the show doesn't have a great deal of money by modern TV standards
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 11:55
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Don't worry, it's gotten worse rather than better. I was so excited when Moffat took over, his first series is by far the best of the revival but it just went so much down hill after that. I stopped watching episodes as they came out this last series, just letting them pile up and when I heard that Chibnall was taking over I just quit entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 12:08
|
|
|
Well, I was really talking about the RTD era. I checked out some time toward the end of Tennant's run. I don't know, maybe I just don't like Doctor Who, but it always struck me that constantly signalling "we know it's cheesy, just go with it" is a pretty piss-poor substitution for going to the trouble of actually fixing what's wrong with it. In particular, there's this constant tonal whiplash that comes from trying to have soapy melodrama and self-referential silliness at the same time (sort of like a bad Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode). To bring this back to Star Trek, I know a lot of people have complained about how the lighter DS9 episodes break up the Dominion War arc too much, but the grit and the fluff were partitioned in such a way that it was perfectly reasonable to think the same people might be robbing a casino in the holosuite one week and fighting a war the next and there was a sense of commitment to the premise that has always been one of Star Trek's saving graces (imagine how much harder TOS would be to watch if the characters were constantly winking at the guys in the rubber suits and cracking jokes about how nonsensical the time travel plots were). The one horrible exception to this is the DS9 mirror universe episodes where the camp-factor was allowed to run wild while at the same time we were supposed to actually be invested in the lives and deaths of the flimsy joke characters who inhabited that ridiculous nonsense universe. Not every Doctor Who episode is like that, but enough of them are that it's just exhausting.' I do worry a bit about Fuller as showrunner, because he's a trek superfan who clearly loves the camp-aspects of Trek and has run (good) shows that are known for have rabid internet cults and lots (and lots) of stylistic flair and I'm afraid he'll be so happy just to have a chance to play in the Trek sand box that he won't do enough to elevate the material or pull Trek out of the self-referential rut it's been in for 20 years. I don't think he's Russ Davies (gay agenda or no), but he would be another inmate running the asylum (though, hey, that worked for DS9) and that worries me a bit. I'm sure his show will look good and have an interesting and diverse cast, but whether he'll be able to find the right tone is another question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
I wouldn't really describe old and new Doctor Who as having the same format any more than TOS and the movies have the same format.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Question - how many people, even knowing the shows lacked consistent quality, watched Voyager and Enterprise from beginning to end? Tighclops posted:I live and breathe this poo poo and even I checked out on Enterprise somewhere during it's third season. I'm pretty sure it's the only series that's full of episodes I've only seen once or bits and pieces of in passing during reruns I had to force myself to watch all of Voyager, much like one has to force oneself to drink cough medicine. I started to falter there for a bit, but the thread got me back on track.  I have the same feeling about ENT, although it's more mild. If Voyager is that cherry flavored cough medicine that tastes like burning oil, ENT is more like grape that goes down with less gagging.DS9, TNG, and TOS don't feel like a chore in the same way. Not at all, really. Even the stupid episodes of those are less frequent and stupid in a different, often more fun way. I may never watch 90& of VOY or ENT ever again. I see myself going back to watch TOS, TNG, and DS9 many years from now. I'll only watch TAS while high as gently caress, so I'll leave that one aside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Question - how many people, even knowing the shows lacked consistent quality, watched Voyager and Enterprise from beginning to end? I think I missed some of Enterprise season 2, and large portions of Voyager seasons 5-7. I've only ever rewatched TOS and TNG though; I haven't seen any of DS9, Voyager, or Enterprise since they aired. MrL_JaKiri posted:Don't worry, it's gotten worse rather than better. I've heard, on both counts, and saw the trailer. Looks good, a big improvement over the previous animations. I haven't watched even any classic Who in the last few years, but hearing those radiophonic sound effects takes me right back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:Question - how many people, even knowing the shows lacked consistent quality, watched Voyager and Enterprise from beginning to end? I have a high tolerance for crap. I can usually find the good in it. I think I've seen almost all of Voyager, I don't remember giving up on it but I was ready for it to end by the time "Endgame" came around. Around mid-season 2 of Enterprise, I think it was the episode with Odo in that re-used a DS9 plot point, about 15 minutes into the episode I just realised that I had completely gone past caring. I knew the guest star of the week was going to have a secret. I was sitting there waiting for it. And I knew that I wouldn't give a poo poo about what it was, because in another 45 minutes it wouldn't matter, and I'd be doing this again next week with a different guest star. And I got up and did something productive instead, and felt like I was missing nothing. I checked in a fair bit for the Xindi arc and season 4, but I didn't really care about missing an episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:These new movies have been swimming in familiar waters and living off of preexisting audience goodwill. There's so little there that's not just a warped reflection of a story we saw twenty, thirty, fifty years ago. Even Star Trek can't run on nostalgia forever, and I think people are getting fed up with the wheel-spinning, water-treading, laurel-resting mythology masturbation. I've been going back through TOS and was a little bummed out at Captain Pike's line in Menagerie where he said "Maybe I'll quit Starfleet, this isn't the only life available, there's a whole galaxy of things to choose from!" But with the exception of DS9, we've almost never been SHOWN that. We really have no idea how a non-Starfleet Federation citizen lives, and I wish we did. Duckbag posted:I do worry a bit about Fuller as showrunner, because he's a trek superfan who clearly loves the camp-aspects of Trek and has run (good) shows that are known for have rabid internet cults and lots (and lots) of stylistic flair and I'm afraid he'll be so happy just to have a chance to play in the Trek sand box that he won't do enough to elevate the material or pull Trek out of the self-referential rut it's been in for 20 years. I don't think he's Russ Davies (gay agenda or no), but he would be another inmate running the asylum (though, hey, that worked for DS9) and that worries me a bit. I'm sure his show will look good and have an interesting and diverse cast, but whether he'll be able to find the right tone is another question. I can understand this worry, but after reading a bunch of interviews with him when Hannibal was on the air, I have a lot of faith that he's going to do something interesting and new with the material. It's certainly possible that Discovery winds up not working, but I doubt it'll because he tried to make it too samey or self-referential. I've been thinking of going through and watching the Voyager episodes he worked on, to see if I can get more of a feel for how he writes Star Trek, but there are like 20 of them, and that's a LOT of Voyager...
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
S2 of Enterprise seemed to have an abundance of episodes where the conflict was that a character or the crew was trapped, captured or stranded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Real Name Grover posted:S2 of Enterprise seemed to have an abundance of episodes where the conflict was that a character or the crew was trapped, captured or stranded. How many times did Archer get captured? e: it's 28 times. Twenty-Eight.  http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/ent.htm
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
I watched TNG religiously as it was being aired on the BBC, and then DS9 seemed to be a lot less regular, so I missed a bunch of episodes. I was psyched for the voyager release, BBC 2 even had a whole evening of trek stuff before Caretaker, I think some of the best TOS and the first episode of TNG and maybe TMP as well. So I must have been... 12? Loved trek, loved the look - not grainy like the other series, the ship looked cool and modern and I even thought Paris and Chakotay were cool and then about six or seven episodes in I stopped tuning in because it just wasn't holding my attention (also GIRLS were a thing). By the time Enterprise came along I just wasn't interested anymore, so I've never seen an Enterprise episode. After this DS9 run, I thought I'd check it out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 22:40 |
|
|
The best part of voyager is that during the big lead up to the finale, they throw in one last filler episode
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2016 17:10
|
|