|
The Dark One posted:I just watched TMP again and it was significantly more horny than I'd remembered. That's because it's the movie where Gene was in charge.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
I love how little loving sense the oath of celibacy and Ilia makes without the backstory explanations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
"Don't worry captain, my incredibly sexy race has taken an oath not to sex your crew to death." ~~ "Gene, we're not putting that in the movie." "Like hell we're not. You already cut the sex scene." "sigh... Gene..." "Look, I AM Star Trek!" "I know Gene, but..." "Aliens that are so good at sex they have to vow not to have it with humans is part of my vision of the future!" "...The studio wants to release with a 'PG' rating..." "And to show how enlightened her race is..." "Ok Gene, but how about we shoot for something a little more subtle?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Doesn't get mentioned a lot, but Gene's original vision for Troi was that of a hermaphrodite. A rather progressive pervert.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
It's not progressive if it's just fetishization. See: yaoi
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Zurui posted:It's not progressive if it's just fetishization. See: yaoi I wanna be hateful in responding but I genuinely can't tell if you thought I was serious or not. I do genuinely think it's odd it never gets mentioned Gene's ultimate sexy bombshell fantasy had a dick, though. Three breasts must take all the attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
According to the 50-Year Journey stuff, which is basically the saga of how Star Trek succeeded in spite of itself, the Gene script for TMP had Kirk saying to Ilia, "Have you ever sexed with a human before?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
That does kind of sound like something Kirk would say when no one was looking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 10:12
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:I wanna be hateful in responding but I genuinely can't tell if you thought I was serious or not. More just bitter that Trek is historically basically incapable of handling queer issues. Also (probably) part of Gene's Vision: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 10:19
|
|
|
Zurui posted:More just bitter that
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 11:29
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:According to the 50-Year Journey stuff, which is basically the saga of how Star Trek succeeded in spite of itself, the Gene script for TMP had Kirk saying to Ilia, "Have you ever sexed with a human before?" That may literally be a Zapp Brannigan quote HOLY poo poo  if that's true
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
8one6 posted:"...The studio wants to release with a 'PG' rating..." The Motion Picture was rated G until the Director's Edition DVD release. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:I just watched TMP again and it was significantly more horny than I'd remembered. "As for pleasure, my idea of pleasure is waves and waves and waves of cum exploding out of me." -- Gene Roddenberry
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Phimosissy posted:That may literally be a Zapp Brannigan quote HOLY poo poo If not Zapp Brannigan, then Space Ghost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:... then the general public started getting bored with Trek and Generations had already pissed the turbonerds off and everything went to poo poo. Related, I've always felt that one of the core of reasons (if not ultimately the reason) Enterprise died early was precisely that the general public was done with Trek. I'm not saying the show was perfect, far from it, but I can't shake the notion that even a much better (artistically) show would've still failed and failed hard. Plus, poo poo, didn't Enterprise launch long after TV in general abandoned the "oh give the show a few years to find itself" idiom?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Related, I've always felt that one of the core of reasons (if not ultimately the reason) Enterprise died early was precisely that the general public was done with Trek. "Franchise fatigue" has always been the argument that Berman promulgated after Nemesis flopped and Voyager and Enterprise cratered, but I've never particularly bought into that theory. If there was fatigue, it was on the part of the writers and producers, some of whom had been there since TNG. The programming itself had become obsolete and resistant to change, which was the real problem: After fifteen years of Star Trek series with endless technobabble and "sir, we've detected a spatial anomaly" bullshit, the franchise desperately needed to reinvigorate itself -- and yet here was Enterprise doing more of the same, all the way down to the central characters being the captain, the Vulcan and the Southerner. quote:Plus, poo poo, didn't Enterprise launch long after TV in general abandoned the "oh give the show a few years to find itself" idiom? Only Fox was really in that quick-ax mindset in 2001-03.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Staff fatigue was definitely part of it. In the AOL interview with Ron Moore that's been posted a few times he mentioned that after leaving DS9 to Voyager the writers were pretty much checked out and put in the bare minimum and it shows. Moore said that Voyager really didn't have anything to say compared to older TNG or DS9 episodes. What the hell was Workforce's point? Jobs are bad?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Timby posted:"Franchise fatigue" has always been the argument that Berman promulgated after Nemesis flopped and Voyager and Enterprise cratered, but I've never particularly bought into that theory. If there was fatigue, it was on the part of the writers and producers, some of whom had been there since TNG. The programming itself had become obsolete and resistant to change, which was the real problem: After fifteen years of Star Trek series with endless technobabble and "sir, we've detected a spatial anomaly" bullshit, the franchise desperately needed to reinvigorate itself -- and yet here was Enterprise doing more of the same, all the way down to the central characters being the captain, the Vulcan and the Southerner. It's true. Another factor is that TNG-TOS inspired lots of TV shows - some of them which advanced and improved the formula. Once you've seen shows like Firefly, Farscape, or I wanna say early Battlestar Galactica, it's really hard to go back to beige. Culture advances and builds on itself, and ironically the one Trek show that really rolled with it was Deep Space 9: the show that's the black sheep of the franchise. Just to square this nerd discussion [in *both* meanings of the term] It's a bit like ID games. They made Doom, which inspired lots of other games. By the early 2000s, you had games like Thief, Half-Life, and No One Lives Forever. Once you played those games, going back to mowing down enemies with a chaingun in a sewage treatment plant is really hard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Timby posted:The programming itself had become obsolete and resistant to change, which was the real problem: After fifteen years of Star Trek series with endless technobabble and "sir, we've detected a spatial anomaly" bullshit, the franchise desperately needed to reinvigorate itself See, I've long had the opinion that Trek has gone on long enough, has codified itself so strongly, that reinvigoration is generally not possible without fundamentally altering the franchise. You're right, after fifteen years of  and spacial distortions, anyone is going to get bored. The problem is that Star Trek is techobabble and running into spatial distortions. You can't fundamentally rejigger that away; you just have to realize that it's all been done before and it's time to walk away for a while. (which is what JJTrek did so well. Threw the old Trek and it's baggage out and redefined Trek. Well, mostly.) Nebakenezzer posted:Once you've seen shows like Firefly, Farscape, or I wanna say early Battlestar Galactica, it's really hard to go back to beige. Culture advances and builds on itself, and ironically the one Trek show that really rolled with it was Deep Space 9: the show that's the black sheep of the franchise. I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying, because out of those three shows you mention, only the third one got any sort of mainstream traction and interest. DS9 being the black sheep of Trek is as much about the audience (at the time, and now that time has passed) as much as the people making it. Your average audience member who tuned in religiously to TNG was done with Trek after TNG. DS9 couldn't keep them watching and Voyager did even worse at that. Even if the writers weren't bored on Trek, the audience already was. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:See, I've long had the opinion that Trek has gone on long enough, has codified itself so strongly, that reinvigoration is generally not possible without fundamentally altering the franchise. You're right, after fifteen years of Not necessarily. One of Enterprise's biggest problems is that its prequel premise was so completely half-baked. It was a golden opportunity to do something different, but instead of phasers, they had phase pistols and phase cannons. Instead of photon torpedoes, there were spatial torpedoes. Instead of shields, there was hull polarization (or whatever the gently caress they called it). The show could have shown us what it was like for the first crew to really go where no one had gone before, and instead it was a palette-swapped Voyager, and audiences picked up on that pretty quickly -- Broken Bow's viewership easily doubled up on what Voyager had been pulling in its later seasons, and the numbers slowly plummeted as viewers tuned out of more of the same. Audiences would have been perfectly willing to accept a redefined Trek (which could have been done either with a legitimate prequel or with something 500 years past Voyager), considering how long loving Stargate ran. The problem was that neither Berman nor UPN were willing to actually do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's true. Another factor is that TNG-TOS inspired lots of TV shows - some of them which advanced and improved the formula. Once you've seen shows like Firefly, Farscape, or I wanna say early Battlestar Galactica, it's really hard to go back to beige. Culture advances and builds on itself, and ironically the one Trek show that really rolled with it was Deep Space 9: the show that's the black sheep of the franchise. Yeah, I really love Star Trek but I've been saying for years I'm not really interested in more of it for these reasons. I'm looking forward to season 2 of The Expanse, how is the new Star Trek series supposed to stay relevant in the face of a show like that? Stargate couldn't, even after pivoting hard to be like the last space opera that was culturally relevant (BSG) Don't get me wrong I want to see them actually try as opposed to cargo culting prior incarnations of the franchise, but how far can you go before you might as well just make up a whole new idea and do that instead of trying to call it Star Trek? Or could they get away with doing a DS9-quality level type show on a modest budget? Is that what they're trying to do? I don't know. All I know is that it's hard to get excited for new Trek now, after all these years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I'm not sure I agree with what you're saying, because out of those three shows you mention, only the third one got any sort of mainstream traction and interest. DS9 being the black sheep of Trek is as much about the audience (at the time, and now that time has passed) as much as the people making it. That's why I included the video game analogy 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:That's why I included the video game analogy Which wasn't very good since DOOM isn't really like the rest of those games with it's insane speed and complete lack of reloads giving it a totally different feel than the others you mentioned, as opposed to simply being outclassed and become better in every way than the older titles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:It's true. Another factor is that TNG-TOS inspired lots of TV shows - some of them which advanced and improved the formula. Once you've seen shows like Firefly, Farscape, or I wanna say early Battlestar Galactica, it's really hard to go back to beige. Culture advances and builds on itself, and ironically the one Trek show that really rolled with it was Deep Space 9: the show that's the black sheep of the franchise. Ironically, Doom was just reinvented to overwhelming critical acclaim! I think it's possible for Star Trek to reinvent itself as well while keeping its core intact; there is certainly space for Star Trek's unbending optimism which has been lacking from the past decade of Sci-fi. Firebert fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
^ The new Doom didn't reinvent itself, the property was defunct just long enough that what it did well was unique, again. Timby posted:Not necessarily. One of Enterprise's biggest problems is that its prequel premise was so completely half-baked. It was a golden opportunity to do something different, but instead of phasers, they had phase pistols and phase cannons. Instead of photon torpedoes, there were spatial torpedoes. Instead of shields, there was hull polarization (or whatever the gently caress they called it). That's my point: I think those things were dumb too, but in Star Trek your lead ship has to have laser beams, glowing bombs, and something that goes down by 24% when an alien ship fires on it. Enterprise didn't have an opportunity to do anything different, its nature as a prequel meant it was constrained to being the early version of poo poo We Already Knew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:That's my point: I think those things were dumb too, but in Star Trek your lead ship has to have laser beams, glowing bombs, and something that goes down by 24% when an alien ship fires on it. You're spouting the exact same kind of lazy thinking as the producers babbling on about "Roddenberry's Vision."
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Yeah, I really love Star Trek but I've been saying for years I'm not really interested in more of it for these reasons. I'm looking forward to season 2 of The Expanse, how is the new Star Trek series supposed to stay relevant in the face of a show like that? Stargate couldn't, even after pivoting hard to be like the last space opera that was culturally relevant (BSG) Don't get me wrong I want to see them actually try as opposed to cargo culting prior incarnations of the franchise, but how far can you go before you might as well just make up a whole new idea and do that instead of trying to call it Star Trek? I keep saying they should just ditch the whole canon and make a new version of the show for modern audiences. Not in the sense that they just ape current TV trends, but give us "wagon train to the stars" or whatever imagined with today's scientific knowledge, doing episodes about today's issues. The details (phasers, shields, Klingons, whatever) can be negotiable as long as the spirit is there. Like, remember that picture that was going around of a NASA-built Starship Enterprise? Give me something like that. Give me hope for today by showing me a detailed (ableit fantastical) vision for tomorrow. I feel like if you do that you can have a show called Star Trek and you can decorate it any way you like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Timby posted:Instead of photon torpedoes, there were spatial torpedoes. Worse, they were photonic torpedos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Timby posted:You're spouting the exact same kind of lazy thinking as the producers babbling on about "Roddenberry's Vision." The last time someone decided to be not-lazy with Star Trek, we got a series that struggles to be remembered amongst general audiences. Everything after TNG was a relative failure because the interest for Trek just wasn't there like it was during TNG.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Timby posted:You're spouting the exact same kind of lazy thinking as the producers babbling on about "Roddenberry's Vision." That's not the same as that Gene's Vision nonsense. You're going to have an armed ship. It has to defend itself out there. Is it going to have "laser cannons" by a different name or machine guns? It has to have guns for mixing it up close in. Is it going to have "space torpedoes?" It has to have a long range punch. You can't have whatever wiener ship that shows up to shoot at them just nuke them and drive away, so it has to have some sort of defensive system...a "shield" if you will... These are the basic conventions of "sci-fi space ship." You shoot lasers and you have some sort of force field that protects you. Also sometimes you have missiles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
For all the talk about DS9 failing among general audiences, I think it matches today's TV viewers' tastes more than it did in the 90's. If DS9 was made today, I think it'd be more popular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Television is radically different than when DS9 was made, so it's sort of difficult to say. For example, people are now used to movie-tier production quality in their shows, and the "edgy" qualities of DS9 are ho-hum now that we've had years on end of dark, dystopian shows, in and out of science fiction. TV as we knew it in the 90's is also largely a dead medium compared to everything being on a streaming format.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Sash! posted:That's not the same as that Gene's Vision nonsense. My dude have you watched Ron Moore's fantastic sci-fi drama Galactica?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:My dude have you watched Ron Moore's fantastic sci-fi drama Galactica? The battlestar ship with all the armor and missles as well as machineguns?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
MrJacobs posted:The battlestar ship with all the armor and missles as well as machineguns? With no shields, and enemies that pop out of nowhere, fire a nuke, and disappear with the hope that the nukes find their target, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:With no shields, and enemies that pop out of nowhere, fire a nuke, and disappear with the hope that the nukes find their target, yes. So explicitly not what you'd ever put into Star Trek, because those things are inherently Not Star Trek. Star Trek is lasers and glowing torpedoes of some sort. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Just wanna say Classic Doom is the worst possible comparison because the original Final/Doom/II set has proven to be one of the most timeless games pretty much ever and still has hours put into it by the truckload. Part of this is due to the extensive modding scene, granted, but even vanilla I'd say the idea that it's "hard to go back to" because it's so simple is absurd. No, what makes it hard to go back to is the loving ABSTRACT MAZE LEVEL DESIGN but I'm apparently alone in despising that part of the game so 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So explicitly not what you'd ever put into Star Trek, because those things are inherently Not Star Trek. Star Trek is lasers and glowing torpedoes of some sort. Then at least don't pretend they're something different. Forget the self-indulgent rebranding and focus instead on the things that can be changed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:So explicitly not what you'd ever put into Star Trek, because those things are inherently Not Star Trek. Star Trek is lasers and glowing torpedoes of some sort. Star Trek is also mucking around on earth looking for some whales without fighting anyone at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 03:12 |
|
|
I think one of the many problems Enterprise had was that they introduced the Temporal Cold War and you just knew they couldn't live up to that. Maybe idea that in the far future war is waged via proxy though time could be an interesting idea on its own with a decent production staff, but as the central conflict in a Trek show, it's just a huge bag of poo poo hanging over the whole thing. They have to have an episode about it every so often or people will forget about that, so time travel stuff has to be shoe horned in constantly, and of course there would be no pay off at all because it being a Trek prequel, it needs to give us the expected visits to other planet and showing first meetings with major races. The way the Andorians were handled should have been the major focus of the show; introduce a race that is well known or at least mentioned, and show how Archer and crew either makes friends or enemies of them, showing that not everything can work out. The Romulans could have been a shadowy figure in the background, manipulating events until they're exposed causing the war between Earth and Romulus. This could have been the catalyst for the Federation; the Humans gain the respect of the Vulcans, Andorians, Telerites and other races though both their military startagy, their use of technology and most importantly, the fact they were magnanimous in defeat. Rather than forcing the Romulans to submit, Earth creates a treaty that leaves them with their dignity and impresses upon the Galaxy that these are not blood thirsty conquerors but people who will defend what they have, but will not go beyond what is necessary to end conflict. They also could have shown us stuff like Bajor before the occupation where things were really great, or other things that were mentioned as past events in the later series. Though the main take away is that Trek needs to tone it down with the time travel. I feel like because two of the best Star Trek things; Guardian of Forever and STIV, are time travel related, that means you put time travel with Trek you'll create a classic. Sometimes it works, like the hopefully not clairvoyant Sanctuary District episodes of DS9 (seriously, I could see the GOP thinking sticking all the homeless, mentally ill and unemployed in a slum so they don't have to deal with them an attractive idea) but most of the time its a dud like Paris bangs Sarah Silverman voyager episodes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 23:55
|
|
