|
I've been watching Angie Tribeca and one episode had a sushi chef named Kobauashi Maru. I kept expecting for George Takei to show up but he never did.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Oh, gee, look who's asking for money again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4173MUhdUk
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Orv posted:It is. Dramatis Personae is also in season 1, which is an episode I really like, but that's because I like Trek actors playing other characters episodes rather than it being genuinely good. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Timby posted:Oh, gee, look who's asking for money again. The gift that keeps on giving 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:The gift that keeps on giving It's just so delightfully brazen. Part of the lawsuit settlement was that Peters agreed not to do crowdfunding for the two Axanar short films. But by their own admission, they're out of money (where'd that $1.4 million go? Hmmm...), so what do they do? Crowdfund for "studio expenses."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Timby posted:Yeah, The Fifty Year Mission gets into this with some of the interviews but the Engel book gets into the really excruciating detail. Most of the time, he didn't remember things he had said five minutes earlier. He was still coherent enough to do things like approve casting decisions in the early goings of TNG, but by the second season his brain was essentially gone I've seen this kind of assertion before, which confused me because I vaguely remembered him being pretty coherent in a 25th Anniversary Special. I don't know when his part was filmed, but I can't find any evidence of it pre-1991. It was apparently included on the Judgement Rites CD-ROM. Here it is. Although at the beginning he does call Jonathon Swift "Davi-vahuhuhu-Swift", so make of that what you will. And also from 1991: http://trekcomic.com/2016/11/24/gene-roddenberrys-1991-humanist-interview/ Accounts of his final years seem to vary from "inconsistent/weird/creepy" (which also seems to describe him throughout his career) to "barely lucid". In my checking around, I also came across an interview done with him in 2010. Yes, 2010. From the afterlife. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Dirty posted:And also from 1991: http://trekcomic.com/2016/11/24/gene-roddenberrys-1991-humanist-interview/ That "interview" is written by David Alexander, and anything he ever published is deeply, deeply suspect. Alexander was hand-picked by Majel to write Star Trek Creator, an "authorized" biography of Roddenberry, and to scramble to get it published as quickly as possible because Majel was panicked about Engel's book (she found out that it wasn't going to shy away from the less savory aspects of Roddenberry's life). As a result, Alexander's book is full of outright fabrications and exaggerations, and repeats every single urban legend Roddenberry liked to tell about himself (including some of the really egregious ones, like how Roddenberry used to say that he offered the complete ownership of Star Trek to his first wife in lieu of alimony payments, saying it showed how generous he was to her -- except this happened at a time when the rights to Star Trek were essentially worthless). I have absolutely no doubt that this interview was either completely forged, or basically written by Majel and Alexander based upon Gene's ramblings, especially since Roddenberry was confined to a wheelchair, and after the 1989 stroke that put him in a wheelchair but before the October 1991 stroke that ultimately killed him, he also had a number of mini-strokes (or ischemic events or whatever doctors now call them nowadays) that left him outright exhausted and unable to participate in meetings for more than ten or fifteen minutes before he'd start babbling nonsense. Timby fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Just a random comment - I was watching the DS9 episode "In the Cards", which I honestly and truly think is an absolutely fantastic little episode - the *perfect* kind of mood-setting episode with a comedic spine that you want to set up a season finale. It's one of those episodes that really focuses on the sense of place and characters and the minutiae and craziness of everyday DS9 life. Naturally, it reminds me of the "great material continuum" episodes where Nog and/or Jake start bartering chains of goods/favors. But anyway, the crux of the episode - the emotional payoff makes the episode hang together - is the father/son relationship between Jake and Sisko. And it made me realize that, in actuality, that relationship between the two characters utterly transcends the characters themselves, really - at least when you're talking about emotional depth/resonance and the building blocks/relationships that make the story feel genuine, and emotionally honest. I could name endless examples - meeting the Jem'Hadar on a father/son science-project trip that they go on (along with Nog/Quark). The episode where Jake is helping Bashir in a medical emergency and Sisko broods worriedly at the station. The sort of sequel episode to 'Rapture', where Sisko has brain damage that's giving him amazing Prophets-inspired visions and Jake has to make the decision to operate. Even a light-hearted "bottle"-ish episode with just the two of them on a Bajoran ship turns out to be a pretty drat good episode. The episode where Kasidy gets arrested. And obviously there's "The Visitor", which is one of those episodes that ripples out to previous episodes and later episodes and is just *so* powerful that it really underscores the importance of this relationship more than anything. A lot of credit does go to Tony Todd (who played Old Jake but was more commonly known for playing Kurn) just turned in one of the best Trek guest appearances ever. The point I'm trying to make here, is that I've frankly never much liked Sisko as a character. He's not [ii]terrible[/i], but I just never found his character or approach all that compelling. And I think even less of Jake as a character, and I sorta feel like they botched him from the beginning... Though he was an improvement on Wesley Crusher as far as kid-characters go. For example, I actually think what they did with Nog as a character was far more compelling than anything they ever did with Jake. I should note that I'm holding Avery Brooks to a bit of a higher standard here, and being the Captain (or the Commander) isn't an easy thing. But it's really an odd thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
I recall reading that it was Brooks who pushed to have Ben and Jake's relationship to be as prominent and as good as it was. Honestly DS9 did character relationships so well, the only other trek relationship I can think of that comes close is Kirk/Spock.
Kibbles n Shits fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Dirty posted:In my checking around, I also came across an interview done with him in 2010. Yes, 2010. From the afterlife. No way the ghost of Gene Roddenberry would phrase everything in passive voice. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:I recall reading that it was Brooks who pushed to have Ben and Jake's relationship to be as prominent and as good as it was. Cirroc Lofton was like 13 or 14 when he started working on DS9, and Brooks was intensely sensitive to what Lofton was going through as a young man, and well as sometimes having to spend sixteen or seventeen hours a day on the set while still a kid. Brooks stepped up and basically took Lofton in as his surrogate son throughout the show's run. As I understand it, to this day they're still very close friends and Brooks would make appearances at Lofton's restaurant to drum up business before it closed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Avery Brooks was super serious about Ben Sisko being a stand-up single father to Jake, as a push back against absentee dads in the present day African-American communities. I'll stop there because there are major spoilers ahead and there's a ton of people ITT that are watching DS9 for the first time and may not remember when some of stuff was spoiled in the past. But suffice it to say, Broks wasn't always happy with how things turned out. Jake is one of the real-est characters in Trek, because he seems like a regular teen. He makes childish mistakes and has childish motives sometimes, but he also grows up into something real and down-to-earth. He's also not a loving wunderkind, so that helps. Jake is rad, and that includes his wardrobe. Edit: also, the story about how Avery Brooks and Cirroc Lofton were like father and son on set is genuinely heartwarming. IIRC, Brooks had a kid about his age at the time, so he kind of just adopted Lofton while they were on set together. They're apparently still pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:Jake is one of the real-est characters in Trek, because he seems like a regular teen. He makes childish mistakes and has childish motives sometimes, but he also grows up into something real and down-to-earth. He's also not a loving wunderkind, so that helps. Jake is rad, and that includes his wardrobe. Jake and Nog work as characters because their role in any given story is almost never to just be "the kids." It's a stark contrast to how TNG and VOY used Wesley, Naomi Wildman, or those awful loving Borg kids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
I think the test of a good character is if you can sense the coming story, and yet you still enjoy watching them go through the expected beats. Like when Jake and Nog have their Odd Couple subplot about moving in together. We've all seen it, we all know how the story will go, but we can still enjoy watching them play it out because the actors and the writing are good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Dirty posted:I've seen this kind of assertion before, which confused me because I vaguely remembered him being pretty coherent in a 25th Anniversary Special. I recall seeing somewhere recently in a doc the outtakes from that interview, where he trails off and gets confused and they have to start over. I can't recall exactly where I saw it; I feel like it was in Shatner's Chaos on the Bridge doc. I'll check. EDIT: Taking quick look at Chaos, doesn't look like they incorporate any footage they didn't shoot themselves. Maybe it was in one of the TNG bluray bonus materials? This is going to drive me crazy now. speakhard fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Yeah, not only can senile people have moments and periods of lucidity, but it's also not like they were asking him particularly challenging questions; that interview was basically "hey, let's run through your old convention circuit talking points one more time."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Yeah Gene was losing it by TNG. I remember in 50 year mission how someone said he was saying racist poo poo openly in a staff meeting, but this is the same guy in the 60s who cast Nichelle Nichols and literally told a station in the south to gently caress off (his very words) when they whined about Uhura. Very confusing. <giant picture of Eldridge Cleaver> Pakled posted:TOS had The Conscience of the King. TNG broaches war crimes a lot, but mostly in the context of "is it okay to commit genocide/violate the prime directive in order to save ourselves?" (the answer is always no), but you've also got The High Ground dealing with the morality of terrorism in a more nuanced way, and The Survivors where the war criminal's pain and regret forms a major part of the plot. The way things are going, the IRA probably will have united Ireland by 2024. Wheat Loaf fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:The way things are going, the IRA probably will have united Ireland by 2024. I didn't know David Cameron was in the IRA, but I guess it makes more sense than the official narrative
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Finally got this set up - I'll do a test run of a TOS comic book by DC Comics. This is #1 of TOS Volume 2, published in 1989. I'm skipping Volume 1 for no other reason than I read Volume 2 when I was a kid first and that's what I am most sentimental about. If you find them interesting, buy them! - https://www.mycomicshop.com/search?TID=110361, formerly Lone Star Comics, has #1 to #56 in stock, ranging from $1.50 to $3.00 each in roughly "Good" quality. - Scans are also available in PDF form with this DVD on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Complete-Comic-Collection/dp/B001B5KYR2 , but buyer beware - the quality of the PDFs isn't perfect, the layout is two pages to one PDF page, the PDFs aren't named well, and it's not exactly as complete as advertised, although it's a huge amount of comics for only $20. It's got all 80 of the DC TOS Vol.2 I'll be going into, plus TOS Vol.1 and TNG Vol.1 and 2 from DC, plus the Malibu and Marvel comics, plus the Wildstorm imprint comics, PLUS the Gold Key comics. I'll probably get this at some point just to look into the Wildstorm comics and also the Gold Keys. It's also possible if you just want the Gold Keys to find and buy the old reprint volumes. - You can also as always browse through eBay for some good sales. - I'm not sure of any other way to find them, I haven't found them on the DC and Marvel stores but maybe I just didn't try hard enough. My layout context will be to introduce the the writer, when they first make an appearance, and then I'll post a few pictures of the comics explaining most plot points (and in italics, some of my own observations about the pages.) I don't know much about the pencillers/inkers/colorists other than I like their work and they put out consistent quality even during team change-ups. TOS Volume 2 #1-15 were written by Peter David, which should be heartening to hear for you comics nerds out there as he is one of the Good Writers. He's highly regarded for a 12-year run on the Incredible Hulk starting in 1985 that resuscitated the book/hero. He also worked in the 90s and 2000s writing volumes of X-Factor for Marvel; the 2000s volume 3 of X-Factor ran for 262 issues and is one of my favorite comic book runs. He wrote a few Star Trek novels, some of them decent (considering the other trek novels out there). I'll refer to Peter David as PD from now on. Let's get to it then!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I didn't know David Cameron was in the IRA, but I guess it makes more sense than the official narrative Leonard Nimoy (he's in the ra) Constable Odo (he's in the ra) Jeri Ryan (he's in the ra)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Was the 25th anniversary special the thing where they had the really terrible short with Jason Alexander as Kirk and Ray Jay Johnson as Spock and it's just really tastless and very clearly shot in an afternoon within 5 blocks of the Paramount studios?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
I don't care what you hateful goons say. I've had a few beers and I say that Star Trek 5 is a fine movie. It for SURE beats the balls off of the likes of Insurrection and Nemesis. There's so much to like about it that I'll allow the cringe-worthy bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Jake and Nog work as characters because their role in any given story is almost never to just be "the kids." It's a stark contrast to how TNG and VOY used Wesley, Naomi Wildman, or those awful loving Borg kids. A friend of mine will sometimes ask me, "You wanna go steal Odo's bucket?" This is understood as "Let's go do something stupid." Jake and Nog are great, and they grow up in a cool way. Lordshmee posted:I don't care what you hateful goons say. I've had a few beers and I say that Star Trek 5 is a fine movie. It for SURE beats the balls off of the likes of Insurrection and Nemesis. There's so much to like about it that I'll allow the cringe-worthy bullshit. ST:V can be better than Nemesis and still be really bad. It's not a high hurdle. It's like how slamming your finger in a door is really bad, but it's not as bad as slamming your dick in a door. What I'm saying is: watching Nemesis is like slamming your dick in a door. That's the important part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Lordshmee posted:I don't care what you hateful goons say. I've had a few beers and I say that Star Trek 5 is a fine movie. It for SURE beats the balls off of the likes of Insurrection and Nemesis. There's so much to like about it that I'll allow the cringe-worthy bullshit. No, I'm with you, I've never disliked 5 as much as most fans. The score alone elevates it into worthwhile territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Was the 25th anniversary special the thing where they had the really terrible short with Jason Alexander as Kirk and Ray Jay Johnson as Spock and it's just really tastless and very clearly shot in an afternoon within 5 blocks of the Paramount studios? Noooo, I'm pretty sure that was the 35th anniversary special. TNG is older now than TOS was when TNG first came out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Pacra posted:Finally got this set up - I'll do a test run of a TOS comic book by DC Comics. This is #1 of TOS Volume 2, published in 1989. I'm skipping Volume 1 for no other reason than I read Volume 2 when I was a kid first and that's what I am most sentimental about. Just want to say this was a cool and good post and I'm interested to see issue 2. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
I describe Star Trek 5 as a collection of some amazing, truly great, Star Trek moments but absolutely nothing leading to those moments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
I haven't found that outtake from Gene's interview that was excerpted in the 25th anniversary doc, which is driving me crazy, but I did come across this gem that was definitely new to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TN2eLw7IyaI I know there are loads of anecdotes about Gene's...er, inappropriate sexual comments, but I never imagined there was any *video* of it. I mean yowza, this is cringeworthy to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:TNG is older now than TOS was when TNG first came out. drat, never realised that. I feel like TNG aged way better than TOS did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Noooo, I'm pretty sure that was the 35th anniversary special. Gah, that's terrible. And Of course. I wonder if its floating around out there. Found this. I remember this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kC467GyP6Y Oh poo poo here it is, it was actually called Ultimate Trek: Star Trek’s Greatest Moments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YYVsXHW2o Whomever recorded it off tv didn't skip the ads so it has ads for Galaxy Quest in it. That's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Lordshmee posted:I don't care what you hateful goons say. I've had a few beers and I say that Star Trek 5 is a fine movie. It for SURE beats the balls off of the likes of Insurrection and Nemesis. There's so much to like about it that I'll allow the cringe-worthy bullshit. The Final Frontier has absolutely astounding cinematography, and Shatner's blocking and camera movements are the best of the original cast movies. I will fight anyone who disagrees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:drat, never realised that. TNG (and by extension I would also say DS9) really get away with looking WAY less dated than they are. I think part of this is because Michael Okuda is really goddamn brilliant at his job - credit should be given where it's due, and the combination of the TOTALLY unique look of the LCARS operating system, combined with the decision to go exclusive with touch-screens and touch-panels as well as having characters using tons of tablet-like devices with and without styluses in an almost disposable way.... Well, these decisions I think have gone REALLY far in making TNG seem about ten times less dated than it should seem. And it's kind of funny, because as we all know the decision to go with the "touch-screen" devices was entirely financially motivated, and based around the fact that they couldn't afford to put hundreds of switches and toggles all over the bridge. I mean, TNG came out in freaking 1987. Reagan's second term. 6 loving years before the world will see the release of Windows 3.1. When you put all of that in context, TNG is amazingly prescient concerning modern technology. Take an episode like Contagion from season 2, for example. That episode doesn't really get anywhere NEAR the credit it's due. The fact that even in 1988 before TNG found its footing in season 3, they were doing a remarkable episode like that about the big bad threat being a computer virus taking over the Enterprise - and even more amazing, watching it today it STILL doesn't come across as dated because Okuda was such a goddamn genius. But nobody had a CLUE what in christ a computer virus was back then - it was a total non-entity, an absolute mystery to anyone but the truly and deeply geeky. This was a full decade+ before e-mail and google and personal computing would enter the public consciousness. They could have portrayed this "computer virus" in any way they wanted in this episode. And they didn't make it some anthropomorphic talking computer virus with a personality like a lesser show might have - it was a totally legit and believable concept that holds up today, that two advanced types of computers could try networking and the OS of one could wind up inadvertently corrupting the OS of another. Picard even corrects Worf when he tries to perceive the "computer virus" as a hostile entity. The only thing that comes across as hilariously dated is that the solution (restart the loving thing) is the first thing everyone tries when their computer starts loving up, I mean like obviously! So it's almost like a shaggy dog story today, but still. kaworu fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
I make a "What does X need with a Y" joke almost monthly, thus making ST:V the second best movie behind ST:IV, wherein I make "No I'm from X, I only work in Y" jokes every other week. Honestly though, ST:V has a ton of problems, but it maintains the thing I like about ST:IV which is that it's a TOS Comedy Movie as much as it is a serious sci-fi film, and I love the TOS movie sense of humor, for some reason I'll never really understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
kaworu posted:TNG (and by extension I would also say DS9) really get away with looking WAY less dated than they are. I think part of this is because Michael Okuda is really goddamn brilliant at his job - credit should be given where it's due, and the combination of the TOTALLY unique look of the LCARS operating system, combined with the decision to go exclusive with touch-screens and touch-panels as well as having characters using tons of tablet-like devices with and without styluses in an almost disposable way.... Well, these decisions I think have gone REALLY far in making TNG seem about ten times less dated than it should seem. And it's kind of funny, because as we all know the decision to go with the "touch-screen" devices was entirely financially motivated, and based around the fact that they couldn't afford to put hundreds of switches and toggles all over the bridge. Well, more of a shutdown, reformat, restore from backups, restart. You're right though that the problem was a realistic one and the solution probably would have worked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:
This has been true since 2008 though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
It gets pointed out a lot in 50 Years of Trek that the sets they used were movie quality. People forget that the show had a budget that was unheard of for that genre up to that point. The TNG sets were used for ST6 and they don't look cheap on film like the TOS ones would have. In comparison nothing on TOS was meant to last and it's amusing to see the sets and makeup in the digital remastered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Which TNG sets were used in ST:6 other than the engineering set (covered up by rando crewmen)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Aren't all of the corridors in ST:6 from TNG?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Kibbles n Shits posted:Which TNG sets were used in ST:6 other than the engineering set (covered up by rando crewmen) memory-alpha posted:Most of the Enterprise-A sets were redresses of USS Enterprise-D sets:
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 18:31 |
|
|
Isn't the President's office a very obvious redress of 10 forward?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 05:53
|
|