|
WarLocke posted:Gary Mitchell as the baddie could be fun, but just rehashing that episode would be kind of lazy. Did they ever explain (in the episode) how they managed to get to the very edge of the galaxy? No, the setting was very nebulously defined at that point. For example, in The Squire of Gothos, it's very clearly implied that Star Trek takes place nine hundred years in the future. Later in Space Seed they go with merely 200 years. Then at some point it got pinned down to the 23rd century.
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
MikeJF posted:Star Trek was sexist but still for the time amazingly sexually progressive. I mean, for all they played with the women as targets for kirk and emotional creatures they never did something like "a woman archaeologist??" *double-take, eyes pop out, slide whistle* or showed that women serving alongside men was anything out of the ordinary (well, mostly). Uhura being a proficient lieutenant and senior officer in the service who happened to be a woman was mindblowing to the 60's audience. Even if in the scripts she pretty much just opened hailing frequencies. A huge amount of that can be blamed on Gene Roddenberry himself. He had no problem with consciously exploiting and objectifying women both personally and professionally. EDIT: Woooah, I didn't notice the Number One part when I first replied. First, it wasn't the studio - it was the network, NBC; Desilu was okay with it. Second, NBC didn't make Gene get rid of Number One as a role, they said they didn't want his sub-par extra-marital girlfriend cast in that role. Gene then spun it around and said "hey baby I'm sorry but they said no chicks in command" and just dropped the character while casting the network in a bad light. Then later he tried hoking up a role for Majel as Nurse Chapel and put her in a blonde wig. NBC saw through it basically immediately but Chapel was a sparse role anyway so whatever. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:Star Trek has so much baggage from being invented in the 70's. Science, ethics, the current discourse, so much has moved on from then. Star Trek was developed and first aired in the 60s.  The 70s are when it achieved broad popularity in syndication and proved a market for feature film development.EDIT: because someone's going to bring up Star Wars, Paramount had actually been considering doing a Trek film as early as 1974, but Gene Roddenberry was a greedy idiot who scared off the studio; Star Wars made it sufficiently imperative to force Paramount to agree to deal with him. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Dec 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 16:13
|
|
|
AlternateAccount posted:So am I an alpha-grade sperglord if the idea of the Enterprise being able to chill underwater like it's no big deal bothers the fuckin PISS out of me? If you are ever bothered by anything at all in a space movie, you are a sperglord. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
Downward Spiral posted:To replicate a liter-of-cola would take an energy output of approximately 9*10^16 J, that is 90 Petajoules. That is more than one thousand-fold greater than the yield of the Fat Man. Replicators aren't direct energy-matter conversion, it's transporter trickery assembling molecules and poo poo from tanks full of matter and nobody knows how much energy a transporter takes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Some Other Guy posted:Hey if you can just take a dialysis pill, why not? I'm pretty sure that was a "repair (regrow?) your kidney" pill since the doctors were saying her kidney functions were restored. Also since I'm already debunking poo poo, the windows aren't forcefields. (they're transparent aluminum)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Yonic Symbolism posted:I think it's far more likely a suit will look at the most successful shows on TV and ask for a version of one to be set in space. Hence, I'm sure "game of thrones in space" is coming sooner or later. I dunno, shows in space tend to be more expensive. Any good exec would ask why the show had to be set in space. That said, I'd dearly love a well-executed live-action Legend of Galactic Heroes series. Hell, for the "GoT in SPACE" angle, it's got plenty of court intrigue and grisly fight scenes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:The entire premise of the first film was an elaborate way of establishing "things are allowed to be different now" in a manner acceptable to even the most canon-anal fans, and yet the dance continues. That's because it was a dumbass approach to a non-problem in the first place. They could have just cold said "It's all new, we're going to be doing things differently, there is zero established continuity with the original series. We could make Kirk a eunuch and Spock a comedian if we want to. gently caress you." Some whiners would have howled and the movie would still have been a blockbuster with the general audience. Instead, they took the cowardly way out and tried saying "oh it's the same universe, the timelines just diverged" so now there's some meager ground for fans to question perceived laziness or exploitation on the part of the writers with "well wait why the hell did that happen/change?"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 18:59
|
|
|
Okan170 posted:Now if only they could have traveled through time and applied that same paint job and lighting to the model in the series. Seriously gorgeous stuff there, its as if they knew they were only getting maybe 7 shots of the ship and wanted them to count. The problem with TV production is it's always a crunch and Image G had a hard time working with the six-foot model - hence why they built the four-foot model in the third season.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:This is absolutely consistent with every single Trek episode where a deus ex machina solution works perfectly in the episode where it is devised, and then is literally never mentioned again. That doesn't make it a good decision for new Trek movies to make. I thought part of the point of a reboot was to set yourself apart from at least some of the bad decisions made by previous writers. Some of the comments I've seen here lead me to wonder if Nemesis would have been considered a fine movie if only the cast and crew were different.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Interesting how people who think a war's coming tend to get it. Makes it all the more fortunate that we managed to dodge a nuclear war with the Soviets, eh?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Of course it'd be cool if 'Beyond' referred to going beyond the faux-utopia of Starfleet, meeting up with V'Ger and establishing The Culture. Into Darkness got alot of stick but it was one of the rare times Star Trek really dealt head on with authoritarian militarism that's always been implicit in the background of the series, I'd love to see a film which actually dealt with how they try to resolve the issue on a structural level rather than dealing with the Bad Admiral of the Week and assuming it'll never be a problem again. I dunno, this strikes me as being similar to "yeah, it's nice they can get from star system to star system, but just how exactly do they warp spacetime?" They got super-physics, they got super-sociology. Star Trek shouldn't be about how the warp drive works and it shouldn't be about how the Federation functions. Cingulate posted:STID's space battles were decent. I thought STID's "space battles" were just the ISS DEATHBOAT kicking the crap out of the Enterprise again and again 
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Well for one thing the series invites the examination itself, episodes like The Drumhead, Paradise Lost and the like basically point out Starfleet top brass is full of fascists, they just never follow it on with 'therefore ...' Yeah, because the Federation isn't real. No, I'm not making a flip "nothing is real and therefore doesn't matter" remark, I mean that Starfleet and the Federation were not (and arguably still are not) firmly defined at all beyond being that organization where Our Heroes come from. They were background dressing meant to serve the needs of the immediate story, not to build a firmly self-consistent setting. In one episode they might be a pacifist organization willing to relocate its colonists (at no expense to them, to any planet they choose, or even to a not-yet-discovered planet of their specification that the Federation will send Starfleet out to find) in order to end a war whose deaths were measured in thousands. In another episode they might be willing to give a starship captain the authority to charge into the Neutral Zone and launch a preemptive attack against a suspected secret Romulan base which has a high likelihood of precipitating a war which would devastate both interstellar civilizations. It's interesting to say "well, if we follow this to the logical conclusion, the Federation is actually a bunch of hallucinatory, psychotic fascists that somehow tend to be benevolent overlords half the time (and yet the only people who seriously call them out as such are racist warmongers)", but it's kind of a hollow achievement because the Star Trek setting is really contradictory. If you want to make a meaningful story about how people could attempt to build a structurally ethical society, or about how a society could portray itself and even believe that it is ethical while actually being violently fascist, I think you'd be better off using or constructing a setting that's more consciously designed from the beginning to serve the purposes of that story, as well as not being burdened by the baggage of expectations of what the story format should be. I wouldn't be opposed to a new series (or the next movie, or whatever) sitting down beforehand and really seriously thinking out how the society that Our Heroes come from works (and how it doesn't), and deliberately showing more of that structure over the course of stories could be entertaining and thought-provoking, but I'm still firmly opposed to any movement towards making Star Trek specifically about the Federation.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Anyways to bring this back to the new film, while I doubt they're going to go full self-criticism and try and rebuild the world as a logically coherent leftist utopia it'd be interesting if they continued to acknowledge Starfleet's dual and often contradictory role as a nominally pacifist exploration and aid organisation and a hierarchically organised military body and what that actually entails for the crew if they want to be part of that organisation. Into Darkness was pretty on the nose with the whole in presenting them unambiguously as the armed forces but it was pretty pessimistic in tone and didn't really have anything to add past 'well we stopped this one crazy Admiral AGAIN' Broadly speaking, what would a story where they "try to resolve the issue on a structural level" look like in a two hour format? What would it have to say (about the Feds/Star Trek/us), how would it end, and how would it affect the next Star Trek story (whether it was a movie, or a series, or...)? (I'll admit that this probably speaks to a failure of imagination on my part.) Timby posted:The sound mix is totally hosed on the Director's Edition, though. I wish I could say it baffles me why they replaced some of the sound effects, but I'm pretty sure (albeit out of cynical speculation) that it was out of a perverse desire to harmonize older Trek material to the TNG+ "standard'. Or are you talking about the actual audio mixing? It's been a long time since I've seen the Director's Edition. Which reminds me, why the hell didn't they do Director's Edition blu-rays for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country? There wasn't any CGI done for those... and Undiscovered Country could really have done without those hideous flashbacks they inserted for the DVD.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Also the Theatrical version's alert was really loving annoying. Really? Because I actually prefer it, that's actually THE replacement that instantly comes to mind whenever I think "man, I wish they hadn't hosed with the sound effects from TMP." Cross-Section posted:And mind you, this is the one that they touted as being a restoration personally supervised by the director of the film. Of all the releases, TUC was probably the best off, mainly because it was the theatrical cut, in addition to finally having a 2:39:1 aspect ratio instead of the cropped 16:9 image present in the DVD cut. Did they really tout the Bluray as being overseen by Nick Meyer? This interview with him makes it sound like he wasn't really involved: quote:TrekMovie: Do you know if there is there is a possibility of a Blu-ray release of the director’s cut of Wrath of Khan?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:They're so cheap. I think I read they're so cheap because they were initially made for the Star Trek Phase II pilot that was eventually adapted into the Motion Picture. I can't believe no on eat any point wasn't like "just stick with the old uniform." Not that I'd always want them to, just the Motion Picture ones are so terrible. The jump from them to Wrath of Khan is amazing. TWOK went with red because that color worked the best in dying the jumpsuits from TMP. The cadet jumpsuits are almost (if not) all leftover and reworked from TMP. Now, TOS, they were so tight for costuming money that they were literally taking red-eye deliveries from illegal sweatshops.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Also the Prime Directive is clearly a bulwark against starship captains just going off and creating their own personal kingdoms all over the drat place, as seen with the inevitable tendency of captains to become corrupted and demented by their power.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:It outdid every other TOS film, IV included. That's true, but the movie did wind up much more expensive than it should have been because of the way nobody kept a close eye on what Robert Abel & Associates was doing with regard to special effects. They basically had to bring in a replacement special effects crew to work double-overtime for something like a year, and even then they came dangerously close to testing whether or not Paramount really would sooner send out cans full of blank film than pay out a penalty to theater owners for missing the contractual release date.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
lizardman posted:And yeah, I'd say with a straight face that The Voyage Home was a more popular movie than Into Darkness, at least in the US. TVH had a distinct concept and was loved across the board, people talked about ("hey did you see that crazy Star Trek movie") and quoted, etc. STID had a lot of people go see it and they liked it well enough, but aside from introducing Benedict Cumberbatch to America it was essentially Just Another Star Trek Movie, and the only people who care to talk about it much a year later are disgruntled fans. I'm not sure how true it is any more, but I remember about ten years ago if someone said they'd only seen (or could only remember) one Star Trek movie, you could finish their sentence with "...the one with the whales, right?" and be right most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
FrensaGeran posted:Considering they were busy writing the perfect series finale to TNG at the same time, I tend to excuse Generationns story flaws. Ron Moore is a talented writer but he he has to sleep like us ordinary people. Every plot point in Generations feels like it was written at 4 in the morning. Star Trek has always had a problem with finding good writers and getting a shootable script in on time, going all the way back to the first year of TOS, but in retrospect it almost feels like they didn't even try to get writers for the TNG movies. Generations is especially bizarre in that after none of the other series writers wanted to take it on, they instead decide to give it to the guys who are already up to their elbows with the big complicated series finale, which itself doesn't even tie in with the movie at all. Insurrection got handed to a reluctant Michael Piller, who then proved just how completely stagnant and formulaic he had become with the setting. Nemesis was written by a guy whose body of work does not recommend him to writing an episode of General Hospital, let alone a major motion picture. I mean, we're probably due for a "Berman and Piller saved Trek, guys" post from MikeJF in a few pages, but if true they sure didn't know what the hell to do with it after they saved it. (I say this with love, Mike. I'm not trying to bust your balls here... maybe just tweak 'em a bit.  )MikeJF posted:Also that's basically the only movie-quality enemy model they had. Most of them were TV quality. Generations could have paid for any studio model they wanted with the money they blew on Stellar Cartography. Or the new costumes that didn't get used and left them sticking poor Jonathon Frakes in an ill-fitting costume. Or the holodeck boat scene.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:It's pretty bad, but I feel like competent direction and editing would have made Nemesis' script a lot more palatable. I disagree, the entire script is hot dogshit that doesn't make any drat sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Star Trek 4 especially is just a wacky film set in 1986. I can't agree. TOS did fish-out-of-water on past-Earth multiple times. And I'm not even talking about ~hodgkins law of parallel planetary development~ or "highly imitative aliens" finding a book on mobsters or whatever, the TOS cast literally went to 20th century Earth three times in the course of the series.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:They should just have Kirk come out as bi. The dude is down to gently caress aliens, but you're telling me he isn't down to gently caress males who are at least of the same species? Come on. How do you think bisexual people would feel about seeing a character identified as bisexual merely because "well of course he'll gently caress anything because he's so down to gently caress, dogg!" It's kinda implying that being bisexual means you're promiscuous by nature.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:33 |
|
|
computer parts posted:I remember similar reasons for why Kirk couldn't be non-white. Similar in what way? Cnut basically said "yo Kirk likes to gently caress so much, they should make him bi", I pointed out "hey maybe bisexuals wouldn't appreciate being stereotyped as promiscuous, that seems like a bad reason to make him bisexual". What racial stereotypes have been used as an argument for making Kirk non-white? I'm struggling to think of what would apply.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 05:22
|
|