|
quote:Probably the most impactful of the series because it went on for seven seasons, and of them, five of them were quite excellent. This defines the environment where Deep Space 9 and Voyager take place. Generally episodic, but the first season is rather wonky and the seventh season shows definite signs of running out of ideas. It's been a long while since I've experienced the last season of TNG, to the point where I'm not sure that I actually have. What was so bad about it?
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
Baka-nin posted:I had a look to make sure I wasn't going crazy, and yeah old Bones looks just like creepy old Admiral war criminal. How does the doctor loving make admiral even after they busted down Kirk while Bones was serving under him. Ugh my space continuity/irrelevant observations on how dystopian real military works
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Yeah that would be a pretty good concept provided they ditched that awful and useless de-aging gimmick. Too short a season is probably the most glaring example of two plots that have nothing to do wit each other being crammed into the same episode. It would be a nice sequel to TOS a Private Little War where Kirk was considering a proxy war with the Klingons. While I generally hate Roddenberry's insistence on making Star Trek a completely boring utopia and note that the movies where he is least involved are the best, I am OK with him protecting Kirk's character from "actually he's a dumb rear end in a top hat, guilty of war crimes!"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:Roddenberry had literally zero involvement in the movies after The Motion Picture. I did misspeak--generally what I meant to say was "Star Trek II and VI both owned and Roddenberry hated them," because as a somewhat bizarre utopian thinker, Roddenberry quite simply didn't believe that human conflict could exist in his concept of the future, which managed to somehow be both boring and borderline insane. Roddenberry was basically walled out of contractual creative control over the movies, and yet was a constant presence that had to either be appeased or ignored.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Did he need to be appeased as far as the movies went? IIRC he was pissed off throughout the entire ordeal, hence his multiple attempts at sabotage via leaks. He definitely had a tighter hold over TNG, though. By then Roddenberry was well-known as the godfather of the franchise, and while he didn't have creative control, things like meetups between Nicholas Meyer and Gene Roddenberry and their associated "people" happened, at which they more or less argued viciously. There was hesitation at the idea of upsetting Gene. On TNG, Roddenberry had the reins until he became ill, and because of Roddenberry's influence, the first season is just not very good and the writing team was constantly in a state of civil war.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:How could you accuse such an innocent-looking guy of something so nefarious?? quote:According to the DC Comics comic book "Suspect", his first name was "Terence" and he was murdered around 2369 or 2370. However, according the current Pocket Books continuity, his first name was "Michael", and he was killed aboard the USS Excalibur during the Borg incursion of 2373. He was killed a third time (a second time involving the Borg) during a raid on Earth in "The Worst of Both Worlds", and was killed a fourth time by decapitation by Klingons in an alternate reality from the novel Q&A. Died on the way back to his home planet in four different continuities. http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Argyle
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That space TV scene was much shorter than that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hthl28SEGfk&t=56s
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
It depends on when Chaos on the Bridge got made, I guess. My sense is that Shatner has calmed down a lot from his 110% prima donna act. He still apparently does not get along with George Takei.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:You know, they have transporter tech, so you would think that a full on complete, functional sex change might be possible in Star Trek. As in, actually change chromosomes, fully functional genitalia, wombs, etc. Most of the civilizations they meet that have been altered to be genetically or robotically "better" are really dystopian, evil, and/or creepy as gently caress. The Federation is not, however, against creatures that have transcended physical space, unless they are also incidentally evil (not that they can do much about it either way).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Riker I'm sure would gently caress anything with legs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
remusclaw posted:It's unfortunate how Data regressed in the movies. Then again, the TNG movies were all pretty off on characterization, didn't Troi lose her accent? The TNG movies are all terrible in a number of spectacular ways and are a large part of why the IP took a nosedive that only recovered in 2009. Picard for example forgets his entire characterization arc from the series in First Contact, in hilarious fashion. This is generally agreed to be the "good" TNG movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
And yes I know the 2009 movie is not exactly fantastic by any stretch and Into Darkness is a shitshow.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I wouldn't say Star Trek is "recovered". ST09 did okay in the box office, but general audiences have kind of forgotten it by now. The only people who really remember it are Trekkies. STID didn't do so hot. Both of them are kind of disposable Hollywood blockbusters and aren't that big in the cultural zestiest. They didn't really bring in a bunch of new fans. I think people were just happy enough to have a new Star Trek movie that wasn't a total disappointment, despite its weaknesses. The critical/fan backlash on Into Darkness was almost immediate, however. What a dumb, pointless movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
All the Picard love-life episodes are tied for The Worst.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
quote:
Well the first thing going against is that there's at least three of them so they can't be that good The second issue is that Picard is a bookish, reserved, and serious character, which is to say, a bad gently caress
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
P.S. I watched Chaos on the Bridge on the recommendation of this thread and it felt a bit too shallow. Would rather read a good book on the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
I am about halfway through watching the Motion Picture Blu Ray. (This is really a movie that benefits immensely from Blu Ray). I had to stop halfway through because I needed to go to bed, but my assessment is that this is a movie for people who loving love Star Trek. If you don't think utterly gratuitous beauty shots of the Enterprise model would be awesome, this movie is not for you. I also love that Captain Kirk is a complete rear end in a top hat in this movie (an rear end in a top hat beloved by his crew, but an rear end in a top hat none the less). There's a lot to pick over in this movie in terms of aesthetic choices they made and what they chose to emphasize in terms of plot, which I guess makes it a good movie in its own right. But if you're not completely mesmerized by glamour shots, again, you'll be killed by the glacial pacing. It takes almost an hour for the actual plot to get under way. Bones showing up in Full Hippie Gear to the Enterprise was also amazing, I wish he had kept that outfit for the runtime.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I like some aspects of TMP, but it's way too far up its own rear end with the long takes and ridiculously slow pacing. I was pretty in the zone when Kirk and Scotty are taking a tour of the outside of the ship, which went like three times as long as "necessary" by modern filmmaking standards. Even gratuitous shots of the engineering section were OK. Like I said though, I'm only halfway through, I haven't gotten to the part where V'Ger replaces the rough draft Betazoid. I know I have a lot more to go through. But it feels sort of like the first Conan movie, where it's almost a music video as much as a movie with a plot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Do you feel the same way about Alien? I mean, we don't get even one line of dialog until about the 10 minute mark. It's not until almost the 40 minute mark that we get the facehugger. When I was younger, The Motion Picture put me to sleep. I'm still a much bigger fan of Star Trek II, which manages to create the ship atmosphere and have a gripping plot. I kinda wish TMP had a Guy Fleegman character when they're watching V'Ger vaporize things. "Oh that's where we're going? And the ship is half-ready? Oh good. That's good."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:I always lose my poo poo about how good Picard's quarters looked with the Amargosa sunlight flooding through the windows. Absolutely terrific. Guinan's room as well. I thought the Movie Lighting on the ship made it look like a submarine, which is altogether dumb considering the general gist of Star Trek. There are times when the Original Series movies had cavern lighting too, but it always served a purpose to what was happening and was much better-designed. Meanwhile, you go into Picard's quarters in Generations and wonder how he gets any work done in there when apparently any ambient light from space turns the entire room ORANGE-AS-FUCKKKKK I mean, they're just really loving bad movies, and I say that as a guy who grew up with TNG.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
By the way, my assessment is that the TMP uniforms are pretty cool and they actually make a pass at being somewhat utilitarian.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:On a first watch straight after Q Who its pretty bad, but it does have some redeeming qualities. It's hard not to smirk when the ultra smug early TNG crew get outwitted by the morons from outer space, and I can't help but smile as they slap Geordi around with their space lazers. Is it just my imagination/the GIF quality or is Geordi getting gibbed here?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
Speaking of Romulans, I loving love TNG-era warbirds. They might be my favorite spaceship in anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:What if the "clones" were the real crew members who were sedated and the other ones were the clones thinking they were the originals and they choose to kill what they think are clones. Best to burn them all, just to be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:True story: When I first saw profit and lace, I was eating Velveeta mac and cheese and I threw up. I gave the rest to the dog. Like the time I was eating while trying to watch the episode of Fear Factor where they had to eat maggoty cheese.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Eventually TNG meets some aliens who only exist in warpspace and get really mad/die when stuff goes by them at speeds greater than Warp 5. So from that point onward the ships only travel at Warp 5 at most, to set some logistical limits on space travel in the stories. No idea if/when they dropped this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Trent posted:I feel like with the whole warp bubble thing, as soon as the bubble is pierced, the ship "drops out of warp" and has almost no momentum, making warp collisions essentially impossible. The famous one is where Picard uses post-light speeds to fool a Ferengi ship as to his exact location during a battle, which I assume was written back when Ferengi were meant as serious antagonists. Starfleet thought this incredibly obvious use of light speed was so novel that it was henceforth called the Picard Maneuver. Having one of the Star Trek encyclopedias as a kid probably ruined me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Robutt posted:With the Beyond press-train going full steam ahead combined with the Sulu news I am seeing so many actor interviews talking about "Gene's vision" and how positive and wonderful and inclusive he was. Sure, the guy gave us Trek but I've not seen a single mention of the fact that Gene resisted the portrayal of diverse sexuality for loving years. The Gene's Vision stuff will go on forever, but I think his legend has decreased significantly in the years since he died. Also everyone knows Star Trek II and VI are the good ones and the Gene-heavy TNG episodes sucked, so... (I find it impossible to dislike IV on balance but I hear a lot of back and forth on that one).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Okan170 posted:Whatever "Gene's Vision" was originally arguably died with him, at this point its more what people interpret that vision to mean. You could kind of look at the different directors of the Trek films as offering their different take on that universe and that set of rules (in a way not really doable in a single TV series episode). Reminiscent of "Once More Unto the Breach" where they discuss the Alamo and what was real and what might the original truth be... in the end the importance of the original intention really isn't as important as where we choose to take it now. Star Trek continues to have a unique vision of the future even when it veers wildly away from humanist absurdity. You can practically hear it in the shows' opening title music. Nominally Gene believed in the death of scarcity and interpersonal conflict between humans and vetoed any story involving it, except for all the shows where he clearly didn't, or somehow forgot. Like, in the future there is no money, except even the TOS characters tend to reference money being a thing. To name just one example where holes frequently get torn into the fabric of the Vision. In reality it is pretty clear that Gene was a cranky humanist who meddled so much with scripts that he couldn't see the forest for the trees, and for that and various other reasons was almost impossible to work with in his later years.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Here is a gentle reminder--and I'm not excusing anything--that the Ellen show got a parental guidance warning on every episode after her character came out as gay in 1997. That being said, the book is in the mail, and I'm not trying to side with Gene Roddenberry, especially not having read it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Gene wanted to go all-in on Earth being a giant orgy planet if I recall from this very thread/Chaos on the Bridge. If today's HBO existed while Gene was making TV, Star Trek would be the most hosed up thing you've ever seen.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
I mean, either tell Shatner stories or stop being abrasive. "Shatner is a prima donna" is common knowledge, but the set stories aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Aside from what everyone else has said, the new ship looks like it's trying too hard with its architecture. The structure of this ship is way too busy; it's in love with superfluous ridges, it's overusing lights, and the rear in particular looks overdone. The overall design effect is completely inelegant, i.e., anathema to Star Trek. To say nothing of the color. The ship operates outside of both aesthetic and structural logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 13:13
|
|
|
They definitely went a new direction with nuSpock and that's good, especially compared to the alternative, doing a dialed-up impression of the characters that most of the other actors are stuck with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:How big a factor was Quinto's role on Heroes in his casting for Spock? 95%
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:You know, one of the smartest things the writers ever did was invent "quad" for a unit of storage and didn't explain it beyond that. Otherwise, I'm sure all references to data storage would be hilariously dated right now. Maybe their data compression got really good.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:What development? If you weren't Seven or maybe the Doctor with Paris in a distant third you went nowhere in that show. It is pretty fun to listen to Robert Beltran complain about this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
I have a feeling if I went back and watched Night Court after 25-30 years last seeing it on TV that I would be appalled at how bad it is.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:Generations and First Contact are great movies and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise. This thread is always hyper-critical of Trek, but the hate for the TNG movies is mind-boggling. Generations just really underwhelming, and First Contact, in the words of RLM, is "the 3,967th worst movie ever made." As in, it's serviceable as a dumb action movie but the script is hilariously terrible. It's more or less a guilty pleasure, whereas the rest are just guilty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7Lr8cdZwHQ
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 13:53 |
|
|
My thoughts on Beyond, by the way: Easily the best Star Trek movie since at least VI (1991). It was nice after watching Suicide Squad to immediately watch something that was competently constructed and felt like it was written by 1-2 people and not five scripts incompetently mashed together. They could've called this one Star Trek: An Arsenal of Chekhov's Guns or something though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 00:31
|
|