[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 20473)
File  []
>> No. 20473 Anonymous
8th March 2016
Tuesday 8:00 pm
20473 Star Trek
If anyone's interested, Voyager and TNG are continually playing at http://vaughnlive.tv/downlorrd .

Also general Star Trek thread, what do you think of the new movies? What setting would you want a new series to be in?
20 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 20501 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 11:06 am
20501 spacer
What's all this about the Federation being fascist? I thought it was a democracy. Just because all you see are Starfleet officers working within a hierarchical, militaristic organisation, doesn't mean the entire society functions in the same way.
>> No. 20502 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 11:57 am
20502 spacer

Star Trek deliberately shied away from revealing too much about the political and economic structure predominating amongst humans or across the Federation as a whole, but there are worrying signs that not all is well. For instance, Starfleet is Earth's space navy, but it has the authority to dispossess or relocate any Federation citizens. Unless there is any paperwork that identifies a human as not being a Federation citizen, Starfleet is allowed to presume that all humans are Federation members and therefore treat them according to Federation law. It's actually quite racist, when you think about it.

Yeah, there are lots of very dodgy little features of the Federation that you only notice when the Fridge Logic kicks in.

As to whether the Federation's fascist, well, I don't know about that, but contemporary representative democracy borrows heavily from fascism. There's no sign that any of the flaws inherent to representative democracy have been solved in the Federation's time, other than that there's likely no corruption any longer as it's a post-scarcity society.
>> No. 20503 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 3:23 pm
20503 spacer
Well the Enterprise crew were doing it in order to save their entire species and by extension the whole galaxy but still they made sure to put in the dialogue that they were cramming the ship with valuable materials and science.

>I think that the predominant themes in recent SF are confusion and fear. Nobody really understands what's happening now, let alone what might happen in the future.

I dunno about this. In my mind the themes coming up these days revolve around terrorism (A Scanner Darkly, general government evilness) and the rising power of China (The Expanse, echoes of Japanese rise in Blade Runner). Since 9/11 we've had a pretty good idea of what to be afraid of.

We've always been confused and afraid for the future to some extent, its just the fear is different depending on the era. Look at how science fiction operated in the 90s for instance with a wave of films dealing with existential fear from Dark City to Existenz due to the lack of cold war antagonist and therefore political grounding.

I thought Interstellar was just potato famine 2.0?

>Federation crews are always overworked and have unshakable faith in authority. At the time, we just accepted this. Looking back, do we really believe that a thousand PhDs locked in a tin can are going to be so blank-facedly comfortable with working flat-out for days at a time, simply following orders, often being sent to their deaths for trivial reasons?

Well we've been doing it for centuries now on and under the oceans. Yeah Roddenberry deliberately avoided personal tension but there was also allot of experience that shone through in TOS of what military service is like.

This is what I liked about Quark, as an alien culture he was able to give you an opinion of the Federation as an outsider. I love the root-beer scene because it included what is very much a critique of globalization today made at a time when it seemed stronger than ever.

>> No. 20504 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:33 pm
20504 spacer
Starfleet is in no way a militaristic organisation, it's more akin to a mixture of a science and charity organisation. None of their capital ships have ever been specifically designed with military might in mind until the Defiant. Although these ships have offensive capabilities, they were built for the purpose of scientific exploration, Starfleet didn't even have dedicated fighter ships until they faced a serious war against the Borg. This is a stark contrast to the highly martial militarised cultures such as the Klingons and Cardassians who had very clear divides between their science ships and military bird of prey.

The show puts focus on the exploration side of things but much of Starfleet is comprised of engineers and botanists and things of that nature.
>> No. 20505 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 6:42 pm
20505 spacer
You make it sound like Roddenberry was waxing lyrical about various nations whilst he attacks the idiocy of old earth countries over and over again. There's a rather striking scene in which Picard and Riker talk about which variant of red, white and blue their respective countries had as their flags, they poke fun at the idea and it's always been about the singular nature of humanity rather than continuing on old conflicts. Whilst Enterprise did have their bumder sailor soldier go on about his relatives in the British navy, there's always been a multinational aspect to Trek. Chekov was a Russian officer at the height of the cold war. All characters aren't even speaking English, that's just the universal translator.

I also don't think fed crews have ever been truly obedient, we know this with the Starfleet officers who defected to the Maquis, the numerous times PIcard has bent the Prime Directive and the many times that central command has either been ignored or not followed to the letter. You paint Starfleet as a bureaucratic organisation when each captain of a capital shit has always had a degree of autonomy that isn't anything like how our current militaries are, there have been many situations which would have required central oversight if it was today on earth and that just did not happen in space.
>> No. 20506 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 8:20 pm
20506 spacer
>Starfleet is in no way a militaristic organisation

Or so they tell you, have you never asked why federation ships carry photo torpedoes or why they can stand toe-toe with alien warships? Notice how mirror universe ships are the same despite having the job of conquering worlds.

Think about this while the heavily armed federation flagship sits in orbit telling you about this great organization they come from.
>> No. 20507 Anonymous
11th March 2016
Friday 10:08 pm
20507 spacer

>or why they can stand toe-toe with alien warships?

I'd say that's more down to the writing.

Think about it, every major story arc shows the federation massively out-gunned by foes with superior armies and technology, the federation almost always succeeds only due to luck/flukes and ingenuity. Think about it, the Romulans are more powerful, the Klingons are more powerful, the Borg are more powerful, the Dominion are more powerful, a vast number of monster-of-the-week races are more powerful.
>> No. 20511 Anonymous
13th March 2016
Sunday 8:31 pm
20511 spacer
This thread promised me continual TNG and Voyager. The channel is currently off-air. I would like to put forward the suggestion that the OP is a bollock.
>> No. 20555 Anonymous
19th March 2016
Saturday 9:25 pm
20555 spacer
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page has transferred too.

Apologies, try http://vaughnlive.tv/noahbody instead.
>> No. 21509 Anonymous
18th April 2017
Tuesday 4:36 pm
21509 spacer
>> No. 21510 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 6:42 pm
21510 spacer

Well, since you've mysteriously bumped the thread, I'd like to follow up one year later to say: the stream was indeed back up. The OP is not a bollock.
>> No. 21511 Anonymous
19th April 2017
Wednesday 8:23 pm
21511 spacer

The neutral zone.png
The 420Chan stream is still up and running if anyone is looking for a Trek fix. Personally I never watch the live stream but instead click on the episodes from the playlist to watch.
>> No. 21523 Anonymous
18th May 2017
Thursday 7:06 pm
21523 spacer
Is it just me or does Star Trek: Discovery look awful?


If you need something to wash the bad taste out a few days ago someone released an edit of TMP cut to the Tron soundtrack and it's something else:
>> No. 21524 Anonymous
18th May 2017
Thursday 7:43 pm
21524 spacer

It's not what I was hoping for. It doesn't look much like Trek to me, too flashy. Although possibly somewhat more believable in this day and age.
>> No. 21525 Anonymous
18th May 2017
Thursday 8:10 pm
21525 spacer

>Ten Years Before Spock
>Spock allegory introduced immediately after

Hmm... Also it looks a lot like Mass Effect, in terms of the aesthetics and the lighting I mean.

What I'm saying is it looks a touch derivative and that's probably not a good sign.
>> No. 21527 Anonymous
18th May 2017
Thursday 9:13 pm
21527 spacer
The world seems to not be willing to make star trek.

Oh they can brand things as star trek sure, but star trek has a cerebral tone and philosophy to it all, that seems to be completely missing from the reboot. I hope that this trailer is just hype and nothing like the real show, and in the first episode they spend an hour debating the ethics of the trolley problem with an energy cloud in space with god like powers.
>> No. 21528 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 4:17 am
21528 spacer

>Is it just me or does Star Trek: Discovery look awful?

Yup. Despite all the cinematic camerawork, it looks cheap and charmless. The uniforms look like a half-arsed knock-off, the sets are utterly forgettable, the soundtrack is totally inappropriate. It looks and feels like an unfinished pilot, not a trailer. It's all sizzle and no steak. Pure melodrama, and not in a good way.

At its best, Trek is subtle and quiet. It's not gratuitous space battles, it's someone in a room saying something important. It's Picard's speech in The Drumhead or the opening debate from A Matter of Time, it's Sisko's monologue from In The Pale Moonlight or Benny Russell's breakdown in Far Beyond the Stars. It's the little throwaway conversations between minor characters that tell the whole story. This trailer gives no hint of that subtlety, or even the possibility of it.
>> No. 21529 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 7:02 am
21529 spacer

I've seen nothing like any of that in any of the Trek fan films. I'm not sure Trek fans know what they want.
>> No. 21530 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 7:21 am
21530 spacer
I think there is a selection bias for the kind of people who make fan films that means they aren't masters of the subtle nuance.

Most people don't really understand why they like things anyway, it is considered design 101 to ignore the feedback 90% of people give you with an unfinished product, because they usually don't understand what is wrong and what they want. Humans are ultimately irrational creatures who don't understand themselves. The only real useful data you can get from most of them is if they like, or don't like a thing.
>> No. 21532 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 10:46 am
21532 spacer

Diehard trekkies are the last people you should ask. People with a rounded cultural diet rarely dress up and go to comic book conventions. Star Trek attracted a fanatical audience, but it was never for them. Gene Roddenberry was a screenwriter, not a science fiction writer; ToS was conceived as a western that happened to be set in space. Trek is always at its worst when it's trying to appeal to the diehards.

A lot of people involved thought that the whole enterprise was rather silly. In spite of that, they approached the work with utmost professionalism. It's immediately obvious that Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks are trained Shakespearean actors. It's obvious that Rene Auberjonois and Colm Meaney are immensely talented and versatile character actors.

Just look at the physicality of Auberjonois. Revel in his ability to turn a completely featureless face into something deeply expressive. Marvel at how he can portray the same character as childishly naive and utterly world-weary, without any sense of contradiction. That has nothing to do with science fiction and everything to do with human insight.



That second clip is just beyond belief. How is it possible for someone wearing a lifeless rubber death-mask to convey shame, regret, grief and resignation in a single glance? All that in a daft TV show about spaceships and aliens.
>> No. 21537 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 12:03 pm
21537 spacer
>Gene Roddenberry was a screenwriter, not a science fiction writer; ToS was conceived as a western that happened to be set in space.

I think you have fundamentally misjudged Gene, he was above all else an idealist.

The reason the motion picture is the snail paced slog that it is, is because it was his 'vision'. They had to promote him to get him off the project for star trek 2 because he was actively sabotaged Nicholas Meyer (the director of 2 and 6 and writer of 4) because he didn't like what he was doing to his 'vision'. You know how Valeris in 6 is the exact same character as Saavik in 2, that’s because Gene decided to have a piss and a moan and go over Meyer's head to stop him using that character, despite Gene having had no creative input in that character (a character Meyer had made), because ultimately gene didn't like the idea of a story where everybody isn't squeaky clean nice people.

And if you ever though Wesley Crusher was a pain in the arse Mary Sue, you'll never guess who he was a Mary Sue of...
>> No. 21539 Anonymous
19th May 2017
Friday 5:05 pm
21539 DS9
All I have to add to this conversation is that Kira has the most incredible hip-waist-navel ratio. This picture really doesn't do her justice. Ezri Dax is pretty cute, too.

Oh, and Siskos emissary arch is confusing a fuck. I can only watch the show on 5STAR and they've stopped playing it.
>> No. 21540 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 11:50 am
21540 spacer
Seth MacFarlane is also making a Star Trek parody show which looks like it will try to imitate Galaxy Quest:


It looks slightly terrible but it could be a surprise given MacFarlane is a hardcore Trekkie.

>It looks and feels like an unfinished pilot

Going by all the production delays it might well be.

>Star Trek attracted a fanatical audience, but it was never for them.

Don't go crazy now. Trekkies are weird but they're a loyal fanbase which translates into being big earner with letter writing campaigns twice having saved the show from cancellation.

From what I hear merchandisers are none too happy about the new series being set in the JJverse which also led to Bryan Fuller quitting the show. This will be a problem because of how important the fanbase (and their wallets) is.

>I can only watch the show on 5STAR and they've stopped playing it.

There are other ways to watch the show >>21511
>> No. 21541 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 12:46 pm
21541 spacer
There was only one thing in that trailer that was funny and it was the only joke that was really a Trek joke (the Krill standing off-centre in frame). Everything else could just be transposed into something else. Oh the small woman is strong. Oh it's a divorced couple arguing. Oh you have to pee a lot. Oh you're not really qualified.
>> No. 21542 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 1:19 pm
21542 spacer
Has Seth done anything good in the last decade?
>> No. 21543 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 1:20 pm
21543 spacer
Has Seth done anything good?
>> No. 21544 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 1:22 pm
21544 spacer

Why can't Americans write a comedy without that faux-awkward stutter speaking? I don't know how else to describe it, but regardless, it proper does my head in. No one bloody talks like that!
>> No. 21545 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 1:42 pm
21545 spacer
This is straight-up parody, while I'd argue Galaxy Quest was satire. By making the protagonists themselves actors from a Star Trek parody they were able to deconstruct the show's tropes.

He worked on some of my favourite Cartoon Network cartoons.
>> No. 21546 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 3:46 pm
21546 spacer

Family guy had its moments and so did American Dad. Not that it's fashionable to opine that anywhere online these days.
>> No. 21548 Anonymous
20th May 2017
Saturday 4:01 pm
21548 spacer

>worked on

That's the point I don't think he was the driving force behind those, American shows have collaborative writing rooms of close to 10 people, and I think the poor quality of children's cartoons is sometimes washed over by your naivety at the time and your nostalgia now. That isn't to say they are entirely devoid of merit there are a few amazing Dexter's lab episodes that I still laugh at now.


I might be being a little cruel in saying there was no merit but the best jokes in family guy were re-used ad-nauseum and the story structure was frequently awful. I think Seth never advanced his craft, he just got lazier. You listen to Matt Stone and Trey Parker talk about early South Park and they are disappointed with it because they felt if they did it now they would do better. I think Seth uses up his best material early and then doesn't know where to go.
>> No. 21549 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 12:07 am
21549 spacer
South Park is one of the few programmes that keeps on getting better with time and is continually on point. And whilst I'm not a swivel-eyed goose-stepping kipper it's nice to see a rare right-wing-ish comedy for a change.
>> No. 21550 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 12:23 am
21550 spacer

I don't think it is right wing it is just anti-moralising censorship/moral panic groups and pro freedom of expression ('liberal' in the true sense of the word if you will).

If you look at the earlier episodes there is plenty of criticism of the right, what has happened since the 90s though is that all of those things they hate used to be the trappings of the right (various parental and religious groups), but over time that kind of moral policing has become the territory of the left.
>> No. 21551 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 2:14 am
21551 spacer
South Park just takes the piss. I don't think it's politically motivated, nor do I think it's right wing, just that unlike most it's not left wing.
>> No. 21552 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 9:01 am
21552 spacer

That's one of the things I don't like about South Park, it just sneers at everything and if you have a problem with that you're just a lame-o. And the last two episodes I've caught on TV had the central jokes that in one all the characters had learning disabilities, and in the other Cartman had a group of super heroes that he called the "Coon Squad". I was like, yeah, haha, and then... ?
>> No. 21553 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 10:36 am
21553 spacer

>> No. 21554 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 5:14 pm
21554 spacer
Satire transcends finding a political solution and just helps us laugh at the absurdities of life. When South Park does get political however it's libertarian in outlook which doesn't need to justify itself so much as point out the solutions are all awful and poke fun at the kinds of people who want to impose their vision on others.
>> No. 21555 Anonymous
22nd May 2017
Monday 5:32 pm
21555 spacer

Yeah, I know. I just find it rather vapid and pointless, and the satire's only going to make me laugh if it's actually funny.
>> No. 21656 Anonymous
23rd July 2017
Sunday 8:47 pm
21656 spacer

USS PizzaCutter.png
A new trailer has been released for Discovery:


At least they have distanced themselves from the godawful ship design.
>> No. 21657 Anonymous
23rd July 2017
Sunday 9:41 pm
21657 spacer

It's less dismal than the previous trailer, but I can't say that I'm particularly excited.

Also, have they rebooted the Klingons again? They must evolve faster than MRSA.
>> No. 21805 Anonymous
11th September 2017
Monday 7:55 pm
21805 spacer

It's also nice to see old Star Trek cast appe.jpg
Orville didn't actually have that bad a first episode. I don't know how long this parody series can last but I think it captured some of the old magic of Star Trek and was played much straighter than the trailers showed.

At the very least they used science to defeat their enemy rather than punches. Maybe STD won't be so bad either.
>> No. 21818 Anonymous
23rd September 2017
Saturday 4:06 pm
21818 spacer
The last episode was actually really good Star Trek with a court trial, themes of cultural relativism and exploring whether surgery on babies for cultural reasons is ever okay.

It's sad that the ratings have dropped out after the schedule got moved around it seems like the sensitive subject has pissed off a whole bunch of reviewers.
>> No. 21819 Anonymous
3rd October 2017
Tuesday 9:45 pm
21819 spacer
Couldn't agree more, lad. Best, most rounded Captain we've had on the best, most rounded series we've ever had. Enterprise could have got there too, but got canned just after it found its feet.

> None of their capital ships have ever been specifically designed with military might in mind until the Defiant. Although these ships have offensive capabilities, they were built for the purpose of scientific exploration
Definitely they built them for exploration but they also armed them to the fucking teeth. Starfleet's capital ships are just brimming with weapons and routinely hold their own against warships of other races. The real difference is that Starfleet's ships have a shitload of science and exploratory gear onboard in addition to bonza weaponry.

> the federation almost always succeeds only due to luck/flukes and ingenuity. Think about it, the Romulans are more powerful, the Klingons are more powerful, the Borg are more powerful, the Dominion are more powerful, a vast number of monster-of-the-week races are more powerful.
I disagree. The Federation is generally more technologically advanced than all the other Alpha and Beta Quadrant races it comes across, and leverages that technological lead to its advantage. The Borg, and later Dominion, are two enemies they *aren’t* technologically ahead of and it causes the Federation real problems.
>> No. 21820 Anonymous
3rd October 2017
Tuesday 9:47 pm
21820 spacer
How is it that we're onto episode 3 of Discovery and there's not a single post about it?!

I quite enjoyed it so far. It's not really properly 'Star Trek' the way I was hoping, and the dialogue was quite heavy on exposition in the pilot episodes, but overall I'm enjoying it so far.

The new Klingons don't phase me and I actually quite like them, but they seem to speak a bit slowly.

Iffy about the new grimdark Captain we've just been introduced to. I'll see where it's going before passing too much judgement.
>> No. 21826 Anonymous
4th October 2017
Wednesday 12:01 am
21826 spacer
I've found the show is much better if you just pretend that it is an unrelated franchise with lots of homages and a cameos. It's worth a watch but if you think about it in the context of the Star Trek universe or in what it is trying to do you start to have a bit of an internal meltdown. For example:

1) Fucking space gulags?! Never mind the supposedly enlightened state of post-nuclear humanity, even the ECHR would be writing angry letters about this shit.
2) Third episode has superhero bullshit and the alien is a clone from Doom.
3) We know how this technology won't amount to jack shit. Put the Alice and Wonderland book down.
4) Why is Barclay in this dressed as a ginger woman...Oh right she is supposed to be the cute autism girl for the fans. I hope she dies.
5) The gay character is gay like Rick Berman would do a gay character "oomph you silly goose, no lurking!"

This has very much been a 3 episode pilot though. Maybe things will improve like how most Star Trek has rough early seasons. I hope it does because cultural historians have been known to use Star Trek as a measure of the society it was written in and in that sense things aren't looking too good.

>How is it that we're onto episode 3 of Discovery and there's not a single post about it?!

I assumed nobody here was interested given the Orville posts didn't get any replies.
>> No. 21827 Anonymous
4th October 2017
Wednesday 1:54 am
21827 spacer

I haven't said anything because I thought the pilot episodes were awful And I wanted to see how it developed, and now that I've seen the third episode it is even worse.

If it didn't have the brand name Star Trek on it I probably wouldn't watch anymore of it. And it is just the brand name. They could have called it anything else really there is nothing in the tone or the visuals that is Star Trek. And nearly every character is an unlikable arsehole, with the exception of the painfully cringey character who seemed tonally out of place in the world of super competent arseholes, and Saru, Saru seems cool.
>> No. 21828 Anonymous
5th October 2017
Thursday 2:17 am
21828 spacer
I can't bring myself to watch it, I had very little interest before it aired and even less now. I'm re-watching DS9 then I'll try Voyager again.

Why the FUCK can't we get a proper continuation instead of another prequel? ENT was alright, shame it was never given a chance, but that was enough to bridge the gap between TOS and TNG. After TNG found it's footing was there a single person pining for a return to TOS? The lack of imagination is astounding, there is so much potential for a post DS9/VOY series but we're stuck referencing a show which ended in the fucking 60's. The least they could do is admit this is an Abramsverse show so I could think about watching it without getting unfathomably angry.
>> No. 21829 Anonymous
5th October 2017
Thursday 2:11 pm
21829 spacer

I realised that it was mostly the visuals that were updated, and I definitely felt it was just as Star Trekky under the surface. The main difference is that it's mostly focussed on a single character's journey, rather than the ship as a whole, and that there is a strong focus on the series arc rather than (apparently) self-contained adventures. That's fine in my book.

We're seeing a dark side of the Federation because the Federation was always supposed to be an idealised, elevated version of liberal America. That was at a time when people still viewed America as the Land of the Free. Now, that vision is frayed and failing. Consequently we're seeing a hard look taken at Starfleet's authoritarianism, and its relationship to the civilian population. I like that.
>> No. 21830 Anonymous
5th October 2017
Thursday 10:09 pm
21830 spacer
I agree entirely with the need to stop making prequels and other nonsense.

>but that was enough to bridge the gap between TOS and TNG

Actually ENT was set a hundred years after First Contact. TOS comes much later with a season being planned in ENT for the Earth-Romulan War referenced in 'Balance of Terror'.

>We're seeing a dark side of the Federation

I hate this meme and yes, I used the term 'meme' because STD is just a simulacrum. The charm and uniqueness of Star Trek is it's brightness where everything works out and that vision adds a unique spin that keeps Trek iterations relevant even when they look dated owing to context.

"but what about DS9?" I hear you say.

Well, DS9 was a series that put the federation ideals under pressure but I think they won out. The best criticism always came from outsider perspectives that you never saw in the show or those who lost the faith. Sisko's father is a perfect example where despite his pessimism of space travel he was a model federation citizen who worked his restaurant simply because he loved cooking for people.
>> No. 21858 Anonymous
26th October 2017
Thursday 1:31 am
21858 spacer


>> No. 21859 Anonymous
26th October 2017
Thursday 9:12 am
21859 spacer
>We're seeing a dark side of the Federation

>I hate this meme

This just struck a note with me. It is the post-modernist obsession, 'I'm going to remake this much beloved classic, but I'm going to change it so that good is now evil and the evil is now good, I’m so clever and subversive'.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Delete Post []