[ 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?
42 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> 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'.
>> No. 21945 Anonymous
9th December 2017
Saturday 9:07 pm
21945 spacer

>Quentin Tarantino is getting all set to direct a Star Trek movie, and if the film materializes then, it will venture into a territory uncharted by any previous Star Trek movie: an R rating. J.J. Abrams the producer, as well as Paramount, have agreed to this stipulation. We had come to know earlier in the week about Tarantino’s pitch for Star Trek going to the writers’ room, and now the Deadline has reported that Tarantino met Mark L. Smith, Lindsey Beer and Drew Pearce and Smith (The Revenant) is likely to be the scriptwriter.

>> No. 21946 Anonymous
9th December 2017
Saturday 9:15 pm
21946 spacer

Is he a Trek fan? I can't imagine him watching it.

I think there's definite promise in an R rated Star Trek, but you'd have to be very intimate with the whole idea of the show to do it any justice.
>> No. 21947 Anonymous
9th December 2017
Saturday 9:44 pm
21947 spacer

I look forward to seeing how he manages to sneak in his foot fetish.
>> No. 21948 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 1:41 am
21948 spacer

It's bizarre that people are fine with him spending a day or two filming Uma Thurman's feet on every production. I'm incredibly surprised he hasn't been Wenstiened by anyone.
>> No. 21949 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 11:18 am
21949 spacer
It never occurred to me before but you are right. The man spends a lot of time focusing on feet in his films.
>> No. 21950 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 12:37 pm
21950 spacer
Joss Whedon does too.
>> No. 21951 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 12:44 pm
21951 spacer

Does he? I struggle to think of examples for Joss. But in retrospect there are loads in Tarantino.

>> No. 21952 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 12:54 pm
21952 spacer
Tarantino's famous for it, I'm more surprised you hadn't seen people discussing it than that you didn't notice it yourself.
>> No. 21953 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 12:54 pm
21953 spacer

In From Dusk till Dawn, Tarantino sucks Salma Hayek's toes.

>> No. 21954 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 4:30 pm
21954 spacer
I saw this film recently and this ruined an otherwise sexy scene.
>> No. 21961 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 6:58 pm
21961 spacer
I'd not seen that in HD before. The neon's pretty impressive. Any guesses as to whether it's real or painted on in post?
I always fancy making neon tubes, or otherwise dicking about with glassblowing.
>> No. 21964 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 7:34 pm
21964 spacer

It looks real to me. In 1996, it would almost certainly have been cheaper to commission some neon signs than to do it in post.

Lampwork is surprisingly accessible - you don't need anything more than a cheap MAPP torch, some glass rods and a few basic hand tools. A proper Bethlehem or Nortel torch will cost you a cock and a bollock, but a Rothenberger or Bernzomatic will do the job if you're just getting started.

>> No. 21965 Anonymous
10th December 2017
Sunday 7:53 pm
21965 spacer
There is a matte-painted scene at the end with the slow zoom out and it's visibly a painting, so I'm guessing you're right.
>> No. 22050 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 12:08 pm
22050 spacer
So STD Post midseason has been alright right? Almost makes me want to take back all the horrible things I said about it.
>> No. 22051 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 4:34 pm
22051 spacer

Aye, it's not been bad. The thing is mirror universe episodes are always good clean fun and so far I think they've made a number of stupid decisions that have only detracted from that. Where is all the sexy PG eroticism for a start! It's been replaced by costumes from 40K and weird lines you hear now and again such as the empire being racist, Burnham being groomed by Lorca etc. that remind you that it is super-serious now.
>> No. 22052 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 5:17 pm
22052 spacer

They aren't clean or good and you know it. And that's why they are fun.

I'd put up a picture of gimp garrek or the first tv lesbian kiss, to demonstrate, but I care about not spoiling the mirror universe thing.
>> No. 22053 Anonymous
25th January 2018
Thursday 7:01 pm
22053 spacer

It may just grow the beard yet. New ST series are never very good to start with.
>> No. 22054 Anonymous
27th January 2018
Saturday 2:45 pm
22054 spacer

I'm confused, is the episode with Dax kissing her/his ex-wife not counted because it was the symbiont acting?
>> No. 22055 Anonymous
27th January 2018
Saturday 6:57 pm
22055 spacer

You are right, I knew it was DS9 but I forgot which episode it was.
>> No. 22056 Anonymous
27th January 2018
Saturday 7:52 pm
22056 spacer
I watched a couple of episodes yesterday and I'm curious, where should I start watching ST from and in what order?
>> No. 22057 Anonymous
28th January 2018
Sunday 10:59 am
22057 spacer
I would never have pointed it out but RLM used it as well so I was wondering if some new classification was going on what with us living in the future and all.

If you can stomach mid-60s sci-fi on a shoestring budget then do the release order (it helps to warm up with the 1959 Twilight Zone):

Otherwise start on TNG. Most people (wrongly) suggest doing it by series which is simpler but forgets that the broadcast order exists. This looks complicated but things will never be as good again:

1) Start with the TNG episode 'Darmok' to give you a taste of peak Trek because the first season or two is going to be a struggle.
2) Watch solely TNG from the pilot* until S6E11 (the second episode of Picard talking about lights) and then alternate episodes with DS9 starting with the pilot.
3) TNG will end. Watch the VII movie Generations and continue DS9 up until the episode where Quark finds a baby then alternate with VOY episodes.
4) Before S5E6 of DS9 watch the TOS episode 'The Trouble with Tribbles' then watch the episode - trust me it is a really cool episode and I can't think of any other franchises that have done what this does.
5) After S5E8 of DS9 watch the VIII movie First Contact (important for main plot).
6) After S7E9 of DS9 watch IX movie Insurrection (movie plot motivation improved)
6) DS9 will end, VOY will end. Watch the X movie Nemesis then ENT from the pilot onwards. Feel a void in your life and start watching TOS.

*The movies can generally be watched at your own leisure up until VI and all aside from V and maybe I are high-quality (VI may seem essential but Roddenberry didn't consider it rigid canon). I'd recommend watching all the movies up to VI before S6E4 of TNG but I understand it is a tall order.

Note: Aside from TOS all series of Star Trek start pretty bad; TNG gets good when Riker grows a beard, DS9 gets good when Sisko loses his hair, VOY gets good when you meet 7of9, ENT gets good when American elections become more unpredictable. Keep the faith.
Note 2: There is an animated series but its not canon. Watch it after TOS if you want.

Games: Star Trek: 25th Anniversary and it's sequel Judgment Rites are legitimately good games and nicely conclude TOS. The last mission (if done right) perfectly sums up the message of ST come to think of it.
>> No. 22058 Anonymous
28th January 2018
Sunday 12:33 pm
22058 spacer
I've seen the Darmok episode and all of the original TZ run so I'll go with the release order, thanks for the tip.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Delete Post []