- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1337 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [First 100 posts][ Reply ]
10 posts omitted. First 100 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 20473
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?
|>>|| No. 20476
Speaking of Voyager, that was the last proper Star Trek we got really. Captain Wrongway was dire though.
She got promoted to Admiral to keep her out of the way, for sure.
I'd like to see more Trek like that. It can work, if it gets consistent writing and direction.
|>>|| No. 20477
>>what do you think of the new movies?
What makes star trek star trek has always been the moral parables, and not being afraid to tell a slow high concept story/ dry political story in the knowledge that the idea should be satisfying enough. The original series and TNG were ram packed with morals.
The new movies couldn't possibly be further away from this concept, all of the characters have been boiled down to gimmicks, Kirk in TOS regularly demonstrates frequently the virtues of a good leader. The films have him being closer to a parody of himself, Spock frequently behaves the exact opposite of who he was in the series. And the plot to 'Into darkness' was bordering on incomprehensible. I really want the new film to ground star trek back in its roots, but it probably isn't going to happen.
|>>|| No. 20478
SISKO = GOD.
I know, DS9 is just a rip off of Babylon 5, but that's no bad thing. TNG and Voyager were cryptofascist fables about the glory of the federation. DS9 shows the ragged edges of morality, the gray areas nobody really understands. Everyone has blood on their hands, everyone has dirty secrets.
Spoiler warning on the following clip.
|>>|| No. 20480
Janeway is morally bankrupt. She kills a guy just so she can get her besto back and Kate Mulgrew was such a total cow in real life the mere memory of her made Garret Wang cry at a con.
|>>|| No. 20481
>Speaking of Voyager, that was the last proper Star Trek we got really
The last two seasons of ENT weren't bad aside from the last episode of course. Its a shame that it got canned as soon as it was finding its feet despite most Trek needing 3 seasons to find its feet.
The Romulan war would've been decent television and had a 'Space: Above and Beyond' vibe.
Honestly (and I know this is controversial) it should have stuck with the grey area being heavily implied. The root beer scene was brilliant along with anything else with Quark but dragging the Romulans in felt like deus ex machina after one was already pulled with the Klingons.
|>>|| No. 20482
Enterprise gets the worst rep but that's because people are stupid morons and don't consider how well it had improved. The Temporal Cold war was brilliant, the Xindi arc was fascinating and it had all the intrigue of DS9 with the comfy feelings that TNG had induced. Can anyone imagine what it would have been like if everyone had dropped TNG or DS9 by season 2 and formed a fanbloc against it?. Anyone who badmouths ENT deserves a phaser blast at the highest setting to the face. There are asteroids named after the actresses who played Jadzia and Kira, dunno why Kira got one, she's a ham faced lesbian who walks around as if she's Jumja stick up her arse.
|>>|| No. 20483
> DS9 shows the ragged edges of morality, the gray areas nobody really understands.
Enterprise had Captain archer torture a terrorist to get answers.
|>>|| No. 20484
Don't you feel that all sci-fi during the noughties had some aspect of space laplanders, from the Xindi attack on earth being a parable to 9/11 to BSG playing out a terrorism campaign against the Cylon and even V having some kind of human resistance group launch attacks against the supposedly benevolent aliens.
What major theme is being explored through new sci fi, and what would the new trek series go for?
|>>|| No. 20485
>dunno why Kira got one, she's a ham faced lesbian who walks around as if she's Jumja stick up her arse.
You sound like one of those lads who isn't really into girls but you try and guess what is supposed to be desirable. Kira is top-tier in the show.
Not him but I have trouble seeing how Star Trek would work in our cultural climate for this reason. Despite the absence of Germans due to nuclear war the world it presents is one of a bright future whether it be 60s futurism or 90s teleology which is something we just don't have any more.
This is what makes DS9 such a poor fit for the rest because it has an undercurrent of cynicism as you head into the 2000s. The Federation is a dystopia if you don't drink the kool-aid and I'd rather the franchise be left alone.
|>>|| No. 20488
Don't forget the episode where they forcibly board another ship and steal their warp coil at gunpoint leaving them more or less stranded.
|>>|| No. 20489
Just had a look at the Trek Wikia, it says they were stranded "three years from home". That doesn't sound as bad.
|>>|| No. 20490
Waking up every single morning for 3 years of what should have been a 2-week journey, remembering what the humans did to you and plotting revenge.
|>>|| No. 20491
Science fiction always reflects the time in which it is written. That's the real interest of the genre - our imagined futures speak volumes about our cultural assumptions.
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. We're seeing neither the shiny utopias of TNG, nor the outright dystopias of Orwell and Huxley. With the notable exception of The Martian, mainstream science fiction is focussing on natural disasters and zombie apocalypses - random, incomprehensible events that are nonetheless devastating. As a counter-reaction, we're seeing a lot of nostalgic and meta work like the recent Hugo winners Redshirts and Among Others.
|>>|| No. 20496
>With the notable exception of The Martian, mainstream science fiction is focussing on natural disasters and zombie apocalypses - random, incomprehensible events that are nonetheless devastating.
No mention of Interstellar which deals with a man-made disaster, or works like Atwood's Oryx & Crake trilogy or The Colony or Mr. Robot, Elysium or the works of Hannu Rajaniemi which deal with technology, corporate-run worlds, police states, immigration and income inequality? What about Transfer? Transcendence? Accelerando? The Circle? Ex Machina? Her? Black Mirror? The Road? No-one has ever understood what's going to happen in the future, but The Martian is hardly a notable exception. I think the nostalgia hype machine is just being fuelled by Hollywood, etc, trying to bank on what they know sells.
|>>|| No. 20498
Fuck that buggy piece of crap. Last time I ever have anything on a website I've not written myself.
|>>|| No. 20499
The Federation was always an analogue for the USA. Before the turn of the century, American Exceptionalism and the American Dream had yet to be discredited, and the Federation's mission to moralise and civilise the universe by bringing it under Federal protection seemed genuine and even plausible.
Within two decades, the USA has pissed away all its good will internationally, and been exposed as rotten to the core. The Federation can't escape its status as an analogue of the USA... people can accept a squeaky clean picture of humanity, but no longer, I think, an authoritarian one.
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?
You could bring Star Trek back. But, it would have to present a world that has dealt, or is dealing with, the Federation's flaws. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise showed us the flaws, but didn't really overcome them. That's what's needed.
|>>|| No. 20501
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
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
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
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
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
>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
>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
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. 21510
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. 21523
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
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
>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
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
>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
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
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
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
>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
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
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
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. 21544
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
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
Family guy had its moments and so did American Dad. Not that it's fashionable to opine that anywhere online these days.
|>>|| No. 21548
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
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
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
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
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. 21554
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
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. 21657
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
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
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
> SISKO = GOD.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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. 21859
>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
>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
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. 21948
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
It never occurred to me before but you are right. The man spends a lot of time focusing on feet in his films.
|>>|| No. 21951
Does he? I struggle to think of examples for Joss. But in retrospect there are loads in Tarantino.
|>>|| No. 21952
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. 21961
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
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
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
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
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
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
It may just grow the beard yet. New ST series are never very good to start with.
|>>|| No. 22056
I watched a couple of episodes yesterday and I'm curious, where should I start watching ST from and in what order?
|>>|| No. 22057
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
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.
|>>|| No. 22355
So I tried bumping this thread the other day and messed it up, but here goes nothing.
Isn't Star Trek Discovery fucking grim. It's like a bad acid trip, space looks like Dadaist nightmarescape and everyone's a prick, what happened to the Federation's utopian society? And now there's terrorist Vulcans?! It's so depressing. Was watching TOS in the sixties this upsetting?
Careful on any spoilerino's, I'm only on episode six.
|>>|| No. 22356
Your spoiler text is definately the most offensive point of the whole series paticularly the label they are given. I found discovery more indearing in the secound half but I might have been punch drunk from how awful the first half was I'd be willing to accept anything that was remotely reasonable.
|>>|| No. 22358
It's all... "gritty". If you pretend it's not Star Trek it's a resonable SciFi series but it does lack the promise of utopia, there within grasping distance even if enternally out of reach, that the series up until ST:V had.
|>>|| No. 22359
That's my big problem with Discovery, it's "not Star Trek", which is fine, except they call it Star Trek so I'm constantly second guessing it against my own expectations. Maybe they should have done a Mass Effect TV show or something, then you can be as bleak, sleezy and sarcastic as you want. Michael would have made a good Renegade Shep, to be honest.
Anyway, I liked the mirror universe and the characters are mostly quite good. It just rang very, very hollow when they decided genocide against the entire Klingon homeworld was not-exactly-cricket as far as the Federation was concerned, and I can't see that lady Klingon lasting long in charge, "holding the planet hostage with a bomb its enemies put there" isn't a win for the ideas of Klingon Jesus.
Lense flares and dutch angles aren't my idea of great cinematography either. THERE'S SO MANY LIGHTS EVERYWHERE IT HURTS MY POOR BRAIN!
|>>|| No. 22360
>Its a shame that it got canned as soon as it was finding its feet despite most Trek needing 3 seasons to find its feet.
I think all Trek seasons have their good and bad episodes, season 2 of Voyager simultaneously has both my favourite (Death Wish 9/10) and most hated (Twisted 1/10, Threshold 1/10) Voyager episodes.
|>>|| No. 22361
>Lense flares and dutch angles aren't my idea of great cinematography either.
Speaking of cinematography, why are the ships in Discovery so blue?
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]