When I was born - or more accurately about 12 hours before I was born, and my mother had already been in labour for some time - my father sat by the hospital bed and said "Do you realise we're missing Star Trek?"
My main gripe, the more I watch it, is that Simon Pegg is a bit over-used, and other characters I'd like to see more of (Sulu, for instance) are put on the back burner.
...I replied to Pilchard because I thought Pilchard was a similar age to me and no age is listed on the profile...
Before anything here gets out of hand, I'd like to ask we not start some silly Kirk vs. Picard debate. It's asinine, and we already know the correct answer is Sisko anyway.
TEAM ARCHER!
TEAM ARCHER!
I am of the opinion that J.J. Abrams should GDIAF after what he did to Star Trek. Thus the reason for the "no lens flare" comment.
The worst episode of Enterprise is better than either ST reboot movie.
I still don't really have the time for a proper response, but let's just say I fall in the camp that says Abrams went against everything that Rodenberry wanted the Star Trek universe to be.
I think that's the major thing about it: TOS and TNG were written before the fall of the Berlin Wall. You who were born after 1990 have no idea what it was like, thinking that the world could conceivably end at any time, just because someone pushed a button.
Star Trek was a glimmer of hope through all this. We can get to the stars. We will get to the stars. We will explore new worlds; we will seek out new life forms, new civilizations - and befriend them, peacefully.
That was more important to us than anything: we will get through this. Sadly, it's something lacking in today's world.
Back to topic: you still have that Enterprise costume I recall seeing you in on the pictures thread, GM?
I'm suspicious that this may be an age-related thing.
To those of us who grew up watching TOS - when it was the only Star Trek around - we thought of the series as a "how the future should be" kind of thing. It gave people hope - hope that this stupid Cold War that had us all scared to death would turn very, very hot would actually pass and we would be able to go out, explore the universe and boldly go, etc.
Yeah, the Klingons and the Romulans were ersatz Russians and Chinese. I know that. I also know that the Vulcans were, in some manner. an analogy to the Japanese. Rodenberry was a humanist, but had leanings towards Buddhism and Taoism. He believed that the human spirit would eventually win out over hatred.
Obviously, the generations that came after Star Trek hit the big screen for the first time only saw the caricatures of what Star Trek was - the fanfics, the cosplays, the jokes about Spock's ears and Shatner's rug, "Dammit, Jim!" and "Beam me up, Scotty." But what was lost in all the noise was what Star Trek was supposed to be about: optimism.
Yes, Spock in the original series lost a lot. The whole Reunification arc on TNG was fantastic (and appropriate, since Mark Lenard was in failing health). But to have a secondary plotline from Nemesis basically nuke all of Vulcan on a (relatively) flimsy premise? Oh, joy. Just what we always wanted: Emo-Spock.
And Kirk - look, I know Shatner hammed him up. His acting got parodied so much because HE WAS THE FREAKIN' MAIN CHARACTER. The whole story of "Wagon Train to the Stars" was based on that leader, boldly going and all that. And despite the characterization, he was a leader. Yes, he did things unconventionally at times, but he was more along the lines of the quote by the Dalai Lama: "Learn the rules completely so that you may break them properly." He didn't just go off and break the Prime Directive for the lulz, like Abrams had him do in Into Darkness. He always had a reason: previous contamination, absolutely no choice, they needed the whales. The character we have now is a carouser who'd be more likely to not even make it past his first year at the Academy, let alone be granted command of a starship. And the way that ID went, it was like, "Hey, let's reverse the roles of Kirk and Spock from TWOK, and see if anyone notices!" Guess what, JJ: we did.
It's already been mentioned about Bones. The Doctor was way, way, WAY more than just a paranoid luddite. I blame the bad original cut of ST:TMP for that. McCoy was the ego to Spock's id, and Kirk was the superego. The three of them were what really made the show - and what made the Enterprise successful.
The triad was the general formula for all iterations of ST prior to the reboot. TNG started off with Picard/Riker/Troi, then became Picard/Riker/Data, and then - as the series began to evolve - it became more of an ensemble production. But the ship was always Picard's. DS9 had Sisko, Dax and Kira. Voyager had Janeway, Chakotay and Paris. Enterprise had Archer, Tucker and T'Pol. But all of them were shadows of Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
When Abrams did that temporal shift, he threw out decades - DECADES - of storylines and history and character development, just so he could use special effects and "inject life" into a series that was seen as "out of touch." Maybe what he should have done was go back and watch every single episode of all five series.
Instead, we got the STU version of "Hey, what if we killed off Obi-Wan instead of Qui-Gon Jin in Episode I?"
Just like Khan missing the target on the Genesis planet, Abrams missed what Star Trek was - and could be again, if done right.
I think that's the major thing about it: TOS and TNG were written before the fall of the Berlin Wall. You who were born after 1990 have no idea what it was like, thinking that the world could conceivably end at any time, just because someone pushed a button.
Star Trek was a glimmer of hope through all this. We can get to the stars. We will get to the stars. We will explore new worlds; we will seek out new life forms, new civilizations - and befriend them, peacefully.
That was more important to us than anything: we will get through this. Sadly, it's something lacking in today's world.
well, one of the main conceits of the story is that the whales are sapient, intelligent animals. as such taking them against their will & forcing them to preform a task would essentially be slavery. 'needs of the many' could certainly justify that, but given that they want the whales to talk to the probe, it's probably best to have their willing cooperation. after all, it'd be a bit of a downer ending if their first message to it was "Nuke these motherfuckers!"
Why aren't the whales ours to do with as we please? What happened to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"
Harry Kim had been slated to die between Season 3 and 4 to make room for Jeri Ryan, but when he featured in an Entertainment Weekly top 100 list, the producers forced the scriptwriters to keep Garret Wang and to get rid of Jennifer Lien instead.
Most of the Q episodes are great (have yet to see DS9, so there's that), but the most recent one I saw, Death Wish (VOY S2E18) includes a second Q that wants to kill himself - I just didn't feel like it went anywhere. It also felt like Jonathon Frakes was pointlessly shoehorned in, too...The Q episode where he tries to get Janeway to have a kid with him ... All sorts of awesome.
On the plus side those episodes do have a lot of humour and a bit of the campness which makes Star Trek great to watch.
I don't like the idea of a Darker, Edgier Star Trek (as stated previously).
The worst episode of Enterprise is better than either ST reboot movie.As deeply flawed as the Abrams movies were, I maintain that Dear Doctor was the most despicable Star Trek ever written. Let's have our "heroes" commit genocide based on a parody of evolutionary theory that would make a creationist proud!
Then again, episodes like that did showcase exactly why Starfleet and later the Federation had to have the Prime Directive. Because it was too easy for Captains to get involved with races that weren't ready to join the galaxy and altering them in a fundamental way.It did a much better job of showcasing what a morally bankrupt practice the rigid adherence to their Prime Directive can be than it did showcasing why it's a good thing. Archer's decision in the episode was *evil*.
I maintain that Dear Doctor was the most despicable Star Trek ever written.
Right now, slick action is what Hollywood sells. I'm happy if that slick action is Star Trek, because it keeps the door open for all kinds of sci-fi.The trouble is, Star Trek keeps the door open mostly for bad science-fiction; the sort that is actually about as scientific as Harry Potter, and doesn't even play as straight by the rules of its own universe as Jack Vance fantasy stories.
Is Star Wars bad?Bad science-fiction, yes. For overall quality... you tell me. Three out of six movies are simply terrible (the prequel trilogy), and Return of the Jedi is not that great. The first two movies released were pretty good, but every change forced on them since then has made them worse. So... overall... 2.5/6 at best? I have not read any of the novels or comics so I can't comment on them.
Star Wars is about as scientific as Harry Potter. Is Star Wars bad?
Is Star Wars bad?Bad science-fiction, yes.
here's my two pence... Let's Get Out There!
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/80262c9d6b3ab86087d29a1ff38cd87e/tumblr_nep278ytK51ruox2ao1_1280.jpg)
To The Stars!
I recognize most of these. I'm not sure of the one below the SR71...
@Aziraphale
The Phoenix, Zephram Cochrans Warp Drive test vehicle.
Built out of a Titan Ballistic Missile, it was the first Human craft to achieve Warp Flight and led to First Contact with the Vulcans.
She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.That is what they said about the Space Shuttle when it was at a similar state of development to the Venture Star. It is remarkable how cheap hypothetical spacecraft are to operate.
Is Star Wars bad?Bad science-fiction, yes.
Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?
She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.That is what they said about the Space Shuttle when it was at a similar state of development to the Venture Star. It is remarkable how cheap hypothetical spacecraft are to operate.
Is Star Wars bad?Bad science-fiction, yes.
Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?
Nope. Entirely different construction and build. Star Wars could be called fantasy, but most accurately, despite it's fantastic setting, Star Wars is a Myth Cycle. Quite literally the oldest form of story ever told. Star Trek actually is what one could call Soft Sci-fi for the most part because a fair amount of it's tech is not entirely plausible and/or unexplained, which is one qualifier for "soft" science fiction. The other qualifier is a focus on the soft sciences, the humanities, be they political, anthropology or sociology. Fahrenheit 451 and Orwell's 1984 could both be classed as Soft Sci Fi for their focuses on politics. The film District 9, with it's use of the medium to explore a variety of modern social and political themes would also be "soft". Star Trek floats between hard and soft and is an incredible piece of sci fi for it, with it's sheer scale, it's explored hundreds of thousands of themes and concepts, some of them a bit too often, all with a bright eye towards the future.
It's important to remember that the goal and purpose of Science Fiction is not to tell a story. It is to look at ourselves and our current state through the lens of the fantastic, and occasionally, to turn that lens on the grey mists of the future and based as we are now, speculate as to what might come.
While still telling a damn good story.
On the other hand, the DCX was never going to be able to deliver SSTO with any meaningful payload. There's no engines that are up to that challenge. The concept as a first stage, however, is perfectly sound. Hence why we see SpaceX planning to perform a first stage RTLS on their next Dragon flight. The future will be here soon.
None of that gives me any indication why Star Wars is not sci-fi.
That definition of Sci-Fi essentially is Star Trek.
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
Seriously - if you look at some of the older ST fiction stuff - the "official" stuff that was published by Pocket Books after ST:TMP/ST:TWOK came out - you see some pretty decent sci-fi writing...
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.
You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.
My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.
"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway.Indeed it is. My personal standard for good science-fiction is that the imaginary world should be as full of sharp corners for its inhabitants to bang their shins on as our own, or any historical world of the past. The world should work consistently, and technology should work the same way in every episode of a multi-part work. Imaginary engineering principles should be applied rigorously, not wand-waved away to get the writers out of corners they've written themselves into.
At this point someone usually says, "But it's just a story!" I reply that, if you wouldn't let Philip Marlowe reverse the polarity of his fedora to make himself bullet-proof, you shouldn't let Scotty reverse the polarity of the deflector to solve problems. Science, technology and engineering fill be background of Raymond Chandler's work. Cars, telephones and guns all work in a consistent way, and we would not accept the story if, for example, Marlowe could suddenly teleport down a phone line to rescue a dame. We need to feel that characters face real challenges, and we cannot measure those challenges unless we know how the challenges work. The operation of, for example, the transporter in Star Trek should be as consistent and predictable as the working of a phone in a Philip Marlowe novel.
You're replying to a previous point of mine, though. I agree entirely that a universe should play by its own rules, however soft. Like in Harry Potter magic should always work like magic regardless - not that you cited specific examples of why that makes Star Wars bad sci-fi, but then I don't really much care for Star Wars enough to really mind about that.
My point had moved on not on whether Star Wars was good sci-fi but whether it was sci-fi at all. Based on Garand's earlier definition it isn't, but I don't agree with that definition. Star Wars has futuristic technology, space travel and aliens and shit. By my book that makes it sci-fi. Good sci-fi is a whole other question.
I always saw it more as a spaghetti western with spaceships. It's only incidentally -- almost accidentally -- sci fi.
The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.
EDIT; a replacement has been found; Lustin Lin (http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/394819-star-trek-3-to-boldly-go-to-theaters-july-8-2016), aka the guy who did the majority of the Fast & Furious films.
A building in China has been modeled after the Enterprise.
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chinese-building-star-trek-uss-enterprise-chinese-119485563452.html
Star Trek: Renegades have finally released their Official Trailer, and it's a doozy
Depending on how things go with CBS (and looking at the Trailer, I can't see any problems other than CBS and/or Paramount being total asshats), they're hoping for a Summer Release with this.
http://observationdeck.io9.com/star-trek-renegades-finally-an-official-trailer-1696329277/+charliejane?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow (http://observationdeck.io9.com/star-trek-renegades-finally-an-official-trailer-1696329277/+charliejane?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
Michael Dorn is in talks for a potential series that would feature Worf as a captain.
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-captain-worf-tv-show-michael-dorn/
Aurora borealis? At this time of day, at this time of year, in this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen: aurora borealis?
The Star Trek and Star Wars industries seem to work on the basis that they only have to wave a banner, and the fans will come out and pay, regardless of how poor the TV shows and films become. And they seem to be correct too.
I liked Enterprise okay... But it honestly only barely felt like Star Trek to me. I honestly think they could have just change some of the names and made it a better show. Or they could have focused more on the creation of the Federation as we know it from the other shows. But more often they seemed to be wanting to do their own thing.The key problem with Enterprise, I thought, was incredibly lazy "generic Star Trek" stories that could have been slotted into TOS, TNG or Voyager. They started out with what could have been a very interesting pioneering, "founding the Federation" idea, with lower technology, less knowledge, and a corresponding greater feeling of exploration and threat. But instead, in what felt like five minutes, they rolled out the usual ST tropes, like phasers, and the "last second beam-out to avoid the explosion", and ground along the same old grooves. Again.
The problem seems to be that they genuinely don't seem to understand what the fanbase wants.I'm not so sure. I think the producers work on the principle that the fans want "the same plus 10%", and I am not certain that they are wrong.
Aaaand the dumbing down of Trek is now complete.
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?Only if it includes the shape-shifting cat-girl...
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?
He's atime-travelling secret agentsemi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action.
Hypothetical scenario: A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain. Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?Only if it includes the shape-shifting cat-girl...
with a franchise as old as this, one could put a case that it's in public domain.If you did, you would lose. Star Trek isn't nearly old enough to be out of copyright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright). And in fact CBS and Paramount have already gone after the Axanar people (http://www.avclub.com/article/paramount-lawyers-call-star-trek-fan-films-bluff-n-233718).
Fan film recommendation: Star Trek: Horizon (http://www.startrekhorizon.com/).Thank you for the link; I watched this last night. Yes, it is a little cheesy in places (though not more so than many episodes of Doctor Who), but it's a remarkable amateur achievement, and the team that produced it deserve congratulations.
Wired Article (http://www.wired.com/2016/05/move-390-pound-gorilla-across-country/) on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...THIS IS HOW YOU MOVE A 390-POUND GORILLA ACROSS THE COUNTRY
Wired Article (http://www.wired.com/2016/05/justin-lin-star-trek-beyond/) on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...(click to show/hide)
Wired Article (http://www.wired.com/2016/05/justin-lin-star-trek-beyond/) on Justin Lin as ST:B director confirms one thing without saying it outright...(click to show/hide)
Prediction for ST reboot movie #4:(click to show/hide)
This one looks a LOT better than that first one.
Yeah
It's still JJ's Star Wars Trek
So are the enemies supposed to be Kardashians?
"The show’s name, “Star Trek: Discovery,” was revealed in September. The 13-episode season will feature a female lead and is set to take place 10 years before the events of the original series of the show."
The second trailer made a bad chill run down my spine. I'm getting the feeling of Reboot #2 with a hefty dose of politics as they try to find the broadest, blandest and least controversial definition of 'human' for the Millennial audience.
they try to find the broadest, blandest and least controversial definition of 'human' for the Millennial audience.I don't know what that even means. Do Millennials® have a blander and less controversial definition of Hollywood human than, say, The Great Generation®, or Boomers®, for whom it was "almost entirely white people, and mostly men"? Come to think of it, that has only changed a little, hasn't it?
they try to find the broadest, blandest and least controversial definition of 'human' for the Millennial audience.I don't know what that even means. Do Millennials® have a blander and less controversial definition of Hollywood human than, say, The Great Generation®, or Boomers®, for whom it was "almost entirely white people, and mostly men"? Come to think of it, that has only changed a little, hasn't it?
The point is, Akima, that modern media has a pathological fear of offending... someone... anyone.I don't think the evidence supports this. For example, Hollywood shows not the smallest fear of offending many women, or any hesitation in doing so:
Considering that TOS did break several boundaries (A black female in a senior officer, if not a command position on the Bridge, tackling racism through allegory - Let That Be Your Last Battlefield - Put a Russian on the Bridge of the ship in a senior position right smack dab in the middle of the Cold War, along with other issues) and tackled certain issues of it's day through allegory, once has to cringe a little bit about how a certain level of blandness did creep into it as Series such ad TNG et al came along.
Don't get me wrong, TOS did have it's problems, but for it's day, it was certainly ground breaking for a Sci-Fi show, let alone a TV show of that era.
I liked the way they went with the T'Pol/Tucker relationship, especially with haow T'Pols character developed as time went on (despite the fact I was, and still am,a T'Pol/Sato 'shipper ;) :-D ) and was a little pissed when they blew Tucker up at the end.
YouTube Reviewer Emergency Awesome has just dropped a Non-Spoilery Review of Discovery after he Previewed the first two EpisodesAnd this guy can't pronounce Shenzhou. Shen-zoo? :roll: It is shen-joe! Not difficult! Unless you're just using Chinese stuff as set dressing, and don't care about getting it right.
And this guy can't pronounce Shenzhou. Shen-zoo? :roll: It is shen-joe! Not difficult! Unless you're just using Chinese stuff as set dressing, and don't care about getting it right.
Yeah, their business model seems counter productive.
She also doesn't change her accent for this roleSomething that has gone down badly (http://www.worldofbuzz.com/michelle-yeoh-mocked-malaysian-accent-star-trek-heres-kept/) in some xenophobic quarters. As usual, many of the complaints about Ms. Yeoh not speaking "proper English" are sub-literate.
I wasn't much for the new BSG. My wife liked it though.
It occurred to me today that the initialism for Star Trek: Discovery would be ST:D, which is a little unfortunate.My favorite rapper, Schäffer the Darklord (https://schafferthedarklord.bandcamp.com/), often abbreviates his name to STD.
It occurred to me today that the initialism for Star Trek: Discovery would be ST:D, which is a little unfortunate.
The characters were interesting but I felt like Scott Backula was a terrible casting choice. I need to revisit the series but you hit the nail on the head. They had so much potential but I feel like it was squandered.
Enterprise had the same problem as Voyager, the writers and showrunners not having a clue of what to do. We could have seen Starfleet's first contacts with some of the classic Star Trek races. Instead we got 2 and a half seasons of "Vulcans are Jerks, but they're actually Romulans" and the Xindi season. I wasn't against the Xindi arc, but it dragged on. And then we get a finale focusing on Troi and Riker, which felt like a cheap shot.
Voyager felt a lot like Lost In Space but with photon torpedoes and a bipolar captain (Kate Mulgrew's own interpretation of Janeway).
Enterprise had the same problem as Voyager, the writers and showrunners not having a clue of what to do. We could have seen Starfleet's first contacts with some of the classic Star Trek races. Instead we got 2 and a half seasons of "Vulcans are Jerks, but they're actually Romulans" and the Xindi season. I wasn't against the Xindi arc, but it dragged on. And then we get a finale focusing on Troi and Riker, which felt like a cheap shot.
Then there's Discovery, which to be fair, I haven't seen, but from what I gather, its too dark and too grim to be a Star Trek.
I don't know, he always seemed exacerbated when performing in Enterprise. Maybe its just the episodes I watched, but it just felt off with him. He didn't seem to standout from his subordinates like previous captains. Felt more like a civilian boat rather than pulling from earth naval traditions like the other series.
But that's just one little bear's opinion.
Mostly though, I think its down to Archer being "Air Force rather than Navy"
And I've already read internet comments that can't spell Shenzhou...YouTube Reviewer Emergency Awesome has just dropped a Non-Spoilery Review of Discovery after he Previewed the first two EpisodesAnd this guy can't pronounce Shenzhou. Shen-zoo? :roll: It is shen-joe! Not difficult! Unless you're just using Chinese stuff as set dressing, and don't care about getting it right.
Michelle Yeoh has just re-defined Badass. I think that if she ever raised an eyebrow at me, I might actually wet myself. On second thought: Make that a 'would'. I hadn't really known she was a martial arts performer - and did a spit-take when she did the River-Tam-tribute highkick (into the teeth of the guy standing behind her), like she's 21 instead of 55.:roll: Heh... To me that sounds like someone not really knowing that John Wayne made Westerns, but that just goes to show what cultural silos we live in. Ms. Yeoh made her cinema debut in martial-arts dramas in 1985, though her original training was as a ballet dancer. "River Tam tribute"? Puh-lease, if anything it's the other way round. :P But for me, she's the best thing in Discovery so far.
Ms. Yeoh made her cinema debut in martial-arts dramas in 1985...
Since written Chinese uses its own character set, it baffles me that we don't transliterate it into reasonably accurate phonetic pronunciation using the English alphabet as we do with Japanese. Where/how did we get "jo" being spelled "zhou"?YouTube Reviewer Emergency Awesome has just dropped a Non-Spoilery Review of Discovery after he Previewed the first two EpisodesAnd this guy can't pronounce Shenzhou. Shen-zoo? :roll: It is shen-joe! Not difficult! Unless you're just using Chinese stuff as set dressing, and don't care about getting it right.
Since written Chinese uses its own character set, it baffles me that we don't transliterate it into reasonably accurate phonetic pronunciation using the English alphabet as we do with Japanese. Where/how did we get "jo" being spelled "zhou"?It is from the Pinyin romanisation system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin) that we get 神舟 romanised as Shenzhou, and pronounced roughly "shenjo".
Funnily enough, I just watched a rather scathing discussion about the Lower Decks, talking about how CBS has finally lost sight about what Star Trek was about.
Funnily enough, I just watched a rather scathing discussion about the Lower Decks, talking about how CBS has finally lost sight about what Star Trek was about.Well I can see where thats coming from. Star Trek is mostly a serious look into exploration, philosophy, and a way to self examine our own society/culture. Lower Decks may dabble in it, but it seems more like a comedy show than the discussions and lessons from shows past. I think any fan may feel threatened/not thrilled about Lower Deck's tropey parody of that universe.
Funnily enough, I just watched a rather scathing discussion about the Lower Decks, talking about how CBS has finally lost sight about what Star Trek was about.Well I can see where thats coming from. Star Trek is mostly a serious look into exploration, philosophy, and a way to self examine our own society/culture. Lower Decks may dabble in it, but it seems more like a comedy show than the discussions and lessons from shows past. I think any fan may feel threatened/not thrilled about Lower Deck's tropey parody of that universe.
I think its more of a "The Orville is a comedy version of Star Trek and its doing great!" added with "Scifi comedy cartoons are trending, lets use a known IP."Funnily enough, I just watched a rather scathing discussion about the Lower Decks, talking about how CBS has finally lost sight about what Star Trek was about.Well I can see where thats coming from. Star Trek is mostly a serious look into exploration, philosophy, and a way to self examine our own society/culture. Lower Decks may dabble in it, but it seems more like a comedy show than the discussions and lessons from shows past. I think any fan may feel threatened/not thrilled about Lower Deck's tropey parody of that universe.
Hopefully its not the low brow targeted at Millennial humor, Rick and Morty/final space knock off its being presented. The Orville was advertised as "Family Guy in space!" but when you watch the show its a star trek show with comedy in it rather than a comedy show parodying star trek. Admittedly I've only seen most of season 2 of the Orville but it really carried the spirit of TNG.
Spoiler for a couple of episodes:(click to show/hide)
I'm willing to give it a try and see it if I can.
I think The Orville feels more in the spirit of Star Trek than the vast majority of the Star Trek properties that have been made since Voyager and DS:9 went off the air.
Maybe the trailers are lying ...
they didn't realize that MacFarlane is apparently a big Trek nerd.
I honestly do not know what the show has been shit on by so many youtube trekkies.
The second and third seasons haven't aired yet
I think this is before they add the cast names to the opening but for all intents and purposes, this is it. It looks nice and reminds me of TOS.
I'm pretty sure that the whole thing about Ferengi not thinking that females need clothing was basically to give him (another) excuse to have near-naked women on the set for him to drool at.I agree, thankfully DS9 corrected that eventually. Moogie is the best.