Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => ENJOY => Topic started by: jwhouk on 09 Jun 2014, 19:37

Title: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 09 Jun 2014, 19:37
As requested: A Trek Thread. Only one request: NO LENS FLARE.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 09 Jun 2014, 20:33
Heard Worf is getting his own ship/show
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 09 Jun 2014, 21:04
That would be epic!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 09 Jun 2014, 21:41
That rumor's been bouncing around for a while and it was only based on Michael Dorn saying he wanted to play Worf again. Even if it were to happen my fear is that it would be set in the Abrams-verse or, worse, in the Online-verse. If they were to actually set it in the prime timeline I'd be ecstatic but then they'd have to reset the books which would be a shame because some really good books have taken place post-Nemesis.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 10 Jun 2014, 16:38
I think that Dorn has quashed that rumor himself recently.  Something along the lines of him saying he wouldn't mind playing Worf again, but not in his own series.

Meanwhile



Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 11 Jun 2014, 02:43
I haven't seen much Trek, but I like a lot of what I have seen.

And fuck it, I loved the reboot, although I've yet to watch Into Darkness.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 11 Jun 2014, 03:52
I think Into Darkness is great. It gets a lot of flack for certain directional choices, but it's a fine Star Trek movie. 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.

Also, I love Karl Urban as Bones but every line of dialogue in Darkness starts with "Dammit man!". It's like he's trying to go full Bones. You never go full Bones.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Jun 2014, 04:01
I was born the night that TOS episode, "Mirror, Mirror" debuted on TV.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 11 Jun 2014, 10:22
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?"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 11 Jun 2014, 16:00
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?"

To which the doctor presumably said 'I didn't think Trekkies got laid' and everyone rolled their eyes at a joke that was dated even in the 80s.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 11 Jun 2014, 16:35
Dude. I said ORIGINAL SERIES.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 11 Jun 2014, 16:44
...I replied to Pilchard because I thought Pilchard was a similar age to me and no age is listed on the profile...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Masterpiece on 12 Jun 2014, 05:11
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 agree that the movie is a little Pegg-heavy, but I thought Sulu had his moments on the chair that were pretty awesome.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 12 Jun 2014, 10:41
...I replied to Pilchard because I thought Pilchard was a similar age to me and no age is listed on the profile...

Close-ish. I was born in 1993.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 12 Jun 2014, 19:14
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 12 Jun 2014, 20:57
TEAM ARCHER!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 13 Jun 2014, 03:06
Heresy!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lines on 13 Jun 2014, 03:08
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.

Sisko is awesome.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 13 Jun 2014, 04:30
TEAM ARCHER!

Archer's Avengers!

Top Captain for me is a tie between Janeway and Sisko with Picard in close second.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: ChaoSera on 13 Jun 2014, 04:37
SISKO > ALL! HAIL SISKO!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 13 Jun 2014, 05:23
The only good thing about Sisko was that he played baseball.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 13 Jun 2014, 15:26
The Sisko is of Baseball (and Bajor)

And it took Sisko to do this.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 15 Jun 2014, 06:20
and then Q never bothered The Sisko or his station ever again.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Jun 2014, 13:45
Yup

Oh, and Axanar's released their first official trailer.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Jun 2014, 17:06
In the Mirror Universe, Spock makes the choice our Kirk gave him.  The 'Star Trek Continues' followup to the classic Episode, 'Mirror Mirror'
 http://vimeo.com/98076892 (http://vimeo.com/98076892)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: henri bemis on 16 Jun 2014, 17:38
TEAM ARCHER!

I have to admit that I can't hate Archer or Enterprise because I love Ouantum Leap (and Porthos!  Oh, Porthos!).  But that opening theme song, oh god it's horrible.  I can easily hate that.

But then, I'll usually take bad Star Trek over no Star Trek.  I can find things to like about all the captains, but Picard will always have my loyalty.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Jun 2014, 18:29
See, Rod Stewart's theme song was the least objectionable thing about that series. The whole thing with the "Temporal Cold War" and the Xindi was laughable, and the whole "blow up the East Coast of the US" thing just sucked.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 16 Jun 2014, 18:33
The obvious 9/11 parallels were indeed obvious.

Enterprise had some good moments in the fourth season, but it was too little too late.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: henri bemis on 16 Jun 2014, 18:35
It's been awhile since I watched it (and even then, I skipped a bit, and don't think I ever got to the end).  I did enjoy several episodes, but I probably couldn't tell you which ones they were now.  But *least* objectionable, really?  It has to at least be in the top 10.  (Though it's possible my hatred of it borders on irrational.  It's just not Star Trek!)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Jun 2014, 05:54
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 17 Jun 2014, 05:57
I liked "Faith of the Heart" and didn't mind the different tone it set for Enterprise.

Abrams... just no. He and his lens flares can fuck right off.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 17 Jun 2014, 06:13
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.

Um.

...Why?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Jun 2014, 08:19
Gimme a bit, when I'm able and have time.

ADD version: blowing up Vulcan sucked rocks.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 17 Jun 2014, 16:07
The only consolation we can draw from the JJsuckverse is that like the Mirror Universe, it's an alternate timeline - one I hope we can ignore eventually.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Jun 2014, 18:58
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.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BeoPuppy on 17 Jun 2014, 23:09
It's all been a dream/they were dead all along, anyway, so ....
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 18 Jun 2014, 00:50
It was a reboot, of course it changes things, and Rodenberry also wanted a lot of insane bullshit in the Star Trek universe while he was alive that had to be strenuously ignored.

I'll happily wait for a proper response.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 18 Jun 2014, 18:22
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 would posit that the best Star Trek episodes are the ones that went against Roddenberry's happy clappy future, where technology is a cure-all for society's ills.  The best examples of this would be the TNG episode "First Contact" (not to be confused with the movie of the same name) and the DS9 episode "In the Pale Moonlight."

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Jun 2014, 19:33
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 18 Jun 2014, 19:43
Holy fuck can I quote that? Like every where?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Jun 2014, 19:49
Go for it.

And... May you live long, and prosper. ;)


EDIT: Side note - I can do the Vulcan salute without having to make like Nimoy and put my hands together off-screen.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 18 Jun 2014, 20:34
Me too!

But yeah J just summed up every issue I've ever had with the Abrams reboot. It's a neat little sci fi action flick but it's not Star Trek. If Star Trek taught me anything growing up it was to hope. To approach life with an open, curious mind, to live with an explorer's courage and to be undaunted even in the darkest depths of the doldrums. To wonder. The assorted heroes of Star Fleet did not go out into the universe to make war, or return it if offered, but to offer peace, kinship and knowledge, and ask for the same in return. As J said, the triumph of the human spirit. A bright and glorious future wherein we, a species who has many dark days in our past. That is in fact the entire point of the first two episodes of TNG, Encounter at Farpoint. We as a species LITERALLY being put on trial for our past by the omnipotent Q. Maybe it is a bit of a generation gap thing on some level... I was introduced to TOS and TNG before I got out of the cradle so I probably don't count as Gareth and I are pretty close to being in the same cohort as well as the same generation, the Berlin Wall fell shortly after my birth, I never learned the fear that my parents had to live with as they grew up in the 60s and 70s... but I learned to look for something more from our future, and that's the vision Star Trek gave me.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Jun 2014, 21:00
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?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 18 Jun 2014, 21:11
Hell yes! It's my favorite last day of con cosplay. Few things are more comfortable than a flight suit

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t1.0-9/310776_615574815137732_2009575597_n.jpg)

My defense for the 2368 Type 2 phase pistol and comm badge? Time travel :mrgreen:
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 18 Jun 2014, 21:23
Damn that Agent Daniels. ;)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Jun 2014, 06:02
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?

First of all, I was born in 1988. Which is a semantic difference and while I do understand the gulfs of age, given that I have friends who I did the same uni course as who don't even remember when Yugoslavia was a country, that is incredibly patronising.

You don't have to paint me as having a complete lack of understanding for the semi-utopian ideas of the original series just because I liked the reboot and had less attachment to it than you do. Jokes about TOS are easy because of this blinkered, retconned view of what the series used to be, like nailing alien women when that only happened in like three episodes.

Can we really reasonably expect a two-hour movie - or two, although I've not seen the second one - to cram all the ideas that the original Star Trek had in and still have time for actual story development and action? While there may not have been the utopian edge, I found the first reboot film to capture another element of Star Trek that you seem to have overlooked, namely the sense of real adventure that I got from many of the best episodes. But it's also having to re-introduce a fairly large cast of characters in their new incarnations.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Jun 2014, 07:18
One of these days, see if you can find a copy of the TOS episode, "Space Seed." Then, follow that up by watching Wrath of Khan. THEN, follow that by watching Into Darkness.

Besides the obvious "different stories about the same people" and "different actors in different eras", see if you can figure out what the major difference between all three are.

I'll give you a hint: count the number of explosions, and count the number of dialogues and meaningful interactions between characters.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 19 Jun 2014, 07:26
Okay, now you're deliberately being patronising so I'm just going to check out of the discussion entirely.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 19 Jun 2014, 14:30
And on that note, what does Geordi see? (https://imgur.com/gallery/qRdf3)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 19 Jun 2014, 16:22
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.

Grud I'm tempted to Copy that and Paste it to the Closed Star Trek Group I'm a member of on FB.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Jun 2014, 17:57
I do want to point out that I wasn't trying to be condescending. I am pointing out that too many people focus on the "Wow, the Enterprise shoots its phasers and wipes out the Klingons and Romulans!" and not on the interactions between Kirk, Spock and Bones.

When Star Trek failed miserably was when it focused on the technology, not the story. This was why ST:TMP was seen as such a huge failure/disappointment when it came out, and TWOK was seen as the much better film.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 19 Jun 2014, 19:22
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.

People still think the world is going to Hell, Berlin Wall or not.

TMP failed because it was boring!

Speaking of those whales you mentioned earlier:


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?"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Jun 2014, 20:42
Prime Directive, I'd guess.

Whales, it is inferred, were determined to have a sufficiently-high intelligence level that they could possibly become a species that would reach warp-tech level of society. (I know, I know.)

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Jun 2014, 21:04
Something you learn, years after the fact:

When I was in college, I liked reading the Pocket Books Star Trek novelizations, as they were a way of imagining the voyages of the Enterprise and her crew while waiting for the next installment of the movies (or for the new TV series, at that point) to come out. As I wasn't as big into the FanFic and Zines at that time, this was my way of being a Trekkie.

My favorite book in the series - which, from what I understand, is still going - was an installment known as How Much For Just The Planet?. It was a book written by Jon M. "Mike" Ford, who combined both the intrigue and the characters together to make a romp of a story on a planet that was still being referred to in later books and novels.

There was one thing that always puzzled me in the opening dedication: Ford had mentioned that the book was dedicated to "its special guest stars", one of which was "Neil, who wanted a walk-on." Little did I know until I read up on the late Mr. Ford as to whom exactly Neil - who was apparently the role of "Ilen the Magian" in the book - was.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 20 Jun 2014, 07:23

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?"
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!"


also, shatner cracks me the hell up in that scene. he is shatnering so damn hard, without even saying a word.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 20 Jun 2014, 07:47
He was acting. You know, playing a role he'd been given to play nearly 25 years prior?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 20 Jun 2014, 07:52
i am aware of that. simply saying that i enjoy his shatnery performance as he reacts to spock mind melding with the whales.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 20 Jun 2014, 18:40
And he can Shatner so much harder than that.


But the greatest moment of all...

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: ankhtahr on 20 Jun 2014, 19:02
This was shown to me today:


I'll just leave it here.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 20 Jun 2014, 23:45
I wish you hadn't


*Reaches for Neuralaizer*
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 28 Jun 2014, 21:14
When did startrek.com take down hundreds of episodes?

(http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2013/1/28/Khan.gif)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 29 Jun 2014, 11:29
Couple of interesting facts about Voyager:
[li]While played for laughs, the episode "Author, Author", is considered by many to be one of the most reviled episodes of Voyager because of the Mark 1 EMHs were repurposed into what could effectively be called a slave labour force. Especially in light of the Next Generation episode "Measure of a Man".
[/li][/list]

Voyager might be one of the weaker parts of the franchise, but if you read about how much trouble to production crew had and how much crap they had to put up with from the executives, you might see the series in a better light.
But that's like lighting a match in a pitch black cave.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 29 Jun 2014, 11:47
The biggest problem with Voyager was that it was seen as "Lost In Space meets Trek." And, generally, Trek fans were not fans of LIS, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 29 Jun 2014, 17:01
Like Enterprise, there was so much potential for Voyager to go in an entirely different direction - especially since the ship was essentually cut loose from the Federation by being thrown into an entirely different region of the Galaxy.  It's a pity that the assholes in charge at Paramount didn't have the balls to take it into new territory.


(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/drink/cheers.gif)  to Voyager, the series that launched a thousand Femslash Fics
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 29 Jun 2014, 17:54
And made Jeri Ryan what she is today.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 29 Jun 2014, 22:29
Yeup
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 30 Jun 2014, 01:00
Isn't there a meme about Voyager only having three plots? Like 'hey maybe this will get us home, no shit now we're even further away again' and 'hey maybe these aliens will help us NOPE' and then 'Borg. Just Borg' and that was it?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 30 Jun 2014, 03:07
I think so. Also fucking over other alien species because halfway through a mission the prime directive has suddenly become very important. Which I always find quite funny because Janeway is constantly harping on about how this isn't a normal Federation starship and this now motley crew of Federation and Marquis crewmen must learn to get along in a strange new quadrant! Then it's like no, we must be ambassadors for Starfleet everywhere we go when it suits us the most.

And then there are the classic Star Trek filler episodes, involving Q or the holodeck.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 30 Jun 2014, 05:37
Hey now anything involving John de Lancie is a good thing
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BeoPuppy on 30 Jun 2014, 07:18
Never felt Q episodes as filler.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 30 Jun 2014, 19:27
Quote
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.

I thought Jennifer Lien quit because she was allergic to the makeup.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 30 Jun 2014, 21:13
Apparently it had always been a choice between Garrett and Jennifer towards the end of Season 3, with the producers leaning towards keeping Jennifer due to the mandate of making the alien characters more interesting than the humans.

Ultimately though, it seems as though there were several reasons why Jennifer Lien was let go; the character really wasn't working out after three years, the producers wanted to take the show in a different direction (hence why Kes got vamped up in the latter half of season 3), to Jennifer feeling she was missing out on her son growing up and wanting to spent time with him.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 01 Jul 2014, 03:42
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...

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 01 Jul 2014, 04:56
More Riker is always a good thing #mancrushtuesday
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 01 Jul 2014, 08:49
Wouldn't it be great to have a show dedicated to Q being a complete dick?

"After I turned up, they started calling it the Cuntinuum"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 01 Jul 2014, 12:04
Apparently, the reason that Riker/MoM sat on chairs the way he did was because Frakes had a back injury that made it difficult or uncomfortable to sit 'normally'.

[/pointless]
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BeoPuppy on 01 Jul 2014, 13:28
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...

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.
The Q episode where he tries to get Janeway to have a kid with him ... All sorts of awesome.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 01 Jul 2014, 16:53
While the Next Generation storyline where parasites infiltrated Starfleet was not well received, it was supposed to lead into a much larger Borg related storyline, where the parasites were intended to be agents of the Borg. Unfortunately, due to how the storyline was received and a writer's strike in 1988 as well as budget cuts, the connection between the Borg and the parasites was never made.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 01 Jul 2014, 18:28
I always thought they missed an oppatunity with Voyager.

Here was a Federation Starship - and not a large one at that, more a Science/Scout/Patrol Frigate, not a Heavy Cruiser like the Enterprise suddenly thrown 70,000 light years from the Federation and completely cut off from contact with the Federation and essentially thrown into 'The Bad Side Of Town' Galaxy wise.

It would have been great for the first two seasons to see them struggle with maintaining their Federation ideals, only to eventually realise that, while it's good to have such ideals and regulations to act as a base and to keep them centered, here in the 'Wild West', they're going to have to adapt if they're gonna survive against races that aren't going to play by those rules, and see Janeway adapt in Marquis tactics in order for them to survive and get home.

The whole thing with The Borg would have been more interesting too had they done so too.  I still could see Seven joining the crew, but in an entirely different way.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BeoPuppy on 02 Jul 2014, 14:55
Yeah, but, see, all those borg prostetics would hide Seven's tits and this is Star Trek so we can't have that.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 02 Jul 2014, 21:24
Not what I meant
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BeoPuppy on 02 Jul 2014, 22:24
Well, as long as nothing gets in the way there ... what did you mean?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 03 Jul 2014, 17:27
I basically meant that if they had gone down the route I mention in my original Post, I think the way that whole business with the Borg would have had a slightly different beginning/middle/end - especially if, by that stage, Janeway had taken the proverbial brakes off how they were operating in the Delta Quadrant.

Also, B/7  :-D
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 04 Jul 2014, 00:21
Funnily enough, the Equinox episodes showed what happened if a Federation ship did disregard their ideals and it wasn't pretty.
Which is exactly what Voyager should have been if the executives hadn't vetoed the producers ideas for a darker Star Trek.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 04 Jul 2014, 05:17
I don't like the idea of a Darker, Edgier Star Trek (as stated previously).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 04 Jul 2014, 15:01
I think Equinox could have worked in context with Voyager as I Posted about as well.

We could see a Voyager that, while cutting loose on certain aspects of what is expected of a Federation Crew and Starship, still maintaining a certain level of 'Moral High Ground' so to speak running across the Equinox which, as you saw in the series, had completely abandoned every Federation principle, with Janeway and the crew going slightly Ahab on Ransom and his crew and wondering if they could have sunk that low themselves.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Aziraphale on 08 Jul 2014, 22:04
I don't like the idea of a Darker, Edgier Star Trek (as stated previously).

I'm with you to a degree, since that optimism is one of the things that hooked me on all things Trek (except the Abrams crap) from a very young age. On the other hand, I don't think that we're ever as far removed from our darker impulses as we'd like to believe. Even a Utopian society has its dark underbelly, and it's not like you just arrive at your idealized destination and say, "Okay, now that that's done, what's for lunch?"

Where Voyager disappointed me to some degree was that it spent a bit too much time being too sure of the answers, instead of diving into the questions. What does the Prime Directive mean when you're nearly a light-century from home? Do you re-evaluate your relationship to your ideals, and if so, what does that look like? And if you try to stick to the "old" way of doing things, how do you reconcile your imperfections (and worse) with your ideals? Whether in spite of or because of all our shortcomings, those things make for compelling storytelling. They would also have been a throwback to TOS, in that the original series, as hamfisted and campy as it could be sometimes, still looked beyond and outside itself, sometimes holding up a mirror and other times a magnifying glass to our past and present even if it was exploring it in the future tense. In that sense, at least, Voyager always seemed like a lost opportunity, with its ending only hinting at what could have been (Janeway's actions in the finale tiptoe to the outer edges of what Kugai suggests above).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 08 Jul 2014, 22:41
The comments re: Voyager make me rather surprised that no one has pointed this out:

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: judemorrigan on 09 Jul 2014, 09:11
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!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 09 Jul 2014, 09:48
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.

Now, I do agree that particular episode was still crap, but like a lot of the current era episodes of Star Trek, they had a good idea but they just couldn't follow through with it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: judemorrigan on 09 Jul 2014, 11:08
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*.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 09 Jul 2014, 14:47
Which is one of the reasons why I love some of the big FanFics I'm a fan of where they throw the rulebook out the nearest Airlock.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 10 Jul 2014, 20:08
I maintain that Dear Doctor was the most despicable Star Trek ever written.

I maintain the most despicable Star Trek episode to be The Omega Glory.  Kirk, Spock, and McCoy wonder at how the Kohms can build a functioning civilization without being white.  Nevermind the fact that the origins of this parallel civilization are never explained!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 10 Jul 2014, 20:11
I almost forgot the most racist episode of them all:  Code of Honor.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 10 Jul 2014, 20:30
Spock's Brain AINEC.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 12 Jul 2014, 16:08
Two years hard work and fund grafting, and the creators of Star Trek Continues and Starship Farragut put together the most complete recreation of the original Desilu Soundstage.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 14 Jul 2014, 02:51
I'm not too well versed in Star Trek fan projects, but just how many films or TV shows are trying to be made under the name 'Star Trek' right now?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 14 Jul 2014, 15:35
In Process or Continuing Production

Horizon
Axanar
Star Trek Continues/Phase II
Starship Farragut
Renegades
Titan

Completed Fan Works


Of Gods and Men
Odyssey
Hidden Frontier
Aurora



That's just off the top of my head.
 
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Jul 2014, 16:40
To me, that says volumes about the effect of ST on people.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 14 Jul 2014, 23:57
And as a B5 Fan pisses me off with both Wanker Brothers and JMS being assholes about Fan Based stuff like this.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 15 Jul 2014, 00:28
what's jms done?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 15 Jul 2014, 00:47
Who is JMS?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 15 Jul 2014, 01:25
J. Michael Straczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Straczynski)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 15 Jul 2014, 05:55
The reason why Star Trek embraces the fan stuff is that the show itself has its fans to thank for its continued existence. Without fanzines, fan fictions, conventions and letter writing campaigns, ST:TMP probably never would have been made.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Jul 2014, 18:44
Exactly

And that's what's pissing the majority of the B5 Fanbase.  With the pissing contest going on between WB and JMS, and JMS and WB stomping on any possibility of a Fanbase work like those Trek has, B5 is being slowly strangled despite the fans efforts to get it going again.


And lets not mention the total frakup that was Crusade.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 15 Jul 2014, 20:49
Oh, gods, that was a disaster.  JMS is certainly a control-freak, and to some extent, I can respect that.  I wouldn't want my baby put through a blender, after all.  But seriously, he has taken it too far.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 16 Jul 2014, 01:26
i know that jms is pretty stringent in what he wants from wb in order to continue with b5, but what's he done to stomp on fanworks?

off the top of my head, i know of at least 3 fan made videogames:
http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/The_Babylon_Project
http://ifhgame.ru/
http://fieryvoid.drupalgardens.com/
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Jul 2014, 05:32
Compare that to the mass quantities of works made out of the ST universe - all of the flavors and the reboot, too.

Okay, maybe not as much out of the reboot, but you get the point.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 16 Jul 2014, 11:32
Or the number of Fan Made Vids for the Reboot BSG Universe - such as this


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 31 Jul 2014, 23:49
And. Prelude to Axenar is out.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 01 Aug 2014, 06:54
Holy shit that was incredible!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 01 Aug 2014, 16:13
And they're looking to make a Feature Film.

[Edit] Damn!  He's made that Vid Private.  anyway, here's a Link to their Kickstarter Campaign, which also has the Prelude Vid on it free to watch.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/194429923/star-trek-axanar  [/Edit]
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 06 Aug 2014, 19:41
Remember that TNG episode, "The Inner Light?"

Its writer decided to make a sequel:  "The Outer Light (http://journeytotheinnerlight.com/outerlight/page1.php)."

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 06 Aug 2014, 21:22
Hmm.  Romulans being Romans, then yeah, hedonism and decadence all the way.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Lupercal on 11 Aug 2014, 04:40
So Star Trek Nemesis was the only feature film from the TNG crew I hadn't seen, and now I kind of wish I'd never seen it in the first place.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Blue Kitty on 15 Aug 2014, 16:45
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Aug 2014, 22:49
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: ReindeerFlotilla on 24 Oct 2014, 23:22
The reboot has a few issues, but I don't really think they rise to the level of abandonment of the principles behind Star Trek.

The biggest issue being the fact that Kirk killed Nero's crew.

Beyond that, I just don't see the argument that it's not in line with the old vision.

Take The example of Kirk violating the Prime Directive. One of the themes of Into Darkness was that Kirk hadn't earned his command. Violating the Prime Directive wasn't cavalier throw away. It was Kirk establishing that he wasn't fit for the Center Seat. And Starfleet busted him to cadet for it. When Kirk hands the ship over to Spock, he admits that he doesn't belong in command. Sacrificing himself to save the ship is Kirk reaching the end of the journey: accepting the no win situation.

Argue that transwarp beaming makes starships obsolete and I will agree. They play too fast and too loose with the technology. The product placement drives along the thin line of going to far, as corporations don't make a lot of sense in the post money economy. But even things like the war hungry Starfleet officer are fully in line with trek as it was. We've seen such men. And Kirk and crew stopped them. Hell, even Mickey Smith bombing Seection 31 to save his child fits. Section 31 is basically the anti-Starfleet. It thinks it self above and beyond the morality that the rest of the federation is built on. Maybe Mickey had grown disillusioned with breaking the law for the greater good. Maybe he felt like saving his child's life that way was karmic payback.

I have issues with the new trek. But no more than I have had with old trek. I would like to see Star Trek go on to engage in the more thoughtful storytelling it is capable of. But I also recognize that it can't do that and be a summer popcorn movie. Movie goers were confused by Inception, for Geordi's sake!

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 27 Oct 2014, 07:12
There are several excellent fan films for Star Trek on YouTUBE. I spent this weekend watching an animated trilogy (11 hours total) called 'Time Warp'. It wasn't a brilliantly original work of art (the fact that the animator couldn't find a voice cast and ended up voicing all the parts himself being particularly distracting). But the underlying story is well done. It could have done with tightening up in places but, overall, a Trek very much in the style of the golden age of TNG (season 4-6).

If it had a proper voice cast and the script was a bit more tightly edited, it would compare or even transcend the limp and flabby J J Abrams offerings. The characterisation is more generally likeable and sympathetic and, whilst pathetic in his motivations, the villain is far more interesting and believably threatening than the bald Romulan in ST-2009 or the False Khan of ST-ID.

IMHO, not only has the fandom sustained and maintained Trekdom during one loss of interest by The Powers That Be, it is quite possible that fan films and fan series may continue to sustain it during the current cynical period in official attitudes towards the show. Lots of people say this but, sometimes, it takes the fans to remind you why you loved a show. These fan works generally are better than the 'professional' productions at every level.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 29 Oct 2014, 21:27
Speaking of Fan Based Vids, here's a little put together Fan Made featuring the Enterprise D

The Romulan Incident Pt.1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfcZwJq3HeM)

The Romulan Incident Pt.2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hXC1efeGt8)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 09 Nov 2014, 22:51
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 13 Nov 2014, 21:29
Star Wars is about as scientific as Harry Potter.  Is Star Wars bad?

Yeah, I brought up Wars in the Trek thread!  :parrot:
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 14 Nov 2014, 00:31
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 14 Nov 2014, 02:27
Star Wars is about as scientific as Harry Potter.  Is Star Wars bad?

The thing to remember about SW is that it isn't really a sci-fi at all. It's a fantasy story transplanted from a sword-and-sorcery world to a blaster-and-ubertech galaxy. Lucas himself once said that the story has nothing to do with sci-fi concepts and is all about "the damnation and redemption of Anakin Skywalker". Sci-fi is merely the stage upon which a nearly background-agnostic redemption arc story is played out.

Back to the topic, I've noticed that new fanfiction (and even good fanfiction) is still being posted for ST-TNG. I guess that shows the longevity of these shows because the average age of fanfiction writers is such that they probably weren't even alive when the show was aired for the first time!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 14 Nov 2014, 02:34
Is Star Wars bad?
Bad science-fiction, yes.

Why? Is it not just soft science fiction?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Grognard on 14 Nov 2014, 22:07
here's my two pence... Let's Get Out There!

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/80262c9d6b3ab86087d29a1ff38cd87e/tumblr_nep278ytK51ruox2ao1_1280.jpg)

To The Stars!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Aziraphale on 14 Nov 2014, 22:13
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 (looks like an X3, but not sure) or the one sandwiched between the Soyuz and the Enterprise E.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 15 Nov 2014, 01:36
I'm pretty sure the rocket-plane above the Space Shuttle is intended to be X-15. The vehicle above the Soyuz is an X-33 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33). I don't know why the X-1 and SR-71 are there; as far as I know, no example of either aircraft ever reached an altitude that would qualify as space flight, even by the USA's relatively low threshold of 50 miles (264,000ft. or roughly 80,000m). If they are intended as "early steps on the road", where are the Montgolfier brothers' balloons (first crewed free flight 1783), Henri Giffard's dirigible (first powered flight 1852), the Wright Flyer, and so on?

Comparing the three Star Trek universe ships, you can see what I mean about not maintaining consistency even with the rules of their own fantasy physics. I believe the front of the warp nacelles (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Bussard_Ramscoop) are supposed to be Bussard ram-scoops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet)*. OK, one can see a common thread between Phoenix (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Phoenix) and Enterprise (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(NCC-1701)), much as one sees forward-facing air-intakes on jet aircraft from the earliest experiments to the present day. Now look at Enterprise-E. The intakes are no longer radially symmetrical and face... up?

*I will leave aside the question of whether such scoops would actually work. Read the Wikipedia article.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Nov 2014, 12:06
@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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 15 Nov 2014, 14:04

I recognize most of these. I'm not sure of the one below the SR71...

That's an X-15, I think, which was designed to beat the Mach-5 barrier. It was the only aircraft before Burt Rutan's Spaceship-1 whose pilots received astronauts' wings.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 15 Nov 2014, 18:30
@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.

The Soyuz, not the Apollo.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Nov 2014, 18:44
Oh, sorry.

That's the Venture Star, Lockheed Martin's proposed replacement for the Shuttle.  It was to be a development of the cancelled X-33 Program which was officially canned in 2001
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Aziraphale on 15 Nov 2014, 19:56
Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 15 Nov 2014, 20:52
No problem

Pity they never got to complete the Venture Star.  She was a One Stage to Orbit Lifting Body which would have dramatically cut the cost of operations.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 15 Nov 2014, 22:56
Ooops, I muddled up the Venture Star with the X-33 sub-scale prototype that was cancelled after a bunch of technical problems emerged. SSTO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-stage-to-orbit) is extremely demanding from a structural and materials point of view. My favourite prototype was the VTOL McDonnell Douglas DC-X "Delta Clipper" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X), which achieved more than the X-33 project at much lower cost. But... It didn't look swooshy enough for some.

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 16 Nov 2014, 01:23
Re.: VentureStar. At the time of its cancellation, it was heading towards being a 2-stage design with a 'glide back' first stage. The key learning was that Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) for large vehicles will need radical new materials and engine technologies. Ironically, thanks to this project and also Delta Clipper, we are closer to having these. Not there yet though.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 16 Nov 2014, 08:04
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 16 Nov 2014, 12:08
There was, at one stage, a proposed development for an Airborne Launch System for the Shuttle.

This consisted of a carrying craft that, like the 747 that transported the Shuttle around, would carry the Shuttle to the edge of space using a mix of Jet and Scramjet propulsion where it would release the Shuttle then return to base for it's next mission.

No discarded Booster Tank, no SRB's, just a large manned aircraft/lifting body that could, like the Shuttle, be used as an Airborne Launch Platform and return to Earth for reuse.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Grognard on 16 Nov 2014, 17:39
so what type of sci-fi would you consider the BOLO series to be?
especially considering it usually has an AI protagonist?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 16 Nov 2014, 23:32
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.

The STS probably would have been able to deliver on a lot of the promises had the Air Force not pushed for a huge cross-range requirement and simultaneously pushed to keep titanium supplies from going towards the shuttle structure and heat shield. If the shuttle had had the metallic heat shield as originally envisioned Columbia wouldn't have happened and turn-around time would have been reduced a goodly amount. While they wouldn't have been able to reach the desired flight rate of multiple launches a week (Michoud couldn't produce that many tanks and ATK couldn't produce that many boosters, never mind stacking time in the VAB) for a couple of decades two or three launches a month would have been readily achievable.

The X-33 was a good idea that was killed by our grasp of materials science not being up to the challenge. Turns out composite structures like to de-laminate in the presence of liquid oxygen. I don't think we have a way around that one yet.
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 17 Nov 2014, 00:46
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.

None of that gives me any indication why Star Wars is not sci-fi.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 17 Nov 2014, 00:53
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.

I'd be very interested to find out the payload to LEO you could get with a reusable spacecraft like Delta Clipper boosted by a reusable first stage like that used on the Falcon-9 v.1.1. SSTO is beyond our engineering capabilities right now; reusable TSTO, on the other hand just requires someone to fund and develop it. I suspect that the only reason SpaceX isn't trying it now is because it isn't easily compatible with their commercial goal of carving out their own chunk of the commercial satellite business; that requires an expendable second stage for maximum launch efficiency.

Back on topic, whoever wrote the Enterprise opening credits got right that cheap, routine space launch is a key to human space expansion. However, the story of the ISS (formerly Space Station Freedom) shows that this must be accompanied by a fully-funded applications programme to be worthwhile. There is no point building a space infrastructure if you're not going to build a moonbase, orbital power satellites or the like.

None of that gives me any indication why Star Wars is not sci-fi.

It's simple. Star Wars does not address how science and technology affects social and other human development issues. That is a critical element of sci-fi.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 17 Nov 2014, 01:08
A quick Google suggests that the definition of sci-fi is murky as hell anyway. To be as crass as to use Wikipedia: 'Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life.' It uses at least seven of those.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Nov 2014, 05:37
That definition of Sci-Fi essentially is Star Trek.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 17 Nov 2014, 05:44
That definition of Sci-Fi essentially is Star Trek.

I think it's more of a case that, in its many decades of existence, Star Trek has managed to, at least once, match every possible definition of sci-fi. Coincidence or just the effect of despairing script-writers casting around desperately for some new story ideas? :lol:
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: kryptoknight on 17 Nov 2014, 07:44
Sci-Fi can be applied to a wide variety of stories.  Heck, technically Knight Rider can be termed Science Fiction.  Dragonriders of Pern is Science Fiction even though it can be mistaken for Fantasy easily.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 17 Nov 2014, 11:41
Pern is a mixed bag really, you might best describe it as Science Fantasy/Romance.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 17 Nov 2014, 14:04
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 17 Nov 2014, 15:37
i've got some thoughts on this topic, but no time to write them out right now.

so instead i'll just post this:

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 17 Nov 2014, 17:54
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 lot of it is a far sight better than most modern fanfic (which tends to fall into the Marigold-level).

And, if you look close enough, you may even find that a very well thought-of sci-fi author managed to work his way into one (http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/How_Much_for_Just_the_Planet%3F) of them...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 17 Nov 2014, 23:55
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...

Yeah, that era has some of my favourite Trek stories, including The Final Reflection, a  far better vision of Klingon culture than the canon 'space-Vikings' and Diane Duane's Rihannsu, created with the help of Marc 'Sarek' Lennard, which remains my canon back story for the Romulans.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 18 Nov 2014, 07:13
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Aziraphale on 18 Nov 2014, 10:47
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 Nov 2014, 07:34
"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 19 Nov 2014, 08:46
"Wagon Train to the stars" was how Rodenberry pitched it to NBC.

It turned out to be nothing of the kind, although there was a book series in the noughties about the Enterprise-A supporting a colonial expedition - literally a wagon train to the stars. They even had a few local hostile alien species to act as 'Injuns'.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 24 Nov 2014, 01:23
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.

That doesn't stop it from being sci fi. The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 05 Dec 2014, 17:58
Rejoice, Orci is no longer directing Star Trek 3. (http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/389701-breaking-bob-orci-removed-from-star-trek-3) Alas, they are most likely still using his script.


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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 23 Dec 2014, 13:35
The Dark Knight is only incidentally a superhero movie.

I've always said that "superhero movie" isn't a genre, and even if it was, Nolan's Batman movies wouldn't fall under it. It's like grouping Pirates of the Caribbean with The New World (the Terrence Mallick film) just because they both are about people people sailing around a few hundred years back in time.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 23 Dec 2014, 14:43
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.

This pedigree tells you essentially you need to know about Not!Star Trek 3. I would now need an absolutely fantastic review to inspire me to see it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 23 Dec 2014, 14:50
Does this mean Vin Diesel is going to play a Romulan renegade with a souped up Bird of Prey?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 23 Dec 2014, 15:11
And Sulu will be doing Handbrake Turns and Drifting the Enterprise to evade while the Warp Nacelle fronts boom out a Base Beat
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: GarandMarine on 18 Jan 2015, 16:06
http://trekinitiative.wikia.com/wiki/Fan_Census

Make sure you submit your fan census videos guys!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 29 Mar 2015, 23:05
I just dropped by the legendary Rifleman80s YouTube Video Channel

I am sad to report that the man known for some of the best Star Trek FanVids is, by the looks of it, out of the game.  He can no longer get Bridge Commander to work, which he uses as a basis for his Vids.

One hopes that he can get the matter sorted and get back into producing some of the best Star Trek FanVids out there.

If you're interested, here's a link to his YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/RifleMan80/featured (https://www.youtube.com/user/RifleMan80/featured)

And a small sample of his work

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onjv5xRurmc
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 07 Apr 2015, 21:50
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)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 21 May 2015, 17:55
A building in China has been modeled after the Enterprise.

(https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w540/702dfa8d75203babf5fefcfb513103fa177395e4.jpg)

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chinese-building-star-trek-uss-enterprise-chinese-119485563452.html
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 22 May 2015, 03:50
A building in China has been modeled after the Enterprise.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/chinese-building-star-trek-uss-enterprise-chinese-119485563452.html

Our oriental brethren always put us Western barbarians to shame when it comes to really proving their fanboy credentials!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 22 May 2015, 04:02
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)

"Funding was successfully sought for production during 2012 through Kickstarter and additional funding was raised through Indiegogo in 2013. Another fundraising campaign, focusing on visual effects, was started on Indiegogo on April 3, 2014, and concluded on May 18, 2014."

-  Wikipedia




..right, ok.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 22 May 2015, 15:44
It takes a lot of cash to create something as ambitious as Renegades, even with actors with the calibre of Tim Russ, Robert Picardo and Walter Koenig working 'At Scale' or even involved in Production as Russ is.

Granted, it's taken a while, and got passed in a way by Axenar, which is now in the process of putting it's Studio together after the success of Prelude, but one has hopes.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 03 Jun 2015, 19:31
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/
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 04 Jun 2015, 01:31
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/

Proof that the Abrams Trekverse is in trouble, IMO: They're seriously thinking of resurrecting the supposedly-retired Next Generation continuity. (NOTE: 'Seriously thinking' does not mean 'going to'. Talks, discussions, proposals and the like can take years before a decision is made to green-light preproduction and may not even get that far).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 04 Jun 2015, 16:27
Meanwhile, the fan base in varying forms will keep Trek alive, and with two major Kickstarter funded Trekverse productions in the works as well as Star Trek Continues/Phase II out there, it keeps things interesting.

Horizon is also another one, but I have doubts about that one.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 05 Jun 2015, 21:42
It should be noted that multiple Trek timelines can coexist because Trek isn't a universe:  it's a multiverse (http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Parallels_%28episode%29) (ironically thanks to Worf.)

Hell, the first lines of the show could be "Wasn't it sad when Spock was killed stopping that supernova that almost destroyed Romulus?  Imagine the bizarre chain of events that would have unfolded if he failed!"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 11 Jul 2015, 18:20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K723TV7GZFQ
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 27 Jul 2015, 16:02
Star Trek:Renegades sets World Premiere in August (http://www.thewrap.com/star-trek-renegades-sets-world-premiere-at-las-crest-theater-in-august-exclusive/)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 18 Aug 2015, 17:21
It's been confirmed that Star Trek: Renegades will be picked up as an Independent Internet TV Series with Walter Koneig signing on for at least two more episodes as Admiral Chekov.

It will also be released on YouTube from September 30th, so those of you who have not had the chance to see it at the selected Cons it was shown at will be able to see it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 18 Aug 2015, 23:45
Paramount should be sweating: They've lost control of the cash cow to the fans!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 19 Aug 2015, 16:53
Considering the kludge they've fed us in the last two films, I'm glad

May wake the bastards up





I know, I know, wishful thinking.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 19 Aug 2015, 18:55
Seriously though:  Admiral Chekov?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 20 Aug 2015, 17:05
Full Cast List Here (http://startrekrenegades.com/home/cast/)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 21 Aug 2015, 19:48
For those of you who might be interested in some info on the other Fan Based Project that is currently underway, here's a little something from Trek Yards on The Ships Of Axanar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRrFazK4ELU)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 03 Sep 2015, 12:21
Just watched Renegades! Don't worry, there will only be one spoiler at the very end!

Not perfect; far from it. The first quarter is a bit awkward and I think the scenes where they're trying to introduce the main characters is badly scripted and has the feeling of a 20-minute scene dropped down to 5 minutes because of run time issues.

(click to show/hide)

The whole thing could have used with re-editing and maybe a further few months re-shoot of several scenes.

That said, it is a production with a heart. You can tell the the cast and crew believed in their roles and tried to make them work. Both the plot of the episode itself and the seeming larger meta-plot is instantly engaging and captures my interest in a way that Broken Bow and the Temporal Cold War never did. I found myself caring about the characters whilst still questioning whether they are all necessarily 'good guys'. I could see myself following this series in a way that I never felt entirely bound to follow Enterprise or even Voyager. I wanted to see this through to the end and that is something that Star Trek - 2009 and Into Darkness completely failed to do for me.

Overall? I'd give it 6/10.

The first quarter of the film, as I said, leaves a lot to be desired and the Plot Device was used unbelievably on several occasions throughout. However, it has great potential and offers a fascinating possibility of looking into the seedy underbelly of Gene Roddenberry's 'Perfect Future'.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 04 Sep 2015, 20:31
While watching that movie, this was the thing that kept repeating in my brain.

Quote from: Superintendent Chalmers
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?

Chekhov's granddaughter could have been edited out without losing anything.  I also got the impression her roommate was supposed to be more than a roommate.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 05 Sep 2015, 00:07
(click to show/hide)

Yeah, I get the impression that lots of characters were introduced with the intention of being far more important and their early appearances filmed before a later script revision reduced them to the status of talking extras. Key Learning: don't film as you raise funds; finish and edit the script first!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 05 Sep 2015, 15:53
Which is what Axanar has done.

Looking forward to that.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 02 Nov 2015, 09:48
New Series in January 2017
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017 (http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 02 Nov 2015, 10:01
I wonder if this is the show that they were supposedly discussing with Michael Dorn?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 02 Nov 2015, 11:03
I think that that was the Captain Worf series and I don't think that that went very far.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 02 Nov 2015, 18:32
I was excited about the new series until I learned CBS is putting it on a subscription based streaming service.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 03 Nov 2015, 13:27
http://nypost.com/2015/11/02/cbs-is-already-ruining-the-star-trek-tv-reboot/
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 07 Nov 2015, 12:28
And as a balance to my previous Post

http://wordofthenerdonline.com/2015/11/star-trek-fans-need-face-reality-cbss-new-trek-series/
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 07 Nov 2015, 17:51
The second article somewhat misses the point of the outrage. Nobody as far as I know is expecting to see Star Trek for free. Even if it was on broadcast TV the advertising would still pay for the show. (Is that even a thing anymore in the US? Pretty much everything is cable, satellite or streaming these days.)  The thing most people I'm hearing are upset about is that it's so nakedly a pull to try to get people to sign up for their new streaming service. Streaming services are not bad. They're actually quite good value for the money... Because it allows you to view a huge range of shows or movies. Their stream will only handle their content, obviously. If that's something that you are interested in, fair enough. And giving their show line up, there's probably a good deal of old content many people would be happy to pay the $6 a month to watch.

What most of the 'You're killing the new Star Trek' crowd seems to be up in arms about is the feeling that they CBS is holding the new show hostage. That to watch it, you HAVE to sign up for their new service. Of course, there's nothing to say you couldn't sign up during the time that show is on and enjoy 4 roughly hours a month of New Trek for $6, plus all the old Trek and other shows you care to watch. But what we are seeing is human nature. Even if you are giving someone something they want, but making it seem like something they HAVE to do, they will resent it. Consider small children and naps. On the other hand, convince a group of people that they WANT to do something or even better yet, convince them it's their idea in the first place, and they will empty their wallets, hand you their clothes and sit happily in their stripped out homes, thinking what a great deal they got...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 07 Nov 2015, 19:47
I think that's a lot of it.  If it were going to be on Netflix, or Hulu, I don't think that there would be this outcry.  As it is, I really don't see any compelling reason to sign up for yet another service that has such limited content (Next Gen and DS9 are on Netflix) compared to the competition.  If I do end up seeing this new series, sadly, I'll be sitting under a Jolly Roger.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Grognard on 08 Nov 2015, 19:17
me too.
weekly episodes should be easily found online less than 30 minutes after they air.

fuck CBS.  they'll probably screw up the show anyway.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 08 Nov 2015, 22:47
I hope not, but I hold judgement.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 09 Nov 2015, 19:17
I don't download pirated content because I'm an honest, hardworking American.  Also, I don't know how.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 10 Nov 2015, 00:44
Meh. The last iteration of Star Trek, Enterprise, was bad enough that I stopped watching after... two seasons, I think, and Voyager was very patchy, so I don't really care any more. I think the big problem for Star Trek is not so much how they charge for it, as the dud quality of the product.

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 10 Nov 2015, 01:37
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.

That may not be true anymore. Recall that Enterprise was cancelled early due to collapsing fan interest. In very many ways Star Trek - Nemesis was the last hoorah of the previous iteration of the show. Its qualified fan reception failure, IMHO at least, led directly to the Abramsverse reboot (which also seems to be in trouble).

The real problem isn't that Paramount/Viacom is unwilling to spend money and talent on the Trek franchise. They've proven that they're willing to sink tens of millions into it, if necessary. The problem seems to be that they genuinely don't seem to understand what the fanbase wants. Or, if they do, they lack confidence that pleasing the fan-base would be financially viable so they're trying to make popcorn-fare instead.

That said, fan ventures do seem to be doing well, so if The Powers That Be want clues, they only really have to look on YouTUBE to see what fans think Star Trek should look and feel like.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 10 Nov 2015, 07:50
The difference to me though Akima, is I actually think most of the Star Wars media is good. Yes, even the prequels despite the horrible decisions made by George Lucas in story and some of the terrible acting. I think the cartoon series have been great and I'm looking forward to the new movies with hope. On the other hand... Star Trek has for me declined in quality so much over the years that I haven't even seen Into Darkness, and probably won't ever bother. Voyager was very meh. Despite having a female captain, I couldn't get interested in any of the characters or their story. I never finished the first season. 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. Which isn't bad. It just left me feeling in the middle. I hated JJ Abrams' reboot. Saw it once, immediately regretted it and it's a large part why I don't care about Into Darkness or anything else Trek he does. Ironically enough, after seeing the movie, I said he would have done great on a Star Wars film, but he just didn't get what made Star Trek different than most science fiction shows.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 10 Nov 2015, 13:58
Enterprise had potential, and while the first Season was OK and was, IMO, getting better, they lost me when they introduced that damnable Xindi arc. 

Here they had the opportunity after Season One to move the story forward into the founding of the Federation and the Romulan War, but they introduced that damned arc which made no sense to me considering just how much  back canon materieal, and they throw it all away for a stupid arc like that.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 10 Nov 2015, 14:41
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.

Slumping back into the old "white male Anglo-Americans run everything" comfy chair didn't help either. There was always a huge element of lip-service in Roddenberry's "vision" of an enlightened, post-nationalist, inclusive future, but he at least had the excuse of working on ST:TOS in the Sixties when he  rolled out the Federation as "the USA IN SPACE". The producers of Enterprise certainly didn't do anything different; they recast as bad-guys the Vulcans, the only non-human species to be treated consistently as anything like equal to humans across the previous ST cannon, and the notorious "America did everything ever in the history of space exploration" opening-credits sequence suggests that it never occurred to them to question the model.

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 11 Nov 2015, 21:46
Enterprise got pretty good in its fourth season, but by then it was too little too late.

The first two seasons were trying to replicate TOS about 40 years too late.  The third season tried to replicate the War on Terror DS9 half-assedly.

Some of the best Trek episodes (and movies) are the ones that ignore Roddenberry's rules.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 14 Dec 2015, 09:22
Tariler out. I.. I don't think it looks too good. Standard dumb "witty" dialogue. The make up design is pretty cool tho.

Also, reusing "Sabotage" from the first movie is pretty cheap.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 14 Dec 2015, 12:39
Aaaand the dumbing down of Trek is now complete.

Thank you Darth JayJay.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 14 Dec 2015, 13:32
It looks like that could be a cool action film. But where's the Star Trek trailer?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 15 Dec 2015, 01:21
There is so much about this film that indicates once again that the production team at Bad Robot simply don't get Star Trek.

Worse still... it looks like the Enterprise is getting badly shot up, again (has this ship ever flown a mission without coming back needing a six-month rebuild?) My nightmare scenario: They're going to destroy it outright because it's the third movie and that's what happens in the third movie, right? You blow up the Enterprise so they can get a shiny new one in the fourth! You have Khan in the second and blow up the Enterprise in the third! That's the winning formula, right? If the script for Reboot-4 is already under construction with whales forming a central plank of the plot...? Well, anyway, this one looks bad enough that it will kill the Reboot continuity so, hopefully, we won't have to 'look forward' to that.

Aaaand the dumbing down of Trek is now complete.

This was an outcome that we should have expected the minute they hired a guy whose résumé includes 'The Fast and the Furious' to direct this one.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 16 Dec 2015, 15:04
So, they have Kirk ramping a motorcycle over... a shark?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 16 Dec 2015, 17:14
Funny. I thought the reboot jumped the shark in the first movie.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 16 Dec 2015, 19:18
We have reached the synergy between the ST and SW universes.

The new Star Trek is "No New Hope."
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 17 Dec 2015, 12:42
And much like George did, Paramount seems to be going out of its way to fuck the legacy.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Masterpiece on 17 Dec 2015, 15:31
Simon Pegg does not like the Star Trek Beyond trailer. (http://www.polygon.com/2015/12/17/10449178/simon-pegg-does-not-like-the-star-trek-beyond-trailer)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 17 Dec 2015, 23:22
You can't help but wonder if this is a damage-control exercise after the marketing team realised just how totally the trailer has turned off Star Trek fans.

It sort of reminds me of the desperate attempts to  get people to watch Pearl Harbour after the critics panned it, the word of mouth was bad and the crowds stayed away. "Don't believe what you've seen and read! See it and you will enjoy it! We promise!"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 18 Dec 2015, 07:27
Hah. As long as it's a franchise you don't care that much about doing poorly, it's always fun reading about the backpedaling, blame shifting and do-overs of the studios!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 18 Dec 2015, 12:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axTdv68wIvk
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 30 Dec 2015, 15:11
Seems Paramount is suddenly having issues with Axanar (http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-suddenly-wants-to-put-a-stop-to-axanar-the-crowdfu-1750290696?rev=1451493896255&utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_facebook&utm_source=io9_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 30 Dec 2015, 19:38
Palms were meant for greasing.

Hypothetical scenario:  A Star Trek movie with Gary Seven as the villain.  Too silly to take seriously, or the launch of a thousand nerdgasms?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 30 Dec 2015, 21:28
Either way, this is going to set a legal precedent in regards to projects like this.  It could have a knock on effect for those already in progress - PhaseII/Continues, Renegades, Farragut etc.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 30 Dec 2015, 23:25
Likely said in the CBS/Paramount meeting room: "We all know our official product is substandard crap. The only way that we can draw any viewers is to make it the only show in town! If we don't, our subscription channel will crash and burn!"

"Yeah! Besides, they were making too much money! Where's our cut?"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 31 Dec 2015, 14:45
[KoshVoice]You do not deserve a cut[/KoshVoice]
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 05 Jan 2016, 15:22
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr_1K5YOAq0
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 05 Jan 2016, 21:09
Yeah. That.

*Sigh.*
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: sitnspin on 05 Jan 2016, 23:51
I'll admit my knowledge of Star Trek is extremely limited, but the idea that anyone will be listen to the Beastie Boys in 200 years seems a bit ludicrous.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 06 Jan 2016, 12:37
I dunno, the Klingons might like it  :-D
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 06 Jan 2016, 14:03
"You have never listened to 'License to Ill' until you've heard it in the original Klingon!"
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 07 Jan 2016, 13:54
Hmmmm


I wonder what AC/DC's Thunderstruck would sound like in Klingon.


Or even anything by Motorhead
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 07 Jan 2016, 14:05
Somebody has probably done it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 07 Jan 2016, 14:15
THAT wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 07 Jan 2016, 18:25
Bing Translator (http://www.bing.com/translator/?ref=SALL&br=ro&mkt=en-US) speaks Klingon.


vaj gamble ghaytan SoH, loD qaja'
vay', SoHvaD Qap 'op luj, Hoch rap jIHvaD
QujmeH, vaj nuq Dajatlh mIw, ponglIj pagh difference bel
greed ghewmey SoH jIH, neH chaw' Sumqu'
spades, ace spades ace
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: celticgeek on 07 Jan 2016, 19:49
'IwlIj jachjaj!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 07 Jan 2016, 21:00
SUHAY'DI' BANG! SoHvaD maw' yItungHa', qaH QaQ baS porgh Damo' ghaH!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 09 Jan 2016, 04:33
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...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 09 Jan 2016, 07:50
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 a time-travelling secret agent. He's only a 'villain' from the protagonists' perspective and is, in fact, trying to change the timeline back. This gives The Powers That Be a chance to undo the entire reboot and turn it into a temporal hiccup if they choose at the end of the story.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 09 Jan 2016, 08:35
He's a time-travelling secret agent semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 10 Jan 2016, 17:58
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...

Well obviously there's a shape-shifting cat-girl!  Geez!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 14 Jan 2016, 21:08
I recently found a place to download Michael Piller's unpublished book, "Fade In:  The Writing of Star Trek Insurrection."  It's a surprisingly compelling read for how disappointing the movie was.  There were a few ideas rejected that could have made the movie unintentionally hilarious, and some rejected ideas could have made the movie tolerable.  I don't think I can attach a .pdf so I'll link to another forum where you can download it.

http://nightly.net/topic/67586-fade-in-the-writing-of-star-trek-insurrection-by-michael-pillar/#entry1976323
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 13 Mar 2016, 21:25
Some interesting news regarding Axanar.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/paramount-cbs-list-the-ways-star-trek-fanfic-axanar-infringes-copyright/

I think there are valid views on both sides.. Paramount, in all fairness, does have the right to protect its property, but there also is the viewpoint that, with a franchise as old as this, one could put a case that it's in public domain. I think if they can and have reached a compromise, it will speak well for the future for both sides of the argument.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 14 Mar 2016, 22:07
Wrong link?

But the Axanar producers invalidated their arguments the moment they started using Kickstarter money to pay themselves salaries and found a for-profit studio. They're making money off an IP they don't own, might as well dance in front of CBS headquarters with a giant, flashing SUE ME sign. It's a damn shame they decided to go the shady route because the concepts looked amazing and that's an era of Trek that's ripe for exposition, not even the books are working in that time period.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 15 Mar 2016, 02:27
Fan film recommendation: Star Trek: Horizon (http://www.startrekhorizon.com/).

It's no-where near as ambitious as Renegades or Anaxar. However, it is a solid little amateur dramatic production with lots of thought being put into characterisation and plotting. It got the things right (coherent, progressive plot) that it needed to get right and clearly put resources into things like post-production only after they were sure of the story.

Furthermore, It is the story that makes Horizon stand out.
(click to show/hide)

Don't watch this if you want an Abrams-esque popcorn flick. Watch it if you want to see a fan of Enterprise try to rediscover the essential atmosphere of TOS.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 15 Mar 2016, 02:31
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 18 Mar 2016, 21:00
Some of the dialogue in Horizons felt cheesy, but that could result from inexperienced actors.  There weren't as many abandoned plot points as Renegades.  Shaky-cam during the action scenes was tolerable, but felt silly for exposition scenes.

The movie could have used more intrigue.  Perhaps clues could have been dropped to make us wonder if T'mar was a defector or a spy?  I know TNG made that episode, but it's a good episode and this movie could have used more B-plot.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 13 Apr 2016, 15:26
Something from the rumor mill about the new series

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/04/13/the-new-star-trek-tv-show-will-be-set-before-the-next-generation
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 19 May 2016, 08:35
http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-2017/ (http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-2017/)

Comes out next January.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 May 2016, 14:19
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)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 19 May 2016, 17:21
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
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 19 May 2016, 18:31
...I have no idea what you're talking about.  :angel: :roll:






 :oops:
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 19 May 2016, 23:25
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)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 19 May 2016, 23:53
And that would just be more proof that Paramount has 'Jumped The Shark' as far as the Trek Franchise is concerned.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: mustang6172 on 20 May 2016, 19:04
Some of the Star Trek titles Bryan Fuller wrote have me worried about the new series, but most of the bad ones were co-written by Kenneth Biller so there's plenty of blame to spread.

Every Trek series usually needs a couple years to not suck, so this seasonal anthology idea could crash and burn quickly.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 20 May 2016, 19:45
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)

No.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 20 May 2016, 22:08
So, word currently doing the rounds is that Abrams has gone to Paramount and gotten them to drop the Lawsuit against Axanar. I'll wait for the official confirmation from both sides I think, but if that's true, it may be good news for Fan Based Trek Series
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 21 May 2016, 09:32
This one looks a LOT better than that first one.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 21 May 2016, 16:47
Yeah, meant to Post that as well. 

It does look good, at least it's better than that abortion of a first Trailer.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Gladstone on 21 May 2016, 21:17
This one looks a LOT better than that first one.

Yeah, but the movie still has all the stuff that was in the first trailer, doesn't it?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 21 May 2016, 23:25
Yeah

It's still JJ's Star Wars Trek
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 22 May 2016, 05:46
Yeah

It's still JJ's Star Wars Trek

Could somebody kill that "male protagonist overcomes Daddy issues"-trope already?

Man, that one gave me the eyerollz even back in the day when Top Gun came out, and I still had Daddy issues ... and pimples.

Or is it that JJ got the Franchises confused? Can we expect a "I am your Father, James!"?  (Possibly in Star Trek VII: Showdown at Ac'ne) :psyduck:
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: ChaoSera on 22 May 2016, 06:16
So are the enemies supposed to be Cardassians? Or do they just look kinda similar when they are not all glowy?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Edguy on 22 May 2016, 06:41
So are the enemies supposed to be Kardashians?

They do look like they've undergone about the same amount of surgery and makeup, at least.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 22 May 2016, 14:05
It's official

The Axanar Lawsuit has been dropped  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQDCtcRVOiY
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 23 Jul 2016, 20:27
Something for Trek fans to drool over with regards to the upcoming Star Trek Live Action series (http://epicstream.com/news/Star-Trek-Discovery-Announced-as-The-New-Series-Coming-to-CBS)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 23 Jul 2016, 23:12
Meh... Not greatly impressed; someone's basically slapped a saucer on top of an inverted Klingon D7 fuselage.

That said... I've seen that design somewhere before. Wait a minute! I've got it! It's one of Ralph McQuarrie's original ideas for the new Enterprise during the early pre-production of The abortive Star Trek - Phase II series! Interesting, so they've literally decided to go back to TOS's 'rejected ideas' bin! I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

The reuse of the McQuarrie Enterprise is mentioned here (http://trekmovie.com/2016/07/23/breaking-fuller-announces-new-series-titled-star-trek-discovery/).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: ChaoSera on 24 Jul 2016, 02:28
I like the design, even though I agree that it looks like a combination of Klingon and Federation ship design. I just hope the actual series' CGI will be better than that (it almost certainly will be, I was just surprised at this).

Also it was recently announced that outside of the US, the new show will be carried by Netflix, which is just fantastic news to me.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 29 Sep 2016, 11:40
From the newest movie, when they evacuate the bridge they get into Kelvin Pods.  Is this a direct allusion to the USS Kelvin in the first movie which had no way of evacuating the bridge quick enough to avoid being destroyed?  Thus killing Kirks dad?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 02 Oct 2016, 23:47
R.I.P the Star Trek Franchise as CBS/Paramount gives a two fingered salute to the fanbase in this, its 50th year.


 http://www.idigitaltimes.com/star-trek-discovery-timeline-will-alter-tos-alien-physiology-cosplayers-take-note-552886#.V_CZkjyazgc.facebook
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 02 Oct 2016, 23:52
Early warning of disaster: "We don't care about the existing continuity" was one of the show-runners' conceits that killed Enterprise. Discovery may be doomed before episode one airs.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 03 Oct 2016, 14:28
Part of my thinking as well.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 03 Oct 2016, 17:13
They just make shit up (oblig Voltaire)

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 04 Oct 2016, 10:39
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 10 Oct 2016, 13:12
I was just sobering up after being enormously stoned when I saw Beyond, and that swarm thing at the start was SOMETHING.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 26 Oct 2016, 22:19
Bryan Fuller's out (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-hc-bryan-fuller-star-trek-showrunner-20161026-story.html)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 27 Oct 2016, 01:47
Wait... What?
Quote
"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."

So... Either the "female lead" is not a starship Captain, or they have a canon-continuity problem with the awful "Turnabout Intruder", don't they? Or were women disqualified from commanding starships somewhere in that ten years?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 27 Oct 2016, 01:52
The back-story of Turnabout Intruder is an embarrassment and I'm really shocked that they didn't take the opportunity to heavily rewrite and redub the dialogue for the Remastered release of the show. The best fan-rewrite of it that I've read was that Dr Lester had some untreatable mental illness and was invalided out of the command track at the Academy on those grounds.

FWIW, the female lead on Star Trek: Discovery is a lieutenant commander; likely a division CO aboard the Discovery under the captain and first officer.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 27 Oct 2016, 15:40
i've always suspected that the real backstory behind that episode might actually be a bitter roddenberry taking one last swipe at the network executives who wouldn't let him cast his girlfriend as the first officer.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 27 Oct 2016, 23:51
But she did get to play Nurse 



I'll be over there next to the guy in the red shirt
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 28 Oct 2016, 03:41
hidden under a blonde wig & a stage-name, if i recall correctly
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 07 Nov 2016, 20:21
https://steveoreviewsmovies.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/a-disappointing-trek-the-failure-of-star-trek-beyond-and-paramounts-botched-opportunity-with-treks-50th-anniversary/
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 25 Nov 2016, 02:16
I have no idea how reliable this is, but I heard rumours about it on the Chinese grape-vine, and then came across:

"Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon‘s Michelle Yeoh is heading into the final frontier with Star Trek: Discovery. Sources confirm to Deadline that the upcoming CBS All Access iteration of the fabled franchise will see Yeoh playing a Starfleet Captain (http://deadline.com/2016/11/star-trek-discovery-michelle-yeoh-cast-captain-1201859554/)."

It goes on to say that her ship will be named Shenzhou, by which I assume they mean 神舟 (Shénzhōu) which is the name of the current series of Chinese crewed spacecraft, so it's a bit like putting a Russian actor in a ship called Vostock or Soyuz. :roll:  I am confident that the cast will all mispronounce Shénzhōu, with the exception of Ms. Yeoh, unless the producers insist that she not show everyone else up. She was the only cast-member of Tomorrow Never Dies to pronounce Beijing correctly. :P

One hopes the Bujold curse does not strike again.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 25 Nov 2016, 15:14
It's been Posted a couple of times on one or two Star Trek FB Pages over the last couple of days Akima with a confirming Update going up on main one I follow, so I'm assuming it's confirmed.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: J on 25 Nov 2016, 17:16
star trek has never exactly been known for subtlety
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 11 Feb 2017, 20:27
Oh Grud no!! (http://io9.gizmodo.com/this-might-be-our-first-look-at-the-klingons-in-star-tr-1792262881)


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 12 Feb 2017, 01:10
Once again, The Powers That Be at Trekville demonstrate their inability to understand the show's iconography and its fans. What's the bet this mess is going to be set in the Abramsverse with the attendant inability to understand why the fans instinctively reject it?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 19 Feb 2017, 16:06
OK this snuck under my Radar, so some of you who may have been paying better and close attention ot this will be aware that a new Trailer for Discovery came out last month The business with what appears to be the new Klingons aside, I think that this Vid I just came across is an interesting comparison Still not happy with some aspects of how this is going, but it's interesting to compare.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: shanejayell on 19 Feb 2017, 19:16
Hopes this will be better than JJ Verse Trek.

At least cut down on the damn lens flares...  :-P
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 19 Feb 2017, 23:22
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 20 Feb 2017, 01:49
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.

Huh? Millennials now unsure on the definition of 'human'?

Those rascals ...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 20 Feb 2017, 06:37
The ship has a very old school Bird of Prey feel to it. To be honest, I haven't paid much attention to the news about the show. The last few attempts to do a new Trek seem to be getting further and further away from the roots of the show in the name of giving it a more action aspect and a big tied together storyline. The storyline part is to be expected in movies... But part of the appeal of Original and Next Generation was they could tell all these separate stories and not feel the need to tie everything back to one central narrative. There were recurring villains, sure. But it's not like there was some massive galactic conspiracy going on. Also trying to reinvent the story and background gets old for any follow up series.

What kills my interest though is putting it on their private pay service. Clearly it's there to be a big front running show to get people in. 'Pay to watch the new Star Trek, and you can see all our other content too!'. Sorry, no thanks. Not that I'm opposed to pay services mind you. I've had a Netflix subscription for years. The difference being that CBS is running both a free and pay service. Choosing to put Star Trek on their pay service in a clear attempt to get people to subscribe to me is a big middle finger to the Trek fan base. And I'm happy to return it to them and walk away.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 20 Feb 2017, 14:45
Actually, the guys behind Trek Yards did a Podcast on this and it was an interesting discussion between them over it.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 26 Feb 2017, 16:58
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?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 26 Feb 2017, 23:33
The point is, Akima, that modern media has a pathological fear of offending... someone... anyone. In attempting to avoid this, they usually end up offending everyone because they refuse to acknowledge very real issues and things that make different people unique.

Star Trek has had this problem (sanitising differing versions of the human condition and human cultures until they are blandly indistinguishable) as far back as the start of the Next Generation era but it has got much worse. My fear is that it is going to get worse yet.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 27 Feb 2017, 12:35
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?

As a Gen-X-®, I feel hurt and offended by your erasure of my age-group.  :cry:

J'accuse!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 27 Feb 2017, 14:34
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:
(click to show/hide)

I wonder if some people think that Hollywood is afraid of offending people, simply because women, ethnic minorities, people with the "wrong" religion, gays etc. are not entirely excluded, or not depicted in a sufficiently negative way, to conform with their prejudices. Consider the way an element of Star Wars fans went bonkers when two successive films had prominent female characters, after six consecutive films, and a bunch of animated TV series, with male protagonists. Or the way Browncoats swoon over Firefly despite its depiction of Chinese people as no more than a bunch of coolies in the background with nothing to say.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 27 Feb 2017, 15:10
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 01 Mar 2017, 09:43
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.

All this - and don't forget the biblethumpers who wanted Spock dropped from the show because he somehow reminded them of the Devil.

One could make an argument out of Jadzia Dax challenging binary gender norms (in a very, very milquetoast way), whatwith Dax having zero concerns about going from living an entire life in a male body to embracing living in a female one (albeit, both bodies seemed to display none of the neurological complications at the heart of gender-dysphoria in many *trans people, so one could argue that Dax' 'transition' was a purely spiritual one), and Cisco's affectionately calling her 'old man' every so often.

I really liked what Jolene Blalock and Connor Trineer did with their respective characters in Enterprise - to me, it was a very slow and very subtle challenging of gender-roles, at times driven by Blalock's mastery at weaving into her lines the infinitely slow evolution/erosion of T'Pols emotional control over many episodes, at other times by Trineer being man enough to be the Enterprise's version of Firefly's Kaylee (Cheerful, adorable hornball country-bumpkin-and-genius-mechanic - and the first pregnant cisman in the Federation's history) that culminated in their troubled relationship-attempt, which I thought hinted at a striking (and touching) role-reversal of traditional gender-norms. To me, it felt like Trip finding the strength to show the hope, anxiety and grief that T'pol could not express in all but the most painfully restrained gestures acted as a kind of "Verfremdungseffect" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distancing_effect) - highlighting the essentially pathological underpinnings of stoic masculinity gone toxic by showcasing the 'familiar' in a 'foreign' framework.

So while one could argue that none of that was as groundbreaking relative to the prevalent cultural mores of the times as TOS had been, I don't quite see the Franchise totally abandoning that heritage.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 01 Mar 2017, 12:08
Indeed.

I felt let down by the cop out ending of the Dax/Khan story.  It would have been interesting to see them go against Trill Convention and would have certainly taken Trek back into its roots of storytelling.

I think the closest any mainstream Sci-Fi show got to a same sex relationship in show was B5 with the Winters/Ivanova tale and it only ended after Andrea Thompson decided to walk away from the series for personal reasons.

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 01 Mar 2017, 13:44
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.


They were doing the breast they could (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Pillarian_slip)?  :bigclaireface:

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 02 Mar 2017, 13:46
Oh boy.


No wonder he quit Starfleet and went to work in New Orleans  :-D  ;)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 09 Mar 2017, 14:47
Anf the speculation and rumour mill grinds on


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 09 Mar 2017, 14:55
I've just watched that video and it gives me chills. Those rumours speak of a production doomed and it could take the Star Trek franchise with it.
(click to show/hide)
These are only rumours but, if even a fraction of it is true, then Discovery is in mortal peril. All because a studio executive thought that he knew how to sell to the fan-base better than a life-long fan.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 11 May 2017, 10:01
Several other forum members have asked me where I got my starship avatar. It is a Bridge Commander model of the original draft idea for the second USS Enterprise, seen at the end of 'Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home'. Just in case you're interested,
here is a fan-page about the ill-fated ENTERPRISE-class heavy cruiser project (http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/uss-enterprise-nx-1701-a.php).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 11 May 2017, 15:40
Interesting Ben

The Phase II Web Series did what I thought was a very interesting 'Mid Life' Upgrade/Refit for their Enterprise

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 12 May 2017, 00:06
Aaannnd yet another fan series reminds us why 'Star Trek - Discovery' is going to have a literal mountain to climb to get anywhere.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 12 May 2017, 17:02
And why CBS/Paramount is doing its level best to dictate and control what the fans out there are doing because the stuff coming  out from them is, to a certain extent, leaving CBS/Paramount in the dust.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 17 May 2017, 23:04
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 17 May 2017, 23:36
So, basically, the Klingons aren't Vikings anymore, they're now orcs. Also, because... reasons... they've decided to redo Spock's entire "Am I Vulcan or am I Human?" subplot with the main character (because there are no original ideas left).

Okay, I know trailers are deceptive. CBS are telling us what they want us to think the show is about, not necessarily what it is about, so I'll withhold judgement on these things for now. One thing about which I will not withhold judgement is the appropriation of the original Babylon 5 crew uniforms.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 18 May 2017, 02:17
What is it about the Klingons? Vulcans, Romulans, Andorians, Humans, Ferengi... all consistently represented physically (give or take the odd rubber forehead) but this is, what, the third revamp of the Klingons?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 18 May 2017, 17:10
Third time's the charm??
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 18 May 2017, 23:09
It seems particularly silly considering the ridiculous retcon/justification inserted into Enterprise for the change in appearance of Klingons from ST:TOS to ST:TMP and later. So now the canon is that they changed, changed back, changed again, changed back again... Or is canon a thing any more?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 18 May 2017, 23:24
That's an interesting question, Akima. I'm increasingly wondering if each separate 'incarnation' of Trek (the original series & movies 1-6, the four 'Next Generation-era' shows and movies 7-9, the Abramsverse and now Discovery) should be considered parallel continuities that are similar but not identical and do not necessarily have the same histories and even the same physical laws in the background.

I'm not opposed to this concept. I would even argue that there is some basis for this in the official materials. For example, in The Original Series, warp factors were the cube root of the vessel's velocity multiplier of the speed of light. In The Next Generation, it was altered to a logarithmic scale that reached infinity at Warp 10 and Enterprise added a new modifier where certain subspace conditions could allow a starship to travel far faster than their notional warp speed and that there were 'express routes' between some major systems like Sol and Q'on'os (something that some writers, most notably William Shatner's ghostwriter, have suggested is artificial and possibly the work of the Next Generation-era's ancient God-species/progenitors of all intelligent life, the Preservers... but I digress). Simon Pegg (who ended up effectively writing Star Trek - Beyond) has also explicitly stated that his understanding is that the Abramsverse is a parallel universe rather than a divergent timeline.

As I said, there's no reason why this couldn't work and I'm happy enough with it as a meta-explanation. However, I'd have been grateful if this were clearly stated somehow. Spock could have mentioned it in ST2009 and, if they are doing the interdimensional thing in Discovery, it wouldn't be hard to drop it in (maybe have one of the Discovery's scans of the Swirly Space Anomaly Thingy show the Enterprise under Captain Pike).
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 19 May 2017, 01:27
With the way Discovery looks so far I'm having trouble believing all their protestations that it's in the Prime universe and isn't 10 years before ST '09. At this point they're flatly contradicting the visual aesthetic established in 'The Cage' and slightly continued in 'Where No Man Has Gone Before'. Canon has been kinda squiggly since the TV and movie rights were split up in '05 though.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 19 May 2017, 16:28
One  of my own concerns is that Paramount/CBS essentially keeps 'Shitting On The Fanbase'.  If there is any way for them to kill off 'The Golden Goose', it's to continue to poss off and alienate  the fans the way they have in the recent few years.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 31 Aug 2017, 01:59
Well, it looks like Discovery isn't dead in the water... yet. It's just turned up on Netflix to be released September 25th.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 31 Aug 2017, 02:12
An interesting bit of information has emerged about both the J J Abrams reboot and Star Trek - Discovery.

It turns out that, when Viacom was split into Paramount Pictures and CBS Television by court order, CBS retained all rights to the Star Trek license and Paramount had only the right to make films and TV shows that had the name 'Star Trek'. Consequently, they would have needed to negotiate a separate license to use the trademarked imagery and art designs (such as the classic show uniforms, the starship designs and the set designs). Paramount have been unwilling to do so and CBS have apparently been somewhat unreasonable on the terms they are offering anyway. So, the reason why both the Abramsverse and Discovery look so different from the classic Trek, either subtly (as in the case of the Abramsverse uniforms) or overtly (the Discovery uniforms, starship aesthetic and Klingon make-up designs) is because they legally have to be different or Paramount & Bad Robot would be breaking trademark and copyright law.

It seems that the destiny of Star Trek is to die by being impaled by a pen on a copyright attorney's desk!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 31 Aug 2017, 15:35
That's fucking ridiculous

I've known THREE year old children better behaved than that!!!!!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Aug 2017, 16:21
That said, the design of the Discovery resembles that of the ship for the cancelled 70s Star Trek film Planet of the Titans. When the film was cancelled, it was instead used for the proposed television series Star Trek Phase 2. Which itself was cancelled. And why we ended up with Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Which in a way, makes Discovery the series before the films in more ways than one.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 24 Sep 2017, 19:54
YouTube Reviewer Emergency Awesome has just dropped a Non-Spoilery Review of Discovery after he Previewed the first two Episodes



Just to be on the safe side .......

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 25 Sep 2017, 02:23
It occurred to me today that the initialism for Star Trek: Discovery would be ST:D, which is a little unfortunate.

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 Episodes
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 25 Sep 2017, 09:33
I've been seeing some stuff about the show pop up on imgur.  No one has said their opinion yet.  Just a picture here and there and an occasional gif.

Never really been a fan of emergency awesome.  Has anyone here seen it yet?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 25 Sep 2017, 21:56
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.

If it's any consolation, I'm watching it right now, it's being pronounced "Shen-joe" in series.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 25 Sep 2017, 23:37
Yay, it is! Props to the team for that. They do have Michelle Yeoh to help them get it right, of course.
Edit: Removed unnecessary quotation.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 26 Sep 2017, 10:12
She also doesn't change her accent for this role, and, according to Wikipedia, "Yeoh also chose her own decorations for Georgiou's ready room, including Malaysian puppets and a bottle of Chateau Picard wine".
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 27 Sep 2017, 08:06
How are you liking it hedgie?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 27 Sep 2017, 10:45
So far so good.  I have seen the first two episodes, and am awaiting the next one.  My only gripe is that they had to redesign the klingons yet again (not really a spoiler since it's in the first 10 seconds). However, the way things are now, I think that no matter how good it is, the show is doomed.  The release model of streaming-only on CBS's own service rather than one of the big three basically ensures that most won't watch, and the vast majority of those who do will torrent it rather than pay for another subscription.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 27 Sep 2017, 11:12
Yeah, their business model seems counter productive.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 27 Sep 2017, 11:46
I do wonder if they're trying to kill it off. Netflix effectively paid for its development, IIRC, so barring opportunity cost it's not exactly a loss if it "accidentally" has terrible ratings and isn't renewed.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 27 Sep 2017, 12:54
Well... Sorry but I wasn't greatly impressed. There was a lot of interesting potential in the story and characters alike but, in the end, it fell flat.

(click to show/hide)

Ben's Rating: 3.5/10
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 27 Sep 2017, 13:14
I have already seen it, but please do spoiler some of that stuff for those who have not.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Neko_Ali on 27 Sep 2017, 15:21
Yeah, their business model seems counter productive.

That's why they're leading off with ST:D. They want a slice of that sweet, sweet streaming service money so they are leading off with a property that they know people want. Time will tell if they overestimated people's tolerance for blatant consumerism in their Star Trek.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 27 Sep 2017, 17:28
She also doesn't change her accent for this role
Something 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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Grognard on 01 Oct 2017, 21:40
ST:D..

no spoiler here: it's BAD. nauseatingly, poorly acted, wasted money BAD.
remember BSG:2000 ?
ST:D is worse.
Gene is spinning in his grave.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 02 Oct 2017, 07:42
I wasn't much for the new BSG.  My wife liked it though.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 02 Oct 2017, 12:12
Okay, now I've seen episode 3 and... Well, I know how sensitive the mods are to spoilers so open the post if you want the details, even though I tried to keep them spoiler-free

(click to show/hide)

BenRG's Rating: 5/10 (+half a point for the introduction of someone who is, so far, the only genuinely likeable member of the crew.)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Grognard on 02 Oct 2017, 21:01
I wasn't much for the new BSG.  My wife liked it though.

I stand corrected: when I talked of bad BSG, I meant GALACTICA 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactica_1980

the 'new'BSG of 2004 was awesome.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 03 Oct 2017, 07:03
I liked the pilot episodes (which on syfy was a 2 hour movie that came out a couple of years before the series was broadcasted) and I really enjoyed the idea.  Then it quickly got boring to me.  Admittedly I did not watch them in order and the episodes I did see were politically heavy handed.  I guess I wanted more war or a faster paced narrative (like the pilot).  One of these days I'll give it another try but I just haven't had the motivation to do so.

I have heard people suggest that if you like an idea behind a story but not its execution, to write you own.  I may just do that...but then Mass effect came out and the Quarians pretty much scratched that itch for me.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Kugai on 03 Oct 2017, 20:29
I think enough time has gone by that I don't need to Spoiler this and I thought you would be interested in what this guy has to say as it's fairly well thought out and he's quite calm about his POV

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 31 Aug 2018, 08:25
Star Trek - Discovery sued for plagerism (https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2018/08/tardigrades-dev-suing-cbs-for-star-trek-discovery-plagiarism/67459/)

I doubt that this lawsuit will succeed but it's getting a lot of publicity on-line and is the sort of self-inflicted cream pie in the face that CBS really doesn't want with a show that's struggling to find a place in some legacy fans' hearts (to the point where season 2 has a feeling of a soft reboot already).

The really worrying part is the similarities of some of the art and the way some character appearances and bios are worryingly similar. It's quite possible that some staff writers and story editors are going to be riding a boot out of the door and I suspect that Mr Abdin will be given several container-fulls of cash to shut up and go away.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 07 Sep 2018, 18:27
I got my wife into TNG some time ago and she likes it.  She has started watching it when she gets our daughter ready for bed.  Picard's voice really soothes the baby to sleep.

Some of the episodes I remembered watching but its been so long it was great to see them again and with my wife who is a first timer. I collected some small notes and wanted to go down a nostalgia trip and list them off in the spoiler below.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Theta9 on 06 Dec 2018, 07:42
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 06 Dec 2018, 07:55
It occurred to me today that the initialism for Star Trek: Discovery would be ST:D, which is a little unfortunate.

FWIW, the official abbreviation is 'DIS', which follows the precedent of Star Trek - Voyager being 'VOY' and Star Trek - Enterprise being 'ENT'. That said 'DIS' has its' own unfortunate connotations, given how lots of fans seem to feel about the show.

Nothing confirmed and only passing on hearsay at the moment but there do seem to be serious rumblings about the show's future amongst the upper echelons at CBS. I suppose this might be because it was very much Les Moonves' personal pet project and may be considered tainted simply by association with him. Additionally, Netflix demanding a huge distribution license fee cut and not being willing to host the inter-season shorts at any price may also have some decision-makers' fingers edging towards the 'Cancel' button.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 25 Jan 2019, 05:48
My new place comes with basic cable. I finally saw the Orville last night. It was really good and very star trekky, especially the ending.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 29 Jan 2019, 13:27
I like Discovery a lot but The Orville is more of a true successor to Trek's legacy than anything since Next Gen was last on television.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 29 Jan 2019, 16:03
I think the reason why the latter series never really worked was because the showrunners wanted to recapture the spark that worked for the Original series.

The Original Series worked because it tapped into the sense of anything was possible in the Cold War/Space Race. You had the crew of the Enterprise, the Captain and Chief Medical officers were American, the ship was helmed by Japanese-American and Soviet officers, the Executive Officer was half-human-half-alien, the communications officer was African and the Chief Engineer was Scottish. That was something that you didn't see a lot of. Bear in mind that for many people who watched and enjoyed the original series, World War Two was still fresh in the collective consciousness, along with the Civil Rights Movement and more understanding about the world and the universe and its then you realise TOS came along at just the right time.

Likewise, The Next Generation was lucky in the sense that Glosnast and Perestroika was prevalent in the late 80s, meaning they could look at the thawing of the relationship between the West and the Soviet bloc, through the improving relationship between the Federation and the Klingons. With Roddenberry taking a step back after the first season, the show was really allowed to do its own thing. And it worked for them, due to the talent of the cast. I think Dr. Pulaski's short tenure helped cement the realisation that they couldn't make TOS Mk. 2. And you know what? Good. You had a different cast and different characters with whom you could explore different ideas; such as Data contrasting Spock by wanting to be more human. Or stories of differing moral and ethical implications - such as when Worf was paralysed and wanted to commit ritual suicide. Do you think TOS would have tackled that?

Deep Space 9 worked because they went for a whole different tact. Rather than focusing on exploration, they went and looked at the Federation and how fragile it actually was. The conflict with the Borg and the later Dominion War took a heavy toll on the Federation and its allies. Yes, you had battles, you had small wars, but never a war on the scale that the Borg and Dominion brought. You saw the Federation having to examine its ideals and what it would have to stand for.

Voyager felt a lot like Lost In Space but with photon torpedoes and a bipolar captain (Kate Mulgrew's own interpretation of Janeway). The core idea of the show was sound. A Federation starship, far from home, lost in an alien and unknown part of the galaxy. It could have opened up whole new stories, different kind of ideas and again, an examination of what they thought the Federation was. Unfortunately, the executives and the showrunners couldn't decide what to do and the latter half of the series felt like the Jeri Ryan Show, With Special Guests.

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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 29 Jan 2019, 16:33

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.

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.

Also:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 29 Jan 2019, 16:44
You're right, Scott Bakula was a poor choice, not because he's a poor actor, but I think a certain amount of people would keep thinking "When is Sam Beckett going to leap from this?". Though to be fair, the writers couldn't decide what to do for Archer and so they could never play up to Bakula's ability as a performer.

Interesting fact, its believed that during production, Archer's first name was going to be Jeffery. Until UK fans pointed out that its the same name as a disgraced author, actor and former minister. Then they were going to name him Jackson. Only to find out that there was exactly one Jackson Archer in the US. So to avoid a lawsuit, they finally settled on the name Jonathan, because there were 20 Jonathan Archers.

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 30 Jan 2019, 04:06
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.

Also Jeffrey Combs is a national treasure!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 30 Jan 2019, 09:38
He's probably wondering why he hasn't been able to leap out of that body yet and why Al and Ziggy haven't been able to help.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 30 Jan 2019, 10:13
Haha I agree. No offense to Scott, I've seen quantum leap and he was fantastic. I just felt like he wasn't a good fit and they could have cast someone else. Also wasn't a fan of the opening theme. Just felt out of place. And that Vulcans can't stand the stench of humans and need to take smell numbing meds seems contrived, but perhaps I am nitpicking.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 30 Jan 2019, 10:59
You know what, let's just say Enterprise had a lot of problems. But hey, at least it's initials don't spell STD.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 30 Jan 2019, 12:00
I think its weakest point was trying to retcon things instead of just having fun with it. There are still great episodes, archs, and characters.

edit: another thing that bugged me: vulcan mind melds are taboo and work like a HIV/AIDS proxy. Just...why?!

I was re-reading my earlier post on TNG (https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,29952.msg1412492.html#msg1412492) (located in the spoiler) and it really does seem like The Orville would be the natural sequel to it. I mean just look at my terrible Netflix style descriptions. These are real episodes in a "serious" star trek show!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 31 Jan 2019, 05:38
Voyager felt a lot like Lost In Space but with photon torpedoes and a bipolar captain (Kate Mulgrew's own interpretation of Janeway).

I hate Mulgrew's Captain Janeway with a passion. Every time she leans on Chakotay I want to scream and throw things. First female Captain and of course she needs a strong, silent type at her side.  :x

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.

I seem to be one of the few people who genuinely enjoyed that show. I loved the time devoted to the exploration of Vulcan history and the evolution of their philosophy and mental discipline. I didn't feel them to be jerks - thought there were the strong hints that individual Vulcans were being jerks who can't admit to their jerkitude, which in turn enables the jerkitude - but rather still dealing with the collective trauma of their near self-extinction, and projecting those memories of failure, guilt and loss onto the humans they keep patronizing (also their struggle with the compromised reproductions of Surak's teachings). Which totally makes sense to me as a German, as there is a school of criticism alleging we are doing pretty much the same. I felt that Trip & T'Pol broke those underlying currents nicely, since initially, Trip was the bumbling, bubbly sum of all Vulcan fears about humanity, and T'Pol's struggle with her complex loyalties and later with her attraction to Trip gave nuance to the Vulcan Jerkitude. To me, Trip was initially the male version of Firefly's Kayleigh - the adorable, cheerful hornball genius mechanic. He gets more shadows and depth later on (especially during the Xindi-arc), but initially, he was the guy who manages to get himself preggers the second the adults let him out of their sights.

I felt that Flox was a genuinely new character rather than a reference or contrast to a character that had already appeared earlier in the franchise. Enjoyed his screentime very much.

Archer's character was a bit ... like Pre-ROTS Luke Skywalker: Originally destined for romance with T'Pol (Leia), the writers suddenly had shifted much of the emotional exploration onto Trip, so Archer became 'just the (American) Captain' (That face really screams American "Leadership!" McSpaceshipCaptain). I thought that Jolene Blalock did a great job in Season 1 subverting her own role as SevenOfNine Mk.2 (especially that uniform :facepalm:) and through that gained a lot of freedom to develop the character later on.

The Xindi-arc was long, true, but I felt that appropriate, as it put into question the entire character-development of the nascent Federation (that has largely been taken for granted in most franchises. See below). Initially the humans' attitude was like that of the FBI-team in The Kingdom: 'We will kill them all' - totally un-Trek. It wasn't at all clear how they'd go from that to the do-gooder Federation of Picard's times.

And I liked the Enterprise's Enterprise - how weak and vulnerable it was initially. They spend the bulk of the first season shouting 'We come in peace!' to the Universe and getting the shit kicked out of them for their trouble, mostly barely surviving conflicts with grumpy impoverished traders. And I loved how utterly unimpressed the other races were with the wide-eyed newcomers - just as T'Pol had told them.

The first contact with the Klingons was disappointing, true, but methinks that may have been down to continuity concerns - a lot of that had already been explored in earlier series. Otoh, we got a nice first contact and conflicted relationship with the Andorrans, who ... haven't been anything but a redshirt race since that one episode in TOS?

And the Vulcans being (tamed) Romulans? That felt more like an idea that TOS never managed to flesh out.

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.

Ok, now I have to watch it. Post-TNG Trek always felt a little bit too heavy on the "UN in space"-side to me - which is the biggest criticism I have of everything except Enterprise (The only series that featured humans actually having to work against their dark impulses when in a state of shock and fear, instead their innate goodness just being taken for granted, courtesy of some mythical historical process: "'We have moved past all that' - Shiny! HOW?"). TOS was a cold-war series. Humanity in the 1960s genuinely and reasonably feared extinction at its own hands. TOS is an unabashedly unrealistic utopian fantasy - Roddenberry had to 'dream big', because reality was so horrible. That pressure was much weaker after the Cold War, and I felt that later franchises, especially Voyager (Ugh!) were far too sugary in their sweeping assumptions about human ethical standards.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 31 Jan 2019, 08:04
As much as I dislike Voyager (and believe me, I really dislike the show), I have nothing but sympathy for most of the cast, as out of any series in the franchise, they ended up being royally screwed over by the writers and executives.

- Kate Mulgrew wasn't the first choice to play Janeway. She was only brought in because Genevieve Bujold quit after a day and a half of production (due to being a film actress, she was unused to the intensity of television production). A lot of the tension reported during the production was down to Mulgrew being slowly shifted to the sideline in order to promote Seven of Nine (which totally had nothing to do with Jeri Ryan dating Brannon Braga during production). Considering that the face of the show is the Captain, it is disgusting that they did this with the series' first female captain.
- Garrett Wang was basically left on the conn because the producers wanted someone to be the ensign, basically the low man on the totem pole.
- Robert Beltran made it clear that he had signed on to star with Genevieve Bujold and not Kate Mulgrew. Because the producers wouldn't let him out of the contract, he was forced to be in a show he didn't want to be on. (Now, granted he was a dickhead a lot of the time, but they could have easily let him go. They didn't)

Really, the list goes on. But there was a lot of potential that was wasted because of the producers, writers and executives.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 31 Jan 2019, 19:22
Holy shit.  :psyduck:

I just watched another episode of the Orville and the plot was similar and executed better than a particular TNG episode. A crew member develops feelings for the Robot crew member and they start a relationship. I was tearing up watching this because it felt so...good. It was done better than the Data's girlfriend episode. It was just wonderful and sparked feelings and wonder like when I was a kid watching TNG.

This show has no right to be this good but Fox has really outdone themselves and got their own Star Trek show. Its really weird that they pitched or advertised the show initially as family guy star trek because the last two episodes I've watched is really different from that.  I may be a bit biased as I have only seen 2 episodes but it just makes me want to watch more. I look forward to Thursdays now to watch it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2019, 14:46
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.

No, I had the same feeling - though I find it hard to pin it down why, and can readily come up with counter-examples of why it shouldn't feel that way - e.g. an entire season spent on the Big-E basically operating as a warship - but still, it does.

I think it's in the little things - e.g. the way he is contrasted with Malcolm Reed, the self-professed Navy Man. Mostly though, I think its down to Archer being "Air Force rather than Navy" - the flashbacks to the NX-programme felt like the screenwriter's bookclub had just chewed through Yeager's The Right Stuff.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 02 Feb 2019, 15:13
I'm binging on Discovery right now, and thoroughly enjoying myself - though I have to agree it's not the Trek my Mom told me about.

I don't feel like sorting it into drawers right now (not beyond the obvious, like: No, it's still Trek to me. Yes ... those poor, poor Klingons ...), but some random impressions:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 03 Feb 2019, 14:11
Mostly though, I think its down to Archer being "Air Force rather than Navy"

That is a good way to put it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Case on 09 Feb 2019, 12:10
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 Episodes
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 ... imagine that Han were the most common ethnic heritage in the US and they couldn't find one single damn' native speaker to teach the actors not to sound like trepanation patients when they try to say a simple sentence in Mandarin ...

(Season 2, Ep 4 - Cpt. Pike sounds like he's on a bad acid trip ...)

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 14 Feb 2019, 03:37
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.

I stopped watching Discovery after the first few episodes, and only came back to it recently. I'm still not convinced, but I'm not as negative as I was after watching the first few episodes of Season One. I find the biggest flaw is the clunky dialogue they give characters, especially Michael Burnham, which just doesn't sound like the way real people speak.


Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: JoeCovenant on 14 Feb 2019, 03:52
Ms. Yeoh made her cinema debut in martial-arts dramas in 1985...

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon - yo!

:)

(OT: Yeah, I kinda like Discovery!)  :)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: jwhouk on 14 Feb 2019, 04:05
Can I just address the 800-pound Sehlat in the room?

I haven't watched much more than the trailers and the first episode of season 2, but I've already come to the conclusion that Discovery's Spock is... well, mirror Spock.

Not just because of the beard and all, but because of his actions.

Why isn't anyone focusing on this?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 14 Feb 2019, 04:09
Because most Trekkers are getting used to the fact that DIS is a hard reboot in all but name and that they shouldn't expect any of the pre-ENT canon or characterisations to be used in the new show.

FWIW, the watch phrase for  the writers on this show appears to be: "Whatever it is, it must make Michael Burnham seem even more perfect."
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Theta9 on 14 Feb 2019, 07:37
YouTube Reviewer Emergency Awesome has just dropped a Non-Spoilery Review of Discovery after he Previewed the first two Episodes
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.
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"?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: pwhodges on 14 Feb 2019, 07:46
Because it's not quite the same.  Don't assume that because we can't necessarily hear the difference ourselves it doesn't exist. 

For example, many Japanese cannot hear the difference between our "l" and "r", but that doesn't mean that we can't have that distinction even though they don't. 

There is a huge amount of subtlety in how the brain learns during the first year or so what differences in sound are significant in the language(s) the child is exposed to; differences which it finds not significant don't get programmed into the recognition network, and so can be incredibly hard to learn later.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Akima on 14 Feb 2019, 15:25
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".

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 28 Feb 2019, 19:23
Watched the Orville's conclusion to the 2 parter "Identity"

 :psyduck:

It was freaking amazing! It had a great story with a pretty legit space battle on par with the battle for earth from ME3.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: BenRG on 01 Mar 2019, 10:45
Okay, I never thought I'd say this about Star Trek - Discovery but... now I'm hooked:

(click to show/hide)

 The chances that the Red Angel is a far future version of the good Captain have just significantly increased, IMO
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 23 May 2019, 12:26
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Pilchard123 on 23 May 2019, 14:02
Because CBS seems to have the advertising chops of a partially-eaten celery stick, that trailer is geoblocked. For those of us elsewhere...

Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: hedgie on 23 May 2019, 14:30
I hate when that happens.  It's really annoying to have to change the country of my VPN.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: JoeCovenant on 24 May 2019, 09:58

My only fear about this is that they might make it a flashback series... with Stewart topping and tailing each episode.

I REALLY hope it isn't!
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 24 May 2019, 10:09
There are a couple of rumours concerning ST:P.

Taking one with a pinch of salt.

One is that the series will be set about 30 or so years after Star Trek Nemesis and that Picard's life radically changed after the destruction of Romulus in the 2009 reboot. This would also tie into the two part episode "Reunification", featuring Leonard Nimoy and how desperately Picard wanted peace with the Romulans.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 23 Sep 2019, 16:59
RIP Nog.  :cry:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/entertainment/aron-eisenberg-star-trek-actor-dies/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/entertainment/aron-eisenberg-star-trek-actor-dies/index.html)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 08 Mar 2020, 09:53
So I watched the 7 episodes of Picard that have aired (I don't have Prime but am at my Mum's house). I will be back later with more thoughts but has anybody else watched it?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: cybersmurf on 09 Mar 2020, 03:13
I've been watching it.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 22 Jul 2020, 19:56

I'm getting a Final Space/Rick and Morty vibe.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 23 Jul 2020, 03:16
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 23 Jul 2020, 12:47
I think they're in "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" mode.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Tova on 23 Jul 2020, 15:47
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.

What did they say Star Trek was all about that CBS lost sight of, out of curiosity?
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 23 Jul 2020, 15:53
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Tova on 23 Jul 2020, 15:57
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.

Ah, okay.

I just googled a bit and saw a quote commenting they wanted to "laugh with Star Trek" rather than at it.

I can imagine that not going down well with people who take Star Trek very seriously.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 24 Jul 2020, 14:28
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.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Tova on 24 Jul 2020, 17:14
I kind of like the idea of taking a concept initially explored in a TNG episode and running with the idea of focusing on the people below the officers to the extent of making the tone of the entire series much less highfalutin. Obviously it helps that this kind of genre is trending, but it is possible to see a rationale behind it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Torlek on 24 Jul 2020, 19:17
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.

This is pretty much what I feel. In terms of feel/atmosphere, The Orville is basically a long-lost, more comedy-centric late 90s Star Trek show with different set dressing (they even use the same orchestral cues). Everyone expected Family Guy in space, but they didn't realize that MacFarlane is apparently a big Trek nerd. So, instead, we get a love letter to the TNG-VOY era filtered through his sensibilities.

Maybe the trailers are lying, but I don't get that notion from Lower Decks. Everything about it suggests that it's The Adventures of the USS Rick-and-Morty.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Tova on 24 Jul 2020, 21:20
Maybe the trailers are lying ...

Trailers can in fact be misleading. Famously.

If you don't already do so, then I'd suggest taking all trailers with a healthy pinch of salt. They are not even made by the same people making the thing they are advertising these days.

I mean, it's no coincidence that many people here are getting the vibe that the series creators are just going with what's trending. That's what trailer makers do.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 24 Jul 2020, 21:25
they didn't realize that MacFarlane is apparently a big Trek nerd.

He was in an episode of Enterprise (along with a fan made video from highschool where he plays Kirk surfaced too).

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/6/6e/Rivers.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070519132707&path-prefix=en)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sn_Sgcxg5PQ/hqdefault.jpg)

So yeah, big Star Trek nerd got Fox to greenlight his own Star Trek show. Its a dream come true.  :-D
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: TheEvilDog on 26 Jul 2020, 08:05
Star Trek Nerd got to make his own show and made a better show than the actual source material.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Tova on 08 Aug 2020, 14:46
Judging by a friend's review that landed on my Facebook feed this morning, I'm expecting more negative reviews to land here soon...
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Thrillho on 10 Aug 2020, 15:50
I look forward to several YouTubers I watch bursting a blood vessel over it.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: Gyrre on 21 Aug 2020, 21:49
I saw the first episode of Lower Decks. It's thankfully not as generic-adult-cartoon comedy as its style appears to be. And, it's one of the few times I didn't mind having my YT video interrupted.

D'Vana Tendi is a giant excitable nerd after my own heart, and the date-gone-wrong-gone-right scenario legitimately made me laugh multiple times.
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 08 Apr 2021, 10:03
I was today years old when I learned that the Enterprise-D (and C) from TNG has a part of the ship crewed by dolphins and commanded by 2 whales. They're called the Cetacean Ops. They are referred to in two episodes of TNG.

(https://forgottentrek.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Enterprise-D-Cetacean-Ops-deck-plan.jpg)
Title: Re: To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before
Post by: LeeC on 06 May 2021, 02:54
I've been on a bit of a Star Trek kick lately (oddly enough, its thanks to Babylon 5). I wish Paramount didn't have their own streaming service and could put Picard, Discovery, and Lower Decks on one of the main streaming services so I could check them out. I've been watching a lot of Trek youtubers lately that have pretty much stated we're in a new era of Star Trek considering there are 3 Star Trek shows (Soon to be 5 with Strange New Worlds and Prodigy and another movie slated for 2023) on air right now along with movies. That a lot of the bad fan-press about it is par for the course with Star Trek considering the history of it all. I then found this meme that pretty much encapsulates the history of Star Trek fans hating on Star Trek. I would love to give the current 3 ST shows a try, but what with already being subscribed to Netflix, Hulu, Disney Plus, Amazon Prime, and HBO Max, I don't think I can justify another streaming service. Which is kind of funny considering TOS-Enterprise is already on Hulu, Amazon Prime, and Netflix in its entirety, along with all of the ST movies before the '09 ones.

(https://i.imgur.com/IZMwJj6.jpg)