General Star Trek thread

Rawr

Sonics2k wrote: »

Bit of sad news today as Aron Eisenberg, the actor who played Nog, has passed away at age 50.

https://intl.startrek.com/news/aron-eisenberg-obituary-star-trek

He only had a brief period of time on What We Left Behind, but you could tell he really missed the show.

Ah man RIP Aron. I was just now binge-watching some DS9 when I read this.

By far one of the most well done character arcs of the show. From annoying mini-Ferengi to believable buddy-pairing with Jake and actual growth as a Starfleet officer. This is rarely done right I feel, and I think they got it right with Nog, no doubt also due to Aron's acting ability.

Ah hell. Poor lad

TheValeyard

Poor fella

50 is still a young age.

RIP

AMKC

Ah no way. I only just seen a post om my FB about him not been well but it did not say he had passed away.

He was brilliant as Nog. I do not think any other actor could have done it like he done him.


Only 50 very sad.

RIP Aron.

pixelburp

Jesus. Was he ill? 50s is a young age these days to pass. RIP. Always feel actors who play roles behind layers of makeup and latex don't get half the acclaim they deserve

Stark

Was kidney failure. He had serious kidney problems since birth (was born with only one partially functioning kidney and required two transplants during his lifetime).

AMKC

Stark wrote: »

Was kidney failure. He had serious kidney problems since birth (was born with only one partially functioning kidney and required two transplants during his lifetime).

I seen that. He received a kidney transplant at 17 and another a few years ago. He was only 5ft tall which is not bad really. There is advantages to not being tall.

I also agree that actors that wear lots of make up and prosthetic's do not get the respect they deserve.

AMKC

AMKC wrote: »

I also agree that actors that wear lots of make up and prosthetic's do not get the respect they deserve.

Doug Jones being another perfect example

pixelburp

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Doug Jones being another perfect example

Yup, he and the other Trek actors like Aron who've had to sit in makeup chairs deserve many plaudits. It takes skill to bring "humanity" and emotional range to any role while smothered in latex, or wearing the fake teeth of a Ferenghi.

Justin Credible Darts

RIP

https://www.deviantart.com/gazomg/art/RIP-Aron-Eisenberg-Star-Trek-Updated-814147323

AMKC

There is a new trailer out now for Star Trek Picard and there is a new trailer for Discovery season 3 short Trek as well I think.

Sonics2k

Re-watched the Star Trek movie from 2009 with Chris Pine and Karl Urban last night.

Going back and seeing it again, it's actually not a bad movie. I found myself appreciating Pine's version of Kirk a lot more than I used to. It's like a Kirkier version of Kirk.

I honestly think if it had about 3/4 less lens flares it would be a much better film.

Stop moaning ffs

Sonics2k wrote: »

Re-watched the Star Trek movie from 2009 with Chris Pine and Karl Urban last night.

Going back and seeing it again, it's actually not a bad movie. I found myself appreciating Pine's version of Kirk a lot more than I used to. It's like a Kirkier version of Kirk.

I honestly think if it had about 3/4 less lens flares it would be a much better film.

Been done to death but I think it’s a great film and did wonders to relaunch the franchise

TheValeyard

Looks like a Depleted Federation or ruined one by the trailer. But once again we're on the Michael Burnham save the day saga.

AMKC

TheValeyard wrote: »

Looks like a Depleted Federation or ruined one by the trailer. But once again we're on the Michael Burnham save the day saga.

Yes its getting tired that. I would like to see the crew working as a structured team from the top down the way its supposed to.

Goodshape

Sonics2k wrote: »

Re-watched the Star Trek movie from 2009 with Chris Pine and Karl Urban last night.

Going back and seeing it again, it's actually not a bad movie

Yeah, I agree. It had its problems but it'd be disingenuous to suggest most (all?) other Trek films didn't.

I dislike it for having spawned this whole alternative Kelvin timeline thing and the aesthetic that goes with it, but that first film did have some great moments (the opening with the Kelvin is outstanding, in particular) and, if absolutely nothing else, I think anyone would admit it's a good fun and exciting movie.

Can't stand Into Darkness though.

Rawr

TheValeyard wrote: »

Looks like a Depleted Federation or ruined one by the trailer. But once again we're on the Michael Burnham save the day saga.

Your first sentence is the reason I may give Season 3 a shot.
Your second sentence is the likely reason that I'll soon give up on the show entirely.

When we were told that we would get a view of ship operations, from the view of a more junior office, we all thought "This could be cool, having to see the non decision maker grapple with situations". They then gave us the know everything, can do everything, and most important person in the universe: the sister of Spock himself!! It'ssssss Michael Burnhammmmm!

I really really like the show but please please remove her as the singular plot point. Leave her as the audience surrogate and POV character but let the others do their fecking jobs.

IvySlayer

Watching Generations, as much as I think it's one of the worst Star Trek movies, I have to say the soundtrack and the music is amazing, probably the best.

AMKC

IvySlayer wrote: »

Watching Generations, as much as I think it's one of the worst Star Trek movies, I have to say the soundtrack and the music is amazing, probably the best.

I quite like watching it especially around Christmas time.

Inviere

AMKC wrote: »

I quite like watching it especially around Christmas time.

Same. It wouldn't be the strongest of the TNG films, but it's by far the most TNG-like of the four of them. I've come to like it more in recent times, than I used to.

Rawr

Inviere wrote: »

Same. It wouldn't be the strongest of the TNG films, but it's by far the most TNG-like of the four of them. I've come to like it more in recent times, than I used to.

Certainly better than.....arg...."Insurrection" (Sorry, I always feel that quotes are needed there. The TNG crew were real "hard-core" "rebels" in that one, weren't they? )

Generations was the first Trek film I got to see in the cinema, so I do see that film with more rose-tinted lenses. But I felt it was an alright Trek adventure. I remember being impressed (and saddened) by the loss of 1701-D in that one.

Samuel T. Cogley

Rawr wrote: »

Certainly better than.....arg...."Insurrection" (Sorry, I always feel that quotes are needed there. The TNG crew were real "hard-core" "rebels" in that one, weren't they? )

Generations was the first Trek film I got to see in the cinema, so I do see that film with more rose-tinted lenses. But I felt it was an alright Trek adventure. I remember being impressed (and saddened) by the loss of 1701-D in that one.

When Kirk was dying someone at the back of the cinema shouted "Get on with it!". That's my memory of watching Generations at the Cinema :pac:

Rawr

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

When Kirk was dying someone at the back of the cinema shouted "Get on with it!". That's my memory of watching Generations at the Cinema :pac:

AMKC

Rawr wrote: »

Certainly better than.....arg...."Insurrection" (Sorry, I always feel that quotes are needed there. The TNG crew were real "hard-core" "rebels" in that one, weren't they? )

Generations was the first Trek film I got to see in the cinema, so I do see that film with more rose-tinted lenses. But I felt it was an alright Trek adventure. I remember being impressed (and saddened) by the loss of 1701-D in that one.

Your lucky so. My first Star Trek film to see in the cinema was First Contact but I would have loved to have seen Generations in the cinema too.

Bobtheman

Is Discovery trek ?

AMKC

Bobtheman wrote: »

Is Discovery trek ?

I don't think it is. It just does not have the well thought out deep meaningful stories i n it like say TOS or TNG that deal with real world issues as well. I know it is harder to do now with this crazy interconnected world we live in but it can be done. Believe it or but Supergirl has actually done some good stories that also reflect the world we live in now.The Orville has also done some good stories like that too.
Discovery is a sci-fi show with lots of snazzy CGI and explosions and some ok stories but nothing great and it has no characters that you can relate to or care about much either as well as very little development of them. TOS had Kirk, Spock and McCoy as well as Scotty and then the rest of the crew. TNG had Picard, Data, Worf etc and then DS9 came along and had great characters with actual backstories as well, so you actual started to care about them as you felt like you knew them a bit. Discovery has none of that.

TNG and DS9 first seasons were absolute muck, season 2 barely better.

Discovery is already better than Voyager

pixelburp

Bobtheman wrote: »

Is Discovery trek ?

Yes, it's there in the name. Whether you like it or not is up to you, but it's canon and it's Trek.

Stark