General Star Trek thread

breezy1985

AMKC wrote: »

Star Trek Enterprise Season2 Episode23 Regeneration.
To you really think Picard and co would leave all the Borg technolagy lying around. I for one do not. I think they would have scanned for any Borg debree then beamed it up.
So really that episode should not and probably would not happen.
What do ye think?

I hated any Enterprise episode that played with other Trek series. The Ferengi episode and the one about the Klingon foreheads were disasters

breezy1985

Stark wrote: »

First contact might have been the best of the TNG movies but a lot breaks down when you try to think about it too much. Even getting back to the future in the first place was at the end of the movie was a case of "LaForge, magic us back to the 24th century. Yes, sir".

They flew round the sun clockwise very fast I assume

Stark

breezy1985 wrote: »

They flew round the sun clockwise very fast I assume

I was thinking as I wrote it, you could go off on a very long tangent when it come to time travel in Trek. Kirk time travelled quite a lot considering Starfleet wasn't officially capable of time travel till the 26th century. Memory alpha actually includes Kirk's Enterprise in its list of "timeships". But then I consider quite a lot of TOS canon to be ret-conned from TNG onwards.

breezy1985

Stark wrote: »

I was thinking as I wrote it, you could go off on a very long tangent when it come to time travel in Trek. Kirk time travelled quite a lot considering Starfleet wasn't officially capable of time travel till the 26th century. Memory alpha actually includes Kirk's Enterprise in its list of "timeships". But then I consider quite a lot of TOS canon to be ret-conned from TNG onwards.

They really were not thinking too deep about the plots in that sense back in TOS. There is an awful lot of gangster planets and cowboy planets in there

AMKC

breezy1985 wrote: »

I hated any Enterprise episode that played with other Trek series. The Ferengi episode and the one about the Klingon foreheads were disasters

The Feringi episode really was terrible but at least there is a few laughs in it
The episodes about the Klingons and how they lost there forehead do I thought were very good.

TheValeyard

AMKC wrote: »

The Feringi episode really was terrible but at least there is a few laughs in it
The episodes about the Klingons and how they lost there forehead do I thought were very good.

I thought the augment virus episode was really well done.

breezy1985

TheValeyard wrote: »

I thought the augment virus episode was really well done.

It just never needed to exist. You dont need to explain crap 60s special effects.


Also Ill cry if we see another Soong especially played by Spiner

Rawr

breezy1985 wrote: »

They really were not thinking too deep about the plots in that sense back in TOS. There is an awful lot of gangster planets and cowboy planets in there

I suspect there was a lot of "Which set on the Paramount lot can we *borrow* this week?" thinking during that production.

Stark

They didn't have holodecks back then so needed whole planets as the settings for their period costume episodes

Watched the Augments episodes again during my recent Enterprise rewatch. Liked them better than I remembered. The whole premise was pointless but Brent Spiner did an excellent job with the Soong character. Like Lore but with a conscience.

Rawr

Roughly related to the sets conversation, I did stumble on this interesting video a few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4QN4xgKXYU

It's interesting, and sort of makes sense, that Star Trek productions would have a couple of "favourite spots" to go out and shoot. Especially that rocky valley they used in both TOS and Voyager etc...

Evade

I'll always remember the Borg in Descent took over the original Oower Rangers HQ.

Stark

Wow, I was a massive power rangers fan as a kid but I never noticed that before.

pah

Stark wrote: »

I was thinking as I wrote it, you could go off on a very long tangent when it come to time travel in Trek. Kirk time travelled quite a lot considering Starfleet wasn't officially capable of time travel till the 26th century. Memory alpha actually includes Kirk's Enterprise in its list of "timeships". But then I consider quite a lot of TOS canon to be ret-conned from TNG onwards.

I recall in the trials and tribblations DS9 episode the temporal bureau lads weren't too keen on Him (Kirk) as he had the most temporal violations of any officer

Cookie_Monster

AMKC wrote: »

Star Trek Enterprise Season2 Episode23 Regeneration.
To you really think Picard and co would leave all the Borg technolagy lying around. I for one do not. I think they would have scanned for any Borg debree then beamed it up.
So really that episode should not and probably would not happen.
What do ye think?

Clearly they hung around long enough to patch up the Ent to take it back through the magic portal so would have had plenty of time to scan the place and tidy up the mess.

corkie

Why Do People Actually Hate New Star Trek?

~Rebel~

corkie wrote: »

Why Do People Actually Hate New Star Trek?

Jeez he's a bit sanctimonious isn't he?

That 30 minutes basically amounts to - "People who really like things, don't like when different versions of those things come out because they don't like change."

Super reductionist, as he ignores all the actual specific criticisms, and keeps to "you don't like it cause you're stuck in your ways and are acting like a child". He claims this is where the majority of complaints come from, which judging from here and elsewhere is clearly not true, and a pretty hefty oversimplification.

breezy1985

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Jeez he's a bit sanctimonious isn't he?

That 30 minutes basically amounts to - "People who really like things, don't like when different versions of those things come out because they don't like change."

Super reductionist, as he ignores all the actual specific criticisms, and keeps to "you don't like it cause you're stuck in your ways and are acting like a child". He claims this is where the majority of complaints come from, which judging from here and elsewhere is clearly not true, and a pretty hefty oversimplification.

These arguments also ignore critics of new Trek like myself who like some of the series and not others

corkie

He had slides for these quotes as well to try reinforce his argument/logic.

“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt

pixelburp

Red Letter Media at least recently decided to just pass on covering new Trek. They hate it, and obviously decided it was a waste of their time. I respect that rather than publishing Hate Watch videos. Which, if is to believed, often out strips "positive" videos for popularity. Honestly I stick to film essayists these days, cos I find the pop culture stuff is too prone to reductions or clickbait headlines (if they're not outright raging offence driven types).

Trek can accommodate action and superficial thrills, it's not antithetical to the brand; it's just the fundamental problem behind it all is the writing staff isn't good enough, and likes to Tell rather than Show, or give any character through action. Season 3 was phenomenally badly written, literally throwing out Big Emotional Moments without ever earning a damn one. Such as Adira suddenly becoming Stamets' "child" out of nowhere.

Evade

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing in a few years is interviews with people who worked on STD/Pic/whatever else they bring out once they're out of contract, I'm genuinely curious as to whether they think they've made something good.

There's plenty of interview or AOL chat snippets in Memory Alpha articles about older Star Trek episodes that have crew saying things like that episode just didn't work or that aspect of that episode really could have been better etc.

~Rebel~

Evade wrote: »

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing in a few years is interviews with people who worked on STD/Pic/whatever else they bring out once they're out of contract, I'm genuinely curious as to whether they think they've made something good.

There's plenty of interview or AOL chat snippets in Memory Alpha articles about older Star Trek episodes that have crew saying things like that episode just didn't work or that aspect of that episode really could have been better etc.

Picard I did at least find reasonably interesting to watch week to week... like, as long as I didn't trouble my head about the nonsensical bigger picture, I was reasonably entertained for an hour.

Which is damning with faint praise, but is a million miles ahead of the actively-painful-to-watch Discovery.

As far as 'New Trek' goes, I quite enjoyed the Star Trek Kelvin reboot movie, and also Beyond, I hated 'Into Darkness' and Discovery, and then Picard sits in the middle.

pixelburp

Why stop at Trek? I'd question how many creatives ever truly know they're making / writing / acting in crap. Not just "low brow" or B Movies, cos plenty of those still have quality, but actual rubbish. Writers especially. Actors at least may be limited in scope to the scenes they shoot, or the pages of script they're given (famously, Gwyneth Paltrow didn't know which MCU film she was shooting cameos for, as she was only given her lines). They just mightn't realise til they see the final product, and many actors may not even watch their own work. A writer though, I'd say there's less excuse, but more chance of believing your own hype too.

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

One thing I'm looking forward to seeing in a few years is interviews with people who worked on STD/Pic/whatever else they bring out once they're out of contract, I'm genuinely curious as to whether they think they've made something good.

There's plenty of interview or AOL chat snippets in Memory Alpha articles about older Star Trek episodes that have crew saying things like that episode just didn't work or that aspect of that episode really could have been better etc.

Most of the Picard cast will probably dwell fondly on the fact they got to work with Patrick Stewart more than anything else.

The Discovery cast I reckon it will be down to what else if anything they do again. I bet Jason Isaacs secretly hates himself for doing it despite him being praised personally for his role

I think the Kelvin people will be quite happy they achieved what they set out to do. It wasn't what me or a lot of Trek fans wanted but it is what they wanted to do

~Rebel~

pixelburp wrote: »

Why stop at Trek? I'd question how many creatives ever truly know they're making / writing / acting in crap. Not just "low brow" or B Movies, cos plenty of those still have quality, but actual rubbish. Writers especially. Actors at least may be limited in scope to the scenes they shoot, or the pages of script they're given (famously, Gwyneth Paltrow didn't know which MCU film she was shooting cameos for, as she was only given her lines). They just mightn't realise til they see the final product, and many actors may not even watch their own work. A writer though, I'd say there's less excuse, but more chance of believing your own hype too.

True, the writers are definitely the most culpable, particularly in TV where they're top dogs anyway. In the short term, a director can mess up a writers work by getting overwrought performances from the actors - but in the longer term the writers are in control and can have it rained in (and likely would have done so on set on the day if they didn't want it).

I feel sorry for the directors and actors when it comes to something like Disco really, as they're working to the writers/Showrunners agenda. And the writers are clearly actively pushing for a more high-emotion teenage brand.

Even feel a bit sorry for some of the lower ranked staff writers who may be very talented people, but have to stick to the tone and style they're given.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

Why stop at Trek?

I'm not really. I just happen to have read most if not all the pre STD episode articles and when you read one for a particularly bad episode people involved will often admit it's not good and I want to know if that's still happens in modern TV production or are they all too high on their own farts.

silverharp

corkie wrote: »

Why Do People Actually Hate New Star Trek?

pro tip, dont post a Youtube where the guy has hidden his likes/dislikes count

GreeBo

silverharp wrote: »

pro tip, dont post a Youtube where the guy has hidden his likes/dislikes count

Why?
Seems like that would only be an issue for people who dont or cant form their own opinion...

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I'm not really. I just happen to have read most if not all the pre STD episode articles and when you read one for a particularly bad episode people involved will often admit it's not good and I want to know if that's still happens in modern TV production or are they all too high on their own farts.

For sure, just that it's not especially particular with Trek, though the franchise has the advantage of being more talked about and pursued, as you said with the various post-mortems for the actors and staff involved. MAny being effectively retired so less likely to worry about disrespecting others in the craft.

I'd be fair and say that many wouldn't "know" something was bad in the moment - for the reasons I spitballed - and looking to my own personal working experience, it's hard to be sure something's a bad idea 'til long after the fact. Unless it's just so outrageously awful I have to stop and give my 2c, I'd generally just go with it out of professional courtesy or respect for my peers they know what they're doing

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

I'd be fair and say that many wouldn't "know" something was bad in the moment - for the reasons I spitballed - and looking to my own personal working experience, it's hard to be sure something's a bad idea 'til long after the fact.

+1 I do feel that may be the case with many of newer Trek shows.
Some may feel that Secret Hideout may have some devious hidden agenda to trash the franchise or push some political ideology, but really I do think that they believe that they are actually trying their best to make a Trek show that appeals to many. Alas for them, it does not appear that they are very good at this and are probably confused and/or frustrated by the amount of negative reaction they get.

Can't help but notice them attempt to appeal to the established Trek fandom and various points throughout Discovery and especially in Picard. Picard itself feels like the entire show was an attempt to say: "Look! A TNG character! See...we really *are* making regular Star Trek again, not a JJ-Verse spinoff!"

Picard was filled to the rim with TNG references and was "Based on Star Trek: The Next Generation" as oppsed to the usual "Based on Star Trek" you'd get in the opening. It was clearly some kind of peace-pipe they were offering to those fans who were not warming up to Discovery. Alas...despite their very good efforts, they simply hadn't the ability to pull it off in the end. They were betrayed in the end by their own fecklessness.

silverharp

GreeBo wrote: »

Why?
Seems like that would only be an issue for people who dont or cant form their own opinion...

I dont watch videos with comments or likes disabled, it means the youtuber cant take feedback so chances are what they are saying is weak