General Star Trek thread

pixelburp

I think disabling comments is fair in the right circumstances; if you're a professional creator, wading through 1000s of negative, vitriolic comments can be time-consuming and degrading to your mental health. Especially if the subject is something tribalistic like comic-book movies or pop culture.

Nobody's obliged to embrace rampant hostility, and disabling comments IIRC reduces monetisation and engagement opportunities, which ultimately hurts your channel. So if someone has disabled comments it's probably a considered decision to take the harm.

silverharp

pixelburp wrote: »

I think disabling comments is fair in the right circumstances; if you're a professional creator, wading through 1000s of negative, vitriolic comments can be time-consuming and degrading to your mental health. Especially if the subject is something tribalistic like comic-book movies or pop culture.

Nobody's obliged to embrace rampant hostility, and disabling comments IIRC reduces monetisation and engagement, which ultimately hurts your channel. So if someone has disabled comments it's probably a considered decision to take the harm.

I'd be amazed if any big channel wades though their comments, they would get nothing else done. Hiding "likes" just reeks of cowardice and it implies "fans" dont care enough to like it but is creating a negative reaction. Anyway its just my heuristic to weed out badly argued points

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

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.

Ronald D. Moore's AOL chats were done while DS9 was still airing but the internet was a lot smaller back then so no one above him probably knew they existed so he could be a little more honest.

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. 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

I can't believe some people during table reads or dailies didn't see that it wasn't working.

AMKC

My brother said something today about the Enterprise Episode "Regeneration" Why did it take so long for the Borg Depree to be found and I said back there must have been a new ice age because the way the ice is melting at the moment I doubt in 100 years there will be a whole lot of snow or ice on any pole. Hopefully that is not the case but at the moment it is going that way.

Evade

AMKC wrote: »

I said back there must have been a new ice age

A touch of nuclear winter does wonders for ice caps.

TheValeyard

Evade wrote: »

A touch of nuclear winter does wonders for ice caps.

Yeah and anytime we have seen Earth in the Trek universe, ice caps are still there.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

Ronald D. Moore's AOL chats were done while DS9 was still airing but the internet was a lot smaller back then so no one above him probably knew they existed so he could be a little more honest.

I can't believe some people during table reads or dailies didn't see that it wasn't working.

Maybe, but then maybe they don't care either way. They're just glad to be working on a steady, stable job, and don't actually care about Trek, its lineage and so on. What we see as not working, they just see as A.N. Other network TV script. We are all biased here so might project our own care for the franchise against an actor for whom it means nothing (kinda why I think the franchise has been left behind the pop culture zeitgeist) Others like Anthony Rapp might be happy to play a gay role where the sexuality isn't a big Being Gay is Tragic trope, feels enthused to head that dynamic beyond the flaws in the stories he features.

I'll say one thing we could take as vaguely indicative: actors rarely manage to mask their frustration on screen, with bored or manic performances nodding towards dissatisfaction with the scripts. Look at the recent Justice League film for a totally checked-out Ben Affleck throughout. While Discos cast ain't winning any Oscars anytime soon, I'd not call their performances apathetic.

~Rebel~

pixelburp wrote: »

Maybe, but then maybe they don't care either way. They're just glad to be working on a steady, stable job, and don't actually care about Trek, its lineage and so on. What we see as not working, they just see as A.N. Other network TV script. We are all biased here so might project our own care for the franchise against an actor for whom it means nothing (kinda why I think the franchise has been left behind the pop culture zeitgeist) Others like Anthony Rapp might be happy to play a gay role where the sexuality isn't a big Being Gay is Tragic trope, feels enthused to head that dynamic beyond the flaws in the stories he features.

I'll say one thing we could take as vaguely indicative: actors rarely manage to mask their frustration on screen, with bored or manic performances nodding towards dissatisfaction with the scripts. Look at the recent Justice League film for a totally checked-out Ben Affleck throughout. While Discos cast ain't winning any Oscars anytime soon, I'd not call their performances apathetic.

I think there's a big important caveat to this point - BIG actors can be apathetic. Smaller actors absolutely have to give every chance they get everything they've got. If they don't, they might not get another one.

Affleck or Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis or other lads (and it is fairly specifically guys) that may not have bothered to bring a professional performance to a bad script later in their careers never have to worry about that. Someone like Mary Wiseman or Emily Coutts definitely does.

corkie

The City of Boston Declares March 26 to Be Leonard Nimoy Day

Live Long and Prosper

Rawr

corkie wrote: »

The City of Boston Declares March 26 to Be Leonard Nimoy Day

Live Long and Prosper

I always found it kind of interesting that this was one of Nimoy's attempts to distance himself from one pointy-eared fictional character, and he then goes and sings about another one :P

H3llR4iser

Rawr wrote: »

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...

Maybe a bit OT, I know, but this is a ST channel, so I guess people will have a passing interest in science - the amount of erosion on these rocks, for "just" 50-odd years, is insane...they probably won't make it to the 23rd century in any recognizable form!

Rawr

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Maybe a bit OT, I know, but this is a ST channel, so I guess people will have a passing interest in science - the amount of erosion on these rocks, for "just" 50-odd years, is insane...they probably won't make it to the 23rd century in any recognizable form!

Without looking it up, my guess is that wind erosion created the formation, and has continued to eat away at it over the years. You're probably right that it will look very different in the 23rd century...if any of it is left.

GreeBo

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Maybe a bit OT, I know, but this is a ST channel, so I guess people will have a passing interest in science - the amount of erosion on these rocks, for "just" 50-odd years, is insane...they probably won't make it to the 23rd century in any recognizable form!

From the looks of Kirks shadow compared to the SUV I think the sun is at a totally different angle, so all the shadows on the face of the rock are gone, making it look much smoother?

Evade

GreeBo wrote: »

From the looks of Kirks shadow compared to the SUV I think the sun is at a totally different angle, so all the shadows on the face of the rock are gone, making it look much smoother?

It looks that way to me too. In the thumbnail the Kirk side looks to be before 0900ish and the other side looks like it's midday.

Evade

TIL Generations had brand new Starfleet uniforms designed and made for the cast but were scrapped either because the quality wasn't good enough or to avoid introducing too many new elements, the former seems more likely. They were similar to the late TNG uniforms but the jacket opened up like the red uniforms from Star Treks II to VI. It looks like the uniforms on Lower Decks were heavily inspired by them.

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

TIL Generations had brand new Starfleet uniforms designed and made for the cast but were scrapped either because the quality wasn't good enough or to avoid introducing too many new elements, the former seems more likely. They were similar to the late TNG uniforms but the jacket opened up like the red uniforms from Star Treks II to VI. It looks like the uniforms on Lower Decks were heavily inspired by them.

There were constant problems with the design I think so they missed the shooting deadline. The design survives in the toys for Generations which were already made before the uniform was scrapped

TenLeftFingers

Evade wrote: »

TIL Generations had brand new Starfleet uniforms designed and made for the cast but were scrapped either because the quality wasn't good enough or to avoid introducing too many new elements, the former seems more likely. They were similar to the late TNG uniforms but the jacket opened up like the red uniforms from Star Treks II to VI. It looks like the uniforms on Lower Decks were heavily inspired by them.

I'd love to see these. Do you have any links?

Evade

TenLeftFingers wrote: »

I'd love to see these. Do you have any links?

I believe this is the only actual image/video of them and the quality is awful. Geordi is the only one with the scrapped version of the uniform. The way the uniform is ruffled might be why it was dropped.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEaR1rkhy00

Here's some concept art that might give you a better idea.

Evade

Something else I recently learned is the Riker manoeuvre (the way he sits on chairs by throwing his leg over the back) and the way he stood at the ops/conn stations with his foot on the console was because of Frakes' bad back.

pixelburp

Huh. When I think on it I'm not sure I've actually seen Generations, start to finish. I can recall the start, and the underwhelming finale of Kirk's death but I'm damned if I can recall the beats between those bookends. The holodeck sequence on the sailboat is from that film, right? Beyond that uhh... *Shrug*

breezy1985

pixelburp wrote: »

Huh. When I think on it I'm not sure I've actually seen Generations, start to finish. I can recall the start, and the underwhelming finale of Kirk's death but I'm damned if I can recall the beats between those bookends. The holodeck sequence on the sailboat is from that film, right? Beyond that uhh... *Shrug*

Any bit with Stewart or Mcdowell is great they really carry the movie. The rest like yourself I can't really remember

pixelburp

breezy1985 wrote: »

Any bit with Stewart or Mcdowell is great they really carry the movie. The rest like yourself I can't really remember

I guess, only remember McDowell's daft wee rocket at the end, but as to how they got there? Pfffh, m'dunno. Says a lot about the film really; even Insurrection I can remember more of, but mostly for its awful mid section and "we reject TECHNOLOGY, please ignore our water wheel" hippy bulshít beloved of boomer writers back then.

Stark

Don't remember it being half as bad as people say it was. Was a lot better than Insurrection and Nemesis. First Contact worked better as a movie. Generations was more like a two part TV episode. It did wrap up a few loose plot ends from the TV series (like Data getting to experience emotions) so was worth it from that point of view I thought.

ilovesmybrick

Have to say I've always enjoyed Generations. Yeah it wasn't one of the best, but I'd definitely watch it over several of the other Trek films. Probably somewhere in the middle of my list.

Evade

I think a lot of the disappointment in Generations at the time was killing off Kirk in a pretty lame way, although if it was made today it'd probably be considered by some as an excellent subversion of expectations.

It has other wonkiness like it relies pretty heavily on the past with the Duras Sisters and the emotion chip but then in the end Picard's priceless one of a kind 10,000 year old artefact given to him by his mentor and father figure that somehow survives the saucer section crash is literally thrown aside and is broken.

Captain Cameron is pretty incompetent too.

corkie

Evade wrote: »

I think a lot of the disappointment in Generations at the time was killing off Kirk in a pretty lame way, although if it was made today it'd probably be considered by some as an excellent subversion of expectations.

It has other wonkiness like it relies pretty heavily on the past with the Duras Sisters and the emotion chip but then in the end Picard's priceless one of a kind 10,000 year old artefact given to him by his mentor and father figure that somehow survives the saucer section crash is literally thrown aside and is broken.

Captain Cameron is pretty incompetent too.

"Picard's Kurlan naiskos was in his vault in the Quantum Archive at the Starfleet Archive Museum. (PIC: "Remembrance") "
Kurlan naiskos

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

I think a lot of the disappointment in Generations at the time was killing off Kirk in a pretty lame way, although if it was made today it'd probably be considered by some as an excellent subversion of expectations.

It has other wonkiness like it relies pretty heavily on the past with the Duras Sisters and the emotion chip but then in the end Picard's priceless one of a kind 10,000 year old artefact given to him by his mentor and father figure that somehow survives the saucer section crash is literally thrown aside and is broken.

Captain Cameron is pretty incompetent too.

Yeah, that's jogging no memories. Huh. Maybe I haven't seen this film after all. Can't say I'm stoked to, even if I've gone through all my rewatch list across the pandemic.

Don't think scripting trends can account for Kirk's death. It was terrible, not cos it subverted expectations but because it was a clunky action scene, featuring clearly out of shape, too old performers trying to fist fight through the finale (TBH a recurring problem with ALL the TNG films, the cast couldn't fight). It's kinda weird because "gerry-action" is kind of a thing now, with Taken, John Wick and Nobody all showing older actors kicking ass is an appealing concept.

To that end: what SHOULD Kirk's death been about? Firstly IMO it might have been better staged on a bridge;, not even the enterprise necessarily. Something akin to Wrath o Kahn, where Kirk was finally outplayed, had to finally face the Kobayashi Maru and its lesson. A proper thematic arc. That he made a noble sacrifice while his crew escaped (in Generations that could have involved the saucer section, given it was destroyed in the final feature). I wonder was the shítty finale down to rewrites or Shatner sticking his nose into the script.

Evade

corkie wrote: »

"Picard's Kurlan naiskos was in his vault in the Quantum Archive at the Starfleet Archive Museum. (PIC: "Remembrance") "
Kurlan naiskos

It's been retconned then but at the time he casually tossed it aside.

Evade

pixelburp wrote: »

TBH a recurring problem with ALL the TNG films, the cast couldn't fight).

I'll have you know the two handed hammer blow to the back is an ancient guaranteed one hit win martial arts technique from Derexkan II. Joke BTW

pixelburp wrote: »

IMO it might have been better staged on a bridge

To be the best kind of correct, he does die on a bridge. But I think a death like in the opening of Generations would have been fine for Kirk.

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

To be the best kind of correct, he does die on a bridge. But I think a death like in the opening of Generations would have been fine for Kirk.

Ha yes he is literally dies on a bridge or under one at least.

I never noticed that death as a bad part of the movie really and I don't remember much about him in GEN and couldn't care if his scenes past Ent-B were cut. The movie didn't need Kirk at all Picard grappling with age and mortality was enough