General Star Trek thread

Markitron wrote: »

I went twice in 2007, it was fantastic. The Borg encounter experience was utterly fantastic but the main attraction was Quark's bar, was such a good laugh and all the costumed 'cast' were well up for it and in character. Had some serious cocktails in there too, borg sphere was amazing.

Can you play the "Allamaran count to 4" game

Wedwood wrote: »

Some of you may remember the Star Trek exhibition in Mosney around 1995/6.

It had displays of costumes, sets, props and models from the TV series and movies. Among the highlights I remember were the actual Enterprise movie model used in the first 6 movies, all the main cast costumes from both TV and movies (eg Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Khan, Chang, Picard, Data etc), phasers and tricorders from the original series and the original bridge set.

The exhibition toured the world, here’s a link to a video of the exhibition when it arrived in Germany.https://youtu.be/RAm-tQdtALE

I remember that. Was great. Playing with the transporter pad was cool and sitting in all the Captains chairs when staff werent looking.

pixelburp wrote: »

I checked and she wrote the Short Trek "ask not" and the second part of season 3 Terran 2 parter. So yeah, not a fabulous start but look. I'm giving her the benefit here because why not? Not like the movies are ever that great bar ... what? Maybe 3, 4 stone cold classics total, couple of guilty pleasures maybe; so perhaps with a blank slate she can pen something good. That Terran story would be a millstone around anyone's neck.

I'd be inclined to get some benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. This is, if this even got made. There's been plenty of announcements of a movie post-Beyond and they had a knack of fizzing out. But if this turns out to be made, maybe they'll steer away from JJ-Trek and just do something that just happens to be in the Trek universe? That might be good.

However, still a bit wary of anyone emerging from the Secret Hideout eco-system of Trek production.

Rawr wrote: »

I'd be inclined to get some benefit of the doubt and hope for the best. This is, if this even got made. There's been plenty of announcements of a movie post-Beyond and they had a knack of fizzing out. But if this turns out to be made, maybe they'll steer away from JJ-Trek and just do something that just happens to be in the Trek universe? That might be good.

However, still a bit wary of anyone emerging from the Secret Hideout eco-system of Trek production.

Ya lots of these tend to fizzle out but another tendency Trek has is to copy whatever Star Wars does so expect desperate attempts to find a Trek "Mandalorian" or "Rogue One"

]

pixelburp wrote: »

Takes some surfeit of possessiveness, and an utter absence of self-awareness to rail against a kid's cartoon FFS. To be fair, this is a poison among a lot of fanboys of pop culture these days and not exclusive the Trek: wherein they can't seem to process the idea that not everything is going to explicitly speak to them. Be it the overall age-group, sexuality of main characters or whatever. It's pathetic.

As to the designs? Yeah they're not especially "Trek" in appearance, but I just don't have any interest in kids cartoons in general anyway. I know Clone Wars and the like try to angle the material at all ages, but it just comes down to personal taste. That and I just hatttttte TV CGI cartoons; the animation is always so rubbery and blergh. Again, personal taste, more power to people who enjoy Clone Wars et al.

Honestly, I think in principal it's amazing that Trek will expand into kids cartoons: it's literally going to prepare the ground for ... wait for it ... The Next Generation of Trek fans Not that the angry internet neckbeards will appreciate that - and I'm sure there are already 100s of YouTube videos of idiots like that ranting into their webcam.

Nice virtue signalling rant.

If it has no resemblance to any existing Star Trek then it's not expanding into anything, it's instead a studio using an existing brand to make more money.

People who disagree with you aren't idiots or pathetic by the way, maybe you need to pay more attention when watching Star Trek, you might learn something about attitudes towards others.

pixelburp wrote: »

Not sure why you're angry, you taking this personal for some reason? I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me, don't think myself and Evade here have ever seen eye to eye on this forum as a for instance lol

But some fans ranting about cartoons for kids sight unseen is possessive and the worst aspect of nerd / fan culture. Seen elsewhere not just in Trek. There's literally not a second of footage out there yet the reaction in some corners is ... Yeah. Kinda pathetic reaction for a transparent kids cartoon. And I hate to break it to you, but everything made in the Trek world is for making money - Trek ain't art

But yeah, relax there, watch some Trek yourself

Erm I'm not the angry one here chief! Pop quiz, which one of us is calling people pathetic and idiots?

GreeBo wrote: »

]

Nice virtue signalling rant.

If it has no resemblance to any existing Star Trek then it's not expanding into anything, it's instead a studio using an existing brand to make more money.

People who disagree with you aren't idiots or pathetic by the way, maybe you need to pay more attention when watching Star Trek, you might learn something about attitudes towards others.

You seem to have completely made up your mind off one poster or your mind was made up before you ever even saw the poster.


And Pixelburp never said people who disagree with her are " idiots or pathetic" just that the actions of those sad incel fanboys are

beauf wrote: »

So I dunno about dumbed down kids cartoon. Theres often a lot more going in modern cartoons than there was in those old TV shows.

If it's not dumbed down, then why aim it at kids? A broader appeal would then suffice no? It's really looks its going to be a more simplistic take on things, which as I say above, if done right will be fine. If not, it's no worse than some of the modern crap they're churning out.

Myrddin wrote: »

I don't think it was two dimensional thinking really, it just looks better on screen if ships are oriented the same way as each other.

Yeah, done mostly for aesthetic purposes, really, although some rules&regulations about travel between and inside controlled systems might explain that - don't think it's ever been mentioned on-screen 'though.

A bit like the famous "banking fighters" in Star Wars - done because it was cool (and because they basically used WWII footage for a model), but it does also make sense in a biological way: a theorerical "space fighter" traveling at high speeds, would be artificially made to bank during turns to keep a positive g-force on the pilot; The human body tends to withstand positive g-force better than other vectors. We see this even with current tech - fighter jet pilots invert the plane if they're performing a rapid dive manoeuvre, so they can avoid excessive negative g loads.

Inviere wrote: »

The cartoon image definitely seems 'off' in terms of Star Trek, and seems far more fitting of Star Wars or somesuch. That's not to say it won't be good, it could be, we won't know until we watch it. That said, it's safe to say virtually every current Star Trek fan in existence who has been watching since childhood, didn't need a dumbed down cartoon to hook them, so I can see where some of the grievances are coming from in that regard. When written properly, Star Trek can appeal to all audiences.

I was sceptical, and even dismissive of Lower Decks at one point after my first attempt to watch it. I've recently finished it, and thouroughly enjoyed it this time around (I stuck with it past the first three eps, and kinda knew what to expect for the second attempt). There were some genuine lol moments, and it had some great stories. I'd consider it dumbed down Star Trek, but it was handled properly, by people who really 'get' what Star Trek is. I loved how

in one episode it took the absolute piss out of the **** 'cinematic' lighting in modern Star Trek, with the screen haze, piercing bright lights in every scene, etc etc.....also had a good chuckle at Riker's reason for being late to the bridge of the Titan )

So yeah, I'm not automatically optimistic this kids show will be good, but look, even if it's not, it's no loss to us. I'd say one thing, I'd prob quicker watch the kids show than I would the possible Section 31 show.....it's not as if a kids show will be doing any more or less harm than garbage like that would be/will be (which can be safely said without seeing it, because we know how Section 31 was handled in Discovery - awfully.)

+1 I think I'm similarly inclined.

I also am of the feeling that good Trek can hook in people from all ages. Hell...I even remember as a 4/5 year old being hooked by The Wrath of Khan. That one *really* wasn't kid friendly :P I was also wary of Lower Decks until I too experienced a production that appeared to actually care about the universe of Trek. They were clearly having fun with it, with an enjoyable sense of humor and a sort of shared language we've all gotten used to over the years of watching Trek.

I can understand Viacom's desire to use Trek in a Nickelodeon production. They're re-launcing their streaming service and the only chance these companies have of completeing with Netflix / Amazon is to pad out their platform with as much content as they can get. This is part of why Discovery probably won't get cancelled, and the reason we may end up seeing Section 31 and Strange New Worlds. They need shows, as many as possible....quality be damned (I guess...)

However, Lower Decks was good, and I still suspect that this was due to Kurtzman & Co. being mostly absent from the production. Those people have an uncanny ability to take a potentially good idea and drive it off a very annoying cliff. That was absent in Lower Decks, and my hope at this early stage is that he was also be absent for the production of ST: Prodigy. If so...there is some hope of some good Trek, even if it is a kids show. I am of the firm belief, that even a kids show should be approached with the intention of entertaining everyone watching. Actual "family entertainmnet" in its more useful form, a show that appeals to everyone at mulitple levels, as opposed to a lightly written adventure slokk that will only appeal to the youngest. Very few manage or bother with the approach of broad-appeal, but if we're lucky, maybe they will. I am curious to see what they come up with.

beauf wrote: »

I don't have a link to what you are talking about. I've not seen this show... It's their a trailer anywhere.

Oh, apologies, I thought you were aware of the show. It's called Star Trek Prodigy, it's developed and produced Nickelodeon (the children's tv channel), and has been described by Viacom as being aimed at children and family audiences. There's currently no trailer, only a still image of some very cartoony looking characters. So combined with the image, & the other facts I've mentioned, it's a very safe assumption this will be more akin to Phineas & Ferb than it will be to Unification I & II. Which is fine, I'm ok with it that.....though it's a slight shame that Star Trek used to be able to just attract fans of all ages, rather than specifically aimed shows at specific demographics.

breezy1985 wrote: »

Just because Trek can appeal to all ages doesn't mean it's not still ok to have a kids show.

I think the point is that it never needed one to hook younger audiences in. Of course its OK to have one, the hope is that it's just handled well.

Inviere wrote: »

I think the point is that it never needed one to hook younger audiences in. Of course its OK to have one, the hope is that it's just handled well.

Of course we all hope it's handled well why would anyone hope it's handled badly.

Inviere wrote: »

Nobody hopes it gets handled badly, relax with the strawman there. Picard, and Discovery, have not filled people with hope is all.

I loved Picard despite it's problems and Lower Decks filled me with lots of hope. Only Discovery really sucked and I'm not really using it as any kind of measure of this kids cartoon. I'm happy to wait until we have more than a poster before I start with the pessimism unlike some who seem all too ready to shoot it down before it starts

Inviere wrote: »

Such is the nature of media with vast fanbases like Star Trek has. Some will happily chew on any ****e with the name Trek in it. Others will hate everything that isn't shot in 4:3 with styrofoam rocks. Many are in the middle, enjoying some of the modern stuff, but not all of it. As I said twice already, if Prodigy actually turns out good, then great, thumbs up. If it ends up being garbage, those who don't enjoy it don't have to watch it. It really doesn't matter in the overall scheme of it.

Those who don't enjoy still have to come on and derail every episode thread with regurgitated crap from Youtube edgelords though.

Inviere wrote: »

Such is the way with discussion forums....if you don't care to read the opinions of such people, then don't.

Its really not that simple. Threads that should be about transwarp conduits or something become meaningless whinging about "SJW virtue signallers" or similar nonsense that should be on the Donald Trump thread not the Trek one