Sometimes certain factions deciding that they don't want certain races to join (one of the original series movies was set about an assassination attempt to stop the Klingons joining/reaffirming their loyalty). It's always been there, its just often only a one episode or rare thing or a background element. Plus not something that always came up in the series.
That said DATA did have it in spades when they ran a court case to determine if he was alive and if they could dismantle him. Riker had to argue the case against him and even Picard had to get pushed down a notch by DATA during one talk in the episode.
I said it earlier/somewhere that in the Federation jobs are a very important thing. Because income is only a loose concept (ship captains and admirals appear to get better than lower ranks, but its really hard to tell what the actual divides are); a person's job is really very much part of their identity within the Federation. If you do X then X is basically your life that you've dedicated yourself toward. No matter what it is long term job security does appear to be a thing, with most showing long term status in their roles and far less job jumping.
If you bring androids along there's a chance that they keep getting made over and over and over and suddenly you aren't needed for your job. What's your identity and role in life if you don't have that. We saw some of that with our one drug addict - someone who loses their position in life entirely. Picard was the same, only he retreated in luxury of a sort; though both clearly "suffered" for their "retirement" in different ways.
There's often been contention at new groups joining the Federation; heck the Marquis joining the Voyager ship was a contentious point for a good long while. Same as Seven of Nine joining the crew.
Voss wrote: But it also has widespread xenophobia, poverty and drug addiction resurging out of nowhere, after each and every captain of each series telling us those things have been completely eliminated...
Wide spread anti-romulan xenophobia is hardly new to the federation though. if you watch a few key TNG and DS9 episodes you can definatly see signs that this is pretty well.. normal.
Indeed. TNG/DS9 both had references to "spoonheads" (Cardassians) and "ridgeheads" (Klingons), both of which ARE racial epithets for two of the major alien races. As well as contempt for all "lesser" races (Augments, Romulans).
Overread wrote: Just a point but "drugs are not a problem" doesn't have to mean there are no drug users. Just that the issue is so tiny that it doesn't really register as a problem at the general population level. There could still be thousands of abusers and users and problem people, but they are spread really really thin over the whole population. Thus making it an "invisible" issue to the population at large.
and then there's the fact that drug use may not be viewed as a problem so long as it's done in moderation remember, TNG got it's start in the late 80s during the height of the war on drugs. sentiment on drugs have evolved and become a bit more nuanced since then. I mean.. IIRC Raffi was growing plants on her porch and smoking something. for all we know her drug use is basicly the 24th centuries answer to pot.
Benjamin Sisko wrote:On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, and no war. You look out the window and you see Paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in Paradise but the Maquis do not live in Paradise.
Benjamin Sisko wrote:On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, and no war. You look out the window and you see Paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in Paradise but the Maquis do not live in Paradise.
yeah I posted a video of that entire quote. among others, as I said Picard does nothing DS9 didn't do 20 years ago
Picard does add to it though. We see one of Starfleet’s greatest and most noble son’s deal with the corruption.
Did he knowingly turn a blind eye before? Were his various missions sufficient to stop him seeing the corruption?
Importantly, with the first season down we’ve a chance to better explore a Starfleet post Dominion War, which is what I’ve wanted ever since DS9 ended.
Voyager gets a sort of pass. I don’t think it’s very good, but it did supply Standard Trek for those wanting it.
Enterprise was unforgivable in that regard, nevermind I didn’t enjoy it it wasted everything DS9 built up.
Picard? First season is clearly about us catching up with the man himself, as the same amount of time has passed in our world and Canon.
Second season holds more promise of exploring stuff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thinking a bit more?
Given the events we know happened, how much did Starfleet de-militarise?
The design of the Defiant class amply demonstrates that when they’re arming for war, they simply do not mess around. Compact, equally armed and armoured. To the point they overtax the power systems.
And we see some of that reflected in the Sovereign class and it’s contemporaries.
Yet, with end of that war and the fall of Romulus, The Federation was left with relatively few enemies. Sure, the Klingons and Cardassians could be seen as tenuous allies, and not necessarily entirely trustworthy. But the bonds of war where the Alpha Quadrant fought together isn’t something easily ignored.
One could argue that a continued militaristic design ethos could be seen to be provocative to their allies. My train of thought here is that it could well be enough to have proven military capacity, and then dial it back. The mailed fist in the velvet glove if you will.
But what did The Federation & Starfleet actually do? Did they largely disarm? Did they exploit a war weary quadrant to spread their creed? Think back to Quark and Garrak’s little chat about how badly that could’ve gone wrong.
Yet, with end of that war and the fall of Romulus, The Federation was left with relatively few enemies. Sure, the Klingons and Cardassians could be seen as tenuous allies, and not necessarily entirely trustworthy. But the bonds of war where the Alpha Quadrant fought together isn’t something easily ignored.
One could argue that a continued militaristic design ethos could be seen to be provocative to their allies. My train of thought here is that it could well be enough to have proven military capacity, and then dial it back. The mailed fist in the velvet glove if you will.
But what did The Federation & Starfleet actually do? Did they largely disarm? Did they exploit a war weary quadrant to spread their creed? Think back to Quark and Garrak’s little chat about how badly that could’ve gone wrong.
Lots to explore. Give the writers a chance.
One could easily draw parallels to a post-Cold War era US military for themes and elements to choose from. During the Cold War, the US was "keeping up with" the USSR. . . the federation up through the wars of DS9 can largely be seen in the same terms: her ships must keep up with the Romulans, Klingons and others.
After this, you have a significant power dropping away, and with it, the overt need for such military strength. . . does the greater power draw itself down? Does it stick to its ideals? Or does it continue on the path it set itself on in time of war?
Given the fleet we see at the end of Picard has two elements
1) The ships are clearly much more warlike - even Riker is admitting that the ship he is on is at the top of the battlefleet.
2) The ship are uniform constructions. Now we can argue this was to make it quicker for a TV crew to make a whole fleet cheaper for high definition modern TV. However at the same time I think its a reflection that Starfleet has bulked up its fleet considerably in a very short span of time. So the ships were assembly line built to the same/similar specifications. Rather than ad-hock ships built to different specifications for different core roles.
In the past many of their ships were mult-role - science, research, study, first contacts, battle, exploratory etc... The Enterprise D even had children and families on board. The ships of Original Series to DS9 first half (or so) were all ships made with multiple roles in mind and battle was only one of many. The result is that they were not warships and the crews, whilst having battle training, were not warriors in the same sense.
During the Dominion War the Federation starts the Defiant Program - making an actual warship (several in the end) and also starting to train crews who were specifically warriors first.
We see some hints of this continuation with the Enterprise E, though its still a multi-role flagship. We then get a seriously stark reminder of how its not a warship when the Romulans then actually go and build a full capital ship sized warship - 3 warp cores, more guns than most fleets etc...
So in Picard I think what we are seeing is the culmination of a Cold War Arms Race. The Federation had its "WWII" in the Dominion War - it then had its odd cold war with the Romulans escalate to an actual full armed conflict (even if it was only two ships involved).
I think the Federation has armed up significantly. The continued Borg threat and the shockwaves of the Dominion War (which lets again remember is one of the biggest actual wars the Federation has ever had); has likely bred a need in the Federation to have its own army. To not rely on allied races who might fall from grace or even debate and argue (lets not forget Klingons were not joining in easily and even when they did they often wanted to do their own thing in the Dominion Wars - they looked for glory in battle not tactical strikes all the time).
The Federation has a warfleet now. A top end warfleet built by the faction in its sector which arguably has the most resources and is affluent enough that they can make that costly investment. Indeed we get no hint that the Federation is economically harmed even after the events on Mars - which was again another massive event close to home that has likely also spurred the desire within the Federation to be able to police its own systems.
Benjamin Sisko wrote:On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, and no war. You look out the window and you see Paradise. Well, it's easy to be a saint in Paradise but the Maquis do not live in Paradise.
yeah I posted a video of that entire quote. among others, as I said Picard does nothing DS9 didn't do 20 years ago
I'd also add that nothing I've seen of Picard makes it look remotely as intelligent or thoughtful as DS9. It looks like more of Discovery's empty action porn. Seriously, sometimes throwing a higher budget at the effects department does not make something better.
DS9 had several seasons to work with though. A lot of the deeper moments are born of very gradual and steady changes that play out over multiple seasons. I think that it also didn't have as hard a start because we didn't need a recap on 20 years of the Federation.
Timeline wise it happens pretty much right after TNG; even the crew we get from that series don't need much of an introduction because they just transfer from the Enterprise to DS9 so we already know their most recent history and past.
At the start DS9 is "reasonably" standard Startrek too. Once the station is established we fairly quickly enter the "alien of the week from the wormhole". It was pretty normal ST that evolved through its own various series into something deeper and different.
Picard takes a very familiar character, but then jumps over a decade into the future during very changing times for the Federation and the Sector in general. So its got the double hit that its only got one very short season to work with and has a lot of ground to cover. One could argue that perhaps they tried to do too much all at once; however in contrast a good few people did complain about its slower start and its gradual build up - and that's with them doing lots of stuff. I think a REALLY slow and gradual build up might have failed in terms of entertainment.
Perhaps if the first season was double the length they might have had more room.
Finally got around to starting on this one... Been itching to check it out, but haven't had time. Only the first episode so far, but enjoying it. It's certainly a different tone to previous Trek, even Discovery, but it works.
The opening song was a nice 'Aaaaawwwww' moment, tying back to Nemesis.
Overread wrote: Given the fleet we see at the end of Picard has two elements
1) The ships are clearly much more warlike - even Riker is admitting that the ship he is on is at the top of the battlefleet.
2) The ship are uniform constructions. Now we can argue this was to make it quicker for a TV crew to make a whole fleet cheaper for high definition modern TV. However at the same time I think its a reflection that Starfleet has bulked up its fleet considerably in a very short span of time. So the ships were assembly line built to the same/similar specifications. Rather than ad-hock ships built to different specifications for different core roles.
In the past many of their ships were mult-role - science, research, study, first contacts, battle, exploratory etc... The Enterprise D even had children and families on board. The ships of Original Series to DS9 first half (or so) were all ships made with multiple roles in mind and battle was only one of many. The result is that they were not warships and the crews, whilst having battle training, were not warriors in the same sense.
During the Dominion War the Federation starts the Defiant Program - making an actual warship (several in the end) and also starting to train crews who were specifically warriors first.
We see some hints of this continuation with the Enterprise E, though its still a multi-role flagship. We then get a seriously stark reminder of how its not a warship when the Romulans then actually go and build a full capital ship sized warship - 3 warp cores, more guns than most fleets etc...
So in Picard I think what we are seeing is the culmination of a Cold War Arms Race. The Federation had its "WWII" in the Dominion War - it then had its odd cold war with the Romulans escalate to an actual full armed conflict (even if it was only two ships involved).
I think the Federation has armed up significantly. The continued Borg threat and the shockwaves of the Dominion War (which lets again remember is one of the biggest actual wars the Federation has ever had); has likely bred a need in the Federation to have its own army. To not rely on allied races who might fall from grace or even debate and argue (lets not forget Klingons were not joining in easily and even when they did they often wanted to do their own thing in the Dominion Wars - they looked for glory in battle not tactical strikes all the time).
The Federation has a warfleet now. A top end warfleet built by the faction in its sector which arguably has the most resources and is affluent enough that they can make that costly investment. Indeed we get no hint that the Federation is economically harmed even after the events on Mars - which was again another massive event close to home that has likely also spurred the desire within the Federation to be able to police its own systems.
I don't see any reason there to assume the Federation has a whole "War Fleet" now. All the ships in the last episode probably look the same because the Utopia Planitia Shipyards were destroyed and they just don't have the capability right now to make a diverse fleet of ships. Ya there was a lot of ships at the end but Starfleet does have a lot of ships anyway. They would mention losing hundreds of ships at a time during The Dominion War. Which actually was another stupid part of PIcard. To destroy like 30 people The Romulans send like 230 warbirds or something. If they had sent one warbird and cloaked it that would have actually succeeded. Apparently The Romulan Star Empire which lost Romulus and has hundreds of warbirds lying around didn't have a big enough fleet to evacuate their home planet...
For now, my Head Canon is that Starfleet has reached a certain level of compromise.
By all means continue their scientific and humanitarian work, with ships as we knew them filling that role. But, also assembling and maintaining a fleet built for battle.
This is likely an endeavour to never be caught with their trousers down again. After The Borg & The Dominion rocking their poop over a pretty short period of time, the need for dedicated battleships is difficult to argue against - but not justification to abandon their original purpose.
It may also be a way to appease the Klingon Empire, now their closest and longest ally. After all, the Klingons suffered heavy losses during the Dominion War, and did much of the fighting as is their wont.
But I can see Martok urging the Federation to maintain some kind of battle fleet to preserve the alliance. After all, to not do so could (and given Klingon politics, probably would) be interpreted as a cowardly will to use Klingon warriors as a shield.
And on the flip side, they also have to deal with a resurgent, war seasoned Klingon Empire. Sure Martok is an honourable Warrior, unlikely to attack his ally just for the sake of a punch up. But he wouldn’t be Chancellor forever - and you can’t tell what his replacement might do. So again, keep a battle fleet of some kind to better nip any violence in the bud.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: They would mention losing hundreds of ships at a time during The Dominion War.
They did mention it - in "A Time to Stand" they say they lost 98 ships in one engagement ("out of 112 ships, only fourteen ships have returned"). I remember that because I recently re-watched it - I'm sure they said similar in other episodes. The Memory Alpha summary of the Dominion War says the Federation Alliance lost "Thousands of ships", but that includes the Klingons & Romulans.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: For now, my Head Canon is that Starfleet has reached a certain level of compromise.
By all means continue their scientific and humanitarian work, with ships as we knew them filling that role. But, also assembling and maintaining a fleet built for battle.
This is likely an endeavour to never be caught with their trousers down again. After The Borg & The Dominion rocking their poop over a pretty short period of time, the need for dedicated battleships is difficult to argue against - but not justification to abandon their original purpose.
It may also be a way to appease the Klingon Empire, now their closest and longest ally. After all, the Klingons suffered heavy losses during the Dominion War, and did much of the fighting as is their wont.
But I can see Martok urging the Federation to maintain some kind of battle fleet to preserve the alliance. After all, to not do so could (and given Klingon politics, probably would) be interpreted as a cowardly will to use Klingon warriors as a shield.
And on the flip side, they also have to deal with a resurgent, war seasoned Klingon Empire. Sure Martok is an honourable Warrior, unlikely to attack his ally just for the sake of a punch up. But he wouldn’t be Chancellor forever - and you can’t tell what his replacement might do. So again, keep a battle fleet of some kind to better nip any violence in the bud.
Was there any mention of what Class Riker's ship was? I would accept there was an actual battlefleet if those ships were dedicated warships but I don't think anything like that is mentioned. The Defiant gets mentioned a lot as a completely out of the closet warship but it is quite small. More of patrol boat. I find The Akira Class to be a more convincing argument for the militarization of StarFleet.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: They would mention losing hundreds of ships at a time during The Dominion War.
They did mention it - in "A Time to Stand" they say they lost 98 ships in one engagement ("out of 112 ships, only fourteen ships have returned"). I remember that because I recently re-watched it - I'm sure they said similar in other episodes. The Memory Alpha summary of the Dominion War says the Federation Alliance lost "Thousands of ships", but that includes the Klingons & Romulans.
I can't remember where I read it but I believe Starfleet lost about 600 ships in the war.
Yeah with all that's going on it would be more surprising if the Federation did not have a warfleet now. Federation got to grow up in a bit of a bubble - mostly weaker/peaceful/more primitive races in a hub in the middle; with only some major war-like races on the boundaries. Most of which were at a point where they were stagnating after growth of their empires rather than growing.
So the Federation did have conflict, but never a vast war against a huge empire. Even the Klingons were on the down somewhat. They were also able to use few ships in smaller key engagements during the fights that they did have whilst also having experienced and competent captains.
The Borg began as a smaller, but continual growing threat; whilst the Dominion War was the first major scale war where they were fighting long term against an opponent who could not be cowed by a few starships appearing. Who were in the prime of growing their own empire, not at a state of stagnation where growth is more a small time political move to curry favour in polities.
It was invasion that wasn't just going to end with internal politics or political pressure.
Hot on the heels of that the Romulans then kick up a fuss and start to arm up again in an arms race. Arguably they emerge from the Dominion War pretty well. From what I recall they take losses, but unlike Cardassians, Federation or Klingons, they aren't in the thick of it. Barring the Nemesis film (which was more of a wildshot attack); I suspect the Romulans and Federation would have entered into a steady and active cold war situation - both sides arming up. The Supernova basically ended that, however its clear that both sides continued some degree of arming up. The Federation further spurred into life for that by the attack on Mars - a strike right at the heart of the Federation.
Federation has been beset with war and terrorism over a very short span of time. The Galaxy has become a lot more dangerous on the large scale. Building and maintaining their own protective fleet is just sound common sense. It's just the same when you play a 4* game and you emerge from the early growth phase and start to bump shoulders with other empires and wars start to break out. Suddenly you need to divert more money into warships (if you hadn't already) even if just to protect what you have.
Overread wrote: Yeah with all that's going on it would be more surprising if the Federation did not have a warfleet now. Federation got to grow up in a bit of a bubble - mostly weaker/peaceful/more primitive races in a hub in the middle; with only some major war-like races on the boundaries. Most of which were at a point where they were stagnating after growth of their empires rather than growing.
So the Federation did have conflict, but never a vast war against a huge empire. Even the Klingons were on the down somewhat. They were also able to use few ships in smaller key engagements during the fights that they did have whilst also having experienced and competent captains.
The Borg began as a smaller, but continual growing threat; whilst the Dominion War was the first major scale war where they were fighting long term against an opponent who could not be cowed by a few starships appearing. Who were in the prime of growing their own empire, not at a state of stagnation where growth is more a small time political move to curry favour in polities.
It was invasion that wasn't just going to end with internal politics or political pressure.
Hot on the heels of that the Romulans then kick up a fuss and start to arm up again in an arms race. Arguably they emerge from the Dominion War pretty well. From what I recall they take losses, but unlike Cardassians, Federation or Klingons, they aren't in the thick of it. Barring the Nemesis film (which was more of a wildshot attack); I suspect the Romulans and Federation would have entered into a steady and active cold war situation - both sides arming up. The Supernova basically ended that, however its clear that both sides continued some degree of arming up. The Federation further spurred into life for that by the attack on Mars - a strike right at the heart of the Federation.
Federation has been beset with war and terrorism over a very short span of time. The Galaxy has become a lot more dangerous on the large scale. Building and maintaining their own protective fleet is just sound common sense. It's just the same when you play a 4* game and you emerge from the early growth phase and start to bump shoulders with other empires and wars start to break out. Suddenly you need to divert more money into warships (if you hadn't already) even if just to protect what you have.
Is it though? I'm sure that's what the hawks are saying but actually seems like things are fine. As you've just shown they're biggest geo-political rival Romulus just got decapitated. The problems sure, but their doesn't seem to be war clouds forming on their borders anymore. To the point were they had to make a show that takes place before Kirk to get their war on again.
Now that could be what they're exploring. An analogy, not for Cold War America, but post Cold War America. Where chances of a global conflict are actually low but America's military industrial complex keeps chugging along. The Federation even has had a 9/11 type attack to keep it going. However, we shouldn't just assume that's what's happening. Could be happening, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt that its not because if its not I don't think there's much point to Star Trek anymore. Imperialistic, militaristic space empire is already covered in a lot of other universes - like Star Wars.
The Federation building a warfleet is a far cry from them becoming an "Imperialist Power". They aren't changing their core ethos, what they are doing is taking sensible precautionary steps toward forming a formal military force within their space fleet. Ships where the crew get more battle training than standard; where the number and armaments are clearly greater than in the past. A fleet that isn't there to impose imperial will or invade, but is there to protect the Federation and its interests against a Galaxy that is currently proving very dangerous.
Sure they've survived the Borg and Dominion Wars and terror attacks thus far. However I'd point out that thus far the Borg have never invaded en-mass. If they had sent even just two Cubes in their first invasion that would have wiped out the Federation in one go. Meanwhile the Dominion almost took on the the majority of the power players in the whole quadrant and nearly won.
The Federation might not have a fearful war on its hand right now, but clearly they've learned that its better to have and not need than to not have and need. An invader might not announce that they are on the way. The Borg might send an actual military style response of multiple cubes. The Cardassian's might rebuild and decide to start carving up some more empire for themselves. The Founders might go against the peace agreements and start their army up once again.
Starfleet/The Federation are also more aware of what else might be out there.
It seems they never really envisaged something like The Dominion existing, let alone it being hostile.
But now, that lesson is learned and then some. At the time, they had very, very few ships particularly well suited to a truly militaristic, organised foe.
They’ve also had Voyager stir up a Hornet’s Nest in the Delta Quadrant. Not just The Borg, but the potential of Species 8472 making a pre-emptive strike. Perhaps with The Dominion suffering defeat, their control over the Gamma Quadrant is loosened. What might the fall out there be? Reneging on the peace treaty after a period of rearming? Resurgent former subjects of The Dominion invading?
The Galaxy is a different place to where we last saw it. Having a greater military presence is entirely understandable in the face of it.
Overread wrote: The Federation building a warfleet is a far cry from them becoming an "Imperialist Power". They aren't changing their core ethos,
Hrm, I think from a thematic standpoint of how Rodenberry envisioned the Star Trek universe and the original concept of the universe, that's a definite change. The Federation did not build warships, they didn't maintain fleets of vessels for the sole purpose of warfare. The Federation had conflict, they warred with the Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, and others, encountered things of vast power and capability (such as the Doomsday Machine in TOS), but their ships were multipurpose with their destructive capabilities being secondary to other roles. The Defiant caused discomfort for many by the very nature of its design, something tolerated only because of an imminent overwhelming threat and never entirely accepted, always seen as a niche exception of sorts. Purpose built warfleets is, I would argue at least, a notable character change for the Federation. "Imperialist" I don't think would be accurate, but there is an ethos shift there for sure.
Overread wrote: Given the fleet we see at the end of Picard has two elements
1) The ships are clearly much more warlike - even Riker is admitting that the ship he is on is at the top of the battlefleet.
2) The ship are uniform constructions. Now we can argue this was to make it quicker for a TV crew to make a whole fleet cheaper for high definition modern TV. However at the same time I think its a reflection that Starfleet has bulked up its fleet considerably in a very short span of time. So the ships were assembly line built to the same/similar specifications. Rather than ad-hock ships built to different specifications for different core roles.
In the past many of their ships were mult-role - science, research, study, first contacts, battle, exploratory etc... The Enterprise D even had children and families on board. The ships of Original Series to DS9 first half (or so) were all ships made with multiple roles in mind and battle was only one of many. The result is that they were not warships and the crews, whilst having battle training, were not warriors in the same sense.
During the Dominion War the Federation starts the Defiant Program - making an actual warship (several in the end) and also starting to train crews who were specifically warriors first.
We see some hints of this continuation with the Enterprise E, though its still a multi-role flagship. We then get a seriously stark reminder of how its not a warship when the Romulans then actually go and build a full capital ship sized warship - 3 warp cores, more guns than most fleets etc...
So in Picard I think what we are seeing is the culmination of a Cold War Arms Race. The Federation had its "WWII" in the Dominion War - it then had its odd cold war with the Romulans escalate to an actual full armed conflict (even if it was only two ships involved).
I think the Federation has armed up significantly. The continued Borg threat and the shockwaves of the Dominion War (which lets again remember is one of the biggest actual wars the Federation has ever had); has likely bred a need in the Federation to have its own army. To not rely on allied races who might fall from grace or even debate and argue (lets not forget Klingons were not joining in easily and even when they did they often wanted to do their own thing in the Dominion Wars - they looked for glory in battle not tactical strikes all the time).
The Federation has a warfleet now. A top end warfleet built by the faction in its sector which arguably has the most resources and is affluent enough that they can make that costly investment. Indeed we get no hint that the Federation is economically harmed even after the events on Mars - which was again another massive event close to home that has likely also spurred the desire within the Federation to be able to police its own systems.
I don't see any reason there to assume the Federation has a whole "War Fleet" now. All the ships in the last episode probably look the same because the Utopia Planitia Shipyards were destroyed and they just don't have the capability right now to make a diverse fleet of ships. Ya there was a lot of ships at the end but Starfleet does have a lot of ships anyway. They would mention losing hundreds of ships at a time during The Dominion War. Which actually was another stupid part of PIcard. To destroy like 30 people The Romulans send like 230 warbirds or something. If they had sent one warbird and cloaked it that would have actually succeeded. Apparently The Romulan Star Empire which lost Romulus and has hundreds of warbirds lying around didn't have a big enough fleet to evacuate their home planet...
in fairness we've never seen those ships before so they're likely "new builds"
Also because I've heard this before I've done some math.
ok, so Let's assume Romulus has a population of 1 Billion people (note that's pretty small) a Galaxy class ship has an evacuation capacity of 15,000 people. if you do the math you realize that even if the romulans had a fleet numbering at over 4000 galaxy class equivilants they'd still not have sufficant ships/
Finished Picard recently, and I liked it. I agree at the times it didn't feel very 'Star Trek' with lots of dark choices and it had bit too much social commentary. Also ending was bit weak, that story take would have required one more episode to set it up. I think Elnor felt somewhat superfluous addition and could have been easily left out. I suppose they wanted to add more Romulans who weren't bad guys. As expected, lots of callbacks and fan service moments but they felt respectfully made, at least when compared to recent standard estabilished by JJ Abrams.
Call it maybe 7.5/10, overall. It was quite far from any Roddenberry vision, but as said that was true for DS9 as well.
BrianDavion wrote: Also because I've heard this before I've done some math.
ok, so Let's assume Romulus has a population of 1 Billion people (note that's pretty small) a Galaxy class ship has an evacuation capacity of 15,000 people. if you do the math you realize that even if the romulans had a fleet numbering at over 4000 galaxy class equivilants they'd still not have sufficant ships/
This is touched upon in the prequel comics - it wasn't just the Romulan home system they were evacuating but colony worlds that were also at risk.
Spoiler:
When Starfleet (led by Picard) started the evacuation of these worlds they discovered the Roumlans had forgot to mention the indigenous populations they were using for slave labour (intending to leave them to die), so even more ships were needed to evacuate those as well. Yuyat Beta had ten thousand Romulan colonists and five million native inhabitants, for example.
AduroT wrote: Star Trek is explicitly social commentary. That’s like a primary driving force for the series.
Social commentary about how mistaken those silly people in the past were is good. Social commentary about modern-day issues that might make me feel uncomfortable is bad. Pretty simple!
AduroT wrote: Star Trek is explicitly social commentary. That’s like a primary driving force for the series.
Social commentary about how mistaken those silly people in the past were is good. Social commentary about modern-day issues that might make me feel uncomfortable is bad. Pretty simple!
It only feels like its the past because the world has moved on. The Original Series had women and different races all together as core actors within the series. They weren't purely token characters who only appeared once. Today we don't even see that as social commentary, its just normal. In the past it was very different.
Star Trek has always had this component, in part sometimes commenting on our past; but also commenting on our current standards and attitudes.
AduroT wrote: This Is after all the show that gave us our first televised interracial kiss.
It's actually not, although it is arguably the most well-known of the early examples.
Mind you, the social commentary in a show like Star Trek does have to be tweaked to fit the setting. We just got to the episodes with 7 of 9 last night, and Picard assuming the pilot of the fighter was a bloke was jarring. I mean, it was clearly intended as a bit of misdirection, given that he even placed a rather obvious emphasis on the 'him' when he said 'Beam him out'... but that's a really, really weird assumption for someone like Picard to make.
Star Trek is meant to be aspirational. A better, wiser version of us, with petty differences put aside - because we found we weren’t alone in the stars.
Starfleet had done away with money. Food and Industrial Replicators mean as long as there’s a power supply, nobody need go without.
Their society is close to a meritocracy, with differing skills all being valued.
DS9 drew back the curtain a little. It didn’t expose The Federation as a sham as such, more as a work in progress. Imperfect, but working on it.
Picard is following up on that. It’s shown Starfleet as being infiltrated by a hostile foe. It’s shown that whilst humanity has largely grown out of its infancy, it’s still a moody teenager.
The man himself continues to seek peaceful ‘third options’. The man to see shades of grey where others insist there’s only black and white. That’s bang on the theme of the modern day, where it feels like only the loonies are given airtime.
If you don’t like social commentary and critique? Star Trek isn’t the show for you.
Anyways. Anyone know when Disco Season 3 is landing?
Trek’s social commentary has always been a la mode.
I think one of the most baffling things about the ST audience, can be how incredibly reserved (we'll call it that) it can be. It's really kind of mind boggling considering the show really skirted some lines back in the TOS era. Later series' were a bit less boundary pushing and a bit more tame for the most part, but TOS era Trek went out of its way to push social commentary and was not ashamed of doing so.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds confirmed - Pike, Spock, and Number One On The U.S.S. Enterprise
CBS wrote:Star Trek: Strange New Worlds To Follow Captain Pike, Spock, and Number One On The U.S.S. Enterprise
CBS All Access orders new series Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, starring Anson Mount, Rebecca Romijn, and Ethan Peck.
The Star Trek universe is adding another new series to its ranks!
CBS All Access has ordered a full series of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, based on the years where Captain Christopher Pike (Anson Mount) helms the U.S.S. Enterprise.
The series will feature Star Trek: Discovery Season 2 fan favorites Anson Mount as Captain Christopher Pike, Rebecca Romijn as Number One, and Ethan Peck as Science Officer Spock.
The series will follow the trio in the decade before Captain Kirk boarded the U.S.S. Enterprise, as they explore new worlds around the galaxy.
"Fans fell in love with Anson Mount, Rebecca Romijn, and Ethan Peck's portrayals of these iconic characters when they were first introduced on Star Trek: Discovery last season," said Julie McNamara, Executive Vice President and Head of Programming, CBS All Access. "This new series will be a perfect complement to the franchise, bringing a whole new perspective and series of adventures to Star Trek."
"When we said we heard the fans' outpouring of love for Pike, Number One, and Spock when they boarded Star Trek: Discovery last season, we meant it," said Executive Producer Alex Kurtzman. "These iconic characters have a deep history in Star Trek canon, yet so much of their stories have yet to be told. With Akiva and Henry at the helm, the Enterprise, its crew, and its fans are in for an extraordinary journey to new frontiers in the Star Trek universe."
"This is a dream come true, literally," said Executive Producer Akiva Goldsman. "I have imagined myself on the bridge of the Enterprise since the early 1970s. I'm honored to be a part of this continuing journey along with Alex, Henry, and the fine folks at CBS."
The series premiere was written by Akiva Goldsman with a story by Goldsman, Kurtzman, and Jenny Lumet. Goldsman, Kurtzman, and Lumet will serve as executive producers in addition to Henry Alonso Myers, Heather Kadin, Rod Roddenberry, and Trevor Roth.
Aaron Baiers, Akela Cooper, and Davy Perez will serve as co-executive producers. Goldsman will remain an executive producer and a key part of the creative team on Star Trek: Picard as well.
The series will be produced by CBS Television Studios, Secret Hideout, and Roddenberry Entertainment.
I am excited for this. It would be a good opportunity to do a more 'traditional' TOS/TNG episodic style. Not everything has to be a series long mystery arc.
The real risk with doing multiple series at once is when you start to cross reference them within each other at set times. So you end up with something like the Marvel Universe movies and tie-in TV shows where they all sort of connect together at key points so you're happily enjoying a series and then suddenly you've got to watch a film to catch up - only that film is a sequel that requires you to watch other films to catch up with them etc...
It's fine for fans who are up to date with it all as it comes out; but any who might only be watching one or two (esp if they come out on different TV services) will get confused. It also makes it an utter mess when you come back in 5 years and try to catch up.
It's something TV hasn't really had, but which the big US comics have been doing for years. They, of course, can make it even more confusing when random crossover or "halloween not-serious specials" suddenly become canon or you get those limited edition stories that then vanish once they are sold out etc....
Overread wrote: The real risk with doing multiple series at once is when you start to cross reference them within each other at set times. So you end up with something like the Marvel Universe movies and tie-in TV shows where they all sort of connect together at key points so you're happily enjoying a series and then suddenly you've got to watch a film to catch up - only that film is a sequel that requires you to watch other films to catch up with them etc...
It's fine for fans who are up to date with it all as it comes out; but any who might only be watching one or two (esp if they come out on different TV services) will get confused. It also makes it an utter mess when you come back in 5 years and try to catch up.
It's something TV hasn't really had, but which the big US comics have been doing for years. They, of course, can make it even more confusing when random crossover or "halloween not-serious specials" suddenly become canon or you get those limited edition stories that then vanish once they are sold out etc....
course the timelines in trek are so differant I doubt it'll come up.
AduroT wrote: Star Trek is explicitly social commentary. That’s like a primary driving force for the series.
Social commentary about how mistaken those silly people in the past were is good. Social commentary about modern-day issues that might make me feel uncomfortable is bad. Pretty simple!
It only feels like its the past because the world has moved on. The Original Series had women and different races all together as core actors within the series. They weren't purely token characters who only appeared once. Today we don't even see that as social commentary, its just normal. In the past it was very different.
Star Trek has always had this component, in part sometimes commenting on our past; but also commenting on our current standards and attitudes.
I'm pretty sure he was joking when he said that. least I hope he was.
Wow, I guess they did some focus testing and found Pike to be pretty popular. Wasn't there also going to be another Trek called "Lower Decks" that was supposed to be more comedic?
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Wow, I guess they did some focus testing and found Pike to be pretty popular. Wasn't there also going to be another Trek called "Lower Decks" that was supposed to be more comedic?
Yup... and then some sort of another tween cartoon... and the section 31 show. If you had asked me five years ago when they announced the return of trek to tv (of sorts ala streaming) that I'd be rooting most for yet another adventure on a pseudo-Connie, I'd have disagreed. Now, after one average and two bad seasons of nuTrek, I think it's the last best hope for quality trek to co-opt a phrase from the intro of another show. Obviously, that's just an opinion and others are free to enjoy what they want regardless.
I find it interesting that Anson Mount's intro to the announcement specifically points out that this will be a return to a hopeful vision of the future instead of more of the DystopuTrek that we've gotten so far.
Overread wrote: The real risk with doing multiple series at once is when you start to cross reference them within each other at set times. So you end up with something like the Marvel Universe movies and tie-in TV shows where they all sort of connect together at key points so you're happily enjoying a series and then suddenly you've got to watch a film to catch up - only that film is a sequel that requires you to watch other films to catch up with them etc...
It's fine for fans who are up to date with it all as it comes out; but any who might only be watching one or two (esp if they come out on different TV services) will get confused. It also makes it an utter mess when you come back in 5 years and try to catch up.
It's something TV hasn't really had, but which the big US comics have been doing for years. They, of course, can make it even more confusing when random crossover or "halloween not-serious specials" suddenly become canon or you get those limited edition stories that then vanish once they are sold out etc....
The CW DC shows do it all the time, they call it the Arrowverse.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Wow, I guess they did some focus testing and found Pike to be pretty popular. Wasn't there also going to be another Trek called "Lower Decks" that was supposed to be more comedic?
Yup... and then some sort of another tween cartoon... and the section 31 show. If you had asked me five years ago when they announced the return of trek to tv (of sorts ala streaming) that I'd be rooting most for yet another adventure on a pseudo-Connie, I'd have disagreed. Now, after one average and two bad seasons of nuTrek, I think it's the last best hope for quality trek to co-opt a phrase from the intro of another show. Obviously, that's just an opinion and others are free to enjoy what they want regardless.
I find it interesting that Anson Mount's intro to the announcement specifically points out that this will be a return to a hopeful vision of the future instead of more of the DystopuTrek that we've gotten so far.
well, trek's been trying to eistablish itself as differant things for differant people and I think they've finally realized "ya know we're missing a tradtional trek show"
Episode 8 of the season is the crossover episode. Pretty much always.
Do you care about the other shows? If yes, watch up to the end of the relevant seasons episode 7.
If not, just hop over to whatever Part 1 of the crossover is (if you have the dvd sets, you don't even need to do that, at least up to Crisis on Infinite Earths, every crossover is on every season dvd/bluray)
Discovery jetted off 10k years in the future, didn't they? I wouldn't worry too much about any immanent crossovers.
I think Pike was one of the best things about Disco's second season, and I didn't think we got enough Number 1. Doing a whole show about them and the Enterprise before Kirk shows up seems natural to me. Plus it's weirdly closer to Roddenberry's original plan, when you think about it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Discovery jetted off 10k years in the future, didn't they? I wouldn't worry too much about any immanent crossovers.
I think Pike was one of the best things about Disco's second season, and I didn't think we got enough Number 1. Doing a whole show about them and the Enterprise before Kirk shows up seems natural to me. Plus it's weirdly closer to Roddenberry's original plan, when you think about it.
Pike’s crew was definitely the best part of that season.
Part of the power of something like Section 31 in the series is that its basically unknown so its spawns its own interest. Focusing on it could well destroy that "mystery" element. Also I'd argue that Second 31 would have worked back when DS9 was fresh.
Right now its been so long since Section 31 did anything that its almost something only die-hard fans would remember. It's really not been around or relevant since DS9. That's a long time to leave a minor sub-plot before touching it again.
I'd say a series like that would work better IF Section 31 started reappearing in a few places here and there to build up toward it.
Overread wrote: Part of the power of something like Section 31 in the series is that its basically unknown so its spawns its own interest. Focusing on it could well destroy that "mystery" element. Also I'd argue that Second 31 would have worked back when DS9 was fresh.
Right now its been so long since Section 31 did anything that its almost something only die-hard fans would remember. It's really not been around or relevant since DS9. That's a long time to leave a minor sub-plot before touching it again.
I'd say a series like that would work better IF Section 31 started reappearing in a few places here and there to build up toward it.
They were literally the badguys for the whole second season of Discovery... Which, considering the lead character, is where it's probably going to pick up after.
Well, Oh did want to nuke the entire planet. Even then, given the power of capital ships in that era, a dozen or two at most should have been sufficient, and that would have let them be much more spread out on the screen, while still being more than impressive enough as a fleet spectacle.
Although it seems showing the distance between ships was something the animators just had some difficulty with... when Narek is following them, they mention him being right at the edge of sensor range, while the external shot showed him practically knocking up against their rear bumper.
She did say she wanted to "sterilize" the whole planet but... you know... I think 200 photon torpedoes (just one per romulan ship iirc) fired immediately upon coming out of warp onto the only settlement on the planet or at least the only one we were shown probably would have been a pretty sensible thing to do. Instead, we get the dramatic death star laser powerup for planetary sterilization pattern 5 (because as trekkies we all know that 1-4 just simply won't do!).
That was something that stuck out from the start of the series - They seemed to be aiming for something really dark and gritty for Picard - which they seemed to achieve, and I really liked where they took his character, with it seeming a natural progression from First Contact and Nemesis - the Romulans were still such comic-booky, mustache-twirly villains.
I really enjoyed the series overall, and particularly liked that despite the earlier vibe of the series, it still finished with a very 'Star Trek' resolution to the whole mess... but it just feels like they didn't quite nail the overall tone.
insaniak wrote: Well, Oh did want to nuke the entire planet. Even then, given the power of capital ships in that era, a dozen or two at most should have been sufficient, and that would have let them be much more spread out on the screen, while still being more than impressive enough as a fleet spectacle.
Although it seems showing the distance between ships was something the animators just had some difficulty with... when Narek is following them, they mention him being right at the edge of sensor range, while the external shot showed him practically knocking up against their rear bumper.
That’s just a visual distortion caused by subspace lensing. If you kick a warp field up past 20 billion kilocochranes, it looks like the shops are hugging.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote: She did say she wanted to "sterilize" the whole planet but... you know... I think 200 photon torpedoes (just one per romulan ship iirc) fired immediately upon coming out of warp onto the only settlement on the planet or at least the only one we were shown probably would have been a pretty sensible thing to do. Instead, we get the dramatic death star laser powerup for planetary sterilization pattern 5 (because as trekkies we all know that 1-4 just simply won't do!).
To be fair they didn’t know they were simply going up against a small resort town. They simply knew it as the Android home planet. The home base of the things that are supposed to annihilate all life in the galaxy. Better safe than sorry, y’know?
warboss wrote: She did say she wanted to "sterilize" the whole planet but... you know... I think 200 photon torpedoes (just one per romulan ship iirc) fired immediately upon coming out of warp onto the only settlement on the planet or at least the only one we were shown probably would have been a pretty sensible thing to do. Instead, we get the dramatic death star laser powerup for planetary sterilization pattern 5 (because as trekkies we all know that 1-4 just simply won't do!).
Yep, it's a static target on a ball of rock moving around a predictable orbit. How they couldn't have calculated a targeting solution before they even decided to travel to the planet, I don't know...
But Star Trek doesn't do the old "lob a bunch of rocks from the edge of the system" thing.
Just replace drop cloak with drop out of warp. That supernova really lowered the Tal Shiar standards of practice for exterminatus to borrow a phrase from 40k. And, yes, the character shown is a Cardassian (head of the Obsidian Order) but he is leading, as shown, a combined fleet with the Tal Shiar.
Haha, I love that comparison, they definitely managed to portray the Romulans and Cardassians as being significantly more competent and ruthless even when being fooled in DS9 than the Romulans appeard in that last episode of Picard.
Overread wrote: Given the fleet we see at the end of Picard has two elements
1) The ships are clearly much more warlike - even Riker is admitting that the ship he is on is at the top of the battlefleet.
2) The ship are uniform constructions. Now we can argue this was to make it quicker for a TV crew to make a whole fleet cheaper for high definition modern TV. However at the same time I think its a reflection that Starfleet has bulked up its fleet considerably in a very short span of time. So the ships were assembly line built to the same/similar specifications. Rather than ad-hock ships built to different specifications for different core roles.
In the past many of their ships were mult-role - science, research, study, first contacts, battle, exploratory etc... The Enterprise D even had children and families on board. The ships of Original Series to DS9 first half (or so) were all ships made with multiple roles in mind and battle was only one of many. The result is that they were not warships and the crews, whilst having battle training, were not warriors in the same sense.
During the Dominion War the Federation starts the Defiant Program - making an actual warship (several in the end) and also starting to train crews who were specifically warriors first.
We see some hints of this continuation with the Enterprise E, though its still a multi-role flagship. We then get a seriously stark reminder of how its not a warship when the Romulans then actually go and build a full capital ship sized warship - 3 warp cores, more guns than most fleets etc...
So in Picard I think what we are seeing is the culmination of a Cold War Arms Race. The Federation had its "WWII" in the Dominion War - it then had its odd cold war with the Romulans escalate to an actual full armed conflict (even if it was only two ships involved).
I think the Federation has armed up significantly. The continued Borg threat and the shockwaves of the Dominion War (which lets again remember is one of the biggest actual wars the Federation has ever had); has likely bred a need in the Federation to have its own army. To not rely on allied races who might fall from grace or even debate and argue (lets not forget Klingons were not joining in easily and even when they did they often wanted to do their own thing in the Dominion Wars - they looked for glory in battle not tactical strikes all the time).
The Federation has a warfleet now. A top end warfleet built by the faction in its sector which arguably has the most resources and is affluent enough that they can make that costly investment. Indeed we get no hint that the Federation is economically harmed even after the events on Mars - which was again another massive event close to home that has likely also spurred the desire within the Federation to be able to police its own systems.
One would argue the Curiosity Class is just a new iteration of the Constitution Class. It was made for exploration, but also to fight Da Klingons. INdeed, thats the big plot of Undiscovered Country - what happens to all the military of Star Fleet.*
*Also Constitutions were also "mass produced" to see TV budget dollars.
Vaktathi wrote: Haha, I love that comparison, they definitely managed to portray the Romulans and Cardassians as being significantly more competent and ruthless even when being fooled in DS9 than the Romulans appeard in that last episode of Picard.
I suppose we're lucky that she didn't instead decide to launch space sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads to destroy the settlement as per planetary sterilization pattern 12.
Any fans of TOS? I'm doing my first watch-through and so far there having about a 90% hit rate for me. A lot of really creative ideas. A week ago I watched The Squire of Gothos - anyone else think that he might have been a member of the Q continuum?
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Any fans of TOS? I'm doing my first watch-through and so far there having about a 90% hit rate for me. A lot of really creative ideas. A week ago I watched The Squire of Gothos - anyone else think that he might have been a member of the Q continuum?
1. It.’s a great show. Watch out for that third season, though.
2. Yes. Many fans had that thought. According to every bit of B canon, Trelane is a member of the Q continuum (or an adjacent continuum of such beings). Check out the Peter David novel about him if you’re interested.
Vaktathi wrote: Haha, I love that comparison, they definitely managed to portray the Romulans and Cardassians as being significantly more competent and ruthless even when being fooled in DS9 than the Romulans appeard in that last episode of Picard.
I suppose we're lucky that she didn't instead decide to launch space sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads to destroy the settlement as per planetary sterilization pattern 12.
dont talk bobbins 12 is the drown planet in Tribbles one, Sharks is 14
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Any fans of TOS? I'm doing my first watch-through and so far there having about a 90% hit rate for me. A lot of really creative ideas. A week ago I watched The Squire of Gothos - anyone else think that he might have been a member of the Q continuum?
1. It.’s a great show. Watch out for that third season, though. 2. Yes. Many fans had that thought. According to every bit of B canon, Trelane is a member of the Q continuum (or an adjacent continuum of such beings). Check out the Peter David novel about him if you’re interested.
Oh fun, thanks for letting me know. Glad to know I'm not alone. I've seen all of TNG and DS9 and most of Voyager, so I'm working my way back to the original series before sitting down to do a marathon rewatch of the films.
Any suggestions on what some of the better authors/series are for novels? I imagine like any IP, there are fan favorites. I'll look up the novel you recommend, thanks!
One thing that I'm really loving about TOS is how Star Fleet consistently makes really strong, moral decisions. In Next Gen and DS9 it was often people on the ground making the best decisions possible despite the out-of-touch administration of Star Fleet officials (the Maquis, anyone?). It made for great storytelling, and Ira Behr's has said many times that he wanted a darker take on the Federation in general. But watching TOS there are so many moments where I'm just blown away at the idea of a government that actually cares about people. I love how at the end of "The Menagerie" Star Fleet just says, "oh, that makes sense Spock; you did a nice thing for a nice person so we'll accept that you had the moral high ground."
I was not a big fan of STP for that reason, because of how hostile and angry Star Fleet had become. It grew on me towards the end and the arc of the show seemed to be that Star Fleet went through this dark period and then saw reason and emerged once again valuing all life, everywhere ~ but it just didn't feel very Star Treky. It felt realistic, and we see many civilizations in history go through these periods of moral and ideological change. Maybe the message is even more optimistic, the idea that we can deescelate from fear and hatred. But DS9 handled a similar moral arc over a much longer period of time and with what is in my opinion greater success.
I should probably do the same. I'm more familiar with literally everything else in trek more so than with the original series (and even rewatched alot of TAS in the past few years). I haven't watched the original literally in decades in any concerted way (maybe since the early 90s?) back when TNG was still in production.
Don Qui Hotep, I agree with you about DS9 handling that arc better. For the novels, what era do you prefer? Do you want books that fit into the show or that explore the edges of the setting?
For TNG, Peter David wrote quite a few good ones (although some were later contradicted by the show). His New Frontier series starts off strong, too, but kind of lost its way as David experienced medical issues in real life.
If you like the idea of what happens next, there is a post-Nemesis continuity often called the Relaunch timeline. I’m a pretty big fan of it. They start by removing the Borg to stop the previous trend of authors using them for stupid fanservice...a controversial move, but one I felt allowed for more focus with the Alpha and Beta Quadrant powers. The Titan series starring Captain and later Admiral Riker we’re mostly fun with a couple duds early on. The Section 31 books by David Mack are tense and dark. The main TNG line have some great story arcs sometimes, but mostly aim for the episodic Star Trek feeling. Then there are some smaller series, such as Prometheus, Prey, Destiny (the one where they killed the Borg) and some side stories like Articles of the Federation (West Wing meets Star Trek) and the Department or Temporal Investigations (my absolute favorite).
If you like “continuity porn” stories that tie together and explain lots of background lore from random episodes, Christopher Bennet is your writer. If you want emotional Cardassian stuff, Una McCormick. Action or grit, David Mack. Klingons or politics, Keith RA DeCandido. High concept, big stakes stories, James Swallow.
I’m not as familiar with TOS novels, but I remember liking AC Crispin’s work.
insaniak wrote: Well, Oh did want to nuke the entire planet. Even then, given the power of capital ships in that era, a dozen or two at most should have been sufficient, and that would have let them be much more spread out on the screen, while still being more than impressive enough as a fleet spectacle.
Although it seems showing the distance between ships was something the animators just had some difficulty with... when Narek is following them, they mention him being right at the edge of sensor range, while the external shot showed him practically knocking up against their rear bumper.
The depictions of space combat in Star Trek are just as absurd and unrealistic as other depictions.
There are a few things to remember about space:
1- There is a LOT of nothing in space. Like, a mind bogglingly massive amount of nothing. We constantly get the wrong impression from the solar system maps that we make, but in reality, there's so much space between planets that the next closest planet is only a speck in the sky. If you're fighting around one planet, the other planets in the solar system will be unseeable. Looking out the window to see another ship is simply not going to happen, and likewise, a camera taking a picture of a space combat will only be able to see one ship at a time.
BUT we can see all of those with the right equipment. With some better sensors that know what to look for, we would be able to detect another ship a crazy distance away (remember, there's a whole lot of 'nothing' out there, so finding a small something isn't all that hard).
So when two ships are doing combat in space, they should look like the intro to Mass Effect 2- a ship that is too far away for us to see out the window has just started shooting, and all we really know is that it hit us really hard.
- Things move really fast in space. "Stopping" in space isn't really a thing. It wastes a lot of energy to bring your ship to a stand still, and there's no reason to stop because there is so much nothing to run into. Plus, if you're close to a planet (close enough for it to make a nice looking picture) you're going to be pulled into its gravity unless you keep moving in a constant orbit around it, and orbiting objects move at crazy fast speeds).
So space combat would really look like two ships firing projectiles at one another from impossible distances away,"
So the "lock on" mechanic in Star Trek does make sense, because there would be no other way to actually hit anything, but the depictions of ships in space are silly. Even the Romulan and Klingon cloaking devices are silly (since you really need to fool the sensors- that's different from making an invisible ship- especially when Kirk can spot a cloaked ship based on how it distorts the stars behind it.
But, like most of the science fiction in Star Trek, the depictions always favor what makes life easier for making a television show. It is a lot easier to depict space combat with a couple of models hovering in front of a planet backdrop, so that's the direction they go with it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Don Qui Hotep, I agree with you about DS9 handling that arc better. For the novels, what era do you prefer? Do you want books that fit into the show or that explore the edges of the setting?
For TNG, Peter David wrote quite a few good ones (although some were later contradicted by the show). His New Frontier series starts off strong, too, but kind of lost its way as David experienced medical issues in real life.
If you like the idea of what happens next, there is a post-Nemesis continuity often called the Relaunch timeline. I’m a pretty big fan of it. They start by removing the Borg to stop the previous trend of authors using them for stupid fanservice...a controversial move, but one I felt allowed for more focus with the Alpha and Beta Quadrant powers. The Titan series starring Captain and later Admiral Riker we’re mostly fun with a couple duds early on. The Section 31 books by David Mack are tense and dark. The main TNG line have some great story arcs sometimes, but mostly aim for the episodic Star Trek feeling. Then there are some smaller series, such as Prometheus, Prey, Destiny (the one where they killed the Borg) and some side stories like Articles of the Federation (West Wing meets Star Trek) and the Department or Temporal Investigations (my absolute favorite).
If you like “continuity porn” stories that tie together and explain lots of background lore from random episodes, Christopher Bennet is your writer. If you want emotional Cardassian stuff, Una McCormick. Action or grit, David Mack. Klingons or politics, Keith RA DeCandido. High concept, big stakes stories, James Swallow.
I’m not as familiar with TOS novels, but I remember liking AC Crispin’s work.
Thanks for the recommendations! I'm open to any time but I realize that I'd really like a bit more DS9. I'm very interested in a post-Nemesis timeline (by which I mean a post Deep Space Nine timeline, because there's so much cool stuff that they could do). I think I'll check out Una McCormick, I really like Cardassian stories (by which I mean Bajoran stories). Are there any novels that take place in a post-Dominion War Cardassia?
Hmm not very good imo - shame as enjoyed it up till this epsiode
The "death is great" thing is getting really old in shows at the moment - and complete nonsense.
Oh look we are all mourning but hey five mins later and all good.
Very bity and lots of people doing nothing or simply disapearing for long sections.
Only two of the Synths seemed capable of doing anything and one gets turned off by Sung - is she dead, deactivated - what?
Sexy Dodgy half sister does....nothing and then dies off screen so we know she is not dead.
The not-Borg do....nothing....well apart from Seven but she gets nothing to do apart from look sexy and have a fight
Romulans apaprently don't cloak anymore
And entire Romulan fleets have this problem ....
Super powerful aliens are turned off - probably looked in and saw all the other super powerful aliens and went - yeah no lets not go there.
A Stitch in Time (co-written by the actor who played Garrak) is supposed to be very good, but I was never able to find the paperback. Looks like it’s available on Kindle now, though.
The Never Ending Sacrifice covers the run of Events in DS9 from a Cardassian point of view. Enigma Tales was a good Cardassian Reconstruction/Garrak novel, but it has massive spoilers for the relaunch series (especially Bashir’s part) as it takes place near the end of that continuity. There are Crdsssian characters on Titan and the Enterprise, so a lot of the Cardassia stuff is visited in drips and drabs in those series.
After the SCE story Wildfire I'll never touch one of his books again.
Why? Is that the one where Kieran Duffy died?
Him and like 90% of the crew. Corsi paralyzed, Gold crippled, it was like he looked at the most edgelord grimderp Trek fanfic around and said "Hold my beer..."
odinsgrandson wrote: ... Even the Romulan and Klingon cloaking devices are silly (since you really need to fool the sensors- that's different from making an invisible ship- especially when Kirk can spot a cloaked ship based on how it distorts the stars behind it.
They do fool the sensors. The point of the cloaking device is that it bends both light and energy waves, rendering it effectively invisible to most sensors. The one that Kirk spotted from the visual distortion was a comparatively early version - they got better over time, and Starfleet (or, rather, the Enterprise crew) subsequently found other ways to spot them with sensors.
For those who haven't seen it and are interested, the DS9 documentary that was crowdfunded a few years back and came out last year is available to watch free with ads on IMDB.
It's good.. pretentious at times... but a good watch nonetheless. Surprisingly for me as a "ship guy", my least favorite parts were the newly done ship battle scenes as they looked too crisp and videogamey.
Ah dang, I just bought it a few weeks ago. Ah well. I did enjoy it, although I felt the jazz number at the end was pretty unnecessary (and I'm happy to go on the record as saying I think bringing in Vic Fontane was one of the more baffling choices that Ira Behr made).
One thing I really liked was the framing device of making the first episode of Season 8. It was interesting to hear where they thought the characters would end up after so long, and input from each of the actors. It's a little bittersweet though because it was released only a few months before Aron Eisenberg and Rene Auberjonois died.
The only complaint I have with the film is the complaint I have with all of DS9, which is: more Nana Visitor, please.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Ah dang, I just bought it a few weeks ago. Ah well. I did enjoy it, although I felt the jazz number at the end was pretty unnecessary (and I'm happy to go on the record as saying I think bringing in Vic Fontane was one of the more baffling choices that Ira Behr made).
One thing I really liked was the framing device of making the first episode of Season 8. It was interesting to hear where they thought the characters would end up after so long, and input from each of the actors. It's a little bittersweet though because it was released only a few months before Aron Eisenberg and Rene Auberjonois died.
The only complaint I have with the film is the complaint I have with all of DS9, which is: more Nana Visitor, please.
The one thing I didn't like about the plot they described was the the spoilered part below but I fully admit that the more recent experiences with nuTrek have soured me on the now waaaaay overused idea.
Spoiler:
It was all Section 31's doing! Curses! And they'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling Starfleet officers!
insaniak wrote: Well, Oh did want to nuke the entire planet. Even then, given the power of capital ships in that era, a dozen or two at most should have been sufficient, and that would have let them be much more spread out on the screen, while still being more than impressive enough as a fleet spectacle.
Although it seems showing the distance between ships was something the animators just had some difficulty with... when Narek is following them, they mention him being right at the edge of sensor range, while the external shot showed him practically knocking up against their rear bumper.
The depictions of space combat in Star Trek are just as absurd and unrealistic as other depictions.
There are a few things to remember about space:
1- There is a LOT of nothing in space. Like, a mind bogglingly massive amount of nothing. We constantly get the wrong impression from the solar system maps that we make, but in reality, there's so much space between planets that the next closest planet is only a speck in the sky. If you're fighting around one planet, the other planets in the solar system will be unseeable. Looking out the window to see another ship is simply not going to happen, and likewise, a camera taking a picture of a space combat will only be able to see one ship at a time.
BUT we can see all of those with the right equipment. With some better sensors that know what to look for, we would be able to detect another ship a crazy distance away (remember, there's a whole lot of 'nothing' out there, so finding a small something isn't all that hard).
So when two ships are doing combat in space, they should look like the intro to Mass Effect 2- a ship that is too far away for us to see out the window has just started shooting, and all we really know is that it hit us really hard.
- Things move really fast in space. "Stopping" in space isn't really a thing. It wastes a lot of energy to bring your ship to a stand still, and there's no reason to stop because there is so much nothing to run into. Plus, if you're close to a planet (close enough for it to make a nice looking picture) you're going to be pulled into its gravity unless you keep moving in a constant orbit around it, and orbiting objects move at crazy fast speeds).
So space combat would really look like two ships firing projectiles at one another from impossible distances away,"
So the "lock on" mechanic in Star Trek does make sense, because there would be no other way to actually hit anything, but the depictions of ships in space are silly. Even the Romulan and Klingon cloaking devices are silly (since you really need to fool the sensors- that's different from making an invisible ship- especially when Kirk can spot a cloaked ship based on how it distorts the stars behind it.
But, like most of the science fiction in Star Trek, the depictions always favor what makes life easier for making a television show. It is a lot easier to depict space combat with a couple of models hovering in front of a planet backdrop, so that's the direction they go with it.
I really liked the space combat in The Expanse. They did a lot more with the vast distance and momentum and vacuum and what have you.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Ah dang, I just bought it a few weeks ago. Ah well. I did enjoy it, although I felt the jazz number at the end was pretty unnecessary (and I'm happy to go on the record as saying I think bringing in Vic Fontane was one of the more baffling choices that Ira Behr made).
One thing I really liked was the framing device of making the first episode of Season 8. It was interesting to hear where they thought the characters would end up after so long, and input from each of the actors. It's a little bittersweet though because it was released only a few months before Aron Eisenberg and Rene Auberjonois died.
The only complaint I have with the film is the complaint I have with all of DS9, which is: more Nana Visitor, please.
The one thing I didn't like about the plot they described was the the spoilered part below but I fully admit that the more recent experiences with nuTrek have soured me on the now waaaaay overused idea.
Spoiler:
It was all Section 31's doing! Curses! And they'd have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling Starfleet officers!
Spoiler:
That's a really fair point. I like the idea of Section 31 as originally written into the Federation's charter but has since gone rogue. At the end of DS9, when Bashir and O'brien go into Sloane's brain, you get the sense that Section 31 is a small group of well-connected and technologically advanced zealots, not a conspiracy deep within the Federation itself (or at least I did). But the more you bring them back the more power you give them as antagonists, and the more complicit the rest of the Federation seems. That said, I haven't seen Discovery, but given that it's closer to the Federation's founding, maybe it makes sense that they're closer to the surface and have more power, and as the years go on although their intelligence network expands and their tech develops they grow further and further away from the rest of Star Fleet command, their recruitment dips, and they become a smaller group of more radical people. Then again - I should probably watch the dang show before I start speculating!
@AduroT - agreed, I'm a huge fan of the Expanse books and show (I haven't seen Season 4 yet, but I'm in no rush; Cibola Burn was far from my favorite book in the series). There's an amazing sequence in Season 2, I think when they're raiding the Protogen Lab, and they're in Zero G and the sparks and bullet casings are floating in mid-air, then they do a tight barrel roll and they all fall to the floor. Really good use of CGI to get the Zero G effects.
insaniak wrote: Well, Oh did want to nuke the entire planet. Even then, given the power of capital ships in that era, a dozen or two at most should have been sufficient, and that would have let them be much more spread out on the screen, while still being more than impressive enough as a fleet spectacle.
Although it seems showing the distance between ships was something the animators just had some difficulty with... when Narek is following them, they mention him being right at the edge of sensor range, while the external shot showed him practically knocking up against their rear bumper.
The depictions of space combat in Star Trek are just as absurd and unrealistic as other depictions.
There are a few things to remember about space:
1- There is a LOT of nothing in space. Like, a mind bogglingly massive amount of nothing. We constantly get the wrong impression from the solar system maps that we make, but in reality, there's so much space between planets that the next closest planet is only a speck in the sky. If you're fighting around one planet, the other planets in the solar system will be unseeable. Looking out the window to see another ship is simply not going to happen, and likewise, a camera taking a picture of a space combat will only be able to see one ship at a time.
BUT we can see all of those with the right equipment. With some better sensors that know what to look for, we would be able to detect another ship a crazy distance away (remember, there's a whole lot of 'nothing' out there, so finding a small something isn't all that hard).
So when two ships are doing combat in space, they should look like the intro to Mass Effect 2- a ship that is too far away for us to see out the window has just started shooting, and all we really know is that it hit us really hard.
- Things move really fast in space. "Stopping" in space isn't really a thing. It wastes a lot of energy to bring your ship to a stand still, and there's no reason to stop because there is so much nothing to run into. Plus, if you're close to a planet (close enough for it to make a nice looking picture) you're going to be pulled into its gravity unless you keep moving in a constant orbit around it, and orbiting objects move at crazy fast speeds).
So space combat would really look like two ships firing projectiles at one another from impossible distances away,"
So the "lock on" mechanic in Star Trek does make sense, because there would be no other way to actually hit anything, but the depictions of ships in space are silly. Even the Romulan and Klingon cloaking devices are silly (since you really need to fool the sensors- that's different from making an invisible ship- especially when Kirk can spot a cloaked ship based on how it distorts the stars behind it.
But, like most of the science fiction in Star Trek, the depictions always favor what makes life easier for making a television show. It is a lot easier to depict space combat with a couple of models hovering in front of a planet backdrop, so that's the direction they go with it.
I really liked the space combat in The Expanse. They did a lot more with the vast distance and momentum and vacuum and what have you.
I have not seen the expanse yet, but my friend last night was saying exactly the same thing (and also that it was a very good show). He said that they incorporated the physics of space travel in a lot of ways that most shows simply skip.
Hard science fiction is kind of rare, and even films that try tend to screw things up like having people immediately explode or freeze when subjected to a vaccuum*
*Look, you stay conscious for about 15 seconds, but you don't freeze because the vacuum is a very effective insulator (there are no cold particles to bring your temperature down) and you don't explode because your skin can handle the pressure your blood exerts. Your blood does not boil because the internal pressure inside your body remains the same. Your eyes are also protected against the pressure they exert from the inside and would not boil.
And we know all of this because Jim Leblanc was subjected to hard vacuum in a NASA accident, and he stayed conscious for about 15 seconds, his skin did not explode, he did not insta-freeze and his eyes did not boil. He was rescued after 25 seconds of exposure, and it is conjectured that it would have taken about 90 seconds for him to die of oxygen starvation.
I'm not certain about the reports that a person subjected to a vacuum should exhale, since that is based on the idea that the air inside your lungs would quickly expand and burst your lungs, but that's foolishness- the air would only expand by following the path of least resistance (ie- into the vacuum, not into your body) while the pressure of the air contained in your lungs would be no different than if you were not exposed to a vacuum (since all of the factors that determine the internal pressure of your body remain the same). But Arthur C. Clarke says that holding your breath is a bad idea, so we usually go with that.
Expanse space combat is like a current day B5 in regards to physics in space. It has a primary focus though on capital ships (albeit smaller ones on average) instead of the split focus on b5 between ships and fighters.
That said.. I like the variety of styles of space combat between the ww2 style of Star Wars to the relatively weighty Star Trek (at least prior to pew pew nuTrek) to the double flip on the axis backward shooting fighter dance of b5. I enjoy the different styles and dislike it the more modern attempts to forget what made them famous and morph into something else. YMMV.
warboss wrote: Expanse space combat is like a current day B5 in regards to physics in space. It has a primary focus though on capital ships (albeit smaller ones on average) instead of the split focus on b5 between ships and fighters.
That said.. I like the variety of styles of space combat between the ww2 style of Star Wars to the relatively weighty Star Trek (at least prior to pew pew nuTrek) to the double flip on the axis backward shooting fighter dance of b5. I enjoy the different styles and dislike it the more modern attempts to forget what made them famous and morph into something else. YMMV.
It does strike me as very odd the way that space combat is so much different in newer Star Trek.
Star Wars famously references WW2 dogfight films as its source of course.
Star Trek's reference is battleships at war (large, lumbering floating bastions with weapons firing at each other by a lot of separate crewmen).
Battlestar Galactica is an aircraft carrier.
odinsgrandson wrote: Look, you stay conscious for about 15 seconds, but you don't freeze because the vacuum is a very effective insulator (there are no cold particles to bring your temperature down) and you don't explode because your skin can handle the pressure your blood exerts. Your blood does not boil because the internal pressure inside your body remains the same. Your eyes are also protected against the pressure they exert from the inside and would not boil.
And we know all of this because Jim Leblanc was subjected to hard vacuum in a NASA accident, and he stayed conscious for about 15 seconds, his skin did not explode, he did not insta-freeze and his eyes did not boil. He was rescued after 25 seconds of exposure, and it is conjectured that it would have taken about 90 seconds for him to die of oxygen starvation.
I'm not certain about the reports that a person subjected to a vacuum should exhale, since that is based on the idea that the air inside your lungs would quickly expand and burst your lungs, but that's foolishness- the air would only expand by following the path of least resistance (ie- into the vacuum, not into your body) while the pressure of the air contained in your lungs would be no different than if you were not exposed to a vacuum (since all of the factors that determine the internal pressure of your body remain the same). But Arthur C. Clarke says that holding your breath is a bad idea, so we usually go with that.
Thanks for sharing, no spoilers but it sounds like that's another thing that the Expanse got right - in the fifth book (which was already one of my favorites) a character does a jump from one ship to another and it worked out about as you describe.
Roddenberry famously insisted every character interaction full of conflict, the future painted in suffering.
I was wondering what people think of the way Star Trek evolved post Roddenbury.
To be perfectly honest, I find Roddenbury's optimism about the future to be obtuse. He sincerely seemed to believe that all human problems that cause suffering, philosophical differences in humans and the desire for free sovereignty were things that could be cured by adding more science. To him, science definitely does not lead to more efficient ways for us to victimize other humans (the way most of history seems to indicate).
At first, Star Trek mostly painted the humans of the future as the paramount of morality who go about forcing their ideology through good old fashioned colonial values. The show never really considers that sometimes a planet might be better off without Kirk destroying their way of life (even when he has no reason to do so).
With TNG, things get a bit more mature about it, but mostly stayed simple. Characters weigh philosophical decisions and often break out of character so that we can have an ethics argument about whether to keep the prime directive or save people's lives. But the right decision is usually pretty obvious, and the Prime Directive is just an obstacle that we should usually dismiss or subvert.
But it seems that after Rodenbury's death, a lot of Star Trek became less black and white. Deep Space 9 was mostly about those left behind in the consequences of Federation interference- and Star Trek evolved mostly along those lines.
Now Picard is all about how the idealist Captain that we watched on TNG would not go along with the expedient paths chosen for political reasons that we saw in later Trek.
But what doe you all think about it? What era of Star Trek is ideal, and it is before or after Roddenbury?
warboss wrote: I should probably do the same. I'm more familiar with literally everything else in trek more so than with the original series (and even rewatched alot of TAS in the past few years). I haven't watched the original literally in decades in any concerted way (maybe since the early 90s?) back when TNG was still in production.
Also, if you compare TOS to later Trek, Fed vs. are extremely powerful. These are ships fighting at FTL as a norm, the Enterprise is repeatedly noted as being able to waste every city on a planet, phasers take out the sides of buildings, that sort of thing.
Everyone is generally competent, even the bad guys.
Also people tend to act like...people. Something not seen again until DS9.
Whether I find the Roddenberry future realistic or plausible is a completely different question to whether I think it’s Star Trek. For me, Star Trek needs that level of optimism, that root beer saccharine quality, in order to work as Star Trek.
My favorite era is TNG, although I’m also a fan of DS9 and some episodes of Voyager. The series did well after Roddenberry passed, but even DS9 looks like carebears next to the nuTrek tone. (And no, I don’t want to get into a debate about which series technically had more evil admirals. If a poster can’t tell the difference in feeling between pre-nuBSG and post-nuBSG Trek, that’s not a problem I can fix.)
The Orville is the only current sci fi show I know of with a setting that still looks like it would be fun to visit.
Roddenberry famously insisted every character interaction full of conflict, the future painted in suffering.
I was wondering what people think of the way Star Trek evolved post Roddenbury.
To be perfectly honest, I find Roddenbury's optimism about the future to be obtuse. He sincerely seemed to believe that all human problems that cause suffering, philosophical differences in humans and the desire for free sovereignty were things that could be cured by adding more science. To him, science definitely does not lead to more efficient ways for us to victimize other humans (the way most of history seems to indicate).
At first, Star Trek mostly painted the humans of the future as the paramount of morality who go about forcing their ideology through good old fashioned colonial values. The show never really considers that sometimes a planet might be better off without Kirk destroying their way of life (even when he has no reason to do so).
With TNG, things get a bit more mature about it, but mostly stayed simple. Characters weigh philosophical decisions and often break out of character so that we can have an ethics argument about whether to keep the prime directive or save people's lives. But the right decision is usually pretty obvious, and the Prime Directive is just an obstacle that we should usually dismiss or subvert.
But it seems that after Rodenbury's death, a lot of Star Trek became less black and white. Deep Space 9 was mostly about those left behind in the consequences of Federation interference- and Star Trek evolved mostly along those lines.
Now Picard is all about how the idealist Captain that we watched on TNG would not go along with the expedient paths chosen for political reasons that we saw in later Trek.
But what doe you all think about it? What era of Star Trek is ideal, and it is before or after Roddenbury?
I think about this all the time. I like Deep Space 9 a lot because it shows that maintaining the Federation morality on the periphery is hard, but I don't like that very often characters had to play dirty in order to get ahead (as much as I love the episode "The Pale Moonlight" in terms of what it means for Sisko's character, and just in general the way the story is told and Avery Brooks's and Garrak's performances). I just watched "A Taste of Armageddon" last night, and loved Kirk's speech at the end; you say the only option is suicide or escalation, but there's a third option, which is peace, buddy. I think that's what I like most about Star Trek is those moments when it chooses a third path. Often the story is a little contrived or the characters manipulated to get us there, but it still works for me every time. The TNG episodes "Who Watches the Watchers" and "Pen Pals" are both good examples. There's plenty of great examples throughout other series too - but towards the end of DS9 they made more of the darker choices. Which again, work for me on a story and character level.
I don't have many positive things to say about STP, but it kind of turned it on its head. I've heard people say "Well the Federation wasn't the Utopia, it was Picard's Enterprise that was the Utopia." Buddy, have you seen "The Menagerie?" Have you seen "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost?" Have you seen "The Drumhead?"
I've started to incorporate what I call the Rodenberry ideal into my theory of change - societal improvement through mutual aid and tolerance, giving the individual the tools they need to empower themselves in the way that they choose - through art, science, or anything else - and therefore uplifting the whole community.
That said, odinsgrandson is absolutely right that, if not properly handled, the Rodenberry ideal becomes paternalistic and colonial. It's such a delicate needle to thread, and for me it's the difference between The Federation and The Culture; the latter is kind of like a benevolent Grey Goo scenario, whereas the former is something more concrete, something that takes work to build and maintain. Also a really good point about the use of science and technology to empower technocrats and accumulate biopower. This is about empowering everybody equally, not entrusting more and more technical power to fewer and fewer people.
I totally agree with Bobtheinquistor also - Star Trek is a utopia that we can aspire towards, but isn't always super practical for the problems that we face in the day to day. It's a fantasy, and one very rooted in the positionality of its creator, but is nevertheless I believe a good one, a wholesome one. I think Rodenberry would welcome these kinds of critiques and would accept that certain aspects of his vision would have to change (more emphasis on social solutions to social problems).
I've watched all of them at some point during the Reagan/BushSr/Clinton eras... but Balance of Terror would be one of the episodes that I absolutely have rewatched in the last couple of years along with Space Seed, the Mudd episodes, the Trouble with Tribbles, the Horta episode, and the Doomsday Machine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Whether I find the Roddenberry future realistic or plausible is a completely different question to whether I think it’s Star Trek. For me, Star Trek needs that level of optimism, that root beer saccharine quality, in order to work as Star Trek.
My favorite era is TNG, although I’m also a fan of DS9 and some episodes of Voyager. The series did well after Roddenberry passed, but even DS9 looks like carebears next to the nuTrek tone. (And no, I don’t want to get into a debate about which series technically had more evil admirals. If a poster can’t tell the difference in feeling between pre-nuBSG and post-nuBSG Trek, that’s not a problem I can fix.)
The Orville is the only current sci fi show I know of with a setting that still looks like it would be fun to visit.
DS9 after season 2 became my favorite specifically because it was a break from the status quo in TOS/TNG at the time. I just didn't think it would eventually not only become the norm but the diet watered down predecessor to dystopiTrek we have today. I like parts of the Orville but it's so uneven IMO that it's hard for me to really like it overall.
That said, odinsgrandson is absolutely right that, if not properly handled, the Rodenberry ideal becomes paternalistic and colonial. It's such a delicate needle to thread,
Well, if I've learned anything since 2016, it's that Hollywood and international equivalents like the BBC will approach every complex subject with a reasoned and nuanced approach to evaluating all the possible angles without any obvious bias or preconcieved notions.
Whilst I liked Picard it was clear someone really wanted it to be nu-nu-bsg, even down to thinky bots bad m'kay and jamming in allusions to our current world, which is the first rule of sci-fi, should always be the slow blade rather than cracking skulls
Not to get too far off topic, but the Orville is kind of a good reflection of TNG. The episodes are uneven, yeah. If I was only watching for quality plotting or direction, I probably wouldn’t enjoy it as much. But the Orville has that sense of comraderie that TNG has, that the crew basically get along, mostly like each other, and will have each others’ backs in a crisis. The interpersonal drama is pretty light and aims more to entertain than to hit the gut or hindbrain. The setting is generally positive, the people generally nice, the conflicts less cynical. I’d rather have on a show that is comfortable, but perhaps unambitious than some soul-crushing drama that leaves me feeling wrung out.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Not to get too far off topic, but the Orville is kind of a good reflection of TNG. The episodes are uneven, yeah. If I was only watching for quality plotting or direction, I probably wouldn’t enjoy it as much. But the Orville has that sense of comraderie that TNG has, that the crew basically get along, mostly like each other, and will have each others’ backs in a crisis. The interpersonal drama is pretty light and aims more to entertain than to hit the gut or hindbrain. The setting is generally positive, the people generally nice, the conflicts less cynical. I’d rather have on a show that is comfortable, but perhaps unambitious than some soul-crushing drama that leaves me feeling wrung out.
The Orville was a really pleasant surprise. I was expecting a fluffy spoof show, and it turned out to be a really good Star Trek show.
So far as Trek itself goes, I actually like how it has evolved over the years. It's kind of a necessary progression, to avoid all of the shows blending into the same thing, and lets them revisit concepts without them getting stale. Some of it is possibly timing as well... I started out with the Original series as a kid, and it seems like Star Trek got darker and more disillusioned with the future at around the same rate that I did...
But while I find newer Trek a more plausible vision of the future, I also still enjoy the brighter tomorrow promised by the original series.
It’s kind of sad that the more “plausible” future is the crapsack one. I guess it’s like a classic Trek character once said:
Just where is our future? The things we’ve done and said,
We should push the button; we’d be better off dead. ...
The sins of our fathers dumped on us, the sons.
The only question left is, “How many megatons?” ...
We’re all bloody worthless, just breeding human scum.
The numbers all add up to a negative sum. ...
I hate you.
I did have two or three good laughs during the trailer. I am a little worried because I do take my Star Trek more seriously than I probably should, and I hope they take the core tenants of Star Trek seriously. That said, science fiction and humor are absolutely compatible, and being an animated series there's some good high-concept sci-fi concepts they could do without breaking the budget.
That said I think the biggest red flag is that the animation style and color palette are very reminiscent of Rick and Morty, and I hope it doesn't rely on shock gags and nihilism for humor. Not that I have an issue with that, just that I would assume that Rick and Morty can be infinitely more shocking and nihilistic than a show produced for CBS all-access (although the bit when one of the characters started pumping the heart outside of the guy's chest was one of my laugh moments).
So: the things I think look promising and the things that look less promising kind of balance each other out, leaving me interested in the show. There's a lot of good choices they could make here - for me, it comes down to what the subject of the humor is - as long as they don't turn Star Fleet into a joke they can do pretty much anything.
Star Trek is already giving us an animated show in the form of Lower Decks, but it looks like they want to release something more kid-oriented with this new Nickelodeon series.
According to Deadline, Nickelodeon is gearing up to release the CG-animated Star Trek: Prodigy, and the show will be coming from Trollhunters writers Kevin and Dan Hageman with Ramsey Naito (The Boss Baby) overseeing the project.
Here’s the logo:
Unlike Lower Decks, Prodigy will be more child-oriented. We don’t know what the series will look like yet, but with a release set for 2021, I suspect we would get our first look before the year ends.
I have to say, Star Trek has always been an adult series, and that’s why Star Wars manages to capture more fans—because it’s so easy to get into. With Prodigy, there’s potential for the franchise to get hold of a younger fanbase, and those kid Trekkies will be able to grow up, buy merch, and consume more Trek material in the future as well.
If anything, I’m expecting Prodigy to run like The Clone Wars and other animated Star Wars shows; they’re going to start off generally for kids, and as each season passes, more mature themes will be explored and darker stories could take place. It’s one of those shows that you expect to grow with the audience. Then again, they’ll have to make sure it’s a hit first.
Star Trek: Prodigy is set to hit Nickelodeon sometime in 2021.
Doesn't seem like there's actually any information about it, other than the logo. Probably not for me, which is totally fine - nothing wrong with kids enjoying content for kids. That said, I started watching TNG at a pretty young age, seven or eight, and I was still taken with the lore and the vibe of the series. Dated effects and aspect ratios don't mean as much when you're younger - I ate up Ray Harry Hausen and Tokusatsu movies. All this just to say that kids do not only enjoy content made for kids; they enjoy being challenged and thinking through problems just like any other audience. Of course, Star Trek: Prodigy could be great! And if it gets more people to watch more Trek I'm all for it.
I'm not a fan of Alex Kurtzman but he and Heather Kadin came across as fairly benign in the Comic Con virtual panel. They're vision is a more accessible, Hollywood vision of Star Trek. Not quite what I want. At some point I'll probably give Discovery a watch but I've heard so much bad press I don't know if I'll be able to give it a fair, objective viewing. I'm in no rush I suppose; still have all of Enterprise and TOS to watch.
Edit: got to the bit about Lower Decks. Actually kind of optimistic about it.
Roddenberry famously insisted every character interaction full of conflict, the future painted in suffering.
I was wondering what people think of the way Star Trek evolved post Roddenbury.
To be perfectly honest, I find Roddenbury's optimism about the future to be obtuse. He sincerely seemed to believe that all human problems that cause suffering, philosophical differences in humans and the desire for free sovereignty were things that could be cured by adding more science. To him, science definitely does not lead to more efficient ways for us to victimize other humans (the way most of history seems to indicate).
At first, Star Trek mostly painted the humans of the future as the paramount of morality who go about forcing their ideology through good old fashioned colonial values. The show never really considers that sometimes a planet might be better off without Kirk destroying their way of life (even when he has no reason to do so).
With TNG, things get a bit more mature about it, but mostly stayed simple. Characters weigh philosophical decisions and often break out of character so that we can have an ethics argument about whether to keep the prime directive or save people's lives. But the right decision is usually pretty obvious, and the Prime Directive is just an obstacle that we should usually dismiss or subvert.
But it seems that after Rodenbury's death, a lot of Star Trek became less black and white. Deep Space 9 was mostly about those left behind in the consequences of Federation interference- and Star Trek evolved mostly along those lines.
Now Picard is all about how the idealist Captain that we watched on TNG would not go along with the expedient paths chosen for political reasons that we saw in later Trek.
But what doe you all think about it? What era of Star Trek is ideal, and it is before or after Roddenbury?
For me, Star Trek is TNG, DS9 and Voyager. I can't get into the original, it's just too old for me. But I grew up with the three 90s shows. Enterprise is okay, nothing to terrible.
Everything since Enterprise has just been one long slide into irrelevancy for me. Anaxanar is the trek I want, but for some reason Paramount or CBS or whoever keeps thinking this JJ/Kushner (or whatever his name is) stuff is real star trek. It isn't. It's all trash.
Same, there are some good episodes and I've watched it all. But, I can rewatch TNG/DS9 1000 times. Easily.
Yeah, I think TOS has taken on a bit of a mythic status as this seminal sci-fi show that shattered all these boundaries and blazed a trail. In many ways that's correct, but at the same time there's some severely rose-tinted viewing going on there. A lot of the episodes are pretty bad by anyone's standards. The stand-out episodes are brilliant even today but there's a hell of a lot of filler it TOS.
Same, there are some good episodes and I've watched it all. But, I can rewatch TNG/DS9 1000 times. Easily.
Yeah, I think TOS has taken on a bit of a mythic status as this seminal sci-fi show that shattered all these boundaries and blazed a trail. In many ways that's correct, but at the same time there's some severely rose-tinted viewing going on there. A lot of the episodes are pretty bad by anyone's standards. The stand-out episodes are brilliant even today but there's a hell of a lot of filler it TOS.
I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I've been watching TOS for the first time as a(n unjustifiably) cynical modern viewer, and am loving the hell out of it. Especially as compared to the first season of TNG or DS9 (Code of Honor, anyone? Q-Less?), there's a lot higher wheat-to-chaff ratio in TOS. The only stand-out stinkers in the first season are probably Charlie X, The Naked Time, and Mudd's Women. Everything else I really enjoyed. Maybe it's because I lean into the camp - it doesn't make me take the science fiction any less seriously. Considering the very severe limitations they were up against, they were able to express some really cool ideas. Season 1 of DS9 is a bit easier to swallow, but you have to take on faith that TNG gets better because the first season and a half doesn't have a lot going for it (with notable exceptions; Skin of Evil, Conspiracy, etc.).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: TOS starts strong, but gets weaker as it goes along. The third season is as bad as TNG’s first.
I tend to rewatch TNG and DS9 the most and TOS when I want to show my son a particular episode for some reason.
I've heard that before; not really looking forward to the third season. But I'm not a completionist, so if after a few episodes I'm not getting anything out of it, I won't feel obligated to finish; I'll just skip to the Motion Picture.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: TOS starts strong, but gets weaker as it goes along. The third season is as bad as TNG’s first.
I tend to rewatch TNG and DS9 the most and TOS when I want to show my son a particular episode for some reason.
TOS third season is when they got a producer who hated science fiction. This is documented.
TNG's second season (mercifully the shortest) was made during the 1980s Hollywood writer's strike (so they could use scripts they already had, tweaked and updated, but not get new stuff) but yeah, it took that show about 3 seasons to find its feet. Just like DS9. Enterprise started to settle in during the latter half of season 3. Voyager had a rough first 3 seasons, too - but then kept on sucking like a hoover.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: TOS starts strong, but gets weaker as it goes along. The third season is as bad as TNG’s first.
I tend to rewatch TNG and DS9 the most and TOS when I want to show my son a particular episode for some reason.
TOS third season is when they got a producer who hated science fiction. This is documented.
TNG's second season (mercifully the shortest) was made during the 1980s Hollywood writer's strike (so they could use scripts they already had, tweaked and updated, but not get new stuff) but yeah, it took that show about 3 seasons to find its feet. Just like DS9. Enterprise started to settle in during the latter half of season 3. Voyager had a rough first 3 seasons, too - but then kept on sucking like a hoover.
I've seen most of Voyager with a friend with whom I'm no longer on good terms, and for that reason I'll probably never finish the show. It's definitely not a good first Star Trek experience; if I didn't have fond memories of TNG as a kid I would probably never have decided to revisit Star Trek as an adult. But even so there were a lot of really good ideas in there. I liked the episode where Chakotay is on the planet of ex-Borgs, especially in dialogue with Descent Pts 1 and 2. The episode where Seven of Nine reverts back to her childhood memories is really well-acted. The Doctor's character progression was actually handled very well; it could easily have been just a copy-paste of Data but he was a distinct enough character. I genuinely liked Janeway, Kes, B'elanna Tores, and Tom Paris. The Phage and Hirogens were both great recurring villains, and goofy as it is I really liked the episode where the Hirogens use the holodecks to reenact occupied France, and the one where the outpost keeps recreating time to try and restore their lost empire. Lots of good ideas and characters that were often overshadowed by everything else.
I think I started to lose patience with the introduction of Species 8472, and I don't think I've seen anything past Season 5. At some point I'll probably watch the last episode and get some closure that way, but of all the series it's one I'll probably never finish.
As far as new Trek goes, I really have no interest in season two of Picard. I'll get around to watching the first few episodes of Discovery eventually, but I'm in no hurry. I want to give it a fair chance and not be biased by the bad press I've heard about it - but I've heard a lot of bad press. Blip blorp. No need to overthink these things, I suppose.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The Motion Picture is an odd film. It’s not my favorite Star Trek movie by a long way, but it is the one I rewatch the most.
Personally I think the early Kirk films perfectly captured the sense of space-fantasy-mystery-wonder that the Original series would have liked to do but never had the budget to really achieve in any "realistic" sense. To me they are ST at about its best in a sense of wonder and exploration and the strangeness of space and other races. Vulcans in them are really so much more than just "that really serious guy/gal in the crew who ever so often solves the weekly plot by mind reading". They retain that mystical edge and strange culture to their own; same as other alien elements (Eg we never find out anything really about the whale probes story - it remains a mystery).
Just like DS9 is Startrek at its political and character growth and development best.
Given up on Start Trek: Burnham - rather watch the Expanse...and pretty much anything else now - enjoyed Picard much much more than Season 2 of ST:B - apart from the last crappy episode.
Some funny parts in that episode. I especially love them calling out the set details that are now visible in 1080p that previously were blurred out in standard definition TV.
So who checked out Lower Decks? I thought it was decent enough. A little over the top, but not in any particularly bad way given the style. It’s obviously going to get compared to Final Space, and I’ll be curious to see how it does in that regard.
If you're in Canada, it's on some scifi cable channel. They don't have any international distribution yet as apparently both Netflix (STD) and Amazon (Picard) passed on it.
I'm confidently predicting RLM's top two episodes of TNG will be "Data meets his father" and "Picard lives an alternate lifetime in a society that is being destroyed by drought. IIRC there's a flute or a harmonica or something". Also, Voyager was the best Star Trek series.
warboss wrote: I saw the trailers and have no interest personally.
Same. It's everything that initially put me off about the idea of The Orville, except this actually is that rather than just being the perception of it tainting an actually good show, and also this is an actual branded Star Trek production that they're at great pains to insist is totes deffo canon which compounds the dumbness of it.
Ensigns "mucking out" the holodecks is now canon. Turbolifts going through the housing of active warp nacelles like that's NBD is now canon. Painting their ships with gofaster stripes in division colours is now canon. Starfleet being an aspirational vision of a better version of future selves? Nah, now it's canon that it's crammed full of just as many bumbling, incompetent, venal feth ups as any modern office environment, only until now we were just shown the "good" crews.
Honestly I thought they'd beaten it out of me, but I find I still managed to be utterly baffled how the people in charge of making this stuff can know so many thing about Star Trek but still fail so catastrophically to understand what it is and why it became a brand successful enough for them to latch on to in the first place.
Looks like the mainstream media (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline) is reporting that the Noah Hawley movie reported on last year is paused after a new person came to head up the Paramount movie division so don't expect it anytime soon.
JWBS wrote: I'm confidently predicting RLM's top two episodes of TNG will be "Data meets his father" and "Picard lives an alternate lifetime in a society that is being destroyed by drought. IIRC there's a flute or a harmonica or something". Also, Voyager was the best Star Trek series.
surely Dr Crusher and the Sex Pest Ghost (thats not at all from those Anne Rice books), or that one when free love space hippys try to kill Wesley have to be in the running
Mr Morden wrote: Given up on Start Trek: Burnham - rather watch the Expanse...and pretty much anything else now - enjoyed Picard much much more than Season 2 of ST:B - apart from the last crappy episode.
The expanse is a genuinely awesome show, just watched all four seasons in less than a month. Best sci fi i've watched in years, i'll take it over all the alternatives at this point. I've got such little interest in Star Trek anymore it's just depressing.
Did no one here watch Final Space? That show is so much better than I expected it to be based on how it looked. You should definitely check it out. There’s only been one episode of Lower Decks so far, but the comparisons are glaring. It’s a very similar sort of humor, just need to see if they can match the surprisingly deep actual drama from Final Space, but they’ve already started to set up some things there for that. I can’t judge too harshly for people watching the trailer for these and nopeing out, because I initially did the same for Final Space. They really do Look stupid. It was after a few episodes and some friends told me I really needed to check out Final Space and I relented and I do not regret it.
warboss wrote: I saw the trailers and have no interest personally.
Same. It's everything that initially put me off about the idea of The Orville, except this actually is that rather than just being the perception of it tainting an actually good show, and also this is an actual branded Star Trek production that they're at great pains to insist is totes deffo canon which compounds the dumbness of it.
Ensigns "mucking out" the holodecks is now canon. Turbolifts going through the housing of active warp nacelles like that's NBD is now canon. Painting their ships with gofaster stripes in division colours is now canon. Starfleet being an aspirational vision of a better version of future selves? Nah, now it's canon that it's crammed full of just as many bumbling, incompetent, venal feth ups as any modern office environment, only until now we were just shown the "good" crews.
Honestly I thought they'd beaten it out of me, but I find I still managed to be utterly baffled how the people in charge of making this stuff can know so many thing about Star Trek but still fail so catastrophically to understand what it is and why it became a brand successful enough for them to latch on to in the first place.
I'm not sure I'd call anything from a comedy cartoon series canon myself. that said sounds like the comedy is mostly low brow "lol his pants fell down" type humor?
Mr Morden wrote: Given up on Start Trek: Burnham - rather watch the Expanse...and pretty much anything else now - enjoyed Picard much much more than Season 2 of ST:B - apart from the last crappy episode.
I've got such little interest in Star Trek anymore it's just depressing.
I skipped everything Picard and most of Discovery, so I'm not super depressed about the state of Star Trek. I mean yeah, Enterprise was a little bit of a bummer but I'm sure I'd be a lot more depressed about what happened to Star Trek if I'd watched any of the stuff from the past five or so years.
Next Gen was very hit and miss - some good - some total gak.
DS9 was mostly excellent
Voyager was more miss than hit
Enterprise was the same.
Discovery had good stuff but was ruined by becoming cetnered aorund one "super awseome character who (in universe only) not only everyome inexplicably love but the actuall universe revolved around
Picard was pretty good - if you skip the last episode.
AduroT wrote: Did no one here watch Final Space? That show is so much better than I expected it to be based on how it looked. You should definitely check it out. There’s only been one episode of Lower Decks so far, but the comparisons are glaring. It’s a very similar sort of humor, just need to see if they can match the surprisingly deep actual drama from Final Space, but they’ve already started to set up some things there for that. I can’t judge too harshly for people watching the trailer for these and nopeing out, because I initially did the same for Final Space. They really do Look stupid. It was after a few episodes and some friends told me I really needed to check out Final Space and I relented and I do not regret it.
For a second I thought you were referring to "Other Space" and I was going to... question your analysis.
AduroT wrote: Did no one here watch Final Space? That show is so much better than I expected it to be based on how it looked. You should definitely check it out. There’s only been one episode of Lower Decks so far, but the comparisons are glaring. It’s a very similar sort of humor, just need to see if they can match the surprisingly deep actual drama from Final Space, but they’ve already started to set up some things there for that. I can’t judge too harshly for people watching the trailer for these and nopeing out, because I initially did the same for Final Space. They really do Look stupid. It was after a few episodes and some friends told me I really needed to check out Final Space and I relented and I do not regret it.
For a second I thought you were referring to "Other Space" and I was going to... question your analysis.
warboss wrote: I saw the trailers and have no interest personally.
Same. It's everything that initially put me off about the idea of The Orville, except this actually is that rather than just being the perception of it tainting an actually good show, and also this is an actual branded Star Trek production that they're at great pains to insist is totes deffo canon which compounds the dumbness of it.
Ensigns "mucking out" the holodecks is now canon. Turbolifts going through the housing of active warp nacelles like that's NBD is now canon. Painting their ships with gofaster stripes in division colours is now canon. Starfleet being an aspirational vision of a better version of future selves? Nah, now it's canon that it's crammed full of just as many bumbling, incompetent, venal feth ups as any modern office environment, only until now we were just shown the "good" crews.
Honestly I thought they'd beaten it out of me, but I find I still managed to be utterly baffled how the people in charge of making this stuff can know so many thing about Star Trek but still fail so catastrophically to understand what it is and why it became a brand successful enough for them to latch on to in the first place.
I'm not sure I'd call anything from a comedy cartoon series canon myself. that said sounds like the comedy is mostly low brow "lol his pants fell down" type humor?
I'd prefer not to call it canon either, unfortunately what is and is not canon is decided by whoever owns the IP and the people running LD certainly seem to believe they're making additions to the canon.
Now of course people will say "why let a company define your enjoyment, just ignore the bits you don't like!" - which is rather the issue, the only Trek I've actually liked for the last decade was Beyond, and even that was qualified enjoyment.
Like, even with all of the many, many, many issues I have with modern Star Wars, they still managed to make 2 out of 5 films that were pretty good(the ones not in the Sequels, to be clear), a lot of the peripheral materials were decent & a few excellent, and even among the meh or outright eww stuff, there were cool things mixed in, ship designs, general ideas that were lacking in execution but fine in concept and so on. NuTrek is a wasteland by comparison, just one nutpunch after another interspersed with dullness and endless cynicism. Even the ships & props have managed to make one of the most iconic design languages in sci-fi seem painfully generic, wavering between "it's not modern enough, make it dull and angular and add greebles!" and needless change-for-the-sake-of-change "reinterpretations" of classic designs that often miss the point of the original(like the STD Grimdarkprise, which rushes to make the TOS vessel look "kewl" and "more detailed" without grasping that the classic look with its spindly rigid pylons and mostly smooth exterior was *intentional* and meant to convey how advanced the ship was compared to our own technology). Gah, there's no point ranting on about this for hours, it is what it is. Star Trek - the essence of it, the core - ended in 2005. All that's left is a brand name.
AduroT wrote: So who checked out Lower Decks? I thought it was decent enough. A little over the top, but not in any particularly bad way given the style. It’s obviously going to get compared to Final Space, and I’ll be curious to see how it does in that regard.
After giving it a watch? Honestly the best thing to come out of Star Trek in...a long time. It's thoroughly average really if I have to be totally honest, but I'm a sucker for animation and the active parody of other Star Trek shows and total disdain for the typical heroes (the command staff) worked well, and scratches my animation itch perfectly. The opening scene being a drunk ensign mucking around with a Bat'leth...and it ending poorly, was great.
Also, I loved Final Space, so given that it basically felt like it came straight out of that show didn't hurt.
More to the point, it actually feels more coherent than Discovery or Picard, and it's a goddamn parody cartoon
EDIT: It is definitely *not* going to be everyone's thing however. If you watch it, watch it like you would Futurama set in actual Star Trek, don't expect a new DS9.
So about halfway through the third episode of Lower Decks I went ahead and cancelled my CBS All-Access. Despite a few very genuinely funny moments ("How much flesh?" "All the kindergartners were ejected into space"), it overall wasn't funny enough and the science fiction concepts were more played for laughs than anything. A lot of the character stuff was telegraphed from pretty far away and didn't particularly interest me. Despite all the great comedy that comes out of Star Trek I think it's best left to the fanbase; let the original text stay serious and play it straight. Then someone comes along and makes Galaxy Quest, which is awesome; but arguably wouldn't have been as funny if it was actual Trek actors. I happen to think that the O'Brien's marriage is actually fairly wholesome - but it also was written at the beginning very oddly and led to some great fan-made humor (O'Brien at Work, Greatest Gen, and so on). When you're working for the Star Trek Industrial Complex, you have to pull your punches a bit - so there's a limit to how far you can take the comedy concepts. Just my two cents, anyway. If I hear that Lower Decks gets better I'll dip back in; but for now I'm happy to let it go.
In contrast, I'm two-thirds of the way through Season 2 of TOS and am sorry that it will be done soon; I think the writers really hit their stride. The characters are all very consistent, and although I am not the first by a long shot to recognize this, the Kirk-Spock-Bones relationship is such a strong scaffold around which to build a story. Particularly good episodes so far have been The Changeling, The Apple, Journey to Babel, and Wolf in the Fold. The latter was written by Robert Bloch and was a straight-up horror story. Really effective; good creeps when the mechanical laughter takes control of the ship. And a fun solution: "to keep the crew from getting scared and feeding the creature, we'll get everybody high." And of course Mirror, Mirror. Uhura gets a lot to do this season, and as a whole we're getting a sense of the bridge crew's personalities beyond just delivering exposition; Sulu and Chekhov feel like real characters. Looking forward to the marathon re-watch of the movies, although at the rate I'm turtling through the series that will probably be a while from now.
I might rewatch TOS as well and did the same (cancel CBS) before my free month was even up and only partly through the short treks. I don't have any negative feelings towards TOS (it's my favorite era to RPG/tabletop game in) but I haven't done a full series rewatch since I was a pre-teen and it was on daily reruns. Outside of a few famous episodes, my knowledge of it is based on distant memory and nostalgia and I'm curious if the more cynical and jaded 2020 version of me will enjoy it.
I rewatched DS9 a few years back and really enjoyed it. It definitely cemented its position for me ahead of TNG. I also stopped watching Enterprise after the first season (due to the hit or miss nature of that season as well as corporate shennanigans that put it in my area at the exact same timeslot as Stargate SG-1 during its prime) and it changed my previously negative opinion of that. It still had plenty of warts early on (I didn't like either the Xindi or Temporal Cold War arcs) but I think it really hit its stride in the 4th season with a great mix of multipart and independent episodes.
warboss wrote: I might rewatch TOS as well and did the same (cancel CBS) before my free month was even up and only partly through the short treks. I don't have any negative feelings towards TOS (it's my favorite era to RPG/tabletop game in) but I haven't done a full series rewatch since I was a pre-teen and it was on daily reruns. Outside of a few famous episodes, my knowledge of it is based on distant memory and nostalgia and I'm curious if the more cynical and jaded 2020 version of me will enjoy it.
I rewatched DS9 a few years back and really enjoyed it. It definitely cemented its position for me ahead of TNG. I also stopped watching Enterprise after the first season (due to the hit or miss nature of that season as well as corporate shennanigans that put it in my area at the exact same timeslot as Stargate SG-1 during its prime) and it changed my previously negative opinion of that. It still had plenty of warts early on (I didn't like either the Xindi or Temporal Cold War arcs) but I think it really hit its stride in the 4th season with a great mix of multipart and independent episodes.
Haven't gotten to Enterprise yet, but I like Scott Bakula well enough. It's the only series (pre-2005) for which I've yet to see a single episode - before I became a Trekkie I'd seen at least one episode from each other series (and most of Voyager). I'll probably watch it over the course of a few years.
Re: cynicism and being jaded, I've found TOS to be positively soothing. I consider myself to be fairly aware politically and very active in local politics, and so have my share of frustrations with the real world. What I like about Star Trek utopianism is that it is not naive; look at The Drumhead, for example; it takes hard work from everybody to maintain the high standards of a society, to help people become the best version of ourselves. It's a collaborative utopia, that expects much from its citizens. That expectation is healthily channeled into self-improvement and a spirit of cooperation. TOS has plenty of moments where things get heated and frustrating, but the crew use ethics, reason, and nonviolence to solve the problem. In other words, they show the work that gets them there; problems aren't just handwaved away.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: In defence of TNG, my distant second favourite Trek series, we couldn’t have had the sheer magnificence of DS9 without it.
Yes, I really do rank DS9 that highly. Which isn’t a knock to TNG itself, which remains a fine series.
Shame about Voyager though. So much wasted potential.
I agree completely. For what it's worth, it took me about two and a half years to finish TNG; I finished DS9 in five months.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Haven't gotten to Enterprise yet, but I like Scott Bakula well enough. It's the only series (pre-2005) for which I've yet to see a single episode - before I became a Trekkie I'd seen at least one episode from each other series (and most of Voyager). I'll probably watch it over the course of a few years.
It's an interesting show from both a technical and thematic perspective. Regarding the tech, it was filmed in full 1080p iirc but the effects were initially done at a lower resolution for the first season or two and it really shows. At least with DS9/Voyager, it's all muddy standard definition so it matches. Thematically, the end credits are a "trekky" orchestral tune but the much criticized opening credits have a pop song that is quite jarring for many. I personally liked that Archer was basically a bit of a naive space racist (at least towards vulcans) and grew both as a captain and person throughout the course of the show. I also enjoyed them putting the NX into scenarios where they would repeated and reliably get pasted unlike the UFP flagship Galaxy Class or punching way above its weight class Defiant. There are some continuity errors as well as cringey moments (decontamination anyone?) but it really starts to come together in season 3 and is firing on all nacelles in season 4. Unlike with STD and Picard though, it doesn't feel like they're actively trying to be badly received by core fans by design but rather just relearning lessons in how to make trek that they should have known to begin with after TNG/DS9/VOY.
I do remember liking season 4 of Enterprise and being sad that it basically felt like they had to merge every plotline they had planned for the next 4 years into a series of 2 hour specials.
warboss wrote: Thematically, the end credits are a "trekky" orchestral tune but the much criticized opening credits have a pop song that is quite jarring for many.
Don't worry; I have heard the Enterprise theme song.
As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I also feel this way about TNG. Most pre-bearded Johnathan Frakes episodes were trash.
As a side note, there is a rumor about DS9 that I want to see if anyone can confirm. It's noted specifically in the series that Federation and Kardasian tech isn't totally compatible, which is the reason that they don't have TNG style hover platforms to move things around. Federation platforms don't work on Kardasian gravity plating. I heard they had to write that in because they wanted to save money for post-production work.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I also feel this way about TNG. Most pre-bearded Johnathan Frakes episodes were trash.
As a side note, there is a rumor about DS9 that I want to see if anyone can confirm. It's noted specifically in the series that Federation and Kardasian tech isn't totally compatible, which is the reason that they don't have TNG style hover platforms to move things around. Federation platforms don't work on Kardasian gravity plating. I heard they had to write that in because they wanted to save money for post-production work.
O'brien bitches about it a few times. Spoonhead tech and starfleet stuff just doesn't like working together. Not that O'brien was that big a fan of the cardies to start with.
AduroT wrote: The only thing I remember about DS9’s Q episode is Sisko punching him in the face. Just straight up socking the all powerful space god in the nose.
I enjoyed it - its quite fun with Q and Vash - life is good if you catch the eye of a god (mostly)
Thought the Voyager version was awful - just glad they did not scew up a Mirror Universe epsiode.
AduroT wrote: The only thing I remember about DS9’s Q episode is Sisko punching him in the face. Just straight up socking the all powerful space god in the nose.
"You hit me! Picard never hit me!"
A nice, almost 4th wall breaking observation in case TNG fans were wondering about the change in atmosphere of DS9.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I also feel this way about TNG. Most pre-bearded Johnathan Frakes episodes were trash.
As a side note, there is a rumor about DS9 that I want to see if anyone can confirm. It's noted specifically in the series that Federation and Kardasian tech isn't totally compatible, which is the reason that they don't have TNG style hover platforms to move things around. Federation platforms don't work on Kardasian gravity plating. I heard they had to write that in because they wanted to save money for post-production work.
O'brien bitches about it a few times. Spoonhead tech and starfleet stuff just doesn't like working together. Not that O'brien was that big a fan of the cardies to start with.
Spoonhead...
The level of racism towards Cardassians from O'Brien is alarming and the writers really came up with some creative slurs.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I agree, it was a pretty rough start. Move Along Home is a complete joke of an episode - when it was over I said out loud "What even was the point of this episode?" The one with Rumpelstiltskin was pretty trash also. But I thought the two episode arc at the end of season one with Kai Ratched was really well-done, and set the stage for the the tone of the rest of the series.
AduroT wrote: The only thing I remember about DS9’s Q episode is Sisko punching him in the face. Just straight up socking the all powerful space god in the nose.
I enjoyed it - its quite fun with Q and Vash - life is good if you catch the eye of a god (mostly)
Thought the Voyager version was awful - just glad they did not scew up a Mirror Universe epsiode.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Cuda here, I really didn't care for the Q episode. The way that they play Q is pretty off-putting. It seemed petulant, and I'd hope the Q Continuum would be above that sort of thing. I thought it was very different from how he was portrayed as Picard's personal gadfly. On the surface it seems petty, but it's about something deeper than just pissing Picard off; it's an ongoing trial of humanity, and that comes across each time (mostly). I figured if Vash decided to head home Q would just say "okay, that's another human mayfly out of my life. Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things." Getting clingy and jealous felt out of character.
The Q Continuim has never show any sign of anything deep or especially moral or even really intelligent - just immensley powerful.
Pretty much all the "gods" in Trek are petty and jealous - like the old Greek, Norse etc gods. It follows on they have favourite pets and toys to play with /torment/assist.
They tend to look for things to occupy their attention = be that a entire race, galaxy or a person.
The trial of humanity really did not wok for me as no other race seemed to have the same test - and even then - the Enterprise has mutiple races not just humans. B but I guess it works if its just a fleeting moment of a bored gods attention.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I also feel this way about TNG. Most pre-bearded Johnathan Frakes episodes were trash.
As a side note, there is a rumor about DS9 that I want to see if anyone can confirm. It's noted specifically in the series that Federation and Kardasian tech isn't totally compatible, which is the reason that they don't have TNG style hover platforms to move things around. Federation platforms don't work on Kardasian gravity plating. I heard they had to write that in because they wanted to save money for post-production work.
O'brien bitches about it a few times. Spoonhead tech and starfleet stuff just doesn't like working together. Not that O'brien was that big a fan of the cardies to start with.
Spoonhead...
The level of racism towards Cardassians from O'Brien is alarming and the writers really came up with some creative slurs.
O'Brien was as weird oddity. In TNG he was the career non-com that kept wandering in and out of 'officer country' (which was the show focus), and making him a major character of DS9 meant keeping all those little oddities.
Problem was, I don't think the writers (for either show) really understood all the 20th century stereotypes they kept piling on the character. Not the Irish ones, nor the military ones. But the military ones had a lot of implications and baggage (more once they sorted out what his rank actually was) that was a pretty poor fit for Star Trek.
Of course, you also have the issue that he seemed to be the writer's punching bag. 'How do we make Miles' life worse?' seems to be a fairly repetitive plot element of DS9.
Watched the first lower Decks episodes. I was really ready to hate on this show but surprisingly I'm liking it so far. It was funnier than the trailer and the characters are more likable than anything in ST Picard.
cuda1179 wrote: As much as I like DS9 ( my favorite of the series) I found most of the first season, and the first few episodes of the second season to be horrible. I particularly disliked when they tried to ham-fist in a Q episode, which didn't really work in my opinion (although oddly I loved him on Voyager, where I think it worked out well enough). I liked that characters were actually put in moral dilemmas where they'd actually hate themselves for it later.
I also feel this way about TNG. Most pre-bearded Johnathan Frakes episodes were trash.
As a side note, there is a rumor about DS9 that I want to see if anyone can confirm. It's noted specifically in the series that Federation and Kardasian tech isn't totally compatible, which is the reason that they don't have TNG style hover platforms to move things around. Federation platforms don't work on Kardasian gravity plating. I heard they had to write that in because they wanted to save money for post-production work.
O'brien bitches about it a few times. Spoonhead tech and starfleet stuff just doesn't like working together. Not that O'brien was that big a fan of the cardies to start with.
Spoonhead...
The level of racism towards Cardassians from O'Brien is alarming and the writers really came up with some creative slurs.
O'Brien was as weird oddity. In TNG he was the career non-com that kept wandering in and out of 'officer country' (which was the show focus), and making him a major character of DS9 meant keeping all those little oddities.
Problem was, I don't think the writers (for either show) really understood all the 20th century stereotypes they kept piling on the character. Not the Irish ones, nor the military ones. But the military ones had a lot of implications and baggage (more once they sorted out what his rank actually was) that was a pretty poor fit for Star Trek.
Of course, you also have the issue that he seemed to be the writer's punching bag. 'How do we make Miles' life worse?' seems to be a fairly repetitive plot element of DS9.
It's been a while but looking back on it I quite liked O'Brien. Remember that crazy episode where he was trapped as a prisoner for a long time and ended up killing his inmate? And then it turned out it was all a simulation or something. He could never catch a break, it was borderline amusing.
I always thought O'Brien had enough pluck and humor in him to get through the hard times. And ever since he found out how to replicate Scotch-flavored gum, I can't imagine he's not walking around Starship Academy, microdosing on the reg. He's probably that one professor that all the undergrads are scared of, that uses no notes in his lectures, and has impossible-to-understand tests.
----
I just started Season 3 of TOS and am not loving it! Got halfway through "Spock's Brain" and turned it off. Some research indicates that's one of the worst episodes in the series so I think I'll just skip to episode 2. I miss Season 2 already; it was such peak Star Trek. All the characters really sharp, with great chemistry between them, and really off-the-wall sci-fi concepts. "Return to Tomorrow" and "Journey to Babel" have each landed on my Best Episodes list (although to be fair, "A Private War" and "Patterns of Force" ended up on my Worst Episodes list; those were the only real low points in the season, though).
Part of the fun was finally watching "Mirror, Mirror" and "Gamesters of Triskellion." I thought I'd be too familiar with the tropes to enjoy them, but guess what; they're classics for a reason! Really well put-together. I thought that Uhura and Sulu got a little more screen time and felt like actual characters this season; Season 1 it was mostly Kirk-Spock-Bones-Scotty. Chekhov kind of fills the role that Sulu had in Season 1 - "we need a generic Star Fleet Guy to do some Star Fleet Stuff. Let's through Takei at it." And he was great at it - but that's not really a character.
I completely see how TOS could have captured so many people's imaginations. Even with a modern gaze I think the quality of the writing and acting are pretty solid. The only dated bits are the lingering bits of racial and gender representation ("She's a fine officer, but soon she'll find a man and leave the service."). I can't wait to watch the films; I'm gonna make a week of it, one film a night for six days.
Well, there was a trek first for me in this stunning and brave new era of nuTrek... I actually genuinely like a newly introduced ship design!
I don't watch the show (no interest after those first two trailers) so can't comment on the commentary/conjecture regarding the ship but I think that the Kurtzman era has finally come up with a good original design for a ship. Some ships have been flawed but tolerable (like the Shephard and Cardenas classes) to borderline good (like the Connie revamp in the original concept art moreso than what actually made it to the screen) but this is the first new design that I can wholeheartedly say that I like... and it only took three years and four seasons! Obviously, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and anyone is free to disagree (regarding this ship or with my general dislike of nuTrek designs in general).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That ship looks like an homage to the Wolf 359 kitbashes. I love it.
I could see it being there as well if it was the TNG movie era due to the nacelle style. About the only thing I'd tweak are the massively protruding impulse engines but that's a minor quibble.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: I always thought O'Brien had enough pluck and humor in him to get through the hard times. And ever since he found out how to replicate Scotch-flavored gum, I can't imagine he's not walking around Starship Academy, microdosing on the reg. He's probably that one professor that all the undergrads are scared of, that uses no notes in his lectures, and has impossible-to-understand tests.
----
I just started Season 3 of TOS and am not loving it! Got halfway through "Spock's Brain" and turned it off. Some research indicates that's one of the worst episodes in the series so I think I'll just skip to episode 2. I miss Season 2 already; it was such peak Star Trek. All the characters really sharp, with great chemistry between them, and really off-the-wall sci-fi concepts. "Return to Tomorrow" and "Journey to Babel" have each landed on my Best Episodes list (although to be fair, "A Private War" and "Patterns of Force" ended up on my Worst Episodes list; those were the only real low points in the season, though).
Part of the fun was finally watching "Mirror, Mirror" and "Gamesters of Triskellion." I thought I'd be too familiar with the tropes to enjoy them, but guess what; they're classics for a reason! Really well put-together. I thought that Uhura and Sulu got a little more screen time and felt like actual characters this season; Season 1 it was mostly Kirk-Spock-Bones-Scotty. Chekhov kind of fills the role that Sulu had in Season 1 - "we need a generic Star Fleet Guy to do some Star Fleet Stuff. Let's through Takei at it." And he was great at it - but that's not really a character.
I completely see how TOS could have captured so many people's imaginations. Even with a modern gaze I think the quality of the writing and acting are pretty solid. The only dated bits are the lingering bits of racial and gender representation ("She's a fine officer, but soon she'll find a man and leave the service."). I can't wait to watch the films; I'm gonna make a week of it, one film a night for six days.
TOS had a lot in common with The Twilight Zone/The Outer Limits imo. The only clear difference between a purely episodic series and an anthology is that you have a recurring cast. I don't recall TOS ever really building on previous episodes and the only two part one was The Menagerie. I think TNG clearly had more character and plot development over the entire run, partly due to its length, even though it was episodic as well. My point being that TOS told what amounted to short stories that attempted to deal with real world issues in a way that got around censorship, much the same as The Twilight Zone.
TNG has some elements of that, but honestly, post-TNG Star Trek has very little in common with TOS. I say that even though DS9 is my favorite of the Trek series. There's some key element that has been lost. I think an obvious issue is that TOS was episodic and that style of TV is no longer en vogue.
TOS had a lot in common with The Twilight Zone/The Outer Limits imo.
As someone who started with TNG and is going through TOS currently, this is actually one of the things I found most baffling/annoying with TOS. TOS doesn't seem to be sure at times if it a sci-fi show or if it is a Twillight Zone sort off show. One episode that really highlights this is "The Omega Glory", where they ham-fistedly try to insert a planet of the apes twist ending, even though it makes no sense in the shows internal logic.
Back in the Original Series they weren't really telling long term stories. In fact a lot of TV of its day was the same. You had a formula, you repeated that formula each week. Perhaps you got a bit of character development here and there, but by and large most episodes could appear in any order. It let them produce in any order and have different writers etc... Sometimes you'd get a story element in the last and first episodes of a season, but by and large they were not building connected storie.s
That was one of the big changes that TNG started doing. They introduced character arcs and stories that ran across more than one episode. They even added and removed key characters from the series here and there (I don't think we lost anyone from the Original Series save for copious redshirts).
Don't forget this a different age of TV. Heck this was when the writer for Babalon 5 was making huge waves with his longer story arcs; it was a brand new thing (esp for sci fi) and a huge risk. Today we've both kinds of TV, but even so its taken a long while for the rise of non-episodic TV stories to really take off.
TOS had a lot in common with The Twilight Zone/The Outer Limits imo.
As someone who started with TNG and is going through TOS currently, this is actually one of the things I found most baffling/annoying with TOS. TOS doesn't seem to be sure at times if it a sci-fi show or if it is a Twillight Zone sort off show. One episode that really highlights this is "The Omega Glory", where they ham-fistedly try to insert a planet of the apes twist ending, even though it makes no sense in the shows internal logic.
Character development and story arcs weren't really a thing in the 60s so pretty much all TV was a series of one-offs, with only the fact the cast and location was the same each week tying them all together. The idea of a season-long story arc is actually not as old as people think. Yes, there were series that did it back in the 60s (and probably even earlier) but it's only in the last 25 years or so it's really become the standard approach to making episodic TV. I remember thinking it was weird when I rewatched the X-Files that there's barely any continuity between any of the episodes. It's series-spanning story was one of the many things that made Babylon 5 stand out so much.
I'm fine with the episodic nature of TOS, The trouble I have with it is that it cant decide at times if it a sci-fi series or a Twillight Zone anthology series.
Take the "The Omega Glory" for example, they turn up to a planet which have two warring native tribes called Yangs and Koms, which have a primitive level of technology. The twist is that Yang and Koms are actually Yankees and Communist that have fallen back in development after a nuclear war. the Yangs/Yankees even have the exact same flag and constitution as the USA on earth.
This would be fine as a Planet of the Apes sort-of episode in an anthology series like Twilight Zone. But it doesn't work in TOS as we know that we didn't do any off-world colonization during the cold war, which leaves only the laughable notion that this planet had the exact same development as Earth, down to the exact wording of the American constitution! So the episode just falls flat on its face.
Usually they are smart enough to write around it, like in Patterns of Force (The nazi episode). There they established it's an Starfleet official that has pushed the planet into becoming a nazi dictatorship, so it makes in the internal logic of the show compared to the "The Omega Glory".
TOS having less identity makes sense, chances are many episodes were written by different people who were not always connected. In a way it was a bit Twilght Zone. It wasn't trying to be serious even if the actors acted serious.
Heck consider that they met more than a few aliens with godlike powers.
In the end TOS didn't actually get serious nor tie into what Startrek became until The Motion Picture. Plus don't forget their multinational command crew and core actors was already ST being very brazen and wild for its day. Their movies actually shifted gear and introduced a very bold move of linked films one after the other with several of the movies directly feeding into the next. Something that we rarely saw ever happen again.
dyndraig wrote: I'm fine with the episodic nature of TOS, The trouble I have with it is that it cant decide at times if it a sci-fi series or a Twillight Zone anthology series.
Take the "The Omega Glory" for example, they turn up to a planet which have two warring native tribes called Yangs and Koms, which have a primitive level of technology. The twist is that Yang and Koms are actually Yankees and Communist that have fallen back in development after a nuclear war. the Yangs/Yankees even have the exact same flag and constitution as the USA on earth.
This would be fine as a Planet of the Apes sort-of episode in an anthology series like Twilight Zone. But it doesn't work in TOS as we know that we didn't do any off-world colonization during the cold war, which leaves only the laughable notion that this planet had the exact same development as Earth, down to the exact wording of the American constitution! So the episode just falls flat on its face.
Usually they are smart enough to write around it, like in Patterns of Force (The nazi episode). There they established it's an Starfleet official that has pushed the planet into becoming a nazi dictatorship, so it makes in the internal logic of the show compared to the "The Omega Glory".
Definitely agree about "The Omega Glory." I really liked the first half of the episode - for some reason Star Fleet officials gone rogue is a plot hook that always gets me. And the premise of whether you would violate the prime directive for a fountain of youth was interesting. But then they pull out the literal goddam Constitution and it's like, "woah buddy, whatever happened to allegories?"
As an Anthropologist, it's interesting because it's one of the unusual episodes of TOS that pull more from Ursula LeGuin-style Social Science Fiction (as opposed to Hard Science Fiction). I feel like throughout the course of TNG that became more normalized, and you have a pretty healthy balance between space phenomena and space politics episodes. But it subscribes to Louis Henry Morgan's prescription for cultural development, which, I'll save you some googling, dates to 1877 and has been long debunked, but still had some currency in the 1960s when TOS was being made (despite critiques within academia, but that's academia and who was paying attention?). So it's interesting for that reason but so overdone. Also there's a bit of the usual "Asiatic race" and similar thrown around that reads problematic in the present day.
But TOS is over 50 years old at this point. I think it holds up really well, all things considered. My critiques come from a place of love.
Re: multiple aliens with godlike powers, although the trope is overdone a bit, for the most part they ended up being largely benign; see "Shore Leave" or "The Corbomite Maneuver" where the implication is that as we'll continue to evolve towards omnipotence, we'll become more and more graceful and tolerant. I like that optimism. My favorite example is probably "Return to Tomorrow", in which the divine beings are more fleshed-out as characters.
Overread wrote: TOS having less identity makes sense, chances are many episodes were written by different people who were not always connected. In a way it was a bit Twilght Zone. It wasn't trying to be serious even if the actors acted serious.
Heck consider that they met more than a few aliens with godlike powers.
In the end TOS didn't actually get serious nor tie into what Startrek became until The Motion Picture. Plus don't forget their multinational command crew and core actors was already ST being very brazen and wild for its day. Their movies actually shifted gear and introduced a very bold move of linked films one after the other with several of the movies directly feeding into the next. Something that we rarely saw ever happen again.
TOS absolutely was serious as was The Twilight Zone. Any comical aspect is due to cultural changes since that time.
Overread wrote: TOS having less identity makes sense, chances are many episodes were written by different people who were not always connected. In a way it was a bit Twilght Zone. It wasn't trying to be serious even if the actors acted serious.
Heck consider that they met more than a few aliens with godlike powers.
In the end TOS didn't actually get serious nor tie into what Startrek became until The Motion Picture. Plus don't forget their multinational command crew and core actors was already ST being very brazen and wild for its day. Their movies actually shifted gear and introduced a very bold move of linked films one after the other with several of the movies directly feeding into the next. Something that we rarely saw ever happen again.
TOS absolutely was serious as was The Twilight Zone. Any comical aspect is due to cultural changes since that time.
I agree. The few deliberately comedy episodes ("A Piece of the Action" comes to mind) were definitely the weaker ones.
STOS had the first African American actress of importance, to the extent MLK asked the actress to stay on the series when she was thinking of leaving. It had the first interracial kiss on TV, which was actually bleeped in parts of the US.
Russians during the Cold War, Asians, women...it was utterly ground breaking.
Frazzled wrote: STOS had the first African American actress of importance, to the extent MLK asked the actress to stay on the series when she was thinking of leaving. It had the first interracial kiss on TV, which was actually bleeped in parts of the US.
Russians during the Cold War, Asians, women...it was utterly ground breaking.
Frazzled wrote: STOS had the first African American actress of importance, to the extent MLK asked the actress to stay on the series when she was thinking of leaving. It had the first interracial kiss on TV, which was actually bleeped in parts of the US.
Russians during the Cold War, Asians, women...it was utterly ground breaking.
Specifically a Japanese man.
George Takei does an interesting 15min talk on his past which highlights why that's such a major point to consider for the USA.
Frazzled wrote: STOS had the first African American actress of importance, to the extent MLK asked the actress to stay on the series when she was thinking of leaving. It had the first interracial kiss on TV, which was actually bleeped in parts of the US.
Russians during the Cold War, Asians, women...it was utterly ground breaking.
And occasionally literally ground breaking! Or at least earthquaking.
Spoiler:
Did anyone watch the Star Trek day stuff yesterday? If so, any real news? I'll probably watch the Pike show panel tonight but that have no interest in the others personally.
Oh for sure; when Kirk is chest-deep in Tribbles and someone just off-screen is clearly throwing more and more tribbles right at his head, that's one of my favorite Trek moments of all time. But in general, Trek doesn't do comedy super well (see any Ferengi episode from DS9; except maybe for "The Magnificent Ferengi", which I did enjoy, and has Iggy Pop for bonus points).
Frazzled wrote: STOS had the first African American actress of importance, to the extent MLK asked the actress to stay on the series when she was thinking of leaving. It had the first interracial kiss on TV, which was actually bleeped in parts of the US.
Russians during the Cold War, Asians, women...it was utterly ground breaking.
Some funny info about that scene?
Network wanted to tone it down, but Shatner and Nichols deliberately fluffed toned down takes.
And in the end, the Network received a single complaint. Guy disapproved of interracial relationships, but added words to the effect of “mind you, I can’t blame Kirk because she is super hot”
Source - Fact Fiend on youtube. A most excellent and well researched source of amusement and knowledge. Relevant section around 4:30 in.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: DS9 did some fun comedy episodes, like Little Green Men and Troubles and Tribble-ations.
Heh. 'We do not discuss it.'
They need to do another visit to that particular moment in a future trek series, and add in something on the Discovery version of Klingons. I _really_ want to see them gloss over that.
warboss wrote: Well, there was a trek first for me in this stunning and brave new era of nuTrek... I actually genuinely like a newly introduced ship design!
I don't watch the show (no interest after those first two trailers) so can't comment on the commentary/conjecture regarding the ship but I think that the Kurtzman era has finally come up with a good original design for a ship. Some ships have been flawed but tolerable (like the Shephard and Cardenas classes) to borderline good (like the Connie revamp in the original concept art moreso than what actually made it to the screen) but this is the first new design that I can wholeheartedly say that I like... and it only took three years and four seasons! Obviously, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder and anyone is free to disagree (regarding this ship or with my general dislike of nuTrek designs in general).
Ya, Parliament class! Being from Vancouver I found it quite amusing. The shuttles had names from areas in Vancouver like Kitslano and Marpole.
The ridgeless look was a result of Soong’s genetic tampering, using the science that created Khan.
Right, for those (which like most things in Enterprise, was disappointing). But now there are the Discovery Klingons, and they have to handwave those away too. Thus, another visit to the tribble-loop.
Because frankly the tribble-loop trumps everything done in the last decade with trek.
Nothing new to report in the Brave New Worlds panel from yesterday's Star Trek day online con thing. About the only real tidbit of news was hardly a surprise in that the cast and creatives knew it was going to happen for almost a year. Hopefuly now that the show is happening, Rebecca Romijn can upgrade her internet connection to broadband as apparently her dial up modem clearly wasn't up to snuff for online video streaming.
The ridgeless look was a result of Soong’s genetic tampering, using the science that created Khan.
The TOS look was the product of a lack of funds and technical development. Why they felt the need to explain it in-universe is utterly bizarre.
Edit: On O'Brien. s1e1. He asks Sisko if he has ever served with any Bajoran women...it's clearly a sweeping generalization based on his experience with Ensign Ro and Major Kira (who IIRC was going to be Ro originally).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: DS9 did some fun comedy episodes, like Little Green Men and Troubles and Tribble-ations.
Heh. 'We do not discuss it.'
They need to do another visit to that particular moment in a future trek series, and add in something on the Discovery version of Klingons. I _really_ want to see them gloss over that.
I rewatched "Trials and Tribble-ations" the other day and got a kick out of it. I love the moment where Sisko taps his insignia thinking it's a combadge. It's just a little, human, moment, but the way Avery Brooks just handles it like "oh that was silly of me" and Terry Ferrel is just trying not to laugh. They had great chemistry as Sisko and Dax.
I'm six episodes into TOS Season 3 and it's not nearly as bad as I expected. Engaging with it as a serialized Twilight Zone with recurring characters, there's a lot of really interesting sci-fi concepts they are exploring. I was turned off by "Spock's Brain" in a major way, and thought that was setting the tone for the rest of the season; but I just finished "The Day of the Dove", and despite the very upsetting Klingon makeup, it had a cool premise, good writing, and the performances throughout the season have been top-notch. "Is There No Truth in Beauty?" had a really interesting camerawork that helped to reinforce it's great premise; an alien so incomprehensibly different that it drives you insane to look at, but they're benign and want peaceful relationships. They represent the alien by just a cascade of flickering colors, almost as if the camera itself was going insane at the sight of it. And it ended up being a tasteful allegory for interracial marriage; "the glory of creation is in it's infinite diversity. And the way our differences combine to make meaning and beauty." Overall this season has had more hits than misses. Maybe it gets much worse towards the end?
trexmeyer wrote: Anything Michael Ansara is in is at least decent. His voice is perfect.
I agree with your assertion; I just looked him up and discovered he also played Mr. Freeze on the Batman Animated Series I loved growing up. And his approach to Klingon warriorhood was more nuanced than they'd been depicted before; and his co-star giving the line about Klingons being self-aware predators, there's a dignity there that isn't present in other TOS episodes, like "Fridays Child," where they're just "the baddies."
So anyone else enjoying Lower Decks? Of the CBS All Access Star Trek it has been the most easily enjoyed. Not going to set the world on fire but as a little weekly half hour diversion it is nice.
Ahtman wrote: So anyone else enjoying Lower Decks? Of the CBS All Access Star Trek it has been the most easily enjoyed. Not going to set the world on fire but as a little weekly half hour diversion it is nice.
Ahtman wrote: So anyone else enjoying Lower Decks? Of the CBS All Access Star Trek it has been the most easily enjoyed. Not going to set the world on fire but as a little weekly half hour diversion it is nice.
Quite so. Really enjoying it.
Ya, I'd rather be on the Cerritos than the Discovery. Nobody seems to be having any fun on the Discovery.
Ahtman wrote: So anyone else enjoying Lower Decks? Of the CBS All Access Star Trek it has been the most easily enjoyed. Not going to set the world on fire but as a little weekly half hour diversion it is nice.
I'm enjoying it. Not every ship in the fleet is going to be the Enterprise...
She's holding the phaser backwards just like the ship was mounted upside down. I too would listen to a song by a band named Disco Phaser (especially at a con!).
Thanks. I’m on a little phone, so it helps to know what to look for.
Was that part of the scene, though? Was she supposed to be aiming at herself?
I mean, the phaser is pretty easy to grasp for anyone who has ever seen a gun, electric drill, modern saw, glue gun or squirt gun. The human hand is very limited in how it grips things. Plus, there were likely dozens of people on set with her, including people in charge of continuity between takes. Mere error is an inadequate explanation of this oversight if it was not intentional.
My guess is it was just a humorous goof/oversight just like the upside down Akira. I couldn't find a bigger full HD (or UHD.. is DISCO in 4k?) screencap.
How the hell did they not notice the problem even after taking the picture? The box art makes it super obvious that's not what it's supposed to look like XD
The box and the model might well have been photographed separately and then put together in editing. That would at least make it easier to control the light and shadows so that the model didn't cast a shadow onto the box and vis versa. So they might only have spotted it in editing - perhaps too late to do a reshoot.
Plus you'd be amazed what can slip through at times. There's a thread around here somewhere talking about GW's mistakes, some of which are still up. Even the case when they photographed and printed a whole load of writhguard photos where they'd not put the weapons on the model (GW models are often not glued together for promotional photos - weapons and such are often held in with bluetack and such - which sometimes you can even see if you go looking for it)
The marketing team are likely not Trekkies and only have a passing familiarity with the shows in the same way the general public do. To most of those types of people the nacelles go on top, just like the Enterprise.
Stupid and unprofessional, but kind of understandable.
I didn't bother watching Voyager after the first few episodes. It bored me.
I haven't seen the episode of DS9 that the akira class was in, and that battle in First contact had fed ships exploding all over the place. I couldn't keep track of what was what.
Having exhausted most of the Original Series, and having watched each movie over six consecutive nights, I'm left with only one show that I haven't yet cracked open, Enterprise. I watched the pilot last night. I was pleasantly surprised. It was really well done. The overall narrative of humanity putting aside Xenophobic tendencies and looking to the stars feels really comfortable - it's not more grimdark revisionism like Picard. The main cast so far each put in an adequate performance, with particular standouts in Scott Bakula, Linda Park, Dominic Keating, and Jolene Blalock. I felt like I was watching a really tight made-for-TV movie (which is really what it was, I suppose). The Temporal Cold War is a really cool concept, it reminds me of one of my favorite short stories, "The Big Time" by Fritz Leiber (Wikipedia says it's a short novel, but I read that thing in like half an hour).
So, I'm pretty eager to keep watching. I'm trying to temper my expectations; the vibe I get from reading reviews of Enterprise online is "actually had some pretty good ideas, not as bad as its reputation, but had a few stinker stories, maybe one or two dud main characters, and got mired in episodic storytelling in the early seasons."
What are other people's thoughts and opinions? Do I have my expectations properly hedged? I can handle a lot of schlock (I think any Star Trek fan can). Are Enterprise's lows really any worse than say, Voyager, or Season One TNG?
I think Enterprise has a great pilot, but I found most of the first two seasons to be very forgettable. There's a small handful of good episodes. The Temporal Cold War plot line really drags the series down hardcore, mostly because it rarely makes any sense and has no meaningful payoff, even in the third season when they tried to resolve it.
Season 4 has a number of excellent episodes though, several of them two parters that really build the Star Trek universe in meaningful ways. And one that was utter gutter trash but I often find I'm alone on the opinion than the Klingon's different appearance never needed an explanation, let alone the dumb feth one the series provided.
Really the worst part of Enterprise though is probably how it squanders most of its characters. Really only the main three (Archer, Tucker, and T'Pol) ever do anything important and the rest of the cast is just along for the ride and occasionally entertains or excites. The shows overall ensemble was poorly managed.
It's definitely better than initial reactions to the series would suggest, but I'd still rank it as the weakest of the original line of Star Trek shows, and I'd definitely say it's worse than Voyager.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Having exhausted most of the Original Series, and having watched each movie over six consecutive nights, I'm left with only one show that I haven't yet cracked open, Enterprise. I watched the pilot last night. I was pleasantly surprised. It was really well done. The overall narrative of humanity putting aside Xenophobic tendencies and looking to the stars feels really comfortable - it's not more grimdark revisionism like Picard. The main cast so far each put in an adequate performance, with particular standouts in Scott Bakula, Linda Park, Dominic Keating, and Jolene Blalock. I felt like I was watching a really tight made-for-TV movie (which is really what it was, I suppose). The Temporal Cold War is a really cool concept, it reminds me of one of my favorite short stories, "The Big Time" by Fritz Leiber (Wikipedia says it's a short novel, but I read that thing in like half an hour).
So, I'm pretty eager to keep watching. I'm trying to temper my expectations; the vibe I get from reading reviews of Enterprise online is "actually had some pretty good ideas, not as bad as its reputation, but had a few stinker stories, maybe one or two dud main characters, and got mired in episodic storytelling in the early seasons."
What are other people's thoughts and opinions? Do I have my expectations properly hedged? I can handle a lot of schlock (I think any Star Trek fan can). Are Enterprise's lows really any worse than say, Voyager, or Season One TNG?
The lows aren't really worse. They just... ramp up and go on for long periods of time.
Personally, I think the first season is the high mark, it gets to the point that the season openers become incoherent gibberish, most of which is the time travel stuff. When they're focused on getting 'out there' into space and doing Star Fleet stuff for the first time, its decent to pretty good.
Still hate Archer though. Just absolutely despise the man.
You don't take a dog out into the unknown and subject it to also sorts of potential horrors, diseases and problems. You especially don't take a dog to First Contact meetings. You also _really_ shouldn't constantly feed a dog cheese. Even if you're lucky and they're not lactose intolerant, it isn't good for them and can cause a lot of problems down the line.
Archer is a horrible pet owner and should have been punished for that.
Its difficult to say which is better - Voyager or Enterprise - although a good point is made about 1 st season of Next Gen
I enjoyed episodes of and charcters in both but there are some truly awful episodes - the boxing episode in Voyager is hard to beat as terrible television.
Enterprise has an insulting ending but a absolutely wonderful Mirror Universe two parter where everyone appears to be having great fun - something I never really saw in Voyager.
Enterrpise did get away with the notorious deconmination scenes which matches anything 7 of 9 did
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Having exhausted most of the Original Series, and having watched each movie over six consecutive nights, I'm left with only one show that I haven't yet cracked open, Enterprise. I watched the pilot last night. I was pleasantly surprised. It was really well done. The overall narrative of humanity putting aside Xenophobic tendencies and looking to the stars feels really comfortable - it's not more grimdark revisionism like Picard. The main cast so far each put in an adequate performance, with particular standouts in Scott Bakula, Linda Park, Dominic Keating, and Jolene Blalock. I felt like I was watching a really tight made-for-TV movie (which is really what it was, I suppose). The Temporal Cold War is a really cool concept, it reminds me of one of my favorite short stories, "The Big Time" by Fritz Leiber (Wikipedia says it's a short novel, but I read that thing in like half an hour).
So, I'm pretty eager to keep watching. I'm trying to temper my expectations; the vibe I get from reading reviews of Enterprise online is "actually had some pretty good ideas, not as bad as its reputation, but had a few stinker stories, maybe one or two dud main characters, and got mired in episodic storytelling in the early seasons."
What are other people's thoughts and opinions? Do I have my expectations properly hedged? I can handle a lot of schlock (I think any Star Trek fan can). Are Enterprise's lows really any worse than say, Voyager, or Season One TNG?
The biggest trek-purist complaints that I remember about the show is how "space racist" supposedly Archer was and the liberties it took with trek tropes and canon. I found all of those complaints personally overblown and in fact refreshing that I got to see humanity as viewed through prism of the main characters evolving further in actual practice rather than just theory/ideology in the relative safety of earth. My biggest complaints was actually with the two overarching (pun intended) plot lines of the Temporal Cold War and the Xindi superweapon. My favorite episodes were generally the one offs or two/three parters especially in the fourth season when the show really grew into its own thing. I enjoyed it more than Voyager and possibly more than TOS (although I haven't watched that in its entirety in 30 years so I can't be sure) and IMO is much better than Picard and STD overall.
During its original run, I stopped watching in the second season due to the timeslot shennigans as well as my initial mediocre opinion of the Temporal Cold War plot. When it was put up at the exact same day/time as Stargate SG-1 during its SciFi Channel heyday, I chose SG-1 instead and after a few weeks didn't bother recording ENT on my VCR. By the time I rewatched it a few years ago, my memory of the episodes was quite hazy and it was like almost like a fresh watch for me. From a technical perspective, it streams fairly well as IIRC it was filmed in 1080p at the time but the effects were done at a lower resolution so some of those look a bit crappy at times during the first season or two.
I stopped watching Enterprise during the second season. Then I caught a few random episodes in the third and fourth season, and they were pretty good. I do miss the positivity, the sense of striving, that the series maintained. Compared to newer Trek, it feels more like a spiritual successor to the good Trek series.
If you finish the series and want to find out more about the Temporal Cold War, I suggest the book Watching the Clock. It’s not canon, but it does an excellent job tying together all of the Star Trek time travel episodes into a cohesive whole. (There’s a side plot about rookie DTI agent and her mentor that you can probably skip over, although it has some interesting payoffs for fans of TOS/TNG’s circus of dead supercivilizations. If you like that section, the author’s The Buried Age explores Trek’s deep past in a way that explains a lot of random “but why” questions of the setting, from dilithium crystals to warp currents to the preponderance or angry energy beings.)
The earlier topic of the Akira class got me thinking of trying to make a TMP-ish version again. I'd long ago found a cool looking TOS one in graphical form (and a very low poly/detail 3d model) but a full 3d model of a TMP variant eluded me. I found nicely detailed version that looked inspired by STD asthetics and I combined it with some classic FASA style TMP parts. Does this look Akira-ish and TMP-ish enough? I wanted it to be an obvious nod to the Akira in TMP form but not an exact copy/paste given that I'm not a 3d modeller myself so I can only kitbash stuff together. It's admittedly more gribbly than the clean lines of classic TMP.
I think the main structure looks like an excellent “ancestor” for the Akira class. The main hull being of-a-piece, with the hint of TOS styling around the bulges and the shuttlebay(?) places it firmly in that era.
However, the TMP ship actually has a lot more detail, with the Aztec lines and the Art Deco features. I think your model could use a bit more of that, especially on the relatively featureless side bulges. I also might recommend changing the pod to be more it’s own thing, although keeping it as a Miranda pod keeps with the setting’s modular ship design ethos. It might be worth trying something out.
And don’t forget to glue on some Robotech model parts.
Thanks for the feedback. I should be able to post a rear picture tonight although fair warning that it's less TMP there largely due to a corrugated shuttle bag door that I will try and swap out tonight. I'm limited in that I can't really model much myself beyond simple shapes for gap filling so I'm limited to the Miranda tactical pod (which I may delete some of the bits from like the top cone) or possibly a refit Enterprise neck torpedo launcher upscaled significantly.
I'll have to look into how to add panel lines as I'm not sure at this time. I was more referring to the raised panels and escape pod-ish covering with my gribbly bits comments as I don't remember many of those from my long ago scale model building days. I'm guessing that these surfaces will barely be visible when printed at tabletop scale.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I will indeed consider adding a veritech surfing on the top as per your suggestion. Khyron riding it like the MAC II in the show might be a bit much though.
The escape pods are fine, although I don’t know if they’re I. scale with the bridge, not that that matters. The rim could use some windows (that do not correlate to interior decks at all), and the tops of where I think the impulse engines are might use some gribblies. The Enterprise might not have had many noticeable gribblies, but the Reliant had a lot.
Don Qui Hotep wrote: Having exhausted most of the Original Series, and having watched each movie over six consecutive nights, I'm left with only one show that I haven't yet cracked open, Enterprise. I watched the pilot last night. I was pleasantly surprised. It was really well done. The overall narrative of humanity putting aside Xenophobic tendencies and looking to the stars feels really comfortable - it's not more grimdark revisionism like Picard. The main cast so far each put in an adequate performance, with particular standouts in Scott Bakula, Linda Park, Dominic Keating, and Jolene Blalock. I felt like I was watching a really tight made-for-TV movie (which is really what it was, I suppose). The Temporal Cold War is a really cool concept, it reminds me of one of my favorite short stories, "The Big Time" by Fritz Leiber (Wikipedia says it's a short novel, but I read that thing in like half an hour).
So, I'm pretty eager to keep watching. I'm trying to temper my expectations; the vibe I get from reading reviews of Enterprise online is "actually had some pretty good ideas, not as bad as its reputation, but had a few stinker stories, maybe one or two dud main characters, and got mired in episodic storytelling in the early seasons."
What are other people's thoughts and opinions? Do I have my expectations properly hedged? I can handle a lot of schlock (I think any Star Trek fan can). Are Enterprise's lows really any worse than say, Voyager, or Season One TNG?
The biggest trek-purist complaints that I remember about the show is how "space racist" supposedly Archer was and the liberties it took with trek tropes and canon. I found all of those complaints personally overblown and in fact refreshing that I got to see humanity as viewed through prism of the main characters evolving further in actual practice rather than just theory/ideology in the relative safety of earth. My biggest complaints was actually with the two overarching (pun intended) plot lines of the Temporal Cold War and the Xindi superweapon. My favorite episodes were generally the one offs or two/three parters especially in the fourth season when the show really grew into its own thing. I enjoyed it more than Voyager and possibly more than TOS (although I haven't watched that in its entirety in 30 years so I can't be sure) and IMO is much better than Picard and STD overall.
During its original run, I stopped watching in the second season due to the timeslot shennigans as well as my initial mediocre opinion of the Temporal Cold War plot. When it was put up at the exact same day/time as Stargate SG-1 during its SciFi Channel heyday, I chose SG-1 instead and after a few weeks didn't bother recording ENT on my VCR. By the time I rewatched it a few years ago, my memory of the episodes was quite hazy and it was like almost like a fresh watch for me. From a technical perspective, it streams fairly well as IIRC it was filmed in 1080p at the time but the effects were done at a lower resolution so some of those look a bit crappy at times during the first season or two.
I was much the same and lost interest once the Temporal War started up. To me it was annoying because I could see that it was means to have loads of things happen and yet nothing in the end would happen. They'd resolve the temporal war and then bam everything that mostly happened before wouldn't have happened or somesuch. to me it was a pain because what I really wanted to see and what it should have been was the rocky and rough and getting started with the Federation. What it really began with in the early Episodes. When Vulcans were superior and mysterious; when aliens were unique the universe over and when humans were still working out what they were going to do in space. When Klingons weren't just cuddly warriors lazing around drinking bloodwine and dreaming of the Empire - they HAD an empire and were powerful they were a threat and a risk etc...
I also hoped it might have dipped more into other lesser seen species and such that are well established and yet not as often focused upon.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: The escape pods are fine, although I don’t know if they’re I. scale with the bridge, not that that matters. The rim could use some windows (that do not correlate to interior decks at all), and the tops of where I think the impulse engines are might use some gribblies. The Enterprise might not have had many noticeable gribblies, but the Reliant had a lot.
That's a good point. It might not be beyond my abilities to add some small detail to the saucer rim. I'll pm you with the results so as not to spam the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Overread wrote: What it really began with in the early Episodes. When Vulcans were superior and mysterious; when aliens were unique the universe over and when humans were still working out what they were going to do in space. When Klingons weren't just cuddly warriors lazing around drinking bloodwine and dreaming of the Empire - they HAD an empire and were powerful they were a threat and a risk etc...
I also hoped it might have dipped more into other lesser seen species and such that are well established and yet not as often focused upon.
I enjoyed the relative superiority of the Vulcans and their status as basically the 19th century British (minus the Empire part) of the Galaxy. Starfleet's best struggling against the galactic equivalent of minor powers and bannana republics was a big plus for me and I liked seeing hints of how trek staples like the prime directive came to be. On the other hand, I thought that the Romulan and Ferengi story arcs felt forced even though I enjoyed the exploration of the Andorians and Tellarites though and wish there had been more of that instead of the Xindi.
chromedog wrote: So, after watching a few episodes mentioned by Memory Alpha, I've come to the realisation that the Akira class is ST's boba fett.
Mostly shows up in "blink and you miss it" flybys, or blows up.
I'm not seeing why it's so loved apart from fans latching onto small things and squeezing them to death.
I don't think it has the mystique that Boba Fett has (whether deserved or not) in its respective community. It has its fans for sure but I wouldn't say it garners any more attention than others like the Prometheus or even the workhorse Nebula in all its variants.
Mr Morden wrote: Its difficult to say which is better - Voyager or Enterprise - although a good point is made about 1 st season of Next Gen
I enjoyed episodes of and charcters in both but there are some truly awful episodes - the boxing episode in Voyager is hard to beat as terrible television.
Enterprise has an insulting ending but a absolutely wonderful Mirror Universe two parter where everyone appears to be having great fun - something I never really saw in Voyager.
Enterrpise did get away with the notorious deconmination scenes which matches anything 7 of 9 did
warboss wrote: The biggest trek-purist complaints that I remember about the show is how "space racist" supposedly Archer was and the liberties it took with trek tropes and canon. I found all of those complaints personally overblown and in fact refreshing that I got to see humanity as viewed through prism of the main characters evolving further in actual practice rather than just theory/ideology in the relative safety of earth. My biggest complaints was actually with the two overarching (pun intended) plot lines of the Temporal Cold War and the Xindi superweapon. My favorite episodes were generally the one offs or two/three parters especially in the fourth season when the show really grew into its own thing. I enjoyed it more than Voyager and possibly more than TOS (although I haven't watched that in its entirety in 30 years so I can't be sure) and IMO is much better than Picard and STD overall.
During its original run, I stopped watching in the second season due to the timeslot shennigans as well as my initial mediocre opinion of the Temporal Cold War plot. When it was put up at the exact same day/time as Stargate SG-1 during its SciFi Channel heyday, I chose SG-1 instead and after a few weeks didn't bother recording ENT on my VCR. By the time I rewatched it a few years ago, my memory of the episodes was quite hazy and it was like almost like a fresh watch for me. From a technical perspective, it streams fairly well as IIRC it was filmed in 1080p at the time but the effects were done at a lower resolution so some of those look a bit crappy at times during the first season or two.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I stopped watching Enterprise during the second season. Then I caught a few random episodes in the third and fourth season, and they were pretty good. I do miss the positivity, the sense of striving, that the series maintained. Compared to newer Trek, it feels more like a spiritual successor to the good Trek series.
If you finish the series and want to find out more about the Temporal Cold War, I suggest the book Watching the Clock. It’s not canon, but it does an excellent job tying together all of the Star Trek time travel episodes into a cohesive whole. (There’s a side plot about rookie DTI agent and her mentor that you can probably skip over, although it has some interesting payoffs for fans of TOS/TNG’s circus of dead supercivilizations. If you like that section, the author’s The Buried Age explores Trek’s deep past in a way that explains a lot of random “but why” questions of the setting, from dilithium crystals to warp currents to the preponderance or angry energy beings.)
Overread wrote: I was much the same and lost interest once the Temporal War started up. To me it was annoying because I could see that it was means to have loads of things happen and yet nothing in the end would happen. They'd resolve the temporal war and then bam everything that mostly happened before wouldn't have happened or somesuch. to me it was a pain because what I really wanted to see and what it should have been was the rocky and rough and getting started with the Federation. What it really began with in the early Episodes. When Vulcans were superior and mysterious; when aliens were unique the universe over and when humans were still working out what they were going to do in space. When Klingons weren't just cuddly warriors lazing around drinking bloodwine and dreaming of the Empire - they HAD an empire and were powerful they were a threat and a risk etc...
I also hoped it might have dipped more into other lesser seen species and such that are well established and yet not as often focused upon.
Thanks for everyone's comments on ST:Enterprise. I decided to keep going with the series, with all your feedback in mind, and do as I did with TOS; keep going until I'm no longer having fun. I've only seen the first four episodes so far, but they are coming strong out of the gate. The only character I didn't like from the pilot (Trip) has become a delight, with Connor Trinner showing a surprising amount of range. The stories have been mostly small-scale and character-driven, with very little violence, used as a last resort. Two of the episodes don't have a single character death in them!
One thing that I didn't realize I was missing from new Trek was that the characters are all so damn excited to be in space. You are watching passionate people explore and learn and grow, actively discussing and trying to put aside their biases (however imperfectly). That's wild. Remember when Star Trek used to be fun? My favorite part of any TNG episode is when they encounter a new life form and snap zoom on Picard, and he whispers "remarkable." That thread has been woven throughout the fabric of the show. Again, only four episodes in, and preparing myself for an amicable separation once the relationship starts to break down, but I'm really enjoying the show so far.
Glad you're enjoying it. Unfortunately, the start isn't the best but there are some enjoyable parts in that first season early on. I enjoyed the Terra Nova and Andorian Incident episodes that are early on in the first season and they should be coming up soon for you. I rather enjoyed Trip but I personally never really warmed up myself to Malcolm Reed.
If you start disliking the show, I recommend skipping forward to season four and starting with the third episode there (Home). You'll miss the ends of the Xindi and Temporal Cold War story arcs but you don't need them for most of that last season. Just make sure to skip the rage inducing last episode though! It's infamous as a trek series finale.
AduroT wrote: I love the movie spoofs they did. The ship flyby, the lens flares, just perfect.
Ya, didn't realize it was the Finale. Only 9 episodes! They did a great job spoofing all the movies. I love the flyby scene because I think Star Trek TMP is like the worse movie ever. The panning shots of the enterprise feel like they go on for an hour which they spoofed well. Then they of course there is an evil SuperVillian which the Movies almost always have but the TV shows rarely do. Also, when the cyborg guy beams down the entire crew in one batch because of techno-babble and the're like you can't do that but they're like whatever - It's a movie! Totally riffing on that time Scotty beamed people all the way to Q'onos from Earth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chromedog wrote: So, after watching a few episodes mentioned by Memory Alpha, I've come to the realisation that the Akira class is ST's boba fett.
Mostly shows up in "blink and you miss it" flybys, or blows up.
I'm not seeing why it's so loved apart from fans latching onto small things and squeezing them to death.
I love the Akira because of the video game Star Trek Legacy. That ship is amazing to fly and kicks butt! It has like 11 forward torpedo tubes or something like that. It can take down anything.
What the? My obscure Canadian streaming service says the movie episode was the 9th episode... Guess one episode was not suitable for Canadian sensibilities...
I love the Akira because of the video game Star Trek Legacy. That ship is amazing to fly and kicks butt! It has like 11 forward torpedo tubes or something like that. It can take down anything.
I've played ONE ST video game. It was called "Star Trek" and you sat in it in the arcades. It had knob for panning the view, and thrust, warp, shields and phasers buttons, and the gfx were vector. This alone should tell you how much I care for most video games.
Swore that I was done with it, especially after an especially nauseating bout of virtue signalling from the show a couple of months ago. Think you're progressive, Discovery? TOS beat you to it by about... oh, 50 years.
It's still sticking to the current trend of not bothering with decent storytelling, characters, exploration, moral dilemmas or any of that Star Trek stuff, in favour of "if in doubt do a fight scene, blow stuff up, shoot things and try to rival the bodycount of Commando".
Swore that I was done with it, especially after an especially nauseating bout of virtue signalling from the show a couple of months ago. Think you're progressive, Discovery? TOS beat you to it by about... oh, 50 years.
It's still sticking to the current trend of not bothering with decent storytelling, characters, exploration, moral dilemmas or any of that Star Trek stuff, in favour of "if in doubt do a fight scene, blow stuff up, shoot things and try to rival the bodycount of Commando".
I mean, Michael only killed like a dozen cops to help her new smuggler friend get away, after he framed her for attempted theft. The future is lucky to have her so she can set the proper example of the old federation standards to live by.
Might be a long, long time, given he walked out on doing the Picard videos and just never came back.
Pretty sure he got fed up, not sure if he'll bother to give the current Treks another chance.
Might be a long, long time, given he walked out on doing the Picard videos and just never came back.
Pretty sure he got fed up, not sure if he'll bother to give the current Treks another chance.
I mean, Michael only killed like a dozen cops to help her new smuggler friend get away, after he framed her for attempted theft. The future is lucky to have her so she can set the proper example of the old federation standards to live by.
Bah, that's like five minutes of community service as punishment. She was indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions during the war she started during her mutiny and only served a 6 month sentence.
Might be a long, long time, given he walked out on doing the Picard videos and just never came back.
Pretty sure he got fed up, not sure if he'll bother to give the current Treks another chance.
So, how long before they stop being coy and just change the title to Star Trek: Burnham? Watched the first episode of season 3 today and an entire hour of Burnham is not the way to entice me to watch more.
I'm actually vaguely interested in the interactions between the Discovery crew and if there's anything that would get me watching more of the season it would be more time spent with the rest of the ship's crew. Sadly (and somewhat inevitably) it looks like the show's going the opposite direction.
Slipspace wrote: So, how long before they stop being coy and just change the title to Star Trek: Burnham? Watched the first episode of season 3 today and an entire hour of Burnham is not the way to entice me to watch more.
I'm actually vaguely interested in the interactions between the Discovery crew and if there's anything that would get me watching more of the season it would be more time spent with the rest of the ship's crew. Sadly (and somewhat inevitably) it looks like the show's going the opposite direction.
Well, they're definitely arriving sometime as they're in the promo materials. In the meantime, you'll have to be satisfied that the galaxy spanning catastrophe that brought down the Federation was ironically named after her. This time (unlike with the first catastrophe that almost brought down the Federation i.e. the war) it likely wasn't her fault... probably.
I don't understand why Kurzman have to runa a Star Trek show when clearly he doesn't understand and doesn't like the original material.
He even said in an interview that they increased the time jump in the future from a couple centuries to almost a millennia EXPLICITLY to cut any ties with the established lore... And I have to accept that he determine the canon for the future and ending of all the historic series I love?
That's an order of magnitude of gakshow I don't believe could be achieved. Won't give them anymore or my time, they've already abused of it.
Cybtroll wrote: And I have to accept that he determine the canon for the future and ending of all the historic series I love?
Why would you have to do that?
It's all timey wimey. He determines the 'canon' (such as it exists for Star Trek) for that particular timeline. That doesn't necessarily have any impact whatsoever on any other Star Trek property.
Yeah, you can rationalize and justify anything you want.
Still, if you exclude the coming back home of Voyager, the only evolution of the setting we know until now (and I forecast it will be so for a long time) will be something made by someone who literally didn't want to be constrained by it.
Hardly a recipe for success.
insaniak wrote: There's no need to rationalise anything. If you don't like the show, just ignore it.
Worked for Enterprise.
Pretty much this. Remember, nothing wrong with liking or disliking any given show, character, episodes, arc, whatever.
But, for those looking to discuss the latest happenings in a show, having to sift through posts saying little more than “I don’t like that show” gets a bit, well, off putting.
I find it interesting that both ENT and DIS decided to take two of the worst stories of DS9 and run with them as major plot lines.
The Klingon appearance change was largely ignored (IIRC) until the DS9 Tribble episode when Worf dropped the 'We don't talk about it' line. What should've been ignored as just a production change due to real world technological improvements turned into the Augment plot, complete with Klingon forehead ridges dramatically dissolving. Star Wars, for all it's writing flaws, handled one of their major changes much better until Lucas felt the need to Special Edition Jabba the man into the Jabba the Hutt. Personally, I think Jabba having such an ego that his speakers are treated as if they were him adds an interesting wrinkle to the character, but I'm a moron.
The TOS mirror universe episode was best left alone, but DS9 felt the need to revisit it multiple times. To make matters worse they retconned it being a 1:1 swap so that characters could travel freely between universes. I'll admit they were fun episodes just to see the actor's performances as their MU counterparts, particularly Nana Visitor as the raging narcissist, but a similar storyline could have been a What If? scenario with the Orbs of the Prophets. ENT ran with it further and set up S1 of DIS. Also, DIS decided that it was necessary for the beyond covert Section 31 to become a key and obvious player in the universe.
I'll give DIS and ENT credit in that their handling of the MU was at least interesting, but I ultimately think DS9 made a mistake of revisiting the MU and opened a Pandora's Box of questionable storytelling in the process.
trexmeyer wrote: I'll give DIS and ENT credit in that their handling of the MU was at least interesting, but I ultimately think DS9 made a mistake of revisiting the MU and opened a Pandora's Box of questionable storytelling in the process.
I don't know that it's really fair to point at good writing and say "you wrote something that was good and now look what other people have written!"
Trials and Tribble-ations was a great episode. IDK why people became so hungry for an explanation for a throw away line that amounted to an (at the time) amusing mythology gag. Section 31 was a decent villain for their limited appearances. The Mirror Universe episodes were not the best but they were better than the worst. Probably the worst part of them is how they made the MU somewhat mundane in a way.
That the writers who followed wrote gakky stories expanding on these isn't really anyone's fault but the gakky writers who wrote the gakky stories. Though I roundly dislike DIS and I didn't think their MU episodes were bad. The MU episodes were kind of the highlight of the show until they overdid it. Like they overdid Section 31. Some things are best in moderation but that's anathema to the current entertainment culture which is all about making things bigger and biggest and throwing special effects at the screen because it's easier than getting good writers.
I don't think the DS9 MU was good. I enjoyed the first couple of them, but I wouldn't call them good and the series would have been better off without them. I think there were 4-5 MU episodes that could have been used to flesh out the Dominion War plot which became excessively rushed in S7.
I dunno, I've always liked the various Mirror Universe stories, both in the shows and the books, but I'm a sucker for any sort of 'what it?' situation that deals with different takes on familiar characters.
My only real issue with the Mirror Universe is that I liked the 'original' Captain Georgiou better than the MU version that we wound up with as a permanent fixture.
Mirror Universe I love - its so much fun to watch.
Some of the Discovery stuff was ok - the Emperor is good fun - but even the Mirror universe seemed to revolve around Burnham.
A much better and far more interesting universe for me would be one where Burnham was killed in the first episode after starting the war and the show moved on from there.
I watched season 3x01 earlier and to be honest, I'm kinda mixed...
Like, a whole chunk of the early part of it was just, well, urgh. It was like they were trying to do Firefly by way of Star Wars and not really succeeding at it at all. - I note the smuggler called himself 'Book' and seemed to be a shephard...
Although drugged Burnham did make me think I want to watch the actress in literally any other show... In that incoherent babble of sloppy writing that tried to sound deep, she showed an absolutely amazing acting range.
I'd also like to note the Star Trek: Burnham comments as, it was called Star Trek: Discovery, that didn't have the Discovery in it...
But onto the good parts. Honestly the last chunk of the episode was great, pretty much everything after the beastie showed up. From there to the ending I honestly really enjoyed and I don't really know what to say more than that. It seems like a really good premise that could be a lot like the old 'Andromeda' TV show, but, you know, actually done well...
Maybe.
So yeah, mixed opinions on it, but considering 2x01 was like everything I hated about Discovery condensed into one episode, 3x01 is a huge great step up.
insaniak wrote: My only real issue with the Mirror Universe is that I liked the 'original' Captain Georgiou better than the MU version that we wound up with as a permanent fixture.
Each to their own I guess. Emperor Georgiou is my fav character on the show, and Michelle Yeoh looks like she's having so much fun with the role.
Oh yeah, she's clearly having a ball. I'm not sure what it is, though, but Emperor Georgiou just gets irritating in large doses.
Willing to see how she develops, though... they were starting to show some glimpses of a less generic-story-book-villain character for her by the end of season 2.
We weren't sure what to watch last night so decided on TNG since we haven't sat down with that for months. Settled on I, Borg. What a refreshing hour of tv. Characters you care about dealing with a wartime moral quandary all without a weapon ever being fired or any hint of action. We will probably never see that from Star Trek again.
The problem with Enterprise wasn't that it was a prequel, it was that it was dull, and (from what little I watched of it) focused too heavily on Archer, with the rest of the crew being cardboard cutouts.
Likewise, Discovery's main problem is with focusing so heavily on the least interesting member of the crew, although it's not to the same extent as Enterprise.
Of course, there are also the continuity issues that arise from both shows, but Star Trek continuity has always been rather flexible, where it suits whoever happens to be in charge at the time.
trexmeyer wrote: Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?
ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).
Ssssooooooooo... Next Gen and Deep Space 9 should also have never been made because those weren’t original IP either?
The thing is sometimes a franchise is used simply because its there and popular. DS9 and TNG and Voyager and I'd say Enterprise tried, were all mostly built upon the back of Star Trek. Some of the newer series and those new films were all trying and wanting to do different things and different takes on the formula, but didn't want to stick to the original stories. So they invent ways to do whatever they want within the franchise - like alternate time lines and such. Some of it has been done before (which to old fans feels like recycling*) and some is just taking small bits and extending them from one episode to a whole series or film. Sometimes it works, sometimes it feels like they wanted to make something else; knew they wouldn't get the budget and so slapped ST onto the title.
*such as the Picard and Data elements of the latter 2 TNG films which felt like they were treading old ground we'd seen in the TV series and even in First Contact.
Whilst I enjoy Disco, the first two season were quite disjointed, as if it couldn’t quite make up its mind what it wanted to be. And I do get the Burnham criticism.
Picard? The first season had the job of if not colouring in, at least sketching out whats happened in the intervening two or three decades, whilst also providing a plot for Picard.
Disco? Season 3 is make or break for me. First episode showed promise, so I’m hopeful.
Picard? Too early to fairly judge.
And remember, TNG and DS9 took a while to find their feet and really get going.
trexmeyer wrote: Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?
ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).
You could say the same about TNG, DS9 and VOY (some people would likely agree with VOY!). At least ENT was dealing with a time period and themes that ST had previously not really visited and it left them enough room to build something of their own due to the time period they chose. ENT's problem was more with the execution than the idea, I think. In the case of DIS I think both are fundamentally flawed. The ST IP is a varied and expansive universe for writers to explore but they chose probably the most restrictive set-up they could have, in a clumsy attempt to cash-in on nostalgia. By setting DIS so close to TOS they wrote themselves into a corner before they even started and it only got worse when we find out Burnham is Spock's sister, which just highlights how ham-fisted everything about the creation of the show was.
The only thing so far that has saved DIS are the performances of Jason Isaacs and Anson Mount, along with Michelle Yeoh having more fun than everyone else put together.
It is a little weird, with the story they wanted to tell, that they went with making it a prequel. It could as easily have been set post - Voyager, where the technology level would have made more sense, and the Klingon war turned into a face off with a new civilisation, or a Cardassian resurgence, or even a Klingon off-shoot. And Anson Mount would have been just as cool as Captain Newcharacter of the Enterprise F or G instead...
for what it's worth my sister told me she's become a fan of discovery, it's the first trek series she's really watched so it does seem to bring in new people. *shrugs*
just for the record my sister is mid thirties and isn't "girly" at all. we routinely swap book and movie reccomendations
I think they legalized recreational drugs in Wisconsin between this video and the previous ones in the series; some of those choices were on my least favorite list! That said... holy crap was Ashley Judd gorgeous back then.
trexmeyer wrote: Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?
ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).
Ssssooooooooo... Next Gen and Deep Space 9 should also have never been made because those weren’t original IP either?
Moving forward in the timeline so long as you remain true to the spirit of the IP isn't a bad thing by itself. Prequels basically never work out well. Even the Star Wars prequels are an incoherent mess that IMO adds nothing to the OT despite Lucas being the creator of both.
And to be fair, while I really love DS9, I also think it is such a departure from TOS that I would not disagree with anyone who argues it isn't true Star Trek. The jump from TOS to DS9 is so jarring as to be comparable to the difference between the original BSG and the re-imagining.
VOY and TNG fit in with TOS much better.
IMO, a prequel isn't necessarily an inherently bad thing.
Where I think a show like ENT went wrong was that it was far, far too easy for fans of previous iterations of the show to say "X character is just a copy of Y character from previous show Z"
T'Pol was some weird mesh of 7 of 9 and Spock. Trip was merely white/southern Geordi LaForge/Scotty, etc. etc.
Personally, when I watch DIS, I rather like that the characters can't really exactly be put so cleanly into that type of box. Saru is largely unlike other Trek characters we've had in the past. . . Sure, Tilly may have a bit of that "shut up, Wesley!!" thing going on for her, but she's generally this fun and lovable character to see.
Also, IMHO, the whole idea of "this isn't TRUE star trek" is a bunch of BS. . . . if the writers have the license, and there are starfleet uniforms in a UFP setting, guess what, it's Star Trek. . . . Frankly, it isn't all sunshine and roses, which I definitely appreciated some kind of depiction of the klingon war, as up to that point, we'd only had the most vague of mentions of it. And I get that DS9 has a large focus on the Dominion War without really depicting a full on war (like say, a band of brothers type show would do), so it still accomplished much the same thing: depicting times where the sun is gone and the roses are trampled.
I don't believe I said that prequels are inherently bad, but they are much harder to write and most writing across all genres is mediocre.
I think the single biggest issue is that if the world is well defined then much of the prequel is already revealed. I'll use Star Wars as the example because it is simpler to examine than Star Trek.
The audience already knows that Palpatine will take control of the Republic, destroy the Jedi (along with Vader), and transform the Republic into the Galactic Empire.
The audience also knows that Anakin will be trained by Obi-Wan, will engage in a sexual relationship with some woman (nothing in the OT establishes that is necessarily romantic, but that is a safe assumption), will fall to the dark side, and become Darth Vader.
At a high level, that is all the prequels cover. So we're left with how does this happen not what will happen. I'll go out on a limb here, but I think most speculative fiction, at least for film and movies, is focused on hooking in the audience with an interesting premise and then baits them along with what happens next. The how part of the process becomes secondary. Prequels don't have this luxury, they frequently live in the how, and if they fail there then...I guess all that's left is the hope for strong character development.
trexmeyer wrote: I don't believe I said that prequels are inherently bad, but they are much harder to write and most writing across all genres is mediocre.
I think the single biggest issue is that if the world is well defined then much of the prequel is already revealed. I'll use Star Wars as the example because it is simpler to examine than Star Trek.
The audience already knows that Palpatine will take control of the Republic, destroy the Jedi (along with Vader), and transform the Republic into the Galactic Empire.
The audience also knows that Anakin will be trained by Obi-Wan, will engage in a sexual relationship with some woman (nothing in the OT establishes that is necessarily romantic, but that is a safe assumption), will fall to the dark side, and become Darth Vader.
At a high level, that is all the prequels cover. So we're left with how does this happen not what will happen. I'll go out on a limb here, but I think most speculative fiction, at least for film and movies, is focused on hooking in the audience with an interesting premise and then baits them along with what happens next. The how part of the process becomes secondary. Prequels don't have this luxury, they frequently live in the how, and if they fail there then...I guess all that's left is the hope for strong character development.
I dunno, there's plenty of intreast in "how did it happen" a good prequal is about the journy rather then the destination. and people are certainly intreasted in it. part of the problem with a prequal is ensuring intreast, without going so off base that the fans are angry
Personally, when I watch DIS, I rather like that the characters can't really exactly be put so cleanly into that type of box. Saru is largely unlike other Trek characters we've had in the past. . . Sure, Tilly may have a bit of that "shut up, Wesley!!" thing going on for her, but she's generally this fun and lovable character to see.
There are potentially interesting characters in Discovery but sadly they seldom get screen time or development as this has all been reserved from Burnham and Tilly.
Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.
Tilly is a bit better - her personaility is a quite fun but sadly if she was in Southpark she would be called "Token Fat" because of course she is the only person in the entire show thats overweight - and lets face it Scotty covered this aspect in the later films
Everyone else is just there to ask Burnham stupid questions and/or be shown that Burnham can do their job better.
Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.
Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.
She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.
Mr Morden wrote: Tilly is a bit better - her personaility is a quite fun but sadly if she was in Southpark she would be called "Token Fat" because of course she is the only person in the entire show thats overweight - and lets face it Scotty covered this aspect in the later films
With all due respect to James Doohan (and there is lots of respect due), he did not hide it particularly well.
I have no particular issues with author intent when it comes to determining what is or is not canon, especially when it comes to new people picking up a property after a gap in production. I feel strongly that the reader/viewer should approach each series, or even each episode, as its own work that pulls from an established mythology. Sometimes they are more consistent with each other, sometimes not.
There's a three-episode arc in Enterprise where they're on their way to Risa and they keep getting delayed. That's a nice touch of continuity between the different episodes, but each are different in tone and execution. I like those business-as-usual kind of arcs.
Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.
Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.
She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.
Comparing her to other hyper-competent Trek characters is quite revealing. The three that fit most into that niche would be, I think, Spock, Data and Seven and all three of those, while being probably more knowledgeable and competent in many areas, even compared to the other experts on the ship (particularly the latter two), have character flaws or disadvantages holding them back. For all three a lack of understanding of emotional issues and the nuances of interactions between people causes problems and they also tend to lack the ability to "think outside the box". It's unlikely that Data, for all his obvious advantages, would ever have become a Captain, for example. It's also worth noting all three of those have solid reasons for their extreme competence which stems from them not being human (or not any more in the case of Seven), and therefore having abilities outside the norm for our experiences.
Compare to Burnham, who gets to be the expert at everything, while also having none of those drawbacks and no real explanation behind her competence. On top of that, she's somehow central to everything that happens up to and including a massive war written into the timeline specifically to service her character and a potential universe-ending catastrophe that only her biological parents - and then her - can prevent, but only after she's reconciled with her estranged brother...one of the most beloved characters in the whole of Star Trek. Would it really have been such a hardship for the writers to maybe not connect the Red Angel directly to Burnham, for example? Would that have made the plot any less meaningful? Here's a thought, maybe they could have had it have some minor relevance to one of the other crew members?
Just her being Spock's adopted sister is enough justification to write off the character and the show. The fact he never mentioned her is secondary. He never mentioned a lot of things.
My issue with it is twofold. They're shrinking the universe with these forced connections and it's a lazy ploy to draw in viewers.
Did anyone in TNG have a connection to anyone from TOS? I don't remember anything of that sort.
In DS9, Sisko was at Wolf 359, but so were many other Starfleet ships. Jadzia Dax had been Curzon Dax and Curzon was buddies with the Klingon Three Musketeers of TOS. I'm not a fan of Jadzia or Dax, but at least this relationship was between secondary characters.
Spoiler:
I still dislike the Trill
Worf and Miles were brought over from the Enterprise, but the in-universe justification made sense. For Miles it was just a transfer and Worf had connections in the Klingon Empire that were needed. Both were also secondary characters that were developed much more on DS9. It's not as if Sisko was Picard's foster brother.
VOY had the Maquis carryover from DS9, but the Maquis were a tertiary faction.
I don't know about ENT because I couldn't watch stand it for more than a handful of episodes. The male actors were grating.
Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.
Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.
She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.
Comparing her to other hyper-competent Trek characters is quite revealing. The three that fit most into that niche would be, I think, Spock, Data and Seven and all three of those, while being probably more knowledgeable and competent in many areas, even compared to the other experts on the ship (particularly the latter two), have character flaws or disadvantages holding them back. For all three a lack of understanding of emotional issues and the nuances of interactions between people causes problems and they also tend to lack the ability to "think outside the box". It's unlikely that Data, for all his obvious advantages, would ever have become a Captain, for example. It's also worth noting all three of those have solid reasons for their extreme competence which stems from them not being human (or not any more in the case of Seven), and therefore having abilities outside the norm for our experiences.
Compare to Burnham, who gets to be the expert at everything, while also having none of those drawbacks and no real explanation behind her competence. On top of that, she's somehow central to everything that happens up to and including a massive war written into the timeline specifically to service her character and a potential universe-ending catastrophe that only her biological parents - and then her - can prevent, but only after she's reconciled with her estranged brother...one of the most beloved characters in the whole of Star Trek. Would it really have been such a hardship for the writers to maybe not connect the Red Angel directly to Burnham, for example? Would that have made the plot any less meaningful? Here's a thought, maybe they could have had it have some minor relevance to one of the other crew members?
I think some of it is contextual honestly.
In a show with a stronger overall cast - where everyone had moments of brilliance rather than everyone setting up one character to look brilliant every moment - Burnham might not be so bad. Seven was hyper-competent, but she had a personal struggle most people could relate to (being human), and that's a struggle that didn't really get any nods in DIS because Burnham was honorary Vulcan. Her circumstance comes off quite blatantly as some kind of wish fulfillment rather than a character trait. The writing itself is bad, way worse than DS9, TNG, or ENT season 1 bad. It leaves you with nothing to do but watch how Burnham is going to save the day today, and notice how absurd her character is.
The other recent work of fiction where this stood out really bad was The Predator, where the female lead's hyper-competence might not have stood out so badly had the rest of the film been more well put together. But it was awful, and the awfulness ended up highlighting Olivia Mum's character as... Almost too smart to be in the dumb situation she was in.
"Burnham is socially awkward and all logic because of her Vulkan upbringing"
Two...seconds...later...
"Oh Burnham you made a rash decision based on emotion but it was the perfect thing to do and everyone loves you and you're the best thing in Starfleet!"
Repeat that every episode and you just described STD.
icard and Discovery come up a few times...
