General Star Trek thread

Gone back to series 3 Enterprise now. Forgot how dark Archer was.

Kirby

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

Gone back to series 3 Enterprise now. Forgot how dark Archer was.

Twas mostly the lighting.....

Kirby

Rawr wrote: »

(Puts on Head-Canon Hat)

Maybe....just maybe....Tom Paris went to the Academy under an alias in order to avoid special treatment. Maybe...all cadets who are kids of high-ranking Starfleet officers tend to do this for the duration of their stay.

So maybe he really was Tom Paris in-universe too....

(Takes off Hat)
But he was totally Paris...because *come on*!!!

They actually leaned into the whole thing on Voyager.

Nelix once asked him how he got into trouble and he told him "I didn't tell the truth"......which doesn't fit at all into his supposed Maquis backstory but fits really well into Lacarno lying about the shuttle accident in TNG.

Stark

He has a conversation with Harry Kim in Caretaker where he tells how he was kicked out of Starfleet prior to joining the Maquis for covering up a pilot error he made that resulted in the deaths of 3 other crewmen before eventually confessing. Details are slightly changed from Locarno's backstory (Locarno was in the Academy at the time and only one fellow cadet got killed) but otherwise pretty much the same.

It's like they incorporated the character, (re)cast him, and were well into pre production before they realised that they did not have the rights to the character

ilovesmybrick

Deleted User wrote: »

It's like they incorporated the character, (re)cast him, and were well into pre production before they realised that they did not have the rights to the character

I think it was more to do with rights issues. As far as I remember Kira was going to initially be Ro Laren, and T'Pal was supposed to be a Vulcan that appeared in TOS. However, if they use those characters they then need to pay royalties every time they appear to the writers of the original episode they appeared in, so it's cheaper just to change the characters name and biography and avoid the extra expense.

ilovesmybrick

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I think it was more to do with rights issues. As far as I remember Kira was going to initially be Ro Laren, and T'Pal was supposed to be a Vulcan that appeared in TOS. However, if they use those characters they then need to pay royalties every time they appear to the writers of the original episode they appeared in, so it's cheaper just to change the characters name and biography and avoid the extra expense.

Michelle Forbes turned down DS9, that was the reason for the repurposing. Not a rights issue

odyssey06

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

I think it was more to do with rights issues. As far as I remember Kira was going to initially be Ro Laren, and T'Pal was supposed to be a Vulcan that appeared in TOS. However, if they use those characters they then need to pay royalties every time they appear to the writers of the original episode they appeared in, so it's cheaper just to change the characters name and biography and avoid the extra expense.

I think if the actress had signed up for DS9 it would have been Ro Laren we would see, but Michelle Forbes passed on the series.
The episode Ro Laren was written by Michael Piller who also wrote the DS9 pilot.

AMKC

Do you think that ships like the Enterprise NCC-1701, A, B, C, D, E, Voyager, and other similarly sized and crewed ships on Star Trek should have had separate crew members to go on away missions instead of most of the bridge crew?
I understand why it was not like that myself as that would mean having to developed them characters as well as the other 7 main crew characters. Now maybe in The Next Gen this would not have been too bad but on DS9 it would have been harder to do.

pixelburp

I don't even think they'd have specific crewmembers: any away missions would / should in reality be handled by a robot or some form of AI / probe. Leaving aside the element of bodily danger, if the Federation are that big into non-interferencem then they'd be fully aware of the dangers biological microbes and invasive flora / fauna could have on the ecosystem of any visited planet. Especially given the Fed. ship could have dozens of any species onboard - and as such the millions of bacteria and microbes present within each species.

A probe of some kind would minimise that danger exponentially - not to mention being a much more discreet way of observing native sapient species than surgery and blather about being "from the South" (sidebar but I wonder how many Away Missions met a grisly end because, in their naivety, the declaration about coming from a far off town was met with an aggressive "those guys? We hate them!" proceeded by death)

Evade

Probes kind of goes against the adventurous spirit of Star Trek, sending out probes instead of ships would be lot safer too.

I remember reading a comment a few years ago about the Last Ship that had a similar complaint that the senior officers do everything and one of the replies pointed out that the reason for that is because everyone else on a destroyer has a job to do.

If they had a designated away team in Star Trek would essentially be a close copy of the current senior officer away team without much else to do. You need someone of reasonably high rank to try avoid interstellar government faux pas and such, and a few specialists depending on the mission. The only time it doesn't really make sense to have the senior officer team is when they know they are getting into a fight in which case taking a dedicated security team makes more sense.

Rawr

AMKC wrote: »

Do you think that ships like the Enterprise NCC-1701, A, B, C, D, E, Voyager, and other similarly sized and crewed ships on Star Trek should have had separate crew members to go on away missions instead of most of the bridge crew?
I understand why it was not like that myself as that would mean having to developed them characters as well as the other 7 main crew characters. Now maybe in The Next Gen this would not have been too bad but on DS9 it would have been harder to do.

Didn't they kind of play with this idea in the game Star Trek Voyager - Elite Force?
I know it's not canon, and mostly an excuse to send a random Ensign (aka "you") into important missions. But still, the idea kind of made sense.

Evade

Rawr wrote: »

Didn't they kind of play with this idea in the game Star Trek Voyager - Elite Force?
I know it's not canon, and mostly an excuse to send a random Ensign (aka "you") into important missions. But still, the idea kind of made sense.

The Hazard team is more like MACOs isn't it?

Thargor

Im guessing people have seen this series already but they just get better and better

Stark

Watched the Voyager episode "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy" there. Pretty great Doctor episode, full of hilarious moments.

Thargor

Thargor wrote: »

Im guessing people have seen this series already but they just get better and better

What are they exactly? Bits people missed that they left in, or some really nifty editing by the channel owner?

Justin Credible Darts

bloopers, play acting, and other outtake stuff, that people edited back in

Thargor

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

What are they exactly? Bits people missed that they left in, or some really nifty editing by the channel owner?

They take a blooper from the blooper reels on Youtube like Picard banging his shoulder on the door and edit it back into the scene as if it was part of the script, the original that started it is still the best imo:

knucklehead6

Clever idea. I haven’t seen that done before.

AMKC

Nice to see the "Lower Decks" thread busy but I am staying out of it untill the show starts and then start watching it after a few episodes have been released. I want to enjoy the show not have it ruined by a spoiler.
What about everyone else?

pixelburp

AMKC wrote: »

Nice to see the "Lower Decks" thread busy but I am staying out of it untill the show starts and then start watching it after a few episodes have been released. I want to enjoy the show not have it ruined by a spoiler.
What about everyone else?

I'm not bothering cos ATM it looks like total crap TBH. However I'm open minded enough that those kind of shows can have teething periods and may yet come good. So I'll keep my eyes peeled for reviews and the general consensus.

Evade

You might have to high seas the series, it doesn't have any international distribution yet.

Justin Credible Darts

AMKC wrote: »

Nice to see the "Lower Decks" thread busy but I am staying out of it untill the show starts and then start watching it after a few episodes have been released. I want to enjoy the show not have it ruined by a spoiler.
What about everyone else?

never seen the original animated one , and no desire to watch the modern cartoon ones either


BECAUSE I AM NOT A CHILD WITH A STUNTED ATTENTION SPAN.


Bad enough every movie today is some super hero rubbish, or cartoon nonsense, rom com, or ridiculous politically correct buddy movie, now its infecting the trek series

TheValeyard

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

never seen the original animated one , and no desire to watch the modern cartoon ones either


BECAUSE I AM NOT A CHILD WITH A STUNTED ATTENTION SPAN.


Bad enough every movie today is some super hero rubbish, or cartoon nonsense, rom com, or ridiculous politically correct buddy movie, now its infecting the trek series

You're missing out if you think all cartoons are for children. Some seriously intelligent and witty cartoons aimed at Adults that are absolutely brilliant.

Justin Credible Darts

TheValeyard wrote: »

You're missing out if you think all cartoons are for children. Some seriously intelligent and witty cartoons aimed at Adults that are absolutely brilliant.

You may be right, but not interested in finding out.
Modern tv is atrocious, when movies with jason statham, the rock etc are the top movies I just give up.


In fact its so bad almost all the shows I watch now are subtitled.


Engrenages and Braquo.....two superb cop shows from France
Borgen and forbrydelsen from denmark
Gommorah from Italy
Hatufim from Israel
Occupied from Norway


Yanks are producing sh1t lately

Rawr

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm not bothering cos ATM it looks like total crap TBH. However I'm open minded enough that those kind of shows can have teething periods and may yet come good. So I'll keep my eyes peeled for reviews and the general consensus.

Looking at the poster and the video of this show. I can't help but wonder if it will turn out to be some kind of sly p*ss-take of the latest batch of Trek shows.

I'm basing this on nearly nothing, but I'm going to assume that a lot of the production staff are going to be very different to what you get on Secret Hideout's live action production (Might not even be Secret Hideout, but a separate animation house who got hired in). So you may have people looking in from the outside and wanting to just parody Secret Hideout's brand of Trek.
There's also this very "TNG" aesthetic to a lot of what you see so far. The uniforms, I think there was a shot of classic TNG-era Klingons, and that the starship really looks like a cheap kit-bash of an Enterprise D model. So whoever designed a lot of this appeared to like TNG-era designs verses the Discovery-esque designs you see on the newer Trek.

If it becomes possible to watch I'll likely give it spin to see if I enjoy it. I enjoyed Final Space, and alas this does look like a poor-man's Final Space at best...but maybe it will be good.

Which is similar to what I said about Picard before they disappointed me there in the end....so I guess hopes should be set low....

odyssey06

If you are watching Greyhound the new Tom Hanks keep an ear out for a Star Trek actor.
Dont cheat by peeking at the credits on Imdb

Evade

It's only on Apple isn't it?

odyssey06

Evade wrote: »

It's only on Apple isn't it?

Yes Im afraid.

Its based on a WW2 fictional book by CS Forrester whose Hornblower naval series was I think one of the inspirations for Kirk.

Evade

Yeah, I was looking forward to seeing it in the cinema when I heard about it last year.