General Star Trek thread

TheValeyard

flazio wrote: »

For anyone who decided not to bootleg Lower Decks, it arrives on Amazon Prime Uk/Ireland on January 22. All 10 episodes in one drop.
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a35013140/star-trek-lower-decks-uk-amazon-prime-video/

To be fair that would not be in keeping with the recurring bootlegging gag in the show.

lapua20grain

TheValeyard wrote: »

To be fair that would not be in keeping with the recurring bootlegging gag in the show.

Is it worth the watch, I've been so disappointed with discovery its turned me off trek & I've watched it since TOS

pixelburp

lapua20grain wrote: »

Is it worth the watch, I've been so disappointed with discovery its turned me off trek & I've watched it since TOS

Yes. But! It starts rough and Mariner, the lead, is quite grating at first. There is however a good reason for her way and in the end she becomes a highly sympathetic, likeable character. So a fair shake would be a good 4, 5 episodes.

lapua20grain

pixelburp wrote: »

Yes. But! It starts rough and Mariner, the lead, is quite grating at first. There is however a good reason for her way and in the end she becomes a highly sympathetic, likeable character. So a fair shake would be a good 4, 5 episodes.

Cheers will have a look when it drops on prime

TheValeyard

lapua20grain wrote: »

Is it worth the watch, I've been so disappointed with discovery its turned me off trek & I've watched it since TOS

Despite the humour, it's the closest to real Trek in over a decade.

ilovesmybrick

lapua20grain wrote: »

Is it worth the watch, I've been so disappointed with discovery its turned me off trek & I've watched it since TOS

Definitely, DISCO is unbelievably weak. Lower decks is surprisingly fun. Now, I went in with no expectations, but I was so happy with what they did, a good trek series, with the ability to piss take Trek in an appreciative manner.

AllForIt

breezy1985 wrote: »

That would be a no then

No. Sapphire and Steel is just pure excellence. Happen to be re-watching it this week. Season 2 is a masterpiece imo.

Rawr

breezy1985

Completely forgot Kelvin Khan was only doing what he did because his crew were threatened with death.

Into Darkness must be the worst Trek Movie made. Even worse than Nemesis and Final Frontier

ilovesmybrick

breezy1985 wrote: »

Completely forgot Kelvin Khan was only doing what he did because his crew were threatened with death.

Into Darkness must be the worst Trek Movie made. Even worse than Nemesis and Final Frontier

Yeah, I think they thought that bastardising one of the best Trek films plots and adding fancy graphics would make it a great success.While I love a great Trek spectacle (like Sacrifice of Angels), they forgot that it's the story that drives the love, not the big event. I'm not saying that the effects from WoK have aged particularly badly, but they are a product of 30 years ago, which I still don't notice because there's a great story behind it. And in fairness, there's a sparcity of action in WoK, especially compared to Into Darkness. There's essentially a bit of a submarine combat scene and the rest is the powerplay between the main antagonists.

Now, I have to say Star Trek Beyond did seem to get that. There were a few cringey moments (f**king Bestie Boys!) but it was thoroughly enjoyable as a film in it's own right, rather than the pandering mess that was Into Darkness. Though I hope the Kelvin universe stays permanently shelved. The only thing that would lead me to welcome it back is if they trived a Burnham universe....

ilovesmybrick

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Yeah, I think they thought that bastardising one of the best Trek films plots and adding fancy graphics would make it a great success.While I love a great Trek spectacle (like Sacrifice of Angels), they forgot that it's the story that drives the love, not the big event. I'm not saying that the effects from WoK have aged particularly badly, but they are a product of 30 years ago, which I still don't notice because there's a great story behind it. And in fairness, there's a sparcity of action in WoK, especially compared to Into Darkness. There's essentially a bit of a submarine combat scene and the rest is the powerplay between the main antagonists.

Now, I have to say Star Trek Beyond did seem to get that. There were a few cringey moments (f**king Bestie Boys!) but it was thoroughly enjoyable as a film in it's own right, rather than the pandering mess that was Into Darkness. Though I hope the Kelvin universe stays permanently shelved. The only thing that would lead me to welcome it back is if they trived a Burnham universe....

Sorry to to this to everyone but...
product of FORTY years ago

Evade

If they absolutely needed to have an Augment as the antagonist they could have used one of the others and have them trying to revive Khan.

ilovesmybrick

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry to to this to everyone but...
product of FORTY years ago

Excuse me, but it will remain 30 years ago until I decide so! I'm only getting out of the idea it wasn't 20 years ago....

breezy1985

Evade wrote: »

If they absolutely needed to have an Augment as the antagonist they could have used one of the others and have them trying to revive Khan.

I thought too that JJ was making a point of not rehashing old Trek and then gives us Khan in his second movie.

Beyond was much better and stood on its own feet rather than relying on Khan and Section 31 or similar call backs

pixelburp

I don't think the problems of Into Darkness were specific to Trek, at least, they weren't particularly surprising: adding Khan was, and remains, a broader problem with Pop Culture in general in this current generation. The easiest worse-case example arguably being something like "Ready Player One", a book that ceaselessly lists pop culture like borderline religious invocations. Nostalgia is now an industry unto itself, an aggressive and monetised beast where Fan Service for its own sake is seen as a simple low bar to success. Into Darkness plugged into that arbitrary nature with Abrams & co. thinking namedropping Khan would entice fans.

Evade

Ready Player One is one of the worst examples alright. I get why the author of the book likes the 80's, he grew up then, but I could never get over why teenagers in 2045 are obsessed with it? It's like if Zoomer Star Trek fans were obsessed with TOS and only TOS.

pixelburp

Evade wrote: »

Ready Player One is one of the worst examples alright. I get why the author of the book likes the 80's, he grew up then, but I could never get over why teenagers in 2045 are obsessed with it? It's like if Zoomer Star Trek fans were obsessed with TOS and only TOS.

It's rare enough - despite how my posts may / may not appear - that I'll have unreserved hate for something. And I picked up RP1 as a 40 year old man, having been born in 1980 and generally positively disposed towards 80s pop culture. I HATED the book with a passion I didn't know I had: partly for being an absolute crime against Creative Writing anyway (it's atrociously written); but also because it treated pop culture like religious iconography, names or brands trotted out like decats of the Rosery. It was obscene.

But. I also know people who have read the book and all that utterly superficial name-dropping of (say) Japanese Spider-Man delighted them no end. Just mentioning The Thing You Remember was enough to get that endorphin hit. Shrug. Into Darkness was the exact same really. Though Abrams did himself no favours by all that "John Harrison" guff, where he kept insisting Cumberbatch wasn't playing Khan.

breezy1985

Never thought of this before but I love how WOK didn't need to throw Khan at people in some surprise reveal like every movie seems to have to do now.

Just tells you straight up in the title that the movie is about Khan wrathing

silverharp

A bit random but lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7OJeyhq2Q

AMKC

I liked Ready Player One. It was a complete surprise to me do had never heard of it before that year.

~Rebel~

AMKC wrote: »

I liked Ready Player One. It was a complete surprise to me do had never heard of it before that year.

The movie did a decent job of cutting and changing some of the worst stuff of the book (and there was A LOT that had to be changed, not least a genuinely dislikable lead character).

Rawr

breezy1985 wrote: »

Never thought of this before but I love how WOK didn't need to throw Khan at people in some surprise reveal like every movie seems to have to do now.

Just tells you straight up in the title that the movie is about Khan wrathing

There is kind of that to it.
The name is essentially: Star Trek II: Khan is a Bad!
Then we get a movie about *how* bad he is...and in what way. We all know what is going to happen in WOK, especially after the millionth re-watch, but it's all about the delivery and how Khan wanted to say to Kirk that:

"I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her; marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead planet, buried alive.




.....buried alive"

ilovesmybrick

While WOK is up there as one of the best of the Trek movies, I've found myself going back to The Undiscovered Country far more often recently. I think it's probably one of the best of the original series films.

"Guess who's coming to dinner!"

odyssey06

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

While WOK is up there as one of the best of the Trek movies, I've found myself going back to The Undiscovered Country far more often recently. I think it's probably one of the best of the original series films.

Just noting that both Star Trek II and VI are directed by Nicholas Meyer... he seemed to have a feel for Trek.

And from wiki:
In February 2016 it was announced that Meyer would be returning to Star Trek by joining the writing team for CBS's new TV series Star Trek: Discovery. In November 2018, Meyer announced in an online interview that he was not invited back for Discovery's second season. He also disclosed that he could not identify his precise contributions, as television is such a collaborative medium.

Inviere

odyssey06 wrote: »

In November 2018, Meyer announced in an online interview that he was not invited back for Discovery's second season. He also disclosed that he could not identify his precise contributions, as television is such a collaborative medium.

Is that corporate speak for "They took none of my ideas, and their own ideas were ****....so they didn't ask me back for the second season."?

ilovesmybrick

Inviere wrote: »

Is that corporate speak for "They took none of my ideas, and their own ideas were ****....so they didn't ask me back for the second season."?

That would be my guess! Though maybe that was a small mercy, I could just see it now, Burnham breathlessly stating "You've not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Vulcan."

Wedwood

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Yeah, I think they thought that bastardising one of the best Trek films plots and adding fancy graphics would make it a great success.While I love a great Trek spectacle (like Sacrifice of Angels), they forgot that it's the story that drives the love, not the big event. I'm not saying that the effects from WoK have aged particularly badly, but they are a product of 30 years ago, which I still don't notice because there's a great story behind it. And in fairness, there's a sparcity of action in WoK, especially compared to Into Darkness. There's essentially a bit of a submarine combat scene and the rest is the powerplay between the main antagonists.

Now, I have to say Star Trek Beyond did seem to get that. There were a few cringey moments (f**king Bestie Boys!) but it was thoroughly enjoyable as a film in it's own right, rather than the pandering mess that was Into Darkness. Though I hope the Kelvin universe stays permanently shelved. The only thing that would lead me to welcome it back is if they trived a Burnham universe....

I seen Wrath of Khan during its original release in 1982. The ending was all the more powerful because at the time it looked like the final chapter and there was no indication of a sequel at that time.

The best I can say about Into Darkness is it shows how good Wrath of Khan really is.

PS: Was lucky enough last year to attend a screening of WOK followed by an audience with William Shatner - Star Trek Nirvana !!

ilovesmybrick

Wedwood wrote: »

PS: Was lucky enough last year to attend a screening of WOK followed by an audience with William Shatner - Star Trek Nirvana !!

Aw man, that's awesome! I'm always keeping an eye out (well, pre-the madness times) to see if there's any cinema showings of the older Trek films. I always seem to miss them. Though I did get to see Terminator 2 in the cinema a couple of years ago and that was a blast! Pretty much the entire audience was quoting the lines beforehand and just having a ball with the cheesiness of some of it. One of my all time favourite cinema experiences. I'd love to be able to have the same experience with one of the old Trek films.

breezy1985

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Aw man, that's awesome! I'm always keeping an eye out (well, pre-the madness times) to see if there's any cinema showings of the older Trek films. I always seem to miss them. Though I did get to see Terminator 2 in the cinema a couple of years ago and that was a blast! Pretty much the entire audience was quoting the lines beforehand and just having a ball with the cheesiness of some of it. One of my all time favourite cinema experiences. I'd love to be able to have the same experience with one of the old Trek films.

Used go to a cinema in central London called Prince Charles that made it's living of this kind of thing. Arnie was a favorite of theirs but sadly never heard of them doing Trek

pixelburp

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The movie did a decent job of cutting and changing some of the worst stuff of the book (and there was A LOT that had to be changed, not least a genuinely dislikable lead character).

That's true and fair; Spielberg was a fairly inspired choice for the adaptation (even if his latterday blockbusters haven't been great), and he cut the story down to the bone. Even managed to add a sneaky "hey, maybe try living life outside of the internet once in a while" message at the end which was definitely not something in the book. Don't remember any Trek iconography in the film mind you, which is probably just as well