General Star Trek thread

Beefy78

You Klingon bastard you killed my son

SarahBM

I'm still waiting for the cheif to say bollox.
Sisko is getting more crazy as time goes on! Cassidy came back and he was all like, oh hi, let's go to Bajor! Ha ha

Daith

SarahBM wrote: »

I'm still waiting for the cheif to say bollox.
Sisko is getting more crazy as time goes on! Cassidy came back and he was all like, oh hi, let's go to Bajor! Ha ha

Rapture? My favourite DS9 episode.

"He's the Emissary"

Was Dr. Peter Weller the voice of Excersior's computer??

Edit, forgot that Robocop is an PhD in Italian history. Nutter is a lecturer in Syracuse Uni FFS

Myrddin

Indricotherium wrote: »

Just watching TnG "The Masterpiece Society" on sci-fi there.

When there is some prime genetic material (swag) to be whisked back to Earth (Rome) suddenly the Prime Directive takes a back seat.

Sounds like you either posted the wrong episode name, or you really need to watch the episode again.

As the other Enterprise crew return to the ship, La Forge and Bates check on the status of the colony shielding. Bates reports there are microfractures that will soon fail, and recommends full evacuation. La Forge, having not seen these on his VISOR, recognizes that Bates falsified the readers, as she wishes to leave with the Enterprise, recognizing that the colony has languished behind the technological improvements of the Federation. When she reveals her lie, she requests asylum aboard the Enterprise. Several other colonists express their desire to leave.

Troi brings Captain Picard to the colony to discuss the matter with Conor. Though Picard recognizes that the colony's society will be altered by agreeing to asylum, he cannot refuse this offer as a fundamental right of human free will. Conor reluctantly agrees, and allows Bates and 22 other colonists to leave with the ship. As they leave orbit, Picard comments how this affair is a clear example of the necessity of the Prime Directive; the intervention of the Federation to save the colonists may have, in the end, proved just as dangerous to the colony as any core fragment could ever have been

The final line is an interesting debating point, let them all die, or help them with their permission and risk changing them forever. Those questions form the very basis of Star Trek, & its quest to explore humanity as much as the stars themselves.

dr.fuzzenstein

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Agreed, 3 is pretty good to be fair, and you need it as a bridge between 2 and 4. Also for this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkJ3--2K7yo

Come on.. I defy anyone to tell me that (particularly the music) isn't epic!

I always loved that line:

The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.

And working in IT i can attest to that. (What, what else would I be working at, lurking in this thread:D:p)

_Kaiser_

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I always loved that line:



And working in IT i can attest to that. (What, what else would I be working at, lurking in this thread:D:p)

:P So very true!

Star Trek III is full of memorable scenes though - there's the bit early on when poor Enterprise arrives home and we get our first look at the Excelsior (one of my all-time favourite ships actually)

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

More epic music and effects/images .. far more "real" than anything in the JJ films IMO. Plus you gotta love Scotty's line about his grandmother!


And of course....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nZlXngXB64

Right in the feels!

Star Trek III may not have been as action-packed as its predecessor but it's still a great film, and the whole premise - the bond between these characters and the lengths they'll go through to save one of their own - has far more heart than anything in the "new" movies.

_Kaiser_

Incidentally, saw an ad on SyFy earlier that they'll be showing the first 6 films, one every week, starting on Monday night.

Myrddin

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

:P So very true!

Star Trek III is full of memorable scenes though - there's the bit early on when poor Enterprise arrives home and we get our first look at the Excelsior (one of my all-time favourite ships actually)

...

More epic music and effects/images .. far more "real" than anything in the JJ films IMO. Plus you gotta love Scotty's line about his grandmother!


And of course....

...

Right in the feels!

Star Trek III may not have been as action-packed as its predecessor but it's still a great film, and the whole premise - the bond between these characters and the lengths they'll go through to save one of their own - has far more heart than anything in the "new" movies.

+1 to all of that. JJ even with the absolute best of intentions couldn't have hoped to match the bond between these characters, because it's something that was nurtured and grown over three full tv seasons, several movies, spread across decades of screen time. What we got instead, was a decent attempt (I thought the portrayal of Bones was the stand out performance of the new JJ films, & Kirk to an extent too), but it never stood a chance of being 'Star Trek', because any bond between the new characters was only implied, and brand new. People don't bond with brand new characters, certainly not like they do with long standing familiar ones.

dr.fuzzenstein

Myrddin wrote: »

+1 to all of that. JJ even with the absolute best of intentions couldn't have hoped to match the bond between these characters, because it's something that was nurtured and grown over three full tv seasons, several movies, spread across decades of screen time. What we got instead, was a decent attempt (I thought the portrayal of Bones was the stand out performance of the new JJ films, & Kirk to an extent too), but it never stood a chance of being 'Star Trek', because any bond between the new characters was only implied, and brand new. People don't bond with brand new characters, certainly not like they do with long standing familiar ones.

Well, of course, also in the JJ movies, they all just met, so there can't be a bond to start with. The only way would be to continue making those movies with the same cast for another 20 years, that doesn't happen anymore, that sort of investment in a franchise will never happen again, unless we write it in their contracts that Star Trek will ruin their career and they will never find other work again. :cool::D (I think that used to be a standard SciFi clause up until the 90's)
I adore all the JJ characters, pretty much right on the money, even Scotty (he was very different, but he was somehow "right"). Spock was so close to the real deal, it was scary. Chekov is hystrical for some reason. Zulu doesn't do much. Uhura is just the biz.
Some people complained about Pine. WTF? Nobody could have done it better, he has the whole arrogant swagger thing down to a T. You have to remember, only Shatner is Kirk, everyone else just plays Kirk.

BTW, I hate Star Trek IV, the "cute and funny one". Yeouch.

Pine wasn't even the best Kirk in the first reboot film FFS

dr.fuzzenstein

Deleted User wrote: »

Pine wasn't even the best Kirk in the first reboot film FFS

Why, what's wrong with him? Of course Hemsworth is good at anything, but I see nothing wrong with Pine. He's a bit cheeky.

Didn't say anything wrong but Hemsworth was bettbetter

dr.fuzzenstein

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Didn't say anything wrong but Hemsworth was bettbetter

He could have played it in James Hunt mode.
Still, no complaints about Pine from me.

_Kaiser_

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

He could have played it in James Hunt mode.
Still, no complaints about Pine from me.

Actually Pine as Kirk isn't what annoys me most about the JJ films. I can kind of see how he'd end up that way given the changes in the timeline - but the notion that they'd give this Kirk command of a starship and responsibility for a few hundred lives is ridiculous!

Quinto's Spock is pretty much spot on with Nimoy's younger version (although the Uhura romance makes no sense) and Karl Urban's McCoy is equally good (but criminally underused in the 2nd film IMO) but the biggest issue I have with the cast are Scotty (WTF? This isn't Shawn of the Dead - which is excellent in its own right yes) and Chekov .. both one-dimensional characters in this played purely for "laughs" and fail dismally.

There's also the Enterprise itself.. gone is the graceful starship from the "real" timeline, replaced with an oddly proportioned hot-rod (maybe to be reused as a prop from Fast & Furious 12?) that has a bridge that was stolen from Apple and an engineering deck that is actually a fecking brewery??? Maybe that explains the yee-haw attitude from the crew though!

That said, the first film isn't actually too bad if you try to ignore this and the blinding lens flare, but the second is a disaster and this whole timeline should be closed off in the third because there's almost nothing to redeem it in the context of Star Trek, and especially not when you compare them to "Original" Trek II, III, VI, and even First Contact. Even some of the 2-parters from the various series were far superior!

SarahBM

I would love to have seen the characters from the jj films in a series. like ye said, give them the time to bond. The only think I hated about into darkness was the Klingons. They were ridiculous.
Maybe if I had seen the original series and all the movies I would have a different opinion but I loved the jj films. I'm a big fan of his in general with the exception of lost and fringe. I am looking forward to the third.
I think perhaps they should have used Star Trek 2009 to launch a tv show. But as mentioned, actors don't sign long term contracts like that anymore. There are very few series these days where that level of commitment is given imo

ItHurtsWhenIP

SarahBM wrote: »

I'm a big fan of his in general with the exception of lost and fringe.

Ah Sarah - Fringe wasn't the worst of them. I enjoyed it's ... oddness ...

As for Lost ...

dr.fuzzenstein

The second Star Trek is not without its plot issues, but feck me don't it look gorgeous.
I think it sailed a little too close to original Trek events in places, Spock shouting Kaaaaahn was completely uneccesary. But on the whole I enjoyed it.
Still better than Gravity and scientifically more accurate!

_Kaiser_

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Actually Pine as Kirk isn't what annoys me most about the JJ films. I can kind of see how he'd end up that way given the changes in the timeline - but the notion that they'd give this Kirk command of a starship and responsibility for a few hundred lives is ridiculous!

Quinto's Spock is pretty much spot on with Nimoy's younger version (although the Uhura romance makes no sense) and Karl Urban's McCoy is equally good (but criminally underused in the 2nd film IMO) but the biggest issue I have with the cast are Scotty (WTF? This isn't Shawn of the Dead - which is excellent in its own right yes) and Chekov .. both one-dimensional characters in this played purely for "laughs" and fail dismally.

There's also the Enterprise itself.. gone is the graceful starship from the "real" timeline, replaced with an oddly proportioned hot-rod (maybe to be reused as a prop from Fast & Furious 12?) that has a bridge that was stolen from Apple and an engineering deck that is actually a fecking brewery??? Maybe that explains the yee-haw attitude from the crew though!

That said, the first film isn't actually too bad if you try to ignore this and the blinding lens flare, but the second is a disaster and this whole timeline should be closed off in the third because there's almost nothing to redeem it in the context of Star Trek, and especially not when you compare them to "Original" Trek II, III, VI, and even First Contact. Even some of the 2-parters from the various series were far superior!

It always reminds me of Simpson Tide where the captain gives Homer command of the sub on his first day.
Trek should not remind me of the Simpsons

Myrddin

I thought Scotty was woeful, truly woeful in the JJ films - and I say that as a fan of Pegg.

degrassinoel

Myrddin wrote: »

I thought Scotty was woeful, truly woeful in the JJ films - and I say that as a fan of Pegg.

I'm glad you said that, because i cant stand him in almost everything and i thought he was a dreadful Scotty. Abrams could have given that part to Doohan's son who plays his namesake in STC then again, i think STC is better than Abrams attempts at Star Trek


Actually, while i'm ranting about it - the best part of those films was Kirk's birth, and McCoy giving Kirk various injections lol that was class, the rest was just headspinningly lensflaringly disappointing. Didnt think much of Cumberbatch's performance as Khan either at least Montalban had some meat on him to give the impression of superior strenght.

Indricotherium

degrassinoel wrote: »

I'm glad you said that, because i cant stand him in almost everything and i thought he was a dreadful Scotty. Abrams could have given that part to Doohan's son who plays his namesake in STC then again, i think STC is better than Abrams attempts at Star Trek


Actually, while i'm ranting about it - the best part of those films was Kirk's birth, and McCoy giving Kirk various injections lol that was class, the rest was just headspinningly lensflaringly disappointing. Didnt think much of Cumberbatch's performance as Khan either at least Montalban had some meat on him to give the impression of superior strenght.

I just think there is no depth at all to the new trek films. They're action romps. Explosions , fight scene, effects all great.

I'd put them on a par with transformers or the recent die-hard, the turtles movie.

Nothing really to say. Not worth any examination.

Al Capwned

SarahBM wrote: »

snip

Maybe if I had seen the original series and all the movies I would have a different opinion but I loved the jj films. I'm a big fan of his in general with the exception of lost and fringe.

snip

Ah Sarah, give Fringe another go. It's brilliantly weird!

degrassinoel

Indricotherium wrote: »

I just think there is no depth at all to the new trek films. They're action romps. Explosions , fight scene, effects all great.

I'd put them on a par with transformers or the recent die-hard, the turtles movie.

Nothing really to say. Not worth any examination.

That's probably why i didnt like it as much, it was a good sci-fi yarn but it wasnt really star trek enough to be star trek.
jaysis, transformers movies are dreadful piles of shyte altogether and i loved the cartoons when i was a kid too

SarahBM

I think we need a new series.

BTW I love the music in the clips ye posted. Horner is one of my favourite film composers.

FutureGuy

The trill who stole Jadzia's symbiont is Lionel Luther in Smallville.

degrassinoel

FutureGuy wrote: »

The trill who stole Jadzia's symbiont is Lionel Luther in Smallville.

He's in Gremlins too oh, and if i'm not mistaken he was Satan in Brimstone too!

Beefy78

SarahBM wrote: »

I would love to have seen the characters from the jj films in a series. like ye said, give them the time to bond. The only think I hated about into darkness was the Klingons. They were ridiculous.
Maybe if I had seen the original series and all the movies I would have a different opinion but I loved the jj films. I'm a big fan of his in general with the exception of lost and fringe. I am looking forward to the third.
I think perhaps they should have used Star Trek 2009 to launch a tv show. But as mentioned, actors don't sign long term contracts like that anymore. There are very few series these days where that level of commitment is given imo

Sarah, in the last month you have watched literally 100 episodes of Deep Space 9. Do you not see a huge difference between those shows and the messages that they are trying to convey, and the Abrams Trek films?

Those films are bland generic action movies (even if at least the first one is really enjoyable). They are not Star Trek.

SarahBM

Beefy78 wrote: »

Sarah, in the last month you have watched literally 100 episodes of Deep Space 9. Do you not see a huge difference between those shows and the messages that they are trying to convey, and the Abrams Trek films?

Those films are bland generic action movies (even if at least the first one is really enjoyable). They are not Star Trek.

I know they are different. It is a reboot after all. I am just saying I really enjoyed the JJ Abrams films, and I thought it had potential as a show, but we were never going to get that with big Hollywood cast.

I totally get that there is more of a message and social commentary to the Trek series like DS9. And I love Roddenberry's vision.

But why can't I like both. I don't see the new Trek films as bland and generic. That's your opinion. I thought they were great.

It is the same for when people past comments when someone says Voyager was their favourite (and it is mine as a matter of fact). People always criticize Voyager as being the weakest show, but in fairness each incarnation of Star Trek has it's weak moments.

Just because I am not a die hard fan like some of the wonderful people on here, doesn't mean I can't enjoy Trek and take what I want from it.

Anyway I am off to watch Season 5 episode 14 of DS9

dr.fuzzenstein

Sarah, Star Trek will always be like a discussion on Linux.
Ask what distro is the best and 5 minutes later, chairs will be thrown.
In the end I go with my motto "I know what I likes and if you didn't, well, yeah, that's just like, your opinion, man!". And we all know what Harry Callahan said about opinions. :pac::D