Star Trek: Picard - Amazon Prime [** POSSIBLE SPOILERS **]

Evade

I wasn't a fan of section 31 having a lot of capital ships. Small discreet ships with cloaks absolutely, better again if they're sourced from other species because the more stuff you have the easier it is for you to be found out. I liked DS9 hinting that Section 31 might have been down to one last Machiavellian mastermind during the Dominion War.

TheValeyard

Evade wrote: »

I wasn't a fan of section 31 having a lot of capital ships. Small discreet ships with cloaks absolutely, better again if they're sourced from other species because the more stuff you have the easier it is for you to be found out. I liked DS9 hinting that Section 31 might have been down to one last Machiavellian mastermind during the Dominion War.

I actually thought the S31 ships in Discovery made sense. Very small crew, stealth and camouflage tech. Thought they would have one or two of that class, but not a whole fleet.

Brian?

TheValeyard wrote: »

I actually thought the S31 ships in Discovery made sense. Very small crew, stealth and camouflage tech. Thought they would have one or two of that class, but not a whole fleet.

A couple of ships, grand. But not an entire fleet capable of taking on the Enterprise, Discovery, the Klingon fleet and some Kelpians.

Brian?

Inviere wrote: »

I'd imagine the 'real' S31, ie, the DS9 version, has plenty of ships...all cloaked, possibly phase-cloaked, and very very few people ever set foot aboard one, let alone see one.

The Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order were less secretive I feel, and were used as a form of intelligence and intimidation of militarily oppressed civilians, than anything else. I don't think any Romulan or Cardassian civilians were not aware of either organisation. S31 was different, because it was supposed to lie outside of the realms of acceptability, and could not be acknowledged, therefore that's why nobody was supposed to know about it.

I always though The Tal Shiar and the Obsidian Order were like the KGB or the Stazi. A secret service that everyone knew existed, who were used to spy on enemies and keep everyone in line within their own empires. S31 was supposed to be super secret, when they arrived in DS9 they were only a rumour to most Star Fleet officers.

Stark

Brian? wrote: »

TheValeyard wrote: »

I actually thought the S31 ships in Discovery made sense. Very small crew, stealth and camouflage tech. Thought they would have one or two of that class, but not a whole fleet.

A couple of ships, grand. But not an entire fleet capable of taking on the Enterprise, Discovery, the Klingon fleet and some Kelpians.

And Starfleet officers just casually wandering around their ships and throwing out "section 31 is the naughty wing of the Federation's space program" for effect in every episode.

Slydice

Sloan really made section 31 in DS9. His intricate plans within plans for Bashir. Whoever wrote those episodes .. Brilliant!

H3llR4iser

Slydice wrote: »

Sloan really made section 31 in DS9. His intricate plans within plans for Bashir. Whoever wrote those episodes .. Brilliant!

DS9, as much as it was maligned when it came out (the "to boldly sit right where we are!" jokes abounded), had some excellent writing; "In the pale moonlight" remains one of the best Trek episodes ever and many characters - from Sisko to Garak, from Odo to Bashir, had a believable depth that is uncommon in TV, let alone Sci-Fi. Even Dax was a novel idea for a show filmed 25 years ago - what looks like a pretty young lady from the outside, really is a semi-immortal being carrying the memories and experiences of several lifetimes, some of which are even in conflict with each other.

The only thing I really couldn't care less about in DS9...were the Bajorians, oddly enough; Their super backwards religious fundamentalism, their "prophecies", the badly lampshaded racism/superiority complex...it all really made me not care at all about the Cardassian invasion and whatnot. Probably one of these classic cases where the "good guys" in a show are so...pious, you start to root for the bad folks

Stark wrote: »

And Starfleet officers just casually wandering around their ships and throwing out "section 31 is the naughty wing of the Federation's space program" for effect in every episode.

But...that's because they know modern audiences will have forgotten about that .47 seconds after it was mentioned

Justin Credible Darts

H3llR4iser wrote: »

DS9, as much as it was maligned when it came out (the "to boldly sit right where we are!" jokes abounded), had some excellent writing; "In the pale moonlight" remains one of the best Trek episodes ever and many characters - from Sisko to Garak, from Odo to Bashir, had a believable depth that is uncommon in TV, let alone Sci-Fi. Even Dax was a novel idea for a show filmed 25 years ago - what looks like a pretty young lady from the outside, really is a semi-immortal being carrying the memories and experiences of several lifetimes, some of which are even in conflict with each other.

The only thing I really couldn't care less about in DS9...were the Bajorians, oddly enough; Their super backwards religious fundamentalism, their "prophecies", the badly lampshaded racism/superiority complex...it all really made me not care at all about the Cardassian invasion and whatnot. Probably one of these classic cases where the "good guys" in a show are so...pious, you start to root for the bad folks



But...that's because they know modern audiences will have forgotten about that .47 seconds after it was mentioned

I not only think DS9 is the best trek show of them all but one of , if not the best tv shows of all time.


Besides the facts it was the first tv show to have cgi, and arcs in it season, it had a secondary cast that was better than some main casts on the other trek shows.


Guys like Garak, Dukat, Martok,, Rom, Grand Negus, Weyoun were all given depth.
The ferengi that were awful in TNG also given more depth as were the Cardassian. In fact the Bajorans which I always despises with their victim mentality, and as you say fanatical religious mumbo jumbo only served to make the cardassians more interesting.
It managed to make the Dominion more a threat than the Borg which voyager killed.
Episodes like Duet, The Visitor, Pale Moonlight, Far beyond the Stars, were leagues ahead of anything else for its time, and still hold up today over a quarter of a century later.

pixelburp

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I not only think DS9 is the best trek show of them all but one of , if not the best tv shows of all time.


Besides the facts it was the first tv show to have cgi, and arcs in it season, it had a secondary cast that was better than some main casts on the other trek shows.

Just to be pedantic, but I think Babylon 5 got there first, starting off with CGI effects while IIRC DS9 started using them later in the series.

(Isn't it true that Babylon 5 was originally a Trek series pitched by J. Michael Straczynski, only to be rejected - so he made Babylon 5 - while the studio coincidentally launched DS9?)

Justin Credible Darts

I believe ds9 was the first to use it in continual episodes, think it may have been on memory alpha I read that, must check again.

As for Babylon 5, that seems to be true about it being pitched, and turned down and picked up by a rival tv station and ds9 was done to rival it.

pixelburp

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I believe ds9 was the first to use it in continual episodes, think it may have been on memory alpha I read that, must check again.

As for Babylon 5, that seems to be true about it being pitched, and turned down and picked up by a rival tv station and ds9 was done to rival it.

Well it was definitely the first Trek series to use CGI, but Babylon 5 started in '94 and used its Amiga powered FX from the get-go. Like I said, just being pedantic on my part

Complete sidebar, but it's disappointing a remaster of B5 will never happen: I read that the original footage no longer exists for remastering, that the FX were composited directly over that original shooting to save time & money. Such a great SciFi show but the FX has aged horrendously and would benefit from new FX.

Stop moaning ffs

Always thought the CGI was far better in Farscape than DS9/Voyager

And presumably on a much smaller budget?

H3llR4iser

pixelburp wrote: »

Well it was definitely the first Trek series to use CGI, but Babylon 5 started in '94 and used its Amiga powered FX from the get-go. Like I said, just being pedantic on my part

Complete sidebar, but it's disappointing a remaster of B5 will never happen: I read that the original footage no longer exists for remastering, that the FX were composited directly over that original shooting to save time & money. Such a great SciFi show but the FX has aged horrendously and would benefit from new FX.

Actually, there were CGI effects used sparingly in TNG, as the cost was pretty much prohibitive at the time. Needless to say it was all done on Amiga hardware, and it's a fact always mentioned in any documentaries about Commodore and the Amiga times (as you might guess, I'm somewhat of a 1980s home computers fan/collector ). The "crystalline entity" and those "space whales" were CGI, for example.

Evade

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Always thought the CGI was far better in Farscape than DS9/Voyager

And presumably on a much smaller budget?

The CGI in Farscape is atrocious, bordering on B5.

Brian?

Evade wrote: »

The CGI in Farscape is atrocious, bordering on B5.

Fixed

Evade

Brian? wrote: »

Fixed

Reported for hatespeech.

pixelburp

Brian? wrote: »

Fixed

:eek:

Sonics2k

Evade wrote: »

Reported for hatespeech.

Denied.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Well it was definitely the first Trek series to use CGI, but Babylon 5 started in '94 and used its Amiga powered FX from the get-go. Like I said, just being pedantic on my part

Complete sidebar, but it's disappointing a remaster of B5 will never happen: I read that the original footage no longer exists for remastering, that the FX were composited directly over that original shooting to save time & money. Such a great SciFi show but the FX has aged horrendously and would benefit from new FX.

The FX were sh1te, even at the time.
They were too early to the CGI table (and immediately underfunded) because they could not afford models I imagine.

Stop moaning ffs

Farscape was great!

Stark

The CGI was also great for the most part I thought. Sure there were certainly some bits that looked ropey (close-ups on Peacekeeper gunfire for instance, some CGI aliens here and there) but it was a million times better than Babylon 5's. And while I think Voyager and DS9 did a better job with CGI that always looked realistic, Farscape's CGI had a certain cinematic quality and flair to it. The artistry always looked gorgeous even when the rendering was slightly off.

pixelburp

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Farscape was great!

Farscape was one of the few SciFi shows that managed to convey properly Alien morality and perspectives, without descending into something unrelatable.

Whereas Trek often paints its races as (sometimes) one-dimensional extensions or exaggerations of human concepts (warrior Klingons, duplicitous Romulans, etc.) - and that's often fine in context - I loved how often it felt like I was visiting a properly exotic locale and different people in Farscape. Well, once the show got going & past the inevitable "Season 1 Growing Pains" every SciFi show has.

Stark

Much more imagination gone into the design of the aliens as well. On Star Trek, a rugby player with a broken nose and a cauliflower ear could pass for an alien.

Evade

All this Farscape talk is making me want to do a marathon re-watch.

Brian?

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Farscape was great!

Really? I only watched series 1 and gave up. Couldn't take it. Maybe it's worth a research.

Stark

Season 1 was the weakest. Though you would probably know if you liked it towards the end of Season 1. Episodes like "A Human Reaction", "Nerve", "The Hidden Memory" and "Family Ties" were where it really got going.

Stop moaning ffs

Picard series to have tie in novels and comics

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/star-trek-picard-prequel-novel-and-comics-on-the-way/

TheValeyard

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Picard series to have tie in novels and comics

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/star-trek-picard-prequel-novel-and-comics-on-the-way/

I look forward to the comic and novel getting ignored and overwritten in the show

Stop moaning ffs

Am I the only one still tries tapping behind my ear to relax myself cos the counsellor suggested it? It’s called plexing

Kirby

stop tapping ffs.

Stop moaning ffs

Kirby wrote: »

stop tapping ffs.

In still wondering is it a real thing though haha!

H3llR4iser

I'm just realizing that, although I generally know the concept, I've never watched Farscape. I might put a patch on that soon...

pixelburp

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I'm just realizing that, although I generally know the concept, I've never watched Farscape. I might put a patch on that soon...

If you have Amazon video, the whole series is there (not sure if that includes the mini series capper that finished everything up or not)

H3llR4iser

pixelburp wrote: »

If you have Amazon video, the whole series is there (not sure if that includes the mini series capper that finished everything up or not)

I am actually an accidental Amazon video customer since the beginning of August - didn't pay enough attention ordering some PC parts that were in their "prime" program, and ended up with the membership. Might as well put it to use...

H3llR4iser

pixelburp wrote: »

If you have Amazon video, the whole series is there (not sure if that includes the mini series capper that finished everything up or not)

I am actually an accidental Amazon video customer since the beginning of August - didn't pay enough attention ordering some PC parts that were in their "prime" program, and ended up with the membership. Might as well put it to use...


Slight off topic - there are too many bloody subscription things nowadays, it's a cash cow for companies I get, but sucks for the consumer.

Optimus Prime

I disagree here. I got rid of sky and have amazon and Netflix. Better selection and a fraction of the cost of sky with nothing but rubbish on it. I’ll be getting Disney’s one when it launches and it will still be way cheaper all together.

AMKC

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I'm just realizing that, although I generally know the concept, I've never watched Farscape. I might put a patch on that soon...

The same here.I have watched the odd episode here and there but not the whole series. Will get to it someday.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I am actually an accidental Amazon video customer since the beginning of August - didn't pay enough attention ordering some PC parts that were in their "prime" program, and ended up with the membership. Might as well put it to use...


Slight off topic - there are too many bloody subscription things nowadays, it's a cash cow for companies I get, but sucks for the consumer.

Totally agree far to many. Maybe a company that had the best shows from each one could work.

Optimus Prime wrote: »

I disagree here. I got rid of sky and have amazon and Netflix. Better selection and a fraction of the cost of sky with nothing but rubbish on it. I’ll be getting Disney’s one when it launches and it will still be way cheaper all together.

I suppose its about what you like and want. Me I tried Netflix and just found it a headwreck. I have everything I want and need on my Sky and its so much easier to use. By the way there is a lot of rubbish on Netflix too.

Inviere

AMKC wrote: »

I suppose its about what you like and want. Me I tried Netflix and just found it a headwreck. I have everything I want and need on my Sky and its so much easier to use. By the way there is a lot of rubbish on Netflix too.

There's rubbish on all platforms, it's just by 'cutting the cord' on cable tv providers, and going with a streaming service or two, you're usually saving a chunk of money, and get the benefits of content being always on demand.

I still maintain the only broadcast tv channels any way worth watching, are available through freesat and/or saorview. The amount of absolute tripe on paid-broadcast channels never ceases to amaze me.

In terms of marketing and user experience, Sky have it down to an absolute tee. If you're into what they offer, then there's nobody going to beat them. The content does absolutely nothing for me though, so it'd kill me to have to pay Sky.

H3llR4iser

Bit OT here, I can't stand the concept of "classic TV" where you have to be there at a specific day/time to see something, but I also find that Netflix is 99.5% absolute rubbish; Amazon Prime, from my limited experience, seems to be exactly the same.

More importantly, their apps/interfaces suck if you wanna "browse to see if there's anything interesting", as they keep putting forward the same stuff. You get the impression the whole platform only has some 50 titles...heck there are websites that have lists of "unlisted genre/show/movie codes" for Netflix.

AMKC

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Bit OT here, I can't stand the concept of "classic TV" where you have to be there at a specific day/time to see something, but I also find that Netflix is 99.5% absolute rubbish; Amazon Prime, from my limited experience, seems to be exactly the same.

More importantly, their apps/interfaces suck if you wanna "browse to see if there's anything interesting", as they keep putting forward the same stuff. You get the impression the whole platform only has some 50 titles...heck there are websites that have lists of "unlisted genre/show/movie codes" for Netflix.

I can't stand the concept of "classic TV" where you have to be there at a specific day/time to see something,

Does that even exist anymore? Except for maybe Saorview I can't think of any others. I very rarely watch something when its on air unless its a live event I watch it when it suits me as I record shows I want to watch.

noodler

I guess even if 95% of Netflix is crap, the thing is that the 5% is more than enough to keep me happy given the sheer number of content (particularly shows) on there

vargoo

noodler wrote: »

I guess even if 95% of Netflix is crap, the thing is that the 5% is more than enough to keep me happy given the sheer number of content (particularly shows) on there

You'd imagine its goosed when all the other streamers come online...

noodler

vargoo wrote: »

You'd imagine its goosed when all the other streamers come online...

God I doubt it.

It's light years ahead of prime and nowtv for me.

Rawr

noodler wrote: »

God I doubt it.

It's light years ahead of prime and nowtv for me.

I kind of doubt it too. I have Netflix, but you'd be pushed to ask me to subscribe to another studio's streaming service for the sake of one or two shows.

For example, I'm not going to subscribe to Prime just for ST: Picard. I'm not going to subscribe to HBO online just for Game of Thrones, and I'm sure as hell not going to subscribe to Disney's service for the sake of The Mandalorian.

What I want is one platform that will give me most of what I need, with one monthly charge. So far Netflix mostly fills the bill there.

I think these various studios are making a serious tactical mistake. Torrenting and illegal downloading was on the decline for years. Part of that was due to the rise of the likes of Netflix. However if you keep fracturing shows off to various pay-walls, then you're going to get more and more people trying to get the stuff that they're not paying for using less-than-legal methods.

One common platform with revenue divided to the various studios would be a better idea I feel.

pixelburp

Disney are the obvious service coming down the tracks most likely to eat into Netflix / Amazon's share, but honestly it's going to come down to how many users want endless MCU/Star Wars content (or indeed access to Disney's back catalogue). Not sure what else they'll get access too given Disney now monopolise so many US IP via Fox / Hulu acquisitions, so maybe that'll help bolster numbers.

Re. Netflix, I'm happy enough with their output: there's a lot of rubbish, but theirs seems a bit of a shotgun-blast approach to programming, 3 season cycles of anything and everything, alongside a bunch of cooperative productions. So there's always something to watch. Depending on who you read, Netflix have been on the verge of collapse and ruin for years now (the latest theory I've read being a weird assertion that many of their US subscribers just watch The Office ad nauseam, a license about to expire and so will collapse their figures)

Prime is a totally mixed bag: their own content is interesting and varied, but outside of that is a wasteland of garbage, even compared with Netflix. Picard obviously has me interested, while other stuff like an Iain M. Banks adaptation has me doubly so. The big sticking point though is Amazon itself: alongside Disney they're a monolithic corporation with sh*tty employment methods and I'm in two minds about rewarding a monopoly.

In terms of failures, I'd say the likes of Apple, Facebook (yes, really) & YouTube gotta be top contenders: late to the game and too 'fringe' to be worth the plunge.

Brian?

pixelburp wrote: »

Disney are the obvious service coming down the tracks most likely to eat into Netflix / Amazon's share, but honestly it's going to come down to how many users want endless MCU/Star Wars content (or indeed access to Disney's back catalogue). Not sure what else they'll get access too given Disney now monopolise so many US IP via Fox / Hulu acquisitions, so maybe that'll help bolster numbers.

Re. Netflix, I'm happy enough with their output: there's a lot of rubbish, but theirs seems a bit of a shotgun-blast approach to programming, 3 season cycles of anything and everything, alongside a bunch of cooperative productions. So there's always something to watch. Depending on who you read, Netflix have been on the verge of collapse and ruin for years now (the latest theory I've read being a weird assertion that many of their US subscribers just watch The Office ad nauseam, a license about to expire and so will collapse their figures)

Prime is a totally mixed bag: their own content is interesting and varied, but outside of that is a wasteland of garbage, even compared with Netflix. Picard obviously has me interested, while other stuff like an Iain M. Banks adaptation has me doubly so. The big sticking point though is Amazon itself: alongside Disney they're a monolithic corporation with sh*tty employment methods and I'm in two minds about rewarding a monopoly.

In terms of failures, I'd say the likes of Apple, Facebook (yes, really) & YouTube gotta be top contenders: late to the game and too 'fringe' to be worth the plunge.

Woah there, an Iain M Banks tv series? Culture novels?

pixelburp

Brian? wrote: »

Woah there, an Iain M Banks tv series? Culture novels?

Obviously off-topic, but... yup! I'm not even sure it's anywhere near even pre-production, but Bezos himself announced way back in Feb '18 that the 'channel' was adapting Consider Phlebas. There has been no news of it since either, so for now it's a bit vapourous...

https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/966312919079112705

Stop moaning ffs

Wow. That’s mad. Be very interested to see how that translates to tv

Stark

I wouldn't hold my breath at this stage. I've heard lots of similar announcements regarding my favourite novels being adapted and none have materialised. "Hyperion", "Snow Crash", "Oryx and Crake" for example.

Stop moaning ffs

Stark wrote: »

I wouldn't hold my breath at this stage. I've heard lots of similar announcements regarding my favourite novels being adapted and none have materialised. "Hyperion", "Snow Crash", "Oryx and Crake" for example.

You might get lucky. Never thought we’d see a lord of the rings in a tv format and it’s on the way. (Still no idea how that’s gonna work but fingers crossed it’s good)