General Star Trek thread

Shoot, yeah. Remember the days when if a show (often Sci-Fi) wasn't working they just completely re-jigged the premise. Buck Rogers, the original BSG...

Not the thread for it, but never really bought this antipathy towards the last season's dip into outright supernatural intervention; it was there from the off & not that coy about it either when one watches Season 1+ with retrospective eyes. The show's plotting often hinged on functional divine intervention, various visions and repeated suggestions that god or the gods had a hand in everything. Starbuck's fate was a little … eh a bit too wishy-washy but nothing ever happened that I'd completely hold against what was still a strong show.

I wonder if that threatened Sam Esmail sequel is still happening; kinda dropped out of the scuttlebutt a while back.

And there it goes, the last TOS film. Undiscovered Country knocked off the list and hey you know? It was a better film than Wrath of Khan and the apex of the series. There's a hair's breadth between them such that either film could stand tallest & not seem out of place but on balance and in the wake of this little marathon, VI just sat with me better as the more complete vehicle; everything just came together much better and I think I preferred Christopher Plummer's Shakespeare-quoting villain than Khan & Ricardo Montalbán's pecks. At least Chang and Kirk met and traded a few barbs; it was always a bit lacking that Khan and Kirk never actually shared a scene. While the rest of the cast felt like they got at least one moment to shine (bar Chekov perhaps, he seemed to be the comedy character this time around)

The ending was a bit pat and convenient, but then the intent was to give the Enterprise crew one more chance to save the day, let the crew fly off into the sunset & retirement. They just about got away with it in the end, the saggy tummies and greying templates loudly advertising just how past their peak these actors & characters were - but this series showed that you can do a "legacy sequel" with a degree of dignity; wish Hollywood remembered how it's done. These films couldn't even boast top-tier production talent, they were just competently made by reliable professionals (and William Shatner).

Shame we never saw a Captain Sulu show, 'cos there was potential written all over it - but I guess at that stage the TNG generation was in the ascendancy and the focus of the series; a quaint notiion that the franchise wanted to move forward instead of sticking with "the past".

Truth be told I've never actually watched Generations or Insurrection in their entirety and not inclined to try; I'm weird (in general but hey-ho) in that I saw the TOS films before I got a chance to watch the 1960s show so for me, Trek started with watching these films with their varied and wide ranging set of tones. Eventually one of the terrestrial stations aired TOS and it was such a weird gear-shift from what I technically grew up with; and for sure watching these films with middled-aged eyes revealed a richer set of themes than I noticed before. It really does show that what one brings into a movie can often dictate what you get out of them.

If I had a closer emotional tie to TNG I'd probably dip in; but TBH knowing what a sloppy coda to Kirk's story Generations was, I also wanna drop out of the TOS movies with a cleaner taste in the mouth. Insurrections I'm avoiding because I hate the whole "we reject technology! Come see our waterwheel" Gen X hippy storylines.

Oh and it needs to be said, even if it's preaching to the choir here: bloody 'ell but it's easy to forget how absolutely phenomenal Leonard Nimoy was in playing Spock. The man just exuded a steady, deadpan dignity & charisma that simply hasn't existed since then. Many have tried but just got the recipe wrong; some like Blalock's Vulcan too emotionally constipated and dead behind the eyes, while Quinto's Spock had way too much rage informing his performance. Nimoy was just … ach, it was chef's kiss stuff.

Agreed: and while I was initially impressed with Quinto in terms of the physicality, it was obvious as time went out his baseline was "I am píssed off and barely holding it together" - and that was just all sorts of wrong, reboot or not. Again it speaks to this myopia when it comes to playing Vulcans; actors either projecting utter vacant performances, or constipated repressed emotion.

Oof, I dunno: I accept Blalock had to work under lesser scripts than other Trek actors, but nor did she have the range or ability to at least bring something of her own to the role. It was generic, stilted Vulcan start to finish, while the less said about the obvious pandering in the first place, the better.

Aye, though my own immediate reaction at the time was initial confusion about where Scotty was in this show, cos I couldn't see anyone fat with a moustache among the crew 🤣

Maybe it's just that I saw the films first, but I think Doohan looked better with the moustache and some weight: certainly made him more visually distinct.

TOS is up there with things like the really early Bonds or 1960s Doctor Who where honestly, I stay well clear 'cos I know those formative iterations are just not gonna hold up against what became the franchise. Too much spitballing and a really vague or thinly defined sense of self at times. The 1979 film and TNG was the point I think Star Trek "became" what we think of it now.