TV/Movies Megathread

[CountDeMoney]

DS-9 best Star Trek.......

No, DS-9 not best Star Trek. 

And stop talking like the Vietnamese chick from First Blood Part II, goddammit.

[Ideologue]

Why aren't there more non-humans in the "United Federation of Planets"? Considering the series' chronology, the human population outside of Earth has to be negligible. If the Federation is just Earth, Vulcan, and whatever colonies we made in a few centuries or less, that's not much of one.

We outbreed them.

[Ideologue]

Ide, go watch the film I'm talking about in the Korean thread. I think you'll like it.

I will.  Did you happen to see Memories of the Sword, by chance?  Good wuxia* flick from the RoK, came out last year.

*Presumably, the Korean language has another name for this, but it's really determined to be part of that genre.

[jimmy olsen]

Ide, go watch the film I'm talking about in the Korean thread. I think you'll like it.

I will.  Did you happen to see Memories of the Sword, by chance?  Good wuxia* flick from the RoK, came out last year.

*Presumably, the Korean language has another name for this, but it's really determined to be part of that genre.

Nope, I'll keep it in mind though.

[Eddie Teach]

The four species that would found the Federation were the Humans, Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_history#Foundation_and_early_development

List of members

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation_members

Sure, they've got a couple dozen planets listed, but look at a Star Fleet crew and it's >90% human.

[Berkut]

Beeb said, paraphrasing, "They should make a show without the Enterprise.  It's not essential."

Your paraphrase is not any shorter than what he actually said, and changes the meaning completely from what I actually objected to - that strikes me as a less than useful paraphrase. Some might even call it a intentional distortion.

[Ideologue]

Then what was your objection?  That a fictional starship should be given the worship it's due?  I mean, if that's all, sure, the Enterprise is rad.

[Berkut]

There's nothing magical about the USS Enterprise.

My objection is that this is simply not true. The USS Enterprise is as iconic (i.e. magical) a "ship" as exists in fiction across all genres, much less just science fiction.

If there isn't anything "magical" about it, then there is anything magical about anything at all.

That does not mean you cannot create a Trek show without it - and that is obvious since there have already been several without it - but it is most certainly magical.

I am pretty sure I said all this in the post you objected to while carefully editing out the original statement and the reasons for my objection.

Really, you put a lot of work into changing Beebs point, then changing my point, then attacking my changed point based on Beebs changed point. It is like a strawman Easy Target argument squared.

[Ideologue]

I don't think Beeb would contradict any specific counterpoint, but I read his point as "there's nothing narratively essential about the Enterprise."

Limited to the idea that the Enterprise is special and beloved and unique, I think you're right, too.

And on further consideration, from a commercial standpoint, and given that the non-Enterprise shows have been underperformers, even the stronger form of your claim--which I happily concede you weren't making--maybe does have some weight nonetheless.

[Barrister]

I don't think Beeb would contradict any specific counterpoint, but I read his point as "there's nothing narratively essential about the Enterprise."

Limited to the idea that the Enterprise is special and beloved and unique, I think you're right, too.

And on further consideration, from a commercial standpoint, and given that the non-Enterprise shows have been underperformers, even the stronger form of your claim--which I happily concede you weren't making--maybe does have some weight nonetheless.

Except for the show named after the damn thing...

Berkut is right that the USS Enterprise is definitely iconic.  BUt I still don't think it's magical - that the name of the ship has a damn thing to do with the success or failure of the show.  I think most fans would just as gladly watch a Star Trek show based around another ship - or even based around non-Star Fleet characters!

[viper37]

Why aren't there more non-humans in the "United Federation of Planets"? Considering the series' chronology, the human population outside of Earth has to be negligible. If the Federation is just Earth, Vulcan, and whatever colonies we made in a few centuries or less, that's not much of one.

Betazoids, the furry president in #6, the guys looking like fishes, the Binars, and many others we have seen too.

[Neil]

Beeb said, paraphrasing, "They should make a show without the Enterprise.  It's not essential."

Berkut said, not paraphrasing, "WTF is wrong with you?"  And then you said an Excelsior show would be great.  Frankly, you seem to be at war with yourself over the issue.

Or certainly the most complete.  TOS had a certain charm to it, and the middle seasons of TNG were also quite good.  While I certainly prefer DS9, I don't take issue with people who like some of the other works better.  But what you can't deny is that DS9 did more than any other series to create a universe for Star Trek to live in.

Oh, I don't take issue with 'em.  TOS is a colorful, wonderful pop experience, and remains iconic for a reason, even if (taken as a whole) it's barely coherent.  The TOS movies are obviously great overall, too (I've said before I'd trade all 80 episodes to save the films, if that was the choice I had to make).  TNG likewise is fantastic.  Voyager... well, it sucks, and so does Enterprise, but there's no accounting for taste.

DS9's completeness, as you put it, is definitely its signal virtue.  Season 7 is a mess, the first two seasons fluctuate between basically okay and boring, but its treatment of the Dominion, the Cardassians, the Klingons, the Romulans, and even the Federation itself--that is, of the Star Trek universe--is by far the most coherent and fascinating world-building in the whole franchise, which otherwise has always taken its cues from TOS' Silver Age Comics, "and then they met a space god" style of storytelling, even when (as in TNG) there was some vague commitment to continuity.

For my part, I'd rather see a Trek show with no Enterprise simply because the Enterprise is kind of played out, and the Trek cosmos is so much bigger than just one starship.

Yeah, the original cast films were pretty great. 

I feel like a ship named the Enterprise isn't essential for a Star Trek show, but it's very helpful.  Remember how you felt at the end of Star Trek IV when they introduced the Enterprise-A?  There's an emotional connection to the name.  We didn't get all choked up when Sisko got his second Defiant. 

I feel like season 7 of DS9 was a bit of a mess because it had to be so dense.  Getting themselves to a place where the Dominion War could end, while at the same time getting Sisko to embrace his destiny was a lot of work.  I'm also not super-thrilled about how Dukat was handled, even though I absolutely loved the character and Alaimo's performance.

[Barrister]

I feel like a ship named the Enterprise isn't essential for a Star Trek show, but it's very helpful.  Remember how you felt at the end of Star Trek IV when they introduced the Enterprise-A?  There's an emotional connection to the name.  We didn't get all choked up when Sisko got his second Defiant. 

Yes.  But I was also 11 and seeing the movie in theatres with my buddy Chris Muir.  You had no idea they could re-use a registry number like that.  To 11 year old me it was awesome.

But since then we've seen the Enterprise, Enterprise A, B, C, D & E.  I think I'm past a romance of "ships named Enterprise".  There are other ships names out there.

[Neil]

I feel like a ship named the Enterprise isn't essential for a Star Trek show, but it's very helpful.  Remember how you felt at the end of Star Trek IV when they introduced the Enterprise-A?  There's an emotional connection to the name.  We didn't get all choked up when Sisko got his second Defiant. 

Yes.  But I was also 11 and seeing the movie in theatres with my buddy Chris Muir.  You had no idea they could re-use a registry number like that.  To 11 year old me it was awesome.

But since then we've seen the Enterprise, Enterprise A, B, C, D & E.  I think I'm past a romance of "ships named Enterprise".  There are other ships names out there.

I suppose if they're willing to tell decent stories about characters that I can care about, they can call the ship whatever they want.  And since neither Voyager or Enterprise managed to do that, any change is a good change at this point.

I actually saw Star Trek 4 for the first time on home video.  The only movies I'm sure I saw in the theatre in 1986 were Labyrinth and Transformers:  The Movie.

[crazy canuck]

Well a YT-1300 Correllian light freighter

That did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs!