Languish.org

General Category => Off the Record => Topic started by: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM

Title: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 05, 2009, 09:46:06 PM
This Thursday.  :nerd:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 09:47:04 PM
:yawn:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 05, 2009, 09:47:53 PM
Tim, you look different somehow. do something with the hair?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 05, 2009, 09:51:51 PM
I'll watch it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 05, 2009, 09:55:07 PM
me too.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 10:17:24 PM
I shall be there.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 10:38:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.
Ditto. I figure I'll shoot for expectations of a horrible brainless action-film "reimagining" of the Trek universe. That way, the only surprises for me will be pleasant. ^_^
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 05, 2009, 10:41:24 PM
Many of the previous movies are so bad that unless this one is horrible it pretty much gets a buy :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 10:57:30 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 05, 2009, 10:41:24 PM
Many of the previous movies are so bad that unless this one is horrible it pretty much gets a buy :lol:
None of the TNG-era movies are really glaringly bad. I rewatched Insurrection recently and found that a lot of the complaints about it were really overblown.

I would also say that the only good one was First Contact, and that was probably because it didn't even land in the normal Trek format. Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis all fell into the "last-minute save from the weekly doomsday device" trap, with Generations and Nemesis trying to save face with token sacrifices by Kirk and Data, respectively.

I'm actually predisposed to like the idea of this one because it sounds as if it's not going to be a complete save, and the human cost feels less like a shoestring budget when it's not a overhyped retirement of a washed-up overdramatic actor or exploring the "sacrifice signifies humanity" aspect too little, too late, when the character's earned a penchant as mostly comic relief.

And thus another one of my rants comes to a close. Methinks I really need less free time to overthink these things. :blink:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 09:47:04 PM
:yawn:

Indeed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:06:47 PM
Aw crap Vinraith agreeing with me on movies, hold me i r scared.
:P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:06:47 PM
Aw crap Vinraith agreeing with me on movies, hold me i r scared.
:P

:D It just shows you how right we both are. A point of agreement like this can only occur when the movie is, in this case, objectively :yawn:.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:18:39 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.

Yeah Hangover looks like some potential, Public Enemies from Michael Mann has promise, but could turn out to be like Miami Vice instead of Heat.

I mean i'm sure i'll be compelled to go check out the GeeWhizbang movies (Transformers, GI JoE, Harry Potter) by friends but all in all it is kinda meh.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 05, 2009, 11:35:02 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?

New Star Trek movie out on Thursday. Will probably suck, but a lot of us will see it regardless, just for peace of mind.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:37:27 PM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.

Oh wait, did somebody say that already?


Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:37:34 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:33:04 PM
What is this thread about?



The new Star Wars prequel.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 05, 2009, 11:38:47 PM
Georgr Lucas sukcs.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:43:23 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:18:39 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 05, 2009, 11:15:13 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 05, 2009, 11:13:40 PM
looking at summer movie schedule there isn't really anything out there that demands i go check it out really. Can't recall last summer that didn't have one thing i was really looking forward to.

It's pretty sparse, isn't it? I figure the wife will want to see UP, and Pixar's never bad so that's fine, but there's nothing I'm particularly excited about in the entire pile and that's very unusual.

Yeah Hangover looks like some potential, Public Enemies from Michael Mann has promise, but could turn out to be like Miami Vice instead of Heat.

I mean i'm sure i'll be compelled to go check out the GeeWhizbang movies (Transformers, GI JoE, Harry Potter) by friends but all in all it is kinda meh.

I can understand the others just on a "something to see" basis, but the GI Joe trailers look painfully bad. Out of all the big budget special-effects fests this summer (including the topic of this thread) that one looks like it'd be the hardest to sit through to me.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 06, 2009, 12:37:22 AM
Star Trek - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoP3C76ioTU&feature=channel

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 06, 2009, 01:10:17 AM
oh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sophie Scholl on May 06, 2009, 01:17:06 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on May 06, 2009, 01:10:17 AM
oh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!

You can write the dates that way for movies from your country. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 03:25:42 AM
Time Travel does screw up the future time line. They can re-write all of the subsequent history we have already watched.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:34:06 AM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 03:36:01 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:34:06 AM
It'll probably suck, but I'll see it regardless.

I hate it when that happens....
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Doing it with time travel....probally not.


Quoteoh right, you americans can't write dates correctly. Thought it was months away.

it's DD/MM/YYYY!
Or year-month-day.
Month-day-year is just plain illogical.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 03:41:55 AM
Well, I keep hoping Star Trek movies are going to be like First Contact.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 05:36:43 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:

They may call it 11, but in a way it is the first, all the other ones shift one and the odds become evens and evens become odds.. confused yet?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 06, 2009, 05:37:00 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:09:16 AM
Quote from: katmai on May 06, 2009, 04:08:05 AM
Quote from: Brazen on May 06, 2009, 04:04:28 AM
Does this count as an odd-numbered one?

Numero 11 iirc.
It's doomed :weep:

The chain was broken with #10: Nemesis. :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:42:39 AM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 06, 2009, 05:43:41 AM
34 Fresh, 0 Rotten :w00t:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Viking on May 06, 2009, 05:55:30 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:42:39 AM
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film as "Fun, Watchable"

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film?utm_source=a-section

The Onion Gets It Right Again!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
These days I only go to matinees, and that is how I will see this, primarily because friends asked.  I have no great desire to see it myself, especially after hearing that it involves time travel. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 06:20:52 AM
I'd like to see it. Maybe my dad will come with me.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:13:06 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 06:11:02 AM
These days I only go to matinees, and that is how I will see this, primarily because friends asked.  I have no great desire to see it myself, especially after hearing that it involves time travel.

That makes me want to see it even more.  Please please please tell me there's a DeLorean in the movie  :w00t: *fingers crossed*
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:
But not as good as Superman or Superman II.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 07:29:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Batman?
Inferior to the original.

Debatable.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:31:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
But not as good as Superman or Superman II.

Can't argue with that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/

I'm going to see the new Star Trek film on Friday but the time travel story sounds a bit crap from what I've heard.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 07:29:13 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Batman?
Inferior to the original.

Debatable.
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:50:44 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
Not at all.  Both films were based on the comics of the time.  They were both faithful adaptations of the existing comics, and were separated by a generation.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 07:52:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 06, 2009, 07:22:42 AM

Also, there's the new Superman, which, while it wasn't as good as the Batman reboot, was FAR AND AWAY better than Superman 4. :bleeding: ^ :bleeding:

The new Superman wasn't really a reboot though. It took the first 2 films as canon and just pretended what came after that didn't happen (or was it only 4 they ignored?)

And Batman Begins was rather good. Dark Knight was so-so but Begins trounces the 80s/90s series.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.
Ah ok.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Meh, it was still a dominant part.  But the series was so awful that that was no surprise.  In the end they couldn't even let it stand on its own and had to have a TNG tie in.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:30:55 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 05, 2009, 10:40:18 PM
The moment they introduced time travel into Star Trek, it was all downhill. Yes, it was season 3, IIRC.
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
I think the entire plot of Enterprise revolved around a 'Temporal Cold War' or some really really really stupid crap like that.
I haven't seen all the episodes but I think that storyline ended in second season. The third season was about the Xindi and the fourth was mainly about the birth of the federation.
Meh, it was still a dominant part.  But the series was so awful that that was no surprise.  In the end they couldn't even let it stand on its own and had to have a TNG tie in.
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:10:46 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 06, 2009, 10:06:15 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 08:37:57 AM
I haven't seen much of the third season but I thought there were some very good episodes in the fourth season. The final episode (the one with the TNG tie in) was terrible though, I don't know what they were thinking when they wrote that.

Still better than the final episode of BSG.

Everything is. I have to admit, it was almost worth the awfulness just to have a cultural reference point to which everything else compares favorably.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 10:29:46 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:45:15 AM
Batman screaming at people?  Not cool.

Well, neither is Michael Keaton, but I see your point. After careful consideration I would probably come down on your side and say the Tim Burton version is better as a whole, but it's still awfully close, Bale > Keaton.
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Best Batman.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 10:31:19 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 06, 2009, 07:17:28 AM
I've enjoyed the Star Trek series in the past, but haven't studied them and won't be bothered by changes to the timeline. I expect I'll enjoy this movie.

No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?
Sadly, Trek was never interested in continuity, and at times the writers went out of their way to eliminate it as much as possible.  My concerns are similar to yours.  The characters were all defined by the actors who played them, the friendship between the actors came out onto the screen. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 06, 2009, 10:32:19 AM
Quote from: HVC on May 06, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.
Keaton was a much better Batman, Bale a better Bruce.
I can accept that.  The recent movies have done a much better job at showing Bruce Wayne as frivolous and flighty.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on May 06, 2009, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 10:07:25 AM
No one gives a shit about the continuity, ST's continuity's shot to shit at this point anyway. What makes no sense to me is recasting a set of characters that are completely defined by the actors that played them. It's not like Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were deep and involved acting challenges, nor were they massively fleshed out characters. They pretty much existed as extensions of the actors that played them, and their performances were what was enjoyable about them. How do you recast that with a group of 20-somethings that look vaguely similar to them and make it work?

Why not do so?

Nobody will go out and see a new Star Trek movie about a bunch of nobodies; the movies were terrible, Voyager was terrible, and Enterprise was, well, terrible. So you have to try to make Star Trek fresh and exciting, while at the same time giving people a positive reference point.

20 somethings blowing shit up will do nicely, and by repackaging the movie as Kirk, you get some buzz and name value.

*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 06, 2009, 11:24:44 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 06:20:52 AM
I'd like to see it. Maybe my dad will come with me.



I'll go with you GF - haven't had a proper date in ages.  Time we get aquainted properly anyway  :P




G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 06, 2009, 11:25:12 AM
I think this film actually looks quite good.
When I first heard of it I was just banging my head at the horror- a prequel about how Kirk and Spock met at the academy...It just had everything wrong about it.
This though looks like it may work; its only the Star Trek tag that could ruin it. Star Trek is never gonna be cool.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AMsay the Tim Burton version is better as a whole,

Tim Burton is the Michael Bay of pseudo-fantasy shit, chock full of heady uber-goth Victorian-steampunk Timmay-spooge goodness.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:32:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Doing it with time travel....probally not.

This.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D

I didn't realize Bernd Schneider posted here. :P

Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 06, 2009, 05:43:10 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 06, 2009, 11:20:51 AM
*shrug* To each their own. Recasting those parts puts me right off, but it's clear enough I'm in a small minority in that regard. Then again, I'm kind of used to that by now. :D

I didn't realize Bernd Schneider posted here. :P

Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.
That's because it works as an occasional episode, not as the central plot device after two other Trek movies used it.  This isn't Doctor Who.  Doctor Who kicks ass. 

If they are gonna 're-imagine' things they should imagine up a good plot that doesn't rely on tired lame stock like time travel. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 06, 2009, 11:29:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 06, 2009, 05:29:52 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 06, 2009, 09:07:50 AMsay the Tim Burton version is better as a whole,

Tim Burton is the Michael Bay of pseudo-fantasy shit, chock full of heady uber-goth Victorian-steampunk Timmay-spooge goodness.

You make it sound like a bad thing.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: starbright on May 06, 2009, 11:30:59 PM
I will go to one of those 4 am viewings.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 02:56:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
What?  You've gone mental.  Keaton is the man.

Keaton was up against Jack Nicholson, that gives him some points out of pity. But even Val Kilmer is a better actor than Keaton.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:37:12 AM
As I've mentioned before, I went to a Technological University in the early 90's when Star Trek The Next Generation was still on the air (and after the awful seasons had passed.)  I never followed the series that closely, but many of may fellow students loved the series with a bright, burning, nerdly passion.  I once drove a friend into a near blind rage when I scoffed at deflector shields.

Unfortunately I've lost touch with him over the years; he would have been the ideal person to see this movie with.  I've still got some friends who are trekkies; I plan to see the film with them.  That way if the film is bad I'll at least get some amusement by listening to them complain about how non-canon everything is.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:55:47 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 06, 2009, 05:36:32 PM
Anyway, sanctity of the original be damned, the franchise has been foundering for some time and needs a swift kick to either end it or get it back up again. The problem is just that time travel as a reboot mechanism happens to be a sore spot with most sci-fi fans.

Time travel is a usually a warning sign; it's the "A wizard did it" of Sci-fi.  Also the film is supposed to take place, in part, at the Starfleet Academy.  I'm not looking forward to seeing Starfleet Mahoney and Starfleet Hightower.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 07, 2009, 07:08:12 AM
Friends are going to watch it tomorrow. I'll skip that one.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 06:55:47 AMTime travel is a usually a warning sign; it's the "A wizard did it" of Sci-fi.  Also the film is supposed to take place, in part, at the Starfleet Academy.  I'm not looking forward to seeing Starfleet Mahoney and Starfleet Hightower.

But if there is a Starfleet Michael Winslow, it will more than make up for things.  Imagine how cool it'd be to hear him making phaser and transporter noises, and imitating Spock.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 09:55:58 AM
All you goddamn Michael Keaton haters can burn in hell.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 07, 2009, 10:15:42 AM
Thread is incomplete without:
Star Trekking (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE)
Raumschiff Edelweiss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEpcjgYHE4U) (Edelweiss is a very popular Austrian Hefeweizen beer)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:25:46 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 05, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
I'll watch it, even though time-travelling Romulans from the future is a stupid idea, as is fucking up the timeline.

Time traveling villains are a Standard Trek trope. :contract:

Keeps the movie grounded in Federation space. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.

The 1941 Serial? then yes. all the Batman movies/TV since have not lived up to all the Tojo bashing  & camp/noir sensibilty from Director Lambert Hillyer in that.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DisturbedPervert on May 07, 2009, 12:33:29 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 07, 2009, 10:15:42 AM
Raumschiff Edelweiss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEpcjgYHE4U) (Edelweiss is a very popular Austrian Hefeweizen beer)

I can't believe they didn't make it big in the US.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 12:34:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 09:55:58 AM
All you goddamn Michael Keaton haters can burn in hell.

:yes:  :mad:

BEETLEJUICE!  BEETLEJUICE!  BEETLEJUICE!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:36:21 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 06, 2009, 08:17:31 AM
Quote from: Cerr on May 06, 2009, 07:43:30 AM
Well the Batman film made in 1989 could be considered a reboot too.
There's at least two Batman films that were made before the 1989 version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_(1966_film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041162/
The 1949 Batman was a serial, not a movie.

Serials are short movies. Were shown in movie theatres. also 1949 was the 2nd Batman Serial called "Batman & Robin" actually (and it was better than the movie 50 years or so later with the same name..
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 12:48:21 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on May 07, 2009, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 06, 2009, 07:18:54 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.

Batman?
Inferior to the original.

The 1941 Serial? then yes. all the Batman movies/TV since have not lived up to all the Tojo bashing  & camp/noir sensibilty from Director Lambert Hillyer in that.
What are you talking about?  Most movies before 1970 didn't actually happen.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 01:15:17 PM
It starts at 7 PM.

Why so late?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 01:26:17 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 01:15:17 PM
It starts at 7 PM.

Why so late?

Your date can't stay up that long?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
It could have been worst.  Kirk could have been a woman. ;)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:03:06 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:15:56 AM
I think that it was alright until it became routine.  They did it twice in TOS and once in TNG.  When I really started to get annoyed was in DS9, when they introduced the department of Temporal Investigations.  All of the sudden we were doing more and more time travel, and as I understand it, there was a whole storyline about it in the Enterprise show (which I have never watched).
DS9 was more fond of the alternate universe though.

Voyager had a few episodes with time travel.  The episodes were good, but like you I feel time travel is overdone in sci-fi.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:05:20 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:22:29 AM
Inferior to the original.
- prefers men in tighs to armored men
- prefers crazy male pilots to crazy female pilots
- is a fan of Kirk
- likes to tease Martinus

I always suspected you were gay.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
But if there is a Starfleet Michael Winslow, it will more than make up for things.  Imagine how cool it'd be to hear him making phaser and transporter noises, and imitating Spock.
It's called Spaceballs, Cal. :contract:

:P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 02:11:03 PM
Who's Marinus?

Dan Marino?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 02:55:13 PM
You are stupid!

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Why?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:55:53 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 06, 2009, 07:10:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 06, 2009, 03:38:13 AM
ST reboot is a wonderous idea.
Rebooting any franchise is a stupid idea.  Never once has it produced something that didn't suck.
It could have been worst.  Kirk could have been a woman. ;)
I think everyone has learned, courtesy of Voyager, that women should never be allowed to command a starship.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 02:55:29 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.
Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.
Why?
Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.



:blink: Seriously?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Jaron on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
Perfect!  :lmfao:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM
It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.



:blink: Seriously?
I looked it up.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:28:52 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

Two words: frozen pond.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:31:10 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:32:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:31:10 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

This is probably just feeding my own reputation, but in general I find movies in the 60-80 range on RT tend to be more enjoyable than those in the 90+ category (which are often critical-darling films that just aren't very entertaining IMO). Now, this is a summer blockbuster, so it's harder to say, but more and more I find myself not taking the critical consensus too seriously.

None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
you need to wait after the first week-end to get a credible rating from RottenTomatoes, imho, give time for all cricits to publish, both small and big.

Yes, and, cesspool though it may be, the user response section can also have some small value after awhile.

Meh, I don't even know why I care so much. I'll probably Netflix it when it comes out, but the only way I'd see it in theatres is if I got roped into going with a group of friends.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 07, 2009, 03:33:39 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 03:11:04 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4)
Perfect!  :lmfao:
they did the same with Star Wars :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Savonarola on May 07, 2009, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.

Big monkey movies will break your heart.  :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
I don't care if it's a good sci fi flick if it's a good film.  The Guardian gave it a good review as a fun summer blockbuster and especially liked the portrayal of Kirk and the development of his friendship with Spock.

I imagine the Star Trek fans may hate it, though I could be wrong.

Edit:  And that's no bad thing.  An excess of fan zeal has made for some bad films in my opinion - anything with Zack Snyder's involvement for example.  He's too dedicated to the original to remember that he's actually meant to be making a film.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:46:03 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 07, 2009, 03:42:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:00:22 PM
None of which is to say this isn't a good sci fi flick, it might well be. I'm just not sure how it could be a good Star Trek flick.
I don't care if it's a good sci fi flick if it's a good film. 

Which is completely fair. I have a hard time getting past the name of the movie (and the names of the characters), plain and simple.

Oh, and I also have a hard time with how fucking goofy Zachary Quinto looks as a vulcan. Does that bug anyone else?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
:lol: I teach 8th graders, do you really think you guys are gonna bother me much?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Quote from: HVC on May 07, 2009, 03:35:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:
I finally saw that movie. or part of it at least. had to change the channel it sucked so bad.
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.
Wrong.  You're a fanboy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:53:23 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:52:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 03:50:45 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:42:41 PM
Your taste in movies is worse than Hive's.

it appears that people need to smack you around more on this forum.
:lol: I teach 8th graders, do you really think you guys are gonna bother me much?

if we tried. oh yes, if we tried harder, somebody would make you cry in your Pikachu pillow.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 04:03:19 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?

With shaving cream if you are William Shatner.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?

The obvious answer is you don't try. Of course, that's kind of my thought on recasting all these parts, it's always struck me as a bad idea. Nobody's going to out-Shatner Shatner, for example.

That said it's less that he doesn't look like Nimoy (which I wouldn't expect) than that he just looks odd in that make up in my opinion. As I said I haven't heard him speak in character, so I can't comment on that part.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:19:07 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 07, 2009, 04:02:16 PM
Quote from: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Delirium on May 07, 2009, 03:49:45 PM
He did look pretty weird. And that voice just isn't right.

I don't think I've actually heard him talk in any of the trailers I've seen. Is he trying to do a Nimoy impression and failing?

To give him some benefit of the doubt though....how in the hell do you fill Leonard Nimoys shoes?
Nobody's going to out-Shatner Shatner, for example.
WHAT...are you talking...about?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
And then there was that time he beat up the Rock.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:49:56 PM
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2009, 04:41:50 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 04:00:34 PM
It's also funny how DeForest Kelly was always a skinny guy with a slight stoop, not even a little bit imposing.  On the other hand, the new McCoy could tear the rest of the cast limb from limb like they were a bunch of Uruk-hai.

Well he does have practice at it.
And then there was that time he beat up the Rock.

Yet he couldn't beat Matt Damon :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

the movie about Donkey Kong (The King of Kong) got 96%. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:54:31 PM
AND I am still waiting for my 600 word review. since it's been a few years since you have promised us that Tim, it better have some good writing, fresh insight,  serious mythological exploration supported by a thorough bibiliography as well as correct footnote style.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

That's a C. :mellow:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
:huh: It's 93%
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:13:02 PM
Audio review on All Things Considered was entirely positive, beyond noting that the plot disappears halfway through the movie (but noting that nobody will miss it, as the rest is just so much fun).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
I liked this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfhzqhJNbg&feature=related
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 07, 2009, 05:50:27 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: Angevinus on May 07, 2009, 03:08:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QktVh64BYx4
I liked this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfhzqhJNbg&feature=related
True
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 05:57:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 05:01:01 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:58:13 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!

its now 90. if it continues to drop at this rate, we should be in King Kong B territory in about a week.
:huh: It's 93%
cream of crop is 90%. as established, the others are worthless.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 06:04:48 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 04:51:41 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 03:04:48 PM

Because it's untrustworthy.  It gave King Kong an 84%, for heaven's sake.

Movie critics are scum.
How dare they give it such a low score! :mad:

the top critics - the ones who know something about film - gave it 76%.

which for 8th graders, in case anyone happens to teach them, is a B.

That's a C. :mellow:

apologies. your school is special.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 06:09:20 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 07, 2009, 06:04:48 PM

apologies. your school is special.

No, Tim's special, but his grading scale appears to be the standard one here in the US.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P

Wow America is harsh.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69.

Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P

Wow America is harsh.

Yet, if you actually do the work and don't go out drinking every other day, it is easy as pie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:46:17 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Wow America is harsh.

Where we're really harsh is the head-exploding math you need to do to convert your grades to a 4.0 scale for GPA. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 06:48:11 PM
Back when I was in elementary school, 80-89 was A and 90+ was H.

Once you got out of elementary school, there were no more letter grades.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 07, 2009, 06:57:49 PM
I remember having S and or nothing. An S meant success, nothing meant you failed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on May 07, 2009, 07:09:27 PM
We had NS (Not Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), G (Good), VG (Very Good) and E (Excellent) in grade school, and then number grades after that.

Though IIRC they changed the grade scheme like three times while i was in elementary school, but the one above is the only one i can remember.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:13:57 PM
This movie is going to be better than StarTrek:

Dhoom 2   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkHTl_Ct4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLkHTl_Ct4E)

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 07, 2009, 07:20:03 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?
Quit being a faggot.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:20:45 PM
You are a faggot!

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:20:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 07:17:35 PM
I fucking hate time travel bullshit but I am going to go see the movie tonight at 10:00pm. I don't think I'll have any issues with it because I don't know all of the history of Star Trek.

Did you just use the F word?

Um, yeah...so what?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 07, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 07, 2009, 06:44:16 PM
Yet, if you actually do the work and don't go out drinking every other day, it is easy as pie.
Meh.
Going out beats sitting at home and playing computer games.
There's only so much work to be done.

I've heard a C is considered a bad thing in the US and a C is upper 70s/lower 80s....blimeyl. In the UK a top mark is 70+ and that is very hard to get.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:26:28 PM
An entertaining review from The New Yorker  :P

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane




G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 07:44:21 PM
Quote from: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:26:28 PM
An entertaining review from The New Yorker  :P

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane




G.

Fuck, now I'm not going to watch that crap.

Thank you, Grallon.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grallon on May 07, 2009, 07:45:45 PM
Quote

Fuck, now I'm not going to watch that crap.



What ? Not going with the flow Siege ?  ;)



G.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 07, 2009, 08:03:44 PM
That reviewer seemed annoyed for the sake of being annoyed...hmm...:shifty:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2009, 06:21:40 PM
Traditional US Grading Tutorial:

A: 93-100
B: 85-92
C: 77-84
D: 69-76
F: 68 and below, some cut off at 69. 
I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale.

Kinda curious where you got it from.
Quote
Modified US Grading Method (percent):

A: 90-100
B: 80-89
C: 70-79
D: 60-69
F: Below 60, some use a wide D to bring F to 50 or below.

Not even close, Sask. :P
This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US.
Some school systems (notably Fairfax County and Montgomery County near me) experimented with an alternate grading scale much like your "traditional" one, but they are switching back as it has become apparent that colleges have ignored the "eliteness" perception the school boards wanted to project by looking so "bad-ass" and simply chose less qualified students from school boards that didn't try to fuck with perceptions.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:29:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
I've heard a C is considered a bad thing in the US and a C is upper 70s/lower 80s....blimeyl. In the UK a top mark is 70+ and that is very hard to get.
It all depends on what is being tested.  Getting 70% of the questions right on an AP exam, for instance, is very good indeed.  Getting the names of 70% of the countries in Africa right is very bad indeed.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 07, 2009, 08:30:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PMThis "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US.
Some school systems (notably Fairfax County and Montgomery County near me) experimented with an alternate grading scale much like your "traditional" one, but they are switching back as it has become apparent that colleges have ignored the "eliteness" perception the school boards wanted to project by looking so "bad-ass" and simply chose less qualified students from school boards that didn't try to fuck with perceptions.

At my high school an A was 95-100, a B was 85-94 etc. The College Board Grading scale is pretty uniform among colleges and universities, I'm not sure how uniform it is among high schools.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 08:39:48 PM
:o :o :o :o :o

I can't believe what I just saw. When they said they screwed with the timeline they weren't kidding. Still I heartily approve. Five cocksure Captain Kirks out of five.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Habbaku on May 07, 2009, 08:40:45 PM
Tainted™.

All the same, I will probably still be dragged to the movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 07, 2009, 09:40:32 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.

My kind of movie.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 07, 2009, 10:20:37 PM
I liked the onion's take. Thanks, Seedy.

Of course, the best part was the end on the faux-teaser: And elderly black woman is still following Obama around and shedding a tear everytime he does anything.  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 07, 2009, 10:45:57 PM
All this Star Trek talk is making me want to watch Star Trek IV again.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 07, 2009, 11:58:58 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 07, 2009, 09:27:02 PM
Cardboard characters. Shallow. Cheesy.

:thumbsup:

Glad they kept the spirit of the original.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: vinraith on May 08, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 07, 2009, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 07, 2009, 01:20:31 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 07, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
Amazingly this movie is starting to rack up very high scores in the major papers over here.

Rotten Tomatoes has it 94% positive, with 93% of the cream of the crop!
That website is stupid.

Especially with regard to Star Trek, apparently. According to RT's review system, the best Star Trek movie of all time is... wait for it... First Contact.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 08, 2009, 12:16:21 AM
Borg queen :wub:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Siege on May 08, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2009, 12:16:21 AM
Borg queen :wub:

Fag!

Ok, she was hott.

I still fucking hate you.

Or nott.


Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Delirium on May 08, 2009, 02:32:02 AM
Quote from: vinraith on May 08, 2009, 12:07:19 AM
Especially with regard to Star Trek, apparently. According to RT's review system, the best Star Trek movie of all time is... wait for it... First Contact.

But that is the best Star Trek movie of all t... Oh, wait. Right.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 03:35:04 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 07, 2009, 06:41:40 PM
Wow America is harsh.
Or easy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 05:42:42 AM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Really? I totally didn't expect the bad guys plan to be successful.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
[snip incoherent Grumbler rant]
If you bothered reading my post, I was talking about the grading system Tim would use. Elementary schools and junior high schools use the 7-point scale all the time. I wasn't talking about college; all the college courses I've seen were either 10-point scale, flat letter grade, or pass/fail.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:51:01 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
(snip defensive DSB whine that still managed to be insulting on a juvenile basis)
If you had bothered reading my post, you would have seen that I noted never having seen the 7-point scale before, and asked where you had gotten it (and the title of "Traditional US Grading Tutorial").  Whining that Tim may use a seven-point scale (when, in fact, he may not) isn't an answer to the question.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine.  But don't attribute your failure to answer on the argument that there was anything "incoherent" about:

1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Calling the use of letter grades "retarded" is retarded.

It is all arbitrary.  So long as any system is understood, it works.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:55:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 06:43:24 AM
Using letters is retarded anyway.
Calling the use of letter grades "retarded" is retarded.

It is all arbitrary.  So long as any system is understood, it works.

Alright.

Is it understood tho? A's is excellent, C's alright & D's failure no? but it seems the grading % doesn't quite show that.

In school, I always tried to get above 70.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:11 AM
Quote from: Siege on May 08, 2009, 12:28:25 AM
Ok, she was hott.

The Borg Queen was much hotter when she was a banshee in Ghost Story. :perv:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:39:29 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:

I was never an over achiever.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Razgovory on May 08, 2009, 07:40:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 05:47:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2009, 08:26:46 PM
[snip incoherent Grumbler rant]
If you bothered reading my post, I was talking about the grading system Tim would use. Elementary schools and junior high schools use the 7-point scale all the time. I wasn't talking about college; all the college courses I've seen were either 10-point scale, flat letter grade, or pass/fail.

What the fuck are you talkin about?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 07:40:19 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:32:53 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AMIn school, I always tried to get above 70.

errr... in school, I always tried to get above 99.  :cool:

I always did the extra credit too, so I could be lazy later.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:43:02 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:39:29 AMI was never an over achiever.

How is that being an overachiever?  :huh:

Oh wait, I forgot: French.  :)

"Mais oui, we should have a better army so we can stop being conquered by the Germans every generation."
"OVERACHIEVER!"
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.

Your blood has: the taint.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:54:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:44:17 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:43:46 AM
I am NOT : Zoupa.

Your blood has: the taint.  :cool:

Sure, filthy Hun.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:54:56 AMSure, filthy Hun.

Actually, I have a terrible confession to make.

My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

My great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother's maiden name: CHATEAU. :o

:weep:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:59:43 AM
My grandma's an Anglo.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 08:04:05 AM
OTOH, the Frenchies in my blood were supposedly Alsatians, so I may be free of the terrible Gallic taint.  :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 08, 2009, 07:07:09 AM
Alright.

Is it understood tho? A's is excellent, C's alright & D's failure no? but it seems the grading % doesn't quite show that.

In school, I always tried to get above 70.
The grading % is meaningless as such.  "Above 70" is meaningless out of context.  Above 70 Zercons? Above 70 degrees kelvin?

I am not sure I have ever encountered a person who doesn't understand that an "A" grade is something to be proud of, and a "D" is something to be ashamed of.  Within the US educational context, the letter grades are clear.  A student who scores a 70 points on my AP Euro test gets an "A" (and, since AP grades get bumped an extra level for being AP grades, that is the equivelent of a 5.0 out of 4.0 in grade point average).  One who gets 40 points gets a C+ (which counts as a B+ towards the GPA) even though it is only 50% of the possible points.

Students who get only 50% of the points on a regular test of mine, though, get an F.  On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.

So, what matters to US students (and colleges, when it comes to college apps) is the average letter grade, not some percentage or arbitrary "70 points."  In canada, the letter grade system may not be well understood and the system that gave to "70 points" is well-understood, in which case that arbitrary system is the one to use.

So, raw numbers are pretty meaningless, absent some arbitrary system to give them meaning.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.

I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
The problem is that grades are a mix of the objective (some people actually do perform better than others and try harder), subjective, and purely arbitrary. They will never really be totally uniform no matter what system one uses.

For example - even assuming a teacher is totally objective and consistent, what exactly are they supposed to be measuring - Performance, or effort and improvement? Or a mix of both?

For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...


Thinking about it its the British system which is the strange, shitty odd one out.
70%+ = the top mark.
Then with all the other crap like only once chance to do anything it really messes things up.

But then the new Swedish system isn't much better.
98%+ is needed for a A. I prefer the old one with just G and VG.
And then there's some teachers who only give pass or fail even despite the new system- hence I have one E on my transcript (this being the lowest pass mark) :bleeding:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 08, 2009, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 05:42:42 AM
Quote from: Korea on May 07, 2009, 11:33:21 PM
I enjoyed it. It was a bit predictable in all the wrong places though. And the Romulans seemed like part dirty mexican/part mobster. I did not care for Captain Nero at all.
Really? I totally didn't expect the bad guys plan to be successful.

I was mainly talking about Spock and their solution to the problem and various other things through out the movie.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

In that context, it makes perfect sense though.

You cannot possibly grade a language class on a strictly relative scale if some of the people are starting off with a firm grasp of the language, and others have none. If the class level is appropriate for those who have none, then it is likely that those with a grasp are in the wrong class to begin with.

I dropped a Russian class for this exact reason. had about 30 people in the class (begining Russian for people with zero Russian), and it was taught by this grad student. About half or more of the class were obviously either native Russian speakers, or grew up in a home that spoke Russian, and the grad student taught at THEIR level. Lots of "Wow, you guys are really picking this up quickly! Lets move on!".

Mandatory language requirements for a bachelors of Science degree. Bull. Shit.

I dropped the class, and by the next semester they dropped the language requirements.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:26:33 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example - even assuming a teacher is totally objective and consistent, what exactly are they supposed to be measuring - Performance, or effort and improvement? Or a mix of both?
You reward behavior that you want repeated.  Generally speaking, this means effort more than it means outcome.  However, in AP Euro, my grades are 100% outcome-based because that is how the exam is graded.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:27:10 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM

Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

It totally depends on the teacher. Languages suffer from the problem that, more than most other subjects, people come to them with vastly different levels of expertise - often they attempt to solve this problem by having different levels of class (beginner, intermediate, advanced) but in many cases there is not the resources to have so many different classes - this severly discourages newbies (who can compete against those who already speak it?) unless marking has an element of "improvement" to it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
I would guess that 80% of my students get 100% grades on the geography tests, so I still end up passing out As like candy.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 09:30:56 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 06:51:01 AM
If you had bothered reading my post, you would have seen that I noted never having seen the 7-point scale before, and asked where you had gotten it (and the title of "Traditional US Grading Tutorial").  Whining that Tim may use a seven-point scale (when, in fact, he may not) isn't an answer to the question.

If you don't want to answer the question, fine.  But don't attribute your failure to answer on the argument that there was anything "incoherent" about:

1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."

Points 1 & 3. I made up the name, because I didn't know the formal names for them. Every public elementary school I've heard of in NJ, PA, and NY uses a combination of the 7-point scale and NS/S/E. Some of the private schools are switching to the CBGS format to try to show more As in testing.

Point 2. My last two jobs kept me in touch with a LOT of public school teachers and principals across the country, and my grandmother teaching in PA has been griping about the format change for almost a year now.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:33:07 AM
Harris Hill elementary school in Penfield, New York does not use a 7 point scale.

So now there is at least 1 that you have heard of that does not.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:38:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:26:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 08, 2009, 09:21:55 AM
QuoteFor example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others
Weird, I've never ran across that kind of grading since school. Which is a shame, would have helped my dabbles with languages...

In that context, it makes perfect sense though.

You cannot possibly grade a language class on a strictly relative scale if some of the people are starting off with a firm grasp of the language, and others have none. If the class level is appropriate for those who have none, then it is likely that those with a grasp are in the wrong class to begin with.

I dropped a Russian class for this exact reason. had about 30 people in the class (begining Russian for people with zero Russian), and it was taught by this grad student. About half or more of the class were obviously either native Russian speakers, or grew up in a home that spoke Russian, and the grad student taught at THEIR level. Lots of "Wow, you guys are really picking this up quickly! Lets move on!".

Mandatory language requirements for a bachelors of Science degree. Bull. Shit.

I dropped the class, and by the next semester they dropped the language requirements.

Heh it was kinda amusing in a sad sort of way to see a Chinese premed arguing angrily with the teacher - in Chinese - about getting a shittier mark in Chinese language than I; I could understand about one word in five of their argument.  :lol:

I think the problem was that these premeds were expected to take at least some non-med-related courses to be "well rounded". Naturally they chose stuff that they thought would be easy and devoted all their effort to their med-related courses, with the effect of pissing off the teachers of the courses they had chosen - taking Chinese when you already speak it, etc.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
Yeah that system sounds good. Just never encountered it.
Languages are indeed daft. I always wondered why you don't get more foreigners taking a class in their language for a easy A. Maybe they do raise the bar for them.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 09:49:24 AM
I wanted to argue that if they could fulfill their "language requirement" by taking Russian, I should be allowed to fill mine by taking English.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 08:18:07 AM
Students who get only 50% of the points on a regular test of mine, though, get an F.  On geography tests, if they only get 80% of the points that is also an F.
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Ed Anger on May 08, 2009, 09:58:41 AM
I like harassing my business and economics professors, back to school style.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 10:43:10 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 08, 2009, 09:30:56 AM

Quote1. "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale."

2. "Kinda curious where you got it from" or

3. "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US."

Points 1 & 3. I made up the name, because I didn't know the formal names for them. Every public elementary school I've heard of in NJ, PA, and NY uses a combination of the 7-point scale and NS/S/E. Some of the private schools are switching to the CBGS format to try to show more As in testing.
If you regard "I've never heard of the "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" (nor is it in google) nor have I ever (AFAICR) taken a course below college level that used anything like this scale" to be incoherent, then I suggest some remedial reading courses.  if the "incoherent' part was the phrase "Traditional US Grading Tutorial" then a remedial writing course is suggested, as well.

If you regard "This "modified" grading scale (it isn't a grading "method") is called the College Board Grading Scale and is used pretty much uniformly throughout the US" as incoherent, then you need that reading comprehension course.

How, i don't have time to look at a bunch of school systems in NY, NJ, and PA, so you may be right.  Evidence, however, is against you.  Of the http://www.fairgrade.org/Facts.aspx?cat=13 (http://www.fairgrade.org/Facts.aspx?cat=13) 44 "Top 100" high schools listed, 16 were in the states you listed as being knowledgeable about.  Four of the sixteen used non-standard grading scales.  Twleve of the sixteen used the grading scale I said was fairly universal in the US.  Zero used the grading scale you claimed that all of the schools you knew of used.  It is possible that you are just statistically unlucky in knowing only poor high schools, or it is possible that this sample (it isn't random) is not statistically significant, but it is also possible that you just made up your facts.

QuotePoint 2. My last two jobs kept me in touch with a LOT of public school teachers and principals across the country, and my grandmother teaching in PA has been griping about the format change for almost a year now.
Sorry about your grandma's discomfiture, but my job keeps me in touch with teachers, too, and most of them (and all of them in Florida, which has a state-mandated 10-point scale) disagree with your teachers.

So, I can match your anecdotes and stomp your stats.  Got anything else in your arnsenal, Mr. Reading Issues?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on May 08, 2009, 11:00:36 AM
I love seeing Carrot taken to task by grumbler...it is about time. :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 11:09:26 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

I'd rate it as B+.

Oh, wait ...  :lol:

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
I only teach some 60 sophomores.  They know where things are.  I cannot answer for any of the other several millions of sophomores, nor for non-sophomores.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Neil on May 08, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:27:53 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 09:54:38 AM
If American geography classes are so difficult, how come Americans don't know where anything is?
I only teach some 60 sophomores.  They know where things are.  I cannot answer for any of the other several millions of sophomores, nor for non-sophomores.
Perhaps you should expand your operations.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 11:09:26 AM
I'd rate it as B+.

Oh, wait ...  :lol:
The meanings of the letter grades are not actually in dispute (and they are used widely in Europe, as well, at least in the The European Credit Transfer System).

The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on May 08, 2009, 11:29:40 AM
Perhaps you should expand your operations.
What is funny is that my students universally enjoy the geography units, even the memorization, and get a great deal of satisfaction out of knowing that they don't fit the "geographics-challenged" label.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Korea on May 08, 2009, 11:59:22 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

I know!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:18:25 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.
If the first mission was assaulting enemy-held hilltops and the other was washing dishes, it wouldn't be funny to promote the first lieutenant ahead of the second one.   
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
Probably fewer than you think.  ;)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: BuddhaRhubarb on May 08, 2009, 12:20:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 09:28:38 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 08:24:57 AM
I've never had a teacher do that. Any that gave tests that easy were fine with passing out A's like candy.
I would guess that 80% of my students get 100% grades on the geography tests, so I still end up passing out As like candy.

This is heartening to hear that a big percentage of kids do well on Geography. I know a lot of young people who barely know where anyplace is anywhaere.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:27:31 PM
I was speaking to a teacher in SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies) who said that in their classes it's often the people with no experience who do best because they work harder, they often have little experience of the written language and they have less ingrained grammatical errors (if you speak Bengali at home you may not be speaking proper Bengali for example). 

He said a lot of native speakers are just that, they aren't able to write or read well in the language and they don't know the grammar but they can speak and talk very well.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:11:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 09:08:08 AM
For example, I once took Chinese language in university (bizzare idea I know, but I wanted a challenge). My class was filled with people who obviously knew at least some Chinese already (many of them premeds hoping for an easy mark). In terms of performance, they would easily score straight A's while I would work long hard hours to scrape even a passing grade - yet I consistently got better marks (much to their dismay): the teacher marked based on improvement, and since I started from nothing my improvement was vast compared to the others.
Bullshit. That would be funny if an Army Lieutenant got promoted because he began to get less of his men killed compared to another lieutenant that always achieved the mission with no casualties.

What if the first guy was leading a team composed entirely of deaf dumb and blind parapalegic children, and the second was leading a team of experienced US Marines?  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Yes, but 55% of what?  And how does that what compare to the what that gets and 80% (and therefor a B-, perhaps) in ECTS-speak?  If a school looks at a student with a 2:2 and one with a B- who are academically competing for a position, which student has performed better?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Because, according to Malthus's teacher, the latter salesman showed the most "improvement".
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 12:43:41 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 08, 2009, 12:16:25 PM
I think there might be some difference between grading in chinese classes and infantry combat.
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.

Actually - in a business way, I've seen exactly that happen.

Reason was - salesman #1's assigned territory was much more lucrative to begin with. Salesman #2 was assigned a difficult territory, to groom it. Salesman #2 therefore had the better achievement. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:43:46 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:39:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 12:36:34 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on May 08, 2009, 12:35:17 PM
M'kay. You hire two salesmen. One sells the maximum $100 in goods by the second week, having sold $90 the first week. A second only sells $70 in goods, but started off selling only $40. You promote the second salesman.
Why?
Because, according to Malthus's teacher, the latter salesman showed the most "improvement".
Nope.  It depends on too many other factors.

Suppose the salesman who sells $90 the first week and $100 the second week is simply selling to his relatives and expending little or no effort.  The salesman who sold $40 the first week and $70 the seond week is making cold calls.

An opening appears for a salesman in a new city.  Which salesman are you gonna send, Kemosabe?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 01:00:53 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2009, 12:29:31 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 11:38:14 AM
The whole British "First Class," "Second Class," etc system is the one I find hardest to fit into it.
At my uni a 3rd is over 40%, a 2:2 is over 50%, a 2:1 is over 60% and a first is 70%.  One of my tutors said he once gave someone's essay a 90, which is the highest mark he'd ever given, and recommended they send it to a journal.  It was published in the Dickens Quaterly Review.
Same at Newcastle. The highest I ever got was 86% and that was in a fairly basic maths course (i.e. there was definate right and wrong answers). 100% is probally only attainable if you cure all the world's problems with your work.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Cecil on May 08, 2009, 01:28:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.

As long as you get the borders it tends to be fairly managable unless you are to pinpoint the exact placement of the cities. Made one of those african online geography tests once without the borders....got a dissapointingly low score.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2009, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2009, 11:07:45 AM
Anybody still talking about Star Trek? I mean I find the intricacies of US grading exciting as all get out, but how about that movie?

Rotten Tomatoes now has it at 96%; 180 positive, and  8 negative.

Their Cream of the Crop has it at 91%; 30 positive, and 3 negative.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

Also, my step-grandmother had the same surname.  She's another one of my grandfather's cousins (though a second cousin this time).  :Embarrass:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on May 08, 2009, 01:34:22 PM
QuoteI'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
In university? :blink:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:34:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

Also, my step-grandmother had the same surname.  She's another one of my grandfather's cousins (though a second cousin this time).  :Embarrass:

Caliga has acquired the trait: inbred.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Malthus on May 08, 2009, 01:35:10 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:24:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 07:59:09 AM
My great grandmother's maiden name: LECRONE. :o

A crone in the family line? Neat.

One of my ancestresses was an actual real-live witch ... or at least, was accused of being one.

They allegedly tried to hang her, and failed - she lived.

Mary Webster, aka "Half-Hanged Mary"

http://faculty.uml.edu/bmarshall/Mary%20Webster.htm
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on May 08, 2009, 01:35:13 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 08, 2009, 01:34:23 PMCaliga has acquired the trait: inbred.

My grandather is merely trying to preserve his noble Pennsylvania Dutchman dynasty.  :cool:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Eddie Teach on May 08, 2009, 01:45:14 PM
Quote from: Cecil on May 08, 2009, 01:28:52 PM
As long as you get the borders it tends to be fairly managable unless you are to pinpoint the exact placement of the cities. Made one of those african online geography tests once without the borders....got a dissapointingly low score.

I agree, they're easy tests, but just saying there were a lot of kids in my class that struggled a bit.

@ Jos- 9th grade
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Yep.  Maps with the countries numbered.  You have to fill in country names and capitals on a separate sheet which just has the numbers.

Kids spend about two days per continent in class on this (mostly at sheppardsoftware.com) but a few nights on their own.  They tend to get competitive, and even give with learning issues enjoyed playing the computer games and racing each other for the perfect score in the least time.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on May 08, 2009, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 08, 2009, 02:34:36 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 08, 2009, 01:06:26 PM
I'm curious to what grumbler's geography quizzes entail. In my geography class we had blank maps where we had to label the countries and their capitals and there were a lot of students who couldn't get 80% and maybe 4 or 5 students would get hundreds.
Yep.  Maps with the countries numbered.  You have to fill in country names and capitals on a separate sheet which just has the numbers.

Kids spend about two days per continent in class on this (mostly at sheppardsoftware.com) but a few nights on their own.  They tend to get competitive, and even give with learning issues enjoyed playing the computer games and racing each other for the perfect score in the least time.

"300 quadlos on the fat Chinese kid with the spectacles."
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on May 14, 2022, 11:47:08 AM
....For general Star Trek stuff  :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on May 16, 2022, 09:42:41 PM
Started rewatching Deep Space Nine alongside my rewatch of TNG and man, that DS9 intro music is easily one of my favorite of all time. Definitely my favorite Star Trek intro music.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 03:02:17 AM
I watched DS9 for the first time* last year and I had a blast. Possibly my favorite Trek - although I've to find time to rewatch the best seasons/episodes of TNG.

*Only the first season aired originally in Spain
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 17, 2022, 12:03:03 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 03:02:17 AMI watched DS9 for the first time* last year and I had a blast. Possibly my favorite Trek - although I've to find time to rewatch the best seasons/episodes of TNG.

*Only the first season aired originally in Spain
Some of the TNG episodes were better, Voyager's two parters were often excellent, but as a whole, DS9 nailed them all.  It's like what B5 could have been with a budget :P 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 12:07:56 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 16, 2022, 09:42:41 PMStarted rewatching Deep Space Nine alongside my rewatch of TNG and man, that DS9 intro music is easily one of my favorite of all time. Definitely my favorite Star Trek intro music.

DS9 might be my favourite Trek, but the opening music was too slow, and played for too long.

My dark horse candidate for best Star Trek intro music?  Lower Decks. :ph34r:

Discovery and TNG are pretty decent as well.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 04:02:10 PM
No love for the original theme? It definitely wears its sixtiesness on its sleeve, but has lots of charm.

Anyway, TNG is my favorite, but a very big reason is because it's the Trek I grew up with.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 04:02:10 PMNo love for the original theme?

Anyway, TNG is my favorite, but a very big reason is because it's the Trek I grew up with.

The first bit, the original spoken word, together with the first few notes, can bring chills.

But then it goes into this weird wordless vocal bit that goes all over the place.

Hard to separate what you grew up with, so maybe I'm trying to hard to do so by mentioning Lower Decks and Disco.  TNG is good too, but maybe too bright, too much fanfare?


And there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PMAnd there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?



For reference:

https://youtu.be/pmQsrXLofMY
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on May 17, 2022, 06:43:17 PM
I like Cel's opening.

this one is good too, except the music :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfbsZRbwbJ4
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 04, 2022, 09:24:53 AM
Discovery has become a hate watch for me. We watch it just to make fun. Just saw the episode where tilly leads some cadets.
Man it seemed so sure it was a setup until the throwaway guy died. And even after that... Just.... Dumb dumb dumb.

The sad thing is some people out there are saying discovery sucks because of teh woke. Not just because it has gotten awful. I really did like series 1 but it has been quite a steep decline.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:41:01 PM
I just finished getting current on Discovery the other day.

I guess I would say overall I liked it, but each season was worse than the one before it, IMO.  I really liked the Klingon focus on season 1.  Also, they kept killing off/removing the best actors, like Jason Isaacs and Michelle Yeoh.

I don't mind how woke Discovery is, and I kind of liked the Adira/Grey Tal characters.  Also, why does Burnham whisper like every other line?  My wife would not stop complaining about that  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:42:48 PM
Quote from: celedhring on May 17, 2022, 05:21:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 17, 2022, 04:07:46 PMAnd there's no contest for worst Trek theme song, right?



For reference:

https://youtu.be/pmQsrXLofMY
I liked ENT's song  :Embarrass:

The Rod Stewart version is way better than the one they recorded for the show, though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tonitrus on June 10, 2022, 12:26:13 AM
I like it too.  :sleep:

But I will concede it feels a little out of place.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:14:11 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 09, 2022, 09:41:01 PMI just finished getting current on Discovery the other day.

I guess I would say overall I liked it, but each season was worse than the one before it, IMO.  I really liked the Klingon focus on season 1.  Also, they kept killing off/removing the best actors, like Jason Isaacs and Michelle Yeoh.

I don't mind how woke Discovery is, and I kind of liked the Adira/Grey Tal characters.  Also, why does Burnham whisper like every other line?  My wife would not stop complaining about that  :lol:

For all its flaws I actually like Discovery. I think it tends to be overly (melo)dramatic and tries to be heavy on emotional scenes, but rarely pulls it off really well. And its seasons are always built around a huge existential threat to either the Federation or all life in the galaxy which is a bit silly. I was glad about the reboot in S3, and giving Michael a year off screen to loosen up a lot before rejoining the crew. S3 started great, but had a weak second half. I thought S4 had a good second half after a weaker first half. S2 remains the best IMO, though.


SNW Ep. 6 was decent, but IMHO the weakest of the bunch so far. It does the trope of one has to suffer for all to prosper that you can see coming from a mile away, and while I liked that it ended darker than Trek often does (reminded me of the early Orville episode about Bortus's kid in that regard), it left me overall a bit "eh." I did like the La'an/Uhura stuff, though. Maybe that's why it felt weaker - in just a few episodes, I like the characters already a lot, and episodes that shift focus away from them then seem to lack some of that "magic", maybe?

Not many shows make you root for or get attached to most (all?) main characters quite so quickly. The cast seem to have incredible chemistry. In sci-fi Firefly comes to mind for me. I think even Farscape took longer for me to actually like all of the main cast, but it started from the premise of prisoners on the run and everyone being suspicious of each other. Aeryn was quite insufferable at the start (but that was kinda the point). :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:21:55 AM
Oh, and one complaint about modern Trek that stood out again in some scenes for me on this episode: their overuse of camera cranes for "dynamic shots" - I mean all the times the scenes start at or go through Dutch or upside down angles and rotates around the characters, even where there's literally nothing going on that might warrant it.

Also, little detail - I watched this episode in 2160p and noticed a detail I hadn't seen before. The Starfleet uniforms feature tiny service symbols in the fabric of their shoulders. So Pike and #1 have the "star" command symbol, Uhura the operations symbol etc. It's silly and dumb, but I love it. :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E-2tRh1UYAUiZCY.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FM82-1WXIAMh5nl?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2573/6178/products/StarTrekStrangeNewWorldsCaptainPikeGoldUniformsStartfleetBlueRedTopShirts_12_1024x1024.jpg?v=1648886222)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 10, 2022, 08:48:52 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 10, 2022, 01:14:11 AMFor all its flaws I actually like Discovery. I think it tends to be overly (melo)dramatic and tries to be heavy on emotional scenes, but rarely pulls it off really well. And its seasons are always built around a huge existential threat to either the Federation or all life in the galaxy which is a bit silly. I was glad about the reboot in S3, and giving Michael a year off screen to loosen up a lot before rejoining the crew. S3 started great, but had a weak second half. I thought S4 had a good second half after a weaker first half. S2 remains the best IMO, though.
The 'huge existential threat' is something you see in most sci-fi/fantasy, so it doesn't bother me too much, but I prefer more episodic formats like TOS, TNG, etc. where obviously you can't do something like that.

I also discovered the other day that the old nerd psychologist guy in the future is David Cronenberg. :cool: I also liked Stacey Abram's cameo.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 10, 2022, 10:30:34 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2022, 08:48:52 AMI also discovered the other day that the old nerd psychologist guy in the future is David Cronenberg. :cool: I also liked Stacey Abram's cameo.

Yeah, that was interesting. Cronenberg in Star Trek is almost as "out there" as Werner Herzog in Star Wars. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Caliga on June 14, 2022, 04:04:25 PM
Picard > Discovery.

That is all.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 16, 2022, 06:10:50 AM
Ok, this episode of Strange New Worlds was ... something. :lol: I didn't hate it, but it had a lot of "WTF am I even watching?" moments after its pretty standard first act or so. Towards the end, though, I realized that the episode, its tone and antics, and its over the top scenery chewing antagonist would have fit in quite perfectly with the original series (or maybe even better with the animated show).

When they showed Pike at the helm of the pirate ship standing behind an old fashioned wheel like on a sailing ship I groaned and rolled my eyes and laughed because ... yeah, it was that seemed quite appropriate for the episode.

If this had been an episode with Kirk, Scotty, McCoy etc., it would not have been out of place a single bit. I guess that's praise?  :hmm: :D

Plus there's the ending where I thought, "Whoa, we're *really* going there?"
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 07:53:06 AM
It's definitely trying to imitate the original series.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2022, 12:21:09 PM
Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2022, 06:10:50 AMWhen they showed Pike at the helm of the pirate ship standing behind an old fashioned wheel like on a sailing ship 

They had inspiration.
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/4be561f7-178d-46ea-a4c5-056d15df1b0d/d7g7i1m-2a4ed302-f86c-4ae9-b254-f946626bbdbf.png/v1/fill/w_751,h_1064,q_70,strp/albator_78_by_niiii_link_d7g7i1m-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9MTEwMCIsInBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzRiZTU2MWY3LTE3OGQtNDZlYS1hNGM1LTA1NmQxNWRmMWIwZFwvZDdnN2kxbS0yYTRlZDMwMi1mODZjLTRhZTktYjI1NC1mOTQ2NjI2YmJkYmYucG5nIiwid2lkdGgiOiI8PTc3NyJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.sNECBIQv30pbPgu2CXkllMobrm9h9tloG8lnzuTIoX4)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 08:38:54 PM
Most recent episode was pretty good. Liked the villain
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on June 19, 2022, 08:11:15 PM
I feel like this show is putting out bangers every week. Loving it.

And yeah that cut to Pike at the helm of an old sailing wheel was  :lol: Great stuff
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 20, 2022, 01:27:24 AM
In case people were wondering if the villain enjoyed her role:

(https://i.postimg.cc/fLP7rmWq/image.png)

:cool:

It goes back to what I mentioned above - the cast seems to have so much fun with this show, and have really good chemistry (something that TNG took a while to reach IMO). Now, I'm generally wary of shows and movies trading on nostalgia, but this one is nailing it so far and adding much needed levity. I enjoy Discovery for the most part, but it can often feel quite joyless and taking itself too seriously. SNW seems more inspired by the success of The Orville and Lower Decks (though obviously toning down the latter's over the top humor and antics).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 20, 2022, 05:55:53 AM
See up until now I did not notice that villain was trans
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 20, 2022, 08:29:37 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 16, 2022, 08:38:54 PMMost recent episode was pretty good. Liked the villain
It could have been a little less predictable.  You could basically guess the plot by the first 5 minutes of the show, and the more it went on, the more you knew what would happen.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 21, 2022, 04:01:57 PM
Continuing to watch discovery with its boring worm hole of doom plot.

Seems its artificial! And some guy (a risan who doesn't fit in. I do like that) has an idea for an experiment to test how it works by creating a miniature.

But... At the same time the worm hole is off to eat a colony of 2000 people.

Do they do the sensible thing and wait a few hours till the rescue is done before doing their experiment, maybe doing it on an abandoned planet with lots of power and no people?
Do they hell.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on June 22, 2022, 12:25:53 PM
I also thought the villain was great, with their own motivations that actually made sense.  I also thought it was especially great that the trans actor was treated as another actor and the show runners didn't hit us over the head with the fact that they are trans (unlike Discovery).

This has become my favourite Sci fi show, by far.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on June 23, 2022, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2022, 12:25:53 PMThis has become my favourite Sci fi show, by far.


Mine too. This show is genuinely good. It's only been a handful of episodes but I feel like I've seen these characters for years. Great acting and chemistry, solid writing and characterization, and interesting stories. Feels good to be watching some good star treks man.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 25, 2022, 06:51:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2022, 12:25:53 PMI also thought the villain was great, with their own motivations that actually made sense.  I also thought it was especially great that the trans actor was treated as another actor and the show runners didn't hit us over the head with the fact that they are trans (unlike Discovery).



Yeah like I said I didn't realize she..they... was trans.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 25, 2022, 06:55:36 AM
Yeah, this is becoming my second favourite Trek (yes, it's too early to call) after STNG. It's not taking itself as seriously as some of the other Treks; the last episode, for instance, dealt with a fairly serious topic (father/daughter) and turned it into a good old fashioned farce. Watching Mount go off character as a coward was fun.

The other thing they're doing, fairly quickly, is not allowing this show to be all about Pike/Spock and supporting characters. There have been storylines drawn around the other characters, so as someone just said, it's like we know the characters very well (although I think we need more of that female doctor/nurse).

And the characters aren't annoying like the majority of the characters on Discovery are.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 26, 2022, 12:11:30 PM
Really liked the latest episode. The costumes were awesome, and the actors switching up their game was hilarious. :D Really liked La'an as prissy, well, princess, and Spock as jerk wizard. :lol:

Eagle eyed viewers caught a DS9 easter egg:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWGy1ZfWQAAifty?format=jpg&name=large)

Benny Russel was Avery Brooks' character in the DS9 episode Beyond the Stars in which he is a black sci-fi writer in the 50s.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: grumbler on June 26, 2022, 06:15:16 PM
Any sightings of the Oscillation Overthruster?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 27, 2022, 01:18:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2022, 06:15:16 PMAny sightings of the Oscillation Overthruster?
It might have been in the first season of Star Trek Picard...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 30, 2022, 09:09:37 PM
Hmm, I don't like what they done with the gorn. Basically aliensTM with predator sight and speech impediment. Hard to imagine cannibalistic little rage monsters building up the society and technology to become space fairing.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 01, 2022, 12:51:26 AM
Yeah, last episode had a lot of Aliens call backs (chest bursters, child survivor, the heroine who's seen it all before ...). But I guess they live up to their name now. :P

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Gorn
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 01, 2022, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 30, 2022, 09:09:37 PMHmm, I don't like what they done with the gorn. Basically aliensTM with predator sight and speech impediment. Hard to imagine cannibalistic little rage monsters building up the society and technology to become space fairing.
Only the strongest survive.  If they get 4 hatchlings out of every victims, they would reproduce way too quickly for the resources at their disposal.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 07, 2022, 07:33:43 PM
Nice little nostalgia episode that didn't seem too forced. I mean all nostalgia trips are a bit forced, but this one did a good job of still being entertaining.

Also, today I learned that Anson  shares his name with his older brother. Poor guy got George Foremaned.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on July 07, 2022, 08:57:57 PM
Really solid episode of Star Trekking

I didn't believe at the start of this series that an entire season of New Trek could consist of bangers but this series was banger after banger after banger.

Need season 2 NOW. I miss 24-episode long seasons.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on July 07, 2022, 09:26:32 PM
Also really happy they brought back the greatest Starfleet uniforms, the maroons
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on July 08, 2022, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 07, 2022, 08:57:57 PMReally solid episode of Star Trekking

I didn't believe at the start of this series that an entire season of New Trek could consist of bangers but this series was banger after banger after banger.

Need season 2 NOW. I miss 24-episode long seasons.


Agreed!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 08, 2022, 06:32:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 30, 2022, 09:09:37 PMHmm, I don't like what they done with the gorn. Basically aliensTM with predator sight
the predator sight was done in Enterprise, IIRC.  The episode "In a Mirror Darkly, part II".
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 08, 2022, 06:34:19 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on July 07, 2022, 08:57:57 PMReally solid episode of Star Trekking

I didn't believe at the start of this series that an entire season of New Trek could consist of bangers but this series was banger after banger after banger.

Need season 2 NOW. I miss 24-episode long seasons.
It would have been 10 great episodes interspaced with 2 average ones, 8 mediocre ones and 4 stories about a holodeck/transporter malfunction.

Better have 10 no-fillers episodes. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on July 08, 2022, 06:51:29 PM
That's fair  :lol:

Although I'm one of the weirdos who enjoyed the silly holodeck episodes from TNG and DS9
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 09, 2022, 06:05:09 AM
Does anyone know which episode of the OS, this last episode was based on? I wanna watch it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 09, 2022, 06:06:51 AM
Quote from: Josephus on July 09, 2022, 06:05:09 AMDoes anyone know which episode of the OS, this last episode was based on? I wanna watch it.

Balance of terror. Not a real TOS fan, but it's a really good episode.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 09, 2022, 06:58:32 AM
It's heavily inspired by "The Enemy Below" in which a US destroyer and a German submarine square off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Enemy_Below

It's in many Top 10 Best TOS Episodes lists, and with good reason.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 09, 2022, 07:36:36 AM
I thought it was an excellent "What If" episode, capping off a very good season. Some of Trek's best episodes come from alternate scenarios and timelines (Yesterday's Enterprise, many of the Mirror Universe episodes, Trials & Tribble-ations, Year in Hell ...), and it was interesting to see Pike's "Let's seek dialogue" approach leading to catastrophe as opposed to how Kirk's more aggressive actions resolved the scenario in the prime timeline with a better long term outcome. Reminded me a bit of the dicks/pussies/assholes speech from Team America - sometimes you need a dick to fuck the assholes and put them back in their place. :P It also reminded me a bit of the pilot for Discovery, where Michael insisted on showing strength towards the Klingons.

The Romulans seemed a bit 2-dimensional in this, unfortunately, but it also makes sense in terms of the story. Balance of Terror was a tight cat and mouse game, between two (relatively) chivalrous opponents. Quality of Mercy's focus was about Pike's path and decisions and coming to terms with his "intended" fate. The epilogue also sets up nicely why Spock feels so strongly about getting him help once he's in the beepy chair.

When I saw Paul Wesley as Jim Kirk I was skeptical at first. But I felt he channeled Kirk's character quite well. He's more brash, impulsive and would rather take action now than sit on his butt, whereas Pike first deliberates carefully, but he's also a team player.

Some side notes.

Engineer with Scottish accent ... teaser for Season 2? :P The voice was credited as "Engineer" and was provided by Matthew Wolf: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0937869/?ref_=m_ttfcd_cl23

Was I the only one who thought future Pike looked a bit like George Clooney? :hmm:

I also struggled to take the Romulan commander very seriously at first, because ... well ...

(https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Strange-New-Worlds-Romulan-Commander.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/c7/d9/8ec7d9681aad5d9b4b03a7bccf0be7d8.jpg)

I was also way too happy, when this music kicked in:


Cliffhanger ending for the episode. Let's see where this goes. La'an is also gone, I guess? She brings Newt the girl from last episode home, and she signs up on the Farragut in the future, so she may not be a regular after this? Hemmer is obviously no longer around :( , Uhura has technically finished her tour on board for now, and we know she will return, but I guess she's back at the academy? And then there's Una who is now detained. Makes me wonder what kind of cast the next season will have.

Overall a very good first season. They managed to make the crew both very likeable and the cast worked great together.  The recasts of familiar characters all worked well for me (and it's kind of fun to see two Majel Barrett characters - Nurse Chapel and Number One - on the screen at the same time :D ). Firefly was another show that managed to make me care about its crew in a very limited (for the time) number of episodes. It's probably no coincidence that the tone of both shows is more humorous and lighthearted. A main cast who can have fun with each other are easier to connect with than one that's constantly serious and melodramatic (*cough* Discovery *cough*).

If I had one complaint it would be that the show plays it very safe - I'm not blaming them; they trade high on nostalgia (as does Lower Decks a lot of the time, as much as I love it), and much of the show feels like fan service after the reserved reactions to Picard and Discovery. The other shows tried something new, and the fandom was disappointed, so they take very few risks on this one.

I've been watching SNW and Orville in parallel these last few weeks. I enjoy both, but the shift in tones is weird. Orville started as "TNG but with - Seth MacFarlane's - humor", and this season so far has mostly been serving up character drama with very little humor (not complaining! well a bit: the episodes at 1h feel too stretched out and 45 min might be better; and the last few episodes were, "hey , remember the thing from S1 or 2?"). Meanwhile, SNW's tone feels more like half way between Orville S1 and 3. It's an odd juxtaposition to me.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 09, 2022, 08:51:29 AM
Here's something I didn't understand. Why were they all surprised to see that Romulans looked like Vulcans. I understand they haven't come across each other in 100 years but....didn't they have photography? I can spot Napoleon in a crowd, though  no one alive has actually met him.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 09, 2022, 01:40:24 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 09, 2022, 07:36:36 AMEngineer with Scottish accent ... teaser for Season 2? :P The voice was credited as "Engineer" and was provided by Matthew Wolf: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0937869/?ref_=m_ttfcd_cl23
Not yet.  That was 7 years into the future.

He's not joining the Enterprise until some 5-6 years from now. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on July 11, 2022, 04:30:06 PM
I do believe this made my day:

https://www.vesselfinder.com/vessels/KOBAYASHI-MARU-IMO-9847011-MMSI-538008176


(https://static.vesselfinder.net/ship-photo/9847011-538008176-b6e25588c962b9d2babcc86dc819e4d9/1?)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2022, 06:13:44 AM
In case anyone wants to watch all live action Star Trek in chronological order, here's a list:

http://thestartrekchronologyproject.blogspot.com/2009/09/and-now-conclusion.html

I notice the Kelvin timeline movies are slotted after Nemesis - I guess it makes sense, since the timeline is branched off due to events happening after that movie (Spock trying to save Romulus and failing).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2022, 06:14:19 AM
I guess the depressing(?) bit is, I've watched all of that at some point in my life. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 24, 2022, 06:54:40 PM
Shatner channels old man energy, rants about star trek

https://www.ign.com/articles/william-shatner-goes-off-on-star-trek-gene-roddenberry-would-be-turning-in-his-grave?amp=1

Also has strong opinion on star wars. Like amrk hamil though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: jimmy olsen on July 28, 2022, 08:45:32 PM
Best of the nuTreks are going to cross over

https://gizmodo.com/comic-con-star-trek-strange-new-worlds-lower-decks-cros-1849220840

QuoteStar Trek: Strange New Worlds and Star Trek: Lower Decks Will Have a Crossover Episode (Really!)

It's an all-out Trek mania, as The Next Generation's Jonathan Frakes will direct the live-action/animation hybrid.

ByJames Whitbrook

Star Trek's been making some pretty bold moves in its current ascendant era of shows, but it's just announced it's pulling one of its boldest, most bonkers moves so far: Lower Decks is teaming up with Strange New Worlds.

Just announced at San Diego Comic-Con, in Strange New Worlds' second season—which already has enough on its Trek plate to deal with thanks to the return of Captain Kirk! Again!—will feature a Jonathan Frakes-directed crossover between Trek's newest show and its animated darling, Lower Decks. Although we don't know how they're going to show up a century in the past yet (it's Star Trek, it won't be that hard), Jack Quaid and Tawny Newsome will reprise their Lower Decks roles as Ensigns Bomiler and Mariner, announcing the news after crashing almost literally into Anson Mount's appearance at the Star Trek Universe panel this afternoon.

Quaid and Newsome will be voicing their roles, rather than physically starring as live-action versions of their Lower Decks heroes, too: the special episode will feature a hybrid of live-action and animation to make one of the most unlikely of Star Trek team-ups to ever happen, well, actually happen.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has yet to be given a return date for its sophomore season; meanwhile Star Trek: Lower Decks will return to Paramount+ on August 25. We'll bring you more on Trek's plans to smush the two together as and when we learn them.


Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 11:57:41 AM
Anyone watching Lowed Decks Season 3?

First two episodes have been great.

But what I really like is how each episode is jam-packed with call-backs and easter-eggs, they're actually doing some character development for our animated heroes.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on September 08, 2022, 03:00:44 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 11:57:41 AMAnyone watching Lowed Decks Season 3?

First two episodes have been great.

But what I really like is how each episode is jam-packed with call-backs and easter-eggs, they're actually doing some character development for our animated heroes.
Watched the first episode, it was hilarious.  Will watch 2nd one tonight.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on September 08, 2022, 08:16:12 PM
Thanks, forgot it was back. Until SNW lower decks was the best trek since DS9
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on October 07, 2022, 11:08:17 PM
Latest Lower Decks was great.  The return of Peanut Hamper!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on October 08, 2022, 12:34:01 AM
it was good, but weakest so far. ending cameo was great though
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on October 13, 2022, 05:55:45 AM
This week's episode was better than last week's. I don't like Peanut Hamper (or rather the bratty valley girl affectation), and half of last week's episode was "WTF am I watching?", and the bait & switch on her redemption left me more annoyed than amused. It had funny moments, but it also felt more like an 80s Saturday morning cartoon episode, overall.

This week's episode was better, as said, but didn't reach the highs of e.g. the DS9 episode, or Reflections. It was very meta, making tons of references to the Trek movies, but also how fans like/hate certain parts of the franchise. It was very on the nose, but still amusing. And of course deliberate callbacks to the original cast movies, esp. Motion Picture, Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home, Final Frontier, and Generations (and possibly First Contact with the Octopus/Algae dialogue?), and of course "These are the Voyages" from Enterprise (founding of the Federation).

Loved that they called the one planet Tatasciore IX, Fred Tatasciore being a prolific voice actor who also voices Shaxs.

Anyone recognize the voice of the Section 31 officer at the end? :unsure: And it seems they really lean into the conspiracy stuff now between Will Boimler and Rutherford's backstory. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on October 20, 2022, 05:12:54 AM
So, uhm ... Starbase 80 is basically crewed by the guys from Carpenter's Dark Star, it seems? :lol:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfgS9xXWIAomFoJ?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://www.fatosdesconhecidos.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/arton7110-1450x800-c-600x331.jpg)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on November 07, 2022, 08:31:08 AM
Yet to finish the most recent series of Discovery though my GF has confirmed she has no interest in Picard so I've started series 2 when she isn't around.
Understandable she wouldn't be that bothered considering how mediocre S1 was, only really being one for the long-term fans with all its fanservice, and Discovery's quality.
S2 of Picard however...halfway through now and holy poo, this is actually good.  :blink:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on December 30, 2022, 07:32:53 AM
Season 1 of Star Trek: Prodigy has concluded, at 20 episodes one of the longer outings of ... well, any show these days. :P

I'm gonna go and say: this is one of the best first seasons of a Star Trek show. SNW is better, but I think it has Discovery beat, easily.

That said - the first five or six episodes were difficult to sit through. They made the main character so incredibly unlikable that when the show went on break half way through the first half of the season I wasn't sure if I would come back to it.

I'm glad I did, and the character does fortunately get redeemed, making for a satisfying arc.

This is very much a "for all ages" show, aimed at a younger audience and also trying to onboard new viewers, so you get some exposition about tech and cultures. But while has an overall more positive outlook, but also deals with some heavier subjects. And a main focus is a bunch of very different characters coming together as a team and maturing.

But once the exposition gets out of the way, around the mid-season two part finale, it really takes off.

It has strong Star Wars: Rebels energy, and some of the episodes are just really good Trek episodes. Overall it's a mix of overarching plot and stand-alones, but it all ties together (the occasional plot hole notwithstanding).

The animation is gorgeous, the voice cast is great (John Noble :wub: ), and while it doesn't feature as many easter eggs as Lower Decks, it has a fair amount of nostalgia.

It also has a decent mystery set at its core (what happened to Chakotay and the original crew of the Protostar and what led to the events that drove the Big Bad).

I'm really glad I gave this another chance. I put it up together with SNW and LD as my favorite new Trek.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on January 16, 2023, 01:10:53 PM
Carol Kane will be the new chief engineer on SNW. :wub:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FminSC0XEAUQ8Du?format=jpg&name=large)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on January 16, 2023, 01:15:22 PM
I love Carol Kane - but she's pretty ancient at this point (yup - 70 years old).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on January 16, 2023, 01:44:20 PM
Hopefully there'll be a hallucination scene where she beats pike with random objects.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2023, 08:33:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2023, 01:15:22 PMI love Carol Kane - but she's pretty ancient at this point (yup - 70 years old).
Younger than I would have thought.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on January 20, 2023, 05:21:32 AM
Slowly watching through strange new worlds.
I haven't seen all of TOS so it's hard to know when stuff is meant to be a prequel for that vs just having a weird open ending.
Just finished an episode about aliens somehow living on a volcano world (is it their home world or...?) with a child sacrifice machine. Really feels like a prequel. No ending. Apparently not however.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tonitrus on January 21, 2023, 10:57:45 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on January 19, 2023, 08:33:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2023, 01:15:22 PMI love Carol Kane - but she's pretty ancient at this point (yup - 70 years old).
Younger than I would have thought.


I would hope, by ST's time, technology would make 70 the new 30.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on February 10, 2023, 08:25:54 AM
https://trekmovie.com/2023/02/10/spoiler-free-review-the-final-season-of-star-trek-picard-sticks-the-landing/

Picard season 3 is supposedly actually really good. The "Undiscovered Country" for the TNG era.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on February 10, 2023, 11:04:57 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 10, 2023, 08:25:54 AMhttps://trekmovie.com/2023/02/10/spoiler-free-review-the-final-season-of-star-trek-picard-sticks-the-landing/

Picard season 3 is supposedly actually really good. The "Undiscovered Country" for the TNG era.

Undiscovered Country is perhaps my favourite Trek movie, so that's high praise.

But the review is also on trekmovie.com - hardly unbiased.

I kind of liked season 1, but didn't even bother to watch season 2.  So we'll see.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on February 10, 2023, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2023, 11:04:57 AMI kind of liked season 1, but didn't even bother to watch season 2.  So we'll see.

Good for you, season 2 was possibly the worst season of TV Trek I've ever watched. And I've only missed Enterprise.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on February 10, 2023, 12:09:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 10, 2023, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on February 10, 2023, 11:04:57 AMI kind of liked season 1, but didn't even bother to watch season 2.  So we'll see.

Good for you, season 2 was possibly the worst season of TV Trek I've ever watched. And I've only missed Enterprise.


The most recent season of Discovery holds that accolade.
It lost its course towards the end but series 2 of Picard was pretty good, beat series 1.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on February 10, 2023, 01:47:32 PM
Both seasons one and two had their good moments and their not-so-good moments. I actually preferred two to one. But I look forward to three.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 10:48:41 AM
Well?

Good start. Looking forward to this season.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on February 17, 2023, 11:33:46 AM
Quote from: Josephus on February 10, 2023, 01:47:32 PMBoth seasons one and two had their good moments and their not-so-good moments. I actually preferred two to one. But I look forward to three.

Agreed.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on February 17, 2023, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 10:48:41 AMWell?

Good start. Looking forward to this season.
Indeed.
But Jonathan Frakes' acting bothers me more than during TNG's run.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2023, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 10:48:41 AMWell?

Good start. Looking forward to this season.
Indeed.
But Jonathan Frakes' acting bothers me more than during TNG's run.


Yes. You want to smack that silly grin off him.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on February 17, 2023, 08:46:22 PM
Captain Shaw is the best Starfleet captain since Jellicoe.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on February 18, 2023, 05:17:24 AM
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 05:59:51 PM
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2023, 04:21:13 PM
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 10:48:41 AMWell?

Good start. Looking forward to this season.
Indeed.
But Jonathan Frakes' acting bothers me more than during TNG's run.


Yes. You want to smack that silly grin off him.

Yep

Quote from: FunkMonk on February 17, 2023, 08:46:22 PMCaptain Shaw is the best Starfleet captain since Jellicoe.

And yep

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on February 19, 2023, 03:23:59 AM
First episode of Picard season 3 is what I expected the show would be when they first announced it. Getting the band together for one last ride.

The whole scenario of "elder statesman yearning for the old days and a last adventure now that he sees his life at an end" would work so much better if the previous 2 seasons hadn't already happened, though.

I sorta dug it, anyway. Although I've always liked the first eps of the previous 2 shows and then everything turned into a mess.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on February 19, 2023, 04:05:24 AM
For me it helps to just forget about the first two seasons and pretend they never happened. Sort of like how I pretend the star wars sequel trilogy never happened.  :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on February 19, 2023, 06:56:12 AM
Yeah, forget the first two seasons. I mean Picard is dead, right? I never quite understand. His consciousness was put into another aging body?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on February 19, 2023, 08:51:45 AM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 19, 2023, 04:05:24 AMFor me it helps to just forget about the first two seasons and pretend they never happened. Sort of like how I pretend the star wars sequel trilogy never happened.  :D

 :yes:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on February 19, 2023, 09:44:57 AM
Quote from: Josephus on February 19, 2023, 06:56:12 AMYeah, forget the first two seasons. I mean Picard is dead, right? I never quite understand. His consciousness was put into another aging body?

Thanks, I had completely forgotten about that dumb twist at the end of S1  :lol:

We killed Picard! Shock!
But no, he's alive again! He's a robot now! Except he's getting still getting old and shit!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on February 19, 2023, 12:52:07 PM
This is a world where nobody questions the obvious akcually question on teleportation.
I think a body transfer doesn't count as dead.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on February 28, 2023, 11:06:08 AM
Episode 2 was fun. Again, lots of nonsensical stuff like Picard pulling rank at the end. Wasn't he retired? Why didn't he do it when they first boarded the ship?

Also, putting his own feelings before the welfare of the crew seems a bit un-Picard, but that ship sailed in season 1 and by this time has probably sank at Cape Horn.

Best things so far are Cpt Shaw and Amanda Plummer chewing scenery as hard as she chews her cigar.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on February 28, 2023, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 28, 2023, 11:06:08 AMBest things so far are Cpt Shaw and Amanda Plummer chewing scenery as hard as she chews her cigar.
Yes, she is a great actress.  And the first time in Star Trek where Jean-Luc Picard is pronounced without an English accent.  Amazing!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 02, 2023, 10:23:45 PM
Discovery is pushed back to 2024 for additional filming and it will be its last season.
Link (https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/star-trek-discovery-final-season-5-paramount-plus-premiere-date-2024-1235541321/)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 03, 2023, 11:38:51 AM
I used to like Gates McFadden, back in the day, but oh....that facelift...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 03, 2023, 11:48:01 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 03, 2023, 11:38:51 AMI used to like Gates McFadden, back in the day, but oh....that facelift...

She's in her mid 70s, don't think your crush would have survived this long, facelift or no :D

She still has great acting chemistry with Patrick Stewart though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Darth Wagtaros on March 03, 2023, 12:00:11 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 02, 2023, 10:23:45 PMDiscovery is pushed back to 2024 for additional filming and it will be its last season.
Link (https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/star-trek-discovery-final-season-5-paramount-plus-premiere-date-2024-1235541321/)
They should replace it with The Orville.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: PRC on March 03, 2023, 05:27:07 PM
I watched the first season of Picard, and while I enjoyed some aspects of it and the production value, overall I found the plot and writing a total disappointment.  Season two I only caught an episode of so can't comment on that.  So far in season three I am once again enjoying the production value, but find the writing to be abysmal and the acting (other than Captain Shaw) to once again be unsatisfying.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 04, 2023, 03:09:28 AM
Episode 3 was enjoyable, Again fell on a bit too much pseudo-emotional claptrap. I wish modern Stat Trek found writers capable of conveying human emotion and character outside of long-winded speeches (Shaw works perfectly as a character without dopey monologues about his past).

The cat and mouse space scenes were decent, although the conflict between Riker and Picard felt a bit forced. Still, this feels more like old Star Trek brought up to modern sensibilities than the previous seasons were.

Also, the Dominion coming back is cheap nostalgia, but this is a Picard show, so nostalgia is the main play and that's fine. I would certainly not objet to Jeffrey Combs popping up in this.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: mongers on March 04, 2023, 10:50:24 AM
So what is the Star Trek episode/film that early on features the original warp drive inventor lauching an improvised space craft from his forest/wilderness workshop/house?

Because thats as far as I got with the franchise and am considering picking up from that spot. :whistle:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 04, 2023, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 04, 2023, 10:50:24 AMSo what is the Star Trek episode/film that early on features the original warp drive inventor lauching an improvised space craft from his forest/wilderness workshop/house?

Because thats as far as I got with the franchise and am considering picking up from that spot. :whistle:

Star Trek: First Contact (movie)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: mongers on March 04, 2023, 10:59:02 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 04, 2023, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: mongers on March 04, 2023, 10:50:24 AMSo what is the Star Trek episode/film that early on features the original warp drive inventor lauching an improvised space craft from his forest/wilderness workshop/house?

Because thats as far as I got with the franchise and am considering picking up from that spot. :whistle:

Star Trek: First Contact (movie)

Most excellent celedhring, thank you for the swift answer. :cheers:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 04, 2023, 12:40:57 PM
It was well received at the time, but not my favorite Trek movie. I have always disliked the character of the Borg Queen, it undermined the idea of a Collective just to give the audiences a traditional villain.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AM
I thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 07, 2023, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AMI thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
More like he has no faith in his ship.  The fact that Picard acted to save his son rather than his crew would also weigh on him, but not as much as Shaw's incompetence of not leaving when he had a chance.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tamas on March 07, 2023, 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2023, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AMI thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
More like he has no faith in his ship.  The fact that Picard acted to save his son rather than his crew would also weigh on him, but not as much as Shaw's incompetence of not leaving when he had a chance.


Yeah I can attribute it to Riker mentioning "this is not the Enterprise", so no too bad.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 10, 2023, 06:21:01 AM
I love Captain Shaw, but it is super-weird they have given him pretty much the same backstory as Ben Sisko for disliking Picard. Given that they seem to be treating him as some kind of "Changeling expert", I wonder if his character was meant to be Sisko in an earlier draft - although Avery Brooks would be far too old to be in active service.

Anyway, I thought this episode was great. Easily the best so far of the show.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on March 10, 2023, 06:33:33 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 10, 2023, 06:21:01 AMI love Captain Shaw, but it is super-weird they have given him pretty much the same backstory as Ben Sisko for disliking Picard. Given that they seem to be treating him as some kind of "Changeling expert", I wonder if his character was meant to be Sisko in an earlier draft - although Avery Brooks would be far too old to be in active service.

Anyway, I thought this episode was great. Easily the best so far of the show.

Sad if so.  I really hate it when shows do that.
Googling recent photos of Brooks he doesn't look so bad. Easy to imagine in the future 74 being a perfectly normal age to keep working a job that is entirely a choice anyway. Makeup and effects could even help cover some signs of aging.

So makes me wonder then why Brooks didn't get involved.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 10, 2023, 07:14:24 AM
Maybe he just didn't want to get involved? Some actors feel they like to move on. Who knows? But given all the Deep Space Nine references, I wouldn't be surprised if they did intend it to be Sisko.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 10, 2023, 08:47:43 AM
It was a big deal, plenty of people probably would dislike Picard for it. Hell Picard disliked Picard for a long time too :D

Plus sisko is a god now, so beyond age I'd be weird to bring him back
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 03:17:45 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2023, 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2023, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AMI thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
More like he has no faith in his ship.  The fact that Picard acted to save his son rather than his crew would also weigh on him, but not as much as Shaw's incompetence of not leaving when he had a chance.


Yeah I can attribute it to Riker mentioning "this is not the Enterprise", so no too bad.

Did Picard suddenly lose all his knowledge and experience?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 10, 2023, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 03:17:45 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2023, 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2023, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AMI thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
More like he has no faith in his ship.  The fact that Picard acted to save his son rather than his crew would also weigh on him, but not as much as Shaw's incompetence of not leaving when he had a chance.


Yeah I can attribute it to Riker mentioning "this is not the Enterprise", so no too bad.

Did Picard suddenly lose all his knowledge and experience?

Apparently, since he made a bad call :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 04:09:47 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 10, 2023, 03:34:49 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 03:17:45 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 07, 2023, 04:22:31 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 07, 2023, 03:50:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 07, 2023, 11:47:29 AMI thought it was a mess of an episode - after years of working together, all of a sudden Riker loses faith in Picard's judgment?  That makes no sense. 
More like he has no faith in his ship.  The fact that Picard acted to save his son rather than his crew would also weigh on him, but not as much as Shaw's incompetence of not leaving when he had a chance.


Yeah I can attribute it to Riker mentioning "this is not the Enterprise", so no too bad.

Did Picard suddenly lose all his knowledge and experience?

Apparently, since he made a bad call :D

It wasn't his call though, it was a suggestion that Riker followed, and then Riker orders him off the bridge.  Good example of bad leadership. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 10, 2023, 04:12:20 PM
It was a bit more than a suggestion, he spent the episode badgering him, which makes him just as bad a number one as riker is a leader.  But they kissed and made up, so it's all good.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 05:59:45 PM
Picard was not the First Officer, he is an admiral (retired).  But you have to forget all of that for the scene to make any sense.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tamas on March 11, 2023, 04:47:47 AM
The thing about the holo deck being kept on and used was super-lame (right, never in the series history did they hook up something to somewhere else to get out of a bind so makes sense to waste that independent power source on it), but otherwise a nice episode, felt like a homage to various TNG tropes. Possibly the best Picard episode, although the competition isn't very tough there.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 11, 2023, 05:39:33 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2023, 04:47:47 AMThe thing about the holo deck being kept on and used was super-lame (right, never in the series history did they hook up something to somewhere else to get out of a bind so makes sense to waste that independent power source on it), but otherwise a nice episode, felt like a homage to various TNG tropes. Possibly the best Picard episode, although the competition isn't very tough there.

It also had a lot of Wrath of Khan (hiding inside a nebula that obscures sensors, the "space birth"...)

But yeah, it was classic trek updated for the current age. I wish modern trek was more like that instead of what we got instead (outside of Strange New Worlds).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 11, 2023, 02:45:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 10, 2023, 04:09:47 PMIt wasn't his call though, it was a suggestion that Riker followed, and then Riker orders him off the bridge.  Good example of bad leadership. 

Yeah, I couldn't remember at first, but when I saw the recap the other day, I was wondering what Riker was on about. Everything that happened was Riker's decision. In a court martial, he'd be to blame.

In any case, Picard got them out of that jam.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 11, 2023, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: Tamas on March 11, 2023, 04:47:47 AMThe thing about the holo deck being kept on and used was super-lame (right, never in the series history did they hook up something to somewhere else to get out of a bind so makes sense to waste that independent power source on it), but otherwise a nice episode, felt like a homage to various TNG tropes. Possibly the best Picard episode, although the competition isn't very tough there.

When they first went into the holo deck, my first thought was, "hey, isn't the ship on essentials only?" and then the writers came up with that stupid excuse :lol:
I mean if you do have an independent power source...why not use it on something useful, like shields or something.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 16, 2023, 01:39:59 AM
Really enjoyed the first "arc" of the new season. It had a bunch of potential "jump the shark" moments, like introducing Jake Crusher, but I think it was overall handled well. Is it Best of Both Worlds, All Good Things, or First Contact? No. But it feels like a proper send off, more like Undiscovered Country, and it feels more like what Nemesis should have been, maybe? It's good to see the old crew chemistry back.

I had no issues with the Ryker/Picard scuffle. Ryker was checking in with Picard numerous times, because he could tell his friend was emtionally unbalanced after seeing Crusher again and the realization of having a son. hell, he put his son's life over the ones of the crew. So Ryker flying off his handle at him, himself being under the stress of being thrown into command in a life/death situation after years of (mostly) retirement, made sense to me. And they patched it over quickly enough to be believable. Sometimes you get really mad at friends (often more than at strangers, because you expect better), but you also move past it fast. And it served to set up a team effort to get out of the mess.

I'm ok with bringing back (a faction of) the Dominion. Would have liked more DS9 involvement, but alas. :P

Oh, and the autonomous energy source for the holodeck - I think it makes sense to have that, to keep the crew somewhat sane if things fall apart (compare to Voyager's Equinox who had no such luxuries), but yeah, why they couldn't patch that energy source into the ship? No idea. My headcanon is that they have some super efficient tech-tech so that the holodeck doesn't need much power, or at least not enough to save the ship, or that it's some special holodeck energy that's only efficient when used for that and otherwise couldn't power a transistor radio. :nerd:

I secretly hope that we get a USS Titan show with Cpt. Shaw and Cmdr. Seven, but I guess that'd be too much to hope for (and probably too similar to Strange New Worlds. :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 16, 2023, 01:46:42 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2023, 01:39:59 AMI secretly hope that we get a USS Titan show with Cpt. Shaw and Cmdr. Seven, but I guess that'd be too much to hope for (and probably too similar to Strange New Worlds. :D

There was this time where every character in Discovery was supposed to get a spinoff... What happened to Section 31, by the way? Although I suppose Yeoh will now have many things on her table...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 16, 2023, 01:52:37 AM
Yeah, not sure they can afford her anymore. :D

Oddly, while I like the Disco crew, I don't know if I would want to watch a spin off focused exclusively on any of them. Maybe one with Book and Michael going off on adventures, or do spec ops work for the federation?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on March 16, 2023, 04:23:14 AM
Section 31 is still meant to be happening.
I do wonder to what extent Discovery is to thank for Everything, Everywhere, bridging Yeoh into sci fi et al.  It does seem to have really rebooted her career.

Honestly as much as I love Star Trek I really don't want it becoming the MCU Paramount is aiming for.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on March 16, 2023, 10:35:07 AM
Quote from: Josquius on March 16, 2023, 04:23:14 AMSection 31 is still meant to be happening.
I do wonder to what extent Discovery is to thank for Everything, Everywhere, bridging Yeoh into sci fi et al.  It does seem to have really rebooted her career.

Honestly as much as I love Star Trek I really don't want it becoming the MCU Paramount is aiming for.

"bringing" Michelle Yeoh into sci-fi? :yeahright:

OK, maybe they're more fantasy than sci-fi, but she's been in James Bond, Crouching Tiger, and a Mummy sequel.

Yeah, I love me some Star Trek, and it's a valuable property for Paramount, but it's still kind of niche in its appeal.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 16, 2023, 11:27:01 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 16, 2023, 01:39:59 AMI'm ok with bringing back (a faction of) the Dominion. Would have liked more DS9 involvement, but alas. :P


I demand a miles cameo
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 16, 2023, 01:18:03 PM
Well, that was a very unexpected cameo. :D

And no, I don't mean Kirk Acevedo as gangster - during the episode I was ... "Wait, isn't that Joe Toye from Band of Brothers?" :lol:

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d7/ed/2f/d7ed2f4568b9a0e58694aa2acdcb0911.jpg)

All the same: the plot thickens! :o
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on March 17, 2023, 07:19:28 AM
I'm a little in shock. Season 3 of Picard is actually making me care about its characters and their stories. It's actually really good man. The last couple episodes have been great.

This should have been season 1.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:10:39 AM
I had given up on this show, but decided to give it one more episode.  I am glad I did, the fourth episode was great.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 17, 2023, 10:22:57 AM
Yeah, so far it's been really good and fun. Ro Laren coming back was handled really well.

Loved the Vulcan crimelord :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:49:16 AM
The one negative of that episode is it is unlikely we will see her again.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on March 17, 2023, 02:26:52 PM
Quote from: celedhring on March 17, 2023, 10:22:57 AMYeah, so far it's been really good and fun.  coming back was handled really well.

Loved the Vulcan crimelord :lol:


Yeah seeing the Vulcan crime lord was really cool. They seem to be nailing even these very minor characters.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 17, 2023, 08:47:30 PM
Great episode.  In the future though, it'd be nice if people here would wait some 12-18hrs for spoilers?  The series doesn't air until 21h00 Thursdays GMT-5 over here...

They are big on nostalgia/fan service.  It's really a TNG last tour, their most successful franchise to date.  I think we've seen everyone from the bridge crew, except Laforge himself.  I second the call for O'Brien.  Wish Sisko would come back...  But it'd be hard to explain his aging.  Bring back an upgraded Defiant dammit!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 18, 2023, 12:49:02 AM
I wish we could get spoiler formatting again. :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 18, 2023, 02:25:13 AM
I kind of want to see Pulaski. Doctor show down :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 18, 2023, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:49:16 AMThe one negative of that episode is it is unlikely we will see her again.

Funny, I've watched all STNG episodes, although not for a long time, and I couldn't remember the relationship between Picard and her.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 18, 2023, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2023, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:49:16 AMThe one negative of that episode is it is unlikely we will see her again.

Funny, I've watched all STNG episodes, although not for a long time, and I couldn't remember the relationship between Picard and her.
It's in the last season I believe.  She came onboard with an attitude problem, sort of.  Picard took her under his wing, made her into a fine officer, and he then sent her undercover to the Maquis, when she ultimately betrayed the Federation to join the Maquis.

It would have been nice if her character had later join Voyager.  Or if we'd see her in DS9, even if just a cameo.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 18, 2023, 10:53:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2023, 10:50:21 AMIt would have been nice if her character had later join Voyager.  Or if we'd see her in DS9, even if just a cameo.

Pretty sure the Kyra Neris character was at first meant to be Ro Laren, but she turned it down.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 18, 2023, 11:08:28 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 18, 2023, 10:53:12 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2023, 10:50:21 AMIt would have been nice if her character had later join Voyager.  Or if we'd see her in DS9, even if just a cameo.

Pretty sure the Kyra Neris character was at first meant to be Ro Laren, but she turned it down.
You're right, I just went to read about it on IMBD, and Michelle Forbes turned the role down because she wanted to do something else.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 19, 2023, 05:32:26 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 18, 2023, 10:50:21 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 18, 2023, 05:14:35 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2023, 10:49:16 AMThe one negative of that episode is it is unlikely we will see her again.

Funny, I've watched all STNG episodes, although not for a long time, and I couldn't remember the relationship between Picard and her.
It's in the last season I believe.  She came onboard with an attitude problem, sort of.  Picard took her under his wing, made her into a fine officer, and he then sent her undercover to the Maquis, when she ultimately betrayed the Federation to join the Maquis.

It would have been nice if her character had later join Voyager.  Or if we'd see her in DS9, even if just a cameo.

But was there a hint of a "relationship" between the two? the Picard episode seemed to imply that.
I may watch that last season again.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 19, 2023, 06:00:34 AM
I'm definitely scheduling my long-planned TNG rewatch for this summer.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 08:15:06 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2023, 05:32:26 AMBut was there a hint of a "relationship" between the two? the Picard episode seemed to imply that.
I may watch that last season again.
Not that kind of relationship, nothing romantic.  Really a mentor relationship, they had a couple of episodes where they got closer and got to know one another better, but that's it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 08:16:44 AM
Quote from: celedhring on March 19, 2023, 06:00:34 AMI'm definitely scheduling my long-planned TNG rewatch for this summer.
You can skip most of the first season.
The first 2 episodes, the last one.  And then you can skip most of the 2nd season 2.  The death of Tasha Yar one is ok for its future implications, but aside that, maybe The Measure of a Man.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 19, 2023, 10:43:22 AM
Thing with TNG is that that was during the day when 24 episodes were the norm. Because of this every season had its meh episodes. I remember back in the day watching it "live" with my roommate, and whenever an episode featured Worf's son, or Deanna's mom,  we were like, "fuck, we looked forward to a new episode the whole week, and this is what we get."
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: Josephus on March 19, 2023, 10:43:22 AMThing with TNG is that that was during the day when 24 episodes were the norm. Because of this every season had its meh episodes. I remember back in the day watching it "live" with my roommate, and whenever an episode featured Worf's son, or Deanna's mom,  we were like, "fuck, we looked forward to a new episode the whole week, and this is what we get."
The main theme of this story is that contrary to TOS, this time around, families were living aboard the ships.  Which is pretty stupid, even for exploration ships, but anyway.  Having stories about a ship's crew where some of their families live onboard and not having anyone else's family visit from time to time would have been strange. :)

But they weren't the worst stories, imho.

Wesley gets in trouble, Deanna's love stories, Holodeck malfunction, some new virus gets a cure by the end of the episode, some of the crew suffer mutations, Goerdi's visor malfunctions, etc, etc.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 19, 2023, 01:26:24 PM
Don't forget the stereotypical ethnic planet episodes like space tribal Africa and space ireland :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 19, 2023, 03:30:55 PM
Quote from: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 10:48:42 AMWesley gets in trouble, Deanna's love stories, Holodeck malfunction, some new virus gets a cure by the end of the episode, some of the crew suffer mutations, Goerdi's visor malfunctions, etc, etc.

I'll give you the Wusley gets in trouble, but that's just a kid story like Worf's son.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 04:44:46 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2023, 01:26:24 PMDon't forget the stereotypical ethnic planet episodes like space tribal Africa and space ireland :P
Yes. That too.  It's a series I am not rewatching for sure.
I am through S6 of SG1 right now and that's nice. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on March 19, 2023, 04:51:30 PM
I still keep it on my rewatch list. The good makes up for the bad, but DS9 is my go to.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on March 19, 2023, 06:34:07 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 19, 2023, 04:51:30 PMI still keep it on my rewatch list. The good makes up for the bad, but DS9 is my go to.
I've watched the reruns of the best episodes on CTV Sci-fi, but I wouldn't binge the entire series again like I did for DS9 a few years ago. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 23, 2023, 10:59:40 AM
I thought this was the weakest episode this season so far. Really didn't like Geordie's initial portrayal - way too timid/scared? I liked the idea, not the execution. Though I loved Shaw getting fully starstruck when meeting his personal legend. :lol:

Also, I guess Section 31 just keeps bodies of Starfleet captains lying around? Picard's original body, James T. Kirk ... :unsure:

Loved the nostalgia-bait at the starship museum, though.  :wub:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on March 23, 2023, 09:41:21 PM
I liked it. Bringing the band back together.

"Superior Klingon technology."  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 24, 2023, 02:08:06 AM
Couple more thoughts.

Trek Culture pointed out that blurry in the back there's another Captain stored in Daystrom Station - Archer. I'm waiting for Cpt. Tarantino walking in, berating folks, "Does this look like a dead captain storage?" :P

Also, the Starfleet ships all being interlinked ... I mean Battlestar Galactica apparently didn't exist as a show in the Trek universe. Also, after the near-disaster at the end of Prodigy's Season 1, you'd think they'd know better than that. :D

The nostalgia bits were really nice, IMO, in that they mostly made sense. Yes, S31 would probably have a bunch of shady shit from previous Trek stories piled somewhere "just in case." Like the warehouse at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

And if you want to give nostalgia-vibes with old vessels - put them in a museum. This ties them reasonably well into the story.

Prediction: a battle between new networked ships and old, legendary non-networked ships is coming. (Maybe with "restored" original captains ... we saw Kirk, Archer, Worf is there for the Defiant, Janeway has been namedropped a few times .... or would that be TOO gratuitous? :P :nerd: )

Actually, I kinda like how they make the Starfleet ships seem sinister this time - using ominous view angles, no view of the crews aboard ...  :ph34r:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on March 24, 2023, 05:43:44 AM
Yeah, it was good to see all those STNG people together again. Fitting tribute to the series. Surprised Chief O'Brian isn't in it so far. He normally takes any role. I personally want to see Barclay come back.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 24, 2023, 05:56:57 PM
I'm enjoying this far more than I could have expected. The series should have led with this (or at least something in this vein since we don't know how it ends)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on March 25, 2023, 01:47:31 AM
O'Brien can't show up without being involved in some nightmarish sadistic sci-fi plot. Hasn't he suffered enough already?  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on March 31, 2023, 07:06:33 AM
Amanda Plummer is awesome. This is all I have to say. -_-
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 02:46:11 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2023, 07:06:33 AMAmanda Plummer is awesome. This is all I have to say. -_-

Yeah, this week's episode was pretty meh, but she livened it up considerably.  :lol:

Last week's episode I thought was pretty uneven, but I enjoyed Star Trek's version of the Raiders of the Lost Ark warehouse.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 04:00:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 02:46:11 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2023, 07:06:33 AMAmanda Plummer is awesome. This is all I have to say. -_-

Yeah, this week's episode was pretty meh, but she livened it up considerably.  :lol:

I love how she can go from intimidated/scared to cold/calculating ("Again. ... Again."  :ph34r: ) to over the top hammy villain from one take to the next. And it obviously helps that her character has a quite justified grudge against the Federation. Probably the best Trek villain since Khan and Gul Dukat? :hmm: (Though Trek doesn't generally have a strong rogue's gallery of really good, compelling villains.)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 04:19:49 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 01, 2023, 04:00:16 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 02:46:11 AM
Quote from: Syt on March 31, 2023, 07:06:33 AMAmanda Plummer is awesome. This is all I have to say. -_-

Yeah, this week's episode was pretty meh, but she livened it up considerably.  :lol:

I love how she can go from intimidated/scared to cold/calculating ("Again. ... Again."  :ph34r: ) to over the top hammy villain from one take to the next. And it obviously helps that her character has a quite justified grudge against the Federation. Probably the best Trek villain since Khan and Gul Dukat? :hmm: (Though Trek doesn't generally have a strong rogue's gallery of really good, compelling villains.)

It's definitely the best villain of all the new batch of Trek. It also helps that they also give a reasoning for her insanity/hamminess so it's just not Plummer playing over the top for its own sake.

There are some other memorable Trek villains. General Chang, Weyoun, Kruge... NOT the Borg Queen though. I hate the Borg Queen.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 04:54:56 AM
I'm neutral towards the concept of a Borg queen. FWIW I did enjoy Annie Wirsching's performance in S2 of Picard (RIP :cry: ).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 05:10:31 AM
I think the Borg Queen undercuts the concept of the Borg as, essentially, grey goo. We have plenty of villainous factions with charismatic individual leaders, no need to make the Borg just another one.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 05:36:28 AM
I get that, but I also think that ship kinda sailed when we were introduced to Locutus of Borg. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 05:56:25 AM
That was a kind of an one-off though, not part of how the Collective was supposed to function. Anyway, what's done it's done, but I still hate it  :P

Incidentally, not that I need them to show up in Picard, but I wonder what the Vorta and the Jem-Hadar are up to these days. It was always kinda strange how everything Dominion-related was always sorta contained to DS9, with little reference to it in other shows/movies - despite the Dominion Wars being such a galaxy scale event - until this season of Picard.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 11:16:57 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 01, 2023, 04:00:16 AM(Though Trek doesn't generally have a strong rogue's gallery of really good, compelling villains.)
Moriarty, Gul Dukhat, Seska (B-), Weyoun, Khan, Sela, Captain Angel, Lore,

I think they had some good ones.  Seska in Voyager was the weakest one, but still enjoyable.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 11:24:42 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 05:56:25 AMThat was a kind of an one-off though, not part of how the Collective was supposed to function. Anyway, what's done it's done, but I still hate it  :P

Incidentally, not that I need them to show up in Picard, but I wonder what the Vorta and the Jem-Hadar are up to these days. It was always kinda strange how everything Dominion-related was always sorta contained to DS9, with little reference to it in other shows/movies - despite the Dominion Wars being such a galaxy scale event - until this season of Picard.


Voyager were lights years away.  But once they got messages from the Alpha Quadrant, they learnt about the Dominion and the fate of the Maquis.  The Jem-Hadar appeared in holographic form in the episode "Flesh and Blood" of Voyager.

By the time the TNG movies post First Contact were released, I think the war was over.  During First Contact Worf was on DS9, he joined the fight with the Defiant, but the war with the Dominion hadn't begun yet.

By the next movie, I think we see admiral Janeway, and Voyager came back after the war.

Imho, there is a huge plot hole here in Picard.

Plummer's character said the cure wasn't given, one of their own had to steal it.  That was false.  O'Brian and Bashir stole it from Section 31 to cure Odo and Odo was allowed to go back to the great link to cure everyone, after curing the female changeling in the DS9 finale.

Considering that the Founders were well on their way to commit a genocide of their own, at least on Cardassia, it's very hard to take the high moral ground here...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:25:36 AM
Weyoun was indeed great. Combs Also did a decent foe to friend turn as Shran
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 11:26:31 AM
Insurrection was set during the Dominion War. The Federation was keen to harness the rejuvenation powers of the Elf planet to deal with the influx of war wounded.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 11:24:42 AMImho, there is a huge plot hole here in Picard.

Plummer's character said the cure wasn't given, one of their own had to steal it.  That was false.  O'Brian and Bashir stole it from Section 31 to cure Odo and Odo was allowed to go back to the great link to cure everyone, after curing the female changeling in the DS9 finale.

Considering that the Founders were well on their way to commit a genocide of their own, at least on Cardassia, it's very hard to take the high moral ground here...

The stealing she mentioned was bashir stealing it from section 31. One of their own was one of star fleets own, not a founder
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:25:36 AMWeyoun was indeed great. Combs Also did a decent foe to friend turn as Shran

Lack of Jeffrey Combs in the current incarnation of Trek, given that he played like 34243545463 characters in the old shows, is disappointing  <_<
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 11:33:24 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 11:24:42 AMImho, there is a huge plot hole here in Picard.

Plummer's character said the cure wasn't given, one of their own had to steal it.  That was false.  O'Brian and Bashir stole it from Section 31 to cure Odo and Odo was allowed to go back to the great link to cure everyone, after curing the female changeling in the DS9 finale.

Considering that the Founders were well on their way to commit a genocide of their own, at least on Cardassia, it's very hard to take the high moral ground here...

Plothole, or a very biased view of the events on her side.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:25:36 AMWeyoun was indeed great. Combs Also did a decent foe to friend turn as Shran

Lack of Jeffrey Combs in the current incarnation of Trek, given that he played like 34243545463 characters in the old shows, is disappointing  <_<

From failed riker to a great part of Star Trek. They could have made him the voice of the Shrike. Tying in some lower decks too  :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 11:47:58 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 01, 2023, 11:29:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:25:36 AMWeyoun was indeed great. Combs Also did a decent foe to friend turn as Shran

Lack of Jeffrey Combs in the current incarnation of Trek, given that he played like 34243545463 characters in the old shows, is disappointing  <_<

He did show up on Lower Decks. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 01, 2023, 12:25:33 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FsoaWYLWIAAScL-?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on April 01, 2023, 01:41:01 PM
Do we not count Q as a great villain? I mean he put humanity on trial.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 01, 2023, 02:04:08 PM
Kind of forgot about him as a villain, kind of turned into a trickster halfway through TNG. Haven't seen season 2 of Picard.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 02:10:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 01, 2023, 11:27:21 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 01, 2023, 11:24:42 AMImho, there is a huge plot hole here in Picard.

Plummer's character said the cure wasn't given, one of their own had to steal it.  That was false.  O'Brian and Bashir stole it from Section 31 to cure Odo and Odo was allowed to go back to the great link to cure everyone, after curing the female changeling in the DS9 finale.

Considering that the Founders were well on their way to commit a genocide of their own, at least on Cardassia, it's very hard to take the high moral ground here...

The stealing she mentioned was bashir stealing it from section 31. One of their own was one of star fleets own, not a founder
Ah.  I, I thought she meant one of the founder stole it.

But in the end, the Starfleet admiral and Ben Sisko did let Odo go to the Founders.

Either she's biased or there's a plothole.

Section 31 was kinda interesting too. Starfleet was mostly in the dark about them, but once they were confronted with the end result, they often tacitly approved.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 01, 2023, 02:14:35 PM
Star fleet and section 31 have at least some tacit cooperation. Like when the admiral worked with section 31 to get their romulan plant into a higher place in government.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 06, 2023, 10:50:20 PM
This episode did have a plot hole. Well two I think

1 changlings shouldn't have issue against blades. Laas was stabbed on DS9 to no ill effect. They're blobs.


2 changlings can survive space. Again Laas travelled quite easily in space.


Still a very good episode.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 07, 2023, 02:12:11 AM
Loved the episode. Many great scenes (esp. Spiner, Worf, Riker & Deanna ... and - of course - Amanda Plummer; just give her all the awards for her performance).

On your plot holes:

1. I'm going to cut (no pun intended) them some slack - these are "changed" changelings. Like the Sidney LaForge one maintaining shape after being killed. Even though the "henchmen" ones seem to be "half-formed" as Vadic said in one episode, I'm willing to assume they have slightly different rules than the "normal" changelings. Also, I'd assume the damage wasn't permanent, because they still vaporize them after.

2. I really, really hope we will see Vadic again. Her being frozen/shattered should not be "fatal" (in Changeling terms), though of course the explosion is kinda making things harder. :P I hope her "hand puppet" will recover her (or bits of her) and she can be reconstituted. I really want to see more of her.

What I'm seriously annoyed with is how they're really blue-balling us with two cliffhangers in a row on what's going on with Jack (and Jean-Luc, to some extent, as it's linked to his irumodic snydrome somehow, and the Borg?). I'm half thinking it might be a remnant from the Borg queen that somehow sirvived in Jean-Luc and was passed on to Jack, somehow? Not much of an idea at this point. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 07, 2023, 03:40:08 AM
The episode was pretty entertaining. What I'm wondering now is... Are they going to address the sentient hand thing from Vadic? - I loved that bit of the character. I suppose that the hand can be tied to whatever is behind the red door.

Regarding these changelings being vulnerable to stuff like sharp weapons, I recall they said in a prior episode that their forms are more stable? (thus they can have organs, blood, and such).

Worf is hillarious, btw  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 07, 2023, 05:01:03 AM
The chemistry between the "old crew" is incredible, btw. And seeing them all together in the meeting room made me actually tear up a bit. :cry:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 07, 2023, 09:26:14 AM
I guess these changlings are different, but they can still goo-ify pretty easily. At least Vadic can and she's the original evolved one.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on April 07, 2023, 08:06:59 PM
Episode 8 was great. It's probably nostalgia talking but this season of Picard is my favorite new trek except for possibly Strange New Worlds.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 07, 2023, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 06, 2023, 10:50:20 PMThis episode did have a plot hole. Well two I think

1 changlings shouldn't have issue against blades. Laas was stabbed on DS9 to no ill effect. They're blobs.


2 changlings can survive space. Again Laas travelled quite easily in space.


Still a very good episode.
The henchmen don't seem to be changelings like Vadic.  I can't recall seeing them changing form like she does on a regular basis.  The other ones we saw changing forms before, impersonating Starfleet officers didn't look like these guys.

As for Vadic, she isn't a changeling like Odo and the others, she evolved in a Starfleet lab, from Section 31's experiments to create the virus, IIRC. From last week's episode, she wasn't fully sentient, I think, then she became sentient but was unable to shapeshift until much later after suffering a lot of pain.

In another episode, her master talks of "her and her kind", implying they are not like the other Changelings.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 07, 2023, 09:22:31 PM
Not specifically related to the latest episode, but spoiler to the series:


They aren't strong on DS9 lore, but I wonder if Jack's possession is linked to the Pah-Wraiths?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 07, 2023, 09:25:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2023, 09:22:31 PMNot specifically related to the latest episode, but spoiler to the series:


They aren't strong on DS9 lore, but I wonder if Jack's possession is linked to the Pah-Wraiths?

I was thinking the same thing. Evil glowy eyes and possession.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 08, 2023, 12:55:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on April 07, 2023, 09:22:31 PMNot specifically related to the latest episode, but spoiler to the series:


They aren't strong on DS9 lore, but I wonder if Jack's possession is linked to the Pah-Wraiths?

That actually makes a lot of sense. The red eyes were a sign of Pah Wraith possesion in DS9. Now, that would make it even weirder that Sisko is not involved in the story.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 08, 2023, 03:06:06 AM
I've seen the speculation and am not a huge fan. That said, it would open the door for a return of Sisko. :hmm:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 08, 2023, 03:28:28 AM
Isn't Brook's kind of kooky? Would he even come back?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 13, 2023, 01:36:17 AM
Not gonna lie, looking forward to this, though I imagine some "hardcore fans" might have an issue or two with it on principle, esp. as described in the article below (some minor spoilers, I guess). :D

Jonathan Frakes Previews "Absurd" 'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' / 'Lower Decks' Crossover Episode[Url] (https://trekmovie.com/2023/04/12/jonathan-frakes-is-proud-of-the-absurd-star-trek-strange-new-worlds-lower-decks-crossover-episode/)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tamas on April 13, 2023, 03:15:15 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2023, 05:01:03 AMThe chemistry between the "old crew" is incredible, btw. And seeing them all together in the meeting room made me actually tear up a bit. :cry:

Yes that was great.

They are so old though. :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on April 13, 2023, 05:33:38 AM
Quote from: Tamas on April 13, 2023, 03:15:15 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 07, 2023, 05:01:03 AMThe chemistry between the "old crew" is incredible, btw. And seeing them all together in the meeting room made me actually tear up a bit. :cry:

Yes that was great.

They are so old though. :(

yeah, that's what gets me....that I've aged as well.  :(
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 13, 2023, 05:07:03 PM
Blah. Episode ruined the whole season. It's like Picard has 4 characters/plot points and just recycles them between seasons. Shame.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 14, 2023, 02:14:31 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 13, 2023, 05:07:03 PMBlah. Episode ruined the whole season. It's like Picard has 4 characters/plot points and just recycles them between seasons. Shame.

I liked it. I thought it gave the show a sense of having a series arc, even if obviously after the fact :P And I endorse the message that young people suck  :P

The problem is also that season 2 was so confusing Arent the Borg supposed to be peaceful now? Isn't the Queen Alison Pill? Why does Picard say they haven't seen them in 10 years?

The episode itself was good. There were a bit too many plot contrivances, but were outweighted by the cool ideas like the stealth DNA modification that only affects young people, and the whole "bio-borg" idea. Also Shaw  :(

Nitpick: How can they fly the D without a crew? Also, I do hope the show doesn't end without them elaborating a bit more on the Borg/Changeling connection.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 14, 2023, 02:29:27 AM
I'm conflicted about the last episode. I thought the villain plot was kinda neat (kind of a stealth assimilation, and also explaining why some characters were careful not to use transporters, like Ro Laren - but if she knew something was up with them, maybe she should have been more open in her documentation so the heroes could look into it sooner?). However, I feel it also tips its hand a lot as to how things will go down - I assume Jack, as "transmitter"/Vox will override the mass assimilation somehow and restore things to how they were - because we can't lose Geordie's daughters now, can we? ;) Bit surprised by Beverly's comment that the Borg haven't been around in a decade ... guess she didn't watch or just ignores Season 2. :P Very unclear on what the part of the Changelings was in all this (were they also somewhow part of the collective? Is "the hand"/goo face the Borg Queen? :hmm: Not sure how I feel about the "millennials ruin everything" subtext :D  

And killing Shaw? <_< I hope they get to nanotech him back to live, because I want a show set on the Titan.

Some of the humor was again amazing, though.
"The robot is right."
"Can you be more positive?" - "I hope we die quickly? :w00t: "

The final scene was nostalgia overdrive, though, including especially Majel Barret's voice. :cry: Though them all being back in their familiar chairs drives home even more how much time has passed and how old they are. As to how the ship operates ... eh, they did the same in Search for Spock, so I guess there's some sort of skeleton crew mode of operation. Alternatively, Geordie restored it in a way that it can be run with minimal crew for visitors at the museum. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 14, 2023, 03:10:10 AM
I liked the humour too. Worf usually steals it, but data was great. The borg thing annoyed me not just because they drew it back, but the retcon was weird. Like cel said I thought the borg were good now. Did season 2 not happen? Is good borg pill going to devs ex machina fly in and save the day? All the previous voyager stuff about communicating through sub space with a brain implant not canon anymore? They're genetic psychics now? All very displeasing.

Shaw was a bummer too. If the we're gonna kill another axillary character to keep their streak alive, I would have preferred raf :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 14, 2023, 03:25:59 AM
Michael Dorn is a master at turning potentially terrible jokes into home-runs with his wonderfully deadpan-but-not-completely delivery.  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 14, 2023, 03:28:38 AM
Quote from: HVC on April 14, 2023, 03:10:10 AMI liked the humour too. Worf usually steals it, but data was great. The borg thing annoyed me not just because they drew it back, but the retcon was weird. Like cel said I thought the borg were good now. Did season 2 not happen? Is good borg pill going to devs ex machina fly in and save the day? All the previous voyager stuff about communicating through sub space with a brain implant not canon anymore? They're genetic psychics now? All very displeasing.

Shaw was a bummer too. If the we're gonna kill another axillary character to keep their streak alive, I would have preferred raf :P

I believe they said somewhere it was a "new sect" of Borg at the end of S2, not the "main Borg".
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 14, 2023, 03:29:36 AM
The baseball episode of DS9 is one of my favs because of dorn. Brook is at his he overly intense best too. I also like that the actor who played Rom actually was a real baseball player in his youth. Had to play with his off hand to play badly.


I really should watch DS9 again.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 14, 2023, 08:02:34 AM
I didn't like how they bring this old villain again.

I also don't get the changeling plan to deal with them once they're done with the Federation, they won't stop there.

The Borg hate their biological imperfection, it makes no sense to plot some biological transmitter into Picard well in advance in the hope they would someday take over the Federation.  From First Contact, they sorta idolize Data because he's full machine.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 14, 2023, 08:46:44 AM
Trek Culture reminded me of what I thought earlier in the season (I think I may have mentioned above), i.e. that the "let's network all our ships" and it going badly seems especially stupid after Lower Decks S3 (where networked AI controlled ships wreaked havoc) and Star Trek Prodigy (where Starfleet ships were hijacked to kill each other by a virus as soon as they had communications connections), both happened before the events in this season ... Hard to disagree that apprently the writers across shows don't talk much to each other. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 14, 2023, 09:13:25 AM
They also keep getting evil admirals, so clearly Star Trek doesn't learn from their mistakes :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 14, 2023, 09:19:30 AM
Starfleet High Command: "Third time's the charm, right?"

Well, they can now blame all badmirals on Changeling infiltration. :P

Speaking of badmirals - loved the cameo from Adm. Shelby ... heard the name during the episode and thought, "Oh, that's awesome bringing her back" (she was on Best of Borth Worlds as Riker's "rival" ... only to kill her within seconds). -_- )
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AM
Picard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 14, 2023, 07:41:57 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 14, 2023, 08:46:44 AMTrek Culture reminded me of what I thought earlier in the season (I think I may have mentioned above), i.e. that the "let's network all our ships" and it going badly seems especially stupid after Lower Decks S3 (where networked AI controlled ships wreaked havoc) and Star Trek Prodigy (where Starfleet ships were hijacked to kill each other by a virus as soon as they had communications connections), both happened before the events in this season ... Hard to disagree that apprently the writers across shows don't talk much to each other. :P
ST VI, Kirk specifically mentioned that all starships have a specific code so no enemy can take over all of Starfleet.  Control in ST: Discovery proved that networked ships could be a vulnerability, since that's pretty much what that AI did.

Also, no one in Starfleet ever watched Battlestar Galactica??? :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 14, 2023, 07:45:11 PM
Quote from: Syt on April 14, 2023, 09:19:30 AMStarfleet High Command: "Third time's the charm, right?"

Well, they can now blame all badmirals on Changeling infiltration. :P

Speaking of badmirals - loved the cameo from Adm. Shelby ... heard the name during the episode and thought, "Oh, that's awesome bringing her back" (she was on Best of Borth Worlds as Riker's "rival" ... only to kill her within seconds). -_- )
I was wondering if it was the same character, but she came by so quickly, I never got a chance to notice.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tamas on April 15, 2023, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AMPicard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!

OMFG what a stupid plot I can't believe I held out hopes for this season for a while.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 15, 2023, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2023, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AMPicard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!

OMFG what a stupid plot I can't believe I held out hopes for this season for a while.
The young ones are much more susceptible to mind control, that's why Tik Tok is so popular. :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2023, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2023, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AMPicard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!

OMFG what a stupid plot I can't believe I held out hopes for this season for a while.
The young ones are much more susceptible to mind control, that's why Tik Tok is so popular. :P


Have you been on Facebook recently?  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Duque de Bragança on April 15, 2023, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2023, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2023, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AMPicard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!

OMFG what a stupid plot I can't believe I held out hopes for this season for a while.
The young ones are much more susceptible to mind control, that's why Tik Tok is so popular. :P


Have you been on Facebook recently?  :lol:

 :secret:

Facebook is for the olds.  :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on April 15, 2023, 02:55:04 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on April 15, 2023, 02:52:01 PM
Quote from: HVC on April 15, 2023, 02:15:13 PM
Quote from: viper37 on April 15, 2023, 01:15:02 PM
Quote from: Tamas on April 15, 2023, 05:18:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2023, 09:50:55 AMPicard has become Revenge of the Boomers.  The young are warped and the olds are going to save us all!

OMFG what a stupid plot I can't believe I held out hopes for this season for a while.
The young ones are much more susceptible to mind control, that's why Tik Tok is so popular. :P


Have you been on Facebook recently?  :lol:

 :secret:

Facebook is for the olds.  :P

That's what I'm saying! Picard would so be in Facebook sharing wine memes :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Duque de Bragança on April 15, 2023, 03:06:46 PM
Wine on the new Picard Trek? Well, that's one thing going for the series I guess.  :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on April 16, 2023, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 14, 2023, 02:14:31 AMNitpick: How can they fly the D without a crew? [/color]

Yeah, that part got me too.  I was thinking, so why did they need a crew of hundreds aboard that ship before?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 16, 2023, 04:24:52 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 16, 2023, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: celedhring on April 14, 2023, 02:14:31 AMNitpick: How can they fly the D without a crew? [/color]

Yeah, that part got me too. I was thinking, so why did they need a crew of hundreds aboard that ship before?
Just like Voyager, and the old Enterprise A, if need be, the ship can be run with the assistance of the computer with very few crew.

It's not the ideal scenario though.  It's kinda like landing a small aircraft by someone with no prior piloting experience.  It can be done, but it's not ideal.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on April 18, 2023, 06:18:00 AM
I won't rest until we see Geordie crawling through the Jeffries tubes
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 20, 2023, 12:11:56 PM
Some unexpected homages(?) in the finale:

- Return of the Jedi (flying into the mega structure to target the 'splosive center (including the line "Here goes nothing!")
- Empire Strikes Back (Deanna sensing where Will is, similar to how Leia knew where Luke was at the end of the movie)
- Dark Souls 1: the design of the Borg Queen. In DS1 there's an NPC, one of the daughters of chaos. Technically, she's half spider, but she's melded into the wall/nest and probably diseased (one of her dialogue lines is that she hurts and the eggs have gone still ... similar to how the Borg drones have all died). Though she's not a villain, more a tragic figure (like 99% of Dark Souls characters). Link to what she looks like: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/darksouls/images/e/ed/Quelaag%27s_Sister.png
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on April 21, 2023, 02:27:32 AM
The finale was okay. I thought. Rather formulaic, but it did its job. Very Return of the Jedi-esque with the Queen acting as Palpatine and the cube as the Death Star.

All in all - despite its flaws, which are not few - it's by far the best season of Picard. I think people would have enjoyed it more had it not been for the previous 2 trainwrecks. This is the kind of show that I was expecting when they first announced it. A decent Trek adventure and nostalgia-fest, the old crew still has incredible chemistry, and Worf steals every single scene he's in - and Spinner finally gets to play a likeable character instead of all the  lousy Soongs he's been saddled with in the previous seasons.

I presume the ending leaves the door open to a new episodic series with the "Titan" crew. Pity Shaw can't be part of it. :(

EDIT: I see Syt also noticed the ROTJ inspiration  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on April 21, 2023, 05:55:18 AM
Yes. All in all an epic finale to my favourite ST series.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on April 21, 2023, 09:19:09 AM
Yeah, it was what I wanted from this series when it was first announced. Pity we only just got it now. The TNG crew finally got the send off it deserves.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 22, 2023, 04:32:41 PM
just binged watched the last 6 episodes over the last 2 days...
It was worth the wait.
The emotional pay-off was up there with 'The undiscovered country'.
(edit: basically by doing what Star Wars refused -in all likelyhood- to do: bring back the crew and put them together where they belong)

So it did what it had to do as far as I'm concerned.
Could certainly watch a series with the new crew if quality is at least on par with this*. (still hoping to see a Sovereign class on screen again)
(and I've been equally pleasantly surprised by Lower Decks' 3 seasons. So I'll give the series with Pike a shot too)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 22, 2023, 07:47:17 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 22, 2023, 04:32:41 PMSo I'll give the series with Pike a shot too)
It's worth it.  Much better than Discovery.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on April 22, 2023, 09:28:40 PM
Some insights on what the creators (https://www.slashfilm.com/1263923/picard-season-3-originally-featured-captain-janeway-ro-laren-survived/) initially envisioned for this season.

Quote"Ro, there was a scene in which they found Ro Laren in the dungeons of the Intrepid with Tuvok, and that she had survived. We weren't able to pull off. Harry Kim had appeared at one point. We really wanted to bring back ... we wanted Kate Mulgrew to be part of Seven of Nine's promotion. These are all things that ... they're all in the first script, and then your line producer says 'Are you out of your f***in' mind? You can't afford these things. You are not 'Avengers: Endgame." So they got to go away. And so those are our regrets. But I'm very happy with what we were able to pull off."

Read More: https://www.slashfilm.com/1263923/picard-season-3-originally-featured-captain-janeway-ro-laren-survived/

I like this line producer :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 23, 2023, 01:11:31 AM
Overall, I think the finale was a fun action peace with some nice tying up of ends overall. However, it's best not to think about some of the plot points too much. :D

SPOILERS BELOW (just off the top of my head):

- Mega Borg Cube was hiding in the most notable feature of Jupiter without Starfleet noticing (even assuming that Changeling Badmirals diverted attention)?
- the Starfleet ship linking requires line of sight? Seems like a weird design decision :D
- there's going to be a lot of traumatized Starfleet personnel - either young ones who were assimilated for a while and killed a bunch of senior staff, or senior staff who killed a bunch of young Starfleet members
- a "kill switch" for the assimilation process, i.e. kill the signal, and all affected people immediately de-assimilate?
- disconnecting from the Borg collective has become a bit easier, I guess :D (Was also a thing in Prodigy's "Let Sleeping Borg Lie" episode)
- what happened to Laris? Did Picard dump her? Wouldn't be so weird if they hadn't added her prominently at the start of the season. :P
- Riker's and Troi's daughter was supposedly at Starfleet Academy - yet no mention of concern about her during the whole thing? :D
- Q being back after a tearful good bye last season ("You think in such linear terms" - so, is it Q from the past traveling through time and what not? I know time has no meaning for the Q, but still ... or maybe he just "died" for Picard's sake to close off that particular chapter?) :hmm:

Nevertheless, I can forgive all those, and I really liked this season, thanks to Amanda Plummer as Vadic, the old crew getting back together, Shaw, Ed Speleers ... I know people give Rafi a lot of crap, but I like her character and her interactions with Worf (who was the unexpected deadpan comic relief I didn't know I wanted :D "And I will make it a threesome!" - "Do you even hear yourself??" :lol: ), even though her character arcs in the shown overall often start interesting and then feel forgotten/are reset between seasons, it seems. The season also hit a good balance of serious beats, cheese, and whimsy. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Tamas on April 23, 2023, 04:37:24 AM
Yeah it was good to have a TNG send-off with the pathos they deserve for their role in nerd culture and all that, but god damn the story was weak and ridiculous.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on April 29, 2023, 07:26:49 AM
You can now tour all Enterprise bridges, from Original Series to Picard S3:

http://roddenberry.x.io/

Really nice recreations. :nerd:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 16, 2023, 01:14:29 AM
Good opener to S2 of Strange New Worlds. :)

Pulpy action, some good character moments. Not a fan of the use of the 180° camera flip that was overused on Discovery so much.

Carol Kane's intro as new engineer works well for me, including "her age". :lol: She gives me some Noranti energy, from S4 of Farscape (who was introduced with 0 explanation in the opening action scene of season 4, and even played up with the crew being confused where she came and her basically acting like she's been with the crew since forever - just Farscape things :lol: )
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 16, 2023, 05:41:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 16, 2023, 01:14:29 AMGood opener to S2 of Strange New Worlds. :)

Pulpy action, some good character moments. Not a fan of the use of the 180° camera flip that was overused on Discovery so much.

Carol Kane's intro

THAT'S who that was. LOL. Fuck she's aged.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 16, 2023, 06:33:20 AM
The best part about Noranti is that they made the drug peddling granny the cook. What do you do with the person you don't know with a dubious background and a penchant for drugging people? Give then unsupervised access to your food :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 16, 2023, 07:32:41 AM
:D

I really need to rewatch Farscape. -_-
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2023, 10:47:35 AM
Episode 7 will feature a crossover between Lower Decks and SNW.

I can't wait for that episode. :)

In the mean time, next week is the trial episode.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on June 16, 2023, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2023, 10:47:35 AMEpisode 7 will feature a crossover between Lower Decks and SNW.

I can't wait for that episode. :)

Indeed.

At first I thought it was going to be a really trippy animated cross over with the Lower Decks characters being animated but interacting in the "real" world of SNW, but no, it looks like they just have the voice actors playing the parts of their characters.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 16, 2023, 01:03:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2023, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2023, 10:47:35 AMEpisode 7 will feature a crossover between Lower Decks and SNW.

I can't wait for that episode. :)

Indeed.

At first I thought it was going to be a really trippy animated cross over with the Lower Decks characters being animated but interacting in the "real" world of SNW, but no, it looks like they just have the voice actors playing the parts of their characters.

there's rumours, but like really rumoury type rumours, that Lower Decks might also have a cross over with SNW...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 16, 2023, 01:40:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 16, 2023, 10:54:36 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 16, 2023, 10:47:35 AMEpisode 7 will feature a crossover between Lower Decks and SNW.

I can't wait for that episode. :)

Indeed.

At first I thought it was going to be a really trippy animated cross over with the Lower Decks characters being animated but interacting in the "real" world of SNW, but no, it looks like they just have the voice actors playing the parts of their characters.
It's what the hinted at, at first, I think.

Now, it's something else.  It looks really funny from the trailer. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 16, 2023, 05:25:26 PM
Now that sounds interesting. I guess lower decks was smart in having cast that kind of looks like it's characters.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: FunkMonk on June 26, 2023, 02:37:08 PM
So Star Trek Prodigy has been canceled and now completely removed from Paramount+ :hmm:

You now can't watch it unless you bought the DVDs or have otherwise acquired it on your hard drive.

That really sucks man.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 26, 2023, 02:41:16 PM
Aren't they shopping it around? Maybe Netflix or someone will pick it up.  They have all the old shows (pre discovery). At least in Canada.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 26, 2023, 02:58:27 PM
Season two of SNW feels weaker. Or is that just me?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on June 26, 2023, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on June 26, 2023, 02:37:08 PMSo Star Trek Prodigy has been canceled and now completely removed from Paramount+ :hmm:

You now can't watch it unless you bought the DVDs or have otherwise acquired it on your hard drive.

That really sucks man.

That's weird how tv works sometime.  Season 2 is almost complete - but rather than complete it they'd rather just bin the whole show.

Not that I was a big Prodigy fan.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Jacob on June 26, 2023, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2023, 05:19:14 PMThat's weird how tv works sometime.  Season 2 is almost complete - but rather than complete it they'd rather just bin the whole show.

Films and games work the same way. If your revenue projections are not encouraging, you're better off saving your marketing budget and opening up your slot for something more promising. Even more so if production is not even finished.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 27, 2023, 02:37:14 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2023, 02:58:27 PMSeason two of SNW feels weaker. Or is that just me?
It's just you.  Reviewers are raving about the two episodes so far.

That being sadi, Ad Astra per Espera felt weak, despite the glowing review.

Spoiler:

It was obvious she was going to be acquitted, they always find a way to work around the rules for major characters (Bashir).
We know that Starfleet is still opposed to genetically enhnanced individuals in the future, as far as DS9 at least.
There was no drama, except maybe trying to find out who gave her up.  It was a surprise to see she gave herself up, but her reasoning didn't make much sense, given what she was risking herself, and the danger she posed to the captain who knew of her real identity.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 27, 2023, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2023, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2023, 05:19:14 PMThat's weird how tv works sometime.  Season 2 is almost complete - but rather than complete it they'd rather just bin the whole show.

Films and games work the same way. If your revenue projections are not encouraging, you're better off saving your marketing budget and opening up your slot for something more promising. Even more so if production is not even finished.
There was a superhero movie cancelled right after it was finished, not so long ago.  Some Supergirl stuff, I think.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 27, 2023, 03:34:19 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 27, 2023, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2023, 05:35:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 26, 2023, 05:19:14 PMThat's weird how tv works sometime.  Season 2 is almost complete - but rather than complete it they'd rather just bin the whole show.

Films and games work the same way. If your revenue projections are not encouraging, you're better off saving your marketing budget and opening up your slot for something more promising. Even more so if production is not even finished.
There was a superhero movie cancelled right after it was finished, not so long ago.  Some Supergirl stuff, I think.
batgirl iirc
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on June 27, 2023, 08:22:02 PM
I liked both episodes.  I liked the commitment to character development that made Episode 2 possible.  Also loved the fact that the resolution did not involved the captain riding in to save the day.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 28, 2023, 07:11:54 AM
I finished Picard. Don't really get it. I thought things were chill with the Borg now after series 2? - wasn't Alison Pill meant to be queen now?

A lot of loose ends too though clearly intentional to setup a new series.

Series 3....Probably the middle of the 3 Picard series in quality? 2 was better. None were particularly brilliant and rested heavy on nostalgia.
I particularly dislike the fucked up scale. So all of Star Fleet meets in one place for some pointless fleet linking demonstrate? ALL of Star Fleet? They don't have any borders to watch then?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 28, 2023, 02:30:55 PM
Quote from: Josquius on June 28, 2023, 07:11:54 AMI finished Picard. Don't really get it. I thought things were chill with the Borg now after series 2? - wasn't Alison Pill meant to be queen now?
These are other Borgs, apparently.  Some offshoots.


Quote from: Josquius on June 28, 2023, 07:11:54 AMSo all of Star Fleet meets in one place for some pointless fleet linking demonstrate? ALL of Star Fleet? They don't have any borders to watch then?
The Klingons are allies, the Romulans are destroyed, the Cardassians are still rebuilding, the Wormhole is secured by DS9... Yep, no borders.

Still stupid.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2023, 02:51:44 PM
Yeah narratively Star Trek wasn't thinking ahead very far and have destroyed all their big bad enemies in one way or another.

Must be why more modern shows have jumped into the past (Disco, SNW, Lower Decks) or the far future (Disco again).  Picard is the only one to stick with the "modern" era.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 28, 2023, 02:55:43 PM
Still have a few like the tholians and the Breen haven't been wiped out like cardasia. They can always make more, it's the joy of fantasy :D

*edit* And lower decks is the TNG/DS9/VOY era.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on June 28, 2023, 02:58:19 PM
I was thinking less about major powers launching a sneak attack and more various minor powers, unaligned systems, etc... Pirates, smugglers, and other criminality are things.
The orion for instance would love star fleets guard to be dropped.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Barrister on June 28, 2023, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2023, 02:55:43 PMStill have a few like the tholians and the Breen haven't been wiped out like cardasia. They can always make more, it's the joy of fantasy :D

*edit* And lower decks is the TNG/DS9/VOY era.

And all those shows came out 30 years ago.  It's "the past".

As for the others... the Breen were defeated alongside the Dominion.  No idea what happened to them afterwards.  Tholians are still out there, haven't heard anything about them other than a few oblique references in DS9.

But more fundamentally, Breen wear masks and Tholians are CGI spiders.  There's never been a compelling character from either race.  There's no Gul Dukat, no Sela, no General Chang, no Wayoun... and there really can never be.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 28, 2023, 03:11:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2023, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2023, 02:55:43 PMStill have a few like the tholians and the Breen haven't been wiped out like cardasia. They can always make more, it's the joy of fantasy :D

*edit* And lower decks is the TNG/DS9/VOY era.

And all those shows came out 30 years ago.  It's "the past".


lies! That can't be :weep:

When i think past in trek I think tos, but yeah I guess it is the past now.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 28, 2023, 03:17:28 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2023, 03:11:41 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 28, 2023, 03:09:48 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2023, 02:55:43 PMStill have a few like the tholians and the Breen haven't been wiped out like cardasia. They can always make more, it's the joy of fantasy :D

*edit* And lower decks is the TNG/DS9/VOY era.

And all those shows came out 30 years ago.  It's "the past".


lies! That can't be :weep:

When i think past in trek I think tos, but yeah I guess it is the past now.

TNG is probably closer to TOS than it is to today.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 29, 2023, 08:23:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2023, 02:58:27 PMSeason two of SNW feels weaker. Or is that just me?

Latest episode takes place in Toronto. 😁
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 29, 2023, 08:33:44 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 28, 2023, 02:55:43 PMStill have a few like the tholians and the Breen haven't been wiped out like cardasia. They can always make more, it's the joy of fantasy :D

*edit* And lower decks is the TNG/DS9/VOY era.
Neither the Breen nor the Orion could sustain a prolonged war with Starfleet alone.

They would need to know for sure Starfleet could not retaliate before attacking.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on June 29, 2023, 08:44:54 PM
Quote from: Josephus on June 29, 2023, 08:23:11 PM
Quote from: HVC on June 26, 2023, 02:58:27 PMSeason two of SNW feels weaker. Or is that just me?

Latest episode takes place in Toronto. 😁

And they blew part of it up. Which should please some in Canada :D

Shows filmed in Mississauga  , so cheap location shoots.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on June 30, 2023, 02:32:21 AM
I liked the little in-joke, "It's New York!" "... no, we're in Toronto," considering how often NYC scenes are filmed there. :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on June 30, 2023, 06:54:13 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 30, 2023, 02:32:21 AMI liked the little in-joke, "It's New York!" "... no, we're in Toronto," considering how often NYC scenes are filmed there. :lol:

Yeah, it didn't hit me at the time, but later I was thinking about that scene, and I realized, yeah, they're obviously poking fun at that.

I'm thinking, though, how much money he would have had to have won playing chess. That hotel suite downtown wouldn't come cheap.  :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on June 30, 2023, 12:08:39 PM
Alternate timeline stuff:
[Spoiler]

It's cold.
Kirk is from space, never been on Earth.
Toronto is cheap.


And I haven't watched the entire episode yet...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 06, 2023, 01:21:21 PM
I enjoyed The Elder Scrolls: Enterprise. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 06, 2023, 07:41:57 PM
I liked the last two episodes. The last ones threat of the week was a little plot hole-y but it's is Star Trek after all :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 13, 2023, 08:55:29 PM
Great episode. Loved hen pecked Vulcan husband.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 13, 2023, 09:29:56 PM
I shared a hotel room once with Mia Kirshner (Spock's mom in this episode)

 :showoff:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 13, 2023, 09:34:24 PM
:perv:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 13, 2023, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 13, 2023, 09:29:56 PMI shared a hotel room once with Mia Kirshner (Spock's mom in this episode)

 :showoff:

I looked it up, because she looked too young to be Spock's mom - she's only 11 years older than Ethan Peck. :D

I enjoyed the episode, and Spock being the comic relief of the show is an unexpected but fun twist (the scene with Lt. Kirk and "his mess" was amazing :lol: ), but I hope it doesn't become too much of a trope. Season 1: Spock and T'Pring change bodies! Season 2: Spock becomes human and has to deal with his super-traditional Vulcan in-laws! Season 3: ???

Overall, I think Trek is doing a good job with recasting characters, btw. I was skeptical about Paul Wesley as Kirk, but the Toronto episode fully put that to rest for me. (Though Karl Urban as McCoy probably remains the best :wub: ) I wish Star Wars was willing to do this instead of relying on CGI trickery. Hell, regardless of what you thought of the movie Solo, I thought Alden Ehrenreich as Han and Donald Glover as Lando were great.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 04:24:21 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 13, 2023, 11:57:04 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 13, 2023, 09:29:56 PMI shared a hotel room once with Mia Kirshner (Spock's mom in this episode)

 :showoff:

I looked it up, because she looked too young to be Spock's mom - she's only 11 years older than Ethan Peck. :D

I enjoyed the episode, and Spock being the comic relief of the show is an unexpected but fun twist (the scene with Lt. Kirk and "his mess" was amazing :lol: ), but I hope it doesn't become too much of a trope. Season 1: Spock and T'Pring change bodies! Season 2: Spock becomes human and has to deal with his super-traditional Vulcan in-laws! Season 3: ???

Overall, I think Trek is doing a good job with recasting characters, btw. I was skeptical about Paul Wesley as Kirk, but the Toronto episode fully put that to rest for me. (Though Karl Urban as McCoy probably remains the best :wub: ) I wish Star Wars was willing to do this instead of relying on CGI trickery. Hell, regardless of what you thought of the movie Solo, I thought Alden Ehrenreich as Han and Donald Glover as Lando were great.

I think Star Wars is dabbling in this direction, realising they have no choice going forward- Mon Mothma in Andor was recast.
Then again with the way AI is coming on...
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 14, 2023, 04:30:18 AM
Quote from: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 04:24:21 AMI think Star Wars is dabbling in this direction, realising they have no choice going forward- Mon Mothma in Andor was recast.

Yes, but Genevieve O'Reilly was cast in that role already for Episode III, but the scenes in which she appeared were cut from the movie, and she had already reprised the role in Star Wars: Rebels.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on July 14, 2023, 11:00:28 AM
Quote from: Syt on July 14, 2023, 04:30:18 AM
Quote from: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 04:24:21 AMI think Star Wars is dabbling in this direction, realising they have no choice going forward- Mon Mothma in Andor was recast.

Yes, but Genevieve O'Reilly was cast in that role already for Episode III, but the scenes in which she appeared were cut from the movie, and she had already reprised the role in Star Wars: Rebels.


Such a serendipitous decision to bring her back for Rogue One. She otherwise doesn't have much of a noteworthy acting career but she's great in Andor.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 14, 2023, 11:04:18 AM
Oh yeah, forgot she was in Rogue One, too. :D

Though I'm always tickled that Forest Whitaker seems to make time for any Star Wars project. "Need me for a movie to play an older version of an animated character? Sure! Need me to voice that character on an animated show? No problem. Need that character in a game? Of course! Spin off show? Yup!" :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on July 14, 2023, 04:23:46 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 14, 2023, 11:04:18 AMOh yeah, forgot she was in Rogue One, too. :D

Though I'm always tickled that Forest Whitaker seems to make time for any Star Wars project. "Need me for a movie to play an older version of an animated character? Sure! Need me to voice that character on an animated show? No problem. Need that character in a game? Of course! Spin off show? Yup!" :lol:
Animated character?
I just knew him from rogue one.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 15, 2023, 05:18:29 AM
He was in the Onderon arc in Clone Wars, where Anakin and Ahsoka train the locals in guerrilla tactics. He and his sister Steela were main side characters in the arc, and she died in the end (partially thanks to Saw).

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/18/bb/8f/18bb8fc73a58db832c04e6dc6b2c6bda.jpg)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 15, 2023, 05:45:57 AM
In certain areas of nerdom you'd all be tarred and feathered for this hijack  :contract:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on July 15, 2023, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 15, 2023, 05:45:57 AMIn certain areas of nerdom you'd all be tarred and feathered for this hijack  :contract:

 :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 20, 2023, 09:20:25 AM
Enjoyed the new episode very much.

I was at first disappointed, because we've seen this kind of mystery several times across all of Trek in multiple variations, and I guessed what was happening quite early in the episode.

However, they made up for this with giving us more character exposition/development. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on July 20, 2023, 09:53:03 AM
I'm slowly catching up with S2. First episode was meh, second was fun, the time travel episode is my favorite so far - it doesn't break new ground but it was effective - although I wish they didn't feel the need to shoehorn Kirk so much. It could have been any other member of the crew.

My favorite episode of the show remains the S1 finale - which was great although again, Kirk was weird in there.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 20, 2023, 11:52:14 AM
It's almost here

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on July 20, 2023, 12:05:16 PM
I loved the first episode.  I thought they were going get lazy and have the Captain save the day - TOS style.  Very happy they did not go that way.

The time travel one was, I think, the weakest so far but still enjoyable.  Last week was simply brilliant. 

Looking forward to seeing this week's episode - but I don't think it drops until tomorrow for us.

I appreciate the fact the early viewers are not talking about what happens.   :) 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 20, 2023, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 13, 2023, 11:57:04 PMSeason 2: Spock becomes human and has to deal with his super-traditional Vulcan in-laws!
Spoiler:



I guess they needed something to push the separation of Spock and T'Pring as per TOS.

I've only read about it, I've never seen this episode, but in TOS, she forces Kirk and Spock to fight to the death so she can remarry, I think.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 22, 2023, 09:01:00 PM
So the Strange New Worlds / Lower Decks episode surprise dropped today.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2023, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: Josephus on July 22, 2023, 09:01:00 PMSo the Strange New Worlds / Lower Decks episode surprise dropped today.

(https://media.tenor.com/cLTDPmR2UHsAAAAC/a-surprise-to-be-sure-star-wars.gif)

Thanks, I would not even have checked till next Thursday. :D

No spoilers, but: don't skip the opening credits. :)

This was excellent and pretty much all I hoped for. :cool:

Silly, yes. Goofy, very much. But also sincere and heartfelt in the right spots. :cry: And let's face it, Boimler is any of us who's a fan of TOS (Those Old Scientists). :wub:

Oh, and just btw - Episode 9 (August 3rd) will be a musical episode ....  :lmfao:


Ep. 8 seems a bit more serious, based on its title: "Under the Cloak of War" :ph34r:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 23, 2023, 06:06:34 AM
A musical?
LOL

You know, after Disovery and Picard, I kind of like what they're doing with this series. Yes, the Lower Decks episode was good fun and the musical may harken back to the days of the Drew Carey show and other non-formulaic shows.

Keeping it light. Love it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 23, 2023, 06:39:57 AM
I think  it's ok that they have a variety of tones in the show. You have "Lifte Us Where Suffering Cannot Reach" or "Among the Lotus Eaters" which are just classic Trek. You have "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" or the finale of S1, or "All Those Who Wander" (i.e. "the" Hemmer episode :cry: ), which are much more serious. And then you have a LD crossover, or Spock and T'Pring switching bodies, or the crew acting out the plot of a kids' book.

It's kinda how in TNG you could have "Qpid" (the Robin Hood one), followed by "The Drumhead" (a serious one about paranoia, prejudice vs. due process and rule of law), followed by "Half a Life" (Lwaxanna Troi dating David Ogden Steers whose society demands he is killed because of his age). Or in TOS, where you have "Piece of the Action" (the gangster planet), "The Immunity Syndrome" (alien danger of the week), "A Private Little War" (about proxy wars between superpowers and how it affects the concerned "little" powers).

What I like about SNW is that they remain sincere, regardless of whether it's serious or goofy, and that they give everyone in the cast some room to shine - decent job considering they have 8 primary crew members (Pike, Spock, Mbenga, Chapel, Una, La'an, Uhura, Ortegas), and after only 17 episodes it's easy to feel "at home" and very familiar with these characters, something that e.g. Discovery still struggles with.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 23, 2023, 06:53:40 AM
Discovery just took itself too seriously. Even DS9 which had some pretty deep arcs still took time out for a holosuite baseball tournament or the ferengis attempt a magnificent 7 remake.


*edit* although, for me, a musical might be a bridge too far. But that's because I don't like musicals, not that a musical can't be Trek.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on July 23, 2023, 07:31:05 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 23, 2023, 06:53:40 AMDiscovery just took itself too seriously. Even DS9 which had some pretty deep arcs still took time out for a holosuite baseball tournament or the ferengis attempt a magnificent 7 remake.


 

True but DS9 had a lot more episodes per season to work with than Discovery. Because of Discovery's storyline there is little room for Robin Hood type episodes. Discovery also never really knew what it wanted to be...switching gears too often, from pre-Enterprise, to meeting the Entrpise in s.2 to zooming way into the future in Season 3. It is the hardest to follow.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 23, 2023, 08:26:43 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 23, 2023, 06:53:40 AMDiscovery just took itself too seriously. Even DS9 which had some pretty deep arcs still took time out for a holosuite baseball tournament or the ferengis attempt a magnificent 7 remake.


*edit* although, for me, a musical might be a bridge too far. But that's because I don't like musicals, not that a musical can't be Trek.

let's just hope everyone can sing well enough to not make it too cringe. Cause that's always the risk with musical episodes (sometimes they work, sometimes they just don't)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 23, 2023, 08:21:26 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 23, 2023, 07:31:05 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 23, 2023, 06:53:40 AMDiscovery just took itself too seriously. Even DS9 which had some pretty deep arcs still took time out for a holosuite baseball tournament or the ferengis attempt a magnificent 7 remake.


 

True but DS9 had a lot more episodes per season to work with than Discovery. Because of Discovery's storyline there is little room for Robin Hood type episodes. Discovery also never really knew what it wanted to be...switching gears too often, from pre-Enterprise, to meeting the Entrpise in s.2 to zooming way into the future in Season 3. It is the hardest to follow.
Stranger New Worlds has a short season too.
Yet they could work a fantasy episode for the doctor's little girl and These Old Scientists episode.

So, about that last one.  Sci-Fi is keeping it on schedule for next Thursday, but releasing the musical right after.  So I found an alternate way to watch it.  The video quality was garbage though.

I really liked that episode.  Boimler and Mariner are their usual self and the Enterprise crew was quite unprepared for what was unleashed upon them :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 23, 2023, 08:29:29 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 23, 2023, 08:21:26 PM
Quote from: Josephus on July 23, 2023, 07:31:05 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 23, 2023, 06:53:40 AMDiscovery just took itself too seriously. Even DS9 which had some pretty deep arcs still took time out for a holosuite baseball tournament or the ferengis attempt a magnificent 7 remake.


 

True but DS9 had a lot more episodes per season to work with than Discovery. Because of Discovery's storyline there is little room for Robin Hood type episodes. Discovery also never really knew what it wanted to be...switching gears too often, from pre-Enterprise, to meeting the Entrpise in s.2 to zooming way into the future in Season 3. It is the hardest to follow.
Stranger New Worlds has a short season too.
Yet they could work a fantasy episode for the doctor's little girl and These Old Scientists episode.

So, about that last one.  Sci-Fi is keeping it on schedule for next Thursday, but releasing the musical right after.  So I found an alternate way to watch it.  The video quality was garbage though.

I really liked that episode.  Boimler and Mariner are their usual self and the Enterprise crew was quite unprepared for what was unleashed upon them :D

For future reference (say you miss an episode) the sci-fi channel has the episodes online, even this one. Just have to log in with your cable credentials. Also, the pm I sent you a while ago has the show too :P
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on July 23, 2023, 11:02:22 PM
Ok, I replied with PM instead of here, but it'll do. :)

Thanks, I did not know about the online sci-fi.

Videotron has cable-on-demand, but not for sci-fi, because it's a Bell channel. :glare:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on July 24, 2023, 02:57:49 AM
Slowly catching up. Loved the Memento planet episode - although I feel it had potential to become the show's first classic episode but the writing wasn't quite there. Too much time spent on the Enterprise arc, while planetside was much more compeling. Felt they rushed the ending with the magic metal.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on July 27, 2023, 11:44:11 AM
Well, this was a bit of a mood swing from last episode. :ph34r:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 28, 2023, 07:46:49 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2023, 11:44:11 AMWell, this was a bit of a mood swing from last episode. :ph34r:

Acting was good, I especially liked Ortegas, but something of the episode was off. Maybe because it came after a great but super light episode.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: celedhring on July 31, 2023, 03:41:56 AM
So, after the excellent memento episode I'm treated to one where Spock has to convince her fiancé's conservative mother of his vulcan-ness that seems a straight sitcom plot - except that the laughs are super sparse and it's one hour long. The customer support aliens also felt like something I'd find in Hitchiker's Guide, not Trek.

The show is wildly uneven. I appreciate that it wants to be a lighter show, but I don't feel they have got the balance right just yet, and I find the dramatic episodes to be generally more successful. But there's enough good episodes here and there to keep me onboard.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on July 31, 2023, 04:02:56 AM
You're gonna hate episode 7 then :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on July 31, 2023, 09:28:07 AM
Quote from: HVC on July 28, 2023, 07:46:49 PM
Quote from: Syt on July 27, 2023, 11:44:11 AMWell, this was a bit of a mood swing from last episode. :ph34r:

Acting was good, I especially liked Ortegas, but something of the episode was off. Maybe because it came after a great but super light episode.

After some good writing, this one was forced and had some big plot holes.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on August 03, 2023, 07:10:59 AM
Well, this was ... all right. But I'm not big on musicals. :D

I respect the team for looking at high concept episodes like this and giving it a shot instead of playing it safe with the tried and true.

For SNW, especially, I'm mostly looking at it from the angle if an episode would stand out too much from what TOS did. And considering we had the Squire of Gothos, Specter of the Gun, Piece of the Action, Bread and Circuses and what not, I'd say it's not too out there by that standard. :P

The episode did wrap up a few arcs from this season, though. And the Klingons had me actually laughing out loud at the end. -_-
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on August 03, 2023, 07:20:54 PM
That was uhm... interesting.

Some musings that include spoilers so beware

- I liked jealous La'an and he over all arc this season
- the Kirk brothers have great chemistry
- pike has a good voice (unless he was dubbed)
- boy band klingons were entertaining but I expected opera. Worf would be displeased
- did kirk know about David this early on?

Overall I think the episode would have been way better without the singing. 
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on August 04, 2023, 12:34:10 AM
Quote from: HVC on August 03, 2023, 07:20:54 PM- boy band klingons were entertaining but I expected opera. Worf would be displeased

When first showing up the Klingons refered to the incident being a great dishonor - I guess it was foreshadowed? :D (This goes into the same file as the Tribble Wars for the Klingons, I assume.)

I was actually pleased that they wrapped it into a reasonably Trek plot with tons tech jargon (the Heisenberg Compensators got a decent workout this week - they were introduced in Trek to get around Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle to make the transporters work. Mike Okuda was once asked how the work, and he replied, "The work very well, thanks." ) And an anomaly that makes you confess your innermost feelings when in heightened emotional state ... still fine, it's up there with The Naked Time and The Naked Now.

Not sure how I feel about the introduction of improbability fields to the Trek canon - sure it's a handwavy thing to explain that reality has been altered to introduce musical numbers. But I feel it takes us a step closer to building an infinite improbability drive in Trek (though I guess Discovery's spore drive was already kinda that, at least in outcome :P ).
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on August 04, 2023, 01:13:43 AM
Tribbles were an ecological menace. A mortal enemy of the Klingon empire. It was Honorable to wipe them out. Many songs were sung and what not :D
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on August 04, 2023, 06:11:33 AM
I found the musical idea great...for a couple songs; then wore out it's welcome. I think I started to zone out when Ohara started singing.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, they were all dubbed? thoughts on that?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on August 04, 2023, 06:36:50 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 04, 2023, 06:11:33 AMI found the musical idea great...for a couple songs; then wore out it's welcome. I think I started to zone out when Ohara started singing.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, they were all dubbed? thoughts on that?

The actress who plays Uhura is an actual singer I believe. I figured the others are heavily autotuned but not necessarily dubed. Except pike. The singing was good but his voice sounded the most off. But some peoples singing voices are very different, so who knows (the credits probably know :D )
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on August 04, 2023, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: Josephus on August 04, 2023, 06:11:33 AMI found the musical idea great...for a couple songs; then wore out it's welcome. I think I started to zone out when Ohara started singing.

I'm pretty sure, though I may be wrong, they were all dubbed? thoughts on that?
Some moments were ok, but I'm not a fan of musicals.  Critics are raving about it, obviously.  Many fans seems to like it too.

We might just be the weirdos.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on August 05, 2023, 09:27:06 AM
I loved it.

I wonder who the brave soul was who pitched that concept.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on September 05, 2023, 06:08:52 PM
Lower Decks season 4 this Thursday.
Does not seem to be available on CTV Sci-Fi.  And as I suspected, I can not stream from their site.

I think I'm going to be done with cable.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on September 06, 2023, 09:53:40 AM
Paramount took the Star Trek series back from Crave. Most should now, finally, be available on Paramount+ in Canada.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on September 06, 2023, 10:03:53 AM
Well that is terrible news
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on September 06, 2023, 10:06:56 AM
It's the best kind of news.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on September 06, 2023, 10:09:08 AM
Why would you subscribe to paramount?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on September 06, 2023, 10:10:41 AM
Just checked lower decks still shows on CTV Sci-Fi website, and they have a sept 7th premier banner :unsure:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on September 06, 2023, 10:12:08 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 06, 2023, 10:09:08 AMWhy would you subscribe to paramount?

To watch Star Trek? The real question is What steps can you take to avoid giving BCE money?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on September 06, 2023, 10:12:43 AM
Only ones they're missing is DS9, TNG and Voyager, which is off because the actual channel is like 50% reruns of those shows

*edit * prodigy, discovery, and Picard have "leaving soon" tags though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on September 06, 2023, 01:20:33 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2023, 10:10:41 AMJust checked lower decks still shows on CTV Sci-Fi website, and they have a sept 7th premier banner :unsure:
Yes, it is on their website, but it's not showing on the tv guide, only reruns.  Could be a mistake in the description.  I've still set up the recorder for both episodes.

Paramount+ Canada should not have the rights to the new Trek series either, on CTV Sci-Fi.  Everywhere I read, it says you should subsribe to Paramount+ with a VPN. :wacko:


The series is distributed worldwide by Paramount Global Distribution Group.[58] In February 2023, Paramount made a new deal with Prime Video for the series' international streaming rights. This allowed all existing seasons to be added to Paramount+ in some other countries in addition to remaining on Prime Video.[59] In July 2023, Bell Media announced that the series would be leaving Crave over the following month, likely so it could move to Paramount+ in Canada. Lower Decks would continue to be broadcast on CTV Sci-Fi and be available on CTV.ca and the CTV app.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Grey Fox on September 06, 2023, 05:41:50 PM
You'll see soon if it's the right broadcast. Personally I miss Star Trek 😞.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on September 06, 2023, 07:29:11 PM
Lower Decks is so silly, but at the same time, it feels like it's TNG all over again. :)

I wish the seasons of Strange New Worlds were a tad longer though.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 07, 2023, 01:00:10 AM
Quote from: viper37 on September 06, 2023, 07:29:11 PMLower Decks is so silly, but at the same time, it feels like it's TNG all over again. :)

I wish the seasons of Strange New Worlds were a tad longer though.

Yes in both.

Just watched the musical episode. Was better than I expected it to be. Like that they made it happen within a proper trek context and not just outvof the blue.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josephus on September 07, 2023, 05:59:10 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 06, 2023, 09:53:40 AMParamount took the Star Trek series back from Crave. Most should now, finally, be available on Paramount+ in Canada.

Wait....so the next season of Strange New Worlds won't be on Crave??
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on September 15, 2023, 12:58:25 PM
Have you been able to watch the episodes, Viper?

I've liked the first three so far.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on September 16, 2023, 05:32:45 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 15, 2023, 12:58:25 PMHave you been able to watch the episodes, Viper?

I've liked the first three so far.
Yes :)  Only the description was wrong.  The episodes were the correct ones.  Videotron shall retain one of their customers, for now. :P

I liked the first two, but I haven't seen the 3rd one yet. :)
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on October 05, 2023, 04:03:55 PM
Good episode of lower decks. But then again I've always been partial to ferengi.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on October 06, 2023, 12:39:05 AM
I complained about pun episode titles in Star Wars. Star Trek, however ... "Parth Ferengi's Heart Place" :wub:

Good fun. The Ferengi war memorial was *chef's kiss* :lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 07, 2023, 01:03:22 AM
T was surely nice to see rom and leeta again. Double so since I just watched the baseball episode
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 02:50:12 PM
Up to ep 3 of the new strange new worlds. Eagerly await the cross over.
Though I noticed something towards the start. Engineer lady says the federation is explicitly a socialist utopia.
Is this a first mention like so?
It's always been obvious but can't remember it in as many words.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on October 21, 2023, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 02:50:12 PMIs this a first mention like so?
To my knowledge, yes.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 10:15:16 AM
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 02:50:12 PMUp to ep 3 of the new strange new worlds. Eagerly await the cross over.
Though I noticed something towards the start. Engineer lady says the federation is explicitly a socialist utopia.
Is this a first mention like so?
It's always been obvious but can't remember it in as many words.

I think the closest they came before is the speech Picard gave to the 20th century industrialist who had been in a cryogenic freezer.

Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on October 26, 2023, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 10:15:16 AM
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 02:50:12 PMUp to ep 3 of the new strange new worlds. Eagerly await the cross over.
Though I noticed something towards the start. Engineer lady says the federation is explicitly a socialist utopia.
Is this a first mention like so?
It's always been obvious but can't remember it in as many words.

I think the closest they came before is the speech Picard gave to the 20th century industrialist who had been in a cryogenic freezer.


He never mentioned the word "socialist" though.

He just said they abolished money and the people had took Shakespeare words literally when he said "kill all the lawyers".

Perfect utopia.  :ph34r:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on October 27, 2023, 01:07:33 PM
Quote from: viper37 on October 26, 2023, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 23, 2023, 10:15:16 AM
Quote from: Josquius on October 21, 2023, 02:50:12 PMUp to ep 3 of the new strange new worlds. Eagerly await the cross over.
Though I noticed something towards the start. Engineer lady says the federation is explicitly a socialist utopia.
Is this a first mention like so?
It's always been obvious but can't remember it in as many words.

I think the closest they came before is the speech Picard gave to the 20th century industrialist who had been in a cryogenic freezer.


He never mentioned the word "socialist" though.

He just said they abolished money and the people had took Shakespeare words literally when he said "kill all the lawyers".

Perfect utopia.  :ph34r:

As I recall the speech it was that there was no need for money and they had eliminated want.  Yes, he did not say the word "socialist" but he described what it would look like if it was ever actually created.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: viper37 on October 27, 2023, 04:27:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 27, 2023, 01:07:33 PMAs I recall the speech it was that there was no need for money and they had eliminated want.
They have unlimited resources thanks to the replicators and infinite energy supply while on planet.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on November 03, 2023, 01:30:32 AM
This was a quite fun finale, though I thought the side plot for Tendi felt very forced in. We'll see how that plays out.

Some lovely references and jokes and in-jokea in there (won't spoil them) as well as tying back to some earlier episodes of the season.

Also, I love when Trek starts with "Previously on ..." "And now the conclusion" :wub:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: HVC on November 03, 2023, 01:36:38 AM
I just don't see it.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Syt on November 03, 2023, 02:50:01 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 03, 2023, 01:36:38 AMI just don't see it.
:lol:
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on December 12, 2023, 01:28:11 PM
I finally got to the musical episode of Strange New Worlds. I like musicals, I like TV, I even like musical TV shows like My Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

I don't see why regular TV shows need musical episodes.<_<
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: Josquius on December 12, 2023, 02:22:48 PM
It was hilarious to start with, didn't know it was coming, but really slumps in the middle before ending funny again-the klingons :lol:.
Kind of typical of a lot of trek episodes really. Or hell. Mediocre films in general.

Strange new worlds really is shaping up to be a competitor for best trek series ever. It's not there yet. But another few good series and we will talk.
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:28:34 PM
I loved that episode
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: garbon on December 12, 2023, 02:30:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:28:34 PMI loved that episode

Why?
Title: Re: STAR TREK
Post by: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2023, 02:30:12 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 12, 2023, 02:28:34 PMI loved that episode

Why?

I thought it was entertaining. And I was very impressed with the singing ability of those actors. 

I would have enjoyed it less if it had been dubbed.  But that was them.  Very impressive.