Star Trek

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
31,728
Reaction score
18,692
Points
309
Actually, patronising jokes aside, there was this scene:

Who was that for, exactly?
 

Mr. Banooka

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
186
Reaction score
284
Points
79
Heck, in one episode, the therapist gets to take command of the ship!
And she managed to crash it in Generations.

The writers would be hauled through the coals by the bottom half of the Internet for having the female being the bad driver these days!
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
31,728
Reaction score
18,692
Points
309
To be fair, it seems remarkably easy to crash Federation ships.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
I have a confession to make.
I've been a long-time fan of Star Trek. I enjoyed TOS - in my childhood - and I had to review everything FASA produced for one of the RPG's. Heck, I even wrote the questions for a 'phone in quiz; remember them?
Now, I really enjoyed ST:NG. It seemed to me to combine the old 'adventure/exploration' feel with modern *ahem* special effects and introduced fairly heavy moral and ethical questions. As soon as I watched the first ST:DS9, I really loved it. The dark, 'grey area' emotional experience was increased, with even the Federation not being all sweetness-n-light a lot of the time.
Felt dissatisfied with ST:V. Dunno why, most of the same elements of Next Gen were there, but it just didn't inspire me to watch each episode. ST:E really put me off. I can't put my finger on it, exactly, but I think it didn't feel like Star Trek. Prequel, maybe, but it didn't float my boat.
Now, all these new incarnations coming out - on different ... ah ... streaming services just don't appeal to me. Just from the clips alone, they look dramatic, they look special-effects heavy ... and both of these don't appeal to me as part of what I think I liked about Star Trek. Frankly, if I'm not inspired to watch, based on clips and trailers, I don't feel I want to waste time watching them.
I'm not a hardcore fan - I don't watch these just because, for bad or good, they're part of the Star Trek franchise. I don't want - or feel the need - to watch them and then judge their merit. Considered as a sci-fi programme, not ST, they don't make me want to watch them.
Don't get me wrong: I love the films, even the much-argued reboot with Chris Pine. Great, visual drama.
But from what I've seen, these latest entries are film-quality episodes more fitting for a single (or the inevitable series of) films.
Don't think of this as a rant against. After all, I can't comment on something I haven't watched. But it's only a commentary on that, for me personally, from all I've seen ... I'm not attracted to watch.
*sigh*
I don't mind. I've DVD's, VHS tapes and multiple re-runs to re-watch.
And, of course, my full DVD set of Babylon 5 to be going on with. :)
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
I have a confession to make.
I've been a long-time fan of Star Trek. I enjoyed TOS - in my childhood - and I had to review everything FASA produced for one of the RPG's. Heck, I even wrote the questions for a 'phone in quiz; remember them?
Now, I really enjoyed ST:NG. It seemed to me to combine the old 'adventure/exploration' feel with modern *ahem* special effects and introduced fairly heavy moral and ethical questions. As soon as I watched the first ST:DS9, I really loved it. The dark, 'grey area' emotional experience was increased, with even the Federation not being all sweetness-n-light a lot of the time.
Felt dissatisfied with ST:V. Dunno why, most of the same elements of Next Gen were there, but it just didn't inspire me to watch each episode. ST:E really put me off. I can't put my finger on it, exactly, but I think it didn't feel like Star Trek. Prequel, maybe, but it didn't float my boat.
Now, all these new incarnations coming out - on different ... ah ... streaming services just don't appeal to me. Just from the clips alone, they look dramatic, they look special-effects heavy ... and both of these don't appeal to me as part of what I think I liked about Star Trek. Frankly, if I'm not inspired to watch, based on clips and trailers, I don't feel I want to waste time watching them.
I'm not a hardcore fan - I don't watch these just because, for bad or good, they're part of the Star Trek franchise. I don't want - or feel the need - to watch them and then judge their merit. Considered as a sci-fi programme, not ST, they don't make me want to watch them.
Don't get me wrong: I love the films, even the much-argued reboot with Chris Pine. Great, visual drama.
But from what I've seen, these latest entries are film-quality episodes more fitting for a single (or the inevitable series of) films.
Don't think of this as a rant against. After all, I can't comment on something I haven't watched. But it's only a commentary on that, for me personally, from all I've seen ... I'm not attracted to watch.
*sigh*
I don't mind. I've DVD's, VHS tapes and multiple re-runs to re-watch.
And, of course, my full DVD set of Babylon 5 to be going on with. :)
Original for me, Voyager I liked as it was mindless, the new one is ok. Deep Space 9 boring as hell with too many silly costumes/monsters some of which made 1980's doctor who look good. Ferengi - ridiculous.

Also if you want a new species - go for hominoid. Just add something to the skull or have a weird pattern on the face- Voila! A new alien race. Some are sophisticated, (they wear shiny robes), some are primitive, (they wear sleeveless tunics) - the universe is truly a boring place.

The new series hasn't really pushed this either.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
43,486
Reaction score
34,798
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Also if you want a new species - go for hominoid. Just add something to the skull or have a weird pattern on the face- Voila! A new alien race. Some are sophisticated, (they wear shiny robes), some are primitive, (they wear sleeveless tunics) - the universe is truly a boring place.
Yes, this is a big criticism of many SF series, but particularly so of ST.
I think the backstory is that millennia ago, everybody had a common ancestor.
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
4,340
Reaction score
4,581
Points
159
As one of the Star Trek cast pointed out, it's difficult finding non-humanoid actors. Even Neelix had to spend 3 hours in the make-up chair. Not cheap.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
647
Points
194
Location
Left, and to the Back
To be fair, it seems remarkably easy to crash Federation ships.
Truly in fairness, it was going to crash anyway, she just happened to be the unfortunate person at the helm when it happened.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,425
Reaction score
6,226
Points
309
I think the backstory is that millennia ago, everybody had a common ancestor.
The TNG episode "The Chase" explores it.
Original for me, Voyager I liked as it was mindless, the new one is ok. Deep Space 9 boring as hell with too many silly costumes/monsters some of which made 1980's doctor who look good. Ferengi - ridiculous.
I've said time and again that I liked Voyager as it shared, with TOS, the central sense of isolation. They're on their own and have to rely on themselves to deal with issues: with TNG this was almost always lacking with a sense that they could get back-up and/or to safety by tomorrow lunchtime.

I'm sticking with Discovery, but have found this season oddly directionless, given the strong cohesive narrative of S2 with a real sense of purpose and mission, this one feels like running errands.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
The TNG episode "The Chase" explores it.

I've said time and again that I liked Voyager as it shared, with TOS, the central sense of isolation. They're on their own and have to rely on themselves to deal with issues: with TNG this was almost always lacking with a sense that they could get back-up and/or to safety by tomorrow lunchtime.

I'm sticking with Discovery, but have found this season oddly directionless, given the strong cohesive narrative of S2 with a real sense of purpose and mission, this one feels like running errands.
Yeah this season started off really well and has sort of fizzled.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
8,222
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Similar to others upthread, I enjoyed TOS and TNG, and I also quite enjoyed Voyager.
All of the films have had their merits. Some better than others. The more recent ones having better production values, if not better storylines (and where the hell did the dumb 'driving a motorbike around an alien planet' nonsense come from?).
But the more recent TV series have not really entertained me.
I very quickly lost interest in 'Enterprise' (probably after about 4 episodes).
DS9 I always found to be slow moving, waste of my time.
And the 'Discovery' series seemed to have promise initially but then it just sort of veered off into loads of intertwining story arcs, different and confusing timelines, odd characters, and unexplained plot holes, dead-ends and unexplained bits that just sort of 'appeared', so I gave up on that.
I haven't got around to seeing any of 'Picard' yet. Based on my descriptions of my likes/dislikes (above) can anyone advise me if I should bother with it????
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
8,222
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Oh I forgot to mention 'The Orville'. Not Star Trek, I know, but funny.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
9,380
Points
284
Location
Wessex and Mercia
Oh I forgot to mention 'The Orville'. Not Star Trek, I know, but funny.
One person's funny is another person's moronic.
Got a half chuckle from the M&Ms gag in the first episode, but it rapidly went downhill after that.
Gave up after 4 or 5 episodes.
 
Last edited:

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
31,728
Reaction score
18,692
Points
309
I haven't got around to seeing any of 'Picard' yet. Based on my descriptions of my likes/dislikes (above) can anyone advise me if I should bother with it????
Discovery is a staggering work of heartbreaking genius compared with Picard. So many stupid decisions, and it takes itself so seriously with very little to be serious about. A waste of some great characters, plus gratuitous swearing is its idea of mature SF. I was doing some gratuitous swearing myself by the last few episodes.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
9,380
Points
284
Location
Wessex and Mercia
We have a thread on The Orville. Starts out a Trek ripoff (from some of the same Trek people) but gradually evolves into an unexpectedly exciting science fiction show with some really fine episodes.
But it's a spoof.
Whilst Star Trek throws in the occasional whimsical scene, courtesy of characters such as Data, Neelix, Quark and Odo, the focus was on genuine sci-fi stories, rather than attempts at comedy.
The Orville seemed closer in spirit to Red Dwarf - just nowhere near as funny.

As for Picard, whilst it had pacing issues, it built on TNG's mythos pretty well and I would certainly rate it higher than Discovery. Very much looking forward to Picard series 2, in which I gather Guinan will be back.
 

Anome

Bibliomancer
Joined
May 23, 2002
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
647
Points
194
Location
Left, and to the Back
Isn't that the same situation with much of LeGuin's Sci-Fi, though the various "aliens" are all more human looking than the usual Trek - "person with a bit of prosthesis and make up".
I believe for LeGuin, the Ekumen is so far in the future, that the people are all humans from Earth who may have undergone strange experiments, as in the case of The Left Hand of Darkness, but mostly just normal people. There might be some non-terrestrials, but they were very few and far between.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
31,728
Reaction score
18,692
Points
309
But it's a spoof.
Whilst Star Trek throws in the occasional whimsical scene, courtesy of characters such as Data, Neelix, Quark and Odo, the focus was on genuine sci-fi stories, rather than attempts at comedy.
The Orville seemed closer in spirit to Red Dwarf - just nowhere near as funny.

As for Picard, whilst it had pacing issues, it built on TNG's mythos pretty well and I would certainly rate it higher than Discovery. Very much looking forward to Picard series 2, in which I gather Guinan will be back.
Is The Orville a spoof? I would say no: just look at the robot invasion two-parter, it was fantastic and deadly serious. It's more Star Trek with jokes than a parody.
 

Ogdred Weary

Noeth Ac Anoeth
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
5,170
Reaction score
9,335
Points
284
I believe for LeGuin, the Ekumen is so far in the future, that the people are all humans from Earth who may have undergone strange experiments, as in the case of The Left Hand of Darkness, but mostly just normal people. There might be some non-terrestrials, but they were very few and far between.
Technically, aren't most of them "non-terrestrial" by that point? I mean they'll be sub-species, new species etc? Even if they're human/Earthling/Terran etc?
 

gordonrutter

Within reason
Staff member
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
5,217
Reaction score
8,261
Points
309
Is The Orville a spoof? I would say no: just look at the robot invasion two-parter, it was fantastic and deadly serious. It's more Star Trek with jokes than a parody.
It definitely improved once they stopped trying to force a joke every few moments.
 

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
5,529
Reaction score
9,380
Points
284
Location
Wessex and Mercia
"Is The Orville a spoof? "

The Wiki page uses the term "parody", which is a close synonym I guess.

Other terms I've seen used to describe it are a Star Trek "homage", "fanboy cos-play" and "Star Trek with the serial numbers filed off".

America can do whimsical sci-fi really well - as Firefly demonstrated (Blakes 7 with cowboys) but, despite Fox throwing mega bucks at The Orville, I just found it utterly moronic.
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
Just started watching the Mandalorian - Crikey that is how to do an SF TV show.

Realistically carries on from source material - check
Engaging story - check
Just the right balance of light and dark - check
Brilliant special effects/set/costumes - check
Moreishness - check

Discovery is not in the same league as this.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
31,728
Reaction score
18,692
Points
309
At least there was a good cliffhanger this week. But more bigging up of Tilly, whose idea of negotiating with a hostile is "I know you are, but what am I?" And the dilithium wipeout was caused by some bloke's psychic snit? Could they not have not have come up with something better than that?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,425
Reaction score
6,226
Points
309
Just seen it. Agree the cliffhanger is a good one. Also agree (again) that they're clearly crowbarring a lot of plot into Tilly, so there has to be a point to all of this.
 

Mr. Banooka

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
186
Reaction score
284
Points
79
Just started watching the Mandalorian - Crikey that is how to do an SF TV show.

Realistically carries on from source material - check
Engaging story - check
Just the right balance of light and dark - check
Brilliant special effects/set/costumes - check
Moreishness - check

Discovery is not in the same league as this.
Agree 100%. There isn’t much at the moment that comes close to comparing with The Mandalorean. They really need to give the reins to the entire Star Wars universe to Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau. The documentary on Disney+ about the directors is fascinating. Dave Filoni’s story on how he met George Lucas and got the Clone Wars gig is brilliant. At the moment there is nobody on the planet who knows the ins and outs of the Star Wars universe than Dave Filoni.

Can‘t wait for season 3 next year and
The Book of Boba Fett spin off next Christmas
along with the other recently announced shows.

At the moment it seems like the small screen is the best place for Star Wars.
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
After long experience being a (book) critic, I'm used to looking at a series dispassionately. Hence, while having a lot of memory-experience with Conan Doyle, I'm happy to watch new incarnations of Holmes in the 'spirit' that they're meant; Sherlock series and Robert D. Jr.'s outing were not meant to be Conan Doyle but modern TV series and spectacular film respectively.*
In this, I can appreciate that 'new' alien species are based more on expense rather than scientific realism.
This is why every outing of Star Trek has to have a "time travel" episode, putting known characters in periods of (Earth) history; it's amusing and cheap to do.
This is why every form involves main characters being involved in a 'personal' episode where their back-story becomes the main drama.
This is why aliens are, basically humans in funny rubber masks**. This is right from ToS.
I think I have a problem with the writing and the setting. Latest incarnations seem to specialise in outstanding CGI (not a bad thing, per se, but easily overdone) and a world which is *ahem* grittier and darker. Whatever happened to the naive exploration of space, encountering 'monster of the week', the expression of human strengths and frailties? I'm a simple soul, I know, but every series I've started watching starts out episodic and interesting and ends up navel-gazing and plots involving the characters own stories rather than the world around them. For me, X-Files went this way, ST:DS9 started to evidence, and (lately) Grimm***.
I see in TV series, especially in not-contemporary shows, there has to be a bit of world building. But - to my own taste - a good series builds the characters, and they change, because of the experiences during each episode. They start out one thing, they evolve to be different. But when a series is 'character driven', it turns me off. I mean, the world and experience shapes the character; while it's possible that the character 'creates' a situation, it's the world that has final say-so.
I get involved, become interested in character development, as I witness the situation which develops it. I am not interested when an episode almost telegraphs that 'this is why X hates Z'. In Babylon 5, we learn why Ivanova despises the Psi Corp as part of an episode; her hatred is not a foundation of the episode. Exposition - in good drama writing - must be used sparingly and judiciously.
I digress.
I suppose I'm not interested in watching latest incarnations of Star Trek because it seems (to me) to be too pretentious, too deep, too dark, and nothing like past versions that I enjoyed. :)
Oh, and I actually really like The Orville because - satire and new humour aside - it felt like ToS.

* I have experience/get paid for my reading of 'classic' crime fiction. I'm more au fait with this genre of literature and media than anything sci-fi.
** Relating to above, we have a problem with 'gumshoes in togas'. Writers who have good plots but, really, no concept of historical setting.
*** Really liked it but became more like a soap opera that incidentally involved supernatural elements in a police procedural drama. Way off my taste.
 
Last edited:
Top