|
|
Post by Randle-El on Jul 28, 2014 23:13:54 GMT -5
But Wrath of Khan is what set that template. The Motion Picture was high-minded and idea heavy, but most movie-goers found it slow and inaccessible, and even TOS fans generally point to Khan as being their favorite. What ideas were at the center of that film? I agree about Khan, and yet I'm more forgiving of the TOS/TNG movies when they decide to go more of the action movie route. For TOS/TNG, I see the TV shows as being primarily responsible for establishing the characters and the general tone of the franchise. The movies are more of a chance to cut loose every few years, have fun with a bigger budget, and do some crazier things that you normally wouldn't. The newer films lack that grounding in a more thoughtful, idea-driven space, so they come across as purely a big, summer action movie franchise. I think what bothers me is the possibility that these newer films will define Star Trek for a younger generation of viewers, who will grow up thinking of Star Trek as an action movie franchise rather than a morality play. If that were the end of the story, it would not be such a bad thing. But today's kids will grow up to be tomorrow's customers, and if the Star Trek they grew up with was an action movie franchise, who is to say that the folks in charge will not be forced to adapt accordingly in order stay "relevant"? Back to Khan -- while it was more action heavy that the first film, I still thought it did a decent job of exploring ideas. I liked the idea of the Kobayashi Maru test, Captain Kirk's "solution", and what it said about it him as a character -- both positive (his outside-the-box thinking) and negative (his inability to face impossible situations). I also liked the quieter moments, like when Kirk receives the glasses from Bones, and the emphasis on these characters having known each other for a long time and are, effectively, growing old together. I also thought Khan had the best soundtrack of all the movies. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 23:19:24 GMT -5
I remember my mom watching TNG a lot when I was a kid, but I never paid it much attention. I watched the first few episodes of TOS via Netflix and it was just not my thing at all. I've tried watching TNG a few times on BBCA and it seemed like the type of thing that requires a commitment for it to click. Could I watch the TNG movies without watching the series, and do they have to be watched in order?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jul 28, 2014 23:48:13 GMT -5
Yeah. I remember seeing sample images and thinking "Anyone (I mean ANYONE) could have done that, but most would have just thrown it up on the internet for all to enjoy freely. Only Byrne tries to get paid for it and labelled as some kind of innovator for doing so. John Byrne really needs the money. That big ego must be eating him out of house and home. |
|
|
|
Post by BigPapaJoe on Jul 29, 2014 4:20:05 GMT -5
I've been into Star Trek since I was a little boy. I watched syndicated episodes of TOS in the early 90's onward and watched TNG. TOS is my favorite followed by TNG. As a kid I thought DS9 was boring because all they did was stay on a station. But as I got older I went back and watched it in it's entirety and the ongoing story arcs are some of the best in the entire franchise. I liked Voyager and still do to this day. I go back and watch it every so often. Although I can understand why it's gotten a bad rap by some fans. I enjoyed the show though. Tuvok was my favorite character (I like Vulcans) followed by The Doctor and Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan was hot). Enterprise was okay. Saw the entire series, but it's been a while and I wouldn't mind going back and watching it again. Too bad it got cancelled and ended with that horrible episode.
The films I also enjoy. Mostly the TOS ones. The TNG ones are hard to swallow for the most part. First Contact was a good action movie I guess even though there were a lot of big plot points that didn't make sense. I'm probably one of the few fans that doesn't mind The Motion Picture and it's length. I just get caught up the spectacle of it all and it really reminds me of what Star Trek is supposed to be: exploring the unknown and seeking out new life and new civilizations. Unfortunately there isn't much depth to the characters in the movie. The ones we care about. Wrath of Khan fixes this mistake and just makes everything work ridiculously well. Best film in the series easily. The new films are a mixed bag for me. They are action-packed-thrill rides, but at the same time I feel like the producers of those films are having to adhere to today's audiences which have no patience for exploring ideas and moral dilemmas within narratives. They want to see people running from things and dodging explosions. And that isn't what Star Trek is really about.
All in all this is the one franchise that has had a huge impact on my life and even the way I think about things. It's because of Star Trek that I've had an interesting in exploring beyond the heavens and knowing what is past our own atmosphere. It's because of Star Trek that I learned to have a better vocabulary compared to some of my peers (thanks Spock and Data). It's because of Star Trek I wonder if there is a light at the end of the tunnel for mankind. Is a utopia where people are free from disease, hunger, and strive really possible with better technology? Can humans all live in harmony based on their own constructions for the greater good?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 29, 2014 5:58:01 GMT -5
But the books I've enjoyed the most have been the Deep Space Nine relaunch -- a series of meticulously edited books designed to function as Season Nine to the series. It uses the final episode as an opportunity to ditch familiar cast members and bring in new characters who, often enough, are more intriguing than their predecessors, as well as further develop the original characters who stick around. Kira is absolutely at her best in this series, forced to take command in the wake of losing both her commanding officer and religious prophet to uncertainty -- never sure he's coming back. The writing is solid, the stories fantastic, and the new characters brilliant (even the ones who die early on. One, in particular, becomes more memorable in death than he/she ever was while still alive). I'm glad to hear that. I didn't read any of the new books but I loved the DS9 characters and wondered how well they'd fare after the end of the series... Would the reduced cast (following the events of the last episode) just go on with inconsequential adventures, or would the story be pushed forward? I haven't read much Trek since the 1990s, but I did get my hands on David Mack's "end of the Borg" trilogy and since it was extremely impressive, I had good hopes for the rest of the Trek universe. On TV, I was a big fan since the 60s up until the end of DS9. The original series retains a style and flavor all its own, and I don't think that its magic was ever successfully duplicated; the recipe was just perfect and simply couldn't be replicated.... not even by the same cast for the. trek movies. Even the cardboard monsters or simple special effects worked for me; I vastly prefer them to the new CGI effects that were edited in recent releases of TOS. I'd rather have a blurry model on screen than a crispy clean computer graphic. (In fact, sometimes this adds realism; in early shows, when the Enterprise was pursuing some alien ship, what you'd see onscreen was either a dot of light or sometimes nothing at all until a big explosion announced that a photon torpedo had struck its target. Considering that space ships are probably separated by thousands of kilometers when they pursue each other, not seeing the other one actually made a lot of sense, even if it was less visually exciting). ] I wanted to love TNG right from the start, but barely managed to like it well enough for the first two seasons. It was... O.K. It seemed to be looking for its voice. A voice that it found in such episodes as "Q who?" and "The best of both worlds". After that, the show kept getting better and better almost up until the end. The movies? Urgh. they're to the series what the Conan movies are to Robert Howard's stories. DS9 was, as many noted, a different thing: its later half consisted of long and involved storylines that particularly appealed to me. And its characters were developed so welll that I would have been content to have entire episodes consisting of Qwark and Odo arguing, or Bashir and O'Brien being caught once again in a Laurel and Hardy routine. Great successor to T oS and TNG, in part because it was different. Voyager was one of the biggest letdown of my fannish years. There can't be more than a handful of episodes I liked. As for Enterprise, I couldn't be bothered to watch it after seeing some of the synopses. Messing up with the timeline and continuity again? Really? In comics, Peter David gave us the best Trek (at DC), IMO, although the Marvel Super Special was pretty cool as well. David was especially good with the characters' voices. The "trial of James T. Kirk" story arc had me rolling in the aisles -in a good way. |
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Jul 29, 2014 9:05:32 GMT -5
DS9 is the only series that I followed consistently (as an aside: very happy to see that Alexander Siddig will be in Game of Thrones). I've seen a couple of original episodes, but few and far between and I've seen most of the Next Generation. Coming of DS9 I intended to follow Voyager, but I dropped it in a couple of episodes in when none of the characters appealed to me. (Nothing to do with the actors themselves, as most of them have been pretty good in other works.)
DS9's first season was very weak and overshadowed by Babylon 5 at the time, but I think that DS9 from season 2 is more consistent than Babylon 5.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 29, 2014 9:26:02 GMT -5
As for Enterprise, I couldn't be bothered to watch it after seeing some of the synopses. Messing up with the timeline and continuity again? Really? To be fair, Enterprise does a generally good job of preserving the timeline. It's mostly just the addition of an earlier Enterprise that doesn't fit, as well as the fact that it somehow looks more modern than the TOS Enterprise. They take pains to make the rest fit pretty neatly. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 29, 2014 15:29:09 GMT -5
As for Enterprise, I couldn't be bothered to watch it after seeing some of the synopses. Messing up with the timeline and continuity again? Really? To be fair, Enterprise does a generally good job of preserving the timeline. It's mostly just the addition of an earlier Enterprise that doesn't fit, as well as the fact that it somehow looks more modern than the TOS Enterprise. They take pains to make the rest fit pretty neatly. Good for them. But weren't there Klingons, Romulans and Ferengi in certain episodes of Enterprise? Were they all temporal anomalies, or was everyone sworn to secrecy? I guess there's always a way to slalom between outright contradictions, but it must be tiring after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 29, 2014 18:36:42 GMT -5
Enterprise did an interesting job of explaining why the Klingons in TOS looked different than in Next Gen. Plus it gave us James Avery as a Klingon General. Brent Spiner also shows up to play Dr. Soong. I liked that they explained how it was possible for Spock to be a half human half Vulcan hybrid. I think I'm still a bit confused on how the TOS Enterprise showed up in the episode "In a Mirror, Darkly" though.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 29, 2014 19:18:08 GMT -5
To be fair, Enterprise does a generally good job of preserving the timeline. It's mostly just the addition of an earlier Enterprise that doesn't fit, as well as the fact that it somehow looks more modern than the TOS Enterprise. They take pains to make the rest fit pretty neatly. Good for them. But weren't there Klingons, Romulans and Ferengi in certain episodes of Enterprise? Were they all temporal anomalies, or was everyone sworn to secrecy? I guess there's always a way to slalom between outright contradictions, but it must be tiring after a while. The klingons play a significant part in the series, and the events that take place go on to explain why there are hostilities between Klingons and The Federation by the time of TOS. Nothing done in Enterprise violates this. For the Romulans, they are never actually seen. Thus Kirk and Spock can still be shocked in Balance of Power. I have not seen the Ferengi show up yet, but I really like the emphasis on Andorians; a race I always felt was underused in Trek. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Jul 29, 2014 19:36:43 GMT -5
I tried to watch Voyager when they aired reruns late at night but it couldn't hold my interest. I only ended up watching most of the first season before I stopped. I wanted to hang in there to see Jeri Ryan but just couldn't. Maybe I'll revisit it eventually. I did like Robert Picardo as the Doctor hologram though. I think Captain Janeway had the worst scenario to deal with compared to the others Captains. I really like the emphasis on Andorians; a race I always felt was underused in Trek. Jeffrey Combs was quite good as Shran. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 29, 2014 19:40:58 GMT -5
DS9 is the only series that I followed consistently (as an aside: very happy to see that Alexander Siddig will be in Game of Thrones). I've seen a couple of original episodes, but few and far between and I've seen most of the Next Generation. Coming of DS9 I intended to follow Voyager, but I dropped it in a couple of episodes in when none of the characters appealed to me. (Nothing to do with the actors themselves, as most of them have been pretty good in other works.) DS9's first season was very weak and overshadowed by Babylon 5 at the time, but I think that DS9 from season 2 is more consistent than Babylon 5. B5 was one of the best sci-fi shows ever (especially from season 2 through 4)... I'm not sure I agree DS9 was that good, but admittedly I watched it sporadically. I might just have to watch it after I'm done with Battlestar  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Jul 29, 2014 19:46:36 GMT -5
Good for them. But weren't there Klingons, Romulans and Ferengi in certain episodes of Enterprise? Were they all temporal anomalies, or was everyone sworn to secrecy? I guess there's always a way to slalom between outright contradictions, but it must be tiring after a while. The klingons play a significant part in the series, and the events that take place go on to explain why there are hostilities between Klingons and The Federation by the time of TOS. Nothing done in Enterprise violates this. For the Romulans, they are never actually seen. Thus Kirk and Spock can still be shocked in Balance of Power. I have not seen the Ferengi show up yet, but I really like the emphasis on Andorians; a race I always felt was underused in Trek. I agree the Klingons and the Andorans were done really well, though they really should have been the Russian Klingons, not the bumpy headed ones, but whatever. The Ferengi being in an episode was just silly. There was an excuse why when Picard ran into them they had no records but it was lame. The problem with the Romulans is more later.. if they're a splinter branch of the Vulcans (as desescribed in TNG), no way the Vulcans didn't know about them. Then there's the episode with the Vulcans that crash landed on Earth in the 60s.... again, they had an explanation, but it was flimsy. Then there's the obvious stuff... like why Archer had never been mentioned before when he was the George Washington of the Federation... or why the attack on Earth at the end of season 2 was never mentioned.. in fact, when the Borg attacked, them made it seem like that was the first time an alien had attacked. Now it's getting way to nerdy, so I'll just say while I do like the show, I can see why hard core trekkers get upset about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Oct 23, 2014 3:44:22 GMT -5
Did anyone check out the John Byrne comic Star Trek: New Visions: "Cry Vengence #1 that came out earlier this month? I'm wondering if it's worth checking out. The only IDW Star Trek book I'm currently reading is Harlan Ellison's City On The Edge Of Forever. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 23, 2014 5:51:29 GMT -5
I've just watched two episodes of Star Trek Continues on YouTube: "Lolani" and "Fairest of them all". That's impressive work! Some of the actors do a convincing impression of the original ones (and since James Doohan' son plays Scotty, there's even a real-world connection), but what I enjoyed the most is how the scripts are very true to TOS's spirit. Roddenberry would have been very happy with these stories, I'm sure.
Highly recommended.
|
|
