Be Excellent To Each Other
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/

Star Trek (contains big spoilers for Discovery)
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3810
Page 4 of 8

Author:  metalangel [ Tue May 26, 2009 10:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Anonymous X wrote:
Yes, the film is full of inconsistencies and leaps of logic for nerds to pick over, but heck, it's a summer blockbluster movie for flip's sake.


Interesting list. Not quite to the level of 'in episode 4f22, we see Itchy play Scratchy's ribcage like a xylophone, and he strikes the same rib twice yet it produces two clearly distinct notes' either.

Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue May 26, 2009 10:45 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.

Oh and I like the Enterprise being built on Earth.

As for the coincidences of the crew coming together, that felt like destiny to me. Like it's an elastic, self-healing timeline, that always ends up at roughly the same place despite the rearrangement of the details. Plenty of history of that in SF.

Author:  markg [ Tue May 26, 2009 10:46 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

It must be a bit of a curse to be like that, I'll bet he just tutted his way through the whole film, the joyless fool.

Author:  Doctor Glyndwr [ Tue May 26, 2009 10:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Maybe not. I spotted a number of the things he points out, but I didn't harm the film for me. Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.

Author:  myp [ Tue May 26, 2009 10:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Trek has never been huge on continuity and I think most fans are comfortable of that.

He obviously didn't get the latest memo.

Author:  metalangel [ Tue May 26, 2009 11:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Anyone played the terrible tie-in game on Xbox Live?

The menu (in which a gorgeously rendered Enterprise comes blasting out of warp) is the best part.

The rest is a horrendously sub-par top-down deathmatchy shooter just like Space War was almost half a century ago. With the added fun of the screen scrolling so you can't see enemies until you've nearly crashed into them!

The designers will undoubtedly be hung, drawn and quartered by Trekkies, while the Enterprise is the star of the Federation side, the Federation 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are the least convincing 'Star Trek-like' ships ever... or until you see the Romulan ships. One is the Narada, fair enough... but the Romulan 'Fighter' and 'Bomber' are similarly indistinct 'black shard' shaped things. As opposed to, say, the Romulan warships seen in the old Star Trek (but then, I suppose, that never happened yet, etc etc etc).

But yes, it's shit, in the worst Ocean Software tradition.

Author:  Zio [ Tue May 26, 2009 11:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I didn't read all of that list. Yeah, there are a lot of inconsistences that I also noticed whilst watching the film, but it's an awesome film nevertheless so I couldn't give a shit.

Author:  BikNorton [ Tue May 26, 2009 12:07 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I've been studiously not bothering to suggest going to see it - only to have my girlfriend say at the weekend, out of the blue, "Do you want to go and see Star Trek? Everyone says it's good."

Crikey.

Author:  Grim... [ Tue May 26, 2009 12:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Whilst a lot of that list was extreme nerdery (not that there's anything wrong with that) he makes good points about why the hell the Narada, a mining ship, was so heavily armed that it shredded the Kelvin. Also, where did it go for 25 years, and why wasn't everyone surprised to see Romulans? Not that it matters much, but they are good points.

I believe these questions were answered in the pre-film comic.

Author:  Cras [ Tue May 26, 2009 12:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.

Author:  Grim... [ Tue May 26, 2009 12:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years? It's not hard to imagine even makeshift weapons being shockingly effective against the technology 80 years ago. I imagine you could quite happily take down a 1920s-era battleship with modern RPGs, for example.

Yes, but probably not with a modern oil rig.

Author:  Cras [ Tue May 26, 2009 12:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.

Author:  Anonymous X [ Wed May 27, 2009 0:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Craster wrote:
Quite, and also they go back in time what, 80-odd years?

I did some quick research ( :nerd: ), and Nero went back in time 154 years (from 2387 to 2233), and Old Spock arrived in 2258, so he travelled back 129 years.

Author:  NervousPete [ Wed May 27, 2009 9:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Craster wrote:
No, but an angry man with an oil rig could quite happily weld some RPGs on the outside.


Pft, RPG's would never take a battleship out in a million, billion years. They're huge, could shred a rig in a broadside and they only went out due to their slow vulnerability to air attack, and later, concerted missile attack. Despite that as long as the magazines aren't hit they can take a lot of dam...

Ah. Wait. It was one of those conversations wasn't it? Um, sorry.

(Takes nerd hat off, slithers away)

Author:  Cras [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.

Author:  metalangel [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

It was a heavy cruise (line)r, yes.

Author:  NervousPete [ Wed May 27, 2009 10:22 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Craster wrote:
Also, as we discussed, the Enterprise wasn't a battleship. It was an armed cruise liner.


What? A Q-Boat?! Not if Picard can help it!

Ha ha ha!

Sorry, that's the nerdiest joke I've ever made.

Author:  Grim... [ Sun Apr 01, 2012 0:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?

Author:  metalangel [ Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Oh but it messed with the precious canon by suggesting "our" Spock is now forever trapped in the other timeline. Also that the Enterprise shuttle bay was 500 times bigger than shown on TV.

Author:  Curiosity [ Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:46 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Grim... wrote:
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?


Out next year.

Author:  Lord Rixondale [ Sun Apr 01, 2012 11:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Curiosity wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Why the Hell isn't there a sequel to this yet?


Out next year.

And it's got Benedict Cumberbatch in it.

Author:  Grim... [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

metalangel wrote:
Oh but it messed with the precious canon by suggesting "our" Spock is now forever trapped in the other timeline.

That's not messing with the canon, is it?

Author:  ElephantBanjoGnome [ Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

No it isn't. That Spock disappears to an alternate timeline at a very late point in his life, at a time beyond the broadcast end of the last Star Trek series, then that's totally fine.

Author:  LewieP [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I just recently completed my watch of DS9, which was preceded by TNG and TOS. I'd seen plenty of episodes of all three when I was younger, but a lot of it was over my head, and I never watched them from beginning to end, in order.

I think DS9 is the best, I definitely enjoyed the strong character arcs, them getting very creative with the format, and the emphasis on Politics, War and Theology, in addition to the explorations of Science, Philosophy and Ideology that you get in most of Star Trek.

I've moved onto Enterprise now (only a few episodes in), which has a very neat premise a few cool twists, but it's obviously Trek dumbed down. It's kind of like a half step towards the JJ Abrams movies. It feels like it's missing a lot of the attention to detail and thematic depth that makes Trek special, but has decent action. It feels like there's a fair bit of tension between trying to tie into the wider continuity and still be it's own thing.

Characters seem fairly shallow so far, even if there's good performances from most of the main cast.

My original plan was to finish Enterprise before Discovery starts, but I doubt I'll make it now.

Author:  Cavey [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Interesting reading contemporaneous 2009 posts from people here regarding JJ Abrams' Trek "reboot" and subsequent attempts.

For me, as I've said before, I thought the films were wafer-thin, lighter-than-air flimsy shite (akin to a sort of 'Star Trek for the under fives' extremely lavish CBBC production); nothing short of a complete trashing of the franchise. (Don't even get me started on Into the Darkness or Simon Pegg being cast as Scotty and the worst faux accent since Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins.... I give it 3 out of 1000).

I find it hard to believe that in retrospect, anyone thinks these films stand up well as against the original series and (some) of the original movie spin offs, most notably Wrath of Khan (of course), which Abrams pillages shamelessly with awful results, and The Voyage Home come to that. IMO, they really have not aged well; the shine has come off double quick, whereas the enduring durability of the original could not be more contrasting. :(

Author:  DavPaz [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I was a huge Trekkie in my teens, but I haven't bothered to watch the second or third reboot movies. I just can't call up the enthusiasm.

Looking forward to the new series though. Proper TV Trek! Bring it on!

Author:  Curiosity [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

LewieP wrote:
I just recently completed my watch of DS9, which was preceded by TNG and TOS. I'd seen plenty of episodes of all three when I was younger, but a lot of it was over my head, and I never watched them from beginning to end, in order.

I think DS9 is the best, I definitely enjoyed the strong character arcs, them getting very creative with the format, and the emphasis on Politics, War and Theology, in addition to the explorations of Science, Philosophy and Ideology that you get in most of Star Trek.

I've moved onto Enterprise now (only a few episodes in), which has a very neat premise a few cool twists, but it's obviously Trek dumbed down. It's kind of like a half step towards the JJ Abrams movies. It feels like it's missing a lot of the attention to detail and thematic depth that makes Trek special, but has decent action. It feels like there's a fair bit of tension between trying to tie into the wider continuity and still be it's own thing.

Characters seem fairly shallow so far, even if there's good performances from most of the main cast.

My original plan was to finish Enterprise before Discovery starts, but I doubt I'll make it now.


Wot no Voyager?

Author:  Grim... [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 9:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I loved the first new Trek movie. Liked the third one too, especially the bit with the classical music.

I'm sort-of looking forward to Discovery, but I've never really been that into Star Trek. Except when I being the captain in Bridge Commander, of course.

Author:  LewieP [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Yeah I was planning on skipping Voyager for now, I watched a bit of it back in the day, and I thought it was pretty weak compared to TNG.


Regarding the Abrams movies, I did think the first one did succeed at the character and relationship stuff, as well as the action. This somewhat made up for how dumbed down, superficial and generic a lot of the other aspects were. I had kind of hoped that this would have set the stage for them doing a good job with the subsequent films. They already had a lot of the hard work down in terms of cast, chemistry, look and feel, but not only did they fail to build into anything more interesting thematically, they also didn't really do much with the characters. Into Darkness was particularly bad imo, because instead of continuing with interesting character dynamics, they just reheated all the character threads and tension from the previous movie.

A lot of people seem to think that the third one is better, and it isn't as bad as the second, but it was still super forgettable, and in my view cemented the fact that they're obviously not interested in doing proper Trek stories with these movies.

It's a shame, because they have nailed all the superficial elements, they're just pathologically averse to doing anything approaching challenging for the audience. I just dread the movie series inevitably losing steam, then they decide to do TNG reboot movie(s).

Author:  Cavey [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

LewieP wrote:
Yeah I was planning on skipping Voyager for now, I watched a bit of it back in the day, and I thought it was pretty weak compared to TNG.


Regarding the Abrams movies, I did think the first one did succeed at the character and relationship stuff, as well as the action. This somewhat made up for how dumbed down, superficial and generic a lot of the other aspects were. I had kind of hoped that this would have set the stage for them doing a good job with the subsequent films. They already had a lot of the hard work down in terms of cast, chemistry, look and feel, but not only did they fail to build into anything more interesting thematically, they also didn't really do much with the characters. Into Darkness was particularly bad imo, because instead of continuing with interesting character dynamics, they just reheated all the character threads and tension from the previous movie.

A lot of people seem to think that the third one is better, and it isn't as bad as the second, but it was still super forgettable, and in my view cemented the fact that they're obviously not interested in doing proper Trek stories with these movies.

It's a shame, because they have nailed all the superficial elements, they're just pathologically averse to doing anything approaching challenging for the audience. I just dread the movie series inevitably losing steam, then they decide to do TNG reboot movie(s).


I think that's a good, fair summary (IMO), albeit I still don't understand why people didn't recognise just how flimsy and bad these films were at the time of their release - only in retrospect and in the cold light of day.

I know Star Trek is hardly the only franchise to suffer from incredibly duff cgi-heavy and story-lite reboots (*cough* Terminator, Alien, Star Wars 4-6), but it's disappointing nonetheless. Maybe reboots in general are just a bad fucking idea full stop? :shrug:

Author:  Grim... [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

The lack of depth in the first Star Trek reboot film was quite a shock after the deep intellectual stuff in Star Trek Nemesis. Oh no, wait, the other thing. And aslo I suspect you're forgetting just how dire the Star Trek: The Motion Picture was.


(Holy shit, is that Tom Hardy in Nemesis? It is!)

Author:  Satsuma [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

The reboot movies are so forgettable that I can only remember there being 2 of them and I've watched all 3.

Author:  Cavey [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Grim... wrote:
The lack of depth in the first Star Trek reboot film was quite a shock after the deep intellectual stuff in Star Trek Nemesis. Oh no, wait, the other thing. And aslo I suspect you're forgetting just how dire the Star Trek: The Motion Picture was.


(Holy shit, is that Tom Hardy in Nemesis? It is!)


Actually, I reckon Star Trek: The Motion Picture was nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be (IMO); it had a good, genuine Trek storyline to it and at least it took itself seriously, unlike this fluffy kid-fodder. I'm not saying it was great or anything, but not a bad first attempt (and you know, it's really, really old, 1970s stuff).

Star Trek Nemesis was indeed shit (but STILL not as bad as Darkness), but the original crew were pretty fucking ancient by then. You don't judge an entire film franchise by the last really shit one of the series though, man.

Author:  Cavey [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Satsuma wrote:
The reboot movies are so forgettable that I can only remember there being 2 of them and I've watched all 3.


Exactly. I had to remind myself too; 2 and 3 just merge into one pool of absolute shitness and disappointment in my recollection. :(

I give them a cumulative score of 004.2 out of 1000 :D

Author:  LewieP [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Grim... wrote:
The lack of depth in the first Star Trek reboot film was quite a shock after the deep intellectual stuff in Star Trek Nemesis. Oh no, wait, the other thing. And aslo I suspect you're forgetting just how dire the Star Trek: The Motion Picture was.


(Holy shit, is that Tom Hardy in Nemesis? It is!)

I don't think TMP is that bad, but I am mostly comparing 2009 to Trek as a whole. I didn't expect them to do a big flashy hollywood modern take on Trek without pushing the balance more towards pulpy than intellectual (and imo the best of Trek is when they've balanced both of those), but I didn't expect them to go quite so far in that direction, and drop the ball on so many (imo) crucial elements.

If they do reboot TNG, Tom Hardy would be one of the better choices to play Picard. Along with Corey Stoll, Stanley Tucci, Mark Strong and obv Jason Statham.

Edit: Or James McAvoy.

Edit2: and it really is a shame that there was never a DS9 movie. I bet they could have done a great one.

Author:  Trousers [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

For the extra nerdy among you Chaos on the Bridge is available on Netflix which tells the story of how TNG came together and how much of a lunatic Maurice Hurley, the showrunner for the first two seasons, was.

It's pretty interesting and tells you a fair bit about the behind the scenes politics and what's involved getting something as iconic as Star Trek off the ground.

Author:  Curiosity [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Rebooting TNG would be sacrilege, but if they did, it'd have to be McAvoy to continue the trend.

Author:  LewieP [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Oscar Isaac as Riker.
Rami Malek as Data.
Brienne of Tarth as Tasha Yarr.
Chris O'Dowd as O'Brian.


John de Lancie would still play Q.

Author:  Grim... [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 11:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Cavey wrote:
Star Trek Nemesis was indeed shit (but STILL not as bad as Darkness), but the original crew were pretty fucking ancient by then

They weren't in it -it was the one where Picard meets his clone.

Cavey wrote:
You don't judge an entire film franchise by the last really shit one of the series though, man.

I'm not. You're saying the Trek Reboot has dumbed the series down, I'm saying it's only as dumb as the one before it.

Author:  Cavey [ Fri Sep 15, 2017 12:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Grim... wrote:
They weren't in it -it was the one where Picard meets his clone.


Ah right, my bad - it's TNG (and yes, it's well shit). Well it was 15-odd years ago now and pretty fucking forgettable tbh.

Quote:
Cavey wrote:
You don't judge an entire film franchise by the last really shit one of the series though, man.

I'm not. You're saying the Trek Reboot has dumbed the series down, I'm saying it's only as dumb as the one before it.


But that's a bit silly, really; it's clearly generally dumbed down relative to much of the rest of the material that preceded it, i.e. a whole bunch of films and TV. I'm not focusing/obsessing over one specific film/outrider, I'm looking at the big picture here (no pun intended).

Author:  miki [ Thu Sep 21, 2017 14:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

because of netflix husband and I have now rewatched 7 seasons of TNG and 7 seasons of DS9, thanks for the tip Trousers I will find the documentary.

Author:  myp [ Tue Oct 17, 2017 22:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Dwight from the Office as Harry Mudd!

Author:  asfish [ Wed Oct 18, 2017 20:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

What do people think of Star Trek Discovery then?

I've really liked it so far, good plot and episodes look to follow each other a bit more unlike the other TV shows that that had a lot of self-contained ones.

Author:  LewieP [ Wed Oct 18, 2017 22:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

Feels like it hasn't really settled into a formula yet but maybe that means it's not really going to. I think I like that.

Interesting theory I heard:
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
There's been plenty of allusions to the mirror universe (and Jonathan Frakes has even said he's directing a mirror universe episode), it could be that the Discovery is in the mirror universe (and perhaps the entire show so far has been), or one or more characters have crossed over from there. Some of Lorca's behaviour would make sense if he was a mirror version of him.

Author:  BikNorton [ Wed Oct 18, 2017 23:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

It's a load of old shit federation- and tech-wise, and so were the first couple of.episodes as a whole.

It's got better.

I think it helps they've got a Wash-a-like in.

Author:  asfish [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

LewieP wrote:
Feels like it hasn't really settled into a formula yet but maybe that means it's not really going to. I think I like that.

Interesting theory I heard:
ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
There's been plenty of allusions to the mirror universe (and Jonathan Frakes has even said he's directing a mirror universe episode), it could be that the Discovery is in the mirror universe (and perhaps the entire show so far has been), or one or more characters have crossed over from there. Some of Lorca's behaviour would make sense if he was a mirror version of him.


That would make sense

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!
The spore drive is a massive piece of tech, Voyager would have been a one episode show if they had had this!

I was wondering how they were going to deal with having this long before the earlier show timelines, but guess the mirror universe can deal with that.

Author:  Curiosity [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 10:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

BikNorton wrote:
It's a load of old shit federation- and tech-wise, and so were the first couple of.episodes as a whole.

It's got better.

I think it helps they've got a Wash-a-like in.


I mean, he's uncannily Tudyk-esque.

I have enjoyed all of the first four episodes. Will watch the next when I have a chance (and then read the spoilers).

I also like Alien Niles Crane.

But they're all doomed anyway, right? Or at least the major tech thing is.

Author:  KovacsC [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 12:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I think I will re-subscribe to netflix

Author:  MaliA [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 23:33 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

I watched about half hour of the first episode. It wasn't great. Riverdale is better, bit has fewer asteroids.

Author:  myp [ Fri Oct 20, 2017 7:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Star Trek

MaliA wrote:
I watched about half hour of the first episode. It wasn't great. Riverdale is better, bit has fewer asteroids.

viewtopic.php?style=26&f=3&t=2098&p=966442&hilit=Star+trek#p966442

Page 4 of 8 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/