Star trek

Necromance old blog posts, talk about Shamus' books or videos, or discuss allied projects like Errant Signal
Forum rules
This forum is not for swiping blog threads. Avoid talking about blog posts less than a month old.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:22 am

The humor gets toned down a bit.Not that it was that prevalent in the first place.At least compared to other MacFarlanes work.

Anyway,back to things I really love:Deep space 9.The begotten is a nice episode about parenting,odo regaining his abilities,and some lame stuff with obriens and their kid.The ending merges the lame and the great parts nicely though.Other than that,lots of odo episodes were crammed close together actually.Which I also liked.

And of course,that crazy episode where sisko has visions.I actually prefer ones that are like that one than the ones where the mythology of bajor is given physical form and explicitly shown as true.With this one,you are left wondering,for a long time,about the meaning and consequences of these visions.Of course,some of the impact is lost on rewatching,when you know the payoff this,but its still a good episode.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:44 am

I watched the second episode of Orville. Well, I watched half of it. It was so bad that I shut it off and went looking for other things to watch. Without any success. So after a while I gave up and went back to watching it. Apparently I turned it off at the lowest point. It got steadily better for the remainder. The mild cliffhanger at the end made me curious. With that, plus hearing the third episode was the best one, I gave it one final chance.

The third episode is good. Finally what I wanted out of a Star Trek show! It even managed to get a laugh out of me. They managed to build a solid joke into the story with the dumber helmsman. The dance off was dumb. The trial was great.

BTW One thing I noted these two episodes was the makeup. I could see the lines and spirit gum. It's not well done as makeup goes. It's perfectly contrasted against ST:D's makeup. ST:D's makeup is technically excellent while being aesthetically and functionally useless. Orville's is technically poor while being aesthetically and functionally great. For example the villains in episode 2 looked hokey. Yet it was perfect for the characters. It highlighted just how much ST:D misses the point of everything.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:04 am

I gave discovery another shot with its episode 3.First,they shouldve started with this episode instead of the previous two.They even reuse the tractor beam save at the last moment thing in the very beginning.Second,this has to be the parallel universe with the evil federation.Thats why everything feels so wrong while having slight familiarity.Third,I dont know if I can finish the episode.10 minutes in and it just....ugh....Ill try later one last time.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Oct 05, 2017 2:50 pm

Ok,I finished the third episode of discovery.And it actually impressed me at one point.In a dangerous situation,the highly trained crew did extremely well,with (almost) no bickering,everyone doing what they should,and they left their grievances for when they are safe.Also the whole alice in wonderland thing was both a nice character moment and an interesting callback for something earlier in the episode.Well done show.Its still not star trek,but it is worthy of watching for at least a while.

However,there is also one thing that I really dont like.They reused (somewhat) one of the plot points from the first nutrek movie:The travel anywhere in space in an instant thing.Which has proven to be a bad thing there,and yet here they are chasing it again.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:18 pm

Ahh,deeps space 9 with its great episodes,amazing characters,and using biological nerve agents to render whole planets uninhabitable.People often bring pale moonlight as the episode where ds9 diverges from the rest of trek,and while I disagree with that,Im puzzled how no one brings up this one?There really is no defense for it anyway.Sisko deliberately poisons a planet in order to catch a terrorist.Whether justified or not,regardless of how effective it was,no matter that no one died*,using biological warfare is not something star fleet does.

The only justification one can bring up is that other trek shows also make such silly mistakes sometimes.Like that time tng crew genocided those aliens that were going back in time.Or that time riker simply disintegrated a couple of clones.It happens.At least sisko did not kill anyone with his biological attack.

Ignoring that hiccup,it was a good episode.But it was followed by even better episodes.The shadow and light pair is a great duo of episodes,giving a moment of awesome to worf,closure to garak,and a great continuation of the dominion war ark.Though I dont get what the founders plan was for getting out of the super nova.Was he really doing a suicide run?Still,it just furthered the idea of how huge of a threat changelings are.

Then there is doctor bashir I presume.The episode that not only explores the character of bashir,but also closes any argument on why humans are not dealing with genetic engineering.Though theres still the question of why other races arent modifying their species**.Also,a great guest star.Robert Picardo is probably the only reason why I might continue with voyager after I finish ds9.

*Presumably.A quick evacuation of a colony is hardly something that can be considered not dangerous.Its a chaotic event and Id be surprised if no one was harmed.
**Well,for klingons we can assume that its because of whatever changed their look.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:59 pm

Like that time tng crew genocided those aliens that were going back in time.
You mentioned that a few times. It is not a fair comparison. It was a single room of aliens, not genocide. They were literally eating people and refused to stop. It is irrelevant if they were lying or telling the truth about why they refusing to stop. It still wouldn't change anything about the morality or correctness of the decision even if it was genocide. They were clear danger to humanity and the existence of the Federation.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Oct 08, 2017 3:25 pm

Steve C wrote:
Like that time tng crew genocided those aliens that were going back in time.
You mentioned that a few times. It is not a fair comparison. It was a single room of aliens, not genocide. They were literally eating people and refused to stop. It is irrelevant if they were lying or telling the truth about why they refusing to stop. It still wouldn't change anything about the morality or correctness of the decision even if it was genocide. They were clear danger to humanity and the existence of the Federation.


What you say would be true in isolation.But then there is that episode when picard debates whether its ok to destroy the crystaline entity,the only one of its kind,just because its feeding habits happen to endanger sapients.And of course,the time when they debate genociding the borg.

Yet with these aliens they dont even try debating anything,they just nuke them from orbit,because its the only way to be sure.Also,that one room,that was all thats left of the race,so it was most definitely genocide.

The problem isnt that they did it.They killed the crystaline entity as well.The problem is that they did it so matter of factly,like its no big deal that the last remnants of a sapient race was just wiped out without even attempting to find a different solution.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:57 pm

And as I wrote, I believe your entire view on that one episode/race is incorrect. I know there's no use trying to convince you otherwise. That's why didn't bring it up the other times you said. For me, it's like you are arguing they had 17 limbs. Just... no.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:06 am

Oh please,thats a cheap excuse.Ive given you well reasoned arguments,and your only response is "Its just different,but I wont explain how"*.If you actually can,explain how its different that picard spent half of one episode debating whether its wrong to destroy crystaline entity,a unique non sapient animal who has killed thousands(millions?)of sapient people in order to feed,yet has no problem with destroying a unique sapient race who has killed hundreds of sapient people in order to feed,without ever considering the alternative for even a second.

EDIT:
*Correction.Your attempt at a brief explanation shows that you either forgot the episode or didnt follow it carefully,because you say "just one room,not genocide",when it was said that that one room was the entirety of whats left of that race.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:51 am

Nope.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:25 pm

One great thing about rewatching a show is that I notice all the little details that make the setting feel more vibrant.Like that glance the cardassian guard gives to the jem hadar when sisko calls dukat "dominion puppet".
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:57 am

Saw episode 4 last night (but not episode 5).

I didn't hate it. There were some pretty old school Star Trek moments with, for instance, the teleporting of the Tardigrade into the Mushroom field but there were also some Abrams Star Trek moments such as the way they blinked in to save the colony and then immediately blinked out. Michael is growing on me and so is Saru but everybody else is just white noise at this point. I don't even really know who is part of the main cast and who isn't. Sure, I could go on Wiki and check but that's a lot of effort for a show I'm only barely clinging to to begin with.

By and large I didn't like the whole Tardigrade story. I felt it lacked conviction and it fails the common sense test on numerous occasions. I was glad, however, when the unnamed (in my head) Starfleet meathead officer got her comeuppance for her mind-numbingly poor choices. I didn't think it would play out the way it did but was very glad it did and not just because the unnamed Starfleet meathead officer was thoroughly unlikeable.

I also hated everthing to do with the Klingons. The pacing was treacle slow and absolutely none of the actions any of them took made any sense. It's almost as if there were 2 or 3 Klingon scenes that were cut from the episode because I feel we only got half the story. Actually if that's true I'm probably grateful because another 2 or 3 Klingons scenes in that episode would not have ended well for my TV screen.

What do you know? Maybe I did hate it after all. Section 31 rumours though. I suppose I didn't hate that either...

As an aside, what's the rule on this thread? Are we spoiling?
Vulture

Re: Star trek

Postby Vulture » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:20 am

I thought episode 5 of Discovery felt like the most Star Trek one so far, aside from the fact that it is much more character driven than traditional Trek. But it brings more of the traditional Trek formula of 'solving scientific and ethical problems... in space' than previous episodes.

I think it still suffers the flaw that there are an abundance of Star Fleet officers who don't seem to be up to shouted with Star Fleet ideals, but at least they are generally shown as being in the wrong, with the idealists being 'right '. Partly this is inevitable as a result of the stylistic choice of being more character driven. In TNG, where everyone upholds the Star Fleet ideals, conflict comes from external threats and problems and how to solve them ethically. In a show who's starting point is being more character driven, this necessarily means conflict between the crew characters on how to solve a problem and it is hard to avoid that requiring characters advocating the morally dubious. So far this has often meant a debate about morality versus expediency.

Also nice to see someone finally suggest that the war with the Klingons wasn't caused by Michael. So far everyone (including her) seems to accept that she caused the war with her mutiny, but the first two episodes clearly show that the Klingons were looking for war anyway (not that the federation know that) and now importantly that what she did had no effect on the actions of her ship. What she *tried* to do could have started a war, but she was stopped before she could do it.
Vulture

Re: Star trek

Postby Vulture » Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:25 am

Andrew wrote:
As an aside, what's the rule on this thread? Are we spoiling?


Spoiler tags for recent episodes can't hurt if there is anything spoilerish to discuss, because people might reasonably want to participate in the thread bit be an episode or two behind. But I personally wouldn't see them as necessary for e.g.the first two episodes at this point: of you've not seen then and don't want to be spoiled, you'd probably be avoiding Star Trek threads anyway. (and the first two episodes in particular set up the premise of the series: they are more backstory than story)

But let's see what the majority opinion is.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:36 pm

And Im done with discovery.That was the most pointless death of an utter moron I have seen in quite a while.I cant even watch this as non trek any more.

Its a shame really,because there are positive things I can say about episode 4.They did fix the klingons look and speech.The design remains silly,and their behavior is questionable,but progress is progress.I dont see why such a high budget show couldnt have done that by the time of its premier,but better late than never.Saru is still interesting,and Id like to have seen more of him.The mystery behind the creature is also something I wouldve liked to know more about.Oh well.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:42 pm

Vulture wrote:'solving scientific and ethical problems... IIN SPAAACEEEEE'


Fixed.

Vulture wrote:but the first two episodes clearly show that the Klingons were looking for war anyway


That stupid klingon guy did,but its questionable whether he would have gotten any support if michael hadnt killed that klingon guard on their holy beacon(or whatever that was).
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Thu Oct 19, 2017 11:38 pm

There were parts of episode 5 that was definitely the best the series has produced so far. The whole sequence involving Lorca, Mudd and the other guy (who's name I forget) was quite interesting. More insight into Lorca in particular is good because we don't really know anything about him.

The parts of episode 5 that was way worse than anything the series has produced is everything concerning the Tardigrade. I didn't like the Tardigrade aspect of the story last week because I didn't feel it was plausible. Any of it. I didn't like the Tardigrade aspect this week because torture. When has Starfleet ever been so cavalier about, essentially, torturing a sentient creature? They've all crossed the line a bit, sure, but I feel like it has never happened the way it happened in this episode. Bottom line - didn't like it.

Saru grew a lot this episode. Like Lorca, seeing him on center stage was great for character identification.

Minimal Klingon stuff this week which is excellent.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:00 pm

Andrew wrote:When has Starfleet ever been so cavalier about, essentially, torturing a sentient creature?


In the parallel universe,with the agonizers.And the episodes* in the parallel universe were filmed with poorer lighting than the ones in the main universe.So std IS in the parallel universe.

*Except the original one.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Oct 29, 2017 11:43 pm

DS9:children of time,also known as timey wimey trolley problem episode.Overall its a decent episode,but it couldve been better.Also,a bit more reflection later on from odo about how willing he is to erase centuries of history for someone wouldve been nice.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:43 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:DS9:children of time,also known as timey wimey trolley problem episode.Overall its a decent episode,but it couldve been better.Also,a bit more reflection later on from odo about how willing he is to erase centuries of history for someone wouldve been nice.

I had a lot of mixed feelings about this one when it first aired. I took the position then that what the crew of the Defiant proposed to do--namely, return to the present and then NOT crash on the planet--was not murder. Not crashing causes the crew's descendants to not exist and you can't murder people who don't exist. I don't know that I'd make quite the same argument now. Even so, I still don't like the way that the episode tried to stack the sympathy deck in favor of the descendants. As I remember it, nobody on the Defiant really seemed to want to go back except O'Brien and that struck me as very odd. I totally understood why O'Brien wanted to go back--wife, kids, etc.--but could not fathom at all why he was the only one. Is he the only one with a family? Is he really the only one who isn't willing to abandon life as he knew it? In retrospect, it's clear that the writers were more interested in the tragedy of it all--hence the deus ex Odo--than they were in investigating the philosophical and moral conundrum.

Kirk has this line in Star Trek IV: "I'm from Iowa. I just work in space." It may be technically correct--the very best kind, etc.--but I've never really bought it. It makes him sound too much like a regular guy rather than a Brave Space-Man of the Future. Because by and large, Kirk and all the other Starfleet officers we see are Brave Space-Men (and Women and Robots and Aliens and so on) rather than regular guys. Except O'Brien. O'Brien's from Ireland. He just works in space. O'Brien is my favorite because he really believes in the Starfleet and Federation ideals he absorbed in school as a kid but is still recognizably a regular guy. "Children of Time" is a big part of the reason I came to feel that way.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:48 am

I didn't like that episode either. The whole Odo/Kira relationship was bad. It felt like the episode was primarily a vehicle to reveal it and suffered accordingly. I bought Worf/Dax, but not Odo/Kira. Ever. The whole episode was a massive {Character X+ Character Y= marriage/kids} in a way that I did not buy. It came off as some fan writer pairing off all their favorite characters then coming up with a convoluted justification for it. And it felt like it was nothing more than that. And Odo looks old because why exactly?

The crew is stranded on a planet and they decide to fuck like rabbits, huh? Really? Not just a small number of kids either, thousands. I just looked up the eps numbers. What's the math on going from 48 individuals to 8000 over 10 generations?
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:14 am

Well, if every individual had 2 kids (so 4 kids per family unit, hardly unusual in a more primitive setting) per generation, I think the math would be 48*2^10 = 49152.

I'd take more issue with non-sterile hybrid species offspring, really.
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Star trek

Postby The Rocketeer » Mon Oct 30, 2017 3:24 am

Even ignoring Ewok's point that some significant portion of the crew won't be able to contribute lasting posterity, wouldn't successive generations of a breeding pool of only 48 be horribly inbred, even with an inflexible selective-breeding regimen that would basically reduce them to cattle? I've always heard that basement-level for sustaining a population with healthy genetic diversity is 1,000 specimens, and for humans, that number should be a lot higher, since humankind has relatively little baseline genetic diversity... owing from having already been repopulated from around 10,000 individuals countless generations ago. I mean, I'm not an expert on this (I'm actually not an expert on anything except how I like my lemonade), but I have a layman's suspicion that the tenth generation would have a serious "The Hills Have Eyes" sort of feel.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Mon Oct 30, 2017 4:34 am

Yeah, ok. That assumes 4 kids per family and that those kids all live to 20 and promptly have kids of their own. And then the whole lot of them continue to live for 200 years.

If every family had 3 kid who became parents, I believe that's a total population of only 2768. That also assumes no deaths over those 200 years. So each family has on average somewhere between 3-4kids that become parents themselves by age 20. That is a consistently large population growth.

I did the math differently. Evaluated it as % growth per annum. Which is not viable with such a small pop figure but I wanted to compare it against real world population growth figures.I get a population growth value of 2.58% growth per annum. Which would put it at the ~35th fastest growing country if on Earth. Still really fucking fast compared to say the USA's average of 0.75% and the world average of 1.18%.
even with an inflexible selective-breeding regimen that would basically reduce them to cattle?
Yeah. Pretty sure that's what must have happened to come up with these numbers. Like that TNG episode with the two colony ships where Picard solved it by saying everyone has to have multiple wives and multiple husbands. I'd also guess that all the sterile children that can't get the pop numbers up have their organs harvested and then are turned into nutrient paste for the colony. Though that might be because I'm still playing Rimworld and it's leaking through.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:20 am

Trek always played loosely with breeding anyway,seeing how two species with differently colored blood can mate with no problems,so that did not bother me.

The whole "everyone wants to stay" kind of bothered me until I remembered every other time travel story where they would fight tooth and nail to preserve the timeline.Here,they are doing the exact same thing,only this time preserving the timeline meant screwing themselves over.

What was also weird was how gleeful everyone was to repeat the riker thing before they found out it was a lie.

As for odo+kira thing,eh this wasnt that big of a problem here.It wasnt overt,like in some later episodes,it didnt hog too much of the screen time,like in some later episodes,it was just one of the convenient set ups for doing the murder by paradox.As romance goes,not the best,but not the worst one either.

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest