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
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:36 am

John wrote: Be cool, John. Be cool.


Nobody who posts in this thread is cool.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:51 am

Supahewok wrote:
John wrote: Be cool, John. Be cool.


Nobody who posts in this thread is cool.


HA!

Nice. =)
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:12 am

John wrote:It was the worst of times. Those years taught me that no matter how much I might like Star Trek, no matter how strong my opinions about Star Trek might be, I will never feel entirely comfortable calling myself a Star Trek fan. It's mostly because of Voyager. Like most people I knew at the time, I was pretty excited about getting a new Star Trek series. The pilot wasn't all that great but it was still better than the pilot for Next Generation or even Deep Space 9. But it was clear even just a few episodes in that the show was really not interested in dealing with its own premise in a serious way. I wasn't enjoying myself, so I stopped watching about half-way through the first season. A number of other people in the forum had a similar reaction to the show. This, according to certain posters, was treason. We were being disloyal, they said. Voyager was fine, they said. No TV show is good right at the beginning, they said. Voyager was going to get better in a couple of years--just like TNG!--they said, and for this reason we were somehow obligated to continue watching. The resulting arguments lasted maybe a year before the two sides settled into a mutual, sullen sort of hostility.
.


So out of curiousity, did you end up watching all of Voyager?

If so, what did you think? The 1st season was pretty bad (but not as bad as TNG as has already been mentioned), and Voyager had another really flat period around Season 5 and 6, but I thought Seasons 2, 3, 4 and 7 were all pretty darn good.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:46 am

Dont worry John,soon youll have discovery to post about every single episode.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:47 am

I never did go back to Voyager. I caught a few random episodes in subsequent years and they seemed okay-ish, but they didn't inspire me to want to watch more.

You need not fear that I will spam this (or any other forum) with reviews of new Star Trek stuff. For various real-life reasons, I watch pretty much no TV these days. And the magic is gone. I may be Star-Trekked out. I watched the pilot for Enterprise, for instance, didn't like the tone, and never watched another episode. I watched the first of the reboot films, was filled with a terrible rage, and swore them off forever. (Though I hear that the latest one is decent-ish, so if my wife wanted to watch it I'd probably watch it with her). Anyway, you guys are safe.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:50 am

John wrote:You need not fear that I will spam this (or any other forum) with reviews of new Star Trek stuff.


Fear?Who said anything about fear?I hope that you actually will do that.Saves me the trouble of watching it myself.Though I probably will,because Ive decided to watch all of the trek in order.But thats going rather slowly.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Fri Sep 23, 2016 12:24 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Though I probably will,because Ive decided to watch all of the trek in order.But thats going rather slowly.

Order of release, or chronological order?

I actually watched all of Star Trek awhile back, in order of release. First TOS, then TAS, then TNG, DS9, VOY and finally ENT. This was originally to help me catch up on the references in Star Trek Online, but also to see the show with new eyes after all of these years (plus, I never had seen the last two season of ENT at the time or seen TAS ever at all). All of them were (and still are) on Netflix, so that made it easier. Watching an average of 1-2 episodes a night, I think it took me around two years, from 2013 to 2015. So yeah, expect it to take a long while.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:22 pm

JadedDM wrote:
Daemian Lucifer wrote:Though I probably will,because Ive decided to watch all of the trek in order.But thats going rather slowly.

Order of release, or chronological order?


Order of release.Because that started me on a high.Though in hindsight,maybe I shouldve gone with chronological order.Going from good to bad is...difficult.It took me longer to get through tng season 1 than all three seasons of tos.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:50 pm

The thing about TOS is that it is so dated, so campy, and so of-its-time that even when it's bad--and it's bad on a fairly regular basis--its very badness somehow makes it interesting. Whereas a bad episode of TNG or any of the later series is just, well, bad. I would gladly watch "Spock's Brain", but you could not pay me to watch "Threshold".
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:20 pm

I dont think its just that.Im fairly used to old timey scifi,since Ive watched old doctor who before this.I mean there are "just bad" episodes of tos as well,the hippie one and the one where enterprise is barely in.The problem with early tng is that they arent as fun bad as spocks brain(except for the holodeck one),they are just bad as the hippie one.The highly trained crew acts like incompetent jackasses,the villains are smug assholes,and the story is more padding than substance.On top of that,almost the whole first season is retelling of stories from tos,only worse.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:07 am

Seeing a lot of Star Trek's old tricks in the 2nd season of Enterprise.

Just watched The Seventh where T'Pol is tasked with tracking down a former Vulcan agent whom she was supposed to have apprehended years ago but failed to do so.

The show goes from telling you that Menos is a bad guy, then he is actually innocent and a victim of a Vulcan cover up, to finally revealing in the final 3 minutes of the episode that no, actually, Menos is a bad guy and he is the very bad guy we told you he was at the start of the episode.

This sort of bait and switch method of story telling is fine once in a while. In a TV show that has 20+ episodes I'd even accept it a few times per season. But when it's coming up so often that the viewer can spot it just minutes into an episode, well, that's just tiring and frustrating. It happened in Voyager, DS9, and TNG (I never watched much of TOS but I assume it happened there too!!) and, surprise surprise, it's happening again in Enterprise.

All of that aside, I am really enjoying the 2nd season of Enterprise. Much more than the 1st.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:23 am

Andrew wrote:It happened in Voyager, DS9, and TNG (I never watched much of TOS but I assume it happened there too!!) and, surprise surprise, it's happening again in Enterprise.

What really bugs me about that trope is that the writers don't always think the whole thing through completely, and you wind up with some really f-ed up morals. Voyager had an episode where the unintentional aesop was 'if a woman cries rape, don't believe her because she might be remembering wrong' and another episode where the unfortunate implication was basically 'if a society's justice system is overwhelmingly bias against a specific race, they probably deserve it.'
User avatar
SpammyV
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby SpammyV » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:28 am

I remember when TOS tried to sell me what amounted to a serial killing ghost voiced by Piglet.

It didn't stick.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:45 pm

My slow slog through early tng has finally reached the measure of a man.Which is,I think,the only tng episode I watched in full before this binge,some 10 years ago(I have seen all the movies though).I liked it then,but not enough for me to watch the whole show.I like it even more now that I had to climb up to get to it.And while I remembered that the episode was good,there are plenty of small details that I am glad to have seen this time around,the genuine pearls of acting from both Stewart and Frakes.Not to say that other actors werent good,but these two were the emotional center,and therefore the most prominent.Its those little touches that turn a good work into an amazing one(rikers reaction to discovering the kill switch on data,for example,subtle,brief,and great).

What is also great is the fact that a matter of honor episode preceded this one.A tng episode that finally treats klingons as something other than mindless savage brutes.Which means that I have entered the good phase of tng,right?

EDIT:Never mind.The next episode is about wesley having puberty problems.So close.

In conclusion,I am happy that I have decided to go on with this binge.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:36 pm

Ugh,I hate prime directive episodes in anything post the original show.How the hell did the writers get from "we should not get involved with internal societal problems of others,unless it is done to correct someone elses mess" to "there is a God and he has a plan for everyone in the universe,and if said plan says that the whole civilization has to die pointlessly,so be it"?Say what you will about how ds9 betrayed Genes vision,or how nutrek misses the point of old shows,or how enterprise completely screwed over the formation of the federation,but I maintain that tng committed the worst sin of them all when it deified the prime directive and the rest followed that stupid path.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:04 pm

Poor Daemian. What have you been watching? Unfortunately, I can think of at least two TNG episodes could have triggered a rant like that just off the top of my head.

The Prime Directive's real purpose is, of course, to create Drama. Or maybe Pathos. Something like that. It exists specifically to forbid Our Heroes from doing compassionate and heroic things. At least that's how it worked in TNG, as I recall.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:19 pm

John wrote:Poor Daemian. What have you been watching?


Pen pals.Which is not the worst of the prime directive episodes,but still has some pretty bad moments(Cosmic plan?For real??).At least the crew isnt as insufferable as in season 1.Most of the time.Heck,even pulaski can be tolerable in a few of her scenes.

John wrote:The Prime Directive's real purpose is, of course, to create Drama. Or maybe Pathos. Something like that. It exists specifically to forbid Our Heroes from doing compassionate and heroic things. At least that's how it worked in TNG, as I recall.


But tos managed to create drama with prime directive without resorting to a cosmic deity.Thats what bothers me in these episodes.At least the drug episode had a societal problem,but this one?Ugh.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:15 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Pen pals.Which is not the worst of the prime directive episodes,but still has some pretty bad moments(Cosmic plan?For real??).At least the crew isnt as insufferable as in season 1.Most of the time.Heck,even pulaski can be tolerable in a few of her scenes.


"Pen Pals" was my first guess. My next guess was the one with Worf's foster brother. I'm not actually sure if I've ever even seen "Pen Pals" all the way through, but it's so very infamous that it immediately leaps to mind whenever people start complaining about the Prime Directive.

I agree that references to a "cosmic plan" by a crew who have already met Q, to say nothing of the various other god-like aliens inhabiting the Star Trek universe, are a little suspect. But there's plenty to suggest--all of it, I admit, or at least all that I can think of right now, from TOS--that at least some Starfleet officers are not necessarily atheists. McCoy, for example, throws Christmas parties. (At which Kirk chats up girls whom he doesn't call afterwards. The cad.) Uhura is suspiciously quick to assume that the "sun" worshippers on the Planet of the Roman Empire are in fact "Son"--as in "of God", as in "Jesus", except that they don't ever actually say the name for some reason--worshippers. And of course everyone immediately gets the "Spock is Satan" joke at the end of the episode with the Planet of the Garden of Eden Except With a Snakehead Computer Thing.

Gah. I wish I could remember episode titles better.
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Star trek

Postby The Rocketeer » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:22 am

Wouldn't meeting weird, apparently all-powerful entities like the Q and various godmonsters make someone more likely to believe in higher, incomprehensible beings, possibly to include a 'cosmic plan?' Not necessarily any specific higher entity or plan, mind you, but the possibility of one or more, in general.

John wrote:Gah. I wish I could remember episode titles better.
It just so happens that "The Episode with the Planet of the Garden of Eden Except With a Snakehead Computer Thing" is the correct title of the episode in question. Lucky guess!
User avatar
SpammyV
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby SpammyV » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:49 am

I can't help but imagine that Q's plan is to fill the galaxy with intelligent beings he can be condescending towards.
User avatar
mwchase
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby mwchase » Fri Oct 07, 2016 12:50 am

If there is a "cosmic plan", does that give them in specific guidance in any specific situation? What about them would cause their actions to be apart from it?

(... I think this counts as philosophy.)
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Star trek

Postby The Rocketeer » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:00 am

mwchase wrote:If there is a "cosmic plan", does that give them in specific guidance in any specific situation?
No, which is why Daemian has a point. The Prime Directive is rooted at least partly in the idea that the Federation are not gods, that they are fallible, that their own values and ideals are subjective, and that interventionism in pre-stellar societies unacceptably fulfills the role and assumes the responsibility of a deity over a primitive civilization.

If anything, the observation of beings like the Q should reinforce the idea that humans, individually and collectively, are limited beings that overestimate their understanding and worthiness at their own peril, and at the peril of those whom they might presume to subordinate.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:02 am

The Rocketeer wrote:Wouldn't meeting weird, apparently all-powerful entities like the Q and various godmonsters make someone more likely to believe in higher, incomprehensible beings, possibly to include a 'cosmic plan?' Not necessarily any specific higher entity or plan, mind you, but the possibility of one or more, in general.

I guess. But then again . . . "I'm sorry about your pen pal, Mr. Data, but the Q Continuum must have had a good reason to arrange the universe in such a way that a planet full of innocent little girls had to die. I'm sure he'll pop by soon to taunt and deride us about it. Maybe you can ask him then."
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Fri Oct 07, 2016 1:35 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Ugh,I hate prime directive episodes in anything post the original show.How the hell did the writers get from "we should not get involved with internal societal problems of others,unless it is done to correct someone elses mess" to "there is a God and he has a plan for everyone in the universe,and if said plan says that the whole civilization has to die pointlessly,so be it"?Say what you will about how ds9 betrayed Genes vision,or how nutrek misses the point of old shows,or how enterprise completely screwed over the formation of the federation,but I maintain that tng committed the worst sin of them all when it deified the prime directive and the rest followed that stupid path.

Watch more Enterprise!

There is no Federation and there is no Prime Directive!!
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:53 am

Andrew wrote:there is no Prime Directive!!


Youd think that,but there is dear doctor,the episode in which archer and phlox debate whether "evolution decided" that a whole species should go extinct.Which is just moronic.

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests