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
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:45 am

Wide And Nerdy wrote:
Andrew wrote:
Daemian Lucifer wrote:And for us who dont watch the show,is she black janeway or female sisko?

Ha.

If she plays it like her WD character then she's neither.

She'd be more of a mix between Lt Torres and Ensign Sato. Sato for the blank, introspective, stares and Torres for the occasional emotional outburst and general sullenness when things don't go her way.



I hope not. That doesn't sound like a good Captain. Reboot Kirk was bad enough.

Well then you're in luck! She's not going to be a Captain. She's a Lt Commander, which is apparently the POV that the series being told from. Lifted straight from Wiki:

The lieutenant commander of the USS Discovery, referred to as "Number One".[6][7] The decision to not make the series' protagonist a starship captain, like those of previous Star Trek series, was made "to see a character from a different perspective on the starship—one who has different dynamic relationships with a captain, with subordinates, it gave us richer context".[3] The decision to call her Number One was made in honor of the character of the same name portrayed by Majel Barrett in the original Star Trek pilot "The Cage". The character was initially pitched to CBS as only being called Number One in the series.[7]

Surely, though, that calling her Number One is going to invoke memories of Riker and not some random character from one episode of the original series...
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:09 am

Personally,Id like it more if they changed the setting.Move the thing even more into the future.Tng timeline has been thoroughly explored,and prequels simply make everything look anachronistic and silly.

That generally bugs me about modern era.They didnt have a problem in moving the timeline forwards when tng came out.Yet in modern times people are making prequels and origin stories way more often than sequels to stories.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Star trek

Postby 4th Dimension » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:45 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Personally,Id like it more if they changed the setting.Move the thing even more into the future.Tng timeline has been thoroughly explored,and prequels simply make everything look anachronistic and silly.

That generally bugs me about modern era.They didnt have a problem in moving the timeline forwards when tng came out.Yet in modern times people are making prequels and origin stories way more often than sequels to stories.

That is because the audiences actually like the familiar, and they probably fear that existing StarTrek fans would not like if they introduced changes to the setting formula which would happen if they moved it into the future. Also it's probably easier to write for a preexisting setting based on exisitn stories and antagonists than to forge ahead on your own.
User avatar
Wide And Nerdy

Re: Star trek

Postby Wide And Nerdy » Tue Jan 10, 2017 3:48 pm

4th Dimension wrote:
Daemian Lucifer wrote:Personally,Id like it more if they changed the setting.Move the thing even more into the future.Tng timeline has been thoroughly explored,and prequels simply make everything look anachronistic and silly.

That generally bugs me about modern era.They didnt have a problem in moving the timeline forwards when tng came out.Yet in modern times people are making prequels and origin stories way more often than sequels to stories.

That is because the audiences actually like the familiar, and they probably fear that existing StarTrek fans would not like if they introduced changes to the setting formula which would happen if they moved it into the future. Also it's probably easier to write for a preexisting setting based on exisitn stories and antagonists than to forge ahead on your own.



All of which leads to Trek having a bit of an odd Luddite streak. Though they use automation, they use it a lot less than their technology suggests they could. Genetic engineering was banned. Cybernetics are strangely underdeveloped.

Even if they didn't want to augment humanity to superhuman capability, they could at least reprogram us to automatically be in shape without exercise (its not like the act of doing pushups itself causes muscles to form. Your body reacts to the stimulus by building muscle because it doesn't want to build unnecessary amounts of muscle. There's no reason you couldn't make the body keep itself in shape. It only doesn't now because that used to be a survival strategy.) If they can turn de-evolved humans mutants back into humans, they certainly can do these basic augmentations.

They'd have been better off simply never alluding to this stuff but people bothered to explain it and now Trek has some odd setting artifacts to contend with. We're probably going to start augmenting humanity in our lifetimes, well ahead of schedule (or behind schedule if you count the Eugenics Wars that supposedly took place in the 1990s in Trek, though they swept that under the rug when Voyager paid that decade a visit).

You ever notice how many idyllic settings in Trek are agrarian? Sometimes I think the show had the wrong writers.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:25 pm

4th Dimension wrote:That is because the audiences actually like the familiar, and they probably fear that existing StarTrek fans would not like if they introduced changes to the setting formula which would happen if they moved it into the future. Also it's probably easier to write for a preexisting setting based on exisitn stories and antagonists than to forge ahead on your own.


Moving it a generation into the future wouldnt change much.Like it didnt between the original and the next generation.You just update the technology,keep the alliances you like,and youre all set.Then you can insert whatever new thing you want without worrying about continuity,bring back old characters through history,or time travel,or deep freeze,or whatever.Much more liberating.

Wide And Nerdy wrote: We're probably going to start augmenting humanity in our lifetimes,


Technically,we already are.Even if we ignore the odd implant or two that gets inserted into someone,we are kind of on the path of eugenics.Though no one calls it that due to stigma,but we are screening fetuses for a bunch of genetic diseases and terminating potentially harmful pregnancies.Its not that big of a step from screening for a deadly mutation to screening for diabetes,or poor eyesight,or low iq.And while we most likely arent going to have the eugenics wars like in trek,a world like gattaca is a really plausible near future.

Wide And Nerdy wrote: You ever notice how many idyllic settings in Trek are agrarian? Sometimes I think the show had the wrong writers.


Ugh,rural simplicity.I loathe that trope.
User avatar
Wide And Nerdy

Re: Star trek

Postby Wide And Nerdy » Tue Jan 10, 2017 5:56 pm

a world like gattaca is a really plausible near future.


You know, it would suck to be on the losing end, but I can't bring myself to pull everyone back down to my level.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:42 pm

Darmok at home.Arrival of the 90s.Shamus at mass effect 1.Chuck on internet.Google chinese to english.Smith in matrix revolutions.
User avatar
Wide And Nerdy

Re: Star trek

Postby Wide And Nerdy » Fri Jan 20, 2017 6:26 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Darmok at home.Arrival of the 90s.Shamus at mass effect 1.Chuck on internet.Google chinese to english.Smith in matrix revolutions.


You're watching that episode, then the review, then getting happier then laughing maniacally?

Darmok was probably one of his better reviews. Especially when he gets into comparing metaphor to our real languages.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:52 pm

Discovery got delayed again. It was to come out January, then May and now...to be determined. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is anyone's guess.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:37 pm

Wide And Nerdy wrote:You're watching that episode,


Not just that,but I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Wide And Nerdy wrote:Especially when he gets into comparing metaphor to our real languages.


Yup.Comedy+smart analysis=win.

JadedDM wrote:Discovery got delayed again. It was to come out January, then May and now...to be determined. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is anyone's guess.


Its good for me.I have more time to finish tng.
User avatar
Humanoid

Re: Star trek

Postby Humanoid » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:17 am

Following on from Star Trek 2, I have now completed watching Star Trek 3 and 4. That means I've watched all the Star Trek movies, right?
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:19 am

I am quite a fan of Star Trek V, to be honest. I thought it was as good as IV.

Star Trek VI doesn't exist though.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:40 am

Andrew wrote:I am quite a fan of Star Trek V, to be honest. I thought it was as good as IV.

Star Trek VI doesn't exist though.


Really?The one that is considered to be the second best doesnt exist?

Also,I have learned a depressing thing today.Dont follow the link if you still have at least some shred of hope for humanity.You have been warned:

Depressing link.

Image
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Star trek

Postby 4th Dimension » Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:57 am

That's what diffferent audiences do. Notice how the first one has many more reviews? That is because it achieved a mass market success in the Internet age. What that score simply means is that that movie better satisfied the needs and expectations of the wiiiiiiiiidddeeee audience than the second one satisfied the smaller, more niche, Star Trek/SF audience.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Star trek

Postby Ringwraith » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:55 am

There is often a positive bias, if you heard something's bad, or its original was, you're unlikely to go and see it, and thus, not give it a low user rating.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:38 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:
Andrew wrote:I am quite a fan of Star Trek V, to be honest. I thought it was as good as IV.

Star Trek VI doesn't exist though.


Really?The one that is considered to be the second best doesnt exist?

Also,I have learned a depressing thing today.Dont follow the link if you still have at least some shred of hope for humanity.You have been warned:

Depressing link.

Image

Oh I got turned around. VI is the one that's almost as good as IV. V is the one that doesn't exist!

That link though... kids these days..
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:28 am

I'm not going to pretend that Star Trek V doesn't exist because that would be silly, much like Star Trek V itself. It's a thoroughly goofy film, and it reminds me a lot of some of the cheesier episodes of TOS. Star Trek VI is quite good though and I would even go so far as to say it is my personal favorite.
User avatar
SpammyV
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby SpammyV » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:14 pm

I completely enjoy The Undiscovered Country. My second favorite of the first six movies.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:43 pm

John wrote:It's a thoroughly goofy film, and it reminds me a lot of some of the cheesier episodes of TOS.


Being goofy is not a problem.Being bad is.To me,5 is more akin to the hippie episode than to spocks brain.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Wed Jan 25, 2017 2:46 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Being goofy is not a problem.Being bad is.To me,5 is more akin to the hippie episode than to spocks brain.

Oh, I never said V was good. I have no particular desire to ever watch it again. The plot is pretty lousy. I must confess, however, to a certain fondness for what I remember of the jokes and the physical comedy. Please bear in mind that I saw the film precisely once back when it was first released and I was still young and not yet super-critical about everything. Don't anyone go watching it on my say-so.

Oh, I should add that every time you mention this hippie epsiode my desire to watch it only grows. I'm pretty sure that's not what you intended. I have a pretty high tolerance for bad episodes of TOS. They're like little campy time capsules, you know? And one that tries to grapple with hippie-dom sounds fascinating.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:48 pm

The most unbelievable thing in the whole of star trek universe is:Troi beating data in chess.I get what they were going for and how it ties to the rest of the episode,but nope,no way,not gonna happen.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:31 am

Oh, James Frain (Theo Galavan from Gotham) was cast to play Sarek on Star Trek Discovery.

This is probably only interesting to Daemian and I.

I can totally see him playing Sarek.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Mon Feb 13, 2017 9:43 pm

Andrew wrote:Oh, James Frain (Theo Galavan from Gotham) was cast to play Sarek on Star Trek Discovery.

This is probably only interesting to Daemian and I.

I can totally see him playing Sarek.


Wait, Sarek?! What time frame does Discovery take place in?
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:33 am

Supahewok wrote:Wait, Sarek?! What time frame does Discovery take place in?


Slightly before the original.And while I do think James Frain can pull off a young sarek,Im not that keen on the prospect of having a young sarek be a ships crewman.

On the other hand,that may be the perfect way to explain his preference for terran booty.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:33 pm

Ive just watched outcast and...star trek can sometimes be just so incredibly stupid."We proudly proclaim that we think discrimination against someones sexual orientation/gender identification is inhumane and monstrous!Watch us how proudly we pair up a trans straight woman and a straight man in defiance of the current bigoted society!And let us hope that in the future we can all be so enlightened to only have heterosexual couples everywhere!Also,riker can totally convert any alien played by a female actor with his dick beard".And thats only the tip of the iceberg of stupid.

Also,what the hell happened to klingons?In the beginning worf was all "Female klingons can be as vicious as men",and we saw them serving alongside the male klingons on a warship.Then gowron came to power,and suddenly "No female can serve at the council".And in this episode,worf is like "Females are all weak and stupid and have cooties,blah!".

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest