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 » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:55 pm

JadedDM wrote:I promise that joke isn't as funny as you think it is.


I wasnt joking.

Steve C wrote: We are never going to see the likes of ST:TNG again.


Give orville a shot.It might surprise you.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Thu Sep 28, 2017 5:44 am

I watched the final episode of ST:D. I thought it made a good end to the entire series. That's where I'm after the second episode. It's my canon ending to what happened to the Starship USS Stupid and all the crew.

The show was just baffling. They did the hard stuff well. Then proceeded to do the easy stuff so bad it boggles the mind. The klingon stuff was terrible. Cringe worthy dialogue, overblown makeup and stilted dialogue with subtitles. That last part bothered me the most. They got the lead from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Then managed to screw that up somehow. (Nobody in CT,HD could speak the language (ancient Mandarin) and everything still comes across beautifully.) In ST:D... wow. "Bad" doesn't describe it. It was possible for extras to play decent klingons in past Trek. The ones in ST:D were weren't even at cosplayer levels. Plus they weren't extras.

The bad science and numerous plot holes bothered me. There were so many it would take pages to describe them all. I could put my brain in a jar and watch it regardless... maybe. Layer on the terrible camera work, the terrible framing of scenes by those cameras, the overblown music, the nonsensical directing and it is not bad Star Trek. It's just a bad show. It has good elements and then used them so poorly that there is no salvaging it. Such a shame too. The worst parts were the easiest to get right.

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Give orville a shot.It might surprise you.

I just might do that.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:09 am

...Even if it's not a joke, I don't see why yall are calling it ST:D. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, ST:D. One of these things is not like the others.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: Star trek

Postby Sudanna » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:25 am

DIS is a far nerdier joke, even.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:19 pm

Supahewok wrote:...Even if it's not a joke, I don't see why yall are calling it ST:D. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, ST:D. One of these things is not like the others.

Multiple reasons. First "Discovery" is an incredibly stupid choice for a name. There's already a Discovery TV show on the Discovery channel that's watched by the same demographic in the same timeslots that's been around for years (decades?). I'd prefer to simply call it "Discovery" (dropping the ST:) except can't because they are bad at naming things. Second, your abbreviations aren't the ones I use. I use ST:TOS, ST:TNG, DS9, ST:VOY, Enterprise, and ST:movie reboots. They aren't consistent. I would prefer if they were. Again, they are bad at naming things.

Finally ST:D is a good abbreviation for it... because they are bad at naming things. That is something that they themselves picked with hundreds of eyes seeing that name before it was finalized. That bad choice deserves to be highlighted and scorned. "ST:D" represents the defining characteristic of what's wrong with the show. ST:D makes inexplicably bad choices when it comes to the easy, no-brainer decisions. It's so bad and obvious that I feel that there's some executive somewhere that's purposely fucking this show over. A kind of poison or disease from within. By someone who must be a dick.
User avatar
Wide And Nerdy

Re: Star trek

Postby Wide And Nerdy » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:42 pm

Haven't seen Discovery yet. I hear Michael is the new Wesley Crusher.

Now the Orville is so TNG-VOY its basically Season 15. Very similar to that era of design, and the third episode is almost beat for beat lifted from a TNG episode. Its basically the same as the episode with the androgynous race. Its TNG-VOY with a little more humor. And given the involvement of Brannon Braga, Jonathan Frakes, Robert Duncan McNeil, and Penny Johnson Jerald as well as Seth MacFarlane's long connection to the TNG cast, its not a big surprise. Apparently MacFarlane is just one giant TNG fan.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Sep 28, 2017 3:57 pm

Supahewok wrote:One of these things is not like the others.


And thats why we dont label it in the same fashion.

That easy joke out of the way,like Steve C mentioned it was never consistent.TOS shouldnt even be called that since its name is just star trek.Not to mention that both tng and ds9 are not the same type of abbreviations as voy and ent.

Wide And Nerdy wrote: Its basically the same as the episode with the androgynous race.


Except that no one gets the gay fucked out of them.Which is surprising for MacFarlane.Also surprising is that that tng episode was boring,and this one is somehow not.
User avatar
4th Dimension

Re: Star trek

Postby 4th Dimension » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:27 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:TOS shouldnt even be called that since its name is just star trek.

Soo, We should call it "", {0}, empty string or null?
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:57 pm

The more I hear about Orville, the more confident I am that ST:D is being actively sabotaged from within.

JJ Abrams nuked the TNG timeline. Which slighted every individual and every business interest who wanted more ST:TNG movies and TNG-DS9-Voy TV shows. That's a very large number of people crossing over 2 generations all with friends, family and connections. Layer in a competing show like Orville with a pro-TNG crowd to leverage relationships on key people to do little things like greenlight the terrible name. Finally add the standard Hollywood politics of new management cancelling all of old management's projects and you've got a lot working against it behind the scenes. It could be untraceable sabotage like purposely giving bad advice. "Yeah that's a great name for a ship. It's very memorable." <snicker> "These extras are great. No complaints." <big smile>
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Thu Sep 28, 2017 7:47 pm

Steve C wrote:The more I hear about Orville, the more confident I am that ST:D is being actively sabotaged from within.


Dont know about that,but there is a definite slant amongst critics towards bashing orville while heaping praise towards st:d.Which clashes with the audience reaction towards the two shows.If the reaction was like that just towards orville,Id be inclined to say that its Seths rep working against him.But both together suggest something else.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Star trek

Postby Ringwraith » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:14 pm

Incredibly anecdotal time: random opinions I've heard from peeps on Star Trek Disco Edition have all been pretty positive, so I'm interested to see how it continues to pan out.

Though Netflix at least has a subtitles option for Klingon, which is far too much effort put into essentially a hidden interface joke.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Thu Sep 28, 2017 8:40 pm

Steve C wrote:
Supahewok wrote:...Even if it's not a joke, I don't see why yall are calling it ST:D. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, ST:D. One of these things is not like the others.

Multiple reasons. First "Discovery" is an incredibly stupid choice for a name. There's already a Discovery TV show on the Discovery channel that's watched by the same demographic in the same timeslots that's been around for years (decades?). I'd prefer to simply call it "Discovery" (dropping the ST:) except can't because they are bad at naming things. Second, your abbreviations aren't the ones I use. I use ST:TOS, ST:TNG, DS9, ST:VOY, Enterprise, and ST:movie reboots. They aren't consistent. I would prefer if they were. Again, they are bad at naming things.

Finally ST:D is a good abbreviation for it... because they are bad at naming things. That is something that they themselves picked with hundreds of eyes seeing that name before it was finalized. That bad choice deserves to be highlighted and scorned. "ST:D" represents the defining characteristic of what's wrong with the show. ST:D makes inexplicably bad choices when it comes to the easy, no-brainer decisions. It's so bad and obvious that I feel that there's some executive somewhere that's purposely fucking this show over. A kind of poison or disease from within. By someone who must be a dick.


...that is incredibly petty and factually wrong. There is no broadcasted Discovery TV show with Discovery in the name currently running at this time. I did my due diligence and checked both Discovery US and Discovery Canada. The closest I could find was Discovery Presents in the US, which is a brand name for a series of unrelated specials that only air once every few months, and What's On Discovery in Canada, whose web page is kinda blank and weird, and my best conclusion is that it's just Discovery Presents under a different name (it isn't listed on Canada's weekly broadcast schedule at all). So, as I said, factually wrong. And, literally your only explanation for why it's a bad name was because of this non-existing other TV show, so the entire rest of your post is invalid since it assumes that you adequately demonstrated that Discovery was a bad name. And even if it were true, you seem to think that people are going to confuse Star Trek with the Discovery channel. That's dumb.

You would have a much stronger case if you argued that Discovery doesn't fit due to it clashing with the theme, setting, or tone of the show. I could see that. From what I've read and heard from you guys who've seen it, it isn't trying to be classic Trek with exploration and a sci-fi dilemma of the week through which to examine a piece of human or universal nature, but rather more like some HBO series with a long form plot line revolving around politicking with the Klingons, which any Trekkie already knows plenty about (seriously, Klingons are played out by now). Without seeing it for myself, I couldn't say either way whether that's right or not, but I could respect the argument as one worth discussing. As it is, it just looks like you're trying to find any little excuse to bash on a show that offended you in some other way, regardless of how little sense it makes.

Daemian Lucifer wrote:...like Steve C mentioned it was never consistent.TOS shouldnt even be called that since its name is just star trek.Not to mention that both tng and ds9 are not the same type of abbreviations as voy and ent.


Both of those points are asinine. Once a second series was being made, obviously a distinction needed to be made between the original show and the rest of the franchise. It's like pointing out that we shouldn't call the first Star Wars movie A New Hope or Episode 4 because it originally played in theaters as just Star Wars. Yeah, okay, have your pedantry point while everybody else rolls their eyes and tries to have a real conversation. It is not endearing and accomplishes absolutely nothing. Same goes for saying that the abbreviations for the other shows aren't consistent because some were abbreviations of multiple words while others weren't, while ignoring the vastly more pertinent facts that they're all 3 characters and clearly identify their respective series with no ambiguity. Great, have your pedantry point. I hope you're keeping track of them. ST:D doesn't fit with them, if for no other reason than that it's 4 characters and we don't call the other single word shows ST:V or ST:E. That is inconsistency that's actually pertinent. But hey, it's the internet, call it whatever makes you happy. Just don't act like it makes more, or even any sense.

Anyways, I'm almost through the first season of TOS and I think I've narrowed down what is causing my constant surprise and thrown expectations. The mention of Klingons above reminded me of it. There's no Klingons. Not yet. With the TOS movies (a lot of which I actually have seen) and then TNG and DS9 both having Klingons being such a large part of the setting, my expectations were unconsciously set for Klingons to have a big part in the TOS show, or at least for there to be the atmosphere of the Cold War analogy I've heard for years they're supposed to represent. But not only has there been no mention of Klingons, the Romulans showed up first and were said to have fought a war with the Federation as part of the lore of the setting when they're introduced. And the same thing goes for the Mirror Universe. It seems like it was just a single episode of TOS, yet DS9 used it once a season for most of its run. And Kirk has this big reputation as a ladies' man who sleeps with every alien he meets, but so far all he's done is bat eyes at his different yeomen and that one illusion of an ex-girlfriend from many years before (...and I guess that one uncomfortable episode of sexual assault/rape when Kirk got an "evil" half split off from him... but the show does it's best to gloss over that in 60's fashion) (and speaking of casual 60's misogyny, what the fuck with the female uniforms, there was LITERALLY a panty shot with Uhura). Riker from TNG is far more promiscuous than Kirk (thus far).

Now maybe this whole thing gets turned upside down in season 2 or the vilified season 3 (the latter wouldn't surprise me, based on how much dislike it gets, of setting up all the bad Trek tropes that later series follow fastiduously). But so far, I'm enjoying Trek just being Trek without trying to make its setting a whole big thing. Its more like the Twilight Zone, just with the same cast every episode and not as freaky. And honestly, despite protestations of Trek fans online, I think that's why a "true" Trek show hasn't aired in ages. It's just not a popular form of TV anymore, at least for the moment. The big deal right now is the longform, interconnected, glossy and star studded premium shows like Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones. It's a way of TV that wasn't possible, or at least deemed feasible, before internet streaming and archiving. To make an analogy, if Star Trek is an anthology series of sci-fi short stories, what's in vogue for TV right now is the big thousand page, 8 book epic series of novels. That kind of sci-fi just doesn't get made much anymore. Some novels, like whatever Sudanna is reading this week (not derogatory, some day I'm gonna go through your post history in that thread and make a list of interesting novels to read), but the big magazines back when original Trek aired that was the lifeblood of that sort of thing is long dead, and I don't think anything has taken its place to the same degree as what those magazines once held. And regardless of what people say about video vs print, the truth of the matter is that nothing happens in video that doesn't follow something that's going on in print. If short story classic sci-fi of interesting problems isn't being written, then the truth is that despite whatever demand it may hold, we aren't gonna see it on TV. It's pretty sad. That form filled a particular niche that nothing else fully satisfies. But c'est la vie. The world is what it is.

Anyway, that's my musings for the day. The episode with the man-child in a Napoleon costume sucked.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Thu Sep 28, 2017 10:43 pm

Actually, Romulans appear in only 2 TOS episodes, but Klingons appear in 7. So in the end, Klingons get more screen time, but still not all that much, considering there are 79 episodes total. Most of them rely on Aliens of the Week. Nuts, right?

And yeah, Kirk was not some wild horndog that slept with every woman he met. I'm not sure how that image of him got started, but most of his seductions were either women he actually cared for or he was using his 'masculine wiles' to save his ship and crew.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:55 pm

Sometimes I think that most of what people think they know about Star Trek actually comes from stand-up comics and late-night sketches rather than the show itself. Either that or decades of accumulated fan memes.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:54 am

Supahewok wrote:Once a second series was being made, obviously a distinction needed to be made between the original show and the rest of the franchise.


You are acting as there is some universal naming standard out there that everyone adheres to.By your logic,we must call the first terminator "terminator original",then the second one must be called "judgment day",with no terminator in front,and the third one must be "rise of the machines",again with no terminator in front of it.Seriously,dont compare a naming convention of one thing to a naming convention of another thing,thats just stupid.

Supahewok wrote:Yeah, okay, have your pedantry point while everybody else rolls their eyes and tries to have a real conversation.


Really?Your whole original point is how this a fannon name for one show differs from a fannon name for other shows.Wait,correction,a fannon WRITTEN name,because no one ever says ENT or VOY when talking about those two shows.Yet I am being pedantic for responding to your pedantic complaint in the same fashion?If you really have the urge to insult and demean someone who disagrees with you,at least attempt to not be a hypocrite while doing so.

Supahewok wrote:That is inconsistency that's actually pertinent.


No,it really is not.It just bugs you because it doesnt fit into this arbitrary standard.Because while reading those abbreviations no one reads ent,just how no one reads the colon except for Yahtzee.Not to mention that you can just as easily skip that single punctuation mark and have it fit neatly into the arbitrary standard you hold so dear.

But hey,its the internet,write a huge ass wall of text on how you arbitrary convention trumps everyone elses arbitrary convention.Just dont act like you arent being pedantic and asinine when doing so.Oh wait,its the internet,I guess its the law to be a jerk when talking about spelling and punctuation.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 2:59 am

John wrote:Sometimes I think that most of what people think they know about Star Trek actually comes from stand-up comics and late-night sketches rather than the show itself. Either that or decades of accumulated fan memes.


Well it is the most prominent one after all.

What Im surprised is that there are practically no popular jokes of kirk being married to the ship.Everyone focuses on how he flirts with every skirt on the show,yet no one mentions how he dumps them all for his bajillion ton woman.
User avatar
Sudanna

Re: Star trek

Postby Sudanna » Fri Sep 29, 2017 3:20 am

people don't say ENT or VOY with their mouths, but they and the rest of supahewok's abbreiations are by far the most widespread ways of referring to the shows in writing. DIS is most in keeping with this established convention. and ST:D is blatantly childish. which is the main thing really.

"this is my silly name for a thing"
"gross no thanks. it's not even like the others"
"yes it is, look!"
"that's wrong"
"you suck i wasn't even trying to say it's like the others that's dumb"
User avatar
The Rocketeer

Re: Star trek

Postby The Rocketeer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 9:25 am

Ah, but you've forgotten one critical point: DL can never be convinced to come around on anything, anything, ever, and you've all been wasting your time since the moment you bothered contradicting him. Check and mate.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:36 am

Sudanna wrote:and ST:D is blatantly childish.


You mean as childish as dishonestly skewing things in order to mock someone?And you do it in response to me telling someone else to not be a hypocrite.And speaking of being childish:

The Rocketeer wrote:DL can never be convinced to come around on anything, anything, ever,


Sure I can.When the argument being made is actually solid and non arbitrary.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Fri Sep 29, 2017 12:47 pm

Supahewok wrote:Anyway, that's my musings for the day.

Not what I would call it. You crossed a decorum line there over a completely pointless thing. For the record, I'm not convinced. You didn't support your points. I would refute what you wrote except I would be responding in anger. I'm very done with this.
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:30 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:
The Rocketeer wrote:DL can never be convinced to come around on anything, anything, ever.
Sure I can.When the argument being made is actually solid and non arbitrary.

And by some strange coincidence, no one arguing with Daemian has ever made a solid, non-arbitrary argument. Really. Just ask him!

Daemian, buddy, I don't care what acronym anybody uses. But if you've been trying to make a serious case for "ST:D" then you've been going about it in a very strange way up until now. That's mostly because you haven't really made any sort of case until very recently. You just pop up with an "it should be called ST:D" post anytime anybody mentions Discovery. The natural assumption--and don't tell me it isn't--is that you're joking. I've been reading your posts in the forum and in the blog comments for some time now, and you make a lot of short and clearly-intended-humorously posts. As to Rocketeer's point, in my capacity as a person who has argued with you before I can personally attest that in an argument--especially in an argument about something frivolous, such as for example whether or not certain mechanics in strategy games can be immersion breaking--you hold to your initial position at all costs.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Fri Sep 29, 2017 11:39 pm

John wrote:And by some strange coincidence, no one arguing with Daemian has ever made a solid, non-arbitrary argument.


Yes,they have.But in the case of these abbreviations being non arbitrary,they have not.

Look,Id prefer if we were calling the other two shows st:v and st:e as well(or stv and ste,if you really must type just 3 characters).Those roll off the tongue much better than voy and ent.But the convention on those two has been established for over a decade and the chances of them changing are slim to none,so really theres no point in bringing that up.The convention for a new show however is not established,and whatever someone proposes has a chance to take root.

John wrote:The natural assumption--and don't tell me it isn't--is that you're joking.


Joking and being serious arent always mutually exclusive.Thats why xbone is a serious name and a joke at the same time.So is st:d(or std,if you really must type just 3 characters).Its a cheap joke,but its also an unambiguous name that distinguishes the show from the others.

However,Im not that adamant about others using the name.Call it what you wish.What I am adamant about is the notion that naming conventions are somehow not arbitrary,that ent and voy are THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE WAY to abbreviate star trek:enterprise and star trek:voyager,that tos is THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE WAY to label the original show in a way that distinguishes it from the rest,and that dis is somehow less arbitrary than std.JadedDMs argument that std is an unfunny and overused joke is a good argument against using std(or st:d,if dont actually care about typing more than 3 characters).Sudannas argument that dis is an even better joke is a good argument for using it over std.Supahewoks argument that st:d is more arbitrary than the rest is not a good argument.
User avatar
krellen
Location: The City in New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby krellen » Sat Sep 30, 2017 3:30 pm

Enterprise was abbreviated ENT because for its first two seasons, it wasn't Star Trek: Enterprise; it was just "Enterprise".
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:50 am

Just finished the third episode, and I'm starting to suspect that Discovery is a Section 31 ship or may be affiliated with them in some way.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:16 am

I watched the first episode of "The Orville". It was better than ST:D. Which is not saying much.

Orville is more like the mirror image of ST:D. Where ST:D gets the hard stuff right and proceeds to fall on its face with the easy stuff, Orville is the reverse. It gets the easy stuff right and falls on its face with the hard stuff. I'm much more forgiving of that. Plus with the comedic bent it can get away with being 'ironically bad'. The problem for me is I don't like the kind of humor in it. The jokes get in the way of the rest of the show as opposed to being integrated into it. I smirked at parts but that was about it. I didn't find "The Orville" funny and don't expect to. I can see why people like it though. I like Seth MacFarlane. He is a good enough actor to hold a scene. I think he's a fantastic voice actor. I do not think he is funny.

I do and do not agree that is like ST:TNG. It certainly has the aesthetics of TNG. Set design, music, camera work, makeup, crew dynamic, it all feels very TNG inspired. The rest of it really feels more ST:TOS. If TOS and TNG had a baby (a retarded baby due to the incest) and then that baby had a transporter accident that merged it with the mirror image of ST:D... I think that would be "The Orville."

I've heard from multiple sources that Orville gets better and to give it to episode 3. I'm on the fence. I don't think it will be able to win me over. I want it to though.

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest