PDA

View Full Version : Star Trek XI- the more I hear about the choices they are making...



banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Sep-28, 11:15 AM
Is it okay to use the word suck on here? In this context- how badly will Star Trek XI suck? I have lost all hope that this will be anything but the much dreaded "Starfleet Academy" idea that they've been kicking around for years, even though they say it's not. Now they are talikng about some actor name d Vogel to play Kirk. I know I'm gonna get burned for this, but....I would rather not have young actors in these roles. I would rather have actors that are around the same age as the when the os started....

schlaugh
2007-Sep-28, 01:46 PM
Well, the rule of thumb on Trek movies (IMO) is that the even-numbered ones were pretty good and the odd-numbered ones were stinkers.

So XI does not bode well...

As for the ages, I believe Kirk was supposed to be in his early to mid-30s when the show debuted. Makeup can do wonders - see Spock.

V-GER
2007-Sep-28, 02:16 PM
The great thing about the internet is that you can read from different message boards how movies that aren't due for another year are going to suck. This seems to be the case especially with Star Trek and comic book movies.

I'd like to reserve judgement until I actually see the movie. And anyway, for better or worse, it's still Trek...

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Sep-28, 02:19 PM
I disagree. That attitude about it having the Star Trek label on it is what ruined the franchise- no offence but Voyager and Enterprise were examples of this....although "Enterprise" was just called "Enterprise" at first.

Demigrog
2007-Sep-28, 02:27 PM
For Trek XI I am not exactly bursting with optimism: we get the writing team (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) that brought us such gems as Xena: Warrior Princess and Transformers. Of course, if they bring in that cute blonde that played Gabrielle I might forgive them... Yoeman Rand, perhaps? :)

I'm just disappointed whenever a new Trek series or movie comes out and totally ignores the good novels that have already filled in the backstories for the major characters. Granted that many of the novels were pretty bad, but certain authors (Diane Duane, A.C. Crispen, D.C. Fontana) were really good, and they have been totally ignored.

Ironically, some of the worst novel writers (Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens) are involved in Trek movies and series. Considering how bad their early novels were (Memory Prime, Prime Directive, Federation), I'm not surprised they were brought in to write for Enterprise. They fit right in. :)

SeanF
2007-Sep-28, 04:00 PM
Is it okay to use the word suck on here? In this context- how badly will Star Trek XI suck? I have lost all hope that this will be anything but the much dreaded "Starfleet Academy" idea that they've been kicking around for years, even though they say it's not. Now they are talikng about some actor name d Vogel to play Kirk. I know I'm gonna get burned for this, but....I would rather not have young actors in these roles. I would rather have actors that are around the same age as the when the os started....

Vogel's 28. Shatner was 35.
Quinto's 30. Nimoy was 35.
Saldana's 29. Nichols was 35.
Yelchin's 18. Koenig was 30.
McGillion's 38. Doohan was 46.

Except for Chekov and Scotty, the new (rumored) actor's ages are all pretty close to the originals, and I think Chekov was supposed to be playing younger, anyway. At any rate, I think it's clear this is more likely to be "Kirk's first mission as captain of the Enterprise" than "Starfleet Academy."

I have my doubts about it do, but I do have a certain amount of faith in Leonard Nimoy. He refused to do a Spock cameo in Generations, because he felt there was no point to it - he's doing the new movie. At this point, that's enough for me to hold out hope. :)


Of course, if they bring in that cute blonde that played Gabrielle I might forgive them... Yoeman Rand, perhaps? :)
O'Connor's 36. Whitney was 36. Sounds good to me. :)

Damburger
2007-Sep-28, 04:41 PM
Well, the rule of thumb on Trek movies (IMO) is that the even-numbered ones were pretty good and the odd-numbered ones were stinkers.

So XI does not bode well...

As for the ages, I believe Kirk was supposed to be in his early to mid-30s when the show debuted. Makeup can do wonders - see Spock.

Definitely :)

http://www.solipsistworker.org.uk/ImMDB/

Something I did for my brothers website a while ago (some may find offensive)

Noclevername
2007-Sep-28, 05:43 PM
For some reason when I hear about this film I keep thinking of the 200th Stargate parody episode with the "hip, young" recasting...

dockeen
2007-Sep-28, 06:31 PM
Ironically, some of the worst novel writers (Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens) are involved in Trek movies and series. Considering how bad their early novels were (Memory Prime, Prime Directive, Federation), I'm not surprised they were brought in to write for Enterprise. They fit right in. :)


Darn, I kind of got a kick out of their books. But I have somewhat ecclectic are pretty silly taste in ST novels.

Wayne

Demigrog
2007-Sep-28, 06:37 PM
Darn, I kind of got a kick out of their books. But I have somewhat ecclectic are pretty silly taste in ST novels.

Wayne

Well, taste in books is one of the great universal anti-constants. :) I have to admit I only read one of their Shatner collaboration books, so maybe they got better.

dockeen
2007-Sep-28, 07:25 PM
I have enjoyed several of them, it is interesting having Kirk alive again, and his interaction with Picard is cool to "watch".

Wayne

novaderrik
2007-Sep-28, 08:06 PM
so this movie is supposed to take place after the pilot episode, but before the first "real" episode?
i wonder what the ship will look like? and how about the bridge- will they go with modern flat screens, or the cool "blinking lights and rocker switches" of the original? and, more importantly- what will the Klingons look like?

Brad_Smith
2007-Sep-30, 05:47 PM
For Trek XI I am not exactly bursting with optimism: we get the writing team (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) that brought us such gems as Xena: Warrior Princess and Transformers. Of course, if they bring in that cute blonde that played Gabrielle I might forgive them... Yoeman Rand, perhaps? :)

I'm just disappointed whenever a new Trek series or movie comes out and totally ignores the good novels that have already filled in the backstories for the major characters. Granted that many of the novels were pretty bad, but certain authors (Diane Duane, A.C. Crispen, D.C. Fontana) were really good, and they have been totally ignored.

Ironically, some of the worst novel writers (Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens) are involved in Trek movies and series. Considering how bad their early novels were (Memory Prime, Prime Directive, Federation), I'm not surprised they were brought in to write for Enterprise. They fit right in. :)

Sorry. The Reeves-Stevens team did some great work and tried to maintain some continuity. With some tweaking, "Federation" would have made a great movie, using both casts. And, their work on Enterprise's 4th season was great -- in fact, that was the best season. It was closer to the original series that any of the other incarnations.

Doodler
2007-Oct-01, 07:03 PM
Well, taste in books is one of the great universal anti-constants. :) I have to admit I only read one of their Shatner collaboration books, so maybe they got better.

I call those novels "Kirk Trek", and in my opinion, they improved dramatically as time went on. Some were a little over the top, but then again, that's part of their charm. The scenarios they've used are pretty epic in scale, but the way they respect the characters in active canon is a nice touch. Most notably that Picard and Kirk aren't immediately the best of friends and the characterization of Kirk's difficulty getting used to the 24th century Starfleet's more mature command infrastructure (he ends up working directly under Admiral Janeway in Starfleet Intelligence in the last series) that can reach out and yank his leash pretty much at will.

dockeen
2007-Oct-04, 11:04 AM
There is something cool about the notion of Kirk taking as his wife a Romulan/Klingon/Terran engineered hybrid as a wife.

Wayne

Noclevername
2007-Oct-07, 06:14 PM
They should go with an animated film.

Just throwin' ideas out there.

V-GER
2007-Oct-08, 01:52 PM
Have some faith people, I'm very optimistic that we're going to see a re-juvenated, highly entertaining space yarn. And if it sucks, well then it does. No harm trying. Just because a lot of people disliked the last movie(myself not included) doesn't mean they shouldn't make another one. On the contrary.

Inferno
2007-Oct-11, 03:44 AM
They should go with an animated film.

Just throwin' ideas out there.

Yes, I completely agree. Throw out that idea!

vonmazur
2007-Oct-16, 06:01 PM
Bob Costas would make a good Kirk....If they could teach him to act in time...I wonder who is going to play Jeffrey Hunter?? He was good enough to die for our sins,(King of Kings) but not good enough to interact with alien females??(Green Orionian Slave Girl) Where will they find an actor like that today??

Dale

eburacum45
2007-Oct-16, 06:23 PM
They would have trouble getting anyone of the calibre of Susan Oliver to play a Green Orion Slave girl these days;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Oliver
acttor, director, aviator

Jason
2007-Oct-16, 07:18 PM
What Trek really needs is new ideas. Voyager was an excellent example of what happens when a forumla gets stale, and Enterprise didn't change enough to freshen it up.
But what do I know? I thought Spock should have stayed dead after Wrath of Khan. Bringing him back was too predictable. Leaving him dead and finding a way to do more Star Trek anyway would have been a real challenge. Instead the Great Bird of the Galaxy chose to play it safe.

Doodler
2007-Oct-17, 12:16 PM
Meh, I always hoped they'd eventually bring New Frontier to the big screen.

Sex, violence, humour, and a captain with no respect for the Prime Directive. Some of the best Trek writing I've read since A.C. Crispin's Vulcan stuff.

SeanF
2007-Oct-17, 02:30 PM
Meh, I always hoped they'd eventually bring New Frontier to the big screen.
Interesting idea. Any ideas for actors to play Calhoun, et al?

I've got pretty good suggestions for Shelby, Lefler, and Morgan... ;)

Doodler
2007-Oct-17, 03:43 PM
Interesting idea. Any ideas for actors to play Calhoun, et al?

I've got pretty good suggestions for Shelby, Lefler, and Morgan... ;)

Calhoun: If you screw up casting this role, you've burned the series before it launches. As for who to put in the role...I'm stumped.

Burgoyne: Amanda Tapping or Tracy Scoggins (can I say I was fairly impressed by her in B5 without sounding like I'm underwater from all the drooling?).

Kebron: Anthony Simcoe (played D'Argo on Farscape)

Soleta: Summer Glau

Selar: Would love to see Susie Plakson back here. If not, Mira Furlan. Once they fleshed her out a bit, she turned into one very interesting character study.

Si Cwan: Douglas Christopher Judge

SeanF
2007-Oct-17, 04:24 PM
Calhoun: If you screw up casting this role, you've burned the series before it launches. As for who to put in the role...I'm stumped.
Agreed. On both counts.


Selar: Would love to see Susie Plakson back here.
Dagnabbit! I thought I had all the established characters, but I missed Selar. :doh:

BTW, I like Glau as Soleta. Have no knowledge of Simcoe or Judge. EDIT: Ah, Judge is Teal'c. I've only ever seen bits and pieces of Stargate, but he certainly seems to have the look and "presence" for Si Cwan.

IMHO, Scoggins and Tapping are both too much "woman" to play the Hermat...but I don't know who else to suggest.

Doodler
2007-Oct-17, 05:36 PM
My first thought for Calhoun was actually Clive Owen, but I'm not sure his asking price would be worth the return, and whether he'd actually care to be typecast like that.

As for Burgoyne, the impression I got from the one piece of cover art s/he appeared on, while hermaphroditic, s/he was more feminine in the face. Definitely in the chest. I figured it'd be easier to cast a woman in the role than a guy with fake boobs.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-18, 02:24 AM
The cover of one of the Captain's Table books ("Once Burned") shows Calhoun looking kind of like one of the younger Baldwin brothers. Although none of them are young anymore, so probably a moot point for casting.

Doodler
2007-Oct-18, 03:07 PM
Heads up, folks, the crew is complete. Memory Alpha reports that Kirk and McCoy have been cast.


17 October

The USS Enterprise of J.J. Abrams' upcoming Star Trek has its crew. Chris Pine and Karl Urban signed on today as James T. Kirk and Leonard McCoy, respectively. They join Zachary Quinto as Spock, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Hikaru Sulu, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, and Anton Yelchin and Pavel Chekov, as well as Leonard Nimoy as the older Spock and Eric Bana as a villain named Nero.

According to Trekmovie.com, veteran Star Trek production illustrator John Eaves is working on J.J. Abrams' Star Trek.

Jim
2007-Oct-18, 04:41 PM
Granted he doesn't really look the part, they should have cast Masi Oka as the young Sulu. Just... poetic.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-19, 04:25 PM
Everyone's got a comment... (http://sorethumbsonline.com/d/20071017.html)

(Warning, the page I linked to is okay, the rest of the comic is NSFW)

Doodler
2007-Oct-19, 07:10 PM
Everyone's got a comment... (http://sorethumbsonline.com/d/20071017.html)

(Warning, the page I linked to is okay, the rest of the comic is NSFW)

Trekkie chick, large breasts, miniature waist...this is not logical. A clear violation of the laws of physiques.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-19, 11:49 PM
Trekkie chick, large breasts, miniature waist...this is not logical. A clear violation of the laws of physiques.

Unless she's painted green and seducing a starship captain.

Doodler
2007-Nov-10, 10:22 PM
Wynona Ryder as Amanda Grayson?!

*pushes the PANIC! button*

Noclevername
2007-Nov-10, 10:31 PM
Wynona Ryder as Amanda Grayson?!


...That's got to be a joke. The only thing she was ever good in was Beetlejuice!

Doodler
2007-Nov-10, 10:56 PM
Nein, its official...

She'd better give a career performance, or the next time she faces a jury for shoplifting, I'm starting a petition recommending the death penalty.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-10, 11:02 PM
Oof. Just more proof that this is the parallel universe. Next thing you know they'll announce it's being made as a musical being directed by Joel Schumacher.

SeanF
2007-Nov-11, 02:20 AM
Wynona Ryder as Amanda Grayson?!
Great. Amanda's only six years older than Spock. :hand:

Noclevername
2007-Nov-11, 08:33 AM
I'm getting the feeling more and more that I really should miss seeing this movie.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-11, 08:05 PM
...That's got to be a joke. The only thing she was ever good in was Beetlejuice!

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Heathers fan, myself. Likewise Edward Scissorhands. But I did think Girl, Interrupted was overrated. And even were I the world's biggest Winona Ryder fan, I don't think I'd approve of her playing Amanda.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-11, 08:09 PM
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Heathers fan, myself. Likewise Edward Scissorhands.

IMO, those movies were good in spite of her... Well, maybe that's too harsh. It might be more accurate to say those movies were good around her, and she was there when they happened.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-11, 11:56 PM
IMO, those movies were good in spite of her... Well, maybe that's too harsh. It might be more accurate to say those movies were good around her, and she was there when they happened.

It's true that she was out-acted by her male costars in both of those. (I read recently that she was considered for what became the Christina Ricci role in Sleepy Hollow, and aside from being delighted they didn't choose her because she'd've been all wrong for it, I think it would've been uncomfortable on the set, and the movie would've suffered--I'm not sure if you know, but she and Johnny Depp were engaged back around the time of Edward Scissorhands.)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-12, 12:18 AM
(I read recently that she was considered for what became the Christina Ricci role in Sleepy Hollow, and aside from being delighted they didn't choose her because she'd've been all wrong for it, I think it would've been uncomfortable on the set, and the movie would've suffered--I'm not sure if you know, but she and Johnny Depp were engaged back around the time of Edward Scissorhands.)

Which may have been a contributing reason why she didn't get the part.

ADDED: They better have a darn good Sarek, then. But based on their other casting choices, I'm not hopeful.

Doodler
2007-Nov-12, 01:04 PM
But based on their other casting choices, I'm not hopeful.

I'm half expecting to see Scotty defending Engineering from invading Romulans with a cricket bat while "Nothings Gonna Stop Us Now" is blaring from the intercom...

Noclevername
2007-Nov-12, 02:51 PM
Or "Nero", the villain-cause-they-say-so, turning into a bad green CGI effect.

Nero. Probably be the lamest ST antagonist since Shinbone or whoever from Nemesis.

Doodler
2007-Nov-12, 04:33 PM
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Heathers fan, myself. Likewise Edward Scissorhands. But I did think Girl, Interrupted was overrated. And even were I the world's biggest Winona Ryder fan, I don't think I'd approve of her playing Amanda.

The funny thing is, thinking on it, Amanda would probably have made a killer role for Demi Moore...

However, this also depends on which time period we're talking about here... Ryder would be fine if we're talking about Spock doing childhood flashbacks (or even in his teens, when he put his foot down about joining Starfleet...)

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Nov-13, 05:06 PM
major spoilers
and Harllan Ellison is not happy (but then again when is he ever....what a cry baby)


http://www.trektoday.com/news/121107_05.shtml

Noclevername
2007-Nov-13, 05:10 PM
More warmed-over reuse of old ideas! Yay! </sarcasm>

Just like a Animated Series episode where Spock goes back via the GOF and talks to himself.

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Nov-13, 05:29 PM
really???? wow they really are bankrupt for ideas

Jason
2007-Nov-13, 07:14 PM
It sounds a lot like Yesteryear but then, the Animated Series isn't canon, so I guess they can say they aren't repeating any canon episode.
And the Romulan angle sounds just like Yesterday's Son, which also involved the Romulans discovering the Guardian of Forever and trying to use it to their advantage.

NGCHunter
2007-Nov-13, 07:51 PM
Wow, it seems awfully contrived that "old" spock would be the one to follow the romulans back in time. It seems like it would make a lot more sense for just about any other random tng-era starfleet officer to be the one involved. I can't imagine the federation would just leave the Guardian lying around all those years unprotected, nor do I imagine that spock would ever be the one tasked to defend it. If they have any sense about them I'm sure they'll try to tie it back to the incomplete subplot of spock trying to reunite the romulans and vulcans as an excuse to have him tailing romulan operatives, but it still feels very forced. It's almost as bad as worf just happening to convienently show up in every TNG movie after generations.

The funny thing is that, as mentioned before, almost the same thing happened in yesteryear. And even funnier, is that although in general the animated series isn't considered canon, this is the one episode above the others that IS considered to be fairly canon.

Wikipedia:"In fact, due perhaps to its solid storyline and the considerable information it gives about Spock's youth and Vulcan, "Yesteryear" has been considered canon by some of the production staff of Star Trek, and as such, information from this episode is more prevalent in later series than other animated episodes." Apparently the city background was used to design the CGI background for the redone "amoke time" episode.

From yesteryear:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Yesteryear.jpg
Caption should now read: Hey older me, how many more times are you going to drop in and mess with my life?

Jason
2007-Nov-13, 08:23 PM
Actually it would make good sense for "old" Spock to come across the Romulan plan. Last we heard he was on Romulus working with Romulan dissidents, after all. He's in a great position to come across a new Romulan plot.

Jason
2007-Nov-13, 08:37 PM
You know, Amanda doesn't look all that different from Winona in that frame.

Doodler
2007-Nov-13, 09:02 PM
It sounds a lot like Yesteryear but then, the Animated Series isn't canon, so I guess they can say they aren't repeating any canon episode.

Actually, the animated series is very much canon, including at least three references in Deep Space 9.

The scene of ShiKar used in Enterprise was taken straight out of Yesteryear and rendered digitally. Same with the sehlat they used. CGI'd right from I-chaya's original toon cells.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-13, 09:19 PM
Actually, the animated series is very much canon, including at least three references in Deep Space 9.



TAS was all canon, up until TNG came out and Paramount and Roddenberry officially declared it null and void. Later writers have disagreed and tried to work aspects of it back in, but the official word from TPTB is that, if it's not in a film or live-action ep, it doesn't count.

Doodler
2007-Nov-13, 09:29 PM
TAS was all canon, up until TNG came out and Paramount and Roddenberry officially declared it null and void. Later writers have disagreed and tried to work aspects of it back in, but the official word from TPTB is that, if it's not in a film or live-action ep, it doesn't count.

Paramount can address my middle digit extended skyward, and the Great Bird has shuffled his mortal coil off to Buffalo.

Writers make canon. They use it as source, its therefore canon.

Swift
2007-Nov-13, 10:07 PM
major spoilers
and Harllan Ellison is not happy (but then again when is he ever....what a cry baby)


http://www.trektoday.com/news/121107_05.shtml
Oh god, not more time travel ST garbage. :doh:


I'm getting the feeling more and more that I really should miss seeing this movie.
I've said it before (\Jewish mother mode\ But do they ever listen to me? :rolleyes:), that Star Trek ran out of steam a long time ago. It is kind of like a zombie version of your grandmother, you loved her when she was alive, but now she just goes around eating brains, and though you hate having to do it, you need to put a bullet in her head.

I have no plans to see this movie. Once it comes out, I'm sure it will be much discussed here, and if you guinea pigs approve of it, I might venture out of my shelter.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-13, 10:10 PM
...At least we'll always have fan fiction.

Jason
2007-Nov-14, 05:58 PM
Seems a bit early to judge the movie to me, seeing how most of it hasn't actually been shot yet.

Doodler
2007-Nov-14, 08:19 PM
Somehow, the 26th century Trek option that CBS is toying with is sounding a lot better.

Demigrog
2007-Nov-14, 08:38 PM
It sounds a lot like Yesteryear but then, the Animated Series isn't canon, so I guess they can say they aren't repeating any canon episode.
And the Romulan angle sounds just like Yesterday's Son, which also involved the Romulans discovering the Guardian of Forever and trying to use it to their advantage.

If they were smart, they'd just film Yesterday's Son and be done with it... A.C. Crispin rocks.

NGCHunter
2007-Nov-14, 09:29 PM
If they were smart, they'd just film Yesterday's Son and be done with it... A.C. Crispin rocks.

That might be cool, except I think we're now missing too many of the original actors to do it. I know this sounds messed up, but I never read yesterday's son, just a synopsis. I did read the sequel, return to yesterday though.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-14, 10:14 PM
Oh god, not more time travel ST garbage. :doh:


That was my reaction when I first heard the time travel angle. Time travel is something that should be used very little as a prop device, if at all.



I've said it before (\Jewish mother mode\ But do they ever listen to me? :rolleyes:), that Star Trek ran out of steam a long time ago. It is kind of like a zombie version of your grandmother, you loved her when she was alive, but now she just goes around eating brains, and though you hate having to do it, you need to put a bullet in her head.


The sad thing is that I think they could still do good Star Trek, but they keep going back to the stupid idea well. I think a movie or series covering the Romulan war, with things getting pushed back all the way to Earth, could have been very interesting. To be sure, if they went with that idea, they'd probably find a way to mess it up.



I have no plans to see this movie. Once it comes out, I'm sure it will be much discussed here, and if you guinea pigs approve of it, I might venture out of my shelter.

I expect to rent it when it comes out on DVD.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-14, 10:19 PM
I'll watch when it's on cable. If nothing else is on.

Doodler
2007-Nov-14, 10:31 PM
If they were smart, they'd just film Yesterday's Son and be done with it... A.C. Crispin rocks.


Sure, hammer them for using time travel again, then suggest a story built around time travel.

I mean, they're already rebuilding the Guardian of Forever, right?

Jason
2007-Nov-14, 11:09 PM
Time travel has only been used in three out of the ten movies so far, and two of those were even-numbered, so they were quite good.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-14, 11:12 PM
Time travel has only been used in three out of the ten movies so far, and two of those were even-numbered, so they were quite good.

They* were okay. Not as good as the Wrath of KHAAAAN! but still not bad.

*Meaning the two even ones.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-15, 01:10 AM
Time travel has only been used in three out of the ten movies so far, and two of those were even-numbered, so they were quite good.

I hated Star Trek IV. Star Trek: First Contact was okay, but didn't make a lot of sense, and I didn't like the Borg Queen: Part of what made the Borg so scary is that it was a collective, without individuality, or an individual face. Third movie . . . Star Trek Generations? That was bad.

Doodler
2007-Nov-15, 02:01 AM
I hated Star Trek IV. Star Trek: First Contact was okay, but didn't make a lot of sense, and I didn't like the Borg Queen: Part of what made the Borg so scary is that it was a collective, without individuality, or an individual face. Third movie . . . Star Trek Generations? That was bad.

Actually, the Borg queen made perfect sense, since the orignal concept for the Borg was to be an insectoid race. Still, the concept of the hive mind and the queen translates well enough into cybernetics.

Every computer needs its CPU.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-15, 02:09 AM
The Borg "Queen" isn't an individual, it's a processing system; "I make order out of chaos". The one seen in Generations was literally being built when first shown, then was destroyed at the end of the film; the next two in Voyager were given similar entrances and exits, IIRC. And at the end of the horrendous abomination against nature last episode of Voyager, the then-current version literally fell apart when future-Janeway gave the Borg a virus to disrupt their internal links. She/it was a construct, designed to do a specific job within the collective. With a creepy stalker's personality. ;)

Delvo
2007-Nov-15, 04:34 AM
She/it was a construct, designed to do a specific job within the collective.But the Borg were supposed to never have just one of any construct that does any job: things were either distributed (like command/decisions) or, if they couldn't be completely spread out like that, redundant (like power sources and power distribution).

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-15, 04:41 AM
I understand the rationalization of the Borg Queen, but the point is that they wanted to put a "face" to the Borg so they could interact with them directly for the movie. But, that took away much of what made them such a scary and alien enemy.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-15, 04:43 AM
But the Borg were supposed to never have just one of any construct that does any job: things were either distributed (like command/decisions) or, if they couldn't be completely spread out like that, redundant (like power sources and power distribution).

That's true, and that's what was emphasized in their early apearances as what made them so deadly. But in a series (several series) with an ever-changing crew of writers, changes of emphasis and inconsistencies are bound to creep in. The Borg are just one of many ideas that started as a unique, interesting science fiction concept and ended up becoming just another bunch of cliched bad guys.

Doodler
2007-Nov-15, 12:54 PM
But the Borg were supposed to never have just one of any construct that does any job: things were either distributed (like command/decisions) or, if they couldn't be completely spread out like that, redundant (like power sources and power distribution).

If she were the only Borg queen, that is. There's nothing to stop her from being a manifestation of a distributed system herself.

She only had how many incarnations? A single personality distributed to control nodes, the Unimatrix 001 queen being first among equals, but not so critical that she were irreplacable.

The Borg in their original presentation were terrifying in their power and alienness, but unless something was introduced to make them more threatening, they'd eventually end up a speed bump under the wheels of Federation progress. If anything, their appearances were starting to feel less threatening to the point where Lilly tagged them perfectly in First Contact. Cyberzombies. They were really starting to look and act like nanotech driven variations on George Romero's vision. Terrifying, until you understand how to stave them off, then they're merely annoying. The queen gave them a new element, the voudoun priestess raising the dead for her army. Something about them that could innovate instead of merely adapting, a conductor to raise to a symphony an otherwise one note song.

They needed something, a queen in a hive is just as good as anything else they've come up with recently.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-15, 05:15 PM
The scene in Unimatrix Zero where the Susanna Thompson BQ attempts to lure a child back into the Collective was very creepy, eerily reminescent of a pedophile... "It will be fun. We will all be friends together".

Jason
2007-Nov-15, 05:29 PM
The Borg started falling apart as the ultimate Star Trek villain when they decided to use Picard as a "mouthpiece".
Suddenly a species that had no interest at all in biological organisms in their first appearence was interested in assimilating people as well as technology. The original ideas changed, and the borg began their descent to "just another villain" status.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-15, 07:15 PM
And the lowest point of Borg de-fanging came in the rotten treatment they recieved in Enterprise. If they knew they were coming back then, why didn't they know they were coming in TNG? And the totally unnecessary quip at the end from Bakula-- "In two hundred years they'll be here" HOW DOES HE KNOW???? There was nothing in the episode about where they originate or how fast they travel! Curse you Berman! RRRaaaaarrrgh!

(Wipes foam off mouth) I feel much better now.

NGCHunter
2007-Nov-15, 09:50 PM
And the lowest point of Borg de-fanging came in the rotten treatment they recieved in Enterprise. If they knew they were coming back then, why didn't they know they were coming in TNG? And the totally unnecessary quip at the end from Bakula-- "In two hundred years they'll be here" HOW DOES HE KNOW???? There was nothing in the episode about where they originate or how fast they travel! Curse you Berman! RRRaaaaarrrgh!

(Wipes foam off mouth) I feel much better now.

Oh I know, I thought Voyager was really the tipping point for the borg. A single small fed ship surviving a journey through the heart of borg territory? Give me a break, the enterprise was literally begging for mercy in just a couple of hours. I thought that was bad, but then to see the borg lose to some 22nd century pre-federation newbies who know nothing about the borg, let alone borg from 200 years in the future? The only way that episode should have ended is with an assimilated earth lol.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-15, 10:16 PM
Although the last season of DS9 was utter dreck, it was Voyager as a whole that really thrust the whole Star Trek contiuum into high orbit around Planet Shark. The numbers tell the tale; 1st episode of Voyager, 27 million viewers. Last ep, 10.5 million. To alienate the majority of Star Trek fans, the most fanatically dedicated fans of a franchise ever, takes real talent. Voyager killed ST, Enterprise just propped up the body for a few years of "Weekend at Roddie's".

Daffy
2007-Nov-16, 02:14 AM
Although the last season of DS9 was utter dreck, it was Voyager as a whole that really thrust the whole Star Trek contiuum into high orbit around Planet Shark. The numbers tell the tale; 1st episode of Voyager, 27 million viewers. Last ep, 10.5 million. To alienate the majority of Star Trek fans, the most fanatically dedicated fans of a franchise ever, takes real talent. Voyager killed ST, Enterprise just propped up the body for a few years of "Weekend at Roddie's".

I rather liked Voyager. Hated Enterprise for it's shredding of continuity (although I liked the cast very much).

To me the only really horrible entry into the Star trek Universe was Star Trek III...some of the worst writing and directing ever.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 03:07 AM
So in your book Star Trek V outrates III?
Interesting.

Doodler
2007-Nov-16, 06:45 AM
So in your book Star Trek V outrates III?
Interesting.

Well, there's a running theory that Trek V wasn't written, so much as divined from used toilet paper...

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Nov-16, 11:29 AM
I read on Trekmovie.com that there is a rumour that the new Enterprise has....wings.... tee hee (seriuosly)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-16, 11:54 AM
I read on Trekmovie.com that there is a rumour that the new Enterprise has....wings.... tee hee (seriuosly)

:eek:

And it flaps them to stay in the sky? (At this point that's about the only thing they could say that would surprise me.)

banquo's_bumble_puppy
2007-Nov-16, 12:30 PM
I hope it flops....I'm a Star Trek fan....this sounds like degredation

Doodler
2007-Nov-16, 03:17 PM
http://trekmovie.com/2007/11/13/james-cawley-on-the-new-enterprise/#more-1265

No wings.


First off, I would like to start off by saying that I am surprised, and flattered that anyone would care anything about my opinion(s) at all. That being said I do not know who started the rumor that that the new Enterprise “has wings,” but I certainly did not. I have been asked by Anthony to try and describe what I saw, and all I will say is that the ship design seems to borrow heavily from “Contemporary Trek”. That is as much as I feel comfortable in sharing.

Daffy
2007-Nov-16, 03:46 PM
So in your book Star Trek V outrates III?
Interesting.

Absolutely.

In Star Trek III a major character was killed off because the producer (who said this himself), didn't know what else to do with the character. The directing was wooden and the plot pretty much destroyed all the good aspects of the writing in Star Trek II.

Star Trek V at least had very good directing (some of the shots were stunning). A pretentious script, yes, but still some fun stuff. Start Trek III was just depressing on every level.

Only my opinion, of course.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 05:45 PM
David Marcus wasn't a major character. And really, once his conflict with Kirk was resolved in the last movie what was left to do except kill him off? And I think Kirk reacting to his death is one of Shatner's better scenes.
The directing was a little rough around the edges in III, but it was quite serviceable.
The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that they brought Spock back. I think he should have stayed dead.

Now Star Trek V, on the other hand, has all sorts of problems.
Top of the list: Uhura's fan dance. What were they thinking?
The corny "secret brother" idea, along with the corny "everyone has a secret pain" idea.
Traveling to the center of the galaxy in a matter of minutes. Oops.
Bypassing the "great barrier" with no trouble at all, and the Klingons follow them through a moment later. I guess nobody had tried to just fly through it before.
Why does only one Klingon ship decide to go after Kirk? Is he the only ambitious Klingon out there?
So Star Fleet is aware the Enterprise is a mess but wants an experienced captain? Why don't they put Kirk and his staff on the Excelsior? It's parked right next to the Enterprise in Space Dock.
How did Sybok know the ship that would be sent to rescue his hostages wouldn't have working transporters? His plan seems to require that someone come and get the hostages rather than just beam them up.
Spock looked up camping refrences but thinks its a marsh mellon? Did the database he used have a typo?
When did the Enterprise get 78 decks? And why is there only one emergency transmitter Kirk can use to call Starfleet? And why doesn't he have a code phrase or security clearance or something to verify that it is Starfleet he's in contact with?
Uhura has gotten in touch with her "inner feelings" for Scotty? Where did that come from (and disappear to in the next movie)?
Why is Kirk the only one who wonders why "god" wants a starship?
Apparently photon torpedoes are much less powerful than we were led to believe, since you be about twenty yards away from the impact point and be perfectly fine.
We know Spock can survive lightning bolts through the chest because his heart is elsewhere (see The Apple) - but how do Kirk and McCoy survive "god's" wrath?
And I'm not even going to go into the obvious drop in the quality of the special effects. Yeesh.

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-16, 05:56 PM
Jason;
I agree with you posts for the most part, but there are two points that I feel the need to comment on.

1) I personally am glad Spock came back (although the methods were quite odd)

2) Shatners reaction scene was a mistake. Per one of the documentaries on my DVDs, he was supposed to sit in the chair, but misjudged it and tripped on the way back. It looked good, so they kept it.

BTW: 78 decks is debatable since some of them were repeated many times.

Doodler
2007-Nov-16, 06:02 PM
Personally, I though ST III was pretty awesome. Heck, the whole running arc between ST:II and ST:IV was, to me, the high water mark of the original series. ST:V was a horrid fluke, and ST:VI made for an excellent swansong.

Four excellent movies, one modest yawner (ST:I), and one groaner. That's a pretty good batting average for a franchise.

In my eyes, the Next Gen movies are a separate series, which is suffering from serious creative cramping. One really good one (First Contact), one fairly good one (Insurrection), then two that just wasted film...

I definitely agree with the post-mortem assessment that was offered, "All Good Things..." was infinitely superior to Generations.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 06:05 PM
The reason I think Spock should have stayed dead is because he left on such a high note. I mean, no one could ever top that death scene. Having him come back in the next movie takes away a lot of the dramatic weight that his sacrifice had.
Also it would have been a way to try new things. See if Star Trek could go on without Spock. Reverse your audience's expectation.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-16, 06:08 PM
Also it would have been a way to try new things. See if Star Trek could go on without Spock. Reverse your audience's expectation.

Which has been an ever-decreasing trend in Trek since before Gene Roddenberry passed away. That's partly what killed the franchise-- the predictability. That and crap writing.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 06:12 PM
Personally, I though ST III was pretty awesome. Heck, the whole running arc between ST:II and ST:IV was, to me, the high water mark of the original series. ST:V was a horrid fluke, and ST:VI made for an excellent swansong.

Four excellent movies, one modest yawner (ST:I), and one groaner. That's a pretty good batting average for a franchise.

In my eyes, the Next Gen movies are a separate series, which is suffering from serious creative cramping. One really good one (First Contact), one fairly good one (Insurrection), then two that just wasted film...

I definitely agree with the post-mortem assessment that was offered, "All Good Things..." was infinitely superior to Generations.

That would be why I bought the "Original Cast" DVD set (I through VI) but gave the Next Gen films a miss. Much as I loved the show, there was really only one good TNG film.
And though I did have to buy Star Trek V as part of the set, I got all the other good films with it, including the slightly less yawn-worthy director's cut of ST:TMP.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 06:14 PM
Predictability, yes. That's why Voyager was so boring - the formula had ossified to the point that there were no surprises. We knew that whatever the problem some piece of treknobabble would be pulled out to solve it and everything would be right back to normal for the next episode.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-16, 06:38 PM
Predictability, yes. That's why Voyager was so boring - the formula had ossified to the point that there were no surprises. We knew that whatever the problem some piece of treknobabble would be pulled out to solve it and everything would be right back to normal for the next episode.

Exactly. And Enterprise continued the downward trend with "...What aspect of future Trek continuity can we screw up this week?"

SeanF
2007-Nov-16, 07:17 PM
BTW: 78 decks is debatable since some of them were repeated many times.
How often they were repeated isn't the issue. The big "78" stenciled on the wall at the top of the shaft is what gives us the deck count. :)

Which is doubly wrong, of course, because outside of STV:TFF, the topmost deck was always deck 1.

Doodler
2007-Nov-16, 07:23 PM
Predictability, yes. That's why Voyager was so boring - the formula had ossified to the point that there were no surprises. We knew that whatever the problem some piece of treknobabble would be pulled out to solve it and everything would be right back to normal for the next episode.

One of the reasons I liked DS9. They screwed up, and they screwed up royally, at times. Very little Deus Ex Machina, and a lot of pain to get from Point A to Point B, on all sides, no less.

Jason
2007-Nov-16, 07:38 PM
DS9 was pretty good. If only they hadn't made so many Ferengi episodes...

Noclevername
2007-Nov-16, 07:45 PM
DS9 was pretty good. If only they hadn't made so many Ferengi episodes...

Or had a holographic lounge singer. Or replaced Dax. Or put that last season on the air.

Especially the (shudder) baseball game episode.


They screwed up, and they screwed up royally, at times. Very little Deus Ex Machina, and a lot of pain to get from Point A to Point B, on all sides, no less.

And when they did have a DEM, it was clearly seen as such by the characters, acknowledged by all sides as shockingly unusual, and had repercussions of its own. (The Prophets getting rid of the Dominion fleet, for example.)

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 12:23 AM
David Marcus wasn't a major character. And really, once his conflict with Kirk was resolved in the last movie what was left to do except kill him off? And I think Kirk reacting to his death is one of Shatner's better scenes.
The directing was a little rough around the edges in III, but it was quite serviceable.
The main problem with it, in my opinion, is that they brought Spock back. I think he should have stayed dead.
I agree completely about Spock. Kirk's long lost son was the MAJOR sub plot in TWOK...to just dump the character that way was lazy writing. I agree about Shatner's reaction scene, though.


Now Star Trek V, on the other hand, has all sorts of problems.
Top of the list: Uhura's fan dance. What were they thinking?
I thought that scene worked well. In my defense I mention that Nichelle Nichols liked it as well (it's in her autobiography).


The corny "secret brother" idea, along with the corny "everyone has a secret pain" idea.
I agree. Totally lame.


Traveling to the center of the galaxy in a matter of minutes. Oops.
Bypassing the "great barrier" with no trouble at all, and the Klingons follow them through a moment later. I guess nobody had tried to just fly through it before.
They never said it was minutes...the passage of time was clearly implied. How long was not specified, but it was certainly not "minutes." The Barrier notion was lame.


Why does only one Klingon ship decide to go after Kirk? Is he the only ambitious Klingon out there?
Clearly explained...it was a renegade mission, for which the commander was forced to apologize at the end.


So Star Fleet is aware the Enterprise is a mess but wants an experienced captain? Why don't they put Kirk and his staff on the Excelsior? It's parked right next to the Enterprise in Space Dock.
Agreed. On the other hand, preparing to scrap The Enterprise in Star Trek III after a complete refit in TMP was even sillier. Is Starfleet that wasteful?


How did Sybok know the ship that would be sent to rescue his hostages wouldn't have working transporters? His plan seems to require that someone come and get the hostages rather than just beam them up.
In TOS it was said many times that to beam up a specific person required that they have their communicators with them.


Spock looked up camping refrences but thinks its a marsh mellon? Did the database he used have a typo?
He made a mistake. Even Vulcans can do that from time to time.


When did the Enterprise get 78 decks? And why is there only one emergency transmitter Kirk can use to call Starfleet? And why doesn't he have a code phrase or security clearance or something to verify that it is Starfleet he's in contact with?
There is no consistency whatsoever in the Enterprise design from film to film. It is a flaw, certainly, but hardly fair to single out Star Trek V.


Uhura has gotten in touch with her "inner feelings" for Scotty? Where did that come from (and disappear to in the next movie)?
Agreed. Totally lame.


Why is Kirk the only one who wonders why "god" wants a starship?
I don't know. Why does Spock know more about nuclear power in Star Trek IV than the chief engineer does?


Apparently photon torpedoes are much less powerful than we were led to believe, since you be about twenty yards away from the impact point and be perfectly fine.
Again, there is no consistency on this from film to film. Singling our V is unfair.


We know Spock can survive lightning bolts through the chest because his heart is elsewhere (see The Apple) - but how do Kirk and McCoy survive "god's" wrath?
No one said they were literal lighting bolts.


And I'm not even going to go into the obvious drop in the quality of the special effects. Yeesh. Blame Paramount for that. Seriously...Shatner had his budget severely curtailed.

I am not saying V is a masterpiece...just that it's kinda fun. Star Trek III only succeeded, IMO, because they brought back Spock in it and fans were prepared to accept anything in order for that to happen. It's a dismal, depressing film. IMO.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 01:41 AM
Now Star Trek V, on the other hand, has all sorts of problems.
Top of the list: Uhura's fan dance. What were they thinking?



I thought that scene worked well. In my defense I mention that Nichelle Nichols liked it as well (it's in her autobiography).

Just because she likes to feel the breeze doesn't mean it was necessary for the rest of us to have to see it. They have members-only beaches for that sort of thing, in private.

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 02:24 AM
Just because she likes to feel the breeze doesn't mean it was necessary for the rest of us to have to see it. They have members-only beaches for that sort of thing, in private.

Prude. ;)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 02:29 AM
Prude. ;)

No, I just prefer to see women who are... shall we say... a little less seasoned?

Now, back in the day, she was really something, especially in the TOS episode where she was in the Mirror Universe in that midriff-baring uniform... Rowr!

Obviousman
2007-Nov-17, 03:10 AM
How often they were repeated isn't the issue. The big "78" stenciled on the wall at the top of the shaft is what gives us the deck count. :)

Which is doubly wrong, of course, because outside of STV:TFF, the topmost deck was always deck 1.

Since they go for a 'naval' perspective....

Under the British system, the uppermost longest continual deck above the waterline was 1 Deck. Decks above that were prefixed with 0, so the next deck above 1 deck was 01 (Zero One) Deck, above that 02 Deck, etc.

Below 1 Deck was 2 Deck, 3 Deck, etc.

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 03:37 AM
No, I just prefer to see women who are... shall we say... a little less seasoned?

Now, back in the day, she was really something, especially in the TOS episode where she was in the Mirror Universe in that midriff-baring uniform... Rowr!

I think I must be older than you. Believe me when I tell you that experience is far better than youth! :)

That said, she was pretty hot then.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 03:40 AM
I think I must be older than you. Believe me when I tell you that experience is far better than youth! :)


Experience of a two-d movie projection on a screen? You have a better imagination than me, too. :whistle:

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 03:48 AM
Experience of a two-d movie projection on a screen? You have a better imagination than me, too. :whistle:

You have no idea. :)

(Ewwwwwwwwwww! I hear everyone cry!)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 05:25 AM
You have no idea. :)

(Ewwwwwwwwwww! I hear everyone cry!)

So now we know your real identity, Paul Reubens.

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 03:52 PM
So now we know your real identity, Paul Reubens.

Please; all my perversions are perfectly normal. He's just disgusting.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 06:08 PM
He's just disgusting.

But his response to the scandal was brilliant; he went on an awards show afterwards and simply said, "So... Heard any good jokes lately?"

And the audience went wild with laughter.

EDIT: But you'll notice he left show business after that too.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-17, 07:51 PM
EDIT: But you'll notice he left show business after that too.

As PeeWee Herman, mostly. But I can give you a list, if you like, of movies he made as Paul Reubens after that. (For example, he was the Spleen in Mystery Men.)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 07:55 PM
As PeeWee Herman, mostly. But I can give you a list, if you like, of movies he made as Paul Reubens after that. (For example, he was the Spleen in Mystery Men.)

:doh: Sorry, got my chronology mixed up.

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 08:12 PM
But his response to the scandal was brilliant; he went on an awards show afterwards and simply said, "So... Heard any good jokes lately?"

And the audience went wild with laughter.

EDIT: But you'll notice he left show business after that too.

That line is pretty funny...but, as a parent, it would be best if he and I never meet face to face, yuhknowhaddamean?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 08:17 PM
That line is pretty funny...but, as a parent, it would be best if he and I never meet face to face, yuhknowhaddamean?

...doesn't physical violence seem like a massive overreaction to his embarassing but harmless blunder? He did something private in public. Stupid, yes, but hardly worth hurting someone over.

Daffy
2007-Nov-17, 08:39 PM
...doesn't physical violence seem like a massive overreaction to his embarassing but harmless blunder? He did something private in public. Stupid, yes, but hardly worth hurting someone over.

Actually, I was referring to the allegations of child porn...which most certainly does hurt someone. However, I will grant "innocent until proven guilty."

Were the charges dropped? I haven't followed the case; if so, I apologize to Mr. Reubens. If not, I stand by my earlier statement; there is nothing lower than child porn.

edited to add:
For the record, I couldn't care less about the public wanking.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 08:58 PM
Actually, I was referring to the allegations of child porn...which most certainly does hurt someone. However, I will grant "innocent until proven guilty."

Were the charges dropped? I haven't followed the case; if so, I apologize to Mr. Reubens. If not, I stand by my earlier statement; there is nothing lower than child porn.

edited to add:
For the record, I couldn't care less about the public wanking.

I had no idea there was any case about child porn.

OK, looked it up, it was about a collection of "vintage erotica" he purchased:

(from Wikipedia)

On March 19, 2004, child pornography charges against him were dropped by Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo after Reubens pleaded guilty to a separate "misdemeanor obscenity" charge.

"The DA waited 364 days (one day before the statute of limitations would have run out) and then alleged that some of it was 'child pornography' -- decades-old physique poses, old art photos, and yellowed nudist magazines. Some of the nude photos were of minors -- when the pictures were taken, but most of the models would have been dead of old age before Reubens was born. All of the photos, Reubens maintained, were legal when they were first published. The charges were reduced to 'obscenity', and Reubens pleaded guilty and paid a US$100 fine in exchange for probation."[10]



So, another combination of his own bad judgement, and a Celebrity snipe hunt to get an overzealous DA's name in the papers. Much like the last scandal.

EDIT: You'd think he'd learn by now that people are pointing cameras at him!

Jason
2007-Nov-17, 09:37 PM
Well, even if you buy that the guards would have been easily distracted by one of Uhura's somewhat seasoned years, where did she get the palm fronds from? I don't remember seeing lots of palm trees on Nimbus.

It was said that it would take Voyager seventy years to cross the galaxy from where it was deposited in the Delta Quadrant back to the Federation. The Enterprise-A goes from Earth to the Center of the Galaxy and back in the space of one movie, and the crew certainly don't look like they aged another 40 years or so.
To be fair, the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before" had the Enterprise exiting the galaxy, but the impression there is that it took a significant amount of time before the episode, perhaps several years, for the ship to get out that far - they don't go from Earth to outside the galaxy and back again in one episode.

I still don't buy that only one Klingon captain decided to go after Kirk, considering how the Klingon Ambassador asked for his head in the last movie and how willing the Klingons are to string him up in VI.

In ST:TMP, Star Trek II and III the decks of the Enterprise were designated by letter, not number. The Bridge was on A deck. You can see the letters on turbolift doors in many scenes. The original series numbered its decks, with the Bridge being on Deck 1.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-17, 09:42 PM
Well, even if you buy that the guards would have been easily distracted by one of Uhura's somewhat seasoned years, where did she get the palm fronds from? I don't remember seeing lots of palm trees on Nimbus.
Brought 'em down from the ship, the Original Recipe Enterprise had an Arboretum, so maybe the Mock II version did too.



I still don't buy that only one Klingon captain decided to go after Kirk, considering how the Klingon Ambassador asked for his head in the last movie and how willing the Klingons are to string him up in VI.

Plausible deniability on the Klingons' part. If they send one ship, they can always call it a "renegade" captain who has "dishonored" himself by "disobeying" (wink, wink) orders. A fleet would be a lot harder to cover for.

Daffy
2007-Nov-18, 04:40 PM
In TMP, the shuttle bay was size of a football field. In the movies after it was barely large enough to handle a couple of shuttles. Also, in all movies after TMP, the original crew of over 400 shrunk to a couple of dozen, max.

As I say, singling out TFF for continuity problems is completely unfair. I mean, the Bridge itself changed completely from film to film.

I withdraw with apologies my disdain for Paul Reubens.

Jason
2007-Nov-18, 06:13 PM
So does Uhura always pick some new palm fronds from the arboretum before every mission away from the ship, just in case this is the one she'll have to do a dance in?

Continuity problems do occur in all the movies, but really big continuity problems like having far too many decks deserve a drubbing.

The bridge was fairly consistent for the first three movies (in fact the brief shot of the new bridge in IV is pretty consistent with the rest too). It was only in V, and VI that it changed around a lot. Trek movie lore says the bridge is modular and entirely replaceable, and we were looking at different models in each of the last two movies, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense really but has a hint of plausibility.

Only two of the movies showed the shuttle bay - TMP and V. Guess which one showed the bay as far too small?

Doodler
2007-Nov-18, 06:36 PM
Ah well, if the movie flops, there's always Star Trek Online to fall back on.

Daffy
2007-Nov-18, 07:15 PM
There is not even a vague similarity between the bridge in TMP and TWOK (the original set was destroyed); and there are subtle differences in every film.

The palm fronds bother you on a desert planet, but humanoids on every planet in the galaxy make perfect sense?

Does Spock regaining his soul from McCoy in III make any sense whatsoever? How was that any less silly than the whole "God" thing in V? Carol Marcus suddenly nowhere to be found in III made sense? "I used proto-matter in the matrix" makes any sense at all (and Carol didn't even notice?) Spock aging the same way the planet does? In II, Saavik has emotions (crying and shock when Scotty's nephew is burned), and in III she has none at all?

Btw, you realize we are proving ourselves to be geeks, right?

Jason
2007-Nov-18, 07:46 PM
Ah, but Star Trek geeks are the best kind of geeks. :)

The TMP and TWOK bridges are similar enough for me. Yes they're different sets, but they are much more alike than the bridges in FF and UC.

Humanoids on every planet is a criticism of Star Trek as a whole. If I have to already accept humanoids with different bumpy forheads throughout the galaxy I shouldn't have to accept magically-appearing palm fronds too. :)

If there had been an earlier shot including palm trees on Nimbus III it wouldn't have been a problem (other than the fact that the whole sequence is preposterous), but the planet appears to be completely barren in every other shot (which I guess also raises the question of what these people eat, but I digress).

Does Spock regaining his soul from McCoy make sense? Sure. At least as much as Vulcan Mind melds make sense in the first place. Given that, why couldn't Spock copy his entire memory into McCoy and then retrieve it later?

Carol Marcus absent? Of course. She just had all of her research team except her son killed messily. David might be ready to jump right back on the horse again but it's no problem for me if she decided to go on vacation for a while (Carol Marcus does appear in novelizations of the later movies, by the way).

"I used proto-matter in the matrix" - typical treknology, really, so acceptable. Genesis itself is rather improbable to begin with. And who says Carol didn't notice?

Spock aging with the planet? Odd, but it's treknology again.

Saavik being less emotional? That's the problem with replacing your actress but keeping the character - inconsistant characterization.
By the way, Valeris in VI should have been Saavik, as she was obviously meant to be.

There is a lot of good in Star Trek III to enjoy. Some nifty new ships to watch (the Bird of Prey, Merchantman, Excelsior, Grissom, and spacedock all first appeared in this movie), a great Sarek/Kirk mind meld, a genuinely funny bit with McCoy and a backwards-talking alien, a tribble cameo, David's noble death (he takes a knife meant for Saavik) and Kirk's reaction to it, the destruction of the Enterprise with same codes it almost was done in the original series, a good Kruge vs. Kirk confrontation and fight on the edge of the abyss, McCoy admitting to Spock that he misses him, a cameo of Dame Judith Anderson, and a gorgeous score (one of James Horner's best) throughout.
It's a movie I can honestly enjoy watching.

Doodler
2007-Nov-19, 04:20 AM
In II, Saavik has emotions (crying and shock when Scotty's nephew is burned), and in III she has none at all?

Btw, you realize we are proving ourselves to be geeks, right?

Two caveats on Saavik

Didn't quite make it onto the screen, but Saavik is half-Romulan. Her emotional control was never all that great. Kirstie Alley let it flow a little more than Robin Curtis, but you can see some of it in Robin's performance as well, especially when she goes off on David Marcus.

As for Scott's nephew, per novelization and backstory, I thought it was a rather restrained response from her seeing someone she'd been sleeping with at the academy burned alive.

Delvo
2007-Nov-19, 04:25 AM
But the Vulcans' stoicism is cultural, not biological; was she raised half-Romulan?

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 04:30 AM
Maybe she was embarassed by her outburst of emotionalism, and compensated by becoming more stoic to honor Spock. A very Vulcan thing to do, IMO, and sometimes a human thing too.

Doodler
2007-Nov-19, 04:35 AM
But the Vulcans' stoicism is cultural, not biological; was she raised half-Romulan?

Can only site non-canon sources, but no. She came into custody of Vulcans after having been a street kid on a Romulan colony world. Seems there was a stretch where Romulan officers would consider it something of a game to either impregnate or become impregnated by captive Vulcans and use the kids as psychological abuse instruments over the Vulcan parent.

Typically, once the Vulcan parent was of no use, they were killed and the kids tossed out the door.

The book "The Pandora Principle" covered her life backstory pretty well. She was a very atypical Vulcan at the academy.

Jason
2007-Nov-19, 04:53 AM
In the earlier scripts of Star Trek IV, the reason Saavik stayed on Vulcan was that she was pregnant with Spock's child. From comforting him on Genesis when he was undergoing pon farr.

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-19, 03:28 PM
Sorry for going back so many posts, but I did have a few comments here...

Agreed. On the other hand, preparing to scrap The Enterprise in Star Trek III after a complete refit in TMP was even sillier. Is Starfleet that wasteful?
After all that damage? Equate that with replacing the engine in your car, and giving it a new paint job then having a major accident.


There is no consistency whatsoever in the Enterprise design from film to film. It is a flaw, certainly, but hardly fair to single out Star Trek V.
Yes; the consistencies and snafus can be fun to watch in all the movies, but I do agree with ST-V being heavily criticized, because they just seem to be more numerous, and more glaring than the other films.

Blame Paramount for that. Seriously...Shatner had his budget severely curtailed.
And we will probably never know if it could have been a good movie if he had a budget.

I am not saying V is a masterpiece...just that it's kinda fun.
I'm not saying it's bad, but it is at the bottom (or close to it) of my list.

Star Trek III only succeeded, IMO, because they brought back Spock in it and fans were prepared to accept anything in order for that to happen. It's a dismal, depressing film. IMO.
Yes; if they made the rescue a sub-plot, then they might have had better success.

WHarris
2007-Nov-19, 05:19 PM
On the other hand, preparing to scrap The Enterprise in Star Trek III after a complete refit in TMP was even sillier. Is Starfleet that wasteful?


You do realize that TWOK took place over ten years after TMP?

SeanF
2007-Nov-19, 05:35 PM
Back on the original topic of Star Trek XI, Ben Cross is playing Sarek. (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/2313444.html)

Ol' Barnabas, at least, is old enough to have a thirty-year old son (if anything, he's a little on the old side), but he's almost 25 years older than Winona.

Cradle robber.

;)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 06:41 PM
Back on the original topic of Star Trek XI, Ben Cross is playing Sarek. (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/2313444.html)

Ol' Barnabas, at least, is old enough to have a thirty-year old son (if anything, he's a little on the old side), but he's almost 25 years older than Winona.

Cradle robber.

;)

And Sarek is 100 years older than Amanda. Do they use cradles on Vulcan?

SeanF
2007-Nov-19, 07:14 PM
And Sarek is 100 years older than Amanda.
Less than 50, according to startrek.com, but point taken. :)


Do they use cradles on Vulcan?Good question. :think:

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 07:30 PM
I'm not saying it's bad, but it is at the bottom (or close to it) of my list.

I would say it's bad, but I'm blocking the memory of having seen it in the first place.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 07:41 PM
I would say it's bad, but I'm blocking the memory of having seen it in the first place.

Lucky you. I wish I could.

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-19, 09:03 PM
I would say it's bad, but I'm blocking the memory of having seen it in the first place.
It also depends on what you consider as "bad". I don't not hate it enough that when I have a boring weekend to watch the entire set, I will include those in the viewing.
Then again... I am not a trekkie, so some of the discontinuities just don't affect me the same way.

Jason
2007-Nov-19, 09:09 PM
You're not a Trekkie but you own the DVD set and watch it all the way through on occasional weekends?

NEOWatcher
2007-Nov-19, 09:15 PM
You're not a Trekkie but you own the DVD set and watch it all the way through on occasional weekends?
Yes; but I don't dress up while doing it, I've never been to a Trek convention, and I don't put any effort into fan fiction.

And I do the same with...
Cosmos
Hawking's Universe
From Earth to the Moon
Star Wars
Taken
LOTR
Basically...any box sets that I have.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-19, 09:17 PM
Yes; but I don't dress up while doing it, I've never been to a Trek convention, and I don't put any effort into fan fiction.


Nor do most Trekkies.

Jason
2007-Nov-19, 09:24 PM
I've never dressed up, but I have been to a convention or two, and I almost wrote some fan fiction (in an "online simulation" that never got off the ground).

NGCHunter
2007-Nov-19, 10:36 PM
I used to dress up in TNG and TOS attire (though I never did find the appropriate TOS footwear) for my friend's birthday parties, and though I never went to a convention in costume, I did wear a TMP style communicator to one once. Granted, I was barely in middle school at the time, so hopefully those sins can be forgiven. I'm fairly certain my costumes don't come close to fitting anymore as a result... But hey, one day my kids can use them for halloween if they want and get laughed at just like me lol.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-19, 10:42 PM
Lucky you. I wish I could.

It helps to have only seen it once some fifteen years ago. (I had a friend at the time who was bound and determined to ensure that I had seen all--at the time--six movies. He also took me to the only ST convention I ever attended.)

Doodler
2007-Nov-19, 11:01 PM
And Sarek is 100 years older than Amanda. Do they use cradles on Vulcan?

Sarek was about 50 when they were married, Amanda was in her 30's. At least, that's the consistent line I've seen in two books about their early relationship. (Spock's World and Sarek)

What attracted him to her was that she made him laugh. Out loud. Almost to tears.

Daffy
2007-Nov-19, 11:21 PM
Jeepers, I go away for a couple of days and get way behind on this thread!

Well, what can I say? If I were to rank the original cast movies best to worst) it would look like this:

1. The Undiscovered Country
2. The Wrath of Khan
3. The Voyage Home
4. The Motion Picture (The director's cut, I hasten to add before anyone throws anything at me!)
5. The Final Frontier
6. The Search for Spock

Having read the original treatment for The Final Frontier, I think, had Shatner been given the budget he wanted, it could have been near the top. I don't regard any of them as cinematic masterpieces...but they are fun. Even TSS has fun moments, I will admit.

The thing I find most amazing on this particular board is the disdain for TMP...it is the only one that even tried to be actual science fiction! Isaac Asimov was the science adviser on that one!

All that said TSS is the only one I can't watch repeatedly.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Nov-20, 12:04 AM
The thing I find most amazing on this particular board is the disdain for TMP...it is the only one that even tried to be actual science fiction! Isaac Asimov was the science adviser on that one!


I'm about the only person that likes TMP the most. It's the only one I own (again, the director's cut :)).

And I also agree with your statement that "none of them are masterpieces".

Daffy
2007-Nov-20, 12:47 AM
I'm about the only person that likes TMP the most. It's the only one I own (again, the director's cut :)).

And I also agree with your statement that "none of them are masterpieces".

I like TMP picture very much. The director's cut is full of the character driven story that people complained was lacking in the initial release. In the director's cut the story really is about Spock coming to terms with his mixed heritage.

But Star Trek is so full of missed opportunities. It has always fallen victim, I suspect, to the committee syndrome. Sad, but there it is.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 01:04 AM
But Star Trek is so full of missed opportunities. It has always fallen victim, I suspect, to the committee syndrome. Sad, but there it is.

Amen to that.

Jason
2007-Nov-20, 04:36 AM
I like The Motion Picture, just not as much as some of the others. No they're not "real" science fiction, but they're good adventures with characters we Trekkies love.
My own order would be II, VI, III, IV, I, V, although I waver on the placing of IV and I. Maybe those two should be the other way around.

WHarris
2007-Nov-20, 12:43 PM
Sarek was about 50 when they were married, Amanda was in her 30's. At least, that's the consistent line I've seen in two books about their early relationship. (Spock's World and Sarek)


That doesn't track, as the would make Amanda around 80 during "Journey to Babel". (Sarek's age was given as 102 in that episode.)

SeanF
2007-Nov-20, 03:03 PM
That doesn't track, as the would make Amanda around 80 during "Journey to Babel". (Sarek's age was given as 102 in that episode.)

According to startrek.com, Sarek was born in 2164, Amanda was born in 2210, they were married in 2229 (Sarek was 65 and Amanda was 19), and Spock was born a year later.

"Journey to Babel" is listed as occurring in 2267, which would put their ages at 103 (Sarek), 57 (Amanda), and 37 (Spock). Sarek could've not yet reached his 103rd birthday. :)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 03:24 PM
IMO, I'm not sure why so many people complain about TMP. Sure, it's different from the later Star Trek series and films, but keep in mind that those didn't exist then. This was an attempt to do something deliberately different than the confined, small-budget, censored-and-dumbed-down-to-play-in-Peoria TOS series and the campy, kiddie Animated series. To create something with a grandeur and majesty only possible on a big screen, and science-fictional in a way that only works with a self-selecting all-nerd audience. And certainly when it first came out, it was hugely popular among the Trekkie/geek crowd, for a while there "carbon unit" was a fairly recognizable pop-culture slang for a person.

Tucson_Tim
2007-Nov-20, 03:30 PM
When I saw TMP the line of people was around the block at the large-screen (and only one screen) theatre where I saw it. It was like a dream come true - Star Trek was alive again. And, what now seems interminable, the scene where the new Enterprise was first viewed was a magical scene in the theatre.

Romanus
2007-Nov-20, 03:55 PM
My own faves:
1.) Wrath of Khan
2.) First Contact
3.) The Voyage Home
4.) The Undiscovered Country
5.) The Search for Spock

The rest, I can take or leave.

Jason
2007-Nov-20, 03:55 PM
I remember everybody cheered when the Klingon ships first appeared on screen, and then when we saw the inside of the ship everyone went "huh? Are those guys with the ridges on their heads supposed to be Klingons?"

The first time I saw it in the theater the film broke just before Decker joined with V'ger, and when they fixed it we saw Kirk and co. running away, so we had no idea what had happened to Ilia or Decker.

Which reminds me that the first time I saw Return of the Jedi it was after having gone to three different theaters and finding them all sold out, and we finally got into a midnight showing. When the film finally began, they had threaded the film on the first reel in backwards, so we saw "Star Wars" backwards on the screen and the crawl started out backwards before they realized what had happened. We sat there with an angry crowd for ten or fifteen minutes while they fixed it (I assume they had to rewind the whole reel the correct way and re-thread it).

Noclevername
2007-Nov-20, 04:02 PM
When I first saw "Attack of the Clones", the power blacked out just as Obi-Wan was in the middle of his big battle scene with Jango Fett. Had to wait two weeks to see how it ended. ;)

Daffy
2007-Nov-20, 06:47 PM
I remember everybody cheered when the Klingon ships first appeared on screen, and then when we saw the inside of the ship everyone went "huh? Are those guys with the ridges on their heads supposed to be Klingons?"


Really? I remember my reaction as "Cool!" I never liked the TOS Klingon look...too human.

HenrikOlsen
2007-Nov-20, 06:52 PM
I would say it's bad, but I'm blocking the memory of having seen it in the first place.
I believe this cannot be said often enough.
There is no, nor has there ever been a Star Trek V movie.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-20, 07:18 PM
I believe this cannot be said often enough.
There is no, nor has there ever been a Star Trek V movie.

And last night, I had to describe what was so bad about it to a friend, who wouldn't accept "but I've blocked my memories of it!" as an answer.

Remember, too, that I rather liked IV, though that may be influenced by the fact that it was a movie I saw with my family in the theatre, the only ST movie I ever saw in the theatre. I would've been perhaps ten, though it was released right around my birthday, so I can't be sure. (Almost exactly 21 years ago!) I've only seen I, II, III, and V the once, and possibly only VI as well. But I took the VHS copy of IV that Graham's mother was giving away.

Jason
2007-Nov-20, 07:47 PM
Really? I remember my reaction as "Cool!" I never liked the TOS Klingon look...too human.
Some fans really didn't like the new look.
But after the Great Bird of the Galaxy explained that was how Klingons were always supposed to have looked, and after they appeared that way again in Star Trek III we all kind of grew used to it.
Until the Klingon forhead issue started getting much more convulted in later editions of the franchise, that is.

Daffy
2007-Nov-21, 02:29 AM
Some fans really didn't like the new look.
But after the Great Bird of the Galaxy explained that was how Klingons were always supposed to have looked, and after they appeared that way again in Star Trek III we all kind of grew used to it.
Until the Klingon forhead issue started getting much more convulted in later editions of the franchise, that is.

Well, yeah, later on it did start to look like they had Heike Crabs clinging to their foreheads.

Tog
2007-Nov-21, 08:53 AM
My take on them was that TMP wasn't really Star Trek.as much as it was a real go at a science fiction story It could have been nearly identical in any other setting. I've never seen the director's cut. I do remember it being long and tedious in many places. I also think is was much too close to the Original Episode with the N.O.M.A.D. probe.

II was good. Probably the best of the lot. It's been a while since I've seen it though, so there may be things that would bother me now, that didn't then.

III wasn't so good. It may not be as bad as I remember it, and I've only seen it a few times, but the bulk of what I do remember just wasn't that good.

IV was good again, though not as good as II. It was a quest of sorts. "We need this, but to get it we need this, but to get that we need this." It was light for the most part, and fun.

V I don't remember well at all, but I didn't recall it being very good. Mainly for cheese content.

VI I did like originally, but after having some time to look at it and pick it apart, there were a lot of really bad mistakes in it. Huge plot mistakes.

First contact was the only Next Gen movie. The rest were all just extended TV episodes. None of them had a story that really seemed to justify the screen time.

Shortly after ST VI, my GF at the time dragged to my first ever convention. George Takei was the guest and he's great. Every story he told was entertaining. Maybe not true, but a fun listen. He explained the history of the original 6 films. I might get some of this wrong, but this was the basics of what he said that day:

They did the first movie from an expanded version of the pilot for the Star Trek 2 TV series. It was planned to have Decker as the captain and not really include any of the original cast. It was turned into a movie that did pretty well, and the wheels started turning. It was never meant to be the first of a set. It was supposed to be the only one.

It did so well that a second film was called for. To make sure this was the last one, they killed Spock.

Too many people complained about that, so a third film was thrown together to get him back. To make sure this was the last one, they destroyed the Enterprise.

The fourth one was done to take advantage of the 20th anniversary and so it was done light and fun, to be more of a celebration after the previous 2. It was to be the last one.

I can't remember why they did the fifth one. It may have been to keep the ball rolling after the success of the 4th. It was planned as the final film. Again.

The sixth one was done because the fifth didn't have the right feel for a retirement of the cast. A big send-off on the 25th anniversary was more in order.

That's my 10 year old memory of an anecdote, so I make no claims to any of it being true.

One other thing he mentioned was that it would be nice to have a scene in a future film (this was before the Next Gen cast had done a film together) where an older Captain, or even Admiral Sulu, was teaching a young cadet Picard, with a full head of wavy hair, how to fence.

SeanF
2007-Nov-21, 02:33 PM
I can't remember why they did the fifth one. It may have been to keep the ball rolling after the success of the 4th. It was planned as the final film. Again.
IIRC, Shatner and Nimoy had "I get what he gets" contracts. After letting Nimoy direct III and IV, they were contractually obligated to let Shatner direct one.

ETA: Now that I think about it, that probably just means they had to let Shatner direct once they decided to actually make another one - they may not have been obligated to produce another film just so he could direct. :)

Noclevername
2007-Nov-21, 03:50 PM
Re: Humanoids, the TOS excuse was summed up in one word: budget. The few nonhumanoid aliens they had (Horta, Melkotians, Excalbians, etc) looked like what they were, cheap rubber and paper-mache sculptures. It had to wait until TNG to come up with a decent in-story retcon... Oops, I mean reason for it. Ancient humanoids with weird and nonsensical motivations (turning other races into living memorials instead of, say, saving themselves). So in that universe, at least, panspermia was a fact.

Daffy
2007-Nov-21, 07:49 PM
Re: Humanoids, the TOS excuse was summed up in one word: budget. The few nonhumanoid aliens they had (Horta, Melkotians, Excalbians, etc) looked like what they were, cheap rubber and paper-mache sculptures. It had to wait until TNG to come up with a decent in-story retcon... Oops, I mean reason for it. Ancient humanoids with weird and nonsensical motivations (turning other races into living memorials instead of, say, saving themselves). So in that universe, at least, panspermia was a fact.

Which is why I, for one, was so excited about the "new" Klingon look in TMP; it indicated Paramount was going to start spending some decent money on the franchise. Which turned out to be correct.

That almost all their other decisions regarding ST turned out to be idiotic is another subject.

Jason
2007-Nov-21, 09:44 PM
Deciding to start a new series with new characters was not idiotic.
And TNG went from "often embarassing" to "pretty damn good" after two years, so they were doing something right in that time.

Where did Star Trek jump the shark? Somewhere between the end of TNG and before Voyager started up, I think.

Romanus
2007-Nov-21, 09:48 PM
First contact was the only Next Gen movie. The rest were all just extended TV episodes. None of them had a story that really seemed to justify the screen time.

QFT!

Daffy
2007-Nov-21, 10:12 PM
Deciding to start a new series with new characters was not idiotic.
And TNG went from "often embarassing" to "pretty damn good" after two years, so they were doing something right in that time.

Where did Star Trek jump the shark? Somewhere between the end of TNG and before Voyager started up, I think.


I was referring to their decisions regarding the original cast movies.

I do think the first season of TNG was awful; after that I liked it; I even liked Nemesis, pretty much. I liked Voyager. Couldn't get into DS9 because---although I liked the Sisko character very much, as written--- Avery Brooks just can't act at all. Enterprise would have held my interest but for their total disregard for continuity, which completely ruined it for me.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-21, 10:18 PM
My take on them was that TMP wasn't really Star Trek.as much as it was a real go at a science fiction story It could have been nearly identical in any other setting. I've never seen the director's cut. I do remember it being long and tedious in many places. I also think is was much too close to the Original Episode with the N.O.M.A.D. probe.


I agree with all of that. It was tedious in places, and it was too close to NOMAD. On the other hand, it felt like a real science fiction story, with some neat ideas (for example, they effectively were using the nanotech concept several years before the term was coined). So, there are things I don't like in TMP, but on balance, I like it quite a bit.



II was good. Probably the best of the lot. It's been a while since I've seen it though, so there may be things that would bother me now, that didn't then.


My biggest complaint was that, right at the start, they had that big zinger with a planet exploding. Star Fleet's best didn't even notice it, but went to the wrong planet instead. They certainly could have come up with something better, or at least given some kind of excuse for their mistake. The first time I watched it, that set the tone of the movie for me. If you ignore that, it wasn't so bad.



III wasn't so good. It may not be as bad as I remember it, and I've only seen it a few times, but the bulk of what I do remember just wasn't that good.


I liked III. Admittedly, part of that was what they hinted about later movies: They introduced a new ship with new technology (the transwarp drive) and we got to see the Enterprise die while protecting its crew one last time. That suggested that later movies would involve them doing what they do best: Going somewhere new, with the new ship and new capabilities. Sort of a "next generation" with the original crew. Of course, nothing came of that.



IV was good again, though not as good as II. It was a quest of sorts. "We need this, but to get it we need this, but to get that we need this." It was light for the most part, and fun.


I couldn't stand IV. There were far too many technical and plot holes, and it felt like another retread of old ideas. It was supposed to be funny, but given some of the inconsistencies with prior Trek, it felt more like a bad parody to me.



V I don't remember well at all, but I didn't recall it being very good. Mainly for cheese content.


IV and V are my two least liked movies with the original cast.



VI I did like originally, but after having some time to look at it and pick it apart, there were a lot of really bad mistakes in it. Huge plot mistakes.


Agreed, though I can watch VI, unlike the prior two.

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-21, 10:33 PM
Where did Star Trek jump the shark? Somewhere between the end of TNG and before Voyager started up, I think.

I would say with Voyager. TNG and DS9 both started out bad, but improved dramatically. Eventually, DS9 surpassed TNG in my opinion. Voyager started out bad, and whenever I checked in, it stayed bad.

Some people don't DS9 because the picture it presents looks a lot more like present day than most of Trek: There are nasty conflicts, the Federation isn't quite so perfect, it's disliked by some simply because the Fed is big and therefore automatically has a lot of influence, etc. But that's one of the reasons I liked DS9. It felt more "real."

Gillianren
2007-Nov-22, 12:49 AM
Couldn't get into DS9 because---although I liked the Sisko character very much, as written--- Avery Brooks just can't act at all.

Really? I have the exact opposite problem. I think Avery Brooks, when given something he can do something with, is a talented, thoughtful actor, but the role was horrible.

Daffy
2007-Nov-22, 01:20 AM
Really? I have the exact opposite problem. I think Avery Brooks, when given something he can do something with, is a talented, thoughtful actor, but the role was horrible.

Interesting you say that. Every time I have ever mentioned disliking his acting, people disagree with me, no exceptions. I suppose I must be wrong...but to me, he is just terribly wooden.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-22, 01:30 AM
Interesting you say that. Every time I have ever mentioned disliking his acting, people disagree with me, no exceptions. I suppose I must be wrong...but to me, he is just terribly wooden.

Have you seen American History X?

Daffy
2007-Nov-22, 01:59 AM
Have you seen American History X?

Yes...amazing movie, if horribly depressing. AB was better in that, I readily admit.

Gillianren
2007-Nov-22, 03:30 AM
Yes...amazing movie, if horribly depressing. AB was better in that, I readily admit.

As I said, it's the role that makes the difference. I felt he was locked in a cliche on DS9; we'd seen all of that before. And I don't think he ever really got room to develop as a character, not the way Patrick Stewart was able to develop Picard. Honestly, I don't think the franchise is really set up for it most of the time.

SeanF
2007-Nov-22, 08:36 PM
I missed this last week, but I see they've cast (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/MOV/011/news/article/2312973.html) a guy named Chris Hemsworth to play George Kirk, Captain Kirk's father.

Hemsworth is only 24, actually younger than Chris Pine, so presumably there will be some scenes set when James T. Kirk was much younger (or not even born yet). If that's the case, maybe that's why they cast someone as young as Ryder to play Amanda.

It also lends credence to the rumor about the storyline that Van Rijn posted in the other thread. I may end up being thankful he didn't take me up on my dollars-to-dust-bunnies bet! :)

Van Rijn
2007-Nov-23, 10:58 AM
It also lends credence to the rumor about the storyline that Van Rijn posted in the other thread. I may end up being thankful he didn't take me up on my dollars-to-dust-bunnies bet! :)

Hey, I said I was willing to bet some dust-bunnies! :lol:

Actually, I had to go look that up, I'd forgotten about it. If you hadn't said anything . . . . ;)

hewhocaves
2007-Nov-24, 10:31 PM
I've been watching Enterprise (now ST Enterprise) on SciFi on Monday nights. They're finally into the good season - i.e. Season 4. We've gotten past the first couple of seasons where they had their growing pains, we're past the interesting but essentially unbelievable Xindi arc. We're past the Nazi Space Aliens - thank God. Now we're into those dozen or so episodes which is what the series should have been.

As a result, I've always interpreted 'franchise exhaustion' as "really bad direction from the morons in the executive board room". The franchise was driven into the ground in a manner similar to the way Marvel Comics were driven into the ground.

The long term effect is that I've lost all faith in the ST franchise (No faith of the Heart?). The last few movies for TNG have been unwatchable as well. It's like watching fifteenth century Byzantium decay. The same goes for Star Wars (I can't believe they're doing a TV series). Which pretty much only leaves Doctor Who as useful TV series.

(btw, BSG was good for about a season and a half. I could never take Stargate seriously - probably unfairly - because of that horrible movie and I was never interested in Babylon 5)

But I think this is just indicative of the general trend US television is taking, and I think it's probably a function of the increased number of shows out there. It's similar to sports - there's a general decrease in team sport play as the number of teams increases. This is because it is less likely that each player is of better quality. And there is a larger decline in competence when every team has less talented players than if some teams have a bunch of no-talents while other teams have all talented players.

This increase in medicority is called 'parity' as it results in sloppier games which are then called 'competitive'. It is apparantly desired in many fields in this country.