Star Trek: Thread Space 9

[King Postwhore]

Like we all don't know Monty Python doesn't pull in hot chicks on either side of the film.

BTW, thanks Blob.  I'm hooked on that Twitter feed Swear Trek.

[BlobVanDam]

BTW, thanks Blob.  I'm hooked on that Twitter feed Swear Trek.

It's good shit.

Although I muted them for a little while when they were defending Star Trek Discovery.

[King Postwhore]

 

I'll hold judgement until I see it but I get it.

[Orbert]

*double checks to confirm what next episode was*

*exactly what episode I thought*

*does not disagree*

Maybe their actor budget was enough for either 1 really hot chick, or 1 good looking chick with 2 mediocre ones.

I recall hearing John Cleese's take on Holy Grail, and he was disappointed in the Castle Anthrax sketch. He felt the girls weren't hot enough to get the emotional response the scene needed. Seems it was a budget constraint as they couldn't afford to bus in 30 gorgeous girls from London, so they had to settle for Leeds or something and there just wasn't the same selection to choose from. 

I thought the girls were cute enough, at least the two main "doctors" and the ones nearby.  The scene worked just fine for me.

[El Barto]

*double checks to confirm what next episode was*

*exactly what episode I thought*

*does not disagree*

Maybe their actor budget was enough for either 1 really hot chick, or 1 good looking chick with 2 mediocre ones.

I recall hearing John Cleese's take on Holy Grail, and he was disappointed in the Castle Anthrax sketch. He felt the girls weren't hot enough to get the emotional response the scene needed. Seems it was a budget constraint as they couldn't afford to bus in 30 gorgeous girls from London, so they had to settle for Leeds or something and there just wasn't the same selection to choose from. 

I thought the girls were cute enough, at least the two main "doctors" and the ones nearby.  The scene worked just fine for me.

He thought they needed to be so hot as to be intimidating. I can see his point, as that certainly adds an emotional element that wasn't there. I thought the scene worked fine, as it was fittingly silly for the movie, but I get what he was shooting for.

[Progmetty]

How are you coming with TNG? Should be getting pretty good.

I just finished the 4th episode of season 2, the first three episodes were significantly better than the vast majority of season 1 IMO. The camera work is noticeably better.
I still find Crusher, Wesley, Riker and Troi very blandly written and acted, dull characters. Happy Crusher is gone for now and I like her replacement a lot, even though she picks on Data often. She's basically a female McCoy and it works, sadly I already know she'll be gone and Kay Parker will be back eventually since she's in all the thumbnails for future seasons on Netflix.
I watched a documentary on Netflix called Chaos on The Bridge, about the difficult undertaking of getting TNG going, I stopped watching half way through when they started throwing around spoilers beyond season 2. Which is sadly also the case with several good looking Star Trek documentaries found on Netflix, like For The Love of Spock and The Captains, but I digress. So on Chaos on The Bridge the writers recall the challenge of writing for characters that has no personal conflicts whatsoever, since Roddenberry's vision entailed a future where all such conflicts are minimal or non-existent, which could explain why I find most TNG characters to be bland and dull. Worf and Data are interesting because they do have personal conflicts that are significant intriguing and Picard is interesting because he has substance or perhaps it's the charm of Patrick Stewart.
Everything they do with Crusher, Wesley, Riker and Troi seems forced and uninteresting. I thought the season 2 premiere would give Troi some future depth but it passed by as if it didn't happen at all. 

I still don't know what to make of Whoopi Goldberg's character, I don't mind the actress, she's always been able to portray genuineness pretty good IMO.

And while I probably wouldn't be quite so gung-ho about it, if you really wanted to get full-on ST geek, here's the ideal viewing order as crafted by a planet full of anally retentive nerds. The one thing I certainly would do is plan the overlaps with the series, which would have DS9 beginning after a two-parter in season 6 of TNG.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mlBveFfmceuDmR1CVjmJyTYgZY2YFVI-WjYsqDJQ900/edit

Thanks man, I'll revisit that link. So far my own order of watching is TOS S1, TOS S2, ST 09, ST Into Darkness, TOS S3 simultaneously with TNG season 1, ST Motion Picture, TAS season 1 simultaneously with TNG season 2.
Planning on watching The Wrath of Khan soon, already rewatched Space Seed in preparation and I still hold my previous opinions about it.

Downloaded TAS a couple of weeks ago. Only watched the first episode so far. While I'm just fine with animation, that particular style really doesn't work well for me.

I don't like the animation either but the stories are worth it so far, I've convinced myself I'm watching a comic book on tape, with the added advantage of having TOS as voice cast and TOS writers. That's one way to accept it and enjoy it.

[El Barto]

The TNG crew are lifeless avatars. That's always been my biggest knock against the show, so you and I are in agreement. One thing I did eventually come to realize is that while Riker comes off just as bland most of the time, in some ways he's the only one to have any sort of soul. He will occasionally get pissed off and belt someone. He's the only one that's interesting in getting laid just because he wants to. He's into music. Rather than being professionally or personally driven he's content where he is. This makes him fairly different from the rest.

Chaos on the Bridge was pretty good, though I don't like Shatner's style. In the end it just goes to reinforce what a lunatic Roddenberry was.

I wouldn't take the watching order thing too literally. Remember that none of us watched it in that order because it was actually created much differently. Watching the TOS movies won't spoil anything. The only thing I'd really take away from it is when to start overlapping the series (and you've got a ways to go before it's time to start DS9). Once you got to that point you could pay attention to the order, but honestly the shows really don't step on each other very much.

[BlobVanDam]

I watched every show on its own with no overlap. I think it's more trouble than it's worth for the odd reference, and I prefer to just fully immerse in one show at a time. I was never concerned with watching the movies in one go, or in order though. I believe TUC was the first Trek I ever properly watched, followed by TWOK maybe?

[abydos]

I apologize if this has been discussed (looked on last 2 pages real quick, didn't see it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8aUuFsXRjU
The Orville - star trek spoof from Seth McFarlane. At least now we won't have to worry if the new Star Trek sucks

[Kotowboy]

It looks like Galaxy Quest - the series - by people who don't like Star Trek.

[BlobVanDam]

Seth MacFarlane is a huge Trek fan, and it shows imo. This feels more like Trek than Discovery so far.

[Kotowboy]

Trek is 50 years old.

What is it supposed to Feel like ?

TNG at it's peak didn't FEEL like TOS.

The TOS movies felt nothing like TOS the series.

The TNG movies - even First Contact - the one that everyone loves - felt nothing like TNG the show.

Enterprise - which was supposed to be 100 years before TOS was more like TNG in "feel"...


Star Trek 2009 was 43 years since TOS began. Of course it was going to be a product of it's time. All Star Trek is. But people keep saying each new iteration isn't Proper Star Trek.

or isn't THEIR Star Trek. Star Trek Beyond was made by huge Trek Fans and was probably the most ST out of the 3 Kelvin movies but it wasn't "proper" ST either.


At this stage I don't even know if people know what they want. I've seen people diss Star Trek Continues and that's as Star Trek as you can get...

I'm not at all shocked that people would prefer Axanar to continue - an illegal rip off - simply because " at least it's not the kelvin Timeline amirite ?! ".


About the only thing I will concede is that Star Trek Into Darkness was mostly surface and no substance and clumsily re used a scene from the Wrath of Khan.

But ST09 and Beyond were both great. People are going to trash Discovery after one episode - forgetting that TNG took about 2 seasons to really get good...


... 

[El Barto]

I apologize if this has been discussed (looked on last 2 pages real quick, didn't see it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8aUuFsXRjU
The Orville - star trek spoof from Seth McFarlane. At least now we won't have to worry if the new Star Trek sucks

From Seth McFarlane I'd expect to see a highly detailed snapper on that bridge girl's face. It's so obvious and he's one of the few who could actually get away with it.

[abydos]

The ST reboot movies were not Star Trek, imo. Generic Sci-Fi Summer Action Flick #564 with added brand name for recognition. They were alright for what they were, but they lacked any substance and at best they were cameo fan service and rehashes. Star Trek is about discovery and exploration both outward and inward and anything that doesn't have that at its core shouldn't bear the name Star Trek, imo. If you can't make it work that way just let it die and make new sci-fi universes up and work on them.

Would you put the name Blade Runner on something that feels like Transformers?

This is coming from someone who doesn't like TOS at all.

[Adami]

I apologize if this has been discussed (looked on last 2 pages real quick, didn't see it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8aUuFsXRjU
The Orville - star trek spoof from Seth McFarlane. At least now we won't have to worry if the new Star Trek sucks

Unfortunately most of those jokes fell flat to me

Although that one near the end where he tells the guy to move over on the view screen because of the dead space, that was actually pretty funny.

[El Barto]

Trek is 50 years old.

What is it supposed to Feel like ?

TNG at it's peak didn't FEEL like TOS.

The TOS movies felt nothing like TOS the series.

The TNG movies - even First Contact - the one that everyone loves - felt nothing like TNG the show.

Enterprise - which was supposed to be 100 years before TOS was more like TNG in "feel"...


Star Trek 2009 was 43 years since TOS began. Of course it was going to be a product of it's time. All Star Trek is. But people keep saying each new iteration isn't Proper Star Trek.

or isn't THEIR Star Trek. Star Trek Beyond was made by huge Trek Fans and was probably the most ST out of the 3 Kelvin movies but it wasn't "proper" ST either.


At this stage I don't even know if people know what they want. I've seen people diss Star Trek Continues and that's as Star Trek as you can get...

I'm not at all shocked that people would prefer Axanar to continue - an illegal rip off - simply because " at least it's not the kelvin Timeline amirite ?! ".


About the only thing I will concede is that Star Trek Into Darkness was mostly surface and no substance and clumsily re used a scene from the Wrath of Khan.

But ST09 and Beyond were both great. People are going to trash Discovery after one episode - forgetting that TNG took about 2 seasons to really get good...


... 

You raise an interesting point, but there are a few commonalities that most of us liked from the various incarnations. I don't think it's so much about what JJ's movies lacked but more about what they were. Unlike "everybody" I didn't like First Contact for much the same reason. It dumped its source material and replaced it with more action.

Also, the people who rag on STC do so because of the terrible acting. You're correct that it is much closer to TOS than any of the others, and is in other ways pretty well done. Personally, I thought it relied to heavily on call backs, one episode in particular I couldn't even watch because of it, but for the most part I found it to be alright.

[BlobVanDam]

Trek is 50 years old.

What is it supposed to Feel like ?

TNG at it's peak didn't FEEL like TOS.

The TOS movies felt nothing like TOS the series.

The TNG movies - even First Contact - the one that everyone loves - felt nothing like TNG the show.

Enterprise - which was supposed to be 100 years before TOS was more like TNG in "feel"...


Star Trek 2009 was 43 years since TOS began. Of course it was going to be a product of it's time. All Star Trek is. But people keep saying each new iteration isn't Proper Star Trek.

or isn't THEIR Star Trek. Star Trek Beyond was made by huge Trek Fans and was probably the most ST out of the 3 Kelvin movies but it wasn't "proper" ST either.


At this stage I don't even know if people know what they want. I've seen people diss Star Trek Continues and that's as Star Trek as you can get...

I'm not at all shocked that people would prefer Axanar to continue - an illegal rip off - simply because " at least it's not the kelvin Timeline amirite ?! ".


About the only thing I will concede is that Star Trek Into Darkness was mostly surface and no substance and clumsily re used a scene from the Wrath of Khan.

But ST09 and Beyond were both great. People are going to trash Discovery after one episode - forgetting that TNG took about 2 seasons to really get good...


... 

 

Trek really lives on TV imo, and while I enjoy the movies overall, a lot of them are just empty action movies, especially the more recent ones, and don't capture the spirit of Trek at all, because it doesn't sell tickets to the average public.
Trek is about that optimistic hopeful outlook for humanity, that we can overcome our differences and find peaceful solutions to conflicts, and it presents ideas through allegory to make you think about those social issues. At its best, that is what Trek has always been about at its core, whether it's TOS, TNG, STC, whatever. Which is why I believe it's at its worst when they're mindlessly blowing the shit out of each other for no good reason, because it lacks of any that hope or depth, and just becomes any other Hollywood scifi.

Star Trek Discovery has already failed on the most surface level to get Trek, so I don't have high expectations they'll understand what Trek is at its heart either. I'll give it a fair chance and gladly change my mind if that's not the case, just as I did for STB, but everything I know about the behind the scenes problems with that show has set very low expectations.

[Kotowboy]

I'm watching Time's Arrow again.

Why the actor playing Mark Twain chose to use that voice for the entire time is beyond me. So so irritating.

[El Barto]

That's just the voice Americans associate with Twain. My understanding is that the real voice was far more irritating. Twain was never recorded, but his college roommate was known for doing a perfect impression and was recorded, making it the closest thing we have to a reference. Seriously annoying.

Times Arrow could have been excellent, but as so many of TNG's two-parters do, it fell apart in the second half. Very good first half. Pretty bad second.

[Kotowboy]

What would you say is

i.The best TNG 2 parter

ii. The best Trek Two Parter full stop ?

Was All Good Things a 2 parter ? If so i'd choose that one.

[Polarbear]

What would you say is

i.The best TNG 2 parter

ii. The best Trek Two Parter full stop ?

Was All Good Things a 2 parter ? If so i'd choose that one.

Answer to both questions, Best of Both Worlds. Followed by The Search(DS9) and Dark Frontier(VOY)

Scorpion(VOY) and Time's Arrow(TNG) are also pretty good!

Haven't seen All Good Things in ages, was it a two parter or just a extra long episode?

[El Barto]

The mid-season two-parters are often times pretty good. It's when they shoot the parts 4 months apart in different seasons that they tend to take a hit. And All Good Things was a two hour episode. Same writer and director and filmed all at once.

To answer the question, I'd probably have to go with Redemption, since I'm a sucker for the Klingon episodes. However, both Unification and Gambit were excellent. As for the entire franchise, it'd be one of the TNG episodes or The Menagerie. The latter was a great Spock episode and was just a damn good idea, to boot.

DS9 was so serialized there never seemed to be much special about the 2-parters, and while most of VOY's 2-parters were very good, I don't think any were as good as the earlier ones. Future's End, Equinox and Basics were great, though.

[Kotowboy]

The Best of Both Worlds part 2 probably has the biggest anti-climax.

[Kotowboy]

All Good Things should have been the final movie instead of Nemesis.

It's probably better than all 4 of the movies.

[El Barto]

The Best of Both Worlds part 2 probably has the biggest anti-climax.

Yeah, although the whole second half is a bit of a letdown.

And AGT had to be the finale. They needed to go out on a high note and this way they certainly did.

[PowerSlave]

All Good Things should have been the final movie instead of Nemesis.

It's probably better than all 4 of the movies.

We don't often agree on many things, but I have to in this instance.

However, I'm still a big fan of First Contact.

[Kotowboy]

Watching TNG Masks.

I *love* Brent Spiner as Data.

But literally any other character is just a silly voice and over acting.

[El Barto]

Watching TNG Masks.

I *love* Brent Spiner as Data.

But literally any other character is just a silly voice and over acting.

Yup. All his other characters sucked. But this applies to most of the various casts. When you personify a character it's very easy to portray him well. Shatner didn't have to be a good actor because he was Kirk. Dorn might be the worst actor of the lot, but he was Worf so he was naturally great at being Worf. Outside of the safety net of playing the role they established very few of them really held up. That's why the DS9 mirror universe episodes were so bad. And as good as Far Beyond the Stars could have been, bad acting really dragged it down.

[Kotowboy]

I can't imagine Avery Brooks being worse than he was in The Emissary.

[soupytwist]

I can't imagine Avery Brooks being worse than he was in The Emissary.

He was dreadful in 'Our Man Bashir'.   

[Polarbear]

I can't imagine Avery Brooks being worse than he was in The Emissary.

He was dreadful in 'Our Man Bashir'.

I think i've said this before, but i have zero issues Brooks acting in DS9. He was great!

Scott Bakula, while a pretty good actor, was badly miscast as Archer in Enterprise.

[Kotowboy]

Bakula was way better than Brooks.

Also Scott Bakula doesn't come across as a pot smoking idiot in reality.

[BlobVanDam]

I think overall Brooks was better than Bakula. Bakula was very wooden in that role, as was most of the cast, no intensity at all. Outside of Trek though, Bakula seems like a cool guy, and don't get me started on Brooks. Gonna agree with you on that bit at least, Kotow.

[Kotowboy]

 

[El Barto]

And just to make Kowtow happy I'll disagree with you both. Backula was better than Brooks, although I agree that we was a bit uptight. Brooks doesn't come across as a pot-smoking idiot. And idiot, perhaps, but I think more likely he's just passionate about his beliefs and a little flaky.