Star Trek General Discussion Thread

[ourchair]

There's a contrived Enterprise explanation? Huh. I always liked the DS9 "We don't talk about it" explanation from More Trouble With Tribbles. I thought that was perfect.

Actually me too. I thought it was genius.

What I meant was that I find the idea that they actually went to the trouble of trying to explain the disappearance of ridges absolutely wonderful in its contrivedness. I'm not saying they should have done it, I'm saying that I like that they bothered.

I know that doesn't make sense, but I'm just one of those crazy people who embraces a lot of Trek's "flaws."

 

[SSJmole]

Favourite uniforms?

Enterprise for me. If I had to wear any it would be them. Simple with out been flashy, Looked comfortable plus they had mixture I thought of overalls mixed with an Army uniform in one. That impressed me as they are not a army crew like some other uniforms are purely based. They are explorers who get dirty, Have to fix things. Have to investigate.

 

[ourchair]

They are explorers who get dirty, Have to fix things. Have to investigate.

Definitely Mahir Cagri.

 

[Friday]

Favourite uniforms?

Khan on movie uniforms for me. I'm not really sure why, I just really dig them.

 

[Gothamite]

Khan on movie uniforms for me. I'm not really sure why, I just really dig them.

It is kind of hard to put my finger on why I like them so much. They really are quite odd-looking.

 

[Gothamite]

Aw man yes...

[youtube]KXWEM4gZhg4[/youtube]

All of William Shatner's musical efforts should win Grammys.

I was at work today and I suddenly realised just how excellent it is that this song exists. It truly is a masterful performance of an already excellent song.

If someone could get Shatner and Ben Folds to come to my house and 'speak' and play this song in front of my friends and I...well...I just don't know what I'd be willing to do in return...

 

[ourchair]

Patrick Stewart and his rather 'bad-***' view on why he was 'so good' at playing a Starfleet Captain:

"One of the reasons I was so successful as Jean Luc Picard was because it wasn't ER, it wasn't LAPD, it wasn't The Wire or Raising The Dead. It wasn't naturalistic and it was heightened. It was science-fiction, space, set in the future. The actors wear funny costumes. I said to people, 'Look, it's because I have spent all the years I have spent sitting on different thrones of England and playing all these generals, princes and kings that I can do this.' It's absolutely true. I knew how to sit in that chair, I knew how to command that bridge. I knew how to talk to ****ing aliens."

Taken from a piece in the Telegraph about Stewart's return to Shakespeare.

Discuss.

 

[SSJmole]

That is pretty damn cool Ourchair. He is right you do need to be commanding if you sit that chair.

 

[Bass]

I saw that one, but I much prefer this:

[youtube]Max8UvHgDds[/youtube]

Uhura trash talks everyone, with Nichelle Nichols dialogue from 1974 blaxploitation flick Truck Turner.

:lol::lol::lol:

There's a contrived Enterprise explanation? Huh. I always liked the DS9 "We don't talk about it" explanation from More Trouble With Tribbles. I thought that was perfect.

Everything about Enterprise was contrived.

 

[ourchair]

Brent Spiner, who played Data on TNG and its related feature films, defends former Trek exec Rick Berman:

"It think it's really short-sighted of people to give Rick grief," Spiner told SyFy Portal's Michael Hinman during a recorded interview that will be heard on SyFy Radio Wednesday night. "I just say to any of them, 'You go produce a television show and produce hundreds of hours of television shows,' which these people have watched more than once."

Spiner spent years working with Berman, who himself held the mantle as Star Trek's champion for some 16 years. And anyone who attacks Berman doesn't really know him at all, Spiner said.

"I don't know where these ideas come from," he said. "Rick more than anybody else protected Gene Roddenberry's vision. There were times we wanted to do things in an episode, and Rick would be, 'No, no, no. Gene wouldn't want that and that's not what Star Trek is about.'

More from this link.

Discuss.

 

[The Overlord]

Besides the Federation (which has many planets as members), which alien civilization did you think was the most interesting in the Trek universe?

 

[Lynx]

Brent Spiner, who played Data on TNG and its related feature films, defends former Trek exec Rick Berman:More from this link.

Discuss.

I'd say he has a point, but honestly, Roddenberry's "vision" was so ****ing outdated by Next Gen that they should have stopped trying to follow it. Deep Space Nine was a step in the right direction. Voyager would have been if they had followed Ron Moore's lead (Although I'm kind of glad they didn't, as we got the far, far superior Battlestar Galactica out of it instead).

Roddenberry did his thing with the original Trek. It worked back then, but it doesn't work now.

 

[ourchair]

I'd say he has a point, but honestly, Roddenberry's "vision" was so ****ing outdated by Next Gen that they should have stopped trying to follow it. Deep Space Nine was a step in the right direction. Voyager would have been if they had followed Ron Moore's lead (Although I'm kind of glad they didn't, as we got the far, far superior Battlestar Galactica out of it instead).

I disagree, but only because I think that Roddenberry's "vision" is something that isn't concretely defined by ANYbody involved with Trek, whether it's the actors, the producers, the writers or even Roddenberry himself. Roddenberry was many things, but he was no 'singularly focused auteur' as he was notorious for restating his 'vision'.

As such, it's hard to conclusively declare that Roddenberry's vision was obsolete or outdated, because that depends ENTIRELY on how you view his vision. I still concur with your appraisal of DS9 and BSG, but I think that has little to do with whether or not Roddenberry's Vision (whatever the **** that is) was relevant in the late 20th century onwards.

I really really love Battlestar Galactica*, but I think one of my main problems with declaring its "Betterness" as being dependent entirely on its Non Trek Ness is it presumes that the Trek formula is contrary to what would make good television today.

 

[Captain Canuck]

okay, so i'm a casual fan of Star Trek. I watched TNG with my Dad all the time when i was a kid, and loved it, and i've seen a handful of VOY episodes and the four TNG era movies, and that's about it.
This may be opening a can of worms, but why do people hate Enterprise? I've only ever seen one full episode (the series finale that's a holodec program in TNG timeline) and i thought that was pretty cool. And the premise sounds awesome (I really liked First Contact, so exploring the beginings of Star Fleet and the Federation sounds cool to me).

So where did the show fall short?

 

[Planet-man]

okay, so i'm a casual fan of Star Trek. I watched TNG with my Dad all the time when i was a kid, and loved it, and i've seen a handful of VOY episodes and the four TNG era movies, and that's about it.

This may be opening a can of worms, but why do people hate Enterprise?

This is just about my exact situation in the world of Trek. Only I saw at least twenty full episodes of Enterprise over the course of the first couple seasons, and always enjoyed it.

 

[Lynx]

I disagree, but only because I think that Roddenberry's "vision" is something that isn't concretely defined by ANYbody involved with Trek, whether it's the actors, the producers, the writers or even Roddenberry himself. Roddenberry was many things, but he was no 'singularly focused auteur' as he was notorious for restating his 'vision'.

As such, it's hard to conclusively declare that Roddenberry's vision was obsolete or outdated, because that depends ENTIRELY on how you view his vision. I still concur with your appraisal of DS9 and BSG, but I think that has little to do with whether or not Roddenberry's Vision (whatever the **** that is) was relevant in the late 20th century onwards.

I really really love Battlestar Galactica*, but I think one of my main problems with declaring its "Betterness" as being dependent entirely on its Non Trek Ness is it presumes that the Trek formula is contrary to what would make good television today.

Very true. I suppose Rodenberry's vision was never really nailed down by anyone. But, I think what hurt the Trek after Roddenberry left was how people (Berman and Braga) interpreted his vision.

okay, so i'm a casual fan of Star Trek. I watched TNG with my Dad all the time when i was a kid, and loved it, and i've seen a handful of VOY episodes and the four TNG era movies, and that's about it.
This may be opening a can of worms, but why do people hate Enterprise? I've only ever seen one full episode (the series finale that's a holodec program in TNG timeline) and i thought that was pretty cool. And the premise sounds awesome (I really liked First Contact, so exploring the beginings of Star Fleet and the Federation sounds cool to me).

So where did the show fall short?

This is just about my exact situation in the world of Trek. Only I saw at least twenty full episodes of Enterprise over the course of the first couple seasons, and always enjoyed it.

I felt the first two seasons were too bogged down in time travel bull****. Some of the standalone episodes were really neat, though. Seasons 3 and 4, except for a few bumps, we're pretty excellent, honestly. So, really, I have no idea. I find Voyager to be far, far worse.

 

[Gothamite]

This is just about my exact situation in the world of Trek. Only I saw at least twenty full episodes of Enterprise over the course of the first couple seasons, and always enjoyed it.

I thought you didn't like any of the movies?

Anyone who doesn't like First Contact is lying.

 

[Captain Canuck]

I thought you didn't like any of the movies?

Anyone who doesn't like First Contact is lying.

First Contact is the only TNG era movie that was actually a movie and not just a really long episode of TNG.

 

[SSJmole]

I find Voyager to be far, far worse.

As do I

 

[ourchair]

Very true. I suppose Rodenberry's vision was never really nailed down by anyone. But, I think what hurt the Trek after Roddenberry left was how people (Berman and Braga) interpreted his vision.

I don't even think "the vision" is even that important.

In fact, I find it faintly ridiculous that pop culture properties, especially when they become long-lived and extended across mutliple decades by multiple creators, must focus solely on the notion of "the vision" as if the authorial intent of a creation is more important than the possibilities of that creation.

It doesn't matter what Roddenberry "visioned" Star Trek to be, but what Roddenberry and the various creators and contributors to those 70-something episodes of TOS did well. From there any body else who wants to do new things with Trek should not focus on what can be done to ADD to that, not continuously perpetuate what has already been done while trying to second-guess the intentions of the author.