|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 23, 2017 14:19:04 GMT -5
I still hate the idea of Harry Mudd being on the show. I fundamentally don't understand why they want a gross, misogynistic character on the show. Are there any women who have creative control in this production? idk if you've seen the new trailer yet, but in addition to Mudd already being the worst because misogyny, that moment where he makes that little explosion hand gesture and sound was just tonally jarring relative to the rest of anything in that trailer, and also it just seems like it's the sort of thing that would be part of the hackiest possible portrayal of a mischievous villain character in 2017. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 23, 2017 20:00:17 GMT -5
I still hate the idea of Harry Mudd being on the show. I fundamentally don't understand why they want a gross, misogynistic character on the show. Are there any women who have creative control in this production? idk if you've seen the new trailer yet, but in addition to Mudd already being the worst because misogyny, that moment where he makes that little explosion hand gesture and sound was just tonally jarring relative to the rest of anything in that trailer, and also it just seems like it's the sort of thing that would be part of the hackiest possible portrayal of a mischievous villain character in 2017. I have seen the trailer, and Mudd's appearance in it is even more of a WTF than before. If they are doing a big war story then why the hell do they even have time for Mudd? What's he even doing there? Ugh, he's the worst. (Nothing against Rainn Wilson, whom I like.) Anyway, I've now watched the trailer 4 times..... I'm still on the fence. I know I've expressed some reluctance towards the idea of a prequel before, but watching this trailer made me realize I am much more strongly averse to a prequel than I previously thought. Are we sure this is in the Prime Timeline? If so, why does any of this matter? A war with the Klingons? So what? We all know what happens. We know the Klingons don't win. We know the Federation survives. "A new way to fly"? WTF? It's all still warp drive, bro. I mean, this can't even be all that devastating, because 10 years later Kirk & crew are out there zipping around, trading quips with Klingons. I'd totally buy this premise if this was 100 years AFTER DS9/VOY. Then it would be cool and scary. What is the point of setting it in the past, where decades of on-screen canon drain the premise of all of its tension? So we can have a human who is related to Spock? Whom neither Spock, nor Amanda, nor Sarek ever mention again? Also, this quote from Kurtzman is.... Well: ST: Deep Space Nine is a real show, yeah? I didn't hallucinate that one? |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 23, 2017 20:21:10 GMT -5
idk if you've seen the new trailer yet, but in addition to Mudd already being the worst because misogyny, that moment where he makes that little explosion hand gesture and sound was just tonally jarring relative to the rest of anything in that trailer, and also it just seems like it's the sort of thing that would be part of the hackiest possible portrayal of a mischievous villain character in 2017. I have seen the trailer, and Mudd's appearance in it is even more of a WTF than before. If they are doing a big war story then why the hell do they even have time for Mudd? What's he even doing there? Ugh, he's the worst. (Nothing against Rainn Wilson, whom I like.) So we can have a human who is related to Spock? Whom neither Spock, nor Amanda, nor Sarek ever mention again? Yeah, Mudd's presence makes very little sense, and of all the TOS people who show up just a couple of times, why him? Like, if you want a TOS guy whose character is a dirtbag rogue or whatever, at least Cyrano Jones was connected to the Klingons in TOS (and TAS). And I guess to be fair, Sybok is never mentioned before Star Trek V, I think? |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 23, 2017 20:40:20 GMT -5
I have seen the trailer, and Mudd's appearance in it is even more of a WTF than before. If they are doing a big war story then why the hell do they even have time for Mudd? What's he even doing there? Ugh, he's the worst. (Nothing against Rainn Wilson, whom I like.) So we can have a human who is related to Spock? Whom neither Spock, nor Amanda, nor Sarek ever mention again? Yeah, Mudd's presence makes very little sense, and of all the TOS people who show up just a couple of times, why him? And I guess to be fair, Sybok is never mentioned before Star Trek V, I think? No, he's not. So, apparently Spock may have dozens of siblings whom he never mentions. And Kurtzman assures everyone that Spock/Sarek never mentioning her will be explained on screen. LOL can't wait. At this point, just go with it. Spock and Sarek clearly aren't interested in ever talking about their family. Let's just stick with that! I don't know.... I really want to like it. I love the cast. So far, I love every single casting decision. I mean, except for bringing back Mudd, but I don't hate the casting, I hate the character. I'm going to try to get over my "So what?" feelings. Hopefully I will really like the characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 23, 2017 21:09:21 GMT -5
I'm watching the panel from Comic Con right now, and I'm seriously questioning how much any of these people know about Star Trek.
Akiva Goldsman:
Kurtzman:
And Jason Isaacs at one point says his character is different than other captains because "he will probably be the most fucked up". I mean, Sisko watched his wife die in a Borg attack, and Janeway lost half her crew in the pilot. If this guy can top that, I can't wait to see it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 23, 2017 21:10:29 GMT -5
Yeah, Mudd's presence makes very little sense, and of all the TOS people who show up just a couple of times, why him? And I guess to be fair, Sybok is never mentioned before Star Trek V, I think? No, he's not. So, apparently Spock may have dozens of siblings whom he never mentions. And Kurtzman assures everyone that Spock/Sarek never mentioning her will be explained on screen. LOL can't wait. At this point, just go with it. Spock and Sarek clearly aren't interested in ever talking about their family. Let's just stick with that! I don't know.... I really want to like it. I love the cast. So far, I love every single casting decision. I mean, except for bringing back Mudd, but I don't hate the casting, I hate the character. I'm going to try to get over my "So what?" feelings. Hopefully I will really like the characters. What if the explanation was Sarek saying "This is my son Spock's human half-sister, Susan, or whatever. My son, my wife, and I will never mention her to anyone again because we live in a fictional universe and we are all fictional characters in said universe; none of us actually exists in the real world. Susan was not conceived of until this story, a prologue to all other stories containing my family, had already been filmed, so that's why we're not going to mention her again," but the show only adopted this metafictional conceit to explain this one logical inconsistency? |
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Jul 24, 2017 6:44:27 GMT -5
The simplest explanation is that everyone in Spock's family hates everyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 24, 2017 11:13:20 GMT -5
Desert Dweller I am getting a very Star Trek Into Darkness vibe from those interviews.
|
|
|
|
Post by Generic Poster on Jul 24, 2017 15:14:04 GMT -5
It's bugging me that ships and uniforms look absolutely nothing like what we saw in The Cage. Plus, why are we getting yet a third completely different appearance for the Klingons?
|
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 25, 2017 0:29:04 GMT -5
Desert Dweller I am getting a very Star Trek Into Darkness vibe from those interviews. I now really want to know if either Kurtzman or Goldsman have ever seen DS9. A lot of what they are saying makes it sound like they've seen some TOS, and TNG and not much else. Sigh. I don't know.... I just.... I don't want anymore prequel Star Trek, you guys. :whine: Making Klingons the antagonists is just so disappointing. Really hoping Isaacs's character is interesting. Also interested to see how Sarek factors into the story. If we all watch DSC will that convince CBS to make a Trek set in the future of DS9/VOY? |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jul 25, 2017 5:51:00 GMT -5
If we all watch DSC will that convince CBS to make a Trek set in the future of DS9/VOY? I don't think that whoever is running Star Trek right now is susceptible to logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 25, 2017 17:57:25 GMT -5
Desert Dweller Even if they did see a bit of DS9, the show managed to pull off being serious and sometimes even bleak without really being “dark and gritty”—I think that actually helped with the more serious and bleak plots since the fact that DS9 could be a perfectly pleasant place helped drive home the seriousness with which they were defending it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Jul 25, 2017 21:12:46 GMT -5
It's really too bad that the TV landscape nowadays is such that we can't have like 20 episodes of just bumming around space and maybe 5 episodes of plot stuff sprinkled throughout the season. There's narrative space afforded to long seasons that isn't available to the "really long movie" plotting of current TV.
I'm rewatching season 1 of Enterprise - yeah shut up - and yes, I'm already skipping episodes, but it's nice to be able to see more of the characters and their universe than you would get in a 13 episode series.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 25, 2017 21:17:07 GMT -5
It's really too bad that the TV landscape nowadays is such that we can't have like 20 episodes of just bumming around space and maybe 5 episodes of plot stuff sprinkled throughout the season. There's narrative space afforded to long seasons that isn't available to the "really long movie" plotting of current TV. I'm rewatching season 1 of Enterprise - yeah shut up - and yes, I'm already skipping episodes, but it's nice to be able to see more of the characters and their universe than you would get in a 13 episode series. Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? |
|
|
|
Post by Incense on Jul 25, 2017 21:38:23 GMT -5
It's really too bad that the TV landscape nowadays is such that we can't have like 20 episodes of just bumming around space and maybe 5 episodes of plot stuff sprinkled throughout the season. There's narrative space afforded to long seasons that isn't available to the "really long movie" plotting of current TV. I'm rewatching season 1 of Enterprise - yeah shut up - and yes, I'm already skipping episodes, but it's nice to be able to see more of the characters and their universe than you would get in a 13 episode series. Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? Whew, that's a hard call. But I would say yes. Enterprise is very good in seasons 3 & 4, but pretty boring in its first two (welllll.... maybe the first season and a half). But boring with occasional bouts of juvenile asininity isn't a patch on say, Code Of Honor, Justice, The Last Outpost, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2017 11:10:47 GMT -5
I'd say ENT Season 1 is less bad than TNG Season 1 - maybe not showing the glimpses of greatness-to-come that TNG S1 had, but never descending to its depths either?
Honestly I like Enterprise pretty well, and legit enjoyed it by the time S3 & 4 came around.
|
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Jul 26, 2017 11:58:31 GMT -5
It's really too bad that the TV landscape nowadays is such that we can't have like 20 episodes of just bumming around space and maybe 5 episodes of plot stuff sprinkled throughout the season. There's narrative space afforded to long seasons that isn't available to the "really long movie" plotting of current TV. I'm rewatching season 1 of Enterprise - yeah shut up - and yes, I'm already skipping episodes, but it's nice to be able to see more of the characters and their universe than you would get in a 13 episode series. Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? Honestly I have no idea. I haven't seen TNG since probably the late 90s and back then I was watching it on syndication, so I was never clear on what season a given episode was from. |
|
|
|
Post by Generic Poster on Jul 26, 2017 12:48:06 GMT -5
Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? Whew, that's a hard call. But I would say yes. Enterprise is very good in seasons 3 & 4, but pretty boring in its first two (welllll.... maybe the first season and a half). But boring with occasional bouts of juvenile asininity isn't a patch on say, Code Of Honor, Justice, The Last Outpost, etc. I still haven't watched any Enterprise (well, except for the 3 or 4 S1 episodes I watched before bailing). Should I just skip to S3, or do I need to wade through 1 & 2? |
|
|
|
Post by sarapen on Jul 26, 2017 13:35:48 GMT -5
Whew, that's a hard call. But I would say yes. Enterprise is very good in seasons 3 & 4, but pretty boring in its first two (welllll.... maybe the first season and a half). But boring with occasional bouts of juvenile asininity isn't a patch on say, Code Of Honor, Justice, The Last Outpost, etc. I still haven't watched any Enterprise (well, except for the 3 or 4 S1 episodes I watched before bailing). Should I just skip to S3, or do I need to wade through 1 & 2? The first couple of seasons explains stuff about how their world works which might be good to know. For example, the captain and a lot of humans in general are racist against Vulcans except for the second in command (personally I think he's filed her as "one of the good ones"). Also the Vulcans are lying hypocrites and we slowly discover the reason for this and why they're not the punctilious but honest assholes that they are in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Incense on Jul 26, 2017 13:40:00 GMT -5
Whew, that's a hard call. But I would say yes. Enterprise is very good in seasons 3 & 4, but pretty boring in its first two (welllll.... maybe the first season and a half). But boring with occasional bouts of juvenile asininity isn't a patch on say, Code Of Honor, Justice, The Last Outpost, etc. I still haven't watched any Enterprise (well, except for the 3 or 4 S1 episodes I watched before bailing). Should I just skip to S3, or do I need to wade through 1 & 2? I don't know if I can answer that. I'm a completist who always starts at the beginning of a series. I can say for sure though, that because season three starts with the entire Xindi season long arc already started, I wouldn't start watching any later than season two's last episode "The Expanse." That's where it begins. |
|
|
|
Post by Generic Poster on Jul 26, 2017 13:42:52 GMT -5
I still haven't watched any Enterprise (well, except for the 3 or 4 S1 episodes I watched before bailing). Should I just skip to S3, or do I need to wade through 1 & 2? The first couple of seasons explains stuff about how their world works which might be good to know. For example, the captain and a lot of humans in general are racist against Vulcans except for the second in command (personally I think he's filed her as "one of the good ones"). Also the Vulcans are lying hypocrites and we slowly discover the reason for this and why they're not the punctilious but honest assholes that they are in the future. Yeah, I saw in the few episodes I watched that the Vulcans were lying assholes in the show. That went a ways towards explaining Bones' space-racism. |
|
|
|
Post by Ben Grimm on Jul 26, 2017 15:09:27 GMT -5
It's really too bad that the TV landscape nowadays is such that we can't have like 20 episodes of just bumming around space and maybe 5 episodes of plot stuff sprinkled throughout the season. There's narrative space afforded to long seasons that isn't available to the "really long movie" plotting of current TV. I'm rewatching season 1 of Enterprise - yeah shut up - and yes, I'm already skipping episodes, but it's nice to be able to see more of the characters and their universe than you would get in a 13 episode series. Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? I think season 1 of TNG is probably the single worst season of Star Trek, bar none, and I really, really hope it stays that way. That said, there hasn't been a good first season of a Star Trek show in my lifetime. There's just varying degrees of bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 26, 2017 21:19:33 GMT -5
I still haven't watched any Enterprise (well, except for the 3 or 4 S1 episodes I watched before bailing). Should I just skip to S3, or do I need to wade through 1 & 2? The first couple of seasons explains stuff about how their world works which might be good to know. For example, the captain and a lot of humans in general are racist against Vulcans except for the second in command (personally I think he's filed her as "one of the good ones"). Also the Vulcans are lying hypocrites and we slowly discover the reason for this and why they're not the punctilious but honest assholes that they are in the future. I thought Vulcans can't lie, except for when they can, except for when they can't? By which I mean, I thought that was demonstrated to just be a myth in the TOS episode "The Enterprise Incident", but then I was watching the TNG episode "Data's Day" a few days ago and everyone was all like "This Vulcan seems suspicious, but she can't lie, because she's a Vulcan in a twist on "The Enterprise Incident, the Vulcan is a secret Romulan spy ." So now I guess I'm confused. Can Vulcans lie? The answer is canonically 'yes', right? |
|
|
|
Post by Roy Batty's Pet Dove on Jul 26, 2017 21:27:48 GMT -5
Is Season 1 of Enterprise less bad than Season 1 of TNG? Honestly I have no idea. I haven't seen TNG since probably the late 90s and back then I was watching it on syndication, so I was never clear on what season a given episode was from. Ah, yeah, my bad. I always forget about the fact that a lot (most?) of the people on this thread initially saw TNG out of order in syndication (which I suppose technically applies to my frequent exposure to TNG as a kid, but I honestly wasn't usually paying much attention, and therefore didn't remember much), as opposed to sequentially on a streaming service. As a tip in identifaction, TNG Season 1 episodes are easy to tell apart from episodes from subsequent seasons by the presence of Shitty Beardless Riker and Lt. Lar. And also the fact that most of them are very bad, and possess few if any redeeming qualities. |
|
|
|
Post by Desert Dweller on Jul 27, 2017 1:06:36 GMT -5
S1 of TNG is really, really bad. I have recommended to Trek newcomers that they entirely skip the whole thing.
S1 of Enterprise is merely forgettable. It is bad, but not awful like TNG S1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Generic Poster on Jul 27, 2017 12:38:46 GMT -5
S1 of TNG is really, really bad. I have recommended to Trek newcomers that they entirely skip the whole thing. S1 of Enterprise is merely forgettable. It is bad, but not awful like TNG S1. I kinda liked the season 1 finale with the bodysnatcher things. Which was never followed up on in any way ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 27, 2017 14:50:44 GMT -5
Maybe in absolute terms ENT S1 was less bad, but TNG S1 had tons of weird stuff in it and almost feels like a sort of feels like the beginning of a road not traveled, so it’s interesting. Also it’s often laughably bad and campy, whereas ENT S1 tends to be of the blandly forgettable bad.
Underrated for worst Trek season would be TOS S3: back when I lived in Chicago I’d watch TOS on MeTV and season three made me stop watching. There are a few good-to-great episodes in season three, but it’s mostly bad. And it’s also depressing, which was what was surprising—there’s just this morose pall over everything that made it not fun.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 14:55:33 GMT -5
S1 of TNG is really, really bad. I have recommended to Trek newcomers that they entirely skip the whole thing. S1 of Enterprise is merely forgettable. It is bad, but not awful like TNG S1. I kinda liked the season 1 finale with the bodysnatcher things. Which was never followed up on in any way ever. I know it's been speculated that the parasites were originally supposed to tie into what became the Borg, because the Borg were originally conceived as insectoid. The thinking goes that the parasites were the "first wave" of the invasion, but over the time between S1 and S2, the invaders morphed from insectoid to humanoids with cybernetic prosthetics because of how expensive insectoids would have been to show, hence the connection was dropped. I think that there's never been any actual proof that this was planned by the writers, though, so it may solely be a fan theory. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Lemur on Jul 27, 2017 15:17:11 GMT -5
I kinda liked the season 1 finale with the bodysnatcher things. Which was never followed up on in any way ever. I know it's been speculated that the parasites were originally supposed to tie into what became the Borg, because the Borg were originally conceived as insectoid. The thinking goes that the parasites were the "first wave" of the invasion, but over the time between S1 and S2, the invaders morphed from insectoid to humanoids with cybernetic prosthetics because of how expensive insectoids would have been to show, hence the connection was dropped. I think that there's never been any actual proof that this was planned by the writers, though, so it may solely be a fan theory. ^^^ This was Maurice Hurley’s original plan—IIRC he initially planned them to be insects and/or insect-cyborgs, but after seeing “Conspiracy” everyone realized that just wouldn’t work (I mean the episode’s compelling in that it’s weird as shit but not at all convincing in terms of puppetry/stop motion—it’s on the level of the “stop motion” I did with my parents’ camcorder as a kid). “The Neutral Zone” is supposed to be the follow up to “Conspiracy,” with that weird signal sent out in the end beckoning the Borg/insects to the Romulan border, where they scooped up/destroyed a bunch of colonies (which of course gets almost no play in the actual episode because they spend all their time with Eighties Guy). The idea was to have the main enemy for TNG be revolting on an elementary level—humans dislike insects, they symbolize filth, they have no sense of individuality, etc. There’s some holdover with the hive mind of the Borg, and the whole warping of “technology unleashed” (Roddenberry’s original description of 24th-century tech) into technology taking over. The Borg plot was also supposed to be even more crazy. The Romulans were reintroduced just to be wiped out by the Borg sometime in the second season. Hurley thought of the Borg as being something like the Satan and Q being a sort of indifferent trickster-God. That sounds awesome, but I have trouble seeing how second-season TNG could pull it off (and Hurley wasn’t always the best writer, either—I’ve heard the script of “Q Who” reads very cheesy and was basically saved by the acting/directing/production design). And the Borg were then supposed to be the regular adversaries, which even under better writers they could never really figure out because they’d been so menacing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2017 17:54:44 GMT -5
The whole season as a movie thing is a big nope to go on top of a pile of nopes. Maybe we dont need new star trek. We already have 6 tv series, 10+ movies, and a whole ton of comics and books. I think we are good on Trek.
|
|
