Star Trek (Page 7 of 9)

I feel that way about Star Trek.

I wanna know the book.

I'm working in the building where they're trying to finally make the movie, in all the wrong ways. If it is Neuromancer, I won't torment you by telling you the things I know.

Oooh, that's a good guess. Didn't even think of that one. Not Neuromancer, though. I liked that book a lot, but it's not on my top ten list or anything.

Teague, if "all the wrong ways" means they're trying to make a computery sci-fi movie, then yeah, they're screwing it up. Neuromancer is a hard-boiled mystery that'd make a nifty retro-futuristic film noir.

Something else that bothered me, Mayhew, though there is a tiny amount of precedent for it in the original series. What I have the greatest issue with is the fact that Uhura comes and bitches at Spock for not getting the assignment she wanted and he caves and reassigns her almost immediately. Neither of his actions in that situation - assigning her a post solely to avoid the appearance of favoritism nor caving feebly when confronted with it - are at all consistent with Spock's character.

Sit yourself down, buddy.

Fun fact, I have seen the "there are four lights" episode. I have seen "Darmok and Jalad at Tenagra" and a few others too, and...  brace yourself...  they were pretty good. 

My disinterest in Next Generation isn't about the ratio of good/bad episodes.  That wouldn't be much of an argument since - let's be honest - Original Trek had more bad episodes than good. No, my disinterest in TNG is far more fundamental. 

I was a massive fan of Original Star Wars too, but I never once thought, "I sure hope they make three more of these movies about Jedi!"  .  There could not have been a bigger Star Wars fan on the planet in 1977 than me, and never once did I want to know more about Jedi.  Because the original trilogy wasn't about Jedi. And yet somehow... the prequels are only about Jedi.   Well, bummer -  I was hoping for more Star Wars, not whatever the heck that was.

In the same way, I liked Star Trek, the adventure serial about roaming the galaxy and getting into trouble and getting out of it again.  They supposedly came from a utopian society of some kind, but we never saw it - the show itself took place out on the frontier, 'cause that's where y'know... stuff happens. 

Once in a while they'd sneak a little bit of social commentary in there, which was cool (tho some episodes went too far and became Very Important Statements About Racism or whatever).

It was also nice that they made some attempt to be consistent with their made-up technology of warp engines and transporters and shields and such.  But they didn't dwell on it much.   

I admired Roddenberry then - and still do - for sneaking in those little hints of spice while doing his primary job of Entertaining The Masses by any means necessary.   

They didn't always get there, sometimes all they really had was the William Theiss Wardrobe Suspense Technique - "I swear to god, that chick is gonna fall out of that costume any second".  Not that there's anything wrong with that.   

But when it worked, it really worked - because they were making an entertainment that was sneakily About Something and at the same time Not Entirely Stupid.   As we've said on DIF many times, even the pulpiest entertainment can still be smart, and about something.

TNG set out to be About Something, and that's the problem.    If Star Trek was a slice of toast with a hint of cinnamon, TNG was a bowl of cinnamon powder with breadcrumbs in it.

And you know I'm not just pulling that outa my ass.  That TNG writer's bible didn't fall from the sky, I hung out with people who wrote for and were otherwise involved in the show then, and now.   Get a drink in them and they will tell you about how hard it was to write anything under the Roddenberry-imposed burden of Star Trek Is A Deeply Meaningful Lesson About My Vision Of The Future And Will Be My Legacy Forever.   

And I think it shows.      Even if some good episodes escaped that black hole, let's be real - if I flip the channel and catch an episode of TNG in progress, odds are I'm gonna be looking at a bunch of people sitting in those comfy bridge chairs talkin' either techno-nonsense or Important Issues.     

But if you found it entertaining, that's okay by me.  It really is.    And I'm sure there are good episodes of TNG that I still haven't seen - tho I'll betcha they're the ones with less talking.  But I don't feel particularly motivated to see them.   

Next Gen taught me that Star Trek didn't owe me anything, but that I didn't owe it anything either.     I've seen a few episodes of all the other incarnations since then, and  they ran the same gamut from meh to hmm.   Turns out you can be a fan of Star Trek and not give a shit about it at the same time.   

And  that's a blessing, otherwise I'd be pretty upset about some of the things they've done to it over the years.

So you don't get to play that "you're picking on me because I'm a Star Trek nerd " card around me, newbie.   My copies of The Star Trek Concordance and The World of Star Trek are older than you are, and heavily worn from re-reading.   Not so much lately, but back in the day?  Chapter and verse, son.   

And  you can't honestly claim you're being persecuted for nerddom here in this forum where, as Dorkman pointed out, ain't nobody here BUT nerds of some kind or other.  For example, Dorkman's screen name IS DORKMAN.

No, I only object - and I do believe every post I've made illustrates this - to your insistence that Abrams didn't get Star Trek "right" somehow, or that he didn't follow what Star Trek is "supposed to be about".        Every time you say that Trek is this or that, I'm here to say, no it isn't, not necessarily, not always.  That's just what you think it is. 

But I feel your pain.  I felt it twenty years ago, when - in my opinion - Next Gen got everything wrong.   

Don't you see, son?   I'm not here to mock your love of Trek, I am a time traveler from the past, come to tell you that I love it too, but you can't say with absolute authority what Trek "is" and neither can I.   

For you, she was a bookish schoolmarm who opened your eyes to the universe and on whom you had your first crush, and now you've caught her behind a dumpster with JJ Abrams riding her like a three-dollar whore.    And all your friends are there applauding.

Oh sure, you can tell yourself that isn't really her...  but it is.  Looks like she's learned a thing or two since I knew her, damn.   

I'm only here to say, let it go.   Star Trek doesn't come from any particular book or movie or TV show, the real Trek lives in your HEART, man. And there it will be anything you want it to be.

It'll also show up drunk on your doorstep in a couple years and try to act like nothing happened.    It'll be your move at that point.

Oh, Trey, you're such a bright fella. But there's just so much wrong with your post.

Snark aside, I think we simply have a different idea of what storytelling/filmmaking/art/whatever is supposed to be. For me, it's something that, in it's best moments, communicates some idea, some truth or essence of truth, about the human experience, our place in the universe, etc. etc.

For you, it's just something fun to pass the time. Okay. Different philosophies. In its absolute best moments, it's both.

Now, obviously I'm not privy to the conversations you've had with your friends, but what I've always read about the TNG writer's room was that it was Roddenberry's insistence on no interpersonal conflict between characters that was so tremendously stifling. And I totally get that. I'm a believer in utopia precisely because of Star Trek and even I think that's pretty out there.

But forcing your writers to concern themselves with incorporating some kind of (oh no!) point to the work, is not a bad thing. Can it be done badly? Yes. But the idea itself is not bad. In fact, I would say it's essential to good drama.

And I'm aware that it's possible to be a fan of Star Trek and not give a shit. Once upon a time I wholeheartedly gave a shit. Then came the early seasons of DS9. Then Voyager. And Nemesis. And Enterprise. I've done my time with lousy Trek.

And my claim wasn't about persecution. My claim was about my opinions on the story being dismissed out of hand because of a presumption that anything that came out of my mouth was going to be a nerdy nitpick. My claim was also about the cumulative effect of a dozen people making good natured jokes adding up to something tiresome. And as I stated on TFN, being mocked on a board like this for being a nerd is merely absurd, not impossible.

And AGAIN, I object to this idea that I'm somehow claiming to know better than anybody else what Star Trek IS or SHOULD BE. I don't think I've said that, and if I've implied it, I've disavowed it. Really, again, snark aside, stop putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any kind of claim that "my Star Trek" is purer than "your Star Trek." You're stuck on fighting this turf war that hasn't been fought since the 90s. It's as timely and useful to argue about which would win in a fight - the Enterprise or a Star Destroyer.

Anyway, Trek has been a lot of things in its long history, and quite often has been profoundly stupid. My point is, it COULD be better. It COULD be smarter while being just as fun. It COULD be ABOUT something and still blow some stuff up. It could contain an actual idea somewhere in it and still be just as full of the flashies you so righteously defend.

I think I'm going to make Christmas with the Kranzes as a horror movie, just to fuck with this same "THE SPIRIT OF THE ORIGINAL~!" thing Brian has going on.  And I'm going to ask Ken Mattingly at the next family reunion to star as the killer.

Just playing.

But seriously, after relistening to the episode, I realized MY biggest problem with this DIF: Teague says "we're tapping you in, Brian, go!" and claps his hands twice.  Clearly what he was TRYING to say was "We're TAGGING you in Brian, go!" and he should have clapped his hands ONCE.  But he didn't because he knows not of what he speaks and he isn't paying enough attention at Lucha Va Voom.

LOL, Trowa FTW!

I saw Thanksgiving before I knew Teague knew the guy who made it.  I was thinking sequel.

Or reboot, I suppose.

I'm confused and afraid.

Wow, that podcast was... interesting.

I loved this movie (it made me cry in the first 5 minutes) and I hated it at the same time (all that crap with the worm/black hole physics and red matter-WTF?).

I think it jumped shark half way with 1 to many magic beans (first was timetravel) the second being unexplained Unobtainium/red matter. At least Avatar called it Unobtanium (shorthand for macguffin), StarTrek didnt even try to patch that hole (in plot).

Anyway, my new phrase would have to be "Bridge Logic", logic that doesnt last long enough to get you off the Enterprise bridge. I forgave soooooo much in this movie, but the end could have been a redeemer, it just fell short.

Good start for a new series however.