Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      Orphan Attachments   07/31/2018

      I have been doing some housekeeping lately and I've noticed that I had a lot of orphaned attachments. Attachments get orphaned when the PM or post is deleted without removing the attachment first. Deleting a PM or post does not delete the attachment and the file or image remain on the server. I'd like to ask all members to go through their attachments and delete any attachments you don't need anymore or those that have been orphaned. Where can I get a list of my attachments? Click on your display name in the upper right corner of the forums and pick "My Attachments" from the drop-down list. How can I tell an attachment is orphaned? If the PM has been deleted, you'll see a message like this in your attachment list: Unfortunately there is no message if the post has been deleted, so please check your old posts. We do purge old birthday threads every once in a while. Also some hosted projects have been shut down, so you may have orphaned attachments on one of those locations. Thanks!
Sign in to follow this  
Leonardo

Star Trek - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I think there are a lot of Star Trek fans around here who have watched the Star Trek series on television or cable, perhaps played the Star Trek games such as the Star Trek - Starfleet Command game series or one of the other Star Trek games.

Recently, I started to watch some fan made Star Trek videos on YouTube and I know there are other relative long Star Trek videos to be found.

These three videos have a certain nostalgic at least it's for me.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a Star Trek fan like myself then perhaps the Star Trek Timelines game is for you and right now it's free to play it on Steam.

Unfortutely, the DLC are not free and with a GUI that are not user friendly I doubt anyone wants to buy the DLC at least I won't buy the DLC.

I try it for a while maybe 10-15 minutes before I quit the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Trek but have never gotten into the games. I actually like the new series and think it’s too bad Chris Pine and company were demanding so much money to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actors were being greedy?  So, they are not going to make any more then?  If so, it's a shame--they were better than some of the originals, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought they were really good too, but the studio had a budget and the actors refused the offer. I haven’t seen any of them in much since so hopefully they’ll come to terms eventually. Didn’t I hear something about a new series in the works? Discovery is ok, but it’s making a mess of the historical story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that Tarantino is due to work on the next movie. Meanwhile new series Star Trek: Picard should be out fairly soon. Discovery is really good, it has to be treated as a reboot rather than a contination of the previous series' established facts (just like the movies are).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discovery would have been much better without Michael Burnham. The series was far too interested in making the story about her instead of about the crew generally. They managed to go a whole season without naming most of the bridge crew or bothering to characterise them andthe fact that one of them is a human reconstituted as a full-body Cyborg (essentially an android with a human brain) isn't explained until the end of season 2 - I though she was some sort of semi-synthetic Alien.

 

That's not to say Season 2 wasn't better than Season 1, but I still can't really describe it as "good" so much as "ok" really. The finale left me feeling rather cold and deflated and not really interested in Season 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only thing I know about Discovery is from watching the videos on YouTube and of course watching documentary videos about the Discovery, so based on my observations after watching the videos I can say only thing about the Discovery.

It's a pure disaster and do you know what's sad about the Discovery is that CBS fucked it up at the same time they, with Les Moonves when he was in charge, tried to get most money of Discovery by selling the license to Netflix.

We'll know, those people who watched the first season, what response CBS got from all Star Trek fans as the majority never liked the way CBS did with the Klingons, so what happen CBS removed the hair and made all Klingons bald at the same time let the Discovery have a timeline before the TNG, if I'm not mistaken.  WTF! :blink:

CBS actually managed to mess up the legacy of Gene Roddenbarry really bad and now I do hope that the Star Trek - Picard movie will get the Star Trek franchise back on track.

TBH, CBS doesn't have a clue of how to make money of a franchise like Star Trek and even Paramount is a lot better, but due to the 2005 split we know that Paramount will never get their hands of the Star Trek series, only Star Trek movies is Paramount allowed to create thanks to the founder of Viacom.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leo, Discovery takes place before the original Star Trek with Jim Kirk as captain! No wonder you’re confused. :P It’s from the time when Pike was captain of the Enterprise, which precedes the original series. They show you what happens to Pike in the Menagerie in the original series. The season finale for Discovery showed the lead-up to the Menagerie and Pike had a glimpse of his future when he did the Klingon challenge to get the time stones.

I’ve always found that the Star Trek series suck for the first three seasons, so Discovery is doing pretty good. Oh right, they’re rebooting Picard. Not sure about that yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the Discovery takes place before the original Star Trek series.

What the hell is CBS doing?  They almost destroyed the entire Star Trek franchise and if Gene Roddenbarry knew this is gonna to happen he would probably turn around in his grave. :zombie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you haven't even watched a single episode, you really cannot make such an observation. You're just repeating things you saw in documentaries or what you understood from documentaries, which were based on the opinions of the creators of those documentaries, and so are not your own opinions.

 

Discovery takes place between the pilot episode for TOS and the 2nd episode of TOS. In TOS episode 1, Pike was the captain, and Discovery is set after Pike visited the planet seen in the pilot, as Pike is reunited with characters from that TOS pilot episode (stock footage was used from the TOS episode for both a bit of flash-back, and rather tidily, to form the Previously on Star Trek for an episode starter).

 

I agree with Sigurd that they completely failed to properly introduce the bridge crew, only making them into people when an episode demanded it. but I'm quite content that the show is focused on Michael, even if she is the adopted sister of Spock who was never mentioned by Spock in any previous episode or movie containing Spock (but again, I see Discovery as a reboot in a different timeline to the STs we've seen before).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't repeating things.  For example, take the uniforms they are too modern as it doesn't fit for the timeline the Discovery is set. 

Also, add the Klingons for being bald to that and I would say that the Discovery had everything it needed for a future timeline, but definitely not a timeline that's too close to the timeline that the TNG, DS9, and Voyager had.

If the Discovery timeline was set to let say 200-300 years in the future, after the Dominion War ended, or maybe 500 years up to a millennium later then perhaps most of it in the Discovery would make sense.

I also want to say something about the Star Trek - Beyond.  When watching it my first impression was that the movie had too much stuff from the past, stuff that seems too old and sometimes a relic.

That often indicates that its creator lacks imagination and inspiration in which we all know that CBS had plenty of, no inspiration and certaintly not imagination whatsoever.

All CBS wanted to do is make money a lot of money, which they failed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vorians said:

If you haven't even watched a single episode, you really cannot make such an observation. You're just repeating things you saw in documentaries or what you understood from documentaries, which were based on the opinions of the creators of those documentaries, and so are not your own opinions.

 

Discovery takes place between the pilot episode for TOS and the 2nd episode of TOS. In TOS episode 1, Pike was the captain, and Discovery is set after Pike visited the planet seen in the pilot, as Pike is reunited with characters from that TOS pilot episode (stock footage was used from the TOS episode for both a bit of flash-back, and rather tidily, to form the Previously on Star Trek for an episode starter).

 

I agree with Sigurd that they completely failed to properly introduce the bridge crew, only making them into people when an episode demanded it. but I'm quite content that the show is focused on Michael, even if she is the adopted sister of Spock who was never mentioned by Spock in any previous episode or movie containing Spock (but again, I see Discovery as a reboot in a different timeline to the STs we've seen before).

Well if you really want to get nik-picky, The Cage was filmed but never aired as the pilot. It was rejected by the network in favour of Where No Man has Gone Before. The Cage was later completed and broadcast as The Menagerie. :P You nailed the timing of Discovery though. I was trying to place it.

I own all the series except DS9, which I couldn’t stand, and all the movies, including the new ones. I loved Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. :D

I actually like the fact that they didn’t focus on the bridge crew. The focused on a crew member when it was their time for the spotlight. For example a good portion of the season focused on the guy that operated the spore drive. It’s nice that it’s not captain wonder coming to the rescue yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However it still would have been nice to have known the bridge crew and understood their backgrounds in advanace of "their" episode two seasons later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It didn’t seem to be centered around the captain or bridge crew. In fact a lot of them turned out to be rather temporary, didn’t they? Certainly the captain wasn’t who he seemed. Different strokes I guess. Personally I didn’t care. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, the series hinges on you liking Michael Burnham and a lot of people don't. She's single-handedly responsible for the screw up that led to the Klingon War, she's terribly insubordinate to the extent that she stages a mutiny in the pilot. The show doesn't really do enough to earn the kudos she gets at the end of the first series - enough for her to earn redemption but not enough to make her "the" hero. That sort of lauding of an andividual is very un-Star Fleet, actually.

 

A lot of this becomes really obvious when you put her opposite Pike and watch her argue with his perfectly rationale command decisions and then disobey them. 

 

That being said, Season 2 is essentially a soft reboot of Season 1, Stammats (the engineer) in particular is played as a very different character and  only part of that is down to them getting rid of Lorca.

 

The way they dealt with Pike's future was... sadistic... didn't like that at all, it added nothing to the character because we already know he's moral and self-sacrificing, so it was just a kind of twisted fan service, really.

 

Then in the last three or four episodes the wheels kinda came off the plot, which made me think there was no single mind or even a cohesive writer's room to decide the direction the season was going to take.

 

One final thing that bothered me - the very female-slanted Bridge crew (the only males are Saru and the guy who runs coms, traditionally a female role in Trek). Now, I know what you're going to say, redressing the balance etc., etc.... Here's the thing though - you ended up having two seasons where basically a group of attractive young women stood around a male authority figure whilst he got to sit in a throne under a halo-like light and told them what to do. There are a few moments when it really does cross into "bridge bunny" territory, which is another consequence of the thin characterisation that means the bridge crew are primarily all just "a look" rather than people.

 

Basically, if they had had about 50% less Michael Burnham and made an effort to tell stories from multiple perspectives - especially more of the crew's private reactions to Lorca conscripting Burnham - it would have been much better. Trek tends to work better as an ensemble show and even TOS had three characters it focused on fairly evenly - Kirk, Spock and McCoy.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you’re bitching because the new crew has a lot more female representation? As you point out, TOS focused on three characters: Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Only Kirk and Spock were bridge crew. All were male. What about the rest of the bridge crew? Did we ever get a focus on Uhura? No, of course not! Her biggest contribution was a kiss with Kirk. Ironically we got a lot more background on Uhura from the series reboot. I loved that scene, btw. ;)

The whole point of Discovery is Michael, so if that pisses you off, watch something else. The producers proudly pronounced she was the point of the show. I didn’t see anything else in the trailers for the show. One point I do agree with you and Vorians on is how she magically became the adopted child of Sarek. I really think they could have picked a different Vulcan when the producers decided that was a requirement. As far as I’m concerned, she has to die to have any chance of matching Star Trek cannon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sigurd about the unbalanced rebalance of gender portrayal compared to previous ST series  (though I never noticed that there still tended to be a male bossing them all around) (I think Voyager was quite well balanced, with three females and four males making up the primary characters, where all the females were strong of character [except Kes in the first season or two, she was intentionally portrayed as rather weak and submissive]). In most episodes it tended to be two or three women charging around saving the day with minimal active male assistance; the men tended to be more sidelined and just being helpful when needed. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest because I quite enjoy seeing attractive women in television, but it did stand out.

 

I have always felt (without making any effort to find out whether this may be true or just my imagination) that Star Trek: Discovery was never conceived as a Star Trek series in the first place. I think that originally it was some completely unrelated sci-fi space ship show, and the writers were persuaded to rewrite it as Star Trek because that would guarantee a higher viewership. To me this explains why the ship travel technology is so out of place in Star Trek, why the the Klingons aren't really the Klingons we're used to, and why the style of the episode plots is so different to the norms of Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That could be. The one thing in particular that I don’t like with Discovery is the more advanced ship design and technology than what they would have had at that time. I was wondering how they were going to explain the disappearance of the spore drive, because there was no way they would hang on to ST fans if they continued to have that as an option.

Voyager is my favourite ST series, from season 4 onwards. The first three seasons were horrible!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kathryn Janeway ticked all the boxes, but was she too perfect to be believable? (Harping back again to Servillan who was a lot more mongrel- but infinitely more entertaining)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AndalayBay said:

Anyway pulling this thread off-topic.

I concur.  Which is why I haven't posted much in this thread lately, instead I've been playing Star Trek Timelines a lot. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AndalayBay said:

I wish Star Trek had more female writers. Then we might see a more realistic representation of women.

A good writer transcends gender- if one is able to infer gender readily from the content alone, switch to another channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Schtearn said:

A good writer transcends gender- if one is able to infer gender readily from the content alone, switch to another channel.

Yeah but we always see men trying to portray women. Having said that, I think they did a good job with Kate Mulgrew doing Janeway. But I don’t get Michael at all. She drives me nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×