Great example, thanks. A good fantasy has to have established consistencies and internal logic otherwise, at best, you have to suspend disbelief harder than you should have to.
Star Trek: Lower Decks.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Horse bollocks. Trashing the classics would imply throwing all of TNG or TOS under the bus. We’re not doing that; most of the actors who worked on it agreed TNGs first season was piss weak. And while TOS isn’t my favourite Trek, I can still name a good few of episodes from it that are damn classics of the genre.
It’s isn’t controversial to say that a seven season show had a bit of a weak opening season. Even sci fi titan Babylon 5’s first season is largely disposable outside I think nine or so critical episodes. And I say that as a hopeless mutant who really liked Michael O’Hare - rest his soul - as the lead actor.
You know the idea of critical thinking is an academic concept of self critical analysis of ones own work and the conclusions you believe you have come to with the aim of determining potential other explanations and trying to rule them out right?
It's not actually "Be very critical of the things you watch and see and nit pick all the time and criticise the world and everything in it" as certain pop culture pundits keep presenting it.
In terms of this it's important to view Star Trek TOS as a product of it's own time are there flaws? Yes. the important thing is to try and understand if the flaw is due to it's time or due an actual issue.
E.G. I could heavily criticise Babylon 5 for it's pretty awful CGI. However that wouldn't be much of a fair criticism as in it's time it was good and judging it against the standards of today, of course it won't look as good. There's a certain degree of almost acceptance of some issues you have to accept when viewing older shows.
Also I thought DS9 was now regarded as the best star Trek show?
Well they weren't always that close to human. I mean the Gorn exists in Star Trek.
It's more to do with the potential processing power so beyond a certain number of limbs the creature would spend more brain power trying to control it's limbs than anything else.
Oh Into Darkness was really one of the "Wagon Trail to the Stars" style things. It highlight a lot of the issues people have.
Khan in the Kelvinverse means nothing before then. They had to have old Spock basically big him up as a villain. There's also all the section 31 stuff which is really is a weird thing that keeps being something people want to bring up and make far more of a thing in modern Trek because they can then do fairly stock "Shady government agency" stories.
Beyond feels like the most Star Trek because there is some attempts at negotiation and more about coming together and working together. Into Darkness is a Wild West film but with a Star Trek skin in it. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it. I did but I very much had to stop seeing it as a Star Trek film.
Hell I only got through Picard by pretending it was a sequel to Gene Roddenberry's other show Andromeda
There's a lot of reasons for that potentially.
1) Cleaning out the nerds - I hate to say it but there's still some level of "Ew the nerds like this" so there's an attempt to push to more towards what is seen as the standard of the genre. Star Trek stood out in the genre because it showed a hopeful future where everyone had come together and a lot of petty issues no longer mattered. Also only it and Babylon 5 were shows more looking at ideologies and ideas. If the Nerds hate it and the narrative is the evil basement dwelling woman hating nerds who are everything wrong with the world then the show must be good and "progressive" or whatever.
2) The people writing it not being good at it or not actually caring. Some of the writers do care. Bits in Picard showed some-one cared a lot or cared enough to research a lot of stuff. The problem is it feels like some others involved don't care and are just used to writing standard Sci-Fi. It's like Paul Feig where he claimed to be a big fan of Ghostbusters but after Answer the Call came out and didn't make the numbers he admitted he wasn't really into Ghostbusters that much.
3) Wanting to leave an impact. This is one I bring up because it feels like a bad trend in media. People can't seemingly just relax and hope the audience enjoys the work, they're given big names to play with and they want to be remembered and leave their mark. Problem is to leave a good mark takes a lot of effort and skill, more so with well established properties that were built up by skilled people who worked hard. So my suspicion is some writers try to do good and then when they don't get audiences applauding them they get angry and decide if they can't be loved then they'll be remembered by being hated by the fanbase and try to radically shape things up in a way that will damage parts of the show. E.G. Series 12 of Doctor Who (the 2nd series with Jody Whitaker as The Doctor).
4) Politics and thinking they're smart or playing to lets say less than media literate critics. Some people choose to use the big name shows as a platform to snipe at their perceived political opponents. Some do it because they believe it's their duty to. Some do it because now they have control of the old guard and they want to destroy the past. Some do it because some critics don't seem to get political messaging unless it's about very present [current year] events and ideas and causes and will emphatically support and insult those who don't support shows that push certain idea. Don't believe me people might write like this? Watch the Series The Magicians which I do enjoy but it certainly takes it's shots at a lot of political targets.
Bourne brought in what I call the Grimdark era for spy stuff. You could argue xXx primed the waters for it by Bourne was when Grimdark really hit the spy fiction stuff.Every-one wanted to copy it one way or another and even James Bond the cheesy spy series went in that direction.
I mean I'm kinda happy Kingsman kind of brought back the silly somewhat over the top gadgets and the screw realism angle more.
The gorn are an exception. Again, look at TOS and TNG. How many alien species are there that are phenotypically identical to humans? Quite a few.
Frankly, to me, Into Darkness feels like the most Trekky film of the trio. It's the only one that tries to engage with socio-political themes in any real way (War on Terror, drone warfare, etc.) I'm not saying it does it subtly, but it at least does it.
"Gene Rodenberry's Andromeda" is technically a misnomer. Yeah, he had the original idea, but he took no part in its actual production.
Though you might already know that.
Calling James Bond "cheesy" is a bit iffy, because its cheese levels have gone up and down.
Roger Moore is known for being cheesy, Timothy Dalton isn't. Bronsan's run started with GoldenEye (non-cheese), but ended with Die Another Day (plenty of cheese). I'll grant you that Craig's run is more down to earth than any of its predecessors, but it's not a shift without precedent. And, at least personally, it's a shift I like. Casino Royale and Skyfall are my top Bond films. Drek like Die Another Day and Diamonds Are Forever are near the bottom.
I assume you mean differences beyond Skin colour so.
Vulcan have the Ears.
The Gorn
The Talosians aren't that human
andorians they have antennae
Tellarite
Thasians - though they're non corporeal
I'd say that's more of a Western film cliche. I.E. the general trying to stoke war with a different group by telling people the fugitive they seek is hiding out on their land.
Yeh I do lol. Hell you can see some of the similarities and influence of that earlier written work (which came out later) with Deep Space 9
I've not got round to actually watching the new films properly. I'm more into the silly stuff really. Also Goldeneye was somewhat cheesy. It played itself more straight than the other films but the cheesy moments were definitely there.
From TOS Seasons 1-2
-Onlies
-Organians
-Capellans
-Argellians
-Vaalians
-892-IV natives
-Neuralese
-Iotians
-Kohms
-Yangs
Again, that's just from the first two seasons, all of whom are identical to humans.
Maybe, but Into Darkness is seeped into WoT iconography.
Khan carries out a terrorist attack, which prompts a government to respond. Part of this is long-distance missiles that can take lives at the press of a button, removing moral accountability. The film ends with a starship smashing numerous buildings. At the end, Kirk reaffirms that Starfleet must never lose its values, as opposed to Marcus, who wants war at any cost.
Into Darkness is well in tune with the concerns of the time, or at least the concerns of the past decade.
I actually can't to be honest.
Andromeda could have easily been a Star Trek show (and I think that was the idea at one point, with Dylan Hunt rebuilding the Federation rather than the Commonwealth), but DS9? No, not really.
Moments, yes, but GoldenEye is a serious film that deals with pertinent themes.
The intro alone shows, without a word of dialogue, the dissolution of the Soviet Union. GoldenEye is very aware that this is a James Bond that's operating after the end of the Cold War, as M points out. Related to this is Trevalyan's motives, wanting revenge against the UK for refusing save haven for the Leinz Cossacks. Bond, fittingly enough, encounters Trevalyan in a statue park (the old relics of the Soviet Union), and the cinematography is excellent, showing the 'coldness' of Russia. This is brought up more than once, in conversations with Bond and Xenia, and with Mishkin. Even Trevalyan points out the hypocrisy of MI6, referring to "all those dictators" they removed. Yes, GoldenEye is still a film that has a space satellite that sets off EMPs, and a femme fatale who kills people through sex, but it's a film that's very aware of the era it's set in, and engages with its themes. Not as much as, say, Skyfall (which is very much an interrogation of the core concepts of the franchise), but they're there. And say what you want about Bronsan's run, but TND and TWINE both tried to engage with similar ideas pertinent to the time (media control, oil supply), albeit not as effectively.
Ah, no. Well, yeah ciritical thinking should definitely be about yourself. But it's also about seeing the world for what it is, not the myth we pretend. For example, I've been absolutely fascinated with the attacks on MSM over the last 5 years. Like someone didn't teach a whole bunch of people to critically analyse newspapers and that they have bias. In, like, grade 7, like I did. In a country town of 30 people. Full of Answers in Genesis fundamentalists. You know, the backwaters of my country. Definitely not some liberal hellhole Shapiro is so distasteful of. Another example is...
That's absolutely true. Your seeing them for what it is. Not the nostalgia that a bunch of people pretend. I am the one doing what your saying. Eg. I can point out that B5 often has very stilted dialogue, and even direction. The overall story takes precedent over characters and individual stories, sometimes to a fault. And its my favourite of these shows. (and taking into account personal tastes, obviously. No amount of Star Trek will make Deanna's mother palatable to me. But I'm very willing to admit bias.) I'm not pretending its the best thing ever because I like. I'm looking at it critically to see it for what it is.
Yeah, I don't know. Many opinions on the subject. It certainly is between TNG and DS9. They're very different shows, so it suits different taste.
Trunkage is quite correct on this point, he loves DS9 whereas I, while respecting its character work for folks like O’Brien, Kira, Odo and Nog, am of the opinion that the show can go fuck itself
Care to elaborate?Trunkage is quite correct on this point, he loves DS9 whereas I, while respecting its character work for folks like O’Brien, Kira, Odo and Nog, am of the opinion that the show can go fuck itself
I watched it, beginning to end. I wasn’t a fan of the Dominion War arc - though it produced some great episodes - because I felt the writers made the Dominion a villain sue and made the Federation give a poor showing despite the fact they won their wars with the Klingons and the Cardassians and were developing anti-Borg weapons. Would the Federation curb stomp the Dominion? No, that would be crazy. Bringing in the Klingons and Romulans though, especially the Romulans, meant they should have been putting up a much better showing than they did. Especially since in TNGs “The Wounded”, a Nebula-class starship tore ass through the Cardassian ships sent to stop it.
Overall I just didn’t enjoy it the way I did TNG, I felt some of its themes were against the overall message of Trek but also that Babylon 5 explores similar themes and did it way, way better. Plus Avery Brooks was insufferable as Sisko; I did not like the guy at all.
But it’s all subjective; and TNG has ita share of stinkers too - Hi, Dr. Pulaski, please fuck off and die. And Duras, you complete and utter asshole who nearly tore down the Klingon Empire - and is by no means innocent of fumbling its writing.
But like a lot of things Star Trek it can just boil down to which captain you prefer. I’ve always preferred Picard, and I always will so that colours my opinion in a big way.
That man is some kind of sorcerer to keep getting work.
He made Fringe, so he can get work. That being said, the only other things I've ever watch of his was the two new Star Treks and Hawaii 5-0