Star Trek - The Bear and Badger

Verecocha

Diluted Dante wrote:

It can have the rights to the name back when it ties itself back into continuity

And where could they really go in that universe? With its far too hospital like environments, dickless enemy state of mind and increasingly awful film ideas?

I did love them to a point within that timeline but it became so soft and boring it all had to end. The only good film in years was First Contact, and the entire brand was becoming so very stale, non marketable and certainly non profitable in contemporary cinema or even television.

Diluted Dante

mistercrayon wrote:

Diluted Dante wrote:

It can have the rights to the name back when it ties itself back into continuity

isn't it in the continuity? Surely all that stuff about (you know) couldn't have been explained to Spock if it hadn't happened to (you know).

I'm not actually sure what you're referring to here.

The only thing that's in continuity now with it is Enterprise, because that came before. The filmmakers though wouldn't even begin to consider how anything they do affects that, so it might as well not be.

As for the films, I really like all of the Next Generation films. Insurrection is a particular favourite. it gets knocked for being like a feature length episode, but what that actually means if that it very much has a Star Trek feel.

Star Trek by comparison was a great film, possibly an even better one, but not a very good Star Trek film.

n0face

Diluted Dante wrote:

As for the films, I really like all of the Next Generation films. Insurrection is a particular favourite. it gets knocked for being like a feature length episode, but what that actually means if that it very much has a Star Trek feel.

Star Trek by comparison was a great film, possibly an even better one, but not a very good Star Trek film.

I'd agree with all of that.

Escape

Continuumity. Ha!

Blue Swirl

Insurrection was a good film? The reboot films not Star Trekky enough to be called Star Trek? Are you a loon? Insurrection was pain incarnate, while the reboot films feature Kirk shagging everything in sight, breaking all the rules, punching things in the face with two fists, and plots stolen directly from mythology and legend. It couldn't be more Trek if it tried.

Oh, and bugger the continuity. That went out the window as soon as Enterprise decided that time travel meant they could do what they wanted and did stuff like meeting the Ferengi 400 years early. With ten films, six TV series, comics and novels, the continuity was a blummin' mess anyway. Plus, the reboot films are tied into the original continuity; the first one makes it pretty clear that it's an alternate universe. Alternate universes have featured in Trek since TOS, and played a pretty big part in the plot of DS9.

I don't get the vitriol directed towards the reboot films. They're the best Star Trek we've had in ages.

Verecocha

Like Blue said I would imagine the new Star Trek is a lot closer to the imagined universe originally created with Kirk.

TNG was shambolic though enjoyable with characters like Q and the entire Vagina soft like approach to 90% of the episodes it was so very boring, IMO of course, and far too political in nature. And each to there own but really you enjoyed the TNG films? Generations? Nemesis?

I'd imagine this conversation was had somewhere when TNG replaced the original, when DS9 was around and the Enterprise. The reboot films are how I like and envisage the ST universe and its modernised the brand for new generations. I know its awful when things change direction to appease a new and wider audience but to say its not Star Trek is a little much, just not how you like Star Trek.

Yossarian

Incidentally, are any of you nerds nerdy enough to have all the Star Trek sitting on a hard drive?

ChopperByrne

Insurrection was great if you were watching DS9 at the time.

It really showed how desperate the Federation were at the time when they were trying to make their own super soldiers for the war effort.

Diluted Dante

Verecocha wrote:

Like Blue said I would imagine the new Star Trek is a lot closer to the imagined universe originally created with Kirk.

TNG was shambolic though enjoyable with characters like Q and the entire Vagina soft like approach to 90% of the episodes it was so very boring, IMO of course, and far too political in nature. And each to there own but really you enjoyed the TNG films? Generations? Nemesis?

I'd imagine this conversation was had somewhere when TNG replaced the original, when DS9 was around and the Enterprise. The reboot films are how I like and envisage the ST universe and its modernised the brand for new generations. I know its awful when things change direction to appease a new and wider audience but to say its not Star Trek is a little much, just not how you like Star Trek.

This would be the crux of it I guess. The things we like about Star Trek are very different. The political aspects of TNG are one of the things I like most about the series. This is the main reason I like Insurrection so much. As Chopper says, Insurrection is made by the connection to DS9. If you weren't watching DS9 then a lot of it is likely lost on you.

My only issue with Generations was Kirks death. Nemesis was enjoyable, though would have benefited greatly from being directed by Johnathan Frakes rather than the guy who did do it. Patrick Stewart puts in a masterclass performance.

Tempy

I pretty much like all Star Trek i've ever seen, new and old alike (although I have to say I didn't get on with Insurrection) but yeah, even the one where they find God, and the one with V'Ger that everyone seems to think is pony. But I've not seen Enterprise because the theme song is awful.

But the bottom rule is this: arguing over what is better is silly and pointless as it's obvious that there is no objective rule as to what is better, due to Trek doing so many things that appeal to people in different reasons. It's goofy, capable of action, navel gazing, political scheming, character relationships, exploring humanity via proxy (Spock, Data, 7of9 etc) marvelous aliens, ludicrous technology, space battles, gun fights, quirky comedy.

Etc.

Trying to squirrel out 'the best Trek' is ultimately pointless, because you're trying to overlay your personal preferences onto other people, instead of appreciating each incarnation of Trek for what it chooses to do best, which is frequently take one or two aspects and focus on them. JJ Trek is clearly Bombast and Crew Relationship, with a little bit of Nostalgia Hugging for good measure. You'll never get political or navel gazing with it, leave that to the next TV series which will probably be in Swedish and involve chunky knit uniforms, or it'll be Game of Starfleet and there'll be a charismatic Klingon Dwarf.

Blue Swirl

Hmm, I did go off DS9 towards the end, may give it (and hence Insurrection) another go. Generations and First Contact are my favourite TNG films. I wonder if my local library has the TV shows on DVD.

Also, what Tempy said.

mistercrayon

spoilers for new star trek 1 (@dante)

Spoiler:

Little Franklin

There are lots of different things I've liked about the Star Trek franchise over the years. The JJ movie didn't really have any of them.

Blue Swirl

That I genuinely don't get. Every legitimate complaint I've heard levelled at the JJ Abrams films could be equally applied to any incarnation of Trek.

Diluted Dante

mistercrayon wrote:

spoilers for new star trek 1 (@dante)

Spoiler:

if the new films have original Spock in them then they must have some relation to old star treks continuity, the new film relates to events in the old star trek universe very directly thus they must be at least partly within the continuity of the original star trek.

Yes, the problem is that the only part it now keeps is Enterprise. If they go down a repair the timeline route, I'll be happy.

I think Eberts review comes closest to articulating how I feel about the new film:

The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.

One thing I would love to see is a film (or probably two or three really) of the Eugenics Wars. That allows you to to have Kirk in there to play it safe, but have the main part of the films focusing on Gary Seven, Roberta Lincoln and more importantly, Khan.

Yossarian

I think it needed a reboot myself. Too much baggage without it.

Diluted Dante

Also in things I'd like to see:

Stargazer series.

Rev

I love the new films loads.
I didn't like the old ones much at all.
First contact was about loud and colorful explosions from what I remember.

tigersgogrrr

I'm sure I saw recently that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted Spock to have a tail and be from Mars (can't find evidence of this now though).

VISIONARY.

Little Franklin

Blue Swirl wrote:

That I genuinely don't get. Every legitimate complaint I've heard levelled at the JJ Abrams films could be equally applied to any incarnation of Trek.

Not saying there isn't a whole lot of shit in the franchise, just that the movie seemed to be missing all the not shit bits.

Little Franklin

tigerswiftly wrote:

I'm sure I saw recently that Gene Roddenberry originally wanted Spock to have a tail and be from Mars (can't find evidence of this now though).
VISIONARY.

Yeah never considered him a genius or even a good writer. He did a good job of creating a nice, optimistic, utopian world but I think most of what I like about star trek comes from Nicholas Meyer and whoever produced DS9.

Blue Swirl

Went to buy a USB stick yesterday, noticed that the store was doing every Trek film for $10 each (about £5). So I bought I to VI and the first reboot. I would have got the TNG ones too, but they didn't have Insurrection and it'd make me twitch to have an incomplete set.

Guess what I'm doing this weekend?

EvilRedEye

Sitting in complete darkness attempting to fill a glass with your own bitter tears?

Blue Swirl

Mod74

Blue Swirl wrote:

Guess what I'm doing this weekend?

Not having sex.

Diluted Dante

That's because Insurrection is too popular.

I've started watching TOS again as it's on Netflix. I know that Shatner is legendary in his role, but honestly, Jeffrey Hunter could have been a fine Captain. His Pike shares many similarities with Kirk, and it would have been interesting to see what could have come from Star Trek if he had stayed on.

Blue Swirl

Mod74 wrote:

Blue Swirl wrote:

Guess what I'm doing this weekend?

Not having sex.

With gusto!

Diluted Dante wrote:

That's because Insurrection is too popular.

Or so bad they couldn't be bothered stocking the DVDs.

Diluted Dante wrote:

I've started watching TOS again as it's on Netflix. I know that Shatner is legendary in his role, but honestly, Jeffrey Hunter could have been a fine Captain. His Pike shares many similarities with Kirk, and it would have been interesting to see what could have come from Star Trek if he had stayed on.

William Shatner would have never become famous, and hence would never have made an album. If time travel is ever invented, it should be stop number one, just before killing Hitler.

Brooks

Might watch new movie, I dunno. Wasn't terribly into the last one.

Diluted Dante

Listening to Abrams talk about Star Trek on the Daily Show is painful.

"I didn't like Star Trek because it was too philosophical."

Brooks

Oh yeah, really troubling the canon that Roddenberry.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories