|
I'll be sauced up nice and good that night. I'll cuss at the screen and make wild gesticulations with my arms and hands. STAR TREK.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
It's the year two thousand and seventeen, I don't see any Star Trek. I was promised Star Trek, where is the Star Trek? Why, why, why why? *Sobs incoherently*
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Orv posted:It's the year two thousand and seventeen, I don't see any Star Trek. I was promised Star Trek, where is the Star Trek? Why, why, why why? *Sobs incoherently* Bad news. Discovery has been postponed until Summer 2018 because they need to redesign the uniforms and also Jason Isaacs is in a coma from drinking window cleaner that he mistook for Romulan Ale. CBS is run by chumps. They stink like a paper mill.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
Astroman posted:PICTURED: Goons from the TVIV on the night of Discovery's premiere Yea, there's probably only 2 goons who have access to CBS's streaming thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, there's probably only 2 goons who have access to CBS's streaming thing. I'm international, I'll be HDing on Netflix.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Netflix is getting both eps 1 and 2 the day after only ep 1 airs in the US. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, there's probably only 2 goons who have access to CBS's streaming thing. The premier is being broadcast over the air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:The premier is being broadcast over the air. Oh, so it'll be the 2 goons who watch live TV.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Netflix is getting both eps 1 and 2 the day after only ep 1 airs in the US. Only one episode ever is going to air in the US. The 2nd episode will be up on all-access immediately after the first one airs though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:Oh, so it'll be the 2 goons who watch live TV. I almost never do, but for events like the Superbowl or Oscars or for something like this, it's a more reliable quality than live streaming. At least, it is for where I live and how much I pay for internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
I'll watch the first episode on the ancient altar, and then well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
Hmm, it's going to be up on Netflix UK 25th September, day after airing in the US. If that's midnight 25th, due to time zones, that'll be before it actually airs in the US. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
While it's not going to come anywhere close to dethroning Game of Thrones as the #1 pirated TV/movie ever, I think there is a decent change it wins the race in % of pirated to non-pirated views in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Frakes directing an episode: http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/27/star-trek-discovery-jonathan-frakes/
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Actually, this entire show will turn out to have been a holosimulation in which Ol Fat Riker was learning how to be a strong independent black woman who don't need no command
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:https://twitter.com/ksheely/status/879590926443728896 Wait until this guy finds out what the original Enterprise was based on. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Harry Kim feels like a redshirt they kept forgetting to kill. Even when they do kill him he still gets brought back somehow. Im starting to root for it. Come on Harry, today's the day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Gonz posted:I'll be sauced up nice and good that night. I'll cuss at the screen and make wild gesticulations with my arms and hands. START TRUCK
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Start Wreck is a great name for the new series.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Start Wreck is a great name for the new series. Wasn't there some weird foreign movie called Star Wreck that was full of CG models of ST ships and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Wasn't there some weird foreign movie called Star Wreck that was full of CG models of ST ships and stuff? The adventures of James B. Pirk, Finnish space hero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wreck
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:Frakes directing an episode: Given what a prolific genre TV director he is, it would almost be more surprising for him not to be doing an episode, but still. Bonus points if he gets drunk with Sirtis and does commentary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Was Roddenberry alive for the first appearance of the Borg? Was he ever able to say what he thought of them? I have a wee bit of a notion that, of all the things TNG did, the Borg must surely have been one of the things he'd have most disliked, since they can be taken as the kind of twisted version of his own vision of the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Was Roddenberry alive for the first appearance of the Borg? Was he ever able to say what he thought of them? I have a wee bit of a notion that, of all the things TNG did, the Borg must surely have been one of the things he'd have most disliked, since they can be taken as the kind of twisted version of his own vision of the future. Q Who came out in 1989, so yes he was. However, he was already in poor mental and physical condition and was by that point no longer doing significant work on the series. Later that year he had the stroke that confined him to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, so I don't know that he ever commented on them - surely not publicly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:Was Roddenberry alive for the first appearance of the Borg? Was he ever able to say what he thought of them? I have a wee bit of a notion that, of all the things TNG did, the Borg must surely have been one of the things he'd have most disliked, since they can be taken as the kind of twisted version of his own vision of the future. I do know that he hated "Family", the episode that came after the Borg cliffhanger "Best of Both Worlds" but by that point it didn't matter, he had no control over TNG by then. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-story-daring-cliffhanger-803642 Ron Moore posted:Moore: We had to kind of fight for "Family." [Star Trek creator] Gene Roddenberry hated it. He wanted to throw it out. My only story meeting with Gene was that episode. It was me and Michael and Rick Berman, who was running the production side of things, we all met in Gene's office and Gene just said "this isn't the 24th century." "These brothers reflect outdated, 20th-Century modes of childhood development. Mankind had solved these kind of issues by then. I hate this." I sat there and I was a really green writer. I was like, "Oh my God, what are we going to do? I'm dead." We walked out in the hall and I just looked at Michael and Rick and was like, "What do I do now?" They said, "You know what? Just go write your story, we'll work with Gene." That was the last I ever heard of it. So they went off behind the scenes and did something and got him to back off or let it go or kind of distracted him with something else, because then we did the show.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
If you want to see some truly impressive wailing and gnashing of teeth, commenters on Ars are freaking the gently caress out over the news that Discovery will have actual interpersonal conflict.quote:Not happy with this at all. The thing about Star Trek that was great was that it wasn't realistic from our current definition of realism. It was optimistic and it was idealistic, not realistic. That's what I find endearing about Star Trek. If I'm in the mood for gritty realism in sci fi, I'll watch the Expanse but that's not what's charming about Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry had good reason to do what he did and can't believe they can just ignore it. Can't the Roddenberry estate sue them or something for this? quote:I'm really tired of this recent trend of making main characters "realistic", "flawed", or whatever you want to call it. I miss the days when the main characters were presented as role models and heroes, who did do the right thing and were worthy of emulation. quote:Welp. This just feeds into my fears that the new Star Trek will make a hard left turn into intersectional identity politics. quote:The foremost reason that I watched Star Trek was because of Roddenberry and how his vision shaped even the writing of the show. Now these newcomers want to take away the optimistic vision of our future at even the interpersonal level that he gave us, and replace it with the same disgusting interpersonal dynamics that we exhibit now? I don't want that realism; I can step out my front door to get that. Gimme back my Utopian delusion. It's not the monumental clusterfuck that the entire project has been that's got people worried, it's that the producers aren't worried about Roddenberry's Box. And anyone who dares to say that Roddenberry was a lunatic gets downvoted into oblivion. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Leaked footage of Roddenberry's ideal ST: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXGL9NEbqXA
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
It's nice every once and a while to get confirmation that even as into Star Trek as I am, I'm not an insane person about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Timby posted:
shadok posted:
Technology doesn't fix humanity. Humans don't stop being humans because they're being fed regularly and can teleport to the moon. Did Gene have problems connecting with or understanding people? I get the feeling he was on the spectrum and it really played into how he crafted his vision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
vermin posted:Did Gene have problems connecting with or understanding people? Oh, Gene understood people very well, which is why he was so good at manipulating them. He was basically just a sociopath. For example, when David Gerrold was coming to the end of his tenure on TNG, he was told that a script of his needed a rewrite, and that someone else would do it. It gets assigned to writer / producer Herb Wright, who's scrambling to get scripts finished. So Gerrold goes to Wright and says, "Hey, I can do this rewrite," and Wright says that's perfect, because he doesn't want to rewrite Gerrold in the first place. So Gerrold goes and lets Roddenberry know he's doing the rewrite on the script, Roddenberry says, "Oh, that's great, that's exactly what I wanted all along, thank you so much, just make sure it's okay with Herb." Gerrold goes back to Wright's office, where he's getting off the phone, and Wright says, "Look, I don't lie for anyone, I want you to know this. That was Gene on the phone, and he wanted me to tell you that I think it's not okay for you to rewrite your script."
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Gene Roddenberry was not autistic ffs. His image of the future was shaped by a bunch of Aquarian Age type bullshit and lots and lots of drugs and sycophancy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
I love the compliant that Star Trek might dabble in identity politics  as if it hasn't dealt directly with social issues all along.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
I appreciate gene's vision that he thought that technology would solve a lot of our problems, but he also acknowledged that we'd need equally fantastic advances in the social sciences and our culture in general. I don't think it's insane or crazy to think that some post-scarcity humans could develop a society like he envisioned. We find cures for mental illness, we break the cycle of lovely parents that gently caress up their kids who produce more hosed up kids, we reform the justice system into something much more like the medical/mental health system where it's about both prevention and cure, not punishment (not that there is much crime anymore with the economic causes removed). But where TNG failed was taking this society for granted, thinking once we got there it just like humanity had leveled up and took the "utopian" perk. DS9 showed that we're still human animals though, that the amazing utopia we built had to be maintained and defended both from within and without. We were still flawed human(oids), we still snapped or got into conflicts, we just had much better tools at our disposal to then react to these situations. As much as Rod & Berries was a bit nuts about his "vision" of a 100% flawless federation utopia with no cracks, the other extreme that we see in scifi a lot more is this trope that technology can advance but human society can never advanced beyond where we are today, which is I think is even more silly. Much like the industrial revolution saw a massive and rapid increase in productivity and population growth around the world, people like Roddenberry subscribed to a very 60's idea that a similar event was about to take place on the social front. This magical age of Aquarius never really panned out how they hoped, if at all, but I don't discount the idea that humans could experience something like that one day if the right material and political and social conditions align.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
It's important to remember that even as far back as the 60's they assumed things would get a lot worse first (Eugenics Wars, WW3) before they got better
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Orv posted:It's nice every once and a while to get confirmation that even as into Star Trek as I am, I'm not an insane person about it. Is this too long for a thread title?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I appreciate gene's vision that he thought that technology would solve a lot of our problems, but he also acknowledged that we'd need equally fantastic advances in the social sciences and our culture in general. I don't think it's insane or crazy to think that some post-scarcity humans could develop a society like he envisioned. We find cures for mental illness, we break the cycle of lovely parents that gently caress up their kids who produce more hosed up kids, we reform the justice system into something much more like the medical/mental health system where it's about both prevention and cure, not punishment (not that there is much crime anymore with the economic causes removed). To borrow a phrase, "Someone should have labeled the future 'some assembly required'"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
I can imagine a world without material want and improvements in psychology and general reform of social structures would make more well-adjusted people on average. But they're still going to be people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:I love the compliant that Star Trek might dabble in identity politics TNG: strong female security officer, disabled black man as chief engineer, veiled discussion of Irish/Palestinian conflicts DS9: interspecies crew, exploration of political ramifications of a post-genocide, black single parent. Yeah where's my Lilly white bland as mayo depiction of the future loving SWJaysssss. FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jun 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:
Voyager
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Trip report: DS9 season 2, episodes 20-21, "The Maquis" This Vulcan member of the Maquis is just everything wrong with TNG-era Vulcans. I'm sure you could write a Vulcan character who finds it logical to do what she's doing, that's not the problem, although I kept waiting for her to be revealed as a Romulan agent sowing chaos and discord, especially after her failed mind meld attempt. But no, she's just a Vulcan, and played in the worst way, as blasé and hopelessly naive. I mean can you imagine if, for example, Spock or Sarek had coldly, logically decided to start killing people? They'd be terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2017 18:10
|
|