- Joined
- Sep 25, 2019
"Course Oblivion" wouldn't be out of place as an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Rod Serling would have some questions about how that went down but yeah pretty much.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Course Oblivion" wouldn't be out of place as an episode of The Twilight Zone.
Side note, @MembersSchoolPizza 's rundown of all the various iterations of Trek was fairly on point, but I wanted to weigh in about the movies:
I never liked the whole "Even Trek Movies are good, Odd Trek movies are bad," line... (Even before Nemesis utterly sank that notion.)
I'm not the biggest TOS show fan, but I would actually say that all 6 of the original TOS movies- Including both Star Trek (I): TheSlowMotion Picture, (my personal least favorite of the 6, and the one I would say to skip if you were going to skip any.) and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (The one that most people hate, and even I will qualify as "So bad it's good"), are worth watching at least once.
"Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" is a good movie, and an essential watch if you actually care about the overall story of these films, as it's the middle part of an otherwise well-written trilogy. It just has the misfortune of being sandwiched in between Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, (One of my personal top 5 favorite movies of all time.) And Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home i.e. the one with the whales... Which is a hella-dumb fun stereotypical 80's movie that a lot of people who aren't me love more than anything... (Ok, so I don't like it as much as most people seem to, but I still say it's worth watching... And there's a decent chance you'll like it more than I do...)
I watched, amongst other episodes, The Thaw which @intelligent-calcium recommended and it was required some level of theatre-tolerance to enjoy but it was good. And I am so far agreeing with @UnKillFill that Voyager seems "fine for what it is". I'm curious about this comment, though:
Who is the outstanding actor, in your opinion? The reason I ask is not because I think there are no good actors, but because I think there are several. Jerry Ryan is actually a fine actress. A fact which may be somewhat obscured for some by her amply ticking all the boxes for someone you could suspect was cast for their looks. The scenes of her calling out Janeway on not letting her choose to return to the Collective are very good, imo.
Episode reference please. *ahem*.
Alas, as I said I watched some of this. I felt it wasn't awful - it definitely had some good acting in it and decent moments. I liked the twist with the captain. I guess a lot of what people hate about it only applies to true fans who can see the ways it doesn't fit with Star Trek in general and get annoyed by that? Which didn't apply to me as I had only seen some Trek casually prior to it. Also the writer or director said in interview that the Klingons were an analogue for Trump Supporters so that didn't exactly help.
What?
WHAT?
As regards the DS9 discussion I've kicked off, I always had two impressions of it. One that it was a more realistic, deeper take on Star Trek. Two, that it was heavily ripped off from Babylon 5 and that the writer of B5 had previously sent them his proposal, they turned him down and then used his ideas for it. That left a sour taste in my mouth as a huge fan of B5. I probably would think it's good if I had the time to do it justice but right now, more feeling like some casual watching.
I feel sorry for the Jem'HadarDS9 had a darker take on this. TOS and TNG were far more optimistic we could move beyond our worst traits, but DS9's human nature episodes had the audacity to say "sometimes even our best is going to be morally grey, can you live with that?" A bit divisive, especially given how it seems to defy Roddenberry's original vision, but still compelling to ponder.
TNG has a lot of great ones. I'd save best of both worlds because it's almost an arc episode. Maybe substitute Brothers. The Ensigns of Command is also fun.If you want to get into Star Trek I recommend watching some stand-alone episodes from each series and then watching the show you think you'll like best going from there. I'll list some classic episodes from the top of my head but I'm sure everyone else in the thread will have their own recommendations.
TOS: Balance of Terror, Arena, Trouble with Tribbles
TNG: Measure of a Man, The Inner Light, Best of Both Worlds 1&2
DS9: The Visitor, Waltz, Things Past (DS9 is very story arc based so it's hard to find pure standalone episodes, I probably already failed)
VOY: Living Witness, The Thaw, Deadlock
Overall, I think Star Trek is a very rewarding franchise when you can develop the right mindset for it, but it can also be the most boring and cheesy shit if you don't.
My dream show would be set ~50 years after TNG and be completely episodic about a ship exploring one of the Magellanic Clouds or something. Don't even worry about canon because you're on a new frontier where it doesn't matter and invite competent sci-fi novelists to come in and write thoughtful episodes.It wouldn't even be that hard to make a show that Trekkies actually like:
-Ignore STD.
-Clearly state that the entirety of JJTrek (Including the shitty random Romulan supernova thing that *everyone* hated), didn't happen.
-Don't insert your shitty social justard politics.
-Make a show that checks up on, and doesn't shit on, characters that everyone likes... Such as: B-4 as Captain Data, The Doctor from Voyager (Who was probably classified as a "Synth" and shut down in this shit), pretty much all of the TNG crew (Who won't appear in ST: P, becausewe can't afford the actors as series regulars*they aren't important anymore,* and most normies probably wouldn't even recognize them anyway.
-Don't make a show that *clearly and obviously* hates everything in the same series that came before it.
Thankfully this shit isn't even canon.
Fuck, I always get that one mixed up with Waltz, so I accidentally recommended that one. Waltz is in fact a horrible episode to watch as a stand alone.You can't bring up DS9 without mentioning Duet.
Reminder: nemesis didn't if there was a trek movie between insurrection and nemesis.I never liked the whole "Even Trek Movies are good, Odd Trek movies are bad," line... (Even before Nemesis utterly sank that notion.)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7C7UcA-1FyIPretty sure he went full bottom surgery but Federation medicine is so advanced that Bashir just grew him a new dick at the end of the episode so Quark didn't have to join Section 41%. Not posting the conclusion to Threshold because that episode is a downward spiral that everyone should experience for themselves. People love to shit on these episodes, and they're not wrong, but I think they're fun to watch at least once to see how bad it gets.
Chakotay becomes more enjoyable once you know that the advisor they hired for all the Native American stuff was a scam artist who just fed them bullshit.
I watched some of Babylon 5 (up until season 2 episode 1) and the whole of DS9, so I might be able to advise you there.
For casual viewing, Voyager and TNG are the best, because they are designed to be, mostly, stand-alone stories. Easy to digest without needing to bing a whole season.
As for DS9, once you get to it, IMHO, it doesn't require as much commitment as B5 does. As you know, B5 started it's season wide arch since episode 1, so every episode had hints and heavy foreshadowing, but DS9 didn't become heavily "episodic" way until the dominion arc. In fact, much of its early episodes are classic "standalone science/philosophical problem of the week" trek. Especially the first few seasons.
One thing I will say about Voyager is that for all the reputation DS9 had about being the darkest Star Trek, Voyager imho had the most depressive episode of everything I've watched of Trek so far.
"Course Oblivion" wouldn't be out of place as an episode of The Twilight Zone.
There isn't a single trace of hope there.
Anyways, the actor I was referring to is Robert Picardo. His performance was often a bit on the silly side, but he was consistently my (and many other people's) favorite character on the show.
Jeri Ryan was fine, once you got over the fact that she was obviously meant to be eye candy - not a knock on her, but on the directors. Her and her skin tight suit was why the show sometimes jokingly got called "The Seven of Nine's Boobs Show" after her inclusion.
There's about five "major" complaints I have with Discovery:
1) The unneeded, unexplained, and frankly unpleasant remake of the Klingons. I concede the Klingons got redesigned from the original series when the first movie came about, but to be fair they got resesigned from "indistinguishable from humans Russia analog" to "interesting alien race", which I don't feel needed to happen a second time.
2) The spore drive. Odin' Fucking Buddha, the spore drive. It's so ungodly stupid it hurts the brain. Every single thing about it is stupid. Just when you think it couldn't be any stupider, they find a way.
3) Star Trek has always been an ensemble show. A bunch of characters, all getting, if not equal, then at least decent screen time of their own. Discovery isn't. It's the Mike Burnam Show. Season two got a little better about this, but there's still very clearly one main character that everything revolves around. No other Trek had been this way. Yeah, maybe a bit of that is just "not what we expected", but it's a radical departure from the formula.
4) It doesn't help that Mike's character offensively retconnected probably the single most beloved and iconic Star Trek character in some really, really stupid ways.
5) I know there's an inherent problem in trying to do prequels for a sci-fi show, because aesthetics and special effects technology both have progressed... Enterprise is frequently cited as being too high tech looking, for example, to be a prequel show. But at least Enterprise tried. The ship was small, cramped, industrial looking - it looked plausibly like you might imagine an early starship might look. Discovery... didn't even try. The ship is huge (internally, regardless of how big or small any technical specs might officially say it is), the technology is too good. If you told me the show was set post-Voyager, there's nothing about the show's presentation that could prove you wrong.
It really isn't. The entire episode is just embarrasing to watch and not because of any sort of respect towards "trans representation" or whatever bullshit, but because it's just cringy. The humour doesn't land at all and that's shameful for a Quark/Ferengi episode. If you need to watch any Ferengi-centric DS9 episode, pick The Magnificent Ferengi. A really funny episode though it helps to know a lot of context if you're going in blind.I now have to watch it no matter how bad it is. It looks hysterical.
She's called Mike because apparently Bryan Fuller (when he was still involved with the show in early production) likes giving female characters male names. It's incredibly retarded. And I agree with Tilly being a useless waste of space. It almost amused me how sidelined she actually was in S2 (not that anyone besides Mikey Burnham really got the time to shine).Hadn't thought about the ensemble / solo issue but obvious once you point it out. My biggest character issue with the show was her red-headed friend... Tilly? Deeply annoying character who probably should not be allowed anywhere near a starship. Also, why is the main character called Mike? Don't answer that - I know there's no actual good reason for it.
That's hillarious. If only the Internet had been around back then he'd have had a thread here for certain.
My two cents about Trek is it's a campy franchise with a lot of heart to it. If that is missing from any of the series, then it just doesn't work.
Bashir and Garak break up after that time Garak flips out because space drugs.So all the discussion about DS9 got me re-watching it again, and I'm struck by something.
Garak and Bashir have a fantastic bromance.
O'Brien and Bashir have a fantastic bromance.
Bashir is bromantically unfaithful to his bromantic partners, or else he's in an open bromance.
Although it's possible either or both are slightly less of a bromance, and more of a bromance. Garak outright was hitting on Bashir at times, and, well...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ali3c7FaQGU:60
I'm sure there was quite a discussion about it, if you can find an usenet archive there's probably some hilarious stuff in it. for example I still remember the group alt.wesley.crusher.die.die.die
Death to fujoshis.So all the discussion about DS9 got me re-watching it again, and I'm struck by something.
Garak and Bashir have a fantastic bromance.
O'Brien and Bashir have a fantastic bromance.
Bashir is bromantically unfaithful to his bromantic partners, or else he's in an open bromance.
Although it's possible either or both are slightly less of a bromance, and more of a bromance. Garak outright was hitting on Bashir at times, and, well...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ali3c7FaQGU:60
Death to fujoshis.
So, while Picard just had to defeat an evil Borg Queen in a movies, Sisko had to question himself if Falsifying evidence, murdering criminals and an ambasssador to fool a superpower to joining them in a war effort, and maybe even dooming also them in the process was worth it.
Didn't Picard bang Crusher's mom at some point?Sisko is hands down the greatest Star Trek captain of all time, because he's a realistically drawn character with recognizably human motivations and flaws, and deals with moral dilemmas where it's not obvious there even *is* a pure, good and righteous option.
Picard was elevated by Stewart's acting chops and gravitas, but look past that and he's a fundamentally silly and unrealistic character. He's a well-intentioned liberal college professor... IN SPAAACE! The truth is, he'd probably end up being mugged for his space-wallet at Farpoint Station, by alien scumbags who don't give a shit about the bald windbag's naive lectures on ethics and diplomacy.
Remember when he had the chance to finally wipe out the Borg, after they had murdered billions of innocent people and kidnapped and techno-raped Picard personally? And he was like "no... the Borg have human rights too XD XD!"
Ridiculous, fake and gay. It'd be like if a mid-level American officer in WW2 had an opportunity to singlehandedly take down Nazi Germany and decided to stroke his chin while congratulating himself on his virtue instead. He'd probably be court-martialled and then shot, and rightly so.
Sisko is what you actually want in a CO. He's a fighter, a man who is always ready to get his hands dirty to protect the people depending on him. Because outside of the comfortable bubble the Federation exists in, it's a tough universe out there. There's all sorts of people and things trying to do you, kill you, rip you off, everything. If you're going to survive out there, you've really got to know where your phaser is.
Also, he's a good Dad. And this helps explain the difference between DS9 and lesser Treks. There's a tendency in science fiction in general and Star Trek in particular for the protagonists to be strangely Peter Pan like free spirits untethered to wives and children and meaningful personal relationships you can't just walk away from to have space adventures.
Kirk boffed the alien chick of the week like a galactic James Bond. Picard only had his fish and his sex tourism to Risa. Archer had a dog. Like most people, I didn't watch Voyager.
This is fine for the purposes of writing adolescent genre fiction, but it's ultimately shallow and unsatisfying for neurotypical adult viewers because it's not a rounded or realistic depiction of actual human beings. Sisko had to juggle commanding a space station with being a single father, which gave him a depth and humanity we rarely see in sci fi.
3) Star Trek has always been an ensemble show. A bunch of characters, all getting, if not equal, then at least decent screen time of their own. Discovery isn't. It's the Mike Burnam Show. Season two got a little better about this, but there's still very clearly one main character that everything revolves around. No other Trek had been this way. Yeah, maybe a bit of that is just "not what we expected", but it's a radical departure from the formula.
Picard was elevated by Stewart's acting chops and gravitas, but look past that and he's a fundamentally silly and unrealistic character. He's a well-intentioned liberal college professor... IN SPAAACE! The truth is, he'd probably end up being mugged for his space-wallet at Farpoint Station, by alien scumbags who don't give a shit about the bald windbag's naive lectures on ethics and diplomacy.
That's a big problem with the show. Mikey is literally a Mary Sue, which itself was a parody of obnoxiously OP self-insert characters. The other characters aren't as interesting as they could be because they are there to check off diversity quota boxes without having interesting characters. The only character that even those that hate the show remotely like is Tilly, and that's because she's (often obnoxiously) buoyant and is well-endowed. Bad sign.
Stewart is a tremendous actor (though a poor creative mind). The only reason I have to like Picard is because he is played well. That's about it. I don't know why so many people vociferously defend TNG as if its peak Star Trek. The worst stereotypes regarding Trek - boring, "heady," pretentious, obnoxiously liberal - really refer to TNG era Trek. That's not to say that TOS had its moments of liberal sanctimony, but the characters were iconic and lovable and the stories were generally good. The TNG era represents the age of decadence that is produced by good times.
Didn't Picard bang Crusher's mom at some point?