Trekky Thread, going where we have been before, or something like that

There's a bumper sticker: Pets enrich our lives.

I firmly believe that. I miss not having pet. Which is why I work at a Kennel.

Okay Star...you got me!

Halasían said:

I can't believe Nobody but me is even interested in the new upcoming movie. That will be interesting.

Click to expand...

I'm very interested in the upcoming movie, mind you. I am, however very skeptical. Changing cast members to play characters can be really bad. I've only ever seen one movie that had alternate cast members and was still amazing, and that was "M*A*S*H". I got into the show, and fell head over heals in love with Allen Alda, and then I watched the movie with Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye, and was very surprised that it was equally good. Other than that (recent example was the Mummy 3, changing the casting for Evie) they've been...*shudders* let's just say it was nowhere near impressive.

by Halasían
Hey Illuin, I wasn't "dissing" your beloved TNG, just expressing my opinion. Its a fact that I gained more satisfaction watching new episodes of DS9 every week than I ever did watching new episodes of TNG. Take it as you will.

I can't believe Nobody but me is even interested in the new upcoming movie. That will be interesting.

Click to expand...

Ha! I was just messing with you. Whenever anyone says a series is better than my TNG, I’m like: "Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis"? Don't worry, I’m never serious, but I do revel in a little instigation when I’m bored (all in good fun of course

). And by the way; I’m interested in the new movie as well - it's Star Trek - of course I'm interested!

K, just a quick note: Even more disillusioned about Star Trek: Enterprise than I was when the series first came out and I was seriously hoping it would be good . . . not because I saw Enterprise again, but because of a Voyager I watched today.

I wouldn't call it a great episode because it involved only two characters interacting, T'Pal (T'Pol? . . . the annoying Vulcan who couldn't keep her clothes on) and Dr. What's-his-name (Flaxx, Floxx, Flak, the very unmemorable fellow), and obviously neither of them was my favorite, but the plot was interesting so it stuck in my head and if I had to list the best Enterprise episodes, it is probably third on the list (First being the one where Hoshi disappeared due to a transporter accident which was really intriguing up until they spoiled it by it being all a dream, second being the time ship they discovered with the corpse in it where they kept on getting stuck in loops . . .) and it is a very very short list of good Enterprise episodes (I stopped watching that series very early in its existence, btw), anyway, rambling . . . drinks her coffee tries to find her track.

K, the basic idea behind this episode was that the crew had to go into stasis because the human physiology was not equipped to deal with radiation in a specific part of space and it would cause halucinations etc. Only the Dr. and T'Pol are supposedly immune because they are not human so they run the ship by themselves and partway through the doctor starts halucinating too and has to hold things together while slowly loosing his sanity. I gave this episode kudos for an interesting plot line . . . until today when I saw the Voyager episode "One." The crew of Voyager needs to journey through a nebula where the radiation is harmful to organic flesh so they are put in stasis chambers while the Doctor (hologram and so immune) and Seven (Partially Borg, immune) have to care for the ship alone for a month until Seven starts to experience ill effects because she is not used to being alone and the radiation is causing her problems. . .

The sad thing was that the Voyager original was so much better than the Enterprise rip off that it made what had once been a good Enterprise simply a bad version of what was actually only a so so Voyager.

Now I know these shows borrow from one another. CSI, Bones, and Life all did a "Guy with two wives turns up dead, which of the wives discovered he was two timing and knocked him off" episode . . . Star Trek TNG and the original shared a lot of plot devices, such as the radiation which made people react as if they were drunk, Q vs that harpsicorde player, I forget his name, Tremain? Something like that . . . but since they are set in the same universe it makes sense that there would be some collision of phenomena and generally they explain it with a "On stardate whatever Captain Kirk did encounter a similar . . . "

Taking a script and basically reproducing it one plot twist at a time though . . . ugh . . . it just makes me feel as if the writers on Enterprise were lazy as well as incompetant.

Reading your entire post (very in-depth, mind you), and your wisdom regarding that very post indeed proves my theory….TNG RULES

! Without TNG, even the original series would have been forgotten.

By HLGStrider
Star Trek TNG and the original shared a lot of plot devices, such as the radiation which made people react as if they were drunk

Click to expand...

Ahh: The incident Data cherishes above all things (Tasha Yar

) . This indeed saved his life down the road by the way ("The Measure of a Man") . A classic indeed!

HLGStrider said:

Taking a script and basically reproducing it one plot twist at a time though . . . ugh . . . it just makes me feel as if the writers on Enterprise were lazy as well as incompetant.

Click to expand...

After reading your whole post (I agree with Illuin, very in-depth), I got to the very end of and saw the above quoted.

I don't think they were lazy or incompetent. I think that:

A: Enterprise is the fifth Star Trek Show. Expectation are very high, and people are hard to please.

B: Throughout the previous four series, certain "guidelines" of what is acceptable for Star Trek have been set, and that limits what the "Enterprise" crew (no pun intended there!) can do.

C: Between the Original Series and Enterprise, alot of things have changed. Alot of those involved in the beginning (including Gene Roddenberry) have retired or died, therefire the minds behind the beauty of Star Trek are MIA.

D: Our modern technology is catching up to TOS, making the Star Trek universe seem less and less exciting to us as a culture.


I could think of more, but the point of all that is just that "Enterprise" has alot to live up to, little to work with, and point and fact, it's just as hard today as it was thirty years ago for a group of people to write, shoot, and edit a 45 minute program in seven days or less.


PS...Not that I'm defending "Enterprise", I'm a die hard TNG freak! Just some thoughts.

by Firawyn
I could think of more, but the point of all that is just that "Enterprise" has alot to live up to, little to work with, and point and fact, it's just as hard today as it was thirty years ago for a group of people to write, shoot, and edit a 45 minute program in seven days or less.

Click to expand...

I think you make some valid points; but the fact remains….it’s all about the cast; and the interaction with the cast. Scott Bakula (Captain Jonathan Archer) is not Patrick Stewart; nor Brent Spiner, Jonathan Frakes, or Michael Dorn (Worf). It’s all about the cast. Rick Berman was the writer for TNG, as well as Enterprise. What made the difference…?? brilliant acting. Voyager was good, but Stewart introduced not just “good”, but absolute greatness to the series. He is the reason the show survived and spawned satellite shows. Nothing will ever compare (Tolkien may have a shot, but he has serious competition as far as I’m concerned). TNG in my eyes is on that level or beyond. I must add something here. Viggo Mortensen, Sean Astin, Ian McKellen, and Elijah Wood are indeed some of the finest actors of our time; but compared to Patrick Stewart? No, they are babies, and indeed have a ways to go .

I personally think that the characters in Enterprise also were a little more stereotypical without quite managing archetypal. If that makes any sense. The captain as the person willing to do anything for his/her ship and crew but still with a great sense of honor and pride and "Never give up, never surrender" if I may, is classic. Archer didn't really get much past the bravado part of the job. Two of the characters got caught up in parts dictated to them by accents (Malcolm has a British accent so lets make him slightly snooty and reserved . .. oh, and if we give the engineering guy a Texan accent he can be our Cowboy.).

Plus in my opinion they broke out the sexual tension too early between main characters. Then they totally spoiled the timeline with that borg episode . . . and the whole thing was less and less about discovering and exploring and more and more about political plots and people trying to destroy humanity altogether. This led to very few self-contained episodes. The majority of the stories were trying to continue on a major storyline, and I like the "let's have it wrapped up by the end of our 45 minutes" to be the norm on these shows.

All in all it just didn't feel like Star Trek.

I can see I've been away from this thread for too long when I miss Barley and Star popping in!

I completely agree with Barley's assessment of Danny Crane being Shatner's perfect role. The swarm just oozes out of him, doesn't it?

As to the new movie, I'm really bummed because I doubt I'll be able to find anyone to go with me!

And, of course adults still go treat-or treating! Kids are just an excuse...please....although I always preferred staying home once the hatchlings were old enough to participate in terrorising the poor hapless vict-er, jolly kiddies that happened to find their way to our door...to quote Filch, "Ah, the screamin'!"

You can tell we are all nerds when we post random quotes and assume that the others will know what we mean. Elgee, that was Galaxy Quest, correct? And Chrys, the Filch reference was to Harry Potter?

@ Illuin,

Yes, you are quite right, the cast does make alot of an impact. Patrick Stewart is "the best of the best of the best sir!" (name that quote anyone?) Have you seen Stewart's rendition of A Christmas Carol ? It was amazing.

Anyway, but do you really think that the cast is everything? Surely you've seen movies because you loved the actor, and were disappointed because of the writing or the shallow plot?

And if all these actors are so amazing (which I do agree, from a Treky view, that they are), why have all of them done so little since? I've seen Michael Dorn in one or two other things (Decent comes to mind), I've seen nothing else with Jonathan Frakes or Gates McFadden. Patrick Stewart did a bit more, LaVar Burton went on to do the "Reading Rainbow" TV show, Brent Spiner I've seen in Independence Day, but nothing else...POINT there is that if they are so amazing, why have they not done much else?

I thought Burton did Rainbow around the same time he did TNG . . . but maybe reruns just have me thrown off. I remember both being on TV when I was very young.

Frakes is directing, couple of different things, nothing big. Brent Spiner plays a lot of smaller parts in a lot of different movies, Phenomena, Master of Disguise, other things I can't name off the top of my head. I've seen various people from Voyager cross into other TV shows for short appearances. Ethan Phillips was in a Bones, Robert Picardo was in a CSI:NY. Robert Duncan McNeil is now a producer or co-producer or something like that. I saw him recently credited an episode of "Chuck" (not a show I usually watch, so I don't know if he regularly works with that show or if he just happened to be doing something on the one episode I did watch).

One of my hobbies is trying to map out which TV shows the guest stars on whatever I'm watching at the moment have been in before . . . like how Amber from House MD was in the first episode of Psych before she was replaced by the girl who plays Jules.

Kate Mulgrew went on to do some theater and has played in a lot of movies and other TV shows but nothing recently that I know of. Tim Russ (Tuvok) was in the latest Die Hard movie.

I don't think this is exactly atypical for TV level actors, to have one "starring" or at least "steady" tv role and then to afterwards just bounce around from show to show, or do theater, or work off camera as a director/writer/producer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7523210.stm

This story starts out as what seems to be a silly rule and explains it so I guess the theater owner makes sense, but it is a about autograph policy at a production of Hamlet with some familiar faces in it.

Makes sense, but bummer all the same.

by Firawyn
Patrick Stewart is "the best of the best of the best sir!" (name that quote anyone?)

Click to expand...

"Maybe you already answered this, but, why exactly are we here?

Son?

Second Lieutenant, Jake Jenson. West Point. Graduate with honors. We're here because you are looking for the best of the best of the best, sir!

Ha Ha!

What's so funny, Edwards?

Boy, Captain America over here! "Best of the best of the best, sir!"

"With honors."

Yeah, he's just really excited and he has no clue why we're here."

That's very funny to me.

Y'all ain't laughing, though.

Illuin has it right: Until Patrick Stewart, Star Trek hadn't grown up yet. It just proves the old saw: A good actor playing it well and straight enough to make it believable saves even a bad part (not that any of Stewart's parts were bad).

There were other things going for it as well: the new cast, new writers, really good background musical scores, state-of-the-art special effects.

But Stewart was the galvanizing factor. STNG was my favorite of all of them with DS9 next (oh those crazy Ferengi comic relief stories!) and really juicy ongoing plots, and then STV. Most of the later original Star Treks were SO bad by comparison, and Shatner's acting was abominable, especially at the last. (He has fully redeemed himself however, with his off-the-wall Denny Crane role of a lifetime!)

Barley

Goodness . . . I just watched another trailer for the new Trek movie. The first one sold my brother, the one that just showed the ship with the Spock voice over, in two seconds and he called me up just to tell me how good it was. I had seen it a little earlier (in front of Ironman, I think) and while I had liked it it didn't show me what the movie was going to be like.

This one (I'm not sure how to link it, it was a rollover banner on my facebook page but I'm sure you can find it) struck me as a little bit effects heavy (to be expected) and definitely intense, but didn't give me any plot hints or characterization hints, those are going to be the main issues.

But . . . Goodness . . . Zachary Quinto is AMAZING casting. He looks the part. I can't believe how much he looks the part. Without looking like Nemoy, he looks like Spock, if that makes any sense. I can totally buy him in this part.

Maybe I just have a passion for dark, scary looking men but he's kind of cute. I only started watchin Heroes this last year (my husband pulled up old seasons online and watched the first one with me all in one night and now I've been watching them as they are posted on Hulu), and his part in there was just a little bit too scary at first for me to realize he was good looking, but since they've started to humanize him as a character I've kind of gotten fond of him, and seeing him as Spock. . . Wow. . . Might have to add him as fourth or fifth on my handsome guy list. Husband is number one. My brother is somewhere in the top ten and I'm not afraid to admit it. Tom Paris, Edward Norton, the young Timothy Dalton. . . I really need to sort this list out. Anyway, side track. . .


K, where was I?

After bad mouthing a Voyager episode with bad writing (Day of Honor) a little while back, I watched an absolutely amazing one today. Actually made me cry, even though I had seen it before. The episode is "Drone." The Dr's Holo-emitter is merged with some nano-probes from 7 during a transport, creates a drone who bonds with the crew. . . etc. I rarely cry for TV shows. Once or twice for House (the episode where the baby died in season two was almost too hard to watch and the episode this season where Cuddy is trying to adopt a child. . . and is begging it not to die, "Joy. . . Joy, please cry, Joy. . ." weep), once for CSI and once for CSI:NY, both of which barely count because I was pregnant with a husband overseas at the time and the CSI:NY episode involved the murder of a Marine who was trying to return a token to a fallen comrade's fiance (could they have aimed that at me a little harder? Probably not.) . . .but I think the CSI episode with the kidnapped infant who is found dead early in the episode would've broke me even if I hadn't have been expecting. . . I tend to ramble in these posts.

Anyway, "Drone" is an amazing episode. Jeri Ryan is a very compelling actress in that her part is so toned down and scaled back that everything seems so intense without being overblown. Hard to describe.

You know Elgee, your thoughts used to be very organized. What has marriage and motherhood done to you!?

I have to admit though, I was fairly impressed with the casting for the new Star Trek movie.

I've always tended to ramble if I'm not discussing something "serious" in nature. You should hear me talk. . . Dr. Ransom/Lukie-poo once told me that talking with me was like having an out of the body experience, and this was before I was even dating Matt.

by HLGStrider
I watched an absolutely amazing one today. Actually made me cry, even though I had seen it before. The episode is "Drone."

Click to expand...

Ha! "Drone" happens to be an episode I have never erased from the TiVo for many years (like TNG’s "The Inner Light", "Yesterday’s Enterprise", and "Best of Both Worlds"). Awesome episode! Come on; any episode dealing with the Borg is going to be phenomenal. "Q Who", "I Borg"... I mean really; you can’t lose with that material.

I agree with Elgee about Zach Quinto. He looks exactly how I expect Spock would have looked in his youth. Perfect casting! Now...if I could only find someone to go with...