Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 08-01-2017, 04:39 PM   #361
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube View Post
I think you need to step off the edge a bit when it comes to the new shows man. There's no point doing deep, detailed analysis before anything is even seen. Could it suck? Maybe. Could it be great? Same chance.

Remember when the initial teaser trailer came out for Beyond with the Beastie Boys song? And the uproar was "Look at this dumb action movie! This isn't Star Trek! What is that Beastie Boys song doing there!? Paramount/J J Abrams/Justin Lin are the worst!" Then the movie came out and it ended up being the best Star Trek movie in 20 years. And the Beastie Boys song was in the climax of the movie and it was awesome.

So, reserve judgment until the time comes for it to truly be judged.
I like writing these things, I'm not on the edge at all. Its one of the little things that I enjoy doing and I encourage people that don't like them not to read them.

The bottom line for me is that Star Trek has been in a creative down slide for a long time. It really started with First Contact and they've really struggled badly with the franchise.

First Contact, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis were all what I would consider to be poor representations of the Trek Universe. Even the best of them which was first contact was crippled by the loss of what made Star Trek really strong which was the ensemble crew, instead they put Picard and Data out front and made the rest of the crew cardboard cutouts. On top of that the Borg Queen was just a terrible idea of a villain that made the Borg just far less terrifying.

Enterprise was a great idea gone wrong, the script writing was weak, the acting just wasn't there and they didn't do anything with the exception of a few arcs that really got you charged up.

The first JJ Trek was passable and gave a bit of hope. But the villain was just uninspiring and realistically the logic of the plot line was lacking.

Into Darkness was just terrible, they dug into the past and failed badly with it.

They came back a bit in terms of Beyond, But it the villain was just lazy.

Frankly what they're doing now is sticking the Star Trek label on films that shouldn't really be star trek films, or they're trying to re-invent the past and doing a poor job of it.

It used to be that Star Trek was great at inventing antagonists, Even beyond the original series that gave us Klingon's and Romulans and Generations that gave us the Borg and Q, and Deep space 9 that gave us immortal shape shifters with a genetic army. You had Khan, and Kruge, you had Chang. These were great villains and they made the hero's just look better.

Now they're just trying to reinvent what really shouldn't be re-invented.

Hey I have some of the same problems with Star Wars, I'm still not all that sold on the new trilogy, it had its good to great moments, but during TFA it just felt tired.

There's so much potential in Sci-Fi to make interesting stories with interesting villains and heros. There should almost be no limit in that sandbox. But instead they just rolling out the same thing over and over and over again.

To me, and I like I said, I loved Myer's work. Instead of lets just redo Khan. It should be what out there could be more dangerous, or more sympathetically evil then him.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 04:49 PM   #362
OutOfTheCube
Franchise Player
 
OutOfTheCube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default

All you've done in this thread is complain before seeing any of the new show (other than two minute trailers and pictures) and seem to actively dislike at least half of the franchise. It's getting a little tiresome that any time there is news there's a 500 word post slamming whatever it is because it doesn't live up to some weird golden standard of Star Trek.

People forget that a lot of the original Star Trek isn't great either. There's a lot of flat out terrible TOS episodes and half the original movies suck too. It never bats 1.000.
OutOfTheCube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
Old 08-01-2017, 05:12 PM   #363
Traditional_Ale
Franchise Player
 
Traditional_Ale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

I've never understood why people hold Star Trek to such a high standard in the first place. In my opinion the "heart" of Star Trek is TNG, because I think we can all agree that the best actor to ever appear in Star Trek is Patrick Stewart and its not even close. We could argue for eternity on who the second best is, but they would be light-years behind Stewart. Only a talent like that can take sometimes outright terrible dialogue and make it sound glorious. The fact he always took the role seriously elevated the game of everyone around him. Aside from Dr. Crusher (Gates McFadden is an awful actor) every single other character shined the brightest when working a scene with Stewart.

Unless you can find another actor of his quality Star Trek will seldom rise above "good" which I'm actually fine with, because I don't think it was ever meant to be so serious. It's just TNG was a show that punched so far above it's weight that anything new will be a let down compared to it. Avery Brooks was awesome, I had no issue with Kate Mulgrew as Janeway, and I actually liked Enterprise very much. The NX01 is my favorite Enterprise. The thing is that I didn't go into the other Treks outside of TNG expecting them to measure up. Its just not going to happen.
__________________

So far, this is the oldest I've been.
Traditional_Ale is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Traditional_Ale For This Useful Post:
Old 08-01-2017, 05:27 PM   #364
Locke
Franchise Player
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale View Post
I've never understood why people hold Star Trek to such a high standard in the first place. In my opinion the "heart" of Star Trek is TNG, because I think we can all agree that the best actor to ever appear in Star Trek is Patrick Stewart and its not even close. We could argue for eternity on who the second best is, but they would be light-years behind Stewart. Only a talent like that can take sometimes outright terrible dialogue and make it sound glorious. The fact he always took the role seriously elevated the game of everyone around him. Aside from Dr. Crusher (Gates McFadden is an awful actor) every single other character shined the brightest when working a scene with Stewart.

Unless you can find another actor of his quality Star Trek will seldom rise above "good" which I'm actually fine with, because I don't think it was ever meant to be so serious. It's just TNG was a show that punched so far above it's weight that anything new will be a let down compared to it. Avery Brooks was awesome, I had no issue with Kate Mulgrew as Janeway, and I actually liked Enterprise very much. The NX01 is my favorite Enterprise. The thing is that I didn't go into the other Treks outside of TNG expecting them to measure up. Its just not going to happen.
On a fun sidenote, if you watch the documentary 'The Captains' it turns out that Avery Brooks is genuinely batcrap insane.

The guy is a certifiable lunatic.
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!

This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.

If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Old 08-01-2017, 06:20 PM   #365
Flames89
First Line Centre
 
Flames89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Toronto, ON
Exp:
Default

It's on Netflix. I will watch.
Flames89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 06:27 PM   #366
getbak
Franchise Player
 
getbak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames89 View Post
It's on Netflix. I will watch.
Not in Canada or the States.

In the US, it will only be on the CBS streaming service. In Canada, it will air on Space first (the only country where it will be available through a traditional tv channel) and then be available on Crave.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
getbak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 08:10 PM   #367
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutOfTheCube View Post
People forget that a lot of the original Star Trek isn't great either. There's a lot of flat out terrible TOS episodes and half the original movies suck too. It never bats 1.000.
Yeah, a lot of TOS was bad. But it was at least trying to do science fiction. Take a premise about technology or an alien culture. Dramatize the ramifications of that technology or alien culture on humanity. Science fiction.

I understand that science fiction is more or less a dead genre in pop culture today. Aside from maybe Black Mirror, I can't think of a show that's about the ramifications of technology, or about exploring the frontiers of human experience. But if there's any chance to revive the genre, it's Star Trek. Unfortunately, the people producing it these days see it as just another action/superhero franchise. Maybe this new series will be different. But I haven't seen a lot to be encouraged about so far.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 11:08 PM   #368
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
On a fun sidenote, if you watch the documentary 'The Captains' it turns out that Avery Brooks is genuinely batcrap insane.

The guy is a certifiable lunatic.
He's literally insane, but at the same time the guy has a lot of different talents.

From what I understand he left active acting to teach. If you ever stumble across his jazz stuff, he's actually very good.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 11:33 PM   #369
Harry Lime
Franchise Player
 
Harry Lime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
He's literally insane, but at the same time the guy has a lot of different talents.

From what I understand he left active acting to teach. If you ever stumble across his jazz stuff, he's actually very good.
You actually have to stumble across it, because he travels North America by electric scooter until he finds a public park with a fountain, where he sits on a cedar stool he made himself, from a tree he grew as a child, puts on his straw hat to keep the bee people away, and plays three strikingly good tunes on his clarinet.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
Harry Lime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2017, 08:41 AM   #370
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

IIRC he did release a jazz album a few years back. And if you go deep into youtube he has played some festivals.



J.G. Hertzler talks about playing Martock and working with Brooks

__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 09:50 AM   #371
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

CBS isn't allowing reviews until after the premiere.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/14/cbs-crit...rek-discovery/
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 10:17 AM   #372
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

That's usually a really bad sign in the video games world.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 10:32 AM   #373
Sr. Mints
First Line Centre
 
Sr. Mints's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Exp:
Default

Enh - I don't think that really matters to me. When it comes to video games, TV, movies, etc., I avoid any advanced reviews like the plague anyway, as I like to go into these things with a clear slate.
Sr. Mints is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 10:33 PM   #374
direwolf
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: North Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post

Even the best of them which was first contact was crippled by the loss of what made Star Trek really strong which was the ensemble crew, instead they put Picard and Data out front and made the rest of the crew cardboard cutouts. On top of that the Borg Queen was just a terrible idea of a villain that made the Borg just far less terrifying..
Gotta say, I disagree with pretty much all of this. First Contact is an excellent movie and easily one of the best flicks in the series. I'd probably rank it 3rd, right behind Wrath of Khan and Voyage Home.

Last edited by direwolf; 09-15-2017 at 10:37 PM.
direwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to direwolf For This Useful Post:
Old 09-15-2017, 10:42 PM   #375
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

We'll have to agree to disagree. I hated first contact, it had some nice moments, but it ripped the guts out of the Borg who were later completely wrecked by Voyager. Data was just plain bad as a character and the drunk scene with Riker and Troi was just gag worthy.

In terms of my order of movies.

The Wrath of Khan
The Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country
The Search for Spock (Thank you Chris Lloyd)
First Contact
The Motion Picture
Generations
Final Frontier
Insurrection
Nemisis.

I don't put the nutrek movies in there but in terms of those films

Star Trek
Beyond
Into Darkness.

I put those three movies behind Wrath of Kahn, Voyage Home, Undiscovered Country, Search for Spock
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 12:26 PM   #376
GreenLantern2814
Franchise Player
 
GreenLantern2814's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale View Post
I've never understood why people hold Star Trek to such a high standard in the first place. In my opinion the "heart" of Star Trek is TNG, because I think we can all agree that the best actor to ever appear in Star Trek is Patrick Stewart and its not even close. We could argue for eternity on who the second best is, but they would be light-years behind Stewart. Only a talent like that can take sometimes outright terrible dialogue and make it sound glorious. The fact he always took the role seriously elevated the game of everyone around him. Aside from Dr. Crusher (Gates McFadden is an awful actor) every single other character shined the brightest when working a scene with Stewart.

Unless you can find another actor of his quality Star Trek will seldom rise above "good" which I'm actually fine with, because I don't think it was ever meant to be so serious. It's just TNG was a show that punched so far above it's weight that anything new will be a let down compared to it. Avery Brooks was awesome, I had no issue with Kate Mulgrew as Janeway, and I actually liked Enterprise very much. The NX01 is my favorite Enterprise. The thing is that I didn't go into the other Treks outside of TNG expecting them to measure up. Its just not going to happen.
I don't think we hold Star Trek to a high standard. I think we just wish they'd make Star Trek again.

Star Trek, at its core, is a low budget space adventure the whole family can enjoy. It specialises in morality plays. The best Trek involves putting characters in impossible situations and testing them. There are many examples, but just some famous ones:

Picard has to argue before the Federation that Data is a new life form and has the right to self determination.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to decide to let Edith Keeler die or let Hitler win the war.

Sisko enlists the services of Garek to get the Romulans into the Dominion War and ends up betraying everything he believes in.

Janeway makes a deal with the Borg to destroy the squid aliens.

Star Trek is not about special effects. It's not about space battles. The best episodes of Star Trek could be performed as a stage play. Can you imagine any of the Abrams Treks as a play?

All of the original series films were cerebral stories first, and the action was secondary. Even the Final Frontier, a film that's a complete disaster from beginning to end, is kicking around some weighty ideas about god and the meaning of life. You know, Star Trek stuff. Prior to the 2009 film, the highest grossing Trek film of all time was Star Trek IV - the one with the whales.

Every show builds up to people having a fight with each other. Star Trek is often about getting people to recognize they can't punch their way out of a situation - thus they have to cooperate. Communist, maybe. But it's good tv.

When I hear this Discovery show is going to be TV MA, it is yet another reminder the suits don't understand this property. Star Trek doesn't need boobs, it doesn't need cursing, it doesn't need a spike through the chest. It needs to be Star Trek. Go on an adventure, learn about yourselves, send the audience a message, come back again next week.

It's a high standard, but it's not one you can fix by throwing money at visuals or talent - the show has to know what it's meant to be, or it doesn't work.
GreenLantern2814 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to GreenLantern2814 For This Useful Post:
Old 09-16-2017, 12:44 PM   #377
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814 View Post
When I hear this Discovery show is going to be TV MA, it is yet another reminder the suits don't understand this property. Star Trek doesn't need boobs, it doesn't need cursing, it doesn't need a spike through the chest. It needs to be Star Trek. Go on an adventure, learn about yourselves, send the audience a message, come back again next week.
Yeah, it is kinda sad. Star Trek is a family-friendly show about science, exploration, and ethical choices. It's not a superhero action property. It's not Game of Thrones in space.

But I guess the suits figure there's no longer an audience for what Trek was about for 40 years. I suppose I still have the old shows to watch with my kids.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 12:53 PM   #378
Yeah_Baby
Franchise Player
 
Yeah_Baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: still in edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814 View Post
I don't think we hold Star Trek to a high standard. I think we just wish they'd make Star Trek again.

Star Trek, at its core, is a low budget space adventure the whole family can enjoy. It specialises in morality plays. The best Trek involves putting characters in impossible situations and testing them. There are many examples, but just some famous ones:

Picard has to argue before the Federation that Data is a new life form and has the right to self determination.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to decide to let Edith Keeler die or let Hitler win the war.

Sisko enlists the services of Garek to get the Romulans into the Dominion War and ends up betraying everything he believes in.

Janeway makes a deal with the Borg to destroy the squid aliens.

Star Trek is not about special effects. It's not about space battles. The best episodes of Star Trek could be performed as a stage play. Can you imagine any of the Abrams Treks as a play?

All of the original series films were cerebral stories first, and the action was secondary. Even the Final Frontier, a film that's a complete disaster from beginning to end, is kicking around some weighty ideas about god and the meaning of life. You know, Star Trek stuff. Prior to the 2009 film, the highest grossing Trek film of all time was Star Trek IV - the one with the whales.

Every show builds up to people having a fight with each other. Star Trek is often about getting people to recognize they can't punch their way out of a situation - thus they have to cooperate. Communist, maybe. But it's good tv
.

When I hear this Discovery show is going to be TV MA, it is yet another reminder the suits don't understand this property. Star Trek doesn't need boobs, it doesn't need cursing, it doesn't need a spike through the chest. It needs to be Star Trek. Go on an adventure, learn about yourselves, send the audience a message, come back again next week.

It's a high standard, but it's not one you can fix by throwing money at visuals or talent - the show has to know what it's meant to be, or it doesn't work.
I hate the myth that Star Trek was low budget. Part of the reason NBC cancelled Star Trek was because it was so fricking expensive. They had Star Trek and Mission: Impossible as to high budget (for the late 60s) TV shows, and felt they had to chose one of the other. The impression that Star Trek was low budget is revisionist history because though a modern lens, we see 'cheap' foam rocks etc. Sure they had to budget savvy back then, but that's because Desilu was spending so much on the show.



I was also surprised when I saw the TV-MA rating on the DSC promos. The showrunners had previously stated that the show would be more PG-13ish. Something must have spooked the studio into the rating (TV ratings work a little different from film). So I don't think DSC will be 'tits and dragons' TV-MA like Game of Thrones.

Cynically I wonder how much having an openly gay couple on the Discovery scares a network like CBS. I am sure there mere existence of those characters is enough to get the show boycotted in Trumpland.

From what I've read, I think your point about compromise is a good one, and one that I expect DSC to demonstrate despite what we've seen in the Trailers. The Klingons are alleged going to be extremely nuanced and not a Trek movie villain style big bad.

You also cherry picked one of the best TOS stories that was a little more cerebral than most. TOS wasn't TNG, or even the first 6 movies. TOS was a space adventure show grounded in Post War Triumphalism. Starfleet, or Star Fleet or the United Earth Space Probe Agency or whoever the writers decided the Enterprise worked for that day was Marshall Plan era US foreign relations.

The Federation didn't take on the pluralistic of TNG until Roddenberry had believed his own hype for 15 years and basically became a lesser L Ron Hubbard.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Check out The Pod-Wraiths: A Star Trek Deep Space Nine Podcast
Yeah_Baby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 04:40 PM   #379
GreenLantern2814
Franchise Player
 
GreenLantern2814's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby View Post
I hate the myth that Star Trek was low budget. Part of the reason NBC cancelled Star Trek was because it was so fricking expensive. They had Star Trek and Mission: Impossible as to high budget (for the late 60s) TV shows, and felt they had to chose one of the other. The impression that Star Trek was low budget is revisionist history because though a modern lens, we see 'cheap' foam rocks etc. Sure they had to budget savvy back then, but that's because Desilu was spending so much on the show.



I was also surprised when I saw the TV-MA rating on the DSC promos. The showrunners had previously stated that the show would be more PG-13ish. Something must have spooked the studio into the rating (TV ratings work a little different from film). So I don't think DSC will be 'tits and dragons' TV-MA like Game of Thrones.

Cynically I wonder how much having an openly gay couple on the Discovery scares a network like CBS. I am sure there mere existence of those characters is enough to get the show boycotted in Trumpland.

From what I've read, I think your point about compromise is a good one, and one that I expect DSC to demonstrate despite what we've seen in the Trailers. The Klingons are alleged going to be extremely nuanced and not a Trek movie villain style big bad.

You also cherry picked one of the best TOS stories that was a little more cerebral than most. TOS wasn't TNG, or even the first 6 movies. TOS was a space adventure show grounded in Post War Triumphalism. Starfleet, or Star Fleet or the United Earth Space Probe Agency or whoever the writers decided the Enterprise worked for that day was Marshall Plan era US foreign relations.

The Federation didn't take on the pluralistic of TNG until Roddenberry had believed his own hype for 15 years and basically became a lesser L Ron Hubbard.
I will confess, City on the Edge of Forever is one of the only TOS episodes I can remember. I don't particularly care for them. I will withdraw my low budget comment, but I guess my point is it doesn't need to be fantastically expensive in this day

But I do love the movies. I don't think Star Trek in general has an idea of what it wants to be until the Motion Picture. But they don't get it quite right. So the next movie, rather than being too 2001, is about getting old and never having faced a no win scenario.

Trek III is about faith in the age of technology. Voyage Home is an environmental warning. Final Frontier is about God. Undiscovered Country is a Cold War parable. They're all about things beyond punching people and spouting catchphrases.

I'll watch Discovery. It's entirely possible the people promoting this are simply awful, and it'll be a good show.
GreenLantern2814 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 11:57 PM   #380
OutOfTheCube
Franchise Player
 
OutOfTheCube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:
Default

I've seen some interesting articles posted from the late 80's just before TNG launched. All the complaints were the same. "This doesn't look like Trek!" "This will be a cheap knock off and a failure" ""They don't understand what Star Trek is!" "This unknown British guy could never live up to Kirk!"

Etc. ad infinity. I have faith and optimism in this until I'm given a real reason not to.
OutOfTheCube is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OutOfTheCube For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:16 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021