The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Star Trek: Amok Rhyme
Jacobkosh
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWaWrvJ7nA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_P7Sv9T2OAIF YOU CAME LOOKING FOR A PARTY...
Jacobkosh on
+18
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Star Trek was always a forward thinking show.
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/what-we-left-behind
WTF SEASON 3 THE FIRST 5 EPISODES ARE WILD AF
it's very good and if you didn't back it I highly recommend watching it!
Yuuuuuuuup
Celeste [Switch] - She'll be wrestling with inner demons when she comes...
Final Fantasy XII: The Zodiac Age [Switch] - Sit down and watch our game play itself
Oh just you wait for episode 6...
Jonathan Frakes just 100% full sending it
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
Yeah that's a weird one, essentially it's just killing the person without all the mess. Babylon 5 had a whole thing where that same thing was being used as a form of execution.
Starfleet characters are always quick to point out that they’ve “evolved” past things like bigotry, but Simon Tarses in “The Drumhead” says he would’ve been rejected from Starfleet Academy if they had know about his Romulan grandfather and nobody corrects him.
If I remember that one, it’s not even considered execution; they’re basically good with wiping out Worf’s brother’s entire self and imprinting him with a new identity because then he’s still alive as far as being, like, not a corpse.
Nah, that's just inconsistent writing. If you read the memory-alpha on the article the writers even talk about how the whole ending was kinda odd and didn't quite work the way they filmed it.
(On the other hand, "Tuvix".)
I've been rewatching the original series, (up to mid season 3) and the whole "redshirt dying to prove the situation is serious" thing isn't really a thing either. Sure people die every so often, but it's not really A Thing.
Now bad effects aren't why I don't like this show, I can get over that, it's that everything is poorly done, from editing to music, top to bottom it's just plain sloppy. The plot is also all over the place which is odd since the show has a very direct goal, is like those mass effect side missions you do that are pointless but you do anyway even though billions of lives are counting on you.
I mean there are still a few good episodes but it's a tough show to sit through.
I also jumped back to the first episode is B5 season 2 and the difference in quality is staggering.
Also, great into line for Sheridan.
-Your orders are to find the missing Minbari cruiser and meet it face to face
-With all due respect, the last time I met a Minbari cruiser face to face, I sent it to hell.
Edit. Also, who tasks saving the human race to Lumburg?
There is such a huge gulf between Memetic Star Trek, the show that exists in people's minds and SNL sketches and internet posts, and the actual things that happen in the actual show that it makes me wonder if anyone ever actually watches it. And it's not just in pop culture, where at least people being mistaken is normal and understandable if sometimes annoying, and it's not just internet culture, where being wrong is like, job 1, but also among actual self-professed fans. There's an entire cottage industry of Youtube content makers parroting a dumb hot take they first read on a usenet bulletin board from an asthmatic 19-year-old named Gordo in 1996.
Unfortunately, in Crusades case, it never got a season 2 to see if it managed to get better.
Looks totally normal to me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Crusade is just such a sad string of missed opportunities and I think it kind of speaks poorly of JMS - or at least it illustrates how totally fucking burned-out he was, and in need of a mental health break - that he pissed up the wall at TNT requesting what were often not entirely unreasonable changes. I'm not one to stick up for network executives but the episodes that more appropriately reflected "his vision" were still boring and sloppy.
In a vacuum, Gary Cole is a good pick to play a captain, he's a terrific actor with a lot of range beyond just being Bill Lumbergh, but in practice he thought he was too good for the material and it came through in his performance.
I do actually kind of like the theme music, though.
This is jarring the first time you watch TOS after decades of second hand impressions of the show. It takes a few episodes to displace the imaginary show you expected in favor of the one you’re watching.
Also read a ton of books as a kid.
My view of Kirk is pretty close to what he's shown to be in the show, but that's probably an outlier because I've probably burned it into my mind at a very young age.
The clichés about star trek are pretty strong. But the series became such a cult success precisely because it didn't fit the stereotypes of the time.
Kirk wasn't the standard military leader of the shows of the time, he was way more cerebral than that, and while spock embodied using your mind instead of your fists to solve problems, kirk was still captain because he had great ideas, not a great biceps.
Similarly, he was not a serial womanizer, not Zap Brannigan.
But if someone lacks the context of the time, and hasn't watched much of the show, it might look like the clichés are true on a cursory glance.
Crusade is also a lot closer to B5 S5 when it comes to what is going on in the background.
Also they chopped the show all to hell which is why it seems kinda all over the place. It's a show with 2 pilots after all.
It had interesting ideas but the show itself is a mess. It also got cancelled not long before the big plot points were gonna start being rolled out. The obvious direct goal of the show at the start is almost certainly not where it was actually going.
"What was his name?"
"Hm?"
"The man, outside the walls, killed by the storm, what was his name? Where did he live, what color WERE HIS EYES? Ò^Ó *Gowron eyes*"
Every Klingon warrior knows the crazy eyes are the first victory in any battle!
Also it's basically a star trek rip off down to the five year mission, except it's in the B5 universe. Only they barely visit any B5 worlds or races because it's always planet/aliens of the week.
The main saving grace of the show is the snarky technomage doing a Merlin from Excalibur impersonation, only he's barely there because reasons.
I've been having conversations about this stuff with my Dad the last couple years, since we've both rewatched every Star Trek series on netflix within the last year or so. I keep remarking about the sort of stuff you listed above, and he's been 'well yeah, the Redshirts thing was always a joke but it was never actually a thing in the show' or 'yeah wesley is no where near as perfect or annoying as the internet would make you think'.
I just had this big gulf between when I first saw Star Trek series (as a kid, with my dad, from single digits age to a young teen) and watching them as an adult like a decade and a half later. During that gulf all the jokes and assumptions just kinda bled into my memory and, upon watching them again, were immediately all shown to be completely incorrect.
I need to finish my rewatch of TOS though! I only got about 8 or 9 episodes in before I ended up starting on the films again because of nostalgia for them.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't see Star Trek ripoff at all. It's got none of the same things going on.
I think we're clones. I also started with TOS when I was 4-5 years old. My mom bought most of the episodes on VHS. I still remember my first one - Operation: ANNIHILATE. My vision of Kirk is that of a guy who uses his cunning and wit far more than his fists or a phaser.
And, yeah, he's very different than the typical protagonist of the time. I still live with my mom (I was born with a permanent physical disability and need a lot of care). She loves watching old westerns - The Rifleman, Gunsmoke, Big Valley, Wagon Train, Bonanza, Lawman, etc. - and the leads are almost the same person. I'd say that out of all of them, only Jarrod Barkley and Ben Cartwright approach Kirk in terms of trying to think their way out of conflict. The rest tend to solve every problem with a punch or drawn revolver/rifle, and there's not much in the way of thought guiding their actions.
Kirk's moralizing was a lot different and decidedly more modern, too. A lot of the old shows emphasized the old (and likely fictional) code of the west. Never shoot first, never harm a lady, say your prayers/be a good Christian (The Rifleman is notorious for this, with a lot of episodes having Lucas explain the situation of the day to his son Mark through Biblical analogy). It was basically a code of conduct that was about the kind of person you should be. Kirk/Trek had a broader view. It wasn't just about personal honor (although it definitely had that too), but also a broader message. It's possible and desirable to make peace with your enemies, because they're people just like you. War isn't actually glamorous, and should be avoided. Race and nationality don't actually matter because, again, we're all just people. And a lot more, of course.
I never really understood how different Kirk/Trek were until I started to get exposed to other shows from the same era. In some ways it was as modern/progressive to those shows as our current era of programming is to it.
Which is one reason when I just laugh and laugh when someone tries to "accuse" Star Trek of "moralizing". Star Trek was one of THE original moralizing Scifi shows, if not the original. It was its whole core, a huge part of its claim to fame and relevance.
Maybe it's people who only know the cliches and expect star trek to be like that who want it to be like that.
If there's one thing about Discovery that's true to Trek, it's the moralizing, and even THAT isn't nearly as strong as it should be.
Imagine Picard's reaction to open and about Section 31...
I like Discovery, but it's weird how well everyone takes Section 31. It's an extralegal paramilitary group with its own ships, answerable to no one, that's willing to commit genocide. I feel like that merits more than wagging your finger while saying "I don't approve of your methods!"
DSC Season 2 plays a lot better if Section 31 is just Starfleet Intelligence.