You know talking about Starfleet and its ships made me think about Andromeda, the shitty Herc in Space show with Kevin Sorbo. Now before Kevin Sorbo was made Executive Producer and ruined it for good, it had an expanded universe online in the form of various Websites. They detailed a pretty rich background of how the universe was supposed to work, including how their version of Starfleet, the High Guard, operated.
The Main ship was supposed to be part of a operations group of consisting of Battleships, Defense Frigates, Scout Ships and Supply ships. Just like a US carrier Battle group. It would provide C3I for the fleet and they would support each other in combat. Most of that was thrown out straight from the get go for Herc in Space, but it was pretty interesting.
Andromeda is one of those shows, that after seing nBSG, I secretly want rebooted by somebody that gets what its about. Its version of Space warfare is pretty unusual in sci fi and it could do with a retelling.
Andromeda is basically a tragedy. The universe building and tone of the first season were something great but the more Kevin Sorbo sunk his claws into the show the worse it got. By the time the intro sequence goes from dramatic to cheesy you know you might as well tune out or you might suffer the unintelligible, cheesy garbage that is the shows final season.
I really wish that guy had just stuck to Christian/fascist propaganda.
+8
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
I dunno guys I feel like dipping into the Q well is them pretty much admitting they are just in it for the $Nostalgia$.
I dunno guys I feel like dipping into the Q well is them pretty much admitting they are just in it for the $Nostalgia$.
Didn't they pretty much declare that up front by saying "Hey, instead of a new Star Trek show, we're going to mine our existing series for anyone who's willing to show up"?
I'm not gonna say it'll actually make for good TV, but at least on paper it makes sense that Q would continue showing up in Picard's life.
Sure, but this only reinforces for me that the whole concept was terrible from the beginning. That final scene with Q, with him done up in all the Encounter at Farpoint regalia? That was the perfect way to cap off that storyline and relationship. I have precisely no doubts that this will fail to live up to that.
If they really wanted to reuse Q, I would have been interested to see how the Abrams crew dealt with him; Quinto's Spock playing against DeLancie could have been really great. But Q doesn't blow shit up, so it was not to be.
I'm not gonna say it'll actually make for good TV, but at least on paper it makes sense that Q would continue showing up in Picard's life.
Sure, but this only reinforces for me that the whole concept was terrible from the beginning. That final scene with Q, with him done up in all the Encounter at Farpoint regalia? That was the perfect way to cap off that storyline and relationship. I have precisely no doubts that this will fail to live up to that.
If they really wanted to reuse Q, I would have been interested to see how the Abrams crew dealt with him; Quinto's Spock playing against DeLancie could have been really great. But Q doesn't blow shit up, so it was not to be.
Yeah, no argument there. Honestly TNG had one of those endings where you have to be super careful with what you do with the characters afterward, and simply not doing anything is probably the wisest move. Obviously the cat has left the barn on that one by a long shot by now, but still.
There's still a place for new adventures, too, like Worf and Obrien on DS9, where the content is great and transformative and still works within the wiggle room of TNG's ending. It can happen. I don't think it will, but...
0
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
Are they going to make any future Star Trek movies?
The rumor that Quentin Tarantino is making a Star Trek film still won't go away. Every 6 months or so he does another interview that confirms he's still trying to get it made.
I say give it to him, if there's anyone who can miss the point of Star Trek it's Tarantino.
Tarantino would miss the point, but so did Abrams, and I honestly think just based on the types of movies he makes Tarantino is likely to get a hell of a lot closer than Abrams did. Like, Tarantino movies have single twenty-minute scenes of people just talking at each other. That's what I want from a Trek movie.
Like, damn, you could lift the diner scene from Pulp Fiction and drop it into a Trek episode with Picard playing Jules as the B plot very nearly whole cloth and it'd work fine.
Monwyn on
+4
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
I say give it to him, if there's anyone who can miss the point of Star Trek it's Tarantino.
Tarantino would miss the point, but so did Abrams, and I honestly think just based on the types of movies he makes Tarantino is likely to get a hell of a lot closer than Abrams did. Like, Tarantino movies have single twenty-minute scenes of people just talking at each other. That's what I want from a Trek movie.
Like, damn, you could lift the diner scene from Pulp Fiction and drop it into a Trek episode with Picard playing Jules as the B plot very nearly whole cloth and it'd work fine.
Just look at Jackie Brown if you want to see a more subtle nuanced version of his shtick. I think he's perfectly capable of making a film that would fit with any of the past or present depictions of the Star Trek universe. QT's idea for remaking The Doomsday Machine was perfect. Commodore Decker would be the perfect vessel for a QT character. He's a crazy ranting, raving, power-mad lunatic. He would play so well against the "straight men" of the Enterprise. Hell, with all we've seen on Discovery, you really wouldn't have to tone down the violence or swearing much if at all. There's nothing in Jackie Brown that even comes close to the sheer ultraviolence that was Admiral BugHead in season 1 of TNG.
No, the more I think about it the more think it could not just work but actually be really fucking good.
I want to see a Tarantino Star Trek because I have no idea wtf it would be in the very best way. It would be interesting and memorable and probably good.
Ugh, please no. I get the Tarantino appeal, but if he makes "A Very Tarantino Trek" it's going to be hard for me to go into happily. The style of violence he likes is just a huge turn off for me.
That Picard trailer has been reminding me of something and plumbing Memory Beta I finally remembered: In the novelization of All Good Things, Q was a king in Picard's hand in the poker scene at the end.
it would be hilarious if QT actually embraced the setting and made one of the first, in a long time, Star Trek movies that doesn't use violence and only a sunday school level of awkward swearing a la the one with the whales https://youtu.be/381IyBdfplo
0
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
it would be hilarious if QT actually embraced the setting and made one of the first, in a long time, Star Trek movies that doesn't use violence and only a sunday school level of awkward swearing a la the one with the whales https://youtu.be/381IyBdfplo
I say give it to him, if there's anyone who can miss the point of Star Trek it's Tarantino.
Tarantino would miss the point, but so did Abrams, and I honestly think just based on the types of movies he makes Tarantino is likely to get a hell of a lot closer than Abrams did. Like, Tarantino movies have single twenty-minute scenes of people just talking at each other. That's what I want from a Trek movie.
Like, damn, you could lift the diner scene from Pulp Fiction and drop it into a Trek episode with Picard playing Jules as the B plot very nearly whole cloth and it'd work fine.
If there's anyone who'd miss the point of Trek more then Abrams' it'd be Tarantino. Tarantino has higher skill at directing, but he'd edge lord it like Zack Snyder. I'm curious about how much he'd fuck it up. You know the producers will have an awkward conversation with him about someone saying the n-word.
I'd have been excited for a Tarantino Star Trek 15 or 20 years ago, but the man's lost a step. The substance of his older movies—genre movies about genre movies—make them worthwhile despite his crass obsessions. That's just not the case anymore.
Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.
Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.
I'd have been excited for a Tarantino Star Trek 15 or 20 years ago, but the man's lost a step. The substance of his older movies—genre movies about genre movies—make them worthwhile despite his crass obsessions. That's just not the case anymore.
Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.
Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.
Tarantino is like 1000x the filmmaker Abrams is. Tarantino at least understand how stories and characters work.
I'd have been excited for a Tarantino Star Trek 15 or 20 years ago, but the man's lost a step. The substance of his older movies—genre movies about genre movies—make them worthwhile despite his crass obsessions. That's just not the case anymore.
Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.
Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.
Abrams is not that bad, is just a mediocrity, his movies are ok-ish summer blockbusters.
Tarantino would be actively awful, but then I think that his crass, infantile schtick is unsufferable. Everything he does is the same black humour gorefest with feet fetishism.
TryCatcher on
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Abrams is pretty bad. I'd argue that his movies managed to kill off the movie side of both the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises. Yes, Beyond wasn't him, but Into Darkness really killed any interest I had in seeing a third Trek movie, so I'm putting that on Abrams too. His movies are just so empty that they manage to make the CGI-ridden gibberish that Bey puts out look like masterful character studies that keep people coming back to see Marky Mark crapping it up on the big screen.
A Tarantino movie would be worth it just to see what he does for the casting and the soundtrack.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
https://youtu.be/xk9F90wklRQ
EDIT: Whoops, I posted the old one. Here's the new one.
https://youtu.be/zHMti7u9TBE
Card: disolves to q.
Me: Q, same question
edit maybe that's an old version? probably
gdi paramount just dont geolock things
D3 Steam #TeamTangent STO
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/picard-season-2-official-trailer/vi-BB1fIR1t
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
That's the older one from April.
Which ones in Trek history haven't?
I guess I hate this show anyway and youtube is protecting me lol
The Main ship was supposed to be part of a operations group of consisting of Battleships, Defense Frigates, Scout Ships and Supply ships. Just like a US carrier Battle group. It would provide C3I for the fleet and they would support each other in combat. Most of that was thrown out straight from the get go for Herc in Space, but it was pretty interesting.
Andromeda is one of those shows, that after seing nBSG, I secretly want rebooted by somebody that gets what its about. Its version of Space warfare is pretty unusual in sci fi and it could do with a retelling.
http://www.saveandromeda.com/allsystems/ships/shipsindex.htm
I really wish that guy had just stuck to Christian/fascist propaganda.
Anyway, I dig the new admiral uniform. As you can guess from my avatar, I think the 2380s uniforms are fire.
Didn't they pretty much declare that up front by saying "Hey, instead of a new Star Trek show, we're going to mine our existing series for anyone who's willing to show up"?
Sure, but this only reinforces for me that the whole concept was terrible from the beginning. That final scene with Q, with him done up in all the Encounter at Farpoint regalia? That was the perfect way to cap off that storyline and relationship. I have precisely no doubts that this will fail to live up to that.
If they really wanted to reuse Q, I would have been interested to see how the Abrams crew dealt with him; Quinto's Spock playing against DeLancie could have been really great. But Q doesn't blow shit up, so it was not to be.
Yeah, no argument there. Honestly TNG had one of those endings where you have to be super careful with what you do with the characters afterward, and simply not doing anything is probably the wisest move. Obviously the cat has left the barn on that one by a long shot by now, but still.
There's still a place for new adventures, too, like Worf and Obrien on DS9, where the content is great and transformative and still works within the wiggle room of TNG's ending. It can happen. I don't think it will, but...
The rumor that Quentin Tarantino is making a Star Trek film still won't go away. Every 6 months or so he does another interview that confirms he's still trying to get it made.
Tarantino would miss the point, but so did Abrams, and I honestly think just based on the types of movies he makes Tarantino is likely to get a hell of a lot closer than Abrams did. Like, Tarantino movies have single twenty-minute scenes of people just talking at each other. That's what I want from a Trek movie.
Like, damn, you could lift the diner scene from Pulp Fiction and drop it into a Trek episode with Picard playing Jules as the B plot very nearly whole cloth and it'd work fine.
Just look at Jackie Brown if you want to see a more subtle nuanced version of his shtick. I think he's perfectly capable of making a film that would fit with any of the past or present depictions of the Star Trek universe. QT's idea for remaking The Doomsday Machine was perfect. Commodore Decker would be the perfect vessel for a QT character. He's a crazy ranting, raving, power-mad lunatic. He would play so well against the "straight men" of the Enterprise. Hell, with all we've seen on Discovery, you really wouldn't have to tone down the violence or swearing much if at all. There's nothing in Jackie Brown that even comes close to the sheer ultraviolence that was Admiral BugHead in season 1 of TNG.
No, the more I think about it the more think it could not just work but actually be really fucking good.
You'd better like gratuitous shots of alien feet.
Best scene of Star Trek VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2tkyvUoag
https://youtu.be/381IyBdfplo
Where did I say he wasn't?
one damn minute admiral
If there's anyone who'd miss the point of Trek more then Abrams' it'd be Tarantino. Tarantino has higher skill at directing, but he'd edge lord it like Zack Snyder. I'm curious about how much he'd fuck it up. You know the producers will have an awkward conversation with him about someone saying the n-word.
Give Taika Watiti or Ava DuVernay a Star Trek movie. Tarantino's just going to do the same thing as Abrams, but with sex scenes and racial slurs.
Of course, Star Trek would be a dead franchise without Abrams, so maybe Tarantino could expand the fandom in the same way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj-3DZtGMjU
Tarantino is like 1000x the filmmaker Abrams is. Tarantino at least understand how stories and characters work.
Abrams is not that bad, is just a mediocrity, his movies are ok-ish summer blockbusters.
Tarantino would be actively awful, but then I think that his crass, infantile schtick is unsufferable. Everything he does is the same black humour gorefest with feet fetishism.
A Tarantino movie would be worth it just to see what he does for the casting and the soundtrack.