Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:

Total Found: 32 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 2
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 12:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I don't care if "Beyond" didn't address or follow-up anything in "Into Darkness".

To me, "Beyond" is the real sequel to 2009. "Into Darkness" happened but, like with TMP, you can skip directly from TOS to TWOK with no loss of information. It's 15 years later, so of course Kirk would be an Admiral and everyone would be at a different point in life. Plenty of time to redesign the Enterprise too. Natural passage of time.

Same with "Beyond". If you treat it as a direct sequel to 2009, then of course they'd be on a five-year mission. It's expected. The ship looks a little different? There was a minor refit in-between. Sounds good.

I like how the five-year mission was cut short after three years, paralleling what happened when NBC cancelled TOS.

As far as the Klingons, they're out there. They're not our friends. Normal TOS status quo. The threat of war? That was always the case.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 9:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

3 for "Into Darkness" and 2.5 for "Beyond". Who could've predicted a combination like that?

But anyway, I'm glad they built the Enterprise-A in the same movie. It would've been a surprise to absolutely _no one_ to see it in the next one, so it made sense to get what we all knew was coming out of the way and over with.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 2:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Beyond

I went ahead saw "Star Trek Beyond" on Saturday. The reviews made me not want to wait. There's no question about it. This is the best of the three rebooted films. By a long shot. I don't mind seeing it in the theater again.

If you're looking for '60s, '80s, or '90s Trek, you're not going to find it BUT this movie knows what it is and it does it a LOT better than the other two. And it's nice to have an original story.

The camera work is the best I've seen in any of the films. Reboot or not. The action isn't mind-numbing, I actually care about what happens during it, and they put a lot into the characters.

They could've done more with Krall, but the villains are never going to be the reboot's strong suit. He's *okay*.

There's also a nod to the fact it's the 50th Anniversary. I'm not going to say what it is but you'll know it when you see it and it also worked as a good character beat.
The movie isn't dramatic but it's fun and it does what it wants to do very effectively.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Jul 22, 2016, 10:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Off by half-a-point. I was predicting 2.5.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Mar 6, 2016, 10:34am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

It could pick up after Star Trek (2009) -- on the Prime side.

The destruction of Romulus is even worse than the destruction of Praxis, both are similar would lead into ground that could've also been covered in a post-ST VI setting.

If there's an Enterprise in this series, Picard could be retiring and handing the reigns to a new crew similar to how Kirk had to face handing the reigns to a new crew. Thematically, the TNG Era (for the sake of argument, we'll call it 2364-2387) had reached the same point the TOS Era (2265-2293) was at when it ended.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 7:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I used to defend DS9 pretty hard. I understand what it was trying to do and what it was trying to say. It doesn't take away from what the series was. During the Post-Cold War, Pre-9/11 Period, "The End of History", we had a Golden Age if not a paradise where Bill Clinton was committing America toward building a bridge to the 21st Century. "It's easy to be a Saint in Paradise", DS9 warned. No kidding.

But 17 years, two presidencies, and two over-lapping wars later, not to mention a partisan divide so sharp that it's impossible to take a middle ground on anything, I think a new Star Trek series needs to say something else.

It needs to point to how things can be better. "We didn't destroy ourselves" isn't enough. "We got ourselves out of this mess. We got ourselves out of the muck." That's the message we need to see.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Wed, Feb 17, 2016, 5:19pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I agree. I also hope the next series has "smart optimism". Otherwise, where Star Trek left off in the 24th Century doesn't look too good when you scratch underneath the surface.

Outside of "Pathfinder", "Endgame", and "Star Trek: Nemesis", DS9 is the final word on the 24th Century Alpha Quadrant.

Circumstances aside: Sisko agreed, and Starfleet allowed, evidence to be forged to convince the Romulans to join them in the war against the Dominion. "In the Pale Moonlight" is one of my favorite DS9 episodes BUT nevertheless, as Sisko says, "I lied, I cheated, I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I'm an accessory to murder. But Garak was right about one thing. A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant." The audience is on Sisko's side because of how bad the war is going for the Federation but what would the audience have thought if it were Section 31 that lied to the Romulans?

Likewise, during DS9's Final Chapter, Sisko basically orders Worf to assassinate Gowron. Just not in so many words. He tells Worf that Gowron must be stopped, knowing full well that he won't back down. The only way to stop him is to kill him. And the only way to do that is to have Worf challenge him. "But Worf is a Starfleet officer!" Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. In time of war, the law falls silent.

Finally, Section 31 infected the entire Great Link with a lethal disease with no known cure. They were basically willing to commit genocide to stop an enemy threat. "But Section 31 isn't Starfleet!" No, it's not. But they work with Starfleet and are still part of the Federation, even if it's the underbelly.

So, at the end of DS9, the Romulans, Klingons, and the Federation were allies but only because the Federation deceived the Romulans (and planted a mole inside the Senate) and the Chancellor of the Klingons was killed so they could have *their* guy, Martok, the one who they preferred, in the position. And the war with the Dominion was over, because Section 31 brought the Founders to their knees. For all their bravado, they ended the war once Odo offered to cure them.

As a post-script, the entire Romulan Senate is wiped out at the beginning of "Star Trek: Nemesis" but even though it looks like their relationship with the Federation will become stronger at the end of the film, in "Star Trek" (2009) Romulus is destroyed, so who knows what happened after that?

Basically, the last we see of Star Trek, chronologically, is a pragmatic dystopia. That's why there needs to be another series and that's why it needs to be set *after* everything we've seen.

The Federation isn't everything it wants to be. The galaxy isn't always going to agree with it. It's a painful lesson to learn but what was the lesson to be learned? Where does the Federation go from here after what it's been through (since the war)?

Parallel to Current Events: America isn't everything it wants to be. The world isn't going to always agree with it. It's a painful lesson to learn but what was the lesson to be learned? Where does America from here after what it's been through (since 9/11)?
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Feb 12, 2016, 10:09am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I'm prepared to be totally wrong BUT here's my prediction for the setting of the series and why:

Short Answer: My prediction for the setting of the next Star Trek series: Prime Timeline, 25th Century. After "Star Trek Online".

Long Answer: We've already seen the TOS era, TNG era, we've seen glimpses of in-between. None of it will look new. It either has to be Pre-TOS or Post-NEM.

Setting it in-between ENT and the 2233 timeline split would look cowardly. Like they'd be too afraid to make a stand and say if this is set in the Prime Timeline, Abrams Timeline, or a Third Timeline. So that leaves Post-Nemesis.

Here's why I think it'll take place after Star Trek Online. If you set it any earlier (and still have it be post-Nemesis), it might alienate fans of Online or fans of the novels because the new series will most likely overwrite them. If you want fans to *pay* for the CBS streaming service, you'll have to make them _want_ to spend the money. That's also why I think it'll be set in the Prime Universe.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Wed, Feb 10, 2016, 12:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I was already thinking about doing someone similar to that anyway, except using my own personal ratings, but this exercise is basically the same thing, so I'll bit the bullet.

Pulling up another tab, to look for Jammer's ratings, and plugging in the numbers...

DS9:
"The Darkness and the Light" - 3
"Empok Nor" - 2

VOY:
"The Raven" - 2.5
"Mortal Coil" - 3
"Retrospect" - 3
"Living Witness" - 4
"Drone" - 4
"Gravity" - 2.5 (one of my favorites, so I disagree with this)
"Bride of Chaotica!" - 2
"Course: Oblivion" - 1.5
"Juggernaut" - 2.5
"Relativity" - 3
"Barge of the Dead" - 4
"Alice" - 2.5
"One Small Step" - 3.5
"Spirit Folk" - 1
"Fury" - 1.5
"The Haunting of Deck Twelve" - 1.5 (sounds way too harsh)
"Flesh and Blood" - 3.5 (not so sure about that... )
"Workforce, Part I and II" - 3.5 for Part I, 3 for Part II
"Friendship One" - 2.5

"Flesh and Blood" and "Workforce" count twice as two-part/two-hour episodes.

Sooo....

63 stars divided by 23 episodes (Memory Alpha counts "Flesh and Blood" once I believe, I'm counting it twice) provides a star average of...

2.739 stars.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Tue, Feb 9, 2016, 10:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I looked up the episodes Bryan Fuller wrote on Memory Alpha, and he wrote several good episodes of Voyager. “The Raven”, “Mortal Coil”, “Retrospect”, “Gravity”, “Relativity”, “Barge of the Dead”, “Alice”, “One Small Step”, “The Haunting of Deck Twelve”, “Flesh and Blood”, “Workforce”, and “Friendship One” are all episodes I can recommend. Most of those episodes are strong character studies. In several instances, the characters beliefs are tested or challenged.

“Workforce” takes it one step further by destructing and reconstructing characterization by showing how the crew would interact as characters even if they had no memory of their lives on Voyager or where they were from.

Some episodes are high-concept. In “Alice”, Tom Paris discovers an alien shuttle that slowly takes control of him. “The Haunting of Deck Twelve” is a spoof of “The Blair Witch Project”. “Relativity” is a wacky time-travel story that fully embraces its chaos.

Then (or rather, before) there were the two episodes he wrote for DS9. “The Darkness and the Light”, a Major Kira story dealing with the ugly aftermath of Cardassian Occupation of Bajor and “Terok Nor”, an atmospheric episode on DS9’s sister station, where Garak (Andrew Robinson) is affected by a drug that turns him into a danger more akin to another character the actor the actor has played: Scorpio in "Dirty Harry".

Out of 22 episodes he wrote, the only two "bad" ones were "Spirit Folk" (the second Irish village episode), which I don't have a problem with but most people do, and "Fury", the episode were Kes returns. That episode actually *is* horrible. So overall, that's a good ratio. 22 episodes and only two misses.

Judging by all these episodes, I think Bryan Fuller would have the range you'd normally see in a typical Star Trek season.

I haven't seen "Hannibal", so I can't say anything about that.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 10:33pm (UTC -5)
Re: Trailer: Star Trek Beyond

It seems like a "Star Trek Into Darkness" review is going to be timely again. If only for the purposes of: here's what came out immediately before "Star Trek Beyond", so let's take a look back!
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Dec 4, 2015, 9:12am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

"I think even if CBS could do 26 episodes no way in hell they would, it would cost them way too much money."

Yeah. Somewhere else I said that the new series would probably end up lasting as long as TNG but only have as many episodes as TOS.

I'd like to be wrong, but I see 13-episode seasons every winter. That's my official prediction. ;)
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Nov 29, 2015, 11:05am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I'm going to go back to "Mad Men" as an example. Never mind the "glacial pace" (I don't agree with that, I think it's more of a slow burn, but that's neither here nor there). A typical season would have an overriding story arc with a beginning, middle, and end.

BUT...

Each individual episode had its own beginning, middle, and end. It had its own integrity. So, if you watched just one episode and just that one episode ever, you'd get a complete story. A story within a larger story, for sure, but still a complete story.

I'll be honest. I prefer DS9 but I'm more likely to watch VOY on Netflix when I'm looking for any old episode to watch. So, yes, I see the value of still doing self-contained shows. I just like the idea of if you put together each episode, you'll see something larger.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 9:28am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I like "Mad Men" and its spiritual successor "Halt and Catch Fire". So, I'm also in favor of a major arc per season where the characters all have their own story.

Unless it's done *really* well, I'm definitely not interested in nothing but disposable in-and-out, one-and-dones.

TOS, TNG, VOY, the first two seasons of ENT. We have 19 seasons of Starship Trek done in that style. Nothing will make the New Trek series look stale and outdated right off the bat faster than that.

And how long could they keep up a string of episodes that are so that well done that it would off-set the staleness of the formula? Especially when most of it's already been done and that's not how the Non-CBS Demographic watches TV. The first season would be the strongest, then it would drop off.

I'm not saying it should follow the path of DS9, because I don't want to see another series escalating into an all-out quadrant-spanning war, but, structurally, the way DS9 was set up in its later seasons is the closest example of what a Star Trek series should be like in the Binge Generation.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Nov 27, 2015, 12:34am (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

I'm cautiously optimistic about the new series. Here are my reasons:

I'm not familiar with Alex Kurtzman's TV work but this *is* a TV series, so it doesn't have a film budget which means they can't afford to have nothing but constant "BLAM! BLAM! POW! POW!" Even if they tried, it wouldn't look as good as in the movies. They have to do something else.

If it's written the way most modern series are now, and it's available for streaming, there's going to be a continuing story line and the necessary character development and character arcs to go along with it. That's what made DS9 so interesting to follow.

Blockbuster Movies have to play it safe and conservative to make the most profit. With TV, you can get away with taking more time to explore relevant issues in-depth like Star Trek at its best did. The ONLY time important social issues were addressed in any of the films was TUC with the end of the Cold War. TVH to a lesser extent with "Hunting a species to extinction is wrong!" but TUC was harder hitting.

The movies can be big, dumb fun. I don't care. As long as the TV series has more substance. It was the same way in the '90s. The TNG movies were already heading in the direction the JJ Abrams films have gone. I like to say the best TNG movie technically wasn't a movie, it was "The Best of Both Worlds".
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 11:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: New Trek Series Coming in 2017

Responding to some of Petetong's points.

"Transporters - clearly a gimmick to avoid costly special effect sequences with shuttles. The technology makes no sense and it looks cheesy."

Interesting because the Delft University of Technology is actually researching how to make teleportation possible.

"Society is also a lot more multicultural now than it was in the 1980s. Using aliens as stand-ins for non-white humans / non-American humans is offensive."

What's offensive to me is that you think society wasn't just as multi-cultural in the 1980s. As a half-Iranian who's not religious, isn't straight, and who was a kid back then, I was fully aware that our society was not largely homogenous.

Though, I will agree with you -- to an extent -- that having other cultures stand-in for non-white Americans can be offensive, it can work if the stand-ins are not intended to be derogatory and if the point of view for why they think the way they do is explained.

I also think that the Federation, at least in TNG, has more in common with the European Union than the United States. When Star Trek returns on TV, what I hope is that if the Federation is a stand-in for America, it's not a stand-in for Red America, like ENT Season 3 was. That was a _major_ turn-off.

The Red State / Blue State Divide we now have would actually make for a great episode. Not for the Federation but, if the Enterprise, or whatever the ship it is, runs into a planet like this. That would be Star Trek commenting on our society as it currently is. Using another planet to make indirect commentary.

"Ship design - the saucer, two nacelle, bridge on the top is boring. That design was dreamed up in the 1960s and has been played with over time but I think in 2015 we can come up with a more interesting and realistic design for a ship."

It has to be recognizable as Star Trek or the audience will think its something else.

Also, how are ships, shuttles, or craft designs in general that different between the 1960s and 2010s? And how does the concept a design being from 50 years ago mean that it shouldn't be the design for a ship in the future? I know of no ships in 1966 that looked like the Enterprise. I know of no ships in 1987 that looked like the Enterprise-D.

When it was designed doesn't have to have anything to do with how much it's tied to that time. If I didn't know, I could probably tell the original Enterprise was designed in the '60s. But, I wouldn't be able to pin down the refit Enterprise to 1979 or the Enterprise-D to 1987. Those designs are timeless. The Enterprise-E not so much. I liked in 1996 but the more time passes, the less I do. Some of those designs have stood the test of time, others haven't as much.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Thu, Jan 29, 2015, 9:05am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Jammer's review for "Star Trek Into Darkness" reminds me of something else. Technically, if you put pigs into an airplane, then they're flying.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Dec 21, 2014, 2:06pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

He's not posting this in 2014. I don't see it happening.

He was right about one thing at least. He did post a new review this year. "Interstellar" is a great film, worth its four stars, but still. 2014 is a big window to miss. 365 days, so if you have 365 chances to make the mark.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Oct 12, 2014, 9:36am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Option 2 as the main story with Option 1 in the background.

I don't *really* want Option 3 but I know it's the 50th Anniversary so I get it...
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Oct 5, 2014, 6:00pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Sure, why not? In the olden days (i.e. the '00s), I wondered if they could bring him back in a way that would make sense. At this point, I'm not too worried about it.

I also don't subscribe to the "We should be doing something new!" argument anymore. This is Part 3. Given how long it takes for these movies to come out, considering they're just gigs for the actors, taking into account JJ Abrams is more focused on Star Wars, and it's rare for a film series to go passed Part 3 anymore and that's all the actors are committed to, this version of Star Trek is going to pretty much run its course as a trilogy. It's almost over.

I don't care about it anymore. I'm more interested in what happens *after* we get this movie out of the way.

In the meantime, it's nice to see William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy on screen one more time, before it's too late, for the 50th Anniversary.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sun, Sep 28, 2014, 7:10pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

I think I'm going to be wrong, but I'll guess anyway. He'll post a review for Into Darkness right before the next one is released.

At this point, I'm more interested in if he posts the review than the actual review itself.

While it's true he posts to TNG as an example of things taking a while but still getting done, this is a bit different. There was three years between posting the Season 4 and Season 5 reviews (2008-2011) but during 2008 and 2009 he was still reviewing "Battlestar Galactica". In 2010, he was reviewing "Caprica". In 2011, he picked up TNG again. There were still reviews. This isn't the case here.

True, it's a hobby, definitely. There was an expectation of a review though, with readership in the hundreds or thousands (I'm not sure which). When Tim Lynch stopped reviewing in 2003 after the second season of ENT because he didn't have time for it anymore, it was six months after the release of "Star Trek: Nemesis" and he said if the review wasn't out by the end of the summer, it wouldn't be out at all. He knew when to let it go.

I think Jammer will ultimately go through with posting a review but only out of a sense of commitment after having put it off for too long. A hobby shouldn't feel like an obligation, so if it's an obligation, something's wrong. To quote Jammer after he finished reviewing TNG, "This site is as complete as it needs to be" and maybe he's right.

Round about way of my saying if he wants to move on, I think he should. No one will fault him for that. I don't think he should leave people hanging, though, about when or whether or not a review will be posted.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Jan 4, 2014, 8:05pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

He bought the DVD, so that puts it above 1.5, which he gave TFF.

Let's be realistic: he's not going to give it 3.5 or 4.

So that leaves 2, 2.5, or 3. He's defended JJ Abrams' films but I think he would've felt compelled to write something by now if he were *really* enjoyed the film. Moving and taking care of a baby are a lot of work but everyone needs a break.

Taking all that into consideration, I'm 99.9% sure, Jammer would rate this a 2.5.

Just my opinion of what I think he'd give STID. In lieu of a review, that's my educated guess.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Sat, Dec 28, 2013, 11:50am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

At this point, I think a capsule review, as opposed to full length, might be worth considering.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Fri, Aug 30, 2013, 1:00am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Scotty couldn't be happier that Engineering is also the Brewery. ;)

I agree with Patrick on these points:

"AbramsTrek is designed to be disposable entertainment, just like Michael Bay's Transformers."

This is true. Even though I liked ST XI when I saw it in the theater, I've only seen it once after 2009, and that was in 2011. I have no burning urge to watch it again.

The main problem with these films is that they try too hard to emulate other franchises and exaggerate the what pop culture associates with TOS.

STID made less domestically than ST XI, so there's obviously going to be a tapering effect.

What they should do is take the data on who's seen these movies and extrapolate from there. Star Trek, however its done, is capturing a mainly Over 25 Audience. Paramount should partition its demographics. If they took a two-pronged approach they could use Transformers to target Under 25 and Star Trek to target Over 25. Then there are the European and Asian markets. I feel like smarter and more sophisticated writing would be well-received if they want to lean more on the foreign box office. I'd think the less "American" it is, the more Star Trek appeal overseas. STID has a very post-9/11 vibe, except 9/11 was 12 years ago.

"The majority of people who go to see these films couldn't give a damn about Star Trek. The jocks will move on to the next spectacle once it becomes old hat, and the Trek nerds will feel put off."

I think it's going to become old hat once Star Wars VII hits. That's where the they'll flock to.

Bad Robot will do ST XIII because they *have* to. After that, Star Trek will go onto its next incarnation, whatever it is, wherever it's produced, and however it'll be seen.
Set Bookmark
Lord Garth
Tue, Aug 27, 2013, 11:12am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek Into Darkness

Norris: I liked "Star Trek" (2009) when I saw it in the theater and I was 29. Not exactly what I'd consider when I was a "small child".

I discovered Star Trek at the age of 11 in 1991. It was around the same time I started puberty and I thought it as one of the first "adult" things that I was a fan of.

Obviously what's considered "adult" television has become more even more *adult* since the early-'90s but, at the time, I knew that I'd become a fan of something that wasn't aimed squarely toward children.

I'm one of those "half-breeds" who liked the first Abrams film but didn't like the second.

"Prometheus" was mentioned earlier. Reaction to that film was mixed. It's one of my favorite movies. I don't keep at it and at it with people. That was the point I was trying to make earlier, it seemed to me that you wanted to keep at it and at it more the sake of it than anything else. I'm also a fan of "Alien 3" and "Alien Resurrection" the latter of which I know is a debate I'll never "win" so I don't bother to go into it.

So I do know *something* of what it's like to be a fan of something that receives a negative reaction from other fans.
Next ►Page 1 of 2
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2017 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.