Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 14 (Showing 1-14)

Page 1 of 1
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 1:52pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Nothing Left on Earth Excepting Fishes

Agree with Jammer on this one, and one element I didn't see anyone else mention (skimmed the comments) is the predictability factor. I knew Mercer's lover was a Krill and those Krill ships were going to find them despite their cloak, and therefore I knew the torture scene was faked. Really, no one else saw that coming?

Main point I'd make at this point is the same one others have made - the members of this crew are almost all despicable people no one would aspire to serve with except Kelly. So, McFarlane has the terrible tension here of trying to appeal to two groups simultaneously (trek fans and frat humor fans) which may be impossible. Trek fans won't engage with this crew of creeps while fans of juvenile comedy won't tolerate the long stretches of boring trek between kiddy gags. I think he needs to pick a direction for the show to last.

Just add that the first season was promising because the mix was different. The show was clearly trek, while the humor was also a more sophisticated trek brand - that leg removal gag was hilarious but only if you understood trek (the leg can be put back easily). So McFarlane had done the amazing - invented a new kind of humor that worked with trek. But this second season has seen him abandon that, the humor is not trek (bro character eats loud, comes to bridge wearing sweaty clothes), hence the tension noted above. I'm losing interest in the show amazingly fast in season 2.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Tue, Jan 8, 2019, 3:42pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: Primal Urges

Just want to agree with those who found Kelly's "this ship is gross" comment to be a key one in this episode, initially quite funny but ultimately bad and undermining of the show. In short, the problem with this show is it keeps whip-lashing back and forth, sacrificing otherwise potentially interesting characters for a momentary joke, and thereby yanking the rug out from under non-intoxicated viewers who are trying to find a narrative or character thread to latch onto. As others said well above, this is apparently what McFarlane does on his animated show, and I agree it's not appropriate here. Also, it appears to me that the primary viewpoint of Orville may be that you should be drunk or high to watch it. Either way, these tendencies endanger my future interest. I watch the show now as the only trek in town (STD being a disgrace) but I won't give it infinite rope.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 2:26pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

Then I found out that this news isn't that new, and apparently Kurtzman's name is all over it, so yeah, it'll be that bad :(

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek/274332/star-trek-the-next-generation-reboot-with-patrick-stewart-reportedly-in-development
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Sun, Aug 5, 2018, 12:48am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

Yeah I just saw that story. If its true, I'm hoping it means the makers of STD got the message that STD was crap, half because it was just crap written by idiots, and half because the act of making STD threw away far superior opportunities to tell the ST story FORWARD instead of fucking backward. Forward from all the great stuff contained within existing canon.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Thu, Feb 15, 2018, 12:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: Will You Take My Hand?

I think all of you misunderstand what ST:D actually is. It was amusing reading the mostly negative reviews here torching this show, but you all seem to have missed the fact that ST:D is itself slash and burn television. The people running this show have no interest in Trek or who this guy Roddenberry was. Their marching orders were simple - we own this brand that has some PR reach, and we need to launch our streaming service. Period. We don't give a fuck what you produce in ST:D, so long as it has the brand name stamped on it in a couple of places. Because the brand is famous but our streaming service has a limited reach, far more people will read articles online about the property than will actually view or care about the property. So, titrate the amount of effort you put into the show accordingly.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Mon, Dec 11, 2017, 11:27am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

I can't tell what MacFarlane's goal is for Orville: ST tribute, ST updating, ST replacement, Galaxy Quest update, GQ tribute? And I hoped I would know by the end of season 1. What does strike me is the most memorable moments from the show for me were the comedy moments that worked (2/3s of which didn't, IMO), such as the leg removal early in the season or Isaac appearing at the helmsman's side stroking his arm and asking if they're bonding. Memorable because those weren't ST moments but could perhaps best be described as "fun with ST." But, as many have pointed out here, if those moments were his only or even main goal, it's puzzling that he's putting so much effort into all the rest of it, such as the prime directive aspects of this episode which very clearly were ST moments.

Otherwise what I can offer at this point is the thought that this show, with its many flaws, is feeding me a reasonably satisfying weekly ST fix whereas STD with its pilot filled with utterly serious but utterly unbelievable cardboard Hollywood characters and nonstop shouting, holds virtually no interest for me.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Tue, Sep 26, 2017, 1:04pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S1: The Vulcan Hello / Battle at the Binary Stars

I'll keep this simple to try and send the strongest possible signal about the show. The first episode was characterized by 3 main things.

First, the bad acting and dialogue, stilted, full of bickering. It simply didn't feel remotely like a real crew aboard a distant exploring starship (see BSG pilot for much more convincing sci fi dialogue). And the easy "phone home" technology destroyed any sense that we were far from home. Did any of the creators even watch an episode of TOS?

Second, the great effects were impressive, at least twice as much effects time as say TNG, and that's welcome for the modern era. But, as with ENT, this technology feels like it belongs 30 to 50 years AFTER TNG. Oops.

Third, the Klingons. After 50 years of trek and other sci fi, we're all hungry for fun new sci fi stories, discoveries, exploration, and especially new and mind-bending aliens to encounter (the Borg, Species 8472, on and on). After all that, we get....drum roll please...the Klingons. But not the Klingons that TNG labored for a decade to convert from paper thin to somewhat 3D. No, we get unintelligible Klingons barking from behind heavy rubber masks. That's what's supposed to drive the excitement of ST well into the 21st century? Uh-huh. How much are these show runners getting paid again?
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Mon, Jun 12, 2017, 11:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S4: Galaxy's Child

I also just did a random re-watch of this episode, and found it utterly cringe worthy because of the comically dated gender politics. The first half of the episode is Geordi making incredibly creepy come ons to Leah, taking stunning liberties with an attitude that this person who has shown up is his personal play thing, leading up to the evene more creepy ambush dinner in his quarters. I know the stuff jammer mentioned is bad enough (not bothering to check if she's married is just part of the utter adolescence of this script), but what's really worse than that is the sense of moment to moment entitlement Geordi displays through the entire first half. I keep thinking "ok this is the moment when he backs off and gives this other human being some respectful space," but it never happens! Every scene is just him coming back for another bite at the apple, leading inevitably to his fantasy moment of revealing his secret program and demanding that she be just like that for him.

I had thought from memory that it got better from there, but oh no. I was stunned to see the big showdown scene when she finds his hollogram, where the writers actually turn it around and blame HER for the whole thing! Wow, talk about a second rate writing and production staff of total male nerds projecting the most adolescent possible ideas about gender interaction, with unfortunately no grown up anywhere in the process to check this horrendous mess and say "boys, grow the frak up, this is something you'll look back on in shame unless you change it now." Too bad.

And is it EVEN worse that after this horredous mess the same writing staff ends the series with the promise that she actually marries this creepy version of Geordi after all? The normal Geordi character isn't a creep, just to be clear, but the one they trotted out for this twisted mess certainly was and never really appeared again, thank goodness.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 4:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Robert, I agree with you, I just wanted to start with the cleanest possible assessment. But yeah, what ENT 3/4 did started to get interesting, and might even have qualified as Bucket 3. I particularly note the Mirror Darkly 2-part episode which frankly I found shocking for various (good) reasons, most especially how well a straight revival of TOS aesthetic worked with modern 16:9 1080p digital production. I don't think anybody wants a straight TOS copy of course, but the idea of truly borrowing that aesthetic...it would be interesting indeed. But, how very unlikely eh? A shame.

But, as long as we're on the subject, I felt like the exterior effects in mirror darkly worked just fine, as TOS ships look superior to the multi colored children's toys of all subsequent shows, and mating that with a more modern interior aesthetic would be interesting indeed.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Wed, Feb 1, 2017, 1:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

So, what should STD be? I think we (and the STD writers) start by analyzing all existing Trek TV, and being as objective as possible, I think we end up with 2 buckets of TV trek to choose from. Bucket 1 was TOS, TAS, and TNG, which all share a sense of wonder and positive outlook that folks above talked about. Those were the assets (wonder and positivity) that created the Trek following globally, I think.

Bucket 2 is everything that came after Bucket 1. And, putting aside the texture and era differences of who grew up watching which shows, I think we can reasonably objectively agree with reviewers like Bill Hunt over at the digital bits and Jammer here on this website by saying that Bucket 2 was too commonly characterized by an assembly-line attempt to soullessly extend the "brand" created by Bucket 1, resulting in the "spatial anomaly of the week" phenomenon (Hunt's phrase) or the "random soap opera story of the week (DS9)" phenomenon.

So the Discovery writers face this main choice: do we try to create more Bucket 1 content? Do we just lazily throw out more Bucket 2 content? Or, do we attempt to create a new Bucket 3?

Viewed this way, I think it’s easy to see why most of us here simply don't believe that modern Hollywood can create any more Bucket 1 content. And, I think that in particular is why most of us condemn the prequel setting - because they will be taking nominal Bucket 1 content but producing it in what is almost certainly going to be the Bucket 2 mindset (this being what happened to ENT).

The creativity of the Bucket 1 material belongs to a bygone era, unfortunately. That's my fear. Unless a British crew took over this show so we could get something like The Crown's or Black Mirror's sensibility and creativity brought to bear here.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Fri, Oct 14, 2016, 10:23pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Robert, you nailed it. While I agree with Paul M that there is of course nothing inherent in the prequel concept that excludes the possibilty of top-notch writing, the reality is Hollywood is swamped with second-rate and lessor writing and show-running, and such writing will run head on into the inherent contradictions of the prequel concept that Robert and I pointed out. So we can hope (and I am) that somehow this is a light-touch, well-done prequel show that captures some fascinating aspects of pre-TOS trek, but don't hold your breath :)

Niall: I actually agree, ENT was worse in that deep sense. However, looking at Voyager today (I never really watched it on first run), the sexism punches you in the face. 7's costume is problematic on several levels. For some odd reason, it appears to add falsies to enlarge her breasts to essentially pr0n-star dimensions, and having done that, the directors repeatedly shoot her from close in and below looking up to accentuate her cleavage. I'm afraid its impossible to avoid the conclusion that adolscent boys were directing that aspect of the show for basically every year that she appeared.

Having said that, it is true that her character and plot lines were not bad at all, in fact IMO they were the best thing about the show. But I'm sorry, the presentation was not an accident and it really hits you in the face if you weren't numbed to its effects by growing up with the show, causing a constant and disturbing tension between the sexist presentation vs the substance of what she's saying and doing. I found that tension most unsatisfying in the end, part of what makes VOY the worst of the lot for me by a mile.

But you make an even more disturbing point. Sexism was actually worse in the Berman shows than in TOS (starting with Troi's character and outfits, which did not fit into the 80s, whereas the outfits in TOS were normal to that era), and leading from Troi to 7's outfit to the even worse problems you noted in ENT, we see a trend of steadily worsening sexism across the Berman universe. Makes me fear for what might come in STD, like there's just a culture of adolescence that attaches itself to ST properties in Hollywood in the modern era.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 12:49am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Discovery

I too expect the prequel concept to doom this show (and can't for the life of me imagine what these supposedly accomplished show runners are thinking when they choose to box themselves in like this). The tension created by prequelization is inescapable - just like Enterprise, it's conceit will be to portray events way back when, but with decades of additional technology available to the show makers in 2016, the sets and computer tech of the show are going to look much more advanced than TOS or even TNG. Equally damning, a prequel must stick to events, places, and species we already know about, but of course that was the first thing Enterprise abandoned, very much to its detriment. The show runners literally can't be ambitious unless they toss the prequel concept into the trash can, and then you just end up with an utter mess.

Regarding the sexism of TOS, as some folk above pointed out, the idea that anyone could say the last Berman series were less sexist than TOS boggles the mind. One word: 7 of 9, in literally every scene she appeared on screen. Way, way, WAY past anything TOS ever dreamed of, and frankly absolutely mind blowing for a 90s show. This Fuller character was responsible, so don't hold your breath for great things from this new show.

Short season - yes, that I can get behind!
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Thu, Oct 6, 2016, 12:15am (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Sons of Mogh

@JC you got it exactly, this episode's resolution sucked on many levels, perhaps most of which was that it fell completely to Worf to do something to help his brother, to find him new purpose at a time when new purposes abound (the empire is obviously being messed with from within in this episode, and in the coming years that's obviously going to be put right, along with the honor of the sons of Mogh), and with all his creativity and experience he came up with precisely nothing. You could feel the contrivance driving towards this stupid ending. Sad ending for a great ST character, but the writers of these later Berman shows were burning all kinds of bridges as they seemingly quite knowingly headed towards the exit. Very much a second rate string of writers and producers.
Set Bookmark
Bufo
Mon, Sep 19, 2016, 7:51pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S1: Conspiracy

Fun episode, but what's missed in this review is the telling, very bad way this episode is resolved, which sets a pattern that the 2nd gen ST series suffered from right through to the end of Enterprise. The first acts of this episode set the stage for something great, a deep, all-encompassing conspiracy at the highest levels of the most powerful entity in the alpha quadrant. All well and good, but then Picard beams down, has dinner with the chief conspirators, and solves the whole thing in 10 minutes with a phaser. WTF? It isn't just that this should have been a 2-parter (it should), it's the lazy quality of the writing that is evident in this resolution that punches the viewer in the face. We suffered from that lazy writing consistently during the ensuing 15+ years, and it needs to be called out if the new ST series is to have any hope of exceeding the quality of the Berman series.
Page 1 of 1
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 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.