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: 1,457 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 59
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 12:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

Mayweather was not given much development because the production staff discovered belately that Anthony Montgomery just wasn't a very good actor.

At any rate, there's a huge difference between merely not putting a character in the spotlight (for whatever reason) and turning them into "playthings to be teased and humiliated and destroyed by sadistic writers".
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

(forgot to mention that my last comment was a direct reply Tommy D.)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 9:54pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

"It all becomes clear now ;-)"

You mean, you're finally beginning to realize that different people have different tastes? That just because somebody likes something you don't (or dislikes something you do) does not necessarily mean that they are hypocritical, unfair or stupid?

If so, than congratulations for finally getting clarity on this point. ;-)
Set Bookmark
Gerontius
Wed, Jul 29, 2020, 8:30pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: A Matter of Time

Fun enough episode. They can't (and shouldn't) all be about serious stuff. I quite liked Rasmussen. The fact he clearly irritated most of the StarTrek regulars was in itself quite entertaining.

I agree that if he'd been a genuine visitor from the future that might have made Picard's attempt to cheat the Temporal Prime Directive would have been more interesting, but that would have been a completely different story.

As for the suggestion that not sending him back involved changing the past, that's not thought through. Sending him back, that would have changed things, he'd be going back with knowledge about the future. Keeping him here involved no time paradoxes at all. He'd left the 22nd century, it would get along without him perfectly well. Send him back, you might just as well send any cast member back to that time , it would change the past.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 10:18pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

The job of these teasers is to wet your appetite towards the new series.

The trailer of the Orville did that well. It got me hooked from the very first second. It got me totally excited about a new TV show, in a way that I haven't felt since Enterprise.

Was that trailer full of stupid jokes? Well, probably. I honestly don't remember, because my attention was focused on "ooooh, shiny! Finally we're getting a bright optimistic somewhat trek-like show!".

So as a trailer, the Orville's trailer got the job done.

Can you say the same thing about the Lower Decks trailer? Or this "first look" clip? Does it wet your appetite? Does it make you want to see more?

As a side note:

I've just found out that the official abbreviation of Lower Decks is going to be LDS. How strangely appropriate. Sure seems like TPTB had a little too much LDS, if you get my drift. ;-)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 10:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Booming
"I'm not sure if we will ever see an actual Trek show again. First, the concept of Star Trek will be severely damaged after the NuTrek avalanche. Second, producing a sci fi show is very expensive and the audience for smart... well everything is fairly limited."

It's true that we'll probably never get it from CBS or any other mega-corporation.

But the soul of Trek is bigger than a single franchise. Inspirational, optimistic, thoughtful sci fi is an immortal concept. All that is needed to reignite that spark, is another creator with the vision and the will and the ability to make it happen.

It doesn't even need to be expensive. You can make decent sci fi on almost any budget. You can even make it look good. These aren't the 1960's, where everything that wasn't ultra-expensive has to look cheesy.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 3:40pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

(last word was supposed to be "anywhere")
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Jul 21, 2020, 3:39pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@William B
"I think in general fans of something aren't the best people to talk to about why other people don't like it, and (again IMO) that's okay."

Of-course it's okay.

I just want to discuss the matter openly. That's all.

I wish people were more aware of these complexities before they make offhanded remarks about entire groups of people. And discussing the matter directly is as good way as any to get people to think.

And this goes for both "sides", by the way.

I've seen some commenters who were quick to judge DSC/PIC fans as misguided brainwashed morons.

And I've seen enough here to realize that this notion is completely false. There are plenty of people, including Classic Trek fans, who genuinely enjoy the new shows (or at least some of them).

So it would be really nice if both "sides" stopped doing that.
(and *please* don't take this as an indication to start a war regarding which side is the worse offender. Two wrongs do not make a right, and squabbling about "who started it" is not going to get us anyway)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 7:29pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

That's more or less what I said in my own comment.

But I'd still like to hear Tim's own answer to that question. Or someone else with a similar opinion. Otherwise, it becomes a one-sided conversation, doesn't it?

I'm serious about this. I would really love to know how Nu Trek fans explain this situation. I mean, what, do they *really* believe that these fans are just a bunch of grumpy narcissist ninnies?

Because we constantly get this kind of offhand remarks here. And Tim is right: It's risky to tell what people really think by these kinds of offhand remarks. So I've asked him a direct question this time. Hopefully, he will give me a direct answer.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 6:11pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Trent
"If anyone's hungry for Trek, and on the fence as to whether to watch Orville (or was disappointed by its 1st season), try watching Orville's "Sanctuary", "Lasting Impressions" and "Deflectors", all of which Jammer rated highly."

The problem is that there are some spoilers in these episodes for crucial earlier plot points.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 5:55pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Tim C.
"There is nothing more boring than Internet commenters cherry-picking one-liners out of each other's posts and arguing with each other about who attacked who first and who is misunderstanding what, and I really don't feel like being a part of it."

I agree 100%.

Now, do you have an actual on-topic response to my previous comment (which was not intended as a personal attack at all)? Or are you going to continue playing this silly "who attacked first" game, while making questionable assumptions on the intentions of other people?

Because I certainly agree with you that the latter is pointless.

Especially since this isn't a personal squabble. This isn't about you or me. It's about a considerable portion of Trek fandom who are *very* unsatisfied with the way Trek is going in the last few years.

Tell me:

How come millions of loyal fans, who stuck around for decades over 5 very different shows and 10 very different movies, suddenly decide to walk out the door in droves?

And why are they so furious? Why are they spending so much time and energy voicing their discontent?

Stop and think about that for a moment.

These are people who sat down through "Code of Honor" and "Threshold" and "Profit and Lace", as well as the large boring swaths of late Voyager and early Enterprise. The last you can accuse them of, is that their loyalty to the franchise can be easily shaken.

Yet here we are. How did this situation come about?

I've given my own answer in my previous comment, which you - apparently - regarded as a "personal attack". So what's *your* answer? Why do you think this is happening?
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 3:59am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Tim C.
"so many seem to react badly when an established franchise like Trek does not tailor its new output exclusively to their own personal tastes."

Now that's not particularly fair, is it? You make it sound like we're just a bunch of whiny narcissists who throw a tantrum because we didn't get what we want.

And you know that's far from accurate, right?

We react badly because we feel that Nu Trek took something unique and special and cheapened it into a mass-marketed product. It also doesn't help that CBS is treating Trekkies as hopeless addicts who will gobble up anything they throw at us as long as it is called "Star Trek".

I'm guessing that you disagree. That's fine. But can you please stop presenting the opinion you disagree with in such a ridiculous manner?

As for Voyager and Enterprise: I agree to a point. Trek was definitely in need of a new direction. But does this mean that ANY new direction would be good? Does this mean that throwing away nearly everything that made the old Star Trek special, is the way to go forward?

I don't think so. Where's the optimism in Nu Trek? Where's the inspiration and the wonder and the awe? Where's the thoughtful social commentary? Where's the coherent worldbuilding and storytelling?

Here's the thing:

The Trekverse is huge. There are countless ways to take Trek into a new direction, without throwing out the strong points that always made Trek unique.

For example, the general story of ST:Picard. It's actually a great premise: Starfleet is not what it used to be. A refugee crisis which prompts the iconic Captain Jean-Luc Picard, now retired, to step in and fight one last time for what he believes is right.

If done well, this could have been a great Trek series. And a very unique Trek series too. There was absolutely no reason to throw away all the things that traditionally made Trek good, in order to tell this unique and powerful story.

I'd love to watch such a series. Unfortunately, it isn't what we've got.

Or take the premise of Lower Decks. An animated Trek comedy could be a *great* idea. A nice opportunity to put a new spin on things. But the trailer gives the impression of a goofy, silly, infantile show. So I'm supposed to cheer for it just because it is "different"?

In short:

I'm actually happy that TPTB are doing new things are shaking things up. I just wish they didn't have to sacrifice all the things I loved about Trek in order to do it.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 12:36am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Nolan

You're wasting your breath. Mertov isn't interested in discourse. He is interested in terrorizing people with certain opinions into silence.

He has been doing this for years. And the more you try to reason with him, the uglier his replies get. We both know this from experience, so why even bother?

I suggest we concentrate on the 99% of the people here who *are* interested in a civil discussion, and stop letting a single aggressive person ruin our stay here.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 3:53pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Tim C.
"I am greatly amused to see the usual suspects here harping on about how much they hate Lower Decks already without even having seen it."

But that's the thing.

This time it's not just "the usual suspects". The fan response so far is overwhelmingly negative. It's gotten so bad that CBS actually deleted the comment section on youtube and even disabled the like/dislike buttons.

Also, it's just a response to the trailer. Maybe the series itself will surprise us. But a trailer is supposed to give a good impression, doesn't it? What's even the point of having a trailer, if it is "wrong" to form opinions based on the trailer?

I wonder if you would have said the same thing if the responses were positive. Would you then also say "it's amusing to see all these positive reactions when it's just a trailer"? Somehow, I doubt it.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Jul 19, 2020, 12:35am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

I don't care who owns the rights either.

The Orville is certainly a thousand times more Trekkish than the current "official" Trek shows. And I love it for both its Trekkiness and for many (though not all) of the things it is doing differently.

My point is that there are differences as well.

On the one hand, it's a show set on a bright spaceship, genuinely going where no one has gone before and exploring both the frontiers of space and the dilemmas of our inner souls. So in that respect, the Orville is Star Trek.

But it also has a very "homey" atmosphere, a very... ehm... "unique" sense of humor, and interpersonal drama of the sort you'd expect in a 20th century sitcom. In that respect, the Orville is almost the opposite of Star Trek.

And that's a good thing. The creator of a show should feel free to make the show he wants to make. Seth is a huge Trekkie which is why the Orville is so heavily inspired by Trek, but he is also putting his personal spin on it. There are places where you can practically hear his creative voice saying "Nope. I don't like how Trek dealt with *this* issue. I'm going to do it differently".
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 11:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Dave in MN

"The people who knock Orville seem to only have watched an episode or 2 at the start of the first season or just the trailer."

Many of them, yes. But not all.

StarTrekWatcher gave it an honest chance, if I remember correctly. Booming (the brave brave soul) actually stuck with it for almost 2 seasons, and didn't really warm up to it either.

So it's obviously a matter of personal taste. Some people just don't like the tone.

It also doesn't help that the show has objective flaws. You gotta admit that the low-brow humor *is* cringe-worthy at times. The writing is also fairly uneven. It's just that the fans of the show can overlook these faults because they find other things that they like very much.

Many of these "other things" are different from Star Trek, and deliberately so. Things like the casual workspace atmosphere, or the general way interpersonal drama is played out.

In short, for good or for ill, the Orville a show with a very different feel than (say) TNG. It's just a fact of life that some people would end up liking one show and hating the other.

By the way, this also works in reverse:

I've heard of many people who never cared for Star Trek (thought it was too stuffy and/or too preachy) yet they are huge fans of the Orville.

Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes.
Set Bookmark
OmcronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Jul 18, 2020, 3:45pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@CaptainMercer

The Orville is certainly not for everyone.

I personally love it, but I can totally get why some people (and especially: some Trekkies) just can't stand it. It's really a matter of personal taste, and you can't please everyone.

At any rate, at least McFarlane is creating the show he wants to create. Like it or a hate it - it's his baby and his personal vision for a Trek-like show. It's his personal childhood dream to make this specific show, and you can feel it in every scene.

CBS-Trek, on the other hand, has no creative vision. Hence we get a dozen different shows with a dozen different tones. Some of it may be a good match for certain audiences, but it's still just a product.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 11:52am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Booming
"These are the most prominent women on both shows. What a bunch of heroines..."

Shhh... you are not allowed to say that. If you do, then you'll immediately be tagged as a racist misogynist homophobe.

And that's exactly the problem. While these characters are - indeed - horrible, we are *still* expected to cheer them as "strong independent women".

This is exactly the difference between all this "wokeness" madness and advocating actual diversity.

Actual diversity means having a diverse mix of characters who play a variety of roles. Men, women, straights, gays, whites, blacks, whatever. And most importantly: All these characters are expected to be judged and analyzed by the same human standards.

NuTrek isn't doing that.

And I also don't agree with your claim that the men on these shows are so great. Pike - sure. But he is really the exception that proves the rule. The role of most white men in NuTrek is to be complete idiots. Even Picard, who is the ****-ing hero of a show that's ****-ing named after him, has been transformed into a babbling idiot that every loves to laugh at.

At least some of the women get to be serial killers and do the cool evil stuff.

(and the really sad thing is that 90% of modern TV looks like that)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Fri, Jul 17, 2020, 11:34am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Brandon Adams
"Science fiction is played out. All the popular tropes are done to death, and it was Star Trek that pioneered many of them, or brought them to the mainstream. "

That's the lamest excuse for bad writing I've ever heard.

For one thing, it's obviously false. There's plenty of good new science fiction. Novels. Short stories. Indie films that can be found youtube. Some of them present genuinely new and thought-provoking ideas. Others put a refreshing spin on old ideas.

But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that your claim is true. It would still not excuse what CBS is doing.

First of all, if a showrunner really thinks that "sci fi is done", they shouldn't be doing sci fi in the first place. Least of all pushing us a gazillion new Star Trek series in the span of a few years.

Secondly, even if it were true that we are stuck redoing old things (which we are not) then a good writer could elevate the tired cliches into a good story. Indeed this is a big part of what "good writing" is all about.

Thirdly, Star Trek isn't just about telling stories. It's also about giving us hope for the future (which is something that's desperately needed right now). So even if Trek was a dead end in the story-telling sense (which it isn't), that's no excuse to abandon the one thing that always made Trek special.

And lastly, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) excuses the creation of absolute garbage. Even if it were true that we can't do any better than "medicore cliched sci fi", is that really an excuse to do WORSE?

I long for the old days, when the worst that could be said about a Trek series was that it is too cliched (or that it is "TNG 2.0"). Not that having a TNG 2.0 would be good, but it would still be infinitely better than what we're getting right now.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhI
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 10:32pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

"I feel like crawling into a hole, turning into a lizard and mating with my commanding officer."

LOL

Ah, the golden days when Star Trek was actually good ;-)
(wait... whose side am I on?!)
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 5:02pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@MidshipmanNorris

I guess now you finally understand what it was we "stolid grumpy old ninnies" were complaining about, eh?

@Booming

I don't particularly care if these are actual fans or shills. I'm simply saying that respect needs to be earned. The statement of a random guy who pops in and yells "you're a toxic bunch!" does not carry much weight. At least in my opinion.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 3:13pm (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

@Booming
"I find the negative portrayal of people having an actual opinion about what star trek is (or was) tiring."

Funny how these people don't realize that their own posts are - *gasp* - also an actual opinion about what star trek is. Apparently doing that is okay, as long as you agree with their point of view ;-)

And have you noticed that it's nearly always a new guy who never posted anything before and isn't likely to post anything again. They just pop up, yell "toxic fandom!", and run away never to be seen again.

That's the internet for ya. And honestly, after so many years of this happening, you learn to take it in stride.
Set Bookmark
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Thu, Jul 16, 2020, 12:46am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

LOL

I don't think I've ever seen the people here so united in their opinion of a new Trek show.

Looks like CBS has finally managed to do the impossible, and got most of us to agree on something for once. Even Jammer finally decided that he had enough of their sh*t.

They've crossed the line indeed.

@Rahul
"You're probably right that I'd enjoy some ORV episodes -- if there's a good story to be told and I have even a slight of appreciation for the characters, and the locker-room humor is kept to a minimum. But I believe that brand of humor is one of the pillars of the show -- isn't it?"

Not really.

They laid the juvenile humor really thick in the pilot, and it gets less prominent as the show progresses (though it's always there in the background). The show also greatly improves in other ways, too.

Besides, if you're enough of a Trek completist to endure the (literally) crappy humor of "Lower Decks", you have no excuse to avoid the Orville. It's the Trekkiest show we've had on TV in the past 15 years.

Look... I can't guarantee that you'll end up liking it. But you'll definitely like it more than this new Trek animated series (the stupid humor being a potential problem in both shows). And I'm pretty sure you'll like it more than Discovery or Picard as well.
Set Bookmark
Gerontius
Wed, Jul 15, 2020, 4:33am (UTC -5)
Re: Star Trek: Lower Decks

I doubt if I'm too likely to get round to watching this, but I'm glad Jammer decided that even though he won't be either he'd provide a comments facility for the regulars here to exchange views about it.

I hope that when the next season of Picard turns up he'll do the same thing, since I definitely hope to watch that. In fact I very much hope he'll be reviewing that, even if that means subscribing to CBS. (In my part of the world Amazon prime put out Picard.)

The pity is, I really liked the Lower Depths episode. I think it could have been the basis for a pretty good series.
Set Bookmark
Gerontius
Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:15pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S5: Silicon Avatar

The fact that the entity was responsive to signals and to attempts to communicate rather implied that there might be other similar creatures it there. In which case destroying it without continuing attempts to find out more about it would have done nothing to stop them killing other planets populations, including those with billions of people. The recent spate of devastating incidents suggested it might be a recent arrival in the galaxy, or this part of the galaxy. There might be many more of them on their way.

Picard's choice to explore more about the creature, including whether there might be a better option made complete sense. There might be other potential sources for the Entity that did not entail it devastating populated planets.

The fact that Lore had successfully related to it in no way proved that it knew anything about the existence of humans; all it would have known was whatever Lore might have communicated to it, and Lore of course was not a human. And there are no grounds to assume that this Crystalline Entity was even the same one.

The whale analogy was OK, but I think a better point would be to suggest that if a cow were to talk to them most people would not be so ready to eat it.
Next ►Page 1 of 59
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2020 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.