| |
Star Trek sucks |
| |
This is a long thread. Click here to view the threaded list. |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52204, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:00, 28/2/2004 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
( )
Just watched an episode of Enterprise (Or ST nterprise as it's now called  ). Basically, without giving too much away, it's one of those episodes where they play out an alternate timeline/universe/whatever, where everything's gone to hell. Naturally they solve it all in the end and everything's peachy again, which is exactly my problem... the writers don't have the guts to throw everything away and let humanity fail for once.
There's always got to be some contrived way of making it all never happen (E.g. in Voyager's 'Year of Hell'). Year of Hell was a great episode, because of the fact that everything *had* gone to hell. Having to undo it all and go back to the usual humdrum pace seems a shame, considering the new direction and possibilities that such a storyline offers.
So, erm, Star Trek sucks because they've not brave enough to break the mould and do something new. Quite a lot of other sci-fi no doubt sucks as well, but Star Trek is the longest running series so it becomes the most notable considering how many dead-end situations they've made it through thanks to some loophole in the spacetime continuum.
Comments? |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52206, posted by rich at 17:11, 28/2/2004, in reply to message #52204 |
 Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
7 million people did die in the first Xindi attack, which they haven't time-warped out of (yet). But yeah, I do tend to like shows that have a bit of continuity. Like Stargate SG1 or loathe it, at least the writers have memories going back several seasons. If someone on SG1 gets seriously hurt or dies, they stay that way for several episodes - although Daniel did come back from the dead after bad fan reaction 
________
 Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52208, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:16, 28/2/2004, in reply to message #52206 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
7 million people did die in the first Xindi attack, which they haven't time-warped out of (yet). The episode I just watched features much worse thant that. 7 million is peanuts
Like Stargate SG1 or loathe it, at least the writers have memories going back several seasons. If someone on SG1 gets seriously hurt or dies, they stay that way for several episodes - although Daniel did come back from the dead after bad fan reaction SG1's OK; although I don't really watch it they don't seem to depend on time travel contrivances as much as ST, and the humour in some episodes might represent the fact that the writers know that quite a few of the things that go on are completely ludicrous  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #52210, posted by mavhc at 17:31, 28/2/2004, in reply to message #52204 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Don't forget to sign my petition to cancel Enterprise:
http://www.petitiononline.com/ncc1701d/petition.html |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52211, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:47, 28/2/2004, in reply to message #52210 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Ooo, 7 signatures. You must really be doing a good job of advertising the petition then |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #52247, posted by andrew at 13:17, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52211 |
 Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Why do you want it cancelling? They don't break the mould JL because it would be going against the broadly optimistic vision of Gene Roddenberry. The main problem so far has been re-using ideas that have already been done in original ST, TNG or Voyager.
I was reading about Blake's 7 yesterday as somebody in the Acorn world has written a book based on it. It was a bit before my time so I haven't yet seen it but it looks amazing in that the characters are flawed and don't always make it through situations or do the right thing. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52253, posted by rich at 14:32, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52247 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
I was reading about Blake's 7 yesterday as somebody in the Acorn world has written a book based on it. It was a bit before my time so I haven't yet seen it but it looks amazing in that the characters are flawed and don't always make it through situations or do the right thing. I think everyone's favourite character in Blake's 7 was Avon, who was always looking after himself and basically untrustworthy - after all, the whole crew were from a prison ship originally. It made it so much more interesting - at least until Blake left and they repopulated a much less interesting ship with characterless bimbos.
Funny, the best character on Andromeda was Tyr Anasazi, who was always looking after himself and basically untrustworthy... Pity the rest of the show was shit.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Antony Sidwell |
Message #52254, posted by ajps at 14:35, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52247 |
Member
Posts: 48
|
Why do you want it cancelling? They don't break the mould JL because it would be going against the broadly optimistic vision of Gene Roddenberry.
Ha! Voyager's world was a great example of a broadly optimistic vision. A world in which a small group of people with access to superior weaponry and no external limits on their behaviour can and do attack anyone they meet who doesn't conform to their personal theories of good and bad bahviour or law enforcement. A vision of the future where the most ruthless people with the biggest guns always get their way.
Frankly, that series was so optimistic it made me cry with joy for the expression of the ideals and morals that were so consistently demonstrated by the Voyager crew.
The main problem so far has been re-using ideas that have already been done in original ST, TNG or Voyager. One of the main problems with Star Trek in general is the lack of originality in plots and a liking for deus ex machina endings. What saves most of them is having one or two characters whose parts are written and played so as to evoke some sort of empathy from the viewer.
I was reading about Blake's 7 yesterday as somebody in the Acorn world has written a book based on it. It was a bit before my time so I haven't yet seen it but it looks amazing in that the characters are flawed and don't always make it through situations or do the right thing. Yeah, Blake's 7 is well worth a watch - it was a good idea executed reasonably well.
Hmm. I seem to be in rant mode today. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #52256, posted by moss at 14:58, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52254 |
Posts: 9348
|
Red Dwarf is better than all of them  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Antony Sidwell |
Message #52258, posted by ajps at 15:58, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52256 |
Member
Posts: 48
|
Red Dwarf is better than all of them Red Dwarf handled a lot of ideas better than Star Trek, certainly, especially where they covered exactly the same SF material.
"Thanks for the Memory" is a much better "memory manipulation you're trying to keep hidden from yourselves" story than the ST equivalent(s), "Me^2" is better than the two Rikers episode, "Better than Life" is better than the "addictive game" episode of STTNG (especially in its book form, but I suppose that's an unfair comparison).
Frankly, even "Timeslides" is better than most of the ST time travel/manipulation stories, though "Tikka To Ride" probably isn't. Have you got an article on G&T about this sort of stuff?
Harder to compare RD directly to Blake's 7, as I can't think of any direct parallels between plots of episodes, but B7 definitely did a better job of the "big picture" stuff, as you can see by the fact it actually ended properly despite a dip for a couple of years beforehand.
SG1 is like Red Dwarf in that they're both character-based SF comedies (well, maybe SG1 is a comedy/drama), but direct comparisons are much more difficult than with Star Trek as it uses fewer of the same SF ideas. When they do, they tend to do a reasonably good job of it. It scores some points over RD becaue the producers know the value of model shots as well as CGI stuff, even after the sixth season.
I'd happily dump Star Trek in favour of Red Dwarf, but I'm less willing to let SG1 or even Blake's 7 go. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #52261, posted by filecore at 16:31, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52258 |
Posts: 3867
|
Red Dwarf
Star Trek
STTNG
Blake's 7
SG1 Nobody mentioned Babylon 5  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #52262, posted by mavhc at 17:01, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52261 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
Red Dwarf
Star Trek
STTNG
Blake's 7
SG1 Nobody mentioned Babylon 5
That's because we were comparing things in the same league as Trek.
I want Enterprise cancelling because it's crap. If it didn't exist maybe they'd spend the money on something good |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jason Togneri |
Message #52265, posted by filecore at 18:26, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52262 |
Posts: 3867
|
That's because we were comparing things in the same league as Trek. I have to admit, B5's definitely not in the same league as Star Trek... or are you trying to imply that it's worse!?
Ahhh talking of good old sci-fi... Space: Above and Beyond... |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52266, posted by rich at 18:53, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52265 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
That's because we were comparing things in the same league as Trek. I have to admit, B5's definitely not in the same league as Star Trek... or are you trying to imply that it's worse!?
Ahhh talking of good old sci-fi... Space: Above and Beyond...
Well if we're just naming decent sci-fi that didn't do more than a single series - how about Firefly? Best show on TV. Cancelled before it got to the end of the first season. Written by the same guy that wrote Buffy, got better viewing figures than Buffy's first season, but got cancelled due to being more expensive. Bloody beancounters. 
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Ian Cook |
Message #52268, posted by ilcook at 20:43, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52265 |
 Resident idiot
Posts: 1075
|
That's because we were comparing things in the same league as Trek. I have to admit, B5's
not in the same league as Star Trek... or are you trying to imply that it's worse!?
Ahhh talking of good old sci-fi... Space: Above and Beyond...
If we're talking about good old s/f, how about Saphire and Steel, or The tomorrow people. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #52269, posted by mavhc at 20:53, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52266 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
> > > That's because we were comparing things in the same league as Trek.
> > I have to admit, B5's definitely not in the same league as Star Trek... or are you trying to imply that it's worse!?
Of course it's better.
> > Ahhh talking of good old sci-fi... Space: Above and Beyond...
> Well if we're just naming decent sci-fi that didn't do more than a single series - how about Firefly? Best show on TV. Cancelled before it got to the end of the first season. Written by the same guy that wrote Buffy, got better viewing figures than Buffy's first season, but got cancelled due to being more expensive. Bloody beancounters.
Also it was on a much bigger network, so even if the same %age watched it would still be more people.
Easily best show on TV last year. R2 DVD out soon, then the movie version 80% likely. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52274, posted by Phlamethrower at 23:27, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52247 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Why do you want it cancelling? They don't break the mould JL because it would be going against the broadly optimistic vision of Gene Roddenberry. As I understand it, Rodenberry's vision is that humans and Star Fleet should have their decisions based on morals. Breaking the usual mould and having Star Fleet virtually wiped out by some alien race wouldn't be going against that vision, because the survivors would still try and hold onto their morality.
The main problem so far has been re-using ideas that have already been done in original ST, TNG or Voyager. Yup 
There's also the fact that they magically invent new bits of history for them to play around with. Had you ever heard of Captain Archer saving the world from the Xindi before Enterprise came out? Had you even heard of the Xindi? Had you even heard that the first warp 5 capable ship was called the Enterprise? And the fact that the entire series is based around time travel pisses me off, because (a) I don't believe in time travel, (b) it gives them the excuse to do practically anything they want, and (c) if there's so much time travel going on then why don't any of the future captains know about it when they inevitably end up using time travel for some reason or other?
Also the Borg were first meant to have been encountered by Picard in ST:TNG, yet they still managed to fit them into Enterprise
"Thanks for the Memory" is a much better "memory manipulation you're trying to keep hidden from yourselves" story than the ST equivalent(s), "Me^2" is better than the two Rikers episode, "Better than Life" is better than the "addictive game" episode of STTNG (especially in its book form, but I suppose that's an unfair comparison). Don't forget Dimension Jump! Far better than any of the dimension-hopping escapades you get in ST.
Well if we're just naming decent sci-fi that didn't do more than a single series - how about Firefly? Best show on TV. Dare I say John Doe?
When Sci-Fi were advertising it I thought 'Oh no, not *another* Dead Zone clone. Guy who has some kind of accident, can solve crimes using some supernatural powers, has a black friend, helps the police out on their cases, etc.' Basically they didn't do a very good job of selling it, but once it got past the first episode or two I was hooked. IIRC the first episode never even got shown in America |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Mark Scholes |
Message #52276, posted by mavhc at 23:52, 29/2/2004, in reply to message #52274 |
Member
Posts: 660
|
> There's also the fact that they magically invent new bits of history for them to play around with. Had you ever heard of Captain Archer saving the world from the Xindi before Enterprise came out? Had you even heard of the Xindi? Had you even heard that the first warp 5 capable ship was called the Enterprise? And the fact that the entire series is based around time travel p***es me off, because (a) I don't believe in time travel, (b) it gives them the excuse to do practically anything they want, and (c) if there's so much time travel going on then why don't any of the future captains know about it when they inevitably end up using time travel for some reason or other?
That's because they ran out of ideas before episode 1.
Why does not believing in time travel cause you to be pissed off when it's on tv?
> > Well if we're just naming decent sci-fi that didn't do more than a single series - how about Firefly? Best show on TV.
> Dare I say John Doe?
No. Above average, but not great, occasionally good.
> When Sci-Fi were advertising it I thought 'Oh no, not *another* Dead Zone clone. Guy who has some kind of accident, can solve crimes using some supernatural powers, has a black friend, helps the police out on their cases, etc.' Basically they didn't do a very good job of selling it, but once it got past the first episode or two I was hooked. IIRC the first episode never even got shown in America
Yes it did. However the Pilot 2 episodes of Firefly were shown last when the series first aired. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52277, posted by Phlamethrower at 00:21, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52276 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Why does not believing in time travel cause you to be p***ed off when it's on tv? Dunno. Perhaps it's that it's always full of illogical paradoxes, because they haven't layed out any sound theories on how they think time travel should work. This then leads to an inconsistent picture of the universe they're portraying, which makes it less believable.
> Dare I say John Doe?
No. Above average, but not great, occasionally good. aw
However the Pilot 2 episodes of Firefly were shown last when the series first aired. My, that was smart of them |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Adrian Lees |
Message #52278, posted by adrianl at 00:32, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52277 |
Member
Posts: 1637
|
Perhaps it's that it's always full of illogical paradoxes, because they haven't layed out any sound theories on how they think time travel should work... Does Dimension Jump fit your ideas on time travel? I mean if Ace travelled to an earlier time in a very similar universe does that count as time travel or not? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52279, posted by Phlamethrower at 00:42, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52278 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Perhaps it's that it's always full of illogical paradoxes, because they haven't layed out any sound theories on how they think time travel should work... Does Dimension Jump fit your ideas on time travel? I mean if Ace travelled to an earlier time in a very similar universe does that count as time travel or not?
Yes it does fit in, because of the fact that it is a different universe. Travelling to a universe which represents our past or future is fine by me, because it doesn't require travelling back through time. In fact, some time travel theories are based around the idea that when you time travel it's not the same universe which you end up in. Hence if you were to travel back in time and stop yourself inventing the time machine, then a paradox wouldn't be created because you'd actually be in a different universe altogether. (And so (according to me at least) it's technically not time travel, since you've left the universe you were meant to be travelling in) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52287, posted by rich at 07:41, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52276 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Dare I say John Doe? No. Above average, but not great, occasionally good.
True dat. The guy was supposed to be an amazing genius, but he just jung around the same police station solving murders. Even when they occasionally mixed it up and put him on a 'plane to England... he still had to solve a murder.
Entertaining, but couldn't have veryfar to go without a format change.
IIRC the first episode never even got shown in America Yes it did.
I can vouch for that, seeing as how I was downloading it from America when it first came out.
Lone Gunmen's first episode (X-Files spin off) wasn't shown in the UK because it showed a plane being flown into a skyscraper as would have been aired just after 9/11.
> When Sci-Fi were advertising it I thought 'Oh no, not *another* Dead Zone clone. Guy who has some kind of accident, can solve crimes using some supernatural powers, has a black friend, helps the police out on their cases, etc.' Basically they didn't do a very good job of selling it, but once it got past the first episode or two I was hooked. IIRC the first episode never even got shown in America
However the Pilot 2 episodes of Firefly were shown last when the series first aired. Not quite as silly as it sounds, in that it gave them time to work them up into a feature-length "origin" episode. The TV company didn't like the lack of jokes in that particular pilot (Malcolm was supposed to be a serious, haunted war vat, but they thought they were getting another Buffy), so threw a little money at the opening war section to make it a last-dicth attempt to attract viewers. Pity they didn't think to just put it in a decent time slot and leave it there, thta might have helped.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52291, posted by rich at 07:57, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52269 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Easily best show on TV last year. R2 DVD out soon, then the movie version 80% likely. Really? Cool! When?
Every time I do a search for it on blackstar or amazon, I end up looking at some Lovejoy episode with Firefly in the title
[edit] Woohoo!
[edit2] Even more woohoo as it's even cheaper!
[edit3] <fx: ducks flak for FP posting>
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Andrew |
Message #52307, posted by andrew at 11:50, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52291 |
Handbag Boi
Posts: 3439
|
Did Lovejoy ever do time-travel? I thought only tinker could do it |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52316, posted by rich at 12:55, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52307 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
Did Lovejoy ever do time-travel? I thought only tinker could do it Wah-wah-wah-waaaaaah!
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #52322, posted by alpha at 13:26, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52291 |
Forum bod
Posts: 570
|
Firefly: The Film |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52326, posted by Phlamethrower at 13:34, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52287 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
True dat. The guy was supposed to be an amazing genius, but he just jung around the same police station solving murders. Even when they occasionally mixed it up and put him on a 'plane to England... he still had to solve a murder.
Entertaining, but couldn't have veryfar to go without a format change. The format did gradually change through the series - it went from him solving murders to the pheonix group try to track him down, the FBI getting in his way trying to track them down, and everyone wondering what this staff is he's meant to know about. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52338, posted by rich at 15:14, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52326 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
True dat. The guy was supposed to be an amazing genius, but he just jung around the same police station solving murders. Even when they occasionally mixed it up and put him on a 'plane to England... he still had to solve a murder.
Entertaining, but couldn't have veryfar to go without a format change. The format did gradually change through the series - it went from him solving murders to the pheonix group try to track him down, the FBI getting in his way trying to track them down, and everyone wondering what this staff is he's meant to know about.
Yeah, but the FBI stuff was just substituting one police force for the other, and the Phoenix stuff only really started warming up when they were desperate for ratings. That final shot of Digger was kind of jumping the shark a bit - there was just no logic (or should I say continuity) behind it.
And I know why he knew all that stuff (the producers told everyone after it was cancelled), and believe me, the revalation wouldn't have been worth waiting for
He was better in Equilibrium - he got gunned down a few minutes in No, that's not fair, I did enjoy the show, but I started to lose interest a bit when they killed off his cute assistant.
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #52339, posted by Phlamethrower at 15:22, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52338 |
Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
And I know why he knew all that stuff (the producers told everyone after it was cancelled), and believe me, the revalation wouldn't have been worth waiting for Well I liked it, so erm, ner
He was better in Equilibrium - he got gunned down a few minutes in Didn't know he was in that. Who was he?
No, that's not fair, I did enjoy the show, but I started to lose interest a bit when they killed off his cute assistant. Tsk |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard Goodwin |
Message #52346, posted by rich at 16:01, 1/3/2004, in reply to message #52339 |
Dictator for life
Posts: 6828
|
And I know why he knew all that stuff (the producers told everyone after it was cancelled), and believe me, the revalation wouldn't have been worth waiting for Well I liked it, so erm, ner
Oh, I liked it too if I'm honest. It could have been better though. The "time traveller with built-in paradox protection" theory they discarded earlier on would have been better than "he died, but fell back to earth" crap though.
He was better in Equilibrium - he got gunned down a few minutes in Didn't know he was in that. Who was he?
I think he was credit as "guy that got gunned down a few minutes in" No, seriously, he was the beardy bloke that was keeping watch out of the window when the rozzers first turned up.
No, that's not fair, I did enjoy the show, but I started to lose interest a bit when they killed off his cute assistant. Tsk
What? You saying you wouldn't have (nudge, nudge)?
________
Cheers,
Rich.
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
| Pages (2): 1
> >|
|
