Star Trek and sci-fi discussion

[murlough23]

Finished the first season of DS9 this weekend. Lots of silly stand-alone episodes involving a spatial anomaly that causes crewmembers to act weird (TM), but the season finished strong with a couple of political episodes that definitely reminded me of issues that come up on Battlestar Galactica. Season 2 thus far is shaping up to be much stronger. In any event, I'm enjoying the walk down memory lane.

NP: "Just Let Go", Mae

[Vlad!]

I was never really into any of the Star Treks. I watched my share of TNG and saw a bit of the original series with my dad when I was a wee lad (I seem to recall spatial anomalies featuring prominently in many episodes), but IMO it's just mediocre sci-fi that tramples all over the laws of physics.

[Brenden]

I was never really into any of the Star Treks. I watched my share of TNG and saw a bit of the original series with my dad when I was a wee lad (I seem to recall spatial anomalies featuring prominently in many episodes), but IMO it's just mediocre sci-fi that tramples all over the laws of physics.

Mediocre and PREACHY!

I like some of the movies, but I find the shows painful.

[murlough23]

I was never really into any of the Star Treks. I watched my share of TNG and saw a bit of the original series with my dad when I was a wee lad (I seem to recall spatial anomalies featuring prominently in many episodes), but IMO it's just mediocre sci-fi that tramples all over the laws of physics.

I can't really take the original series seriously, but I've heard there were a few classic episodes that are worth watching.

Anyway, doesn't a lot of sci-fi trample all over the laws of physics? Hence the "-fi".

But I'll admit that it's bothersome when a sci-fi universe tramples all over its own laws, or seems to make them up arbitrarily, which can be the Achilles Heel of the Trek universe. It tends to disengage the audience - when some science officer says, "If we just X all of the Y's, that should cause the P's to Q at a rate of dv/dt", and it's not like anyone in the audience is gonna go, "That's exactly what I was gonna say!" Sci-fi can be more fun when it "breaks the rules" with concepts that we're familiar with and in which we can anticipate possible outcomes - traveling in time, for example.

But it's for these reasons - all of which are fair complaints - that I'm finding myself gravitating toward the more political aspects of DS9. It's much more thought out and less arbitrary. I don't really care how some weapon works or what happens if you modulate its whatever-the-hell, but I do care who supplied it to the baddies onscreen and what their agenda is. The "wacky anomaly" stuff is mostly good for humor. Unless it appears to tie in to some aspect of the ongoing plot, I don't really invest that much serious interest in it, because I know they'll have found a way to fix it by the episode's end.

TNG and presumably the original series were much more stand-alone in nature, with the occasional two-parter and the season-ending cliffhangers that ended up setting the bar for all of Trek. But DS9 was the show where they managed to serialize things rather well (in later seasons than the ones I've watched so far, but I'm seeing the seeds getting planted for it already).

[murlough23]

Mediocre and PREACHY!

That's a fair complaint. One grows weary of Kirk or Picard always being right. I like the slightly "darker" aspects of DS9 for exactly that reason - our beloved main characters are sometimes in conflict with one another, they're not always right, or they can acknowledge that something isn't a black-and-white issue. Characters may be preachy at times (particularly the religious ones), but it doesn't always feel like the show intends to preach to you what the characters preach to each other.

I like some of the movies, but I find the shows painful.

Out of the movies I've seen, I'd have to say that Star Trek V, Insurrection, and Nemesis are also pretty painful.

But I'll grant you that early seasons of TNG and Enterprise, and a good chunk of Voyager episodes, can also be cringe-inducing. (For a while I joked that Enterprise really should have been named after another rental car company, 'cause it "Hertz" to watch it.)

[Brenden]

DS9 is actually the only Star Trek season I haven't seen at all.

Star Trek V, Insurrection, and Nemesis are also pretty painful.

The first two, yes, but I enjoyed Nemesis fairly well, despite the crap ending.

[Vlad!]

Anyway, doesn't a lot of sci-fi trample all over the laws of physics? Hence the "-fi".

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it's completely divorced from reality. In sci-fi writing, I think the best authors all take existing technology, add additional (but plausible) elements, and then say "what if?". When you have warp drives and transporters, you're completely violating what we know (or at least confidently believe) to be true about our reality, ruining the premise (for me, at least).

Sci-fi can be more fun when it "breaks the rules" with concepts that we're familiar with and in which we can anticipate possible outcomes - traveling in time, for example.

I find sci-fi to be the most fun when it is completely plausible. A story where a guy explores mars in a space suit and finds alien ruins is more interesting to me than a story where a guy goes back in time and visits said aliens. Sure, we haven't seen any evidence of life on mars past a possible bacterial level. But when it touches on technology I know about and it's used in ways it would actually be used in reality, I think that's super-cool.

I like the slightly "darker" aspects of DS9

So you're a Sisko fan, then?

[murlough23]

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it's completely divorced from reality. In sci-fi writing, I think the best authors all take existing technology, add additional (but plausible) elements, and then say "what if?". When you have warp drives and transporters, you're completely violating what we know (or at least confidently believe) to be true about our reality, ruining the premise (for me, at least).

So the issue is that you can't accept the premise - traveling faster than light and being able to transport solid matter and all that. Which I suppose is avalid, but then there are a lot of movies about time travel, and probably some anime that you'd have to throw out as well.

Personally I try not to get hung up in the particulars of what's plausible in our world and what's not. Almost nothing that I wtahc would hold up to that level of scrutiny - including Battlestar Galactica and Lost. It's more important to me that they're consistent about the world that they've created, instead of making up new rules arbitrarily as I go, and that is an area where Star Trek has sometimes been weak.

I find sci-fi to be the most fun when it is completely plausible. A story where a guy explores mars in a space suit and finds alien ruins is more interesting to me than a story where a guy goes back in time and visits said aliens. Sure, we haven't seen any evidence of life on mars past a possible bacterial level. But when it touches on technology I know about and it's used in ways it would actually be used in reality, I think that's super-cool.

So you prefer for it to have a thinner layer of "fiction" and be more connected to things that seem almost possible in real life. That's valid.
 

So you're a Sisko fan, then?

GROAN.

That actually reminds me of a classmate's complaint, when Voyager first hit the airwaves, that they had a Black Vulcan. I was like, "Dude, do you think humans would be the only race with varied skin colors?"

[Vlad!]

So the issue is that you can't accept the premise - traveling faster than light and being able to transport solid matter and all that. Which I suppose is avalid, but then there are a lot of movies about time travel, and probably some anime that you'd have to throw out as well.

I can definitely suspend my belief to some extent. I'm not saying I didn't enjoy watching TNG back in the day. But when the Enterprise stops firmly in space and Geordi calls Picard complaining about the dilithium crystals being on the fritz again, well, let's use our contrived and physically impossible technology to support the plot, not as the plot.

And I definitely reject plenty of movies and anime, especially about time travel. However, I've also found that anime (being animated and thus not subject to things like the necessity of filming space scenes on earth) tend towards more realistic physics. I'm definitely not talking about crap like Gundam that they show on Cartoon Network, but things like Starship Operators and Planetes actually have a very firm background in physics and feel very realistic. I think they gain a lot of credibility as a result.

I also appreciated it in Firefly how, for all the space shots, there was no sound. That was a nice nod to the laws of physics that the likes of Star Wars neglect.

[bloop]

I also appreciated it in Firefly how, for all the space shots, there was no sound. That was a nice nod to the laws of physics that the likes of Star Wars neglect.

Whether neglected out of ignorance or cinematic effect, I think the result is more entertaining to me personally.

[Vlad!]

Whether neglected out of ignorance or cinematic effect, I think the result is more entertaining to me personally.

It has to be used sparingly (I note that in Serentiy for whatever reason, this convention wasn't followed), but I think it's good to at least show that you know what laws you're breaking.

[murlough23]

But when the Enterprise stops firmly in space and Geordi calls Picard complaining about the dilithium crystals being on the fritz again, well, let's use our contrived and physically impossible technology to support the plot, not as the plot.

I fully agree with this statement.

I also appreciated it in Firefly how, for all the space shots, there was no sound. That was a nice nod to the laws of physics that the likes of Star Wars neglect.

I don't believe I've heard of a series other than Firefly that had soundless explosions in space. And I do think that was a cool aspect of Firefly, but it's not a convention I'd expect everyone to follow. Even Battlestar Galactica, which tries to be a lot more realistic and low-tech, doesn't do that.

[murlough23]

I started this off by talking about DS9, but for those who have gotten into any incarnation of Trek, I'm curious as to what your favorite shows/episodes/characters/movies were.

Also, what do folks think about the new movie that J. J. Abrams is working on? Sylar playing Spock? That's gonna be amusing.

[spacebrat311]

Saw Cloverfield last night and caught the teaser for the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot.

Didn't reveal a lot, but I have to say, I really liked the tone of it.

[murlough23]

Saw Cloverfield last night and caught the teaser for the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot.

Didn't reveal a lot, but I have to say, I really liked the tone of it.

I wanna see that trailer, but I'm not interested in Cloverfield. Is it online anywhere? (I found some red herrings at YouTube and promptly gave up the search. The official site for the film is still "under construction".)

NP: "Light as Air", Deas Vail

[spacebrat311]

I wanna see that trailer, but I'm not interested in Cloverfield. Is it online anywhere? (I found some red herrings at YouTube and promptly gave up the search. The official site for the film is still "under construction".)

NP: "Light as Air", Deas Vail

Not in good enough quality that you can see anything.

I do, however, highly recommend Cloverfield if you can handle the camcorder. Very character driven for a monster movie. I found it really refreshing, actually.

[murlough23]

I don't do monster movies.

[spacebrat311]

I don't do monster movies.

Any particular reason? I really think you might do well to give this a chance. Not necessarily 10.50 of a chance, but at least a Netflix or a DVD rental. It's definitely not some sci-fi movie of the week material, I can tell you that.

[murlough23]

Any particular reason? I really think you might do well to give this a chance. Not necessarily 10.50 of a chance, but at least a Netflix or a DVD rental. It's definitely not some sci-fi movie of the week material, I can tell you that.

It's J. J. Abrams; I have no worries about the quality. It's just not a genre of movie that interests me, regardless of how character-driven and whatever else you tell me it is (given who's behind it, I'm sure you're absolutely right). The bottom line is that I don't watch movies that have the intent of terrifying me. I watch some things that are "scary", but more in the creepy sense that the jump-out-of-your-seat sense. M. Night Shyamalan's stuff is about where I draw the line.

NP: "Can't Let You Go", Matchbox Twenty

[spacebrat311]

It's J. J. Abrams; I have no worries about the quality. It's just not a genre of movie that interests me, regardless of how character-driven and whatever else you tell me it is (given who's behind it, I'm sure you're absolutely right). The bottom line is that I don't watch movies that have the intent of terrifying me. I watch some things that are "scary", but more in the creepy sense that the jump-out-of-your-seat sense. M. Night Shyamalan's stuff is about where I draw the line.

NP: "Can't Let You Go", Matchbox Twenty

M. Night stuff scares me. This didn't. It seemed more about the way the characters dealt with the events around them than the actual events.

I'll leave it at that though...

[murlough23]

M. Night stuff scares me. This didn't. It seemed more about the way the characters dealt with the events around them than the actual events.

M. Night's stuff is more about the anticipation than what you actually see, so it's not likely to be as visually disturbing to me as a monster disembowling people and whatnot. I was terrified the first time I saw The Sixth Sense; now it's one of my favorite movies.

But maybe I'll keep an open mind when Cloverfield comes out on video. But from the trailer, it didn't seem like my kind of movie.

[spacebrat311]

I wanna see that trailer, but I'm not interested in Cloverfield. Is it online anywhere? (I found some red herrings at YouTube and promptly gave up the search. The official site for the film is still "under construction".)

NP: "Light as Air", Deas Vail

www.paramount.com/startrek/

Official site just got updated with the trailer. (including HD versions for those so inclined)

[murlough23]

I just read that the Star Trek movie has been pushed back to a May 2009 release. #&$^%%# writers' strike.

NP: "Southbound Train", Jon Foreman

[spacebrat311]

Don't remind me.

The reasoning for Star Trek's move wasn't one based on their being behind schedule. It actually has more to do with the fact that Paramount has decided to bank on it as their summer tentpole for 2009. So I guess it's a nice vote of confidence from the studio, even if it kind of ruins my Christmas...

[murlough23]

So I guess it's a nice vote of confidence from the studio, even if it kind of ruins my Christmas...

Aw, that's a bummer. Tell you what, I'll cheer you up with two of the oldest Star Trek jokes in the book.

Q: What did Spock find in the toilet?
A: The Captain's Log.

Q: What do the Enterprise and toilet paper have in common?
A: They both circle around Uranus, wiping out Klingons.

[spacebrat311]

[spacebrat311]

http://trekmovie.com/2008/10/15/more-star-trek-images-enterprise-crew-nero/

First set pics.

Uniforms weirded me out a bit at first because they are both really faithful and really revisionist at the same time. I don't know how to explain it, but its like all the elements are there, but theyve all been tweaked, so it creates a very different effect. The more I see them, the more I like them though.

The fact that the bridge of the Enterprise looks like Apple designed it gives me mixed feelings. That might have to settle with me a bit more.

[bethany]

One of my undergrad teachers was the art director for TNG. I always thought that was pretty cool. (But not as cool as the fact that she was the production designer for Gilmore Girls.)

[murlough23]

Uniforms weirded me out a bit at first because they are both really faithful and really revisionist at the same time. I don't know how to explain it, but its like all the elements are there, but theyve all been tweaked, so it creates a very different effect. The more I see them, the more I like them though.

"Faithful but revisionist" is kind of how I expected the entire film would go. I really don't want a movie about the future made in 2008 to look like it was made in the 60's.

The fact that the bridge of the Enterprise looks like Apple designed it gives me mixed feelings.

Well, it would explain why they've crashed so many Enterprises over the years. (What were they on as of Nemesis - the Enterprise-G?)

[spacebrat311]

"Faithful but revisionist" is kind of how I expected the entire film would go. I really don't want a movie about the future made in 2008 to look like it was made in the 60's.

As did I. It's just interesting to see how that is actually playing out.

Well, it would explain why they've crashed so many Enterprises over the years. (What were they on as of Nemesis - the Enterprise-G?)

Destroying the Enterprise in Star Trek 3: ballsy.
Destroying the Enterprise in Generations: WTF?

[murlough23]

Destroying the Enterprise in Generations: WTF?

You have to admit, there's a lot of camp value in Data swearing.

Almost destroying the Enterprise in First Contact also led to one of the greatest campy lines of the entire franchise:

"There are plenty of letters left in the alphabet."

[spacebrat311]

Life forms! (beep beep boop boop) You tiny little life forms! (beep beep boop boop) You precious little life forms! (beep beep boop boop) Where are you? (beedleoop doo doo doo doop)

[murlough23]

So, this weekend my wife and I finished the seven-season trip through every episode of Deep Space Nine than we started last summer. It was a hell of a ride - occasionally derailed by the "sci-fi concept wins out over character episode" or the "lame Ferengi joke episode" or even sometimes the "Dominion War developing a bit too slowly episode". This show is not without its faults and idiosyncracies, but it remains my favorite of the Star Trek series because it truly dug the deepest into its characters. Even recurring characters like Nog, Rom, Dukat, Damar, Kai Winn, Weyoun, etc. got fairly meaty storylines and could carry most of the weight of an episode when called upon to do so. I had seen the series finale when it first aired, but I didn't have the full seven years of development in between to make the magnitude of what was happening clear to me. This time, feeling like I had really gotten to know these characters, I very nearly wept at the outcome even though I already knew what was going to happen. Powerful stuff. And it's gonna be hard not to have DS9 arriving in those little red envelopes in my mailbox from now on.

[spacebrat311]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

thoughts? I'm still trying to solidify mine.

[murlough23]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/

thoughts? I'm still trying to solidify mine.

I think it's J. J. Abrams; he's going to approach the story from an odd angle and make you piece stuff together. So, the unexpected is expected. Or something.

[murlough23]

Today is a good day to die! Uhh... actually, I don't know about that dying thing, but the free Slurpees are cool.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/02/04/man-weilding-batleth-robs-2-colorado-7-11s/

[spacebrat311]

So someone else reads Trekmovie.

[murlough23]

So someone else reads Trekmovie.

Actually I heard about it on SNL. According to Seth Meyers, whatever the guy stole, it was "not condoms".

[spacebrat311]

Ah.

So someone else knows what a Bat'leth is.

[murlough23]

Ah.

So someone else knows what a Bat'leth is.

After watching every frickin' episode of DS9 over an 18-month period, I damn well better know what it is.