Author Topic: Star Trek  (Read 45462 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2019, 03:57:42 PM »
The thing is if you are not going to make Trek why name it as such? We know why, it's nothing but branding, 100% vapid nonsense. Remove the brand and what do you have left?

Another problem is that they insist not only that this is Trek, it's the Roddenberry continuity which is such a blatant lie it's insulting, something they still insist on to this day. Do they really think so little of people? As bad as the 2009 movies onwards are it actually did the whole Batman/James Bond thing where it was it's own continuity. Trekies care about continuity, good stories with people like Mike be able to tell you every little contradiction while having fun doing it, if you are going to hop on that horse you better be on top of your game.

No one questions the credentials of a Batman/JB as bad it might be because they are still recognisable as what they are, the core is still there, the creator's understood/ared enough to have that. It's not just a Walter PPK, the name 007, a suit, car. Trek isn't just warp drives, phasers. Orville understands this deeply, that's why it's the new real Trek.

Branding is how they suckered Netflix for the entirety of the first season. They knew the gig is up when they turned down the Picard show. Think about that. Trek has gotten so bad that even Netflix turned it down and you would think a Picard show would be free money. Imagine Star Wars or MCU movie not making money, not selling toys because it got that bad.... *Solo*

They could have avoided a lot of this had they not lied and kept lying. Not insulting and blaming others, coming up with absurd excuses would be a good move. It wouldn't have saved them from making a z-grade abysmal stuff, but they wouldn't have people encouraging and looking to forward to it's failure.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18987
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2019, 05:29:56 PM »
Just because you don't want it to be part of the main canon doesn't make that a lie. There are still people who insist Enterprise took place in some other timeline, and just like you they're wrong.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2019, 08:06:45 PM »
Just as much as they insist that it is main canon there are two seasons of evidence that prove that they are lying.

Even if you remove the canon objection it is still the terrible, terrible TV that under normal circumstances would have been cancelled. There is absolutely no dancing around this. Strip way the branding, put it into it's own timeline, doesn't change it's abysmal quality, it doesn't get any less trek because it contained no trek to start with. Given the amount of magic they use it would qualify more as a fantasy with tech colours than anything sci-fi adjacent.

RLM could have gone on for day like that without nitpicking as it is absolutely not required, they will want to die at the end, it's really that bad.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline ThePerm

  • predicted it first.
  • Score: 61
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2019, 02:00:17 AM »
Look at Batman

You got
Batman 66
Batman TAS
Batman 89 and 2
Batman Forever and Batman and Robin
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Snyderverse

To some extant they all got the same characters and story-lines and some continuity with each other. They're  all Batman. Whether Bela Lugosi or Daniel Day Lewis play the same famed vampire on stage it's still Dracula.

Whether Irving Berlin or Taco sing Puttin' on the Ritz it is the same song. Even with an additional rocking Moog synth. Manhunter and Red Dragon are the same movie with different actors. Many don't know Anthony Hopkins was not the first to play Hannibal Lecter.

Just because there is some variation doesn't mean it isn't some incarnation of the same thing.

Star Trek is "people on a spaceship" at its simplest level. The show was supposed to be Wagon Train in Space. Maybe there is some continuity issues but that is what happens when you don't wipe the 50 year slate clean like in any other franchise. I haven''t seen Discovery yet, but it looks like hot garbage from afar. I can't knock it legitimately though because I haven't seen it. Still, there will be a better Star Trek show in the future. I expect there to be some issues with a franchise with a 12 year lapse. I'm sure not everything in this show is bad though. They're not going to please everyone.  I can't wait for the PlayStation 6 version of the show.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2019, 02:02:29 AM by ThePerm »
NWR has permission to use any tentative mockup/artwork I post

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2019, 03:03:26 AM »
The continuity issues with STD are severely undersold and can't be blamed on the legacy material. They made far too many obvious choices and mistakes that preclude it from existing in OG canon. It's so broken it's near impossible to fit it into the JJ/Kelvin timeline. It's not even internally consistent with itself smashing it's own continuity.

They tried to eat all the cakes with their fists and have them too. All they have now are smashed cakes and none of it in their bellies. The faster they fail, the better as it would have a chance to fall into far more competent and caring hands. Preserve what little dignity remains.

Batman works fine because they firewall themselves, if it fails it's "Your Batman sucks lol" not, "You polluted Batman with radioactive toxic waste". Snyder didn't insist his Batman is the same as Batman TAS or Adam West. If he did you would call him out on it.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18987
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2019, 03:30:37 AM »
Again, it's not that hard to reconcile Discovery with the rest of canon, you just don't want to. You act like not always being completely consistent with what came before or within a series isn't something that was true of every previous Star Trek series as well. Fans have been having to come up with their own explanations for how all this fits together for over 50 years. If discrepancies in continuity bother you that much I'm not sure how you ever became a Star Trek fan.
Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2019, 01:02:04 PM »
Ok, you explain how it can reconcile with canon without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself. I dare you. Kurtzman didn't try, he said it was too hard and gave up.

Remember this is a show that can't keep itself coherent even in a given scene on occasions that are far too frequent. They can't even make up their mind what the hell vok/tyler even is. Before you even get to see the ship it's going off the WTF cliff in episode one with walking a signal in the sand in a sand storm, there are so many things wrong with just that one scene. This is what you get when you hire the guy who did LOST.

I even went as far as looking at the show without continuity or the brand factored in. It's garbage through and through. That's why I keep saying if it wasn't for the name what's left? Terrible show is terrible, trek or no trek. It isn't even sci-fi, it's straight up fantasy with technology paint. In the RLM video they point out plenty of deal breakers that don't involve trek, the failures are absolute basic level stuff. Go ahead and watch it. Be entertained by their very real pain. They barely needed any effort, it's was like punch babies.

Every show will have some continuity problems, a good show will try to minimise these to an acceptable level so the viewer can maintain that suspension of disbelief. STD doesn't even try.

When you shatter your own continuity and have basic story structure this bad, lie, blame/insult the viewer, betray your characters, abuse the legacy, offer nothing of substance in any show people will get pissed off. There is no bridge big enough to span that gap they made. Look at every big show that has gone down in flames or are continuing to burn. They share these factors.

If you watch the show because it has Star Trek in the name you're a sucker.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2019, 01:28:57 PM »
>Ok, you explain how it can reconcile with canon without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.

Pretend it is anytime before November, 1994.

Reconcile the differences between TOS and TNG/DS9 Klingons without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2019, 02:48:42 PM »
>Ok, you explain how it can reconcile with canon without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.

Pretend it is anytime before November, 1994.

Reconcile the differences between TOS and TNG/DS9 Klingons without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.
LOL. WTF. That's not even an answer.

You can't and don't. It not a gotcha if that's what you are thinking.

The high quality of the shows made it not matter that much, you accepted they were Klingons because of the culture which got built upon from TOS, through the movies all the way to Voyager was constant enough.

The in show answer is Worf is too embarrassed to talk about it and some virus.

STD Kilngon are of a completely different culture, the different look made that even more apparent. Of all the STD breaks typical of you pick the absolutely shallowest. Speaks volumes.

Address one of the issues found in the RLM video. I will let you pick. The show is stupid enough as it is without involving canon. Don't say I didn't give you a chance. Actually you don't have a chance. RLM tried and couldn't build that bridge.

I bet you are going to keep throwing canon questions at me without addressing the true fundamental problem with STD being a **** show. RLM had boiled it down for you. I will keep saying it, trek or no trek STD is a bad show. Had it not had Trek in the title no one would have given it a ****.

Kurtzman has lied to everyone for 2 seasons already, I have to say you're committed.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2019, 03:06:57 PM »
>The in show answer is Worf is too embarrassed to talk about it and some virus.

Not before November 1994, when the shows addressed it.

>Of all the STD breaks typical of you pick the absolutely shallowest. Speaks volumes.

Actually, I haven't seen a single episode of Discovery.  Not interested in subbing to another streaming service for a single show.

I didn't pick anything about Discovery to discuss.  I picked a huge continuity difference between ToS and TNG/DS9 and asked you to explain it using the same criteria you demanded.  The fact that you absolutely failed and deflected speaks volumes.

You're willing to overlook issues with the other shows because you like them.  And that's fine.

But to attack people who like this show because of the same issues you're overlooking... ehhh...
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1010
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2019, 03:16:55 PM »
>Ok, you explain how it can reconcile with canon without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.

Pretend it is anytime before November, 1994.

Reconcile the differences between TOS and TNG/DS9 Klingons without resorting to magic or inserting anything that wasn't on screen or contradicting itself.

DS9 actually did handwaive it a few years later in 1996 in Trials & Tribble-ations. "Yes, they are Klingons, and it is a long story, one we do not share with outsiders."

Also, the Klingon makeup is technically a continuity flub of Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979, one that every Trek after it just kept using. It's not specifically a continuity error of TNG or DS9.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 03:21:56 PM by broodwars »
"It's time to play...JAZZ...BASKETBALL!"

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2019, 03:26:33 PM »
>DS9 actually did handwaive it a few years later in 1996 in Trials & Tribble-ations. "Yes, they are Klingons, and it is a long story, one we do not share with outsiders."

And expanded on later in Enterprise.

Continuity issues can be explained by story telling if the show decides to address it - even in a series ten years later.  And we accept it and it's not a big deal.

>Also, the Klingon makeup is technically a continuity flub of Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979, one that every Trek after it just kept using. It's not specifically a continuity error of TNG or DS9.  ;)

I guess, as I expanded on in the other reply, "between ToS and TNG/DS9" would cover TMP.
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1010
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2019, 03:48:13 PM »
>DS9 actually did handwaive it a few years later in 1996 in Trials & Tribble-ations. "Yes, they are Klingons, and it is a long story, one we do not share with outsiders."

And expanded on later in Enterprise.

Continuity issues can be explained by story telling if the show decides to address it - even in a series ten years later.  And we accept it and it's not a big deal.

Funny you should bring up Enterprise considering that show's continuity problems early on are part of the reason why people stopped watching it. I still remember the endless complaining about the Borg, Ferengi, Romulans, out-of-character Vulcans, and bumpy-headed Klingons until Many Coto took over and tried to address them.

Enterprise only "expanded" upon the Klingon makeup issue because Berman & Braga broke continuity by using bumpy-headed Klingons in the 1st place.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 04:07:46 PM by broodwars »
"It's time to play...JAZZ...BASKETBALL!"

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2019, 04:23:49 PM »
I told you the in show explanations, I don't know why you said I didn't answer the question. I agree with Broodwars the explanation is handwave af. Got a joke out of Worf which is something.

Enterprise is extreme broken mess but is recognisably Trekish even if you striped away all the iconography. It's an ok show to watch if you put it into a box and punted it into another universe.

If you haven't watched STD why bother defending it. The Klingon look was the go to defence, completely ignoring the far more important cultural aspect hence shallow. If you pointed to a Maori doing the haka saying that is a Scotsman no one would believe you.

The problems with STD isn't just canon. I ignore canon as part of a test(I do this for every franchise) as to whether it stands up on it's own, not just a name some one slapped on to make a quick buck. It makes more than enough of it's own mistakes to be a case study in failure.

The whole thing is like they threw darts at post it notes, lined them up and called it job done.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2019, 04:35:03 PM »
>Enterprise only "expanded" upon the Klingon makeup issue because Berman & Braga broke continuity by using bumpy-headed Klingons in the 1st place.

You mean they broke continuity,  then actually crafted a story to explain the break.  Neat.

Every major Star Trek as far back as I can remember (i.e.: everything but TNG's launch - and I bet that's no exception   aside from the lack of internet forums for fans to lose their cool on), fans complained about how whatever the flavor of NuTrek was, it wasn't their Star Trek because it was too different.  It changed too much. blah blah blah.

I guess that is bound to happen when consumers get emotionally invested in consuming media instead of remembering that they're just consumers buying a product.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 04:51:07 PM by UncleBob »
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2019, 04:47:02 PM »
>I told you the in show explanations, I don't know why you said I didn't answer the question. I

No, you didn't.

>The in show answer is Worf is too embarrassed to talk about it and some virus.

You used something introduced to the franchise 15 years after the break of continuity was made.  We don't have 15 years of additional Star Trek post-Discovery to use.
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1010
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2019, 04:51:10 PM »
You mean they broke continuity,  then actually crafted a story to explain the break.  Neat.

Every major Star Trek as far back as I can remember (i.e.: everything but TNG's launch - and I bet that's no exception   aside from the lack of internet forums for fans to lose their cool on), fans complained about how whatever the flavor of NuTrek was, it wasn't their Star Trek because it was too different.  It changed too much. blah blah blah.

I guess that is bound to happen when players get emotionally invested in consuming media instead of remembering tht they're just consumers buying a product.

Sorry, but you walked right into this one. :P



As someone who enjoyed Enterprise and did stick around to see Many Coto attempt to fix the show's continuity problems, I do agree with the spirit of what you're saying, though.
"It's time to play...JAZZ...BASKETBALL!"

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2019, 04:54:07 PM »
>Sorry, but you walked right into this one. :P

No need to apologize at all.  It's a long running point I've been making in several threads now.  We are consumers of products.

If you don't like the product, that's fine.  But attacking people who do because it isn't the product you wanted... ehhh..

(Not *you*, personally, just generally speaking)
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2019, 06:07:19 PM »
What are you on about? Enterprise in relation to canon is totally fucked. How did you miss the whole "Put in a box and punt it into another universe" part? Sort out your selective reading.

I simply relayed what they did in show in regards to the Klingon, question answered. I even agreed it was a handwave.

You can't argue some other show retcon this in the past and thus STD will be retcon in some magic future thus it is ok to be broken now.

If you had watched STD or even the RLM video you will know how fucked it is. Come back after. 2 seasons and it's as fucked as ever. If you are waiting for STD to be sorted out say hi to the Heat Death of the universe for me.

When you make product you get STD. If all you're doing is making it just for money it's going to fail. People know a cash grab when they see one. You can't shove something out with a name on in and expect people to buy it. Solo has Star Wars in it's name and it flopped.

Creators ultimately need that emotional investment as that what keeps viewers coming back to give you more money. You betray that you are going to get fucked up.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline broodwars

  • Hunting for a Pineapple Salad
  • Score: -1010
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2019, 06:22:48 PM »
What are you on about? Enterprise in relation to canon is totally fucked.

Not really, no. Granted, it's LAZY writing (one of many issues with early series Enterprise), but the Romulans and Ferengi were never named so continuity was preserved. Hell, the Romulans were never even seen, just their mines.

They resolved the continuity issue with the Klingon foreheads and asshole Vulcans within the show, and you can argue that the Borg were always headed to Earth because they received the signal from the First Contact Borg in Enterprise's Borg episode. Q just gave Picard a sneak peek at what was already coming in Q Who? The Borg were awfully fast to arrive on the Romulan border after those events (there was a minor background plot thread in Season 3 TNG of bases disappearing on the Romulan border).

Yeah, that last one's a retcon, but honestly it kind of fixes a plot hole in TNG so I'm OK with it.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2019, 06:33:32 PM by broodwars »
"It's time to play...JAZZ...BASKETBALL!"

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2019, 06:41:11 PM »
>I simply relayed what they did in show in regards to the Klingon, question answered.

15 years later... Which is kinda the point.

Seriously, at this point, it seems like you enjoy consuming media that you don't enjoy (or media about media you don't enjoy) just so you can go online and crap over all those who do.

"This science fiction soap opera fantasy world isn't exactly like it was when I was ten!  Therefore, no one should enjoy it."
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2019, 07:30:37 PM »
I pulled the eject handle first episode of season 2, I couldn't squeeze blood out of that stone. I watched season 1 out of morbid curiosity and to see if I could get some laughs. I am not going to watch Picard, another legacy character for the meat grinder "product". Others can watch that and relay their pain for my amusement.

>I simply relayed what they did in show in regards to the Klingon, question answered.

15 years later... Which is kinda the point.
That wasn't your point, your point was it's might get retcon later therefore it's ok to be broken now no matter how far in the future this potential retcon is.

You seriously don't understand how bad STD is. It's impossible retcon hard enough for it to work. No matter how much you think it's a canon issue removing it doesn't change how bad it is. The problems are wayyyyy beyond that. It's own continuity, characters, motivations, you name it, it's broken. Not lazy, broken, throwing **** on the wall to see what sticks. The only thing going for it is that it looks expensive which it is last heard was $10 million an episode, 2x as high as GoT.

There is no point talking to you any more unless you at least see the RLM video for a glimpse of the badness. Otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline UncleBob

  • (PATRON)
  • NWR Junior Ranger
  • Score: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2019, 08:09:58 PM »
I absolutely agree with you.  There is zero point in us discussing Discovery until I've at least watched it.  A friend has the Blurays he's offered to loan me, I just haven't taken the time.

But, you'll notice I haven't tried to defend the show (outside of addressing your specific point about continuity issues).   Frankly, if I had seem the show and thought it was the best television show to hit the air ever, I probably still wouldn't defend it.  You don't like it.  You don't like the characters, the plot, whatever - that's absolutely fine and I am okay with that.  Because that's subjective based off your experiences and I cannot possibly judge something the same way as you and it'd be folly to try.

What I can do is point out that there are those who do enjoy the show.  And no matter how much you hate it, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't Star Trek, your personal distaste for the show does not trump someone else's positive opinions towards the show.  You don't have to like it.  You can scream it from the rooftops.  But being a jerk to those who do like it, insinuating that they're just not as refined as you.... yeah.  That ainxt it, m'boyo
Just some random guy on the internet who has a different opinion of games than you.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2019, 03:03:13 AM »
If you want the full experience go right ahead. Warning was given. RLM would have saved you a lot of pain and suffering.

Arguing subjectivity is a dead end wash. A show has objective standards that it has to meet. A logically leads to B that causes C not Z happens because the writer needed it to. Character does E not R because this is who they are not because plothole. Conversations that don't sound like people are having a collective stroke. Spiderman wearing a bat suit isn't Batman no matter what the writer says. Can a person see what is happening on screen? How well edited is it?

I can like a bad show but I am not going to tell someone else that it is good because I like it. I am not going to tell you DC is Marvel because the writer slapped the name on it.
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?

Offline NWR_insanolord

  • Rocket Fuel Malt Liquor....DAMN!
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: -18987
    • View Profile
Re: Star Trek
« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2019, 08:47:45 PM »
Breaking News: Jean-Luc Picard has a dog.

Insanolord is a terrible moderator.

J.P. Corbran
NWR Community Manager and Soccer Correspondent