Star Trek

[Chuckanut]

I'm pretty sure with Discovery, it is the production and direction. Sometimes Burnham speaks with authority while on the bridge, but most of her side discussions with others, over Very Serious Issues, are done in this hushed whisper with a constant pained look of concern on her face. This is not a criticism of the actor. Rather, from the start they went with this look, sound and feel as part of the direction of such scenes. It spans across different directors, meaning this comes from the top and is direction to the directors.

What I am hearing (pun intended) is that the people who make these shows should try watching them under normal conditions in a normal household full of real people. Not in their special studio viewing rooms.

 

[JoeWras]

But the new series is putting lots of anxiety when time and space irregularities becomes the backbone of the story.

Yes. It seems that the only way the writers and showrunners can get season-long stories is by injecting these issues. It may be lazy writing.

Hence what is getting so many people excited about SNW: episode-long stories. You don't have to create a hole in time each week.

I find it a bit ironic that in the age of short attention span, so much episodic TV has gone to a season-long or series-long story format. The viewer has to remember so much to enjoy the story. For example: I like Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, but really the only way to enjoy them to their fullest is to remember story details from one episode 3 seasons ago.

One reason I really like the new series Ghosts is it is 1/2 hour long, and mostly self contained per episode. You only need to know the big picture story line.

What I am hearing (pun intended) is that the people who make these shows should try watching them under normal conditions in a normal household full of real people. Not in their special studio viewing rooms.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense. I believe it!

 

[ncbill]

New ST shows should be given time by the viewer.

E.g. in the first TNG episode the ensemble cast members have little chemistry...banging against each other like 2x4s, Stewart's nearly shouting some dialogue, and even Delancie as Q isn't as good as in later episodes.

 

[Chuckanut]

New ST shows should be given time by the viewer.

E.g. in the first TNG episode the ensemble cast members have little chemistry...banging against each other like 2x4s, Stewart's nearly shouting some dialogue, and even Delancie as Q isn't as good as in later episodes.

It took a while for Stuart to perfect "the look" that Picard gave to crewmen who said or did something he considered idiotic.

Speaking of Mr. Data, the other artificial life-form on Star Trek was the Doctor on Voyager.

Here's the song that Robert Picardo sang regretting that his role never made it big - Why was I not born Brent Spiner.

 

[ncbill]

Picardo should jump on the Cameo bandwagon, look what it got Gilbert Gottfried w/o ever having to leave home:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/n...rt-gottfried-cameo-star-200-hours-1235130608/

 

[Qs Laptop]

I re-watched "First Contact" on Saturday night. I had forgotten that Jonathan Frakes directed. The Enterprise follows a Borg ship through a "temporal vortex" and end up on Earth in 2063. Here they have to convince Zephram Cochrane to make the historical first spaceflight using his warp drive invention while battling the Borg. Pretty good story.

One minor quibble--at the end of the movie they need to evade the Vulcans and get back to their own timeline. This is summed up in several sentences.

Worf: "The moon's gravitational field obscured our warp signature. The Vulcans did not detect us."

Geordi: "Captain, I've reconfigured out warp fields to match the chronometric readings of the Borg sphere."

Picard: "Recreate the vortex."

Riker: "All decks report ready."

Picard: "Mr. Data, lay in a course for the 24th century."

Wait....what? Time travel is that easy?!!! Ha ha.

 

[Pellice]

I'm trying to think if time travel ever enhanced a ST episode. I did not like the finale to Next Generation partly because it involved a complicated time travel plot. I thought TOS time travel episodes were silly, and could have led to over-complication, but they were never followed up. (The 1968 exploding ICBM episode introduced some wrinkles that should have affected later series, but thankfully never did).

On the other hand, Voyager handled some time issues very well, thinking particularly of the "Year from Hell" episode.

In general, because "we" - i.e. most of us, including script writers - don't understand time very well, or at all, plots involving time spin out of control and become self-contradictory or incomprehensible. It would be interesting to have an episode "nibble" at a time issue, maybe a crew trying - and failing - to act on one of the infamous temporal anomalies. It would be important for them to fail, and to have the script show that they failed because our brains couldn't process the anomaly. Would take some good writing!

 

[ncbill]

I'm trying to think if time travel ever enhanced a ST episode. I did not like the finale to Next Generation partly because it involved a complicated time travel plot. I thought TOS time travel episodes were silly, and could have led to over-complication, but they were never followed up. (The 1968 exploding ICBM episode introduced some wrinkles that should have affected later series, but thankfully never did).

On the other hand, Voyager handled some time issues very well, thinking particularly of the "Year from Hell" episode.

In general, because "we" - i.e. most of us, including script writers - don't understand time very well, or at all, plots involving time spin out of control and become self-contradictory or incomprehensible. It would be interesting to have an episode "nibble" at a time issue, maybe a crew trying - and failing - to act on one of the infamous temporal anomalies. It would be important for them to fail, and to have the script show that they failed because our brains couldn't process the anomaly. Would take some good writing!

The DS9 tribbles episode...miniskirts make a great uniform...

 

[CaptTom]

I think the whole concept of time is the weakest part of all Star Trek versions.

I'll grant them warp drive as a necessary plot device, even if it's a bit contrived to have it appear as a simple, constant velocity through space.

What I can't accept is that time for the crew is passing at the same rate as those back on Earth (or any other planet, or ship.)

It gets worse. They show up "at" a solar system, and hop around between the planets in mere minutes, at "impulse." What exactly is that? They'd have to be going a pretty significant percentage of the speed of light. Or maybe faster, I haven't done the math. Space is vast, and even a quick jog between planets is either going to take a very long time, or they're going to be experiencing (again) some significant relativistic time dilation.

Yeah, I watch it anyway. I just keep reminding myself this is a fantasy drama set in space, not really what I'd call science fiction.

 

[scrabbler1]

Not all of Star Trek's time travel episodes included the main starship traveling in time. Think of TOS's "City on Edge of Forever" (the one with Joan Collins) or TNG's "Time's Arrow" (the one with Data's 500-year-old head found in San Francisco), two great episodes IMHO. Even TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," which included an older Enterprise, was a great episode, bringing back Denise Crosby in her old character.

 

[harllee]

The Q appearances are my least favorite Star Trek episodes. He is an irritating arrogant misogynist who is responsible for a lot of the time travel episodes. I am rewatching Voyager and had forgotten that Q was in that series also--in a recent episode he wanted to "mate" with Captain Janeway.

Like CaptTom I overlook the things I don't like (like Q) because overall I love Star Trek and most of its characters.

 

[Pellice]

The DS9 tribbles episode...miniskirts make a great uniform...

That episode was fun and lighthearted - another thing I liked about ST, that it had time for the ocasional lighthearted episode. Not all of them worked, but definitely great to have a break from Deadly Serious!

 

[mpeirce]

It gets worse. They show up "at" a solar system, and hop around between the planets in mere minutes, at "impulse." What exactly is that? They'd have to be going a pretty significant percentage of the speed of light. Or maybe faster, I haven't done the math. Space is vast, and even a quick jog between planets is either going to take a very long time, or they're going to be experiencing (again) some significant relativistic time dilation.

Even plan old dramas sometimes do this too. I recall watching Bones and they would seemly pop between the east and west coast and back all on the same day.

It’s just lazy writing.

 

[Chuckanut]

Not all of Star Trek's time travel episodes included the main starship traveling in time. Think of TOS's "City on Edge of Forever" (the one with Joan Collins) or TNG's "Time's Arrow" (the one with Data's 500-year-old head found in San Francisco), two great episodes IMHO. Even TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," which included an older Enterprise, was a great episode, bringing back Denise Crosby in her old character.

Then there is crewman Daniels on ST:Enterprise, a time traveling steward from the future who got the Enterprise involved in a temporal war.

Remember, according to the Vulcan Science Academy - Time travel is impossible.

 

[Chuckanut]

My biggest problem with the new ST timeline was blowing up Vulcan. Blowing up planets is a goofy Star Wars thing. They could have changed the timeline by simply keeping Spock from ever being born. Or better yet, make his parents a Vulcan mother and a human father. <-- lots of room for fireworks there.

 

[JoeWras]

I thought TOS time travel episodes were silly, and could have led to over-complication, but they were never followed up. (The 1968 exploding ICBM episode introduced some wrinkles that should have affected later series, but thankfully never did).

Woah there! TOS's "City on the Edge of Forever" was extremely thought provoking and ground breaking. With all of the swearing on TV today, it is hard to remember just how impactful Kirk's line "Let's get the hell out of here" was.

As for the ICBM episode, it actually comes back in Picard. Not saying that's good, just making a comment. So, warning, it's back!

Not all of Star Trek's time travel episodes included the main starship traveling in time. Think of TOS's "City on Edge of Forever" (the one with Joan Collins) or TNG's "Time's Arrow" (the one with Data's 500-year-old head found in San Francisco), two great episodes IMHO. Even TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," which included an older Enterprise, was a great episode, bringing back Denise Crosby in her old character.

Yes. Agree.

 

[Pellice]

The City on the Edge of Forever: A Dissenting View

I'm probably sinking myself here, but I thought the plot of TCOTEOF was weak and unconvincing. I guess the storyline was supposed to be the conflict between true love and duty - but the case was not strong. The bond of two young people, whose acquaintance was of only a few weeks' duration (paraphrasing Jane Austen here), vs. turning the world over to the Nazis, destroying an entire galaxy's good future, and killing all of one's best friends - well, no-brainer to me! I know Harlan Ellison (I think he was the writer) swore off of ST after they changed his ending (I wonder what that was), but, Harlan, make a better case!

I suppose you can argue that this plot was inherent to what I see as the central theme of western literature - the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few (or the one) - developed early on in the Greek play Antigone. But, wasn't there a bit of imbalance here?

(OK, dodging brickbats soon!)

 

[JoeWras]

Pellice, no brickbats. I think it is good to have an alternate view. Don't worry, I won't cancel you.

My counterpoint to your counterpoint is that human love is the ultimate strong emotion that binds people in sometimes irrational ways. A few week's duration? Heck, people get crazy in love in a few hours.

And plus, it was Joan Collins.

Back to love making people crazy. One only has to watch some "true crime" shows to see all the whacko things do, many times murder, to help one they love. Of course, the usual instinct is to save the one you love no matter what.

The shows "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" explore what both the main character and his family and friends will "do for love." It isn't always a straight line.

 

[CaptTom]

I'd almost forgotten that episode. They do tend to all blur together in my mind.

But isn't the plot just an extension the trolley dilemma? Do you take action which will cause one person's death to save others? They upped the ante a little by putting a love interest on one side, and the fate of the galaxy on the other, but it's the same story, right?

Most of Star Trek is pretty Shakespearean. One of the reasons I think Patrick Stewart did so well in his role. Timeless stories, albeit set in a fantastical and impractical universe. Too much drama and bad science. Two things I hate. But for whatever reason, I still watch.

 

[scrabbler1]

I'm probably sinking myself here, but I thought the plot of TCOTEOF was weak and unconvincing. I guess the storyline was supposed to be the conflict between true love and duty - but the case was not strong. The bond of two young people, whose acquaintance was of only a few weeks' duration (paraphrasing Jane Austen here), vs. turning the world over to the Nazis, destroying an entire galaxy's good future, and killing all of one's best friends - well, no-brainer to me! I know Harlan Ellison (I think he was the writer) swore off of ST after they changed his ending (I wonder what that was), but, Harlan, make a better case!

I suppose you can argue that this plot was inherent to what I see as the central theme of western literature - the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few (or the one) - developed early on in the Greek play Antigone. But, wasn't there a bit of imbalance here?

(OK, dodging brickbats soon!)

No brickbats here, either. While this episode is often in the top 5 for TOS viewers, for me it ranks lower, maybe #25. Only Joan Collins keeps it up that high.

As for your question about Harlan Ellison's original script, according to "The Star Trek Compendium," by Allan Asherman, it was Spock, not Kirk, who prevented Keeler's (Joan Collins's character) rescue. Furthermore, Ellison's script had many other big differences. A big one was a drug addicted crewman, not Dr. McCoy (who became accidentally overdosed), who was the one who traveled back in time. There were other differences, somewhat wordy to describe.

 

[JoeWras]

Warning to those who don't like the COTEOF episode: (Discovery spoiler below, don't read further to avoid spoil)



























The "Guardian of Forever" comes back in Discovery. With a personality. And a body. Kind of reminds me of "God" in the form of George Burns.

I was not a fan of this.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I've run out of Star Trek episodes to watch and rewatch, except for the new Strange New Worlds episodes, so we have turned to Babylon 5 now. We're enjoying it.

 

[ncbill]

Pellice, no brickbats. I think it is good to have an alternate view. Don't worry, I won't cancel you.

My counterpoint to your counterpoint is that human love is the ultimate strong emotion that binds people in sometimes irrational ways. A few week's duration? Heck, people get crazy in love in a few hours.

And plus, it was Joan Collins.

Back to love making people crazy. One only has to watch some "true crime" shows to see all the whacko things do, many times murder, to help one they love. Of course, the usual instinct is to save the one you love no matter what.

The shows "Breaking Bad" and "Better Call Saul" explore what both the main character and his family and friends will "do for love." It isn't always a straight line.

Plus they pass "Floyd's Barber Shop" in that episode:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0708455/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_trv

 

[JoeWras]

Plus they pass "Floyd's Barber Shop" in that episode:

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0708455/trivia/?ref_=tt_ql_trv

Reading that trivia is fun. It has a lot about Ellison's disdain for the interpretation.

So what's new about that? Since the plays of millennia ago, writers have been perturbed by the producer's interpretation.

Stephen King is famously ticked off at Kubrick for The Shining, for example. One of many cases you hear about, especially regarding Sci Fi stories.

A television or movie production always has to edit a novel. There are practical production requirements (budgets), cast limitations and especially time limitations.

 

[Chuckanut]

A television or movie production always has to edit a novel. There are practical production requirements (budgets), cast limitations and especially time limitations.

+1

In the original Bosch novels the detective had been a tunnel rat in Vietnam. In the TV show he is a Gulf War vet. IMO, they did a good job of transitioning from the 1980's lifestyle in the novels to the early 21st century.

IIRC, one of the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies has several scenes that are out of sequence. Most people never noticed including me.

I am anxious to find out how they changed Connelly's Mickey Haller in the new Lincoln Lawyer series. I hope they did it as well as Bosch.