Star Trek is awesome

[Kyuss Apollo]

This is the best Star Trek interior white noise source.

show spoiler

TARDIS Interior Hum 1 Hour - YouTube

[Kyuss Apollo]

[JoeP]

[Stormlight]

I'm currently re-watching Star Trek: Enterprise. I always liked the show because of the naïve enthusiasm of the crew!

"Captain, there's a ship approaching at high warp!"
"YAY"
"Open a channel"
"HAI GUYS! WE'RE NEW HERE! WE'RE FROM EARTH! WANNA HANG OUT!"
"..."
"WE CAN DO WARP 5!!! WANNA LOOK AT OUR SHIP??"
"Sod off, Enterprise!"
"LOL! WANNA HANG OUT"
"Sir, they're charging weapons!"
"WHY?"

T'Pol: "Sigh."

[JoeP]

[BrotherMan]

The new star trax has been named!

First Look - Test Flight of Star Trek's U.S.S....

I'm p split on it, to be for real. At the initial announcement that there'd be a new trax on the television, I was "yay?" because the new movie series hasn't impressed me enough. But television gives broader opportunities to explore the things that science fiction wants to tackle.

And now, I'm still caught in a middle. I think the name is p perfect for a trax series. The setting looks like it's some time around TOS which is also good, I suppose. I also like the ship design here. I immediately recognized it as an old McQuarrie design. And now I'm left with "boo!" because it's going to be on CBS' subscription service.

[ceptimus]

Ship looks kinda ugly to me - cross between Klingon and Star Fleet technology. Main deflector dish looks way too small.

Apparently it will stream on Netflix a day after the CBS showing, though perhaps only for viewers outside the USA? (unless this is a joke):

Stream me up, Scotty: Netflix will show new Star Trek series - CNET

[Ensign Steve]

Have you guys seen the movie yet? I haven't. :shamecube:

[Crumb]

I watched it on Sunday. Pretty much on par with the other new ones.

[Janet]

We saw it on Monday. I enjoyed it, but my expectations were low. I have gone down to the level of figuring it's a success if I feel like I want to spend a couple hours with these characters. I also really, really love Idris Elba, so that helped a lot. I think it was better than the first two, but that's not saying much.

Apropos of nothing, Sulu's husband looks a TON like Ming Tsai. Enough that I wondered if it might be a celebrity cameo.

[The Lone Ranger]

According to a statement I read by John Cho, he wanted Sulu's husband to be Asian as well, because -- in his words -- there is still a great deal of homophobia in most Asian cultures, and so he wanted to make a point.

The movie was largely filmed in Dubai, and according to Cho, none of the Asian actors they could find locally would agree to play a gay man on screen. Finally, in desperation, they got one of the production crew to play Sulu's husband.

Cho mentioned that they actually had an on-screen kiss, but this was cut from the final film.





As I've mentioned before, I don't particularly like the Abrams-Trek movies. Some of the reasons for that are mentioned here. That having been said, ST: Beyond is the first movie in the Abrams-Trek universe in which the writers seem to have had even a little understanding of what makes Star Trek appealing.

Star Trek -- even its "darkest" incarnations, like Deep Space Nine -- was always about optimism and the idea that we can make a better world if we put our minds to it. The Abrams-Trek movies (the first two, anyway) are ... not. They're about fear and paranoia (and senseless, often-pointless violence), and there's little or none of the idealism and optimism that makes Trek Trek.


It's like Abrams thought, "'Star Wars,'" "'Star Trek'" -- what's the difference?"

But there is a difference -- a pretty darned big one. Well, there should be, anyway. Abrams doesn't seem to understand that.

[Janet]

I was just telling my Trekkie sister about your critique. She agreed with some of it, but she said the reason she liked it so much is that Bones has always been her favorite character and the actor playing him now gives the most accurate performance to the original of any of the new actors. So she was just thrilled that it was a Bones heavy film with some of his classic lines. I pointed out that his speciesism was problematic in the Sixties and hasn't aged well, but I don't think any criticism can break through her lifelong love of that character.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've heard it asked before, but: Is it a coincidence that the one person on the Enterprise (if we excuse Gary Stiles) who is openly and (more or less) unapologetically bigoted was from the Southern U.S.?

I honestly don't know. Even for the time, some of Bones' behavior toward Spock is at the very least questionable, and by today's standards, some of it is downright cringe-inducing.



Again, this is not to criticize DeForest Kelly, who was a wonderful person, by all accounts.



It just strikes me as odd that the one character from the original Star Trek whose behavior they replicated the best is the one whose behavior is sometimes downright objectionable and whose behavior often doesn't seem to really fit in at all with Roddenberry's vision of a future in which we've moved beyond prejudice.

It's almost like making movies about Superman and Batman and depicting them as amoral asses who commit wanton murder and don't seem to give a single solitary damn about the lives of others. .... Wait a minute ....

[The Lone Ranger]

To clarify a bit: one of my biggest problems with the Abrams-Trek is that the characters come across as caricatures of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. It's like Abrams has never actually seen an episode of Star Trek, and is familiar with the characters only from pop culture parodies.


For example, Kirk is often depicted in pop-culture parodies -- and even, oddly enough, in some of the later Star Trek series, like Deep Space Nine -- as a "Space Cowboy" whose motto is more or less, "Screw the regulations, I'm doing what I want to do."

Yet that wasn't at all how he was actually depicted on the show. Yes, he could be cocky, and some of his decisions were probably bad ones, in hindsight. But far from being the "shoot first, ask questions later" sort that he's often portrayed as in parodies, Kirk was always depicted as a cautious sort who always preferred diplomacy to phaser fire.

Heck, one of the very first episodes ("Where No Man Has Gone Before") had Gary Mitchell complaining about Kirk's well-earned reputation for being a cautious, by-the-book sort of commander. And while Kirk would sometimes complain about what he thought of as badly thought-out regulations, or Starfleet Brass trying to tell him what to do when they were sitting safe on Earth -- and while he would occasionally even tell a Federation official to his face that he thought the guy was an incompetent idiot (see "The Trouble With Tribbles," for example) -- Kirk was always portrayed as a stickler for following the rules, and only broke them when he felt it was absolutely necessary.

That's precisely why, on those few occasions when Kirk flat-out declared, "Screw the rules, I'm doing what I think is right" ("Amok Time," "The Search for Spock"), it was such a big deal. [On both such occasions, it was repeatedly stated that Kirk knew full-well that defying Starfleet orders would likely cost him his career. Nonetheless, it was a price he was willing to pay, in order to save Spock.]



But it's like the only message that a lot of parody writers -- and, for some reason, writers of later Star Trek-related material -- got out of this was, "Kirk has been known to break the rules; that means he's a maverick who cares nothing for the chain of authority." In depicting Kirk this way, such writers demonstrate that they missed the point entirely.

That, in a nutshell, is what I don't like about the Abrams-Trek movies: for the most part, they seem to have been written by people whose only familiarity with Star Trek is from parodies. Thus, the characters in Abrams-Trek typically come across as caricatures of the characters from Original Trek, not as likable or believable -- or at all accurate -- depictions of these characters.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

I'd not before seen a table flip of quite that size.

That aside, just enough action, novelty, and humour to keep me amused, and the reveal on the villain was the Trek I was looking for.

That and the Pokestop in the cocktail lounge made for a nice sunny Tuesday afternoon.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Mutara Nebula is still best space battle, though.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That, in a nutshell, is what I don't like about the Abrams-Trek movies: for the most part, they seem to have been written by people whose only familiarity with Star Trek is from parodies.

I think if you compare the new movies to the original series, yes the character differences are stark. But if compare the new movies to the original movies, the leap is not as huge. IOW, I think it could seem like the new ones were written by people whose only familiarity with Star Trek is from the movies.

I think I've rambled before, probably at BrotherMan, about how the second gen movies are loaded with fan service, the way they try to shoehorn in every requisite in-joke and reference and callback that they possible can. But then if you think about it, also so do the first gen movies.

Well, about half of the first and second gen movies are about the captain being all like "I'm going to disobey Starfleet, if you have a problem with that speak now" or whatever. It's just the nature of the Star Trek movies to be boiled down and reduced to just the highlights, because there's only so much character and plot detail you can fit into a movie-length compared to seasons and seasons of multiple TV serieses.

I'm not arguing that's a good thing. You're right, if he does it every damn time it stops being shocking and important. And we're 13 full-length features into the movie series now, that's a lot of hours to still be singing the same note.

Still haven't seen the new one, though, for reference or context or full disclosure or whatever.

[slimshady2357]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

To clarify a bit: one of my biggest problems with the Abrams-Trek is that the characters come across as caricatures of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, etc. It's like Abrams has never actually seen an episode of Star Trek, and is familiar with the characters only from pop culture parodies.

But they aren't the same characters. TOS Kirk's father didn't die as he was born. TOS Spock did not see almost his entire race annihilated before his very eyes. Not to mention we are seeing these characters years before they are depicted in TOS. People grow, learn, change. Even just in the world of the new movies Kirk has learned a lesson about 'cowboy' behaviour (haven't seen the new 3rd one yet, so don't know if that lesson stuck!).

I'm not saying the new Trek movies are perfect, nor that they live up to TOS (what does! ). But I am saying that expecting these characters to be just like their TOS versions doesn't make sense. Maybe you'll enjoy the movies more if you think of it that way.

[The Lone Ranger]

I don't expect them to be just like the TOS characters (because this is a different universe), but the Abrams-Trek movies seem to want to have it both ways. It's like the movies are saying, "Hey, you should love this; these are iconic, beloved characters!" But they don't act like the iconic, beloved characters.

I mean, I spent most of the first two Abrams-Trek movies wondering, "Who in their right minds would let this guy anywhere near the Captain's Chair?". To it's credit, the second movie did address the fact that Abrams-Kirk was not remotely qualified to be a starship captain -- well, kind of, anyway.



When I watch the movies, I get an overwhelming feeling of: "I wish they'd make up their minds; is this supposed to be Star Trek, or isn't it?". If it's supposed to be Star Trek, then aside from the completely different character behaviors (and the completely different laws of physics), why doesn't it in any way seem like ... you know ... Star Trek? Where's the optimism? Where's the idealism?

Granted, movies don't have the time to develop characters and settings the way that a television does. And since making as much money as possible is the name of the game, they're designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible -- and let's face it, cool stunts and flashy special effects sell better than musings on how we can learn to be more tolerant and open-minded.

Still, when I watch these movies, the first two in particular come across as having been written by people who have little or no familiarity with Star Trek, the characters, or what it was about. In terms of execution, the movies seem to have much more in common with Star Wars than Star Trek. (Which is why I thought Abrams was a reasonable choice to direct the new SW movies.)

[BrotherMan]

Based on the generally positive reviews I decided to venture out into the vast reaches of trax and see the new one. By a long shot this is a better movie than the other two. I actually enjoyed the Undiscovered Country nature of the story. There are still some reservations due to the characaturization of the crew. But at least this time it felt like Chris Pine's Kirk deserved to be in the Big Chair.

My largest critique for this movie, and it applies to almost every other Trax movie in the whole of the series (original, next gen and abrams) would be STOP DESTROYING THE ENTERPRISE. Just because there's not an "economy" as we'd recognize it doesn't mean they have endless resources to keep building the same damn ship. And really, as it applies specifically to this movie, it's not as heartbreaking when you've p much destroyed it in both of the previous versions.

[Janet]

Originally Posted by slimshady2357

Not to mention we are seeing these characters years before they are depicted in TOS. People grow, learn, change..

Actually, they aren't anymore as of the third movie. Kirk says at the beginning that they are a little over three years into their five year mission, which means we are past all of TOS. I particularly noticed it because I knew immediately they were using it as a way to avoid any pressure to repeat encounters from the series. And considering what a pig's eye they made of Khan, that's a very good thing indeed.

[ceptimus]

Someone (three years ago, so maybe we already have this?) used Photoshop to merge the faces of the TOS actors with those of the Abrams relaunch.

Faces Of Star Trek Actors Merged With Photoshop

[The Lone Ranger]

The first aired episode of Star Trek, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," premiered on NBC September 8, 1966. [It actually aired 2 days earlier on Canadian television.]

So, as of today, Star Trek is 50 years old.

[Ari]

I generally consider Facebook to be a shit company that we are forced to use through popularity, but this is rather cool.
Facebook is celebrating Star Trek’s 50th anniversary with new Like buttons | The Verge


Not everyone is getting them however, and I'm not sure what makes the algorithm choose you.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The first aired episode of Star Trek, "Where No Man Has Gone Before," premiered on NBC September 8, 1966. [It actually aired 2 days earlier on Canadian television.]

So, as of today, Star Trek is 50 years old.

I thought, despite being a pilot (and not having the full regular cast), it was the 3rd episode aired? "Man Trap" being the first.