Topic: Ten Forward - The Star Trek Topic

@RogerRoger yeah i remember the Yeager, that was always a odd one, it looks like something they made when they was bored one day and had a few spare parts lying around

speaking of ships what do you think of Picards new ship

@FullbringIchigo I need to see the front, but it looks a tad Star Wars to me. That isn't a criticism (there's a lot of shared design language in the non-Starfleet vessels we've seen over the years), just an observation based on the brief glimpses we've been shown thusfar.

Do you like it?

@RogerRoger i don't think i have seen enough of it to make a decision just yet, it is nice to see a ship that's Federation but NOT Starfleet (which i think most of the people moaning about seem to not realise) so it's something new but as we have only seen flashes for now i'm holding on judging it

i know this is a Star Trek thread but it's pretty much turned into a Sci-Fi one with the amount we talk about other stuff too so i'm posting this here

now i don't know how many here have seen or even heard of Red Dwarf but it's awesome AND it's getting a feature length special next year

personally i'm excited, there was talks for years about a movie that sadly fell through and this is the closest we are going to get one

anyone else exited?

@FullbringIchigo I feel like I'm only being negative here lately. But, if this are trash or as in Red Dwarf's case - should just be left alone....

Without Rob Grant, Red Dwarf is just a bit of sad caricature of it's former self. 1-6 are solid gold. 7 has a couple of OK moments, but the lack of a sharp, witty writer only gets more and more evident as the series slog onward. Doug Naylor isn't funny, and he can't write RD solo without either rehashing or regressing characters to very basic caricatures of what they were.

@FullbringIchigo Agreed regarding Picard's new ride.

I, er... I've never watched Red Dwarf. Not properly, anyway. I've seen some brief moments, but they just reinforced my aversion to it, alas.

But I gather that its resurrection on Dave wasn't very popular, so I hope it's better this time around.

@RogerRoger it's run on Dave has been very popular actually apart from Back to Earth, that fell a bit flat bit it's still not bad

@FullbringIchigo Oh, okay. Didn't know that. Hope they can maintain that momentum, then!

@FullbringIchigo
'a bit flat'?! Your generosity knows no bounds! 😂

@RogerRoger The Dave run was well received generally. Lord knows why, it's terrible. As I say, series 1-6 are brilliant. Not a single dud episode and as sharp and funny as British comedy gets; it has the rapier like dialogue exchanges of Black Adder and the occasional juvenile nonsense of Bottom wrapped in some good Sci fi ideas.

After series 7, even the good Sci fi ideas have dried up. We're left with an aging cast playing crap versions of good characters in crap versions of previous stories. With a better budget.

@KALofKRYPTON Might have to give it another look-see at some point, then. Thanks.

Speaking of returning to things and changing my opinions, I finally got around to wrapping up the original Star Trek films. I was keen to watch Star Trek V: The Final Frontier the other week as it's always been a contender, but afterwards it took me a while to gear up for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.

Not that it should have. When I was a kid, I had the Movie Era pack of Star Trek Micro Machines, containing the USS Reliant, the USS Excelsior and a Klingon Bird-of-Prey. I'd stick on a CD of Holst's Mars Suite and fly them around various house plants for hours, simulating ambushes in nebulae and whatnot (even moreso at Christmas, when the strange new green anomaly had multicoloured flashing lights within it). This was all because we had The Undiscovered Country on VHS and it was therefore, for the longest time, my favourite.

But I was a kid. I was tapping into the base-level aesthetics; the giant Excelsior übership, the music so carefully calibrated to sound Holst-ian, the humour and daring spectacle of it all. Now that I'm a little older, with each subsequent revisit I've tended to view this final voyage of the original crew with a more critical eye. Oh sure, it has quite a lot of worthwhile things to say about the human condition (particularly given the context of its release, as the Cold War came to an end and entire generations didn't quite know what to do with all of its pent-up, propaganda-reinforced racism) but in order to do so, it compromises the legacy of its core characters and setting. Despite all the progress Gene Roddenberry gave to humanity's future, present them with a weakened foe post-Chernobyl and suddenly everybody's a racist. Kirk might have anger over the death of his son, but his broad profiling of all Klingons as "animals... let them die" is deeply uncomfortable and upsetting to see. And perhaps that's the whole point, but this is the sixth movie following three seasons of television showing Kirk to be an upstanding champion of equality, so it never really fits, no matter how well-acted. It's a film most definitely of its time.

In comparison, The Final Frontier manages to encourage a timeless, thoughtful consideration of its topics without damaging any of its core characters; in fact, some of its explorations of Kirk, Spock and McCoy are the highlight of the whole adventure, which is a really fresh approach. Previous triumph The Motion Picture might've been more show, but this is definitely more tell. It asks its questions directly, using these aforementioned character moments to analyse a deeper meaning, and whilst it leaves a lot of the theological stuff unanswered (because it's too complex for a single answer, although that never means you shouldn't ask in the first place) I appreciate the way I'm encouraged to think about faith, and accept it in others even though I don't have it myself... and that's the whole point of true Star Trek, right?

The theatrical staging of McCoy's pain exploration sequence is more than enough of a reason for the entire film to exist; it's a beautiful, tender scene totally at odds with the majority's dismissal of The Final Frontier as "the goofy God flick". Kirk talking about the necessity of pain, as well as his concluding admission of error, are powerful instances of an excellent message about humanity, humility and the complexity of real strength. Maybe because of all that, the divine really is in the human heart; I like to think so, and that's thanks to the optimistic-yet-honest assessment of our species presented by good Star Trek and this film in particular.

Personally, I think I just prefer the overall tone of The Final Frontier, too. It deals with heavy subjects but somehow manages to keep things light at the same time. Whilst still effectively setting a decent tone of its own, The Undiscovered Country veers too close to heavy militaristic detail for my liking (but then hey, this is a Nicholas Meyer joint, so I shouldn't be surprised). There's a return to some of the darkness which made The Wrath of Khan feel so at-odds with the established universe; Spock openly torturing / mentally raping Valeris in front of the entire bridge crew needs to be called out for being the awful moment it genuinely is, whether it serves the wider picture or not. And just overall, The Undiscovered Country takes a while to lift itself out of a glum funk. Once the torpedoes are fired at Kronos One, the pace picks up, but the post-Praxis fifteen minutes are slow and tired, weighted down by an apparent disdain for the set-up which is reflected in the poor handling of the characters and the slapdash implications for Star Trek history.

But it's not all bad. General Chang is a wonderful villain, with Christopher Plummer's courtroom performance an undisputed masterpiece, and Iman portrays Martia as a very effective honey trap, leading us to the campy fun of the Kirk vs. Kirk fight. By contrast, whilst I'll forever rally against any criticism of Laurence Luckinbill's pitch-perfect and hugely-underrated Sybok, the S&M Klingons from The Final Frontier always feel unnecessary. They simply aren't a threat; we've seen their cookie-cutter characters beaten too many times before. In fact, if I'm gonna be honest about the fifth film, it would be remiss not to add that Uhura's fan dance on Nimbus III hasn't aged well at all, and her pairing with Scotty feels very left-field (kinda like Deanna and Worf did on The Next Generation, some kind of "well, we haven't put these two together before" random grasp for new material from an ageing cast). Justice is served when she turns out to be a highlight in The Undiscovered Country, stealing every scene she's in.

I could also take the production quality of The Final Frontier to task, as many others have over the years, but the truth is that its special effects "will do" and hey, nobody complains about the cardboard sets and wonky optics of the original series, do they? It's the story that counts. Besides, one of my all-time favourite bridge sets is the Enterprise-A from this movie, and I adore the forward observation deck and shuttlebay, too. I love that they got Herman Zimmerman on board, who finally did away with the tacky plastic and gave us something bright, advanced and befitting the 23rd Century. No need for a rusty-looking galley (?!) aboard this starship.

Reading back over all this, I know that I sound like a Roddenberry purist, and I'd never have considered myself one before (especially since some of Roddenberry's other views, like his approach to sexuality, still make me recoil in terror) but I guess the whole point of this exercise has been to recognise that things can change. As I said, there was a time when The Undiscovered Country was my favourite Star Trek film, and it's perhaps a touch ironic that the story with the most to say about ever-changing attitudes is therefore the one that should be sacrificed from its top spot, but I've come to realise that I look at things differently nowadays... or rather, I'm looking for something different from my entertainment, at least when it comes to Star Trek.

As a result, this is how I'd now rank the six original adventures. It's a totally new order for me.

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
2. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
3. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
5. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
6. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

When subsequently merged with my opinions of the films featuring Picard and crew, which I recently re-watched with my partner, I guess my current ranking for all ten Prime Universe films would be as follows.

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
2. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
3. Star Trek: Insurrection
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
5. Star Trek: First Contact
6. Star Trek Generations
7. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
9. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
10. Star Trek Nemesis

But hey, things change, so I'm left wondering how long they'll stay that way.

After all, the human adventure is just beginning.

@RogerRoger Star Trek V was hit by the Writers Strike of 1988 and from Paramount just cutting it's budget to the bare minimum so as for it's effects i think they are fine being the film makers were working on basically nothing and on a unfinished draft of a story

as for The Undiscovered Country did you watch the edited version or the uncut one because the uncut one adds a load of great little details you would have missed (easy way to tell was Rene Auberjonois in the version you watched if not then you watched the edited version)

@LN78 Did I say "joint"...? Blast, so I did. I thought I'd written "gig" instead. I was very tired!

Thank you for saying that, about not being wrong; whenever I've stuck my opinionated neck out before (on other websites, never here) I've been met with a far less rational response. If that's your takeaway from my ramblings, then I'm kinda honoured.

Especially since your reason for criticising Insurrection is my reason for adoring it so; I love it specifically because it's like relaxing into a lost two-parter from the show itself. Some people argue that making a movie version of a TV show means you've got to change things, up the ante and whatnot, but that can often backfire (see Nemesis, an action flick in space). For me personally, The Next Generation is second only to Voyager in terms of being "my" Star Trek, and so showing me those characters in a recognisable set-up, taking a moral stand on a local issue, will always earn bonus nostalgia points (because as always, this is just me being me; if I were aiming for dispassionate analysis, there might be some different points to make). It's also what drags Generations above The Undiscovered Country because whilst large parts of that film might seem by-the-numbers, it benefits from being filmed right after "All Good Things..." (TNG) and just continues providing me that comfort blanket.

So we both recognise Insurrection for what it is; I just happen to like that kinda thing, and you perhaps don't as much. We might agree that it's a supremely average piece of cinema, but you can't deny that it's a fantastic visit with Picard, Riker, Data, Deanna, Worf, Geordi and Beverly.

And thanks for the recommendation... y'know, I've never seen a Jaws film before (and yet never fear, I'm aware of the franchise's reputation and therefore got your joke).

***

@FullbringIchigo I'm still amazed that Paramount authorised the budget for a Director's Cut of The Motion Picture, yet refused Shatner the same when he asked to spruce up The Final Frontier, particular since the more modern film would've been an easier sell to a wider audience. The total lack of support and confidence shown in The Final Frontier, especially coming off the back of the most financially-successful piece of Star Trek ever, will forever be criminal.

No, the Blu-Ray of The Undiscovered Country is the theatrical cut. I did, however, own the extended DVD version between that aforementioned VHS and the collection I have now, so have seen those "missing" scenes before. I have a feeling the addition of Colonel West (Auberjonois) would have intensified some of my anti-military sentiment, though; having a Starfleet officer come in with a flip-chart, offering to "clean their chronometers", never sat right with me before so goodness only knows how I'd react to it today... and sure, so it leaves behind a single shot of a Klingon sniper with the wrong blood, but it's blink-and-you-miss-it stuff amidst all the chaos of the finale. I was also always weirded out by the Romulans having a diplomatic envoy on Earth; they never struck me as the ambassadorial types, so I don't mind missing those extra scenes with Nanclus.

Although there is a proposal by a Star Trek author that Nanclus engineered the entire conspiracy, poisoning the thoughts of Cartwright and Chang to make the Federation and Klingon Empire destroy one another to make way for Romulan expansionism. If there'd reinforced that beyond that one extra line of dialogue he has in the extended version, I'd have maybe wanted him to stick around.

I'm rambling again; regardless, thanks for the thought!

@LN78 ...but surely me praising the third cinematic outing of characters continuing 178 episodes of character development, carrying the weight of an extended franchise with even more movies and episodes establishing a respect for a cohesive fictional universe, is more understandable? If there's a risk in a wider "scope and ambition" (as you say) damaging all of that, then I'd rather them play it safe. Were I to review Insurrection as a standalone sci-fi adventure, with other actors playing other characters saying all the lines, then my thoughts would likely be different.

And because of that unique understanding of the complexity of a fictional universe's established rules, I can totally turn around to you and say "the Klingons are a race as valid as humanity, but the Borg are a plague of enforced slavery created by an artificial construct so inherently evil in its singular reason to exist" to defend my discomfort with Kirk and my acceptance of Picard's temporary imbalance in First Contact. The latter takes a risk with the lives of his crew to combat a valid enemy, and climbs down fairly rapidly when confronted with the absurdity of the situation, whereas the former wants to stand back and let a billion-strong species cause its own extinction. There's a huge difference when I put myself in each man's position to try and empathise with them and their circumstances; let Kirk be angry, let Kirk beat the crap out of the individual Klingon responsible for his son's death, that's human, but don't make him a racist because of one arrogant, Genesis-seeking jerk.

As I said, the lessons and character arcs within The Undiscovered Country were vital for Christmas 1991 and I totally respect that, I so very much respect that, but such an approach diminishes its place in a wider, supposedly timeless franchise. If I were to sit down with somebody and show them all of Star Trek for the very first time today, I'd feel that I'd have to preface The Undiscovered Country with a history lesson. I don't have to do that with First Contact, nor Insurrection or any other film, really.

@LN78 I think I've conflated two separate points here, for which I apologise; risk-taking is great when it doesn't betray the characters or established laws of the fictional universe. So yes, whilst I personally might prefer a "more of the same" approach to the things I love (hey, I did say my favourite show was Voyager, after all...) I would always encourage and applaud creativity from an artistic standpoint, providing it didn't corrupt or break continuity in order to achieve its goals.

That's what I feel The Undiscovered Country did, albeit ever-so-slightly. It wanted to tell its important tale, get a world to think about overcoming its engrained East Vs. West animosity, but in order to do that it devolved Kirk and assigned him some uncomfortable traits that I simply think he wouldn't have as an enlightened 23rd Century starship commander (and whilst I don't usually bring in behind-the-scenes stuff to my analyses, I kinda wanna point out that a lot of the cast disliked the racism in the script, to the point where Nichelle Nichols got a few lines cut altogether, as well as one written for her re-assigned to Chekov, so it points to a general trend in the story's development to try and make the entire crew of the Enterprise prejudiced in some way).

I've said this before, but I love the point at which Kirk arrives by the end of The Undiscovered Country, absolutely love it. I just wish that the film hadn't decided to devolve (best word I can think of, forgive me re-using it) him at the start in order to make its point. I think it could've done it more clearly, or held on to a more consistent presentation of humanity's future, with a different approach. But then I don't wanna appear arrogant by saying "this is how I'd have done it" because I'm just me.

You touch upon this point with your analysis of Picard, but I think it's a shame that the films never really gave Kirk an outlet to deal with the loss of his son, not until years later at least. The mention of David's death, both by Sarek at the end of The Search for Spock and by Saavik at the beginning of The Voyage Home, always feels awkward and unresolved. It's completely absent from The Final Frontier, too, so when it comes back up in The Undiscovered Country it feels like they're reaching deep into the barrel to find motivation for Kirk's animosity. This is the same reason you might feel like Picard's outburst is unwarranted in First Contact, because the Borg and his whole assimilation ordeal is addressed, at least on the surface, in "Family" (TNG) and then only hinted at in "I, Borg" (TNG) and "Descent" (TNG) in which the Borg are a very different type of plot device. I think if the Borg were used more frequently and more effectively throughout The Next Generation, we'd believe the weight of Picard's feelings a little more (no matter how good we humans are at burying our heads in the sand and then getting caught off-guard by unresolved emotions years later... so actually, maybe both men's reactions are as valid as one another's).

But the whole Borg thing is different anyway. Kirk barely knew his son. The Borg abused Picard directly, robbed him of his sense of self and used him to kill thousands. That's tapping into a different set of emotions, a different kind of trauma, and so the outcome would also be different (and highly theoretical; plenty of people have lost children, we can speak to that today, but nobody has ever been assimilated before... and there's your artistic bravery, your risk, because the effectiveness of Sir Patrick's portrayal and the writers' work in both "Family" (TNG) and First Contact, as well as with Jeri Ryan in Voyager, has us empathising with something we cannot possibly empathise with).

I am all over the board at this point; I've probably contradicted myself several times over, so apologies for this deluge of random thoughts. If you find anything of worth in there, let me know!

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker final trailer dropped today

what do you think?

@FullbringIchigo As trailers go - it's OK. In a similar place as @LN78 though - it's difficult to get particularly excited when the most positive thought I have about it is that it can't be as bad as TLJ.

I'm sure @RogerRoger will be pleased to see The Ghost though

@LN78 i see that sentiment a lot in the comments of the various social media posts and videos on the film, personally i didn't have any huge issues with The Last Jedi myself but it did feel like a movie that didn't really do anything which is strange for a film that killed of both Snoke and Luke

i think the main issue is that as a trilogy of films the second is supposed to be the middle act (think like any single film you have the first 1/3 which is the opening, the second is the build up and the third is the finale, in a trilogy each film acts as each of these stages) and as such is meant to be used to build up and fully establish the main cast for the final act (Episode IX) but instead it was used to introduce and build up new characters and as such the main cast got little to zero expansion, in fact Finn's arc was basically the same as in the first film, his character literally repeated itself, run away, meet a girl, try to run while acting like your not then coming back at the end to fight once he realised his strength

Episode VIII was basically another opening act after we already had one and that's the main issue it has, it's basically filler of no importance

@LN78 this is also true

@FullbringIchigo @LN78
I think it's fair to say, that Disney mainline Star Wars is the worst of Star Wars. More than anything, it's good that their run on the main sequence of films is over. Given the rumours swirling around regarding reshoots and multiple endings - Star Wars on film has never been more of a product designed to generate revenue as opposed to an actual storyteller's vision.

It'll be an eternal shame that Zahn's trilogy didn't form the basis of post-ROTJ films. But there we go.

@LN78 The Disney Wars have thrown the prequel trilogy in to a far more favourable light. I'd softened on them over the years anyway, but they're masterpieces compared to TFA and TLJ.

I'm not surprised Lucas didn't use Zahn's work. At all. I think that the original trilogy was largely a fluke as opposed to his 'genius'. Lots of people were around to make those films work, to limit what could and should be done.
The prequels show exactly what happens when George had free reign and unlimited resources - his pitches to Disney for the sequel trilogy sound like bonkers nonsense regurgitated from his unrefined sketchbook of ideas.