• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Trek XI .. after all?

I also thought the Erickson scene was somewhat cringe-inducing - not because it felt tacked on or didn't belong there, but because JMS just didn't do a very good job of writing it. Anybody can have an off day, and I'd say that was one of his. Sheridan's lines in particular were just clunky - but they didn't have to be. There's nothing in the nature of the scene that made clunky lines inevitable.

I didn't feel that "The Doomsday Machine" was diminished by the fact that the star systems obliterated by the planet killer were completely unknown to the viewer - it was still the most thrilling Trek episode ever for me, eventhough noone we actually know dies for the first ~30 minutes of the script.

We didn't need to have a face on any of the destroyed planets in "The Changeling" to establish Nomad as a seriousley deranged nutcase.
Click to expand...

But in both cases, as I recall, the Big Bad Machine was on a couse the would utlimately lead it to Earth, and in both cases our heroes were in direct jeopardy from the thing themselves. (And, in "Doomsday Machine", an allied starfleet crew and ship are the victims who stand in for all the others.)

You're comparing apples and oranges - in the two examples you cite terrible events have happened off-screen and before the beginning of our story. Our heroes aren't racing to save the ravaged star systems, they're disovering the "bodies" later and trying to prevent future calamaties (which threaten themselves and their homeworld.) Of course we don't meet any of the dead aliens - they're dead before we know about them.

Regards,

Joe
 
Arguing about whether seeing the victim planet aliens in Generations is like arguing about whether a beat-up Pinto has ugly hubcaps.
 
I didn't mind it till half-way through the scene.

Sheridan's line though of, Sheridan being "subtle" .. "you're not a married man, are you?"

with the whole council watching ..

it just didn't seem convincing to me. I guess it's convincing that Sheridan was intentionally making a "demonstration".

I thought the plotline was great. Especially considering the parallels to history, with pilots having sacrificed themselves just for the cause of making the Germans believe that the Allies had yet to crack the Enigma code in World War II. The way it was executed though left a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth.

As for Kirk though: for me, at least, it was completely irrelevant what he "sacrificed" himself for .. as I never saw him as the type for sacrificing himself for a great cause. That's Spock's job.

Kirk was always the kind of guy for whom playing hero was fun. He never stopped to contemplate about how "important" a cause was, he was just having too much fun playing the hero. And he eventually died having his kind of fun - makes sense to me. It also makes sense that it didn't matter how great the sacrifice seemed to him, as he never was the kind of guy to care about that in my eyes.

Not to defend Generations or anything :rolleyes:
 
Insurrection really showed Picard being rebellious.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. What I see when I watch Insurrection is Picard fighting against an alien group who's acting under allowance of the Federation. Picard "rebels" against a single Federation officer who's working in collusion with this non-Federation alien group, and the Federation council acceeds to Picard's position as soon as Riker's able to contact them. For it being an insurrection against the Federation, there sure aren't many Federation officers that Picard's group actually fights.

And slightly aside, seriously, what the fucking hell is with Riker becoming Commander Joystick to save the day? And why did that joystick really look like one someone had just gone to Circuit City and bought it?

beating the crap out of the Borg until they're no longer cool (nothing I hate more than overplaying a great villain
Click to expand...

I so totally agree.
 
Well I only saw Insurrection the one time, so I don't remember the details. I just kind of remember him hooking up with that chick and following his feelings to get down 'n' dirty with an oppressed people, something he'd be above in the TV show.
 
And slightly aside, seriously, what the fucking hell is with Riker becoming Commander Joystick to save the day? And why did that joystick really look like one someone had just gone to Circuit City and bought it?
Click to expand...
Hah! Classic.

I saw that movie the other day, for maybe the second time ever in my life, and I actually laughed out loud when Riker said something like "I need manual control" and that fucking joystick popped up. How corny, lame, and unnecessary was that? Pathetic.
 
Yeah, but that means that in the far future, the unbelieviable line, "Hey Baby, Wanna play with my joystick" is still possible!! :beer:
 
You can find huge discussion forums on the works of Jane Austen on the internet. That doesn't mean she'll be writing too many books in the near future :D
Click to expand...

True, but every few years you can bet there will be new adaptations and take-offs on her work on TV and in movies (where in recent years there have been a spate of straight-up adaptations like Emma and Pride and Prejudice alongisde such reminagings as Bridgette Jones and Clueless.) So Jane is "alive" in more than the "people still read her books" sense. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
Point taken :D

It wouldn't surprise me if Trek was not to die "properly" in that way quite some time.

It's only "dead" in the way that I doubt any spinoff will ever manage to capture the spirit of the original, in any way.
 
It's only "dead" in the way that I doubt any spinoff will ever manage to capture the spirit of the original, in any way.
Click to expand...

Yes, but in that instance, hasn't that always been the case? DS9, Voyager, even TNG never captured the "spirit" as the original. So was it dead all along? I don't think so.

To quote Wayne Campbell: "It's like Star Trek: The Next Generation. In many ways, its superior, but will never be as recognized, as the original"

;)
 
You can find huge discussion forums on the works of Jane Austen on the internet.
Click to expand...

I'll look for those next time I have trouble sleeping.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't knock Jane. ;) There's a reason she's still being read 200 years later. :D

Pride and Prejudice is probably one of the 50 all time best novels written in English and set a pattern for modern romantic comedy that informs everything from the screwball era through the Tracy & Hepburn films through Neil Simon and Woody Allen. If you've never read it you really should do yourself a favor and pick it up. It is one of those books I take down off the shelf every year or two and read with total pleasure. (It is also a very short book, although stuffed with characters, action and locales.) Then do yourself another favor and rent (or buy) the BBC mini-series. (The Jennifer Ehle/Colin Firth one released in the U.S. by A&E. Ignore the earlier TV treatment. The Olivier film isn't bad, but it is far too short, as I suspect the Kiera Knightly version, which I haven't seen, is as well You can't possibly do justice to the story in two hours and that's all there is too it.)

Later,

Joe
 
I've read a load of it, and still can't stand it. We have it shoved down our throats by the BBC on a regular basis.

But i'm sure folks feel that way about Trek...
 
I'm actually quite familiar with the works of Jane Austin. I just try to bring a bit of the funny sometimes.


Reverend Lovejoy: "Lisa, can you recommend any books for my book-mobile?"

Lisa: "Oh, well, anything by Jane Austin..."

Lovejoy: "Jane Austin, ok, thanks!"

<drives away to reveal it's actually a book burning mobile>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 527 (members: 0, guests: 527)

Share this page

Back
Top