Star Trek

The "present day" for the Federation was the 29th century.

Star Trek Online actually did a plotline where it turned out using Krenim tech fucked up the timeline and created the Sphere Builders, and earlier references to the Temporal Cold War tied in stuff from the other shows.

I admit, when the last thing that happened before teh opening credits was them seeing the Red Angel and travelling through time, I thought the whole episode was going to be all about the Red Angel, Trek's most confusing plot thread. Glad I was wrong. This felt more like Voyager's "Shattered."

I took note of that as well.

I'm watching the second half right now on the Canadian Space Channel, and like you said, the first half of Year of Hell aired before this episode.

And another deep cut this season in one that's full of deep cuts.

Since others apparently watch it, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Canadian Channel formerly known as Space, now CTV Sci-fi channel, for all the years of quality programming it's given us. I've seen lots of Trek, and lots of Stargate thanks to that channel. Lots of Doctor Who too, though the new stuff is sadly not being shown on the channel anymore due to new licensing deals.

Edited by WillKeaton on Apr 18th 2024 at 9:02:28 AM

They used to air some late night anime too.

That was in the really early days though.

They used to air some late night anime too.

That was in the really early days though.

Yeah, it's what introduced me to Black Lagoon. Also saw a bit of R.O.D the TV.

Wait, I think I'm thinking of G4. Nevermind.

Edited by WillKeaton on Apr 19th 2024 at 11:13:42 AM

Is it me or Discovery seems to be going more episodic this season? Despite the overall plot each episode feels self-contain to some degree, unlike previous seasons were every episode endend on a cliffhanger. Weird that they choose the last season for it.

they didn't know it was going to be the last season. Anyway they probably decided that a flaw and corrected it. i'm liking it so far. spoilery review:

The original 3 foot TOS model is now back with Rod Roddenberry after being lost for over 40 years.

I'm watching "Journey's End" and I cannot stop thinking how it's fitting that Wesley's last appearance is arguably his most annoying.

The episode was all Voyager setup.

I remember watching this episode and thinking I was finally getting why everybody hated Wesley so much (having missed season 1 on my first viewing I never understood the hate).

Though now technically Wesley's last appearance is in Picard.

Last Chronological, last in production order would be Lower Decks' "Old Friends, New Planets" albeit in flashback.

There's something darkly funny about Wesley dropping out of school to hang out with a weird old man who drugged and told him he was special.

That's what happens to a lot of Doctor Who companions, though.

Edited by C105 on Apr 21st 2024 at 5:35:46 PM

It's such a cliche though, along with bumming around with a bunch self-righteous people.

Not sure if this is the right forum, but Star Trek 2009 is a movie I rewatched recently. And it's actually pretty good, especially in context with what came both before and after. It has its faults, sure, but they are faults that only grew worse with the sequels. The first movie really has a lot of admirable quality. I can safely say that it had a lot stacked against it, but when I see how much worse it might have been.... I can't say that it's bad.

It's an entertaining ride.

I think back when I first watched that film and I was both a lifelong, diehard fan and an aspiring filmmaker, and so even though I've always tried to be fair and rational I think the criticism I had at the time was overblown (unfocused story, high energy over character development, action beats for its own sake). The alternative was to be the kind of fan complaining that the nacelles break the line-of-sight of the saucer section, and I didn't want to become that. I think it served an important purpose and that was to reinvent what Star Trek could be, as barring a handful of production staff the creative team was completely new. I do think those films fell into the trap of emulating Star Trek rather than innovating something new, but that's the unfortunate reality of most blockbuster movies.

Caught up on the last two episodes of Discovery, I found myself actually fairly engaged with both and it's sad I feel I have to say that about Discovery. But like we were talking about a few pages back, they actually felt like complete episodes with a beginning, middle and end rather than incoherent slices of a bigger pie. "Jinaal" took advantage of Trill symbiont lifespans for an interesting way to progress the puzzle, the idea of talking to someone who lived that long ago was fun and served as a decent way to expand the mythos needed for this season. But I found myself vibing with "Face the Strange." It's definitely aping VOY "Shattered" and the technobabble makes less sense, but they were consistent enough on how the time jumps work I enjoyed the way Burnham and Rayner eventually managed to meet with Stamets. Also like "Shattered" this serves (unintentionally) as a late-series way to address the history of the ship and characters, which works pretty well.

Looking at Star Trek 2009 is also interesting for me because of how I knew, almost nothing, about Star Trek as a franchise. Going into that film, any changes present I didn't notice. I did not know that the Klingons were the dominant antagonist for much of the series. I did not know that George Takei was the 2nd most beloved character. So going into this, I didn't entirely know what to expect.

Star Trek as a franchise, is not action oriented, no matter how much those executives wanted their stupid sci fi show that dared to think of challenging ideas to be a stupid space western. Most episodes, at least in the original series, don't even have phasers used half of the time. They're there, sure, but it's pretty accurate to assume that most of the time, action is not a goal. So when I watch this film that opens with an intense action sequence, it immediately drew parallels to Star Wars with an intense opening battle that sucks you in immediately. I guess this is something I had to accept. I also have to say that for a film that had an entirely new cast for the most part, the fan reception for these characters wasn't as intense as it could have been perceived. While Pine's Captain Kirk wasn't entirely loved nobody could say it was trying to be a perfect reconstruction of Shatner. Pine Kirk was clearly his own thing. The same goes for almost everybody and it didn't feel strange. If anything, the way the film didn't pay attention to it was actually kind of a novelty. I think that Kirk calls Mc Coy, "Bones" once, if I can recall. So some restraint was applied.

No, instead, nothing made people angrier about this movie than those damn lens flares. Why did JJ shove a bunch of lens flares in our faces. Why is it all so bright?

C.G.I. That's the reason, seriously.

JJ Abrams if he cares about anything, was the visual presentation and that includes the use of C.G.I. JJ went on to say that nothing turns an audience off more than noticing all the C.G.I. Apparently it became rather evident to film audiences that an overreliance on C.G.I. absolutely ruins the immersion of a film. So JJ's solution to this problem was those very much despised lens flares. As the lens flares would constantly be catching the attention of the audience and helping them stay engaged with what was happening on screen. Combined with a usage of good practical effects, it helped add visual flavor which of course would become JJ's style as the years became evident.

Why are the Breen faces sometimes transparent?

Maybe a side effect of taking off their helmet for the first time. Lok seemed to lose it after a while.

Funny enough, I'm really enjoying Raynor as a member of the cast. The show has really locked in a personality and point of view on the character, even if he is kind of a retread of Shaw.

Also a pretty clever reveal in L'ak is Breen and the first we've seen outside the suit, answering a long-standing mystery by unofficially revealing it several episodes earlier.

I have been thinking with modern Trek using fire effects with the Star Trek Shake that it draws more attention to the uselessness of the shake. I can buy the sparkler effects due to the idea of power surges and power conduits could be anywhere, but those short fire bursts just make me think of a random propane tank hiding in the walls.

and During the face down with L'ak's boss it's explained. Breen are like semi-shapeshifters. The have the translucent form that needs a suit and the solid form that can exist like normal solids. The boss says the transluscent form is superior but this could be cultural rather than fact.

It was a solid episode I thought but a bit middle of the road. We get the backstory but it's not like too twist or anything but L'ak being Breen and the use of existing sets for The ISS enterprise were both fun.

I don't see Raynor as being like Shaw. Shaw as a genuine dick. Raynor's just terse and set in his ways and coming around to Michael's ways pretty quickly as he prompts an all bridge spitball session for the solution this episode.

Edited by dcutter2 on Apr 27th 2024 at 12:43:10 PM

They are both assholes who are not overt antagonists but nonetheless have a point to their behavior that contrasts the warmer command style of the established characters. The main difference is that Shaw retains his command position and slowly softens up over the course of the season, while Raynor is humbled early on and pushed into a submissive role. Both are basically modern, edgier takes on Nechayev or Jellico.