POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Star Trek movie whoops.... Server Time
6 Sep 2024 03:15:01 EDT (-0400)
  Star Trek movie whoops.... (Message 28 to 37 of 47)  
<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 17:01:49
Message: <4a0c86bd$1@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 14 May 2009 21:51:35 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> I don't know that Seven saved the show, though; I thought Kes was a
>>>> much more interesting character, and it was a shame that she left.
>>>> With Seven you basically had another Data-like character who had to
>>>> learn what it meant to be human.  Been there, done that, and I think
>>>> Brent Spiner did a much better job of exploring that idea.
>>>   I don't think was so much about the character development which was
>>> decisive here... :P
>> 
>> Yeah, that's more or less my point.  No doubt sex sells, and Jeri Ryan
>> is not hard to look at at all.  I just wish they had not strayed into
>> such shallow waters to make it work.
> 
> If you want to point out plot holes, why *does* a Borg drone need such
> considerably developed mammary glands, exactly? :-P

That was more or less my point at that point. ;-)

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Kevin Wampler
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 17:08:24
Message: <4a0c8848$1@news.povray.org>
Bill Pragnell wrote:
>> It's only a particular type of series which fits this format (would it
>> be called an episodic show?).  There's plenty of shows in which the plot
>> follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.
> 
> Staying in the SF genre, Babylon5 is one of the superior examples of this. It
> begins with an episodic format much like Trek, exploring the show's universe
> and developing the characters, then starts introducing the greater story arcs,
> until by the final season the governments and equilibria that were described in
> the earlier seasons have been transformed by the events of the story. Cracking
> stuff.

I was thinking of Bablyon 5 too -- great show.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 17:21:54
Message: <4a0c8b71@news.povray.org>
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you want to point out plot holes, why *does* a Borg drone need such 
> considerably developed mammary glands, exactly? :-P

  Why would the Borg remove them if they are not an impediment? She grew
up like that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 17:26:02
Message: <4a0c8c6a@news.povray.org>
Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Staying in the SF genre, Babylon5 is one of the superior examples of this.

  I wouldn't say Deep Space 9 was so much episodic in nature. It had
long-spanning storyarcs which developed during entire seasons (even if
individual episodes were more or less independent).

  Of course Voyager also advanced a bit during the different seasons, which
is natural, as they were traveling through the galaxy after all. But it was
certainly a lot more episodic in nature.

  TNG was rather episodic, with very few things remembered for more than
one episode. (Still a great show, though.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 18:20:24
Message: <4a0c9928$1@news.povray.org>
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> There's plenty of shows in which the plot 
> follows an arc from beginning to end of the entire series.

There's also things like Big Bang Theory, where each episode is self 
contained, but they make references back to earlier shows. Fred does a favor 
for Mary, and calls in the favor ten episodes later. Jokes make references 
to what happened a dozen shows ago.  Etc.   The characters develop, slowly, 
and are relatively predictable in a stereotyped sense, but the series 
definitely has an order in which it should be watched.  Lots of books do 
that sort of thing too, with (say) serious injuries from the first book 
impeding the hero in the third book, etc.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!


Post a reply to this message

From: Patrick Elliott
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 18:34:30
Message: <4a0c9c76$1@news.povray.org>
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the "hair 
> band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll admit to 
> that. :-)
> 

Why does everyone hate the music? Mind, it would have been nice to see 
something more "original", but the opening music matched the whole, 
"This is just one more step in a long progression.", kind of idea.

Admit though, the mess on board the "new" Enterprise in the movie, for 
the larger ship, makes the "experimental" original ship look futuristic. 
Spent a lot of time thinking, "Good lord, did they go back 100 years to 
build this thing out of parts of a factory?" lol

Mind, I figured the explanation could be a case of having to glue a lot 
of stuff together to make a lot of ships, instead of "carefully" 
building it, due to the events at the start of the movie, and the more 
"high techie" look of the bridge, which is crammed full of junk the 
original ships from the original Trek, to the movies, etc., wouldn't 
have had in them, is a similar side effect. Cram every instrument and 
display into the thing you can, in hopes it will help in the next 
situation. I get the sense that losing a ship so fast and so completely 
may have "spooked" Starfleet. Especially if you figure the events in 
Enterprise where also a "shift" into the same alternate timeline path, 
since we can presume that there was no temporal cold war, or Xindi 
attacks in the "original" path of time. Lot of minor variations get 
introduced, and a few fairly big ones, even if the "general" course of 
events tend to follow the same trajectory.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>


Post a reply to this message

From: Bill Pragnell
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 18:40:01
Message: <web.4a0c9ccec0e6495c69f956610@news.povray.org>
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   I wouldn't say Deep Space 9 was so much episodic in nature. It had
> long-spanning storyarcs which developed during entire seasons (even if
> individual episodes were more or less independent).
>
>   Of course Voyager also advanced a bit during the different seasons, which
> is natural, as they were traveling through the galaxy after all. But it was
> certainly a lot more episodic in nature.

I must admit, I've not watched much from the later series of Voyager or DS9. But
those I have seen definitely demand more knowledge of recent events than most
TNG episodes.

>   TNG was rather episodic, with very few things remembered for more than
> one episode. (Still a great show, though.)

Agreed. It remains my favourite - I'm watching it at the moment, it's on one of
our free digital channels every day at the moment. Just started season 6!


Post a reply to this message

From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 19:15:51
Message: <4a0ca627@news.povray.org>
On Thu, 14 May 2009 15:34:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I've heard that; part of what turned me off, to be honest, was the
>> "hair band" theme music.  But I didn't give it much of a chance, I'll
>> admit to that. :-)
>> 
>> 
> Why does everyone hate the music? Mind, it would have been nice to see
> something more "original", but the opening music matched the whole,
> "This is just one more step in a long progression.", kind of idea.

I think largely the reason I disliked it so intensely was it was kinda a 
throwback to the 80's (not a happy time for me) and the idea of Star Trek 
theme music with a vocal was just unappealing to me.

Jim


Post a reply to this message

From: Mueen Nawaz
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 14 May 2009 20:23:13
Message: <4a0cb5f1$1@news.povray.org>
Invisible wrote:
>>> Dude... I thought nerds being obsessed with Star Trek was just a
>>> stereotype. I didn't realise people actually *watch* this stuff! o_O
>>
>>     I think you're confusing it with Star Wars.
> 
> No. Star Wars was *enjoyable* to watch. (Except the recent prequels.)

	*SACRILEGE!*

-- 
Feet Smell?  Nose Run?  Hey, you're upside down!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl


Post a reply to this message

From: Chambers
Subject: Re: Star Trek movie whoops....
Date: 15 May 2009 02:33:22
Message: <4a0d0cb2$1@news.povray.org>
On 5/14/2009 1:09 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's kind of the problem with a series. Every episode has to end with
> roughly the same situation as it started, so that the next one can begin
> from the same premise. (Although occasionally you'll inherit a new
> character permanently, or a new capability or something.) Makes it kind
> of predictable.

The episodic nature of Star Trek is one of my biggest complaints about it.

"Man, we just had this totally amazing experience, invented some funky 
new technology, and met some really cool people!  Now let's forget all 
about it so we can get on with next week's episode!"

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com


Post a reply to this message

<<< Previous 10 Messages Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.