Star Trek XI

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Canadiens1131

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Aug 18, 2004
Messages
10,363
Kirk:

chrispinecohen856989940iy8.jpg



Spock:

heroesquinto109go9.jpg



Sulu:

244chojohn021407jj3.jpg



Chekov:

alphadogantonyelchinfo2.jpg



Uhura

zsaldana02062ii4.jpg



Scotty:

hotfuzz4rw5.jpg


So we have the guy from Harold and Kumar, and the guy from Hot Fuzz IN THE SAME STAR TREK MOVIE. How could this possible go wrong????
:wink:
 
Not the fucking Romulans again. Hopefully this time they won't be bald pussies.







































lol what
 
Honestly, if there was only one truly irreplacable original actor from that series, I'd say it was DeForrest Kelly.
 
Really? You don't think Spock in the hands of someone else wouldn't have been completely ridiculous?

I'm far from an authority (or fan) of the OS, but it seemed to me he was (ironically) the heart of the thing.
 
It's a combination of the two; if the dynamic between Kirk-Spock-Bones didn't work, the show would be a pissfest.

I've only seen Chris Pine in Smokin' Aces, and he was one of the only somewhat impressive things in that movie.
 
Nimoy's Spock is friggen classic. I just can't imagine Bones being anyone else. He was always my favorite character in the OS.
 
Scotty was probably my 3rd fave behind Spock and Kirk. I will never forget meeting him when I went to an actual convention.
 
Well I was about 11, so I have somewhat of an excuse. :wink:

One of the best SNL sketches ever.
 
As a Star Trek fan, I'm very upset that J.J. Abrams have been given so much leeway. He's a hack. Alias was awful and painful and formulaic and poorly cast with Jennifer Garner. "Lost"'s main quality comes from the hard work of Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindeloff, and even that has severe commercial moments designed to be conveniently light-hearted, though I enjoy it. M:I 3 was just Alias on film, but better. I just don't understand his appeal. He's such an uninteresting person interested in cheap gimmicks and shock value, not real character development. I despise the way corporate people embrace his cheap TV/film-making. Even one of the writers for "Band of Brothers" Eric Jenderson spent a year writing a script for a new film that would have been original, but corporate changes at Paramount meant they gave it to the undeserved Abrams.

Ira Steven Behr should get the respect he deserves for making Star Trek Deep Space Nine's best years; it's really the only great Trek, and really speaks to so many of the problems of our world in terms of terrorism, occupation, religion, nationalism, insecurity prompting aggression on the international stage, etc.

But no one at Paramount recognizes artistic achievement.

They'd rather rely on nostalgia and J.J. is happy to do that. This whole thing stinks of self-conscious commercial appeal. It'll be fun and probably better than those awful TNG movies and the franchise under Berman/Braga, but it won't be anything truly insightful about the human condition; just a lot of action and cliches. Whatever they call it, it's not Star Trek to me. Then again, I haven't been a fan of the original series since before my teens and I've been uninterested in most of TNG since I was 16. So, I'm just glad DS9 had it's run without creative interference from Paramount -- only from Rick Berman.

By the way, Behr works on The 4400 and Ron Moore created and heads Battlestar Galactica; both shows have just extended on DS9's more realistic themes and far surpass Star Trek under Roddenberry.

I still love "The Motion Picture", though. Very underrated.

lazarus said:
I remember that! That's from 1986 when SNL was actually funny.
 
Last edited:
Lancemc said:
Deep Space Nine the only great Trek?

You can't be serious.
Oh yeah. It's so much better than the others. Season for season it's better, which is to say, Season 1 of DS9 can be pretty dull, except a couple of episodes, but not nearly as dull and cheesy as Season 1 TNG. Same for Season 2. Season 3 sees things picking up and rivals TNG's 3rd season. Season 4, 5, and 6 easily surpass all the rest of Trek.

A lot of fans looked past DS9 because it didn't have a ship or tons of action, but it was a much better set of characters -- again, things improved so much by Season 3 and 4. Characters were more complex, and not just defined by their jobs like Crusher and La Forge. I get the strong feeling some of the TNG cast would agree, as Levar Burton and Jonathan Frakes have directed quite a few episodes, and Burton has remarked that he was upset they never really developed his character properly. They broke away from the idea of the perfect captain -- the perfect heroes. The conflict wasn't just among some alien races they could condescend to with noble answers, but within themselves with even Sisko and the Federation doing morally-questionable but totally believable things.

DS9 also pulled off comedy very well.

I do think TNG's 3rd season was probably its best, though, with some really great episodes, but things started to decline in Season 5.

Anyway, it's cool if you folks like the other stuff, but I'll always be a DS9er.
 
Last edited:
Here are some articles in which Ron Moore discusses his role on TNG and DS9 and even Voyager, which was just embarrassing, but he really gets to the root of the problems as a writer and what he was allowed to do. He had complete freedom on DS9 under Behr, but not on any other show. Ron Moore got his start as a writer on TNG in 1989.

I've pasted the link to the pages in which Ron discusses working on DS9 and Rick Berman's interference. Just click on the other pages at the bottom to pick any of the other 18 pages. Ira Behr sounds like such a nice guy!

http://movies.ign.com/articles/444/444306p8.html

Here's another from back when Cinescape was actually a quality website. It's an interview with Ron Moore from January 2000, in which Ron discusses Star Trek and mostly points out the problems with how Voyager was written.

Part 1:
http://www.mania.com/18708.html

Part 2:
http://www.mania.com/18741.html

Part 3:
http://www.mania.com/18843.html

Part 4:
http://www.mania.com/18860.html

Part 5:
http://www.mania.com/18949.html

Part 6:
http://www.mania.com/18971.html

Part 7:
http://www.mania.com/18998.html
 
Lancemc said:
Deep Space Nine the only great Trek?

You can't be serious.

Yeah.

If you can't enjoy Kirk and Spock fighting spore monsters on some cheesy set, I really don't know what to tell you.
 
Well, TNG reached critical mass with that Best of Both Worlds cliffhanger between seasons, and it's one of the finest cliffhanger season finales ever. That said, DS9 really blazed a trail for television sci-fi at the time with a huge, well-written cast of characters, and season/series-long story arcs.

I think DS9 was something truly innovative for the franchise, as opposed to a new ship and crew.
 
Canadiens1160 said:
Well, TNG reached critical mass with that Best of Both Worlds cliffhanger between seasons, and it's one of the finest cliffhanger season finales ever. That said, DS9 really blazed a trail for television sci-fi at the time with a huge, well-written cast of characters, and season/series-long story arcs.

I think DS9 was something truly innovative for the franchise, as opposed to a new ship and crew.

Babylon 5?
 
Oh yeah, whoops :ohmy: Ah well, fuck storytelling, I always hated the CGI visuals in B5.
 
Here's the best story in all of Star Trek, showcasing the complexity of the show above all other Star Treks.

It might be a bit tricky to understand all the references to the Dominion led by the Founders, which could be seen as a combination of Israel and the Soviet Union and any insecure group hellbent on control of anything outside their purview. However, it shows a complexity not found before or since in Trek history. It's really a forerunner of Ron Moore's work on BSG and he was most proud of this episode this year, since he served on the writing staff under the great Ira Steven Behr.

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4u6BTMTA6s
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpugECDVmuk
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSvZPFyApes
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQo-kRB3CMo
Part 5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feiyDLVf5oE
 
THAT is what made DS9 the best. The characters were fallible. DS9 dealt with stuff Star Trek had never addressed before, in a tone that was so different from the good guys vs. bad guys we were so used to seeing.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:


Babylon 5?
It's totally cool if you like it, but I don't personally like Babylon 5 or find it nearly as politically complex. I watched it because my mother got into it in reruns years ago. Other than Lando and G'Kar, the rest of the characters were awful. The doctor kept talking about beiong surrounded by death, and the only good episode with him was when he was trying to get off his addiction and got injured. Jerry Doyle was a Bruce Willis alpha male tough guy, and I hate the actor for being a right wing jerk. Bruce Boxleitner was an improvement over the original Commander, but his character was always portrayed as too perfect; it was always he and Delenn annoyingly professing their love for one another and then heading into a UN meeting like the always righteous leaders with moral authority to the petty foreign races; they were never in the morally grey area. It was a lot like the original series and much of TNG and Voyager and Enterprise that way.

The heroes of our story resolved the conflict among "the others", which very much affected, I think, how Americans saw conflicts in Ireland or between Israel and Palestine or whatever as simply petty -- something purely irrational and unrelatable. Now we have a War on Terror that no supporter of the Bush administration would regard as petty, but actually a valiant struggle of the utmost importance in vanquishing the other side. DS9 put its main characters in the center of the conflict; perhaps it could have done so more often -- given Sisko even more flaws -- but it was really ground-breaking that way. The audience identifies with the protagonist and realizes that even the hero is fallible -- not just practically but morally.

I did really enjoy that scene at the end of Season 3 and start of Season 4 of B5 when the creator told Sheridan that he understood he was willing to die for his cause and the things he loved (as any activist or terrorist or patriotic war monger), but asked whether he had anything to LIVE for. It really spoke to me at that point in my life.

Generally though the rest of the cast was awful, especially the Russian American woman, except her final scene in which she cried about the death of the guy who loved her. The only good things for me, were Londo and G'Kar, who had quite a bit of grey and nicely portrayed how two decent people could hate one another because of racial/ethnic identity differences. Even the whole evolutionary battle was quite a neat idea, but ultimately unconvincing in being overly intellectually-motivated.

The humor was terrible and awkward, as was the dialogue. I initially admired it a bit, but grew tired, especially by the 5th season.

Most importantly, I will always despise J. Michael Straczinsky for claiming DS9 ripped off his show with the war arc, and for constantly ripping on Star Trek.

Canadiens1160 said:
Well, TNG reached critical mass with that Best of Both Worlds cliffhanger between seasons, and it's one of the finest cliffhanger season finales ever. That said, DS9 really blazed a trail for television sci-fi at the time with a huge, well-written cast of characters, and season/series-long story arcs.

I think DS9 was something truly innovative for the franchise, as opposed to a new ship and crew.
I liked a lot of TNG Season 3 and 4, but I always felt the resolution of 2-parters on TNG never lived up to the promise of the first half, except that one Amnesty International episode in which Picard was tortured, and the 2nd part was so much better. On DS9, the 2-parters were always great. I think "Improbably Cause"/"The Die Is Cast", for example, actually surpasses any TNG 2-parter, except for a bit of uncomfortable military congratulatory jingoism, thanks to a less sophisticated Ron Moore. However, you're right in that "Best of Both Worlds" was a landmark; Ira Steven Behr still acknowledges that. It was written by Michael Piller who went on to create DS9, and left Behr in charge. He died a few years ago of cancer.

Canadiens1160 said:
THAT is what made DS9 the best. The characters were fallible. DS9 dealt with stuff Star Trek had never addressed before, in a tone that was so different from the good guys vs. bad guys we were so used to seeing.
Exactly.

I just saw an episode of DS9 Spike TV in which Odo is torn between the love of his people and the solids he cares for in the Federation and Bajor. When I was a teen, his social awkwardness spoke to me, but, as I'm older and more politically aware, it's this identity politics element of being part of many worlds that speaks to me as a Muslim. It's what Ira Steven Behr excels at. He's been doing the same on The 4400's 3rd and 4th seasons.
 
Last edited:
Spike is airing episodes of Star Trek Deep Space 9 (Season 5 now, which was the best overall) at 11am and 2 am on weekdays. If you haven't seen it, you should.
 
I can't believe DS9 got bumped off the radar by Spike for Voyager though. DS9's highs were really high, but its lows never reached the lows of Voyager.
 
Back
Top Bottom