New Star Trek Series on CBS

[Aemon Stark]

You task me, drawk. You task me. 

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, drawkcabi said:

Sorry but no, after what Kahn did to Kirk, what no other villain could ever do, Kahn is number 1 in my book. Dukat got episodes of character development and nuance, yes and that helped make him great, but the characterization we got of Kahn in one episode and then his reemergence in a movie after 20 years of pain and hating gave him a powerful presence that for me just can't be topped.

What are you referring to that only Khan could do to Kirk? At first I thought you meant killing his son, but then I remembered that wasn't him. "Causing Spock to put logic above his own well being" doesn't seem to fit either. That could have happened with any villain/engine malfunction, it just so happened that Nemoy thought he wanted out after Star Trek II. 

Anyway I bet we just have different criteria for "best villain." I could probably think of a few who were more interesting and nuanced than Khan. Weyoun was amazing, for example. He probably couldn't beat Kirk in a fight, but who cares. 

[Aemon Stark]

Well, like many an actor, what Nimoy really wanted to do was direct. 

It's hard to imagine Kirk parlaying with Weyoun and Dukat. 

[GrimTuesday]

2 hours ago, Aemon Stark said:

Well, like many an actor, what Nimoy really wanted to do was direct. 

It's hard to imagine Kirk parlaying with Weyoun and Dukat. 

 

Man, Kirk would just punch the shit out them, then bang their wives, sisters, mothers and anything else that tickled his fancy.

 

I think something that gets overlooked about DS9 was all the Klingon stories. I really liked how they handled Klingons, especially with Worf joining the crew. Also, it gave us a bunch of Gowron, and his freaky eyes.

[Werthead]

14 hours ago, Denvek said:

I've started rewatching it recently (still on Season 1), and there are some good episodes there (notably Winn's first appearance, when she's still just a Vedek and not the Kai). But they are all self-contained episodes like most of TOS and TNG were, when the general consideration of why DS9 is the "best" Trek is because of the serialisation that happened later once the Dominion arrived (and which I've heard somewhere was a reaction to the success of Babylon 5, which was a long-form story from the start)

I'm not too sure about that. I think the serialisation was good for the show but I think more important was the more complex characterisation, the abandonment of technobabble solutions to every problem (more when Ira Steven Behr took over in mid-Season 3) and the fact that the characters were allowed to argue with one another (which wasn't permitted on TNG). I also think they did much more interesting stuff with the different races, old and new, as well. It's also worth remembering that the serialisation on DS9 could be a bit overstated. There's a number of 2 and 3 parters, but the only big serialisation blocks were the 6 episodes at the start of Season 6 and the 9 at the end of Season 7. There's lots of recurring elements but it's not like every episode was part of a single story like say the latter half of B5. The overwhelming majority of DS9 episodes were standalones even in Seasons 6 and 7, and most of them were pretty good. I also think a key part of the show's success was quality control. There's a few somewhat dull episodes here and there but only a tiny number (like 3 or 4 maybe out of 178) that I would call terrible. Compare that to TNG where very large chunks of Seasons 1, 2 and 7 are pretty awful.

Quote

While I don't think it's dirty, I do find the station's exterior unappealing. It doesn't look, to me, like something the Federation would build. More of a villain lair, if anything.

That's the point, it was built by the Cardassians who are power-hungry, arrogant arseholes (at least to start with). And in fact the "unappealing" nature of the station forms a minor plot point over the first three seasons as the characters try to settle in.

Quote

I always respected their balls in making it Cardassian, on top of all the other reasons it was already gonna be controversial, they thought they'd strip the series of its clean and shiny whites of the federation. I think it was a good way of representing just how not in charge they were, and how they could easily be construed as intruding where they weren't welcome.

Yeah, the Federation's presence on the station is really messy and I do like the number of times that stuff happened on Bajor and they had to sit on their hands because they weren't allowed to interfere. The show aired during the whole Bosnian war and that era of post-Cold War instability and the writers liked to put things like that into the show.

Quote

I like Khan, but I don't think there's much comparison here. Dukat is a fully realized character developed over dozens of episodes over seven years. 

I think this scene really shows why Dukat works so well as a character... and even an appealing villain. 

Khan is a great one-shot villain. You couldn't have him as a recurring foe without robbing him of his power so bringing him in (after that one episode) and killing him off was a great idea. It's why bringing him back for Into Darkness was such an appalling mistake.

That scene is really good, and shows the attention to detail. Dukat wants to take his son to Lakarian City:

Spoiler

Which the Dominion vapourise in the series finale, killing 7 million Cardassians.

 

Quote

I really liked how they handled Klingons, especially with Worf joining the crew. Also, it gave us a bunch of Gowron, and his freaky eyes.

"This we do not forget. Or forgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive." (crazy eye acting, DS9 crew looking uncomfortable)

The Klingons actually came out really well in DS9. They reminded us that they are aliens with somewhat disgusting morality, not just cuddly bears which TNG had been gradually pushing them into becoming. I also really like that Gowron had a complete character arc spaning both TNG and DS9, with Ron Moore introducing him and then writing his final appearance nine years later.

If you can find a copy, The Deep Space Nine Companion by Terry Erdman is the single greatest companion book to a TV show ever written. He gets really far into the development of each episode and talks to the actors, writers, effects guys, everyone, and people are honest to say when an episode is bad and why it failed. Absolutely essential reading for a DS9 fan.

[GrimTuesday]

10 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 

 

"This we do not forget. Or forgiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive." (crazy eye acting, DS9 crew looking uncomfortable)

The Klingons actually came out really well in DS9. They reminded us that they are aliens with somewhat disgusting morality, not just cuddly bears which TNG had been gradually pushing them into becoming. I also really like that Gowron had a complete character arc spaning both TNG and DS9, with Ron Moore introducing him and then writing his final appearance nine years later.

It's kind of funny, when ever I think of DS9 and the Klingons, I obviously think of Worf, but rather than Martok, the second Klingon I think of is always Gowron. Martok was in a bunch of episodes (27) in the later seasons, and I think Gowron was in a total of eight the entire series. Martok had over three times more appearances, but Gowron was such a fun character, that it feels like he had a much larger presence than he actually did... Probably helps that the episodes Gowron was in with maybe the exception of Broken Link, are among my favorite episodes of the series.

Also, I can't overstate how much I loved Far Beyond the Star (Season 6 episode 13). It was so different than what we had seen in Star Trek before, but somehow, the spirit of the episode felt so in keeping with the dream of a better future that permeates Star Trek as a whole (or at least it did in the earlier series, less so in Voyager).

[Rhom]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

and the fact that the characters were allowed to argue with one another (which wasn't permitted on TNG)

 

See, this is an interesting point to me.  TNG characters couldn't argue.  We had this pristine image of the future.  It got to the point that I think it was in your TNG rewatch that you commented on a TNG episode where a young child was dealing with grief over the loss of a parent and Roddenberry threw a fit and said that "In the future they would be past emotions like that."  (At least I have that in my head and I attribute it to you...)

And here we have DS9 with their flawed characters and an image of humanity thrown to the edge of the known galaxy and just basically trying to keep things together.  And that's the show that is thought back on the most fondly.

So my question is:  What is Star Trek?  Is it Roddenberry's quasi-utopian view of the future where there is no money and kids don't cry when their parents die?  Or is it a story of humanity's common roots despite the advances in technology?

The answer to that question will go far in determining the success of this new show.

[DaveSumm]

Well, there's been interpersonal conflict on Star Trek since 1993. Voyager, Enterprise and the JJverse all have it, maybe to a lesser extent than DS9 but still. I'd be very surprised if the new series snapped back to rigid Roddenberry rules.

[Criston of House Shapper]

I have a question for you guys, since TNG came up.

Do Trekkies like Deanna Troy?

[Aemon Stark]

8 hours ago, Rhom said:

So my question is:  What is Star Trek?  Is it Roddenberry's quasi-utopian view of the future where there is no money and kids don't cry when their parents die?  Or is it a story of humanity's common roots despite the advances in technology?

Roddenberry's utopian view was reflected - at most - in the early seasons of TNG. Even that show eventually moved away from the idea of the New Federation Man. On the other hand, I don't think that could be said either of TOS or most of the movies (especially not the better ones in II-IV, VI, First Contact). Of course, DS9's writers didn't just reject this vision, they went out of their way to deconstruct and even make fun of it. See, for example, this interchange between Jake and Nog. 

[Martini Sigil]

The thing that makes Star Trek such a phenomenon is that "action" was always ancillary to it's premise... first and foremost, the show was about peace, and human potential.... This is why Star Trek and Star Wars --while both science fiction and indistinguishable to non-nerds-- are two completely different types of franchises... both wonderful in their own right, but different.

I fear that in this world of YouTube and CGI ... that the subtleties of Trek will be lost in favor of some mid-level studio exec's idea of what Sci-Fi fans generically "like"... I fear that this will be more "JJ Abrahms".... and less "Gene Rodenberry"

That said... I will watch it... whether I like it or not...lol

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, Martini Sigil said:

The thing that makes Star Trek such a phenomenon is that "action" was always ancillary to it's premise... first and foremost, the show was about peace, and human potential.... This is why Star Trek and Star Wars --while both science fiction and indistinguishable to non-nerds-- are two completely different types of franchises... both wonderful in their own right, but different.

I fear that in this world of YouTube and CGI ... that the subtleties of Trek will be lost in favor of some mid-level studio exec's idea of what Sci-Fi fans generically "like"... I fear that this will be more "JJ Abrahms".... and less "Gene Rodenberry"

That said... I will watch it... whether I like it or not...lol

And yet Wrath of Khan and First Contact are more popular than Voyage Home and Generations.  Episodes with the Borg and the Dominion outstrip general discovery and reflection.

So... Do Trekkies really value the non action stuff?

[Crazydog7]

If it works that would be great if it doesn't I'm not going to die of shock.  Maybe part of the problem is we all grew up and the idealized version of Star Trek just doesn't do it for us any more. 

 

I for one always loved the non action/nuanced stuff one of the best Star Trek episodes of any incarnation was the first season DS9 episode Duet and that had almost no action at all.  

[Jon AS]

I think it's simply that action plots are much easier to pull off then the more cerebral ones. The really good non-action episodes are amongst the best the franchise has to offer, but often even a good premise will be ruined by botched execution.

Star Trek has the unfortunate habit of disappearing up its own arse when trying to show off how enlightened it is. The better episodes examine and challenge the Federation's ideals rather than just telling everybody how awesome they are.

[Rhom]

4 hours ago, Jon AS said:

I think it's simply that action plots are much easier to pull off then the more cerebral ones. The really good non-action episodes are amongst the best the franchise has to offer, but often even a good premise will be ruined by botched execution.

Star Trek has the unfortunate habit of disappearing up its own arse when trying to show off how enlightened it is. The better episodes examine and challenge the Federation's ideals rather than just telling everybody how awesome they are.

Whatever do you mean?!!?   

[Jaxom 1974]

On Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 7:24 PM, drawkcabi said:

Sorry but no, after what Kahn did to Kirk, what no other villain could ever do, Kahn is number 1 in my book. Dukat got episodes of character development and nuance, yes and that helped make him great, but the characterization we got of Kahn in one episode and then his reemergence in a movie after 20 years of pain and hating gave him a powerful presence that for me just can't be topped.

Totally agree here. 

4 hours ago, Jon AS said:

I think it's simply that action plots are much easier to pull off then the more cerebral ones. The really good non-action episodes are amongst the best the franchise has to offer, but often even a good premise will be ruined by botched execution.

Star Trek has the unfortunate habit of disappearing up its own arse when trying to show off how enlightened it is. The better episodes examine and challenge the Federation's ideals rather than just telling everybody how awesome they are.

Trek is always best when it effectively mingles the action with the cerebral.  Wrath of Khan does both. And it does both very well.

Generations, I think, came close to this idea but then crammed too much in and failed on overall message. First Contact stepped that up and it worked.  It's why so much of the Dominion War arc works. It does blend the action effectively with the cerebral. 

 

[DaveSumm]

19 hours ago, Criston of House Shapper said:

I have a question for you guys, since TNG came up.

Do Trekkies like Deanna Troy?

 

I was watching TNG around the 11-16 age range so I inevitably fancied her a bit. But now rewatching she's often the most annoying crew member, using her telepathy to tell everyone that the shady Romulan was possibly hiding something. I could have handled it if she hadn't have been promoted above Data and LaForge, that was dumb (she killed Geordi in the holodeck, so she gets her third pip on the collar). In an emergency, who would you pick between Troi and Data to take the hot seat? Although the episode where she actually did this (Disaster) gave us a great rebuttal from O'Brien: "Oh, so it's like a cosmic string?" "Umm.......no. It's really nothing like that at all." A series with as many dumbed down analogies as there are episodes, and Troi manages to screw it up.

And of course it has Worf's "You may now give birth". Good episode really.

[drawkcabi]

On 2/17/2016 at 9:46 PM, RumHam said:

What are you referring to that only Khan could do to Kirk?

Making him for the first time truly face the Kobyashi Maru/No Win Scenario. Making him feel it in his heart and soul he was finally facing it and it nearly destroyed him.

10 hours ago, Rhom said:

And yet Wrath of Khan and First Contact are more popular than Voyage Home and Generations.  Episodes with the Borg and the Dominion outstrip general discovery and reflection.

So... Do Trekkies really value the non action stuff?

It's like others have said. It's putting the Federation to task, testing them to their limits and see how their Federation goals hold up at that point. It wasn't until TNG that Roddenberry retconned his vision of Star Trek with what we saw in season 1 TNG. Originally TOS was Wagon Train to the stars and Kirk was Horatio Hornblower. It was action, adventure, and the cerebral thinking episode or morality play thrown in. Roddenberry maybe had so much feedback on the greatness of those latter points he wanted to make Trek ALL that way and we got the oh so arrogant - no conflict among us in the crew - we are better than everyone because we have outgrown our barbaric past ways season 1 TNG. I'm so glad later show runners decided to challenge that, some more than others, with the Borg and Dominion and other great concepts to make the Federation take long looks at themselves.

Wrath of Khan was an action film. It was submarines fighting in space. But it was also Moby Dick, Paradise Lost, The Inferno and King Lear.

When that dichotomy between cerebral and intense action are most nicely balanced that's when Trek is the best and when fans love it the most.

Take the classics homages and contrasts out of it and you end up with Into Darkness, so yes we value the non action stuff or more precisely we value complete Trek, not mindless Trek or, going the other direction, arrogant Trek.

 

[SerHaHa]

Wow, great to see the love DS9 is getting here.  Again, this just confirms to me that the intelligent people on this forum migrate to the bottom 4 sections - hah.

I'm acquainted with Michael Dorn - who played Worf in ST on both TNG/DS9 and the films.  I've been involved in WW2 aircraft, both flying and creating simulations of them for a long time, and met Dorn while doing this, as he's a pilot himself, and very interested in both of these things.  We flew as squadmates in an online WW2 simulator (2 actually) as well as met with our company at the time at a couple air shows in the USA. 

He has been trying to get a new ST series on TV for a long time.  He wrote a "Captain Worf" pilot, series, and series bible with the help of many, including Ronald Moore (DS9 alumni and BattleStar/Outlander creator/writer).  He's been tight lipped about if his show was "picked", but even if it wasn't, he deserves a TON of credit for getting a new show green lit by putting Star Trek back on the radar for the TV suits.  I was very involved in the "we want worf" petitions et al, as well as other efforts which tried to put Trek back on TV with the network.  Here's to hoping...

I would love to see a new series with the grit that DS9 had - it's still my favorite all time SciFi series, it just had everything.  Roddenberry's original "message" regarding race, sexuality, and progress, as well as technical geek stuff, and  a great war story that took place over 5 seasons.  The cast was incredible, and they did a great job of creating "pairs" such as O'Brien/Bashir, Quark/Odo, Kira/Odo, Worf/Daxx, etc etc - great stories and episodes, very consistent in quality but for a very few examples IMO.

I've been re watching DS9 for the umpteenth time, and just broke into season 3 - anyone else want to do a DS9 specific rewatch thread?  With all the great comments here about it, there must be someone interested in that.  I'd be happy to start over, I never tire of it.  I just finished Enterprise, and the more I watch it, the more I wish it got another few seasons, as despite legit criticism already posted here, it was improving IMO, the Vulcan arc and Augments arc with Brent Spiner weren't bad actually.  I'm impressed how well the visuals/art work people did has held up over 10 years now too.

Great thread, look forward to reading more.

+1 on the DS9 companion book, the best of any series, but don't miss out on the DS9 Technical Manual either, again, by far the best book in this category I've seen. 

[RumHam]

38 minutes ago, drawkcabi said:

Making him for the first time truly face the Kobyashi Maru/No Win Scenario. Making him feel it in his heart and soul he was finally facing it and it nearly destroyed him.

Right, I should have realized that. Still that whole "I don't believe in no win scenarios" thing was bullshit from the start. Of course there are no win scenarios, and of course Khan isn't the only one who could make him face a no win scenario. Hell in the very next movie he's put in another no win situation when the Klingons demand the genesis device information and end up killing his son because he won't surrender it. In fact I'm willing to bet he faces at least one no win situation during the run of the original series. 

edit: http://io9.gizmodo.com/10-times-captain-kirk-actually-faced-a-no-win-scenario-1516665144

22 minutes ago, SerHaHa said:

I've been re watching DS9 for the umpteenth time, and just broke into season 3 - anyone else want to do a DS9 specific rewatch thread?  With all the great comments here about it, there must be someone interested in that.  I'd be happy to start over, I never tire of it.  

I think Werthead mentioned possibly doing one a while back, but we were all hoping for a new widescreen HD blu-ray release first. Still hoping!