Star Trek Wankery

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11118
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 26 Aug 2017, 19:30

Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 13:31
Eric the .5b wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 02:33
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:19

We've seen plenty of characters afraid of dying. The episode is one of the high points of Roddenberry's very smarmy, up his own ass, take on utopianism. As he famously told writers, in the TNG era, death isn't something human beings either fear or mourn, anymore.
That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?

You're trying to archly demand proof of aspects of the show people have been talking about for thirty years from a variety of viewpoints, from the writers to the critics to the fanficcers. Dude, go watch some Star Trek.
I have watched Star Trek, and none of what you're describing is in the text. What you're really saying is Dude go read some apocrypha.
Cool story, bro.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8990
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 26 Aug 2017, 21:07

It's a TV show from 1987, dorks.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 26 Aug 2017, 21:19

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 21:07
It's a TV show from 1987, dorks.
:lol:
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 26 Aug 2017, 22:22

Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17001
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Hugh Akston » 27 Aug 2017, 00:04

Eric the .5b wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 19:30
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 13:31
Eric the .5b wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 02:33
Hugh Akston wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 00:04
Eric the .5b wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 23:53
Hugh Akston wrote:
25 Aug 2017, 22:38

That's one way to read it.
It's literally what the guy said to writers. And after Roddenberry died, nobody bothered with that premise, anymore.
And authorial intent is one way to read a text among others which are different. What other episodes/stories did they have the opportunity to address/redress that premise where they declined?

You're trying to archly demand proof of aspects of the show people have been talking about for thirty years from a variety of viewpoints, from the writers to the critics to the fanficcers. Dude, go watch some Star Trek.
I have watched Star Trek, and none of what you're describing is in the text. What you're really saying is Dude go read some apocrypha.
Cool story, bro.
Fuck you
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Inexplicably cockfighting monsters that live in your pants" ~Jadagul

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11118
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 27 Aug 2017, 00:55

Fin Fang Foom wrote:
26 Aug 2017, 21:07
It's a TV show from 1987, dorks.
I don't care if it's cupcake recipes. Some guy starts ranting that sprinkles don't exist, and he gets ruder and more absurd as he doubles down on that point? I only have so much patience for that.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22016
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 27 Aug 2017, 01:50

What Hugh said.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21126
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by JasonL » 28 Aug 2017, 11:38

Sprinkles don't exist is gaslighting. Did I do that right?

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11118
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Eric the .5b » 28 Aug 2017, 11:53

JasonL wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 11:38
Sprinkles don't exist is gaslighting. Did I do that right?
Dude, keep it over in the bullshit threads. This one's got enough.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8990
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 28 Aug 2017, 12:44

JasonL wrote:
28 Aug 2017, 11:38
Sprinkles don't exist is gaslighting. Did I do that right?
What are you, stupid? They don't use gas lighting in the 24th century. It's called "lightpaneling."
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 31 Aug 2017, 08:23

I unironically love this:

Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 10 Sep 2017, 04:31

Haven is a remarkably bad episode of television.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22016
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 10 Sep 2017, 10:10

dbcooper wrote:
10 Sep 2017, 04:31
Haven is a remarkably bad episode of television.
Well, it is. But if you grade the first season on a curve, it's at least a B. It's Lwaxana's first appearance. For that alone it deserves a passing grade.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
dead_elvis
Posts: 605
Joined: 01 May 2010, 15:26

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dead_elvis » 11 Sep 2017, 14:15

dbcooper wrote:
15 May 2017, 19:54


Not a lot of laughs in that trailer ...
Or in the actual show, which suffered a fatal case of being neither fish nor fowl.
"Never forget: a war on undocumented immigrants by necessity is a war on all of our freedoms of association and movement."

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20632
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 03 Oct 2017, 20:20

In the super-ultra-cheap rack of a used bookstore, I found a couple of old paperbacks, all titled Star Trek followed by a number -- Star Trek 1, Star Trek 2, etc. (I have 2, 3, 8 10 and 11). Jeff said he remembered those books from his own childhood; they're the original series episodes, rewritten in short-story form.

So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for. Then I read the story version of an episode I had seen already -- Mirror Mirror, the evil-universe episode where Spock has a beard. And that's when I realized: no wonder those stories were so boring! The numbered Star Trek books are not "story" versions of the original episodes, more like Reader's Digest Condensed Book versions of them. For example, the "Mirror Mirror" story makes no mention of the fact that Evil Kirk (like all evil-universe starship captains, presumably) has a concubine, nor that Evil Kirk has an alien artifact called the "Tantalus Device" that basically lets him remotely kill anybody he wants, which is how Evil Kirk retains his power -- the concubine and the Tantalus Device were major parts of the original-episode plot, yet the short-story version doesn't mention them at all.

No wonder the used bookstore in question sold those books for only five or ten cents apiece. I shelled out less than forty cents for all five of them plus sales tax, and I daresay I overpaid, at that.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9515
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Sandy » 04 Oct 2017, 00:50

Jennifer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 20:20
In the super-ultra-cheap rack of a used bookstore, I found a couple of old paperbacks, all titled Star Trek followed by a number -- Star Trek 1, Star Trek 2, etc. (I have 2, 3, 8 10 and 11). Jeff said he remembered those books from his own childhood; they're the original series episodes, rewritten in short-story form.

So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for. Then I read the story version of an episode I had seen already -- Mirror Mirror, the evil-universe episode where Spock has a beard. And that's when I realized: no wonder those stories were so boring! The numbered Star Trek books are not "story" versions of the original episodes, more like Reader's Digest Condensed Book versions of them. For example, the "Mirror Mirror" story makes no mention of the fact that Evil Kirk (like all evil-universe starship captains, presumably) has a concubine, nor that Evil Kirk has an alien artifact called the "Tantalus Device" that basically lets him remotely kill anybody he wants, which is how Evil Kirk retains his power -- the concubine and the Tantalus Device were major parts of the original-episode plot, yet the short-story version doesn't mention them at all.

No wonder the used bookstore in question sold those books for only five or ten cents apiece. I shelled out less than forty cents for all five of them plus sales tax, and I daresay I overpaid, at that.
I think I still have them all. They're edited by James Blish. They were great for desperate nerds in the Deep South, but yeah, they knew the market was likely even more limited and bowlderized it for young readers.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8990
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 08 Oct 2017, 19:46

I watched the Enterprise episode "Regeneration," the one with the frozen Borg from First Contact. The episode itself is an okay the Thing and Aliens pastiche, but it is so fucking dumb in the context of the Star Trek. Nope, nobody will mention or study these weird, unstoppable aliens who turned a space bus into star cruiser in a couple of days. Definitely there is no way anyone would study that amazing alien technology.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 7745
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by nicole » 10 Oct 2017, 11:15

The top IMDb user review of Star Trek: Generations is amazing:
Star Trek: Matriarchy

Spoilers Ahead:

Well, did you like seeing how far we have come from the Icon of the 60s James Tiberius Kirk? You could beat on him all day; three or four guys at a time, he gets back up on his feet bloody and bruised. Then, he kicks your butt. Look, what we have here. A bald, emaciated, little baby girl that cries like she lost her dolly. Well, I can tell you one experience Rene will not have to endure: seeing Uncle Jean Luc crying like a little baby girlie who wet her panties. What a sight! See, ladies we do not find this endearing like you do; as the instrument of castration Troi looks on approvingly. We do not call it vulnerable; to us, and all real men it is neutering. This was preceded by the sailing ship where we were taught that it is funny to push men into the water but very wrong and inappropriate to do so to a woman. Their crew is so pathetic. We have the token Klingon castrated just enough to no longer be threatening to the matriarchy. God help this country if we are ever attacked with these men to save us. Soren is the only person capable of acting in the movie. How I wished he would unleash a little of the old ultra-violence on this cast. Yes, Data the worst stand up comedian in the universe. I would have fixed that emotion chip quickly for him.

Could I ask a question? If you could travel anywhere temporally, why on earth would you go to a moment where the physical battle's outcome was problematic? Any person with a working brain would have gone into the distant past where Soren was alone and helpless; years before any of this was taking place. I can answer it for you. Because they would have to kill him, Trekkies cannot do that sort of thing, that is a no no. We saw that in Insurrection where never mind if the particles would help trillions of other people; we are not allowed to use force for good. We might hurt someone's feelings. See, if by progressive, instead of my word decadence, the word is inaccurate unless you mean progressing off the side of a cliff suicidally. Could Kirk's death have been more insignificant and ignominious? I am not a Trekkie, Thank God, but I grew up with Kirk. This is the death scene you wrote for him? Contrast to Spock's noble death in Wrath Of Khan. What a piece of crap this movie was!! You can see why most of the original crew refused to be in it. Why Shatner allowed the Icon that he was to be sullied like this is beyond me.

Watch some of the original episodes, please. The sight of the Icon with Baby No Tears who has the temerity to lecture all of us on death. Gee, leave that to the warriors amongst us, stick to playing with your dollies. If I had weeped like a three year old little girlie, I would not presume to speak about death to anyone. How do you think the Kirk of the 60s would have reacted to weepy baldy? The movie is to the TNG crew what Star Trek 5: God Wants Out Of The Movie was to the original crew. Nemesis was bad but it had lots of action and excitement; this is boring, maudlin, emasculated and features the pathetic death of a legend of the 1960s that boys like myself grew up wanting to be; we did not choose emaciated, weepy, bald weaklings. The movie is a minus 100.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111280/reviews
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Privilege is having large phones fit into the garments that society expects you to wear." -Dangerman

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2017, 04:29

Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17886
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by dbcooper » 02 Nov 2017, 04:35



Cracking up at how misleading this promo is. And that music ...
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17493
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Nov 2017, 05:40

Jennifer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 20:20
So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for.
A cursory examination of the Hugo winners and Nebula awards during the 1960s demonstrate that it was a very rich period for good science fiction.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20632
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Jennifer » 02 Nov 2017, 12:12

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 05:40
Jennifer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 20:20
So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for.
A cursory examination of the Hugo winners and Nebula awards during the 1960s demonstrate that it was a very rich period for good science fiction.
I should've specified: the low standards fans of televised science fiction would've had to settle for.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17493
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 02 Nov 2017, 13:18

Jennifer wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 12:12
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 05:40
Jennifer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 20:20
So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for.
A cursory examination of the Hugo winners and Nebula awards during the 1960s demonstrate that it was a very rich period for good science fiction.
I should've specified: the low standards fans of televised science fiction would've had to settle for.
Yep. No argument there, Twilight Zone, early Outer Limits and The Prisoner aside.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 22016
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Warren » 02 Nov 2017, 13:27

D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 13:18
Jennifer wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 12:12
D.A. Ridgely wrote:
02 Nov 2017, 05:40
Jennifer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 20:20
So I read a couple stories of episodes I haven't seen, and I was not impressed at all -- there were definitely some good ideas in there, but IMO they were not fleshed out nearly well enough to make for interesting stories, even by the rather low standards sci-fi fans of the 1960s would've had to settle for.
A cursory examination of the Hugo winners and Nebula awards during the 1960s demonstrate that it was a very rich period for good science fiction.
I should've specified: the low standards fans of televised science fiction would've had to settle for.
Yep. No argument there, Twilight Zone, early Outer Limits and The Prisoner aside.
The Avengers, Jonny Quest also The Jetsons and My Favorite Martian
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Fin Fang Foom
Posts: 8990
Joined: 05 May 2010, 22:39

Re: Star Trek Wankery

Post by Fin Fang Foom » 02 Nov 2017, 14:03

I don't think the Prisoner or the Avengers qualify as science fiction. In the same way that James Bond or those other Avengers don't.
Saudi Arabia is doing something potentially harmful to America? Oh, hell. Does that mean we're going to invade Iraq again? - Jennifer

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests