/hobby/ - Hobbies

Entertainment, Education, Technology, etc.

Mode: Reply

Max message length: 8192


Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3


(used to delete files and postings)


Remember to follow the rules

(136.16 KB 960x720 CGI_USS_Enterprise-D.jpg)
/trek/ Anonymous Comrade 01/24/2020 (Fri) 01:40:32 No. 5635
<Star Trek Picard S01E01 is out (check torrents) >general Favourite episodes, best characters, memorable moments, etc.
>>5639 Okay so I'm not a Star Trek expert but a slightly-more-than-casual fan. Casual+ maybe. The way I got into it was starting with TNG (I think this is common) and just choosing the episodes that sounded fun. For me, this meant I watched my first Q episode and then decided to skip around and watch the episodes that had "Q" in the description. TNG doesn't really require continuity to enjoy so I would recommend you just pick the episodes that sound interesting to you and go from there. I watched Voyager next. Hated the first couple seasons so I just skipped to the third by chance, watched to the end, and then rewatched from the start (I wouldn't recommend this -- most people say it's among the weakest although I enjoyed it). I watched DS9 years later. Really wish I had done it sooner. DS9 is much more like a modern-day HQ TV series -- huge amount of continuity and overarching story so don't skip around on this one or expect to be able to casually watch while you do something else. If you're just looking for a way to get into the series without a big commitment, do the TNG thing I mentioned above. You don't really need to pay super close attention and there are enough campy/fun episodes that you can start to learn about the universe without a big commitment. But if you're looking for a solid series with real story, continuity, narrative etc then go straight for DS9. Not sure if this is helpful or just me blogposting. Either way I hope you have fun and enjoy it! The universe is definitely worth getting into.
Y'all what the fuck is this Picard show? I haven't watched anything Star Trek newer than Voyager but YouTube put an ad in front of my face for it. It..can't be good can it? What is going on? It looks like an excuse for a reunion/cash grab, is my assumption correct or is it too early to say just how bad it is?
>>5663 I watched it and didn't hate it. There's no trekking through the stars in pilot episode, but it seems we might get to that. Some of the premises are interesting so far, and I do want to see them develop. Way better than whatever the fuck STD is as of episode 1, but I can't help but feel dredging up ancient Patrick Stewart has only been done to get cash back after STD's abject failure. I was moderately entertained viewing it, so if you're willing to give it a watch, here you go: https://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5840121
>>5670 >dredging up ancient Patrick Stewart has only been done to get cash back after STD's abject failure. Yeah, that's exactly what I'm worried about. Although I didn't realize STD was that big of a failure. I was waiting to hear consensus before I tried watching any of it. The show was super early days when I was hearing from most people that it was trash but I heard a couple whispers of "we should give it a chance, people hated TNG at first too". I never bothered looking back into it. Sounds like it was a definitive failure then? At least glad to hear their second attempt isn't an immediate rubbish heap from episode 1? I'll give it a shot tonight, thanks for the link anon!
(234.97 KB 1440x1080 pike.jpeg)
>>5663 I watched it and thought "Trek is back". It is an engaging story that flows from an established event in a Star Trek episode. Wolf 359 was the catalyst for Sisko's character on DS9 and his tension with Picard, the Maquis from DS9 were the basis for Voyager, and Maddox/cybernetics from the TNG episode Measure of a Man is the start of Star Trek Picard. It's all part of the same universe and same events, the continuity is one of the things I love about Star Trek (and lack of it I hate in STD). Personally, I've always considered Measure of a Man to be one of Trek's best episodes. We explore what it is to be human and ask about extending that right to non-humans, like Data. What exactly are we? is a question that is still unanswered. I'm hoping STP explores it further, which it seems like they're doing. And there's a good explanation why Picard is coming back. Cybernetics/synthetics division of Daystrom institute has been all but closed down after synthetics were banned, therefore no one cares about them. If he doesn't do it, who will? He is also an admiral that quit starfleet (he wasn't discharged), so coming back is not unheard of. About Picard's age. Do you not remember Grand Nagus Zek? Or pic related? When have you ever gotten the impression that in Star Trek your age or a disability or a mutation can prevent you from doing things and achieving what you set out to do? Trek is back, enjoy it.
>>5635 They’re gonna milk it dry till Patrick Stewart is dead, aren’t they?
>>5677 >I watched it and thought "Trek is back". I don't know what you've watched. I've seen it and it's the most generic tv crap you could expect, and also capeshitty as well. Also the trek society is completely bourgeoise now.
>>5686 It's not though. Sure it may be "updated" and some things are put in it to capture a modern audience, but if you look at the elements that make Trek trek, they are in STP: many competent people deferring to one another, engaging story/plot, technobabble, people figuring stuff out, etc.
>>5654 TAS was considered during non-canon in the Roddenberry and Berman eras, but it is currently considered canon by Paramount and CBS. I personally like it being canon, if for no other reason than to complete the Five Year Mission. Plus, I like the show.
>>5685 With advances in CGI and virtual actors they don't even have to stop there, they have the rights to the distinctive look and sound of the character so they could use this technology to keep making new Picard TV shows and movies until the end of time.
So I've come around and watched the first episode of Picard. People praise the space sequence in the beginning, with all the colours, and frankly, I'm not a big fan of it. Space doesn't actually look like that but I'm willing to let that pass, rather, I miss the organic contrast of endless, black space with the white ship model (back from the days where they were handcrafted and not CHI). I feel like modern space operas tend to overload scenes with colours and can not help themselves but to use too much CGI. The Expanse did this much better. Anyway, into the episode. It's too early to say much about it because the episode didn't leave us with much information. I don't know why they decided to blow up Romulus, because JJ Abrams already did that in NuTrek, which is supposed to be a different timeline. It'll get people confused. Picard's interview was a pretty blatant nudge towards the refugee crisis and Trumpism, I don't mind contemporary politics woven into the fabric of Trek but I'm not sure that the liberals running this can pull it off without going beyond "Drumpf bad" - TNG always had some interesting ideas about utopia and ethical problems, not sure if they manage to combine ethics, references to contemporary politics and a gripping story in such a way DS9 did it. DS9 was pretty liberal as well, but at least it all made sense and was fun to watch. Blowing up Dahj and then "resurrecting" her by introducing a twin sister seemed stupid. What was the point of that? The audience didn't have any connection to this character, so there was no shock value in that. I don't even think the show has a small pace. Fast-paced shows like STD are a pain in the arse. The Witcher was pretty slow-paced too, so I have no idea why people think Picard was slow-paced. Slow-paced or not, the showrunners should be careful not to manuever themselves into the mess STD is in by combining too many plotlines and themes. STD season one had a war with the Klingons, the retarded spore drive and the mirror universe, way too overloaded. Picard already introduced the android question, the Romulans being refugees, a conspiracy, and the Romulans living in a Borg cube, insinuating that the Borg will somehow play a role in all this. This is already incredibly loaded and the shitty thing is that these are all common Trek themes regurgitated, the Borg should not be touched after VOY ruined them, and if they have to be touched, they should just remain the threatening villain as we know them from TNG before "Descent". So, slow pace my ass. This is already rushed. And are we ever gonna get a new species/villain? DS9 managed to create the Dominion as an intriguing enemy, and did not have to abuse the Borg or whatever. STD too did not manage to do anything new. The mirror universe was well established, and the Red Angel turned out to be a red herring. Also, I didn't like how Picard, besides his two housekeepers, has literally field workers employed. What the fuck? Not only should this be automated, it made him look like some type of landed gentry. Also, did suit and tie make a comeback on the verge to the 25th century? However, I'll keep an open might. It didn't amaze me but it also didn't disappoint me
>>5716 >by introducing a twin sister seemed stupid. What was the point of that? Data and Lore are twins, albeit made at different times. They said most promising synthetics came from twins. Data never killed Lore and was always interested in any relatives he might have had. Going so far to create an offspring. It fits. >these are all common Trek themes regurgitated Android question is the basis for the show (Measure of a Man, Maddox). DS9 established that the Federation is not all smiles and flowers (Section 31). Romulans being refugees gives the show a background, as in there's shit happening that is not on screen, but will get there. Conspiracies are a Star Trek theme period. Borg have been a threat since forever and in our 21st century tech world they're as relevant as ever. Notice how Picard lives on an old house, has a vineyard, etc. It's the clash of the old and the new, another Star Trek theme. As I said, Trek is back. No one said it has to be amazing. Just better than STD and VOY. >has literally field workers employed. Agreed, that's fucked up. But we don't know the nature of their "employment". They could just be working there. Remember how Sisko's dad ran a restaurant and had people working there? There can be work without wage-labour.
>>5742 >>5693 >>5677 This is me and I have come to eat my words. I'm watching episode 3 now and I agree with the anons who have responded to me. I guess I just wanted it to be good. STD was shit and I hoped this would be better. Nothing is happening. They're just talking in different rooms. It is amateurish, they're not doing anything while talking. In Star Trek they're usually walking, pressing buttons, moving around, here it's just shot reverse shot of people having conversations. It's so uninspired. The characters aren't likeable, the story is not very compelling because there aren't any subplots. Also, what's up with the fucking smoking? That dude smoking a huge cigar on the ship.
>>5999 Thank god I didn’t watch this shit. Knew it was gonna be bad.
(131.87 KB 1087x877 Lower Drecks.jpg)
If you'd go back in time to when I was a teenager and told me that, in the future, Star Trek is so popular we'd get three new shows running concurrently, I probably would have been amazed and wondering how to watch it all. If I was told again, it would be this kind of nonsense, I would have been in disbelief. Pic related is from the new Trek comedy cartoon Lower Decks (obviously toon-boom style of course). She's the ships doctor, and not one of the main characters. The main characters are, as the title implies, low-level flunkies who are no doubt going to get up to wacky adventures with the never-changing punchline being that the bridge crew never notices they're even going on. So, y'know, nothing like the actual TNG episode Lower Decks, where the lives of the characters and their concerns are treated seriously, to the point where it ends with the implied death (not to mention torture) of the one who put everything on the line to fight injustice. TNG had its cheesy moments and humor, but it all made sense and was acceptable within the actual story/world it is depicted in. This is exactly why I prefer the Orville, since it follows the original themes of 'Trek.
>>6041 Even the old Star Trek Animated, antiquated and childish as it is, retains adult themes and interesting ideas behind all the tongue-in-cheek humor and references. The artstyle was better too, the characters looked like actual figures and beings, not painted flubber. The animation is 'worse' but it was the 60s so it gets a pass on that >inb4 toon-boom style is more fluid/budget The budget for any toon-boom style cartoon dwarfs the budget of any hand-drawn cartoon of the 60s, 70s and 80s. Moreover the availability of computers has made the process of putting them together for TV drastically faster and cheaper, allowing for more time to produce them. Star Trek Animated, despite being a throwaway series even cheaper than Hanna Barbara, had more subsistence than this noodly-limbed, inane, 'safe' garbage
>>5999 I disagree entirely. Adding to many subplots is never a good idea unless you have a clear direction to go to (like The Expanse), but evidence suggests that the guys who made STD made the story up on the spot - and even if you go back to interviews with the original DS9 writers or the VOY writers they also didn't map it all out. The first episode of Picard throws in quite a bit: - Picard is ousted from Starfleet and struggles with his demons - Data apparently has two "daughters", whatever that means - the Romulan Empire collapsed and is now scattered in space - the Romulan survivors have reclaimed an abandoned Borg Cube - there is a new Romulan secret service that hates andriods - some ratfuckery going on with androids, apparently somebody hacked them, with no clear reason why Why the hell would you act more subplots here? STP obviously relies on slow built-up, a slow-unfolding conspiracy, etc. - STD rushed in with a dozen subplots that turned out to be a mess. Some things about STP I don't like either. I don't like the Samurai guy that's teased in the last trailer. Completely ridiculous fantasy shit. I also don't like the android girl to be a Mary Sue that everybody wants to sleep with and who is incredibly intelligent and has some form of secret destiny. Universe revolving about XY mysterious charater who has to discover their destiny is not a trope you'd expect from Star Trek. Whether or not STP will be good, will depend on how it ties together its plots and conspiracies. So far I'm enjoying it. >The characters aren't likeabl What don't you like about them? >That dude smoking a huge cigar on the ship. And? Are cigars outlawed in the 24th century?
>>6045 Not him but >Are cigars outlawed in the 24th century No however it is a habit largely seen as primitive, as demonstrated in an episode where earth people from the 20th century are reawoken from cryosleep and act notably different to 24th century people. It's essentially the same as putting Arnold Schwarznegger into Star Trek, quite inconsistent. >Data apparently has two "daughters" That's even more annoying, in the original TNG Data creates a 'daughter' android but due to the complexities of her positronic brain she eventually dies due to cascade failure of her neural net, even as Data struggles to try and fix her until he eventually acquiesces, learning a heavy lesson. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Lal To have him so casually be the source of 2 new daughters off-screen is disconcerting to say the least. Hopefully they expand on that at least, though its unlikely. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Soji_Asha They don't even look like androids, too fucking human.
(72.24 KB 1024x617 The Orville vs STD.jpg)
>>6041 > prefer the Orville Frankly The Orville is more Star Trek than any of the new Star Treks today. The Orville was obviously originally planned as a comedic parody show like Galaxy Quest, with more obvious comedic setup and pay-off (probably how Seth McFarlane got greenlit). However it still brings up a lot of cool ideas and thought problems (such as Bortus and the whole male-only society or the Bio-ship), very much like Star Trek Original, TNG, VOY etc. It ends up providing a lot of adult themes and important food for thought. Old Star Trek was normally very insightful. It didn't pull any punches, but there was always some sort of point behind it. We see this in The Orville.... and see none of this in STD.
>>6086 The fuck is this garbage? I can't tell what the point is for the weird skit that goes on through the review and it goes on tangents and "muh cucks". The comments are /pol/ cancer, the video is inane, what a mess.
(2.28 MB 2205x931 2.png)
So what did you all think of the latest Picard episode tonight? I thought it was pretty flippin awesome, but unlike most of you I've been enjoying most of the show so far. But this last episode was really pretty good, so I'm curious to hear what you guys think cause you all seem to hate it so much. Space Legolas? Samurai nuns? Romulan exposition with the classic Trek trope that the Romulan Senator dies the same episode? The classic Bird of Prey? That tactical hologram? Seven's entrance?! What's not to like? Enlighten me.
(413.62 KB 610x406 boldly pretending to be first.png)
(4.78 MB 3920x2204 fuller m'ress on planet.png)
I don't think it's a stretch to say that entertainment has been dumbed down to appeal to base ideals. It's never been a secret that Star Trek has had an underpinning of traditionally left wing ideas (at least while Roddenberry was alive), but it was never dumb or childish (or at least rarely). In part the blame lies in the hypercritical stance people have taken over the years. If you take risks, there are going to be times when you get it wrong. And like any popular media, the fandom tears into every misstep it can. Discovery, the bit that I've seen, is the opposite of risk-taking. A very standard show, with very standard, modern visuals and camera work, very standard writing, and very safe opinions, such as they are. Its ideas don't go particularly deep. There's a reason people go on and on about representation, and that's because there isn't anything else. It never uses the setting to make a point, however simplistic. There's no episode where an Orion just paints itself pink or brown and pretends to be human so they don't have to deal with the racial/political implications that come with being from a planet-wide criminal syndicate or some other basal plot idea. The Klingon Prison Ship episode for example; Good job, you accurately recreated a hellish prison camp as the backdrop to your character drama, how 'invaluably' this was used (sarcasm). Star Trek has always been about a large cast of characters and not just 1 main character, and its diversity and politics were always plot relevant and not forced, not "muh short-haired black woman who don't need no man" stereotype. Star Trek was the celebration of being yourself often enough, and tried to go against stereotypes, while Discovery's main character is essentially a woman trying to be a man while pointing out they're a woman, something easily visible in her name being MICHAEL. As a person who enjoys diverse and interesting characters especially women, the past decade of media has essentially made female characters into pathetic partisan stand-ins. Like George Carlin said, whats the point of feminism if your only idea of a strong woman is for her to act and essentially BE a man? If men suck so much (as is implied) why is imitating them a good thing? Is feminism so devoid of anything that it has to stoop to copying those it opposes? All that STD is missing is what we're getting from The Orville. NuTrak is just safe characters going through action plots. They even use modern language, which I absolutely hate. And then pat themselves on the back for having characters say "fuck". Aren't we progressive? FFS Deep Space 9 had Cirroc Lofton full on say "niggers". Except it's in an episode where it actually has a point, so no-one remembers it as special. As someone said, it's like Game of Thrones in space; war, bloody pointless brutality and political complications born out of bickering. In spite of having 1 main character there is far too large a cast in the show, ironic really. Its essentially the Clone Wars TV series but without real grounding in the films/prior media and without any relateable characters or actual new ideas or realistic intricacy. The one positive is that we never actually lost anything. The old stuff is still there, it's still just as good, and there are even people rediscovering it through the new content. Though I won't lie, it does fucking annoy me how this shit seeps into the community. For instance, now I have to bullshit-filter stuff I read on Memory Alpha because "muh Discovery is Canun!". Like, fuck off. Honestly with all the diversity bullshit, you'd wonder, why not just go straight for a bisexual Caitian like M'ress being a main character of a show? You'd get: A) a sexual minority (bisexual) B) a female lead (feminism) C) a minority race (feline) D) you get furries on board (and /x/ lyran fags) E) Trekkies would like it since its a canon alien not featured since the old days. All that would be awesome... and that's why it won't happen. The reason we won't see sexy space cats is the same reason they don't get anything else right. Sexy space cats aren't safe. They'd have to go through a design phase, of course. Then they'd have to decide how they're going to do it, make-up or CGI. They're going to want CGI, because practical effects make road-of-the-least-resistance execs puke. Then they're going to see how expensive it is and remember they're greedy, soulless fucks without vision, so they don't really need to do anything risky or avant garde. So they'll just slap a CGI tail on there like in the Into Dorkness scene and call it good. I mean, while we're playing up the promiscuous nature of Captain Kirk to almost comical levels we don't want to actually have him have sex with anything that doesn't look human in this science fiction franchise about exploration and understanding, now do we? That'd scare away Joe Average who pretends to be disgusted by anything but the thinnest of models so his friends don't call him a limp dick faggot. It's ironic that back in the day of "le boomer meme" people were a lot more internally accepting of such shit while today, they're more openly liberal when virtue signalling but in practice can't stop hiding behind their pretentious pandering. They like CGI because it's easily changed in post without reshoots. You can see this with a lot of action movies. Gone are 80's squibs (even in many 80s tribute films) and in are CGI puffs of red, because they can easily leave those out and make the entire thing PG-13. With squibs you have to rig them for every single take, and for a big action sequence that can be really time consuming to redo. With CG blood you can do a lot of takes more easily then choose the one you want and add the effects to it later. However while that is true it means that they are took lackadaisical. The limiting factor of having to reset the squibs every time forced actors to do their cuts with more effort (which shows seeing the lack of proper facial reaction and general acting in general in many of today's films. They only care about diversity as a marketing ploy. It's easy to cast non-white actors and then use them as a shield against criticism or as an accomplishment on their own. Discovery is less diverse than TOS, yet it wants all the fucking credit. It even tried to sell 'Michael' as the FIRST black star trek character, amended it to first black lead and finally first black female lead (also tripping over first female lead), ignoring TOS, VOY and DS9 in 1 fell swoop, despite STD supposedly being canon to TOS. Frankly Discovery isn't as bad as other diversity ploys at least, "le cis-white-male" meme is still present but compared to Batwoman, Star Wars: Last Jedi and other inane trash its pretty low-key - not that being compared to trash makes it better. People were going to either support it as shallow newfags, support it for its radlib policies, or hate it for both those reasons. The executives apparently didn't realize this until the 2nd season which is why Picard was made, to hook fans back in with conspirational intrigue and a beloved nostalgic set of characters. It's mediocre pandering, like Force Awakens was to Star Wars, but people appreciate even that after the trashfire of the past years. TL;DR: STD has little 'Discovery' in it being more like Game of Thrones than Star Trek, is bland, 'safe' virtue signalling aimed at SJWs and newfags because catgirls despite being more fun and new (in comparison, are not mainstream enough apparently. Picard is just a reaction to the failure of STD, and while enjoyable is mediocre in a technical sense.
>>6153 >we won't see sexy space cats I'm sure some of us would like to at least an episode about changing into an alien race. >be guest character in the episode >transporter accident turns you into a catian >"We're sorry Ensign Anon, there's nothing we can do right now" >entire episode of adjustment, learning lessons, the usual >episode almost over >"Ensign Anon, good news, we can turn you back now!" >"Nah, I'm good." >"... You were supposed to learn your lessons and then be glad to return to familiarity." >"We live in a world where you turn Andorians into Klingons so they can overhear juicy bar talk. I'll turn back later if I want to. It's only been a few days. I only just learned to tuck my tail before sitting down." >Spend the week/month/year/etc. learning to be a different race, maybe enjoy being female (if you're originally a male and got made a girl). >Hell maybe just stay that way (especially if you need to change actors off-screen because someone can't show up anymore). <All the advantages listed for diversity <Also gets TF fags bringing in money Fucking hell, I'm just some anon on the internet and in about 10 minutes I've already written up the basic idea for a better plot than STD.
>>6151 >you all seem to hate it so much We don't hate it per se, its just shallow compared to the original. Everything you've listed is a callback or a reference or an imitation. Its not trying to be its own thing while retaining the spirit of Star Trek, its a big nostalgia fest, made as a hard-reaction to STD's failure. Like Force Awakens, its less its own thing and more of a amalgamation of things people liked from the originals. Not bad or good, just mediocre. It's fun to watch casually of course.
>>6153 I love the raw anger behind this post about not getting sexy catgirls. I also dislike STD. you're turning me on, Anon. One of the reasons I like Picard is that their writers actually seem like they're writing a continuation of the series instead of whatever the hell they wanted with STD and the new movies. And since to me, there hasn't been a Trek that was good before season 2... maybe a few episodes, but the really good ones come in the later seasons, don't they? I think Picard deserves an optimistic shot.
>>6154 >Injecting furry TF/TG fetishism into Star Trek How about no.
The series in a nutshell: >TOS Weird new shit, studio doesn't really trust it, has to maintain a lot of muh traditional values. Roddenberry struggles to get good shit in there, but ends up being a huge milestone in TV and popular art in general. Has some good episodes but a lot of it is babby's first sci fi for boomers. Kirk is a straightforward power fantasy. >TNG The brand is established and trusted now. It's free to take risks and be more progressive or visionary. Has a lot of good high-concept science fiction, but kind of spoiled by Roddenberry's autism about the characters having to be boring. Also very boomer-poisoned with pandering holodeck bullshit. Picard isn't really a character at all, more like a marty stu perfect ideal (which is ok for what it's supposed to be, just not terribly compelling). >DS9 Peak Star Trek. Has plenty of high-concept sci-fi, but handled by actual characters, against a backdrop of regional galactic politics that can develop instead of previous shows being almost completely isolated episodes. Established and new species have room to breathe beyond the stereotypes. The characters actually play off each other instead of just being a high-functioning team. Sisko is underrated because his personality is understated (as he's playing the role of a stoic commander). >Voyager Tried turning a sci fi franchise into an adventure one. Some good episodes, but by this point the writing was starting to degrade and some premises were wearing thin. Constant studio fuckery made it even worse. The trend in characters being more flawed and dynamic continued from DS9, instead of sticking with that balance, and it's not an improvement. Janeway is seen as obnoxious, but that's pretty justified given the story, as are the characters being shittier. Unfortunately she doesn't have enough positive qualities to make up for the negatives, and she's too inconsistent for her problems to become endearing or relatable. The story making sense doesn't make it compelling. >Enterprise An attempt to keep the TV Star Trek franchise alive, by going back to an origin story. Lots of fan-wank and fanservice, plus TOPICAL shit about 9/11. Archer has the Janeway problem of inconsistency but even worse. >JJ Trek >Discovery >Picard whatever man shit's boring who cares I second this >>5652 for the order but note that you definitely can skip around TNG, which has some fucking cringeworthy early episodes before they figured out what they were doing with the series. Maybe look up a list of the best episodes for the early part. Voyager and Enterprise are optional IMO.
>>6171 >Peak Star Trek. Don't forget that lesbo scene
>>6171 >Sisko is underrated because his personality is understated (as he's playing the role of a stoic commander). Sisko is one of, if not the, most un-stoic of the different captains, though. I'd argue even Archer is more stoic than Sisko in his general interactions with others.
>>6171 >Peak Star Trek. <literal space magic happening encroaching on Babylon 5 territory >actual characters While not untrue, that applies to TNG as well your beef with Picard is your own >stoic Sisko If anything Picard was the stoic one and Sisko more laid back. >regional galactic politics something TNG started near the middle of its run and in its films >boomer-poisoned Fuck off, the holodeck was used for hobbies and amusement as well as for thought problems and sci-fi concepts (such as the creation of Moriarty) >Voyager <degrade It was fine, the changes made sense and the 'degradation' made it flow better in extents. >>6160 How about stop being a prude. You're exactly the issue cited in >>6153
>>6177 Mate, I'm not being a prude because I don't want niche fetish stuff in Star Trek. You can go ahead and have your fetish stuff in some other medium that was created explicitly for that, or fan fiction if you really want it in Star Trek that badly. Why do you think you need to shove your fetishes into *everything* though? Did it not occur to you that the *majority* of people do not share your fetish and furthermore may even be actively put off by it? And this is coming from someone that literally has no issues with TG/TF related media.
(18.26 KB 236x270 M'ress irritated 1.jpg)
>>6179 >I don't want niche fetish stuff in Star Trek <niche stuff in Star Trek is now bad! You missed the point of the rant (and Star Trek) didn't you? Niche ideas, concepts and fetishes have been a part of Star Trek from the beginning, only newfags don't recognize this. >Why do you think you need to shove your fetishes No-one is shoving fetishes into anything, shapeshifting (among other things)is par for the course in Star Trek. Hell in the first season of TNG Troy was impregnated by an energy lifeform with itself so that it could experience being an organic life-form. Furries and other anthros were a part of Star Trek from the start, as the rant pointed out, nobody was bitching about that 50 years ago but because you lot are all virtue-signalling and can't seem to discern sexuality from identity you need to screech about it being important or not when that is irrelevant. M'ress hopped into bed with Scotty in one episode, nobody gave a fuck because that was just a commentary on how casual the idea of interspecies relationships was, not the focal point, and neither is it the focal point of the greentext. Stop making this about 'muh fetishes' when that wasn't the point, but a semi-joking addendum. >the *majority* of people do not share your fetish and furthermore may even be actively put off by it Stop making it about fetishes and ignoring shit you pretentious prude. The greentext mentioned that it can attract TF-fags, not that it was essentially about them. Stop projecting. >this is coming from someone that literally has no issues with TG/TF related media. <How do you do, fellow ̶k̶i̶d̶s̶ ̶ TF-fags? What anecdotal rubbish Where in >>6154 is there anything openly sexual implied. TF fags aren't all about sex you dumbass, changing into something else is not sexual unless you make it. Fuck you for having to explain this shit.
>>6182 >You clearly just don't understand Stark Trek like I do. Alright mate. >No-one is shoving fetishes into anything Mate, I wasn't just pulling some "hey fellow kids" shtick like you assume I am. To be blunt about it (even though I generally avoid discussing my fetishes), TG/TF is my fetish of choice, and I have plenty enough experience to recognize exactly the scenario that was described in the post I responded to as stock standard TG fantasy. "Oh no, I've been accidentally turned into a woman! What do I do! Oh no, I'm starting to enjoy it, now I don't want to turn back at all!". It's honestly pretty uninspired. I'm not even against the premise of "accidentally turned into another species", it was the explicitly fetishistic way it was framed that I reject, because I do *not* want Star Trek to turn into a vehicle for fetishism regardless of whether I find the fetish appealing or not. >can't seem to discern sexuality from identity Wait. Are you saying TF/TG fetishism is an *identity*? I mean...I guess as much as anything else can be, but...I really hope you don't base your "identity" around something like that. It'd be like if I based my identity around liking pizza a lot. Listen, I don't give a shit about "furries" (they aren't the same thing really, but it's a distinction that I don't think actually matters here) in Star Trek, so long as they aren't being used as a vehicle for fetishism. You like anthropomorphic animal-like species in Star Trek? That's cool, I don't care one way or the other mate, more power to ya. Do I care if they have sex in the course of the show? Not really, no more than I have trouble with most sex in Star Trek usually being done kind of poorly. >What anecdotal rubbish What the *hell* are you on about? I didn't realize I need to provide *evidence* of my fetishes. Do you want a screenshot of my TFGamesSite account or some shit? The topics on /d/ about it? Would that be less "anecdotal" for you, you insufferable prick? >is there anything openly sexual implied A fetish doesn't always have to explicitly be sexual in nature, but that doesn't mean it isn't a fetish. Fuck *you* for purity testing me on this niche fetish of all things you faggot.
>>6184 > I have plenty enough experience to recognize exactly the scenario that was described in the post I responded to as stock standard TG fantasy There are a lot of SFW films with gender-swap or race-swap (or both) that are excellent and irrelevant "muh fetish". Just like anthro animals in antiquity =/= furries, or a rectangle =/= square. >It's honestly pretty uninspired. Did anyone say it was something so unique? How does that take away from it? There are plenty of things in Star Trek are standard Sci-Fi ideas (like AI robots learning to be human or interspecies relationships) , doesn't make Star Trek bad. Most ideas today have been thought of at one point or another, the issue is making your own twist or just having fun with it as I suggested in the greentext. > the explicitly fetishistic way it was framed Bull-fucking-shit, are you just using words and phrases without thinking? Where is thee fetishism besides the whole "hey let me enjoy the changes" thing? You're projecting your own hard-on here. >Are you saying TF/TG fetishism is an *identity*? Not saying its essentially an identity to you, though it is for others, the point is more t othe extent about any sexual features. Just because its TF doesn't make it sexual, the context and execution does. >they aren't the same thing really M'Ress is a Caitian, literal anthro pantherines who PURR. There are lizard anthros, dog anthros and others in Old Star Trek, those are essentially furry characters, or interpreted as such. >I don't really care if they're ther or having sex but 'muh fetishism' Again, you're projecting. Fetishism wasn't the intent. The mentioning of furries and TG-fags is merely reference to the obvious demographic that would be interested for their own niche reasons, rather than that being the main reason. >I didn't realize I need to provide *evidence* of my fetishes You don't, but mentioning "I'm X and I don't...." is a dumb anecdotal argument. You being a TG-fag is irrelevant to the argument, but is being used as a bullshit reason for 'credibility'. >you insufferable prick <says the person bitching about "muh TG in Star Trek" Kek >that doesn't mean it isn't a fetish Just because it is your fetish doesn't make it automatically a fetish. A child can smear food on their face and then eat it, does that make that a food-fetish? NO, because context fucking matters, and because interpretation fucking matters. Most people aren't going to be sexually aroused by seeing TG, but they're not really going to be disgusted unless its openly sexualized. Meanwhile a self-asserted TG-fag like you would find the situation to be their fetish. >purity testing LOL fuck you, you projecting paranoid cunt.
>>6184 >>6179 >>6160 If you want an example of Star Trek TF in a purposefully sexual greentext. >beam up with cute Caitian >Transporter mishap turns you into a cute Caitian too or merges the two of you >Possibly even adding years to your life by being a longer lived species, or simply younger >They do tests >Doctor tells you the good news first; >Your DNA is stable, there are no signs of degeneration >Then the bad news; >Trying to re-establish your original bio-patterns is too risky >Previous cases all had facilitating circumstances we can't replicate here >For all intents and purposes you are permanently stuck in this body <O-oh no! What a disaster! <No, I will need some time to cope with the fact that I now have the body of a young, supple cat woman in a world that is incredibly sex-positive; no problems with same-sex and/or interspecies relations to the point of there being an entire free love planet. <In fact, I'll take my leave there. Prep the shuttle, doc! And the sexy adventure ensues, to boldly go where no deviant has before! This is an obviously sexualized and fetishized greentext, unlike the one you responded too.
>>6151 The warrior cult seems out of character for Romulans, especially the sword stuff. It makes sense for Klingons to use blades as they're a warrior race, but for the Romulans who are into technology and deception it's a stupid idea. Also that retarded anime sword scene with the guy beheading the "senator" (apparently they came to the planet 14 years ago, how old was the guy when he was senator, 25?). Star Trek is not Star Wars, when characters pick up swords in the 24th century they better give a good explanation for it besides "it looks cool". The Bird of Prey looked cool, I give you that. Seven of Nine was teased to appear, but I'm hoping she didn't become too "human". Part of the appeal of Seven's character was that she was quite Borg-ish even after she decoupled with the collective, if she's now just a regular female character that would be disappointing, especially considering how old Seven could be a nice foil for Picard. In general, I'm still having doubts over whether or not Kurtzman and co. have properly watched and understood Star Trek. There are some things that feel "off" to me, like the overblown relationship between Picard and Data, as if Picard was in love with data or something when in TNG data was more often than not a foil for Picard. They also haven't really given an explanation as to why the Federation went from a humanistic utopia to a MAGA style caricature ("good morning, plastic people") with a Fox News lady interviewing Picard and baiting him about refugees. One could speculate that this was a result of the Dominion War but the writers probably know fuck-all about DS9.
>>6174 He's pretending to be stoic though because he's a commander. His sense of humor is dry, and he is a master at hiding his personally-motivated actions behind protocol. Stoicism isn't about being a robot, but controlling yourself. Picard for example is just kind of blank. >defending the holodeck episodes where there's zero stakes and people COOM over cars and shit ok boomer
>>6214 Second part meant for >>6177 Clicking the post to quote didn't work for some reason.
>>6153 Star Trek did in the past score points with representation though, not as the sole but as one of the tropes that made it "lefty". The problem is that nobody cares about this anymore because our social values have changed a lot since TOS. Nobody gives a crap about gay characters or gender-bending first names. Our current ideological dilemma is the gridlock of neoliberalism. If you really want to make a provocative, progressive point that generates outrage just like Kirk kissing Uhura in TOS, you could have Michael say something like "back in those primitive days, earth too used a market system to allocate resources and labour, and not a planned economy" when they discover a pre-warp civilisation that uses capitalist markets. But this actually would require balls and I don't see the people who are in charge of Trek now having any.
>>6214 >defending the holodeck episodes where there's zero stakes and people COOM over cars and shit You have to admit that this was a shift in VOY compared to the Trek that came before, this may have something to do with the "end of history" mentality prevalent in the 90s. TNG, TOS and also DS9 always made the point that the 20th century was a time that was primitive compared to the future. Money, consumerism, greed, etc. was looked down upon as products of their time that have been overcome. Yet VOY, more then once, seems to faint in awe when confronted with shitty American consumerism like TV soaps (in the episode where they travel to 20th century earth Neelix literally gets fascinated by American trash TV), car brands and mainstream dad rock. ENT was actually smarter in that regard. It portrayed the crew as still having hang-ups from the "primitive past" like militarism, doing it like "the good old ways" etc. but also overcoming them in the process of forming intergalactical alliances, culminating in the founding of the Federation.
>>6217 TNG is guilty of this shit too, especially since it introduced the holodeck and the opportunity to use generic show/movie props rather than bespoke Star Trek stuff.
>>6214 >Muh Consoom meme Fuck off you disingenuous faggot. Having hobbies and exploring them episodically is just fine. Do you expect people to do drugs and drink on their off time or be constantly perfect 1 dimensional figures "the captain" "the First lieutenant" etc.? >ok boomer This dead meme is starting to be a good indicator of newfaggotry and pretentious zoomers. DS9 had a lot of dumb holodeck moments, mostly because it broke the atmosphere of a war going on while TNG did so episodically and not when the plot had high linear stakes. >>6216 >Nobody gives a crap about gay characters or gender-bending first names Heres the thing, nobody cared back then but it was done because there wasn't anything wrong with it. The point being made is how everyone is now doing it on purpose as a main part of a character for no reason except to virtue signal. >this actually would require balls and I don't see the people who are in charge of Trek now having any. Kek, this exactly >when they discover a pre-warp civilisation that uses capitalist markets Ah but this is nu-Trek where they think Elon Musk is an inspiration and Spock is emotional and had a secret sister, it can't go around being consistent and criticizing capitalism, that would be scary socialism!
(195.58 KB 1032x1280 cartoony M'ress.jpg)
>>6041 If they really wanted a goofy Star Trek cartoon they could still have made one without using the generic toonboom format but more like pic related. Or even the original STA which was VERY simplistic. Computer tech today makes animating it a cinch and budgeting is a bullshit excuse considering how much is spent on modern crappy animation and artstyle when 1/4 the same budget went to creating animated classics of the past.
>>6229 The problem is that 2D animation is becoming such a lost art in the US. So although the budget was 1/4th of what it would be today, there were more skilled animators and the cost of living back then was low enough in SoCal that they could make a career out of 2D animation work, which was plentiful compared to today. A big reason why animation styles look so derivative these days is because most of the animation work is outsourced to South Koreans getting paid next to nothing, and the concept/story stuff is done in the US. That style keeps it closer to what the artists are used to drawing anyway so they don't need additional training. That isn't to say that some South Korean animation isn't great though, they have had their gems. It's just like anime, there's a lot of bland filler and then the Ghiblis in between. It's just unfortunate that the creators of the Star Trek animation decided to go with the former. It's too bad they didn't decide to hire Titmouse. I bet they could have done a good job.
>there's a race that can smell lies
>>6323 That's not really what pissed me off about that episode. A hypersensitive race can indeed pick up on clues like sweat, pupil enlargement, heartbeat, etc. - how do you think lie detectors work? After all, they fool him quite easily in the end by just giving him beta-blockers. What pissed me off was that they had to introduce a Star Wars space Las Vegas with literal corporations, chain gangs, cartels etc. - I could accept this for things like the Orion Syndicate but for the Federation? Also, to make Seven of Nine an overly emotional killer and rogue vigilant was a bad decision, change my mind.
>>6324 >how do you think lie detectors work? Lie detectors are bullshit. >I could accept this for things like the Orion Syndicate but for the Federation? Can't have the federation be space communism.
>>6324 >Also, to make Seven of Nine an overly emotional killer and rogue vigilant was a bad decision, change my mind. I can't, because you are correct. I was so fucking hopeful after last week's episode. This latest one kinda ruined it for me. Why the FUCK does ST have to be SO fucking grimdark now holy shit. Just like STD all over again. Nobody writing this shit has any imagination or optimism anymore, I guess? Fucking infuriating.


no cookies?