StarDestroyer.Net BBS

All post-TOS Trek films suffer from status-quo syndrome. This is not surprising from TV people with their weekly-episode mindset, but these are films. Let's look at the TOS films:

ST1: Introduced new ship, new uniforms, new everything.
ST2: Major character growth in Kirk. Spock dies. Genesis planet created.
ST3: Spock resurrected. Enterprise destroyed. Kirk's son dies. War with Klingons looms. Genesis planet
ST4: Kirk gets new ship, gets his rank taken away. Spock re-adjusts to human companionship.
ST5: I have blocked this film from my memory.
ST6: The Klingon peace treaties. The Klingon Chancellor dies. Kirk learns to let go of his hate for Klingons.

There is a lot of movement, monumental change, etc. in those films. Now let's look at post-TOS films:

STG: E-D destroyed, not that we care.
STFC: Time-travel. No real change in status quo.
STI: Weak moral dilemma. No real change in status quo.
STN: Clone of TWOK, but without the heart. No real change in status quo.

No wonder everyone says they feel like they're just overlong TV episodes. We expect something more epic from movies, and B&B just don't get it.

The Problem with post-TOS Trek films...... Is that they suck and have shit for plots. My 10th grade film class produced better stuff in a week.

The problem is B+B dumber and dumbest just dont know what the hell people want to see.Give us character growth ,give us things to think and talk about if you need to kill a few chars so be it,if it gets an R rating because of whats going oj so be it as long as it makes SENSE no need for mindless bloodletting or nudity if it makes sense its good if not its shit

The next truly awesome Trek film will be the next one that Beat This and Butt Plug have nothing at all to do with. Bringing back Harve Bennett and Nick Meyer would be the obvious choice, but I ain't holding my breath.

Until then, Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country will stand head and shoulders above all else.

Hell the problem is that they are overglorified episodes, not really worthy of anything beyond just that.

Though with B&B at the helm you can pretty much expect this...though with TNG now gone...I wonder what will be the new thing or will the (please...hoping) kill Trek for a while?

I hope Trek stays dead for at least 5 to 10 years before they come up with something new.
If they reinstall the same old people that means ST will be just as bad as before.

Ghost Rider wrote:...with TNG now gone...I wonder what will be the new thing or will the (please...hoping) kill Trek for a while?

While Spiner seems to be pretty much done with the franchise, it seems like the rest would be happy to keep going. The question is how long do they want to continue paying Stewart's price tag. IIRC, he got $12 million for that dumptruck load of steaming horse shit called Insurrection.

What I've heard in the rumor mill is a possible mix of TNG, DS9, and VOY cast members for future movies.

AdmiralKanos wrote:STN: Clone of TWOK, but without the heart. No real change in status quo.

Data died.


*ducks*

I actually thought Nemesis was half-decent, certainly the best of the TNG movies. No technobabble copouts, decent space battle. Not a movie in which one should think very much, but fairly entertaining.

The problem with the TNG films is that you can't turn a bunch of space hippies into action heroes. I've seen better stuff in B-movies.

AdmiralKanos wrote:ST5: I have blocked this film from my memory.

Voyager 2 gets destroyed, Spock rides jetboots.

Ghost Rider wrote:Hell the problem is that they are overglorified episodes, not really worthy of anything beyond just that.

My dad went and saw it and when I asked him if I should go see it on the big screen he said that it was like a contiunation of the tv show and there wasn't really anything gained seeing it in the theater.

He still seemed to like it but I got the impression my mom liked it more, mainly because she liked seeing TNG characters again. I'm not sure if she's seen any of the other TNG movies, certainly not Insurection but I don't recall her seeing anything after ST VI, although she might have seen Generations.

Wicked Pilot wrote:

AdmiralKanos wrote:STN: Clone of TWOK, but without the heart. No real change in status quo.

Data died.


*ducks*

Excellent. One less source of endless technobabble.

And there's no need to duck. I got a flamethrower.

Graeme Dice wrote:

AdmiralKanos wrote:ST5: I have blocked this film from my memory.

Voyager 2 gets destroyed, Spock rides jetboots.

Actually, it was Pioneer 10, not Voyager 2. Still, to the Klingons, it was just a navigational hazzard that required immediate clearing from the space lanes, wasn't it?

I always fret about that sequence, though. Pioneer 10 is so slow-moving, that I doubt that it had even travelled a light year at the time when it came up against that BoP. This means that the Klingon ship was on 'routine patrol' deep within Federation space, possibly within a light year of the Federation capital. This opens a considerable can of worms regarding Starfleet preparedness and the effectiveness of anti-cloak measures in their deep-space warning network.

Something that you forgot about ST5 - They meet 'god' and kill him. Oh, it turns out that it isn't really God, because the producers chickened out at the last minute, fearing that the film would be the first Trek banned in the Bible Belt. However, Roddenberry had always wanted to do a Trek where Kirk meets God and tells Him that humans don't need God anymore. There are at least two TOS episodes and two TOS films with that theme, disguised to a greater or lesser degree.

BenRG wrote:Oh, it turns out that it isn't really God, because the producers chickened out at the last minute, fearing that the film would be the first Trek banned in the Bible Belt. However, Roddenberry had always wanted to do a Trek where Kirk meets God and tells Him that humans don't need God anymore.

I'm suprised there was no houpla over B5 when Sheridan told the Vorlons to fuck off.

AdmiralKanos wrote:All post-TOS Trek films suffer from status-quo syndrome. This is not surprising from TV people with their weekly-episode mindset, but these are films. Let's look at the TOS films:

ST1: Introduced new ship, new uniforms, new everything.
ST2: Major character growth in Kirk. Spock dies. Genesis planet created.
ST3: Spock resurrected. Enterprise destroyed. Kirk's son dies. War with Klingons looms. Genesis planet
ST4: Kirk gets new ship, gets his rank taken away. Spock re-adjusts to human companionship.
ST5: I have blocked this film from my memory.
ST6: The Klingon peace treaties. The Klingon Chancellor dies. Kirk learns to let go of his hate for Klingons.

There is a lot of movement, monumental change, etc. in those films.

For all its faults, ST5 does have its own major development in the movie series: for the first time, Federationists and Klingons cooperate to destroy a major threat to life in the galaxy. The first peace feelers between both sides are taking place at the end of the movie.

The admiral is quite correct; the TOS films all exhibit major developments and flux which alters the ST universe significantly in just twelve years. By contrast, other than the loss of the E-D in Generations, the TNG-era Trek universe is no different now than it was when "Encounter At Farpoint" premiered in 1987. Fifteen years, three television series, and four movies, and even the departure of the Rikers and the sort-of "death" of Data really makes no impact upon the status-quo of the TNG-era that we've been innundated in for all that time.

AdmiralKanos wrote: STG: E-D destroyed, not that we care.

Back when I saw this movie, by the end of it the whole theatre was heckling. When the E-D was destroyed and Picard and Riker were standing on the wreckage of the bridge, Riker says something like, "I always thought I'd be sitting in this chair one day." My buddy yelled out, "You can have it!"

Graeme Dice wrote:

AdmiralKanos wrote:ST5: I have blocked this film from my memory.

Voyager 2 gets destroyed, Spock rides jetboots.

And William Shatner strips everyone else of their dignity.

The Uhura dance bit? [insert Homer Simpson shudder]

Scotty walking into a bulkhead and knocking himself out? Komedy!

And do I even need to mention the utter disgrace of Sulu and Chekov in such scenes as pretending to be lost in a blizard and following the Klingon woman around looking at her ass?

It also contains the most ridiculous psychobabble of Trekdom: that everyone has a secret pain that is their only real obstacle to true happiness. Therefore, someone like me -who's greatest personal trauma is opening an e-mail with a naked picture of Janeway inside- languishes under the same burden as a Holocaust survivor.

I also heard a great story that Shatner adopted a very flamboyant style as the film's director, complete with exaggerated arm movements. Ignoring Leonard Nimoy’s advice to take it down a notch, Shatner’s body language eventually became so violent that he managed to dislodge his toupee and send it flying through the air like some hairy clay pigeon. When the extras all started laughing Shatner fired them. Don't know if it's true but if it is it wouldn't surprise me.

Wicked Pilot wrote:

BenRG wrote:Oh, it turns out that it isn't really God, because the producers chickened out at the last minute, fearing that the film would be the first Trek banned in the Bible Belt. However, Roddenberry had always wanted to do a Trek where Kirk meets God and tells Him that humans don't need God anymore.

I'm suprised there was no houpla over B5 when Sheridan told the Vorlons to fuck off.

Most Christians do not recognize that the Vorlons symbolized God, while the Shadows symbolized Satan. That's why there was no uproar. They don't seem to recognize the parallels:

• Vorlons: controlling, aloof, prone to genocidal rampages
  Minbari: Vorlons' fanatical servants, also prone to genocidal rampages
• God: controlling, aloof, prone to genocidal rampages
  Israelites: God's fanatical servants, also prone to genocidal rampages

And on the other side:

• Shadows: tried to tempt Sheridan to join them, liked to foment disorder and conflict, believed species should sort it out amongst themselves rather than being controlled by totalitarian overlords
• Satan: tried to tempt Jesus to join him, liked to foment disorder and conflict, tried to free man from totalitarian rule by giving him freedom of thought and knowledge.

But I suspect that most Christians just see the Vorlons as good guys who turned out to be bad guys, never noticing the parallels. Hence no uproar.

Darth Wong wrote:And on the other side:

• Shadows: tried to tempt Sheridan to join them, liked to foment disorder and conflict, believed species should sort it out amongst themselves rather than being controlled by totalitarian overlords
• Satan: tried to tempt Jesus to join him, liked to foment disorder and conflict, tried to free man from totalitarian rule by giving him freedom of thought and knowledge.

But I suspect that most Christians just see the Vorlons as good guys who turned out to be bad guys, never noticing the parallels. Hence no uproar.

You'd think the entire spectacle of Sheridan dying only to rise again on the Third Day would be a dead giveaway.

As Mr. Garibaldi said, "Can we possibly get any more Messianic?"

Wicked Pilot wrote:I'm suprised there was no houpla over B5 when Sheridan told the Vorlons to fuck off.

They sneaked it past by making the reference to religion vague and hard-to-spot. Apart from the two occasions when Kosh did his 'angel' impression, there was no clear reference to the Vorlons and the Shadows being 'gods'. They were mostly just portrayed as arrogant and manipulative older species who thought age equalled the right to make the younger species jump through hoops over their philosophical differences.

BenRG wrote:They sneaked it past by making the reference to religion vague and hard-to-spot. Apart from the two occasions when Kosh did his 'angel' impression, there was no clear reference to the Vorlons and the Shadows being 'gods'. They were mostly just portrayed as arrogant and manipulative older species who thought age equalled the right to make the younger species jump through hoops over their philosophical differences.

No way, it was made very clear on the episode Kosh revealed himself that the Vorlons were impersonating gods. All the different species saw their respected holy ones. It was quite obvious to everyone who watched that episode what was going on. At least to me it was.

It was obvious to everyone who wasn't blinded by it. But the sheeple didn't see a symbolic representation of God and his religion; they saw a bunch of entities pretending to be God, and thus missed the point.

Darth Wong wrote:It was obvious to everyone who wasn't blinded by it. But the sheeple didn't see a symbolic representation of God and his religion; they saw a bunch of entities pretending to be God, and thus missed the point.

At the risk of starting a flame war, it was only missing the point if you don't believe in the existence of an essentially just and good God.

"Sheeple"...? Don't tell me that you go to whatreallyhappened.com too!

It was totally obvious that the Vorlons and Shadows represented God and the Devil. Almost all good literature involves the two, and the parallels ran deeper than that. In fact, they almost beat you over the head with them. I suspect that most people who recognized them were too intelligent to give a damn about the blasphemous turn of events, or they believed that we had been deceived by the Vorlons (angels), and that while God existed the Vorlons did not represent God.

On the subject of Sheridan as a Christ figure, of course he was a Christ figure. Any time a character has a J. as his first initial, he should immediately be checked to see if he fits. While Sheridan did not also share Christ's last initial, it is evident that he should have been associated with God.