inherit
1606
0
3,219
Sweet FA
Cyberdrunk 2024
1,646
Sept 16, 2016 21:33:47 GMT
September 2016
standardorbit
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Sweet FA on Mar 8, 2018 19:44:33 GMT
Meet the women writers behind Star Trek: The Original Series
To mark International Women's day I'd like to acknowledge the great contribution to the development, ethos and success of Star Trek made by the show's pioneering women writers in it's formative years, remarkable and unprecedented at that time. In an article written by Lisa Granshaw (Syfywire) to mark the 50th anniversary in 2016 "When it comes to Star Trek, women wrote some of the best episodes of the original series. On 18 episodes, a woman is credited as either writing the teleplay, contributing the story or creating everything from idea to script." Granshaw states "I wanted to look back at the contributions women writers made to the iconic science fiction show. Here’s a closer look at their episodes, including thoughts from the writers on their work and the series." Article Includes: Dorothy Fontana, Margaret Armen, Jean Lisette Aroeste, Judy Burns, Joyce Muskat, Shari Lewis Link to article Meet the women writers behind Star Trek: The Original Series
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 14, 2018 7:24:22 GMT
Rewatched Yesterday's Enterprise. I love this episode, it really demonstrates how important the Khitomer Accords were in smoothing over relations between the Klingons and the Federation. We also get a glimpse at how a prolonged war might lead Starfleet to become more militaristic (even more so than Post-359 or during the Dominion War), as well as the psychological effects on the crew, who come across as world-weary and detached, treating each other more like colleagues than a family. Guinan was used perfectly throughout. It's funny how in retrospect, her link to the Nexus established in Generations easily explains how she was able to remember both timelines, yet here it's presented as a mystery (as most things about Guinan were at this point). Loved her chemistry with Yar and how it did seem like they were friends in this reality, which made it harder for her to admit that Tasha was dead and therefore they'd never met in the "correct" timeline. Also like how Picard actually resisted wanting to change history back based on a "hunch" from Guinan with no solid proof. It's realistic that he wouldn't be easily swayed because as far as he was concerned, even if this reality sucked, it was the only one he'd ever known. Finally, this episode serves as a great time travel fix-it fic, allowing Tasha Yar a far more dignified exit than S1. (Until they couldn't leave well enough alone and ruined it completely in S4)
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 14, 2018 8:12:19 GMT
On my DS9-a-thon got to In the Hands of the Prophets.
Now despite my issues with the first two... maybe even three seasons of Deep Space 9 (and just how amazing the show became later) it is really interesting to me that season 1 ended on back to back gems of episodes.
First of all, this episode actually shared a fair bit of charcter growth for Kira which makes me wonder if all the previous examples of bad writing may not have been bad writing after all. In her conversation between Keiko and Sisko I can't help but wonder if it was the Kira from the first few episodes of DS9 if she would have been yelling and really pumping her chest. Yes, she was still beligerant but it was very low scale and more bristling then full on ra ra.
But the main reason I love this episode is it demonstrates the biggest difference between TNG and DS9...or Trek with Rodenberry at the helm and Trek without. Because TNG faced a situation similar to this one in its run and Picard, being Picard launched into this big speech on how horrible and wrong and backwards religion was and how he would not subject a culture to those beliefs. In the context of the situation he was right, but he came off as being so arrogant and unprofessional and...triggered. But Sisko here, Keiko had the Picard perspective...his son had the Picard perspective but Sisko, yes Sisko the protagonist of this show, explained that the Bajorans had good reason to believe what they believed and who knew their perspective might even be legitimate, from a certain point of view.
I also liked it, as further expansion on the previous point as Siskso confronted Wynn he did so by not getting righteously angry he was all like 'You will lose, you have made the mistake, and you will lose not because I will force things but I trust my people to make the right choice'...though it was ironic that one of the crew of DS9 didn't make the right choice.
On the flip side though despite how truly wonderfully Deep Space 9 treated issues of religion, for a Star Trek show, I just find it odd how muhahaha Kai Wynn is treated not just in this episode but throughout the show. Basically your first truly big religious character...though I suppose at this point she was just a guest star and I am projecting to the future a bit...she just comes off as so stupid evil with no good reason or nuance to her character. Sure there are people like her IRL but as I said it was just...huh...a bit.
|
|
inherit
1606
0
3,219
Sweet FA
Cyberdrunk 2024
1,646
Sept 16, 2016 21:33:47 GMT
September 2016
standardorbit
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by Sweet FA on Mar 14, 2018 19:00:34 GMT
In memory of Stephen Hawking who died today.
|
|
Gwyvian
N3
Writer, gamer, goth!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Gwyvian
PSN: Gwyvian
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,231
inherit
6491
0
Jul 15, 2019 20:26:00 GMT
2,231
Gwyvian
Writer, gamer, goth!
950
March 2017
gwyvian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Gwyvian
Gwyvian
|
Post by Gwyvian on Mar 14, 2018 19:34:46 GMT
In memory of Stephen Hawking who died today. I'm heartbroken.
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Mar 20, 2018 3:27:16 GMT
I know I'm late to the party but the first JJ Abrams film was epic! Loved it! all of it!
I had started watching when the second film came out in theaters. Then saw the third when it came in Theaters. I've been waiting this entire time for the first film to come up for free on Betflix or AMZ prime, and it finally showed up on AMZ prime today. It was great!
I can see where ST Discovery was trying to drag in that action from. how can I love an alternative of the TOS in Movie Form (won't watch actual TOS) while I'm just disgruntled about Discovery? Where are they missing the magic? Is it the bromance?
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Mar 20, 2018 3:32:06 GMT
.though I suppose at this point she was just a guest star and I am projecting to the future a bit...she just comes off as so stupid evil with no good reason or nuance to her character. Sure there are people like her IRL but as I said it was just...huh...a bit. I found her literal end to be pretty underwhelming.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 20, 2018 4:47:05 GMT
Which actually does bring me to the first episode of season 2 of DS9.
I funilly enough remember hating this arc for some strange reason. But its funny when it started up I was like 'oh this one, that's how this all begins.'. Again another example of my memory playing tricks on me and early DS9 actually being a lot better then I even remember. Not much to report but I do like how the guy plays off of being a hero and being a legend even though he did almost nothing. Which was really fascinating (and timely for me) because the start of this three parter essentially has the same message and themes as Luke's arc in The Last Jedi, which I happened to watch before starting the episode. Also Nana Visitor has really come into her own as Kira Nerys with these episodes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
7734
0
Apr 23, 2024 22:22:05 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 23, 2024 22:22:05 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2018 9:20:44 GMT
I know I'm late to the party but the first JJ Abrams film was epic! Loved it! all of it! I had started watching when the second film came out in theaters. Then saw the third when it came in Theaters. I've been waiting this entire time for the first film to come up for free on Betflix or AMZ prime, and it finally showed up on AMZ prime today. It was great! I can see where ST Discovery was trying to drag in that action from. how can I love an alternative of the TOS in Movie Form (won't watch actual TOS) while I'm just disgruntled about Discovery? Where are they missing the magic? Is it the bromance? I'm not a big fan of JJ Abrams, nor of that reboot. I think it tried a bit too much to be less Star Trek and more Star Wars, and I don't like at all how it just rewrote history. But that aside, it's certainly a well executed, entertaining, focussed movie. Discovery though... the opposite of focussed. It aimlessly jumps back and forth between ill-conceived story arcs, imo it's a mess. JJ Trek is hardly deep, but it takes its characters and uses them well to develop the story in a clear direction. Discovery most of the time feels to me like "random weird shit happening".
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 20, 2018 22:41:23 GMT
I know I'm late to the party but the first JJ Abrams film was epic! Loved it! all of it! I had started watching when the second film came out in theaters. Then saw the third when it came in Theaters. I've been waiting this entire time for the first film to come up for free on Betflix or AMZ prime, and it finally showed up on AMZ prime today. It was great! I can see where ST Discovery was trying to drag in that action from. how can I love an alternative of the TOS in Movie Form (won't watch actual TOS) while I'm just disgruntled about Discovery? Where are they missing the magic? Is it the bromance? I'm not a big fan of JJ Abrams, nor of that reboot. I think it tried a bit too much to be less Star Trek and more Star Wars, and I don't like at all how it just rewrote history. But that aside, it's certainly a well executed, entertaining, focussed movie. Discovery though... the opposite of focussed. It aimlessly jumps back and forth between ill-conceived story arcs, imo it's a mess. JJ Trek is hardly deep, but it takes its characters and uses them well to develop the story in a clear direction. Discovery most of the time feels to me like "random weird shit happening". Also known as "Sometimes its best to have a tight focused story that is well executed rather then a complex high minded story that over reaches."
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Mar 23, 2018 2:37:01 GMT
colfoley I never bought that Michael Burnham was responsible for the battle of the binary stars. Ya, she mutiny'd, but that had absolutely no effect on the outcome of that battle. Their being Federation and wanting to give the Klingons a chance to resolve things peacefully when the Klingons had no interest caused that battle. Burnham almost stopped it from happening at all, she was like, 5 seconds away from being a Hero. Yet she cries and cries and cries about all the people she killed and everyone agrees that she's at fault and it's bullshit. They just wanted a scapegoat to pin the massecre on. Then she and Tyler start having a gag worthy romance that was as over dramatic as a teenagers even though they're both what, 30? Even with my disliking Burnham as much as I did for most of the show, whiny girly man Tyler was never good enough for her. Stammets was an ass, but him showing his softer side with Hugh, him being adorable with Hugh, made him amazing. Hugh was great. They probably only killed him off for cheap tricks and because he was across the board likeable and like no other reason. Then they let Tyler kill him. I wish he'd died on the spot and I wished he were dead every episode going forward. He was an unbearable character before the murder, completely unredeemable after. Oh ya, let's not forget that he tries to Gaslight Burnham with extra tears in his eyes. He only murdered Hugh, tried to murder Burnham, and was an actual friggen Klingon with a fake program of a real person. Redhead was alright, she was consistent, I can give her that. I flip back and forth between thinking it was Clever that the Federation Admiral stooped ten times lower than Burnham to go against everything the Organization stood for (as like, a foil. Look at what you did and we lambasted you for it, now watch us do worse) and absolutely disgusted. Is the Federation supposed to feel more "real" when they do/plan actual no-doubt-about-it evil? And I'm still disappointed with the Lorca reveal. I had this real excited expectation that we were going to have a cruel hard ass Captain for once. One with questionable personal morality, yet would still rep the Federation with stars in his eyes. And then we got THAT. ugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
7734
0
Apr 23, 2024 22:22:05 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 23, 2024 22:22:05 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 8:12:18 GMT
phorayMichael certainly didn't start the war, the Klingons (or rather, T'Kuvma) wanted it, they were the aggressors. However, Michael wilfully ignored orders ("just a flyby, yes ma'am") which resulted in her killing the torchbearer, giving the Klingons easier justification among themselves. She fucked that up already. Then that incredible mutiny. She thinks she knows better because her adoptive father told her in a vision, so she decides she can just do whatever she wants, incapacitating her captain and launching an attack on a force the federation is not at war with, so with the knowledge at that point possibly starting an intergalactic war. Of course we watchers know the Klingons wanted war anyway, but her actions at that point were incredibly reckless, and showing not the slightest sense of duty or chain of command. Imagine Riker knocking out Picard and taking control of the Enterprise because his father told him in a vision that it would be best to attack the Klingons. It didn't happen because it would've been idiotic. However, Michael fucked up again because it was too late anyway, the Klingons were already underway. And she fucked up twice, because her neck pinch was so bad that Georgiou awoke after a minute or so. Then she came up with the idea of capturing T'Kuvma (not killing him), and of course she fucked that up too by setting her phaser to kill before shooting him. No, she didn't actually start the war. And it's not really credible that later she believes she did. But after acting so stupidly and recklessly, I found it really hard to accept her as the protagonist. As for Lorca, he seemed a little over-the-top cynical, but there was potential in a federation captain being successful with questionable means. That he turned out to be just evil destroyed that of course.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 23, 2018 9:08:49 GMT
But the main reason I love this episode is it demonstrates the biggest difference between TNG and DS9...or Trek with Rodenberry at the helm and Trek without. Because TNG faced a situation similar to this one in its run and Picard, being Picard launched into this big speech on how horrible and wrong and backwards religion was and how he would not subject a culture to those beliefs. In the context of the situation he was right, but he came off as being so arrogant and unprofessional and...triggered. But Sisko here, Keiko had the Picard perspective...his son had the Picard perspective but Sisko, yes Sisko the protagonist of this show, explained that the Bajorans had good reason to believe what they believed and who knew their perspective might even be legitimate, from a certain point of view. Although "the will of the Prophets" seems to be a case of extreme presumption on the Bajorans part, because we don't really see any real indication that the Prophets are actually invested in their lives, decisions and society. Nor do they ever actively chose to get involved or interfere. In fact, due to the non-linear nature of their existence, you could make the case the Prophets only care about Bajor because Sisko does. Until Sisko and Dax discovered the wormhome, the Prophets may have had zero knowledge about the Bajorans or Bajor. It was only due to their repeated interactions with Sisko and learning how much he cared about Bajor, that the Prophets finally shifted their attention to Bajor and the Bajoran people. And due to their non-linear existence, their first contact with the Bajorans happened in the distant past, thus leading to the Bajor and religion that Sisko knows in the 24th Century. Not to sound completely dismissive of the Bajoran religion, but it does seem like "The Sisko" is the only thing the Prophets have ever really cared about, since it's him they chose to actively engage or involve themselves with. The Bajoran people seem more a periphery concern to them, if only because "The Sisko is of Bajor". That's not to say that the Prophets don't eventually come to hold more regard for Bajor and it's people, but it always struck me that Sisko was the primary cause of their initial investment in Bajor. It's a fun idea that due to this potential causality loop, they transitioned from "wormhole aliens" to "The Prophets" because of his influence. (Actually, that might mean the Prophets are as hands-on as the Bajorans believe and they do make their will known to their followers. But they only became that way due to the events of DS9 and after Sisko joined them. That's why we see them becoming more active and involved with Bajor over the series, because from our linear point of view, they hadn't become the Prophets yet.) I'm not a big fan of JJ Abrams, nor of that reboot. I think it tried a bit too much to be less Star Trek and more Star Wars, and I don't like at all how it just rewrote history.True, but the film does establish this is an alternate reality that has branched off from the Prime timeline, so the original continuity is still intact. And the Kelvin timeline only exists because of events that transpired within the Prime timeline, since Prime Spock created the singularity that Nero (and later himself) came through to alter the past. Into Darkness even has Kelvin Spock take advantage of Prime Spock's knowledge of Khan from the original timeline, so they are better able to understand what sort of enemy they're facing and how dangerous he really is. That shows that the Prime timeline is still relevant and integral to this new reality, even though events are playing out in completely different ways.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 23, 2018 9:40:39 GMT
And y'know, this thread makes me think I really should learn to switch my brain off and enjoy watching space ships and ray guns for 40 minutes, rather than dissect how time travel and alternate realities work in the various Star Trek series/films they appear in.
|
|
newnation
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
PSN: chrisdavis90
Posts: 61 Likes: 55
inherit
9774
0
55
newnation
61
Jan 31, 2018 21:20:31 GMT
January 2018
newnation
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
chrisdavis90
|
Post by newnation on Mar 23, 2018 21:45:55 GMT
I'm not a big fan of JJ Abrams, nor of that reboot. I think it tried a bit too much to be less Star Trek and more Star Wars, and I don't like at all how it just rewrote history.True, but the film does establish this is an alternate reality that has branched off from the Prime timeline, so the original continuity is still intact. And the Kelvin timeline only exists because of events that transpired within the Prime timeline, since Prime Spock created the singularity that Nero (and later himself) came through to alter the past. Into Darkness even has Kelvin Spock take advantage of Prime Spock's knowledge of Khan from the original timeline, so they are better able to understand what sort of enemy they're facing and how dangerous he really is. That shows that the Prime timeline is still relevant and integral to this new reality, even though events are playing out in completely different ways. You said it better than I could have. I did hate what they did to Khan though. They completely missed the boat on him. I was expecting a little bit of the look of Montalban, had charisma, and was incredibly ruthless. Instead we got Cumberbatch with his weird face and no charisma. To be blunt, his Khan sucked. He was well acted but sucked. I also hate the fact that Star Trek Countdown brought Data back. I know they kind of hinted at it in Nemesis but I like the idea of Data dying because his sacrifice was meaningful and was actually something that every member to the Enterprise crew felt. *cough* unlike Tasha Yar *cough* Beyond seemed like a two hour long episode of the original series with better acting and special effects. It is a shame that it is the one that made the least money and didn't get the attention the others got. Justin Lin, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung should have been involved from the beginning of the Kelvin timeline because Beyond didn't feel so....Abramsy. I've been thinking about starting a Star trek marathon with my dad myself. He got me into Star Trek with TOS reruns when I was a kid but he never really watched TNG, Ds9, or VOY. This is going to be very time consuming and may take a couple of months.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Star Trek
Mar 23, 2018 23:15:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by colfoley on Mar 23, 2018 23:15:57 GMT
But the main reason I love this episode is it demonstrates the biggest difference between TNG and DS9...or Trek with Rodenberry at the helm and Trek without. Because TNG faced a situation similar to this one in its run and Picard, being Picard launched into this big speech on how horrible and wrong and backwards religion was and how he would not subject a culture to those beliefs. In the context of the situation he was right, but he came off as being so arrogant and unprofessional and...triggered. But Sisko here, Keiko had the Picard perspective...his son had the Picard perspective but Sisko, yes Sisko the protagonist of this show, explained that the Bajorans had good reason to believe what they believed and who knew their perspective might even be legitimate, from a certain point of view. Although "the will of the Prophets" seems to be a case of extreme presumption on the Bajorans part, because we don't really see any real indication that the Prophets are actually invested in their lives, decisions and society. Nor do they ever actively chose to get involved or interfere. In fact, due to the non-linear nature of their existence, you could make the case the Prophets only care about Bajor because Sisko does. Until Sisko and Dax discovered the wormhome, the Prophets may have had zero knowledge about the Bajorans or Bajor. It was only due to their repeated interactions with Sisko and learning how much he cared about Bajor, that the Prophets finally shifted their attention to Bajor and the Bajoran people. And due to their non-linear existence, their first contact with the Bajorans happened in the distant past, thus leading to the Bajor and religion that Sisko knows in the 24th Century. Not to sound completely dismissive of the Bajoran religion, but it does seem like "The Sisko" is the only thing the Prophets have ever really cared about, since it's him they chose to actively engage or involve themselves with. The Bajoran people seem more a periphery concern to them, if only because "The Sisko is of Bajor". That's not to say that the Prophets don't eventually come to hold more regard for Bajor and it's people, but it always struck me that Sisko was the primary cause of their initial investment in Bajor. It's a fun idea that due to this potential causality loop, they transitioned from "wormhole aliens" to "The Prophets" because of his influence. (Actually, that might mean the Prophets are as hands-on as the Bajorans believe and they do make their will known to their followers. But they only became that way due to the events of DS9 and after Sisko joined them. That's why we see them becoming more active and involved with Bajor over the series, because from our linear point of view, they hadn't become the Prophets yet.) I'm not a big fan of JJ Abrams, nor of that reboot. I think it tried a bit too much to be less Star Trek and more Star Wars, and I don't like at all how it just rewrote history.True, but the film does establish this is an alternate reality that has branched off from the Prime timeline, so the original continuity is still intact. And the Kelvin timeline only exists because of events that transpired within the Prime timeline, since Prime Spock created the singularity that Nero (and later himself) came through to alter the past. Into Darkness even has Kelvin Spock take advantage of Prime Spock's knowledge of Khan from the original timeline, so they are better able to understand what sort of enemy they're facing and how dangerous he really is. That shows that the Prime timeline is still relevant and integral to this new reality, even though events are playing out in completely different ways. Not saying you are wrong mind you because we do not have an definitve answer one way or the other, but there is evidence that they cared for Bajor before Sisko came along. One, them sending the orbs to Bajor, and two their protecting them from the Pah Wraiths and locking them in the Fire Caves could both be indicitive. Now since they are non linear life forms this could lead to a couple of possibilities. One, they always cared all along from a linear stand point, but Sisko got them to understand linear time. Or 2, since they were non linear they did not care about the Bajorans up till Sisko came along but they could retroactively care about Bajor because of it and guide them. You are probably right but I do think those are interesting possibilities.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 24, 2018 7:05:56 GMT
Yeah, I definitely fall into the second school of thought, because of it nicely ties into the Prophet's non-linear view of time, as well as being a complete mindscrew to try to think about. Another fun thought is that the Prophet's interest in the Ancient Bajorans, sending the Orbs and locking away the Pah-Wraiths was how things originally happened (as in option one), but Sisko's discovery of the wormhole branched things into a secondary timeline where he was now the cause of why they went to Bajor (as in option two). Both could be true, similar to how Kira remembered both versions of history in "Accession". The original history where Akorem Laan disappeared and never finished his epic poem, but also the current timeline where he got sent back and finished it.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 24, 2018 7:50:17 GMT
Yeah, I definitely fall into the second school of thought, because of it nicely ties into the Prophet's non-linear view of time, as well as being a complete mindscrew to try to think about. Another fun thought is that the Prophet's interest in the Ancient Bajorans, sending the Orbs and locking away the Pah-Wraiths was how things originally happened (as in option one), but Sisko's discovery of the wormhole branched things into a secondary timeline where he was now the cause of why they went to Bajor (as in option two). Both could be true, similar to how Kira remembered both versions of history in "Accession". The original history where Akorem Laan disappeared and never finished his epic poem, but also the current timeline where he got sent back and finished it. Ah DS9. You got off to a rather lack luster start but you truly did become something special.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 24, 2018 8:31:43 GMT
DS9 is the standard which Discovery needs to hold itself to. It gave us a realistic, "warts and all" look at our primary characters and Starfleet without going into grim-dark territory. You had characters who were morally complex and nuanced, whether they were protagonists or antagonists, so sometimes the heroes acted villainous and sometimes the villains acted heroically. DS9 understood that Trek often is at it's best when it's an ensemble piece, rather than focusing on one particular character. Having a lead and primary viewpoint character worked fine in TOS, but there's a reason the show largely abandoned that formula from TNG onwards, because it opened up the cast and gave more possibilities for storytelling. (Seriously DSC writers, drop the "Micheal Burnham show" angle and give Tilly, Tyler, Saru and Stamets more focus in S2. Show us more of the Discovery and her crew while you're at it, because I'll be honest, I still don't remember any of the bridge crew's names)
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 24, 2018 8:41:14 GMT
DS9 is the standard which Discovery needs to hold itself to. It gave us a realistic, "warts and all" look at our primary characters and Starfleet without going into grim-dark territory. You had characters who were morally complex and nuanced, whether they were protagonists or antagonists, so sometimes the heroes acted villainous and sometimes the villains acted heroically. DS9 understood that Trek often is at it's best when it's an ensemble piece, rather than focusing on one particular character. Having a lead and primary viewpoint character worked fine in TOS, but there's a reason the show largely abandoned that formula from TNG onwards, because it opened up the cast and gave more possibilities for storytelling. (Seriously DSC writers, drop the "Micheal Burnham show" angle and give Tilly, Tyler, Saru and Stamets more focus in S2. Show us more of the Discovery and her crew while you're at it, because I'll be honest, I still don't remember any of the bridge crew's names) As I said I feel a bit...torn...on the Michael Burnham show stuff because I do like ensambled, but...its a bit hard for me too because a lot of the ensamble pieces of today gets too...ensamble. Sometimes its hard to remember and care for all the characters, even some of the important ones in either Game of Thrones or Walking Dead. And in Discovery's defense I think there were bits and pieces here and there that shows it could rise to the level of DS9 overall, hell I still think DSC probably had the strongest first season of any Trek show ever. But, on the flip side the Lorca thing REALLY undermined a lot of what they were trying to do. I am pissed off as both a fan and a writer. They were this close to creating something truly interesting with the character and they just made him....meeeeeeehhh. Actually I think its also ironic that I really started diggin Michael Burnham as a character with the destruction of Lorca's. Those few episodes really established her character and solidified a lot of things for her, about the only good thing to come out of the Lorca thing.
|
|
Gwyvian
N3
Writer, gamer, goth!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Gwyvian
PSN: Gwyvian
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,231
inherit
6491
0
Jul 15, 2019 20:26:00 GMT
2,231
Gwyvian
Writer, gamer, goth!
950
March 2017
gwyvian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Gwyvian
Gwyvian
|
Post by Gwyvian on Mar 26, 2018 4:06:48 GMT
I feel like I'm probably massively in the minority here, but I've really been impressed with Discovery so far. I haven't gone back and read in detail every opinion stated here, though I've been reading some interesting viewpoints from you guys on all the ST series, some of which I agree with when it comes to the nitpick details, but my overall impressions are different. Just to establish where I stand on things in the Star Trek universe before I briefly go into what I like and dislike about Discovery (it's long so I'll spoiler tag it, of course it's somewhat relevant to why and how it shaped my opinions about Discovery, but it's not vital information or anything, feel free to ignore it if you're not interested - I talk way too much anyway, lol): To start, I was raised to be a Trekkie since I first started watching TV, Star Trek has always been a huge part of my life, so its integrity, its message and its vision have, by extension, also always been extremely important to me. I've watched every standalone series and each movie many, many times over, along with reading quite a few of the books, etc. - I have this on-going tradition of watching all of Star Trek from beginning to end in addition to everything else I've watched, I just finished going through TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise yet again (for the millionth time) in preparation for Discovery and of course, I've watched those episodes multiple times, too, so all these narratives are perpetually fresh in my mind. Of course, as I change and evolve over the years, my impression of each of these has also changed, mostly for the better I'm pleased to say, though I have also begun to see a lot more of the flaws that I was oblivious to when I was younger. I used to be one of those traditionalist Trekkies who loved TOS and TNG (and a little DS9) but spurned everything newer than that, excepting a few of the movies (although I was initially not a fan at all of the J.J. Abrams alternate timeline shenanigans, but I like to think that I'm an open-minded person willing to change her opinions, so I fully intend to revisit each of them and see if my perception has changed at all - considering how my evaluations have radically improved regarding the newer Star Trek series as I matured over the years, I expect it will change). So, here's what I think of each series:
I'm a fan of TOS because it did lay the groundwork for Roddenberry's vision of an ideal future even if it didn't quite manage to execute all its concepts, partly due to the climate the show was introduced into and other production limitations, including its cancellation, but it established the universe and the moral code that Star Trek has always more or less adhered to and it is that very core of idealism that I think makes Star Trek in general very special. I tend to be forgiving of its obvious flaws because I know the background of how it was created and I love the fact that despite that, it still managed to push back and introduce some (at the time) revolutionary ideas which form the pillar concepts of the "Roddenberry ideal" - very much an ideal that I personally believe in. In some ways, its flaws are quirky and endearing when I look back on them, but as with every series I think it's important in understanding it to be aware of and take into consideration its context: perhaps for this day and age TOS is outdated, it has some obvious issues that even compared to the progress we've made since then in society (let alone how the vision of the ideal future has evolved since then), but I feel it's important to give TOS credit for pushing the envelope as much as it did, considering. Sure, it has some storytelling oddities (like the limitless supply and demand for redshirts, excepting Scotty who is amazingly lucky that way, hahaha) and sometimes the style of the storytelling can throw you off; it wasn't created for a modern audience, that's for sure. Personally, I've always been able to look past these and look at the main idea and somehow get immersed despite these factors, so yes, I think TOS is an excellent show in its own way. Some of those characters especially are legendary - I feel like a lot of them got more fleshed out in the movies in some ways, I really thoroughly enjoyed a lot of them precisely because of that; sure, not every one of the movies is superb from start to finish, but all of the ones with the TOS cast really bridged the series with my more modern perspective in a way that I found very satisfying.
I absolutely adore TNG - of course it has its flaws like any other show, but for the most part it managed to take TOS' ideas and flesh them out into a much larger universe with more established issues (while also presenting it in a context much closer to home), its episodic structure ensured an almost limitless potential for subplots to entertain all manner of notions of "What if this happened in this 'ideal' universe?" or "Are XYZ flaws of humanity still an issue and how to they handle them then?" and it was the characters and their development that strung them all together into a complete fabric. I could name many specific episodes that I found to be particularly poignant, beautifully written or presented, etc. I could also go on about the parts that I didn't like so much, because it's inevitable that some things don't quite live up to the standard of its overall concept; a few episodes here and there were particularly weak, but even in those I could probably make an argument for how it's still a better story than a lot of other TV episodes I've watched over the years. What I like the most about TNG though is that it is, in my opinion, everything TOS could have been had it been given all the leeway required to fully demonstrate the Roddenberry ideal, even though it still has some constraints that from a modern perspective make it seem a little lacking, but again: context. I particularly like the nobility of character, the standards everyone aspires to in TNG; it's not perfect, but it tries very hard and succeeds in many, many episodes and it does show great development where each character has the space to overcome the hurdles, moral dilemmas and "human moments" they face. I love how every solution to each problem is a brilliant sidestep of the obvious, perhaps violent choice, how in each circumstance TNG shows you that there's always a better way, even if the characters in question sometimes fail to see it or take that opportunity. TNG is by far the one Star Trek series that I've rewatched the most, it's very familiar and very dear to my heart because in many ways I feel like it is the show that is closest to the kind of future I want to live in, a place of tolerance, creativity, wonder, science and exploration where even in the face of the universe's darkest and strangest forces the best parts of humanity will carry us through. It's very utopian in some ways, yes; but that's what ideals are in essence, they're not meant to be entirely realistic on the face of it, yet they are what we aspire to be as a species and it's that side of humanity I have always loved. I also love how it respects and understands history, how it demonstrates humanity's evolution past the flaws we are contending with to this day, etc. and I could go on and on, I really think it's a fantastic show and I would defend it at length to its detractors.
DS9 I really liked also, partly for the much grittier edge it shows and darker plots (I'm a huge fan of angst), but it still managed to maintain a lot of the Roddenberry vision in it, although I have a sight more complaints about it than I had for TNG; DS9 really hits the mark in many, many episodes but some aspects of it to me seem too much like they got caught up in story arcs that contributed little to Star Trek's overall message and dithered over some more shiny space battle-esque conflicts, which makes for good television perhaps, but it's not really that compelling on a deeper level. Some characters in particular I really liked for how they are portrayed and the issues they go through, again the way the characters weave the story together is still very reminiscent of TNG for me, I like how they're developed, though I did feel like some of the subplots were a little formulaic in the sense that they're just repeating what TNG did, but honestly I didn't always mind that. I'm not so much a fan of Sisko as I was of Picard, however; a lot of his character isn't really centered on how good a commander he is and more around his status as Emissary, which to be honest didn't really have a reason or rhyme about it, and how edgy he is compared to the previous two major Star Trek captains. He still is a compelling guy and I like a lot of what they did with his character, but I guess he always felt a little... unfinished to me? I also felt like there were many things that they could have gone into much more detail about but instead (especially towards the end) all the focus was narrowed down to the war with the Dominion and that, unfortunately, I am not a fan of. Don't get me wrong, I love some of the characters involved and many particular episodes during that arc, especially towards the very end, but the overall plot of that story arc felt a little derivative of other sci-fi series in a way that I felt was unworthy of Star Trek. To me, Star Trek was always the show that came up with crazy solutions that emphasized that same core of ideals, it showed us how we can overcome our worst qualities even in the face of situations where you might think the only solution was destruction and pain - don't get me wrong, I love that DS9 addressed a lot of situations where characters were forced into some very dark places and decisions, but I felt like there was a little too much of characters giving in to their weaknesses rather than overcoming them, if that makes sense. I still very much love DS9 and a lot of it is absolutely superb in my book, yet I could name quite a few more elements I could easily have done without. It's a really great show in my opinion, one of my favorites, just not the very best Star Trek show.
Voyager. I had a love-hate relationship with Voyager for the longest time; I used to think it was the worst Star Trek (before Enterprise came out, that is) and my opinion was that it was the soap opera of the franchise; and, in some ways, there are still one or two things I feel it could have done without. However, during the last couple of reruns I watched I realized that Voyager is actually quite an excellent Star Trek series and I gave it way too little credit originally. Voyager very much picks up the slack that I felt in all the previous series in some ways; again, I'm not a fan of the amount of focus placed on certain aspects of the story (in general I'm much more inclined to like an episodic structure over story arcs because the latter tends to drag out conflicts and bloat them into a melodramatic rehashing of very simple concepts in many series, this is a particularly significant issue in Enterprise actually), although all in all I think Voyager did manage to handle them pretty well. What I ended up really loving about Voyager, once I was more open to the idea of actually liking it, was that it drew on previous Star Treks quite a bit in terms of throwing characters into weird conflicts and demonstrating again those ideals and morals which represent the best of humanity, I particularly loved how the Doctor evolved throughout the series for example (a parallel to Data in TNG, but with altogether different flaws and virtues). I like how the premise of the series shows you a bunch of people in a totally alien and hostile environment struggle to survive and yet still somehow manage to mostly stick to the fiber of what makes them Starfleet officers (even those who weren't to begin with), in some ways the environment it created served as a much better backdrop to demonstrate our best qualities compared to previous series - I see Voyager as the series which took what DS9 tried to do with the Dominion war and perfected it. There's a lot of trial and error, a lot of pain and sacrifice, and yet despite all the changes they go through Voyager is overwhelmingly a success story; it shows a lot more realistic grit than the previous series and still manages to pull through, I really like that. That being said, it does mess with a few things in a way I'm not a fan of, prominent among them the Borg Queen. The very essence of what made the Borg terrifying and alien is stripped away with that, and the Queen devolves the concept of the Borg into a stereotypical enemy easily outsmarted with a little lateral thinking; comparing that to the premise TNG set up, I found it particularly weak. Again, I could go into much more detail but if anyone actually reads up until this point and doesn't just quit this post, I commend you for your patience and ask for just one more paragraph's worth of indulgence, I shan't nitpick any further about Voyager.
Finally, we come to Enterprise: when it first came out, I hated it. I hated the intro music (absolutely terrible song, especially considering how peas of a pod the previous series' intros were, although I did quite like the graphics). I disliked Archer instantly, he kind of creeped me out compared to any of the other captains I'd watched, main or side character. I loathed the Xindi plot, especially because a lot of it was taking the whole time travel concept to whole new levels of painful cliché, I didn't like how oversexed a lot of it was and I really didn't enjoy T'pol usurping the title of "first Vulcan aboard a Starfleet vessel" - and anyone who argues that Spock was the first Starfleet officer who actually went through the Academy training, T'pol does become a kind of honorary member of Starfleet so technically she would count. I didn't like a great many things about Enterprise, but then, as with Voyager, I gave it a second chance and watched it again along with the others for the first rerun after it's release and I found myself liking a lot of elements in it and being very surprised by how much I liked it - many of my complaints are still valid I believe, however, so Enterprise is something of a paradox for me. But I started to really appreciate it in ways I didn't before: I love how it makes such an effort to be "low-tech" compared to TOS, the whole design of the ship is far closer to the spacecrafts we currently have and less like the "sleek" modernity of TOS Enterprise; even if that Enterprise is noticeably "sixties style", particularly a contextual eyesore if you've studied art history like myself, but somehow they managed to make me believe in a lot of the technological limitations they faced. In other words, the minor details really appealed to me. I grew quite fond of many of the characters and where Enterprise went in a more episodic direction I found myself quite enjoying a lot of the stories they showed; in fact, I found myself appreciating Enterprise exactly for the reason I originally hated it and that was its deviance from the Roddenberry ideal. To explain, I felt like Archer was quite thuggish in some situations, resorting to violence on occasion and pushing boundaries, violating all manner of Starfleet ideals left and right - until I started to view it from the perspective of "this is where those rules were established"; this is a story from the very beginning of Starfleet after all, and its the consequences of these very actions of Archer and his crew which ultimately shows them why having that code is important. The intro song still annoys me, I still think they went for too many soapy gimmicks here and there and Archer still is far from my favorite captain, but all in all, I feel like I gave this show too little credit, just like Voyager. It does have some compelling subplots that definitely do adhere to the core principles of Star Trek, if not in such a direct way as one might expect; the difference is that Enterprise demonstrates just how much humanity had to go through growing pains to get there. (I could write a lot more but I think I've seriously said more than enough already for one post, hahaha.)
So, Discovery. After by initial knee-jerk reaction to Enterprise and my distaste for the more modern "mix it up" elements of post-TNG Star Trek, I felt like Discovery was a breath of fresh air. Not only did it nod its head to the Star Trek I knew and loved with a lot of the issues it tackled, the story tactics and characters, but it also proved to be a very good modern sci-fi show in general; it has a lot of elements I really appreciate that way. Every episode I was on the edge of my seat and it's one of the only shows that has provoked literal gasps of shock from me (I tend to be the Cliché Master/cynic viewer, so that's... pretty rare), but I admit that I started off with something of a bias. I know that quite a few Star Trek veterans are working on the show (primarily DS9 people - and Jonathan Frakes!!), I already know and love several of the actors involved (and personally I think it's a superb cast so far) and from the very beginning each episode had a twist that appealed to me, so I was destined to be pleased with Discovery, I'm not denying that colors my opinion. Besides that though, it checks all the boxes for me: moral dilemmas, complicated characters, ideals facing the tests of violence and war, unexpected shifts in character stories (personally, I think Ash turning out to be Voq was great - is he or isn't he Tyler? Is he klingon now or human? How does this affect his identity, personality and emotions from here on out? AND it plays right into the TOS premise of "klingons who look human" - they already established a canon for that in TNG and DS9 but I love how they played on that in Discovery; also, Lorca turning out to be Mirror Universe Lorca I think also was great, because who the hell was expecting that? I mean, I chalked up his odd behavior and hardness to his past trauma we hear about added to the fact that this is, much like DS9's storyline, a wartime scenario where it's possible for humanity's darker side to be played up, I wasn't expecting the story to dive right into a a very "old school" Star Trek concept like the Mirror Universe; I'm really sorry for Hugh's death, but it was totally out of the blue and the fact that I didn't predict that happening - Ash was on the surface after all, clueless about his true identity and besides that was the exact moment I suddenly put the puzzle pieces together and realized who he was - made that a shocking episode, I really like that it can shock me; I could go on), and so much more. To grab a few random examples: the whole business with the tardigrade is so very Star Trek - an innocent, fascinating creature with the potential for great destruction when pressed and great gain if used, it's like Farpoint Station combined with every Star Trek episode about a culture or a group secretly (or not so secretly) abusing their relative position of power to take short cuts. The concept of the mycelial network plays into not only science and biology in a way that excites a science (and fiction) nerd like me, but it also hilariously portrayed with a sixties vibe that just has me in stitches. The love story between Michael and Tyler initially threw me off, I felt chemistry elsewhere (Lorca) but I like both characters individually - when Ash was revealed, the whole dynamic totally changed in my head and I started really liking the concept because of it; I mean, of course it felt off, he is off from the core on outwards! I love how he changes afterwards, too, he becomes a complete character in a way he wasn't before. I love Stammets' character, every word out of his mouth had me laughing or nodding but what I love most about his character was how he doesn't react typically in any given situation. I adore Tilly's character, too; she's very much representative of an innocence which is very hard to preserve in times of violence and uncertainty and I love how she keeps being herself even when she's forced to play this ruthless character, of course she has her stumbles but she has the integrity to own up to it - and her enthusiasm is infectious. I love how they handled Sarek, too; I'm wary of involving known characters outside of their established series in that way, but honestly this is the first time they've messed with a known character in a prequel series where I'm actually OK with it. Part of that has to do with the fact that I like Michael, she's got issues and she's complicated but beyond the initial panic and poor judgement she shows at the very beginning, she's Starfleet in a way that captures the Roddenberry ideal, so she's cool with me. I love the fact that Discovery features so many strong female characters without resorting to pandering or stereotypes, they weren't afraid to go in different directions but also weren't afraid to taint them compellingly. Alright, enough adoration, things I don't like about Discovery: so far, I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with how totally different the klingons are physically. I am very open to seeing how they explain it, so long as they do explain it; there are just too many differences for me to be sanguine about it at this point, but then again, I do feel that a lot of the rest of Discovery makes up for it, this is really a minor aesthetic complaint. Also, while I know that the Mirror Universe is established in previous Star Treks to be a universe where everyone is the exact opposite of themselves here, I wish there was a little less "totally good" vs. "totally evil" in Philippa Georgiou especially, but others as well, and instead go for more nuance - but I'm willing to give MU Philippa a chance here to grow beyond her base character and become someone truly complex and interesting. I'm not sure I entirely agree with how Michael's case was handled to begin with, either; sure, she did behave pretty recklessly in the beginning, but ultimately I feel she got a way worse rap in the amount of blame placed on her shoulders compared to what was called for. I don't like that Lorca died, damn it, I wanted to see way more of him, he seemed atypical for a MU character in some juicy ways - killing him off seems like such a shame, though again, dramatic twist and all... but I still have some hope that Prime Lorca is alive somewhere out there. I'm a little squeamish about Michael's background, despite being more OK with it than I normally would be, but I can't deny it bugs me a little that Spock had a kind of adoptive sister we heard nothing about up until now - but considering the kind of xenophobe attitude she faced, I can explain it away with the idea that it was kind of a well-kept secret of sorts. Sure. Still not 100% there on that, though I am really enjoying the father-daughter dynamic between them otherwise. Well, I tried finding more flaws, but honestly a lot of things mentioned in previous posts as complaints about Discovery I frankly disagree with - I think it's a superb show, a superb Star Trek with amazing actors, great writing, awesome twists so far and I honestly can't wait to see how they settle in and start really going on about their business with the mysterious new captain (and I'm dying to find out who that is). I got excited throughout with every reference I found to things I know from TOS, TNG and the others, I'm loving seeing some background on issues we see in the "later" series unfold here in more detail, I'm totally psyched about tidbit hints thrown in about season 2 (like Section 31, my favorite spy organization), so on. I guess I'm just a superfan.
|
|
inherit
1033
0
Member is Online
Apr 23, 2024 22:08:58 GMT
31,211
colfoley
16,551
Aug 17, 2016 10:19:37 GMT
August 2016
colfoley
|
Post by colfoley on Mar 26, 2018 5:25:16 GMT
Just a clarification Ash was not T'kumva, Ash was Voq, son of none, the torchbearer.
It actuall would have been interesting to play up Mirror Lorca's sense of destiny but hell make him reluctant about it.
Stamets was such an interesting character though because he started off just so grumpy and anti social but then he really did become a part of the entire crew and really warmed up and bonded with them.
And onto episode two of the three episode arc in DS9. This one was admittedly weird...I mean its nice to see the characters continue to grow both invididually and as a team, especially Bashir and Kira and there was some evidence of them forging together ("these are my...friends.") But it was just weird seeing where the whole Bareil, Kira, thing begin. And then Winn. I mean she is just a bit on the brilliant side in a way, she was basically using Minister Jaro and getting him to commit his power base to her, she essentially looses nothing but if he wins...she gains everything. But then just be so blunt, omg was she blunt, 'you can stay as many days as you like...maybe a week.' Kitty has claws there. Just not a lot to say about this episode.
|
|
Gwyvian
N3
Writer, gamer, goth!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: Gwyvian
PSN: Gwyvian
Posts: 950 Likes: 2,231
inherit
6491
0
Jul 15, 2019 20:26:00 GMT
2,231
Gwyvian
Writer, gamer, goth!
950
March 2017
gwyvian
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
Gwyvian
Gwyvian
|
Post by Gwyvian on Mar 26, 2018 9:25:03 GMT
Just a clarification Ash was not T'kumva, Ash was Voq, son of none, the torchbearer. It actuall would have been interesting to play up Mirror Lorca's sense of destiny but hell make him reluctant about it. Stamets was such an interesting character though because he started off just so grumpy and anti social but then he really did become a part of the entire crew and really warmed up and bonded with them. And onto episode two of the three episode arc in DS9. This one was admittedly weird...I mean its nice to see the characters continue to grow both invididually and as a team, especially Bashir and Kira and there was some evidence of them forging together ("these are my...friends.") But it was just weird seeing where the whole Bareil, Kira, thing begin. And then Winn. I mean she is just a bit on the brilliant side in a way, she was basically using Minister Jaro and getting him to commit his power base to her, she essentially looses nothing but if he wins...she gains everything. But then just be so blunt, omg was she blunt, 'you can stay as many days as you like...maybe a week.' Kitty has claws there. Just not a lot to say about this episode. You are absolutely right!! I have no idea why I messed that up, I know exactly who's who - guess I wasn't paying enough attention while writing that. (Statistically I think they just mention T'Kuvma's name so many times compared to Voq's that it just registered louder or something, hahahaha.) See, things like that are exactly why I found MU Lorca fascinating, he was like other Mirror characters, and yet he wasn't, which makes me really wonder what Prime Lorca was like, seeing as they're supposedly exact opposites - although Star Trek has been known to deviate from this in some ways, particularly in DS9 - we see the oppressed DS9 crew banding together in a sort of cabal of rebels and sure, their behavior is very contradictory but at the same time the grain of their person seems to be rather similar. I found that very interesting, considering that while the Terrans were calling the shots in TOS MU it seemed like, with the exception of Spock for some reason (and later Sarek, I so love that they echoed back to that differentiation in Discovery ), the moral fiber of the Enterprise's crew was the exact opposite. At any rate, it makes for a fascinating subject to consider how the social environment may or may not have contributed to that twisted morality, i.e. as long as they are the underdogs, they have a chance at sort of finding their humanity, although they still technically fall into a gray category only. That's the best version of them in that universe, honestly. I'm curious what Discovery will establish in this regard actually; I mean, as I said, I found Lorca to be quite an interesting mix despite being the supposed evil version - was he totally faking it (I mean his visions of destiny can be chalked up to delusions of grandeur) or was he genuine in some things at least? Does that mean that Prime Lorca has a little bad in him because his counterpart was a little good? Or is this too narrow a definition, are we arguing that they're not exact opposites (as DS9 hints in some ways - I mean, you can't have it both ways)? Am I just hung up on Lorca dying and do I just want to believe his character isn't gone for good (either version)? I suspect Philippa will be integral in revealing those answers. I liked Stamets even when he's grumpy, hahaha, maybe even more so in some ways. I found his transformation fascinating, too, he also became a more "complete" person like Ash, I think, once he became plugged into the mycelial network, but I've always liked those Star Trek characters who have a little bite or are difficult to get close to; they often turn out to be quite interesting.
|
|
newnation
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
PSN: chrisdavis90
Posts: 61 Likes: 55
inherit
9774
0
55
newnation
61
Jan 31, 2018 21:20:31 GMT
January 2018
newnation
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
chrisdavis90
|
Post by newnation on Mar 27, 2018 17:48:17 GMT
DS9 was my favourite trek. I grew up on TNG and love it. DS9 was what I had been wanting but didn't really perceive. That and Babylon 5 at the time. (I never really understood the rivalry between the two and loved them both for different, albeit similar, reasons.) In the Pale Moonlight was stunning, particularly at the time. Now after seeing how writing has gone in the years after; it's nothing short of hauntingly beautiful. "...and if I had to do it all over again, I would." Finally a leader that actually was faced with decisions that weren't just hard or difficult, but impossible. Going through a bramble bush wearing your honour and coming out the other end with nothing but tatters. In the Pale Moonlight is definitely my favorite Star Trek episode of all the series and proved why Avery Brooks and Benjamin Sisko are so awesome. The performance that Brooks gave was amazing and the decision that Sisko made was something that no other captain would have made....maybe Kirk would have come close but I still don't think he would have had the stones to do it. I'm not sure but I think Garak may be my favorite character or at least in my top 5. I think the rivalry between Babylon 5 and Ds9 came about because J. Michael Straczynski went to Paramount with a bible for Babylon 5 to see if they would be interested in making the show. They passed on it and when Babylon 5 was finally in production Paramount announced that DS9 was in production a few months after Warner Brothers announced that they were making it. Since Paramount still had a copy of the bible it was pretty clear that a lot of the material that came from it went into DS9. Straczynski never sued because he didn't think that would be productive.
|
|
inherit
Champion of Kirkwall
1212
0
8,023
Sifr
3,737
Aug 25, 2016 20:05:11 GMT
August 2016
sifr
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
|
Post by Sifr on Mar 27, 2018 23:39:08 GMT
Two random things about Discovery;
The Black Com-Badges on Discovery (explicitly mentioned and then never referred to again after Ep 3) might have been part of Fuller's plans for the show, which were quietly dropped once he left as showrunner halfway through production. Heard this mentioned as the explanation for what was going on there, but not sure how true or not it is?
Also something that just occurred to me and now seriously bugs me.
Why does Discovery, which seems to be a brand new ship that's right off the assembly line, have a registration number (1031) far lower than that of the Shenzhou (1227) and the Enterprise (1701), ships that are 20 and 10 years old respectively?
Is Discovery actually an older ship that's been refitted to the point it can be considered "brand new" (like the Enterprise refit in TMP)? Or if it's using a legacy registration from an earlier Discovery, why does the designation on the hull not indicate this is actually the Discovery-A?
(I know ship registrations have never made sense in Trek, but logically a lower number would indicate the ship was older, right?)
|
|