It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Star Trek is dead, fire at will!

page: 11
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Fire at will?

Will Wheaton?
Come on even Sheldon Cooper forgave him.


Bwahahahahaha....

I thought a couple of years ago that they should do a show from the Klingon perspective and it's dealings with the Federation and others. Call it Empire. I still think that would fly.


K'Plah!!




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: thepixelpusher

I've seen this series, and quite enjoyed it.

I am interested in other fan made series though, if you know of any good ones.

ETA:

I've also been thinking about getting into some Trek books!

If anyone here has some idea on where to start there.. I know there are tons of them out there. Some more cannon than others. Some better than others. A daunting task to approach without some guidance.



I have never read the books but was thinking about giving them a go to fill the void.

The other half bought me a load back that were given away free but out of the 15 or so not a single one was a standalone book and non made up the full series or trliogy so I have a half shelf full of half stories now. I need to buy the ones to fill the gaps and see what they are like.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Star Trek is dead, fire at will!

I think only zombies like Discovery.

How bout creating NEW orginal SCIFI.

Or is Hollylame only capable of regurgitating the same crap with better cgi?



Creating a new scifi universe is a very complex and very expensive venture with a history of failures financially so investors are not really interested on a gamble that is likely to fail, they are more interested in a product that will produce a smaller but less risky return and you cannot really blame them for that I guess.

It is the same reason that the movie industry is just endless reboots and super hero's that they already know have a return on the investment.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific
Roddenberry tapped the best sci-fi-fi writers of the day in some episodes like "City on the Edge of Forever". It's content/writing that lacks in movies and TV Shows in many cases. They (entertainment industry) usually go for style over substance.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Or they're spreading the propaganda across multiple shows and demographics.

I don't know how enjoying Discovery makes me a snowflake though.

After watching some Orville, I do agree that it is the better show.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Good. Common ground on which we agree.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: nonspecific
Roddenberry tapped the best sci-fi-fi writers of the day in some episodes like "City on the Edge of Forever". It's content/writing that lacks in movies and TV Shows in many cases. They (entertainment industry) usually go for style over substance.


I agree that cgi and special effects have made is easier to get away with substandard writing but tos also had the benefit of a smaller playing field did it not?

There was far more scope to expand new ideas and many things now mundane were at the time ground breaking.

The episode in std where Mudd was coming back over and over to steal the ship should have been cool but it left you with a "Oh the old time looping groundhog day type episode, fair enough" kind of attitude as we have seen in in trek and stargate and others multiple times before.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: thepixelpusher

Or they're spreading the propaganda across multiple shows and demographics.

I don't know how enjoying Discovery makes me a snowflake though.

After watching some Orville, I do agree that it is the better show.



I would not say the Orville is better or worse personally, they are both ok and could get better in my opinion.

The Orville universe is interesting as we do not yet know the boundries and it does feel a lot like tng with the missions and one story a week vibe but it could struggle to form long lasting bonds with the charecters and that is something you need in a decent scifi universe.

The charecter of Issac although good could never have the scope of data for example and if it does it has already been done.
edit on 6/11/2017 by nonspecific because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Personally I have no beefs with it, it seems grittier and darker than the rest of the franchise not unlike the remake of Battlestar Galactica, yeees it will take some getting use to but it's OK..the Orville is somewhat like the franchise of old, but it too have some dark and interesting takes..a comedy that it is.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Oh snap! I mentioned the Orville without reading your reply..but I'm in agreement.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman
McFarlane toys, the best toy maker on the planet isn't good enough for you? Show me on the doll where the bad tv show hurt you!



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

man just dont partake then, just shut up about it lol moan moan moan, just watch something else ffs, take you little rant to the rant section



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: dan121212
a reply to: tadaman

man just dont partake then, just shut up about it lol moan moan moan, just watch something else ffs, take you little rant to the rant section

Man's critique is OK, I have a different view, but I understand his.
Some movie or TV can suc..getting feed back here is sometimes necessary.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I have read pages of comments until my head felt like it was in a transport beam set for daiquiri.

Let me boil all that away to some basic clear points why STD (funny letter combo) isn't true trek.

one... Mr Roddenberry clearly stated he didn't want a "who was gonna be the cameo " or one shot theme show.
he wanted a CONTINUING STORY/UNIVERSE. one with growth, character development and (while abit naive) how man has grown out of its base instinct..
He wanted a (my words his sediment) a "living breathing growing" universe.


Two... his main focus was THE STORY....not effects , actors , causes....be good, bad, right or wrong (by the society of when it was made) . In short the (for example) "effects" be advance or cheesy were to accent the story, not take its place, overshadow , or compensate for a bad story.

Three....the tech was supposed to be advanced. Now here is where I am gonna go Geek. I have read that some claim "we have to change for the times since our (ex) cell phones look more advanced than the communicators or more advanced than the "push button just voice boxes on the bulkhead". But tell me...what cell phone can instantly communicate with total clarity from a earth to say the moon...much less farther?
what starships do we have that you can just wear a skimpy skin tight suit (thanks 7 of 9 and troi ) in relative complete safety surviving all the universe can do to mess up your day? You dont so maybe that "voice box on the wall" is better made and more advanced than we have now...

Four....star trek has existed for a LONG TIME....so the basic "roots" of the whole universe, how it works, Cannon if you will have well been established. In fact it has literally millions of fans thanks to that....Fans that cover older to younger.
fans that have had issues with specifics of every incarnation but still due to continuity have accepted changes willingly that fall into that framework.


So up until JJ abrams (I dont give a quano about "cannon") you had a very rich universe that had many opportunities to grow characters, grow tech, have multiple storylines and even have change (like the klingons going from smooth to full head ridges) that dont disrupt that flow.

From origional, TNG, DS9, Voyager, enterprise and all movies up until JJ remakes had (by varying degrees of success).

the downward slide didn't start with discovery but JJ abrams...
He turned effects, action, flare lighting and cgi as the main show over the STORY.
I wont say he is totally off his nut....he showed promise on some of the parts of each movie with IMO exception of the latest star trek movie but overall forgot what made star trek what it was in his quest to "put his spin on it"

what discovery did was build on "screw continuity" , make effects and action center stage, and blatantly cram an "cause"
(ex push for a female capt with a male name who doesn't follow the rules) over THE STORY to a level that makes JJ abrams look like Roddenberry.

but the biggest blue whale in the cargo hold that everyone cannot ignore is this.
CBS MADE IT SO TO SEE IT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. To add insult to injury on a paid streaming sight that is not one of the big ones (netflixs, hulu, ect) that most already pay for.
Gene Roddenberry DELIBERATELY put it on public tv (and most of the later shows as well) to get it to the masses.
if he had not done so the call to bring it back (and later more shows) would not have happened.
in short NO FAN BASE.

Lastly the claims of supporters here and on social media that its a "success" also have the second blue whale in the hold.
you claim all the people watching it, but cant seem to find any comparison to viewership of others WITHOUT paying for it and/or fans vs those DELIBERATELY paying to see it.
I bet tribbles to Romulan ale that the numbers would not be even close.

in short you want an example of how it should have been done and bet would have done well is "anaxar"
keeps history , introduces new ideas (help from others) , action, appears good acting, and effects.
Especially if on non paid tv.

Scrounger.


edit on 6-11-2017 by scrounger because: correct spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

yeah but this thread is not asking for feedback its just stating star trek is dead because he dont like it lol pathetic really



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

Well, take your little comment and shove it beyond your anus.

You are telling me to shut up when you are the one making yourself read this.

Thats not too bright.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

making myself read this? what does that even mean? i dont make myself read anything, i read if i want to, i read all the threads if possible. just sounds like your ranting about a show thats only a few episodes in. chill out man, give it a chance before you shoot it down.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

No. Ive seen plenty and explained myself fairly about it.

Stop crying yourself. You sound like that "leave Britney Spears alone" person.

Sheesh. It sucks, what did you expect?


edit on 11 6 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dan121212

I am GIVING feedback. I am not CBS where I need feedback. ............

They would ignore it anyways and sue everyone involved.

CBS is the Metallica of TV.


edit on 11 6 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: dan121212

No. Ive seen plenty and explained myself fairly about it.

Stop crying yourself. You sound like that "leave Britney Spears alone" person.

Sheesh. It sucks, what did you expect?



Go back and watch the first six episodes of season one of the the next generation and give an honest aprasial of the show based on those episodes.

Pay particular attention to episode 3.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join