At 5/17/13 04:49 PM, TheMaster wrote: Keep in mind DS9 doesn't get REALLY good until season 3. I still really like the first two seasons as well, though. "Duet" is an early highpoint.

I figured it'd pick up eventually. I'm about three quarters of the way through the first season just now and it has been alright but hasn't felt like anything special yet. At this point, I think I prefer TNG but still eager to see what happens in DS9. I suppose it's only natural that a series would take a little while before it finds its groove.

Does it have a lot of continuing story lines? That's one of the things I was most looking forward to about DS9 but for the most part it has just felt like adventure of the week type stuff so far, with the odd exception. I'm also still in the process of trying to memorise the names of the main characters.

At 5/22/13 04:40 PM, Dean wrote: Does it have a lot of continuing story lines? That's one of the things I was most looking forward to about DS9 but for the most part it has just felt like adventure of the week type stuff so far, with the odd exception. I'm also still in the process of trying to memorise the names of the main characters.

The first two series don't, other than the infrequent mentions of "The Dominion". What that is will become clear either at the end of season 2 or the start of season 3, I forget which. From there on it becomes a lot less episodic.

Since the new movies take place at about the same time as the original series, then that must mean that the events of the original movies (V'ger, Khan, the whales) will soon come to be.

I think the episode I just watched had the first mention of "the dominian" that I've heard. Still pretty early on in season 2 but I'm enjoying Deep Space Nine. I like the characters, although I like the TOS and TNG characters too. At first I thought Quark was going to really get on my nerves but he's actually turning out to be pretty funny.

At 5/23/13 01:19 AM, Painbringer wrote: Since the new movies take place at about the same time as the original series, then that must mean that the events of the original movies (V'ger, Khan, the whales) will soon come to be.

If I remember correctly, the new Trek films take place in an alternate timeline. So technically, anything could happen I suppose. I've still not seen Into Darkness yet, so I'm not up to speed on what has been happening but I'm sure I remember future Spock saying something about the timeline being disrupted.

At 5/30/13 09:09 AM, Dean wrote:

At 5/23/13 01:19 AM, Painbringer wrote: Since the new movies take place at about the same time as the original series, then that must mean that the events of the original movies (V'ger, Khan, the whales) will soon come to be.

If I remember correctly, the new Trek films take place in an alternate timeline. So technically, anything could happen I suppose. I've still not seen Into Darkness yet, so I'm not up to speed on what has been happening but I'm sure I remember future Spock saying something about the timeline being disrupted.

It's a divergent timeline, so everything prior to the when Star Trek 09 takes places still happened the same as in the original series.

Basically it just takes Enterprise as being canon, but stuff like V'Ger and the whale probe should also be ready to happen since they were set in motion before the split.

At 5/30/13 05:14 PM, TheMaster wrote:
Basically it just takes Enterprise as being canon, but stuff like V'Ger and the whale probe should also be ready to happen since they were set in motion before the split.

In theory, those should be taking place but since the Enterprise crew is still somewhat young, it won't be happening any time soon. For future ST movies following J.J. Abrams' timeline, they might make references to V'Ger but I don't think they will focus a whole movie on them. I've heard rumours that Into Darkness was not originally supposed to feature Khan and Carol Marcus but they decided to bring in those characters to attract long time Star Trek fans. I'm not sure how well that worked out considering I've read several reviews not liking that Khan was white. :P

At 5/31/13 12:22 PM, DarkSoldier wrote:

At 5/30/13 05:14 PM, TheMaster wrote:

I've read several reviews not liking that Khan was white. :P

I actually liked his portrayal. Wrath of Khan is the only original series movie I've seen fully (I couldn't last through V'ger), and both Khan's seemed really viscous.

One point in the film I was actually pretty shocked at how gruesome they made Khan appear, even if he was more subdued (more like the original Khan) for the rest of the movie.

At 5/31/13 11:58 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote: I actually liked his portrayal. Wrath of Khan is the only original series movie I've seen fully (I couldn't last through V'ger), and both Khan's seemed really viscous.

One point in the film I was actually pretty shocked at how gruesome they made Khan appear, even if he was more subdued (more like the original Khan) for the rest of the movie.

I thought Cumberbatch played the character he was given very well, but that character wasn't Khan. Khan is nothing if not emotional, always extremely passionate and charismatic. If you want to do a cold, emotionally detached sociopath, why make him Khan?

The lack of originality is one of the biggest problems with Into Darkness. Star Trek '09 got the level of homages and callbacks spot on. Into Darkness overdoes it. I've already seen The Wrath of Khan, make a new film instead.

Just glad it's doing pretty well at the box office so we'll probably see a third picture. There's a ton of potential in this cast, and Abrams is a perfectly adequate director, if nothing out of the ordinary. All they're lacking is a decent script.

I am in.
I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness. It was good. It had the original Spock talk to new Spock

Live Long and Prosper

At 6/2/13 01:36 AM, Valor56 wrote: I am in.
I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness. It was good. It had the original Spock talk to new Spock

Live Long and Prosper

Also I should point out that Khan in now a 300 year old superhuman

At 6/2/13 01:36 AM, Valor56 wrote: I am in.

Welcome!

I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness. It was good. It had the original Spock talk to new Spock

Indeed it did.

I thought Into Darkness was great. Yeah, some minor plot holes and whatnot, but overall, awesome. Cumberbatch was sick. New Klingons looked fantastic. The only thing I'm kinda iffy on was Spock's KHAN scream- I started laughing, and I don't think that was the intention of the scene.

At 6/6/13 02:14 PM, Frenzy wrote: Spock's KHAN scream

You just ruined it for anyone who hasn't yet seen it.

At 6/6/13 02:35 PM, Painbringer wrote:

At 6/6/13 02:14 PM, Frenzy wrote: Spock's KHAN scream

You just ruined it for anyone who hasn't yet seen it.

Whoops... my bad. It's not exactly an important plot point though, so I don't feel too badly.

SPOILERS for anyone who hasn't seen into Darkness.

I felt the biggest plot hole was that the Klingons weren't in an all out war with the federation at the end of the movie. Apparently they just decided to start the 5 year mission, and no Klingons are pissed about an entire sqaud getting massacred.

The biggest disappointment is that a Federation Klingon war is just screaming to be a third movie's plot.

Well, just getting started on season 3 of Deep Space Nine. It's kicking off!

At 6/20/13 06:38 PM, Dean wrote: Well, just getting started on season 3 of Deep Space Nine. It's kicking off!

I stated watching DS9 too.

I'm on 2nd season.

*Potential DS9 season 3 spoilers*

The revelation of the Changeling's role caught me a little off guard. I'd read somewhere in the past that Odo eventually discovers his own kind and they they were people who liked to enforce order, but I wasn't expecting them to be revealed as the founders of the Dominian.

I see what you guys meant about Deep Space Nine picking up once it hits season 3. Things are definitely starting to get more interesting and these continual story arcs are definitely a welcome change over the TOS and TNG adventure of the week episodes. I still like that format, but having some continuation in the series definitely helps to add that "I wonder what will happen next" factor.

I have been wondering, in Star Trek V, what's with the fake god that they encountered? Was it some kind of an entity that was trapped for some reason or was it something else for that matter?

At 7/16/13 11:01 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: I have been wondering, in Star Trek V, what's with the fake god that they encountered? Was it some kind of an entity that was trapped for some reason or was it something else for that matter?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/God_%28Sha_Ka_Ree%29

Easy.

At 6/23/13 07:48 AM, Dean wrote: I see what you guys meant about Deep Space Nine picking up once it hits season 3. Things are definitely starting to get more interesting and these continual story arcs are definitely a welcome change over the TOS and TNG adventure of the week episodes. I still like that format, but having some continuation in the series definitely helps to add that "I wonder what will happen next" factor.

You won't be disappointed with the rest of the series then. The continual story arcs really facilitate all the nuances of real life issues, though not as many as Babylon 5 might have done IMO. The war with he Dominion versus the Alpha Quadrant, is not unlike WWII, in which Gene Roddenberry served as a pilot (and later as an L.A. cop). There's plenty of twists and turns, new organizations and main characters in store. Enjoy your discovery of this underestimated ST series :)

At 7/16/13 11:23 AM, VicariousE wrote: The war with he Dominion versus the Alpha Quadrant, is not unlike WWII, in which Gene Roddenberry served as a pilot (and later as an L.A. cop).

Gene would probably have disliked DS9, since it goes against the utopian vision of the future he had. All his threats were external, but DS9 has corruption within the Federation and fallible, more human characters, not the enlightened philosophers his own two shows were populated with.

Still my favourite Star Trek, though.

At 7/16/13 11:51 AM, TheMaster wrote: Gene would probably have disliked DS9, since it goes against the utopian vision of the future he had. All his threats were external, but DS9 has corruption within the Federation and fallible, more human characters, not the enlightened philosophers his own two shows were populated with.

Still my favourite Star Trek, though.

Very likely true, Gene was a lover not a fighter. Making peace always looks boring, but he did he good job making it look interesting, even with TNG. But like the plot of the old movie "Forbidden Planet", no matter how far advanced we become, we're still fragile animals at the mercy of a corporeal existence.

Yeah, DS9's a real pearl, plenty to like about it, especially the realism.

At 7/16/13 11:09 AM, Darthdenim wrote:

At 7/16/13 11:01 AM, Idiot-Finder wrote: I have been wondering, in Star Trek V, what's with the fake god that they encountered? Was it some kind of an entity that was trapped for some reason or was it something else for that matter?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/God_%28Sha_Ka_Ree%29

Easy.

Still no info of it's origin comes to light, it makes you wonder.

At 6/20/13 06:38 PM, Dean wrote: Well, just getting started on season 3 of Deep Space Nine. It's kicking off!

Oh yeah, season 3 is where DS9 really started hitting its stride... just wait until you get into the Dominion War and that whole plot thread. Awesome stuff!

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/God_%28Sha_Ka_Ree%29

Easy.

Still no info of it's origin comes to light, it makes you wonder.

Uh, there was info on it's origin. From the Q Continuum books.

It's from the expanded universe canon, but it's there.

At 7/16/13 10:07 PM, Darthdenim wrote:

It's from the expanded universe canon, but it's there.

That's interesting, should shed some lights on this.

After quite a long break (decided to watch Sopranos and Twin Peaks) I'm back to watching Deep Space Nine. Just got started on season 4 and what a first episode that was. Sisko goes bald and looks much better, Worf joins the show and we get that nice battle sequence with the Klingons. The show took three steps in the right direction.

At 5/10/13 03:29 PM, TheMaster wrote: Saw Into Darkness today.

Such a disappointment.

Late to the game - just saw this last night - but I'd have to agree. There are so many things but just off the top of my head:

-Why are all these young, inexperienced people running a starship? Why did Kirk get to skip right to captain? Aside from Bones and Scotty, they all seem so young and inexperienced for the positions they're in. Because Kirk is "special"? I don't get it. (I haven't seen TOS, so maybe the answers are there.)

-Why the stupid relationship stuff? Seems like they want to appeal to women. They act like children, not professional officers. I HATED the ST: Enterprise because of this. They all had an irritating "shtick" that got really old, vs. being real, believable people.

-I don't get why the admiral turned into a sociopathic murderer. Sure, he was worried about war, but it doesn't seem plausible that he would destroy the Enterprise like he wanted to. Their society is supposed to be mostly beyond that, isn't it? And they didn't seem to point out that TONS of people were blown out into space. Nobody even mentioned it. That was pretty horrific if you think about it.

-Doesn't Earth have defenses? When the Enterprise was falling, you're think their air defenses would be right on that shit, but I didn't see another vessel at all. Not to mention Khan's actions.

-WHY did they have to switch around Spock / Kirk dying...or have that at all. And when he screamed KHAAAAN. SO STUPID.

The whole movie felt like it was a bunch of Star Trek related shit just slammed into the movie to appeal to everyone. Kirk had to be completely irresponsible and wreckless, bed a few women, and save the day; Spock had to object to shit, overcome his Vulcan ways and do the unexpected, and argue with Uhura (WTF); Scotty had to complain, Bones had to say "I'm a doctor..." They had to have crazy, stupid relationship drama to appeal to women (or something) and a bunch of overly sappy bullshit otherwise.

The whole story seemed so implausible and terribly contrived. It was as if someone skimmed a bunch of TOS scripts or watched them in 2x speed, and picked bits and pieces of shit w/o really understanding anything above a surface level about that universe. Then it's as if they took concepts and wrote them on pieces of paper, and ordered the concepts by picking them out of a hat. Then they had a bunch of Hollywood execs come up with ways to appeal to a wider audience. I'm surprised they weren't drinking Pepsi and driving Acuras.

But honestly the same could be said about almost every Hollywood movie these days, especially reboots and remakes.

At 6/1/13 04:23 PM, TheMaster wrote: I thought Cumberbatch played the character he was given very well, but that character wasn't Khan. Khan is nothing if not emotional, always extremely passionate and charismatic. If you want to do a cold, emotionally detached sociopath, why make him Khan?

No kidding. Cumberbatch played an excellent sociopath but when he revealed he was Khan (I already knew) I just thought that was so stupid how they did that. It's like I said in my previous post, it's as if they took the name "Khan" as a concept, put it into a hat, and drew it out to be randomly inserted into the movie willy nilly.