Chef Jim Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Why on earth would anyone want to watch a new series when the original is on Netflix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 (edited) Why on earth would anyone want to watch a new series when the original is on Netflix? Because some do not actually use netflix (or facebook or twitter or ...) Edited May 26, 2016 by Koolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 Because some do not actually use netflix (or facebook or twitter or ...) Well then they will be stuck with recycled ideas that can't hold a feather to the originals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 26, 2016 Share Posted May 26, 2016 For me it's all going to come down to how the franchise is treated. Most of the various television series were decent, if not great. Same with most of the movies. The only Star Trek that I had a problem with were the reboot movies - ( I realize this is completely subjective, but ) the characters from the original series are too closely tied to the original actors who portrayed them. No disrespect to Pine, Quinto, Urban, etc, but they don't have the same chemistry as did Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley. They never will. In my opinion, all Star Trek characters need to be played by their original actors, especially iconic characters such as Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Picard, Worf, Riker, etc. And no more re-imagining racial appearances like in the reboots - I was irked at the change in the Romulans, and outright angry at the new look of the Klingons. It was difficult enough getting used to the change in the Klingon appearance when TNG came out without changing things even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 For me it's all going to come down to how the franchise is treated. Most of the various television series were decent, if not great. Same with most of the movies. The only Star Trek that I had a problem with were the reboot movies - ( I realize this is completely subjective, but ) the characters from the original series are too closely tied to the original actors who portrayed them. No disrespect to Pine, Quinto, Urban, etc, but they don't have the same chemistry as did Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley. They never will. In my opinion, all Star Trek characters need to be played by their original actors, especially iconic characters such as Kirk, Spock, Scotty, McCoy, Picard, Worf, Riker, etc. And no more re-imagining racial appearances like in the reboots - I was irked at the change in the Romulans, and outright angry at the new look of the Klingons. It was difficult enough getting used to the change in the Klingon appearance when TNG came out without changing things even further. Those are some odd (IMO) criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 27, 2016 Author Share Posted May 27, 2016 Those are some odd (IMO) criticisms. hab sosli' Quch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 And no more re-imagining racial appearances like in the reboots - I was irked at the change in the Romulans, and outright angry at the new look of the Klingons. It was difficult enough getting used to the change in the Klingon appearance when TNG came out without changing things even further. Maybe I'm blurring the timeline of what came out first, but wasn't that updated klingon look from TNG already used in the movies? I'm picturing Christopher Lloyd in my mind right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpberr Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I'm bored with all these recycled ideas. I will say that TNG became great because they made changes that turned out to be home runs, not strikeouts. The casting of Patrick Stewart for example wasn't met with the most excited fanfare (A theater actor playing the Captain! Blasphemy!) but turned out to be excellent. Instead of going for young hot things, they actually had a cast of established, older actors and actresses. A novel idea today. They introduced new things like holodecks and interesting new foes like the Borg and Q. They were one of the first shows to pull off serial storytelling in the 1990s among a sea of paint by the numbers procedural shows. I thought that TNG was the best of the Star Trek shows because there appeared to be thought put into it from the start and unlike the JJ Abrams storytelling nonsense of today, they tied up the show quite nicely when it ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I don't think it's fair to compare the movies to the tv series. In retrospect TNG was awful in it's first two seasons, from the overacting to the bad synthesized music. It took awhile for it to hit it's stride. The latest movies didn't have that break-in period. Regarding the movies, I liked both of the recent reboots. I nice mix of nostalgia for old timers with updates and action for the young who never watched (although I don't like the Spock-Uhura relationship). More of the original and TNG movies were bad than good. There's only 3 that I would say were good; Khan, Whales, and Borg. One thing that has always disappointed me about the movies is their portrayal of aliens. I can understand if the tv shows didn't have the budget to do more. They're always humanoid and look like an actor with some body paint and simple face applications, like you could see on Face Off. And too many speak perfect English. I liked the TNG version of the Klingons and the Borg. The newest version of the Klingons is a step back. Given the CGI possibilities, it's time they created some non-humanoid characters. I'd like to watch the new tv series, but I'm not paying for another service. Hopefully my son will find them for free on the inter-web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I don't think it's fair to compare the movies to the tv series. In retrospect TNG was awful in it's first two seasons, from the overacting to the bad synthesized music. It took awhile for it to hit it's stride. The latest movies didn't have that break-in period. Regarding the movies, I liked both of the recent reboots. I nice mix of nostalgia for old timers with updates and action for the young who never watched (although I don't like the Spock-Uhura relationship). More of the original and TNG movies were bad than good. There's only 3 that I would say were good; Khan, Whales, and Borg. One thing that has always disappointed me about the movies is their portrayal of aliens. I can understand if the tv shows didn't have the budget to do more. They're always humanoid and look like an actor with some body paint and simple face applications, like you could see on Face Off. And too many speak perfect English. I liked the TNG version of the Klingons and the Borg. The newest version of the Klingons is a step back. Given the CGI possibilities, it's time they created some non-humanoid characters. I'd like to watch the new tv series, but I'm not paying for another service. Hopefully my son will find them for free on the inter-web. The Undiscovered Country was pretty good. Gotta love shakespeare-quoting klingons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 The Undiscovered Country was pretty good. Gotta love shakespeare-quoting klingons. The story was OK, but the crew was so old by then it made it tough to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 I'm bored with all these recycled ideas. I will say that TNG became great because they made changes that turned out to be home runs, not strikeouts. The casting of Patrick Stewart for example wasn't met with the most excited fanfare (A theater actor playing the Captain! Blasphemy!) but turned out to be excellent. Instead of going for young hot things, they actually had a cast of established, older actors and actresses. A novel idea today. They introduced new things like holodecks and interesting new foes like the Borg and Q. They were one of the first shows to pull off serial storytelling in the 1990s among a sea of paint by the numbers procedural shows. I thought that TNG was the best of the Star Trek shows because there appeared to be thought put into it from the start and unlike the JJ Abrams storytelling nonsense of today, they tied up the show quite nicely when it ended. No disrespect to TGregg but I'm at a point where if I see JJ Abrahms' name on something I avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 No disrespect to TGregg but I'm at a point where if I see JJ Abrahms' name on something I avoid it. You didn't like the new Star Wars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Because: Firefly. Yeah, pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Those are some odd (IMO) criticisms. Maybe - I'm a stickler for not making changes to stories or characters that I like, but that's just me. Maybe I'm blurring the timeline of what came out first, but wasn't that updated klingon look from TNG already used in the movies? I'm picturing Christopher Lloyd in my mind right now. Now that you mention it, I believe you are correct, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 You didn't like the new Star Wars? I haven't seen it yet. I did see his first Star Trek reboot. It was okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 Maybe I'm blurring the timeline of what came out first, but wasn't that updated klingon look from TNG already used in the movies? I'm picturing Christopher Lloyd in my mind right now. You sir, are correct The Klingon inconsistences that always irritated me was: -How was Worf in Undiscovered Country? -Romulans using Klingon ships. Yeah I get there was supposed to have been an alliance, but just seems like a really lame excuse at why they used the same prop for both ships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 The Undiscovered Country was pretty good. Gotta love shakespeare-quoting klingons. And why not? Hamlet was originally written in Klingon... http://www.amazon.com/Klingon-Hamlet-William-Shakespeare/dp/0671035789 You sir, are correct The Klingon inconsistences that always irritated me was: -How was Worf in Undiscovered Country? -Romulans using Klingon ships. Yeah I get there was supposed to have been an alliance, but just seems like a really lame excuse at why they used the same prop for both ships 1) It was Worf's grandfather. 2) Technically, that's a Romulan inconsistency. And it only happened in one episode. And only because a prop handler accidentally stepped on the Romulan warbird when they were unpacking it for this episode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 And why not? Hamlet was originally written in Klingon... http://www.amazon.com/Klingon-Hamlet-William-Shakespeare/dp/0671035789 1) It was Worf's grandfather. And it was the same place where Worf was rescued by the federation years later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 And this is why the reboot instead of a new continuation series. Too much damn history to try and figure out all the ins and outs of every single scene in every single story line to see if it jives with the fanboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts