Blue Origin is sending William Shatner to space on October 12

[Puiu]

@captaincranky @Puiu For your amusement -

The comments on this are funny

 

[captaincranky]

I guess then it's cool if Shatner can't take the G-Forces and collapses. I mean, there is very little or no health issues involved with that, but you have to wake him up once in space

Or maybe he'll just crap his pants, which will no doubt be kept out of the news.

That's not quite as far fetched as it seems, since as humans age, their "pooping muscles" get "out of shape".

There's a specific medical term for it, but even I can't figure out a search term to google for it.

 

[captaincranky]

I never actually watched T J hooker

Nor did I

but I thought that Shatner gave an Emmy-worthy performance as Denny Crane in Boston Legal.

Indeed he did. The series ended on a bizarre scene, in which it was basically alluded to, that Shatter and James Spader were possibly going to get involved in a physical relationship. Basically they were sitting around getting drunk, with the topic of conversation being, "who needs women, thay're not worth the aggravation they engender, <Was that a pun?

 

[captaincranky]

Oh yeah, it's her "big hair" that you like, eh?

Well, TBH, I like the fact that's she's slender (*), blonde, and more than likely, not "enhanced". She also had a great face in her day, although that was hard to see, as the big hair was so much of a distraction.

(*) Unlike the food stamp fed "fatted cattle" that roam America's streets these days..

Ms Locklear was also not terribly buxom, which appeals to me. Although, I know many "drink beer by the gallon, knuckle dragging neanderthals, who would beat you to a pulp if you don't like their chosen football team", would question my taste about a female's "top deck".

"Look at the jugs on that on". (Dear lord, spare me).

 

[wiyosaya]

Or maybe he'll just crap his pants, which will no doubt be kept out of the news.

That's not quite as far fetched as it seems, since as humans age, their "pooping muscles" get "out of shape".

There's a specific medical term for it, but even I can't figure out a search term to google for it.

Incontinence.

 

[wiyosaya]

I never actually watched T J hooker

I must confess, I did. I don't think I would ever re-watch it, though.

 

[captaincranky]

Incontinence.

Yes but, there's a specific medical term for the state the muscles enter, that leads to incontinence.

You know the mutts in that profession.have scientific terms for things, so that the general population will think they're, "super-intelligent", when they spout them.

My doctor told me the term, it went in one ear, and came out my a**. I guess you could say I have, "vocabulary incontinence".

 

[captaincranky]

I must confess, I did. I don't think I would ever re-watch it, though.

Then content yourself with the swimsuit photo of Heather I posted. The show didn't have much more to offer.

T J Hooker compared to a decent cop show, (sorry "process drama"), is like trying to compare "Bonanza", to the rubber stamp turd they dropped later called, "Lancer". .

 

[wiyosaya]

Then content yourself with the swimsuit photo of Heather I posted. The show didn't have much more to offer.

T J Hooker compared to a decent cop show, (sorry "process drama"), is like trying to compare "Bonanza", to the rubber stamp turd they dropped later called, "Lancer". .

Yes, I think Heather Locklear was a bigger draw for me back in the day.

I never heard of "Lancer". Sounds like I was not missing anything, though.

I'd have to say that I am much more impressed by relatively current shows, though. I say "relatively" because though Babylon 5 came out in the 90's, it is still, perhaps, my favorite show and is still relevant, topic wise, in this day and age, and, it is being rebooted by the show's original creator - which I am looking forward to seeing.

On the topic of Star Trek, though there are some people, notably they seem to lean right, politically, that do not like it, I think Star Trek Discovery is, perhaps, the best Star Trek series ever. Fortunately, my local library has the Blu-rays of all three seasons. I'm not sure you will like it, but if you get a chance to see it, you might like it.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Nor did I

Indeed he did. The series ended on a bizarre scene, in which it was basically alluded to, that Shatter and James Spader were possibly going to get involved in a physical relationship. Basically they were sitting around getting drunk, with the topic of conversation being, "who needs women, thay're not worth the aggravation they engender, <Was that a pun?

I did always wonder about that. Although that little escapade Denny had in Las Vegas was very hetero.
"Still undefeated, Denny Crane."

Well, TBH, I like the fact that's she's slender (*), blonde, and more than likely, not "enhanced". She also had a great face in her day, although that was hard to see, as the big hair was so much of a distraction.

Yeah, I'm in my 40s. I know VERY WELL how attractive Heather Locklear was.

(*) Unlike the food stamp fed "fatted cattle" that roam America's streets these days..

Ms Locklear was also not terribly buxom, which appeals to me. Although, I know many "drink beer by the gallon, knuckle dragging neanderthals, who would beat you to a pulp if you don't like their chosen football team", would question my taste about a female's "top deck".

I'm not a boob man either. When you get to be my age, you tend to think a little more long-term and the bigger they are, the further they fall. I much prefer an athletic build in women as opposed to buxom.

"Look at the jugs on that on". (Dear lord, spare me).

Tell me about it. I've never been that guy but I've seen more than my share of 'em.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I must confess, I did. I don't think I would ever re-watch it, though.

I didn't watch it because I thought/heard that it sucked, I was just always watching something else when it was on.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Yes, I think Heather Locklear was a bigger draw for me back in the day.

I never heard of "Lancer". Sounds like I was not missing anything, though.

I'd have to say that I am much more impressed by relatively current shows, though. I say "relatively" because though Babylon 5 came out in the 90's, it is still, perhaps, my favorite show and is still relevant, topic wise, in this day and age, and, it is being rebooted by the show's original creator - which I am looking forward to seeing.

Babylon5 was a phenomenal series. I loved the great CGI ships in it like the Narn G'Quan-class Cruiser, the Centauri Primus-class Dreadnought, the Minbari Sharlin-class War Cruiser, the EA Omega-class Destroyer, Kosh's Vorlon Frigate and the most sinister looking ship in Sci-Fi history, the Shadow Battlecrab. J Michael Straczynski is an absolute genius and he really showed it in those long story arcs. I've learnt everything that I could find about it. I'd like to see a prequel like the Dilgar War or to get full seasons of the ISA-Drakh war.

They had such a talented cast too. There is no question in my mind that one of the biggest crimes in TV history was that Andreas Katsulas didn't win an Emmy Award for his portrayal of G'Kar. The same could be said for Peter Jurasik's portrayal of Londo Mollari. Those two characters are as iconic to me in Sci-Fi as Kirk, Spock, Skywalker and Solo.

On the topic of Star Trek, though there are some people, notably they seem to lean right, politically, that do not like it, I think Star Trek Discovery is, perhaps, the best Star Trek series ever.

Ok, you completely lost me there. I can't stand Discovery, in fact, I absolutely HATE it. I've been a trekkie since I was ten years old and as a result, I know the lore and Discovery just breaks it left and right with reckless abandon. If they weren't trying to pass it off as a Star Trek series, I'd probably enjoy it like I did The Expanse but they are.

For example, only Enterprise personnel should have the Enterprise's arrowhead-shaped emblem in that time period. This is canon from TOS all the way to ENT. Other ships had different crests than the Enterprise's and it just irks me that they tossed aside 40 years of canon:

These crests were shown on-screen:

Some may say "Oh it was a production mistake in TOS" but they're wrong because that canon was observed in Enterprise, the last of the "real" Star Trek series. When the USS Defiant had been dragged to the Mirror Universe by the Tholians (which was canon in TOS), Mirror-Archer tried on a TOS-Era Captain's Wrap (which he seemed to really like) and you can see, clear as day, the Defiant's directional-D on his hip:

As opposed to the Enterprise's arrowhead as seen on Kirk's:

Discovery takes place too early in the lore for all of Starfleet to have adopted the Enterprise's Arrowhead crest yet. At the time in which Discovery is set, the Starfleet emblem is still the asymmetrical boomerang.

This is seen in Enterprise on the uniform duty patch:

And is also seen in TOS as the little gold flash on the secondary hull and warp nacelles of Federation Starships:

And that's only a small thing but things get worse from there for me.

The overall tone and atmosphere of Discovery are NOT that of Star Trek. Star Trek is supposed to be, at its core, an optimistic view of the future. The atmosphere on board a FedShip is supposed to be bright and warm:

The Orville got it right:

Discovery's atmosphere is dark and foreboding:

It reminds me of the bridge on a Klingon ship:

Speaking of Klingons....

When you have established what a major alien race in a Sci-Fi's galaxy look and act like, making them look completely different is a slap in the face to the fandom because it completely ruins the feel of everything. I call these new "Klingons" "Kling-Gorns" because they look like the result of Klingon and Gorn interbreeding.

And don't get me started on the ships... they're downright UGLY.
This is a Klingon Bird-of-Prey:

This is a Kling-Gorn Bird-of-Prey:

One looks like a Klingon starship and the other one looks like a zombified chicken. One is sleek and elegant and the other is...neither of those things. I haven't been so annoyed with Star Trek ship design since that Romulan Holo-Ship from Enterprise that I call the "Space Flea" because it's so non-Romulan in its design philosophy:

Now, imagine if they did a re-boot of Babylon5 with the Narn suddenly being green and scaly, the Centauri having feathers and the Minbari being blue with Klingon-like ridges and pointy ears. That would suck, wouldn't it?

Fortunately, my local library has the Blu-rays of all three seasons. I'm not sure you will like it, but if you get a chance to see it, you might like it.

Oh, I think I've been extremely clear in my opinion of Discovery. I refuse to even call it Star Trek: Discovery.

I like Picard 100x better than Discovery but even it seems too dark.

 

[wiyosaya]

Babylon5 was a phenomenal series. I loved the great CGI ships in it like the Narn G'Quan-class Cruiser, the Centauri Primus-class Dreadnought, the Minbari Sharlin-class War Cruiser, the EA Omega-class Destroyer, Kosh's Vorlon Frigate and the most sinister looking ship in Sci-Fi history, the Shadow Battlecrab. J Michael Straczynski is an absolute genius and he really showed it in those long story arcs. I've learnt everything that I could find about it. I'd like to see a prequel like the Dilgar War or to get full seasons of the ISA-Drakh war.

They had such a talented cast too. There is no question in my mind that one of the biggest crimes in TV history was that Andreas Katsulas didn't win an Emmy Award for his portrayal of G'Kar. The same could be said for Peter Jurasik's portrayal of Londo Mollari. Those two characters are as iconic to me in Sci-Fi as Kirk, Spock, Skywalker and Solo.

Mira Furlan as Delenn should also have won an Emmy, IMO. There were several actors in the series that I thought were the perfect choices for the characters they played.

Ok, you completely lost me there. I can't stand Discovery, in fact, I absolutely HATE it. I've been a trekkie since I was ten years old and as a result, I know the lore and Discovery just breaks it left and right with reckless abandon. If they weren't trying to pass it off as a Star Trek series, I'd probably enjoy it like I did The Expanse but they are.

Here's a quote from the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1 that I think is relvant:

Science fiction is an existential metaphor, that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said: "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today — but the core of science fiction, its essence has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

Beyond the 200th episode of SG-1, I believe this quote should be attributed to Douglas Anders.
And a page that elaborates on it:

Asimov On Science Fiction – Sarah Fobes

I've been a fan of Dr. Who since the mid 70's, and change has never bothered me. I've seen almost every episode of Dr. Who currently (some have been lost and not yet found) in existence, and what matters for me is the stories.

Great fiction, IMO, allows me to examine myself as the quote implies.

It is the same for Babylon 5 with me - which told an amazing story, IMO. And for me, Discovery tells a great story and expands in very respectful ways on the story of the Trek universe. I don't find myself at all bothered by all of what you have brought up because, as I see it, most of what you have brought up is in the domain of props or plot devices.

And that's only a small thing but things get worse from there for me.

The overall tone and atmosphere of Discovery are NOT that of Star Trek. Star Trek is supposed to be, at its core, an optimistic view of the future. The atmosphere on board a FedShip is supposed to be bright and warm:

The Orville got it right:

Discovery's atmosphere is dark and foreboding:

As I see it, is has much more futuristic tech with semi-transparent displays that are appearing as OLEDs on the market.

Also, I have removed the tubes from the lights over my work desk at work because they are too bright and bother my eyes. Bright lighting has always been difficult for me, and I prefer an environment where lighting is subtle. To me, paraphrasing the Regent from Centauri Prime - "I prefer the pastels" that appear on the Discovery bridge.

Speaking of Klingons....

Yes, speaking of Klingons and the point you bring up about their appearance, the same point was made by Trekkies back in the day about Worf's appearance. In the days of TOS, they looked quite different

The argument you make is essentially no different than the Trekkies of the TNG days.

And the same argument might also be made about Delenn's appearance in "The Gathering" and the rest of the Babylon 5 series.

When you have established what a major alien race in a Sci-Fi's galaxy look and act like, making them look completely different is a slap in the face to the fandom because it completely ruins the feel of everything. I call these new "Klingons" "Kling-Gorns" because they look like the result of Klingon and Gorn interbreeding.

That's your opinion, however, I have always thought that the Klingon's would have never made it out of interstellar diapers because they are too much like the galaxy's version of the alcoholic barroom scrapper and, as presented by ST series like TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, I see it as far more likely that they would have destroyed themselves in a civil or planetary war before they ever figured out warp drive or any drive that allowed interstellar travel.

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon talks about the change in appearance from TOS to TNG.

I thought that way about the Klingons until their back story was fleshed out in Season 2 of Discovery, and presented them as a deeper, more nuanced society with a previously unknown (to me, anyway other than "Stovokor") spiritual aspect to their society - a story that also made sense of their home world's name Chronos.

(A side note: in the 70's, I had seen the entire TOS series so many times that I could literally tell you what each character was going to say on rewatching any episode from the series.)

From your reaction so far, and my speculation that you gave up on Discovery after maybe the first season, I cannot say that I think you should watch Season 2, where they also, IMO, did an excellent and respectful expansion of Spock's story, not to mention gave Christopher Pike an excellent and respectful story, too. Nor can I recommend watching Season 3 where there is an excellent "Guardian of Forever" story (from TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever - which, incidentally, was written by B5 co-producer Harlan Ellison) as well as a respectful further expansion on Spock and a refreshing future of the Vulcans and the Romulans. Apologies for my assumption on when you gave up on Discovery, however, from your opinion, it does not sound like you watched much of it.

And don't get me started on the ships... they're downright UGLY.
This is a Klingon Bird-of-Prey:

Ships? So does that mean that the future of Trek should revert back to using the CGI from the days of TOS? Yes, I know that is an absurd assumption. Ships are another thing that I see as a plot device.

This is a Kling-Gorn Bird-of-Prey:

One looks like a Klingon starship and the other one looks like a zombified chicken. One is sleek and elegant and the other is...neither of those things. I haven't been so annoyed with Star Trek ship design since that Romulan Holo-Ship from Enterprise that I call the "Space Flea" because it's so non-Romulan in its design philosophy:

Now, imagine if they did a re-boot of Babylon5 with the Narn suddenly being green and scaly, the Centauri having feathers and the Minbari being blue with Klingon-like ridges and pointy ears. That would suck, wouldn't it?

Not as I see it. These things are secondary to what matters to me most and that is story. Personally, I would not have included the ridicule in the argument.

So, I'll say this: the announcement of the reboot of Babylon 5 and JMS has said that it will be a "ground-up" reboot. To me, that means that absolutely everything could change.

Even if it does, I will watch it from beginning to end and see if I like it. I own the all B5 DVDs and counting the times I have watched them as well as the series itself, I have probably seen the entire series, and all the movies at least 10 times.

I humbly advise you to prepare yourself to be disappointed by the reboot. Or not, and just fly with it abandoning everything that you think should be in the reboot, and allow yourself to enjoy what may well be another fantastic story from a master storyteller - JMS.

Oh, I think I've been extremely clear in my opinion of Discovery. I refuse to even call it Star Trek: Discovery.

I like Picard 100x better than Discovery but even it seems too dark.

I think it obvious that your opinion of Discovery has not, in the least, influenced my opinion of it. As I see it, Discovery tells a great story and Season 3 has left off with an unlimited frontier. As I see it, sticking to canon would severely limit the potential of any story teller to tell further Trek stories, and again, the story is the most important aspect, for me, of anything that I watch. Personally, I encourage the story writers to pursue that. I mentioned Dr. Who - which has the premise that they can go anywhere in time and space, and I think they should because if they do not, then they cloister the story telling in ways that dull, IMO, creativity.

I saw the first season of Picard, too. While it was nice from a nostalgic standpoint to see familiar characters again, including 7 of 9 from Voyager, I prefer Discovery over Picard. I am looking forward to new seasons of both, though I am not thrilled about Q showing up again in the next season of Picard. Discovery, however, has opened entirely new ground for itself to travel, and I am looking forward seeing future seasons of it.

Personally, I am glad that Paramount has not caved to comments similar to yours and has decided to allow the masterful storytelling present in Discovery to continue for at least another season.

To me, Discovery is filled with hope in much the same way as Babylon 5 was. Back in it's day, there were fans out there that said that Babylon 5 literally saved their lives. I would not be surprised to hear that from any fan of Discovery, either. IMO, the world needs more of that kind of storytelling.

And BTW - my absolute worst dislike in the Trek world - ST: Into Darkness - that is what I call ruining a masterful story.

A final edit of this post - I was not thrilled with Season 1 of Discovery (not that any series hits its stride in the first season), but Season 2 and Season 3 were superb. Season 3 also has an excellent and respectful deepening of the Trill, too.

With respect and Cheers.

 

[Danny101]

Fitting for Captain Kirk

 

[Avro Arrow]

Mira Furlan as Delenn should also have won an Emmy, IMO. There were several actors in the series that I thought were the perfect choices for the characters they played.

I couldn't agree more. She was a phenomenal actress. Many of them were incredible at the characters they protrayed. It's a shame that so many of them died young.

Here's a quote from the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1 that I think is relvant:

Beyond the 200th episode of SG-1, I believe this quote should be attributed to Douglas Anders.
And a page that elaborates on it:

Asimov On Science Fiction – Sarah Fobes

I've been a fan of Dr. Who since the mid 70's, and change has never bothered me. I've seen almost every episode of Dr. Who currently (some have been lost and not yet found) in existence, and what matters for me is the stories.

Dr. Who is a different animal altogether because Dr. Who is completely about time travel and so the changes in Dr. Who are to be expected and have been used since the beginning. The changes in Dr. Who are what keep it constant. Having said that, there are constants in Dr. Who that do remain in place no matter what. The Daleks being the Daleks is a prime example as well as "The Master" being the big bad.

Great fiction, IMO, allows me to examine myself as the quote implies.

It is the same for Babylon 5 with me - which told an amazing story, IMO. And for me, Discovery tells a great story and expands in very respectful ways on the story of the Trek universe. I don't find myself at all bothered by all of what you have brought up because, as I see it, most of what you have brought up is in the domain of props or plot devices.

You skipped over the question I asked. How would you like it if the Narn, Centauri and/or Minbari were unrecognisable in a Babylon5 reboot? The Narn look more like Discovery's Kling-Gorns than actual Klingons do. I NEVER would've known that they were supposed to be Klingons in Discovery if it hadn't been mentioned.

As I see it, is has much more futuristic tech with semi-transparent displays that are appearing as OLEDs on the market.

Also, I have removed the tubes from the lights over my work desk at work because they are too bright and bother my eyes. Bright lighting has always been difficult for me, and I prefer an environment where lighting is subtle. To me, paraphrasing the Regent from Centauri Prime - "I prefer the pastels" that appear on the Discovery bridge.

Yes, speaking of Klingons and the point you bring up about their appearance, the same point was made by Trekkies back in the day about Worf's appearance. In the days of TOS, they looked quite different
View attachment 87990
The argument you make is essentially no different than the Trekkies of the TNG days.

I'm afraid that what you've put forth there is a false equivalency. The Klingons in TOS were nothing more than an afterthought species as the Romulans were supposed to be the main antagonists of the Federation. Klingons were created because they were cheaper as they didn't require prosthetic ears. They only looked the way they did in a mere seven episodes over three years in a single series. The Klingons of TOS were NOT a major race per se, but because of Star Trek's anthology format, they appeared more than any other alien race save for Vulcans (only because of Spock).

Appearing seven times in seventy-nine episodes is less than 10% of the episodes. That would be like if, out of ten Star Trek Movies, Klingons appeared in ONLY ONE. Instead, the TMP-type Klingons (which I just refer to as Klingons) appeared in 9 out of 10 Star Trek movies (ignoring Abrams-trek). The only Star Trek movie in which they did NOT appear was The Wrath of Khan. Add to that 178 episodes of TNG, at least 104 episodes of DS9, 172 episodes of VOY and 11 episodes of ENT. That's a helluva lot MORE exposure than the Klingons before them. The difference between them had at least been acknowledged in DS9 and the writers of ENT took it upon themselves to explain why they were different. In fact, the Klingon doctor in ENT ended up as one of the TOS Klingons. Klingons were TMP Klingons from 1979 until 2005, a whopping 26 years in which they were seen even more often than Vulcans.

The Klingons weren't drastically changed but they were changed because they were to become a major race in the movie era.. They still had the same hair, eyebrow shape and beards that were present in TOS. They also spoke in the same manner as the TOS Klingons (With the exception of William Campbell as Koloth because he STILL had the look and mannerisms of Trelane. ) instead of sounding like they were part cow. The ships were also not changed as the K'Tinga is nothing more than a D-7 refit. I have no idea whatsoever what these Kling-Gorn ships are but they look like rejects from Warhammer 40K's Battlefleet Gothic Armada.

Now, are you seriously trying to tell me that one of these doesn't stick out like a sore thumb?:

It's very clear that the first two are FAR more alike than the third. They both have similar hair when it comes to their eyebrows and face and with the exception of the cranial ridges, their skull and skin structures are the same. They appear to be at least of related species. They even have identical metallic diagonal sashes. The third...looks like a deformed concord grape. The skin and skull structures are completely different, the colour is WAY off and the shape of their head is like that of detective Francisco from Alien Nation. I don't mind incremental changes as long as the theme remains constant. For example, it didn't bother me one bit that Worf in TNG season 1 looked quite different from Worf in later TNG and DS9.

And the same argument might also be made about Delenn's appearance in "The Gathering" and the rest of the Babylon 5 series.

Again, a false equivalency because Delenn didn't have hair until she went through the metamorphosis. She didn't just appear like that, she had no hair until she went into that cocoon.

That's your opinion, however, I have always thought that the Klingon's would have never made it out of interstellar diapers because they are too much like the galaxy's version of the alcoholic barroom scrapper and, as presented by ST series like TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, I see it as far more likely that they would have destroyed themselves in a civil or planetary war before they ever figured out warp drive or any drive that allowed interstellar travel.

Kolos in ENT showed that not all Klingons were like that. His father was a teacher and his mother was a biologist at a university. His parents advised him to study law, not to be a warrior. He makes a pretty strong statement to Archer:
"We were a great society, not so long ago, when honor was earned through integrity and acts of true courage, not senseless bloodshed."
He also asked Archer "You didn't think we were all warriors, did you?" to which Archer responds "Yeah...I guess I did.".
Kolos at Memory Alpha

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon talks about the change in appearance from TOS to TNG.

I have read that but Wikipedia is not a primary source for information about anything in Star Trek, Memory Alpha is. I've read both pages on Klingons several times and regardless of what is written on Wikipedia, ultimately, this page (Klingon at Memory Alpha) is the final word.

I thought that way about the Klingons until their back story was fleshed out in Season 2 of Discovery, and presented them as a deeper, more nuanced society with a previously unknown (to me, anyway other than "Stovokor") spiritual aspect to their society - a story that also made sense of their home world's name Chronos.

I thought that way until I saw the ENT episode called "Judgement".

(A side note: in the 70's, I had seen the entire TOS series so many times that I could literally tell you what each character was going to say on rewatching any episode from the series.)

From your reaction so far, and my speculation that you gave up on Discovery after maybe the first season, I cannot say that I think you should watch Season 2, where they also, IMO, did an excellent and respectful expansion of Spock's story, not to mention gave Christopher Pike an excellent and respectful story, too. Nor can I recommend watching Season 3 where there is an excellent "Guardian of Forever" story (from TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever - which, incidentally, was written by B5 co-producer Harlan Ellison) as well as a respectful further expansion on Spock and a refreshing future of the Vulcans and the Romulans. Apologies for my assumption on when you gave up on Discovery, however, from your opinion, it does not sound like you watched much of it.

I watched the first season and tried to get into the second season but I ultimately wasn't able to. The only characters that I found compelling in Discovery were the admiral who killed herself and (especially) Saru.

Ships? So does that mean that the future of Trek should revert back to using the CGI from the days of TOS? Yes, I know that is an absurd assumption. Ships are another thing that I see as a plot device.

Discovery silently admitted that they screwed up in that regard. That's why they brought out the D7. The problem was that there was no lineage for it in Discovery as none of the ships that came before even resembled it. A sci-fi story has to be able to suspend disbelief and having ships that do not even remotely resemble established Klingon design philosophy absolutely obliterate the immersive experience when you introduce one that does. It's like, why be faithful to the D7 but not the D5 or D3?

Not as I see it. These things are secondary to what matters to me most and that is story. Personally, I would not have included the ridicule in the argument.

Well, not everyone is the same as you in that regard. Remember that I'm an aviation enthusiast and I absolutely ADORE the ships in Star Trek, Babylon5 and Star Wars. The ridicule of Discovery's BoP was, IMO, totally justified because it's not like I was making things up. It really does look like a zombified chicken.

So, I'll say this: the announcement of the reboot of Babylon 5 and JMS has said that it will be a "ground-up" reboot. To me, that means that absolutely everything could change.

Well, he kinda has to do that because everyone knows the story. However, I don't expect the Centauri to look like Zathris. I expect that they'll be at least recognisable as Centauri.

Even if it does, I will watch it from beginning to end and see if I like it. I own the all B5 DVDs and counting the times I have watched them as well as the series itself, I have probably seen the entire series, and all the movies at least 10 times.

I'm pretty much the same way. I can play entire scenes in my head and remember how I laughed when Zack tried to explain what Daffy Duck is to Delenn. "He's like the Egyptian God of Frustration."

I humbly advise you to prepare yourself to be disappointed by the reboot. Or not, and just fly with it abandoning everything that you think should be in the reboot, and allow yourself to enjoy what may well be another fantastic story from a master storyteller - JMS.

I'm really not all that concerned. I don't expect it to be exactly the same but I don't expect it to be Discovery-level different either. JMS is no fool and he knows very well that if he makes B5 into something completely different, it will probably not do very well. I'm not alone in thinking this. Do you remember the reaction of the Star Wars fanbase to the sequel trilogy?

I think it obvious that your opinion of Discovery has not, in the least, influenced my opinion of it.

I never intended it to. I was only explaining why I can't stand it. I'm glad that you enjoy it. For me, it was like when I tried to get interested in watching basketball. I just couldn't do it for some reason.

As I see it, Discovery tells a great story and Season 3 has left off with an unlimited frontier. As I see it, sticking to canon would severely limit the potential of any story teller to tell further Trek stories, and again, the story is the most important aspect, for me,

A good writer can do anything with established canon. The proof of this is the success of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Nobody needed the idea of the spore drive or a ship that was far larger than a Constitution-class, the pride of the fleet.

of anything that I watch. Personally, I encourage the story writers to pursue that. I mentioned Dr. Who - which has the premise that they can go anywhere in time and space, and I think they should because if they do not, then they cloister the story telling in ways that dull, IMO, creativity.

Dr. Who is about time travel in which erasing certain timelines is the plot's objective. Star Trek is not Dr. Who. There are plenty of amazing tales that could be told within the "confines" of canon.

I saw the first season of Picard, too. While it was nice from a nostalgic standpoint to see familiar characters again, including 7 of 9 from Voyager, I prefer Discovery over Picard. I am looking forward to new seasons of both, though I am not thrilled about Q showing up again in the next season of Picard. Discovery, however, has opened entirely new ground for itself to travel, and I am looking forward seeing future seasons of it.

What I like about Picard is that it is what most Star Trek fans wanted, a series that takes place after the events of Voyager. Moving forward in time and technology also opens new doors and possibilities in a much more organic way. This is what I didn't like about Enterprise but they managed to iron out the wrinkles and give it its own engaging story with the Xindi. That story was incredible.

Personally, I am glad that Paramount has not caved to comments similar to yours and has decided to allow the masterful storytelling present in Discovery to continue for at least another season.

Sure but even if it does, it might not last another season. I don't see Discovery ever hitting the heights of popularity as the shows that came before it. You're right about the storytelling in the way that they didn't have to spend the fortune that they did on making everything look different. The success of The Orville proved that.

To me, Discovery is filled with hope in much the same way as Babylon 5 was. Back in it's day, there were fans out there that said that Babylon 5 literally saved their lives. I would not be surprised to hear that from any fan of Discovery, either. IMO, the world needs more of that kind of storytelling.

Hope you say... Well, perhaps I should look at season 3 because seasons 1 and 2 seemed to me to be rather full of darkness and despair.

And BTW - my absolute worst dislike in the Trek world - ST: Into Darkness - that is what I call ruining a masterful story.

Yep and believe it or not, I hated that movie for the same reasons that I hated Discovery. Khan isn't supposed to look like a "so white that he's translucent" redheaded man and those Klingons were... well, not as bad as Discovery's but still pretty awful.

A final edit of this post - I was not thrilled with Season 1 of Discovery (not that any series hits its stride in the first season), but Season 2 and Season 3 were superb. Season 3 also has an excellent and respectful deepening of the Trill, too.

Well, based ONLY on your recommendation, I will check out some episodes from season 3. Season 2 was pretty "meh" for me and was the reason that I didn't bother with season 3. If I end up liking it, I'll come back here and thank you for recommending it. To me, I have nothing to lose by checking it out.

With respect and Cheers.

Right back at you.

 

[wiyosaya]

@Avro Arrow

Dr. Who is a different animal altogether because Dr. Who is completely about time travel and so the changes in Dr. Who are to be expected and have been used since the beginning. The changes in Dr. Who are what keep it constant. Having said that, there are constants in Dr. Who that do remain in place no matter what. The Daleks being the Daleks is a prime example as well as "The Master" being the big bad.

I disagree. As I see it, it is about space and time. It's not entirely about time travel.

You skipped over the question I asked. How would you like it if the Narn, Centauri and/or Minbari were unrecognisable in a Babylon5 reboot? The Narn look more like Discovery's Kling-Gorns than actual Klingons do. I NEVER would've known that they were supposed to be Klingons in Discovery if it hadn't been mentioned.

I answered, but I guess you did not hear my answer. I don't care. Chances are they will not look entirely the same in the reboot, but I don't intend to let facades destroy what stands a chance of being yet another remarkable TV series.

I knew someone back when B5 was first run - that is - a new series on the now defunct PTEN in the US - who decided that it wasn't for them because they did not like how the characters looked. IMO, it was their loss.

I'm afraid that what you've put forth there is a false equivalency. The Klingons in TOS were nothing more than an afterthought species as the Romulans were supposed to be the main antagonists of the Federation. Klingons were created because they were cheaper as they didn't require prosthetic ears. They only looked the way they did in a mere seven episodes over three years in a single series. The Klingons of TOS were NOT a major race per se, but because of Star Trek's anthology format, they appeared more than any other alien race save for Vulcans (only because of Spock).

Whatever you say.

Appearing seven times in seventy-nine episodes is less than 10% of the episodes. That would be like if, out of ten Star Trek Movies, Klingons appeared in ONLY ONE. Instead, the TMP-type Klingons (which I just refer to as Klingons) appeared in 9 out of 10 Star Trek movies (ignoring Abrams-trek). The only Star Trek movie in which they did NOT appear was The Wrath of Khan. Add to that 178 episodes of TNG, at least 104 episodes of DS9, 172 episodes of VOY and 11 episodes of ENT. That's a helluva lot MORE exposure than the Klingons before them. The difference between them had at least been acknowledged in DS9 and the writers of ENT took it upon themselves to explain why they were different. In fact, the Klingon doctor in ENT ended up as one of the TOS Klingons. Klingons were TMP Klingons from 1979 until 2005, a whopping 26 years in which they were seen even more often than Vulcans.

The Klingons weren't drastically changed but they were changed because they were to become a major race in the movie era.. They still had the same hair, eyebrow shape and beards that were present in TOS. They also spoke in the same manner as the TOS Klingons (With the exception of William Campbell as Koloth because he STILL had the look and mannerisms of Trelane. ) instead of sounding like they were part cow. The ships were also not changed as the K'Tinga is nothing more than a D-7 refit. I have no idea whatsoever what these Kling-Gorn ships are but they look like rejects from Warhammer 40K's Battlefleet Gothic Armada.

Now, are you seriously trying to tell me that one of these doesn't stick out like a sore thumb?:

It does not matter to me. I watch fiction for the stories, and personally, I think Discovery is telling a great story. I did not, however, like DS9 because I thought its story was weak. In fact, JMS claims that he pitched B5 to Paramount first, and they told him to get lost. Then DS9 came out a few years later. I believe JMS because there are several characters in DS9 that have the same names as in B5.

Again, a false equivalency because Delenn didn't have hair until she went through the metamorphosis. She didn't just appear like that, she had no hair until she went into that cocoon.

See the above picture. In case you missed it, the left image is from The Gathering, and the right image is before her transformation at the end of Season 1.

Kolos in ENT showed that not all Klingons were like that. His father was a teacher and his mother was a biologist at a university. His parents advised him to study law, not to be a warrior. He makes a pretty strong statement to Archer:
"We were a great society, not so long ago, when honor was earned through integrity and acts of true courage, not senseless bloodshed."
He also asked Archer "You didn't think we were all warriors, did you?" to which Archer responds "Yeah...I guess I did.".
Kolos at Memory Alpha

I have read that but Wikipedia is not a primary source for information about anything in Star Trek, Memory Alpha is. I've read both pages on Klingons several times and regardless of what is written on Wikipedia, ultimately, this page (Klingon at Memory Alpha) is the final word.

I thought that way until I saw the ENT episode called "Judgement".

I watched the first season and tried to get into the second season but I ultimately wasn't able to. The only characters that I found compelling in Discovery were the admiral who killed herself and (especially) Saru.

Discovery silently admitted that they screwed up in that regard. That's why they brought out the D7. The problem was that there was no lineage for it in Discovery as none of the ships that came before even resembled it. A sci-fi story has to be able to suspend disbelief and having ships that do not even remotely resemble established Klingon design philosophy absolutely obliterate the immersive experience when you introduce one that does. It's like, why be faithful to the D7 but not the D5 or D3?

Well, not everyone is the same as you in that regard. Remember that I'm an aviation enthusiast and I absolutely ADORE the ships in Star Trek, Babylon5 and Star Wars. The ridicule of Discovery's BoP was, IMO, totally justified because it's not like I was making things up. It really does look like a zombified chicken.

Well, he kinda has to do that because everyone knows the story. However, I don't expect the Centauri to look like Zathris. I expect that they'll be at least recognisable as Centauri.

I'm pretty much the same way. I can play entire scenes in my head and remember how I laughed when Zack tried to explain what Daffy Duck is to Delenn. "He's like the Egyptian God of Frustration."

I'm really not all that concerned. I don't expect it to be exactly the same but I don't expect it to be Discovery-level different either. JMS is no fool and he knows very well that if he makes B5 into something completely different, it will probably not do very well. I'm not alone in thinking this.

JMS is also not someone to let others dictate to him what any of his works should be.

Do you remember the reaction of the Star Wars fanbase to the sequel trilogy?

And, IMO, if you have not seen "The Clone Wars", as far as Star Wars goes, you have not seen the big picture. I am sure you remember Jar Jar Binks. He has quite a different portrayal in "The Clone Wars".

I never intended it to. I was only explaining why I can't stand it. I'm glad that you enjoy it. For me, it was like when I tried to get interested in watching basketball. I just couldn't do it for some reason.

A good writer can do anything with established canon. The proof of this is the success of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Nobody needed the idea of the spore drive or a ship that was far larger than a Constitution-class, the pride of the fleet.

Dr. Who is about time travel in which erasing certain timelines is the plot's objective. Star Trek is not Dr. Who. There are plenty of amazing tales that could be told within the "confines" of canon.

What I like about Picard is that it is what most Star Trek fans wanted, a series that takes place after the events of Voyager. Moving forward in time and technology also opens new doors and possibilities in a much more organic way. This is what I didn't like about Enterprise but they managed to iron out the wrinkles and give it its own engaging story with the Xindi. That story was incredible.

Sure but even if it does, it might not last another season. I don't see Discovery ever hitting the heights of popularity as the shows that came before it. You're right about the storytelling in the way that they didn't have to spend the fortune that they did on making everything look different. The success of The Orville proved that.

Hope you say... Well, perhaps I should look at season 3 because seasons 1 and 2 seemed to me to be rather full of darkness and despair.

I don't think that was the point. I think reflecting on the possibilities of what AI might become was the point.

Yep and believe it or not, I hated that movie for the same reasons that I hated Discovery. Khan isn't supposed to look like a "so white that he's translucent" redheaded man and those Klingons were... well, not as bad as Discovery's but still pretty awful.

To me, it was the story that was crap - it departed so much from the original Khan story - the original Wrath of Khan story was far better, IMO. ST: ItD trashed it.

Well, based ONLY on your recommendation, I will check out some episodes from season 3. Season 2 was pretty "meh" for me and was the reason that I didn't bother with season 3. If I end up liking it, I'll come back here and thank you for recommending it. To me, I have nothing to lose by checking it out.

In the same fashion as B5, its a long story arc that, IMO, has extended across Season 2 and 3. So, you might not get the full effect if you pick and choose.l

Right back at you.

If you want to not like Discovery, that is certainly your prerogative. I've seen several reviews on IMDB that are the equivalent of what you say about the series, and honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. It almost seems like reviews of that sort went a long way to find everything that they possibly could to hate the series. IMO, its their loss.

I like it. And we'll see how long it lasts. If it does not last that much longer, I would not be surprised. Many series that I really like were cancelled.

 

[captaincranky]

I'm not a boob man either. When you get to be my age, you tend to think a little more long-term and the bigger they are, the further they fall. I much prefer an athletic build in women as opposed to buxom.

In the long list of bizarre coincidences that seem to inhabit my life, "who but to my poor wondering eyes should appear", but Heather Locklear, on the Drew Barrymore show this morning.

She recanted a tale about how the studio tried to make her wear a padded bra, and even panties with padded backs on "T J Hooker".

Speaking of Heather Locklear, Drew Barrymore is a strange character. Between the "valley girl affect", her expressions, and lip movements while speaking, I'd swear she was born with a few facial muscles missing.

Hey, how about the Bill Shatner, actually getting "somewhere near space". ..

 

[Avro Arrow]

@Avro Arrow
View attachment 87999

See the above picture. In case you missed it, the left image is from The Gathering, and the right image is before her transformation at the end of Season 1.

Yes, I do see the difference but come on, that's incredibly slight. Her bone crest is still the same, her Minbari ears are still the same and the only difference is a slight change in skin tone and less mottling on her cranium. She still looks Minbari. With what has been done to the Klingons, you'd have to put the bone crest on a Narn, call it Minbari and make the Sharlin War Cruiser look like Sovereign from Mass Effect to be as different from the original as the Kling-Gorns are. You could see the difference in the Klingons a kilometre away while I had to look very closely to see the difference in Delenn. Also, same as with the TOS Klingons, I'd only seen the gathering a couple of times so I wasn't really that invested in it. G'Kar looked different too but not enough that it mattered. He still looked like a Narn.

JMS is also not someone to let others dictate to him what any of his works should be.

And I respect that. I've been enjoying his work since childhood because he wrote a bunch of He-Man cartoons. JMS is one of the greatest storytellers of our age.

And, IMO, if you have not seen "The Clone Wars", as far as Star Wars goes, you have not seen the big picture. I am sure you remember Jar Jar Binks. He has quite a different portrayal in "The Clone Wars".

I actually have seen the Clone Wars and Rebels. I didn't really know what to make of Jar-Jar in CW because it didn't seem like he was the same person.

I don't think that was the point. I think reflecting on the possibilities of what AI might become was the point.

To me, it was the story that was crap - it departed so much from the original Khan story - the original Wrath of Khan story was far better, IMO. ST: ItD trashed it.

Yes the story was crap, but it wasn't as bad as most seem to think. The problem was that Ricardo Montalban's portrayal of Khan was so iconic and the story so epic that there's no way that they could do it justice if they changed anything because people would automatically compare it to the original and sure enough.... it was almost universally panned.

In the same fashion as B5, its a long story arc that, IMO, has extended across Season 2 and 3. So, you might not get the full effect if you pick and choose.l

Then I guess I'm going to finish watching season 2.

If you want to not like Discovery, that is certainly your prerogative. I've seen several reviews on IMDB that are the equivalent of what you say about the series, and honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. It almost seems like reviews of that sort went a long way to find everything that they possibly could to hate the series. IMO, its their loss.

Who ever said that I WANT to dislike Discovery? I was one of the people waiting with baited breath for it, having been starved from watching any Star Trek other than the Abrams-Trek movies. I wanted to like Discovery from the beginning, hell, I was one of the few that liked Enterprise from the beginning and I liked it because it felt like Star Trek. Discovery (at least season 1) was pretty heartbreaking to me because it was like they took something that I've loved all of my life and just mangled it.

I like it. And we'll see how long it lasts. If it does not last that much longer, I would not be surprised. Many series that I really like were cancelled.

Yep, it's true that studio execs are a bunch of sanctimonious fools when it comes to sci-fi series cancellations. I was absolutely LIVID when Firefly was cancelled.

 

[captaincranky]

Yep, it's true that studio execs are a bunch of sanctimonious fools when it comes to sci-fi series cancellations. I was absolutely LIVID when Firefly was cancelled.

It's not really sanctimony, per se. It's production costs. In a one camera sit-com, the actors can practically walk in off the street and go on camera. No so with any Sci-fi series.

But speaking of actor's salaries, (wasn't I?), I could never figure out why those mutts on, "Friends", were worth a million bucks each an episode. It flat out sucked after the novelty wore off, which was somewhere after the first season.

Jennifer Anniston got dumped by Brad Pitt, and is now doing cosmetic commercials. .

Fox is a quick to dump a series. Which is especially nasty, since sci-fi very often needs time to build up a following.

"Gone too soon", were "Dark Angel", "Dollhouse", "Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles", and now "The Outpost". (But in all honesty, I don't know if they could have milked that plot line much, past four years anyway.

I kinda miss "T'Pol" too. And yes, I'm probably the only person in the world, who really liked the intro theme song to, "Enterprise). It seems everybody wanted an anthem leader, and missed the subtlety of the 12 string guitar intro.

OK, by now you've figured out I reall get into Sci-fi with strong women with great a**es. (Of course I most likely couldn't put up with their sh!t in person. (Not that II'm delusional enough to think I'd ever get the opportunity))

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's not really sanctimony, per se. It's production costs. In a one camera sit-com, the actors can practically walk in off the street and go on camera. No so with any Sci-fi series.

What I mean is that they don't realise something great when they see it. Firefly had everything it needed to be a smashing success (as Serenity demonstrated). It had great actors, terrifying monsters (those Reavers WERE damn scary) and great comedic segments. They should have known that it would be great.

But speaking of actor's salaries, (wasn't I?), I could never figure out why those mutts on, "Friends", were worth a million bucks each an episode. It flat out sucked after the novelty wore off, which was somewhere after the first season.

It did but for some reason it stayed popular. I personally never watched it because Frasier was on at the same time and that show was 100x what Friends ever was.

Jennifer Anniston got dumped by Brad Pitt, and is now doing cosmetic commercials. .

I never was able to understand why anyone cared about what Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were doing. I guess it's because I don't see celebrities as gods, just people with really cool jobs.

Fox is a quick to dump a series. Which is especially nasty, since sci-fi very often needs time to build up a following.

Yeah, gone are the days when they were innovative with shows like "In Living Color" and "Married...With Children".

"Gone too soon", were "Dark Angel", "Dollhouse", "Terminator: Sarah Conner Chronicles", and now "The Outpost". (But in all honesty, I don't know if they could have milked that plot line much, past four years anyway.

I couldn't agree more.

I kinda miss "T'Pol" too.

For me, T'Pol was about at the same level as 7 of 9....

But MIRROR-T'POL.... OMG, I was head over heels when I saw her like that:

I still drool when I see this picture because to me, this is the most beautiful woman in Sci-Fi. (And who can blame me?) Yes, it's rather childish and stupid, but what can I do, I'm a hetero male.

And yes, I'm probably the only person in the world, who really liked the intro theme song to, "Enterprise). It seems everybody wanted an anthem leader, and missed the subtlety of the 12 string guitar intro.

I still sing that song to myself. I still remember all the words. I loved it too.

OK, by now you've figured out I reall get into Sci-fi with strong women with great a**es. (Of course I most likely couldn't put up with their sh!t in person. (Not that II'm delusional enough to think I'd ever get the opportunity))

Yeah I like them like that too and I did once know a woman like that. She said that she wanted a man who did what he's told. I said to her point-blank "You don't want a man, you want a mouse." which kinda took her by surprise. Although she did admit to me later that I was probably right.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yes, I do see the difference but come on, that's incredibly slight. Her bone crest is still the same, her Minbari ears are still the same and the only difference is a slight change in skin tone and less mottling on her cranium. She still looks Minbari.

For someone who hints that they pay significant attention to detail, I am surprised you missed the extra bone structure around her lower jaw and around her mouth, too. Maybe you should look at the two pictures again?

With what has been done to the Klingons, you'd have to put the bone crest on a Narn, call it Minbari and make the Sharlin War Cruiser look like Sovereign from Mass Effect to be as different from the original as the Kling-Gorns are.

But why stop at a Kingon-Gorn hybrid - which, IMO, there is nothing that indicates Gorn in that. Why not go for the gusto and call them Kling-Horta?

You could see the difference in the Klingons a kilometre away while I had to look very closely to see the difference in Delenn. Also, same as with the TOS Klingons, I'd only seen the gathering a couple of times so I wasn't really that invested in it. G'Kar looked different too but not enough that it mattered. He still looked like a Narn.

Which is how I feel, regardless of the obvious differences, about the "change" in the Klingon appearance. If you think that the Klingons are in indispensable part of Trek, then by all means, don't watch Discovery S3. Nowhere is a Klingon to be found. (Finally, Trek episodes not sullied by the galaxy's pre-school bullies - sorry, but I've never cared for the Klingons). There are so many other races in the galaxy; IMO, its about time Trek decided to tell the stories of the other races.

And I respect that. I've been enjoying his work since childhood because he wrote a bunch of He-Man cartoons. JMS is one of the greatest storytellers of our age.

I have never read his comics, but I do think he is capable of some superb story-telling.

I actually have seen the Clone Wars and Rebels. I didn't really know what to make of Jar-Jar in CW because it didn't seem like he was the same person.

Such was also the case with Anakin, IMO, especially, in Anakin's case, when contrasted against what was that movie? Episode 3? However, I was willing to go with it. The movies, IMO, contrasted with all the animated series, only told a fraction of the story. And I was willing to let the story unfold, which is why I liked the animated series so much - they added a great deal of depth and detail. Who would have guessed that Jar Jar would turn out to be a decent character with some depth to his soul? In the same breath, who would have guess that, given his portrayal in The Clone Wars (especially that one episode where he met that one character with the son and the daughter), Anakin would have whimped out when confronted by Palpatine?

Yes the story was crap, but it wasn't as bad as most seem to think. The problem was that Ricardo Montalban's portrayal of Khan was so iconic and the story so epic that there's no way that they could do it justice if they changed anything because people would automatically compare it to the original and sure enough.... it was almost universally panned.

That's only part of my problem with it. Absolutely, BC's performance was nowhere near the level of RM's performance. However, the story was crap. To me, it seemed like JJA thought that all that is needed for a good story is a testosterone laden fight between two alpha males along with an explosion here and there. That kind of story is something that I will never like simply because it has absolutely no depth, IMO.

Then I guess I'm going to finish watching season 2.

I'm not sure you will like it. I'll be interested in knowing what you think of it, but to be honest, my hopes are not high.

Who ever said that I WANT to dislike Discovery? I was one of the people waiting with baited breath for it, having been starved from watching any Star Trek other than the Abrams-Trek movies. I wanted to like Discovery from the beginning, hell, I was one of the few that liked Enterprise from the beginning and I liked it because it felt like Star Trek. Discovery (at least season 1) was pretty heartbreaking to me because it was like they took something that I've loved all of my life and just mangled it.

Honestly, I think you have set the minutia in stone, and because of that, there is no room for anything that expands on the details, but deviates from them. As I see it, it is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

For me, I definitely did notice the difference in the Klingon looks, but I said to myself, I'm OK with that. It is not the looks, or things on the nacelles (which Season 3 goes even farther with that - but then again, its over 900 years in the future) or the badges, or the differences in the phasors, or the communicators, or the tricorders, or the bridge controls and layout.

As I have said before, its the story that counts, IMO. You mention that you thought the story was too dark. What about in Babylon 5 when the Vorlons and the Shadows were destroying planets? Yes, its whataboutism, however, darkness and light are two sides of the same coin, IMO. Without darkness, there can be no light.

I don't see myself putting a limiter on what a show is. When SG-Universe first came out. I hated it, too, but then I came to realize that the story that they were trying to tell with that, IMO, was of people dealing with the effects of PTSD, and in that aspect, I came to think if it as a masterpiece of storytelling that, as usual, got cancelled perhaps in part because of feedback from jerks saying, "This ain't Stargate!!!!"

IMO, Discovery S3 is great, too, if a Trekkie is willing to let go and go along for the ride.

BTW - If you want some more backstory on Discovery, try watching Netflix's documentary "Fantastic Fungi" and make sure that you pay attention the end credits.

Cheers!

 

[wiyosaya]

What I mean is that they don't realise something great when they see it. Firefly had everything it needed to be a smashing success (as Serenity demonstrated). It had great actors, terrifying monsters (those Reavers WERE damn scary) and great comedic segments. They should have known that it would be great.

It did but for some reason it stayed popular. I personally never watched it because Frasier was on at the same time and that show was 100x what Friends ever was.

I never was able to understand why anyone cared about what Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston were doing. I guess it's because I don't see celebrities as gods, just people with really cool jobs.

Yeah, gone are the days when they were innovative with shows like "In Living Color" and "Married...With Children".

I couldn't agree more.

For me, T'Pol was about at the same level as 7 of 9....

But MIRROR-T'POL.... OMG, I was head over heels when I saw her like that:

I still drool when I see this picture because to me, this is the most beautiful woman in Sci-Fi. (And who can blame me?) Yes, it's rather childish and stupid, but what can I do, I'm a hetero male.

I still sing that song to myself. I still remember all the words. I loved it too.

Yeah I like them like that too and I did once know a woman like that. She said that she wanted a man who did what he's told. I said to her point-blank "You don't want a man, you want a mouse." which kinda took her by surprise. Although she did admit to me later that I was probably right.

While Jolene Blalock is, to another straight male, obviously attractive, I cannot say that the T-pol character fits my definition of a "sci-fi/fantasy character" with whom I would like to have a relationship. She is rather emotionally void. As far as Trek characters go, I would rather have a relationship with 7 of 9. Though she retains some of the Borg frigidity, she progressed a long way back toward finding her humanity, and this is what I find very attractive about her, not to mention, she is brilliant. Personally, I found the later seasons of Voyager of well-above-average quality because of the stories about her. Besides, 7 of 9's busty appearance is well-known to be as a result of padding. and would not be there if she were devoid of robes.

Though some might not think I should count her, I don't personally see the series that she appeared in as sci-fi, my thoughts on the most beautiful woman in sci-fi/fantasy is https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4703025/mediaviewer/rm2478322688/?context=default and the character she played was also brilliant, not to mention that she was "a good woman".

Cheers!

 

[Avro Arrow]

For someone who hints that they pay significant attention to detail, I am surprised you missed the extra bone structure around her lower jaw and around her mouth, too. Maybe you should look at the two pictures again?

That's just it, I don't pay significant attention to detail in that regard. It didn't bother me that the Klingons morphed a bit over the years from TMP to DS9 because they still kept the same overall appearance, like Delenn did in B5. This is why when something is shockingly different, it throws me for a loop.

But why stop at a Kingon-Gorn hybrid - which, IMO, there is nothing that indicates Gorn in that. Why not go for the gusto and call them Kling-Horta?

Well, these Kling-Gorns look pretty reptilian compared to the Klingons that I've always known. They don't look like rocks made of meatballs and cheese.

Which is how I feel, regardless of the obvious differences, about the "change" in the Klingon appearance. If you think that the Klingons are in indispensable part of Trek, then by all means, don't watch Discovery S3. Nowhere is a Klingon to be found. (Finally, Trek episodes not sullied by the galaxy's pre-school bullies - sorry, but I've never cared for the Klingons). There are so many other races in the galaxy; IMO, its about time Trek decided to tell the stories of the other races.

Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of the Klingons either. I mean, they're cool and all but I've always been more fascinated by the Romulans and Tholians. The Klingons were greatly over-used and still are. If these guys want to make things look different, then Vulcans and Romulans should be quite green in colour without human-like fleshtones. After all, their blood is copper-based hemolymph

I have never read his comics, but I do think he is capable of some superb story-telling.

Such was also the case with Anakin, IMO, especially, in Anakin's case, when contrasted against what was that movie? Episode 3? However, I was willing to go with it. The movies, IMO, contrasted with all the animated series, only told a fraction of the story. And I was willing to let the story unfold, which is why I liked the animated series so much - they added a great deal of depth and detail. Who would have guessed that Jar Jar would turn out to be a decent character with some depth to his soul? In the same breath, who would have guess that, given his portrayal in The Clone Wars (especially that one episode where he met that one character with the son and the daughter), Anakin would have whimped out when confronted by Palpatine?

That's only part of my problem with it. Absolutely, BC's performance was nowhere near the level of RM's performance. However, the story was crap. To me, it seemed like JJA thought that all that is needed for a good story is a testosterone laden fight between two alpha males along with an explosion here and there. That kind of story is something that I will never like simply because it has absolutely no depth, IMO.

I'm not sure you will like it. I'll be interested in knowing what you think of it, but to be honest, my hopes are not high.

If they manage to make it feel like Star Trek, even the story, I'll be much happier with it. Thus far, it has had an atmosphere that's more like Stargate SG-1 than Star Trek.

Honestly, I think you have set the minutia in stone, and because of that, there is no room for anything that expands on the details, but deviates from them. As I see it, it is a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

It's not that I've set anything in stone, it's that Star Trek is an established brand with an established flavour. I don't know how old you are but Coca-Cola once tried changing its flavour to something else. They called it "New Coke" and then "Coke II":

Sales dropped so badly (and increased so steeply for Pepsi and RC) that the company was forced to quickly produce the original formula and call it "Coca-Cola Classic":

Coca-Cola Classic outsold Coke II by a ratio of about 1000:1 which caused the company to abandon Coke II and eventually drop the word "Classic".

The moral of the story is that when you have an established brand and a loyal following of people/fans/customers, it is important to remember that they love it because it is what it is. The essence of the brand/product is something people know that they can count on, something that makes them feel happy and secure. If you mess with that, you're playing with fire. You can tell me that I'm the weird one all you want but the fact is that Discovery suffered a HUGE backlash from Trekkies all over the place.

Enterprise suffered a smaller backlash because of some pretty bad continuity screwups but it learned from its mistakes and cleaned itself up in the later seasons. Instead of being dismissive, the producers worked to address the issues and the show became fantastic.

Don't get me wrong, there are things about Discovery that I think are wonderful. Having a homosexual couple on board and showing that the love in their relationship is as real as he love in any heterosexual relationship. Also, having several strong female characters that don't double as eye-candy like T'Pol or Seven-of-Nine is also something that is refreshingly modern and I'm glad to finally see characters like this.

For me, I definitely did notice the difference in the Klingon looks, but I said to myself, I'm OK with that. It is not the looks, or things on the nacelles (which Season 3 goes even farther with that - but then again, its over 900 years in the future) or the badges, or the differences in the phasors, or the communicators, or the tricorders, or the bridge controls and layout.

As I have said before, its the story that counts, IMO. You mention that you thought the story was too dark. What about in Babylon 5 when the Vorlons and the Shadows were destroying planets? Yes, its whataboutism, however, darkness and light are two sides of the same coin, IMO. Without darkness, there can be no light.

The difference there was that Babylon5 wasn't an established brand with a set formula. B5 was a clean canvas for JMS and there were both dark and light episodes from the beginning. The Earth-Minbari war was VERY dark as you see fathers leaving their families to die at the hands of the Minbari and the anguish their families felt as you see them trying to physically force them to stay. That was VERY early on and so the Vorlon planet killers weren't all that much of a contrast. Also remember when the Centauri used mass drivers to level a good chunk of the Narn homeworld as Londo looked on with a terrible sadness in his eyes. That was also before the introductionof the Vorlon planet-killers and it was pretty damn dark too. Babylon5 wasn't a copy of Star Trek and wasn't designed to be the utopian future that Roddenberry envisioned. It was set far closer in the future than Star Trek and had inferior tech and a capitalistic economy as a result. It also had the darkest and most nightmarish starship in Sci-Fi, the Shadow Battlecrab.

If JMS re-did Babylon 5 and it was something like The Orville, I'd probably not watch much of that either. Sci-Fi doesn't have to be light to be good (SG and Galactica were both amazing), but when you spend so much time building the universe you have and people who have become accustomed to it over decades of show production, it's a bad idea to screw with the already successful formula that you have. Oh sure, tweak it here and there by adding the gay couple, the strong female characters, great new aliens like Seru, etc. but you still have to make it recognisable under the brand. This is why they made the Abrams-Trek timeline different from the original. It allowed them to make up their own continuity in the Kelvin timeline. It wasn't great, but at least it explained why the Kelvinprise was so huge compared to the Enterprise that we know.

The problem with Discovery is their insistence that this is the original universe and timeline with events that never occurred in the original timeline. I think that's why CBS was so afraid of Axanar. They knew that they were going to be one-upped by it.

 

[Avro Arrow]

While Jolene Blalock is, to another straight male, obviously attractive, I cannot say that the T-pol character fits my definition of a "sci-fi/fantasy character" with whom I would like to have a relationship. She is rather emotionally void.

I agree 100% but who said anything about a relationship?

As far as Trek characters go, I would rather have a relationship with 7 of 9. Though she retains some of the Borg frigidity, she progressed a long way back toward finding her humanity, and this is what I find very attractive about her, not to mention, she is brilliant. Personally, I found the later seasons of Voyager of well-above-average quality because of the stories about her. Besides, 7 of 9's busty appearance is well-known to be as a result of padding. and would not be there if she were devoid of robes.

Well, like CaptainCranky, I'm not incredibly impressed with women who are... shall we say... "top-heavy". When it comes to women, I much prefer athletic to voluptuous when it comes to physical appearance. Of course, a woman with a logical mind is always a plus as well regardless of whether she's athletic or voluptuous.

Though some might not think I should count her, I don't personally see the series that she appeared in as sci-fi, my thoughts on the most beautiful woman in sci-fi/fantasy is https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4703025/mediaviewer/rm2478322688/?context=default and the character she played was also brilliant, not to mention that she was "a good woman".

Oh yeah, Felicity Smoak was an amazing character and Emily's portrayal was phenomenal. I always marvelled at how they tried so hard to make her look as plain as possible. It didn't matter, her eyes are just amazing. You're right as well that Felicity is definitely the kind of woman that you marry.

However, since I'm not even close to being the biggest believer in marriage based on events in my life, marriage is not exactly a big fantasy for me. Just know that if it is a fantasy of yours, I envy you brother!

 

[wiyosaya]

I agree 100% but who said anything about a relationship?

I'm just that kind of guy.

Well, like CaptainCranky, I'm not incredibly impressed with women who are... shall we say... "top-heavy". When it comes to women, I much prefer athletic to voluptuous when it comes to physical appearance. Of course, a woman with a logical mind is always a plus as well regardless of whether she's athletic or voluptuous.

Asoka Tano comes to mind as being one of those athletic types. I know that for the most part, she was a cartoon, but, IMO, the portrayal of her as a woman is perhaps, one of the best ever female characters in Sci-Fi.

Oh yeah, Felicity Smoak was an amazing character and Emily's portrayal was phenomenal. I always marvelled at how they tried so hard to make her look as plain as possible. It didn't matter, her eyes are just amazing. You're right as well that Felicity is definitely the kind of woman that you marry.

Of all the relationships in modern fiction, I have to say that the development of the relationship between Felicity and Oliver was, IMO, exceptionally well done. In fact, I think it rivals the development of the relationship between Delenn and John Sheridan. IMO, both relationships were well beyond the "wham-bam thank you mam" fictitious BS that society seems to think is the only way. I knew someone back in the late 70's that thought that there was only one reason for a relationship between a man and a woman. I'll give you one guess as to what that was.

I got to thinking about the some of my favorite female characters, and while Felicity/Emily are well up there, there's a few others that also rate high on my list

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0514228/mediaviewer/rm3999158016/?context=default

Ming-Na Wen

Ming-Na Wen in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (2013)

www.imdb.com

Chloe Bennet

Abominable World Premiere at Toronto International Film Festival, 2019

www.imdb.com

Olivia Taylor Dudley

Olivia Taylor Dudley in The Magicians (2015)

www.imdb.com

Rachel Keller

Rachel Keller in Legion (2017)

www.imdb.com

I better stop there, but perhaps most of these publicity pictures do not do the actresses justice.

However, since I'm not even close to being the biggest believer in marriage based on events in my life, marriage is not exactly a big fantasy for me. Just know that if it is a fantasy of yours, I envy you brother!

I got married late, but I have been married since 2006. My wife and I share a lot of interests and she has a brain. Perhaps something that I see as essential is that both of us know that we have baggage and are working through it - especially in how it affects our relationship. IMO, that may be the most important aspect.

That's just it, I don't pay significant attention to detail in that regard. It didn't bother me that the Klingons morphed a bit over the years from TMP to DS9 because they still kept the same overall appearance, like Delenn did in B5. This is why when something is shockingly different, it throws me for a loop.

I am glad that I am willing to be felxible.

Well, these Kling-Gorns look pretty reptilian compared to the Klingons that I've always known. They don't look like rocks made of meatballs and cheese.

I'd say that the Klingons look more like turtles, and their latest incarnation simply does not have those bug like eyes. Discovery's Linus, on the other hand...there is some great comedic scenes with him in S3. And for, possibly @captaincranky with Grudge - who I think is a Maine Coon.

Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of the Klingons either. I mean, they're cool and all but I've always been more fascinated by the Romulans and Tholians. The Klingons were greatly over-used and still are. If these guys want to make things look different, then Vulcans and Romulans should be quite green in colour without human-like fleshtones. After all, their blood is copper-based hemolymph

You can't always get what you want or so the Rolling Stones said.

If they manage to make it feel like Star Trek, even the story, I'll be much happier with it. Thus far, it has had an atmosphere that's more like Stargate SG-1 than Star Trek.

It's not that I've set anything in stone, it's that Star Trek is an established brand with an established flavour. I don't know how old you are but Coca-Cola once tried changing its

Let's just say that I remember watching at least one episode of ST: TOS first run with my brother. I really do not remember which episode it was or what the episode was about.

flavour to something else. They called it "New Coke" and then "Coke II":

Sales dropped so badly (and increased so steeply for Pepsi and RC) that the company was forced to quickly produce the original formula and call it "Coca-Cola Classic":

Coca-Cola Classic outsold Coke II by a ratio of about 1000:1 which caused the company to abandon Coke II and eventually drop the word "Classic".

The moral of the story is that when you have an established brand and a loyal following of people/fans/customers, it is important to remember that they love it because it is what it is. The essence of the brand/product is something people know that they can count on, something that makes them feel happy and secure. If you mess with that, you're playing with fire. You can tell me that I'm the weird one all you want but the fact is that Discovery suffered a HUGE backlash from Trekkies all over the place.

As I see it, it has, so far anyway, had little effect. After all, Discovery is not a "soft drink" and with a 7.2/10 rating on IMDB, its my impression that show is genuinely liked by many - enough for Paramount to greenlight it for four seasons. IMO, its audience cannot be insignificant - or perhaps there's a studio exec that really likes it. As far as I can tell, Discovery's negative IMDB reviews come from either of two different classes of people - Trekkies, or Right-Wingers.

And speaking of the next season, it apparently hits Paramount+ on November 18th. I saw one article that noted that by moving it into the future, they liberated themselves from "cannon". I've seen a trailer, and I am looking forward to it - https://www.imdb.com/video/vi2811872025?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_1 However, I will wait until it comes out on Blu-ray and either buy the four-season set, or borrow it from my local library - that's how I've seen S1 - S3.

Enterprise suffered a smaller backlash because of some pretty bad continuity screwups but it learned from its mistakes and cleaned itself up in the later seasons. Instead of being dismissive, the producers worked to address the issues and the show became fantastic.

Ah, you mean like that one episode where Phlox discovered how to kill Borg nanobots, but somehow, ST: NG seems to have never heard of it??

Don't get me wrong, there are things about Discovery that I think are wonderful. Having a homosexual couple on board and showing that the love in their relationship is as real as he love in any heterosexual relationship. Also, having several strong female characters that don't double as eye-candy like T'Pol or Seven-of-Nine is also something that is refreshingly modern and I'm glad to finally see characters like this.

I can't say that I really care about who sleeps with whom, but if that gives some people a feeling of acceptance or empowerment, I am all for it.

I also think that Discovery is not totally devoid of eye-candy even though most of the women come off to me as rather accomplished "strong female types" with brains and brawn.

The difference there was that Babylon5 wasn't an established brand with a set formula. B5 was a clean canvas for JMS and there were both dark and light episodes from the beginning. The Earth-Minbari war was VERY dark as you see fathers leaving their families to die at the hands of the Minbari and the anguish their families felt as you see them trying to physically force them to stay. That was VERY early on and so the Vorlon planet killers weren't all that much of a contrast. Also remember when the Centauri used mass drivers to level a good chunk of the Narn homeworld as Londo looked on with a terrible sadness in his eyes. That was also before the introductionof the Vorlon planet-killers and it was pretty damn dark too. Babylon5 wasn't a copy of Star Trek and wasn't designed to be the utopian future that Roddenberry envisioned. It was set far closer in the future than Star Trek and had inferior tech and a capitalistic economy as a result. It also had the darkest and most nightmarish starship in Sci-Fi, the Shadow Battlecrab.

JMS has always said that he pretty much had the series planned out from beginning to end, except for the few "trap doors" like Talia - Lyta, Sinclair - Sheridan.

To put it another way, though I thought the shadow ships, in general, were creepy, such things are, to me, purely window dressing that on their own, could not save a crappy story.

If JMS re-did Babylon 5 and it was something like The Orville, I'd probably not watch much of that either.

The Orville just did not appeal to me. I guess I am more attracted to the deeper stories. Don't get me wrong, I like humor, but I think I would prefer a romantic comedy to well, whatever The Orville is - speaking from a complete ignorance of the series.

However, I am well aware that JMS, can, and will, take the reboot anywhere he wants. I know its possible that I will not like it, however, I do not see myself as being wise enough to attempt to tell JMS where it should or could go. Which is why I just do not see the objections of Trekkies to Discovery.

Sci-Fi doesn't have to be light to be good (SG and Galactica were both amazing),

We agree there.

but when you spend so much time building the universe you have and people who have become accustomed to it over decades of show production, it's a bad idea to screw with the already successful formula that you have. Oh sure, tweak it here and there by adding the gay couple, the strong female characters, great new aliens like Seru, etc. but you still have to make it recognisable under the brand.

I cannot say that I agree, and, incidentally, it appears that some are accepting the stories never told except by Discovery as canon. https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Spock as an example.

This is why they made the Abrams-Trek timeline different from the original. It allowed them to make up their own continuity in the Kelvin timeline. It wasn't great, but at least it explained why the Kelvinprise was so huge compared to the Enterprise that we know.

I think Abrams should not be placed in charge of any story for any universe after that trash-heap ST: Into Darkness, and, not to mention, the rehash of Star Wars Episode 4.

The problem with Discovery is their insistence that this is the original universe and timeline with events that never occurred in the original timeline. I think that's why CBS was so afraid of Axanar. They knew that they were going to be one-upped by it.

Its interesting that you should bring up Axanar since it has, in this article anyway, its own controversy - namely Fandom Toxicity - https://www.popmythology.com/into-the-wormhole-battle-for-axanar/ IMO, Paramount is far from afraid of Axanar.

Cheers.