Can you spot Finnegan?
Where's Gary Mitchell?
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
Worked for me. Should I be ashamed?
Prior to season 4, I was at ST.Com and all I heard, (from one side) was complaining that it wasn't living up to its potential by foreshadowing TOS. Then it finally got around to it but that's now a bad thing?
He is not important? How dare you?!
Sorry to have pissed on your hush puppies, dear Sir, but, if you would care to read my post once more, I meant that there is apparently no place for you within the story told in this movie, in other words, you are not important within the story told in this movie.
P.S.
Yes, I did indeed watch The Frighteners yesterday evening...
My sentiments exactly. ENT's season four had some of the best episodes of the entire series (and, admittedly, the very, very worst... the final). By then, ENT finally had found its style and pace. It seems that TPTB simply gave up a little bit too early.
DS9 and VOY also got off on rocky starts, if you remember (and to be honest - really no offense to anyone - they could have cancelled VOY after the first couple of episodes, for all I care. Not ENT, but VOY was the true nadir of the Star Trek franchise).
With hand lotion and pre-warmed hands no less!!
That's it exactly, there was so much in Trek history that could have been explored, but the first three seasons always felt like they were in an alternate reality or something. When they started tying in to what we knew, then it seemed to fit better. I mean it's one thing to complain about fan service, but when you give it a twist (the truth about Orion females for example), that's when it gets interesting.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder if having someone like Gary being one of Pike's bridge crew to really drive home the point of what Kirk could become would have been even better.
Bingo! Already during the first season, they wasted so much time squeezing the Klingons ('Again with the Klingons!') into a timeframe where they were not supposed to play that prominent a role. That's what I call fanboism. That's what I call a cheap and unnecessary trick to lure the TNG and post-TNG fans into the fold when everybody should have known better.
They should have started with what we already knew and then elaborated on it and then invented new stuff fitting into the timeline... After a while they actually did it. That's why the Andorian stories turned out to be that good. That's why the Vulcans became really interesting.
I'm not complaining about the technical and stylistic updates. That was a necessity. You just couldn't take a 1960s series and make a 2000s series look technically more 'primitive'. However, once again, they should have stuck with what we already knew... so, no phase pistols or photonic torpedoes, but projectile weapons (or laser weapons, if you want, both hand-held or ship-mounted) and nukes. That's just one example...
Actually, they could have done so quite easily and many of the design choices made for this new movie--the extensive use of chrome and the flourishes that suggest a 1930s-50s pulp SF/Gernsback aesthetic (and the populux car and housware designs from the 1950s as well) would have been the way to do it, with a soupcon of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells thrown in as well to hint (hint is hereby underscored for the benefit of the imbecilic and literal-minded contingent of this board) at a Steam Trek vibe.
I would really have loved hints (not too much, just enough to keep it Star Trekky) of 1950s/raygun gothic/populux/googie aesthetic in ENT, but, I guess, that's just my personal taste and not the general audience's. So, instead of styling the 1960s down, they decided to evolve the 2000s up to make it more accessible or realistic, as it were.
By the way, I don't see too many 1950s influences in nuTrek (except, perhaps, the Wurlitzer). However, I could see nuTrek as a logical step in the technical and stylistic evolution started in ENT.
Sorry, perhaps since I'm a fairly new member of this forum, I don't really get your hint. Still, Steam Trek is something completely different and separate and not really part of Star Trek. I like steampunk, I love retro-futurism, but I prefer to keep my stuff neat and tidy in different boxes.
I see what you mean, but part of the problem was that, by evolving the 2000s up, they gave us something rather dreary and drab (with a few exceptions: the Andorians--with their wiggly antennae and Metalunan foreheads--were a welcome breath of cheesy air, as were the original bubbles on the shuttlepods and T'Pol's sky blue Flash Gordon-esque costume from the latter episodes).
I knew what you meant. It's just not easy for a godlike being to hear that he is not the center of the universe. I'm going to go eat my marinated hush puppies now.He is not important? How dare you?!
Sorry to have pissed on your hush puppies, dear Sir, but, if you would care to read my post once more, I meant that there is apparently no place for you within the story told in this movie, in other words, you are not important within the story told in this movie.
Yep... but we can both have our cake and eat it. Just imagine the - quite realistic, in my eyes - contrast between the rather dreary, drab, utilitarian humans in their gunmetal-grey starships and their blue overalls and the elaborate, exotic and colourful universe out there... and then watch the humans become members of this universe, adapting and adopting more and more of its traits.
It looks like ENT and now nuTrek basically (unintentionally?) followed this train of thought.
Found Gary Mitchell, apparently he was separated at birth from one Leonard H. McCoy
