rae@unicus.UUCP (Clith de T'nir a.k.a. Reid Ellis) (10/02/87)
Well, they can lose the psychic. I'm sorry, but the way they portrayed her ESP etc, it just doesn't mesh with the Star Trek universe. It's too much the plot device. "Hum, we have no idea what's going on. Lt., what are *you* experiencing?" When Spock used it, he has class. Having it as a desperate measure is fine. But a crew member whose only function is to be psychic? Uh-uh. Lt. Yaaa [or whatever] needs better writing. There's the bare plot- thread of a character there, buried under all that bad writing. Make her better, or else lose her. The movie was supposed to be filmed in HDTV, and it showed. There were a few scenes where matte lines screamed to be noticed. It looks like filming on film at 30 frames/s and then transferring to video is still the best way to go. Ah well. If it had been filmed and then xferred to video, it would have helped in a number of rough spots.. 'Q' -- His "cruel smile" was wayyy too overdone. And why didn't he show up as something more interesting than yet-another-post-nuclear character? Like, say, in a uniform from the old TV series? Or even better, Kirk's uniform from ST4? Or maybe Kruge's uniform. Then the Klingon character would have had a chance to fill us in on some historical background.. Bah. Now the good stuff: Captain Picard: Yah. Good stuff. I can live with this. He's cool. He knows when he's being handled a load of crap, and he can deal with his own limitations. "I'm not good with children. However, I am supposed to have an air of congeniality. See to it that I do." [ok, so it's a rough paraphrase..] Lt. Data: [I *think* he was a Lt. I can't remember everyone's rank just yet.] I like him. I don't care, I still like him. "You may not have pointed ears, but you SOUND like a Vulcan." Yeah. McCoy's cameo: Well done, althought the makeup was a *bit* much. But what do you expect for a 137 year-old admiral? It gave a sense of continuity. The Klingon, Lt. Kov-or-something-like-that: Good idea for a character. So are bumby-Klingons the only extant version? Were all those 60's klingons half-breeds, or what? I was worried they'd just have a Klingon-looking yacm [yet another crew member]. But "Sir, I am a Klingon! I cannot leave my commander to fight while I run away with the women and children!" Yowza. I wonder if the Klingon-Federation merging will be touched on in later episodes? And I like the Klingon touch on his uniform. Isn't that strictly out of the sixties-klingons? --- Why am I posting to ont.sf-lovers? We don't get rec.*! --- Reid Ellis rae@unicus.com
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (10/07/87)
I really liked Q. Was it a *cruel* smile? Sorry Reid, that's
just your interpretation. For me it was bemused and enigmatic.
Fantastic acting! The best I've seen in years. The changes were
so complete and fast they were jarring -- which was the most refreshing
thing in the whole movie. Everybody seems to like the crew except
the Councillor (sp?) and personally I'd give her a 2nd chance, but
I can't say I took to her either. Some people don't like Number 1.
I can take him or leave him. 2nd chance granted again.
Data? Most people like him. I'm still undecided. Interesting
point in the dialog was when Stryker made the docking manuever
"with out automation" and Data was the Pilot. Without automation?
Riiiighht.
By the way, what do *you* think is Q's motivation? Is he a
good-guy, bad-guy, or just a super jerk? Do you think he *really*
represents anybody except himself? Why did he let the people die?
On the otherhand, why didn't he kill anybody himself? Why did
he stop the Enterprise from interposing itself between the Bandi
village and the "ship/creature"?
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomuraoz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (10/10/87)
My subjective one paragraph summary: Cardboard characters with superficial personalities, marginal acting, strange story, good special effects, complete lack of understanding as to what made the original so successful, good villain, pedantic villainousness, good ship design, unexplicable ship-split [you mean there is NOBODY in the lower portion of the ship ?? What happens to an appearently defenseless, slow upper portion ?? give the upper portion as possible hostage ??]. Overall, a network trying to cash on the success of an earlier series, in a somewhat ignorant fashion. Gag... gasp... barf. oz -- You see things, and you say "WHY?" Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz But I dream things that never were; ......!seismo!mnetor!yetti!oz and say "WHY NOT?" Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yulibra|yuyetti] [Back To Methuselah] Bernard Shaw Phonet: [416] 736-5257 x 3976
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (10/12/87)
Well, I seem to be the only one in Ontario saying that I liked it, but let's discuss this a bit further anyway: In article <173@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > > My subjective one paragraph summary: > > Cardboard characters with superficial personalities, marginal acting, I think it's clear that they there's a big mistake in trying to introduce a big cast in one episode. Even given 2 hours (was it 2 -- I can't remember) you really can't do it justice. Look at any good movie that develops characters well and you don't find it giving anywhere near the spread of dialogue that the premier did. It's a saw off. They wanted to introduce the cast and set the stage. They accomplished that fairly well. With 2 hours you can't blow that. Unfortunately, it left a bad impression with critical people. Still, you're comparing the characters by a couple of hours of development against characters you've seen for years with hours of dialogue. How does one episode of Star Trek (old version) *really* hold up against this? Well some were good and some were bad. My favorite episodes tended not to have big casts. "The Empath" was my all time favorite. It had probably the smallest cast of any episode. *That's* how you develop characters! Even the original pilot -- "The Menagerie" didn't develop great characters. The only character developed in that episode (also a long one -- 1 1/2 hr. if I recall) only the captain and Vena were really developed. Now *there* was a pair of 2 dimensional characters. Basic hero and basic heroine. > strange story, good special effects, complete lack of understanding > as to what made the original so successful, good villain, pedantic Nope. They didn't forget what made the old one successful. You're simply not remembering the past with its imperfections. Give'em time. > villainousness, good ship design, unexplicable ship-split [you mean > there is NOBODY in the lower portion of the ship ?? What happens to I thought the concept was obvious. The lower portion has sketeton crew and most of the armament. The upper part is mainly civilian. The upper part doesn't have the speed and maneuverability of the top. It took them longer to get to the destination. There have been criticisms on BIX about the stresses on the attachment point. As I stated on BIX, the stresses aren't as bad as the rediculous design of the original Enterprise, so I'm content. If the original Enterprise held together, then this one could -- even better. Keep in mind that this is an exploration vessel more along the lines of a huge Calypso than a war vessel. If Cousteau could afford to take a whole city of explorers throughout the universe (*unlimited* duration for the trip) how would he do it? This is *not* a repeat of the original mandate of the old Enterprise. It's an all new *experiment*. Think "First Encounters". This is the Earthman's version of the mother ship taking off to encounter the unknown and sing strange melodies and flash greetings! Think "Cities In Flight". The ship isn't something you signed on for a cruise or a single mission. It's your home *forever*. It's Toronto, flying around in space. Well, maybe Mississauga. ;-) It's the moon colony, or L5, but not tied to Earth. > an appearently defenseless, slow upper portion ?? give the upper > portion as possible hostage ??]. Overall, a network trying to cash > on the success of an earlier series, in a somewhat ignorant fashion. > Gag... gasp... barf. > Cheers! -- Jim O. -- Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880 ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura Byte Information eXchange: jimomura
nguyentk@watsup.UUCP (10/30/87)
I give this series less than one season, if the past four episodes are representative... (which they seem to be, since four crummy episodes in a row could not be due to coincidence alone). (argh, it hurt to say that) When I see the old ST series, I don't get this "ugh [I pity these actors for the scuzzy dialogue and gut-wrenchingly silly plots they are forced to adhere to]" feeling as I have for all the ST:TNG episodes. "Give them a chance" I told myself... Unfortunately, the only consistently good thing about ST:TNG is the special effects.