Star Trek: All Things Trek

[mtl]

jinsha

 

[Stavrogyn]

It's an underrated show imo. Rough spot in the middle of the second season (give or take a few decent ones) but late season two is when it kicks in. You can usually spot a specific episode where a Trek show takes off. Q Who in TNG, Duet for DS9, etc. Cogenitor is that episode for Enterprise.

We just watched Cogenitor, the Borg episode, and First Flight, and you were right: the shift in quality is evident. Especially Cogenitor - probably the best episode of the whole show so far.

 

[Stavrogyn]

Having reached episodes 18 and 19 of the third season (Azati Prime and Damage), I have to say that Enterprise might have become my second favourite Star Trek series (DS9 will probably forever remain number one).

The only complaint I have (and it's a major one) concerns the change in the intro song between the second and the third season. By the end of the second season, I had really started to enjoy it very much, finding it inspirational and somewhat epic in tone, but then they made it more up-tempo and now I can no longer focus on the images, they all just seem to go by too fast. I still can't get used to it.

 

[MasterMastermnd]

I assume everyone (wrongly) complained about the opening, so then they changed it but for the worse!

 

[Stavrogyn]

I assume everyone (wrongly) complained about the opening, so then they changed it but for the worse!

To me, it was the most controversial Star Trek-related decision since TNG got rid of Wesley Crusher.

But let's accentuate the positive: we were really stunned by what they did in Damage, because by the time the episode ends, our "heroes" turn into outright villains!

There were, of course, previous episodes of Star Trek shows where characters flirted with ethically dubious decisions (Tuvix, In the Pale Moonlight, and Similitude come to mind), but they usually felt at least somewhat necessary, not to say justifiable.

This was something different.

 

[Dom]

There were, of course, previous episodes of Star Trek shows where characters flirted with ethically dubious decisions (Tuvix, In the Pale Moonlight, and Similitude come to mind), but they usually felt at least somewhat necessary, not to say justifiable.

The worst ever ethical decision-making I've seen in Star Trek was in Homeward. The TNG crew willingly stood by and allowed a primitive, sentient species to be wiped out on a dying planet because their interpretation of the Prime Directive meant they wouldn't interfere. It literally turns the main characters into compassionless, genocidal maniacs. I watched it in utter disbelief! It would be the equivalent of us in the present day deliberately leaving a primitive tribe on an unstable volcanic island to get blown up. Then Nikolai Rozhenko is treated as the bad guy for rescuing a tribe from the planet and taking them somewhere safe!

That's not what the Prime Directive is there for!

 

[MasterMastermnd]

Yes, Damage is one of my very favorite episodes of the show. The aliens they stranded are the Illyrians from SNW!

 

[Stavrogyn]

Yes, Damage is one of my very favorite episodes of the show. The aliens they stranded are the Illyrians from SNW!

Wait, what? Really?

I found it interesting that they decided to use that name, because historical Illyrians actually existed: in ancient times they inhabited the region that is today partially occupied by my home country.

Illyrians - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cappy]

The worst ever ethical decision-making I've seen in Star Trek was in Homeward. The TNG crew willingly stood by and allowed a primitive, sentient species to be wiped out on a dying planet because their interpretation of the Prime Directive meant they wouldn't interfere. It literally turns the main characters into compassionless, genocidal maniacs. I watched it in utter disbelief! It would be the equivalent of us in the present day deliberately leaving a primitive tribe on an unstable volcanic island to get blown up. Then Nikolai Rozhenko is treated as the bad guy for rescuing a tribe from the planet and taking them somewhere safe!

That's not what the Prime Directive is there for!

Honestly I find myself so distracted by the fact that Worf’s (step) brother is played by Paul Sorvini that I never take in the ethical implications of that episode.

 

[Dom]

Honestly I find myself so distracted by the fact that Worf’s (step) brother is played by Paul Sorvini that I never take in the ethical implications of that episode.

Paul Sorvino's performance as Henry Kissinger in Oliver Stone's Nixon was one of those truly great film performances. Anthony Hopkins didn't look much like Richard Nixon, but successfully embodied the character and the voice. Sorvino, though, was Kissinger!

 

[Cappy]

Paul Sorvino's performance as Henry Kissinger in Oliver Stone's Nixon was one of those truly great film performances. Anthony Hopkins didn't look much like Richard Nixon, but successfully embodied the character and the voice. Sorvino, though, was Kissinger!

Yeah, after his role in Goodfellas, that’s probably the thing (Nixon) I most associate with Sorvino.

But getting back to the Prime Directive… I appreciate that Trek wrestles with big questions like that. Even if the characters sometimes come to weird decisions in the service of the Prime Directive, it does serve as a reaction to the problem of colonial tampering in non-European (or pre-Industrial) civilizations from our times. I like that Trek characters are mindful of human history and careful not to make similar mistakes (although we can argue that they are still making mistakes, albeit different ones). It makes Trek feel like it’s about something more than just “good guys vs bad guys”, although they can do that very well on occasion! (Balance of Terror, Wrath of Khan, Dominion War, etc)

 

[AXX°N N.]

I'm a bit into TNG, almost past its growing pains first two seasons, in my "tour of the franchise" watch. Prior I'd seen only bits and pieces of some stuff. It's been interesting to see all these metamorphoses--TOS to TAS, TAS to the first film, the film franchise from II on, and now TNG ... and the change to come, as I've been told it "settles in" at season 3 into the greater franchise of TNG, Voyager and DS9.

It seems like a franchise that has thus far struggled with what makes Trek, well, Trek. It seems like TOS was, overall, in the camp of "colorful character interaction." I'd classify Roddenberry's input, and his later stint, including TMP and TNG S1 and S2 as "it's about big ideas."

But "big ideas" so often translates into kind of inscrutable "vague conflict with god entities" plots that could, really, feature any character and be set in any setting.

I've kind of come to the conclusion that I most enjoy Trek when it's as dedicated to its premise as possible--I'm here to see characters presented within the confines of a strict value system apply it to problems and in that way show me a unique narrative, like Cappy's comment above captures so well.

 

[Dom]

Yes, all the series have interesting qualities. The original series has two great seasons and one patchy one. Within a 1960s action adventure format, it often managed to be quite profound. Star Trek was most interesting in that it was a voyage not just through space, but through genres. The Enterprise was a vehicle to get the characters to a location, then isolate them. It had aspects of an anthology series akin to The Twilight Zone. One week it would be a western, another week a Cold War submarine thriller, another week a trip to a Nazi-like state, then a courtroom thriller. There was a lot less worldbuilding in terms of the universe of Star Trek - the Federation, Starfleet and the likes developed slowly - often with contradictory names - until they settled in final versions. The classic Klingon ship design didn't show up until season three.

TAS is a 'bridging show', with the ship moving in the direction of the TMP version, and managing to tell some intriguing stories in the context of a Saturday morning children's cartoon series. The tragedy is that TAS was 'decanonised' for a long time for no reason other than some legal issues. I have no problem with TAS being in the canon, because...

... in the novelisation of TMP (now that's an interesting book that every Trek fan should read!) written by Gene Roddenberry himself, Kirk's introduction informs us that the original series and TAS were 'in-universe', often fanciful, romanticised retellings of the adventures of the Enterprise and this book purports to give s definitive, accurate retelling of the events of the Vejur incursion. It was a pretty bold thing to do, but if you take the book at its word, it allows all TV and cinematic Star Trek to be treated as an in-universe, fictionalised anthology series. It's why the radically different approaches to the universe between TMP and TWOK-TUC can be accommodated.

The Berman era of Star Trek is most noticeable for how ship-bound it was. Many episodes could fall into a 'bottle episode' category and, once Michael Piller arrived, it kind of became a series about how an individual each week copes with life on a giant starship on a 20-year mission. Gene Roddenberry, when he founded TNG, stated his approach was 'revisionist', so he was willing to contradict past continuity. If you're a fan, probably the best thing to do is treat each series as a sort of 'universe in a bottle' and that there's a 'definitive' Star Trek universe out there that we've never seen nor read about (it all gets a bit Kantian if you go too far in that direction!! )

I haven't liked anything post-2005, except Picard Season Three and I'm not one of those people who can keep watching something if I don't like it anymore. But treating the various series as an in-universe entertainment means I can ignore anything I dislike. I'm still not thrilled about Discovery and Strange New Worlds existing. Picard Season Three ought to have been the first season of new Trek in 2017, followed by new series set post-TNG.

 

[Cappy]

The Berman era of Star Trek is most noticeable for how ship-bound it was. Many episodes could fall into a 'bottle episode' category and, once Michael Piller arrived, it kind of became a series about how an individual each week copes with life on a giant starship on a 20-year mission. Gene Roddenberry, when he founded TNG, stated his approach was 'revisionist', so he was willing to contradict past continuity. If you're a fan, probably the best thing to do is treat each series as a sort of 'universe in a bottle' and that there's a 'definitive' Star Trek universe out there that we've never seen nor read about (it all gets a bit Kantian if you go too far in that direction!! )

I haven't liked anything post-2005, except Picard Season Three and I'm not one of those people who can keep watching something if I don't like it anymore. But treating the various series as an in-universe entertainment means I can ignore anything I dislike. I'm still not thrilled about Discovery and Strange New Worlds existing. Picard Season Three ought to have been the first season of new Trek in 2017, followed by new series set post-TNG.

Re: Michael Piller

It’s so fascinating to look at TNG both pre- and post-Piller. Once he joins the show, you can get a sense of the direction of any particular episode by watching the cold open (pre opening credits scene), barring a few exceptions of course (Genesis comes to mind).

And looking back at S1 and some of S2, there are quite a few eps where the focal point or emotional thru line isn’t evident until maybe halfway through. Not saying any one approach is innately better or worse, but speaking for my own preferences I think Piller’s approach works best for Trek TV.

Re: Trek continuity

Considering how many different writers/producers/etc have been involved with the creation of Trek media over the years, I think it’s impressive that the overall continuity works as well as it does!

Re: Strange New Worlds and Discovery

I think one of the commentators at TrekCulture had an amusing observation about the difference between Disco and SNW — they said something to the effect of “Lower Decks had to crossover with SNW because if animated characters showed up on Discovery they wouldn’t be able to understand why everyone was crying all the time.”

 

[MasterMastermnd]

Discovery has it's moments but I swear I've never seen another show for which nearly every scene feels like a group therapy session.

 

[Stavrogyn]

After three years of watching Star Trek shows and films, the moment has finally come to delve into The Original Series. It has been long overdue.

Before beginning, I wanted to check what others might think about watching it on Netflix? The order on Netflix starts with The Cage, then The Man Trap follows, then Charlie X, and then Where No Man Has Gone Before. That seems to be the broadcast order. Would that be fine or would the production order be preferrable?

 

[MasterMastermnd]

I personally prefer the production order. You can sense the natural growth of the show this way.

 

[Cappy]

I think you can watch TOS episodes in any random order, as there are no week-to-week storylines that build over time, and the characters don’t change.

My own personal experience with TOS was catching random eps in syndication in the 90s, before purchasing/renting random dvd’s of it around 2000 or so. Also they were on vhs: I still have The Menagerie parts 1 and 2 in that format.

The first episode of TOS I ever saw was the infamous Spock’s Brain from the also infamous Season 3. I would not recommend anyone starting their TOS journey that way! (Although I would admit that this ep is a fun, guilty pleasure on par with TNG’s Sub Rosa or Voyager’s Threshold.)

So perhaps there isn’t a perfect or ideal viewing order for this series — but were I able to go back in time and start Trek from scratch, I think I might start with Where No Man Has Gone Before, then do whatever order Netflix has the eps in, but maybe skip The Cage, as the Menagerie repurposes a lot of its footage, and is a far better episode overall in my opinion. Maybe treat The Cage as a kind of Missing Pieces to The Menagerie’s FWWM, a sort of companion piece of odds and sods to be consumed separately at a later date.

I kind of envy you, getting to jump into TOS with fresh eyes. You are in for a wild ride!

 

[Dom]

I would say just use the broadcast order as laid out on the Blu-rays. The only exception to that is Where No Man Has Gone Before, the second pilot. Start with that, then use the order on the discs. You can use production order, but it's a massive faff and I'm too lazy to keep swapping discs when broadcast order makes very little difference. They're all stand alones anyway.

 

[Cappy]

On the subject of The Cage… I do find it to be remarkable as a bit of sci-fi pop culture from the 60’s. It’s (kind of) philosophical, and Jeffrey Hunter’s portrayal of Pike is one of a world weary man haunted by recent failures. It feels incongruous to Shatner’s swinging 60’s Captain Kirk — although Kirk displayed depth in TOS, notably in eps like Balance of Terror and City on the Edge of Forever — it never felt as grim or as riddled with self-doubt and reflection as Hunter’s Pike (Although Kirk got fleshed out way more in the movie era).

So yeah, The Cage does have value, but perhaps it functions as a better set up for Strange New Worlds than TOS.