Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Moving Picture' started by The Good, Aug 14, 2010.
Poor Bill. I've seen better hair on a possum.
Because I've never actually watched Star Trek before, having been a Star Wars fan all my life, and because I recently signed up to Netflix, which has all the seasons of all the shows, I decided to start binging the entire thing. I watched the first two Abrams movies as they present themselves as prequels of sorts, even if they are AU. Into Darkness ends with the beginning of the Enterprise's 5-year research mission, which is essentially where Star Trek: TOS begins. I'm currently about a third of the way through the second season. After that I'll watch Star Trek: Beyond, and then the original six movies, which are currently free on Amazon Prime Video. After that, I plan on bingeing The Next Generation, and maybe some of the series that go beyond that.
Guys... what have I gotten myself into here?
Mr. Shatner has had a reputation for not being afraid to spend good amounts of money for quality toupees and hairpieces since the original Star Trek series was still a new show. I don't know what's going on in the photo you posted, but it seems he's had some work done lately:
If you want to stay in timeline-chronological order, begin with Star Trek: Enterprise (~100 years prior to TOS), then Star Trek: Discovery (~10 years prior to TOS). Then watch the original pilot, The Cage (1964), and then TOS (begins 1966), then the original 5 movies, and then TNG and those movies, etc.
There are number of fan films out there, as well, the best, by far, being, imho, Star Trek: Continues, basically a Vic Mignogna production. It picks up, on the timeline, just after TOS ends.
I'm glad you mentioned Enterprise. That should be the starting point for the series as canon.
I have posted this elsewhere (not on TFL, though), but it sort of fits here, so . . .
It would seem to me watching them in "chronological order" would be weird. I'm sure it has a lot to do with watching them in real time as they were produced, so it kind of seems watching them that way could be confusing.
Certainly something I can never experience, but it also seems some of the canonical standards developed in TOS could be confusing once introduced in the newer series, somewhat out of order.
Not to mention Klingons and their heads.
Chronology can be kind of tricky once you get to the Next Gen-era shows, because their timelines overlapped. DS9 and the last two seasons of TNG are contemporaneous, as are the third thru seventh seasons of DS9 and the first five seasons of Voyager. Occasionally plot threads or concepts from one of these shows will become important in another -- you won't understand the basic plot of Voyager, unless you understand plot threads set up in both TNG and DS9. This was all easy to follow when the shows originally aired, but it can get confusing if you look at them as separate series. 90s-era Trek is basically one long story with many branches to it.
However you do it, be sure to give the 24th Century series (TNG, DS9, VOY) time to get started. All of them began with weak early seasons, but improved from the third year forward. DS9 from the middle of the third season on is the best weekly dramatic series of any genre to come out of the 1990s. DS9 also has the most inconsistent first season -- TNG's first season is pretty generally terrible to mediocre straight thru, while DS9 had most of its worst episodes during its first season and but also several of its very best.
Trek TOS is the opposite. It started off really strong over its first season and a half and got progressively worse over its final season and a half.
And don't forget the 1973 animated series. It was produced on a kiddie budget for a kiddie timeslot, but it featured good scripts by many of the original Trek writers, and many of its episodes were better than third-season episodes of the original live-action show.
Anyway, you've got well over 700 episodes to watch, so good luck!
Haha, yes I discovered that, but by that time I was already half-way through the first season! Maybe I'll circle back around.
Haha, yes, I discovered that last night with the TOS S2 episode "Friday's Child."
I was like, "Wait, this isn't the Klingons I know from popular culture!"
That's the REAL problem with Star Trek. Between the broadcast television series', the theatrical movies, and the "pay to stream" television series' that are playing by an entirely different set of rules for legal reasons, so many people have been responsible for so many different incarnations that the only part of Star Trek that no longer fits in is the one that started it all--the original series.
I think, we need Judge Q more than ever.
If it wasn't for TOS, where would the Klingon Diplomatic Corps be? Still wearing toe-socks?
How? I mean, I grew up watching the original series, then the movies, then Next Gen, then...well, I never liked DS9 or Voyager, but then Enterprise, and so on. My point is that we fans had to watch them in the chronological order in which they were produced and the vast majority of us did just fine viewing them that way.
You misunderstand me. We're in agreement. When I say "chronological order," I'm referring to watching them in the order that Bushman is referring to. Just the general demeanor and politics of Klingons, Romulans, and Vulcans, for example, were introduced and somewhat set in TOS and then TNG. Much of the interplay/interaction between the races is taken for granted in later series.
Enterprise, for all its weaknesses, actually did a pretty good job of reconciling the smarmy smooth-headed TOS Klingons with the HONORABLE SPACE VIKING Klingons of the TNG Era. I was quite impressed with how they handled that, only to have Discovery come along and completely botch it up again. CBS-Paramount can say what they want, but I prefer to think of all the streaming-Trek shows as a weird holodeck fantasy program Barclay came up with one night when he was bored.
Oops, I didn't know, that Obsidian is an existing volcanic glass.
Thanks to Karstadt.
The only streaming-Trek I've seen is the first episode of Star Trek: Discovery that they broadcast on CBS a little over three years ago. After reading all of the complaints about the show on another forum I frequent, I'm glad I refused to pay for CBS All Abscess just to watch a show that was Star Trek in name only. I wouldn't mind watching Star Trek: Picard and/or the upcoming Star Trek: Strange New Worlds with Anson Mount as Captain Pike, Rebecca Romijn as Number One, and Ethan Peck as Spock, but, again, not paying extra for the privilege.
Taken on its own merits, "Picard" isn't bad. The problem is that it's not the Picard we know from 7 years' worth of TNG. I just can't see that man becoming the man shown in the new show. I tried, and I just can't.
The real problem with Streaming Pile of Trek is that you just can't get the depth of character development in a ten show season that you could get in a twenty-six show season. This idea that each season has to be a "ten hour movie" just doesn't give you the space to do stand-alone episodes that mean nothing to the advancement of the plot but allow space for the characters to grow. That's not a weakness, really, of the shows themselves -- it's a weakness of the modern idea of what "television" is supposed to be.
That basic thought went through my mind as I watched Picard, but I chalked the changes up to the fact that people change over time. I know that I have, and I could ultimately believe that the Picard in Picard could be the Picard in TNG after 20 more years of life experiences that we have not seen.
The story with Picard's death and the dummy is so stupid!!