@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
I'm saying that if a sequel's quality reflect on the original material, then that goes both ways. If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
Well well well! This looks fun. Marvel's 'What if...?'
@derp Lower Decks is best Star Trek
Orville is best Star Trek.
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
...I dare not even imagine such a glorious world.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
I'm saying that if a sequel's quality reflect on the original material, then that goes both ways. If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
Certainly more consistent to the comparisons being drawn, at least.
"Excuse the hell out of you. He's a bag of dicks. I'm a carefully curated box of cocks." -- to @GirlCalledBlu upon being misrepresented.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
I'm saying that if a sequel's quality reflect on the original material, then that goes both ways. If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
Certainly more consistent to the comparisons being drawn, at least.
Yeah I don't know where folks were going with comparisons. I was implying TOS is my favorite despite being very dated to the time it was created. It brought science/ fiction forward to pave the easy so to speak. It's better than the other campy, very dated series that did the same. I'll take Shatners Kirk over Wests Batman. All the other Trk series are good, but they had time to gather more sources and influence to their writing and filmography. TOS is still my fav.
I'm just a surge protector doing my job, sir.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
I'm saying that if a sequel's quality reflect on the original material, then that goes both ways. If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
Certainly more consistent to the comparisons being drawn, at least.
Yeah I don't know where folks were going with comparisons. I was implying TOS is my favorite despite being very dated to the time it was created. It brought science/ fiction forward to pave the easy so to speak. It's better than the other campy, very dated series that did the same. I'll take Shatners Kirk over Wests Batman. All the other Trk series are good, but they had time to gather more sources and influence to their writing and filmography. TOS is still my fav.
Pike > Kirk. Fite me.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
@coin It felt a bit dishonest of me to go there since I actually kinda like Voyager and Star Trek V; but I know most people are deeply contemptuous of them.
This is literally the first I've ever heard of anyone hating Voyager. Most of my trek nerds loved it. I loved it. Janeway was my fave captain for a while.
How does that even work?!
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
I loved Voyager. Actually started rewatching it last week to introduce my wife to it.
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
I'm saying that if a sequel's quality reflect on the original material, then that goes both ways. If you prefer, pretend I said that without TOS, there would be no Voyager, or no Star Trek V.
Certainly more consistent to the comparisons being drawn, at least.
Yeah I don't know where folks were going with comparisons. I was implying TOS is my favorite despite being very dated to the time it was created. It brought science/ fiction forward to pave the easy so to speak. It's better than the other campy, very dated series that did the same. I'll take Shatners Kirk over Wests Batman. All the other Trk series are good, but they had time to gather more sources and influence to their writing and filmography. TOS is still my fav.
Pike > Kirk. Fite me.
No debate here. Good to see his story getting more attention even though the replacement was because original original trek didn't take off. Hunter is up there too. The interesting thing is they made the new actor Kirk instead of how other shows just brought in new actor for fame old bit like Bewitchef and the Darrens.
@derp The complaints I've heard include the lack of continuity between episodes after the show drops the Kazon/Seska plot, a mostly boring crew whose members never get to significantly grow or evolve due to the episodic nature of the series yet still somehow manage to occasionally be inconsistent, Neelix being a straight up predator, doing little to nothing with the premise of being cut off from Starfleet, overusing the Borg until the Borg cease to present a credible threat to anyone, a pretty hateful representation of B'Elanna Torres, and the naked* pandering in Seven of Nine's costume design.
I agree with all of those complaints to one degree or another, but despite that, I find most of the show watchable. Just not the Neelix episodes, mostly.
*rimshot
@greenflashlight Yeah. Voyager was very much a show with lots of big ideas, but no long-term consequences. My prime example: in (IIRC) the first season, there was an episode where hey encounter a planet with technology that can cut the trip back home in half. The planet refuses to share the tech in a reversal of the 'Prime Directive' story hook. So, Tuvok steals the tech, for the benefit of the ship. Janeway gets upset and confronts Tuvok, saying 'I can never trust you again,' Next episode, it's like nothing happened. Tuvok has suffered no repercussions, no tension between him and Janeway, incident is never brought up again.
Also, "Year in Hell' was hyped as a major event with big repercussions; Everything back to normal at the end of the arc, nothing lasting.
@runescryer Continuity in older shows (and I mean that as in... anything before probably the late 90s or early 2000s?) was always sketchy. Sometimes intentionally, other times because the writers just didn't care and everything was so episodic.
In my opinion the real catalyst was Buffy. A lot of shows that followed it were influenced by its "2 stand-alone, 1 meta" episode format.
Sometimes intentionally, other times because the writers just didn't care and everything was so episodic.
As I understand it, it was more a deliberate thing to keep things episodic so viewers could drop in and out more easily, and therefore the show had better chances in syndication. It was a big thing back then, and took a long time to give way to more overarching story arcs.
Sometimes intentionally, other times because the writers just didn't care and everything was so episodic.
As I understand it, it was more a deliberate thing to keep things episodic so viewers could drop in and out more easily, and therefore the show had better chances in syndication. It was a big thing back then, and took a long time to give way to more overarching story arcs.
That and we were just coming out of the era where radio serials and soap operas were the dominant form of entertainment, too, so if you wanted to get anyone you had to make it feel like the format they were used to, but better.
@runescryer I wrote a whole thing about my prime example, but this thread is supposed to be about good TV, so I deleted it. Let's just say I'm with you.
@runescryer Continuity in older shows (and I mean that as in... anything before probably the late 90s or early 2000s?) was always sketchy. Sometimes intentionally, other times because the writers just didn't care and everything was so episodic.
In my opinion the real catalyst was Buffy. A lot of shows that followed it were influenced by its "2 stand-alone, 1 meta" episode format.
Oh, absolutely. But even Original Trek did have continuity from episode to episode with long term ramifications. The escalation of conflict between the Federation and the Klingons being the prime example. Episodes that focused on the conflict had results that carried over into future episodes.
This is literally the first I've ever heard of anyone hating Voyager. Most of my trek nerds loved it. I loved it. Janeway was my fave captain for a while.
How does that even work?!
@zombiegenesis said in Good TV:
I loved Voyager. Actually started rewatching it last week to introduce my wife to it.
Threshold.
That is all.
Ceterum autem censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
@greenflashlight said in Good TV:
Without TOS there would be no Star Trek.
But without Dracula, there would be no Twilight. Just saying.
Dracula's more TNG to The Vampyre's TOS. Also I don't get the point. Are you insinuating that the new Star Trek properties are to TOS what Twilight is to Dracula?
