Fist and Faith wrote:Go Syl! I thought that other Q did a good job of making us understand how he felt.
clearfrontier,
Heh. It's The Defector. Remember it? The Romulan Admiral Jarok? I don't remember the actor's name, but he also played Alexander as an adult when he came back to change his child-self so that Worf would not die in the future. And also the scientist from Neelix's world who invented that horrible bomb that killed so many thousands of Telaxians (sp?) on their moon, including Neelix's family.
I remember the episode. One of the best as I recall. I felt for the character that he had such pure motives but was being setup by the Romulan command I guess to test his loyalty. I believed him from the beginning.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
Remember the Trulane character in TOS? The child-like god that holds members of the Enterprise hostage on a barren planet, only to be punished by his parents at the end? Was he a Q?
Ah "The Squire of Gothos". No reason I can think of that the Trelane character wasn't a Q but there were so many multi powered beings in Star Trek that he could have been any number of them or more likely a species or being that is totally unique. He didn't mind employing a trial similar to Q in Encounter at Farpoint. I don't know? He's just whiny enough to be a Q.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
clearfrontier wrote:I believed him from the beginning.
Me too. It never crossed my mind that he was setting them up.
As I said recently, I've only read a few Trek books. One was called, iirc, Q-Squared. Turns out Trelane was, indeed, a Q. And on the outside chance anybody's planning on reading the book, I'll spoil it.Spoiler
I don't remember why Q and the Squire fought, but the machine behind the mirror greatly enhanced (squared) Trelane's power, and he kicked Q's butt! I mean he literally tore him to shreds! iirc, Q's final act was to throw himself back through time to give himself time to heal. And it was the shredded Q that Kirk et al ran into in Where No Man Has Gone Before. Yes, it was Q who infused Gary Mitchell, giving him such power! heh heh. I don't remember what else happened, what other historical events were explained as shredded-Q, or how Trelane was eventually defeated. But I remember enjoying it at the time.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest -Paul Simon
I think an original series era film, featuring the crew of say The Yorktown, or Constitution would be mind blowing if it was done in a monster big budget fashion with a script that doesn't stink and a director that has a clue. (Nemesis)
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
possibly but wouldnt an original series movie .. following that time frame .. demand at least some of the original members of those crews .. even a Kirk or Spok cameo .. who are now very old and unlikely to pull off convincing contributions now?
Ofcourse they could begin a clean slate and move on with one of the voyages/adventures you indicate.
I saw recently for the first time ever Star Trek - The Movie .. probably the first one that you spoke of earlier with Commander Decker and the illustrious Ilia .. and was really impressed .. I think it is probably one of the best of the ST movies ..
so if done well .. I agree .. it would be excellent! But i still really like the voyager or even on .. time frame ..
keep smiling
'Smoke me a kipper .. I'll be back for breakfast!'
The only thing that would seem somewhat "unappealing" about a Voyager era movie is that it is of the same era as DS9 & STNG. I think Star Trek audiences are craving a "Wouldn't it be cool if..." kind of film. Something unlooked for from paramount. There is always the habitual cry from some that insist that a Star Fleet Academy film or series would be good. I personally enjoy capable and seasoned veterans kicking butt and taking names as opposed to teenagers coming of age stories. Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings is no contest in my mind. As to my proposed movie having any series regulars present, I would have to say an enthusiastic heck no! One of the great things about Star Trek is that Roddenberry insisted that everything about the show be accepted as the norm, no matter how fantastic it was. Transporters, star ships, starfleet, UFP. I think jamming an original series character into the mix ruins the chemistry. From the first frame of the film the story has to boldy charge ahead as if the new crew has been out there doing their thing for years. Just my opinion of course.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
I tried to get into some of Roddenberry's other projects. Earth Final Conflict, Andromeda and others. Andromeda seems kind of imprecise, if that word applies. There are a few television programs floating around that don’t seem to click with me. They don’t feel complete, either by the concept of the program, the acting or even by the level of the special effects. "Mutant X,Charmed, Etc."(I unfortunately get the same feel from Stargate SG1 as I do with Andromeda). I was encouraged by the entry of Firefly recently, but it too seemed to suffer right from the beginning. I think Enterprise also seems to suffer from a lack of genuine inspiration and ingenuity. Andromeda is a series that I predicted would evaporate after a few episodes. That is endures today is a testament to my lack of understanding. Maybe it’s Kevin Sorbo. Maybe it’s the surrounding characters. Maybe it’s the ship. Honestly there haven’t been many films or television shows that have genuinely caught my attention outside of Star Trek & Star Wars. The closest thing I’ve seen in a long time that seems to border on what I’m looking for were two films that presented an alternative to ST that made some sense to me. The world created in Starship Troopers and Wing Commander. I don’t know what it is. Starship Troopers in particular was annoying mostly due to the director’s insistence on injecting his personal views upon the great novel upon which the film was based. Wing Commander was just a little dull but each presented a future based on real organization. I abhor disorder. I plan to try to give Stargate a chance by getting the first season dvd and try to find out where I went wrong. I may try to do the same thing with Andromeda.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
It's the writing--the distribution sucks--and Sorbo's actually taking acting lessons... But the base point is that the distribution sucks--you can only get it on certain Fox affiliates. If you listen to alot of the stories, instead of concentrating on the actors (and that's one thing thats really cool about Andromeda-cause they shift alot so 1 particular actor isn't nessessarily right or predominate) it's great stuff-it's hard to say but the storylines are the point the actors aren't...To me it has more of a "Gap" feel than a ST feel, but mayb that's just me...
Indeed. It's a lot easier to focus on the writing when you don't have to struggle through Hercules' or Tyr's acting (both very much one trick ponies miscast, imo).
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
I suppose I don't have the patience to filter out the distracting elements of Andromeda in order to enjoy the story. I'm the same way with comic books. If the artist truly stinks, I can't force myself to look past half the effort in order to enjoy the writing. I suppsose I don't want to be required to work that hard to relax and enjoy myself. I suppose with an acute familararity with the program would help. imo
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
Hi there. The nutty Canuck here. Fabulous Trek discussion you've got going here! My 2 cents worth (which in Canadian currency ain't a lot):
I always felt that Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a special creation that stood apart from the later movies. Seeing it as a 9-year old (was 1979 that long ago?),it left a huge impression on me. Sure, I had Star Wars in the head like every other kid at the time, but then ST:TMP came along and showed me how big screen sci-fi could be done in a different way: a more contemplative, "grown-up" approach that more or less put aside the thrills and spills of Star Wars battles. ST:TMP was a grand journey into the cosmos, where forbidding entities like V'ger roamed.
The rest of the Trek films alternated between very good and very lame, but none equalled the grandeur of ST:TMP. Most of them seemed like episodes-of-the-week that accidentally found themselves on the big screen.
Wrath of Khan: wrath of Montalban! He was sooo good I almost wished he kicked Kirk's butt. Almost.
Search for Spock: Nimoy can direct! Christopher Lloyd steals the show!
Voyage Home: Nimoy can really direct! Film almost approaches cosmic wonder of Star Trek I with introduction of alien probe. Actually feels like a big screen movie, not a TV movie.
Final Frontier: Shatner can't direct! After this, I could understand anyone who wanted to avoid Star Trek for the rest of their life.
Worst Trek movie? Can't say. Didn't see Nemesis. Didn't bother.
Hello Canuck, If read any of my posts you know I essentially agree with you. My reverence for ST:TMP however is less about the content or performance and more about its unequalled importance in the vast universe of Star Trek as a whole.
"If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?"
I thought that other Q did a good job of making us understand how he felt.
