Originally Posted by horatio
It is entirely objective. We learned nothing new about Vulcans and Romulans and they did not have anything to do with each other (I am arguing for weaving things together). The Klingons on the other hand were fantastic but cut out for obvious reasons.
The Orions were, as you pointed out, just green girls, i.e. a clichée instead of the real thing. In The Cage there weren't any green girls, there was a character which perfectly fitted into the story. It was an alien, not just a green girl that matches some stupid Trek clichées.
Not that I expected anything sane from you but your argument that Trek is supposed to reproduce its own clichées and basically be a parody of itself is so utterly lunatic that it doesn't require any further comments.
Back to the Orions, Bound, the previous story which involved them actually told something new about them. Doing something fresh with old faces is not continuity obsession or fanwankery, otherwise the very reboot of TOS would be fanwank as well which it obviously isn't. That's all I am asking for, if you use familiar characters or aliens do something fresh with them or connect them with each other.
To come back to the next movie, despite considering Orci to be an abysmal writer I actually expect that the Klingons and Augments will have something to do with each other. Otherwise it will most likely be something like TSFS or TFF, Klingons hunting the same thing the Feds hunt.
Arrogant as always. And still presuming to put words in other people's mouths (I'd have thought that would have bitten you in the @$$ by now). You're now going to have to cite where exactly I argued Trek 'should', in your oh-so-objective choice of words, "reproduce its own cliches and be a parody of itself." If you're right, this time it's just a mouse scroll away. Nothing? Didn't think so. You don't get to decide for people what's in their heads or mouths AND proclaim yourself the authority on who's being objective. I'm convinced you're actually pouting when you willfully plug your ears and hum really loud like that.
It's not even a question of what familiar elements they 'should' bring over when adapting a movie from a franchise. It's the same issue every franchise movie director deals with, including fandom's can't-do-wrong Christopher Nolan. Nobody can say what they 'should' have done. The jury of public opinion decides whether they told an effective story and held people's interest in the process. Be as blunt and condescending as you want (I've about stopped expecting anything sane from you as well), but you don't even know who your argument is with. The verdict's been in for two years as of this week.
Now, I'm sorry to understand that these five eps you cite really are the pinnacle of all of Trek for you, judging by your particular abrasiveness this time. You've answered my question as to why you spontaneously brought up this particularly specific and almost-non-sequitter-at-first-glance comparison for discussion. Which makes my continued participation here utterly petty at this point, assuming I cared anymore (nothing that comes from me is sane anyway, and this is an unmoderated board, so f- it
For my part I watched all five episodes and just wasn't that engaged with them by and large. I don't know what you want me to say. I don't consider a fan-mandated Just-So Story about Why the Ruffles Lost Their Ridges to be in itself an interesting enough place to start with an idea. I don't take anything new from that; if anything I think it takes away more than it adds to the mythos. And that's still allowing that the writing and direction themselves could ultimately prove me wrong (they didn't).
The Augment three-parter seemed like it should have been a two-parter; the Ruffles have Ridges two-parter probably had enough story for just one good episode. You could have trimmed the Orion slave auction diversion, and the technobabble crises intermission (culminating in Trip's superfluous space walk between two ships at warp) entirely. The battles could have been shortened considerably, given how tiresome they get on Berman Trek anyway (I fail to see the difference between shields and hull plating when both can repeatedly drop to ten percent). The 'Augments', as I'm now supposed to call them, had none of Khan's charisma whatsoever, nor did they seem particularly intelligent... apparently content to off each other over which Alpha Male gets to impregnate the fertile female (who herself gets utterly blindsighted by her boyfriend, while we're supposed to pretend to act surprised). Meanwhile Archer gets to repeatedly roll his eyes and say "I told you so" to Soong, because believing in The Law -whatever that might happen to be in any particular decade- apparently makes one a moral enough person to always have an intuitive awareness of when someone else' worldview is So Obviously Wrong. And apparently Section 31 has been doing Business As Usual for over 200 years... that's inspired.
All the arcs I've seen so far (Augments, Vulcan, Bable, Ruffles have Ridges) appear to come apart in their final installment because they spare no expense being contrived in the name of appearing climactic (The dominant 'conservative' Vulcan faction turns out to be just evil and corrupt after all; how cop-out seeming is that). And by the epilogue nothing is ever left to the imagination ("I've been thinking... cybernetics. Might take a couple centuries to realize").
None of these shortcomings, none
of them, are deal breakers in and of themselves... any more than is Berman's signature blandness in music and cinematography. I haven't even 'officially' stopped watching yet, although 'Bound' I find to be the most offensive ST since 'Mudd's Women'. There were even occasional
moments of greatness in the eps. But you of course were already going to ignore that I even said that... and I dare you to prove me wrong. I already saw the Mirror arc and the finale back in 2005, so I'm not sure how much that leaves. 'Maybe' the remaining 3/4 of S3 are supposed to be what would turn me around? Since you're also an authority on how much I've seen?