Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-traile … 1795312040

Trailer ahoy!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I don't know... I get that they have to update the look of the show, but they went out of their way to assure us that this was the Prime universe and not the Kelvin universe, and yet it looks remarkably like the Kelvin universe. The Klingons look like they were changed just for the sake of changing them. They're not improved. They look kinda stupid.

I guess we can't comment on much of the plot yet, but the show has to walk a fine line here, or it will look like another half-assed fan film. I don't get why they feel a need to keep going back to a pre-Kirk era, when they could easily set a series post-Voyager. They've had enough time that they could set up any story they wanted. Open on a debris field, and slowly reveal that it's actually all that remains of Earth! The Federation is in shambles. Numerous enemies are taking advantage of the situation! How do we move forward?!?!

Or whatever.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I also don't know why they keep insisting on going to the Kirk era (it's still during his lifetime).  It's been covered....let's do something new.

I still sorta liked the idea that someone had back in the day about an Alpha Quadrant that's been devastated by an Omega Particle.  So simple space travel isn't simple anymore.  Set it in 2600 so that technology could be improved and no one from the TNG/DS9/VOY era would be alive.

It's also weird that they changed the uniforms again.  Although I guess the TNG/DS9/VOY era showed that they change uniforms like they change underwear at Starfleet.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Just watched it.  It doesn't interest me at all.  If it took place after Voyager, it might, but the look and feel doesn't work for me.

--Chaser9

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I'll watch, but as a friend said on Facebook, it's a hot mess.  These producers simply do not understand the predilections of Star Trek fans.  Greatly altering the look of Klingons is a BIG DEAL.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Grizzlor wrote:

I'll watch, but as a friend said on Facebook, it's a hot mess.  These producers simply do not understand the predilections of Star Trek fans.  Greatly altering the look of Klingons is a BIG DEAL.

TNG greatly altered the look of Klingons and is beloved.

107 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-05-22 12:45:05)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

That's a great point.  If this is successful in bringing a new Star Trek era to TV, then this might become *the* look for the Klingons for a whole new generation.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

pilight wrote:
Grizzlor wrote:

I'll watch, but as a friend said on Facebook, it's a hot mess.  These producers simply do not understand the predilections of Star Trek fans.  Greatly altering the look of Klingons is a BIG DEAL.

TNG greatly altered the look of Klingons and is beloved.

Ehhh, I think you mean Star Trek TMP, but that they still looked reasonable.  These knew ones look absurd. 

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

That's a great point.  If this is successful in bringing a new Star Trek era to TV, then this might become *the* look for the Klingons for a whole new generation.

Hope not.  This makeup is simply too much.  Again this proves how clueless new filmmakers are these days.  They overuse makeup, CGI, camera effects, and the like, all the time.  Tell me how we get a performance like those of John Colicos, Michael Dorn, Christopher Lloyd, Tony Todd, or Robert O'Reilly through that reptilian makeup?  They don't know what they're doing.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

They look weird, but let's at least give them the Pilot before we judge too harshly.  And remember, the Pilot will be on regular TV for free smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

There was a rumor a while back, suggesting that these might be some sort of ancient Klingon variant. If that's true, there may be hope. I won't be holding my breath though.

I will probably not watch the pilot right away. I'll just wait and binge the season during a free trial of the CBS thing.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Well, Star Trek has always liked to dance in social commentary and politics; in my opinion, it's what differentiates it from generic space opera.  With that in mind, I wonder if this new Klingon design has a purpose we're not seeing yet.

Looking at contemporary social issues, could the new Klingons be a Star Trek attempt at commenting on Black Lives Matter?  Is the Federation profiling Klingons just because they appear to be Klingons?  What if they were innocent and a misunderstanding leads to war?

I always understood the Cold War allegory with the Klingons, but the visceral hatred that was sometimes shown between humans and Klingons was a step above the flavor of the Cold War.  Discovery could be where they take a stab at explaining that hatred.

In any case, if the new show wants the Star Trek feel, they'll have some level of social awareness.  It may not be in this Klingon change, but it needs to be somewhere.  There's many different ways they could touch on illegal immigration, for instance.  Brexit could be explored as a culture tries to leave the Federation.  There are several avenues.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

It could be that the Klingons are in the process of changing from the ridge headed type of TNG (which we saw in ENT as well) into the smooth-foreheaded TOS Klingons.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

If they do choose to go with social commentary, I hope they're smart about it. We have a lot of shows preaching at us right now. If Star Trek starts hitting me over the head with Black Lives Matter, I'm turning it off. However, if they want to have a nuanced exploration of racial tension and all that, it could be interesting.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Finding the social commentary on this show might be like combing through hair for lice!  If the trailer has anything to do with it.  These writers nowadays don't know how to do it.  TOS and TNG did it with over the top figures.  Heck look at Sliders, where Tracy and the early writers did it satirically.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

TOS and TNG got very preachy sometimes.  Kirk and Picard were both known for making speeches

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Deep Space Nine did it best, I think. Those stories are still very relevant, and I talk to people who saw completely different real-world parallels in the show. I can still watch that show without thinking that it's hilariously dated. Even the concept of sanctuary districts doesn't seem far fetched.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Let's not forget that most of the older Trek shows were comprised of theatrically trained actors.  I've never heard of most of these actors, and there's no evidence yet that Jason Isaacs or Anthony Rapp will play as large a role as many of the newcomers.  To me this looks like a very "Enterprise" cast.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I don't know that I agree with that. Looking at the cast list right now, I see some actors who are more famous than others, but many that have been somewhere on my radar for quite some time. The actors that I knew of before this series are:

Jason Isaacs
Doug Jones
Sonequa Martin-Green
Anthony Rapp
Michelle Yeoh
Kenneth Mitchell
Rekha Sharma
Rainn Wilson
James Frain


I think that if I were to look at the Enterprise cast, the most well known actor there is Scott Bakula, and maybe some recurring characters who appeared on other Star Trek shows. With Voyager... I don't know that I'd ever heard of any of them before, though Robert Picardo had already been in a lot of stuff. Kate Mulgrew was well established by then too, but I'd not heard of her.

When it comes to theatrical actors, I don't place them on as high a pedestal as others do. I've seen a lot of stage actors who just can't make the transition to camera work. They're really two different talents. It's like calling someone a "writer", but obviously there would be a difference between a novelist and a lyricist. So the stage work doesn't really matter to me as much as previous screen credits.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I was reading Wil Wheaton's autobiography, JUST A GEEK, where he described the terrible shame of running into Jonathan Frakes and Brent Spiner and Patrick Stewart and their assorted successes while he'd had one disastrous audition after another, and how he was embarrassed to park anywhere near them because they all had luxury cars while he had a Volkswagen and how he came to realize that despite his youthful bravado, quitting STAR TREK had been a complete and total financial disaster and career suicide and I felt this tremendous sense of relief and comfort to know that even someone as cool as Wil Wheaton has often felt pathetic.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

That's another reason why I'm a little disappointed that Discovery isn't an anthology series.  I think there's so many cool stories that they could tell in the Star Trek universe, up to and including "What's Wesley up to?"  I think a "different era each season" story (like American Horror Story* for Star Trek) would work, or I think a complete anthology series could be really cool (like Twilight Zone* or Black Mirror*)

* Talking strictly about format.

You probably wouldn't get Avery Brooks to return as Sisko for a whole season of something, but you could get him for an episode.  Same with virtually any of the other actors (Patrick Stewart might be the only guy too big for something this small, but even he might do a cameo or something).  Let's check in on the TNG crew.  Or the people at Deep Space Nine.  How's Riker's first big command going?  What's Jake Sisko doing?  How'd the Voyager crew end up?  What was the adjustment to the first years of the Federation like for the Enterprise crew?

Or go further.  What's life like in the 26th century?  29th?  32nd?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

That's another reason why I'm a little disappointed that Discovery isn't an anthology series.  I think there's so many cool stories that they could tell in the Star Trek universe, up to and including "What's Wesley up to?"  I think a "different era each season" story (like American Horror Story* for Star Trek) would work, or I think a complete anthology series could be really cool (like Twilight Zone* or Black Mirror*)

* Talking strictly about format.

You probably wouldn't get Avery Brooks to return as Sisko for a whole season of something, but you could get him for an episode.  Same with virtually any of the other actors (Patrick Stewart might be the only guy too big for something this small, but even he might do a cameo or something).  Let's check in on the TNG crew.  Or the people at Deep Space Nine.  How's Riker's first big command going?  What's Jake Sisko doing?  How'd the Voyager crew end up?  What was the adjustment to the first years of the Federation like for the Enterprise crew?

Or go further.  What's life like in the 26th century?  29th?  32nd?

That is why God invented all those comic books and novels that you're too good for. ;-)

**

The situation Wil Wheaton described in his autobiography was circa 2001 or so. He's doing fine now.

Wheaton, in his biography, explains that Rick Berman prevented Wheaton from exercising his option to be absent from THE NEXT GENERATION in order to do a film, telling Wheaton the film's shooting days overlapped with a Wesley-centered episode. Then the shooting days for the Wesley episode came and Wheaton had no scenes whatsoever.

Wheaton was outraged and quit. In the rush of freedom from STAR TREK, he decided to focus on acting lessons, hone his craft, refine his skills and turned down the lead role of PRIMAL FEAR which took Edward Norton to stardom while Wheaton finished his education andwent to work for a computer startup firm that collapsed.

In returning to Hollywood, he couldn't land any roles. He'd been a very cute little boy, but now he was an extremely average looking adult man and the roles he competed for went to more conventionally attractive actors. He used up his money from STAR TREK on his wedding, his stepsons and a series of legal problems caused by his wife's ex-husband. With his savings gone and not much work, Wheaton was under a mountain of debt, borrowing money from his parents and constantly terrified to lose his house. He describes an evening at Hooters where his server asked him, "Didn't you used to be an actor when you were a kid?" and the horrifying realization that he couldn't claim to be an actor now.

In his autobiography, Wheaton describes how leaving STAR TREK was the right move in that moment: a chance to grow up, move forward and not be ruled by Rick Berman's ego. He studied acting more thoroughly. He met his wife. But years later, he was out of work, financially shattered, and he fully grasped the bitter irony that STAR TREK had been driving him to depression and misery, but he was depressed and miserable now and if he'd done his seven years on the show, he could be depressed and miserable and not nearly bankrupt. In shameful desperation, he was auditioning to game shows and trying to trade in on his D-list celebrity standing to support his wife and children, barely winning a spot on THE WEAKEST LINK.

He was called to appear in NEMESIS in a single scene that would take two days to film that was cut from the movie and not even invited to the premiere. Wheaton notes that this was a long line of behaviour from Rick Berman at events where Berman would call up every TNG regular to go onstage and take a bow and be recognized -- but Wheaton would be excluded, left sitting alone in the actors' section, the only person left in that section, seated while his co-workers were onstage.

Wheaton also said, however, that he didn't handle his exit from STAR TREK well. He doesn't go into detail beyond saying he was immature, that it was hard being a child surrounded by adults, he later describes an apology he gave to Patrick Stewart without conveying precisely what it was for which he had to apologize. Wheaton says that Stewart responded simply by saying that Wheaton had been a teenager and that everyone understood. So, I assume that Wheaton was not exactly innocent, although youth excuses many misdeeds.

I'm not clear on Berman's reason for disliking Wheaton, but at one point, Wheaton exclaims that he is sorry and that he was a kid and that it hurt that the DVD set doesn't use any photos of Wesley on the box or the discs. Then, Wheaton relates how he hit a period where conventions were no longer offering him a decent speaking fee, considering him on the same level as performers who played Transporter Chief #7 and sell signed headshots. "I went there expecting to sell hundreds of autographed pictures... hardly anyone was interested. I sat in a cavernous and undecorated area. 'This is what my life has come to,' I thought. 'I am a has-been.'"

A convention organizer for a 15-year anniversary convention flat out told him that while they paid top dollar for STAR TREK captains and good money for the likes of Denise Crosby and Gates McFadden, Wheaton was worthless.

Wheaton blogged about this conversation and the organizer was beset by a deluge of emails, phone calls and faxes by angry TREK fans who were furious at a TNG-actor being treated in this fashion and the convention apologized and booked Wheaton and his comedy troupe.

Wheaton describes the tipping point of his career -- an infomercial where he would peddle 3D glasses for computer games, an infomercial Wheaton describes as the final nail in the coffin holding his aspirations to be a serious actor. Weighing it, he felt that the product was good, that his career was dead anyway, and he might as well take the money, pay off his debts, support his family and transition into writing.

This led to his career renaissance on THE GUILD, THE BIG BANG THEORY and his involvement in the GEEK AND SUNDRY media platform and eventually, Wheaton was able to step into a new career as a geek-personality and web media producer and then a voice acting career. I think, financially, Wheaton is doing fine now. However, I think his career trajectory, during the downward spiral, spoke to a failure to recognize opportunity and a lack of creativity.

I can't judge him for quitting STAR TREK (although I'm sure his accountant does and Wheaton clearly credits this decision with destroying his career), but turning down PRIMAL FEAR was really, really stupid and he says so himself. "I foolishly thought Hollywood would wait for me," he writes. After that, he spent too much time doing only auditions when what he needed to do was start making his own work.

I'm friends with lots of actors (okay, two actresses) and they are perpetually auditioning for roles they don't get. Their attitude is to write their own dream roles and make sure that even if they're tending bar and working shifts in group homes to pay their bills, they have lived out their creative ambitions in the venue of independent stage theatre. Then there's actors like Tom Welling who spent their time as actors treating the set of their show as film school so that afterwards, Tom wasn't just an actor but also a producer and director. Allison Mack was in the same position as Wheaton on SMALLVILLE and stuck it out for nine years before having a mid-life crisis that resulted in her reduced role for Season 10. Why'd she stay? She did it for the money.

In an interview with Robert Floyd, whom I still like even though he voted for Trump, Floyd spoke how of actors should save their money. "You got paid as a guest star," he recalls saying to a bartender. "Don't spend that money, don't live off that money or you will be broke, you will have nothing," advising his employee to instead treat his bar wages as his spending money and his acting wages as savings.

Wheaton says after TREK, he fell in love with the woman who became his wife, fell in love with her children, now his stepsons, and he spent everything he had from TREK and STAND BY ME to set up his new life with his new family. Getting married so young and with kids to support without a stable income was foolhardy, but while Wheaton regrets leaving TREK and rejecting PRIMAL FEAR, his marriage and stepsons are not regrets and never were, not even when he was on the verge of homelessness.

As Wheaton himself confesses, he would've been better off doing Seasons 5- 7 of STAR TREK. But he doesn't need it to help him anymore; he makes his own work now and he's not selling signed action figures to make a minimum payment and hoping DISCOVERY will cast him in order to save him from his creditors.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

PRIMAL FEAR is a good flick, but it would not have been transformative for Wheaton like it was for Norton because Wheaton isn't as good an actor.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Wheaton could be making a steady paycheck at conventions, but he doesn't do many.  In fact, I've read/heard many stories about him being less than friendly, if not plain rude with fans.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I didn't hate Wesley as much as some people when I was younger, probably because I was a kid who liked the idea of a character like that. Then Voyager happened and I couldn't figure out why they set Wesley up to appear on the show, but it never happened.

Now that I'm older, I have a different take. I've heard stories about Wil (not public, but in sort of a friend-of-a-friend who knew him kind of way) when he was younger that made me understand why people didn't necessarily want him around.

Basically, he was a dick.

So years passed and I saw him popping up online. I read some of his stories about working on the show and it started to seem like he had gotten more mature with age. I was happy for him, and I just figured that he was a kid before, so he shouldn't be held to that reputation anymore.

But Twitter happened. And the more attention Wil got from people, the more he started to act like a dick again. It's not just one post that I can quote or an opinion that I don't like, it is his stupid, arrogant, snide personality and how he carries himself. I just can't stand him, and it seems to me like he was either putting on an act when he seemed to have matured with age, or he has fallen back on old habits once he started to get some recognition again.

Anyway, I can't count myself as a fan. Stand By Me is a great movie, but "Shut up, Wesley" is a line that's been repeated in my head so often over the past few years that I can't feel even a little bad for him when he is left out of Star Trek gatherings. Those actors who appear there aren't owed cheers and loyal fans. They have earned them over many, many years.

Anyway, once I got into DS9, I liked Jake better. Son of the most awesome captain, and a writer on top of that! Plus, Cirroc Lofton never came across as anything but gracious, from what I've seen. I think the other actors on the show, especially Avery Brooks, were positive influences in that regard.


By the way, has anyone seen Avery lately? The last I saw him was in The Captains, or whatever that Shatner documentary was called. He seemed out of it, so I have been wondering about his health ever since. Did he just have to get really high in order to talk to Shatner? smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I don't really know what to make of Wesley or Wil.  I found myself feeling very badly for Wil when I read ireactions' summary, but I've also heard a lot about the "dickishness" of Wil both online and in stories. 

The character was fine.  I think there's something to be said about the Wesley/Nog/Harry Kim characters of the world, but I don't think it's really been done properly yet.  If they want these wide-eyed, in over their head, young characters, I think there are ways to make them more interesting.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I am shocked, outraged and very hurt by how Informant, Slider_Quinn21 and Grizzlor would speak of Wil's reportedly bad behaviour at conventions -- without sharing any of these stories! I demand you spill all of them! So that I can perform armchair psychoanalysis upon them.

Wheaton repeatedly says in his book that he's ashamed of his age 16 - 21 behaviour both on the TNG set and at cons and that a lot of it was because he was really unhappy over how people conflated him with Wesley Crusher. At cons, fans expressed their hatred towards him, and he describes a panel where the screenwriters were actively bashing Wheaton as being annoying even though they were the ones scripting his dialogue. He was constantly on edge at cons. Also, as a kid, he saw the TOS cast doing photo-ops while in a drunken stupor and he had this terror that he was looking at his own future.

I think it's fair for Informant to say Wheaton didn't earn the regard that the other actors won because Wheaton gave up on Wesley, leaving after Season 4's ninth episode whereas the other actors never gave up on their characters.

After his time on the show, Wheaton went to cons as an autograph signer who wasn't there for a speaking engagement and was there to sell autographed photos, and this made him both depressed over his career and increasingly desperate over his finances, so that could also be a factor in his con behaviour back then as he was constantly in denial over his career path, describing it as being in "Prove to Everyone that Leaving STAR TREK Wasn't A Mistake" mode.

Wheaton's written a number of Season 1 TNG reviews where he notes that his performance on TNG was well before he'd received five years' worth of professional training. He says that while he likes the sincerity of his Wesley performance and how he delivers his often terrible dialogue well, he dislikes how he "telegraphs" everything he's about to do; he doesn't play off the other actors, he's visibly waiting for his next line, and he talks about how Patrick Stewart adds so much beyond the page and blows young Wheaton off the screen. He notes a specific moment in the first TNG episode where Stewart looks at Wheaton and Stewart plays it as Picard grappling with how Wesley reminds Picard of Wesley's father, Picard's dead friend. Wheaton says looking back, he wishes he could have done something with this moment -- but he just stood there.

Jerry O'Connell also played a whiz-kid on SLIDERS and did a lot better. Jerry had John Rhys-Davies there to read all the scripts and identify all the subtext and opportunities within each scene, so Jerry's performances have a specificity and weight that vanishes once John's not around. Wheaton notes that the Season 1 - 2 writers, in trying to make Wesley unusually intelligent, would write all the other characters as unusually stupid. In contrast, Tracy Tormé wrote Quinn's intelligence as improvisational brilliance whereas Roddenberry wrote Wesley with average ability that the script declared extraordinary or gave Wesley skills like commandeering the Enterprise that the character hadn't earned with any credibility. There's also the fact that Wesley was constantly excused from fault or frailty whereas Quinn is regularly shown to be incompetent and over his head.

Had Wheaton done PRIMAL FEAR, he would have played it with a lot more experience and craft than he showed on TNG.

Anyway. I quite enjoy Wheaton's self-mocking, self-flagellating persona. He's become a less drunk Dan Harmon and Dan Harmon is basically a drunker and more ridiculous Tracy Tormé and Tracy Tormé is essentially a Gene Roddenberry who can actually write dialogue. There was a point to this, but it has temporarily escaped my mind.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

To be clear, the stories I heard were not convention stories or any sort of public events. They were just about his behavior in the real world.

But he was a teenager and as I said, I was hopeful that he had grown up and matured. I liked reading some of his thoughts on early TNG episodes. I think you're over-stating how much his later training would have helped him, since I've seen him in other things and I don't think he has progressed much as an actor. I just don't know that he has the talent for adult roles. That's not a slam. It's just something you see with actors. Some don't have the instinct for it.

I was willing to give him another chance and move on, but I haven't been a fan of how he conducts himself. There's not much more to say.

On another note, I worked with Jonathan Frakes once. I want to say that he gave me some direction personally, but it was a while ago, so I forget the details. What I can tell you is that he did not destroy any of my fanboy expectations. He was not just polite, but funny and a joy to work with. Filming is usually stressful and it can be worse when the actors or director are pissy. Also, it sucks when you like an  actor going into work and then don't like them once you've seen how they behave on set. I was really happy to be able to hold onto the Trek fan expectations.

128 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-07-06 15:29:30)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Everything I know about Wil Wheaton is anecdotal and third hand.  I've never personally interacted with him, nor have I sought out much of his actual work.  What I've seen has been good.  I've followed him on Twitter a couple of times only to unfollow him shortly thereafter,

At the end of the day, I don't really have an opinion of him.  I just know my original understanding of him was that he was a jerk, but after reading all you say from his book, maybe that's all in the past.  I understand a thing or two about regret, and I'm sure the whole experience was incredibly humbling.  If he came out of that a better person and if he's found success these days, then all the better for him.

I honestly don't understand why people hate the kid actors who do bad movies/shows.  Jake Lloyd was essentially bullied to the point where he hates Star Wars, and I've never understood that.  He was a kid who took, essentially, the coolest job in the world.  It wasn't his fault that the dialogue sucked, and I'm sure he did just about as well with the part as any other kid his age.  Blaming the actor seems like a really bizarre choice to make.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I am so angry right now I am about to explode. Informant and Slider_Quinn21 have officially made an enemy for life today by still refusing to share what they've heard about Wil Wheaton that makes Rick Berman not want him onstage at TREK events.

I have some hope left for Grizzlor.

**

Awhile ago, I heard this (alleged) incident on the set of STAR TREK: THE FINAL FRONTIER where a 17-year-old Wheaton went to the set to meet William Shatner. Wheaton greeted Shatner, said he was a big fan and that perhaps they could have a cup of coffee sometime. Shatner snapped that he had better things to do than hang out with some loser who pressed buttons on the bridge of the Enterprise while the real actors worked. A humiliated Wheaton fled the set. Shatner chased him outside and apologized. Wheaton unleashed a torrent of profanities and insults about Shatner's 70s career of appearances at children's birthday parties, Shatner responded with an onslaught of swear words, James Doohan broke up the fight and dragged Shatner into a trailer to tell him off for how he treated young fans, Wheaton stormed off to the TNG set. Shatner later sent Wheaton a number of gifts in apology, Wheaton coldly ignored them and up to 2002 referred to Shatner as "Old Toupee Head" until they made amends in the green room for THE WEAKEST LINK.

The other version of this story that I've heard is that a busy Shatner barely noticed Wheaton on set except to inquire what his job was on TNG and then remark, "In my day, I'd never let a kid on my bridge," and Wheaton ran away in tears. Shatner has a sense of humour where he likes to insult people and see if they can fling his barbs back at him in which case he'll consider them an equal which gained an acidic edge due to his own humiliation in which, post STAR TREK, he lost all his money in a nasty divorce and spent the 70s as a world famous actor living in the back of his truck, scraping together a living from, as I said, children's birthday parties and the like. It wasn't until Kirk was killed off that Shatner developed the ability to laugh at himself and Shatner and Wheaton, today, have exactly the same sense of self-mocking humour.

Shatner laughing at himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hnBp7x2QAE

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Oh. Sorry. Wheaton has finally divulged the true Shatner/Wheaton meeting and it's more the second version than the first version.

http://www.subspace-comms.net/index.php?topic=1424.0

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

My Intel isn't anything new or exciting. Wil basically treated people like crap because he had a massive ego. It's just that this goes beyond a professional environment and into the normal world as well. It's not a big story or anything like that. I have a family member who has a friend who knew Wil when they were younger.

But lots of teenagers are dicks. If Wil had grown out of it, it wouldn't really matter at this point. My current opinion is based on my observation of him over the past few years. He still seems full of himself, except he's learned the angle from which to get people to give him money. Good for him. I don't hate him or anything like that. I just don't care to follow or support him.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Thoughts on why Shatner acted as he did:

Shatner at the time was a bundle of neurotic insecurity prone to eruptions of hostility to keep people at bay. The reason, I think: he couldn't live up to the physical image of Captain Kirk. Kirk is youthful, athletic and tall. To play this character, the balding Shatner wore a two piece wig with makeup carefully blending the seam of the hairpiece with the forehead of his skin. He had lifts in his shoes. While in shape at the start of each season of TREK, filming schedules left him no time to exercise and he had to wear a girdle.

None of this was a big deal until the success of STAR TREK meant Shatner had to maintain this appearance in his public life, not just on set. Joan Collins describes how she ran into Shatner off set and didn't recognize this short, portly, balding old man as the young starship captain. Shatner resented this image he couldn't maintain in real life, resented his co-workers knowing he couldn't maintain it and the sight of a young teenager looking at him adoringly made Shatner feel like a fraud under threat.

It's easier for actors these days because nutrition and exercise methods and technology have advanced. Shatner, desperate to get back in shape, would live on lemon juice for weeks, lose weight, then he couldn't sustain his deprivation and binge. Today, a guy like Stephen Amell knows to keep stable blood sugar levels to avoid cravings, sate himself on protein and fat and we now know that starving doesn't work. Also, no one cared that Picard was bald and all the TNG cast wore muscle suits.

133 (edited by Informant 2017-07-07 14:14:59)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

The TNG crew wore muscle suits?!? I always thought that Michael Dorn was just solidly muscular!

I did read an interview with Marina Sirtis once, where she said that without the added hair and contact lenses, she rarely got recognized on the street. I think that's weird. I'm pretty sure that I'd recognize her... But then, I would probably recognize Michael Dorn too.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

ireactions wrote:

I am so angry right now I am about to explode. Informant and Slider_Quinn21 have officially made an enemy for life today by still refusing to share what they've heard about Wil Wheaton that makes Rick Berman not want him onstage at TREK events.

Ha, I told you I don't have stories.  Stuff I've collected through the years.  Just like I'm now working on the idea that Jonathan Frakes is a nice guy because he may or may not have given Informant direction.  I'd probably heard something negative about him and that's just the "status quo" opinion I had.

To be fair, the story he wrote about Shatner was really entertaining.  So maybe my default position on Wheaton will be "he's pretty funny"

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Star Trek VI establishes that there was peace between the Klingons and the Federation because of the explosion of Praxis and an ecological disaster on Qo'noS.  It's stated in the film that the planet has about "50 years left" on it.

In TNG, the Klingons and Federation are (for the most part) peaceful, and there's tons of references to the idea that Qo'noS is fine.

Is this ever explained?  Did they evacuate Qo'noS and whatever planet they're talking about in the TNG era is a "New Qo'noS?"  Or did Federation/Klingon scientists find a way to save the planet?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

To be fair, scientists are always claiming that a planet has about 50 years left. It's usually just a way of securing additional funding. smile

Real answer: I have no idea. I'm going to say that Wesley Crusher figured out a way to save the planet.

137 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2017-09-15 13:32:56)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

What's weird is that it happened right in the era where the show and the movies were working together.  In three TNG-era series (all featuring a Klingon in the main cast), they never explained what happened to the Klingon homeworld?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

If you look at the credits, the films didn't have any real crossover with the writers/producers of the TV shows. They probably didn't even talk. Which is weird.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Really?  Weird.  Especially considering all the shared sets/actors.  I mean, they put in a Worf extended cameo in Star Trek VI.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Directed by Nicholas Meyer

Produced by:   
Ralph Winter
Steven-Charles Jaffe

Screenplay by:   
Nicholas Meyer
Denny Martin Flinn

Story by:   
Leonard Nimoy
Lawrence Konner
Mark Rosenthal


It is weird. I've always thought that the Worf cameo was awkward, even when I was a kid. smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

What's weird is that it happened right in the era where the show and the movies were working together.  In three TNG-era series (all featuring a Klingon in the main cast), they never explained what happened to the Klingon homeworld?

It turned out the explosion deniers were right; there was nothing wrong with the environment.  Ah'lGorr was financially ruined as a result.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Roddenberry was very, very anal about writing things into continuity that made no sense or conflicted with what was done before in major ways.  At the end of the day, it had a lot of plot holes if you will, but it was and still is a fun movie. 

As for Wil, he just appeared at a convention where he prohibited fans from touching him during the photo ops.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Are you normally able to touch the guests? While I don't like Wil Wheaton, I have to admit, that would drive me insane.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Roddenberry had no creative input into STAR TREK VI whatsoever beyond raging about how much he hated it. That's it. That's all. (He was annoyed at Starfleet's conspiracy, the Enterprise crew's racism and the militaristic tone. Not a frame was altered to suit him and he died shortly after seeing the film. It seems he hated VI so much it killed him.)

THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY's dialogue says that the Klingon homeworld has been severely damaged and that in order to repair it, the Empire will have to divert their resources away from the military and towards environmental repair -- which is why they initiated peace talks with the Federation. As those talks were successful, we can take it from TNG that the repair to their planet was successful.

STAR TREK VI was made between Seasons 4 - 5 of TNG and most of the film was shot on redressed TNG sets, so they knew full well that the Klingon homeworld had been shown to be a fixture of TNG and that the Federation and the Empire had made peace. The film established the origins of that peace and Colonel Worf, Worf's grandfather, was a little nod to TNG as well as the transition of "where no man has gone before" to "where no one has gone before" at the end of the film.

That said, much of VI makes more sense as an allegory for US/Russia relations than it does in the literal reality of STAR TREK, but I love it anyway.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Informant wrote:

Are you normally able to touch the guests? While I don't like Wil Wheaton, I have to admit, that would drive me insane.

Guest usually sets the tone.  Matt Smith doesn't like people touching him, but he's a shy, awkward guy (very nice, though).  David Tennant and Billie Piper on the other hand just grab right into you.

The only group Ive seen told not to touch the guest was with Stan Lee; and to be honest, I think that was more because they were thinking he might die.  Stan was pretty much just propped up in a chair and didn't move or say anything.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

ireactions wrote:

Roddenberry had no creative input into STAR TREK VI whatsoever beyond raging about how much he hated it. That's it. That's all. (He was annoyed at Starfleet's conspiracy, the Enterprise crew's racism and the militaristic tone. Not a frame was altered to suit him and he died shortly after seeing the film. It seems he hated VI so much it killed him.)

THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY's dialogue says that the Klingon homeworld has been severely damaged and that in order to repair it, the Empire will have to divert their resources away from the military and towards environmental repair -- which is why they initiated peace talks with the Federation. As those talks were successful, we can take it from TNG that the repair to their planet was successful.

STAR TREK VI was made between Seasons 4 - 5 of TNG and most of the film was shot on redressed TNG sets, so they knew full well that the Klingon homeworld had been shown to be a fixture of TNG and that the Federation and the Empire had made peace. The film established the origins of that peace and Colonel Worf, Worf's grandfather, was a little nod to TNG as well as the transition of "where no man has gone before" to "where no one has gone before" at the end of the film.

That said, much of VI makes more sense as an allegory for US/Russia relations than it does in the literal reality of STAR TREK, but I love it anyway.

I was hoping you'd answer, and you didn't disappoint!  Much better than any of the research I was able to uncover at Memory Alpha!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Did anyone watch Discovery?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

Just finished the first episode. It's good. Basically the FRINGE (Season 1) creative team doing STAR TREK, not worrying too much about continuity and bringing the TV concept into 2017.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV

I'm holding out for spring, for the free binge watch. I've heard opinions on both sides though.