Star Trek: Picard

Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2011
Posts
8,407
I think a lot of things go by when you're in the flow of the show and watching events unfold. Only if it's really bad and you get pulled out of the narrative then and there (I'm looking at you STD). When you go back and watch it through with a more analytical mind, you can see the flaws and bad dialogue (such as the conversation between Narek and Soji that is even terrible first time around).

Sometimes it takes someone like Critical Drinker or Nerdoritic to point out what was done really badly, and then you can neither unsee it nor argue that it wasn't done poorly.

Yeah, but I think you know its there, I do watch some NR and CD and they do just underline what you thought sometimes, I'm not a Trekkie or a huge Star Trek fan or DRWHO fan either, so stuff about timelines and canon goes over my head, but you're right you can't unsee stuff badly done once spotlighted.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2011
Posts
8,407
Oh man, I just started to rewatch TNG from episode 1, currently got 165 episodes to go, didn't realise it was that many, plus I want to rewatch DS9 and Voyager so I'm all caught up on timeline stuff for Picard

I really wouldn't bother wading through mountains of episodes for Picard, life's too short, it's not that good, and it's likely to be 20 Eps or 2 seasons and done. I know what's happening and I have seen any TNG, DS9 or Voyager, anything I'm unsure about well there's the internet...
 
Associate
Joined
1 Aug 2009
Posts
1,625
With the next gen ds9 and voyager you had to be there at the time, not saying that its not all worth watching ,its just dated. I have seen the lot, but have no intention of watching it all again.
Aged better than Babylon 5 I think but I thought that looked pretty bad way back then, but never really liked that show , loved the trek in all its variations.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Nov 2005
Posts
12,453
With the next gen ds9 and voyager you had to be there at the time, not saying that its not all worth watching ,its just dated.

I think it has aged quite well, first 3 episodes didn't feel like I was watching something from 1987, I watched them at the time as well but it's so long ago I've forgotten and doesn't hurt to recap on a great series
 
Associate
Joined
31 Aug 2017
Posts
2,209
I aint saying Disco has been good, its had a lot of bad writing but its not totally rubbish and was getting better.
I just think many, especially the loud ones on youtube just kick off and make a huge noise for no more than to be noticed.
Anyway i thought Picard was pretty good, not perfect but more than good enough.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
29,982
Location
Norrbotten, Sweden.
Babylon 5 is great, what's not to get about it?

Season 1 is gash, kinda testing the water and trying to set up stuff but 2 3 and 4 are fantastic. 5 is also meh, but ok.

It's like the best of ds9 but better and cheesier often...
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Posts
16,553
Me for one lol.

Most of series 1 and 2 was dross. Only got good during season 3 and 4. Series 5-7 was a steady decline which peaked with the episode "Masks".

yeah but you haven’t gone at length through every minute of every episode finding fault have you. Some were rubbish, and that sums it up. Period. You dont say, well he said that and she said this, equal rights, subliminal political messages, blah blah blah

or do you :D
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Posts
9,315
Isn’t comparing late 80s to the teens a bit unfair. There have been so many improvements in storytelling but also the commercial and audience acceptance window has changed.

Back then they wanted 5+ seasons of 20+ episodes to meet the syndication model. Also the requirement for narrative arc was utterly absent because of the syndication model.

I agree that much of TNG has aged badly but that’s not how I felt at the time. What will modern TV look like through 30 year hindsight?

Totally agree with this. TNG is a subject of it's time, and while some of it still works well, some of it has aged quite poorly, even compared to Voyager/DS9. At the time though, it was all good fun, but now we're a more sophisticated audience.

Nowadays we (should) take out the ten episodes that were poor, and put that effort into making the ten good episodes really brilliant. However, as we've seen from STD, you don't always end up with that improvement on screen if the premise of your show is fundamentally broken.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Posts
9,315
Babylon was fantastic. Rewatched ds9 and that was great.

You don't know what you're talking about

I think the problem with B5 is because they were pioneers in using CGI it looks dated now. At time it gave them a lot of freedom and variety in the visual effects they could do, but upscaling them decades later looks pretty poor. Some of the aliasing is shocking. That doesn't take away from the story and characters.

TNG was much more limited in the variety of visual effects at the time, but by using industrial robots, multiple lighting passes, models and compositing, they made high quality visuals that still look good today.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Jul 2012
Posts
7,380
Location
Ankh Morpork
That would be because the CGI was done at 4:3 aspect ratio and the live action was shot at 16:9 - when they remastered it they simply cropped the CGI and sized it to fit, which left it looking a bit ropey compared to the live action
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
39,324
Location
Ireland
There was some trial runs for cg generated ships in TNG but they didn't look great so models were used instead. Was a video on YouTube a while ago showing some of the test footage for cg ships, needless to say with it being the 80s and a tv budget they looked incredibly basic.
 

JRS

JRS

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2004
Posts
19,535
Location
Burton-on-Trent
There was some trial runs for cg generated ships in TNG but they didn't look great so models were used instead. Was a video on YouTube a while ago showing some of the test footage for cg ships, needless to say with it being the 80s and a tv budget they looked incredibly basic.

Yeah, they very quickly gave up on the idea when they realised how primitive the CGI was going to look back then. Though even today, physical/studio model shots when done well are still far, far superior IMO to CGI for stuff like starships. You get a sense of...I guess mass that you just don't get with the CGI stuff. Mostly I think because CGI frees the VFX people up to make ships do much more complicated manoeuvres and they go overboard with it :p

I'll hold up the battle in the Mutara Nebula from "Wrath Of Khan" as my prime example. Watching it genuinely gives me the sense that these are two large, heavy vessels pounding the snot out of each other. They aren't speeding around, doppler-effecting all over the screen (with an IndyCar engine note...) like some fighter craft from the Star Wars universe. They're circling each other, trying to get a firing solution in order to **** the other one up but good (skip to about the 6 minute mark for the battle to start in earnest).


Oh, and as a counterpoint to my example before someone else says "but JRS, what if studio model shots aren't done well?"...yes, there was indeed Star Trek V. ILM weren't available when that was being made, so a different VFX team did the model work. And boy does it show. Compare the above ILM work on II to this slight mess :o

 
Soldato
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Posts
9,315
There was some trial runs for cg generated ships in TNG but they didn't look great so models were used instead. Was a video on YouTube a while ago showing some of the test footage for cg ships, needless to say with it being the 80s and a tv budget they looked incredibly basic.

Yeah, TNG and B5 were just on the cusp, and they each went a different way. I think they went CGI partway through Voyager's and DS9's run.
 
Back
Top Bottom