skinnybert
Joined Aug 2015
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.3K
skinnybert's rating
Reviews217
skinnybert's rating
Let's be fair: star Trek -- of any era -- is prone to lots of TV-drama shortcuts; it's the nature of the four-act TV-drama format. And, being sci-fi (ish), they have to drop in The Big Words (reverse the polarity, anyone?) and visit planets instead of towns -- as if rounding a dwarf star was akin to going around the block. This has been part of Star Trek since before Kirk wore boots.
What's different is the attitude. TOS was made at a time people remembered going to war to fight Hitler and the Japanese, and understood what it meant to be a disciplined crew. DS9 already showed how things had changed in 30 years when they visited the TOS crew; you could see it just in their postures and body language, let alone the way they spoke.
Now we're 30 years farther along, with a Star Trek where crew members sass their commander, argue with his orders, shout at him on the bridge (which looks more like a Vegas nightclub than a government-sponsored exploration ship). To say this is an improvement over Discovery is true -- like getting a C- is better than getting an F.
Still, there are signs this could work. Ortega is a fine character, but commenting on every order is just not appropriate. Every Star Trek show has to succeed in the TV market of its time, so I get why so much of SNW is the way it is: looking like the Kelvin reboot, full of attitudes, gritty with blood and dirt. None of these were part of TOS or TNG, but modern TV plays to modern eyes -- grown up on first-person shooters and Star Wars movies. In this episode, SNW is still trying to find that fine line between old and new. All I want to see is that they don't add new missteps while repeating the old ones, and at this point (Ep 4) they have not yet managed that.
What's different is the attitude. TOS was made at a time people remembered going to war to fight Hitler and the Japanese, and understood what it meant to be a disciplined crew. DS9 already showed how things had changed in 30 years when they visited the TOS crew; you could see it just in their postures and body language, let alone the way they spoke.
Now we're 30 years farther along, with a Star Trek where crew members sass their commander, argue with his orders, shout at him on the bridge (which looks more like a Vegas nightclub than a government-sponsored exploration ship). To say this is an improvement over Discovery is true -- like getting a C- is better than getting an F.
Still, there are signs this could work. Ortega is a fine character, but commenting on every order is just not appropriate. Every Star Trek show has to succeed in the TV market of its time, so I get why so much of SNW is the way it is: looking like the Kelvin reboot, full of attitudes, gritty with blood and dirt. None of these were part of TOS or TNG, but modern TV plays to modern eyes -- grown up on first-person shooters and Star Wars movies. In this episode, SNW is still trying to find that fine line between old and new. All I want to see is that they don't add new missteps while repeating the old ones, and at this point (Ep 4) they have not yet managed that.
The good: this is Rebecca Romijn's (Number One's) episode all the way, and she shows she can handle it (mostly). Side note for Babs' M'Benga, who gets a couple good scenes as well. Not great, but good is still good.
Then there's the not-so-good. While original (and other) Star Trek was not immune to plot convenience and sci-fi double-talk, it only seems more obvious when backed by all this hi-tech eye candy. But there's a limit to audience credibility, which breaks when:
a) the story introduces some specific issue as dramatically critical, and b) events get to some critical height, c) one of the regular cast is then revealed to have some strong connection to the (previously unmentioned) critical issue.
This is much better handled when a Guest Star is introduced into the episode, to have / deal with the issue. But they didn't do that, which actually means changing the premise of a main character three episodes into the show. Not good.
In so doing, they are also questioning Star Fleet's decisions -- again, in only episode three. Really not good.
Flashy sets and fancy visuals are all very nice, but it was smart, quality writing and good acting which made TOS such a standout in the 60s -- a standard which faltered in even the best seasons, but remained a bench mark. SNW doesn't have to meet the mark every time either, but this episode pushes aside old ideas without giving life to anything fresh. Hopefully, that will improve.
Then there's the not-so-good. While original (and other) Star Trek was not immune to plot convenience and sci-fi double-talk, it only seems more obvious when backed by all this hi-tech eye candy. But there's a limit to audience credibility, which breaks when:
a) the story introduces some specific issue as dramatically critical, and b) events get to some critical height, c) one of the regular cast is then revealed to have some strong connection to the (previously unmentioned) critical issue.
This is much better handled when a Guest Star is introduced into the episode, to have / deal with the issue. But they didn't do that, which actually means changing the premise of a main character three episodes into the show. Not good.
In so doing, they are also questioning Star Fleet's decisions -- again, in only episode three. Really not good.
Flashy sets and fancy visuals are all very nice, but it was smart, quality writing and good acting which made TOS such a standout in the 60s -- a standard which faltered in even the best seasons, but remained a bench mark. SNW doesn't have to meet the mark every time either, but this episode pushes aside old ideas without giving life to anything fresh. Hopefully, that will improve.
Short bite: Chewbacca's family from the Star Wars Holiday Special star in a remake of SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER SPRING (alternatively: QUEST FOR FIRE -- hold the fire).
The photography is gorgeous, the makeup jobs expert. Those who spend time in the forest will appreciate the beauty and stillness captured here; those who want to see sasquatches rutting in a clearing will get that also. Combine those two elements and that pretty much sums up this film.
You definitely can go either way on this, depending on what you expect from it. It is not a comedy - though you might laugh at some part or another. It is certainly not an anthropological documentary, nor an allegory. It is not even really a story but more a snapshot of an existence, like 2017's A GHOST STORY.
No doubt this was fun for the participants to make, and the production values are certainly above, oh, SUBURBAN SASQUATCH -- but guess which one is more fun to watch? Yeah.
The photography is gorgeous, the makeup jobs expert. Those who spend time in the forest will appreciate the beauty and stillness captured here; those who want to see sasquatches rutting in a clearing will get that also. Combine those two elements and that pretty much sums up this film.
You definitely can go either way on this, depending on what you expect from it. It is not a comedy - though you might laugh at some part or another. It is certainly not an anthropological documentary, nor an allegory. It is not even really a story but more a snapshot of an existence, like 2017's A GHOST STORY.
No doubt this was fun for the participants to make, and the production values are certainly above, oh, SUBURBAN SASQUATCH -- but guess which one is more fun to watch? Yeah.