The Founder

Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Founder

  • Rank
    Klingon Negh'Var
  • Birthday 04/06/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The Celestial Temple
  • Marital Status
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    The Undiscovered Country
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Benjamin Sisko
  • Favorite Trek Series
    Deep Space Nine
  • Interests

Contact Methods

  • MSN

Recent Profile Visitors

18,491 profile views
  1. Yes - ENT shows how the TOS aliens came together and began to form the first steps of the UFP. I feel like ... you should watch season 4 first and then decide to watch the rest later. Like TNG/DS9/VOY, I would not recommend newcomers start with seasons 1 or 2. Just skip to season 4 and you'll get the ENT that you seem to be looking for. I know some people call season 4 one giant fan service but .... the entire premise of Enterprise is fan service. "Want to see how Starfleet started? Want to see how the UFP was formed?" - well season 4 is the only season that will deliver on that. It's not fan service so much as it is living up to the premise of season 1's trailer. If you enjoy season 4 - I'd recommend watching the rest. The Xindi arc was poorly written but there are good moments. You see the early use of the transporters and how dangerous it was. You see how the Prime Directive was formed. etc. There is a lot of material worthy of viewing I think ...
  2. In regards to franchising Ghostbusters - I think it does have potential for more stories. The popularity of the cartoons kind of proved that. I've seen worse ideas given a franchise. The problem is - can it be franchised without Murray, Ramis, Akroyd, and Hudson? If the answer is no - then Akroyd needs to accept it's gone now. He at least got to be part of a cult classic. That is more than most of us can say.
  3. I'm not sure about B&B - but I do feel that Coto addressing it made for nice few episodes (IMO). In regards to what you're saying about the DSC Team - if that's the case? Then I completely agree with you. If they're a "sub species" of Klingons? That sounds like a fun addition to their race beyond the vikings in space thing. I thought it was fan rumor, though. I didn't know this was actually the case. I do agree the rate of advancement of the technology is a bit much. When it got to the point that all energy was renewable - it made me wonder why people had "businesses" or the concept of "fuel" still existed. But the 29th century of Trek showed that starships, inside at least, didn't look all that difference (but I will concede that it was probably due to budget). In that sense, I do agree that Trek needs to slow down a bit. With regards to A.I. - I think that as long as "humans want to boldly go where no one has gone before" - they won't have ships filled with Emergency Command Holograms and Datas. I would expect remarkable improvements. Personal shields (like in Mass Effect or Trek Online) for security officers. Transwarp that will allow ships to travel the entire Milky Way Galaxy. etc. etc. etc. Armor akin to appearing over the security officers: But I get your point - the 25th century would not be without writing challenges as well. You're right on that. I guess I'd rather have writing challenges there than in the 23rd century.
  4. All of the above are fair points and I get what you're saying. It's not a matter of I think you're wrong. It's just I feel returning to the past constantly is tiresome. You feel it's tiresome to continue the TNG-era. I agree about the fatigue with the TNG-era for what its worth. But ... I was advocating a POST-TNG era focus. Not 1 year after Nemesis. But that is neither here nor there. The only aspect I don't agree on is how canon will not be restricted in a prequel era show. It absolutely will. In terms of what technology to use, what aliens can appear, what characters, etc. ENT was proof of that. That doesn't mean, as you said, that DSC can't carve it's own little corner of the Trek universe. It absolutely can. The universe is a big place. I doubt Kirk and co. were doing everything. I'm sure other crews had adventures too. Of course - I want a good story and that should be the focus over "how many decks do Federation ships have in this era?" But I only feel that way up to a point. Tiny minutia is nonsense to focus on. I don't care about rank pips, specific dates, what city Kirk met Bones in, etc. But if suddenly Archer is making first contact with the Ferengi/Borg. Yeah - I care. I'm not saying that DSC will do that, but that's what I mean about canon. If they have a good writing staff, though. I bet the show will be good. This may be one of the best Treks. I have hope. I get what you're saying Justin Snead.
  5. I honestly had no idea he was doing stuff like that or truly believed in the paranormal. That's pretty interesting. It still won't bring back GB. Sorry, Mr. Akroyd.
  6. Do I smell a potential for FF4 in the future? Maybe ...
  7. Well if anyone deserves it ... it's him.
  8. Hah! Well that explains that. Now that Chris Hemsworth is really famous - I heard he will be back in 4. That doesn't necessarily mean time travel but I'm assuming.
  9. Welcome! Glad to have you here.
  10. Ackroyd, to me, is a wonderful actor from that era. Me and my dad love his old movies. But ... he really needs to let go with GB. Besides, I imagine the man has enough money ... ....seriously?
  11. I know you posted this a while ago, Mr. Picard, but I absolutely agree with you him and his role in Logan. I always knew he was a good actor with TNG, but he took it to a whole other level in that movie. A wonderful, yet tragic depiction of Charles Xavier.
  12. Who knows? We might find out in part 4 as it is rumored to involve time travel. But it's too early to tell. The "rules" have changed. Apparently going back in time just splits into a new universe whereas before it would impact your own. So I'm not sure what rules they'll go with this time.
  13. There is an alternate universe where all of us are Vulcans and logic dictates we wait for a t.v. show to air BEFORE judging it.
  14. To me the change isn't all that radical, though. To me it looks "updated" but all the fundamentals look the same. It looks like it came from the bridge of the TOS show. DSC looks like it came from the bridge of the ENT E married to Abrams' Enterprise. In other words, the visual update doesn't look consistent. I can believe this: led to this.... The disparity between is not anywhere near as jarring as the DSC bridge. I don't know. It's a minor point. To swing this back to the topic of the Klingon redesign ... I think the reason I stomached the Klingon redesign in TMP is .... one that is the Klingons I grew up with and two this was before DS9 highlighted the differences and then ENT explained them. I just don't like how it was all pointless. Unless we find out this is a "sub species" of Klingons.... I think DS9 mucked up by noticing the differences. They honestly should have left it as is. Just pretend the Klingons always looked like Worf and left it at that. But I don't think at the time they were brave enough to re-film the scenes with the TOS Klingons looking like Worf. *shrugs*
  15. Ok one thing needs to be said ... The complaints need to be compartmentalized. I notice there is this broad brush approach when it comes to nay sayers. There is a distinct difference between the critics that are unreasonable and ones that are reasonable. I understand to all critics - their particular reasoning is reasonable, but some common sense can be applied here. The people who want this to look exactly like The Cage. A story with those poor graphics, poor alien make up, poor set designs, etc. is not feasible in the 21st century on television or movies. Not unless this was meant to be specifically retro and it isn't. The people who want fan film quality of reproducing old Trek. "If Youtube videos can do it ... why can't a studio?". Because they don't want to reproduce a TOS clone (or so they say). They can't just do the continuing adventures of Kirk staring random Youtube personalities. It's the equivalent of children saying "I'm good at role playing Star Trek on my front porch with my friends. Why can't we be actors in your show?" ... not feasible I've never seen this, but supposedly there are fans that want Trek to be a niche thing. Their thing. They don't want to lose it. "Not my Star Trek -itus". Well ... this complaint is poor, because Star Trek doesn't belong to any of us. And this mindset would be the death of Star Trek. TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT are all gone and ended. If no new Trek is acceptable, then trek dies. But one thing I will say ... I fully understand and support the mindset of "Not my Star Trek" when it comes to mind numbing explosions, mind numbing action, mind numbing doomsday plots. Yes, the original Treks had moments of that but it wasn't all about that. The reason Star Trek rose to fame was its morality tales. Not because of how cool it looked when a plastic toy Enterprise on strings fired phasers at a giant cone-shaped monster that ate starships. Sorry but that's the truth. If Star Trek loses that (I'm not saying it is with DSC) then that isn't my Star Trek. The people that want TNG-redux. Apparently, there is this idea that fans want the continuing adventures of elderly versions of the characters we grew up. I'm sure some fans want to see the stories conclude but I don't see this often. This is a poor idea because most of the actors don't want to commit to another series. Their stories are ended. The studios and writers want a fresh group with fresh stories. Going back to the TNG era cast is, to me, the equivalent of going back to the TOS one. Their time has come and gone. (unless you pull an Abrams ....) If we want to find out what happened to Bajor, VOY-after-Earth, Picard, etc. Read the books or play Trek Online. Having said all of that .... I am a very cautious critic of DSC. I am not unreasonable, because I keep saying I want to try DSC and I hope it succeeds. That is literally the opposite of someone that cannot see reason. Again - that doesn't mean I have to lap up everything this show throws out with no criticism. When I say I want a post-TNG era show - that does not mean I want more TNG/DS9/VOY. That is literally not at all what I am saying. It's not even close. It means I want to go beyond the TNG-era. Not stay in it. In fact - I am the one that wants more serialized Star Trek. The opposite of what that era was. If I am saying I want a jump into the future - that means new uniforms, new ships, new alien races, new characters. Everything is new. New ... but free from the constraints of the TOS time period. Why is this such a big deal? How does that mean that I "can't let go" and want Star Trek to stay with what I grew up with in the 90s? DS9, while semi-serialized, is not what I have in mind. I mean serialized like Game of Thrones. As in events leading into the other. Recurring characters. etc. Maybe with some episodes that are random one-offs. But I don't want "planet/anomaly of the week" episodes. Again .... that is the opposite of "Some people just can't let go ...." I want more Trek fans. I don't want Trek to be just "mine". I love the idea that Trek is a global phenomena. As for the argument of "Even if the studios did everything "right" and jumped in the future.... fans would still hate it." So? Trek fans, like Star Wars fans, love to complain and scrutinize their respective universes. So do Game of Thrones fans. Lord of the Rings fans. etc. etc. etc. It's what we do. That doesn't mean all criticism is unreasonable or not worth paying attention to. If we critics are to be analyzed ... let's make sure we understand what people are complaining about. Don't lump some of us with people that want jellybean buttons and construction paper sets ....