posted
It’s evincing any great fondness or nostalgia for the Animated Series, that’s for sure. OK we’ve only seen 40% of the complete event, but even if the remaining 60% absolutely knocks it out of the park, overall it’s still displayed less inventiveness and style than that fan-created Animated TNG clip.
posted
Didn't The Simpsons put out this most recent episode in 1995? Oh wait no, that was Hans Moleman's 'Football in the Groin'. Easy to get those two mixed up.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow, this is a new kind of lazy using the 32rd century uniform for Saru.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I guess these Very Short Treks are exactly what everyone was afraid Lower Decks would be.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Shik: What a waste of time & money these things are.
Agreed. They got Connor Trineer to come back and do voice work after 20 years of not doing any Star Trek projects, and this is the material they give him.
Awesome 50th anniversary of TAS, guys. Nothing like making fun of the thing you’re supposed to be celebrating.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
What Dukhat said got me thinking. What IS this? Why does it exist?
... OK, we know why it exists. It's to commemorate the 50th anniversary of TAS. But they could have done that quite easily, done a bunch of the other shows in the TAS style much like that fan-made recreation of BoBW, and everyone would have been quite happy. But no, we got... THIS.
So really, who is this FOR?
And the answer is, students. OK, maybe not quite, but let me explain...
In the late 80s and into the 90s when I was a student, there developed these running jokes about the kids TV shows we'd grown up with.
Like, Captain Pugwash. A fairly innocent, sweet TV show about a sea captain and his crew. But then there developed these urgan legends that the crew's names were all these double entendres we were too young to get at the time - like, Roger The Cabin Boy, or Seaman Staines (think about it). All untrue, and before the Internet, impossible to verify or refute.
Or, to try to come up with another example that non-Brits might recognise, is Shaggy a pothead? There are varying schools of thought, like how he's never explicitly shown sparking up. But in the mentality I'm talking about, oh sure Scooby and Shaggy were totally lit at all times, and Velma's a lesbian, and Fred and Daphne are always "splitting up" from the rest to go off somewhere and shag.
Do you see what I mean? And that mocking sensibility persists. It's how you end up with film reboots of fairly serious TV shows like Starsky & Hutch, or 21 Jump Street, which are if not complete pisstakes do indeed focus on parodying their source material.
Or think of all the edgy, subversive "adult" cartoon shows there are nowadays.
Or, does anyone remember the Banana Splits film that came out a few years ago? Where the Splits are essentially demonic slasher entities who murder people? Where the fuck did THAT come from? From this exact same mindset, basically.
Or, Action Man. Which was like the UK's equivalent of GI Joe, I guess. Yes, in the 1970s we played with soldier dolls. But honestly and innocently and with none of the subtext that these edgelords apply to it now. Just, men being men, you know. We were kids, for fuck's sake, we didn't think of anything in terms of their sexual connotations. So, when, a few years ago, an advert used Action Man, did it just do it, er, straight? OHHHH, no, of course they didn't. Instead we got this:
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
