Persistent, Niggling Questions

[Nate the Great]

So the Spaceballs sequel won't be The Search For More Money...


PNQ: What are they thinking? This thing wouldn't exist if the studio wasn't searching for more money!

[Nate the Great]

I'm in the middle of a marathon of previously unknown Trek reviews, and I notice that stupid green wraparound that I hate so much...


PNQ: What's a meaningless thing in Trek that annoys you like this?

[Nate the Great]

So I saw a Reddit meme that implied that Bashir dated a patient three times. I only remember two, Melora and Sarina.


PNQ: Who's the third?


I don't think Ezri or Leeta counts. There's a difference between being a general doctor and being in charge of specialized treatment.

[Nate the Great]

PNQ: Is anyone else getting really annoyed that YouTubers have to change the names of old videos in order to get more views?


I know I am.

[Nate the Great]

Watching SFDebris' review of "Homefront" again...


PNQ: Why do the characters think that the blood tests would be so easy to evade?


I mean, blood without continual access to fresh oxygen would be quite different chemically from fresh blood. Blood stored within a changeling would be "dead" and easy to detect by the specially-designed hypospray that's used to take the sample, right?


For that matter, if you don't mind a bulkier option another way to detect changelings is to stick a hand into a special device. You get injected with an anesthetic, a skin sample is taken including blood, and then it's immediately healed with a special dermal regenerator.


Actually, now that I think about it why wasn't the polaron radiation thing revisited in later episodes? Surely refining it into a low-level phaser beam would let you test people with it without killing solids with radiation poisoning, right?

[Nate the Great]

This just occurred to me. Now that Discovery is over...


PNQ: What plotline could not have existed had Michael not been Sarek's adopted daughter, but was instead a pupil of his during a visit to Vulcan?

[Nate the Great]

I've been on a kick of watching "first time viewing" videos lately, including Star Trek movies. Right now I'm listening to one of The Voyage Home, featuring the whales George and Gracie...


PNQ: What stars of the past do you get sad about thinking that future generations won't know of them?


I mean, young people today already don't know that George Burns and Gracie Allen existed.


Recently I watched a first time reaction to The Muppet Movie, and the same principle applies. Milton Berle was huge for decades, but in the end people will only know him from that movie. Edgar Bergen is forgotten, Richard Pryor will only be remembered in niche circles because of Superman III and The Wiz, even Orson Welles is forgotten outside of niche circles (and hardcore Transformer fans).

[NAHTMMM]

Harold Lloyd is genuinely funny and his films have been preserved well.

[Nate the Great]

So I've been watching TNG reviews and I get to Disaster, featuring the supershort pregnancy...


PNQ: Suppose we ignore 1000 stardates=1 year and "the mission was seven years" comments from the creators, how long do you think the mission really was?

[Nate the Great]

I've watched a lot of STIV reactions lately...


PNQ: Even if the Federation wanted to mass-produce Genesis Devices to cleanse and repopulate Klingon worlds, could they?


I mean, the first device took years to make, right? And these things have to have some exotic materials in them on top of the protomatter.

[Nate the Great]

So I see a YouTube video whose title refers to "Star Trek's Best Writer". It turns out that this is referencing Harlan Ellison, but it made me ponder the question for myself before clicking the thumbnail...


PNQ: Who is/was Star Trek's Best Writer?


Not Ellison. No way. He wrote ONE classic Trek episode, but you can't even argue that The City on the Edge of Forever is THE classic Trek episode.


My initial reaction upon seeing the video title was D.C. Fontana. I mean, when you've got "Journey to Babel", "The Enterprise Incident", AND "Yesteryear" on your resume that's going to be hard to beat!

[Nate the Great]

A Facebook post linked to an article stating that "Sub Rosa" is the worst Trek episode ever. A comment immediately countered with "Code of Honor"...


PNQ: What is really the worst Trek episode ever?


I want to make it clear that there can't be ANY redeeming value to the episode. The premise has to be bad, the execution has to be bad, the acting has to be bad, etc.


With a little thought "Turnabout Intruder" has very little to recommend it.

[Nate the Great]

After watching a first time reaction video of TWOK...


PNQ: Would it have made more sense to have Sulu as first officer of the Reliant rather than Chekov?


Not only was Sulu actually in "Space Seed", but he was clearly older and farther in his career than Chekov. They could've namedropped that he wants to be a captain someday.


PNQ2: After STVI we knew that Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scotty were retiring (and their actors were getting more expensive), but what if they continued with Sulu/Chekov/Uhura on the Excelsior?


Surely they were cheaper actors, the sets were made, etc. They could've made cheaper movies than when they had the whole seven, right? Plus there's no reason they couldn't have had parallel TOS and TNG movie series, right?


Covering the transition period between "Klingons as enemies" and "Klingons as allies" would've lent itself to a great plot. Romulan spies trying to undermine the negotiations, etc. I doubt that the antipeace conspiracy was really limited to Chang, Cartwright, and Nanclus.

[NAHTMMM]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

So I see a YouTube video whose title refers to "Star Trek's Best Writer". It turns out that this is referencing Harlan Ellison, but it made me ponder the question for myself before clicking the thumbnail...


PNQ: Who is/was Star Trek's Best Writer?


Not Ellison. No way. He wrote ONE classic Trek episode, but you can't even argue that The City on the Edge of Forever is THE classic Trek episode.


My initial reaction upon seeing the video title was D.C. Fontana. I mean, when you've got "Journey to Babel", "The Enterprise Incident", AND "Yesteryear" on your resume that's going to be hard to beat!

D.C. Fontana seems like a solid pick for television. Diane Duane for the books.

[NAHTMMM]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

After watching a first time reaction video of TWOK...


PNQ: Would it have made more sense to have Sulu as first officer of the Reliant rather than Chekov?

But then they couldn't have tortured Chekov.

PNQ2: After STVI we knew that Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scotty were retiring (and their actors were getting more expensive), but what if they continued with Sulu/Chekov/Uhura on the Excelsior?


Surely they were cheaper actors, the sets were made, etc. They could've made cheaper movies than when they had the whole seven, right? Plus there's no reason they couldn't have had parallel TOS and TNG movie series, right?


Covering the transition period between "Klingons as enemies" and "Klingons as allies" would've lent itself to a great plot. Romulan spies trying to undermine the negotiations, etc. I doubt that the antipeace conspiracy was really limited to Chang, Cartwright, and Nanclus.

I think they'd have to really strike gold to make the idea work financially, and probably bring back at least one of Shatner and Nimoy per movie to maintain enough audience interest. None of Takei, Nichols, Koenig, and Klingon Politics would have had the star power to get general audiences excited. It'd be like, well, if Marvel skipped Spider-Man and the X-Men and even Captain America and just made a movie about somebody like Iron Man. Can you imagine that working out?

[Nate the Great]

So one reason why Disney makes live-action remakes is the thinking that adults are ashamed to be seen in a theater watching an animated movie...


PNQ: Have you ever felt this way or known anyone who does?


Because I think such thinking is ridiculous.


You know what I want Disney to do? Clean up the animation on the old Xerox-era films and rerelease them in theaters. It'd be relatively cheap, it would make a profit, and it would generate goodwill and (Shock! Gasp!) merchandise sales!


Of course all 64 movies in the canon won't work (and of course Song of the South is automatically off-limits), but think if the movie theaters set aside one screen each to run a different entry each month! A three or four year cycle with a continually renewing potential audience and perpetual profit!

[Nate the Great]

So I've been watching a lot of reaction videos to "Epic Rap Battles of History: Harry Potter vs. Luke Skywalker " recently, and in one verse Harry says that the Star Wars franchise only has two decent movies...


PNQ: Do you agree with this statement?


Because for me there are four good movies: the original trilogy and Rogue One.

[Nate the Great]

To further the last entry, I've heard that that are two different camps that are split on which of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi is a classic and which is the disappointment...


PNQ: Do any of you feel this way?


I admit that A New Hope is the only film I've watched with any regularity, but I don't recall hating either ESB or ROTJ.

[NAHTMMM]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

So one reason why Disney makes live-action remakes is the thinking that adults are ashamed to be seen in a theater watching an animated movie...


PNQ: Have you ever felt this way or known anyone who does?


Because I think such thinking is ridiculous.

I would look for such thinking among, like, young teens who are scared of doing "childish" things. Especially nowadays with Pixar demonstrating you can put out perfectly good animated movies for the whole family.

[NAHTMMM]

Originally Posted by Nate the Great

So I've been watching a lot of reaction videos to "Epic Rap Battles of History: Harry Potter vs. Luke Skywalker " recently, and in one verse Harry says that the Star Wars franchise only has two decent movies...


PNQ: Do you agree with this statement?


Because for me there are four good movies: the original trilogy and Rogue One.

The first three movies are all good, although I'm not old enough to resent Lucas following up ESB with Ewoks.

Never watched II and III all the way through so can't speak to them. I think TPM isn't that far off from being genuinely good. Tone this and that down and murder that two-headed announcer who turned podracing into NASCAR In Space and it would be much better.

Rogue One doesn't do it for me as much as it seems to for others. But I've only watched it once. The villain is a weak point for me. He's just kind of there. I've noticed this elsewhere, where the villain correlates strongly with how much I like the movie or the book.

You can argue about whether Solo should exist but it's a perfectly fine movie.

I like the sequel trilogy. TFA is a competent play-it-safe movie, TLJ has a couple of key flaws but otherwise held up for me last time I watched, TROS is a great "cheesy movie you laugh and throw popcorn at" experience. You can list the flaws of the trilogy as a whole but I'm taking each movie on its own.

Have not seen hide or hair of the Ewok movies in decades so can't speak to them. But the boy being trapped under the water was effective when I was little.

Great movies? Maybe only two. It's understandable if you feel none of the others meet the standard of III and IV. Decent movies? Plenty of them. Movies as good as the Potter franchise? Plenty of them.