Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sim

  1. Yes I agree ... $6/month really isn't all that much, if you *really* want new Star Trek. I'm very glad it'll be on Netflix over here, so I don't have this problem, though. That said ... IIRC, someone explained to me that in many American regions, broadband internet required for CBSAA is simply not available. So for some people, it's not a matter of not wanting to pay $6/month, but even if they did, they couldn't watch the show. That's a complaint I understand. But then, I assume a DVD/BD release will take place too, so these people can watch the show after all, after a couple of months ... but I understand waiting that long would be annoying, at least for genuine fans. But IIRC, that isn't new either ... wasn't UPN unavailable in quite a few regions either, back in the 90s? At least back then, you could ask people living elsewhere to send you VHS recordings...
  2. That's no change... it's just that when you travel back to the future after altering the past, physics make you end up in the altered timeline. JJ's camera is just not tied to these physical constraints the Enterprise crew is tied to.
  3. Well I want the new Star Trek show to be recognizable as Star Trek, if that's what you mean by "wanting it as the one I grew up with" when I say "progression" If it isn't, there is just no point in calling it "Star Trek". Amen! And please don't take my moaning about DSC as an indication for rejection of the show. In fact, I'm very excited and curious about DSC and pretty sure I won't hate it, if it's halfway decently done... all nitpicking aside.
  4. Okay, this is pure speculation of course... but let's also keep in mind that "the powers that be" at CBS aren't a monolithic block. There are lots of rumors about the repeated delays of DSC, and no matter if true, we can assume one or the other head was rolling behind the scenes. Maybe the original deciders who initiated DSC in the first place (and who insisted on NuTrek compatibility) aren't the same who now asked Meyer to work on whatever he's working on and/or are releasing these cryptic comments that result in rumors? Maybe even "the suits" learnt a few tricks in the process of creating DSC? (For example, if the rumors are true about Netflix wanting its money back after they saw the first designs, because Netflix felt this isn't Star Trek -- you could safely assume CBS fired next to all people responsible for the original concept.)
  5. Funny thing is that another franchise which was huge in the 90s does just that (pandering to nostalgia) -- "The X-Files". The new mini-season we got two winters ago was basically the very old 90s formula, with next to no changes -- even season 8 and 9 back in the early 2000s departed more from the original X-Files formula than the 2016 miniseries did. And granted, it perhaps didn't win many new fans, and the reception of critics was mixed -- BUT is was a huge success, it gave FOX so good ratings they ordered another season. And for me personally, it absolutely worked too, although I admit that its alpha and omega was the nostalgia factor... but I perfectly enjoyed the new (mini) season. While I don't think Star Trek could adopt just this approach, remake 90s Trek, because if it's supposed to truly restart the franchise rather than just pandering to a very limited number of 90s fans for a limited revival -- that makes me think we're maybe too quick by discarding the nostalgia of fans. This very nostalgia can commercially be very successful, if done well. Maybe it's even less risky taking just that as a starting point, and only slowly venture into new territory -- rather than thoroughly revamping the entire thing from scratch. So... maybe it wouldn't have been the worst idea to place the show 30 years after NEM, feature a couple of TNG or DS9 guest characters at the beginning, pump up the nostalgia and pick up the 90s fans -- only to then let the new thing fly on its own, slowly? I don't know. But alas, too late for that. Anyway, "The X-Files" recent miniseries success makes me think that even 90s nostalgia can well make a limited revival a (commercial) success. So even when I think Star Trek should boldly go forward -- I really wouldn't mind a tv movie or miniseries event for just the segment of 90s nostalgia fans.
  6. Or it's just a test balloon... testing how the fanbase reacts on various rumors that come up...
  7. Part of me understands that sentiment... but I realize 90s style tv no longer works today. That said, I wouldn't mind a *progression* of the 90s formula that feels somewhat "organic", if that makes any sense. Like IMO TNG was a kind of natural progression from TOS... and DS9 took what TNG had established and took it even a step further. With full serialization and all, that could be just that. Too bad the timeline of the show won't reflect this progression... but ah, let's see how DSC will be. As for 90s Trek and its characters? Even if an entire show of that kind wouldn't work... the nostalgic in me doesn't see what would be so terribly bad about something limited, a miniseries or a tv movie or two... especially, say, a TNG tv movie, since NEM was really not such a great farewell for the TNG cast imo...
  8. Yeah despite the familiar TOS era setting, I guess we'll at least get a very new (to Trek) storytelling approach... full serialization, longer character arcs etc. Looking forward to that! Well visually at least, we got a very big break between TOS and TMP... and then again between TMP and TWOK. So the leap between TWOK/TSFS/TVH and TNG was, visually, not that big. But that first visual reboot was kind of mitigated by the same actors playing the same characters, I guess. But the tone and style of the stories made IMO quite a leap between TNG and what came before. It proved that ST is more than Kirk and Spock and works well without them.
  9. Though Meyer did say he's working on another Trek-related project... sooner or later, we'll learn about that, no matter what it is.
  10. ^ Yes, please. This makes me think: All assuming this rumor about a Khan miniseries is true -- Could it be that some people behind the new generation of tv ST are really ambitious? That this is not just the common stunt to pander to recognition value -- but that someone behind it thought: Fans wanted a reimagination of the TOS era, but NuTrek disappointed them. They wanted more about Khan, but they got Cumberbatch. These NuTrek folks just didn't deliver, because they didn't really care. Now we will show them how to do it right! We will give the fans new TOS-nostalgic Trek with DSC and more about Khan, and this time, they will have no reason to complain! We will make up for the disappointment NuTrek brought to the fandom, by giving them the nostalgia they truly wanted, with great respect to canon. But perhaps that's too much to hope. Perhaps the CBS guys are just utterly stupid suits, too, who don't realize that marketing is not the sole reason for people to buy pop culture, and that fans are not nearly as stupid as they think they are. However, if true, that means CBS apparently wants to truly milk the Star Trek franchise now. Not just one show, but also a miniseries. If halfway successful -- that's great, because that would set the precedent for even more, perhaps bolder and more "niche interest" Star Trek shows: And in the end, we fans might really get what we want. If the suits see that even Star Trek sells that isn't tailored according to their marketing ideas -- and perhaps even sells better than the stuff they had in mind? They might be bolder in the future and allow something *new* to be done with Star Trek.
  11. Personally, I have not read from a single fan who wants DSC to be "like 90s Trek". But then, I don't use Twitter and for Trek related stuff, this is site is almost my exclusive source. What I would have preferred, though, is the same kind of leap as TNG did to depart from TOS in 1987. "Star Trek: The Third Generation", so to speak. The obvious choice would have been a show that's situated at least as many years after TNG/DS9/VOY as TNG was situated after TOS. I was looking for something truly NEW, rather than another rehash of a previous era, a "boldly going where no one has gone before", rather than "timidly going back to where we've been a million times already".
  12. Yeah, that's exactly what I thought ... non-fans who only know Spock is an icon? They don't even know or care (at this point) which century a Trek show is set in. Maybe they have seen a NuTrek movie at the theatre, but aren't invested enough to care about the minutiae of the ST universe ... all they know is what Spock looks like, that his race is all about logic, cool detachment and brainy stuff, and what the ships and visuals look like, the general gist of the universe (united utopic earth, alien baddies). If a 25th century series delivered just that -- a Vulcan lead character, similar visual style, the general gist of that universe --, most of them perhaps wouldn't even notice that was supposed to play 2 centuries after the movie they once saw at the theatre. It would be *the same* kind of thing for them. But this is about marketing anyway: How do you make people curious about the show and make them turn in. How do you "bait" them, for that they even try DSC. But what's much more crucial on the long run: How do you make people stay, and keep their interest beyond two or three episodes? This entire pandering to TOS/NuTrek associations exclusively addresses the former, but not the latter in the slightest. People who have superficial interest in Trek might be lured in to watch the pilot by lots of familiar elements, but it won't keep their interest. In order to do that, the show has to deliver more than just recognition value And beyond good craftmanship on the technical side, good visuals, actors, stories and so on -- universe building is IMO a major point about the Star Trek franchise. When viewers, old and newbie fans alike, feel that every new episode expands a (mostly) coherent universe, that's a major reason to turn in every week again. That there is a larger story that ties together this entire universe. ^ This exactly! It's exactly what I mean by the paragraphs I wrote above: Maybe it were superficial elements that evoked our interest in shows like DS9 at first. But soon, once we were immersed in the show, it were very different aspects that kept our interest and made us truly love it. Complexity and coherence -- universe building -- is IMO a major reason. THAT is required if you want people to actually *stay* with a show. And nobody should tell me that scares away "casual viewers". There are no "casual viewers" anymore in times of Netflix. People either watch a show, or they try the pilot and don't bother thereafter. Thanks to streaming, it's no longer a problem if you "miss" an episode. One of today's most successful genre shows, "Game of Thrones", is all about complexity and universe building. The suits should once and for all forget their arrogant idea that viewers are generally stupid, so complexity will "scare" them and they won't notice the difference between superficial recognition value and substance, and replacing the latter with the former will bring better sales. Maybe it will, for the pilot -- but that way you kill the chicken, rather than selling the eggs. Well I for once at least don't buy this argument. TMP is supposed to take place ca. 10 years after TOS, IIRC. And between TMP and TWOK, it's supposed to be 5 years. Or something like that (someone correct me on the details). But at any rate, not more than a decade between these three visual styles. And nobody can tell me a world can visually change that radically in just 10 years. Especially when it's not just ship design and uniforms (though something tells me a quasi-military organization won't radically change its uniform style every 5 years either), but even genetic traits such as Klingon forehead ridges. No, all totally anal attempts at on-screen explanation aside, this is very obviously a production-based reason for visual change, a "visual reboot". You can't discuss this away, IMO. So for the same reason, I don't mind DSC once again updating the visual style. Agreed... so the tricky question will really be: How much will DSC have to offer, beyond the superficual stunts and tricks to "pick up casual viewers where they currently are"? If it has great characters, stories, actors and visuals to offer -- then it will most definitely find an audience either way. If not, then all the marketing stunts won't save it. That's where I currently place my hopes on, all other questions about canon and century aside. If I could enjoy the show even if I wasn't a Trekkie? Then I most likely won't hate it, even though I am. ^ This, seconded!
  13. "Twin Peaks" episode 3.12.
  14. But the point is, the show *will not sell* if it's Star Trek by name only. Even when the suits have certain marketing ideas in mind, they should better be wise enough to give the creative team at least enough leeway to please (a large) number of viewers -- because even consumers are usually not so dumb they won't recognize fraud. I understand that is a tightrope walk, between business and art -- but the suits concerned with the business side should better be smart enough to realize they shouldn't kill the chicken (but rather feed it well) if they want to sell eggs on a regular basis.
  15. Interesting points! As for 1), I agree, it can be done. As I said above, the authors of the novels have no troubles using Memory Alpha or consulting with others to make their novels fit into canon -- it really just requires the writers to care, nothing more. As for 2), for me personally, I feel we got a great continuation of the post-NEM stories in the novels. They're head canon for me, and I'd rather not see new "official" shows changing that head canon once again, by contradicting the post-NEM novels. My support for a post-24th century show is more along the lines of what you said in the end of that paragraph: A new ship, basically "Star Trek: The Third Generation". The same they did when they went on from TOS to TNG in 1987. They would have all freedom they want, both visually and creatively, *and* they could acknowledge established canon -- *expanding* it, do real universe building by making it larger. As for a post-NEM story with TNG/DS9/VOY characters? I understand that would be real fan pleasing, I guess, but I think it could be worthwhile for one or three tv movies, or a limited miniseries. Maybe we don't really need that ... but I think it would be nice, because NEM was really not such a great farewell for the TNG crew, IMO. As for 3), I have no problems with a visual reimagination... as long as the new visuals are true to the spirit of the established visuals. What do I mean by that? I dunno... Klingons shouldn't suddenly have blue skin, and Vulcans shouldn't suddenly look like crustaceans. But when they look differently, yet I recognize them? AND they look cool? Fair enough. Guess you're right about the reasoning among the studio suits... But then, casual viewers who recognize Spock, because he's iconic, don't care enough about this fictional universe anyway. As long as you're not showing Kirk and Spock literally? You could as well make a show situated in the 25th century, respecting established 24th century canon -- and just make lots of nods to TOS. For example, by including a lead character who is Vulcan and is basically an "updated Spock". The casual viewers who feel TOS is iconic? They'd swallow it perhaps even more, than a "show before Kirk and Spock" that doesn't even have a Spock in it. Canon is only important for Trekkies. What's important for non-fans for whom Kirk/Spock are icons? Superficial recognition value, that's all. You can easily make such a show by pleasing both crowds: Respecting canon AND filling it with lots of recognition value.
  16. That's great news, IMO! As I said above, I'd have rather seen a post-24th century show, 25th or 28th or whatever century -- but since it's pre-TOS, the least the can do is IMO not rebooting once again, but staying in the prime timeline. And as Justin said in his point 1), it doesn't mean it can't be done by respecting canon. It really just requires the writers to care. It's really not difficult these days, with sites like Memory Alpha -- the authors of the novels do it all the time, and most of the time, successfully so. As for the visual reboot? I don't mind that at all. As you said, it was done before: TMP was a visual reboot compared to TOS, and then, TWOK was another visual reboot compared to TMP. 27 years ago, when I first saw these movies, it was a bit weird at first, but I quickly got used to it. In the end, nothing substantial about the *universe* it was set in was changed -- if DSC will be the same? I'm fine with it.
  17. You and Mr Picard make good points ... but I still hate the idea of a (not just visual, but conceptional) reboot (I have no problems whatsoever with a total visual reboot, as long as the stories respect canon -- like watching the same play at different theatres will look differently). I'm so invested in the original canon (even when I am much less nitpicky about it than others -- I feel even the real world is often contradictory and incoherent, no need for a fictional canon to be even more coherent -- but the general cornerstones of established canon should be respected), that it would yield a huge frustration for me, if they just skipped it (it's okay for a movie every 3 years, because I don't really see the NuTrek movies as "real" Star Trek, regardless of my enjoyment of these movies). For me, one side of Star Trek has always been the characters and the stories -- but another important aspect is its fictional universe and history. And isn't the point of "universe building" that you flesh out different aspects of a fictional universe, than telling the very same, very limited story within that universe over and over again, making a reboot every time anew? That way, you don't build a universe, you destroy it. So why don't they just place it further in the future, beyond the TNG/DS9 24th century era? That would have been by far the smartest move to please all people (because let's face it, there is no way whatsoever to please the "Shatnerkirk only"-crowds anyway). I just see no point whatsoever in rehashing and warming up last night's meal with a new sauce on it, when this means all my investment in the old universe (especially anything in the 24th century) becomes useless. Why this fixation and obsession with the TOS era? The ST universe is sooooo much larger, it's just an incredibly stupid self-limitation to always go back to this tiny excerpt. Perhaps that makes me realize that as much as I love TOS, I feel really more at home in TNG/DS9. Star Trek is more than just Kirk/Spock and TOS, and has been for 30 years. It's just frustrating when they kick TNG/DS9 perpetually in the face by saying "oh, these shows don't matter, because remaking TOS is much, much more important than even acknowledging TNG/DS9 existed in canon". Another hard TOS reboot would just reek like saying "TNG/DS9/VOY was a mistake, let's pretend it never happened". And if that's what they're communicating? They can go f*** themselves and shove their new version of Star Trek *beep*, as far as I am concerned.
  18. "Game of Thrones" episode 7.03. Love the show.
  19. If he's the guy from the talkshow, I remember he spoke perfect German, even the typical peculiar northern dialect, despite having spent most of his life outside of Germany. He certainly was an impressive guy! Since migration to Germany from outside Europe is a relatively new thing (I think before the 1970s, Germany was ethnically virtually homogenous), it's still a tad unexpected when you hear a black person speaking without the slightest accent, or even in a regional dialect (which are dying out in some regions in favor of standard German anyway, so you usually associate such dialects with old farmers or workers). Today, it's no longer unusual to meet black people here... in my school for example, there were two (German) guys with a black father... but old people? Who even speak and behave like you remember your grandparents? That still breaks expectations a little...
  20. With respect to our dear moderator, I won't expand much on my thoughts on religion here... just want to say is that certain religious types, extremists who think they have to believe blindly and switching off the brain is a requirement for faith, unfortunately give religion a bad name. So I understand why religion has such a bad reputation among many people. But that's IMO a pity, because I think true spirituality is a very important aspect of the human condition, and denying that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If anybody feels like responding to me on this, or is interested in a talk on this topic, I'll be gladly available in the KM section!
  21. I really don't want to KM this thread, but I know quite a few people who believe in God, and not a single one of them confuses creation myth in scriptures with a historical account, by taking it literally. IMO people who do so are spiritual illiterates... but then, maybe I just know the wrong people. Anyway, point being: Believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with confusing myth with science. There are a zillion ways you can believe in God that do not contradict science, and a huge number of believers do just that.
  22. I'd rather not see a reboot, for the reasons Justin named: One of the great things about Trek is the vast universe building. I like to immerse myself in the idea it's just one big coherent world. That's why I am skeptic about multiverses and reboots. A reimagination, visual overhaul and so on? I'm fine with that. I don't need obviously production based reasons for change in visuals and production values to be explained on screen. But if they come up with a convincing, not too contrived explanation for the new Klingon style? Even better.
  23. Interesting! I think I saw the author in a talkshow a long while ago... if I'm not confusing it. What were the most interesting things you found in it?
  24. I don't see any similarities between Vulcan philosophy and Judaism, but I think it's definitely inspired by Buddhism: Vulcan philosophy is on a blurred line between a mere philosophy, a spiritual practize and a quasi-religion, like Buddhism. Both founded by a philosopher-founder/teacher who enjoys an admiration that goes beyond mere praise for a common philosopher, maybe is even "deified" to some extent. Then the practize of meditation and very disciplined exercizes to order and clear the mind -- that's very Buddhist (for Theravada monks, anyway... of course more popularized practizes are perhaps much less demanding). The Kolinahr reminds me of the Buddhist goal of reaching the status of Bodhisattva (in Mahayana). Just the logic-thing is not exactly Buddhist. Vulcans are more... brainy. I agree ... I think the elements of the Bajoran faith that served as analogies/were inspired by earth religions, were mostly taken from monotheisms: Religion as a quasi-national identity (Judaism) that helped the people to preserve its identity and unity during hardship, oppression and holocaust (Judaism), the emphasis on holy scripture including prophecies and divine law (Judaism and Christianity), a practize of prayer in a fashion that at least to the Western eye reminds of Islam (the way they turn their hands) ... and the general concept, that there is a transcendent deity (or multifaceted deity, as in "the prophets") that reveal themselves to the people occasionally, presumably by sending or inspiring scripture, is very Judaism/Christianity/Islam. The term "prophets" in itself points to that tradition. Just the ancient Bajoran caste systems reminds more of Hinduism... and the Orbs? Not sure... an SF-ified element of "natural spirituality"/shamanism, where people seek insights through visions (i.e. via drugs)? I agree ... just because the Federation used other, more scientific words to describe the Prophets, didn't somehow "disenchant" them. They were still quasi-gods. So no need for the Bajorans to resent the Federation (as much as Kai Winn had troubles with the scientific view, many other Bajorans, including clerics like Vedek Barail, apparently saw no challenge to their faith). As for the Klingons... I disagree with Chimera, I don't think they're Zen. Even assuming Zen is all about the martial arts it inspired, and its influence on Japanese warrior culture in general ... Zen is much more about "total self-control and discipline". That's not exactly how I'd describe Klingons. So I guess while a Samurai-like code of honor perhaps served as an inspiration, I'd say that's where the similarities end. And Orthodox ... Christianity? Have to say I don't know all that much about Eastern Christianity, but I've always had the impression they were mostly like Catholics, just with a little more (or different) fuss in the practize.
  25. Or they could replace religious words with 'frak'.