Senior Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About scenario

  • Rank
    Intrepid-Class Starship

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New England U.S.A.
  • Marital Status
  • Favorite Trek Movie
    The Search for Spock
  • Favorite Trek Captain
    Jean-Luc Picard
  • Favorite Trek Series
    The Original Series

Recent Profile Visitors

3,636 profile views
  1. Congratulations! Its a lot of stress and a lot of fun at the same time.
  2. I hate the idea of a movie with the captains. I kind of like the idea of a movie or miniseries set 15 years after voyager with a mixture of minor characters from NG, DS9 and Voy. Avoid the main characters so no Picard, Data, Sisko, 7 of 9 or Janeway. Also eliminate any character whose dead in the show (Jadzia) or should be (Kes). Then pick one or two characters from each of the show. You could even have a cameo from TOS minor character in the form of a video message.
  3. CBS has three choices with ST. Put it on CBS and have it canceled after one season because it doesn't make enough money for what it costs. Sell or lease the rights to a third party and hope that they can do a better job. Or put it on all access where it doesn't have to make a profit with one or two showings because they can keep making money on it for years. When it comes to the actual show, I'm not making any decisions about it until I see it with my own eyes.
  4. CBSAA is available as an internet-based service right now. My point is that it's looking like all TV service other than local broadcast could be internet based in a few years. The cable company's business model is that they have a local monopoly and they get 75% of the people in their area using their service and they buy channels and set prices based on volume. About 20% of people never got cable. So they had around 80% of people signed up and they charged them through the nose. People now can get a much cheaper service. The industry as a whole is losing customers. If the percentage of people using the service get's too low, they'll get into a death cycle of raising rates/losing more customers or cutting channels/losing customers. It may take 20 years but CBS wants to keep their options open if cable companies start going out of the tv business.
  5. The business model of cable TV as it stands now is unsustainable. More and more people are cutting the cord on cable. As more people use internet TV like Roku and less use traditional cable, the cable companies will be forced to either raise their price,(creating more cable cutters) or drop expensive channels, (Like ESPN, creating more cable cutters) or totally change their business practices. What happens to the people who Don't want to or can't subscribe to CBS All Access when their cable company decides to go out of the TV business and concentrate exclusively on their internet providing business? CBS is taking a risk but the alternatives are being attached to a dying platform, or joining another platform like Hulu and lose their individuality and name or being just an over the air channel and lose most of their customer base or do what they did and create their own platform. To create a new platform they need programs. Star Trek fits the bill. It has a solid fan base. It is a show that doesn't quite fit on a regular network. It's a show that is better off on a network that can afford to care as much about quality than ratings. A really good show that they own outright can draw new fans to the new platform for years. A crappy, flash in the pan, high rating success is great for regular TV but terrible for an internet based TV.(How many people would subscribe to CBS All Access to see reruns of one of the many reality shows.) Smaller more steady paying viewership with high quality shows is the way to go. The show doesn't half to pay for itself with one or two showings when you're going to be showing it for decades. CBS is taking a long view. Discovery is not by itself going to make the network. It's a start. Discovery, American Football and a couple of other new shows make the channel legitimate. I cut the cord a few months ago and my monthly bill went from $100 to $25. I have a difficult time getting CBS over the air. Even if I spend another $7.00 for all access, I'm still saving a lot of money over the old system.
  6. I liked the show. I only like around 5 shows on TV now so I feel the loss. But I'm not super unhappy. The BBC used it as an experiment and showed it in unusual times and places so it's not that surprising that it failed. It's a lot like Firefly that way. Put it on odd times and places and then act surprised when it doesn't make a lot of money. The show itself was good not great but it showed a lot of promise. It killed off several characters and as an ensemble show no one character was crucial to the show so there was a real feeling of danger for the characters since they could really die in the show.
  7. A communicator on a planet has more in common with a satellite phone than a cell phone. It's easy to imagine that it has to be bigger and bulkier because it's signal has to go hundreds or even thousands of miles instead of just a few miles to the nearest tower. It also has to be tough enough to work in a lot of different conditions from very cold to very hot. It won't work in a vacuum (no sound waves) but it has to be able to survive there if necessary. It's easy to make up a decent reason why the communicator looks so bulky. Especially if they're using the equivalent of an i-pad on the bridge. They had a bulky version of an i-pad in the early TOS episodes that Yeoman Rand had Kirk sign. If you have both it looks more like there is a reason for the communicators to be so bulky. Thank you for using my warp 75 example.
  8. It seems to make sense to have a thread for people who aren't interested in Discovery and want to say why they aren't. Or people who want to assume that the new Star Trek is going to be bad because of 2 seconds of a promo seemed wrong to them. I really don't have a problem with that because I do the same thing with other programs that I'm only slightly interested in. It makes sense to me to have two main threads. The optimistic thread where there is concern about the way the show is going but hopes it will work out. And the pessimistic thread for people who've basically burned out on Trek and just assume the new show will be a disaster.
  9. I actually think that the B&W episodes in lost and space were the best ones. Later ones became almost a parody of science fiction. I brought this up because the primitive looking Enterprise is basically the same thing as it being shot in B&W. We don't expect that new shows be shot in B&W. We don't expect them to use the same type 50 year old cameras so it will look the same. We shouldn't expect shows shot in 2017 to look like shows shot in 1964.
  10. TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white.
  11. 1) TOS - I grew up watching it and I still like it best 2) DS9 - Best story telling. There's no automatic reboot 3) TNG - Great characters - Stories as good as TOS - A captain who acts more like a real captain would 4) Ent - Some good to very good episodes. Weak at times. Good character development 5) Voy - Recycled stories - Little character development - A Captain whose totally inconsistent.
  12. I'm liking the idea of a reboot in the prime line more. Keep most of the ideas. The tech is mostly the same but looks better. The aliens are basically the same. I don't see why the changed the Klingons, except if it is explicitly said that they are not typical Klingons for some in story reason. If you have a reboot, you get rid of the problems of contradicting a throwaway line in episode y of series z. I'd still prefer it be set later.
  13. They're kind of stuck because of the advances in technology in the last 15 years. There's no way to make Discovery 10 years before TOS without either ignoring how TOS really looked or assume that the audience can suspend their disbelief and believe that TOS always looked like this. But its not a whole lot better if you set it 15 years after the series ended. I doubt that Star Fleet and all of the other groups completely upgrades every ship in 15 years. Large ships today like Cruise ships and large military ships last 30 or 40 years. At least some of Star Fleet will last even longer. If you want to make it realistic, you're going to have a mix of ships. Some like the NCC 1701E and others like Discovery. How much would Klingon ships change in 15 Years? Not every species is going to want to completely change their ships every few years. So you end up with established fans saying wow, a real Klingon Cruiser and new fans saying how'd that piece of junk get into this show. You really need to make a pretty big leap forward if you want to redesign everything. 100 years or more.
  14. I think the problem isn't just the fact that it's setting, its also time. Star Trek hasn't been on the air for more than 10 years. Technology, especially computer technology has come a long way since 2005. In 2005, Sony introduced a cell phone that could also played music!!! 12 years later a $10 burner phone can do that and a lot more. Because of the massive changes in computer technology since even Enterprise went off the air, ST technology just looks backwards to anyone younger than about 30. There has to be an upgrade in the look of ST no matter when it was set. Even if you set it 15 years after the last ST episode was set, there would still have to be major changes in the look. To me, the look is unimportant, how it works is. If transporters in Kirk's day can't do something, then transporters shouldn't be able to do it in the Discovery era. I sometimes read older science fiction. Some of the stories from the 1940's and 50's are good but they kick me out of the story when they say that they have to change the vacuum tubes on the spaceship. Vacuum tubes were phased out in the 60's. I don't want younger views of ST kicked out of the story because of how it looks. My sympathies Robin
  15. I've watched ST since the 70's reruns of TOS and I've got no problem with the change in the look. TOS had hand held flip phone communicators, Dsc has hand held flip phone communicators. Who cares if the newer ones look better? The Klingons look different. No big deal. There's already two types of Klingons, why not three? What I want to see is if the Klingons act like Klingons. TOS Klingons and the NG Klingons are similar but not really the same. As long as the new Klingons act similar to the older Klingons I'm fine with it. What I don't want to see is the new ships traveling at warp 75 or they have new technology we haven't seen before. I really don't care if the ships and equipment look different as long as they function the same.