Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

Sim   

If those are indeed Klingons? I'm fine with the new look, too! :thumbup:

Nice when they look more "alien" again.

Though I still don't understand why they're opening that can of worms by making the show a prequel, I'm very much looking forward to the show and hope it'll be great! :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Locutus   

Apparently someone DM'd the person who posted the pic originally and asked if these really were Klingons and the guy said "I don't know, they just looked like Klingons to me".

So there's also that.

Those look like they must be the new Klingons to me.  I'm fine with the departure.  They should make them look more alien.  The old Star Trek trope of aliens that are too human-looking in order to accomodate cost-effective facial prosthetics has run its course.  Not that they can completely depart from it, but it is good to push the envelope.

Perhaps they are Klingons from the past (or the future).  I hope they don't resort to time travel like Abrams Trek or Enterprise, but I could see a plot turning on the return of a long lost but legendary House of Klingons that have come back to reclaim the Empire.  Fits with some of the hubbub I have gathered online:  Klingon War, sarcophagus ship, three primary characters being Klingon.

I just finished the first book in the Star Trek: Prey series which deals with the House of Kruge and the return of exiled Klingons creating new conflict in the Federation/Klingon Alliance.  I could see a similar plot and intrigue driving this new TV show.  Even better that it is set before the Federation and Klingons are allies.

I was starting to think I was the only one here who was okay with a new variation of the Klingons.;)

I also agree with your point that the era of bumpy headed but otherwise very human looking aliens HAS run its course; it's enough to swallow that Vulcans look just like us but with pointed ears and upswept eyebrows, but I think the Klingons should  appear shockingly different from either humans or Vulcans.  I say bring it on.

I really don't care if they have new Klingon makeup or if it's set in a new alternate uni-multi-pocket-parallel-o-verse with added loadbearing canon 'n' continuity rearticulations, as long as the stories are good and I give a toss about the characters. I just want to believe in Star Trek on TV again.

:Voyager3:  :punk:

Equally, I will be avoiding the Internet when it's flooded with anally retentive protestations that "They got the Klingons wr-o-o-ong!" :azp-argue:

:azp-argue:"

hahaha that emoji sums up fandom too well.  Not that I don't enjoy the debate!  Let's just not lose sight of the prize.  Like you say, so long as the stories and characters are good, I'll be a happy camper.  Wardrobe, makeup, and special effects are just icing on the cake.  I mean, I don't rewatch TOS religiously because of the special effects.  Personally, I wish they had never engaged in the fan wankery of explaining the change in Klingon head ridges on Enterprise.  It only validated the fans that demand in-universe explanations for updated makeup or creative choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently someone DM'd the person who posted the pic originally and asked if these really were Klingons and the guy said "I don't know, they just looked like Klingons to me".

So there's also that.

Those look like they must be the new Klingons to me.  I'm fine with the departure.  They should make them look more alien.  The old Star Trek trope of aliens that are too human-looking in order to accomodate cost-effective facial prosthetics has run its course.  Not that they can completely depart from it, but it is good to push the envelope.

Perhaps they are Klingons from the past (or the future).  I hope they don't resort to time travel like Abrams Trek or Enterprise, but I could see a plot turning on the return of a long lost but legendary House of Klingons that have come back to reclaim the Empire.  Fits with some of the hubbub I have gathered online:  Klingon War, sarcophagus ship, three primary characters being Klingon.

I just finished the first book in the Star Trek: Prey series which deals with the House of Kruge and the return of exiled Klingons creating new conflict in the Federation/Klingon Alliance.  I could see a similar plot and intrigue driving this new TV show.  Even better that it is set before the Federation and Klingons are allies.

I was starting to think I was the only one here who was okay with a new variation of the Klingons.;)

I also agree with your point that the era of bumpy headed but otherwise very human looking aliens HAS run its course; it's enough to swallow that Vulcans look just like us but with pointed ears and upswept eyebrows, but I think the Klingons should  appear shockingly different from either humans or Vulcans.  I say bring it on.

I really don't care if they have new Klingon makeup or if it's set in a new alternate uni-multi-pocket-parallel-o-verse with added loadbearing canon 'n' continuity rearticulations, as long as the stories are good and I give a toss about the characters. I just want to believe in Star Trek on TV again.

:Voyager3:  :punk:

Equally, I will be avoiding the Internet when it's flooded with anally retentive protestations that "They got the Klingons wr-o-o-ong!" :azp-argue:

:azp-argue:"

hahaha that emoji sums up fandom too well.  Not that I don't enjoy the debate!  Let's just not lose sight of the prize.  Like you say, so long as the stories and characters are good, I'll be a happy camper.  Wardrobe, makeup, and special effects are just icing on the cake.  I mean, I don't rewatch TOS religiously because of the special effects.  Personally, I wish they had never engaged in the fan wankery of explaining the change in Klingon head ridges on Enterprise.  It only validated the fans that demand in-universe explanations for updated makeup or creative choices. 

Agree with both of you; as long as the stories are 'Star Trek', the Klingon Kosmetics don't bother me.  TMP started this whole changed look thing, and it didn't undo the franchise, so who cares?

Again; it's all about the stories!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about the whole "they should have ignored the Klingon look thing". Imagine if you're O'Brian, Bashir, or Odo in Trials and Tribbulations and you see the Klingons in that story, wouldn't you be going "huuuuhhhhh?" One could nitpick that they should have known enough about Klingon history to know why they look more human, but maybe starfleet didn't think it was worth teaching at that point. To me, the Kitumba episode of Phase 2 gave the perfect look at the issue in that the unaffected Klingons keep close to home (hence the unaffected ones shown in Into Darkness) and are the ones with power (Richard Hatch's character in the Axanar trailer). And at some point in the 4 years between TOS and TMP a cure was finally found. And even though the augment Klingons far outnumber the unaffected ones, there is still enough of a racial stigma that no Klingon would dare not take the cure. Simple as that.

Edited by John32070
Added something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about the whole "they should have ignored the Klingon look thing". Imagine if you're O'Brian, Bashir, or Odo in Trials and Tribbulations and you see the Klingons in that story, wouldn't you be going "huuuuhhhhh?" One could nitpick that they should have known enough about Klingon history to know why they look more human, but maybe starfleet didn't think it was worth teaching at that point. To me, the Kitumba episode of Phase 2 gave the perfect look at the issue in that the unaffected Klingons keep close to home (hence the unaffected ones shown in Into Darkness) and are the ones with power (Richard Hatch's character in the Axanar trailer). And at some point in the 4 years between TOS and TMP a cure was finally found. And even though the augment Klingons far outnumber the unaffected ones, there is still enough of a racial stigma that no Klingon would dare not take the cure. Simple as that.

In a galaxy full of thousands of known inhabited planets, it's not unlikely that two 24th century Starfleet officers wouldn't know all that much about Klingon genetic history; especially if the Klingons were secretive about it (Worf's insistence that they don't discuss it with outsiders).  

And who knows?  Maybe some of the augments began to wear their 'disfigurement' as a badge of honor; the way some war veterans proudly display their scars, as symbols of their service.   Not to mention the fact that the Klingon empire incorporates many planets that we've never SEEN on Star Trek; who's to say that some of those annexed planets and peoples didn't mix into the Klingon genome themselves?  

We also know from Dax's marriage to Worf and the half-human Kaylahr that Klingons CAN mate outside of their native genome, so it's not unlikely that 'pure' Klingons are no longer the norm within the Klingon Empire (or at least the Klingon Empire within the possible alternate universe of DSC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly true (and same could be said about the Romulans). But unlike the Federation, Klingons and Romulans are conquerors. Why you never see aliens on their ships is because no other species can compare or be trusted enough to hold a position like that. I wish they had delved into the story of that guy who defected to Romulus in Face of the Enemy, he clearly held some kind of position in the Empire, but he (and maybe Sela) are the only examples I can think of that go towards what Sehlat is saying.

How K'eyhler and B'lanna can exist is because they were born after the Klingons and Federation made peace. No way would a Klingon have that kind of a relationship with an enemy. Hard to say about the Romulans (hence Sela). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly true (and same could be said about the Romulans). But unlike the Federation, Klingons and Romulans are conquerors. Why you never see aliens on their ships is because no other species can compare or be trusted enough to hold a position like that. I wish they had delved into the story of that guy who defected to Romulus in Face of the Enemy, he clearly held some kind of position in the Empire, but he (and maybe Sela) are the only examples I can think of that go towards what Sehlat is saying.

How K'eyhler and B'lanna can exist is because they were born after the Klingons and Federation made peace. No way would a Klingon have that kind of a relationship with an enemy. Hard to say about the Romulans (hence Sela). 

^
Yes, but you're assuming we've seen all of the Klingons everywhere.  I'm guessing we haven't.   And just because we don't see their 'lower castes' of conquered races working aboard their ships or on their worlds doesn't mean they aren't

I still remember when TMP first came out in 1979 and everyone was scrambling to explain their new look.  But the simple fact was, they had more money and they were able to push them beyond that kinda racist 'Fu Manchu' look of TOS.   And that change happened almost 40 years ago (!).  

It's not unreasonable for the creators behind a new ST series to want to push forward their own look for the Klingons, since every fifth cosplayer at an average ST convention has pretty much nailed the TMP/TNG "turtle-head" look.

I'm all for advancing the art of the Klingon makeup; let the story aspect of it catch up later.   If nothing else, it promotes ingenuity on both fronts.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Certainly true (and same could be said about the Romulans). But unlike the Federation, Klingons and Romulans are conquerors. Why you never see aliens on their ships is because no other species can compare or be trusted enough to hold a position like that. I wish they had delved into the story of that guy who defected to Romulus in Face of the Enemy, he clearly held some kind of position in the Empire, but he (and maybe Sela) are the only examples I can think of that go towards what Sehlat is saying.

How K'eyhler and B'lanna can exist is because they were born after the Klingons and Federation made peace. No way would a Klingon have that kind of a relationship with an enemy. Hard to say about the Romulans (hence Sela). 

^
Yes, but you're assuming we've seen all of the Klingons everywhere.  I'm guessing we haven't.   And just because we don't see their 'lower castes' of conquered races working aboard their ships or on their worlds doesn't mean they aren't

I still remember when TMP first came out in 1979 and everyone was scrambling to explain their new look.  But the simple fact was, they had more money and they were able to push them beyond that kinda racist 'Fu Manchu' look of TOS.   And that change happened almost 40 years ago (!).  

It's not unreasonable for the creators behind a new ST series to want to push forward their own look for the Klingons, since every fifth cosplayer at an average ST convention has pretty much nailed the TMP/TNG "turtle-head" look.

I'm all for advancing the art of the Klingon makeup; let the story aspect of it catch up later.   If nothing else, it promotes ingenuity on both fronts.   

 

Yeah... and another explanation may be that the Klingon military so far as been rather centralized (most military personnell stemming from the home planet, rather than one of the many other planets within the Empire), and/or the apparent feudal structure of the Empire results in the bloodlines of nobles getting an advantage. Which is why we have only seen two types of Klingons before.

None of this excludes the possibility that in other regions/planets or "lesser" Houses of the Empire, subjugated races have long mixed into the Klingon genome and are common, maybe even dominant phenotype of Klingons.

However, this explanation would work much better if DSC wasn't a prequel, but a post-24th century show.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly true (and same could be said about the Romulans). But unlike the Federation, Klingons and Romulans are conquerors. Why you never see aliens on their ships is because no other species can compare or be trusted enough to hold a position like that. I wish they had delved into the story of that guy who defected to Romulus in Face of the Enemy, he clearly held some kind of position in the Empire, but he (and maybe Sela) are the only examples I can think of that go towards what Sehlat is saying.

How K'eyhler and B'lanna can exist is because they were born after the Klingons and Federation made peace. No way would a Klingon have that kind of a relationship with an enemy. Hard to say about the Romulans (hence Sela). 

^
Yes, but you're assuming we've seen all of the Klingons everywhere.  I'm guessing we haven't.   And just because we don't see their 'lower castes' of conquered races working aboard their ships or on their worlds doesn't mean they aren't

I still remember when TMP first came out in 1979 and everyone was scrambling to explain their new look.  But the simple fact was, they had more money and they were able to push them beyond that kinda racist 'Fu Manchu' look of TOS.   And that change happened almost 40 years ago (!).  

It's not unreasonable for the creators behind a new ST series to want to push forward their own look for the Klingons, since every fifth cosplayer at an average ST convention has pretty much nailed the TMP/TNG "turtle-head" look.

I'm all for advancing the art of the Klingon makeup; let the story aspect of it catch up later.   If nothing else, it promotes ingenuity on both fronts.   

 

Yeah... and another explanation may be that the Klingon military so far as been rather centralized (most military personnell stemming from the home planet, rather than one of the many other planets within the Empire), and/or the apparent feudal structure of the Empire results in the bloodlines of nobles getting an advantage. Which is why we have only seen two types of Klingons before.

None of this excludes the possibility that in other regions/planets or "lesser" Houses of the Empire, subjugated races have long mixed into the Klingon genome and are common, maybe even dominant phenotype of Klingons.

However, this explanation would work much better if DSC wasn't a prequel, but a post-24th century show.

^
Agree that I too, would rather it be a post-24th century series, but if it's a prequel set in an alternate universe then it's kind of the same result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But....but............They got the Klingons wr-o-o-ong!

Gus

Or we just have to expand our definition off right. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

An English actor as the captain. It will never work. :)  I haven't seen much of him outside of Harry Potter but he seemed like a fine actor. I like the fact that they didn't cast a 19 year old in the part. The captain should be older. Someone who has worked up the ranks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He looks like a good choice. I sort of wonder about this whole "Captain's not the star" business... yes, Stewart was the nominal star of the show, but from TNG forward, there was always an emphasis on the ensemble anyway. POVs changed from episode to episode as each member of the ensemble took their turn to lead an episode. (Unless your name was Travis and you were on Enterprise.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robin Bland said:

He looks like a good choice. I sort of wonder about this whole "Captain's not the star" business... yes, Stewart was the nominal star of the show, but from TNG forward, there was always an emphasis on the ensemble anyway. POVs changed from episode to episode as each member of the ensemble took their turn to lead an episode. (Unless your name was Travis and you were on Enterprise.)

^
Yeah, poor Travis.   And having seen Anthony Montgomery in a great little indie comedy called "I'm Through With White Girls" (2007), I was saddened he rarely got to do more than push buttons and smile a lot.   He's a fine actor.   Such a damn shame! :(

And yes, the new series of ST are more ensemble-driven.   Something tells me that with the focus on "Number One" and the captain being a supporting player and the arc storylines rumored to happen, I think we're going to see the Exo's rise to the center seat during the course of the series; like a Horatio Hornblower novel (ST's original premise, according to Nick Meyer and Gene Roddenberry).   Almost like Ben Sisko going from commander to full captain, but not quite.   Despite his lesser rank in S1 and S2 of DS9, Sisko was still firmly in charge of the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Yeah, poor Travis.   And having seen Anthony Montgomery in a great little indie comedy called "I'm Through With White Girls" (2007), I was saddened he rarely got to do more than push buttons and smile a lot.   He's a fine actor.   Such a damn shame! :(

And yes, the new series of ST are more ensemble-driven.   Something tells me that with the focus on "Number One" and the captain being a supporting player and the arc storylines rumored to happen, I think we're going to see the Exo's rise to the center seat during the course of the series; like a Horatio Hornblower novel (ST's original premise, according to Nick Meyer and Gene Roddenberry).   Almost like Ben Sisko going from commander to full captain, but not quite.   Despite his lesser rank in S1 and S2 of DS9, Sisko was still firmly in charge of the station.

I agree, that's exactly what I thought too. It's the likeliest scenario. if anything it's a bit JJ in terms of Kirk taking over from Pike and proving his effectiveness as a commander in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

The captain may not be in all of the episodes. They already started filming and they just hired him. Maybe he's a new captain but the rest of the crew is established.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   
1 hour ago, scenario said:

The captain may not be in all of the episodes. They already started filming and they just hired him. Maybe he's a new captain but the rest of the crew is established.

Well...they just announced him, he could've been a hired a while back but kept under wraps for a bit, hoping to continue teasing stuff as we eagerly await the delayed series. 

He may not be in all the episodes, but I think you can have an ensemble with a main focus.  I also think it is fairly likely that the point of the series may be to watch as someone rises through the ranks, their triumphs and their mistakes on the way to the Captain's chair.  If that is the focus of the series on the whole, with each season having it's own specific arc or crisis to deal with for this character to be in the thick of it?  I am very much down. As Vie said, Hornblower novels kind of have this approach, or did once Forrester was done with them (his first novels had him as a Captain, but then he went back and showed how he got there, and where he went in his later career), and as I love the Hornblower series and reading this character as he grows and becomes a great leader and captain (and one who is rarely sure of himself on many issues), I wouldn't be disappointed in this approach in the slightest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Travis Mayweather did have episodes that focused on him in the first two seasons but then they just "conveniently forgot" him from season 3 onwards. Which, I think, is one of the biggest mistakes the show made. (And I'm not just saying that because Travis is my favorite ENT character.)

This new captain thing... my first thought was "well at least they hired a British actor for the captain" :P

Now, we know that CBS keeps insisting that this show won't put "emphasis" on the captain, but what does this really mean, I wonder? I think what people are confusing is the fact that a captain is usually the MORAL center of the show. Not the physical one, often. With TOS you even have three characters who are almost always present. Kirk is almost never alone, and yet it's still clear that he's the captain even though Spock is often the real center of things. With TNG you have Data as the fan favorite while Jean-Luc is the iconic captain. DS9 focuses a LOT more on the ensemble because of its strong recurring guest characters, but you still have Sisko on top of everything, the show never forgets that he's the one in charge of things. As misguided as she is, even Janeway is the center of her show who is hovering over everything. The same with Archer, although with him I would say Enterprise is the one show that has a VERY strong focus on its captain in BOTH a moral AND physical way, he gets a LOT of action scenes and he is VERY often the sole center of episodes (especially when he gets kidnapped, which happens a LOT).

What I'm trying to say here is that the captain of a show is important in a way that goes beyond having the most episodes focused on him or her. The captain sets the tone, the captain commands the ship and therefore also ultimately the destiny of the show. You can literally find out a LOT about a Trek fan's personality just by asking them who their favorite captain is. This is how iconic a starship captain is and this is what inevitably makes the captain the focus, no matter if you center episodes around him or her or not. (Well that and the human habit of looking at the guy or lady in charge.)

Discovery appears to want to turn all this upside down, although it's a mystery to me how that is supposed to work without basically throwing basic Trek concepts out of the window but then maybe that's exactly what they're doing. I just hope for their sake that the fans will like what they see, because if they don't... it ain't gonna be pretty. At all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

Travis Mayweather did have episodes that focused on him in the first two seasons but then they just "conveniently forgot" him from season 3 onwards. Which, I think, is one of the biggest mistakes the show made. (And I'm not just saying that because Travis is my favorite ENT character.)

This new captain thing... my first thought was "well at least they hired a British actor for the captain" :P

Now, we know that CBS keeps insisting that this show won't put "emphasis" on the captain, but what does this really mean, I wonder? I think what people are confusing is the fact that a captain is usually the MORAL center of the show. Not the physical one, often. With TOS you even have three characters who are almost always present. Kirk is almost never alone, and yet it's still clear that he's the captain even though Spock is often the real center of things. With TNG you have Data as the fan favorite while Jean-Luc is the iconic captain. DS9 focuses a LOT more on the ensemble because of its strong recurring guest characters, but you still have Sisko on top of everything, the show never forgets that he's the one in charge of things. As misguided as she is, even Janeway is the center of her show who is hovering over everything. The same with Archer, although with him I would say Enterprise is the one show that has a VERY strong focus on its captain in BOTH a moral AND physical way, he gets a LOT of action scenes and he is VERY often the sole center of episodes (especially when he gets kidnapped, which happens a LOT).

What I'm trying to say here is that the captain of a show is important in a way that goes beyond having the most episodes focused on him or her. The captain sets the tone, the captain commands the ship and therefore also ultimately the destiny of the show. You can literally find out a LOT about a Trek fan's personality just by asking them who their favorite captain is. This is how iconic a starship captain is and this is what inevitably makes the captain the focus, no matter if you center episodes around him or her or not. (Well that and the human habit of looking at the guy or lady in charge.)

Discovery appears to want to turn all this upside down, although it's a mystery to me how that is supposed to work without basically throwing basic Trek concepts out of the window but then maybe that's exactly what they're doing. I just hope for their sake that the fans will like what they see, because if they don't... it ain't gonna be pretty. At all.

^
Yeah, I know; the notion of ST fans being too picky and overly discriminating... who knew? :P

I'm not sure if changing the focus from the captain to the exec really changes the fundamentals of the franchise too much.  Robin Bland made a good point earlier that it may just be another step in ST's evolution from a troika of characters (TOS) to a more ensemble feel (TNG, DS9 and beyond).  

Having a new exec finding her 'space legs' sounds very Horatio Hornblower to me; which, again, was one of Roddenberry's original models for Kirk.   Hornblower rises through the ranks to become a leader; something tells me this is the arc of "Number One" in the new series as well.    We know that the new show is supposed to be more arc-based; I'm guessing the evolution of the young exec will be one of those arcs.   Maybe the captain is killed, or otherwise incapacitated (?).   Not sure.  

One thing I do know based on my years of watching The Walking Dead is that Sonequa Martin-Green ("Number One") is a fine actress; and I've no doubt she will be able to portray a wide range as her character matures into a leadership role (if indeed that is her arc... we don't really know for certain just yet).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Upside down can be good. The entire concept of Star Trek is boldly going out there and exploring stange new worlds. It can't break that mold and stay stationary on a Space Station!

But you see what might be my favorite and the creatively most successful Trek might be Deep Space Nine. So I am definitely willing to see another bold change in format, as instead of this "the moral center of the show is the Captain end of story" thing, and see it replaced with the story of how one in the mower decks makes their way through the show. 

And as to fans being unhappy? Inevitable. All new is bad, only thing good was yesterday. Same thing was very present on the old Doctor Who Forum I used to frequent, everyone was constantly bashing Davies, despite the fact that the guy had revived their favorite show without changing the format too much and made it so popular he guaranteed it would last for a good while after he left. But then the koment Moffat took over suddenly the whole board turned on the one writer they loved in the Davies era and began to provlaim it wasn't as good as the good ol' Davies era. Obviously the continued success and popularity meant nothing to the vocal minority of internet fans that just want to see their favorite episodes rehashed and repeated over and over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just fear that if they go too far away from Trek's original concept of "the captain is usually the hero" (in whichever way), Trek fans will be even MORE up in arms against the show than they already are. The reactions to the new captain's casting have been rather positive, as have the reports about it (for a change), which is something the show can definitely use at this point, and I really can't shake off the feeling that this captain casting is the kind of news that fans want to hear, not stuff like "this will be a prequel show that has Klingons that don't look like the ones you know at all".

I just don't want another fandom war but then I guess everyone's already in it or at least standing next to the battlefield, getting ready. Guess I'll have to go and get my medkit again. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Upside down can be good. The entire concept of Star Trek is boldly going out there and exploring stange new worlds. It can't break that mold and stay stationary on a Space Station!

But you see what might be my favorite and the creatively most successful Trek might be Deep Space Nine. So I am definitely willing to see another bold change in format, as instead of this "the moral center of the show is the Captain end of story" thing, and see it replaced with the story of how one in the mower decks makes their way through the show. 

And as to fans being unhappy? Inevitable. All new is bad, only thing good was yesterday. Same thing was very present on the old Doctor Who Forum I used to frequent, everyone was constantly bashing Davies, despite the fact that the guy had revived their favorite show without changing the format too much and made it so popular he guaranteed it would last for a good while after he left. But then the koment Moffat took over suddenly the whole board turned on the one writer they loved in the Davies era and began to provlaim it wasn't as good as the good ol' Davies era. Obviously the continued success and popularity meant nothing to the vocal minority of internet fans that just want to see their favorite episodes rehashed and repeated over and over again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kenman said:

Upside down can be good. The entire concept of Star Trek is boldly going out there and exploring stange new worlds. It can't break that mold and stay stationary on a Space Station!

But you see what might be my favorite and the creatively most successful Trek might be Deep Space Nine. So I am definitely willing to see another bold change in format, as instead of this "the moral center of the show is the Captain end of story" thing, and see it replaced with the story of how one in the mower decks makes their way through the show. 

And as to fans being unhappy? Inevitable. All new is bad, only thing good was yesterday. Same thing was very present on the old Doctor Who Forum I used to frequent, everyone was constantly bashing Davies, despite the fact that the guy had revived their favorite show without changing the format too much and made it so popular he guaranteed it would last for a good while after he left. But then the koment Moffat took over suddenly the whole board turned on the one writer they loved in the Davies era and began to provlaim it wasn't as good as the good ol' Davies era. Obviously the continued success and popularity meant nothing to the vocal minority of internet fans that just want to see their favorite episodes rehashed and repeated over and over again. 

^
This.

3 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

I just fear that if they go too far away from Trek's original concept of "the captain is usually the hero" (in whichever way), Trek fans will be even MORE up in arms against the show than they already are. The reactions to the new captain's casting have been rather positive, as have the reports about it (for a change), which is something the show can definitely use at this point, and I really can't shake off the feeling that this captain casting is the kind of news that fans want to hear, not stuff like "this will be a prequel show that has Klingons that don't look like the ones you know at all".

I just don't want another fandom war but then I guess everyone's already in it or at least standing next to the battlefield, getting ready. Guess I'll have to go and get my medkit again. ;)

^
So helpful. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now