Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

Just now, Sehlat Vie said:

 

^
So helpful. :P

I try to be. :P I'm a good listener.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I try to be. :P I'm a good listener.  ;) 

Must be part El-Aurian...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sehlat Vie said:

Must be part El-Aurian...:P

I'm just better at listening than talking, that's the entire secret. :laugh: On a more serious note though - I wasn't kidding, I'm really dreading this whole war over Discovery. So many people are dead set against it, others are on the fence and then there's also those who defend it to the last bit already. This is NOT going to be pretty. At ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I'm not sure what some fans want? A scene by scene remake of old episodes? The new Trek has to be similar but not the same as the old Trek in order to be successful. The new Doctor Who is different from the old but its still Doctor Who. I'll never understand people who hate a show for changing that's very DNA is change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, scenario said:

I'm not sure what some fans want? A scene by scene remake of old episodes? The new Trek has to be similar but not the same as the old Trek in order to be successful. The new Doctor Who is different from the old but its still Doctor Who. I'll never understand people who hate a show for changing that's very DNA is change. 

I think that's exactly what some fans want, yes. They want the same old Star Trek they know and love because 99% of them grew up with Star Trek, in whichever incarnation. They want that old feeling back that they had when they watched an episode of TOS or TNG, and anything that seems "off" now will upset that sense of nostalgia because it won't be the same for them. That's why they get so defensive sometimes. They want that old Star Trek, no newly-imagined stuff. It's the same as it was when TNG was announced - the more "traditional" TOS fans were up in arms, there were cautious ones and then you also had the ones who were on board before Farpoint had even aired. TNG managed to get most of them under its wing after some time, but Discovery is going to have to be REALLY REALLY REALLY good to accomplish this, and in these modern days were everyone spreads reviews and has a blog and a Youtube channel and can scream there it's almost impossible to NOT have a pretty set opinion about something before that something even starts. If the internet had existed back in the TNG days, the show wouldn't have stood a chance. The traditionalists would have torn its first season apart on social media, and a lot of previously on-the-fence folks would have decided to follow their lead.

I generally understand both sides here, though. I'd probably be nostalgic myself if I had grown up with Star Trek and I can be pretty annoying about canon details as well, BUT I also understand the side that says we need something new and fresh in order for Trek to be successful nowadays, it can't just be re-hashed episode plots. Both sides have a point, but they're both so set in their opinions, I can't picture them ending up sitting at the same table any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But time marches. You can't get those old glory days back. They've come and gone. That's why, hard as it it, you have to take whatever new Trek, or whatever other new thing and judge it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

But time marches. You can't get those old glory days back. They've come and gone. That's why, hard as it it, you have to take whatever new Trek, or whatever other new thing and judge it for what it is, not what you want it to be.

Indeed. But try telling that to the "why aren't they wearing TOS turtleneck uniforms?! This isn't Star Trek!" folks. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Well I want DSC to be a clever mix of old and new elements:

It should be fresh and new, but "true to the legacy". Now that opens a lot of space for debate, doesn't it? :laugh:

Everybody will have a different idea of what's "true to the original".

 

I guess I could live very well with a very modern, new visual style, as long as it features nods to the old shows.

And as for the story, the universe it's set in should be generally the same universe as in the previous shows: No major changes about "interstellar politics" just for the sake of it, without a good explanation: The Federation should be the Federation, there should be generally the same races without major changes and the same relations towards them, even if they aren't in the focus as they used to be.

But the modus of storytelling could be very different, and I wouldn't mind: Show the minutiae of the life of "Number One", and put her relations to bridge crew and civilians under the microscope, fair deal. Shift the focus away from just one ship and one crew, and switch the camera from one scene to another, à la "Game of Thrones" and its different "crime scenes" with their respective circles of characters -- fair deal.

A radical break in storytelling or visuals wouldn't alienate me, I guess... but when it's about the established story? Please be true to the original idea. The universe the show is set in must be strictly the same universe.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr.Picard said:

Indeed. But try telling that to the "why aren't they wearing TOS turtleneck uniforms?! This isn't Star Trek!" folks. ;) 

Yup. I gave up on all that. How ever they want to make it look is fine. Because that 50 year-old show is a 50 year-old show. Anyone who's looking for a Pike-ish bridge with little "office lamp" monitors with the bendable necks and paper readouts from a printer is going to be disappointed... and they should be.

Share this post


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

I think that's exactly what some fans want, yes. They want the same old Star Trek they know and love because 99% of them grew up with Star Trek, in whichever incarnation. They want that old feeling back that they had when they watched an episode of TOS or TNG, and anything that seems "off" now will upset that sense of nostalgia because it won't be the same for them. That's why they get so defensive sometimes. They want that old Star Trek, no newly-imagined stuff. It's the same as it was when TNG was announced - the more "traditional" TOS fans were up in arms, there were cautious ones and then you also had the ones who were on board before Farpoint had even aired. TNG managed to get most of them under its wing after some time, but Discovery is going to have to be REALLY REALLY REALLY good to accomplish this, and in these modern days were everyone spreads reviews and has a blog and a Youtube channel and can scream there it's almost impossible to NOT have a pretty set opinion about something before that something even starts. If the internet had existed back in the TNG days, the show wouldn't have stood a chance. The traditionalists would have torn its first season apart on social media, and a lot of previously on-the-fence folks would have decided to follow their lead.

I generally understand both sides here, though. I'd probably be nostalgic myself if I had grown up with Star Trek and I can be pretty annoying about canon details as well, BUT I also understand the side that says we need something new and fresh in order for Trek to be successful nowadays, it can't just be re-hashed episode plots. Both sides have a point, but they're both so set in their opinions, I can't picture them ending up sitting at the same table any time soon.

Doctor Who has a bunch of lost episodes. I wonder if TOS had a couple of episodes that were shown once and then the original tapes were lost in a fire and were never broadcast again. But it turns out that an intern had illegally made copies which have just now been rediscovered. Would some fans consider the episodes real ST? 

The two lost episodes are not the same 77 episodes that they have been watching since childhood, do they count? 

Share this post


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

Doctor Who has a bunch of lost episodes. I wonder if TOS had a couple of episodes that were shown once and then the original tapes were lost in a fire and were never broadcast again. But it turns out that an intern had illegally made copies which have just now been rediscovered. Would some fans consider the episodes real ST? 

The two lost episodes are not the same 77 episodes that they have been watching since childhood, do they count? 

The real-life hypothetical analogue to the question whether a beamed person still is the same person, or just a very good copy while the original was destroyed? :giggle:

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   
17 minutes ago, Sim said:

The real-life hypothetical analogue to the question whether a beamed person still is the same person, or just a very good copy while the original was destroyed? :giggle:

I'm thinking more like if Turnabout Intruder had been lost how many people would be saying "The real Kirk would never have acted that way" or "The real Kirk in a woman's body, he would never have missed that opportunity." Or "There wouldn't be that much blatant sexist in Kirk's day." There would be people lining up to say that the story wasn't really Star Trek. It must be a fake. There are only a few episodes in each version of Star Trek that most fans would agree is real Star Trek. I'd bet that at least a quarter of the episodes in all of the series wouldn't pass the Real Star Trek test for a majority of fans if they hadn't been seen since their original air date. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
1 minute ago, scenario said:

I'm thinking more like if Turnabout Intruder had been lost how many people would be saying "The real Kirk would never have acted that way" or "The real Kirk in a woman's body, he would never have missed that opportunity." Or "There wouldn't be that much blatant sexist in Kirk's day." There would be people lining up to say that the story wasn't really Star Trek. It must be a fake. There are only a few episodes in each version of Star Trek that most fans would agree is real Star Trek. I'd bet that at least a quarter of the episodes in all of the series wouldn't pass the Real Star Trek test for a majority of fans if they hadn't been seen since their original air date. 

That's a very good point!

And I'm certainly more in the camp of the more "tolerant" ST fans... even though I really don't like much about VOY at all, I have no trouble accepting it as "canon" (or even "head canon", albeit a mostly forgotten part of it). And I have no big troubles fitting ENT into my head canon, even as part of the regular "Prime Timeline".

But there are limits, for me too. If they screw too much with the original premise, I might be alienated. The Federation is a union of voluntarily joined member worlds including earth, and they stand for concepts we know from 20th century UN, republicanism and/or Western universalism. At least formally, most Federation members share an idealism on that basis. Vulcans are aliens with pointed ears and a philosophy of logic and pacifism, and part of the Federation. The Klingons are a warrior race valuing honor and battle, and were at war with the Federation, at some point. Romulans are a Vulcan split-off who don't share the Vulcans' logical philosophy. And so on...

^--- This are the basics, and no Trek show in the past ever departed from this universe, despite all visual and stylistic changes and updates.

If this basic universe isn't the same? It's simply not Star Trek anymore.

I hope DSC will respect this universe. If the suits meddle too much and turn it into an entirely different kind of show? I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Locutus   
1 hour ago, Sim said:

That's a very good point!

And I'm certainly more in the camp of the more "tolerant" ST fans... even though I really don't like much about VOY at all, I have no trouble accepting it as "canon" (or even "head canon", albeit a mostly forgotten part of it). And I have no big troubles fitting ENT into my head canon, even as part of the regular "Prime Timeline".

But there are limits, for me too. If they screw too much with the original premise, I might be alienated. The Federation is a union of voluntarily joined member worlds including earth, and they stand for concepts we know from 20th century UN, republicanism and/or Western universalism. At least formally, most Federation members share an idealism on that basis. Vulcans are aliens with pointed ears and a philosophy of logic and pacifism, and part of the Federation. The Klingons are a warrior race valuing honor and battle, and were at war with the Federation, at some point. Romulans are a Vulcan split-off who don't share the Vulcans' logical philosophy. And so on...

^--- This are the basics, and no Trek show in the past ever departed from this universe, despite all visual and stylistic changes and updates.

If this basic universe isn't the same? It's simply not Star Trek anymore.

I hope DSC will respect this universe. If the suits meddle too much and turn it into an entirely different kind of show? I'm out.

It seems to me like you have a pretty good grasp of the "big picture."  Style and creative design can be tweaked, but there are some fundamentals that ought to be adhered to.  What those fundamentals are could be highly debatable still.  If they started portraying Vulcans like Klingons, I'd be having issues.  I don't mind if they play with some of the grey areas of Fedration values though.  

For example, I know a lot of folks despised the Section 31 concept, because it contradicts Star Trek's idealism.  While I doubt Gene Roddenberry would have approved of Section 31, I am glad that DS9 pushed that envelope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I always thought there were at least 3 levels of canon. 

Level one is things like the basic personalities of Vulcans and Klingons and the basic setup of the Federation, Klingon Empire, etc. I also include things like Vulcan's blood is green since it was mentioned so many times in TOS. They really shouldn't mess around with stuff like this. 

Level two are things that are important but can be bent a little if the story line requires it. I put Section 31 in that category. The Federation is surrounded by enemies. High ideals are awesome but they tend to disappear under a pointed weapon. The Federation should do its best to live up to its ideals but it also needs to defend itself. Would the Federation use section 31 in peacetime or casually, no way. Would it exist to be used only in an all out war situation, maybe. 

Level three are things casually mentioned in an episode or two. I don't have any problem canonwise if they find Kirk's long lost half brother that they never mentioned before. I wouldn't like it for other reasons but not because it goes against canon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, scenario said:

I always thought there were at least 3 levels of canon. 

Level one is things like the basic personalities of Vulcans and Klingons and the basic setup of the Federation, Klingon Empire, etc. I also include things like Vulcan's blood is green since it was mentioned so many times in TOS. They really shouldn't mess around with stuff like this. 

Level two are things that are important but can be bent a little if the story line requires it. I put Section 31 in that category. The Federation is surrounded by enemies. High ideals are awesome but they tend to disappear under a pointed weapon. The Federation should do its best to live up to its ideals but it also needs to defend itself. Would the Federation use section 31 in peacetime or casually, no way. Would it exist to be used only in an all out war situation, maybe. 

Level three are things casually mentioned in an episode or two. I don't have any problem canonwise if they find Kirk's long lost half brother that they never mentioned before. I wouldn't like it for other reasons but not because it goes against canon. 

I would include a lot of leeway in Level Two; Klingon looks, for example.  Yes, the looks change but they don't really affect the basic nature of the Klingons as antagonists; hence, I have no problem with that.   Earth's atomic war that it avoided ("Omega Glory" "Return to Tomorrow") except when it didn't (TNG "Encounter at Farpoint" "First Contact" movie).   The NX class looking more advanced than it's clunkier successors, etc.  Things like this don't really keep me awake at night if they're in the service of a good story.   I guess my 'worldview' of ST is different than most; even prior to "Parallels" and ST09, I saw it all as a big multiverse anyway.   That washes away a lot of the continuity worries for me (same yardstick I apply to Doctor Who as well).

So if DSC tweaks a few (as Koloth would say) "non-essentials"?  I have no issue with that.  Uniforms, ship aesthetics and 'Klingon Kosmetics' really won't bother me so much if the stories told in DSC are good, solid ST stories.  ST stories are usually thoughtful, inclusive, more often issue-based, and generally hopeful for the future.    Those are the things I'm hoping for most.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2017 at 8:38 AM, Sehlat Vie said:

  The NX class looking more advanced than it's clunkier successors, etc.  

The books did a lovely job of sorting that out. Starfleet was going to be a lot slower in the exploration because they'd intended the NX type of vessel to be a bleeding edge workhorse. They took years to build and were expensive. As the Romulan War dragged Starfleet simply needed hardware on the field, so what NXs were nearing completion were finished, but the shipyards took to churning out Daedalus-class ships and the like.

 

Makes perfect sense so, as far as I'm concerned that little incongruity is permanently put to bed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

The books did a lovely job of sorting that out. Starfleet was going to be a lot slower in the exploration because they'd intended the NX type of vessel to be a bleeding edge workhorse. They took years to build and were expensive. As the Romulan War dragged Starfleet simply needed hardware on the field, so what NXs were nearing completion were finished, but the shipyards took to churning out Daedalus-class ships and the like.

 

Makes perfect sense so, as far as I'm concerned that little incongruity is permanently put to bed.

I loved how in the Romulan Wars books, it was even explained how and why Starfleet went back to analog-ish technology, with data tapes and tabulating computers, etc.   Came full circle to the world we see in TOS, and it also reminded me of the very valid explanation for the clunky 'retro-tech' seen in Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I loved how in the Romulan Wars books, it was even explained how and why Starfleet went back to analog-ish technology, with data tapes and tabulating computers, etc.   Came full circle to the world we see in TOS, and it also reminded me of the very valid explanation for the clunky 'retro-tech' seen in Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica. 

It was very clever. Reminded me of the "To Reign in Hell" books that took a surprisingly effective run at explaining all of the questions raised by TWOK.

Share this post


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

STAR TREK DISCOVERY Day 1 poster from movie producer and critic Scott Mantz twitter

C2_LhH_UEAAsnhn.jpg

If that is a taste of our character's silhouette...fun way to tease us!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, kenman said:

http://deadline.com/2017/03/star-trek-discovery-rainn-wilson-harry-mudd-cbs-all-access-1202056578/

not sure how I feel about this, as I have always kind of disliked Harry Mudd. 

Good casting at least, but I think it all will sort of end up depending on what they have him doing...what kind of "Mudd" this guy will be.

If they're looking for a completely retro version of the character then I don't think it's going anywhere good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeeesh. Can't say I'm remotely enthused about the return of that character. I hope it's a fleeting cameo. This announcement suggests it isn't.

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