Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

JVM   

I am completely fine with Star Trek changing to meet the needs of a new audience, but they can't have it both ways, and that's what I'm feeling right now. The 'Federation doesn't fire the first shot' bit is probably the main example of this series that is exciting - it shows that for all of the changes, we're still playing with the philosophical underpinnings that have made Star Trek great from the beginning and despite the invited Star Wars comparisons, it shows they're not completely planning to go for swagger and bravado.

So, the show itself looks fine, but let's talk for a moment about marketing.

I can't buy for a second, even a second, that this is 'ten years before Kirk and Spock' in the TOS timeline. The technology looks very advanced, and that's perfect for today's audiences, but it just creates problems for trying to imagine this before the original program. Nothing here feels like an extension of what's come before, or enrichment of the universe as we know it. The Klingons look far more like they did in Star Trek Into Darkness than anywhere in the Prime timeline. There's also the fact that if the show isn't enriching the existing timeline, then how can the creative constraints of doing so be worth it? What do they benefit besides some marketing?

For all of the Abramsverse flaws, save the Starfleet delta badge issue, it's been committed to being its own universe, and all three films would be served worse if we had been told these were the "untold adventures" of the original crew or something.

It's fresh and new and shiny, and that's great, and I'm okay with it, but I feel that CBS should commit to that and save both their creative team and their fans a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm 22, and I'm still working my way through Prime canon, and like two out of three Abramsverse films. I'm as far from a purist as you can get.

Share this post


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

Just blogged my thoughts about the trailer onto my blog.  Much easier that way (since I occasionally suffer from acute laziness :P). 

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2017/05/18/star-trek-discovery-trailer-released/

Hm, I wouldn't assume just from the trailer that DSC will be much more action heavy than previous ST shows. 

Obviously it will have action, but even the DS9 pilot had a 10 million budget mostly to allow them to show half of the station exploding. :P Nothing from the trailer indicates there will be a much higher action ratio... I even felt there was a surprising emphasis on less action-y scenes in the trailer, i.e. compared to NuTrek trailers... and then, sometimes they even sexy up trailers to give the impression the product is more action driven than it actually is.

So I guess we won't really know until we've seen it.

Share this post


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

I am completely fine with Star Trek changing to meet the needs of a new audience, but they can't have it both ways, and that's what I'm feeling right now. The 'Federation doesn't fire the first shot' bit is probably the main example of this series that is exciting - it shows that for all of the changes, we're still playing with the philosophical underpinnings that have made Star Trek great from the beginning and despite the invited Star Wars comparisons, it shows they're not completely planning to go for swagger and bravado.

So, the show itself looks fine, but let's talk for a moment about marketing.

I can't buy for a second, even a second, that this is 'ten years before Kirk and Spock' in the TOS timeline. The technology looks very advanced, and that's perfect for today's audiences, but it just creates problems for trying to imagine this before the original program. Nothing here feels like an extension of what's come before, or enrichment of the universe as we know it. The Klingons look far more like they did in Star Trek Into Darkness than anywhere in the Prime timeline. There's also the fact that if the show isn't enriching the existing timeline, then how can the creative constraints of doing so be worth it? What do they benefit besides some marketing?

For all of the Abramsverse flaws, save the Starfleet delta badge issue, it's been committed to being its own universe, and all three films would be served worse if we had been told these were the "untold adventures" of the original crew or something.

It's fresh and new and shiny, and that's great, and I'm okay with it, but I feel that CBS should commit to that and save both their creative team and their fans a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm 22, and I'm still working my way through Prime canon, and like two out of three Abramsverse films. I'm as far from a purist as you can get.

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. 

Share this post


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

I am completely fine with Star Trek changing to meet the needs of a new audience, but they can't have it both ways, and that's what I'm feeling right now. The 'Federation doesn't fire the first shot' bit is probably the main example of this series that is exciting - it shows that for all of the changes, we're still playing with the philosophical underpinnings that have made Star Trek great from the beginning and despite the invited Star Wars comparisons, it shows they're not completely planning to go for swagger and bravado.

So, the show itself looks fine, but let's talk for a moment about marketing.

I can't buy for a second, even a second, that this is 'ten years before Kirk and Spock' in the TOS timeline. The technology looks very advanced, and that's perfect for today's audiences, but it just creates problems for trying to imagine this before the original program. Nothing here feels like an extension of what's come before, or enrichment of the universe as we know it. The Klingons look far more like they did in Star Trek Into Darkness than anywhere in the Prime timeline. There's also the fact that if the show isn't enriching the existing timeline, then how can the creative constraints of doing so be worth it? What do they benefit besides some marketing?

For all of the Abramsverse flaws, save the Starfleet delta badge issue, it's been committed to being its own universe, and all three films would be served worse if we had been told these were the "untold adventures" of the original crew or something.

It's fresh and new and shiny, and that's great, and I'm okay with it, but I feel that CBS should commit to that and save both their creative team and their fans a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm 22, and I'm still working my way through Prime canon, and like two out of three Abramsverse films. I'm as far from a purist as you can get.

Yeah, I agree it was not a wise decision to make this another prequel... but hey, it won't bother me, as long as the rest of the show is good. It's just annoying to know much more people will complain, whine and bash than would have been inevitable.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


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

I am completely fine with Star Trek changing to meet the needs of a new audience, but they can't have it both ways, and that's what I'm feeling right now. The 'Federation doesn't fire the first shot' bit is probably the main example of this series that is exciting - it shows that for all of the changes, we're still playing with the philosophical underpinnings that have made Star Trek great from the beginning and despite the invited Star Wars comparisons, it shows they're not completely planning to go for swagger and bravado.

So, the show itself looks fine, but let's talk for a moment about marketing.

I can't buy for a second, even a second, that this is 'ten years before Kirk and Spock' in the TOS timeline. The technology looks very advanced, and that's perfect for today's audiences, but it just creates problems for trying to imagine this before the original program. Nothing here feels like an extension of what's come before, or enrichment of the universe as we know it. The Klingons look far more like they did in Star Trek Into Darkness than anywhere in the Prime timeline. There's also the fact that if the show isn't enriching the existing timeline, then how can the creative constraints of doing so be worth it? What do they benefit besides some marketing?

For all of the Abramsverse flaws, save the Starfleet delta badge issue, it's been committed to being its own universe, and all three films would be served worse if we had been told these were the "untold adventures" of the original crew or something.

It's fresh and new and shiny, and that's great, and I'm okay with it, but I feel that CBS should commit to that and save both their creative team and their fans a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm 22, and I'm still working my way through Prime canon, and like two out of three Abramsverse films. I'm as far from a purist as you can get.

Agreed on all of your points. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vie's blog is very good. It made most of the key points.

My reaction can be found on YouTube at WeirdKitty07 the Kal Kat reviews channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP0AwydfKMQ

I also seen no reason why this needs to be shoehorned into being 10 years before Kirk and Spock, as the tech looks post Nemesis, possibly 2393. It would have been so much easier to just say, this is prime timeline, and set in the present, that is some 15 years post Nemesis. Has it been that long? 2002 to 2017...yep.

Is the bridge upside down? The sloping seems to fo in the opposite direction. It also would be close to the photons, and be a target.

Maybe the ship transforms and the bridge can flip over, or it is some kind of aux bridge or yacht we're seeing.

So that one line from Star Trek IV about a Klingon Mummification Glyph could be somehow part of this? By TNG they did not do such things. Perhaps after Praxis exploded they could not for some reason.

The opening got a Star Wars vibe and a Dune vibe too.

Well we know the ship is the Shenzou. NCC 1223,

Are the uniforms for a branch of the fleet we haven't seen? That might be why they don't at all look like TOS.

As I suspected in my review, they might be the Kahless monastery aliens. Some of them guard the dead.

Maybe even though Fuller said it's not an anthology, it actually is, and there are some sort of temporal crews or something.

Abrams Kirk would be at the academy. Prime Kirk would be on the Farragut.

Sarak would be older. Spock with be a junior instructor at the academy.

This is possibly set in 2254, in the prime timeline, 100 yewars after Archer.

From these clues I would deduce this is another timeline, a soft reboot, and looks to be more like new BSG. That may not be such a bad idea, but a prequel, hardly necessary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sim said:

I'm sorry for your loss, Robin.

 

 

6 hours ago, maneth said:

My condolences, Robin. Losing a friend is hard.

I'm optimistic on Discovery. The trailer looked great.

 

Thanks, both.

 

 

7 hours ago, Sim said:

 

 

6 hours ago, maneth said:

 

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Just blogged my thoughts about the trailer onto my blog.  Much easier that way (since I occasionally suffer from acute laziness :P). 

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2017/05/18/star-trek-discovery-trailer-released/


"A wizard did it" made me laugh...

And, like you, i still think it would've made more sense to go forward in time and leave behind all the problems being a prequel brings.

 

6 hours ago, JVM said:

I am completely fine with Star Trek changing to meet the needs of a new audience, but they can't have it both ways, and that's what I'm feeling right now. The 'Federation doesn't fire the first shot' bit is probably the main example of this series that is exciting - it shows that for all of the changes, we're still playing with the philosophical underpinnings that have made Star Trek great from the beginning and despite the invited Star Wars comparisons, it shows they're not completely planning to go for swagger and bravado.

So, the show itself looks fine, but let's talk for a moment about marketing.

I can't buy for a second, even a second, that this is 'ten years before Kirk and Spock' in the TOS timeline. The technology looks very advanced, and that's perfect for today's audiences, but it just creates problems for trying to imagine this before the original program. Nothing here feels like an extension of what's come before, or enrichment of the universe as we know it. The Klingons look far more like they did in Star Trek Into Darkness than anywhere in the Prime timeline. There's also the fact that if the show isn't enriching the existing timeline, then how can the creative constraints of doing so be worth it? What do they benefit besides some marketing?

For all of the Abramsverse flaws, save the Starfleet delta badge issue, it's been committed to being its own universe, and all three films would be served worse if we had been told these were the "untold adventures" of the original crew or something.

It's fresh and new and shiny, and that's great, and I'm okay with it, but I feel that CBS should commit to that and save both their creative team and their fans a lot of unnecessary headaches.

Before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm 22, and I'm still working my way through Prime canon, and like two out of three Abramsverse films. I'm as far from a purist as you can get.

I'd say this was spot-on. I also like the tiny disclaimer.

Like "A wizard did it," there comes a point where suspension of disbelief becomes difficult to maintain. We like a coherency to our storytelling, and that's something TNG and later DS9 and even Voyager managed to do with what went before. It wasn't perfect, but it was done with real love (especially when you watch episodes like DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations). Enterprise, not so much, but even there there was at least a sense that they were trying for a coherent universe.

You do get used to these things - Doctor Who has change built into its DNA, and it's often easier to accept, because you know it's going to change again further down the line. Star Trek has more rules, though, in a sense - more observable history, anyway. If I'm honest, while I really liked the overall look of the trailer, and a couple of the lines that gave me a sense of it trying to be Star Trek, one of my first thoughts was, "Oh, so it's another universe again, is it?" ...Because I couldn't square the visual style with what's gone before. I'm tired of reboots and the forcing of the square pegs of continuity through the round holes of in-Universe storytelling - I just want to be immersed without having to think about that. But they haven't made it easy. Which takes me back to my first point - why didn't they just go forward in time...?

Maybe they're hoping that much of the Netflix audience never watched TOS.

Positives: i showed the trailer to the bairn and she got very excited and said she'd watch it with me. A Star Trek show (other than the movies) that she'll watch! That made me happy. So, boldly going...

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 


"A wizard did it" made me laugh...

And, like you, i still think it would've made more sense to go forward in time and leave behind all the problems being a prequel brings.

 

I'd say this was spot-on. I also like the tiny disclaimer.

Like "A wizard did it," there comes a point where suspension of disbelief becomes difficult to maintain. We like a coherency to our storytelling, and that's something TNG and later DS9 and even Voyager managed to do with what went before. It wasn't perfect, but it was done with real love (especially when you watch episodes like DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations). Enterprise, not so much, but even there there was at least a sense that they were trying for a coherent universe.

You do get used to these things - Doctor Who has change built into its DNA, and it's often easier to accept, because you know it's going to change again further down the line. Star Trek has more rules, though, in a sense - more observable history, anyway. If I'm honest, while I really liked the overall look of the trailer, and a couple of the lines that gave me a sense of it trying to be Star Trek, one of my first thoughts was, "Oh, so it's another universe again, is it?" ...Because I couldn't square the visual style with what's gone before. I'm tired of reboots and the forcing of the square pegs of continuity through the round holes of in-Universe storytelling - I just want to be immersed without having to think about that. But they haven't made it easy. Which takes me back to my first point - why didn't they just go forward in time...?

Maybe they're hoping that much of the Netflix audience never watched TOS.

Positives: i showed the trailer to the bairn and she got very excited and said she'd watch it with me. A Star Trek show (other than the movies) that she'll watch! That made me happy. So, boldly going...

^

On that last sentence, I do my Emperor Palpatine cackle, "Good!  Good!  Another future Trekkie..."  

And yes, DW is all about change; anachronisms are far easier to get away with largely because it's about altering time and the titular character changes every few years.   ST doesn't really have that luxury; it's more fixed.  And at the risk of repeating myself, I still think another prequel may not have been the best idea, but oh well.

A lot of its success also depends on how well it's executed; if it's really well done, fans might be willing to overlook a lot of continuity sins. 

Share this post


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

 


"A wizard did it" made me laugh...

And, like you, i still think it would've made more sense to go forward in time and leave behind all the problems being a prequel brings.

 

I'd say this was spot-on. I also like the tiny disclaimer.

Like "A wizard did it," there comes a point where suspension of disbelief becomes difficult to maintain. We like a coherency to our storytelling, and that's something TNG and later DS9 and even Voyager managed to do with what went before. It wasn't perfect, but it was done with real love (especially when you watch episodes like DS9's Trials and Tribble-ations). Enterprise, not so much, but even there there was at least a sense that they were trying for a coherent universe.

You do get used to these things - Doctor Who has change built into its DNA, and it's often easier to accept, because you know it's going to change again further down the line. Star Trek has more rules, though, in a sense - more observable history, anyway. If I'm honest, while I really liked the overall look of the trailer, and a couple of the lines that gave me a sense of it trying to be Star Trek, one of my first thoughts was, "Oh, so it's another universe again, is it?" ...Because I couldn't square the visual style with what's gone before. I'm tired of reboots and the forcing of the square pegs of continuity through the round holes of in-Universe storytelling - I just want to be immersed without having to think about that. But they haven't made it easy. Which takes me back to my first point - why didn't they just go forward in time...?

Maybe they're hoping that much of the Netflix audience never watched TOS.

Positives: i showed the trailer to the bairn and she got very excited and said she'd watch it with me. A Star Trek show (other than the movies) that she'll watch! That made me happy. So, boldly going...

 

 

 

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

Share this post


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

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.

*****

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 agree with you that the look is unimportant.  When I watched this trailer, I think that is what TOS might have looked like if it was filmed for modern audiences.  With technology advancing the way it is, Star Trek needs to adapt visually as well.  

My primary concern are good stories that are character driven, meaningful, and reflect a somewhat hopeful portrait of humanity's future.  I see a lot of positive signs in that trailer that Discovery will live up to my expectations.  

I can also sense Fuller's strengths and influence at work even if he is no longer showrunner.  He wrote so many stories for Star Trek that delved a little deeper into a specific character's background and motivations.  I can see we will get a lot of that with Commander Michael Burnham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trailer is great!   

 

The starfleet uniforms is not like the TOS starfleet uniforms but I like them better than the TOS ones.    Is there a reason why they are not using the 3 standard division colors?    I know Gold is being used but the other two are bronze and silver instead of red and blue.  

 

If you look at this:   http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/File:Starfleet_division_insignia,_2266.svg 

Gold is for Command/Helm/Navigator

Silver (usually Blue) is Science

Bronze (usually Red) is Operations/Tactical/Security

Medical (which is usually teal) we have yet to see so we don't really know what color they would represent.  Perhaps white? 

I had forgotten about those symbols on the insignia.    I also like the ranks being shown on the insignias.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JayTheTrekkie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also guessing that the uniforms are all blue (instead of red and gold as well) because Discovery is a science ship (?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at the point where .... I just don't understand why they won't simply reboot the franchise. No, not in the sneaky and unconvincing way that Abrams did. A full reboot. You can't say "It will anger the fans ...." That ship sailed. They're already angry. They clearly want to re-do the technology, the uniforms, the Klingons (again ....), and some of the history. They only want to keep Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. Everything else - jettison.

Fine, but why bother?

You'd think at this point it'd be exhausting. Either say this is an alternate universe that is close to the original or simply reboot the franchise. Keep the main points - starship, crew, adventures. Done. They can then have an open story. One they can change at their whim.

It is baffling how hard they fight to say that this is not a reboot. That this is the prime time line. etc. But .... it looks nothing like it. There was a time when the idea of a reboot horrified me. As if it would make my DVDs disappear in a temporal rift. Now - I just don't care. I've come to terms that the Trek I grew up with is not going to "updated" and brought back. It's gone and they would prefer a new direction with Star Trek. Fine. Fair enough. But go in that direction fully and just start over...

With that being said ....

I am ambivalent about the trailer. I don't mind the "updates" to it. I get it. Having a show like The Cage won't work in today's television (which is why they shouldn't have done another prequel ...) However, I do prefer "updated" technology. It's just stupid they made a show after Enterprise.

I think the reason people are so "iffy" about the technology is because the other shows went through pain-staking detail to remake the old technology. They didn't show us updated Enterprises/Defiant and say "Just pretend this is what it looked like all along." Scotty in Relics, DS9 crew in Trials and Tribble-lations, mirror universe in In a Mirror Darkly. They remade the original designs down to the tiniest details. Jadzia even mentions that the 23rd century had a unique design. Fans had gotten used to the idea that the "retro" look wasn't a by product of the 60s but an actual look of the technology. No one really knew the reason it looked that way in-universe. Maybe there was a Battlestar Galactica reason? Some ships were purposefully made to look that way. Who knows? But the point is - the shows worked hard to tell us - that is how they looked.

So now this new show comes in and says "Naw, just pretend that it always looked this advanced. Times have changed." I can't say they are wrong .... but I also can understand the annoyance fans have. The Discovery bridge looks more advanced than the ENT-E ...

Same thing with the Klingons. The look has changed yet again. First - Roddenberry does imply we should just "pretend" that they always looked like Worf. Ok - fine. Great. Then DS9 and ENT made it a point to say - no ... don't pretend. There is a reason behind the change in looks according to them. Then Abrams' Klingons ..... now these new Discovery Klingons. And what is with them looking more and more like monsters? At some point - the unevolved Worf in that TNG episode will be the "standard" Klingon. Again - rebooting the franchise will let them make the Klingons anyway they want to...

I get both sides. I get that the show has to update its look. In fact - I don't want it to look like The Cage. I'd love the interior of the Discovery ... on a ship in the last 24th century.

With all that said - the trailer looks awfully low production value. Which is odd since they have a studio backing. It also looks more fighting and danger and .... all the usual stuff. At least Earth isn't being threatened like usual. :P

Hopefully - this show has a really good story. I enjoy the actor choices and I am looking forward to what it brings to the Star Trek world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Founder said:

There was a time when the idea of a reboot horrified me. As if it would make my DVDs disappear in a temporal rift. 

:laugh:

16 minutes ago, The Founder said:

Now - I just don't care. I've come to terms that the Trek I grew up with is not going to "updated" and brought back. It's gone and they would prefer a new direction with Star Trek. Fine. Fair enough. But go in that direction fully and just start over...

^

Where I'm at.   It's all fiction.   Some of my favorite franchises (Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc) have been rebooted and over time you just accept it as the nature of the entertainment beast.   As intrigued as I am by this new ST, I have a hard time reconciling that this new universe is, in any way, ten years BEFORE the crude, cardboard-and-bailing wire tech we saw in TOS.    It simply ISN'T.    Kirk and Spock in TOS would've been picking their jaws up off of the floor if their ship suddenly had the technology and sleekness we saw in DSC's trailer.

To me, this new show's is a reboot by any other name, and I'm willing to just watch/enjoy it on that level...

 

Share this post


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

:laugh:

^

Where I'm at.   It's all fiction.   Some of my favorite franchises (Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, etc) have been rebooted and over time you just accept it as the nature of the entertainment beast.   As intrigued as I am by this new ST, I have a hard time reconciling that this new universe is, in any way, ten years BEFORE the crude, cardboard-and-bailing wire tech we saw in TOS.    It simply ISN'T.    Kirk and Spock in TOS would've been picking their jaws up off of the floor if their ship suddenly had the technology and sleekness we saw in DSC's trailer.

To me, this new show's is a reboot by any other name, and I'm willing to just watch/enjoy it on that level...

 

But at least James Bond actually does a reboot. They keep updating the character. For some reason - they keep telling us "No no no. Not an update." with Star Trek.

And I agree with you - if I go into this as a fresh, new take on Star Trek with no connection to the originals? I am much more intrigued.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nepr   

This is kind of a long post and I have a real talent for not expressing myself very well on this forum so I have to start by thanking you for your patience.  With so much going on with DSC I can't resist unloading my thoughts.  Here goes...

My answer to, Why a prequel?

I often wonder if we on the outside underestimate the impact of ST Nemesis on insiders at Paramount/CBS.  That movie is often characterized as not just being bad but as having nearly destroyed the value of an Intellectual Property that not too long before had been viewed as a sturdy gold mine.  In fact, the path taken by the TNG movie series, coming on the heels of such a robust and loved TV run, could have been a real shock to creatives and executives alike just because they seemed not to have had any notion that they were sliding off the tracks, or what to do when it finally became clear that they were.  As a result, insiders at Paramount/CBS may have concluded, with typically shallow Hollywood logic, that announcing a movie or series, "Set X years after Star Trek: Nemesis", is something to be avoided at all cost.  This, in any case, is what I think of when I try and explain the lure of TOS in spite of the baggage problem.

Considering the re-boot issue, that is, why the IP holders can't bring themselves to do a clean and thorough re-start of Star Trek, in spite of all the complaining we get from creatives, and others, about the dead weight of 50 years of often sloppy continuity, I'm drawn to the big question:  What is Star Trek?  How do you re-boot something that doesn't have anything like a firm definition?  It's clearly not defined by an individual character, or even a small set of characters, like Bond or Holmes.  It doesn't really have a straight-forward scenario structure, like spies and guns and cars and babes, or a celibate eccentric who is obsessed with hard-to-solve mysteries and has an arch-rival.  It doesn't take place in a real world, so even that is fodder for change.  What to leave in?  What to take out (if you dare!)?  I doubt anyone with an interest in a career in TV/movies wants to risk that undertaking.  Even the Kelvin movies, packed as they are with a known, and to some beloved, crew, with Transporters, Warp Cores, Phasers, Romulans, Vulcans, Klingons, etc., are accused by many of "not being Star Trek", and not always for the same reasons.  It would, I think, take a colossal amount of courage, and a bold imagination, to risk one's career by really trying to outdo or undo the Star Trek vision, though few would assert that this vision is well defined and in a robust and tidy condition.

And, finally, I want to give my opinion on Drama.  To me one of the most important aspects, perhaps the most important aspect of Star Trek is that it is a Drama; which I will here subjectively define as a presentation of textual content by a set of players and their supporters, like producers, directors, cinematographers, artists, costumers, etc.  I don't think that Drama has to tell a story, nor does it have to be accurate or consistent or anything but entertaining.  So, we can have, Balance of Terror, and The Trouble with Tribbles, and City on the Edge of Forever; Requiem for Methuselah, and I Mudd, and The Taming of the Elan of Troyus, in the same series run, played by the same actors in what we are told is the same setting.  Shakespeare's Muse of Fire comes to mind.  We're asked not for suspension of disbelief, but for the fire of imagination.  So, I could accept the Discovery troupe, channeling ENT:  In a Mirror Darkly, and presenting me, without explanation, with an episode of Star Trek Discovery where everything, uniforms, Starships, Klingons, communicators, etc., looks exactly as in TOS, just to get me to think about how much, or how little, all the trappings surrounding the action in a TV show matter.  The issue would be, not why they did it, or if it somehow makes sense, but did they pull it off?  Did they get into my mind and light a fire there.  If they did pull it off and then, next week, returned to their regular production values, again without explanation, I'd be glad to admit I'd been had by experts.

It comes down to this, for me:  You, the DSC troupe, have the stage; now light the fire!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Interesting ideas, nepr!

Maybe the suits are indeed reluctant to go post-NEM because the TNG movie franchise went downhill. So they focus on what they believe is the core of Star Trek, which is Kirk and Spock and their era.

This reasoning kind of makes sense, but I'm afraid it won't serve the franchise well on the long run. As many have eloquently said before numerous times, Star Trek should boldly go rather than milk its past until it's dry.

I also imagine accessibility for new NuTrek movie fans plays a role. "10 years before Kirk and Spock" is a line that gives even casual NuTrek viewers a frame of reference. You've seen ST09 or STID at the theatre once, and now you know what this show is about: "10 years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, there was the Discovery."

Edited by Sim

Share this post


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

I'm at the point where .... I just don't understand why they won't simply reboot the franchise. No, not in the sneaky and unconvincing way that Abrams did. A full reboot. You can't say "It will anger the fans ...." That ship sailed. They're already angry. They clearly want to re-do the technology, the uniforms, the Klingons (again ....), and some of the history. They only want to keep Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. Everything else - jettison.

Fine, but why bother?

You'd think at this point it'd be exhausting. Either say this is an alternate universe that is close to the original or simply reboot the franchise. Keep the main points - starship, crew, adventures. Done. They can then have an open story. One they can change at their whim.

It is baffling how hard they fight to say that this is not a reboot. That this is the prime time line. etc. But .... it looks nothing like it. There was a time when the idea of a reboot horrified me. As if it would make my DVDs disappear in a temporal rift. Now - I just don't care. I've come to terms that the Trek I grew up with is not going to "updated" and brought back. It's gone and they would prefer a new direction with Star Trek. Fine. Fair enough. But go in that direction fully and just start over...

With that being said ....

I am ambivalent about the trailer. I don't mind the "updates" to it. I get it. Having a show like The Cage won't work in today's television (which is why they shouldn't have done another prequel ...) However, I do prefer "updated" technology. It's just stupid they made a show after Enterprise.

I think the reason people are so "iffy" about the technology is because the other shows went through pain-staking detail to remake the old technology. They didn't show us updated Enterprises/Defiant and say "Just pretend this is what it looked like all along." Scotty in Relics, DS9 crew in Trials and Tribble-lations, mirror universe in In a Mirror Darkly. They remade the original designs down to the tiniest details. Jadzia even mentions that the 23rd century had a unique design. Fans had gotten used to the idea that the "retro" look wasn't a by product of the 60s but an actual look of the technology. No one really knew the reason it looked that way in-universe. Maybe there was a Battlestar Galactica reason? Some ships were purposefully made to look that way. Who knows? But the point is - the shows worked hard to tell us - that is how they looked.

So now this new show comes in and says "Naw, just pretend that it always looked this advanced. Times have changed." I can't say they are wrong .... but I also can understand the annoyance fans have. The Discovery bridge looks more advanced than the ENT-E ...

Same thing with the Klingons. The look has changed yet again. First - Roddenberry does imply we should just "pretend" that they always looked like Worf. Ok - fine. Great. Then DS9 and ENT made it a point to say - no ... don't pretend. There is a reason behind the change in looks according to them. Then Abrams' Klingons ..... now these new Discovery Klingons. And what is with them looking more and more like monsters? At some point - the unevolved Worf in that TNG episode will be the "standard" Klingon. Again - rebooting the franchise will let them make the Klingons anyway they want to...

I get both sides. I get that the show has to update its look. In fact - I don't want it to look like The Cage. I'd love the interior of the Discovery ... on a ship in the last 24th century.

With all that said - the trailer looks awfully low production value. Which is odd since they have a studio backing. It also looks more fighting and danger and .... all the usual stuff. At least Earth isn't being threatened like usual. :P

Hopefully - this show has a really good story. I enjoy the actor choices and I am looking forward to what it brings to the Star Trek world!

THIS. This is exactly how I feel. Thanks for putting this into words, Founder.

I get both sides as well - what puzzles me to no end as well is WHY the folks at CBS are going through all this trouble instead of just saying "it's a new timeline" or "it's set waaaaay after Nemesis in the Prime Timeline". I'm NOT surprised AT ALL that a good part of the fandom is up in arms against Discovery already because they refuse to make the mental leap of "this is the Prime Timeline but everything looks a zillion times more advanced than it did in 'The Cage'".

What's even more puzzling is that we HAD this BEFORE almost a decade ago. CBS should have KNOWN that the reactions would be like this. But no, they have to try and force this down the fandom's throat (AND ask the fans in the US to PAY EXTRA for it), and I for one am not surprised to see a lot of people refusing to take it. They could have spared themselves AND the fandom AND the actors (some fans are not shy to attack the new actors on Twitter) a LOT of drama if they had just said "this is another reboot" - I get it that CBS don't own the rights to the Kelvin Timeline, so what, nothing's stopping them from coming up with a new one, right? Sure we'd have had the usual "ugh a reboot, not another reboot, I want Prime Timeline" haters, but we at least wouldn't have had the rabid Prime Timeline canon defenders ON TOP of those haters, too.

If you want to have a show in the Prime Timeline, set it WAAAAAY after Nemesis to make the new technology work. If you have a prequel show that's set before a show that aired in the 60s, set it in a different timeline where technology is simply different at that point in the timeline. Problem solved. What they're doing now, however... it hurts almost everyone, and it WILL hurt the show in the end as well unless it's REALLY REALLY REALLY brilliant. I don't get what the CBS folks think they're doing here - it sounds almost like as if they're desperate to keep the old fans on board but also attract new ones through the Kirk-Spock-Enterprise angle since TOS is clearly where it's at for them money-wise these days. They think they can have both... but I have my doubts as to whether this is going to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it not a reboot when the "most advanced ship in the fleet" of the 24th century (the Ent-E) suddenly looks like a contemporary of a ship that preceded Kirk and Spock's cardboard and Christmas lights-Enterprise?  

23887587035_0a2cbcdafe_b.jpg

34723488445_5fc20b6792_c.jpg

 

Like Founder and Nepr, I'm more interested in good stories

I really don't care if it's the prime timeline, or the Kelvin timeline or some weird, Frankenstein-ian hybrid of both (or neither).   If this show tells good ST-style stories that are meaningful and interesting, and if the characters really resonate with the audiences?  Then I don't care what universe it's set within.   I just wish the producers of DSC didn't felt this seemingly desperate (?) need to appease the fanbase by 'assuring' them it's set in the 'prime' timeline, even though, as Mr. Picard pointed out, "This is the Prime Timeline but everything looks a zillion times more advanced than it did in 'The Cage.'" :laugh:

This clearly IS a reboot. I don't care how many assurances I get to the contrary, and I don't care.   Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Either the audience accepts that, and judges it on the quality of the stories and characters, or they get hung up on the trivial, unimportant minutiae and not see the forest for the trees.

 

Share this post


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

How is it not a reboot when the "most advanced ship in the fleet" of the 24th century (the Ent-E) suddenly looks like a contemporary of a ship that preceded Kirk and Spock's cardboard and Christmas lights-Enterprise?  

23887587035_0a2cbcdafe_b.jpg

34723488445_5fc20b6792_c.jpg

 

Like Founder and Nepr, I'm more interested in good stories

I really don't care if it's the prime timeline, or the Kelvin timeline or some weird, Frankenstein-ian hybrid of both (or neither).   If this show tells good ST-style stories that are meaningful and interesting, and if the characters really resonate with the audiences?  Then I don't care what universe it's set within.   I just wish the producers of DSC didn't felt this seemingly desperate (?) need to appease the fanbase by 'assuring' them it's set in the 'prime' timeline, even though, as Mr. Picard pointed out, "This is the Prime Timeline but everything looks a zillion times more advanced than it did in 'The Cage.'" :laugh:

This clearly IS a reboot. I don't care how many assurances I get to the contrary, and I don't care.   Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Either the audience accepts that, and judges it on the quality of the stories and characters, or they get hung up on the trivial, unimportant minutiae and not see the forest for the trees.

 

 

The problem is that the question of which universe this is MATTERS to a LOT of fans. It MATTERS to them to have this spelled OUT, and I honestly can't fault them for this. The fact that the folks at CBS are trying to sell the fans this reboot (and I agree that it looks like one) as Prime Timeline is the EXACT problem here. It's like as if you go to the grocery store and the folks there tell you "it's an apple, clearly, you like apples, so, buy it" but the thing is actually an orange, tastes like an orange and also looks like an orange. It's false advertising, IMO. Everyone, including the actors, is bending over backwards to sell Discovery as a show that's set in the Prime Timeline, and now they're all aghast and shocked that a good part of the fandom refuses to accept that. Like, what did they EXPECT...? They could have spared both themselves AND the fandom a great deal of all this if they had just come forward and said "okay okay guys, Prime Timeline wasn't working out, it's a reboot". But nah. If they said "it's a reboot set in a never-before-seen timeline" they wouldn't be able to draw on the TOS Kirk-Spock-Bones angle that they so desperately seem to want to include for whatever weird reason. All this gets them is HATE from purists, not ADMIRATION. 

Or they simply think their audience is too dumb to grasp the idea of a THIRD major timeline in additon to Prime and Kelvin. Wouldn't be the first time - them thinking that their audience is dumb, I mean.

Share this post


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

 

The problem is that the question of which universe this is MATTERS to a LOT of fans. It MATTERS to them to have this spelled OUT, and I honestly can't fault them for this. The fact that the folks at CBS are trying to sell the fans this reboot (and I agree that it looks like one) as Prime Timeline is the EXACT problem here. It's like as if you go to the grocery store and the folks there tell you "it's an apple, clearly, you like apples, so, buy it" but the thing is actually an orange, tastes like an orange and also looks like an orange. It's false advertising, IMO. Everyone, including the actors, is bending over backwards to sell Discovery as a show that's set in the Prime Timeline, and now they're all aghast and shocked that a good part of the fandom refuses to accept that. Like, what did they EXPECT...? They could have spared both themselves AND the fandom a great deal of all this if they had just come forward and said "okay okay guys, Prime Timeline wasn't working out, it's a reboot". But nah. If they said "it's a reboot of a never-before-seen timeline" they wouldn't be able to draw on the TOS Kirk-Spock-Bones angle that they so desperately seem to want to include for whatever weird reason. All this gets them is HATE from purists, not ADMIRATION. 

Or they simply think their audience is too dumb to grasp the idea of a THIRD major timeline in additon to Prime and Kelvin. Wouldn't be the first time - them thinking that their audience is dumb, I mean.

^
Very much agree that it's false advertisement to promote this as the prime timeline.  Whether it's truly an orange or an apple?  The proof will be in the flavor, and I'd have to take a bite first. :P

Then again, we all remember what happened to the last folks on Star Trek who took a bite of the wrong fruit...:giggle:

waytoeden_416.jpg

RIP, Space Hippie...


But I digress (as usual);  it does feel like a bit of a cheat to reiterate in the press that this show is the prime timeline.   It feels, as you said, that they're playing down to the audience.   As if a few words of assurance can change the fact that this...

34723488445_5fc20b6792_c.jpg

is supposed to be ten years before this:

26aaa3705cbb5dd2e036e9ac866028eb.jpg

post-63730-dr-evil-right-gif-imgur-tumbl

 

Personally, I'm just not buying it.  Since TNG's "Parallels" (or TOS' Mirror Universe, for that matter), I readily accept that there are multiple avenues of reality in the ST universe; this new series is simply another one of them.   It's false advertisement to claim it is somehow congruent with the near-steampunk technology we saw in "The Cage" (which took place in the prime timeline only about 3 years before this new series).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2017 at 7:59 PM, scenario said:

 

My sympathies Robin

Thanks, Scenario. 

Like Founder, I've often thought that a back-to-basics reboot might be the way forward - something that took the ideas of exploration, optimism, ship-based, boldly going and fused them together in new shapes. Star Trek's "past" is, in many ways, storytelling baggage it doesn't need, because those versions of the future are now retro. 

Like Nepr (great post there!), Vie and Founder, I know that the fundamentals for me are if I'm immersed, provoked, my imagination stoked by what I'm experiencing. The sets and visual design are, ultimately, a lavish embroidery that's fun to see and explore, but ultimately it's just that - details and set dressing. It matters, as it's all part of the machinery that catches our imagination, but at this point, it feels like that's something to trip up over rather than help suspend disbelief. 

The problem is a conceptual one - the sense that CBSAA is somehow trying to pull the wool over the collective eyes of fandom and a wider audience by stating, unequivocally, that this is ten years before Kirk and Spock. They're attempting to have their cake and eating it by promoting it that way.

I think we should surely ignore that, because it may only be marketing strategy and a few aspects of storytelling that probably should've been restructured and done away with to avoid all this fuss. We won't know if we don't care about those details until the show airs and we watch it. It may be that the stories, characters and ideas are so good that we get so caught up in it we don't care whether it contradicts what we've seen before. I think my imagination is best employed enjoying the drama, not nitpicking.  That would be the absolute best outcome, and I'm hoping for some of that. Star Trek, at its best, feels current, even though it's set in the future, because it explores the human condition as well as has all these neat SF ideas. If this new show embraces that ethos, surprises me with its own dramatic style and ideas, then I am in. 

[Edit]

Haha, I've just seen Mr Picard's and Vie's later posts that say similar (you wrote those while i was writing this). Yeah, don't bite that apple! This is all-new fruit! (A certain tribe of Klingons are allergic to it but ate it anyway, which is why these ones look different. That's my ahead-of-viewing headcanon, right there.)

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