Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

:laugh: :thumbup:

I already love her!

And my childish idiot-self kind of hopes there's a moment down the road where Saru meets one member of the TOS crew:

"Lt. Sulu?  Lt. Saru.  Lt. Saru?  Lt. Sulu..."

Sort of an "Uma? Oprah..." moment (hehe).

Yeah she is the blunt type when it comes to people and stuff she dislikes (I know where I got that one from, haha) - she also once told me "I'm so glad you like Patrick Stewart and not Shatner... I would seriously doubt you're my child if you had fallen for Shatner" - LOL. (She used to be hesitant towards Sir Patrick as well but ever since she saw him in London when she was there with me in 2005 and he was so kind to everyone - and me - at the stage door she has come to accept him.)

LOL it wouldn't even have to be a meeting, Saru could just be READING the name or something. Or a voice cameo. I'm pretty sure Takei wouldn't mind doing that.

Share this post


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

Yeah she is the blunt type when it comes to people and stuff she dislikes (I know where I got that one from, haha) - she also once told me "I'm so glad you like Patrick Stewart and not Shatner... I would seriously doubt you're my child if you had fallen for Shatner" - LOL. (She used to be hesitant towards Sir Patrick as well but ever since she saw him in London when she was there with me in 2005 and he was so kind to everyone - and me - at the stage door she has come to accept him.)

LOL it wouldn't even have to be a meeting, Saru could just be READING the name or something. Or a voice cameo. I'm pretty sure Takei wouldn't mind doing that.

^ Takei still has that same robust voice too.  Unusual, since voices tend to age (slowly but surely).  He sounds almost as he did in the movie-era.  With a bit of audio-tweaking?  I'm sure he could sound like his '60s-era self.  If not, they could use a mix of archival clips of Takei's voice when he was younger.  

It'd be a little throwaway moment.  

Silly, but funny. :P

Share this post


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

^ Takei still has that same robust voice too.  Unusual, since voices tend to age (slowly but surely).  He sounds almost as he did in the movie-era.  With a bit of audio-tweaking?  I'm sure he could sound like his '60s-era self.  If not, they could use a mix of archival clips of Takei's voice when he was younger.  

It'd be a little throwaway moment.  

Silly, but funny. :P

They could also just add a bit of static and make it a bad comm channel and there you go, no one would notice anything not sounding 100% like Young Sulu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr.Picard said:

They could also just add a bit of static and make it a bad comm channel and there you go, no one would notice anything not sounding 100% like Young Sulu.

All that work because I had a goofy Saru-Sulu joke in mind...:giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nepr   

Might be a bit premature for this, since we still know practically nothing about DSC, but I'm thinking about this...

Imagine the folks at DSC, without explanation, presented an episode which was a scene-by-scene re-shoot of, The Cage, only using the DSC sets, props, costumes, special effects, but different actors than either The Cage (of course) or DSC, itself.  In other words, the reverse of making DSC  with TOS trappings.  Is there anything in that episode that wouldn't work anymore; that would have to be ignored or changed?  Other than the odd phrase here-and there (laser, time warp factor) I can't off-hand think of a single thing.

And how about this...  If the TNG troupe had decided to re-do The Cage with the TNG setting and visuals, what would they have had to change, putting aside the problem of it having already happened?  I think just about all of the scenes and a lot of the dialog could have been preserved, just changing the characters involved.  Picard isn't that different a leader than Pike, though it's tough to imagine him whining to Troi about having to decide who lives and who dies,  though I'm not sure how important the weary-of-command thread is to this (or for that matter Star Trek Beyond's) story.  Maybe the martini would be a bit of a stretch.  Either Riker or Data could stand-in for #1, until the Transporter scene where only "the women" (Troi and Crusher) get transported.  I can see Picard (especially after  Star Trek: First Contact) losing patience with the Talosians and wanting to boil their brains, while not even coming close to actually doing it.  No problem with Troi and Crusher refusing to become breeding stock.  And there you have it.  Roll credits.  Could they have pulled this off?

Not to be coy, my point here is that, to me, the precise settings, environment, continuity, and even the specific characters of a dramatic presentation are much less important than the writing and especially the performing/directing.  In my opinion it's rare indeed that effects, sets or props or context or even reality itself (i.e., good or bad science) can make or ruin a good tale for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us agree that the surroundings, technology, ship interior, the buttons on a console, chevron, etc. are not what is core to Star Trek. Even I agree with that and I am the one making a big stink about how the ship looks.

Star Trek, however poorly, has had a (semi) coherent aspect to it. It had small flaws (like the wrong pips on a character in one episode) to medium flaws (like the Trill looking radically different) to big flaws (Picard being able to go back in any point in time but he goes back to 1 minute before Soren launches his death missile).

The issue here is .... their emphasis that this is meant to take place in the same time line as The Cage, TOS, TNG, etc. The looks are incredibly jarring. Now again, this could just be superficial. They may have shinier consoles and holograms, but they don't have the fire power or speed or advance sensors of the ENT-E. That may very well be true. This could just be purely aesthetics. Nothing more. Which, in that case, I am fine with just "pretending" it looked this way all along.

But I do think Trek needs to be somewhat coherent if they plan on doing a show that has an arc. For a show like the original or Twilight Zone it is ok to do a story driven solely by the writing and good acting. But if this leads into more episodes that connect - I honestly hope they have a bit more consistency.

Now that we are on the topic of technology - I am wondering how they will handle it. The one issue I had with the TNG-era Trek is ... the technology seemed to reach its peak. Replicators, transporters, powerful weapons really made it hard to tell stories at time because the crews were so ensconced in safe technology. I hope Discovery has a more "frontier" feel to it and there is a danger to "being out there" in the unknown.

Share this post


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

For me - the reason this doesn't work is because in Star Trek the ship is a character. It's not just a location in the back drop. It's where our crew has their adventures (most of them) and have development. It's why we are at the edge of our seats in episode where the ship takes a beating (or is destroyed in a reset button). It's why fans cared when Kirk destroyed the Enterprise or the ENT-D crashed.

So radical changes to the ship that don't fit the original narrative will always feel odd. Especially since the limits of the technology always had a role to play in the plot line. The ships can't suddenly look like a ship 500 years in the future (of Kirk) because it is odd from a story-telling point of view.

It would be like if suddenly they show that Kirk had telekinesis or some type of addition he never had before. It might be a cool "update" but that could impact the narrative. Although to be fair - all the "updates" of the Discovery could be completely superficial and the ship itself is still "primitive" (compared to Picard's ENT-E).

None of the above matters if they didn't insist on saying this is the Prime Timeline.

But who knows? Maybe the updates are superficial. It's just to make the graphics look "pretty". It's too early to tell because we haven't seen any of the ships in action. Maybe their limits will show then? I don't know. I just feel that .... they mucked up in a pathetic attempt to lure me into the new Star Trek.

What's funny about Star Trek fans are: no matter what - we'll be watching the new show. We all go through the stages of grief:

Denial: This isn't Star Trek! Where is Kirk? Who is this French guy? Nope. Nope. Nope. Not Star Trek

Anger: I refuse to accept this! A Trek show that has WAR?! No starship!? I am writing a letter to Paramount (20th century). I am going to complain on a forum! (me in the 21st century)

Bargaining: Ok .... if they just call this a reboot? A reimagining? Anything but the prime time line ... I can accept this. Throw me a bone.... PLEASE.

Depression: SIGH.... This is really happening isn't it? :/

Acceptance: Ok .... not as bad as I though and next week a cameo from Jeffrey Combs? HELL YEAH! He should become a permanent cast member! HELL YEAH!

Haha I knew I got Shatnerverse from somewhere. I couldn't remember ....

Lol, yes, that's spot on! :thumbup:

And yes, I would be MUCH more comfortable if they had set it post-NEM.

For me, it mainly matters if characters, storytelling and plots are good and I forgive a lot... but I also want this show to be a success and this stands in the way. A good number of fans is more demanding and less forgiving than I probably am.

I'm totally oblivious at why they open this can of worms with no need whatsoever to do so. Seems like a patently stupid move to me.

Share this post


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

I think most of us agree that the surroundings, technology, ship interior, the buttons on a console, chevron, etc. are not what is core to Star Trek. Even I agree with that and I am the one making a big stink about how the ship looks.

Star Trek, however poorly, has had a (semi) coherent aspect to it. It had small flaws (like the wrong pips on a character in one episode) to medium flaws (like the Trill looking radically different) to big flaws (Picard being able to go back in any point in time but he goes back to 1 minute before Soren launches his death missile).

The issue here is .... their emphasis that this is meant to take place in the same time line as The Cage, TOS, TNG, etc. The looks are incredibly jarring. Now again, this could just be superficial. They may have shinier consoles and holograms, but they don't have the fire power or speed or advance sensors of the ENT-E. That may very well be true. This could just be purely aesthetics. Nothing more. Which, in that case, I am fine with just "pretending" it looked this way all along.

But I do think Trek needs to be somewhat coherent if they plan on doing a show that has an arc. For a show like the original or Twilight Zone it is ok to do a story driven solely by the writing and good acting. But if this leads into more episodes that connect - I honestly hope they have a bit more consistency.

Now that we are on the topic of technology - I am wondering how they will handle it. The one issue I had with the TNG-era Trek is ... the technology seemed to reach its peak. Replicators, transporters, powerful weapons really made it hard to tell stories at time because the crews were so ensconced in safe technology. I hope Discovery has a more "frontier" feel to it and there is a danger to "being out there" in the unknown.

Agree that it's too early to know how far the DSC troupe will take their shiny new toys;  scenario's Warp 75 can't be ruled out.

Trek has, in my mind, always struggled with Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (e.g., STEM) issues because the writers aren't prepared or disposed to deal with them.  It's because of this, I think, that we get a starship, like the Enterprise D/E that's a deep space Holiday Inn, with replicators.  The STEM is just a backdrop; except when it isn't and then we get the dreaded Treknobabble.  Yes, I agree that TNG (let us leave the 'V' word out of the discussion and move on) suffers from this, and to a sci-fi groupie like me, it does so needlessly.  Still I have friends who really like TNG I think because the environment is so tranquil and clean and doesn't try to take them harshly into tech-heavy outer-space to tell its stories.

Share this post


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

Lol, yes, that's spot on! :thumbup:

And yes, I would be MUCH more comfortable if they had set it post-NEM.

For me, it mainly matters if characters, storytelling and plots are good and I forgive a lot... but I also want this show to be a success and this stands in the way. A good number of fans is more demanding and less forgiving than I probably am.

I'm totally oblivious at why they open this can of worms with no need whatsoever to do so. Seems like a patently stupid move to me.

You and me both. Despite any whining from me - I hope this show succeeds. It hit me that this is the first Trek on television in over ten years. Growing up in a time when we had Trek back to back to back on t.v. this was really weird.

9 hours ago, nepr said:

Agree that it's too early to know how far the DSC troupe will take their shiny new toys;  scenario's Warp 75 can't be ruled out.

Trek has, in my mind, always struggled with Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (e.g., STEM) issues because the writers aren't prepared or disposed to deal with them.  It's because of this, I think, that we get a starship, like the Enterprise D/E that's a deep space Holiday Inn, with replicators.  The STEM is just a backdrop; except when it isn't and then we get the dreaded Treknobabble.  Yes, I agree that TNG (let us leave the 'V' word out of the discussion and move on) suffers from this, and to a sci-fi groupie like me, it does so needlessly.  Still I have friends who really like TNG I think because the environment is so tranquil and clean and doesn't try to take them harshly into tech-heavy outer-space to tell its stories.

Haha good point actually. I think they will dial it back a bit, though. Abramsverse did (a little) to make the characters a bit more relatable in the sense that they didn't have all the GodTech of the world at their finger tips.

I hope that is the case with Discovery.

I am also hoping we get a bit more variety in uniforms. For goodness sakes - give the security officers some type of body armor! Even TOS movies had that!

Did anyone else notice that the Captain and the XO had the same clothing as Rey from The Force Awakens. :P

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white. 

Share this post


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

TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white. 

:thumbup:

Share this post


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

TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white. 

I am not one of those people!  But I did watch a lot of TOS in B & W in the sixties;  at my sister's, on her tiny, tinny, TV;  because, weed (and she's still fun to watch TV with).  Sometimes it was a few years before I literally re-viewed an episode.  I was not always pleased with the change.  Something that had looked stark or dramatic might end up gaudy or cartoonish;  not a unique phenomenon for a hater of colorization like me.  I do suspect that significant attention was paid to B & W visuals since color TVs were far from universal then.

Of course this just makes it more likely that Trek would have attained the same status as, Casablanca, or, The Maltese Falcon.

Share this post


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

TOS started in 1966. If it started just a few years earlier it would have been shown in black and white. I wonder how many people now would be complaining because the only real Star Trek is in black and white. 

Probably the same number who think the only 'good' Lost In Space episodes are the ones in the B&W first season...although on that one, they're half-right. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

I actually think that the B&W episodes in lost and space were the best ones. Later ones became almost a parody of science fiction.

I brought this up because the primitive looking Enterprise is basically the same thing as it being shot in B&W.  We don't expect that new shows be shot in B&W.  We don't expect them to use the same type 50 year old cameras so it will look the same. We shouldn't expect shows shot in 2017 to look like shows shot in 1964. 

Share this post


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

I actually think that the B&W episodes in lost and space were the best ones. Later ones became almost a parody of science fiction.

I brought this up because the primitive looking Enterprise is basically the same thing as it being shot in B&W.  We don't expect that new shows be shot in B&W.  We don't expect them to use the same type 50 year old cameras so it will look the same. We shouldn't expect shows shot in 2017 to look like shows shot in 1964. 

Unless, of course, it's a fan film like STC.  Those cater only to the faithful, and for what they do?  They're brilliant at it. 

Otherwise a new series needs to pull in more than just the converted; it needs to make new converts as well.   I wouldn't want a new space opera series to look like something from the time I was born because that's not the time I live in NOW. 

Share this post


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

Unless, of course, it's a fan film like STC.  Those cater only to the faithful, and for what they do?  They're brilliant at it. 

Otherwise a new series needs to pull in more than just the converted; it needs to make new converts as well.   I wouldn't want a new space opera series to look like something from the time I was born because that's not the time I live in NOW. 

This.

That's why the 60s breakfast table chairs at the helm and the painted wood "tapes" are done for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always liked the little painted wood block "tapes." Especially the bright yellow ones. Please bring those back, Star Trek Discovery. :) I guess they're not going to be able to bring back Majel Barrett's computer voice, though. :(

My suspicion is, behind the scenes, someone high up at CBS has said, "Let's beat Paramount's movie version of Star Trek and make this new TV show the Trekkiest Trek ever!" without really comprehending that all the coherency of visual style and detail plays into it for a lot of fans also. So the new production team have responded to that (because they want to keep their jobs) while also trying to satisfy the perceived demands of their would-be audience and the scenario and initial scripts Bryan Fuller left them with. 

Internal consistency is a funny thing, when so much storytelling these days is visual sleight-of-hand and spectacle anyway. We expect a degree of internal consistency from Star Trek because previous production teams worked hard at that. I hope Warp 75 doesn't happen, because that really would suck. If it's just the bells and whistles of tech, ultimately that's something to get used to and overlook. Even the bold, strange new look of the Klingons - if they sound like Klingons, behave like Klingons, okay then, I'm sure I can buy into that. (The way the Klingons developed from TOS to TNG to DS9, from a feudal system of overlords to that honor-based, more far eastern influenced society was pretty radical, if you think about it. More than any other Trek alien race, they're the ones who've evolved and/or been reimagined the most.) 

But if they change the philosophy, the dramatic impediments, the internal logic, the spirit of Star Trek, then we're going to have deeper problems. 

To take Nepr's idea a little further, I'm reminded of that Lars von Trier film, Dogville, where all the sets are basically taped up on the soundstage floor and walls, plus there's a few rudimentary props, but all the characters behave as if this is a real world. It's very "Greek theatre." The best Star Trek would probably work if performed that way. I'm not saying I want to see it done that way, just that it would work. You could restage the best episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9 and ENT, even TAS and VOY that way and they'd still be coherent dramas. 

What it comes down to is, is it any good? Do the stories work? Are the characters engaging? 

 

Share this post


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

I always liked the little painted wood block "tapes." Especially the bright yellow ones. Please bring those back, Star Trek Discovery. :) I guess they're not going to be able to bring back Majel Barrett's computer voice, though. :(

My suspicion is, behind the scenes, someone high up at CBS has said, "Let's beat Paramount's movie version of Star Trek and make this new TV show the Trekkiest Trek ever!" without really comprehending that all the coherency of visual style and detail plays into it for a lot of fans also. So the new production team have responded to that (because they want to keep their jobs) while also trying to satisfy the perceived demands of their would-be audience and the scenario and initial scripts Bryan Fuller left them with. 

Internal consistency is a funny thing, when so much storytelling these days is visual sleight-of-hand and spectacle anyway. We expect a degree of internal consistency from Star Trek because previous production teams worked hard at that. I hope Warp 75 doesn't happen, because that really would suck. If it's just the bells and whistles of tech, ultimately that's something to get used to and overlook. Even the bold, strange new look of the Klingons - if they sound like Klingons, behave like Klingons, okay then, I'm sure I can buy into that. (The way the Klingons developed from TOS to TNG to DS9, from a feudal system of overlords to that honor-based, more far eastern influenced society was pretty radical, if you think about it. More than any other Trek alien race, they're the ones who've evolved and/or been reimagined the most.) 

But if they change the philosophy, the dramatic impediments, the internal logic, the spirit of Star Trek, then we're going to have deeper problems. 

To take Nepr's idea a little further, I'm reminded of that Lars von Trier film, Dogville, where all the sets are basically taped up on the soundstage floor and walls, plus there's a few rudimentary props, but all the characters behave as if this is a real world. It's very "Greek theatre." The best Star Trek would probably work if performed that way. I'm not saying I want to see it done that way, just that it would work. You could restage the best episodes of TOS, TNG, DS9 and ENT, even TAS and VOY that way and they'd still be coherent dramas. 

What it comes down to is, is it any good? Do the stories work? Are the characters engaging? 

 

^
That final point is the real proof in the pudding for me.

And on the Dogville minimalism?  I'm reminded of something I read about years ago when groups of fans in Seattle were doing "Star Trek in the Park" (ala Shakespeare in the Park summer festivals), with live, outdoor 'street performances' of TOS episodes (costumes and the most fragmentary 'suggestions' of sets).  I remember watching (can't remember where) a tape of "Amok Time" and "Doomsday Machine" done this way.   It was truly fascinating to see these amateur actors really throwing all they had into it. 

I'm not expecting a new ST to ever attempt anything like that, but it reinforces your last point about how the stories and characters are the real fulcrum of it all (in any good story, really).

And yes, if Discovery can hit 'warp 75'?  Even I would leap from my seat and cry 'bulls#!t'... :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
8 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
That final point is the real proof in the pudding for me.

And on the Dogville minimalism?  I'm reminded of something I read about years ago when groups of fans in Seattle were doing "Star Trek in the Park" (ala Shakespeare in the Park summer festivals), with live, outdoor 'street performances' of TOS episodes (costumes and the most fragmentary 'suggestions' of sets).  I remember watching (can't remember where) a tape of "Amok Time" and "Doomsday Machine" done this way.   It was truly fascinating to see these amateur actors really throwing all they had into it. 

I'm not expecting a new ST to ever attempt anything like that, but it reinforces your last point about how the stories and characters are the real fulcrum of it all (in any good story, really).

And yes, if Discovery can hit 'warp 75'?  Even I would leap from my seat and cry 'bulls#!t'... :laugh:

Good points all around...

As much as I'm in the "lenient" camp who doesn't care much about visual details, "warp 75" would make me angry, too. :cry:

I really hope there is enough of Fuller, Meyer et al in the show's *content* to make it recognizable as true, genuine Star Trek -- as you guys say, if you played it "Greek theatre", you'd recognize the content's style as belonging to Star Trek.

If that's the case? I really don't mind a thorough modernization and reimagining of the visuals at all -- just like I wouldn't mind color ST, if TOS were black/white.

Maybe a broadening of the depiction of individual races or concepts that borders on reimagination -- like TNG/DS9 did with the TOS Klingons --, wouldn't necessarily alienate me. But if they do so? Please do it carefully.

I'm not sure I can say from the top of the head where exactly the line lies they're not supposed to cross... I'll know when I see it. Until then? I'm optimistic. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 20, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Mr.Picard said:

After all the trouble I had with making ENT work in my head I'm not sure I'll want to do the same for Discovery. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of having to come up with headcanons to clean up the timeline mess that the folks at CBS are making. Other franchises have this new timeline, new luck stuff as well nowadays - why not Star Trek, too? Of course it would suck for a lot of folks to not hear what happens after Nemesis, but really, it would STILL be better than the stunt they're pulling at the moment with their "look look it's Prime Timeline but it actually doesn't look like as if it is" awkwardness.

I mean come on, Dallas retconned ITS ENTIRE NINTH SEASON into a DREAM and the show went on until season 14... what I'm saying is that there have been FAR more outrageous plot devices that were a LOT less well-received by fans than a simple "it's gonna be a new timeline and reboot, folks" would be now and yet the show/franchise survived.

I think we fans might need to start taking a more impressionistic view of the look of the various Trek series. Future trek films or shows are always going to have to reflect a modern visual style and fit with pop culture aesthetics. The 1701-D looked like really nice 80s hotel/cruise ship. The Bad Robot 1701 looks like an I-Store. The original 1701 looked like a mid century naval vessel. 

We whole-franchise fans will have to suspend a bit of disbelief to see them all in the same Universe. But it is possible. What matters most is that the individual series constructs its own believable universe. The best we can hope for is echoes and hints of the past Trek series.  

On May 17, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Sehlat Vie said:

Those old school communicators and tricorders really look BIG now... I'm wondering how this blatantly anachronistic tech will work for younger audiences unfamiliar with the show, or are the producers only preaching to the faithful? 

Im not so sure. Most smart phones today are bigger than TOS communicators. Back when ENT started, phones had gotten very small. That trend has reversed. As for younger viewers not getting it, that doesn't seem to be a problem with Star Wars, which has kept its tech very 70s even in the newest films. 

On May 18, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Locutus said:

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.  

Yes. The desert planet in the trailer did not make me think of Star Wars at all, but TOS planets. Sooo many TOS plants were deserted wastelands--so much better to convey the sense of the frontier. And the image with the three moons in they sky and the blue green color pallet put me in mind of TOS matte paintings, especially the one from The Cage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scenario   

A communicator on a planet has more in common with a satellite phone than a cell phone. It's easy to imagine that it has to be bigger and bulkier because it's signal has to go hundreds or even thousands of miles instead of just a few miles to the nearest tower. It also has to be tough enough to work in a lot of different conditions from very cold to very hot. It won't work in a vacuum (no sound waves) but it has to be able to survive there if necessary. 

It's easy to make up a decent reason why the communicator looks so bulky. Especially if they're using the equivalent of an i-pad on the bridge. They had a bulky version of an i-pad in the early TOS episodes that Yeoman Rand had Kirk sign. If you have both it looks more like there is a reason for the communicators to be so bulky. 

Thank you for using my warp 75 example.:happy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nepr   
13 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

^
That final point is the real proof in the pudding for me.

And on the Dogville minimalism?  I'm reminded of something I read about years ago when groups of fans in Seattle were doing "Star Trek in the Park" (ala Shakespeare in the Park summer festivals), with live, outdoor 'street performances' of TOS episodes (costumes and the most fragmentary 'suggestions' of sets).  I remember watching (can't remember where) a tape of "Amok Time" and "Doomsday Machine" done this way.   It was truly fascinating to see these amateur actors really throwing all they had into it. 

I'm not expecting a new ST to ever attempt anything like that, but it reinforces your last point about how the stories and characters are the real fulcrum of it all (in any good story, really).

And yes, if Discovery can hit 'warp 75'?  Even I would leap from my seat and cry 'bulls#!t'... :laugh:

Searched on, star trek park seattle, so you don't have to, and found, "Outdoor Trek".  Looks like a Feminist conspiracy to emasculate theater!

Then there's this completed 5 year mission.  My understanding is that these weren't so much Trek fans as aspiring thespians hungry for fresh, challenging content.  They made a pretty big splash in Portland, OR, before they were through.

Meanwhile, literally thousands of U-Tube commenters contributed to pop-culture by letting us all know how much they hate lens-flares and how easy it is to judge the writing in a 15 episode series, that of course they've never seen, from snippets of dialog in a 2 minute trailer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how we are all working out our stages of acceptance in this thread. Because this is really a discussion about what Star Trek is in our hearts. We would all admit that Trek is more than just its visual style, meaning we would accept (and have accepted) Trek in various styles. But the visual styles ARE important because that is the substance--the medium--of our belief in the Trek universe. See quote:

Michael Okuda: "Whenever you have an invented universe, the most important thing is your look, your style. Even if you have a huge budget, you can’t really build a Starship Enterprise, you cannot really build Starfleet Command. What you can do is suggest it and let the audience’s mind fill it in. You pick a style, you pick a particular color pallet, a particular way of shooting things, a particular way of shooting visual effects, a particualr way of telling stoires, and that becomes your style. And once you define that, if you defined it well, if you believe in it, if your stoires believe in it, the audience will buy into it."

This is the crux of so many of our hangups about Prime Universe/prequels/reboots, etc. The visual style is critical because all of Trek's great drama, character, themes, etc. speaks to us THROUGH the aesthetics, which lets the "audience's mind fill it in." We are necessarily attached to the visual styles of the Treks that we love. We like to visit them in our minds. As the Prophets told Sisko: "You exist here." (Hint: They were referring to the past.)   

Now It is CBS's job to make us exist on the Discovery.

Since 1979 we have been conditioned to believe the change in visual style can be understood as the progress of technology in the Trek Universe (although the idea that the 1701-refit is really the TOS ship under its hull plating is a bit of a stretch). We are further accustomed to the TNG/Berman/Okuda-era of Trek having a completely consistent visual style, across three or four series. This had nothing to do with Starfleet tech but was all because those sets were built on the same sound stages and were to cater to the same TV sensibility of the 90s. 70+ years apart, the 1701-Ds corridors were the same as the 170-refit; the battle bridge was the 1701 bridge; the 1701-A engineering was the 1701-D engineering. In canon, the 1701-refit is just a few years removed from the TOS years--what really changed was Hollywood production and Hollywood money. The NX-01 is nearly identical to a ship that was originally designed to be of the same new generation of ships as the 1701-E. This has never been perfect. It is hard to accept imperfection, to gloss over the inconsistencies, but we must. To riff on Nepr's point, the play's the thing, not the props! Who cares that much about the brightness of the glow of the background screens? Does the wattage of the lighting on the 1701 or 1701-D mean no other bridge had different lighting?

My advice: resist the limiting notion that Trek can only be done post-Nemesis, or in alternate timelines, or with Star Trek: Continues slavish detail. Really? Just beasue of how Hollywood artists paint with ephemeral light?! On this thread, in the juxtaposed images of the 1701-E and the Shenzhou bridges, the only similarity I noticed was the level of the lights. And the difference--I hope--will be between a bridge where stories happen that I actually care about and stories that I did not.    

It is not false advertising for CBS to say their Trek is Prime. (I suppose Abrams HAD to create a separate timeline because they were reimagining (and killing off) Prime characters--but that chapter is now likely closed). DSC wants to tell its stories in the universe that we already know, one where we fans know what the future holds, which MAY be part of the drama/tension and NOT an obstacle to it.

As old fans, if we de-prioritize mere visuals as the end-all-be-all, there may be many rewards for us in a canonical prequel. 

At the end of the day there is this: Trek dies without new fans; Trek TV will bring new fans; in 2017, TV must be cinematic, so Trek TV must pop off the screen; CBS chose to set their Trek series in the 2250s for specific reasons we are not yet aware of (my hunch is that this is not just a gimmick); therefore the 2250s are going to glow a little brighter than we are used to, but I'm okay with that, because this is a new adventure... and Trek dies without new fans.         

    

 

 

Share this post


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

Searched on, star trek park seattle, so you don't have to, and found, "Outdoor Trek".  Looks like a Feminist conspiracy to emasculate theater!

Well, considering women weren't allowed to perform onstage in Shakespeare's time or in Japanese kabuki theatre?  I'd call it payback.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Locutus   
5 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

 Yes. The desert planet in the trailer did not make me think of Star Wars at all, but TOS planets. Sooo many TOS plants were deserted wastelands--so much better to convey the sense of the frontier. And the image with the three moons in they sky and the blue green color pallet put me in mind of TOS matte paintings, especially the one from The Cage.

I agree.  This planetscape in particular reminded me a lot of an updated TOS matte paintings:

star-trek-discovery-upfront2017-trailer-

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