Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I also like her affiiliation with Vulcan. I probably wouldn't have picked Sarek as her mentor but hey, I can appreciate the effort they're making. I do hope it's written in a much better way than the whole "you poor girl, a WOMAAAAAN like YOUUUU doesn't belong on a planet like Vulcan" stuff Miranda Jones has to listen to from Bones and Kirk, though. (I love Miranda Jones. I can relate to her quite a lot, and it always irritates me how she's treated by Kirk and Bones - like as if she's some kind of weirdo for wanting to be among Vulcans because their emotional control is soothing.)

Anyways. I do like this aspect they're introducing here. Gotta give credit where credit is due. ;)

Even that's better than the blatant sexism they treat her with, not sitting her down like a person and explaining the need to bring Kollos into things, hey, let's just use that Kirk suave to melt the ice queen while we go behind her back.

Product of the time, yes. But still.

Share this post


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

Even that's better than the blatant sexism they treat her with, not sitting her down like a person and explaining the need to bring Kollos into things, hey, let's just use that Kirk suave to melt the ice queen while we go behind her back.

Product of the time, yes. But still.

Yeah... I remember when I first watched this episode when I was 8 or so, I never understood that weird behavior towards her. And while I felt Miranda Jones was a bit weird too, I instinctively got that much of her "unfriendliness" was an understandable reaction on the untypical weird behavior of the guys around her. I remember I decided it's one of the things I won't really understand until I'm older. :laugh:

Unlike Janice Lester ... in that case, I was totally oblivious to the misogynist undertones of the episode. As a kid, my obvious explanation was that just this particular woman happened to be nuts (just like some men we saw on TOS), which said absolutely nothing about women in general or gender roles, in my eyes back then.

 

Oh... back to the topic: I like this twist on Vulcans on DSC. So far, we just had aliens who were more or less typical representatives of their respective races and cultures ... that someone can have one heritage, but a different kind of cultural background, adds more layers to the Star Trek universe. Great idea! Guess that means the updated ST universe will be a bit more complex than it used to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
8 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

 

I liked the Trip/T'Pol relationship and thought that, over time, it was one of the best things about Enterprise, but those early episodes grated where there was that constant antipathy/disrespect towards offworlders/difference. If Star Trek was analogy, that was a pretty unpleasant one. It smoothed out with time. 

Yeah in some cases, Archer/Trip behaved indeed too petty and small-minded... but most of the time, I felt they were well-meaning, just a bit overwhelmed by the "alienness" they encountered. If the show had been written better and more complex, this could have been an interesting exploration of that theme... but the show was too busy playing it safe by not becoming too complex or demanding, so yeah.

I don't want to turn this into a KM topic, but I feel we "latte sipping liberal elitists" could sometimes use a little more sympathy for "simpler" people, who aren't used to too much diversity, and are rather scared by it, which in many cases is a normal reaction -- yet have their hearts at the right place. Archer and Trip are deliberately portrayed as more rustic people, characters more rural Americans can easily identify with, but IMO they aren't outright racist, chauvinist or immoral; they are just more "natural", down to earth, insofar they don't have their heads filled with all kinds of enlightened abstract concepts that let their superegos guide their behavior. They rather believe in good manners their grandma taught them. :laugh:

When this attitude doesn't devolve into hate of the alien, but actually is guided by "grandma's good manners" despite all confusion, it's one I can respect a lot.

 

8 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

All of which points to a different approach in Discovery. I like the title of the show and the inherent theme of "discovery"... it points to keeping an open mind, finding new perspectives, exploring, um, new civilizations and ways of seeing the universe. Very Star Trek. It sounds like that's how the producers and writers are approaching Burnham's character.  

Yes! I'm increasingly thrilled by what we learn about the show! :thumbup:

Share this post


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

Unlike Janice Lester ... in that case, I was totally oblivious to the misogynist undertones of the episode. As a kid, my obvious explanation was that just this particular woman happened to be nuts

Yes. Even as a child I had my suspicions. :)

Share this post


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

Yes. Even as a child I had my suspicions. :)

Yeah... when I grew older, I realized ALL women are nuts ... just like ALL men. :giggle:

Share this post


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

Yeah... when I grew older, I realized ALL women are nuts ... just like ALL men. :giggle:

We just tend to have our various psychoses over different things. ;)

Share this post


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

Yeah in some cases, Archer/Trip behaved indeed too petty and small-minded... but most of the time, I felt they were well-meaning, just a bit overwhelmed by the "alienness" they encountered. If the show had been written better and more complex, this could have been an interesting exploration of that theme... but the show was too busy playing it safe by not becoming too complex or demanding, so yeah.

I don't want to turn this into a KM topic, but I feel we "latte sipping liberal elitists" could sometimes use a little more sympathy for "simpler" people, who aren't used to too much diversity, and are rather scared by it, which in many cases is a normal reaction -- yet have their hearts at the right place. Archer and Trip are deliberately portrayed as more rustic people, characters more rural Americans can easily identify with, but IMO they aren't outright racist, chauvinist or immoral; they are just more "natural", down to earth, insofar they don't have their heads filled with all kinds of enlightened abstract concepts that let their superegos guide their behavior. They rather believe in good manners their grandma taught them. :laugh:

When this attitude doesn't devolve into hate of the alien, but actually is guided by "grandma's good manners" despite all confusion, it's one I can respect a lot.

 

Yes! I'm increasingly thrilled by what we learn about the show! :thumbup:

It was only very early on they overdid a bit. Something Enterprise really got right was its crew. Malcolm was a bit odd at first maybe, but they smoothed out his rough edges, and overall, that was a really bloody good cast. They went a long way to enabling me to engage with that show in the earlier seasons, even on the odd occasions when Archer was written like a rabid nationalist. 

With regard to Trip, I always really liked that character, in large part because Connor Trinneer invested him with such a likeable persona. (It's also partly why i hate the final episode so much.) He and T'Pol just worked really well. You could tell he was curious about her, in the way that you describe... intrigued by her alien qualities, not always sure how to behave, but wanting to build bridges, to find that common ground. He was apple pie to her exotica, and knew he was, but that was the charm of it. he was smart enough to know that she probably thought of herself as apple pie too, but that she knew she came across as some highbrow sophisticate... which was why it was lovely when she demonstrated something more than Vulcan aloofness towards him. I wish they'd had more time (beyond season 4) to explore that relationship.

Leaving aside LGBTQ representation (where it doesn't have a great record), I think Star Trek in all its incarnations has been a flagship show for diversity. In terms of racial representation in a white-dominated Hollywood, it was mostly always ahead of the game. I think that is one of its greatest strengths - showing that all people are actually "simple" people. We're all just people. That is simultaneously one of the simplest and greatest truths I know. It's one of the reasons why I've loved this show all my life.

We're all just people. The differences are illusory - and if we could get past that, teach that to our children, then maybe we'd be building a world like that seen in Star Trek.

 

So yup, here's to Burnham's character exploring some of these most human of issues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

It was only very early on they overdid a bit. Something Enterprise really got right was its crew. Malcolm was a bit odd at first maybe, but they smoothed out his rough edges, and overall, that was a really bloody good cast. They went a long way to enabling me to engage with that show in the earlier seasons, even on the odd occasions when Archer was written like a rabid nationalist. 

With regard to Trip, I always really liked that character, in large part because Connor Trinneer invested him with such a likeable persona. (It's also partly why i hate the final episode so much.) He and T'Pol just worked really well. You could tell he was curious about her, in the way that you describe... intrigued by her alien qualities, not always sure how to behave, but wanting to build bridges, to find that common ground. He was apple pie to her exotica, and knew he was, but that was the charm of it. he was smart enough to know that she probably thought of herself as apple pie too, but that she knew she came across as some highbrow sophisticate... which was why it was lovely when she demonstrated something more than Vulcan aloofness towards him. I wish they'd had more time (beyond season 4) to explore that relationship.

Leaving aside LGBTQ representation (where it doesn't have a great record), I think Star Trek in all its incarnations has been a flagship show for diversity. In terms of racial representation in a white-dominated Hollywood, it was mostly always ahead of the game. I think that is one of its greatest strengths - showing that all people are actually "simple" people. We're all just people. That is simultaneously one of the simplest and greatest truths I know. It's one of the reasons why I've loved this show all my life.

We're all just people. The differences are illusory - and if we could get past that, teach that to our children, then maybe we'd be building a world like that seen in Star Trek.

 

So yup, here's to Burnham's character exploring some of these most human of issues...

^
Agreed on all fronts; and yes, here’s hoping that (finally) we’ll be seeing proper and long overdue LGBTQ representation on Star Trek.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we going to talk about this now, y/y? This is seriously the first time ever since Discovery was announced that I found myself thinking "WHY HELLO THERE, YES PLEASE". :laugh: 

IMG_8955.JPG

 

Share this post


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

Are we going to talk about this now, y/y? This is seriously the first time ever since Discovery was announced that I found myself thinking "WHY HELLO THERE, YES PLEASE". :laugh: 

IMG_8955.JPG

 

He does have a certain Jean-Luc-ish vibe, doesn't he?

Share this post


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

He does have a certain Jean-Luc-ish vibe, doesn't he?

I only wish Jean-Luc's uniform pants had been as tight. :angel_not::laugh: 

Nah seriously, the pose is definitely very Jean-Luc indeed.

Share this post


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

I only wish Jean-Luc's uniform pants had been as tight. :angel_not::laugh: 

Nah seriously, the pose is definitely very Jean-Luc indeed.

But look at their faces, too:

110712-picard.jpg

firstjasondsc-head.jpg

I could easily imagine Isaac’s captain being some ancestor of Picard’s...

He looks a lot more like Sir Patrick than Tom Hardy, that’s for sure. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
On 22.6.2017 at 0:05 AM, Robin Bland said:

It was only very early on they overdid a bit. Something Enterprise really got right was its crew. Malcolm was a bit odd at first maybe, but they smoothed out his rough edges, and overall, that was a really bloody good cast. They went a long way to enabling me to engage with that show in the earlier seasons, even on the odd occasions when Archer was written like a rabid nationalist. 

With regard to Trip, I always really liked that character, in large part because Connor Trinneer invested him with such a likeable persona. (It's also partly why i hate the final episode so much.) He and T'Pol just worked really well. You could tell he was curious about her, in the way that you describe... intrigued by her alien qualities, not always sure how to behave, but wanting to build bridges, to find that common ground. He was apple pie to her exotica, and knew he was, but that was the charm of it. he was smart enough to know that she probably thought of herself as apple pie too, but that she knew she came across as some highbrow sophisticate... which was why it was lovely when she demonstrated something more than Vulcan aloofness towards him. I wish they'd had more time (beyond season 4) to explore that relationship.

Leaving aside LGBTQ representation (where it doesn't have a great record), I think Star Trek in all its incarnations has been a flagship show for diversity. In terms of racial representation in a white-dominated Hollywood, it was mostly always ahead of the game. I think that is one of its greatest strengths - showing that all people are actually "simple" people. We're all just people. That is simultaneously one of the simplest and greatest truths I know. It's one of the reasons why I've loved this show all my life.

We're all just people. The differences are illusory - and if we could get past that, teach that to our children, then maybe we'd be building a world like that seen in Star Trek.

 

So yup, here's to Burnham's character exploring some of these most human of issues...

^ Good points. I agree, diversity was always a key message of Star Trek, but I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:

The show often avoided the really hot questions in these regards, by making the "diverse" people culturally very similar, most of the time. (It's easy to praise diversity, when basically all humans -- and many aliens--, regardless of skin color or gender, are basically rational liberal Westeners, culturally.)

And just in case the point I was trying to make was lost: If "diversity" is supposed to mean more than empty words, it must not just include non-male, non-white, non-straight people... but also white males who struggle with adapting to diversity. (Yet this demographic is oftentimes not included when people say "diversity". It's even easily mocked -- it's easy to say "Ugly Americans", but is this prejudice really much better than others?)

IMO, ENT did a good job including this demographic, with the characters of Archer and Trip especially. Diversity is not always a thing that's easy to embrace, especially when you're not used to it; being scared of the alien often is a normal reaction, and one that deserves some understanding. Yet ENT's characters didn't give in to their initial irritation, but did their best to "build bridges", as you say.

So yes, Star Trek always did a great job showing "we're all just people", including people who struggle with "diversity".

 

(And I'm writing all this also as a reminder to myself, because I know it's usually much more difficult for me to understand and accept people who struggle with "diversity", than taking different skin colors or sexual orientations for granted -- yet I feel my "prejudices towards prejudiced people" are not really better than their prejudices ... or are they?

At any rate, many people take this "prejudice against prejudiced people" as a very visible arrogance, and also thanks to that, we have to deal with a terrifying American President now.)

Edited by Sim

Share this post


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

^ Good points. I agree, diversity was always a key message of Star Trek, but I want to play devil's advocate for a moment:

The show often avoided the really hot questions in these regards, by making the "diverse" people culturally very similar, most of the time. (It's easy to praise diversity, when basically all humans -- and many aliens--, regardless of skin color or gender, are basically rational liberal Westeners, culturally.)

And just in case the point I was trying to make was lost: If "diversity" is supposed to mean more than empty words, it must not just include non-male, non-white, non-straight people... but also white males who struggle with adapting to diversity. (Yet this demographic is oftentimes not included when people say "diversity". It's even easily mocked -- it's easy to say "Ugly Americans", but is this prejudice really much better than others?)

IMO, ENT did a good job including this demographic, with the characters of Archer and Trip especially. Diversity is not always a thing that's easy to embrace, especially when you're not used to it; being scared of the alien often is a normal reaction, and one that deserves some understanding. Yet ENT's characters didn't give in to their initial irritation, but did their best to "build bridges", as you say.

So yes, Star Trek always did a great job showing "we're all just people", including people who struggle with "diversity".

 

(And I'm writing all this also as a reminder to myself, because I know it's usually much more difficult for me to understand and accept people who struggle with "diversity", than taking different skin colors or sexual orientations for granted -- yet I feel my "prejudices towards prejudiced people" are not really better than their prejudices ... or are they?

At any rate, many people take this "prejudice against prejudiced people" as a very visible arrogance, and also thanks to that, we have to deal with a terrifying American President now.)

I understood you the first time, Sim. But to take you at your word and further play devil's advocate, diversity - in the sense that it should include the entire spectrum of the human race - includes all the "misunderstood." It includes ignorant, vulgar, antisocial a$$holes. It includes Nazis, warmongers, rapists, pedophiles, psychopaths, mass murderers and serial killers. Or, at what point do you draw a line and say, actually some of those are monsters who wear a human shape? Do you include them all? Do you call out behavior that willfully pushes against any kind of progressive forward momentum for society? Or do you say, "Oh, that's just Pete, ignore him?" Diversity must, by definition, include both the best and the worst of us. All just people.

Consensus tends to answer the questions of what's acceptable in most human societies for us, at least as regards the latter few examples. But you have to have an agreed scope of tolerance, of what constitutes "fairness and equality for all." I guess that's what society in the West has been struggling with for the past couple of years, to some extent - the openness of the question, and where the demarcations lie. In the fictional world of Star Trek, those questions have long been answered, at least in human society.

This is what manners and protocols exist for - they're an undercurrent of unwritten social rules that we all agree to abide by. A social contract. (One not observed by our "terrible American president" who seems to believe he's above such things.) Nonetheless, perhaps it's stating the obvious to say that not all societies practice equality equally.

As regards Trek, yeah, it was often very holistic, very Californian (no disrespect to Californians) in its depiction of human behaviors, I agree. Viewers from elsewhere might not necessarily agree with them or aspire to them. But that was the basic zero setting of the show - its principles overall were very humanist. And its worldwide popularity would seem to point to a general acceptance by audiences outside the US of those principles.

 

I could go on, but it's time for bed.

Zzzzzzzz

Share this post


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

As regards Trek, yeah, it was often very holistic, very Californian (no disrespect to Californians) in its depiction of human behaviors, I agree.

Hey!  I resemble that remark! :P

 tv the simpsons cartoon hippies woodstock GIF

* well, not technically born in California, but thoroughly Californiated... hehe *

But yes, that’s a good point; I think most TV shows reflect the values (voluntarily or not) of where they’re created.   The Doctor, for example, is very British; both in his humor and demeanor, despite his being a Time Lord (‘Lord’; again with the British-ness... :giggle:).   IMO, it’s part of the overall charm of it.   

Now that ST’s production is based in Toronto, I wonder if there’ll be a slight change...?   I’m guessing the crew will talk about weather more often, and they’ll probably have random, inexplicable cravings for a Tim Horton’s muffin now and then...:P

 

9 hours ago, Sim said:

(And I'm writing all this also as a reminder to myself, because I know it's usually much more difficult for me to understand and accept people who struggle with "diversity", than taking different skin colors or sexual orientations for granted -- yet I feel my "prejudices towards prejudiced people" are not really better than their prejudices ... or are they?

And not to make this too ‘KM’-ish (but the diversity topic was legitimately relevant to cast member remarks about DSC, so...) but I don’t necessarily think an intolerance towards intolerance is, in fact, a prejudice.  Not tolerating intolerance may seem hypocritical, but I think of the tolerant person as the one with “his arms wide” (to quote “Darmok”); they would give the intolerant person a chance if they would just reciprocate.   Not too much to ask IMO. 

Then again, I’m a big old California hippie, so what do I know? :giggle: :P

 

Regarding Martin-Green’s remarks (and Robin’s) I very much agree; diversity has always been a part of the show’s DNA, and if there’s a reason that the diverse crew always act so uniformly is because each of them voluntarily joined this organization of Starfleet, so there was an expectation of discipline and a certain standard of behavior.    That expectation negates any cultural baggage that a crewman might bring aboard from their home world.

For example: Worf comes from a people who believe that rising in rank through assassination is OK.   But...he’s joined Starfleet, and in Starfleet that’s not OK.   That’d be a clear example of how one’s native inclinations might have to be suppressed in favor of team harmony.   Tellarites love to argue, but mouthing off to one’s superiors might be a problem, so I’m sure that’s another cultural inclination they suppress when they join the service.  The only reasons these inclinations have to be suppressed is because they would automatically lead to conflict.   I don’t think personal habits, sexual inclinations, eating habits, etc. would cause immediate conflict with one’s shipmates, so those things are generally allowed (though I never understood why Riker took such offense to Ensign Ro’s Bajoran earrings...?)

Starfleet, not the Federation, calls for a uniform code of behavior; as do many businesses and organizations right here on Planet Earth, so I imagine the process of adaptation would be necessary in order to function as a cohesive unit.   If one couldn’t function within those limitations?   Then I don’t think Starfleet would be an ideal career choice.    And I imagine that if such a being were REALLY intent on exploring the galaxy, there would be many other options besides service in Starfleet. 

Share this post


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

Hey!  I resemble that remark! :P

tv the simpsons cartoon hippies woodstock GIF

* well, not technically born in California, but thoroughly Californiated... hehe *

 

This is why we need him

:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
10 hours ago, Robin Bland said:

I understood you the first time, Sim. But to take you at your word and further play devil's advocate, diversity - in the sense that it should include the entire spectrum of the human race - includes all the "misunderstood." It includes ignorant, vulgar, antisocial a$$holes. It includes Nazis, warmongers, rapists, pedophiles, psychopaths, mass murderers and serial killers. Or, at what point do you draw a line and say, actually some of those are monsters who wear a human shape? Do you include them all? Do you call out behavior that willfully pushes against any kind of progressive forward momentum for society? Or do you say, "Oh, that's just Pete, ignore him?" Diversity must, by definition, include both the best and the worst of us. All just people.

Consensus tends to answer the questions of what's acceptable in most human societies for us, at least as regards the latter few examples. But you have to have an agreed scope of tolerance, of what constitutes "fairness and equality for all." I guess that's what society in the West has been struggling with for the past couple of years, to some extent - the openness of the question, and where the demarcations lie. In the fictional world of Star Trek, those questions have long been answered, at least in human society.

This is what manners and protocols exist for - they're an undercurrent of unwritten social rules that we all agree to abide by. A social contract. (One not observed by our "terrible American president" who seems to believe he's above such things.) Nonetheless, perhaps it's stating the obvious to say that not all societies practice equality equally.

As regards Trek, yeah, it was often very holistic, very Californian (no disrespect to Californians) in its depiction of human behaviors, I agree. Viewers from elsewhere might not necessarily agree with them or aspire to them. But that was the basic zero setting of the show - its principles overall were very humanist. And its worldwide popularity would seem to point to a general acceptance by audiences outside the US of those principles.

 

I could go on, but it's time for bed.

Zzzzzzzz

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

My answer is too much KM, and with respect for our dear Sehlat, I posted it in KM rather than here:

http://theomegasector.com/index.php?/topic/22986-prejudice-towards-prejudiced-people-diversity-and-sjw/

1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Hey!  I resemble that remark! :P

tv the simpsons cartoon hippies woodstock GIF

* well, not technically born in California, but thoroughly Californiated... hehe *

But yes, that’s a good point; I think most TV shows reflect the values (voluntarily or not) of where they’re created.   The Doctor, for example, is very British; both in his humor and demeanor, despite his being a Time Lord (‘Lord’; again with the British-ness... :giggle:).   IMO, it’s part of the overall charm of it.   

Now that ST’s production is based in Toronto, I wonder if there’ll be a slight change...?   I’m guessing the crew will talk about weather more often, and they’ll probably have random, inexplicable cravings for a Tim Horton’s muffin now and then...:P

 

And not to make this too ‘KM’-ish (but the diversity topic was legitimately relevant to cast member remarks about DSC, so...) but I don’t necessarily think an intolerance towards intolerance is, in fact, a prejudice.  Not tolerating intolerance may seem hypocritical, but I think of the tolerant person as the one with “his arms wide” (to quote “Darmok”); they would give the intolerant person a chance if they would just reciprocate.   Not too much to ask IMO. 

Then again, I’m a big old California hippie, so what do I know? :giggle: :P

Perhaps that's not warranted, but I have a huuuuuuuge lot of sympathy and love for hippies! :laugh:

And yes, I don't think intolerance towards intolerance is prejudice.

I just wonder if sometimes, we are too quick diagnosing intolerance, because some people just express themselves or behave naively or insensitively, and insinuate these people worse intentions than they actually have, simply because they are culturally alien to us? (Like, say, Evangelicals, rural gun nuts and whatnot are culturally alien to us, deliberately using stereotype labels here :cry: ).

Perhaps it's prejudice to assume intolerance even in people where there perhaps just is lack of awareness and sloppy insensitivity -- or, in harsher terms, lumping certain people together as "racists" i.e., just because they share certain traits with genuine opponents of equal rights for ethnic minorities?

But I better don't continue here ... in case you are interested, there is the thread in KM. :)

 

1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I've thought of is that potentially, the Shenzhou is in the Kelvin timeline, and the Discovery is in the Prime timeline. From the latest descriptions ("universe-changing decisions") it seems like it could be a possibility.

A good way to ease in fans who've only heard of the new movies.

Probably won't happen, but hey? Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can practically start to smell the whole "they're gonna start a new time line somewhere" plot. "Universe-changing" just might mean precisely that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2017 at 7:12 PM, Mr.Picard said:

I can practically start to smell the whole "they're gonna start a new time line somewhere" plot. "Universe-changing" just might mean precisely that.

Works for me. It'll chill some of the pre-show complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, prometheus59650 said:

Works for me. It'll chill some of the pre-show complaining.

If the stories are good?  I can forgive-and-forget a slew of continuity 'sins.'  Personally I viewed ENT as an alternate timeline (based on FC rather than TOS) and it still worked for me, so I'm cool with DSC being the same.

That said?  Having seen the props and costumes of DSC a 2nd time yesterday here at Comic Con (took a buddy of mine to the exhibit), I'm very impressed with the effort made to straddle that line between TOS and 'modern' looking retro-technology.  The phasers look pretty much like detailed versions of TOS phasers, but with the multi-lens emitters of "The Cage" (I know; the fact that I notice these things indicates that I seriously need a life... LOL!), and the communicators looked like they could simply be variants of the ones used in TOS (from a distance anyway; up lose they're clearly more complex).  The tricorder and medical scanner were beautifully balanced.

It may not line up exactly with TOS technology (and I don't care if it does), but the effort made by the props team is staggering...

Share this post


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

Official Trailer

 

I will say this - good or bad - this looks to be the most intense pilot of any of the Trek series.

Pretty cool trailer, I'm excited! =)

Sure, it's rather heavy on the pew-pew, but which trailer of previous Star Trek shows didn't emphasize the pew-pew?

At any rate, it does look really good. I hope the stories and characters will be of the same caliber!

Share this post


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

Pretty cool trailer, I'm excited! =)

Sure, it's rather heavy on the pew-pew, but which trailer of previous Star Trek shows didn't emphasize the pew-pew?

At any rate, it does look really good. I hope the stories and characters will be of the same caliber!

Same here. Looks like the modernized Trek I've been hoping for.

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