Frontier

Lots of New Information on Discovery

Recommended Posts

This one appears to be  abulls$#@ rumor, but there it goes...............

STAR TREK DISCOVERY Air Date, Cast News & Update: Nichelle Nichols To Appear? Would Lieutenant Uhura Return?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one appears to be  abulls$#@ rumor, but there it goes...............

STAR TREK DISCOVERY Air Date, Cast News & Update: Nichelle Nichols To Appear? Would Lieutenant Uhura Return?
 

 I'd say the actress returning possibly, character returning? No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with the last 2 posts; she might appear, but there is no way she could be Uhura 10 years prior to TOS.   At any rate?  It'd be nice for her to have some kind of McCoy-esque "Farpoint"-style cameo, but not as Uhura.  Maybe Uhura had a grandmother in Starfleet (?). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Everything they say sounds, well, reasonable from the perspective of TV show producers. I'm still not wildly enamored of the pre-TOS era setting, but I don't know how they're going to handle it, so waiting and seeing seems the fairest reaction to that. 

While I probably shouldn't pull out specific lines from a quote (I don't wish to recontextualize it), I do like this from Meyer:

"Art is not done by committee. With all due respect, fans do not know what is best for them."

Even now, not playing the Hollywood game! Given how so much Hollywood product these days is created by committee (and is poorer for it), I like Meyer's visionary/auteur approach. For one thing, it's not really true, but he pursues it anyway, and we've tended to get some great Star Trek from him as a result.  

^

Very, very much THAT.   Pop art is not a democracy; it is a committee at times, but not a democracy.  

This had me intrigued as well:

I'm really thrilled by many of these points, especially that one. I get the sense this is going to be a show with a distinct, unique style and creative ambition, which is great.

 

But one point gives me slight stomach pains: The intention of "reimagining" existing races.

So it's gonna be a reimagination, a reboot of some kind after all, although it is placed in the Prime Timeline 10 years before TOS. I really, really hate this notion.

I'd much rather see them not touching established canon in that way. It will be next to impossible to reconcile DSC with TOS-VOY, it will be de facto a seperate timeline. Perhaps even an entirely new universe.

The much better approach would have been placing it further in the future. Then you could easily explain any kind of "reimagination". This way, you cannot. It flies in the face of them claiming it will be "Prime Timeline".

Major bummer, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ That's what has a lot of "traditional" fans all riled up, too. Fuller apparently intends to truly make his own interpretation of the canon timeline - in essence, what he's doing is to shape Trek aliens (and therefore also canon) according to his own headcanon, and headcanon is always a rather dangerous ground, especially if you're moving around at some point in the Prime timeline where things have been established and there isn't much room left for interpretation. You have to be REALLY good to make this work. And you have to have incredibly detailed encyclopedic canon knowledge to come up with explanations AND get away with them.

For example - if Fuller imagines Andorians have only one antenna, his Andorians will have only one antenna, despite canon saying otherwise, no explanation given - similar to what ENT did when it threw the Ferengi into the mix and sneaked out of the back door by saying "calm down, we never said their name!". This kind of "canon bending and almost breaking it" is what a lot of fans are apprehensive about. But it is also the worst case scenario. Because "re-imagining" could also mean co-existence - to use the example from above, Fuller could simply be introducing Andorians who happen to have one antenna but could also still feature those with two. That would be some sort of re-imagining as well.

Given how he insists on being unique, however, I'd actually lean more towards the "complete re-imagining" idea indeed. (Which is yet another reason why the entire Discovery concept has so far completely and utterly failed to pick up my interest - I honestly don't care about one man's early TOS headcanon, if I wanted that I'd simply read well-written early TOS fan fic by fan fic writers who specialize in that era. Enough with the TOS prequels/re-imaginings/alternate timelines already! Give me the FUTURE of the Trek universe, not the PAST. I honestly don't CARE what happened ten years before Kirk and I won't get Netflix just to find this out. Sorry. But it just IS like that for me, and from what I've seen, many Trekkies feel similarly about the setting of the series. The difference is that they like Trek so much that they will watch the show anyway - if only to find out what the fuss is all about.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence regarding canonical change; ST itself has changed canon many times and often within the run of each series (compare TNG's first season to its last, or when TOS used to refer to Starfleet as "United Earth Space Probe Agency" in S1).   Every new ST producing/writing team puts their own stamp on the ST universe, for good or bad (Bad Robot ST gets a lot of flack, and I understand why; even if I don't always agree with it).   My personal view is that if the canonical change really takes care of something that wasn't working out?  Then I'm all for it.   As long as it was replacing something unworkable or anachronistic, I'm generally okay with it.  Reimaginings do that; it's not the end of the world.

And I don't mind a reimagined TOS era because frankly, the notion of a new series for a mass audience (beyond Trekkies) using the quaint and clunky knobs, dials, and analog '60s retrofuturistic technology would be utterly laughable; I've seen that firsthand when an episode of ST Continues was screened at a scifi convention in L.A. earlier this year.   Every time someone used a tabulating computer or pulled out a communicator, there were ripples of laughter.  Even the clothes got laughs.  I sunk a bit in my seat.    Such anachronisms are fine for a fan film, which preaches only to the faithful, but ST Discovery has to go beyond the faithful and capture a whole new audience as well, much as TNG did in its run.

And yes, there will be canonical tweaks and maybe a few big changes (the exterior of the ship already looks more advanced than Kirk's TOS ship).   I'm more curious to see what Fuller and Meyer have in mind than I am to sit with a pad & pen writing down all the discrepancies/canonical violations.  

Star Trek is much like Superman, Doctor Who or James Bond; each generation will put their own stamp on it while carrying it through to the next incarnation.   ST has become sort of generational legacy, and not just a pop entertainment.    Nick Meyer put it best when talking about his era as a ST movie producer/writer/director,  "We may have carried the torch clumsily, but we f--king well carried it." 

ST-DSC is just another passing of this torch (and, once again, Meyer is there to help with the passing). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm on the fence regarding canonical change; ST itself has changed canon many times and often within the run of each series (compare TNG's first season to its last, or when TOS used to refer to Starfleet as "United Earth Space Probe Agency" in S1).   Every new ST producing/writing team puts their own stamp on the ST universe, for good or bad (Bad Robot ST gets a lot of flack, and I understand why; even if I don't always agree with it).   My personal view is that if the canonical change really takes care of something that wasn't working out?  Then I'm all for it.   As long as it was replacing something unworkable or anachronistic, I'm generally okay with it.  Reimaginings do that; it's not the end of the world.

And I don't mind a reimagined TOS era because frankly, the notion of a new series for a mass audience (beyond Trekkies) using the quaint and clunky knobs, dials, and analog '60s retrofuturistic technology would be utterly laughable; I've seen that firsthand when an episode of ST Continues was screened at a scifi convention in L.A. earlier this year.   Every time someone used a tabulating computer or pulled out a communicator, there were ripples of laughter.  Even the clothes got laughs.  I sunk a bit in my seat.    Such anachronisms are fine for a fan film, which preaches only to the faithful, but ST Discovery has to go beyond the faithful and capture a whole new audience as well, much as TNG did in its run.

And yes, there will be canonical tweaks and maybe a few big changes (the exterior of the ship already looks more advanced than Kirk's TOS ship).   I'm more curious to see what Fuller and Meyer have in mind than I am to sit with a pad & pen writing down all the discrepancies/canonical violations.  

Star Trek is much like Superman, Doctor Who or James Bond; each generation will put their own stamp on it while carrying it through to the next incarnation.   ST has become sort of generational legacy, and not just a pop entertainment.    Nick Meyer put it best when talking about his era as a ST movie producer/writer/director,  "We may have carried the torch clumsily, but we f--king well carried it." 

ST-DSC is just another passing of this torch (and, once again, Meyer is there to help with the passing). 

There's a difference between EXPANDING canon and CHANGING it, though. TNG expanded the universe. For example, it modified the Romulan uniforms and Romulan make up a little - but it didn't have blue Romulans all of a sudden. It expanded things and gave a lot of them a new look. (Starfleet uniforms come to mind.) DS9 then did the same, it took the TOS and TNG canon, and expanded it, and sometimes even poked it a little (like it did with the Tribbles episode, which was brilliantly done). Even VOY expanded on some things, it didn't really do very good most of the time, but still. But ENT? It often didn't expand, it went and slammed down the "oh so you were told first contact with the Ferengi was through the Enterprise-D? LET US SHOW YOU HOW WRONG YOU WERE" hammer. I know, I know, our alternate timeline theory, but canonically ENT was supposed to be set in the Prime timeline that we all know. The writers just willingly bent canon until it almost broke to bring in aliens they thought would bring in good ratings - despite what the other shows had established about the time. And THAT riled people up. The show took canon and changed some of its fundamental moments that the other shows had established. Add to that the whole issue of flatscreens and the ship looking like an upside-down streamlined Akira class - how was a clunky ship like Kirk's supposed to come from that? It was highly implausible for a lot of fans. To sum it up: ENT's pre-TOS setting was, ultimately, one of the many mistakes that led to its cancellation. (Not saying the only one, mind.)

However.

You indeed HAVE to re-imagine some things if you don't want to look ridiculous by today's prop/uniform/alien make up standards, I agree with that 100% - I just don't understand why they are putting themselves in this kind of position just because TOS is their favorite era. (TNG is MY favorite but the LAST thing I'd do would be to make a series set during TNG or ten years before Jean-Luc assumes command of the Enterprise-D or, worse, a Stargazer series or whatever. Because that kind of thing is stuff that's best left to fan fic writers.)

Place the show in the far future, the 26th century or something, and you're free to do ALL the things you want, you're free to make it look as futuristic as you want to, you're free to invent ALL the new aliens AND re-imagine the ones we already know because, whatever, evolution happens. Basically, do what they did with TNG when they placed it quite a few decades after TOS. People complained about things at first there as well, granted, but they quickly went silent when they realized that maybe, just maybe, some of the changes made sense after all. It's easier to accept this kind of thing when the show is placed in the future of your universe, and not ten years before a show that aired in the 60s. That setting just SCREAMS for "this isn't canon, they are messing it all up, argh!" people. ENT went through this, and I fear that Discovery will face the same criticism (it already IS facing it, in fact). Why they keep doing this is frankly beyond me. Trekkies are NOT very accepting when it comes to what they perceive as canon (I DO know that people call for a more open-minded fandom and that there ARE fans who are more willing to accept canon bending, but let's face it, people WILL be at each other's throats again about the Holy Grail of Canon), and they ARE aiming this show at Trekkies AND this time they want the Trekkies to PAY for it, too. If the fans aren't satisfied with what they see, they will stop paying for it. It's not like the show is on Netflix in the US where folks could have a "whatever, I pay for Netflix anyway, might as well check out the next episode even though I really don't care for the show, maybe it'll get better at some point" attitude. No, they will have a "this show is bleh, I don't like this, why am I paying for CBS All Access, no thanks, Imma stop, bye" reaction if the show doesn't deliver.

tl;dr: It's just a mystery to me why they decided on this when the more logical course of action would have been to just place the show in the FAR future of the timeline in order to provide a clear cut and bring in a new beginning. I get it that the TOS era, for some reason, is the latest thing these days, but honestly, I do wonder if the ENT disaster taught them nothing or if they're just willingly ignoring it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

 

I'm on the fence regarding canonical change; ST itself has changed canon many times and often within the run of each series (compare TNG's first season to its last, or when TOS used to refer to Starfleet as "United Earth Space Probe Agency" in S1).   Every new ST producing/writing team puts their own stamp on the ST universe, for good or bad (Bad Robot ST gets a lot of flack, and I understand why; even if I don't always agree with it).   My personal view is that if the canonical change really takes care of something that wasn't working out?  Then I'm all for it.   As long as it was replacing something unworkable or anachronistic, I'm generally okay with it.  Reimaginings do that; it's not the end of the world.

And I don't mind a reimagined TOS era because frankly, the notion of a new series for a mass audience (beyond Trekkies) using the quaint and clunky knobs, dials, and analog '60s retrofuturistic technology would be utterly laughable; I've seen that firsthand when an episode of ST Continues was screened at a scifi convention in L.A. earlier this year.   Every time someone used a tabulating computer or pulled out a communicator, there were ripples of laughter.  Even the clothes got laughs.  I sunk a bit in my seat.    Such anachronisms are fine for a fan film, which preaches only to the faithful, but ST Discovery has to go beyond the faithful and capture a whole new audience as well, much as TNG did in its run.

And yes, there will be canonical tweaks and maybe a few big changes (the exterior of the ship already looks more advanced than Kirk's TOS ship).   I'm more curious to see what Fuller and Meyer have in mind than I am to sit with a pad & pen writing down all the discrepancies/canonical violations.  

Star Trek is much like Superman, Doctor Who or James Bond; each generation will put their own stamp on it while carrying it through to the next incarnation.   ST has become sort of generational legacy, and not just a pop entertainment.    Nick Meyer put it best when talking about his era as a ST movie producer/writer/director,  "We may have carried the torch clumsily, but we f--king well carried it." 

ST-DSC is just another passing of this torch (and, once again, Meyer is there to help with the passing). 

 

There's a difference between EXPANDING canon and CHANGING it, though. TNG expanded the universe. For example, it modified the Romulan uniforms and Romulan make up a little - but it didn't have blue Romulans all of a sudden. It expanded things and gave a lot of them a new look. (Starfleet uniforms come to mind.) DS9 then did the same, it took the TOS and TNG canon, and expanded it, and sometimes even poked it a little (like it did with the Tribbles episode, which was brilliantly done). Even VOY expanded on some things, it didn't really do very good most of the time, but still. But ENT? It often didn't expand, it went and slammed down the "oh so you were told first contact with the Ferengi was through the Enterprise-D? LET US SHOW YOU HOW WRONG YOU WERE" hammer. I know, I know, our alternate timeline theory, but canonically ENT was supposed to be set in the Prime timeline that we all know. The writers just willingly bent canon until it almost broke to bring in aliens they thought would bring in good ratings - despite what the other shows had established about the time. And THAT riled people up. The show took canon and changed some of its fundamental moments that the other shows had established. Add to that the whole issue of flatscreens and the ship looking like an upside-down streamlined Akira class - how was a clunky ship like Kirk's supposed to come from that? It was highly implausible for a lot of fans. To sum it up: ENT's pre-TOS setting was, ultimately, one of the many mistakes that led to its cancellation. (Not saying the only one, mind.)

However.

You indeed HAVE to re-imagine some things if you don't want to look ridiculous by today's prop/uniform/alien make up standards, I agree with that 100% - I just don't understand why they are putting themselves in this kind of position just because TOS is their favorite era. (TNG is MY favorite but the LAST thing I'd do would be to make a series set during TNG or ten years before Jean-Luc assumes command of the Enterprise-D or, worse, a Stargazer series or whatever. Because that kind of thing is stuff that's best left to fan fic writers.)

Place the show in the far future, the 26th century or something, and you're free to do ALL the things you want, you're free to make it look as futuristic as you want to, you're free to invent ALL the new aliens AND re-imagine the ones we already know because, whatever, evolution happens. Basically, do what they did with TNG when they placed it quite a few decades after TOS. People complained about things at first there as well, granted, but they quickly went silent when they realized that maybe, just maybe, some of the changes made sense after all. It's easier to accept this kind of thing when the show is placed in the future of your universe, and not ten years before a show that aired in the 60s. That setting just SCREAMS for "this isn't canon, they are messing it all up, argh!" people. ENT went through this, and I fear that Discovery will face the same criticism (it already IS facing it, in fact). Why they keep doing this is frankly beyond me. Trekkies are NOT very accepting when it comes to what they perceive as canon (I DO know that people call for a more open-minded fandom and that there ARE fans who are more willing to accept canon bending, but let's face it, people WILL be at each other's throats again about the Holy Grail of Canon), and they ARE aiming this show at Trekkies AND this time they want the Trekkies to PAY for it, too. If the fans aren't satisfied with what they see, they will stop paying for it. It's not like the show is on Netflix in the US where folks could have a "whatever, I pay for Netflix anyway, might as well check out the next episode even though I really don't care for the show, maybe it'll get better at some point" attitude. No, they will have a "this show is bleh, I don't like this, why am I paying for CBS All Access, no thanks, Imma stop, bye" reaction if the show doesn't deliver.

tl;dr: It's just a mystery to me why they decided on this when the more logical course of action would have been to just place the show in the FAR future of the timeline in order to provide a clear cut and bring in a new beginning. I get it that the TOS era, for some reason, is the latest thing these days, but honestly, I do wonder if the ENT disaster taught them nothing or if they're just willingly ignoring it.

^ This, very much so.

 

That said, I'm very optimistic about the creative quality of the new show, regardless if I like its reinterpretation of canon, and am really thrilled by most things we've heard about the show so far. If the show is creatively original, thrilling, brings interesting characters played by talented actors, good stories -- short, a show I'd like even if it wasn't Star Trek --, I might be forgiving (grundgingly) of a reboot approach.

It's just that I rather wouldn't have to forgive that in the first place, and as Mr. Picard, feel this entire problem could have *easily* avoided by just NOT placing it in the TOS timeframe.

Well let's see, maybe it'll turn out that placing it in the TOS period is an absolute creative storytelling necessity for some reason that might positively surprise me, that they have some really outstanding, amazing idea in mind that only works there -- but as it stands, I think that's a most stupid decision.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with both of you in that I wish they'd placed it in the future.  We've already had a TOS prequel (and a reboot series of movies); we REALLY don't need to cover this same tired ground again.

That said?  The deed is done.  

I just hope they make it the best they can, and are not too beholden to the things that didn't work on the original (the '60s styles, the clunky retro-tech, the sexism, etc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placing the new show in the far future beyond VOY and NEM seemed the most logical storytelling course of action to me, too, for all the same reasons you guys list above. Wasn't thrilled at first when it was announced that ST:DSC is effectively another prequel. But, at the moment, I'm thinking there must be some compelling reason for Fuller to do this that I haven't thought of yet. So I'm willing to go with it and see what transpires. I'm just glad to have Star Trek back on TV again after so long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placing the new show in the far future beyond VOY and NEM seemed the most logical storytelling course of action to me, too, for all the same reasons you guys list above. Wasn't thrilled at first when it was announced that ST:DSC is effectively another prequel. But, at the moment, I'm thinking there must be some compelling reason for Fuller to do this that I haven't thought of yet. So I'm willing to go with it and see what transpires. I'm just glad to have Star Trek back on TV again after so long. 

^
This.

The talent behind it gives me more than ample cause for hope.  

And I don't mind if the TOS era gets a bit rejiggered because technically (in my head-canon view of Star Trek) this wouldn't quite be the exact original TOS timeline anyway; it's the post "First Contact"-corrupted version of the TOS timeline (the same timeline that begat the 22nd century's sleeker NX-01 when it didn't exist prior to 2372's incursion into the mid 21st century, otherwise it would've been on Picard's wall of 'little ships' ;)).

So, in MY head canon, I'm preferring to think of this as an alternate 23rd century that just happens to coincide with most of the events of TOS's timeline (against the laws of entropy, I know... hey, it's Star Trek; whattyagonnado?).:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future would make the most sense, and not even that far off. You could set in 30 years after TNG began and it would be now, 2393 or 2494 if you will, and they would not need to change much of anything. They don't do this for one reason, and possibly more, and that is Hollywood likes to make their spin offs comfortable, not new, not different. They know TOS will sell better than doing post VGR, even though post VGR makes all the sense. This is why the reboot Kelvin timeline had to be TOS and not something else.

Perhaps though there is a plan to go forward. The first season may be set in 2255, but the others might not. If they're doing an 'expanded universe anthology' then perhaps they will choose another era for season two. This could be a good idea, or a bad one, depending on if anyone watches it.

Also Hollywood doesn't like to take risks and chooses to use already established things, themes, characters, ideas, etc. They reboot everything.

Art may not be done by committee, but a trek producer's, director's or writer's room is a committee. Come on.

This seems both to be for fans and not to be, which is probably on purpose. We will see.

I can see why they don't want to use the TNG era stuff, probably copyrights and all that, and Abrams trying to convince everyone not to mention the prime universe, (unless it is the comics), but this is silly. It won't bring in new fans to pigeonhole it in 2255. Maybe that is why it's being held back till May? Maybe they're rethinking this prequel idea.

Enterprise started about when the Internet caught on, and that actually hurt the show, as people could immediately comment about it. It still wasn't a good idea to do a prequel only because other franchises did. (Star Wars, 1999). They can deny the connection all they want, but Ent was only a prequel because even then they thought, oh that Star Wars made money as a prequel, so let's do that. (See early production on Ent for details).

 

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The future would make the most sense, and not even that far off. You could set in 30 years after TNG began and it would be now, 2393 or 2494 if you will, and they would not need to change much of anything. They don't do this for one reason, and possibly more, and that is Hollywood likes to make their spin offs comfortable, not new, not different. They know TOS will sell better than doing post VGR, even though post VGR makes all the sense. This is why the reboot Kelvin timeline had to be TOS and not something else.

Perhaps though there is a plan to go forward. The first season may be set in 2255, but the others might not. If they're doing an 'expanded universe anthology' then perhaps they will choose another era for season two. This could be a good idea, or a bad one, depending on if anyone watches it.

Also Hollywood doesn't like to take risks and chooses to use already established things, themes, characters, ideas, etc. They reboot everything.

Art may not be done by committee, but a trek producer's, director's or writer's room is a committee. Come on.

This seems both to be for fans and not to be, which is probably on purpose. We will see.

I can see why they don't want to use the TNG era stuff, probably copyrights and all that, and Abrams trying to convince everyone not to mention the prime universe, (unless it is the comics), but this is silly. It won't bring in new fans to pigeonhole it in 2255. Maybe that is why it's being held back till May? Maybe they're rethinking this prequel idea.

Enterprise started about when the Internet caught on, and that actually hurt the show, as people could immediately comment about it. It still wasn't a good idea to do a prequel only because other franchises did. (Star Wars, 1999). They can deny the connection all they want, but Ent was only a prequel because even then they thought, oh that Star Wars made money as a prequel, so let's do that. (See early production on Ent for details).

 

 

The problem is, mainstream audiences only really know or care about Star Trek that has already happened. A show set way in the future past TNG wouldn't interest anyone but the fans.  That's why Paramount went back to the TOS crew in 2009, and why DSC is also set around that time, but in the old timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

The future would make the most sense, and not even that far off. You could set in 30 years after TNG began and it would be now, 2393 or 2494 if you will, and they would not need to change much of anything. They don't do this for one reason, and possibly more, and that is Hollywood likes to make their spin offs comfortable, not new, not different. They know TOS will sell better than doing post VGR, even though post VGR makes all the sense. This is why the reboot Kelvin timeline had to be TOS and not something else.

Perhaps though there is a plan to go forward. The first season may be set in 2255, but the others might not. If they're doing an 'expanded universe anthology' then perhaps they will choose another era for season two. This could be a good idea, or a bad one, depending on if anyone watches it.

Also Hollywood doesn't like to take risks and chooses to use already established things, themes, characters, ideas, etc. They reboot everything.

Art may not be done by committee, but a trek producer's, director's or writer's room is a committee. Come on.

This seems both to be for fans and not to be, which is probably on purpose. We will see.

I can see why they don't want to use the TNG era stuff, probably copyrights and all that, and Abrams trying to convince everyone not to mention the prime universe, (unless it is the comics), but this is silly. It won't bring in new fans to pigeonhole it in 2255. Maybe that is why it's being held back till May? Maybe they're rethinking this prequel idea.

Enterprise started about when the Internet caught on, and that actually hurt the show, as people could immediately comment about it. It still wasn't a good idea to do a prequel only because other franchises did. (Star Wars, 1999). They can deny the connection all they want, but Ent was only a prequel because even then they thought, oh that Star Wars made money as a prequel, so let's do that. (See early production on Ent for details).

 

 

The problem is, mainstream audiences only really know or care about Star Trek that has already happened. A show set way in the future past TNG wouldn't interest anyone but the fans.  That's why Paramount went back to the TOS crew in 2009, and why DSC is also set around that time, but in the old timeline.

I think this doesn't make sense, for two reasons:

First, DSC won't be Star Trek that already happened anyway, no matter which time period it's placed in. It will be vastly different in style, it will feature new characters, and so on. It could as well be placed in the far future, it wouldn't be any more similar or different to "old" Trek than it will be 10 years before TOS.

And second, they said the same about TNG in 1987: People care about Kirk and Spock, nobody will watch a Star Trek that's not about them. Obviously, they were dead wrong.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

Placing the new show in the far future beyond VOY and NEM seemed the most logical storytelling course of action to me, too, for all the same reasons you guys list above. Wasn't thrilled at first when it was announced that ST:DSC is effectively another prequel. But, at the moment, I'm thinking there must be some compelling reason for Fuller to do this that I haven't thought of yet. So I'm willing to go with it and see what transpires. I'm just glad to have Star Trek back on TV again after so long. 

^
This.

The talent behind it gives me more than ample cause for hope.  

And I don't mind if the TOS era gets a bit rejiggered because technically (in my head-canon view of Star Trek) this wouldn't quite be the exact original TOS timeline anyway; it's the post "First Contact"-corrupted version of the TOS timeline (the same timeline that begat the 22nd century's sleeker NX-01 when it didn't exist prior to 2372's incursion into the mid 21st century, otherwise it would've been on Picard's wall of 'little ships' ;)).

So, in MY head canon, I'm preferring to think of this as an alternate 23rd century that just happens to coincide with most of the events of TOS's timeline (against the laws of entropy, I know... hey, it's Star Trek; whattyagonnado?).:P

If you think that a general stylistic overhaul of the TOS visuals are my problem with the reboot approach, you misunderstood me. I don't want 60s style in a 2017 series either. I don't have the slightest problem with the way NuTrek looks, either, and wouldn't have any problems with it even if NuTrek was in the Prime Timeline.

It just read to me like that Fuller et al are going way, way beyond just pimping it. They want to "reimagine" TOS and the entire canon. So that DSC will be much more than just a prequel, but most likely a genuine reboot, as much as NuBSG was a reboot of 79 BSG.

THAT is what irks me. If Fuller and Meyer feel the Klingons or Vulcans should differ from the way they were previously depicted, they should place their show in the future, rather than just "reinterpret" or "reboot" existing canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   

I agree with those above who have concerns about it being yet another prequel.

My heart sank when I first heard that too. Been there, done that. I really don't have any desire to see more TOS-era stuff. And you would have thought they would learn their lesson from Enterprise, but obviously not.

Setting it in the far future would have made by far the most sense. If not however, there are many other points throught the Trek history that would have been more interesting (during the classic films for example, or just before TNG). The "it's the only window we could find" line doesn't wash with me at all.

And, to be bluntly honest, if it's going to be another free for all, anything goes, Trek in name only... Then I would actually prefer they didn't bother with it at all. I wish Enterprise never happened. I'd rather spend infinity re-enjoying what we already have rather than have some new stuff s#!t all over it.

I'm really trying to keep an open mind, but it's hard. I still haven't accepted Enterprise, and this looks like it might repeat those mistakes all over again...

Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real news will be what the Klingons on this show will look like. I'm fine with the refined look of the Klingons from the new films, because based on what Enterprise established about the forehead ridges, in this time period they would either have them or not. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the real news will be what the Klingons on this show will look like. I'm fine with the refined look of the Klingons from the new films, because based on what Enterprise established about the forehead ridges, in this time period they would either have them or not. Right?

I guess they could have both.

Which would really throw a targ amongst the tribbles...


...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe we'll see a completely new kind of Klingon...

 

 

...the idea of which fills me with inertia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I've been wondering too. It's rather clear that by TOS time the augment Klingons are more prominent in their spacefllet, we don't know about how it is in their borders. I have thought that the New Voyages episode of Kitumba showed what it was in terms of numbers and positions in the empire between true Klingons and augments. I really wished we could have maybe seen it at least addressed in Into Darkness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I really wished we could have maybe seen it at least addressed in Into Darkness.

Yeah, the Rura Penthe scenes cut from the 2009 film would have been nice too. Not only because I loved how the Klingons looked, but those scenes explained a pretty major plot element (that Nero waitied 25 years for Spock to emerge from the black hole) that I feel a lot of the audience may not have gotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directors and editors underestimate what should be left in their films. Generations, Nemesis, and the two JJ films would be better with much of the cut stuff left in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directors and editors underestimate what should be left in their films. Generations, Nemesis, and the two JJ films would be better with much of the cut stuff left in.

Although I disagree on GEN.

I actually prefer the final cut of that movie; I've seen the orbital skydiving sequence and it basically ruins the pacing of the prologue sequence (with the Ent-B christening).  And the original ending (Kirk getting shot in the back like a redshirt) was just terrible.   The reshoots helped that moviie considerably (not ashamed to say GEN is a sentimental favorite of mine).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the ending being better as is, but I don't think it would have been bad to have left the skydive in. They could have faded to the bottle floating. I also think all the stuff originally cut out of ST2 is much better put back in in the Director's edition. I always wondered where the image of Kirk looking up a ladder came from, and now we know.

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