Sign in to follow this  
prometheus59650

The Klingon Redesign?

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, The Founder said:

...

I'm not saying the "show sucks" or whatever. It actually looks pretty good and has a solid cast. I'm keeping an open mind. Just ... not so open that my brain falls out.

All right, I laughed. :laugh:

I think i have to wait until i see the new Klingons in action to really be able to make a judgment on this. In theory, it all sounds kind of interesting. In the sense of asking longtime fans and viewers to stretch a little further, if there's a good in-Universe story reason for the differences in their appearance and the design of their culture, I'll go with it. But it'll need to be reasonably convincing.

Like Vie, I got kind of tired of the whole Space Vikings thing. On DS9 that worked until it got overworked, and boy, towards the end it was difficult to believe they'd ever have become a spacefaring race they had so many blood trials and regulations about honor. it just seemed like it would've been impossible for them to develop science because they'd always be killing each other. Mind you, look at humans, eh? Pot calling kettle black, etc.

If we get deeper, more layered Klingon characterizations, then cool. As K'ehleyr might say, "Don't give me that KLINGON NONSENSE."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 1:09 AM, Robin Bland said:

All right, I laughed. :laugh:

I think i have to wait until i see the new Klingons in action to really be able to make a judgment on this. In theory, it all sounds kind of interesting. In the sense of asking longtime fans and viewers to stretch a little further, if there's a good in-Universe story reason for the differences in their appearance and the design of their culture, I'll go with it. But it'll need to be reasonably convincing.

Like Vie, I got kind of tired of the whole Space Vikings thing. On DS9 that worked until it got overworked, and boy, towards the end it was difficult to believe they'd ever have become a spacefaring race they had so many blood trials and regulations about honor. it just seemed like it would've been impossible for them to develop science because they'd always be killing each other. Mind you, look at humans, eh? Pot calling kettle black, etc.

If we get deeper, more layered Klingon characterizations, then cool. As K'ehleyr might say, "Don't give me that KLINGON NONSENSE."

I'm the same. I need to see it in the full context instead of all the tiny snippets.

I just find it odd that they don't just reboot this franchise. They clearly want to. Or - since Trek is a multiverse - why not just show another universe? Mostly same people, places, ships, species, but new looks and new stories. If it works for DC/Marvel - then it can work for Trek. Just my opinion ...

Share this post


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

 

I just find it odd that they don't just reboot this franchise. They clearly want to. Or - since Trek is a multiverse - why not just show another universe? Mostly same people, places, ships, species, but new looks and new stories. If it works for DC/Marvel - then it can work for Trek. Just my opinion ...

My guess is that they felt they needed the old fans aboard. I mean who else is going to subscribe to CBS All Access just for a Trek series if not the old Trek fans - and telling them "yo, it's another reboot" just might have put them off, given how much a lot of old Trek fandom folks hate the Kelvin timeline reboot. Telling them "this is set before Kirk and Spock in the Prime Timeline" gathers more interest since a lot of old fans DO want to see that timeline.

On the other hand, if this series turns out to be some sort of reboot after all, the fans are going to be FURIOUS that they weren't told from the start (and rightfully so) and this whole thing crashes. It somehow already feels like watching a train that's speeding towards a solid wall with CBS yelling "faster, faster!".

That being said, I'm with you, Founder. They should just reboot it. It's pretty clear they're not exactly interested in keeping up with established Prime timeline canon (same thing ENT was guilty of, only this one seems to be on an even larger scale), and I don't get why they feel this incredible need to antagonize big parts of the fandom like this (as much as I'm tired of eternal fanboy whining and nay-sayers who just look for details to hate by now, some folks DO have a point when they say "why are they doing this"). If they had said right from the start "it's a reboot, the Klingons look different and Spock has an adoptive sister in this timeline", NO one could have screamed "BUT CANON SAYS..." because there would have BEEN no canon for a new timeline. Why did they feel this need to stir up ANOTHER fandom war? We just had two of them, one over ENT and another over the Kelvin timeline. Why this incredible desire to do things that DELIBERATELY upset the fanbase they need? What are they hoping to gain? A divided fandom helps no one, neither their CBS All Access subscription numbers nor the fandom itself.

Share this post


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

I'm the same. I need to see it in the full context instead of all the tiny snippets.

I just find it odd that they don't just reboot this franchise. They clearly want to. Or - since Trek is a multiverse - why not just show another universe? Mostly same people, places, ships, species, but new looks and new stories. If it works for DC/Marvel - then it can work for Trek. Just my opinion ...


I agree as well.

I have no problem with ST being rebooted, just as I don’t have issues with Bond or Sherlock Holmes being rebooted.   None of those reboots clandestinely erased my previous books or DVD collections... :laugh:

Share this post


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


I agree as well.

I have no problem with ST being rebooted, just as I don’t have issues with Bond or Sherlock Holmes being rebooted.   None of those reboots clandestinely erased my previous books or DVD collections... :laugh:

For real tho. Someone on Twitter recently actually tried to tell me "Discovery will erase the Prime Timeline!!!" and I was like "oh so your DVDs on your shelves are going to mysteriously vanish as well or what?"

tumblr_m3tqv7endK1r81219o1_250.gif

Share this post


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

For real tho. Someone on Twitter recently actually tried to tell me "Discovery will erase the Prime Timeline!!!" and I was like "oh so your DVDs on your shelves are going to mysteriously vanish as well or what?"

tumblr_m3tqv7endK1r81219o1_250.gif

^ Gently rocking Picard expresses my rebuke for that idiotic statement far better than my words ever could... :laugh:

Share this post


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

^ Gently rocking Picard expresses my rebuke for that idiotic statement far better than my words ever could... :laugh:

He makes me a little nervous when he does that but yes he DOES express my feelings here rather well indeed. :laugh:

Share this post


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

He makes me a little nervous when he does that but yes he DOES express my feelings here rather well indeed. :laugh:

His coming from a series that naysayers in 1987 said would ‘never work’ makes him uniquely qualified to express such disdain for continuity nitpickers...

Share this post


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

His coming from a series that naysayers in 1987 said would ‘never work’ makes him uniquely qualified to express such disdain for continuity nitpickers...

And his real life alter ego experiencing the naysayers first hand with their "this can never work, you can't replace Kirk" attitude. (On the other hand, we have to THANK them. He would NEVER have signed the contract back then if he had been told "this series will be a hit, you will be playing this character for a looong time and you won't have time to go back to your theater career any time soon".)

The person who yelled at me about Discovery erasing it all also believes the crudest conspiracy theories about Discovery (they're an Axanar supporter and Axanar does EVERYTHING in its power to discredit Discovery since they blame it for CBS slamming them down), so I honestly don't even want to know which "latest Discovery rumors from the set, this is total hearsay but have SRS BSNS SOURCES" YouTube video they pulled the "Discovery will erase everything" theory from.

Share this post


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

And his real life alter ego experiencing the naysayers first hand with their "this can never work, you can't replace Kirk" attitude. (On the other hand, we have to THANK them. He would NEVER have signed the contract back then if he had been told "this series will be a hit, you will be playing this character for a looong time and you won't have time to go back to your theater career any time soon".)

When he found out how long he’d be playing the role...:giggle:

98edaa23a229e7edf7572ce0e4e887ca.gif

1 hour ago, Mr.Picard said:

The person who yelled at me about Discovery erasing it all also believes the crudest conspiracy theories about Discovery (they're an Axanar supporter and Axanar does EVERYTHING in its power to discredit Discovery since they blame it for CBS slamming them down), so I honestly don't even want to know which "latest Discovery rumors from the set, this is total hearsay but have SRS BSNS SOURCES" YouTube video they pulled the "Discovery will erase everything" theory from.

Sounds like that person rode the bus in from Crazy Town.   Probably wears a foil hat to sleep...:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 8:42 AM, Mr.Picard said:

My guess is that they felt they needed the old fans aboard. I mean who else is going to subscribe to CBS All Access just for a Trek series if not the old Trek fans - and telling them "yo, it's another reboot" just might have put them off, given how much a lot of old Trek fandom folks hate the Kelvin timeline reboot. Telling them "this is set before Kirk and Spock in the Prime Timeline" gathers more interest since a lot of old fans DO want to see that timeline.

On the other hand, if this series turns out to be some sort of reboot after all, the fans are going to be FURIOUS that they weren't told from the start (and rightfully so) and this whole thing crashes. It somehow already feels like watching a train that's speeding towards a solid wall with CBS yelling "faster, faster!".

That being said, I'm with you, Founder. They should just reboot it. It's pretty clear they're not exactly interested in keeping up with established Prime timeline canon (same thing ENT was guilty of, only this one seems to be on an even larger scale), and I don't get why they feel this incredible need to antagonize big parts of the fandom like this (as much as I'm tired of eternal fanboy whining and nay-sayers who just look for details to hate by now, some folks DO have a point when they say "why are they doing this"). If they had said right from the start "it's a reboot, the Klingons look different and Spock has an adoptive sister in this timeline", NO one could have screamed "BUT CANON SAYS..." because there would have BEEN no canon for a new timeline. Why did they feel this need to stir up ANOTHER fandom war? We just had two of them, one over ENT and another over the Kelvin timeline. Why this incredible desire to do things that DELIBERATELY upset the fanbase they need? What are they hoping to gain? A divided fandom helps no one, neither their CBS All Access subscription numbers nor the fandom itself.

I just do not get this POV. What would a reboot of the Trek Universe mean, and why would it be necessary? My answer: rebooting is a bad idea for Trek, and it is not necessary in any case. 

First: what would it mean? It would mean that every new version of trek would be a self-contained narrative that is not bound by the narratives of what came before. You gain some storytelling freedom, but you lose so much more. That bargain is one thing in the comic book world, and with franchises like Bond and Sherlock Holmes where the universe is focused on one central character and a half a dozen key details about that character. Another key difference from Trek is that the backdrop of these worlds--be it Spiderman, Batman, Homes or Bond--is a recognizable fictional version of the modern world.  

I would argue that Trek Universe history is the crucial backdrop in Star Trek. A centuries-spanning, galaxy-spanning history rich with characters and good stories has a multiplier effect. So many crucial narrative threads in each of the series carries dramatic weight because of ties to past elements of the Star Trek universe. To rattle off a few: Of the four spin off shows, two of the ships were named Enterprise. Data was the new Spock, and got to meet Spock in a crossover episode. While Picard is the antithesis of Kirk (ie cowboy diplomacy). TNG's "The Wounded" was a dark mirror of "Balance of Terror" but was so good in its own right that it inspired an entire series in DS9, and arguably VOY as well. DS9 was constantly celebrating and critiquing TOS themes. VOY, Janeway in particular, was a running commentary on the Federation values that Picard first gave voice to, and she had a little bit of Kirk swagger mixed in. ENT was a sequel to First Contact and a prequel to TOS. Star Trek's two key ingredients--stories and characters--are in constant communication with one another across the series, they play off of each other. It is part of the fun of the franchise. It is part of its creative mojo: Trek honors it's history while also seeking to reinterpret that history in new ways. We need them all to exist in one big happy universe.

This is what we would lose with a reboot narrative model. And what would we get in return?? Rebooting is not necessary. [Let's bracket the films--because modern blockbusters require such broad, simplistic brush strokes that canon actually is a barrier especially if your intention is to revisit the actual Kirk and Spock, not so much if you chose a different time period]. TV is more flexible. The DSC writers say they are sticking to the rules of canon, and I see no reason yet to think they are lying. Even Kurtzman who is responsible for the Kelvin-verse says that DSC will follow the rules--since he broke the rules by spinning off a new timeline, he knows what he is talking about.

DSC will be canonical. It is happening in the same universe that all Trek has happened in (even portions of the Abrams films), and following in the footsteps of all previous spinoffs by making itself textured and more emotionally rich by tethering its characters and stories to that which came before.  

   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Justin Snead said:

DSC will be canonical. It is happening in the same universe that all Trek has happened in (even portions of the Abrams films), and following in the footsteps of all previous spinoffs by making itself textured and more emotionally rich by tethering its characters and stories to that which came before. 

It will, but it won’t directly line up technologically or even stylistically with “The Cage” or even “Where No Man...” because those shows were made in the mid-1960s and o in a way, it’s already a reboot; just as ENT was a soft-reboot of the ST universe, as was ST09 (did the USS Kelvin really look like something that preceded Kirk’s Enterprise?  Did the NX-01, for that matter?).  

For my two cents, I prefer to think of ENT as a side-universe that was partly created when the Ent-E subtly altered the events of First Contact (all of those people killed at the base HAD to have some kind of an effect on the timeline... as would Lily Sloane’s not being aboard the Phoenix).   In previous canon, there was no NX-01 (it would’ve been on Picard’s wall).   And post-First Contact?  There was.  

That the NX-01 timeline happened to converge with TOS’ timeline was perhaps the same ‘providence’ that Orci and Kurtzman spoke of when they said Kirk meeting older Spock in ST09 was ‘the timeline trying to heal itself’ (yes, against the laws of entropy... whatever; it’s a TV show/movies series). 

For me, the same thing could happen with DSC and I’d be totally okay with it.   While some effort was made to keep the technology close to Kirk’s era, the ships simply look too sophisticated to line up with James T. Kirk’s balsa wood sets and candy-buttoned controls.   And I’m totally okay with that.    ST has to evolve to survive, and changing the aesthetics of it don’t really matter so much.    Some things are just going to be different for a series made in 2017 from one made in 1966. 

For me, it will be a soft reboot no matter what they call it, and I’m fine with it.

21 minutes ago, Justin Snead said:

I would argue that Trek Universe history is the crucial backdrop in Star Trek. A centuries-spanning, galaxy-spanning history rich with characters and good stories has a multiplier effect. So many crucial narrative threads in each of the series carries dramatic weight because of ties to past elements of the Star Trek universe.

I don’t know if the history is as important as new, smarter stories told in a Star Trek-way.   That’s much more important to me than whether we see smooth Klingons, loud tabulating computers or clunkier communicators.    

And once again,  ST09 did very well even though it chucked a lot of that previous history; proving (for me, at least) that the collective history is less important than the storytelling itself. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read this on Twitter: 

“EP Akiva Goldsman mentioned that the timeline for this canon will not occur during the “J.J. or the Kurtzman”-verse but in an area where familiar Star Trek characters will intersect. He also said that this Star Trek is “the most serialized version” that has ever existed, it’s “longform character story telling.” Even more than Deep Space Nine. Goldsman said the new series is set pre-TOS. “It’s a time of war and we’re trying to find out who we are as a federation and a collection of people in the face of adversity,” said the Oscar-winning scribe."

^
This doesn’t really say it’s the prime timeline; it simply says that it’s not in the Kelvinverse.  And that it’s in an area ‘where familiar ST characters will intersect.’   But that doesn’t necessarily scream prime timeline.

Full article from deadline.com here: http://deadline.com/2017/08/ep-alex-kurtzman-explains-initial-delay-in-air-date-with-star-trek-discovery-tca-1202139794/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

I'd rather not see a reboot, for the reasons Justin named: One of the great things about Trek is the vast universe building. I like to immerse myself in the idea it's just one big coherent world.

That's why I am skeptic about multiverses and reboots.

A reimagination, visual overhaul and so on? I'm fine with that. I don't need obviously production based reasons for change in visuals and production values to be explained on screen.

But if they come up with a convincing, not too contrived explanation for the new Klingon style? Even better.:laugh:

Share this post


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

I'd rather not see a reboot, for the reasons Justin named: One of the great things about Trek is the vast universe building. I like to immerse myself in the idea it's just one big coherent world.

But it’s really not that coherent when you think about it; they try to make it all fit, and they do an admirable job for the most part, but there are huge swaths of continuity that are routinely screwed and tampered with.   I think our minds do a better job of editing it and making it fit than the actual show does...:laugh:

This is why I don’t really mind if it’s a soft reboot or not; to me, ST is no different than James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, and I don’t mind those franchises being rebooted either.  Holmes lore is very nearly as dense as Star Trek’s, and it too, was equally fraught with continuity issues.   

2 hours ago, Sim said:

A reimagination, visual overhaul and so on? I'm fine with that. I don't need obviously production based reasons for change in visuals and production values to be explained on screen.

Nor do I.  

Of course, I still remember seeing the new Klingons onscreen in TMP when I was a kid, and they were simply presented as they were with no explanation.  I never lost any sleep over it, and I loved the new look (as well as the new language we heard onscreen for the first time).   I also accepted that Vulcan suddenly looked almost nothing like I remembered from “Amok Time” and that overall Starfleet technology suddenly became generations-improved in “two and a half years.”  

So even at the tender age of 12, I just played along with it.  I quickly recognized that even though this was the same universe as TOS in story, it wasn’t necessarily the same universe in execution.   TMP was, for better or worse, a soft reboot.   

For me, rebooting (soft or otherwise) offers writers/producers a bit more latitude in telling stories, and that is (for me) at the end of the day the most important thing: is DSC going to tell good Star Trek stories, or is it going to be just another space opera using a familiar brand name?   Based on the care taken with the props and other things I’ve seen personally, I’m suspecting the latter.  

35882779252_1f42cbdf23_c.jpg

And I applaud the attempt at keeping some measure of visual continuity (the props are fairly close to TOS, yet retain a bit of a modern vibe), but I’m also realist enough to accept that there is NO way this universe will perfectly align with TOS.   

I just quietly accept that it is a soft reboot; and while some things will remain the same?   Many new things will be thrown at us, like new spacesuits that look ten times more sleek & advanced than the silver wetsuits worn in “The Tholian Web."

35920046121_ea6e319bc0_c.jpgthetholianweb034.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sehlat has a pretty narrow definition of reboot that I suppose I could accept. There are different kinds of reboots. An extreme acceptance of rebootness would potentially entail a reboot of TOS where Captain Kirk is black lesbian from Dubuque. That's the kind of reboot I think would not work with Trek. It damages the franchise--or at least fandom as we know it--to do a Trek where famaliar rules do not apply, canon is inoperative, and anything can happen. Part of the fun of Trek's spwawling history is that we fans carry our knowledge of what came before into a new Trek story.

Some are hearing from the new team: Forget what you know about Klingons, it doesn't apply anymore, just go along with the new version. That's NOT what I think they are saying. I hear this: We're going to take what you know about Klingons, build a backstory onto that in a way that will add to your understanding and appreciation of the entire culture. The second option is just more fun because it engages our genre/fan imaginations whereas the first option actively shuts down our imaginations. 

Larry Nemecek talks about Visual Canon and Conceptual Canon. Conceptional Canon has been pretty consistent. Visual Canon has been less so: some that people have not named much: the Romulans changed for TNG, TNG Klingons changed and even Worf changed from season 1 on; the Borg changed for First Contact and VOY. 

But the main aspect of visual canon that is a sticking point for some fans is the look of the ships and technology. I think the reason Trek fans of a certain age care so much about visual canon is because of the accidental coincidence of Hollywood production with the historical jump from Kirk to Picard era. Because TNG came 20 years after TOS, the 24th Century technology looked like it could be 80 years more advanced. Because TNG, DS9 and VOY all were produced in the same decade and by the same design team, there was great visual consistency. ENT was the first crack in this consistency but it was never going to be upheld. If DSC was set 10 years before TNG would we really be calling for a return to 80s production values? If in your head canon you decide to value the conceptional over the visual, some of the changes in fiture Treks will be easier to accept.         

Edited by Justin Snead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2017 at 7:42 AM, Mr.Picard said:

My guess is that they felt they needed the old fans aboard. I mean who else is going to subscribe to CBS All Access just for a Trek series if not the old Trek fans - and telling them "yo, it's another reboot" just might have put them off, given how much a lot of old Trek fandom folks hate the Kelvin timeline reboot. Telling them "this is set before Kirk and Spock in the Prime Timeline" gathers more interest since a lot of old fans DO want to see that timeline.

On the other hand, if this series turns out to be some sort of reboot after all, the fans are going to be FURIOUS that they weren't told from the start (and rightfully so) and this whole thing crashes. It somehow already feels like watching a train that's speeding towards a solid wall with CBS yelling "faster, faster!".

That being said, I'm with you, Founder. They should just reboot it. It's pretty clear they're not exactly interested in keeping up with established Prime timeline canon (same thing ENT was guilty of, only this one seems to be on an even larger scale), and I don't get why they feel this incredible need to antagonize big parts of the fandom like this (as much as I'm tired of eternal fanboy whining and nay-sayers who just look for details to hate by now, some folks DO have a point when they say "why are they doing this"). If they had said right from the start "it's a reboot, the Klingons look different and Spock has an adoptive sister in this timeline", NO one could have screamed "BUT CANON SAYS..." because there would have BEEN no canon for a new timeline. Why did they feel this need to stir up ANOTHER fandom war? We just had two of them, one over ENT and another over the Kelvin timeline. Why this incredible desire to do things that DELIBERATELY upset the fanbase they need? What are they hoping to gain? A divided fandom helps no one, neither their CBS All Access subscription numbers nor the fandom itself.

You perfectly wrote exactly how I feel. That is exactly how I feel about all of it. From agreement that this is a cheap attempt to lure old fans to even how some nay-sayers have good points and others are just whiny nit-pickers.

I get the strategy behind trying to get us to come back to Trek. It's a smart one. But my principle concern is how utterly pointless it was to hit our nostalgia button if .... the show looks nothing like the Cage-era. I get that they are not going to seriously do a show where jelly beans are the buttons on the control. I am fine with that. It doesn't even look like an updated version of the Cage or circa that era. It honestly looks like ENT meets Kelvin-era. Which is fine by me. It would have made way more sense to do a Kelvin-era show. Why not? They made it such a stubborn point that this is the prime time line and then made something that looks nothing like it. It makes no sense.

In any other show - literally any other show - I wouldn't have cared. The reason it is so jarring to me is because the other shows painfully, meticulously, in full detail, made it a point to show that the TOS era .... really did look like that. As goofy, pseudo-steam punkish, "primitive" as it was - the other shows in stark detail rebuilt those sets for TNG, ENT, and DS9. The whole idea of "pretend it always really looked like STD." makes no sense to me in Star Trek.

It's funny you brought up ENT because I feel a lot of regret for how I treated it when it started. Say what you will about ENT - it did try to stick to canon. It just skirted that line (and at times skipped over it).

I completely agree that this is so pointless. They clearly have their own take on Trek they want to pursue (which is completely fine). Go for it. My version of Trek is out dated. I completely agree. Hell, even DS9's alien techology looks outdated. But why bother forcing this idea that this IS the prime time line and there is virtually nothing familiar with it. So all this time Spock had a sister? I know, I know. Star Trek V did that with his brother. Yeah and last I checked ... most people HATED that. It just makes no sense. Between Abram's convoluted black hole time travel and this? It is so obvious that the intense lore of Trek built by TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT is intimidating to writers. They don't want to wade through article after article on Memory Alpha to ensure they have canon. (which is why the smarter idea would be to jump 100 years after Nemesis. That way they can have the most advanced tech they want, new aliens, new uniforms, new ships, etc). But oh well....

Hopefully the show will be good ..... Let me not make the same mistake I made with ENT. I'm giving Discovery a chance. I think, the one thing I will applaud Abrams for is this - he helped me let go of my old Trek. It ain't coming back but watch this newer, "edgier" Trek. Well ... here we go. :P

On 7/31/2017 at 8:29 AM, Mr.Picard said:

For real tho. Someone on Twitter recently actually tried to tell me "Discovery will erase the Prime Timeline!!!" and I was like "oh so your DVDs on your shelves are going to mysteriously vanish as well or what?"

tumblr_m3tqv7endK1r81219o1_250.gif

I'm embarrassed to say I was one of those fans - in a way. I didn't literally think it would disappear. haha but when Abramsverse came out and they said it was like a soft reboot over the original time line. I literally did feel that this was the end of Trek (as I knew it). So it made me feel sad I'd never get answers to what happened to TNG/DS9/VOY post-Nemesis (outside of the novels). But I've come to peace with that. (as over dramatic as that sounds haha)

On 8/1/2017 at 9:21 PM, Justin Snead said:

I just do not get this POV. What would a reboot of the Trek Universe mean, and why would it be necessary? My answer: rebooting is a bad idea for Trek, and it is not necessary in any case. 

First: what would it mean? It would mean that every new version of trek would be a self-contained narrative that is not bound by the narratives of what came before. You gain some storytelling freedom, but you lose so much more. That bargain is one thing in the comic book world, and with franchises like Bond and Sherlock Holmes where the universe is focused on one central character and a half a dozen key details about that character. Another key difference from Trek is that the backdrop of these worlds--be it Spiderman, Batman, Homes or Bond--is a recognizable fictional version of the modern world.  

I would argue that Trek Universe history is the crucial backdrop in Star Trek. A centuries-spanning, galaxy-spanning history rich with characters and good stories has a multiplier effect. So many crucial narrative threads in each of the series carries dramatic weight because of ties to past elements of the Star Trek universe. To rattle off a few: Of the four spin off shows, two of the ships were named Enterprise. Data was the new Spock, and got to meet Spock in a crossover episode. While Picard is the antithesis of Kirk (ie cowboy diplomacy). TNG's "The Wounded" was a dark mirror of "Balance of Terror" but was so good in its own right that it inspired an entire series in DS9, and arguably VOY as well. DS9 was constantly celebrating and critiquing TOS themes. VOY, Janeway in particular, was a running commentary on the Federation values that Picard first gave voice to, and she had a little bit of Kirk swagger mixed in. ENT was a sequel to First Contact and a prequel to TOS. Star Trek's two key ingredients--stories and characters--are in constant communication with one another across the series, they play off of each other. It is part of the fun of the franchise. It is part of its creative mojo: Trek honors it's history while also seeking to reinterpret that history in new ways. We need them all to exist in one big happy universe.

This is what we would lose with a reboot narrative model. And what would we get in return?? Rebooting is not necessary. [Let's bracket the films--because modern blockbusters require such broad, simplistic brush strokes that canon actually is a barrier especially if your intention is to revisit the actual Kirk and Spock, not so much if you chose a different time period]. TV is more flexible. The DSC writers say they are sticking to the rules of canon, and I see no reason yet to think they are lying. Even Kurtzman who is responsible for the Kelvin-verse says that DSC will follow the rules--since he broke the rules by spinning off a new timeline, he knows what he is talking about.

DSC will be canonical. It is happening in the same universe that all Trek has happened in (even portions of the Abrams films), and following in the footsteps of all previous spinoffs by making itself textured and more emotionally rich by tethering its characters and stories to that which came before.  

 

It would mean closure for old Trek. It would mean giving the writers the freedom to write whatever they'd like free of any backlash (well .... Trek fans always unleash backlash but ... a smaller portion of it). It would mean "updating" Trek to fit with what we know of technology. It would mean losing the focus on all the "changes" and putting it where it belongs: on the story and the characters. I think it would be really good if the old Trek was put to a close after decades of amazing stories and characters. Why not start anew?

Necessary might not be the right word. But it seems like that is what they want because Abramsverse and (seemingly) DSC are soft reboots in all but name only. It it obvious by how the writers stay away from the TNG-era like a plague. It's obvious they don't want to continue the rich story set there. They keep hiding behind a revamped version of Kirk's era. They want new uniforms, new look for aliens, newer looking technology, etc. They clearly want a reboot but fear doing it because of how it will anger fans. Axanar - whatever it was going to be - looked "updated" and "new" (as new as a fan film will allow) but still seemed true to the original.

No, I am not advocating constantly rebooting every single spin off going forward with DSC. I agree with you that it would break the really expansive, rich lore you get from a shared universe. But I think due to how "outdated" TOS and TNG eras are - it might be best to just start with a fresh slate. Again - why not? They're doing it in every possible way except in name only.

You have to ask yourself this: if they are fighting hard to do a "prime time line" story - why does it look nothing like the original universe? Why do they always run back to hide in Kirk's era? Because they don't want to push beyond TNG-era. Too much work for them.

And for the record: I am not one of those unreasonable fans that want jelly bean buttons, terrible alien make up, and the ship held up on string. But nothing about this looks like Trek prime time line. Nothing. It's one thing if they updated it but it still feels slightly like the Cage but I see nothing recognizable from it. To be fair - I am going off of quick flashes in a trailer. It's why I'd rather watch the show before really judging it. But ... I have very little else to go off of at this point in the discussion.

As Mr. Picard said - this has been an ongoing "battle" since ENT. Then onto Abramsverse. Now this. You'd think they would be tired of the mine field of canon and just start new.

Share this post


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

It would mean closure for old Trek. It would mean giving the writers the freedom to write whatever they'd like free of any backlash (well .... Trek fans always unleash backlash but ... a smaller portion of it). It would mean "updating" Trek to fit with what we know of technology. It would mean losing the focus on all the "changes" and putting it where it belongs: on the story and the characters. I think it would be really good if the old Trek was put to a close after decades of amazing stories and characters. Why not start anew?

Necessary might not be the right word. But it seems like that is what they want because Abramsverse and (seemingly) DSC are soft reboots in all but name only. It it obvious by how the writers stay away from the TNG-era like a plague. It's obvious they don't want to continue the rich story set there. They keep hiding behind a revamped version of Kirk's era. They want new uniforms, new look for aliens, newer looking technology, etc. They clearly want a reboot but fear doing it because of how it will anger fans. Axanar - whatever it was going to be - looked "updated" and "new" (as new as a fan film will allow) but still seemed true to the original.

No, I am not advocating constantly rebooting every single spin off going forward with DSC. I agree with you that it would break the really expansive, rich lore you get from a shared universe. But I think due to how "outdated" TOS and TNG eras are - it might be best to just start with a fresh slate. Again - why not? They're doing it in every possible way except in name only.

You have to ask yourself this: if they are fighting hard to do a "prime time line" story - why does it look nothing like the original universe? Why do they always run back to hide in Kirk's era? Because they don't want to push beyond TNG-era. Too much work for them.

And for the record: I am not one of those unreasonable fans that want jelly bean buttons, terrible alien make up, and the ship held up on string. But nothing about this looks like Trek prime time line. Nothing. It's one thing if they updated it but it still feels slightly like the Cage but I see nothing recognizable from it. To be fair - I am going off of quick flashes in a trailer. It's why I'd rather watch the show before really judging it. But ... I have very little else to go off of at this point in the discussion.

As Mr. Picard said - this has been an ongoing "battle" since ENT. Then onto Abramsverse. Now this. You'd think they would be tired of the mine field of canon and just start new.

You and Mr Picard make good points ... but I still hate the idea of a (not just visual, but conceptional) reboot (I have no problems whatsoever with a total visual reboot, as long as the stories respect canon -- like watching the same play at different theatres will look differently). I'm so invested in the original canon (even when I am much less nitpicky about it than others -- I feel even the real world is often contradictory and incoherent, no need for a fictional canon to be even more coherent :giggle: -- but the general cornerstones of established canon should be respected), that it would yield a huge frustration for me, if they just skipped it (it's okay for a movie every 3 years, because I don't really see the NuTrek movies as "real" Star Trek, regardless of my enjoyment of these movies).

For me, one side of Star Trek has always been the characters and the stories -- but another important aspect is its fictional universe and history. And isn't the point of "universe building" that you flesh out different aspects of a fictional universe, than telling the very same, very limited story within that universe over and over again, making a reboot every time anew? That way, you don't build a universe, you destroy it.

So why don't they just place it further in the future, beyond the TNG/DS9 24th century era? That would have been by far the smartest move to please all people (because let's face it, there is no way whatsoever to please the "Shatnerkirk only"-crowds anyway).

I just see no point whatsoever in rehashing and warming up last night's meal with a new sauce on it, when this means all my investment in the old universe (especially anything in the 24th century) becomes useless. Why this fixation and obsession with the TOS era? The ST universe is sooooo much larger, it's just an incredibly stupid self-limitation to always go back to this tiny excerpt.

 

Perhaps that makes me realize that as much as I love TOS, I feel really more at home in TNG/DS9. Star Trek is more than just Kirk/Spock and TOS, and has been for 30 years. It's just frustrating when they kick TNG/DS9 perpetually in the face by saying "oh, these shows don't matter, because remaking TOS is much, much more important than even acknowledging TNG/DS9 existed in canon".

Another hard TOS reboot would just reek like saying "TNG/DS9/VOY was a mistake, let's pretend it never happened".

And if that's what they're communicating? They can go f*** themselves and shove their new version of Star Trek *beep*, as far as I am concerned.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good debate. I hope I don't come off as trying to force anyones opinion. I'm not, but it's fun to debate this. I want to acknowledge that the emotions are strong especially on the side of the fans who are hurt and disappointed--I've been there, and it sucks. Still, the debate is worth having. 

Some counterpoints to The Founder's points:

1) It is not at all clear that the DSC writers room doesn't want to do their canon homework. Everything Im reading suggests they are, and that they are loving it. Again, we have a great and very recent counter-example with the last three films. The Bad Robot team told us plainly that they could not write those movies and adhere to strict canon (and lest we forget they were clear they were not rebooting TOS but creating a new timeline. In a sense they significantly added to the precedent that you don't do a hard reboot of Trek.) But the DSC writers including Kurtzman are telling us that they fully intend to follow canon.

2) I find it interesting that some fans want to "continue the story" of the TNG era. What story is that? The exploits of Captain Riker and Admiral Janeway and Seven of Nine helping restore the Federation after the Dominion War? That's not mining new territory or boldly going anywhere but rehashing storylines that have already reached closure. One of the reasons a slew of post-Nemesis writers have pointedly not wanted to visit the post TNG/VOY era--including that guy who was writing a Romulan War movie before Abrams came onboard--is that it's not clear what kind of story opportunities are available. Now you could say, just get back to basics and send a ship exploring the edge of known space only set it in the future. Ok, but if that is the case there is no reason you could not do that in any era of Trek history. But setting it in one of the Trek history gaps gives you canon to play against. Trek history engenders story ideas for these writers--whereas a post-Nemesis future is a blank page. The compelling reason to set it in that future is visual canon can be protected...

3) Trek producers cannot care as much about visual canon as some of us do. They try to honor it with grace notes, but no modern show is going to have sets and visual effects that mimic what was done in the mid 60s.  

4) Some advice for fans feeling burned. I argue that conceptual canon is more important and that is why I don't let ENT into my head cannon. I cant accept that that ship of fools are the pioneers of the Trek universe that I love. If you prize visual canon then you can exclude DSC from your head canon.               

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the DSC writers' panel I attended here in Vegas yesterday afternoon; DSC is set in the prime timeline.  Yes, it will look somewhat different (they cited both TMP and TWOK as evidence of ST's changing visual styles within the same timeline).  

I was wrong.  It IS the prime timeline.  But I was half-right in assuming that they're not strictly adhering to the visual language of that timeline. 

Share this post


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

From the DSC writers' panel I attended here in Vegas yesterday afternoon; DSC is set in the prime timeline.  Yes, it will look somewhat different (they cited both TMP and TWOK as evidence of ST's changing visual styles within the same timeline).  

I was wrong.  It IS the prime timeline.  But I was half-right in assuming that they're not strictly adhering to the visual language of that timeline. 

That's great news, IMO!

As I said above, I'd have rather seen a post-24th century show, 25th or 28th or whatever century -- but since it's pre-TOS, the least the can do is IMO not rebooting once again, but staying in the prime timeline. And as Justin said in his point 1), it doesn't mean it can't be done by respecting canon. It really just requires the writers to care. It's really not difficult these days, with sites like Memory Alpha -- the authors of the novels do it all the time, and most of the time, successfully so.

As for the visual reboot? I don't mind that at all. As you said, it was done before: TMP was a visual reboot compared to TOS, and then, TWOK was another visual reboot compared to TMP.

27 years ago, when I first saw these movies, it was a bit weird at first, but I quickly got used to it. In the end, nothing substantial about the *universe* it was set in was changed -- if DSC will be the same? I'm fine with it. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for why they stick to the TOS era: TOS is the most well-known and most iconic series. Kirk and Spock are cultural icons, at least in the US and, to a lesser degree, also in other countries. No random non-fannish person on the street would recognize Sisko or Janeway on a pic, but show them Kirk and Spock and they'll probably either say "it's the guys from Star Wars!" (right direction) or they will point at Spock and say "That's Spock!". Show them a picture of Jean-Luc and you'll get blank stares from anyone who isn't around my age and saw TNG somewhere on television in the 90s when they were a kid or teenager. That's the best you could hope for. People recognize Kirk and Spock. That's why Discovery came with "Before Kirk and Spock..." advertising. This is why TOS was rebooted. It's the cult series. None of the other series are as recognizable to anyone who isn't a Trekkie.

This is why the studio, frankly, isn't INTERESTED in continuing after Nemesis. Nemesis almost drowned the entire franchise. It was the final straw that made the studio realize that they need to look elsewhere for money (their much-promoted "franchise fatigue", etc). If you want to revive something with a new and wider audience in mind, you go to what most people recognize. Which is TOS.

View it like this:

They made Nemesis. It tanked (because it was terrible, but that's not what the studio looks at).

They re-mastered TNG in high definition in an incredibly expensive process, thinking "this will make tons of money, fans love TNG, they will pay". But, nope. The sales numbers were VERY bad (because the Blu Rays were ridiculously expensive at first and people were just waiting for it all to be on Netflix, there wasn't much of a market for something a lot of fans already had on DVD, they simply looked at the price and said "No way, Imma wait for it to be on Netflix/whatever streaming service" - but none of this is what the studio looks at, in their eyes it's always the evil fans who didn't want their mega expensive Blu Rays).

So, why should they be interested in doing anything that continues where Nemesis/TNG left off? What's to gain other than some approval from 90s Trek fans (who would gladly tear apart ANYTHING that wouldn't be like the Trek they grew up with, let's be realistic here, the reactions would be as vicious, just of a different kind - nostalgia is VERY powerful)? In the eyes of CBS, the post Nemesis era looks like a road filled with nails through which they would have to steer their car.

Sure, TNG was the most successful series on a commercial level, no one's questioning that. But, to the studio, it's uninteresting now because to them it seems like it no longer brings in the money they want - they tell themselves "if not even the most successful series on a commercial level can bring in dollars these days, whatever came after it will do even worse, let's stay away from this". (This is also why we won't get DS9 and/or VOY on Blu Ray unless a VERY rich fan steps in and pays for the entire process.) And also, the huge load of canon that comes with a show set after TNG. The fans always ask for it enthusiastically, but the amount of canon knowledge needed for this is enormous and not to be underestimated (I write post Nemesis stuff and I mostly ignore DS9 and VOY but even I spend a lot of time on Memory Alpha just getting the TNG part right AND I know the show by heart AND I don't even rely heavily on space happenings). I almost can't blame CBS for not wanting to dive into something like this although their real reason for it is a lot more simple: Money and fear of not making enough of it. They make Star Trek for PROFIT, not the fans. (Without fans, no profit, of course - they DO tend to forget this part of the equation, granted.) Sure they could do a show set WAAAAY in the future, after EVERYTHING, and fans are asking for this and it makes sense from a fan perspective but for the studio? Probably not. Because, where is the "ah this is familiar" aspect? TNG was familiar to fans and other people alike because TOS was a cult series and they could advertise it as a continuation of a cult series. EVERYONE knew Kirk and Spock. They were ICONS. Imagine CBS advertising a new series with "50 years after Picard, Janeway and Sisko". Most people would be like "Who? They were in Star Trek? Wasn't that the show with that pointy-eared dude? Which one was he? I'm confused."

tl;dr: Trekkies always tend to view the franchise from their perspective, which is the one of someone who is familiar even with the tiniest nuances of the whole timeline (which is why you get so many detailed suggestions if you ask 'what would you put into a new Trek series, when and where would you set it', you get TONS of canon-based suggestions with detailed plots) - but this is not the perspective the studio has. The studio says "what do people recognize the most? TOS? Okay, let's go with a show set in that era, just make it look more modern and shiny". Don't get me wrong, I don't like any of this either, I think the TOS era has been overdone a zillion times and I'm sick and tired of it by now as well, but for now the TOS era is where the studio thinks the money is, and we will soon see if that assessment is correct, and we will see it once and for all, because if Discovery tanks there's a strong possiblity that CBS won't touch Trek again for a long time.

It IS risky, what they are doing is alienating a LOT of fans who have been disappointed with the franchise for quite some time now, and they just might have shot themselves in the foot with all of this, but then, from their perspective it does make sense to go after the era that has the most money in it in their eyes. As I said, Fuller did suggest an anthology, but they said "no we'll just go with the TOS part of it all for now" - which really says it all. TOS is where it's at for them. They couldn't have made it any more clear. The fact that this angers huge parts of their already-angry fanbase seems to elude them completely OR they think "whatever, they'll pay anyway to watch the show". (This kind of mindset is as outdated as the whole "they will pay for our outrageously expensive TNG Blu Rays anyway", of course, and I for one fear that this is the "final straw" for a lot of fans now. The studio put them through ENT, they put them through the Kelvin timeline, but I for one wonder if those fans will allow them to push them through ANOTHER thing they didn't want, especially now that they've put it behind a pay wall in the US whose Trek fanbase is still huge. Of course this could still turn out to be a success, Discovery could be REALLY good and fans could grow to like it, much like it happened with TNG, but in today's climate of social media hate I somehow find this difficult to believe. I'm a pessimist, sorry.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
3 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Good debate. I hope I don't come off as trying to force anyones opinion. I'm not, but it's fun to debate this. I want to acknowledge that the emotions are strong especially on the side of the fans who are hurt and disappointed--I've been there, and it sucks. Still, the debate is worth having. 

Some counterpoints to The Founder's points:

1) It is not at all clear that the DSC writers room doesn't want to do their canon homework. Everything Im reading suggests they are, and that they are loving it. Again, we have a great and very recent counter-example with the last three films. The Bad Robot team told us plainly that they could not write those movies and adhere to strict canon (and lest we forget they were clear they were not rebooting TOS but creating a new timeline. In a sense they significantly added to the precedent that you don't do a hard reboot of Trek.) But the DSC writers including Kurtzman are telling us that they fully intend to follow canon.

2) I find it interesting that some fans want to "continue the story" of the TNG era. What story is that? The exploits of Captain Riker and Admiral Janeway and Seven of Nine helping restore the Federation after the Dominion War? That's not mining new territory or boldly going anywhere but rehashing storylines that have already reached closure. One of the reasons a slew of post-Nemesis writers have pointedly not wanted to visit the post TNG/VOY era--including that guy who was writing a Romulan War movie before Abrams came onboard--is that it's not clear what kind of story opportunities are available. Now you could say, just get back to basics and send a ship exploring the edge of known space only set it in the future. Ok, but if that is the case there is no reason you could not do that in any era of Trek history. But setting it in one of the Trek history gaps gives you canon to play against. Trek history engenders story ideas for these writers--whereas a post-Nemesis future is a blank page. The compelling reason to set it in that future is visual canon can be protected...

3) Trek producers cannot care as much about visual canon as some of us do. They try to honor it with grace notes, but no modern show is going to have sets and visual effects that mimic what was done in the mid 60s.  

4) Some advice for fans feeling burned. I argue that conceptual canon is more important and that is why I don't let ENT into my head cannon. I cant accept that that ship of fools are the pioneers of the Trek universe that I love. If you prize visual canon then you can exclude DSC from your head canon.               

Interesting points! As for 1), I agree, it can be done. As I said above, the authors of the novels have no troubles using Memory Alpha or consulting with others to make their novels fit into canon -- it really just requires the writers to care, nothing more.

As for 2), for me personally, I feel we got a great continuation of the post-NEM stories in the novels. They're head canon for me, and I'd rather not see new "official" shows changing that head canon once again, by contradicting the post-NEM novels.

My support for a post-24th century show is more along the lines of what you said in the end of that paragraph: A new ship, basically "Star Trek: The Third Generation". The same they did when they went on from TOS to TNG in 1987. They would have all freedom they want, both visually and creatively, *and* they could acknowledge established canon -- *expanding* it, do real universe building by making it larger.

As for a post-NEM story with TNG/DS9/VOY characters? I understand that would be real fan pleasing, I guess, but I think it could be worthwhile for one or three tv movies, or a limited miniseries. Maybe we don't really need that ... but I think it would be nice, because NEM was really not such a great farewell for the TNG crew, IMO.

As for 3), I have no problems with a visual reimagination... as long as the new visuals are true to the spirit of the established visuals. What do I mean by that? I dunno... Klingons shouldn't suddenly have blue skin, and Vulcans shouldn't suddenly look like crustaceans. But when they look differently, yet I recognize them? AND they look cool? Fair enough.

 

16 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

As for why they stick to the TOS era: TOS is the most well-known and most iconic series. Kirk and Spock are cultural icons, at least in the US and, to a lesser degree, also in other countries. No random non-fannish person on the street would recognize Sisko or Janeway on a pic, but show them Kirk and Spock and they'll probably either say "it's the guys from Star Wars!" (right direction) or they will point at Spock and say "That's Spock!". Show them a picture of Jean-Luc and you'll get blank stares from anyone who isn't around my age and saw TNG somewhere on television in the 90s when they were a kid or teenager. That's the best you could hope for. People recognize Kirk and Spock. That's why Discovery came with "Before Kirk and Spock..." advertising. This is why TOS was rebooted. It's the cult series. None of the other series are as recognizable to anyone who isn't a Trekkie.

This is why the studio, frankly, isn't INTERESTED in continuing after Nemesis. Nemesis almost drowned the entire franchise. It was the final straw that made the studio realize that they need to look elsewhere for money (their much-promoted "franchise fatigue", etc). If you want to revive something with a new and wider audience in mind, you go to what most people recognize. Which is TOS.

View it like this:

They made Nemesis. It tanked (because it was terrible, but that's not what the studio looks at).

They re-mastered TNG in high definition in an incredibly expensive process, thinking "this will make tons of money, fans love TNG, they will pay". But, nope. The sales numbers were VERY bad (because the Blu Rays were ridiculously expensive at first and people were just waiting for it all to be on Netflix, there wasn't much of a market for something a lot of fans already had on DVD, they simply looked at the price and said "No way, Imma wait for it to be on Netflix/whatever streaming service" - but none of this is what the studio looks at, in their eyes it's always the evil fans who didn't want their mega expensive Blu Rays).

So, why should they be interested in doing anything that continues where Nemesis/TNG left off? What's to gain other than some approval from 90s Trek fans (who would gladly tear apart ANYTHING that wouldn't be like the Trek they grew up with, let's be realistic here, the reactions would be as vicious, just of a different kind - nostalgia is VERY powerful)? In the eyes of CBS, the post Nemesis era looks like a road filled with nails through which they would have to steer their car.

Sure, TNG was the most successful series on a commercial level, no one's questioning that. But, to the studio, it's uninteresting now because to them it seems like it no longer brings in the money they want - they tell themselves "if not even the most successful series on a commercial level can bring in dollars these days, whatever came after it will do even worse, let's stay away from this". (This is also why we won't get DS9 and/or VOY on Blu Ray unless a VERY rich fan steps in and pays for the entire process.) And also, the huge load of canon that comes with a show set after TNG. The fans always ask for it enthusiastically, but the amount of canon knowledge needed for this is enormous and not to be underestimated (I write post Nemesis stuff and I mostly ignore DS9 and VOY but even I spend a lot of time on Memory Alpha just getting the TNG part right AND I know the show by heart AND I don't even rely heavily on space happenings). I almost can't blame CBS for not wanting to dive into something like this although their real reason for it is a lot more simple: Money and fear of not making enough of it. They make Star Trek for PROFIT, not the fans. (Without fans, no profit, of course - they DO tend to forget this part of the equation, granted.) Sure they could do a show set WAAAAY in the future, after EVERYTHING, and fans are asking for this and it makes sense from a fan perspective but for the studio? Probably not. Because, where is the "ah this is familiar" aspect? TNG was familiar to fans and other people alike because TOS was a cult series and they could advertise it as a continuation of a cult series. EVERYONE knew Kirk and Spock. They were ICONS. Imagine CBS advertising a new series with "50 years after Picard, Janeway and Sisko". Most people would be like "Who? They were in Star Trek? Wasn't that the show with that pointy-eared dude? Which one was he? I'm confused."

tl;dr: Trekkies always tend to view the franchise from their perspective, which is the one of someone who is familiar even with the tiniest nuances of the whole timeline (which is why you get so many detailed suggestions if you ask 'what would you put into a new Trek series, when and where would you set it', you get TONS of canon-based suggestions with detailed plots) - but this is not the perspective the studio has. The studio says "what do people recognize the most? TOS? Okay, let's go with a show set in that era, just make it look more modern and shiny". Don't get me wrong, I don't like any of this either, I think the TOS era has been overdone a zillion times and I'm sick and tired of it by now as well, but for now the TOS era is where the studio thinks the money is, and we will soon see if that assessment is correct, and we will see it once and for all, because if Discovery tanks there's a strong possiblity that CBS won't touch Trek again for a long time.

It IS risky, what they are doing is alienating a LOT of fans who have been disappointed with the franchise for quite some time now, and they just might have shot themselves in the foot with all of this, but then, from their perspective it does make sense to go after the era that has the most money in it in their eyes. As I said, Fuller did suggest an anthology, but they said "no we'll just go with the TOS part of it all for now" - which really says it all. TOS is where it's at for them. They couldn't have made it any more clear. The fact that this angers huge parts of their already-angry fanbase seems to elude them completely OR they think "whatever, they'll pay anyway to watch the show". (This kind of mindset is as outdated as the whole "they will pay for our outrageously expensive TNG Blu Rays anyway", of course, and I for one fear that this is the "final straw" for a lot of fans now. The studio put them through ENT, they put them through the Kelvin timeline, but I for one wonder if those fans will allow them to push them through ANOTHER thing they didn't want, especially now that they've put it behind a pay wall in the US whose Trek fanbase is still huge. Of course this could still turn out to be a success, Discovery could be REALLY good and fans could grow to like it, much like it happened with TNG, but in today's climate of social media hate I somehow find this difficult to believe. I'm a pessimist, sorry.)

Guess you're right about the reasoning among the studio suits...

But then, casual viewers who recognize Spock, because he's iconic, don't care enough about this fictional universe anyway. As long as you're not showing Kirk and Spock literally? You could as well make a show situated in the 25th century, respecting established 24th century canon -- and just make lots of nods to TOS.

For example, by including a lead character who is Vulcan and is basically an "updated Spock". The casual viewers who feel TOS is iconic? They'd swallow it perhaps even more, than a "show before Kirk and Spock" that doesn't even have a Spock in it.

Canon is only important for Trekkies. What's important for non-fans for whom Kirk/Spock are icons? Superficial recognition value, that's all. You can easily make such a show by pleasing both crowds: Respecting canon AND filling it with lots of recognition value.

Edited by Sim

Share this post


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

 

Guess you're right about the reasoning among the studio suits...

But then, casual viewers who recognize Spock, because he's iconic, don't care enough about this fictional universe anyway. As long as you're not showing Kirk and Spock literally? You could as well make a show situated in the 25th century, respecting established 24th century canon -- and just make lots of nods to TOS.

For example, by including a lead character who is Vulcan and is basically an "updated Spock". The casual viewers who feel TOS is iconic? They'd swallow it perhaps even more, than a "show before Kirk and Spock" that doesn't even have a Spock in it.

Canon is only important for Trekkies. What's important for non-fans for whom Kirk/Spock are icons? Superficial recognition value, that's all. You can easily make such a show by pleasing both crowds: Respecting canon AND filling it with lots of recognition value.

The studio doesn't think "they don't care enough anyway". They think "we need to make precisely these casual viewers who recognize Spock interested in our show". They just want to draw them in, not by making the show about Spock but by mentioning him during advertising and giving people an incentive to check out the show. To make it clear that somehow, this show has to do with Spock (and I bet this sort of thinking is one reason why they decided to have Sarek AND why they also HEAVILY advertise Burnham as Spock's adoptive sister - Spock here, Spock there, Spock everywhere, even the Kelvin timeline had Old Timeline Spock, and for a good reason since Spock is THE Star Trek icon, more so than Kirk could ever try to be).

It's true that canon details are only important to Trekkies, no argument there. Which is exactly why Discovery is ditching so many of them now with the Klingon redesign, the non-recognizable supposedly TOS era look at the ships, etc - angering so many Trekkies. They clearly don't have just the Trekkies in mind, as much as everyone involved claims how much the show will be "true to Star Trek" and whatnot - what CBS wants, as much as Paramount did with the reboots - is to attract a wider audience than just Trekkies. They also want casual viewers who are casually familiar with the franchise. It's not easy to make such a show at all - it may sound easy for a Trekkie, but the people at CBS are NOT Trekkies. They're people in suits running a corporation that is interested in profit margins and sale numbers. They don't look at Star Trek with the love a Trekkie has, they look at it through the cold eyes of capitalism. That's why Fuller was "let go" - he had the right ideas with an anthology series, he knew what a lot of fans wanted - but the studio wouldn't have it. It didn't sound profitable to them, so they kicked him out and moved on with some of his ideas in mind (those that were probably also not that expensive).

Regardless of anything, it's a very fine line between respecting canon and recognition value, a line that, for quite a while, the ones in power haven't exactly managed to walk on very well (ENT, Nemesis, Kelvin timeline), at least not in the eyes of a lot of Trekkies, hence their attitude towards Discovery, which, to their ears, sounds just like more of the same "we kick canon in the guts because this is not your father's Star Trek" mantra.

CBS doesn't want to please the Trekkies (if CBS wanted to do that they would have gone along with Fuller's anthology idea). CBS wants to sell its show to as many people as possible, as heartbreaking as this might sound to "I no longer recognize this, this looks just like yet another generic sci-fi series" Trekkies.

Share this post


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

The studio doesn't think "they don't care enough anyway". They think "we need to make precisely these casual viewers who recognize Spock interested in our show". They just want to draw them in, not by making the show about Spock but by mentioning him during advertising and giving people an incentive to check out the show. To make it clear that somehow, this show has to do with Spock (and I bet this sort of thinking is one reason why they decided to have Sarek AND why they also HEAVILY advertise Burnham as Spock's adoptive sister - Spock here, Spock there, Spock everywhere, even the Kelvin timeline had Old Timeline Spock, and for a good reason since Spock is THE Star Trek icon, more so than Kirk could ever try to be).

It's true that canon details are only important to Trekkies, no argument there. Which is exactly why Discovery is ditching so many of them now with the Klingon redesign, the non-recognizable supposedly TOS era look at the ships, etc - angering so many Trekkies. They clearly don't have just the Trekkies in mind, as much as everyone involved claims how much the show will be "true to Star Trek" and whatnot - what CBS wants, as much as Paramount did with the reboots - is to attract a wider audience than just Trekkies. They also want casual viewers who are casually familiar with the franchise. It's not easy to make such a show at all - it may sound easy for a Trekkie, but the people at CBS are NOT Trekkies. They're people in suits running a corporation that is interested in profit margins and sale numbers. They don't look at Star Trek with the love a Trekkie has, they look at it through the cold eyes of capitalism. That's why Fuller was "let go" - he had the right ideas with an anthology series, he knew what a lot of fans wanted - but the studio wouldn't have it. It didn't sound profitable to them, so they kicked him out and moved on with some of his ideas in mind (those that were probably also not that expensive).

Regardless of anything, it's a very fine line between respecting canon and recognition value, a line that, for quite a while, the ones in power haven't exactly managed to walk on very well (ENT, Nemesis, Kelvin timeline), at least not in the eyes of a lot of Trekkies, hence their attitude towards Discovery, which, to their ears, sounds just like more of the same "we kick canon in the guts because this is not your father's Star Trek" mantra.

CBS doesn't want to please the Trekkies (if CBS wanted to do that they would have gone along with Fuller's anthology idea). CBS wants to sell its show to as many people as possible, as heartbreaking as this might sound to "I no longer recognize this, this looks just like yet another generic sci-fi series" Trekkies.

But the point is, the show *will not sell* if it's Star Trek by name only.

Even when the suits have certain marketing ideas in mind, they should better be wise enough to give the creative team at least enough leeway to please (a large) number of viewers -- because even consumers are usually not so dumb they won't recognize fraud.

I understand that is a tightrope walk, between business and art -- but the suits concerned with the business side should better be smart enough to realize they shouldn't kill the chicken (but rather feed it well) if they want to sell eggs on a regular basis.

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
Sign in to follow this