Sign in to follow this  
prometheus59650

The Klingon Redesign?

Recommended Posts

It's a false choice between a Trek that will have mass appeal and one that serves the fans. A VOY spin off or a TNG spin off or an anthology series where each season is a spinoff or prequel of some previous Trek iteration would not be doing fans any favors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2017 at 1:15 AM, Sim said:

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.

I agree and that is why i would prefer a post-TNG show. Not a pre-TNG one.

I honestly don't get the obsession with continuing to go back to Kirk's era. I get what Mr. Picard is saying that "Star Trek is best known for Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. They're going back to the familiar."

Ok that's fair - but .... this new series doesn't have Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. You literally could have done a 25th century with the same crew, same ship name and design, and there would be zero difference. They may mention Spock frequently in the trailers or whatever, but .... that won't be enough to lure casual viewers.

The only "upside" I see to a TOS series is the 24th century was a little too advanced. It makes for better stories when the humans don't have god tech. By the end of VOY, the technology on a Starfleet ship was insanely "god" like. The EMH could literally control evolution ...

Another thing I reject is this notion that to bring in casual viewers - we have to make Star Trek ... not Star Trek. Casual viewers don't want all the heavy backstory of the TNG-era. I reject that because .... ALL of us started out as "casual viewers". I first really got into Trek with DS9. That means TOS/TNG and a part of DS9 had already been ongoing. That's a lot of lore. It didn't scare me away. It enticed me.

We don't have to keep going back to the beginning because it might "scare off" of casual viewers. Plus, jumping into the 25th century would be the perfect balance. A "clean" slate because 100 years have gone by so everything is "new" but the occasional throw back to the previous shows every other episode if they mentioned Bajor or something. Both sides win...

On 8/3/2017 at 6:54 AM, 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.               

I understand and I don't feel that you're forcing your views on anyone. As you said - this is fun to discuss. :)

I'll address what you said, though.

1) I meant doing their home work on a post-TNG story. That would mean studying everything TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT had created. That is an incredible amount of data (some of it contradictory. ex. the Trill look). I don't think they want to pour through that while simultaneously telling us they are adhering to canon. Look at how angry fans got over ENT's hiccups. There are entire videos on youtube dedicated to all the canon violations in Trek. Plus, it is a lot easier to do your home work when all you have to do is "respect" ENT/TOS. The only TNG-era stuff they have to "study" is make sure no Borg ships pop up. :P

2) Ok - here I vehemently agree with all due respect. I, for one, am not calling for the adventures of geriatric Admiral Riker on the refit Enterprise (with the three nacelles). In fact, I think the crews in TNG/DS9/VOY had beautiful endings to their stories. I wouldn't want that ruined by seeing them in random adventures... (cameos are different beast, though). When I say continue to lore - I mean go beyond what has already been established. Why go back and retread old stories? The way the Trek universe was left post-VOY is actually a mine field of stories. The Romulan Star Empire has fallen. Imagine the refugee story you can get out of that idea that mirrors the current refugee crisis in our own world. Or what if Earth nearly falling to the Dominion/Borg nearly caused a political upheaval that led to a controversial UFP President that mirrors Trump or Putin. The Klingon Empire is all but dead. Is decolonization going to happen on their conquered worlds? Could VOY's transwarp technology finally open the entire Milky Way Galaxy to the UFP? I can think of tons of ideas for good stories that mirror our own culture today from the 24th century. It is peculiar you think there is nothing left to say in that era or beyond it. What is there to say in the 23rd century? Some extra random side missions by a new crew? That isn't any different than a random new crew in the 25th century. If they are truly adhering to canon, outside of the visual sense, that limits the stories that can be said because then they can't contradict what is shown on TOS ...

How in the world can these writers think or imply that it's a blank page in the TNG-era but a plethora of opportunities in the TOS era? No offense, but that makes no sense. Especially if you are working with something as debilitating as canon (which the showrunners, per Sehlat Vie, said they would). If anything, their hands will be tied now.

The one thing I find confusing is ... you say reboot is a bad idea because you love the lore of Star Trek. But then you say that lore doesn't lead to writing opportunities. Let's just go back to the 23rd century that is visually virtually nothing like TOS era. That seems to be contradicting.

3) I don't want sets that are exactly like the 60s. I've said that. I am just saying that visual updates are a little bit trickier in Trek considering that TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT all implied that TOS did look the way it did. As jarring as it was. As implausible as it may be. But I am personally fine with visual rebooting it. I got over it with Abramsverse. I wish, at least, they could have kept the uniforms. Even Abrams did that .... but oh well.

4) I agree conceptual canon is always more important than updating the visuals. I agree 100%. Who cares if the phaser fire looks more "real" now and not as "silly" as the 60s version? You're right. Conceptual canon is far, far more important. But the reason I am on the edge of that is ... I don't want to give too much license to "visual" updates because they're going to completely butcher everything and say "cmon ... focus on the concept." No - some things are uniquely Star Trek and should just be "updated" not completely transformed. Again - the uniforms ...

On 8/3/2017 at 7:37 AM, 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. Thank you for sharing that.

On 8/3/2017 at 9:36 AM, Sim said:

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.

Their arguments are poor though no? TMP and TWOK changed from TOS because it took place years later .... Not years before.

On 8/3/2017 at 9:40 AM, 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.)

I agree with you that Kirk/Spock/Enterprise is Star Trek. Even with all the other Treks (including games, toys, novels, etc).

However .... this new show is none of those. Fans will figure that out fast. Sarek cameos or not. Having this new main character playing Spock's sister is no different from making a new main character in the 25th century that is Spock's descendant. The nostalgia won't go far when the things you are saying will lure the common person to a new Trek series is no where to be found. At least Abrams had some version of Kirk/Spock/Enterprise.

Also, TNG has already proven that Star Trek can be a commercial success without Kirk/Spock/(and that)Enterprise. This ship should have already sailed. The vast majority of us 90s children became Trek fans off of TNG/DS9/VOY. Not TOS. I appreciate TOS now because it is really great, but as a kid I found it boring. It wasn't until I saw the alien DS9 and all the wonderful aliens on the station that I got pulled in. I didn't need Kirk/Spock/Enterprise when I was a casual viewer. I'm sure plenty of casual viewers don't need to TOS era to become fans and I reject the studios' notion.

On 8/3/2017 at 10:47 AM, 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.

tumblr_m65xlxVPzK1r7pvyc.gif

You're right, of course. It's funny how much you get it. Yet you don't cite yourself as a traditional Star Trek fan. This is so on point.

1 hour ago, Justin Snead said:

It's a false choice between a Trek that will have mass appeal and one that serves the fans. A VOY spin off or a TNG spin off or an anthology series where each season is a spinoff or prequel of some previous Trek iteration would not be doing fans any favors.  

But isn't this a matter of opinion? I would very much prefer, not necessarily spin-offs to those shows, but something different from the TOS-era.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

One more thing I want to say that is slightly separate to the discussion above ...

1) I don't agree with the notion of "Trek has had tons of canon violations before." to excuse away any future ones. To me that is compounding one error with even more. Which brings me to my next point...

2) Why does canon matter? Because Trek is meant to be a coherent universe. If Trek was always like the TOS show. A Twilight Zone/Tales From the Crypt/Law and Order type show? Where each episode isn't connected. It's just a morality play set in space to make us look at ourselves. If that was all Star Trek was? Then I would absolutely agree "who gives a flying fig nut about canon?" It wouldn't matter. But unfortunately for Trek, there has been consistency. We have ideas leading to another.

Ex: Worf helped Gowron on the throne. Gowron was on the throne during the Dominion War. Martok gained the throne from Gowron's death. Period. Consistency.

Yes, Trek has no been perfect, but I'm not talking about stupid wardrobe errors. "Tuvok had Lt. J.G. pips on in one scene! He's an Lt. Commander!!!!!!!!!!! CANON VIOLATION!".

That is clearly stupid and no one should care.

We all know very well we mean actual consistency. If Sisko made first contact with the Dominion. I don't want to see Archer, Kirk, or Michael doing it. Period.

"But WHY does it matter? We got a good story out of it. Focus on that." Because a coherent universe makes an amazing world. Look at the posters here who reject my idea of rebooting Trek in the traditional sense. Because they love the universe that has been built up. Been strung together. Has impacted stories, characters, ships, etc. We all love that. I don't want a Star Trek that is the crew battling alien freak-of-the-week or escaping anomaly-of-the-week. I want consistency. I want character growth. I want stories that start small and build into something bigger.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Founder. I have so many opportunities - especially at the moment - to observe the Trek fandom and see it in all its nuances, from the bigot old TOS fans who are again up in arms against "PC crap" to the extremely open-minded young and new fans who came in through the Kelvin timeline and then watched just TOS and are very excited about Discovery because it seems to speak their language. Two extremes here, and it's often a matter of entire GENERATIONS meeting in general, I know fans who could be my parents or even grandparents and I also know fans who could be my kid. (All this leads to inner fandom conflicts AS WELL, of course.)

But I do agree with you that the studio's focus on TOS stands on a rather shaky foundation. They do what's "logical" (pun intended), they want to sell their product through something familiar (they did the same with the Kelvin timeline and it worked), so they pick the most familiar/well-known setting and era, meaning: TOS. They pick what THEY think brings in the most profit through recognition. They don't think further, though, they don't think "this limits us in terms of canon" or "this might get us into trouble with the fans whose overwhelming majority seems for Star Trek to do what it has always done but somehow no longer does - go forward". They think "it worked for the Kelvin timeine, it will work for us, too, we have to modify it slightly for a TV audience but it will work, TOS brings in the most money, anything that's based on it or around its era should be a success". They were told through sales numbers that the TNG era no longer sells well. They were also told that TOS does seem to do so. Hence their decision.

From a Trekkie point of view, none of this makes sense, of course. Limiting themselves to a particular era in the prime timeline, bending canon over and backwards to make things fit, having characters and aliens no one has ever heard of before (naturally)... all these things SCREAM "Enterprise", and we all know how that one turned out. Maybe Discovery will be saved by it not having Bermaga in charge with their same old tired ideas. Or maybe this will lead to an even faster downfall because, despite Bermaga's flaws, they DID manage to capture the spirit of Star Trek in some parts, even on ENT. It remains to be seen whether the new writers can do this as well - the problem is that a lot of Trekkies aren't willing to give them a chance anymore. The fandom would still have found reasons to hate on everything even if CBS had set the show a century after Nemesis, but then everyone would at least have said "okay this is a new era and we know next to nothing about it".

I look at all this and all the discussions everywhere and I see two completely incompatible viewpoints: What CBS does and what a LOT of people in the fandom actually want. Even those who are open-minded towards Discovery ALWAYS tell me "I'll go along with it and see what they do but I would have preferred a show set way post Nemesis". It's almost a universal constant, and it's the ONE thing the fandom seems to agree on somewhat. If I were CBS I'd listen to THAT instead of looking at sales numbers and recognition value and whatnot. None of their statistics are going to help them if even the open-minded fans decide they don't like Discovery and it's beyond me how no one at CBS seems to be capable of standing up and say "hey fellow guys in suits maybe what we're doing here isn't the wisest thing, what if we actually listened to at least SOME of what the fans have to say instead of slamming them down at every possible opportunity BUT expect them to pay for what we give them nonetheless" (fan film regulations, for example - regardless of the circumstances of how those rules came to be, they do seem to have obliterated all new fan film attempts by now because there is no creative freedom there anymore and a lot of fans don't blame Axanar, they blame CBS, saying CBS should have dealt with Axanar because they did go too far but WITHOUT establishing the rules).

Share this post


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

I agree and that is why i would prefer a post-TNG show. Not a pre-TNG one.

I honestly don't get the obsession with continuing to go back to Kirk's era. I get what Mr. Picard is saying that "Star Trek is best known for Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. They're going back to the familiar."

Ok that's fair - but .... this new series doesn't have Kirk/Spock/Enterprise. You literally could have done a 25th century with the same crew, same ship name and design, and there would be zero difference. They may mention Spock frequently in the trailers or whatever, but .... that won't be enough to lure casual viewers.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought ... non-fans who only know Spock is an icon? They don't even know or care (at this point) which century a Trek show is set in.

Maybe they have seen a NuTrek movie at the theatre, but aren't invested enough to care about the minutiae of the ST universe ... all they know is what Spock looks like, that his race is all about logic, cool detachment and brainy stuff, and what the ships and visuals look like, the general gist of the universe (united utopic earth, alien baddies).

If a 25th century series delivered just that -- a Vulcan lead character, similar visual style, the general gist of that universe --, most of them perhaps wouldn't even notice that was supposed to play 2 centuries after the movie they once saw at the theatre. It would be *the same* kind of thing for them.

But this is about marketing anyway: How do you make people curious about the show and make them turn in. How do you "bait" them, for that they even try DSC.

 

But what's much more crucial on the long run: How do you make people stay, and keep their interest beyond two or three episodes?

This entire pandering to TOS/NuTrek associations exclusively addresses the former, but not the latter in the slightest. People who have superficial interest in Trek might be lured in to watch the pilot by lots of familiar elements, but it won't keep their interest. In order to do that, the show has to deliver more than just recognition value

And beyond good craftmanship on the technical side, good visuals, actors, stories and so on -- universe building is IMO a major point about the Star Trek franchise. When viewers, old and newbie fans alike, feel that every new episode expands a (mostly) coherent universe, that's a major reason to turn in every week again. That there is a larger story that ties together this entire universe.

 

8 hours ago, The Founder said:

The only "upside" I see to a TOS series is the 24th century was a little too advanced. It makes for better stories when the humans don't have god tech. By the end of VOY, the technology on a Starfleet ship was insanely "god" like. The EMH could literally control evolution ...

Another thing I reject is this notion that to bring in casual viewers - we have to make Star Trek ... not Star Trek. Casual viewers don't want all the heavy backstory of the TNG-era. I reject that because .... ALL of us started out as "casual viewers". I first really got into Trek with DS9. That means TOS/TNG and a part of DS9 had already been ongoing. That's a lot of lore. It didn't scare me away. It enticed me.

We don't have to keep going back to the beginning because it might "scare off" of casual viewers. Plus, jumping into the 25th century would be the perfect balance. A "clean" slate because 100 years have gone by so everything is "new" but the occasional throw back to the previous shows every other episode if they mentioned Bajor or something. Both sides win...

^ This exactly!

It's exactly what I mean by the paragraphs I wrote above: Maybe it were superficial elements that evoked our interest in shows like DS9 at first. But soon, once we were immersed in the show, it were very different aspects that kept our interest and made us truly love it.

Complexity and coherence -- universe building -- is IMO a major reason. THAT is required if you want people to actually *stay* with a show.

And nobody should tell me that scares away "casual viewers". There are no "casual viewers" anymore in times of Netflix. People either watch a show, or they try the pilot and don't bother thereafter. Thanks to streaming, it's no longer a problem if you "miss" an episode.

One of today's most successful genre shows, "Game of Thrones", is all about complexity and universe building.

The suits should once and for all forget their arrogant idea that viewers are generally stupid, so complexity will "scare" them and they won't notice the difference between superficial recognition value and substance, and replacing the latter with the former will bring better sales. Maybe it will, for the pilot -- but that way you kill the chicken, rather than selling the eggs.

 

8 hours ago, The Founder said:

 

Their arguments are poor though no? TMP and TWOK changed from TOS because it took place years later .... Not years before.

Well I for once at least don't buy this argument. TMP is supposed to take place ca. 10 years after TOS, IIRC. And between TMP and TWOK, it's supposed to be 5 years. Or something like that (someone correct me on the details). But at any rate, not more than a decade between these three visual styles.

And nobody can tell me a world can visually change that radically in just 10 years. Especially when it's not just ship design and uniforms (though something tells me a quasi-military organization won't radically change its uniform style every 5 years either), but even genetic traits such as Klingon forehead ridges.

No, all totally anal attempts at on-screen explanation aside, this is very obviously a production-based reason for visual change, a "visual reboot". You can't discuss this away, IMO.

 

So for the same reason, I don't mind DSC once again updating the visual style.

 

8 hours ago, The Founder said:

I agree with you that Kirk/Spock/Enterprise is Star Trek. Even with all the other Treks (including games, toys, novels, etc).

However .... this new show is none of those. Fans will figure that out fast. Sarek cameos or not. Having this new main character playing Spock's sister is no different from making a new main character in the 25th century that is Spock's descendant. The nostalgia won't go far when the things you are saying will lure the common person to a new Trek series is no where to be found. At least Abrams had some version of Kirk/Spock/Enterprise.

Also, TNG has already proven that Star Trek can be a commercial success without Kirk/Spock/(and that)Enterprise. This ship should have already sailed. The vast majority of us 90s children became Trek fans off of TNG/DS9/VOY. Not TOS. I appreciate TOS now because it is really great, but as a kid I found it boring. It wasn't until I saw the alien DS9 and all the wonderful aliens on the station that I got pulled in. I didn't need Kirk/Spock/Enterprise when I was a casual viewer. I'm sure plenty of casual viewers don't need to TOS era to become fans and I reject the studios' notion.

Agreed... so the tricky question will really be: How much will DSC have to offer, beyond the superficual stunts and tricks to "pick up casual viewers where they currently are"?

If it has great characters, stories, actors and visuals to offer -- then it will most definitely find an audience either way. If not, then all the marketing stunts won't save it.

That's where I currently place my hopes on, all other questions about canon and century aside. If I could enjoy the show even if I wasn't a Trekkie? Then I most likely won't hate it, even though I am.

 

8 hours ago, The Founder said:

One more thing I want to say that is slightly separate to the discussion above ...

1) I don't agree with the notion of "Trek has had tons of canon violations before." to excuse away any future ones. To me that is compounding one error with even more. Which brings me to my next point...

2) Why does canon matter? Because Trek is meant to be a coherent universe. If Trek was always like the TOS show. A Twilight Zone/Tales From the Crypt/Law and Order type show? Where each episode isn't connected. It's just a morality play set in space to make us look at ourselves. If that was all Star Trek was? Then I would absolutely agree "who gives a flying fig nut about canon?" It wouldn't matter. But unfortunately for Trek, there has been consistency. We have ideas leading to another.

Ex: Worf helped Gowron on the throne. Gowron was on the throne during the Dominion War. Martok gained the throne from Gowron's death. Period. Consistency.

Yes, Trek has no been perfect, but I'm not talking about stupid wardrobe errors. "Tuvok had Lt. J.G. pips on in one scene! He's an Lt. Commander!!!!!!!!!!! CANON VIOLATION!".

That is clearly stupid and no one should care.

We all know very well we mean actual consistency. If Sisko made first contact with the Dominion. I don't want to see Archer, Kirk, or Michael doing it. Period.

"But WHY does it matter? We got a good story out of it. Focus on that." Because a coherent universe makes an amazing world. Look at the posters here who reject my idea of rebooting Trek in the traditional sense. Because they love the universe that has been built up. Been strung together. Has impacted stories, characters, ships, etc. We all love that. I don't want a Star Trek that is the crew battling alien freak-of-the-week or escaping anomaly-of-the-week. I want consistency. I want character growth. I want stories that start small and build into something bigger.

^  This, seconded!

Share this post


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

Well I for once at least don't buy this argument. TMP is supposed to take place ca. 10 years after TOS, IIRC. And between TMP and TWOK, it's supposed to be 5 years. Or something like that (someone correct me on the details). But at any rate, not more than a decade between these three visual styles.

And nobody can tell me a world can visually change that radically in just 10 years. Especially when it's not just ship design and uniforms (though something tells me a quasi-military organization won't radically change its uniform style every 5 years either), but even genetic traits such as Klingon forehead ridges.

No, all totally anal attempts at on-screen explanation aside, this is very obviously a production-based reason for visual change, a "visual reboot". You can't discuss this away, IMO.

So for the same reason, I don't mind DSC once again updating the visual style.

To me the change isn't all that radical, though. To me it looks "updated" but all the fundamentals look the same. It looks like it came from the bridge of the TOS show.

DSC looks like it came from the bridge of the ENT E married to Abrams' Enterprise. In other words, the visual update doesn't look consistent.

I can believe this:

maxresdefault.jpg

led to this....

movie_bridge_027b.jpg

The disparity between is not anywhere near as jarring as the DSC bridge. I don't know. It's a minor point.

To swing this back to the topic of the Klingon redesign ...

I think the reason I stomached the Klingon redesign in TMP is .... one that is the Klingons I grew up with and two this was before DS9 highlighted the differences and then ENT explained them. I just don't like how it was all pointless. Unless we find out this is a "sub species" of Klingons....

I think DS9 mucked up by noticing the differences. They honestly should have left it as is. Just pretend the Klingons always looked like Worf and left it at that. But I don't think at the time they were brave enough to re-film the scenes with the TOS Klingons looking like Worf. *shrugs*

 

Share this post


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

1) I meant doing their home work on a post-TNG story. That would mean studying everything TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT had created. That is an incredible amount of data (some of it contradictory. ex. the Trill look). I don't think they want to pour through that while simultaneously telling us they are adhering to canon. Look at how angry fans got over ENT's hiccups. There are entire videos on youtube dedicated to all the canon violations in Trek. Plus, it is a lot easier to do your home work when all you have to do is "respect" ENT/TOS. The only TNG-era stuff they have to "study" is make sure no Borg ships pop up. :P

2) Ok - here I vehemently agree with all due respect. I, for one, am not calling for the adventures of geriatric Admiral Riker on the refit Enterprise (with the three nacelles). In fact, I think the crews in TNG/DS9/VOY had beautiful endings to their stories. I wouldn't want that ruined by seeing them in random adventures... (cameos are different beast, though). When I say continue to lore - I mean go beyond what has already been established. Why go back and retread old stories? The way the Trek universe was left post-VOY is actually a mine field of stories. The Romulan Star Empire has fallen. Imagine the refugee story you can get out of that idea that mirrors the current refugee crisis in our own world. Or what if Earth nearly falling to the Dominion/Borg nearly caused a political upheaval that led to a controversial UFP President that mirrors Trump or Putin. The Klingon Empire is all but dead. Is decolonization going to happen on their conquered worlds? Could VOY's transwarp technology finally open the entire Milky Way Galaxy to the UFP? I can think of tons of ideas for good stories that mirror our own culture today from the 24th century. It is peculiar you think there is nothing left to say in that era or beyond it. What is there to say in the 23rd century? Some extra random side missions by a new crew? That isn't any different than a random new crew in the 25th century. If they are truly adhering to canon, outside of the visual sense, that limits the stories that can be said because then they can't contradict what is shown on TOS ...

How in the world can these writers think or imply that it's a blank page in the TNG-era but a plethora of opportunities in the TOS era? No offense, but that makes no sense. Especially if you are working with something as debilitating as canon (which the showrunners, per Sehlat Vie, said they would). If anything, their hands will be tied now.

The one thing I find confusing is ... you say reboot is a bad idea because you love the lore of Star Trek. But then you say that lore doesn't lead to writing opportunities. Let's just go back to the 23rd century that is visually virtually nothing like TOS era. That seems to be contradicting.

3) I don't want sets that are exactly like the 60s. I've said that. I am just saying that visual updates are a little bit trickier in Trek considering that TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT all implied that TOS did look the way it did. As jarring as it was. As implausible as it may be. But I am personally fine with visual rebooting it. I got over it with Abramsverse. I wish, at least, they could have kept the uniforms. Even Abrams did that .... but oh well.

 

 

I start from the premise that it does not matter when the story is set so long the writers tell a good original story. That is what is most important, but the bonus  points come when the show adds to the texture of the Trek universe. A special version of this is when you add to previously established canon in some way. This can be done in any time period. You can tell an original story set in the past. I disagree that it is limiting to set a show pre-TOS. To the extent that canon is limiting, it limits stories set in any time period. 

The post-TNG story ideas mentioned above are all fine and are based on premises from the TNG/VOY/DS9 timeframe. Point taken that good stories can be had there. My impression is that any new Trek writers and the studios for that matter would not want to base their new product on anything from the TNG era--and as a fan I don't either. It's no knock on that era in the franchise... Im thinking here... maybe we fans, the general audience and the studios remember that era has burning bright but also slowly burning out. We all witnessed the decline over about 5 to seven years. Maybe that left an aftertaste of creative exhaustion. By contrast, going back into the TOS era seems fresh in its retro-ness. Everyone in 2017 has fond memories of TOS--even if they don't have actual memories at all but just a pop-culture impression of its "coolness" + the Abrams movies were "hot." If the tag line for the trailer had been "10 years after Picard, Data and the Enterprise-D" people would not be wrong to think: "Wait, I saw that movie already (Nemesis) and it wasn't that good." 

In any case, the premise of DSC seems to be completely new and not based on anything seen in TOS (I could be wrong): a Klingon war. But that is also just the backdrop for the character drama of the crew, especially Burnham. When Fuller concieved the show, he seems to have started with her and built out the Klingon premise. Same with the Spock connection. I doubt Spock will be mentioned much. However, Sarek is going to be developed quite a bit. We don't know much about him in his younger years and the show seems to want to explore new aspects, such as why he married a human. These are the real story elements, and if they work well, some fan's current anxieties may be aleviated.

On top of that, we will get those canon bonus points. I predict DSC will fit snugly with canon. Not sure if fans here are reading all the info about the writing staff, but it is chock full of Trek vets who know canon. Including Kristen Byer who knows post TNG-era canon as well as anyone since she wrote the post-VOY novel series. I recomend a podcast called The Edge. They have an episode where they talk all about the creative team.           

 

Share this post


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

I start from the premise that it does not matter when the story is set so long the writers tell a good original story. That is what is most important, but the bonus  points come when the show adds to the texture of the Trek universe. A special version of this is when you add to previously established canon in some way. This can be done in any time period. You can tell an original story set in the past. I disagree that it is limiting to set a show pre-TOS. To the extent that canon is limiting, it limits stories set in any time period. 

The post-TNG story ideas mentioned above are all fine and are based on premises from the TNG/VOY/DS9 timeframe. Point taken that good stories can be had there. My impression is that any new Trek writers and the studios for that matter would not want to base their new product on anything from the TNG era--and as a fan I don't either. It's no knock on that era in the franchise... Im thinking here... maybe we fans, the general audience and the studios remember that era has burning bright but also slowly burning out. We all witnessed the decline over about 5 to seven years. Maybe that left an aftertaste of creative exhaustion. By contrast, going back into the TOS era seems fresh in its retro-ness. Everyone in 2017 has fond memories of TOS--even if they don't have actual memories at all but just a pop-culture impression of its "coolness" + the Abrams movies were "hot." If the tag line for the trailer had been "10 years after Picard, Data and the Enterprise-D" people would not be wrong to think: "Wait, I saw that movie already (Nemesis) and it wasn't that good." 

In any case, the premise of DSC seems to be completely new and not based on anything seen in TOS (I could be wrong): a Klingon war. But that is also just the backdrop for the character drama of the crew, especially Burnham. When Fuller concieved the show, he seems to have started with her and built out the Klingon premise. Same with the Spock connection. I doubt Spock will be mentioned much. However, Sarek is going to be developed quite a bit. We don't know much about him in his younger years and the show seems to want to explore new aspects, such as why he married a human. These are the real story elements, and if they work well, some fan's current anxieties may be aleviated.

On top of that, we will get those canon bonus points. I predict DSC will fit snugly with canon. Not sure if fans here are reading all the info about the writing staff, but it is chock full of Trek vets who know canon. Including Kristen Byer who knows post TNG-era canon as well as anyone since she wrote the post-VOY novel series. I recomend a podcast called The Edge. They have an episode where they talk all about the creative team.          

All of the above are fair points and I get what you're saying. It's not a matter of I think you're wrong. It's just I feel returning to the past constantly is tiresome. You feel it's tiresome to continue the TNG-era. I agree about the fatigue with the TNG-era for what its worth. But ... I was advocating a POST-TNG era focus. Not 1 year after Nemesis. But that is neither here nor there.

The only aspect I don't agree on is how canon will not be restricted in a prequel era show. It absolutely will. In terms of what technology to use, what aliens can appear, what characters, etc. ENT was proof of that. That doesn't mean, as you said, that DSC can't carve it's own little corner of the Trek universe. It absolutely can. The universe is a big place. I doubt Kirk and co. were doing everything. I'm sure other crews had adventures too.

Of course - I want a good story and that should be the focus over "how many decks do Federation ships have in this era?" But I only feel that way up to a point. Tiny minutia is nonsense to focus on. I don't care about rank pips, specific dates, what city Kirk met Bones in, etc. But if suddenly Archer is making first contact with the Ferengi/Borg. Yeah - I care. I'm not saying that DSC will do that, but that's what I mean about canon.

If they have a good writing staff, though. I bet the show will be good. This may be one of the best Treks. I have hope. I get what you're saying Justin Snead.

Share this post


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

All of the above are fair points and I get what you're saying. It's not a matter of I think you're wrong. It's just I feel returning to the past constantly is tiresome. You feel it's tiresome to continue the TNG-era. I agree about the fatigue with the TNG-era for what its worth. But ... I was advocating a POST-TNG era focus. Not 1 year after Nemesis. But that is neither here nor there.

The only aspect I don't agree on is how canon will not be restricted in a prequel era show. It absolutely will. In terms of what technology to use, what aliens can appear, what characters, etc. ENT was proof of that. That doesn't mean, as you said, that DSC can't carve it's own little corner of the Trek universe. It absolutely can. The universe is a big place. I doubt Kirk and co. were doing everything. I'm sure other crews had adventures too.

Of course - I want a good story and that should be the focus over "how many decks do Federation ships have in this era?" But I only feel that way up to a point. Tiny minutia is nonsense to focus on. I don't care about rank pips, specific dates, what city Kirk met Bones in, etc. But if suddenly Archer is making first contact with the Ferengi/Borg. Yeah - I care. I'm not saying that DSC will do that, but that's what I mean about canon.

If they have a good writing staff, though. I bet the show will be good. This may be one of the best Treks. I have hope. I get what you're saying Justin Snead.

Totally agree on how canon does hem you in if you are set in the trek past. But Ive always qualified that with "unless you are committing to be a really creative storyteller." I was never an ENT fan, but before it aired I had high hopes that it would be a worthy addition to Trek lore, showing us how the Trek universe we came to love in TOS and TNG got it's start. In my view, that did not happen at all, and even fans might admit that it could have done that job much better. Because it was written and produced without a fresh pair of eyes, they just could not resist the temptation from bringing in the Borg, the Ferengi, etc. And correct me if Im wrong, but didnt B&B originally say they were going to simply ignore the Klingon look discrepancy? And it wasnt until Manny Cotto took over in season 4 that they resolved it. Cotto was committed to telling canonical stories in creative ways--it's possible.

It SOUNDS like the DSC team is taking a similar approach: the idea that the Klingon houses have different looks and are from different planets fits my definition of a good approach for telling stories in Trek's past. 1) it doesn't blatantly break canon 2) more importantly, it adds new layers of richness and texture to pre-existing lore in a way that makes total sense--in fact it makes the Trek Universe make more sense. The Klingon Empire is an actual empire. Kronos is the capital but there are other power centers. It's possible that some long ago conquered world has indigenous inhabitants that become Klingons in the same sense that certain peoples in the ancient world became Romans even though they were not from the peninsula or looked anything like Julius Caesar. This is how a galactic empire would actually be like, and would be a counterpoint to the Federation empire which has humans and alines populating many worlds. If DSC is going to pit these two Empires together, we're taking classic elements of Space Opera being explored here. Unlike ENT, DSC will made the Trek Universe better.

Final thought on going into the future: Im all for it but it does pose challenges. Based on out 2017 understanding of the pace of technological advancement, 100 years after Picard would require a complete re-think of the look and the abilities of the technology. Im not saying that would be bad, but it would basically be like re-inventing a Sci-fi show from scratch. So many preconceptions would have to be questioned: would they really all sit in chairs on a bridge? would they really have to hold a phaser in their hand? would it really take weeks or months to warp around a sector? wouldn't AI being doing most of the work of the crew? I'd guess this is barrier that will keep Trek in it's retro past for a long time.     

Share this post


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

Totally agree on how canon does hem you in if you are set in the trek past. But Ive always qualified that with "unless you are committing to be a really creative storyteller." I was never an ENT fan, but before it aired I had high hopes that it would be a worthy addition to Trek lore, showing us how the Trek universe we came to love in TOS and TNG got it's start. In my view, that did not happen at all, and even fans might admit that it could have done that job much better. Because it was written and produced without a fresh pair of eyes, they just could not resist the temptation from bringing in the Borg, the Ferengi, etc. And correct me if Im wrong, but didnt B&B originally say they were going to simply ignore the Klingon look discrepancy? And it wasnt until Manny Cotto took over in season 4 that they resolved it. Cotto was committed to telling canonical stories in creative ways--it's possible.

It SOUNDS like the DSC team is taking a similar approach: the idea that the Klingon houses have different looks and are from different planets fits my definition of a good approach for telling stories in Trek's past. 1) it doesn't blatantly break canon 2) more importantly, it adds new layers of richness and texture to pre-existing lore in a way that makes total sense--in fact it makes the Trek Universe make more sense. The Klingon Empire is an actual empire. Kronos is the capital but there are other power centers. It's possible that some long ago conquered world has indigenous inhabitants that become Klingons in the same sense that certain peoples in the ancient world became Romans even though they were not from the peninsula or looked anything like Julius Caesar. This is how a galactic empire would actually be like, and would be a counterpoint to the Federation empire which has humans and alines populating many worlds. If DSC is going to pit these two Empires together, we're taking classic elements of Space Opera being explored here. Unlike ENT, DSC will made the Trek Universe better.

I'm not sure about B&B - but I do feel that Coto addressing it made for nice few episodes (IMO).

In regards to what you're saying about the DSC Team - if that's the case? Then I completely agree with you. If they're a "sub species" of Klingons? That sounds like a fun addition to their race beyond the vikings in space thing. I thought it was fan rumor, though. I didn't know this was actually the case.

3 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Final thought on going into the future: Im all for it but it does pose challenges. Based on out 2017 understanding of the pace of technological advancement, 100 years after Picard would require a complete re-think of the look and the abilities of the technology. Im not saying that would be bad, but it would basically be like re-inventing a Sci-fi show from scratch. So many preconceptions would have to be questioned: would they really all sit in chairs on a bridge? would they really have to hold a phaser in their hand? would it really take weeks or months to warp around a sector? wouldn't AI being doing most of the work of the crew? I'd guess this is barrier that will keep Trek in it's retro past for a long time.     

I do agree the rate of advancement of the technology is a bit much. When it got to the point that all energy was renewable - it made me wonder why people had "businesses" or the concept of "fuel" still existed. But the 29th century of Trek showed that starships, inside at least, didn't look all that difference (but I will concede that it was probably due to budget).

In that sense, I do agree that Trek needs to slow down a bit.

With regards to A.I. - I think that as long as "humans want to boldly go where no one has gone before" - they won't have ships filled with Emergency Command Holograms and Datas.

I would expect remarkable improvements. Personal shields (like in Mass Effect or Trek Online) for security officers. Transwarp that will allow ships to travel the entire Milky Way Galaxy. etc. etc. etc.

Armor akin to appearing over the security officers:

tumblr_mziyz51gED1qfr6udo6_500.gif

But I get your point - the 25th century would not be without writing challenges as well. You're right on that. I guess I'd rather have writing challenges there than in the 23rd century.

Edited by The Founder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

So we're going to deal with somewhat fanatic Klingons who are anxious "to remain Klingon".

Yay! Sounds like an amazing analogy to real world elements: Make Klingons great again! (And keep out the aliens.)

Hope I'm not reading too much into it, but if DSC manages to give a skilled comment on today's rising fear of over-alienation in many Western societies, that could be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.inverse.com/article/36441-star-trek-discovery-klingons-canon-tng-t-kuvma-kahless

So I am reading more and more about how there will be an explanation on why the Klingons look the way they do. Instead of doing more "just pretend ...." stuff like was done before.

I am glad that they are. Yes - the cosmetic side of Trek isn't as important as the story, but this is a good thing. I think it was dumb of them to have not started off by saying this was the case. They didn't need to go into details. Simply ... say all will be explained. Could have saved them a lot of headache IMO.

Share this post


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

https://www.inverse.com/article/36441-star-trek-discovery-klingons-canon-tng-t-kuvma-kahless

So I am reading more and more about how there will be an explanation on why the Klingons look the way they do. Instead of doing more "just pretend ...." stuff like was done before.

I am glad that they are. Yes - the cosmetic side of Trek isn't as important as the story, but this is a good thing. I think it was dumb of them to have not started off by saying this was the case. They didn't need to go into details. Simply ... say all will be explained. Could have saved them a lot of headache IMO.

I’ve heard....

 

***** POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT *****

 

 

That it has something to do with the 24 distinct Klingon houses.    We’ll see.   Personally I’m not overly concerned if they explain it or not, just as I wasn’t in ’79 when I saw the ‘new’ Klingons in TMP, or even the “Blingons” in STID (a movie I otherwise didn’t care for).    

But yes, I agree with Founder that by addressing it head-on, they avoid the ‘you-guys-don’t-care’ charge that would no doubt ensue from a lack of explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2017 at 8:31 PM, The Founder said:

https://www.inverse.com/article/36441-star-trek-discovery-klingons-canon-tng-t-kuvma-kahless

So I am reading more and more about how there will be an explanation on why the Klingons look the way they do. Instead of doing more "just pretend ...." stuff like was done before.

I am glad that they are. Yes - the cosmetic side of Trek isn't as important as the story, but this is a good thing. I think it was dumb of them to have not started off by saying this was the case. They didn't need to go into details. Simply ... say all will be explained. Could have saved them a lot of headache IMO.

I'd say that's more of a PR/promo slip-up than a production one, though. I'm sure the producers have their hands full without having to do the marketing people's jobs for them too. (Besides which, I like to blame things on marketing people.)

At this point though, I'm honestly intrigued by this potential new layering of Klingon culture - it sounds a hell of a lot more sophisticated than the Space Vikings they sort of ended up as in DS9.

Share this post


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

I'd say that's more of a PR/promo slip-up than a production one, though. I'm sure the producers have their hands full without having to do the marketing people's jobs for them too. (Besides which, I like to blame things on marketing people.)

At this point though, I'm honestly intrigued by this potential new layering of Klingon culture - it sounds a hell of a lot more sophisticated than the Space Vikings they sort of ended up as in DS9.

^
This.

From what I heard in Vegas, they sound a lot more like TUC’s vision of the Klingons.  I’m wondering if that was due to some influence of Nick Meyer's while he was involved with DSC (?).  Just curious...

Share this post


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

^
This.

From what I heard in Vegas, they sound a lot more like TUC’s vision of the Klingons.  I’m wondering if that was due to some influence of Nick Meyer's while he was involved with DSC (?).  Just curious...

Seems probable! 

And if Discovery's ethos is indeed about the perceptions and exploration of how we view "the other," this could be very interesting indeed. 

Share this post


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

Seems probable! 

And if Discovery's ethos is indeed about the perceptions and exploration of how we view "the other," this could be very interesting indeed. 

Very much so.

I’ll admit, I was a bit irked when I heard Klingons were in the show; frankly, 18 years of ST shows and TONS of Klingon episodes left me kind of tired of them.   But if they can find a new or fresh angle in which to use them again?   I say sure.   It’s a similar problem DW has with the Daleks; fans love them, but they’ve done so many types of Dalek stories that you wonder what the hell could they do next?   And they usually manage to surprise me.

The Klingons have, with few exceptions, always seemed a bit one-note to me.   The most interesting portrayal of them in the movies (IMO) was TUC because it showed different personae of Klingons; you had Gorkon, who was unlike any Klingon seen before or since.   I’d LOVE to see another Klingon who isn’t just another rank-and-file ‘warrior.’  

I also enjoyed seeing Klingon lawyers on ENT and DS9; it was nice to see their cunning tactics brought to bear in a court of law.   Archer’s lawyer in “Judgment” (well-played by J.G. Hertzler) was a fine example of a different kind of Klingon; a lawyer who was old enough to remember a slightly different Klingon society, before the warrior caste took over.

And where are the Klingon artists?  Where are their musicians?   Where are their teachers, their merchants, their tailors, their writers?    For a culture that I thought I’d seen too much of, I realize now that I’ve barely seen ANY of their culture, outside the warrior/political/legal classes. 

I don’t know if DSC will show these (my immediate guess is not right off) but it’d be interesting to shed some light on other aspects of Klingon society...

Share this post


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

Very much so.

I’ll admit, I was a bit irked when I heard Klingons were in the show; frankly, 18 years of ST shows and TONS of Klingon episodes left me kind of tired of them.   But if they can find a new or fresh angle in which to use them again?   I say sure.   It’s a similar problem DW has with the Daleks; fans love them, but they’ve done so many types of Dalek stories that you wonder what the hell could they do next?   And they usually manage to surprise me.

The Klingons have, with few exceptions, always seemed a bit one-note to me.   The most interesting portrayal of them in the movies (IMO) was TUC because it showed different personae of Klingons; you had Gorkon, who was unlike any Klingon seen before or since.   I’d LOVE to see another Klingon who isn’t just another rank-and-file ‘warrior.’  

I also enjoyed seeing Klingon lawyers on ENT and DS9; it was nice to see their cunning tactics brought to bear in a court of law.   Archer’s lawyer in “Judgment” (well-played by J.G. Hertzler) was a fine example of a different kind of Klingon; a lawyer who was old enough to remember a slightly different Klingon society, before the warrior caste took over.

And where are the Klingon artists?  Where are their musicians?   Where are their teachers, their merchants, their tailors, their writers?    For a culture that I thought I’d seen too much of, I realize now that I’ve barely seen ANY of their culture, outside the warrior/political/legal classes. 

I don’t know if DSC will show these (my immediate guess is not right off) but it’d be interesting to shed some light on other aspects of Klingon society...

That always bothered me too. Beyond those notable exceptions, and also Suzie Plakson's K'Ehleyr, Klingons were just bellowing dolts who happened to have starships. There wasn't much exploration of anything beyond the warrior class. Even Worf slowly had to conform to that type. I guess B'Elanna, like K'Ehleyr, was spared some of that being only half-Klingon. So if we get to see Klingons, who are still this warlike, warrior species but with the refinements necessary for them to have created a civilization, I'm all for it.

The whole series can't just rest on Klingons though, can it...? I wonder which other species beyond Klingons, Vulcans and the newbies that we'll see...? Romulans seem off the menu, as they're "unseen" until Balance of Terror (and even Enterprise managed to cleverly keep that bit of continuity straight). Personally, I'm always happy to see Andorians...

Share this post


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

That always bothered me too. Beyond those notable exceptions, and also Suzie Plakson's K'Ehleyr, Klingons were just bellowing dolts who happened to have starships. There wasn't much exploration of anything beyond the warrior class. Even Worf slowly had to conform to that type. I guess B'Elanna, like K'Ehleyr, was spared some of that being only half-Klingon. So if we get to see Klingons, who are still this warlike, warrior species but with the refinements necessary for them to have created a civilization, I'm all for it.

The whole series can't just rest on Klingons though, can it...? I wonder which other species beyond Klingons, Vulcans and the newbies that we'll see...? Romulans seem off the menu, as they're "unseen" until Balance of Terror (and even Enterprise managed to cleverly keep that bit of continuity straight). Personally, I'm always happy to see Andorians...

Andorians are a lot of fun too.

I am, of course, thrilled that my beloved Vulcans (via Sarek and  Michael's background story) will be getting a bit of attention too.   I never really tire of Vulcans.  I find them endlessly... *wait for it* ...fascinating.  :vulcan: ;)

Maybe we could see (in this 'brave new world' of modern television) the sexually empowered Deltans.  There might be some rich commentary on the nature of sexuality (for communication with others as well as a means of personal expression) for this new series to mine...?

Share this post


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

Andorians are a lot of fun too.

I am, of course, thrilled that my beloved Vulcans (via Sarek and  Michael's background story) will be getting a bit of attention too.   I never really tire of Vulcans.  I find them endlessly... *wait for it* ...fascinating.  :vulcan: ;)

Maybe we could see (in this 'brave new world' of modern television) the sexually empowered Deltans.  There might be some rich commentary on the nature of sexuality (for communication with others as well as a means of personal expression) for this new series to mine...?

Vulcans are more a part of the fabric of Trek than any other species, really - thanks to Spock. No, I never tire of them either. Love the Deltans idea - bring 'em on! 

Share this post


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

Vulcans are more a part of the fabric of Trek than any other species, really - thanks to Spock. No, I never tire of them either. Love the Deltans idea - bring 'em on! 

I've always wondered; was their 'oath of celibacy' only for their race?  Because the rest of the crew (particularly TOS Kirk) never seemed to adhere to it...:giggle:

It also seems a curiously racist (speciesist?) policy to insist that Deltans don't practice their sexuality aboard ship; especially when DSC will show couples (Stamets and Culber) living aboard ship together.

But regarding Klingons, I met Mary Chieffo (who plays the Klingon battle commander) briefly at Vegas and she was just a sweetheart.  So full of enthusiasm.  I wished her and her castmates all the best.  The Klingon actors seemed really excited about plumbing new depths to their portrayals.   Can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 6:29 PM, Robin Bland said:

I'd say that's more of a PR/promo slip-up than a production one, though. I'm sure the producers have their hands full without having to do the marketing people's jobs for them too. (Besides which, I like to blame things on marketing people.)

At this point though, I'm honestly intrigued by this potential new layering of Klingon culture - it sounds a hell of a lot more sophisticated than the Space Vikings they sort of ended up as in DS9.

But maybe the marketing people - or the creative ones - actually wanted us to scratch our heads, dissect and discuss the shit out of it until Discovery gets out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Tupperfan said:

But maybe the marketing people - or the creative ones - actually wanted us to scratch our heads, dissect and discuss the shit out of it until Discovery gets out...

Knowing a great many marketing people, i think you might be crediting them with more nous than generally is there...

On the other hand maybe Disco's marketing team are so wonderfully manipulative they foresaw this outcome using their big Game of Thrones-style relief battlemap. Maybe they even had an algorithm to predict Trek fan behavior! :P:laugh:

9 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

I've always wondered; was their 'oath of celibacy' only for their race?  Because the rest of the crew (particularly TOS Kirk) never seemed to adhere to it...:giggle:

It also seems a curiously racist (speciesist?) policy to insist that Deltans don't practice their sexuality aboard ship; especially when DSC will show couples (Stamets and Culber) living aboard ship together.

But regarding Klingons, I met Mary Chieffo (who plays the Klingon battle commander) briefly at Vegas and she was just a sweetheart.  So full of enthusiasm.  I wished her and her castmates all the best.  The Klingon actors seemed really excited about plumbing new depths to their portrayals.   Can't wait!

I'm stoked! :biggrin:

Edited by Robin Bland

Share this post


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

On the other hand maybe Disco's marketing team are so wonderfully manipulative they foresaw this outcome using their big Game of Thrones-style relief battlemap. Maybe they even had an algorithm to predict Trek fan behavior! :P:laugh:

I’m sure they’ve done extensive biometric studies...:giggle:

 

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