Jump to content

New Star Trek Series in 2017


Guest El Chalupacabra
 Share

Recommended Posts

Predictions (hah hah, no, really just futile hopes) for the season finale:

 

* TOS era Klingon make-up and couture!

* they meet the quote unquote real Lt. Tyler, stuck within Voq's body, in Klingon captivity!

* they meet the quote unquote real Captain Lorca, also taken captive by the Klingons!

* they ditch this dumb plan, go to the Mirror Universe instead, track down the alternate T'Kuvma, convince him to come over to the other side, have him claim to have returned from Sto Vo Kor and thus unite the warring Houses in opposition to their true enemy ... the Rihannsu!

* the Cyborg Redhead and Cadet Tilly get a drink, head to the Holodeck, have another drink or two, just see what comes natural like!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is such a good show. Some of the best Trek I've seen. Yes it has its little quirks and flaws but it's so well done. Since Frakes directed his episode it's been amazing. The story moves at such a blistering pace that makes the surprises seem even better because you're concentrating on other facets of the story.

 

Brilliant. Glad I still with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to move with the times. This really is an amazing show. We talked before how Star Trek's wheeled out formula needed a rest and now it's back they couldn't just wheel it out again. For me they are reinventing the wheel in such a good way that breathes new life into the franchise. They re boldly going and I don't think we should be too harsh on them for taking the risk.

 

It's interesting how you say it's all great except not as Star Trek. I wonder if this will appeal to new audiences.

 

Tilly rocks so much doesn't she

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

I wish I could get past the continuity incongruities, actually. I hate not being into Discovery, but I just can't get past not following canon, and the pilot episode (it really rubbed me the wrong way). Considering all the hopping through space-time they do on their spore drive McGuffin, they could have just set this series post-Nemesis and I wouldn't have much to gripe about. I think Star Trek Online, which is post-Nemesis, is centered around a Federation-Klingon war, also (at least the first module...I've never had time to play it personally), so they literally could have set this show in a post-nemesis setting, without changing a thing, plot-wise Hell, they could have kept Burnham an adopted daughter of Sarek...and Perrin, for that matter. Just boggles my mind why they went the prequel route, to this day. Or just made an official announcement that it is NOT the TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline. From what I understand, they all but have officially said it, but it still bothers me. Then again, I guess I am OCD when it comes to my Trek, so there's that, too.

 

I know I will likely binge-watch Season 1 once it is all out on disk, even if it is out of morbid curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't it because the show was originally intended as an anthology, with each season depicting a different Trek era? I assumed they were far along into Season 1 when Fulller was sacked or left, so the they just continued to develop that story into an ongoing series, which is why it's still a prequel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

The reason was that the TOS cast always has been and always will be the most well known and popular crew, and this was their way to tie Discovery to TOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish I could get past the continuity incongruities, actually. I hate not being into Discovery, but I just can't get past not following canon, ...

Canon isn't something to follow, it's a collection of works. By definition Star Trek: Discovery is canon, because it's an official production. Stories in any canon may not necessarily have perfect continuity - does William Shatner play James R. or James T. Kirk? Do Trill have forehead ridges or spots? Was Captain April a real commanding officer of the Enterprise, or not? Not to mention all the fanon ideas that are out there, like the idea that Spock was the first Vulcan (or is he a Vulcanian?) in Starfleet, or that gold-pressed latinum is not replicatable.

 

I do know what you mean, though. You are disappointed there weren't more details that followed what you remember of the previous official works. It would be interesting to know what would have made the show more acceptable to you. For me, it added a lot of interesting tidbits to previously unexplained details, like where and when Kirk ever had a chance to be a soldier, since he called himself one in "Errand of Mercy". Apparently while he was a lieutenant serving under Captain Garrovick, he was fighting Klingons for a year. Neat little detail there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason was that the TOS cast always has been and always will be the most well known and popular crew, and this was their way to tie Discovery to TOS.

I've never really bought that. We've gotten to the point where the people who watched TOS during its original broadcast are starting to die out, including all of the major production talent and half the cast. Any lingering nostalgia will be directed at the TNG crew that the people in their 30s and 40s grew up on, and even that group is getting a little old.

 

That's one of the reasons I just don't get why they keep going back to Star Trek's "past". Everything has been a reboot or prequel since Voyager ended over 15 years ago (three separate projects). They've basically spent a whole generation on this franchise chasing nostalgia that kinda doesn't really exist anymore. At least not in the same way that it used to.

 

At some point you'd think they might try moving the series forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three?

Enterprise, Abrams' Trek, Discovery.

 

Heck, even Voyager was off in its own section of the galaxy, blocked off from many of the franchise's staples. I'm not sure what happened that they felt the need to continually get away from Picard's Federation. Especially after DS9 integrated the franchise as much as it ever has been.

 

Personally, I would have been a heck of a lot more interested in a series that picked up the pieces of a quadrant torn apart by the Dominion War. How did Cardassia rebuild? Which alliances were held in place, and which fell back into their old ways? How does one rebuild Starfleet after having so much of the fleet destroyed, and the rest re-purposed from exploration to military? It's time to explore the Breen as a major hostile power in the galaxy.

 

That seems plenty to build the first couple of seasons of a new show around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

I wish I could get past the continuity incongruities, actually. I hate not being into Discovery, but I just can't get past not following canon, ...

Canon isn't something to follow, it's a collection of works. By definition Star Trek: Discovery is canon, because it's an official production. Stories in any canon may not necessarily have perfect continuity - does William Shatner play James R. or James T. Kirk? Do Trill have forehead ridges or spots? Was Captain April a real commanding officer of the Enterprise, or not? Not to mention all the fanon ideas that are out there, like the idea that Spock was the first Vulcan (or is he a Vulcanian?) in Starfleet, or that gold-pressed latinum is not replicatable.

 

I do know what you mean, though. You are disappointed there weren't more details that followed what you remember of the previous official works. It would be interesting to know what would have made the show more acceptable to you. For me, it added a lot of interesting tidbits to previously unexplained details, like where and when Kirk ever had a chance to be a soldier, since he called himself one in "Errand of Mercy". Apparently while he was a lieutenant serving under Captain Garrovick, he was fighting Klingons for a year. Neat little detail there.

 

 

It's less about chronological details and more about an aesthetic and tone to me.

Pavonis, when I say I have issues with canon, what I am talking about are broad strokes canon. Minor detail inconsistancies do not bother me, especially where TOS is concerned. They didn't pay that close attention in the 1960s.

 

But what does bother me is having an adopted sister of Spock, no one heard of. We went through that with ST5, and even then, they did a better job explaining Sybok than Burnham. Also, like Tank points out, I do not like the radical departure from previous incarnations from an aesthetic point of view. The technology itself as presented in Discovery doesn't even resemble the TOS era, and doesn't seem from even the same universe. Discovery aesthetics seem more at home on the set of BSG or maybe even Mass Effect. We have holographic communicators that didn't make their first appearance until something like DS9 season 5. I could go on and on, and I DO realize the biggest visual reboot prior to this was the TOS movie era. However, it had 2 major things going for itL the same actors from TOS, and with TNG/VOY/ and DS9 at least, they re-used props, sets, ships, etc from the movies, those 3 shows and the films all felt like the same universe. While ENT used different sets and props, and while controversial in its day, I still could buy it being the same universe as the rest. With Discovery, at least based on what I saw, it just does not feel like the same universe (That may be revealed to be the point, literally, I know).

 

None of these differences would have been a problem at all (for me), had this show been set post-Nemesis, or at least set in the late 24th century. Even Burnham, as explained above.

 

But like I said, I will eventually binge watch out of curiosity, and my opinion may change, but based on what I have seen or been spoiled on, I doubt it.

 

 

 

The reason was that the TOS cast always has been and always will be the most well known and popular crew, and this was their way to tie Discovery to TOS.

I've never really bought that. We've gotten to the point where the people who watched TOS during its original broadcast are starting to die out, including all of the major production talent and half the cast. Any lingering nostalgia will be directed at the TNG crew that the people in their 30s and 40s grew up on, and even that group is getting a little old.

 

That's one of the reasons I just don't get why they keep going back to Star Trek's "past". Everything has been a reboot or prequel since Voyager ended over 15 years ago (three separate projects). They've basically spent a whole generation on this franchise chasing nostalgia that kinda doesn't really exist anymore. At least not in the same way that it used to.

 

At some point you'd think they might try moving the series forward.

 

100% agree. When I say that the TOS love is why they feel compelled to keep doing prequels or tying it to TOS somehow, doesn't mean I agree with the motive. There was zero reason to make this series a prequel, besides wanting a TOS connection. I hate how for the last two incarnations, JJverse and Discovery, its like they act like TNG/DS9/VOY don't exist or count. Granted that is hard to do since this is set as a prequel, which to me, is the problem. It's like they want you to forget about all of the films and 4 of 5 shows even existed, and they only want you to remember TOS, but only in a vague, pop culture sort of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have holographic communicators that didn't make their first appearance until something like DS9 season 5.

If you watch TNG again, you may notice that the Enterprise's viewscreen is holographic. It's subtle, but when the viewscreen is shown from any angle other than face-on, the view on the screen is angled appropriately. So holographic communication has been present since TNG season 1.

 

Clearly there's a fundamental disagreement about the latest Trek - the ongoing debate about what is "real" Trek (an Enterprise without Kirk? A Trek that doesn't go anywhere? An Enterprise we'd never heard of before?) - and that's interesting to explore. There's an Ars Technica article on the season finale of Discovery, with a discussion of classifying fans as either "formalists" or "realists". I guess I'm what they'd call a realist, but the show runners did try to connect with formalist fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not a judgment on the series, just a pondering... how come aliens like Klingons can go thru design changes (I dont care that they have) yet Vulcans are stuck with that bowl hair? (Hey, look, THT is bemoaning character hairstyles again) The Bowl is worse when its plastered on every Vulcan and Romulan even, Male or Female. I long for Vulcan Variety, IDIC am I rite? Where are the long locks from TOS? NuSavviks Curls? In hindsight that pixie wig they slapped on TPol years ago seems like an astoundingly bold decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Three?

 

Enterprise, Abrams' Trek, Discovery.

 

Heck, even Voyager was off in its own section of the galaxy, blocked off from many of the franchise's staples. I'm not sure what happened that they felt the need to continually get away from Picard's Federation. Especially after DS9 integrated the franchise as much as it ever has been.

 

Personally, I would have been a heck of a lot more interested in a series that picked up the pieces of a quadrant torn apart by the Dominion War. How did Cardassia rebuild? Which alliances were held in place, and which fell back into their old ways? How does one rebuild Starfleet after having so much of the fleet destroyed, and the rest re-purposed from exploration to military? It's time to explore the Breen as a major hostile power in the galaxy.

 

That seems plenty to build the first couple of seasons of a new show around.

Ah— Enterprise. Even though I didn’t love it, it still feels a part of the prime continuity. But the rest of your post makes me again ask— why did this have to be a prequel? A reignited war with the Klingons, the new tech, the change in Starfleet ideals— all of it would have made more sense as a post 24th century show. In fact, I’d have excused so much of it.

 

If the point was to drive home the Starfleet ideals in the last episode, I’d rather they do it in a future where those ideals were lost, not a past where they briefly fall into question.

 

Outside of Sarek and The Defiant connection, there was nothing rooted in established Trek past— and niether of those two things were germane to the plot. Burnham could have still had a Vulcan adoptive father, they could have still gone the the mirror verse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

We have holographic communicators that didn't make their first appearance until something like DS9 season 5.

If you watch TNG again, you may notice that the Enterprise's viewscreen is holographic. It's subtle, but when the viewscreen is shown from any angle other than face-on, the view on the screen is angled appropriately. So holographic communication has been present since TNG season 1.

 

Clearly there's a fundamental disagreement about the latest Trek - the ongoing debate about what is "real" Trek (an Enterprise without Kirk? A Trek that doesn't go anywhere? An Enterprise we'd never heard of before?) - and that's interesting to explore. There's an Ars Technica article on the season finale of Discovery, with a discussion of classifying fans as either "formalists" or "realists". I guess I'm what they'd call a realist, but the show runners did try to connect with formalist fans.

 

I was talking about an actual holographic image of the person they "skype." That feature didn't show up until DS9. I want to say season 4 or 5, and I believe it was one of the Eddington episodes.

 

But really, I suppose it is possible that the view screen has always been a hologram, just appearing 2-d for the most part to the audience, but it is possible (if one wanted to argue it), that maybe the characters see the view screen as 3-d?

 

Also, I am not arguing Discovery isn't "real" Trek. I would argue it is possibly not the same prime timeline. That is how I rationalize its existence, anyway: Discovery is not the same timeline as my favorite incarnations of Star Trek. But that is complete head canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I knew what you were talking about. The idea was rather silly - they didn't want to spend the money on visual effects (like the ones used on DIS) to emphasize the communications were holographic but they didn't want the audience to think the character had beamed in and was actually present, so they came up with the clunky box-on-the-floor solution. They didn't need to call attention to the tech, but of course they did, and so everyone thinks it was new. Same as Riker being impressed by the holodeck in the TNG premiere, when there was no reason to signal the audience to be impressed by having Riker marvel at technology that should've easily been decades old by then. But hey, let's not use holograms in a story set 240 years in the future because the TOS producers and writers didn't even know about such tech (can't have holography without lasers and practical lasers were still laboratory marvels when TOS was on the air).

 

But I get it. I totally thought at first the DIS had to be set in the Abramsverse just from the visuals, and I was OK with that. But I don't have the energy to spend on "head canon" and wrangling timelines and all that stuff that Zerimar does with his Star Wars stuff. If the producers say it's in the prime timeline, then fine by me. A crappy story wouldn't be saved by the characters wearing costumes from "The Cage" and pressing jelly bean buttons, and a good story shouldn't be ignored just because the aesthetics are radically different due to the producers acknowledging 50 years of real life technological advancement.

 

As for setting it post-Nemesis, there's already a ton of so-called "relaunch" novels dealing with alpha quadrant politics and intrigues and character development. They'd have the same problem as Star Wars and have to dump 15 years of novels, etc, EU stuff, or jump to early 25th century, I suppose. But that would not really change anything. One part of the fandom gets satisfied and another gets irritated by the creative choice. At some point one starts wondering why anyone wants to create more Star Trek. The only thing the entire franchise can count on is that some part of the fandom hates it. I've even met people who think that only the first two seasons of TOS count, because the Freiberger third season sucks that much. Frankly, I'd say that only "The Cage" counts as true Trek, and everything else is selling out to make money, making me the hardest-core, truest Trek fan of all of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get what El is saying, it is a similar thought to when I ranted against JJ&Company for saying their timeline was the Prime timeline up until Nero went back in time. That Papa-Kirk Starship says otherwise and also biology says bullshit in regards to all the characters still being the Prime characters just in an alterated timeline... Chekov cant be the Prime Pavel just by his age. Hes Pavel Chekov for sure, but more in the way my parents could have named one of my siblings Robin instead of me. That said, I enjoyed 2009s Trek and its sequel in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

 

 

But I get it. I totally thought at first the DIS had to be set in the Abramsverse just from the visuals, and I was OK with that. But I don't have the energy to spend on "head canon" and wrangling timelines and all that stuff that Zerimar does with his Star Wars stuff. I

I see where you are coming from Pav, and its not that I disagree with you necessarily. But just to explain, my reasoning for head canon in this case is that, for me, it is easier to deal with what I see as canon issues if I think of it as a different universe or timeline. For me, it takes more energy trying to accept Discovery as the original timeline, than making a clean break and thinking of it as a different one. And I'll have that in mind, when I do eventually watch the rest of season 1. Simply put, its hard for me to accept Discovery as the same timeline or universe because I have watched TOS reruns or on disk almost all my life (over 40 years), and the rest of the shows between 15-30 years, depending on which one you are talking about.

 

Edit:

 

So I heard Season 2 is not until 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

The reason was that the TOS cast always has been and always will be the most well known and popular crew, and this was their way to tie Discovery to TOS.

I've never really bought that. We've gotten to the point where the people who watched TOS during its original broadcast are starting to die out, including all of the major production talent and half the cast. Any lingering nostalgia will be directed at the TNG crew that the people in their 30s and 40s grew up on, and even that group is getting a little old.

 

 

 

History does not agree with you. TOS fans span generations--not only those who watched it first run on NBC, but one generation after another who experienced it as a syndicated series (where it truly became a cultural phenomenon), and were among the masses Paramount was counting on to support Star Trek's move to the movies. The TOS movies were not going to succeed on 1960s fans alone.

 

I've never read or heard anyone arguing against TOS characters and situations being the best known to the general public. If you walked down a street in Anytown, U.S.A. with an iPad filled with images from TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, you will find most will recognize TOS characters more than the spin-offs. This also applies to the episode plots; with TNG, you might find a couple of people who know something about the Borg, but that--without question--is TNG's biggest export, which is not good for a series that ran for 7 years.

 

Further, when TOS celebrated its 20th anniversary, the mainstream media covered that morning, noon and night, along with the well-hyped celebration held in L.A. where the early, cobbled together version of "The Cage" was screened. Compare that to TNG's 20th anniversary, where the media barely noticed, and certainly was not analyzing it as an important cultural phenomenon. If you blinked, you missed most coverage of TNG's anniversary. That is just one of the endless reasons why ST productions end up referring to, or being set somewhere near TOS. TNG is more in the selective, sideline zone, and that's not deeply rooted in cultural heritage and interest like TOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.