This is not a drill! I repeat, this is not a drill!
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Yep, it's the real McCoy.
Michael Dorn must be banging his head against a wall.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I should be excited about this. But I’m not. Why am I not?
…Because I know everyone who kept Star Trek good & fun won’t be involved. No Sternbach. No Okudas. No Drexler. No Frederickson. No Shimizu. None of that team that for 17 years kept the faith, saying “you can do this but you can’t do that, because it’s not what they would do!”
How far in the future do they plan to go? By the TNG/DS9/VGR timeline, it’s the year 2392 right now; will they stick with 2393 when this starts? It’ll probably be in the late 25th century, & I bet it’s a lot more brooding & angsty. Feh.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I'm pretty sure it will take place in the Abramsverse during nuTOS, since Kurtzman is the executive producer and CBS can get all the sets, props, costumes, CGI models, etc. from the new films at a fraction of the cost of making all new stuff.
And how do you know that there won't be a whole new set of people that will make Trek fun like Okuda, Sternbach and Drexler did?
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I'm pretty sure it will take place in the Abramsverse during nuTOS, since Kurtzman is the executive producer and CBS can get all the sets, props, costumes, CGI models, etc. from the new films at a fraction of the cost of making all new stuff.
Actually, from what I understand, CBS does not own the rights to the stuff from the Abramsverse movies. Paramount does. Yes, I know, that's weird. As such, a new CBS show would more than likely be set in the Prime timeline.
Posted by Trimm (Member # 865) on :
Given Kurtzman's involvement, I won't have high hopes out of the gate, but I'm willing to be surprised.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: Actually, from what I understand, CBS does not own the rights to the stuff from the Abramsverse movies. Paramount does. Yes, I know, that's weird. As such, a new CBS show would more than likely be set in the Prime timeline.
CBS owns Star Trek in its entirely. They've given Paramount a license to produce Trek films, but if CBS wanted to do a new show based on the nuUniverse, they'd be well within their rights to do so. It's been stated that the new series won't have anything to do with the Star Trek Beyond movie coming out next year, but that doesn't mean that it won't take place in the nuUniverse with a different crew on a different ship.
Honestly though, at this point I'd prefer just a straight reboot. Prime universe is old and done. NuTrek, while great on the movie screen for the foreseeable future, would inevitably conflict with any TV show set in the same universe. Make some new characters that we actually care about in a universe with a completely clean slate. Just don't let it turn into Voyager, which essentially tried the same thing.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
As long as they don't go down the "dystopian universe" road that's been so popular over the last decade, I'm hopeful but cautious. Movies and tv shows are such different productions, and Trek has always been at its best on the small screen where it can tell smaller, more meaningful stories.
I'm not worried about the likelihood that many people from the old shows won't be involved. Frankly, part of the reason why Voyager and a Enterprise were lackluster is that they were running out of ideas. It's time for a fresh start with 21st century storytelling. I'm sure plenty of people will have good ideas. It's just up to the producers to find them. (Hence my "cautious" mentality.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
While this series may end up being watchable or even good, I don't think there's much chance at all of its being so amazing that I'd be willing to pay $6 a month to watch it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A smart writer could split the difference- say with an experimental drive landing a primeverse starship getting stranded in the oh-so-crappy Abramsverse- giving fans the best of both and contrasting the utopian ideals of primeverse with the...whatever the fuck the Abramsverse offers. Sex? Lens flares?Plot holes? Recycled plots?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
A horrifying thought just occurred to me: the last time they used Star Trek as the flagship to launch/promote a new distribution platform, we got UPN.
I'm kind of the opposite end of the spectrum from TSN. I don't subscribe to any traditional TV service, I pay for it all via online ad-free services like iTunes and Netflix. I see so few ads these days that it's jarring and infuriating when I do. I'm pretty sure the CBS streaming service doesn't exclude ads. And it would have to be pretty amazing that I'd be willing to pay $6 a month and still have to sit through ads.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I didn't even know CBS went the Hulu route of charging you to watch commercials. That's another good reason not to subscribe. My original reason not to was simply that the Trek series would almost certainly be the only thing I'd watch on the service, and I don't want to pay $6 a month for one program.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
The one thing that concerns me is the fact that the announcement (so far) is more about the CBS all access-plattform - and not about the new series.
I'm afraid they only want to push their download portal at all costs and only use Star Trek as a usefull vehicle. They don't care about us anymore...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: The one thing that concerns me is the fact that the announcement (so far) is more about the CBS all access-plattform - and not about the new series.
Maybe that's because no one has decided what the series is going to be about or who's in it yet. Can't report news that doesn't exist.
quote:I'm afraid they only want to push their download portal at all costs and only use Star Trek as a useful vehicle. They don't care about us anymore...
CBS only interested in making money? Say it isn't so!
And really, if they truly didn't "care about us," they wouldn't be making a show at all. And you know what? Who cares if the only reason they're making the show is to promote their streaming channel? THEY'RE MAKING A NEW STAR TREK TV SHOW! Just wait and see what we're going to actually get in fourteen months instead of immediately being a worry-wart.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
I would have preferred to get DS9 on bluray first.
It looks like to me that this will not happen anytime soon anymore...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
So you would rather have had CBS devote years on end and crazy amounts of money to remaster a 20-year-old show instead of them spending that money to produce a new show?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Can't they do both?
For clarification, CBS doesn't currently have an ad-free tier, but the CEO said they're considering that option.
I don't begrudge CBS putting it on their streaming service. I think streaming is the future of entertainment programming. We're right on track for TNG's prediction that television would die out by 2037! (Referring to television in its broadcast/cable format, not the video format.) But it's frustrating to have to pay for an entire service when you only want to watch one show. (Well, maybe two; I'd watch Colbert.)
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: So you would rather have had CBS devote years on end and crazy amounts of money to remaster a 20-year-old show instead of them spending that money to produce a new show?
I would love to see DS9 in HD on blu ray - simply because its a great (Star Trek) show and the HD-transfer for TNG was marvelous. Therfore I would expect nothing less for DS9 (in regards of the HD-transfer).
Is the age really an issue here? I don't think so. And simply the fact that we will get a new show does not mean that we will get a good show (though nothing is set to stone, yet, and of course I'm hoping for the best - fingers crossed).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"(Well, maybe two; I'd watch Colbert.)"
Yeah, but they already pump that show out into the air for free.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: I would love to see DS9 in HD on blu ray - simply because its a great (Star Trek) show and the HD-transfer for TNG was marvelous. Therfore I would expect nothing less for DS9 (in regards of the HD-transfer).
Then apparently you're unaware of some things. It was extremely costly of CBS to remaster TOS and TNG, especially since the returns (i.e. us buying the blurays) did not meet their expectations. Then add to that the added expense of redoing EVERY SINGLE CGI effect in DS9 (which had wayyyyy more CGI than TNG did.) It's not simply a matter of upconverting like what was done with TNG. That's also why Babylon 5 will never be in HD. The amount of money (not to mention time) needed to remaster DS9 and Voyager would be so cost-prohibitive as to be absurd.
Enjoy DS9 on DVD and Netflix. I agree that it's a great show, but that's all you're going to get out of it. I myself prefer CBS to spend their money on Star Trek 2017.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: [QUOTE]Then apparently you're unaware of some things.
On which ground do you make this assumption? In the above post we have talked about what we would like to see: DS9 or Series 6. I uttered my wish for seeing rather DS9 in HD instead of a new series. That is my opiniom, and there is nothing wrong with ist. I totally respect you wish for a new series.
The question if it is realistic that we see DS9 in HD soon or ever is on a different level. I can ensure you that I'm aware of the unfavorable busines case at this time due to a) high project costs for named reasons and b) less potential viewers/buyers for such a show.
quote:It's not simply a matter of upconverting like what was done with TNG..
To my knowledge TNG was not upconverted from a 480p/576p source to HD like it was done e.g for Farscape. The original 35mm film was scanned in HD resultion, which means that the original source resultion was indeed downconverted (assuming that 35mm is comparable to a 4k resultion). In some cases shots were completely re-created from scratch with CGI.
Now let's look ahead for what the future might bring...
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by o2: On which ground do you make this assumption? In the above post we have talked about what we would like to see: DS9 or Series 6. I uttered my wish for seeing rather DS9 in HD instead of a new series. That is my opinion, and there is nothing wrong with it. I totally respect you wish for a new series.
The grounds for the assumption was your statement that "you would expect nothing less for DS9 (in regards of the HD-transfer)," as if you thought remastering DS9 would be super easy. I was making it clear that remastering DS9 would be absolutely nothing like remastering TNG, for the reasons I gave.
I said nothing in deference to your opinion that you'd personally rather have DS9 remastered than get a new series. If that's your opinion, fine. I simply questioned why CBS would ever do such a thing considering both the costs involved and consumer apathy toward such a thing.
quote:To my knowledge TNG was not upconverted from a 480p/576p source to HD like it was done e.g for Farscape. The original 35mm film was scanned in HD resultion, which means that the original source resultion was indeed downconverted (assuming that 35mm is comparable to a 4k resultion). In some cases shots were completely re-created from scratch with CGI.
My point wasn't how they did it. My point was that there were very little actual changes needed for any scenes, unlike, say, TOS in which every ship, planet and background shot needed to be replaced. TNG-R had extremely few instances where something needed to be replaced with CGI. For DS9 however, (especially in the later seasons when CGI work was predominant in almost every episode), remastering would be a nightmare.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Hey, o2?
1. Posting the same thing six times is a sextuple post.
2. Great googly moogly, how did you sextuple post?
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: Hey, o2?
1. Posting the same thing six times is a sextuple post.
2. Great googly moogly, how did you sextuple post?
Well, this was obviously not my finest hour...
I must have mistaken the 'quote' button for the 'edit' button...
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The grounds for the assumption was your statement that "you would expect nothing less for DS9 (in regards of the HD-transfer)," as if you thought remastering DS9 would be super easy.
No, this statement was only regarding the picture quality of the transfer to HD for DS9: If they can do it for TNG and for TOS, the result for DS9 should be on the same high level. Watching TNG in HD was such a great experience for me, almost like watching it for the first time (of course I have seen all episodes before in SD).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'd looove to see DS9 in HD- just watching it on my big flatscreen was a great experience! I think I watched all the battles on "step"- one frame at a time in slow-motion.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Then again, this article also mentions that there is no new series on the horizon and is a bit out of date (March 2015), so anything can happen if CBS thinks they can make a buck off it.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
That's the thing: It's more likely that CBS will lose money if they remaster DS9. Unless of course, they just upconvert it to make the VFX CGI even more horrible-looking, and then balk when customers return the blurays because their DVDs look better.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I always found getting any Star Trek series on video an expensive proposition. I recall the DVDs for whole seasons always being ridiculously priced before being discounted sharply. I mean TNG Remastered had more to it than the DVDs, but it was still way too pricey. Then I saw the steep price drops on Amazon once again. In addition, I found the quality of the remastering to go down. Season 2 had a lot of quality control issues, and the effects shots of later seasons seemed too dark to appreciate the details of the Enterprise and other ships. That pretty much put me off the whole thing.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
So, six weeks have been past since the announcement...
When do we get more details - or at least another statement - about this topic?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Considering they haven't even started preproduction yet, I'm betting it'll be a while.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I was thinking the whole thing might be bullshit- just hype to promote the (probably awful) new Trek movie
I would not put it past them.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
New trailer that was originally planned for this weekend's Star Wars release leaked out today. It can be found, at least for now, on YouTube here. It will probably get shut down in a couple hours, if that.
I've heard that the fandom butthurt is strong in this one.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I was thinking the whole thing might be bullshit- just hype to promote the (probably awful) new Trek movie
I would not put it past them.
The problem with that theory is that CBS's new show has nothing to do with Paramount's new movie.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
But it gets fans talking Trek in a sea of Star Wars media madness.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
So we've at least got one alumnus from previous Trek shows returning.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Too bad he's also the guy who wrote Voyager's "Spirit Folk."
Seriously, I don't hold that against him, we all make mistakes sometimes. Sounds like a good choice to me!
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Well, at least he didn't write "Threshold", so there's that. If they're bringing back Trek alums they should really consider Moore or Behr. Not terribly thrilled the first one they tapped was from Voyager.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Honestly I think "Spirit Folk" is worse than "Threshold." But that's a discussion for another thread.
I'm not bothered by which series the writer is from. I don't think they're going to try to recreate the series they worked on before. Trek is still Trek, and I'm more interested in the quality of the shows he or she has done after Trek. I think Bryan Fuller fits the bill nicely.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I think Fuller has previously expressed interest in both the Rebooted Film Universe and also the TOS era. I think it would be possible to do a Prime Universe TOS-era series, with some of the same design aesthetic, but newer tech (even if it looks a bit more modern than in most (all?) of the Classic Trek films. And NOT set on the Enterprise (in case that's not clear).
The way I see it, the era between season 3 TOS and The Motion Picture is, canonically, a blank slate. There's even some leeway with the dates depending on when you consider TMP to have taken place - there are a couple of threads I found on the subject:
So in a nutshell if you can retcon TMP to about 2276, you'd be looking at an effectively-TOS show starting in about 2270 which could run for 5 to 7 years without worrying about running into canonicity issues with TMP or needing for the crew to start wearing beige pyjamas. You could update the TOS uniform much as they did in the post-2009 films, and have a more modern bridge if maybe not quite as whizz-bang as the Abramsverse Apple-Store look.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Well holy frak.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The writers of The Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness on the same writing team. If this doesn't create a universe-destroying shockwave from opposites coming into contact, I don't know what will.
Sounds very promising!
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I wonder if this is indicative of a late 23rd/early 24th century setting.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Perhaps. Meyer has always been fond of the Horatio Hornblower In Space aspects of Trek which, at least as far as the history of the franchise is concerned, lends itself more to the 23rd century than the more antiseptic and rule-bound 24th. Although I have a sneaking suspicion that he would have had a good time on the DS9 set with Ron Moore and Ira Behr.
I suspect that CBS was getting worried that not enough of the fan-base would pony up for an online PPV series like this one is intended to be. Many folks on many forums were giving this new paradigm a big F.U. and I think the suits were actually picking up on that. This new development seems to have been a highly calculated response to that attitude - one that, IMO, was brilliantly conceived. I was originally going to wait until the episodes came out on BRD. Now? I think I'm going to be doing $7 a week for this one, just to see what's going to happen, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's flipped on this. Those brilliant bastards finally found the right fandom button to push.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Isn't it $6/month?
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Isn't it $6/month?
I thought it was $6-7 per episode (week). I'll check the TrekToday news archive.
Edit: My mistake, you're exactly right.
According to this article, it is, yes, $5.99 per month.
And according to this article, it's $9.99 per month for ad-free streaming.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
I thought it was $6-7 per episode (week). I'll check the TrekToday news archive.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's $6 per minute. And the whole thing is clips of explosions from old episodes, lens flares and at the end, it was all a holodeck simulation anyway.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Sounds like the Enterprise finale.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Info, info, info! The rundown as follows:
• Setting: 2256! • Female lead who is NOT the captain! • Gay character! • Robots will be seen! • More aliens! • Possible Amanda Grayson cameo? • "Depicting an event in Starfleet history that has never been explored"! • NOT subject to broadcast standards & practices!
It just gets better and better!
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I love the idea of a series not centered on the captain. It'll make for some interesting storytelling.
I just went through the Memory Alpha chronology to try to find an event that might fit the mentioned-but-unexplored criteria. That'll be an interesting puzzle. It's not Axanar, not the Kobayashi Maru, and definitely not the Romulan War. Hmm...
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
About the only other event I can think of that's been mentioned going on in the 2250s is the conflict with the Sheliak - with the Treaty of Armens & last contact between the Fed & Sheliak being in 2255. That and, of course, "The Cage". Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Was there ever a canon date for the Battle of Axanar? If not, then this could be what the show is about, and would explain all the lawsuit stuff w/ Alec Peters.
Methinks CBS might have greenlit a show about Axanar because Peters was making one and profiting off of it. If that's the case, then we ironically have Peters to thank for a new official Star Trek series.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Except he specifically disavowed that it was about Axanar.
Also, Zipacna, the Sheliak were never mentioned during TOS.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Also, Zipacna, the Sheliak were never mentioned during TOS.
True, but who said that the TOS reference is the only reference? In a universe as rich as this, any number of things can be worked in without breaking continuity.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Except he specifically disavowed that it was about Axanar.
Oh, didn't know he said that.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Very interesting info. Given the timeframe, I wonder if we'll be seeing the uniforms from "The Cage", or those from TOS.
Can't wait until we get more info about the cast and characters.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
"Fuller shot down the following theories, saying the show is not set around Axanar, Kobayashi Maru, or Section 31. But he did note the Federation event he's referring to is referenced in the original series."
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I'm guessing the breakdown of relations between the Klingons and the Federation.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'll bet it's about how they broke the time barrier!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Obviously, it's about the Tycho IV dikironium cloud creature.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
...Y'know, I keep seeing Fuller talk about how "this is a novel over thirteen episodes". It makes me wonder if this is actually to be a series—several seasons over many years—or a mini-series—13 & we're done.
Posted by Scott Nixon (Member # 540) on :
I was thinking Battle of Donatu V?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It occurred to me - and this probably won't happen - that you could still have a Fargo-style quasi-anthology show under the criteria revealed so far, all on the same ship. After the first series set in (say) 2255 (also the approx time of the TOS pilot "The Cage," and when the first Abramsverse film is set) you jump forward 15 years. The Lt. Cdr. is now Captain and it's TOS/TMP period. Another 15 years in season 3 she's an admiral and you're into the red film uniforms. After that you still have 75 years to play with before you hit TNG. When you want to you replace the original Whatever-class Discovery with a new ship design, same name, new registry (NOT NCC-1031-A).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The uniforms don't make much sense for the setting if circa Pike. Also, that's the Enterprise insignia, which it probably shouldn't be in the pre-TOS era.
I hear they want it to be considered as the Prime universe but the details need to be in the ballpark. Otherwise it might as well be separate.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Technically I would agree, but let's face it, the delta symbol is way too well-known by the public in general to not use. The number of fans who know (or care) that the original intention was for each ship to have its own shirt emblem is very small.
If that's their biggest continuity issue, I'm fine with it! (I know, there'll be others to quibble over. But this isn't one of them)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Actually, the magic vertical line through it may be sufficient excuse to pretend it's, like, totally different and stuff.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Actually, they go along with the original intention.
Apparently there was a wireframe of a ship in the featurette. Apparently it is the shenzhou
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That's a cool bit of trivia, Spike! It just goes to show that the fan concept of continuity and canon is often built on nothing but assumptions and guesses, compounded by production errors.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Actually, they go along with the original intention.
Well, that's definitely one important intention, but the final products are meals with many cooks. As far as the prevailing view, I think Theiss won that one. As the article notes, the differing patches were such a common idea that it was revised back to the Defiant in ST:ENT, and presumably served as logical basis for the shoulder patches of the 2150's.
I am not saying different symbols are better or worse. I mean, Jein's fanzine assertion that Starbase 12 had every Constitution being repaired at the same time is rather odd, even silly, but it cannot now be meaningfully fought, either.
Personally, I now rather dig the idea of a symbol super-close to the common delta but just different enough to fit the pattern.
Depending on the era, though, the uniforms may still suck. ;-)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: Apparently there was a wireframe of a ship in the featurette. Apparently it is the shenzhou
Based on the wireframe, it looks like an NX and Jem'Hadar bug had a night of passion (and have a lot of explaining to do).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I could understand including Sarek, he's a prominent figure in Federation politics, it makes sense he'd be there. But now it's starting to look like they want to retell old stories and revisit old characters rather than come up with new ones.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
April fools, guys.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
That was announced yesterday or the day before, so it would've been early.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
TrekMovie don't seem to have altered their page on this, and it was announced on 31 March. But yeah, seriously, Harcourt Freaking Mudd?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Trailer for Discovery!
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I know, how exciting! The trailer strongly implies the main character is a Vulcan passing as a human. I guess those are ancient Klingons too.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Sweet trailer.
Also, the vibe I got was that Burnham may have been a human born/raised on Vulcan for some reason. Maybe her given name was given to her by a Vulcan who didn't get that "Michael" is usually a male name?
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I think she might be at least partially Vulcan, and is trying to hide this fact publicly. Those eyebrows definitely scream Vulcan to me, though.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ahhhhh, fuck. That looks like SHIT.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: Trailer for Discovery!
The production values are fantastic, many of the scenes epic in scope and complexity.
However, what the hell is that quadra-nostrilled Claw-ngon? Looks like a Klingon and Xindi-Reptilian had a night of passion.
And it is sooooo JJ-Trek: The Previous Generation, down to the bridge window and graphic styling. And those uniforms are more ridiculous than the Orville ones, yet not intentionally.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The whole trailer is so disjointed it's trying to show everything but reveal nothing. Sure looks cool, but whether that translates to quality storytelling remains to be seen.
This is the same problem we faced with Enterprise... they can either make it look good using modern standards, or try to navigate a minefield of canon by recreating a 50 year old style. It'll take some getting used to, but I'm not going to hold it against them (yet).
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Whew, that looks very expensive. I think they went way overboard with updating the look of the Klingons.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
They might claim that this takes place in the original timeline, but I don't think I can believe that those uniforms and that bridge are contemporary with "The Cage".
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
It wpild also appear that the delta-wing ship is in fact the USS Shenzhou, NCC-1227. Meaning the other design culd be the Discovery - NCC-1031, so older.
Also, Command/Sciences/Operations colours now represented by Gold, Silver and Bronze. Which is kind of overly-hierarchical, isn't it? If you're a science officer or a medical technician, you're just second-best, sorry about that. And Security or Engineering? Loooosers!
So the heroine starts off as Exec of the Shenzhou, and is being bandied about as command material - but she's meant be the Exec of the Discovery? So what's going to happen to derail her career and leave her still as Execm but now under a different captain on a diffrent ship?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: They might claim that this takes place in the original timeline, but I don't think I can believe that those uniforms and that bridge are contemporary with "The Cage".
They can say it's not the JJ-verse for legal reasons if needed, but I'll be damned if that's original universe.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: They might claim that this takes place in the original timeline, but I don't think I can believe that those uniforms and that bridge are contemporary with "The Cage".
Starfleet changes uniforms on a regular basis, so I'm not worried about that.
As for the bridge... Does it look like something out of TOS? No. But personally, I think that unless we're winking and poking fun at 1960's aesthetics like they did in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly", we've passed the point of expecting anything in the future to look as retro as TOS.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
It's all just CBS PR. If they can get more people to watch the show by saying that it takes place in their sacred "Prime" universe when it pretty clearly doesn't, then that's what they'll say.
Visually, the show looks stunning. But ENT had good VFX too, and that show was crap. I'll reserve judgment until seeing the first episode though.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Saying that such-and-such doesn't look like an iPhone or similar is a weak approach, creatively. There are life-critical systems I am familiar with where configurable touch interfaces were available almost twenty years ago at reasonable cost, yet folks preferred a configurable keypad with physical buttons.
There are other less-critical systems at a business of my acquaintance where users were moved from a mainframe terminal to a Windows GUI. This resulted in profound slowdowns of data entry and such becaise no hotkeys were available, requiring assorted mouse clicks and window switchings and so on to do the same things.
To my mind, all one has to do to properly update the TOS style is to add some sort of proper readout screens where appropriate (I mean, what the hell can this tell you: http://filmjunk.com/images/weblog/treknobabble50_10.jpg ).
I certainly approve of the HUD stuff on the viewscreens, but making them real windows is silly.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Trekmovie has a decent brakedown of the trailer. I find the bridge-under-the-saucer of the Shenzhou and possible robot crewman to be particularly interesting.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I firmly agree that AI is underrepresented in Trek. Indeed, the little floaty robot Exocomps and nanites should've been part of TNG as a sort of "auto-repair" system a la Blake's 7.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I reckon the uniforms are going to be the biggest sticking point from a canon viewpoint. Ships, bridges, communicators, tricorders, phasers, you can all hand wave away as regular changes in models and design over time (much as we saw in the relatively short time period - 15 years - of TNG, DS9, Voy and the TNG movies).
But uniforms... while again we saw no less than three (or four, with two running concurrently) uniform designs over those 15 years, for the most part there was a clear timeline - early TNG, later TNG and the DS9/Voyager "fatigues" variant, and the First Contact Uniforms.
We're looking at a hundred-year period withclear start and end points: starting with the ST:Ent blue jumpsuit, with Gold-Blue-Red division piping and rank pips, and ending with the classic TOS uniform, Gold-Blue-Red division-coloured tunics and rank braid. The Ent uniform was first seen in 2151 and last seen in an ep set in 2161. The TOS was first seen in 2266.
Now in between that we've got three others:
1. 2233: the Kelvin uniforms. Blue for command, Silver for Science & Medical, Gold for Engineering & Security. Rank pips, I think. The Kelvin existed before Nero came back in time and changed things, so we know this look is canon for the Prime timeline.
2. 2254 ("The Cage") to 2265 ("WNMHGB"): Gold for Command, Blue for Science & Medical and, er, Beige for Engineering & Security. Rank braids.
3. And now... this. Set "ten years" before TOS, so 2255 or 2256. Blue jumpsuits, but much more formal in design. Gold for Command, Silver for Science & Medical, Bronze for Engineering & Technology. No visible rank marking that I've seen yet (aparrently it's pips on the Starfleet delta badge), though the Captain has extra gold patches on her shoulders.
Compared to the 15 years of the TNG era, three sets of uniforms over a century ain't much. The problem is, there's a clear overlap between the TOS pilot uniforms and the ST:D uniforms.
There are points of lineage with what came before - the blue jumpsuit - and the changes in division colours aren't unusual. For instance, we could retcon the return of the gold-blue-red for TOS as Starfleet's homage to the ST:Ent era. During the red-jacket TOS movie era the division colours were expanded and all over the shop. Then later there's the swap for Command from Gold to Red.
If I were going to try to retcon this disparity, I'd say something like "the Shenzhou is overdue a uniform upgrade, or the (TOS-pilot) Enterprise had a special uniform or got the new look really early."
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
We can't say the Kelvin or its uniforms are Prime. Even if you think Nimoy was playing Prime Spock, the simple fact is that once you monkey with the timeline when time travel has already happened in it, you are monkeying with all the monkeyings.
As I have noted elsewhere, James T. Kirk, considered a "menace" to the timeline, is basically a temporal STD, because when you screw with his life you screw with all the temporal screwings he did, not to mention those that came after him and went further back.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Spock was Prime Spock. Otherwise there's no point in him even being there. The timeline divergence occurred when the Narada emerged in 2233 and encountered the Kelvin. Therefore the Kelvin and everything on it existed before the Kelvinverse was formed, offshooted, generated, whatever.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I think the uniforms are great, not the purple garbageman overalls of ENT, and not the gaudy jogging clothes of the recent Trek movies. If anything, they remind me of Battlestar Galactica (2003), more authoritative, more dignified. I like it.
Also, to those being disappointed the bridge design doesn't look like TOS, the bridges of the TOS Movie Era Enterprise didn't look like TOS either, neither did their clothes. In fact, any chance the movies got, they updated an old show thing; phasers different every movie, photon torpedo effect different, Warp effect, Viewscreen, etc. Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.
What's more interesting is if they will assume the old "monster of the week" format, go for the total A-Z unbroken narrative of Breaking Bad/Game of Thrones, or adopt some compromise between the two.
Also, maybe finally they will show toilets.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: The timeline divergence occurred when the Narada emerged in 2233 and encountered the Kelvin. Therefore the Kelvin and everything on it existed before the Kelvinverse was formed, offshooted, generated, whatever.
So Data's head was under San Francisco even when McCoy changed Edith Keeler's fate? I doubt that.
Put another way, if Nero emerged in 2370 in the Delta Quadrant and blew up the Borg, there would be no ST:FC attack on Earth later, so no time travel attack on Montana, no sphere bits beneath Antarctica, no signal to the Borg from the assimilated science craft, and thus perhaps no Borg incursion against the Neutral Zone, so no Romulan intrigue circa 2364, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum . . . (just deleted twice as much, actually, to keep this sorta-short). With no Wolf 359 and no Borg threat, the Defiant Class would likely not exist at all. The Kelvin and ots differences from Prime are similar.
Temporal STDs are quite virulent and disruptive.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Damn, forgot the Franklin uniforms. Which as that vid shows is actually quite a good bridge between the ENT and Kelvin ones. And actually quite a good short concise Trekyards for once, sometimes they do tend to go on a bit and over-belabour the point.
I'm comfortable with the notion that the Shenzhou may be overdue a uniform update. It doesn't seem likely the show will feature many other ships (apart from the Discovery itself) so the rest of Starfleet might have the velour turtlenecks but we won't see them. I'd still also be very much in favour of an earlier suggestion of mine:
quote:Originally posted by Lee: It occurred to me - and this probably won't happen - that you could still have a Fargo-style quasi-anthology show under the criteria revealed so far, all on the same ship. After the first series set in (say) 2255 (also the approx time of the TOS pilot "The Cage," and when the first Abramsverse film is set) you jump forward 15 years. The Lt. Cdr. is now Captain and it's TOS/TMP period. Another 15 years in season 3 she's an admiral and you're into the red film uniforms. After that you still have 75 years to play with before you hit TNG. When you want to you replace the original Whatever-class Discovery with a new ship design, same name, new registry (NOT NCC-1031-A).
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
If we want to reconcile the Discovery and Cage Uniforms, we could look at the fact that the TOS Enterprise's plaque labeled it as a "Starship class" vessel. Maybe the crews of Starship class vessels wore different uniforms than those of non-Starship class vessels,and the Discovery and Shenzhou are not considered starships at this point.
You could also look at the UESPA/Starfleet relationship. Even though this logo from Enterpise would seem to suggest UESPA and Starfleet both operated under the same roof, there may have been distinct divisions that lasted at least until The Original Series. Maybe Pike and crew were operating under the auspices of UESPA, while Georgiou and crew are operating under Starfleet. Hence the different uniforms. Maybe by the time Kirk takes command, the UESPA is completely absorbed into Starfleet, and the uniforms are standardized for everyone.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'd never really paid attention to the Kelvin uniforms when I saw that movie. Looking at those drawings, though, I think the best thing they could have done for Discovery is just use those very uniforms. I'd even be willing to believe that they're the same as the uniforms in "The Cage", as interpreted by artists of the 2000s vs artists of the 1960s.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I am old enough to remember when a misplaced pip was sufficient to make people grab for pitchforks. Why try so hard to rationalize this obviously ill-considered effort to ride the JJ coattails without actually using any Paramount property?
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I am old enough to remember when a misplaced pip was sufficient to make people grab for pitchforks. Why try so hard to rationalize this obviously ill-considered effort to ride the JJ coattails without actually using any Paramount property?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I got old. Well, older. I just can't nerdrage as easily as I used to.
I'm just waiting for the series to air. Maybe all of this will make sense in context. Maybe not. If not, then I'll see about the pitchforks.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
FYI, the name Shenzhou comes from the Chinese manned spaceflight program. America has an awful time rendering Chinese phonetics based on pinyin spellings, so to wit:
The name is not “shen-zow”, “shen-zo”, or “shen-zoo”. It is “shen-joe”.
quote:No visible rank marking that I've seen yet (aparrently it's pips on the Starfleet delta badge), though the Captain has extra gold patches on her shoulders.
Could be the shoulder stripes. Saru has 5, Burnham 4, and Georgiou also 4 and additional shoulder decoration.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Really? He definitely has more? Might be a size thing, I dunno.Males are frequent;y larger, so have more stripes to avoid having larger swathes of blue in between?
Tim's idea is a good 'un. The colours are close enough, for one thing, though still mixed up among divisions.
As for why we're so unbothered by it all, I guess, yes, we got older. And wiser. And there's enough going on in the real world right now to want to seek solace in just enjoying some new Trek without getting enraged about it - after all, if we want to get enraged about anything all we need do is watch the news. Those of you on Facebook know Ive had other things to worry about.
And after years of relatively stable canon in TNG/DS9/VOY, things started to go rreally downhill from ENT onwards, didn't it? That show stretched it to breaking point, sometimes. Then we had the Abramsverse movies. We're all Old Testament at this point...
Yup, we're the Jews of Star Trek.
Nah, not really, but I couldn't resist saying it. 8)
(For one thing, I don't know who the Christians are in that analogy)
If you're on Twitter, @hollyamos22 is worth a follow - Holly Amos, who seems to be some sort of resident "Trekspert" at CBS. The new Mike Okuda? I don't know. It seems incredible to believe that Hollywood would consider replacing an Asian male with a white female... (*satire)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: (For one thing, I don't know who the Christians are in that analogy)
The people who are converts because of NuTrek. Like Christians, they acknowledge PrimeTrek existed beforehand, but it's been superseded.
As Lewis Black said, "....It's not their book, it's our book."
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
A thought occurred to me: what if the first half-season or so is done flashback style? Like, Saru & Burnham are on Discovery, but current events cause lots of flashbacks to relevant ones on Shenzhou?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: As for why we're so unbothered by it all, I guess, yes, we got older. And wiser. And there's enough going on in the real world right now to want to seek solace in just enjoying some new Trek without getting enraged about it
Straight up rage? Pitchfork jokes aside, that was always silly. Avoiding feelings of frustration can feel easier, I suppose, but it has always seemed to me that more mental effort is required to try to rationalize things into fitting when they obviously don't than it does to simply say "no".
Taking my experience with the Star Wars EU and its ardent adherents as an example, they worked very, very hard to ignore and reimagine the films and shows they'd watch to fit the books and comics, coming up with all sorts of ad hoc workarounds and ridiculous justifications. And, in the end, it was all for naught.
Now, maybe this won't be forgotten, and will take off and spawn its own spin-offs in such number that CSI, NCIS, and Law & Order will have to join forces to compete. But, even then, it'll be different than what it was, and it seems easier to me to preserve that distinction.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I nowadays enjoy watching Voyager on Netflix, even though I was dead set against it when I was younger. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Voyager and Enterprise had their faults but were all in the same conceptual wheelhouse as what had come before. Despite the occasional and oft-noted abject failures, the episodes were intended to show the same universe as and maintain continuity with the rest.
Discovery is explicitly including elements of a different universe . . . it'd be like including Intendant Kira and Smiley on Voyager without explanation. That makes it a different universe, too.
To borrow an analogy I have used elsewhere, if you have Tuvok and Neelix and start deleting and rewriting elements in Tuvok's character with Neelix, you don't have the same old Tuvok . . . you have Tuvix.
Tuvix may or may not be better than Tuvok, and he may be enjoyable as a character, but he's not Tuvok and we mustn't pretend otherwise.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Discovery is explicitly including elements of a different universe
Is it, though? Can you point to anything that clearly comes from another universe, or reality - apart from lens flares, anyway? Isn't it fairer to say it is including elements not previously seen in this universe? And ones that might at face value seem incongruous, but can in fact be put down to simple diversity?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
It is impossible to prove a negative, the way that was asked. I could make a show called "Star Trek" that used dagger-shaped ships with big honkin' engine bells on the back and lots of pew-pew barrelled laser guns and a crew in white plastic, and leave fans to rationalize it in assorted ways, including as always-just-off-camera stylistic diversity.
That said, the visual elements from the trailer referenced already… strange uniforms inconsistent to those seen in the era, weird ships with windowed underbridges, completely dissimilar computer interfaces, different equipment, and so on all combine for my point. It would be akin to Sisko's Defiant showing up in Battlestar Galactica, uniforms and all, and being presented as a normal Colonial force without some serious explaining.
Is it possible these things all existed simultaneously with a Pike-era Starfleet? One can hardly say no. But is it likely or reasonable?
I'll leave that to you, as I assume it is clear where I come down on that.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Well, that's fair enough. That's your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. It just sounded like you were highlighting elements that only could have come from the Kelvinverse.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Shatner had some choice words yesterday for everyone who condemns the show long before launch:
quote:I just love how frazzled some of you get about canon. It’s a show and they are doing a prequel to something that was made 50 years ago. Star Trek was always more about the stories and messaging than the look. If they screw that up; roast em alive and kick em in the you know what! If they don’t; then enjoy it. Kirk out!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:I recall tales of castmates of yours who were very particular about pushing the same button for the same action each time. You yourself may have done so with the little buttons, knobs, and switches on the armrest, just as surely as you learned a bit of how to use police gear so TJ Hooker wouldn't look absurd by fiddling with air conditioning controls to call 10-4 on the radio. It was those very sorts of details that helped provide the sense of a 'reality' to that "far off, distant time", making it more than a mere TV show, but a subject of intense discussion, tech manuals, and so on. By getting rid of that, many feel we're losing something.
Regarding canon, many forget that the end product is one created by many chefs. The stories and actors are important, of course, but so is the rest of the vision as created by the hard labor of set designers, propmasters, model-makers, FX artists, et cetera. "Star Trek" can no more abandon their work wholesale and remain "Star Trek" than it could keep their work and abandon the "stories and messaging".
Either way, it ends up something else.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Don't know who you are quoting (god I hope it wasn't yourself), but they're wrong. Roddenberry's vision has been misquoted and misconstrued many times, for sure, but one thing I can say for sure his goal was not is "aesthetic arrest". He himself had a hand in TNG, and it had moved on from TOS.
Sentimentality and nostalgia has diminishing returns, and should be used in as small doses as possible that will still make the narrative smooth.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Of course it had moved on from TOS. So, too, had Roddenberry in several respects. The real-world time between the two was matched by the time in the universe separating them. Differences were to be expected in both cases.
And of course that was me. What you call aesthetic arrest, I call continuity. To discard it wholesale in visual form is no different than Braga's disdain for it in storytelling. And the solution is the same in both cases ... creativity.
You want gee-whiz interfaces? They give us touchscreens. How quaint! How about knobs and buttons that actually move around, almost like shapeshifting, or 3-D printing on-the-fly. Now there is a 'new' idea. They'll replace a boxy shuttle with something curvy? How quaint. How about a shuttle with a variable-geometry hull, perhaps with metal-fabric wings for flight?
These are things modern filmmaking tech puts within their reach. And it's gee-whiz wow-wee nonsense, but not a lick of it requires moving away from the established look nor is any of it necessarily anti-canonical (maybe the button thing given Kelso's console work in WNMHGB but there are ways around that).
All they're doing, instead, is making something that will be equally (if not more) dated, and in lesser time, with fewer excuses. Fifty years ago they had the Rand Corporation assisting with the future. And now, despite all the possibilities spread all over the internet of the next big future, we get a changed up retread, visually speaking, only as imaginative as the newest Hollywood art school grad.
It's rather sad, really, to waste the potential.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Here's an excellent overview of all things Trek over the past couple of years which explains the background elements . . .
You tried to score points by trying to throw Shatner's post right back in his face. That's cringeworthy.
The new show will set a new canon, and their job now is to keep it consistent internally. The writing is where the real battleground will be.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: You tried to score points by trying to throw Shatner's post right back in his face. That's cringeworthy.
I did nothing of the kind, and find your characterization rather more than cringe-worthy. I made the opposing point using his own experience as an actor and building off of that. Were he a programmer I might've referenced coding, or were he a painter I might've referenced brushstrokes. I suppose I could've referenced equestrian activity.
I reject whole-heartedly the notion that I threw anything in his face.
quote: The new show will set a new canon, and their job now is to keep it consistent internally. The writing is where the real battleground will be.
I am glad we agree it is not the same canon.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
The fans who argued that The Next Generation is not and was never true Star Trek are probably laughing their asses off right now.
In the long run, most people don't want or expect new stories to be exactly the same as existing stories. That would be damn boring. How many times has a Shakespeare play been adapted for some new setting or era? How many times has Batman been rebooted?
The number of people who would be interested in a new Trek series with cardboard sets and Jolly Rancher control panels could practically be counted on one hand.
I'm waiting until the show is released before passing judgment. There's too little information , most of it is promotional fluff. This is even more inane than our reaction to the NX-01 (which although understandable was clearly overblown in retrospect).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by MinutiaeMan: The fans who argued that The Next Generation is not and was never true Star Trek are probably laughing their asses off right now.
Indeed, I've mentioned them elsewhere, as I wouldn't want to be mistaken for their ilk. Amusingly, though, I googled that Aridas guy who was on here a few years back spreading that and he is using my same argument for reconfigurable buttons (he used the term 'liquid metal' a la Terminator II, but it is the same idea).
But, he and his hangers-on were opposed to canon altogether, referring to folks like me as canonistas and decrying post-TMP Trek as the foolishness of a drug-addled Roddenberry that couldn't be allowed to contradict their fanon. I arrive from the opposite view, firmly entrenched in the canon and unwilling to have the "Prime but visually rebooted" sunshine blown up my posterior.
My whole point is simply that they should acknowledge it as a reboot and be done with it. I might still have negative views about this or that, but by trying to hook people back in with the Prime claim all they're doing is getting people worked up. I can't tell you how many insulting folks I see online trying to argue that anyone who's not 100% on board is no Trek fan and never was.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"In the long run, most people don't want or expect new stories to be exactly the same as existing stories."
I don't think anyone's complaining about the stories, since we haven't seen those yet. It's the sets and costumes that are at issue.
"The number of people who would be interested in a new Trek series with cardboard sets and Jolly Rancher control panels could practically be counted on one hand."
I also don't think anyone's calling for equalling the production value of 1960s television. You can match the aesthetic without using the same materials.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Anyone watching "American Gods"? I've tried and now I'm kinda glad Fuller jumped the boat. It's really tedious. Feels like an endless sequence of close up shots of whatever.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Premiere date announced: 24 September
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
So it seems that males have 5 shoulderstripes and females 4. Don't care much for these tiny stubbles on the insignia as rank indicator.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Well, that's awful. I tried to defend the ship before but, ugh, screw it.
Edit: smaller pic
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
Hmm.
On the one hand, they actually made the changes I'd hoped for: Connecting the nacelles to the pylons closer to the front, and changing the proportions of the secondary hull to the rest of the ship.
On the other hand, I really liked the original saucer. The new one is... okay. I don't hate it, but I've never understood the recent trend of putting hollow spaces in saucers.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I second Krenim's opinions, based on the poster shots at least. The more I look at it, the more I like it. Its angular pylons and secondary hull still throw me off, but that's more because it's different from my preconceptions of that era's ships, not because it's a bad design.
The saucer gap is definitely odd. But heck, it could be justified as a mass-conserving measure or something. Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
I don't mind the Bridge and Sensor Dome being in a sphere separated from the saucer. It could be a nice throwback to the Daedalus class. But I don't get why you would have windows in the inner saucer facing the outer ring. Your alternative to a wall is a window overlooking a wall. I do like how they added a protrusion to the deflector dish to make it look more period accurate, instead of the Enterprise Refit dish they had before.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeek.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
It wouldn't reduce the mass, because now you have to bulk up the structure at the four skinny points, you've added a large surface area that must be covered in exterior hull, et cetera.
I mean, a certain adventurousness in design is something that we've seen among many races since TOS . . . the long-necked battlecruiser, the Constitution nacelle pylons and slender neck, et cetera. Even the Vulcan cruisers in Enterprise with their warp rings secured only at the bottom were adventurously illogical, one would think. It gives a certain feel of tech advancement, stylistically . . . "we are SO more advanced than you" . . . just as the Probert-TNG featured all that curving and swooping in the somewhat bulkier designs. This was largely lost in the blockier late-TNG era's bulkier bulkiness, save for the unoriginal E-E, which was the result of a kinky one-night stand between Probert's A and D with sharp objects.
But then we come back to this. I don't mind a bridge dome as a dome-dome . . . that was neat on the shipbl teaser and I have dug that in other designs. But this ship is the epitome of blockiness, what with the rectangular nacelles and blocky triangle engineering hull. To then have this weirdness going on with the saucer is as irrationally incongruous as Church's sweeping Monsterprise secondary bits attached to a bigger, squatter, less graceful saucer.
In short, it fits perfectly amidst the crap that is Trek Moderne.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Everything visually I've seen of this show so far makes me think that it would have worked better post-TUC instead of pre-TOS.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
Well, the obvious answer to that new saucer-design is that they wanted to show another ship similar to that design of the dreadnought in the new era movies. (yes, yes, kelvintimelina, bla bla..)
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Is that ship going to fit in spacedock?
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Just...no...
Pretty written the show off anyway. They won't get any subscription from me.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Some more views of the Discovery, Shenzhou, and Klingon vessels.
Ugly. Ugly. Ugly. You're all ugly. Nine of you are free from sin.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Jeez, what's up with that Steampunk aesthetics for the Klingons?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
For what it's worth, I kinda like the phaser rifle. Not keen on the three-barrel Phaser Two, only because three barrels make no sense attached to Phaser One and they forgot the aiming window, but I see what they were going for, at least.
But now seeing the cray-cray mile-long nacelles, the only part of the ship I like is the color. They should've stuck with the ship teaser version.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
For those who were still thinking that the insignia might be ship-specific, it turns out the split delta stands for the whole of Starfleet:
This life, which had been the tomb of his virtue and of his honour, is but a walking shadow; a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ~William Shakespeare
This show may well be the end-game for Star Trek...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Star Trek as we know it, sure. But I have to say, the latest trailer from yesterday-ish is actually impressive. The show looks like crap and mostly stupid to me and thee, sure, but to a millennial popcorn crowd enraptured by flashy movie series based on teenager and children's books (!) it just looks wowwee and super-expensive (though the ramming doesn't look nearly as good as Rogue One), and it has Walking Dead girl and other known faces.
They're carving out a sort of 4K TV overwrought detail-porn visual niche, kinda like the Bay Transformer polygon porn films. The overdone costumes and forcefields that resemble mini Tholian webs contribute to this visual complexity. The excess detail, if they can keep it up, might keep people tuned in if the story isn't just utterly crap… though actually, that's not even true with today's storytelling techniques. They just have to master the art of the teased out, overcomplex story. As modern Netflix successes show, even shallow crap can work if told mysteriously.
For now, if they spew the trailer all over CBS some may tune in post-pilot. This is actually where the lies they've told about Prime vs JJ may work out, to some extent, if they can make noobs think they know all they need to know (phasers shoot, et cetera) while suckering in Prime people who think they have to watch it for completeness.
Contrary to my prior posts, The Orville may not kill it. It is going to look cheap by comparison, despite production values looking at least as good as good (not counting HD bonus points) as TNG-ENT Trek. Even as it makes fun of self-important nonsense sci-fi like STD, in our vapid culture so happy to compartmentalize it will have to be hella-funny and surprisingly pointed to harm the overwrought STD that people will compartmentalize out of harm's way, and could even hurt itself.
Whatever happens, this isn't Roddenberry's Star Trek, or even Berman's continuation with Piller and Behr and Moore keeping it good, or JJ's Star Wars Practice Round. This is a new and different thing, and while I am annoyed with their Prime lies and such, I'd say the tl;dr is that just because we don't like it, it may not fail. It will simply bring Trek down to the level of other crap, which JJ already started.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
"Star Trek as we know it" died when Enterprise got cancelled, guys. Get over it.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
That's true, of course, but at issue is not the lack of continuing production of Trek as we know it, but the fact it is being rewritten out from under the fans, at least officially. From the USS Kelvin from JJ being called Prime to this stuff, the clear facts of the universe are supposedly being undone.
Also, my panic post above (a.k.a. "oh god, what if it succeeds?!?") sidestepped the significant structural problem of CBS All Access, at least in the US. For Netflix elsewhere, though, it won't be as big an issue.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Double
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I don't think you can worry too much about continuity. How many comic book characters have had multiple reboots, or different variations, or even just contradictions inside the same continuity? I'm pretty sure the Sherlock Holmes series has a few discontinuities. And JRR Tolkien rewrote one chapter of The Hobbit to make it fit better with Lord of the Rings, decades before George Lucas got (rightfully) ridiculed for the same thing.
My point is, we can't worry about it. The old shows are not invalidated by the new shows. Contradicted, maybe, but so what? That's been happening since the first ancient epics.
I'm trying to be optimistic here, but I have to admit that I'm probably not watching the show on first run. Because although I'm trying to keep an open mind on the show, All Access is a total joke, and I refuse to pay $10/month (or $6 with ads) to watch a single tv show. I'll wait until it's on iTunes or blu-ray.
Posted by Tom Selleck in Mr. Baseball (Member # 239) on :
this new show looks bad and i don't like it
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Thanks for coming out of your seven year retirement just to tell us that.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Thanks for coming out of your seven year retirement just to tell us that.
Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about StarCruiser's first post.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: It occurred to me - and this probably won't happen - that you could still have a Fargo-style quasi-anthology show under the criteria revealed so far, all on the same ship. After the first series set in (say) 2255 (also the approx time of the TOS pilot "The Cage," and when the first Abramsverse film is set) you jump forward 15 years. The Lt. Cdr. is now Captain and it's TOS/TMP period. Another 15 years in season 3 she's an admiral and you're into the red film uniforms. After that you still have 75 years to play with before you hit TNG. When you want to you replace the original Whatever-class Discovery with a new ship design, same name, new registry (NOT NCC-1031-A).
"History never repeats itself, but it does rhyme." I remember the stories about Enterprise wanting to do the entire first season on Earth, a la " The Right Stuff", but that got torpedoed by the network.
Sigh.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women:
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Thanks for coming out of your seven year retirement just to tell us that.
Funny I was going to say the exact same thing about StarCruiser's first post.
I know - I don't come here as often but...
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Yep - looks like I would have liked Bryan's original concept a lot better than what we are about to get... Typical...
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
If the board can't take new members, then having old-timers pop in can only be a good thing.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
To be honest, I'm fine with that. The show isn't being made just for die-hard fans: it's being made for a wider audience that will hopefully *include* as many fans as possible, but harsh as it sounds, we're not the main target audience. If they were to cater the show to die-hard fans (many of whom probably wouldn't be able to agree on what they actually wanted, anyway) the show wouldn't appeal to a broader audience.
You, me and others on this board might well know our warp plasma conduits from our warp coils from our intake manifolds, and it's great that we do and can enjoy the shows to that extent, but we're a small percentage of the fan population in general, and an even smaller percentage of the overall audience of people watching TV. I'm ok with someone acknowledging that and I don't think he's being unnecessarily harsh or disrespectful to say that out loud.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
I'm actually quite looking forward to watching the show. It's been a long, long time since there was any new Star Trek on TV. Will I like everything about it? Most likely not. Will I have fun trying to fit it into the existing continuity and my own personal headcanon? Oh hell yeah. I'm enjoying having some new TV Trek to look forward to :-D
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
About the Isaacs article: he did clarify his statement on twitter and says he never made a comment about replacing the legacy of previous captains. Considering the article was published by the New York Post, I'd take it with a grain of salt.
Oh and yeah, new Star Trek! Whether you want or not its coming, soon!
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
Oh, good God.
Posted by becky (Member # 2187) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: To be honest, I'm fine with that. The show isn't being made just for die-hard fans: it's being made for a wider audience that will hopefully *include* as many fans as possible, but harsh as it sounds, we're not the main target audience. If they were to cater the show to die-hard fans (many of whom probably wouldn't be able to agree on what they actually wanted, anyway) the show wouldn't appeal to a broader audience.
You, me and others on this board might well know our warp plasma conduits from our warp coils from our intake manifolds, and it's great that we do and can enjoy the shows to that extent, but we're a small percentage of the fan population in general, and an even smaller percentage of the overall audience of people watching TV. I'm ok with someone acknowledging that and I don't think he's being unnecessarily harsh or disrespectful to say that out loud.
COFFINS stuck to the OUTSIDE of spaceships....stupid...in battle Coffins GET BLOWN UP OR BLOWN OFF....stupid...they use tractor beams to get coffins back.The coffins are are racing away in an ever expanding radius...STUPID...STUPID..STUPID...BEYOND STUPID.
For me what made star trek be star trek was not having that constant source of conflict. Every scifi show these days has crew conflict. It's refreshing to watch star trek(not discovery, obviously) and see a set of competent, professional people working together for a common good. They may have philosophical disagreements from time to time, but they respect each other and work it out. That's the utopian star trek universe and I miss it. If i want inner conflict between main characters, ostensibly on the same side, i'll go watch battlestar galactica, dark matter, or one of umpteen other "dark future" scifi shows.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Can’t say I’m familiar with him, but he looks the part and seems quite excited to have the role, so good for him. Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Fantastic casting! He was great in Hell on Wheels (as was Colm Meaney). This is going to be a fun season.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
