posted
Jeez, what's up with that Steampunk aesthetics for the Klingons?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Might as well post this oldie here as well:
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...
Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
"Star Trek as we know it" died when Enterprise got cancelled, guys. Get over it.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks for coming out of your seven year retirement just to tell us that.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic