|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 25, 2017 15:33:29 GMT -5
I don't see too much reason to justify the tech not matching, that was brought up in Enterprise as well, and my answer was always the tech looks the way it does in TOS because that's what the future looked like in the 60's. However, that look had to change over time as our own technology has outpaced the vision and budget of the creators of the show. To recreate that exact same look would certainly tickle every nostalgic bone in my Star Trek body but it would feel almost anachronistic as a show in the present trying to portray the future. Sure, but why insist to place a new series in the past, then? Why not set any new instalment in Trek's future? I don't think that Enteprrise brought anything to the Trek pseudo-historical canon that we couldn't have done without. And in fact, I'm more curious to see what happened to the Federation a century after TNG than to be told partially retconned stories. The difference I see is that the Adam West Batman, the Tim Burton one and and the Nolan films don't pretend to be set in the same universe. They're different takes, and while they're all Batman and can all be enjoyed independently, there's no need to try to connect dots that are not meant to be. When the studios insist that a new series is set in the same continuity as an old show, however, they're asking us to do precisely that: to fit characters, props, technology, stories and concepts that dont actually fit all that well together. I find the exercise superfluous, and would have been absolutely fine with Discovery being set in the Kelvin timeline. Or its own separate timeline, for that matter! Luckily, I'm not longer a big Star Trek fan. I pretty much hated Voyager and was bored by the two Enterprise episodes I saw. I no longer care about continuity and didn't mind the movies' reboot at all. Still, I remember how to fans it is pretty important to have a coherent Star Trek universe, and how to Gene Roddenberry himself it was crucial to maintain verisimilitude by not contradicting one week what had been established two weeks before. I think it is all in the studio's interest to keep going that way, and maintain the fans' devoted investment in the series worth their while. (Naturally, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is whether the new show is any good... but you know, just for discussion's sake...) |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 25, 2017 16:00:47 GMT -5
I don't see too much reason to justify the tech not matching, that was brought up in Enterprise as well, and my answer was always the tech looks the way it does in TOS because that's what the future looked like in the 60's. However, that look had to change over time as our own technology has outpaced the vision and budget of the creators of the show. To recreate that exact same look would certainly tickle every nostalgic bone in my Star Trek body but it would feel almost anachronistic as a show in the present trying to portray the future. Sure, but why insist to place a new series in the past, then? Why not set any new instalment in Trek's future? I don't think that Enteprrise brought anything to the Trek pseudo-historical canon that we couldn't have done without. And in fact, I'm more curious to see what happened to the Federation a century after TNG than to be told partially retconned stories. The difference I see is that the Adam West Batman, the Tim Burton one and and the Nolan films don't pretend to be set in the same universe. They're different takes, and while they're all Batman and can all be enjoyed independently, there's no need to try to connect dots that are not meant to be. When the studios insist that a new series is set in the same continuity as an old show, however, they're asking us to do precisely that: to fit characters, props, technology, stories and concepts that dont actually fit all that well together. I find the exercise superfluous, and would have been absolutely fine with Discovery being set in the Kelvin timeline. Or its own separate timeline, for that matter! Luckily, I'm not longer a big Star Trek fan. I pretty much hated Voyager and was bored by the two Enterprise episodes I saw. I no longer care about continuity and didn't mind the movies' reboot at all. Still, I remember how to fans it is pretty important to have a coherent Star Trek universe, and how to Gene Roddenberry himself it was crucial to maintain verisimilitude by not contradicting one week what had been established two weeks before. I think it is all in the studio's interest to keep going that way, and maintain the fans' devoted investment in the series worth their while. (Naturally, in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is whether the new show is any good... but you know, just for discussion's sake...) I don't know why they don't go forward myself, but the story they presented so far is interesting so I'm willing to put my hopes for what happens after DS9 aside. The Batman film comparison is flawed in my mind for the very reasons you presented, but I entertained it anyway and the rationale I provided still works though it fits even better for the more apt comparison I made to the Batman comics. Until the Crisis on Infinite Earths in 1985 which gave us a definitively new continuity separate from everything that came before it(sort of), the Batman of 1955 was the same guy as the Batman in 1965, the Batman of 1975, and the Batman in 1984...despite the vast changes in language, tone, characterization and to a lesser extent even physical appearance that occurred over that time. No reasons were ever given for why Batman spoke differently, acted differently, or looked differently so if you wanted to buy into the sense of continuity you just kind of had to ignore those differences. I never found it hard there, and even though there was an official break in the continuity(now two with the nu52) I still have no problem including my favorite stories from Batman's past and my favorite stories of today into a single continuity in my mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Sept 25, 2017 23:35:57 GMT -5
I would much rather see a Star Trek series set in the future after the TNG/DS9/Voyager era. It would let the people making the show use more modern looking tech that makes sense in the universe because it's their future too. But more important than that -- I'm really over this whole prequel thing. We've done the prequel thing to death over the past 15 years or so. Star Trek prequels, Star Wars prequels, Superman prequels, Batman prequels. My problem with prequels is that they say they are trying to tell a story that predates the one everyone knows, but then they spend the whole time teasing and dancing around it, importing elements from the original story to keep things going. To me, that says the prequel can't stand on its own two feet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 26, 2017 5:57:55 GMT -5
Saw the preview yesterday... and if its job was to intrigue, I think it worked very well! I look forward to seeing more (when the show hits Netflix in a few years).
The Shenzhou is a beautiful ship and Michelle Yeoh plays a captain I would want to follow for several seasons! Too bad they both seem to be red-shirted to make room for the Discovery and Jason Isaacs.
I was very happy that Michael is already a seasoned officer and not a young ingenue in Starfleet. As for the gonzo Klingons, they don't bother me as much as I feared.
The person on the bridge with a daftpunk head was all kinds of cool. Great visuals all around! (Except for the left-handed DNA helix. Won't they ever learn?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dizzy D on Sept 26, 2017 7:50:55 GMT -5
Started on the first episode last night, but had to switch it off due to real life stuff. (So happy that it's on Netflix over here). I'm not a big Star Trek fan (I love DS9, but don't have any strong feelings for the rest and never even saw a single episode of Enterprise), but I'm giving this a chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 29, 2017 10:58:45 GMT -5
On it's own merits, this first episode was interesting. Yeoh as a Starfleet captain was definitely entertaining and enticing, would love to see more of her while Michel comes off as brusque but confident in her abilities and talent.
But being a prequel, the visual style as show here is hard to ignore. Vibrant bridge displays, holographic communication, computer-assisted power thruster suits even the same Vulcan learning modules as seen in Abrams' films. It is incongruous with TOS and the shows that follow. I understand the real production values as to why this tech upgrade but it seems to me that they need an in-story reason for the discrepancy instead of hoping that fans can just 'accept' it (which really I can't, it distracted me throughout my watching)
In fact, if I didn't know otherwise, I would instantly think this was a prequel of Abrams' films instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2017 13:45:50 GMT -5
I just keep in mind that the set design and props of original Trek was a product of it being filmed in the 1960s and is more reflective of 1960s aesthetics than 23rd century design. If Discovery were being filmed in the 960s it would resemble classic Trek more. If classic Trek were being filmed today instead of in the 1960s, it would look a lot like Discovery because both would be reflecting the aesthetics of the 20-teens and neither actually reflects what 23rd century design and looks would be. The fact I can walk outside today and see tech and design far more advanced than anything original Trek put out there as being form the 23rd century is indicative of of this cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't want a show made today to look like it came from the 1960s unless it was a period piece set in the 1960s, especially if it was supposedly set 2 centuries form now, because that would make the suspension of disbelief harder and really make verisimilitude of the show more difficult to achieve. So I just tend to ask myself, what would original Trek have looked like if it were being filmed now and the aesthetic differences essentially disappear.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 29, 2017 14:31:20 GMT -5
I just keep in mind that the set design and props of original Trek was a product of it being filmed in the 1960s and is more reflective of 1960s aesthetics than 23rd century design. If Discovery were being filmed in the 960s it would resemble classic Trek more. If classic Trek were being filmed today instead of in the 1960s, it would look a lot like Discovery because both would be reflecting the aesthetics of the 20-teens and neither actually reflects what 23rd century design and looks would be. The fact I can walk outside today and see tech and design far more advanced than anything original Trek put out there as being form the 23rd century is indicative of of this cognitive dissonance. I wouldn't want a show made today to look like it came from the 1960s unless it was a period piece set in the 1960s, especially if it was supposedly set 2 centuries form now, because that would make the suspension of disbelief harder and really make verisimilitude of the show more difficult to achieve. So I just tend to ask myself, what would original Trek have looked like if it were being filmed now and the aesthetic differences essentially disappear. All of that is true, but if we place Discovery in the new timeline we don't even have to make allowances for the time that elapsed in the real world. This would be a perfectly fine prequel to the new Star Trek movies! It would also allow more leeway in the storyline, as any discrepancy picked by hardcore fans could be explained away by saying "oh, this is the Kelvin timeline universe, slightly different from the old one". |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Sept 30, 2017 11:48:22 GMT -5
The Discovery pilot was okay but I'm definitely not going to pay for the CBS app just to watch the rest of the season. I'll probably wait until it's on Blu-Ray or it eventually airs on cable.
Some things about the pilot that I didn't like was the bickering that was going on between the crew members. To me that didn't feel like something Roddenberry would have done but maybe it was and I'm mis-remembering. I guess it could be argued some of the later series had similar conflicts on the bridge though.
While I was really excited to see Doug Jones play one of the main characters in full makeup I thought Saru may be the most useless science officer in Star Fleet that we've seen. Granted we've seen very little of the character but my first impression was not good. I did like the design of the character though.
I know they've said this isn't part of the Abramsverse but it definitely looks the part.
I am interesting in seeing Rainn Wilson play a younger Harry Mudd though.
All that being said I've surprisingly been enjoying The Orville which at times very much feels Roddenberry-esque. Or similar to the later series I should say. If it wasn't for Seth MacFarlane sense of humor it might be a pretty good series. It would also be a shame if he was telling better Trek stories than the people who own the actuall IP.
|
|
|
|
Post by String on Sept 30, 2017 12:08:22 GMT -5
All that being said I've surprisingly been enjoying The Orville which at times very much feels Roddenberry-esque. Or similar to the later series I should say. If it wasn't for Seth MacFarlane sense of humor it might be a pretty good series. It would also be a shame if he was telling better Trek stories than the people who own the actuall IP. I was wondering the same thing actually. I usually don't count myself as a McFarlane fan but his contributions to the new Cosmos with Tyson was quite good so I was going to check out a few episodes of the Orville just to see. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Sept 30, 2017 12:46:54 GMT -5
I'll take it further and say Discovery was also more promising than the first two pilots for the TOS as well. I don't know about that I've rewatched both "The Cage" and "The Man Trap" pretty recently and thought "The Cage" was pretty damn good for not having Kirk and the other characters being different. Had sort of an Outer Limits and Lost in Space vibe. I would agree that there is potential in this series moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Sept 30, 2017 13:08:42 GMT -5
Why not set any new instalment in Trek's future? And in fact, I'm more curious to see what happened to the Federation a century after TNG than to be told partially retconned stories. I was wondering this myself as Gene had ideas for a post Federation series that I think eventually became the TV show Andromeda. I actually avoided it at the time but recently watched the first two episodes and despite its glaring faults felt it worked with some pretty interesting ideas. Shame the owners of the Trek IP won't give us future stories again because I really think that's part of what kept Trek fresh when it was brought back. Next Gen wasn't trying to shoehorn itself in along side TOS. It was its own thing but respected what had come before it. In that way it didn't feel like a cash-grab from the studio to make money off the name. Like some of the later series. Speaking of Andromeda has anyone watched that series and is it worth checking out past the initial 2hour pilot? I don't think that Enteprrise brought anything to the Trek pseudo-historical canon that we couldn't have done without. There were a couple of things Enterprise did that I actually liked although it could be argued whether it was even necessary or not. One was in went back and explained why the Klingons looked different in TOS and brought back Brent Spinner to play the ancestor of Dr. Soong who created Data. It also tied into the Augments that Khan later led. Or did he lead them before that then get frozen in time? Confusing. Another was it explained how Spock a human Vulcan hybrid could even exist through the relationship of Trip and T'Pol. Which again probably wasn't necessary but one of the more interesting things the series did IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Sept 30, 2017 13:31:17 GMT -5
I mentioned in another thread there's an interesting YouTube channel I follow called Trekspertise that posts video essays about Trek related stuff. One of the first videos I watched was about the unused ideas for spinoffs some of which are pretty surprising including shows revolving around Gary Seven, Harry Mudd and Lwaxana Troi. I think the ideas of shows that revolve specifically around the Klingons or even the Borg or the Romulans for that matter could be really cool. But most of all I think a future of the Federation series could be really interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 30, 2017 16:48:16 GMT -5
Something just struck me... Since the Klingons in the first episode have a cloaking device, how come Kirk and company had no idea such a thing existed in The Balance of Terror?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 1, 2017 21:59:12 GMT -5
Today's episode was like Alien meets Star Trek, and I loved the mash up. The intrigue they're bringing to the series really drew me in, I don't know where it's going to go but I want to find out.
|
|
