CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › STAR TREK: DISCOVERY (2017)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

STAR TREK: DISCOVERY (2017) - Page 13

post #601 of 720
"Boy, we really fouled up that Hero's Journey arc for Kirk. How do we fix it?"

"Why don't we do it again and double down on the douchiness this time?"

"Brilliant! Gotta go. Wish we could've met in person, but that government drone's been flying around my house again!"

"Bob. You can pick those up for $200 these days..."

(Phone disconnects, but not before we hear a shotgun being loaded)
post #602 of 720

Star Trek Into Darkness?

 

post #603 of 720

STiD?

 

Better than Discovery.

post #604 of 720

Is it better than Avatar 4 too?

post #605 of 720
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

"Boy, we really fouled up that Hero's Journey arc for Kirk. How do we fix it?"

"Why don't we do it again and double down on the douchiness this time?"

"Brilliant! Gotta go. Wish we could've met in person, but that government drone's been flying around my house again!"

"Bob. You can pick those up for $200 these days..."

(Phone disconnects, but not before we hear a shotgun being loaded)

Lindelof: "Also, magic bluud. It worked great in my masterpiece of a script called Prometheus."
post #606 of 720

I feel that there are several conflicting motivations regarding the writing of "alternate timeline" stories.

 

The chief one is probably "Hi, I have an idea for a Star Trek-type story but it doesn't fit into the franchise's established timeline."

 

And then there's "Hey, I don't know much about these Star Tracks. But this story has space in it. That good enough?"

 

But I bet there are also real-world considerations, like CBS and Paramount trying to build up proprietary versions of the brand so they don't have to share as much, while at the same time working to ensure that the legacy properties they control don't become devalued. TOS has to remain a valid part of official continuity, if in name only, or both companies end up sitting on 'obsolete' content they can't sell anymore.

post #607 of 720
I know I keep harping on the Klingons but geeze...

http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/03/stlv17-designers-explain-why-star-trek-discovery-klingons-are-bald-and-more/

Kicker is that this was all Fuller. They keep saying he didn't want Klingons to be the thugs of the galaxy but watch TOS...they were. And they could be smarmy as fuck too, just look at Koloth in Trouble with Tribbles.
post #608 of 720

Ugh. I keep forgetting Akiva Goldsman is involved with this. UGH.

 

But he did work on FRINGE....which was a pretty nifty show.....dammit.....

 

As for the explanation for the "new" Klingons it's hand wavey enough to be credible.

 

We shall see how this works out next month.

post #609 of 720

I saw this elsewhere:

 

get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FwlkUQdk.jpg&key=2VTh65XNPSnCDwyzV_WTOQ&w=800&h=280

post #610 of 720
Ye gods that design just gets worse and worse with every image.
post #611 of 720

I hate the fact that this is coming out in a few weeks and that my interest in it is less than zero.

 

The reason that the TOS still works so well is that they had so many great science fiction writers writing scripts for the show. Now take a look at the writer's room for this show and there's a shitload of TV writers and some with previous Trek experience but no honest to god SF writers. 

 

I seriously doubt that this show will be challenging or complex at all.

post #612 of 720

I think you could level the same critique at any of the post-TOS series in regards to the writing staff.  My issue with Discovery is that it's had an identity crisis since the first announcement.  We're what...twenty days from the premiere and I still have no idea what the basic premise is.  And I've been paying attention to the released promotional material.

post #613 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post
 

I hate the fact that this is coming out in a few weeks and that my interest in it is less than zero.

 

The reason that the TOS still works so well is that they had so many great science fiction writers writing scripts for the show. Now take a look at the writer's room for this show and there's a shitload of TV writers and some with previous Trek experience but no honest to god SF writers. 

 

I seriously doubt that this show will be challenging or complex at all.

 

To be sure, though, apart from a few occasional outside freelance writers (Sturgeon, Matheson, George Clayton Johnson), we tend to forget that the vast majority of in-house staff on TOS back in the '60s were mostly career TeeVee™ writers also, who up to that point had written mostly for the horse-operas and police dramas of the day (Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana, etc.). Science fiction was a very new genre for most of them, professionally-speaking, and is why so many TOS episodes are actually thinly-disguised "haircuts" of other existing genres ("Balance of Terror" = Run Silent, Run Deep, for example).

 

It's simply that those freelancers wrote such good scripts that today we like to think the entire TOS writer's room was this veritable haven of SF legends, when in fact it was pretty much the exact opposite of that.

post #614 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by mondguy View Post

My issue with Discovery is that it's had an identity crisis since the first announcement.  We're what...twenty days from the premiere and I still have no idea what the basic premise is.  And I've been paying attention to the released promotional material.

I'd almost guarantee that this is because there's some bullshit mystery box twist.
post #615 of 720

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto II View Post
 

 

To be sure, though, apart from a few occasional outside freelance writers (Sturgeon, Matheson, George Clayton Johnson), we tend to forget that the vast majority of in-house staff on TOS back in the '60s were mostly career TeeVee™ writers too, who up to that point had written mostly for the horse-operas and police dramas of the day (Roddenberry, Coon, Fontana, etc.). Science fiction was a very new genre for most of them, professionally-speaking, and is why so many TOS episodes are actually "haircuts" of other existing genres ("Balance of Terror" = Run Silent, Run Deep, for example).

 

It's simply that those freelancers wrote such good scripts that today we like to think the entire TOS writer's room was this veritable haven of SF legends, when in fact it was pretty much the exact opposite of that.

 

Very true. I still remember the story that  Gene was selling it as "Wagon Train to the stars" to get network interest.  TOS did a lot of "firsts" for science fiction TV back then and I'd say from TNG on they never really tried to push the envelope. DS9 tried but again it was hampered with the usual Trek baggage.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reasor View Post


I'd almost guarantee that this is because there's some bullshit mystery box twist.

 

Oh you know there's going to be to explain away the blatant continuity issues.

post #616 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

I saw this elsewhere:

 

get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FwlkUQdk.jpg&key=2VTh65XNPSnCDwyzV_WTOQ&w=800&h=280

 

Jesus, I hate to go all "Boone Daniels Triggered" but that image is pretty damn "troubling"

post #617 of 720

Just say it looks like complete shit. We're all thinking the same thing.

post #618 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post

Jesus, I hate to go all "Boone Daniels Triggered" but that image is pretty damn "troubling"
It is, isn't it? It'd probably be material for a Twitter lynch mob if anybody was paying any attention to this thing at all.
post #619 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


It is, isn't it? It'd probably be material for a Twitter lynch mob if anybody was paying any attention to this thing at all.

 

The guys who have Jeffrey Archer as their desktop wallpaper are very interested.

post #620 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

The guys who have Jeffrey Archer as their desktop wallpaper are very interested.
It's Jonathan Archer. And he was actually one of the best parts of Enterprise.
post #621 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

The guys who have [...] Archer as their desktop wallpaper are very interested.
All three of them?
post #622 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post


It's Jonathan Archer. And he was actually one of the best parts of Enterprise.

 

Oh look, it's the fourth one!

 

I kid, I kid!

 

*snicker*

post #623 of 720
Thread Starter 
Jonathan Archer has such a crazy shift in characterization during the course of the show. In the first two seasons he's just a total boob. The way they wrote him being so petulant and utterly naive that I found him unbelievable as a captain.

This could be said for most of the characters from the early seasons, especially Trip and his transformation with the impact the death of his sister had on him.
post #624 of 720
His petulance about the Vulcans acting all superior would seem almost Trumpian these days, except for the fact that Enterprise Vulcans are certifiably total pricks.
post #625 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

Oh look, it's the fourth one!

I kid, I kid!

*snicker*

No...YOUR the fourth one.

*changes desktop wallpaper to Picard*
post #626 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

Jonathan Archer has such a crazy shift in characterization during the course of the show. In the first two seasons he's just a total boob. The way they wrote him being so petulant and utterly naive that I found him unbelievable as a captain.

This could be said for most of the characters from the early seasons, especially Trip and his transformation with the impact the death of his sister had on him.

It's the Xendi arc. Just like the Dominion helped DS9 finally become the true successor to TOS. The Xendi arc made Enterprise...good.

And yeah, Enterprise era Vulcans were assholes.
post #627 of 720
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post

His petulance about the Vulcans acting all superior would seem almost Trumpian these days, except for the fact that Enterprise Vulcans are certifiably total pricks.

In a lot of cases I don't blame them for being pricks because of how DUUUUUMB Archer acts. Like when he helps the Andorians discover a Vulcan spying station that violates a treaty they made with the Andorians. Sure, the Vulcans broke their word, but Archer also has no idea of what the history is between the two worlds, why the Vulcans take these measures, having only just met the Andorians for the first time, etc. He's just all "fuck it" because of his dumb childhood hang up over the Vulcans holding back humans from space exploration. And the guy wondered why Vulcans did what they did when he does shit that may have caused an interstellar war.

Yeah, the Xindi arc helped grow that character, but I also like that Vulcan trilogy where his experience in carrying Surak's katra makes him understand their culture much better.

I also like that we got insight into Ambassador Soval's character and why he had to be a prick at times. It's not he doesn't trust humans exploring space, he genuinely has a liking for them thinks they're moving way too fast for their own good. He doesn't want to see these people with so much potential get caught in a bad situation because of their curiousity. And eventually he accepts he can't stop them from following their instincts as explorers and comes to trust they'll make it.

But still, that gazelle speech of Archer's is the dumbest thing ever, I wouldn't have blamed Soval from breaking his Vulcan stoicism by face palming.
post #628 of 720

I hated the Xindi arc for turning the show into a UPN action series when I was already hating the Temporal Cold War arc for making it a half-baked mystery-box series.

post #629 of 720
Thread Starter 
I like it for what it did for the characters. It was also the only part of the Temporal Cold War arc that made a lick of sense, and I'm glad they ended it right after that with the two parter so we could get into the more of the prequel concepts that the first two seasons barely tapped into.
post #630 of 720

Not entirely unpleasant sounding...

but anything is a leap forward from that crap Enterprise theme.

post #631 of 720
Thread Starter 
I like it.
post #632 of 720

Oh god that Enterprise New Age diarrhea theme. So very terrible.

 

The new theme is fine. Too bad it couldn't be more brassier, more exciting. Hopefully the show actually makes to it warp and isn't stuck at impulse for four seasons. 

post #633 of 720

Not blown away by the theme to be honest. It's not unlistenable and the twist on the Courage's intro isn't bad, but it feels fairly derivative of stuff like Game Of Thrones and doesn't have a lot going on melodically.

post #634 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

Not blown away by the theme to be honest. It's not unlistenable and the twist on the Courage's intro isn't bad, but it feels fairly derivative of stuff like Game Of Thrones and doesn't have a lot going on melodically.

 

At least the GoT is memorable. This is just a theme stuck on top of a classic one.

 

Which actually sums up the concept of this show perfectly.

post #635 of 720

Yeah, except for the Star Trek bits, it sounds like music more suited for a late 90's political thriller.  I'm picturing sweeping views of Washington monuments and a Jack Ryan running through a hallway with some important file in his hand.

post #636 of 720

It has the same problem the Giaccino theme has, of trying to sound familiar while consciously avoiding notes on the scale that have already been used for earlier themes.

post #637 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

I like it.

So do I.
post #638 of 720
An embargo on reviews is in place until the show officially premieres. That's always encouraging.
post #639 of 720

I was really hoping that Discovery would be more DS9 than Enterprise/Voyager. Like I said before I'll give it a couple episodes to hook me.

 

If it does indeed blow I can always fall back on Star Trek Online.

post #640 of 720
Thread Starter 
If it turns out like that, it would only reinforce the idea that a network breathing down the neck of a Trek show is always a bad deal. TNG and DS9 had that advantage of having more creative freedom due to a lack of a network. And ENT only truly got very good once the ratings were low enough for UPN not to pay much more attention to the content.
post #641 of 720

I'm definitely curious at what the long form arc of this series is going to be and what it will add to the canon.

 

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

 

Finally, a decent explanation about the Klingons in the show that makes a lot of sense and is pretty awesome to boot.

post #642 of 720

So I heard a rumor about something that might occur in the first episode that's quite intriguing if it turns out to be true.

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Reportedly a transdimensional event may happen.

 

Also, we may see the classic Enterprise in this show at some point because she did have two captains before Kirk.

 

You know what? I'm actually interested in seeing how this show plays out now.

post #643 of 720
Nah.
post #644 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSaxon View Post
 

I saw this elsewhere:

 

get?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FwlkUQdk.jpg&key=2VTh65XNPSnCDwyzV_WTOQ&w=800&h=280

 

It's a sad day when you find evidence of Star Trek literally eating itself. 

post #645 of 720

But the Klingons have ALWAYS changed across the decades of the franchise's existence. You've got the first Fred Phillips version with swarthy skin and bifurcated eyebrows. You've got the second Phillips TOS version with just beards ("Friday's Child," "The Trouble With Tribbles," et al). You've got the third Phillips TMP version with a single vertebral-ridge running down the middle of a smooth forehead with ridges on the bridge of the nose.

 

You've got the Burman Studios version with individualized bony forehead plates and smooth noses, and barely any ridges on the females (i.e., Valkris). You've got the Richard Snell version with subtler individualized forehead-plates, also with much subtler female-ridges. You've got the Michael Westmore version with large, individualized bony plates and nose-ridges, and with no gender dimorphism in plate-size.


And of course, other species have been repeatedly redesigned, too. Tellarites went through 2-3 makeup variations in their three onscreen TOS appearances (later background Tellarites lacked the sunken eyes and three-fingered hands, and the dead one in "The Lights of Zetar" didn't even have the nose), then went to a more porcine look with less sunken eyes in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, then underwent a massive redesign in ENT.


Andorians have had multiple designs across TOS, TMP, TVH, TNG, and ENT, with many variations of antenna-shape, size, and position. The Ktarian makeup design changed completely from the big arched forehead-ridges in TNG: "The Game" to just a few tiny horns in Voyager (because they needed a simple makeup to put on the baby and child actors playing Naomi Wildman). The Borg underwent a major redesign in Star Trek: First Contact and beyond. And so on.


This is just something Star Trek *does*. It's not like Star Wars, where every tiny detail is religiously recreated. It's always had room for new creators to reimagine its look, to put their own stamp on it. There's nothing happening here that hasn't been done multiple times before across many, many decades. It's just that today's fans are already used to the older changes, or weren't there when they were first made. The new changes always take more time to get used to, and far too many fans mistake novelty for "wrongness."

 

But keep in mind that the whole driving philosophy of Star Trek is the exact opposite of that -- that the new and different are not wrong, that they're something to be sought out with open, welcoming curiosity.

post #646 of 720

People have higher production value and continuity expectations now.  Saying "this is how we did it before" isn't good enough.  

 

The fourth season of Enterprise is the most underrated product to ever come out of the Star Trek universe primarily because the guy who took over (Manny Cota, who I'm a big fan of) understood the above problem and actually tried to address the most glaring issues ... and did so convincingly, IMHO.  

post #647 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

People have higher production value and continuity expectations now.  Saying "this is how we did it before" isn't good enough.  

 

Not quite. As I said, the difference isn't about technology or modernity, it's simply a matter of art style. Hollywood makeup designers are artists, just like animators or comic-book artists are. Different artists have different character design styles. John Byrne's Superman looks very different from Curt Swan's Superman. Bruce Timm's animated Batman looks very different from Phil Bourassa's animated Batman. Star Trek aliens are artistic creations first and foremost, and it's only natural to expect different artists to have different design styles. As I said, we have Phillips Klingons, Burman Klingons, Westmore Klingons, Snell Klingons, and Page Klingons, all very different in design because they're the work of different artists with differing personal styles.


All the technology does is to give the artists more freedom to put their designs on the screen. Fred Phillips was able to give us more elaborate Klingons in TMP than he could in TOS because he had more money and technology to do it with. Michael Westmore was able to create more elaborate Borg in First Contact than he could in TNG for the same reason. When it's the same artist working with different levels of budget and tech in a particular era, then that's the explanation. But when it's different artists doing the creature designs, that alone is the primary explanation for the differences.

 

And saying "continuity differences" isn't an explanation either, because there's been very, very little actual continuity in Star Trek over the decades with sudden, unexplained alien creature design-differences (TOS Romulans vs. TNG Romulans, TNG Trill vs. DS9 Trill, etc.).

post #648 of 720

Citing examples of the same characters that exist in different universes/interpretations/mediums is a non-sequitur.

 

You can have as many art styles as you want.  But when, as an artist, you're supposed to be creating something that exists within the same continuity as something else, and you ignore obvious fundamental attributes, that's usually going to be a negative in my opinion.  

post #649 of 720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
 

Citing examples of the same characters that exist in different universes/interpretations/mediums is a non-sequitur.

 

You can have as many art styles as you want.  But when, as an artist, you're supposed to be creating something that exists within the same continuity as something else, and you ignore obvious fundamental attributes, that's usually going to be a negative in my opinion.  

 

I was talking strictly about the Prime Universe, there. (TOS, TNG, DS9, etc.) And every show and movie in that universe is set in the same continuity, with each species presumed to be possessing the same identical biology from series to series unless specifically mentioned onscreen. Most inconsistencies in Star Trek in this are are simply glossed over or ignored more often than not, apart from ENT's Augment-virus two-parter giving us an in-universe explanation for the lack of Klingon forehead-ridges in TOS.

 

But agreed that this can come down to personal taste, though in Hollywood continuity usually takes a backseat to artistic license.

post #650 of 720
Thread Starter 
I don't mind updating the aesthetic. If there were to be a series set at the same year as TOS and in the same continuity, I will never expect the production team to merely replicate the look of 1960s TV like how fan shows like Star Trek Continues does. Ultimately, they need to reach out to a broader audience beyond fanboys wanting strict continuity, because cardboard sets won't cut it.

That said, I simply don't like the design of the new Klingons.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › STAR TREK: DISCOVERY (2017)