test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

STar Trek Discovery

1235715

Comments

  • lordrezeonlordrezeon Member Posts: 399 Arc User
    Pft, time travel shenanigans have permeated so much of Star Trek's lore and history that I don't think the past is even remotely stable at this point. Recall Q's lesson to Picard at the end of TNG, what you do in the future can have a large impact on the past. The temporal cold war seems to really have taken a toll on the lore.

    Perhaps Sarek's objections to Spock being in Starfleet are due to what happens with Burnham... what with this show aiming to be grimmer and darker. Sure Spock was supposed to already be in Starfleet under Pike around this time, but specific dates on those things have always been a bit squishy. Sarek having another unrevealed family member isn't a new concept, don't forget Sybok who Spock chose to never once mention to Kirk in casual conversation.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,201 Bug Hunter
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Maybe truth is a foreign concept to you. Point is they can tell a lie and justify it. Okay maybe lie is too harsh but it's not hte truth never the less.

    I'm beginning to suspect you're the sort of person who yelled LIAR! at your mum when she threw you a surprise birthday party
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    I'm just curious if this is prime universe how we get from the slick technology of Discovery to the buttons and flashing lights of TOS. Explain that, maybe you have an answer for that.

    I think you're confused. I'm not involved in the production of Discovery in any way whatsoever.
    I'm mostly going by feel. TOS, TNG, and ENT all look and feel like they belong together (including in writing style and tone), even if there's variation between them. Discovery feels different, based all the material I've seen so far.

    That's just personal bias. To a TOS fan TNG would have felt like a radical departure, same with TWoK, same with DS9. Same for ENT, and the KT. Hell the only ones not accused of this were TAS (which was more of TOS) and VGR (which was just TNG but worse). For the people who will see ST for the first time with DSC then see the rest will no doubt feel the same when the next era arrives.
    Having the same continuity (or not) isn't really relevant to the point I'm making, I'm calling it a reboot because I sense the creators casting off/revising parts of the old material so they can go in their own direction (the darker tone, the half-cocked attempt at scientific realism for klingons, etc.).

    Reboot probably isn't quite the right word, but I don't know if a better one exists.

    Then just put your own name in subscript next to the word reboot to let us know it's not the correct meaning of the word. Or just use words like visual update or retcon or other words that exist and accurately describe what appears to be happening.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Reboot fits-making major changes to invalidate prior canon in both events and core setting elements fits "Reboot".

    No it doesn't and you know this, you've had it explained to you before.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Klingons are now reptilian Ork-hybrids

    Incorrect.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    and ritualistic,

    You've never seen TNG or DS9.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    this invalidates both TOS and Enterprise's explanation for ridgeless klingons by making them simply absent,

    Incorrect. That's not what invalidate means and you know it.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    while radically changing/altering Klingon biology and giving them funky weird "apex predator" powers

    Correct, down with TMP, grr.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    that make no scientific sense.

    Literally all of Star trek is looking at you with bafflement and confusion as they've being trying for 50 years to look as stupid as possible to scientists. Perhaps they weren't inverting the polarity of enough neutron beams for you maybe?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Sarek's Adopted kid-also in starfleet, this invalidates his objections to Spock serving, and introduces an additional human to the Sarek household. (Burnham's existence, esp. as a protege of the Vulcan ambassador invalidates his logic in opposing his half-human son's decision to join Starfleet due to ethical reasons and concerns, as seen in "Journey to Babel".)

    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

    And have you seen DSC yet or are you just pulling your views on a plot that hasn't happened out of your ar.se? What makes you say that Sarek is happy with how Burnham turns out or that she acts particularly human compared to Spock?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Uniforms changed drastically-we had examples of era-specific uniforms in "The Menagerie" (TOS), they weren't blue and gold marching band uniforms.

    Because DSC is not Cage, it predates it. This is not a difficult concept at all. People wear things before they wear other things, this is temporal reasoning toddlers can understand.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    In TOS each ship had a specific symbol-like a mission patch. Enterprise's symbol didn't become the Federation Starfleet's universal insignia until later in the original canon.

    Will people stop repeating this lie. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong, the writers know it's wrong. There are at least three crews from TOS/TAS that use the Delta and that dosn't even include all the examples from ENT, USS Franklin, USS Kelvin, and the KT fleet.

    patrickngo wrote: »
    Rank pips also-pips were introduced in late Picard's era, not pre-kirk (where it was cuff braiding) or TMP (actual differentiated rank insignia from WoK onward until Generations)

    You've never seen ENT have you?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    tonal shift-discussed by the showrunners at ST:LV, including an intended grasp for the TV:MA rating.

    Yeah, because TWoK has exactly the same tome as Shore Leave dosn't it?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    About the only things kept, being a few names and place-names, the design of the mark 2 phaser and communicators, and some alternatively-applied symbology that no longer means what it meant.

    You have not seen the show, this statement is therefore a lie.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    so basically, yes, you're right, it's a "Reboot".

    So basically you're both still wrong. It has not changed in any way ST has not changed before (because you can't post a single example of such) and more importantly it maintains the same continuity which means it cannot be a reboot by fact of that's the only thing the word means.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    (for example, not pretending Fuller's reptiloids are the same Klingon race we've been seeing for nearly fifty years)

    You love that one don't you. I assume you thought it sounded quite clever in your head when you first thought it an now just won't let it go despite it not being true.
    And Fuller is a showrunner, he dosn't need to pretend anything, he needs to write it. In the same way GR did when he massivly, drastically, and completely rewrote the brown-painted mongols of TOS into turtle headed dino-humans in TMP.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Had it been set in a forward time, and not reused some of the names then it wouldn't be a reboot-but rewriting a prior, already-seen era is definitely a reboot.

    It's a series of small to middling retcons and you know it.
    Until it's announced that it is a new take with no links to existing continuity (in the same way as the Amazing Spider-Man series was for the Spider-Man Trilogy) then it's not a reboot. You can stamp your feet, misrepresent, and outright lie all you want but the facts will remain unaffected by you personally, the story has been confirmed to be intrinsically linked to previous entries in the franchise and it thus, not a reboot.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 8,459 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    Fuller's not a showrunner - he bowed out in order to concentrate on American Gods. Y'all might have seen that? It was in the papers.

    And just because they're wearing spiky armor and have head ridges doesn't make the Klingons reptilian, any more than the head-lobsters in TMP made them crustaceans.
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 4,787 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    So basically you're both still wrong. It has not changed in any way ST has not changed before (because you can't post a single example of such) and more importantly it maintains the same continuity which means it cannot be a reboot by fact of that's the only thing the word means.​​

    I personally have always seen a distinction between a reboot and a remake, in that reboots maintain the same continuity but take the franchise in a different direction in an attempt to revitalize it, while remakes scrap all continuity and start fresh. This distinction is something I picked up a long time ago from an interview with a producer or director, I forget what movie it was for, where they specifically stated that what they were working on was a reboot, not a remake, because they were maintaining the same continuity. So by my understanding, what you described would be a remake, and what Patrickngo said about TRIBBLE would make TRIBBLE a reboot.

    A reboot is not an automatically bad thing, but in this case I feel they went way too​ far just for the sake of putting their own mark on the franchise.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    LJEhU5U.png
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Maybe truth is a foreign concept to you. Point is they can tell a lie and justify it. Okay maybe lie is too harsh but it's not hte truth never the less.

    I'm beginning to suspect you're the sort of person who yelled LIAR! at your mum when she threw you a surprise birthday party
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    I'm just curious if this is prime universe how we get from the slick technology of Discovery to the buttons and flashing lights of TOS. Explain that, maybe you have an answer for that.

    I think you're confused. I'm not involved in the production of Discovery in any way whatsoever.
    I'm mostly going by feel. TOS, TNG, and ENT all look and feel like they belong together (including in writing style and tone), even if there's variation between them. Discovery feels different, based all the material I've seen so far.

    That's just personal bias. To a TOS fan TNG would have felt like a radical departure, same with TWoK, same with DS9. Same for ENT, and the KT. Hell the only ones not accused of this were TAS (which was more of TOS) and VGR (which was just TNG but worse). For the people who will see ST for the first time with DSC then see the rest will no doubt feel the same when the next era arrives.
    Having the same continuity (or not) isn't really relevant to the point I'm making, I'm calling it a reboot because I sense the creators casting off/revising parts of the old material so they can go in their own direction (the darker tone, the half-cocked attempt at scientific realism for klingons, etc.).

    Reboot probably isn't quite the right word, but I don't know if a better one exists.

    Then just put your own name in subscript next to the word reboot to let us know it's not the correct meaning of the word. Or just use words like visual update or retcon or other words that exist and accurately describe what appears to be happening.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Reboot fits-making major changes to invalidate prior canon in both events and core setting elements fits "Reboot".

    No it doesn't and you know this, you've had it explained to you before.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Klingons are now reptilian Ork-hybrids

    Incorrect.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    and ritualistic,

    You've never seen TNG or DS9.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    this invalidates both TOS and Enterprise's explanation for ridgeless klingons by making them simply absent,

    Incorrect. That's not what invalidate means and you know it.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    while radically changing/altering Klingon biology and giving them funky weird "apex predator" powers

    Correct, down with TMP, grr.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    that make no scientific sense.

    Literally all of Star trek is looking at you with bafflement and confusion as they've being trying for 50 years to look as stupid as possible to scientists. Perhaps they weren't inverting the polarity of enough neutron beams for you maybe?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Sarek's Adopted kid-also in starfleet, this invalidates his objections to Spock serving, and introduces an additional human to the Sarek household. (Burnham's existence, esp. as a protege of the Vulcan ambassador invalidates his logic in opposing his half-human son's decision to join Starfleet due to ethical reasons and concerns, as seen in "Journey to Babel".)

    Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

    And have you seen DSC yet or are you just pulling your views on a plot that hasn't happened out of your ar.se? What makes you say that Sarek is happy with how Burnham turns out or that she acts particularly human compared to Spock?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Uniforms changed drastically-we had examples of era-specific uniforms in "The Menagerie" (TOS), they weren't blue and gold marching band uniforms.

    Because DSC is not Cage, it predates it. This is not a difficult concept at all. People wear things before they wear other things, this is temporal reasoning toddlers can understand.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    In TOS each ship had a specific symbol-like a mission patch. Enterprise's symbol didn't become the Federation Starfleet's universal insignia until later in the original canon.

    Will people stop repeating this lie. You know it's wrong, I know it's wrong, the writers know it's wrong. There are at least three crews from TOS/TAS that use the Delta and that dosn't even include all the examples from ENT, USS Franklin, USS Kelvin, and the KT fleet.

    patrickngo wrote: »
    Rank pips also-pips were introduced in late Picard's era, not pre-kirk (where it was cuff braiding) or TMP (actual differentiated rank insignia from WoK onward until Generations)

    You've never seen ENT have you?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    tonal shift-discussed by the showrunners at ST:LV, including an intended grasp for the TV:MA rating.

    Yeah, because TWoK has exactly the same tome as Shore Leave dosn't it?
    patrickngo wrote: »
    About the only things kept, being a few names and place-names, the design of the mark 2 phaser and communicators, and some alternatively-applied symbology that no longer means what it meant.

    You have not seen the show, this statement is therefore a lie.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    so basically, yes, you're right, it's a "Reboot".

    So basically you're both still wrong. It has not changed in any way ST has not changed before (because you can't post a single example of such) and more importantly it maintains the same continuity which means it cannot be a reboot by fact of that's the only thing the word means.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    (for example, not pretending Fuller's reptiloids are the same Klingon race we've been seeing for nearly fifty years)

    You love that one don't you. I assume you thought it sounded quite clever in your head when you first thought it an now just won't let it go despite it not being true.
    And Fuller is a showrunner, he dosn't need to pretend anything, he needs to write it. In the same way GR did when he massivly, drastically, and completely rewrote the brown-painted mongols of TOS into turtle headed dino-humans in TMP.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Had it been set in a forward time, and not reused some of the names then it wouldn't be a reboot-but rewriting a prior, already-seen era is definitely a reboot.

    It's a series of small to middling retcons and you know it.
    Until it's announced that it is a new take with no links to existing continuity (in the same way as the Amazing Spider-Man series was for the Spider-Man Trilogy) then it's not a reboot. You can stamp your feet, misrepresent, and outright lie all you want but the facts will remain unaffected by you personally, the story has been confirmed to be intrinsically linked to previous entries in the franchise and it thus, not a reboot.​​

    And you still keep changing the subject from my point. How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none. Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 9,768 Arc User
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    And you still keep changing the subject from my point. How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none. Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.

    Excuse me for chiming in, but the show hasn't even aired yet, nobody has seen a single episode and thus is unable to answer this question. Well, except you I suppose, you already know. Please use spoiler tags though, I wanna be surprised pig-1.gif​​
    2r2u1s2.jpg
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 3,377 Arc User
    I liked the old battlestar galactica `curtsy`

    It's great to finally meet someone else who likes original BSG over the remake.

    Are by any chance also a fan of the early 80s Buck Rogers?

    Yeppers. ^_^ V
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    angrytarg wrote: »
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    And you still keep changing the subject from my point. How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none. Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.

    Excuse me for chiming in, but the show hasn't even aired yet, nobody has seen a single episode and thus is unable to answer this question. Well, except you I suppose, you already know. Please use spoiler tags though, I wanna be surprised pig-1.gif​​

    Well, sorry to spoil it for you angrytarg. I'll remember the spoiler tags in the future.

    In all seriousness I'm not saying this isn't the Prime timeline. But, I'm also saying that they could be telling an untruth. That's quite a devolution of technology and shift in aesthetic in a ten year period. Perhaps time travel is involved which would make one of these realities an alternate one. Usually with war technology takes an evolutionary leap forward. Maybe the war with the Klingons is so bad technology takes a step backwards. Maybe the TOS is a sort of technological dark age. I don't know maybe they have it all figured out, maybe the don't and are just feeding us a line. We will see.

    I guess I believe just because you vote someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. Just because you don't vote for someone doesn't mean you can't defend them.
  • evilmark444evilmark444 Member Posts: 4,787 Arc User
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    And you still keep changing the subject from my point. How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none. Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.

    Excuse me for chiming in, but the show hasn't even aired yet, nobody has seen a single episode and thus is unable to answer this question. Well, except you I suppose, you already know. Please use spoiler tags though, I wanna be surprised pig-1.gif​​

    Well, sorry to spoil it for you angrytarg. I'll remember the spoiler tags in the future.

    In all seriousness I'm not saying this isn't the Prime timeline. But, I'm also saying that they could be telling an untruth. That's quite a devolution of technology and shift in aesthetic in a ten year period. Perhaps time travel is involved which would make one of these realities an alternate one. Usually with war technology takes an evolutionary leap forward. Maybe the war with the Klingons is so bad technology takes a step backwards. Maybe the TOS is a sort of technological dark age. I don't know maybe they have it all figured out, maybe the don't and are just feeding us a line. We will see.

    I guess I believe just because you vote someone doesn't mean you can't criticize them. Just because you don't vote for someone doesn't mean you can't defend them.

    For the uniforms and tech, I can probably accept whatever explanation they give. When it comes to the Klingons though, the only explanation I could ever accept is John DeLancie making a very short cameo where he walks on camera, says "Nope.", snaps his fingers, and they all go back to either the TOS or TNG look, or a combination of both.
    Lifetime Subscriber since Beta
    LJEhU5U.png
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,091 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Further, per the production team themselves Klingons now not only don't have hair, but never did in their new continuity.

    And it remains to be seen whether or not this is true for the entire species or just this particular house. For all anyone knows, this was a different Klingon race that went extinct or isolated themselves. We haven't seen the show yet.
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    valoreah wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Further, per the production team themselves Klingons now not only don't have hair, but never did in their new continuity.

    And it remains to be seen whether or not this is true for the entire species or just this particular house. For all anyone knows, this was a different Klingon race that went extinct or isolated themselves. We haven't seen the show yet.

    I think it was mentioned that the Klingons settled other planets in the past and their evolution was influenced by their new enviroment. Of course it could simply be a matter of someone in production saying "wouldn't Klingons be cooler if they had...". I can see why some are not happy with the look. Some people were not happy with the introduction of the Remans. Imagine if they had passed the Remans off as Romulans.
  • starswordcstarswordc Member Posts: 10,673 Arc User
    > @jonsills said:
    > davidbrunell88 wrote: »
    >
    > The original is explained like this. Star fleet was being **** by romulans in the fed rom war so they started using old esrth tech from the 1960's but perfected so nothing could be ****. On long range mission the cramped ships used bright colors and themes to keep people from going crazy, like an experiment. Thats in cannon reasons for TOS look. Discovery is a new team of tv show makers trying to make a name for them selves by changing everything. Really sucks when people who care nothing for star trek are makeing stsr trek.
    >
    >
    >
    > I have no idea which opening you pried this from, but you can take my word as a lifelong Trekkie (over half a century so far!) - that load of nonsense is not canon, in any possible sense.

    I know some of that is actually from the ENT continuation novels, which are indeed not canon.
    "Two ways to view the world, so similar at times / Two ways to rule the world, to justify their crimes / By Kings and Queens young men are sent to die in war / Their propaganda speaks those words been heard before"
    — Sabaton, "A Lifetime of War"
    VZ9ASdg.png
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,201 Bug Hunter
    jonsills wrote: »
    Fuller's not a showrunner - he bowed out in order to concentrate on American Gods. Y'all might have seen that? It was in the papers.

    Yes, I was mistaken.
    I personally have always seen a distinction between a reboot and a remake, in that reboots maintain the same continuity but take the franchise in a different direction in an attempt to revitalize it, while remakes scrap all continuity and start fresh. This distinction is something I picked up a long time ago from an interview with a producer or director, I forget what movie it was for, where they specifically stated that what they were working on was a reboot, not a remake, because they were maintaining the same continuity. So by my understanding, what you described would be a remake, and what Patrickngo said about TRIBBLE would make TRIBBLE a reboot.

    A reboot is not an automatically bad thing, but in this case I feel they went way too​ far just for the sake of putting their own mark on the franchise.

    That's fine and all except a reboot is a remake. It's specifically about continuity. If it exists in the same continuity (no matter how faithfully) it cannot be a reboot very the very definition of the word.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    And you still keep changing the subject from my point.

    No I answered that. The rest of the post you quoted was me replying to somebody else, not avoiding you.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none.

    No, I have hypotheses but I don't know, so I'm not going to bother with unfounded speculation this close to release.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    It is not a reboot, you are not being lied to, they don't care about you at all, they can obviously afford to lose all the diehard fanbois or they would pander to them hard it is exactly what it has always been, you have changed (or refused to) the franchise has not. It has always and will always adapted to audiences of the time, the times it didn't do we got VGR and that turned out so well.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.

    'Wait and see' is not blindly following anything, it's the very absence of following.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    It's not "Head ridges" and you know it, Jon. They've got beautifully SCALED patterns all th e way DOWN. (and a nice row of portholes right next to the braincase, which now extends about four inches back to hide the actors' hair in a scaly skinsuit)

    And that is still a lie and you know it Patrick. They have pitted indentations not holes, a feature that already exists from ID and TMP and, again, feasibly on any post-TOS Klingon due to their hairlines.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Further, per the production team themselves Klingons now not only don't have hair, but never did in their new continuity.

    And, again, they can say what they like, the shows canon overrules any BtS talk, Klingons have been shown with hair, ergo Klingons have hair.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    No beard for Kahless, dig it? they don't grow hair now. The head-ports are for some kind of 'Apex predator sense' that is blocked by hair (per the designer's own words). there's only a couple things that could be, thermal or olfactory, unless you really want to try to explain why being in the mere presence of electronics would be equivalent of speaker-front-at-one-meter for a death metal concert. (bioelectric senses strong enough to function in atmosphere would be hell on any animal in an environment more advanced than about 1860 or so...and being electromagnetic spectrum, hair wouldn't be an obstacle as the designer stated it is.)

    There are no officers on-board starships, all crew are the same rank and are all astronauts and Earth is a nudist resort. Roddenberry said it so I guess it must be true despite the show over ruling his statement.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    further, there's the shift in color palette-we're talking a full spectral shift in skin tones from pink/tan/brown (Red derivatives) to Grayish-blue-to-dark Purple.

    that sort of shift is a major change in base chemistry.

    Incorrect, again, it is a minor shift in pigmentation.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    (interesting side note; green to brown can use the same chemical basis as pink-to-brown, but blue sits on the wrong end of the spectrum.)

    Interestingly enough you are not a biologist, nor a alien biologist, nor do Klingons exist which means they can be whatever colour the writers want, and do you know why? Because you can break through event horizons like physical boundaries. It probably dosn't need pointing out but Star Trek is not based on real science.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Alright? I'm not just looking at film-clip shorts and pictures here, MY arguments are based on what the people making the show said. their stated intent, their stated process for creation, their stated reasons, the logic THEY used.

    Try watching the show instead, it's all that is canon at the end of the day. Unless you're going to take word from every single showrunner, writer, director, editor, remasterer, sound designer etc. All of them.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    When someone says "I'm going to punch you in the face", then punches you in the face, it doesn't mean they really meant to kick you in the jimmies or give you a nice comforting hug. Stated intent, visuals of the product, product matches stated intent, there's no debate here, nothing to defend, no ground of 'maybe' involved.

    Again, (wow, this is a really common word when used replying to you), a punch is a physical property, a Klingon is a fictional one, the first is dictated by it's properties and relationship with reality, the second is based on what the people who own it want to do with it.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Basically, Fuller dictated the change, and it stayed dictated after he left, the change is defined, you can look, listen, and there it is. further damning evidence is found directly in the defense used by the people doing the work themselves:

    Irreverent, nobody claimed otherwise.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    "Klingons change all the time" when there's ample evidence that it just ain't so (twenty years of continuous production, including major characters all of whom got more screen time than Mister Spock.)

    This is a lie, they do indeed change all the time. You may argue over the quantity of those changes but to pretend they don't is not ignorance, it is flat out lying.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    The only elements they actually kept, were the name of the race and the language.

    This, again, is a combination of ignorance (you haven't seen the show don't pretend you have) and lying (other examples including the makeup, dress style, and items, as well as cultural styles such as the houses and weapons etc. have already been shown to exist)

    There's not really much point in you replying if you're just going to repeat the same debunked claims over and over again.
    Though I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've just hidden my posts rather than you lacking the mental capacity to understand why you repeating the same lies and ignorance ad nauseam is annoying.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    edited September 2017
    deleted







    Post edited by nefarius2 on
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,186 Arc User
    How do we go from the state of the art 2006 imagineering of high tech to 1964 state of the art high tech look?

    Easy, wait forty years. Styles go in cycles which are just about three generations apart, and I've seen the 1960's look come and go twice already. (Personally, I like to watch a pair of hip-hugger bell bottom jeans walking down the street, but that's just one opinion among many.

    TOS looked as it did because it was a product of its generation. I used to, back in the 1980s, remove control boards which looked a lot like the TOS control panels and replace them with programmable logic controllers. Nobody wants to go back to expensive magnetic relays and lighted status boards, but they worked, often better than what has replaced them, though modular programmable I/O cards are much cheaper to troubleshoot, (computer identifies faulty cards automatically.)

    So it seems to me that a sleeker design with fewer controls and greater automation is a step forward, not back. It also seems to me that the unholy glare of the JJ bridge was a huge technological step back. I can only imagine the headaches all that harsh lighting caused. There is a reason work spaces are not lighted that way: ergonomics. Even today's combat craft don't use such complex installations of multiple monitors per operator and meters long control consoles. They left all that behind before it ever got to the fleet.

    But, for those of you who need a reason:
    [headcanon] Between Discovery and TOS, the electro-plasma revolution begins. Instead of electronic circuitry passing through transistors they have begun to use a plasma network to both power the console and to control the ship's functions. Early plasma controls are not refined. Switches must be robust and positively snap open or closed, but the real advantage is that Duotronic Circuitry becomes possible. Dr. Daystrom's pioneering work in plasma circuitry results in the breakthrough that allows the first true AI in the computer systems of the Constitution Class, creating a hands-off control interface robust enough for use in combat craft. Because the various AI require only operating parameters rather than continuous monitoring and correcting, the various workstations no longer require masses of LED screens to present the operator with data he no longer needs. Over time duotrinic controls become refined, smaller, more reliable, and AIs become more sophisticated, allowing the invention of LCARs and configurable control stations. But in the age of TOS, duotronics and plasme circuitry are new and cutting edge.[/headcanon]

    But, if you can't accept that TOS only looks the way it did because it was a product of its time, and so too was every other Trek show, it seems to me that you don't want to accept that things change. (Often for stupid reasons such as change because we could.) But change is the eternal constant. Change is an essential part of life. Failure or refusal to adapt to change is illogical.

    I think we are at the point where we need to look at each Trek series as independent of each other. They were certainly written that way. Each series has its own merits and faults, but we only beg trouble when we try to reconcile them into some kind of cohesive continuity. For all that 'could have been', we are left with only what was.

    When two things conflict they can both be right. This is fiction, not science. So, Zephram Cochrane is simultaneously 'of Alpha Centauri', and from Montana because we're discussing the young TOS ZC and the elder TNG ZC. There is no need to retcon them and establish one as the 'correct' one. Both stand alone in their respective stories. They are contradictory, but so what?

    So, if you have to have a uniform and consistent story, perhaps Trek is the wrong IP for you, because consistency and uniformity is something Trek never did. Any appearance to the contrary is a direct result of retcon. Why would anyone ever expect something which was never a part of any Trek to be seen as important in fhis version?

    It's a new series, and expecting it to resemble any past incarnation of Trek is missing the point. Trek is not about a particular uniform or bridge style. Trek is speculative fiction dealing with the ability of humans to adapt, improvise, and survive the hazards of technology and star travel. The color or style of a bridge display or even a particular alien species is window dressing, and of zero importance to anything Trek.
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    Ok not civil war. I was thinking of something else.
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    jonsills wrote: »
    Fuller's not a showrunner - he bowed out in order to concentrate on American Gods. Y'all might have seen that? It was in the papers.

    Yes, I was mistaken.
    I personally have always seen a distinction between a reboot and a remake, in that reboots maintain the same continuity but take the franchise in a different direction in an attempt to revitalize it, while remakes scrap all continuity and start fresh. This distinction is something I picked up a long time ago from an interview with a producer or director, I forget what movie it was for, where they specifically stated that what they were working on was a reboot, not a remake, because they were maintaining the same continuity. So by my understanding, what you described would be a remake, and what Patrickngo said about TRIBBLE would make TRIBBLE a reboot.

    A reboot is not an automatically bad thing, but in this case I feel they went way too​ far just for the sake of putting their own mark on the franchise.

    That's fine and all except a reboot is a remake. It's specifically about continuity. If it exists in the same continuity (no matter how faithfully) it cannot be a reboot very the very definition of the word.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    And you still keep changing the subject from my point.

    No I answered that. The rest of the post you quoted was me replying to somebody else, not avoiding you.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    How do we get from the sleek technology of Discovery to the now retro 60's sci-fi look of the TOS? If this is THE prime universe. I asked for your thoughts or theories but you have none.

    No, I have hypotheses but I don't know, so I'm not going to bother with unfounded speculation this close to release.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Because this does look like a reboot. Which AGAIN is FINE with me but they should be up front about it. People don't like being lied to and they cannot afford to lose fans. From what I've read this is an expansive production. Expensive sci fi shows have a hard time making it and the Star Trek IP isn't what it once was.

    It is not a reboot, you are not being lied to, they don't care about you at all, they can obviously afford to lose all the diehard fanbois or they would pander to them hard it is exactly what it has always been, you have changed (or refused to) the franchise has not. It has always and will always adapted to audiences of the time, the times it didn't do we got VGR and that turned out so well.
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    Believe it or not I do want the show to be a success. Doesn't mean I'm not going to criticize or call them out when I think they are handling a situation poorly. I'm not a blind follower like you.

    'Wait and see' is not blindly following anything, it's the very absence of following.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    It's not "Head ridges" and you know it, Jon. They've got beautifully SCALED patterns all th e way DOWN. (and a nice row of portholes right next to the braincase, which now extends about four inches back to hide the actors' hair in a scaly skinsuit)

    And that is still a lie and you know it Patrick. They have pitted indentations not holes, a feature that already exists from ID and TMP and, again, feasibly on any post-TOS Klingon due to their hairlines.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Further, per the production team themselves Klingons now not only don't have hair, but never did in their new continuity.

    And, again, they can say what they like, the shows canon overrules any BtS talk, Klingons have been shown with hair, ergo Klingons have hair.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    No beard for Kahless, dig it? they don't grow hair now. The head-ports are for some kind of 'Apex predator sense' that is blocked by hair (per the designer's own words). there's only a couple things that could be, thermal or olfactory, unless you really want to try to explain why being in the mere presence of electronics would be equivalent of speaker-front-at-one-meter for a death metal concert. (bioelectric senses strong enough to function in atmosphere would be hell on any animal in an environment more advanced than about 1860 or so...and being electromagnetic spectrum, hair wouldn't be an obstacle as the designer stated it is.)

    There are no officers on-board starships, all crew are the same rank and are all astronauts and Earth is a nudist resort. Roddenberry said it so I guess it must be true despite the show over ruling his statement.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    further, there's the shift in color palette-we're talking a full spectral shift in skin tones from pink/tan/brown (Red derivatives) to Grayish-blue-to-dark Purple.

    that sort of shift is a major change in base chemistry.

    Incorrect, again, it is a minor shift in pigmentation.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    (interesting side note; green to brown can use the same chemical basis as pink-to-brown, but blue sits on the wrong end of the spectrum.)

    Interestingly enough you are not a biologist, nor a alien biologist, nor do Klingons exist which means they can be whatever colour the writers want, and do you know why? Because you can break through event horizons like physical boundaries. It probably dosn't need pointing out but Star Trek is not based on real science.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Alright? I'm not just looking at film-clip shorts and pictures here, MY arguments are based on what the people making the show said. their stated intent, their stated process for creation, their stated reasons, the logic THEY used.

    Try watching the show instead, it's all that is canon at the end of the day. Unless you're going to take word from every single showrunner, writer, director, editor, remasterer, sound designer etc. All of them.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    When someone says "I'm going to punch you in the face", then punches you in the face, it doesn't mean they really meant to kick you in the jimmies or give you a nice comforting hug. Stated intent, visuals of the product, product matches stated intent, there's no debate here, nothing to defend, no ground of 'maybe' involved.

    Again, (wow, this is a really common word when used replying to you), a punch is a physical property, a Klingon is a fictional one, the first is dictated by it's properties and relationship with reality, the second is based on what the people who own it want to do with it.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Basically, Fuller dictated the change, and it stayed dictated after he left, the change is defined, you can look, listen, and there it is. further damning evidence is found directly in the defense used by the people doing the work themselves:

    Irreverent, nobody claimed otherwise.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    "Klingons change all the time" when there's ample evidence that it just ain't so (twenty years of continuous production, including major characters all of whom got more screen time than Mister Spock.)

    This is a lie, they do indeed change all the time. You may argue over the quantity of those changes but to pretend they don't is not ignorance, it is flat out lying.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    The only elements they actually kept, were the name of the race and the language.

    This, again, is a combination of ignorance (you haven't seen the show don't pretend you have) and lying (other examples including the makeup, dress style, and items, as well as cultural styles such as the houses and weapons etc. have already been shown to exist)

    There's not really much point in you replying if you're just going to repeat the same debunked claims over and over again.
    Though I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've just hidden my posts rather than you lacking the mental capacity to understand why you repeating the same lies and ignorance ad nauseam is annoying.​​

    They don't pander to diehard fanbois? Really? The KT films were nothing, but uninspired pandering. Look the Enterprise! Look the original crew! Look it's Leonard Nimoy! Look it's a tribble! Look it's Khan! Look the Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. All delivered in an unimaginitive package. The plot for all three films essentially boils down to bad guy seeking revenge on Starfleet and the Federation. Nero seeking revenge for the destruction of his homeworld because he felt the Federation did nothing. Khan seeking revenge on Starfleet for holding his people hostage. Krall seeking revenge on Starfleet for leaving his people behind. I get a feeling the writers don't like Starfleet much.

    It's funny too with all the little easter eggs they put in there like Yorktown, MACO's, a Gorn joke and what not. Who would get those references, but diehards?

    Now we have Discovery. Looks like CBS is trying to cash in on that old timey nostalgia. Look it's Sarek! Look it's Mudd! Look it's Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. Look it's Spock's half sister no one talks about! It's the Klingon Federation War! Yeah, we know how that story ends. For a show about looking towards the future they keep digging up the past. Maybe Star Trek has run gas.

  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,186 Arc User
    Humans have scales too. Your room's dust is composed largely of them.

    Fish are clad in scales. Birds have scales too, and not just the dander. Look at any bird's legs. Scales a lizard would envy.

    And mammals such as the armadillos have very pronounced scales.

    Scales are not exclusive to reptiles, and having scales is not an indication of cold-bloodedness or of reptilian ancestry.

    While it is not where I'd have taken Trek, bald Klingons is where Trek is going. That the producers bothered to give the exchange of traits some psuedoscientific basis is praiseworthy. When Klingon foreheads changed the first time the reason was, "They always had those..."

    The production team has, in fact, gone way overboard on communicating with fans. They could have, (probably should have and will in the future,) said much less. Like the changes or not, as your heart dictates, but this series has had far more openness about what they are doing and why than any other Trek in history.

    I don't care if Klingons are anthropomorphic lizards wearing ballet slippers and tutus: for me the issue is one of storytelling. Whether or not Discovery tells interesting sci-fi stories will be the determining factor on my enjoyment of the series and possibly supporting it with DVD purchases. If the story is a soap opera dressed as Trek the Klingons could be complete Martok clones and I won't bother to watch.

    For me, substance over style any day, because style quickly goes out of style, but good stories remain good stories forever.
  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 8,459 Arc User
    Okay, let's see a good high-res pic. Because I went over the released images, and I didn't see scales on anyone, not even Saru. (Also, those are not "portholes" - they are closed by flesh. Divots, not portholes, any more than dimples are "portholes in a human's cheeks" that can't possibly be explained.)
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,201 Bug Hunter
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    They don't pander to diehard fanbois? Really? The KT films were nothing, but uninspired pandering. Look the Enterprise! Look the original crew! Look it's Leonard Nimoy! Look it's a tribble! Look it's Khan! Look the Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. All delivered in an unimaginitive package. The plot for all three films essentially boils down to bad guy seeking revenge on Starfleet and the Federation. Nero seeking revenge for the destruction of his homeworld because he felt the Federation did nothing. Khan seeking revenge on Starfleet for holding his people hostage. Krall seeking revenge on Starfleet for leaving his people behind. I get a feeling the writers don't like Starfleet much.

    It's funny too with all the little easter eggs they put in there like Yorktown, MACO's, a Gorn joke and what not. Who would get those references, but diehards?

    Now we have Discovery. Looks like CBS is trying to cash in on that old timey nostalgia. Look it's Sarek! Look it's Mudd! Look it's Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. Look it's Spock's half sister no one talks about! It's the Klingon Federation War! Yeah, we know how that story ends. For a show about looking towards the future they keep digging up the past. Maybe Star Trek has run gas.

    That's not pandering, that's continuity, pandering is bowing to the whims of the stagnant brigade that demand nothing changes for them. Keeping Easter eggs and references is not pandering as is obvious by their incessant rage about how those references and Easter eggs are not identical to what they remember.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Artan, the only image from ST:D of a Klingon with h air, was a cut-and-paste from a blogger. They gotz no Hair. They have scales. Multiple images of scales, but no hair.

    I am aware of that considering it was me that posted it. I also never said they had hair, they are however no scales on them.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Also, those are not "portholes" - they are closed by flesh. Divots, not portholes, any more than dimples are "portholes in a human's cheeks" that can't possibly be explained.

    Yeah, I went over that (though probably unreadable considering the amount of sections I had to break my post down into to cover everything), but I also covered it a few weeks ago, and back when the images were first released. It hasn't stopped the 'holes' fallacy being repeated several times since.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • nefarius2nefarius2 Member Posts: 107 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    nefarius2 wrote: »
    They don't pander to diehard fanbois? Really? The KT films were nothing, but uninspired pandering. Look the Enterprise! Look the original crew! Look it's Leonard Nimoy! Look it's a tribble! Look it's Khan! Look the Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. All delivered in an unimaginitive package. The plot for all three films essentially boils down to bad guy seeking revenge on Starfleet and the Federation. Nero seeking revenge for the destruction of his homeworld because he felt the Federation did nothing. Khan seeking revenge on Starfleet for holding his people hostage. Krall seeking revenge on Starfleet for leaving his people behind. I get a feeling the writers don't like Starfleet much.

    It's funny too with all the little easter eggs they put in there like Yorktown, MACO's, a Gorn joke and what not. Who would get those references, but diehards?

    Now we have Discovery. Looks like CBS is trying to cash in on that old timey nostalgia. Look it's Sarek! Look it's Mudd! Look it's Klingons! But, ours are much cooler. Look it's Spock's half sister no one talks about! It's the Klingon Federation War! Yeah, we know how that story ends. For a show about looking towards the future they keep digging up the past. Maybe Star Trek has run gas.

    That's not pandering, that's continuity, pandering is bowing to the whims of the stagnant brigade that demand nothing changes for them. Keeping Easter eggs and references is not pandering as is obvious by their incessant rage about how those references and Easter eggs are not identical to what they remember.
    patrickngo wrote: »
    Artan, the only image from ST:D of a Klingon with h air, was a cut-and-paste from a blogger. They gotz no Hair. They have scales. Multiple images of scales, but no hair.

    I am aware of that considering it was me that posted it. I also never said they had hair, they are however no scales on them.
    jonsills wrote: »
    Also, those are not "portholes" - they are closed by flesh. Divots, not portholes, any more than dimples are "portholes in a human's cheeks" that can't possibly be explained.

    Yeah, I went over that (though probably unreadable considering the amount of sections I had to break my post down into to cover everything), but I also covered it a few weeks ago, and back when the images were first released. It hasn't stopped the 'holes' fallacy being repeated several times since.​​

    Change was TNG. Change was creating new characters in a new timeline with new stories and not beholden to the past. KT is not change. It's a coverband playing the greatest hits of someone who already did it better. Just because they have Spock scream "Khaaaan!" in STID makes it "fresh" You are delusional. Just because they had Spock fight Khan which actually read like complete fanboy pandering you could see coming a million miles away. The KT movies gave us nothing new, nothing to say. Just the same boring plot three times over.

    Now with Discovery they are tying the main characters legacy to Spock's legacy because I guess they don't think she can stand on her own two feet. Was Picard, Sisko, Janeway related to any of the original characters. No, they stood on there own. And to place it ten years before the TOS. Mark my word by seasons end we'll be seeing tribbles and Gorns (nothing wrong with that) and some of the same trappings and locations that the "fanbois" love. Just reimagined, but nothing new. Nothing original.
  • valoreahvaloreah Member Posts: 10,091 Arc User
    It's not just "disgruntled fanboys" who see Discovery as a reboot.

    This is hardly proof of anything other than someone made a typo. I couldn't even begin to count the misspellings and inaccuracies I see in local and national broadcast news tickers on a daily basis.
    Dear Devs: I enjoyed the Legacy of Romulus expansion much more than the Delta Rising expansion. .
    thecosmic1 wrote:
    Anyone calling Valoreah a "Cryptic fanboy" must be new to the forum.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Sign In or Register to comment.