"Paying tribute" to the original is scratching the itch of an audience too small to carry the product - or Trek wouldn't have been off the air for 10+ years. It's like making an STO client for Mac users - they insist they're (financially) relevant and they truly believe it, but they're not.
As to other TV anthologies - keep in mind those were modern day stories that don't have huge overhead from sets, props, and costuming that has to be re-paid in full each time you jump around. Sci-fi production budgeting is a cruel beast on the best of days - deliberately poking that beast is asking to fail.
And did you just say "generic aliens"? 'Cause all of sci-fi fandom LAUGHS at Star Trek's generic aliens, and I don't mean just the AR stuff .
I know a lot of folks like to write off TOS as too old and it is dated, but I also think many folks underestimate just how many fans are really out there, that would love to see something along the lines of Classic Trek be made once again.
Even though many of us are on the far edge of middle-age, we still make up a very large portion of Trek Fandom.
Just looking at the majority of reactions around here to Cryptic's foray into TOS, I think it's pretty obvious that this expansion is probably going to be a BIG moneymaker for Them and I don't believe that CBS is missing that fact either.
Granted this is all just supposition on my part, but based on what I've seen and read around the internetz since Trek-2017 was announced, a very large number of fans are expressing their hopes that this new show very much harks back to TOS.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I think it's valid to believe that a Trek Anthology series, would be a lot more expensive in the long run, but...
CBS is very much banking on this show to be their Golden Apple for their new streaming service.
Therefore, it's not so far fetched to see them willing to put a lot more funds into it to ensure it's success.
And from the way Moon-face (can ya tell I don't really care for the man ) has been talking, apparently they are already taking in a ton of money just on pre-orders from stations around the world.
That along with the fact that CBS itself is not completely footing the up-front production costs, tends to make me believe that the budget for this show starting out will be larger than any previous Trek TV incarnation.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I know a lot of folks like to write off TOS as too old and it is dated, but I also think many folks underestimate just how many fans are really out there, that would love to see something along the lines of Classic Trek be made once again.
See? Just like Mac users.
You can tell yourself that, but if it were objectively true they'd have launched another TV series after Enterprise floundered, not handed it off to a madman to be rebooted. That wasn't a warm fuzzy nostalgia decision, that was cold hard economics.
Even though many of us are on the far edge of middle-age, we still make up a very large portion of Trek Fandom.
Which would be EXACTLY why we're not relevant - long since past being in the age brackets that matter to advertising revenue. We're literally too cagey and experienced to bother chasing after.
Just looking at the majority of reactions around here to Cryptic's foray into TOS, I think it's pretty obvious that this expansion is probably going to be a BIG moneymaker for Them and I don't believe that CBS is missing that fact either.
The majority of reactions here are the most INTESELY SELF-SELECTING super-fans possible. This is the house of folks who spend hours a day pretending they're in Starfleet. Just because you're in a room full of people who agree with you doesn't mean you're a meaningful market.
Granted this is all just supposition on my part, but based on what I've seen and read around the internetz since Trek-2017 was announced, a very large number of fans are expressing their hopes that this new show very much harks back to TOS.
No, a bunch of fans are specifically listening for the echo of other fans. The show has to make it or break it based on the general public. A public that has no special loyalty to a 1960s TV show.
Its an important brand for CBS. That's why they keep trying, but 10 years of silence is a sign its time to recalibrate for the audience you want and not the audience you once had. Besides, that older audience is mostly a captive audience - you don't need to give them exactly what they want, you can net the vast majority of their viewership with as little as not actively annoying them .
OK... well I guess we'll just have to wait and see who is more in tune with Trek Fandom then.
<shrug>
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I still say anthology style is stupid and show destroying and the sooner that rumor is buried the better. Re-casting every year, new sets every year, lack of investment in characters who are going to be gone sooner than later...
oh I dunno, one doesn't have to really do ALL that, consider the idea of reusing the same cast and props but telling a different story or the same story from a new side... Perhaps Captain Chucklnuts has to deal with a Klingon Captain Targdung in season 1 and season 2 tells the other side of the story from Targdung's perspective or even fills in the gaps of the story from s1 from his side.
Captain Chucklnuts was promoted to Admiral after that Krappy Klingon incident.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
OK... well I guess we'll just have to wait and see who is more in tune with Trek Fandom then.
<shrug>
I'm not trying to be in tune with Trek fandom, I'm trying to channel my inner network executive financial realism . Of the two, it tends to have a bigger impact on what actually happens.
As a fan, I'd ADORE an entire season from the perspective of a Klingon or Romulan ship/crew. I just don't think that's a safe enough bet to put all those chip on before spinning the wheel, when a bad spin would take Trek off the air again for another 5-12 years...
"Paying tribute" to the original is scratching the itch of an audience too small to carry the product - or Trek wouldn't have been off the air for 10+ years. It's like making an STO client for Mac users - they insist they're (financially) relevant and they truly believe it, but they're not.
As to other TV anthologies - keep in mind those were modern day stories that don't have huge overhead from sets, props, and costuming that has to be re-paid in full each time you jump around. Sci-fi production budgeting is a cruel beast on the best of days - deliberately poking that beast is asking to fail.
And did you just say "generic aliens"? 'Cause all of sci-fi fandom LAUGHS at Star Trek's generic aliens, and I don't mean just the AR stuff .
Paying tribute is of course not only done through visuals, but especially the sets and costumes of the AR movies are so terribly stereotypical "new" it hurts. That's of course subjective but Star Trek has forehead aliens which is visually less spectacular, true, but I prefer every single one of them with a character to cgi abominations like raptor Gorn or those super cheap things we see in the beyond trailer (Navi elf allies and villians with foldy vampire faces - it's those stupid Reman orcs all over again) or plain "sexy catgirls".
^ 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
Nike, you're clearly not terribly involved in SF fandom aside from maybe hanging out with some of the hipster-equivalents at SDCC or some similar overdone con (yes, SF has hipster-equivalents - in their case, only the newest bleeding-edge stuff can be good at all, and then only when it's dystopic to the point that George Orwell would tell them to lighten up).
I can't think of anyone actually working in the field (or, in a few cases, formerly working because they went and died on us) who doesn't admire TOS, and acknowledge its massive influence on the entire field. Heinlein, Brin, the Robinsons (Spider and Kim Stanley), Gibson, Steele, Straczynski - all have been voluble in their praise. Sure, it took Harlan Ellison a while to get over being edited (he HATES having his vision messed with), but even he eventually came around.
And go ahead, tell me "all of sci-fi fandom laughs" at names like Theodore Sturgeon ("Amok Time"), Robert Bloch ("Wolf In the Fold"), or David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles", and the first few drafts of "The Cloud Minders" before the network made them excise the slavery angle - he wrote the last one under a pseudonym).
And go ahead, tell me "all of sci-fi fandom laughs" at names like Theodore Sturgeon ("Amok Time"), Robert Bloch ("Wolf In the Fold"), or David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles", and the first few drafts of "The Cloud Minders" before the network made them excise the slavery angle - he wrote the last one under a pseudonym).
One minor nitpick: I think he was referring to the alien costumes, not the stories. (I could be mistaken, though. )
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Nike, you're clearly not terribly involved in SF fandom aside from maybe hanging out with some of the hipster-equivalents at SDCC or some similar overdone con (yes, SF has hipster-equivalents - in their case, only the newest bleeding-edge stuff can be good at all, and then only when it's dystopic to the point that George Orwell would tell them to lighten up).
Well, I've done SDCC for the last 22 years, but I've brought my own company to them rather than go to hang out. I blame it on being a professional creative myself and having a LOT broader tastes than would allow me to lavish the majority of my time on any one of the several supermassive fandoms. If you do this sort of thing for a living you quickly find out that if you can't monetize it, you don't get to keep producing it and so I tend to look at the production side as having CRITICAL impact on the actual degree of artistic freedom in play.
I can't think of anyone actually working in the field (or, in a few cases, formerly working because they went and died on us) who doesn't admire TOS, and acknowledge its massive influence on the entire field. Heinlein, Brin, the Robinsons (Spider and Kim Stanley), Gibson, Steele, Straczynski - all have been voluble in their praise. Sure, it took Harlan Ellison a while to get over being edited (he HATES having his vision messed with), but even he eventually came around.
Sure, its impact is enormous, including pretty much assuring the vast majority of "futuristic" spaceships ever shown anywhere are silly looking because they all have gravity carpets. But I'm just as much of a heretic over on the fantasy side when I say, "Yes, JRR Tolkien's impact is enormous, but the concept has been done better since then." It may fly in pure fantasy/sci fi realm that you're supposed to abase yourself before the first ones, but it's also like saying to an aircraft designer "hey, if you're not doing it like the Wright Brothers, you're doing it wrong." You may owe your lineage to something, but that's not the end of the story. Sophistication in any endeavor moves on.
And go ahead, tell me "all of sci-fi fandom laughs" at names like Theodore Sturgeon ("Amok Time"), Robert Bloch ("Wolf In the Fold"), or David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles", and the first few drafts of "The Cloud Minders" before the network made them excise the slavery angle - he wrote the last one under a pseudonym).
All of fandom DOES laugh that Trek's aliens are an enormous collection of people with facial appliances. TOS Trek is in many ways the softest of the soft sci-fi. I like to think the less ridged and more self-aware Trek fans can recognize that laughter as somewhat good-natured ribbing.
Paying tribute is of course not only done through visuals, but especially the sets and costumes of the AR movies are so terribly stereotypical "new" it hurts.
Even if that "new" may be driven in part by changes in how real military vessel spaces have changed? I'm right there that Halo (which is cribbed almost wholesale from the movie Aliens) has utterly defined the sci-fi visual lexicon for powered armor and has homogenized a lot of other aspects of military sci-fi. But how would retro-styling help them sell it to the younger audience?
That's of course subjective but Star Trek has forehead aliens which is visually less spectacular, true, but I prefer every single one of them with a character to cgi abominations like raptor Gorn
You don't find it interesting that you can overlook incredibly limited practical costuming, but won't overlook incredibly limited CGI? Because I'd think having patience with TV show budgets in general would cover both.
or those super cheap things we see in the beyond trailer (Navi elf allies and villians with foldy vampire faces - it's those stupid Reman orcs all over again) or plain "sexy catgirls".
Those foldy-faced villians you're complaining about are about as classically Trek as it gets. For pity's sake we've got the Nakhul front and center in game right now. Do they just magically get a pass? Its the usual trade off - a movie has more money but less time. Prettier effects/sets and more clinging to easily conveyed archetypes to skip over long exposition.
Even if that "new" may be driven in part by changes in how real military vessel spaces have changed? I'm right there that Halo (which is cribbed almost wholesale from the movie Aliens) has utterly defined the sci-fi visual lexicon for powered armor and has homogenized a lot of other aspects of military sci-fi. But how would retro-styling help them sell it to the younger audience?
In my opinion absolutely. I'm bored by military sci-fi and am disappointed more classic concepts take flak for not playing US armed forces go to spaaaace. I think doen correctly retro styling could work to get new fans on board, just look how young people wear clothing with Nintendo or Atari appliances that never even have seen the hardware in their life aside from pictures on the internet. "Retro" is still a part of youth culture. Mind you, having those designs does not mean you have to stagnate. I have a feeling the plea to get closer to the roots of Star Trek and honour the classics gets often confused with the inability of fans or myself to be flexible. But not everything radically new and different is suddenly good.
You don't find it interesting that you can overlook incredibly limited practical costuming, but won't overlook incredibly limited CGI? Because I'd think having patience with TV show budgets in general would cover both.
In a few decades I might rethink my statement, but I don't find pure CGI convincing most of the time even in AAA movie releases which I otherwise may like a lot. CGI has to be mixed with practical effets to make it convincing, but that's just my opinion.
Those foldy-faced villians you're complaining about are about as classically Trek as it gets. For pity's sake we've got the Nakhul front and center in game right now. Do they just magically get a pass? Its the usual trade off - a movie has more money but less time. Prettier effects/sets and more clinging to easily conveyed archetypes to skip over long exposition.
How are Na'Kuhl "as classically Trek as it gets"? A 00s retcon does not make ENTs content suddenly actually predate TOS Star Trek. I might add, if you haven't already noted from elsewhere int he forum, I loathe everything ENT. I seriously cannot think of anything that show brought which I like aside from isolated artistic elements which might have been able to work by themselves. Mind you, the terrible new stuff isn't limited to the AR movies, that's not a JJ trek versus other trek rant of mine. Late Trek shows like VOY and ENT were already terrible as is the TNG movie series who started to introduce wrinkly villian cannon fodder like the Insurrection bad guys or Remans.
The classic Star Trek forehead aliens embodies character traces of humans and served as a device to explore morality plays and thus every alien species was characterized in a certain way. Now, it lead to "planet of the hats" on a grand scale and I actually would prefer more exceptions of that rule, but I acknowledge and admire the original purpose and character those alien species have, whereas wrinkly evil orcs to shoot we don't feel sorry for are as flat as it gets. When even Storntroopers in Star Wars have more character you know something's wrong
^ 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
Heehee, and thus I post here, for I can hope to find reasoned and interesting replies (in and amongst the truly driven zealots).
I have a fondness for the morality plays too, but I appreciate that TV and movies are different formats for storytelling and try not to expect one to be the other. Though occasionally we do get pieces of true genius in either medium. The backstory delivery for Rocket Raccoon in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie was breathtaking - 10 seconds of looking at all of the weird bits of metal sticking out of his back early on, a little direct explanation (and I mean little - like 3-4 spoken sentences) late in the film and BOOM, done, you know all you need to about an entire race of one, a truly unique specimen spelled out without have to stop the story for a blah blah blah information dump.
And sometimes we get Nemesis, which is pretty much a two part TV TNG episode on the big screen complete with Data sub-plot. Which I enjoyed just fine, but which went over... poorly... with moviegoers.
I guess the good news here is you seem to want TV-style storytelling and you're gonna get a TV show soon . We'll just have to see where the visual styling lands, because those are a lot more portable between the two mediums.
Just watched the new TV teaser trailer...and kind of taken back by the blatant ripping off of JJ Trek (closing credits space shots) and graphics (STAR TREK lettering and design).
So much for all that talk about having to wait for a certain period of time between the movie and show so fans don't get confused by which Star Trek merchandise they are buying.
Ummm...
It's 2016, did you really think the special effects were going to look like anything else.
Also, it's been speculated that the first space shot, is of the Klingon Moon Praxis, which blew up at the beginning of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the last space shot, is of the Amargosa Sun that Soran tried to destroy with the Nexus Ribbon in Star Trek: Generations.
Thus it seems to indicate that the Trek-2017 TV show, may take place in the 80-some-odd year time period between those two movies.
So it isn't a "rip off" of anything JJ-Trek related, except perhaps the use of current movie level special effects.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
References aside, the visuals are straight from JJ Trek closing titles. Considering the disdain CBS and Paramount have for each other it's surprising.
Where on Earth do people get this kind of misinformation?
The Internetz...
The problem isn't the information, it's the inability of understanding the context of said information.
"Don't believe anything you read unless it's collaborated by provable fact's", seems to be a difficult concept for many to wrap their heads around.
CBS and Paramount are 'Partners' in the Star Trek entertainment industry, therefore anytime it seems that one or the other makes a request that would appear to limit the other's actions, people assume they must be angry over it and trying to gain something over the other.
What isn't understood is that all of these type of decision are based on good Business Practices that actually help both "Partners' in the long run make more money for their stockholders.
Thus words like "disdain" become the go to catch-phrase to make it seem important.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
References aside, the visuals are straight from JJ Trek closing titles. Considering the disdain CBS and Paramount have for each other it's surprising.
And as I said above, NO They Are NOT.
Look at them again, they are similar, but they are actually reimagined images from past Trek movies that have nothing at all to do with JJ's Nu-Trek universe.
The STYLE is the same, but the images are totally new and actually seem tell a the viewer the time period being portrayed.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Ummm...
It's 2016, did you really think the special effects were going to look like anything else.
Also, it's been speculated that the first space shot, is of the Klingon Moon Praxis, which blew up at the beginning of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country...
It's also been speculated that the first shot is of Romulus after the Hobus supernova, and that the fiery thing is the Tholian homeworld.
Let's face it, lots of things have been speculated, but there are no data upon which to rely.
"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data, Watson. One insensibly begins to twist facts to fit theories, rather than theories to fit facts." - Sherlock Holmes, in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Sign of the Four
References aside, the visuals are straight from JJ Trek closing titles. Considering the disdain CBS and Paramount have for each other it's surprising.
Where on Earth do people get this kind of misinformation?
Their brainz - cause memory is a wet, squishy thing on the best of days . It certainly looks like the end credits to Star Trek 2009 - but the last time I watched that was long enough back that I wasn't certain if it included those exact celestial bodies or if the new footage was just something being done in that style.
Thanks for the refresher @nikeix - the sequences look nothing alike, aside from the very concept of jumping from star to star (or planet). Actually, the teaser sequence looks better as the end credits sequence actually looks like you can throw a rock from one planet to the other - that's something JJ Abrams seems to not understand (I don't know how much say the director has in the CG sequences, but if they are made after his or her instruction then, yeah).
^ 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
Comments
Yes, they'd absolutely have to get clever re-using stuff, but why bother setting yourself up for that in the first place?
Either way, I hope it turns out well. I could use some good Trek again.
I know a lot of folks like to write off TOS as too old and it is dated, but I also think many folks underestimate just how many fans are really out there, that would love to see something along the lines of Classic Trek be made once again.
Even though many of us are on the far edge of middle-age, we still make up a very large portion of Trek Fandom.
Just looking at the majority of reactions around here to Cryptic's foray into TOS, I think it's pretty obvious that this expansion is probably going to be a BIG moneymaker for Them and I don't believe that CBS is missing that fact either.
Granted this is all just supposition on my part, but based on what I've seen and read around the internetz since Trek-2017 was announced, a very large number of fans are expressing their hopes that this new show very much harks back to TOS.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
CBS is very much banking on this show to be their Golden Apple for their new streaming service.
Therefore, it's not so far fetched to see them willing to put a lot more funds into it to ensure it's success.
And from the way Moon-face (can ya tell I don't really care for the man
That along with the fact that CBS itself is not completely footing the up-front production costs, tends to make me believe that the budget for this show starting out will be larger than any previous Trek TV incarnation.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
You can tell yourself that, but if it were objectively true they'd have launched another TV series after Enterprise floundered, not handed it off to a madman to be rebooted. That wasn't a warm fuzzy nostalgia decision, that was cold hard economics.
Which would be EXACTLY why we're not relevant - long since past being in the age brackets that matter to advertising revenue. We're literally too cagey and experienced to bother chasing after.
The majority of reactions here are the most INTESELY SELF-SELECTING super-fans possible. This is the house of folks who spend hours a day pretending they're in Starfleet. Just because you're in a room full of people who agree with you doesn't mean you're a meaningful market.
No, a bunch of fans are specifically listening for the echo of other fans. The show has to make it or break it based on the general public. A public that has no special loyalty to a 1960s TV show.
Its an important brand for CBS. That's why they keep trying, but 10 years of silence is a sign its time to recalibrate for the audience you want and not the audience you once had. Besides, that older audience is mostly a captive audience - you don't need to give them exactly what they want, you can net the vast majority of their viewership with as little as not actively annoying them
<shrug>
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
oh I dunno, one doesn't have to really do ALL that, consider the idea of reusing the same cast and props but telling a different story or the same story from a new side... Perhaps Captain Chucklnuts has to deal with a Klingon Captain Targdung in season 1 and season 2 tells the other side of the story from Targdung's perspective or even fills in the gaps of the story from s1 from his side.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
I'm not trying to be in tune with Trek fandom, I'm trying to channel my inner network executive financial realism
As a fan, I'd ADORE an entire season from the perspective of a Klingon or Romulan ship/crew. I just don't think that's a safe enough bet to put all those chip on before spinning the wheel, when a bad spin would take Trek off the air again for another 5-12 years...
Paying tribute is of course not only done through visuals, but especially the sets and costumes of the AR movies are so terribly stereotypical "new" it hurts. That's of course subjective but Star Trek has forehead aliens which is visually less spectacular, true, but I prefer every single one of them with a character to cgi abominations like raptor Gorn or those super cheap things we see in the beyond trailer (Navi elf allies and villians with foldy vampire faces - it's those stupid Reman orcs all over again) or plain "sexy catgirls".
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I can't think of anyone actually working in the field (or, in a few cases, formerly working because they went and died on us) who doesn't admire TOS, and acknowledge its massive influence on the entire field. Heinlein, Brin, the Robinsons (Spider and Kim Stanley), Gibson, Steele, Straczynski - all have been voluble in their praise. Sure, it took Harlan Ellison a while to get over being edited (he HATES having his vision messed with), but even he eventually came around.
And go ahead, tell me "all of sci-fi fandom laughs" at names like Theodore Sturgeon ("Amok Time"), Robert Bloch ("Wolf In the Fold"), or David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles", and the first few drafts of "The Cloud Minders" before the network made them excise the slavery angle - he wrote the last one under a pseudonym).
One minor nitpick: I think he was referring to the alien costumes, not the stories. (I could be mistaken, though.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Well, I've done SDCC for the last 22 years, but I've brought my own company to them rather than go to hang out. I blame it on being a professional creative myself and having a LOT broader tastes than would allow me to lavish the majority of my time on any one of the several supermassive fandoms. If you do this sort of thing for a living you quickly find out that if you can't monetize it, you don't get to keep producing it and so I tend to look at the production side as having CRITICAL impact on the actual degree of artistic freedom in play.
Sure, its impact is enormous, including pretty much assuring the vast majority of "futuristic" spaceships ever shown anywhere are silly looking because they all have gravity carpets. But I'm just as much of a heretic over on the fantasy side when I say, "Yes, JRR Tolkien's impact is enormous, but the concept has been done better since then." It may fly in pure fantasy/sci fi realm that you're supposed to abase yourself before the first ones, but it's also like saying to an aircraft designer "hey, if you're not doing it like the Wright Brothers, you're doing it wrong." You may owe your lineage to something, but that's not the end of the story. Sophistication in any endeavor moves on.
All of fandom DOES laugh that Trek's aliens are an enormous collection of people with facial appliances. TOS Trek is in many ways the softest of the soft sci-fi. I like to think the less ridged and more self-aware Trek fans can recognize that laughter as somewhat good-natured ribbing.
Even if that "new" may be driven in part by changes in how real military vessel spaces have changed? I'm right there that Halo (which is cribbed almost wholesale from the movie Aliens) has utterly defined the sci-fi visual lexicon for powered armor and has homogenized a lot of other aspects of military sci-fi. But how would retro-styling help them sell it to the younger audience?
You don't find it interesting that you can overlook incredibly limited practical costuming, but won't overlook incredibly limited CGI? Because I'd think having patience with TV show budgets in general would cover both.
Those foldy-faced villians you're complaining about are about as classically Trek as it gets. For pity's sake we've got the Nakhul front and center in game right now. Do they just magically get a pass? Its the usual trade off - a movie has more money but less time. Prettier effects/sets and more clinging to easily conveyed archetypes to skip over long exposition.
yeah well Captain Targdung was given command of alliance forces during the Iconian War.... oh wait...
In my opinion absolutely. I'm bored by military sci-fi and am disappointed more classic concepts take flak for not playing US armed forces go to spaaaace. I think doen correctly retro styling could work to get new fans on board, just look how young people wear clothing with Nintendo or Atari appliances that never even have seen the hardware in their life aside from pictures on the internet. "Retro" is still a part of youth culture. Mind you, having those designs does not mean you have to stagnate. I have a feeling the plea to get closer to the roots of Star Trek and honour the classics gets often confused with the inability of fans or myself to be flexible. But not everything radically new and different is suddenly good.
In a few decades I might rethink my statement, but I don't find pure CGI convincing most of the time even in AAA movie releases which I otherwise may like a lot. CGI has to be mixed with practical effets to make it convincing, but that's just my opinion.
How are Na'Kuhl "as classically Trek as it gets"? A 00s retcon does not make ENTs content suddenly actually predate TOS Star Trek. I might add, if you haven't already noted from elsewhere int he forum, I loathe everything ENT. I seriously cannot think of anything that show brought which I like aside from isolated artistic elements which might have been able to work by themselves. Mind you, the terrible new stuff isn't limited to the AR movies, that's not a JJ trek versus other trek rant of mine. Late Trek shows like VOY and ENT were already terrible as is the TNG movie series who started to introduce wrinkly villian cannon fodder like the Insurrection bad guys or Remans.
The classic Star Trek forehead aliens embodies character traces of humans and served as a device to explore morality plays and thus every alien species was characterized in a certain way. Now, it lead to "planet of the hats" on a grand scale and I actually would prefer more exceptions of that rule, but I acknowledge and admire the original purpose and character those alien species have, whereas wrinkly evil orcs to shoot we don't feel sorry for are as flat as it gets. When even Storntroopers in Star Wars have more character you know something's wrong
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I have a fondness for the morality plays too, but I appreciate that TV and movies are different formats for storytelling and try not to expect one to be the other. Though occasionally we do get pieces of true genius in either medium. The backstory delivery for Rocket Raccoon in the Guardians of the Galaxy movie was breathtaking - 10 seconds of looking at all of the weird bits of metal sticking out of his back early on, a little direct explanation (and I mean little - like 3-4 spoken sentences) late in the film and BOOM, done, you know all you need to about an entire race of one, a truly unique specimen spelled out without have to stop the story for a blah blah blah information dump.
And sometimes we get Nemesis, which is pretty much a two part TV TNG episode on the big screen complete with Data sub-plot. Which I enjoyed just fine, but which went over... poorly... with moviegoers.
I guess the good news here is you seem to want TV-style storytelling and you're gonna get a TV show soon
So much for all that talk about having to wait for a certain period of time between the movie and show so fans don't get confused by which Star Trek merchandise they are buying.
It's 2016, did you really think the special effects were going to look like anything else.
Also, it's been speculated that the first space shot, is of the Klingon Moon Praxis, which blew up at the beginning of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and the last space shot, is of the Amargosa Sun that Soran tried to destroy with the Nexus Ribbon in Star Trek: Generations.
Thus it seems to indicate that the Trek-2017 TV show, may take place in the 80-some-odd year time period between those two movies.
So it isn't a "rip off" of anything JJ-Trek related, except perhaps the use of current movie level special effects.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
The Internetz...
The problem isn't the information, it's the inability of understanding the context of said information.
"Don't believe anything you read unless it's collaborated by provable fact's", seems to be a difficult concept for many to wrap their heads around.
CBS and Paramount are 'Partners' in the Star Trek entertainment industry, therefore anytime it seems that one or the other makes a request that would appear to limit the other's actions, people assume they must be angry over it and trying to gain something over the other.
What isn't understood is that all of these type of decision are based on good Business Practices that actually help both "Partners' in the long run make more money for their stockholders.
Thus words like "disdain" become the go to catch-phrase to make it seem important.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
And as I said above, NO They Are NOT.
Look at them again, they are similar, but they are actually reimagined images from past Trek movies that have nothing at all to do with JJ's Nu-Trek universe.
The STYLE is the same, but the images are totally new and actually seem tell a the viewer the time period being portrayed.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Let's face it, lots of things have been speculated, but there are no data upon which to rely.
"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data, Watson. One insensibly begins to twist facts to fit theories, rather than theories to fit facts." - Sherlock Holmes, in Arthur Conan Doyle's The Sign of the Four
Their brainz - cause memory is a wet, squishy thing on the best of days
For those interested in refreshing on the 2009 end credit sequence (in all its dirty glass and lens flare glory)...
Yeah no, I don't care. It's about the story it tells. If the story is awful, I'll pass.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!