A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I believe 20th Century Fox still has the distribution rights to A New Hope.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
"Hostile to Star Trek". Great Bird, are you even listening to yourself at this point?
The idea behind Star Trek is not "hey, thick jelly buttons and CRT displays". Hell, I'm watching a minimarathon on BBC America right now (just finished "Journey to Babel", "The Trouble With Tribbles" is on now), and I have to say that these stories would be every bit as interesting, and the argument between Spock and Amanda in JtB every bit as heartbreaking, if the controls seen in the background had touchscreens and blue glowies as they are with the buttons and switches that looked "futuristic" back in the day.
Apparently Netflix is also bringing back "Lost In Space", it will be interesting to see what angle they go with for that one to make it fresh.
Remember the recent movie? Just say that after all that effort to leave the planet they end up crashing on a different planet. I mean, the size of the debris field they flew through... prob banged their ship up. So just say that after jumping to hyperspace their engines fail and they crash land somewhere else.
And here is a 3D set I use for my art work, you'll be seeing this set in the Goddess comic coming up soon, working on it as we speak, and you'll see it's a modernized TOS main engineering. https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/engineering-room-xt-for-poser-/111298/ . Remove a few things, like the 'pool table', either remove the visible warp core (or make it more TOS looking), remove the TNG looking wall bits by the stairs and the TNG LCARS, and you could have a real nice TOS/Cage engine room. It looks modernized, yet keeps the TOS look there.
It can be done, it just takes some hard work, some studying of what was on screen during TOS, some looks into fan films, and be willing to respect what was on screen and modernized, YET looks as close as possible to the original. I seen images of the Original TOS model photoshopped into various scenes from the TMP era films AND the JJ films. And it looked awesome.
Sorry if this is diverging from topic, but that's very nice artwork. It's quite unusual but very interesting. It seems to me like it's a blend of TOS, TMP, and TNG which is very nice looking but a bit confusing at first glance how it fits into canon. If I have to hazard a guess, is it a limited refit of an older TOS era ship with early TNG technology, set in the same time period as Picard commanded the Stargazer? A rear-line vessel, perhaps that never warranted the kind of complete rebuild a more important ship might get? It looks like they dug it out of mothballs and did the bare minimum to get it up to current spec. An incomplete kludge of a retrofit, I bet she gives her poor chief engineer fits trying to make the new gear work with all that legacy hardware!
If I'm even close to right, it's a cool example of how visual design can tell a story because that ship just screams that there's a very interesting set of circumstances behind why she looks like that.
Strip away the TNG stuff and it could make a decent modernized engine room for TOS, good enough to make the anti tos folks shut their traps at least.
But your argument stems from the assumption that the franchise owners care even a little bit about TOS. They don't. They have gone out of their way more times than not to overrule anything TOS canon.
TOS is no longer canon, and so the look of The Cage is no longer canon. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but there it is.
(NOTE: Trimmed to summarize)
Thank you for the acknowledgement. And sadly, it would seem you are correct. The people who own Star Trek are hostile to the classic fanbase and wedded to their new direction / chasing the mainstream market. Star Wars fans get catered to, Star Trek fans are treated like a burden and embarrassment. They pretend to like us when they want money, the rest of the time they want us to go away. I know.
Maybe they -should- care, though. The reboot films have fizzled, and there is a -lot- of negative reaction out there for Discovery. If you follow the threads about the show on social media, negative comments outnumber positive by a significant margin. There is a lot of bad buzz about this show. Not even Enterprise was slagged this badly, and you know how that one turned out.
But I guess we'll wait and see.
Feels like it. Star Wars fans get catered to, "DISCO!" tech and all. With Trek, it's reboot, reboot, reboot! We gotta make it to attract the Mass Effect crowds!
I mean more folks I know seem more interested about Orville than Discovery. And Lucas himself let McFarlane do his Family Guy Star Wars spoofs, because he knew Seth would make it funny, YET respect the origins.
Hell, I been told the USS Hoagland in my sig and other arts would be preferable to what they see regarding Discovery and the past 3 films. ~blinks in surprise~ o.o! Interesting when folks say that your art hobby is preferable to the official stuffs. o.O
What if the only thing not "canon" in Discovery is appearance?
How can ANYTHING in Discovery be 'not canon'? It DEFINES canon just by existing, and newer productions routinely trump older material. What you're seeing on the screen is the canon vision for that era now.
Funny thing about the "Screen-is-God" definition of canon... They literally can do no wrong under such simplistic dogma. You may not like it, you may not support it, but you get to either accept it or abandon that silly, silly rule.
By what possible standard besides your own hateful projection? Even adjusting for inflation, the 2009 Star Trek is the highest grossing Star Trek movie of all time (467 million). Into Darkness (385 mil) and Beyond (345 mil) both pulled in quite serviceable numbers despite you wishing otherwise. And they did it with huge overseas numbers, suggesting they're doing exactly what they were supposed to: reach out to markets who aren't strictly rooted in a past of TV exposure. Meanwhile the old TNG movies had plainly withered, with Nemesis pulling in a meagre 43 million. Less than its production costs and a genuine FLOP. By objective standards. Sorry.
I guess Paramount and CBS aren't playing especially well together at the moment. Because to me, not placing Discovery in the Kelvin Timeline is ludicrous. They could have piggybacked off of a wildly successful reboot, been free to actually look futuristic as we think of it in this decade, and have told all the Trekie Purists to bugger off at the door. Win-win-win.
By what possible standard besides your own hateful projection? Even adjusting for inflation, the 2009 Star Trek is the highest grossing Star Trek movie of all time (467 million). Into Darkness (385 mil) and Beyond (345 mil) both pulled in quite serviceable numbers despite you wishing otherwise. And they did it with huge overseas numbers, suggesting they're doing exactly what they were supposed to: reach out to markets who aren't strictly rooted in a past of TV exposure. Meanwhile the old TNG movies had plainly withered, with Nemesis pulling in a meagre 43 million. Less than its production costs and a genuine FLOP. By objective standards. Sorry.
I guess Paramount and CBS aren't playing especially well together at the moment. Because to me, not placing Discovery in the Kelvin Timeline is ludicrous. They could have piggybacked off of a wildly successful reboot, been free to actually look futuristic as we think of it in this decade, and have told all the Trekie Purists to bugger off at the door. Win-win-win.
Too many cooks in the kitchen, yo. Ya got Paramount on one side, CBS on the other, always sticking one's finger into the other's soufflé. Result, the soufflé collapses.
You're weasaling, here. You're throwing uncertainty on the precise year of The Cage claiming the Memory Alpha year of 2254 is inaccurate. Where is your source that contradicts this? Reading down that page, the list of references and information there is quite extensive. Online encyclopedias tend to be quite accurate, despite claims to the contrary. Unless you have a more definitive source to cite, there's no reason to believe the information there is incorrect.
That's not how facts work. Unless you cite a source then it's pulled out of the same place I'm now pulling the date of 2255. Pretending MA is authoritative simply because it's MA is an appeal to authority failing to take into account it's fan written and is exactly as authoritative as anybody here unless they cite the shows or films for every statement.
Even if the precise year is inaccurate, though, that changes nothing. The era is the same, even if we didn't have a specific year for both they are very much in the same ballpark and far too close to remotely justify the absolute night and day differences between them. The consistency and continuity argument remains valid.
Like the night and day differences between TOS and TMP or TMP and TWoK and the later TOS films? Cite your source that DSC is not the very end of one era and the Cage is the very start of another or stop pulling statements out of thin air and acting as thought they're fact.
There are dozens where events of the period were re-imagined or simply crossed out. TOS is no longer canon, and so the look of The Cage is no longer canon.
TOS is still canon but every single show and film (including TOS itself) have retconned the pilots and TOS from tiny little things to huge plots and concepts.
People acting as though it's sacred now and that DSC is acting in a sacrilegious manner by defacing the holy TOS is disingenuous and shows you're putting older Trek on a pedestal it dosn't deserve to be on.
The people who own Star Trek are hostile to the classic fanbase and wedded to their new direction / chasing the mainstream market.
Or, I suspect more likely, they are, like me, hostile to 'True FansTM' who pretend change has never happened before and have screaming abdabs when ever something new comes out. They've seen it since the 60s (with TOS 3 and TAS), the 70's with the films, 80s with TNG, 90s with DS9 and VGR, 00s with ENT, 10s with the KT films, and now with DSC. And instead cater to people who might welcome a new show with interest.
and there is a -lot- of negative reaction out there for Discovery. If you follow the threads about the show on social media, negative comments outnumber positive by a significant margin. There is a lot of bad buzz about this show.
From special minded people who can't cope with change.
Not even Enterprise was slagged this badly, and you know how that one turned out.
Confirmation bias and you know it. DSC exists in the age of the internet. Only the KT films and DSC have. So lying to people suggesting there's more or less opinions of them than the rest of the franchise just means you have the ability to see more opinions.
"Hostile to Star Trek". Great Bird, are you even listening to yourself at this point?
I suspect you may be being too optimistic expecting a bunch of Star Trek 'fans' to be even slightly open minded or optimistic. Especially given how long you've been a fan. You'd have seen all this before.
We gotta make it to attract the Mass Effect crowds!
Oh you're adorable. What crowd was TMP chasing when they updated their visuals? TWoK? TNG?, DS9 and VGR? ENT? KT? OR are you pretending that ST has never updated with the times.
Hell, I been told the USS Hoagland in my sig and other arts would be preferable to what they see regarding Discovery and the past 3 films. ~blinks in surprise~ o.o! Interesting when folks say that your art hobby is preferable to the official stuffs. o.O
Well then I guess the multi million dollar design studios can pack up and go home because some lass with a bargain bin illustrator programme is doing their job for them.
Or you can look up selection bias and stop patting yourself on your back so hard you'll get spinal injuries. Shall we compare the amount of people who even know who you are to the number of 'likes' on the official trailers on the DSC FB and YouTube pages for a better comparison?
Too many cooks in the kitchen, yo. Ya got Paramount on one side, CBS on the other, always sticking one's finger into the other's soufflé. Result, the soufflé collapses.
Sure, sure. Because all the other ST films were only ever done under CBS by the magic and saintly hand of Gene himself right?
Or were possibly always made by Paramount with massive amounts of interference by studios, directors, writers, actors, and creators all pulling different ways and still producing TWoK, TUC, TVH, and FC.
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
TrekMovie has posted an overview of the Entertainment Weekly feature on DSC. The feature includes tons of pictures, including Discovery's transporter room, which reminds me of the NX-01 transporter.
Anyway, the EW article talks some about Bryan Fuller's departure, and that is what the TrekMovie article focuses on. Highlights:
Fuller wanted to originally do something like American Horror Story. This sort of lines up with the infamous Faraci rumor from last year, which stated that DSC was to be an anthology show that changed every season. Faraci was NOT correct, however, that it would have taken place after Undiscovered Country, as Fuller always intended to start the series in its current timeline position. CBS was not ready for such an ambitious proposal, so they rejected it and Fuller changed his pitch.
Not surprisingly, the article talks about the "clashes" Fuller had with CBS. There's one big reason why Fuller left, and I will discuss that in the next point. The point here is that there were little things that led up to the big thing that led to Fuller's departure. Among the few things the article lists (including Fuller's desire to have someone like Edgar Wright direct DSC's pilot), it also notes that Fuller wanted the DSC uniforms to be subdued riffs on the TOS uniforms. This lines up with Fuller's comments from last year that said he wanted the show to have the colors of TOS. I'm sure this will TRIBBLE off the canon purists...
But, the article seems to make it clear: Fuller was let go because CBS felt he wasn't giving the show his full attention. CBS wanted the show to premiere in January 2017, because of the IP split rights ordeal with Paramount. At the time of his hiring, Fuller was attached to two other shows, and was pegged to be the showrunner of American Gods. As I've said before elsewhere, I've never heard of a Hollywood producer being showrunner on two concurrent shows. Apparently, CBS agreed. They're still using Fuller's "template" for the show, but who knows how far that will get them.
I don't think CBS was/is out of line for removing Fuller, for that reason. I do think CBS is to blame for hiring Fuller in the first place, and could have saved a lot of grief by going in another direction. Granted, we don't know how the conversation went down, and perhaps Fuller told them that his busy schedule wasn't an issue. CBS looks especially foolish, though, given that they ended up granting the second time extension.
It also makes one wonder what this show would be like with some of these original visions intact. However, I will point out that I don't think these "little things" is what forced Fuller out. Judging by his comments from around SDCC last year, I think he was willing to play ball with some of the newer designs. Who knows.
" I would say we’re trying to push more by having the type of complicated messed-up characters who aren’t necessarily embraced on broadcast TV... If all this seems like a lot of characters to follow, there might not be quite as many around by the end of the season. Discovery has grave consequences baked into the story line." - co-showrunner Aaron Harberts
Well, that is a bold direction to take. Usually it is the suspense/drama and horror genres that are chock full of "notable" characters that you kill off every other episode. Inflicting "grave consequences" on your cast of "messed up characters" in the typically up-beat Star Trek universe must be the expectation of "modern audiences".
" I would say we’re trying to push more by having the type of complicated messed-up characters who aren’t necessarily embraced on broadcast TV... If all this seems like a lot of characters to follow, there might not be quite as many around by the end of the season. Discovery has grave consequences baked into the story line." - co-showrunner Aaron Harberts
Well, that is a bold direction to take. Usually it is the suspense/drama and horror genres that are chock full of "notable" characters that you kill off every other episode. Inflicting "grave consequences" on your cast of "messed up characters" in the typically up-beat Star Trek universe must be the expectation of "modern audiences".
See, but this is the problem I have with Roddenberry's vision of humanity in the future.... especially TNG-era Roddenberry.
I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
Yeah, I've seen these reactions before. Hell, when TAS premiered, I was one of those people - although, in my defense, I was only ten years old at the time, and other than the episode with the giant tribbles and Larry Niven's Hail Mary pass it did grow on me over time.
I guess I was just kind of hoping that after all the changes Trek has experienced over the past half-century, maybe the IDIC philosophy might have soaked into the fanbase. Hope springs eternal and all that.
See, I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
You will have your wish. Star Trek: Discovery is going to be "gritty" with lots of "tough choices" for the crew. Their actions will have "permanent and far reaching consequences for the Federation and the Star Trek universe".
Strip away the TNG stuff and it could make a decent modernized engine room for TOS, good enough to make the anti tos folks shut their traps at least.
I agree. I particularly like that warp core, and it's a very logical update to TOS canon IMO. We never saw the engines Scotty liked to talk about so much, hell through at least part of the series it really wasn't well defined what those engines even WERE let alone what they looked like or how they worked. TMP fleshed that out in a way that made sense and showed us something that had only been talked about before. It built on the setting in a logically consistent fashion. I feel you've done the same here.
This TOS style warp core fits what we saw later and does it in a way that fits stylistically with the time period. It clicks with everything else like it always belonged there. If the TOS Remaster had included something similar as an add-on to the original Engineering set, I would have no problem with it at all.
Agents of Yesterday did a lot of that same sort of thing, expanding and adding to the TOS setting in ways that fit. We got new ships and locations and characters we'd never seen before but felt like they could have been there all along. That's how a period piece, be it fictional or historical, should be done!
As much as I love TOS, I know it's not perfect. It's not even close. Not everything on screen and in canon is self-consistent and at least some things aren't even good. Some episode plots were outright bad. Some things don't make sense, aren't fully thought through, or are incomplete. And yes, some things really are so thoroughly a product of their time that they can't be justified or made sense of.
The heart of the series, though, is more than just solid it's iconic. The core framework, the foundation its built on and the bulk of its components are all excellent. Like a classic car or historic building, it can be restored, added onto, and subtly modernized in ways that fix its flaws and improve it without losing what makes it stylish and appealing and important. It doesn't have to be scrapped or torn down for something newer but less unique.
I wish more people had a preservationist rather than revisionist attitude.
Preservation requires.....~gasp~....thinking, and some originality. Remember...Hollywood rehashes, or homogenizes everything these days. Though the modern SW's at least did an effort to maintain the "DISCO!" look. Wish Trek could.
See, I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
You will have your wish. Star Trek: Discovery is going to be "gritty" with lots of "tough choices" for the crew. Their actions will have "permanent and far reaching consequences for the Federation and the Star Trek universe".
See, I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
You will have your wish. Star Trek: Discovery is going to be "gritty" with lots of "tough choices" for the crew. Their actions will have "permanent and far reaching consequences for the Federation and the Star Trek universe".
It's called TNG, it's out on remastered Blue Ray. Go watch that and leave real human drama to everybody else.
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
See, I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
You will have your wish. Star Trek: Discovery is going to be "gritty" with lots of "tough choices" for the crew. Their actions will have "permanent and far reaching consequences for the Federation and the Star Trek universe".
It's called TNG, it's out on remastered Blue Ray. Go watch that and leave real human drama to everybody else.
Sorry, but to me, Trek is about man growing up. You wanna see 'real human drama' as in man fighting over petty nonsense as material wealth and political power, the other 99% of sci fi has that in abundance. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Logan's Run, etc has that and to spare.
See, I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
You will have your wish. Star Trek: Discovery is going to be "gritty" with lots of "tough choices" for the crew. Their actions will have "permanent and far reaching consequences for the Federation and the Star Trek universe".
It's called TNG, it's out on remastered Blue Ray. Go watch that and leave real human drama to everybody else.
Sorry, but to me, Trek is about man growing up. You wanna see 'real human drama' as in man fighting over petty nonsense as material wealth and political power, the other 99% of sci fi has that in abundance. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Logan's Run, etc has that and to spare.
And? You think that's mutually exclusive? To grow you have to start from somewhere. And like it or not, you can turn yourselves into as perfect a race of robots as you want but you're still going to have to compromise. That's grown up. Acting like S1 TNG is more childish than learning to stand up for yourselves as in DS9. IF you want vapid robots with no conflict or grit then you want a show that dosn't involve either Humans or any other race that exists in large numbers outside of a isolated village in a cave.
There are other ways to 'grow up'.
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
In point of fact, Smoky, "preservationist" requires the exact opposite of thinking - an undercreative, slavish devotion to the reproduction of what has gone before is what you seek.
And I wouldn't pay too much attention to rumormongers with YouTube accounts, especially the ones that proclaim the imminent demise of long-running franchises. These are, after all, the same sort of people who foretold the end of your beloved Star Wars because The Force Awakens didn't focus on Admiral Thrawn - their rumors at the time were that Luke was the guy behind the Kylo Ren mask, because he'd fallen to the Dark Side and killed all the other characters.
Comments
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Trek taught me to remain optomistic about the future, and so I shall. Because if Discovery flops we might not get a new Trek for another generation.
The idea behind Star Trek is not "hey, thick jelly buttons and CRT displays". Hell, I'm watching a minimarathon on BBC America right now (just finished "Journey to Babel", "The Trouble With Tribbles" is on now), and I have to say that these stories would be every bit as interesting, and the argument between Spock and Amanda in JtB every bit as heartbreaking, if the controls seen in the background had touchscreens and blue glowies as they are with the buttons and switches that looked "futuristic" back in the day.
Helpful Tools: Dictionary.com - Logical fallacies - Random generator - Word generator - Color tool - Extra Credits - List of common English language errors - New T6 Big booty tutorial
My character Tsin'xing
Strip away the TNG stuff and it could make a decent modernized engine room for TOS, good enough to make the anti tos folks shut their traps at least.
Feels like it. Star Wars fans get catered to, "DISCO!" tech and all. With Trek, it's reboot, reboot, reboot! We gotta make it to attract the Mass Effect crowds!
I mean more folks I know seem more interested about Orville than Discovery. And Lucas himself let McFarlane do his Family Guy Star Wars spoofs, because he knew Seth would make it funny, YET respect the origins.
Hell, I been told the USS Hoagland in my sig and other arts would be preferable to what they see regarding Discovery and the past 3 films. ~blinks in surprise~ o.o! Interesting when folks say that your art hobby is preferable to the official stuffs. o.O
How can ANYTHING in Discovery be 'not canon'? It DEFINES canon just by existing, and newer productions routinely trump older material. What you're seeing on the screen is the canon vision for that era now.
Funny thing about the "Screen-is-God" definition of canon... They literally can do no wrong under such simplistic dogma. You may not like it, you may not support it, but you get to either accept it or abandon that silly, silly rule.
By what possible standard besides your own hateful projection? Even adjusting for inflation, the 2009 Star Trek is the highest grossing Star Trek movie of all time (467 million). Into Darkness (385 mil) and Beyond (345 mil) both pulled in quite serviceable numbers despite you wishing otherwise. And they did it with huge overseas numbers, suggesting they're doing exactly what they were supposed to: reach out to markets who aren't strictly rooted in a past of TV exposure. Meanwhile the old TNG movies had plainly withered, with Nemesis pulling in a meagre 43 million. Less than its production costs and a genuine FLOP. By objective standards. Sorry.
I guess Paramount and CBS aren't playing especially well together at the moment. Because to me, not placing Discovery in the Kelvin Timeline is ludicrous. They could have piggybacked off of a wildly successful reboot, been free to actually look futuristic as we think of it in this decade, and have told all the Trekie Purists to bugger off at the door. Win-win-win.
Too many cooks in the kitchen, yo. Ya got Paramount on one side, CBS on the other, always sticking one's finger into the other's soufflé. Result, the soufflé collapses.
That's not how facts work. Unless you cite a source then it's pulled out of the same place I'm now pulling the date of 2255. Pretending MA is authoritative simply because it's MA is an appeal to authority failing to take into account it's fan written and is exactly as authoritative as anybody here unless they cite the shows or films for every statement.
Like the night and day differences between TOS and TMP or TMP and TWoK and the later TOS films? Cite your source that DSC is not the very end of one era and the Cage is the very start of another or stop pulling statements out of thin air and acting as thought they're fact.
TOS is still canon but every single show and film (including TOS itself) have retconned the pilots and TOS from tiny little things to huge plots and concepts.
People acting as though it's sacred now and that DSC is acting in a sacrilegious manner by defacing the holy TOS is disingenuous and shows you're putting older Trek on a pedestal it dosn't deserve to be on.
Or, I suspect more likely, they are, like me, hostile to 'True FansTM' who pretend change has never happened before and have screaming abdabs when ever something new comes out. They've seen it since the 60s (with TOS 3 and TAS), the 70's with the films, 80s with TNG, 90s with DS9 and VGR, 00s with ENT, 10s with the KT films, and now with DSC. And instead cater to people who might welcome a new show with interest.
Well if they're anything like me then probably. The rest of us can just enjoy the franchise in peace then.
That's a lie. They've outgrossed (or 09 has) all other films. Oh, and THEY ARE NOT REBOOTS!
From special minded people who can't cope with change.
Confirmation bias and you know it. DSC exists in the age of the internet. Only the KT films and DSC have. So lying to people suggesting there's more or less opinions of them than the rest of the franchise just means you have the ability to see more opinions.
Oh, so you do know that's an option then?
I suspect you may be being too optimistic expecting a bunch of Star Trek 'fans' to be even slightly open minded or optimistic. Especially given how long you've been a fan. You'd have seen all this before.
Gizzus an example matey.
Oh you're adorable. What crowd was TMP chasing when they updated their visuals? TWoK? TNG?, DS9 and VGR? ENT? KT? OR are you pretending that ST has never updated with the times.
Well then I guess the multi million dollar design studios can pack up and go home because some lass with a bargain bin illustrator programme is doing their job for them.
Or you can look up selection bias and stop patting yourself on your back so hard you'll get spinal injuries. Shall we compare the amount of people who even know who you are to the number of 'likes' on the official trailers on the DSC FB and YouTube pages for a better comparison?
Sure, sure. Because all the other ST films were only ever done under CBS by the magic and saintly hand of Gene himself right?
Or were possibly always made by Paramount with massive amounts of interference by studios, directors, writers, actors, and creators all pulling different ways and still producing TWoK, TUC, TVH, and FC.
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!
Anyway, the EW article talks some about Bryan Fuller's departure, and that is what the TrekMovie article focuses on. Highlights:
I don't think CBS was/is out of line for removing Fuller, for that reason. I do think CBS is to blame for hiring Fuller in the first place, and could have saved a lot of grief by going in another direction. Granted, we don't know how the conversation went down, and perhaps Fuller told them that his busy schedule wasn't an issue. CBS looks especially foolish, though, given that they ended up granting the second time extension.
It also makes one wonder what this show would be like with some of these original visions intact. However, I will point out that I don't think these "little things" is what forced Fuller out. Judging by his comments from around SDCC last year, I think he was willing to play ball with some of the newer designs. Who knows.
Well, that is a bold direction to take. Usually it is the suspense/drama and horror genres that are chock full of "notable" characters that you kill off every other episode. Inflicting "grave consequences" on your cast of "messed up characters" in the typically up-beat Star Trek universe must be the expectation of "modern audiences".
See, but this is the problem I have with Roddenberry's vision of humanity in the future.... especially TNG-era Roddenberry.
I personally do not believe that humanity will evolve out of certain aspects of our nature, because those aspects are indeed what it means to be human. As dumb as Star Trek V is, the notion that pain can define us and shape us (and, thus, taking that pain away is detrimental to us) is viral to the human experience. Conflict, pain, or emotion is NOT something we'll evolve out of. Free-thinking people will disagree eventually, when they come together. Painful experiences will have a profound impact on our perspectives and will shape our personality and outlook. We will mourn those that we lose.
These are all things TNG-era Roddenberry thought was beneath his vision of humanity, and I'm sorry, but he was/is wrong.
The key of Trek's message, to me, is what we do in response to those things. Do we let pain consume our lives? Do we let grief drag us down into things like depression or anger? Do we let the differing viewpoints of others lead us to detrimental actions towards the collective group? There's never going to be a place we reach where "we get it," and that's the end of the struggle. The struggle will always be constant, and thus, constant vigilance is needed to reaffirm the ideals we strive for.
If DSC embraces this, then I'm cool with it.
I guess I was just kind of hoping that after all the changes Trek has experienced over the past half-century, maybe the IDIC philosophy might have soaked into the fanbase. Hope springs eternal and all that.
Also, Midnight's Edge has a new video out:
Preservation requires.....~gasp~....thinking, and some originality. Remember...Hollywood rehashes, or homogenizes everything these days. Though the modern SW's at least did an effort to maintain the "DISCO!" look. Wish Trek could.
Hope we can see a non 'gritty' Trek some day.
It's called TNG, it's out on remastered Blue Ray. Go watch that and leave real human drama to everybody else.
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!
Sorry, but to me, Trek is about man growing up. You wanna see 'real human drama' as in man fighting over petty nonsense as material wealth and political power, the other 99% of sci fi has that in abundance. Star Wars, Doctor Who, Logan's Run, etc has that and to spare.
And? You think that's mutually exclusive? To grow you have to start from somewhere. And like it or not, you can turn yourselves into as perfect a race of robots as you want but you're still going to have to compromise. That's grown up. Acting like S1 TNG is more childish than learning to stand up for yourselves as in DS9. IF you want vapid robots with no conflict or grit then you want a show that dosn't involve either Humans or any other race that exists in large numbers outside of a isolated village in a cave.
There are other ways to 'grow up'.
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!
And I wouldn't pay too much attention to rumormongers with YouTube accounts, especially the ones that proclaim the imminent demise of long-running franchises. These are, after all, the same sort of people who foretold the end of your beloved Star Wars because The Force Awakens didn't focus on Admiral Thrawn - their rumors at the time were that Luke was the guy behind the Kylo Ren mask, because he'd fallen to the Dark Side and killed all the other characters.