When I was much younger I went camping with friends a lot. We had Guitar Guy and Folk Song Girl and me, Campfire Tales Guy. (My voice is a ki d of mix between Morgan Freeman's and Avery Brooks'.) We'd each entertain one another as the fire burned bright then faded to embers. Good times.
There were stories my friends wanted to hear again, and then the kids would want to hear them as bedtime stories or on long nights when the power went out. Some stories I told many dozens of times, some no more than twice, but here's the point: I never told the same story exactly the same.
Me. The author of the story. I was always seeing better ways to tell the tales.
So I totally understand when a creative person wants to leave his thumbprint on a franchise, even if there is no 'need' to do so.
Last spring at a friend's daughter's birthday party it rained so hard that we had to move inside, and of course, the now mother of a three year old asked me to tell stories to the kids. (She grew up hearing my stories.) The parent of another kid asked if there were any story books handy, and my god daughter said, "Don't bother, he won't tell it like the book says anyway."
> @jonsills said: > Okay, gyor, I'm putting this in all caps hoping you'll actually read it this time... > > BAD ROBOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STAR TREK DISCOVERY. ALEX KURTZMAN'S PRODUCTION COMPANY, WHICH IS NOT IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH J. J. ABRAMS, IS CALLED SECRET HIDEOUT. AND CBS IS ACTUALLY TAKING THE LEAD ON THE PRODUCTION OF THE SHOW. > > Glitzy graphics and holograms are NOT the exclusive province of Abrams, nor only permissible in the Kelvin Timeline. And we're not going to see a Trek series that uses the same tech as a (frankly) failed 1960s series for the same reason you're never going to see a new version of Battlestar Galactica that features bad-guy robots in tin suits with one bouncing eye - both the technology and the expectations of the audience have expanded far beyond those primitive beginnings. > > The new series is set in the Prime Timeline. This has been stated repeatedly by people who would stand to lose quite a lot of viewership, and thus money, should they be lying about it. (And equally frankly, lying about that would be phenomenally stupid - they're not trying to court the eyes of old farts like me, who have long since aged out of that precious 18-34 demographic, but of younger folk who have no sentimental attachment to those classic plywood sets. Trying to mislead the audience would only result in the complete loss of the new audience, who would grow unattached upon realizing they could not know the truth about the characters or their situation.)
I never suggested it wasn't in the Prime Universe, I only said that they are planning another Star Trek series.
If I was misinformed about Bad Robots invovled sorry, especial if you pointed that out before, but can you really blame me for missing it with the massive amounts of off topic thread drifts in this thread?
Seriously chill, I'm not planning on being a mindless hater on TRIBBLE, I'm with aestitic influences from Kelvinverse, I just know that alot of people are already not happy with things.
The problem with Voyager's technobabble wasn't that it was inaccurate, no sci-fi series is going to have accurate explanations for the things that happen, it is part of why it is fiction. The problem was that they didn't even bother trying to be believable. They literally just left blank spots in the script where random "science" words would be plugged in from a list provided by their "advisors". That is why so much of its technobabble is hopeless gibberish.
---
I think if they have a Plan B series on the backburner they should try to learn from the one fundamental mistake Discovery and the JJ-verse movies made. Stop trying to appeal to nostalgia while simultaneously insulting it. Setting these series in the 23rd century to invoke Kirk-era nostalgia doesn't actually work if you completely reimagine all aspects of that world. You are basically dangling something you know is beloved by the fans and then telling them it isn't good enough.
They need to look to the future and create their own path.
If they do another series tell Bad Robot to GO AWAY, and use their regular Star Trek licience instead of Bad Robots Star Trek Licience.
That's where I saw the linkage to the oft-repeated claim that because the aesthetic doesn't match the original, this is actually KT, and they're lying to us.
You see, the new show does use "the regular Star Trek license". Bad Robot is a production company associated with Paramount's KT movie series, which is legally distinct from CBS' television rights (has to do with the weird way that the old rights Viacom purchased from Desilu Studios were broken up when Viacom was parted out).
Apologies for flying off the handle like that, but between that bit and the fact that you were the most recent purveyor of links to questionable, rumor-filled YouTube videos put together by someone who apparently has an axe to grind over the new series already, well, you can see where I'm coming from on this, I'm sure.
None of us are, or should be, enemies regardless of how we might differ on this topic. I know we are all pretty attached to this whole "Star Trek" thing and quite passionate about our opinions about it. It's a nerd thing. It's kind of what we do.
That doesn't mean we should ever hate one another personally over our differences of opinion. The show was all about recognizing the shared humanity of all people and demonstrating the kindness and respect we should treat another with. Hating on one another over the show that was all about how hate is bad would be about the most illogical thing imaginable.
Let's not become the kind of people about whom the classic lines could be said:
"All that matters to them... is their hate."
"Do you suppose that's all they ever had?"
"No, but it's all they have left."
yes, i remember days where opinions were quite strong, it usually lead to arguements. that's one area i hope to avoid in the future though. A lot of people love their star trek and i used to take it out of context and just see one view point and that wasn't a nice thing to do when it happened.
I agree with Darthmeow here, it's nice to have the ability to post stuff about star trek, you should keep your thoughts open to different sides of the debate though.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
(...)
I think if they have a Plan B series on the backburner they should try to learn from the one fundamental mistake Discovery and the JJ-verse movies made. Stop trying to appeal to nostalgia while simultaneously insulting it. Setting these series in the 23rd century to invoke Kirk-era nostalgia doesn't actually work if you completely reimagine all aspects of that world. You are basically dangling something you know is beloved by the fans and then telling them it isn't good enough.
They need to look to the future and create their own path.
I absolutely agree here. As I said before, as an "open comment" to any filmmakers out there, regardless of the franchise: Stop making prequels when you don't really want to make a prequel. It doesn't work.
^ 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
(...)
I think if they have a Plan B series on the backburner they should try to learn from the one fundamental mistake Discovery and the JJ-verse movies made. Stop trying to appeal to nostalgia while simultaneously insulting it. Setting these series in the 23rd century to invoke Kirk-era nostalgia doesn't actually work if you completely reimagine all aspects of that world. You are basically dangling something you know is beloved by the fans and then telling them it isn't good enough.
They need to look to the future and create their own path.
I absolutely agree here. As I said before, as an "open comment" to any filmmakers out there, regardless of the franchise: Stop making prequels when you don't really want to make a prequel. It doesn't work.
I think it would be an idea going forward to see if the series is any good and if the designers in the workshop consider altering the designs between seasons.
Those same concerns you mentioned are the same ones that came around when JJTrek was coming, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. i actually kinda like JJTrek these days despite some differences between the two universes. It may entirely be possible that Discovery could be just as interesting.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I think it would be an idea going forward to see if the series is any good and if the designers in the workshop consider altering the designs between seasons.
Those same concerns you mentioned are the same ones that came around when JJTrek was coming, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. i actually kinda like JJTrek these days despite some differences between the two universes. It may entirely be possible that Discovery could be just as interesting.
I don't really mind the visuals that much. It's a creative direction I don't like, as with the KT films, but that's just me not falling in line with the current sci-fi flavour. The reason I am afraid DSC might be not for me is that I also don't like the current flavour of writing shows. Everything needs to be grim and heavy handed and I just fear DSC will be completely unremarkable in that department. This is really just my own perspective, but TOS and TNG are memorable to most of "my Generation", there are a lot of memes and pop cultural references. There's almost nothing from the other shows and of all of them, ENT, as the recent one, left absolutely no mark whatsoever with me. That's what I think DSC will do as well but we'll see.
The prequel thing especially, take ENT which was a entire show with that premise - and they threw it all away in the first season, having TNG references all over because they were afraid they couldn't stand on their own - and if you already know that while writing the show, why make it a prequel at all?
^ 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
In defense of V (not that I think it should be defended, but it turned out this wasn't really a plot hole), the thing about needing water was their tier-2 coverup, for when humans saw through their "we only want to help" thing.
I think the original V ended right when it was getting good. It started to make sense the way things were happening. But they never got around to explaining all of it. They stopped right around the time when they started discussing the OTHER alien race that likes to go around subjugating planets. It kinda felt like they were thinking about making the V out to be the lesser of two evils.
I presume you mean the regular TV series? I've never managed to get through that, the quality was... less than acceptable most of the time. In fact, the only thing that got me through the episodes I've seen is the fact that they liked to showcase Diana in those form-fitting jumpsuits she liked and god GODS she was hot.
Both the original V miniseries and V the Final Battle ended on at least a solid ending. The point of V wasn't to show the war against the Visitors, it was about the process by which fascism took hold and how eventually people learned the truth and began fighting back. The resolution to that plot was that despite the best efforts of propaganda and control, people had woken up to what was happening and began fighting back. The whole thing was a metaphor for the rise of the Reich in Germany and how it can sneak up on people, and even get a lot of otherwise good people to go along with it. When the people turned against the Visitors, the narrative arc was complete. VtFB, of course, was a more pure action sci-fi piece about the resistance war against the alien invaders, and it ended on a pretty solid victory for the humans when they got the Red Dust into the atmosphere. Really, they kinda had to resort to excuses to reopen the plot afterwards, which is one reason the series was so weak. Popularity pushed them to keep making new stuff after they'd run out of natural story to tell.
As to the first one, they really covered their butts on the alien motivation surprisingly well. It was stated directly that there were "other means" to get what they wanted and needed, but the current leadership had opted for a military solution for political reasons. The military campaign made for great press at home and rallied a lot of the population to remain in support of the leadership through the crisis, but the fact that it wasn't actually necessary to invade another inhabited world and exploit and kill the people there did inspire a resistance. The Fifth Column were comprised of Vs who were opposed to the invasion for reasons of morality and compassion, and had advocated for other solutions but been denied. Feeling they had no choice but to fight for the lives and rights of the innocent beings, they formed an internal resistance movement against the regime that embedded itself in the military and sabotaged things from within.
V was really plotted tightly and well, far more so than the reboot miniseries that came way later. The original still holds up today, and does so well. I very much recommend it.
Well, the main question that needed answered but never got a definitive answer is "why?" why are the V here to conquer Earth? It hinted to be motivated by acquisition of resources. But for what reason? The episode with the Triax suggested that there was some other race out there at war with the V.
"DS9 did not have exploration at its core, VGR did not have characters at its core, ENT didn't have anything about bettering humanity at its core, TNG didn't have excitement at its core." For the most part, these series were criticized (and rightly so) for those issues, and just because something has been off-course in the past doesn't make the true course less valid.
Off course? I don't know what you're on but those shows are the entirety of the franchise except TOS/TAS. Something is only core f it's always present or part of a mission statement. Star Trek has neither.
If you think there's no core that makes Star Trek what it is, you're the one with the problem. A great many others have no problem seeing what it was meant to be, and recognizing where it lives up to those ideals and where it falls short.
Or alternatively people seeing things that aren't there are the ones with the problem.
Is there anything above that you disagree with? Is the above not a proper and adequate summary of the formula Star Trek was always meant to follow? Because I think it's a pretty solid baseline, and the further an episode, film, or other work under the title deviates from the above the less they can be described as true to Star Trek's core ideals.
If I am wrong on any of the above, I invite you (or others) to explain where and how I am misguided.
?? You've just listed a bunch of elements of the format, not a core value or mission statement. There is a difference, the first informs the setting, the second informs the characters and direction of the show. And, as I've already highlighted...
You have not seen DSC and know trailers are inaccurate portrayals designed to sell a product.
You know none of the shows have the same core as another.
I still struggle to wrap my head around that interpretation, but it does inform me how things like DS9 could stray so far from the Star Trek formula and still be well-regarded. What I don't get is why, if people had such a problem with Roddenberry's vision, why they had to change his creation rather than making their own.
Oh don't be ridiculous. Your first sentence is your usual daft statement you make pretending you've already seen the show and your second sentence makes it look like you're unaware that there is no singular 'Roddenberry's vision'. The Gene Roddenberry who wrote TOS/TAS was not the same as the man who wrote TMP/TNG. The two shows are not alike in any way. TOS is (despite its cheap campyness) a more realistic take on reality (similar to DS9) unlike the fantasy utopia of stagnation of TNG (and VGR).
Oh, and Star Trek is not dependent on (St.?) Gene Roddenberry. TNG series 1&2 are the parts where he was almost unchallenged. TOS owes people like DC or the other Gene, there's Meyer and TWoK and TUC, Moore, B&B, Abrams and Pegg, Fuller etc. I'm sure you remeber purists kicking up a little paddy back in the 90s when DS9 'danced all over Roddenberry's grave' producing a war story as soon as he died. Are you claiming Roddenberry is more of the core of Star Trek than Moore?
The rests of your posts seem to just boil down to 'I understand Star Trek and can nocromantically read Gene's mind and nobody else understands the show like we do'. You also seem to be not reading other people's posts now and not just mine which makes your posts basically ego stroking with no relevance to what people are actually saying.
although those new klingons look a little strange, it would be nice if they revert a little to the JJtrek type of klingon.
Some are, Kol for instance resembles the ID or a TSfS style Klingon (but blue). All they've done in DSC is introduce more types of Klingons in a similar way to DS9 when they got more budget and more modern makeup methods.
I agree with Darthmeow here, it's nice to have the ability to post stuff about star trek, you should keep your thoughts open to different sides of the debate though.
I know your base point is true but you need to read Darthmeow's posts. They do not even observe the existence of alternative points of view. Their vision of Trek is the only true one and DSC has betrayed that simply by being the latest version.
I disagree with people like @angrytarg over the new Klingon design or @jonsills over Starfleet's function, or @starswordc on Section 31 but I'll still try recognise their points because they're able to support them using the shows themselves. They don't use the imaginary show that only exists in it's saintly perfection inside their own heads and passively aggressively insult people for not having seen the same version of that the divine TV show they have. I haven't seen them not reading people's posts before replying and then making up their opposition's argument for them whilst simultaneously accusing their opponent of straw-manning.
Star trek fans are the worst enemies of the franchise.
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
I think it would be an idea going forward to see if the series is any good and if the designers in the workshop consider altering the designs between seasons.
Those same concerns you mentioned are the same ones that came around when JJTrek was coming, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. i actually kinda like JJTrek these days despite some differences between the two universes. It may entirely be possible that Discovery could be just as interesting.
I don't really mind the visuals that much. It's a creative direction I don't like, as with the KT films, but that's just me not falling in line with the current sci-fi flavour. The reason I am afraid DSC might be not for me is that I also don't like the current flavour of writing shows. Everything needs to be grim and heavy handed and I just fear DSC will be completely unremarkable in that department. This is really just my own perspective, but TOS and TNG are memorable to most of "my Generation", there are a lot of memes and pop cultural references. There's almost nothing from the other shows and of all of them, ENT, as the recent one, left absolutely no mark whatsoever with me. That's what I think DSC will do as well but we'll see.
The prequel thing especially, take ENT which was a entire show with that premise - and they threw it all away in the first season, having TNG references all over because they were afraid they couldn't stand on their own - and if you already know that while writing the show, why make it a prequel at all?
you make a valid point, Stargate SG-1, Atlantis and then Universe came and it was like rBSG, it's not what people wanted from what is a proven track record. some humor a little drama and a lot of focus on the creative abilities of MGM, but universe make it really dark and it failed.
i do hope it doesn't go too far in that direction.
I agree with Darthmeow here, it's nice to have the ability to post stuff about star trek, you should keep your thoughts open to different sides of the debate though.
I know your base point is true but you need to read Darthmeow's posts. They do not even observe the existence of alternative points of view. Their vision of Trek is the only true one and DSC has betrayed that simply by being the latest version.
I disagree with people like @angrytarg over the new Klingon design or @jonsills over Starfleet's function, or @starswordc on Section 31 but I'll still try recognise their points because they're able to support them using the shows themselves. They don't use the imaginary show that only exists in it's saintly perfection inside their own heads and passively aggressively insult people for not having seen the same version of that the divine TV show they have. I haven't seen them not reading people's posts before replying and then making up their opposition's argument for them whilst simultaneously accusing their opponent of straw-manning.
Star trek fans are the worst enemies of the franchise.
I know what you are getting at and i have been where you are at, just hating that it's different from what you like, i used to hate JJTrek and today i don't know why i did, perhaps because it was something i didn't like about the fact is was something different?
now all i see these days is that i never gave myself a chance to see what it really is, i never allowed myself to see the storyline, the characters or that it was just another view point from another group of people who like trek very much. i can't really offer much more than that as a view point, i am sorry about that but i don't wish to come off as accusing you of anything, it's just another view point to consider.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
You don't see any prequels to shows which weren't popular. An author can write twenty prequels to his magnum opus, but if the original cost more to print than it earned, you'll never even hear of a prequel. Prequels, and sequels, are always a cash grab.
An author writing his own prequel may feel an artistic need to remain true to his original intent, but an outside contractor hired by the publisher will very likely have his own ideas. To ask this person to remain true to works he most likely feels he could have done better is to ask the 2017 eclpse to move so you can see it better.
Roddenberry's own vision evolved between 1964 and 1987. So, to which version of the vision should the hired author adhere? No matter which you choose, he's likely to be far more passionate about his own vision. So much so that even the best immitation of the original will evolve in ways the original artist would never have dreamed.
I don't know about you, but for me the idea of infinite diversity is comforting. No matter how old I become, there will always be something new to me.
I think it would be an idea going forward to see if the series is any good and if the designers in the workshop consider altering the designs between seasons.
Those same concerns you mentioned are the same ones that came around when JJTrek was coming, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. i actually kinda like JJTrek these days despite some differences between the two universes. It may entirely be possible that Discovery could be just as interesting.
I don't really mind the visuals that much. It's a creative direction I don't like, as with the KT films, but that's just me not falling in line with the current sci-fi flavour. The reason I am afraid DSC might be not for me is that I also don't like the current flavour of writing shows. Everything needs to be grim and heavy handed and I just fear DSC will be completely unremarkable in that department. This is really just my own perspective, but TOS and TNG are memorable to most of "my Generation", there are a lot of memes and pop cultural references. There's almost nothing from the other shows and of all of them, ENT, as the recent one, left absolutely no mark whatsoever with me. That's what I think DSC will do as well but we'll see.
The prequel thing especially, take ENT which was a entire show with that premise - and they threw it all away in the first season, having TNG references all over because they were afraid they couldn't stand on their own - and if you already know that while writing the show, why make it a prequel at all?
you make a valid point, Stargate SG-1, Atlantis and then Universe came and it was like rBSG, it's not what people wanted from what is a proven track record. some humor a little drama and a lot of focus on the creative abilities of MGM, but universe make it really dark and it failed.
i do hope it doesn't go too far in that direction.
I agree with Darthmeow here, it's nice to have the ability to post stuff about star trek, you should keep your thoughts open to different sides of the debate though.
I know your base point is true but you need to read Darthmeow's posts. They do not even observe the existence of alternative points of view. Their vision of Trek is the only true one and DSC has betrayed that simply by being the latest version.
I disagree with people like @angrytarg over the new Klingon design or @jonsills over Starfleet's function, or @starswordc on Section 31 but I'll still try recognise their points because they're able to support them using the shows themselves. They don't use the imaginary show that only exists in it's saintly perfection inside their own heads and passively aggressively insult people for not having seen the same version of that the divine TV show they have. I haven't seen them not reading people's posts before replying and then making up their opposition's argument for them whilst simultaneously accusing their opponent of straw-manning.
Star trek fans are the worst enemies of the franchise.
I know what you are getting at and i have been where you are at, just hating that it's different from what you like, i used to hate JJTrek and today i don't know why i did, perhaps because it was something i didn't like about the fact is was something different?
now all i see these days is that i never gave myself a chance to see what it really is, i never allowed myself to see the storyline, the characters or that it was just another view point from another group of people who like trek very much. i can't really offer much more than that as a view point, i am sorry about that but i don't wish to come off as accusing you of anything, it's just another view point to consider.
Oh No you're right on the money. I was going to comment on your post earlier about KT Kirks characterisation and how that's a change from your position a year ago. But to be honest I couldn't care if you hadn't liked the KT films. The fact that you decided to overcome your bias and judge them as they are is all that's really needed.
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
You don't see any prequels to shows which weren't popular. An author can write twenty prequels to his magnum opus, but if the original cost more to print than it earned, you'll never even hear of a prequel. Prequels, and sequels, are always a cash grab.
An author writing his own prequel may feel an artistic need to remain true to his original intent, but an outside contractor hired by the publisher will very likely have his own ideas. To ask this person to remain true to works he most likely feels he could have done better is to ask the 2017 eclpse to move so you can see it better.
Roddenberry's own vision evolved between 1964 and 1987. So, to which version of the vision should the hired author adhere? No matter which you choose, he's likely to be far more passionate about his own vision. So much so that even the best immitation of the original will evolve in ways the original artist would never have dreamed.
I don't know about you, but for me the idea of infinite diversity is comforting. No matter how old I become, there will always be something new to me.
Gene Roddenberry created Trek because he wanted to get money of it at first, but then came the films and TNG before his death, then Rick Berman took over with DS9 and Voyager and it went down hill with Enterprise and needed the services of Manny Coto to turn it around but kept going until Nemesis which wasn't the greatest end to the TNG chapter. Years later Abrams come on and created his own version of TOS.
Each new EP wants to stamp their mark in history for doing something different, but TOS was different in a lot of ways, how many people from the 60's would of thought the very idea of Kirk and Uhura snogging on the bridge of the enterprise wasn't controversial enough, or Russian crew member and a homosexual Japanese pilot would also come on and then there is this planet with german swastikas and there are many other examples of cultural taboos that were broken because of Trek.
I mention the taboo part because it's just as much about change as Discovery and JJTrek is to prime universe fans. to enrich the history of the star trek timeline, but change is tough to accept.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Eh, I don't think the situations with Roddenberry and Lucas are particularly similar.
With Lucas, the crux of his problem in later years was that he forgot just how cemented the Star Wars franchise had become rooted into pop culture. In the early days it was pretty simple for him. The story was his and he could take it in whatever direction he liked. But during that long gap the franchise had grown into a pop culture legend, belonging as much to society as a whole as it did to him. When the fans started loudly disagreeing with the direction he took things in Episode 1 it really hurt him on a personal level. I don't think his spirit ever fully recovered from the shock of that backlash, from the realization that it wasn't just his sandbox anymore.
With Roddenberry it is a very different story. Right from the beginning he was met with constant pushback and criticism on his ideas. Despite being the man that had proposed the series, he had never actually owned it. As things progressed more and more of other peoples ideas and vision became injected into the franchise as he slowly became less and less relevant. He was constantly battling over the very identity of the series right up until his death.
As simplistic as it sounds, but to me Star Trek should always carry the baseline message that there is never a real "us versus them" situation and that conflict should always be tried to be resolved with compassion and never a shot being fired first and never a single one more than necessary to defend yourself. There are good and bad episodes, but the most memorable to me are always those pointing out that we all aren't that different and it is possible to find common ground to agree on. I disliked DS9s grim war arc, although I do favour the show highly in terms of character dynamic and development. But ultimately even in all of that, the war is resolved by an act of compassion - not by mankind or the Federation, but still.
What "fails" in my opinion as what I perceive as "core Star Trek" are the pieces that tell us about pragmatic "do what needs to be done" scenarios. The self-absorbed glorification of acts of self-defiance. Those leave a bitter taste in my maw.
^ 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
I don't mind when Trek shows a less than optimal resolution to an episode, such as when Kirk ordered Scotty to manufacture serpents to deliver to the Garden Of Eden. The point that he knew his decision was wrong but it was the best he could do demonstrated that he was flawed, but trying to improve. He felt guilt over doing what he had to do.
Good Trek doesn't always end with the Federation in the high chair at the morality buffet, but it does allow, and show, that the characters know they screwed up and that they should have done better. Failure on occasion makes success sweeter.
If the decision leads to a later point of redemption I'm fine with it. Just don't end on a note that says there is no alternative to horrible things.
^ 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
I somewhat agree with what you are saying @angrytarg. But conflict is usually one of those events that helps promote change in alot of ways and even today some of those conflicts are still going on regarding change. If it takes a few more decades, eventually change comes.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Sometimes the suboptimal solution really is the best one available. Usually when that's shown, on Trek or most other SF shows, the point is that despite everything this really is the best thing that could be done. It's a tradition dating back at least as far as Heinlein's short story "Solution Unsatisfactory", in which the protagonist acknowledges that the solution that was found to the situation will cause more trouble down the road, and he fervently wishes there had been a better way - but there wasn't, as every other solution they thought of would have led in short order to the destruction of all life on Earth.
Heck, that's the point of the Kobayashi Maru test - it's deliberately made impossible to resolve. It would be simple to survive, of course - just don't respond to the signal. And if you choose that course, you will never, ever be permitted within arm's reach of the center seat. Or you can respond, then run away when the OPFOR shows up. And then you might get to be a relief commander, but you won't get to run the ship. Only if you stay there, fighting (or at least struggling) to rescue the victims until either the last possible moment or until your "death", will you be trusted to take command of a starship, with its concomitant responsibility for the lives (and possible deaths) of hundreds of beings, as well as the lives (and possible deaths) of anything you encounter among the stars.
(I'm avoiding using real-world examples, but there are plenty of those.)
But in fiction, a piece in which the protagonists take such a solution suggests that it's okay to stop looking for alternatives if we just say that it's the only way often enough. Kirk knew how to deal with the kobayashi maru - don't accept the no-win-scenario. That's what in my opinion these stories should be about, not about giving in the grimdarkness and then wallow in pathos to justify it.
^ 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
That might be good enough for you and a great many others, but I want depth and intelligent ideas from my science fiction. Like it or not, I'm not alone in this.
That might be good enough for you and a great many others, but I want depth and intelligent ideas from my science fiction. Like it or not, I'm not alone in this.
(cute picture of girl with cookies)
Thank you! I just noticed that she has cat eyes Do you have any with ears and a tail as well? I'm asking for... a friend, yeah. Some sicko I know with a catgirl fetish, the weirdo. Can you imagine?
I take commissions, and with in game currency as payment.
And I can make your 'friend's' catgirl look like Miss Tamura, there, since I made of model of her to put into my Goddesses comic. I'll be posting a few pages in a day or so. Takes awhile to make em when one does all the art, editing, writing and so on. @_@
But in fiction, a piece in which the protagonists take such a solution suggests that it's okay to stop looking for alternatives if we just say that it's the only way often enough. Kirk knew how to deal with the kobayashi maru - don't accept the no-win-scenario. That's what in my opinion these stories should be about, not about giving in the grimdarkness and then wallow in pathos to justify it.
even TOS didn't do that...
The reason such stories exist is because sometimes you have to stop looking because there's not infinite time to look for solutions.
As to the first one, they really covered their butts on the alien motivation surprisingly well. It was stated directly that there were "other means" to get what they wanted and needed, but the current leadership had opted for a military solution for political reasons. The military campaign made for great press at home and rallied a lot of the population to remain in support of the leadership through the crisis, but the fact that it wasn't actually necessary to invade another inhabited world and exploit and kill the people there did inspire a resistance. The Fifth Column were comprised of Vs who were opposed to the invasion for reasons of morality and compassion, and had advocated for other solutions but been denied. Feeling they had no choice but to fight for the lives and rights of the innocent beings, they formed an internal resistance movement against the regime that embedded itself in the military and sabotaged things from within.
V was really plotted tightly and well, far more so than the reboot miniseries that came way later. The original still holds up today, and does so well. I very much recommend it.
Well, the main question that needed answered but never got a definitive answer is "why?" why are the V here to conquer Earth? It hinted to be motivated by acquisition of resources. But for what reason? The episode with the Triax suggested that there was some other race out there at war with the V.
I explained that in the above paragraph in the quote. The Vs were experiencing a resource crisis, and their Leader decided to pursue a conquest military campaign against a technologically inferior species to get what they needed. There were "other options" to get what they needed, but the leadership wanted what they believed would be an easy military success for domestic political gain. Mining asteroids or gas giants or whatever wouldn't have the same kind of "rally the populace around our great Leader and brave troops!" effect, which was especially important to quell domestic unrest during their time of hardship.
There's more background than that, includig that the V did in fact fight a losing war against another advanced species and afterwards the Leader led a military coup thereafter and replaced their formerly democratic government with a dictatorship. The whole thing really was set up to directly mirror the rise of Hitler and the Reich and teach lessons about how fascism can take over in a society before people realize what's happening and by the time people understand and fight back it's often too late.
Enh, you left out some of those details. But yeah, part of why V was good was that the aliens WEREN'T a "planet of hats". They were written as characters with unique personalities. One scene that was particularly memorable to me was where a guy distracts a V guard by tricking into playing the piano instead of guarding his post. Well... that SOUNDS dumb. Until you realize that the V in question actually knew how to play a piano, and was playing what was apparently the V equivalent to the national anthem.
Comments
There were stories my friends wanted to hear again, and then the kids would want to hear them as bedtime stories or on long nights when the power went out. Some stories I told many dozens of times, some no more than twice, but here's the point: I never told the same story exactly the same.
Me. The author of the story. I was always seeing better ways to tell the tales.
So I totally understand when a creative person wants to leave his thumbprint on a franchise, even if there is no 'need' to do so.
Last spring at a friend's daughter's birthday party it rained so hard that we had to move inside, and of course, the now mother of a three year old asked me to tell stories to the kids. (She grew up hearing my stories.) The parent of another kid asked if there were any story books handy, and my god daughter said, "Don't bother, he won't tell it like the book says anyway."
> Okay, gyor, I'm putting this in all caps hoping you'll actually read it this time...
>
> BAD ROBOT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STAR TREK DISCOVERY. ALEX KURTZMAN'S PRODUCTION COMPANY, WHICH IS NOT IN ANY WAY AFFILIATED WITH J. J. ABRAMS, IS CALLED SECRET HIDEOUT. AND CBS IS ACTUALLY TAKING THE LEAD ON THE PRODUCTION OF THE SHOW.
>
> Glitzy graphics and holograms are NOT the exclusive province of Abrams, nor only permissible in the Kelvin Timeline. And we're not going to see a Trek series that uses the same tech as a (frankly) failed 1960s series for the same reason you're never going to see a new version of Battlestar Galactica that features bad-guy robots in tin suits with one bouncing eye - both the technology and the expectations of the audience have expanded far beyond those primitive beginnings.
>
> The new series is set in the Prime Timeline. This has been stated repeatedly by people who would stand to lose quite a lot of viewership, and thus money, should they be lying about it. (And equally frankly, lying about that would be phenomenally stupid - they're not trying to court the eyes of old farts like me, who have long since aged out of that precious 18-34 demographic, but of younger folk who have no sentimental attachment to those classic plywood sets. Trying to mislead the audience would only result in the complete loss of the new audience, who would grow unattached upon realizing they could not know the truth about the characters or their situation.)
I never suggested it wasn't in the Prime Universe, I only said that they are planning another Star Trek series.
If I was misinformed about Bad Robots invovled sorry, especial if you pointed that out before, but can you really blame me for missing it with the massive amounts of off topic thread drifts in this thread?
Seriously chill, I'm not planning on being a mindless hater on TRIBBLE, I'm with aestitic influences from Kelvinverse, I just know that alot of people are already not happy with things.
I'm not the enemy.
---
I think if they have a Plan B series on the backburner they should try to learn from the one fundamental mistake Discovery and the JJ-verse movies made. Stop trying to appeal to nostalgia while simultaneously insulting it. Setting these series in the 23rd century to invoke Kirk-era nostalgia doesn't actually work if you completely reimagine all aspects of that world. You are basically dangling something you know is beloved by the fans and then telling them it isn't good enough.
They need to look to the future and create their own path.
You see, the new show does use "the regular Star Trek license". Bad Robot is a production company associated with Paramount's KT movie series, which is legally distinct from CBS' television rights (has to do with the weird way that the old rights Viacom purchased from Desilu Studios were broken up when Viacom was parted out).
Apologies for flying off the handle like that, but between that bit and the fact that you were the most recent purveyor of links to questionable, rumor-filled YouTube videos put together by someone who apparently has an axe to grind over the new series already, well, you can see where I'm coming from on this, I'm sure.
yes, i remember days where opinions were quite strong, it usually lead to arguements. that's one area i hope to avoid in the future though. A lot of people love their star trek and i used to take it out of context and just see one view point and that wasn't a nice thing to do when it happened.
I agree with Darthmeow here, it's nice to have the ability to post stuff about star trek, you should keep your thoughts open to different sides of the debate though.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I absolutely agree here. As I said before, as an "open comment" to any filmmakers out there, regardless of the franchise: Stop making prequels when you don't really want to make a prequel. It doesn't work.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think it would be an idea going forward to see if the series is any good and if the designers in the workshop consider altering the designs between seasons.
Those same concerns you mentioned are the same ones that came around when JJTrek was coming, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. i actually kinda like JJTrek these days despite some differences between the two universes. It may entirely be possible that Discovery could be just as interesting.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
I don't really mind the visuals that much. It's a creative direction I don't like, as with the KT films, but that's just me not falling in line with the current sci-fi flavour. The reason I am afraid DSC might be not for me is that I also don't like the current flavour of writing shows. Everything needs to be grim and heavy handed and I just fear DSC will be completely unremarkable in that department. This is really just my own perspective, but TOS and TNG are memorable to most of "my Generation", there are a lot of memes and pop cultural references. There's almost nothing from the other shows and of all of them, ENT, as the recent one, left absolutely no mark whatsoever with me. That's what I think DSC will do as well but we'll see.
The prequel thing especially, take ENT which was a entire show with that premise - and they threw it all away in the first season, having TNG references all over because they were afraid they couldn't stand on their own - and if you already know that while writing the show, why make it a prequel at all?
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
Off course? I don't know what you're on but those shows are the entirety of the franchise except TOS/TAS. Something is only core f it's always present or part of a mission statement. Star Trek has neither.
Or alternatively people seeing things that aren't there are the ones with the problem.
According to CBS/Paramount or you? It might be important for you to specify.
?? You've just listed a bunch of elements of the format, not a core value or mission statement. There is a difference, the first informs the setting, the second informs the characters and direction of the show. And, as I've already highlighted...
Oh don't be ridiculous. Your first sentence is your usual daft statement you make pretending you've already seen the show and your second sentence makes it look like you're unaware that there is no singular 'Roddenberry's vision'. The Gene Roddenberry who wrote TOS/TAS was not the same as the man who wrote TMP/TNG. The two shows are not alike in any way. TOS is (despite its cheap campyness) a more realistic take on reality (similar to DS9) unlike the fantasy utopia of stagnation of TNG (and VGR).
Oh, and Star Trek is not dependent on (St.?) Gene Roddenberry. TNG series 1&2 are the parts where he was almost unchallenged. TOS owes people like DC or the other Gene, there's Meyer and TWoK and TUC, Moore, B&B, Abrams and Pegg, Fuller etc. I'm sure you remeber purists kicking up a little paddy back in the 90s when DS9 'danced all over Roddenberry's grave' producing a war story as soon as he died. Are you claiming Roddenberry is more of the core of Star Trek than Moore?
The rests of your posts seem to just boil down to 'I understand Star Trek and can nocromantically read Gene's mind and nobody else understands the show like we do'. You also seem to be not reading other people's posts now and not just mine which makes your posts basically ego stroking with no relevance to what people are actually saying.
You might wanna look into that...
Some are, Kol for instance resembles the ID or a TSfS style Klingon (but blue). All they've done in DSC is introduce more types of Klingons in a similar way to DS9 when they got more budget and more modern makeup methods.
I know your base point is true but you need to read Darthmeow's posts. They do not even observe the existence of alternative points of view. Their vision of Trek is the only true one and DSC has betrayed that simply by being the latest version.
I disagree with people like @angrytarg over the new Klingon design or @jonsills over Starfleet's function, or @starswordc on Section 31 but I'll still try recognise their points because they're able to support them using the shows themselves. They don't use the imaginary show that only exists in it's saintly perfection inside their own heads and passively aggressively insult people for not having seen the same version of that the divine TV show they have. I haven't seen them not reading people's posts before replying and then making up their opposition's argument for them whilst simultaneously accusing their opponent of straw-manning.
Star trek fans are the worst enemies of the franchise.
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!
you make a valid point, Stargate SG-1, Atlantis and then Universe came and it was like rBSG, it's not what people wanted from what is a proven track record. some humor a little drama and a lot of focus on the creative abilities of MGM, but universe make it really dark and it failed.
i do hope it doesn't go too far in that direction.
I know what you are getting at and i have been where you are at, just hating that it's different from what you like, i used to hate JJTrek and today i don't know why i did, perhaps because it was something i didn't like about the fact is was something different?
now all i see these days is that i never gave myself a chance to see what it really is, i never allowed myself to see the storyline, the characters or that it was just another view point from another group of people who like trek very much. i can't really offer much more than that as a view point, i am sorry about that but i don't wish to come off as accusing you of anything, it's just another view point to consider.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
You don't see any prequels to shows which weren't popular. An author can write twenty prequels to his magnum opus, but if the original cost more to print than it earned, you'll never even hear of a prequel. Prequels, and sequels, are always a cash grab.
An author writing his own prequel may feel an artistic need to remain true to his original intent, but an outside contractor hired by the publisher will very likely have his own ideas. To ask this person to remain true to works he most likely feels he could have done better is to ask the 2017 eclpse to move so you can see it better.
Roddenberry's own vision evolved between 1964 and 1987. So, to which version of the vision should the hired author adhere? No matter which you choose, he's likely to be far more passionate about his own vision. So much so that even the best immitation of the original will evolve in ways the original artist would never have dreamed.
I don't know about you, but for me the idea of infinite diversity is comforting. No matter how old I become, there will always be something new to me.
Oh No you're right on the money. I was going to comment on your post earlier about KT Kirks characterisation and how that's a change from your position a year ago. But to be honest I couldn't care if you hadn't liked the KT films. The fact that you decided to overcome your bias and judge them as they are is all that's really needed.
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!
Gene Roddenberry created Trek because he wanted to get money of it at first, but then came the films and TNG before his death, then Rick Berman took over with DS9 and Voyager and it went down hill with Enterprise and needed the services of Manny Coto to turn it around but kept going until Nemesis which wasn't the greatest end to the TNG chapter. Years later Abrams come on and created his own version of TOS.
Each new EP wants to stamp their mark in history for doing something different, but TOS was different in a lot of ways, how many people from the 60's would of thought the very idea of Kirk and Uhura snogging on the bridge of the enterprise wasn't controversial enough, or Russian crew member and a homosexual Japanese pilot would also come on and then there is this planet with german swastikas and there are many other examples of cultural taboos that were broken because of Trek.
I mention the taboo part because it's just as much about change as Discovery and JJTrek is to prime universe fans. to enrich the history of the star trek timeline, but change is tough to accept.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
With Lucas, the crux of his problem in later years was that he forgot just how cemented the Star Wars franchise had become rooted into pop culture. In the early days it was pretty simple for him. The story was his and he could take it in whatever direction he liked. But during that long gap the franchise had grown into a pop culture legend, belonging as much to society as a whole as it did to him. When the fans started loudly disagreeing with the direction he took things in Episode 1 it really hurt him on a personal level. I don't think his spirit ever fully recovered from the shock of that backlash, from the realization that it wasn't just his sandbox anymore.
With Roddenberry it is a very different story. Right from the beginning he was met with constant pushback and criticism on his ideas. Despite being the man that had proposed the series, he had never actually owned it. As things progressed more and more of other peoples ideas and vision became injected into the franchise as he slowly became less and less relevant. He was constantly battling over the very identity of the series right up until his death.
What "fails" in my opinion as what I perceive as "core Star Trek" are the pieces that tell us about pragmatic "do what needs to be done" scenarios. The self-absorbed glorification of acts of self-defiance. Those leave a bitter taste in my maw.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Good Trek doesn't always end with the Federation in the high chair at the morality buffet, but it does allow, and show, that the characters know they screwed up and that they should have done better. Failure on occasion makes success sweeter.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Heck, that's the point of the Kobayashi Maru test - it's deliberately made impossible to resolve. It would be simple to survive, of course - just don't respond to the signal. And if you choose that course, you will never, ever be permitted within arm's reach of the center seat. Or you can respond, then run away when the OPFOR shows up. And then you might get to be a relief commander, but you won't get to run the ship. Only if you stay there, fighting (or at least struggling) to rescue the victims until either the last possible moment or until your "death", will you be trusted to take command of a starship, with its concomitant responsibility for the lives (and possible deaths) of hundreds of beings, as well as the lives (and possible deaths) of anything you encounter among the stars.
(I'm avoiding using real-world examples, but there are plenty of those.)
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I take commissions, and with in game currency as payment.
And I can make your 'friend's' catgirl look like Miss Tamura, there, since I made of model of her to put into my Goddesses comic. I'll be posting a few pages in a day or so. Takes awhile to make em when one does all the art, editing, writing and so on. @_@
The reason such stories exist is because sometimes you have to stop looking because there's not infinite time to look for solutions.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing