I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the direction Discovery took is not invalidated by opinions that it could have been done 'better' if done otherwise. There are some who say that the Discovery look alone invalidates it as Trek, and with this I strongly disagree.
My point is simply this: Trek is not and has never been about the look. Trek is about the stories. If Discovery makes good stories, then their Klingons can wear pink tutus and ballet slippers for all that it matters. The best recreation or even reimagining of the old sets won't matter if the stories suck.
So, there's the definition that you need to refute: show me how looks matter even one tenth as much as story quality and I'll conceed the point.
WELL.... firstly, I am just reveling in my first viral thread here. Although my buddy badmoon pointed out this discussion has taken a turn away from my original post, it has actually picked up my EXACT sentiments perfectly.
I have read (carefully) all of your messages. I want to congratulate and lend my support to @silverlobes#2676 and @darthmeow504 for their polite, and consistent arguments. They are ENTIRELY correct about everything... and I'll prove it to you.
I can't give you names as I would never get my friends in trouble but I have several inside connections to Discovery (and as a funny side, I am acquaintances with Brandon Routh! #supermanreturns!)
A large part of why the fan base is in disarray over ST:D, as it was over JJ Trek, is due to a deep seeded dishonesty which has caused a cognitive dissonance within Star Trek Franchise (which should be called FAN-CHISE)- well okay that's not a word, but Star Trek lives BECAUSE of us fans... NEVER forget that for a second... Cryptic hasn't, and that's why they have done a fine job with STO... A DAMNED fine job indeed...
Firstly; my Betazoid senses are already telling me something obvious- some of you are immediately skeptical of my claim to have inside sources on Discovery. I don't expect you to believe what I'm about to tell you here, but within 3 to 5 years everything I say will be public knowledge.
I am going to break down the elements of dishonesty within CBS that has lead to Star Trek going of the rails so drastically, as well as the attempt of the few remaining true Trek Creators to save it, but to no avail...
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
2: Bryan Fuller was FIRED. He did not "step down." He is under a legal contract to lie and say he stepped down because he was "busy". Why was he fired? Because Les Moonves himself tried to tell the creators of the show how to stylize it. Moonves who insiders report "can't tell the difference between Star Trek or Star Wars" is neither a sci-fi fan nor is he a creative person!!!!!!
He started to get in to an arm wrestle with Bryan Fuller over making Star Trek Discovery look like Star Wars and the new JJ movies. Fuller tried desperately to explain to Moonves that fans were NOT going to tolerate bulldozing and re-paving THEIR franchise with some sexed up, re-envisioned **** just because you're comparing 1980's and 1990's television ratings to the 2009 onward ratings of big cinema films. As many "new fans" of trek as the JJ movies brought in, none of those fans understand what Trek is about because those movies didn't have any story, no moral point, no social commentary. I have met a LOT of kids who are only fans of the JJ Trek and never watched any other trek and I have talked to them and none of them like trek nor do they know what it stands for. It was just an action flick for them. Real trek is about story, but it's also a cultural phenomenon. It's the only human story we have on television that A- has lasted this long and B- has a philosophy that shows humans a better way to live than is expressed anywhere on Earth or in any contemporary dystopic sci-fi There is a certain moral obligation the owners of Trek have to keep it's core values and vision alive ESPECIALLY NOW MORE THAN EVER- and Fuller was fired when he tried to fight for that...
3: The look of the show was ultimately chosen by Moonves and has no semblance to star trek. If you took the Delta shield badge off the uniform this show would be a "generic sci fi." The argument that for Star Trek to draw in new fans it must have a totally new look is flawed and incorrect... The point made earlier about MAD MEN taking place in the 1960's was POINTE FINALE. You don't have to have sexy new cars or sexy modern phones or sexy modern clothing and hair and makeup in order to draw in new fans. In fact this is a point I want to make: Look at the new Battlestar Galactica. Their ships look dark, gloomy, they have old 1970's style telephones with cords attached, and clunky awkward computers with radar screens and push buttons and keyboards and head sets!!!!!! This look is AWFUL. But the story and characters made the show amazing. And you know who was a front runner for the show?.... take a guess.. hint: Worked as writer for nearly every star trek series including the major movies not the least of which was first contact: Ronald D Moore. Take a look at the 1960's World Fare which is where the principle designer for Original Trek Matt Jeffereys (the namesake for the Jeffreys tube) got his inspiration for the over all aesthetic.
The 1960's world fair was a vision of the future by major tech and car companies of that era. It was a BEAUTIFUL event that hundreds of thousands if not millions came to see. The retro-futurism art style can STILL apply to modern design and in fact often does. I have a completely modern dining room table with a mushroom base that looks like something out of the Jetsons or Star Trek TOS. I have bar stools which look like they belong on the Enterprise. There's a way that Trek Designers (if allowed by Les Moonves) could do a tongue and cheek nod to that retro-futurism aesthetic but using modern technology and materials and lighting- it would look AMAZING. And as long as story and characters aren't compromised, the "new" trek would bring in EVEN MORE fans than ever before- even though it follows the rules of the 2250's designs. Imagine those beautiful multi colored glowing jewel buttons that are touch sensitive. They actually could sink in to the panel and become a touch screen. There's a company developing a tactile touch screen right now- which essentially uses a gel under the surface of the touch screen which reacts to electricity and causes physical buttons to form. That's a way to take those gorgeous 2250's glowing jewels and make them make sense. Even Tuvok in Year of Hell set his console to "tactile interface." We never saw the effect for this but it is implied. And in a single scene of The Cage pilot Spock is using motions with his hand and a monitor is responding to HAND GESTURES IN THIN AIR- that's some minority report sh*t right there, and that was in the cage pilot and never seen again. So don't give me this nonsense that the 2250's were not advanced and with a LITTLE creativity and a tongue and cheek approach, GOOD artists cant take that technology and make it re-envigorated and damned well inspirational to us today!!!
ALSO: What did Tom Paris say to Tuvok when Tuvok criticized Tom's "buttons dials and ****" in the Delta Flyer Cockpit? - Tom said "I AM SICK OF TAPPING PANELS! For once I want to FEEL the controls of my ship! It makes me feel more connected."
So it's conceivable that while we all think touch screens are super advanced and superior today- in the future maybe the novelty of a tactile interface will return simply due to the lack thereof. And my explanation of how a glowy jewel button can sink down and turn in to a touch screen is the epitome of a new vision on an old interpretation. That's what Trek needs and is about in part! Vision!!!
So my fellow fans.. your arguing with each other all stems from your attempts to justify why Les Moonves and JJ Abrams have destroyed Star Trek. The willful neglect and destruction of OUR property (which we keep alive and WE financially support) has been perpetrated by greedy suits. Star Trek is in crisis. You may not see that right now- but you'll understand what I mean in a few years time.
One last point Star Wars creator Lucas is alive and well. He has a lot of say in his original creation and every year Lucas holds a symposium for fan films and even gives awards. Whereas Gene Rodenberry is dead, and his son and all those who love trek and understand trek such as the Okuda's and Nimoy's son and the creatives at DS9 all literally have to grovel and pay CBS to make films that frankly end up GETTING CBS MONEY AND AS FOR FAN FILMS AWARDS? CBS SUES IT'S F*&( FANS!!!!!
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
The Battlestar Galactica uniform is just a standard military naval costume. Nobody cares. The Dr. Who clothes are glorified london wear- nobody cares. Star Trek Discovery design is absolutely horrible and the crew looks like a marching band. And people DO care you know why?- because they are trying TOO HARD. Starfleet doesn't wear Uniforms that are ridiculous and impractical. They wear primary colors that look simple and comfortable. If anything starfleet tries to dress more spiritual than military with their softer tunic look. Discovery has created a strange take on what was supposed to be a simple yet functional Uniform.
I myself will still watch and appreciate Discovery, but I will still speak up about trying to keep Star Trek alive and true to what it's original vision and intention was.
The only actually decent looking star trek uniforms were the wrath of khan ones the others are all goofy.
Those ones looked too goofy to me, not to mention too military and you'll be sweating to death on the ship or something.
I'd wear a TOS mini or the TNG mini's myself.
Doesn't matter. If Lucas/Disney gave Star Wars a big change like Discovery is doing with TOS, you'd be seeing the fans screaming bloody murder.....but they did not change it.
Actually, as I recall Lucas himself was roasted over the coals for editing his own films to add in visual effects and such and for "ruining" Yoda by replacing the puppet with CGI. Also, the Star Wars films all take place within a much shorter time frame than the various Star Trek programs. It makes more sense for things to be relatively the same in the Star Wars universe.
As to Valoreah's nonsense Communicator question, it doesn't "download apps or play music etc etc etc" BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT IT TO. It isn't a toy, it's a duty tool designed to do the job it was built for.
Smartphones aren't toys either. There are any number of applications that can be downloaded to them. There is a clear direction that portable communications devices are going in. It wouldn't make sense for them to get dumbed down to single use devices again.
Lucas fully acknowledged that he tried to re-invent Star Wars with modern CGI to look like what he personally always envisioned it to. And when fans hated it, he learned a valuable lesson, which was that even though he himself wasn't overly thrilled with the limited effects of the 1970's, the fans came to adore what he and his team created. He ACKNOWLEDGED the fans dismay and returned to the original aesthetic. And it was all easily explained away by the fact that prior to the Empire's reign the Galaxy was more glitzy and prosperous.
How will we explain away what Discovery does?
Furthermore- Lucas is ALLOWED to toy with his own vision. Les Moonves is not allowed and Fans wont be happy... just as Star Wars fans were outraged. And it showed. Here's the thing to you people who like to argue for the sake of arguing: try to understand I'm on your side, we're all on the same side we are Star Trek Fans. Don't knit pick for the sake of make believing some imaginary "sense of balance" occurs when you take the role devils advocate.
Star Trek did not create new fans with the JJ movies. Because those 'fans' don't watch Trek or contribute to Trek. I'm not saying that there aren't a few kids out there who watched JJ trek first and then back tracked and are now fans of trek- but by in large the idea that you have to re-imagine something that's already well established for HALF A CENTURY- is a LIE THAT WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW OR LOVE STAR TREK. And you are trying to justify that lie because you don't have all of the information.
I am not the only person in the world with inside connections to CBS and Discovery... And I am not the only one saying this, but you'll see in a few years.
Oh and yes the look of trek changes but that was NEVER a problem when we were going in to the future. If they wanted to change the look of trek they should have simply gone with the idea of "Federation" where in the year 3000 the Galaxy faces a new threat and the Federation is disbanded. They could have been sexy, raw, dark all the things Les Moonves wanted- because it'd be a dystopian future where an ancestor of Kirk has to bring a crew together and re-imagine the ideals of the long forgotten Starfleet and Federation, to save the Galaxy. That would have been FINE.
When you say you're 10 years before the TOS series and then you ignore EVERYTHING about that established lore, all BASED on trying to get ratings because you're a superficial old moron behind a desk- THAT IS CROSSING THE LINE.
I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the direction Discovery took is not invalidated by opinions that it could have been done 'better' if done otherwise. There are some who say that the Discovery look alone invalidates it as Trek, and with this I strongly disagree.
My point is simply this: Trek is not and has never been about the look. Trek is about the stories. If Discovery makes good stories, then their Klingons can wear pink tutus and ballet slippers for all that it matters. The best recreation or even reimagining of the old sets won't matter if the stories suck.
So, there's the definition that you need to refute: show me how looks matter even one tenth as much as story quality and I'll conceed the point.
But you won't concede the point though. No matter the amount of examples provided, all you need to do, is say 'well I disagree...', and no concession needs to be made on your part. Examples have already been given as to the role aesthetics and wardrobe make to any production set in a specific time. The point does not need repeating. Discovery producers specifically said when and where they are setting Discovery, so again, the point that we already know from other Trek material the look they should be following, should not need to be repeated. But it will be, because you just won't concede the point.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The only actually decent looking star trek uniforms were the wrath of khan ones the others are all goofy.
Those ones looked too goofy to me, not to mention too military and you'll be sweating to death on the ship or something. I'd wear a TOS mini or the TNG mini's myself.
TOS or JJ variant? Personally, I thought the cut and material of the minis of the JJ movies looked nicer than the TOS versions
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the direction Discovery took is not invalidated by opinions that it could have been done 'better' if done otherwise. There are some who say that the Discovery look alone invalidates it as Trek, and with this I strongly disagree.
My point is simply this: Trek is not and has never been about the look. Trek is about the stories. If Discovery makes good stories, then their Klingons can wear pink tutus and ballet slippers for all that it matters. The best recreation or even reimagining of the old sets won't matter if the stories suck.
So, there's the definition that you need to refute: show me how looks matter even one tenth as much as story quality and I'll conceed the point.
Just because we haven't argued about the stories which we haven't seen yet, doesn't mean our arguments exclude the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ugh.
And to nabreeki, that's condescending drivel. Talking about a series which has shaped the direction of technology and millions of lives personally, on a forum specifically dedicated to that series is in no way a waste of time or a "lesson" about having no life. I am a well known practitioner in my country who helps people every day with deep life issues. I know several medical doctors who help people every day and love Trek this much. So frankly your insinuation is invalid and intentionally demeaning. You should take a long look at yourself.
Finally got caught up reading this thread and I have two things to say:
1) No personal attacks or insults. You want to debate ideas, fine. Making and taking things personally doesn't help your argument.
2) Everyone has their own opinion and are entitled to it. No one has to concede anything to anyone else. YOUR stress issues on the matter will lessen if YOU agree to disagree rather than insisting someone else does.
Carry on.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
No concessions necessary but also my point is none of the fans would be in dissonance if they had all the information as to why Trek has changed it's look and content for no good reason other than non trek fans deciding to change it.
The argument recently made here is that we are mostly concerned with looks. No we aren't. That's the point. There was nothing wrong with trek's looks! Could they be improved upon? yes!
The reason we appear to be arguing about looks is because superficial executives changed the show in a superficial way and took the depth out of it. So we are now being accused of worrying about superficial things SIMPLY by-proxy of our focus on the superficial changes made to the series! *goes cross eyed*
I don't disagree with any of that. My point is that the direction Discovery took is not invalidated by opinions that it could have been done 'better' if done otherwise. There are some who say that the Discovery look alone invalidates it as Trek, and with this I strongly disagree.
My point is simply this: Trek is not and has never been about the look. Trek is about the stories. If Discovery makes good stories, then their Klingons can wear pink tutus and ballet slippers for all that it matters. The best recreation or even reimagining of the old sets won't matter if the stories suck.
So, there's the definition that you need to refute: show me how looks matter even one tenth as much as story quality and I'll conceed the point.
But you won't concede the point though. No matter the amount of examples provided, all you need to do, is say 'well I disagree...', and no concession needs to be made on your part. Examples have already been given as to the role aesthetics and wardrobe make to any production set in a specific time. The point does not need repeating. Discovery producers specifically said when and where they are setting Discovery, so again, the point that we already know from other Trek material the look they should be following, should not need to be repeated. But it will be, because you just won't concede the point.
They wont concede for one of three reasons: 1- They just "don't like that look" like a stubborn child who refuses to try broccoli. They don't understand the beauty behind art and intention. They haven't educated themselves as to why the TOS had that look. It was specific and deliberate and I used to hate it but came to love it when I understood the 1960's worlds fair.
2- They think when we say it should follow that look that we mean using cardboard and tin foil and cheap lighting. They don't understand that there's a way to re-capture the TOS look while using modern film and production techniques which would literally make it nicer than any star trek production ever seen- ALL the while keeping that aesthetic. They need to SEE what we're talking about. Watch Enterprise In a mirror darkly when they board the Defiant for reference.
3- There's this personality type I've come to observe in life that always has to pick apart a tiny perceived flaw in an argument just because they themselves are OCD and afraid their own arguments are flawed and must be perfect for them to be taken seriously. Point in case: You are responding here to someone who says we keep arguing about aesthetic when we should be more concerned with Story. HIS mistake is that we can't argue about Story because we haven't seen story yet, we only saw some aesthetics!!!! And pretty IMPORTANT ones mind you such as ships and bridges!!!! The ship has always been a character in trek. Kind of like Milennium falcon. And it's these personality types that think an argument can never be valid unless someone disagrees with it, so they take the role of devil's advocate SIMPLY to create the illusion of balance.
Silver, DarthMeow and I don't necessarily agree on everything but we at least are on the same page with how something about Discovery and the direction of trek since Abrams has been askew.
Do I want it to have good story and characters? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think the appearance ruins the show? Not necessarily, I have already found things about Discovery that I like- and I'm open to trek's aesthetic changing. What I don't like are lies and blatant disrespect of the existing lore. This is the same argument with Ghostbusters. They didn't have to make it a reboot, ESPECIALLY because the Ghostbusters were a franchise IN the movie. You could have had the original ghostbusters sell the rights to the women and used a more integrated story and changed the name slightly. Now whenever Ghostbusters fans want to mention their fav movie they have to stupidly specify "Ghostbusters 1980's" or "Original Ghostbusters." It was a mistake and the movie did not do as well as it should have because of silly executive decisions that didn't honor the lore. (I do love the new ghostbusters movie but it would have been so much better with some simple tweaks).
Star Trek is not owned by creators who respect and love it. And Bryan Fuller was their only shot to get it right. They blew it.
I'm hoping they realize that, hire him back, beg for him back, and get this thing on track so that it succeeds. I want it to succeed.
Also, have a FAN make it....Peter Jackson is a Tolken fan, and his Lord of the Rings films were pretty damned good, where BOTH fans AND the average slob could enjoy it.
It just takes a lil hard work, love of what you are making, AND.....brace yourself.....THINKING.
Like Shelby said, "If you can't make the big decisions, commander, I suggest you make room for someone who can."
Get someone who knows Trek and loves it.....not some overrated Hollywood big name or some bean counter executive.
My apologies to those whom I have offended, and my apologies to the forums readers. I tend to strongly take a stand but that does not mean I am closed-minded. I read and try to incorporate what others say into my own ideas, and when they conflict I try to find where I am going wrong.
I still don't understand why some are attached to a particular look, but I recognize that it matters to them. Exactly why it matters remains a mystery, the point was never addressed, and in trying to get that answer I may have appeared to be goading posters. This was not my intent.
This thread was about Discovery's potential impact on STO, but I helped to derail it by participating in a discussion about the aesthetic choices made by Discovery's production team.
I offer my apologies and promise to try harder to be a responsible poster.
Star Trek did not create new fans with the JJ movies. Because those 'fans' don't watch Trek or contribute to Trek. I'm not saying that there aren't a few kids out there who watched JJ trek first and then back tracked and are now fans of trek- but by in large the idea that you have to re-imagine something that's already well established for HALF A CENTURY- is a LIE THAT WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW OR LOVE STAR TREK. And you are trying to justify that lie because you don't have all of the information.
I am not the only person in the world with inside connections to CBS and Discovery... And I am not the only one saying this, but you'll see in a few years.
LOL! What??? Have to admit, this is way out there. JJ Trek didn't create any new Star Trek fans? Because those people didn't watch any of the older Star Trek shows?
How does any of that make any sense?
Because the fans of JJ films who don't watch any other trek- don't know trek as the JJ films have NO trek in them. Trek is about a moral tale. A mythos in modern and future times that shows what humans can be at their greatest. JJ abrams movies don't show that and the fans of them who don't bother to take to any other trek beside the movies are not trek fans because they don't grasp or haven't yet fallen in love with what trek -is- at it's core.
Also, I apologize for the repost of a post I edited but Smokey was too quick and limber lol. I don't think anyone should have to concede to anything if they don't want to. But I also don't think Silverlobe was being untoward by repeatedly asking for someone to concede as the definition of the meaning of the word is literally to acknowledge that something they've dismissed/disagreed with is at least valid. All Silver was asking for is to acknowledge that his points and a few points made by darthmeow were valid- as I think it's obvious we all consider the points that nay-sayers are making are valid and we try to address them in a reasonable way only to be met with evasion and attacks about minutia.
This odd fad that seems to exist where "nobody is right or wrong, everyone gets to have a point of view that matters" is troublesome to me... deeply troublesome. While I agree this forum is not the place for an official debate- I think we must all be careful to measure ourselves against facts. Now just before I get picked apart for suggesting JJ abrams movies didn't breed true trek fans.... that is a provocative statement. I am NOT saying there were NO fans of JJ Trek. I'm simply saying JJ Trek Fans often don't take to any other trek, and those ones who don't, are not trek fans because JJ trek has very little trek about it.
That might be provocative and some people might not like the generalization of that statement but it doesn't mean it isn't possibly true. It also doesn't mean no fan of JJ trek would NEVER become a fan of broader trek. I find most trek fans myself included started with one trek. For me it was the wrath of khan. That was it for me. I didn't like trek. But eventually I craved it and TNG was on adjacent the news so rather than watching news I was forced to watch TNG. My love affair with trek began then.
It's OKAY to be correct. It's also OKAY to be wrong. I have been wrong many times about many things and continue to be wrong. I don't mind admitting it when I am wrong. I also don't mind admitting it when I am correct. And I appreciate when my mind is changed by others. Online forums and public/community exchange is partly created FOR that reason alone.
So I have to implore the members here to consider the importance of changing minds and exchanging ideas in a forum like this.
Unless the moderators decide that's somehow against a rule. In which case I'll digress and leave as very little value can be gained in a Stepford community.
lol. That's one way to look at it. But I really liked what he did with Star Wars and now a Han Solo movie is being made isn't it?
Star Trek was being resurrected anyways. JJ was asked to run it. But if someone like the DS9 boys who are making "what we left behind" had been asked to do it, or maybe Fuller with the DS9 boys it would have still been resurrected and much better than JJ trek. That's not an opinion, it's fact based on review of history. Star trek has been a BOOMING success for half a century. With out the help of JJ. JJ was lucky to be given the helm and he steered it right in to an asteroid and the films did not do as well as other trek had in the past.
Also, I apologize for the repost of a post I edited but Smokey was too quick and limber lol. I don't think anyone should have to concede to anything if they don't want to. But I also don't think Silverlobe was being untoward by repeatedly asking for someone to concede as the definition of the meaning of the word is literally to acknowledge that something they've dismissed/disagreed with is at least valid. All Silver was asking for is to acknowledge that his points and a few points made by darthmeow were valid- as I think it's obvious we all consider the points that nay-sayers are making are valid and we try to address them in a reasonable way only to be met with evasion and attacks about minutia.
This odd fad that seems to exist where "nobody is right or wrong, everyone gets to have a point of view that matters" is troublesome to me... deeply troublesome. While I agree this forum is not the place for an official debate- I think we must all be careful to measure ourselves against facts.
This is the thing, I'm all for differences of opinion, but there does come a point in a discussio, where there is eventually a distillation and acknowledgement of the truth: Where one notion actually is correct, and the other incorrect. I'm actually not bothered about being acknowledged as right, because I know that I've given examples which stand on their own merits. What I wanted to point out with my last comment, was that the offer to concede the point if proof was given, came across as a dishonest one, due to the existing proofs and examples which had been given, and rejected, with, as you quite rightly say, evasion and attacks on minutiae, rather than definitive debunking. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I won't back down on an opinion just because someone disagrees with me
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I get the feeling that I'm being misinterpreted here.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Anyone familiar with Battletech and Mechwarrior Dark Age? Mechwarrior Dark Age was made cause Battletech was too old and slooow of a game for the youngsters. So they made it click-base and it had no depth. Guess which one is still around now and which got abandoned by the flighty youngsters for the next new shiny object?
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
STO is the only place keeping Trek Alive.
Yep, I am of that idea that TOS always seemed to look more advanced, ship wise.
Some of my favorite artwork to make is TOS based, or TOS styled.
I always see the ships, and other stuff, being printed, as mentioned above, or even GROWN, or woven. I could see the ship being built with strand upon strand of a crystalline composite (I always felt duranium was a crystal base thing), like a spider's web, and those can be mega strong. And with the Tholians being as advanced as they are, could see THEM being where Federation learns this advanced technique.
When I see something, in films like Star Wars, or the Aliens films, with those ships that look like big ole' shoeboxes, covered in kibble and all gnarly looking, to me, it looks so primitive and unsophisticated, and I really feel sorry for the guys who gotta suit up and go outside the ships or station to do repairs on. Sorta like Lister with his paintbrush. Red Dwarf is an exception, because we all know that it IS a rust-bucket from the start.
As for uniforms, I like the TOS ones, either prime or kelvin, TMP, and TNG. Something that moves well and so on. I can't picture crew doing somersaults and or tumbling or rolling about, dodging stuff in the TWoK or those more military costumes other series have sometimes. Plus as mentioned, Starfleet would dress to NOT look intimidating or threatening. Same for ships. You show up on a world with a ship shaped like a dagger, and in black uniforms with armor....the locals will think a hostile takeover is happening.
Comments
My point is simply this: Trek is not and has never been about the look. Trek is about the stories. If Discovery makes good stories, then their Klingons can wear pink tutus and ballet slippers for all that it matters. The best recreation or even reimagining of the old sets won't matter if the stories suck.
So, there's the definition that you need to refute: show me how looks matter even one tenth as much as story quality and I'll conceed the point.
Those ones looked too goofy to me, not to mention too military and you'll be sweating to death on the ship or something.
I'd wear a TOS mini or the TNG mini's myself.
Oh, and Smoke? Looking good, as usual. Is that M-5 posing with you there?
Lucas fully acknowledged that he tried to re-invent Star Wars with modern CGI to look like what he personally always envisioned it to. And when fans hated it, he learned a valuable lesson, which was that even though he himself wasn't overly thrilled with the limited effects of the 1970's, the fans came to adore what he and his team created. He ACKNOWLEDGED the fans dismay and returned to the original aesthetic. And it was all easily explained away by the fact that prior to the Empire's reign the Galaxy was more glitzy and prosperous.
How will we explain away what Discovery does?
Furthermore- Lucas is ALLOWED to toy with his own vision. Les Moonves is not allowed and Fans wont be happy... just as Star Wars fans were outraged. And it showed. Here's the thing to you people who like to argue for the sake of arguing: try to understand I'm on your side, we're all on the same side we are Star Trek Fans. Don't knit pick for the sake of make believing some imaginary "sense of balance" occurs when you take the role devils advocate.
Star Trek did not create new fans with the JJ movies. Because those 'fans' don't watch Trek or contribute to Trek. I'm not saying that there aren't a few kids out there who watched JJ trek first and then back tracked and are now fans of trek- but by in large the idea that you have to re-imagine something that's already well established for HALF A CENTURY- is a LIE THAT WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW OR LOVE STAR TREK. And you are trying to justify that lie because you don't have all of the information.
I am not the only person in the world with inside connections to CBS and Discovery... And I am not the only one saying this, but you'll see in a few years.
When you say you're 10 years before the TOS series and then you ignore EVERYTHING about that established lore, all BASED on trying to get ratings because you're a superficial old moron behind a desk- THAT IS CROSSING THE LINE.
And the line must be drawn HEYAAAH
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
TOS or JJ variant? Personally, I thought the cut and material of the minis of the JJ movies looked nicer than the TOS versions
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Just because we haven't argued about the stories which we haven't seen yet, doesn't mean our arguments exclude the story!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ugh.
And to nabreeki, that's condescending drivel. Talking about a series which has shaped the direction of technology and millions of lives personally, on a forum specifically dedicated to that series is in no way a waste of time or a "lesson" about having no life. I am a well known practitioner in my country who helps people every day with deep life issues. I know several medical doctors who help people every day and love Trek this much. So frankly your insinuation is invalid and intentionally demeaning. You should take a long look at yourself.
1) No personal attacks or insults. You want to debate ideas, fine. Making and taking things personally doesn't help your argument.
2) Everyone has their own opinion and are entitled to it. No one has to concede anything to anyone else. YOUR stress issues on the matter will lessen if YOU agree to disagree rather than insisting someone else does.
Carry on.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
The argument recently made here is that we are mostly concerned with looks. No we aren't. That's the point. There was nothing wrong with trek's looks! Could they be improved upon? yes!
The reason we appear to be arguing about looks is because superficial executives changed the show in a superficial way and took the depth out of it. So we are now being accused of worrying about superficial things SIMPLY by-proxy of our focus on the superficial changes made to the series! *goes cross eyed*
Also, have a FAN make it....Peter Jackson is a Tolken fan, and his Lord of the Rings films were pretty damned good, where BOTH fans AND the average slob could enjoy it.
It just takes a lil hard work, love of what you are making, AND.....brace yourself.....THINKING.
Like Shelby said, "If you can't make the big decisions, commander, I suggest you make room for someone who can."
Get someone who knows Trek and loves it.....not some overrated Hollywood big name or some bean counter executive.
I still don't understand why some are attached to a particular look, but I recognize that it matters to them. Exactly why it matters remains a mystery, the point was never addressed, and in trying to get that answer I may have appeared to be goading posters. This was not my intent.
This thread was about Discovery's potential impact on STO, but I helped to derail it by participating in a discussion about the aesthetic choices made by Discovery's production team.
I offer my apologies and promise to try harder to be a responsible poster.
Because the fans of JJ films who don't watch any other trek- don't know trek as the JJ films have NO trek in them. Trek is about a moral tale. A mythos in modern and future times that shows what humans can be at their greatest. JJ abrams movies don't show that and the fans of them who don't bother to take to any other trek beside the movies are not trek fans because they don't grasp or haven't yet fallen in love with what trek -is- at it's core.
Also, I apologize for the repost of a post I edited but Smokey was too quick and limber lol. I don't think anyone should have to concede to anything if they don't want to. But I also don't think Silverlobe was being untoward by repeatedly asking for someone to concede as the definition of the meaning of the word is literally to acknowledge that something they've dismissed/disagreed with is at least valid. All Silver was asking for is to acknowledge that his points and a few points made by darthmeow were valid- as I think it's obvious we all consider the points that nay-sayers are making are valid and we try to address them in a reasonable way only to be met with evasion and attacks about minutia.
This odd fad that seems to exist where "nobody is right or wrong, everyone gets to have a point of view that matters" is troublesome to me... deeply troublesome. While I agree this forum is not the place for an official debate- I think we must all be careful to measure ourselves against facts. Now just before I get picked apart for suggesting JJ abrams movies didn't breed true trek fans.... that is a provocative statement. I am NOT saying there were NO fans of JJ Trek. I'm simply saying JJ Trek Fans often don't take to any other trek, and those ones who don't, are not trek fans because JJ trek has very little trek about it.
That might be provocative and some people might not like the generalization of that statement but it doesn't mean it isn't possibly true. It also doesn't mean no fan of JJ trek would NEVER become a fan of broader trek. I find most trek fans myself included started with one trek. For me it was the wrath of khan. That was it for me. I didn't like trek. But eventually I craved it and TNG was on adjacent the news so rather than watching news I was forced to watch TNG. My love affair with trek began then.
It's OKAY to be correct. It's also OKAY to be wrong. I have been wrong many times about many things and continue to be wrong. I don't mind admitting it when I am wrong. I also don't mind admitting it when I am correct. And I appreciate when my mind is changed by others. Online forums and public/community exchange is partly created FOR that reason alone.
So I have to implore the members here to consider the importance of changing minds and exchanging ideas in a forum like this.
Unless the moderators decide that's somehow against a rule. In which case I'll digress and leave as very little value can be gained in a Stepford community.
Yet he killed Star Wars, and Han Solo.
This is completely opposite to the inside post.
lol. That's one way to look at it. But I really liked what he did with Star Wars and now a Han Solo movie is being made isn't it?
Star Trek was being resurrected anyways. JJ was asked to run it. But if someone like the DS9 boys who are making "what we left behind" had been asked to do it, or maybe Fuller with the DS9 boys it would have still been resurrected and much better than JJ trek. That's not an opinion, it's fact based on review of history. Star trek has been a BOOMING success for half a century. With out the help of JJ. JJ was lucky to be given the helm and he steered it right in to an asteroid and the films did not do as well as other trek had in the past.
These facts people seem to over look.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Yep, I am of that idea that TOS always seemed to look more advanced, ship wise.
Some of my favorite artwork to make is TOS based, or TOS styled.
I always see the ships, and other stuff, being printed, as mentioned above, or even GROWN, or woven. I could see the ship being built with strand upon strand of a crystalline composite (I always felt duranium was a crystal base thing), like a spider's web, and those can be mega strong. And with the Tholians being as advanced as they are, could see THEM being where Federation learns this advanced technique.
When I see something, in films like Star Wars, or the Aliens films, with those ships that look like big ole' shoeboxes, covered in kibble and all gnarly looking, to me, it looks so primitive and unsophisticated, and I really feel sorry for the guys who gotta suit up and go outside the ships or station to do repairs on. Sorta like Lister with his paintbrush.
As for uniforms, I like the TOS ones, either prime or kelvin, TMP, and TNG. Something that moves well and so on. I can't picture crew doing somersaults and or tumbling or rolling about, dodging stuff in the TWoK or those more military costumes other series have sometimes. Plus as mentioned, Starfleet would dress to NOT look intimidating or threatening. Same for ships. You show up on a world with a ship shaped like a dagger, and in black uniforms with armor....the locals will think a hostile takeover is happening.
wouldn't they be useless or suffer massive sensory overload with all the deaths we cause everytime we do... well anything.
if I stop posting it doesn't make you right it. just means I don't have enough rum to continue interacting with you.
It's my boy, Nomad.