IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
Yeah, I had a similar thought when Discovery first aired. I mean, literally everything we saw (from the uniforms to the ships) could have conceivably been a post-Nemesis future. Also, they could have even kept the different Klingon look and said this house was experimenting with genetic engineering to try to make themselves stronger than the other houses and take control of the Empire. And on top of all of that, it also could have had the TNG actors reprising their roles as guests, even if they were not the main characters.
Like they deviated on everything from ship design...
We only ever saw one class of Federation vessel in TOS, so... kinda hard to judge ship design. Also the Connie was an older design by the time of TOS...
Note: the purpose of this thread is to ask YOUR subjective opinion to the question above. The purpose of this thread is NOT to try to disprove someone else's subjective opinion to the question above.
Like they deviated on everything from ship design...
We only ever saw one class of Federation vessel in TOS, so... kinda hard to judge ship design. Also the Connie was an older design by the time of TOS...
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
They could have, but that would be very lame.
So we have another warrior race that feels the need to fight the Federation? So we have yet another war, after we just had the huge Dominion War? Is this Star Trek or Star Wars? In the dark, grim future of Star Trek, there is only war?
By putting Discovery as a prequel, they allowed us to visit the early challenges the Federation faced. We're in a place where the Federation is weaker, where it can still be challenged. A place where its morals and ethics aren't as firm yet, where it still needs to find a path.
Picard's story, in contrast, made sense as a sequel. We have the Federation as strong and powerful. It's challenge is no longer for survival, it isn't about winning some grand war to end all wars. It's about it having to make a choice between its ideals (security vs liberty), and how it - or the protagonists - deal with the choice when they don't agree with it.
Of course, maybe all this theory is meaningless if the Federation fell apart in the future. We'll see how they deal with that.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Note: the purpose of this thread is to ask YOUR subjective opinion to the question above. The purpose of this thread is NOT to try to disprove someone else's subjective opinion to the question above.
Well this thread has been off the rails since its supposed to be fans of both shows talking about what they feel are valid criticisms
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
They could have, but that would be very lame.
So we have another warrior race that feels the need to fight the Federation? So we have yet another war, after we just had the huge Dominion War? Is this Star Trek or Star Wars? In the dark, grim future of Star Trek, there is only war?
By putting Discovery as a prequel, they allowed us to visit the early challenges the Federation faced. We're in a place where the Federation is weaker, where it can still be challenged. A place where its morals and ethics aren't as firm yet, where it still needs to find a path.
Picard's story, in contrast, made sense as a sequel. We have the Federation as strong and powerful. It's challenge is no longer for survival, it isn't about winning some grand war to end all wars. It's about it having to make a choice between its ideals (security vs liberty), and how it - or the protagonists - deal with the choice when they don't agree with it.
Of course, maybe all this theory is meaningless if the Federation fell apart in the future. We'll see how they deal with that.
The point is that it should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel. There is very little in Discovery that defines it as a prequel. Enterprise and the Star Wars prequels were clearly defined as a prequel.
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
IMO, Discovery's biggest problem is that they made a prequel and decided to deviate too far from what was established in-universe. Like they deviated on everything from ship design, alien design and established technology. It never should have been a prequel IMO and they obviously realize that since they've decided to move the story 1000 years into the future.
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
They could have, but that would be very lame.
So we have another warrior race that feels the need to fight the Federation? So we have yet another war, after we just had the huge Dominion War? Is this Star Trek or Star Wars? In the dark, grim future of Star Trek, there is only war?
By putting Discovery as a prequel, they allowed us to visit the early challenges the Federation faced. We're in a place where the Federation is weaker, where it can still be challenged. A place where its morals and ethics aren't as firm yet, where it still needs to find a path.
Picard's story, in contrast, made sense as a sequel. We have the Federation as strong and powerful. It's challenge is no longer for survival, it isn't about winning some grand war to end all wars. It's about it having to make a choice between its ideals (security vs liberty), and how it - or the protagonists - deal with the choice when they don't agree with it.
Of course, maybe all this theory is meaningless if the Federation fell apart in the future. We'll see how they deal with that.
The point is that it should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel. There is very little in Discovery that defines it as a prequel. Enterprise and the Star Wars prequels were clearly defined as a prequel.
Are you sure that's important? What exactly makes TNG, VOY or DS9 that uniquely a sequel to TOS? Just call the Romulans Vulcans and the Klingons Andorians, and the Enterprise gets the registry number ESR (Earth-Ship-Registry) 1701 and call Worf a Tellarite and the Federation becomes the United Earth Probe Agency and remove any references to Kirk or Spock. Maybe they could have told the story on how the Vulcans got conquered and how they accepted Surak's logic as the only way towards a peaceful co-existence.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Like they deviated on everything from ship design...
We only ever saw one class of Federation vessel in TOS, so... kinda hard to judge ship design. Also the Connie was an older design by the time of TOS...
I'm not just talking about Federation but Klingon as well. What they did with the Enterprise is magnificent and it's almost universally agreed that everything about the Enterprise in Discovery is very well done. Why could they not have just gone with that interior aesthetic? Would have been amazing IMO.
Now, my point about ship design has more to do with the Klingons. The designs that they came up with were great from a pure visual stand point. I just don't feel that they look very Klingon and that they could have made a greater effort to design ships the way that they did with the D7 in Season Two and the Enterprise in both seasons. Meaning design changes that were more evolutionary and build on the TOS look instead of revolutionary changes like what we ended up seeing in season one.
When you see "TRIBBLE" in my posts, it's because I manually typed "TRIBBLE" and censored myself.
When they brought in the D7... I felt this was a turning point in the Empire. For 100 years they had been rather distant from the galaxy, then T'Kuvma pushes for war with the Federation to unite them. While I agree that the designs were out there, that could be explained by the fact that we weren't dealing with a unified Empire and they were all building their own designs to try and not look weak. Until the D7 came out it was basically individual House fleets and designs stolen from other houses. We just don't know the background, but one thing is clear to me in the designs... they are complex and look intimidating.
The D7 is simpler and now MORE important to Klingon history as the ship that unified the Empire.
Ultimately... we don't know the backstory on the ship designs between Enterprise and Discovery. However the BoP does perform a lot like known BoPs so performance wise at least one Discovery Klingon design is familiar in a way.
The Cloak effect on Klingon ships was pretty awesome too.
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
the disco prize is too clunky, too industrial, too steam punk lookings....plus, to me, there was NOTHING wrong with the TOS. The Disco one looks LESS advanced to me. It looks more like one of the design ideas Drexler originally made for Enterprise, before finalizing the NX. And the neck looked fine.....to me, I see a society that can make mega strong hulls, but still looking slim...Drexler had that idea in mind when making the Enterprise J. Bulking things up to me makes it look backwards.
Also, I did not see any 'wasted space', it looked fine to me. Less can be more.
If the Discorprize was another, older class of ship, I'd be fine with it, as as the Connie.....NO. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of 'visual reboots'. It's like giving Aubry Hepburn breast implants and lip injections >_>;;
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
the disco prize is too clunky, too industrial, too steam punk lookings....plus, to me, there was NOTHING wrong with the TOS. The Disco one looks LESS advanced to me. It looks more like one of the design ideas Drexler originally made for Enterprise, before finalizing the NX. And the neck looked fine.....to me, I see a society that can make mega strong hulls, but still looking slim...Drexler had that idea in mind when making the Enterprise J. Bulking things up to me makes it look backwards.
Also, I did not see any 'wasted space', it looked fine to me. Less can be more.
If the Discorprize was another, older class of ship, I'd be fine with it, as as the Connie.....NO. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of 'visual reboots'. It's like giving Aubry Hepburn breast implants and lip injections >_>;;
keep in mind this is an enterprise ten years and at least one major refit behind the classic enterprise.
as for visual reboots. eh it happens, what looks good 60 years ago might not fly now. So long as it stays true to the spirit of the original.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
Speaking as a fanatic for the refit myself, I am in complete agreement.
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
the disco prize is too clunky, too industrial, too steam punk lookings....plus, to me, there was NOTHING wrong with the TOS. The Disco one looks LESS advanced to me. It looks more like one of the design ideas Drexler originally made for Enterprise, before finalizing the NX. And the neck looked fine.....to me, I see a society that can make mega strong hulls, but still looking slim...Drexler had that idea in mind when making the Enterprise J. Bulking things up to me makes it look backwards.
Also, I did not see any 'wasted space', it looked fine to me. Less can be more.
If the Discorprize was another, older class of ship, I'd be fine with it, as as the Connie.....NO. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of 'visual reboots'. It's like giving Aubry Hepburn breast implants and lip injections >_>;;
keep in mind this is an enterprise ten years and at least one major refit behind the classic enterprise.
as for visual reboots. eh it happens, what looks good 60 years ago might not fly now. So long as it stays true to the spirit of the original.
It not a case of whether the look would fly or not, it was a case of a few people with a personal bias against TOS being in charge of DSC. If you listen to the various DSC interviews it turns out that Moonves's team never even tried to see what they could do with TOS design principles and aesthetics for DSC, they dismissed it and went straight to "The Undiscovered Country" as the last TOS-crew movie to base Federation design on which is why the ships look and feel more like the 2270s to 2290s era. If they had done it inclusively instead of contemptuously excluding everything before TUC and had a mix of styles then DSC would not have the disconnect feel it has. The way the chose to do it is kind of like taking "Fame" and changing the dialog to say it is in 1958 without changing the sets and costumes and then calling it "Grease".
According to Jefferies the shooting model's white paint was supposed to represent an advanced ceramic coating to help with heat resistance and whatnot (something the Klingons apparently do not bother with, and a holdout from the "laser" phase of preproduction before they decided to go with the space-magic phasers), and it was also a nod to Roosevelt's "great white fleet" and its diplomatic show of power to keep the peace instead of actual shooting (which fits Federation ideals), so I tend to like the white a little better than the gray, it just fits better though it is not a huge deal either way. This and many other little details Moonves's bunch never bothered to look into combine to make DSC feel less like an actual Star Trek and more like just some generic sci-fi flick.
Even the lack of glowing things on the nacelles (besides the Bussards of course) makes sense when you consider that the original series bible described the ship as "a grand old armored dinosaur built ahead of its time" (or words to that effect) so the nacelles are essentially armored tubes with just a slit on the inboard sides so the engines can "see" each other (though that slit should probably glow blue nowadays) and nothing but armor in the other directions in order to protect them.
No outboard glows would be a little bit of eye candy sacrificed for practicality of design, though I suppose that realism is a feature that would mostly appeal to the smaller set of fans who look at the show with a science, military, or engineering eye. Something they could have done as a visual "upgrade" if they went that route would be to have an occasional slight distortion or wispy vaporlike current between the two when the engines are being taxed.
Some things, like the old DSC uniforms from before they went into damage control on the series, are even laughably retro 1980s style so they are not "updated for modern viewers" at all. The fact is, fashion has come around and the TOS uniforms are much closer to modern fashion than the DSC leisure suits.
Still, if they had done it in an inclusive way and had a mix of ship and uniform styles it would be easy to explain as Starfleet going through reorganization and trying different things, along with new technologies being tried (some of which, like the holocomms, evidently failed to make the cut in the long run).
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
the disco prize is too clunky, too industrial, too steam punk lookings....plus, to me, there was NOTHING wrong with the TOS. The Disco one looks LESS advanced to me. It looks more like one of the design ideas Drexler originally made for Enterprise, before finalizing the NX. And the neck looked fine.....to me, I see a society that can make mega strong hulls, but still looking slim...Drexler had that idea in mind when making the Enterprise J. Bulking things up to me makes it look backwards.
Also, I did not see any 'wasted space', it looked fine to me. Less can be more.
If the Discorprize was another, older class of ship, I'd be fine with it, as as the Connie.....NO. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of 'visual reboots'. It's like giving Aubry Hepburn breast implants and lip injections >_>;;
keep in mind this is an enterprise ten years and at least one major refit behind the classic enterprise.
as for visual reboots. eh it happens, what looks good 60 years ago might not fly now. So long as it stays true to the spirit of the original.
Well, disco...from the ships and uniforms screams 80's.
The Tardis from Dr Who is fine...a police box.
Even the new Star Wars kept the tie fighters and storm troopers.
One can stay true to spirit and keep the same look. The fan series I mentioned kept the look going, and no need to change.
Anyhow....off to watch Orville with the Tardi and get the TRIBBLE.....
I watched the original series when i was growing up and i watched discovery now.
One of the things i will pick on right off is theres way too much technology leap for a ship of that era and discoveries tech needs to be toned down to be less flashy and advanced. As to Picard, i canceled CBS all access the end of discovery season 2.
I watched the original series when i was growing up and i watched discovery now.
One of the things i will pick on right off is theres way too much technology leap for a ship of that era and discoveries tech needs to be toned down to be less flashy and advanced. As to Picard, i canceled CBS all access the end of discovery season 2.
Unless Discovery returns to the 23rd Century, it no longer matter that Discovery has "way too much technology leap for a ship of that era" since Discovery was sent to almost 1000 years into the future. Then there is the Calypso Short Trek which has Discovery adrift in space for about another 1000 years.
With Picard, I recommend waiting for the season to come to an end and subscribing to CBS All Access for one month and binge watch Picard. The only problem I have with Picard is how the Federation acted during the Romulan Supernova.
I watched the original series when i was growing up and i watched discovery now.
One of the things i will pick on right off is theres way too much technology leap for a ship of that era and discoveries tech needs to be toned down to be less flashy and advanced. As to Picard, i canceled CBS all access the end of discovery season 2.
The technology is really just flashier, not advanced. In fact, except for the spore drive being way faster, TOS technology overall was functionally superior (too far for DSC to plausably catch up in fact) even though it is harder to see that without all the CGI eye candy for the sake of eye candy DSC has.
Sensors, targeting systems, weapons, and warp drive were all superior in TOS, there is no way systems would advance in just eight years enough to build an entire fighting in warp at 40,000km standard doctrine starting with the half-blind and cannot see an impossibly dense asteroid ring from warp, sublight combat constraints of DSC. Especially after ENT established that the warp combat had its roots way back then with Malcom's phase balancing trick (though it somehow skipped the Romulan war).
In fact, even the thing about voice control of things like turbolifts in DSC is not some kind of "advanced" thing, they normally used voice in TOS, the handles were just something to hang onto and a quick safety override in case they actually had to go to manual control, as shown in this clip:
The problem with Warp Combat is that is was only seen in TOS. After that all combat was sublight. Even in TNG. Yea there was an instance of firing torpedos at warp, but there was no maneuvering involved.
If anything Discovery was more in line with the majority of the franchise in terms of combat.
Actually, they have shown phasers fired at warp in TNG chase combat, and in fact in every series though it was rare outside of TOS. For instance, they explicitly use phasers in FTL in TNG's "The Wounded" when the USS Phoenix kills a Cardassian freighter and its destroyer escort using both photons and phasers while the Cardassians are running at the maximum warp the freighter is capable of. That was also the longest range engagement in Trek at something over 260,000km.
Voyager used phasers at warp in "Message in a Bottle", DS9 in "Treachery, Faith and the Great River", and ENT in both "Shockwave" and "Future Tense", not to mention there were other scenes in the various series where it is not actually clear whether they are in warp or at impulse at the moment of firing.
And they have a perfectly good explanation of why they stopped using FTL combat in the early 2270s.
In ENT they establish that UESPA ships started connecting the phasers (or phase cannons as they called them back then) directly to the impulse stacks, which while it meant they had more power than using the regular plasma conduit grid it also put the phasers in direct competition for power with the sublight engines so they would have to slow down or stop to get the maximum weapons power until Malcomb came up with a practical method to balance the weapon, shield, and warp phases in order to conduct warp speed combat.
Then, in the early 2270s Federation engineers figured out how to get the necessary phaser power to knock down the new improved shields by developing a way to connect the phasers directly to the warp core without unbalancing it, which in turn meant the phasers were now competing with the FTL drive instead of the sublight one, so combat went back to slow sublight slugfests with only an occasional warp chase battle.
I'd not over think the fact that combat on screen mostly happens at sublight TBH. trek is a visual medium, and thus what looks good on screen IS kinda important. the fact is, the idea that connecting phasers to your warp core is why they all fight at sublight speeds since is rediculas. the advantage of being able to cruise FTL is so much higher that you'd be an idiot to sacrifice it for a little bit of phaser juice
I'd not over think the fact that combat on screen mostly happens at sublight TBH. trek is a visual medium, and thus what looks good on screen IS kinda important. the fact is, the idea that connecting phasers to your warp core is why they all fight at sublight speeds since is rediculas. the advantage of being able to cruise FTL is so much higher that you'd be an idiot to sacrifice it for a little bit of phaser juice
Fighting at FTL is not actually that big of an advantage if both sides can do it, and what is the point of zipping around shooting weak beams that cannot pierce the shields of a ship taking it slow and waiting for a good opportunity to use their greater weapon power reserve to skewer their hyperactive opponent?
Granted, FTL movement in combat is devastating to an opponent that has no FTL sensors or weapons that can traverse fast enough to get a shot to land, but any warp capable ship has those things anyway, or at least the sensors at absolute minimum, if they have ever fought at warp or even simply fly at FTL without blindly running into things.
And yes, the real-world reason they usually show sublight combat is the rule of cool, which since Star Wars came out means both ships have to be visible in the frame at the same time and no one has figured out how to do that and represent FTL ships fighting tens of kilometers distance. Hollywood simply thinks viewers are too stupid to be able to visualize the combat from dialog and things shown on the screen ala TOS.
Well Hollywood is just a town in Los Angeles so it doesn’t read books, listen to podcasts, like Pina Coladas and getting caught in the rain.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Personally I did not hate the first season of Discovery. The second felt like a lot was happening quickly and I didn’t feel like the sciency jargon could keep up with the really bizarre developments.
Star Trek “continuity” is really, really minimal actually. And it takes a lot of remembering with rose colored spectacles to get to this “Gene Roddenberry vision” that really didn’t even develop until the motion picture.
If you read the initial Star Trek Bible the Wagon-train vision was not talking about space or prime directives. It was talking about a parallel earth theory of the universe where period sets could be cheaply redressed as unexplored planets. Which was a very practical vision for cheap entertainment.
David Gerrold, who wrote the Blood and Water episode (That was never made in TOS not TNG for explicit dealing with homosexuality) of Star Trek continues—and the Trouble with Tribbles—explains that Star Trek isn’t really even about the future—but rather talking about 1960s people dealing with 1960s political issues in a pseudo-futuristic world.
So for me. I prefer new Star Trek to no Star Trek and am glad that certain aspects ...like the chauvinism of TOS have been left behind.
The “technology” difference between ENT DIS and TOS—except in instances like cybernetics—which clearly violates reestablished themes in especially TNG—also is a bigger problem in hindsight than it should be. The first holodeck was in TAS and the first saucer separation was in the Enterprise vs the planet of the Titans script that was never made.
That being said spore-drive is still stupid.
When we do talk about the Roddenberry vision of world peace and no money and such—this is really established by TNG—and although I like that optimistic view of the future at the same time—I see very little hope for that in our current space age—so I am not sure how that Star Trek would speak to 2020 humanity.
On the other hand, replicators do make money seem stupid so hopefully we someday get replicators
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > (Quote) > > You are seriously underestimating the amount of fan communication there was across all of the Treks. Yes, Twitter and the rest are fairly new, but there have been online discussion boards since the days of dialup BBS before many even had internet access at all. Even before that there were fanzines and newsletters that ranged from almost semi-professional grade printings to mass Xeroxed or mimeographed copies of hand-typed (or even hand written) pages stapled together, and other things like conventions (the internet has pretty much killed all but a comparative handful of those) and other stuff including radio and even telephones and fans simply running into each other at random and talking. The "trekkies" were always a very, very active community, something the newer "trekkers" seem to overlook. > > Star Trek fans pay a lot more attention to details than fans of other shows, as the first serious space-based sci-fi TV series it attracted all sorts of science geeks and the tradition persists even after the watering down to a generic Hollywood space show in recent years. In fact the movie Galaxy Quest heavily featured a good natured spoofing of that phenomenon. > > And every Trek including TOS got hammered for gaffs and inconsistencies, especially after the movie division got ahold of Trek with their contempt for "small screen" productions and egos that demanded they "make their own mark" regardless of whether the changes made sense or not. > > Contrary to what some believe the CBS Treks are not getting more criticism for the same level of compatibility-breaking nonsense compared to the rest of Trek. CBS has simply jumped onto the action movie, empty magic box bandwagon with the rest of Hollywood in recent years and that encapsulated, continuity-lite eyecandy thrillride style is naturally a trainwreck as far as a fandom who like to take apart and closely examine how the fictional world fits together, runs, and evolves is con
Phenix makes a lot of cool points here. I agree Star Trek fans should pick apart the media. I got in a fight with people here and on Reddit talking about Wagner. I won’t make that argument again. But some of the pushback was about holding people of the past to contemporary standards.
I get that in the “me too” and “Maga” world that politics are personal and there is not a “safe space” as it were to even criticize media. But if we can’t even talk about Star Trek continuity without devolving into name calling or claiming that it is somehow ruining our enjoyment of the media—well that is really weird. I hope we aren’t there as a people
> @foxrockssocks said: > (Quote) > > That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations. > > If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek? > > Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon? > > Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs? > > Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP. > > People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
I just really liked these images. And yeah maybe that is a good point to if we have something we could reasonably agree is “Star Trek” there could be something of a litmus fest. Does Picard pass that? I don’t know I didn’t feel Seven’s vengeance arc in episode 5 felt reasonable, relatable, rational nor Star Trek at all—-but her walkout with the dual phaser rifles was super-cool. And in retrospect I don’t hate the pod race scene either....
Having watched this week's episode of Picard, I think I've come to my general beef with the story behind Picard season 1 and Disco season 2, which both seem to center on the theme of evil artificial intelligences (whether they actually are or not; Control, yes, maybe, but androids... debatable) and if they're not stopped, the universe will be destroyed. In this, and this alone, I will agree with some of the haters: This is not what Star Trek is supposed to be.
The thing that really bothers me, though, is that no matter how big the built-up supervillain is, they ultimately end up being done away with in a rather... anticlimactic fashion, which makes one wonder... what was the big deal? I have developed a similar problem with certain other series I watch and games I play, as well: the tendency to create world-shattering (or universe-shattering) villains that end up being defeated by a Mary Sue - the player character or the central character of the series/movie - rushing in to save the universe. All this buildup and buildup for a "pfft" ending. The Night King in Game of Thrones is a particularly good example. World of Warcraft has recently done this too, with N'Zoth, built up to be this big bad tentacly mind-freak monster, able to corrupt gods and kings... only to die rather pathetically because we used our MacGuffin necklace and connected it to MacGuffin machines to summon a god-killing laser beam from space.
All that sacrifice and pain, and they die with a snap of our fingers, like we've developed Q powers. Which leaves whoever's left to wonder, "If it was that damn easy, why'd we bother?"
Comments
I also disagree with the choice of having a single main character. Star Trek has always been captain-centric and the captain has always been the closest thing to a main character. But until, Burnham, there was never a true main character in a Star Trek series IMO.
In the case of Picard, there's only been 6 episodes so I think it's too early to criticize it. But I'll just say that I'm concerned that there will be no tension with the Picard character because there's no way that he's getting killed off on his own show with his actual name on it. At least until the series finale comes out in a few years.
Name the Klingons a different alien race and drop all of the TOS name drops and Discovery is turned from a prequel into a sequel.
Yeah, I had a similar thought when Discovery first aired. I mean, literally everything we saw (from the uniforms to the ships) could have conceivably been a post-Nemesis future. Also, they could have even kept the different Klingon look and said this house was experimenting with genetic engineering to try to make themselves stronger than the other houses and take control of the Empire. And on top of all of that, it also could have had the TNG actors reprising their roles as guests, even if they were not the main characters.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
We only ever saw one class of Federation vessel in TOS, so... kinda hard to judge ship design. Also the Connie was an older design by the time of TOS...
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
True, but not horribly so. The Enterprise was only about twenty years old by the time of TOS. As Kelsey Grammer put it in Down Periscope, "She may not be the youngest girl at the ball, but she'll turn a head or two."
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
They could have, but that would be very lame.
So we have another warrior race that feels the need to fight the Federation? So we have yet another war, after we just had the huge Dominion War? Is this Star Trek or Star Wars? In the dark, grim future of Star Trek, there is only war?
By putting Discovery as a prequel, they allowed us to visit the early challenges the Federation faced. We're in a place where the Federation is weaker, where it can still be challenged. A place where its morals and ethics aren't as firm yet, where it still needs to find a path.
Picard's story, in contrast, made sense as a sequel. We have the Federation as strong and powerful. It's challenge is no longer for survival, it isn't about winning some grand war to end all wars. It's about it having to make a choice between its ideals (security vs liberty), and how it - or the protagonists - deal with the choice when they don't agree with it.
Of course, maybe all this theory is meaningless if the Federation fell apart in the future. We'll see how they deal with that.
Well this thread has been off the rails since its supposed to be fans of both shows talking about what they feel are valid criticisms
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The point is that it should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel. There is very little in Discovery that defines it as a prequel. Enterprise and the Star Wars prequels were clearly defined as a prequel.
If we consider some of the designs from Discovery to be newer ships, that is also true.
Frankly I feel that the Discovery style Connie was a great modernization of the design. She has it in all the right places, is still quite recognizable, but doesn't look out of place. The grey hull plating and the actual glowing warp field grills made her look amazing. And they beefed up the neck a bit, which I felt was a weak point of the TOS model. But she is still the same girl at heart, and wouldn't look out of place, and also feels like it would flow better into the refit design of the movie era.
And from what I've seen of her bridge, the consoles are all the same, but they also actually made use of those empty spaces that were in TOS. And there was a LOT of empty, wasted space on those consoles.
The TOS Connie was the ship that started it all. She has a grace all her own. I was a bit more of a fan of the refit honestly. And seeing the Discovery version... was awesome.
Are you sure that's important? What exactly makes TNG, VOY or DS9 that uniquely a sequel to TOS? Just call the Romulans Vulcans and the Klingons Andorians, and the Enterprise gets the registry number ESR (Earth-Ship-Registry) 1701 and call Worf a Tellarite and the Federation becomes the United Earth Probe Agency and remove any references to Kirk or Spock. Maybe they could have told the story on how the Vulcans got conquered and how they accepted Surak's logic as the only way towards a peaceful co-existence.
Now, my point about ship design has more to do with the Klingons. The designs that they came up with were great from a pure visual stand point. I just don't feel that they look very Klingon and that they could have made a greater effort to design ships the way that they did with the D7 in Season Two and the Enterprise in both seasons. Meaning design changes that were more evolutionary and build on the TOS look instead of revolutionary changes like what we ended up seeing in season one.
The D7 is simpler and now MORE important to Klingon history as the ship that unified the Empire.
Ultimately... we don't know the backstory on the ship designs between Enterprise and Discovery. However the BoP does perform a lot like known BoPs so performance wise at least one Discovery Klingon design is familiar in a way.
The Cloak effect on Klingon ships was pretty awesome too.
the disco prize is too clunky, too industrial, too steam punk lookings....plus, to me, there was NOTHING wrong with the TOS. The Disco one looks LESS advanced to me. It looks more like one of the design ideas Drexler originally made for Enterprise, before finalizing the NX. And the neck looked fine.....to me, I see a society that can make mega strong hulls, but still looking slim...Drexler had that idea in mind when making the Enterprise J. Bulking things up to me makes it look backwards.
Also, I did not see any 'wasted space', it looked fine to me. Less can be more.
If the Discorprize was another, older class of ship, I'd be fine with it, as as the Connie.....NO. Personally, I am getting sick and tired of 'visual reboots'. It's like giving Aubry Hepburn breast implants and lip injections >_>;;
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
keep in mind this is an enterprise ten years and at least one major refit behind the classic enterprise.
as for visual reboots. eh it happens, what looks good 60 years ago might not fly now. So long as it stays true to the spirit of the original.
Speaking as a fanatic for the refit myself, I am in complete agreement.
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
It not a case of whether the look would fly or not, it was a case of a few people with a personal bias against TOS being in charge of DSC. If you listen to the various DSC interviews it turns out that Moonves's team never even tried to see what they could do with TOS design principles and aesthetics for DSC, they dismissed it and went straight to "The Undiscovered Country" as the last TOS-crew movie to base Federation design on which is why the ships look and feel more like the 2270s to 2290s era. If they had done it inclusively instead of contemptuously excluding everything before TUC and had a mix of styles then DSC would not have the disconnect feel it has. The way the chose to do it is kind of like taking "Fame" and changing the dialog to say it is in 1958 without changing the sets and costumes and then calling it "Grease".
According to Jefferies the shooting model's white paint was supposed to represent an advanced ceramic coating to help with heat resistance and whatnot (something the Klingons apparently do not bother with, and a holdout from the "laser" phase of preproduction before they decided to go with the space-magic phasers), and it was also a nod to Roosevelt's "great white fleet" and its diplomatic show of power to keep the peace instead of actual shooting (which fits Federation ideals), so I tend to like the white a little better than the gray, it just fits better though it is not a huge deal either way. This and many other little details Moonves's bunch never bothered to look into combine to make DSC feel less like an actual Star Trek and more like just some generic sci-fi flick.
Even the lack of glowing things on the nacelles (besides the Bussards of course) makes sense when you consider that the original series bible described the ship as "a grand old armored dinosaur built ahead of its time" (or words to that effect) so the nacelles are essentially armored tubes with just a slit on the inboard sides so the engines can "see" each other (though that slit should probably glow blue nowadays) and nothing but armor in the other directions in order to protect them.
No outboard glows would be a little bit of eye candy sacrificed for practicality of design, though I suppose that realism is a feature that would mostly appeal to the smaller set of fans who look at the show with a science, military, or engineering eye. Something they could have done as a visual "upgrade" if they went that route would be to have an occasional slight distortion or wispy vaporlike current between the two when the engines are being taxed.
Some things, like the old DSC uniforms from before they went into damage control on the series, are even laughably retro 1980s style so they are not "updated for modern viewers" at all. The fact is, fashion has come around and the TOS uniforms are much closer to modern fashion than the DSC leisure suits.
Still, if they had done it in an inclusive way and had a mix of ship and uniform styles it would be easy to explain as Starfleet going through reorganization and trying different things, along with new technologies being tried (some of which, like the holocomms, evidently failed to make the cut in the long run).
Well, disco...from the ships and uniforms screams 80's.
The Tardis from Dr Who is fine...a police box.
Even the new Star Wars kept the tie fighters and storm troopers.
One can stay true to spirit and keep the same look. The fan series I mentioned kept the look going, and no need to change.
Anyhow....off to watch Orville with the Tardi and get the TRIBBLE.....
One of the things i will pick on right off is theres way too much technology leap for a ship of that era and discoveries tech needs to be toned down to be less flashy and advanced. As to Picard, i canceled CBS all access the end of discovery season 2.
Unless Discovery returns to the 23rd Century, it no longer matter that Discovery has "way too much technology leap for a ship of that era" since Discovery was sent to almost 1000 years into the future. Then there is the Calypso Short Trek which has Discovery adrift in space for about another 1000 years.
With Picard, I recommend waiting for the season to come to an end and subscribing to CBS All Access for one month and binge watch Picard. The only problem I have with Picard is how the Federation acted during the Romulan Supernova.
The technology is really just flashier, not advanced. In fact, except for the spore drive being way faster, TOS technology overall was functionally superior (too far for DSC to plausably catch up in fact) even though it is harder to see that without all the CGI eye candy for the sake of eye candy DSC has.
Sensors, targeting systems, weapons, and warp drive were all superior in TOS, there is no way systems would advance in just eight years enough to build an entire fighting in warp at 40,000km standard doctrine starting with the half-blind and cannot see an impossibly dense asteroid ring from warp, sublight combat constraints of DSC. Especially after ENT established that the warp combat had its roots way back then with Malcom's phase balancing trick (though it somehow skipped the Romulan war).
In fact, even the thing about voice control of things like turbolifts in DSC is not some kind of "advanced" thing, they normally used voice in TOS, the handles were just something to hang onto and a quick safety override in case they actually had to go to manual control, as shown in this clip:
If anything Discovery was more in line with the majority of the franchise in terms of combat.
Voyager used phasers at warp in "Message in a Bottle", DS9 in "Treachery, Faith and the Great River", and ENT in both "Shockwave" and "Future Tense", not to mention there were other scenes in the various series where it is not actually clear whether they are in warp or at impulse at the moment of firing.
And they have a perfectly good explanation of why they stopped using FTL combat in the early 2270s.
In ENT they establish that UESPA ships started connecting the phasers (or phase cannons as they called them back then) directly to the impulse stacks, which while it meant they had more power than using the regular plasma conduit grid it also put the phasers in direct competition for power with the sublight engines so they would have to slow down or stop to get the maximum weapons power until Malcomb came up with a practical method to balance the weapon, shield, and warp phases in order to conduct warp speed combat.
Then, in the early 2270s Federation engineers figured out how to get the necessary phaser power to knock down the new improved shields by developing a way to connect the phasers directly to the warp core without unbalancing it, which in turn meant the phasers were now competing with the FTL drive instead of the sublight one, so combat went back to slow sublight slugfests with only an occasional warp chase battle.
Fighting at FTL is not actually that big of an advantage if both sides can do it, and what is the point of zipping around shooting weak beams that cannot pierce the shields of a ship taking it slow and waiting for a good opportunity to use their greater weapon power reserve to skewer their hyperactive opponent?
Granted, FTL movement in combat is devastating to an opponent that has no FTL sensors or weapons that can traverse fast enough to get a shot to land, but any warp capable ship has those things anyway, or at least the sensors at absolute minimum, if they have ever fought at warp or even simply fly at FTL without blindly running into things.
And yes, the real-world reason they usually show sublight combat is the rule of cool, which since Star Wars came out means both ships have to be visible in the frame at the same time and no one has figured out how to do that and represent FTL ships fighting tens of kilometers distance. Hollywood simply thinks viewers are too stupid to be able to visualize the combat from dialog and things shown on the screen ala TOS.
Hollywood obviously does not read books, listen to audio stories, etc.
Hollywood is soooo full of egos, yes?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Personally I did not hate the first season of Discovery. The second felt like a lot was happening quickly and I didn’t feel like the sciency jargon could keep up with the really bizarre developments.
Star Trek “continuity” is really, really minimal actually. And it takes a lot of remembering with rose colored spectacles to get to this “Gene Roddenberry vision” that really didn’t even develop until the motion picture.
If you read the initial Star Trek Bible the Wagon-train vision was not talking about space or prime directives. It was talking about a parallel earth theory of the universe where period sets could be cheaply redressed as unexplored planets. Which was a very practical vision for cheap entertainment.
David Gerrold, who wrote the Blood and Water episode (That was never made in TOS not TNG for explicit dealing with homosexuality) of Star Trek continues—and the Trouble with Tribbles—explains that Star Trek isn’t really even about the future—but rather talking about 1960s people dealing with 1960s political issues in a pseudo-futuristic world.
So for me. I prefer new Star Trek to no Star Trek and am glad that certain aspects ...like the chauvinism of TOS have been left behind.
The “technology” difference between ENT DIS and TOS—except in instances like cybernetics—which clearly violates reestablished themes in especially TNG—also is a bigger problem in hindsight than it should be. The first holodeck was in TAS and the first saucer separation was in the Enterprise vs the planet of the Titans script that was never made.
That being said spore-drive is still stupid.
When we do talk about the Roddenberry vision of world peace and no money and such—this is really established by TNG—and although I like that optimistic view of the future at the same time—I see very little hope for that in our current space age—so I am not sure how that Star Trek would speak to 2020 humanity.
On the other hand, replicators do make money seem stupid so hopefully we someday get replicators
> @phoenixc#0738 said:
> (Quote)
>
> You are seriously underestimating the amount of fan communication there was across all of the Treks. Yes, Twitter and the rest are fairly new, but there have been online discussion boards since the days of dialup BBS before many even had internet access at all. Even before that there were fanzines and newsletters that ranged from almost semi-professional grade printings to mass Xeroxed or mimeographed copies of hand-typed (or even hand written) pages stapled together, and other things like conventions (the internet has pretty much killed all but a comparative handful of those) and other stuff including radio and even telephones and fans simply running into each other at random and talking. The "trekkies" were always a very, very active community, something the newer "trekkers" seem to overlook.
>
> Star Trek fans pay a lot more attention to details than fans of other shows, as the first serious space-based sci-fi TV series it attracted all sorts of science geeks and the tradition persists even after the watering down to a generic Hollywood space show in recent years. In fact the movie Galaxy Quest heavily featured a good natured spoofing of that phenomenon.
>
> And every Trek including TOS got hammered for gaffs and inconsistencies, especially after the movie division got ahold of Trek with their contempt for "small screen" productions and egos that demanded they "make their own mark" regardless of whether the changes made sense or not.
>
> Contrary to what some believe the CBS Treks are not getting more criticism for the same level of compatibility-breaking nonsense compared to the rest of Trek. CBS has simply jumped onto the action movie, empty magic box bandwagon with the rest of Hollywood in recent years and that encapsulated, continuity-lite eyecandy thrillride style is naturally a trainwreck as far as a fandom who like to take apart and closely examine how the fictional world fits together, runs, and evolves is con
Phenix makes a lot of cool points here. I agree Star Trek fans should pick apart the media. I got in a fight with people here and on Reddit talking about Wagner. I won’t make that argument again. But some of the pushback was about holding people of the past to contemporary standards.
I get that in the “me too” and “Maga” world that politics are personal and there is not a “safe space” as it were to even criticize media. But if we can’t even talk about Star Trek continuity without devolving into name calling or claiming that it is somehow ruining our enjoyment of the media—well that is really weird. I hope we aren’t there as a people
> @foxrockssocks said:
> (Quote)
>
> That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
>
> If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
>
> Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
>
> Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
>
> Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
>
> People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
I just really liked these images. And yeah maybe that is a good point to if we have something we could reasonably agree is “Star Trek” there could be something of a litmus fest. Does Picard pass that? I don’t know I didn’t feel Seven’s vengeance arc in episode 5 felt reasonable, relatable, rational nor Star Trek at all—-but her walkout with the dual phaser rifles was super-cool. And in retrospect I don’t hate the pod race scene either....
The thing that really bothers me, though, is that no matter how big the built-up supervillain is, they ultimately end up being done away with in a rather... anticlimactic fashion, which makes one wonder... what was the big deal? I have developed a similar problem with certain other series I watch and games I play, as well: the tendency to create world-shattering (or universe-shattering) villains that end up being defeated by a Mary Sue - the player character or the central character of the series/movie - rushing in to save the universe. All this buildup and buildup for a "pfft" ending. The Night King in Game of Thrones is a particularly good example. World of Warcraft has recently done this too, with N'Zoth, built up to be this big bad tentacly mind-freak monster, able to corrupt gods and kings... only to die rather pathetically because we used our MacGuffin necklace and connected it to MacGuffin machines to summon a god-killing laser beam from space.
All that sacrifice and pain, and they die with a snap of our fingers, like we've developed Q powers. Which leaves whoever's left to wonder, "If it was that damn easy, why'd we bother?"
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010