A name is sometimes more than just a name, it can be a symbol.
On the other hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Or was Enterprise supposed to be about starting a small business? Or perhaps a rental-car company?
And sometimes words have different meanings. 'Enterprise' was quite literally aptly chosen -- just not your rental-car company: 'a project or undertaking, especially a bold or complex one.' As in, to boldly go where no man has gone before.
And the Discovery discovered...
You know, you're absolutely right.
Kind of like how every Trek series "discovered" (insert plot of every episode here)
Hey, they should have just named every Trek series "Discovery"!
> @starkaos said:
Star Trek is partially about the discovery of the unknown or at least until recently.
Strange New Worlds, my friend. Classic Trek will be back again "soon". And it can't come soon enough
Oh, don't worry. Y'all will find something to complain about on there, too.
Considering Kurtzman's live action team has demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the TOS era, and probably can barely tell Star Trek and Star Wars apart, that is pretty much a given. If DSC is anything to go by they will probably have compatibility gaps you could sail the Exxon Valdez through sideways.
Really, the best bet would be to turn the writing of SNW over to the animation side writers since they at least seem to know what they are doing and just work off of their scripts instead of the live action side writers.
Considering Kurtzman's live action team has demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the TOS era, and probably can barely tell Star Trek and Star Wars apart, that is pretty much a given. If DSC is anything to go by they will probably have compatibility gaps you could sail the Exxon Valdez through sideways.
Really, the best bet would be to turn the writing of SNW over to the animation side writers since they at least seem to know what they are doing and just work off of their scripts instead of the live action side writers.
After the ending of Lower Decks, I wouldn't want the LD team anywhere near any of the other Trek projects. Probably the worst of the new Treks by a fair margin.
Lower Decks was fun while Discovery and Picard don't know the meaning of fun. Have to agree with the ending of Lower Decks. It is almost as bad as the ending of Enterprise.
Considering Kurtzman's live action team has demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the TOS era, and probably can barely tell Star Trek and Star Wars apart, that is pretty much a given. If DSC is anything to go by they will probably have compatibility gaps you could sail the Exxon Valdez through sideways.
Really, the best bet would be to turn the writing of SNW over to the animation side writers since they at least seem to know what they are doing and just work off of their scripts instead of the live action side writers.
After the ending of Lower Decks, I wouldn't want the LD team anywhere near any of the other Trek projects. Probably the worst of the new Treks by a fair margin.
Lower Decks was fun while Discovery and Picard don't know the meaning of fun. Have to agree with the ending of Lower Decks. It is almost as bad as the ending of Enterprise.
I didn't see all the way to the end of the season yet, so all I have to go on is the earlier stuff, which gave the impression that the writers knew Trek better than the DSC writers.
> @starkaos said:
Star Trek is partially about the discovery of the unknown or at least until recently.
Strange New Worlds, my friend. Classic Trek will be back again "soon". And it can't come soon enough
Oh, don't worry. Y'all will find something to complain about on there, too.
Funny!
But seriously though, I think any reasonable person should be able to discuss both things they like and don't like about any show. Anyone who either thinks a show is perfect with literally no flaws("a white knight) OR thinks it's terrible with literally nothing good("a hater") is delusional, and not a reasonable person.
Will any of us like a show we haven't seen yet? Obviously we don't know. But I definitely liked the "preview" I got in Disco S2 of the 3 main characters (Pike, Spock, Una) and the redesigned Enterprise. As long as the show keeps telling the story of those 3 characters and gives me more beauty shots of that awesome ship design, I think I'm going to enjoy it.
Oh, plus they have said the show will be more "optimistic" and "episodic":
But seriously though, I think any reasonable person should be able to discuss both things they like and don't like about any show. Anyone who either thinks a show is perfect with literally no flaws("a white knight) OR thinks it's terrible with literally nothing good("a hater") is delusional, and not a reasonable person.
Yea... unfortunately we have a lot of the latter that appear quite a bit.
Will any of us like a show we haven't seen yet? Obviously we don't know.
While in theory this is true...
We've seen it happen before. Hell... I've seen people hate on a movie before it even came out as if they already saw it themselves! And all because of something one actor said apparently. Doesn't matter if the movie actually turned out to be decent or not... it was trash before it even released.
And I wouldn't be surprised if people hate Strange New Worlds "on principle" because reasons or because they don't like someone spearheading it behind the scenes or some other grievence they wish to air.
They will FIND a reason to hate on it. Even if it makes no sense or is recycled from previous show grievences.
Bet one of them will be "It's too advanced for the time period", which was used against Discovery, which was recycled from the Kelvin Timeline, which was recycled from Enterprise.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Just to clarify, are you disagreeing with my post? It kind of seems that way, but nothing you are saying actually conflicts with my points, so I'm not really sure.
But seriously though, I think any reasonable person should be able to discuss both things they like and don't like about any show. Anyone who either thinks a show is perfect with literally no flaws("a white knight) OR thinks it's terrible with literally nothing good("a hater") is delusional, and not a reasonable person.
Yea... unfortunately we have a lot of the latter that appear quite a bit.
Will any of us like a show we haven't seen yet? Obviously we don't know.
While in theory this is true...
We've seen it happen before. Hell... I've seen people hate on a movie before it even came out as if they already saw it themselves! And all because of something one actor said apparently. Doesn't matter if the movie actually turned out to be decent or not... it was trash before it even released.
And I wouldn't be surprised if people hate Strange New Worlds "on principle" because reasons or because they don't like someone spearheading it behind the scenes or some other grievence they wish to air.
They will FIND a reason to hate on it. Even if it makes no sense or is recycled from previous show grievences.
Bet one of them will be "It's too advanced for the time period", which was used against Discovery, which was recycled from the Kelvin Timeline, which was recycled from Enterprise.
I'm going to hold my hands up...I couldn't stand Enterprise at the time. Then, I found new love for it compared to the JJ-Verse and I'm almost ashamed to admit it, because I still feel that it's truly shocking, but...I do prefer the JJ-Verse to Discovery. I know, I know, that's considered heinous, but I just don't think Discovery is getting anything right.
It's trying to be politically correct, of the time (the 21st Century, but not the 32nd), using CGI seemingly in an attempt to win a special effects award? Producer driven plots, if you can consider them plots and no character development. JJ should be ashamed of what he did and I actually the cast are now too, but Discovery...it's missing every single mark for me. I want to enjoy brand new Trek, like I used to love seeing the latest episode of DS9 and Voyager (I did love them being on at the same time), but it's just not giving me anything to love.
You can't just tell me to like a character and force me to, when nothing has happened naturally. I never liked Bashir (okay, that might just be because Siddig can't act), but I adored The Picardo from the second he appeared on screen. When Kira stopped being angry and found her spiritual side, I loved her. When characters progressed with good writing and also, the participation of the actor, you fall in love with them. Or, you hate them and then you just love the characters you love more, but there isn't a single Discovery character that I...I don't HATE any of them, because I don't feel that strongly. I don't feel anything towards them. They can live, they can die and I feel nothing, because I've been given nothing.
I wish that I'd seen a relationship form, someone go through something, be changed by something, experience something with them, etc...in Discovery though, I'm being told what I should feel. It's so reflective of the episodes and not being swept away with the narrative, but demanded of.
Look at Nog's journey, Data's, the Doctor's, SEVEN's even...we saw them develop it was special.
I'm not invested in any of the Discovery characters, because the writing hasn't given me anything to be invested about. Character development is vital, but there's just none. Disagree with me all you like, but prove me otherwise if you feel the need.
There is not a single character I care about...love or loathe, there's no one who makes me feel anything. It's numbness with each and every episode and I wish that I could feel otherwise.
Look at Nog's journey, Data's, the Doctor's, SEVEN's even...we saw them develop it was special.
The problem with all of these, outside of Nog, is that we really didn't see any of these people actually develop.
Gene Roddenberry rather infamously, and publicly, hated the idea of characters, and character development. In his view, everyone in the future is perfect, and they shouldn't have any real problems of significance. This is why he pretty much banned character stories in TOS, and as much of TNG as he possibly could, and why TOS and early TNG spent little time focusing on the characters themselves.
While his grip was able to be lessened in TNG, his dictates sat upon the series like a cancer, resulting in massive whiplash character "development", if you could call it that. You can see this best in TNG with characters like Picard, and Data.
-Picard got assimilated by the Borg, freed, and then had trauma for all of 1-2 episodes... and then promptly went back to being the exact same Picard he was before then. With only the rare occasional episode where he suddenly had trauma again when they needed it for a plot reason. It wasn't character development, it was just there were two different Picards they swapped back and forth between when needed.(not to mention Picard 3.0, aka action movie Picard they dragged out for the movies)
-The same is true of Data. Data spent 95% of the show, from S1 to S7, acting exactly the same way "I am an android!" "I don't understand this basic human thing!" "I don't have emotions!". It was only in the rare 1-2 episodes per season that wanted to give him "development" that we saw any sort of difference in him. And then he promptly went back to being exactly the same as he always was before that for the rest of the show.
This same issue happened with the Doctor and Seven in Voyager as well, due to the same reasons. There wasn't a developing Doctor or Seven, there were just two entierly different versions of the Doctor and Seven they dragged out as needed. Nog was the only one to escape it because DS9 was the only old Trek show with an actual running narrative, and thus, the only old Trek show that had to maintain this sort of consistency.
On the other hand, in Discovery, at the beginning of S1 Burnham disobeys orders, and tries to do something very un-Starfleet because she thinks that will lead to a better outcome for the Klingon situation. This backfires, makes everything worse, and she gets stripped of rank, and thrown in Jail. While Lorca arranges for her release, she spends the rest of S1 having to live with the consequences of those actions. This allows for, at the end of S1, when she is given the ability to make that same decision again, she refuses, and sticks to Starfleet principles. This carries over into S2 where, even when she disagrees with Pike, and voices her objections, she still follows his lead like when on Terralysium. Even in the situations she does disobey orders in S2 and S3, she does so in a far more Kirk-like way, still following the ideals of Starfleet, if not the exact orders. Like when she went to go rescue Book, and Vance admits that had Saru asked he probably would have authorized the mission anyways. These events also end up wearing down her Vulcan upbringing, making her a nicer person to the people around her.
Discovery is able to do what TOS, TNG, and VOY couldn't with their episodic structure, and whiplash based character "development" which is actually have gradual, over time, character development, that stick with the characters, due to its narrative based story structure akin to DS9. Burnham had more actual character development in Discovery's 3 seasons then pretty much any other individual character from the past shows did in 7.
I'm not going to slag-off the actor...but Burman has felt one-dimensional from the pilot. There's no depth, no likeability, no growth, no genuine heart, just a flat, unlikeable, uninteresting and quite personally, pitiful character.
There really is nothing there to even comment on, let alone praise. The actor didn't have anything to work with, so I'm not going to blame her and it keeps the lights on, which is why I won't judge her, but as an artist...I really wish she'd quit on principal.
Look at Nog's journey, Data's, the Doctor's, SEVEN's even...we saw them develop it was special.
The problem with all of these, outside of Nog, is that we really didn't see any of these people actually develop.
Gene Roddenberry rather infamously, and publicly, hated the idea of characters, and character development. In his view, everyone in the future is perfect, and they shouldn't have any real problems of significance. This is why he pretty much banned character stories in TOS, and as much of TNG as he possibly could, and why TOS and early TNG spent little time focusing on the characters themselves.
While his grip was able to be lessened in TNG, his dictates sat upon the series like a cancer, resulting in massive whiplash character "development", if you could call it that. You can see this best in TNG with characters like Picard, and Data.
-Picard got assimilated by the Borg, freed, and then had trauma for all of 1-2 episodes... and then promptly went back to being the exact same Picard he was before then. With only the rare occasional episode where he suddenly had trauma again when they needed it for a plot reason. It wasn't character development, it was just there were two different Picards they swapped back and forth between when needed.(not to mention Picard 3.0, aka action movie Picard they dragged out for the movies)
-The same is true of Data. Data spent 95% of the show, from S1 to S7, acting exactly the same way "I am an android!" "I don't understand this basic human thing!" "I don't have emotions!". It was only in the rare 1-2 episodes per season that wanted to give him "development" that we saw any sort of difference in him. And then he promptly went back to being exactly the same as he always was before that for the rest of the show.
This same issue happened with the Doctor and Seven in Voyager as well, due to the same reasons. There wasn't a developing Doctor or Seven, there were just two entierly different versions of the Doctor and Seven they dragged out as needed. Nog was the only one to escape it because DS9 was the only old Trek show with an actual running narrative, and thus, the only old Trek show that had to maintain this sort of consistency.
On the other hand, in Discovery, at the beginning of S1 Burnham disobeys orders, and tries to do something very un-Starfleet because she thinks that will lead to a better outcome for the Klingon situation. This backfires, makes everything worse, and she gets stripped of rank, and thrown in Jail. While Lorca arranges for her release, she spends the rest of S1 having to live with the consequences of those actions. This allows for, at the end of S1, when she is given the ability to make that same decision again, she refuses, and sticks to Starfleet principles. This carries over into S2 where, even when she disagrees with Pike, and voices her objections, she still follows his lead like when on Terralysium. Even in the situations she does disobey orders in S2 and S3, she does so in a far more Kirk-like way, still following the ideals of Starfleet, if not the exact orders. Like when she went to go rescue Book, and Vance admits that had Saru asked he probably would have authorized the mission anyways. These events also end up wearing down her Vulcan upbringing, making her a nicer person to the people around her.
Discovery is able to do what TOS, TNG, and VOY couldn't with their episodic structure, and whiplash based character "development" which is actually have gradual, over time, character development, that stick with the characters, due to its narrative based story structure akin to DS9. Burnham had more actual character development in Discovery's 3 seasons then pretty much any other individual character from the past shows did in 7.
I'm not going to slag-off the actor...but Burman has felt one-dimensional from the pilot. There's no depth, no likeability, no growth, no genuine heart, just a flat, unlikeable, uninteresting and quite personally, pitiful character.
There really is nothing there to even comment on, let alone praise. The actor didn't have anything to work with, so I'm not going to blame her and it keeps the lights on, which is why I won't judge her, but as an artist...I really wish she'd quit on principal.
It is definitely NOT the actress anyway, Sonequa Martin-Green is quite good at deep layered characters and is over cast for the part of Burnham, or at least the shallow way Kurtzman's team writes her (and everybody else). Fuller apparently had a different, deeper writing style in mind when he insisted they need an actress of Martin-Green's ability to handle the part and talked CBS into delaying the series waiting for her to finish on The Walking Dead.
-
Also, that nonsense about Roddenberry hating characters and character development is a myth that stems from arguments he had with Paramount when they wanted to insert prime-time soap elements into Star Trek to "spice it up". Rodenberry was against melodrama and character instability for the purposes of backbiting twists and whatnot, and to a lesser extent unrealistically fast changes to the character's core psyche.
One of the biggest dustups he had was when Paramount wanted to have Saavik be the traitor in The Undiscovered Country because she was the newest of the "core" characters (similar to Jaylah in the Kelvin stuff) and so in the perfect position for a backstabbing 'twist". Roddenberry was dead set against it for several reasons, one of which was that since she was of Romulan descent but raised mostly in Vulcan society it would cater to the particularly nasty "bad blood" stereotype.
And if Roddenberry thought the characters had to be so perfect then why did he make the captain of the TOS Enterprise a grifter who happens to use his talents for the people instead of against them? Even before Kirk, the otherwise squeaky clean white-knight Pike was riddled with self-doubt to the point that it was impacting his job, and was a bit on the male chauvinistic side. On top of that, the first officer was a sociopath guided by rigidly logical code of honor she had to think about instead of going on feelings and instinct like everyone else.
Spock wrestled with identity and family issues, Bones with the lingering aftermath of an emotional bloodbath of a divorce, Scotty was a bit too fond of the sauce and was sometimes a worse disciplinary problem than those under his command, Sulu was a semi-retired Starfleet Intelligence agent who still got called away on ops where he was expected to do who knows what possible black-ops things (yes, this part did not make it to air since the dialog was cut for time but it was still part of the character), and for some unknown reason Uhura decided to leave command track and move to support.
Does any of that sound like characters who are "perfect … and shouldn't have any real problems of significance"? Sure, they didn't trot the subplots out into the foreground of the 'present' of the show much and browbeat the viewers with it, it was more subtle, mostly hinted at in references to the past, but it did indicate some of the development they went through to get to where they are 'now'.
TNG was a mess from the start, though they did some weeding they never got rid of all of the loose ends and duplication that dropping the Macross-like warship/scientific city division the original concept had. Having a bored Leonard Maizlish getting his jollies by sabotaging things from the inside to watch the ensuing misery and strife unfold as the writer's room got ever more toxic in the first year or so certainly didn't help either, nor did the total change of writers as all of them stormed off one by one (and finally the rest in a clump) so that by the time the second season came around the new writers had to grope around for their footing in the second year without anyone showing them the ropes.
In DSC and PIC I am not so sure that what the characters go through is actually growth or just typical melodrama personality thrash in the midst of situational changes (situational changes can spur character development, but is not itself that development). The shallow writing makes everything seem trivial and flat with spikes of overly forced nonsense either way.
Also, that nonsense about Roddenberry hating characters and character development is a myth
Yep, totally a myth. All these people who worked on TNG, and mention it, are lying to besmirch the great name of Saint Roddenberry, who could do no wrong, and you should never say anything bad about! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vpGR3V9lnQ
I did not say there was no trouble at all, especially since by that time Roddenberry's health was starting to fail and he was starting to get a bit erratic and more prone to Maizlish's fear tactics manipulations. When they were developing the idea of the Ferengi Roddenberry went off the deep end and one of the other producers had to point out to him that what he was suggesting just wouldn't fly for network TV, the censors would go ape.
And despite the occasional jags into really weird creative asides, it turns out that it was mainly Maizlish who was insisting on the "no conflict" nonsense via what he claimed was "Roddenberry's notes" but were actually his. There have been a lot of papers analyzing what went wrong, but this article sums it up rather well:
Just to clarify, are you disagreeing with my post? It kind of seems that way, but nothing you are saying actually conflicts with my points, so I'm not really sure.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just reluctantly accepting that its bound to happen no matter what either of us say. Its one of those "I wish you were right but... more than likely that's wishful thinking".
My stance on a Trek series, or any series that is part of a larger franchise, is to not judge it directly against what came before. Let it stand on its own merits and judge it on what it contributes to the franchise as a whole. IMO Discovery helps to flesh out an era that really didn't have much in it. The mid 23rd Century... all we had was TOS. And we never saw ANY class other than the Connie. Discovery fleshed out the fleet more. The Spore Drive, while pretty out there, is just fine because you can't tell me that Starfleet never experimented with new FTL technologies other than Excelsior's Transwarp Drive. And its right up there alongside Genesis in experiments. It worked, but circumstances prevented its adoption. And yes there are touchscreens, that look like they will evolve into the ST5/6 style over time, but they still have push buttons and toggle switches as callbacks to TOS. And not only is the DSC phaser pistol a clear precursor to the TOS one, its also a callback to The Cage Laser pistol with the rotating barrel.
Could they have done some things better? Yes. But overall I feel that Discovery's finding its footing now, and it brought us Captain Pike in s2. And I admit s1 could have been better. But I don't go in with such high expectations of "the Vision of Saint Roddenberry" or anything. I let it stand on its own and judge how it contributes to the universe we know and love as it develops. IMO to do any less is akin to basically saying "The sins of the father fall upon the son" sort of thing. Forcing it to "measure up" to what came before right off the bat before giving it a chance to actually develop is bound to cause problems. Let it develop.
I'm pretty constructive in that way I guess. Identify things I like and things I don't. Not just declare the whole thing heresy.
While prequel settings do make things complicated... I can see the DSC Enterprise fitting in just fine in TOS. I can see Kirk in The Chair, with Uhura at comms, Sulu at the helm, McCoy pacing behind Kirk (although having MORE room to do so)...
But at the end of the day that is my opinion. *shrug*
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Pretty sure previous and other threads critical of Discovery were locked/deleted, because the criticism was likely vitriolic and hurtful. Just go to the multitude of Star Trek related social media sites, and you'll find that the haters are really hateful toward the casting and inclusiveness of the newer shows. They sound like the people who freaked out about the multi-racial bridge in TOS, hated on Sisko in DS9, and/or made tons of crude jokes about Janeway in Voyager back in the day.
Star Trek is about humanity learning to get along with each other, and also get along with other species and space-cultures. The "fans" that are hating on the diversity/inclusiveness of the newer shows have forgotten about Star Trek's core values.
(PS I don't just fanatically love everything new, though. I hate most of the newer ship designs, but I still love the stories and characters of current Star Trek. Except the La Sirena. That ship is amazing... but would be better if it had a more tapered nose. It just brings me back to the '80s and '90s scrolling shooter arcade games.)
Pretty sure previous and other threads critical of Discovery were locked/deleted, because the criticism was likely vitriolic and hurtful. Just go to the multitude of Star Trek related social media sites, and you'll find that the haters are really hateful toward the casting and inclusiveness of the newer shows. They sound like the people who freaked out about the multi-racial bridge in TOS, hated on Sisko in DS9, and/or made tons of crude jokes about Janeway in Voyager back in the day.
Star Trek is about humanity learning to get along with each other, and also get along with other species and space-cultures. The "fans" that are hating on the diversity/inclusiveness of the newer shows have forgotten about Star Trek's core values.
(PS I don't just fanatically love everything new, though. I hate most of the newer ship designs, but I still love the stories and characters of current Star Trek. Except the La Sirena. That ship is amazing... but would be better if it had a more tapered nose. It just brings me back to the '80s and '90s scrolling shooter arcade games.)
When Picard asked for an explorer ship, I do just wonder what they might have given him. I like La Serena in some respects...but the size always confuses me and I do wish it had been a little more Federation. It's fine that it's not Starfleet, but neither was the Raven. It would just be nice to have tweaked it a bit.
The Raven was probably designed by a company (or whatever such things are called in Star Trek) with close ties to Starfleet, so they went with a Starfleet aesthetic, whereas whatever company designed the La Sirena's class wasn't as close and went with a different design aesthetic.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
The Raven was probably designed by a company (or whatever such things are called in Star Trek) with close ties to Starfleet, so they went with a Starfleet aesthetic, whereas whatever company designed the La Sirena's class wasn't as close and went with a different design aesthetic.
In STO it's a raider, but what was it was designed and built to be? It would be nice if there was some backstory to its origins, or if it had been something different. The Fenris Rangers have their own ship design, but that's also their backstory. The Marquis did too, because they retrofitted old Federation cargo carriers, etc. It would be nice to know by who and why La Sirena was built...more than just as a plot device.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I just did a quick test. Chose to create a new character, and the game defaults to the Discovery Starfleet faction on the first screen of character creation... even though KDF is the first option on the menu, and it's during the Delta Recruitment event (I'm a PlayStation player, so it's still going on for us). Caught red handed! ;-P
Basically - the La Sirena is a heavily-modified Kaplan in the same way the Falcon is a heavily-modified YT-1300.
So it is probably the courier that replaced the obsolete Peregrine that the Maquis refitted for use as their most common raider type.
As for aesthetics, La Sirena and Raven are the same base style, Art Deco, but Raven has overtones of Brutalist style (or could be more of a bare version of the De Stijl branch of Art Deco), probably to convey the idea of a "barebones utility ship" or similar.
Post edited by phoenixc#0738 on
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,670Community Moderator
La Sirena is a nice change of pace, being able to see some of the more civilian side of things. And yea... I'd say she's kind of the Star Trek equivelent of the Falcon.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Basically - the La Sirena is a heavily-modified Kaplan in the same way the Falcon is a heavily-modified YT-1300.
So it is probably the courier that replaced the obsolete Peregrine that the Maquis refitted for use as their most common raider type.
As for aesthetics, La Sirena and Raven are the same base style, Art Deco, but Raven has overtones of Brutalist style (or could be more of a bare version of the De Stijl branch of Art Deco), probably to convey the idea of a "barebones utility ship" or similar.
I always thought the Raven most resembled a Runabout. And La Sirena...a lot like the Vulcan shuttle from TMP.
Starfleet vessels...Utopia Planetia, a Starbase or something like that. Federation ships...I suppose they could be built anywhere and on any Federation world. We know that members of the Federation also build their own ships, like Spock's Jellyfish, which since Vulcan is a member of the Federation, could be called a Federation ship or just specifically Vulcan.
I wish there was a bit more history behind La Sirena though. When he got it, Rios installed a hologram programme, it came with a holosuite, which isn't a huge deal, because the Ferengi and other traders would sell you one of those.
With Seven's Ranger ship, I'm assuming they were built by the Rangers, a bit like the Marquis did and used anything that was at hand, from probably any and every race. It would have been quite fun if La Sirena had been assembled in the same place, or on the port of call they found Maddox on.
In STO, La Sirena is one of the smallest ships I've ever seen. I suppose I wish it was bigger, a little more traditional and say an evolution of the Aeroshuttle, which is a beautiful design, but big.
There were some gorgeous unused Defiant designs...
Basically - the La Sirena is a heavily-modified Kaplan in the same way the Falcon is a heavily-modified YT-1300.
So it is probably the courier that replaced the obsolete Peregrine that the Maquis refitted for use as their most common raider type.
As for aesthetics, La Sirena and Raven are the same base style, Art Deco, but Raven has overtones of Brutalist style (or could be more of a bare version of the De Stijl branch of Art Deco), probably to convey the idea of a "barebones utility ship" or similar.
I always thought the Raven most resembled a Runabout. And La Sirena...a lot like the Vulcan shuttle from TMP.
Starfleet vessels...Utopia Planetia, a Starbase or something like that. Federation ships...I suppose they could be built anywhere and on any Federation world. We know that members of the Federation also build their own ships, like Spock's Jellyfish, which since Vulcan is a member of the Federation, could be called a Federation ship or just specifically Vulcan.
I wish there was a bit more history behind La Sirena though. When he got it, Rios installed a hologram programme, it came with a holosuite, which isn't a huge deal, because the Ferengi and other traders would sell you one of those.
With Seven's Ranger ship, I'm assuming they were built by the Rangers, a bit like the Marquis did and used anything that was at hand, from probably any and every race. It would have been quite fun if La Sirena had been assembled in the same place, or on the port of call they found Maddox on.
In STO, La Sirena is one of the smallest ships I've ever seen. I suppose I wish it was bigger, a little more traditional and say an evolution of the Aeroshuttle, which is a beautiful design, but big.
There were some gorgeous unused Defiant designs...
True, I am rather partial to the Voyager candidate by Doug Drexler called the Altair class:
Basically - the La Sirena is a heavily-modified Kaplan in the same way the Falcon is a heavily-modified YT-1300.
So it is probably the courier that replaced the obsolete Peregrine that the Maquis refitted for use as their most common raider type.
As for aesthetics, La Sirena and Raven are the same base style, Art Deco, but Raven has overtones of Brutalist style (or could be more of a bare version of the De Stijl branch of Art Deco), probably to convey the idea of a "barebones utility ship" or similar.
I always thought the Raven most resembled a Runabout. And La Sirena...a lot like the Vulcan shuttle from TMP.
Starfleet vessels...Utopia Planetia, a Starbase or something like that. Federation ships...I suppose they could be built anywhere and on any Federation world. We know that members of the Federation also build their own ships, like Spock's Jellyfish, which since Vulcan is a member of the Federation, could be called a Federation ship or just specifically Vulcan.
I wish there was a bit more history behind La Sirena though. When he got it, Rios installed a hologram programme, it came with a holosuite, which isn't a huge deal, because the Ferengi and other traders would sell you one of those.
With Seven's Ranger ship, I'm assuming they were built by the Rangers, a bit like the Marquis did and used anything that was at hand, from probably any and every race. It would have been quite fun if La Sirena had been assembled in the same place, or on the port of call they found Maddox on.
In STO, La Sirena is one of the smallest ships I've ever seen. I suppose I wish it was bigger, a little more traditional and say an evolution of the Aeroshuttle, which is a beautiful design, but big.
There were some gorgeous unused Defiant designs...
True, I am rather partial to the Voyager candidate by Doug Drexler called the Altair class:
It's gorgeous and I was actually about to ask what that ship was at the end of your post ;-)
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,670Community Moderator
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Comments
You know, you're absolutely right.
Kind of like how every Trek series "discovered" (insert plot of every episode here)
Hey, they should have just named every Trek series "Discovery"!
Star Trek: Discovery
Star Trek: The Next Generation: Discovery
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Discovery
Star Trek Voyager: Discovery
Star Trek: Enterprise: Discovery
Star Trek: Discovery: Discovery
Yeah, it's all Discovery
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Considering Kurtzman's live action team has demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the TOS era, and probably can barely tell Star Trek and Star Wars apart, that is pretty much a given. If DSC is anything to go by they will probably have compatibility gaps you could sail the Exxon Valdez through sideways.
Really, the best bet would be to turn the writing of SNW over to the animation side writers since they at least seem to know what they are doing and just work off of their scripts instead of the live action side writers.
Lower Decks was fun while Discovery and Picard don't know the meaning of fun. Have to agree with the ending of Lower Decks. It is almost as bad as the ending of Enterprise.
I didn't see all the way to the end of the season yet, so all I have to go on is the earlier stuff, which gave the impression that the writers knew Trek better than the DSC writers.
Funny!
But seriously though, I think any reasonable person should be able to discuss both things they like and don't like about any show. Anyone who either thinks a show is perfect with literally no flaws("a white knight) OR thinks it's terrible with literally nothing good("a hater") is delusional, and not a reasonable person.
Will any of us like a show we haven't seen yet? Obviously we don't know. But I definitely liked the "preview" I got in Disco S2 of the 3 main characters (Pike, Spock, Una) and the redesigned Enterprise. As long as the show keeps telling the story of those 3 characters and gives me more beauty shots of that awesome ship design, I think I'm going to enjoy it.
Oh, plus they have said the show will be more "optimistic" and "episodic":
https://trekmovie.com/2020/05/16/star-trek-strange-new-worlds-to-be-more-optimistic-and-episodic-says-co-creator/
Sounds great so far
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yea... unfortunately we have a lot of the latter that appear quite a bit.
While in theory this is true...
We've seen it happen before. Hell... I've seen people hate on a movie before it even came out as if they already saw it themselves! And all because of something one actor said apparently. Doesn't matter if the movie actually turned out to be decent or not... it was trash before it even released.
And I wouldn't be surprised if people hate Strange New Worlds "on principle" because reasons or because they don't like someone spearheading it behind the scenes or some other grievence they wish to air.
They will FIND a reason to hate on it. Even if it makes no sense or is recycled from previous show grievences.
Bet one of them will be "It's too advanced for the time period", which was used against Discovery, which was recycled from the Kelvin Timeline, which was recycled from Enterprise.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Just to clarify, are you disagreeing with my post? It kind of seems that way, but nothing you are saying actually conflicts with my points, so I'm not really sure.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'm going to hold my hands up...I couldn't stand Enterprise at the time. Then, I found new love for it compared to the JJ-Verse and I'm almost ashamed to admit it, because I still feel that it's truly shocking, but...I do prefer the JJ-Verse to Discovery. I know, I know, that's considered heinous, but I just don't think Discovery is getting anything right.
It's trying to be politically correct, of the time (the 21st Century, but not the 32nd), using CGI seemingly in an attempt to win a special effects award? Producer driven plots, if you can consider them plots and no character development. JJ should be ashamed of what he did and I actually the cast are now too, but Discovery...it's missing every single mark for me. I want to enjoy brand new Trek, like I used to love seeing the latest episode of DS9 and Voyager (I did love them being on at the same time), but it's just not giving me anything to love.
You can't just tell me to like a character and force me to, when nothing has happened naturally. I never liked Bashir (okay, that might just be because Siddig can't act), but I adored The Picardo from the second he appeared on screen. When Kira stopped being angry and found her spiritual side, I loved her. When characters progressed with good writing and also, the participation of the actor, you fall in love with them. Or, you hate them and then you just love the characters you love more, but there isn't a single Discovery character that I...I don't HATE any of them, because I don't feel that strongly. I don't feel anything towards them. They can live, they can die and I feel nothing, because I've been given nothing.
I wish that I'd seen a relationship form, someone go through something, be changed by something, experience something with them, etc...in Discovery though, I'm being told what I should feel. It's so reflective of the episodes and not being swept away with the narrative, but demanded of.
Look at Nog's journey, Data's, the Doctor's, SEVEN's even...we saw them develop it was special.
I'm not invested in any of the Discovery characters, because the writing hasn't given me anything to be invested about. Character development is vital, but there's just none. Disagree with me all you like, but prove me otherwise if you feel the need.
There is not a single character I care about...love or loathe, there's no one who makes me feel anything. It's numbness with each and every episode and I wish that I could feel otherwise.
I'm not going to slag-off the actor...but Burman has felt one-dimensional from the pilot. There's no depth, no likeability, no growth, no genuine heart, just a flat, unlikeable, uninteresting and quite personally, pitiful character.
There really is nothing there to even comment on, let alone praise. The actor didn't have anything to work with, so I'm not going to blame her and it keeps the lights on, which is why I won't judge her, but as an artist...I really wish she'd quit on principal.
It is definitely NOT the actress anyway, Sonequa Martin-Green is quite good at deep layered characters and is over cast for the part of Burnham, or at least the shallow way Kurtzman's team writes her (and everybody else). Fuller apparently had a different, deeper writing style in mind when he insisted they need an actress of Martin-Green's ability to handle the part and talked CBS into delaying the series waiting for her to finish on The Walking Dead.
-
Also, that nonsense about Roddenberry hating characters and character development is a myth that stems from arguments he had with Paramount when they wanted to insert prime-time soap elements into Star Trek to "spice it up". Rodenberry was against melodrama and character instability for the purposes of backbiting twists and whatnot, and to a lesser extent unrealistically fast changes to the character's core psyche.
One of the biggest dustups he had was when Paramount wanted to have Saavik be the traitor in The Undiscovered Country because she was the newest of the "core" characters (similar to Jaylah in the Kelvin stuff) and so in the perfect position for a backstabbing 'twist". Roddenberry was dead set against it for several reasons, one of which was that since she was of Romulan descent but raised mostly in Vulcan society it would cater to the particularly nasty "bad blood" stereotype.
And if Roddenberry thought the characters had to be so perfect then why did he make the captain of the TOS Enterprise a grifter who happens to use his talents for the people instead of against them? Even before Kirk, the otherwise squeaky clean white-knight Pike was riddled with self-doubt to the point that it was impacting his job, and was a bit on the male chauvinistic side. On top of that, the first officer was a sociopath guided by rigidly logical code of honor she had to think about instead of going on feelings and instinct like everyone else.
Spock wrestled with identity and family issues, Bones with the lingering aftermath of an emotional bloodbath of a divorce, Scotty was a bit too fond of the sauce and was sometimes a worse disciplinary problem than those under his command, Sulu was a semi-retired Starfleet Intelligence agent who still got called away on ops where he was expected to do who knows what possible black-ops things (yes, this part did not make it to air since the dialog was cut for time but it was still part of the character), and for some unknown reason Uhura decided to leave command track and move to support.
Does any of that sound like characters who are "perfect … and shouldn't have any real problems of significance"? Sure, they didn't trot the subplots out into the foreground of the 'present' of the show much and browbeat the viewers with it, it was more subtle, mostly hinted at in references to the past, but it did indicate some of the development they went through to get to where they are 'now'.
TNG was a mess from the start, though they did some weeding they never got rid of all of the loose ends and duplication that dropping the Macross-like warship/scientific city division the original concept had. Having a bored Leonard Maizlish getting his jollies by sabotaging things from the inside to watch the ensuing misery and strife unfold as the writer's room got ever more toxic in the first year or so certainly didn't help either, nor did the total change of writers as all of them stormed off one by one (and finally the rest in a clump) so that by the time the second season came around the new writers had to grope around for their footing in the second year without anyone showing them the ropes.
In DSC and PIC I am not so sure that what the characters go through is actually growth or just typical melodrama personality thrash in the midst of situational changes (situational changes can spur character development, but is not itself that development). The shallow writing makes everything seem trivial and flat with spikes of overly forced nonsense either way.
I did not say there was no trouble at all, especially since by that time Roddenberry's health was starting to fail and he was starting to get a bit erratic and more prone to Maizlish's fear tactics manipulations. When they were developing the idea of the Ferengi Roddenberry went off the deep end and one of the other producers had to point out to him that what he was suggesting just wouldn't fly for network TV, the censors would go ape.
And despite the occasional jags into really weird creative asides, it turns out that it was mainly Maizlish who was insisting on the "no conflict" nonsense via what he claimed was "Roddenberry's notes" but were actually his. There have been a lot of papers analyzing what went wrong, but this article sums it up rather well:
https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eonard-maizlish-gene-roddenberry-lawyer/
And I see your video clip and raise you this one from an interview with David Gerrold (which is also on the page I linked above):
I'm not disagreeing with you. Just reluctantly accepting that its bound to happen no matter what either of us say. Its one of those "I wish you were right but... more than likely that's wishful thinking".
My stance on a Trek series, or any series that is part of a larger franchise, is to not judge it directly against what came before. Let it stand on its own merits and judge it on what it contributes to the franchise as a whole. IMO Discovery helps to flesh out an era that really didn't have much in it. The mid 23rd Century... all we had was TOS. And we never saw ANY class other than the Connie. Discovery fleshed out the fleet more. The Spore Drive, while pretty out there, is just fine because you can't tell me that Starfleet never experimented with new FTL technologies other than Excelsior's Transwarp Drive. And its right up there alongside Genesis in experiments. It worked, but circumstances prevented its adoption. And yes there are touchscreens, that look like they will evolve into the ST5/6 style over time, but they still have push buttons and toggle switches as callbacks to TOS. And not only is the DSC phaser pistol a clear precursor to the TOS one, its also a callback to The Cage Laser pistol with the rotating barrel.
Could they have done some things better? Yes. But overall I feel that Discovery's finding its footing now, and it brought us Captain Pike in s2. And I admit s1 could have been better. But I don't go in with such high expectations of "the Vision of Saint Roddenberry" or anything. I let it stand on its own and judge how it contributes to the universe we know and love as it develops. IMO to do any less is akin to basically saying "The sins of the father fall upon the son" sort of thing. Forcing it to "measure up" to what came before right off the bat before giving it a chance to actually develop is bound to cause problems. Let it develop.
I'm pretty constructive in that way I guess. Identify things I like and things I don't. Not just declare the whole thing heresy.
While prequel settings do make things complicated... I can see the DSC Enterprise fitting in just fine in TOS. I can see Kirk in The Chair, with Uhura at comms, Sulu at the helm, McCoy pacing behind Kirk (although having MORE room to do so)...
But at the end of the day that is my opinion. *shrug*
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
Star Trek is about humanity learning to get along with each other, and also get along with other species and space-cultures. The "fans" that are hating on the diversity/inclusiveness of the newer shows have forgotten about Star Trek's core values.
(PS I don't just fanatically love everything new, though. I hate most of the newer ship designs, but I still love the stories and characters of current Star Trek. Except the La Sirena. That ship is amazing... but would be better if it had a more tapered nose. It just brings me back to the '80s and '90s scrolling shooter arcade games.)
When Picard asked for an explorer ship, I do just wonder what they might have given him. I like La Serena in some respects...but the size always confuses me and I do wish it had been a little more Federation. It's fine that it's not Starfleet, but neither was the Raven. It would just be nice to have tweaked it a bit.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
In STO it's a raider, but what was it was designed and built to be? It would be nice if there was some backstory to its origins, or if it had been something different. The Fenris Rangers have their own ship design, but that's also their backstory. The Marquis did too, because they retrofitted old Federation cargo carriers, etc. It would be nice to know by who and why La Sirena was built...more than just as a plot device.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
*cough* Millennium Falcon *cough*?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
So it is probably the courier that replaced the obsolete Peregrine that the Maquis refitted for use as their most common raider type.
As for aesthetics, La Sirena and Raven are the same base style, Art Deco, but Raven has overtones of Brutalist style (or could be more of a bare version of the De Stijl branch of Art Deco), probably to convey the idea of a "barebones utility ship" or similar.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
I always thought the Raven most resembled a Runabout. And La Sirena...a lot like the Vulcan shuttle from TMP.
Starfleet vessels...Utopia Planetia, a Starbase or something like that. Federation ships...I suppose they could be built anywhere and on any Federation world. We know that members of the Federation also build their own ships, like Spock's Jellyfish, which since Vulcan is a member of the Federation, could be called a Federation ship or just specifically Vulcan.
I wish there was a bit more history behind La Sirena though. When he got it, Rios installed a hologram programme, it came with a holosuite, which isn't a huge deal, because the Ferengi and other traders would sell you one of those.
With Seven's Ranger ship, I'm assuming they were built by the Rangers, a bit like the Marquis did and used anything that was at hand, from probably any and every race. It would have been quite fun if La Sirena had been assembled in the same place, or on the port of call they found Maddox on.
In STO, La Sirena is one of the smallest ships I've ever seen. I suppose I wish it was bigger, a little more traditional and say an evolution of the Aeroshuttle, which is a beautiful design, but big.
There were some gorgeous unused Defiant designs...
True, I am rather partial to the Voyager candidate by Doug Drexler called the Altair class:
It's gorgeous and I was actually about to ask what that ship was at the end of your post ;-)
I think some of the concept art got recycled for Defiant variants in game. And one of the designs did evolve into the Nova class in canon.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode