test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Da big *NEW TREK TV SHOW* thread!

14849515354101

Comments

  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    got to wonder if they thought about the new series' acronym either as well. It's not going to go over well. -.-
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    and sry about being short in my earlier post. but deliberate ignorance tends to push my buttons.

    *sigh*
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 36,961 Arc User
    i'm not seeing any possible issue with the acronym, as DIS means nothing bad​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #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!"
    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.
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    got to wonder if they thought about the new series' acronym either as well. It's not going to go over well. -.-
    It's already entered the zeitgeist, so not much they can do about it now ;)
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    and sry about being short in my earlier post. but deliberate ignorance tends to push my buttons.

    *sigh*
    No worries, I feel the same about people who think their opinion trumps that of those directly involved... B)
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    Yes, each and every time, because Each and Every time, You Are Wrong... It's that simple...

    Nope. I am right and clear explain why. You disagreeing does not make you right.
    Don't you dare say I have no interest in canon! I have the utmost respect for canon, as well as the utmost respect for the men and women who wrote that canon and brought it to life! Don't you f*cking dare say I 'have no interest in canon'! >_< >_<

    Firstly grow up you loon and calm down. This is a discussion board for a fictional show and the fictional character within. Throwing a little tantrum just because you can't read the dozens of times it's been pointed out to you that ST canon = the shows and films only and none of the stuff behind them is just silly.
    George Takei's interpretation has not been over-written, because John Cho's interpretation takes place in an alternate reality... KT Sulu may be g.ay or bi, but that doesn't retcon Prime Sulu, because Alternate Reality...

    Unless you can prove Sulu is younger than Kirk then you don't understand my point. The KT DOES NOT ALTER THE PAST. The attack on the Kelvin is the point of change so if the Sulu's are the same person then it is a retcon. Hell, no, that's your game, it's not a retcon, it's an expansion of the characters past that has come up zero times beofore.
    You say characters belong to their writers, not their actors... I could make a case (which I'm sure I already have) from direct personal conversation with an actress, who's input was the majority creative force behind her character's development...

    And if Takei's input had written in a female love interest then you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
    Another argument against that argument, is that Valeris was only created*, because Meyer could not have Saavik as being the traitor (despite being her originating writer) because Gene would not allow it... Meyer argued about this with Gene days before his death...

    But I'm not going to use that argument...

    Please don't because it isn't even slightly relevant.
    I'm going to take your own argument, and use it against you:

    You say:
    however their characters belong to their writers, not their actors.

    Okay...

    Gene said that Sulu was straight. Gene was the writer, that was his character, and that was his opinion... So Sulu was not g.ay, nor bi, but straight: Because that is what his writer said...

    Well that seems like a fantastic example of what I was on about, to wit, you not understanding my point. The writers characters are shown in the story, not what they say about the story afterwards. Just look at all the TRIBBLE George Lucas gets thrown at him for that.
    We're back to canon again, as the writer Gene did not show Sulu to be g.ay or straight so Pegg filled in the gaps.
    If Gene had cared enough he'd have stopped writing exclusively for Shatner, Nemoy, and Kelly and bothered to fill in the backstory of other characters such as Sulu.
    Now Gene may not be with us any more, but his opinion has been shared with us, by the man who worked with him, and collaborated with him over the portrayal of Sulu, for longer than you have been alive, so please, explain precisely what makes you think that your opinion, in any way supersedes or disproves his...

    That's a fantastically executed take down of me. Well your strawman of me that you've created to attack.
    I'm not presenting an opinion piece so my opinion against Gene's is meaningless. I'm presenting canon Sulu's backstory as filled in canon by Pegg against the void in canon left by Gene.

    I know you like attacking peoples opinions but at least bother to check if they're actually presenting one or not before replying.
    *Meyer also originally wanted Kim Cattrall to play Saavik, but she was unavailable, so the role went to Kirsty Alley, then Robin Curtis... In the end, we got to see Kim Cattrall as a Vulcan, and, she created Valeris' name... But hey, actors don't contribute to, or get a say in, their characters... ;)

    Oh look, another strawman. The total sum of zero people made the claim that actors can't act as writers to their own characters. Often characters are written by multiple writers.

    If an actor is presenting material for their character that makes the cut then they're helping to write their character and are therefore acting in the capacity of a writer not an actor. You know, it dosn't take much reading comprehension to read my actual words. They're broken down into easy to read paragraphs relating to each specific point.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    artan42 wrote: »
    Yes, each and every time, because Each and Every time, You Are Wrong... It's that simple...

    Nope. I am right and clear explain why. You disagreeing does not make you right.
    Don't you dare say I have no interest in canon! I have the utmost respect for canon, as well as the utmost respect for the men and women who wrote that canon and brought it to life! Don't you f*cking dare say I 'have no interest in canon'! >_< >_<

    Firstly grow up you loon and calm down. This is a discussion board for a fictional show and the fictional character within. Throwing a little tantrum just because you can't read the dozens of times it's been pointed out to you that ST canon = the shows and films only and none of the stuff behind them is just silly.
    George Takei's interpretation has not been over-written, because John Cho's interpretation takes place in an alternate reality... KT Sulu may be g.ay or bi, but that doesn't retcon Prime Sulu, because Alternate Reality...

    Unless you can prove Sulu is younger than Kirk then you don't understand my point. The KT DOES NOT ALTER THE PAST. The attack on the Kelvin is the point of change so if the Sulu's are the same person then it is a retcon. Hell, no, that's your game, it's not a retcon, it's an expansion of the characters past that has come up zero times beofore.
    You say characters belong to their writers, not their actors... I could make a case (which I'm sure I already have) from direct personal conversation with an actress, who's input was the majority creative force behind her character's development...

    And if Takei's input had written in a female love interest then you would have a point, as it stands you don't.
    Another argument against that argument, is that Valeris was only created*, because Meyer could not have Saavik as being the traitor (despite being her originating writer) because Gene would not allow it... Meyer argued about this with Gene days before his death...

    But I'm not going to use that argument...

    Please don't because it isn't even slightly relevant.
    I'm going to take your own argument, and use it against you:

    You say:
    however their characters belong to their writers, not their actors.

    Okay...

    Gene said that Sulu was straight. Gene was the writer, that was his character, and that was his opinion... So Sulu was not g.ay, nor bi, but straight: Because that is what his writer said...

    Well that seems like a fantastic example of what I was on about, to wit, you not understanding my point. The writers characters are shown in the story, not what they say about the story afterwards. Just look at all the **** George Lucas gets thrown at him for that.
    We're back to canon again, as the writer Gene did not show Sulu to be g.ay or straight so Pegg filled in the gaps.
    If Gene had cared enough he'd have stopped writing exclusively for Shatner, Nemoy, and Kelly and bothered to fill in the backstory of other characters such as Sulu.
    Now Gene may not be with us any more, but his opinion has been shared with us, by the man who worked with him, and collaborated with him over the portrayal of Sulu, for longer than you have been alive, so please, explain precisely what makes you think that your opinion, in any way supersedes or disproves his...

    That's a fantastically executed take down of me. Well your strawman of me that you've created to attack.
    I'm not presenting an opinion piece so my opinion against Gene's is meaningless. I'm presenting canon Sulu's backstory as filled in canon by Pegg against the void in canon left by Gene.

    I know you like attacking peoples opinions but at least bother to check if they're actually presenting one or not before replying.
    *Meyer also originally wanted Kim Cattrall to play Saavik, but she was unavailable, so the role went to Kirsty Alley, then Robin Curtis... In the end, we got to see Kim Cattrall as a Vulcan, and, she created Valeris' name... But hey, actors don't contribute to, or get a say in, their characters... ;)

    Oh look, another strawman. The total sum of zero people made the claim that actors can't act as writers to their own characters. Often characters are written by multiple writers.

    If an actor is presenting material for their character that makes the cut then they're helping to write their character and are therefore acting in the capacity of a writer not an actor. You know, it dosn't take much reading comprehension to read my actual words. They're broken down into easy to read paragraphs relating to each specific point.​​
    I have neither the time, nor the crayons to explain it to you, and you're too arrogant to accept that your opinion is wrong, and has been proven thus by the very people who created the character... Nothing I can say will change your mind or make you see that, so I'm not going to waste further time engaging you on the topic...

    [Edit]I forgot to say, Pegg has stated that the Kelvin Incident affected both the future and the past of that universe, so yeah, you're wrong about that too... Just because your idea has Internal Consistency, doesn't 'make it right'...
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    i'm not seeing any possible issue with the acronym, as DIS means nothing bad​​

    DIS? "Dis" ain't bad. It's the 'other' one that would be a prob. But dis is fine.

    ment Series acronym, not ship's. but if they use just the ships, with Star Trek header in small, wouldn't seem in error then, I guess.
  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 36,961 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    they never use star trek in the acronym - it's always the first 3 letters of the show's title or, in the event it has more than one word, the first letter of each word (or a number, in the case of DS9)​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #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!"
    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.
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016

    [Edit]I forgot to say, Pegg has stated that the Kelvin Incident affected both the future and the past of that universe, so yeah, you're wrong about that too... Just because your idea has Internal Consistency, doesn't 'make it right'...

    you should make note of one little thing here - in the Kelvin Timeline? Nothing was changed from BEFORE the Romulans entered the past. At the very micromoment before the Kelvin ship detected the Romulan one (when the Romulans first broke into the past), the timeline became an Alternate Reality - not before that.

    Nothing else in the arguement pushing for a different past BEFORE that matters. It didn't happen/ wasn't changed.

    You can't argue that it did, simply because the change "Rewrites the past from the point of that change". not before. Only after.

    *shrug*

    As for your comment about who creates a character: the writer or the Actor/actress? I've dealt with this issue frequently in my work, and:

    - The concept writer creates it (also known as the 'Original Creator').
    - The sub-writers (which means every writer after that point using that character) helps add definition to it.
    - The Actor/Actress only help to give it 'life'. If they actively help the writers, then they'd fall in with sub-writers.
    - Ownership, by legal law, would fall to the original creator and not the sub-writers, unless it was sold to a company or as part of a 'hired-work', in which case a company/entity would own it instead. Actors/Actresses own no part of it as in the contracts they sign, they give over all rights to use their 'face' as that as the character.
    - Actors/Actresses may feel 'Proprietary' rights to a character they've emotionally invested themselves in, but they do not own them, nor are they listed as one of the creators.

    Hope that clears that up for you. :)
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    Forgot to mention that the case of ownership vrs copyright/trademark, where in Disney argued to regain ownership of Mickey Mouse when the normal copyright ran out, would probably show that the life of a copyright in such an instance is no longer the length of the creator's life plus 20+ years, but the length of the legal entities life who currently owns license to it. Or something similar. See: Superman and DC, or Spiderman and Marvel for concepts.

    Due to this Disney case, it is still illegal to have a picture of any Disney character not created and DRAWN by a licensed Disney artist. Yes, you will be sued for it if they find out.

    As a similar mess may happen if a character from Licensed Star Trek works are used by fans, as art or writing. They aren't publicly owned, so it's not legal to used them as such, and fan works are now under fire by CBS. They used to ignore them, until that movie was made sometime back.

    again... *shrug*

    as such, I wouldn't recommend they're use in anything. Create your own stuff.
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2016
    I have neither the time, nor the crayons to explain it to you, and you're too arrogant to accept that your opinion is wrong, and has been proven thus by the very people who created the character... Nothing I can say will change your mind or make you see that, so I'm not going to waste further time engaging you on the topic...

    [Edit]I forgot to say, Pegg has stated that the Kelvin Incident affected both the future and the past of that universe, so yeah, you're wrong about that too... Just because your idea has Internal Consistency, doesn't 'make it right'...

    Nope. You have form. You'll be back to dribble your opinions everywhere once you've told yourself what they are. You've bowed out of threads so many times only to jump back in when you've suddenly thought of something you find clever. Just say you need more time to go and think of a rebuttal. You don't need to lie here.

    You have been proven wrong by the very people and their system that defines what is right and wrong in the ST universe... Nothing I can say will change your mind or make you see that, so I'm not going to waste further time engaging you on the topic... Until you come back, then I'll continue because I enjoy it and don't sulk easily.

    Also, Pegg may have said that however as it's not in the film or necessary it can be disregarded. Did you seriously think that a behind the scenes comment would hold any water where the others didn't?

    Prove Sulu is younger than Kirk or you've got no leg and no argument.
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    As for your comment about who creates a character: the writer or the Actor/actress? I've dealt with this issue frequently in my work, and:

    - The concept writer creates it (also known as the 'Original Creator').
    - The sub-writers (which means every writer after that point using that character) helps add definition to it.
    - The Actor/Actress only help to give it 'life'. If they actively help the writers, then they'd fall in with sub-writers.
    - Ownership, by legal law, would fall to the original creator and not the sub-writers, unless it was sold to a company or as part of a 'hired-work', in which case a company/entity would own it instead. Actors/Actresses own no part of it as in the contracts they sign, they give over all rights to use their 'face' as that as the character.
    - Actors/Actresses may feel 'Proprietary' rights to a character they've emotionally invested themselves in, but they do not own them, nor are they listed as one of the creators.

    Hope that clears that up for you. :)

    That won't work on Marcus.

    Also actor is a perfectly good and accurate word to describe a person paid to pretend to be somebody else. It is not a gendered word and thus dosn't require feminisation. Nobody will only think you're referring to men if you say actors. The only time you may ever possibly need a feminised or neuter equivalent is if the job or position has the word 'man' in it and that's circumstantial anyway.​​
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »

    [Edit]I forgot to say, Pegg has stated that the Kelvin Incident affected both the future and the past of that universe, so yeah, you're wrong about that too... Just because your idea has Internal Consistency, doesn't 'make it right'...

    you should make note of one little thing here - in the Kelvin Timeline? Nothing was changed from BEFORE the Romulans entered the past. At the very micromoment before the Kelvin ship detected the Romulan one (when the Romulans first broke into the past), the timeline became an Alternate Reality - not before that.

    Nothing else in the arguement pushing for a different past BEFORE that matters. It didn't happen/ wasn't changed.

    You can't argue that it did, simply because the change "Rewrites the past from the point of that change". not before. Only after.


    *shrug*

    As for your comment about who creates a character: the writer or the Actor/actress? I've dealt with this issue frequently in my work, and:

    - The concept writer creates it (also known as the 'Original Creator').
    - The sub-writers (which means every writer after that point using that character) helps add definition to it.
    - The Actor/Actress only help to give it 'life'. If they actively help the writers, then they'd fall in with sub-writers.
    - Ownership, by legal law, would fall to the original creator and not the sub-writers, unless it was sold to a company or as part of a 'hired-work', in which case a company/entity would own it instead. Actors/Actresses own no part of it as in the contracts they sign, they give over all rights to use their 'face' as that as the character.
    - Actors/Actresses may feel 'Proprietary' rights to a character they've emotionally invested themselves in, but they do not own them, nor are they listed as one of the creators.

    Hope that clears that up for you. :)
    Simon Pegg has said otherwise...

    Actually, the point I was making, wasn't about who creates the character, but whose opinions about characters, and the character's creation, can be considered as 'expert opinion', which can't be questioned or over-ruled by a fan's internally consistent theory...

    Nice Article confirming Gene's thoughts on Sulu...
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    I have neither the time, nor the crayons to explain it to you, and you're too arrogant to accept that your opinion is wrong, and has been proven thus by the very people who created the character... Nothing I can say will change your mind or make you see that, so I'm not going to waste further time engaging you on the topic...

    [Edit]I forgot to say, Pegg has stated that the Kelvin Incident affected both the future and the past of that universe, so yeah, you're wrong about that too... Just because your idea has Internal Consistency, doesn't 'make it right'...

    Nope. You have form. You'll be back to dribble your opinions everywhere once you've told yourself what they are. You've bowed out of threads so many times only to jump back in when you've suddenly thought of something you find clever. Just say you need more time to go and think of a rebuttal. You don't need to lie here.

    You have been proven wrong by the very people and their system that defines what is right and wrong in the ST universe... Nothing I can say will change your mind or make you see that, so I'm not going to waste further time engaging you on the topic... Until you come back, then I'll continue because I enjoy it and don't sulk easily.

    Also, Pegg may have said that however as it's not in the film or necessary it can be disregarded. Did you seriously think that a behind the scenes comment would hold any water where the others didn't?

    Prove Sulu is younger than Kirk or you've got no leg and no argument.
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    As for your comment about who creates a character: the writer or the Actor/actress? I've dealt with this issue frequently in my work, and:

    - The concept writer creates it (also known as the 'Original Creator').
    - The sub-writers (which means every writer after that point using that character) helps add definition to it.
    - The Actor/Actress only help to give it 'life'. If they actively help the writers, then they'd fall in with sub-writers.
    - Ownership, by legal law, would fall to the original creator and not the sub-writers, unless it was sold to a company or as part of a 'hired-work', in which case a company/entity would own it instead. Actors/Actresses own no part of it as in the contracts they sign, they give over all rights to use their 'face' as that as the character.
    - Actors/Actresses may feel 'Proprietary' rights to a character they've emotionally invested themselves in, but they do not own them, nor are they listed as one of the creators.

    Hope that clears that up for you. :)

    That won't work on Marcus.

    Also actor is a perfectly good and accurate word to describe a person paid to pretend to be somebody else. It is not a gendered word and thus dosn't require feminisation. Nobody will only think you're referring to men if you say actors. The only time you may ever possibly need a feminised or neuter equivalent is if the job or position has the word 'man' in it and that's circumstantial anyway.​​
    Oh f*ck off, you aspie piece of sh*t...
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)

    That's a non-starter conversation point.

    According to CBS exec's, the first season is already completely paid for thanks to Netflix and the deal with a Canadian Broadcast Co., the "All Access" thingy will just be icing on the cake for CBS.
    Of course they want that to bring in top dollar also, but whether making a Trek show exclusive to it garners that result, remains to be seen.

    Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with their tunnel vision about Sci-Fi, but it's not really a viewpoint strange to this particular company.



    SO, the show will be made come hell or high water, that is a forgone conclusion.

    What really seems to be in question is the quality of said product once delivered.

    And only time will tell on that one also.
    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    That won't work on Marcus.

    Also actor is a perfectly good and accurate word to describe a person paid to pretend to be somebody else. It is not a gendered word and thus dosn't require feminisation. Nobody will only think you're referring to men if you say actors. The only time you may ever possibly need a feminised or neuter equivalent is if the job or position has the word 'man' in it and that's circumstantial anyway.​​

    what can I say? I'm used to dealing with people who get 'particular' about titles. :)
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)

    That's a non-starter conversation.

    According to CBS exec's, the first season is already completely paid for thanks to Netflix and the deal with a Canadian Broadcast Co., the "All Access" thingy will just be icing on the cake for CBS.
    Of course they want that to bring in top dollar also, but whether making a Trek show exclusive to it garners that result, remains to be seen.

    Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with their tunnel vision about Sci-Fi , but it's not really a viewpoint strange to this particular company.

    SO, the show will be made come hell or high water, that is a forgone conclusion.

    What really seems to be in question is the quality of said product once delivered.

    And only time will tell on that one.
    B)
    Space Command's paid for too, but very little seems to be getting done with it ;) Absolutely, time will tell on TRIBBLE, but I have to admit, everything that's happened thus far, doesn't fill me with confidence... :-\

  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    Simon Pegg has said otherwise...

    Actually, the point I was making, wasn't about who creates the character, but whose opinions about characters, and the character's creation, can be considered as 'expert opinion', which can't be questioned or over-ruled by a fan's internally consistent theory...

    Nice Article confirming Gene's thoughts on Sulu...

    not a prob. but in order to have an incendent in which the past being changed at one point also changes the past befor that, you have to arrange the science to support it. It has to pas the Believability Test of Science Fiction. There is one episode - unless I'm thinking of a book - in which an event in ST:G went Backwards in time and destroyed all life on in our part of the Galaxy, but originating in a point of the present. This would cause an alternate reality of the extreme type. Think Q was involved in fixing it, but would have to see it again. There were 3 Picards in that one.

    This just shows that the science needs to support whatever argument is used when dealing with timelines. Science Fans are notoris detail hounds.

    edit:

    Thing about characters, the original creator is the only one who can say anything about a character unless they let someone else add to them. If a company owns that character then the original creator has no voice on the matter and the company now decides what that character may do. Or they may toss all of the concept involving that character out the window and start over from scratch - ie: Multiverse syndrome. See: Marvel X-Men when they went to movies after Marvel sold out.
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)

    That's a non-starter conversation point.

    According to CBS exec's, the first season is already completely paid for thanks to Netflix and the deal with a Canadian Broadcast Co., the "All Access" thingy will just be icing on the cake for CBS.
    Of course they want that to bring in top dollar also, but whether making a Trek show exclusive to it garners that result, remains to be seen.

    Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with their tunnel vision about Sci-Fi, but it's not really a viewpoint strange to this particular company.



    SO, the show will be made come hell or high water, that is a forgone conclusion.

    What really seems to be in question is the quality of said product once delivered.

    And only time will tell on that one also.
    B)

    this. much this. yep.
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    Simon Pegg has said otherwise...

    Actually, the point I was making, wasn't about who creates the character, but whose opinions about characters, and the character's creation, can be considered as 'expert opinion', which can't be questioned or over-ruled by a fan's internally consistent theory...

    Nice Article confirming Gene's thoughts on Sulu...

    not a prob. [bw but in order to have an incendent in which the past being changed at one point also changes the past befor that, you have to arrange the science to support it. It has to pas the Believability Test of Science Fiction. [/b]There is one episode - unless I'm thinking of a book - in which an event in ST:G went Backwards in time and destroyed all life on in our part of the Galaxy, but originating in a point of the present. This would cause an alternate reality of the extreme type. Think Q was involved in fixing it, but would have to see it again. There were 3 Picards in that one.

    This just shows that the science needs to support whatever argument is used when dealing with timelines. Science Fans are notoris detail hounds.

    edit:

    Thing about characters, the original creator is the only one who can say anything about a character unless they let someone else add to them. If a company owns that character then the original creator has no voice on the matter and the company now decides what that character may do. Or they may toss all of the concept involving that character out the window and start over from scratch - ie: Multiverse syndrome. See: Marvel X-Men when they went to movies after Marvel sold out.
    I think 'because the writer says so' has pretty much always been the case with Star Trek ;) And absolutely, the genre does seem to attract more than its fair share of pendanty nit-pickers... ;)

    And re: Your edit, absolutely so, and George Takei has told us (with no reason to be disbelieved) Gene'/ thoughts and feelings about Sulu... I'm happy to accept that Pegg and co took KT Sulu in a different direction (although I disagree with their need to use it as a PR spinner) but their work doesn't change Gene's nor 'fill any gaps', because, as George has stated, Gene's opinions were specific, regardless of if they were shown or not... Artan seems to fail to understand that there is more to a franchise than slavish adherence to the canon of what is shown, and needs to accept and understand that writer's thoughts also carry weight on subjects (not that he has the capacity to grasp that, and so diverts the topic with personal attacks to diminish my validity instead...)

  • jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 9,762 Arc User
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    not a prob. but in order to have an incendent in which the past being changed at one point also changes the past befor that, you have to arrange the science to support it. It has to pas the Believability Test of Science Fiction. There is one episode - unless I'm thinking of a book - in which an event in ST:G went Backwards in time and destroyed all life on in our part of the Galaxy, but originating in a point of the present. This would cause an alternate reality of the extreme type. Think Q was involved in fixing it, but would have to see it again. There were 3 Picards in that one.
    That was the series finale, "All Good Things..." Q initiated an event in the future, when Picard was retired and tending his vineyards, which propagated backwards through time; if Jean-Luc hadn't been able to figure out what was happening as he rebounded back and forth through his now-modified timeline (in which Q did not in fact stop him on the way to Farpoint Station) and put a stop to it by attacking that event at three separate "points" in the timeline, the "end" result would have eliminated all life in this quadrant of the Galaxy about three billion years ago, back when life was first starting to evolve on Earth.

    Artan, this is why I no longer bother to discuss matters of any degree of import with Marcus. When you disprove his points (especially when you echo his own words back to him), he gets personal. Seems to be unwilling to admit error in even the smallest degree.​​
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)

    That's a non-starter conversation.

    According to CBS exec's, the first season is already completely paid for thanks to Netflix and the deal with a Canadian Broadcast Co., the "All Access" thingy will just be icing on the cake for CBS.
    Of course they want that to bring in top dollar also, but whether making a Trek show exclusive to it garners that result, remains to be seen.

    Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with their tunnel vision about Sci-Fi , but it's not really a viewpoint strange to this particular company.

    SO, the show will be made come hell or high water, that is a forgone conclusion.

    What really seems to be in question is the quality of said product once delivered.

    And only time will tell on that one.
    B)
    Space Command's paid for too, but very little seems to be getting done with it ;) Absolutely, time will tell on TRIBBLE, but I have to admit, everything that's happened thus far, doesn't fill me with confidence... :-\

    The thing is there's just a teensy-weensy bit of difference between a kick-starter produced show and one developed and paid for by a major network studio.

    Comparing them is pretty much like apples and oranges.
    Though in this case the apples are about to rot on the tree, while the oranges have just started to blossom.

    Your overt negativity belies the fact that you seemed to have already determined in your own mind, that the failure of Discovery is a foregone conclusion.

    I get that it's apparently not what you want from a new Trek show, but that's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint from someone who conducts themselves as an unabashed fan.
    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »
    daveyny wrote: »



    Such as.....




    Is CBS the real problem with "Star Trek: Discovery's" launch???

    One interesting opinion...


    http://moviepilot.com/p/star-trek-discovery-bryan-fuller-cbs-villain/4161210

    What do you think?

    I have real doubts about this project ever coming to fruition... I think Marc Zicree's Space Command is further forward than TRIBBLE (and he has donors questioning where their money is being used and when anything will be released...)

    That's a non-starter conversation.

    According to CBS exec's, the first season is already completely paid for thanks to Netflix and the deal with a Canadian Broadcast Co., the "All Access" thingy will just be icing on the cake for CBS.
    Of course they want that to bring in top dollar also, but whether making a Trek show exclusive to it garners that result, remains to be seen.

    Personally, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot with their tunnel vision about Sci-Fi , but it's not really a viewpoint strange to this particular company.

    SO, the show will be made come hell or high water, that is a forgone conclusion.

    What really seems to be in question is the quality of said product once delivered.

    And only time will tell on that one.
    B)
    Space Command's paid for too, but very little seems to be getting done with it ;) Absolutely, time will tell on TRIBBLE, but I have to admit, everything that's happened thus far, doesn't fill me with confidence... :-\

    There's just a teensy-weensy bit of difference between a kick-starter produced show and one developed and paid for by a major network studio.

    Comparing them is pretty much like apples and oranges.
    Though in this case the apples are about to rot on the tree, while the oranges have just started to blossom.

    Your overt negativity belies the fact that you seemed to have already determined in your own mind, that the failure of Discovery is a foregone conclusion.

    I get that it's apparently not what you want from a new Trek show, but that's a pretty pessimistic viewpoint from someone who conducts themselves as an unabashed fan.
    B)
    I agree, it's not the closest comparison, all I'm saying, is that TRIBBLE, as you will know, having been posting the releases, has been 'hitting speedbumps', and that gives me concerns for both the future viability of the project, and the potential quality of a finished product...

    Being pessimistic over what seems like a very poorly-organized project, has no bearing on my love of Star Trek, just that my optimism for the series, has been tarnished by the way the production seems to be progressing... As for what I want from a new Trek Show, like I've said before; I actually don't care if there's a new show at all, and am happy with the franchise as it is ;)
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    jonsills wrote: »
    Artan, this is why I no longer bother to discuss matters of any degree of import with Marcus. When you disprove his points (especially when you echo his own words back to him), he gets personal. Seems to be unwilling to admit error in even the smallest degree.​​

    If you actually disproved something I had said, with corroborating evidence, then I would stand corrected: You have never done so. When I called out another poster for using reductio ad absurdum, you jumped in declaring that they were not doing so (which they were) and they then admitted that they were, ergo, your perspectives are questionable... Also, artan was the one who began making the argument personal, and vindictive, I merely responded equally... As I said before, I can accept that because you (and I'm betting he) are on the AS spectrum, that you not only don't see things the way the neurotypical do, but cannot... I don't hold that against you on a personal level... I don't think it makes you any less of a person... I do, however, acknowledge that your opinions and interpretations are not the same as those of neurotypical people, and that you are cognitively disinclined to accept alternate perspectives...

    Prove me wrong, and I will accept it... Argue with me just because you disagree with me, and I will fight you to the ends of the Earth (metaphorically-speaking, of course ;) )

    I've provided a link above which has George's (and Gene's) opinions on Sulu's sexuality... So unless you want to get a ouija board and contact Gene in the Great Beyond, and get him to tell me personally, I'm going to accept George's word as unquestionable, and final on the subject (of Gene's intentions and thoughts for Prime Sulu)

    Peace \\//_
  • artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited December 2016

    Personal attacks and and attempt to use aspergers as an insult and to somebody who isn't? You're a piece of work you know.
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Also actor is a perfectly good and accurate word to describe a person paid to pretend to be somebody else. It is not a gendered word and thus dosn't require feminisation. Nobody will only think you're referring to men if you say actors. The only time you may ever possibly need a feminised or neuter equivalent is if the job or position has the word 'man' in it and that's circumstantial anyway.​​

    what can I say? I'm used to dealing with people who get 'particular' about titles. :)

    I don't know anyone who would object to a neuter term like actor.
    Artan seems to fail to understand that there is more to a franchise than slavish adherence to the canon of what is shown, and needs to accept and understand that writer's thoughts also carry weight on subjects (not that he has the capacity to grasp that
    And you need to realise that canon is the basic ground work on which debates start. It dosn't exist for personal gratification. It's for level ground.
    and so diverts the topic with personal attacks to diminish my validity instead...

    I think you're getting a little confused.

    [Removed a post breaking Forum rules]
    jonsills wrote: »
    Artan, this is why I no longer bother to discuss matters of any degree of import with Marcus. When you disprove his points (especially when you echo his own words back to him), he gets personal. Seems to be unwilling to admit error in even the smallest degree.​​

    True, but I dislike leaving points raised unanswered. I probably should have learnt by now :).


    On other notes, I'm really interested to see what the producers mean my reimagining of classic races or species. Similar to how the Klingons changed between TOS and TMP. It might be interesting to see the whole Cage era on a real budget and fully realised modern imagination and CGI.
    Post edited by jodarkrider on
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.

    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    [Post breaking Forum rules removed]

    Post edited by jodarkrider on
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    jonsills wrote: »
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    not a prob. but in order to have an incendent in which the past being changed at one point also changes the past befor that, you have to arrange the science to support it. It has to pas the Believability Test of Science Fiction. There is one episode - unless I'm thinking of a book - in which an event in ST:G went Backwards in time and destroyed all life on in our part of the Galaxy, but originating in a point of the present. This would cause an alternate reality of the extreme type. Think Q was involved in fixing it, but would have to see it again. There were 3 Picards in that one.
    That was the series finale, "All Good Things..." Q initiated an event in the future, when Picard was retired and tending his vineyards, which propagated backwards through time; if Jean-Luc hadn't been able to figure out what was happening as he rebounded back and forth through his now-modified timeline (in which Q did not in fact stop him on the way to Farpoint Station) and put a stop to it by attacking that event at three separate "points" in the timeline, the "end" result would have eliminated all life in this quadrant of the Galaxy about three billion years ago, back when life was first starting to evolve on Earth.

    Thx. I couldn't remember it. One thing I am not good at is names. Personal flaw. ;)
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    And with that, I will once again request that the personal chit be dialed back to a level of hygienic civility, equal to a guys locker room with a Lady present.

    Let's all just take a breath and remember what the great Lebowski once said...



    "Fan-hitting chit, covers everyone in lane, so remember to cover your ducks"


    B)

    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • daveynydaveyny Member Posts: 8,227 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    And here is the most recent Star Trek: Discovery news release from CBS themselves...
    (sorry, I missed this one back on the 29th)

    http://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek-discovery/news/1006213/doug-jones-michelle-yeoh-and-anthony-rapp-cast-in-star-trek-discovery/


    Interesting to note that the "Official" release of the casting news includes no mention of "Lt. Fun-guy" as a G A Y character.
    (though the nickname I've conscripted does affirm the undertones of a "lighthearted & carefree" character)
    B)
    STO Member since February 2009.
    I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
    Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
    upside-down-banana-smiley-emoticon.gif
  • marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited December 2016
    [Derailing post removed]

    Post edited by jodarkrider on
  • wendysue53wendysue53 Member Posts: 1,569 Arc User
    artan42 wrote: »
    wendysue53 wrote: »
    artan42 wrote: »
    Also actor is a perfectly good and accurate word to describe a person paid to pretend to be somebody else. It is not a gendered word and thus dosn't require feminisation. Nobody will only think you're referring to men if you say actors. The only time you may ever possibly need a feminised or neuter equivalent is if the job or position has the word 'man' in it and that's circumstantial anyway.​​

    what can I say? I'm used to dealing with people who get 'particular' about titles. :)

    I don't know anyone who would object to a neuter term like actor.

    It's not a major thing, and it's become more common to use actor for actress. But... Unless you actually work with actresses for any length of time, you probably wouldn't run into it being an issue - and it can be one. Esspecially with those who fought for the title to distinguish themselves. I usually run into it with voice actresses, young people, or those who had to fight for notice among the 'old' crowd.

    artist, designers, developers and others can be just as bad about some things. And I'm not saying they are all bad about it, just some. Doesn't matter if it's stage, film, game, or voice. As one lady put it, "I'm not a man in drag".

    But I'd rather not tread toes on a minor thing.
This discussion has been closed.