Star Trek: Discovery - Pre-release discussion [** NO SPOILERS **]

knucklehead6

Myrddin wrote: »

Enterprise shoehorned the Borg in very well actually, but dear god they really pushed the boat out shoehorning in the Ferengi. Good points though, and it already shows some of the limitations of a prequel series

The enterprise Borg episodes were totally plausible. Well plausible in a Sci Fi way, a natural follow on from the events of FC.

bajer101

I'm loving how people are starting to talk about real Trek trivia :-) It's a sign that we are all excited about this and are looking forward to it.

Antar Bolaeisk

bajer101 wrote: »

I'm loving how people are starting to talk about real Trek trivia :-) It's a sign that we are all excited about this and are looking forward to it.

For comparison's sake have a look around for the thread on the new film coming out in a couple of months.

TheRealPONeill

why

Kiith

Weyoun was written specifically for Combs, as they liked him so much. He played it absolutely perfectly as well, and Weyoun was a great character.

degrassinoel

was just thinking, If Axanar is in legal trouble atm and the new series is due next year, and with the hints at when this new trek is taking place, it could actually be Garth of Izar, that or it's taking place in that exact timeline

AMKC

Very quite in here of late so I done a bit of snopping and found this

http://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2016/04/25/new-star-trek-series-start-filming-september/

Hope its true.

also

http://www.startrek.com/article/khan-directors-edition-coming-to-blu-ray

A classic should look awesome on blu-ray.

Anyone else come across any interesting news or articles lately.

Sonics2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpPweAooeE

The hype is so very real. Rumours have been stating the series will be placed between Star Trek VI and The Next Generation.

I honestly cannot wait.

Agent Coulson

FutureGuy

Agent Coulson wrote: »

The fact they say "new crews" and not "new crew" puts further weight behind an anthology

GhostMutt30

Oh dear now I'm very excited

syklops

Sonics2k wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpPweAooeE

The hype is so very real. Rumours have been stating the series will be placed between Star Trek VI and The Next Generation.

I honestly cannot wait.

For the first few seconds of that trailer, I thought it was a trailer for a spoof. Voice over guy in voice over mode, grand music, I was honestly expecting to hear a pop and then Kermit the Frog would appear in a starfleet uniform.

Don't get me wrong Im excited about a new trek series, but that so called trailer was so OTT it was like how they upsell comedy and spoof movies. There was a trailer for Garfield which took the piss out of Spider-man which came out around the same time which was like this.

TheIrishGrover

Combs was so great on DS9. I can't remember the name of the Ferengi character he played but I loved that, in one episode, he played both characters and the credits at the start just said: Jeffrey Combs as Wayoun. Jeffrey Combs as "What's-his-name"

As for the new series regarding this whole multiple timeline thing: I didn't look back through this thread but just wondering if someone brought up the whole temporal war thing from enterprise. Could have one crew shortly after enterprise timeline and one after next gen time and cross contamination of both timelines.
I would prefer an anthology series (With a very central story arc covering them all) but just wondering if they were thinking down that temporal war path (I hope not).

Possibly it's following that whole secret agency group from DS9 (Sector something-or-other) over years and years as they fight against a single thus-far-top secret enemy.

MarkAnthony

It rather conveniently rhymed with c... :pac:

AtomicHorror

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Heroes and villains. Comic book morality.

I am feeling less optimistic.

H3llR4iser

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Heroes and villains. Comic book morality.

I am feeling less optimistic.

Well, they need to cater for today's, how to say, less-mentally-engaged average TV audience, especially stateside (remember, the ones who can't find the US on a world map), so I suspect it will inevitably be a bit more "black & white" morally speaking, than the incarnations of the past. You actually see this more or less anywhere in ultra-mainstream media...

I mean, we live in an era where "movie critics" can't understand the concept of "flashback" and write vitriol-filled pieces about the "speceship from the beginning of the movie disappearing and never being menitoned again" when reviewing Batman Vs. Superman...

FutureGuy

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Heroes and villains. Comic book morality.

I am feeling less optimistic.

This trailer is keeping the general audience in mind.

Apparently there are easter eggs hidden in the trailer. One person suggests that the first planet symbolises Praxis and the star represents Veridian III from STVI and Generations, respectively which hints at the time of the piece. Think it's a bit wishywashy myself - anyone else spot anything?

AtomicHorror

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, they need to cater for today's, how to say, less-mentally-engaged average TV audience, especially stateside (remember, the ones who can't find the US on a world map), so I suspect it will inevitably be a bit more "black & white" morally speaking, than the incarnations of the past. You actually see this more or less anywhere in ultra-mainstream media...

I mean, we live in an era where "movie critics" can't understand the concept of "flashback" and write vitriol-filled pieces about the "speceship from the beginning of the movie disappearing and never being menitoned again" when reviewing Batman Vs. Superman...

Game of Thrones has a highly complex take on morality and a plot so convoluted it is sometimes challenging even for the very attentive. It is the most popular genre show in at least a decade, and that includes a huge US audience.

I don't buy the argument that audiences are dumber than they were in some far-off golden age. I don't buy the argument that American audiences are dumber than European ones. I don't buy the argument that critics don't "get" genre film and TV. They "get" GoT just fine. They also loved Nolan's Batman films. If they hated Batman V Superman, I'm inclined to believe that's probably because it lacked the depth and complexity that modern critics and audiences in fact demand.

We absolutely shouldn't make any excuses for a dumbed-down Star Trek.

Hopefully it's just a dodgy trailer.

MarkAnthony

FutureGuy wrote: »

This trailer is keeping the general audience in mind.

Apparently there are easter eggs hidden in the trailer. One person suggests that the first planet symbolises Praxis and the star represents Veridian III from STVI and Generations, respectively which hints at the time of the piece. Think it's a bit wishywashy myself - anyone else spot anything?

Didn't spot R2D2 but I haven't watched it frame by frame... yet :pac:

AMKC

syklops wrote: »

For the first few seconds of that trailer, I thought it was a trailer for a spoof. Voice over guy in voice over mode, grand music, I was honestly expecting to hear a pop and then Kermit the Frog would appear in a starfleet uniform.

Don't get me wrong Im excited about a new trek series, but that so called trailer was so OTT it was like how they upsell comedy and spoof movies. There was a trailer for Garfield which took the piss out of Spider-man which came out around the same time which was like this.

Really. I do not see anything wrong with this trailer at all. It is getting people and keeping people interested. I actually think it is a very simple but cool trailer and at the same time it teases us about where the next adventures are going to be and has a little bit of Star Trek history in it that we all know about via the Praxis moon and the Amargosa star.

The_Valeyard

I liked it.

AMKC

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Combs was so great on DS9. I can't remember the name of the Ferengi character he played but I loved that, in one episode, he played both characters and the credits at the start just said: Jeffrey Combs as Wayoun. Jeffrey Combs as "What's-his-name"

As for the new series regarding this whole multiple timeline thing: I didn't look back through this thread but just wondering if someone brought up the whole temporal war thing from enterprise. Could have one crew shortly after enterprise timeline and one after next gen time and cross contamination of both timelines.
I would prefer an anthology series (With a very central story arc covering them all) but just wondering if they were thinking down that temporal war path (I hope not).

Possibly it's following that whole secret agency group from DS9 (Sector something-or-other) over years and years as they fight against a single thus-far-top secret enemy.

They are called Section 31.
I really hope its an anthology series as that will make everyone well most people happy anyway and if its successful maybe they will go further and maybe go a decade or two after the events of Nemesis too. Maybe they should let people vote how many decades after Nemesis they should start when they get that far into it.

ScumLord

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Game of Thrones has a highly complex take on morality and a plot so convoluted it is sometimes challenging even for the very attentive. It is the most popular genre show in at least a decade, and that includes a huge US audience.

Game of thrones made it's audience away from TV so it was somewhat restricted, it's the same for many books that make their way to TV, the producers are held in check by the audience they're aiming for.

It's also made by HBO who have made themselves known for not following the trend when it comes to TV. Most TV shows are complete dross where you can see the entire episode laid out for you in the description in the TV guide.

I think the only reason standards are so low is that people have become accustomed to it. Even the likes of Breaking Bad came up against a lot of confusion, it took a while for people to get into it and many constantly complained that it wasn't fast paced enough.

It's certainly taken a swing in the other direction but I still feel like the majority of TV shows are only following trends and aren't really willing to make a story like breaking bad or game of thrones, they'll make a show that looks the part but the stories are still as safe as they can be.

Generally producers need to stop giving the people what they want because the peoples standards are so low they only know how to ask for shyte.

MarkAnthony

Section 31 and there's no way we're going to get as many tits as GoT :pac:

If anything they should mercilessly rip off BSG.

H3llR4iser

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Game of Thrones has a highly complex take on morality and a plot so convoluted it is sometimes challenging even for the very attentive. It is the most popular genre show in at least a decade, and that includes a huge US audience.

I haven't watched much of Game of Thrones, I don't doubt it has its complexities; Keep in mind however that it doesn't have scientific (albeit fake) undertones which, alone, have been a powerful deterrent for general audiences in the last decade or so.

I personally find GoT boring and unappealing so I would be fairly confident it uses its complexities in a very different way than in the "classic" Star Trek, which I find very entertaining.

On the other hand, going on a limb I would say sex, nudity, violence and power struggle do attract a lot of the current audience to the show. What would happen if the complexities stayed the same, but all of the aforementioned was taken away? Would people still watch? Some would, some would not.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I don't buy the argument that audiences are dumber than they were in some far-off golden age. I don't buy the argument that American audiences are dumber than European ones. I don't buy the argument that critics don't "get" genre film and TV.

Just look at the stuff on TV - everything has to be "domesticated" one way or another, simplified, made to bite-size. They make comic-superhero based series and reshape the characters so much it's often impossible to recognize them if you are a comic reader. Maybe Game of Thrones isn't, but maybe is and it's just better than the rest.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

They "get" GoT just fine. They also loved Nolan's Batman films. If they hated Batman V Superman, I'm inclined to believe that's probably because it lacked the depth and complexity that modern critics and audiences in fact demand.

Sorry but no, just no. Some critics have very valid points, but many simply can't understand anything that is not explicitly stated. I mentioned that specific movie and quote because it's the most bright demonstration; A number of reviewers essentially couldn't understand that the opening scenes were referring to "Man of Steel". Nor they could understand the whole "Marta" scene - it's a simple, campy and a bit silly scene, yet loads of Internet review go on about "they just stop fighting because their mothers have the same name!". This is being unable to figure out even the most basic stuff.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

We absolutely shouldn't make any excuses for a dumbed-down Star Trek.

Hopefully it's just a dodgy trailer.

Hopefully. However, I do have a feeling that a show with certain complexities, science-inspired, not featuring a lot of sex-nudity-maiming, not having a who-sleeps-with-whom chick flick vibe, won't survive at all on TV today. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be an "Us vs them" affair; But maybe they'll surprise everyone and pull a whole series of "In the pale moonlight" and similar...

H3llR4iser

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Section 31 and there's no way we're going to get as many tits as GoT :pac:

If anything they should mercilessly rip off BSG.

Absolutely! So I can root for the cylons <insert new villains> again!

MarkAnthony

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Absolutely! So I can root for the cylons <insert new villains> again!

A world with enough Tricia Helfers, Grace Parks and Lucy Lawlesses to go around... sign me up.

AtomicHorror

ScumLord wrote: »

Game of thrones made it's audience away from TV so it was somewhat restricted, it's the same for many books that make their way to TV, the producers are held in check by the audience they're aiming for.

It's also made by HBO who have made themselves known for not following the trend when it comes to TV. Most TV shows are complete dross where you can see the entire episode laid out for you in the description in the TV guide.

I think the only reason standards are so low is that people have become accustomed to it. Even the likes of Breaking Bad came up against a lot of confusion, it took a while for people to get into it and many constantly complained that it wasn't fast paced enough.

It's certainly taken a swing in the other direction but I still feel like the majority of TV shows are only following trends and aren't really willing to make a story like breaking bad or game of thrones, they'll make a show that looks the part but the stories are still as safe as they can be.

Generally producers need to stop giving the people what they want because the peoples standards are so low they only know how to ask for shyte.

But this is my point. GoT and Breaking Bad lead the audience instead of following them, whatever the motivation for that was (and GoT may have had the book audience to appeal to, but it needed to find a new audience as well to survive).

Star Trek should never be a show that follows the audience. It shouldn't be in the majority of shows that do so. It's predecessors took risks (well TOS, TNG and DS9 did) and in the case of TOS, fell foul of them. That's the Star Trek I love.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I haven't watched much of Game of Thrones, I don't doubt it has its complexities; Keep in mind however that it doesn't have scientific (albeit fake) undertones which, alone, have been a powerful deterrent for general audiences in the last decade or so.

It's fantasy, which was just as unfashionable even after the LOTR adaptations spawned more fantasy on TV.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I personally find GoT boring and unappealing so I would be fairly confident it uses its complexities in a very different way than in the "classic" Star Trek, which I find very entertaining.

Not really the point. The point is that there's a substantial audience out there for complex stories with complex morality- something that doesn't sit well with a "heroes and villains" worldview.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

On the other hand, going on a limb I would say sex, nudity, violence and power struggle do attract a lot of the current audience to the show. What would happen if the complexities stayed the same, but all of the aforementioned was taken away? Would people still watch? Some would, some would not.

Undoubtedly, but I think you'd win some of them back (and others) with that complexity married to the elements familiar to Star Trek.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Just look at the stuff on TV - everything has to be "domesticated" one way or another, simplified, made to bite-size. They make comic-superhero based series and reshape the characters so much it's often impossible to recognize them if you are a comic reader. Maybe Game of Thrones isn't, but maybe is and it's just better than the rest.

I'm not sure of your point here. Look at how bad things are, therefore it has to suck to survive? To paraphrase GoT itself, it's easy to mistake what is, for what should be.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Sorry but no, just no. Some critics have very valid points, but many simply can't understand anything that is not explicitly stated. I mentioned that specific movie and quote because it's the most bright demonstration; A number of reviewers essentially couldn't understand that the opening scenes were referring to "Man of Steel". Nor they could understand the whole "Marta" scene - it's a simple, campy and a bit silly scene, yet loads of Internet review go on about "they just stop fighting because their mothers have the same name!". This is being unable to figure out even the most basic stuff.

The Nolan Batman films had plenty of assumed knowledge in there too, but they somehow didn't lose the more casual critics, and the stories weren't in any way debased in order retain the audience.

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Hopefully. However, I do have a feeling that a show with certain complexities, science-inspired, not featuring a lot of sex-nudity-maiming, not having a who-sleeps-with-whom chick flick vibe, won't survive at all on TV today.

Better to go out like Firefly than stick around like some of the bland dross we see renewed for 12 seasons. But that said, if Firefly had launched with the pre-existing brand recognition of Star Trek, it would have lived far longer. The producers of Star Trek can choose to see that huge legacy as a burden or risk and play it safe, or as an opportunity to take a risk... and lead.

H3llR4iser

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Well, they need to cater for today's, how to say, less-mentally-engaged average TV audience, especially stateside (remember, the ones who can't find the US on a world map), so I suspect it will inevitably be a bit more "black & white" morally speaking, than the incarnations of the past. You actually see this more or less anywhere in ultra-mainstream media...

I mean, we live in an era where "movie critics" can't understand the concept of "flashback" and write vitriol-filled pieces about the "speceship from the beginning of the movie disappearing and never being menitoned again" when reviewing Batman Vs. Superman...

Wow I couldn't disagree anymore with your assessment of what is currently being produced for TV. We are now in the golden age. The dawn of TV on demand has shifted writing away from episodic style where everything has to go back to normal at the end of each episode. Unfortunately almost all of Star Trek falls into this category. People now watch a series the whole way through without missing any episodes, as such the writers can create far more complex characters with story arcs spanning over 10 hours with enormous crescendos (red wedding?) rather than being restricted to 2 hours of film or 1 hour bottle episodes. This existed before (Sopranos, The Wire, Twin Peaks) but is thankfully becoming more prevalent. The amount of A-list actors moving towards TV is reflecting this. I just hope to god this new series follows the trend of a continuous evolving story-line. It will be the difference between me watching this or ignoring it. I watched firefly recently and was massively put off by its episodic nature. All the tension is removed when you know a newly introduced character will be gone by the end of the episode.

Beefy78

Even in the 90s that shift to sweeping, long-term plots had happened. Voyager very deliberately chose not to go down that road because of the syndication model. They just wanted people to be able to switch on, watch an episode and not necessarily understand at which point it lived in the span of the continuity.