1901 replies to this topic

[s8film40]

I just saw this. Another nail in the coffin for this being any sort of real Star Trek. It's seems more and more apparent to me this is going to be a heavy character drama that just happens to be set it something that looks like it's in the world of Star Wars with the name Star Trek.

http://ew.com/tv/201...iscovery-rules/

[Alteran195]

Just because there is going to be character drama doesn't mean it cant tell a Star Trek story. 

[s8film40]

Just because there is going to be character drama doesn't mean it cant tell a Star Trek story. 

Yeah the little part of me that is trying to be optimistic believes that, but it's not looking good.

So far they've ripped every kind of thing that identifies this as Star Trek out and now where left holding on to this desperate hope that at least the core of the stories will still be Star Trek stories. It's a big stretch, but we'll see I guess.

[Whirlygig]

Well the show also has so far given me the feeling that its more of an in-group vs. out-group, political, aliens as a stand in for current global boogeymen, etc type story. Which is nice to get once in awhile (see Undiscovered Country) but I'd prefer the show to lean more on sci-fi specific stories that can't be told in other genres.

[robster]

I'm actually looking forward to STD. Probably because of all the negative nit-picking it's getting,lol! And if those round things in the transporter room don't spin when in use I'm gonna be VERY disappointed! LOL!

And btw,it's Spider-Man,not Spiderman. At least get names right when you post your essays,lol!

[Morgan]

Oh man, are these old SeaQuest DSV uniforms that they got out of storage?

 

The transporter: I don't even know where to begin.

 

Visually, very few things seem to be from Star Trek. Production design seems to have been done by people who heard about Star Trek from people who had seen an episode of Enterprise once on a red-eye flight a decade ago, while really hungover from an IPA that was waaay too hoppy: "So Captain Bakula and Spock's daughter T-Pau battle an alien race of dolphins called Zinndy, and they all have blue uniforms with belts and a laser pistol."

 

It doesn't look bad per se, it's just so different.

[Jay K]

One thing it absolutely isn't, is Star Trek prime. The guys from Trekyards said they've seen concept art that they obviously can't talk about yet, but that in their opinion solidifies their stance that this is yet another reboot of the franchise. They (and others) are saying that the 'prime' label is just being used to draw fans of the older shows to the new one, which after seeing the trailer and set pictures, I can really believe, and is something I feel is quite dishonest of them (CBS). :/

[1701D]

The Trekyards guys have said it's a visual reboot. The stories and characters are based in the prime timeline as has been stated by CBS/writers etc...

One things for sure it's going to start visually different than TOS but a lot can change over the course of a TV series and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those things was the visual aesthetic of he show to be more in keeping with TOS.

I think the information they will get back is that fans enjoy the series but don't understand how this fits into the original.

Maybe TOS isn't considered canon?

[Gothneo]

I actually kinda like the TWOK uniforms the best... seems like everyone feels the need to tweak them.. even from movie to movie these days, but once they settled on the TWOK uniforms, it was kinda nice they stuck with them through the movies. 

 

I think if they wanna do a prequel to TOS, then stick with TOS uni's... one of the mistakes I think Enterprise made too.

[1701D]

You know, Star Trek isn't ours.

I think a lot of us here are guilty of thinking that we have ownership over this franchise. Why wouldn't we? It was Star Trek fans who saved the show, it was Star Trek fans who kept it alive and it was Star Trek fans who are ultimately the ones who began nerd culture as we see it today.

There's a lot to be proud of if you're a Star Trek fan.

Yet there are things that don't hold us in very good light and while other fandoms are just as vocal and disapproving, Star Trek has perhaps relied on us solely for too long, giving us the belief that it can't surely exist without appealing to the hard core fans... that it simply isn't Star Trek if it doesn't appeal to us...

I have said this before and the same applies now; Star Trek is and means something different to every one of us. To hopefully a new generation of fan, Star Trek: Discovery will be their Star Trek.

This franchise and its history will shortly become the care of another generation. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man... where no *one* has gone before...

Star Trek is us. But Star Trek is also something more, something none of us can explain or understand. For us to appreciate all that this franchise is and could be, I guess we have to accept that it must evolve into something that may be alien to many of us, as the Kelvin Timeline movies have been. It can't just be a nostalgic return to the TOS world many grew up with and fell in love with. It, unlike Star Wars, perhaps doesn't deserve to pander to nostalgia when Star Trek's point has always been to tell people something about themselves and humanity as a whole.

[s8film40]

And btw,it's Spider-Man,not Spiderman. At least get names right when you post your essays,lol!

 
That's good to know. I don't really follow comic book characters that much and this is the most common official occurrence I see of the name on a regular basis.

I will accept your nitpick and correct my future use of the name.

Maybe TOS isn't considered canon?

 
 

You know, Star Trek isn't ours.
 

Star Trek is an idea no one can own it. It isn't ours and it isn't CBS's either. CBS owns the legal rights to distribute work and products with the name. Star Trek is something a little different to everyone and everyone owns that idea that they have of what Star Trek is.
 
When it comes to canon it isn't really a matter of picking something to set as canon. Canon is established in what the general audiences know of as Star Trek. It's kind of similar to when a filmmaker makes a period film. Once they choose a set time period for their story they have a set of rules to follow. How strictly they follow them is where the skillfulness of the filmmaker comes into play. The key is you want to keep your audience engaged in and believing the story. Sacrifices are often made sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. If 99.9% of the audience will see no issues than the filmmaker has done a great job. Obviously some historian out there would be able to nitpick tiny details. For example if a car from a year ahead of the time period of the movie was shown most people might not notice, but some would. If a major historical event that is well known was altered and the vast majority of the audience notices then this will be a problem. Not because they broke a rule and we as an audience want them to follow these rules. It's because it becomes a distraction to the story and hinders the filmmakers ability to tell the story. The intelligent viewer will notice something out of place and their mind will begin to think about this problem, is the problem going to be explained, was it intentional and/or what are the consequences of that change. If it goes unanswered then it leaves a lingering feeling like something was off and also separates it from the continuity it's supposed to be set in. Some viewers will have a more simple minded approach, watch the story enjoy it and move on without any issues.
 
So in short, is TOS canon? The answer to that is, only to the fans who are familiar with it and accept it as part of the Star Trek universe. As for many of the changes to the continuity of the Star Trek universe that we've seen so far, if they aren't adequately explained in the story represent very poor filming technique. If so will this hurt the show? Maybe, maybe not we'll see.

[Alteran195]

CBS owns Star Trek.

They can do whatever they want with it.

They can change whatever they want.

They can ignore whatever they want.

They could wipe everything out, or completely change everything about it.

Star Trek is an intellectual property that is owned and distributed by CBS.

Regardless of what they do with Star Trek, there will be people who love it and people who hate it, and don't consider it Star Trek.

Just like everything that's come before.

Star Trek of course means different things to different people, but that doesn't mean they have any say in what CBS does with it.

[robster]

LOL s8film40!! I see that mistake all the time. Not really a nit-pick though,just getting a name right. I do the same to people who get my name wrong,which is also with a hyphen. It's all about the hyphen,lol! But names are kinda easy to get worng. George Reeves - Christopher Reeve is a very common one,nowadays it's new Spidey kid Tom Holland and Tom Hollander,which I got mixed up once on a different forum and was told promptly who's who,LOL! Well,not mixed up,just basically asking who's T.Hollander and did you mean T.Holland,lol.

 

But back on topic. I STILL have the feeling this is in the new movie timeline. They can deny it all they want,not like they haven't done THAT before! Hopefully there'll be a lot of hype at Comic-Con. CBS REALLY should have a  booth there so I can go by and pester them for info,lol! And give out freebies like that recent poster and delta shileds and whatnot.

[1701D]

Star Trek is an idea no one can own it. It isn't ours and it isn't CBS's either. CBS owns the legal rights to distribute work and products with the name. Star Trek is something a little different to everyone and everyone owns that idea that they have of what Star Trek is.

And like it or not Discovery will become a part of that idea. And will become someone else's idea of what Star Trek is to them.
 

When it comes to canon it isn't really a matter of picking something to set as canon. Canon is established in what the general audiences know of as Star Trek. It's kind of similar to when a filmmaker makes a period film. Once they choose a set time period for their story they have a set of rules to follow. How strictly they follow them is where the skillfulness of the filmmaker comes into play. The key is you want to keep your audience engaged in and believing the story. Sacrifices are often made sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident. If 99.9% of the audience will see no issues than the filmmaker has done a great job. Obviously some historian out there would be able to nitpick tiny details. For example if a car from a year ahead of the time period of the movie was shown most people might not notice, but some would. If a major historical event that is well known was altered and the vast majority of the audience notices then this will be a problem. Not because they broke a rule and we as an audience want them to follow these rules. It's because it becomes a distraction to the story and hinders the filmmakers ability to tell the story. The intelligent viewer will notice something out of place and their mind will begin to think about this problem, is the problem going to be explained, was it intentional and/or what are the consequences of that change. If it goes unanswered then it leaves a lingering feeling like something was off and also separates it from the continuity it's supposed to be set in. Some viewers will have a more simple minded approach, watch the story enjoy it and move on without any issues.

I'd like to say that intelligence has nothing to do with it. I think that's being a little harsh and a little cynical. I would say that there are those who are intelligent who loved the Abrams movies because ultimately it isn't about someone's intelligence.

To many, the JJ Abrams movies are what they would prefer as Star Trek than TNG. accepting that it is all Star Trek but their preferred version being that of Abrams movies. Those people aren't dumb for thinking that or wanting that style of Star Trek, just as fans who grew up on TOS or TNG are dumb for preferring that style of Star Trek.

Canon and continuity in Star Trek has clearly been messed with in Discovery - that's my beef with this show - why make a show that doesn't seemingly tie into any aspect of Star Trek? Why set it in the prime universe and not respect the continuity of said timeline? That to me makes no sense.

But again, Discovery is clearly an attempt to set a Star Trek in the prime timeline but have it look like a mix of Kelvin Timeline aesthetics and other popular sci-if such as Mass Effect. To me that's a bonkers decision and one that I'm sure will be corrected as the series progresses.
 

So in short, is TOS canon? The answer to that is, only to the fans who are familiar with it and accept it as part of the Star Trek universe. As for many of the changes to the continuity of the Star Trek universe that we've seen so far, if they aren't adequately explained in the story represent very poor filming technique. If so will this hurt the show? Maybe, maybe not we'll see.

I agree.

[1701D]

The more I hear about the utter turmoil the Han Solo movie seems to be throwing up regarding Licasfilm's handling of Star Wars, the more I think we may be the luckier of the two fan bases... we might not like what cbs are doing or Paramount but at least it seems both studios can accommodate different styles of Star Trek. That's got to be a good thing.

[MisterPL]

I could have sworn I saw parts of that transporter set on the <em>Franklin</em> in <em>Star Trek Beyond.</em> I'll have to take another look.

[s8film40]

I'd like to say that intelligence has nothing to do with it. I think that's being a little harsh and a little cynical. I would say that there are those who are intelligent who loved the Abrams movies because ultimately it isn't about someone's intelligence.

To many, the JJ Abrams movies are what they would prefer as Star Trek than TNG. accepting that it is all Star Trek but their preferred version being that of Abrams movies. Those people aren't dumb for thinking that or wanting that style of Star Trek, just as fans who grew up on TOS or TNG are dumb for preferring that style of Star Trek.

Canon and continuity in Star Trek has clearly been messed with in Discovery - that's my beef with this show - why make a show that doesn't seemingly tie into any aspect of Star Trek? Why set it in the prime universe and not respect the continuity of said timeline? That to me makes no sense.

But again, Discovery is clearly an attempt to set a Star Trek in the prime timeline but have it look like a mix of Kelvin Timeline aesthetics and other popular sci-if such as Mass Effect. To me that's a bonkers decision and one that I'm sure will be corrected as the series progresses.

It's not about liking different styles or not. It's about the story fitting together in a logical way. With the Abrams movies they attempted to explain the change in style. Personally I thought it was a fairly lame excuse and really couldn't get past it enough to enjoy the movies. It really comes down to just the basics of filmmaking. There are rules you follow in filmmaking to tell a story in the best way possible. The Abrams movies decided to depart from that quite a bit and it's appearing like Discovery is as well in a much worse way.

 

The Abrams movies and Discovery potentially have a very different audience though. The Abrams movies were targeting the general public who for the most part will look past the changes and not be bothered by it or not even realize them in the first place. Even many of the fans are a little more inclined to look the other way when they see inconsistencies in the movies since they're not investing much time into them. The series on the other hand is apparently trying to bring in a new audience in much the way the movies did. To me that's a far riskier move. I'm not so sure they'll be able to bring in that kind of audience even with a serialized character drama format. The fans also will be a little more critical of a series and have more time to notice all the issues. They could very well just find that will trying to strike a balance they've lost both audiences.

[1701D]

It's not about liking different styles or not. It's about the story fitting together in a logical way. With the Abrams movies they attempted to explain the change in style. Personally I thought it was a fairly lame excuse and really couldn't get past it enough to enjoy the movies. It really comes down to just the basics of filmmaking. There are rules you follow in filmmaking to tell a story in the best way possible. The Abrams movies decided to depart from that quite a bit and it's appearing like Discovery is as well in a much worse way.

For me though, Discovery let's itself down by not "looking" like the logical precursor to TOS. Maybe that will be explained.

As for the Abrams movies. I think the explanation was fine, it was the execution of the explanation that this was an alternate universe that let those movies down. The aesthetics were too far removed from TOS in certain ways and there was too much emphasis on making these movies cool and more Star Warsy.

In terms of storytelling. We really don't know what or how Discovery will be evolving. From what I've heard other the last week, has really changed my mind on the show in terms of the story - I think the storylines will be very much in keeping with traditional Star Trek storytelling with a few understandable exceptions (conflict among the crew) due to the fact this a modern TV drama.
 

The Abrams movies and Discovery potentially have a very different audience though. The Abrams movies were targeting the general public who for the most part will look past the changes and not be bothered by it or not even realize them in the first place. Even many of the fans are a little more inclined to look the other way when they see inconsistencies in the movies since they're not investing much time into them. The series on the other hand is apparently trying to bring in a new audience in much the way the movies did. To me that's a far riskier move. I'm not so sure they'll be able to bring in that kind of audience even with a serialized character drama format. The fans also will be a little more critical of a series and have more time to notice all the issues. They could very well just find that will trying to strike a balance they've lost both audiences.

For me the series needs to get the fanbase on side. For the most part, I think the fans are willing to give Discovery a chance but we won't know until we've watched it, whether or not it deserves our loyalty. As for a general audience, for the rest of the world; most people already have Netflix. As long as it is marketed well and keeps viewers gripped, I don't think it's going to be a problem to get a new audience to tune in.

Where that becomes more of a challenge is in the US. It's not Star Trek they have to sell to a mass audience, it's All Access. Star Trek needs to look good enough to the already Star Trek fans and All Access needs to look good for everyone else in order for them to generate a new American fan base for Star Trek - though I think if it is liked by the rest of the world, the American audience will cotton on and want to watch this show - either trough All Access or through pirated means.

The question is; have they gone too far to make it look new and cool rather than respecting what that period of Star Trek should look like. It could be a costly mistake if what people are most hating about the show is that it doesn't look like Star Trek of that time period and as a result confuses both audiences who would of tuned in, to tune out.

[1701D]

Good news! Jonathan Frakes will be directing episodes of Star Trek: Discovery!

[MisterPL]

Good for Jon. That might bring in a certain audience but CBS is clearly more interested in attracting the audience that made the last three movies the highest grossing films of the franchise.