1901 replies to this topic

[s8film40]

Yeah the Klingons are really coming off as change for the sake of change to me. Obviously from TOS to the movies they changed them as they could do so much more with makeup. These are just different Klingons for no apparent reason at all.

[Alteran195]

Seriously?

Making Klingons a more realistic race is a bad thing?

So far virtually every single alien race in Trek has had a single defining trait thats applied to every member of hat race. They havent had a race with the same kind of diversity as humans.

Humans cant be the only planet in the galaxy that has a diverse culture and people.

[1701D]

That's T'Kuvma (Chris Obi) - the Klingon who wants to unite the Klingon houses.

[1701D]

Seriously?

Making Klingons a more realistic race is a bad thing?

So far virtually every single alien race in Trek has had a single defining trait thats applied to every member of hat race. They havent had a race with the same kind of diversity as humans.

Humans cant be the only planet in the galaxy that has a diverse culture and people.

I love the fact that they're expanding upon the Klingon race and fleshing out its culture.

Its sloppy though that they've not made the Klingons look integrated into the already established look, while expanding upon them using their new look. It's again another pointless redesign/reimagining when actually a blend of all the Klingon designs we've seen over 50 years would of been just as awesome.

[Gothneo]

Humans cant be the only planet in the galaxy that has a diverse culture and people.

 

 

If by diversity you mean different colors... ok... but humans all basically look the same in Trek...

 

Trek started out using different aliens to reflect different aspects of human nature. As it evolved it fleshed out species like the Vulcans, Klingons, and even the Borg to large extent. 

 

I guess I don't think they need to largely change the prothetic appearance of a species to flesh it out more. They didn't have to with Klingons in DS9, they didn't with the Borg in VOY, they didn't with Vulcans in ENT. 

 

So... if its ok to just keep changing other species... why not change Humans too? Make 'em look more "advanced" or something... oh wait... that would be silly and would alienate viewers :-)

[s8film40]

I get the impression that as far as Discovery's writers are concerned this is what ALL Klingons look like and that this isn't a different race. Even if they do attempt to explain it that way how come we've never seen them before?

[Gothneo]

Yeah... thats my impression too... but we'll see soon enough!

[1701D]

I get the impression that as far as Discovery's writers are concerned this is what ALL Klingons look like and that this isn't a different race. Even if they do attempt to explain it that way how come we've never seen them before?

This is the biggest problem with going backwards in time and not forwards in time.

The questions are still relevant but if they had gone 100 years into the future beyond Voyager then it's simply a matter of evolution and progression. Everything before remains unchanged and not undermined.

By setting this show a mere 10 years before Kirk and Spock presents a risk that you'll piss off a huge number of fans you need to convince to sign up to your streaming service and to carry this show forward for a new generation to get hooked on and you risk undermining the very franchise your show is built on, replacing it with a substandard imitation that becomes derivative rather than an important part of the established Timeline.

A whole heap of questions that can only be answered by excuses that aren't related to in-universe decisions. "We had to change their look because it's 2017" rather than "we felt that after 100 years, the Klingon Empire would look a lot different from when we saw it last, in DS9" had they set this show further into the Star Trek future.

[Gothneo]

What would people say if they did (another) prequel of Star Wars... a few centuries earlier and dramatically changed the way Yoda looked... "just because". 

 

People would have a kiniption! 

 

TOS really didn't have the time or budget to flesh out Klingons, but From TNG through ENT they did a fantastic job. Heck they even Kept the basic language they came up with from STTM. People *learn* Klingon... and its probably one of the most respected species/culture in Star Trek Lore.

 

I'm just not sold yet... but as I said... it could be explained as a sub-species... or some kinda bio hazard Ala Manny Cotto. 

 

Still I'm gonna quit dwelling on the "Klaxongs" and go back to waiting to see what it turns out to be.

 

The fact that they expanded the number of episodes to 17 seems imply that they have a lot of faith in the production.

[1701D]

They are pretty much desperate for fans to accept their version of Star Trek and while that is great in a way, that the passion is there. I hope it's genuine. From what I gather, suggesting that while there is a canon to Star Trek that needs upholding and respecting, Star Trek is not beholden to it in terms of how it looks. Their argument is that for every incarnation of Star Trek, there has been updates made to the way it looks.

I'd argue that when Star Trek has updated the look successfully, it has been done with a movie or series set 10, 80, 100 years further into the timeline. Where Star Trek has failed in updating the look, it's when they've gone backwards ala Enterprise.

Their priority and their faith in this series is driven by the quality and attention to detail in the storytelling. That's brilliant news.

They are hedging their bets on Star Trek fans feeling the same way and quite honestly, I'd imagine a lot of them do, but there is a risk here that a lot of fans, while thinking the same way and being won over by the writing and storytelling, will perhaps not hold Discovery in the same regard as they hold the older Trek series, simply because it again asks fans to suspend their belief in continuity.

You've also got to admit that theres definitely a sense that the studio(s) are the bad guys here. The lack of trust the fans have for Paramount and CBS to do the right thing is non existent. Not only due to the creative choices made through each of the Abrams movies but going right back to the complete and utter disregard Paramount had shown Star Trek back in 2005 with Enterprise. The studio back then essentially killed Star Trek because they had their own idea of what they wanted Star Trek to be.

That's a huge obstacle for CBS to overcome; to win back the trust of a fan base and to restore the legacy of Star Trek which had been completely trashed by UPN back in the 2000's.

[MisterPL]

Guys, I have to pose the question... where's the hope gone? 

 

Apparently it died with the original fandom. I've read far too much pessimism regarding this show – with little more than plain old skepticism to support it – to believe that the once forward-thinking fan base is all but extinct.

 

I'm staying optimistic.

[Whirlygig]

The new, expanded trailer looked decent to me.

I still think that "death" dude is a stupid idea, and I'm upset to have read that he's supposed to be the Data/Spock equivalent.  He's a one-trick pony.  And one that's not very scientific if you ask me.  Heightened sensory perception due to being a prey species is one thing, heightened **extra**-sensory perception (oh no, here comes ambiguous, impending future doom) is another more BSey one.  Can't wait to hear all the "blah blah, perception of quantum timeline fluctuations blah blah blah" explanations.

 

Everything else I have no reason to complain about though!

[1701D]

 
Apparently it died with the original fandom. I've read far too much pessimism regarding this show with little more than plain old skepticism to support it to believe that the once forward-thinking fan base is all but extinct.
 
I'm staying optimistic.

Do you not think that the reason the fan base has become so pessimistic, is down to how badly Paramount and CBS have handled the fanbase and the show over a period spanning 30/40 years now.

[s8film40]

 

Apparently it died with the original fandom. I've read far too much pessimism regarding this show – with little more than plain old skepticism to support it – to believe that the once forward-thinking fan base is all but extinct.

 

I'm staying optimistic.

I'm trying to stay optimistic as much as possible, but I think at this point thinking this series is going to be drastically different than what we've seen in the trailers isn't optimism it's ignorance. 

 

 

 

[VulcanFanatic]

I am not opposed to change, as long as it's in a series set after the events already established in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the prime universe movies, which moved forward, not backward. Making a prequel and attempting to flesh out a race that's already been fleshed out over several series is not furthering the franchise, but dividing it and adding nothing but confusion. I wish they would just stop with the damn prequels unless they are going to be faithful to what's already been presented.We would have seen evidence of other Klingon races already if they existed with the considerable storylines throughout TNG and DS9.

[Gothneo]

You know... in a related comment on canon... I went and saw War for the Planet of the Apes, and though its basically a complete re-imaging... they artfully included many aspects and nods to the originals... some of the plot that even nicely explained parts of the original... and as different as the new series is... it actually doesn't disrupt, dispel, or even really change the original two Heston movies. 

 

I thought it was nicely done. 

 

So.. .there's an example where its technically a prequel... but they artfully explored and for the most part remained true to canon... and I don't mind the fact that the apes look more ape-like vs people in prosthetic.

 

I think it all goes back to the studio doesn't know what to do with the Star Trek Property.

[Alteran195]

The USS Europa appears to be an early Miranda Class, or ship similar to a Miranda Class. 

 

[MisterPL]

You know... in a related comment on canon... I went and saw War for the Planet of the Apes, and though its basically a complete re-imaging... they artfully included many aspects and nods to the originals... some of the plot that even nicely explained parts of the original... and as different as the new series is... it actually doesn't disrupt, dispel, or even really change the original two Heston movies. 

 

I thought it was nicely done. 

 

So.. .there's an example where its technically a prequel... but they artfully explored and for the most part remained true to canon... and I don't mind the fact that the apes look more ape-like vs people in prosthetic.

 

I think it all goes back to the studio doesn't know what to do with the Star Trek Property.

 

The difference being you've actually seen War for the Planet of the Apes. You've seen a couple trailers for Discovery. It's pretty easy to turn your criticism of Trek into a criticism of Apes based solely on the trailers.

 

Optimism!

[MisterPL]

I'm trying to stay optimistic as much as possible, but I think at this point thinking this series is going to be drastically different than what we've seen in the trailers isn't optimism it's ignorance. 

 

And what I'm seeing from all the Negative Nancys out there is pure prejudice. We're not even talking about 90 minutes of film. We're talking about 15 hours of storytelling and "fans" are tearing it apart based on a tiny fraction of it. Context is important.

 

By all means, dissect the previews but try doing it with some hope. That's what Trekkies used to do.

[MisterPL]

Do you not think that the reason the fan base has become so pessimistic, is down to how badly Paramount and CBS have handled the fanbase and the show over a period spanning 30/40 years now.

 

Pessimism is a choice. I prefer to use my imagination to hope for the best instead of fear the worst. The world has far too much of the latter.