Jump to content


Alex

Member Since 02 Aug 2008
Offline Last Active Mar 02 2023 10:21 PM
-----

#97763 Enterprise c coming!?

Posted by Alex on 13 October 2022 - 02:20 AM

Good catch MisterPL. I think they're still working on them, and I'm sure that COVID and the supply chain fiasco put them further behind the eight ball than they already were after Mr. Sasser's passing. From what I understand Thomas Sasser was the one who really "got" the ships and what the expectations were; he handled the sculpts, and really the engineering of making everything fit and work together. They were effectively his "baby," and DST knew it and pretty much let him handle that line with as much freedom as reasonably possible. The "problem" created by his passing is that DST basically had to find someone else who had the same passion for the ships as Mr. Sasser, which is easy enough to do, but then they had to find someone who had the same skill level, (far less easy to accomplish) and overall capabilities that Mr. Sasser brought to the table, which was a fairly tall order. Remember, DST doesn't want their two post–Sasser ships to be different in a way that's glaringly obvious which means you basically need someone who respects the line and what we've come to expect from it and can deliver Thomas Sasser's level of work. That's both a blessing, (the ships are so good we don't want to rock the boat with them,) and a a curse, (DST now has to find a replacement whose just as capable as Mr. Sasser was,) and is likely responsible for part of the delay. If DST took the kind of hit financially that they were rumored to have taken during COVID, that probably also threw a huge wrench into things; ships are probably one of their most expensive items to produce, and if they're suffering financially and need to recoup losses elsewhere to cover production costs, that could easily delay the next batch of ships even longer. We like to complain about the amount of time it takes DST to release new ships around here, but every time they do we consistently drool over them and admit it was worth the wait. If what we got barely resembled the ship I would be complaining too, but I can tolerate a wait if it keeps resulting in what we expect from DST's ships.

 

Oh speaking of DST's ships, I really hope they try to get a license to continue that line. I know Playmates Toys is apparently the master licensee again, but their ships are fundamentally different from DST's, and I think Playmates is better suited for the action figure line while DST is better suited for the ships. (Also wouldn't mind a DST Sculpt mass produced by Playmates like a couple of toys in the old days, but I'm not holding my breath there.) The latest Picard trailer has given us not only the Titan–A again, which DST could definitely do a fantastic rendition of if they could lock down a license for it, but also the Enterprise–F, (making the STO design canon no less,) and I would love to see DST take a crack at those ships if given the chance. Sure, we won't have the Enterprise–J, but this would give us every Enterprise from the original through the "F" if they can pull this off, and would basically do what I had hoped for the "C" to do; allow me to display every Federation starship Enterprise side by side showing the timeline of the ship's lineage.

 

That being said, if DST still needs someone to design ships, I recommend our own Destructor!!! Go look at his take on the Defiant; I feel like he could be the person they need to make a perfect rendition of a toy ship, especially since he's actually doing something I wish DST had done with the way he's handling lights and sounds. (Playmates style buttons that blend in seamlessly as part of the ship for lights and sounds, with DST style accuracy. The antithesis of the Playmates Kelvin Timeline 1701 that took the worst of Playmates' design elements and the worst of DST's "one button to rule them all" and made the least fun ship to date back in 2009. Playmates is back to multiple protruding buttons, and DST is sticking to the "one button to rule them all" but seeing a fan actually pull off what we've wanted for years is impressive, and at the very least, proves it can be done.)




#97699 WIP USS Defiant 3D-print build.

Posted by Alex on 11 September 2022 - 12:40 AM

-Insert multiple colorful metaphors here- Destructor, that is brilliant!

 

1. Has DST hired you yet? You know, to help fix their “logistical issues” with the Enterprise-C? At the very least have they offered to buy the 3D file for their Defiant toy so that it’ll take them 3 years instead of 7 to get the thing out the door? :P I’m only being half-facetious here; they really should hire you given that you seem to “get” what ship collectors want in the same way the late Tom Sasser did

 

2. I love the nose-less concept, it feels like it has some Ships of the Line calendar potential. Of course, when I saw that design my next thought was to go the opposite direction much like DS9 itself would have and narrow the deflector while adding big honkin’ phaser cannons similar to a TOS movie era concept from this year’s Ships of the Line calendar. I was also unaware of the weapon concept for the nose, but it explains Playmates’ weird adjustable design for that part, and kind of makes me appreciate it more

 

3. Yes, Art Asylum did consider capacitive touch plates in a pre-smartphone world but determined that they were too expensive. I wish DST had given them a second look though, they seem like where ship toys should eventually go, but if they don’t…

 

4. I’m glad someone FINALLY did what I wished DST AND PLAYMATES TOYS had done back in the day, and hidden the dang buttons into places on the ship where they didn’t stick out like a sore thumb or limit playability! Both of of you take notes DST and PM, Destructor has it right; buttons should blend in but ultimately be functional. Playmates always made questionable button choices (the new 1701 is no exception,) and the Defiant had questionable button placement too. DST tried to solve this by only having one button, but that created other issues. I like your solution as I always thought that’s where the buttons should have been on the Playmates ship

 

5. FFD/FDM printers actually should be able to print clear plastic for pure transparency, although that would probably send you back to blender to account for any such changes. I think the transparent filament I’ve seen in use before is sold under a name like HD Glass, but it’s just a transparent or semi-transparent filament in completely clear or partially clear (color tinted) options. If I had seen this thread two years ago I would have said something sooner, sorry for not seeing it back then

 

6. How easy is it to remove the supports that your printer generates? I’ve seen several instances where supports for the model wind up damaging it in a way that’s a pain to work around

 

Finally, have you considered doing a time lapse video of the printing process? Yes, you basically need a camera set up to shoot a little bit of video every hour, but the end result is drool-worthy in its own right. (Trust me, I’ve done such a video before.) If it comes out right you basically get one long cross-dissolve that shows the ship being built by the printer, or you get something that you can intentionally keep choppy and it looks like those stop motion LEGO build ups you would see at the end of their commercials which is still awesome. Likewise, you could really show off the lights and sounds in a video in a way that isn’t possible in still photos. I’m definitely loving this thing and hope I can afford one when you start selling them. This is absolutely awesome dude, I totally love it!




#97621 New Star Trek Series starring Patrick Stewart

Posted by Alex on 31 May 2022 - 01:39 AM

Honestly there is so much going on at this point that I am starting to think that this is all just a Q-induced fever dream in Picard's mind. If it's all in his head then suddenly all the weirdness like "10 Forward St." and characters looking exactly like other characters makes actual sense. And they have an easy reset button at the end. Please let that be what happens? Then all sins can be forgiven...

So I see you weren't satisfied that it looks like

Spoiler

Don't get me wrong, this isn't season one or what it looks like season three is shaping up to be, but given that Sir Patrick didn't want to explore life as an artificial life form and that necessitated some tricky rewrites combined with COVID screwing with production, I can't really be as harsh on this season as I would be under normal circumstances. I also think Akiva Goldsman was clearly focused on SNW instead of this, and that probably lead to at least part of this mess, especially once Terry Matalas was basically handed season three and had to focus on that. You basically wound up with a show that had two showrunners who were tackling bigger projects on the messy middle of a trilogy.

 

Whirly, you're spot on about how current-day social and mental health issues have no place in the 24th century outside of allegory - the whole appeal of Star Trek's future is based in its optimism, that humans can evolve our sensibilities, so to speak. "Show, don't tell" applies here too. Characters kept talking about how they were saving a bright future, but we haven't seen that bright future in Picard. The human future we've seen in PIC is one of xenophobia, wealth inequality, addiction, conspiracy theories, spousal abuse piss-poor mental healthcare, etc...

I'm talking about Robert and Rene dying in Generations. They died in a fire. "These things happen" Picard said. "No sir, these things don't happen" said Troi, because, in the 24th century, people should not die in fires. But Robert, like their father, was a luddite. Refusing to get a replicator. Insisting on traditional vintnering methods. Apparently refusing even a fire suppression net. THAT's an avenue to explore trauma, paternal relationships, the loss of legacy.

But no, let's give Sir Patrick editorial control so he can get his pet causes in the show. Let's rehome a pitbull (I actually love that), let's bait-and-switch on spousal abuse and parental mental illness, undercutting the impact of both issues and implying that nothing will improve on either front in the next 400 years. Let's ignore that this is something that undermines his whole character and damages the credibility of every counsellor he's ever spoken to. Let's ignore that if he had had a role in letting his mother hang herself, that would have been something Robert would have held over him for his entire life. Let's justify it by saying that's what's been holding him back from a committed relationship - not, I dunno, professionalism & dedication (cause we don't know what those are)... no, just more scared little boy bullshit.

I have to disagree with you here Destructor. If there's one thing we've seen fairly consistently, it's that 24th Century mental health care doesn't seem as great as it first looks. Okay, by the 24th century, larger ships have counselors, but that raises the question of why such ships need counselors if 24th Century mental health care is so good? (And where are these counselors in the 22nd and 23rd centuries? Was Starfleet Medical's mental health division truly so bad that they didn't think severe isolation might lead to mental health issues in the vacuum of space?) We don't need to look at Picard himself for proof of this though, we can look at those around him. Worf wants an honor killing after an injury in TNG's Ethics, regardless of who it traumatizes. Sisko watches his wife die, and the only mental healthcare he seeks is going full Will Smith on Picard's face in DS9's premiere. Heck, In the Pale Moonlight, shows Sisko looking like he's one step from a nervous breakdown, and that's not even getting into wiping out the ecosystem of an entire planet to send a message. Janeway isn't much better, nearly murdering a man without due process (Equinox Pt. 2) with Chakotay ironically being the one to uphold Starfleet ideals and stop her. Likewise, in Endgame we learn that Tuvok basically loses his mind before Admiral Janeway goes back in time and rewrites history, which in and of itself suggests some severe mental trauma on Janeway's part.

 

Now let's look at Picard. We know he didn't really get along with his family precisely because of Homecoming, and know that Roddenberry wanted him to have a fist fight with his father, (I believe this became  a fist fight with his brother instead,) which would suggest that Picard has always had unresolved mental issues. We also know that when Picard briefly saw his mother in Where No One Has Gone Before, it was implied that she died years ago, but we never knew how; Picard almost went full "Kirk in the nexus ribbon" over seeing her again. Let's also not forget that Picard has a real issue with children, established at the start of TNG when Wesley first appears on the bridge. Now let's look at Picard season two: We learn that Picard's mother has committed suicide, we learn that Picard has repressed his memories of this event, and we learn that it has affected him more than he realizes. To your point Destructor, we know that the rest of Picard's family died in a fire, and that Picard brushed this off as "normal." Let's argue for a moment that I'm making Starfleet and the Federation's mental health services seem worse than they are though; do you really think that the same guy who wouldn't install a replicator or even a fire suppression net would care about or even notice his wife's diminishing mental health? Do you think that he would encourage her to seek the help she needed? The impression that I've gotten of Picard's parents are that his father (and brother) were both luddites, and his mother's mental illness may have been treatable, but only if she had been around people who would have done something about it. If anything, Picard season two makes Picard's "these things happen" line in Generations feel even more like the reaction he would have to such an event, because with his repressed childhood trauma, he's unknowingly admitted that he's used to this type of thing that shouldn't be happening in the 24th century. This type of trauma is nothing new to Trek's 24th century, and I would argue that it doesn't really take away from Picard's character. If anything, it explains a lot about why he never liked children, (as a child he couldn't save his own mother,) why his reaction to his family dying isn't more emotional, and why he's always trying to fix things for others. I do think that what I've read about this season makes it seem like it was always going to be half–baked, but that the finale really is the payoff here.

 

Spoiler

 

I had more for this post, but I'm going to put it in a separate post below to make reading this a little more manageable.




#97427 Here we go again... Playmates is back in the Trek business!

Posted by Alex on 27 December 2021 - 05:56 AM

Well, I'm slightly more optimistic about this line knowing that Varner is involved seeing as they handled the original sculpts for Playmates the first time around, but I need to see electronic ships (and to a lesser extent, phasers and communicators) before I think about committing cash to this line. If they go with the old 4.5" scale I'll be reasonably pleased; just crank out some ENT figures at some point so I can have everything in a consistent scale and you might get me interested in figures again. Yes, I realize they won't fit in perfectly with the old Playmates line, but they'll be close enough that I can reasonably display them together without them looking wildly out of place, which is something that can't be said for mixing DST and Playmates figures. Speaking of which, if they decide to lose their marbles again and not run with the 4.5" size, the only other option they should even consider is DST's 7" size; again, they might not look perfect next to each other, but they'd be better than the alternative.

 

MisterPL, you and bgiles73 kind of hit the nail on the head; switching scales inevitably means losing buyers/collectors more than it means gaining them. Art Asylum got away with it because back before DST was even involved, Digger (the head of Play Along's Art Asylum) openly explained to concerned fans that there was detail they could do at 7" that they just couldn't squeeze into the 4.5" size, or even the 6" size. They then proceeded to deliver detail in spades and blow previous designs out of the water. Playmates isn't going to do that; there's no new technology akin to moving from making fire by rubbing two sticks together to getting a blowtorch like there was with Art Asylum. Playmates tried to push 6" and 3.75" figures and it backfired horrendously because nobody was interested in switching scales. For better or worse, over the past 30 years Trek fans have either committed to 4.5" or 7" or both, and those are the sizes they'll accept. If Playmates wants to mess with two scales again, those are the two they should run with, not 6", not 3.5", not 8", not 5", and not another weird variant nobody asked for. Stick with 4.5" and/or 7" and don't pass statues off as figures and they'll sell; dabble in inconsistent scales, ignore articulation, and we'll be right back to where we were in 2010 the last time Playmates lost the line.

 

As far as the ships go, the smartest thing Playmates could do is what they did right before they lost the license for a couple of their collector's oriented lines when they contracted sculpts out to Art Asylum when it was still in Play Along's control. Granted, those were figures they used them for and not ships, but after the last debacle they had with a ship, it would be smart to use DST's Art Asylum for the sculpt and then handle the actual logistics of manufacturing. (You know, the part DST gets raked over the coals for regularly.) I don't know if they'd do this, but if they do it could be a massive improvement over 2009, and would allow for ships consistent with what we've come to expect.

 

 

I heard at one point old Ertl Model molds were used, but I think that may have been in the Diamond Select Years.

So as crazy as this will sound, both Playmates and DST used AMT/Ertl models, but in entirely different ways. DST occasionally used them as a visual aid when they announced they were sculpting a new ship, and may have used them as a reference point in conjunction with other materials, but to my knowledge they never used an AMT/Ertl mold. For example, when they announced the Enterprise–D they painted up an AMT/Ertl Model and made some early tweaks to it, but DST and AMT/Ertl's Enterprise–D are entirely different from one another; it the AMT/Ertl model was just there to show they had a new ship in the works. The NX–01 and Enterprise–E came directly from ENT and NEM's digital files; the TOS Enterprise, Refit/A, and Excelsior class ships, were all original sculpts, as were the alien ships.

 

In contrast, Playmates used actual AMT/Ertl Molds a couple of times. AS Razorgeist points out, the Defiant was one such instance. I'm pretty sure the TOS Enterprise was also an AMT/Ertl mold in that having built that kit as a kid, It seems nearly identical to what Playmates put out, not just in terms of scale, but in terms of where things connect too, although the nacelle pylons may have been modified slightly so they could detach the nacelles on the toy to package it. I have no clue about the other ships, although I wouldn't be surprised if the Romulan BoP was an AMT/Ertl mold too. Some of the AMT/Ertl sculpts aren't bad, others like the Enterprise–E are wildly off though.

 

For something like Discovery, they should be able to use the digital files; for the Enterprise–E and possibly a handful of other ships, they might be better off going to DST and just working with their sculpts. For something like the Enterprise–D, I don't envy the person in charge in the slightest who has to choose between trying to recreate the "swan," the "bulldog," or throwing their hands up and going with the TNG–R digital files of the "Swulldog," which attempted to combine the two. As much as I love what DST did with that ship, I would probably go with the digital files just to have something that's as accurate as can be, and even then I know people would complain that it's not the "swan" and not the "bulldog."




#91710 Star Trek: Discovery. Series talk and discussion

Posted by Alex on 14 October 2017 - 02:33 AM

How is this any different then 3 seasons of war with the dominion visa vi DS9? Or the basic idea of the the Borg war VOY was in its last Few seasons ?

There are certainly compelling war time stories to be told and I thought DS9 put a great spin on several

It was different with VGR, DS9, and even ENT. VGR didn't make war/conflict with the Borg its central storyline. Sure, the conflict existed, but it was interspersed among other stories. ENT S3 was less about fighting a war than it was about preventing one from breaking loose. DS9 told a war story, but it didn't lead off with it, and it was decidedly different from every other Trek up to that point; it also was airing in parallel to TNG and VGR, so it wasn't as if it was the only Trek available, and more importantly, the only Trek available on the small screen for the first time in over a decade. DS9 also was cynnical more than it was pessimistic like DSC seems to be. DS9 knew when to be optimistic, even during a gruesome war, DSC hasn't shown that it can do that, at least not yet.
 
 

Yeah, ship and crew are unknown. But the ship is ugly and the crew consists of unlikeable characters. And I agree, the conflict/war between Federation and "Klingons" is the laziest approach to tell a compelling story within the Star Trek universe.

This sort of sums up my gripe with this show. I'm paying for it, I'm really trying to like it, but I'm starting to feel like the dog that doesn't like the dog food, and slapping a new label on it isn't going to fix the problem. The ship is ugly, in part because it flies in the face of the expected aesthetic for the era its set in, and in part because it has that excessive aztek patterning that screams "evil Federation startship" in the cheapest way possible.

 

The war between the Federation and "Klingons" (good choice with the air quotes by the way,) is a lazy plot device that's been poorly written. What's worse, it's not just poor writing, but sloppy writing since it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense that the Klingons were so divided just ten years before TOS, and by the time Kirk's around they're a serious threat. I could see this working if it were 20 years before Kirk, and maybe 80 years since Archer had last encountered one on the NX-01, but a fractured Klingon Empire that's decimated by a war shouldn't rebuild in just ten years.

 

Then there's the crew of the Discovery and for the most part, the Shenzhou. Commander Saru is one of the few characters I actually like. Georgiou trusted Michael even after multiple lapses in her judgement, and only started to question her judgement after a nerve pinch. Michael seemed so unhinged that I can't figure out how she made the rank of Commander in the premiere unless Sarek pulled the same kind of political strings that got us Captain John Harriman of the Enterprise–B. Over on the U.S.S. Discovery we had Landry who should have been handed a red shirt, and also seemed too stupid for the position she held. (The writers really made her seem like an idiot with how she died too.) We have a doctor who has no excuse for a bedside manner worse than a poorly programmed EMH, and a scientist/engineer who seems like a giant asshole, although he's moderately tolerable when you realize that his concern is his work being weaponized. I don't have strong feelings about Lorca yet, but it feels like the writers haven't figured out what to do with him just yet either. The rest of the crew is largely forgettable though. I find the characters that stand out to be obnoxious, which makes it hard for me to route for them or sympathize with them. It's one thing to ignore the "Roddenberry Rule," it's another to make your characters a collective of jackasses. I want to like this show, I'm trying to give it a chance, but the Federation characters are so irritating that I almost want to route for the "Klingons."




#91708 NYCC 2017

Posted by Alex on 14 October 2017 - 02:04 AM

I'm honestly not even 100% sure the decision to not show the ship until electronics are approved is even DST's call. I wouldn't be surprised if CBS has tightened up when information about ships and Trek merchandise in general becomes available as a result of DSC's premiere. Additionally, given the backlash CBS dealt with when unveiling the U.S.S. Discovery itself, I could see them restricting when licensees can show licensed ship merchandise as well just to prevent any similar issues with merchandise as those that occurred with the new show itself. I really don't mind the wait for DST's ships, not as long as they keep up the quality they've had previously.


#91000 I don't get it. Why can't we be told what the next ship is?

Posted by Alex on 13 September 2017 - 09:17 PM

In the first Twitter link, the person refers to the Enterprise C as an Admiral class. 

To quote Charlie Brown, "good grief..." C'mon, there's a new Star Trek encyclopedia folks, if you can't afford it, Memory Alpha is your friend too. ;)

 

 

So legalese it is then.

And there's our answer, it's not DST, it's CBS that hasn't crossed every "t" and dotted every "i" yet. We know the ship is coming, why can't we just be happy about that until it's ready to be shown? I'd rather wait two years for something awesome than wait two months for something that was rushed.




#90999 The Orville

Posted by Alex on 13 September 2017 - 08:53 PM

Feel'in like "hugg'in the donkey"??!!  :roflmao:

I'm still chuckling at that, as it just might have been the funniest line of the episode, and The Orville definitely knows how to use its one–liners to its advantage.

 

Critic reviews are bullshit anyways.

Theyre just opinion pieces, and cant really give you a good answer as to whether something is good or not.

This can't be overstate enough. Also, critics are always overly, pardon the unintended pun, "critical" of Seth MacFarlane's work anyway, so I tend to ignore them until after seeing what he's done this time around. So far I'm really liking The Orville, and I admittedly didn't know what to expect from it.

 

It was so amazingly refreshing to finally see something that portrays a future that isn't dystopian.

This really kind of negates the need for me to write about 90% of what I was going to post. The Orville isn't Trek, it's not meant to be Trek, but the best way I can put it is that I've got a tin of food labeled The Orville, and it really tastes a lot like Trek with its own unique flavor thrown in. What worries me is that I also have a tin labeled Star Trek: Discovery, and it tells me that I'm eating Trek, and maybe if I have more than just a taste on my fingers I'll realize that I am, but so far the little taste I've had seems more like New Coke. The Orville feels like a true utopian Sci–Fi series with a good bit of comedy thrown in for obvious reasons, but that bit of inspirational utopian Sci–Fi is something I've been after since around the time VGR went off the air in 2001. I'm still looking forward to DSC, but I'm worried that it won't be utopian Sci–Fi in the vein of previous Trek, while The Orville seems to have nailed that concept rather well.

 

Oh, and the idea that this is a new genre seems fairly accurate to me. I like it, I don't want to describe it by that cringe–inducing term "Dramedy," because it doesn't seem truly fitting for this series, but it's something different. Sci–Fi with a distinct flavor of comedy, not Trek, but definitely not Family Guy in space either, something new and unique, something that's still finding it's footing, but that shows quite a bit of promise. I'm also digging the mixture of practical models and CGI.




#90627 "New ‘Star Trek’ Series Coming to CBS in 2017"

Posted by Alex on 19 August 2017 - 01:07 AM

Everything that I'm hearing about DSC right now makes it sound like its honestly in its death throws before it even launches, to the point of being way more chaotic than TNG even ever was.

 

The test audience doesn't care: Apparently CBS held a test screening for DSC awhile back consisting of Prime Timeline fans, Kelvin Timeline fans, and non–Trek fans. No one was exactly thrilled with the show and only 1/3rd of the test audience was supposedly willing to even consider paying for more of DSC. Among their complaints were the "generic" aesthetic and an apparently "generic" sci–fi plot that wasn't uniquely Trek or uniquely anything. This is obviously not just bad, it's abysmal.

 

CBS and Netflix are apparently at each others throats with legal options still on the table: CBS handed Netflix DSC before they announced aggressively expanding All–Access to other countries. At the same time, Netflix thought they were getting the next chapter in "true" prime universe Trek, (more on that in a moment,) not a generic sci–fi series that was universally panned by the test audience. At the same time CBS expected a much better reception to DSC than what they received, and is supposedly now scrambling to fix the backlash as best they can, or more realistically cut there losses.

 

DSC may be "Prime Timeline" in name only: Apparently one of the things that went out the window with Bryan Fuller was a proper Prime Timeline series. While it's true that Fuller wanted an aesthetic change, he was insistent on recognizable canon, whereas CBS supposedly wanted a show that was free from both the continuity of the Prime Timeline and the Kelvin Timeline, (not to mention the licensing rights for the Kelvin Timeline as a whole,) leading to the aesthetic mess we've seen that's trying to merge TOS with the Kelvin Timeline aesthetic, but still remain somewhat unique. This is also why we're getting things like Spock's half–sister and an aesthetic that visibly clashes with the era it's set in, and the subsequent backlash this has generated. In effect, DSC may be a "prime timeline" series that suffers from the same pitfalls as ENT, as it simply will be unable to reconcile itself with the world of TOS. Supposedly Fuller had a workaround for this, which was that Sarek was going to have access to a transdimensional device that would have turned Trek into a proper multiverse, but this idea was nixed when he was effectively forced out.

 

Chaos on the bridge (again): Supposedly despite the very positive public face CBS is putting on, the higher–ups in the company and the people working on the series are in a full state of panic. They know that what they have is a mess, they know that the test audience hated it, and they know that they're so far along that they can't really fix anything at this stage because it's already on the Duke Nukem Forever release schedule. Actors and (production) crewmembers have supposedly told their agents to start looking for other work for them after December, and on the business side of things, CBS is expecting this series to fail, with some higher–ups even questioning whether it'll even see the light of day in its entirety at all. Oh, and that additional batch of episodes that raised the order total to 15? That's supposedly the result of trying to fix the mess CBS realized they have with a soft reboot around the fourth episode when the show apparently begins to focus on the U.S.S. Discovery, and to potentially try to appease Netflix by making them feel like they're getting what they've paid for. It's not CBS showing optimism about DSC so much as it's CBS trying to do damage control before they have to explain to investors and fans how they royally botched what should have been a slam dunk.

 

The Nick Meyer Factor & The "Contingency Plan:" Remember how DSC was originally supposed to be an anthology series? (New Ships. New Crews. New Heroes. New Villains. — Remember that tagline?) Supposedly that was what Bryan Fuller pitched before Les Moonves told him he wanted a safer bet, (read: serialized series,) and the two began to clash. Fuller was trying to preserve continuity and warned Moonves that "if you change this, the fans will f**king hate this show," and the test screenings have seemingly been vindicating Fuller. Faced with an unmitigated disaster, CBS supposedly has created a contingency plan: If DSC fails and is cancelled after one season, (should it finish its entire one season run at all, which is supposedly in dispute at this point,) one of two things will potentially happen. The first is that CBS may effectively rebrand DSC as an anthology series, claiming that what we saw was only supposed to last one season anyway, and season two will be that new Trek project Nick Meyer has been talking about, which will supposedly look and feel very much like the Prime Universe we remember. In effect, CBS gets a mulligan, and they get to claim that what they originally planned worked, which is technically true as this would make DSC an anthology series again. Option two, should DSC's brand prove to be so toxic that CBS can't salvage it, (much as ENT was by the end of its second season,) would be to cancel DSC and replace it with Nick Meyer's mini–series, potentially expanding said mini–series to a full series under a new name. In effect, CBS is letting Meyer leak bits of information about his idea to test the waters for more Trek, and to see how fans react to certain concepts before throwing money at ideas that will inevitably backfire.

 

The war with Netflix: Remember how I said CBS and Netflix are at each others throats? Part of that stems from the fact that if CBS were to cancel DSC, or to even retool it into an anthology series, they supposedly would not be contractually required to provide Netflix with additional seasons of the series, as their contract is only for DSC in the form of a serialized show. Naturally Netflix is furious about this, because of DSC tanks and a rebranded anthology doesn't, Netflix is the one left holding the bag, not CBS. In effect, if CBS were to utilize Nick Meyer's idea as part of a rebranded DSC "anthology" series, they could release season two on CBS All–Access internationally if they wanted too, effectively ending their partnership with Netflix as a distributor in some countries. This is also assuming that the show even stays on a streaming service at all. Earlier I mentioned that only a third of the test audience was even willing to consider paying for DSC, and apparently that's given CBS enough cause for concern that they're willing to consider throwing season two of a DSC anthology series or an outright replacement series onto the CW or Showtime, both of which are CBS–owned (or partially owned in the case of the CW) properties with a more traditional viewerbase. Showtime is a subscription service, but Trek would be an additional to an already strong line–up, rather than something that's success is make or break for the service, and the CW is good ol' fashioned network TV.

 

There is one other possibility, which would potentially be the best option, but is admittedly the least likely: DSC miraculously does well enough that it gets a second season as a serialized show and stays right where it is, while the CW or Showtime gets Nick Meyer's Trek, effectively allowing for two Trek series to coexist at the same time for the first time since 1993. This is quite a long shot, but if it happens, the contingency plan for DSC's failure could effectively restore Trek to the glory it had in the '90s.

 

Personally, I'm more worried about what's likely to happen though. It sounds like DSC fell off the rails very early on and never managed to recover. It sounds like executive meddling is going to kill DSC the same way it killed ENT, except this time the execs have some remorse, in part because Les Moonves doesn't want to be known as they guy who botched two Trek series during his tenure as CEO. What really irks me though, is that this series should have been an easy success. While the idea of a transdimensional device for Sarek was contrived, the anthology concept was ambitious, and could have launched new traditional Trek series', which it very well still may if the contingency plan goes into effect. More importantly though, a functional writers room would have replaced "transdimensional device" with "temporal cold war," and the anthology could have effectively tied together every era of Trek while still allowing for Moonves to have his new aesthetic that conflicted with TOS. In effect, you could use the TCW to unify Trek without fans griping too much as it would basically given an excuse for the altered aesthetic in the pre–TOS timeline. If done correctly, you could even have unified the Kelvin and Prime Timelines if you could get Paramount to play ball. Oh yeah, and if that weren't enough, you wouldn't have a generic plot, because you'd be tapping Treks own past, rather than selling Game of Thrones with phasers instead of dragons and having your fanbase hate it and nobody else care.

 

Obviously I would love for my information to be wrong, but I fear that it isn't. KYW–3 out of Philadelphia PA has been running DSC promos during The Late Show with Stephen Colbert regularly for about a month now, and tonights new trailer was flat–out cringe inducing. It features dialogue from Burnham that ends with the idea that Starfleets "dream of peace" cannot occur, and I quote "as long as you exist" while one of those new Klingons is shown, in effect suggesting Starfleet is willing to commit genocide in the worst way possible. Last nights variation was a bit better, but tonight's was just pukeworthy and whoever green–lit this should be ashamed. I want to like this show, but CBS is making it very, very difficult. (Information like what I've shared above is obviously not doing me any favors either.)

 

Finally, I know this is going to be a controversial stance, but I think Seth MacFarlane "gets" Trek better than the people working on it do. His comments about Trek no longer being optimistic are spot on, and that's what's making DSC so hard to stomach, because I'm also getting sick of sci–fi being synonymous with dystopian concepts. (I'm fine with some dystopian sci–fi, but that shouldn't be Trek.) Even more telling, he's managed to get Johnathan Frakes, Brannon Braga, and a slew of other TNG–VGR people to work on The Orville with him, while CBS has managed to push out Bryan Fuller.




#90625 I don't get it. Why can't we be told what the next ship is?

Posted by Alex on 18 August 2017 - 11:31 PM

If I was to take a guess it probably still has to get approval from paramount or some other legalese reason.

This is most likely the case. I can think of a few scenarios that could be at play here:

 

  • DST's next ship is from the Kelvin Timeline, and they've quietly expanded their license, but need a few legal hurdles to be crossed before they can announce such a release
  • DST's next ship is from DSC, but they're still securing rights to the series, thus they can't announce their next planned release yet, (this would also explain why they weren't on the latest list of licensees, despite McFarlane's license clearly being written in a way that leaves an Abrams "black hole" sized opening for DST ships to flow through for DSC)
  • Either of the above with a "contingency plan" ship that DST will announce instead of the license expansion falls through

 

Of course, this is assuming that their reasons for not announcing another new ship don't boil down to the fact that the Reliant isn't out yet, and that DST doesn't want to announce a ship while the fanbase kvetches for two years or more about how the next ship is taking forever to arrive, and I can kind of see there point. Before the BoP was released there was clammoring for the Reliant, and if this next ship is something like Voyager or the Enterprise–C, I could see a similar situation unfolding, so it makes sense for DST not to say anything until they're about to ship the Reliant. The problem is that if they announce now, even if they say the ship is two years out the way Apple told Mac Pro users not to expect anything until 2018 or 2019, the complaint will be that it's taking two years for the ship to be released, rather than that DST didn't announce it. As long as they keep cranking out ships I'm happy, but I seem to be one of the few people who still is.




#88660 Toy Fair 2017

Posted by Alex on 25 February 2017 - 10:15 PM

Oh how I miss having the Activision of the early part of last decade behind Star Trek games! Bridge Commander II is something I still wish would see the light of day on multiple platforms, right up there with Bridge Commander III, IV, V, and VI! Actually, everyone here should remember the Activision lawsuit, because it's the reason why "Enterprise" magically gained the words "Star Trek" in its title. At the time, one of the things Activision listed among the reasons it was suing Viacom was the failure to include "Star Trek" in the branding for, you know, Star Trek. Viacom made the change early on in an attempt to head off a lawsuit that they were losing specifically because of how they were managing ENT. A lot of fans were actually supporting Activision at the time in the hope that it would convince Berman and Braga to stop ruining the series and produce a show that fans wanted to watch instead of running from the "Trek" brand in the hope of finding a new audience that didn't exist and was never going to buy into it for the long–term.




#88523 DS9 in HD

Posted by Alex on 18 February 2017 - 07:00 PM

1701D, it's far more doable than you think. BBC America runs VGR in the US, as do several other stations. Each of those stations sells airtime in the form of commercials, and a station can demand more for a spot in a show that's "remastered in HD" than one that's in standard definition. Oh yeah, and every time you watch the show on Netflix CBS gets a certain amount of money, with HD versions bringing in more than SD versions, so they make their money simply by having you watch it in HD instead of SD. TOS was handled correctly: CBS sold first-run syndication rights for TOS-R to NBC and CW affiliates and had them run the episodes in strip syndication throughout the week before HD DVD releases were even ready. (CBS and Paramount were both against Blu-Ray, and it's believed that Toshiba may have helped fund TOS–R to ensure that CBS and Paramount were exclusive to HD DVD.) They then promoted the hell of the remastering to guarantee that people watched it, which they did, bringing CBS and Paramount the money they needed. In addition to HD DVD, the remastered footage was also released on DVD so that even people without HD DVD players could enjoy the cleaned up film, color correction, and updated VFX. VGR and DS9 both won multiple awards and were hardly unsuccessful, and VGR's audience dropping off correlates directly to UPN shuttering stations as the network faltered, which was a problem that really helped kill ENT in addition to two seasons of bad writing. CBS could easily treat VGR and DS9 the way they treated TOS and be far successful with them in remastered form than with TNG–R, which took forever to go anywhere but Blu-Ray. Oh, and unsurprisingly once TNG–R become available on other formats and on reasonably priced Blu-Ray sets, it started to be more successful. CBS could have sold a lot more $60 dollar Blu–Ray sets than $120 dollar ones, and had they released the show elsewhere first, they would have also been able to avoid the mastering flaws that the Blu–Ray sets have and the streaming versions don't, which has also kind of disincentivized Blu–Ray sales.

 

A remastering is a long–term investment, it's paid for over the years as people buy the show and watch it on a variety of platforms. If Trek's fanbase would get loud about getting DS9 and VGR remastered, it would get done a lot more quickly. "What We Left Behind," a documentary on DS9 crowdfunded more than 200% of its requested budget, so don't tell me that there isn't an interest in DS9–R or that people won't pay for it. People won't pay for overpriced, poorly marketed material that was initially only offered in a format that was at the time esoteric. Treat DS9 the way TOS was treated in terms of releasing it on multiple platforms and you'll have far more success than TNG–R, and be able to sell the Blu–Ray versions at sane prices too.




#88521 Star Trek 4 (14)

Posted by Alex on 18 February 2017 - 06:35 PM

 

Well, I was following you until this part.  From where I was standing all year it was a pretty good year for those.  Maybe not according to the bean counters and executives, and lets just pretend the DC universe doesn't exist...  But I think the general public enjoyed most of them and there are "legs" on those properties growing out of the movies that perhaps nobody has fully realized yet.

Whirlygig, I was honestly speaking largely in the context of executives and bean counters who determine whether or not to sink a small fortune into these films. However, I should note that if the numbers are down across the board as they were for most of 2016, that's a trend that says people aren't seeing these sequels and spin–offs for some reason. Look, I loved Allegiant, which was arguably 2016's first casualty in this category, but it really was the best film that nobody bothered to see. Like almost every other sequel or spin-off, it played primarily to empty seats in a theater that's usually packed last year. The DC universe has its own issues, true, but it was also effected by this, and the general disdain surrounding "Ms. Ghostbusters" was about a quarter misogyny to three quarters protest of the latest reboot cash–in attempt that seemed to hit on everything people typically disliked about reboots as a whole. (Probe deeper into what people hate about that film and it's not female Ghostbusters, it's female Ghostbusters as a gimmick and a reboot rather than a sequel for the sake of having female Ghostbusters as a gimmick, and a gimmick that doubles down on a flaw of the original films and tries to sell it as something different.) Having said that, some of 2016's movies might have legs, including the aforementioned "Ghostbusters '16," but if they do, that'll become more apparent with the films out of theaters.

 

The reason Beyond failed is because it's marketing was garbage, plain and simple.

The first trailer was such a massive turn off to Trek fans that they just shot themselves in the foot from the get go. They then completely spoiled the plot with the other trailers.

Beyond is the best of the Kelvin movies, and Paramount screwed it up with its horrid marketing.

I largely agree with you Alteran, but I think the marketing was only part of what hurt Beyond, with the general fact that people just weren't showing up for this sort of film by the numbers that they did in previous years also playing a part. Granted, if you hated STID and were already sick of the Kelvin Timeline, the first trailer for "Beyond" was pretty much a reason not to even bother giving the film a second thought. Paramount would have honestly done better just playing 30 seconds of "Sabotage" in context, and they would have gotten a far better reaction. That trailer was an insult to the intelligence of Trek fans, and I still say it should have been a TV trailer done as a nod to Justin Lin as a public "in joke" after a more Trek-ish trailer or two had been released.




#88320 RIP Richard Hatch

Posted by Alex on 08 February 2017 - 12:24 PM

Saw this after work last night, what a frakkin' disappointment! Richard Hatch seemed like an awesome guy, and he pushed for more BSG long before NBC/Universal was considering it. He'll definitely be missed.




#88295 Star Trek 4 (14)

Posted by Alex on 06 February 2017 - 12:00 AM

It's really simple: Star Trek shouldn't even be attempting to compete with so–called "Summer Blockbusters" that are typically action–driven popcorn flicks by virtue of the fact that it's never done well when distilled to being nothing more than an aforementioned action flick. Trek movies have typically had winter release dates prior to Trek XI, and one major reason for that was that they were competing with "prestiege" films that typically required a bit more thought, but could also throw in a bit of action under the right circumstances. More importantly though, they weren't shooting for best picture nominations, but for technical awards in categories like sound editing and sound design, prosthetics, VFX, musical score, etc., which are areas where Sci–Fi typically excels, and where Trek now only competed, but occasionally won awards! (Actually, "occasionally" is a bit of an understatement, the TV shows frequently won technical awards, and a lot of the films picked up technical awards as well.)

 

Out of the past three films Trek XI made exactly what it should have, STID should have tanked much harder but didn't because it was coasting on Trek XI's success, and Beyond should have been a commercial success, but was photon torpedoed by the negative reaction to STID, and by circumstances completely out of its control, namely the fact that it was released in the single worst year for reboots, spin–offs, and sequels in well over a decade, and that it was released right at the height of comparable reboot movies tanking. The initial trailer didn't do the film any favors either and definitely sent at least some of its target audience home. In contrast, Rogue One just barely managed to avoid a horribly timed release as the hatred of reboots that plagued 2016 had started to subside by the time that it came out, and it was able to coast off of the success of TFA, (despite not being tied to it plot–wise,) and it was still a great film that was extremely well executed. Oh, and Rogue One was greeted largely with skepticism until it actually started making buckets of money like "numbered" Star Wars films, while Beyond was assumed to be a film that was just going to make buckets of money until Paramount saw similar films getting slaughtered, at which point they adjusted their box office expectations downward quite significantly prior to Beyond's release, causing Beyond to exceed said expectations.

 

Trek XIV is supposedly already in the works at some level, already has a script, and already has most of the cast signed on to appear in it, (it might actually be the entire cast at this point, but I think one or two people might be missing, supposedly Pine, Quinto, Pegg, and Saldana are definitely onboard though, with Urban and Cho being the only ones that I'm unsure about,) so clearly Paramount has faith in it. Chris Hemsworth has also seen the script which supposedly involves George Kirk and has described it as, and I quote "brilliant," suggesting that Paramount clearly has faith in Pegg's writing for the franchise, and presumably in Justin Lin's direction as well. It's just a matter of actually putting the thing into production, and my guess is that Paramount is now quietly giving CBS some breathing room to launch DSC before they ramp up production on their next film, which isn't entirely a bad thing, and keeps it from being perpetually delayed after a release date is set the way the last three films were.

 

Also, Simon Pegg really summed up how to "fix" the problem with the Kelvin Timeline movies perfectly, which is to take out a lot of the action sequences that fans don't want, and that cost most of the money required to produce a Trek film. I'm not talking about ship battles, but about the bike–flips and random platform jumps that fans already aren't fond of, and that are the most expensive part of these films. Lose those and the budget shrinks dramatically, and Trek becomes quite profitable.

 

Didn't someone at Paramount suggest that the Kelvin Timeline films should have done something like the new Star Wars movies where we occasionally get a one off film that basically exists for the purpose of universe building? (Zero Dark Thirty in space as one example seems to ring a bell for some reason.) That's not an entirely bad idea if it means that the Kelvin Timeline gets fleshed out in a way that people can actually care about it, which was really hard to do with anything in it prior to Beyond, and that's largely because Beyond gave us a reason to care about the characters, and to see them as more than just knock–offs of their Prime Universe counterparts, which is something STID failed miserably at, and one of many reasons why it was a horrible film.