1901 replies to this topic

[1701D]

...but thats not what TOS originally aspired to.

Are we sure?

Star Trek was a dead show. It was canned after just 3 seasons, it found an audience who just loved the stories. It had a very small budget and had to give its audience well written stories. I'm not even sure canon was a word associated with Star Trek back in the 60's/70's. Star Trek was simply a collection of 79 stories that inspired a generation.

let's face it, The Motion Picture is hardly a return to The Original Series besides the characters returning, so maybe canon begins with that movie?

[Alteran195]

Canon was ignored several times during the series. 

 

During early TNG the Klingons were part of the Federation, than in season 3 they weren't for example. 

[Gothneo]

and... season 3 is generally considered the most spotty for writing... not all of trek writing are gems, and keeping continuity only gets you so far... besides Star Trek has shown its *more* than willing to employ a time travel mcguffin to get around sticky continuity issues. 

 

All I'm saying is it should be considered as an aspect of good writing when continuity in a series matters. if it doesn't then they should drop the illusion of trying to tell stories that build upon each other... then they don't have to worry about it... or quit calling it Star Trek... make up some new name... like "The Orville"   

[Alteran195]

And we don't know that the story Discovery is going to tell violates canon or not. 

 

If one violation of canon is perfectly acceptable to fans, why is Discovery any different? 

 

Again, its the story that matters. 

[JMW326]

And we don't know that the story Discovery is going to tell violates canon or not. 
 
If one violation of canon is perfectly acceptable to fans, why is Discovery any different? 
 
Again, its the story that matters.

I feel that you are beating a dead horse with some of this crew.

[Gothneo]

I don't actually know what the point Alterran is making... 

 

My point was cannon leads to continuity, and continuity can improve writing and story telling... they are intertwined... so an argument that cannon doesn't matter at all is a non-sequitur argument to me. Cannon and Continuity are aspects of writing a good story... when... and only when your trying to tell a continuing story!  If its not a continuing story then ok!

 

I'm not making any judgements about Discovery... as I don't know what it is about yet! I was just responding to the overall thread started by "The Shat" saying don't get wrapped around the axel about cannon... focus on the story... so thats what I'm doing... A story that has continuity will be better... to get continuity you create a cannon. 

[Alteran195]

The biggest issue people have with Discovery is that its aesthetic violates canon. 

 

I'm saying that if fans have just accepted canon violations in the past, why does it matter so much with Discovery?

 

If the story stands up to canon, than its aesthetic isn't nearly as important. 

[Daysleeper]

Well it depends. When Scotty wanted to see the bridge of his Enterprise on the holodeck in TNG's "Relics", it was the bridge from TOS. When Sisko and his crew travelled back in time, they were on the TOS Enterprise wearing TOS costumes. When mirror Archer and his crew found the Defiant from the future (and from a parallel universe), it was the ship from TOS with all the sets and costumes recreated. So whatever canon violations (cannon is something else, btw.) there might have been, the general look of this time -meaning the 2260s - was always the same. Do the 60's sets look dated? Yeah. But so does TNG in the meantime, at least the early seasons. The main question is: Why can other franchises like Star Wars or Alien stay within their general aesthetic look (some things being updated, I grant you that, but in such a subtle way that it looks almost the same), but as soon as fans have concerns regarding this issue in the new Trek show, people get upset. Well, it would be possible to make a show that looks more like TOS (or pre-TOS) but still work as a show. I completely agree, visual continuity is a part of the canon. I wish Discovery would be more faithful to the roots of the franchise it is supposed to be a part of.

[Alteran195]

Star Wars can look dated because it isn't about us, it's a long time ago from a galaxy far far away.

Star Trek is meant to be our future. You can't have a show set 200 years in our future and look like it's from the 60's.

Star Trek and Star Wars aren't the same.

As for the episodes showing the TOS era, they were fan service episodes. That aesthetic works for one off stories, but wouldn't work for a whole series.

It's very possible we could see that aesthetic show up in Discovery. If they ever visit K7, or run into a constitution class ship from that era, it could have that look or a look closer to TOS. I don't expect that to happen, but it could.

[s8film40]

The biggest issue people have with Discovery is that its aesthetic violates canon. 

 

I'm saying that if fans have just accepted canon violations in the past, why does it matter so much with Discovery?

 

If the story stands up to canon, than its aesthetic isn't nearly as important. 

We're talking about the overall aesthetic of the series here not a trivial detail. I don't understand why we have to make excuses for this show, it's not like it's a fan film with a limited budget. They have the resources of the studio and essentially can do whatever they want within the Star Trek universe. It's their opportunity to expand the Star Trek franchise, grow the fanbase and build on 50 years of content. Instead they seem to want to re-invent something that wasn't broken. If this doesn't end up fitting in that world they'll miss the opportunity to bring back in the fans from the past as well as the opportunity to introduce new fans to a huge catalog of content they could resell and relicense. My worry is that the executives aren't really even looking at this as a continuation of Star Trek but rather their answer to the popular serialized Netflix series'.

[1701D]

At a point in its long history, Star Trek became a period piece.

If you're going to set your show in a specific time period, that has already been established previously, you better not screw it up and mess around with it. Add to it, compliment it but don't reimagine it.

Star Trek is also about characters and stories so what does it matter if it looks like it's set in the same world as TOS? It doesn't because the stories Star Trek has always told had nothing to do with its look. It's look has since become iconic so why not use it?

This whole idea that audiences will not take it seriously if it looks like it did back in the 60's is utter utter nonsense. Of course sets aren't going to be made as cheaply, so there is no reason why with modern production values, that the aesthetic of TOS couldn't be reintroduced and done effectively for a modern TV series.

As Doung Drexler has pointed out several times; Star Trek has not been given the respect it has deserved, the Abrams movies take far too much inspiration from Star Wars and instead it has been thoughtlessly reimagined by people who don't understand or care about its continuity or canon but insist that Star Trek has to be something modern and cool for the sake of appealing to a modern audience.

I call bullshit on that. Don't fuck with something that works, don't reimagine aspects of Star Trek that for 50 years have worked just fine. It's unnecessary and undermines the foundations Gene Roddenberry established 50 years ago.

Even Enterprise through all of its faults, worked for the most part and had people working on it that took care and made sure that every single aspect of that ship for example, was explained and thought out in terms of how it evolved from Enterprise NX-01 to the constitution class ships from TOS.

With Discovery so far, we've seen uniforms that don't fit the era, ships with Kelvin timeline windscreens, overly generic futuristic displays and sets that don't look at all like Star Trek.

You wanna reinvent Star Trek, either call it something else or set your series 50/100 years into Star Trek's future, there you can reinvent everything without having to distort the established continuity of the Star Trek world.

Discovery might be great but I'm disappointed in how CBS has seemingly treated the likes of Doug Drexler, Mike and Denise Okuda, Bryan Fuller and other behind the scenes alumni who adore this series and would have taken the care to actually get it right, rather than reimagine things that aren't broken.

I've been all over the place with how I feel about this new series. A part of me wants to really rally behind Discovery and love it. Though the other part has been growing in exasperation at the ignorant and thoughtless approach the studios and creative minds have had for this franchise. It may be that they are all passionate about making it the best version of itself, but to be honest, is it going to be the best version of Star Trek? So far I'm going to have to say no, as I've begun hearing a lot more negatives about it than positives from the likes of Doug Drexler, Robert Meyer Burnett and Jon Schnepp who all love Star Trek, grew up with Star Trek and know people who were involved in the production. It all kind of leads me to believe that Star Trek is really screwed up right now with no clear direction or leadership. I can't shake the feeling that this series is going to be a disaster for Star Trek on the whole. So maybe it should fail and maybe in order to save Star Trek, Star Trek needs to go away for a good amount of time and become legend, let it rest while it waits for someone who truly loves, grew up with and understands it to come along and do it right, I just don't think Discovery is going to be the series that restores Star Trek to its former 70's/80's/90's glory.

As much as Star Trek and Star Wars are different, they should both be treated with respect. One has been, the other has been completely butchered for it to resemble the other.

[Alteran195]

For someone who adamantly defended the Kelvin movies 1701, your stance on Discovery is really a surprise. Especially when you include insulting the Kelvin movies in your post.

As for "making excuses." We've seen a couple minutes of footage from a trailer cut to appeal to mass audiences, what else are we supposed to do? Instead of being overly negative like so many fans are being, I'm being optimistic.

Time will tell if Discovery is good or not, and I imagine if it is than people will overlook the aesthetic.

[1701D]

For someone who adamantly defended the Kelvin movies 1701, your stance on Discovery is really a surprise. Especially when you include insulting the Kelvin movies in your post.

As for "making excuses." We've seen a couple minutes of footage from a trailer cut to appeal to mass audiences, what else are we supposed to do? Instead of being overly negative like so many fans are being, I'm being optimistic.

Time will tell if Discovery is good or not, and I imagine if it is than people will overlook the aesthetic.

As I say in my post, I'm conflicted regarding Discovery. It could be great, it could be bad. Even if it's bad, doesn't necessarily mean that it remains bad. For season 2, the studio may shake things up and bring back a lot of the old guard who had taken such care and attention in making Star Trek during the 90's, consistent with Star Trek continuity and canon. let's be honest here, when you hear people who have been involved in Star Trek for decades, come out and blast Discovery, it doesn't fill me with confidence that this show is going to be any good; Rob Meyer Burnett, Doug Drexler, Michael and Denise Okuda - these are names I would expect to be involved in creating this show, not slamming it. That's not a good sign.

And I'm not so sure it's going to be so easy to overlook a crucial aspect of Star Trek, an iconic aesthetic that must be present for people to be able to place this series. If you can't place this in either timeline then fans won't care and new audiences just won't bother. CBS need to win the fans over, I'm not so sure they will.

I hope that the reason we've not seen Discovery is because this show will blend the aesthetic of the Abrams movies with the aesthetic of the original series. If that's the case, and if it's done effectively and it clearly sets this show in the prime timeline, then great, let's see it evolve into the iconic TOS we know and love.

As for the Kelvin movies, I've defended them to a point and I can afford to accept them because they are confined to the movie screens. If Star Trek Discovery begins to go down the Kelvin Timeline road, then we're going to have a problem because as far as I'm concerned, the movies work because they are throw away and enjoyable, regardless of any contemporary issues they may deal with effectively.

Those moves are fun but entirely forgettable. They're not important, not crucial to the continuity of Star Trek and are, in effect, over bloated generic Hollywood action flicks. Fun for the 2 hours in the cinema, enjoyable on a Saturday night with the family but hardly something that deserves a loyal fan base. They take far too much inspiration from Star Wars and quite frankly, we've already got Star Wars for that, we don't need a poor mans copy of it. The studios should have the confidence in Star Trek and the unique differences that make it just as popular.

As a resul of their execution and direction, all three, while consist of good production values, are entirely inconsequential. If that's the future for Discovery then Star Trek is dead and should remain dead until someone comes along and gets it and understands what Star Trek is and needs to be.

[1701D]

It's very simple; for Star Trek: Discovery to work, it can't just be great storytelling, it has to fit into the period of time it is meant to be set in. If it fails to do that then it fails full stop.

[Alteran195]

I think I'm done with Discovery discussions threads for now here and everywhere. I'm just sick of the negativity.

I've said what I've said, saying it more isn't going to accomplish anything.

I'm hopeful Discovery will end up being good, just like TNG was after fans were so negative about it.

Time will tell.

[1701D]

It's a shame when fans say that they're done commenting. I think it's important for all opinions to be heard and yours especially, Alteran.

I genuinely don't think it's negativity here. I think everyone on this forum wants Star Trek: Discovery to succeed and be an amazing addition to the Star Trek franchise.

But if people were being negative, don't you think Star Trek fans have every right to be feeling a bit let down and exasperated?

[s8film40]

I can agree completely with the conflicted sentiment. I really want to like this and I'm still trying to be optimistic. I'm not really trying to be negative, I just have a bad feeling. Yes it's only a trailer but very often these trailers give us enough of a look to know what the aesthetic will be and so far that is pretty far off. I'm not condemning the show yet, but I'm not going to get my hopes high to have them potentially crushed.

[JMW326]

I think I'm done with Discovery discussions threads for now here and everywhere. I'm just sick of the negativity.
I've said what I've said, saying it more isn't going to accomplish anything.
I'm hopeful Discovery will end up being good, just like TNG was after fans were so negative about it.
Time will tell.

I completely agree.

[1701D]

I think fans are fed up of being burnt by the studios doing Star Trek. They've disrespected it for so long that they've ruined it. It's going to take something incredibly special to restore fans faith in Star Trek.

I'm not being negative, I'm worried, really worried about the future of Star Trek.

[s8film40]

Yeah my hope has worn very thin over the last several years. If this series doesn't turn out to be what I expect of Star Trek I think for me at least I may finally accept the fact that Star Trek is dead. While that's most definitely not the outcome I want it honestly may be refreshing to focus just on the past, continue to enjoy what has been produced and ignore the present. I came into Star Trek by way of TNG so I think I've always felt a need to embrace TOS and each new incarnation since I joined the fandom of a show that was part of a greater universe. That has up until JJ Abrams paid off well as I only found for the most part more of the qualities that originally drew me into TNG. I think that's why it's been hard for me to try to fit New Trek into my fandom as it felt like I was somehow missing something, but maybe I'm not really missing something after all. I'm still hoping for the best but I'm getting prepared to let it go.