Werthead

Star Trek: Discovery

494 posts in this topic

Since the old thread expired.

Quote

I forget how long ago this was announced but I assume at some point there was a hope it'd be ready for the 50th? But yea, rather it wasn't rushed.

No, there was a six-month exclusion contract in place so Discovery could not air within six months of Beyond coming out. Annoying, although, as it turns out, irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

No, there was a six-month exclusion contract in place so Discovery could not air within six months of Beyond coming out.



That is utterly fucking ridiculous.

And having seen how successful a celebration Doctor Who made of their fiftieth, Trek missing theirs with both film and TV show is a bonkers decision on both a fan-connection level and a franchise level. Who the fuck is running this shitshow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:



That is utterly fucking ridiculous.

And having seen how successful a celebration Doctor Who made of their fiftieth, Trek missing theirs with both film and TV show is a bonkers decision on both a fan-connection level and a franchise level. Who the fuck is running this shitshow?

That's the problem, no-one is. The franchise has been split in half between Paramount and CBS, who for some reason really hate each other and they were not willing to coordinate over anything for the 50th. That's why we got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just....

I'm glad I'm not a real Trek fan coz I'd be crying tears or rage if I was. Absolute bollocks to the lot of them.

Also I just want to know which cretin sold the rights to adapt the second most iconic sci-fi TV show ever into film in a way that made it so that the show has to kowtow to a timetable the filmmakers want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

That's just....

I'm glad I'm not a real Trek fan coz I'd be crying tears or rage if I was. Absolute bollocks to the lot of them.

Also I just want to know which cretin sold the rights to adapt the second most iconic sci-fi TV show ever into film in a way that made it so that the show has to kowtow to a timetable the filmmakers want.

Okay... I'll bite, what's first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rhom said:

Okay... I'll bite, what's first?

 

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 Doctor Who

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

Doctor Who?

That's what I figured he meant, but I think we may next need to have a discussion on "iconic."

Because if I walk down the street and ask 50 random people to name a Sci-Fi show, I'm guessing Star Trek pops up as an answer a whole lot more than Doctor Who.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rhom said:

That's what I figured he meant, but I think we may next need to have a discussion on "iconic."

Because if I walk down the street and ask 50 random people to name a Sci-Fi show, I'm guessing Star Trek pops up as an answer a whole lot more than Doctor Who.

 

I reckon if you were to ask someone from the UK you'd hear Dr. Who as often as Star Trek.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Arch-MaesterPhilip said:

I reckon if you were to ask someone from the UK you'd hear Dr. Who as often as Star Trek.  

Could be.  Don't interact with a lot of Brits on a daily basis, but while Dr. Who has a strong counter culture type following these days; in my experience Star Trek has had a much more penetrating effect on culture outside of the Sci Fi genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's definitely dependent on whether you are from the UK or not regarding Dr Who. If you grew up during the 90s early 2000s though even the UK would say Trek. The last 10 years is trickier given Who is on air while Trek isn't.

I think folk from earlier generations in the UK would probably say "blake's 7" - shame they never brought that back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit that I was being cheeky with that comment, but there's no 'could be' about it- Doctor Who is front page news in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad that I never even entertained the idea of a one off 50th anniversary episode like Doctor Who. My brain just said "well, obviously they couldn't do that because...." well......why not actually? They have as many time travel shenanigans up their sleeve to come up with some mcguffin to throw some characters together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, red snow said:

I think it's definitely dependent on whether you are from the UK or not regarding Dr Who.

Not just the UK; I think any English-speaking country other than the US. The original series of Doctor Who ran for 26 years, while Star Trek just barely managed three.

1 hour ago, red snow said:

I think folk from earlier generations in the UK would probably say "blake's 7" - shame they never brought that back.

Blakes 7 is awesome, but I'm not sure I'd want to see a remake; it relies so much on the original cast. A sequel series could have worked, but I think it's a bit late for that.

52 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

It's sad that I never even entertained the idea of a one off 50th anniversary episode like Doctor Who. My brain just said "well, obviously they couldn't do that because...." well......why not actually?

It would have been a much bigger job than for Doctor Who, since everything would have to be set up from scratch, whereas DW had an active production office making episodes at the time. But yes, they should have done it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think folk from earlier generations in the UK would probably say "blake's 7" - shame they never brought that back.

There was a reboot idea that came close but it was terrible. It was a good thing they never made it. I daresay it will re-emerge one day, but in a format that's any good? Doubtful.

Quote

Also I just want to know which cretin sold the rights to adapt the second most iconic sci-fi TV show ever into film in a way that made it so that the show has to kowtow to a timetable the filmmakers want.

They didn't. Paramount and CBS split apart (having formerly been one company with TV and film rights under one roof) and as part of the divorce agreement Paramount took the film rights and CBS took the TV rights. It was a shitty deal because CBS has never had any involvement with Star Trek before at all (the original show aired on NBC, TNG and DS9 were made by Paramount TV for syndication and Voy and Ent were made by Paramount for UPN, which then turned into The CW) but I gather there was a lot of horse-trading behind the scenes so CBS could get the rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not just the UK; I think any English-speaking country other than the US. The original series of Doctor Who ran for 26 years, while Star Trek just barely managed three.

Maybe that would have been true in the 1980s (although the Trek movies had been keeping it in the public eye) but by 2001 there were 28 seasons of Star Trek (more than there had been of Doctor Who). And TNG was far, far more famous and well-known than the original.

Quote

Blakes 7 is awesome, but I'm not sure I'd want to see a remake; it relies so much on the original cast. A sequel series could have worked, but I think it's a bit late for that.

I think a remake is eminently possible, but it would require them to double down on the original idea. The remake idea they had a few years ago was hideous, making Blake a soldier rather than an engineer and having him framed for the murder of his wife rather than being a paedophile (which was quite a startling move for a 1970s TV show). Also, it was only set 150 years from now rather than 1,000, which made zero sense. The original needed that big scale which you can only have from having humans out in space for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quote they decided to stick on the side of a board game, of all places, gave me an idea for this 'incident' that Fuller spoke of that's been 'mentioned, but unexplored'.

Commander Tebok in TNG S1E25, The Neutral Zone

Quote

Captain Picard, because your actions are those of a thoughtful man, I will tell you this. Matters more urgent caused our absence... now witness the result. Outposts destroyed. Expansion of the Federation everywhere. Yes, we have indeed been negligent, but no longer.

Fuller also said that the TOS episode 'Balance of Terror' was a touchstone for Discovery. I'm wondering if the series might explore these 'matters more urgent'. It'd explain his response when asked if it was about the Romulan War ("No, close") and also why no one's come up with a convincing event from around the period, as it's so vague and spans such a long time. There may have been some huge distraction for the Romulans that spanned the entire time from Discovery to The Neutral Zone, possibly a war with an unknown race on the opposite side of their territory. It could be the only reason the Romulans signed the peace treaty and established the neutral zone is because they couldn't fight a war on two fronts. They could frame the events of Balance of Terror as relevant to this somehow - it was a lone ship that suddenly decided to blow up some outposts, maybe it was a rogue ship that feared neglecting the Federation threat? Maybe they were testing the newly invented cloaking device? They could even cast a younger version of the unnamed Romulan Commander (Mark Lenard, more familiar as Sarek).

Only trouble is, they'd have the same problem Enterprise had in that according to TOS, nobody ever laid eyes on a Romulan during the war. Which would make things awkward. I guess it could all get a bit Section 31 esque and turn out that no one officially saw them, but people still may have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting a very Enterprise feeling about this entire idea and that wasn't a particularly good thing. 

Edited by Crazydog7
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveSumm said:

Fuller also said that the TOS episode 'Balance of Terror' was a touchstone for Discovery. I'm wondering if the series might explore these 'matters more urgent'. It'd explain his response when asked if it was about the Romulan War ("No, close") and also why no one's come up with a convincing event from around the period, as it's so vague and spans such a long time. There may have been some huge distraction for the Romulans that spanned the entire time from Discovery to The Neutral Zone, possibly a war with an unknown race on the opposite side of their territory. It could be the only reason the Romulans signed the peace treaty and established the neutral zone is because they couldn't fight a war on two fronts.

This is a great idea (and one they should steal from you and incorporate if it's not what they are referring to. I love the "there may have been an even greater threat on the other side of the empire" interpretation of many events in (usually) ancient history. A bit like the proto-greeks fighting and winning against the Persian Empire - there's a lot of historians point out they could have been fighting a bigger battle in the far East but because we don't have as detailed records from the Persians we tend to get the history from the greek underdogs. A similar thing with Western Europe thinking they had an eastern ally against the muslims when it reality it was the Mongol horde.

Painting the Federation as the underdogs who simply got lucky with a more dangerous foe fighting the Romulans actually gives the showrunners a lot of freedom. The only thing they'd need to tie up is what happened to this other foe.

There'd also be plenty of neat angles to run along. Are the federation helping the Romulans? Are they helping the other foe? Is the enemy of their enemy their friend or actually far, far worse?

It also reminds me a little of the rumours/speculation about the new ship looking a bit like a klingon/romulan ship. This could be a very good reason for why it looks like a merger. As long as they provide good reasons for why they'd ally.

On 19/09/2016 at 11:17 PM, Werthead said:

Maybe that would have been true in the 1980s (although the Trek movies had been keeping it in the public eye) but by 2001 there were 28 seasons of Star Trek (more than there had been of Doctor Who). And TNG was far, far more famous and well-known than the original.

I think a remake is eminently possible, but it would require them to double down on the original idea. The remake idea they had a few years ago was hideous, making Blake a soldier rather than an engineer and having him framed for the murder of his wife rather than being a paedophile (which was quite a startling move for a 1970s TV show). Also, it was only set 150 years from now rather than 1,000, which made zero sense. The original needed that big scale which you can only have from having humans out in space for centuries.

having the lead as a potential paedophile would be edgy now - especially if there was ambiguity over whether he was guilty or not. I guess if they quickly establish he was framed then it doesn't matter too much what they frame him for.

Other than needing the time to reach other star systems, these days I tend to think shorter leaps in the future are more realistic than large ones. Unless there's some unknown roadblocks I think humans will be almost unrecognisable in 1000 years and probably splintered into other gm/cybernetic off-shoots. It could happen in 150 years. So I'd possibly go for us developing FTL in a relatively short span of time over humans being recognisable in 1000.

Trek's about 350 years from now, right? That's actually a pretty good "guess" in terms of where we could be. Just not in terms of society - although I think Trek had a little "dark age" between now and then which could be enough to keep humans recognisable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, red snow said:

There'd also be plenty of neat angles to run along. Are the federation helping the Romulans? Are they helping the other foe? Is the enemy of their enemy their friend or actually far, far worse?

Yea I was thinking along these lines. Number One could be a lieutenant commander on the Discovery officially, but unofficially be a Section 31 spy who's tasked with inflaming the situation between the Romulans and this unknown foe. It'd explain why she's the lead character but not the captain, if the series was about the secret mission more than it was about the Discovery itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.