Star Trek: Discovery

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

There's also the feeling that the technology got too much, too quickly, especially in Voyager. Transwarp technology should allow the Federation to cross the entire galaxy in a matter of months and there isn't too much of a threat out there.

My feeling is that this is pretty much BS. Star Trek often introduces amazing new technology and ideas and forgets about it 5 episodes later, so I don't see why they can't just handwave away the stuff that's far too overpowered.

They could also make a new series in that era - or a century or some decades after that era - about an expedition to the Andromeda galaxy, or even further away. There is no reason for them to being stuck in our galaxy forever.

The tech babble thing gets a little thick in Voyager but things could easily enough changed there if there was a rule among the writers not to treat the space ship as some kind of Swiss pocketknife that can just be reprogrammed or remodulated to do stuff it was not designed to do.

[Corvinus85]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They could also make a new series in that era - or a century or some decades after that era - about an expedition to the Andromeda galaxy, or even further away. There is no reason for them to being stuck in our galaxy forever.

Yep, they should call it The Andromeda Initiative, and do it better than Bioware. 

[Rippounet]

Only just saw the trailer.

Well, it might just be wishful thinking, but I feel that the trailer is bad. So bad it's hard to see what the show will look like.
The visuals and the actors seem very good. The music in the trailer is terrible (seriously, who the hell made that choice), and of course, the klingons being the main antagonists is a pretty big disappointment (the show better have more to it than this).
But there's no way to judge whether this is worthy of the franchise without seeing an entire episode .

I kind of understand why they're doing a prequel. Star Trek is supposed to be optimistic and positive, but at the same time, today's viewers need tension and suspense. Setting a show in the past is the easy way to give both tension to new viewers (through lots of fights, I guess) while keeping some of the optimism of the old shows (you know it's going to end well). It even allows a few surprises (tortured characters, some not-too-minor characters dying... etc).

Star Trek is damn hard to do right though. The main reason for this is that, although most of us hate to admit it, the very concept of Star Trek isn't adapted to modern televison. Like, at all. It was always kind of a brainy TV show: a limited number of characters in a small studio whose adventures somehow were interesting because of an extra intellectual/metaphysical dimension. I can't even explain to people why I like it without sounding like a super-nerd... Even though most people I know are nerds/geeks themselves.

I'm not sure Star Trek can be successful today. Enterprise was ok, but imho it had already lost the unique Star Trek feeling ; I thought it worked mostly thanks to Scott Bakula. It's just not easy to build an atmosphere of idealism credible enough for modern television. Patrick Stewart was amazing as Picard back in the eighties, but the character himself wasn't exactly exciting. Fact is, enlightened humans are very hard to portray, and can easily be boring or sanctimonious. I'm not sure they'll even try...

[red snow]

I'm still not sure how setting something in the past adds tension when you know the outcome? Unless you're going for dramatic tension eg you know something is going to happen but you don't know how.

 

As for trek not suiting modern TV - I'd tend to agree. However I think a common reason people cite for enyoying "sense8" is that it's so refrishingly positive. Maybe there is an audience out there for optimism? In which case now might be the best time to have a Trek show embracing the wonder of exploration and bringing cultures together.

[DaveSumm]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, it might just be wishful thinking, but I feel that the trailer is bad. So bad it's hard to see what the show will look like.

Yea this is a pretty crucial distinction. It is a bad trailer. I know they don't want to give away too much, but it should still make some limited sense. "Where are we going? Something about plotting courses?" "Something irrelevant about you getting a command even though we all thought you were supposed to be a first officer" "OK we walked all this way just to beam out anyway". Then the rest does nothing coherent really, just gives off vague impressions of doom and gloom and Klingons.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

The problem with prequels in the Star Trek universe is that it basically kills off any idea of discovery or mystery. It gives you a very limited scope as to what can and can't happen, even if this is set in a slightly different universe than the one before. 

My main issue with the seeming concept of this show is it seems like it won't be doing the things I personally enjoy from a Star Trek show.

For me Star Trek was at its best when it was out there discovery new worlds and going boldly on. I know a lot of people like DS9 but that never interested me ( and I almost enjoyed Voyager), mainly because the political back and forth and day to day life of being in a sci fi universe has just been handled far better by other shows. 

I still love the original series for what it was, a way to tell crazy allegorical stories and make the universe seem massive and exciting. TNG did that as well. I feel like we've moved so far away from all that now and Star Trek has become this grounded, real world franchise that doesn't really suit it. 

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, red snow said:

I'm still not sure how setting something in the past adds tension when you know the outcome? Unless you're going for dramatic tension eg you know something is going to happen but you don't know how.

There's the fact that even when you know the story will end well for the Federation, you don't know how well it's going to end for individual characters, or even the ship (for all we know, Discovery is doomed).
Most importantly, as I was trying to say, new viewers wouldn't necessarily know the outcome anyway. We (old fans) take for granted the fact that there is peace with the Klingons eventually, but does everyone know that? Anyone having watched TNG or DS9 knows that the Klingons are slightly more subtle than they seem to be, but TNG aired about thirty years ago and DS9 about twenty years ago...

I'm more bothered by the fact that the Klingons are likely to be cardboard villains, at least in the first season. Star Trek was not meant to be too manichean. Of course, they probably plan to introduce likeable Klingons in the plot over time, but the timing is critical, and I dunno whether the show can be a success if it's just about a Federation ship having to fight a Klingon armada for a whole season in the meantime.

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

The problem with prequels in the Star Trek universe is that it basically kills off any idea of discovery or mystery. It gives you a very limited scope as to what can and can't happen, even if this is set in a slightly different universe than the one before.
My main issue with the seeming concept of this show is it seems like it won't be doing the things I personally enjoy from a Star Trek show.
For me Star Trek was at its best when it was out there discovery new worlds and going boldly on.

Yeah, that's true. On the other hand, the trailer may give us the wrong impression about the show. Because the ship is named Discovery, I'm kind of hoping we actually do get more than the story with the Klingons.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

There's the fact that even when you know the story will end well for the Federation, you don't know how well it's going to end for individual characters, or even the ship (for all we know, Discovery is doomed).
Most importantly, as I was trying to say, new viewers wouldn't necessarily know the outcome anyway. We (old fans) take for granted the fact that there is peace with the Klingons eventually, but does everyone know that? Anyone having watched TNG or DS9 knows that the Klingons are slightly more subtle than they seem to be, but TNG aired about thirty years ago and DS9 about twenty years ago...

 

Hey, Rip, the tone here may seem like I'm angry at you. I'm not, i'm just irked with the show's choice to set it where they have.

Set it in the future and new and old fans can be entertained though. None of those arguments give a reason for why it isn't set post Voyager. We wouldn't have a clue what happens to any of the characters if it was set in the "present"/future. Instead I'm going to be biting my nails wondering if spock ever masters the vulcan language or manages to succeed as a hybrid growing up amongst vulcans. If Sarek ever gets in trouble - the suspense of whether he makes it out alive will kill me. Maybe new viewers who've managed to avoid Star Trek their entire lives and only now decided to try it will get to benefit in the wonder and speculation of these scenarios. But both parties could have been left open to surprise if it wasn't set in the past meaning all the characters are at risk.

 

Did new viewers turn up in droves to watch Enterprise? If they did then it must have been at the expense of existing fans but I suspect it was more a case of existing fans sticking with the franchise.

If we give the the benefit of the doubt and say the new films have brought a new audience and that's what they are chasing after (which they seem to be). Why not just set in the Abrams verse and do a next gen version or simply follow another crew in that timeframe?

Besides the post Episode I-III obsession with prequels and the fact the creators seem to like doing them there isn't really any compelling reason why it works better at drawing in an audience. The techno bubble bursting might be an issue but only if they continued using it at the rate voyager was. Even that goes two ways though because if the Discovery crew ever do anything different to solve a problem Voyager etc may have encountered the question will be "why the hell didn't they log this and use the experience technology as a standard protocol in the future"

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

Why not just set in the Abrams verse and do a next gen version or simply follow another crew in that timeframe?

Abrams-verse NCC-1701-C. It never goes through the wormhole that the Prime version does, but gets held up for some other reason so war with the Klingons is built in and in a way that'd be a nice nod to Prime fans. I'd watch that. I really quite like the Abrams-verse, just not for the same reason I like Star Trek and I'd rather they just admitted which version it was instead of hedging.

Shame that all I can think to post about here is shows I'd rather see than Discovery.

[Jaxom 1974]

Ugh. The Abramsverse timeline is just jacked up...its best left never to be used again.

Relevance to today is already ready and waiting based on the current novels and where they've gone editorially.  Those stories could easily be tweaked to fit post Voyager and Nemesis and be pit together in a manner that speaks to what people watching are dealing with.  

Did I mention I'm a strong partisan of the books and their storyline...?

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

Hey, Rip, the tone here may seem like I'm angry at you. I'm not, i'm just irked with the show's choice to set it where they have.

No problem mate.

2 hours ago, red snow said:

Did new viewers turn up in droves to watch Enterprise?

I dunno, but I had a couple of friends who'd never watched Star Trek before Enterprise so I think it happens.

2 hours ago, red snow said:

Why not just set in the Abrams verse and do a next gen version or simply follow another crew in that timeframe?

Can we be sure that this show is not set in the Abrams verse?

[red snow]

1 hour ago, DaveSumm said:

 

Shame that all I can think to post about here is shows I'd rather see than Discovery.

Another flaw with setting it in a time period hardcore fans can tell everyone else what can and can't happen. The best compromise I read here was that it would actually cover a threat the romulans were dealing with on the other edge of their empire and therefore something that maybe never directly impacted on federation space. But unless the new klingons are said threat it seems that's out the window. I actually wonder how much of Fuller's original plan is still in place? Although American gods has me a bit releived he's not on the show anymore - I think he'd change Trek too much with his current style.

Was the anthology format ever confirmed or denied? I think it's not on the cards but it would be a potential out if this season doesn't catch on.

24 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Ugh. The Abramsverse timeline is just jacked up...its best left never to be used again.

Relevance to today is already ready and waiting based on the current novels and where they've gone editorially.  Those stories could easily be tweaked to fit post Voyager and Nemesis and be pit together in a manner that speaks to what people watching are dealing with.  

Did I mention I'm a strong partisan of the books and their storyline...?

I'd be all for a Star wars rebels approach to the books. I haven't read the books but there's also a danger of being chained by the books in a similar way to doing prequels. But cherry picking concepts and developments as a spring board is cool. It'd also allow them to use any of the next gen actors willing to guest star.

18 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

No problem mate.

I dunno, but I had a couple of friends who'd never watched Star Trek before Enterprise so I think it happens.

Can we be sure that this show is not set in the Abrams verse?

Interesting about new viewers to enterprise. Did enterprise ever tempt them to watch the other shows?

I guess we'll only know for sure if it isn't the Abrams verse when something occurs that doesn't fit. I suspect it'll be coy and neither confirm or deny if that's possible. I'm sure someone here can explain whether it's possible for the show to be either/both universes. I can't remember if the time travel in JJ-trek caused changes that would derail the Discovery timeline if it's in the prime one?

 

[Rippounet]

23 minutes ago, red snow said:

Interesting about new viewers to enterprise. Did enterprise ever tempt them to watch the other shows?

Nope. I never managed to convince them (I tried, but the visuals really didn't help).

Though come to think of it, Star Trek never knew much of a success in France. We had TOS at some point, but I'm not even sure TNG was ever broadcast on a major TV channel ; I've only watched it myself because I spent a few years in the States (and obviously, I don't need dubbing or subtitles).
I believe most French people only know TOS, Enterprise, and/or the Abrams films. Even hardcore sci-fi fans tend to prefer other shows like BSG or Firefly.
This may explain my take on things. I'm tempted to say people here are really not familiar with the lore at all, which means the setting of Discovery won't be much of a problem for most potential viewers.

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Nope. I never managed to convince them (I tried, but the visuals really didn't help).

Though come to think of it, Star Trek never knew much of a success in France. We had TOS at some point, but I'm not even sure TNG was ever broadcast on a major TV channel ; I've only watched it myself because I spent a few years in the States (and obviously, I don't need dubbing or subtitles).
I believe most French people only know TOS, Enterprise, and/or the Abrams films. Even hardcore sci-fi fans tend to prefer other shows like BSG or Firefly.
This may explain my take on things. I'm tempted to say people here are really not familiar with the lore at all, which means the setting of Discovery won't be much of a problem for most potential viewers.

I can imagine French viewers may have been disappointed with a captain called Jean -Luc Picard being played by one of the most english actors around Although I guess the dub could have fixed that.

You do raise a good point though that TV - especially via streaming is now a worldwide audience. I imagine France gets a lot more US tv now than back in the 90s. Even the UK has more of it now.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, red snow said:

I can imagine French viewers may have been disappointed with a captain called Jean -Luc Picard being played by one of the most english actors around

I dunno. I personally realized Picard was actually supposed to be French only when the show made it impossible to ignore (S4, E2: Family, I believe).

Before that, I simply assumed that European nations had merged at some point in time, thus explaining why a guy with a French-sounding name had such a beautiful RP English accent and a love for Earl Grey tea.

[red snow]

2 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I dunno. I personally realized Picard was actually supposed to be French only when the show made it impossible to ignore (S4, E2: Family, I believe).

Before that, I simply assumed that European nations had merged at some point in time, thus explaining why a guy with a French-sounding name had such a beautiful RP English accent and a love for Earl Grey tea.

how dated the concept of a federal europe with england as part of it

 

[DaveSumm]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

I guess we'll only know for sure if it isn't the Abrams verse when something occurs that doesn't fit. I suspect it'll be coy and neither confirm or deny if that's possible. I'm sure someone here can explain whether it's possible for the show to be either/both universes. I can't remember if the time travel in JJ-trek caused changes that would derail the Discovery timeline if it's in the prime one?

I can't remember if this is official or just a theory, but I think the idea was that the attack on the Kelvin was studied intently as they never knew if the mining ship would come back, and as a result Starfleet was more militaristic and had better technology. Of course this is just smoothing over the fact it looks so much better. But I can't think of anything that could come up without them really going out of their way. The Kelvin might still be in service I guess, but basically Discovery will sit in either universe until they intentionally reveal which it is. Which I doubt they will.

[Corvinus85]

2 hours ago, red snow said:

I guess we'll only know for sure if it isn't the Abrams verse when something occurs that doesn't fit. I suspect it'll be coy and neither confirm or deny if that's possible. I'm sure someone here can explain whether it's possible for the show to be either/both universes. I can't remember if the time travel in JJ-trek caused changes that would derail the Discovery timeline if it's in the prime one?

 

I think we'll know for sure one way or another if the ship's engineering area looks like a water cooling plant.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

how dated the concept of a federal europe with england as part of it

Alternatively, it does suggest that we might manage to become friendly with Europe again, we just have to go through World War 3 and the Eugenics War first.

[red snow]

2 hours ago, Corvinus said:

I think we'll know for sure one way or another if the ship's engineering area looks like a water cooling plant.

or if they invent faster than warp beaming technology and don't realise it. Actually the JJ verse would get around that problem of making technological leaps as they fail to realise they have.

1 hour ago, williamjm said:

Alternatively, it does suggest that we might manage to become friendly with Europe again, we just have to go through World War 3 and the Eugenics War first.

I'd consider voting for whichever party used that line in regards to guiding the country through brexit.