red snow Posted January 21, 2017 Share Posted January 21, 2017 7 hours ago, SpaceChampion said: I haven't lost interest. I don't see what uncertainty of the premiere date has to do with my level of interest. I find it weird people on an ASOIAF board declaring losing interest because of that. Aren't you used to that by now?!? It's the moving of the premier date twice and the loss of the producer that's a worry. I even wonder if the speculation is warranted when there's a chance the show that was hinted at over a year ago is even going to be the same thing. Will it be an anthology, will we see different crews etc, etc. At least when Grrm pushes a release date back he doesn't say "and someone else will write it" I guess when things start to look more solid again and more info starts flowing my interest will return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loge Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I wonder how many long-term readers have given up on ASOIAF. I certainly have. As for Star Trek, it's not very likely that CBS ever make a serious effort to revive it. They just don't have the right audience. Paramount might have tried if they still owned the franchise, but they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 Well again......this series is definitely happening, it's being filmed and it's already in profit. I know Enterprise got cancelled, but there's still a solid fanbase for the franchise out there. And it's debatable how much the Abramverse has boosted its popularity, but it can't have damaged it can it? Feels like it'd have to flop quite badly to not pick up a second season. My only lingering worries are how Star Trek translates to modern screens. It was inherently episodic and TV has shifted a lot more toward arcs now. And the captain not being the main character......I just hope that it feels like Trek, where you can tune in and not be particularly fussed which episode it is, and bask in the familiar warmth of the bridge and the crew. Ah, there's Data at operations, scanning for life forms. There's Worf, recommending they fire phasers. There's Picard, shutting him down. Ahhhh. All is well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 At some point someone will do an episodic show and everyone will love the "fresh" approach. For me - I think Trek can work perfectly fine using the "Buffy" model (which Stargate and the CW DC/supernatural shows mimic) which is essentially "done in one" episodes with a season-long arc/threat. They sort of did that with DS9 - they just need to nudge it a bit more in the long-form approach. I'm not sure I really want to watch a 10 hour trek story unless it's an incredible story. Plus, shows that have exploration as a premise sort of need done-in-one episodes in order to show the variety. I do think they need to get rid of "filler" material but that doesn't mean an episode doesn't have to be stand-alone. It just needs to be good. Having recently watched season 2 of Narcos there is essentially an episode where a central character hangs out on a farm. It would be considered filler but it actually adds a lot of depth to the character. I don't mind a member of the trek crew getting stuck in an elevator if the episode has a lasting effect in terms of understanding the character or seeing how they behave moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 My thoughts on the prequel vs sequel debate. Prequels, I think, work either where is narrative space to do so (and Enterprise, for all its criticism, did have that) or if there is one very specific backstory element that is hinted at and set up for exploration (as with the Star Wars prequels). In this case, I'm not sure what story elements needs to be explored again through another redundant prequel. If it is the Four Year War and Axanar, that's really going to annoy people if they think they ripped off the fan film's idea and then shut it down. Regardless on the legality (where CBS is clearly in the right), it's going to feel like intellectual plagiarism. Part of the big problem is that two alternative ideas were presented during early development which really caught the imagination: an anthology show moving between different time periods or a show set between Star Trek VI (or, more accurately, the 23rd Century scenes in Generations) and TNG, where there's a lot of unexplored narrative space. Both ideas were very strong. A show set post-DS9, post-Voyager would, I think, be preferred because of the sheer amount of freedom it gives the writers, but if you are going to do a prequel or interquel those are better ideas. I think Discovery will be solid. The talent involved is impressive. But I doubt it's going to blow anyone away simply because it can't. It's tangled up in a narrative straitjacket that prevents it from really exploring new ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 23, 2017 Share Posted January 23, 2017 I agree that the post Kirk/Generations scenes until the launch of the Enterprise D is the time period they should be mining...a lot of fodder there, from whatever the television version of Tomed Incident is meant to be to the Stargazer to the Enterprise C and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 23, 2017 Author Share Posted January 23, 2017 You could even set it on the Enterprise-B 30-odd years after Generations (so the crew from that film would be long gone). They never established in on-screen canon what happened to the B, so you'd have some tension from knowing that the ship is doomed but not when or where or how. Like you say, it's a fertile hunting ground, even if you go later with the Enterprise-C or afterwards. You also have the Klingons and Federation being much friendlier but not in a formal alliance yet, the Romulans becoming more isolationist before lashing out twice in rapid succession (at Narenda III and Khitomer) and then disappearing altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumHam Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 As much as I'd love to see any of these gaps filled in information wise, I'd so much rather get a post-DS9 series. It could overlap with Voyager a bit if they wanted. Really wish they'd gone with the rumored anthology format. Since they've settled on the setting, one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is like the inverse of a "crew travels back in time to pivotal moment but can't make their presence known" thing. Something like Trials and Tribulations, only our new main cast is in the past (new show's present) and an away team from TNG/DS9/Voyager are there trying to sneak around for unknown reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 I'd prefer post DS9 or alternatively sometime between Star Trek VI and TNG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felice Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 2 hours ago, RumHam said: Something like Trials and Tribulations, only our new main cast is in the past (new show's present) and an away team from TNG/DS9/Voyager are there trying to sneak around for unknown reasons. Yes, that would be a fun way to have cameos from a few TNG-era characters 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 24, 2017 Author Share Posted January 24, 2017 The more obvious thing to do would be to simply set a post-DS9/Voyager show the same number of years that have passed since those shows ended. Or actually a bit more. Voyager finished in 2378 (2001), so the "current" date by that system should 2394. I'd actually be tempted to roll it up to 2401 and do a marketing thing like "Welcome to the 25th Century". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Varys Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 3 hours ago, Werthead said: The more obvious thing to do would be to simply set a post-DS9/Voyager show the same number of years that have passed since those shows ended. Or actually a bit more. Voyager finished in 2378 (2001), so the "current" date by that system should 2394. I'd actually be tempted to roll it up to 2401 and do a marketing thing like "Welcome to the 25th Century". Exactly. That would have been my take as well, and actually when I first got into watching ST (that was never all that much a thing for me in my childhood aside from TOS and TNG) I actually expected that DS9 and VOY to have taken place decades/centuries after TNG. Going forward that much would give the writers whatever creative freedom they could want and free them from whatever constraints the rather elaborate setting of the post-Dominion war setting would put on them. Taking the prequel route worked reasonably well for ENT but setting things close to TOS is a risk. And if there something in the past that I'd like to watch it would be the Romulan War with the Enterprise crew but one assumes that's never going to happen now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 it says a lot for the nostalgia obsessed times when even SF has a focus on the past. I think most of us felt this was an excellent opportunity for the next, next generation. It would have been easier to make and could actually look forward reflecting new ideas and concepts because however forward-looking TOS and Next gen were there are things that are more prevalent/considered now. Sure, you can insert them into the past of trek but it feels a bit more clunky to do so retroactively - just have it upfront in the future of trek. 48 minutes ago, Lord Varys said: Taking the prequel route worked reasonably well for ENT but setting things close to TOS is a risk. And if there something in the past that I'd like to watch it would be the Romulan War with the Enterprise crew but one assumes that's never going to happen now. For me it didn't. I felt there were a lot of anachronisms with the shows set after it - no matter how hard they tried. I appreciate what they were trying to do in having characters that were a bit more flawed and that somehow seemed impossible in TOS and Next Gen. Although that's something Voyager struggled with too. Maybe DS9 got it right by placing starfleet characters on the frontiers where they are in the minority. I get the impression that might be one of the reasons they've set it between Enterprise and TOS so that it's at a time before humanity had somehow reached semi-perfection. Like Wert's blog my main hope is that this show is still a success and that it encourages them to take the plunge and do a "new" Trek show. For all the grief people gave The Force Awakens for being a nostalgic retread it still had the nerve to forge ahead with the future of the franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I don't consider the stories told in TOS, TNG, ENT or VOY to be radically different from each other, and an episode in one with minor modifications could be dropped into the timeline of any of the others. DS9 only differed due to the station setting and long-form storytelling, but largely could be subjected to the same process of transferring stories without much hassle. A Trek set 200 years later wouldn't be much different because we're running at the limits of what we can imagine the future of utopian technology to be like. So I don't care what time period it is set in. At all. Which is why I absolutely do not want episodic storytelling for Trek any more. It'd just be more of the same. Instead do an anthology, and change time periods as needed by the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 8 hours ago, SpaceChampion said: I don't consider the stories told in TOS, TNG, ENT or VOY to be radically different from each other, and an episode in one with minor modifications could be dropped into the timeline of any of the others. DS9 only differed due to the station setting and long-form storytelling, but largely could be subjected to the same process of transferring stories without much hassle. A Trek set 200 years later wouldn't be much different because we're running at the limits of what we can imagine the future of utopian technology to be like. So I don't care what time period it is set in. At all. Which is why I absolutely do not want episodic storytelling for Trek any more. It'd just be more of the same. Instead do an anthology, and change time periods as needed by the story. I think we just have to be cautious about what we wish for. Some of the worst films were essentially longer single episodes of the TOS/TNG. An episode stretched out across 10 hours could be excruciatingly dull. I think they'd also need to dramatically overhaul whole concepts for trek style storytelling. I can't really think of any SF shows that did genuine season longs stories without episodic elements within. BSG was probably better when it had "episodes" within the overhaul arc. Farscape had pretty good season arcs "deal with the mind bug", "work out which Crichton is real", "stop the enemy from getting wormhole tech" but it still had episodes within it. SG:Universe maybe came the closest because the entire concept was "we have to keep moving/survive" yet it still had episodes in it (in hindsight it was a much better executed take on Voyager but sadly shortlived). The "on the run" theme seems common with Voyager SGU and BSG possibly because it is a useful one to drive story in space. The expanse actually does season long arcs. The criticism could be it relies too heavily on it - i like the show but couldn't tell you which episode I enjoyed the most because the whole thing blended. The biggest crime was not even doing a season long arc it seemed to stop and will clearly continue in season 2. But now would be a really good time to get a space-based SF show on air. Trek might be the best ones to do it but we should keep in mind the show will still be released on a weekly basis and despite being on netflix won't be a binge watch until the season is complete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceChampion Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The model I'm thinking of would be like Fargo. As for the SF, Babylon 5 was the pioneer. Season 3 and 4 was really one two-season long arc, 44 episodes. 48 if you include that last 4 eps of season 2, which really should be included. Or it can be consider 5 seasons of arc with decreasing numbers of episodic interruptions. Except every episode had arc elements, with the main plots contributing to setting up the setting. As for Trek, mainly I want innovation in the settings and alien societies told. Trek is suppose to focus on idea-based stories. The future history of the Federation or the Alpha Quadrant is not inherently interesting, except as a way to tell stories about ideas. What Trek today can bring that Trek in the past could not due to budget limitations is more attention to developing a world. A season long story exploring an alien society to decide if they would be accepted into the Federation or not would be great, as long as the alien society is not as simplistically defined as most Trek alien species are. Time for some depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Sorry, didn't realise embedding the tweet embedded the video. Feel free to delete, here's the link: http://trekmovie.com/2017/01/31/new-star-trek-discovery-promo-video-reveals-sets-uniforms-ships/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 They appear to have pointlessly, radically redesigned the Klingons for the new show. What the hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 56 minutes ago, Werthead said: They appear to have pointlessly, radically redesigned the Klingons for the new show. What the hell? It's like a team of monkeys is designing this show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Werthead said: They appear to have pointlessly, radically redesigned the Klingons for the new show. What the hell? Hopefully it's just clickbait for the show by inciting outrage. It could just be a new alien race. Otherwise, like you said, it doesn't fit at all with the prime continuity. Unless this is in a region of space where the klingons have mutated themselves to fit in with some other race in that region? I vaguely recall that being the dubious excuse they came up with in "trouble with tribbles" It confuses me why anyone would mess with the iconic design of the worf-like klingons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.