Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

bwayne64, the problem is that people come in professing to be fans of the original, and then are all, "So I wanna do it all differently". JJ was always bothered that Star Trek wasn't more exciting like Star Wars, so he wanted to make Star Trek like Star Wars. Well, JJ, news flash... IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE!! I will argue up one side and down the other that these guys don't fundamentally get the properties they've been granted custody over.

With Star Trek, besides the aspirational tone, there was all the vetted science, from Matt Jefferies' approach to the design of the ship all the way on up. And that persisted, even if it fell off a bit as more brains became involved (as inevitably happens -- communication is never 100% efficient). But not any more. Doug Drexler recently posted this, justifying the forward window on the various ships from Trek09 on:

Because, Doug... Matt understood this. Andy understood this -- we've known since the first Project Mercury missions that if there's more than the most minimal light inside a space vessel, all you can see out the window is black. The light washes out the stars. No one on those ships would see those sweeping starscapes unless the lights were off or very low. Not the conditions you typically have on a starship bridge (I'm looking at you, Discovery). To see the stars, or anything illuminated by them, requires sensor intervention. Image processing. The processed image would then be displayed -- on a viewscreen or on the window, as we saw the HUD style displays in recent years. Thing is, since it makes a weak point in the hull and you can't see anything out of it anyway... Why not a viewscreen? ...Doug.

I have seen way too much attempted rationalizing of bad calls on the parts of the showrunners for a quarter-century, now. Ever since Paramount suits decreed the Enterprise-D needed to be destroyed in Generations because it looked "boring" on the big screen. You know -- this:

 

[Lightning]

we've known since the first Project Mercury missions that if there's more than the most minimal light inside a space vessel, all you can see out the window is black. The light washes out the stars. No one on those ships would see those sweeping starscapes unless the lights were off or very low.

That's true in the real world but in Star Trek stars are visible through the normal windows in the quarters, as are nebulas which also aren't visible to the naked eye with pretty colors.

Ever since Paramount suits decreed the Enterprise-D needed to be destroyed in Generations because it looked "boring" on the big screen

Where'd you hear that reason? I always heard it was because the show sets were built to be seen at TV resolution and shot in 4:3. That's why the Ent-E bridge is flatter, and the ship is long and skinny.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

That's true in the real world but in Star Trek stars are visible through the normal windows in the quarters, as are nebulas which also aren't visible to the naked eye with pretty colors.

It was true up until sometime in later TNG. Everywhere in TOS where stars and nebulæ were visible, it was a viewscreen. The few times we saw a window, it was backdropped black. And most of the windows on the filming miniature were dark. Carry forward to TMP, much the same. No one's quarters had windows, but all had viewscreens. The officers' lounge and rec deck had dim lighting (except when Kirk was addressing the mustered crew) so the stars were visible. A lot of the windows are dark, again, and the ones that are lit are actually overlit.

Some is a matter of willing suspension. You can only have a set so dark and still be able to see what's going on. I take the illumination in places like Ten-Forward with the same grain of salt as the "night scene" blue filter in older movies.

Where'd you hear that reason? I always heard it was because the show sets were built to be seen at TV resolution and shot in 4:3. That's why the Ent-E bridge is flatter, and the ship is long and skinny.

From Rick Sternbach, back in the late '90s. They were all miffed by the decision, and it took a while to sink in. Andy felt pretty insulted, and ILM were a bit shocked, even though they obviously got over it and made the -E. When they finished filming Generations, John Goodson relabeled the Enterprise miniature with "NCC-1701-E" decals before crating it up, so the next VFX crew wouldn't have to, on the assumption that when they got a new ship it would be another Galaxy-class.

The new ship being "long and skinny" is largely irrelevant, as there aren't really any shots of the Enterprise-E from the side in the following three films. Mostly front and oblique angles, a few from astern or above or below. All angles that worked with the -D, too. If you don't know how to shoot that ship, just hand in your cinematographer's card. They probably did build the new sets with a widescreen filming approach in mind, but the existing sets were mostly fine in that regard. The additional stations on the bridge of the -D looked good, and most of the rest dated back to TMP, redressed. The one thing that might've been nice for the features to take the opportunity to do would be to show us some of the rooms that we hadn't seen that would've been suited to the big screen, like the main shuttlebay or Two-Forward:

Stellar cartography was nice, though.

 

[Gregatron]

This is so on-point that I couldn’t have said it better:

It’s also interesting that Michael quite honestly says that STAR TREK should probably have ended after THE WRATH OF KHAN. This ties right in with a recent discussion on the INGLORIOUS TREKSPERTS Podcast, where the hosts—quite savage in their assessment of THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK, which can I understand but don’t agree with—stated that the franchise arguably started to go off the rails into science-fantasy and general-audience pandering beginning right around that time.

THE MOTION PICTURE, while deeply flawed, is a film that has grown more and more on me, over the years. I’ve come to truly appreciate the fact that it was an honest attempt to bring STAR TREK back. Our heroes have real (if not always successful) character arcs, and the whole point is restoring things to how they should be. The film ends with everyone on the Bridge, and the Enterprise headed off to her next adventure. Which is how a STAR TREK story should always end. It didn’t try to reinvent the wheel, and it wasn’t about forcing so much growth and “realistic” change onto the characters that the franchise no longer functioned as it should. They didn’t paint themselves into a tiny corner, unlike, say Disney’s disastrous stewardship of STAR WARS, which is another dead franchise.

THE MOTION PICTURE worked in stark opposition to what we see now, with endless reboots and sequels which are all about tearing down instead of reconstructing and restoring. “Subverting expectations” and sociopolitical agendas instead of telling thoughtful and organic stories about the characters.

THE WRATH OF KHAN is an excellent film, despite some obviously pandering to a general audience who wanted some pulpy action-adventure instead of high-concept science-fiction. More importantly, it had real things to say about aging and friendship, and it ended with a revitalized Kirk coming to terms with Spock’s death in a mature way, and also having a hopeful outlook regarding his own future. This would certainly have been a good place to end things, if necessary.

But then, THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK undid that by bringing Spock back. It could be argued that the commercial needs of the franchise (and the fans’ desire to see our heroes together and happy in perpetuity) outweighed the artistic merits of killing off a beloved character, but the franchise’s storytelling and goals have indeed slowly become much more corporate since that time, at the expense of artistry.

Now, we have a franchise which has been trapped in an endless cycle of prequels, reboots, and remakes since 2001, and is being run by people who fundamentally do not understand it. And are more than happy to tear down everything and remake it in their own image.

 

[Ron]

It was another member here who said it best:

"Star Trek is now made for people that don't like Star Trek."

 

[robn1]

It was another member here who said it best:

"Star Trek is now made for people that don't like Star Trek."

Someone on Youtube the other day said "It's fan fiction written by people who aren't fans".

 

[dascoyne]

Can they simply resist the temptation to manufacture peril by wrecking the Enterprise?

 

[Gregatron]

Can they simpky resist the temptation to manufacture peril by wrecking the Enterprise?

That also ties into the points I made upthread. No longer can stories be told using the basic foundations and conceits of a series. Stories are now about chipping away at those foundations and conceits. It’s far easier to take the easy path by, say, destroying the Enterprise or going back again and again to beloved stories and characters—back to the work of other, more talented people—and saying “everything you thought you knew is wrong”. No risk, no hard work. Just piggybacking on the work of other people whilst tearing it down. All in the guise of “updating the show for modern audiences” or some other such malarkey.

For example, when Abrams made his 2009 triple-threat film (a reboot AND a sequel AND a prequel all at the same time), many people had false euphoria from the notion that the franchise was now unburdened from decades of continuity, and could do new things with the old characters, or put new spins on old stories. In theory, anything was possible, from that point forward.

And what did we get in the very next film? An awful rehash of THE WRATH OF KHAN, because that film has had longstanding fan and pop culture impact, and so was ripe for easy strip-mining. Heck, even before the 2009 film was released, many people (including me) joked that a potential sequel would be a remake of TWOK. And then it actually happened, to say nothing of Abrams lying about Khan appearing in the film. And also staging a bait-and-switch, pre-release screening of his 2009 film by having the film “break down” during the first ten minutes of a revival screening of TWOK, then coming on stage with Leonard Nimoy and asking if people wanted to see the new movie as a replacement. A cheap publicity stunt which perfectly symbolizes his treatment of the franchise and its history.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

What “secret pain” and trauma will afflict James Kirk?

Oh, yes. They could not leave well enough alone and have recast Kirk too.

‘Star Trek: Strange New Worlds’ Casts Captain Kirk: Paul Wesley to Play Iconic Character

 

[CessnaDriver]

At this point, recast away, I don't acknowledged any of them anyways. Seems to be an act of desperation, hey hey.. look we got your Kirk like character right here baby! Right over here check it out, can't tell from the real thing! Maybe they get it out of their systems at some point. These are dark times. I don't know what the future holds for Trek after all this is regurgitated out. Maybe nothing, more of the same? I doubt original timeline canon is ever to be resvisited again unless a true believer ends up in a position of power. Studio execs just aren't cut from that cloth. In fact knowing more about studio politics than ever, It's amazing I got the shows I did at all.

 

[Gregatron]

At this point, recast away, I don't acknowledged any of them anyways. Seems to be an act of desperation, hey hey.. look we got your Kirk like character right here baby! Right over here check it out, can't tell from the real thing! Maybe they get it out of their systems at some point. These are dark times. I don't know what the future holds for Trek after all this is regurgitated out. Maybe nothing, more of the same? I doubt original timeline canon is ever to be resvisited again unless a true believer ends up in a position of power. Studio execs just aren't cut from that cloth. In fact knowing more about studio politics than ever, It's amazing I got the shows I did at all.

Some actors are inextricably linked with their characters. Others, often those who first appeared in print (Superman, James Bond, etc.), have more flexibility in terms of different actors playing them. But, Shatner, Nimoy, and the rest originated those STAR TREK characters, made them icons, and played them for 30 years. Anything and everything else will fail to measure up in comparison.

They should have been left alone.

But, in today’s creatively-bankrupt, navel-gazing era, of course they were ripe for a quick-and-dirty reboot or two. Never mind trying to invent something new, when you can strip-mine the works of others, and completely retcon and rewrite their legacy.

I mean, they’re literally going back to the original pilot and saying, “See? We can do this SO much better, now!”.

It will all crash and burn, and take what’s left of the franchise with it. Not unlike the real Jim Kirk, I’d rather blow the franchise up and take them with it, rather than let it fall into enemy hands, so to speak.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

I have no faith they'll "get" the character, any more than they did in Trek09. Even if this is an attempt to be closer to the original timeline. Kirk's bio in a thumbnail:

• Grew up with mixed feelings about his father's absence -- idolized him at the same time as resenting him being gone all the time. Flip-flopping decided for him when his father disappeared on a deep-space mission while Jimmy was in his teens*. Applied himself and got into Starfleet Academy at 17.
• Returned to the Academy after graduation for advanced studies, working as student-instructor -- cadets dreaded his classes, reputation as uncompromising perfectionist ("In Lieutenant Kirk's class, you either think or sink!"). Utterly focused on his studies and his career. Described as "positively grim" and "a stack of books with legs". Had to be set up on blind dates to coax him out of his quarters.
• Later commanded a Destroyer (possibly the Saladin, and possibly as a Lieutenant Commander or Commander).
• Handpicked by Pike to replace him as commander of the Enterprise when the latter transitioned to the Academy, and promoted to Captain, youngest Captain in Starfleet to that point, at 32. First met Pike and Spock at transfer-of-command ceremony.
• By the time we meet him in TOS, he's been in command of the Enterprise for a bit over a year and has become comfortable in his skin and in his command style -- the urgency of his earlier career has mellowed somewhat.
• Fell in love seven times in his life that we know of (Ruth, Carol Marcus, Miramanee, Edith Keeler, Rayna, Lori Ciana, and Antonia), plus a couple of other more casual or unworkable relationships. Was married twice that we know of (Miramanee died, and he and Admiral Ciana had decided not to renew their marriage after the trial year). He almost married Carol Marcus, and regretted leaving Antonia to go back to Starfleet in the 2280s, rather than marrying her.
• Several female antagonists (not evil, just in opposition to Our Heroes' goals) take a shine to him in the series, and he uses that to help get his ship and crew free of the situation. This last point seems to have been seized on by more casual viewers to interpret Kirk as a "womanizer".

[*In Trek09, Old Spock tells Kirk that the Jim Kirk he knew in his home timeline knew his father, and that his father had lived long enough to see Jim get his first command -- this clashed with previously-established "beta canon" that Commander George Kirk was aboard a ship that was lost before Kirk entered the Academy. I choose to ignore it, as much else from Old Spock's timeline is, frankly, nonsensical.]

Kirk is a frikkin' paragon. Gene described him as "Horatio Hornblower in space", and it pretty much fits. I think anyone wanting to write or portray James T. Kirk should go read those books before even attempting it. Chris Pine is a good actor, and I don't blame this on him, but his Kirk was exactly the caricature of Kirk the general public "knows", and proof the people writing the film don't know who Jim Kirk is. Things have not changed, staffing-wise, so I expect them to get this version wrong, too -- albeit maybe in different ways.

 

[Gregatron]

I have no faith they'll "get" the character, any more than they did in Trek09. Even if this is an attempt to be closer to the original timeline. Kirk's bio in a thumbnail:

• Grew up with mixed feelings about his father's absence -- idolized him at the same time as resenting him being gone all the time. Flip-flopping decided for him when his father disappeared on a deep-space mission while Jimmy was in his teens*. Applied himself and got into Starfleet Academy at 17.
• Returned to the Academy after graduation for advanced studies, working as student-instructor -- cadets dreaded his classes, reputation as uncompromising perfectionist ("In Lieutenant Kirk's class, you either think or sink!"). Utterly focused on his studies and his career. Described as "positively grim" and "a stack of books with legs". Had to be set up on blind dates to coax him out of his quarters.
• Later commanded a Destroyer (possibly the Saladin, and possibly as a Lieutenant Commander or Commander).
• Handpicked by Pike to replace him as commander of the Enterprise when the latter transitioned to the Academy, and promoted to Captain, youngest Captain in Starfleet to that point, at 32. First met Pike and Spock at transfer-of-command ceremony.
• By the time we meet him in TOS, he's been in command of the Enterprise for a bit over a year and has become comfortable in his skin and in his command style -- the urgency of his earlier career has mellowed somewhat.
• Fell in love seven times in his life that we know of (Ruth, Carol Marcus, Miramanee, Edith Keeler, Rayna, Lori Ciana, and Antonia), plus a couple of other more casual or unworkable relationships. Was married twice that we know of (Miramanee died, and he and Admiral Ciana had decided not to renew their marriage after the trial year). He almost married Carol Marcus, and regretted leaving Antonia to go back to Starfleet in the 2280s, rather than marrying her.
• Several female antagonists (not evil, just in opposition to Our Heroes' goals) take a shine to him in the series, and he uses that to help get his ship and crew free of the situation. This last point seems to have been seized on by more casual viewers to interpret Kirk as a "womanizer".

[*In Trek09, Old Spock tells Kirk that the Jim Kirk he knew in his home timeline knew his father, and that his father had lived long enough to see Jim get his first command -- this clashed with previously-established "beta canon" that Commander George Kirk was aboard a ship that was lost before Kirk entered the Academy. I choose to ignore it, as much else from Old Spock's timeline is, frankly, nonsensical.]

Kirk is a frikkin' paragon. Gene described him as "Horatio Hornblower in space", and it pretty much fits. I think anyone wanting to write or portray James T. Kirk should go read those books before even attempting it. Chris Pine is a good actor, and I don't blame this on him, but his Kirk was exactly the caricature of Kirk the general public "knows", and proof the people writing the film don't know who Jim Kirk is. Things have not changed, staffing-wise, so I expect them to get this version wrong, too -- albeit maybe in different ways.

This is all on-point. Of course, despite being played by Nimoy, Old Spock’s future—the so-called “prime” timeline—, is actually a slight of hand to trick people into thinking that it’s the franchise’s original timeline seen from 1966-2005. However, as more and more evidence has indicated, this is actually the “prime” timeline of the Abramsverse, as legally-mandated by the franchise’s TV and movie rights being split up between CBS and Paramount. This legal red tape requires original characters and elements to be licensed out by Paramount, and more often than not with changes (that theoretical 25% difference) to lower those licensing costs.

I was literally just today having a conversation with a friend at lunch about Kirk being turned into what people THINK he is, rather than who he was actually shown to be in TOS. Two very different characters. Shatner’s Kirk was indeed a paragon (despite Eve McHuron claiming to have never met one). Thoughtful, intelligent, loyal, heroic. A Man’s Man who loved deeply, always did the right thing for the right reasons, and never charged into a situation without a plan.

So, of course, they turned him into an arrogant fratboy who cut corners and ogled every woman around him.


It pains me to say this, but I would suggest that the first real step toward Kirk going down that road of public perception was the idea, introduced in TWOK, that he cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test at the Academy. Prior to that, Kirk had always been said to be a hard-working, serious student. On the one hand, his rigging the test is typical of his character in that he always thinks outside the box and finds a way to snatch victory from defeat. On the other hand, it’s the sort of thing that a serious, by the book student who worked his way up the ranks wouldn’t do.

Add to that his defying orders and stealing the Enterprise in TSFS—a decision resulting from very a specific and unique context, and the. only after decades of exemplary service—, and you can see the beginnings of a pattern which lodged itself in the pop-culture consciousness. And watching the movies is probably the most research that various people involved with NuTREK have done.

 

[CessnaDriver]

This is all on-point. Of course, despite being played by Nimoy, Old Spock’s future—the so-called “prime” timeline—, is actually a slight of hand to trick people into thinking that it’s the franchise’s original timeline seen from 1966-2005. However, as more and more evidence has indicated, this is actually the “prime” timeline of the Abramsverse, as legally-mandated by the franchise’s TV and movie rights being split up between CBS and Paramount. This legal red tape requires original characters and elements to be licensed out by Paramount, and more often than not with changes (that theoretical 25% difference) to lower those licensing costs.

I was literally just today having a conversation with a friend at lunch about Kirk being turned into what people THINK he is, rather than who he was actually shown to be in TOS. Two very different characters. Shatner’s Kirk was indeed a paragon (despite Eve McHuron claiming to have never met one). Thoughtful, intelligent, loyal, heroic. A Man’s Man who loved deeply, always did the right thing for the right reasons, and never charged into a situation without a plan.

So, of course, they turned him into an arrogant fratboy who cut corners and ogled every woman around him.


It pains me to say this, but I would suggest that the first real step toward Kirk going down that road of public perception was the idea, introduced in TWOK, that he cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test at the Academy. Prior to that, Kirk had always been said to be a hard-working, serious student. On the one hand, his rigging the test is typical of his character in that he always thinks outside the box and finds a way to snatch victory from defeat. On the other hand, it’s the sort of thing that a serious, by the book student who worked his way up the ranks wouldn’t do.

Add to that his defying orders and stealing the Enterprise in TSFS—a decision resulting from very a specific and unique context, and the. only after decades of exemplary service—, and you can see the beginnings of a pattern which lodged itself in the pop-culture consciousness. And watching the movies is probably the most research that various people involved with NuTREK have done.

Maybe some remember former member Mike Verta's comments after the first movie came out.
Same thing. Kirk as "caracature". Not to mention even the Enterprise herself was not given proper respect.
Oldie but a goodie, still up at Wayback archive....

Wayback Machine

web.archive.org

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

It pains me to say this, but I would suggest that the first real step toward Kirk going down that road of public perception was the idea, introduced in TWOK, that he cheated on the Kobayashi Maru test at the Academy. Prior to that, Kirk had always been said to be a hard-working, serious student. On the one hand, his rigging the test is typical of his character in that he always thinks outside the box and finds a way to snatch victory from defeat. On the other hand, it’s the sort of thing that a serious, by the book student who worked his way up the ranks wouldn’t do.

If one wasn't paying attention, maybe. At the top of the film, Spock remarks on how Kirk took the test three times. As he said, he rejected the premise -- didn't believe in a no-win scenario. But it wasn't recklessness, it was determination. He took the test, thought he'd gotten it wrong, did it again, prepared, still lost, realized it was a no-win scenario, said "F that", reprogrammed the simulation computers to be able to beat the scenario. While he ultimately got the commendation for original thinking, it was a near thing. A deleted line from that scene I refer to says doing that "almost got me booted out of the Academy". That was how deeply his refusal to admit failure was. Not arrogance. David was the one who said "He cheated". David, who had been actively trying to kill him a couple hours earlier, is not the most unbiased source.

 

[Lightning]

I have no faith they'll "get" the character, any more than they did in Trek09. Even if this is an attempt to be closer to the original timeline. Kirk's bio in a thumbnail

Large portions of your bio here do not have any basis on what we see on screen. It's just how you have decided to flesh out the extremely bare bones of what we have been told of Kirk's early life. Any criticism derived from the show contradicting your head canon has no legitimacy.

And like it or not, George Kirk saw his son take command of the Enterprise, I don't care what Beta-canon said originally, and I've read a lot of it.

Edit: hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, it's 2AM here and I can't sleep.

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Edit: hope this doesn't come across as too harsh, it's 2AM here and I can't sleep.

A bit, yeah. What, specifically, is unsupported? Everything that wasn't in the actual show/movies was in script drafts, show memos, or things Gene said. Nothing there is any less supported than Uhura's first name or the Enterprise-A's origin.

 

[Gregatron]

If one wasn't paying attention, maybe. At the top of the film, Spock remarks on how Kirk took the test three times. As he said, he rejected the premise -- didn't believe in a no-win scenario. But it wasn't recklessness, it was determination. He took the test, thought he'd gotten it wrong, did it again, prepared, still lost, realized it was a no-win scenario, said "F that", reprogrammed the simulation computers to be able to beat the scenario. While he ultimately got the commendation for original thinking, it was a near thing. A deleted line from that scene I refer to says doing that "almost got me booted out of the Academy". That was how deeply his refusal to admit failure was. Not arrogance. David was the one who said "He cheated". David, who had been actively trying to kill him a couple hours earlier, is not the most unbiased source.

Exactly. I’ve always taken it as Kirk showing how he operates—he thinks outside the box. That being said, the thematic point that Nick Meyer was going for was that Kirk WAS being rather arrogant, and finally ended up having to face death and defeat head-on after the death of Spock. Our hero is humbled and learns to be a better person from from it. An example of Meyer taking some risks and testing the boundaries of TREK lore, what with him being an outsider to the franchise, at that time. Sneaking in and reprogramming the simulator doesn’t quite line up with the “positively
grim” cadet who was a “stack of books with legs” who we were told about during TOS.

Unfortunately, the lesson that many people seem to have taken away from it all is that Kirk’s standard procedure is to be a reckless rulebreaker. That set a precedent for the mutinous, rulebreaking lead characters that the franchise has puked out, in recent years, rather than their being honest, honorable, and hardworking.

 

[Cappy]

Seriously !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kirk and Khan ?. WHAT THE F@&$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Gregatron]

Seriously !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kirk and Khan ?. WHAT THE F@&$#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As with current STAR WARS, internal logic and continuity fall by the wayside in favor of “Remember this?” nostalgia key-jangling.