Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

To those saying they should use modified versions of the uniforms from The Cage, I say “pfft”…

I personally like their “NFL Jersey Day at Work” uniforms. Very inspired…they just need to add their numbers to the front and back and name across the shoulders….

2A1A5937-522B-4BF0-8694-E9D7F6E9119B.jpeg
71599AAB-8D7A-4C0A-8723-1D1DD06C3EA9.jpeg
 
Last edited:
What I really don't understand is Paramount has to know that the majority of Star Trek fans are really unhappy with the current crop of Star Trek offerings. They each have moments that are good, and are decent Sci-Fi in general, but not Good Star Trek. Strange New Worlds "Seemed to have" taken the fans complaints to heart and went back to a more episodic format and seemed to have listened that we liked the Anson Mount take on Pike... but then they went and added a heaping pile of Dung to it... I "WAS" really excited for Strange New Worlds... now Not so much. I will likely watch it in hopes that my fears are not realized, but just looking at the character list for the cast and I am cringing. Star Trek always had Social agendas in it - but they were cleverly hidden in such a way you didn't realize it because it was cooked into a great story about something else... Why is that simple formula so difficult to grasp???

I do Understand that Bad Robot has a ridiculously contract and that Paramount is tied to them, but no star trek is better than bad start trek... all you're doing is nuking what's left of the franchise... why don't they stop throwing good money after bad... I don't get it.

Jedi Dade
These days there aren't enough people smart enough to get it if they don't make it blatantly obvious.
 
Looking at the Wikipedia page, a lot of ‘familiar’ characters and not much new on the table. Except for a one eyed albino Andorian.

Cast and characters​

Additionally, Paul Wesley has been cast in the role of James T. Kirk for the second season.[6]
 
Looking at the Wikipedia page, a lot of ‘familiar’ characters and not much new on the table. Except for a one eyed albino Andorian.

Cast and characters​

Additionally, Paul Wesley has been cast in the role of James T. Kirk for the second season.[6]
A relative of Khan on the Constitution Enterprise.
Is that a joke?
 
The tragic thing is after years of hearing this kind of crap I can just picture Kurtzman spinning around in his chair having just been told how highly regarded TWOK is, he just says "wouldn't it be cool if we reboot the oldy star trek again, buuuut, we have Khan's niece on the ship. It'll really add some drom-uh".

I do wonder what embarrassing photos/stories Kurtzman has of a CBS executive that he was able to wrangle an extension to his contract.
They had the perfect opportunity to let his contract expire, get a talented team of writers and creatives in and get Star Trek back.
The buzz word they keep throwing out is "episodic" as if that will solve the plethora of problems with Star Trek since 2009.
 
A relative of Khan on the Constitution Enterprise.
Is that a joke?

As bad as that is, it could be worse. Just be glad that the Khan miniseries penned by Nick Meyer seems to have fallen by the wayside. I'm sure his scripts were great, BUT remember that he also worked on STD, early on, and then his work was co-opted and rewritten by the usual gang of idiots. So the Khan show would surely also have been butchered and had the brain sucked out of it during further development.

And also remember that JJ "No More White Comfort" Abrams was more than happy to whitewash Khan (an Indian character played by a Mexican actor, the late, great Ricardo Montalban) with Benedict Cummerbund for his awful TWOK rehash film.
 
As bad as that is, it could be worse. Just be glad that the Khan miniseries penned by Nick Meyer seems to have fallen by the wayside. I'm sure his scripts were great, BUT remember that he also worked on STD, early on, and then his work was co-opted and rewritten by the usual gang of idiots. So the Khan show would surely also have been butchered and had the brain sucked out of it during further development.

And also remember that JJ "No More White Comfort" Abrams was more than happy to whitewash Khan (an Indian character played by a Mexican actor, the late, great Ricardo Montalban) with Benedict Cummerbund for his awful TWOK rehash film.
Why do the people who are holding Star Trek to ransom want to keep going back to their minds, "fill in the gaps"?
Oh yeah, because they are clueless, talentless and can't even be bothered to watch even a handful of episodes that relate to the main characters they decide to focus on.
 
Why do the people who are holding Star Trek to ransom want to keep going back to their minds, "fill in the gaps"?
Oh yeah, because they are clueless, talentless and can't even be bothered to watch even a handful of episodes that relate to the main characters they decide to focus on.

Let's take a step back, here. They've gone back to the first pilot, presumably because those characters and that iteration have yet to be sucked completely dry, and because OF COURSE they can do it SO much better.

They've also completely disregarded continuity (which is nothing new, of course), and are bringing in characters who most likely would not have been anywhere near the Enterprise during Pike's era, such as Uhura and Dr. M'Benga. Sure, it's possible that they could have been aboard before Kirk took command, but we all know why they're REALLY there: the usual "Diversity and Inclusion" virtue-signaling. Not to further explore the characters, or because it makes logical sense for them to be there. They probably glanced at Memory Alpha to mine female/minority characters from TOS in order to recast and plug them into this show, to heck with continuity. And, of course, Kirk only met Pike when he took command of the ship, yet they're bringing him in, too. And surely just to degrade him.

And, as has already been noted, the notion of a descendant of Khan Singh serving aboard the Enterprise a few years before "Space Seed" is perhaps the deepest kind of stupid. Although that particular spot has had a lot of contenders over the past 13 years (sonar in space, Delta Vega sitting right next to Vulcan, a supernova which threatened to destroy the entire galaxy, Old Robot Picard, magic, death-cancelling Khan blood, etc.).

Dead franchise. People are free to watch what they like, but supporting it in any way just adds to the problem. We don't need any more STAR TREK. And certainly not this kind.

It had a great run. Time to let go.
 
I don't mean to be overly critical here - I've been pretty critical of the various Trek incarnations of late, but, man, at least I watched it before complaining about them.

I get that people feel some kind of ownership over the Star Trek franchise. And there's been some bad choices made in shows like Discovery and Picard, and also Enterprise. But I found the Pike Enterprise crew to be an enjoyable part of Discovery. And I'm obviously not alone in my opinion, otherwise the show would probably not get made.

Are there changes to the established Trek esthetic and storytelling? Sure. But that's also consistent with Trek. Just look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture and its subsequent sequels to see major changes to the look and story - and canon - of Trek. There was only 10 years between the end of TOS and TMP, and we saw radical changes to the look of the aliens and the future technology, and the storytelling and character development. And some of those changes actually messed with the established canon - think about how the Klingons and Romulans changed. There were stories that were based on that fact (Kilngon spy in Trouble With Tribbles, all the times the Romulans and Vulcan being identical looking). Future Trek made more changes, and future writers had to try to retcon explanations for it. Even the beloved WOK changed the canon around Khan.

Change has been ubiquitous in Trek. Part of it stems from changes of the times - socially, politically - as well as the problem of every science fiction work that tries to present a view of the future. Certain things just don't work any more.

And honestly, if you were to go back and re-watch any old Trek with the same amount of critique as now, you'd be hard pressed not to find a lot of flaws and inconsistencies in the stories of TOS, TNG, etc. Take off the rose colored glasses and try not to dissect every part of the new incarnations.

That said, Discovery is a whole lot of garbage.
 
I don't mean to be overly critical here - I've been pretty critical of the various Trek incarnations of late, but, man, at least I watched it before complaining about them.

I get that people feel some kind of ownership over the Star Trek franchise. And there's been some bad choices made in shows like Discovery and Picard, and also Enterprise. But I found the Pike Enterprise crew to be an enjoyable part of Discovery. And I'm obviously not alone in my opinion, otherwise the show would probably not get made.

Are there changes to the established Trek esthetic and storytelling? Sure. But that's also consistent with Trek. Just look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture and its subsequent sequels to see major changes to the look and story - and canon - of Trek. There was only 10 years between the end of TOS and TMP, and we saw radical changes to the look of the aliens and the future technology, and the storytelling and character development. And some of those changes actually messed with the established canon - think about how the Klingons and Romulans changed. There were stories that were based on that fact (Kilngon spy in Trouble With Tribbles, all the times the Romulans and Vulcan being identical looking). Future Trek made more changes, and future writers had to try to retcon explanations for it. Even the beloved WOK changed the canon around Khan.

Change has been ubiquitous in Trek. Part of it stems from changes of the times - socially, politically - as well as the problem of every science fiction work that tries to present a view of the future. Certain things just don't work any more.

And honestly, if you were to go back and re-watch any old Trek with the same amount of critique as now, you'd be hard pressed not to find a lot of flaws and inconsistencies in the stories of TOS, TNG, etc. Take off the rose colored glasses and try not to dissect every part of the new incarnations.

That said, Discovery is a whole lot of garbage.


There’s a difference between changing a house’s window-dressing and blowing apart its foundation with nitroglycerin.
 
I don't mean to be overly critical here - I've been pretty critical of the various Trek incarnations of late, but, man, at least I watched it before complaining about them.

I get that people feel some kind of ownership over the Star Trek franchise. And there's been some bad choices made in shows like Discovery and Picard, and also Enterprise. But I found the Pike Enterprise crew to be an enjoyable part of Discovery. And I'm obviously not alone in my opinion, otherwise the show would probably not get made.

Are there changes to the established Trek esthetic and storytelling? Sure. But that's also consistent with Trek. Just look at Star Trek: The Motion Picture and its subsequent sequels to see major changes to the look and story - and canon - of Trek. There was only 10 years between the end of TOS and TMP, and we saw radical changes to the look of the aliens and the future technology, and the storytelling and character development. And some of those changes actually messed with the established canon - think about how the Klingons and Romulans changed. There were stories that were based on that fact (Kilngon spy in Trouble With Tribbles, all the times the Romulans and Vulcan being identical looking). Future Trek made more changes, and future writers had to try to retcon explanations for it. Even the beloved WOK changed the canon around Khan.

Change has been ubiquitous in Trek. Part of it stems from changes of the times - socially, politically - as well as the problem of every science fiction work that tries to present a view of the future. Certain things just don't work any more.

And honestly, if you were to go back and re-watch any old Trek with the same amount of critique as now, you'd be hard pressed not to find a lot of flaws and inconsistencies in the stories of TOS, TNG, etc. Take off the rose colored glasses and try not to dissect every part of the new incarnations.

That said, Discovery is a whole lot of garbage.
When it comes to what they are trying to call Star Trek since JJ and then Kurtzman took over the old saying "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" has been very appropriate.
Also when it comes to Kurtzman Trek " a leopard can't change it's spots".

If people want to watch the show and take some enjoyment from it, that's fine, you like what you like.
For the people who enjoyed Star Trek when it wasn't just a flash bang, pew pew CGI-fest to paper over the huge chasms in terrible writing and poor characterisation we have TOS-ENT to still enjoy.
 
Fair points. I guess if you feel the franchise has gone too far afield, then it's not for you anymore. Honestly, maybe it's not for me anymore either, but some of my comments were aimed more at the people who have been bothered by (imo) smaller changes like updating the costumes, the tech, casting, and whatnot. I can understand if you feel the characters and stories have been changed too much - I certainly agree with that, for the most part. I guess I want to see new stories set in the Trek universe and just keep hoping that something will deliver. That doesn't mean I'll just watch anything - I haven't watched Prodigy or Lower Decks, and I stopped watching Enterprise and Discovery. Maybe because I'm hoping SNW will deliver on some level, I'm trying not to be too hard on it before I even see it.
 
Fair points. I guess if you feel the franchise has gone too far afield, then it's not for you anymore. Honestly, maybe it's not for me anymore either, but some of my comments were aimed more at the people who have been bothered by (imo) smaller changes like updating the costumes, the tech, casting, and whatnot. I can understand if you feel the characters and stories have been changed too much - I certainly agree with that, for the most part. I guess I want to see new stories set in the Trek universe and just keep hoping that something will deliver. That doesn't mean I'll just watch anything - I haven't watched Prodigy or Lower Decks, and I stopped watching Enterprise and Discovery. Maybe because I'm hoping SNW will deliver on some level, I'm trying not to be too hard on it before I even see it.

Coming back to THE MOTION PICTURE as an example, there is an obvious and glaring discontinuity between the movie and TOS. All of the technology, uniforms, and the Klingons look radically different, despite an ostensible gap of only a few years between the show and the movie. What, was there some kind of galaxy-wide, technological cataclysm which forced everyone to shift from the clean, slick Matt Jefferies designs to the clunkier and more detailed movie-era look?

But, at the end of the day, that’s all still window-dressing. Maybe they went a little too far in trying to visually update the franchise, and the film overall has its flaws, but, as noted, it was an honest attempt to bring STAR TREK back. It didn’t set out to tear down the characters or repudiate what had come before. It didn’t reinvent the wheel in terms of how that universe worked. It was a TV-to-movie adaptation which was a direct continuation of a show, without recasting the characters or rewriting the rulebook. Instead, it was all about getting the characters back to to where they should be, and priming the franchise for a new series of adventures on the big screen. And it explored themes which are very much in line with what had come before, and with the same high level of intelligence and optimism. The exterior may have changed, but the DNA of STAR TREK was still in there.


What we’re seeing now is one attempt after another to completely rethink and rewrite the franchise— to turn it into something it was never designed or intended to be—and then slap a veneer of familiar names and elements and Easter Eggs on top of it to take the place of continuity, internal logic and organic storytelling. STD is completely impossible to reconcile with TOS in terms of technology, continuity, characterization, and fictional history. This goes well beyond makeup designs, costume changes, and recasting. It’s one thing to move a franchise forward and try new things. It’s quite another to root virtually all of your projects in past shows and movies, and to rewrite and subvert that past in order to try and build up your own product. Mikey Burnham could have been a wholly new character who succeeded or failed on her own merits, but, no, they specifically chose to intimately connect her to Spock, one of the most beloved and iconic characters in the history of pop culture. Standing on the shoulders of giants whilst pissing on them as a shortcut.

Just look at all of the articles and videos examining the new shows, which rattle off lists of Easter Eggs and references to previous episodes and movies. Not articles and reviews which praise how these new shows are a logical and satisfying outgrowth of previous characters and storytelling, but rather lists of, “Hey, ‘Memba this?”. They build on top of the hard work of others so they don’t have to put in the work themselves. Banking on the name-brand recognition factor and passing that off as “homage”.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to THE MOTION PICTURE as an example, there is an obvious and glaring discontinuity between the movie and TOS. All of the technology, uniforms, and the Klingons look radically different, despite an ostensible gap of only a few years between the show and the movie. What, was there some kind of galaxy-wide, technological cataclysm which forced everyone to shift from the clean, slick Matt Jefferies designs to the clunkier and more detailed movie-era look?

But, at the end of the day, that’s all still window-dressing. Maybe they went a little too far in trying to visually update the franchise, and the film overall has its flaws, but, as noted, it was an honest attempt to bring STAR TREK back. It didn’t set out to tear down the characters or repudiate what had come before. It didn’t reinvent the wheel in terms of how that universe worked. It was a TV-to-movie adaptation which was a direct continuation of a show, without recasting the characters or rewriting the rulebook. Instead, it was all about getting the characters back to to where they should be, and priming the franchise for a new series of adventures on the big screen. And it explored themes which are very much in line with what had come before, and with the same high level of intelligence and optimism. The exterior may have changed, but the DNA of STAR TREK was still in there.


What we’re seeing now is one attempt after another to completely rethink and rewrite the franchise— to turn it into something it was never designed or intended to be—and then slap a veneer of familiar names and elements and Easter Eggs on top of it to take the place of continuity, internal logic and organic storytelling. STD is completely impossible to reconcile with TOS in terms of technology, continuity, characterization, and fictional history. This goes well beyond makeup designs, costume changes, and recasting. It’s one thing to move a franchise forward and try new things. It’s quite another to root virtually all of your projects in past shows and movies, and to rewrite and subvert that past in order to try and build up your own product. Mikey Burnham could have been a wholly new character who succeeded or failed on her own merits, but, no, they specifically chose to intimately connect her to Spock, one of the most beloved and iconic characters in the history of pop culture. Standing on the shoulders of giants whilst pissing on them as a shortcut.

Just look at all of the articles and videos examining the new shows, which rattle off lists of Easter Eggs and references to previous episodes and movies. Not articles and reviews which praise how these new shows are a logical and satisfying outgrowth of previous characters and storytelling, but rather lists of, “Hey, ‘Memba this? “. They build on top of the hard work of others so they don’t have to put in the work themselves. Banking on the name-brand recognition factor and passing that off as “homage”.
Well said.
 
For the people who enjoyed Star Trek when it wasn't just a flash bang, pew pew CGI-fest to paper over the huge chasms in terrible writing and poor characterisation we have TOS-ENT to still enjoy.

The fact that Enterprise is included in this just proves that what people consider "good" Star Trek is entirely arbitrary and mostly depends on what you've gotten used to. I remember when Enterprise was being absolutely raked over the coals on a weekly basis.
 
Back
Top