Star Trek: Discovery (2017)
- Thread starter mkstewartesq
- Start date
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
There was the rumour that it would be set in the gap between the movies and TNG.
Praxis maybe?
There was the rumour that it would be set in the gap between the movies and TNG.
KrangPrime
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
I thouht it was just a tribute to the jj end credit sequence?
interesting that now it may air on cbs. guess they figured people where not going to spring for it exclusive
I thouht it was just a tribute to the jj end credit sequence?
interesting that now it may air on cbs. guess they figured people where not going to spring for it exclusive
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Star Trek: A Song of Ice and Fire
An ice planet followed by a fire planet. :cool
Joking aside, the sliced delta shield would support the time frame taking place after Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I could see the Starfleet conspiracy becoming more widespread after the events of the film.
Star Trek: A Song of Ice and Fire
An ice planet followed by a fire planet. :cool
Joking aside, the sliced delta shield would support the time frame taking place after Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. I could see the Starfleet conspiracy becoming more widespread after the events of the film.
robn1
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
The pilot will air on CBS, then the series goes to the pay service.
The pilot will air on CBS, then the series goes to the pay service.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Wow, what a not nice redesign of the letter R :facepalm
Wow, what a not nice redesign of the letter R :facepalm
KrangPrime
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
and other countries are apparently getting it on tv? can anyone confirm?
good thing it'll hit youtube faster ;o)
and other countries are apparently getting it on tv? can anyone confirm?
good thing it'll hit youtube faster ;o)
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
After reading Vivek's post on the split Delta Shield possibly hinting at a divided Starfleet, I started to ponder on how the Star Trek community would react to this idea. It's no secret that part of Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek was to show how humanity had matured into a much more perfect society where everything bad about humanity is simply gone. Earth is a paradise with no more hunger, greed, wars and everyone, including children, have come to accept many emotional turmoils as simply being part of life.
Now Star Trek was far from perfect when it tried to depict this perfect humanity, even under the absolute control of Gene Roddebnerry. TOS and TNG both feature plenty of human characters that are so insufferable and arrogant that it makes one wonder why they weren't written as a different race to avoid this issue. Heck, stuck up human admirals who always tell our heroes that they can't do good things is one of the most recognized tropes of the franchise. But when our heroes are put in a situation where they behave in a manner that doesn't reflect a 'perfect, all problems solved' society, it raises red flags for some fans. Some examples being Kirk telling Spock that they should let the Klingons die, Sisko condoning the assassination of the Romulan Ambassador and Picard willing to risk the lives of his entire crew just so he can continue to fight the Borg. For them, those kinds of acts betray Gene's vision of Star Trek. Heck, fans even criticize the use of military conduct in the Nicholas Meyer movies because some feel that Starfleet shouldn't be portrayed as a military organization.
So here's what I'm getting at. Should the Star Trek community move on from the 'Humanity is perfect' premise? I'm not suggesting that Star Trek should outright abolish the idea that humanity gets better in the future. No way. That is one of the many unique things about the franchise that makes it appealing. Even Deep Space Nine, the series that puts our heroes into a galactic scale war still managed to convey a brighter future for humanity. It's when the series actually tries to make a big deal about how great humanity is that it starts to become a big problem. Instead of having our heroes act like open minded explorers, they'll come across as arrogant and preachy know-it-alls. They don't seek to understand people who aren't as high and mighty as they are. They're here so our heroes can say how great they are by comparison. What makes it even worse is when the show tries to convince it's audience that this kind of behavior is a good character quality instead of a character flaw. And let's be honest, one man's idea of a perfect humanity is just that. One man's idea. If you were to ask a bunch cultures across the globe what would make for a better humanity, I guarantee you that a lot of their answers would be very different. Heck, Gene himself never practiced what he preached when he glorifies his characters as moving on from material possessions when he himself would squeeze any ounce of profit he could from the series.
Moving on from this premise would also be good for the studio because, let's be honest. It would be kind of hypocritical to have your heroes say that money, greed and possessions no longer drive humanity anymore when the studio wants you to subscribe to their service, buy their merchandise and watch how they're going to run Axanar into the ground.
After reading Vivek's post on the split Delta Shield possibly hinting at a divided Starfleet, I started to ponder on how the Star Trek community would react to this idea. It's no secret that part of Gene Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek was to show how humanity had matured into a much more perfect society where everything bad about humanity is simply gone. Earth is a paradise with no more hunger, greed, wars and everyone, including children, have come to accept many emotional turmoils as simply being part of life.
Now Star Trek was far from perfect when it tried to depict this perfect humanity, even under the absolute control of Gene Roddebnerry. TOS and TNG both feature plenty of human characters that are so insufferable and arrogant that it makes one wonder why they weren't written as a different race to avoid this issue. Heck, stuck up human admirals who always tell our heroes that they can't do good things is one of the most recognized tropes of the franchise. But when our heroes are put in a situation where they behave in a manner that doesn't reflect a 'perfect, all problems solved' society, it raises red flags for some fans. Some examples being Kirk telling Spock that they should let the Klingons die, Sisko condoning the assassination of the Romulan Ambassador and Picard willing to risk the lives of his entire crew just so he can continue to fight the Borg. For them, those kinds of acts betray Gene's vision of Star Trek. Heck, fans even criticize the use of military conduct in the Nicholas Meyer movies because some feel that Starfleet shouldn't be portrayed as a military organization.
So here's what I'm getting at. Should the Star Trek community move on from the 'Humanity is perfect' premise? I'm not suggesting that Star Trek should outright abolish the idea that humanity gets better in the future. No way. That is one of the many unique things about the franchise that makes it appealing. Even Deep Space Nine, the series that puts our heroes into a galactic scale war still managed to convey a brighter future for humanity. It's when the series actually tries to make a big deal about how great humanity is that it starts to become a big problem. Instead of having our heroes act like open minded explorers, they'll come across as arrogant and preachy know-it-alls. They don't seek to understand people who aren't as high and mighty as they are. They're here so our heroes can say how great they are by comparison. What makes it even worse is when the show tries to convince it's audience that this kind of behavior is a good character quality instead of a character flaw. And let's be honest, one man's idea of a perfect humanity is just that. One man's idea. If you were to ask a bunch cultures across the globe what would make for a better humanity, I guarantee you that a lot of their answers would be very different. Heck, Gene himself never practiced what he preached when he glorifies his characters as moving on from material possessions when he himself would squeeze any ounce of profit he could from the series.
Moving on from this premise would also be good for the studio because, let's be honest. It would be kind of hypocritical to have your heroes say that money, greed and possessions no longer drive humanity anymore when the studio wants you to subscribe to their service, buy their merchandise and watch how they're going to run Axanar into the ground.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
They just mapped most of the bad humanity stuff onto the aliens generally so the bad stuff still got addressed. I think it's good and necessary for Trek to show humans have done good and leveled up, sure they still stumble.
I do not want a big internal fight. It's missing the point of Trek. We already had WWIII and learned... finally.
Edith Keeler: One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, maybe even the atom... energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and the cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way give each other hope and a common future. And those are the days worth living for.
Trek MUST show that future for humanity worth working towards. I don't support a bunch of infighting as a major premise. Another thing I'm realizing, poor kids will get boned and not get to watch if their families cannot afford to pay.
That is not so great, when I grew up of course as many of us, it was free broadcast and all the kids would be on the same page regardless and Trek had such a great way of reaching kids back then.
Hopefully the gap in the vector just means it's the gap between the films and TNG.
They just mapped most of the bad humanity stuff onto the aliens generally so the bad stuff still got addressed. I think it's good and necessary for Trek to show humans have done good and leveled up, sure they still stumble.
I do not want a big internal fight. It's missing the point of Trek. We already had WWIII and learned... finally.
Edith Keeler: One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies, maybe even the atom... energies that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in... in some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and the cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way give each other hope and a common future. And those are the days worth living for.
Trek MUST show that future for humanity worth working towards. I don't support a bunch of infighting as a major premise. Another thing I'm realizing, poor kids will get boned and not get to watch if their families cannot afford to pay.
That is not so great, when I grew up of course as many of us, it was free broadcast and all the kids would be on the same page regardless and Trek had such a great way of reaching kids back then.
Hopefully the gap in the vector just means it's the gap between the films and TNG.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Trek was always meant to show an optimistic future.
unfortunately in recent years pessimistic sci fi has made money and studios are NOTHING if not 100% convinced that there can always be one and only one thing at a time that can make money.
so all futures will be dystopian until one day someone manages to squeak another optimistic future in. After it makes money well get innundated with that until about 5 years after we're sick of it. Round and round...and this is my own pessimism about the future of humanity.
Trek was always meant to show an optimistic future.
unfortunately in recent years pessimistic sci fi has made money and studios are NOTHING if not 100% convinced that there can always be one and only one thing at a time that can make money.
so all futures will be dystopian until one day someone manages to squeak another optimistic future in. After it makes money well get innundated with that until about 5 years after we're sick of it. Round and round...and this is my own pessimism about the future of humanity.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Soooooo.... I don't think CBS understands the whole concept behind a pay per view service....
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/75222
Soooooo.... I don't think CBS understands the whole concept behind a pay per view service....
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/75222
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
Simply put... Yes. People are not perfect. No matter how hard we try to be there will always be opinion vs ego vs differences vs nature vs spirit vs perception vs reality... and the list can go on. It's our imperfections that make us human.
Simply put... Yes. People are not perfect. No matter how hard we try to be there will always be opinion vs ego vs differences vs nature vs spirit vs perception vs reality... and the list can go on. It's our imperfections that make us human.
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
I don't know whether to be excited and optimistic, or grouchy and wanting them to fail spectacularly...
On the one hand, I've been preaching an anthology series since... *thinks* ...mid-'90s...? Even came up with two initial arcs, basically a supporting character or ship in one arc becomes the central character or ship in the next, and like that. Sadly no longer viable, but the second arc I'd plotted out had a Starfleet Expeditionary Force go through the wormhole a while after the Dominion War, in response to a distress call from Odo that some of the subject races under the Dominion saw the Founders' defeat as a sign of weakness and were causing all kinds of havoc in that part of space. Accompanying the fleet were Ambassador Spock and his wife, Saavik, hoping to negotiate an actual understanding with the Founders, with Odo's help. As one for-instance. I am one who believes there were still plenty of stories to be told post-Voyager, and I'm not done with that era.
On the other hand, The Powers That Be have been consistently dropping the ball since Gene died. I'm not attributing the Great Bird with any sort of supernatural storytelling ability. Lord knows he had his faults, and was largely uninvolved with TNG toward the end of his life. But those working on the show at that point were a bit more mindful of his core premise for Trek. Berman didn't really get it. Piller did, but was increasingly distracted by his health issues and ended up retiring. Ira Behr was probably the best thing to happen to modern Trek and I will always be grateful for him making DS9 what it was after Berman and Piller turned it over to him and Ron Moore. I blame Berman for hamstringing what Jeri Taylor was trying to make Voyager be (read her novels to get more of a sense). And everything from the Berman and Braga era just makes me sad and tired. Then JJ came along and tried to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, because he'd always found Trek a bit dull. I never did, and feel anyone who does is not of an introspective bent. Trek is supposed to make you think, while thinking will interfere with enjoyment of JJ-Trek.
So by this point, I have almost zero faith in CBS/Paramount to get it right. I prefer to look at everything after Picard went into the Nexus as his Nexus fantasy. Plus the Deep Space Nine and Voyager "relaunch" books, and New Frontier. I'd kinda like something new to come along with Jonathan Frakes as an aging Captain Riker, who took command of the Enterprise-D after Picard was lost and he easily took out the Duras sisters' Bird-of-Prey. Data's his first officer (thanks to the use of much-improved de-aging effects to "youthen" Brent Spiner). But even if they went that route to start things off, I wouldn't trust them to do it right. *sigh* And I'm really kinda tired of them revisitng the 22nd/23rd centuries, especially if they're going to ignore the original source material.
--Jonah
I don't know whether to be excited and optimistic, or grouchy and wanting them to fail spectacularly...
On the one hand, I've been preaching an anthology series since... *thinks* ...mid-'90s...? Even came up with two initial arcs, basically a supporting character or ship in one arc becomes the central character or ship in the next, and like that. Sadly no longer viable, but the second arc I'd plotted out had a Starfleet Expeditionary Force go through the wormhole a while after the Dominion War, in response to a distress call from Odo that some of the subject races under the Dominion saw the Founders' defeat as a sign of weakness and were causing all kinds of havoc in that part of space. Accompanying the fleet were Ambassador Spock and his wife, Saavik, hoping to negotiate an actual understanding with the Founders, with Odo's help. As one for-instance. I am one who believes there were still plenty of stories to be told post-Voyager, and I'm not done with that era.
On the other hand, The Powers That Be have been consistently dropping the ball since Gene died. I'm not attributing the Great Bird with any sort of supernatural storytelling ability. Lord knows he had his faults, and was largely uninvolved with TNG toward the end of his life. But those working on the show at that point were a bit more mindful of his core premise for Trek. Berman didn't really get it. Piller did, but was increasingly distracted by his health issues and ended up retiring. Ira Behr was probably the best thing to happen to modern Trek and I will always be grateful for him making DS9 what it was after Berman and Piller turned it over to him and Ron Moore. I blame Berman for hamstringing what Jeri Taylor was trying to make Voyager be (read her novels to get more of a sense). And everything from the Berman and Braga era just makes me sad and tired. Then JJ came along and tried to make Star Trek more like Star Wars, because he'd always found Trek a bit dull. I never did, and feel anyone who does is not of an introspective bent. Trek is supposed to make you think, while thinking will interfere with enjoyment of JJ-Trek.
So by this point, I have almost zero faith in CBS/Paramount to get it right. I prefer to look at everything after Picard went into the Nexus as his Nexus fantasy. Plus the Deep Space Nine and Voyager "relaunch" books, and New Frontier. I'd kinda like something new to come along with Jonathan Frakes as an aging Captain Riker, who took command of the Enterprise-D after Picard was lost and he easily took out the Duras sisters' Bird-of-Prey. Data's his first officer (thanks to the use of much-improved de-aging effects to "youthen" Brent Spiner). But even if they went that route to start things off, I wouldn't trust them to do it right. *sigh* And I'm really kinda tired of them revisitng the 22nd/23rd centuries, especially if they're going to ignore the original source material.
--Jonah
spockboy
Well-Known Member
robn1
Master Member
Re: New Star Trek Series (2017)
That's actually even more reason to not go anywhere near this. I think that making this a pay service show will kill the show.
That's actually even more reason to not go anywhere near this. I think that making this a pay service show will kill the show.
Similar threads
- Locked
