Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 10
Topic: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - New TV Series Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13579
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 12:14am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Supposedly, Bryan Fuller wanted the show to look era-appropriate but was later over-ruled by execs who wanted to know why their superslick, up-to-the-moment special effects show didn't look superslick and up-to-the-moment. At that point, the show was told to go forward looking as if it were the most modern, up-to-date thing possible but retaining its bizarre, backwards-looking place in the timeline. 

There must really, really be something specific about that date "10 years before Kirk and Spock" that Fuller and the producers really wanted to roll around in and get the smell of on themselves...
+++++++

I'm sure more info regarding the behind-the-scenes shakeups will eventually come out, but it doesn't take a genius to see the mindset at work.

TREK had hit the rocks by 2005. For the 2009 reboot film, Paramount felt obliged to give the franchise a shot in the arm by shaking things up and doing a film which appealed to a "broader demographic", so to speak. The result was a huge success. The sequel, however, underperformed, and many attributed it to the badly-done fanservice by way of CumberKhan and the "clever" twist on Spock's death in TWOK.

So, the third film went for a more "back to basics" approach in an attempt to lure back alienated fans, but ended up not doing as well as was hoped for. Meanwhile, DISCOVERY was in development at that same time, with Fuller and company wanting to follow a similar "back to basics" approach. Since that hadn't really worked out for BEYOND, we're now seeing a return to the "new, different, and shiny" approach, which pays lip-service to TOS canon in order to reel in the fans, just like the massively successful 2009 film did. And, if the rumors are to be believed, the creative shakeups go beyond Fuller's controversial departure. It sounds a lot like they're going down the "use non-fan creators to provide fresh blood" route, as they did with Abrams--and, ironically, Nicholas Meyer, who now represents the old guard (despite originally coming in as an irreverent, Abrams-esque outsider who shook the applecart for TWOK).
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5229
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 12:37am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

1. The uniforms do not make sense. I play Star Trek Online, and those uniforms look like they borrow some features from a few outfits in the game. The game takes place decades after the TNG/DS9/VOY era.

2. The ship design isn't that great. 

They can say its original universe all they want, but the designs and visuals scream Abramsverse. If I had been considering subscribing to CBS All Access to watch it, that trailer would have changed my mind.


Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Ted Downum
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1827
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 8:22am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Just watched the trailer, and...uh...

...well, Sonequa Martin-Green seems like she could make an appealing lead character. Michelle Yeoh as a Starfleet captain makes me feel like I died and went to heaven. I like that there's an EVA scene and a cataclysmic binary star system, and all of that looked nifty enough.

But the look is about 97% Abramsverse, from the design of the bridge (of the Shenzhou?) to the camera angles and the f**king lens flares. Nothing looks right for the pre-TOS era, with the lone, pitiful exception of the flip-top communicator. And what the hell is going on with those Klingons?

So many new questions. Will a gifted actor like Doug Jones have more to do than stand still and say portentous stuff? Why did Burnham take Vulcan language lessons from Sarek as a little girl, and why did he flunk her? Perhaps most troubling of all, why even have a transporter if you're going to fly your starship into a planet's atmosphere? Just drop a rope ladder out of a hatch!

No, sir, didn't like it.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Boster
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2997
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 9:45am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

Star Trek has always seemed to have IP holders that don't have confidence in the property. 
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Tim Cousar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1411
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 2:23pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I just watched it on YouTube, and it looks a mess.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Tim Cousar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1411
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 2:25pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply

Network Executive: "I think President Lincoln should have an Apple computer on his desk in the Oval Office."

Director: "But, sir..."

Network Executive: "That's what I want."
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Zhang
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11687
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 4:53pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

I'm going to do what Byran Fuller did: skip it. 
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Rich Marzullo
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 January 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2048
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 6:31pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply

My reaction to the trailer is probably the exact opposite of what you would want for a Star Trek show: this just looks incredibly stupid. 
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 570
Posted: 18 May 2017 at 7:57pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

This looks like Enterprise coughed up a hairball.

Pass.

Not to mention CBS/Paramount or someone keeps yanking the trailer from Youtube.  Really starting to piss me off.    Why force people to download computer-slowing junk like Flash 10 just to watch a video?  Way to alienate your core audience who just want to see what the damn thing looks like.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Steven McCauley
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 23 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1391
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 8:01am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

This looks like Enterprise coughed up a hairball.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Totally agree -- like the Abramsverse version of a prequel.

It's sad when the parody (The Orville) looks truer to the source material.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 2567
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 12:03pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I fundamentally don't understand the strategy here.  On another Trek board I was reading, people were basically saying, "Well, this isn't to my tastes, but if it brings in a new audience, so be it..."  The assumption was that the massive changes were to appeal to a broad audience rather than aiming the show at fans, so its a good goal.

Here's the problem:  This show isn't on commercial television.  Its on a streaming service.  And its the only original programming on that streaming service.  The purpose of the show is to sell the streaming service, not vice versa.  So non-Trek fans aren't going to pay a monthly fee to watch something they don't care about.  Trek fans aren't going to pay a monthly fee to watch something that pisses all over Star Trek.

So, what possibly thinking could produce a show of this type, on a streaming service as an anchor show?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Michael Arndt
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 April 2004
Posts: 8271
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 1:25pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Anyone taking bets that it lasts as long as ENTERPRISE.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 849
Posted: 19 May 2017 at 2:00pm | IP Logged | 13 post reply

I think it's been in development for as long as Entrprise was on the air. Does that count?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ron Goad
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 March 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 19
Posted: 20 May 2017 at 7:59pm | IP Logged | 14 post reply

I've got a bad feeling about this...  Oh, wait, wrong universe!

Yeah, this isn't looking very good so far. Definitely doesn't have anything that says "original timeline" left in the trailer.

I doubt that very many classic Trek fans will be paying to see this. There may be a few JJ Drek fans that will but, I doubt even that will help that much...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13579
Posted: 20 May 2017 at 9:29pm | IP Logged | 15 post reply

I've got a bad feeling about this...  Oh, wait, wrong universe!
+++++++

Not anymore.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Robert Shepherd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 March 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 733
Posted: 21 May 2017 at 12:51am | IP Logged | 16 post reply

I think Michelle Yeoh is the only character/actor that interests me at this point.

The ship design seems to be redone so thats good. The first draft was horrible.

And,  I can't stand the uniforms. Like the majority, I feel they should have looked more like TOS.

Guess it's a pass for me. I'll watch some clips on YouTube when they arrive.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Bill Mimbu
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6723
Posted: 21 May 2017 at 5:40pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply

Meh.

Julian Bashir: "Those are Klingons?!"
Back to Top profile | search
 
Ron Goad
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 March 2015
Location: United States
Posts: 19
Posted: 22 May 2017 at 8:16pm | IP Logged | 18 post reply

Worf: "We do not discus it with outsiders."
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13579
Posted: 22 May 2017 at 11:49pm | IP Logged | 19 post reply

Late-night ramblings...


STAR TREK began as a sort of "space Western", and arguably established any number of tropes regarding space-action fiction. And, more importantly, there was the ease with which it presented a diverse cast and progressive viewpoint, decades prior to the whole diversity angle becoming a major talking point in modern Hollywood. As if it's a new idea!


There's a certain irony in that what was once such a trailblazing show has now been reduced to what looks like riff on Abrams' pseudo-STAR WARS version of TREK, and that the diversity of the cast has been a fairly big deal in the marketing, while still feeling somewhat like a corporate agenda, rather than an artistic statement. Call me crazy, but I'm more concerned with the characters being interesting and well-developed than their races/genders/sexuality. So far, we really know nothing about the characters, since the marketing focus has kinda been more on the diversity of the ensemble.

I'm all for diversity, of course, but something about a lot of recent entertainment feels more than a little forced and agenda-y to me, like Perfect and Awesome Female Jedi Rey, Who Is Somehow Awesome Despite Absolutely No Training in Disney's STAR WARS. With DISCOVERY, we have two non-White women in leading roles, which shouldn't be a big deal, but somehow seems like a big deal for a traditionally male-demographic property. Then there's the LGBT character, which, again, shouldn't even be a big deal, but still gets headlines. 

 
Roddenberry and company broke new ground without making it into a big deal at the time, y'know? It was more about making statements than it was about how loud those statements were made.
Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9022
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 5:53am | IP Logged | 20 post reply

With DISCOVERY, we have two non-White women in leading roles, which shouldn't be a big deal, but somehow seems like a big deal for a traditionally male-demographic property. Then there's the LGBT character, which, again, shouldn't even be a big deal, but still gets headlines. 

Roddenberry and company broke new ground without making it into a big deal at the time, y'know? It was more about making statements than it was about how loud those statements were made.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

Greg, we aren't the target audience.  Those of use who grew up with TOS  in syndication. Or saw it in it's initial run for the matter. We were taught long ago about IDIC. 

The studio heads seem to have forgotten that. They have forgotten about us.  

Discovery is for the Millennials. Whose introduction to Star Trek comes from Abramsverse. 

The older I get the more I realize that the men and women who made the Star Trek I know are gone.  I also learn that the people who are making it now are closer in age to the Millennials.

I suppose it's all relative. Once upon a time it was my turn at being the youngster 

I guess I shouldn't be disappointed. Most shows/ movies are targeting a younger demographic. However I didn't think that it would happen with Star Trek. I figured by it's very nature Star Trek was suppose to be the "intelligent" franchise. And that's how it would always remain. But JJ changed all that.


Edited by Anthony J Lombardi on 23 May 2017 at 5:58am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13579
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 7:50am | IP Logged | 21 post reply

Discovery is for the Millennials. Whose introduction to Star Trek comes from Abramsverse. 
+++++++

Technically, I AM a Millennial! 


I'm not debating the idea that each generation has its own versions of these properties. It's the dumbening of everything that frustrates me.

I saw Batman-themed fidget-spinners at Comic-Con, the other day. 

Back to Top profile | search | email
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9022
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 9:38am | IP Logged | 22 post reply


Technically, I AM a Millennial! 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In age alone my friend. You've the soul of a Trekkie :)
````````````````
It's the dumbening of everything that frustrates me.
~~~~~~~~`
Preach on brother Kirkman
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9647
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 5:36pm | IP Logged | 23 post reply

I watched an international Netflix version of the trailer, so not sure if it's the same stuff you've been commenting on. I can't say I can tell from the trailer I saw whether it will be dumb or not... but the look of the Klingons is both inexplicable and annoying. The song in the trailer grates as well. Holograms seem a bit odd and I can't say that Frain's version of Sarek appeals to me (based on the limited evidence available at this point).

If it was available on streaming service to which I'd already subscribed, I'd very likely give it a go. I'll see how the free premiere looks... and then most likely will not subscribe to CBS all access. But you never know.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9647
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 5:40pm | IP Logged | 24 post reply

Googling it a bit more, it seems that the show will be shown on Space in Canada -- which I have. So I guess I'll be in if the show is half decent.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Richard Stevens
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1093
Posted: 23 May 2017 at 10:36pm | IP Logged | 25 post reply

Maybe we'll get lucky and these are special, genetically-engineered Klingons who can survive in the vacuum of space.

The actors in the Starfleet crew at least seem interesting. It's got to be better than the current movies.
Back to Top profile | search | www
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

<< Prev Page of 10
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login