Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 28 Next >>
Topic: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - New TV Series Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Rick Senger
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7815
Posted: 03 March 2017 at 11:57am | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Fuller's release was purportedly based on his desire, rejected by studio execs, to delay the project.  Now that the launch has been delayed basically a year, that departure seems particularly ill-conceived since this was Fuller's vision yet he won't be involved.  Sometimes troubled productions result in great final product (JAWS anyone?) but at present, I see no reason to hold out much hope.


Edited by Rick Senger on 03 March 2017 at 11:58am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14280
Posted: 05 March 2017 at 2:40am | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Hmmm.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9411
Posted: 05 March 2017 at 5:55am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

grrrrrrr
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 05 March 2017 at 11:28am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

As I discussed with someone else, I think there are "to many cooks in the kitchen"

I have the feeling that this Star Trek series did not so much start with a premise for a show, but rather than that the studios wanted to depict subjects that are currently in the news or in the minds of the public, and wanted producers and writers to craft a Star Trek show around it.

This is probably going to turn out to be a very disjoined project, with the show trying to accomplish so many goals that there is no clear direction for it to go.

As someone else pointed out here I think, once that fails to entice the public the series will go back to more "regular" Star Trek style episodes. You know, the filler types we saw on TNG, DSN, VGR, and ENT.


Edited by Marten van Wier on 05 March 2017 at 11:29am
Back to Top profile | search
 
James Woodcock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 September 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4168
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 3:12am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

I do wonder what sort of Star Trek Netflix would make if they were in charge. While they do make changes, the product they produce that I have watched has been top notch.

They seem to understand an audience/fanbase and I think it would be far better if they just produced the thing and CBS took a back seat
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5376
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 3:12pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply


If that YouTube link is more than just rumors, then it's oddly heartening that the likes of "The Big Bang Theory" and TREK licensees are taking up the cause of honoring TOS, and helping to stick a big 'ol fork in this J.J. Abrams/Kelvin universe nonsense!

And Star Trek: Discovery sounds like it could end up as Star Trek: Phase II - Part 2... another new "lost" TREK show, perhaps?





Edited by Shaun Barry on 06 March 2017 at 3:14pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9411
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 3:38pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

If those rumors are true. I hope that it does end up a "lost" episode.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5376
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 4:13pm | IP Logged | 8 post reply


To add:  That supposed Mark Lenard/Sarek bit would be anal-retentive, dunderheaded fanwankery of truly epic, biblical proportions... I mean, holy shit...



Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 805
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 4:25pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

If that kind of plotline (intersecting parallel realities with one cast member as different aliens) is what they are using as a hook for this series then I hope they put it (and Star Trek) out of it's misery now.  With fire!

Makes the Temporal Cold War plot of Enterprise seem like a grand idea...


Edited by Rob Ocelot on 06 March 2017 at 4:26pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 6964
Posted: 06 March 2017 at 5:49pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Well, if that idiot idea is correct, Marc Alaimo is probably waiting by his phone, expecting to be a big, big part of this new show...

You can almost see it being the sort of wackadoodle concept non-fans might think fans would go for. Nothing I can think of so far in fandom anywhere is as far up its own butt as the notion of transdimensional beings living lives in multiple alien forms thereby "explaining" the same actor in multiple roles. In further news, the fans JB once overheard speculating that Sarek was a Romulan agent... would now be right, more or less.

Even the Doctor "wearing" the faces of people he's met in his travels to "remind" his new incarnation of something he shouldn't forget* isn't quite this off-the-(you should pardon the expression) Mark.

* What was Commander Maxil supposed to remind the Sixth Doctor of, I wonder?

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 07 March 2017 at 1:38am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

If that kind of plotline (intersecting parallel realities with one cast member as different aliens) is what they are using as a hook for this series then I hope they put it (and Star Trek) out of it's misery now.  With fire!

**

I read this yesterday on the forum but did not respond on it as I had no idea what to honestly say about.
But even within the context of Star Trek this is bad fan fiction level quality of writing, something a fan would do who really seeks to connect everything even when it is not necessary.

Also, what is the damn point?
I though Discovery was suppose to be a bit more "grounded", science fiction or at least a story in space but more the focus on the elements that don't really on the more fantastical.

**

Even the Doctor "wearing" the faces of people he's met in his travels to "remind" his new incarnation of something he shouldn't forget* isn't quite this off-the-(you should pardon the expression) Mark.

**

Honestly? This is what was said in Doctor Who to explain why an actor who played a different role on the show before he was cast as the Doctor has the same face?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 805
Posted: 07 March 2017 at 6:08am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

<MVW> Honestly? This is what was said in Doctor Who to explain why an actor who played a different role on the show before he was cast as the Doctor has the same face?

Not on the classic show as such -- there's a couple of instances of TARDIS crew members coincidentally looking like another character (Nyssa in Black Orchid and the first Doctor looks remarkably like the Abbot in The Massacre) but those are more dramatic/literary devices used to add tension to the story.  The kind of misunderstanding hyjinks that drives the story in Twelfth Night.

However, they've broadly hinted in the new series that Peter Capaldi's Doctor took on that face for a specific reason, but they haven't elaborated beyond that.   Maybe we'll find out this season.  For a show like Doctor Who it's fine, if not entirely necessary IMO.

Back to Star Trek.  

I just can't wrap my brain around this kind of plotting when they seem to be spending so much money to convince us that two actors who don't look alike are the SAME character (eg. Quinto and Nimoy).   Now they want us to believe the reverse is true -- at the same time!

Next we'll be told that James R. Kirk is a completely different individual from James T. Kirk... 


Edited by Rob Ocelot on 07 March 2017 at 6:20am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 6964
Posted: 07 March 2017 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 13 post reply

Actually, they did more-or-less flatly state that the reason Capaldi's Doctor wears the face of the one man he saved in Pompeii was to remind him to save somebody in the episode with little-boy-Davros.

Once you start going down the storytelling avenue of bifurcated identities and this-person-for-that you tumble into a rabbit hole ala' NuBSG. Seriously, this burning question in fan's minds since the first airing of "Journey to Babel" in1967 has pretty much gone out by now. No one is really dying to find out what the connection was between Sarek and the Romulan Commander. This is one case where the third point (the Klingon in ST:TMP) does not establish a line. Establishing a race of extra-dimensional whosises who go about playing multiple roles with the same faces to riddle fanboys is really playing to a section of the theatre that was never there to begin with.

However, more power to 'em if this means that Yeoman Mears and Hippie Chick No. 3 along with Smiling Crew Woman in Lounge and McCoy's Cabaret Girl No. 1 were both transcendent, ultra-powerful agents moving undetected amongst us all along...


And, by the way, of COURSE we know James R. Kirk and James T. Kirk are two different people! Their shirts don't match. :-)


Edited by Brian Hague on 07 March 2017 at 1:21pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Michael Casselman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 January 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 915
Posted: 31 March 2017 at 10:59am | IP Logged | 14 post reply

http://www.startrek.com/article/rainn-wilson-his-name-is-mud d-on-discovery

Rainn Wilson as the 'new' Harry Mudd?

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

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9411
Posted: 31 March 2017 at 2:13pm | IP Logged | 15 post reply

I don't mind Wilson being cast as Harry Mudd. 
How I feel about Mudd being on the series remains to be seen.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 31 March 2017 at 3:35pm | IP Logged | 16 post reply

I also just read about the actor cast for Harry Mudd.
Now I don't know the actor's previous work so I can not judge, but I really feel that the producers most likely get Harry Mudd wrong.

The old Harry Mudd is really a product of his time, the amusing con man who is always searching for his next opportunity, but often getting into trouble when he goes for things that he really should not mess with.

(there have even been suggestions at some point to give Harry Mudd back then his own spin off series as apparently he was well received?)

But the new Harry Mudd, I fear they are going to make him either to serious because a modern audience does not want a comedic character (the producers fearing that Mudd would become like Neelix), or they may make him to camp.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5376
Posted: 31 March 2017 at 6:28pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply


It should have been Scott Adsit...



Back to Top profile | search
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 05 April 2017 at 8:12pm | IP Logged | 18 post reply

I just read this article: http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-bigger-grittier-so nequa-martin-green/

Well other than the whole "Bigger and Grittier" which I put in put in question (I don't mind serious story telling but I feel this is more said to appeal to an audience that still considers Star Trek "silly and to much focus on talking"), I went through the commentary section and read some posts that just really annoy me.

Well I know that that is a big mistake but I wanted to know if there were more voices like me who have their doubt about this series.

But something that rather got to me was the talk about Abrams Trek and how "Star Trek finally had the opportunity to go mainstream before the Nerds ruined it by disliking Into Darkness".

I honestly wish at the moment that I could come up with a good response in which I ask them how nerds ruined Star Trek when it was "nerds" who kept the franchise alive long after the 60s series ended.

And where does this sudden demand of the mainstream audience come from that they want Star Trek to be appealing to them as well?
They feel they are denied something because it is not made yet in a way they think it should be?

If people want to like something because it sounds interesting, they should watch it, read it, or listen to it as it is.

Well Star Wars was also mentioned a lot and how Star Trek failed to be like that which is its major flaw.
Duh, Star Trek is no Star Wars. You want Star Wars? Watch Star Wars.

Honestly the lack of being able to describe how I feel about this... stupidity, arrogance, dickishness, it makes me want to punch one of these people.
It wouldn't solve anything but it would sure be stress relieving.

As for for Discovery, perhaps this will be the show the mainstream audience will like and Star Trek will finally belong to them.

What was it that Spock said to Stonn after the kal-if-fee?

"After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 14280
Posted: 05 April 2017 at 9:58pm | IP Logged | 19 post reply

I think an inherent part of what makes TREK great is that it appeals to a more selective demographic--the nerds, the dreamers, etc. Being a niche/cult property is a part of its identity, for good or ill.

The downside, of course, is the elitist clubhouse mentality which manifests itself in so many nerd fandoms.

AbramsTREK is very much a case of making a STAR TREK for people who hate STAR TREK and/or love STAR WARS. The people who think that TREK was "never good" until Abrams took charge. I liken it to jocks coming along, taking the shy, nerdy girl you were gonna ask to prom, and making her over to look like a hooker.

Some call it "mainstream appeal". Me, I call it "dumbing down and selling out". Mileage may vary, void where prohibited.



There's also a real epidemic of aging fans who refuse to grow up and let go of their childhoods, and creatively bankrupt studios pandering to nostalgia. It's like a drug dealer/junkie situation. Instead of enjoying a series/film and then moving on, genre fans seem to want to never give it up. It has to go on and on and on. I've become a big believer in enjoying a well-done story without insisting on follow-ups and derivative spin-offs/remakes, which can damage that story, or take away from its uniqueness. 

As I've noted in the STAR WARS section, I kinda feel like a good chunk of fandom is under a sort of mass hypnosis. As long as Disney keeps pumping out hits of competently-executed nostalgia, just about anything will be accepted, no matter how damaging to the original characters and concepts. For me, at least, the new characters and elements of ROGUE ONE are rather bland and boring, and that film's appeal comes from its fannishness and nostalgia factor. Just my opinion, of course. But, these days, using familiar tropes and names seems to be enough to make a lot of fans think that they're getting what they want.

In the case of TREK, I'm more open to follow-ups. TOS is over and done. There's no way to recapture that magic, except by way of novels, comics, etc. I'm cool with iterations set much later doing their own thing, but prequels and reboots make me less than happy. 

And, as I've recently noted, we'll now have no less than three distinctly different and sorta-kinda competing versions of the same era in live-action--TOS, AbramsTREK, and DISCOVERY. You wanna get the fans arguing with each other, that's a good way to start. The TNG-era spin offs at least respected the look, feel, and sound of TOS as part of the franchise's canonical history. 

Now that more time has passed, and newer generations have less affinity and respect for the original series, we're seeing more and more of that disrespectful "remix and rethink everything" attitude which permeates so many iterations of genre properties. No one wants to color inside the lines, anymore. It's like a la carte storytelling--pick and choose a few concepts to staple atop a new construct in order to legitimize it for the fans. 


I never imagined I'd live in a world where Spock was boning Uhura and Han Solo was murdered by his own son, but here we are. 

Not that I want to sound like I'm opposed to new ideas, but I just can't help but feel like a lot of these creative choices come from a place which lacks respect for--and understanding of--the source material.

I'd like to think that I've grown up. I don't buy modern comics. I'm not buying all the new STAR WARS books and merchandise. My emotional life doesn't depend on these properties going on forever. It's fine for kids to have their own versions of my childhood favorites, but I do kinda wish that they'd be left alone to fade into pleasant memories which I can always revisit. Also, the public perception of these properties and their modern iterations really does kinda irk me on a base-ego level, simply because they mean so much to me, and it hurts to see them "misrepresented" to today's kids, so to speak. 

Like, say, people seeing the abysmal failure of FANT4STIC and writing off the comics--especially the Lee and Kirby comics--simply because of a terrible adaptation put into the mainstream spotlight. That feels criminal!


Edited by Greg Kirkman on 05 April 2017 at 10:01pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 10 April 2017 at 4:56pm | IP Logged | 20 post reply

You are right that part of the problem is the fandom of large franchises that refuse to accept that the story has been told and that it is to move on, just wanting more and more material, and that the movie studios just play into that.
And then it needs to be certain types of stories, or specific characters have to be in it, or some background plot like for example a historic event needs to be shown in detail.

Most important of all it must create the same feeling or the same "high" that people had the first time they saw a Star Wars, Star Trek, Indiana Jones, or James Bond movie.

I wonder if that is perhaps also a problem with the tie in media spin offs like comics, books, games, and so on.
They try to be to much like the source material, their producers and writers thinking that the only way to accomplish that is to tell the same stories or use certain plot elements/subjects over and over again.

For a lot of franchises it just doesn't work. I have for example been reading several Indiana Jones books and most of them barely get anywhere near "Raiders of the lost Ark", Indy for example saying things that he would never do in the movies.

As for Star Trek, I think it should move on (leave the original series for books, comics, and games), but I have no idea in what for way to bring it back to the television screen or the film screen.
Perhaps it is exhausted?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 6964
Posted: 10 April 2017 at 8:06pm | IP Logged | 21 post reply

Trek is vast enough in concept that it can tell stories more or less indefinitely. Whether those can be told in a way that pleases both long-term fans and new as well as casual viewers, the jury is still out. I know a number of people who think the Abrams pictures are Jim-Dandy Star Trek. I don't like these people, but I know them.

An Expanse or BSG-style narrowcast show might be just the thing for a number of people. I think "fannishing up it's own backside" with multi-dimensional beings that impersonate multiple characters at once is perhaps the worst possible storyline choice they could have gone with, but maybe others will like revisiting the ol' BSG "Look! There's another Sharon! Shoot her!" vibe. Who knows? 

Star Trek is very nearly a genre all its own. It can't run out of stories. It can tell enough of them badly that the public loses interest. 

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Tim Cousar
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1439
Posted: 11 April 2017 at 7:14am | IP Logged | 22 post reply

New Star Trek can be done. Give us a new ship with a new crew, and make us care about this crew by showing us who they are, not by telling us what they are.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 August 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 427
Posted: 11 April 2017 at 9:40am | IP Logged | 23 post reply

Not trying to go off subject of this topic, but what journeys and adventures would a new crew that could not be told during the days of Kirk , Picard, or the other three crews?

I really don't think we have to see more 'historical events' of Star Trek history be played on the screen, so no prequels or series set between Star Trek 6 and Star Trek TNG.

After Nemesis? What kind of stories then?
More Klingon stories? More Romulan stories? More Borg stories?
More stories about Star Trek politics and social development?

Trek is long past the day that it told interesting stories about scientific ideas, political subjects, or stories of human nature.
The problem with a lot of Voyager and Enterprise was most of it was filler and Star Trek basically started to recycle itself just like the new movies did and Discovery will most likely do.


Edited by Marten van Wier on 11 April 2017 at 9:41am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Hague
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 November 2006
Posts: 6964
Posted: 11 April 2017 at 12:10pm | IP Logged | 24 post reply

In one sense, Voyager and the Abrams film had the right idea in placing the ship and crew in its own venue, a place far enough away from the hustle-and-bustle of the mainstream Federation that "known" continuity wasn't much of a concern. Continuity is all too often the enemy of good storytelling. 

That said, the Universe is a big place. Just because the Berman era series told stories about science, politics, and human nature badly doesn't mean they're off the table for future writers. If they want to do Klingons, Romulans, and the Borg, fine. That's fair. It's not as if we apply this sort of thinking to stories in general. "Seriously? Another story about Italians? How many Italian stories do we need? Hey, why not come up with a story about some Irish people while you're at it? That'll be original..." 

My own formula would be to bring things back to action-adventure and keep it smart with that underlying sense of camaraderie, humor, and humanity. I don't think you can burn out the idea of Star Trek. You can bore fans determined to be bored by it, but nothing was going to please them anyway. "Oh, great. More Klingons. Thanks, geniuses." or "What was that? A whole race we just somehow never heard of? Yeah, right!" Either way, if someone wants to whine, they'll whine. 


Edited by Brian Hague on 11 April 2017 at 12:11pm
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5549
Posted: 11 April 2017 at 1:15pm | IP Logged | 25 post reply

It has three strikes against it, as far as I'm concerned:

1. In a slap in the face to people in the U.S., its going to be on tv in Canada and Netflix in the rest of the world, but if we want to see it in the U.S., we have to sign up for their All Access service. I've no interest in signing up something I have to pay extra for just to watch one show. I wouldn't do it with Amazon to watch The Grand Tour, so I won't do it with this.

2. They are apparently going to be edgier, possibly including nudity. Sorry, but I've always liked Star Trek because it doesn't cross certain boundaries. 

3. I see no point in a series set in the time frame its going to take place in. I'd rather have a show that's set as far ahead from TNG/DS9/Voyager as those shows were from TOS, or at least takes place as far ahead as those shows aired in real life, so some of the actors from those shows could possibly guest star as the same characters.

The only thing I find interesting is the casting. 


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 28 Next >>
  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