|
I'm not seeing a fun adventure though, all i see is a dark and gritty Mass Effect knockoff. Maybe it will be fun, and i'll definitely give the first season a chance, but the trailer didn't convince me of that at all. I'm not that desperate for Trek that i'll be satisfied with anything that happens to have Star Trek on the name.
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Zurui posted:I'm so ecstatic that Trek is back in production. I don't give a poo poo about the continuity or whether or not it's a prequel, there's a show called Star Trek and they're making more of it. If all y'all think that trailer has anything in it that isn't easily outdone in the stupidity department by the first season of the other five series then you're smoking something really good when you watch it. Trek is about big ideas and fun space adventure. We've seen the fun space adventure so hopefully we're halfway there. It's been 30 years since 1987 and TNG's premiere. We've all seen multiple spin offs and the various other franchises that have run every trope that Trek made or relied on (sometimes a little too often) so completely into the ground, that those franchises have had spin offs that eventually stalled just as Star Trek's did. We've even had shows and movies come along that turn those tropes on their heads and actually do something different in that time. I don't care about fanservice or continuity at this point because I know it'll all be ignored or hamfistedly shoved in my face depending on whichever out of touch old white guy thinks what approach is popular enough to make money. I know that us nerds will intuitively see all the changes in the graphic design large and small that are "wrong" and argue or complain or make up explanations for and excuses about it; I know what about what we've seen is going to drive people mad. What I don't understand are the people that are impressed. What in that trailer gets you so excited? I watched it a few times and I can't even remember what happened in it. Star Trek's trailers have historically been pretty awful and I suspect this was no different, but ...really?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Trailers are absolutely awful things to make judgements on. The houses that make them can take the source material and spin it to whatever they want, there's absolutely no way of knowing what the product is actually like until we sit down and watch it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:What I don't understand are the people that are impressed. What in that trailer gets you so excited? I watched it a few times and I can't even remember what happened in it. Star Trek's trailers have historically been pretty awful and I suspect this was no different, but ...really? Yeah, speaking as someone who can barely even be considered a fan (I just like Patrick Stewart and the idea of an optimistic sci fi about space exploration), the trailer was underwhelming. Lazy/generic 2010s trailer-editing tropes, vague allusions to big ideas, plenty of bad CGI, and the eyerolling "Starfleet doesn't fire first..." "We have to!" On the plus side some of the visual design is cool, like the Klingon set, the alien landscape, the holographic viewport, and the asteroid field.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:40
|
|
|
Zurui posted:I'm so ecstatic that Trek is back in production. I don't give a poo poo about the continuity or whether or not it's a prequel, there's a show called Star Trek and they're making more of it. If all y'all think that trailer has anything in it that isn't easily outdone in the stupidity department by the first season of the other five series then you're smoking something really good when you watch it. Trek is about big ideas and fun space adventure. We've seen the fun space adventure so hopefully we're halfway there. Caring about something simply because it has a brand name slapped on it that tickles your warm fuzzies is the essence of fanaticism.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Apparently the season run has been increased to 15 episodes! Also, thanks guys, now I can't unsee the Systems Alliance uniforms. <  >
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Caring about something simply because it has a brand name slapped on it that tickles your warm fuzzies is the essence of fanaticism. Yah. If something is using a franchise name but it doesn't have any of the original creatives, the best attitude to have is "okay, prove to me that this is what you say it is." The question is whether the trailer does that. Although I was just thinking about how the death-sensing alien is very Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:The YouTube comments on the trailer sure are bad, huh? For some reason, I naively believed Star Trek fans were better than Star Wars fans when it comes to not freaking out whenever there's a woman/non-white person on screen, but that isn't the case. Star Trek fans are much, much worse. This forum contains every single bearable Trek fan in existence, and even then there's been a few undesirables. Something about the franchise attracts the worst people.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
I was excited when fuller was involved because I hoped he could pull off the whimsy of the original series. This could be great, but it definitely doesn't appear to have gone in the whimsical direction. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:The YouTube comments on the trailer sure are bad, huh? For some reason, I naively believed Star Trek fans were better than Star Wars fans when it comes to not freaking out whenever there's a woman/non-white person on screen, but that isn't the case. You should have seen the arguments back when Voyager premiered over how unrealistic a black Vulcan was...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:55
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:The YouTube comments on the trailer sure are bad, huh? For some reason, I naively believed Star Trek fans were better than Star Wars fans when it comes to not freaking out whenever there's a woman/non-white person on screen, but that isn't the case. That would be my (sadly wrong) intuition too. I mean Star Trek was the show with the first interracial kiss on TV. Racial/gender equality is central to it, in theory.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
When someone says something bad about a media property I'm invested in
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:01
|
|
|
Star Trek fandom is what taught me that religious people don't have a monopoly on missing the point of the stories they've grown up with. loving libertarian trekkies are the worst, man.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
Wow you weren't kidding about those comments. "SJW" thrown around a lot. Boggles my mind, like what do these people think Trek is about.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
I just remember how every Beyond trailer seemed to be depicting an entirely different movie and the first couple looked awful. The rollercoaster ride just makes me nauseous at this point. I've definitely grown out of following most internet hype trains, but I can't quite make myself not care about new Star Trek. At this point, I'm just hoping Discovery will turn out better than Iron Fist did.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:Star Trek fandom is what taught me that religious people don't have a monopoly on missing the point of the stories they've grown up with. Yeah, remember all those stories about a whole bloc of right wingers convinced Colbert was a conservative like them? Sometimes people just see what they want to see. My favorite part of this thread is I can say Gene Roddenberry was a sexist, self-aggrandizing hack whose career should have stayed dead and no one jumps down my throat about it. That's pretty unique as far as Trek communities go.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Wow you weren't kidding about those comments. "SJW" thrown around a lot. Boggles my mind, like what do these people think Trek is about. Think? These people haven't thought about a thing in their entire lives they just straight up believe a white man is the default state of humanity, and showing literally anything else is a SJW conspiracy for white genocide or something
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Wow you weren't kidding about those comments. "SJW" thrown around a lot. Boggles my mind, like what do these people think Trek is about.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:You should have seen the arguments back when Voyager premiered over how unrealistic a black Vulcan was... Also this is crazy to me. Vulcan is a ridiculous desert planet, if anything, Tuvok is way closer to what Vulcans should look like
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:27
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Although I was just thinking about how the death-sensing alien is very Star Trek. I wonder if he can sense when the show is going to die
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:Trailers are absolutely awful things to make judgements on. The houses that make them can take the source material and spin it to whatever they want, there's absolutely no way of knowing what the product is actually like until we sit down and watch it Watching the Trek trailer, there's not much actually... happening. Which if it's an esoteric and smart and interesting show, might be good! And impossible to capture in a trailer. But I have no idea. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:02 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:Also this is crazy to me. Vulcan is a ridiculous desert planet, if anything, Tuvok is way closer to what Vulcans should look like But we've never seen a black Vulcan before, therefore it's wrong! I want comfortable familiarity at all times from my science fiction!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Trailer looks bad. I also really hate those uniforms, especially given the time period the show is set in. They look like they could have maybe fit in a few years after ENT, but not ten years before we got the primary color tunics we see in TOS. A lot of the dialogue delivery in that trailer is woody and stale and those Klingons look awful. "My species was bred to sense death" was a pretty Trekkish line though, I liked that bit. Verdict: I'll watch it but I'm not gonna get at all excited for it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 10:34
|
|
|
Drone posted:"My species was bred to sense death" was a pretty Trekkish line though, I liked that bit. Right, because his race has a superpower. From eugenics. Because you can breed for that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
I think you have to take Youtube comments with a grain of salt, because the people who write Youtube comments are pretty much Pakleds. I always found the libertarian Trekkies weird, although I think some of this may be a vein introduced by one of the founders of fandom, and some of it may be because of how loosey-goosey the portrayal of the Federation was in TOS. While you can claim the TNG/DS9 Federation makes no sense because (insert personal hobby horse about human nature here), you know, they presented it, they weren't ambiguous that it was in practice a soft post-scarcity utopia for the average jackoff.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:11
|
|
|
Zurui posted:I'm so ecstatic that Trek is back in production. I don't give a poo poo about the continuity or whether or not it's a prequel, there's a show called Star Trek and they're making more of it. I've always wondered who the gently caress was buying Star Wars branded frozen corn and running out to the car dealership if Iron Man and capt america appeared in a Ford commercial. And now here you are.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Right, because his race has a superpower. From eugenics. Because you can breed for that. In a universe where random science poo poo somehow binds non-randomly with biology ("Cause and Effect", "The Next Phase", "Parallels", "Remember Me", "Rascals", "The Visitor", all telepaths, and every other episode of Voyager) breeding for precognition seems quite in-keeping. bull3964 posted:You can't even use aesthetic as a reason. TOS looked different from TMP which looked different from 2-6 which looked different from TNG which looked different from Generations which looked different from First-Contact through Nemesis. This this this. It sometimes feels like people want a prequel to work as if it had been made at the time. So you could sit and watch Enterprise, Discovery and TOS and it would feel like a natural progression. Personally, I would have liked Discovery to try a little harder to have a TOS feel - I'm not asking for the same set design and costumes, but if they wanted to sell us a prequel set so close to Kirk's time, they might have turned the lights up a little, or given us something familiar. That said, it really doesn't matter - I'm ready for some 2017 Star Trek, and I'm okay with the series just straight-up deciding to look like a 2017 Star Trek. It's been 50 years, and Discovery should be taken in the context of when it was made. I used to really enjoy explaining production inconsistencies away - like how the STTNG tech manual decided that bridges were swappable modules, to account for why Enterprise bridges kept changing, and other starships all had different bridge layouts. But I was a nerd teenager then. Now I'm a goddamn nerd adult, and have grown out of the need for everything to add up perfectly in my fictional universe spinoffs, as long as they add up within themselves (so sorry, Voyager, I still haven't forgotten how you abandoned your premise and crashed 4,740 shuttles). I mean, really, in a way, each Star Trek spin off sort of takes place in it's own universe. They almost never acknowledge or affect each other. Anyway... fingers crossed it doesn't suck.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Right, because his race has a superpower. From eugenics. Because you can breed for that. You realize that you're talking about a show that has multiple different psychic abilities and unrealistically homogenized alien species in it, right?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think you have to take Youtube comments with a grain of salt, because the people who write Youtube comments are pretty much Pakleds. Hey, that's not fair - the Pakled at least realized they weren't very smart and tried to improve themselves. If they were youtube commenters, instead of kidnapping Geordi, they'd have just screamed racial slurs at him and insisted their engineering skills were just as good as his.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:a show that wasn't that great and went off the air in 1969. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Dirty posted:This this this. It sometimes feels like people want a prequel to work as if it had been made at the time. So you could sit and watch Enterprise, Discovery and TOS and it would feel like a natural progression. Personally, I would have liked Discovery to try a little harder to have a TOS feel - I'm not asking for the same set design and costumes, but if they wanted to sell us a prequel set so close to Kirk's time, they might have turned the lights up a little, or given us something familiar. That said, it really doesn't matter - I'm ready for some 2017 Star Trek, and I'm okay with the series just straight-up deciding to look like a 2017 Star Trek. It's been 50 years, and Discovery should be taken in the context of when it was made. Last year a movie came out that was a direct, like down to a few minutes prior, prequel to a movie from 1977 and somehow they didn't have any trouble precisely matching that aesthetic without sacrificing modern production values. Maybe we should petition Disney to buy the Star Trek IP.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
New show looks like a YouTube series filmed with cheap green screens; will probably binge it Day 1 though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
IMO Star Trek has more than run its course and should end. If they don't want to make it science fiction for a modern generation fine, just end it. This generation right now desperately needs positive visions of the future. I mean that. I think an image of a better future is missing from our politics and culture right now. The imagined future is a bleak one and that rebounds on how we live. But endlessly rehashing an image of the future of the 1960s is pointless. It's a nostalgia exercise. Either make a star trek that speaks to modern ideas of the future or wrap it up.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think you have to take Youtube comments with a grain of salt, because the people who write Youtube comments are pretty much Pakleds. Post-scarcity being the operative phrase. Removing economics from the picture, libertarianism fits Trek very well. Everybody seems to have a large degree of personal liberty, without a tyrannical government.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
If there's one thing this world doesn't need right now, it's a post-capitalist libertarian-socialist vision of an optimistic future, I tell ya wut 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:IMO Star Trek has more than run its course and should end. If they don't want to make it science fiction for a modern generation fine, just end it. This generation right now desperately needs positive visions of the future. I mean that. I think an image of a better future is missing from our politics and culture right now. The imagined future is a bleak one and that rebounds on how we live.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I honestly believe that in the long term, a series set after DS9/Voyager (or further in the Kelvin timeline) would have a better shot at becoming something both critically acclaimed and legitimately popular. I feel there is MORE franchise baggage involved in the whole "Before Kirk and Spock..." thing. Yes, there's also name recognition... but that's a bigger deal for a movie than a TV show. For this to be a success, people have to watch more than one episode. And people are way more likely to press a button on the remote and watch something else than to walk out of a theater. Plus, it's almost exactly the same premise as Enterprise and not really far removed from the overall style of it either. Why would it work this time? Of course, if CBS All Access tanks, none of this matters anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Echoing what other people said, the aesthetic in the trailer looks way too JJ Trek and dark. Not digging the Klingon redesigns. Seth McFarlane's spoof looks more like Star Trek. However at least the production values look good and it seems like this show is getting made, period. Casting looks all right. Arglebargle III posted:This generation right now desperately needs positive visions of the future. I mean that. I think an image of a better future is missing from our politics and culture right now. The imagined future is a bleak one and that rebounds on how we live. I agree that right now we need Star Trek and the ideals expressed in the show more than ever. People really seem to have forgotten them. Even the recent Trek movies are kinda dark, depressing and violent which seems like they're missing the point. I guess people just can't conceive of a positive future and it's reflected in the writing... Sir Lemming posted:I honestly believe that in the long term, a series set after DS9/Voyager (or further in the Kelvin timeline) would have a better shot at becoming something both critically acclaimed and legitimately popular. I feel there is MORE franchise baggage involved in the whole "Before Kirk and Spock..." thing. Yes, there's also name recognition... but that's a bigger deal for a movie than a TV show. For this to be a success, people have to watch more than one episode. And people are way more likely to press a button on the remote and watch something else than to walk out of a theater. Agreed. I just don't really care about what happened before TOS. We already had Enterprise. What I'd really like to see is what happens after DS9 and Voyager. And people who are like "b-b-b-but audiences don't remember DS9!" that doesn't matter. TNG had some callbacks to TOS but the show stood on its own for the most part. They specifically had mandates not to reuse TOS aliens and stuff. People act like Star Trek is this huge thing that is heavily built on continuity but it really isn't. They reference past stuff and sometimes make sequels to episodes but for the most part Star Trek is just a crew visiting a new planet, solving some problem they have, then moving on and forgetting about it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Even the recent Trek movies are kinda dark, depressing and violent which seems like they're missing the point. I guess people just can't conceive of a positive future and it's reflected in the writing... ST:Beyond had plenty of dark moments, but it also had a loooot more refreshingly optimistic moments than any recent Trek has, and it was really refreshing. Basically everything to do with Yorktown, and the whole underlying "we are stronger when we're diverse and unified than when we stand alone" theme is very much a response to the Zeitgeist of today.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
Drone posted:ST:Beyond had plenty of dark moments, but it also had a loooot more refreshingly optimistic moments than any recent Trek has, and it was really refreshing. Basically everything to do with Yorktown, and the whole underlying "we are stronger when we're diverse and unified than when we stand alone" theme is very much a response to the Zeitgeist of today. Yeah, I liked Star Trek: Beyond. It actually felt like a Star Trek movie.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:56
|
|