Star Trek: *hits blunt* The higher, the fewerrrrrr

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Star Trek: *hits blunt* The higher, the fewerrrrrr

Tighclops: Jan 23, 2008; Unable to deal with it; Grimey Drawer

Arglebargle III posted:

The most blatantly dickish gun having woman already got some desserts though so hopefully all the bad characters will die. Not sure how our manipulative and arrogant main character will ever get to the captain's seat, considering she's a dis ranked prisoner

I have to believe that since this is still a Star Trek show they will eventually get around to making an appropriate point out of everything but I'm also prepared to eat my hat if the moral of the story ends up being something totally abhorrent anyway because it's 2017 and nothing matters

Gammatron 64 posted:

It's funny because that's almost verbatim how I described Star Trek Into Darkness

You wouldn't have been wrong about that either

# ? Oct 9, 2017 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 12:07

Marshal Radisic: Oct 9, 2012

So I had a dumb thought rattling around my head and I'd like to hear you guys sound off on it. For those of you who dislike how STD's aesthetics clash with just about everything we remember from the TOS era, would you have less objection if a Trek show with similar aesthetics had been set in the "Lost Era," aka that big chunk of time between Kirk's death in Generations and the Enterprise-D's first mission in Encounter at Farpoint? I was just thinking about how no one except die-hard Trek fan-filmmakers would be willing create a show that stuck to the '60s aesthetics exactly, which has been a recurring issue with both JJTrek and STD. However, it seems some of the more flashy modern stuff would be easier to accept in a show between the TOS movies and TNG. Heck, a lot of the time it just be a natural application of in-universe technology that we never got to see.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 21:18

skasion: Feb 13, 2012; Why don't you perform zazen, facing a wall?

It looks a lot newer than the TNG era stuff too, so I don't see what that would really help aesthetically speaking. What is the problem with just making it the Next Next Generation?

# ? Oct 9, 2017 21:24

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

skasion posted:

It looks a lot newer than the TNG era stuff too, so I don't see what that would really help aesthetically speaking. What is the problem with just making it the Next Next Generation?

In addition to being beholded to 20 seasons of TV shows from the 90s, a lot of the stuff Voyager dragged in would probably kind of harm storytelling. "Why don't we just have holographic away teams, why don't we just use the Slipstream drive," etc. It would probably be less bad now.

However, HOWEVER: I am four square in favor of Star Trek: Excelsior.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 21:36

GET IN THE ROBOT: Nov 28, 2007; JUST GET IN THE FUCKING ROBOT SHINJI

Tighclops posted:

I have to believe that since this is still a Star Trek show they will eventually get around to making an appropriate point out of everything but I'm also prepared to eat my hat if the moral of the story ends up being something totally abhorrent anyway because it's 2017 and nothing matters

You wouldn't have been wrong about that either

Yeah I def got some flashbacks of a certain movie that I'd like to forget while watching discovery.

What's hilarious \ depressing is it seems that Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci are like on a mission to destroy everything I love

Like you guys did Transformers, then Star Trek, then Spider-Man and now Universal Monster movies, just go away you guys, come on dudes. STAHP IT

# ? Oct 9, 2017 21:38

Tunicate: May 15, 2012

Nessus posted:

In addition to being beholded to 20 seasons of TV shows from the 90s, a lot of the stuff Voyager dragged in would probably kind of harm storytelling. "Why don't we just have holographic away teams, why don't we just use the Slipstream drive," etc. It would probably be less bad now.

However, HOWEVER: I am four square in favor of Star Trek: Excelsior.

They pretend DS9 existed, why not pretend voyager never existed instead?

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:00

GET IN THE ROBOT: Nov 28, 2007; JUST GET IN THE FUCKING ROBOT SHINJI

Nessus posted:

In addition to being beholded to 20 seasons of TV shows from the 90s, a lot of the stuff Voyager dragged in would probably kind of harm storytelling. "Why don't we just have holographic away teams, why don't we just use the Slipstream drive," etc. It would probably be less bad now.

However, HOWEVER: I am four square in favor of Star Trek: Excelsior.

Star Trek: Excelsior with Captain Sulu and Star Trek: Defiant with Captain Worf are the shows people want but will never get sadly

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:04

Firebert: Aug 16, 2004

I really don't want Cpt. Worf or the loving Khan series that Meyer is allegedly doing :psyduck:

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:10

Wheat Loaf: Feb 13, 2012; by FactsAreUseless

Gammatron 64 posted:

Like you guys did Transformers, then Star Trek, then Spider-Man and now Universal Monster movies, just go away you guys, come on dudes. STAHP IT

Ever watch The Legend of Zorro? :v:

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:17

F_Shit_Fitzgerald: Feb 2, 2017

Man...the more I hear about Discovery, the less inclined I am to give it a try. I was already turned off by the CBS All Access stuff; I don't have the money to pay for an exploitative monthly streaming service for that one show. But now someone said something about (I'll spoil it for the benefit of those who are watching it) magic mushrooms (?) powering the ship, a rotating saucer section, poor Klingon actors, and a dickish crew. Ugh. No thanks.

Fans on Reddit would tell you that some fans have decided that they're not going to like Discovery no matter what. They may actually have a point, but the thing is that many fans on Reddit have probably decided to like Discovery no matter what stupid bullshit it comes up with.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:26

Shart Carbuncle: Aug 4, 2004; Star Trek:
The Motion Picture

[quote="�Gammatron 64�" post="�477217696�"]
Star Trek: Excelsior with Captain Sulu and Star Trek: Defiant with Captain Worf are the shows people want but will never get sadly
[/quote]

If only they'd gone with the anthology series; we could have gone down those roads for a bit. A multi-season run of the Worf show maybe wouldn't work, but it would be awesome to check in for a bit and see what's poppin' off with big dumb stupid Worf.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:28

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Marshal Radisic posted:

So I had a dumb thought rattling around my head and I'd like to hear you guys sound off on it. For those of you who dislike how STD's aesthetics clash with just about everything we remember from the TOS era, would you have less objection if a Trek show with similar aesthetics had been set in the "Lost Era," aka that big chunk of time between Kirk's death in Generations and the Enterprise-D's first mission in Encounter at Farpoint? I was just thinking about how no one except die-hard Trek fan-filmmakers would be willing create a show that stuck to the '60s aesthetics exactly, which has been a recurring issue with both JJTrek and STD. However, it seems some of the more flashy modern stuff would be easier to accept in a show between the TOS movies and TNG. Heck, a lot of the time it just be a natural application of in-universe technology that we never got to see.

I'm not sure you'd have to say that pre-TNG should look more primitive to the modern eye than TNG. There's an interesting parallel with the Star Wars prequels where they were criticized for having a more advanced look when they were actually evoking the 1920s and 1930s, in contrast to the 1960s aesthetic of the original trilogy. The 1920s chrome and swoopy styling looked more advanced to people despite being 40 years older than the shiny flat bakelite designs in the OT.

TNG was very late 80s, so a very 70s aesthetic would place it in time without necessarily saying anything about what control panels should look like or whatever. So we're talking something that looks like TNG but with three-tone avacado/burnt orange/teal accents, shag carpeting and wood veneer. Like, even more wood veneer than the D had.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:29

Fidel Cuckstro: Jul 2, 2007

The real answer is that all Star Trek should use the Wrath of Khan thru Undiscovered Country uniforms and tech aesthetic.

Because those were actually the best.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:45

Tighclops: Jan 23, 2008; Unable to deal with it; Grimey Drawer

I think that since they sold this thing as being in the same timeline as all the other shows, they should have made a little more effort to make it at least somewhat vaguely appear period appropriate. I'm not saying they couldn't have holograms or that it should exactly match what was established in the 60s like the other shows did but, yeah. That said I had no expectation they'd do that and so my main beef is how uninspired and mundane and just plain ugly a lot of the ships and tech are. There's cool parts (I particularly enjoyed the medical bay in the last episode) but overall it's not a visually appealing show and I don't think that would change by cramming it into another era.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 22:58

Zedsdeadbaby: Jun 14, 2008; You have been called out, in the ways of old.

So... the STD klingons :psyduck:

I'm confused, they don't look anything like the klingons from pretty much every trek since khan? Is STD a remake or a reboot or something

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:14

Drink-Mix Man: Mar 4, 2003; You are an odd fellow, but I must say... you throw a swell shindig.

Zedsdeadbaby posted:

So... the STD klingons

I'm confused, they don't look anything like the klingons from pretty much every trek since khan? Is STD a remake or a reboot or something

It's basically a reboot that's afraid to out-and-out say it's a reboot.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:22

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Zedsdeadbaby posted:

So... the STD klingons

I'm confused, they don't look anything like the klingons from pretty much every trek since khan? Is STD a remake or a reboot or something

It's a redesign of the look, which has been done twice before. I do feel like they probably didn't screen test that makeup much, because the male Klingon actors are having a hell of time emoting with those prosthetics.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:27

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Arglebargle III posted:

I'm not sure you'd have to say that pre-TNG should look more primitive to the modern eye than TNG. There's an interesting parallel with the Star Wars prequels where they were criticized for having a more advanced look when they were actually evoking the 1920s and 1930s, in contrast to the 1960s aesthetic of the original trilogy. The 1920s chrome and swoopy styling looked more advanced to people despite being 40 years older than the shiny flat bakelite designs in the OT.

That complaint was stupid for a number of reasons including the fact that in the original trilogy we saw evil imperial poo poo and bodged together garbage that farmers and rebels had. The shiny ships in the prequels were owned by jedis at the height of their power and the loving queen of a wealthy planet. They should look nicer, decade analog aesthetics aside.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:31

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

Kirk and Spock were the popular ones, right? Let's go back to that time. *is 60*

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:45

MikeJF: Dec 20, 2003

Let's add some weight and flesh extra depth out an original villain! *redesigns and starts from scratch on the most fleshed-out race in trek*

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:51

Big Mean Jerk: Jan 27, 2009; Well, of course I know him.
He's me.

Something the 09 film did well was evoke a 40s/50s feel with the Kelvin uniforms to contrast the pseudo-60s look of the "new" uniforms. It's something I wish the Discovery uniforms and bridge had been designed around. You can update the look and stay futuristic while still imitating a style that makes your prequel an obvious predecessor.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:51

Arglebargle III: Feb 21, 2006

just put a big loving grille on there

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:55

MikeJF: Dec 20, 2003

The Kelvin and the Franklin stuff were both pretty great. Hell, if the Franklin had been the design of the NX-01 I think that ship would have been loved when ENT started.

# ? Oct 9, 2017 23:55

Orv: May 4, 2011

Remember that time Voyager met another Starfleet ship in the Delta Quadrant, that had been kidnapping aliens and shoving them into the engine, and the Captains name is Ransom? I sure didn't but it sure did happen. :psyduck:

# ? Oct 10, 2017 00:57

Brawnfire: Jul 13, 2004; 🎧Listen to Cylindricule!🎵
https://linktr.ee/Cylindricule

So we have the gritty edgelord neo-Trek, the goofy fun callback Trek... we need a Dry Trek.

In Dry Trek (which I personally would watch the poo poo out of) the starship crew is literally a science vessel, like no-poo poo science. There will be long scenes of laboratory work with xenobiological specimens, excavations of ruined cities on alien worlds, drilling mineral samples, etc. The holodeck will be used mainly for long, nuanced simulations, which will be shown in detail and in various permutations. Minutes will pass with nothing but stirring classical music over slowly-rotating topography, stellar phenomena, starships and alien architecture. Conflict will only be personal conflict between respectful and respected academic peers, and will often be mediated through full-length moderated debates, with points of order recognized and fact-checking during breaks. Alien contact will follow standard diplomatic protocol, with long scenes of xenolinguists tossing back-and-forth suggestions for best translations of alien vernacular beforehand, and then tedious diplomat balls with small talk and discussing possibilities for making future arrangements for trade meetings.

# ? Oct 10, 2017 03:03

CharlieWhiskey: Aug 18, 2005; everything, all the time

this is the world

I would watch a space exploration procedural.

# ? Oct 10, 2017 03:09

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Brawnfire posted:

So we have the gritty edgelord neo-Trek, the goofy fun callback Trek... we need a Dry Trek.

In Dry Trek (which I personally would watch the poo poo out of) the starship crew is literally a science vessel, like no-poo poo science.

They're going to study warp particles by season 2 at the latest.

# ? Oct 10, 2017 03:13