|
The more I think about it, the more I feel like this continuity stasis is one of the things holding Star Trek back now. It's a franchise about the future...without a future. When the camera pulled away from Jake Sisko it became the last clear moment in Star Trek. Like a cliff face against the ocean. Star Trek needs a future again, new frontiers, not just endless prequels. Just my thoughts.
The Unlife Aquatic fucked around with this message at 05:50 on May 18, 2017 |
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Funny to realize there hasn't been a single new Star Trek screen story that wasn't a prequel in fifteen years.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
The more I think about it, the more frustrated I get. There's so much potential and everyone keeps living in the past.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
The Unlife Aquatic posted:The more I think about it, the more frustrated I get. There's so much potential and everyone keeps living in the past. Yeah, and now this will fail and we won't get another TV series until the TNG movie reboots (with a whole new cast except Patrick Stewart) are smashing successes.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
The Unlife Aquatic posted:The more I think about it, the more I feel like this continuity stasis is one of the things holding Star Trek back now. It's a franchise about the future...without a future. When the camera pulled away from Jake Sisko it became the last clear moment in Star Trek. Like a cliff face against the ocean. Star Trek needs a future again, new frontiers, not just endless prequels. Just my thoughts. Maybe they could go even further back and do a prequel set in the 1980s about the Space Shuttle Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
I was thinking about it, and the only reason I could think of for them to keep doing prequels is some crazy idea that somehow if they move forward from TNG/DS9/VOY they are going to be bogged down in the continuity and worldbuilding that Bermanga did. If they set it past that time there is all the baggage of 18 or so years of televised Star Trek from 87-2005 and it would shackle their creativity. But if they do endless riffs on TOS and set it in a fuzzy time "before" that, then they can do whatever they want. Anything could have happened in that time period, and they can update it to look like whatever they want. No LCARS! No Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta politics! Of course, that's completely stupid, but it's the only explanation I can come up with for their thought process. 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Yeah, and now this will fail and we won't get another TV series until the TNG movie reboots (with a whole new cast except Patrick Stewart) are smashing successes. We'll finally get the Geordi: Origins series we've all so desperately craved.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Astroman posted:I was thinking about it, and the only reason I could think of for them to keep doing prequels is some crazy idea that somehow if they move forward from TNG/DS9/VOY they are going to be bogged down in the continuity and worldbuilding that Bermanga did. If they set it past that time there is all the baggage of 18 or so years of televised Star Trek from 87-2005 and it would shackle their creativity. This is honestly probably 90% of it. But it's such an outmoded way of thinking. We live at a time where a show can ask you to a do a lot of mental legwork in part because of DS9. (I would argue after Twin Peaks DS9 was the next big leap in multi-season arcs) It wouldn't even have to be that much. It plays right into the politics of right now too! People who are tired, frustrated, and maybe a little rattled who want to try to get back to an idealized past.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
On the TV end, I think light prequels are just trend that's recently been bankable. Gotham, Hannibal, Better Call Saul, etc. Especially with big franchise properties, it gives the studio the opportunity for cheap ratings grabs of "it's the first appearance of [beloved character/story element from the property's past]."
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
I didn't like the trailer much, but then I'm not sure I've liked any trailer for anything action-oriented in about ten years (ok Pacific Rim and Rogue One both had decent ones). Something about the frenetic cuts, weird lighting choices, and "thrilling" scenes with no context just combine to make everything look like incomprehensible schlock. I don't like playing the game where you try to guess the content based on two second shots (that may not be in the finished product) and I'd much rather get an actual scene or two so I can get a sense for themes, tones, style, and writing/acting/directing quality. Right now, all I really know is Michelle Yeoh's English acting is pretty stiff, JJ Klingons are still weird looking, and someone played a lot of Mass Effect (which, tbf, aped a lot from Star Trek). Is it good? Is it bad? Will it be faithful? Will it be Trek in name only? There's no way of knowing. Trailers like this are deliberately obtuse. They're pretty much tailer made to get the hype train rolling and get people like us engaged in frenzied hot takes, but tell us nothing about what the end result will actually be. My big hope is that in a month or two we'll get a real preview with a soaring orchestral theme, some meaty character scenes and maybe a "these are the voyages" for our trouble, but, given the garbage fire that is modern Hollywood marketing, I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
If they set Discovery 80 to 100 years after TNG and stopped aping every aspect of JJ Trek, they could tell more or less the same story and avoid all of our complaints.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
The obvious answer is to set a new series so far forward into the timeline that continuity barely matters. Everyone knows what Klingons, romulans, and Borg are. Everyone seems to think a future show would require knowledge of every DS9 and Voyager subplot. Just set it 200 years after DS9, make a few vague references to TNG era people and conflicts and then you can do whatever you want creatively and the hardcore fans are satisfied. Continuity is only an albatross if you let it be.King Hong Kong posted:If they set Discovery 80 to 100 years after TNG and stopped aping every aspect of JJ Trek, they could tell more or less the same story and avoid all of our complaints. Basically this.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Would fans be OK with a soft-reboot set after DS9 and Voyager? Like set the show after that era and have minor references to past events but with a new story-line that doesn't directly deal with any leftover loose ends or baggage from those series.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
I mean TNG put a Klingon on the drat bridge. Go far enough out and you can do whatever you want and backfill the reasons. I would be more than happy to have a new Trek that's 50-60 years after the end of Voyager.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
I don't understand why a show can't be set in an established setting with an established history that it's faithful to but just go off and do its own thing. Why would someone watching a new trek show set just after ds9 get confused at the odd nod or reference to trek history? Some science ship out exploring, some clear indications that the federation is rebuilding after some massive war, that's all you need. TNG didn't have endless callbacks to every episode of TOS or the movies. No one flipped out when there were klingons or rumulans. Woooah who are these aliens?! I didn't see TOS I'm so confused!! I bet they could have set discovery post DS9 with a few minor changes and it would work just fine. It doesn't need to be a political drama about Cardassia under a joint federation reconstruction project, it can be '"trek getting back to its roots" or what ever nerds think trek needs to be, but it can carry on into the future like TNG did, like DS9 did, like that other show sort of did.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
TV executives still assume all tv viewers are neanderthals who'll be confused by the slightest bit of continuity. I mean...they are, but 20 years of serialized shows have trained people to pay more attention and expect character growth.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:The obvious answer is to set a new series so far forward into the timeline that continuity barely matters. Everyone knows what Klingons, romulans, and Borg are. Everyone seems to think a future show would require knowledge of every DS9 and Voyager subplot. Just set it 200 years after DS9, make a few vague references to TNG era people and conflicts and then you can do whatever you want creatively and the hardcore fans are satisfied. Continuity is only an albatross if you let it be. This is exactly what happened with TNG and it worked perfectly. The worlds were so separate that they continued to make movies set in the 80 years ago past concurrent with the new tv show. Why execs don't think that can work now is beyond me. Another thing I thought of too, is there might have been some mandate that the show needed to have familiar elements, so they bring in Sarek and poo poo because if you just reboot with a whole new cast then nobody will have anything to latch on to. Again, stupid, but network execs gon' exec.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:that doesn't directly deal with any leftover loose ends or baggage from those series. What loose ends would those be? Baronjutter posted:I don't understand why a show can't be set in an established setting with an established history that it's faithful to but just go off and do its own thing. DING DING DING DING. People complaining about continuity being the roadblock of doing a good series don't make one tiny lick of sense. You can't simultaneously have exceedingly loose continuity (which people claim) and too much continuity baggage (which the same people also claim.) There is no need to reboot, there was never a need to reboot. There is no baggage. The only reason why JJ Trek rebooted was marketing. 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. I mean, for fucks sake, the Enterprise's bridge was 100% completely different between ST: IV, ST:V, and ST:VI. Generations suddenly installed mood lighting. TNG and DS9 both had uniform changes during the runs of the show. Continuity complaints are excuses used by people who WANT to retread the same old stories.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
I'm just hoping they got some science fiction writers to produce some unique scripts. I couldn't care less about the character development or interactions between the captain, the doctor, some alien, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
The biggest "loose end" a post DS9/VOY era show would have to deal with is what happened to the Romulans after their home planet got destroyed by the supernova that kicked off the Kelvin timeline.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The biggest "loose end" a post DS9/VOY era show would have to deal with is what happened to the Romulans after their home planet got destroyed by the supernova that kicked off the Kelvin timeline. Easy, set it before. It's pretty far out anyway, iirc. Or set it so far after it's part of Romulan collective memory but they're not raging about it anymore. bull3964 posted:Smart poo poo. My thoughts exactly. Continuity is not an enemy. It can be as loose or as tight as it needs to be but Star Trek needs a future or I think it's going to slowly die.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The biggest "loose end" a post DS9/VOY era show would have to deal with is what happened to the Romulans after their home planet got destroyed by the supernova that kicked off the Kelvin timeline. Even then, you could easily handwave it with a vague reference to a New Romulus or something.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
I don't understand why they think audiences couldn't keep up with a post-TNG era Trek but somehow are able to handle endlessly rehashing a show that wasn't that great and went off the air in 1969.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:What loose ends would those be? Like the aftermath of the war, the consequences of the Maquis conflict and tensions with their remnants, the destruction of the Borg unimatrix-1 and part of their transwarp network, the impact of future-Janeway's future technology, the glimpses of Section 31's machinations in the shadows, the prime-timeline events alluded to by Trek 09...
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I don't understand why they think audiences couldn't keep up with a post-TNG era Trek but somehow are able to handle endlessly rehashing a show that wasn't that great and went off the air in 1969. "Before Kirk and Spock" is a phrase marketable to a larger demo than "After Picard and Janeway".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:"Before Kirk and Spock" is a phrase marketable to a larger demo than "After Picard and Janeway". It's this, 100%. What a shame though, because if a trailer started with "After Picard and Janeway..." I'd be hype as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Like the aftermath of the war, the consequences of the Maquis conflict and tensions with their remnants, the destruction of the Borg unimatrix-1 and part of their transwarp network, the impact of future-Janeway's future technology, the glimpses of Section 31's machinations in the shadows, the prime-timeline events alluded to by Trek 09... None of that is anything though. There have been larger events that got whammied with a reset button week to week. It's not baggage in any sense of the word and can be completely ignored or given a background mention if the writers were so inclined. It doesn't have any ramifications on the story telling. Don't superimpose depth on to something that was two dimensional to start. If this stuff matters so much, let me ask a simple question. Was Kronos ever evacuated? bull3964 fucked around with this message at 07:16 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
I hope that The Orville is more of an homage to Star Trek than a parody, because I feel like there's plenty of room in the market for a sci-fi show that isn't Star Wars or Babylon 5 or Firefly or BSG. My only complaint about Galaxy Quest was that the very thing that made it not just a parody of Star Trek the show, or the fans, or the actors - the whole 'actors become heroes' deal - meant that you couldn't tell any more stories about the Protector. (At least, good stories. I read the IDW miniseries, and it was pretty bad.) The Orville could absolutely invoke the spirit of Star Trek without digging up Leonard Nimoy's corpse, if that's the direction they chose to take it. Hell, even if it winds up more of a comedy on balance, as long as they aren't doing nothing but references disguised as jokes (insert Seth MacFarlane joke here, and yes, I am aware), I'm prepared to call it the Galaxy Quest 'series revival' made real and watch it.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Yeah, seriously guys, CBS is the Grand Old Network run by and for people who grew up with black and white TVs. They don't take risks, they don't like new ideas, and the so-called golden age of TV has entirely passed them by. Fuller was on record a few years back saying they were the worst choice to do Star Trek and I doubt his opinion is much improved these days. CBS doesn't care about quality, or vision, or us. They're not Desilu, they're not UPN, they're not direct to syndication, and they make Paramount look like goddamn artists. They want the lowest common denominator and they want money. It's the only things they know. People liked and remember TOS. The JJ movies made a lot of money. That's it. That's what we get. loving deal with it already.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Animal-Mother posted:I'm just hoping they got some science fiction writers to produce some unique scripts. I couldn't care less about the character development or interactions between the captain, the doctor, some alien, etc. That's taking it a bit far, but on balance I agree. Show me some weird and awesome space poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, seriously guys, CBS is the Grand Old Network run by and for people who grew up with black and white TVs. They don't take risks, they don't like new ideas, and the so-called golden age of TV has entirely passed them by. Fuller was on record a few years back saying they were the worst choice to do Star Trek and I doubt his opinion is much improved these days. Gods forbid we want more out of our favorite franchise.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:None of that is anything though. There have been larger events that got whammied with a reset button week to week. It's not baggage in any sense of the word and can be completely ignored or given a background mention if the writers were so inclined. It doesn't have any ramifications on the story telling. I think you've lost the context of my posts. I didn't say that stuff matters to me, because it doesn't. But neither does the decision to set the new show in the past (relative to the other series) without being visually faithful to the TOS look, which is apparently very controversial to others. You're telling me that stuff "can be completely ignored or given a background mention if the writers were so inclined" but that's basically exactly what I said in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
I think it looks good, though I'm not sure about the timeline thing. I remember reading that the whole concept behind this series was to make it an anthology and jump between new crews and different time periods each season. Did that end up not happening?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:Yeah, seriously guys, CBS is the Grand Old Network run by and for people who grew up with black and white TVs. They don't take risks, they don't like new ideas, and the so-called golden age of TV has entirely passed them by. Fuller was on record a few years back saying they were the worst choice to do Star Trek and I doubt his opinion is much improved these days. It's entirely possible to be realistic about what CBS is willing to offer while still being wistful about what could have been if they weren't the extremely cynical Chuck Lorre and CSI factory.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
The Unlife Aquatic posted:Gods forbid we want more out of our favorite franchise. Maybe I've just been in this thread too long because I've heard everything on the last couple pages before and the "why does it have to be a prequel" discussion just pisses me off at this point. Because we can't have nice things. That's why. I want the Next Next Generation as much as anyone, but it ain't happening and I guess I'm just sick of dreaming about something we're apparently not allowed to have.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Hey didn't CBS and Paramount split? Didn't they make a silly agreement that CBS would take all TV and Paramount would take all movies? Doesn't this mean Star Trek TV is now a separate continuity from Star Trek movies?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:Hey didn't CBS and Paramount split? It's Complicated. Very Complicated.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 07:55
|
|
|
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. That is a good point. I can't imagine what a TNG trailer would look like with just, like, the first three episodes. Oh no we're on space trial now everyone's drunk and loving and we're racist as gently caress. Edit: Oh yeah they just like, told you who the characters were basically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtmsI07AMsE PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 08:14 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 08:27
|
|
