|
Remember when the Klingon homeworld got its atmosphere broken and it gave us a good movie and changed the entire system that these stories were told in? Obviously it would be stupid to use Romulus the same way!
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
But for real... The more I think about it the more I really want Romulan Space Piracy
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
I have an idea: ignore the destruction of Romulus because it was a stupid plot contrivance to appease fans in order to set up a series of thoughtless movies. Maybe excluding Beyond, which was decent if forgettable.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
What are the Sarcophagus Klingons from? The wiki has nothing on them.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Remember when the Klingon homeworld got its atmosphere broken and it gave us a good movie and changed the entire system that these stories were told in? It gave us one good movie, but it didn't really impact the series in any way. Star Trek 6 came out in 1991, TNG had already done "the Klingons are our allies, the Klingon Empire is a hilariously corrupt and unstable government" long before Nimoy and Meyer had come along with their story concepts.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
I'm down with ignoring it but also the Romulans becoming roaming space pirates would be rad. E: Romeing space pirates.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Huh I didn't realize the original series still had movies coming out after TNG premiered. That's weird.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Huh I didn't realize the original series still had movies coming out after TNG premiered. That's weird. Michael Dorn played Worf's grandfather in 6.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Zesty posted:What are the Sarcophagus Klingons from? The wiki has nothing on them. Some leaked concept art from a few months back. Nothing official yet, but I'd be very surprised if they end up being something else.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I have an idea: ignore the destruction of Romulus because it was a stupid plot contrivance to appease fans in order to set up a series of thoughtless movies. Maybe excluding Beyond, which was decent if forgettable.  If it gets in the way of good stories, get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
I just hope they keep "Where My Heart Will Take Me" as the theme song for Discovery.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
I wonder who owns the rights to "My Heart WIll Go On"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
If they started every episode with a four minute extended version of Faith of the Heart, I would be so totally on board.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Michael Dorn played Worf's grandfather in 6. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Discovery's theme song is going to be a spruced up techno version of Nine Inch Nails' "Closer".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
It's better than it sounds. Dorn plays Kirk and McCoy's public defender in a Klingon trial. Dorn is obviously recognizable, but they don't call attention to it and folks who've never seen an episode of TNG wouldn't be lost. It's just a throwaway cameo in a three or four minute scene. Drone posted:Also the Klingon judge literally addresses him as "Colonel Worf" in ST6. I forgot they actually name him in the movie, but it's still a fairly inoffensive cameo. Big Mean Jerk fucked around with this message at 08:42 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
Also the Klingon judge literally addresses him as "Colonel Worf" in ST6.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I have an idea: ignore the destruction of Romulus because it was a stupid plot contrivance to appease fans in order to set up a series of thoughtless movies. Maybe excluding Beyond, which was decent if forgettable. Yup. The destruction of Romulus was only established in the JJ films - it doesn't actually have to be honoured in the prime timeline. And let's face it, while I thought the Kelvin Timeline was a neat way to reboot Star Trek (unlike the films themselves), it's ultimately a dead-end. It's tied to the movie studio, and an expensive cast. It exists purely to use the brand recognition of Kirk, Spock and McCoy, it's not there to have spinoffs. Beyond was good, though.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
Eh, I'd still rather have Romulus destroyed in a hypothetical post-Nemesis series than have the TV writers ignore or retcon it. You know, assuming the action is still in or near the Federation. This is whether or not such a series focuses a lot or little on space politics. If it's little, than a line about New Romulus and that's it. It just seems petty to fight it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
All this discussion about making either prequels or sequels to DS9/VOY, how about a series in between TOS and TNG? You have what, 80 ~ 100 years there to use there and your ship designs can easily reference TOS while looking more slick.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
The thing with CGI though is that it often looks worse than the old models. You'd think having a CGI-infused show that takes place in the past would look better than the old stuff, but that's not necessarily the case. But CGI is here to stay so what can you do? Anyways I care less about when it's set and more about characters, story, etc. I'm also less jazzed about the old, standard spaceship-captain-on-the-bridge trope that DS9 -- to its credit -- started to get away from, and which Voyager ran back toward like it was a fallout shelter and the only thing that would keep the franchise alive. Trekkies will not accept anything except it, but it's limiting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Star Trek: Data has to power-gently caress them into opening negotiations. Bryan Fuller explaining an alternative Generations script. He was referring to Lursa and B'Etor.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:So... not a DS9 fan, then? It's tied for my favorite series. DS9 has darker subject matter but does it in a way that still feels very "Star Trek". I can't really explain it.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:It's tied for my favorite series. Because DS9 trades a focus on stories that explore the human condition in general (TNG) with those that explore modern human politics and the value and fragility of an open society when faced with crisis. It's just as introspective as TNG, just in a much different way. Then VOY came along and... I dunno what VOY was supposed to accomplish besides beating a dead horse.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Drone posted:Then VOY came along and... I dunno what VOY was supposed to accomplish besides beating a dead horse. That's easy, they were trying to make a fuckton of money without recognizing that how people watched TV was changing and without the novelty and charisma of TNG. Voyager still upsets me a bit at how good it could've been if jackoff business executives would've just toned the greed down a little bit.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:That's easy, they were trying to make a fuckton of money without recognizing that how people watched TV was changing and without the novelty and charisma of TNG. Voyager would have been fantastic if we had instead gotten Star Trek: Equinox.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:The thing with CGI though is that it often looks worse than the old models. You'd think having a CGI-infused show that takes place in the past would look better than the old stuff, but that's not necessarily the case. But CGI is here to stay so what can you do? CGI has come a looooong way from when Voyager and Enterprise were using it. On the TNG blurays a couple of the effects shots couldn't be located for the remaster so they had to use a CGI 1701-D for them. It's pretty much impossible to tell them apart from the model shots.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Huh I didn't realize the original series still had movies coming out after TNG premiered. That's weird.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
Drone posted:Because DS9 trades a focus on stories that explore the human condition in general (TNG) with those that explore modern human politics and the value and fragility of an open society when faced with crisis. It's just as introspective as TNG, just in a much different way. That's true. I think what I'm also trying to get at but I'm having trouble articulating is that there's something with DS9's tone that makes it feel very "Trek". It has the dark subject matter of war and oppression, but it's shown through a Star Trek lens. If that makes any sense. There's still a kind of optimism to it and they're still morality tales in space. For instance, I feel like Ben Sisko is a good man with strong moral convictions, even though he tows the line and has more shades of grey than other captains. And he's done some lovely things. But the core of his being is a good man who has the same Starfleet values as Picard and others. I really don't get that sense from the JJ Abrams movies, there's just something that feels "off." Out of the 3 reboot movies, Star Trek: Beyond is by far the one that feels the most "Star Trek" and it isn't even directed by JJ.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:It's tied for my favorite series. It's darker but it's sure as hell not action-oriented, except for some of the war episodes, but every Star Trek has a few war episodes. The bulk of the show is still people in the future talking about stuff and solving space problems in clever ways. Comrade Fakename posted:
Makes no difference to me if some people end up liking it. Personally, it just looks like such a creative dead end. We already have Enterprise and JJtrek, how much more TOS worship do we need? Kudos if they somehow manage to transcend that, but everything is working against them. I'd rather not have a new Star Trek series at all unless it's something NEW. In a way I guess I was burned by Enterprise. I actually really liked the show more often than not, but the single worst thing about it was the setting. It just dragged the show down. The truth is, prequels almost always suck. They give backstory to stories that already built in all the information we needed to know, and they usually lack their own sense of purpose beyond paying homage to an existing piece of media. Certainly my ideal new Star Trek doesn't have to take place after Voyager or address the Dominion war, but I just think virtually any setting would be better than pre-TOS (again). There are exceptions to every rule, and I hope Discovery is one of them. If it is, it'll most likely be because they work against basically everything we know about the show so far. Sir Lemming fucked around with this message at 14:15 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:I'm saying they can't legally work with that. It's not a creativity issue. Star Trek Online manages to work with it. They have a New Romulus plotline. And CBS and Paramount seem to work together on things like that more often than not. The new movies are riddled with references to the shows. MACOs, Section 31, etc. thexerox123 fucked around with this message at 13:47 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Star Trek Online manages to work with it. They have a New Romulus plotline. More recently, they also have a mission where you visit the Kelvin timeline and hang out with that one robot from Into Darkness for a bit. He's cool.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:
It's not so much the LOOK of The Orville that makes me boggle at the love, but has anyone in this thread watched THAT trailer? Because jesus that show looks like less fun than a rusty nail in the groin. The FIRST joke in the trailer is a 'women bitch about the toilet seat, amirite guys!?" gag and the rest aren't much better. I'd much rather have a mediocre Star Trek show as a drama than a painfully unfunny comedy.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:That's easy, they were trying to make a fuckton of money without recognizing that how people watched TV was changing and without the novelty and charisma of TNG. Can't pin it all on the execs though. Voyayer had showrunner/writing room problems from day one and, by the time Braga was firmly entrenched as King Dick of poo poo Mountain, pretty much everyone involved hated Voyager, the audience, and each other. Anyway, I guess we're doing nu-Trek chat again. I've always thought the the biggest problem with the JJ movies was that he just didn't understand how to pace a Star Trek story (or a Star Wars one, for that matter). Star Trek can be a weird mystery, a slow burn drama, a grand adventure, or even a bit of a farce, but it doesn't really work as a thriller (which is why Ent always fell flat on its face when it tried to go full Tom Clancy). Thrillers tend to be very plot-driven and action oriented with lots of twists and reversals and that can indeed be thrilling, but it can also make things feel flat and disjointed. Action sci-fi is harder to pull off than it looks because it's really hard to get the deep world building, consistent characterization, or resonant themes you want if you spend the whole time bouncing from explosions to sexy times to genocide to shocking betrayals to anguished cries to daring escapes to one liners to fist fights to flirting to tragic deaths to bad guy speeches to explosions to almost giving up but not quite to fanservice to chase scenes to all hope being lost to repeating the one liner from earlier to ironic effect to taking a million to one shot to more explosions to rushed denouement. Beyond had the easiest time of it because it had less to prove and more time to be itself, but it still feels like it works a hell of a lot better in its slower, quieter scenes than when it's trying to be ACTION ACTION ACTION. It's weird that the pacing of Star Trek movie should remind me of a b-grade superhero origin story or an amateur writer trying to recreate Fury Road, but them's the breaks.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Much as Galaxy Quest replaced Nemesis, The Orville has come to replace Voyager. Finally.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
The two best scenes in Beyond are actually polar opposites, I'd say, in terms of pace and scale. Those being Bones and Kirk's discussion of mortality and finding your own direction in life over stolen whiskey, and the Beastie Boys explosion-o-rama.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Oh and the Yorktown-themed music in Beyond was just fanfuckin'tastic and evoked a sense of wonder that I hadn't felt while watching Star Trek in yeeeaaarrrs.
Drone fucked around with this message at 15:16 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Drone posted:Voyager would have been fantastic if we had instead gotten Star Trek: Equinox. We got something very similar in Stargate: Universe. If Voyager would've stuck with their premises like being flung into scarcity and having a conflict between the Maquis and Starfleet crew, poo poo could've gotten very, very good. That being said, a lot of people hated SG:U for some reason I can't fathom. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
mycomancy posted:We got something very similar in Stargate: Universe. If Voyager would've stuck with their premises like being flung into scarcity and having a conflict between the Maquis and Starfleet crew, poo poo could've gotten very, very good. It was trying very, very hard to pretend it wasn't a Stargate series. Say what you will about DS9 but it never felt ashamed of being Star Trek, but Universe felt like they were embarrassed by how silly SG1 and Atlantis were sometimes. They outright mocked the idea of any kind of awe at seeing where the titular gates were made in one episode, which kind of sums that idea up in a single beat for me. Note: I actually quite LIKE Universe, but mostly agree with the consensus that it improved immensely once they veered away from the 'let's be like BSG' mandate and hewed back towards the Stargate universe (pun slightly intended) feel.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:16 |
|
|
I like the movie Stargate but never watched any of the TV. Should I?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2017 16:30
|
|
