Star Trek Discovery, finally a trailer

[Reddish Mage]

That's it but back to discussing Discovery why not reveal a Federation system is thought destroyed but turns out an ancient xenotech artefact shifted the entire system into another galaxy and they're forced to adapt any technology they can to rebuild their society whilst trying to figure out what happened?

So no need to rehash Klingons, create your own franchise but trying to perpetuate Star Trek for a new generation!

Is that really that difficult?

I don't quite understand the criticisms here.

"Create your own franchise" and the new look for Klingons, turn out to be a problem caused by the breakup of Paramount Pictures and CBS. The series has to differ "tonally and aesthetically" from TOS because of the license they have . The look and feel of what goes on can be called "Star Trek" but can't look like the old TV shows.

What's more, the "lost in space" idea was done by "Voyager" (and that series never attained the popularity of the early shows). Focusing on a federation colony being displaced rather than a ship smacks of "Deep Space Nine" but doing a drama on an isolated Trek-style colony is really something that Star Trek has never done, and would probably seem like an even greater departure than doing a show that is still about diplomacy, war & space exploration, but from the perspective of Spock's hitherto-unmentioned fully-human sister.

Really it sounds to me that people want to see another TV trek in the traditional mold, a the next-next generation. However, that is problematic because 1. so many plots have already been done before (many multiple times) 2. setting it any further in the future than TNG causes budget-busting problems (those holographic interfaces!) while setting it in the past will inevitably cause problems with the heavy amounts of continuity to honor as well the dissonance caused by reinvisioning the look of the future (which is necessary both for licensing reasons and that our 21st century technology already is better and sleeker, in many ways, than what was seen in TNG & Voyager).

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
What's more, the "lost in space" idea was done by "Voyager" (and that series never attained the popularity of the early shows).

Voyager’s failure had less to do with its core concept, such as it was, than with the creative fatigue the franchise had reached at that point. It was TNG 2.5, but a watered-down version that retreated further and further into a tiny comfort zone.

This is the opposite of what the show should have done—but rather than attempt anything bold and innovative, Voyager fell back on the same tired Trek tropes, and beat them into a thin, bleached gruel.

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Focusing on a federation colony being displaced rather than a ship smacks of "Deep Space Nine" but doing a drama on an isolated Trek-style colony is really something that Star Trek has never done….

This could actually be really interesting, precisely because Trek has never done anything quite like this before. The various Enterprises have visited countless colony worlds, rescuing and protecting and generally fixing them up; but we’ve never really stayed with one colony and watched it develop.

That could be a fascinating story to tell, especially if the colony is in a multiple-star system with a variety of other planets, moons, stations and species. That would provide ample opportunity for diplomacy and exploration, but without the immense firepower and other resources that a frontline starship brings to bear. A newly founded colony forced to gingerly navigate a delicate political situation, working with only what resources they could cobble together, could be much more interesting than a high-end starship that barges into a situation, spouts some frantic technobabble and patches things up in forty-seven minutes.

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
2. setting it any further in the future than TNG causes budget-busting problems (those holographic interfaces!)….

I'm not sure why TNG should be any kind of limit. The CGI for Discovery looks sharp, I’ll give it that, but sharp CGI would cost the same no matter which time period it’s set in. I wouldn’t expect simulated holos to add that much more to the cost.

Believable aliens might be a different story; a future Trek series would need a new set of alien species to be convincing, especially after endless rounds of latex facial appliances. Transcending that look, which plagued TNG and helped trivialize Voyager, would take both creative fortitude and a fair dollop of the budget.

[Reddish Mage]

Voyager’s failure had less to do with its core concept, such as it was, than with the creative fatigue the franchise had reached at that point. It was TNG 2.5, but a watered-down version that retreated further and further into a tiny comfort zone.

This is the opposite of what the show should have done—but rather than attempt anything bold and innovative, Voyager fell back on the same tired Trek tropes, and beat them into a thin, bleached gruel.

I agree with you about Voyager's failure as not being innovative enough and the colony show being viable. However, both are arguably more out their sorts of concepts than Discovery.

Discovery has been dismissed by a lot of critics here and other fans, precisely because it is said to deviate too much from established canon, aesthetics, and concepts.

Yet, alternative suggestions seem like greater departures from the TOS/TNG model to me.

Ultimately, Discovery doesn't look to me like all that much of a deviation (just going off the trailers). It looks like a crew in Kelvin-timeline clothing/ships with a the, POV character that happens to be a human raised by Vulcans, handling a delicate diplomatic/war situation. That is consistent with what Star Trek movies and higher stakes shows have done.

Truthfully there is some questionable fandom alienating decisions in focusing so much on establishing the POV character in the trailers (complete with a Star Wars-style desert journey and an alien mystically detecting approaching death). However, in light of the entire show, these may be minor variations to something that can still very well capture the feel of a federation starship (especially if one accepts the Kelvin timeline look) engaging in a high-stakes confrontation.

I'm not sure why TNG should be any kind of limit. The CGI for Discovery looks sharp, I’ll give it that, but sharp CGI would cost the same no matter which time period it’s set in. I wouldn’t expect simulated holos to add that much more to the cost.

Believable aliens might be a different story; a future Trek series would need a new set of alien species to be convincing, especially after endless rounds of latex facial appliances. Transcending that look, which plagued TNG and helped trivialize Voyager, would take both creative fortitude and a fair dollop of the budget.

I have to disagree on both accounts.

Pushing the future limits a generation or so beyond TNG/DS9/Voyager creates expectations that technology has broadly improved beyond what we see even in the movies. That suggests much more than simply 3D holographic interfaces (which I think is more expensive and difficult to do RIGHT than you give credit), but considering things like true-AI (we see that pioneered already in the prior shows), nanotechnology, replicating living things and organs, trans-warp, and other complications (do they finally eliminate the taboo on cybernetic enhancements). These complications operate both on a nerd level but aesthetically, showing something a LOT more advanced than Kelvin Trek is just very hard to envision and possibly harder to execute.

Aliens, on the other hand. I just have no problems with current makeup. It works for every other Sci-Fi. Also, Discovery shows that change to the look of the aliens will apparently cause a backlash

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Discovery has been dismissed by a lot of critics here and other fans, precisely because it is said to deviate too much from established canon, aesthetics, and concepts.

Well, to me it just looks terrible.

Dedicated Trek fans may be frustrated that it deviates from canon (and given the whole Spock-sister thing, I can’t blame them) but as I mentioned above, I’m unimpressed with how closely it repeats the same well-worn elements. I’m not alone in thinking that a new Trek show, at the very least, should show us something new.

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Pushing the future limits a generation or so beyond TNG/DS9/Voyager creates expectations that technology has broadly improved beyond what we see even in the movies.

True, but by the same token, sometimes less is more.

The first pilot for TOS had a long, lingering shot of a communicator which was partly transparent, to show all the circuitry and gizmos inside. That was intended for a gee-whiz futuristic moment. Thankfully the communicators were toned down for the rest of the series, but they remained nifty handheld gizmos that the props department had to build and maintain.

In TNG, these were replaced by the badge-comms, which were simpler to operate and much simpler for the props department to create. In a future-Trek environment, you don’t even need to show them, just include a line or two of dialogue about nanotech implants. Zero effort for the props department.

That’s just one example, and not everything will be amenable to the same sort of solution; but modern audiences have a general sense that more advanced technology tends to be miniaturized technology, which could certainly play in the show’s favor.

Originally Posted by Reddish Mage
Aliens, on the other hand. I just have no problems with current makeup.

TNG did what they could with latex and a variety of spots and etc. What I saw of Voyager took the latex in thoroughly ridiculous directions.

I’m just tired of brow-ridges, nose-wrinkles and miscellaneous unrealistic bits. I want aliens that are dazzling, not dopey.

[Kitten Champion]

In TNG, these were replaced by the badge-comms, which were simpler to operate and much simpler for the props department to create. In a future-Trek environment, you don’t even need to show them, just include a line or two of dialogue about nanotech implants. Zero effort for the props department.

Andromeda did that, the actors would tap just below their ears to signify opening a communications channel. Also let them do a bit where they visibly winced when interference came through.

It did work well as just an unquestioned and mundane part of that universe, though it would deprive Trek of their usual "put the comm badge on something else as a decoy" which they did relatively frequently across the shows.

[DuctTapeKatar]

It's going to crash and burn. The fact that it's debatable whether it is going to be good or not is a bad sign. At best, they might be able to pull off something good at the third season, like with Generations, but until then, it's just tumblr bait.

Plus, it just doesn't sound like the Star Treck that the fans really want.

[Reddish Mage]

it just doesn't sound like the Star Treck that the fans really want.

My question is what do the fans want?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Going by the discussion boards I've read, start with everything they've done so far, put that in a box and shove it in the closet. The hunger for some new exploration instead of retreading what's come before is palpable.

Taking all your cues from DS9 and avoiding anything that smacks of Voyager or Enterprise seems pretty popular as well.

[Hopeless]

So how would you set up your Star Trek series?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Hopeless
So how would you set up your Star Trek series?

We had a thread about that a while ago, which led to some interesting concepts.

Might be worth posing this question as a new thread, to get some fresh input in light of the new series.

[Olinser]

My question is what do the fans want?

The fans want them to be upfront about what they're doing.

That's what's pissing off a lot of people about Discovery is that they've already violated multiple explicit promises about what they are or they aren't going to do.

Things like respecting canon and then inserting bad-fanfic Spock's Secret Sister, claiming they had people in writer's sessions whose sole purpose was to make sure it didn't violate canon... then it came out all they did was make sure they didn't repeat episode plotlines from previous series. And several more.

Frankly they would have been better off by just not making any promises to begin with.

Now they've dug themselves into a hole with fans and failed to attract any kind of real attention or excitement from the non-Trek community. Classic case of forgetting who your fanbase is.

[Reddish Mage]

The fans want them to be upfront about what they're doing..

Frankly they would have been better off by just not making any promises to begin with.

So basically they have a problem with how they communicated what they are doing, not with what they are doing to the franchise...

So if they just said they were going to tinker around the edges and expand the classic canon a little, as well do an aesthetic revamp and update the series for 2017, there would be no problem?

Something tells me that's wrong. The main problem people who are already criticizing the show have is with the show, not about how its been described at comic-con.

[BeerMug Paladin]

The fans want them to be upfront about what they're doing.

That's what's pissing off a lot of people about Discovery is that they've already violated multiple explicit promises about what they are or they aren't going to do.

Things like respecting canon and then inserting bad-fanfic Spock's Secret Sister, claiming they had people in writer's sessions whose sole purpose was to make sure it didn't violate canon... then it came out all they did was make sure they didn't repeat episode plotlines from previous series. And several more.

Frankly they would have been better off by just not making any promises to begin with.

Now they've dug themselves into a hole with fans and failed to attract any kind of real attention or excitement from the non-Trek community. Classic case of forgetting who your fanbase is.

I've given up on Star Trek as a franchise. I find chatter about it interesting to read now and then (which is why I'm on this thread now). I stuck with the various series up until Dear Doctor, watched one of the re-cast original crew movies (honestly, after Nemesis, I only saw the reboot movie because of someone I was with wanting to see it) and as far as I'm concerned, it's a dead series. I am very unlikely to ever watch anything Star Trek again. (At least, not on my own. I may still experience secondary exposures.)

But what you say about them having people around to make sure they're not repeating episode plotlines from a previous series makes me more inclined to watch it, not less. They probably are betting on a good number of people giving it a shot to be at least passingly familiar with older Star Trek tropes and cliches and want to avoid people assuming it's just more stereotypical Trek Dreck. That's a good way to bore your audience, make them think they've already seen the show even when they haven't.

It's also possible that I've never been a fan because I don't care at all about canon being preserved. Spock never had a sister before, but giving a character some kind of connection to a previously established character is probably someone's idea to make people think this is "real" Trek. I'm no expert on writing, show production, ratings or the like, but I imagine that there's a reason things are done that way. Anyone else remember Bones talking to Data? Just me? Sisko talking to Picard? Quark talking to Harry Kim?

[Aotrs Commander]

It's also possible that I've never been a fan because I don't care at all about canon being preserved. Spock never had a sister before, but giving a character some kind of connection to a previously established character is probably someone's idea to make people think this is "real" Trek. I'm no expert on writing, show production, ratings or the like, but I imagine that there's a reason things are done that way. Anyone else remember Bones talking to Data? Just me? Sisko talking to Picard? Quark talking to Harry Kim?

The problem with it was that, in picking probably the most visible member of the cast, they also picked the one who had the most visible (and previously explored) backstory (in both the old and new continuities, especially since the one is supposed to stem from the other).

(Plus, there is a difference between a cameo from an established character (which is cool) and randomly inserting a previously-unknown - as aforementioned, bad-fanfic-level - element (without the direct connection).

Had they chosen, say Sulu or Uhuru or Scotty or something, I suspect it would not have made much of an impact. Kirk or McCoy, even. But no, they went with the one character that already had a well-defined background (and was always a bit of a special snowflake (in the nicest possible sense)).



Sp yes, I'm sure they had a reason why they did it. That does not make it remotely less a very stupid and creatively lazy idea.

[Velaryon]

So basically they have a problem with how they communicated what they are doing, not with what they are doing to the franchise...

So if they just said they were going to tinker around the edges and expand the classic canon a little, as well do an aesthetic revamp and update the series for 2017, there would be no problem?

Something tells me that's wrong. The main problem people who are already criticizing the show have is with the show, not about how its been described at comic-con.

I can't speak for anyone else, but not having the Trek aesthetic is a big deal-breaker for me. If the licensing being split between different companies prohibits them from even making Klingons that look like Klingons... maybe making this show at all is a bad idea.

By choosing to put the series behind a paywall, they already have an uphill battle to convince fans to give the show a chance. Combining that with the massive aesthetic departure that they're taking from previous series, as well as the fanfiction-y approach (Spock's secret sister? really?), I think this show is being set up to fail.

Also, I agree that they chose the single worst character they could have to tie in the new main character's back story, since Spock's family has been thoroughly explored already. How about giving Uhura a sister (or mother, daughter, etc. depending on the timeline)? How about McCoy's niece? Sulu's cousin? Nurse Chapel's roommate at Starfleet Academy? Dr. Crusher's great-grandmother?

[Olinser]

The problem with it was that, in picking probably the most visible member of the cast, they also picked the one who had the most visible (and previously explored) backstory (in both the old and new continuities, especially since the one is supposed to stem from the other).

(Plus, there is a difference between a cameo from an established character (which is cool) and randomly inserting a previously-unknown - as aforementioned, bad-fanfic-level - element (without the direct connection).

Had they chosen, say Sulu or Uhuru or Scotty or something, I suspect it would not have made much of an impact. Kirk or McCoy, even. But no, they went with the one character that already had a well-defined background (and was always a bit of a special snowflake (in the nicest possible sense)).



Sp yes, I'm sure they had a reason why they did it. That does not make it remotely less a very stupid and creatively lazy idea.

Exactly. There is a HUGE difference between having a character make a 1-episode cameo appearance on a show - which can be awesome if handled correctly - and claiming that your character is a direct relative of them or has a super-special relationship with them that just happened to never have been mentioned for decades, and in contradiction to established canon.

Nobody claimed that Sisko was Picard's half-brother, for instance, or that McCoy helped program Data in his spare time. Picard was in the episode for all of 5 minutes to serve as a bridge to the new series.

[2D8HP]

I have only read some of the posts in this thread, but I just saw a trailer for Star Trek Discovery and I'm psyched!

I couldn't make out any dialog or naration (ads usually don't have subtitles), but I could see the Star Trek logo, and that it's going to be broadcast before my bedtime (I have a long commute and a 7AM start time).

Hot damn!

About time! Except for Lost and far too few episodes of Doctor Who episodes on PBS (why did they stop?), I have known of no sci-fi on the air for over a decade.

What gives? There was more sci-fi broadcast on television in the '70's!

[Kitten Champion]

I have only read some of the posts in this thread, but I just saw a trailer for Star Trek Discovery and I'm psyched!

I couldn't make out any dialog or naration (ads usually don't have subtitles), but I could see the Star Trek logo, and that it's going to be broadcast before my bedtime (I have a long commute and a 7AM start time).

Hot damn!

About time! Except for Lost and far too few episodes of Doctor Who episodes on PBS (why did they stop?), I have known of no sci-fi on the air for over a decade.

What gives? There was more sci-fi broadcast on television in the '70's!

It's not though. The pilot episode is on television but the rest is on the CBS streaming service at least in the US. Unless you're Canadian in which case it's on the Space Network or anywhere else on the globe where it's on Netflix.

[2D8HP]

It's not though. The pilot episode is on television but the rest is on the CBS streaming service at least in the US.....

Streaming?





STREAMING!!!

Oh that ticks me off!

This century blows!

[Friv]

About time! Except for Lost and far too few episodes of Doctor Who episodes on PBS (why did they stop?), I have known of no sci-fi on the air for over a decade.

What gives? There was more sci-fi broadcast on television in the '70's!

I mean, the big thing that gives is that cable TV became a thing. All the sci-fi shows moved to networks that could handle a slightly lower viewer base. All the best science fiction - Orphan Black, Westworld, The Expanse, Black Mirror, and so on - is over on Netflix, or HBO, or Syfy.

Even so, there's actually been a lot of sci-fi on the major networks in the last decade. In 2016 alone, I can count Person of Interest, Timeless, Agents of SHIELD (which is superheroes, but mostly sci-fi), "You, Me and the Apocalypse", Limitless, Legion (also a sci-fi superhero take), and Colony, just on major networks.

(I am not, of course, counting fantasy shows like Grimm, Supergirl, and so on, which are also all over the place.)

[Olinser]

Streaming?





STREAMING!!!

Oh that ticks me off!

This century blows!

After the pilot its only going to be available exclusively on CBS' stupidly overpriced streaming service, and the main character is Spock's adopted sister that was raised on Vulcan.

I'd be shocked if it lasted more than 1 season.

[2D8HP]

I mean, the big thing that gives is that cable TV became a thing. All the sci-fi shows moved to networks that could handle a slightly lower viewer base. All the best science fiction - Orphan Black, Westworld, The Expanse, Black Mirror, and so on - is over on Netflix, or HBO, or Syfy....

I don't have cable or Netflix,.

....Even so, there's actually been a lot of sci-fi on the major networks in the last decade. In 2016 alone, I can count Person of Interest, Timeless, Agents of SHIELD (which is superheroes, but mostly sci-fi), "You, Me and the Apocalypse", Limitless, Legion (also a sci-fi superhero take), and Colony, just on major networks.

(I am not, of course, counting fantasy shows like Grimm, Supergirl, and so on, which are also all over the place.)

Except for "Orphan Black", which my wife got some DVD's from the library of, I've never heard of any of those shows, are any of them worthwhile?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Most of them are cancelled, so the knee-jerk reaction is to say they were good.

Person of Interest was an interesting take on the surveillance state, disguised as an off beat police procedural. It has reruns on WGN.

Agents of SHIELD is the TV branch of the MCU, and likely suffers for it. Pretty hit or miss, depending on the writing, but definitely improved last season. It has reruns on UTV here, and I know it's on the CW as well.

Supergirl and the rest of the Berlanti-verse DC shows are on CW. Most people seem to think the quality is declining (except Legends, which is erratic but occasionally extra-awesome).

Not sure what channels you get. I guess you don't have BBC America as part of your cable package, since you can't watch Doctor Who.

[2D8HP]

...Not sure what channels you get. I guess you don't have BBC America as part of your cable package, since you can't watch Doctor Who.

Thanks for the tips!

No, I've never had a "cable package" of any sort.

on the air....
....broadcast on television

All my television viewing is from an antenna, and DVD's from the llibrary (and

So that's why Doctor Who isn't on PBS anymore, it moved to cable?

(My first "Doctor" was Tom Baker on channel 54).

Anyway, if if the new Star Trek isn't broadcast, I'm likely to never see it, just like I may no longer watch Doctor Who, or anything apparently except "Jeopardy" and the like which seems to be mostly what is broadcast.



Oh well, I didn't have that much free time anymore.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Once BBC became regularly available in the US, people could watch Who without significant delay. PBS was often a full regeneration back.

[Scowling Dragon]

So apparently one marketing push is how the story has a black lead and so it's shattering the ceiling yo!

I mean I get that the OT was good and all, but did anybody even bother watching beyond that? Its either kinda desparation lies, or shows a baffling level of ignorance.

[Legato Endless]

Huh.

“So having me as the first black lead of a Star Trek, just blasts that into a million pieces. I am eternally grateful that the diverse casting of our show means that we are now a part of the conversation and hopefully a part of making the world a better place, as cliché as this sounds. Because I really believe it and think its vital for us all right now.”

I guess my question would be, who was the lead in DS9? Not Sisko apparently? It's also weird the article mentions Janeway and not him.

[Scowling Dragon]

I guess my question would be, who was the lead in DS9? Not Sisko apparently? It's also weird the article mentions Janeway and not him.

Because that undermines the article. Sisko was awesome.

[Olinser]

So apparently one marketing push is how the story has a black lead and so it's shattering the ceiling yo!

I mean I get that the OT was good and all, but did anybody even bother watching beyond that? Its either kinda desparation lies, or shows a baffling level of ignorance.

Just more evidence the idiots in charge of this imminent train wreck know NOTHING about Star Trek.

Seriously. DS9 already had a black lead. 24 freaking years ago.

[Chen]

The article specifies black female lead. Her actual quote though states "black lead" which is just plain wrong.