New Star Trek premieres on the 24th Sep!

[kerbiloid]

Klingons, you say?..

Spoiler

 

[Shpaget]

I honestly don't care much.

I'm perfectly fine just mentally reclassifying them to some other species that just happens to be called the same as some other.

It's not the worst mental gymnastics I have to do when dealing with the inconsistencies of the real world. Case in point, the figurative usage of the word literal.

[p1t1o]

Well I thought the new Trek was 10/10, I liked most everything about it.

It felt like a new type of Star Trek but I still get the "feel" of original series and TNG in there as well.

I didnt expect it to be "TNG set in another era" or "more of the usual", I wanted something new. And that is what I got.

The Klingons are...lol...mostly the same as TNG, and I like how they've regressed them a little and are filling in some federation-klingon history. The fuss about the klingons baffles me.

All through the original series they are the go-to villains, not actively at war, but unwilling cease-fire participants. Now we get to see how that started.

I liked the phaser beam effects.

I like that there was a significant preparation required when someone needed to do a spacewalk, and how automated it was. Gave an excellent feel of "retro trek technology".

I even liked that inter-ship comms had a low-fi quality.

And that self-destruct! Noice. Very Boomy.

 

 

Classic Trek. A bit over the top. A bit camp. 20% phasers. 10% transporters. All space opera.

Gotta say though, is it the makeup? Prosthetics? All the Klingons have a bit of a "rubber lipped" speech impediment going on, gets a bit distracting after a while.

 

Yeah, and I like The Orville too, its not an either-or situation. If anything,that is a straight copy of TNG, with some snarky ex-wife humour layered over the top.

But hey, make a straight copy of something good, updated with some modern effects (if sub-standard acting and set quality) and you've got a good show for sure.

[Chel]

Why don't they make a series that's set in or after the events of Voyager and DS9 (24-25th century)? Since 2009 we've had alternate reality, lens flare, random explosions, lens flare, people getting killed for no reason, lens flare, and more lens flare. Voyager was great because it was like a family. People trying to get home, visiting other civilisations, and treating the Borg like target practice. DS9 was great because it had both the sci-fi battle element, and a family element. Life on a space station, with a wormhole that seems to create Dominion fleets every time it opened, and Sisko's attitude of "shoot first, questions later", meant that it was rarely boring (excluding the long intro). Discovery is pretty much lens flare, and conversations that make no sense. 

Why not a series in the 29th century? Enterprise J, Daniels, and everything else futuristic. That would be cool to watch 

Edited September 30, 2017 by The_Cat_In_Space

[Nuke]

i think it was a mistake to retcon the forhead thing into the timeline. it was a silly plot line for what in essence was a spoof of a classic episode by a ds9 episode and then retconned in by a latter mediocre wannabe trek series. it always seemed kind of a silly way to explain away 1960s makeup design capabilities. they could do great things makeup wise in the 60s (planet of the apes), but not on a tv show's budget. i see the new klingons as undoing that silly mistake and imho its a good thing. those ships though, wheres my d7?

Edited September 30, 2017 by Nuke

[steve_v]

What Klingons look like doesn't really bother me. Changing what Klingons look like, and changing their culture, again, that's what grinds my gears. Once was enough, and "that's what they were supposed to be like, but we didn't have the budget" only works the first time.

Want new aliens to show off your cool new makeup? Fine. Introduce a new species then. Set the thing after DS9 / Voyager and you can do whatever you want.

ST (TOS & TNG anyway) was set in a fairly utopian future, clean, shiny, high tech. No money, no political infighting. A couple of aggressive alien races in there, but mostly it was about exploration and painting a picture of what humanity could be when it worked together. Even the Klingons weren't particularly evil, or very scary looking.

For some bizarre reason all new sci-fi needs to be "gritty", full of conflict, politics and blood. Closer to home perhaps. And the Big Bad needs to look really evil. Perhaps the original Klingons were too human to make a decent antagonist.

Apparently, this means setting all new star trek before the original series. IMO, capital mistake - it's what was wrong with enterprise, and it's what's wrong with discovery.
If you don't want to annoy the fan base, you either:
a) Respect the original and don't stomp all over established lore, or:
b) Set it in the relative future and create something new.

Really, I'd be happy with something properly new, rather than trying over and over to "reinvent" the original. Constantly screwing with continuity really irritates me.
New aliens, cool. Just don't call them Klingons.
I'm not even sure this new show deserves the "Star Trek" title TBH... Call it something else and I'll be far more inclined to take it on it's own merits.

[scottadges]

34 minutes ago, steve_v said:

I'm not even sure this new show deserves the "Star Trek" title TBH... Call it something else and I'll be far more inclined to take it on it's own merits.

This sentence is exactly how I feel about this new 'Star Trek show' that masquerades as a Star Trek show.

Somebody decided that everything they did in the '90s was wrong. Sure, there were some cheesy-TV moments in all those shows. But you gotta give them credit for consistency (generally-speaking) across basically 15 years worth of TV as well as the TNG-cast movies.

I can't bring myself to support the subscribe-bait for CBS on-demand that this show is (and I'm literally a life-long fan of ST).

34 minutes ago, steve_v said:

ST (TOS & TNG anyway) was set in a fairly utopian future, clean, shiny, high tech. No money, no political infighting. A couple of aggressive alien races in there, but mostly it was about exploration and painting a picture of what humanity could be when it worked together. Even the Klingons weren't particularly evil, or very scary looking.

Your point about the future brings to mind something else.

I'm not sure which ST documentary talked about this, but Roddenberry was very explicit during TNG that the drama in these shows always came from external sources. Never the crew themselves in-fighting or creating problems with each other, etc.

His vision of a utopian future was people working together to solve problems bigger than the mundane TV-type drama he fought against ever having in ST. I think they pretty much forgot (or willfully choose to ignore) those types of Roddenberry rules for this new show.

Edited September 30, 2017 by scottadges

[Galane]

That is one of the things they did say they were going to bend, not having conflicts in the crew. All the other ST shows *have* had conflicts between members of their crews, but nothing like a permanent animosity.

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, Galane said:

That is one of the things they did say they were going to bend, not having conflicts in the crew.

Eh, guess it really isn't Star Trek then.

Breaking continuity, tampering with cannon, discarding the very things that made Star Trek special...
Let's just call it "A show set in a Star Trek-ish universe" and be done with it.

[Just Jim]

10 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Let's just call it "A show set in a Star Trek-ish universe" and be done with it.

I think this is where I am as well.

I grew up on Star Trek, and one thing that makes me nuts is someone besides Roddenberry changing it to "Fit their own unique vision" or whatever such garbage. Every time the show changes hands, or networks, or whatever, this exact same thing happens... over and over. Let's re-write and re-design everything!!!

I look at it like this... if someone else started writing Emiko Station... do you think for one second it's going to be the same story??? No.... 

I think Roddenberry must be sobbing in his grave at what's happened to his show over the decades...

Edited September 30, 2017 by Just Jim

[kerbiloid]

It's just another Klingons' reflection in the infinite Multiversum labyrinth of mirrors.

Aliens become absolutely another species in almost every Alien sequel.

[KamenRiderzero1]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's just another Klingons' reflection in the infinite Multiversum labyrinth of mirrors.

Aliens become absolutely another species in almost every Alien sequel.

Except we were told this show is set in the Prime Timeline, as in the original where all the TV shows have been set.

[Kerbart]

I have little problems with visual overhauls, esepcially where visual overhauls are needed. The very limited budget (and technology) in the 1960s lead to Klingons and Romulans looking like humans, and the "new look" in TNG didn't bother me.

We're now at a point where aliens can look even more alien. That bothers me slightly more, I don't remember anyone saying about the "TNG Cannon" Klingons that they still resembled humans too much.

What does bother me, is that the Klingons always have been portrayed as a militaristic society, void of any "artwork" or decoration. Straight lined cramped, submarine like interiors, bare metal bunks, etc. And now we have gaudy uniforms, cathedral ceilings (and decoration) inside ships, highly ornamental Bat'leths, and discussions being won on arguments instead of man-to-man combat. If it was just the faces I could stomach it, but these are not the Klingons I know. I'd rather categorize them as Dingleberries.

Throw in that NBC expected me to watch Oprah first for 30 minutes and I wouldn't call the decision to not spend money on whatever their streaming channel is "agonizing."

[scottadges]

1 hour ago, KamenRiderzero1 said:

Except we were told this show is set in the Prime Timeline, as in the original where all the TV shows have been set.

Agreed, they want this to be 'Star Trek' because they want the appeal of the brand. Except they don't want it to be Star Trek because they change everything it has meant over the past 50 years.

My most-cynical self says it was a bunch of media executives looking around for a franchise, 'cause everyone's got a franchise. And figured out how they could sell subscribers. And could actually care less about "canon", etc.

[Just Jim]

I've been thinking about this some more, and I see both sides.

I think my biggest problem, again, is I'm 55... One of my earliest memories is getting the krap scared out of me watching the Doomsday Machine on our living room floor. I am that geeky kid who grew up on the original. And after seeing it changed over and over, year after year, decade after decade... not just Klingons, but the whole series, year after year, over an over... I'm just burned out... and I really don't care about another re-make.

I'd rather find an oldies channel and watch the original and dive back into the campiness.

 

[WinkAllKerb'']

i don't want to be annoyin, but well i use to do it well, netlfix "death note" (wich i personnally overwatched @ totally random) and while netlfix also bought "ajin" & diffused and supported the origninal anime srrly ? well total disrespect in that case i m a bit d u b i t a t i v e

i m just askin where do come that need a scaring an original art masterpiece, people don't get it if it's stay in it's socio, historical context the can't project themselves or wut, pom pom girl, nfl intro, bad boys in school intro 2min later,  and teenager love story hehe watch i have a death note ... 'sigh' ? supporting masterpiece that way isn't rlly the good way imo ...

oh you @netlfix rework your teasers and pr, don't produce that kind of crap thks .... [sociology, psychology comment edited grumpf]

it's a tad bit weird i have to say, and nothing personnal just sort of a worldwide audience is listening statment,

#blessfreestraemingsomewolrdwideailytvchannenel&someproductionreallydoesntworthapenny

whil saying that i use to pay my watch everytime, for movie and all but i consider daily tv channel to be worldwide & not contry specific

star trek unrelated // %% //

Edited October 2, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''
/rant

[Vanamonde]

Overlapping threads have been merged. 

[Pawelk198604]

What do you think about new Star Trek Discovery?

[Vanamonde]

More overlapping thread have been merged.  

[WinkAllKerb'']

well prolly a good series for the elder and newborn ; ) might be something like that, but well selling a name and respecting/changing/updgrading/remastering/wasting the content might depend, it could be cool or not, and the sole way to know is to have a long talk with the "producer", "scenarist", and "theatre director" imho

(and will thoose three caracter watch it ? well they prolly won't, they kinda know what's it's all about ^^ )

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[StrandedonEarth]

Yeah, I'm not sold on it. The opening theme did nothing for me, while the intro for Star Trek: Enterprise was... inspiring.  As for the show itself? Meh.

[Nuke]

episode 3

what the hell did i just watch? space mushrooms, white rabbits, and beatles references. i dont think i can say more without breaking the forum's political policy.

 

im even less enthusiastic about some of the new characters. we got star treks first openly millennial character, a captian that has more in common with hannibal lecter or jeffery dahmer than picard or james kirk, and a former cylon (its pretty much battlestar discovery at this point).  the desk tribble is the best damn character in the show. oh and burnum is now andy dufrane.

 

and discovery looks like a rust bucket on the outside, i was thinking it was a damn garbage scow, but is somehow state of the art internally. and the blatant set reuse. i can understand them doing something like this is season two or three. but come on, this has a vibe of a certain episode of ds9 that i found questionable.

 

 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Nuke

[steve_v]

Ep3: Bleh. Don't know what else to say, this show is clearly not for me.
Pretty glad I didn't pay for it.

Edited October 2, 2017 by steve_v

[Nuke]

i need something to watch until the expanse comes back on. hard scifi has ruined trek for me. discovery was just a nail in the coffin.

[FreeThinker]

On 9/30/2017 at 12:42 PM, Kerbart said:

What does bother me, is that the Klingons always have been portrayed as a militaristic society, void of any "artwork" or decoration. Straight lined cramped, submarine like interiors, bare metal bunks, etc. And now we have gaudy uniforms, cathedral ceilings (and decoration) inside ships, highly ornamental Bat'leths, and discussions being won on arguments instead of man-to-man combat. If it was just the faces I could stomach it, but these are not the Klingons I know. I'd rather categorize them as Dingleberries.

1

On 9/26/2017 at 12:41 PM, Shpaget said:

I just finished watching the first two episodes and all I can say is "Meh".

Michelle Yeoh as captain is poor casting. Her English is worse than the one spoken by the Klingons, even with their prosthetic teeth. Seriously what was the point of that choice?

 

On 9/30/2017 at 12:58 AM, steve_v said:

What Klingons look like doesn't really bother me. Changing what Klingons look like, and changing their culture, again, that's what grinds my gears. Once was enough, and "that's what they were supposed to be like, but we didn't have the budget" only works the first time.

 

On 9/24/2017 at 7:22 PM, KamenRiderzero1 said:

what did they do to the Klingons? We've grown to adore the Klingon aesthetic that's devolved over the past 50 years. Those look more like Remans

 

Seems to me nearly every trek fan don't like the drastic changes with the Klingon, which makes you wonder why they did it, especially because it is a no-brainer that will hurt their rating and sales. The only reason that makes any sense to explain the changes are ideologic reasons. From my understanding, the writers of Startrek discovery were heavily inspired by [snip]. The old Klingons were too much human-like and they needed to be dehumanised, into monstrous fascist subhumans so the just and righteous Starfleet can kick their BUD with righteous indignation.

 

[snip]

See also Star Trek: Discovery to tackle Trump-era political divide

Edited October 7, 2017 by Snark
politics.