News coming 8/10?

[Dick Whitman]

Maybe that's where I fell off of the 24th century wagon. I don't much care about existential threats. Yet they were everywhere and used over and over. The Borg, the Dominion, Species 8472. When everyday is the end of the world, you tend to quit caring.

That is the exact same problem I with modern superhero comics. It's one endless series of one crisis after the over.

I am very happy with what we have heard about this new series. I grew up with TNG but got bored by the time of VOY. Not just in the tech being magical but in the bland design to everything.

I have no problem with it being a prequel. I am just surprised it's so close TOS. Are there going to be inconsistencies with established Trek lore? Obviously! That has been happening for 50 years! TOS was full of it's own inconsistencies. I hope some serious effort is made to get the broadstrokes right. But I do not care about minor details tied to a single line of dialogue from decades in the past.

 

[Shalashaska]

@Rahul, I don't see where you're coming from.

There are approximately 5,547 minutes of TOS-era Trek (including TAS, the six original cast films, and the three reboot films). Since ENT is set 100 years before TOS (and TNG is set 100 years AFTER), these two shows do not count. ENT is clearly its own separate era.

For TNG-era Trek, there is more time on TNG alone then there are TOS, TAS and the nine total feature films combined with a total of 7,823 minutes. But it doesn't stop there. For DS9, there's 7,920 minutes total, and of course that then leads us to VOY. For VOY, there are 7,740 minutes of content. Right after that we have the four TNG features, which add up to an extra 448 minutes. Altogether, when we combine all the TNG-era content together, it adds up to a grand total of...... 23,931 minutes!

Now let's compare the two.

TOS-era: 5,547 minutes = 92.45 hours

TNG-era: 23,931 minutes = 398.85 hours

Subtract 398.85 - 92.45 = 306.4 hours

TNG-era has 306.4 hours of content that TOS doesn't have. Just think about that for a moment.

Now, imagine if we only got five seasons of TNG. That's the same amount of knowledge we have of everything TOS (TOS, TAS, six films, three reboots)! We only know of some some adventures of one ship out of thousands. Think of how much DS9 expanded on TNG and its universe, there's no reason DSC can't do the same with TOS.

Whether or not the Borg have shown up yet, whether or not we know anything of the Gamma Quadrant, there's no reason this show can't not be restricted. Drama does not rely on history.

 

[SpaceLama]

Many of the best episodes of TOS had no existential threat to the Federation.

To poach even a few from the first season:

1. - The Cage
2. - Where No Man Has Gone Before
3. - The Man Trap

Arguing that the stakes being high = enjoyment of drama is clearly untrue or we wouldnt still be reading the plays of Sophocles after 2300 years.

Yes we know the Federation, will survive - and that is a complete irrelevence to 99% of stories. Bryan Fuller is a huge TOS fan, and a huge Twilight Zone fan. All the noises point to him bringing back TOS's spirit, but in his own experimental style (i.e. Pushing Dasies, Hannibal). We can expect episodes like The Man Trap, but with the cerebral quality of Hannibal. The Federation's survival would be irrelevent to such a story - and furthermore, a good dramatist could make an episode dramatic even if you knew nobody would die.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I disagree. Lots of people I know didn't give it a chance because they thougt it was silly to believe that Enterprise is supposed to be pre TOS. They didn't even get as far as to judge the story or the writing.

And those folks are in the minority. We heard some whining about it, but that was not what hurt or killed the show. Most people understood you could not make it look like the 1960's. Look how silly the set looked on "In a mirror darkly" it looked campy as all hell.

 

[Shalashaska]

I just remembered how much I hated season two of Fargo. I knew where it was all headed.

I also hated X-Men First Class, Temple of Doom, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.

Hell, the first scene of the second season of Hannibal was taken from the last episode of the season, and that's one of the best seasons of all television

 

[uniderth]

Pull a Rogue One and just do the exact same style but with a larger budget.

Trek Fanboys: "Ugh, No! Rogue one looks so dated. That horrible 70's look will never appeal to audiences today. The Force Awakens had the same problem. No one took it seriously becasue the Millenium Falcon look exactly the same as it did in the 70's."

Me to Trek Fanboys: No that's part of what makes these movies good is that they do replicate the surroundings we know and love from the 70's. So, Yes. I expect Discovery to have the Beige, Tan, and Blues, goose neck viewers. Along with good stories it needs to have the look and feel of "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" otherwise it wont be as good as it could have been.

But then what do I know? I mean its not like a movie that replicated the look from a 1970's scifi movie could have made 2.066 billion USD at the Box office.

Demand was high, some people had to wait a while for their turn.

Nope. Enterprise just got it wrong.

It's a show about mutineers!!!!

Tholian Web:
CHEKOV: Has there ever been a mutiny on a starship before?
SPOCK: Absolutely no record of such an occurrence, Ensign.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I hate every World War II movie because I know how it ends and what happened afterwards....

 

[Visitor1982]

People expecting Discovery will look like TOS are in for a (nasty) surprise.

Of course it won't. And it shouldn't. That would be cheesy as hell.

 

[Kemaiku]

The Constitution class may have had a unique internal aesthetic. And Discovery is 1031, a much older design closer to the Kelvin era of ship building, her internal appearance may end up looking more Franklin/Kelvin-esque than anything else.

 

[Shalashaska]

People expecting Discovery will look like TOS are in for a (nasty) surprise.

Of course it won't. And it shouldn't. That would be cheesy as hell.

Something like this would be nice:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[uniderth]

I hate every World War II movie because I know how it ends and what happened afterwards....

Oh I agree. Ugh! People expecting a World War II movie to look like the 1940's are in for a (nasty) surprise.

Of course it won't. And it shouldn't. That would be cheesy as hell.

Something like this would be nice:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

No. No, it wouldn't.

 

[Visitor1982]

A new Star Trek series shouldn't look like it was filmed in 1966, it should look like it's 2255. With new ships, costumes and technologies. The technologies from TOS have already sometimes become a reality.

In the sixties people thought differently about the future. TOS looks dated as hell now. Is anyone expecting women to wear mini skirts and such? Have all these silly buttons and lights. Come on. Star Trek needs an update and I'm glad Fuller is the man to do it.

TOS purists should just watch their DVD's over and over again.

 

[DarthPipes]

According to what Fuller stated, the story is unfolded before the Lt. Commander and told from her point of view. Fuller said we've already seen the other series do them from the Captain's viewpoint, so he's doing it different this time.

I like this idea a lot. He's 100% correct.

The problem with doing a prequel though is it will still be chained to Trek continuity. You can't really do game-changing stuff with a prequel because you know that ultimately things will turn out fine for the galaxy at large.

 

[Rahul]

@Rahul, I don't see where you're coming from.

There are approximately 5,547 minutes of TOS-era Trek (including TAS, the six original cast films, and the three reboot films). Since ENT is set 100 years before TOS (and TNG is set 100 years AFTER), these two shows do not count. ENT is clearly its own separate era.

For TNG-era Trek, there is more time on TNG alone then there are TOS, TAS and the nine total feature films combined with a total of 7,823 minutes. But it doesn't stop there. For DS9, there's 7,920 minutes total, and of course that then leads us to VOY. For VOY, there are 7,740 minutes of content. Right after that we have the four TNG features, which add up to an extra 448 minutes. Altogether, when we combine all the TNG-era content together, it adds up to a grand total of...... 23,931 minutes!

Now let's compare the two.

TOS-era: 5,547 minutes = 92.45 hours

TNG-era: 23,931 minutes = 398.85 hours

Subtract 398.85 - 92.45 = 306.4 hours

TNG-era has 306.4 hours of content that TOS doesn't have. Just think about that for a moment.

Now, imagine if we only got five seasons of TNG. That's the same amount of knowledge we have of everything TOS (TOS, TAS, six films, three reboots)! We only know of some some adventures of one ship out of thousands. Think of how much DS9 expanded on TNG and its universe, there's no reason DSC can't do the same with TOS.

Whether or not the Borg have shown up yet, whether or not we know anything of the Gamma Quadrant, there's no reason this show can't not be restricted. Drama does not rely on history.

I really couldn't care less how much time we have already spent in different eras of Trek.

The matter of fact is, the new Trek series is going to be a prequel series. It's going to have the exact same problems as every other prequel. Especially if it needs to produce content on a weekly basis. The writers don't have just to care about canon violations, they are completely boxed in even by events that will happen after the series will finish.

I have seen horrible prequels. I have seen bad prequels. I have seen mediocre prequels. I even have seen one or two good prequels (although they are rare as hell). But I have NEVER ever seen a truly great prequel. One that can both stand on it's own, be entertaining, fit with established continuity and be innovative and surprising at the same time.

I'm seriously happy I won't have to pay for it, because I wouldn't be willing to pay money solely for a prequel show (Netflix as a whole get's my money tho).

I may (hopefully) be pleasantly surprised by the final product.
But as of now, it smells too much like "Enterprise v.2.0 - the Bryan Fuller edition"

 

[Shalashaska]

I like this idea a lot. He's 100% correct.

The problem with doing a prequel though is it will still be chained to Trek continuity. You can't really do game-changing stuff with a prequel because you know that ultimately things will turn out fine for the galaxy at large.

Read the last few pages

 

[Rahul]

Read the last few pages

I think he did, and that was a pretty good summary of the last few pages

 

[uniderth]

A new Star Trek series shouldn't look like it was filmed in 1966, it should look like it's 2255. With new ships, costumes and technologies. The technologies from TOS have already sometimes become a reality.

In the sixties people thought differently about the future. TOS looks dated as hell now. Is anyone expecting women to wear mini skirts and such? Have all these silly buttons and lights. Come on. Star Trek needs an update and I'm glad Fuller is the man to do it.

You seem to be assuming a lot just based on the "look" of the series. Go ahead. Pick up your cell phone and instantaneously contact the starship orbiting Neptune. Take your iPad and scan the exact composition of the landscape, or find the exact position of an enemy behind that ridge. How about you control that aircraft carrier with a panel of only a few buttons.

That's great thing about Star Trek and all it's blinky lights is that in general the technology is obscure enough that we don't know what it's capabilities are. How do we know its not more futuristic than our current technology? How do you know those data cards aren't micro computers in and of themselves capable of holding and processing terabytes of data?

And those paper "print outs." Digital paper is still very bulky in the present day. But digital paper that matches the look and feel of real paper is incredibly futuristic. Firefly depicted advanced digital paper and nobody complained about how low tech it looked.

I want paper print outs in Star Trek: Discovery DAMNIT!

TOS purists should just watch their DVD's over and over again.

I'm so purist I don't even watch TOS, becasue there is no such thing. The title of the show is "Star Trek," not "Star Trek: The Original Series."

 

[Visitor1982]

The look of Star Trek (1966 - 1969) is dead. It has been for a long time. They didn't change it for nothing in 1979 and again in 1982 and 1987 and 1993 and 1996, and 2001, and 2009 and now in 2016.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Enterprise was heavily advertised and opened with 13 million viewers here in the US. People were interested, but bad writing drove them away.

I don't know about the US, but here in Germany everyone I know shook their heads when they heard that Enterprise was going to be a prequel to TOS. Some people watched the pilot and never bothered with the series again because they felt cheated. And it was not because of the writing ... it was because of the whole concept, the look, and the impossibility to imagine that Enterprise was actually a prequel to TOS.

In my personal canon, Enterprise still is no prequel to TOS ... it's a sequel to First Contact and a prequel to the Kelvin Timeline.

 

[uniderth]

The look of Star Trek (1966 - 1969) is dead. It has been for a long time.

It being dead is only a choice, not an immutable fact of the universe. It can be alive again if we choose it.