Discovery at SDCC - Consolidated Thread

I hope they do something like that at STLV. I'm going to that and would love not to go home empty handed.

 

Trailer looks fantastic. I am sufficiently hyped.

I'm seeing some contradictory reports on whether Burnham is Amanda Grayson's daughter by birth. It seems ComicBook.com and ScreenRant.com ran with the official twitter statement and think she is. Meanwhile, I actively transcribed TrekMovie's liveblog accounting of the SDCC panel for another site (NeoGAF) and according to them -- as well as TrekCore -- both of Burnham's parents were killed and she's the adoptive sister, not "half-sister", of Spock.

 

Between the "Klingons" and Sarek's super secret kid #2, there is nothing to save the show. Since its being produced by the hack that co-wrote my most hated ST thing (Star Trek 09), I'm really, really not shocked that its so crap. I wanted it to be good, and like I said I think the lead to do a great job in a good show. But this is just reminding me of 09 in that its made by people who obviously don't even like Star Trek, along with people who are just bad at their jobs (seriously, the designers should never be allowed to work in the entertainment industry ever again).

At least the Berman & Braga era had decent designers working for them, and Enterprise itself had a few good things, like (for a completely random example) the episodes explaining why the Klingon's look different in the TOS era. That now seems incomplete because it doesn't explain how diseased looking mutant blob klingons came about, or why the Klingon Empire's tech mutated along with their bodies in the years between Enterprise and Discovery and then transformed back in time for TOS and stuff that came after. Outside of the in universe perspective, I'd also like to know what level of not giving a crap leads to someone accepting those designs.

If the show had more positive aspects, I'd be more positive. As it is, a few Federation ship designs and decent casting for the humans doesn't overcome the terrible things.

 

Ah, I see what's going on here. Those two sites I mentioned took the idea that Burnham is Grayson's daughter by birth and ran with it, and now some sites are full of fans in panic mode over it (because of course). It was directly refuted by the Star Trek Writing Staff twitter account soon thereafter, but folks aren't seeing that.

 

Those things make it inconsistent, but that doesn't make it bad.

So highly successful designer Neville Page who's been chosen to work with J.J. Abrams, Ridley Scott, and James Cameron should never be allowed to work again? Like you hate his designs so much that there should be a law against him having a job?

They came up with one convoluted explanation, they can come up with another.

 

Wikipedia and IMDB don't list Discovery as something that guy is working on, so I don't know why you broguht him up. But, looking at the movies he's worked on, it would be no great loss. Heck, being the guy who was "lead creature designer" for Green Lantern probably should have ended his career Besides that, all the movies he's worked on are things I think had fairly mediocre to bad design, like Prometheus and Cloverfield. Basically the only decent thing he's done design wise in my opinion is TRON Legacy.

 

Klingons have always been "bumpy". These look like Klingons to me. In fact, I think they look like the Klingons from TOS. Yep. And TMP, and TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT. And if you want to add ST09 and STiD, those work too. What changed between those things (and even WITHIN those things) is make-up technique and technology -- OUT OF UNIVERSE.

But in-Universe, Klingons have been, are, and will be bumpy forehead kinda aliens... no matter what drivel ENT thought up to feel the need to "explain" a one-off writer's gag. Jeez, I wish wish wish that whole augment virus thing never never made it to see the light of day.

 

Blame DS9 as well.

 

He's done good work for other franchises but should be kept away from Trek under pain of death.

 

Because he is working on Discovery. He's tweeted about it several times. The DSC Klingons are based on unused designs from STID:

 

That is one thing I find a bit odd. Apparently that is the case with Saru as well. I mean they are on separate licenses, and I would presume that Paramount would be a bit pissed that CBS is using things created on their dime.

 

Apart from the elongated back of skulls the some of them seem to have (and oddly, just some of them) the basic make up looks good. It's just that combined with the baldness and gothic armour they look more like space vampires than Klingons (the paler ones in particular.) Giving these guys some hair would instantly make them look more feral and, at least to me, more klingonesque.

 

It is quite possible, even likely, that the original licence granted to Paramount for the movies stipulates that CBS gets access to all the assets created using that licence.

 

Yeah, CBS owns the Kelvin Timeline movies. Paramount is just using the license.

 

That is not what I heard. The novels (Pocket Books) are not allowed to use events mentioned in the Kelvin Timeline (e.g. destruction of Romulus) because this is not on their CBS license.

 

CBS owns everything related to Star Trek. The KT movies are even mentioned as part of their properties on their consumer products page.

They just didn't include the movies as part of their Pocket Books license.

Paramount probably has some sort of exclusivity deal with CBS.

 

One thing to keep in mind is that while CBS and Paramount do operate as separate companies, they still have the same parent company. So I imagine it's probably a little easier for them to share intellectual property than it would for entities like Disney and 20 Century Fox, for example. The CBS/Paramount relationship is closer to something like KFC and Taco Bell.