USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[lawman]

Why is that a shame? Honestly, why? My wife watched 09 film, enjoyed it, and started watching DS9.

Well, to the extent the Abrams films may have turned some people on to other, better Trek, that's a positive side-effect. No disagreement there.

But in terms of Trek's reputation, yeah, I do think they damage the brand. There's a whole contingent of people out there who now think that Trek is just a vehicle for Star Wars-style brain-dead action stories, with lots of pew!pew! and 'splosions and people falling from great heights. If those audiences discover otherwise and like what Trek at its best can do, that's great, but it seems just as likely that they'll be disappointed by the tone and the pace of the TV shows, and that will constrain what the franchise can offer in the future.

Meanwhile, in terms of entertainment in general, I'm always disappointed to see badly written material make big bucks, because that means we're liable to see more badly written material, and it crowds out better stuff. I'm hardly the first to point out that "mid-list" movies are a diminishing breed in Hollywood (just as mid-list books are disappearing in the publishing world), as more and more development money (which is not an unlimited resource) gets sucked up by efforts to make the Next Big Thing.

And, yeah, ST09 was badly written. The acting was fine, but that can't make up for the story. Orci and Kurtzman were the same writers responsible for The Island and The Legend of Zorro and Cowboys and Aliens and multiple Transformers movies, for heaven's sake, all of which were genuinely terrible movies even though they had talented people in them. They write idiot plots, using the flimsiest possible narrative logic to string together action set-pieces. They were not a good choice to write Star Trek. Just off the top of my head, it's easy to remember lots of obvious story problems with ST09 (and I haven't seen it in years). Nero's motivation made no sense, and if you buy his motivation his actions made no sense, and given his actions his crew's loyalty made no sense. The science made no sense (even by Trek's loose standards); supernovae and black holes don't work anything remotely like how they were depicted. A "lightning storm in space" is such an obviously ambiguous colloquial approximation of an actual phenomenon that there's no plausible way it could serve as a clue linking events separated by years and light-years, and if it were a clue, it makes no sense that it would be recognized first by Kirk, who at best heard about it secondhand, before Pike, who by his own testimony wrote his dissertation about it. The notion that Spock would eject Kirk (or anyone) in a pod to potential death on a passing ice planet, rather than just throwing him in the brig, makes no sense. The notion that his landing point on that ice planet would be within walking distance of Old!Spock's cave, which would itself be within walking distance of Scotty's research outpost, never mind that it would all be within visual range of Vulcan, is so (literally) astronomically unlikely as to beggar the imagination. (I really don't think Abrams gets the concept of interstellar distances; he made a similar gaffe in The Force Awakens.) The fact that the Enterprise (lacking working comms) would sail right past that research station (rather than stopping there long enough to use its working comms to contact the rest of the fleet) makes no sense. The notion that the rest of the fleet would be out of range, in a story where distance and travel time are otherwise treated as complete non-issues, makes no sense. The apparently complete lack of planetary defenses around Earth makes no sense. The concept of beaming across interstellar distances to a ship traveling at FTL speeds is a narrative asspull of colossal proportions, so much so that the movie itself lampshades it. The fact that Kirk got all the credit for saving the day, when it was Spock's plan that actually managed it, makes no sense, and the fact that he then got promoted straight from cadet to captain, over the heads of not just Spock but lord knows how many other qualified officers, just compounds the idiocy.

And that's just a small sampling. I'm sure all of these points were discussed to death around here years ago, but the movie does not get better with age. The plot is an insult to the intelligence of, basically, everyone.

 

[Prax]

I have engaged in positive gatekeeping, and sometimes feel ashamed from it.

 

[Mudd]

The Abrams Trek movies are the best thing that's happened to Star Trek in this century.

I suppose you could call that "damning with faint praise," but I like those movies a great deal.

 

[fireproof78]

And that's just a small sampling. I'm sure all of these points were discussed to death around here years ago, but the movie does not get better with age. The plot is an insult to the intelligence of, basically, everyone.

I could unpack it that all, but that's outside the scope of this thread. So, I'll suffice it to say "agree to disagree" on the majority of those points.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I could unpack it that all, but that's outside the scope of this thread. So, I'll suffice it to say "agree to disagree" on the majority of those points.

To be sure, it's worth recognizing that the Kelvin films have had a permanent influence on the future look and feel of Star Trek productions that we maybe haven't recognized as yet. Could be that old fans are still expecting Star Trek to continue on the stylistic paradigm that culminated in ST:Enterprise and IGNORE the films outright... was that ever a realistic expectation?

The Abrams Trek movies are the best thing that's happened to Star Trek in this century.

I suppose you could call that "damning with faint praise," but I like those movies a great deal.

Me too.

But in terms of Trek's reputation, yeah, I do think they damage the brand. There's a whole contingent of people out there who now think that Trek is just a vehicle for Star Wars-style brain-dead action stories, with lots of pew!pew! and 'splosions and people falling from great heights. If those audiences discover otherwise and like what Trek at its best can do, that's great, but it seems just as likely that they'll be disappointed by the tone and the pace of the TV shows, and that will constrain what the franchise can offer in the future.

Star Trek AT ITS BEST has always been an action-adventure series with lots of "pew pew" (or originally "Zap! Crackle!"). Not so much on the explosions and falling from great heights, but lots of (sometimes literal) cliffhangers, giant flesh-eating monsters, space battles and fistfights. TOS has plenty of that, and those are my favorite episodes for the most part.

And, yeah, ST09 was badly written. The acting was fine, but that can't make up for the story. Orci and Kurtzman were the same writers responsible for The Island and The Legend of Zorro and Cowboys and Aliens and multiple Transformers movies, for heaven's sake, all of which were genuinely terrible movies even though they had talented people in them. They write idiot plots, using the flimsiest possible narrative logic to string together action set-pieces. They were not a good choice to write Star Trek.

Actually, Orci and Kruzman are fantastic writers in absolute terms. They just suck at creating SCREENPLAYS, mainly because both of them (Orci in particular) struggle with brevity. They both have a pattern of writing screenplays that are WAY too long to fit into a two hour film and are really bad at prioritizing plot points to string together a simpler narrative. The ironic result is a story that becomes much more simplistic than it needs to be because the huge amount of depth and dimension that would help tie it together invariably winds up on the cutting room floor. As it stands, huge parts of ST09 had to be whittled down, edited out, compressed condensed and rearranged to fit into a finite runtime. If they'd shot the movie as originally written it would have been a thousand percent better, but it also would have been three hours long and twice as expensive to release.

Orci is most in his element when writing for television or some other medium where he has a lot of time to develop a story and doesn't have to edit things out, as is Kruzman. Discovery shows this off somewhat, given that the entire "Lorca is actually evil!" plot point was basically teased from the moment of his introduction. OTOH, he completely fumbled the resolution of the Klingon War, primarily (IMO) because the decision was made to wrap it up at the end of the season rather than drag it out through Season 2. Give him five episodes to spin a narrative, he'll do a good job of it, but put him under a time constraint and you're at the mercy of the editors.

Overall, though, ST09 was an awesome flick, and STID and STB come damn close. Any of the three are more enjoyable than Insurrection and Nemesis and certainly less grating than the second half of "First Contact."

 

[fireproof78]

To be sure, it's worth recognizing that the Kelvin films have had a permanent influence on the future look and feel of Star Trek productions that we maybe haven't recognized as yet. Could be that old fans are still expecting Star Trek to continue on the stylistic paradigm that culminated in ST:Enterprise and IGNORE the films outright... was that ever a realistic expectation?

Realistic or not, that seems to be the expectation.

 

[Rahul]

Realistic or not, that seems to be the expectation.

Oh god, I wished Discovery would actually look closer to the Abrams-movies! Those are not good movies. But they look right. At least you can see the sets and there are some colors, instead of everything being pitch black...

Sadly, DIS seems to have only copied the things that didn't work - the bridge sets are waaaay too big for people to talk normally to each other, and DIS apparently being on a budget and having only 5 people as extras in this giant hall looks ridiculous. The same way a window makes no sense replacing a viewscreen - Glass can break, and you can immediately get harmed once outside is some unexpected bright light or stuff. Things we even see, which would never be a problem with a simple monitor. With the added problem, that through a window you can't see shit. Distances in space are waaaaay to big and speeds too high, you wouldn't actually see any other spaceships or comets seconds before you collide with them only with your own eye. You need artificial amplification. All in all, windows (in contrast to viewscreen) ONLY have disadvantages - which is what we are seeing throughout - people getting in dangerous situations or almost being blinded - only because the danger is more "dramatic" than what the logical, reasonable solution would be (and was). It's stupid as fuck.

 

[fireproof78]

All in all, windows (in contrast to viewscreen) ONLY have disadvantages - which is what we are seeing throughout - people getting in dangerous situations or almost being blinded - only because the danger is more "dramatic" than what the logical, reasonable solution would be (and was). It's stupid as fuck.

You can do a HUD on a window as well as armor it. If I'm going to be told that a communicator, which appears to be less functional than a contemporary smart phone, is more advanced than my (outdated) phone, then I can reasonably believe that a "window" can be enhanced to protect crew members delicate eyeballs, and enhance targets, while (at the same time) allow for navigation when the power goes out. Because, that is going to happen.

I'll keep the window.

 

[Rahul]

You can do a HUD on a window as well as armor it. If I'm going to be told that a communicator, which appears to be less functional than a contemporary smart phone, is more advanced than my (outdated) phone, then I can reasonably believe that a "window" can be enhanced to protect crew members delicate eyeballs, and enhance targets, while (at the same time) allow for navigation when the power goes out. Because, that is going to happen.

I'll keep the window.

As long as your mobile phone can't directly call Mars without a cellphone tower (and net) being nearby, Star Trek's communicators ARE more advanced than your cellphone. In fact, unbelievably more advanced.

A HUD window makes sense on an atmospheric vessel or something very maneoverable operating in close proximity to other ships, like a shuttle. A window on the bridge of a capital starship makes as much sense as on the bridge of a submarine: It's stupid as fuck.

 

[fireproof78]

A HUD window makes sense on an atmospheric vessel or something very maneoverable operating in close proximity to other ships, like a shuttle. A window on the bridge of a capital starship makes as much sense as on the bridge of a submarine: It's stupid as fuck.

If the bridge of the Starfleet ship was protected like a submarine, this wouldn't be a conversation and I would agree.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

A window on the bridge of a capital starship makes as much sense as on the bridge of a submarine

It's stupid as fuck.

How do you say "stupid as fuck" in Russian?

 

[Belz...]

But Bernd really likes arguing.

His content is great but his fanboyism is more than a little obnoxious. Each pixel that's different needs to be explained in-universe, apparently.

 

[Mudd]

Really, I think the HUD window is a good evolution away from the static and outmoded portrayal of most tech that Star Trek was stuck in for way too long.

The Abrams movies are better movies than a lot of the older Trek flicks.

 

[Fandango831]

How do you say "stupid as fuck" in Russian?

Unfortunately/fortunately not a bridge but just observation windows on the sail so your point failed to hit the mark. Also a rather rude and unneeded statement towards Russians mate.

 

[Fandango831]

To add to the conversation of HUDs, Comms, and the debate on how Trek tech should look/function I feel it should boil down to what seems cool on screen and elevates the show within its universe. If Star Trek really wanted to be authentic in its futuristic approach and cater to the hardcore futurist crowd than nothing should harken to previous series visually as the content on screen should always look more advanced than where we are today regardless of visual continuity and so such. However that breaks the canon fans are so obsessed with like saying, "a phaser needs to look like this because of TOS" ,or "that's not how a ship bridge should look like because of XYZ". So the reality is that you have to do both and skirt a middle ground that neither side will fully be happy with but that in the end tries to be as cool as it can be, touch on canon elements, and portray the future all in one bag while keeping some folks happy.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

His content is great but his fanboyism is more than a little obnoxious. Each pixel that's different needs to be explained in-universe, apparently.

Agreed on the website. It's been an amazing source for as long as I can remember. I really don't pay attention to his views on anything, outside of what gets mentioned hereabouts.

 

[DaveyNY]

As long as your mobile phone can't directly call Mars without a cellphone tower (and net) being nearby, Star Trek's communicators ARE more advanced than your cellphone. In fact, unbelievably more advanced.

A HUD window makes sense on an atmospheric vessel or something very maneoverable operating in close proximity to other ships, like a shuttle. A window on the bridge of a capital starship makes as much sense as on the bridge of a submarine: It's stupid as fuck.

It seems that Dino Dino De Laurentiis disagreed with that assessment...

The Seaview seemed to do just fine with bridge windows in it's established fictional universe.

 

[Belz...]

As long as your mobile phone can't directly call Mars without a cellphone tower (and net) being nearby, Star Trek's communicators ARE more advanced than your cellphone. In fact, unbelievably more advanced.

I think you're forgetting the iphone's other functions. Yes, the communicator has more range and... that's it. It doesn't do anything. Look at its interface. I mean, the lack thereof. There are a couple of knobs, a speaker and mic, and that's it. How is that more advanced?

 

[WarpFactorZ]

How is that more advanced?

Because it can communicate extra-terrestrially almost instantaneously using non-EM radiation and no booster tower, as mentioned.

 

[fireproof78]

To add to the conversation of HUDs, Comms, and the debate on how Trek tech should look/function I feel it should boil down to what seems cool on screen and elevates the show within its universe. If Star Trek really wanted to be authentic in its futuristic approach and cater to the hardcore futurist crowd than nothing should harken to previous series visually as the content on screen should always look more advanced than where we are today regardless of visual continuity and so such. However that breaks the canon fans are so obsessed with like saying, "a phaser needs to look like this because of TOS" ,or "that's not how a ship bridge should look like because of XYZ". So the reality is that you have to do both and skirt a middle ground that neither side will fully be happy with but that in the end tries to be as cool as it can be, touch on canon elements, and portray the future all in one bag while keeping some folks happy.

Which is where the reboot/restart argument comes in to play. Honestly, a good compromise on the two items may be unsatisfactory. I personally would like to see more future forward looking on tech as well as characters.

Unfortunately/fortunately not a bridge but just observation windows on the sail so your point failed to hit the mark. Also a rather rude and unneeded statement towards Russians mate.

How was that rude towards Russians?