• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Alex Kurtzman Gets New Deal With CBS, Will Expand 'Star Trek' TV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kronos is the pronunciation, Qo'noS is the spelling.

I see. So various older novels and comics, "Kling" is somehow pronounced from those?

Also, the NX-01's readouts or something from the pilot have that in a display as a homage to them.
 
I see. So various older novels and comics, "Kling" is somehow pronounced from those?

Also, the NX-01's readouts or something from the pilot have that in a display as a homage to them.

Kling might be the name of the Star.

I don't recall Kling appearing anywhere in ENT.
Only places I remember Kling appearing is in Undiscovered Country and DSC's starcharts.
 
Kling might be the name of the Star.

I don't recall Kling appearing anywhere in ENT.
Only places I remember Kling appearing is in Undiscovered Country and DSC's starcharts.

Also in "Heart of Glory"...

KORRIS: Brother, I knew you would come. (Worf climbs the ladder) Now I, we have a chance. I could not do it alone, but I would rather die here, than let the traitors of Kling pick the meat from my bones. With you it will work.
 
Discovery was an instantly available target for the ire of every TOS fandamentalist and 24th-century-or-bust stalwart that had soured over years of not getting things exactly their way. They inhabit an echo chamber that gives them support and causes them to assume that their umwelt is in fact some universal truth. There was and is absolutely nothing that show runners can do to break through that level of toxicity... You can't win with those people.
Strawman much?

It's why I want to watch some Meryl Streep movies...
Eek! Please say that you're just joking around and you have in fact seen some of her movies before!...

why choose to have a prequel, why choose to set it in a specific time frame if you don't intend to exploit the setting either to address specific historical events, include historical characters, or take advantage of the "mood" of that timeframe?
Succinctly put. The setting isn't just some arbitrary optional thing unrelated to story content (or at least, it shouldn't be).

I think consistency has a lot to due with quality Star Trek. You need consistency within a series so that your characters behave in ways that are consistent for their character (see criticism for Janeway's uneven characterization). You need consistency in terms of technology and capabilities, so that you don't accidentally remove all drama by having random abilities and inconsistent results (see complaints about "teching the tech" for solutions to some TNG/VOY problems). You need consistency across seasons and series so that villains, political and social settings aren't simply bent to the needs of the plot. Consistency has tons to do with quality - and a lot of that consistency has to do with at least not significantly violating continuity.
Hear, hear!
 
Perfectly said. Discovery was an instantly available target for the ire of every TOS fandamentalist and 24th-century-or-bust stalwart that had soured over years of not getting things exactly their way. They inhabit an echo chamber that gives them support and causes them to assume that their umwelt is in fact some universal truth. There was and is absolutely nothing that show runners can do to break through that level of toxicity except to bulldoze over it and embrace new viewers and keep providing a good show for the existing fans.

You can't win with those people. If you cater to them you're accused of fanwank. If you chart your own course you're accused of apostasy against St Gene. If you make the barest most subtlest of hints you're bringing an old cast member back you're instantly told your project is doomed. If you get your show renewed, you'll be told you're not getting renewed again.
A thought occurs to me. Currently, this is a very reactionary, knee-jerk, society that we live in, with opinions being able to be shared without much thought. So, if something is not what is felt to be right, then those emotions can be expressed with no thought to the consequences.
 
Eek! Please say that you're just joking around and you have in fact seen some of her movies before!

I have to backtrack. I've seen Kramer vs. Kramer and the newer Manchurian Candidate. I forgot she was in those. I haven't seen either in a long time. But that's literally it.

Still not nearly enough and definitely not recently.

I'll be inviting a few friends over to watch a film of hers at some point, and we'll of course order Mexican Food so great that The Donald will want to build a wall around my house.
 
Last edited:
This gets back to my hatred of the spore drive. Not just as a concept, but as execution.

We have access to a magic drive which allows us to go anywhere in space, anywhere in time, and to any alternate universe. The story possibilities are endless!

What do we do? Use it as a weapon of war, then accidentally jump to the MU, then accidently jump four months in the future. Finally, the Federation says it's just too dangerous and shelves it.

I don't think they're done with the Spore Drive yet. Speculation on my part, of course.

If I'm wrong... I'll force myself to re-watch the entirety of Enterprise. That's how sure I am.
 
Sure. Right. Totally.
I have to assume this is sarcasm. ;)

But yeah, you offer a splendid distillation of the pointless nerdrage nitpicking that passes for criticism of this movie, ignoring its heart, its humor, its moral themes, its immersive imagery, the uncanny ability of its marvelous actors to make beloved characters feel both warmly nostalgic and vividly rediscovered, and everything else about it that makes it the best and most satisfying Star Trek cinematic experience in decades.
 
I don't think they're done with the Spore Drive yet. Speculation on my part, of course.

If I'm wrong... I'll force myself to re-watch the entirety of Enterprise. That's how sure I am.

They are def not done with the spore drive. One of the producers said they would still deal with its existence and aligning with canon.
 
I have to assume this is sarcasm. ;)

But yeah, you offer a splendid distillation of the pointless nerdrage nitpicking that passes for criticism of this movie, ignoring its heart, its humor, its moral themes, its immersive imagery, the uncanny ability of its marvelous actors to make beloved characters feel both warmly nostalgic and vividly rediscovered, and everything else about it that makes it the best and most satisfying Star Trek cinematic experience in decades.

Hey if you want to characterize a total lack of sense, logic, or coherence as nerdrage nitpicking that is up to you. I look at it as few to none of the main characters motivations and actions making any sense. I didn't set out to dislike STID, and I didn't intend on nitpicking it, it's simply that beyond the veneer of action, conflict, and raw emotion, the movie just isn't any good. Burying your head in the sand and ignoring the real quality issues, dismissing them as fannish nitpicking demonstrates true fanboy activity.

You may have truly enjoyed the movie, but you can't seriously argue these are not problems with the movie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top