^Clutch de gold pressed latinum pearls!
Are New Aliens Going to Be a Problem?
- Thread starter VulcanMindBlown
- Start date
There's no need for every species to get development. There's not even any need for every species to be named. But you can't bring in a new species every week and then (with 1 or 2 exceptions) never, ever see them again. It makes the universe feel artificial and disconnected. There should be a reasonable scale of development for the different species - from the biggest, most important, most developed at the top (Klingons, Vulcans, etc) to recurring but not well known species in the middle (take the Breen on DS9, for one instance) to the least important species who get one or two stories and maybe occassionally pop up in the background.
And, incidentally, it's not always a question of being important to a story. For some stories, it really wouldn't matter either way, so why not take the opportunity to bring back something the audience recognizes for a single episode rather than invent yet another nameless species that you have no intention of ever fleshing out at all?
Since canon has established five or four main races started the Federation those core speices should be in every Star Trek movie and show - Andorians, Vulcans, Tellarites as well as humans. Apart from Vulcans and humans do any of the other races have a main spot so far in the show? None, not even on the bridge as an extra. Its like having a film or TV show franchise about the United Nations and the only main characters you see are Americans and Brits.
Have the Tellarites had a main spot in any star trek show ever? Even on Enterprise they seemed mostly in the background. And I don't remember seeing many Andorians on any previous shows, either, with the exception of ENT.
I see no problem with adding more aliens to Star Trek through a prequel show like Discovery. 183 member and 7128 affiliates in Discovery's timeline could also mean like 40 members and 1000 affiliates, and we still have a bigger number that we ever had seen in total in any Star Trek series and practically we have seen many that have nothing to do with the Federation (Delta Quadrant aliens and Gamma Quadrant aliens). So I really think Discovery can introduce 100 new alien species without even coming close to violating any on-screen cannon number.
New aliens are no problem as we have seen only a small fraction of the federation's members and there are always new rocks to turn over, similarly using some of the one-shot or background species from the other shows ans movies, would be cool, those guys are still new, most are functionally in mint condition, unopened boxes
Yep. Bring on the new aliens, retconning be darned.
Not at all. Prosthetics and make-up advance over time; the greater the time period means much different expectations. TOS had no budget so shoe polish was all that existed. Such technology has advanced and become inexpensive to the point that every crewmember can be another species and nobody bats an eyelid - I disagree from the above about a ship with "mostly humans and token aliens" given the consistency of era and accorded budget to date. Especially when DS9 did a great job what what it had to do. I wonder if the make-up is environmentally friendly? CGI will have an answer for that within a decade, we've already seen numerous examples of the precursor to that in movies and TV. Otherwise I've no qualms watching biodegradable, water-soluable boot polish again and using imagination to see other details, it's the story and characters and actors acting it out that are going to make or break this show.
TV show sequels can't continue going into the future incessantly, sometimes they have to go sideways or even backwards (prequels) to hook into. Changing set designs and make-up in newer ages inevitably create a periphery continuity issue but it's largely meaningless if the stories and acting are good, people overlook it. Well, many do. If people are too hyper on ensuring new sets look like the cardboard used in 1978, that's just not going to work and it's not a blame game as such (or at all).
My dislike of prequels, in general, is because the least amount of in-universe expansion takes place in them compared to spinoffs or sequels and prequels tend to be boring because we know how it ends up becoming, unless there's a huge gap between various series or stories that's worth exploring - DSC might have a hit on its hands, I've not sat through enough Trek to find something like Axanar.
So DSC is not going to suck or be great right out of the gate, I'm waiting to see the stories and look for potential in them as opposed to being a cheerleader for the "love" and/or "hate" camps.
TV show sequels can't continue going into the future incessantly, sometimes they have to go sideways or even backwards (prequels) to hook into. Changing set designs and make-up in newer ages inevitably create a periphery continuity issue but it's largely meaningless if the stories and acting are good, people overlook it. Well, many do. If people are too hyper on ensuring new sets look like the cardboard used in 1978, that's just not going to work and it's not a blame game as such (or at all).
My dislike of prequels, in general, is because the least amount of in-universe expansion takes place in them compared to spinoffs or sequels and prequels tend to be boring because we know how it ends up becoming, unless there's a huge gap between various series or stories that's worth exploring - DSC might have a hit on its hands, I've not sat through enough Trek to find something like Axanar.
So DSC is not going to suck or be great right out of the gate, I'm waiting to see the stories and look for potential in them as opposed to being a cheerleader for the "love" and/or "hate" camps.
Agreed; the makers of TNG knew continuity had to be discarded to find new drama outlets. Which is a shame given how much they made, but the pros and cons always exist and it's a gamble in doing so. The payoffs are rich but mistakes can end the show as well. Look at the Borg, which TNG was quick to retcon, after which Voyager was quick to de-retcon by pretending no Queen existed - but before Voyager brought back the Queen anyway, and multiple queens over time. Always well-acted but the implication that destroying the Queen kills the hive then became in dispute... either way, the act of retconning brings about pros and cons and the goal is to make the pros stronger and hopefully have fewer cons. If DSC continues in the "philosophical" bent that all Trek shows are known for, I doubt there'd going to be any problems. Especially as TOS in its 3 years didn't have much of continuity either...
Amen!!! Same thing with laser pistols.
Denobexit?
They should put known Aliens visibly on the ship/bridge while having new (and really strange) ones coming from the outside, the frontier. Instead they do it the other way around; the unknown is already there, while all they encounter at the edge of the federation are the klingons. And Harry Mudd. Bleh -.-
I think it would be interesting if Federation members came and went.
Might increase turnover in Starfleet. No more 20 years on the same ship.
All that I am saying is that it should sometimes have the same themes and sometimes simple is okay... the Horta were complex to make for the time... I assume and it is okay to have less complex make up sometimes....
Is there any information on the Prime-TOS Federation space and membership???
Do species have to be members in order to be a Starfleet member...???
Worf and Nog say no.
Also Ro Laren.
