"Choose Your Pain" Klingon ship (Visual spoilers?)
- Thread starter Cranston
- Start date
Yeah, because they were actually telling the truth. He really wasn’t.
Actually, I'm not sure it is. In both cases the producers have built up a quite specific expectation (about their fidelity or whatever, in this case). As of yet, we don't know how faithful the producers are going to be. But say that it turns out the D7 thing wasn't misleading... and that it was just a purely intentional disposal of a beloved design in favour of a generic one. Taken together with Akiva Goldsman's comments before the broadcast at this year's Comic Con? Taken together with the emphasis on this being 'Prime Timeline'? Then the general conclusion this thread seems to have arrived at, is that being less than truthful with fans has been the cause of a lot of needless bad faith with fans... and that they may be doing it again, in spite of the lessons that should have been learned about honesty and communication, in the past few Star Trek adaptations.
"It's not khan" is a clumsy attempt to hide a single plot point that was a 'big reveal' not thirty minutes into the movie. Fans worked it out much quicker than they presumably imagined and asked a direct question. If they'd said "wait and see" that's as good as confirming it. So they tried misdirection to try to stop people being spoiled. Watch the Last Jedi trailer for examples of what will probably turn out to be misdirection to hide spoilers, only done well.
But the producers have been talking for over a year in various different venues and contexts about Discovery as a true prequel to TOS, building up to a point ten in-universe years hence that the setup is in place for that show to 'begin'. Now clearly, there is and will be disagreement over whether that is done to people's personal satisfaction, but there's no reason to suspect it is a deliberate lie. They gain nothing by that pretence.
But the producers have been talking for over a year in various different venues and contexts about Discovery as a true prequel to TOS, building up to a point ten in-universe years hence that the setup is in place for that show to 'begin'. Now clearly, there is and will be disagreement over whether that is done to people's personal satisfaction, but there's no reason to suspect it is a deliberate lie. They gain nothing by that pretence.
@RedDwarf - Agreed.
The lesson here is that communicating honestly and openly is much better than putting out ambiguous statements. I remember this caused friction with Star Trek: Enterprise, and then again with the Kelvin Timeline.
Say that the producers attitude was they intended to stay faithful to the plot of TOS but freely re-imagine starships as some people have (unpopularity) suggested. Simply stating that, in exactly those terms would clarify their position.
@cultcross - I'm not saying that this is what is going on, but presumably, what could be gained from ambiguity would be to try to keep fans hoping for a fully canonical show hoping, whilst having none of the responsibilities to be entirely faithful. We had something similar happen with ENT. I seem to recall that at one point one of the ENT executive producers stated they had never seen TOS (!). We had the cloaking device controversy, probably Star Trek's worst continuity error in terms of implications, which presumably would not have happened if they had simply seen Balance of Terror, one of TOS's most famous episodes.
The lesson here is that communicating honestly and openly is much better than putting out ambiguous statements. I remember this caused friction with Star Trek: Enterprise, and then again with the Kelvin Timeline.
Say that the producers attitude was they intended to stay faithful to the plot of TOS but freely re-imagine starships as some people have (unpopularity) suggested. Simply stating that, in exactly those terms would clarify their position.
@cultcross - I'm not saying that this is what is going on, but presumably, what could be gained from ambiguity would be to try to keep fans hoping for a fully canonical show hoping, whilst having none of the responsibilities to be entirely faithful. We had something similar happen with ENT. I seem to recall that at one point one of the ENT executive producers stated they had never seen TOS (!). We had the cloaking device controversy, probably Star Trek's worst continuity error in terms of implications, which presumably would not have happened if they had simply seen Balance of Terror, one of TOS's most famous episodes.
Last edited:
I'm not sure you know what that word means. The Akiva Goldsman quote you posted, as well as many other similar statements made all year, are are emphatically explicit. "Yeah, Javid Iqbal is an actor with a page on IMDB." That's what ambiguity looks like.
There is absolutely no reason to think they're lying about the setting, and no, "Abrams lied once" isn't a reason. For one thing, Abrams has nothing to do with this production. For another, even Abrams himself tried to play with ambiguity and misdirection in the beginning with things like "Benicio Del Toro is not playing Khan", while Discovery has been explicit from day one. For another, hiding a character and hiding a setting are very different things - especially when the setting has already been shown for half a season. I wonder how many more seasons we'll have to endure with the "reboot" conspiracy theorists still insisting it was a lie and, just wait, the reveal is coming? Probably all of them.
Sorry, I'm typing on my phone, and also carrying a lot of baggage from earlier in the discussion - so didn't get across what I meant to say very well.
Currently I do not find Goldsman's statement ambiguous at all - but some posters here have argued there is nuance to the term 'sticking to canon', etc. (E.G. the series is a "reboot of visuals but not continuity", etc). The comments would become another example of miscommunication if their speculation bore out.
Currently I do not find Goldsman's statement ambiguous at all - but some posters here have argued there is nuance to the term 'sticking to canon', etc. (E.G. the series is a "reboot of visuals but not continuity", etc). The comments would become another example of miscommunication if their speculation bore out.
Were you not suggesting there is a reasonable chance of that speculation bearing out? I don't see that. But from what I've seen, I think the producers could join the forum, quote "some posters" and literally state they are wrong, and they would still argue that.
All some of us want is for certain ships to look "right." I don't care what universe you're in or how tolerant you are of producers fidgeting with the design aesthetic of a franchise, but that thing is not a D7 and under no argument shy of "it is now because 2017 and the old ship looks stale and archaic so nyah-nyah-nyah" does it adequately rationalize it in a way that makes sense. The uniforms, fine. The sets and bridge consoles, fair game. But don't claim you're sticking to canon and continuity and then claim a Lambo is the same thing as an SUV. It's not no matter how many times you say it is.
I can buy that as another type of Klingon warship or a prison vessel. But a D7 battle cruiser in roughly the same timeframe as Captain Kirk? Yeah, just...no.
I can buy that as another type of Klingon warship or a prison vessel. But a D7 battle cruiser in roughly the same timeframe as Captain Kirk? Yeah, just...no.
This has the same problem as comparing DSC to a "Civil War movie with machine guns", which was all the rage back when the trailers came out months ago. It doesn't work. We know there weren't machine guns in the 1800s and SUV-Lambos aren't a thing, only because these are part of extensively documented real history. Yes, DSC is a "period piece", but the Star Trek universe is nowhere near as comprehensive, especially not the TOS era, until another canon entry like DSC comes along to confirm or deny our assumptions.
To turn this argument around, imagine you know nothing about real-world Earth except for a few World War I movies. Then someone shows you Titanic. "WTF?" you exclaim. "This is 2 years before the War started? And this thing is supposed to be British?? Yeah, no. #NotMyEarthTrek"
Clearly, this is not the "D7" we have seen before. But a D7 is neither a Lambo nor an SUV, and we don't know what the letters mean. Non-canon sources suggest there were at least 6 variants of "D7". Nothing is confirmed. There is plenty of room to work here.
This group clearly understands the universe. The idea that this is simply a major goof because no one remembers or knows how to google image search "D7" is ridiculous. It reminds me of when people complained they had no idea about the Enterprise under Pike and Spock because the trailers said "10 years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise". That's obviously false now, and I suspect the nature of this "mistake" will become obvious shortly as well.
As someone who has worked for years in customer service and public relations.... no, it REALLY isn't.
Because if you are open and clear about something, you get completely flamed by your audience if your information is wrong in some way, or the situation changes, or if you are telling them something they don't want to hear. Situations DO change, alot of times because the original basis of the decision changes, or somebody changes their mind, or someone figures out something that nobody on your team realized before and now you're caught having made promises that you can no longer deliver.
Instead of putting your reputation on the line making gaurantees, it's ALWAYS safer to speak in generalities -- the vaguer the better -- in speaking about the future. The only thing you ever get specific about are matters of money and contract: that is, if someone signed up for a service at a specific rate of pay, you stick to the terms and dates spelled out on the invoice.
It's entirely possible that Goldsman INTENDS to reconcile any differences with TOS canon. But giving a gaurantee that it WILL implies they have already figured out how to do this, storyboarded it all out and come up with a plan and the arrangement is a done deal. If they haven't actually done this, then he's making a promise he can't necessarily keep, as it's entirely possible that there are some things they simply CAN'T reconcile, or may eventually decide it isn't worth trying to because the new version is better anyway.
Of coruse Goldsman is a writer and TV producer, not a public relations guy. It's likely he just doesn't know any better and is speaking from intent rather than actual capability. The extent to which his intentions are shared by the entire creative team -- and how committed the team even is to this one statement -- is also something he may not actually control, let alone be in any position to speak on.
And would be a huge mistake.
Because even IF that is their position -- as seems kind of obvious at this point -- what happens if the creative team collectively pivots and decides to do something completely different? Now they have to deal with the fact that they have set certain expectations for their viewers that they will no longer be able to meet, but continuing to chase those expectations is no longer beneficent to the show. This is exactly the problem we already have: the producers have been TOO SPECIFIC about what they're trying to do, and fandom is expressing frustration now that their expectations have not been met.
People who don't know what to expect are more likely to accept what you give them. People whose expectations are unmet find it much harder to accept what they're given.
That's just it: even if they INTEND to be entirely faithful, there's no gaurantee that will actually happen. It may not be feasible, and in some cases it may not even be desireable, and they need to have maneuvering room to look at a component from old canon and say "This is causing too many problems... fuck it, let's just retcon it." It's hard enough to avoid writing yourself into a corner, but it's maddening to be stuck in a corner that somebody else wrote you into before you were even born.
Well, I'm not so much avoiding as I am baffled and amused by your stream-of-consciousness posts...
We're all mainly here to discuss one of the Klingon ships that appeared in DSC 1x05 "Choose Your Pain". I don't think anyone quite knows why you're here demanding opinions on sexbots.
