New Talosians?

[Alan Roi]

I don't mind the changes brought about by Discovery, but I do not feel that they were necessary. The idea that you can't tell new and excellent stories because you're trying to tell the stories through 'a look that is dated' is something that I don't agree with. It's not that people can't relate to other eras, etc, it's that they don'wanna. They want everything their way, with their look, etc. It is, ironically, a selfish herd. That 'Me-Generation' mentality. Art should never bow to the wishes of anyone other than the artist, for that matter. But, television is a commercial, money-oriented venture.

Commercial art is still art. There are as many reasons artists create art the way they do as their are artist, but often that decision is 'what will make me a living' if one is a professional artist. The artistic design of a particular TV series is exactly the same as any other kind of art, intended to provoke a desired reaction from an audience. The fact that it is done collectively is not particularly relevant. IMO.

 

[fireproof78]

Commercial art is still art. There are as many reasons artists create art the way they do as their are artist, but often that decision is 'what will make me a living' if one is a professional artist. The artistic design of a particular TV series is exactly the same as any other kind of art, intended to provoke a desired reaction from an audience. The fact that it is done collectively is not particularly relevant. IMO.

It's provoking a reaction alright

 

[DaveyNY]

Something like Gunsmoke or The Fugitive would be more apt.

The Rifleman

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[TrickyDickie]

I give you TMP.

There is a mountain of backstory from 1969 to 1979 that led up to TMP. The Phase II Enterprise demonstrates that there was more of a gradual movement of evolutionary design in a natural way, in-universe, that we didn't see because Phase II was not produced.

I simply do not agree that good science-fiction must rely on the aesthetics of any given era to be worthy and meaningful. It's the story that counts, not the window dressing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is just as good today, as a story, as it was in 1968. The 'look' is not important.

 

[fireproof78]

There is a mountain of backstory from 1969 to 1979 that led up to TMP. The Phase II Enterprise demonstrates that there was more of a gradual movement of evolutionary design in a natural way, in-universe, that we didn't see because Phase II was not produced.

I simply do not agree that good science-fiction must rely on the aesthetics of any given era to be worthy and meaningful. It's the story that counts, not the window dressing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is just as good today, as a story, as it was in 1968. The 'look' is not important.

I disagree simply because Star Trek has done it before. Star Trek is not 2001. Just because there is backstory doesn't mean, as presented, that it makes sense to the viewer. I'm all for research and everything but it is poor storytelling if one is expected to just accept the changes from TOS to TMP. There is no reason for those changes in-universe that makes sense to the casual viewer. They are just changes, updates, to look better on the big screen.

DSC's are no more egregious than those. And, I do agree with you that the story is what counts. Which is why I am not off put by the DSC changes. Because I am engaged with the characters, not the color of uniforms.

 

[Alan Roi]

There is a mountain of backstory from 1969 to 1979 that led up to TMP. The Phase II Enterprise demonstrates that there was more of a gradual movement of evolutionary design in a natural way, in-universe, that we didn't see because Phase II was not produced.

I simply do not agree that good science-fiction must rely on the aesthetics of any given era to be worthy and meaningful. It's the story that counts, not the window dressing. 2001: A Space Odyssey is just as good today, as a story, as it was in 1968. The 'look' is not important.

Film is a visual medium. The look is always important.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Film is a visual medium. The look is always important.

It's a means of conveying a story. Compare a story to the engine of a car. If you have a great looking car with no engine, you're not going anywhere.

Consider folks who are blind. They are particularly illustrative of the fact that the content of a story is what is important, not how it is 'dressed'.

 

[Dukhat]

Film is a visual medium. The look is always important.

I wouldn't go that far. Films like the SW prequels, Avatar, and the Jurassic Park movies are quite stunning visually. But IMHO, their stories suck. If they had spent even a fraction of their budget on hiring great storytellers instead of such things as a ridiculously annoying CGI character for the 'look,' I would have been more impressed.

 

[Ovation]

It's a means of conveying a story. Compare a story to the engine of a car. If you have a great looking car with no engine, you're not going anywhere.

Consider folks who are blind. They are particularly illustrative of the fact that the content of a story is what is important, not how it is 'dressed'.

Sorry, but no. Film is a visual experience and any story it is telling is not required to “make sense” independent of the visual element of the whole. That it frequently is treated that way is indicative of the limited imagination of those who treat film in that fashion. Blind people are inherently incapable of fully appreciating a film, just as deaf people are inherently incapable of fully appreciating a symphony.

The visual elements of a film (or TV programme) are not “window dressing” for the story. They are essential aspects of it. Any “story” presented in a film/TV show that doesn’t require its visual elements as a central part simply isn’t well constructed.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Sorry, but no. Film is a visual experience and any story it is telling is not required to “make sense” independent of the visual element of the whole. That it frequently is treated that way is indicative of the limited imagination of those who treat film in that fashion. Blind people are inherently incapable of fully appreciating a film, just as deaf people are inherently incapable of fully appreciating a symphony.

The visual elements of a film (or TV programme) are not “window dressing” for the story. They are essential aspects of it. Any “story” presented in a film/TV show that doesn’t require its visual elements as a central part simply isn’t well constructed.

Who is the JUDGE who pronounces whether or not someone who is blind or deaf "fully appreciates"....anything ?

 

[Alan Roi]

It's a means of conveying a story. Compare a story to the engine of a car. If you have a great looking car with no engine, you're not going anywhere.

Consider folks who are blind. They are particularly illustrative of the fact that the content of a story is what is important, not how it is 'dressed'.

Take Bladerunner or Altered States or Alien as examples. No way a blind person could be impacted the same way as a sighted person would have experiencing these films. The same can be said for 2001.

 

[fireproof78]

It's a means of conveying a story. Compare a story to the engine of a car. If you have a great looking car with no engine, you're not going anywhere.

Consider folks who are blind. They are particularly illustrative of the fact that the content of a story is what is important, not how it is 'dressed'.

And yet, I have been told that Star Trek needs to be consistent. Except, TMP and TWOK are not consistent with TOS, aside from the same named ship and characters. Kirk certainly doesn't behave like Kirk, and Spock is more logical and brusque than usual. And yet, they are accepted because many enjoy the story. DSC is no different.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Take Bladerunner or Altered States or Alien as examples. No way a blind person could be impacted the same way as a sighted person would have experiencing both films. The same can be said for 2001.

You have NO IDEA what auditory cues a blind person might take from a film and build something in their mind that may surpass what sighted people see on the screen.

 

[fireproof78]

You have NO IDEA what auditory cues a blind person might take from a film and build something in their mind that may surpass what sighted people see on the screen.

If that's true, why worry about the blind in this particular instance? Many individuals going have sight and film is a visual medium.

 

[Ovation]

Who is the JUDGE who pronounces whether or not someone who is blind or deaf "fully appreciates"....anything ?

If you cannot hear musical notes, you cannot have a full experience of a symphony. There is no way to be fully aware of the nature of the piece of music. Thus, cannot fully appreciate. Same for blind and any visual art. Or are you suggesting a blind person can fully experience a Jackson Pollack or Picasso or Titian or...

 

[Alan Roi]

You have NO IDEA what auditory cues a blind person might take from a film and build something in their mind that may surpass what sighted people see on the screen.

If you read my post you will find that is what I just said..

 

[Ovation]

You have NO IDEA what auditory cues a blind person might take from a film and build something in their mind that may surpass what sighted people see on the screen.

Perhaps. But what I do know is this person is NOT fully experiencing the film’s visual elements. It is, by definition, impossible.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Maybe it's best to put it this way:

Not everyone (for many different reasons) is going to be able to experience any type of art in exactly the way that the artist was wanting to convey it.

I think that also covers more than just folks who are blind and deaf.

Fair enough?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Romulans with ridges are part Reman.

Plot-hole legitimately filled.

 

[Hythlodeus]

have you noticed that STD looks silly and outdated?

idk, I'm not familiar with your STD and please don't show it to me
also, please don't @ me, just for the purpose of mentioning your STD ever again
also also: skiffy? really?