That's all indicative of poor writing. Better writing would fix that. Conversely, the same quality writing would yield the same type of disassociated reaction regardless of the time frame.
Mr Awe
News coming 8/10?
- Thread starter dinzy
- Start date
That's all indicative of poor writing. Better writing would fix that. Conversely, the same quality writing would yield the same type of disassociated reaction regardless of the time frame.
Mr Awe
Yep, there's conflict, but not game changing conflict.
As I've written about elsewhere in this thread, it comes down to a personal preference. Do you care more about the characters and their conflict, or do you also place a lot of value on the larger context? There's no right answer, and I'm split myself.
Personally, I do like the potential that a game changer can occur! That potential is gone for a prequel, which is the biggest problem for me. But, if the stories are compelling, I'm sure I'll enjoy the series.
Mr Awe
Another thing that could fix is an apocalypse!
A lack of physical conflict is a sign of civility, but a lack of personal conflict is a sign of terrifying dystopia.
For all those Trekkers and Trekkies who held fast to the idea that the Prime Universe might someday return, all while I and others believed it never would and said so, you've won a "Never Say Never Again" introduction on YouTube.
Enjoy! You told us so!
First of all, this list does not amount to remotely "half of Trek lore."
Second, much of it is flat-out wrong.
There can be Romulans, they just can't be seen or recognized by anyone who survives to tell the tale. They could be seen working with the Klingons behind the scenes. There could be Romulan spies who are never exposed. There are any number of ways Romulans could play a role without having to meet our heroes face to face.
Good! Borg and Ferengi have pretty much been done to death; we're not missing out on much there. But, as in ENT, there are ways of including them as well, if desired. (And before you cry "that was inconsistent!" recall that in TNG and VGR it had already been revealed that there were isolated encounters with both before Picard made his supposed "first contacts" with them.)
The NCC-1701 had all of these, even if the former two were not called by those names. Her holographic "recreation room" was never shown on the live action series due to budgetary reasons, but it was shown in the animated episode "The Practical Joker." The workings of her "food synthesizers" were never detailed onscreen, but ENT had "protein resequencers" that were used alongside a traditional galley; it's easy to imagine the same arrangement on TOS. Where the heck are you getting no tractor beams from? These were used regularly in TOS!
Why not? There isn't anything that would preclude the Federation having contact with them in this era.
Such references are not necessary at all, but if included, what's wrong with "obscure" or oblique ones? For Kirk, someone could in passing mention Tarsus IV or a peace mission to Axanar or the Farragut being attacked by a mysterious deadly cloud. For Spock, a new General Order regarding Talos IV could be mentioned, or really any reference to the Enterprise, since that's where we know he's serving under Pike.
This could be and was done in TOS. It was considered dangerous, IIRC.
You want more time travel? I think we've had enough to give it a rest for 13 episodes (which will actually comprise ONE story).
This is just ridiculous. There could be all sorts of scientific and technological breakthroughs a decade before TOS. What about "breaking the time barrier," whatever that was? (I don't think it had anything to do with time travel, although it did have something to do with travel times!)
Drones were seen on TOS/TAS, and used in ENT by Romulans.
Fuller has already said there WILL be robots.
There could be Klingon augments, or those of other non-human races, or someone who is secretly one like Bashir.
Data was unique, for a lot of reasons, but this doesn't mean there's no advanced artificial intelligence around. Could be interesting to explore how humans and AI interact in a time when we know the former do not consider the latter to be sentient beings with equal rights.
The status quo for Kirk an his crew in TOS is not necessarily the same status quo of another crew a decade earlier. And whatever the status quo is set up to be at the outset of DSC, it does not have to remain the status quo at its conclusion.
This statement is ludicrous, and brings us to the third point:
Star Trek is not about "the lore" relative to itself. Star Trek is about exploring socio-cultural issues and moral/ethical dilemmas relevant to the audience of the day, set against a backdrop of exploring space and dealing with the conflicts that arise out of it. Reexamining an era previously depicted through the prism of 1960s society through that of today's provides just as many opportunities to do this as would any other setting. It sounds to me like the new series will have a definite basis in the lore, and will add to it, giving it new context. It's not just about what happens, but the perspective from which the characters and the audience experience it, and how it affects them.
There being no record of something having occurred doesn't preclude it having happened. It just means that if it did, it must have happened under circumstances which would leave no records that would be available to the person(s) making such a statement.
There very much can be conflict that changes the game for the characters involved. At any given time, "the game" is not the same for everyone everywhere.
Last edited:
There had to have been some contact, as Deep Space Nine mentioned a Cardassian poet living on Vulcan in the 22nd century.
Exactly. I've said this on another thread, but it bears repeating here: The best Star Trek is not about Star Trek.
This is a big reason why I'm not into fan films. To me, the best Trek stories cannot be described with, "Wouldn't it be cool if A met B, and they turned out to be the long lost child of X and Y, who met while traveling through time to prevent Cataclysmic Disaster #48392658285 from happening?"
No People try to pigeon hole Trek as to what it should and shouldn't be. The bottom line it's entertainment and when it's good trek like TNG it does a little but of everything from morality plays, high concept sci fi mysteries, political intrigue, large epic stories as well as small intimate character drama
And no it was the most successful partly due to it not being impenetrable to new folks. Rarely did one need to refer to TOS to understand it. The last thing Discovery should do is be like ENT season four where you either needed to be well versed in trek or reference Wiki
And no it was the most successful partly due to it not being impenetrable to new folks. Rarely did one need to refer to TOS to understand it. The last thing Discovery should do is be like ENT season four where you either needed to be well versed in trek or reference Wiki
I thought it actually looked pretty good. The set had more finish than the original, to deal with hi-def, and the lighting was based on some of the moodier, more dramatic examples from TOS. It mightn't necessarily have stood up to scrutiny for a season, but for occasional scenes over two eps it was fine. All that said, part of the appeal is undeniably retro, and if a sci-fi show is relying on retro appeal, it'd damn well better be aware of the irony and have terrific writing to compensate.
It was well made, but lets be honest it looked goofy as all frak. Once they got to the inside of that ship it was just hello 1960. Silly outfits, silly colors, silly 1960 idea of computers with bright colored plastic buttons and goofy looking dated scanners. It looked like they were on a 1960's low budget TV show or playing at being goofy. I could not take it seriously, it just looked awful.
Point taken, but I meant young enough to be part of the action.
I guess we should just throw away all entertainment made before the 2000s, because it all looks silly and awful. Something can only be good if it matches our modern sensibilities.
Now you are being silly. We don't act like the dated as hell 1960 look is an thing but dated. TOS is fine by itself, because it was created and filmed in the 1960s. However it looks dated. When they try to put it next to any other era, it looks goofy and dated.
Making a modern show looking that dated is simply stupid.
What about an Arab or Indian Woman (not Native American, but Native American is also a good idea)? Just imagine a gay Arab Woman, that will good
The idea of the main character being a lieutenant commander and not the captain of the ship is very intriguing-- given what we know about the premise of the show, she may be the science officer. A Star Trek show with the science officer as the main character would be kind of a dream come true.
The time frame is fine with me. I'm not terribly worried about canon violations. Fuller and company are not stupid or unimaginative people, by any means, so I doubt they would take the lazy way out. Hopefully the aesthetics of the show will be consistent with that era (which I imagine would be a couple of years after Pike's mission to Talos), but I really wonder how they will handle it. A lot of people get into a panic about the retro look, but on the other hand period pieces have been fairly popular lately. And if people can handle Steampunk, they should be able to handle Trekpunk.
The time frame is fine with me. I'm not terribly worried about canon violations. Fuller and company are not stupid or unimaginative people, by any means, so I doubt they would take the lazy way out. Hopefully the aesthetics of the show will be consistent with that era (which I imagine would be a couple of years after Pike's mission to Talos), but I really wonder how they will handle it. A lot of people get into a panic about the retro look, but on the other hand period pieces have been fairly popular lately. And if people can handle Steampunk, they should be able to handle Trekpunk.
