We have a production designer, and Bad Robot may be involved

[Rahul]

It sounds like you're complaining about Romulus being destroyed too. So effectively you want a static universe that never changes?

Yeah. The destruction of Vulcan AND Romulus were dumb as hell. I don't want a static universe. But the Star Trek universe wasn't static before they blew those planets, so that's a false equivalency.

But let's be honest here: Destroying planets is one of the dumbest moves you can do in a science fiction show. There is something called "suspension of disbelief" that get's totally obliterated together with it. At least for anyyone vaguely familiar with the concept of science.

It was already a dumb move in the original Star Wars (A new hope). But it kind'a worked there, because the Star Wars universe is more fantasy and was built around scaling everything up to eleven. Trek usually tried to be closer to the "at least somewhat plausible"-scale. But JJ Abrams apparently has a boner for blowing up planets, he did it twice in Trek09 and god-how-many-times in Force Awakens. He has to be the director with most planets going boom in history. That doesn't stop planets exploding being the dumbest thing from science not-anymore-fiction-but-fantasy that is the most easy to spot if you want to filter your science fiction from the B-movie schlock-y kind.

 

[Kegg]

None of the leaked designs look quite related to Trek to me, which is fine; if the style is more baroque space opera well I'm very fond of that sort of thing and, anyway, I somewhat doubt a Klingon Sarcophagus Ship is going to be the central location for the series (but then again, there was a show set seven years on a Cardassian mining facility, so who knows.)

With the Klingon ship being labeled as a "sarcophagus ship", I suspect, if these are legit, that this is an ancient ship that's being discovered in-universe in the "present" of whatever era the show is being set in. I'd be surprised if it's indicative how the present-day Klingon ships would look like.

This is what I'd suspect too. In fact, I have a theory: Sarcophagus suggests it's some kind of tomb, but the name 'sarcophagus' recalls nothing so strongly as, well, the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt to me. What if it's a tomb of a Klingon Emperor (or more than one)? We know very little about the various imperial dynasties in Klingon history, other than them ending around a century after the Klingons got warp drive (and if not a warp ship, this could be a pre-warp tomb drifting in space.)

It could also somehow be a tomb for Kahless; which may not quite fit existing lore about Kahless but given how obviously mythological that is there could be a pretty easy explanation for that.

There was talk that one of the reasons Robert Duncan McNeill's character on Voyager was Tom Paris instead of Nick Locarno was because they didn't want to have to pay royalties to the writer of First Duty for every episode of Voyager. They'd likely have to pay similar royalties for using the Hur'q.

There's certainly been talk of that (there's also been talk that the changed the character because the backstory for Tom Paris is slightly more sympathetic than Nick Locarno - Paris took the Wesley Crusher route of owning up to his mistake); I don't know if they have to pay royalties for the use of alien species because if they do they've been pretty comfortable with doing it already - Maurice Hurley came up with the Borg, and multiple episodes not penned by Hurley (who only wrote "Q Who?" of the Borg episodes) as well as an entire regular character on Star Trek: Voyager stemmed directly from his idea.

Whether or not they should use the Hur'q; I doubt there's any real obstacles to them using them.

But JJ Abrams apparently has a boner for blowing up planets, he did it twice in Trek09 and god-how-many-times in Force Awakens.

It's interesting to me that he blew up two planets that are fairly important in Star Trek's lore in his Star Trek film, and in Star Wars blew up a planet invented specifically for the movie which, however, bore more than a passing resemblance to another better known planet in the Star Wars continuity, Coruscant. I wonder if Abrams had wanted to blow up Coruscant, but was vetoed by Kathleen Kennedy. But I think I digress.

 

[drt]

Thanks for that.

I quite like it tbh. Looks like there's a hint of HR Giger in it which can never be a bad thing. Never.

I like them too, actually looks "alien" (i.e. something from an alien race, not specifically from the Alien movies).

Wow, if that's genuine some folk are going to be really upset...

Heh, my first thought was "Man, people are going to shit cement when they see these" - now that the attempt has been made to scrub them off of the Internet leads me to believe they're probably valid, and not random concept art for another project.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But let's be honest here: Destroying planets is one of the dumbest moves you can do in a science fiction show. There is something called "suspension of disbelief" that get's totally obliterated together with it. At least for anyyone vaguely familiar with the concept of science.

Star Trek is not a science lecture. It mostly brushes against science rather than grabbing it with two hands and holding it tight. Often it will discard it when it needs to further the plot. Suspension of disbelief is about what the audience will accept not what's scientifically possible. Blowing up a planet in a SF film requires very little suspension of disbelief by the audience. Big weapon. Exotic matter. Planets go boom.You might as well complain about human-alien hybrids.

But JJ Abrams apparently has a boner for blowing up planets, he did it twice in Trek09

Technically they imploded.

 

[Rahul]

Star Trek is not a science lecture. It mostly brushes against science rather than grabbing it with two hands and holding it tight. Often it will discard it when it needs to further the plot. Suspension of disbelief is about what the audience will accept not what's scientifically possible. Blowing up a planet in a SF film requires very little suspension of disbelief by the audience. Big weapon. Exotic matter. Planets go boom.You might as well complain about human-alien hybrids.

That's where things go wrong. When the writer's don't care about consistency of the universe, why should the audience? That's why everyone complains whenever someone beams through shields or about the new "transwarp-beaming" through the galaxy.

"Suspension of disbelief" doesn't mean "pictures 100% reality". Then all fiction would be meaningless. It means something stresses credibility too much, so it breaks the illusion. Magic in a fantasy setting is okay. Aliens in a scify-setting are okay. But you need to work much harder to explain magic in science fiction or aliens in a fantasy setting. Star Wars does. It's part fantasy. They have much bigger leeway. Star Trek doesn't. That would be akin to a Star Trek alien showing up in the Alien franchise.

Blowing up planets just shows you don't science. Like, basic science. That's hardcore schlock-territory. It has to be explained really good to get away with. Destroyed in a (scientifically predicted) natural occuring supernova? Happens everyday. "Exotic matter" creating black holes that are also wormholes through time? Yeah, nice try. We're reaching "resurrect the dead via magic blood (from somebody who can actually die by the way)" -levels of science here. So glad Justin Lin throws all this shit out in Beyond and just moves on btw...

Technically they imploded.

One of them imploded. The other one was destroyed in an explosion.

 

[Warped9]

While I detest JJtrek the fact is the can of worms for shlocky science was already opened with the Genesis torpedo and protomatter and a dead Spock regressed to infancy and brought back to life.

One could make a case of getting away with certain ideas in SF on television back in the '60s like possession by alien conciousness ("Return To Tomorrow" and "The Lights Of Zetar") as well as beings of pure thought and/or energy (Trelane, the Organians, the Thasians), but it gets more iffy today, or it should be.

 

[JD]

I wasn't bothered by the planets blowing up in ST09, and I actually thought the destruction of Vulcan was a nice way to seperate the universes.

Everything that you mentioned are cosmetic things, and quite frankly not important at all in distinguishing one "universe" from the next, at least as far as some person watching the new show who's never seen previous Trek before would know. Lens flares, nacelle shapes and Vulcan being gone are just nitpicky crap that only people at the TrekBBS care about.



I highly doubt it, since nobody knows who they are other than some name-dropped alien race mentioned in one forgettable DS9 episode from 20 years ago and never mentioned again.

While I also highly doubt it - thats a perfect reason to tell the tale. A small, tiny piece of Trek lore that barely anyone will remember is well worth being used to expand upon and take inspiration from as you're both name dropping whilst being able to create a wholly new story with a familier and well established piece of the puzzle; The Klingons.

The Hur'q have been used in some of the tie-ins. They were the bad guys in the video game Star Trek: Invasion, and they played a role in the DS9 novel duology The Left Hand of Destiny.

 

[Rahul]

While I detest JJtrek the fact is the can of worms for shlocky science was already opened with the Genesis torpedo and protomatter and a dead Spock regressed to infancy and brought back to life.

Yes. But again, it's not about 100% scientific accuracy. It's about suspension of disbelief. Credibility in this specific universe. The whole concept of the Genesis device and Spocks rebirth are schlock at it's best. But the writers tried soo hard to make it believable in this universe. It was established how Genesis would "revive" dead matter, that's how Spock's body was reanimated. And Spock transferred his mind to McCoy before his death, preserving his "character" and "memories". And they needed a big dumb giant telepathic ceremony to transform this mind back to the new (old?) body. And it took the time until another movie for Spock to get comfortable in his body again.

It was meticulously crafted as a giant "one-time" event, trying to explain all ridiculous steps at least somewhat logically, that could never be reproduced easily and worked just this one time. And even that strained credibility. But they didn't just willy-nilly created a way to cure death forever (nevermind that tribble was dead for a long time - and apparently has human blood?), or invent a form of transportations that would make starships obsolete and turn the show into "Stargate".

There has been - and always will be - bad science in science fiction. But as a general rule of thumb: the schlock-y-er the concept is, the more time needs to be spent to explain it and make it plausible. Otherwise you throw believability out of the window and are left with only the spectacle. That can work for a movie (Transformers). But it can't sustain a long-term television show.

 

[saddestmoon]

That concept art looks great! And I'm liking the suggestion / speculation (posted earlier on this thread) that the Klingon Starship might be some ancient vessel from the dawn of Klingon history... Very cool and exciting!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Blowing up planets just shows you don't science. Like, basic science. That's hardcore schlock-territory. It has to be explained really good to get away with. Destroyed in a natural supernova? Happens everyday. "Exotic matter" creating wormholes? Yeah, nice try. We're reaching "resurrect the dead via magic blood (from somebody who can die by the way)" -levels of science here...

That sort of thing is just a another day in the Star Trek universe, though. Star Trek is more interested in telling entertaining stories than doing "Science". As Warped9 pointed out they've been doing this stuff since TWOK and even before.

Vulcan died because a black hole formed at its core. Romulas died, because it was in the path of a supernova. That works for Star Trek and for the audience. Disbelief suspended on most accounts. Someone well versed in the science involved might not accept it based on their knowledge, but they're not the entire audience. Though I was under the impression that using exotic matter to stabilize a wormhole was an actual theory in play in science. As are attempts to create artificial wormholes. So the tip of a toe hold in actual science.

As for the "magic blood" that goes back to "Space Seed" where Khan more or less brings himself back from the brink of death through sheer force of will and his superior recuperative abilities. Kirk IIRC, was also on the brink of death and placed in stasis. The cure almost kills him. I think an audience can accept that with little difficulty. In the real world blood therapies are not unknown, blood being a key component in healing. So, again there is the tip of a toe hold in actual science. More of toe hold than TOS had when Scotty was brought back from the dead by means much closer to magic. (An A.I. did it)

 

[F. King Daniel]

Trek's always been fantasy to me. The transporter split Kirk into good and evil halves in episode 5, and it hasn't looked back since. I really don't get how Trek has ever had a reputation for being scientifically accurate.

 

[Kegg]

Trek's always been fantasy to me. The transporter split Kirk into good and evil halves in episode 5, and it hasn't looked back since.

Now now, let's not forget Extra-Sensory Perception meaning that if you passed through the line of space that is the edge of the galaxy, you would become an unstoppable God Being if given enough time to gain iris-less silver eyes.

You know. Science.

 

[Trekkin]

TNG's the unscientific bastard that established Star Trek supernovas can wipe out Intersteller empires. Right upfront in its fifth episode.

It far outclassed Abrams in terms of sheer 'boom.' The one in TNG didn't just wipe out one central planet (that particular threat was saved for later seasons) - their nova destroyed the entire fricking galaxy-spanning Empire, right down to the second last man.

TNG had thorough genocidal unscientific-supernovas. That lazy Abrams hack should take notice.

 

[mos6507]

But let's be honest here: Destroying planets is one of the dumbest moves you can do in a science fiction show.

To be fair to JJ, they had Ceti Alpha VI spontaneously explode for unknown scientific reasons as a plot-device in Wrath of Khan and then you Praxis due to irresponsible mining operations. It's not the science aspect of these things blowing up that bother me as much as its permanent impact to canon. You don't do that unless you really really have a good reason. The business case to shunting off to an alternative universe for JJ Trek was so as to gain the benefits of a reboot while still being able to loosely connect to prime. In other words, it was done in order to try to tread lightly on fan sensibilities. No, we're not taking away your Prime continuity, just building this little sandbox off to the side. The destruction of Romulus on the Prime side feels like canonical vandalism.

 

[Trekkin]

I have just realised that both of TOS major 'enemy' races had their roles as villains concluded, because they were strong-armed into a Federation alliance after an explosive catastrophe destroyed their home planet. *side-eyes S31* Funny coincidence that...

Seriously, the threat of the Romulans was the only real hanging thread left in the Prime-verse. Blowing up the only part of the Empire that seemed to matter (Coz it's the only part that we ever saw aside from Remus) worked well enough to tie it up.

Plus, they wanted Nimoy-Spock. Nimoy-Spock needed to get involved with the wormhole for plot reasons. Nimoy-Spock was last seen stubbornly staying on Romulus.

It's not exactly hard to trace the thought pattern there.

 

[TheSubCommander]

Why does everyone already assume that the rumors the show is now going to be set in the JJverse, when just a couple weeks ago, rumors were abound that it was set in the prime universe? What about the rumors that it is also an anthology show?

What if all three are correct? If being an anthology show is true, it also means we may get both universes.

 

[Kegg]

Why does everyone already assume that the rumors the show is now going to be set in the JJverse, when just a couple weeks ago, rumors were abound that it was set in the prime universe?

We may, of course, get neither. With all the rumours flying around, it can be easy to forget something included in an official announcement, (from the Variety announcement: )

The creative plan is for the series to introduce new characters and civilizations, existing outside of the mythology charted by previous series and the current movie franchises.

Taken literally this would suggest it's not set in either the Abrams or Prime continuities; or even if it is set in one of them, it's in a way that emphasizes the new and unfamiliar regardless.

 

[jaime]

Yeah. The destruction of Vulcan AND Romulus were dumb as hell. I don't want a static universe. But the Star Trek universe wasn't static before they blew those planets, so that's a false equivalency.

But let's be honest here: Destroying planets is one of the dumbest moves you can do in a science fiction show. There is something called "suspension of disbelief" that get's totally obliterated together with it. At least for anyyone vaguely familiar with the concept of science.

It was already a dumb move in the original Star Wars (A new hope). But it kind'a worked there, because the Star Wars universe is more fantasy and was built around scaling everything up to eleven. Trek usually tried to be closer to the "at least somewhat plausible"-scale. But JJ Abrams apparently has a boner for blowing up planets, he did it twice in Trek09 and god-how-many-times in Force Awakens. He has to be the director with most planets going boom in history. That doesn't stop planets exploding being the dumbest thing from science not-anymore-fiction-but-fantasy that is the most easy to spot if you want to filter your science fiction from the B-movie schlock-y kind.

When Trek Blows up a planet it is usually more plausible (Genesis, Veridian Iii, Praxis as a moon)

 

[TheSubCommander]

We may, of course, get neither. With all the rumours flying around, it can be easy to forget something included in an official announcement, (from the Variety announcement: )


Taken literally this would suggest it's not set in either the Abrams or Prime continuities; or even if it is set in one of them, it's in a way that emphasizes the new and unfamiliar regardless.

That is also a very distinct possibility, that I didn't list in my previous reply, but also have considered. A third continuity. If that is the way they end up going, I am interested in seeing how they pull it off. It does have the advantage of not being landlocked in a certain era (IE being set between TUC and TNG), but at the same time, if it is its own timeline with no connection to the others at all, and is too radically different, then it becomes just a sci fi show. Even if they go their own way, I would still like to see a clearly established connection to the previous continuities, preferably the prime one.

 

[Kegg]

It does have the advantage of not being landlocked in a certain era (IE being set between TUC and TNG), but at the same time, if it is its own timeline with no connection to the others at all, and is too radically different, then it becomes just a sci fi show.

Bryan Fuller's last TV series, Hannibal, was not in continuity with any previous adaptation of the Hannibal Lecter character, but it freely mixed and matched inspirations from across the body of Hannibal Lecter works. It's entirely possible he intends to have a similar a la carte attitude to Star Trek, remixing various well known elements to new results - and all we know for sure is that the show's few hints of what it is like (as in this Nicholas Meyer interview), suggest the emphasis is on new, and different.