Watched the trailer - not impressed. This looks like a fan film.
Not to mention, if it is supposed to take place 10 years before Kirk’s mission, the Enterprise NCC-1701 should already be out there under Captain Pike. The uniforms should look the same or similar as in ‘The Cage’. Looks like a hot mess from a continuity standpoint.
interesting. I never really checked how long Pike commanded the Enterprise before Kirk.
Not to mention, if it is supposed to take place 10 years before Kirk’s mission, the Enterprise NCC-1701 should already be out there under Captain Pike. The uniforms should look the same or similar as in ‘The Cage’. Looks like a hot mess from a continuity standpoint.
I have resigned myself to the fact that timeline continuity (particularly as it comes to aesthetics) in a sci-fi franchise is not going to happen. I don’t think that it has to be that way; art departments could easily spiff up 1960s designs (uniforms, ships, etc.) without changing them considerably. But from a branding standpoint, I know that will never happen. The show has to be new and slick and modern to appeal to a modern audience, regardless of its place on the timeline. At least that is what studio execs think.
Last weekend I was listening to the audio commentary track (by Rick Berman and Brannon Braga) to the pilot episode of the Enterprise series. At one point, one of them remarked that one of the things they’ve learned over the years is that no matter what they do with the show they will never please all the fans: for every fan who loves what the studio did with such-and-such an element, there will be another fan who will hate it. To pick just one example, there were fans who loved the fact that Enterprise was set a century before TOS, and there were fans who felt adamantly that the series should have been set after VOY rather than having gone backwards. It’s the inevitable result of the fact that Trek fans are diverse, are passionate about the show, and are opinionated. B&B described Trek fans as a contentious group, but in my opinion that’s not a bad thing: if all Trek fans accepted uncritically anything that the studio produced, the studio would have no incentive to try to produce quality work; and if Trek fans didn’t care about the show, it wouldn’t have lasted (in various incarnations) for half a century. Just to quote one set of statistics: when Enterprise wrapped up, it marked the end of 18 consecutive years of episodic television production on Star Trek, which saw the production of 624 episodes of 25 seasons of 4 distinct series, bringing the overall total to 704 live-action Trek episodes (not counting the movies or The Animated Series). That’s not something which gets seen very often in the world of TV production.
@CWO:
B&B described Trek fans as a contentious group, but in my opinion that’s not a bad thing: if all Trek fans accepted uncritically anything that the studio produced,
[…] they would be Star Wars fans. :lol:
@CWO:
Just to quote one set of statistics: when Enterprise wrapped up, it marked the end of 18 consecutive years of episodic television production on Star Trek, which saw the production of 624 episodes of 25 seasons of 4 distinct series, bringing the overall total to 704 live-action Trek episodes (not counting the movies or The Animated Series). That’s not something which gets seen very often in the world of TV production.
That is very impressive and a testament to both the concept of Star Trek and the legacy of people invested in developing the concept. Change or progress, in some form, must happen. So we have to take the good with the bad. Hindsight will provide some perspective, like it does now on TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
However, the prequel genre is relatively new in Star Trek. Enterprise still provokes mixed reviews from fans and few legacy Trek fans (whose conception of Trek comes from the different TV series) approve of the narrative and style shown in the JJ Abrams prequels. I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with telling prequel stories, the most important part is getting the ‘storytelling’ aspect right. Meaning the fundamental character of Star Trek and why people like it. If that can be done well, the aesthetics and more shallow aspects production will become acceptable.
The Abrams Trek films are more of a “requel” to TOS than a prequel, since most of what they show takes place in what is nominally the same era as TOS (albeit in a different version of that era) and reprises the same characters. ENT was a true prequel, as will be the new Discovery show. Though I’ve heard the interesting argument that the Abrams films are partially a reboot of TOS and partially a continuation of the overall primary Trek timeline because a character from that primary timeline (the original Spock) got looped back into the alternate timeline of the reboot films.
At any rate, I agree that the prequel concept in and of itself isn’t (for me personally) what makes me like or dislike a Trek TV series or film series. And in a sense I don’t have a particular issue with the visual style of the Abrams films in and of itself; what bothers me about those films is that they don’t have much substance or coherence to them. They not only put too much emphasis on the action-adventure elements, they also don’t seem to be overly concerned about whether the action pieces and the overall story make much sense (“Beyond” being the most glaring example of this problem in my opinion). There’s no reason why a high-octane action thriller can’t have a coherent and engaging storyline, combined with well-developed characters: the Nicholas Cage / Sean Connery film The Rock is one example of how this can be done.
@CWO:
The Abrams Trek films are more of a “requel” to TOS than a prequel, since most of what they show takes place in what is nominally the same era as TOS (albeit in a different version of that era) and reprises the same characters. ENT was a true prequel, as will be the new Discovery show. Though I’ve heard the interesting argument that the Abrams films are partially a reboot of TOS and partially a continuation of the overall primary Trek timeline because a character from that primary timeline (the original Spock) got looped back into the alternate timeline of the reboot films.
The Abrams films are less of a prequel and more of a reboot, as you said. Also as you implied, an argument could be made that Abrams movies are a continuation of what many call the “Prime”/original timeline. Not something wholly separate. Because Leonard Nimoy’s Spock somehow went back in time after events in the Prime timeline, his presence and the resultant impact of it changed the subsequent history of the Prime timeline as we knew it. There are a number of inconsistencies in the 2009 film that could very easily argue that isn’t the case, but that is another discussion. For what it is worth, when I first saw the 2009 Trek with Spock going into the ‘past’ and then the destruction of Vulcan… I recognized the timeline implications I just mentioned and my reaction was “Well they have gone and royally F-ed up Star Trek.” Threw a grenade all over TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY; effectively making it so those events never occurred. The linear Star Trek timeline that progressed up to the point of Nemesis (2380) would never again be revisited in the form everyone understood, because those events now never happened. Kinda like Star Wars did with the Expanded Universe literature when the made Episode VII.
Threw a grenade all over TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY; effectively making it so those events never occurred. The linear Star Trek timeline that progressed up to the point of Nemesis (2380) would never again be revisited in the form everyone understood, because those events now never happened.
Not necessarily, because it depends on which unprovable theory one chooses to believe about the fictional art of time travel. One of the competing theories is that there’s a single timeline and that each incursion into the past screws it up more and more. The alternate theory is that every incursion into the past creates branching timelines: the original intact one and a screwed-up new one, which exist in parallel from that moment forward. I don’t think Trek has ever formally committed itself on which theory it follows…if, indeed, it even sticks to following a single theory consistently, which it probably doesn’t.
In real-world terms, of course, the reason that the reboot films created a changed timeline, and the reason that ENT used the concept of the Temporal Cold War, was to allow any inconsistencies between the new stuff and the old stuff to be explained semi-rationally as being the result of timeline changes. It’s an explanation that will satisfy fans who don’t want Trek to be straightjacketed and which won’t satisfy fans who value consistency.
Ironically, one of the problems that Trek has run into over the decades – due to its sheer longevity – is that fictional Trek events that were set “in the future” from the point of view of when a particular episode was produced have been overtaken by events in the real world, meaning that later Trek series have had to revise the timing or the nature of those fictional events to take into account the fact that they never happened in real life. It’s a side effect of the peculiar relationship that Trek and real life have had with each other. (My favourite example is the fictional TOS starship Enterprise leading to the name Enterprise being given a real-world Space Shuttle prototype, which later shows up as a historical spacecraft in the fictional world of ST:TMP and ENT.)
@CWO:
Threw a grenade all over TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY; effectively making it so those events never occurred. The linear Star Trek timeline that progressed up to the point of Nemesis (2380) would never again be revisited in the form everyone understood, because those events now never happened.
Not necessarily, because it depends on which unprovable theory one chooses to believe about the fictional art of time travel. One of the competing theories is that there’s a single timeline and that each incursion into the past screws it up more and more. The alternate theory is that every incursion into the past creates branching timelines: the original intact one and a screwed-up new one, which exist in parallel from that moment forward. I don’t think Trek has ever formally committed itself on which theory it follows…if, indeed, it even sticks to following a single theory consistently, which it probably doesn’t.
Yeah, that is what I was getting at. There are two possibilities: a single timeline that is screwed up or multiple timelines unique from each other. At the time I saw Star Trek in 2009, I fell into the former belief. And still lean that way now. It is a nerd argument, but one that is worth having from an academic point of view.
@CWO:
In real-world terms, of course, the reason that the reboot films created a changed timeline, and the reason that ENT used the concept of the Temporal Cold War, was to allow any inconsistencies between the new stuff and the old stuff to be explained semi-rationally as being the result of timeline changes. It’s an explanation that will satisfy fans who don’t want Trek to be straightjacketed and which won’t satisfy fans who value consistency.
That is a convenient excuse for cinema and media production. I accept it for what it is, but believe it to be a weak reason. Again, with all the different people who have had and will have their hands in Trek productions (many of which are not long-time fans), consistency or even explanation for events is rarely a priority.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/06/star-trek-discovery-launches-september-24/
STAR TREK: DISCOVERY Launches September 24
By TrekCore Staff - June 19, 2017
Revealed today by Variety, the long-awaited launch of the Trek TV revival will finally occur on September 24, with the first episode airing on CBS’s television network, and a second episode immediately available to follow on the CBS All Access streaming service.
The series will launch Sunday, Sept. 24 at 8:30 p.m. / 7:30c on CBS, though that time is approximate due to NFL Football and “60 Minutes” also airing that night. The series premiere will also be available on-demand on CBS All Access and the second episode of the series will be available on the service that same night immediately following the broadcast premiere.
After premiere night, all new episodes will be available on-demand weekly on Sundays exclusively for CBS All Access subscribers in the U.S. The 15-episode season will be released in two parts. The first eight episodes will run from Sept. 24 through Nov. 5. The season will then resume in January 2018.
Anyone else watch the premier last night? Not fair to judge the series after only watching the pilot, but any reactions are welcome. I did not watch episode 2 since it was only on CBS All Access.
I give it a 4/10. That may be generous. I disliked much more than I liked. Some things were just annoying others were maddening.
Enterprise was unwatchable. I have tried, for nostaliga’s sake, to watch the last season over and over, I cannot proceed, Captain.
The captain was a milksop. His goofy behavior combined with punch em ups was incomprehensible and silly. As much as I wanted to like characters like Floxx, again, they were goofy and candycane like. The B tier crew were wooden and unengaging.
This is from someone who came to love DS9, have watched it beginning to end, 3-4 times. Would do it again. Its often silly, with 3-4 throwaway episodes per season…about baseball…losing a baby in time warp…its like the lowest end western or soap opera but it and Voyager are at least watchable, with a few engaging storylines to rely on.
I don’t buy “it wont appeal to everyone” that is a massive excuse and cop out. Of course it wont, but you still have to try. Diverging from key principles and tenets of the original idea, having incoherent characters, none of this had to happen. STNTG feels hungry. It feels experimental. No one liked the first 1-2 seasons because they have so many unusual plotlines involving god-like beings and time travel, etc. but they still feel hungry and in the spirit of TOS, Doctor Who, etc.
The approach since Voyager is so vanilla and standardized, written in committee, with an audience of insiders only.
The whole debacle with Star Trek Axanar shows the whole game–putting one’self into the movie is childish and its stuffed with cameos but all you have to do is watch it to see that even a very dedicated fan-based movie can be FAR better than anything made in the past 15 years. It feels true to the spirit–we want to see a dingy, dark *@#$@ Klingon War. Not a soap opera! Don’t you get it?
4/10 seems about right. My buddy hit the nail on the head with a Game of Thrones comparison to the Klingons; in addition to that it just felt like this series already lacks originality.
That said we already caved in and split a subscription to watch the second episode.
4/10 seems about right. My buddy hit the nail on the head with a Game of Thrones comparison to the Klingons; in addition to that it just felt like this series already lacks originality.
That said we already caved in and split a subscription to watch the second episode.
Haven’t watched GoT, but even I can see similarities in the cinematography and dark, moody set decoration. The Discovery bridge was awful in that regard.
Why these new movies and shows feel the need to re-invent the look of Trek’s most species, I have no idea. There is some flimsy rationale that Klingon aesthetics have evolved over time. Which is false, or at least misrepresentative. The original Klingon look from TOS was revised by the end of that series and settled on in the TOS movies. TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT retained that standardized look. Star Trek Into Darkness changed it, so the Discovery people see justification in changing it again. Stupid. The DSC Klingons look ridiculous and overdone. So much prosthetic and makeup that I doubt they can become expressive characters. At least not like they used to be.
I don’t see any of them being a new Gowron.
If you hate the design aesthetic of JJ Trek along with the film-making sensibility that came with it you’l hate this.
Aside from how it is bad Trek this thing is unwatchable. The Klingon ship is an eye sore. Lens Flares (no, really.) Shaky-cam. Spinning cam. Dutch angles and editing that leads to a rocking boat sensation. This thing is unwatchable before you get to it being bad Trek.
If you want Trek as it would be directed by Michael Bay ST:Discovery is for you.
I liked Michele Yeoh but I always like her.
Lens Flares (no, really.)
Way too many of these. Usually for no reason at all. There wasn’t even light present to make it happen, they just threw them in because that is apparently what Star Trek looks like now.
Lens Flares (no, really.)
Way too many of these. Usually for no reason at all. There wasn’t even light present to make it happen, they just threw them in because that is apparently what Star Trek looks like now.
The lighting choices were a mess in that first hour. It was very difficult to watch before you even get to the story.
just seen it until the…I dont know the correct English…title song? I saw this in German, which is almost always bad, so reserve my judgment for the original voices. It was too colloquial for me, in any case, but maybe thats the translation.
Interesting Klingon scene, but as always, who cares for those retarded warriors when the ever intriguing Romulans could have been had instead :)
I liked how they dispatched the walking dead. Daryl just kicks ass on that show and Megan will soon meet his fate.
@Imperious:
I liked how they dispatched the walking dead. Daryl just kicks ass on that show and Megan will soon meet his fate.
Yeah, Negan getting a sex change at the end of the season really threw me. Good plot twist.
OMG i must have missed that part. No wonder why the show never had him having sex with women! I thought it was a cleanliness issue. Whew!
