You’re correct about the current world we live in. I went to war to help our economic trading partners whose economies affected our own. Kuwait’s occupation did not directly affect us and despite the peaceful embargo threats, Saddam continued to assert his claim of rightful conquest. It was also our military stance after the ceasefire that prevented Saddam’s expansion and the embargoes embittered the Iraqis against us when we finally decided to dethrone him. History does not only consist of WW2 as an example. the same thing has been happening for millenia. Tibet and Kosovo are polar opposites of bellicose decisions. Rome fell from internal dissension and civil war when those energies could have been better spent keeping the borders secure in offensive actions. The problems we face now have always plagued empires. We just happen to be lucky enough to be somewhat isolated an our economic empire is falling apart due to our society’s inability to adapt to the fact that the world is changing.
We have to protect that empire and a soft and weak military will cause that economic empire to be taken advantage of. You can use post war Germany and Japan as examples of weak military and economic growth but remember that their economies were heavily subsidized by our military might protecting their trade from others who would take it from them. I’ll just mention the Ukraine for a contemporary example and you can research the history, both economically and politically and come to your own conclusion.
New Star Trek TV Series 2017
-
Yeah… confusing to say the least. If there is one thing I dislike about capitalism is the way property laws get in the way of “art”. Granted, property laws aren’t the blocker, it’s the people/companies involved. I mean I cannot blame them for doing things in the best interests of their companies either, but the results tend to form a compromise from a creative aspect.
-
Yeah… confusing to say the least. If there is one thing I dislike about capitalism is the way property laws get in the way of “art”. Granted, property laws aren’t the blocker, it’s the people/companies involved. I mean I cannot blame them for doing things in the best interests of their companies either, but the results tend to form a compromise from a creative aspect.
To use MGM as an example, it’s been pointed out that although the studio’s official motto is “Ars Gratia Artis” (“Art for the sake of art” in Latin), the fact remains that MGM is fundamentally a multi-billion corporation. If a person wants “art for the sake of art” in the movie world, their best bet is to watch the creative output of film students who are still in university and who shoot their productions with budgets equivalent to the price of an extra-large cappuccino at Starbuck’s.
-
@CWO:
To use MGM as an example, it’s been pointed out that although the studio’s official motto is “Ars Gratia Artis” (“Art for the sake of art” in Latin), the fact remains that MGM is fundamentally a multi-billion corporation. If a person wants “art for the sake of art” in the movie world, their best bet is to watch the creative output of film students who are still in university and who shoot their productions with budgets equivalent to the price of an extra-large cappuccino at Starbuck’s.
Good comparison. I can appreciate the purity of such a medium (independent or amateur work), but more often than not it is not of a subject matter that interests me or scale and overall quality that cannot match a large, studio production. Unfortunate, but just reality. There are few film directors today who can operate in that near-complete level of control over their art. Studios are reticent to give that blank checkbook and complete creative control considering how much money Hollywood films spend per production. Guys like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino appear to be guys in that category. Stanley Kubrick had to be one also. They have established a track record to get to where they are. Even though I may not like everything they make, it is unarguably quality production.
A very similar thing is true of the music industry. Big labels are pretty conservative about the stuff they let their artists do… much of it is down to a formula to cater to what will have broad appeal. It takes subtlety and a proven track record for an artist to circumvent the industry’s overlords and truly blaze a creative trail. Seems like the mainstream music (and film) industry has become so focused and scientific since the early 2000s; every move is a financial calculation. I mean, it has always been that way to some degree (I still find it very hard to comprehend how Jimmy Page, back in the 60s, was able to wrest complete creative and production control from Atlantic Records… before Led Zeppelin even mad their first record at that! - I don’t think that could ever happen today), but it is especially so now.
Case in point would be a band called Falling Up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Up_(band)) that I have followed since their first release in 2004. Initially they began as a Christian Alt-Rock band on Christian label BEC. They had a very pleasant, interesting, edgy sound that was highly marketable, even if it was not totally unique (their first album “Crashings” could draw comparisons to Linkin Park). They probably reached peak popularity with their second and third albums, the latter of which was a record of unusually tasteful remixes. Come 2007, Falling Up began trending in a more enigmatic direction. The sound of their fourth album “Captiva” was still pretty standard alternative fare, but introduced some more elements of electronica and particularly unusual lyrics. One song was noticeably different in sound and construction from all the rest and was clearly a studio-driven demand for a radio-friendly single.
Falling Up’s next album would cement a complete creative departure from standard Christian-label rock music. “Fangs” was essentially a concept album which told a fantasy story. Honestly, I have no idea how they were able to record such an album on a label given how unconventional it was and how different it sounded than everything else in the genre. I am not sure how successful the record was, but the creative differences were so apparent between the band and the studio that Falling Up separated from BEC afterwards and subsequently disbanded.
Shortly after that, Falling Up returned tentatively for a fifth album but this time recorded and produced it independently and crowd funded the project for somewhere around $12,000. What came of this was a truly stunning musical masterpiece. “Your Sparkling Death Cometh” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Sparkling_Death_Cometh) was released in 2011 and (in my opinion) became their most incredible and beautiful work. It cemented a particular sound and identity for the band which they seemed to have previously been searching for and nearly found on Fangs. Your Sparkling Death Cometh would set much of the tone for their following projects up to and including their final album, self-titled as “Falling Up”, which was released just last year.
To me, Falling Up’s journey in the music industry is perhaps the model for the ideal creative process and being able to truly, finally shape your art: beginning in the system, learning things, getting some needed “polish”, having success and finding out what your imposed limitations are and how you want to grow organically from there. They were good to begin with, but they only got better and better as time went on until they just exploded after the limitations were finally gone and they were no longer beholden to anyone but themselves and their fans.
If this at all sounds intriguing to anyone here, I really encourage you to check them out. Their sound may not please everyone, but it is pleasant, highly creative, unique and very raw in terms of its purity and honesty. http://fallinguplives.com/ https://fallingup.bandcamp.com/music
-
-
More rumours:
Hmmm… nice find Flash. This is very compelling.
To me this is nothing but good news. I have no idea how accurate all the claims and assumptions are, but I hope that most if not all are true.
The serial/season anthologies is a unique concept to Star Trek and I think it would provide a welcome change from the standard 7 season long marathon. With serialized tv shows these days, I can very much relate to the fatigue factor (I think of Sons of Anarchy). Often it becomes like watching a very, very long movie. You can’t miss episodes or there is a gap in your understanding. Plus, with Sons, the story arc was fairly logical, but by season 5 it felt like how many more bad things can we throw in to extend the series. A season anthology would break that format up into more manageable and defined portions.
Taking place in the Prime timeline is my number one request. That eliminates the issues of the JJ stuff, but introduces Enterprise-like problems if set as a prequel of sorts. This could be mitigated if the show is not about the crew of the Enterprise, but I almost always find the visual aspect of a prequel-Trek jarring. Example: Enterprise is how many years before TOS?, but obviously a show filmed in the early 2000s will have more modern style than a show filmed in the 60s… even though the older show is supposed to be the more advanced time. Whatever. It is what it is. I just can’t see this new show (if set between TOS and TNG) using the uniforms from Undiscovered Country/“Yesterday’s Enterprise”/“Tapestry”, etc… which they would likely need to do for total continuity.
I am splitting hairs.
-
Interesting find, but I’ll keep my enthusiasm in check until something more authoritative turns up. The article to which the link was provided is a third-hand account of information the author got from a blog called “birth movies death”, whose blogger in turn says that he’s “heard” some interesting rumours about what era the show will be set in. He doesn’t say where or from whom he’s heard these rumours. The closest he comes to making any attribution is in the sentence where he says that “a trusted source” told him that “it looks like” the show will be an anthology. So once again, unfortunately, we’re reading statements which provide no corroboration for what they’re saying and, on top of that, which are vague in nature and diluted by qualifiers of the “it looks like” type. I supposed that’s an inevitable consequence of the studio being so secretive about their plans for the show: people will be tempted to fill the information vacuum in which CBS is keeping us. The only certainty we can count on is the fact that CBS can’t keep it up forever because the show is due to air early next year.
-
I will take any hope I can get. Dashing it can’t be any worse than what has already happened to the modern Star Trek franchise.
-
I do so crave for some good Star Trek. And personally, I love tie-ins and any connections to events future and past so much more than a new complete stand alone. Like with Enterpise, when they did Soong / Augments, T’Pau, Section 31. Of course there are also many fans who want something new and unrelated.
More Star Trek, less planetoid-sized superweapons :)
-
@alexgreat:
More Star Trek, less planetoid-sized superweapons :)
Haha! Amen!
-
-
thx for that!
The only real question I have, namely the timeline, they do not answer, oc.
Oh well, and if the Romulans are featured heavily ;)
-
http://www.startrek.com/article/new-star-trek-series-premieres-january-2017
This article is from November of last year and doesn’t say anything we don’t already know. Just curious why you posted it… maybe you saw something I didn’t?
I did latch on to the phrase “all new” which, if I have read it before, it never sank in. It both means something and absolutely nothing at the same time though.
-
didnt check if that has been brought up here already, but its very well made and fits nicely into the temporal cold war story: Star Trek Horizon
-
RIP Anton. Very sad, such a great actor :(
As for the second Beyond trailer, thats beyond what I can take…
-
@alexgreat:
RIP Anton. Very sad, such a great actor :(
Yeah, man that sucks. Read that last night.
-
Is the funeral in Leningrad?
-
Star Trek TV series to begin filming in Toronto this fall, CBS confirms
New show to make its debut in January 2017
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/star-trek-tv-filming-toronto-1.3562759
-
http://www.startrek.com/article/introducing-the-u-s-s-discovery
Introducing the U.S.S. Discovery
StarTrek.com Staff
July 23, 2016And the name of the newest Star Trek television series is… Star Trek: Discovery, with the show’s hero ship called the U.S.S. Discovery (NCC-1031). Executive Producer Bryan Fuller revealed the details and debuted the logo today during a standing-room-only “Star Trek 50th Anniversary” panel in Hall H at San Diego Comic-Con.
-
There’s a short video showing the new ship here…
http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/new-star-trek-discovery-show-launches-january-2017/
…plus a note saying “Bryan Fuller has confirmed at the after-panel press conference that Discovery will be set in the Prime Trek timeline, but will not yet confirm the timeframe.”
-
Thanks for keeping the discussion updated Marc. I read this the other day and didn’t even think to post it.
So… there she is. Not much to look at if you ask me. A couple nice design elements, but the overall geometry of the hull is… bold to put it mildly. Looks like a giant XB-70 with a saucer on the front. Or a Klingon K’T’inga. Apparently this is extremely close to a ship design put forth for the very first Star Trek film back in the 1970s, which was never made.
Also supposedly, the ship above is not the ‘final’ design. Such that Bryan Fuller stated, “[The influence of the McQuarrie art is] to a point where we legally can�t comment on it until we figure out some things.” To me, this says that they simply need approval to use the design or significantly borrow elements from it, before it can be official. Only a matter of time. http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/star-trek-discovery-producer-says-ship-designs-not-final/
What all this alludes to is very interesting however. The McQuarrie Design/Art/Model, abandoned and never used in the planned Star Trek film, was actually used in The Next Generation episode “Unification Part I”. You can see the ship in the foreground shot of the orbital junkyard (attached pic). Thus, the ship actually has canonical basis.
While I am not down on the design very much, a) it could be worse and b) if the writers/production team actually delved into obscurity to both come up with the design and find an in-universe basis for it… well that is darn impressive and deserves a standing ovation. They get a lot of respect from me for that alone. God knows how much easier it is to just make up something cool and new (e.g. Enterprise NX-class) and say F*** the whole continuity thing. IF they did all this purposely, they deserve a tremendous amount of credit. It had to be Mike Okuda’s doing.
See video in article below for a more detailed look:
http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/new-star-trek-discovery-show-launches-january-2017/What this also tells me, again, IF done deliberately, is that the timeframe is somewhere between TOS and TNG. Fuller has already admitted to it being in the Prime timeline and the history of this ship design points to post-TOS and maybe pre- or very near to ST:TMP. Several elements of the ship indicate this also. The saucer is almost perfectly circular and the recessed/domed portions of it are quite similar to those of the Constitution-refit, Miranda and Excelsior designs. The deflector dish is very much like that of the Excelsior. The aft portions of the nacelles appear to be throwback in nature and have a cowling-like hood extending beyond the actual endpoint. Perhaps the most notable feature is the point-emplacement phaser banks, shown as pairs of raised bumps around the saucer. These were used on the TOS-era ships, including Constitution-refit, Miranda and Excelsior. TNG-era (and pre-TNG, ex. Ambassador class) ships use a more modern phaser strip which extends around the saucer and other portions of the ship. This is very noticeably absent.
They say that this design was thrown together in 3-weeks specifically for this teaser. So the design isn’t final, but I would be surprised if it is radically different from what they showed here. The ‘legal’ aspect of what Fuller brought up seems to reinforce that they are waiting on some sort of property rights approval. Thirdly, this is a very specific ship design and I do not see why they would publicize something so recognizable and unique without planning to use it directly or borrow from it significantly.
Suggested Topics
