They also invented computers that don't understand Scottish accents...
They also invented computers that don't understand Scottish accents...
It's coming in Jan 2017.Originally Posted by lotjx
How would people feel about the TV show being set in the new film universe, but in the TNG period? Gives them more scope to play with due to the new timeline, as they can still look into a possible collapse of the Federation along with war with the Romulan. Then in the ideal world at the end of season 1 you get the first hint of the Borg being on their way, then nothing till the end of the next season when it ends with the sight of a Borg fleet on the outskirts of the Alpha quadrant. Season 3 would show dribs and drabs of them building up the season 3 finale where the invasion happens.
The thing about setting it after Voyager would be the bastardisation of the Borg, if they hadn't been ruined in that show then yeah go for it.
Setting it in the film Universe is setting it in the TNG universe. It is the same Universe. Star Trek established their rules of time travel long ago. Parallel universes exist in Trek but they aren't created by changes in the timeline. If you go back in time and change something that action changes the timeline and deletes everything that went before.
I don't want anymore rehashes. Something entirely new please.
And by "new" I mean in terms of setting and time line. Not "This'll get the kids watching! We've got one of the Kardashians playing a Vulcan!
Sorry, I meant set it in the TNG period of time but in the new film universe where Vulcan is destroyed etc.
I remember there being rumours (years ago) of a Trek show set in the Federation academy back on Earth, that always seemed like a poor idea.
No more 'stuck in the Holosuite' stories. Most of them came across as "I have a great idea for a gangster/western/Victorian era/Civil War/Roaring 20's/counterculture 60's story that I wanna pitch... but since I'm stuck working on a 23rd/24th century setting of a Star Trek series, how do I shoehorn this in....?"
Yep. Those Tom Paris holodeck episodes were awful.
Fair Haven. Jesus Christ.
Voyager could've been such a great show.
The Maquis should have mutinied in season two. As for the film, it looks like a weird combo of Star Trek III and IV. In Star Trek III, they blow up the Enteprise and most of the cast is stuck on a planet. Star Trek IV was the more fun one with a lot of characters pairing up. Granted neither of them had new aliens and catchy 20th Century music. Still, it makes sense after Into Darkness being Wrath of Khan with a lot of post 9-11 shit.
Voyager obviously had a state-of-the-art facility for building shuttles, not to mention torpedoes. I think all the holodeck stories and shuttle crash stories and Borg stories were an easy way to pad out a 26 episode season. With 13 episodes, you can keep a tighter narrative and have actual character arcs, which is the model that the new show should follow.
Voyager had some stellar episodes spread out over the 7 years, but they dwelled too much on dumb action with the latest hard-headed aliens of the week shooting at them and making sparks fly on the bridge. I didn't think I could get bored of space battles until Enterprise came along and had a shooting war with someone almost every other week. When the Enterprise D came under attack, it was an event because it only happened a handful of times each season and it was rare that the ship was actually in danger of being destroyed.
That's true but with the D it was almost ridiculous. Those damn galaxy class ships were too fucking badass. I think they were just trying to stress the vulnerability of the ship with all those battles on Enterprise. The D would get pummeled for 20 minutes by three Romulan ships and all that would happen is "Shields down to 20 percent". Then boom LaForge gets the weapons system back on line and the D blows every ship into fucking spacedust with one shot.
Last edited by Rancid_Planet; December 16th, 2015 at 5:16 PM.
Aha this must be one of the geekiest conversations in ages. Where have you lot been all these years?
One of my favourite Galaxy moments is during the battle to retake DS9. The Federation fleet makes a run through the Dominion lines, set to awesome music I might add. A Cardassian cruiser takes a few cheeky pot-shots at the passing ships. And in swoop two Galaxy-class ships from the right of the frame, pulverising it with phasers. Those wrinkly-necked bastards were fucked.
Sacrifice of Angels is one of the best Star Trek battles of all time. It might also be their best DS9 episode.
I never appreciated DS9 enough the first time. I've recently gone back and watched them on Netflix and it's just so much better to me now. I'd say Voyager actually had slightly better character development but DS9 was just the fucking tits in every other way.
Voyager could have been one of the best shows on television if the producers and writers had some discipline. The ship having very limited resources should have made every episode matter, and if the show ever was cancelled it would have been pretty easy to set up a bittersweet endpoint where they fail to get home. I think if it were produced today, it could be something pretty special, but I guess back then you just had to have 26 episodes and as many explosions as the budget could provide.
Battlestar Galactica is what Voyager should have been - a ship on the run, conflict between the characters and actually working towards getting to a destination rather than just sailing through space and hoping some wormhole would pop up to help them. It's interesting that DS9 managed to challenge the values and ethics of the Federation, whereas Voyager - stranded in a dangerous area of the universe and on limited supplies for about half of season 1 - clung to them somewhat illogically. There's an episode called "Alliances" where Janeway needs to be convinced to let go of the Starfleet rule book and seek out an ally against the Kazon. This ally turns out to be just as "bad" as the Kazon, and the episode ends with Janeway coming to the conclusion that what they really need to do is stick to the Starfleet principles even more. It was a good episode, ultimately let down by a bizarre ending which reset the temporary flirtation with existing outside of the prime directive.
I remember that episode. Janeway's textbook idealism was annoying early on, but I always assumed it would build to some kind of mutiny. They flirted with it now and again, and the ingredients were there with the Maquis having been absorbed into the crew, but they'd hit that reset button every time.
I loved the new incarnation of BSG and Caprica. I have not seen Blood & Chrome yet, but damn I miss these characters. I wish they would come back for one more season, either show.
Janeway was a terrible captain. Not a bad or uninteresting person mind you. Just a bad captain.
While I appreciate the milestone, I think they may have written themselves into a corner by having her be their first leading female captain. She couldn't be allowed to fail, or to be too radical, or else it could easily be interpreted as "because she's a woman". So then they have a completely alien scenario and try to shoe-horn a prototypical Starfleet captain into it. At times they seemed to write that into the character, which was interesting, but a bit awkward as it was the 24th century and nobody was supposed to give a crap about her gender so Janeway hinting at it being a source of pressure felt a bit forced.
Speaking of gender, that reminds me of that episode where they came across a three-gender society. Just talking about such things was pretty radical back then. Or was it Enterprise? Either way, it is incredibly disappointing to look at the new Star Trek trailer in light of the social commentary and philosophical exploration that the TV series were capable of.
That's the fucking heart of the show. If the next show doesn't go that route then i wont be interested.
I mean I'll still watch and bitch about it of course.
I do wonder in this outrage culture if they can do social commentary shows. I also worry about what that social commentary is. The producers said they designed Spock to be George W. Bush and Kirk to be Obama. They also had commentary in Into Darkness, but it was mostly terrorist this and should we bomb this planet for no reason. I would rather Star Trek just build characters in the first season and then do the commentary later. I just hope the characters they build are not cookie cutters. TNG and DS9 did a nice job of making characters that seem fresh and new. DS9 did an amazing job of taking what you thought a character was going to be an radically changed them around. I also kinda hope they do an anthology show that ties together. Season One, we deal with a new Enterprise crew, but the next seasons deal with the Klingons and the Romulans or a new race. Tie all together in season five or something. Trek is better when they push boundaries.
Anthology show might not be a bad idea actually.
Did you get Spock and Kirk the other way round there?
Not that remember. I could be wrong. All I could think about was how stupid of an idea that was. Kirk and Spock are fucking Kirk and Spock.
So, despite the idea being stupid, it still makes sense to you that someone would say "let's have Spock be like George W. Bush"?
No. None of it made sense.
Where did he say that? He said it was stupid. And how did stupid translate to making sense?
My point was that I was guessing lot just made a typo with regards to Obama and Bush, because of the well established connection between Obama and Spock in popular culture. Lot doesn't seem to think it's a typo and that they actually were saying that Spock was written to be like Bush.
That sums up Into Darkness as a whole.
I read an interview where Justin Lin pretty much said they're ignoring most of the BS STID introduced, like the cross-galaxy transporters and cure-the-dead Khan blood. Two movies into the revamped franchise, and the second movie is their 'Spock's Brain' entry.
The ID:2 trailer and ST:Beyond trailer played before Star Wars and people cheered for both, but more for Beyond. Maybe it was just the excitement of seeing it on a big screen, but it made me want to see it even more then I did before.
That's not fair to Spock's Brian. Spock's Brain was much better than Into Darkness. Futuristic women with their man slaves, ion drives and superior everything. Damn fine world.
not much to discuss with little to no information out yet, but I'm still thoroughly excited for this
I'm already more excited for this than the current movies.
FAR more excited for this.
So the rumor mill is swirling pretty heavily with the idea that this will be a seasonal anthology ala American Horror Story, True Detective, etc. The first season will be set someone between Undiscovered Country and TNG. Open Universe after that.
Grain of salt and all that of course.
In the mean time, I've got a galactic boner.
That's a tremendous idea. I'd love it.
New trailer for Star Trek: Beyond
Certainly better than the first trailer. It seems like the characters are split up but most have something to do, which would be a nice change if true. I'm still not excited by seeing the Enterprise wrecked yet again. Looks like the new ship is styled on the NX class from the Enterprise series.
Yeah I think at the end you can definitely see a ship like the NX-01, maybe they bring that back somehow?
It looks better. Still hate seeing the Enterprise destroyed.
Maybe they drag the NX-01 out of mothballs.
Early reviews looking solid. I'm pretty excited.
Love the early reviews. It's quite a relief after the last film.
the last film was fucking good I don't care what you cunts say
I liked it.
It would have be fine if it hadn't devolved into a point for point Wrath of Khan remake at the end.
Honestly, I think it would have been a better movie were he just some terrorist, not Khan and they avoided the whole cure for death thing at the end. I liked the first half of it a lot, but once they did the Khan reveal it fell apart for me.
It wouldn't be much of a reboot if they didn't use the characters. I thought he was great. You couldn't replace him. The first Star Trek I thought was a bit boring.
It was rubbish. Insultingly bad.
It was far from that, let's not get ahead of ourselves I mean it was hardly The Force Awakens. Zoe Saldana was the worst thing about it and Star Trek.
It was not far from that at all.
Out of curiosity, did you grow up on The Wrath of Khan?
SMH.
No but I'm only 30. My dad's the real Trekkie, he loved it.
It's been 24 hours and none of you are talking about it yet?!
Going to see it today.
Saw it today too. Despite the original trailer looking poor I actually enjoyed it a lot. Probably more than Into darkness.
Was a bit "convenient" at times but that's just Sci fi I guess.
There is a scene that broke my heart. It is the best of the new Trek. Highly recommend it.
I saw it today and really enjoyed it. They have the characters nicely bouncing off each other this time. Karl Urban is the stand-out, as he gets so much more to do than ever before and I feel like they've finally arrived at the Kirk/Spock/McCoy dynamic after seemingly favouring Kirk/Spock/Uhura in the previous films. Chris Pine continues to do a great riff on Shatner and Pegg just looks like he's having fun. There are lots of references and tributes to previous series/movies/actors, some witty banter throughout and the plot zips along.
Visually there is some great spectacle, even if the Enterprise's destruction lacks the kind of impact it could have had if Into Darkness hadn't gone down a similar route. Some of the action was cut a little too fast and close-up, particularly the hand-to-hand and phaser fights. The finale is drenched in exposition, and I think they would have been better served to keep it more simple. It's interesting how this new iteration of the franchse hangs its hat on the Original Series, but veers into long-winded Voyager technobabble on occasion. But, after one watch at least, I can forgive any gripes about the action or story because I enjoyed the characters interacting in their various situations.
More Urban is great news.
He's terrific. To think that he was considering walking away from the franchise after Into Darkness, since he was hugely sidelined in that film - he is the perfect vehicle in this movie for both comedy and helping to dig in to both Kirk and Spock's characters. Just like the original McCoy.
Star Trek: Discovery
Everything the Discovery Can Tell Us About the New Star Trek Show
Prime timeline. In between Enterprise and TOS?
Very exciting.
People are theorizing that the registration number could mean its section 31 ie the NCC-1031. I kinda hope not. I would like a Star Trek that comes back to form much like the new film was. This is a beta model of the special effects, so that is why it looks like it does. Its a weird crossover of the Federation saucer with the Klingon D-9 back.
I liked Beyond. The story was a bit contrived...ok, extremely contrived, but the action and dialogue was great. Loved the little moments along with the big things. Jayla is one of the best new trek characters ever, and I really hope she's not just a one and done character. Heck, if the new Star Trek is in the same universe at the same time, let her be a part of that ship.
Also, am I the only one who thinks the USS Discovery is very Klingon Bird of War-ish?
I watched Star Trek Beyond last night. A solid 8/10 from me.
Simon Pegg saying 'Lassie' every 2nd line was slightly annoying.
Went to this Sunday night & Monday night. Fucking love it! I'll probably go see it again this weekend at least once more if not more. Sucks that Anton is going to be gone for #4, and I really hope they don't recast the character and do a good farewell for his character. I love the continuity of a certain song showing up again. I think I know what scene broke another posters heart. It was pretty touching for Ambassador Spock to have had that in his possession all this time, and what it meant for this timelines Spock to see it. I honestly thought for a split second that this new enemy was JJ's version of the Borg at my first viewing. Glad it wasn't, cuz that would not have made sense for this new crew to come across the Borg so soon. I don't think this crew should be introduced to the Borg at all to be honest.
No, you're not, and it was brought up in the comments in the article. It could be a joint ship when the Federation and Klingons did the peace treaty and decided to worked together to combine their resources and build a ship together.
went to see this today.
enjoyed it a lot. some crap dialogue and a couple of rushed plot points but nothing to take away from the enjoyment.
another 3/5 in this series for me but easily the best of the series so far.
Even more Bones in the next film please!!!
TAPS AFF!
Thanks Mike, forgot to mention that. "Bones" was fucking spot on in this movie. And I second it, more or the same in the next installment.
"I'm a doctor Jim, not a fu.... (Beamed at last second) LOL
Pegg has gone on record saying the Borg is a TNG villain and it makes no sense to run into them. Q instead of the Squire of Gothos on the other hand...
That's why when I first saw these new guys, I was like "wait, what... Wtf! Oh, ok, phew!" Unless this new crew somehow travels into the future and meets a new TNG cast, no, it would make no sense for the TOS guys to run into them.
Changing Khan's ethnicity, making NuSulu gay/bi, bring-you-back-from-the-dead Khan blood, and transporters that let you beam from Earth to Kronos as a plot contrivance.... but introducing a NuTrek version of the Borg doesn't make sense to them? They've got a funny method of drawing the line on what makes sense....
I believe either Orci or Abrams or one of the other folks in charge said they would definitely not be recasting Chekov for future installments. He'll likely be transfered to this Trek's version of the Reliant and disappear along with Carol Marcus, Chapel and others who have been mentioned and/or seen and dismissed.
It was JJ who said they wouldn't recast him.
New Sulu is the only thing that made my eyes roll. I have no problem with gay characters, but this is another attempt to please everyone. They could have just created a gay character instead of taking a character that has been known for 50 years and making him gay. I don't even think George was happy with the decision either.
And that doesn't sound like the textbook definition of a token character?
Or maybe instead of simply attempting to please everyone they just wanted a more actual representative crew, because there are actual homosexual people among you?
George is gay in real life, Sulu was not. Reread what I wrote.
Imagine Marvel deciding to reinvent a new Iron Man movie and they make Stark gay. It wouldn't work.
What? My comment had nothing to do with whether Takei is gay or not. My comment didn't in fact have anything directly to do with Takei or Sulu either.
Sulu is not Stark. The analogy doesn't work.
Why wouldn't it?
I didn't even notice or care about him being gay. Why should or does it matter?
Maybe I misunderstood your original response p13. Sorry.
And no Mike, for me personally, I wouldn't want to watch Stark kissing other guys or being a womanizer towards men. If they ever do make a gay Iron Man, I just won't watch it.
Why didn't they just go all out and make Kirk gay?
Kirk would have been a far better choice as the gay/bi character. Shatner's Kirk probably screwed anything that moved.
Sulu was such a lazy choice as 'the gay one'.
this would make for a FANTASTIC tv show, Federation and Kilngon joint effort missions. Holy shit that would be brilliant.
There is no info on the new series right? Would be a great show. It could be called discovery for 2 reasons. Name of the ship and Federation and Klingon discovering shit together for the first time and how each group deals with it.
NM, it wouldn't make sense if the timeline is prior to TOS.
Last edited by sam_elmendorf; July 28th, 2016 at 3:17 AM.
isn't that registration number post TOS?
Not unless 17 comes before 10 in your universe.
Last edited by sam_elmendorf; July 28th, 2016 at 6:28 AM.
Why not?
Because it doesn't matter who the gay character is, it shouldn't be a talking point fullstop.
TAPS AFF!
Their stated intent to make Sulu gay was to honor Takei. Had they followed their own logic, they would have made this version of Spock gay so that Quinto wouldn't have to 'play straight'.
Of course, Spock is already a 'representative', that of being conflicted about his upbringing, a 'child of two worlds', 'controlling/hiding his emotions' and all that. Of course, being all subtle about that sort of thing is lost on audiences these days... nothing can be buried in any layer of storytelling that must be spelled out explicitly or changed from the creator's intent. That leads to the Bryan Singers of the world to say that the X-Men were never about a racial allegory, and that it was always about being LGBTQ.
If they wanted to really be representative, they probably should have race or gender-swapped another character or two... so maybe we should be wary of how many of those threads we should be pulling before it all unravels into something different altogether.
Don't think they wanted one of the leads as this was supposed to be fairly subtle, and Pegg said they didn't want a token gay character ... on balance Sulu comes off the best compromise with Takei's homage being the fitting cherry on top. So no, Quinto's Spock doesn't check all those boxes and him having to 'play straight' really has nothing to do with anything here.
Even Roddenberry commented that the only reason they never had a gay character before was that he felt it would have been too much weight for the series to bear at that time. He was wary of those threads in fact. This day and time is one where this one series can bear the weight of that one thread being pulled. Save for the few who still can't wrap their heads around it for some reason.
To be fair, it is Pegg who wrote this one and not Orci. M
Sulu being gay is fine, they probably should have cleared it with Takei first though. The rest are big mistakes though.
Why the fuck does George Takei matter in all of this? Every time I read about a new aspect of Star Trek that grumpy old arse finds fault with it in comparison to the original despite constantly saying it should be its own animal. Gay people exist and honestly as Mike said why is this even a talking point? Why would Quinto even have to "play straight"? Isn't he just acting anyway? Nothing would change significantly if he was gay. Just the Uhura parts.
Yeah, why would having the blessing of someone seen as a leading LGBTQ spokesman, someone who knew the backstory of why Roddenberry made certain creative choices when he created the series, and apparently still has a vested interest in seeng the franchise thrive... why would that matter at all?
They did 'clear' it with him beforehand. He explained why it was wrongheaded. They did it anyway. But hey, what does Takei know about gay people, anyways? Maybe they'll next lecture him about being in a Japanese detention camp and how it wasn't all that bad.
Just because he's gay doesn't mean that he has to have a casting vote over something he has nothing to do with anymore. It also doesn't mean he knows everything about all homosexuals either, you're putting far too much value in one old gay actors opinion and it's totally pointless.
Basically he wants the franchise to be faithful to the original whilst being its own thing yet it now has to jump through big gay hoops just to please him. He's a very confused old man.
SOB, you totally missunderstood why they went to George.
i'm not too sure about that......
Really Matthew. I have no problems with gay characters. Learn how to process correctly what someone writes. I havd an issue with taking an established character and turning them gay to please a certain audience. Yes, I roll my eyes when I have to watch 2 men kiss, but I still enjoy the shit out of The Walking Dead (5 gay characters up to season 6) and Fear TWD with one of it's main characters gay. So stop trying to twist my words. I don't agree with homosexuality personally, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a show or movie that has unestablished gay characters. I like watching Modern Family, wha... It has 2 gay main characters, how can that be?! Because they didn't take a beloved, established character and turn them gay to please a certain audience.
You don't agree with an aspect of human biology in which there is no choice? That sounds like you have a problem with it to me, sounds like it doesnt meet with your approval. Unless you don't consider intolerant ignorance a problem.
He should take it as an ode to his legacy and shut the fuck up. As if anyone needed to "go to George" to modernise a space soap opera for Christ's sake. No wrong has been done. George Takei just milks his moment too often these days. He should be glad the gay modern Sulu isn't one thousandth as camp as the old supposedly straight one.
"How dare that fucking faggot speak his mind about the character he originally played!"
Welcome to the twist my words camp. Me not agreeing with homosexuality is my choice. But it's also my choice that I can enjoy something that has a gay character. I just don't agree with changing an established characters gender or making them gay just to please a certain audience. Specially when some of that audience thinks it's stupid too.
I happen to have gay friends too, so get off my dick.
Good to see this template used in response to a slightly different minority. You tell many of them that you don't agree with their sexuality?
Just curious, what about homosexuality are you actually disagreeing with?
you only like gay characters in certain scenarios. marvel characters (in the comics) change all the time, white to black, man to woman, etc. it just seems like your first statement i quoted isn't that factual.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
