Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (2 Viewers)

[AndyMcKinney]

But for the actual look of the ship looking more modern than the TOS designs, that I'm less concerned with. I just accept that the people working on the show in the 1960s did their best at using the tools of their day to make the most futuristic design possible at that time and with their budget, and I can accept that people making a show today would have different freedoms and limitations. I can accept that the physical portrayal appears different, but that the different designs are still meant to represent the same objects.

And you call yourself a Star Trek fan... (wink)

Seriously, though, as I'm sure we all know, there is a (perhaps sizeable) portion of 'fandon' who will be up in arms over this show solely because the design aesthetic isn't 100% like what was seen in "The Cage".

I'm not saying that is reasonable, just that the whole thing could've been avoided by setting the show in the 24th/25th century (or even another alternative timeline).

Maybe someone on the staff just wanted to intentionally lob a grenade at the more pedantic fans.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

And you call yourself a Star Trek fan... (wink)

I like the new movies too. I've just accepted that I'm a horrible human being

 

[Blimpoy06]

You know what i thought would be a cool idea for a new Trek TV show? An anthology. Like the 1970's Police Story but in space. A different cast, ship, even time frame to keep everyone happy and guessing what would be in the next episode. Expensive as hell, but it would be fun.

 

[Carabimero]

For me it's the fact that they are not even making an attempt to appear congruent with the timeline. The ship on ENTERPRISE was a more advanced looking ship a long time before TOS, but I forgave them because they made an attempt to respect Star Trek. Nothing that I have seen or heard appears to me to even make an attempt to respect the timeline, to say nothing of Star Trek itself.

 

[joshEH]

And you call yourself a Star Trek fan... (wink)

Seriously, though, as I'm sure we all know, there is a (perhaps sizeable) portion of 'fandon' who will be up in arms over this show solely because the design aesthetic isn't 100% like what was seen in "The Cage".

I'm not saying that is reasonable, just that the whole thing could've been avoided by setting the show in the 24th/25th century (or even another alternative timeline).

Maybe someone on the staff just wanted to intentionally lob a grenade at the more pedantic fans.

Really, it's simply that TOS was just a 1960s television production attempting to approximate the future, but was limited in its ability to depict future technology, due to money and resources. As obsessive fans, why do we have to take every detail literally? Roddenberry himself essentially treated the show as a dramatization after the fact, like Dragnet.

Or rather, a dramatization before the fact. I think it's best to assume that there's an underlying Platonic Trek universe that the various shows are merely interpreting, filtered through their own production eras and technological abilities and artistic styles.

I think the difference here is that (for example) Star Wars has never been meant to represent our future, so it doesn't matter if the technology looks "retro" or not. Star Trek has always been meant to be an extrapolation forward in time, which means its look continues to get updated over time by new TV shows and movies and their respective production-teams.

This can certainiy be taken to excess. Sometimes it's better to just accept a Doylist interpretation and an inaccuracy in the telling of the story than it is to insist on treating every incidental detail as inviolable fact. And trying to rationalize the existence of 1960s technologies in a 23rd-century setting seems like it does more to undermine the credibility of the universe than to increase its consistency. I'm just happier to assume the tech was simply always as advanced as it can now be portrayed as being.

 

[Carabimero]

There's a wonderful 2-volume work called THE STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA, in which every minute detail from every Star Trek production through INTO DARKNESS is listed for reference. I doubt it will be updated again in my lifetime, but if it is, something tells me STAR TREK DISCOVERY will not be made part of it.

 

[SamT]

Star Trek: Discovery first look at a groovy new transporter room

 

[Carabimero]

Star Trek: Discovery first look at a groovy new transporter room

It looks like the WHEEL OF FORTUNE SET to me.

 

[Carabimero]

I am not alone in thinking that. Via Todd Walkenhorst.

 

[Sam Favate]

The need to have everything look different in shows that are supposed to be contemporaneous with existing shows is annoying.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Seriously?

 

[jcroy]

There's a wonderful 2-volume work called THE STAR TREK ENCYCLOPEDIA, in which every minute detail from every Star Trek production through INTO DARKNESS is listed for reference. I doubt it will be updated again in my lifetime, but if it is, something tells me STAR TREK DISCOVERY will not be made part of it.

I don't remember if it was this ^ title or another one.

I vaguely remember coming across various thick ST books during the late-1990s, which compiled a lot of the official timeline + canon in an encyclopedia form. They were gradually updated when new movies and then-current Star Trek franchise shows were made.

As far as I'm concerned, such a Star Trek "encyclopedia" ended with the finale of ST:Enterprise season 4. (I would also include the lousy 10th Star Trek movie Nemesis).

Imho, the JJ Abrams ST reboots and subsequent shows, should be a new encyclopedia started from scratch.

 

[jcroy]

In such an "encyclopedia", I also wouldn't include anything going on in the novels and comics. (They seem to be officially non-canon).

It seems like the average Star Trek novel was written rather poorly (such as the numbered ones). In many cases, not much better than the sort of fan-fic which can be easily found online.

 

[Blimpoy06]

It seems like the average Star Trek novel was written rather poorly (such as the numbered ones). In many cases, not much better than the sort of fan-fic which can be easily found online.

A far too sweeping condemnation if you have not read them. There are some turkey's, but they are far more good than bad IMHO. And some good writers in the bunch. Some who wrote for the shows as well. One story was used as the basis for a first season TNG script. Don't want to change topic, but TREK novels keep the show alive in the wilderness years in the 70's.

 

[Blimpoy06]

The thing I can't get over is the Okudas' absence. The only reason I can see not to invite them to work on the show is because the show is not congruent with past Star Trek.

The absence of the Okuda's and other veteran Trek production alumni most likely is due to the fact that the new show is filmed in Canada.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

The current encyclopedia, which weighs almost 12 pounds, includes everything up until Star Trek Beyond, which was excluded due to release timing. All the "Kelvin" entries and mentions use a solid dot to differentiate them from "real" Star Trek.

 

[Carabimero]

The absence of the Okuda's and other veteran Trek production alumni most likely is due to the fact that the new show is filmed in Canada.

I'm pretty sure that isn't the reason as far as the Okudas are concerned. Even if it is, that doesn't explain the absolute silence about the show on their FB page.

Yikes.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

The current encyclopedia, which weighs almost 12 pounds, includes everything up until Star Trek Beyond, which was excluded due to release timing. All the "Kelvin" entries and mentions use a solid dot to differentiate them from "real" Star Trek.

I have got to pick that up eventually.

I loved the original two versions of the encyclopedia ('94 and '99), and the two Chronologies. All of those books hit at just the right time for me and my relatively new Trekkiedom, and I read the hell out of them.

And the DS9 Companion was an amazing book. Light years better than any other companion for Star Trek, and most others for other series. I think the only comparable books would have been Vince Waldron's Dick Van Dyke Show guide, and Bart Andrews' I Love Lucy book, and even then, neither of those were done with behind the scenes access as the show was being produced.

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Star Trek: Discovery first look at a groovy new transporter room

Without even clicking on the link, the first thing that pops into my head reading that headline is a transporter room with disco balls and lava lamps...

 

[Sam Favate]

No doubt in a move to calm fan worries, Jonathan Frakes has been announced as a director of a season 1 episode of Discovery.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/27/star-trek-discovery-jonathan-frakes/