Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022) - Season 1 (1 Viewer)

[Harry-N]

It's fun to speculate and theorize how some of these Star Trekian things work, but the reality is that it's all fiction. Someday there probably WILL be some sort of automatic translator. Heck we have phones that now do that with recognized languages. But traveling the cosmos and having it work with an alien species never met before - that's some technology.

Star Trek has dealt with the issue in past shows where the translator doesn't work, or the species prefers it NOT be used all the time, so it's good that the powers that be recognized that fact.

Strange New Worlds, based on its timeline, should occasionally run into translation difficulties, and the second episode referenced that with the term "sheperds".

 

[Chris Will]

I agree with all the wonderful things that have been said here. I am enjoying the show in a way I haven't enjoyed a Star Trek show in a long time. That said, one thing bothers me: Ortegas' look. She's too obviously a rough, not-playing-by-the-rules officer, and it's a cliche. And relaxed or not, she would not show up to Pike's quarters for dinner dressed the way she did, certainly not in this era of Star Trek. Her character has instantly rubbed me the wrong way.

I love her character so far, I love the sarcasm. She's this show's Bones so far.

If Pike said it was causal then how do we know what is acceptable as casual in this future of Trek. I didn't think there was anything wrong with what she wore and it was a whole lot more "appropriate" then what passes for casual these days.

 

[Jason_V]

I'm kinda surprised we're focusing on what I'd call the minutiae of the episode and not the idea of science vs. belief between Pike and the Shepherd's. (At least, that's the non-Uhura story I'm taking from this episode.)

Aside from the Uhura plot on the comet-which is 100% acceptable and needed and interesting-the Enterprise story is a classic Trek "what we believe is going to happen" vs. "what an alien life form believes will happen." The key difference is that the Enterprise crew belief is rooted in science and the Shepherd's belief is rooted in their, well, belief system. This piece felt like it was given a shorter time to play out that TOS would have done (heck, maybe any of the other Trek shows would have done).

There is something more here to say, but I something held the episode back for some reason. Maybe it was TPTB concerned with hitting the message too closely on the nose and alienating folks; maybe there isn't a place for those kind of big, briefing room/Observation Lounge multi-page dialogue scenes anymore. Maybe I just want something grandiose to go "bonk bonk" on the head for the audience. I doubt we're revisiting these events in the series, so this was the time to make "the statement."

This didn't rub me the wrong way; it simply struck me as a symptom of the era we're living in and the budget the show has (as well as the attention span of the audience). It's just an observation I had over the weekend, watching "Children of the Comet" outside of release day and without seeing everyone's opinions of the episode here.

 

[Nelson Au]

Jason, that’s a really good observation that I must confess I didn’t see. I’ve only seen the episode once, and so I’ll have to revisit it. My impression from the epilogue scene when Uhura explained her observation and calculations showed that the comet’s path was preordained, I didn’t see anything more there then the straight forward explanation it was comet’s plan all along. I got side tracked with the explanation that Spock’s efforts were part of the plan, which I didn’t buy.

So the idea that the Shepherds had their beliefs and any intervention from the Enterprise was blasphemous to their belief system didn’t occur to me. I was thinking the Shepherds mission was to prevent any intervention of the comet’s plan. It’s interesting as I had just watched Bread and Circuses prior. That episode as we know has an Uhura scene in which she had studied the radio broadcasts and was able to deduce that the true beliefs of the Children of the Sun. Hmm, that sounds familiar.

I’ll definitely watch this episode again.

 

[Jason_V]

You're 100% right, Nelson, in that-for me-the episode tried to worm it's way out of that discussion/debate by the end. Meaning, for me, "this is the way it was supposed to happen" and "Spock and the Enterprise were always part of this." Which, let me be honest, I don't buy.

For sure, the Sherpherd's were there to make sure there was no intervention with the comet. Agreed completely. But I never got the sense they had any science backing that up...maybe I read into it too much and what I thought was there wasn't?

I've only seen it once as well and that was two days ago. Maybe it's time to revisit and see what else I could have missed!

 

[jayembee]

Having finished a watch of Discovery Season Two (rewatch for me, first watch for my wife) on Saturday evening, we watched the two extant episodes of SNW. We both enjoyed both. I don't have much to say that hasn't been said already here.

 

[Harry-N]

There's one little thing about STRANGE NEW WORLDS and DISCOVERY and PICARD that I don't think bothers very many others, and that is the aspect ratio. Technology gave us, for many years, a television box with a picture ratio of about 4:3. All of the shows from the late 40s through the late 90s were all formatted for 4:3. (A couple were "future-proofed" by also filming for 16:9.) In the early 2000s, and throughout the decade, high-definition television came to be the popular, if only, choice for televisions, and TV shows began to be released in the new 16:9 format of these televisions. This "widescreen" format was supposedly more natural for viewers, whose own vision was more "widescreen" than the boxy old televisions were able to provide.

Back in that boxy television age, we were introduced to letterboxing, where the full widescreen images of movies would be committed to tape and disc formats. Most of us on boards like this raved about being able to see the full image through this letterboxing, and what some called the "dreaded black bars" needed to be educated that they were seeing the full image as the director intended his movie to be seen.

Meanwhile, in the 2000s, TV shows began to be presented in high definition and in full 16:9 widescreen. Shows like CSI and even STAR TREK ENTERPRISE led the way as most of us watched those shows in either a letterbox format (ENTERPRISE), or with the sides cut off as filming still protected for 4:3 TVs (CSI and others).

Throughout the 2000s and most of the 2010s, all of our TV shows on broadcast TV were brought up to the 16:9 standards, while the big movies continued to be wider at about 2.35:1. If you watched a STAR WARS feature or any of the super-hero big screen epics, they were generally formatted at 2.35:1, which again brought black bars top and bottom to the TVs we have today. Fine.

Now we have new STAR TREK shows, and new series on other streaming services, and they're nearly all formatting their images to 2.35:1 - a wider screen than our TVs allow. (Yes, I know there are some wider screen TVs out there, but they are not the norm.) This is where I have just a bit of difficulty in understanding just why these streaming productions seem to think that 2.35:1 is some kind of norm. Do they think their product will ever be seen on a movie theater screen? Are they formatting their pictures that way to try to fool the audience into thinking their production is really just as good as that super-hero movie? If the TV audience that they're aiming at all have 16:9 TVs, wouldn't it be better to use the full height of a 16:9 screen to give a better sense of the location of the shot?

Don't misunderstand me here. I can deal with black bars on my TV. I've done so for more than half my life. And I can enjoy STRANGE NEW WORLDS just the way it is, but I think back to the older aesthetic where pictures were almost as tall as they were wide; where we could see those lights and screens above Uhura's head; where a close-up didn't chop off hair and chins. These are TV shows, and our TVs are mostly all 16:9. Why not use that whole "playing field"?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There's one little thing about STRANGE NEW WORLDS and DISCOVERY and PICARD that I don't think bothers very many others, and that is the aspect ratio. Technology gave us, for many years, a television box with a picture ratio of about 4:3. All of the shows from the late 40s through the late 90s were all formatted for 4:3. (A couple were "future-proofed" by also filming for 16:9.) In the early 2000s, and throughout the decade, high-definition television came to be the popular, if only, choice for televisions, and TV shows began to be released in the new 16:9 format of these televisions. This "widescreen" format was supposedly more natural for viewers, whose own vision was more "widescreen" than the boxy old televisions were able to provide.

The only thing that bothers me about the scope ratio for this is that it means the bridge has a roughly 2.39:1 view screen to fit in the frame better. The other half of the bridge is relatively faithful to the TOS bridge, so it's frustrating that the viewscreen side looks more like something out of "Discovery".

 

[Chris Will]

Now we have new STAR TREK shows, and new series on other streaming services, and they're nearly all formatting their images to 2.35:1 - a wider screen than our TVs allow. (Yes, I know there are some wider screen TVs out there, but they are not the norm.) This is where I have just a bit of difficulty in understanding just why these streaming productions seem to think that 2.35:1 is some kind of norm. Do they think their product will ever be seen on a movie theater screen? Are they formatting their pictures that way to try to fool the audience into thinking their production is really just as good as that super-hero movie? If the TV audience that they're aiming at all have 16:9 TVs, wouldn't it be better to use the full height of a 16:9 screen to give a better sense of the location of the shot?

This bugs the ever living piss out of me and I love letterboxed movies so it has nothing to do with the black boxes. Letterbox exist to preserve the theatrical presentations, something that is not possible without letterboxing. These streaming shows (not limited to the new Tre shows) are not being shown theatrically first and then being released on home video. Please, for the love of all things holy, start making these shows to fill our screens.

I brought this up in the early Discovery days and felt like I was in the minority. They stick to this ratio out of some false since that it makes the shows more "cinematic" but I contend that the ratio has little to do with how "cinematic" a movie feels. There are plenty of movies shot in flat ratios that feel perfectly "cinematic". I wish these shows filled my screen so I could see a bigger image of these immensely detailed sets and environments they are creating.

It's not that big of a deal, just a pet peeve.

 

[Jason_V]

I don't have a horse in this race, but then again, we have an 85 inch display as our main TV and I don't have a problem seeing anything.

I do have issues with hearing and understanding words sometimes as I've mentioned before. Ironically, I have not had that issue at all with Strange New Worlds through 2 episodes.

 

[jayembee]

I can't agree with the complaints. It's not about filling the screen, under any circumstance. It's about how they want to frame the image. No, not everything needs to be 2.35:1, but at the same time, not everything needs to be 4:3 or 16:9. It's not a "one size fits all" world, and never has been.

Now, when a cable network decides that they need to take a 4:3 TV show and stretch the image horizontally to make it fit a 16:9 screen, that's when I scream holy hell.

 

[Harry-N]

It's not about filling the screen, under any circumstance.

Agreed, if you're making a movie that will be seen on ultra wide theatre screens. But they are filming for television, creating a new work. Why would they ALWAYS choose to use a wider screen than our TVs. They are a TV series. Why not use the full canvas that they are given. Would the image look so horrible if more top and bottom were shown?

 

[Jason_V]

Agreed, if you're making a movie that will be seen on ultra wide theatre screens. But they are filming for television, creating a new work. Why would they ALWAYS choose to use a wider screen than our TVs. They are a TV series. Why not use the full canvas that they are given. Would the image look so horrible if more top and bottom were shown?

I dunno...I saw the Mona Lisa in person in 2018. I was underwhelmed. It was so incredibly small and I'm sure they had "big walls" when it was painted back in the 1500's. Why didn't da Vinci make it wall size...or at the very least bigger than 30 x 21? (No, I didn't have the date or size memorized...I had to look them up.)

Frankly, he's the artist and had a reason for it. Maybe lack of enough materials or space or time or, gosh darn golly gee, this is how big he wanted it. The aspect ratio for shows is the same. There has to be a reason for it...but frankly, I don't honestly care. I'm more interested in the content (which, oddly, seems to be taking a back seat to a lot of other stuff in this discussion).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Specifically for all of the new live action Treks from season 2 of Discovery onwards, they’ve shot with anamorphic lenses, which have a native frame of 2.40:1. So it actually is a matter of the image being captured by the camera of being wider than your TV. There’s no additional image being recorded above or below that frame, so in order to make a 16x9 image, they’d have to chop off part of the sides; it would not be a matter of revealing more on the tops and bottoms.

As to why they use those lenses - they very clearly like the look of them. And as an unintended side effect of everyone commonly watching letterboxing at home since DVD became popular, home viewers are used to equating “black bars” with “cinematic”. It’s become part of the visual vernacular.

I watch on a projection screen so I don’t have a size concern the way someone viewing on a much smaller screen might, but I do get the point being made. But I also think that the relationship of objects within the frame is more important than utilizing every possible screen pixel. There’s an aesthetic at play here that I just find very pleasing.

 

[Harry-N]

We're watching on a 60" screen. Not exactly tiny - and we're only about six or so feet away. Again, I have no problem with black bars - I specifically bought into LaserDisc so I could see widescreen/letterbox movies on my squarish TV.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Apropos of nothing, Harry, I really like your graphic/avatar on here. Very stylish!

 

[Harry-N]

Thanks.

 

[jayembee]

Agreed, if you're making a movie that will be seen on ultra wide theatre screens. But they are filming for television, creating a new work. Why would they ALWAYS choose to use a wider screen than our TVs. They are a TV series. Why not use the full canvas that they are given. Would the image look so horrible if more top and bottom were shown?

And movies are filmed in different ratios. Some are shot in 1.37, some in 1.66, some in 1.75, some in 1.85, some in 2.00, some in 2.20, some in 2.35, some in 2.40, some in 2.55, some in 2.76, and so on. What ratios the filmmakers made for any given film was decided on with regard to what they wanted the image to look like, not by the dimensions of the screen it would be projected on. When shooting a film in "flat widescreen", the director and DP typically would frame for 1.66:1 to 1.85:1 while "protecting" the image for 1.33:1, because that's the way it would be seen on TV. But there were some filmmakers who would simply frame it for widescreen and say, "Fuck TV," because they wanted the image to look like what they wanted it to look like.

Not all TV shows are shot in the same ratio. Most new shows are shot in 1.78:1 (16x9), some are shot in 2.00:1, some in 2.35:1. Again, they choose the ratio based on how they want it to look, not by the screen it's displayed on (well, OK, the ones shot in 1.78:1 are..)

Jason brought up the Mona Lisa. In a posting in another thread a while back, I made the observation:

I think the real point isn't how large the image is, but what the content of the image is. The Mona Lisa's "aspect ratio" is roughly 1.50:1. The Last Supper's aspect ratio is roughly 1.90:1. Both paintings are masterpieces, but neither one would look right if the former was 1.90:1 and the latter 1.50:1.

It's clear to me that the makers of the current Trek shows use 2.35:1 for a ratio because they want that panoramic view, and can't get it by shooting it 1.78:1.

 

[Walter Kittel]

S01E03 - Ghosts of Illyria

I was gaming a bit and forgot that this had dropped. Just finished viewing the episode. It is still early, so... Raising spoilers

Spoiler

The first thing that caught my attention, from the opening moments of the episode was the strength of the visuals in the episode. The ion storm was really well implemented and sort of reminded me of the old cloud chamber FX that ILM employed back in the '80s. (It was definitely better than the old FX but just made me recall those types of shots from back in the day.) In addition to the FX associated with the environment, this episode featured some interesting cinematography that was well suited to the subject of the episode... A pathogen that causes the crew of the Enterprise to be attracted to intense light.

For reasons which are revealed in the episode, Number One (Una) is unaffected and the episode is very much hers. Pike and Spock are stranded on the planet due to the ion storm leaving Una to handle the crisis aboard the Enterprise. In addition to Una, Chief Engineer Hemmer and Dr. M'Benga figure more prominently in this episode and we discover more about M'Benga's past as the mystery of the illness is explored.

There is more to discuss about Una and M'Benga but I'll leave that for later. Interesting that we were discussing the uses and techniques associated with Star Fleet transporter technology as they figure prominently in this episode.

Another strong episode. For my money, the best episode to date in terms of cinematography and overall FX work. Very enjoyable. The discussion in the thread has touched on the cinematic qualities of the presentation and I believe they were clearly on display in this episode.

- Walter.

 

[Nelson Au]

I rewatched Children of the Comet last night. I caught a few bits of dialogue I missed during last week’s initial viewing. The casualness we discussed was more evident as I missed Ortegas calling the shepherd the space monk.

And on this viewing, the Shepard told Pike not to judge the faith of others next time he encounters something like the comet. I missed that line. That was a classic kind of Star Trek line. Except Pike didn’t exactly act like Kirk where Kirk would have realized that his thinking was wrong and the alien’s taught him something. Perhaps it was there, but he was thinking that Spock’s action were what caused the comet to move.

And during the epilogue, I better understood what Uhura was telling Pike and Spock. That the comet was telling Uhura not to worry, it didn’t intend to cause harm to Persephone III. It’s path was pre-determined. And that it had the foresight/precognition that Spock’s shuttle was going to be flying around the comet. But I still interpreted it to mean the comet all along never planned to hit the planet, and it knew what Spock was going to do. So Pike and Enterprise just had to have faith that the comet wasn’t going to do harm, even though they didn’t know that. So perhaps after Uhura explained what happened, that changed Pike’s thinking. And further helped Pike think that perhaps he needs to have faith in his destiny. It would be interesting if the writers did break canon and found a way to keep Pike from being injured on that ship of cadets.