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

[jayembee]

“Roddenberry-like” is such a nebulous term because his philosophy changed throughout his life. Which Roddenberry from which period?

Have Gun Will Travel/Lieutenant Roddenberry is very different from Questor/Planet Earth Roddenberry which is again different from TNG Roddenberry - but they’re all him.

Given that we're talking about this in the context of Star Trek, it seems obvious to me that the answer would be ST:TOS Roddenberry.

 

[jayembee]

Unpopular opinion: ST IV was a success precisely because it didn't spend a majority of its time in space or dealing with bumpy headed aliens. It dealt with 1980's fish out of water humor and a theme which almost everyone in the world should be able to get behind. It's about half Trek for me...and easily the worst of the original six movies.

I agree with your reasons for not liking IV -- I didn't like it overmuch, either -- but I don't think it was anywhere near as bad as V. But, as Johnny Angell said, to each his own.

 

[jayembee]

I love TMP for a variety of reasons, but one thing it doesn’t have is an abundance of fun. There’s almost no levity in the entire film, and that’s no fun for the audience.

I typically end up being a defender of TMP, without really wanting to. To use a phrase a friend of mine came up with, I have more admiration than affection for it. I do like it more than III, IV, and V, but I'm not blind to its faults.

Part of the problem with its reception, I believe, is that Star Wars -- for good or for ill -- created a thirst for space opera SF films, with lots of action and combat. Something that TMP -- and even TOS -- wasn't. Yes, there were the "space combat" episodes of the series, but they fewer and farther between than one might think.

I found it rather pointed that, in the wake of Star Wars, Roddenberry gave us a Trek film in which there were only two instances of shots being fired. The first was the Klingons shooting at V'Ger, because...Klingons. It's what they do. The second was shooting a photon torpedo at the asteroid in the wormhole. Instead of fighting V'Ger, they tried reasoning with it. And reasoning with it in a less destructive way than they dealt with Nomad.

I understand why people prefer the excitement of the combat-infused entries. I do, too. The two Nicolas Meyer films are my favorite of the entire run of Trek films, TOS, TNG, or Kelvin. But sometimes I think those are the only kinds of Trek films that people want.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The Voyage Home is probably my favorite of the TOS-era films. The alien probe is so advanced and so beyond the scope of Starfleet's knowledge that the catastrophes it causes might as well be acts of God, so the film doesn't really have an antagonist. The conflict driving the film instead is really quite elegant: can the enlightened humanity of tomorrow overcome the selfish and shortsighted humanity of today?

 

[Wiseguy]

It was nice that the uninforms on the New Pike Enterprise has the division colors. So we’ll see redshirts again. I’ll be curious if they do slight revisions again to either bring the uniforms more in line with The Cage or with the production Star Trek episodes. There’s no reason to keep those same basic asymmetric cuts used on the Discovery uniforms.

There should be no redshirts on Capt. Pike's ship. Starfleet didn't introduce a red shirt into their uniforms until after Kirk was captain. Even after they redesigned their uniform code, it still took some redshirts some time to receive their new uniforms (Uhura wearing gold in "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "Mudd's Women.")

 

[Wiseguy]

I'm basically always in a constant stage of revisiting the franchise. I start with TOS and go through each show watching one episode (or two) per week in airdate order. Then when I get to the end I start all over again. Each pass through I find myself questioning more and more what it is about the franchise that I truly like.

Why airdate order? Why such an arbitrary order chosen to get certain episodes on the air faster to get better ratings that has no relevance today? There were so many changes to cast, sets, uniforms, etc., that the airdate order is nonsensical. For those who like story arcs, the evolution of crew members, ship and uniform design are arcs. Those who require "original order" broadcasting may not recall that the original syndication run was in production order (and uncut too, but that's another story). It made sense then. It makes sense now. Unless for some reason one likes to see crew and sets change back and forth for no reason (Dr. McCoy, then Piper, then McCoy; Uhura redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt; Sulu helmsman, physicist, helmsman; viewscreen square corners, round corners, square corners; Kirk's microphone on his command chair not there, there, not there). If you want to understand Star Trek, production order is the only order.

 

[DImitri001]

Loved Picard... loved the acting and characters in Discovery but I was totally annoyed with the way they screwed around with the canon.... did we really need yet another look for the Klingons ? SMH... hoping they nail it this time

 

[joshEH]

There should be no redshirts on Capt. Pike's ship. Starfleet didn't introduce a red shirt into their uniforms until after Kirk was captain. Even after they redesigned their uniform code, it still took some redshirts some time to receive their new uniforms (Uhura wearing gold in "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "Mudd's Women.")

Canonically, though, there's nothing in any series in terms of establishing history that precludes red (and other-colored) uniforms from having been test-piloted several years prior to 2266 -- indeed, as we saw in ENT, Starfleet used the "rank pips"-system two centuries before Picard's era, switched to the "sleeve braid"-system ("The Cage"), to the "delta badge-pips"-system (DSC), back to the "sleeve braid"-system (TOS 5YM-era) to the maroon uniform rank "shoulder pin"-system (TOS movie-era), before finally coming back around again to the pips in the 2350s or thereabouts.

Evidently (as Pike mentions in DSC: "Brother") the tricolored uniforms were a very new thing as of fall 2257, though Starfleet appears to temporarily switch back to "The Cage"/WNMHGB ones for a time afterwards.

Why airdate order? Why such an arbitrary order chosen to get certain episodes on the air faster to get better ratings that has no relevance today? There were so many changes to cast, sets, uniforms, etc., that the airdate order is nonsensical. For those who like story arcs, the evolution of crew members, ship and uniform design are arcs. Those who require "original order" broadcasting may not recall that the original syndication run was in production order (and uncut too, but that's another story). It made sense then. It makes sense now. Unless for some reason one likes to see crew and sets change back and forth for no reason (Dr. McCoy, then Piper, then McCoy; Uhura redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt; Sulu helmsman, physicist, helmsman; viewscreen square corners, round corners, square corners; Kirk's microphone on his command chair not there, there, not there). If you want to understand Star Trek, production order is the only order.

Yeah, although it's interesting to watch TOS in airdate-order, I don't understand how airdate-order came to be considered the authoritative one. For decades, at least from the time The Star Trek Compendium came out in 1980, production-order was the universal standard. Reference books listed them in production-order, they were stripped in syndication in production-order (per Roddenberry's wishes), the first home video and DVD releases were in production-order, and the Okudas' Star Trek Chronology still lists them in production-order.

For an entire generation, it was universally, officially accepted that production-order was the correct order. Yet for some reason, when the first DVD boxed sets came out in 2004, they were reshuffled back into airdate-order, and somehow the standard that was universal for over a third of a century has been completely reversed in the past 16 years. That's just weird. (Well, not completely. The Pocket Books timeline and the novels still assume the episodes occurred in production-order.)

Especially since (as you mention) production-order makes more sense. There wasn't enough continuity for there to be any huge discrepancies in airdate-order, but a few show up, like the second pilot with its different sets, props, and uniforms being aired third, or "The Corbomite Maneuver," with Kirk reacting to Rand as if she's only just been assigned to him, coming tenth. And you can follow the gradual development and refinement of characters, sets, and concepts better in production-order. There aren't any advantages to airdate-order that I can see.

 

[joshEH]

Loved Picard... loved the acting and characters in Discovery but I was totally annoyed with the way they screwed around with the canon.... did we really need yet another look for the Klingons ? SMH... hoping they nail it this time

Star Trek has been reimagining its aliens for decades. Every time a new makeup artist comes in, they put their own stamp on the alien designs, just like a new comic book artist will bring their own style to how a superhero is drawn.

Even aside from the sea change from TOS-style Klingons (which themselves had two different makeups back in the '60s) to the ridged version, we've seen several substantially different designs of ridged Klingon -- the Fred Phillips-version from TMP with a single central spine and ridged nose, the Burman Studios-version from The Search for Spock with individualized head-plates and smooth noses, the Michael Westmore TV-version with head plates and ridged noses, the Richard Snell-version from The Voyage Home onward with the smaller head-plates and smooth noses, and the distinctive Neville Page-version from Star Trek Into Darkness with the bald heads, pointed ears, and bright eyes.

We've also seen several radically-different Andorian designs -- the TOS-version with the thick rear-mounted antennae, the TMP-redesign with thin, forehead-mounted antennae, the weird tall-headed design briefly glimpsed in TNG, and the Westmore version with forward-mounted animatronic antennae. Westmore himself completely redesigned the Trill from "The Host" to DS9 and the Ktarians from "The Game" to Voyager.

It was natural that the creators of the movies would give a fresh look and style to the universe, because they could. But TNG retained more stylistic continuity with the movies, because it relied heavily on reusing previously-existing sets, miniatures, and stock footage from the movies to save money (and because it hired movie-veteran designers like Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach).

And then Rick Berman and his team stayed in charge of the franchise for 18 years, maintaining that consistency to such a degree that fans got in the habit of expecting it to last forever. But now that era is over, and new creators and designers are coming in, and their large budget and CGI mean that they don't need to rely on stock elements, and can redesign everything from the ground up. So there's a much cleaner break with the past than Trek fans have been used to seeing since 1979.

 

[DImitri001]

Yes and I still don't like it ! Lol ! At least all the variations you meticulously outlined were recognizable as Klingons ... after the initial big change from TOS to the first movie, a Klingon looked like ... well a Klingon ! Discovery just went so far afield and for no apparent reason... changed simply it seemed for the sake of change....

 

[joshEH]

Yes and I still don't like it ! Lol ! At least all the variations you meticulously outlined were recognizable as Klingons ... after the initial big change from TOS to the first movie, a Klingon looked like ... well a Klingon ! Discovery just went so far afield and for no apparent reason... changed simply it seemed for the sake of change....

But that simply proves that there is no such thing as a "true" Klingon makeup-design -- is it the '60s low-budget Fred Phillips version? Is it the drastically-altered 1979 movie-version? Or maybe something in between? (Which actually is where the Neville Page Star Trek Into Darkness/DSC redesign seems to fall, "in between" those two extremes.)

When the 1979 movie came out, many fans were simply outraged by the massive change in design (as scores of letters published in Starlog magazine at the time prove), and some considered the film not to be "real" Star Trek for this and other reasons. But we went for 26 years after bumpy-headed Klingons were introduced without an explanation as to why this was. Literally a whole generation's worth of Trek got by without explaining it. They went 17 years without even acknowledging it. Kor, Kang, and Koloth showed up in DS9: "Blood Oath" with bumpy heads, and not a word was said about the discrepancy. Kahless showed up with prodigious ridges in TNG: "Rightful Heir," and it was never mentioned that he'd looked totally different in "The Savage Curtain."

The informal policy from ST:TMP onward was always to pretend that all Klingons were bumpy-headed, and that TOS just hadn't shown them correctly. When that movie came out, Roddenberry even explicitly advised fans to think of it that way. The only reason they changed policy and acknowledged the makeup redesign in "Trials and Tribble-ations" was because the use of stock footage from TOS required them to, otherwise it would probably never have happened. Yes, ENT got a story out of it later, but in a season that was steeped in continuity-porn already, and was basically an exercise in fannish indulgence by producers who knew the show was going to be cancelled, so they could do whatever they felt like.

We didn't *need* an explanation. We survived without one for a quarter-century. And we still don't have any canonical explanations for the various redesigns of the Romulans, the Andorians, the Tellarites, the Trill, the Gorn, and so on -- not to mention the constant redesigns of warp and transporter effects, the absurd frequency of uniform-redesigns, etc.

(Well...we KINDA finally got an impromptu semi-explanation in this recent first season of Star Trek: Picard for the Romulans' makeup-differences -- the so-called "northern" and "southern" versions, which was inspired by the '80s FASA role-playing game's take on the Klingons' visual differences using those same terms).

The only explanation that's required is the obvious one -- that makeup and production designers are artists, and they choose to bring their individual artistic sensibilities to what they design, as well as taking advantage of improvements in FX-technology over time. "In-universe" considerations tend to fall by the wayside in these types of situations, regardless of how much we might crave consistency.

 

[DImitri001]

So you would be okay if in a future series they eliminated the pointed ears of Vulcans and the antennae from the Andorians ? I simply think the change to the Klingons was just too drastic for such an important race for the franchise... I think I'm simply getting to old to cope well with change lol

 

[Nelson Au]

Regarding the red shirts, they are there on Discovery Season Two as we all know, on Pike’s Enterprise. ( By the way, Colt is an alien wearing a blue shirt. I double checked, I thought she wore a red shirt. ( that’s a change I’m not fond of, I still see Yeoman Colt as a human played by Laurel Goodwin. )

If we forget canon, I can see what they are doing Is making an artistic choice by including the red shirt color for the Enterprise crew on Discovery. And presumably the same for Strange New Worlds. The original pilot for Star Trek, The Cage had no red shirts as for as I can recall. They had gold for command, blue for sciences and tan for ops. For Where No Man Has Gone Before, they re-used the same costumes and colors.

As far as production order and air date order for TOS. I’ve watched the series both ways. I think the home video releases using airdate order was likely following a standard. Maybe all TV shows on home videos are released that way now. I think it makes sense from a historical sense. And it’s easy for any fan to look up production order and watch that way.

 

[joshEH]

So you would be okay if in a future series they eliminated the pointed ears of Vulcans and the antennae from the Andorians ? I simply think the change to the Klingons was just too drastic for such an important race for the franchise... I think I'm simply getting to old to cope well with change lol

I definitely hear ya about growing old, but we can rest assured that there are always going to be plenty of *fundamental* similarities in any new 23rd Century Star Trek production. Starfleet still uses an arrowhead. The Federation still has the same flag. Doors still slide open. Communicators still flip open. Phasers still fire beams. Starships still have saucers and nacelles. Shuttlecraft are still boxy and also have nacelles. Bridges are still circular and have captain's chairs in the middle. Transporters still have circular stages and make things sparkly. Klingons still have ridged foreheads and speak Marc Okrand's Klingonese. Vulcans and Romulans still have pointy ears, Andorians are still blue with antennae, Tellarites are still porcine.

The fundamentals, by any legitimate use of that word, are still the same. It's only the overtones that have changed slightly, to better fit the modern era and modern audience-expectations.

 

[Nelson Au]

Hey Josh, your detailed posts about the changes for the Klingon make-up made me think of another example. About the TOS to TMP Klingons though, yes, they did it because they could and had the budget to. At the time, Roddenberry was reimagining Star Trek for the big screen. And he made no bones about it. It took a little getting used to, but I believe The Motion Picture set a standard and as you said, it influenced the later iterations until after Bad Robot’s films. It’s natural a new set of artists will want to make their mark.

But as I said, it made me think of another example; Godzilla. He’s really changed in the current films compared to the 1960’s Toho versions.

 

[DImitri001]

I'm totally okay with Tech changes and uniform changes as it's easy to imagine a rationale for those .... but the Klingon change just stuck in my craw ... now if they give Orion Slave girls Orange skin with fuschia polka dots and a rhino horn ... I may just go postal ! Rofl !

 

[jayembee]

Why airdate order? Why such an arbitrary order chosen to get certain episodes on the air faster to get better ratings that has no relevance today? There were so many changes to cast, sets, uniforms, etc., that the airdate order is nonsensical. For those who like story arcs, the evolution of crew members, ship and uniform design are arcs. Those who require "original order" broadcasting may not recall that the original syndication run was in production order (and uncut too, but that's another story). It made sense then. It makes sense now. Unless for some reason one likes to see crew and sets change back and forth for no reason (Dr. McCoy, then Piper, then McCoy; Uhura redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt; Sulu helmsman, physicist, helmsman; viewscreen square corners, round corners, square corners; Kirk's microphone on his command chair not there, there, not there). If you want to understand Star Trek, production order is the only order.

Well, some people are not necessarily going to be bothered by all the switching back and forth. I watched TOS when it originally aired on NBC in the 60s, and I don't recall ever giving the inconsistencies a second thought. I was just thrilled to watch each episode as it was broadcast. But then, I was 13 at the time, and things like the color of Uhura's uniform wasn't something worth noting beyond maybe a "hunh".

And that provides an answer to your question, "Why airdate order?" If one wanted to experience the show as original viewers did in the 60s, it would make sense to see the episodes in the order that original viewers saw them.

 

[Josh Dial]

Why airdate order? Why such an arbitrary order chosen to get certain episodes on the air faster to get better ratings that has no relevance today? There were so many changes to cast, sets, uniforms, etc., that the airdate order is nonsensical. For those who like story arcs, the evolution of crew members, ship and uniform design are arcs. Those who require "original order" broadcasting may not recall that the original syndication run was in production order (and uncut too, but that's another story). It made sense then. It makes sense now. Unless for some reason one likes to see crew and sets change back and forth for no reason (Dr. McCoy, then Piper, then McCoy; Uhura redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt, goldshirt, redshirt; Sulu helmsman, physicist, helmsman; viewscreen square corners, round corners, square corners; Kirk's microphone on his command chair not there, there, not there). If you want to understand Star Trek, production order is the only order.

First, enough with the "real fans" nonsense that is built into your "if you want to understand Star Trek" comment. I understand Star Trek quite well, thank you very much. I also understand viewing art with a critical, contemplative, objective (sometimes) eye--this allows one to step back from "fandom" and escape some (not all) of the pitfalls.

Second, while I agree production order makes sense with TOS, it does not TNG onward. As I wrote: I rewatch the franchise and not just TOS.

 

[Josh Dial]

Klingons still have ridged foreheads and speak Marc Okrand's Klingonese.

To be fair, until DISCO Klingons almost never spoke proper Okrand Klingon language (as I wrote in the DISCO thread it was especially bad in DS9).

 

[joshEH]

To be fair, until DISCO Klingons almost never spoke proper Okrand Klingon language (as I wrote in the DISCO thread it was especially bad in DS9).

Yeah, I actually caught that shortly after I posted that, and considered modifying it, but never quite got around to it, here.