Star Trek: Alpha to Delta Quadrants & Everything In Between

[jdoll021]

Yes, Battlestar Galactica (reimagined) and Firefly show us that you can do "spaceship sci-fi" storytelling just fine without a giant TV on the bridge for FaceTiming aliens.

On the other hand, I like a lot of the interactions.

One of the features that we saw in ST I & II was the "tactical view" that gave a better perspective. I wish that had made it into the iterations of the Next Gen series. You'd think even DS9 would have an overlay of the Bajoran system and the Bajor Sector.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

I don't object to the setting per se, although I agree a future (beyond TNG/DS9/VOY) setting would pique my interest more.

I agree.

I suspect its to do with anticipated profits. The reboots were popular (if not with Trekkies), so networks are prepared to invest in a new ST iteration that further explores that (approximate) era. There is also the possibility for future movie tie-ins.

For my part, I enjoyed the rebooted ST film franchise. I think they've captured the joie de vive of the 1960s Kirk crew. I think the Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scottie dynamic works well in those movies, although I do think they should stop letting Simon Pegg making scenes funny. Simon Pegg is a very funny comedian / writer. But ST isn't supposed to be funny like that.

As for the new show, I counsel patience. Let's see what they do with it.

 

[mobilehaathi]

I agree.

I suspect its to do with anticipated profits. The reboots were popular (if not with Trekkies), so networks are prepared to invest in a new ST iteration that further explores that (approximate) era. There is also the possibility for future movie tie-ins.

For my part, I enjoyed the rebooted ST film franchise. I think they've captured the joie de vive of the 1960s Kirk crew. I think the Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scottie dynamic works well in those movies, although I do think they should stop letting Simon Pegg making scenes funny. Simon Pegg is a very funny comedian / writer. But ST isn't supposed to be funny like that.

As for the new show, I counsel patience. Let's see what they do with it.

Well, I'll give the new series a shot, although I have no idea how I'll do that. I'm certainly not subscribing to the CBS streaming service.

I have no quarrel with people who like the new movies. They just aren't my style insofar as they seem to have discarded the main characteristics that appealed to me about Star Trek.

 

[Obi Wan Kenobi]

I have no idea how I'll do that. I'm certainly not subscribing to the CBS streaming service.

Me either. If it's successful, I expect one of the UK channels to pick it up.

 

[Eric5h5]

It will be on Netflix everywhere but the U.S.

--Eric

 

[jdoll021]

I don't object to the setting per se, although I agree a future (beyond TNG/DS9/VOY) setting would pique my interest more. My biggest problem is that this new series appears to be fairly generic sci-fi action in the style of the recent movies. I dislike the new movies (as Star Trek) enough that I've only watched 1.5 of them.

Yes, I dislike the new movies also. Word on the street is that the look, feel and action being based on the JJ Abrams movies that we've seen in Discovery so far is due to interference from CBS executives (specifically, CEO Les Moonves). Probably out of profit motivation with no real understanding that creativity leads to profit, not doubling down on more of the same.
[doublepost=1498149909][/doublepost]

Well, I'll give the new series a shot, although I have no idea how I'll do that. I'm certainly not subscribing to the CBS streaming service.

I will give the new series a shot as well. I'll probably wait a week or two to see what the critical reaction is and then see if I can't buy a season pass from Apple iTunes. I'd rather pay for the show directly than pay for CBS' streaming service for only one show.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Yes, I dislike the new movies also. Word on the street is that the look, feel and action being based on the JJ Abrams movies that we've seen in Discovery so far is due to interference from CBS executives (specifically, CEO Les Moonves). Probably out of profit motivation with no real understanding that creativity leads to profit, not doubling down on more of the same.
[doublepost=1498149909][/doublepost]

I will give the new series a shot as well. I'll probably wait a week or two to see what the critical reaction is and then see if I can't buy a season pass from Apple iTunes. I'd rather pay for the show directly than pay for CBS' streaming service for only one show.

Playing devil's advocate, because I had a negative reaction to the trailer too- if you go back and look at the trailer for TNG, it makes the show look like it has constant phaser-fights.

Trailers always play up action.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I didn't read all of the pages but one very applicable laugh that seems to be very relevant to the general sentiment of this crowd is the "lost script" often called Star Trek vs Microsoft. Anyone interested might want to give that a read. It's an oldie but goodie and I chuckle each time I come upon it.

 

[GFLPraxis]

I didn't read all of the pages but one very applicable laugh that seems to be very relevant to the general sentiment of this crowd is the "lost script" often called Star Trek vs Microsoft. Anyone interested might want to give that a read. It's an oldie but goodie and I chuckle each time I come upon it.

Oh man, I feel like I'm pretty sure I read this in the late 90's or early 2000's. I'm having flashbacks to an earlier time of the internet.

 

[jdoll021]

Playing devil's advocate, because I had a negative reaction to the trailer too- if you go back and look at the trailer for TNG, it makes the show look like it has constant phaser-fights.

Trailers always play up action.

This is true and why I don't base my concern on the trailer alone. I've been following some of the rumors surrounding the new series and, if true, it's the network interference that is my biggest problem. I don't need a story written by Les Moonves.
[doublepost=1498676491][/doublepost]

Oh man, I feel like I'm pretty sure I read this in the late 90's or early 2000's. I'm having flashbacks to an earlier time of the internet.

LMAO! That was hilarious! Thank you for making my day!

 

[jdoll021]

So, this was posted on Saturday and, going off of just the "official word" segment, this series looks to be DOA. I'm downgrading my rating of this series from "cautiously optimistic" to "pessimistic."

I really like the quote by Seth McFarlane at around 20:50 and I think he's spot on. My immediate reaction was "why can't they just give the franchise to Seth? Seems like he'd do it more justice than anyone else at this point."

I can live with changing the visual style, but ending the Roddenberry Rule and making it "gritty?" No. Just no. I like Star Trek precisely because of its optimism. The whole thing is really ominous.

 

[bradl]

So, this was posted on Saturday and, going off of just the "official word" segment, this series looks to be DOA. I'm downgrading my rating of this series from "cautiously optimistic" to "pessimistic."

I really like the quote by Seth McFarlane at around 20:50 and I think he's spot on. My immediate reaction was "why can't they just give the franchise to Seth? Seems like he'd do it more justice than anyone else at this point."

I can live with changing the visual style, but ending the Roddenberry Rule and making it "gritty?" No. Just no. I like Star Trek precisely because of its optimism. The whole thing is really ominous.

Agreed. Making it more gritty and dark wasn't what Roddenberry wanted.. Plus with the social commentary that Roddenberry always included was what made the series, let alone the entire franchise, pivotal. Eliminating that, especially now when it is needed the most, is not a good thing.

BL.

 

[AngerDanger]

Slightly off topic: I was watching an episode of MacGyver and was pleasantly surprised to see a member of the Q show up as a deceitful antagonist.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Agreed. Making it more gritty and dark wasn't what Roddenberry wanted.. Plus with the social commentary that Roddenberry always included was what made the series, let alone the entire franchise, pivotal. Eliminating that, especially now when it is needed the most, is not a good thing.

BL.

Absolutely agree; the social commentary and intelligent (rather than blind) optimism were two of the things that distinguished Start Trek (at its best) from much else of the 'space opera' genre, and were two of the things I liked most about the Star Trek world.

 

[Huntn]

So, this was posted on Saturday and, going off of just the "official word" segment, this series looks to be DOA. I'm downgrading my rating of this series from "cautiously optimistic" to "pessimistic."

I really like the quote by Seth McFarlane at around 20:50 and I think he's spot on. My immediate reaction was "why can't they just give the franchise to Seth? Seems like he'd do it more justice than anyone else at this point."

I can live with changing the visual style, but ending the Roddenberry Rule and making it "gritty?" No. Just no. I like Star Trek precisely because of its optimism. The whole thing is really ominous.

But would his series be a comedy? If so, I would not approve.

A very interesting report describing Star Trek Discovery, as a generic space series with the Star Trek name slapped on it. Also an interesting discussion comparing Prime Timeline (TV series) with Kelvin (Abraham's movies). I can easily live with these two timelines as completely separate entities. I want an optimistic series, not a gritty series and I think it is a a very interesting comment that that if Discovery bombs, a plan B ST series might end up on the CW network vs CBS All Access.

 

[bradl]

But would his series be a comedy? If so, I would not approve.

A very interesting report describing Star Trek Discovery, as a generic space series with the Star Trek name slapped on it. Also an interesting discussion comparing Prime Timeline (TV series) with Kelvin (Abraham's movies). I can easily live with these two timelines as completely separate entities. I want an optimistic series, not a gritty series and I think it is a a very interesting comment that that if Discovery bombs, a plan B ST series might end up on the CW network vs CBS All Access.

If he's turning this into a comedy, then I would say that he is 30 years to late. We already have such a comedy, and still in active production: Red Dwarf.

BL.

 

[Peace]

So, this was posted on Saturday and, going off of just the "official word" segment, this series looks to be DOA. I'm downgrading my rating of this series from "cautiously optimistic" to "pessimistic."

I really like the quote by Seth McFarlane at around 20:50 and I think he's spot on. My immediate reaction was "why can't they just give the franchise to Seth? Seems like he'd do it more justice than anyone else at this point."

I can live with changing the visual style, but ending the Roddenberry Rule and making it "gritty?" No. Just no. I like Star Trek precisely because of its optimism. The whole thing is really ominous.

Well Seth went with it LOL

 

[jdoll021]

But would his series be a comedy? If so, I would not approve.

A very interesting report describing Star Trek Discovery, as a generic space series with the Star Trek name slapped on it. Also an interesting discussion comparing Prime Timeline (TV series) with Kelvin (Abraham's movies). I can easily live with these two timelines as completely separate entities. I want an optimistic series, not a gritty series and I think it is a a very interesting comment that that if Discovery bombs, a plan B ST series might end up on the CW network vs CBS All Access.

Well, he's already coming out with a spoof called Oriville (not to be confused with Oroville near where I live ) on Fox this fall. According to the video I posted, quite a few Star Trek alum are working with him too. Also wouldn't be surprised to see a few cameos and guest stars. But working with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Anne Druyan on Cosmos already proved to me that he can do serious stuff and be good at it. It was really his comment about needing an optimistic future, especially today, that caught my attention and made me think Star Trek should be entrusted to him.

Yes, the abandonment of the Roddenberry Rule caught my attention and I was immediately disgusted. It really does seem like they just decided to take a garden variety BSG like sci fi show and slap the Star Trek label on it. Even DS9 didn't cross that line, though they did push it to the brink a few times.

I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but I agree with you. Keeping the prime and kelvin timelines separate was a smart move. You can even retcon it further later by referring to the kelvin timeline as an alternate universe if you want to undo the prequel comics that came before ST11. I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but because it's separate, it doesn't compromise the prime universe. This might if left to continue. I don't want a gritty series either. I want something optimistic and I think there is a real hunger for a counter to all the dystopian nonsense that's been coming out. I don't know if this "back burner" series is it though.

Warning: Pure speculation ahead!
In writing the above I have to wonder if the "powers that be" don't actually want an optimistic future for us to rally around and fight for. The dystopian stuff is useful for "conditioning us" for whatever crappy future we're subjected to (so long as those same "powers that be" are spared such a future). If we are given a vision of an optimistic and idealic future, then those of us in the "unwashed masses" might rise up and fight back against the "powers that be" to create that future. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Les "Trump may not be good for America but he's good for CBS' bottom line" Moonves is sticking his nose in it. /Speculation

 

[bradl]

Well, he's already coming out with a spoof called Oriville (not to be confused with Oroville near where I live ) on Fox this fall. According to the video I posted, quite a few Star Trek alum are working with him too. Also wouldn't be surprised to see a few cameos and guest stars. But working with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Anne Druyan on Cosmos already proved to me that he can do serious stuff and be good at it. It was really his comment about needing an optimistic future, especially today, that caught my attention and made me think Star Trek should be entrusted to him.

Yes, the abandonment of the Roddenberry Rule caught my attention and I was immediately disgusted. It really does seem like they just decided to take a garden variety BSG like sci fi show and slap the Star Trek label on it. Even DS9 didn't cross that line, though they did push it to the brink a few times.

I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but I agree with you. Keeping the prime and kelvin timelines separate was a smart move. You can even retcon it further later by referring to the kelvin timeline as an alternate universe if you want to undo the prequel comics that came before ST11. I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but because it's separate, it doesn't compromise the prime universe. This might if left to continue. I don't want a gritty series either. I want something optimistic and I think there is a real hunger for a counter to all the dystopian nonsense that's been coming out. I don't know if this "back burner" series is it though.

Warning: Pure speculation ahead!
In writing the above I have to wonder if the "powers that be" don't actually want an optimistic future for us to rally around and fight for. The dystopian stuff is useful for "conditioning us" for whatever crappy future we're subjected to (so long as those same "powers that be" are spared such a future). If we are given a vision of an optimistic and idealic future, then those of us in the "unwashed masses" might rise up and fight back against the "powers that be" to create that future. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Les "Trump may not be good for America but he's good for CBS' bottom line" Moonves is sticking his nose in it. /Speculation

I agree with you completely, but about DS9.. They actually did stick with the Roddenberry rule, even through its grittiest. Say for example, when Sisko basically unleashed a chemical weapon in an attempt to destroy an entire race. Add that to what happened with chemical weapons in Iraq or Syria. The PTSD that Nog faced? Goes straight into those coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan.

The beauty of the Roddenberry rule is that he always seemed to come up with the perfect social commentary BEFORE it would be applicable. Then when that event happens, we have it for reference. There are so many things happening now that Roddenberry envisioned during TNG, and that was 25 - 30 years ago.

BL.

 

[Huntn]

Well, he's already coming out with a spoof called Oriville (not to be confused with Oroville near where I live ) on Fox this fall. According to the video I posted, quite a few Star Trek alum are working with him too. Also wouldn't be surprised to see a few cameos and guest stars. But working with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Anne Druyan on Cosmos already proved to me that he can do serious stuff and be good at it. It was really his comment about needing an optimistic future, especially today, that caught my attention and made me think Star Trek should be entrusted to him.

Yes, the abandonment of the Roddenberry Rule caught my attention and I was immediately disgusted. It really does seem like they just decided to take a garden variety BSG like sci fi show and slap the Star Trek label on it. Even DS9 didn't cross that line, though they did push it to the brink a few times.

I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but I agree with you. Keeping the prime and kelvin timelines separate was a smart move. You can even retcon it further later by referring to the kelvin timeline as an alternate universe if you want to undo the prequel comics that came before ST11. I don't think of the kelvin timeline as optimistic but because it's separate, it doesn't compromise the prime universe. This might if left to continue. I don't want a gritty series either. I want something optimistic and I think there is a real hunger for a counter to all the dystopian nonsense that's been coming out. I don't know if this "back burner" series is it though.

Warning: Pure speculation ahead!
In writing the above I have to wonder if the "powers that be" don't actually want an optimistic future for us to rally around and fight for. The dystopian stuff is useful for "conditioning us" for whatever crappy future we're subjected to (so long as those same "powers that be" are spared such a future). If we are given a vision of an optimistic and idealic future, then those of us in the "unwashed masses" might rise up and fight back against the "powers that be" to create that future. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Les "Trump may not be good for America but he's good for CBS' bottom line" Moonves is sticking his nose in it. /Speculation

Thanks for the info. But, don't be saying anything bad about Battle Star Galactica! I'll admit when I first started watching it, long after it was cancelled, I thought it was not nearly as good as STNG, but... it grew on me and I grew to really enjoy watching it.

 

[Mousse]

I agree with you completely, but about DS9.. They actually did stick with the Roddenberry rule, even through its grittiest. Say for example, when Sisko basically unleashed a chemical weapon in an attempt to destroy an entire race. Add that to what happened with chemical weapons in Iraq or Syria.

I believe you're referring to the DS9 For the Uniform. Sisko use a biological weapons on the planet (poisonous to Humans but harmless to Cardassians). If you look at it objectively, he had to play referee and maintain a balance between two hostile forces the Marquis and Cardassians. The Marquis had poisoned other disputed planets with something harmless to humans but deadly to Cardassians. Sisko restored balance and added stability to the region; those disputed planets are no longer disputed.

There is also another unwritten rule of Star Trek: the needs of the many out weighs the needs of the few or the one. This is why Star Trek has such a optimistic future, people aren't greedy bastards. They sacrifice for the greater good. The two best episodes of Star Trek of all time, TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever and DS9: In the Pale Moonlight, are shining examples of this ideal.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I believe you're referring to the DS9 For the Uniform. Sisko use a biological weapons on the planet (poisonous to Humans but harmless to Cardassians). If you look at it objectively, he had to play referee and maintain a balance between two hostile forces the Marquis and Cardassians. The Marquis had poisoned other disputed planets with something harmless to humans but deadly to Cardassians. Sisko restored balance and added stability to the region; those disputed planets are no longer disputed.

There is also another unwritten rule of Star Trek: the needs of the many out weighs the needs of the few or the one. This is why Star Trek has such a optimistic future, people aren't greedy bastards. They sacrifice for the greater good. The two best episodes of Star Trek of all time, TOS: The City on the Edge of Forever and DS9: In the Pale Moonlight, are shining examples of this ideal.

Excellent - and well argued - post, and one with which I agree completely.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Looking around this evening, a random sequence of thoughts occurred, and I was reminded of all those holodeck episodes that went wrong in STNG; of course, if such a programme existed in real life in such an environment, it would have been banned after the first failure until tests had demonstrated that it was quite an securely safe.

 

[Huntn]

Looking around this evening, a random sequence of thoughts occurred, and I was reminded of all those holodeck episodes that went wrong in STNG; of course, if such a programme existed in real life in such an environment, it would have been banned after the first failure until tests had demonstrated that it was quite an securely safe.

Lol, think about how dangerous this technology would be, the ability to scramble your atoms.

 

[mobilehaathi]

So, this was posted on Saturday and, going off of just the "official word" segment, this series looks to be DOA. I'm downgrading my rating of this series from "cautiously optimistic" to "pessimistic."

I really like the quote by Seth McFarlane at around 20:50 and I think he's spot on. My immediate reaction was "why can't they just give the franchise to Seth? Seems like he'd do it more justice than anyone else at this point."

I can live with changing the visual style, but ending the Roddenberry Rule and making it "gritty?" No. Just no. I like Star Trek precisely because of its optimism. The whole thing is really ominous.

Interesting bit about the studio politics surrounding Star Trek in that video. It seems that for marketing purposes Discovery will be in the prime universe, but in reality it can not be (including show tone and visuals) for licensing reasons. Hah.