• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Star Trek Discovery

I've only seen one episode, and I don't consider that enough to make an informed judgement. One thing I DON'T do anymore is argue what is and is not "canon". Turning Star Trek into a fundamentalist religion/mystery cult (which is what I insist a particular set of Trek fandom are doing) destroys any enjoyment for me. A suggestion I frequently make for people who enjoy storytelling is that they write fifty pages of anything original; anything that blows wind up your kilts. It doesn't have to be Tolstoy, just no fan fiction. Set yourself a deadline for completing your project and stick to it, then copyright your intellectual property. Go through the process. Finally, if your local news media is like mine there will be literary sections online and in the Sunday paper. There will also be many dedicated literary sites. Find one or more of these, register for an open reading, and read your material in front of people who neither love you or owe you money. I guarantee this will enhance your entire view of what other people write.

JAMES
 
Eoraptor1 said:
I've only seen one episode, and I don't consider that enough to make an informed judgement. One thing I DON'T do anymore is argue what is and is not "canon". Turning Star Trek into a fundamentalist religion/mystery cult (which is what I insist a particular set of Trek fandom are doing) destroys any enjoyment for me. A suggestion I frequently make for people who enjoy storytelling is that they write fifty pages of anything original; anything that blows wind up your kilts. It doesn't have to be Tolstoy, just no fan fiction. Set yourself a deadline for completing your project and stick to it, then copyright your intellectual property. Go through the process. Finally, if your local news media is like mine there will be literary sections online and in the Sunday paper. There will also be many dedicated literary sites. Find one or more of these, register for an open reading, and read your material in front of people who neither love you or owe you money. I guarantee this will enhance your entire view of what other people write.

JAMES
Click to expand...

Its an old argument, and i've never agreed with it. It's kind of like saying "If you don't like the latest model Nissan, then please start your own car factory etc, etc......"

There are a zillion variations, but I question the underlying logic/validity. Do you really need to be a farmer to comment on rotten vegetables? Do you need to be a chef before you can decide that the food at a particular restaurant stinks? (etc etc)

All you can really do is abide by your own sense of taste.

As for "canon" I think that Star Trek is pretty unique in that it has literally decades of complex lore: an edifice upon which all iterations of the show (and countless books) stand except for the latest movie Treks, which are deliberately set in an alternate universe specifically to escape the restrictions of canon.

That's an honest decision, and a choice made by the producers that the fans are left to take or leave, but completely violating the existing history while claiming to be attempting to adhere to it smacks of dishonesty. Not surprisingly that's going to be controversial, as people may feel, with some justification, that they were lured by false pretenses.

If this trek is happening in a different universe, then so be it. If it's a retcon, or total reboot, also fine. But shoehorning a sudden new sibling for spock into the show, completely ignoring the tech level of the previous iterations etc....... You pull that stuff, and you had better expect to be called on it.

That's not just specific to Trek. You can't abruptly announce that Darth Vader (or Batman!) is really a girl, and expect fans to swallow it with no comment. Not while claiming to be following existing lore.
 
Panther_99FS said:
Whether you're right or wrong will be determined by the longevity of the series....Old fans die, and the key to longevity is to attract the younger crowd which is what this and JJ Abrams are trying to do....:mixed-smiley-010:
Click to expand...

But the younger crowd isn't being exposed to 'true' Star Trek, what ST was and was meant to be. I shortened my original post for fear of politically derailing the thread, but the simple truth is that STD was intended to be political. Among other things, the producer(s) are on record stating that the Klingons were modeled after Trump/his supporters (IE: they are supposed to be ultra nationalists whackos). This is what Star Trek has devolved into over the years.

As a conservative, why would I watch this show if it is just going to be bashing me over the head with every episode? To be honest, when I tune into a TV show or go to see a movie I don't want it to be promoting liberalism or conservativism, I just want to be entertained.

The 'fans' voiced their concerned about the direction STD had apparently taken during production but pretty much received the finger in response. This is the same sort of thing that happened when JJ Trek was in production, only he actually said "f_
--k you' to the 'fans' that were trying to warn him.

There are still plenty of us "old fans" around to know the difference between good Trek and bad. For me, Trek began a slow death with STII:TWOK. Yes, it was a good movie, but it was the beginning of Trek conforming to the story instead of the other way around. Continuity was shoved out the window.

I've read about the rumors surrounding Nicholas Meyer. He was apparently brought in as a Plan B when STD tanked. One report has him making a series about Khan on Ceti Alpha V after Kirk dumped him there. Rumors are just rumors and we will have to wait and see.
 

Attachments

  • remakes_by_candelagreene-d2yagc8.jpg
    remakes_by_candelagreene-d2yagc8.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 2
HyFlyer said:
Its an old argument, and i've never agreed with it. It's kind of like saying "If you don't like the latest model Nissan, then please start your own car factory etc, etc......"

There are a zillion variations, but I question the underlying logic/validity. Do you really need to be a farmer to comment on rotten vegetables? Do you need to be a chef before you can decide that the food at a particular restaurant stinks? (etc etc)

All you can really do is abide by your own sense of taste.

As for "canon" I think that Star Trek is pretty unique in that it has literally decades of complex lore: an edifice upon which all iterations of the show (and countless books) stand except for the latest movie Treks, which are deliberately set in an alternate universe specifically to escape the restrictions of canon.

That's an honest decision, and a choice made by the producers that the fans are left to take or leave, but completely violating the existing history while claiming to be attempting to adhere to it smacks of dishonesty. Not surprisingly that's going to be controversial, as people may feel, with some justification, that they were lured by false pretenses.

If this trek is happening in a different universe, then so be it. If it's a retcon, or total reboot, also fine. But shoehorning a sudden new sibling for spock into the show, completely ignoring the tech level of the previous iterations etc....... You pull that stuff, and you had better expect to be called on it.

That's not just specific to Trek. You can't abruptly announce that Darth Vader (or Batman!) is really a girl, and expect fans to swallow it with no comment. Not while claiming to be following existing lore.
Click to expand...

All I said was doing some writing yourself would enhance your experience, and I stand by that. Same with music. You already know what you like, but learning and playing an instrument adds a whole new level of experience. I stand by that comment too.

JAMES
 
FOO FIGHTER said:
Absolutely. Everyone has the freedom to watch, or not watch, what they want. :ernaehrung004:

Instead of trying to reinvent Trek every few years, I really wish CBS/Paramount would sponsor fan produced projects like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkuJG1_2MnU
Click to expand...

Hello FOO FIGHTER,

Now THAT was in the original "Spirit" of the TOS. Thanks. I actually watched it from start to finish!

(A Salute from a fellow Sixth Scale enthusiast.)

- Ivan.
 
If the Studio would give a "Fan" guy like Vic Mignogna from Star Trek Continues....or even a guy with the drive and desire of Alec Peters from the Axanar project the budget to create a true "Roddenberry" inspired Star Trek prequel, created with canonical Star Trek in mind. I think the real fans would truly Love it..... but others would never "Get" it. You'd be aimed at too small a fan base for the return on investment for the Studio. Star Trek made people think. The Thought is what inspired the "Hope" for a better future for mankind. Kids today don't want to think. They don't want a moralistic story. They want "Bang-Bang Shoot 'em up" Fast and furious blow everything up Super Hero kind of stories like the Abrams movies were. There are two completely different fan bases since the movies and CBS / Paramount can't please them both!! Discovery's kiss is death is being on CBS' own steaming service and not a mainstream service like Netflix. That right there is only further dividing the fan base. Star Trek is supposed to be episodic TV. It is Perfect for the Netflix episodic environment. Who doesn't enjoy "Binge" watching episodic Star Trek??
 
Hello again FOO FIGHTER,

FOO FIGHTER said:
but the simple truth is that STD was intended to be political. Among other things, the producer(s) are on record stating that the Klingons were modeled after Trump/his supporters (IE: they are supposed to be ultra nationalists whackos). This is what Star Trek has devolved into over the years.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are forgetting that TOS also had a political message. It was a rationalization for the Global political climate at the time with the US and Soviet / Chinese each supporting opposing sides in regional conflicts like Korea and Vietnam without getting into a full scale war with each other.

FOO FIGHTER said:
There are still plenty of us "old fans" around to know the difference between good Trek and bad. For me, Trek began a slow death with STII:TWOK. Yes, it was a good movie, but it was the beginning of Trek conforming to the story instead of the other way around. Continuity was shoved out the window.
Click to expand...

Besides being a somewhat silly movie, what else did you find "wrong" with TWOK?

- Ivan.
 
Thanks Ivan. I'm glad someone finally recognized what my avatar represented!:jump:

TOS was not intended to be a vehicle for political or social commentary. Being created during a rough part in our history (Vietnam war, racial tension, cold war, etc.) it did touch on the problems at that time. Only a handful of episodes out of 79 went full bore into making some social statement. It represented what mankind could become once we got past things like war and racism. It did not zero in on left or right being good or bad but that we as humanity were all in the same boat together rowing in unison.

STD is created by politically charged people (both in front of and behind the camera) pushing their political point of view. Case in point:

http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-sonequa-takes-knee/

I don't give a damn what these people think politically and I don't want to see it wrapped around Star Trek. I want to see some part of Star Fleet exploring space and discovering new things without left or right politics attached to it. But Hollywood being what it is in recent years that is going to be damn near impossible.

I thought TWOK was OK, but that is when they started messing with established canon. In 'Space Seed' Khan and his crew are all about the same age, but in the movie the rest of his crew are many years younger than he is. In the movie, Khan recognizes Chekov but Chekov was not in 'Space Seed'. In the TOS the Enterprise sensors could pick up lifeforms on a planet but the Reliant apparently can't detect a cluster of humans on the desolate and lifeless surface of Ceti Alpha V. Oh god, my nerdness is showing!:p87:

@MustangL2W - Star Trek Continues has gotten way too political as well (you can't really escape it, it is everywhere). I will say that it is well produced and that Vic Mignogna has NAILED Shatner's body language and mannerisms to a tee. For those interested in more TOS fan productions, look up Starship Farragut or Starship Exeter on YooToob.

Trek no longer has the so called 'built in fan base' that Paramount has relied on in the past. Nobody waits in line for hours or days to see a Trek movie anymore the way Star Wars fans still do. There is a reason for that and it is because the fans aren't there any more. Trek ceased to be Trek with ST:III and has become just another series of sci-fi movies.

People are tuning into STD now because it is new. They want to see what it is all about and I think the novelty of it all will fade pretty quick once they do.
 
FOO FIGHTER said:
. Nobody waits in line for hours or days to see a Trek movie anymore the way Star Wars fans still do. There is a reason for that and it is because the fans aren't there any more. Trek ceased to be Trek with ST:III and has become just another series of sci-fi movies.

People are tuning into STD now because it is new. They want to see what it is all about and I think the novelty of it all will fade pretty quick once they do.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but the JJ Abrams films have done better than the other previous films..and that's 3 thus far....
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary
 
Panther_99FS said:
I hate to say it, but the JJ Abrams films have done better than the other previous films..and that's 3 thus far....
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Star-Trek#tab=summary
Click to expand...

But the catch is that people were drawn to the new, which was Star Trek 2009. Each film since then, however, has done successively worse at the box office, with the latest one considered to be a financial failure that's put the prospects for any more Kelvin timeline films in doubt.

In fact, when adjusted for inflation, the latest movie in the kelvin timeline series comes in as pretty middle of the road. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm
 
HyFlyer said:
But the catch is that people were drawn to the new, which was Star Trek 2009.
Click to expand...

One could use this point for every film since each one was new....But once once sifts through the loud and mad crowd, one sees that there are quite a few Discovery fans....And as always, the disappointed ones are the loudest...:mixed-smiley-010:
 
Addendum: I should also add that the Battlestar Galactica re-boot went through the same thing. There were some hard core fans still stuck in 1978 and had absolutely zero interest in and hated the reboot - regardless of the reboot's success.
 
LOL, it's easy. If you don't like it don't watch it. Those of us who like it will be in front of the set on Sunday night.
I remember when TOS came out. If I went straight home from high school, I could be in front of the TV at 4pm local, when the show came on. I did NOTHING ELSE, right after school that year. At 5 pm, you could talk to me.
Sue
 
Penzoil3 said:
LOL, it's easy. If you don't like it don't watch it. Those of us who like it will be in front of the set on Sunday night.
I remember when TOS came out. If I went straight home from high school, I could be in front of the TV at 4pm local, when the show came on. I did NOTHING ELSE, right after school that year. At 5 pm, you could talk to me.
Sue
Click to expand...

Woo Hoo - You and me Sue, enjoying Discovery!
I'll bring the adult beverages :mixed-smiley-010:
 
Panther_99FS said:
Addendum: I should also add that the Battlestar Galactica re-boot went through the same thing. There were some hard core fans still stuck in 1978 and had absolutely zero interest in and hated the reboot - regardless of the reboot's success.
Click to expand...

(Warning: Spoilers)

I actually liked the Battlestar reboot at first. Then I realized it was a universe where nobody smiled, ever, and the whole thing got too heavy.

Essentially, the show became a major downer, and hot cylons notwithstanding, I drifted off and never went back.

Nice battles, though.

I would say that "Hardcore fans stuck in 1978" as a correlation to the Star Trek situation though, is a pretty broad brush, really only useful for dismissing contrary opinions.

For many people, the writing, particularly of the main character, but on many other levels as well, was simply silly, culminating in the ship's Captain and First officer going alone into a ship full of enemies, because apparently security was having a coffee break.

Let's look at the situation in a realistic context. The ship is disabled, many crew dead and missing, the fleet is in tatters...... So amidst all this, the captain and first officer of a US warship abandon the crew to go attack a guerrilla base and capture Osama bin laden... alone.

Okee Dokee. Make sense? :dizzy: Even Kirk knew enough to take security with him.

The main character is supposed to have been raised on Vulcan and be super-logical...... But behaves like an unstable personality with zero impulse control. She commits mutiny, (technically barratry) attacks a senior officer..... and we're supposed to bond with her as a person when she essentially screws up just about everything from the moment we first meet her.....

The one likable character, the captain, is a throwaway; apparently there just to add texture to the main character, and in fact the entire crew of the first vessel we meet (as well as the vessel itself) are essentially throwaways in support of the main character's backstory.

Seeing her captain killed, the main character (Again completely based on emotion rather than her supposed Vulcan upbringing) does the exact thing she warned that they must at all costs avoid doing and switches her phaser from blue to red (kill) before blowing away the big baddie, making him a martyr and destroying the last known hope for a negotiated settlement) :rocket:

Screw the crew and the Federation, my captain is dead and i'm pissed.

It goes on and on.

Honestly, one doesn't have to be stuck in the past to not like a badly told story.....

The consensus I'm finding out there is that a lot of people believe we could have done without the first two episodes except as flashbacks, and the show should have started with episode three as a better introduction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top