New Star Trek series - 2017

JediFragger · 9 Aug 2018 at 13:35

HeX said:
Picard and Q's Universal Time & Reality Travelling Adventure Fun Time Story!

I'd pay to watch that ****!!! It'd be hilarious

Gerard · 9 Aug 2018 at 14:35

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/08/star...klingons-another-new-look-season-two-7816428/

So the Klingons are getting redesigned for the next season. Might want to make them speak english more often as well as them speaking Klingon was so long winded it just got irritating.

Warbie · 9 Aug 2018 at 14:52

The new Klingons were great. First time they've been interesting in a while and not just angry dudes with stuff stuck on their face. Although the latter part counts for pretty much all Star Trek species!

TNA · 9 Aug 2018 at 15:19

Gerard said:
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/08/star...klingons-another-new-look-season-two-7816428/

So the Klingons are getting redesigned for the next season. Might want to make them speak english more often as well as them speaking Klingon was so long winded it just got irritating.

Great news. Did not like the way the new Klingons looked and spoke. I just want to see a slightly enhanced version of Warf.

SixTwoSix · 9 Aug 2018 at 15:27

They've given a very convoluted explanation for the re-design though, rather than just say "no one liked it, so we're changing it"

sideways14a · 9 Aug 2018 at 15:29

I would laugh my ass off if they changed it and put a disclaimer at the beginning saying they had done so because too many nerds were crying about it.

Jeez its only a mask.

Rimsy · 9 Aug 2018 at 18:43

No real issues with the way they look but God damn it's painful whenever there is any dialogue in Klingon. Subtitles are fine. The noise in the background is not!

JRS · 11 Aug 2018 at 20:35

sideways14a said:
Jeez its only a mask.

It's the look of an iconic alien race in a TV and film franchise that so far spans 228 years of on-screen history (not counting the one or two trips forwards and backwards in time past the start of Enterprise and the end of Nemesis)

A look that was fairly well established until STD came along and exploded it all to Narnia and back. They had long hair and forehead ridges in 2151, they started rapidly losing the ridges in 2154 due to the Augment virus, they gradually got the ridges back from 2271 through 2293, they had them properly back by 2364. And funnily enough, at no point in these 228 years were they shown with no hair (even Chang had facial hair in The Undiscovered Country), claw-like fingers, weird cheekbones, ridges that ran right over the head and down the back of the skull and four ******* nostrils. I'm sorry to keep harping on about the four nostril thing but you would agree that it's quite a change, no?

ChroniC · 12 Aug 2018 at 16:51

How is that any different to them not having very good makeup in the 60s, so they looked more human. New technology and a huge budget for the films meant they look completely different. I'm sure it can be proved otherwise but they blatently made up the story of the Augment Virus to fit into the narative of this change.
In all fairness the makeup from the 90s and now isn't a huge jump in makeup technology but I don't see why it's not easier now and cheaper to make them even more alien than normal. Seems a good idea to me.

On a completely different side not.
If you have a pattern from the transport history, and you mixed it with a replicator. Could you not replicate a human?

MissChief · 12 Aug 2018 at 21:55

To be honest I just wish they'd find a design and stick with it rather than re-imagining them every time. Worf was a little too human in TNG but I'd imagine that was primarily driven by cost and ease of application. They've looked different in every series just about.

JRS · 12 Aug 2018 at 22:34

ChroniC said:
How is that any different to them not having very good makeup in the 60s, so they looked more human. New technology and a huge budget for the films meant they look completely different. I'm sure it can be proved otherwise but they blatently made up the story of the Augment Virus to fit into the narative of this change.

Ya think?

ChroniC said:
In all fairness the makeup from the 90s and now isn't a huge jump in makeup technology but I don't see why it's not easier now and cheaper to make them even more alien than normal. Seems a good idea to me.

But when you've established a look, and you're writing stories serving a time period bracketed by existing shows that established that look, ****ing around with said look causes continuity issues. And continuity is the price you pay for writing in the Trek universe.

How far d'you go now? Do we invalidate Worf's look in TNG and retroactively make him bald, change his skull structure, give him claws? And. Four. Goddamn. Nostrils?

ChroniC said:
On a completely different side not.
If you have a pattern from the transport history, and you mixed it with a replicator. Could you not replicate a human?

There was a technobabble reason given in-universe for why you can't do that, it escapes me right now. But then, with just the transporter (i.e no replicator involved) Kirk got split into two beings in an episode of TOS ("The Enemy Within"), and Riker got duplicated sometime prior to the TNG episode "Second Chances".

Washout · 13 Aug 2018 at 10:20

JRS said:
Ya think?

But when you've established a look, and you're writing stories serving a time period bracketed by existing shows that established that look, ****ing around with said look causes continuity issues. And continuity is the price you pay for writing in the Trek universe.

How far d'you go now? Do we invalidate Worf's look in TNG and retroactively make him bald, change his skull structure, give him claws? And. Four. Goddamn. Nostrils?

There was a technobabble reason given in-universe for why you can't do that, it escapes me right now. But then, with just the transporter (i.e no replicator involved) Kirk got split into two beings in an episode of TOS ("The Enemy Within"), and Riker got duplicated sometime prior to the TNG episode "Second Chances".

I think the writers realised they'd written themselves into a bit of a corner as the transporter started to become a cureall so they backed away from it a bit. Got an alien bug? Hope in the transporter. Getting old from some disease - transporter etc.

Klingon thing bugged me a little but not as much as some. Why not just make them a totally different species. Or could have had some fun a reveal them to be an offshoot cousin species of Klingon.

CaptainRAVE · 15 Aug 2018 at 00:49

Season 2 seems to be taking a new direction. Can’t wait. Just need 4K!

steve5424 · 15 Aug 2018 at 10:51

Spock casting announced for season 2
https://trekmovie.com/2018/08/14/breaking-ethan-peck-cast-as-spock-on-star-trek-discovery-season-2/
Yes he is Gregory Peck's grandson.

JRS · 15 Aug 2018 at 14:18

Ethan Peck - fair enough, decent bit of casting that.

And with the positivity over, a return to form...

TrekMovie said:
Alex Kurtzman noted that Discovery‘s Spock will not be the one we’re used to.

"The Spock that we meet is ten years [before Star Trek: The Original Series]. So, he is not formed in the same way that he is formed by the time you get to TOS. What we will learn is a lot of what made him the Spock that he was and what will make him the Spock he is, has to do with his family and his sister."

Thing is Alex, we've kind-of already seen Spock at this point in his life. "Will You Take My Hand", the S1 finale of STD, is set in 2257. "The Cage", the original pilot episode of Star Trek that was rejected for being too clever for a TV audience by NBC, was set in 2254. While it was believable that he changed a bit in the 11 years between when "The Cage" was set and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the second pilot, set in 2265), how believable is it going to be if you have a radically different Spock¹ just three years after the first pilot and eight years before the second?

Oh, and of course Burnham is part of "what will make him the Spock he is". I mean, she was already the One True Light And Saviour™ of the Federation at the end of the first season, so why shouldn't Commander Mary Sue Bonehead be an important part of Spock's backstory? Even if she does never get a mention again for the 114 years that span the second pilot of TOS to Star Trek: Nemesis...

¹ - because we all know he will be, STD's showrunners have so far shown a complete disdain for anything approaching continuity

Gerard · 29 Aug 2018 at 21:24

Looks like Star Trek 4 is in trouble as Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth have apparently stopped negotiations to be in the movie, supposedly paramount wanted them to take a pay cut to help the movies budget.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2456518/star-trek-4-without-chris-pine-heres-what-one-producer-says

MissChief · 29 Aug 2018 at 21:50

Gerard said:
Looks like Star Trek 4 is in trouble as Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth have apparently stopped negotiations to be in the movie, supposedly paramount wanted them to take a pay cut to help the movies budget.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2456518/star-trek-4-without-chris-pine-heres-what-one-producer-says

Both much bigger actors now than before. And the last film wasn't a 'Trek' film, it was an action film with Star Trek characters in it. Exactly what I knew they'd get by hiring Justin 'Fast and Furious' Lin.

ChroniC · 29 Aug 2018 at 22:00

Paramount believe it or not are in big financial trouble. They can no longer risk money on big films that flop. The last Trek was reshot and came in vastly under profit. That's why they asked them to take a pay cut. They refused, as Misschief said, there to big to do that.
I think Paramount are suicidal by making a blockbuster which has proven unpopular. They should focus on smaller low budget films that make more money like Hidden Figures.
ST4 could end them.

Trig · 29 Aug 2018 at 22:03

You cant do Trek from that era without Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Uhura, Chekov or Sulu...

And they've already lost Chekov...

james.miller · 7 Oct 2018 at 08:48

New trailer, new Klingons... and Spock