http://io9.com/holy-crap-they-are-officially-making-a-new-star-trek-t-1740024705

Boom

God knows when it will be set (or even in what universe) but it's NEW STAR TREK. Get hyped.

>God knows when it will be set (or even in what universe) but it's NEW
>STAR TREK. Get hyped.

Call me a buzzkill, but I'm going to wait until after the first episode or two to decide whether I'm going to be hyped. :)

--G.
yeah, I know. I'm not excited about The Force Awakens either. no distinct reason why not? I'm just... not.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>Call me a buzzkill, but I'm going to wait until after the first
>episode or two to decide whether I'm going to be hyped. :)
>
>--G.

:) Hey Buzzkill! I am with you. Especially since they are trying to kick start a CBS-centric Steaming Services with the show.

Phantom

"When you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the
truth." - Sherlock Holmes

I stopped getting hyped for new Trek TV series back when the "Akiraprise" was first revealed to fans. Now I'm left sort of dreading what they're going to do to my beloved franchise. If I can take any comfort, it's that Berman and Braga were given the boot ages ago.

>I stopped getting hyped for new Trek TV series back when the
>"Akiraprise" was first revealed to fans. Now I'm left sort of
>dreading what they're going to do to my beloved franchise. If I can
>take any comfort, it's that Berman and Braga were given the boot ages
>ago.

While there were a variety of flaws to Enterprise, I think it probably would have been successful enough if they'd just left out the "temporal cold war" that permeates so much of the first couple seasons. With that out of the way, it would have been no worse than TNG, IMHO.

>While there were a variety of flaws to Enterprise, I think it probably
>would have been successful enough if they'd just left out the
>"temporal cold war" that permeates so much of the first couple
>seasons. With that out of the way, it would have been no worse than
>TNG, IMHO.

The TCW was a nuisance, but it could have been something worthwhile. No, what let Enterprise down what the lack of attention to detail to a franchise where fans are known to obsess about the details. B&B sold the series as this great look into a period before Kirk, before phasers and shields...and then promptly wrote the series like a Voyager sequel rather than a serious attempt at a retro series.

Yeah. I can't figure out whether B&B really didn't learn anything from Voyager's mixed reception and were making the same mistakes, or if they were trying to play it safe and ended up making the same mistakes because Voyager made them afraid to take risks with the show out of fear of the network meddling again, or fan reaction, or what-have-you. Or maybe it's something altogether different. I don't know.

That being said, I did enjoy Enterprise at times. While there was a lot of stupid, some of it was surprisingly good. Mind you, it took two seasons and a bit to get to the good, but still.

So...Yeah. I'm optimistic, but only just. So I'm definitely in the "Wait and See" group with it, too.

I'm not too hyped because it is going to be on their paid account internet channel.

Michael C. Fortner
"Maxim 37: There is no such thing as "overkill".
There is only "open fire" and "I need to reload".

Holding off on an opinion until I hear what sort of storylines in which era they're going to use.

They will remember to put in a storyline, I hope...

--
Unable to save the day: File is read-only.

I'm sure they'll go for a novel storyline, like a starship trapped thousands of light-years from home, desperately search for a way back. Or invasion and conquest from another galactic quadrant. Or perhaps they'll face an intricate plot by time travelers. You know, something novel like that.

While it's nice that there is new Star Trek coming out - I'm long past letting companies' content monopolies dictate where my money goes. So unless they license it to services that I already subscribe to, I'll happily ignore it.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-16 AT 07:43 PM (EDT)
 
Apparently the latest news now is the first season of the new series will be a single story arc. And that's an approach that does not fill me with confidence. Any new Trek series would already have to deal with the stigma of being "weak," either due to actors feeling out their characters or writers getting a feel for the series. DS9 and ENT didn't attempt story arcs until they had a couple seasons under their belts.

I'm honestly beginning to wonder if CBS is trying to burn down the franchise in order to collect the insurance money.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-25-16 AT 08:08 PM (EDT)
 
>DS9 and
>ENT didn't attempt story arcs until they had a couple seasons under
>their belts.

Eh? Enterprise opened with a story arc, or at least a Really Prominent Running Subplot, and as a result was all but unwatchable until like season 3.

(And then got canceled for its nonperformance just as it was hitting its delayed stride, because there is no justice in broadcasting.)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>Eh? Enterprise opened with a story arc, or at least a
>Really Prominent Running Subplot, and as a result was all but
>unwatchable until like season 3.

ENT was nearly unwatchable until like season 3 for reasons completely unrelated to it trying to do story arcs.

I was actually heartened by the notion they're going to keep up a running plotline, because Star Trek series that aren't DS9 have an enormously high filler-to-quality ratio. (And even DS9s isn't amazing, it's just better than the others.) I am constantly surprised by how terrible I find the vast majority of TNG to be.

I kind of want there to be a story arc. I have nothing against sci-fi shows that only have loosely bound stories. I liked Firefly well enough. But, well... when I go to re-watch Babylon 5, I skip season one and jump straight into the Shadow War. DS9, I sort of skim over all that dull stuff in the first couple seasons. Hell, when I occasionally get the urge to look in on Voyager, I jump right to the later-season Borg and transdimensional invasion storylines.

More story arcs, please. I like me some story arcs. Let me sink my teeth into something.

(Sidebar: has anyone heard anything about CBS trying to use a new Star Trek as a way to get people to sign onto their new streaming service? Because if that's not just one of those things you hear on the internet, fuck THAT noise.)

-Merc
Keep Rat

I have a friend who works at CBS All Access. That is literally their whole strategy for CBS All Access.

LAST EDITED ON Jun-26-16 AT 00:04 AM (EDT)
 
>I have a friend who works at CBS All Access. That is literally their
>whole strategy for CBS All Access.

Hey, it worked for the Paramount Network. Both times!

Oh wait.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

I think that's the modern approach to shows shining through, really. Still, if they're doing the streaming approach, there may be enough episodes up from the beginning to let viewers watch enough.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

Star Trek Beyond is FANTASTIC. No spoilers, just go see it.

Did Abrams finally not fuck up the franchise? I'm skeptical but intrigued.

-Merc
Keep Rat

>Did Abrams finally not fuck up the franchise? I'm skeptical but
>intrigued.

Well, he didn't direct this one, so that's presumably a start.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>>Did Abrams finally not fuck up the franchise? I'm skeptical but
>>intrigued.
>
>Well, he didn't direct this one, so that's presumably a start.

There's a lot less lens flare in this one, that's for damn sure.

For me, the big thing is that it felt like a Star Trek movie, which is more than I can say for Into Darkness. The characters did pretty well, there's some silly technobabble moments, especially at the end, but it felt like the fun Trekky style technobabble. But even when it stumbled, it wasn't horribly so.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

>There's a lot less lens flare in this one, that's for damn sure.

Can you actually tell what the ship's bridge looks like? I've seen drawings and plans, but I've never been able to visualise what ought to be one of the most important locations in a Trek movie just from watching it. Too much shiny, too much lurching about, too much too much. <headdesk>

--
Unable to save the day: File is read-only.

>Can you actually tell what the ship's bridge looks like? I've seen
>drawings and plans, but I've never been able to visualise what ought
>to be one of the most important locations in a Trek movie just from
>watching it. Too much shiny, too much lurching about, too much too
>much. <headdesk>

Yeah, the inside of the ship is a lot easier to see this time around.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

Particularly after Kraal visits.

>Particularly after Kraal visits.

Nah, he turned off too many lights.

Matrix Dragon, J. Random Nutter

So two new bits of info came out of Comic-Con about the new series. The first is that it will be called "Star Trek: Discovery." The creative team's insisting the series abbreviation be "DSC," but it's not hard to see a lot of "STD" jokes in the future.

The other revelation is the first bit of footage of the new starship, USS Discovery.

Youtube link

And, honestly...it's ugly as sin. I honestly can't think of a good thing to say about the design, even if the quality of the CGI didn't look like it was nicked from a late-90s video game. It's not exactly a sign of confidence when the design team has to tell fans that "the design is not final."

>So two new bits of info came out of Comic-Con about the new series.
>The first is that it will be called "Star Trek: Discovery." The
>creative team's insisting the series abbreviation be "DSC," but it's
>not hard to see a lot of "STD" jokes in the future.
>
>The other revelation is the first bit of footage of the new starship,
>USS Discovery.
>
>Youtube link
>
>And, honestly...it's ugly as sin. I honestly can't think of a good
>thing to say about the design, even if the quality of the CGI didn't
>look like it was nicked from a late-90s video game. It's not exactly
>a sign of confidence when the design team has to tell fans that "the
>design is not final."

*looks*

Sooo... Star Fleet Engineering's been infiltrated by Romulan designers, then?

(I seem to recall designs like this for pre-TNG work, etc.)

--- Philip

	Philip J. Moyer Contributing Writer, Editor and Artist (and Moderator) -- Eyrie Productions, Unlimited CEO of MTS, High Poobah Of Artwork, and High Priest Of the Church Of Aerianne -- Magnetic Terrapin Studios "Insert Pithy Comment Here" Fandoms -- Fanart -- Fan Meta Discussions

Honestly? It looks like the front half is Starfleet and the back half is Klingon. Like an outer space PT Cruiser.

------
Fearless creatures, we all learn to fight the Reaper
Can't defeat Her, so instead I'll have to be Her

>>The other revelation is the first bit of footage of the new starship,
>>USS Discovery.
>>
>>Youtube link
>*looks*
>
>Sooo... Star Fleet Engineering's been infiltrated by Romulan
>designers, then?
>
>(I seem to recall designs like this for pre-TNG work, etc.)
>
>--- Philip
>

It also bears some resemblance to the Star Trek II (the cancelled sequel series to TOS, not the movie) concept art Ralph McQuarrie did.

Reminds me a little of some of the concept art for the Enterprise-E in the TNG technical manual. This was well before Sovereign-class was devised and they were a bit goofy.

I can actually see a fair bit of Galaxy-class lineage in the Discovery-class, including the cardinal error of having the nacelles lower than the saucer. If the only trailer footage they show is ship-porn could they not at least make it pretty?

That is an *old*-ass hull design. That's TOS era blockiness, that is.

>And, honestly...it's ugly as sin. I honestly can't think of a good
>thing to say about the design, even if the quality of the CGI didn't
>look like it was nicked from a late-90s video game. It's not exactly
>a sign of confidence when the design team has to tell fans that "the
>design is not final."

The last Star Trek series with really good ship designs all across the board was DS9. Voyager had a lot of successes but also a lot of failures, as did Enterprise. This thing, as others have said in the thread, looks like the weird child of Klingon and Federation engineering, with all the worst parts of both. And that CGI is 90s-era, at best. In fact, the hybrid CGI/model ships of late-era DS9 looked better than it, and DS9 had to try and portray enormous fleet battles on the budget of a low-rated network show!

But let's be real. The ship design is an easy metric to hit. Despite the people who still bitch about the Galaxy-class, all you need to do is jump over a fairly low hurdle. Our attachment to the ship will not be based on the quality of the design; it will be based on the characters and stories surrounding said ship. If the characters and stories are good, we'll love the ship. If they are not, we will cease to care.

-Merc
Keep Rat

>the quality of the CGI didn't
>look like it was nicked from a late-90s video game.

... because no one has ever rushed out a sketchy preliminary trailer in order to hit a major con before.

Honestly, people, kvetching about the quality of the CG in this trailer is like watching one of the pencil test teasers for a Disney animated film and saying, "Man, Disney's animation quality has gone massively downhill, this isn't even in fucking color." :)

As for the design itself, as others have noted here and elsewhere, it's pretty obviously rooted in the Ralph McQuarrie concept sketches for the Enterprise in Star Trek: Phase II, the canceled 1970s revival TV series that ultimately, tortuously led to Star Trek: The Motion Picture. And, well, I have a hard time saying anything bad about a Ralph McQuarrie design.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

>>the quality of the CGI didn't
>>look like it was nicked from a late-90s video game.
>
>... because no one has ever rushed out a sketchy preliminary
>trailer in order to hit a major con before.

I'm inherently sympathetic to this argument, but... we're six months out from the premiere date. At this point in the production timeline many shows have an episode or two already shot and ready for post.

Discovery has... a name, and about a minute of sub-par CGI. It doesn't even have a cast, or if it does they've exercised a shocking amount of information control. They almost certainly haven't started shooting yet, for something that premieres in, again, six months.

That's not necessarily a completely bad set of signs. Back in the old days they could crank out twenty-six hour-long episodes over a timeline of six to nine months. Plenty of shows still do this, such as the various CSI's and NCIS's, although that sort of grueling production schedule has become less de rigeur for non-network shows. (And yes, this is a non-network show despite the CBS label.)

But still. Somewhat troubling that this is ALL they have to show six months out.

-Merc
Keep Rat

>As for the design itself, as others have noted here and elsewhere,
>it's pretty obviously rooted in the Ralph McQuarrie concept sketches
>for the Enterprise in Star Trek: Phase II, the canceled
>1970s revival TV series that ultimately, tortuously led to Star
>Trek: The Motion Picture. And, well, I have a hard time saying
>anything bad about a Ralph McQuarrie design.

Fuller said at SDCC that he couldn't even officially comment on the resemblance to McQuarrie's design until 'lawyers had worked out some things'.

I'm really hoping this is some sort of Klingon-Starfleet collaboration. It kinda looks like a D-7 and a Connie got in a transporter accident...

Or maybe they could get the guy who modeled this to overhaul the Discovery.

Although I'm liking the crazy fan theory rumor that the reason Discovery looks so chunky and Klingon is because it's a sort of joint venture between the Federation and the Klingons, set between The Undiscovered Country and Next Generation.

"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."

>Although I'm liking the crazy fan theory rumor that the reason
>Discovery looks so chunky and Klingon is because it's a sort of
>joint venture between the Federation and the Klingons, set between The
>Undiscovered Country and Next Generation.

The most important question if this is true: ridged or non-ridged Klingons?

-Merc
Keep Rat

re: link - still not a fan, but it's better. I guess.
Sorry, I too am a huge McQuarrie fan, but not every single concept piece of his was genius.

The real irony is that my STO "main" captains a Discovery (Sovereign-class).

From the YouTube clip, <i>Discovery</i>'s registry number is NCC-1031, so I'm thinking it would be much older than the post-ST:VI period.

The timeframe you're talking about might make sense other than that. ISTR relations between the Federation and the Klingons improved after the <i>Enterprise</i>-C was lost defending a Klingon colony from Romulan aggression.

Another thought: most of the simpler, blockier ship shapes seem to be earlier in the ST universe's history.

>Or maybe they could get the guy who modeled
>this
>to overhaul the Discovery.
>
>Although I'm liking the crazy fan theory rumor that the reason
>Discovery looks so chunky and Klingon is because it's a sort of
>joint venture between the Federation and the Klingons, set between The
>Undiscovered Country and Next Generation.
>
>"This is probably a stupid question, but . . ."