New Series Ship: Star Trek Discovery - Page 6 - HobbyTalk
 27Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #76 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-18-2017, 01:19 PM
Elder Statesman
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Engineer View Post
Trying to view the trailer was an adventure onto itself, since I got that "you are outside our geographical area" crap (even on some new stories!!). I finally did find somewhere to view it, and I didn't like it. The uniforms are wrong (we talked about that), didn't like the ship, and are those suppose to be Klingons????? As someone stated "CBS stated that this was suppose to be in the original Star Trek universe but it looks like it is actually in the JJ Abrams universe". I agree. I'm not liking what I saw. I'll try to see it (if I can) when it airs.
It looks like they copied the uniforms from The Orville.
bigjimslade is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-18-2017, 01:28 PM
Elder Statesman
 
Radiodugger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Augusta, Maine
Posts: 626
Ya know guys...I'm not sure what it would take to get the flavor of the old TOS. That's what ya want, right? I mean, DS-9 did it. Faithfully too! Do we go retro? How does that "Universe" progress? How do you do "BEFORE" in that sense? Look at Pike in the Pilot.

Myself, I damn-well wish they would do a USS Schloymee (or whatever) in the Original Universe. Uniforms, tech...all Kirk-era. Is that not what we want? Or am I reading this all wrong?

Doug
Radiodugger is offline  
post #78 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-18-2017, 01:40 PM
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radiodugger View Post
Ya know guys...I'm not sure what it would take to get the flavor of the old TOS. That's what ya want, right? I mean, DS-9 did it. Faithfully too! Do we go retro? How does that "Universe" progress? How do you do "BEFORE" in that sense? Look at Pike in the Pilot.

Myself, I damn-well wish they would do a USS Schloymee (or whatever) in the Original Universe. Uniforms, tech...all Kirk-era. Is that not what we want? Or am I reading this all wrong?

Doug
No, you're reading it right, at least for some of us.

I firmly believe that with good scripts, good actors, good characters, solid art direction and people who are committed to doing the best job they can, you can 'sell' anything as a show. That two-part Mirror Universe story on 'Enterprise' showed it was possible to use the designs of TOS and have it not look like a SNL sketch. (mind, some of those SNL Star Trek bits looked decent, partially because of love.)

And really, if you go all the way back to the pilot, if you built a new ST around those kinda baggy, muted color uniforms it would look somewhat contemporary. Plus, fairly forgiving for varied body types.

I do think they'd need to ditch the original laser pistol and communicator. Or re-design them to not look so...cheap and rough.
Steve H is offline  
 
post #79 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-18-2017, 03:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 236
Captain Robert April is offline  
post #80 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-19-2017, 07:52 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Olathe
Posts: 132
I hadn't kept up with what CBS is trying to do in reanimating the original Star Trek. For me any Star Trek has to encapsulate This:

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

Instead, what we are treated to is a barrage of fatalistic stories. It has virtually encapsulated every facet of entertainment. That is something that doesn't meet the test of time.

As a teenager, and soon to enter the military when Star Trek aired, it felt as if you Were going on an adventure. It wasn't an excursion into the end of civilization as we know it story. Rather, it was a story that made YOU wish you could be part of.

Who wants to take part in a possible annihilation of mankind. I can't help but wonder why so many want to be encompassed by images of destruction. It has become so utterly revolting that I haven't watched any of this "entertainment" for years. Entertainment has a way of becoming reality. Those who want to dismiss this idea look at the countless films that depicts the most realistic horror scenes of realistic carnage, decapitations etc. and compare That to current news events across the globe. We now have that reality. I, for one, cannot stomach it.
whereisanykey is offline  
post #81 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-20-2017, 01:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 349
Yep - STAR TREK is about high adventure - hence the whole "boldly going" thing in the intro.

There's been far too little of that in the various "Star Treks" we've been taking lately.

I'm sorry for the current generation who just can't see past fancy special effects and lens flares to see the lack of any substance in so much of the junk the industry chooses to shove out the door (often costing absurd amounts of money to make up for).

In some ways Firefly was the best non-Star Trek show to be shown in decades since it had some substance. Yes, there was some fatalism in the stories but, it did those stories with some style and was better for it.

This new show hasn't actually come out yet and, to be fair, trailers are often very misleading. I will probably watch the premier as others have said but, I will almost certainly not be paying CBS to watch the rest of it...
StarCruiser is offline  
post #82 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-20-2017, 02:11 PM
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarCruiser View Post
Yep - STAR TREK is about high adventure - hence the whole "boldly going" thing in the intro.

There's been far too little of that in the various "Star Treks" we've been taking lately.

I'm sorry for the current generation who just can't see past fancy special effects and lens flares to see the lack of any substance in so much of the junk the industry chooses to shove out the door (often costing absurd amounts of money to make up for).

In some ways Firefly was the best non-Star Trek show to be shown in decades since it had some substance. Yes, there was some fatalism in the stories but, it did those stories with some style and was better for it.

This new show hasn't actually come out yet and, to be fair, trailers are often very misleading. I will probably watch the premier as others have said but, I will almost certainly not be paying CBS to watch the rest of it...
Trailers ARE misleading. Yet the one thing above all else, a trailer, even a 'teaser' trailer MUST do is make you excited to watch the movie, show, video, whatever. You should come away from the viewing saying to yourself "Yeah, I can't wait for that!".

Trailer for 'The Orville' makes me say "why can't I watch it now?!" . Trailer for Star Trek: Discovery makes me say "huh. I guess that's a thing".

But what do I know? Maybe CBS All Access got a million more subscribers after that trailer came out. I rather doubt it but who knows?
Steve H is offline  
post #83 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-21-2017, 01:29 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Zombie_61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: So. California
Posts: 6,151
I think a large part of the problem with Star Trek: Discovery is that we older Trek fans are laboring under a false assumption--we're no longer their target audience. Paramount, who is producing this for CBS, has zero interest in trying to re-create those things that made Star Trek special in the past; they made that very clear with the 2009 reboot movie. What they want now is Star Trek: Fast and Furious, hoping it will attract new generations of Trek fans.
Zombie_61 is offline  
post #84 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-21-2017, 08:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 349
Yes - and new generation of short-attention-span folks... Who obviously already lost interest in JJ Drek based on the last movie's marginal performance.
StarCruiser is offline  
post #85 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-21-2017, 08:50 PM
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,076
I think the whole thing is, there's just no one with the core of Roddenberry's vision as an important and VITAL part of the concept.

Hope.

Go back and read comments from fans and creators written in the '70s. The central theme above all else was "We will get past this (for value= whatever one thinks 'this' is)". Mankind will survive, learn, grow, progress and get better.

That's a message I don't see promoted in Star Trek for a very long time. I sure as HECK never saw it in the JJTrek films.
Steve H is offline  
post #86 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-21-2017, 10:24 PM
Elder Statesman
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie_61 View Post
I think a large part of the problem with Star Trek: Discovery is that we older Trek fans are laboring under a false assumption--we're no longer their target audience. Paramount, who is producing this for CBS, has zero interest in trying to re-create those things that made Star Trek special in the past; they made that very clear with the 2009 reboot movie. What they want now is Star Trek: Fast and Furious, hoping it will attract new generations of Trek fans.
I see two general but related problems. (1) It's the target audience but rather a general trend of small minded thinking in Hollywood. (2) Paramount/CBS is incompetent when it comes to Star Trek as an asset.

I have describe the new Star Wars movies as "fast and furious in space." I watched the first movies in the theater and it was total crapola. I saw the 2d on video and it was total crapola. I skipped the third and have no great desire to see the new TV show. You can see that in the box office:

ST:1 $258M domestic, $128M foreign = $386M
ST:3 $159M domestic $189M foreign $343M

This has been a long trend.Just look at the ST movies before:

STTMP: It has it values but is a largely a confused mess.
STTWOK: The best
STTSFS: Crap
STTVHL Quirky but interesting.
ST 5: Crap
ST 6: The second best
ST 7: Crap
ST 8: The third best
ST 9: Crap
ST 10: Crap

Even before turning ST in the Fast and Furious, Star Trek movies were 50% total crap. You could say the same about Star Wars where 4 of the first 6 film (i.e., those where Lucas had total control) were total crap but that is a mistake Disney is obviously working to correct. You can see Disney is going everything possible to cash in on their investment.

That directly leads me to #2 in my list. Why are so many star trek fan productions and garage kits? That's because Paramount/CMS does not address fan demand. The people who do ST licensing at Paramount cost company a fortune. You would think that there would be high quality kits of everything Star Trek. You'd think there would a mass of high quality Star Trek books.
bigjimslade is online now  
post #87 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-22-2017, 03:57 PM
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,076
I dunno, I agree with some of that, disagree with others.

Here's the thing. The garage kit market is doing exactly what it's meant for, filling in the gaps and offering kits that the Majors just can't justify (sales numbers) to their money people.

Allow me to toss out a statement I've used in other places but holds just as true here. EVERYTHING is somebody's most favorite thing. Shuttles, Starships, Episodes, Series, Characters, on and on. EVERYTHING. But, just becomes SOMEBODY loves it doesn't mean ENOUGH love it to justify the cost of manufacturing. Sadly, we're past the age when a model company can crank out ANYTHING just to see if anyone buys it (ST Exploration Set? *pbbllrrrtth*).

I mean, I fully expect there's a subset of Trek fandom that thinks the Kazon were a pretty good idea.

So picture R2 saying "We're gonna make a Star Trek Shuttlecraft kit!" and THAT is the only thing said. I suspect many would assume they were going to make that new-tool Galileo they've been fiddling with, but there's a good number of people who would be angling for the larger shuttle from TNG, and then some would call for it to be the small Shuttlepod, and some vocal for the 'mostly not used' original Probert designed 'soapbar' shuttle (which I happen to really like), and THEN someone would just assume that they meant that 'big shuttle' known as a Runabout.

Naturally the truth would come out and they would be making that crappy* shuttle from ST 5.

I happen to think, for example, R2 COULD make money on a series of shuttle kits, (maybe 1/72, maybe 1/48, I would lean to 1/72 just so every possible thing can get made), I would group several in a box, maybe group them by series or movie, shoot for around $29.99 a set and watch them fly off the shelves.

But, once again, that takes the resources and more than anything else the WILL to make it happen. That's not happening any time soon.

It could happen if CBS expressed a desire for more model kits to get made. But again, they don't know what all to do with the franchise. There WERE people in place that did,Paula Block in publishing was one. They're gone.

*It's not THAT bad but it just looks so awkward, which sums up ST 5 pretty well
Steve H is offline  
post #88 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-22-2017, 05:58 PM
Elder Statesman
 
charonjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Tucson, AZ. U.S.A.
Posts: 1,711
Bravo! When I find that the best science fiction has to offer on TV is zombies, outbreaks, apocalypsis, alien domination, among other things, I see where the world is headed. I like Supergirl and The Flash, because they are the more positive avenues, despite darker, less brightly colored costumes. So, I watch these shows and wonder about the determined American approach to end the world to force Jesus to rescue us.

On Facebook, I had a short argument with someone who wanted us older and irrelevant people to accept Discovery as the new Star Trek. "Not cardboard sets and hokey special effects." Her argument was that we have to see updated tech, otherwise the new audience wouldn't be motivated to learn something to make it come true. While, I can appreciate her argument, I told her that Star Trek was never about the technology. Those were just tools in service to the story. The "cheap" sets were well thought out by Jeffries, who reasoned the grey walls could be lit to any color to improve the psychological mood of the crew, who were going to be away from Earth for five years in a souped up tin can. I mentioned that because of the cost of the effects, emphasis was put on an intelligent storyline, the ethos of which is what stuck with all of us. A better world. People, though not perfect, who thought in better ways to solve conflict and other problems. The notion of the Prime Directive.... Star Trek was far more important for its exercise of the realm of ideas. It was never about the technology.
Zombie_61 and Steve H like this.

Last edited by charonjr; 05-22-2017 at 06:02 PM.
charonjr is offline  
post #89 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-22-2017, 09:30 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Houston
Posts: 349
^ All comes down to writing - or the hopeless lack thereof (in the case of JJ Drek).

To have a good story, you have to have a good idea of where you want that story to go. There ARE good writers out there but Lindelof and the like are not among them.

The start to any good show (Sci Fi or anything) is a solid story, followed by good direction for a skilled cast (most actors CAN act their way out of a paper bag, with a good director) followed by the things that aid story-telling - effects, props, costumes etc...
Steve H likes this.
StarCruiser is offline  
post #90 of 97 (permalink) Old 05-23-2017, 10:36 AM
Elder Statesman
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 555
In regard to kits, major manufacturers are now doing on-off subjects like the USS Ranger

https://freetimehobbies.com/1-350-tr...der-price-tba/

I remember when there were just a few 1:350 ship kits on the market. Now, unburdened by CBS Licensing ever conceivable naval subject is getting hit due to advances in molding.
bigjimslade is online now  
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the HobbyTalk forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome