Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I could not disagree more with those ... er ... declarations. Bakula does a great job expressing the enthusiasm and conviction thst define Archer. By more accessible, I meant thst he is not as much of a paragon as Kirk. In TOS, it is pretty much a given that Kirk is the best possible captain. In Enterprise, the plots sometimes rely on the audience's uncertainty as to whether Archer is taking the best course. This is fitting as Archer is the trailblazer, and so he has to make more of it up as he goes thann his successors.

Bakula was OK. My issue with the show was instead of a war with the Romulans or the start of Klingon hostilities (which I admit I was REALLY looking forward to), we got time traveling sentient otters, and preying Mantis and gak.

God knows I've watched enough dodgy looking sci-fi over the years, so this ship design does not bother me in the slightest.

However, I'm getting a bad vibe from this.

The last thing we need is another Star Trek series where Captain Perfect and the USS Economy Class, goes from planet to planet, and nothing really happens. I already own TNG series 1

I didn't watch much of Enterprise -- and was never much of a Bakula fan -- but I didn't think he or the Archer character were problems in the series.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
God knows I've watched enough dodgy looking sci-fi over the years, so this ship design does not bother me in the slightest.

However, I'm getting a bad vibe from this.

The last thing we need is another Star Trek series where Captain Perfect and the USS Economy Class, goes from planet to planet, and nothing really happens. I already own TNG series 1

But isn't all the talk pointing to the exact opposite of that? That the season will be about a previously referenced event from before TOS (Romulan War?), and operate in a serial format? That suggests a backdrop of larger-scale events, and a story that's more than episodic planet hopping.

 gorgon wrote:
I didn't watch much of Enterprise -- and was never much of a Bakula fan -- but I didn't think he or the Archer character were problems in the series.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
God knows I've watched enough dodgy looking sci-fi over the years, so this ship design does not bother me in the slightest.

However, I'm getting a bad vibe from this.

The last thing we need is another Star Trek series where Captain Perfect and the USS Economy Class, goes from planet to planet, and nothing really happens. I already own TNG series 1

But isn't all the talk pointing to the exact opposite of that? That the season will be about a previously referenced event from before TOS (Romulan War?), and operate in a serial format? That suggests a backdrop of larger-scale events, and a story that's more than episodic planet hopping.

The talk is just that - talk. An edgy, episodic story arc set in the Star Trek past appeals to me, but I remember all the talk pre Enterprise about story arcs, edginess etc etc and that turned out to be horsegak!

Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong...

I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

When your viewing base is that sensitive and conservative, it puts you in a tricky spot. Under ratings pressure, how do you create something fresh to reach new audiences while giving others the more-of-the-same that they crave?

The J.J. Abrams approach was "screw 'em, we're shaking it up and the fanatics will pay to see it anyway because that's what they do." And that resulted a good film that the audiences liked and fanatics gritted their teeth through, a blah film that audiences didn't like and fanatics freaked out about, and a good film that no one went to see. *shrug*

I always remember Ron Moore talking about BSG and how for that show he just did all the things he was never allowed to do on ST.

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

When your viewing base is that sensitive and conservative, it puts you in a tricky spot. Under ratings pressure, how do you create something fresh to reach new audiences while giving others the more-of-the-same that they crave?

The J.J. Abrams approach was "screw 'em, we're shaking it up and the fanatics will pay to see it anyway because that's what they do." And that resulted a good film that the audiences liked and fanatics gritted their teeth through, a blah film that audiences didn't like and fanatics freaked out about, and a good film that no one went to see. *shrug*

I always remember Ron Moore talking about BSG and how for that show he just did all the things he was never allowed to do on ST.

the new trek films are universally awful, but not all the old ones are universally good, this new series, if it turns out to be Enterprise 2.0 will kill star trek on the little screen, if it turns out to be DS9 or next gen 2.0, then it will be good, I'm hoping for more DS9 than next gen though, i thought DS9 was better than next gen due to the story arcs and character development, i don't want planet hoping either.

Neither critics nor audiences thought that any of the new films were awful. Both had good reviews and audience scores. So you're in the minority on that one.

The puzzle with Beyond is why it's not doing box office. Some would say it's because Into Darkness damaged the brand that badly. Again, that seems like a fanatic's viewpoint, because the audiences scores don't point that direction. I tend to think the marketing lacked a hook and let the film down, and that audiences might be a little blockbustered out.

Keep in mind that Into Darkness had a similar effect to The Force Awakens, where people loved it when they were watching it, mostly rated it very highly for the following week, and then over the next year realized what a terrible disappointment it was when they actually thought about the movie.

Not I. I enjoyed both as much when I saw them on the big screen and when I saw them at home, later.

Fun movies! Khaaan!

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

When your viewing base is that sensitive and conservative, it puts you in a tricky spot. Under ratings pressure, how do you create something fresh to reach new audiences while giving others the more-of-the-same that they crave?

The J.J. Abrams approach was "screw 'em, we're shaking it up and the fanatics will pay to see it anyway because that's what they do." And that resulted a good film that the audiences liked and fanatics gritted their teeth through, a blah film that audiences didn't like and fanatics freaked out about, and a good film that no one went to see. *shrug*

I always remember Ron Moore talking about BSG and how for that show he just did all the things he was never allowed to do on ST.

As you know, high quality TV drama is surging ahead these days, leaving cinema in its wake. Viewers want multi-faceted plots, drama, intrigue. The tired old ST formula won't cut in this day and age, and even though you're correct to mention executive pressure, if those executives, and conservative fans, don't take their heads out of the sand, the franchise will die a slow death...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Keep in mind that Into Darkness had a similar effect to The Force Awakens, where people loved it when they were watching it, mostly rated it very highly for the following week, and then over the next year realized what a terrible disappointment it was when they actually thought about the movie.

Pretty much sums it up for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

When your viewing base is that sensitive and conservative, it puts you in a tricky spot. Under ratings pressure, how do you create something fresh to reach new audiences while giving others the more-of-the-same that they crave?

The J.J. Abrams approach was "screw 'em, we're shaking it up and the fanatics will pay to see it anyway because that's what they do." And that resulted a good film that the audiences liked and fanatics gritted their teeth through, a blah film that audiences didn't like and fanatics freaked out about, and a good film that no one went to see. *shrug*

I always remember Ron Moore talking about BSG and how for that show he just did all the things he was never allowed to do on ST.

the new trek films are universally awful, but not all the old ones are universally good, this new series, if it turns out to be Enterprise 2.0 will kill star trek on the little screen, if it turns out to be DS9 or next gen 2.0, then it will be good, I'm hoping for more DS9 than next gen though, i thought DS9 was better than next gen due to the story arcs and character development, i don't want planet hoping either.

Yeah, DS9 was the bee's knees, and it doesn't get the appreciation it deserves IMO. Some stand out episodes...

But Babylon 5 is still better

 gorgon wrote:
Neither critics nor audiences thought that any of the new films were awful. Both had good reviews and audience scores. So you're in the minority on that one.

The puzzle with Beyond is why it's not doing box office. Some would say it's because Into Darkness damaged the brand that badly. Again, that seems like a fanatic's viewpoint, because the audiences scores don't point that direction. I tend to think the marketing lacked a hook and let the film down, and that audiences might be a little blockbustered out.

No, I really think its because Beyond isn't that good. It has all these high ratings but word of mouth has been more like "It's ok I guess".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I could not disagree more with those ... er ... declarations. Bakula does a great job expressing the enthusiasm and conviction thst define Archer. By more accessible, I meant thst he is not as much of a paragon as Kirk. In TOS, it is pretty much a given that Kirk is the best possible captain. In Enterprise, the plots sometimes rely on the audience's uncertainty as to whether Archer is taking the best course. This is fitting as Archer is the trailblazer, and so he has to make more of it up as he goes thann his successors.

With your declaration Enterprise as your favorite and Archer being good I can honestly say that I've head someone praise and ridicule every series. Even every movie as well too I think. That must be a good thing for the franchise as a whole.

I think what they needed to do with Enterprise was just make all the season 4 two parters be 6-8 episodes miniarcs, with some 'planet of the weeks' mixed in. Would have been far more enjoyable.

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

Even before Enterprise aired, I remember there were people complaining that it looked too high tech compared to TOS. Nevermind the fact that we have technology TODAY that is better than some of what TOS pretended to have.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Keep in mind that Into Darkness had a similar effect to The Force Awakens, where people loved it when they were watching it, mostly rated it very highly for the following week, and then over the next year realized what a terrible disappointment it was when they actually thought about the movie.

Not me. I hated it first time around and barely got through it and have zero interest watching it again.
Beyond was OK, but the crap trailers probably hurt it. Also lack of 'legendary' villain.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

Even before Enterprise aired, I remember there were people complaining that it looked too high tech compared to TOS. Nevermind the fact that we have technology TODAY that is better than some of what TOS pretended to have.

Star Trek created this weird dynamic (starting with the appearance to the Klingons) that has kind of become one of my least favorite parts of the franchise.

Why don't Klingons in TNG look like Klingons from TOS you asked? Because we have a budget now. Shut up and enjoy the show. Stop sweating the petty details.

Why does the JJ Abrams Enterprise look so much more advance than the Original. Because its 2009!

Why can Starships now fire phasers at warp? Because we never said they couldn't. That was a third party tech manual!

/end rant

I was impressed by the Klingons in Into darkness, and was looking forward to some edgy, dramatic war between the Federation and Klingons in the next installment, because why introduce them like that if you're not going to expand them?

But we got nothing!!!!

 gorgon wrote:
Neither critics nor audiences thought that any of the new films were awful. Both had good reviews and audience scores. So you're in the minority on that one.

The puzzle with Beyond is why it's not doing box office. Some would say it's because Into Darkness damaged the brand that badly. Again, that seems like a fanatic's viewpoint, because the audiences scores don't point that direction. I tend to think the marketing lacked a hook and let the film down, and that audiences might be a little blockbustered out.

the majority of people liked spice girls, they are crap, so being a majority doesn't make you right, just like being a minority doesn't make you wrong, and vice versa, I happily say that the majority of people who like the new trek films, don't actually know anything about the old ones or the series, which is fine, but it makes there opinion less worth while than that of others who know the whole thing and can remain un biased, and I put myself in that category, I am happily waiting for this new series, I know what I want from it, and if it goes another direction and I enjoy it, then I have no problem with the deviation that adds to the story as opposed to detracts from the story like the new treks, all I'm asking for is not to be treated like an idiot, decent stories, good casting, the usual basically, the new trek films failed on almost every one of those for me, apart from cast, some of them are solid, get that right and they can carry the show, even through bad or boring episodes, like DS9, Next gen, and Voyager and TOS.

I also understand that the producers want moneez, so old trek fans may get ignored for new trek dolla bucks, which is how things work these days, but they can at least try to get some good stories and real sci fi out there I hope

Backfire wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Keep in mind that Into Darkness had a similar effect to The Force Awakens, where people loved it when they were watching it, mostly rated it very highly for the following week, and then over the next year realized what a terrible disappointment it was when they actually thought about the movie.

Not me. I hated it first time around and barely got through it and have zero interest watching it again.
Beyond was OK, but the crap trailers probably hurt it. Also lack of 'legendary' villain.

I was just Addressing Gorgon's statement that STID was highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes, despite it being widely seen as a bad movie. If STB had come out closer to STID, it might have been able to ride the buzz, but now it just reminds people of that movie they just realized they actually hated.

Yes, some people hated it right away, but they would not have affected the RT numbers unless they voted highly positive reviews before even seeing the movie, like DC fans.

I saw Into Darkness on the Friday it opened. I thought it was messy and cheesy but not terrible. A buddy came into town the next day and he wanted to see it, so I sat through it again. Made me feel alternately sleepy and nauseous the second time. And the more I thought about it thereafter, the more I disliked it. Hence the F rating. I wonder if seeing Beyond a second time would make me like it more or less? I suspect that I will never find out!

 Manchu wrote:
I saw Into Darkness on the Friday it opened. I thought it was messy and cheesy but not terrible. A buddy came into town the next day and he wanted to see it, so I sat through it again. Made me feel alternately sleepy and nauseous the second time. And the more I thought about it thereafter, the more I disliked it. Hence the F rating. I wonder if seeing Beyond a second time would make me like it more or less? I suspect that I will never find out!

That's the Into Darkness effect I am talking about. I had a similar reaction, although it was more from replaying it in my head later,mince I only saw it once.

As for Beyond, I suspect you would like it even less. For me, the movie's saving graces are the character interactions, the humor, the wonder at Yorktown, its scale and implications, the positive, even cheesy, focus on unity/diversity, and the whole TOS "better to save lives than to take them" morality. I found the space station or ship based action scenes enjoyable, but the action scenes on the ground or grounded ships to be distracting and annoying. The plot and villain were perfunctory at best and served only to get the protagonists into situations where they can show off their personalities or capabilities, much like you see in a second-tier Marvel movie. Thematically, the movie suggests that inclusion and even cultural assimilation are the antidotes to terrorism--a less ambitious approach than Into Darkness, but apparently more achievable for the low aim.

Yorktown was pretty bitchin'!

The bad guy was pretty forgettable.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
I agree with you that it wasn't as different as advertised. I think one part of the problem there (executive producers probably being the other part) is that some ST diehards don't want the formula tweaked. I remember all the drama just over Enterprise's opening credits because they didn't show a spaceship zipping past planets to the tune of some orchestral suite.

Even before Enterprise aired, I remember there were people complaining that it looked too high tech compared to TOS. Nevermind the fact that we have technology TODAY that is better than some of what TOS pretended to have.

Star Trek created this weird dynamic (starting with the appearance to the Klingons) that has kind of become one of my least favorite parts of the franchise.

Why don't Klingons in TNG look like Klingons from TOS you asked? Because we have a budget now. Shut up and enjoy the show. Stop sweating the petty details.

Why does the JJ Abrams Enterprise look so much more advance than the Original. Because its 2009!

Why can Starships now fire phasers at warp? Because we never said they couldn't. That was a third party tech manual!

/end rant

Actually they explain that whole Klingon thing in Enterprise.

As for The Enterprise bridge looking totally different well I guess when Nero went back in time and messed up the Space-Time Continuum.....it made everything cooler looking!

You couldn't fire phasers at warp before?

I know they explain it. I'm saying there was no reason to, and the plot line was cheesy, contrived, and kind of dumb (easily one of the weaker plot lines in season 4). These things don't need explanations. They're explained by "we have a budget and we're going to use it to wow you." Worf actually resolved the entire thing in Trials and Tribbilations by saying "we don't like to talk about it. It is, embarrassing." The entire series could have just left it at that and been done with the matter. A series was never hurt by leaving a noodle incident hanging around.

And yes. One of the complaints of Into Darkness was that the Vengance fired its weapons at warp, which a horde of fans of the haters gonna hate variety cried about saying "you can't fire phasers at warp." The only thing that ever suggested you couldn't fire phasers at warp was a tech manual that is non-canon, and ships have fired energy weapons at warp several times since TOS aired (notably in Voyager, DS9, and Enterprise). TOSl described phasers as EM weapons, not energy weapons, and the tech manual said EM weapons couldn't fire at warp. This was abandoned in subsequent series entirely, and phasers simply became energy weapons in the series proper (and nothing in the series proper said they couldn't be fired at warp anyway). It was a pointless complaint, and even if it was true at some time in Star Trek, it would still be a pointless complaint about a trivial petty detail.

Star Trek probably shouldn't be MST3K, with the whole "it is just a show I should really just relax" kind of attitude.

Also, don't forget the real reasons Klingons went from honorable warriors to sneaky, cloaky, jack asses was because they wanted to reuse Klingon costumes in STIII so changed the villians from Romulans to Klingons. Later they came up with a terrible retcon but I can't be persuaded. No sir.

 Ahtman wrote:
Also, don't forget the real reasons Klingons went from honorable warriors to sneaky, cloaky, jack asses was because they wanted to reuse Klingon costumes in STIII so changed the villians from Romulans to Klingons. Later they came up with a terrible retcon but I can't be persuaded. No sir.

The Klingons could be pretty clever in TOS. If anything later Star Trek series' abandoned the idea of clever Klingons to make them tough warrior race guys. Think of Kor's first appearance in Errand of Mercy. Lots of brute force, but a fair amount of cunning as well.

 LordofHats wrote:
The only thing that ever suggested you couldn't fire phasers at warp was a tech manual that is non-canon,....

Also possibly reinforced by people misunderstanding the 'wormhole' scene from Star Trek: The Motion Picture...

 LordofHats wrote:
The Klingons could be pretty clever in TOS.

There is a difference between being clever and being honorless dog though, like the Romulans.

 LordofHats wrote:
I know they explain it. I'm saying there was no reason to, and the plot line was cheesy, contrived, and kind of dumb (easily one of the weaker plot lines in season 4). These things don't need explanations. They're explained by "we have a budget and we're going to use it to wow you." Worf actually resolved the entire thing in Trials and Tribbilations by saying "we don't like to talk about it. It is, embarrassing." The entire series could have just left it at that and been done with the matter. A series was never hurt by leaving a noodle incident hanging around.

I don't agree that "cuz budget" is a better explanation than the one they did in Enterprise. I liked that storyline and they came up with a pretty serviceable explanation for something that was really hard to write an explanation for. It even still fit in with Worf's "we don't like to talk about it" comment. Obviously the Klingons would not want to talk about how their DNA had been corrupted with human DNA.

http://icv2.com/articles/news/view/35440/star-trek-discovery-comics-book-announced

Print tie-ins for the upcoming CBS All Access series Star Trek: Discovery were announced at Star Trek: Mission New York, the Star Trek 50th anniversary celebration, last weekend, according to EW. A new comic series from IDW and a book from Simon & Schuster will launch with the series premiere in January (see “First Look at the New Starship from 'Star Trek: Discovery'”), according to the report.

Writer/producer Kirsten Beyer, known as an author of Star Trek: Voyager novels, is coordinating efforts on the new projects with Star Trek comics writer Mike Johnson (see “New Ongoing 'Star Trek' Series”) and long-time Star Trek novel author David Mack.