Paramount+ Releases Trailer for Its 6th Star Trek Series, 'Strange New Worlds' (arstechnica.com) 220
The Paramount+ streaming service already has five ongoing Star Trek series (including Discovery and Picard).
But they've just released a trailer for another one — and it's now derived directly from the original 1960s TV show, even including some of its original characters. The upcoming show's title?
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds.
Ars Technica reports: As we've reported previously, one of the highlights of Star Trek: Discovery's second season was the appearance of classic original series (TOS) characters Capt. Christopher Pike (Anson Mount), Number One (Rebecca Romijn), and Spock (Ethan Peck). All three reprise their roles for Strange New Worlds....
"If you want to seek out new life, go where the aliens are," Pike tells us. But that alien life might not be receptive to first contact, as Pike and the Enterprise find themselves under fire by aliens who consider their presence to be "blasphemy." And romance blooms for both Pike and Spock (separately, not with each other).
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds debuts on Paramount+ on May 5, 2022. The streaming platform has already greenlighted a second season, with Paul Wesley (Vampire Diaries ) joining the cast as future Enterprise Capt. James T. Kirk.
Ars Technica reports the cast as:
But they've just released a trailer for another one — and it's now derived directly from the original 1960s TV show, even including some of its original characters. The upcoming show's title?
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds.
Ars Technica reports: As we've reported previously, one of the highlights of Star Trek: Discovery's second season was the appearance of classic original series (TOS) characters Capt. Christopher Pike (Anson Mount), Number One (Rebecca Romijn), and Spock (Ethan Peck). All three reprise their roles for Strange New Worlds....
"If you want to seek out new life, go where the aliens are," Pike tells us. But that alien life might not be receptive to first contact, as Pike and the Enterprise find themselves under fire by aliens who consider their presence to be "blasphemy." And romance blooms for both Pike and Spock (separately, not with each other).
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds debuts on Paramount+ on May 5, 2022. The streaming platform has already greenlighted a second season, with Paul Wesley (Vampire Diaries ) joining the cast as future Enterprise Capt. James T. Kirk.
Ars Technica reports the cast as:
- Babs Olusanmokun playing Dr. M'Benga
- Celia Rose Gooding filling Nichelle Nichols' shoes as Cadet Nyota Uhura
- Jess Bush playing Nurse Christine Chapel
- Melissa Navai playing Lt. Erica Ortegas
- Bruce Orak playing an Aenar named Hemmer.
- Christina Chong playing La'An Noonien-Singh (a relation of the classic revenge-obsessed Star Trek villain Khan).
And on an unrelated note...
Could be interesting. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Enterprise was not a new ship even during TOS. Robert April was the first captain, so yes, they could even do ANOTHER series set before SNW.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.co... [fandom.com]
Yes, TAS is canon.
Re: (Score:2)
The Enterprise was not a new ship even during TOS. Robert April was the first captain, so yes, they could even do ANOTHER series set before SNW.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.co... [fandom.com]
Yes, TAS is canon.
Yes. I was referring to the original Enterprise in ST:E. Lots of story lines between the two.
It's just more Jar Jar shit... (Score:5, Insightful)
...thrown at the wall by his spawn.
Neither Jar Jar nor his spawn, Kurtzman, Orci and Lindelof - none of them understand or want to make Star Trek.
They are all talentless hacks whose "opus" is just taking existing properties which the masses recognize through cultural osmosis and trying to reboot them - poorly and with lots of artificial hype marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
I ask myself if all the energy put into yet-another-reboot ($, time, talent, computer cycles for the CGI, etc) would be better spent on something new- a different idea. I don't suggest this because I don't like Start Trek or the others (I do! I am getting old,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a reboot. It's set within the existing Trek timeline. The Spock you see here is the same one in TOS.
BTW, the Fresh Prince reboot is actually pretty good. Seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, it seems the studios have concluded that rehashing hits of the past is more reliably profitable than giving something different a chance. I am sure they have the numbers to prove that. It is up to us to change the calculus for them- I have been avoiding these retreads and will continue to do so.
Unfortunately, this is demonstrably true. If you look at scifi TV shows over the past 10 years, they've almost all been commercial failures that end in cancellation. Except Kurtzman's Star Trek shows, which seem to be reliably money makers. And I say this as someone who abhors NuTrek for being Trek in name only.
Even critically acclaimed "The Expanse" has been a commercial failure, first for SyFy and then for Amazon.
Re:It's just more Jar Jar shit... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anson Mount as Captain Pike was excellent in Discovery. He alone should make this show worth a watch.
We live in a golden age for Trek. There is something for everyone. Even Prodigy, which is an animated kids show, was quite enjoyable. Initially I didn't like Lower Decks, but season 2 was a big improvement and the finale was actually quite a decent traditional Trek story.
Discovery season 4, which just concluded, had the pacing issues that earlier seasons did, but the rest of it made up for that. It was classic Trek, with moral dilemmas and strange new worlds. We also got to see a side of Star Fleet and the Federation that hasn't been portrayed often on screen before. I really liked what they did with the sentient computer too - in TOS every sentient/intelligent computer was talked to death by Kirk when it went wrong, but in Discovery we have the opposite.
Picard is fun but also has pacing problems. It's basically a bunch of references and nostalgia, but if you aren't looking for something too deep then those things are enjoyable enough.
Re: It's just more Jar Jar shit... (Score:4, Insightful)
They use to do it pretty even-handed though. It was pretty rare for one side to be portrayed as evil. Both sides where usually represented for having the best intentions even if one side was wrong.
So... (Score:3)
Christopher Pike was good (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just going to be a reboot of TOS within by like, the 4th season, assuming it gets that far. I mean, yeah? Whatever, as long as it's good.
Two seasons ago (season 2) ST:Discovery had a really good plotline. It was largely self consistent, extending the concept of a "time crystal" introduced in the 1st season. Simply put, it was fun to watch. It was interesting simply to watch a strong leader in command (Christopher Pike) navigate the plotline in the manner of TOS. Compare with Doug Jones, who a capable actor, but not an exceptionally good actor that's fun to watch.
Compare with the later 2 seasons, where techno-babble and random plot is introduced for no apparent reason:
"Why didn't our spacesuits filter out the chemical compound?"
"It must be an unknown compound. We can reprogram the suits to filter out unknown as well as known compounds."
Spacesuits of the future don't filter out unknown compounds *by default*? WTF?
Compare with 2nd episode in season 3:
All of Discovery's communications logic runs through a single component. It's about the size of a bucket, and easily removed: just twist and pull and pop it out. Without this single component, just about all communications are offline.
There are no redundant backups of this component in the ship's circuitry (there's only the one), it cannot be bypassed, and it isn't used in anything else that you could cannibalize. Discovery carries no spares.
The component could be repaired, but it requires a special substance. Discovery does not carry spare stores of the substance, it cannot be created by the ship facilities, it's not used in any other equipment (to salvage some), but it can be detected on sensors and... look there's some at this nearby mining colony!
All of Discovery's power logic is controlled by a single component, about the size of a belt buckle with 2 ribbon cables. This component has no redundant backups in the system, cannot be bypassed, and must be replaced manually.
Discovery has spares, but to replace this single component requires climbing 20 feet, crawling down a catwalk, and plasma-cutting a hole in a metal cover (!). Once you get there, the component just pops out in your hand and the new one is easily to replace.
Oh, and the engineer that knows how to do this has hurt her back, so send someone else to do it.
Oh, and if you wait too long, vampire ice (that you've never encountered or heard of before) will crush your ship.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why didn't our spacesuits filter out the chemical compound?" "It must be an unknown compound. We can reprogram the suits to filter out unknown as well as known compounds."
Spacesuits of the future don't filter out unknown compounds *by default*? WTF?
Moreover, they're fucking space suits; if you don't make them airtight then you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, they're fucking space suits; if you don't make them airtight then you're doing it wrong.
Air is not the very smallest stuff. Things can be smaller than air.
Re: (Score:2)
They can be, and they can even be poisonous in high enough concentration. This is why sane space suit designs use a reservoir of oxygen with a rebreather, and don't attempt to outsmart the pathogens of the universe. There are space suit designs proposed that are porous, that essentially provide a wet suit to contain your body's pressure, and allow some suit gases and especially sweat to escape slowly for cooling purposes. But none are yet in use for any existing spacecraft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Burnham reminds me of Kirk. A maverick, willing to take chances if they believe it's the right thing to do.
The main issue with Burnham was that she wasn't the captain. In season 1 & 2 the captains harnessed her maverick nature so it was fine, but in season 3 she was constantly bumping up against authority. In season 4 she really steps up and it feels like she found her true calling as a daring but responsible Star Fleet captain.
I get that you like Picard, but if they made another captain the same as him
Re: (Score:2)
I like Kirk too. Kirk isn't a maverick. Sure, he's more gung ho in TOS than Picard. But if you take out a universe finding it's narrative, and the attitudes of the time it was made, Kirk was a by the book captain. In the movies even more so (disregarding the plotless insanity of the remakes) where they stole the Enterprise to save Spoke. And even then, Kirk did not do that alone, and he didn't appear to make the decision to do so alone.
Burnham started out attacking her captain... for no good reason. And in
Re:Christopher Pike was good (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't actually care about that. One aspect of ST that was always, understandably, unrealistic was the number of white dudes running around on the starships of a multi-planet multi-species federation. Nobody would care what orientation, colour, creed or species anyone was if they had some decorum.
The other day I watched that episode of TNG where Reg Barkley was running the holodeck simulations of the crew. That was a great example of a good story, where the unprofessional conduct of one crew member impacted others, they just wanted to get rid of him and the captain stepped in and said no, you all need to improve this person, things got worse but they persevered and it improved.
Somehow I feel that Reg simulating his crew mates, a funny joke in TNG that had some more serious side consequences, would be a crime worse than murder in the discovery world. Again, because they act like children. They are unprofessional themselves, therefore there is no way to deal with it, no adult way out.
You may see this as the behaviour of 'woke' people, whoever they are. But I've seen this kind of behaviour from a small minority of all kinds of people. Discovery has it happen with all people.
Re:Christopher Pike was good (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoo. Looks like I pissed off the woke crowed here on Slashdot too. Doesn't change the fact that Discovery is still woke garbage.
I took note of the behavior of the crew too. To me it seems Burnham isn't in charge of anything. She just sits in the middle chair. The whole ship seems to be run by committee. An they are running the ship on feelings instead of logic.
Speaking of that episode with Barkley. Barkley is one of my least favorite ST:TNG characters, but in that episode you mentioned I actually felt something for him. I could sympathize with the character. I may not like the character but I understood his issues.
Discovery, there is none of that. I can honestly say I don't give a shit about any of the characters. They are like place holders on the bridge to me.
But yeah, I get you on the orientation, colour, creed or species issues with Star Trek. I could care less about most of that and just get to the story. But Discovery lets all that get in the way of the Story.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
" But Discovery lets all that get in the way of the Story. "
Perhaps it is better that way. If all we had was "the story", the disappointment would be worse.
But, at least we have the snazzy over-the-top CGI special effects that are so busy and rapid fire that you cannot even follow the story or understand what you are seeing.
Perhaps the producers will eventually "Discover" that good story and good characters are timeless.
Re: (Score:2)
it's not really an achievement to "piss off" the "woke" by which I mean cause to shake their heads and maybe reply. All you need do is be an idiot and bleat like a sheep about "woke woke woke woke".
But you rose to the challenge.
The way you complain about woke makes it seem very much you'd prefer blatantly racist garbage as opposed to garbage with a reasonable cross section of people, because at least the former isn't "woke".
Re: (Score:3)
it's not really an achievement to "piss off" the "woke" by which I mean cause to shake their heads and maybe reply. All you need do is be an idiot and bleat like a sheep about "woke woke woke woke". But you rose to the challenge. The way you complain about woke makes it seem very much you'd prefer blatantly racist garbage as opposed to garbage with a reasonable cross section of people, because at least the former isn't "woke".
Gods above the idiots we have to put up with here on slashdot. Some times their comments are worth replying to, not this one. Some times you have to let these idiots be idiots.
Re: (Score:3)
You think I'm the woke crowd and I'm pissed off? I'm neither.
My mistake. I could have worded that better. I was referring to the two troll mods that post had gotten in the first 30 minutes of being posted. I never meant to imply that you where part of the woke crowed. I apologize for the confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with you completely here! I question, at this point, if anyone writing Trek scripts is even capable of doing it without the need to insert "woke" themes or agendas into it?
To answer your question, No, in my option. Star Trek has always had some element of woke in it. If it didn't then it wouldn't be Star Trek. Discovery just takes it way to far. Every character in the series has some element of wokeness woven in to drive the point home.
I enjoyed Picard till the last few episodes. Then it was just like they decided to take the plot and jump off a cliff. I noted that Picard was woke and I expected it, but it wasn't in your face like Discovery is. The woke part of t
Re: (Score:2)
On Discovery they would treat that person's mental illness with respect. Barclay gets a few counselling sessions, with the councillor he created a duplicate of to do who knows what with. Clearly Barclay felt that he couldn't get the help he needed, and that he would be mocked and shamed if he sought it, so tried to keep his problem a secret.
People made the same sorts of comments when TNG started and they had a councillor on the bridge. The TOS era men were real men, they didn't need a shrink, much less on t
Re:Christopher Pike was good (Score:4)
Well, I think we can agree that Star Trek has always been woke to a degree. Even TOS was a progressive show, for its time. I also remember the outcry over a councilor on the bridge, Sisko being black, and Janeway being a woman. A bunch of nonsense. Truth be told Sisko and Janeway are probably my two favorite Captains.
But here is the difference in how the messages where carried out. Sisko's role wasn't about a black man being captain. It was a Captain that just happened to be a black man. Just as Janeway isn't woman being a captain. It's about a Captain who is also a Woman. Does that makes sense to you? The fact that Sisko is black man isn't what defines the character, its just apart of the character. Same thing with Janeway.
It is the reverse of that on Discovery. I'm going to use my favorite Discovery character as an example, the chief engineer. The way Discovery pulls this character off is I'm Gay and I'm also the chief engineer. It needs to be I'm the Chief Engineer and I'm gay. The fact that he is gay needs to be apart of the character, not the defining characteristic of the character.
Discovery could be a good show but they let the woke message get in the way of telling a good story. The woke aspects of the characters needs to be apart of the characters, and not what makes the characters.
Re: (Score:3)
That was a good episode.
I don't know how much better to put this. Discovery could have been a good show. But they put the woke agenda ahead of the story. That cause both to suffer. People don't like to be preached too all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll try this one more time then I'm going to give up talking to you is a lost cause. It is the way the writers of the show is portraying the characters. They are letting their agenda get ahead of the story.
Do you understand now? Because if you don't' you never will.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been 4, almost 5, years since I started getting a +3. I've emailed, other people have emailed. There has been plenty of time for the admins to notice and fix.
An no, I don't know why I post at +3. My questions went unanswered about it.
Re: (Score:3)
You really have no fucking clue what we are talking about do you?
Re: (Score:3)
After reviewing everything we are going to go with you being the one that is mentally confused on the issue.
Don't worry about it, you being confused on the issue isn't a big deal. I usually recommend shock therapy or a strong experimental drug regiment, but in your case I think some rest and relaxing music will be fine.
Re:Christopher Pike was good (Score:5, Insightful)
Two seasons ago (season 2) ST:Discovery had a really good plotline.
I did not make it that far. Season 1 was one of the most horrendously bad TV series I've ever seen. The main character was introduced as someone who in every other Star Trek series would be that episode's "bad guy" making them impossible to like, the remaining characters were all 2D cardboard cutouts defined by one characteristic and the writers clearly thought they were writing for another show with their magic mushroom drive - my guess is that it was inspired by what they were smoking.
Re: (Score:2)
Trek has never been any different. In Voyager someone stole their main computer core. In TNG the transporter turned three characters into children, and the Holodeck regularly suffered from dangerous malfunctions including creating sentient life and turning Data into a cowboy. On DS9 the main cast were turned into Holodeck characters by a transporter malfunction, and somehow reverted to their normal selves by the end of the episode.
It's like people complaining about gravity in space in Star Wars, as if the o
Re: (Score:2)
The holodeck always seemed like an outrageously dangerous piece of kit. Maybe they got bored with playing catch with poisonous knife grenades and needed something a bit more bracing.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole ship was the death trap. The slightest bump caused half the bridge to explode.
There was a scene in First Contact where Picard demonstrates that the ship doesn't have glass (or transparent aluminium) for the windows, it uses force fields. Talk about insanely dangerous, especially considering the frequency with which vital ship's systems go offline.
Why a Spock romance (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't think Spock needed a romance in the reboot movies, and I don't think it adds anything to this series either... I think it's more interesting to have a character that stays above that.
I am leery about any new Trek thing, I found I hated Discovery about midway through the second season (liked it OK up until that point), don't like Below Decks, and while I've not seen Picard I'm not sure I'd like that either.
This series at least has the most potential to be something I would like though... so I'll pro
Re: (Score:3)
How soon even the nerds forget:
https://memory-alpha.fandom.co... [fandom.com]
https://memory-alpha.fandom.co... [fandom.com]
Meaning the Vulcan woman was most likely T'Pring.
Re:Why a Spock romance (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't think Spock needed a romance in the reboot movies, and I don't think it adds anything to this series either... I think it's more interesting to have a character that stays above that.
I am leery about any new Trek thing, I found I hated Discovery about midway through the second season (liked it OK up until that point), don't like Below Decks, and while I've not seen Picard I'm not sure I'd like that either.
This series at least has the most potential to be something I would like though... so I'll probably give it a shot at least for the first season.
Picard was dreadful. What they did to his character is a disgrace and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
The story line was awful too. Just a heaping pile of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Picard was dreadful. What they did to his character is a disgrace and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves.
You especially, for making such a weak argument. You're making accusations of something, but you don't use any words that describe the problem.
The most likely reason is that your complaint is itself something despicable, and you don't want to shame yourself by explaining it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fans that widely *missed the point* of TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9.
Fans that their heroes in those shows would consider villain, or at least unworthy of the uniform.
Re: (Score:2)
You're making accusations of something, but you don't use any words that describe the problem.
They have tried to make a (metal) sword-wielding ninja into a required warrior/protector.
They brought back drug addiction and TV and F-bombs (none of which were a thing in Star Trek).
They made changes to sexual orientation of an established character (7-of-9).
My understanding is that they have killed everyone off in Season1 and then tried to Q their way out of that in Season2. At least that's what I hear from reviewers, I didn't care enough to keep watching to the end of Season1.
Re: (Score:2)
They brought back drug addiction...
ST:TNG had at least one episode about drug addiction. I remember because Wesley had this really painful to watch scene in it where he asked his Mom why people took drugs. I still think she should have told him, "Shut up, nerd!"
Re: (Score:2)
Exhibit number one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Exhibit number two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The dude has an annoying voice, but his arguments are tip-top.
Re: (Score:2)
Picard is basically just an ensemble show based around Picard with some eye candy* thrown in to keep the viewers interested. Not terrible, but not really very Star Trek.
Lower Decks is a lot of fun though. It pokes a lot of fun at the shows, but in a nice way. I think it's fairly clear that the creators really enjoyed the old TV shows. Give it a second chance and watch the second series; they toned down Mariner a bit so she's less insufferable and threw in a few Dr. Cat-lady bits that made me laugh.
*The scen
Re: (Score:2)
Lower Decks is a lot of fun though.
I totally get how the "humor" style in Lower Decks can be abrasive and annoying to people. I kinda found it that way myself too.
However, I also think its the only one of the new Star Trek shows that feels somewhat faithful to the franchise, and actually feels like it takes place in the same universe as ST:TNG.
I've Given Up: Orville Better (Score:2)
Picard was not much better - some magic enemy that wanted to wipe out all organic life just because. Riker suddenly being un-retired and given an insane fleet to command for no reason and the federation regressing to a 20th-century level government desp
Re: (Score:2)
Spock was always quite emotional. During TOS the writers were constantly looking for ways for him to show emotions and then get embarrassed about it. Later it was retconned as pedigree Vulcans having more control, and Spock's human side being the source of his illogic.
It's what passes for Trek these days (Score:2, Insightful)
So far the Trek that Paramount+ has put out thus far feels badly written, like they've been trying to stretch two episodes' worth of story arc into an entire season..
TBH, it's probably an unpopular opinion around here, but out of all the new "Treks" Paramount has been churning out (gotta milk that cash cow when nothing else on your streaming service is worth watching), ST:LD comes the closest to actually being entertaining. It's campy and juvenile, but they added just enough
Re: (Score:2)
TBH, it's probably an unpopular opinion around here, but out of all the new "Treks" Paramount has been churning out (gotta milk that cash cow when nothing else on your streaming service is worth watching), ST:LD comes the closest to actually being entertaining.
It's certainly been the most consistently entertaining. Disco has been really hit & miss and Picard has gone from stupid to good enough. Lower Decks... aside from the first three episodes where they accidentally aired some Rick & Morty instead of Trek, has been pretty fun.
Re: (Score:2)
ST:LD comes the closest to actually being entertaining.
To me, its the only one that actually feels like authentic Star Trek (campy and abrasive humor aside, of course).
Lol (Score:2, Insightful)
Lol at people still watching any of this poorly written nonsense with its shallow, dreary political commentary. I know, I know.. "Muh start trek wuz always political!!!!". Have fun with that..
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah TNG never did entire episodes about drug addiction or pollution or politics or gender...
Re: (Score:3)
How about TOS? An alien race that was half white, half black. Literal Space Nazis. Kirk reprimanding bridge crew for being racist towards Spock. The first interracial kiss on TV. Space hippies. Both Kirk and Picard gave more than one speech that was basically moralizing to the audience.
If a show tried to have the kind of diverse bridge crew that TOS had today, you would fine people criticising it for forced diversity.
Re: (Score:2)
Half of the entire run of DS9 was about politics. Let’s not forget all those later episodes of TNG dealing with grumpy Klingon politics. TOS being a bit ham fisted with the two races whose different halves were black and white. Kirk kissing Uhura and no station south of the mason dixon line playing the episode
Re: (Score:2)
It's really fucking weird how disingenuous assholes on the internet continually conflate internally consistent political situations in a piece of fiction with hamfisted poorly integrated clown nose on contemporaneous political screeching.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol at people still watching any of this poorly written nonsense with its shallow, dreary political commentary. I know, I know.. "Muh start trek wuz always political!!!!". Have fun with that..
The earlier writers had a great advantage.
Competency. The new writers appear to be millenials and Gen-xers mad at the old folks and weren't weren't anywhere near the top of their class.
Star Trek is DEAD (Score:2)
Nothing can go forever, get over it people! Americans who can't let go continue to buy whatever cosplay crap it shoveled out of the bowels of the greedy owners fed by hacks who need a job who do not even understand the appeal of the original.
The only reason Marvel has succeeded so far is their hacks were fans who understood the appeal; or that used to be the case before Disney became the new owner... who will continue to until they are squeezing blood from a stone and have overwhelmed all but the most der
I'm just waiting for the rebrand (Score:3)
Paramount+ will be renamed Trek+ within three years.
You heard it here first.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be quite awkward in Canada, where Paramount+ doesn't have the rights to any modern Star Trek shows. It's got CBS stuff and Halo, and from a quick scan, not much else.
woke up this morn. got myself a beer (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Like the don't say gay bill in Florida being so broad and poorly worded it leads to this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FP... [twimg.com]
chef's kiss
Re: (Score:2)
The storylines aren't just about normal people like me anymore. Why must they constantly feature characters that aren't like me? It's reverse racism/sexuality gone too far if it's not just about me. I may sound entitled and privileged but try to understand, it has always been about me. For dozens of generations. And now it isn't. It's not fair. I'm gonna vote Republican and cozy up to the Russians. Not because it's the right thing do but because contrarianism is the only option left.
U be kinda +5 missing the point. Star Trek has always been quite progressive, but the writing and characters were well done. Latest batch? Not good at all. Story telling, not good at all. Pacing - made for an ADHD sufferer off their meds. Lighting, overly dramatic esp. in places where it shouldn't have been. And lower decks violated a rule of comedy - not funny.
No need to be a MAGA to dislike all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the 'woke' characters are only annoying in the same way *all* the characters that receive focus are. Whatever personal character traits each character has been assigned aren't just part of their character, they spend 90% of the screen time just reiterating their character traits and beating the audience over the head with it over and over again while in the background some space stuff happens... I guess. Further, each character is pretty much given a single one-dimensional trait and that's pretty mu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but culture and art change over time.
Those claiming Trek has lost its way need to think on "Is it possible that we two, you and I, have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the 'woke' characters are only annoying in the same way *all* the characters that receive focus are. Whatever personal character traits each character has been assigned aren't just part of their character, they spend 90% of the screen time just reiterating their character traits and beating the audience over the head with it over and over again while in the background some space stuff happens... I guess.
Yes. Pansexuals in space is not really what most Sci-Fi fans would like to see. I think most educated modern folk really do not care who bumps uglies with who, as long as it is consenting adult humans. But that clumsy hamfisted approach is better suited for a propaganda film than entertainment.
Further, each character is pretty much given a single one-dimensional trait and that's pretty much it.
Good shows can have this level of representation and just be comfortable with establishing the character without devoting so much of the airtime to reiterating it. Or at least if they do a lot of character-driven content, at least the characters have some depth.
\ Mary Sue-ism. It is pretty obvious that there is a lot of that going on, with not very good writers projecting themselves - or what they want to be - onto a character. That's a real depth killer. The characters t
Re: (Score:2)
Read the comments on this story. The usual idiots are spending at least as much time complaining about the diversity of the cast (I.e. Pissing and moaning about "woke") as they are complaining about poor writing. More actually.
There's nothing maga about complaining about poor writing. There's everything using it as a thinly veiled segue into whining about having a not strong enough majority of straight white men, which is what someone means when they criticise "woke".
Same writers as Halo? (Score:2)
Wonder if it's going to be like Halo, where they already had a crap story to tell but needed a franchise to pawn it onto in order to get people to watch.
Halo was so bad that they released the first episode for free on youtube, and it still got poor viewership. So will the new ST series utilize the principles that made it popular? Or are they just using the franchise to hijack what's left of the fan-base and hope that nobody notices.
Ars Technica in quick with the "not gays" (Score:2)
"And romance blooms for both Pike and Spock (separately, not with each other)."
Not watching then.
Also, based on how terrible the other shows are, I'm surprised the yare making more of this rubbish.
Could be good! (Score:2)
It could be good, just like Picard and Discovery could have been good too.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree; or rather I think it's inevitable that a lot of loud people will complain it's no good.
Pop culture franchises are predicated on a shaky, if not downright impossible premise: endlessly delivering a perfectly repeatable experience. The problem is you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you do the exact same thing, the audience won't experience it the same way, because *they* have changed. If you try to do something original, many fans will feel like you've reneged on your promis
Re: (Score:2)
For me it's not so much that they are potentially mucking with the consistency of the fictional universe, but the type of show is just.... meh.
Picard and Discovery both immediately suffer from stretching out a story line in the trend to be 'bingeable', but rather than having a rich story, it's just longwinded.
Because they are so preoccupied with the longwinded story, they can't distract *too* much with interesting episodic content, so the filler is just tedious interpersonal melodrama.
Strangely, Orville com
Strange New Shows (Score:2)
And they all suck.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm hoping that since Pike's Enterprise was one of the few redeeming facets to Discovery, that they do well with it.
Of course, it'll probably fall into the same traps of consuming so much of the show with interpersonal drama that there's barely any attention paid to what's outside of the ship.
And tediously drawn out story arcs. I get it, you can do arcs now that everything is on demand and people can binge it. The 'no arcs beyond two episodes' limitations of the 90s shows was in retrospect a good thing. T
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the focus on interpersonal drama sucks. Sometimes I get the feeling that the writers aren't actually into space, exploration, science, and the future.
Content is king (Score:2)
The content creators have all figured out that they no longer need a distributor or broadcaster to make their business model work. Any company that was solely in the business of distributing content is toast (I'm looking at you DirecTV and Dish Network). That said, the pressure is now on the content creation companies to keep producing stuff that people are going to watch and do that frequently enough to retain streaming customers.
Shotgun (Score:2)
They are doing the "shotgun" method of trying everything at the same time, until something sticks.
I think Discovery finally got some audience, even though it was different than the original trekkies. Picard is hit and miss (and going for a miss this mid-season, unfortunately). Prodigy is actually interesting for new generations, and lower decs has some "Rick and Morty" vibes. Even though, I don't think it can capture the same audience (to be frank, even "Solar Opposites" had more interesting writing).
At any
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, it looks like Strange New Worlds is the first attempt at doing an actual classic-style Star Trek show since this new era began. Really curious to see what we actually end up with when it drops.
Re:Shotgun (Score:5, Insightful)
The really real problem with modern startrek, is that post TNG, in a world with magic kumbaya around the replicator-- is that the single largest feature of human conflict-- resource scarcity-- is removed.
Further, the culture of TNG is one of tolerance, inclusion, and often, non-involvement. (meaning, the federation does not get involved in the way of life of other species, no matter how icky that may seem to certain people.)
This single-handedly kills nearly all sources of dramatic tension. This is "hard mode" for writers.
It requires the writers to showcase difficult philosophical pieces, or to explore the consequences of hypertolerance, or the forms that individualism may take in such an environment, etc... rather than "NOBODY UNDERSTANDS MY TEENAGE ANGST!!!", or "My HORMONES are running out of control, but that's OK-- BECAUSE HORNY IS HAWT!", or worst of all, which is what Picard's major sin is-- "Oh, all that tolerance, and shit? It was all an act-- we are really just as shitty, insular, meddling, back-stabbing, and horrible as we were in the early 21st century! In fact, we have actual shadow governments, conspiratorial bullshit behind closed doors in all areas of government, and human-supremacism running rampant."
Naturally, the writers do not like Hard Mode. They want "Easy, highly relatable, mass-digestible drama sources", which means "All that fully automated gay space communism shit has to go."
Startrek *NEEDS* the fully automated gay space communism to be StarTrek. They are trying, and failing, to replace the calm, mature acceptance and 'agree to disagree' motifs of the TNG series, with Identity Poltics, and it is not working, and will never work-- Identity Politics is inherently divisive-- which is GOOD if you are looking to create lots and lots of shallow drama. Which is what the writers want to do. Because that's easy.
You will never get another "guardian of forever" out of writers that take that direction.
CBS is systemically headplanting over this issue. As such, I am not confident StarTrek will ever make a proper return.
Spoiler (Score:2)
Seeing as how Star Trek Discovery is now set 1000 years in the future, we know that whatever happens .. the Federation survives. Sort of.
Reminds me of JJ's. (Score:2)
Visually nice. Will it be good though?
Oh No! (Score:2)
It feels like we're only moving forward 'cause we can't find reverse
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What no trannies, strang wammins or LGBTXYZ?
I get it, it's a legit gripe. LGBTQ+ folks generally didn't get much representation in entertainment unless they were the butt of a joke, one of the first victims in a slasher flick, or died at the end from a hate crime or AIDS. I'm old enough that I remember anything labeled "gay interest" that wasn't porn was just a euphemism for a story of tragedy, where the gay characters die at the end.
So, now you've got writers champing at the bit to create gay characters who aren't there to be laughed at or murdere
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What no trannies, strang wammins or LGBTXYZ?
I get it, it's a legit gripe. LGBTQ+ folks generally didn't get much representation in entertainment unless they were the butt of a joke, one of the first victims in a slasher flick, or died at the end from a hate crime or AIDS. I'm old enough that I remember anything labeled "gay interest" that wasn't porn was just a euphemism for a story of tragedy, where the gay characters die at the end.
So, now you've got writers champing at the bit to create gay characters who aren't there to be laughed at or murdered, and they're overcompensating. They've become so focused with righting the wrongs of bad tropes relating to gay characters, that they've forgotten they're supposed to be writing a Star Trek story. Star Trek has always had representation of minorities, though.
And boy howdy are they overcompensating. I'm assuming that you enjoy ST Voyager, given your sig line. That's my favorite ST series. Strong female leads that don't insult you of feel like they are forced on you. Janeway who not only made mistakes but overcame them. The female leads were comfortable in their sexuality, competent in their careers, and it just worked. Didn't feel forced. The female leads were there because they were important characters, not placed to placate woke culture.
Only one I didn't
Re: (Score:2)
Seven was absolutely forced on the viewer, in more ways than one. They were thinking of getting rid of Kim, because they didn't really have any good stories for him. The actor came high up in some poll of most attractive people on TV though, so they canned Kes instead. All to make way for Seven.
Then they put her in those skin tight costumes. The first one, the silver one, had what amounted to a push-up bra and corset in it. It was ditched because it was so uncomfortable. The intention was very much to appea
Re: (Score:2)
Star Trek has always had representation of minorities, though.
All except the gays that is. Remember that episode about the neuter person who felt female? Yeah, that was supposed to be about homosexuality until they chickened out. They did have a sort-of same-sex kiss in DS9 apparently, but if we're going to be honest it's infinitely easier to get two women snogging past the studio execs than two men.
Still, even I think they've overcompensated in Discovery. As if the show weren't bad enough to start with.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a STTNG episode about gender type and society's enforcement of sexual relation rules. Except, the episode was done in true Star Trek fashion by representing the formal principles at stake within an alien context. IIRC, gender type was some kind of 3-way marriage thing everyone was supposed to fit into, and the main alien character didn't feel they fit in. The alien ended up having a serious physical relationship with Riker but was subsequently caught and subjected to a medical correction to "fix"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All except the gays that is.
Yeah, they had to stick to metaphors in the older series. Jadzia Dax in ST:DS9 could just as easily have been transgender, but they made the concept seem less controversial by having her character be host to a Trill symbiont.
Hollywood has changed quite a bit. If you re-watch the old back to the future movie, it becomes obvious how much they wanted to hammer the point home that Marty has a girlfriend and this is not a movie about a weird old scientist who has a thing for 17-year old boys. To be fair, you
Re: (Score:2)
It's not over-compensating, it's just that there are all these new ideas to explore so of course the writers are going to use them.
Gene Roddenberry was always pushing for LGBTQ characters to be in Trek. He always pushing for more sexuality in general - his original pitch for Risa was to have full on orgies going on the background, no joke. Other writers were trying to do it too, e.g. Dax had a lesbian kiss and it was shown that the Trill regularly changed gender.
Now that the networks will allow same-sex cou
Re: (Score:2)
It's not over compensating to simply make a character here or there gay. If you end up with a mary sue straight character people complain about mary sueishness, but no one complains about the straight agenda or over compensating with straight characters.
Shoddy writing with gay characters is just shoddy writing, but it gets way way way more scrutiny than shoddy writing with straight ones.
I think Zach Weinersmith does it right: unless there's something specific, pick the gender and skin color of characters at
Re:Ars Technica reports the cast as... (Score:5, Informative)
Who are these people? I never heard of a single one of them. Bring back Shatner, as ship's chief legal council to negotiate with the aliens, he always shoots first
Considering that Pike commanded the Enterprise for 15 years before Kirk, and post-TOS introduced numerous other species (Aenar are from Andoria--introduced in 'Enterprise') it's inevitiable they would be on board. You saw Dr. M'Benga (expert in Vulcan Physiology) in two episodes of TOS, ('A Private Little War' and 'That Which Survives'). You don't think McCoy was the only doctor on a ship the size of Enterprise do you?
You seriously never heard of Nurse Chapel (Majel Barett-Rodenberry) or Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) from TOS? The other characters other than them, one must assume are 'poetic license' (other than 'Number One', who was also played by Majel Barrett-Rodenberry in the Pilot episode) taken by the writers.
I'm assuming Strange New Worlds takes place around 2250, when Pike first took command. That would make Kirk about 17--since he was born in 2233. He wasn't even in Starfleet then. In fact, he didn't enter the Academy until 2252.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who Stacy Abrams is, and I don't particularly care. From what I gather from context, she's an American politician of some sort, but I'm not sure how that particularly matters if she did a good job in the role.
Re: (Score:2)
She's black. He's just blowing a dog whistle, it has nothing to do with American politics.
Re: (Score:2)
The juvenile humor in Lower Decks.
That's actually the point. It's supposed to be a show where you turn off your brain and laugh at the absurdity of it all. Why would anybody would risk their lives going on dangerous space missions that they're not even being paid for, when they could instead just sit at home and have holosuite sex all day and stuff themselves with replicated food? Some self-depreciating humor over a series that has traditionally taken itself too literally is not necessarily a bad thing.
The first rule of being funny is being funny though. It was predictable and boring, as funny as a stubbed toe, and I'll never get that time back.
Re: (Score:2)
Season 2 of Lower Decks was a big improvement. One of my favourite episodes was the one with the evil computer. At the end you see they have a giant storage area for all the hundreds of evil computers they have encountered over the years, because Trek is really like that. Kirk talked three of them to death during his original run, and then another one in the first movie. TNG was a little bit better with Data and the Exocomps, but still had Lore. It's become a trope at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
a politician and not an actor
I fail to see the distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd imagine it isn't canon, but that's when Star Trek: Resurgence is set. It's an upcoming Telltale-style game from former Telltale people.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kinda what ST: Lower Decks is.
Just with a "different" style that makes it less serious of a show.