Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 11:20:45 GMT
What are people's thoughts on the upcoming new series? Rumour has it that the whole thing is a giant mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 20:38:06 GMT
I have no hope for it whatsoever. But, I'll still watch it. It's going to be on Netflix, so might as well.
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Mar 4, 2017 6:08:07 GMT
I am not looking forward to it. The show being a prequel was an awful idea and they already lost a showrunner.
BTW, love Midnights Edge.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 4, 2017 6:17:46 GMT
Well, because they won't air the series on television, and since I can't stream video on my crappy internet connection... and because I know other people my age and older who won't be streaming it also...
I won't be able to watch it unless it is released on DVD/Blu-Ray over a year from now... if that even happens, which it might not... so...
I have no hope to see it lasting for more than one season, one way or another.
And from the sounds of things, that one season doesn't sound good anyway.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 4, 2017 6:25:15 GMT
wow Trekkies hate everything, that video was too negative
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 15:52:56 GMT
I would have liked it had Bryan Fuller have stayed since his Hannibal show was awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2017 18:35:26 GMT
Seems like it's going to be one of the great "what ifs" of Trek history. If he'd stayed, could this have turned out to be any good?
|
|
|
Post by NewtJorden on Mar 5, 2017 23:54:29 GMT
It sure look like its going to be bad right now.
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Mar 9, 2017 7:23:47 GMT
I am not looking forward to it. The show being a prequel was an awful idea and they already lost a showrunner. BTW, love Midnights Edge. Wh? You think ENT sucked because it was a prequel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 13:26:11 GMT
I am not looking forward to it. The show being a prequel was an awful idea and they already lost a showrunner. BTW, love Midnights Edge. Wh? You think ENT sucked because it was a prequel? I think that was one major reason it sucked, yes. Largely, the problem with prequels is that the producers absolutely refuse to actually make a prequel. Rather, they keep wanting to set shows in prequel periods whilst keeping everything exactly as if it wasn't a prequel. So for instance, a show set well before TOS should have slow ships that take a long time to get anywhere. Enterprise paid lip service to that idea, but that's all. In reality they got to a new planet or situation every week, just like they did in TNG. As opposed to what they should have done, which was to have three or four episodes set in space going to the next planet, then one on that planet, then three or four more in space. "But that would be hard to do and would be boring to audiences!" Yes. Yes it would. Which is an excellent reason not to do a prequel. Small details; that long before TOS, the weapons should have been atomic warheads, with laser beam weapons. The crew could even carry projectile weapons around! There should have been no viewscreen technology. The look and feel of the show should have been more like a submarine than a TOS or TNG starship. "But audiences expect a certain look to the show!" Yes they do. Which is why you shouldn't do a prequel where that is not appropriate. Enterprise's approach to technology was generally to make it exactly like the TOS/TNG era, but use different - sometimes very slightly different - names for things. So we get "phase" weapons which act exactly like phasers. We get "photonic" torpedoes that are exactly the same as photon torpedoes. We get "hull polarisation" which acts exactly like shields. And so on. Your prequel set long before TOS should have no Ferengi, and no Borg. "But audiences love Borg episodes!" Yes they do. Another reason not to do a prequel. Making a prequel is like making a period piece. When you make a period piece, the first and most basic expectation is that it should be appropriate for the period. You would not make a historical series set in ancient Rome and show people using laptops, smartphones, helicopters, etc. And no, that doesn't become sensible if you call them "kneetops" and "smartphons" and "whirlycopters" instead. And if you did this and then excused it by saying "But audiences expect this sort of stuff in a modern show!" then all you've really done is explained that you were a moron for setting your show in ancient Rome in the first place, given that you had no intention of actually making a show in that setting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 13:27:01 GMT
Oh, and all of that? The makers of Discovery are making the exact same mistake.
|
|
medjay
Sophomore
@medjay
Posts: 668
Likes: 70
|
Post by medjay on Mar 9, 2017 15:42:25 GMT
Wh? You think ENT sucked because it was a prequel? I think that was one major reason it sucked, yes. Largely, the problem with prequels is that the producers absolutely refuse to actually make a prequel. Rather, they keep wanting to set shows in prequel periods whilst keeping everything exactly as if it wasn't a prequel. So for instance, a show set well before TOS should have slow ships that take a long time to get anywhere. Enterprise paid lip service to that idea, but that's all. In reality they got to a new planet or situation every week, just like they did in TNG. As opposed to what they should have done, which was to have three or four episodes set in space going to the next planet, then one on that planet, then three or four more in space. "But that would be hard to do and would be boring to audiences!" Yes. Yes it would. Which is an excellent reason not to do a prequel. Small details; that long before TOS, the weapons should have been atomic warheads, with laser beam weapons. The crew could even carry projectile weapons around! There should have been no viewscreen technology. The look and feel of the show should have been more like a submarine than a TOS or TNG starship. "But audiences expect a certain look to the show!" Yes they do. Which is why you shouldn't do a prequel where that is not appropriate. Enterprise's approach to technology was generally to make it exactly like the TOS/TNG era, but use different - sometimes very slightly different - names for things. So we get "phase" weapons which act exactly like phasers. We get "photonic" torpedoes that are exactly the same as photon torpedoes. We get "hull polarisation" which acts exactly like shields. And so on. Your prequel set long before TOS should have no Ferengi, and no Borg. "But audiences love Borg episodes!" Yes they do. Another reason not to do a prequel. Making a prequel is like making a period piece. When you make a period piece, the first and most basic expectation is that it should be appropriate for the period. You would not make a historical series set in ancient Rome and show people using laptops, smartphones, helicopters, etc. And no, that doesn't become sensible if you call them "kneetops" and "smartphons" and "whirlycopters" instead. And if you did this and then excused it by saying "But audiences expect this sort of stuff in a modern show!" then all you've really done is explained that you were a moron for setting your show in ancient Rome in the first place, given that you had no intention of actually making a show in that setting. I never much noticed the Trek tech differences between the eras.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2017 16:45:18 GMT
That's kind of the point I was making, with regards to Enterprise at least. They never troubled to actually depict any!
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Mar 10, 2017 22:16:18 GMT
I am not looking forward to it. The show being a prequel was an awful idea and they already lost a showrunner. BTW, love Midnights Edge. Wh? You think ENT sucked because it was a prequel? No I think Enterprise sucked for other reasons. ENT could have been a great prequel, but the showrunners just had no clue what to do with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 18:23:47 GMT
I hope it is great. But another Brit in the captain seat?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 21:49:10 GMT
Why not another Brit Captain? We're awesome!
|
|
|
Post by Tunaman09 on Mar 18, 2017 15:49:00 GMT
I'll watch it and I am sort of looking forward to it, but I have to admit that from what I've heard so far it 50/50 excitement.
Oh and unfortunately the Romulans get overlooked again, again with the Klingons.
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Mar 19, 2017 1:53:07 GMT
I keep reading that the main plot of the show, is supposed to be...
"An EVENT that takes place about a decade before TOS, which has been discussed in the franchise before."
We know it isn't the Romulan Wars... And as has been noted in this thread already, it can't be the Borg...
Has anyone heard what this "Event" is supposed to be?...
Or does anyone remember what happened about 10 years before TOS?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 0:20:56 GMT
Honestly, I bet this mysterious "event" have been hugely overblown, and if it's in the show at all it will be something we maybe see in one episode.
Probably it will be something like the cloud beastie killing people on Kirk's ship or Charlie getting marooned on that planet or something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 0:39:43 GMT
Why not another Brit Captain? We're awesome! Well, maybe at playing Horatio Hornblower. But not starship captains. Patrick Stewart was fine but much better suited as an ambassador. We need an American captain. Or at least Canadian, thank you, Bill Shatner.
|
|