STAR TREK Discovery Trailer

muppetts · Post by **muppetts** » Thu, 18. May 17, 09:13

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls053181649/vi ... =hm_hp_i_1

So the new series, now I am not all up on cannon or that into it but this gave me a much better feeling/reaction than the new movies. I did watch the original series but I just think it belongs in that weekly format rather than a one off movie and I think setting in the Klingon War is FAB!

burger1 · Post by **burger1** » Thu, 18. May 17, 09:41

It looks like a JJ Abrams type thing. I am unsure as to whether it will end up being like Star Trek Enterprise season 1 meets the new Star Trek movies or something else. I am not really sold on it at this point. It should be interesting to see how it turns out regardless of whether it is good or bad.

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Thu, 18. May 17, 09:44

You know what?

This is only a short trailer, and it's hard to describe, but . . it FEELS like Trek, in a way that the movies just haven't.

I have a good feeling about the Captain, at least. Not sure about the first officer.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Thu, 18. May 17, 10:15

Not sure what to make of that, I personally wish they stop muddying stuff before the original series. Enterprise was a huge mistake because of this, and got a fair bit wrong.

In all honestly, While the latest film wasn't bad, it wasn't that great either, and with tonnes of mistakes.

If I ever get around to watching it, I will give it a try, but really, I think star trek seems to be dying and some series went bad or was poorly done from the outset. Enterprise and Voyager really comes to mnd.

Jericho · Post by **Jericho** » Thu, 18. May 17, 10:20

OK, I'm actually excited now.

They released that terrible TERRIBLE CGI concept of the ship a long time ago, and the internet tore it apart for good reason. They had so little knowledge of today's world (i.e. they were living in the past) that they didn't plan for such a hard reaction to the CGI ship that looked like it had been created in 30 seconds.

I know that is a minor point, but to me it was indicative of their complete lack of care/insight into today's world.

Try and dig out some of the interviews with people involved with Star Trek Voyager behind-the-scenes. It was a series written by a committee working to a set of bulletpoints. Trek was still a gravy train at the time, so Voyager was created to exploit it and work from a list of items from their focus groups.

And that's why you have every space battle like this:
Tuvok: "Captain, they've fired a Gavisocon beam at our shields and they're peridiscomboulating."

Janeway: "Re-polarize the supercalifragalistic, and target their expialladocious"

Tuvok: "Their ship has been destroyed captain"

Yes, the threat to their ship was so great, that it could be instantly solved with a single line of bull. The script writers cared so little about these things as they hit their checkpoint list of script writing, that they just wrote TECH into the script. Of course, you want people dedicated to making sure the technology sounds correct, but it just had zero impact to the audience and was filling screen time.

Oh, and the shuttle crashes of course. No idea for a show? Crash a shuttle on a strange new world. Voyager was equipped with 2 shuttles, and they lost/crashed 17 (and a delta-flyer). So with zero spare resources that they have to eat moss they collect from passing asteroids (seriously), they manage to build another 15 shuttles and 2 delta Flyers. I guess that's why they had to eat moss.

So that's the kind of rubbish I was expecting from this new show.

Instead, it actually looks good! (But I'm one of those people that actually liked the 2009 JJ Abrahms film. I loved it. Not so much the 2nd, and yet to see the third... Make of that what you will).

greypanther · Post by **greypanther** » Thu, 18. May 17, 10:22

matthewfarmery wrote:Not sure what to make of that, I personally wish they stop muddying stuff before the original series. Enterprise was a huge mistake because of this, and got a fair bit wrong.

In all honestly, While the latest film wasn't bad, it wasn't that great either, and with tonnes of mistakes.

If I ever get around to watching it, I will give it a try, but really, I think star trek seems to be dying and some series went bad or was poorly done from the outset. Enterprise and Voyager really comes to mnd.

I think I agree with the above, it is maybe time to leave Star Trek alone, time to move on to a new story. I do not think I will be watching this one...

( Star wars too, time to leave it alone, no more rehashes please... )

Post by **X2-Illuminatus** » Thu, 18. May 17, 10:23

To be honest I think the trailer is horrible. I'm not sure what annoys me the most:

The intro on a planet with a sandstorm coming (I mean what were the events leading to that situation, in which the one person doesn't know that a ship is nearby to pick them up!?) Also isn't this supposed to be a space series? Why does the trailer have to start on a planet then?
The focus on the human/vulkan commander. That topic was covered with Spock already in the original series and in the movies in all details. On top of that vulkan-human interaction was covered extensively in StarTrek: Voyager with Tuvok and in StarTrek Enterprise with T'Pol, and occasionally in the other series too. Will there really be any new interactions or reactions, we haven't seen before? (Also "You will never learn Vulkan. Your tongue is too human." Oh come on...)
Klingons as enemies. See above. Topic was covered so extensively already, that it's hard to believe that there will be any new aspects.

I don't really understand the focus on prequels these days. I mean you have a huge galaxy and a way bigger universe and you always just let the story play in the same quadrant. Why don't they make something like Stark Trek: Voyager or Deep Space Nine again. Go to the other end of the Galaxy, but stay in the same time(line). Then you can still have your occasional reference, but have much more creative freedom to do something on your own.

Golden_Gonads · Post by **Golden_Gonads** » Thu, 18. May 17, 12:50

It seemed very poorly edited trailer with pretty much no sense of flow to it at all. There were a few good bits to it though, amongst the bad and the cheesy so it's shaping up to be a proper Trek series at least!

Usenko wrote:I have a good feeling about the Captain, at least. Not sure about the first officer.

Bad news for you then - The Captain is meant to be a minor role with the show lead being... You guessed it, the First Officer!

pjknibbs · Post by **pjknibbs** » Thu, 18. May 17, 13:13

greypanther wrote: I think I agree with the above, it is maybe time to leave Star Trek alone, time to move on to a new story.

It's already been twelve years since the last Star Trek TV series ended, how long do they need to keep it fallow before bringing it back refreshed?

Anyway, I know it's weird, but my biggest problem with the JJ Abrams Trek is that the writers have even less sense of the scale of things in space than the originals did. I mean, there's a scene in Star Trek: Into Darkness where the Enterprise is shot to hell mere seconds before they were due to drop out of warp, and they end up coming out of warp near the Moon instead of in Earth orbit as intended. Er, so they're travelling at many times the speed of light and yet they only come out of warp a couple of hundred thousand miles short? Even at just lightspeed that's about a second, at the speed they were travelling it would be less than the blink of an eye.

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Thu, 18. May 17, 13:59

I think my problem with Abrams Trek is related to that, but a little bigger.

Star Trek is primarily about exploration. Oh, fighting happens. But there's a lot of "Strange new worlds and new civilizations," especially on TNG.

Abrams Trek has been extremely action packed, but there's been a lot less of the thing that made Trek unique. Now, we only have three movies, and all of them may represent singular events in that universe, but still we're yet to see the Crew of the Enterprise spend significant amounts of time exploring.

I think the lack of a sense of scale is symptomatic of the problem rather than the problem itself.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Thu, 18. May 17, 14:08

That film made a lot of mistakes, in fact there is a youtube video about how many mistakes were present in that film..

and one of the biggest mistakes was the scale of the enterprise, when it crashed landed and was about to topple over, yet somehow kirk and someone else (can't remember if it was Spock?) was able to outrun it before it crushes them, like really? but overall, I think the films relied too much on CGI and not much thought in "Is this really possible?"

To me, they should have set the timelime something like 60 or 100 years after TNG. but I have a bad feel this new series will end up making a tonne of bloopers.

brucewarren · Post by **brucewarren** » Thu, 18. May 17, 14:19

Disagree about going decades further ahead.

The trouble with going too far into the future is that you're into magic tech that can do anything and that's terrible if you want an actual plot.

Caught a terrible disease? Resequence the DNA. If all else fails use a hair from the about to be deceased and feed it into the transporters. TNG did exactly that.

Major fault in the ship? Replicate a part. Heck why not go the whole hog and replicate whole fleets? Couldn't do that in TNG yet, but this is the future so why not?

Real tech limitations? Hey we've got Borg tech now. Yay!

One of the things I liked about "Enterprise" was the lack of overly advanced tech. It made it feel more real. Grappling hooks are much more fun than tractor beams and shuttlepods much more fun than beaming everywhere. Even the distances were more real. When you can't hop across the galaxy by snapping your fingers (looking at you Q) it has more meaning.

"Enterprise" ended just before the creation of the Federation. That could be a very exciting period if done right.

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Thu, 18. May 17, 14:30

Star Trek Beyond was the last straw for me in that universe, it was so not Star Trek,, First Star Trek film in which I never watched it all ... half way through I had suffered enough, it had the magic "click" and was gone.
Agree with others, move on to new ideas, let the bean counters continue to ruin the essence but not for me..... Bye Bye Star Trek.
The same bean counters worked on Alien: Covenant and were more than evident in Prometheus.....Tick Box Films.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Thu, 18. May 17, 14:49

brucewarren wrote:Disagree about going decades further ahead.

The trouble with going too far into the future is that you're into magic tech that can do anything and that's terrible if you want an actual plot.

Caught a terrible disease? Resequence the DNA. If all else fails use a hair from the about to be deceased and feed it into the transporters. TNG did exactly that.

Major fault in the ship? Replicate a part. Heck why not go the whole hog and replicate whole fleets? Couldn't do that in TNG yet, but this is the future so why not?

Real tech limitations? Hey we've got Borg tech now. Yay!

One of the things I liked about "Enterprise" was the lack of overly advanced tech. It made it feel more real. Grappling hooks are much more fun than tractor beams and shuttlepods much more fun than beaming everywhere. Even the distances were more real. When you can't hop across the galaxy by snapping your fingers (looking at you Q) it has more meaning.

"Enterprise" ended just before the creation of the Federation. That could be a very exciting period if done right.

Yeah I see your point, then it will be,

chief engineer "Captain we have a major malfunction in XTZ"
Captain "lets transport a new one in, and get us out of here in 10 seconds or less"

Which just makes it even more far fetched.

But the problem is, it's a catch 22 situation, but I really don't think doing any more prequels is a good idea either. even if the ship and crew is less techy then TNG, the problem is, it might be all about tech getting them out of a spot of bother, or messing up on the timeline in some way.

The real damager those ships will not be top of the line say like the enterprise ships, probably will only be able to reach warp 5 or maybe 6 if the need is there.

But in regards to voyager, the scriptwriters did a really poor job of things, and keeping track of resources and crew numbers, which is another chief complaint I have with that series. especially after some events where there were heavy crew loses.

The thing is, there will be many trekies that will know far more about the timeline then the scriptwriters, so its possible that this new series could mess things up. epsecailly on where they and what new or old alien races they find.

I still like this fan made CGI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkEm0btAgBI

still very well done.

thrangar · Post by **thrangar** » Thu, 18. May 17, 15:42

Have seen only the first of the Abraims movies , so for me its been a long drought, it is good to know at least there is a chance to drink from the Trek universe again.

I agree with some of the points in each of the above posts, but for me the most important thing they have to get is the crew(characters), and their interaction, loyalties and so forth, yes they have exhausted all scenarios so we will see most of those again but if we can connect to the crew it will be acceptable to me.

birdtable · Post by **birdtable** » Thu, 18. May 17, 19:02

@ thrangar ..... Spot on with your analysis ... you need some empathy with the characters/crew .. otherwise cardboard cut outs playing against a CGI background..

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 19. May 17, 00:45

Didn't like the trailer... due, in fact, to many of the things some really "on-point" previous posters have already mentioned.

Nicely put, guys.

"WARP PARTICLES!!! ZOMGZ!" /faceplam - That's Voyager, at times... Oh, and "TNG", almost always. (TNG fans almost always overlook this, too.

)

In the original series, sci-fi tech rarely "solved" whatever dilemma the crew were caught up in. Sure, sometimes, it was a big factor, but it more often a case of some sort of moral, ethical or internal strength that won the day. That's what I really love about TOS - Often, it was a morality play that addressed cultural, social or political issues of the day in clear, often striking, ways.

TOS was never about special effects or fancy spaceships. It was about very basic human attributes told against the backdrop of science-fiction, which is a genre entirely about how human society is impacted by technology. It was a wonderful marriage, while it lasted.

"Captains" take the forefront in the Star Trek IP because William Shatner was such a commanding presence in the series and because producers saw his appeal to the audience and his capture-the-camera screen presence, not because the series was intended to be his vehicle.

Follow-up IP offerings have rambled around with that, but have learned, IMO, that focusing too directly on "The Captain" as the draw is not generally a good idea and it needs to be tempered for today's audience, who like social soup rather than superstars who defeat alien bad guys with sharp right hooks and bare-chested double-fist swings...

My only direct criticism here will be that this trailer focuses entirely on "The Captain." That's A Bad Thing ™ for this IP to attempt to do. There will be pushback from fans and also very great expectations from those few who really want to see a "strong leader" character - The actor will be compared to their idealized version of Kirk, as every single "Captain" character has been compared in the past.

Accompanying that concern, the producers/casting/PR department/whoever have also chosen a black woman, which I have no personal issue with, but I hope it wasn't done in an attempt to force the issue of race, sex, etc, into some "Vision" to grab social and media attention for "The Captain" character that she will then have to play out under a microscope. IOW - We'll have to see whether or not it's gimmicky casting with a purpose or was truly a good choice, so only time will tell.

PS - The set, aliens, ships, techo-gimcrackery, all look too "Busy" for a Star Trek IP, which tends to have more sanitized sets that don't distract from the "actors." It's not that busy sets and dystopic equipment are bad, though. (Think "Alien" or "Blade Runner.") It's making them so prominent can be. We'll have to see.

Golden_Gonads · Post by **Golden_Gonads** » Fri, 19. May 17, 13:27

Morkonan wrote:Accompanying that concern, the producers/casting/PR department/whoever have also chosen a black woman, which I have no personal issue with, but I hope it wasn't done in an attempt to force the issue of race, sex, etc, into some "Vision" to grab social and media attention for "The Captain" character that she will then have to play out under a microscope. IOW - We'll have to see whether or not it's gimmicky casting with a purpose or was truly a good choice, so only time will tell.

To be fair, The Original Series had gimmicky casting. Each member of the main cast was supposed to represent a continent or country. So Kirk/Shatner for Canada/North America, Nichols/Uhura for Africa, Doohan/Scott for Europe etc. They never (as far as I remember) called attention to this, but that was the reasoning behind the original casting.

Usenko · Post by **Usenko** » Fri, 19. May 17, 14:43

And as usual, they forgot about Australia.

Morkonan · Post by **Morkonan** » Fri, 19. May 17, 14:54

Golden_Gonads wrote:...To be fair, The Original Series had gimmicky casting. Each member of the main cast was supposed to represent a continent or country. So Kirk/Shatner for Canada/North America, Nichols/Uhura for Africa, Doohan/Scott for Europe etc. They never (as far as I remember) called attention to this, but that was the reasoning behind the original casting.

I suppose I should have written "pandering" rather than "gimmicky."

But, IMO, the only gimmicky casting in TOS was Walter Koenig as "Chekov", to attract the younger audience, especially young women.

The rest of the casting was part of the underlying theme of the show, really. Besides being a "Wagon Train" (A popular show in the era) in space, it was supposed to show a society that was different, one that was progressive and made up of all races bonded for a common purpose of peaceful exploration... and blowing up aliens that looked weird..

TOS took a LOT of the social questions of the day and splashed them onto the TV set. It was never hidden, never obfuscated other than to fit in a science-fiction story - Right in the face. In that respect, the diversity in casting was integral to the show, IMO.

There have been a few television/other series these days that do little more than pander to the audience using either racial stereotypes or overly forceful marketing packaged as "necessary social justice commentary." (ie: IOW, "If you don't like this show, you must be biased against xxxx.")

That's exactly what I don't want to see happen, here. Star Trek, IMO, really needs to start focusing on what TOS did, looking at social/cultural/world issues and presenting interesting perspectives on them. BUT, it, itself, as a television show, should not be part of that dialogue. It should be a lens, not the subject.

egosoft.com

egosoft.com

STAR TREK Discovery Trailer

STAR TREK Discovery Trailer