Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 12 2017, @08:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the boldly-go dept.

Phoenix666 and looorg have both written in with stories about 'Star Trek: Discovery':

'Star Trek: Discovery' Producers: Be Patient With Us

The Fine Article contains spoilers for those who haven't seen the show:

The lightness and easygoing chemistry among the "Discovery" cast present a stark contrast with the characters of "Discovery." In the first few episodes, the show has turned Burnham into a shunned mutineer, introduced a suspicious skipper in Capt. Gabriel Lorca (Jason Isaacs) and given us an arrogant and snappy scientist in Lt. Paul Stamets (Anthony Rapp).
star-trek-discovery-starfleet

It's the darkness of the characters and the background, which is set amid a war with the Klingons, as well as potentially continuity-bending aspects like Burnham being the adoptive daughter of Sarek, Spock's dad, that have some longtime Trekkies nervous.

If you're among those worried about the changes brought on by "Discovery," the producers have some advice for you: Just wait a little bit.

"We are canon," executive producer Alex Kurtzman said in an interview Saturday. "You'll have to be patient with us."

Kurtzman addressed the notion that the show would be grittier, assuring fans that the core themes of Star Trek remain.

Is it Game of Thrones in Space?

Windows into the Future

So this is a sure sign of the apocalypse. Windows will still be around in 2256 according to Star Trek. Guess we have to wait for that year of the Linux desktop for a few hundred more years.

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2017/10/3/16412372/star-trek-discovery-cbs-windows-code-command-line


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:25PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:25PM (#581099)

    > When the people in charge of a project start calling it a vehicle for their messages though, they can suck a dick.

    It has become a crusade of mine to demonstrate that TV need not be violent to be exciting... I wanted to send a message to the television industry that excitement is not made of car chases. We stress humanity, and this is done at considerable cost. We can't have a lot of dramatics that other shows get away with -- promiscuity, greed, jealousy. None of those have a place in Star Trek.

    -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [nytimes.com]

    Our shows are about the best of humans solving problems and learning about their own humanity. In our story sessions, we talk about how the world should be. Our characters symbolize where humans could be if they wanted to be.

    -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [tcm.com]

    'Star Trek' was an attempt to say humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in lifeforms.

    -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

    'Star Trek' speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over with a big flash and a bomb; that the human race is improving; that we have things to be proud of as humans.

    -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

    'I was tired of writing for shows where there was always a shoot-out in the last act and somebody was killed. 'Star Trek' was formulated to change that.

    -- Eugene Wesley Roddenberry [brainyquote.com]

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +5  
       Informative=2, Touché=3, Total=5
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:38PM (5 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday October 12 2017, @12:38PM (#581102) Homepage Journal

    Which might have been a problem if what he said and what got done were remotely the same.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:35PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Thursday October 12 2017, @01:35PM (#581123) Homepage

      If they're gonna go all diversity on us, why not take it to the extreme and stop pussyfootin' around? I want to see captain D'Jarius who prefers to carry disruptor pistols stolen from his enemies tucked in his waistband rather than phasers.

      " Kom-PUTAH! Gibs me dat fried chikkin! " * takes bite * " SHeeeeit....ain't like mammy usedta make! "

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:00PM (3 children)

      by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:00PM (#581126)

      It sounds exactly what was done, and it wasn't a problem. Face it, Star Trek is basically socialist. If you ignore the crap that was DS9 and Enterprise.

      --
      Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by rleigh on Thursday October 12 2017, @05:51PM

        by rleigh (4887) on Thursday October 12 2017, @05:51PM (#581241) Homepage

        I would argue that DS9 also fits this mould, but with a difference. TOS and TNG were set squarely in the federation, a quasi-utopia with occasional interaction with other species. DS9 sets the same people in a different context: a distant outpost in the aftermath of a war where people on both sides of the conflict have to live with their history and its influence on their present and future, and where material needs and money are still a reality. It's easy to be "good" in a utopia. DS9 often constrasts the two conditions, and what has been gained and lost by both, and how other cultures with different social norms interact with it; while different I really liked it, and I think it's got even better with age. It allowed them to explore material which would otherwise have been difficult (religion, damagoguery), yet still was ultimately aspirational, about seeing the best of humanity even in bad circumstances.

        This has been done by others as well. Take Ian M. Banks "Culture" novels. Like Trek, the Culture meta-civilisation is super advanced, and they live in a utopia with all material needs taken care of. But stories about perfect people in perfect worlds aren't intrinsically very interesting. So each of his novels looks at the Culture from different perspectives, to give insights into them which would otherwise not be apparent. This includes primitive species (Inversions), vastly more advanced races (Excession), developing species and co-civilisations (Matter, Surface Detail, The Hydrogen Sonata), enemy civilisations (Consider Phlebas, Look to Windward, Player of Games) and cultures which develop along different lines (Against a Dark Background). Superbly done, and it also reveals the dark side of utopia and meddling with other civilisations even with the best of intentions, which is touched on a little by Trek, but not to the same extent.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:05PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:05PM (#581250)

        True enough. But as a kid it taught me more or less why socialism would never work now, maybe in 400 years sure, but not now. People there were nothing like people I saw in the real world, and I was just a kid mind you but I could easily tell the difference. Their MO was totally different, they were driven by things which I found impossible to comprehend. I saw the technology that enabled their lifestyles, and it was PURE MAGIC to me. Sure if we had magic now we can have a go at socialism, why not. I also noted later the glaring issues that were never addressed. Nowhere does it say what the population of Earth was. Picard's brother owned a vineyard, but in socialist utopia who decides ownership? I thought there was no land-owners. So on and so forth.

        If anything, StarTrek exposed socialism as fantasy.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by BasilBrush on Friday October 13 2017, @12:29AM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday October 13 2017, @12:29AM (#581454)

          If you thought people don't own stuff in socialism, including land, then the problem is that you don't know what socialism is. You've confused it with communism.

          Socialism is about how we work, and what for and about making sure everyone is provided for. But it does not make everyone equal. It's not intended to.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:27PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:27PM (#581140)

    So, Star Trek is about Marry Sues being all perfect. Got it.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:24PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday October 12 2017, @04:24PM (#581200)

      They're not Mary Sues if they're the entire crew.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:42PM (1 child)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday October 12 2017, @02:42PM (#581147)

    Our shows are about the best of humans solving problems and learning about their own humanity. In our story sessions, we talk about how the world should be. Our characters symbolize where humans could be if they wanted to be.

    Exactly, and this is why the earlier ST shows were so great: they didn't show humans as the nasty, evil, violent, frequently incompetent, back-stabbing assholes that they really are in this universe. Instead, they showed humans at their very best, working together to solve difficult problems, establishing peaceful relations with other civilizations where possible, and in general doing good, and doing so with great competence at their jobs. That's completely and utterly realistic of course, as real humans aren't like that, but it's what I wish humans were like, and why I like watching Star Trek (TOS, TNG, etc.) From everything I've seen and read about Discovery, it just isn't like this. There seems to be one good character (the captain), and she gets killed off in the 2nd episode. The main character they focus on is entirely unlikable and does not symbolize how any decent human would want to be.

    • (Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Friday October 13 2017, @12:42AM

      by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday October 13 2017, @12:42AM (#581461)

      What you say is all true. But it looks like there will be a series long, or even multi-series arc to get the culture to where it was at the start of TOS.

      It seems like they've knocked Michael down right at the start, in order to build her up. They have set up a story of redemption. And, it being storytelling, her personal redemption will likely be representative of the whole federation's redemption.

      --
      Hurrah! Quoting works now!
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @05:27PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @05:27PM (#581229)

    I was calling him Chris before (Like Tolkien's son) because I couldn't remember his damn name and because he was kind of an asshole.

    I don't remember if it was one of the fanfiction things or something else, but he doesn't care about pushing anything but copyright law with Star Trek. He's one of those second generation IP whores who doesn't have a real idea in his own head, but the money is good and he's willing to suck on whatever to get more of it.

    Orville kind of jumped the shark for me with the Time Travel episode. Mostly because of him closing the wormhole with that lady still on his ship, rather than throwing her through first then closing it, since either the event happened and she existed and should now be stuck in their timeline, or she existed and should be trapped in her own now-modified timeline with the wormhole collapsed, but by having her disappear like that either he blatantly murdered her knowing she would be erased when it collapsed, or he didn't and time should have reverted with no knowledge of the events, and thus the events not happening, which means they were destroyed in that 'dark matter storm'.

    This is why it annoys me when they choose to throw in time travel without taking the time to think of all the logical issues it causes to the past, future, and present of the episodes/show.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12 2017, @06:06PM (#581252)

      You're right. That is THE hallmark of time travel: it's logical consistency. It simply doesn't make sense once you get rid of that. I mean, come on, we've got years of time travel experience to base that on!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @11:30AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @11:30AM (#581695)

      Gene Roddenberry died in 1991 (hence the quote from his obituary).

    • (Score: 2) by jasassin on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:01AM

      by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Saturday October 14 2017, @09:01AM (#582218) Homepage Journal

      Mostly because of him closing the wormhole with that lady still on his ship, rather than throwing her through first then closing it

      My mom asked me the same question. I answered, since she was from the future and that future no longer exists that doesn't mean she doesn't exist in the future. It just means the future changed and so did the past. She may very well be alive 900 years from then. Or, maybe her great great great (10 times) grandparents never ended up meeting.

      --
      jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A