Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am I'm kind of done with "this isn't real Star Trek / Star Wars" complaints. I get it at some level, in that there are certain core characteristics that most people associate with Trek and SW (and other fictional universes), and if you change things too much then it's gibberish. Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.

But like, I feel like if there's any lesson to be learned from The Force Awakens essentially remaking A New Hope, followed by a TV show or movie for every minor character in the original trilogy (even if the Aunt Beru / Figrin D'an road trip movie is going to be incredible), it's that you're better off if the IP owners are willing to innovate than one where they're hyper-focused on not diverging from the first entry to make money. Even if sometimes you get complete turds like Picard season 2.

And I generally agree. Nowhere have I said that Discovery isn't a great show (I don't have any idea if it is), or that it isn't 'real' Star Trek (I generally hate any 'it isn't real' argument.) The closest I've come is in stating that it can't be in the timeline/universe they have said it is in.

There has to be a balance between respecting what's been done and innovation. The problem is that Discovery - unlike TNG - isn't even attempting to achieve that balance. They simply brush aside anything that doesn't suit the direction they want to go, and it sets up a kind of extreme cognitive dissonance when I try to watch it. Writing, story, acting - none of that comes through because I just find everything else so... uncomfortable.

I really, really wish they'd either given them their own universe (like Abrams) or a different period of history (like TNG/etc) to play in rather than sticking it right in the middle of something that is well-established.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:08 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:01 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.

The problem was your insistence that Dumbledore be played by Mark Wahlberg in Vulcan makeup. "Say hi to your ma for me, Pike...ooh, time for Pon Farr!".

First, I'm still not sure what your issue is with the Marlon Brando of the 21st century.

Second, it sounds like you didn't even read my script note that this takes place in a dark mirror universe in the Kelvin Timeline. Of course Dark Kelvin Dumbledore is a Vulcan with a Boston accent.

I pah-ked the pah-kled cah-r in Har-vahd yah-d.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am I'm kind of done with "this isn't real Star Trek / Star Wars" complaints. I get it at some level, in that there are certain core characteristics that most people associate with Trek and SW (and other fictional universes), and if you change things too much then it's gibberish. Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.

But like, I feel like if there's any lesson to be learned from The Force Awakens essentially remaking A New Hope, followed by a TV show or movie for every minor character in the original trilogy (even if the Aunt Beru / Figrin D'an road trip movie is going to be incredible), it's that you're better off if the IP owners are willing to innovate than one where they're hyper-focused on not diverging from the first entry to make money. Even if sometimes you get complete turds like Picard season 2.

And I generally agree. Nowhere have I said that Discovery isn't a great show (I don't have any idea if it is), or that it isn't 'real' Star Trek (I generally hate any 'it isn't real' argument.) The closest I've come is in stating that it can't be in the timeline/universe they have said it is in.

There has to be a balance between respecting what's been done and innovation. The problem is that Discovery - unlike TNG - isn't even attempting to achieve that balance.

And you got all that from watching one episode in a season that everyone agrees starts off rocky?

That power must be an incredible time saver for you. But with great power comes great responsibility. Try to use it responsibly.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am I'm kind of done with "this isn't real Star Trek / Star Wars" complaints. I get it at some level, in that there are certain core characteristics that most people associate with Trek and SW (and other fictional universes), and if you change things too much then it's gibberish. Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.

But like, I feel like if there's any lesson to be learned from The Force Awakens essentially remaking A New Hope, followed by a TV show or movie for every minor character in the original trilogy (even if the Aunt Beru / Figrin D'an road trip movie is going to be incredible), it's that you're better off if the IP owners are willing to innovate than one where they're hyper-focused on not diverging from the first entry to make money. Even if sometimes you get complete turds like Picard season 2.

And I generally agree. Nowhere have I said that Discovery isn't a great show (I don't have any idea if it is), or that it isn't 'real' Star Trek (I generally hate any 'it isn't real' argument.) The closest I've come is in stating that it can't be in the timeline/universe they have said it is in.

There has to be a balance between respecting what's been done and innovation. The problem is that Discovery - unlike TNG - isn't even attempting to achieve that balance. They simply brush aside anything that doesn't suit the direction they want to go, and it sets up a kind of extreme cognitive dissonance when I try to watch it. Writing, story, acting - none of that comes through because I just find everything else so... uncomfortable.

I really, really wish they'd either given them their own universe (like Abrams) or a different period of history (like TNG/etc) to play in rather than sticking it right in the middle of something that is well-established.

The thing is that I really disagree that Discovery isn't attempting to achieve that balance. Part of what I love about it in fact is that it's very classic Trek in terms of being mostly focused on science / exploration stuff while also writing the characters in a way that makes them more like real people than cardboard cut-out Federation officers.

I will say that maybe part of the issue is that I don't know a ton about what has already been established re: the Klingon War, so maybe that's part of why I don't see much of an issue with them disregarding established precedent.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:07 pm I (and many other long-term fans) do like it. The only reason I get annoyed with this argument is because there's constantly an insinuation that if I do like it, I'm not a Star Trek fan. That's ridiculous.

I said what, now? If that's what you're taking away from this, you're reading an awful lot between the lines that I didn't type there.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:07 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:06 pm and not for the reasons that people didn't like TNG, or Section 31, or a bald captain.

You many not think so, but they are.

You may think so, but they aren't.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:07 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:06 pm

The points that you're defending are not the same ones that I am making, and we're just going in circles because of it.

You complained about continuity issues. I presented evidence that Star Trek has always had continuity issues. You yourself even noted that

Every show has continuity issues.

As far as I'm concerned, I put the car in park and it doesn't need to go in circles anymore.

I referred to changes that alter the very nature of the setting in a time period when we know that the state of those things. You are tossing out lists of examples like "Chekov never met Khan." Those are very different things. It's like I'm saying that a new Star Wars show says that the Jedi were only ever human five years before A New Hope, and you're responding with things like "Han's handcuffs disappeared in the carbonite." Those are both continuity problems, yes, but that doesn't make them equivalents.

And yes, I know that the first episode (few episodes) are known for being a rocky start. I'm not addressing the quality of the show. I'm addressing the nature of the show. And the nature of the show is that the producers wanted to do a reboot, but tried to get viewers by claiming it wasn't.

I do want to point out that Klingon factions have been mentioned in the past. So having a new one based on representing the dead isn't a direct contradiction to established history. Especially an extremist one. Extremism is something I believe Klingons would naturally embrace.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:26 pm
I referred to changes that alter the very nature of the setting in a time period when we know that the state of those things. You are tossing out lists of examples like "Chekov never met Khan." Those are very different things. It's like I'm saying that a new Star Wars show says that the Jedi were all human five years before A New Hope, and you're responding with things like "Han's handcuffs disappeared in the carbonite." Those are both continuity problems, yes, but that doesn't make them equivalents.

I see your arguments as being about the same. The continuity issues you present are no more egregious than Worf "forgetting" that Klingons would rather die than be captured...which happens a lot in old Star Trek. I mean, do we really want to do a deep dive on how screwed up the continuity is with the physical appearance of Klingons throughout the show's history alone?

You want to hate this because you think it flies in the face of established Star Trek. It's easily proven that it is no more egregious than previous shows. Especially the change from TOS to TNG.

And yes, I know that the first episode (few episodes) are known for being a rocky start. I'm not addressing the quality of the show. I'm addressing the nature of the show. And the nature of the show is that the producers wanted to do a reboot, but tried to get viewers by claiming it wasn't.

Nope. Every show has faced the same criticisms you present. At this point, it's to be expected. I honestly would have been surprised if it didn't get kickback.

Then put the car in park instead of pressing the gas. I've already shown you your parking space.

Side note:

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:26 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:07 pm I (and many other long-term fans) do like it. The only reason I get annoyed with this argument is because there's constantly an insinuation that if I do like it, I'm not a Star Trek fan. That's ridiculous.

I said what, now? If that's what you're taking away from this, you're reading an awful lot between the lines that I didn't type there.

You had written "I (and many other long-term fans) do not like it"...but then you edited it out apparently. That's what I was directly responding to.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:30 pm You want to hate this because you think it flies in the face of established Star Trek. It's easily proven that it is no more egregious than previous shows. Especially the change from TOS to TNG.

I have to agree with Hep. The Klingons in TOS were a thinly veiled reference to Russia and visually referential to Communist China or Medieval Mongolians. They share some stereotypical similarities with Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon. It was a HUGE leap for my father, a long time TOS fan, to see the Klingons depicted differently in Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which was the first media with their redesign). From what I have heard, this is how Roddenberry wanted them to look, but the low budget of TOS made it impossible.

Oddly, Season 1 and 2 of Discovery actually addresses WHY the Klingons look different (both in TOS, TMP and TNG). It is a giant hand wave, but they do talk about it.

I'm with Hep here too - Discovery is a pretty big return to some of the original values of Star Trek. They feel like a very long Star Trek movie - starting with a mystery, moving to a revelation, then ending with a resolution that hinges on brains over brawn. It feels very Star Trek to me, but I do have friends who are steeped in the lore that really hate it. To me, it preserved the overall values well.

In an odd segue, I really hated Star Wars Rogue One - largely because it became this story about morality and the lengths individual people should go to in order to save the many. THEY GOT TOO MUCH STAR TREK IN MY SHOW ABOUT SPACE WIZARDS WITH LASER SWORDS. For me, Star Wars is always "pew pew" and clear good versus evil. Star Trek is the place I go when I want to question morality, sacrifice, service, compassion, and other big philosophical topics.

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:44 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:30 pm You want to hate this because you think it flies in the face of established Star Trek. It's easily proven that it is no more egregious than previous shows. Especially the change from TOS to TNG.

I have to agree with Hep. The Klingons in TOS were a thinly veiled reference to Russia and visually referential to Communist China or Medieval Mongolians.

Oh wow, that's so obvious but I didn't really visually connect the dots until you brought it up.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:45 pm

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:44 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:30 pm You want to hate this because you think it flies in the face of established Star Trek. It's easily proven that it is no more egregious than previous shows. Especially the change from TOS to TNG.

I have to agree with Hep. The Klingons in TOS were a thinly veiled reference to Russia and visually referential to Communist China or Medieval Mongolians.

Oh wow, that's so obvious but I didn't really visually connect the dots until you brought it up.

Yeah, Kor - the most famous face of the Klingon's in TOS - is HIGHLY problematic by today's standards of makeup and actors.

Versus Kor in the post TMP era:

Yeah, the "fu manchu" look is definitely problematic in that context.

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:44 pm Oddly, Season 1 and 2 of Discovery actually addresses WHY the Klingons look different (both in TOS, TMP and TNG). It is a giant hand wave, but they do talk about it.

Enterprise had a two episode arc about just that, explaining why they lost their ridges prior to TOS, and implying that it might be possible to reverse the process at some later date.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:51 pm Yeah, the "fu manchu" look is definitely problematic in that context.

If you didn't recognize him - that is the same actor as Baltar from the 70s Battlestar Galactica.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:51 pm

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:44 pm Oddly, Season 1 and 2 of Discovery actually addresses WHY the Klingons look different (both in TOS, TMP and TNG). It is a giant hand wave, but they do talk about it.

Enterprise had a two episode arc about just that, explaining why they lost their ridges prior to TOS, and implying that it might be possible to reverse the process at some later date.

They go even more into it in Discovery. It's a bit much but it makes sense.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:51 pm

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:44 pm Oddly, Season 1 and 2 of Discovery actually addresses WHY the Klingons look different (both in TOS, TMP and TNG). It is a giant hand wave, but they do talk about it.

Enterprise had a two episode arc about just that, explaining why they lost their ridges prior to TOS, and implying that it might be possible to reverse the process at some later date.

Yes, 26 years later.

Personally, I preferred the previous explanation found in fandom that the Klingons treated conquered races like the Romans did, conscripting them into their armies with the promise of freedom for service, etc.. But the genetic explanation is fun too.

As was the DS9 approach of "we don't talk about it".

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:52 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:51 pm Yeah, the "fu manchu" look is definitely problematic in that context.

If you didn't recognize him - that is the same actor as Baltar from the 70s Battlestar Galactica.

Wow, that doesn't even look like him at all.

...which...ummm...I guess is the point

Or a fair continuity gap - why TNG Romulans (much like Ruffles) have ridges, while neither their TOS ancestors nor their Vulcan cousins do, when only a couple of thousand years separate the two populations of the same species.

The prominent theory is that when they landed on Romulus, they intermixed with their enslaved native servants (the Remans.)

You may actually like Lower Decks. It's raunchy, a little juvenile...well...a lot at times. But it does fan service like you wouldn't believe. After I got over my initial dislike of the comedy, I found a show that feels like Orville in many ways...but set in the Star Trek TNG universe. I don't think there's been an episode after which I didn't have to check online to refresh my memory as to what race they were talking about/incident they were referencing...and by god, there almost always was one.

Also, it reinforced my belief that logically, the Pakled should just not exist.

Yeah, I like Lower Decks.

I didn't at first. I railed against it. But eventually I gave it a chance and I now enjoy it.

But man, the Pakled should just not exist.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:29 pm I didn't at first. I railed against it. But eventually I gave it a chance and I now enjoy it.

But man, the Pakled should just not exist.

That explains your script where the Federation systematically commits genocide on the Pakled.

Because they do not make things go?

I mean, think about it for a second. You've got an entire race that is the mental equivalent of Sloth from the Goonies...yet they've managed to piece together a star faring race that relies on essentially setting up Mad Max style roadside traps where they pretend to be helpless, and then attack and steal all your technology.

Then this race of morons is able to figure out HOW to use that technology with the technology they've stolen from OTHER races. How many times have we seen a science fiction show relying on the trope that the engineer has to figure out how to use the spanner from one race with the watchamacallit from another? Yet Sloth and friends are able to do this so well that they're now being asked to form alliances with other races. That's like me going down to the grade school near my office and asking the first 3rd grader I see if he wants to form a strategic alliance against my company's main competitor. They would probably look at me for a second and then just go "Why are you fat?" (I'm big boned, you little bastard).

What should happen is that every other warp capable race should just be dropping off beads and pox laden blankets on the Pakled home world, and then leaving with the planet's resource rights.

Hell, the Klingons should be bullying them. Ordering 23,000 space pizzas and having them delivered to their diplomatic ship, The Big Thing Shaped Funny Which Helps Us Go Places (actual name), and taking every chance they get to sneak up behind them and give them wet willies when they see them planet side.

However, I do now want an entire series based on the Pakleds. It would be a sitcom, of course. Each episode would end with the main characters back in space jail, trying to figure out what went wrong with their latest "heist".

You are smart.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 2:26 pm I mean, think about it for a second. You've got an entire race that is the mental equivalent of Sloth from the Goonies...yet they've managed to piece together a star faring race that relies on essentially setting up Mad Max style roadside traps where they pretend to be helpless, and then attack and steal all your technology.

Then this race of morons is able to figure out HOW to use that technology with the technology they've stolen from OTHER races.

I stopped right here because CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOT MET THE ORKS FROM WARHAMMER 40K. REDZ WOT GO FASTER! WAAAAAAARRRGGGGHHH! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!

baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 3:47 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 2:26 pm I mean, think about it for a second. You've got an entire race that is the mental equivalent of Sloth from the Goonies...yet they've managed to piece together a star faring race that relies on essentially setting up Mad Max style roadside traps where they pretend to be helpless, and then attack and steal all your technology.

Then this race of morons is able to figure out HOW to use that technology with the technology they've stolen from OTHER races.

I stopped right here because CLEARLY YOU HAVE NOT MET THE ORKS FROM WARHAMMER 40K. REDZ WOT GO FASTER! WAAAAAAARRRGGGGHHH! DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA!

YOU NOT SPELL FASTA GOOD! WE WAAAARRRGGGHHHH YOU!

You know, season 2 of Discovery DID have someone in silly Warhammer-ish armor for much of the season....

I just want to say how much I love you both. Even if you are HERETICS!

We all argue, but at the end of the day, it's just all fun and games.

At the end of the day, it's about a TV show.

And arguing about Star Trek is as much a tradition as arguing about comic books (Batman is lawful good.)

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:40 pm At the end of the day, it's about a TV show.

And arguing about Star Trek is as much a tradition as arguing about comic books (Batman is lawful good.)

Doesn't Batman violate a ton of laws every day over the course of his vigilante work?

Though maybe Wayne Lobbying Enterprises has made all of it legal over time.

Jesus Christ, the moving violations alone with the Batmobile ensures he isn’t lawful good. And you just KNOW he’s one of those dicks who take up two spaces so no one will park near him.

And don’t get me started on the child endangerment laws he’s breaking like a fat guy in a poorly made chair factory. He basically uses 11 year olds like Kevlar. The doormat at Wayne manor reads, “New Day, New Robin”.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:21 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:40 pm At the end of the day, it's about a TV show.

And arguing about Star Trek is as much a tradition as arguing about comic books (Batman is lawful good.)

Doesn't Batman violate a ton of laws every day over the course of his vigilante work?

(See what I mean?)

Lawful alignments aren't about following the law, they're about working for order. When the law and order are in conflict, they generally choose order. Batman began to act only after the lawful authorities failed to do their job, and he only does what is necessary to deliver them to the authorities, all while following a code. If Batman were chaotic good, the Joker would have been dead a long time ago.

What’s Superman? Lawful Lawful Good?

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:52 pm What’s Superman? Lawful Lawful Good?

Also Lawful Good. And there we get into the issues around trying to define all characters with alignments, and the reason my first house rule for D&D is "alignment does not exist." Want Chaotic Good? Red Hood. The Question. Some Green Lanterns (Gardner comes to mind.)

Yeah, I totally agree it’s way too narrow a rating system, but anyone who kills regularly I’d automatically put under neutral at least, no matter the reasons (referring to Red Hood).

Paste Pot Pete though? He’s pure chaotic COOL.

Look, just as long as we can all agree that the Enterprise would defeat a Star Destroyer, then I think we're all good here.

Shit, the Galileo could take out a Star Destroyer. Can you think of anyone in the Empire who could hit the broad side of a barn from 17 inches away? There’s a reason you never hear about famous pitchers who used to be stormtroopers.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:15 pm Look, just as long as we can all agree that the Enterprise would defeat a Star Destroyer, then I think we're all good here.

Hell yes it could. One photon torpedo to the bridge, and its all over.