Octopus Overlords

I have a newsflash for you. (Actually I just watched a video on this so it was a newsflash for me too). Star Trek Discovery's "Prime" timeline is not the same thing as the Paramount "Canon" timeline. It's referred to Prime only with respect to the Kelvin timeline movies, not the Paramount TOS, TOS movies, TNG, TNG movies, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise.

There are actually three continuities. Think of them this way:
Gene Roddenberry's universe - all the classic Trek and movies up to the that last season of Enterprise
JJ Abram's universe - New Trek movies in the Kelvin timeline
Rod Roddenberry's timeline - Discovery in the Prime timeline

The Kelvin and Prime timelines are related, but they have nothing to do with the original Star Trek other than the Star Trek name and some character names.

For a detailed breakdown of the licencing issues and the repercussions I recommend this video:


Or for a deeper dive:


I think if CBS had just come out and said Discovery is not in the same universe as the original series it might have won over more fans. They put in so much crazy stuff that didn't jibe, like the spore drive, holograms, wacky Klingons, etc., that it turned off original series fans. Maybe they would have given it more slack if they knew it was a "take" on the original universe.

I tend to avoid the nerd rage videos made by folks who remind me of the comic book store owner on The Simpson’s.

We’re never going to get a true continuation of next gen, DS9 or (thank god) Voyager. Enterprise started the trend of veering away from all that. Hell, Next Gen could be considered a different timeline from TOS if you think about it.

I’m fine with some change as long as they try to capture the spirit of the originals. The sense of wonder in exploration. The understanding that no matter how different we may appear, we’re all the same in more ways than not. And that’s what Discovery is trying harder to do in season 2.

But when it’s all said and done, it’s Prime timeline Star Trek. Not the perfect one some folks want and gnash their teeth over perhaps, but it’s Prime timeline nonetheless.

I figured as much. "Prime" came up around the time of the 2009 reboot to help explain that it deviated to an alternate reality, and they'd like people to think that the "Prime" is the timeline encompassing everything before that movie. But really, it's an excuse for them to say they're adhering to the classic timeline.

Don’t get me wrong. Season 1 had quite a few missteps. The spore drive and the Klingon revamp being the biggest. But I think season 2 is sincere in its attempts to rectify those missteps, but in a reasonable manner and not with simple hand waving. Even DS9, my favorite ST show, had a rocky beginning.

I didn't mind the Spore Drive. It was a little weird, and it was obvious that at some point in the show they would need to explain why it's not a thing in other Trek shows, but neither of those were a big deal to me.

The Klingon revamp was also weird, and harder to explain as a plot matter. Was there some intellectual property reason that they needed to change the Klingons?

There's been a few attempts to explain it in cast interviews. They've tried to say it was because there are numerous houses within Klingon society and that some are physically different than the classic Klingons. They've pointed out that the new Klingon look is actually based on conceptual drawings for Klingons in the very first Star Trek movie.

But at the end of the day, Bryan Fuller just wanted a new look. I love Fuller's shows, but I do think they should have put the kibosh on that one.

Thankfully, the hair is making them a little more familiar.

On a side note, I loved the inclusion of a Tellarite in the Harry Mudd mini episode. That's some old school Trek. And their Andorians are also pretty close to the TNG version. It does an old Trek fan good to see them included.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:38 am The Klingon revamp was also weird, and harder to explain as a plot matter. Was there some intellectual property reason that they needed to change the Klingons?

Yeah, pretty much what I heard was that because it's a TV thing and not a Paramount movie thing, there were some things they were allowed to include and some they weren't and because of the split between CBS and Paramount, it became a little complicated in what they could include. Which is why the overall look of the show is different both in tone and design to what came before it while still trying to claim it all ties in to the classic universe. The split really messed things up. Technically I just wish they'd say Discovery is in the JJVerse.

CBS owns the right to Star Trek on TV, which should include everything folks want in a Star Trek TV show set in the Prime timeline. I truly believe that Fuller (and perhaps a few others) simply made some aesthetic changes on his own that they're now trying to back away from...especially since Fuller left.

Guess I posted in the wrong ST thread

Posting here:

You can get 3 free months of CBS streaming for Discovery with a Verizon coupon code via slickdeals. I just did it and it worked for me.

TrekMovie.com

Jonathan Frakes was a guest on this week’s episode of the Writer Experience podcast, which gets into the nuts and bolts of working in the film and television industry and is worth listening to in full (which you can do below). Frakes spent a lot of time on the podcast discussing his history and his work process. He also gave an update on what is keeping him busy these days as a director, noting that he has been pulled back into the world of sci-fi shows, including one headed by a certain Next Generation co-star:

Now my season looks like Star Trek: Discovery – the new wonderful Star Trek series, the Picard show – which Patrick [Stewart] is launching, and The Orville, which is some people’s new Star Trek. And I just finished The Gifted, which is a sort of X-Men Marvel origins show. So, I am back in that world.

...
When asked how he sees Star Trek stacking up to the expanding Star Wars universe, Frakes gave his assessment of CBS’ plans for the franchise on TV:

My understanding is that Alex Kurtzman and Secret Hideout are creating a Star Trek œuvre that will hopefully allow fans of Trek to have something fresh to see all the time. That is why Discovery, now that it is a hit, will continue, and they have announced Sir Patrick’s show, which is not titled, that will air after Discovery. And they have announced they are developing a show for Michelle Yeoh, so Empress Georgiou who is a character on Discovery will have her own stories. They have hired the guy from Rick and Morty – [Mike McMahan] – to write an animated show called Lower Decks, which I have seen parts of that are hysterical. So you have one, two, three, four. They’ve got a Nickelodeon connection for a little kid’s Star Trek, so that’s five. So, there is a world that is being created by Kurtzman and his team that will hopefully continue for many years and provide entertainment, and obviously conversation, about Star Trek for decades.

I don't think I've heard of so much Star Trek being produced at the same time since TNG, DS9 and VOY. Does anyone else feel that they may be biting off more than they can chew? It seems like an awful lot of Trek in a franchise that isn't all that stable at the moment. I'm concerned that they may be headed towards franchise overload.

Rumpy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 5:50 pm I don't think I've heard of so much Star Trek being produced at the same time since TNG, DS9 and VOY. Does anyone else feel that they may be biting off more than they can chew? It seems like an awful lot of Trek in a franchise that isn't all that stable at the moment. I'm concerned that they may be headed towards franchise overload.

Possibly, but I'm thinking since this is now the streaming world the schedules can be worked out better and resources allocated more reasonably. Without the traditional network model forcing 20+ episodes to always air at the exact same time each year, it should be much more manageable. These days a show can do a 10 episode "season" and have it all in the can and ready to launch whenever they feel like, completely different from the old days of Lost or X-Files where they were filming the next week's episode days ahead of the release date.

On a side note it's kind of annoying to me during awards season that the shows that are still forced to be produced the old fashioned way have to compete against shows like GoT which can spend like a movie's worth of budget and time on each "episode." It just doesn't seem right.

Well, I think there are several factors that help to explain that. Broadcast networks are still predominantly driven by what they physically air. I think that there still relatively few streaming-only options, and a few of them are even owned by broadcast-network parents who likely think in broadcast terms when it comes to production. There's also the fact that to get as wide an audience as possible, they have to take into account that these shows might be actually sold internationally and aired in some places (ie Canada airing Discovery), even if at a future date. Then you have funding; Funding will only ever be secured for batches of episodes, which can take a long time. I've seen a series take as long as 2 years to get funding for a new season before it could start shooting. So, no matter what, they have to think in terms of seasons and the time it takes in between seasons might be uneven.

Deadline

Salvation star Santiago Cabrera is reuniting with Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout and CBS Studios for a co-starring role opposite Patrick Stewart in CBS All Access’ upcoming Star Trek series that will explore the next chapter of Jean-Luc Picard. Blindspot alumna Michelle Hurd also will co-star in the series, produced by CBS TV Studios in association with Secret Hideout and Roddenberry Entertainment.
...
No details are being revealed about the characters Cabrera and Hurd are playing, but I hear Cabrera will play the pilot of Picard’s ship who also is a skillful thief. Hurd is playing a former intelligence officer who is a brilliant analyst with a terrific memory that has not been affected by her drug and alcohol abuse.

Out of that, the detail I got out of it was that Picard has a ship. Would have thought he'd been retired by now.

Retired from Starfleet. Doesn’t mean he’s just going to set up shop on Risa. After all, the Galaxy is full of noir mysteries.

Just a guess:

Retired as an Admiral
Took up archaeology as a full-time profession
Discovers something that gets him embroiled in a quadrant-spanning mystery that leads to a threat to the Federation, complete with numerous guest appearances.

My guess? Picard runs a cruise ship with a reputation as a romantic getaway. He’s become Captain Stubing. I can see Worf making guest appearances as his version of Gopher.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:05 pm My guess? Picard runs a cruise ship with a reputation as a romantic getaway. He’s become Captain Stubing. I can see Worf making guest appearances as his version of Gopher.

Worf in shorts.

I mean, Deanna Troi was basically Julie McCoy anyway.

It's something exciting and new.

Who would make a better Isaac? Data or Riker?

No, Troi will be playing Charo.

Cuchi cuchi, Gowron!



Space, the final frontier
Come aboard, we’re expecting you


Set a course for Risa
Your mind on a new romance.

Wesley Crusher's Caribbean vacation!

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2019 11:04 pm
Set a course for Risa
Your mind on jamaharon.

Fixed that.

SyFy

The Star Trek universe may be expanding, but the cast of Star Trek: Discovery is going into Season 3 with two fewer cast members.

According to Deadline, both Anson Mount and Rebecca Romijn won't be returning to the Trek prequel after the second season. Mount, who played Captain Christopher Pike, and Romijn, who played Number One, were brought into the Trek prequel specifically to help bring Discovery's storyline closer to the original series, and were only given one-season contracts.
...
This isn't the only casting change that the show will be dealing with. Over the weekend at Emerald City Comic Con, Rainn Wilson also confirmed that Harry Mudd won't be returning for the show's current sophomore season, but could still potentially return for round three, which was just confirmed last month.

Rebecca Romijn has appeared for a grand total of about 3 1/2 minutes so far, I believe. That's like announcing "random crowd member 3 won't be returning in season 3", so no worries on that one. But I'll miss Mount. He was the show's Kirk though, not its Picard. So I'm sure he won't be missed by some.

Does Discovery not have its own thread somewhere?

Anyway, I just finished Season 2 and wow, it was fantastic. I was pretty bored with Season 1 and admittedly I think I fell asleep almost every episode. But I slogged my way forward and I think the second half picked up a lot for me. Season 2, though, was like a huge huge leap better in quality. Possibly some of the best Star Trek content I've ever seen. The last few episodes had some great effects as well, very very impressive. I was annoyed at the cost of having to pay just for this show, but now that I've seen it I think it was worth it. For $10/month (no commercials), you can sub for roughly 4 months of the year to watch the whole season as it comes out, so $40 total for that experience. Or you can go super cheap and wait for all the eps to complete and just subscribe for one month for $6 (with commercials). Annoying but I think if you are a sci-fi fan it's well worth it.

Can't wait for Season 3!!!!

rittchard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:50 pm Does Discovery not have its own thread somewhere?

You're soaking in it.

rittchard wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:50 pm Does Discovery not have its own thread somewhere?

Anyway, I just finished Season 2 and wow, it was fantastic.

I'll have to rewatch because I had the exact opposite reaction - Season 1 was pretty good but I frequently fell asleep watching Season 2.

Season 1 they tried to reconcile the old Star Trek with modern tastes. They were trying to combine the action of Abrams' reboot and the original ToS with the loftier aspirations of TNG era Trek, while adhering to a Whedon like story arc with some huge reveals for some characters. And while they didn't succeed, they at least didn't shit all over the Trek universe. Heck, at times they actually got close to their goal.

Season 2 they started off strong by introducing us to a truly good Kirk-era captain in the form of Pike. He stole the show, I thought. I really wish they'd just started with him and then stuck with it, although I also understand that the season 1 story line really depended on the fun twists and turns they took with their characters (well, most of them).

In season 2, they also seemed to understand that they needed to veer a little closer to original Trek and they made the Klingons much more Klingon-ee, bringing back long hair, dangerous overbites and shoes with steel spikes that no sane race would ever consider safe footwear outside a Kiss Army convention. They also fumbled the ball on a season long story that ended up being less interesting than I hoped it would be. Although they did use it to answer the big question of "why the hell wasn't Discovery, spore drives or Spock's sister ever mentioned before!?!" in a decent manner. And also setting themselves up to create a truly unique Star Trek for season 3.

So while not perfect, I thoroughly enjoyed seasons 1 and 2 of Discovery and can't wait for season 3.

Season 2 also wasn't afraid to play it close and intimate, spending an entire episode at one point examining the life of a background character who you never really knew in order to make her ultimate fate that much more heartbreaking.

Season two consistently did this awkward thing where they're under extreme time pressure, but somehow the characters involved find the time to do a heartwrenching two-minute sidebar before diving back into the action.

Like this, on the bridge: "The ship is gonna explode in five minutes!! Everyone hurry!"
Next scene, in someone's bedroom: "I never told you about my father… (cries and hugs for four minutes and thirty seconds)"
Next scene, back on the bridge: "OMG we're so out of time we have to technobabble our way out of this!"

This pattern existed almost every goddamn episode of Season 2 and it made it almost unwatchable for me. People in an active emergency don't have time to take a heart to heart, those moment comes later/after, not during.

Lagom Lite wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 4:46 pm Season two consistently did this awkward thing where they're under extreme time pressure, but somehow the characters involved find the time to do a heartwrenching two-minute sidebar before diving back into the action.

Like this, on the bridge: "The ship is gonna explode in five minutes!! Everyone hurry!"
Next scene, in someone's bedroom: "I never told you about my father… (cries and hugs for four minutes and thirty seconds)"
Next scene, back on the bridge: "OMG we're so out of time we have to technobabble our way out of this!"

This pattern existed almost every goddamn episode of Season 2 and it made it almost unwatchable for me. People in an active emergency don't have time to take a heart to heart, those moment comes later/after, not during.

That's really interesting because I swear I never noticed this at all, and it sounds like something that would have driven me nuts. I suspect if I ever rewatch the episodes that's all I would notice.

- - -

On a different subject, I have to admit I was really skeptical about watching yet another incarnation of Spock. And then even though I didn't like his haircut and beard, I got sort of weirded out because I kept feeling like he was kind of turning me on, and I was uncomfortable with being physically attracted to the Spock character. Then I looked him up and found out he is Gregory Peck's grandson?!? Anyway, just some completely random nonsense going through my head as I watched the show.

Season 1 had a number of stumbles, and was middling for the most part, although most new Star Trek shows are like that. Season 2 was significantly better - less stumbles, a better season storyline, the secondary characters were better, etc. Though...

I think I gave up halfway through the first season when I didn't like how visceral it was. I realized it wasn't the kind of Trek I needed.

Rumpy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:17 pm I think I gave up halfway through the first season when I didn't like how visceral it was. I realized it wasn't the kind of Trek I needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by too visceral, but I will say I had also more or less given up after the first half or so episodes of season 1. I actually slept through most of them. In particular I thought they were trying too hard, especially the first episode, to be like Game of Thrones or something else. I slogged my way through some stuff before finally forcing myself to finish it up after I heard good things about season 2. Don't want to spoil anything, but I will say I really enjoyed the last few episodes of season 1. I wish I could make a recommendation on where to pick it back up but I guess it really depends on if you like the kind of storyline they introduced. Or you could just skip ahead and try Season 2, though there might be a few confusing things.

rittchard wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:22 pm

Rumpy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 9:17 pm I think I gave up halfway through the first season when I didn't like how visceral it was. I realized it wasn't the kind of Trek I needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by too visceral

Found it too violent with the action being too in-your-face. I remember a fist-fight in a corridor somewhere that actually made me flinch with how brutal it was in its depiction. It was at that point I realized I didn't really need to see it, that Trek had deviated too much. Then I later heard about the Klingon Schlong. Heh, that would make for an interesting band name. But anyhow, it's the little things that had added up. For a Trek show, it was also pretty bloody.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/07/10 ... 2e360007ce