OT: Star Trek Discovery

135678

Comments

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,579

    Okay, feel happier after watching ep 2. But still feel those Klingons let the show down.

  • McGyver said:

    Yup.

    All Access is not international. So they put it on netflix for everyone but the home crowd.

    Boy that sucks... Thanks Netflix... That's a F--- Y-- to U.S. customers, eh?

    I guess in retrospect I've heard of that before, but it was in relation to stuff I didn't watch anyway.

    Well, no surprise... People are made of money right?

    I don't think Netflix had a choice beyond, "refuse to show it to anyone."

    Corporate haterism aside (ps, coporate haters, I feel you) they would be idiots to turn down the money from the international market.

    CBS think they can get some back from Netflix by launching a rival serice based on their IP. I think they really can't. They don't have enough exclusive IP, and they want to charge too much for no commercials AND they are putting out a web exclusive series by using a broadcast weekly model. Many, many signs that they don't get what Netflix does.

    But I think the final nail in the coffin is Discovery.

    I am old school trek. But I'm also aware that, beyond the basics of the design of the Jefferies Enterprise, TOS looks insanely outdated, and I do fiction myself. So I don't have a problem with what Discovery is trying to be. But it is not trying to be an ode to the very fanbase CBS needs to jump on the All Access wagon. It's trying to appeal to new fans.

    Okay, no issue. The JJ verse makes bank.

    BUT IT ISN'T SET IN THE JJ VERSE. So, Discovery is designed to meh the old fan base and confuse the hell out of the new.  Also, it's Game of Thrones/BSG but in Star Trek. Even if they pull that off (manage to add the pathos without abandoning the ideals) old fans are going to grab that as reason to reject it. They already level the charge at the JJ verse.

    I had fun with it. But I doubt I'd buy the service. And if it's pay as you go, you can wait until the whole series is out, drop in for a free trial, binge the show, and then cancel. If they drop the trial, it's still just 10 bucks. (And if they are spinning it under, "we won't keep the whole series online long enough for that," then they've clearly failed to grasp VOD over internet, and people still won't pay.)

    All Access wants you stay for the rest of the line up, and it just doesn't feel like CBS has the chops for that. 

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021
    jakiblue said:

    It's on Netflix here in australia, apparently fast tracked so we get the eps just after screening in the US.  

    Pet said:
    McGyver said:

    I just saw this thread and hadn't realized Discovery was already out... I hadn't thought about it much because I have no intention of paying for it separately... But I'm seeing that people are saying it is on Netflix, but I'm not seeing it there, and searching for it just gives a poop pile of inane Netflix suggestions on stuff the algorithm likes to believe will compensate for their inadequacy...

    So... I'm curious... Is it available on Netflix, just not in the U.S.?

    We have it on Netflix in the UK and from what I have heard it is not on Netflix US. Not sure about other countries.

     

     

    Okay, feel happier after watching ep 2. But still feel those Klingons let the show down.

    I still did not like it after episode 2. All is dark and depressing and the acting is bad.

     

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021
    jakiblue said:

    It's on Netflix here in australia, apparently fast tracked so we get the eps just after screening in the US.  

    Pet said:
    McGyver said:

    I just saw this thread and hadn't realized Discovery was already out... I hadn't thought about it much because I have no intention of paying for it separately... But I'm seeing that people are saying it is on Netflix, but I'm not seeing it there, and searching for it just gives a poop pile of inane Netflix suggestions on stuff the algorithm likes to believe will compensate for their inadequacy...

    So... I'm curious... Is it available on Netflix, just not in the U.S.?

    We have it on Netflix in the UK and from what I have heard it is not on Netflix US. Not sure about other countries.

     

    Same here. 

     

  • mikael-aronssonmikael-aronsson Posts: 521
    edited September 2017
    RKane_1 said:

    The first officer was interesting (if we set aside the fact that she literally pushed aside a science officer) but didn't like how the interactions with the captain were done. I don't get the male name thing. It's not clever or interesting.

    Michael is also a woman's name

     

    No it's not, https://www.behindthename.com/name/michael

    "Michael" is the male version, it exists in feminine version but is always spelled different:

    FEMININE FORMS: Makayla, Mckayla, Michaela, Michele, Michelle, Mikayla, Mikki (English), Michaela, Micha, Michi (German), Michaela, Mikaela (Swedish), Mikaela (Norwegian), Mikaela, Mikkeline (Danish), Michelle (Dutch), Michaela, Michala (Czech)

    Post edited by mikael-aronsson on
  • I like the masculine form. It's kind of a classic sci fi trope to give men currently feminine names and vice versa, just usually they tend to be short names of the type that miiiiight technically be nicknames for the "correct" masculine/feminine form. So the fact that she is straight-up Michael rather than "Mike" doesn't bother me. A lot of names have drifted in which gender they're associated with.
  • EsemwyEsemwy Posts: 575
    edited September 2017

    I guess I’m old enough to remember Michael Learned, from The Waltons that the name wasn’t jarring. I guess it’s not “always” spelled different. 

    Post edited by Esemwy on
  • GatorGator Posts: 1,169

    She is called Michael because of Bryan Fuller, he always do that with his female characters (George,Chuck and so on), and even if he is not running the show any more I guess they kept that.

     

    I can get it to do it once, but he always does that?  The name doesn't bother me, but it seems more like just a dumb schtick done over and over.  Makes me wonder if something wrong with him. 

     

     

  • GatorGator Posts: 1,169

    I gotta watch the second episode, hope that can redeem the first one.

     

    Anyone worried about the captain Michelle Yeoh being a special guest?  I get the feeling she goes and Mike becomes captain.  Which, without mentioning why because of spoilers would be colossally stupid after what she has done. 

  • I loved it! better than any of the originals, I like how it's taking a different path. FX wow they were great can't wait for more !!!

  • MoranaMorana Posts: 330

    We watched the second episode last night, and I'm feeling a bit better about a few things after watching the "coming up this season" preview.  Knowing the pilot episodes are just setting the players in place makes it easier to deal with some of the questionable things that happened.  I know it's Trek 101 to send your command team into the heat of danger because "drama" but seriously, both the captain and second in command heading off to the enemy ship when they're needed on the bridge the most?  Isn't that what you have specially trained security teams for?  Star Fleet Academy really needs to review it's curriculum on delegating duties to the appropriate people. frown

    I'm still on the fence about the Klingons.  I miss the big hair and hot tempers, darnit!  And having Micheal being the ward of Sarek breaks all the RP rules about never being related to the main NPC's in the story.  But the space battle was epic, even if you could predict elements of the story.  Oh gee, the admiral's ship is late you say...

    Despite all of that, looking forward to where it goes from here.

  • I loved the visuals!! I agree this is actually a full franchise reboot and should have been marketed as such. Oh well. Love Sonequa Martin Greene!! She's quite perfect for this. I like this darker Trek, just like I liked Stargate Universe because it was darker. While campy was awesome for me as a child and drew me in, the more mature version of myself really likes the deeper drama.

    Warp Drive ------

    My only issue with the Star Strek Warp Drive concept is that to accelerate a ship to those speeds in such a short frame of time it likely requires far more energy than any single space ship could ever hope to muster. Unless we somehow manage to tap into vacuum energy (dark energy) which is essentially limitless we will be left to deal with the local contraints such as mass and charge. Superluminal movement of a cluster of massive particles would require an outside force or "anchor," much heavier than the ship itself such as a nearby black hole to give it the "leverage" to move through space in such a way. The ship itself should not have sufficient energy to accelerate itself to such velocities independently and especially at such a short distance when starting from complete stillness. Even with gamma ray guns, there should not be sufficient energy available on the ship to create a black hole with a mass that is greater the total mass than the ship itself. I'll explain. Lets start with the obvious but oft overlooked basics.

    Gravity causes matter particles and all other forms of energy to accelerate toward the point in space that is their common center of gravity. In a sense these matter particles become anchors lending the leverage needed to one another for them to move through space. Some objects provide more leverage than others, and thus greater potential for acceleration, due to their greater mass in comparison to other matter particles. Earth moves readily about the Sun because the Sun is much more massive than the Earth. Technically, the Sun moves toward the Earth as well, but to a much lesser degree because of Earth's relatively small mass. Earth makes a rather poor "anchor" for accelerating the movement of the Sun via gravitational interactions if indeed moving the Sun from its current position is your goal. But the Sun makes an excellent anchor for accelerating the movement of the Earth if indeed your goal is to alter the position of the Earth via gravitation. Our space ship needs some sort of off site anchor to bind itself to, and allow the gravity of that much more massive object to accelerate ithe ship toward that object at whatever speed it can. A nearby naturally occuring black hole with a stable event horizon can easily accelerate the ship to very close to light speed provided the ship doesnt get too close to the event horizon or hit the Hawking Radiation firewall. This means the ship has to give a good kick at exactly the right time or risk being permanently overcome by the black hole.

    And honestly, you'd want to have another black hole on the other end to provided the leverage needed to slow the ship back down once it reached its destination.

    Why can't the ship already contain all the energy it needs to accelerate itself to faster than light speed? Why is an achor necessary?

    Fact: Only more is more. You cannot generate a chosen field without the corresponding particles to mediate such a field. In particular; You cannot generate a magnetic field if there are no magnetically charged particles present. Just as certain; You cannot generate a gravitational field (space curvature) without the presence of sufficient energy to distort the surrounding space to the desired level. There's simply no possible opportunity for cheating these processes in nature. You either have the goods or you don't. Thus when making predictions about interactions with gravitational fields, total energy output is directly related to rest mass plus total kinetic and potential energies of a system regardless of whether measuring feathers or plutonioum, at this level it all equates to a single energetic value.

    Fact: While total mass tells us the total energy a gravitational field has, the exact shape of the field (whether shallow or steep or folded in on itself like a black hole) is determined by the density / concentration of that energy and/or mass. Dissipated masses lead to shallow fields with low escape volocities required. High concetrations of mass however make departure from its center more difficult until they reach impossibility within the event horzon of a black hole. Thus, any amount of matter or energy if compressed and focused into a small enough area whether naturally or artifically must collapse into a black hole...at least temporarily. Artifical black holes with low masses of that of a starship would decay almost instantly via Hawking Radiation releasing all of the energy you just expended in creating the thing including anything you've put into holding it together once created. Its going to be a nasty explosion that you wont live to regret.

    This means that the space ship and its nacels being of limited mass and limited density have a limited amount of capacity to bend the space surrounding them regardless of additional concerns such as magnetic charge or other types of energy bound within the material, and that such low mass and shallow curvature the nacels output will not be sufficient to accelerate the ship to light speed.

    Lets look closer at the idea of total energy and what that actually means for momentum. Even if you were to take the entire mass of the ship and converted that into pure electromagnetic energy at an instant (by cutting it into two equal parts matter and animatter and then combining them into gamma ray photons) it still wouldnt be enough power to accelerate the ship's mass beyond light speed....since all that matter once converted into photons would still be limited to light speed just like all other photons in the Universe. Plus you'd need to use serious lenses and mirrors to redirect and phase the gamma ray photons which would randomly scatter in all directions most ohf them other than the one you've chosen to travel along. If turning it into pure energy wont get it moving fast enough, then likely nothing else will.

    I'll explain further: We already see that the ship's nacels are not the entire mass of the ship, so how could they (using gravitational concepts) propell a ship that weighs more than they do while propelling themselves in the same direction as the rest of the ship (lest the ship break apart into pieces)? Remember warp engine thrust is different than a jet engine or a piston cylinder in your car. Unlike typical engines Warp speed comes from bending space fabric that is continuous, not from firing quantized force carrying particles like photons within a chamber with a single exit point leading to a net thrust in the opposite direction.

    That means that regardless of whether the material within the nacels is comprised of dilithium crystals or liquid tide detergent, the energy they contain when activated will not exceed their total maximum energy based on their mass if converted into pure energy.

    My assumption is that warp drives as described in Star Trek are unlikely because no individual space ship nor any other single body could act upon itself and accomplish these types of velocities. I believe a much more massive outside influence or gravitational anchor would be required. A black hole or a super Stargate type of device which acts upon the space surrounding the ship as it passes through the ring makes much more plausible sense to me.

  • FirstBastionFirstBastion Posts: 6,009
    edited September 2017

    I'll give Discovery atleast 6 episodes,  by then we'll get a good grasp on what the showrunner's intentions are regarding the shows direction.  It either grabs you or it doesn't.  I'm interested to see what happens to the main character.  She's complex,  has an interesting backstory,  I want to know what happens to her.   The only StarTrek I couldn't get into was Deep Space Nine.  I've watched all the other series and movies.  So I'm willing to see where this leads us. 

    Now Orville, ...

    Post edited by FirstBastion on
  • BobvanBobvan Posts: 2,612
    edited September 2017

    Love it or hate it. Trek is back baby!! I don't care much for the past 2 movies recycling old stuff like The wrath of Khan in reverse & into the darkness have the saucer crash a la generations...

    Kinda related OT I watched WW on the weekend oscar buzz really I found it kinda lame almost turned it off..

    Post edited by Bobvan on
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,579
    RKane_1 said:

    The first officer was interesting (if we set aside the fact that she literally pushed aside a science officer) but didn't like how the interactions with the captain were done. I don't get the male name thing. It's not clever or interesting.

    Michael is also a woman's name

     

    No it's not, https://www.behindthename.com/name/michael

    "Michael" is the male version, it exists in feminine version but is always spelled different:

    FEMININE FORMS: Makayla, Mckayla, Michaela, Michele, Michelle, Mikayla, Mikki (English), Michaela, Micha, Michi (German), Michaela, Mikaela (Swedish), Mikaela (Norwegian), Mikaela, Mikkeline (Danish), Michelle (Dutch), Michaela, Michala (Czech)

     

    I figured if Firefly could have a guy called Jayne, ST could have a woman called Michael.

  • BeeMKayBeeMKay Posts: 6,871

    Wow, even German newspaper Bild has an article about it with impressions by a fan and non fan. They are basically sharing everyone's opinion here in the thread...

    http://www.bild.de/unterhaltung/tv/star-trek/dranbleiben-oder-ab-ins-schwarze-loch-damit-53340352.bild.html

  • RKane_1 said:

    The first officer was interesting (if we set aside the fact that she literally pushed aside a science officer) but didn't like how the interactions with the captain were done. I don't get the male name thing. It's not clever or interesting.

    Michael is also a woman's name

     

    That's actually my point. That's why it's not clever or interesting. It just stands out as being intentional and attempting to be "fowrard thinking" or something like that. Forced.

     

  • DaWaterRatDaWaterRat Posts: 2,882

    If I hadn't seen it in text, I'd just as easily believe it was a mispronouciation of Michal (or more accurately, not realized it wasn't Michal, because I didn't realize it was pronounced differently until recently)

    Considering I know several Francis' and Frances', a couple of Aidens and an Aidan - all female, having a woman named Michael doesn't bother me at all.

  • TimbalesTimbales Posts: 1,815
    I'm bothered there was zero attempt to capture anything at all about design aesthetic of the original series The Cage era as we've seen it before. I didn't expect it to look like a recreation, but they just decided to redesign everything with no consideration whatsoever.
  • I'm trying to figure out how a fictional character's name can be forced (leaving aside trying to make a pun out of it).

    Like, the character does not exist.

    I totally understand how a thing can be emotionally repellent. My personal feelings about the show being hyped as set in the Prime timeline is an example of that.

    I can give reasons why the fact of the show's art direction and aesthetic make it more JJ than prime, but bottom line is I don't like that. The reasons aren't objective trump cards. The person most directly associated with Super Dimension Fortress Macross really gives nothing wrt to marking off all the check boxes of continuity. As far as he's concerned, if he tells one Macross story it looks one way, and a different one looks different. Even the same story looks different depending on the meduim of the telling.

    I think some people see that as a quirk of his, but it is a fundamental truth of storytelling, magnified when the storytellers are ever changing groups of creative people. The longer a story lives, the more it changes. I love the levels of geek that made the previous torchbearers of Trek so faithful to the look and feel of 1966 whenever they touched on TOS, but that's just choice. Not a law. And if I'm okay with adding flair to bring the TOS era into the 21st century, then I have no justification, objectively, to complain about which verse it is set in.

    Won't stop me complaining, but I won't be stating the complaint as being based on a larger truth beyond my feels.

    Michael Burnham doesn't exist, and even if her name boils down to one man's personal development signature, it not "forced" purely on the basis that there can be no resistance. That which does not exist can apply not force nor feel reistance. There's no social pressure against it. Just, opportunity to violate expectations (See A Boy Named Sue).

    There's no objective basis for disliking the name. Doesn't mean one hasn't every subjective reason to not like it. Nothing wrong with that at all. I know people who object to the word moist becaus they dislike it, and that's it. I hate the feel of coconut and am bored senseless by most TV shows. (Which, incidentally, is why I remain leery of Discovery, despite having had a generally positive experience. I can see how it might grow typical.) If Discovery turns into "most TV shows" I might come out to explain what turns me off, but I would hope I would retain the sense not mistake my emotional responses for facts about the show. Most TV bores me, and most TV makes billions of dollars by holding the attention of people not me.

    Discovery was a hit and covered the first objective of CBS in generating huge launch day signups. (A friend of mine predicts record single day cancelations when Discovery ends, but I'm less confident than I was on that point) This implies that most people who saw it didn't feel at all strongly about Commander Burnham's name. I mean, Yeoh is Malaya Chinese, and is cast with the most Greek name ever. I mean that's proper Greek. Lt. Saru's name is probably a verb infinitive in Japanese. In fact, there's probably some concept that some person could find displeasing about every name they invented for the show. But none of them is objectively wrong. Just insufficient to float everyone's boat.

  • Pet said:
    BTW if you have it on Netflix check the language options... It's available in klingon :-D

    OMG, I need to check lol.

    I was amused to discover a few years back, when I bought one of the ST movies on DVD, that one special feature covered an amateur production of that famous old classic play, Hamlet. In the original Klingon. Surprisingly good, actually, if you were polite enough to ignore a couple of rubber foreheads coming adrift...

  • OstadanOstadan Posts: 1,108
    Timbales said:
    I'm bothered there was zero attempt to capture anything at all about design aesthetic of the original series The Cage era as we've seen it before. I didn't expect it to look like a recreation, but they just decided to redesign everything with no consideration whatsoever.

    The sound effects were reminiscent of the original series.  But the whole thing was sufficiently distant from any 'Trek aesthetic' (whatever that might be) for me to make me wonder why it was Star Trek at all.  And don't get me started on the Klingons.

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    Yeah. The thing that irritates me most is they seem to want the Star Trek audience while simultaneously being patronizingly dismissive of it.

     

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401

    Well to be fair, TOS was 1960s.  The 1st movie changed things pretty dramically.  They need to adapt to a new, younger viewership.   Star Trek will die if they don't hook in younger viewers.  The story is what really matters.

  • tkdrobert said:

    Well to be fair, TOS was 1960s.  The 1st movie changed things pretty dramically.  They need to adapt to a new, younger viewership.   Star Trek will die if they don't hook in younger viewers.  The story is what really matters.

    This show is supposed to be set around the time of the pilot. Unless its a complete reboot(which like NewWho, it actually is while claiming it's not), it MUST have at least the overall look and feel of the original series era. Look at the fanfilm Star Trek Axanar, which was going to be set at about the same time period. Their set designs were heavily inspired by TOS, but slightly tweaked to be more realistic. And it would have worked. The 1st film was supposed to represent the fact that the Enterprise's refit saw the introduction of much new, more advanced technology; it's wasn't simply done in a vacuum. The stations and drydock were implied to have been around for some tim, so they'd have looked as they did in TMP during the time of the series. And I COMPLETELY disagree that they have to ditch the fanbase. WE are what made Trek what it's become, not people who have no interest in it beyond pretty visuals and explosions. Trying to bring in new viewers, fine. But CBS has stated that they are DELIBERATELY trying to purge fans like me who grew up with the older shows and films in favor of people who either aren't Trek fans or fans of JJTrek. And on your last point, if the story isn't a true Star Trek story, then it's not Trek. Period. This thing could have EASILY been a generic, completely original sci fi show(and should have.). Quite frankly, I think Trek SHOULD go away, at least for about a decade. Maybe then somebody might come along who knows what Trek is and should be. 

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    My point is that if they want new viewers, why make it Star Trek? Why not make it something else?

    If you are making it Star Trek, it's because you want branding and setting recognition to draw viewers.

    But doing that and then abandoning most of the brand and setting recognition just seems... dumb. Or insulting.

     

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401

    My point is that if they want new viewers, why make it Star Trek? Why not make it something else?

    If you are making it Star Trek, it's because you want branding and setting recognition to draw viewers.

    But doing that and then abandoning most of the brand and setting recognition just seems... dumb. Or insulting.

     

    Yes, they are using the "brand name" to draw in old and new viewers.  If you recall, they made some pretty major changes to Battlestar Galactica and it was successful.  I was irritated at the changes when it 1st aired, but because it was so good, I stopped caring.

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401
    edited September 2017
    tkdrobert said:

    Well to be fair, TOS was 1960s.  The 1st movie changed things pretty dramically.  They need to adapt to a new, younger viewership.   Star Trek will die if they don't hook in younger viewers.  The story is what really matters.

    This show is supposed to be set around the time of the pilot. Unless its a complete reboot(which like NewWho, it actually is while claiming it's not), it MUST have at least the overall look and feel of the original series era. Look at the fanfilm Star Trek Axanar, which was going to be set at about the same time period. Their set designs were heavily inspired by TOS, but slightly tweaked to be more realistic. And it would have worked. The 1st film was supposed to represent the fact that the Enterprise's refit saw the introduction of much new, more advanced technology; it's wasn't simply done in a vacuum. The stations and drydock were implied to have been around for some tim, so they'd have looked as they did in TMP during the time of the series. And I COMPLETELY disagree that they have to ditch the fanbase. WE are what made Trek what it's become, not people who have no interest in it beyond pretty visuals and explosions. Trying to bring in new viewers, fine. But CBS has stated that they are DELIBERATELY trying to purge fans like me who grew up with the older shows and films in favor of people who either aren't Trek fans or fans of JJTrek. And on your last point, if the story isn't a true Star Trek story, then it's not Trek. Period. This thing could have EASILY been a generic, completely original sci fi show(and should have.). Quite frankly, I think Trek SHOULD go away, at least for about a decade. Maybe then somebody might come along who knows what Trek is and should be. 

    I understand what you are saying and I don't really disagree at all.  It's just I know that Hollywood doesn't think that way.  If you don't like it, don't watch it.  That's the only way to kill it.  Even if you kill it, Hollywood won't get the message you want them to get.  I'm not watching the show, because of the whole CBS Streaming nonsense.  If it was on regular TV or Netflix USA, I'd give it a chance the way I did the Next Generation and Battlestar Galactica (reboot).

    Post edited by tkdrobert on
  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401
    edited September 2017

    Sci-fi fans have always had a bad relationship with TV Hollywood.  When Hollywwod gives us a Sci-Fi TV show, we reject it more often than not.  The message we are sending Hollywood is "Do better."  The message Hollywood hears is "Sci-Fi is not proiftable, so we aren't going to do it."  Then when there is a lack of Sci-Fi on TV, we beg/demand more.  It's a strange and frustrating relationship to me.  I liked the Terminator series, cancelled.  I liked Dark Matter, cancelled.  At least I still have the Expanse.  If that one gets cancelled, I can still read the books.

    Post edited by tkdrobert on
  • So, while trying to find the proper spelling of Captain Georgiou's name (I'm not Greek), I fell into the wikipedia rabbit hole and came back with fairly old info. I did not follow the production hype, apart from catching the first look at the first iteration of USS Discovery, so old as it is, it's new to me.

    They are, intentionally and deliberately, abandoning the 1960's look and feel of the franchise. And, frankly they are right to do so, given what they did.

    I know the purists will never allow that, but there is on screen evidence as to why they are right to have dumped the TOS look and started over, at least to the extent of what the tech looks like.

    In several places, on Shenzhou's bridge, there are monistor screens shown. Which is no biggie. I mean practical effects monitor interfaces are nothing new, but those aren't the screens that prove the point. Several bridge stations have monitors that are see through. It's a reasonably easy effect to mock up. Lay some plexigals, throw some decales on it, light it the right way and looks like a super hi tech see through display.

    That's not what they did.

    What they did was buy super high tech see through displays. Those are actual monitors that can display different data and animations. Unlike many of the control displays, which are actual practical effects, and wired/coded to respond to actor input (the story says one reporter on the tour touched a button on Captain Lorca's chair display, and intra-ship intercom panel rose up in response (Upsetting the tour guide), the see through displays are not touch enabled, so interactivity has to be handled through playback and actors (literally) hitting the marks.

    Personally, I'm not sure what the point of a clear monitor is, but the idea of having access to that kind of thing for set dressing and then trying the shoe horn it into the TOS look in order to appease a dwindling demographic is absurd. There's a point of diminishing returns, both in the final product and in the value generated in real dollars by appealing the minority of the minority of hard core fans who will walk away because they set aesthetic has changed.

    Like I said before, I'm not happy about the disconnect, at heart. But the evidence in terms of public reaction says I'm an outlier. I'm not ready to become the old man shouting at people to get off my lawn, just yet, and I'm honest enough to look at 1966 and look at 2017 and admit that trying to recreate that look with today's imagery would look silly. I'm also practical enough to know that if your try to higher the best and brightest talent in terms of design, then tell them, "Do what they did in 1966," most of them will start looking for other work.

Sign In or Register to comment.