Star Trek Into Darkness - Part 3

[Picard Sisko]

An other film prequel comic series incoming.

I really like the Klingon Costumes.

I wanted Abrams to use the design for the Klingons from TOS, but update it a little.

I remember Enterprise did an explanation for why the Klingons had ridges, but lost them in the TOS era.

-------
Here is a petition to get a Star Trek forum here on SHH!

http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=25021623#post25021623

 

[redhawk23]

The film just has ridged Klingons in the TOS era. There was never really a need for an explanation for the Klingon appearance.

 

[redhawk23]

Where did this come from? Looks great. Perhaps they are doing a mix of for head ridginess because I know several set reports included mentions of forhead ridges.

Awesome work though judging from this.

 

[Octoberist]

The film just has ridged Klingons in the TOS era. There was never really a need for an explanation for the Klingon appearance.

The Klingon 'ridges' thing is always the prime example of fans' extreme obsession with continuity and canon stuff. Thats fine and all but there's always a breaking point where you just have to let it go and just be entertained.

The actual 'ridges' canon explanation to me comes off as contrived and convoluted. When in reality it was probavlt an aestitic make-up change to make the Klingons to look cooler and nothing more.

 

[Picard Sisko]

The film just has ridged Klingons in the TOS era. There was never really a need for an explanation for the Klingon appearance.

They didn't have ridges until Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The Klingon 'ridges' thing is always the prime example of fans' extreme obsession with continuity and canon stuff. Thats fine and all but there's always a breaking point where you just have to let it go and just be entertained.

The actual 'ridges' canon explanation to me comes off as contrived and convoluted. When in reality it was probavlt an aestitic make-up change to make the Klingons to look cooler and nothing more.

There is nothing contrived and convoluted about it. Its actually really cool how they explained it in Enterprise, and was very creative. We all know the reason is due to aesthetics and getting a bigger budget, but continuity is important in a franchise like Star Trek. We could let it go, but what would be the fun in that?

 

[redhawk23]

They didn't have ridges until Star Trek: The Motion Picture.



There is nothing contrived and convoluted about it. Its actually really cool how they explained it in Enterprise, and was very creative. We all know the reason is due to aesthetics and getting a bigger budget, but continuity is important in a franchise like Star Trek. We could let it go, but what would be the fun in that?

Yeah, everything in TMP had higher production values. Even space looked better.

There's no reason to explain it.

Personally I was far more entertained by DS9's nod to the issue with their tribble's episode with Worf just saying "It's not something we discuss with outsiders."

Its like time travel in Looper, it doesn't really matter, so why bother with all the charts and graphs or forced in alien viruses that changes the facial features of an entire races, for some individuals temporarily, for a few generations. It just calls attention to the issue rather alleviating it.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Yeah, everything in TMP had higher production values. Even space looked better.

There's no reason to explain it.

Personally I was far more entertained by DS9's nod to the issue with their tribble's episode with Worf just saying "It's not something we discuss with outsiders."

Its like time travel in Looper, it doesn't really matter, so why bother with all the charts and graphs or forced in alien viruses that changes the facial features of an entire races, for some individuals temporarily, for a few generations. It just calls attention to the issue rather alleviating it.

I disagree 100%. While I like the "explanation" Worf gave in DS9, I also really appreciate the explanation given in Enterprise. To each his own. Its a matter of opinion.

 

[redhawk23]

Its the sort of thing that just borders on fan wank after a while though that defines much of Enterprise.


Actually what it reminds me of is that whole thing where they felt it was necessary to explain the abundance of humanoids with some crap about all life being seeded by a common ancestor. While it might even be an interesting idea, the execution was pretty terrible.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Enterprise got better towards the end. If it didn't get cancelled, it probably would have continued to increase its quality.

 

[redhawk23]

Except you see bad shows deserve to be cancelled. Enterprise had its moments but its not like it never got its chance to be great or get better. It lasted longer than a lot of arguably better shows, not to mention TOS.

 

[Sawyer]

I think they just did too much with Trek on TV in too short of an amount of time. Four Trek series within a 20 year period? Come on, now... TNG and DS9 were good, but after that they should've eased off a bit.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah I think some time off did the franchise some good but I would really like to see it return to television. There's just a lot of different aspects of Star Trek that are hard to explore in feature length films that only come out every 4 years.

I just hope that if and when Trek returns to the small screen that they just set it after everything else and forge ahead. There's no reason to keep doing prequels and remakes as much as I like what Abahms is doing.

 

[Octoberist]

They didn't have ridges until Star Trek: The Motion Picture.



There is nothing contrived and convoluted about it. Its actually really cool how they explained it in Enterprise, and was very creative. We all know the reason is due to aesthetics and getting a bigger budget, but continuity is important in a franchise like Star Trek. We could let it go, but what would be the fun in that?

Judging by your screen name, it's like SHH user 'Batman Bruce' defending all things Batman.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Except you see bad shows deserve to be cancelled. Enterprise had its moments but its not like it never got its chance to be great or get better. It lasted longer than a lot of arguably better shows, not to mention TOS.

There are good shows out there that get cancelled (Arrested Development anyone?) and bad shows that last way too long (Smallville after season 3-4). It shouldn't be compared to TOS, since both aired in different time periods, and were cancelled due to different circumstances.

And Enterprise WAS getting better though. It just wasn't getting the viewers it needed. If you look at TNG or DS9, it took them a few seasons to really pick up.

I think they just did too much with Trek on TV in too short of an amount of time. Four Trek series within a 20 year period? Come on, now... TNG and DS9 were good, but after that they should've eased off a bit.

I think they did too much with Voyager. DS9 was fantastic, and IMO is the best Trek show there is.

Yeah I think some time off did the franchise some good but I would really like to see it return to television. There's just a lot of different aspects of Star Trek that are hard to explore in feature length films that only come out every 4 years.

I just hope that if and when Trek returns to the small screen that they just set it after everything else and forge ahead. There's no reason to keep doing prequels and remakes as much as I like what Abahms is doing.

It made sense for Abrams to do a reboot (its not a remake), especially one in an alternate timeline. They needed to attract new fans from the general audience, since the last couple of films and TV series didn't do so well (Nemesis did terribly at the box office). Now that Abrams brought in a new generation of "trekkies," I think a TV series would have a really good shot at being a success

Trek belongs on TV, and that is its true home IMO. It should have its own TV series with a movie being released here and there in between seasons. I never understood why they waited for TNG to finish before making films. By that time, the crew was older and tired, and they seemed to just run out of ideas.

I believe Star Trek will return to television. There are so many people trying to pitch shows, and the franchise is too big to just "disappear" after Abrams is done. It will happen, that's a guarantee. Its just a matter of... when?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Judging by your screen name, it's like SHH user 'Batman Bruce' defending all things Batman.

No. Its not. I wouldn't defend all things Star Trek.

I hate Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Generations pissed me off with how they wasted the opportunity of getting Kirk to appear with the TNG crew, and gave him a terrible death. Insurrection was ****. Nemesis and Enterprise both showed that the franchise was running out of gas. Star Trek Voyager isn't all that bad IMO, it just has a lot of episodes that turned out to be duds. Especially in its first few seasons.

 

[redhawk23]

I totally understand why the did what they did with films, but I wouldn't really care to see another TOS era TV show.

And reboot is just a fancy hollywood spin word for reusing old ideas and starting over. The films may not be taking directly from show storylines but it is using the same settings and characters that made up the original Trek.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I totally understand why the did what they did with films, but I wouldn't really care to see a nother TOS era TV show.

And reboot is just a fancy hollywood spin word for reusing old ideas and starting over. The films may not be taking directly from show storylines but it is using the same settings and characters that made up the original Trek.

They used the original cast and crew because of how iconic they are. Spock is probably the most recognizable character in the Star Trek franchise, and is also very well-known in the sci-fi genre as well. Captain Kirk is, well, Captain Kirk.

What's great about the 2009 film is that Abrams created an alternate timeline that still recognizes the original timeline, when he could have easily just made a new Star Trek film that is completely unrelated. Its like a sequel, prequel, and reboot all rolled into one.

As for TV, I highly doubt we would ever get another series that takes place in the TOS era. It works for the movies, but not on television. We wouldn't get the cast to appear in a long running series anyway.

Chances are, we'd get a series that takes place in the post-Nemesis era (maybe 25th century).

 

[redhawk23]

Generations certainly has its more obvious problems but it becomes even worse when you really think through things with the nexus.

The people left in the nexus are able to exit the nexus back into time at any point that the nexus existed. Yet picard chooses only to go back a few minutes. Why not go back further? Why not try to stop the events of the film from ever happening? Why not try to save his brother and nephew from their tragic deaths that he struggles with earlier on in the film? Hell, why not try to stop any order of things? Warn himself about the Borg or something?

 

[redhawk23]

They used the original cast and crew because of how iconic they are. Spock is probably the most recognizable character in the Star Trek franchise, and is also very well-known in the sci-fi genre as well. Captain Kirk is, well, Captain Kirk.

What's great about the 2009 film is that Abrams created an alternate timeline that still recognizes the original timeline, when he could have easily just made a new Star Trek film that is completely unrelated. Its like a sequel, prequel, and reboot all rolled into one.

As for TV, I highly doubt we would ever get another series that takes place in the TOS era. It works for the movies, but not on television. We wouldn't get the cast to appear in a long running series anyway.

Chances are, we'd get a series that takes place in the post-Nemesis era (maybe 25th century).

Like I said, I understand and enjoy what they are doing with the films.

I just fear that they'll go ahead and set any potential show in the Abrahms timeline, because that's what the new audience knows and is drawn to. It wouldn't have to be centered around Kirk and Co.

Setting it far in the future, post everything would basically free up any constraints.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Generations certainly has its more obvious problems but it becomes even worse when you really think through things with the nexus.

The people left in the nexus are able to exit the nexus back into time at any point that the nexus existed. Yet picard chooses only to go back a few minutes. Why not go back further? Why not try to stop the events of the film from ever happening? Why not try to save his brother and nephew from their tragic deaths that he struggles with earlier on in the film? Hell, why not try to stop any order of things? Warn himself about the Borg or something?

I think he wouldn't want to go that far back to the Borg and such because he would have altered too many things in the timeline. But he should have at least gone back to prevent the events in the film.

Even with those flaws, I still would have overlooked them at least a little if they took advantage of Kirk being in the film. I wanted to see him on the Enterprise-D, working with the TNG crew. I wanted to see how he would react to a Klingon (Worf) being on the ship, especially after the events of The Undiscovered Country.

Then Kirk's death was so terrible. "Did we make a difference? Oh my..." Why did Picard bury him under a pile of rocks? Its CAPTAIN KIRK! Beam his body up to the ship, preserve it. One of the greatest Captains believed to be dead has been discovered and nobody cares.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Like I said, I understand and enjoy what they are doing with the films.

I just fear that they'll go ahead and set any potential show in the Abrahms timeline, because that's what the new audience knows and is drawn to. It wouldn't have to be centered around Kirk and Co.

Setting it far in the future, post everything would basically free up any constraints.

The new audience probably doesn't even see a difference between the Abrams timeline and the original. They see it as... young Spock, Kirk, and crew, it must be a prequel to TOS. I doubt they would set a TV show in the alternate timeline. Most of the pitches we've heard about are set in the original. I believe Michael Dorn has an idea where it is centered around him.

 

[redhawk23]

And notice not a single one of those pitches gets very far.

The audience might not know the difference between the time lines, but it'd be a lot easier to sell a show where everyone is wearing costumes and on ships that look just like NuTrek. How many people would now be confused by an episode set on Vulcan?

I'm just looking at it from a studio point of view. One can hope that they'll have better sense than that though.

 

[Picard Sisko]

And notice not a single one of those pitches gets very far.

The audience might not know the difference between the time lines, but it'd be a lot easier to sell a show where everyone is wearing costumes and on ships that look just like NuTrek.

I'm just looking at it from a studio point of view. One can hope that they'll have better sense than that though.

Nothing says that the pitches haven't gotten very far. There have been talks about it from producers, but they said nothing would really be announced until AFTER Star Trek Into Darkness comes out.

I doubt the TV show would sell just because of the uniforms. It just needs the Star Trek name in front of it.

I'm more concerned with the style of the show. Chances are, it will be more action oriented than previous series, but more sci-fi than the Abrams movies (which are just action films in the end).

 

[redhawk23]

That Klingon getting his makeup done reminded me of the Centaur from Narnia a bit.

 

[redhawk23]

Of the different Star Trek pitches that have been reported on in the past few years, I really hope David Foster's is the direction they go with.

Singer and Fuller's ideas wouldn't be bad though.