Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (a Pike show)

[Prowler]

I'm guessing TOS stands for "the original series"?

Thanks for the help, Andrew and Cubed.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Nobody held a gun at their head and made them do yet another prequel, particularly another one set in the Pike/Kirk era. As such, we know very well what the Enterprise looks like from that era. We saw it in the 60s in TOS, we saw it in the 90s on TNG and DS9, and we saw it on ENT in the 2000s. It's not the same ship as on STD/SNW.

True that no one forced them to make another prequel set in the TOS era. I imagine there has to be a reason for Paramount to think that's what the audience wants.

I get the feeling that for Paramount they feel much like Wayne Campbell did "it's a lot like "Star Trek: The Next Generation". In many ways it's superior but will never be as recognized as the original." which was true at the time of that movie but I feel these days there is definitely more recognition for Next Generation and the 24th century shows in general. Still I imagine that sentiment has stuck with Paramount. I used to post in Trekbbs back in the early 2000s and there was a growing sentiment among fans that Trek had deviated from what made it popular in the first place and it needed to return Kirk, Spock and co. The idea of a reboot was fairly popular with a certain strain of fans at the time. I think all this contributed to the actual movie reboot we got and we the first series in it's wake was set during the same time period.

As for the look of the Enterprise be honest unless a show set in the 23rd century was a campy romp I don't think making it with literal recreations of the sets and effects from the sixties show would ever fly. It may be a prequel but audiences expect it to look like a show made in 2021.

What exactly do you figure they love about Trek?

I don't really follow the production side of things but I've read a few interviews with the shows creators that demonstrate they know a lot of Trek knowledge and speak with a genuine fondness for it. I've always gotten the sense that they struggled with a few things. Mainly I don't think they've adjusted to the kind of show that I imagine Paramount and Netflix are pushing for it to be, the kind of Game of Thrones in space were every episode is a shocking reveal to get you to watch the next episode. I'd be curious to see what they would do with a more traditional Trek show.

Originally Posted by Musashi

Really? I seem to remember The Motion Picture makes it pretty clear that it's an extensively new ship, probably only the same vessel from TOS in the sense that it's the same structural framework underneath. It has been in dock for two and a half years, and there's lots of lines like (probably paraphrasing) "This is an almost totally new Enterprise! You don't know her a tenth as well as I do!" Two and a half years, and still being worked on throughout the movie.

You're probably right. It's been a long time since I've seen The Motion Picture but it rings a bell. Still if it was consistently said at cons that discrepancies in how the shows and the movies presented technology and stuff like the Klingon's ridges were that when you went back to watch the show you had to imagine it looked like the movie. It wasn't until Trials and Tribbleations that established that Klingons really did go a period without ridges.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Galactus

...Still if it was consistently said at cons that discrepancies in how the shows and the movies presented technology and stuff like the Klingon's ridges were that when you went back to watch the show you had to imagine it looked like the movie. It wasn't until Trials and Tribbleations that established that Klingons really did go a period without ridges.

Yeah, they do seem to have intended that the Klingons in episodes like Errand of Mercy and Day of the Dove have always looked like the movie onwards ridge-forehead versions, we just didn't see them that way because of budget. Worf's cagey response in the DS9 episode was a nice meta joke, befitting that era, and Enterprise's providing an actual explanation for it was just as characteristic of that show and era of the franchise. And STD's - Please...!!! - decision to make the Klingons... what they made them... was also a thing.

[Andrew NDB]

https://www.darkhorizons.com/star-tr...prodigy-dates/

"Celia Rose Gooding will star as cadet Nyota Uhura, Jess Bush portrays Nurse Christine Chapel, Babs Olusanmokun is Dr. M’Benga, Christina Chong is La’an Noonien-Singh, Melissa Navia is Lt. Erica Ortegas, and Bruce Horak will portray Hemmer"

So basically this is confirmed to be an alternate timeline now. Uhura came aboard in 2265. We know this because that's what Star Trek III told us. And Chapel didn't join this early either.

And they're really having a Noonien-Singh aboard? lol... of course. And no Dr. Boyce, from "The Cage"! Or Lt. Tyler! Or hell, even Yeoman Colt -- they couldn't even be bothered to make one of the chicks one of the actual people we know was on the bridge crew. So FIVE chicks, 1 black guy, and an actual blind guy (Bruce Horak). A blind guy! They are literally taking a page from STD where they stuck it with a dude in a wheelchair just because representation points. This is to Pike and Spock's two white guys.

To break it down...

Rebecca Romijin = white chick
Jess Bush = white chick
Uhura = black chick
La'an = Asian chick
Ortegas = Hispanic butch lesbian chick
Hemmer = blind dude
M'Benga = black dude

Totally predictable.

[Galactus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Yeoman Colt was a new posting to the Enterprise shortly before the mission to Talos IV. Even if I'm remembering that detail wrong The Cage makes it clear she was only just assigned by Pike so it makes sense she's not part of the bridge crew. Dr. Boyce though is genuinely puzzling but we'll see if there is a reason for that.

It was a stretch but I was very fond of the Star Trek Early Voyages comic and would have loved for them to include Nano.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Dr. Boyce though is genuinely puzzling but we'll see if there is a reason for that.

Oh, there is. Too many white dudes, therefore too "problematic."

[Galactus]

The interactions between Pike and Boyce in The Cage certainly give off the vibe that they are old friends that have served together for a long time but I can't recall anything definite to show that. I suppose like Yeoman Colt he could have been a relatively new posting to the Enteprise. Depending on how long the series goes for we could see him pop up.

Also I don't really care about Star Trek pushing a more diverse agenda in its casting. That's what Star Trek has always done and it has never been remotely subtle about it.

[Andrew NDB]

Is it time for Spock to be gay?

https://www.inverse.com/entertainmen...e-historic-way

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Is it time for Spock to be gay?

https://www.inverse.com/entertainmen...e-historic-way

He wasn't before?

"Logic dictates that a hole, as it were, is just a hole."

[CyberCubed]

Leonard Nimoy is rolling in his grave.

[Leo656]

I doubt it. I never heard him expressing any strong displeasure with all of those officially-licensed and produced Trek novels that openly shipped Spock and Kirk. I don't think he'd care at all, honestly.

[CyberCubed]

They already made Sulu gay, so don’t gayify Spock as well. Spock being in a relationship has never been a major part of his character and the new movies pairing him with Uhura came out of nowhere. And even then you know they did it to show a white man with a black woman in 2009.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

They already made Sulu gay, so don’t gayify Spock as well.

Well, remember how that went? Simon Pegg and TPTB on "Beyond" retroactively made Sulu gay in that movie, then George Takei was offended because he'd always played the character as straight. THEN Simon Pegg said something about, "Umm... well what I meant was, Sulu is gay in this alternate timeline only! Prime Sulu is still straight."

Which is really interesting! Being gay or not is a choice in Star Trek, I guess. Like deep down, all of us are just one time traveling Narada/Nero visit away from becoming raging homosexuals. Apparently.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Well, remember how that went? Simon Pegg and TPTB on "Beyond" retroactively made Sulu gay in that movie, then George Takei was offended because he'd always played the character as straight. THEN Simon Pegg said something about, "Umm... well what I meant was, Sulu is gay in this alternate timeline only! Prime Sulu is still straight."

Which is really interesting! Being gay or not is a choice in Star Trek, I guess. Like deep down, all of us are just one time traveling Narada/Nero visit away from becoming raging homosexuals. Apparently.

Yeah.. idk.... I always was more on the camp that you're born gay, not that it's a choice. This whole 'alternate timeline' thing makes it sounds like in THAT timeline, Sulu DECIDED to become gay. Makes their entire argument fall apart, all for the price of virtue signaling.

[Galactus]

Can't say I've ever wanted a gay Spock but I love that if one existed it would annoy all the right people.

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

Yeah.. idk.... I always was more on the camp that you're born gay, not that it's a choice. This whole 'alternate timeline' thing makes it sounds like in THAT timeline, Sulu DECIDED to become gay. Makes their entire argument fall apart, all for the price of virtue signaling.

Talking seriously for a moment I would say that the different genetics we've seen in the Star Trek 'multiverse' which causes characters to look different (to accommodate them being played by different actors) could apply to their sexuality.

Also as the linked article mentions official Star Trek material - even stuff written by Gene Roddenberry has hinted that there's romantic feelings between Kirk and Spock. It's not like Spock has ever said he's only interested in women. Who is to say Vulcan culture even contextualises sexuality in the same way as we do in 21st century.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Can't say I've ever wanted a gay Spock but I love that if one existed it would annoy all the right people.

Yeah, that's pretty much every SJW's stance on every kind of "switch" like that be it in movies, comics, or TV. "I love most that it annoys the fans! Salty tears!" and so on. At least you're not being dishonest about it.

[CyberCubed]

There's just no reason to make gay's out of non-gay's. I'm offended as a straight person.

I have no problem with the gay homosexuals but there is a time and place for everything. A new queer character would be fine but you don't need gay up one of the most iconic Star Trek characters of all time. Even if it's not the "real" Spock it's still the same thing in concept.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

There's just no reason to make gay's out of non-gay's. I'm offended as a straight person

You aren't allowed to be offended. Because your life wasn't hard and had no challenges and had entitlement and you know... life is hard when you muff dive or take it in the @$$.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by IMJ

life is hard when you muff dive

Well, for one thing... pubes.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Well, for one thing... pubes.

Not necessarily.