Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (a Pike show)
 

Yes. Infuriating.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety...234607259/amp/

So basically TOS season 0? Season -1? Season -X?

TOS season 4 starts to seem more and more likey, doesn't it?

This will bear no resemblance to TOS or anything remotely of quality.

Sadly this franchise is clearly dead and needs to go on a long hiatus. It’s unfortunate but it’s much needed.

I'm somewhere between indifferent and mildly pissed off.

Sigh.

With as much of a letdown as Picard was, I still wish they'd stick to moving the ball FVCKING FORWARD.

Prequels. Gawd. :trolleye:

Of all the things in the CBS All Acess Trek I actually like, Anson Mount as Pike is it. I might give this a chance, but as stated, my hopes aren't high given Picard.

STD season 1 and 2 and STP, it's the same writers. Anson Mount is great as Pike... but do you know who is great as Jean Luc Picard? Patrick Stewart. Yet STP is horrific.

A big vote of absolute no confidence from me.

True, to a point. Anson Mount was good as Pike as written in Star Trek Discovery. Sadly as great as Patrick Stewart is he couldn't Elevate Picard in Star Trek Picard.

on side note I just saw an article that said that the new Pike series will be more optimistic and episodic, in other words, more like regular Star Trek.

Complete with mandatory explosions, people screaming at one another, and tech they shouldn't have yet, like the 100s of starfighters and R2D2 units the Enterprise had in the last STD finale. And nonsense like "time crystals."

When fans will complain, they will say the usual "well what did you think this was supposed to look like?? A 1960s show? LOL!"

Two things. 1) Nobody has a gun at their head forcing them to make more prequels set in the TOS era. 2) Enterprise and DS9 made it a point to honor that era in their dipping into it the two times they did... so it CAN be done, they can't say it can't.

Sadly, it has entered production. Also they've announced the cast:

https://deadline.com/2021/03/star-tr...ns-1234713092/

Not surprisingly, no sign of a white male... which must mean no Dr. Boyce, the only character other than Number One we got to meet from the crew in "The Cage."

Huh. I mean, I'll be fine without Doctor Boyce. I get where you're coming from on that, though. But I doubt we never see him.

Also, I'm betting we see a recast Captain Kirk (or Commander Kirk, or whatever) in Season 2. Probably not Season 1, though... they'll try to do their own thing like Discovery did the first season.

Then... RATINGS BOOST WITH ORIGINAL SERIES RECAST, ZOMG

Assuming this will take place after Pike's appearances in STD season 2, this is long after "The Cage" so... Dr. Boyce would have had to have been on the ship, then leave, then come back? Seems unlikely. And c'mon... there wasn't like a ton of characters they needed to dust off from "The Cage"... there was 3, including Pike himself. Boyce was one of them.

That blond woman in the cast kind of looks like a female version of the actor that played him. Suspicious...

For sure. Lieutenant Kirk will show up toting around his boyfriend or something. Such bravery!

We know very little about this but from what little we do know it looks the most 'traditional' Trek that we've had in a long time. If nothing else that Enterprise bridge looked exactly what a modern take the original Enterprise interiors should look like.

The only thing I dislike about it is that if we're going to have another series set in the TOS era I'd much prefer it to be set after Kirk's 5 year mission. I want to see the Gorn, the Tholians, the Guardian of Forever which we can't see in this series unless the start pulling a Star Trek: Enterprise and keep encountering alien races they shouldn't just don't have the crew catch their names.

We already saw what a modern take on the original Enterprise interiors should look like on season 4 of "Enterprise."

https://firewatersite.files.wordpres...kly.jpg?w=1000

STD's take is apocryphal. And apparently only done for legal reasons wherein Kurtzman and company can get residuals on likeness rights. Not legal as in Kurtzman is being forced to, but apparently legal in the sense that if he makes things 25% different, now down the line he gets his $0.02 if they're reused (which, as showrunner of everything Trek, he gets to do).

The only thing I dislike about it is that it's the third show from the exact same people that outright hate Trek, hate Trek fans, and otherwise don't understand Trek. There is absolutely no reason in the world to suspect they've suddenly learned from their mistakes, or that they've suddenly done an about face and now they understand Trek. They've completed four seasons of "Trek" and by all accounts they actually have been doubling down on all of the things they've been doing wrong, not getting one bit better. Guaranteed it's going to be more angry identity politics, explosions, screaming, and phasering people to death... oh, but now they're visiting a new planet every episode, so it's all better.

Oh, and that's yet another prequel in what is now a long and seemingly unending series of prequels. I don't care what Pike was up to between "The Cage" and TOS. I'd say go beyond even STP, but they might as well explore the period between VOY and STP better, since STP told us exactly Zero about what happened in between anywhere in the galaxy. Like, for all we know, the Dominion took over the Klingon Empire and Cardassia retook DS9. We have no idea. STP was 10 hours entirely wasted on saying goodbye to an android we'd already said goodbye to in the last movie almost 20 years ago and Picard letting go of a white privilege we never saw him once exude on TNG.

You know what I mean. Recreating the 60s sets is fine for a cute anniversary episode but if you're going to set a series on a 23rd century Constitution Class ship in 2021 then you're going have to straddle the line between something that looks retro while looking modern. The Abrams-verse movies were okay but a bit too sleek and modern. The Enterprise bridge we saw in Discovery I think looks just right. I hope it's what we see in Strange New Worlds.

Indeed but even if that wasn't the case no one would expect them to use the wobbly sixties sets. This isn't without precedent in the franchise. For years the line from everyone involved in making the show was that the Enterprise we saw in The Motion Picture is supposed to be what the TV version looked like. You just have to imagine it that way.

Well it wouldn't be the first time Star Trek has been written by people who hate it. Brannon Braga was certainly no fan of the franchise when he signed on to write for it. Gene Roddenberry didn't want The Next Generation to be TOS-like so hired writers which were not fans of the franchise. Some writers like Ron Moore felt they had to play down that they were Trek fans.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the current writers hate Trek. They have a different interpretation of it than most fans that grew up in the 80-90s era of Trek. I also wonder just how much different their vision of Trek is when you factor in they were told to do something different. Who knows what their work would be like if they specifically aimed for something more traditional.

All stuff I agree with but while it's not what I wanted I'll give it a shot as something which so far has been closest to what I'd want ie: a ship going off to explore and the main character is the Captain.

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.

What exactly do you figure they love about Trek?

How many different Star Trek shows are there already?

I've been meaning to rewatch the original and The Next Generation on Netflix lately since I have find memories of watching their reruns on cable TV back in 2003-2005 with my family. But is there other Star Trek stuff that I've missed out and should check sometime?

TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. TAS, if you're so inclined, too, though it's a little bit of and chore to get through for me. So 6 shows in all plus the movies. I personally enjoyed rewatching ENT first and then restarting TOS, during my most recent rewatchings.

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.

TOS, TNG and DS9 are the only three shows that are considered "required viewing" by most fans.

Voyager is a bit hit or miss and Enterprise is only really good in its last two seasons. So I'd recommend looking up a "best episode of each season" list for those two shows rather than watching it all.

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

Thanks for the help, Andrew and Cubed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Is it time for Spock to be gay?

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

He wasn't before? :trazz:

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

Leonard Nimoy is rolling in his grave.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 @$$.

Well, for one thing... pubes. :lol:

Not necessarily.