kento wrote:I have literally zero problem with the show adopting the JJ Abrams style aesthetic. These shows aren't designed for continuity. It's impossible at this point. If this show tried to look retro then it'd end up looking like that god awful comedy Fox is putting out.
Yeah I get that, but why not go post-Nemesis and avoid the tech problem to begin with? Why do they insist on making prequels? Enterprise, JJ, Discovery. Everything recently has been trying to recapture what TOS had, and they will all fail. Why? Because TOS doesn't hold up today, and when you modernize it loses what makes it special. At least with FOX's Orwell they decided to make a Parody of the genre, and it actually works because Cowboy Diplomacy can't work these days without it being a parody of itself.
BuffArms wrote:Oh so they rewrote it in Enterprise lol, and the makeup is just really bad for the new series then. I'd be more inclined to believe his Ancient Klingon idea.
Yeah they retconned the explanation as to why some of the Klingons look human as a failure to copy the human Eugenics program that gave as Khan, but one of the subjects had a virus, and it mutated and spread. The virus removed the Klingon head ridges and generally made them look human. It's not a perfect answer, but hey it's enough.
BuffArms wrote:Of course I dislike the show for its progressive agenda, as its led to downright retarded character decisions, like giving the female lead a man's name. And Enterprise wasn't for me, but then I guess I have standards which makes me not a real Trek fan. I can live with that.
I think the show has always had a progressive agenda. It's one of the few Utopian Earth's in Sci-Fi, and certainly the most popular. Roddenberry pushed that we as humans can do better, and Trek pushed that ideal. From the first inter-racial kiss, to having a Russian on the bridge during the height of the Cold War. It's what Star Trek does best, but I agree that all this information about how progressive they are is a little annoying. Just let it be progressive without advertising it.
Just as I can live with watching this Trek as a comedic exercise seeing how stupid it already looks. The "I Can Sense Dead People Alien" should be loads of fun to explain.
Lot's of animals seem to have a "sixth sense" about incoming danger, I think this guy is just an evolution of that. No doubt he will "sense death" and it will be avoided in the show, bringing up questions if he can actually sense death or if it's a cultural belief based on traditions.
JerrodDRagon wrote:You thought the first one was bad?
I get why people aren't a fan of the second one and the third one was trash but as a non Star Trek Fan it got me into the series at least
For the time's some of the older movies have better idea's but acting wise the new ones destroy them and is the main reason I could not get into the older shows or movies, they seem outdated.
I'm hoping the show is a mix between the two....old school story's with more modern acting and action
As a Trek fan, all of them are bad Star Trek films, but generally good Sci-Fi. Had they been generic Sci-Fi movies, I would probably find them enjoyable. But they lost so much from what I find Star Trek brilliant, it's soul. On top of that they made pointless changes to everything in that world to make it less like Star Trek and more like Star Wars, because Abrams has zero respect for the source material.
kento wrote:Enterprise wasn't for me for totally different reasons. I got tired of how pedestrian and exploitative Star Trek got. After the success of Jeri Ryan's inclusion in Voyager, Star Trek always needed a buxom, emotionally removed woman with short hair in a skin tight outfit. T'Pol was just sexy Spock. it was obnoxious.
I actually really like Enterprise, especially the fourth season. I think it was just hitting its stride, as all of the Trek shows take a few years to really get good.
I get that you don't like it, but if you don't think Star Trek isn't already the most progressive, left wing, inclusive and diverse main stream property in history, then are you really even a fan. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be funny, or even mean. But think about it... First on screen interracial kiss, a Russian character at the helm of the ship during the height of the cold war... the show has dealt with gay rights, aids, had women in positions of authority and minorities as well...
Can we please stop with the "Are you really a fan?". People can love Star Trek for many reasons, and we shouldn't have to try to prove our fandom, it's insulting. I'm a Trekkie, I love and appreciate so much about this franchise, and just because it doesn't line up with someone else's love for the show, doesn't diminish my fandom.
Were you also freaking out when Sulu was gay in the new film?
I did yes. But that was because of the way it was handled prior to the movies release and because I respect Roddenberry's vision for these characters. But in the movie itself I thought it was handled well. They didn't put a spotlight on it, it wasn't an OMG look how progressive we are, it was a "hey look at Sulu with his family", and I appreciate that. But I still side with George Takei on the matter.