Star Trek Franchise |OT| To Boldly Go.....

chrominance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,827
RIP Aron Eisenberg. It was so great to see him in the DS9 documentary and he gave the show as much as he felt it gave him.

I had to look this up, because I had no idea, but this is the Ann Magnuson that also played in BONGWATER, which is blowing my mind right now. I didn't realize she had an acting career. Here you go:


I'm probably the only person who feels this way but this is way cooler to me than Janeway could ever have been (even though I like Kate Mulgrew too and would love to see her back in Trek in some capacity).
 
Nov 2, 2017
167
Fuck.

Saw on r/startrek there's gonna be a memorial gathering in WoW. Supposed to be on Sunday, but you can check the details on the subreddit.
 

Man God

Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,427
Some of the best reveals about Klingon society come from DS9 and Enterprise of all places. It's the nobility that are all fucked up on the honor juice and that a lot of common Klingons just get along to get along; they want to be scientists and lawyers and stuff like that.
 

JonnyDBrit

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,200
Interesting. I wonder what they could add to the game for Enterprise. They already have the uniforms and both NX models in the game.
Enterprise's presence in the game proper comes through mostly in the Temporal Cold War stuff, where Daniels is your contact (and probably the actor they could most easily afford). At one point you do get to go back and save the NX-01 (remember that episode with the time pod? Yeah, that was you), but as yet it is the one era not to see a major crew member return; Worf, Tasha, and Geordi mean TNG is technically in there. The game does have a load of time travel shenanigans it could lean into if it wants, but it's certainly harder to wrangle than simply continuing the story ala Voyager or DS9.

Beyond that... maybe some of the extra ship designs that commonly turn up in side material? Like the Poseidon class
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
Enterprise's presence in the game proper comes through mostly in the Temporal Cold War stuff, where Daniels is your contact (and probably the actor they could most easily afford). At one point you do get to go back and save the NX-01 (remember that episode with the time pod? Yeah, that was you), but as yet it is the one era not to see a major crew member return; Worf, Tasha, and Geordi mean TNG is technically in there. The game does have a load of time travel shenanigans it could lean into if it wants, but it's certainly harder to wrangle than simply continuing the story ala Voyager or DS9.

Beyond that... maybe some of the extra ship designs that commonly turn up in side material? Like the Poseidon class
They could always bring in Trip. Like, pulled from the moment of his death and brought to the present day because reasons.
 

antonz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,185
Enterprise was victim of a shitty fanbase much like Star Wars is facing with a certain portion of its fanbase right now. Muh star trek must be classical music. Enterprise looks too advanced yada yada. The franchise needed fresh leadership that would eventually come to Enterprise but way too late when minds had been made and it was a losing battle.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,491
Enterprise was victim of a shitty fanbase much like Star Wars is facing with a certain portion of its fanbase right now. Muh star trek must be classical music. Enterprise looks too advanced yada yada. The franchise needed fresh leadership that would eventually come to Enterprise but way too late when minds had been made and it was a losing battle.
To be honest I don't agree with Star Wars and I don't agree with Star Trek. It seems like it has become a trend to blame everything on the fans but the fact is that fans aren't in charge of making creative decisions and fans don't have any power over a project's critical or commercial success.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
Enterprise was victim of a shitty fanbase much like Star Wars is facing with a certain portion of its fanbase right now. Muh star trek must be classical music. Enterprise looks too advanced yada yada. The franchise needed fresh leadership that would eventually come to Enterprise but way too late when minds had been made and it was a losing battle.
I don't think Enterprise looked too advanced at all really. I especially loved when they actually brought in a TOS Constitution class ship and you could directly compare them.

If anything has a problem with looking (And just outright being) too advanced it's Discovery.
 

StallionDan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,754
Weird, Enterprise always got a lot of praise for making the tech look modern but not too advanced to outdo TOS tech.
 

butalala

Member
Nov 24, 2017
706
People get mad about the nx-01 because they think it looks too much like the Akira class ships from first contact.

(Edit: see below)

Part of the problem is that before Enterprise, the only pre-tos ships we had were the Daedalus class ships, which were only seen as props in Sisko's office and probably other places. It also was included in the chronology book which I think made a lot of people think it was Canon.
 
Last edited:

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,491
The problem I had with the NX-01 was that it looked like a TNG ship. Way too slick and 'aerodynamic' to pass for a pre-TOS ship.
 

Happenstance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,821
United Kingdom
We’ll always have the problem with ships looking more advanced than they should be in continuity with the constant advances in real world technology and it’s just something you have to accept and live with. I feel like Discovery maybe took it a bit too far with their use of tech that should probably come later but it’s happened now and there’s no point in letting it ruin the show for me.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,491
We’ll always have the problem with ships looking more advanced than they should be in continuity with the constant advances in real world technology and it’s just something you have to accept and live with. I feel like Discovery maybe took it a bit too far with their use of tech that should probably come later but it’s happened now and there’s no point in letting it ruin the show for me.
A counterpoint to that would be the wonderful job the production crew did with the Enterprise's bridge in Discovery. I think it's possible to make something more recent feel older and vice versa.
 

Happenstance

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,821
United Kingdom
A counterpoint to that would be the wonderful job the production crew did with the Enterprise's bridge in Discovery. I think it's possible to make something more recent feel older and vice versa.
Yes that’s a fair point. I do wonder though how much complaining would have happened though if it had come before we’d seen the Shenzhou and Discovery bridges. Feels like they helped lay the foundations for the mixture of old and new styles.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
My biggest tech issues with Discovery are,

The Spore Drive - Just too advanced and something that nobody ever knows about in future despite it literally allowing you to cross the Galaxy in an instant? Seriously?

Hologram communications - This should not have been in something as early as Discovery. Hologram communications were a brand new novelty in DS9, yet in Discovery they treat it as old hat? Then they try to backtrack on it pretty pathetically by just having Pike not like it.

Control - A Skynet like AI that becomes a living being and eventually a Borg RIP-off and after that computer tech seems to take a massive step backward. Also the whole thing was never discovered by more than a handful of people who all just agreed to never talk about it.


Discovery can have some great moments, but it really has had some of the worst writing in Trek history.

I'm convinced that in Season 1 the writers were going out of their way to go against canon, not just "oh we aren't worrying about that". In Season 2 they tried to fix some of it, only to make some of the same mistakes before eventually just giving up and going "everyone agreed to keep it a secret and never talk about the last 2 years".
 

butalala

Member
Nov 24, 2017
706
My biggest tech issues with Discovery are,

The Spore Drive - Just too advanced and something that nobody ever knows about in future despite it literally allowing you to cross the Galaxy in an instant? Seriously?

Hologram communications - This should not have been in something as early as Discovery. Hologram communications were a brand new novelty in DS9, yet in Discovery they treat it as old hat? Then they try to backtrack on it pretty pathetically by just having Pike not like it.

Control - A Skynet like AI that becomes a living being and eventually a Borg RIP-off and after that computer tech seems to take a massive step backward. Also the whole thing was never discovered by more than a handful of people who all just agreed to never talk about it.


Discovery can have some great moments, but it really has had some of the worst writing in Trek history.

I'm convinced that in Season 1 the writers were going out of their way to go against canon, not just "oh we aren't worrying about that". In Season 2 they tried to fix some of it, only to make some of the same mistakes before eventually just giving up and going "everyone agreed to keep it a secret and never talk about the last 2 years".
Definitely agree with you about the spore drive and holo comms. Spore drive is a cool idea, but it should have been used as a hook for a post-voyager story, not a prequel.

I think Control is a different case though. Part of it is evolving understanding of computer capabilities. It doesn't make sense to be rigidly adherent to a 1966-based view of the future of computing, right? That would basically turn Star Trek into Retrofuturism. Consider the upcoming Foundation tv series. The book, as far as I can recall, makes very little mention of computers. Everything is based on "atomics." But should we expect the TV series to stick with a 1940's vision of the future? Star Trek is supposed to be a vision of our future, not a completely separate universe.

On the other hand is the Control that much different from TOS supercomputers like the M5?
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
Definitely agree with you about the spore drive and holo comms. Spore drive is a cool idea, but it should have been used as a hook for a post-voyager story, not a prequel.

I think Control is a different case though. Part of it is evolving understanding of computer capabilities. It doesn't make sense to be rigidly adherent to a 1966-based view of the future of computing, right? That would basically turn Star Trek into Retrofuturism. Consider the upcoming Foundation tv series. The book, as far as I can recall, makes very little mention of computers. Everything is based on "atomics." But should we expect the TV series to stick with a 1940's vision of the future? Star Trek is supposed to be a vision of our future, not a completely separate universe.

On the other hand is the Control that much different from TOS supercomputers like the M5?
The thing is Star Trek diverges from our history from about the 60s or 70s onwards due to things like the Eugenics Wars. There's no reason that computers in Star Trek have to be as advanced as the ones we have right now.

Plus at the same time we've seen that even by TNG/DS9/VOY they have very little experience with actual self-aware AI. That's why everyone is always so surprised when Holograms start to develop true self awareness, it's not something they expect or had any experience with happening before.

The M5 wasn't really an AI that gained awareness, it was essentially a human personality being run through a far too literal set of programming instructions. It's also something that was developed a good decade after Discovery too. Control on the other hand is implied to have been around for years.
Then again the whole Section 31 being this huge official thing, complete with their own fleet of ships, is just terrible writing too. They were presented in both DS9 and Enterprise as being extremely secretive and a very cell like organisation of people with no official oversight or anything like their own ships/facilities. Now all of a sudden they've got a huge fleet of ships, bases, this gargantuan AI that they control but that every decision Starfleet makes has to be fed into...
 

CommodoreKong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,846
My biggest tech issues with Discovery are,

The Spore Drive - Just too advanced and something that nobody ever knows about in future despite it literally allowing you to cross the Galaxy in an instant? Seriously?

Hologram communications - This should not have been in something as early as Discovery. Hologram communications were a brand new novelty in DS9, yet in Discovery they treat it as old hat? Then they try to backtrack on it pretty pathetically by just having Pike not like it.

Control - A Skynet like AI that becomes a living being and eventually a Borg RIP-off and after that computer tech seems to take a massive step backward. Also the whole thing was never discovered by more than a handful of people who all just agreed to never talk about it.


Discovery can have some great moments, but it really has had some of the worst writing in Trek history.

I'm convinced that in Season 1 the writers were going out of their way to go against canon, not just "oh we aren't worrying about that". In Season 2 they tried to fix some of it, only to make some of the same mistakes before eventually just giving up and going "everyone agreed to keep it a secret and never talk about the last 2 years".
Those things also bugged me, along with the Enterprise having like 150 shuttles and using them like X-Wings in the season 2 finale.
I think they could have done a much better job of respecting the TOS level of technology while still making the show look futuristic by our current standards. I thought the Enterprise bridge on Discovery was a pretty good example of walking the line really well.

Honestly if they wanted to incoporate all that technolgy into Discovery it should have been set post Nemesis instead of pre-TOS.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
Those things also bugged me, along with the Enterprise having like 150 shuttles and using them like X-Wings in the season 2 finale.
I think they could have done a much better job of respecting the TOS level of technology while still making the show look futuristic by our current standards. I thought the Enterprise bridge on Discovery was a pretty good example of walking the line really well.

Honestly if they wanted to incoporate all that technolgy into Discovery it should have been set post Nemesis instead of pre-TOS.
Oh God I'd forgotten about the shuttles.
Yes, that was terrible as well. Neither Discovery or Enterprise should have had the storage space for anywhere near that many shuttles unless about 50% of the interior was dedicated to shuttle storage.

I sort of get the feeling that the writers wanted to do a post-Nemesis sequel when they came up with a bunch of the shows concepts and were then told they were doing a prequel, but they just decided to stick with their ideas regardless.
 

Kzinti

Member
Oct 27, 2017
445
the TOS era stuff looks like shit nowadays so personally i'm very much ok with disco attempt to modernize it of course it's not perfect the turbolift ride for example is completely nonsensical and as for the season finale shuttle spam well it doesn't make sense but it was cool so whatever
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,002
I thought the worst thing was the repair robots on Enterprise...feels like they added them just to fuck with people that complain lol
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
the TOS era stuff looks like shit nowadays so personally i'm very much ok with disco attempt to modernize it of course it's not perfect the turbolift ride for example is completely nonsensical and as for the season finale shuttle spam well it doesn't make sense but it was cool so whatever
Oh I was fine with the modernisation they did for the Enterprise, that actually looked pretty good. It was Discovery itself that was too advanced.

I thought the worst thing was the repair robots on Enterprise...feels like they added them just to fuck with people that complain lol
Another thing I'd forgotten about, and another thing that makes no sense and shouldn't be in there. They have nothing like that even as late as Voyager and Nemesis. We've seen examples much later than TOS of people having to go out onto the hull in space suits to make repairs, ships having to go into spacedock, etc.
 

Poodlestrike

There is much talk, and I have listened...
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
5,563
I'm on team "keep up with modern ideas of the future" on this one. Canon is a fluid thing, it's better to keep up with the times than be tied down by what somebody 50 years ago thought would look "advanced," but thanks to limitations of budget and vision, just looks ridiculous to us now.
 

butalala

Member
Nov 24, 2017
706
The thing is Star Trek diverges from our history from about the 60s or 70s onwards due to things like the Eugenics Wars. There's no reason that computers in Star Trek have to be as advanced as the ones we have right now.
I think there's a series of books that makes the Eugenics Wars a secret war, keeping our timelines closer longer. Also, when Voyager went back in time to the 90s, it looked pretty similar to our reality.

Anyway, the computers are the bigger issue here. I think you have to update ST's computers to match our current technology. How silly would it be for new shows to have to continually explain why the space-faring ship's computer in 24XX can't match a Google search in 2019? Even a post Voyager show would have computers worse than ours today if they rigidly stuck to what was seen on screen in the 90s.
 

weemadarthur

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,931
I don’t think that’s true, about the computers. People discount the difficulty of advancing AI tech. Also starfleet is working at vast distances, which means a chunk of the computer is computing the subspace connection to the data. And the built-in protocols to er....stop kids from tape recording the captain’s voice to take over the ship....well, you know. If it worked, the built-in protocols would take up a ton of space.

Plus TOS explained that starfleet deliberately went away from using AI in ship computers etc after the Daystrom debacle, which is why Data was unique in the human world. Nobody else wanted AI, they wanted humans to explore the galaxy.
 

Poodlestrike

There is much talk, and I have listened...
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
5,563
I don’t think that’s true, about the computers. People discount the difficulty of advancing AI tech. Also starfleet is working at vast distances, which means a chunk of the computer is computing the subspace connection to the data. And the built-in protocols to er....stop kids from tape recording the captain’s voice to take over the ship....well, you know. If it worked, the built-in protocols would take up a ton of space.

Plus TOS explained that starfleet deliberately went away from using AI in ship computers etc after the Daystrom debacle, which is why Data was unique in the human world. Nobody else wanted AI, they wanted humans to explore the galaxy.
By modern standars, AI in Star Trek is straight up Schizo Tech. Enormously, maybe even impossibly capable in some regards (e.g. the Enterprise's computer making a sentient being by accident) but incredibly primitive in others. A lot of really routine stuff is handled by crew members that by all rights should be easily done by computers, if we assumed even a reasonable level of advancement from where we are now.

AI doesn't have to mean a computer with the same level of intelligence and self awareness as a real person. Stuff like the Enterprise's computer being less capable than Alexa in some respects really shows the series' age, and not in a good way. Better to keep up with the times.
 

Lagamorph

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,199
Don't forget Trek has to deal with the implications of World War 3 in the mid-21st Century where it's more than reasonable to assume that some technology/knowledge was simply lost forever in the destruction, given that it was a Nuclear War.
Hell, Data Center locations would probably be prime targets in that kind of scenario.