Members | Sign In
Modiphius > STAR TREK: ADVENTURES
avatar

Star Trek Discovery

posted May 17, 2017 22:50:22 by Elijah
First Trailer for Discovery is out. What does everyone think?
Trailer 1
Trailer 2

And yeah, Modiphius does not have the license for Discovery, so we will not be seeing anything set there officially for now.

Star Trek: Discovery airs
Sundays 8:30pm EST on CBS All Access(US) and Crave TV-Space(Canada)
Mondays 8:00am GMT on Netflix (Rest of the World)
[Last edited Sep 20, 2017 13:46:58]
page   1 2 3 4 5 next last
371 replies
avatar
PatricHenson said May 18, 2017 00:01:37
Oh my, those had better not be Klingons. They look awful! Otherwise it looks okay, but much too JJ Abrams.
"Lease and pong life. Prosp long and liver."
—Varek of Sulkin'
avatar
Eric Stearns said May 18, 2017 03:41:24
Crap - good thing CBS closed down Axanar - too much Abrams-verse, way too advanced tech, no continuity for the timeline. *sarcasm* Good job!!! */sarcasm*
avatar
Elijah said May 18, 2017 04:06:43
Yeah, so those are Klingons definitely. But, it seems that those aren't normal Klingons. The thinking right now is that those are an ancient offshoot race of Klingons from millennia ago that have been found and came back now. I guess the best analogy would be is the way Romulans are related to Vulcans. They look very different and are all bald, so much more like a sect I guess. The same way Nero's ship full of Romulans were all bald and tattooed. Or it might be that now all Klingons do look like that.
I am not that crazy about the lens flare. But this doesn't seem so much like Kelvin Timeline. I actually feel a lot more like TOS Movies. Gray consoles with touchscreen, buttons and handles. Military style uniforms with toned down division colors. If I didn't know it was set in 2255, I would say this was set after Undiscovered Country.
avatar
LucasCunningham said May 18, 2017 08:14:52
Too many lensefares... but I am totally exceited.
avatar
themaskofromek said May 18, 2017 10:05:34
Hey look! They ret conned the entire universe.
If I was the kind of guy that said "I told you so" this is where I would say it.

Sit back and admire my restraint.😆

Still gonna binge watch the s##t out of it though.
"There can be no peace while Kirk lives!"
avatar
aramis_erak said May 19, 2017 05:48:18
And pushed it back to Fall...
It screams, "We can't say it's in the Kelvin Alternate because we don't have the rights to use the movies' differences, but we're going to goas close as we can anyway, and then claim we're not in the kelvinverse."

And how in hell are they denoting rank?
Where are the colored shirts we know (from the Cage) were in use in Prime timeline?
Just because my shirt is red
does not mean I'll soon be dead.

http://aramis.hostman.us/trek/sta/
avatar
Nathan.Dowdell said May 19, 2017 10:42:44
A question: how many of you are more concerned with slavish adherence to continuity over production design that doesn't look painfully archaic? Are so many people that desperate to see sets and costumes identical to those devised under a tiny budget in the early 1960s?

We live in a world full of technology inspired by Star Trek - whole industries and hardware forms exist today that only exist because someone saw Star Trek and wanted to emulate it. As a result of that, the look of Star Trek has become anachronistic because of its success - we live in a world where touchscreens and voice-controlled computers are abundant and commonplace (I'm typing this post on a laptop with a touchscreen, and I turned my TV on with my voice this morning), yet those were once presented as the technology of the 24th century. The Original Series, for all that the characters and the stories are great... looks like what it was: a TV show in the 1960s, where the budget was stretched thin by needing to produce what audiences in the 1960s might imagine the 23rd century to look like (in a time where, relatively speaking, TV budgets were much lower than they are today, and where shows with comparable budgets at the time, like Mission Impossible, could use contemporary costumes and items because of their contemporary setting).

We know for a fact that decisions made with regards to production design in every Star Trek show have been influenced and constrained by limits in technology (both effects and makeup/prosthetics) and budget. In some cases, it created something special - it's why we have Transporters - but in some cases, it means that the earlier iterations were replaced later. It's why Klingon design changed between TOS and the movies, why the Animated Series did things that were impossible on a 1960s TV budget, why there are so few classes of alien starship per species, reusing existing models for different ships of different sizes, why most species appeared basically human in TOS (and only slightly different in TNG onwards), why so many episodes of TOS were based on a planet of a particular stereotyped culture (they borrowed costumes and sets from other productions in the studio), why we didn't see Andorians again until Enterprise... the list goes on.

Yet, none of this is ever accounted for by a lot of the fanbase when it comes to the look of the shows.

The above is entirely my opinion, and speaks for nobody else at Modiphius Entertainment.
[Last edited May 19, 2017 10:47:26]
Game Development - 2D20 System
System Design - Star Trek Adventures

Rules questions and playtest feedback to nathan@modiphius.com
avatar
LucasCunningham said May 19, 2017 11:12:48
It's only realistical that you don't make a scifi-show with less invented technology than present.
So for Discovery there are better possibilities für special effects and make up and so on, than with TOS.
Even the remastered Version of TOS und HD-Screen looks today something funny.

In my Opinion: There is no way back to Kirk and Co. I mean we were louging loudly as we see the 1-kg Cellphone in the Shadowrun 3rd Edition Rulebook.
And if there is no way back, then "they" should not try. Star Trek should go on and not back.
avatar
themaskofromek said May 19, 2017 12:30:16
Ok. I hear understand and agree with Nathan's point regarding Discovery and making best use of current production values to make the best show possible for the available budget.

I understand that TOS was shot on a shoestring and today looks dated.

I have to ask however at what point do you abandon all the background material and established settings and still call it Star Trek.

What's the difference between a re imagining of Star Trek and just another sci fi show that has none of the hallmarks bar the name?

There has to be a connection and the obvious choice is the visuals. I get that a 21st century audience would never accept christmas tree lights on a board as a state of the starship control panel. They would expect and rightly so a jazzy futuristic display full of scrolling data.

I saw the trailer and it looked great but I was disappointed with the uniforms. Okay a 2017 audience won't want to see 1966 costumes or make up but I was hoping for an update on the classic division colour uniforms. Regarding the Klingons I'm a bit concerned that they are being transformed from proud warrior race to monster of the week.

Sorry if this comes off as a rant. I really want to see this show and to see it succeed. I really do.

But I also want to see this.


[Last edited May 19, 2017 13:23:34]
"There can be no peace while Kirk lives!"
avatar
Elijah said May 19, 2017 13:47:35
First uniform drawings and ranks
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAL3IQ6UwAILJoE.jpg:large

@Aramis, rank is noted as tiny pips and holes on the insignia badge on the chest. It follows the scheme of TNG and ENT and not TOS.

@themaskofromek Yeah The Orville is very much a TNG parody. Uniforms and bridge design are super Trek inspired.
avatar
jonrcrew said May 19, 2017 13:58:25
Personally, I'm really looking forward to it. Caveat: I enjoyed Enterprise...

Yeah, there are a couple of areas where I think they could have done better: I don't like the Klingons and am hoping for a good in-setting explanation as to their appearance; the design of the Discovery still bugs me (but the Shenzhou is kind of cool); the lens flares.

I like the new uniforms, but would have liked to see larger colour blocks in them; maybe they have coloured undershirts we can't see at this point (that would be a good crossreference to TOS)? The more modern technology is absolutely fine for exactly the reasons Nathan stated. We even have an in-canon explanation - the TOS style was the product of a design fashion, not technology limitations (Jadzia from the T&T episode). Odd as it may seem to be coming from a JJ-disliker (hater is far too strong a word), I do like the incorporation of the window/viewscreen idea - it makes a lot of sense to me if you've got good back-up force-field technology. And the casting seems perfect!

So long as they have good stories and characters and stay away from JJ-style serious physical mistakes (warp transport, planets orbiting inside the Roche limit), I think I shall enjoy it!

Having said that, McFarlane's Orville series also looks like fun - if he can keep the jokes fresh (we don't want another Hyperspace after all).
avatar
PatricHenson said May 19, 2017 17:34:53
how many of you are more concerned with slavish adherence to continuity over production design that doesn't look painfully archaic? Are so many people that desperate to see sets and costumes identical to those devised under a tiny budget in the early 1960s?

I am not one of those people, but the Klingon look is really killing this preview for me. Klingons looked great post TOS and I don't understand the decision to deviate do greatly from that standard. I hope it's true what they say that they're some offshoot Klingons, but we'll see.

We know for a fact that decisions made with regards to production design in every Star Trek show have been influenced and constrained by limits in technology

Yes, the constraints imposed by technology and budgets as well as the influences of styles is quite apparent when you look at any of the Trek series'. The same can be said for crew and positions. Bridge roles on a ship of 1,000 people would logically be more specialized and there wouldn't be many people wearing several different hats, but they can't have a cast that large (there would be some narrative reasons as well, but budget is part of it).
"Lease and pong life. Prosp long and liver."
—Varek of Sulkin'
avatar
BlakeTrebert said May 19, 2017 17:58:36
I'm going to post a longer response later, but essentially Nathan echos my sentiment 100%

I want to add briefly that I think Kirk, Spock, and Bones are really the best story telling device in Trek history... aside from the Enterprise itself. If a reboot is necessary, and I think it is because Star Trek died a very ignoble death with Enterprise, I want them to go back to the core of what makes Trek Trek. The movies brought the franchise back to a general audience and it only makes sense to go from there canon wise and style wise.

Go Discovery, Go.
"Risk! Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her!"
avatar
BlakeTrebert said May 19, 2017 18:57:13
So I've had it up to here with vocal minority of Trek die hards who nay say everything new that Star Trek does.

The fact that Star Trek is doing anything new is great and the fact that they want to go after a general audience is long overdue. There's a business side of it; anything "nerdy" can make a billion dollars now and Paramount has to do something about it (IMO Discovery is too little and, hopefully not, too late). There's also an artistic side to it. I can watch something like Star Trek Continues and measure my reaction. I understand that what they do is really cool and it's a hell of a love letter to the old 60s show. I give them a *world* of credit for "getting it" and celebrating the old 60s show's strengths.

I also am not going to kid myself and say that anything paramount does should literally look like it was made in the 1960s. I don't care about that. I care about the dozens (literally dozens) of people I know who didn't grow up with Star Trek for a variety of reasons... age being the number one reason. They can't connect with a 50 year old show. They can't connect with a 30 year old show. They're hungry for Star Trek, but they want something new and fresh. I understand that.

"to boldly go where no man has gone before"

I want Trek to look the way that sounds. Go Discovery, Go.
"Risk! Risk is our business! That's what this starship is all about. That's why we're aboard her!"
avatar
BytomMan said May 20, 2017 01:42:52
I'm excited to see any Star Trek on TV again. I'm sure the production quality and cast will be great.
Login below to reply: