Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[billd91]

There will always be a push/pull between innovating new things and respect/continuity with the old. Because if you have no respect at all for that which came before, you might as well not be using that IP at all. If you don't care about the canon or continuity of Star Trek at all, why bother making it a Star Trek show?

In short, this is dangerously close to William Shatner's "Get A Life" speech from SNL, except without any of the humor.

I can definitely see that. A lot comes down to where to draw the line between major elements of the continuity and nitpicks or unnecessary minutiae. I can see people being ticked off if a Star Trek species were significantly changed - like Klingons becoming pacifists or Orions becoming a force for law and order in space. That's a pretty big shift. But adding an order of Romulan warrior nuns who work to oppose a clandestine cabal within Romulan politics? That's pretty minor and, arguably, added texture rather than a major transformation and should be treated accordingly. Not ever deviation from old canon is a slap in the face.

One aspect of telling stories, particularly in an IP that's been around a while and may have a lot of fan baggage attached to it, is that stories may challenge the fans and their understanding of the IP. To use a cross-IP example, some of the latest Star Wars films have been doing that - and you see it in a lot of fan complaints that the heroism of the original trilogy is all undone because things didn't turn out all that great 40 years later or that the Rebel Alliance should never have been willing to send snipers to take out significant Imperial personnel as in Rogue One or have some hard and gritty edges. Both of those challenge what people assumed about the Star Wars saga but there was no real basis for making those assumption in the first place given what we know about history and military and insurgency expediencies. In the case of Picard, you see echoes of the same sentiments - that the behavior of Star Fleet in Picard is incompatible with the optimism of Star Trek.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can definitely see that. A lot comes down to where to draw the line between major elements of the continuity and nitpicks or unnecessary minutiae. I can see people being ticked off if a Star Trek species were significantly changed - like Klingons becoming pacifists or Orions becoming a force for law and order in space. That's a pretty big shift. But adding an order of Romulan warrior nuns who work to oppose a clandestine cabal within Romulan politics? That's pretty minor and, arguably, added texture rather than a major transformation and should be treated accordingly. Not ever deviation from old canon is a slap in the face.

One aspect of telling stories, particularly in an IP that's been around a while and may have a lot of fan baggage attached to it, is that stories may challenge the fans and their understanding of the IP. To use a cross-IP example, some of the latest Star Wars films have been doing that - and you see it in a lot of fan complaints that the heroism of the original trilogy is all undone because things didn't turn out all that great 40 years later or that the Rebel Alliance should never have been willing to send snipers to take out significant Imperial personnel as in Rogue One or have some hard and gritty edges. Both of those challenge what people assumed about the Star Wars saga but there was no real basis for making those assumption in the first place given what we know about history and military and insurgency expediencies. In the case of Picard, you see echoes of the same sentiments - that the behavior of Star Fleet in Picard is incompatible with the optimism of Star Trek.

Again, we agree completely!

It's a delicate balance. Part of it is that what makes challenging conventions (or subverting expectations) so rewarding and enjoyable when it works, is that there has to be conventions and expectations to challenge.

In other words, you need to be careful when you're knocking out those bricks in the wall, because it took a long time to build up that wall. I am reminded of something I read recently about James Bond and Austin Powers (it's not quite the same, but it's kind on-point). In essence, Austin Powers killed off the old style of James Bond because it was so good at parodying it; you couldn't do the old Roger Moore style, slightly campy James Bond anymore even if you wanted to.

I'm sure that there's a way to segue into Galaxy Quest somehow!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

One idea I liked that they used in Disco2 and Picard (that I personally feel is ingenious and much better an idea than bothering with continuity-fixing episodes, even as good as that DS9 one was...) is the use of multiple make-up takes on their Klingons and Romulans.

Disco1 redesigned Klingons AGAIN and took a lot of flak for it. In season 2, not only did they "grow their hair" to show that their Klingons weren't quite as weird as they looked, but they also had "other clans" appear that held elements of things like Star Trek 6 (Christopher Plummer's Klingon) and other Klingon designs.

Picard had Romulans that looked like Nero from Kelvinverse Star Trek, along with dead-ringers for NextGen Romulans, and others.

On top of THAT, they used more real-world diversity in hiring human actors. One of my complaints about Star Trek when I was a kid was "All Star Trek aliens look like good-looking (Hollywood) white people with facial bumps or patterns. There's weirder-looking HUMANS ON EARTH than aliens in Star Trek!" (This was an argument I made as a kid, so please forgive that it's not 100% true and that I may have described human ethnicities as 'weird-looking'.)

At any rate, in my mind they are finally using what I would call the best excuse for alien designs changing over time:

... Not all Klingons and Romulans look the same.

Using that, they are free to change, tweak, and play with the designs of all their races, all the time. As long as we can tell who they are (which I agree Disco1 Klingons may have gone too far form), in my mind, go ahead and make them look different.

 

[Mallus]

Well, I didn't care so much about the Klingon diction. I wanted more tonal differences in the speech, which they could not deliver in all that stuff.

It's especially bad if you think back to performances like Andreas Katsulas as G'Kar in B5, where impressive prosthetics that didn't get in the way of incredible acting.

 

[Mallus]

But can we agree they are tonal changes?

Can we agree there are significant tonal changes between TOS, TNG, and DS9 (to name the three best series in the franchise currently)?

Bonus question: can we agree there are significant tonal changes between individual episodes of the original series. For example, "City on the Edge of Forever", "A Piece of the Action", "Mirror, Mirror", "Balance of Terror", "The Trouble with Tribbles", "Devil in the Dark".

And I don't agree that Star Trek was always a bunch of nonsense. It had a pretty consistent narrative pact, and this is not it.

How would you define Star Trek's 'narrative pact'?

It would have to cover --and waive -- a lot, wouldn't it, given all the manner of weird, impossible, and delightful stuff in the franchise?

 

[Ryujin]

I can definitely see that. A lot comes down to where to draw the line between major elements of the continuity and nitpicks or unnecessary minutiae. I can see people being ticked off if a Star Trek species were significantly changed - like Klingons becoming pacifists or Orions becoming a force for law and order in space. That's a pretty big shift. But adding an order of Romulan warrior nuns who work to oppose a clandestine cabal within Romulan politics? That's pretty minor and, arguably, added texture rather than a major transformation and should be treated accordingly. Not ever deviation from old canon is a slap in the face.

One aspect of telling stories, particularly in an IP that's been around a while and may have a lot of fan baggage attached to it, is that stories may challenge the fans and their understanding of the IP. To use a cross-IP example, some of the latest Star Wars films have been doing that - and you see it in a lot of fan complaints that the heroism of the original trilogy is all undone because things didn't turn out all that great 40 years later or that the Rebel Alliance should never have been willing to send snipers to take out significant Imperial personnel as in Rogue One or have some hard and gritty edges. Both of those challenge what people assumed about the Star Wars saga but there was no real basis for making those assumption in the first place given what we know about history and military and insurgency expediencies. In the case of Picard, you see echoes of the same sentiments - that the behavior of Star Fleet in Picard is incompatible with the optimism of Star Trek.

I think that it comes down to being additive, rather than transformative. You can add to the depth and breadth of a storytelling universe without having to break it down, first. We've seen little of the Romular Star Empire in previous incarnations of Star Trek, except for the military and the governing bodies. The revelation of a group of warrior nuns, who only take on hopeless causes, adds the depth of our understanding, of the Romulan people.

Similarly, we haven't seen a lot of the run-of-the-mill Federation citizen's life. I didn't expect that a tramp freighter captain's life would look anything like the spit & polish life of a Star Fleet officer, even if that captain was formerly a member of Star Fleet. We're seeing deeper into a culture.

And when it comes to Star Wars, not all rebels get to drop land speeders on the enemy as a mere effort of will. We finally got to see how those simple soldiers, who Vader tosses into wall with a mental shrug, do their jobs on the daily. More that's additive to the universe, rather than transformative.

 

[Mallus]

And by the way Picard has plenty of people who would never betray him and can fire a weapon.

But he deliberately does not ask those people to accompany him. It's in the dialog, even. Picard chooses people who mean less to him -- or even "hate" him, like Raffi.

Like Khan said, it is very cold in space.

 

[billd91]

But he deliberately does not ask those people to accompany him. It's in the dialog, even. Picard chooses people who mean less to him -- or even "hate" him, like Raffi.

Like Khan said, it is very cold in space.

I think that's not exactly the right take on this. It's not that these people mean less to him, but he means less to them. He doesn't want to ask his former crew members because they'd join him out of a sense of personal loyalty, even love, regardless of the merit of the mission. He doesn't want that since it could get them all killed. He ultimately wants people he can convince this mission is a worthwhile thing to do in and of itself, not because of their personal sentiment for him.

 

[billd91]

On top of THAT, they used more real-world diversity in hiring human actors. One of my complaints about Star Trek when I was a kid was "All Star Trek aliens look like good-looking (Hollywood) white people with facial bumps or patterns. There's weirder-looking HUMANS ON EARTH than aliens in Star Trek!" (This was an argument I made as a kid, so please forgive that it's not 100% true and that I may have described human ethnicities as 'weird-looking'.)

You were right. They did look mainly like good-looking white people with little facial bumps and patterns. And the reason had a lot more to do with budget than any intention of how to portray aliens. It's why the Star Trek: The Animated Series was finally able to have non-human crew members (other than Spock) like Lieutenants M'Ress and Arex. With animation, the special effects budget isn't a burden.

One of the nice things about improvements in technology and better budgets is better aliens.

 

[billd91]

And when it comes to Star Wars, not all rebels get to drop land speeders on the enemy as a mere effort of will. We finally got to see how those simple soldiers, who Vader tosses into wall with a mental shrug, do their jobs on the daily. More that's additive to the universe, rather than transformative.

With some of these issues, like the Federation's behavior in Picard or rougher aspects of the Rebel Alliance in Rogue One, there are fans who do consider them transformative. I think we both disagree with that, but there are plenty of fans who are characterizing those things as slaps in the face (to more or less use your term). So where do we draw the lines on what really are slaps in the face and what aren't?