Sister blog of Physicists of the Caribbean in which I babble about non-astronomy stuff, because everyone needs a hobby

Friday, 29 September 2017

New Star Trek does everything wrong

Dear new "Star Trek"

I don't think we can be friends. You're not as bad as the Jar Jar Abrahams reboots, but ya ain't Star Trek. Not by a long shot.

Your choice of casting of James Frain as Sarek was a good move. So was your decision to have the Klingons be all about racial purity, an apt theme indeed for the current political situation. That moral element to the show is very fitting and I approve.

However, you seem to fail at just about everything else. You've turned the Klingons into orcs. Literally orcs. You could swap the two between their respective franchises and no-one would notice. Hell, I bet you're already being sued for copyright violations on that one.

For some reason - God knows why - you insist on the Klingons speaking Klingon constantly. Why ?!?! Their language is an ugly pile of shite, like listening to a baboon that's being repeatedly jabbed with pain sticks by a sexually enraged silverback gorilla. It's just a series of bizarre monkey noises. No-one wants to hear that. No-one. Especially when it's well-established practise within the franchise to use native alien languages sparingly. Instead you've decided to go for the Star Wars Holiday Special approach. Sigh.

Then there are the humans. It's hard to tell if they're interesting or not, because honestly there's so much lens flare I can't see anything so I've no idea who's speaking. Your instruction to the cinematography department must have been something like, "make it a big glowy thing" for every single scene. You've also dropped the ensemble cast approach of all other Star Trek series, focusing very heavily on just a few characters (who weren't particularly interesting and weren't in the least bit charismatic) at the utter expense of the others.

In keeping with the big glowy thing approach, you insist on angling the camera in a jaunty and highly distracting fashion. I mean, 1995 called and said they want their wonky tripod back. The slightly unsteady cam doesn't work either. Neither does doing a 360 flyaround of cast members - it just makes me dizzy. What's that all about ? Must you supersaturate my senses at all times in case I get so bored that my leg drops off or something ? And, just in case you weren't aware, I hate to tell you but space is mostly black. It isn't full of giant glowy things all over the place. Kindof sucks the meaning of "space" if you're going to cram it chock-full of stuff everywhere as far as the eye can see.

I understand the need to redesign some aspects of the ships, uniforms and aliens of the period. Fair enough. But your choices just don't work. Iconic, memorable designs tend to be clear and simple. The Shenzhou is alright, I suppose, ghastly internal lighting notwithstanding. It looks more-or-less in keeping with basic established Federation ships. The Klingons though... good grief. I'm gonna say this again : they're not orcs. The bat'leth is not a design that needs fundamental altering, nor is a Bird of Prey. They need modernising, sure, but not discarding utterly. As with the cinematography, the approach appears to be, "cram as much stuff on the screen at all times as possible in case anyone actually looks at anything !". This approach is flawed because it doesn't make any sense.

Similarly your storytelling is, simply put, all wrong. You open with an overly-dramatic pair of episodes that might (suitably edited) have worked if they were at the end of the season. You can't start with the high drama, because at this stage absolutely no-one cares about any of the characters. How could they ? There hasn't been time to get to know them yet; they're just ephemeral glowy blob things on a screen. And the violence is somewhat excessive for my tastes : I'm a Game of Thrones fan, but dammit, Star Trek is fundamentally a family show. It's supposed to be primarily about exploration and morality : epic battle scenes and even occasional brutal violence have their place, but not at this level and not so soon. And this is your starting point. Hmmm.

Let us not speak of the court scene where the judges appear as silhouettes behind bright spotlights. Actually yes, let's do that, because it shows very well how heavy-handed your storytelling is. Instead of showing us things that would happen in space in a fictional universe, you're showing us dramatic interpretations of things with extra glowy things. Now, TOS was much more theatrical than the other series, but it abandoned this for the movies. Re-inventing this approach might work, with more subtlety and less glowy things. But since you completely lack subtlety it just made the emphasis on shoddy storytelling all the stronger.

I'm not sure how the rest of the series will proceed, but at the moment it feels like watching an extended movie. I don't want that. I want stories. You didn't give me any of those, you have me a single extended sequence rent with flashbacks. You never bothered to introduce the crew, you just dumped them on us in the middle of a mission. There's a reason no other Star Trek series has tried that. Because it's silly. It's bad storytelling and I don't like it.

Toodle-oo.

28 comments:

  1. I have only watched half of the first episode and had quite similar thoughts ... which is the very reason why I only watched half of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'll watch episode 3... but the end of episode 2 had me verbally screeching, "Neeeoooooo. This isn't how it would happen. This is all wrong !" So I'm not terribly hopeful.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "They're just ephemeral glowy blob things on a screen." for teh win!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The damned arguing with the computer to let her out of the brig scene was painful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, the Klingons look and sound like orks, but hey, we got lens flare. Lots of it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Produce dude: "Where's the circle things?"

    Director: "Circle things? I think you're thinking of Doctor Who."

    Producer dude: "No, those circle things you see in desert movies, to show how hot the sun is. Kids love those things. Let's use a bunch of them, in every scene!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. The worst scene for me was the court hearing. See the judges faces ? Lord no, because everyone in this show is not supposed to be an archetype of some vital element of humanity, much less act with the complexities of real people. No, they're mere crude renderings of random persona strung together without rhyme or reason. It almost seems to revel in the two-dimensional woodenness of the "characters".

    I'm pretty confident that at least one fan, lurking out there somewhere on the vastness of the internet, has written one genuinely good new Star Trek series in full. Well, at least there's a couple more episodes of Star Trek Continues to look forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "And wouldn't the lasers look cooler if we made them slower so we could watch them move from one point to another ? Hey, you know what the Klingon orc ships are missing ? Spikes ! Yeah, more of those !"

    ReplyDelete
  9. After two episodes we haven't even met the new captain yet. Jason Isaacs plays the new captain. He is known from the Harry Potter movies as Lucius Malfoy. And we haven't seen the ship either. Why is it called USS Discovery if the series is a about a war of federation against Klingons ? https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2017/03/07/newest-star-trek-captain-jason-isaacs/98858848/

    ReplyDelete
  10. I cling to a sliver of hope that this is but the introduction to the real phase of the show. Unfortunately it's such a crappy introduction I don't have much hope for the rest of it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Applause, sir. Applause.

    I watched it twice, because I really, really want to like it. Had you gone a different approach, with Michelle Yeoh leading an ensemble cast as Captain... maybe.

    But you know what?

    The totally-Xbox CGI look of Michael's suit scene is NOT CGI. It's real footage that has been so horribly filtered it looks like bad CGI.

    That was the last straw.

    I don't think I even care about what happens to Commander Mike after the trial by 3 backlit XCOM guys.

    ReplyDelete
  12. And you what the icing on the cake is? Nobody at marketing thought too long and hard about the title. Star Trek Discovery's acronym is STD. Uh huh.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry, Rhys Taylor . But I must. You’re a cool guy, but your criticisms here are bad. Here’s why...

    In summary: “this is different and I don’t like things that are different.”

    (TLDR: this is a shotgun-to-the-face breakdown of Rhys’s criticisms. Don’t hate the player, man. Hate the game. :D)

    Ultimately most of the criticism I’ve heard from Trek die hard said has been the result of a very short memory.

    1. Changing the Klingons.
    The Klingons have changed dramatically in every aspect with every new phase of Trek. Go back and watch. Literally always different. And honestly, after the watering down of the Klingons into a namby pamby vaguely-Eastern-philosophy bunch of overacting extras, they needed some “weird” injected back into them.

    2. Lens Flare.
    There’s not that much “lens flare”, guys. Put down the hate meme, it’s giving you the can’t-think-rights. This is a meme. You’re infected by a meme.

    3. The Humans not having enough screen time.
    How about we keep watching beyond the first two episodes. This Trek is taking a different route, and this ship is not the focus of the show, the focus of the show is Burnham. Let’s let people try things otherwise we’re just collectors screaming about taking the toy out of the box.

    4. Space is mostly black. Yes, of course. You’re an astronomer so I suspect you’d know. :) However, if you’re in a ship right next to a big, bright stellar phenomenon...like a binary star...you’re going to get a little overwhelmed when shooting it with a camera. They were going for actual accuracy, not “Star Trek-everything-always-has-perfect-TV-lighting”.
    And honestly, this criticism is so bad, I’m tempted to make you go and write a book report on literally every episode of every Star Trek show that’s ever been produced and explain what’s wrong with space. Remember the “stellar fragment” from “Naked Now”? How about the planet ring in the opening montage of Voyager’s titles? How about the Mutara Nebula? Oh god I could do this all day. Trek’s depiction of space has never been accurate, guys. Ever. Don’t kid yourselves.

    Again...”this is different and I don’t like things that are different.”

    (Side note: ironically, probably the best depiction of stellar phenomena in general was Enterprise. Go back and watch, it’s a better series than everybody remembers. They landed on a comet and everything made actual sense! That was a great episode. If it had been Next Gen there would have been a breathable atmosphere in the comet.)

    5. The storytelling is all wrong. Sorry buddy, but as we’ve established...you’re an astronomer. I’m a writer (a horrible one, but hey I put the work in). The writing is good. At times, even great. Again, “this is different and..etc”. You’re just complaining to complain at this point. It’s not what you would have done? Fair enough. I’m sure they might disagree with how you analyze space data. (One is subjective and the other is not, you might say. But believe me, writing a story is not as subjective as you think. If everybody could do it, everybody would do it. Relatively speaking being a very successful writer is roughly comparable to being a lottery winner.)

    6. The judges, heavyhandedness, etc. Important to note that TOS wasn’t “theatrical” as a creative choice. It was the 60s. Now it’s not the 60s. It’s not 1989. And they can’t spend a zillion dollars to make a Star Trek show that’s only going to appeal to the “stamp collector don’t-touch-Star Trek” fans. They have to make something that doesn’t look like it was shot in 1967 or 1989 or even 2001. Them’s the breaks. We can’t go home again and it’s stupid to try.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Look guys, nobody is forcing you to like it, obviously. Spoiler alert: you were never going to like it unless it had off the rack costumes and featured turtle-on-head Klingons and had alien-maguffin-of-the-week stories that wrap up with a little bow at the end of the episode. (Next Gen. We all just want Next Gen. Hell so do I. )

    The reason it’s taken so long to get a Star Trek series back on TV is because this kind of uber-fan reaction was inevitable and guys like Bryan Fuller, Nick Meyer, etc knew it. Contrary to their own propaganda, the Star Trek fan community is a spiteful, insular, angry little collection of people who spit on everything and everyone that isn’t them. Which is pretty funny considering they idolize the Federation. (Citation: running Star Trek forums for a decade or so.)

    But the studio and producers were walking a tightrope, because even tho they’re trying to make a show for ordinary people to watch, hopefully creating a gateway drug for more Trek, they had to try and manage the uber-fan expectations, because the inevitable “I don’t like things that are different” reaction could poison the well. With a new Star Trek series, the media would do their smarmy “what do the fans think” pieces, which would draw out the nerds complaining about “not liking things that are different” which sparks a news cycle and suddenly the studio reacts and changes things to try and manage expectations.

    Then there’s The Orville. The timing isn’t an accident.

    Seth MacFarlane made the Orville (a horrible show that can’t figure out what it is) because CBS told him he can’t be part of a new Star Trek series. In this case, MacFarlane is the uber-fan like you guys. MacFarlane said “we’ll I’m going to do my own Star Trek, except with blackjack and hookers” and then made what he calls a parody but is essentially a fan film. MacFarlane believes that all your complaints above are correct...and so he’s financed a huge vanity project to say “fuck you” to Discovery. The obviously tacked-on humor is so minimal because he knows he’s about three lines of dialogue away from a lawsuit. (“It’s a parody! See...a joke!” I’m not kidding. So close to litigious content.)

    But Orville is in once sense a brilliant investment because it did one thing very well (and MacFarlane knew it would): it’s sweeping up the “I don’t like things that are different” Star Trek fans who are holding their nose at Discovery. Mission accomplished there. But it won’t last long. It’s already dissolving.


    Anywho, still love ya, Rhys. Your one of the few posters on Plus I even pay attention to anymore. But your criticism isn’t really criticism, per se. You don’t like Discovery, which is perfectly fine! There’s plenty I wasn’t happy with either. But it’s just nostalgia talking. We really can’t go home again. Hopefully Discovery will be a decent gateway drug that keeps new people discovering the history of Trek, and that’ll keep the franchise alive.

    Okay. You may all now commence the 2 Minutes hate. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Christopher Butler you're a condescending little fuck who happens to be wrong. Cheerio.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Aaron Gilliland correct. The right response to dissent, and the choice to see tongue-in-cheek humor as “condescending”, is name calling.

    Or you could, you know, make a point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't think we share a common framework within which to argue. Your wrongness is manifest.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I liked it, except for the mutiny part. If they just cut that one or two minutes out, Michael's advice would have been bad enough - her captain is dead, and there lies the martyr. She could be facing a court martial, even as acting captain.

    Honestly, can you imagine anyone who mutinied like that and was sentenced to life in prison in a permissive, rehab-oriented society, , to ever be allowed to captain a starship, even with a Presidential pardon and whatever trick they plan to get her back in the chair?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Christopher Butler Yo dawg, herd you like criticism, so I'll criticise your criticism of my criticism...

    Sir, your critique is flawed !

    1) What you say is true. But as I said, these designs need modernising, not completely revamping. They have to be changed, I get that. But good, iconic designs overwhelmingly tend to be clean and simple. The new Klingons are anything but, and while I'm a big fan of adding random spikes on things... they went too far. They look like Daedra that have found themselves in the wrong franchise.

    2) You're wrong. Don't make me try and objectively measure the amount of lens flare, because it's seriously bad. It obfuscates what's happening, a blatant attempt to distract the viewer rather than add to the drama. Lens flare is unpopular for a reason. Tilting the camera at a jaunty angle went out of fashion for a reason. Unsteady cam, grainy film, well-framed shots and a host of other techniques all have their place when used appropriately. Lens flare and angled shots, however, are like the Comic Sans of the cinematography world. This was forgivable in the 2005 reboot of Doctor Who, but come on, we've learned a few things since then. Swirling the camera round the main characters is a terrible filming technique. Not everything should be in motion all the time. Sometimes I just want to watch what's going on.

    3) No fair, I didn't say this at all ! I actually like the approach of giving the other species more screen time. As I said, I thought the approach of making the Klingons racial purists was good and apt for the times in which we live. What they say is quite interesting, but how they say it is through a series of crude grunts that are simply ugly on the ear. They might as well be saying, "oook oook oook oook oook." It's Discworld librarian speech is what it is.
    IIRC Michael Dorn had the daring idea of doing a show set on a Klingon ship. I'd be fine with that, but not if they're gonna say "oook" in an angry tone for 45 minutes of my life.

    4) You're correct, but you're making too much of this. Of course Trek is not a documentary and never has been. This criticism must be understood in proper context. Not only is every interior scene completely washed out with bloom and excessive visual details, but so is space. I don't want them to do a hyper-realistic Trek with no sound in space and invisible phaser beams - that would just plain suck. But filling the entirety of the screen with colours at all times is excessive and completely unnecessary. It doesn't add anything, it just distracts. That's their whole approach here : blind the viewer with shiny things in the hope that they don't notice what's going on.

    5) No sir, a thousands times no ! This is by far and away my most important point, not a complaint for the sake of it at all ! The "characters" in the show do not feel in the slightest like real people to me, nor do they resemble the different archetypal aspects of humanity so wonderfully rendered in previous Trek incarnations. They just feel like primitive facades and clichés who have been made to walk around and say things because the writers wanted them to. There's no humanity or believably about any of them. See, the thing is there's not really anyone I dislike. I don't feel anything for them, which is much worse. Throwing a bunch of people I know absolutely nothing about into a dramatic life-or-death scenario is manifestly and objectively bad storytelling. You have to get to know them first, or it's meaningless. This is not a remotely credible way to begin. As I said, it might have made a decent series finale but not a pilot.

    6) See 5 and others, they're all interlinked.

    It's not that it's different. Different is necessary... but it didn't have to be that

    ReplyDelete
  20. . It's crossed the line from "inventive and innovative" into the realm of "just making stuff up". There are certain things Trek must do in order to remain Trek, and if it doesn't do that then there's no point continuing the franchise. Thus far I see precious little evidence that the ethos of the show has survived the reboot. There are glimmers that will keep me watching episode 3, but I'm strongly skeptical.

    The "you don't like it because it's different" idea is much the same as the popular political notion that "you're only saying that because you don't like who said it". Well, no. I don't like who said it precisely because of the things they say, not the other way around ! I don't like this show because it doesn't feel like Trek to me, yet purports to be so. It had me audibly whining (yes, whining I say ! whining isn't always wrong !) at the screen because things wouldn't happen that way in the Trek universe. I don't like what they've done to the show not because it's different, but because it's so qualitatively (not quantitatively) different that they've missed the whole point of the show.

    Well anyway, I'd chink a beer glass with you but it's 9 in the morning, so imagine my rebuttal accompanied by chinking a mug of tea in the good-natured way in which this is intended. :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. The lens flare is not too bad. The bloom is terrible because every scene seems to have a fluorescent tube behind someone's head. I've playex video games with better bloom.

    They also switch contrast profiles in mid-scene (about 9:40, in the ready room) to make it all grimdark and makes everyone

    But the real problems are:
    1. Mutiny by a starfleet officer. Even the Marquis followed orders. Oh, and if Mike wanted to "save" everyone why not follow Saru's advice and go to warp? Then also there's Mike being a bigot.
    2. The notion that "kicking them in the balls" is the appropriate greeting. And somehow the Vulcans chose to withhold this useful information from the Federation (they ARE the Federation). Also, Babylon 5 "gun ports open" anyone?
    3. They start off with EXACTLY the same premise as Into Darkness, including a starship in atmo for all the natives to see and Captain Girogiou is a model Captain?
    4. Apparently the Klingons are a bunch of idiots who just need a magic space torch to unite their empire and simply need to set up a chant to agree on stuff. And where did their hair go again? They had it in Enterprise.

    Yeah I could go on but the point is I can forgive lens flares and don't mind the Space Orcs even... but this is Jessica Jones in space. Without being good.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Rhys Taylor I think we’re required to duel now, sir. I’ll meet you in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean! (That should be about halfway) :D Also, the beer is on me!

    ReplyDelete

Due to a small but consistent influx of spam, comments will now be checked before publishing. Only egregious spam/illegal/racist crap will be disapproved, everything else will be published.

Whose cloud is it anyway ?

I really don't understand the most militant climate activists who are also opposed to geoengineering . Or rather, I think I understand t...