Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[Bowser]

Maybe it's overkill having a thread for this, but meh.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Sometimes I forget how you love to argue just for the sake of arguing.

"Updating the 60s stuff" and "supersizing" aren't the same thing. Redesigning the bridge is updating. Turning a slow, hulking brute into a velociraptor that infects its victims with its larvae is supersizing.

It's not arguing for the sake of arguing to point out that it is rather silly to complain about a 2020s show not sticking with the ridiculous Gorn design from a 1960s television show with next to no budget. Of course things like that are going to be updated, how could they not?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

It's not arguing for the sake of arguing to point out that it is rather silly to complain about a 2020s show not sticking with the ridiculous Gorn design from a 1960s television show with next to no budget. Of course things like that are going to be updated, how could they not?

Again, you're so busy being obtuse that you completely miss the point. Of course you can update things. That is to be expected. I mentioned the bridge before - that is perhaps the coolest thing in Star Trek ever. Hell, I didn't care that they altered the look of the Klingons in the first movie, or the Romulans in NG. But changing the entire nature of something goes far beyond updating. The updated Klingons just had long hair, bad teeth and ridges on their foreheads - they weren't suddenly ten feet tall with tentacles sprouting out of their backs. They could have made menacing CGI Gorns that are better and more realistic than some guy stomping around in a green costume 55 years ago that didn't completely piss on established canon.

Explain how Kirk, alone and unarmed, could survive against an "updated" Gorn long enough to locate and identify the components of gunpowder, and then construct a bamboo mortar. Good luck with that. I guess they could just supersize him into Captain America or Superman; that would be as silly as what they've already done, but hey, modern audiences, right?

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Frazod

Again, you're so busy being obtuse that you completely miss the point. Of course you can update things. That is to be expected. I mentioned the bridge before - that is perhaps the coolest thing in Star Trek ever. Hell, I didn't care that they altered the look of the Klingons in the first movie, or the Romulans in NG. But changing the entire nature of something goes far beyond updating. The updated Klingons just had long hair, bad teeth and ridges on their foreheads - they weren't suddenly ten feet tall with tentacles sprouting out of their backs. They could have made menacing CGI Gorns that are better and more realistic than some guy stomping around in a green costume 55 years ago that didn't completely piss on established canon.

Explain how Kirk, alone and unarmed, could survive against an "updated" Gorn long enough to locate and identify the components of gunpowder, and then construct a bamboo mortar. Good luck with that. I guess they could just supersize him into Captain America or Superman; that would be as silly as what they've already done, but hey, modern audiences, right?

Hold up, you're calling someone else obtuse when you're bitching about SNW altering canon by changing a ridiculous Gorn design from a 1960s no-budget television show to something actually threatening and menacing 60 years later?

This is literally the last thing anybody should be dwelling on, particularly given how effective both the Gorn-related episodes have been.

[KC_Connection]

For some reason I'm reminded of this Simpsons scene.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by Frazod

I'm quite sure I know what I want, and I've been fairly clear about it. I want more of the things that made me actually like Star Trek. More exploration. More space battles. A good recurring villain would be nice.

I should also point out that the the season finale the very next week actually had all three of those and it still wasn't enough to stop the bitching about how it wasn't enough like the 1960s TV show.

Again, if you want pure TOS, just watch TOS. The rest of us can enjoy SNW for what it is (a very good science fiction show that is the best Trek depiction in 25 years).

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Hold up, you're calling someone else obtuse when you're bitching about SNW altering canon by changing a ridiculous Gorn design from a 1960s no-budget television show to something actually threatening and menacing 60 years later?

This is literally the last thing anybody should be dwelling on, particularly given how effective both the Gorn-related episodes have been.

If they can't effectively offer an updated version of something from existing content, then leave it alone. Do it well or don't do it.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

For some reason I'm reminded of this Simpsons scene.

And for some reason, I'm reminded of this.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If they can't effectively offer an updated version of something from existing content, then leave it alone. Do it well or don't do it.

If you’re referring to the Gorn depictions in SNW, they did it phenomenally well. They made what was effectively long considered a joke into something terrorizing.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

If you’re referring to the Gorn depictions in SNW, they did it phenomenally well. They made what was effectively long considered a joke into something terrorizing.

No, they didn't. They created something new in the franchise and gave it the name of something that already existed. The new thing is fun because it hasn't been in Star Trek yet - because it was stolen from the Aliens franchise.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by listopencil

No, they didn't.

Yes, they did. Both Gorn episodes have met with high acclaim and the reason for that is that the vast majority of people who watch SNW aren't looking for any reason they can find to attack the show solely because it doesn't have the look and feel of a 1960s TV no-budget show.

They created something new in the franchise and gave it the name of something that already existed. The new thing is fun because it hasn't been in Star Trek yet - because it was stolen from the Aliens franchise.

This came up last year too here and I have yet to understand why giving the Gorn a similar design to the monsters from the Aliens franchise is a bad thing.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by listopencil

If they can't effectively offer an updated version of something from existing content, then leave it alone. Do it well or don't do it.

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

If you’re referring to the Gorn depictions in SNW, they did it phenomenally well. They made what was effectively long considered a joke into something terrorizing.

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Yes, they did. Both Gorn episodes have met with high acclaim and the reason for that is that the vast majority of people who watch SNW aren't looking for any reason they can find to attack the show solely because it doesn't have the look and feel of a 1960s TV no-budget show.


This came up last year too here and I have yet to understand why giving the Gorn a similar design to the monsters from the Aliens franchise is a bad thing.

What you're doing here is employing a straw man (arguing against a narrative rather than what has been brought up) and gatekeeping (trying to squash opposing views as being unworthy of discussion). Try engaging in honest discussion and perhaps you won't be confused.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by listopencil

What you're doing here is employing a straw man (arguing against a narrative rather than what has been brought up)

No, I'm arguing against exactly what has been brought up (that SNW has allegedly done a poor job with their depiction of the Gorn because it isn't enough like the silly design from a 1960s show that had long been considered a joke amongst the fans). Ironically, it is you that are an employing a straw man now.

and gatekeeping (trying to squash opposing views as being unworthy of discussion).

Guilty as charged. Anybody who is actually bitching about something as ridiculous as this after a great episode like that is never going to give SNW a fair shot anyway because it doesn't fit their own personal image of Star Trek.

[KC_Connection]

Also, I'm still waiting to hear why making the Gorn's design similar to the monsters from the Alien franchise is a bad thing. It's a proven formula and it has worked very effectively on this show so far as well.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

No, I'm arguing against exactly what has been brought up (that SNW has allegedly done a poor job with their depiction of the Gorn because it isn't enough like the silly design from a 1960s show that had long been considered a joke amongst the fans). Ironically, it is you that are an employing a straw man now.

Nope. ST:TOS is history, it is what it is. The challenge in making another entry into the franchise is in either developing what already exists or bringing in something new that fits the show. If they're going to develop what already exists then don't take short cuts - do it well or don't do it, as I have already said. No one has said that they must be exactly as they originally were, but if the show is going to make the decision to reuse them then it's their obligation to make it work. Doing something completely different and slapping a Gorn nametag on it is lazy.

Guilty as charged. Anybody who is actually bitching about something as ridiculous as this after a great episode like that is never going to give SNW a fair shot anyway because it doesn't fit their own personal image of Star Trek.

Nope. It has nothing to do with my own personal image of Star Trek. The Gorn as they were in ST:TOS simply exist. The Gorn as they are in ST:SNW are nothing like them.

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Also, I'm still waiting to hear why making the Gorn's design similar to the monsters from the Alien franchise is a bad thing. It's a proven formula and it has worked very effectively on this show so far as well.

Because that isn't the Gorn. It's something completely different. If they wanted to bring in a bad guy like that, nothing was stopping them from doing it. It's another weak storytelling shortcut.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Nope. ST:TOS is history, it is what it is.

Yes, TOS is history and is very much a product of its time. That is exactly the point and has been the point when judging a show made 60 years later for an entirely different audience.

The challenge in making another entry into the franchise is in either developing what already exists or bringing in something new that fits the show. If they're going to develop what already exists then don't take short cuts - do it well or don't do it, as I have already said. No one has said that they must be exactly as they originally were, but if the show is going to make the decision to reuse them then it's their obligation to make it work. Doing something completely different and slapping a Gorn nametag on it is lazy.

Again, if you're talking about the Gorn, they did develop what already existed and they did it exceptionally well. They took an old, ridiculous design of a villain that had been considered little more than a joke for decades and made it a serious brutal threat to the Federation. You don't need to look any further than the near-universal acclaim for both Gorn episodes (including here with with a recent comment to your own praise suggesting that it was "pretty well pitch perfect").

Nope. It has nothing to do with my own personal image of Star Trek. The Gorn as they were in ST:TOS simply exist. The Gorn as they are in ST:SNW are nothing like them.

An alien that is a dog dressed up in a funny little costume with a horn also exists in TOS too. That doesn't mean any Star Trek these days should be held to the same budget/design constraints or shouldn't update them to fit a TV show made in 2023.

Because that isn't the Gorn. It's something completely different. If they wanted to bring in a bad guy like that, nothing was stopping them from doing it. It's another weak storytelling shortcut.

Why isn't it the Gorn? Because it doesn't fit a ridiculous design from a no-budget 1960s TV show (that Roddenberry no doubt would have altered himself had they had the money/technology to do so)? They have re-imagined its design to fit a modern show with a modern audience and created two of the best Trek episodes in decades. What the hell is there to bitch about?