Star Trek - Space: The Final Frontier

[White Devil]

They are making a fourth season? Why?

Same reason why CW's Batwoman got renewed. They have an agenda, bigot.

 

[AnOminous]

They are making a fourth season? Why?

To own the chuds and lose money.

 

[BScCollateral]

It's been brought up before, but I really wonder what sort of con is going on here. How are they making money on this? People subscribe, hate it, and like their other stuff?

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

Undiscovered Country is still good but I was surprised at how quickly the movie flew by. Chancellor Gorkon, a character central to the whole plot, appears on screen for what feels like less than 10 minutes and barely gets any interaction with Kirk. I actually wanted the movie to focus more on the diplomacy plot but Chang's betrayal happens so quickly. Then the meh jailbreak plot takes over which to be honest I never totally cared for. Even if Rura Penthe is a reference to one of my favorite movies. Its still one of the better Trek movies but its a lot thinner than I remembered. Maybe I let the epic score color my opinion of it too much.

I always thought that by making Chang a traitor, the movie actually wasted a great opportunity.
I think it would have made for a neat nuance to his character, if he just happened to be opposed to working together with Starfleet and doing what he thinks best, but not being involved with the coup itself and upon learning about it, honoring Gorkon by going through with his plans to work together with Starfleet. Basically, using him a bit as a red hering with his anti-starfleet rhetoric and showcasing his own character growth when he starts to open up to Starfleet after they help unveil the coup within the ranks of Klingon politics.
Of course, you'd need another traitor on the Klingon's side, but that would have been easy to add. To me, making Chang a traitor was too straightforward...

 

[Exceptionally Exceptional]

I always thought that by making Chang a traitor, the movie actually wasted a great opportunity.
I think it would have made for a neat nuance to his character, if he just happened to be opposed to working together with Starfleet and doing what he thinks best, but not being involved with the coup itself and upon learning about it, honoring Gorkon by going through with his plans to work together with Starfleet. Basically, using him a bit as a red hering with his anti-starfleet rhetoric and showcasing his own character growth when he starts to open up to Starfleet after they help unveil the coup within the ranks of Klingon politics.
Of course, you'd need another traitor on the Klingon's side, but that would have been easy to add. To me, making Chang a traitor was too straightforward...

That would have been distinctly Klingon.

"I don't like Starfleet and don't want to work with them!"

"Oh hey, neither do we! So we're going to perform a coup and install you as Chancellor!"

"You're going to what?! Dishonorable faggots! I shall now agree to work with Starfleet out of sheer spite!"

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

"Representation matters. It matters to see a version of yourself on screen. It matters there are non-binary and transgender characters. It matters that there is a Black woman in the captain's chair. It matters that there is a gay couple on our show. We will continue to do that for the show, and the world we live in, but also, to honor the Star Trek legacy. And to be super clear, we will pay that moment off in Season 4. Gray will be seen. That promise will be paid off"

I'd love to hear the answer to the question:
"Why?"

Seriously, why does it matter? Something about validating people by giving them a character that embodies them... and this somehow empowers them. It still looks utterly sociopathic to me, that some people go "This character does not look like me and does not use the same labels, therefore I can not emotionally connect to him".

That would have been distinctly Klingon.

"I don't like Starfleet and don't want to work with them!"

"Oh hey, neither do we! So we're going to perform a coup and install you as Chancellor!"

"You're going to what?! Dishonorable faggots! I shall now agree to work with Starfleet out of sheer spite!"

Hey, come on, maybe he just needs a good reason to finally get those guys to duel him with Bat'leths.
The whole thing would need a few plot-tweaks, of course. Like making Chang close to Gorkon, both are critical of Starfleet, but Gorkon is more of a pragmatic politician, who understands the need to work with them to avoid a humanitarian crisis in their Empire, while Chang would rather go the hard route without Starfleet, to retain the Klingon empire's independence. Chang becomes much more of a hardass towards Starfleet, when he still thinks it was Kirk (possibly acting on orders by Starfleet) to kill Gorkon, punishes Kirk the way he seems fit (which makes him look like the villain to the audience).
When Starfleet then helps uncover the true circumstances of the assassination, Chang gets pissed at the conspirators amongst his own ranks, partially cause they killed Gorkon and partially cause they used him as a pawn.

That's just a very, very basic and rough outline, but "Chang is a bad guy... turns out, he's the villain" is less interesting than "Chang is a bad guy... turns out, he's not a villain, he was just mislead." It would make the whole Starfleet/Klingon thing a little less lovey-dovey if we learn that it's a union born of necessity, not of mutual understanding, and both sides are critical and cautious about it. And given the opportunity for later movies and TV shows, an uneasy peace would be a great setpiece for a sequel.

 

[Jones McCann]

Started watching The Orville yesterday, I really like it so far. Despite the humor, cussing and modern dialect it's actually a way better Star Trek than anything in the past 15 years that actually has the Star Trek name. Definitely gonna be watching all the seasons. The critics really hate it because it's not an identity driven piece of shit where the character development is "she's black!", but who gives a fuck about them. I'm really enjoying it.

 

[RumblyTumbly]

Started watching The Orville yesterday, I really like it so far. Despite the humor, cussing and modern dialect it's actually a way better Star Trek than anything in the past 15 years that actually has the Star Trek name. Definitely gonna be watching all the seasons. The critics really hate it because it's not an identity driven piece of shit where the character development is "she's black!", but who gives a fuck about them. I'm really enjoying it.

I learned in 2016 with the Ghostbusters reboot that critics can not be trusted in the modern age. They are there to parrot the agenda they are expected to push, either willingly or against their will, feeling as if they have to say the right thing to keep getting paid.

 

[Van Darkholme]

They are making a fourth season? Why?

Because otherwise the overpaid, creatively bankrupt hollywood jews in charge would be serving you a frappucino somewhere in LA instead.

Btw I checked: despite her fake sounding name, Michelle Paradise is not a tranny, but just a lesbian.

 

[Travoltron]

That would have been distinctly Klingon.

There was that episode of TNG where Riker is told that it's acceptable for a Klingon first officer to kill his captain if he feels the captain isn't fit for duty. Chang killing Gorkon could kind of be excused under that mindset. However, Chang kills him via conspiracy instead of directly, which seems very Romulan and dishonorable.

But I always found that part of the TNG episode implausible. I don't see how a culture could keep an orderly military if people were literally backstabbing each other. My headcanon is that if killing your superior leads your mission to glory, you are rewarded. If you lead to failure, you are executed as a traitor and your house is dishonored.

 

[Standardized Profile]

A lot of things are "acceptable" but very rare and risky, even in human societies. If I have reason to believe someone has committed a felony, I can make a citizen's arrest. In reality, given the risk of prosecution and a civil suit if my action isn't absolutely blameless--not to mention the possibility that the arrestee will pull a gun and shoot me--I don't think I'm ever going to citizen's arrest anyone. Same principle for Klingons killing their bosses; even if they survive the combat and the legal scrutiny, the dead Klingon's house will go on the warpath until they feel honor has been restored.

 

[L50LasPak]

I always thought that by making Chang a traitor, the movie actually wasted a great opportunity.
I think it would have made for a neat nuance to his character, if he just happened to be opposed to working together with Starfleet and doing what he thinks best, but not being involved with the coup itself and upon learning about it, honoring Gorkon by going through with his plans to work together with Starfleet. Basically, using him a bit as a red hering with his anti-starfleet rhetoric and showcasing his own character growth when he starts to open up to Starfleet after they help unveil the coup within the ranks of Klingon politics.
Of course, you'd need another traitor on the Klingon's side, but that would have been easy to add. To me, making Chang a traitor was too straightforward...

That's just a very, very basic and rough outline, but "Chang is a bad guy... turns out, he's the villain" is less interesting than "Chang is a bad guy... turns out, he's not a villain, he was just mislead." It would make the whole Starfleet/Klingon thing a little less lovey-dovey if we learn that it's a union born of necessity, not of mutual understanding, and both sides are critical and cautious about it. And given the opportunity for later movies and TV shows, an uneasy peace would be a great setpiece for a sequel.

I think you guys are actually missing the point of Chang's character. From the moment we first meet him he's clearly delighted and fascinated by human culture, seeing them as worthy foes. He quotes Shakespeare out of admiration and not, as some complete idiots who misinterpreted that scene think, because Klingons believe some kind of revisionist conspiracy theory that Shakespeare was actually a Klingon. He's thrilled with the idea of actually battling Kirk at the end and hams it up appropriately.

Also watch what he does throughout the movie as the conspiracy unfolds. He doesn't seize power or make any obvious attempts to overrule Gorkon's daughter when she takes over. Overall he still appears to be loyal to the empire. Chang is fundamentally opposed to the idea of peace with Starfleet because he sees it as unnatural. He holds no personal hatred or vendetta against humans, he just wants the glory of war and combat against a worthy opponent. The peace treaty proposed would easily put the Klingon Empire in a bad spot against the Federation, possibly even neutering it as a competing power, meaning that chance to fight the Federation would be lost forever. By TNG, this is pretty much exactly what happened; the Romulans are now the bigger threat and the Klingons are joke space vikings that don't become dangerous again until DS9.

Its perhaps not as satisfying to the narrative overall to have Chang turn out the way he does, but it definitely fits his character and what we know about Klingon warrior thinking the way it plays out. Its also what makes Chang so memorable as a villain too; he wants a good war and for the Empire to go out on its own terms.

 

[RomanesEuntDomus]

I think you guys are actually missing the point of Chang's character. From the moment we first meet him he's clearly delighted and fascinated by human culture, seeing them as worthy foes. He quotes Shakespeare out of admiration and, as some complete idiots who misinterpreted that scene think, because Klingons believe some kind of revisionist conspiracy theory that Shakespeare was actually a Klingon. He's thrilled with the idea of actually battling Kirk at the end and hams it up appropriately.

Also watch what he does throughout the movie as the conspiracy unfolds. He doesn't seize power or make any obvious attempts to overrule Gorkon's daughter when she takes over. Overall he still appears to be loyal to the empire. Chang is fundamentally opposed to the idea of peace with Starfleet because he sees it as unnatural. He holds no personal hatred or vendetta against humans, he just wants the glory of war and combat against a worthy opponent. The peace treaty proposed would easily put the Klingon Empire in a bad spot against the Federation, possibly even neutering it as a competing power, meaning that chance to fight the Federation would be lost forever. By TNG, this is pretty much exactly what happened; the Romulans are now the bigger threat and the Klingons are joke space vikings that don't become dangerous again until DS9.

Its perhaps not as satisfying to the narrative overall to have Chang turn out the way he does, but it definitely fits his character and what we know about Klingon warrior thinking the way it plays out. Its also what makes Chang so memorable as a villain too; he wants a good war and for the Empire to go out on its own terms.

Well, Chang is a well-written character in the way you describe him, a Klingon looking for a worthy foe, so that's cool... but I still feel that narratively speaking, not making him the villain would still make him more interesting. Especially given that all the things you describe aren't mutually exclusive with what I suggested, I think.

Be that as it may, Chang is still one of the better ST villains, not as great as KHAAAAAN but still.

It will take ST decades to come up with a villain even just a quarter as great as Chang.

 

[Rumpled Foreskin]

Sorry for the trip down nostalgia lane. I was boobing around, and watching random clips of DS9 and Next Generation. The following clip popped up and reminded me about why Star Trek tng is so good. You have Patrick Stuart in a Star Trek setting where it most honestly centers on the Prime Directive.

 

[40 Year Old Boomer]

There was that episode of TNG where Riker is told that it's acceptable for a Klingon first officer to kill his captain if he feels the captain isn't fit for duty. Chang killing Gorkon could kind of be excused under that mindset. However, Chang kills him via conspiracy instead of directly, which seems very Romulan and dishonorable.

But I always found that part of the TNG episode implausible. I don't see how a culture could keep an orderly military if people were literally backstabbing each other. My headcanon is that if killing your superior leads your mission to glory, you are rewarded. If you lead to failure, you are executed as a traitor and your house is dishonored.

They dealt with this on an episode of DS9 where Worf was temporarily serving under Martok and a good old fashioned duel for supremacy helped him get his juices flowing again. It was less conspiracy and backstabbing and more "you're being a little bitch, let's stab each other because it's good for morale".

 

[ditto]

They dealt with this on an episode of DS9 where Worf was temporarily serving under Martok and a good old fashioned duel for supremacy helped him get his juices flowing again. It was less conspiracy and backstabbing and more "you're being a little bitch, let's stab each other because it's good for morale".

The first DS9 Alexander episode was basically the Klingon version of the MDE bullying sketch.

 

[rabo]

I think you guys are actually missing the point of Chang's character. From the moment we first meet him he's clearly delighted and fascinated by human culture, seeing them as worthy foes. He quotes Shakespeare out of admiration and not, as some complete idiots who misinterpreted that scene think, because Klingons believe some kind of revisionist conspiracy theory that Shakespeare was actually a Klingon. He's thrilled with the idea of actually battling Kirk at the end and hams it up appropriately.

Also watch what he does throughout the movie as the conspiracy unfolds. He doesn't seize power or make any obvious attempts to overrule Gorkon's daughter when she takes over. Overall he still appears to be loyal to the empire. Chang is fundamentally opposed to the idea of peace with Starfleet because he sees it as unnatural. He holds no personal hatred or vendetta against humans, he just wants the glory of war and combat against a worthy opponent. The peace treaty proposed would easily put the Klingon Empire in a bad spot against the Federation, possibly even neutering it as a competing power, meaning that chance to fight the Federation would be lost forever. By TNG, this is pretty much exactly what happened; the Romulans are now the bigger threat and the Klingons are joke space vikings that don't become dangerous again until DS9.

Its perhaps not as satisfying to the narrative overall to have Chang turn out the way he does, but it definitely fits his character and what we know about Klingon warrior thinking the way it plays out. Its also what makes Chang so memorable as a villain too; he wants a good war and for the Empire to go out on its own terms.

Chang was right.

The Klingon once allied with the Federation lost a worthy foe, the Romulans are too sneaky and underhanded for glorious war. Humans don't have Klingon honor but they have principles that made great foes, we might not be honorable, but for the most part, Federation stock are brave people willing to die in battle for what they believe in.

TNG Era Klingons have grown stagnant, itching for glorious war, but nobody to fight. That's also why they were so easy to manipulate into going back to war with Humans in DS9 and so eager to go to war with the Dominion.

if they're not at war, then they basically sit there and let P'takh's like Duras nearly take over the empire. While at war, great men like Martok come to light.

Klingons thrive with war, simple as that.

 

[Van Darkholme]

While being bored at work I thought about STD and if there's been any actual background building with its characters (except Saru, he got a whole Short Trek episode after) after three seasons. Like, what do we know about Tilly for example, except that she's a fat ginger who likes science? What did she do before joining Discovery? Why join Starfleet? Where was she born? Who are her parents? We don't know. Or any other senior staff member that isn't Burnham? You know that asian and that black guy on the bridge? I still don't know their names. Detmer? I don't know why she's there or what her implant actually does, they never told us. The lack things like character building makes it hard for the audience to connect to them.

The old shows etablished the backgrounds of their characters. TNG told us where Data was found and who build him and how and why he wants to become more human in a matter of episodes and its built upon during the whole run. Kira was a guerilla fighter and basically a terrorist during the cardassian occupation of Bajor, she still resents the cardis and she's pretty religious too. Fuck, even Wesley had more background story than any of the STD characters.

 

[King Dead]

While being bored at work I thought about STD and if there's been any actual background building with its characters (except Saru, he got a whole Short Trek episode after) after three seasons. Like, what do we know about Tilly for example, except that she's a fat ginger who likes science? What did she do before joining Discovery? Why join Starfleet? Where was she born? Who are her parents? We don't know. Or any other senior staff member that isn't Burnham? You know that asian and that black guy on the bridge? I still don't know their names. Detmer? I don't know why she's there or what her implant actually does, they never told us. The lack things like character building makes it hard for the audience to connect to them.

The old shows etablished the backgrounds of their characters. TNG told us where Data was found and who build him and how and why he wants to become more human in a matter of episodes and its built upon during the whole run. Kira was a guerilla fighter and basically a terrorist during the cardassian occupation of Bajor, she still resents the cardis and she's pretty religious too. Fuck, even Wesley had more background story than any of the STD characters.

Your mistake is in viewing STD as anything other than The Michael Burnham Show. Nobody else in the cast is anywhere near as important as Michael Burnham, they're really meant to serve as nothing more than window dressing because they couldn't figure out how to have an entire starship crewed by solely Michael Burnham (unless it was with a bunch of Michael Burnham clones, so look forward to that in season 4). Whenever Michael Burnham isn't on screen, all the other characters should be asking, "where's Michael Burnham?"

That, and the writers are talentless hacks who don't understand the purpose of providing backstories to characters, or why a Star Trek series is not where you should focus all your efforts on a single character at the expense of all others.

 

[Van Darkholme]

Oh yeah I forgot, stronk black independent woman and all, stupid me. Also white, hetero and male.