Here's the Midnight's Edge somewhat grim news about StarTrek Discovery. Looks like it's already in trouble.
https://youtu.be/Km5qVwZvjm8
To be honest I'm not really that interested in the show, but weren't there a lot of delays & behind the scenes issues with Westworld? That turned out ok!
Jason Isaac's is the new Captain in Star Trek Discovery.
http://deadline.com/2017/03/star-trek-discovery-captain-jason-isaacs-cast-1202038246/
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 08 March, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
Jason Isaac's is the new Captain in Star Trek Discovery.
http://deadline.com/2017/03/star-trek-discovery-captain-jason-isaacs-cast-1202038246/
Isaac is a fantastic actor, so that's at least some good news.
That's good news, loved his voice work in Rebels and the Potter connection has to bring in a few viewers.
Call me old-fashioned if you will, but I consider it good form to have the captain in place before the ship starts sinking.
Did I read somewhere that the Captain is not the actual focus of the show this time? That seems like a reasonable idea - especially meaning a relatively in-demand/big name like JI can dip in and out of episodes as schedule demands.
Plus it might make for a few different stories to tell (so long as they don't just tell the same stories from a slightly different point of view).
After last night's viewing of Voyager's Season 2 nadir 'Threshold', I'm prepared for anything.
(Although it has to be said that the whole family had great fun role-playing the script meeting. "And then the giant Paris and Janeway newts (that are humanity's evolutionary destiny because of Warp 10 being infinite velocity or something) mate and have little newts? And the Doctor just bombards all their cells with anti-protons and they turn back into their human selves no harm done and Janeway gives a little speech about how ace Tom is even when he isn't a sexually-desirable axolotl and roll end credits? Genius!'. Discovery has a long way to go to beat that for edgy socially-progressive teatime SF drama.
We particularly enjoyed the bit where halfway-house Paris pulls his own tongue out. It gave us hope, cruelly dashed.)
Robert Duncan McNeil said of the episode "When I first read that script, I couldn't believe they were going to shoot it." And Robert Duncan McNeil was in the Masters of the Universe movie - on purpose.
I picture the actual script meeting as going thusly:
Brannon Braga: "I have this great idea for a script - Tom Paris drives his space car too fast and it turns him into a walrus. (blank and/or concerned stares) I'M THE PRODUCER WE ARE DOING THIS AND HISTORY WILL BE MY JUDGE."
Heh! But then 'tonight's' episode, the very next one aired, is Brad Dourif's debut as Crewman/Ensign Suder in 'Meld', which is about as good as Star Trek gets. So there is always hope.
A few thoughts on what was said on that YouTube clip, noting they were stated as rumours and to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I really don't get why you would want to set the show between Enterprise and TOS. All that would do to my mind is limit what you can do for example in terms of what aliens can be in it. Enterprise suffered from that, for instance you couldn't have the Borg, until they shoe horned them in anyway. It also limits what you can do with the wider political environment e.g. The relationship between Earth and the Vulcans, Romulans and Klingons.
I can totally understand the wish to have the coolest hi tech ships etc. That had always been a big part of Star Trek for me and hence was something I found lacking in Enterprise. (And yes I know it gives scope for drama e.g. going into battle with rubbishy shields). But you can't have that if you set the show in that period so that's one reason to start messing with the timeline. But that in itself is in my opinion a really bad idea and just ties the whole thing in knots before it has even started.
I don't understand why you wouldn't just set it after TNG and give yourself a free hand. Other than confusion with the current film series I guess. But the road they are reportedly going down suffers from that even more so.
Anyway as I said that's all based on rumours so hopefully they are not true.
Personally I would like nothing better than a new Star Trek TV show so let's hope it happens.
There's still plenty of unknown stuff in that time period though. As long as they keep the series finite in length ( i.e one or two series before dealing with another time period in another show) they should have enough scope to play with. This is the early days of the formation of the Federation so I'd imagine there could be a lot of political and negotiation stuff going on. They may still be dealing with the aftermath of the Earth/Romulan war too, which I believe happened between the Enterprise and Star Trek time periods. (Sigh. Why did they have to cancel Enterprise early? It would likely have dealt with that war....)
The lower tech doesn't bother me, but then I enjoyed Enterprise.
Yes good points but I don't see why you would make a series that could only last 2 seasons. For example DS9 was only getting good at that point and the later series were by far the best.
Another thing about the tech in Enterpride was it had to look noughties not 60s but be less advanced than TOS. I guess it did that but it did require a bit of suspension of disbelief. But hey you are always going to get that with tech e.g. Tablets in TOS not a patch on an iPad etc. But on the other hand it is actually remarkable they even thought of a tablet in the 60s plus speech recognition plus data crystals (USB memory sticks).
So this is going to be another prequel series. Why FFS?
Quote from: JLC on 11 March, 2017, 10:35:45 AM
So this is going to be another prequel series. Why FFS?
Apparently, it's set about 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise crew went boldly. As for why- greed to make more money! Some of the stories I think will concern a conflict between the Crew and the Captain played by Jeremy Isaacs who although portrayed as charismatic might turn out to be either a coward or an overzealous pro-humanist. [i:e racist] Liberal attitudes will of course eventually triumph since Star Trek tends to be seen as a standard bearer for social equality and the P.O.V character is a black Female [Number One].That sets the stage for confrontation on board the Discovery reflecting Hollywoods concerns about what's happening in America right now.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 11 March, 2017, 11:09:36 AM
Quote from: JLC on 11 March, 2017, 10:35:45 AM
So this is going to be another prequel series. Why FFS?
Apparently, it's set about 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise crew went boldly. As for why- greed to make more money! Some of the stories I think will concern a conflict between the Crew and the Captain played by Jeremy Isaacs who although portrayed as charismatic might turn out to be either a coward or an overzealous pro-humanist. [i:e racist] Liberal attitudes will of course eventually triumph since Star Trek tends to be seen as a standard bearer for social equality and the P.O.V character is a black Female [Number One].That sets the stage for confrontation on board the Discovery reflecting Hollywoods concerns about what's happening in America right now.
There's also an alien species called the 'Trumps' which is a definite nod to current political affairs.
Rumour is that they are a semiliterate, warmongering race.
Don't follow the point about "it's to make money".
Yes that is a reason for doing at all, but I don't see the link as to what time period to set it in.
Quote from: Magnetica on 11 March, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't follow the point about "it's to make money".
Yes that is a reason for doing at all, but I don't see the link as to what time period to set it in.
'You talk like a Liberal, but at heart, you're an Amercian.' -The Best Man. Science Fiction isn't about the future it's about the
now and so Star Trek, a show well known for its progressive ideals about humanity might favour a near future setting. 'This is
us' it claims, ourselves sharing in a technologically advanced future but our old prejudices, class and racial hatreds still exist. We haven't quite progressed enough and only well-intentioned ideals of equality, gender etc can make us a better species. Nice bullshit, of course, human beings are killer apes, territorial in inclination, red in tooth and claw in our dealings with one and other. That ugly truth is forever IMHO but Hollywood sells Californication and hope is a big part of that. Hope as the ancient Greeks would tell you is danger's comforter and not to be trusted.
Quote from: Magnetica on 11 March, 2017, 10:10:25 AM
Yes good points but I don't see why you would make a series that could only last 2 seasons. For example DS9 was only getting good at that point and the later series were by far the best.
When the news first came out that new Star Trek series were in production, I got the impression there would actually be a few programmes each set in different time periods of finite length. (My impression was actually one series each, although two might develop things better.) So when we got the news of Discovery, I figured this was the first of these and that there will be other Star Trek shows following different characters in other times and places. So maybe one or two series of Discovery, in prequel territory, a couple of others between Original series and Next Gen*, another after Voyager, etc.
So definitely more than two series in total, but only 1 or 2 of each timer period/story, if that makes sense.
It's very possible they changed their minds in the meantime though, or I misunderstood.
*This is me just giving an example off the top of my head, not based on any news I've heard.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 11 March, 2017, 01:52:43 PM
Quote from: Magnetica on 11 March, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't follow the point about "it's to make money".
Yes that is a reason for doing at all, but I don't see the link as to what time period to set it in.
'You talk like a Liberal, but at heart, you're an Amercian.' -The Best Man. Science Fiction isn't about the future it's about the now and so Star Trek, a show well known for its progressive ideals about humanity might favour a near future setting. 'This is us' it claims, ourselves sharing in a technologically advanced future but our old prejudices, class and racial hatreds still exist. We haven't quite progressed enough and only well-intentioned ideals of equality, gender etc can make us a better species. Nice bullshit, of course, human beings are killer apes, territorial in inclination, red in tooth and claw in our dealings with one and other. That ugly truth is forever IMHO but Hollywood sells Californication and hope is a big part of that. Hope as the ancient Greeks would tell you is danger's comforter and not to be trusted.
Sorry not sure I follow why it makes a difference when they set it. You can still do satires of current events.
And yes I know "space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement".
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 11 March, 2017, 01:52:43 PM
Nice bullshit, of course, human beings are killer apes, territorial in inclination, red in tooth and claw in our dealings with one and other.
Nah, it's all about the teamwork (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/286052).
Quote from: Magnetica on 11 March, 2017, 11:40:19 AM
Don't follow the point about "it's to make money".
Yes that is a reason for doing at all, but I don't see the link as to what time period to set it in.
Discovery's money isn't going to come from advertisers (as with network shows) because it's going to be shown via the network's on-demand streaming service in North America. The revenue will be coming from sponsors and distributors who have made it clear that TOS stuff is where they make most of their money, hence their wanting a show that ties into that era.
TLDR version: TOS is the most profitable version of Trek.
Quote from: sheridan on 11 March, 2017, 03:23:45 PM
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 11 March, 2017, 01:52:43 PM
Nice bullshit, of course, human beings are killer apes, territorial in inclination, red in tooth and claw in our dealings with one and other.
Nah, it's all about the teamwork (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/286052).
With that twat in Chief in the White House? No way! The alleged goodness of human kind is always far too thin.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 11 March, 2017, 01:52:43 PM
Nice bullshit, of course, human beings are killer apes, territorial in inclination, red in tooth and claw in our dealings with one and other.
Speak for yourself!
I am in no way a Star Trek fan and usually find it boring with not enough punch-ups and car chases. I also hadn't heard the rumour that they might set different series in different time periods. However they should forget about setting series before the Original Series as they are limited in what characters can do and who they can meet. Commence setting them further in to the future again. I might watch it then.
Quote from: TordelBack on 09 March, 2017, 05:29:48 AM
Heh! But then 'tonight's' episode, the very next one aired, is Brad Dourif's debut as Crewman/Ensign Suder in 'Meld', which is about as good as Star Trek gets. So there is always hope.
So I watched MELD as a result of this post.
You''re not wrong. It's great. Why on earth did they decide what Voyager needed was a babe in a skin tight lycra suit as opposed to more quality writing and acting?
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 13 March, 2017, 12:11:57 AM
Why on earth did they decide what Voyager needed was a babe in a skin tight lycra suit as opposed to more quality writing and acting?
A 'Babe' in various tight lycra costumes cost less than either of those.
Voyager was one of the cornerstone shows on parent network CBS, which was still new at the time and promoted Voyager heavily as part of their line up. This meant that even though the producers' impulse was to make a show for existing Trek fans that was more of the same, they were almost certainly guaranteed a yearly renewal until their crew's contracts expired if they threw casual watchers a bone now and then with hot ladies, punch-ups, and the odd episode that cashed in on popular culture trends. DS9 launched a few years too early to be a tentpole show like Voyager was, but it still wasn't immune to this kind of thing, hence Major Kira dressing in high heels and catsuits for a while, though the nickname "Pussy Bajor" sadly never caught on.
That's the reason for the boobs, the lack of better writing is ascribed by ex-crew like Bryan Fuller to the producers just being risk-averse.
I watched Star Trek Beyond for the first time last night and really enjoyed it. It was, in equal parts, absolute twaddle and great fun, which sums up 50 years of Star Trek for me. :D
Getting to the point, I'm going to reserve judgment on Discovery until I see it. Much of the discussion here's seems unfairly negative, considering the show isn't even finished yet.
- Trout
Quote from: Trout on 18 March, 2017, 09:25:54 PMMuch of the discussion here's seems unfairly negative, considering the show isn't even finished yet.
There's a joke in there somewhere about this being your first day in sci-fi fandom, but mainly I am preserving that wandering apostrophe for posterity. A lot of naysayers will also be watching this religiously, even if they slag it off something rotten before and during its run.
You will note that I do not say I won't be doing that myself.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 18 March, 2017, 09:07:24 PM
Voyager ... threw casual watchers a bone now and then with hot ladies...
Hur hur hur!
First official image of Star Wars: Discovery... ;)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DABgfF9VwAAlDvH.jpg)
Rey's family finally came back for her!
Seeing the new characters on Jakku reminds me of the (possibly apocryphal) anecdote about one of the producers that it was a couple of days into production before people noticed that he didn't know there was a difference between Stars "Trek" and "Wars", and this was why he was so vehemently pushing for Discovery to be less like the tv show and more like the movies. Which I can actually understand, as Trek and Wars movies are basically the same thing now anyway.
I like that they look like the inhabitants of Nimbus III and that they're farting about on a desert world looking for one of Spock's relatives, because it means that this is based on Star Wars 5:The Final Frontier. Hopefully we get another canon Sybok appearance, because he is just the absolute best, you guys - especially now Han Solo is dead.
Debut of the trailer!!!
I love that debut of Discovery!
https://streamable.com/pmp54 (https://streamable.com/pmp54)
Here's the ship!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAD5eInXkAIObnG.jpg)
I don't hate it. In fact it's rather promising in an 90s SF show sort of way.
But I also don't understand the visual choices made, if TOS merch is the financial holy grail they're shooting for. I can see no reason why that couldn't all be set in The Future.
Quote from: Goaty on 17 May, 2017, 10:55:26 PM
Debut of the trailer!!!
So. Much. Fucking. Lens. Flare.
Youtube version;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgdUzyqCl18 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgdUzyqCl18)
Some people liked (Babylon 5 spin-off) Crusade, and some people like lens flares - clearly this has been cannily crafted to nail down the overlap.
Oddly, I reckon Seth McFarlane's new Galaxy Quest show - understandably being made without the involvement of Galaxy Quest's original cast, or writers, or the Galaxy Quest brand, or any jokes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy9sKeCE8V0) - looks like it might feel like more of a Trek show.
Especially with Riker and Paris directing episodes... but the central presence of McFarlane's irritating face, the slavish copying of TNG designs (legitimate parody, guv!) and the absence of ANY decent gags in the trailer makes me dubious about the whole thing.
Watching the Discovery trailer a few times now, I suspect the only real hope it has is to fill out the paperwork and embrace JJ's Kelvin timeline, the look of which it so closely follows, which would free them from the straitjacket of both fan opprobium and prequelitis, and with the new acceptance of that direction that the superior ...Beyond created, may make more financial sense... Maybe the reveal of which continiuty we're in could be a Surprise Twist.
Kelvin timeline is taking place 10 years before TOS, but so is Discovery. They're either happening at the same time, or Discovery - if set in the Kelvin timeline - is taking place 20 years before TOS - though we saw 20 years before TOS in The Cage, so basically fucked if I know. As long as it has lasers and explosions I'll be watching.
I stopped finding McFarlane funny many years ago, but this just means I can hopefully enjoy Orville as a drama.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 18 May, 2017, 11:29:01 AM
Kelvin timeline is taking place 10 years before TOS, but so is Discovery.
Please (
please) don't make me visit Memory Alpha to check these things, but the JJ Kirk is early 20s when he meets Pike in a bar, which puts the arrival of Nero's ship maybe 25 years before the 5 Year Mission. If
Discovery were to get with the bloody programme that would place it 15 years after the loss of the Kelvin, no? So it seems like there'd be ample room for Chris Hemsworth's uniform to evolve into that ghastly metallic ensemble, and for the bridge lens flare generators to become 125% more efficient. Whereas I can't imagine how all this would ever pretend to fit between the flashback sequences in The Menagerie and Where No Man Has Gone Before.
You guys. I love you guys.
Quote from: TordelBack on 18 May, 2017, 11:53:31 AMWhereas I can't imagine how all this would ever pretend to fit between the flashback sequences in The Menagerie and Where No Man Has Gone Before.
Wizards Organians did it. BOSH.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 18 May, 2017, 02:09:33 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 18 May, 2017, 11:53:31 AMWhereas I can't imagine how all this would ever pretend to fit between the flashback sequences in The Menagerie and Where No Man Has Gone Before.
Wizards Organians did it. BOSH.
Better that than Riker/Troi smooching on the holodeck, I suppose.
Eh? Just found out that Starship in the trailer is USS Shenzhou! So that is the start of the series into USS Discovery...?
It could be set in an alternate timeline stemming from the Mirror Universe's Empress Sato using a transdimensional discombobulation array stolen from a slashwarped Borg Hexagon from the Rorrim Tfir (caused by the implosion of the Vulcan bomber T'Flatcap as it tried to traverse the Tickled Nebula during an ion storm) to capture a supersymmetrical anti-protonic dark matter shadow version of Spock's spinnyship which she uses to realign the temporal stackflow of the local spacetime web in order to, by either accident or design, cause an insular yet deeplinked holographically perfect copy of a completely unique Trek continuum.
But probably not - that would just be too obvious.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 20 May, 2017, 09:32:06 PM
But probably not - that would just be too obvious.
Too creative, more like. You've probably already put more work into that than the show's creators have.
Heh. Childsplay for any acolyte of The Mighty One's magnificent organ!
I like the suggestion that Burnham is either half Vulcan or raised on Vulcan which has left her with 'issues' perhaps a slight inferiority complex. The logical, Vulcan culture she appears to have been raised in is going to come into conflict with the emotional, Human part of her nature so you've got an internal conflict within the lead which sounds intriguing. She does get angry about her Captains refusal to attack an enemy because 'the Federation doesn't fire first' which might point to a more hard Trek away from the TOS and TNG 's more 'live and let live' philosophy. Still, one promo is hardly a lot to judge an entire series on but it looks interesting and I'll reserve judgement till I've seen a few episodes.
I liked the look of it. Took me a while to recognise it was her from Walking Dead. Michelle Yeoh is always a win.
But while it looked like something that would have been universally feted ten years ago, it might already look dated.
But like everyone says "Not much to go on". So I'll reserve judgement and because it's Star Trek, even if I don't like It, I'll watch it and secretly love it.
The cleverest thing (or the most desperate, only time will tell) about that trailer is what it doesn't show us, i.e. the titular ship, her captain or (presumably) most of her crew: this is either a good sign, or a very bad one.
I too like the idea of a human kid raised on Vulcan as our PoV character. Up 'til my kids got me back on the Trek, I'd have said enough with the Vulcans already - but we're settling into Voyager's fourth season at the moment and Tuvok, probably the franchise's most vanilla main-character Vulcan (i.e. not half-human, half-Romulan, half-traitor or half-dressed, or even shacked up with a series of shiksas), continues to charm. In fact, he's begun to sneak into contention in my Fantasy Bridge Crew*, wrassling with Odo for the Security Chief/Tactical slot (Chekov, Yar, Worf, Eddington and Reed were all pretty hopeless, let's face it).
There's probably still a fair bit of mileage left in the whole idea of logic and rationality v. emotion and instinct, especially in these dark days.
*Admit it, you all have one.
I think Tuvok is an excellent character. I thought it was brilliant that he knew about all the many different types of love and could name them all.
"My logic has not prepared me for these feelings" is such a cliche, I'm sure the drive to be new and fresh and the reputed 100 million dolla budget will stretch to buying a new trope.
I dunno, I think established tropes is what you pay your licence fees for.
What works with Tuvok is that he functions perfectly well as a Vulcan - no emotion chip, sexy antibacterial gel, huge norks or magic flowers necessary to make him a whole person: although as the missus asks on a regular basis, is loyalty an emotion? 'Cos it certainly seems to override his logic.
Quote from: TordelBack on 22 May, 2017, 01:11:08 PM
What works with Tuvok is that he functions perfectly well as a Vulcan - no emotion chip, sexy antibacterial gel, huge norks or magic flowers necessary to make him a whole person: although as the missus asks on a regular basis, is loyalty an emotion? 'Cos it certainly seems to override his logic.
Maybe it cos he ain't found a shit?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/IHOOMIiw5v9VS/200.gif)
If you are on Facebook I seriously recommend the Midnights Edge page for all the latest STD news. https://www.facebook.com/groups/midnightsedge/?fref=nf
And long story short STD could not be a more appropriate abbreviation. No one really wants to touch this series, especially advertisers or even merchandise companies! :lol:
This series is essentially in meltdown mode.
Trekkies love two things: Star Trek, and talking shit about Star Trek*. If they didn't care for the former, they wouldn't do the latter.
Check out the nightmare production that was TNG season 1 and imagine if social media as we know it now had been around in 1987. Even if the worst comes to pass and Discovery is dreadful, there's only one season of it to endure and everything will wrap up at the end - think of it as an experiment, or perhaps consider just not watching it.
* Long before hate watching and/or ironic enjoyment was a mainstream thing, Trek had the "A Nitpicker's Guide To" series of books that shit on every episode of every version of Trek.
I'm not a Trekkie but can enjoy some of the movies. I usually find most of the TV shows a bit slow moving.
The one thing that puzzles me though is why do they not set a series that post dates Voyager or Deep Space 9? Why is this series and the recent films back in the past of the Star Trek Universe?
Quote from: Tony Angelino on 31 May, 2017, 04:57:03 PM
The one thing that puzzles me though is why do they not set a series that post dates Voyager or Deep Space 9? Why is this series and the recent films back in the past of the Star Trek Universe?
Maybe they been everywhere, and ran of enemies with new peace etc.
Quote from: Tony Angelino on 31 May, 2017, 04:57:03 PM
The one thing that puzzles me though is why do they not set a series that post dates Voyager or Deep Space 9? Why is this series and the recent films back in the past of the Star Trek Universe?
Lack of imagination, I suspect. Or possibly the writers don't want to continue dealing with increasingly powerful Starfleet technology, which solves story problems too easily? Personally, I'd be much more interested in something set post-Voyager: to borrow a phrase Grant Morrison once used about the X-Men, Star Trek has become like an ingrown toenail.
Bryan Fuller was refreshingly honest about the purely-financial motivations behind Discovery's setting. It's arguably what has subsequently made the unrecogniseable aesthetic of Discovery a bone of contention.
Blue Klingons.
Quote from: Greg M. on 31 May, 2017, 05:23:30 PMOr possibly the writers don't want to continue dealing with increasingly powerful Starfleet technology, which solves story problems too easily?
That issue was there from Day One, hence almost every adversary the Enterprise faced completely outclassed it, and its weekly conundrums were solved by tricking, moralising, snogging or double-handed punching - and often all four. At the other end of the chronology, re-watching
Voyager, you'd swear they didn't even
have a transporter the number of times they offer an excuse for why they can't use it, and the warp drive packs in almost daily.
My point being, Star Trek stories usually start from the standpoint of neutralising all that tech, don't see why that couldn't continue into the 25th C.
Pandering to focus groups?
Far future = confusing, scary, unrealistic.
Near future = simple, comforting, realistic.
Hats = suspicious.
Therefore, executive producers want a series set in the near future with a crew that doesn't wear hats.
Or something.
Quote from: TordelBack on 31 May, 2017, 10:54:38 PM
My point being, Star Trek stories usually start from the standpoint of neutralising all that tech, don't see why that couldn't continue into the 25th C.
I do agree with your point - I just seemed to recall that prior to Star Trek: Enterprise being launched, there were various comments from the creators that they wanted to reintroduce limitations to the technological capabilities of the crew, and were concerned that this might prove harder to achieve with a post-Voyager or Voyager-contemporary setting. I suppose it's a bit like the problem comic writers sometimes face with Superman. As you say though, it's nothing that can't be solved at a script level, and shouldn't be a hurdle.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 01 June, 2017, 06:40:41 AM
Pandering to focus groups?
Far future = confusing, scary, unrealistic.
Near future = simple, comforting, realistic.
Hats = suspicious.
Therefore, executive producers want a series set in the near future with a crew that doesn't wear hats.
Or something.
I forgot they used focus groups for everything these days. It's a form of insurance since the Execs know to some extent what hardcore ST fans want but what does the general viewing public like? By commissioning a focus group of twenty to thirty somethings, they can get a bead on their desires and dislikes and present it to their money Masters. 'Sure the fans like this but the focus group shat on it!' and the trouble is you inevitably play it safe, making a carbon copy of what went before just with new characters.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 01 June, 2017, 06:40:41 AM
Pandering to focus groups?
Far future = confusing, scary, unrealistic.
Near future = simple, comforting, realistic.
Hats = suspicious.
Therefore, executive producers want a series set in the near future with a crew that doesn't wear hats.
Or something.
If they start shoving that hat-wearing agenda down my throat, I won't be watching. Kids shouldn't be brainwashed into wearing hats
Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
(https://returntothe80s.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/meaning-of-life-2.jpg)
What was that thing about hats again?
Quote from: Supreme Pizza Of The DPRK on 01 June, 2017, 12:04:49 PM
Yeah, I've had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we've come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren't wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person's soul. However, this "soul" does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man's unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.
(https://returntothe80s.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/meaning-of-life-2.jpg)
The Very Big Corporation of America Ltd, at the Companies House website (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09125932).
First pictures of Jason Isaacs as captain of the Discovery
(http://i68.tinypic.com/10e0klt.jpg)
There's something about that uniform that just screams Captain Link Hearthrob.
Didn't know Jason Isaccs in this. Great actor as is Michelle Yeoh.
I know I'm gonna give this a go but it just don't feel like Star Trek from what ive seen so far. I actually enjoyed ST:Enterprise but another prequel doesn't really feel necessary.
I don't know what Isaacs' character will look like, but his action figure looks good in that pic.
I have high hopes for this series, but I'm not keen on the look of the klingons. If they're not going to look human like the original series (which is fair enough. I have my doubts they all succumbed to the augment virus thingummy from an in-world explanation ) just stick with the look from the films and spin-off series or possibly something in between, like Chang from The Undiscovered Country. The new look, while very interesting from an alien POV, is too different, I think. Or maybe it's just something I'll get used to.
agree with you regarding the Klingons. I quite liked their armour design etc in Star Trek Into Darkness. Wish we had seen more of that. Incidently ive yet to see Star Trek Beyond although I'm pretty sure they didn't appear anymore in that?
It's not looking good for STD behind the scenes. Word is CBS will know after the second episode airs if they will continue with it or not. So far 6 episodes are in the can, but test screenings have not been positive at all.
The big issue STD is facing at the moment is licensees are not interested in it at all.
Also Jason Isaacs, and a few other cast members aren't thrilled about being in this, they thought this was going to be a "Love letter" to TOS stylistically and in writing, but it comes off as a cross between Starship Troopers and Battlestar Galactica. :lol:
Well that would pretty much kill it dead then wouldn't it. If there still planning on airing it on their own proprietary channel that no one subscribes to ...
It's up there with screening it on BT tv.
Here's the first in a 3 video series that explains what the hell is going on with this dumpster fire. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5qVwZvjm8
It's been a long time, getting from there to here......
I didn't realise that the last two Trek movies had been major bombs to the point they'd wiped out Trek's licensing profits, nor that JJ Abrams had tried to stop CBS reissuing the old shows - I'll have to remember that the next time someone deploys the whole "the old shows still exist on dvds and streaming services" defence of NuTrek.
Really? I'd have thought that the better argument was; "you had several releases on VHS, then you went with a couple of DVD releases. You tried HD DVD but that went the same way as betamax. Now you have a blu ray release. How about you just breathe for a minute before you actually manage to piss off anyone who might pay for the original series?"
Granted they haven't made the same mistake with anything after next generation.
The latest video in the series if no one here saw it. It dose bring up info from the previous ep, but there is new info in regards to the very complicated rites issue. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3I3y3_QmBsQ
Quote from: Tjm86 on 06 July, 2017, 10:02:51 PM
Really? I'd have thought that the better argument was; "you had several releases on VHS, then you went with a couple of DVD releases. You tried HD DVD but that went the same way as betamax. Now you have a blu ray release. How about you just breathe for a minute before you actually manage to piss off anyone who might pay for the original series?"
Granted they haven't made the same mistake with anything after next generation.
TOS (and now TNG) Trek is an evergreen, though, as no matter how bad later iterations may be, there's always nostalgia value in the shows that people grew up with, even (especially?) for non-Trekkies who just want something with a bit of pop-cultural kitsch value and will see that little engineer dwarf from the last three films and not have a clue what they're even looking at - but slap a bobblehead of Spock doing the Live Long And Prosper sign in front of them and even non-Trekkies will probably know what that is.
As for the DVDs and stuff, in a nutshell: TOS is covered under different licensing terms than TNG-era Trek and the movies, and JJA wanted a multimedia strategy that discarded old canon and extended universe material and made the rebooted version of Trek the only show in town - much as Disney did with the Star Wars EU. The problem was that he didn't just want them to stop printing dvds, he wanted them to stop licensing the old Trek altogether - no novels, no comics, no games, no t-shirts, no toys, no streaming via Netflix - and basically wanted all other versions of Trek wiped out of popular culture, Uncle Joe-style, so that his production company wouldn't be competing against other Trek merchandise or paying licensing fees to a third party.
It sounds extreme (especially if you're in deep financial shit like CBS is, and Trek is one of your only reliable revenue streams), but if you think about it, it would have created a vacuum that could be filled with games, books and tv shows produced by Abrams' own company - in theory, it could have been highly profitable.
Thank Roddenbery's ghost, JJTrek crashed and burned. And now it looks like the abomination that is STD is dead before it even launches.
I'm not sure if you're a Trek fan that you should be happy at STD crashing and burning: there's zero chance of the producer who seems to have seized control of the show falling on his sword for a failure with this pricetag attached (not that it would make much difference if he did), so the blame will be laid at the feet of the franchise itself ("fans were burned out on Trek" ©Brannon Braga) and almost certainly guarantee CBS won't make another Trek show under the current management.
The movies are now too expensive to make, the licenses for spin-off media like comic books and video games are affixed to NuTrek, and there won't even be any fan movies of note anymore. Apart from reissues now and then, and maybe a remaster/SFX update for the ropier-looking TNG-era stuff, this is probably the end of the road for Star Trek for a while.
I wouldn't count Trek out yet. IF what's leaking from insiders is true, Nicholas Meyer the director of Trek's 2 and 6 has been given the creative duties for a "Plan B" Star Trek series for the CW.
If you think Discovery sounds bad, you have no idea what awaits any show coming out of the CW, which is a network run by fiftysomethings producing programmes written by fortysomethings and acted by thirtysomethings pretending they're 16 in tv shows aimed at 8 year olds.
The best example of this is probably the recent Riverdale adaptation of the old Archie comics, which everyone said was a reinvention of the source material without ever seeming to notice that it was actually identical to every other CW teen drama: the CW simply doesn't know how to make anything else.
Having said that, I did enjoy The 100 for one whole season before it turned into a really bad Shannara Chronicles rip-off featuring all the bits of sci-fi shows you hated from the last 20 years - a robot lady in a red dress that only the treacherous lead scientist can see, you say? That's too awful an idea to only use in one place!
The last two Trek movies were major bombs?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek12.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek2016.htm
Not runaway successes but pretty consistent for the average movie of this type. Not a Fantastic Four by any means (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=fantasticfour15.htm)
Quote from: Theblazeuk on 10 July, 2017, 09:52:43 AM
Not runaway successes but pretty consistent for the average movie of this type.
General rule of thumb is that a movie needs to double its production budget to break even. That leaves Beyond a way short of the $370M it needed to take, which is a shame, because I really enjoyed it.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 10 July, 2017, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Theblazeuk on 10 July, 2017, 09:52:43 AM
Not runaway successes but pretty consistent for the average movie of this type.
General rule of thumb is that a movie needs to double its production budget to break even. That leaves Beyond a way short of the $370M it needed to take, which is a shame, because I really enjoyed it.
As a generic sci-fi movie
Beyond was ok-it wasn't really Star Trek though, in my opinion.
Quote from: Theblazeuk on 10 July, 2017, 09:52:43 AM
The last two Trek movies were major bombs?
They made plenty, but Into Darkness didn't do as well as projected, while Beyond didn't break even, so it works out as a loss based on the price of production and marketing (half a billion across two movies), especially when you factor in that the usually-lucrative merchandising numbers have been appalling.
Quote from: dweezil2 on 10 July, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 10 July, 2017, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Theblazeuk on 10 July, 2017, 09:52:43 AM
Not runaway successes but pretty consistent for the average movie of this type.
General rule of thumb is that a movie needs to double its production budget to break even. That leaves Beyond a way short of the $370M it needed to take, which is a shame, because I really enjoyed it.
As a generic sci-fi movie Beyond was ok-it wasn't really Star Trek though, in my opinion.
I thought it was very Star Trekky - at least as far as the movies go. A nice feel of being the missing installment between TOS and TMP, and indeed Enterprise and TOS, but as it would be in this other ever-diverging universe, and accepting and referencing its own (different) past rather than the derivative stylings of Into Darkness. It really should have been the 'Voyage Home' success the new series needed.
Quote from: TordelBack on 10 July, 2017, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: dweezil2 on 10 July, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 10 July, 2017, 10:02:24 AM
Quote from: Theblazeuk on 10 July, 2017, 09:52:43 AM
Not runaway successes but pretty consistent for the average movie of this type.
General rule of thumb is that a movie needs to double its production budget to break even. That leaves Beyond a way short of the $370M it needed to take, which is a shame, because I really enjoyed it.
As a generic sci-fi movie Beyond was ok-it wasn't really Star Trek though, in my opinion.
I thought it was very Star Trekky - at least as far as the movies go. A nice feel of being the missing installment between TOS and TMP, and indeed Enterprise and TOS, but as it would be in this other ever-diverging universe, and accepting and referencing its own (different) past rather than the derivative stylings of Into Darkness. It really should have been the 'Voyage Home' success the new series needed.
For me
Star Trek, at its best, is about big themes and existential questions about humanity and our place in the universe.
Beyond didn't really go beyond (harg!) a bog standard revenge plotline and a villain with poorly defined and rather muddled motivation-the film fell well short of the potential the Star Trek mythos offers.
Some proper seasoned science fiction writers on the series wouldn't go amis, like they had on
TOS.
Agreed, but none of the movies deal with themes much beyond the empty destructiveness of revenge, and the personal growth/interrelationships of the characters. This one at least was also about being lost in the vastness of the unknown, confronting strange aliens (albeit with a rug-pull), and the value of the whole business. Beats yet more Kilngons, Romulan offshoots, Federation conspiracies and time-wimey stuff.
Plus it was fun!
For me, Beyond is the first of these reboots that actually felt like Star Trek. Kirk was a revenge-driven manchild in the first two films, but Beyond was a riposte to the idea that this could sustain a character forever, as without revenge he's not just adrift, but a pretty shit captain. The script moves him towards being the idealist the original character was, a product of more optimistic times confronting and defeating the failed reactionary philosophies of militarism that spawned the rewengay-driven cypher of Trek and Into Darkness, and all the more surprising that it comes from a guy renowned for making boy racer movies that portray women and cars with an equal pornographic glee.
The new show looks shit
Nowadays it's more polite to expand on what you perceive as objective flaws and/or why something's creative value is not what it could be.
But yes.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 10 July, 2017, 10:12:34 PM
Nowadays it's more polite to expand on what you perceive as objective flaws and/or why something's creative value is not what it could be.
But yes.
Lazy to set it before Kirk & co. Klingon redesign is awful. Looks like the whole thing is being made for commercial rather than creative reasons.
Happy now?
Never. Just ask anyone.
It is being made for commercial reasons, tho - and I don't just mean that in a "they make tv shows for profit" way, I mean the movies and merchandise aren't bringing in the Benjis and the only Trek revenue is from selling older Trek shows to other networks. What's baffling to everyone is why it doesn't look like Trek when the whole point is that it was supposed to look like what went before as a honey trap for merchandising and licensing deals, because it's going out via digital platforms so there won't be any advertising revenue, just sponsorship.
Star Trek: Discovery is a "You Had One Job" meme: all it had to do was look like Star Trek. It doesn't.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 10 July, 2017, 09:45:17 PM
For me, Beyond is the first of these reboots that actually felt like Star Trek. Kirk was a revenge-driven manchild in the first two films, but Beyond was a riposte to the idea that this could sustain a character forever, as without revenge he's not just adrift, but a pretty shit captain. The script moves him towards being the idealist the original character was, a product of more optimistic times confronting and defeating the failed reactionary philosophies of militarism that spawned the rewengay-driven cypher of Trek and Into Darkness, and all the more surprising that it comes from a guy renowned for making boy racer movies that portray women and cars with an equal pornographic glee.
Fun and frivolous it may of been (that nearly sounds like fast and furious) but it still fell was short of what Trek can and should be-it certainly shouldn't be forgettable.
As superior it arguably was to the two previous entries-especially the turgid and shameless rehash,
Into Darkness, the fact remains it should of been better.
You obviously spotted far more nuances in the workmanlike film than I did.
It's not really a matter of "nuance", Kirk straight-up stops during the fight with the big baddie and says that killing isn't how you solve your problems and Starfleet is about saving lives. Objectively, it's a callback to the man-chat with Bones earlier in the film, but relative to the series, it's a paraphrasing of what Pike tried and failed to communicate to Kirk in the first reboot movie.
Beyond is essentially the movie about Kirk's midlife crisis that Wrath Of Khan was. It's a film that understands Trek and what makes it work, but more importantly, it understands what makes NuTrek obnoxious and shallow and tries to correct it.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 10 July, 2017, 10:12:34 PM
Nowadays it's more polite to expand on what you perceive as objective flaws and/or why something's creative value is not what it could be.
But yes.
Don't you mean "Star Trek: Discovery? More like Shit Trek: Discovery!"
I predict lots of really clever sub-headings like "The only thing you'll discover is how shit this show is", which have probably already been written by dozens of starving Huffpo freelancers now desperately waiting for the pilot to drop so they can stop eating from bins for a day or two. Likewise there will be the odd one that chances their arm with a positive spin, and they'll probably go with "Star Trek REDISCOVERED" and bang on about how it's a brave reinvention of classic franchise tropes by not being like Star Trek in any way.
Do G has a short blurb on ST:D. Classic Era pre-ToS is the vibe.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-promises-classic-era-spirit
Two takeaways:
1) Alex Kurtzman was pushed out of the production months ago and scripts have been rewritten and castmembers have been hired, fired or transferred to other roles in the interim. He left the production after arguments with the other producers about tone and direction. This is not necessarily an indication that the tone will be off, though, as Kurtzman wrote and produced two Star Trek movies that were nothing like Star Trek and promoted them by saying they kept to "the spirit" of the original.
2) as a result of the intended digital-release format and presumed binge-watcher audience, we've been told since early days that STD was an anthology show and this would be a self-contained story - the subtext being that even if you didn't like it, someone else would come along next season and make a different show. That article contradicts this, meaning they've either massively changed direction, or were lying.
Or they might just want to reuse the sets and costumes - $120 million is kind of a lot.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 12 July, 2017, 11:11:04 AM
Do G has a short blurb on ST:D. Classic Era pre-ToS is the vibe.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-promises-classic-era-spirit
Mmm, oh well... :|
The new Klingons (not the cathedral ones) look like Romulan/Crustacean hybrids. http://www.treknews.net/2017/07/15/first-photo-mary-chieffo-klingon-lrell/
>:(
MOONVES!!! MOONVES!!MOONVES!
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 16 July, 2017, 01:45:11 AM
The new Klingons (not the cathedral ones) look like Romulan/Crustacean hybrids. http://www.treknews.net/2017/07/15/first-photo-mary-chieffo-klingon-lrell/
>:(
MOONVES!!! MOONVES!!MOONVES!
Genestealer Hybrid! Warhammer influenced Gears of War so why not Star Trek!
Looks almost like a different (if related) species to the others.
Then I realised this one is female. 😁
Fun fact not mentioned in the article is that the original makeup artists and design teams were fired because the Klingons looked too Klingon for STD...Hollywood, am I right? :lol: http://ew.com/tv/2017/07/17/star-trek-discovery-klingons-photo/
Oh good another Klingon reinvention. I am literally counting the seconds until IDW announce their 4-issue prequel miniseries explaining it in-universe in an excruciatingly boring and joyless way.
It really doesn't bode well that the producers are already trying to pass the buck on this one to Bryan Fuller, who would have been well-aware that there was already an (admittedly stupid) in-universe explanation for Klingons looking different across the various shows and that Discovery didn't actually have to come up with one of their own.
Remind me what that reason was? All I can remember is Worf saying something like "we don't like to talk about it" in the DS9 tribbles ep.
Basically, the klingons tried to create their own super-powerful warriors by introducing DNA from human augment embryos- (products of the eugenics programme that created Kahn Noonien Singh and his folks).
Unfortunately, while they succeeded in creating super powerful klingons, their augments also inherited more human characteristics including no cranial ridges and a tendency to be more sly and nervous.
There was also a flu virus of some kind involved which got mixed up in it. This meant the characteristics somehow got transmitted to other klingons too. (I'm rather vague how that works.) It also made them extremely sick and shortened their life expectancy by breaking down their neural pathways within days. (Or something like that.)
The NX-01 Enterprise doctor, Phlox, was able to cure the klingons. He essentially was able to remove their enhanced abilities and the sickness, but was unable to remove the more normal human characteristics.
Hence: klingons seen onscreen in Kirk's time period look more human and act more sneaky and dishonourable than the tough space viking/samurai of the spin-off series.
Puff, puff!
There's more to it than that, but I think that's the... nutshell. Although the nut is a coconut, in this case, I think.
Oh, don't miss the glorious context of all this technobabble, MD: that episode of DS9 came first, in which two characters bantz with Worf if there was some kind of genetic retrovirus or science experiment that caused Klingons to look different between TOS and TNG, and Worf - acting as an avatar for the writers who knew full well the reason was that TOS Klingons were yellow peril stereotypes smeared in blackface makeup Because 1960s That's Why, simply said "we do not talk about it" and absolutely no-one blamed him.
If you watch the DS9 Making Of featurette on that episode, the writers joke with each other onscreen that they would never have an in-universe explanation, because "absolutely any explanation we came up with would be ridiculous."
Fast forward to Enterprise, a show that not only shamelessly recreated the finale of Wrath Of Kahn with added kickboxing, but also offset a running joke about comparisons with Galaxy Quest by not only ripping off the plot of that film and having the same villain, but by making this story an entire fucking year long, and sure enough they not only come up with an explanation for it in-universe, it was a multi-part storyline, too. The explanation given is literally what those two characters back in the early 1990s pulled out of their arses. The best part? This happened when Enterprise was good.
I remember thinking it sucked at the time, but I've since come to realise that the explanation given was actually the writers of Enterprise realising as they wrote the actual episode that they had not a single fuck left to give, so they cast Uncle Phil From Fresh Prince as a Klingon warlord to offset things - where the Fucks Not Given trend continued, as he walked around the set sounding exactly like Shredder from the 1980s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon.
Jeebuz, I just saw the new "Phaser" and it's a cross between something from Mass Effect and Starship Troopers. :crazy:
Do we really need the alien outsider cheracter in Trek anymore? http://io9.gizmodo.com/doug-jones-new-star-trek-alien-is-discoverys-answer-to-1797061579
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 19 July, 2017, 01:47:27 AM
Jeebuz, I just saw the new "Phaser" and it's a cross between something from Mass Effect and Starship Troopers. :crazy:
Or perhaps a cross between the ones in The Cage and TOS, as it should be. First thing I've seen from this production that looked appropriate to the supposed period.
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 July, 2017, 01:24:54 AM
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 19 July, 2017, 01:47:27 AM
Jeebuz, I just saw the new "Phaser" and it's a cross between something from Mass Effect and Starship Troopers. :crazy:
Or perhaps a cross between the ones in The Cage and TOS, as it should be. First thing I've seen from this production that looked appropriate to the supposed period.
I was talking about the phaser Rifle not the hand phaser, but yes at least the hand phaser looks right-ish. Btw this is the new Klingon EVA suit. http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/19/sdcc17-klingon-torchbearer-revealed-gentle-giant-announces-star-trek-discovery-collectibles/
Ay caramba! 4-Lom lives again!
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 July, 2017, 02:46:57 PM
Ay caramba! 4-Lom lives again!
You've reminded me to order this, TB; https://shop.lego.com/en-IE/Bounty-Hunter-Speeder-Bike-Battle-Pack-75167
Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in.
New trailer!
https://youtu.be/LoYGbDpk2Zs (https://youtu.be/LoYGbDpk2Zs)
That Battlestar Galactica fan movie looks really good!
Cripes, I just don't know. Part of me thinks 'hey, I'd watch that SF show-slash-cutscene', but another louder part thinks ' how the hell is this noisy mess a Star Trek prequel'!
It reminded me look wise of Mass Effect games rather than Trek. Still looks promising, I won't be a naysayer like all those people who have already dismissed a series, I presume they will never watch.
I watch utter horseshit all the time, so this will basically be just another Tuesday for me.
It's been confirmed, the lead cheracter is Spock's sister. http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-spock-sister-retcon-makes-sense/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P&view=list
A neat enough idea, in fairness. Just waiting for Travis Mayweather to be revealed as her grandfather now.
What's going on with Burnham's hair though? Does the sonic shower come with a straighten/perm function?
OH NO YOU DIH INT
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
A neat enough idea, in fairness.
Well, if you love that Idea then you'll love to know Sarek isn't technically Vulcan, but a trans dimensional being. Yes that's a plot point.
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 24 July, 2017, 07:36:12 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
A neat enough idea, in fairness.
Well, if you love that Idea then you'll love to know Sarek isn't technically Vulcan, but a trans dimensional being. Yes that's a plot point.
U wot.
You'd think Picard might have mentioned that...
As for the other, I've no problem imagining that Amanda already had a fully human kid before meeting Sarek, why not? It's not like Spock was forthcoming on the subject of half-siblings. And a human kid being raised on Vulcan is still an interesting idea, so why not invoke the most famous human resident of Vulcan as her connection?.
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 24 July, 2017, 07:36:12 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 24 July, 2017, 10:38:41 AM
A neat enough idea, in fairness.
Well, if you love that Idea then you'll love to know Sarek isn't technically Vulcan, but a trans dimensional being. Yes that's a plot point.
Can we be careful here. We had enough trouble on the Dr Who thread over gender issues. The last thing we need is it all kicking off over species and dimensional issues. That is never going to end well now is it! :o
The Sarek thing is apparently an attempt to explain why Sarek was on the Romulan warship in Balance Of Terror and yet also Spock's dad. I don't know about you, but speaking as a Trekker this was definately keeping me up nights.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 24 July, 2017, 08:22:00 PM
The Sarek thing is apparently an attempt to explain why Sarek was on the Romulan warship in Balance Of Terror and yet also Spock's dad. I don't know about you, but speaking as a Trekker this was definately keeping me up nights.
Where does this leave Chancellor Gorkon? Somehow I can't imagine Gul Madred as Federation ambassador to the Planet of Galactic Peace either. And as for Lwaxana's tour of duty under Captain Pike... Was that before or after Nurse Chapel recorded all the computer voices?
Thank goodness there's finally an explanation.
The Klingons are no longer a representation of the "Russians" but of ''Americans". :-\ http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/24/sdcc17-interview-star-trek-discovery-showrunners-on-why-the-klingons-arent-the-russians-anymore/
Quote from: Professor Bear on 24 July, 2017, 08:22:00 PM
The Sarek thing is apparently an attempt to explain why Sarek was on the Romulan warship in Balance Of Terror and yet also Spock's dad. I don't know about you, but speaking as a Trekker this was definately keeping me up nights.
I always have a problem when watching Wrath of Khan. Khan recognises Chekhov, saying "I never forget a face." The thing is though, Khan never met Chekhov. Space Seed is season 1 but Pavel only appeared in season 2 and 3. Really bugs me.
Do they explicitly say Chekhov wasn't on board in Season 1? He just might not have been BridgBridge crew.
Fair point. I suppose it is possible that they bumped into each other in a corridor. Considering Khan's genetic engineering it is possible that he remembered the face and overheard someone mention Chekhov's name in passing. :crazy:
That's the 'official' explanation alright - Chekov was on the 'night' shift bridge crew when he initially joined the Enterprise, and encountered Khan off-screen in the corridors somewhere.
Now it's a Trek thread.
I like the idea that Burnham has 'a fall from grace' to start with and the rest of the crew judge her accordingly.
If you're down the only way is up and for the protagonist, it tends to be self-help by achieving something to counter the negative perception people have of you. That's an interesting motive for Michael to have to regain her rep amongst her colleagues as not everyone will trust or like her even after performing several good deeds. Lots of scope for conflicts there plus the primary spleen against the Klingons who aren't Russians but a reflection of whats happening with different factions in America. If current rumours about the White Houses representatives alleged collusion with Putin in the elections are true, Trump and Co are bloody Russians all right.
Tom Paris was definitely the best thing about Voyager.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 25 July, 2017, 12:54:12 PM
Tom Paris was definitely the best thing about Voyager.
(https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/921176/121080253/stock-photo-astounded-121080253.jpg)
HE STARTED IT.
I thought The Caretaker (who was actually the best thing in Voyager) started it...?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 27 July, 2017, 12:38:50 PM
I thought The Caretaker (who was actually the best thing in Voyager) started it...?
It was the Cardies when they attacked human colonies inside their treaty borders.
800 YEARS!
Dem feckin spoonheads
Star Trek TOS, Star Trek Voyager and DS9 are all now on the Horror Channel. That says something to me. I'm hoping Discovery will have a happier ending than that!
Quote from: TordelBack on 27 July, 2017, 01:00:11 PM
It was the Cardies when they attacked human colonies inside their treaty borders.
800 YEARS!
Could have been Edith Keeler - if she hadn't foolishly got herself killed it would all have been different...
:lol:
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-god/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P&view=list
Well that anecdote sounds completely true and not made up in any way to me, as it in no way directly contradicts everything else we're hearing about the show.
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 28 July, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
:lol:
http://screenrant.com/star-trek-discovery-god/?utm_source=SR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution&utm_campaign=SR-FB-P&view=list
As Bones might say (repeatedly)"My god, man!"
(Example: "My god, man! Drilling holes in his head is not the answer!")
If true, they really get the spirit of Trek, don't they.
All the rumors were true. http://trekcore.com/blog/2017/07/new-ew-issue-details-bryan-fullers-discovery-departure/
I recently decided to bid a farewell to Hawaii Five-0 after CBS' racist salary policies came to light. Even with shows that are going great, the company finds a way to fuck them up - though I gather fans of Shark, NCIS Los Angeles and NCIS New Orleans could have told me this some time ago.
Midnights Edge most recent spiel on STD. Not great news folks as the powers that be have pretty much written off the series already.
https://youtu.be/tQcLLfzzKWA
Not really a surprise - the show's been paid for up front by sponsors who didn't get the product they wanted, they're hardly going to pay for more of it.
Still, blowing 150 million dollars of someone's money and they don't have you killed for it is kind of an impressive feat in itself.
Alec Peters * 100
Unconfirmed, but several sources are saying STD is done and further episodes won't be filmed. The CBS execs are said to be having an emergency meeting on Monday.
Word is Moonves will be asked to step down.
Just to add some perhaps happier news could this be happening?
http://www.geekexchange.com/news/breaking-nicholas-meyer-working-on-khan-limited-series/
Is anyone really demanding a KHAN series?
Cheap to make, and any problems with fans and/or audiences not being interested - or outright hostile - can be blamed on their hostility at a show having an Arabic main character. Virtually all of the rebuttals of criticism of Discovery have centered on cherry-picking comments from arseholes upset at diversity and then dismissing all other criticism as being of the same stripe. Likewise, there's a lot of suspiciously gushing articles appearing that seem a mix of uninformed and tone-deaf "It's great Trek finally has an Asian character" is probably my favorite hot take, alongside "finally a woman captain" and "finally a captain who isn't American."
I mean, yes, not everyone is a Trek fan, but come on now.
I think Kahn Noonien Singh is supposed to be Indian (although the actors who played him were Mexican and English... but anyway.) Although being genetically engineered, I guess he could be a bit of everything, and he was give (or took) a Sikh surname.
But yeah, I your point stands.
I don't see much point of a Kahn story in that time period. One that deals with the eugenics wars however, could be interesting. I do remember a novel series (or was it just two?) that dealt with that, but I've only read the first.
You mean the numbnuts never noticed that Picard's french?
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 31 July, 2017, 05:35:37 PM
You mean the numbnuts never noticed that Picard's french?
In fairness nor did @SirPatStew...
The trouble with the projected Khan series is we know what occurs. Ceti Alpha 6 explodes knocking Ceti Alpha 5 onto a less stable orbit, and the result is a desert hell world. There was even an IDW Comic written to cover this period so here's a link below. Khan's Earth years and his rise to power sound more promising for a TV series.
http://www.idwpublishing.com/product-category/star-trek/star-trek-star-trek-khan-ruling-in-hell/
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 31 July, 2017, 03:46:32 PM
Is anyone really demanding a KHAN series?
No. & it sounds even worse than Discovery. Star Trek needs to stop looking to the past & do something new. Move forward, where no Star Trek show has (boldly or otherwise) gone before...
Yes, I agree. While I enjoyed Enterprise and the latest films, Star Trek is all about the future, moving forward and striving for a better world. As a species we seem to have been going backwards, or at least back-pedalling, for a while now and it's high time we got back on track. I want the next series to be set after TNG, DS9 and VOY - even if only to allow the Patrick Stewarts of this world to show up in liver-spotted prosthetics from time to time. I want Star Trek: Intergalactic!
I liked the original idea of Discovery (or maybe Discovery was just the first installment of this) to set each series in different time periods, assuming each progresses onwards.
Then they seem to have junked that... Understandable they would need to see how the first series does before commissioning others, but I get the impression that future series (should they be made) will be about the same ship and crew. No doubt that's cheaper when considering sets, etc, but...
I'm still hopeful it will be enjoyable, anyway. I'll give it a chance.
It's confirmed STD is it's own continuity not related to Prime. http://deadline.com/2017/08/ep-alex-kurtzman-explains-initial-delay-in-air-date-with-star-trek-discovery-tca-1202139794/
I guess CBS realized the jig was up.
It probably dosen't help that the latest rumor going around is Spock dosen't even exist in this series timeline.
You'd think if anyone should have known that lying to your potential audience ahead of time was a bad idea, it was the guy who wrote and produced Star Trek Into Darkness - its underperformance is laid at the feet of the decision to lie to the audience ahead of time about Khan being in it: leaving aside casual moviegoers who flat-out wouldn't care, those who didn't like the idea would be annoyed when they found out, while those in favor of the idea wouldn't have had the film's millions of dollars of marketing targeted towards them in order to get them into cinemas in the first place.
Of course, that's just a context-specific example of what you shouldn't do to the Trek audience to lose them, I imagine that "don't lie to your audience/investors" is probably just good advice in general.
Sarek's foster daughter?!? FFS!
Quote from: JLC on 02 August, 2017, 08:34:18 PM
Sarek's foster daughter?!? FFS!
What the problem?
Quote from: JLC on 02 August, 2017, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 02 August, 2017, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: JLC on 02 August, 2017, 08:34:18 PM
Sarek's foster daughter?!? FFS!
What the problem?
Silly idea.
To assume that an advanced race would not countenance foster children is illogical. Don't forget also that Sybok was the firstborn son of the Vulcan ambassador Sarek and a Vulcan princess, and was the elder half-brother of Starfleet officer Spock, which wasn't silly at all...
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 02 August, 2017, 10:16:07 PM
Quote from: JLC on 02 August, 2017, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: Goaty on 02 August, 2017, 08:36:40 PM
Quote from: JLC on 02 August, 2017, 08:34:18 PM
Sarek's foster daughter?!? FFS!
What the problem?
Silly idea.
To assume that an advanced race would not countenance foster children is illogical. Don't forget also that Sybok was the firstborn son of the Vulcan ambassador Sarek and a Vulcan princess, and was the elder half-brother of Starfleet officer Spock, which wasn't silly at all...
A human raised by Vulcan's is an interesting idea. To make the foster father Sarek is silly, a poor attempt at nostalgia. Enough with the references to classic Trek! MOVE ON!
As for Sybok...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YGvAVhi0o9E/Tp88LX1YjLI/AAAAAAAAAaQ/4Rn2md8SZuY/s320/Your+Pain+Runs+Deep.jpg)
:o Yeesh, Klingon women weren't exactly attractive before, but Jebuz, they got fugly! http://www.treknews.net/2017/08/01/star-trek-discovery-photos-mary-chieffo-lrell/
They had a hard enough time explaining TOS Klingons in NG/DS9/Voy. How are they going to account for these Klingons I wonder?
Quote from: von Boom on 04 August, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
They had a hard enough time explaining TOS Klingons in NG/DS9/Voy. How are they going to account for these Klingons I wonder?
Haha! Yes.
From everything I've seen so far this cynically made show is gonna backfire in their stupid faces.
They've already explained the new Klingons, you just have to take your pick of what explanation you prefer:
1 - they're Klingons who don't leave the house much, so they didn't catch the space cold from Enterprise that turns Bill Bailey Klingons into Fu Manchu Klingons, or
2 - it's a reboot that ignores continuity as and when it wants to.
Quote from: JLC on 04 August, 2017, 02:28:32 PMFrom everything I've seen so far this cynically made show is gonna backfire in their stupid faces.
Hard to see how: rather than paying to make it themselves, they got paid to make it and they got the money up front.
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 03 August, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
:o Yeesh, Klingon women weren't exactly attractive before, but Jebuz, they got fugly! http://www.treknews.net/2017/08/01/star-trek-discovery-photos-mary-chieffo-lrell/
Yeah, well...
<meep! meep!>
Excuse me for a moment. My
communicator mobile phone is ringing.
Hello? You say your name is L'Rell?
You want a date with that the sexy hunk of man flesh called Dreddzilla, asap and you'll commit hegh'bat if he doesn't agree?
Well this is awkward...
:lol:
They've really aliened them up for the new show for sure. The duras sisters look like human hybrids in comparison.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 04 August, 2017, 02:41:27 PM
They've already explained the new Klingons, you just have to take your pick of what explanation you prefer:
1 - they're Klingons who don't leave the house much, so they didn't catch the space cold from Enterprise that turns Bill Bailey Klingons into Fu Manchu Klingons, or
2 - it's a reboot that ignores continuity as and when it wants to.
Quote from: JLC on 04 August, 2017, 02:28:32 PMFrom everything I've seen so far this cynically made show is gonna backfire in their stupid faces.
Hard to see how: rather than paying to make it themselves, they got paid to make it and they got the money up front.
We'll see. It seems to be made for the sole reason of promoting CBS All Access. It will be a critical disaster.
Critics be damned: those pixels don't fill themselves. I doubt CBS will take everyone's fees back out of their bank accounts, so aside from not getting a longer run of work, for all those involved it should be an okay job. As for Trekkies, the fear is that we'll see the franchise reshelved for who knows how long: I could really go for a decent new Trek series about now, Beyond and an ongoing rewatch of Voyager enabling a new phase of my destructive relationship.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 August, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
...an ongoing rewatch of Voyager
Are you watching it daily on the Horror Channel same as me then?
Quote from: Greg M. on 06 August, 2017, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 August, 2017, 02:04:36 PM
...an ongoing rewatch of Voyager
Are you watching it daily on the Horror Channel same as me then?
It'd be an apt venue alright, but no, Netflix with the kids as schedules permit. Just getting to the end of Season 4, which is proving chock-full of stinkers, disappointing after the surprisingly strong Hirogen-centered middle part. Still think Season 2 was the high watermark, and the show never really recovers from losing Kes and sidelining Nelix in favour of Seven, but hey, it's way more enjoyable than I have been giving it credit for, is refreshingly restrained in its use of the 'traditional' races and Federation political kerfuffles, and the potential for more in a similar vein is enticing.
Some random thoughts:
There are some bizarre efforts to convince us that Seven is an integral part of the crew. In the episode so-so episode 'One' Chakotay delivers a speech about Janeway's unique bond with Seven that no-one else can have, and those of use on the couch gave a (
-ahem-) collective 'WHUHH..?'. There has been no evidence of anything like this to date, quite the opposite if anything.
The various iterations of Evil Chakotay and Evil Paris that we get from time to time are so much better than the real characters that it's always a let down when the 'real' versions reappear. Evil Janeway on the other hand is basically no different, which is kind of interesting, when the other two are supposed to be edgy sources of conflict.
Somewhere around the early part of season 5 was where I called it a day with the Voyager re-watch, as Seven was just too much. It's not that the character is actually that bad - certainly not compared to the company she has onscreen - so much as she's overexposed and at some point it becomes impossible to unsee where she's been given other characters' lines and screen time. There's something like a year of build-up to Year Of Hell that's flushed when Seven is given Kes' role in the story, while I lost count of the episodes where someone would say "Seven and/or her Fucking Nanobots would totally know what to do here, we should call her right now".
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 August, 2017, 02:37:33 PM
It'd be an apt venue alright, but no, Netflix with the kids as schedules permit. Just getting to the end of Season 4, which is proving chock-full of stinkers, disappointing after the surprisingly strong Hirogen-centered middle part.
Horror Channel is currently an episode or two past 'Year of Hell', so about half a season behind you. For me it's not quite a rewatch, as post-Season 3, my viewing started to drop off, and I doubt I've seen that much of Seasons 6 & 7. The character I mourn the loss of is Hogan - the crew could have used the continued presence of a shit-stirrer like him. Been good if they'd kept Lon Suder a little longer too, as Brad Dourif's (admittedly typecast) performance was probably better than the material deserved.
I agree that Bad Chakotay in particular is always a bonus - the regular incarnation could really use being a bit more edgy, maybe with a touch of the mutinous holographic version in 'Worst Case Scenario'. Heck, he's often so bland that even giving him a beard for one episode makes him more charismatic. However, no matter what iteration of Tom Paris I'm presented with, my view of the character has been eternally dogged by my father's description of him as 'Les Dennis in space'. It's something of a shame they weren't able to just have him play Nick Locarno instead, as Robert Duncan McNeill is clearly a good actor.
Quote from: Greg M. on 06 August, 2017, 03:24:45 PMIt's something of a shame they weren't able to just have him play Nick Locarno instead, as Robert Duncan McNeill is clearly a good actor.
Not using Nick Locarno instead of Paris remains inexplicable to me. There was a character that really
was in need of redemption, and not just the approval of a surrogate parent.
Thanks for the Les Dennis thing, Greg's Dad - that's my head wrecked too now. I'll fire one back at you - once observed, the rapidly expanding waistlines of Tom, Harry, Chakotay and even Tuvok as Season 4 proceeds can never be unseen. I can only assume sympathetic pregnancy, or just a really concerted attempt to give B'Elanna's bump something to hide behind. Top marks, by the way, go to keeping Roxann Dawson on board and on camera throughout her pregnancy - clever use of shot-framing, tables and That Jacket really work.
Is anyone planning to buy into CBS all access just to watch Star Trek Discovery? From what I've gathered you need a VPN or Virtual Private Network for $80 odd dollars a year if your outside the USA which is most people here on this forum. There appear to be several companies that provide this service, and you will have access [I assume] to all the other CBS shows, but it does seem a bit of a hassle just to watch a TV programme! I'll probably wait till it comes onto Download TV.
I'm pretty sure it's appearing on Netflix over here. Probably a lot later than the Americans get it, but I'll wait...
Quote from: Mardroid on 06 August, 2017, 04:42:32 PM
I'm pretty sure it's appearing on Netflix over here. Probably a lot later than the Americans get it, but I'll wait...
We're (UK) getting it on Netflix a day after the US screening on September 25th, apparently.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/star-trek-discovery-uk-release-date-trailers
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 03 August, 2017, 07:38:43 AM
:o Yeesh, Klingon women weren't exactly attractive before, but Jebuz, they got fugly! http://www.treknews.net/2017/08/01/star-trek-discovery-photos-mary-chieffo-lrell/
I've been trying to figure out what it was about this that looked so familiar. Then I looked at Dan Dare: Rogue Planet. They're not Klingon's, they're Phants!
Quote from: dweezil2 on 06 August, 2017, 04:56:16 PM
Quote from: Mardroid on 06 August, 2017, 04:42:32 PM
I'm pretty sure it's appearing on Netflix over here. Probably a lot later than the Americans get it, but I'll wait...
We're (UK) getting it on Netflix a day after the US screening on September 25th, apparently.
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/star-trek-discovery-uk-release-date-trailers
Thanks for the update! Much quicker than I thought.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 August, 2017, 03:38:15 PMThanks for the Les Dennis thing, Greg's Dad - that's my head wrecked too now. I'll fire one back at you - once observed, the rapidly expanding waistlines of Tom, Harry, Chakotay and even Tuvok as Season 4 proceeds can never be unseen.
Also cannot be unseen. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUiDc6pOfxw)
I used to feel obliged to point this out to the kids every time we sat through the credits, along with the incredibly small solar prominence that Voyager unwisely flies under. However, my son observed that my precious Next Generation's title sequence is way more astronomically bizarre and I should just give it a rest. It's probably something to do with thoron radiation or anti-protons, like everything else in Voyager.
Pulling at the dodgy science thread in a show that gave us Threshold is probably not the way forward, but I would have thought TNG had an in-built get-out for its dodgy CGI intro: it was the best they could do at the time and they are to be commended for trying.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 07 August, 2017, 01:27:56 PM
Pulling at the dodgy science thread in a show that gave us Threshold is probably not the way forward...
I'll see your Threshold (solution: bombard 'em with anti-protons, and never try a transwarp shuttle again even though it would plainly work for non-organic lifeforms,
if only you had one of those on board) and raise you one Demon (solution: spacesuits have hitherto unseen backup systems that allow you to pass out from oxygen starvation in seconds but also keep your unconscious self alive in a ripped suit on a hell-planet indefinitely, and half the crew instantly agrees to have their bodies, memories and consciousnesses duplicated by an unknown alien force and then abandoned on said hell-planet forever).
I'll raise you that episode of TNG and those episodes of Voyager featuring The Irish.
I'll see your Holodeck Fairhaven and raise you a big green space hand and Spock's brain.
ENTERPRISE: THESE ARE THE VOYAGES... as it is finale but it about Riker not about Enterprise.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 07 August, 2017, 03:30:44 PM
I'll raise you that episode of TNG and those episodes of Voyager featuring The Irish.
I think those are fair and representative depictions of the future of the Irish people, especially Up the Long Ladder which hearteningly shows that J. M. Synge's plays are still taught in US colleges, albeit in Anthropology class.
Quote from: Goaty on 07 August, 2017, 05:42:59 PM
ENTERPRISE: THESE ARE THE VOYAGES... as it is finale but it about Riker not about Enterprise.
Agreed, Easily one of the WORST episodes of any Trek series Ever. It's in my top five worst episodes of Trek.
Apparently, whoever publishes the Enterprise tie-in novels wasn't impressed, either: the editorial guidance for the imprint instructs writers to ignore the series finale.
I don't even consider the final episode of Enterprise canon: it ignores the Romulan War entirely, and Shran is treated like he lived in a hole for 7 years rather than became a member of the regular cast, as was the plan for season five. The episode just seemed like a clumsy attempt by Braga and Berman to take their ball home after being sidelined from the game by the network for season 4.
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/07/les-moonves-tells-cbs-investors-first-six-episodes-of-star-trek-discovery-are-terrific/
Of course they are "terrific".
I dunno - I think if he felt they were dreadful and that he should be fired, he would have said so.
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 09 August, 2017, 06:48:23 AM
http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/07/les-moonves-tells-cbs-investors-first-six-episodes-of-star-trek-discovery-are-terrific/
Of course they are "terrific".
"It is the perfect vehicle to take All Access to the next level and beyond." There we go, the real reason for this show's existence.
But TNG had such a good record with the Celtic races - what about that one with Dr Crusher and the Scottish ghost?
And Scotty held by the buffer. Have you ever been held by the buffer, Madam? By Jove...
FINN-EE-GUN! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoMxNutXRuk)
Hey, Finnegan would be of an age that he could be a junior officer on Discovery. Sure and wouldn't that be a rare thing indeed, me brave boys?
Quote from: Professor Bear on 09 August, 2017, 10:28:22 PM
FINN-EE-GUN! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoMxNutXRuk)
Typical Oirishman.
Quote from: JLC on 11 August, 2017, 06:19:48 PM
Typical Oirishman.
That's
our word, we've reclaimed it. Furriners can't use it.
Quote from: TordelBack on 11 August, 2017, 10:14:04 PM
Quote from: JLC on 11 August, 2017, 06:19:48 PM
Typical Oirishman.
That's our word, we've reclaimed it. Furriners can't use it.
I'm a furriner? How do you know this?
Foreign starts at Dun Laoghaire. And some parts of Leitrim are distinctly iffy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/star-trek-new-captain-not-care-trekkies-article-1.3404011
"I only 'don't care' about them in the sense that I know they're all going to watch anyway."
Apparently he believes Trekkies will watch anything with the name "Trek" attached to it. Star Trek ENT proved the opposite.
Okay, dreddzilla, as you post many negative links about new show. And you still want watch it?
It would be one thing if Isaacs meant online trolls or anti-diversity meninists, but he clearly attacks Trek fans as a body there. Most viewers will be downloading this for free, so it kind of does matter if people are watching it and shitting all over it, as CBS desperately need people to throw down hard cash on CBS All Access to watch this.
It also occurred to me out of nowhere that CBS took their investor's money - investors who wanted something in the spirit of the older Trek shows - and used it to bankroll their new network while not delivering what they promised. If nothing else, it's good to see Axanar managed to contribute something to the Trek mythos.
Quote from: Goaty on 15 August, 2017, 12:07:33 AM
Okay, dreddzilla, as you post many negative links about new show. And you still want watch it?
Nope! :lol:
Quote from: Professor Bear on 15 August, 2017, 12:21:47 AM
It also occurred to me out of nowhere that CBS took their investor's money - investors who wanted something in the spirit of the older Trek shows - and used it to bankroll their new network while not delivering what they promised. If nothing else, it's good to see Axanar managed to contribute something to the Trek mythos.
Author! Get that in a tweet, stat.
Jeremy Isaac's ok on fan outrage over the show.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/tv/star-trek-discovery/37600/star-trek-discovery-jason-isaacs-looking-forward-to-fan-outrage
I've only taken a passing interest in this so far, but just to clarify; is this a completely new Star Trek time-line?
It doesn't take place in the same 'universe' as the original Star Trek or the new movies?
Quote from: Link Prime on 16 August, 2017, 08:53:44 AM
I've only taken a passing interest in this so far, but just to clarify; is this a completely new Star Trek time-line?
It doesn't take place in the same 'universe' as the original Star Trek or the new movies?
After quick google;
the series will take place in the Prime (William Shatner) timeline as opposed to the Kelvin (Chris Pine) timeline to avoid conflict with future movies.http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/761665-new-star-trek-discovery-details-reveal-timeline-names-more (http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/761665-new-star-trek-discovery-details-reveal-timeline-names-more)
Quote from: Goaty on 16 August, 2017, 08:58:15 AM
Quote from: Link Prime on 16 August, 2017, 08:53:44 AM
I've only taken a passing interest in this so far, but just to clarify; is this a completely new Star Trek time-line?
It doesn't take place in the same 'universe' as the original Star Trek or the new movies?
After quick google;
the series will take place in the Prime (William Shatner) timeline as opposed to the Kelvin (Chris Pine) timeline to avoid conflict with future movies.
http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/761665-new-star-trek-discovery-details-reveal-timeline-names-more (http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/761665-new-star-trek-discovery-details-reveal-timeline-names-more)
That's what I'd assumed, just unsure after reading a few pages of this thread.
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 16 August, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
Cheers for the update Prof.
That seems a bit daft.
Well I really can't wait to see it. I am Trekkie and proud of it!
Aye, me too - looking forward to this!
Quote from: Goaty on 16 August, 2017, 03:51:57 PM
Well I really can't wait to see it. I am Trekkie and proud of it!
Ah yeah, I'd say most of us are to some degree, and most of us will watch it at some stage.
Just seems a bit silly to establish a third continuity / time-line is all.
I'm not pleased about the third timeline angle. I'll look at it and judge it on it's own merits, but it probably won't be my Trek.
Given that there's a Mirror Universe, surely this is a fourth (at least) timeline?
Then there's the Borg-on-Earth-During-the-First-Warp-Flight timeline, the Voyager-in-Ice timeline and the millions of All-Good-Things timelines...
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 16 August, 2017, 04:16:00 PM
Given that there's a Mirror Universe
I visited there once Sharky- you were working as Chief Whip of the Conservative Party if I recall.
There are probably hundreds of divergent time-lines established in Star Trek over the years, but this is different- we the viewers are now presented with three options as the 'starting point'.
Quote from: Link Prime on 16 August, 2017, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 16 August, 2017, 04:16:00 PM
Given that there's a Mirror Universe
I visited there once Sharky- you were working as Chief Whip of the Conservative Party if I recall.
And presumably had either a neat black goatee or an eyepatch...
Quote from: Dark Jimbo on 16 August, 2017, 04:33:01 PM
Quote from: Link Prime on 16 August, 2017, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 16 August, 2017, 04:16:00 PM
Given that there's a Mirror Universe
I visited there once Sharky- you were working as Chief Whip of the Conservative Party if I recall.
And presumably had either a neat black goatee or an eyepatch...
Funny. I always see Sharky busing tables at a Little Chef in the mirror universe. ::)
Pah. Have you insects never heard of Emperor Shark, Conqueror of Freedom, Lord of All the Agonies and Supreme Commander of Tables Six Through Twelve?
For what it's worth STD will be rated TV-MA in the states. Fun fact The Walking Dead and Hannibal didn't even get that.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 16 August, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
They really have not got a clue what they are doing with this show!
Quote from: JLC on 19 August, 2017, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 16 August, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
They really have not got a clue what they are doing with this show!
They've spent a lot of money on what some insiders believe is a generic Sci Fi show with little to tie it to Star Trek Universe but the name. Some claim that Discovery is the start of an Anthology series with different aspects of this version of the Trek universe being examined.
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 19 August, 2017, 11:02:07 AM
Quote from: JLC on 19 August, 2017, 10:46:33 AM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 16 August, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
They really have not got a clue what they are doing with this show!
They've spent a lot of money on what some insiders believe is a generic Sci Fi show with little to tie it to Star Trek Universe but the name. Some claim that Discovery is the start of an Anthology series with different aspects of this version of the Trek universe being examined.
Yes the original plan was an anthology series, which would have been a good idea.
I think it was originally meant to be part of the original series timeline, but then when potential continuity issues cropped up, figured "let's say it's another timeline so we can do what we want'.
So far, I haven't encountered much to suggest there's a clash*, so I wish they'd kept to the original plan. So Sarek now has a human Step/adopted daughter who was never mentioned elsewhere. So what. Aside for their logic, the vulcans are well known to be a private people.
I read something about Spock not existing in this continuity, but I don't know where that came from. It could just mean he isn't mentioned in this particular programme. Again, this show isn't about him, so that's fine.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to see what they come up with. If it doesn't contradict the main timeline, I can just assume it's part of it.
* The biggest may be aesthetic stuff: I. E. The look of the klingons. This is hardly the first time this has happened, though.
Quote from: Mardroid on 19 August, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
I think it was originally meant to be part of the original series timeline, but then when potential continuity issues cropped up, figured "let's say it's another timeline so we can do what we want'.
The producers gave little indication that they were concerned with continuity issues, while Midnight's Edge reported that the producers had issued interview directions to cast and crew that "The Original Timeline will be cited for promotional purposes." it was probably an early decision to do a complete reboot rather than a change in direction that was forced upon them.
A little bit of Star Trek Kelvin timelines possible demise and more of interest perhaps- Dredd.
https://youtu.be/IUwv7ydzknE
Quote from: IAMTHESYSTEM on 19 August, 2017, 03:39:47 PM
A little bit of Star Trek Kelvin timelines possible demise and more of interest perhaps- Dredd.
https://youtu.be/IUwv7ydzknE
Did I hear correctly? Did he refer to a certain film studio as a "bum factory"?
Thanks for posting. That was interesting.
Quote from: Mardroid on 19 August, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
I think it was originally meant to be part of the original series timeline, but then when potential continuity issues cropped up, figured "let's say it's another timeline so we can do what we want'.
So far, I haven't encountered much to suggest there's a clash*, so I wish they'd kept to the original plan. So Sarek now has a human Step/adopted daughter who was never mentioned elsewhere. So what. Aside for their logic, the vulcans are well known to be a private people.
I read something about Spock not existing in this continuity, but I don't know where that came from. It could just mean he isn't mentioned in this particular programme. Again, this show isn't about him, so that's fine.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to see what they come up with. If it doesn't contradict the main timeline, I can just assume it's part of it.
* The biggest may be aesthetic stuff: I. E. The look of the klingons. This is hardly the first time this has happened, though.
They could have resolved all of this by not setting it a decade before TOS! It seems like a bizarre decision to tie it down to a specific period before TOS.
That's what investors paid for. CBS didn't have the money for a sci-fi show for CBS All Access - they could barely afford The Good Fight, which is just a legal drama that re-used existing sets - so they had to get outside investment from the likes of Netflix and McFarlane Toys, who specifically wanted something set in the original timeline.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 20 August, 2017, 02:21:02 PM
That's what investors paid for. CBS didn't have the money for a sci-fi show for CBS All Access - they could barely afford The Good Fight, which is just a legal drama that re-used existing sets - so they had to get outside investment from the likes of Netflix and McFarlane Toys, who specifically wanted something set in the original timeline.
& that is what will kill this show. Kill it dead.
Almost zero chance that investors would pay for any more up front, which is the only way a second series would get funded.
The sad thing about this is that I suspect the investors are wrong. A *good* post-Nemesis series would have more chance of shifting merch than yet another prequel - people like TOS tat because of TOS nostalgia, not because of the specific cultural aesthetic or fictional period. My wee kids are borderline Trekkies at this point, but they want the stories to move forward not back: it's about the future for them, and even TNG seems vaguely historical to them.
They've watched TOS and the old movies (but preferred JJTrek), and have displayed no interest in the Discovery trailers.
Tell them we're picking up a decade from the end of Voyager and hearing on a 10-year extra-galactic exploration mission and I'd say you couidn't pry them away from the telly.
Tell them we're going to see some funny looking Klingons from the time that Kirk and Spock were kids, and you get blank looks.
But surely a post-Nemesis outing would be more weighed down by continuity baggage? You've seen what Trek shows are like, they can't help themselves.
I think the merchandise for TOS shifts because that's the stuff with the most kitsch/nostalgia value for non-fans, as well as the episodic nature of it that makes it the most accessible of all the shows. It's where normal people check into the franchise.
I agree Trek shows can't help themselves flogging dead adversaries, but I very much doubt another prequel would be immune. I certainly wouldn't advocate more Federation conspiracies and Romulan ofshoots, but something along the lines of the original TNG concept, heading out of the galaxy away from all that stuff (at least for a while). To quote Zefram Cochrane, "astronauts, on some kind of... star-trek". You never know, it might have legs.
Quote from: TordelBack on 20 August, 2017, 09:16:38 PMTo quote Zefram Cochrane, "astronauts, on some kind of... star-trek".
(https://media.giphy.com/media/fM2ekn3aHde24/giphy.gif)
There's a new Star Trek roleplaying game from Modiphius Entertainment, and in the second issue of their free pdf magazine (available here http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/219371/Modiphia--Issue-2 or from the Modiphius site) there an interview with "Rick Sternbach, production illustrator/designer for Star Trek incarnations from The Motion Picture to Voyager, and consultant on Star Trek Adventures' design elements".
He's asked what character he'd create for the game:
Hmm. Human armed tech officer with a new post-Voyager directorate that goes in to explore captured or destroyed alien assets, after major incursions from outside the Milky Way begin taking out antimatter refineries run by all known species, requiring some new alliances. Specific enough for you? – And Discovery, don't steal that idea! It's mine.
Could be fun.
(He's also a fan of Stargate.)
Regards,
Robin
'War, we're going to war!' More Discovery snippets here.
http://www.gamesradar.com/star-trek-discovery-news-cast-trailer/?utm_content=buffer8e44d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com
Quote"Discovery is the first Trek series with a lead character who is not a captain,"
Commander Sisko.
Quote"Lorca is extremely good at war," Isaacs says.
How? The Federation's last war was 70 years earlier.
QuoteCBS' CEO, Les Moonves, wants us to know he's not only seen the opening episodes of Star Trek: Discovery - he thinks they're "terrific" too.
Moonves thinks NCIS New Orleans is terrific, and that not paying Asian actors the same as their white co-stars is a good idea. His barometer of what is good does not align with my own is what I am saying.
I would go on quoting and then sniping at the quotes, but to be honest I couldn't read all of that horseshit - certainly not once it became apparent that DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were being left out of Trek canon and the only touchstone was the cultural iconography of TOS and TNG rather than their actual substance.
It's not public yet, but I'm getting word the Khan Prequel idea is dead in space. Effectively all prequel ideas are dead from this point forward.
shouldn't that be "from this point backwards"? :D
Quote from: Dreddzilla on 29 August, 2017, 08:43:08 PM
It's not public yet, but I'm getting word the Khan Prequel idea is dead in space. Effectively all prequel ideas are dead from this point forward.
Where are you getting word from?
From The Street, Daddio.
Regardless of the end quality, they'll need 9 million Americans to sign up to the streaming channel just to cover the cost of the show, so I assume this has killed any sort of follow-up, and not just prequels - plus the rights split means they can't do anything set after TOS, anyway, so that's every option shagged, surely?
If they do make a new Star Trek, it'll have to be something that CBS is capable of delivering, which means it would be a police procedural set in a city with generous tax breaks for out-of-state film crews. How's about: Gary Seven investigating murders in Detroit with his (all-Caucasian) team of ex-military servicemen and/or undercover cops who finally have to ride a desk and play by the man's rules and regulations, creating Dramatic Tension. BOSH.
Call me, CBS. We'll talk numbers.
Actually, they could just have Scott Bakula's character in NCIS New Orleans reveal he's really Captain Archer who got lost in time between seasons of Enterprise and has been posing as a white police officer in an alternate 21st century New Orleans - trust me, if NCIS viewers haven't given a single fuck about what's onscreen after 15 years, this turn of events certainly won't bother them.
Producers plan 2 more seasons after Discovery launches.
http://comicbook.com/startrek/2017/08/29/star-trek-discovery-season-2-season-3/
I'm more interested in knowing how they plan to pay for it, but sure, I totally believe they'd come right out and say "HO BOY we misjudged this and now we need 10 million Americans to forget they can download this for free and pay for an annual subscription to a streaming service that only offers one show" if that was actually what was happening.
I note they're back to saying this is set in the Prime timeline, too. And that they've dropped the anthology angle yet again.
Money cost of an episode. Pretty steep.
http://comicbook.com/startrek/2017/08/29/star-trek-discovery-budget-/
"Our barometer of success is not how many people watch or like it" is an interesting take for a producer to have.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 16 August, 2017, 01:23:59 PM
The series is now promoted as being set in an alternate reality to TOS and NuTrek, but up until a few weeks ago was promoted as being set in the original timeline.
I haven't seen or heard that anywhere. The show is still being promoted as set in the prime timeline in everything I've read, right up to now.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 19 August, 2017, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: Mardroid on 19 August, 2017, 01:20:13 PM
I think it was originally meant to be part of the original series timeline, but then when potential continuity issues cropped up, figured "let's say it's another timeline so we can do what we want'.
The producers gave little indication that they were concerned with continuity issues, while Midnight's Edge reported that the producers had issued interview directions to cast and crew that "The Original Timeline will be cited for promotional purposes." it was probably an early decision to do a complete reboot rather than a change in direction that was forced upon them.
Midnight Edge's feature on the show is full of dubious and seriously (unnecessarily venomous too, I thought) unsubstantiated claims. Wouldn't believe much of it.
Getting cautiously excited for this now. Hope it's good. Fuller's not attached anymore but I trust him when it comes to Trek and they're still using the bare bones of what he came up with. I'd expect a little retconning, but I also expect it to loosely fit into place. Can't seriously expect a show made fifty years later to resemble one from 1966 in look, style or storytelling. The Spock stepsister thing's a bit of a stretch but if it's ten years before, Spock's already out on the Enterprise with Pike. I suppose it's conceivable as he's estranged from Sarek, this is all stuff he may not be too aware of. I dunno. Have a feeling I may have to watch this with blinkers on, but if it's solid, I'll be forgiving. If it's shite... well.
And yes, CBS'll be getting my money. Fuck it. It's a new Trek show. Not waiting six months to watch it on Netflix. $10 a month for four episodes. Not exactly breaking the bank.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 29 August, 2017, 11:44:00 PM
From The Street, Daddio.
Regardless of the end quality, they'll need 9 million Americans to sign up to the streaming channel just to cover the cost of the show, so I assume this has killed any sort of follow-up, and not just prequels - plus the rights split means they can't do anything set after TOS, anyway, so that's every option shagged, surely?
If they do make a new Star Trek, it'll have to be something that CBS is capable of delivering, which means it would be a police procedural set in a city with generous tax breaks for out-of-state film crews. How's about: Gary Seven investigating murders in Detroit with his (all-Caucasian) team of ex-military servicemen and/or undercover cops who finally have to ride a desk and play by the man's rules and regulations, creating Dramatic Tension. BOSH.
Call me, CBS. We'll talk numbers.
Actually, they could just have Scott Bakula's character in NCIS New Orleans reveal he's really Captain Archer who got lost in time between seasons of Enterprise and has been posing as a white police officer in an alternate 21st century New Orleans - trust me, if NCIS viewers haven't given a single fuck about what's onscreen after 15 years, this turn of events certainly won't bother them.
Show's budget is already paid for via the deal with Netflix.
From wikipedia:
"CBS Studios International licensed the series to Netflix for release outside the United States and Canada, a "blockbuster" deal that paid for the show's entire budget. At around $6–7 million per episode, the series' high allowance was attributed to the importance of Star Trek as one of CBS's "crown-jewel franchises", and CBS's need for the series to be "the marquee selling point for subscriptions" to All Access."
And at the very least, STD's going to look great:
https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/02/star-trek-discovery-analysis-everything-we-know-about-tkuvma-and-the-klingons/
Quote from: blackmocco on 09 September, 2017, 01:00:45 AMMidnight Edge's feature on the show is full of dubious and seriously (unnecessarily venomous too, I thought) unsubstantiated claims. Wouldn't believe much of it.
Midnight's Edge videos are a collation of every internet rumour put in a blender. It's goes no deeper than a web-search.
Pretty much all fan reaction vids are going by scuttlebutt in the tried and tested tradition of tabloid muckraking, but it is interesting how many of the negative vids on Youtube CBS are slapping with takedown notices (only for them to go right back up again with any footage from the Discovery trailer removed).
Quote from: blackmocco on 09 September, 2017, 01:14:44 AMShow's budget is already paid for via the deal with Netflix.
As discussed at length several pages back.
However, for CBS to
go it alone in funding a sequel series - which was the thrust of my hilarious NCIS skit
which you quote in full - they'll have to accept streaming as a loss leader for at least the next 5-10 years as Netflix have and consequently eat a $100-$150 million loss on a yearly basis for new seasons of Discovery,
or they'll have to convince 9-10 million Americans to sign up to All Access just to watch STD so the network can fund it themselves. Neither of those scenarios seem particularly likely in light of both CBS' much-publicised money dramas, and their inability to get high numbers to sign up for AA with a bona-fide sure thing like
The Good Fight as their lynchpin show.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 29 August, 2017, 11:44:00 PM
plus the rights split means they can't do anything set after TOS, anyway, so that's every option shagged, surely?
Sorry Bear, didn't feel the urge to trawl back though 18 pages and really was only referring to your first sentence. Should have edited the quote down. Haha!
One other thing though: this rights legality issue thing isn't true either. Doesn't even make any sense. JJ/Bad Robot aren't attached to this show at all. There are four production companies: CBS themselves, Secret Hideout, Living Dead Guy and Roddenberry productions. People seem to think Kurtzman's involvement means something it doesn't. Paramount has had to license stuff from CBS in order to use it for the JJ Trek movies but CBS owns Star Trek lock, stock and barrel. They can do what they choose with the TV franchise. Yeah, I'm kinda bummed out this is another prequel for sure, but there's no weird legal issue as to why. Fuller wanted an anthology show (which it doesn't look like we're gonna get) and simply wanted to start here. CBS just went along with it.
You don't want to read 18 pages of fanboy opinions on why something is shit? I don't think the internet is for you.
Rights splits between tv studios and movie companies doing adaptations of their tv shows wasn't a situation invented by Trek, though as I understand it, the issue with Trek following up on continuity from the films in the tv shows is most likely that bit in the Trek reboot movie where all of tv Trek was rendered non-canon by Trek's own timey-wimey rules.
I'll just repeat there's nothing anywhere to substantiate any of that is true. Star Trek on TV belongs to CBS. They can do what they want with their own property. The new show's creators have repeatedly said from day one this show has nothing to do with the JJ Trek. I'm not seeing the problem.
Star Trek Beyond bombing at the box-office doesn't help the case for people saying this is tied to the JJ verse either. Time will tell. As I said earlier, I just hope it's good. It'd be nice to have a decent Trek show back on TV. Well, paid streaming service bullshit TV, anyway.
Ugh. Delete!
Beyond bombing is probably what allowed the tv series to happen in the first place, as Brannon Braga and Rod Roddenberry both said that the films would have to "run their course" before any new tv shows were made. Talk of the time suggested that Orci/Kurtzman couldn't even get an okay for an animated spin-off.
Discovery is set in 2256 while "The Cage" takes place in 2254, so if Discovery is set in the TOS timeline, at the very least they'll have to do some number-fudging.
Well, judging by how The Orville is being received, probably just as well Braga is busy elsewhere.
As for STD, yeah, none of it makes a lick of sense really. I'm finding myself going pretty easy on this though. Didn't really care for the JJ movies and hated Enterprise. If this turns out to some weird soft reboot, I'll be alright with it as long as it's decent.
Still can't wait for it in two weeks!
Quote from: blackmocco on 09 September, 2017, 08:12:37 PMWell, judging by how The Orville is being received, probably just as well Braga is busy elsewhere.
The Orville was always a ship of the damned: McFarlane's detractors were never going to give him a break, and Braga has never been forgiven by Trek fans. Minds were always made up on this one, but it's kind of heartening that the show's biggest stumbling block for many reviewers seems to be its earnestness more than its humor.
We'll know more tomorrow night. Orville's biggest problem is going to be the same problem his Western had: a confused tone and the big man himself. He hasn't really got the charisma or acting skills to carry something like this. I wish it well. I mean, I kinda have to - he's my boss on Family Guy but I'm not expecting much. He might want to see Star Trek go back to a stale episode of the week formula, but I'm hoping for something different and new from STD.
I love/hate this thread.
The Orville was actually alright. Advance word about the earnestness seems to stem from a misunderstanding about the tone of the show whereby reviewers seem to have chosen to paint consistent internal logic as a crippling imbalance between comedy and drama, almost like they have deliberately chosen to forget the last twenty years of comedy while talking about this specific show. This misconception is probably not helped by the script being pretty light on structured jokes and erring more towards banter to the point that when the comedy becomes the focus of the plot - in a pretty shameless lift from Galaxy Quest - it feels out of place.
There's a really jarring Basil scene at the start that looks like it fell out of an unaired 1990s pilot, but otherwise it's all pretty well done.
Basil. Michaels Myers and York must be so chuffed this has entered the language.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 11 September, 2017, 03:42:15 PM
The Orville was actually alright. Advance word about the earnestness seems to stem from a misunderstanding about the tone of the show whereby reviewers seem to have chosen to paint consistent internal logic as a crippling imbalance between comedy and drama, almost like they have deliberately chosen to forget the last twenty years of comedy while talking about this specific show. This misconception is probably not helped by the script being pretty light on structured jokes and erring more towards banter to the point that when the comedy becomes the focus of the plot - in a pretty shameless lift from Galaxy Quest - it feels out of place.
There's a really jarring Basil scene at the start that looks like it fell out of an unaired 1990s pilot, but otherwise it's all pretty well done.
Ehhh. It wasn't as bad as the reviews make out, I'll give it that much, but it's a long way from where it needs to be. The whole thing felt so generic really. I get what they're trying to do but they didn't push the comedy OR the drama anywhere near where it needed to go to be remotely interesting or different. Felt the same about the production design. Ship designs, uniforms, the beige carpets, the design of the bridge - just bland and generic. I get the show is worshipping at the feet of TNG, but making it look exactly like it's a bit questionable. If the idea is to not distract from the script - which is something we have to constantly juggle working on Family Guy - then your script had better be pretty honed. There's hope for this, I guess, looks like they threw some money at it so they will need it to perform but I can't see it lasting unless they drastically sharpen it up.
There is a unifying aesthetic to it derived from modular and capsule designs, but it does look bland as a whole - possibly because it all seems a bit too plausible as a real work environment. I suspect some of those expensive-looking corridor scenes were probably shot in an Apple store somewhere.
There's also some subtly progressive stuff in there, like the crewmember from a unisex species who was broadly painted in a couple of clumsy jokes in the trailers, but in practice the character is portrayed as having nothing to prove and is comfortable with their identity. As a single-gendered race, it also means he's technically gay, so even before you get to stuff like it being stupidly expensive-looking and based around characters who shout at each other a lot, Discovery is already losing ground to something that's ostensibly making fun of it.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 11 September, 2017, 08:06:23 PM
Discovery is already losing ground to something that's ostensibly making fun of it.
Truthfully, I wish it
were making more fun of Trek. Would've made it more entertaining. I don't believe for a second Discovery should try too hard to match the look of the 60's show in 2017 but honestly, watching Orville last night, I wish
they had. That would have been fantastic. (IMO...!)
On a separate topic, but not completely unrelated: everyone's freaking out about Discovery's Klingons looking different than TNG/DS9/Voyager. The costumes are more elaborate (and apparently will be explained why in the show) but do they really look this different? Even as a kid being brought to see TMP in 1979, the now lumpy-headed Klingons didn't bother me at all. I just accepted these were the same as the ones in the 60s show but updated. Am I an idiot for doing the same here? I'll go one step further: I H-A-T-E-D the show tried to explain a difference between the two versions of Klingons on the show.
I'm going to go do something now to remind myself I am actually a grown man...
We already know that from the press releases: they're isolated Klingon extremists, so they never caught the space-flu that made lumpy-head Klingons into regular humans.
There's a behind-the-scenes video somewhere about the making of DS9's Trials And Tribbleations in which the writers are slapping their thighs and laughing about the fact that any in-universe explanation they offered as to why Klingons didn't have lumpy heads in TOS would be utter nonsense, and I think Enterprise's writers felt much the same way but had to get it over with. They cast Uncle Phil as a Klingon in the episode, though, and he does his Shredder voice so it isn't a total loss.
Will you two get a room already???
I'm a single-sex species. I can only mate with myself.
And I'm only gay for Star Trek.
Hollywood's kiss of death: No reviews allowed before the show airs. I've been trying hard to stay positive here, but man o man. Throw me a fuckin' bone here.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/cbs-wont-allow-any-reviews-of-star-trek-discovery-befo-1809073782
So much for bad reviews not mattering as long as that Moonves guy liked it.
No reviews means no confidence.
Just watched ep2 of The Orville, in the pre-credits sequence Seth MacFarlane says "I'm just not gonna try comedy with you anymore" ANYMORE?!?
ZING. He is the weakest thing about it, but the show itself is off to a decent start - certainly better than most sci-fi shows I can think of, especially the Treks. If nothing else, it's amusing to see those reviewers with pre-written copy now trying to backpeddle, and I fully expect when it does an objectively good episode that many reviewers will seize the chance to start a "this is where the Orville finally found its feet!" narrative.
The title sequence has me scratching my chin why Axanar got sued but this gets a free pass, tho. I can only conclude that unlike everything else about that increasingly-dystopian hellhole, America's satire laws must be pretty fucking liberal.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 19 September, 2017, 11:49:19 PM
ZING. He is the weakest thing about it, but the show itself is off to a decent start - certainly better than most sci-fi shows I can think of, especially the Treks. If nothing else, it's amusing to see those reviewers with pre-written copy now trying to backpeddle, and I fully expect when it does an objectively good episode that many reviewers will seize the chance to start a "this is where the Orville finally found its feet!" narrative.
The title sequence has me scratching my chin why Axanar got sued but this gets a free pass, tho. I can only conclude that unlike everything else about that increasingly-dystopian hellhole, America's satire laws must be pretty fucking liberal.
Perhaps CBS saw the first few episodes as well and figured it wasn't worth their time and effort. Pretty much the same as how I feel about it. It's not terrible enough to rant about, but it's maddeningly generic in every regard. Not funny enough to land jokes, not interesting enough to make it as drama. I wish it well, it may find its feet as it goes, but until it decides to stop blatantly tracing TNG and do something of its own, I really can't imagine giving it too much of my attention.
(It's better than all of Enterprise though. And three-quarters of Voyager. That's not exactly setting the bar high though...)
Lots of Discovery clips showing up, and I'm going to try avoid them from this point on for risk of spoilers but I quite liked this promo. Yeah, a lot of talking head stuff but there's some nice clips of character interaction in here that really give me some hope the show's going to get things right and give us something new.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zy-7kUPQXs
Quote from: blackmocco on 20 September, 2017, 12:15:56 AMIt's not terrible enough to rant about, but it's maddeningly generic in every regard. Not funny enough to land jokes, not interesting enough to make it as drama. I wish it well, it may find its feet as it goes, but until it decides to stop blatantly tracing TNG and do something of its own, I really can't imagine giving it too much of my attention.
You are describing the show that Trek fans dream about.
Fans and critics loving the show:
http://filmfamine.com/star-trek-discovery-fans-critics/ (http://filmfamine.com/star-trek-discovery-fans-critics/)
Quote from: von Boom on 21 September, 2017, 05:46:09 PM
Fans and critics loving the show:
(https://i.imgur.com/ikapD5Z.jpg)
"Fans" that seem to be ex-Trek cast members who spend 90% of their free time at conventions and don't have a bad word to say about anything - and including at least one cast member of Star Trek Continues, a show that can only release its final two episodes if CBS don't call out the lawyers.
Seems airtight to me - the show must be good after all.
Abram's influence on ST:D.
https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/21/exclusive-akiva-goldsman-on-influence-of-jj-abrams-films-on-star-trek-discovery/ (https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/21/exclusive-akiva-goldsman-on-influence-of-jj-abrams-films-on-star-trek-discovery/)
Quote from: von Boom on 22 September, 2017, 09:37:39 PM
Abram's influence on ST:D.
https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/21/exclusive-akiva-goldsman-on-influence-of-jj-abrams-films-on-star-trek-discovery/ (https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/21/exclusive-akiva-goldsman-on-influence-of-jj-abrams-films-on-star-trek-discovery/)
My grud but that was some professional-level bollocks.
QuoteA more kinetic camera, a more dynamic way of existing, a much greater use of practical sets so when you're running down a corridor, you're running down a corridor. A sense of rhythm...there is a sense of litheness, a kind of fluidity in the characterizations
Reads like Waldo Dobbs translating a Torquetto Jubbli script.
Fuck all y'all, Goldsman wrote the best Batman movie and the best Lost in Space reboot film that came out in 1998 starring a member of the cast of Friends and Gary Oldman, this still might be good.
What I wanted from Goldsman was to say 'Abrams? Fuck Abrams!'
The shows Producers seem upbeat about Discovery, and the soundings from the screening have been brimming with confidence, so it might be that we've all got the wrong end of the stick and ST:D is a competent piece of work and not the oddball mess it appeared to be at first. I hope it does well and becomes as popular as other Star Trek series have become and if not, well that's' life sometimes.
Pretty excited. Took a while to come round for me, but really looking forward to it now. I'm not gonna bag on Orville but "it's not as bad as I thought it would be" isn't exactly what I was hoping for with a new Trek-ish show.
Outside of the official twitterscape, I've a mate who happened to be drinking in a pub near where the premiere screening was held. He was telling me a big crowd arrived in after the event and were very happy with what they'd seen. Different enough to feel new but very much still Star Trek. Apparently it looks beautiful.
All kvetching aside, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is one of my favorites, and actually made a profit at the box office, but I've enjoyed pretending Trek has a high bar.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 September, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
...I've enjoyed pretending Trek has a high bar.
Yes, but the dream lives on...! 😬
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 September, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
...I've enjoyed pretending Trek has a high bar.
This is the truth of things. Over the last two or three years the combo of my kids' unnatural interest, Netflix and lot of boring nightshifts have resulted in me rewatching almost all of Trek (not really dug into Enterprise yet, but once we're finished Voyager), and the reality is that it's ALL pretty crap (except when it isn't), but it's also all pretty enjoyable crap (except when it isn't). 'Star Trek' as a coherent brand of good-quality thoughtful SF (or even 'SF') is very much something that has existed in my head rather than on the screen, but somehow the aggregate discordant protracted mess of the thing still manages to engage and make it so.
Here's hoping Discovery follows the trend.
Two days to go!
Quote from: TordelBack on 23 September, 2017, 05:12:16 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 September, 2017, 03:52:18 PM
...I've enjoyed pretending Trek has a high bar.
This is the truth of things. Over the last two or three years the combo of my kids' unnatural interest, Netflix and lot of boring nightshifts have resulted in me rewatching almost all of Trek (not really dug into Enterprise yet, but once we're finished Voyager), and the reality is that it's ALL pretty crap (except when it isn't), but it's also all pretty enjoyable crap (except when it isn't). 'Star Trek' as a coherent brand of good-quality thoughtful SF (or even 'SF') is very much something that has existed in my head rather than on the screen, but somehow the aggregate discordant protracted mess of the thing still manages to engage and make it so.
Here's hoping Discovery follows the trend.
I think that's pretty spot on. The brilliance of Trek for me lies in what it aspires to be and not in what it actually is.
I guess now we know why CBS weren't too worried about The Orville - Fox have done what they usually do and the show's new (and presumably temporary) timeslot saw the ratings take a nosedive. I guess we can stick a fork in it now, which is a shame even if I just can't unsee Star Trek when they're sitting in the ready room jawing away about a clash of cultures that can only be resolved by returning to the aliens' home planet and having a tribunal because yes episode 3 is one of those, but it's... uh... actually pretty good? It's a thing about gender norms being surgically enforced by an all-male species and is surprisingly earnest for something that opens with a dick joke, but those looking for a TNG-scented sci-fi comfort blanket need look no further for something to cuddle.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 23 September, 2017, 10:15:54 PM
I guess now we know why CBS weren't too worried about The Orville - Fox have done what they usually do and the show's new (and presumably temporary) timeslot saw the ratings take a nosedive. I guess we can stick a fork in it now, which is a shame even if I just can't unsee Star Trek when they're sitting in the ready room jawing away about a clash of cultures that can only be resolved by returning to the aliens' home planet and having a tribunal because yes episode 3 is one of those, but it's... uh... actually pretty good? It's a thing about gender norms being surgically enforced by an all-male species and is surprisingly earnest for something that opens with a dick joke, but those looking for a TNG-scented sci-fi comfort blanket need look no further for something to cuddle.
That scent's a little too overpowering for me. Just watched the latest one. Oof. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Thursday night's the slot it was always intended for here in the US. First two were following huge audiences watching football on FOX to get it in front of people. (Which is just as well for my further employment. Orville was playing in Family Guy's timeslot...) They've moved Gotham too to launch them as a Thursday night double-bill. Tough night. Biggest TV viewing night in the US and up against vile but very popular filth like Grey's Anatomy, Big Bang Theory and the now about to be relaunched Will and Grace <shudder>.
They may have anticipated the ratings. Hard to know. If it were any other network, I'd say maybe they'll give it a chance to find an audience - they've invested heavily in this and Big Mac makes them a boatload of money - but this is FOX. Absolutely merciless if something doesn't perform. Unless it starts grabbing viewers quickly, I could see this being a one-way trip...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oMTmtN7lHI
I have no idea how Fox chooses which shows live or die, but I presume it involves a dartboard.
edit: and a big bucket of money for Chuck Lorre.
just watched episode 1, enjoyed it, but I'm not really are hard core trekkie I like all of the series even Voyager its good to get some SF on TV but I dont know how the hardcore Trekies (Trekers???) will get on with it. New Klingon design is a bit full on not sure they can explain the change with a virus thingie that they did between the original series and later ones. I like Orville too but no wheer near enough dick jokes.
CU Radbacker
I saw the first 2 episodes and I think its a pretty strong start.I didnt like the new Klingon design,I must say.
I've seen some good reactions from people on Facebook.
It looks like a pretty strong start.
Aw man, I loved it. Very much updated for 2017, both visually and in the way the story's told. Cast are stellar, but Burnham's character is an instant classic. Saru is great too. Reminded me of the crewmember from the 70s animated show.
Being Star Trek, it's not perfect. Some of the dialog's clunky, there's a LOT of exposition dumps, but honestly, it's about as great as I was hoping for. Hard to say more without spoiling. Bullet point: loved it. Can't wait for more.
The first two episodes were terrific! I'm shocked at how much I enjoyed that. It was fun and very Trekian. The look of the series is stunning, with exception of the blasted use of lens flare. I'm hooked.
I've tried to enjoy Trek many times and TNG was the one i enjoyed the most (except for episdoes that involved Riker playing his trombone/trumpet), but I'll give this a go.....
I enjoyed thoroughly. Not bothered by the Klingons too much - bit baroque but tis fine if the aliens look more alien now it doesnt cost much to do it.
It's okay, but I'm glad I gave Orville a chance considering all the criticisms that apply to that can equally apply to Discovery.
I'm not sure it holds together from one moment to the next - what exactly was the point of the opening scenes on a desert planet, if the ship didn't know the captain was in trouble how could it see the starfleet symbol etc - and I'm not feeling that derivative and aimless theme tune. Others have expressed my opinions on the daft Klingon designs, I'm not sure about subtitling the Klingon scenes, and the racial allegories are as clumsy as I've ever seen in or out of sci-fi - "don't confuse race and culture"/"others judge the colour of your skin" etc.
Still, it's a good romp. It owes more to the reboot movies than it does the tv shows, which I'm sure will be a deal-breaker for some. Well, that and having to pay for a whole new channel to watch it, obviously.
I thought the first two episodes were horrible.
Where was the adventure, the humanity and yes, the discovery?
Wooden acting, simplistic 'gun ho' action and humourless.
Hope it improves. :(
Quote from: Professor Bear on 25 September, 2017, 06:45:30 PM
I'm not sure it holds together from one moment to the next - what exactly was the point of the opening scenes on a desert planet, if the ship didn't know the captain was in trouble how could it see the starfleet symbol etc - and I'm not feeling that derivative and aimless theme tune.
The desert bits seemed to be a general theme-setter for newbies –
the Federation's function. The Star Fleet sign's only function is to be a cute end shot before the credits.
Generally I thought it was OK – no better or worse than the general run of old Trek TV I've seen – but I haven't seen this many Dutch-Angles since Battlefield Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z7-DIa1As).
Got a good crowd and a record number of sign ups for the streaming channel.
http://deadline.com/2017/09/star-trek-discovery-draws-9-6-million-viewers-sunday-premiere-1202176478/
Quote from: Professor Bear on 25 September, 2017, 06:45:30 PM
It's okay, but I'm glad I gave Orville a chance considering all the criticisms that apply to that can equally apply to Discovery.
It's a shame the shows are being pitched against each other, to be honest. Pretty clear they're doing very different things with the concept and seeing as STD's on premium, they're not even competing with each other for ratings.
I think Orville has done Discovery a massive solid in being so like TNG - a lot of the aggressive and hostile social media voices and fan channels who initially came out against both shows seem to have taken to the former and it's really calmed them down, to the point I think they'll be more forgiving of what they see as Discovery's shortcomings.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 25 September, 2017, 07:29:57 PMI haven't seen this many Dutch-Angles since Battlefield Earth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z7-DIa1As).
Those aren't Dutch angles, the Discovery cameramen just keep tripping because they can't see a fucking thing on that bridge.
Most criticisms made above are vaild: the JJTrek leanings undermine claims to be in the 'Prime' timeline; Martin-Green's over-acting as Burnham is proving bit wearing; Sarek-On-Demand feels very wrong; the subtitles are unnecessary and offputting for (my) kids; AND we've only watched the first episode, BUT...
I enjoyed it rather a lot.
Failures to hold the camera level aside, it looked great, the Shenzou is a lovely design - much nicer than the horrid 2009 Enterprise - and the lead it takes from NuTrek actually seems to be from the superior entry of the reboot trilogy, ST: Beyond. I got used to the new Klingons in about 30 seconds (I mean, why not a bit of racial diversity in a clan-based interstellar species?), the bridge banter (while forced) was welcome, and I thought the whole thing conveyed the Starfleet ethos rather well, while still somehow feeling like it was in 'the past'.
Yeah, this has more than earned a chance. Many times better than 'Encounter at Farpoint' or 'Broken Bow' anyway.
Can we all agree that Michelle Yeoh was simply dreamy? *sigh*
Quote from: von Boom on 25 September, 2017, 09:53:08 PM
Can we all agree that Michelle Yeoh was simply dreamy? *sigh*
Same in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Quote from: TordelBack on 25 September, 2017, 09:43:29 PMI got used to the new Klingons in about 30 seconds (I mean, why not a bit of racial diversity in a clan-based interstellar species?)
(No spoilers) We see the Klingon houses' representatives in the next episode and they all look like the new Klingon design. There is no racial diversity to the point that - as seen in the first episode - albinos are outcasts.
Quote from: TordelBack on 25 September, 2017, 09:43:29 PM
Most criticisms made above are vaild: the JJTrek leanings undermine claims to be in the 'Prime' timeline; Martin-Green's over-acting as Burnham is proving bit wearing; Sarek-On-Demand feels very wrong; the subtitles are unnecessary and offputting for (my) kids; AND we've only watched the first episode, BUT...
I enjoyed it rather a lot.
Failures to hold the camera level aside, it looked great, the Shenzou is a lovely design - much nicer than the horrid 2009 Enterprise - and the lead it takes from NuTrek actually seems to be from the superior entry of the reboot trilogy, ST: Beyond. I got used to the new Klingons in about 30 seconds (I mean, why not a bit of racial diversity in a clan-based interstellar species?), the bridge banter (while forced) was welcome, and I thought the whole thing conveyed the Starfleet ethos rather well, while still somehow feeling like it was in 'the past'.
Yeah, this has more than earned a chance. Many times better than 'Encounter at Farpoint' or 'Broken Bow' anyway.
Watched 'Broken Bow' last week and was pleasantly surprised by it. Didn't remember it being quite as entertaining.
As for Discovery (the second episode is great too, by the way), there's no reason it has to be Sarek as Burnham's ward. It could have been any Vulcan but I get they're trying to have
some literal recognizable attachment to the original show. In saying that, and particularly in part 2, I found the relationship quite moving and - dare I say it - emotional.
Didn't mind the sweeping camera movements. That's just a part of modern movie-making. After five series of static camera placing they've earned the right to indulge themselves and yeah, the visuals very much harken to JJ, but honestly they were the parts I enjoyed most of those movies anyway.
Found a lot to enjoy: I liked the rapport the bridge crew shared. Burnham's spacewalk was a gorgeous throwback to Spock pissing around inside Vejur. The dynamic between Saru and Burnham was a nice reminder of the Spock/McCoy banter. [spoiler]I loved her outwitting the Shenzou computer from the brig too. Very Kirk-ian. Yeoh getting killed gave the right sort of emotional wrench too.[/spoiler]
If my biggest peeve with it is I wish the phasers were still a beam as opposed to a bolt, I'd say they got more right than wrong.
Enjoyed the first episode but fell asleep during the second.
what with all the wonky Battlefield earth camera angles?
also i find the actor playing the[spoiler] older vulcan serek[/spoiler] a really strange chhoice
I caught up on the first episodes yesterday night. I enjoyed that a lot, but then I've always gravitated towards the conflict battle stories than straight exploration. I'm not much into the original series for example, but love the films, particularly the even numbers (and I've a soft spot for The Search for Spock) and I really like Enterprise, but I'm not that keen on the Next Generation. (Borg, Klingon and Romulan episodes aside.)
I'm not opposed to new species and discovery episodes, but I do find them often a bit preachy. This is how we do things in the federation. We're so great, etc. I know that's a but of a sweep, and they're not all like that, mind.
I liked the design of the Aliens at the start of the episode. Kind of humanoid and clam like in one. What looked like a hood could be a shell, etc.
What,no love for DS9?
Quote from: Mardroid on 26 September, 2017, 11:32:21 AM
I liked the design of the Aliens at the start of the episode. Kind of humanoid and clam like in one. What looked like a hood could be a shell, etc.
They were cool alright, and the stormclouds etc on the planet looked great too. However, the dialogue was the worst kind of nonsense: radiation (?) from a meteor mining (why would you do such a thing?) project accident (?) had dried-up (?) the water sources of a species that had lived in that area for 1,000 years, and now they were facing an 89 year drought
starting right now, which would somehow also strand two Starfleet officers on the planet, until someone blasted a hole in the bedrock at the bottom of
one single well, and then made a Nazca-lines version of the USS Enterprise insignia? And despite the fact that the aliens were clearly and
visibly watching all this going on, it wouldn't violate the Prime Directive. You
wot?
Not that this matters, it was still good fun, and a pleasant reprise of the best bit of
Into Darkness and several TNG episodes.
That giant metal craft covered in multicoloured neon lights that flew out of that lightning storm and teleported two hairless apes away before rocketing loudly into the sky leaving only a giant symbol of alien origin carved into the sand could have been anything.
Watched it last night-
Having followed many doomsday threads on it I thought it was great fun....
I thought the Klingon makeup was stunning, the only negative was their dialogue was a little muffled - needed some cleaning up in post I thought. Im also very used to watching subtitles ;-)
All the characters ( who survived!) seemed watchable - [spoiler]Lt Saru basically sounded just like Red Dwarf's Kryten[/spoiler] and James Frain (Sarek) was possibly a liitle on autopilot...especially if you watched Gotham- although in some ways this made him perfect for the role.
Lovely visual designs, would have liked a little more ambient light in the battle scenes, but thats just me...
[spoiler]I did think the escape from the prison holding was a very overused idea, especially noting the clever conversation with the ships computer earlier, could have been more imaginative?..[/spoiler]
Certainly the end of the second episode wasn't how I was expecting things to pan out so I will def be watching - regardless of peoples personal classic/JJ views, I think the show will win or loose on the writing...
8/10 ;-)
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 September, 2017, 12:47:16 PM
That giant metal craft covered in multicoloured neon lights that flew out of that lightning storm and teleported two hairless apes away before rocketing loudly into the sky leaving only a giant symbol of alien origin carved into the sand could have been anything.
Battlestar Galactica did it better ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JpaAGcT3QE
"Let us discuss a new Star Trek that people have to pay for instead of watching for free. One in which the Klingons have been completely redesigned, one in which the technology looks completely different from what we would expect, as do the uniforms—all without a word of explanation. One in which one of the main characters has to reconcile human and Vulcan values. And one in which the production was fraught with behind-the-scenes difficulties.
I am, of course, talking about Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979."
Quote from: Goaty on 26 September, 2017, 02:22:54 PM
"Let us discuss a new Star Trek that people have to pay for instead of watching for free. One in which the Klingons have been completely redesigned, one in which the technology looks completely different from what we would expect, as do the uniforms—all without a word of explanation. One in which one of the main characters has to reconcile human and Vulcan values. And one in which the production was fraught with behind-the-scenes difficulties.
I am, of course, talking about Star Trek: The Motion Picture in 1979."
I have a real soft spot for TMP, even if I agree with Nimoy who says it's a Trek movie with none of the correct characters. That Klingon opening is still awesome.
Quote from: PlanetReplicas on 26 September, 2017, 01:49:17 PM
Quote from: Professor Bear on 26 September, 2017, 12:47:16 PM
That giant metal craft covered in multicoloured neon lights that flew out of that lightning storm and teleported two hairless apes away before rocketing loudly into the sky leaving only a giant symbol of alien origin carved into the sand could have been anything.
Battlestar Galactica did it better ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JpaAGcT3QE
On the evidence of the first two episodes of Discovery, BSG did everything better! :)
Baby, you're the best!
Quote from: Smith on 26 September, 2017, 11:39:40 AM
What,no love for DS9?
Plenty here, but I was sorry that Enterprise was cancelled, so what do I know.
Regards,
Robin
Hey,DS9 is my favorite ST series. :)
Quote from: Robin Low on 26 September, 2017, 08:04:56 PM
...I was sorry that Enterprise was cancelled, so what do I know.
Surely we were all sorry to see that? It meant a dozen years with no new TV Trek, which was a Bad Thing by anyone's standards. It's been a long road, getting from there to here.
Speaking of Enterprise, has anyone had a go at Discovery's James Bond title sequence yet?
DS9 has my favorite ever Trek pilot. Love that one. Discovery's tone didn't seem too removed from that.
Quote from: blackmocco on 26 September, 2017, 08:16:36 PM
DS9 has my favorite ever Trek pilot. Love that one. Discovery's tone didn't seem too removed from that.
DS9's 'Emissary' is excellent, easily the best of all the Trek pilots (although possibly not if you count 'The Cage', which was truly great, but proved to be a dead end). But I agree, 'Vulcan Hello' is right up there. Brisk introduction to distinctive characters with well-defined relationships, introduction of an alien threat and backdrop, moral complexities spun out of the situation, establishing a visual identity. Good stuff.
Quote from: Smith on 26 September, 2017, 08:14:15 PM
Hey,DS9 is my favorite ST series. :)
It's probably the best, too. Plenty of faults can be found with it, but there are a lot of individual episodes that are very good science fiction short stories in their own right. And then you have stuff like In the Pale Moonlight, which perhaps doesn't mean much out of context or to the casual viewer, but in context is one hell of an episode.
But there was a lot of good stuff in Enterprise too. And I'll grudgingly admit that even Voyager had one good episode. But only one.
Regards,
Robin
Quote from: TordelBack on 26 September, 2017, 08:15:37 PM
Quote from: Robin Low on 26 September, 2017, 08:04:56 PM
...I was sorry that Enterprise was cancelled, so what do I know.
Surely we were all sorry to see that? It meant a dozen years with no new TV Trek, which was a Bad Thing by anyone's standards. It's been a long road, getting from there to here.
I think there are a few of us, but there was I time when I thought I was the lone voice.
The best thing about the reboot movies was that they left the much-maligned Enterprise as the only remaining part of established continuity, which still amuses me.
Regards,
Robin
Maybe thats an unpopular opinion here,but I liked Voyager more then Enterprise.
Quote from: Smith on 26 September, 2017, 08:38:04 PM
Maybe thats an unpopular opinion here,but I liked Voyager more then Enterprise.
Me too, although I'd never have thought that before our current re-watch of the former: some amazingly good episodes, and long stretches of general solidity (although Janeway's growing incompetence through the end of Season 4 and into Season 5 is proving a puzzler). But I should be starting a serious rewatch of Enterprise before the end of the year, so that ranking may change!
Voyager's problem, for me anyway, is that it had the potential to be the greatest, purest version of the template. A starship, crewed by two rival factions forced to work together, stranded in unexplored deep space striving to get home. I had hoped when I heard the premise that by the end of seven seasons, we'd have had a crew and ship completely altered by their journey home. Stolen borrowed alien engine nacelles, alien stragglers they'd take on board that weren't fucking annoying, and most importantly - some real, hardcore drama.
Instead we got to the end of the pilot and everyone was friends (more or less), we'd shit villains, then we got the Borg to boost ratings. Missed opportunity. It and Enterprise pissed away their promise and my goodwill.
Orville is what it is, but I've no desire to see a Trek show fashioned in that style anymore. I really, really hoped Discovery would take the show and give it a kick in the ass and so far, even if it's not perfect, I'm happy with the potential.
The irony is I remember working my way through rental copies of Voyager from the local Blockbuster back in 1996 and really rather liking it. At some point, I decided it was rubbish. The problem may have been the characters. Aside from the doctor, they're all utterly tedious. There are problem characters in most Trek, but in Voyager they're particularly boring. I mean, aside from Seven of Nine, which of them could you tolerate being stuck in a turbo lift with for a couple of hours?
Regards,
Robin
@blackmocco
Hard to argue with a lot of that.Voyager had a rocky start,but it did get better later on.Doctors arc was pretty good.Tuvok was the best Vulcan ever.Or second best,at least.Chakotay was cool.There is Seven of Nine ofc.
But yeah,for a crew fighting for suvival,it was a bit too clean.And yes,Kazons always top the "Worst ST villains" lists.And Borg decayed as a threat pretty fast.
Those hunter guys were decent villains.
Quote from: TordelBack on 26 September, 2017, 08:15:37 PM
Speaking of Enterprise, has anyone had a go at Discovery's James Bond title sequence yet?
Actually in terms of visuals it put me more in mind of Manhattan's title sequence. What jarred more was a lack of any coherent structure to the 'music'. Every time I thought it was going to go somewhere, it didn't ...
Only managed about 20 minutes of it so far (busy week) but I do like the banter dynamics of the bridge crew. Not to mention the comment about sarcasm.
I miss TNG / DS9 style sound effects for doors opening, the transporter and the phasers.
It's just not Star Trek without them. :lol:
Putting Voyager aside (which for me was only star trek serial I didn't enjoy)... I think I kinda like Discovery. It has it's flaws and first episode is much better than the second but it's enjoyable mashup of "something old and something new" like every series before.
I like how this two episodes was more Mass Effect than JJ Abrams and how Captain Georgiou being the "old" captain is more like captains of Trek future.
Maybe I enjoyed this two episodes because I was expecting huge mess... I don't know, something like Alien: Covenant maybe? But Discovery so far is ok.
Quote from: Magnetica on 27 September, 2017, 08:18:56 AM
I miss TNG / DS9 style sound effects for doors opening, the transporter and the phasers.
It's just not Star Trek without them. :lol:
I miss the bosun's whistle of the original series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZGQzXCbrGo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZGQzXCbrGo)
It was used on Discovery in the background. Always a thrill hearing it.
Quote from: Smith on 26 September, 2017, 09:06:23 PM
@blackmocco
Hard to argue with a lot of that.Voyager had a rocky start,but it did get better later on.Doctors arc was pretty good.Tuvok was the best Vulcan ever.Or second best,at least.Chakotay was cool.There is Seven of Nine ofc.
But yeah,for a crew fighting for suvival,it was a bit too clean.And yes,Kazons always top the "Worst ST villains" lists.And Borg decayed as a threat pretty fast.
Those hunter guys were decent villains.
Chakotay wasn't cool at all. He was like Bungle from Rainbow in a Starfleet uniform. Apart from that, I agree.
Well,this was 10-15 years ago for me,so some of my opinions would probably change now.
This is the internet. Altering your opinions is forbidden.
I hate nerds.
Proud to be geek!
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 27 September, 2017, 08:36:54 PM
This is the internet. Altering your opinions is forbidden.
First,I would have to rewatch Voyager,for that.Unfortunatly,I dont have time for it.But maybe soon.
It's better than you think.
I watched the first two episodes of this last night and absolutely loved it. It's great to have Trek on telly again.
Watched the second episode, quite the shock ending! Knew [spoiler]Georgiou and the Shenzhou[/spoiler] were for the chop (although I very much doubt we've seen the last of either of them), but I was amazed to see the terrific [spoiler]T'Kumva [/spoiler]go down so soon - thought he was going to be [spoiler]the big baddie[/spoiler]!
Other pleasant surprises included the unrestrained diversity of Starfleet and Klingon ship models, after being restricted to a handful of designs outside of the Cambrian Explosion that was STVIII:First Contact (and to a lesser extent the Kelvin timeline), which if nothing else was a loud justification for going for a completely different look: if they have the will and the capacity to do this, then they can't be expected to stick to the existing canonical forms. As every RPG, tabletop and computer game before them has done, they had to go their own way or be choked, and they bought my nerdly goodwill with this cornucopia of classes. And it was also nice to see further developments from the NX-01 hull design, and indeed the Franklin.
I also enjoyed the failure of [spoiler]Georgiou and Burnham's attempt to take the Klingons on hand-to-hand. My kids were shouting 'oh come on, that's stupid, they'd have no chance!' when the sequence started, only to be rapidly silenced by the revelation that our heroes were indeed outclassed and fecked. And what will the Klingons make of the booby-trap-the-body play,[/spoiler] surely the most dishonourable thing Starfleet has ever done. Worthy of Commander Sheridan or Mal Reynolds at their best! If that doesn't provide fuel for hostilities past Axanar and right up to Narendra III, I don't know what would.
I don't know about you, but I recall having to sit through interminable Klingon-centric episodes telling me that the Klingons don't give a toss about the body of a warrior once he's popped his clogs - Discovery even directly references the TNG* episode in which this was established when they all do the doggy howl thing at that Klingon funeral - which apparently they have now - in episode 1.
* because of course an episode of Trek about the interminable minutiae of a fictional alien race's cultural practices was a TNG episode.
{Fanconning rather than Crediting the Writers here, but...} I think T'Kumva is deliberately playing against this aspect of Kilngon culture, with his morbid emphasis on the remains of warriors, even using them as 'armour', emphasising respect for a lost past, and by extension pain-sticking everyone's conscience about what Kahless would have wanted from them. Celebrating the physical presence of the honoured dead is a familiar trick from a nationalist.
Anyway, it's more the cowardly act [spoiler]of hiding a bomb in a corpse[/spoiler], rather than the sanctity of the corpse itself, that would strike me as anathemic to Klingon notions of honour (although that's a bit rich from a race that prides itself on its cloaking technology).
In war, there is nothing more honorable than victory.
Apparently,Black Fleet thing is from a novel.
Quote from: TordelBack on 29 September, 2017, 12:10:14 PM
{Fanconning rather than Crediting the Writers here, but...} I think T'Kumva is deliberately playing against this aspect of Kilngon culture, with his morbid emphasis on the remains of warriors, even using them as 'armour', emphasising respect for a lost past, and by extension pain-sticking everyone's conscience about what Kahless would have wanted from them. Celebrating the physical presence of the honoured dead is a familiar trick from a nationalist.
Anyway, it's more the cowardly act [spoiler]of hiding a bomb in a corpse[/spoiler], rather than the sanctity of the corpse itself, that would strike me as anathemic to Klingon notions of honour (although that's a bit rich from a race that prides itself on its cloaking technology).
Yeah, that move was pretty Kirk-ian. Taking the no-win scenario and sticking it up their arse.
Absolutely in agreement regarding the variety of ship designs too. Star Trek's 51 years old now. Can we just let loose and have some fun now, rather than being strangled by canon?
Not that there's any point watching the Orville anymore seeing as how it's probably already canceled, but last night's was the most SG1-y thing I have seen in years, and also featured a blink-and-miss-it cameo from Northern Ireland's most notable export since the bomb that killed Mountbatten.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 29 September, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
Not that there's any point watching the Orville anymore seeing as how it's probably already canceled, but last night's was the most SG1-y thing I have seen in years, and also featured a blink-and-miss-it cameo from Northern Ireland's most notable export since the bomb that killed Mountbatten.
Orville held the same ratings as last week. They're not great ratings but not bad considering the competition it's up against on Thursdays. It actually picked up viewers once Gotham ended. Whether that's enough to keep it flying, we'll see.
Mick - making a comment about Orville and flying is only going to put this to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGnuMxFnc1k
Really enjoy the episodes after re-watch 2nd time. Really glad it shows that both Starfleet and Klingon is same equal power, to give it fair fights.
Look forward to next episode, the really beginning of Discovery! I bet some of you on here would moaning about USS Discovery ship design!
Quote from: DaveGYNWA on 29 September, 2017, 09:45:05 PM
Mick - making a comment about Orville and flying is only going to put this to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGnuMxFnc1k
Man, that's
ALL I picture every time I hear the name! Haha! Thankfully nobody knows who that shite is over here but it's damaged the brand for me right from the get-go.
Quote from: Goaty on 29 September, 2017, 09:49:27 PM
Really enjoy the episodes after re-watch 2nd time. Really glad it shows that both Starfleet and Klingon is same equal power, to give it fair fights.
Look forward to next episode, the really beginning of Discovery! I bet some of you on here would moaning about USS Discovery ship design!
I actually love the design of it. She's been revamped since the 2016 San Diego teaser quite a bit. The nacelles are way longer and the saucer has those cut-outs (that I'm assuming are functional in some manner) added but I've really come to love the straight-line clunkiness.
Quote from: blackmocco on 29 September, 2017, 10:02:29 PM
Man, that's ALL I picture every time I hear the name! Haha! Thankfully nobody knows who that shite is over here but it's damaged the brand for me right from the get-go.
Awww....here's something to make it better:
(http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/9383242/500full-cuddles-the-monkey.jpg)
I watched a YouTube "Best episodes..." video which made me realise I hadn't seen all of Season 3 and 4 of Enterpise after all. So I've set about filling the gap and my goodness it's fantastic stuff as Archer makes all sorts of compromises to complete his mission. Two episodes already having scenes which nearly brought a tear to my glass eye. Bakula is giving it his all and Trip, T'Pol and Phlox are consistently great.
I keep saying it - Enterprise is my favourite Trek series. I love how they have to rely on their wits and principles whilst crawling around in a ridiculously underpowered starship.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 30 September, 2017, 12:22:58 PM
I keep saying it - Enterprise is my favourite Trek series. I love how they have to rely on their wits and principles whilst crawling around in a ridiculously underpowered starship.
:o
Stealing from Red letter Media: i feel like we've yet to see an episode of STD yet...that was more of a prequel?
Quote from: auxlen on 30 September, 2017, 04:49:02 PM
Stealing from Red letter Media: i feel like we've yet to see an episode of STD yet...that was more of a prequel?
Golden rule when telling a story: Show us. Don't just tell us. We'd never have gotten an inkling of Burnham's character without seeing this story first. People say they want to be surprised when they watch something new but it's clear they really don't, judging by the response to the pilot's lack of the Discovery herself. I'm not seeing the problem, myself. There's another thirteen episodes of it to come.
Yeah, personally I really enjoyed the surprise of it all. That's a rare thing these days. Gives me an immediate investment in whatever comes next.
I've just watched the first four episodes of The Orville and found them quite enjoyable. Sure, it's unashamedly Star Trek with fake number plates and a respray and the humour feels a little forced sometimes but apart from that it's not bad at all. It's no Babylon 5 but it's better than most of Voyager and I'd put Episode Three on a par with all but the cream of TNG. If they could just shift the humour so it comes more from the situations and character interactions rather than forced one-liners and such I think it'd be as good as a Trek clone can get. Looking forward to more.
I thought episode 3 of The Orville was some fine-ass television. "A race of gay men go to court to enforce FGM on a baby" sounds like a setup for a poor-taste Family Guy joke (probably one of Brian's terrible ideas for a novel), but Orville spins a good yarn out of it, and trusts its audience to a degree I haven't seen in sci-fi for quite some time. It trusts you to figure out on your own that [spoiler]women are born to the Moclan race all the time, that their society covers it up, and that despite his representing the liberal POV in the story, Bortus will never tell his son that he was born female - making the final line utterly fucking heartbreaking. And did I imagine it or did that reveal about the female philosopher/writer owe something to the final act of Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment?[/spoiler]
You could argue that my expectations were lowered by the script being by a man known for dick jokes - the first joke of the episode is literally a joke where an alien shows someone his dick - and directed by Brannon Braga, but even if that were the case, well played. That was some fine managing of expectations.
Strongly agree, Prof. It also impressed me that the [spoiler]tribunal's decision was a more realistic, "fuck you, this is the way we do things here" rather than a TNG "hooray, stoopid aliens see the light" kind thing. [/spoiler]
Episode 4 was a bit more pedestrian but solid enough but [spoiler]what a waste of a good cameo! I get that they only had Liam for a short time but just using him as a throwaway 'Captain Exposition' was an almost criminal act.[/spoiler]
The humour, for me, is just on the right side of making this a sci-fi show with humour in it and not a comedy sci-fi show, which I appreciate. A few more instalments like Ep 3 and I think The Orville has the potential to be a well-loved little series - even though it doesn't seem to deserve its own thread (which I think is kind of cute, leaving it not buried or obscured exactly but in the right place for proper sci-fi fans to know where it is).
Quote from: Professor Bear on 30 September, 2017, 11:02:27 PM
I thought episode 3 of The Orville was some fine-ass television. "A race of gay men go to court to enforce FGM on a baby" sounds like a setup for a poor-taste Family Guy joke (probably one of Brian's terrible ideas for a novel), but Orville spins a good yarn out of it, and trusts its audience to a degree I haven't seen in sci-fi for quite some time. It trusts you to figure out on your own that [spoiler]women are born to the Moclan race all the time, that their society covers it up, and that despite his representing the liberal POV in the story, Bortus will never tell his son that he was born female - making the final line utterly fucking heartbreaking. And did I imagine it or did that reveal about the female philosopher/writer owe something to the final act of Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment?[/spoiler]
You could argue that my expectations were lowered by the script being by a man known for dick jokes - the first joke of the episode is literally a joke where an alien shows someone his dick - and directed by Brannon Braga, but even if that were the case, well played. That was some fine managing of expectations.
Yep this was a better epsiode, but again the terrible moments of humour lets the whole thing down.
Maybe start a different thread about Orville.Just saiyan.
Jason Isaacs is a bit good, isn't he? Loved that. A much clearer direction now for the show. A few lovely ship-porn shots. Loving Discovery's design. A nice shift from the Shenzou to the cleaner lines of classic Trek. "Is he shushing you...!?"[spoiler] A GORN SKELETON![/spoiler]
I honestly understand why this show, based on last night's, is going to leave some Trek fans cold. It's much more in line with BSG in tone and content. Definitely a version of the show we've never seen before (even if DS9 came somewhat close with the Dominion War) and that's what I was hoping for. Still not perfect but as a first season setting something up, really, really enjoying it.
Really enjoy the latest episode, I love Discovery ship and the Captain!
Really dark episode and enjoying it
Finally got round to binge watching the first three episodes and I can see, as has already been said, where the discontent is coming from. This is most definitely a very different beast. Hints of old Trek to be sure but intermixed with the brutality of BSG or the Expanse, with a touch of humour a la Firefly. Maybe there is hope for it yet.
Oh, .... "Here kitty, kitty, kitty!"
Isaacs is not your typical Starfleet captain, is he? Dark, sullen, and very much a man with secrets to keep. He seems to be taking this war very personally. Are we sure this isn't the mirrorverse?
Quote from: von Boom on 02 October, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
Are we sure this isn't the mirrorverse?
Interesting idea...
Quote from: von Boom on 02 October, 2017, 09:09:39 PM
Are we sure this isn't the mirrorverse?
|I hope not. That would be a cheap silly cop out to appease moany fans complaining about it being all dark!
So episode 3 was good too. Love the look of Discovery herself, despite earlier reservations I'm happy to admit that going back to the TMP/Phase 2 concept art was a damn good plan: there's a cohesiveness and slight famiiarity that really works. Thing I'm enjoying most so far is just how unexpected it all is. If we can't have proper Trek on telly, may as well have something new. After all, it didn't start life as nostalgia.
Did I miss the reason she started quoting Alice In Wonderland while crawling about those Jeffries? I mean, obviously I just assumed it was because we're still in the "Bryan Fuller had a hand in this bit" stage of the show, but just wondered if I'd missed something specific that rationalised it apart from the character's nostalgia.
Also I know it's only just started, but I am sick of this redemption arc stuff already.
Quote from: Professor Bear on 03 October, 2017, 11:46:51 PM
Did I miss the reason she started quoting Alice In Wonderland while crawling about those Jeffries? I mean, obviously I just assumed it was because we're still in the "Bryan Fuller had a hand in this bit" stage of the show, but just wondered if I'd missed something specific that rationalised it apart from the character's nostalgia.
Also I know it's only just started, but I am sick of this redemption arc stuff already.
I thought maybe she was reciting it to keep herself calm while being chased by the creature...? But yeah, it was pretty jarring.
As for her arc, I'm enjoying it. I'd expect she's going to be presented with another (legitimate this time, if Lorca's anything to go...) mutiny opportunity in her near future though...
I think it was more "if we're going to do Resident Evil let's just go the whole way".
They've dropped the misappropriated aping of Abrams stylings in the direction which results in showing-off the production design so much better - this really is the best Trek has ever looked which is not the impression the previous eps left me with. Jeremy Isaacs is burning up the screen with an intensity that feels like the Federation put Tommy Lee Jones in charge of his own ship and I'm liking the more amoral aspect to the mission, even if everyone acting like a prick was over-played.
I had a notion while watching that Michael quoting Lewis Carroll was a way for her to count/pace her movements through the shaft but the lack of a set-up made it seem odd even if the pay-off meant something personal, so it just comes across as a literal stating of some vague metaphor about her character's situation that got lost somewhere along the way or is waiting to be sublimated elsewhere.
I enjoyed Ep. 3 a lot more than the first 2 and despite the contrivances to get Michael on-board and on-side as some kind of tension builder, it hangs together fairly well. With some added fleshing-out of Burnham, this really could've been a debut episode without the need for the wasteful 2 hour backstory of the pilot.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 October, 2017, 08:07:30 AM...the wasteful 2 hour backstory of the pilot.
One man's 'wasteful' is another man's 'promise of kewl space battelz realised'.
On all other points, I agree. I'm genuinely surprised how readily I dismiss/absorb all my former-Trekkie continuity niggles (e.g. the bit with Tilly and the book, in a Starfleet where paper books have always made up a significant proportion of the tonnage of any given starship; the holographic displays, their strange newness an actual plot point in DS9 100+ years later; the executive-stress-relief tribble), and instead am happy to just
enjoy: in the same way that the superb casting in ST2009 carries me through its many terrible problems, I'm sustained here by the richness and sheer thoroughness of the design, the brisk pacing, the intense characters, the uncertainty over where this might all be going. Probably down the space-head, but for now, it's
good.
I fully accept that it's more BSG than TNG, but TNG's post-pilot episode was The Naked Now, it's 'third' episode was Code of Honour, so honestly, I'm okay with that.
Gah, double-post: I'm sure all you film/creative types have a name for this, but the 'backstory' pilot puts me in mind of an old gamesmaster's railroading trick, perhaps best exemplified by its employment in SW RPGs. Here, the GM secretly conspires with one player in advance of the first session of a game, and gives them a pre-generated character to play instead of their own. Early in the rebels' mission in the first gaming session, Darth Vader shows up and effortlessly slaughters the conspiring player's character. The rest of the group barely escapes, the conspirator is reintroduced as a new character, and the campaign gets underway with a real sense of danger and threat.
I think the pilot episode(s) achieve a similar effect: we got to know and like a new ship, crew and captain, and then abruptly lost them. We're now never quite clear what the status quo is going to be, or how long it will last. Plus three episodes in and the Shenzou survivors already have histories in which we are invested.
Quote from: TordelBack on 05 October, 2017, 08:30:02 AM
the executive-stress-relief tribble
I was thinking more along the lines of
Klingon-detector Tribble....
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 October, 2017, 08:07:30 AM
They've dropped the misappropriated aping of Abrams stylings in the direction which results in showing-off the production design so much better - this really is the best Trek has ever looked which is not the impression the previous eps left me with. Jeremy Isaacs is burning up the screen with an intensity that feels like the Federation put Tommy Lee Jones in charge of his own ship and I'm liking the more amoral aspect to the mission, even if everyone acting like a prick was over-played.
I had a notion while watching that Michael quoting Lewis Carroll was a way for her to count/pace her movements through the shaft but the lack of a set-up made it seem odd even if the pay-off meant something personal, so it just comes across as a literal stating of some vague metaphor about her character's situation that got lost somewhere along the way or is waiting to be sublimated elsewhere.
I enjoyed Ep. 3 a lot more than the first 2 and despite the contrivances to get Michael on-board and on-side as some kind of tension builder, it hangs together fairly well. With some added fleshing-out of Burnham, this really could've been a debut episode without the need for the wasteful 2 hour backstory of the pilot.
Yeah, Isaacs has really given it a shot in the arm, the most telling scene being his reaction to Stamets' constant heckling in the engine room. I'm enjoying the prick aspect though. It merely underlines the notion that this is not a ship of soldiers - they're still explorers cast into very uncomfortable new roles during war and also, it's being made clear - Stamets being the mouthpiece, but [spoiler]Burnham being pulled from prison as a prime example - that most likely most of the crewmembers are not on Discovery willingly.[/spoiler] I'd say the crew seems more stressed out than just unpleasant. Early nudges of Commander Cain and the Pegasus turning up in BSG. (I don't think we'll get THAT dark, though. This
is still Star Trek...)
Am I the only one a little confused by Saru's reaction to the prison shuttle warping away at the end?[spoiler] Is his death-flare reaction to Burnham staying aboard Discovery (something I felt he already knew when speaking to Burnham before she goes into Lorca's ready room at the end)? Or is it being suggested that prison shuttle is never going to reach its intended destination seeing as Discovery is supposed to be a top secret project and Starfleet probably doesn't want witnesses talking about the ship's existence?[/spoiler]
I read somewhere the first two episodes might have been added to the show's episode count somewhat last-minute (upping the episode count from 13 to 15). I'm with Tordelback, though - I'd rather have seen those events rather than just heard about them, but I wonder might the whole thing have been more effective had those episodes been shown in flashback and scattered throughout the season's episodes, slowly building up the backstory? Tough call. I really enjoyed them, personally. Any script wobbles were more than outweighed by the stuff I liked. The banter between Burnham and Saru, Captain Giorgiou herself (THERE's a show I want to see!), Burnham's spacewalk (a great throwback to Spock penetrating Vejur), the grandeur of these revisited Klingons, Burnham outwitting the computer in true Roddenberry fashion. I also came away from the pilot really liking Burnham's character, where I seem to be in the minority. She's brave, she's capable, she's a character who
acts (even if some of the actions are open to question) and she straight away realizes and accepts the responsibilities of those actions. TNG would have made a two-parter of talking heads discussing what to do next.
And c'mon, man - how great are those money-shots of the Discovery when she shows up? It's a beautiful design.
Quote from: blackmocco on 05 October, 2017, 05:11:02 PM
I'm with Tordelback, though - I'd rather have seen those events rather than just heard about them, but I wonder might the whole thing have been more effective had those episodes been shown in flashback and scattered throughout the season's episodes, slowly building up the backstory? Tough call.
This was more what I was implying – start with the prison ship docking with Discovery then conflate those first 3 eps into a 2 hour pilot integrating the more vital incidents of the war and Michael's transgressions. I think it might be more impactful but as you suggest, the pilot may have been a late addition and the series did originally start with Isaacs etc.
The flashback route definitely could have worked - but isn't a bit old hat in a post-Lost/Arrow environment? The way they did go has, as I was clumsily arguing, the advantage of creating genuine uncertainty. Finding out why Michael started a war and became a mutineer may not have been as immediately engaging as the surprise of seeing it happen- of watching the familiar bonhomie of our new Starfleet bridge crew and their maternal Captain disintegrate into betrayal and death. That at least was new.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 05 October, 2017, 05:57:10 PM
the pilot may have been a late addition and the series did originally start with Isaacs etc.
Back up the thread somewhere, there's talk about Isaacs being a pretty late addition to the cast, and the timing is close to the preview showings of the first episodes (presumably the 2-part pilot). Elsewhere on the web and before he was added to the show, there was scuttlebutt that one of Fuller's story quirks was to keep the captain entirely off-camera.
Saru's death erections were also established in the pilot, so his getting perimortem head-boners when the shuttle flies off would have been baffling without some sort of exposition.
I'm disappointed with this so far. It's just not Star Trek. Hopefully it'll improve - or I will on a re-watch - but at the moment it just feels wrong, like cold coffee.
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 05 October, 2017, 08:05:51 PM
I'm disappointed with this so far. It's just not Star Trek. Hopefully it'll improve - or I will on a re-watch - but at the moment it just feels wrong, like cold coffee.
C'mon Sharky, you know you want to like it. Just think about the cool new terms we're going to get with this spore drive. Warp factor shitake, the portobello manoeuvre, shroomin' subspace...
Have enjoyed it so far (more so, the first two episodes).
What throws me is the whole 'spore travel' thing. Far out ideas are part & parcel of Sci-Fi and Star Trek, but this doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all. Can someone enlighten me as to the basic logic? I know it was kind of explained to Michael - but it went over my head.
When Michael was put in the spore chamber - was she actually transported to those various locations - or was it more akin to a VR event, showing her the potential of the technology?
Not being a full-on Trekkie - has 'spore travel' been mentioned in other series? And if not - then I'm assuming it won't develop much in ST:Discovery?
Quote from: von Boom on 05 October, 2017, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 05 October, 2017, 08:05:51 PM
I'm disappointed with this so far. It's just not Star Trek. Hopefully it'll improve - or I will on a re-watch - but at the moment it just feels wrong, like cold coffee.
C'mon Sharky, you know you want to like it. Just think about the cool new terms we're going to get with this spore drive. Warp factor shitake, the portobello manoeuvre, shroomin' subspace...
You're right, VB, I want to like it so much it almost aches. The 'shroom drive is part of it; it's just piffle and, unless this is all taking place in an alternate universe, is a complete and utter white elephant. The wonky, selection box Klingons are another put off - it's as if they're all made of clay and change their appearance every decade or so. The starship bridges are too different, owing more to JJA than GR, and corpses twisted up like old rags just don't sit well with me either.
On their own, each of these things are interesting enough in their own rights and I should be loving the mixture but I'm not. The characters are all good and the SFX are amazing but this just isn't Trek.
The Orville is doing
Star Trek better than
Discovery is and that's both weird and disappointing.
It's Trek, Sharky, but not as we know it. It's a different take on the Trek universe, and not one I particularly want, but it has unexpectedly won me over (so far): there's enough proper Trek peeking out of the background to allow me to see this as an aberrant time in the grand scheme of things, with the obvious discontinuities in technology a simple result of the story being rendered in 2017 instead of 1966, and the need for it to still seem like our future as much as it is Kirk's past.
The spore-thing is almost certainly a red herring, one of a number of biowar directions Lorca will pursue as gordian knot solutions to a bunch of peacenik commie scientists trying to fight an existential war with a warrior race.
Conceptually it seems to be a mushy mash-up of the unrelated ideas of quantum entanglement and panspermia as a kind of massively attenuated mycelium, or even Feynman's idea that the whole universe is one single electron moving through the fourth dimension, and manifesting itself at every possible three-dimensional location. The woolly idea being that all spores are connected in an ether-like underlying web throughout the universe, and you can interchangeably hop from one point to another like a fungal fruit-body by manipulating this self-similarity. Tosh, but no worse than turning into a randy newt because you went too fast.
However, one is tempted to draw vague parallels with the galaxy-spanning transportation used by the Nacene (exemplified by the Caretakers in Voyager), who were usually described as 'Sporocystian' lifeforms even though that term is never really explored beyond the idea of spore-based reproduction, and their post-mortem 'cyst' like crystalline form.
I can agree with just about all of that, Tordels, and it's entirely possible that the problem lies with me and not ST:D. It's odd because I'm usually easily pleased with t.v. programmes and can tolerate a lot of piffle as a rule. I think the individual elements are all pretty good but somehow the whole is less than the sum of its parts.
It's not terrible, however, and I'm going to continue watching it because it might just click at some point and, on that day, I'm going to be a very happy chap.
Don't think you're at fault here, Sharky, I was certainly all geared up to rail against it as an abhorrence, but then... found myself... hypnotised by... all the... shiny things. It misses so many of the marks I want a Trek show to hit, but it also hits others I didn't even know were there. I'll take this equivocation over no Trek at all.
I'd be giving it a far more resounding endorsement if they'd had the balls to set it in a smugly complacent Federation 20 years after ST:Nemesis, and replaced the Klingons with a hitherto unknown ancient race of savage xenophobes.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 October, 2017, 10:10:16 AM
.... a hitherto unknown ancient race of savage xenophobes.
You mean the British?
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 06 October, 2017, 07:50:54 AM
Quote from: von Boom on 05 October, 2017, 11:23:39 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 05 October, 2017, 08:05:51 PM
I'm disappointed with this so far. It's just not Star Trek. Hopefully it'll improve - or I will on a re-watch - but at the moment it just feels wrong, like cold coffee.
C'mon Sharky, you know you want to like it. Just think about the cool new terms we're going to get with this spore drive. Warp factor shitake, the portobello manoeuvre, shroomin' subspace...
You're right, VB, I want to like it so much it almost aches. The 'shroom drive is part of it; it's just piffle and, unless this is all taking place in an alternate universe, is a complete and utter white elephant. The wonky, selection box Klingons are another put off - it's as if they're all made of clay and change their appearance every decade or so. The starship bridges are too different, owing more to JJA than GR, and corpses twisted up like old rags just don't sit well with me either.
On their own, each of these things are interesting enough in their own rights and I should be loving the mixture but I'm not. The characters are all good and the SFX are amazing but this just isn't Trek. The Orville is doing Star Trek better than Discovery is and that's both weird and disappointing.
It has to be different now though, Sharky. Star Trek has to survive and after 51 years, it has to look at modern TV and try compete. I'll agree and I understand why this tone and style may not work for some Trek fans (the gore made me think of that) but that's kinda the idea too. This is a franchise that has bent over backwards catering (I would say suppressing) itself to keep a contingent of fans happy at a great cost. The rot had set in by Voyager. They had to reinvent themselves a little to create breathing room. Personally, I don't care if the Klingons look a bit different (they don't. Draw some hair on them and see), don't care the ships look better and more advanced than Kirk's Enterprise and think the spore-based propulsion is kinda cool (even if I think this show is headed to an explanation as to why we've never heard of this ship or crew). I'll forgive canon continuity if the story and characters are strong enough and so far, that's good enough.
It's a shame Orville and this are being constantly contrasted but there's no comparison as far as I'm concerned. Orville's stuck in 1991. Unimaginatively designed, stale sci-fi ideas, humor that doesn't land and five episodes in it still has nothing resembling real characters. It's just people saying things to one another without any depth or definition. You could swap the dialog to any character without noticing. I wish it well, there's certainly room on TV for two Trek-ish shows but it needs to find its feet.
/setup Yeah, Trek doesn't need its older fans /punchline and I'm really looking forward to that fourth Kelvin Timeline movie.
It's not really an either/or situation, as there's a lot of room for different versions of Trek for different audiences - at least five distinct shows to date, not counting this one. If you don't like Discovery, then fair play. Just hang about until they do another reinvention in a few years' time.
Hopefully it'll grow on me.
Heh.
Or maybe, like the Captain, it'll take time for my eyes to adjust (although that site-to-site transport from his dimly lit office to the brightly lit fungineering room didn't seem to bother him much). (What is it with that "injury" anyway? Is it just a clumsy way of telling us that he's got stars in his eyes, or space in his face, or that he will only take to enlightenment slowly? Or is it something that will only become a weakness when the plot demands it and why would it be a weakness anyway because, you know, sunglasses? Reactolight-not-so-Rapide sunglasses? Yeurgh.)
Sorry, I'm being picky now!
Just rewatched episode 3 and I liked it. Once I stopped wishing it was a continuation of my favourite previous incarnation of Trek (in my case TNG) and accepted it as it's own thing, I was able to appreciate it more. Basically don't let nostalgia get in the way.
To pick up in a couple of points made above:
I think it is a must that the technology is pitched more as an evolution of where we are now rather than something than evolves to where it was at with Kirk. A computer less advanced than an iPad just isn't going to be credible.
Sharky - I don't think the captain actually has "stars in his eyes". That was (I thought anyway) a refection of the screen he was looking at.
As to the episode itself. I really liked the ambiguity around the captain and that he is not just a straight up good guy. Starfleet also seems to operate along more realistic military structures than we have seen before. Even if some of the things the chief engineer said seemed to verge on [spoiler]mutiny.[/spoiler]
I also liked the way Burnham didn't jump at the chance to join Discovery and had to be given a proper reason, although I hope [spoiler]"spore drive" doesn't become a magic device that allows them to just go wherever they want instantaneously and then just leave to escape.[/spoiler] Actually I'm sure it won't.
The other main difference between this and TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 is the proper arc structure. But I guess that is more reflective of the way TV has gone generally in the last ten years. I remember when B5* did it, it was new, now it's expected.
* I'm not saying B5 necessarily invented that, but it was the Sci-fi show it first came to my attention on.
Quote from: Magnetica on 07 October, 2017, 03:04:09 PM
Just rewatched episode 3 and I liked it. Once I stopped wishing it was a continuation of my favourite previous incarnation of Trek (in my case TNG) and accepted it as it's own thing, I was able to appreciate it more. Basically don't let nostalgia get in the way.
To pick up in a couple of points made above:
I think it is a must that the technology is pitched more as an evolution of where we are now rather than something than evolves to where it was at with Kirk. A computer less advanced than an iPad just isn't going to be credible.
Sharky - I don't think the captain actually has "stars in his eyes". That was (I thought anyway) a refection of the screen he was looking at.
As to the episode itself. I really liked the ambiguity around the captain and that he is not just a straight up good guy. Starfleet also seems to operate along more realistic military structures than we have seen before. Even if some of the things the chief engineer said seemed to verge on [spoiler]mutiny.[/spoiler]
I also liked the way Burnham didn't jump at the chance to join Discovery and had to be given a proper reason, although I hope [spoiler]"spore drive" doesn't become a magic device that allows them to just go wherever they want instantaneously and then just leave to escape.[/spoiler] Actually I'm sure it won't.
The other main difference between this and TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 is the proper arc structure. But I guess that is more reflective of the way TV has gone generally in the last ten years. I remember when B5* did it, it was new, now it's expected.
* I'm not saying B5 necessarily invented that, but it was the Sci-fi show it first came to my attention on.
A brief aside: I just discovered a site that's (legally) streaming every episode of Babylon 5. I'd forgotten how ace it was and how remarkable it is they pulled it off with a fraction of the budget the likes of DS9 had. Great stuff. go90.com is the website, if anyone's interested.
Quote from: blackmocco on 07 October, 2017, 03:17:18 PM
Quote from: Magnetica on 07 October, 2017, 03:04:09 PM
Just rewatched episode 3 and I liked it. Once I stopped wishing it was a continuation of my favourite previous incarnation of Trek (in my case TNG) and accepted it as it's own thing, I was able to appreciate it more. Basically don't let nostalgia get in the way.
To pick up in a couple of points made above:
I think it is a must that the technology is pitched more as an evolution of where we are now rather than something than evolves to where it was at with Kirk. A computer less advanced than an iPad just isn't going to be credible.
Sharky - I don't think the captain actually has "stars in his eyes". That was (I thought anyway) a refection of the screen he was looking at.
As to the episode itself. I really liked the ambiguity around the captain and that he is not just a straight up good guy. Starfleet also seems to operate along more realistic military structures than we have seen before. Even if some of the things the chief engineer said seemed to verge on [spoiler]mutiny.[/spoiler]
I also liked the way Burnham didn't jump at the chance to join Discovery and had to be given a proper reason, although I hope [spoiler]"spore drive" doesn't become a magic device that allows them to just go wherever they want instantaneously and then just leave to escape.[/spoiler] Actually I'm sure it won't.
The other main difference between this and TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 is the proper arc structure. But I guess that is more reflective of the way TV has gone generally in the last ten years. I remember when B5* did it, it was new, now it's expected.
* I'm not saying B5 necessarily invented that, but it was the Sci-fi show it first came to my attention on.
A brief aside: I just discovered a site that's (legally) streaming every episode of Babylon 5. I'd forgotten how ace it was and how remarkable it is they pulled it off with a fraction of the budget the likes of DS9 had. Great stuff. go90.com is the website, if anyone's interested.
Tease. It only works in the US.
Ah shit. Sorry about that.
QuoteSharky - I don't think the captain actually has "stars in his eyes".
Sorry - I meant figuratively, the way a good sea captain is said to have salt water in his veins.
As ever you are one step ahead.
But facing the wrong way :(
Saw the first two episodes, they were pretty good, all things considered. Cool space battle.
Isn't it time to change the title of this thread?
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 09 October, 2017, 08:31:32 PM
Isn't it time to change the title of this thread?
Was just thinking the same thing.
Think you can click report on the first post of the thread?
Just watched episode 4.
The look of the show has really grown on me - it really is fantastic.
Really enjoy the latest episode 4,
like that Spin wheel design of Discovery!
Very heavy spoiler about Episode 4;
[spoiler]Ripper! Love that name! Spore Navigator, did the writer reading the Indigo Prime story about that time monster (very similar monster to Ripper? [/spoiler]
[spoiler]Captain Georgiou is very dead, they ate her! [/spoiler] [spoiler]And that chief of security :o [/spoiler] that show is brutal!
Some of the writing's still a little clunky and [spoiler]Landry may well take the biscuit as the fucking dopiest head of security to ever grace a starship,[/spoiler] but man, I'm still totally onboard with this. The [spoiler]saucers spinning was pretty exhilarating (even if I thought the final battle wasn't directed very clearly. Had to watch it twice to figure out what happened). Burnham's qualms about using the creature is a nice throwback to the Horta and not judging a book by its terrifying appearance...[/spoiler]
Also, yeah. [spoiler]They fucking ate Michelle Yeoh...![/spoiler]
It's back and it was great and fun episode, so enjoy it!
[spoiler]Scottish Chief Engineer! :lol: [/spoiler]
Jason Isaacs is best thing about the series!
And still [spoiler]shocking from that moment[/spoiler] :o
Still really boring with dull characters & stories. Do the creators actually have a clear idea where this show is going?
Quote from: JLC on 16 January, 2018, 09:12:23 PM
Still really boring with dull characters & stories. Do the creators actually have a clear idea where this show is going?
I'd check the settings on my TV, if I were you.
It seems to be picking up 20-plus year-old episodes of Star Trek Voyager.
Quote from: GordonR on 16 January, 2018, 09:19:29 PM
Quote from: JLC on 16 January, 2018, 09:12:23 PM
Still really boring with dull characters & stories. Do the creators actually have a clear idea where this show is going?
I'd check the settings on my TV, if I were you.
It seems to be picking up 20-plus year-old episodes of Star Trek Voyager.
OMG Please don't remind me of that!