Star Trek Discovery

[crocodile 8,013]

Well, Cumberbatch and Montalban also exist in the same timeline so... These are the kind of things you just need to accept.

 

I rather enjoyed it. I wasn't anything special yet. But it has potential to be good.

 

Karol

[Brónach 1,302]

Did they just copypaste Fringe onto a Star Trek opening?

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

I watched both episodes.

 

It was better than I thought it would be, but if the entire show revolves around one character rather than being an ensemble, it's going to get pretty old pretty quickly. 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Well, it's only 13 episodes, and those are the only 13 episodes for this cast/story.  No one's coming back.

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

I don't know about that.  My understanding is that they dropped the idea for an anthology format when Brian Fuller left.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Oh really?  I hadn't seen that.  Interesting if true...

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

From Wiki...

Quote

Though the series is not an anthology as Fuller first proposed, Goldsman said in August that "it's kind of a hybridized approach. I don't think we're looking for an endless, continuing nine or 10 year story. We're looking at arcs which will have characters that we know and characters that we don't know. That's even true over the course of this [first] season."^[9] Kurtzman later added that the Federation-Klingon War story arc of the first season would not continue in a second season, saying "each season needs to be about a different thing".^[78] However, he was not interested in a full anthology series because "I wouldn't necessarily want to throw [the characters] away at the end of the season for a new show",^[79] and instead felt that the aftereffects of the first season would be felt moving forward: "The results of the war are going to allow for a lot of new storytelling that will be the result of everything that happens and the people that are left behind; the casualties, the things that have grown in Starfleet as a result of the war. That's what we'll inherit in the second season."

 

 

[Quintus 5,399]

This is all over the place with the fans then, or with the critics too? I will still give it a go. But you people would have been better off watching The Expanse instead. 

[A24 4,333]

 

I hear Trekkies are disappointed that Discovery is not the Star Trek they know so now I'm definitely gonna check it out.

[Arpy 4,145]

I remember seeing the reactions the other day on various social media. The weeks leading up to the release really had the Trek community as scornful and divided as the announcement of a female Doctor was. Seeing the reactions afterwards was like living in an alternate reality where reactions were positive for once! It was such a shift in perspectives...

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

The thing is, Trekkies really ought to support the shit out of this regardless of their misgivings. Because their lack of participation (and probably very vocal online discontent) will effectively kill the franchise dead from all TV forever. It's time to put your anal retentive fussiness and complaint aside and do your duty for Star Trek on TV. 

[Arpy 4,145]

I disagree, Quintus! If it's shit it should be lambasted! 

[Quintus 5,399]

That's not exactly what I said, but just as long as you Trekkies fully understand the ramifications of your angry circle wank. 

[A24 4,333]

1 hour ago, BloodBoal said:

 

lol Cremers watching a Star Trek show and thinking he might like it...

 

That's just it! Apparently it's not a Star Trek show.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I still haven't watched episode 2, but I'm getting to it!  I really enjoyed the pilot but I also couldn't give two shits about continuity with previous series.  I was enjoying the scenario and characters on their own merits.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

saw the pilot and it was not bad...is this the same universe and timeline as the new films or another one altogether?

[Jay 37,364]

2 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

I still haven't watched episode 2, but I'm getting to it!  I really enjoyed the pilot but I also couldn't give two shits about continuity with previous series.  I was enjoying the scenario and characters on their own merits.

 

Basically the same boat I'm in:  Watched the first hour and liked it well enough, haven't seen the second hour yet, don't even know what any timeline stuff would be about let alone care about it

[Brónach 1,302]

2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

That's just it! Apparently it's not a Star Trek show.

 

Color me interested

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Just watched the first 2 episodes.

 

For the most part, they are pretty decent. Visually and stylistically it resembles the JJ movies, which isnt a bad thing. And you can certainly see they spend 10 million per episode here.

 

The lead character Michael Burnham manages to be both annoying and interesting. The actress did a pretty good job channeling Vulcan efficienty. But overdid the human emotions a bit. Yeoh is fine in her short stint. Lt. Saru is the most annoying character. What's the point of having a coward in Starfleet. (not to mention Doctor Who already did this)

 

There isnt much of a story, and there isnt that much character development also. Not for anyone except Burnham. I guess this is mostly about the "event". Starfleet coming into contact with the Klingons for the first time in 100 years and it leading to a massacre.

 

To Be Continued.

 

 

23 hours ago, crocodile said:

Well, Cumberbatch and Montalban also exist in the same timeline so...

 

No they do not!

 

Montalban was Khan in the Prime Timeline, Cumberbatch in the Kelvin Timeline.

7 hours ago, Quintus said:

The thing is, Trekkies really ought to support the shit out of this regardless of their misgivings. Because their lack of participation (and probably very vocal online discontent) will effectively kill the franchise dead from all TV forever. It's time to put your anal retentive fussiness and complaint aside and do your duty for Star Trek on TV. 

 

Oh look, there's the expert on all things Trek telling us what we should saw and feel, how nice.

 

Personally I'll give these 13 episodes a fair shot. The first 2 had things I liked, and things I didnt. Like most pilots. 

But if I lose interest I'll walk away from it whether it's Trek or not. Far preferable than staying with a show I grow to hate more and more each episode, hoping for something that will never come.

4 hours ago, Luke Skywalker said:

saw the pilot and it was not bad...is this the same universe and timeline as the new films or another one altogether?

 

This is set in the so-called Prime Timeline. Which is the same one as

 

Star Trek: Enterprise

Star Trek

Star Trek: The Animated Series

Star Trek: The Next Generation

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Star Trek: Voyager

 

And all the movies apart from the last 3, which are set in the so-called Kelvin Timeline.

Of course it feels more like the Kelvin timeline than anything else.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 

That's just it! Apparently it's not a Star Trek show.

 

Well I know more about Star Trek than you, and It definitely felt like I was watching a Star Trek show. Albeit quite a different one.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

11 hours ago, Quintus said:

This is all over the place with the fans then, or with the critics too? I will still give it a go. But you people would have been better off watching The Expanse instead. 

 

I want to give it another try. When I watched the first two episodes or so, it seemed about as vague and oddly paced as the new Trek, but I wasn't fully paying attention, so it quickly lost me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I didnt care much for the title sequence btw. lots of shots of tricorders and phasers. So what? Also, there are a huge amount of credited producers on this show. Some from the Rick Berman era (Bryan Fuller, Joe Menosky), the TOS movies (Nicholas Meyer), the Kelvin movies (Kurtzman) and people like Akiva Goldman.

 

No wonder tonally this is all over the place.

[crocodile 8,013]

25 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

No they do not!

 

Montalban was Khan in the Prime Timeline, Cumberbatch in the Kelvin Timeline.

Yeah... but Khan was "born" in the 1990's...

 

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Of course, it never made sense. 

 

Already the continuity of the first two eps doesnt sit quite right with TOS which takes place a decade later. 

As a Niner, I was delighted to see they brought back the holo-transmitters from the two season 5 episodes (For The Uniform and Dr. Bashir, I Presume).

 

So far the main flaw is that the actions of the lead character, Michael Burnham reach Jon Snow from season 7 levels of stupidity.

 

Her attempts at mutiny are not only ill-thought out and poorly executed, we dont know enough about the character yet to get behind her essentially taking matters into her own hands.

 

And near the end she CLEARLY states the main Klingon should not be killed because it makes him a martyr, and she kills him minutes after.

[Quintus 5,399]

8 hours ago, Quintus said:

The thing is, Trekkies really ought to support the shit out of this regardless of their misgivings. Because their lack of participation (and probably very vocal online discontent) will effectively kill the franchise dead from all TV forever. It's time to put your anal retentive fussiness and complaint aside and do your duty for Star Trek on TV. 

 

1 hour ago, Stefancos said:

 

Oh look, there's the expert on all things Trek telling us what we should saw and feel, how nice.

 

 

No expert but I'm still right. 

 

54 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

I want to give it another try. When I watched the first two episodes or so, it seemed about as vague and oddly paced as the new Trek, but I wasn't fully paying attention, so it quickly lost me.

 

I never finished either as I got distracted by the return of a different show, as is often what happens with me when I try new stuff, it's most annoying. I'm definitely planning on starting it again from the beginning though. 

 

After The Strain. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

9 minutes ago, Quintus said:

No expert but I'm still right. 

 

Possibly.

 

Some will hate this on principle. Because it doesnt follow Roddenberry's ideas. (yawn)

Some will hate it because it's yet another Star Trek that looks back rather then forward. (which defo is a pet peeve of mine)

Some will hate it because it looks like JJ made it.

 

However at a reported 10 million per episode this show will have to get a whole new audience watching, and not just Trekkies. It will HAVE to appeal to a new generation. And if it does that, I'll actually be happy. Even if I won't love this as much as I did the Trek of my childhood. (how could I)

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

I don't hate it. But I don't understand why they continue to go into Trek's past instead of moving forward. If they truly want to liberate themselves in terms of storytelling, the answer is to go forward. 

 

I can only imagine that they're doing this so they an bring a lot of fan service characters back. Except the problem is, and I think I can speak for most Trek fans, is that this isn't what we want.  People like Harry Mudd and Sarek mean nothing to casual viewers, and only seek to annoy die hard fans because invariably they screw up both the characters and cannon (the latter of which means nothing at this point).

[Disco Stu 15,495]

This is partially why I was excited for the idea of an anthology series, because they had the option to go past Voyager in the timeline with a subsequent season.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That's my main beef with Discovery, even before i watched it. Lots of looking back and fan service. That didnt work on Enterprise.

 

My guess is that the producers think that for the majority of people Star trek is Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Vulcans and Klingons. And they wanted to stay as close to it as they could.

[Quintus 5,399]

7 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 

Possibly.

 

Some will hate this on principle. Because it doesnt follow Roddenberry's ideas. (yawn)

Some will hate it because it's yet another Star Trek that looks back rather then forward. (which defo is a pet peeve of mine)

Some will hate it because it looks like JJ made it.

 

So what about the stuff to love? 

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I thought this whole sequence was very well done.  I loved it!

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

 

 

2 minutes ago, Quintus said:

So what about the stuff to love? 

 

Oh I'm sure there are many who won't give this a fair shot. 

I know die hard Trekkies who've never watched Deep Space Nine because it doesnt follow their idea of what star trek should be.

[Nick1Ø66 4,716]

Just now, Stefancos said:

 

I know die hard Trekkies who've never watched Deep Space Nine because it doesnt follow their idea of what star trek should be.

 

Those people would be idiots.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

I thought this whole sequence was very well done.  I loved it!

 

 

Visually it looked fine. No idea why they had to send the second in command of a Starship on a mission like that though.

 

Just now, Nick1066 said:

 

Those people are idiots.

 

Fixed.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

1 minute ago, Stefancos said:

 

Visually it looked fine. No idea why they had to send the second in command of a Starship on a mission like that though.

 

 

A very Trekkie problem to have with it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Well I am a Trekkie, and this show is called Star Trek.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I'm just saying, especially after a few seasons, those rules were mostly there so that they could waste 30 seconds of an episode arguing about who's allowed to go on an away mission.  I personally thought it was silly.

 

TOS didn't care about sending commanders on those missions anyway.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh yeah, it's an old Star Trek trope. It's not a complaint anyway, just an observation. 

 

I could actually see the new Klingons working. They seemed suitably alien. They'll need to shorten the dialogue scenes though. It became dull.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Well they designed the make-up in a way that it just made it super difficult for the actors to speak clearly/quickly.  Something the 80s-00s Klingon makeup avoided.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not a very smart thing to do if you're gonna give them loads of alien dialogue. Bring back the Universal Translator!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

This is not a good reaction at all, really.

 

Seems like most people are just kinda like "whatever" and then you have Quint telling everyone to watch it even if they don't like it.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Trump's America!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I bet if JWFan existed in 1987, the reaction would be much more vicious to “Encounter at Farpoint”

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Good episode(s).

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

13 hours ago, Quintus said:

The thing is, Trekkies really ought to support the shit out of this regardless of their misgivings. Because their lack of participation (and probably very vocal online discontent) will effectively kill the franchise dead from all TV forever. It's time to put your anal retentive fussiness and complaint aside and do your duty for Star Trek on TV. 

 

If the future of Trek hinges on people using CBS' stupid streaming service, then Trek's as good as dead to me no matter who's writing it.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

That's only in America though.  Everyone else gets to watch it on Netflix like a normal streaming show.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

 

13 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

That's only in America though.

 

48 minutes ago, BloodBoal said:

Trump's America!

 

Well that's good for you guys, but as an American, it's my patriotic duty to tell CBS that they can go frack themselves!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

Well I’m an American.  And I did pay for the CBS thing.  But it’s certainly easy enough to torrent

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

[Disco Stu 15,495]

I’m certainly not happy about it.