Compel wrote: I kinda agree, Deep Space Nine should be the darkest and grittiest that Star Trek should get. - And lets not forget, DS9 can get VERY dark and gritty...
However, DS9 was dark and gritty with a point. Star Trek doesn't work if it doesn't have a point to it.
I had a theory about these points of Star Trek before.
Star Trek (The Original Series): It shows the viewers, the watchers an idea of the possibility that humanity can be good. A good man, almost
Star Trek The Next Generation: It explores further the idea of "what does a Good Man look like?"
Deep Space 9: "We know what a Good Man looks like, what does it take to become one? How do you live as one in a complex world?"
Star Trek stories are morality tales, that's their function. To make them dark and gritty... It's missing the point, unless they really are trying something like, "The Siege of AR-558" or "In the Pale Moonlight" where the point of them was to ask the questions, not necessarily provide the answers. And even then, to base a whole series around that, I don't think it works.
Actually STOS was Wagon Train in space. The Federation had moved beyond straight human racism but not anything else in reality.
STNG was almost "lets present this weird Anglo Saxon future where everyone has a stick up their butt." Spock was more human then they were. Klingons were cool though.
CBS’s next chapter of the Star Trek universe continues to be a spot of ongoing discussion and hand-wringing. Star Trek: Discovery will launch on CBS’s “All Access” streaming service, sort of their version of ‘on demand’.
The series has been in development for some time now, and has already changed showrunners, passing from the guidance of Bryan Fuller (still listed as a co-creator) to Alex Kurtzman. The release date for the series has also ping-ponged back and forth from an original release date of January 2017 to May 2017, with the latest news being that CBS isn’t married to that date either.
Marc DeBevoise (who oversees CBS All-Access) did an interview with Vulture, and was asked about the new delays regarding the release of Discovery:
Vulture: I have to ask you about Star Trek: Discovery. It’s been delayed a bit, and you parted ways with Bryan Fuller. You still haven’t announced a premiere date, or even a launch window. Where is that right now? And how big of deal is that going to be?
DeBevoise: It’s going great, I’ve actually been up there [to the set]. It is, you know, phenomenal. It is huge. And we’re very excited about the content, the creators, the actors, all coming together. As you said, we’re not tied to any specific release date. It’ll be there when we’re ready to do it, and when we feel it’s in a great place. We’re not worried about anything here. We’re excited, and we’ll have more specifics as we get closer to what will likely be the release dates.
Vulture: Is it likely going to be the fall?
DeBevoise: We’re not stating.
That’s…..disappointing. Not really surprising at this point because if *I* were CBS, I would want to make DAMN sure the finished product was as polished as it possibly could be. Trek fans are notoriously unforgiving when something new appears in their space, and if early reports of the show are to be believed, there may have been some big time changes that had to happen.
Despite the lack of a duranium air date for CBS’s ALL ACCESS series Star Trek: Discovery, it seems the new ship in the quadrant is moving ever forward. There were no less than FIVE new names added to the cast list, including a familiar visage from Battlestar Galactica.
Rekha Sharma who fans of BSG (reimagined) will remember as Tory Foster, personal assistant to President Laura Roslin, and maybe-possibly not a human. (Sorry to those of you who HAVEN’T finished the series or gotten to the Final Five reveal.) Sharma actually HAS some recent Star Trek experience, appearing in an episode of the fan production Star Trek: Continues. For Discovery, she’ll be stepping into the role of Commander Landry, the security officer aboard the title ship.
There was also the reveal that Shazad Latif (Penny Dreadful) is NO LONGER playing Klingon commanding officer Kol, and instead will be playing Kolto Lieutenant Tyler, a Starfleet officer in the Federation. Kenneth Mitchell (Jericho, Miracle) will be stepping into the role of Kol.
We have more Klingons off the starboard bow, with newcomer Clare McConnell and Damon Runyan (Lost Girl, Haven) announced as Dennas and Ujilli, leaders in the Klingon Empire.
These folks will join previously announced cast that includes Sonequa Martin-Green (The Walking Dead) who will star as the lead lieutenant commander, James Frain as Spock’s father Sarek, Anthony Rapp as a space fungus expert, and Michelle Yeoh as the captain in charge of the Starship Shenzhou.
Jason Isaacs as the captain of the Discovery, Terry Serpico as Admiral Anderson, a high-ranking official of Starfleet; Maulik Pancholy as Dr. Nambue, the chief medical officer of the Starship Shenzhou, Sam Vartholomeos as Ensign Connor, a junior officer in Starfleet Academy assigned to the Starship Shenzhou, Doug Jones as Lt. Saru (brand new alien), and Rainn Wilson as original series Star Trek character Harry Mudd. No word yet on his women.
Star Trek: Discovery will feature a new ship, new characters and new missions in across the galaxy. The series will premiere on the CBS with all subsequent episodes available on CBS All Access. It is produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Alex Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout, Bryan Fuller’s Living Dead Guy Productions and Roddenberry Entertainment. EPs are Alex Kurtzman, Bryan Fuller, Heather Kadin, Gretchen J. Berg & Aaron Harberts, Akiva Goldsman, Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth.
In this piece over on Io9, CBS interactive CEO Jim Lanzone said this about the new Star Trek show:
“Scifi is not something that has traditionally done really well on broadcast. It’s not impossible, for the future, if somebody figures it out. And things like Lost and Heroes have had parts of, you know, scifi, but historically, a show like Star Trek wouldn’t necessarily be a broadcast show, at this point. And so, you kind of look at the other networks we have, CW and Showtime, it just fit with the digital audience and having that digital Star Trek audience.”
We’ll let you know when other breaking Star Trek: Discovery information is made public. You know, like an actual release date.
A pic of Michelle Yeoh and Sonequa Martin-Green gives me a little bit of hope where I had none before. I'm still not sold but I'm no longer firmly in the "we're doomed" camp.
Odd image to show off at this time, wouldn't have been my first choice. But it looks good for what it is.
edit: more new images surfacing on twitter
Uniforms look like a mix of the blue utility style of ENT and the other series. Bridge looks cool but a bit cold and less colorful, still pretty cool though.
Looks like theres a new better first look at this show.
IMO, I think it looks good, despite two unfortunate elements: the initials, and that it's the CBS online thingy 'only' instead of TV
I'm honestly debating on paying for the CBS thing, just to support the show. If the show doesn't make money then these characters and the story will never have a chance to develop and become something more. For me Star Trek is special and I think it deserves a chance. Fantasy has kind of reigned throughout the past few years on tv with GOT and stuff but I think it's time for that to come to a close. There is still a chance this won't even last as long as ENT. I am glad that Fox isn't behind the show cause then i'd never bother to get invested in it, probably get canceled before the 1st season finishes airing.
This trailer also didn't show the ship and characters I was most excited for, such as jason isaacs, sharma etc and more klingons. I bet the show will shift into gear when they get onto the Discovery and the cast changes slightly. Because I didn't feel anything from the crew in the trailer.
This seems like Backwards Trek to me; the visuals and effects are all there for once, but in that trailer at least there's no sense of substance beyond 'Klingons are bad' and 'First Officer who argues with the Captain'. I really want this to be good, but I'm not willing to trust it just yet.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Is there any word on why this is another prequel?
Between Enterprise the the Reboot ST has been wallowing in the 'past' for 15 years (20?).
Which is not the way to go if you're working on a series that will 'boldly go where no one has gone before'.
Unlike most other franchises ST has a mission statement - beyond make a lot of money that is.
Is there anything they're doing in this show that mean it can't be set 20 years after Voyager?
So true. I think it's time for a post-apocalyptic trek. The Federation has fallen, either to internal war, or alien invasion (probably both). In an isolated arm of whichever quadrant, a remnant based out of a research station begins to build the trust and peace the galaxy needs once more, one system at a time. This should open the door to even more mixed tech ships, diplomatic incidents a plenty, the crew being inadvertently turned into mercenaries as they attempt to secure alliances, and all sorts of shenanigans with minor factions who suddenly can't be ignored. Maybe even have the story follow a pair of vessels- a research ship with a scientifically minded, idealistic captain, and its escorting warship, with a grizzled veteran of the lost war, probably with PTSD.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Is there any word on why this is another prequel?
Between Enterprise the the Reboot ST has been wallowing in the 'past' for 15 years (20?).
Which is not the way to go if you're working on a series that will 'boldly go where no one has gone before'.
Unlike most other franchises ST has a mission statement - beyond make a lot of money that is.
Is there anything they're doing in this show that mean it can't be set 20 years after Voyager?
As long as the movie reboot series is going on(and doing big stuff like blowing up Vulcan) I doubt we will see anything on TV set after or even at the same time as Kirk and co.
As long as the movie reboot series is going on(and doing big stuff like blowing up Vulcan) I doubt we will see anything on TV set after or even at the same time as Kirk and co.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they were now seperate continuities and companies. CBS has TV rights, Paramount has movie rights hence the reboot-verse. So anything for TV should be original flavor ST, not that zesty ranch lens flare reboot.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought they were now seperate continuities and companies. CBS has TV rights, Paramount has movie rights hence the reboot-verse. So anything for TV should be original flavor ST, not that zesty ranch lens flare reboot.
Yeah, the series is a separate continuity to the movies.
I suspect that they'll still try to stay away from the movie timeline, to avoid confusion.
Ship design
Choice of network release
Choice of prequel setting
It's looking a lot more like a complete waste of time. I refuse to pay for a network simply to watch a show I will wind up being dissatisfied with.
While we're at it, I could have sworn that Sarek was never IN Starfleet, and was only ever on a ship to be escorted to diplomatic plot point Epsilon every so often. How are they going to explain that?
EDIT: Just saw the newest trailer, looks a little better, and it also looks like the ship design is improved. May reevaluate.
In the above example, Hasbro states how three disparate series are the same continuity, when there is no way that works. They even mention the "squint test" to plead their case. If you can tell me that the WFC/FOC verse is remotely like Rescue Bots or TF: Prime, then I'll agree with you with the Trek verse. If not, you have a clear example to compare to as far as intention vs. execution.
Literally the exact opposite of how fiction works.
First of all, I think we're talking at cross purposes. I am aware of "how fiction works." I've also spent enough time in fandom to swe just how unprofitable it can be (over time) for a franchise to shovel gak at paying customers and force them to mix it into the delicious product they already know and love. Besides, it can always be retconned a la Superman Returns.
Second, "works" is far too optimistic a word to apply to a sci if prequel.
If Gene Roddenberry himself told me that DSC was canon I would ignore him as he'd clearly be a few midi chlorine short of a Jedi counsel.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've also spent enough time in fandom to swe just how unprofitable it can be (over time) for a franchise to shovel gak at paying customers and force them to mix it into the delicious product they already know and love.
It is true we all like the original series with adventure and thoughtfulness combined then they tried to shove that crap hole The Next Generation on us with its tea drinking and talking about their feelings. Ugh, just terrible.
EVERY sci-fi show/movie has been constrained in some manner by the technology of the day. Personally, I think things look about right, and I can't see show creators looking at the 1960s set saying, "we need our new ship set to look old and dirt cheap like this one!"
Im firmly in the camp of asking why they didnt make a show post Voyager era, or move the current timeline on with a new series. So many possiblities left unexplored.
I'll give it a shot being a total Trekky nerd but it hasnt really grabbed me thusfar.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've also spent enough time in fandom to see just how unprofitable it can be (over time) for a franchise to shovel gak at paying customers and force them to mix it into the delicious product they already know and love
Sure but it's kind of an issue that those two categories are absolutely subjective. For example, I unironically agree with:
Ahtman wrote: It is true we all like the original series with adventure and thoughtfulness combined then they tried to shove that crap hole The Next Generation on us with its tea drinking and talking about their feelings. Ugh, just terrible.
I guess as a "true fan" I tend to like a very small amount of ST, hold it up as the ideal, and then shake my head in disappointment at the rest. That said, only the owner of the IP has the capacity to declare in which fictional setting a fictional story takes place.
Manchu wrote: That said, only the owner of the IP has the capacity to declare in which fictional setting a fictional story takes place.
Nope. I get to make that decision for myself. It is like deciding whether or not Star Wars prequels actually exist or not. They do not, for the record, exist. Can you imagine how just terrible they would be if they did?
What you're describing (evincing) is a kind of nervous disorder brought on by chronic exposure to toxic sequels, prequels, reboots (soft and hard), reimaginings, and parallel timelines.
Manchu wrote: That said, only the owner of the IP has the capacity to declare in which fictional setting a fictional story takes place.
Nope. I get to make that decision for myself. It is like deciding whether or not Star Wars prequels actually exist or not. They do not, for the record, exist. Can you imagine how just terrible they would be if they did?
Its ok, the Prequels are just a Bob Newhart moment when the Grand Moff Tarkin wakes up and realizes it was all just a really lame dream. whew!
Manchu wrote: That said, only the owner of the IP has the capacity to declare in which fictional setting a fictional story takes place.
Nope. I get to make that decision for myself. It is like deciding whether or not Star Wars prequels actually exist or not. They do not, for the record, exist. Can you imagine how just terrible they would be if they did?
Its ok, the Prequels are just a Bob Newhart moment when the Grand Moff Tarkin wakes up and realizes it was all just a really lame dream. whew!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've also spent enough time in fandom to swe just how unprofitable it can be (over time) for a franchise to shovel gak at paying customers and force them to mix it into the delicious product they already know and love.
It is true we all like the original series with adventure and thoughtfulness combined then they tried to shove that crap hole The Next Generation on us with its tea drinking and talking about their feelings. Ugh, just terrible.
Best to think of them as separate continuities. It's how I sleep at night.
EVERY sci-fi show/movie has been constrained in some manner by the technology of the day. Personally, I think things look about right, and I can't see show creators looking at the 1960s set saying, "we need our new ship set to look old and dirt cheap like this one!"
First, the point doesn't really hold up, since we've been "back" to TOS several times in the latter series where they had the chance to use better special effects to update the look, and instead they reinforced that yes, things really did look like that in-canon, primary colours, blinky-lights and all. Second, even if the point is accepted for the sake of argument, then there's a vast chasm of difference between updating the existing look with modern technology and creating a completely new look - nothing in that trailer looks like it comes from TOS. Not the ships, not the uniforms, not the space suit, none of it ties back to Prime TOS even a little - you could just as easily say this show was set ten years after DS9 as ten years before TOS, so little does the updated appearance relate to the classic one.
Which is what's so silly about the whole thing - it's so obviously not TOS in aesthetic, and there are no main TOS characters, so why set it in Prime TOS at all? If they wanted to make a JJTrek show without having to actually negotiate for the right to call it that, they could just have left it ambiguous. They clearly hope they can tap both existing fans who want more Prime universe material and also JJTrek fans at the same time but it's just such a wasted opportunity.
EDIT: To use an analogy - what Bethesda did with Fallout was using modern technology to update an existing franchise aesthetic. People will obviously have different degrees of satisfaction with the result, but there's no arguing that the T-51b armour in Fallout 4 is fundamentally linked back to the Power Armour in the original isometric games, and the same holds true across most of the newer games. This nuTOS thing would be like if Bethesda had made their Fallout games look like Mass Effect - the graphics are certainly better, and there would be things they could justifiably claim to be suits of sci-fi powered armour, but they wouldn't be visually related to the originals in any meaninful way.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've also spent enough time in fandom to see just how unprofitable it can be (over time) for a franchise to shovel gak at paying customers and force them to mix it into the delicious product they already know and love
Sure but it's kind of an issue that those two categories are absolutely subjective. For example, I unironically agree with:
Ahtman wrote: It is true we all like the original series with adventure and thoughtfulness combined then they tried to shove that crap hole The Next Generation on us with its tea drinking and talking about their feelings. Ugh, just terrible.
I guess as a "true fan" I tend to like a very small amount of ST, hold it up as the ideal, and then shake my head in disappointment at the rest. That said, only the owner of the IP has the capacity to declare in which fictional setting a fictional story takes place.
Again, a good reason to consider the series to have separate continuities. I imagine all of Kirk's heroics take on a sickly cast when you realize the infant in the crib he saved was the Starfleet of Voyager.
Personally, I enjoy both TOS and TNG, but in different ways and for different reasons. While the studio has the capacity to declare official canon, for me and plenty of fans like me their proclamations are less than useless. If they have to declare their strikingly different show is in the same continuity, then it isn't. It's not like Star Trek fans have trouble with multiple timelines.
EVERY sci-fi show/movie has been constrained in some manner by the technology of the day. Personally, I think things look about right, and I can't see show creators looking at the 1960s set saying, "we need our new ship set to look old and dirt cheap like this one!"
Which is why Rogue One tried so hard to establish a new visual lexicon for the Star Wars universe. Because who cares how the original looks? This is just a prequel. It doesn't have to mesh, guys.
then they tried to shove that crap hole The Next Generation on us with its tea drinking and talking about their feelings. Ugh, just terrible.
Hmmm? TNG had some genuinely classic sci fi episodes. Really thought provoking stuff especially when watching them circa 1993 et al.
Sure it had some stinkers too but with what 178(?) episodes it was never going to be fully consistent especially with the model they used of multiple (almost random) script writers.
It did miss a beat by not having more over arching plot arcs but some of the stand alone pure sci fi episodes were terrific.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Again, a good reason to consider the series to have separate contI imagine all of Kirk's heroics take on a sickly cast when you realize the infant in the crib he saved was the Starfleet of Voyager.
Best thing I have read on the internet for a long while.
Of course, Voyager is an easy target. It started to go very, very wrong woth TNG. DS9 is likeable (to the extent it is) because it understands as much.
Compel wrote: Apparently the internet is really upset because this new tv series is performing white genocide...
'The internet' isn't upset. A small subset of the internet that dislikes any suggestion that white people aren't the dominant species in the universe is upset that a show that has always been about diversity has a diverse cast.
Compel wrote: Apparently the internet is really upset because this new tv series is performing white genocide...
'The internet' isn't upset. A small subset of the internet that dislikes any suggestion that white people aren't the dominant species in the universe is upset that a show that has always been about diversity has a diverse cast.
I wonder how much cross over that subset has with the section of the internet that's all pissy about some movie theaters doing "women only" screenings of "Wonder Woman"...
If there's anything to be upset about, it's that CBS is coupling Star Trek: Discovery with their streaming service last I saw.
I've seen more people complaining about people complaining then people actually complaining about the casting. It seems like it may be a situation where a very small handful of idiots whined but where then given a megaphone by having one hundred times that number repeat/repost their minority opinion.
Seems like in Canada it will be on TV so I'm happy about that. Seems like they've divided up the world into three regions for the show: The US, Canada and The Rest of The Planet. Rest of Planet gets it on Netflix which I wanted but if its on cable TV here then that's cool by me.
Ahtman wrote: I've seen more people complaining about people complaining then people actually complaining about the casting.
I've noticed such about nearly everything these days. The number of people complaining about complaining seems to not only exceed the number of people complaining, but they complain a lot louder while they're at it.
After months and months of delays, and reports of behind-the-scenes craziness, Star Trek: Discovery finally boldly goes to TV screens this September. That’s the good news. The bad news is you won’t be getting all of it this year.
CBS has announced that the 15-episode first season of Discovery will now air in two split parts: the first eight episodes will run between September 24 and November 5 on streaming service CBS All Access (the premiere will also debut on CBS itself), while the back seven will hit the service beginning in January 2018. Here’s a short new teaser confirming the date, alongside another tiny new glimpse of the titular ship itself... something that was surprisingly absent from the first trailer.
No idea what's going on, or who everyone's supposed to be, but it looks interesting.
If it's on Netflix, does that mean it'll all be available in one go? I won't need to wait a week for each episode like some sort of 20th century savage?
That was horrible. I had a feeling this show was going to be a mess, and that trailer confirmed it for me. The Klingon redesign was totally unnecessary (they look less like Klingons and more like those aliens that helped Tom Hardy fight Picard in the last Next Gen movie), the action seems to take it's cues from the reboot movies, the tech on display is noticeably more advanced than what was used in the original series, despite being set a mere ten years prior to it, and we're throwing in Harry Mudd because we think the nerds like nostalgia but we can't be arsed to make the actor look anything like Harry Mudd.
On the bright side, there weren't any shots of anybody giving the half-Vulcan lady an oil massage under a blue light, so there's at least one lesson they learned from Enterprise.
Frazzled wrote: Wait, if this is ten years before, I thought Garth had already defeated the Klingons at Axanar?
The exact date of the Axanar is ambiguous in official cannon. The entire event is literally just a name drop in a single episode and given no real explanation except that it was important and Garth of Izar won it before going bonkers. It was never even stated in TOS who the battle was against.
The details of Axanar were expanded in a table top game (or something) that was never part of the main cannon (and it is on this that the proposed fan film is based).
Frazzled wrote: Wait, if this is ten years before, I thought Garth had already defeated the Klingons at Axanar?
Doesn't this fly in the face of canon already?
To the show-the Vulcan is really annoying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Wait, if this is ten years before, I thought Garth had already defeated the Klingons at Axanar?
Doesn't this fly in the face of canon already?
To the show-the Vulcan is really annoying.
You can't expect the writers, producers, or any other paid professionals attached to the project to care about such trifling details. I mean, jeez, you're the kind of hardcore fan who will probably complain when the four-nostriled Klingons pull out their lightsabers. Don't you know a Star Trek show can't appeal to an audience unless you take the Star Trek out of it?
LordofHats wrote: The entire event is literally just a name drop in a single episode and given no real explanation
That sounds exactly like the kind of thing that fanatics would latch on to as if it were holy writ and pretend an absolute understanding of it and mock those who don't take it the same way.
They should have just set the show post nemesis, or made it into an entire reboot. Cause as it is it doesn't align well at all with the existing prime universe material. I'm not very convinced by most of the cast either...not sure these people will become lovable characters like those of old. Then again if it doesn't make it past one season they won't ever get a chance to develop anyways.
The show seems to be keeping to the spirit of Star Trek, so if I had Netflix is probably watch it, albeit with some occasional head shaking over daft choices.
But as I don't have Netflix, it's not convincing new to get it. Maybe if I get one of those free month offers again I'll binge it, iron first and defenders all together
Thargrim wrote: They should have just set the show post nemesis, or made it into an entire reboot. Cause as it is it doesn't align well at all with the existing prime universe material. I'm not very convinced by most of the cast either...not sure these people will become lovable characters like those of old. Then again if it doesn't make it past one season they won't ever get a chance to develop anyways.
Ya know, I kinda agree with this, from the standpoint that with the progression of "movie magic" technology, we have every ability to move the prime storyline forward at least a few years. . . . Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to Riker making an appearance as Captain, or even an Admiral in a series set a few years forward of where Picard left the bridge/end of TNG.
I don't get why the Klingons were redesigned if it's supposed to be Prime universe.
Although that wouldn't be as bad if they were at least in some way an improvement over the previous iteration.
I'm still on the fence over this one. The trailer looks cool enough. The Klingons look like butt. And it's vaguely amusing that they're only showing tiny glimpses of the titular ship... I would guess as a result of the fairly universal negative reaction to the initial teaser.
Thargrim wrote: They should have just set the show post nemesis, or made it into an entire reboot. Cause as it is it doesn't align well at all with the existing prime universe material. I'm not very convinced by most of the cast either...not sure these people will become lovable characters like those of old. Then again if it doesn't make it past one season they won't ever get a chance to develop anyways.
Ya know, I kinda agree with this, from the standpoint that with the progression of "movie magic" technology, we have every ability to move the prime storyline forward at least a few years. . . . Hell, I wouldn't be opposed to Riker making an appearance as Captain, or even an Admiral in a series set a few years forward of where Picard left the bridge/end of TNG.
Indeed, something in the future would have freed them to do whole new storylines and bad guys (like TNG with the Borg).
Personally I think the ST universe is kind of rung out.
I like the look - it makes them look more ... well, alien. Unfoirtunately, it also makes them look like animals, not a civilisation that controls an interstellar empire and appears to be more advanced than humanity.
That's always been the problem with the conception of Klingons though hasn't it, in reality they would barely have made their way out of caves in-between bashing each other over the head, and certainly destroyed themselves long before they managed to get FTL travel and the like.
And always thought them having cloaking technology (and the likes of the Federation and Vulkans not) always a little silly, despite attempts to explain it.
For anyone that reads Starburst magazine, there was quite an interesting introspective on the changes to the design teams and production staff that Discovery has suffered through it's (now quite drawn out) creation. Including design of the aliens, made for quite harrowing reading (and I must say has lowered my expectations somewhat).
I'll still watch it when it launches in the hope that it will actually be 'Star Trek' in terms of the underlying atmosphere and conception of the show, or whether it will follow the new films and have just been turned into space battle explosion funtime. That for me will be key, rather than whether individual aliens happen to have been re-designed.
Pacific wrote: That's always been the problem with the conception of Klingons though hasn't it, in reality they would barely have made their way out of caves in-between bashing each other over the head, and certainly destroyed themselves long before they managed to get FTL travel and the like.
And always thought them having cloaking technology (and the likes of the Federation and Vulkans not) always a little silly, despite attempts to explain it.
For anyone that reads Starburst magazine, there was quite an interesting introspective on the changes to the design teams and production staff that Discovery has suffered through it's (now quite drawn out) creation. Including design of the aliens, made for quite harrowing reading (and I must say has lowered my expectations somewhat).
I'll still watch it when it launches in the hope that it will actually be 'Star Trek' in terms of the underlying atmosphere and conception of the show, or whether it will follow the new films and have just been turned into space battle explosion funtime. That for me will be key, rather than whether individual aliens happen to have been re-designed.
Well they didn't turn into Warring Period SPazz Samurai until TNG, which seemed to put them on this track that has accelerated. Both the STOS (and its movies) and the Altverse movies had Klingons more as cold war empire dudes who were very good at killing other races.
Pacific wrote: That's always been the problem with the conception of Klingons though hasn't it, in reality they would barely have made their way out of caves in-between bashing each other over the head, and certainly destroyed themselves long before they managed to get FTL travel and the like.
And always thought them having cloaking technology (and the likes of the Federation and Vulkans not) always a little silly, despite attempts to explain it.
For anyone that reads Starburst magazine, there was quite an interesting introspective on the changes to the design teams and production staff that Discovery has suffered through it's (now quite drawn out) creation. Including design of the aliens, made for quite harrowing reading (and I must say has lowered my expectations somewhat).
I'll still watch it when it launches in the hope that it will actually be 'Star Trek' in terms of the underlying atmosphere and conception of the show, or whether it will follow the new films and have just been turned into space battle explosion funtime. That for me will be key, rather than whether individual aliens happen to have been re-designed.
Well they didn't turn into Warring Period SPazz Samurai until TNG, which seemed to put them on this track that has accelerated. Both the STOS (and its movies) and the Altverse movies had Klingons more as cold war empire dudes who were very good at killing other races.
I always saw the TNG Klingons as more of a space Vikings thing. . . they are good at fighting. They love fighting. . .but then you have this other side where they eat/party like "warriors", and they have a not-quite fatalistic view where they want to die in battle. Other than the whole honor/dishonor concept, they are missing most other Samurai themes, IMHO.
Haven't they addressed quite often that TNG era onwards was the "decline of the Klingon Empire?"
EG I remember conversations with a Klingon lawyer and Worf along the lines of, "we used to be respected amongst the galaxy as warriors, yes, of course, but more, as poets, as historians, as scholars. A lawyer is an honourable life, a farmer is an honourable life, a scientist is an honourable life, not just at war, but enhancing the glory of the Klingon Empire but all people care for now is a glorious death in battle."
I don't think its so much that the Klingons are one dimensional as the depiction of them from TNG onwards became one dimensional. There's obviously more in their culture and society than glorious "die with honor" guys, but we hardly ever see them. Despite existing since TOS, I feel like the Klingons are one of the least fleshed out aliens in Star Trek. We learned more about Bajorans and Cardassians in 7 seasons than we have about Klingons in 28.
Pacific wrote: That's always been the problem with the conception of Klingons though hasn't it, in reality they would barely have made their way out of caves in-between bashing each other over the head, and certainly destroyed themselves long before they managed to get FTL travel and the like.
And always thought them having cloaking technology (and the likes of the Federation and Vulkans not) always a little silly, despite attempts to explain it.
The thing is, Klingons aren't stupid. They're just often portrayed that way. This wasn't just an issue with the Next Gen onwards, though... There was fairly massive outcry when the Motion Picture was released about the Klingons just charging on into the unknown with guns blazing rather than taking the time to study what was going on. Their portrayal in the original series was of a warlike but cunning species, on par with the Federation in strength. But from the first movie onwards, they suddenly because frothing loonies who just want to hit things.
I think the Klingon's have generally suffered from what I'd call an obsession with aesthetic over substance. They look cool. They sound cool. They do cool stuff. It all looks cool, but underneath that though its all pretty shallow and even attempts in DS9 to present something more dynamic often still fell back on the generic warrior race guys aesthetic as a stand in for having to actually explain anything.
insaniak wrote: I don't get why the Klingons were redesigned if it's supposed to be Prime universe.
If the rumours that have been floating about are accurate - because it's not and was never intended to be Prime, at least not beyond the pilot. Apparently the whole shebang was cooked up essentially as a way for Paramount to preserve their "alternate Star Trek" license going forward given Beyond's underwhelming financial performance(despite it airing on All Access, it's Paramount, Bad Robot, and Kurtzman that are running the show as it were, and the license is a use it or lose it affair). The "big choice event" thing the lead character is being teased as being involved with in the pilot is supposedly basically meant to be Hobus 2.0, shifting Discovery off into essentially a third, also-alternate Trek(without ever actually saying so on-screen, making Discovery a semi-reboot): ostensibly the Paramount license is dependent on them doing "not-Trek", ie their version/s have to differ in aesthetic and tone to a noticeable degree from Prime, with Kelvin they went with Apple Futurism and a more "rip-roarin adventure" for the tone while with Discovery we get a different variation on shiny chrome futurism but this time the tone is "Dark Trek"(Sonequa Martin-Green has been quoted answering questions about the contrast between her experiences on Discovery with those on Walking Dead intimating they're not all that different and that all good storytelling is "gritty", and Kurtzman has made several comments about chucking out the "no petty interpersonal conflicts" rule to "modernise" the show).
CBS apparently OK'd the deal because for them it was win-win-win; they get more money out of the Paramount license which had been looking unlikely, they get a show they can use to bait the hook for their new online service, and best of all Netflix paid for the whole thing.
Basically the whole bin-fire is more corporate garbage.
Which kind of makes me glad that the other rumours floating around are that behind the scenes the whole thing is escalating from bin-fire to apocalyptically huge burning rubbish tip. Apparently the showrunners and CBS are gaking bricks because less than a third of the people in the test audiences who weren't existing Trek fans indicated they'd be willing to pay to watch it, and the reaction from both Kelvin and Prime fans was even worse. Supposedly a lot of those involved - both on the corporate side and production including some of the actors - have already written the show off and expect that barring some unforseen miraculous resonance with a new audience it will be cancelled even before season one has finished airing. Merchandising is non-existent, with only a single proposed toy line that is merely an option on a larger Prime license to one company, that wouldn't be out until 2018 even if it does actually get made. CBS are apparently bringing in the guy who directed Wrath of Khan to pull together a second, more fan-oriented show that will replace Discovery if and when that goes tits-up, though all parties involved apparently intend to save face by pushing the line that this was the plan all along and the prior info that Kurtzman had killed Fuller's original "anthology show" idea was incorrect. Netflix are apparently spitting blood because they thought they were buying in on the ground floor of a whole new Trek run, and CBS are reportedly looking at using their stake in CW to locate the replacement there instead.
And the sad thing is I kind of hope all of that is 100% true. Obviously as a fan the thing I most hope is true is that Nicholas Meyer actually has been tapped to produce a new, proper Trek show in the reasonably near future, but with all the sordid licensing garbage coming out the idea that all these besuited numpties and their pet pseudo-iconoclasts will be rewarded for their cynical half-assed maneuverings with a total failure of a show and potentially even a few rolling heads is actually quite a satisfying prospect.
I intend to watch this when it comes out, and pass judgement accordingly. I did the same with every series, this should be no different. As I wound up being about the only person in the galaxy that liked Insurrection, I will probably wind up being okay with this as well. Tell a good story, I'll fill in the canon-blanks with my own ideas. Just don't continuity bomb me like Enterprise did...
Just Tony wrote: I intend to watch this when it comes out, and pass judgement accordingly. I did the same with every series, this should be no different. As I wound up being about the only person in the galaxy that liked Insurrection, I will probably wind up being okay with this as well. Tell a good story, I'll fill in the canon-blanks with my own ideas. Just don't continuity bomb me like Enterprise did...
I also actually didn't mind Insurrection - people say it's "just" a two hour Next Gen episode, to which my response was always great, I like Next Gen. I don't expect I'll enjoy this however. It has all the continuity/aesthetic issues I had with Enterprise but magnified and without even the fig leaf of a very large time gap, and the purported shift in tone would make it a hard pass for me - at least Enterprise tried to evoke TOS-era "wonder of exploration" Trek, the idea of "JJTrek: Into Darkness - The Show" hardly appeals.
The common sentiment from the test screenings is supposedly that Discovery feels like "just a normal sci-fi show with some Trek dressing", and maybe at one point that would have been good enough, but we're fair drowning in decent sci-fi and fantasy(not to mention superheroics) TV at the moment with even more on the horizon, so chucking a few delta badges and pointy-ear prosthetics at a growly SG:Universe-alike isn't going to cut it for me.
I also actually didn't mind Insurrection - people say it's "just" a two hour Next Gen episode, to which my response was always great, I like Next Gen. .
When there's no on-going series, that's the next best thing, really. There's a lot to like in Insurrection.
I felt the same about Beyond, to be honest... I can see why it underperformed, particularly after the reception the previous movie got, but it was fun and 'felt' like more like Star Trek then either of the previous nu-Trek movies.
LordofHats wrote: I think the Klingon's have generally suffered from what I'd call an obsession with aesthetic over substance. They look cool. They sound cool. They do cool stuff. It all looks cool, but underneath that though its all pretty shallow and even attempts in DS9 to present something more dynamic often still fell back on the generic warrior race guys aesthetic as a stand in for having to actually explain anything.
I'm reminded of the TNG episode where Kahless is brought back as a clone. During a duel, he suddenly stops fighting and berates the Klingons watching for focusing on just the fight while forgetting why they fight.
Well you can check off "actors give interviews smugly insisting they enjoy the idea that fans of a franchise will dislike the reboot" on your Troubled Production Bingo cards. I was actually surprised it's Jason Isaacs who's the first to drop the "we luuurve Trek and are so reverent of its history" pretense and start scrabbling for the "no we totes meant it to alienate the core fanbase" button, I had a fiver on it being the showrunners.
If the rumours that have been floating about are accurate - because it's not and was never intended to be Prime, at least not beyond the pilot. Apparently the whole shebang was cooked up essentially as a way for Paramount to preserve their "alternate Star Trek" license going forward given Beyond's underwhelming financial performance(despite it airing on All Access, it's Paramount, Bad Robot, and Kurtzman that are running the show as it were, and the license is a use it or lose it affair). The "big choice event" thing the lead character is being teased as being involved with in the pilot is supposedly basically meant to be Hobus 2.0, shifting Discovery off into essentially a third, also-alternate Trek(without ever actually saying so on-screen, making Discovery a semi-reboot): ostensibly the Paramount license is dependent on them doing "not-Trek", ie their version/s have to differ in aesthetic and tone to a noticeable degree from Prime, with Kelvin they went with Apple Futurism and a more "rip-roarin adventure" for the tone while with Discovery we get a different variation on shiny chrome futurism but this time the tone is "Dark Trek"(Sonequa Martin-Green has been quoted answering questions about the contrast between her experiences on Discovery with those on Walking Dead intimating they're not all that different and that all good storytelling is "gritty", and Kurtzman has made several comments about chucking out the "no petty interpersonal conflicts" rule to "modernise" the show).
If accurate, that's kind of depressing to read. No matter how good the shows in question actually are, I'm kind of burned out on the cynical "unpleasant people doing unpleasant things to other unpleasant people" trend in TV shows over the last ten-odd years, and if anything would be exempt, it'd be Star Trek.
I miss TV shows where you could just enjoy all the characters getting along. Nowadays we'd end up with a Golden Girls reboot where they're all trying to kill each other for their SS checks.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I miss TV shows where you could just enjoy all the characters getting along. Nowadays we'd end up with a Golden Girls reboot where they're all trying to kill each other for their SS checks.
This on Fall on NBC
What happens when covert government agencies fight for control of alien technology? It's Game of Thrones meets The X-Files!
I thought it was called Star Gate SG-1. Except one of those government agencies is so brain dead stupid at every turn when you think about it, it's almost immersion breaking to think the NID ever actually got anything done without blowing its own hands off let alone actually manage the cut throat world of budget reconciliation
So now that Game of Thrones and Twin Peaks are over for me, I have a bit of time and room for another show. Whether this will fill the void or not...hmm. With less than 20 days left until release it's an odd feeling cause as a fairly big Trekkie you'd think i'd be pretty excited but i'm not. It's more of an apprehensive feeling.
It all comes down to the exclusivity. I want to watch, but I am NOT buying a channel I have no intention of using just to watch this thing for an hour a week before it gets moved or pulled.
Just Tony wrote: It all comes down to the exclusivity. I want to watch, but I am NOT buying a channel I have no intention of using just to watch this thing for an hour a week before it gets moved or pulled.
This.
Set aside that I don't want to pay for it. Does anyone really want to live in a market where every channel costs a subscription fee to watch? TV is overpriced as it is, but at least a basic cable package gives me a bunch of stuff to watch. Most channels have only one show I'm even remotely interested in, and I probably wouldn't watch them if they came with a separate fee.
Sounds kind of like Star Trek undiscovered Country
“The allegory is that we really started working on the show in earnest around the time the election was happening,” showrunner Aaron Harberts says. “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things. It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it. It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.”
While such topics have been explored across Star Trek‘s six previous series and 700 episodes before, the serialized nature of Discovery‘s 15-episode debut season allows for a greater depth of storytelling. “The thing about the war is it takes Starfleet and the Federation and forces them to examine their ideas and ethical rules of conflict and conduct,” Harberts says. “It provides a backdrop to how we want to be as a society and that analysis and self-reflection is new for Trek. They’ve done it in certain episodes in the past, but this is a true journey for the institution in itself.”
“In times of stress and conflict it can bring out the best of us and the worst of us,” adds fellow showrunner Gretchen J. Berg. “But but ultimately brings out the best in our Starfleet officers.
While such topics have been explored across Star Trek‘s six previous series and 700 episodes before, the serialized nature of Discovery‘s 15-episode debut season allows for a greater depth of storytelling. “The thing about the war is it takes Starfleet and the Federation and forces them to examine their ideas and ethical rules of conflict and conduct,” Harberts says. “It provides a backdrop to how we want to be as a society and that analysis and self-reflection is new for Trek. They’ve done it in certain episodes in the past, but this is a true journey for the institution in itself.”
Get right away tae feth, ya hubristic balloons. Even setting aside that this was a big theme of DS9 overall, I will bet right now(if I'm wrong in this assertion I will subscribe to their moronic streaming service yet never use it, it's a bet with them without them knowing basically) that any one of those single episodes they handwave away to try and pretend they're doing something of unique storytelling value here handles the concept with more depth and intelligence than this whole series, and further that taken collectively all the individual episodes and storyline that have covered this concept before in Trek will make Discovery look like the very worst kind of patronising Young Adult Novel-level fiction by comparison.
I shouldn't be surprised of course, this is the natural endpoint of vacuous "Im With Her"-style (neo)liberal centrism getting its claws into an IP that used to be radical.
Yodhrin wrote: If the rumours that have been floating about are accurate - because it's not and was never intended to be Prime, at least not beyond the pilot. Apparently the whole shebang was cooked up essentially as a way for Paramount to preserve their "alternate Star Trek" license going forward given Beyond's underwhelming financial performance(despite it airing on All Access, it's Paramount, Bad Robot, and Kurtzman that are running the show as it were, and the license is a use it or lose it affair). The "big choice event" thing the lead character is being teased as being involved with in the pilot is supposedly basically meant to be Hobus 2.0, shifting Discovery off into essentially a third, also-alternate Trek(without ever actually saying so on-screen, making Discovery a semi-reboot): ostensibly the Paramount license is dependent on them doing "not-Trek", ie their version/s have to differ in aesthetic and tone to a noticeable degree from Prime, with Kelvin they went with Apple Futurism and a more "rip-roarin adventure" for the tone while with Discovery we get a different variation on shiny chrome futurism but this time the tone is "Dark Trek"(Sonequa Martin-Green has been quoted answering questions about the contrast between her experiences on Discovery with those on Walking Dead intimating they're not all that different and that all good storytelling is "gritty", and Kurtzman has made several comments about chucking out the "no petty interpersonal conflicts" rule to "modernise" the show).
Discovery is going to be Star Trek: Got Ham or Star Trek, by Warner Movies? Except you have to buy each episode as Pay Per View?
It gives me slight hope due to it have 15 episodes, that allows more time to develop the characters and get things going. If it was like 8 episodes i'd be even more worried. I'm just not sold on the aesthetics yet, the ships look sterile and cold and not home-like. DS9 pulled off a more grey and brown palette and it still felt right.
While classic Trek (TOS & TNG) were anti-grimdark, they also have this unusual level of hyper-maturity where you never see a screaming argument between Starfleet Officers.
Don't suppose any Dakkanauts were lucky enough to go to one of the premieres?
Bad sign - CBS not releasing copies for review until after it airs, which is apparently rare
Good sign - People who had seen the premiere weren't allowed to comment on particulars, but reaction has been positive apparently.
LOL, aye, "Trek fans" like the guys from Star Trek Online who will soon be flogging the ships & uniforms from the show for $20 a pop, and editors for the Star Trek tie-in books.
We'll see, but variations of "cinematic and steeped in lore" seems to crop up quite a lot. Faint whiff of folk being given a line to follow IMO.
Compel wrote: Funnily enough... Star Trek Online do have the uniforms in the game already.
For free.
All of them? That would be a change, they usually hold certain variants or ranks to ransom with Lobi or lockbox gambling or outright RMT - their treatment of the post-WoK TOS movie uniforms was a fething joke. The point stands however - a lot of the folk who are being passed off as "fans" making comments are people with a financial interest in STD's success, and so I'm less inclined to take their comments at face value, doubly so when similar phrasing keeps popping up in a way that recalls political "talking points".
I'll pass. I'm in the US (as my little flag to the left indicates) and I'm not paying money for a streaming service to be drip fed one episode a week with commercials (at the $6 pricepoint) for one mediocre overall show when I have nothing else I want to watch there and on top of my existing netflix and amazon prime subscriptions where I can binge watch at my leisure without commercials from multiple sources (movie studios, networks, and cable conglomerates) at their intro pricepoint. As for the actual show episode itself (spoilers below)
Spoiler:
Did every klingon in that cult swear a blood oath to always have a mouth full of marbles? Did she really jump pack 200,000km!!! in a spacesuit or did I hear that distance to the cloaked target incorrectly?
Also I think it was 2,000 km. Still a massive distance for a suit. It doesn't make sense.
Satellite splatted. Ship hiding. So hey lets put someone in a suit and throw them at it.
I enjoyed it. It looked pretty and was well paced, though it felt a bit too much like Star Wars and not much at all like Star Trek - I handwaved this away by assuming that it was set in the JJ Abrams alternate universe rather than Prime. Still, there were a few moments that challenged my ability to suspend disbelief and felt cheap, forced, or otherwise symptomatic of shoddy writing. I'll probably try spoofing my IP address to watch the rest of the episodes on Netflix, not worth the All Access subscription however.
Also I think it was 2,000 km. Still a massive distance for a suit. It doesn't make sense.
Satellite splatted. Ship hiding. So hey lets put someone in a suit and throw them at it.
Yup... I kept muttering to myself "To infinity and beyond!" during that scene.
Spoiler:
Even at your 2,000km distance, it's still ridiculous to traverse that (with accel and decel cycles both ways) including time to actually survey the object within 12 minutes unless those tiny thrusters are really shuttle grade impulse engines and her suit has an awesome structural integrity field to deal with the constant 10+g's she'd be experiencing instead of the minor grunt 2-3g's shown. That scene was pure hollywood writer fanspank with no input from any supposed scientists that they really should have on staff as advisors. That does hundredfold if it was 200,000km. 200km would have been believeable.
Overall I liked it minus the shiny black klingons. Their redesign just felt unnecessary. It was definitely more of a Star Trek action movie feel to it all. Orville has felt much more Star Trek tv series so far.
I've seen the first episode and i've got mixed feelings so far. I didn't dislike the cast as much as I thought I would. But I feel like this captured the feeling of Abrams ST. Whereas the Orville to me feels more like classic Trek. Both are good in different ways. While I like an action packed intro to a show I hope later on they can explore more complex ideas aside from this kind of impending war tension.
I really feel like they should have secured a deal with Netflix for the US. Or found some way to bring this to US audiences without requiring us to pay yet another sub to a service that doesn't offer much else worthwhile (at least to me)
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anybody watching The Orville? I have this sneaking suspicion that the parody of Star Trek will be better or more Star Treky than the actual Star Trek.
I watched the first episode of Orville. . . . wow, it was bad. Like, I thought initially it was kinda meh, but then as I got more and more into it, the fewer redeeming qualities I could find.
Watched the pilot for STD this evening, and both the wife and I rather liked it. . . not enough to do CBS's stupid subscription thing. . . but once it eventually makes it to Amazon (and we all know it will) or amazon prime, we'll watch more of it.
Wow, so watched the first two episodes, not sure how the broadcast schedule works. The production values are through the roof and it looks like a movie. In fact it looks a little too much like a certain JJ Abrams movie right down to the lens flare. Maybe this thing will settle down later but right now it is not Trek. It's like Battlestar Galatica but more militaristic and grimdark somehow. I like it I guess but also sad that this is what Star Trek has become.
I liked bits of the orville and discovery, without being religious about either (I'm the same about all the prior ST shows and movies, too. There's some good, there, but a lot of crap, too).
I've seen the first 2 eps of discovery and the first 3 of orville. Neither are fantastic, but neither are "ST:Nemesis" or Voyager levels of bad, either.
As for the darkness descending on ST. The eternal naivete of Roddenbery has passed. Humanity WILL NEVER dump it's petty tribalistic bickering and get its collective gak together, so his utopian fantasy will never happen. Tribalism is wired into us - all of us gravitate towards groups of "us" and "not us", regardless of hobby, political, religious or sporting affiliations.
To be honest, those first two episodes weren't all that bad. They weren't Star Trek by a long shot, but taken on their own merits, I really rather enjoyed them. Visually absolutely superb, seems like a solid enough cast and an interesting narrative. It's Galactica with a hint of Mass Effect, and while it's not the true ST series I still hope to see one day, that's not a bad mix for entertaining sci-fi.
Spoiler:
I do feel they missed a trick killing off T'Kumva and Phillipa in the opener though, they were probably the two best characters in it. At this point, I'd be far more interested in a series with Capt. Georgiou and the Shinzhou than Miss Grumpy Renegade and whatever she ends up doing... )
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Anybody watching The Orville? I have this sneaking suspicion that the parody of Star Trek will be better or more Star Treky than the actual Star Trek.
I watched the first episode of Orville. . . . wow, it was bad. Like, I thought initially it was kinda meh, but then as I got more and more into it, the fewer redeeming qualities I could find.
Watched the pilot for STD this evening, and both the wife and I rather liked it. . . not enough to do CBS's stupid subscription thing. . . but once it eventually makes it to Amazon (and we all know it will) or amazon prime, we'll watch more of it.
I wouldn't say it's a guarantee now unless you're talking about 5+ years from now. There is a chance older full seasons may make it to Netflix in a year or two in the US since they have a deal internationally... but amazon anytime in the near future? Nah.
So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.
Apparently the deal with netflix effectively paid all the production costs of the first season according to reports last year so CBS is apparently bullish on the show's prospects since it won't cost them anything directly. There's always a chance they'll cancel it regardless if they really don't get their greedy paywall CBS all access numbers boost but I doubt it.
Compel wrote: So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.
Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.
Compel wrote: So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.
Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.
I think that was a very deliberate. Georgiou is very much a traditional ST captain (reminded me of Picard a bit, actually), having Burnham essentially mutiny against her is a pretty clear statement that this series isn't in that old-school vein and that morality is compromised by the situation they're dealing with. Which is not necessarily something I like from a ST point of view, but if that's what the series wants to be I'll give it a fair shot on its own merits.
Ideally, Burnham ending up with her own command will mould her more into that traditional captain's role over the course of the series. From what I've read about Jason Issac's character, he's very much a wartime captain, so hopefully he'll provide the contrast that allows Burnham to grow into something more than that.
Compel wrote: So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.
Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.
I think that was a very deliberate. Georgiou is very much a traditional ST captain (reminded me of Picard a bit, actually), having Burnham essentially mutiny against her is a pretty clear statement that this series isn't in that old-school vein and that morality is compromised by the situation they're dealing with. Which is not necessarily something I like from a ST point of view, but if that's what the series wants to be I'll give it a fair shot on its own merits.
Ideally, Burnham ending up with her own command will mould her more into that traditional captain's role over the course of the series. From what I've read about Jason Issac's character, he's very much a wartime captain, so hopefully he'll provide the contrast that allows Burnham to grow into something more than that.
I'm not morally outraged by the show or anything like that. I liked it. The Federation-Klingon war is a part of ST history and I guess we're going to get a close-up examination of what it was like. There's something interesting about seeing Utopia at war and weather or not it can still hold onto it's ideals or go over to the grimdark side.. However, DS9 did cover that pretty well already and I'm afraid this show will give into the darkness.
I think that's the way to look at it; if this series goes dark, hopefully that's to hold up a mirror to traditionally utopian Trek and allow the inherent themes of that, tolerance, compassion, cooperation and all that stuff to show through even in the most adverse times. If it descends into 15 episode of escalating space battles, Klingon murder and trivialised violence then that's missing the point, but there is definitely an opportunity to get a message across here.
Honestly, I think a big part of it is that the title, Discovery, suggested a return to exploration, science, less of the military aspect, and in the first two episodes we've got the start of a war that looks like it's going to dominate the series, and while that's very interesting story-wise, it kind of sits at odds with the title. Unless of course, the show shifts its tone away from the military side of it as they realise Burnham clearly isn't fit to be fighting in the war, and so it falls to her and The Discovery to crack on with Starfleet's traditional role while the majority of its more significant ships are out on the front lines. That is something I could definitely get on board with, although if the show does want to stick with the Klingon war as the main focus then that's fine by me as well, those space battles were admittedly very cool indeed.
Apparently the deal with netflix effectively paid all the production costs of the first season according to reports last year so CBS is apparently bullish on the show's prospects since it won't cost them anything directly. There's always a chance they'll cancel it regardless if they really don't get their greedy paywall CBS all access numbers boost but I doubt it.
good points and thanks for the info. Awesome avatar by the way.
Paradigm wrote: I think that's the way to look at it; if this series goes dark, hopefully that's to hold up a mirror to traditionally utopian Trek and allow the inherent themes of that, tolerance, compassion, cooperation and all that stuff to show through even in the most adverse times. If it descends into 15 episode of escalating space battles, Klingon murder and trivialised violence then that's missing the point, but there is definitely an opportunity to get a message across here.
Honestly, I think a big part of it is that the title, Discovery, suggested a return to exploration, science, less of the military aspect, and in the first two episodes we've got the start of a war that looks like it's going to dominate the series, and while that's very interesting story-wise, it kind of sits at odds with the title. Unless of course, the show shifts its tone away from the military side of it as they realise Burnham clearly isn't fit to be fighting in the war, and so it falls to her and The Discovery to crack on with Starfleet's traditional role while the majority of its more significant ships are out on the front lines. That is something I could definitely get on board with, although if the show does want to stick with the Klingon war as the main focus then that's fine by me as well, those space battles were admittedly very cool indeed.
I think they're going with Burnham is the only one fit to fight in the war. That seems to be the message of the first 2 episodes. She's willing to fire first while those silly Starfleet Officers try to adhere to principles and all that.
I'm usually the first person to slag off stupid Star Trek stupidity, figured that I'd give it a look to potentially get more ammunition for my reasoning.
Turns out, not too bad for the first couple of episodes!
Maybe it worked for me because it's a reasonably decent Sci fi show with some Starfleet badges slapped onto it. Starfleet, Klingons and Sarek pasted over Battlestar Galactica is fine by me.
Added bonus: no "first shot takes the warp drive offline so we can't get away" bollocks!
Given its birth pains, I was expecting a steaming pile ala Enterprise.
But those two episodes were pretty damned good. Very much looking forward to the rest of the season.
I'm also expecting a slight change in focus with eps3+ as the showrunner got changed after the "pilot" (the first 2 episodes are essentially a pilot episode in the old paradigm. In these days of netflix and streamed tv, the first season is the pilot).
Frazzled wrote: Just watched the teaser episode. All I have to say is nope nope nope...
Spoiler:
seriously? What the hell was that? I counted at least three jump the shark moments. Plus the Klingons just sucked balls.
I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.
Garbage fire as far as I'm concerned.
And no, I won't be watching online. I don't like the characters or the motiviations or the storytelling, with the emphasis on telling instead of showing.
good points and thanks for the info. Awesome avatar by the way.
Thanks! I didn't make it myself but found it online and loved it. No reason you can't be a fan of both.
FWIW, here's a video I found tonight:
Record numbers without actual details or context. I don't doubt the numbers were their best ever but if all the other numbers were abysmal then it doesn't actually mean much. For instance, a local subdivision posted a corner addition to their sign at the entrance to their property that 2016 was their record best selling year ever! Sounds impressive, right? That statement is likely 100% true but the part they left out is that they started first selling homes in the fall of 2015. Without that context, the true meaning of that sign isn't apparent. I suspect the show will continue on for the forseeable future as the reception overall IMO isn't negative but instead pretty evenly mixed.
I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.
Starfleet isn't a navy. It's an exploratory group that has warships.
I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.
Starfleet isn't a navy. It's an exploratory group that has warships.
Sure, right. Regardless, that's not how chain of command works in any functional organization.
What I'm liking about it so far is that already we're seeing the Starfleet approach challenged straight off the bat.
Now, that's important. The Prime Directive, Temporal Prime Directive and other niceties sound easy, but are rarely so once you've actually left spacedock. Yet it's only through the rigorous testing of our morals that they actually mean anything.
I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.
Just how fething incompetent is Starfleet that they'd give a command to a green officer who freaks out in battle and commits mutiny?
Yeah, I did not like the tension among the officers. I really dislike how aggressive Burnhan is.
It was not a bad show, but I would also like to watch some Star Trek.
I really dislike how they changed then Klingons aesthetic, not the physical look. I do not have a problem with them being less human looking, but I think the Klingons should be (and stay) Space Soviets. They are way too fancy, and the updated Bat'leth is hideous.
chromedog wrote: As for the darkness descending on ST. The eternal naivete of Roddenbery has passed. Humanity WILL NEVER dump it's petty tribalistic bickering and get its collective gak together, so his utopian fantasy will never happen. Tribalism is wired into us - all of us gravitate towards groups of "us" and "not us", regardless of hobby, political, religious or sporting affiliations.
Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.
chromedog wrote: As for the darkness descending on ST. The eternal naivete of Roddenbery has passed. Humanity WILL NEVER dump it's petty tribalistic bickering and get its collective gak together, so his utopian fantasy will never happen. Tribalism is wired into us - all of us gravitate towards groups of "us" and "not us", regardless of hobby, political, religious or sporting affiliations.
Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.
Right, cause Game of Thrones was why DS9 was so successful...
Was quite impressed having watched it last night.
Not sure it feels 100% Star Trek - one could strip out the mention of Starfleet, Klingons and photon torpedos and have it feel like humans encounter bad guys in space.
So far they have definitely moved away from the ST exploration/discovering sci-fi elements in place of a more DS9 war setting.
Some definite plot holes and light on secondary character development so far (I really wanted to see more of the little robot guy).
Having said that its pacey, has really excellent production values and has potential. Will continue watching with high enough hopes.....
Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.
Right, cause Game of Thrones was why DS9 was so successful...
DS9 was "dark Trek" for a bare handful of episodes across all the seasons, even during the Dominion War. And tellingly, the Federation ultimately win through choosing not to abandon their principles and wipe out the Founders with an engineered plague.
Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.
But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.
Some reviewers are praising it because it's nothing like previous Treks, it's "dark" and "gritty" and "morally compromised"; it's Star Trek of Thrones and they think that's great.
The rest are damning it for the exact same reason.
So, people's opinion on the show seems to come down to whether or not they actually wanted to watch a new Star Trek show.
LordofHats wrote: Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.
But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.
DS9 was absolutely superb, and did indeed go to some very, very dark places by Trek standards. Remember the episodes set on the front lines? Remember that the Federation doesn't exactly do solidering, but committed to the war all the same?
Ensign Nog losing his leg, Permanently. No 'ah we'll just grow you a new spine, Whorfypoos'.
It may very well have been done better in the past 20 odd years, but that's to be expected. Still doesn't detract from the thin veneer being scratched well and truly off during DS9's tenure. I think that's why I've never got on with Voyager. Too much 'same old, same old', and not new adventures set in a quadrant recovering from a devastating war. What could've been a pretty intense show about galactic diplomacy became 'The Next Generation But Like Way Over There Instead With Definitely Not Recycled Scripts'
Yodhrin wrote: The consensus seems to be emerging anyway.
Some reviewers are praising it because it's nothing like previous Treks, it's "dark" and "gritty" and "morally compromised"; it's Star Trek of Thrones and they think that's great.
The rest are damning it for the exact same reason.
So, people's opinion on the show seems to come down to whether or not they actually wanted to watch a new Star Trek show.
Sadly, I did.
I think it's possible to have enjoyed Discovery while still wanting something different. In a perfect world, this would just be a spiritual successor to TNG with a slightly shinier coat of paint, but that's not what we're getting with Discovery. However, I still watched and greatly enjoyed those two episodes on their own merits, so the fact it's not really Star Trek in tone or concept is made up for by the fact that it had a good script, strong cast, very pretty visuals and a compelling story which is arguably more important. Whether that keeps up or not remains to be seen, but I won't knock it for not being the ST show I want when what they've made I still found very enjoyable to watch.
From the trailers and media stories around the production I was expecting a trainwreck of a series, so I'll take a good sci-fi show that's ST in name only over a show that is more Trekky but also badly made, inconsistent and boring.
I only watched the first episode on normal TV so I can't tell yet whether or not it truly feels "trek" ... but it certainly didn't hook me either and my first impressions are that it doesn't. There was too much jjverse style variance from established trek like ignoring the prime directive in the opening scene, mutiny at the drop of a hat between a long time crewmember and her cherished captain, dark visuals more in line with a JJverse meets BSG crossover than traditional trek, etc. From clips on youtube from the second episode, it seems like the starship combat goes full on starwars/jjverse tiny pew pew lasers instead of more traditional trek beams/large pulses and there are even more breaking of the rules of physics. If that's folks thing and they really want this to be something almost totally different (barring the occasional bridge beep boop or door swoosh) then so be it but it won't hook me. YMMV. I'll wait till the season is over and then try to binge watch the show during the free week assuming they don't do what they said and only ever have 3 episodes available for paid streaming at a time specifically to prevent one month memberships. Orville is already losing me with it's weird mix of irreverent out of place comedy (not enough to actually make it a comedy and too much for a drama given the situations IMO) and preachy SJW attitude in the first two post pilot episodes and I may stop watching that as well if this week's episode is more of the same.
LordofHats wrote: Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.
But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.
DS9 was absolutely superb, and did indeed go to some very, very dark places by Trek standards. Remember the episodes set on the front lines? Remember that the Federation doesn't exactly do solidering, but committed to the war all the same?
I wrote a long post about this at work during my lunch break. Not to want to write the whole thing again, I'll give the cliffnotes version.
The 2 key points people bring up for the whole "Dark and edgy" morally compromised DS9 are typically.
Now, I've not seen Discovery yet but I can talk about the morality of those two episodes.
For the Uniform, Sisko and Starfleet are specifically the villains in a complex situation. Sisko specifically calls himself out as the villain, of being Javert in Eddington's "Les Mis" fantasy. He does something villainous. Broadly speaking, the moral judgement of the episode was, doing this was not morally right.
As for "In the Pale Moonlight" well... I don't think I can say anything better than the man himself.
Captain Benjamin Sisko" said wrote:"[i]At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing – a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log."
The entire premise of the episode and Sisko's character development, the effect of the war on a person came down to that episode. It wasn't just some event that happened over the course of the episode, it was a major turning point in many ways.
And, perhaps, most importantly, it was a difficult, complex choice, that ultimately came down to Sisko admitting it was immoral. He believed it was necessary (we'll never know for sure), but it was immoral.
Of course, like I think someone said earlier in the thread, the ending of DS9, they had a similar choice again... Yet... It was the moral choice that ultimately provided peace.
Compel wrote: The 2 key points people bring up for the whole "Dark and edgy" morally compromised DS9 are typically.
I think you can go further than that really. I bring up In the Pale Moon Light and For the Uniform because the main characters didn't just win by sticking to the higher principles of the Federation. In the Pale Moonlight in particular because if Sisko hadn't broken from principle to do something really nefarious and ultimately more than a little evil, the war might not have been won. Setting aside plot armor, they were not winning before the opening of the Romulan Front. In stark contrast to TNG, DS9 went out of its way to present the unworkability and the challenge of the supposed ideals of the Federation. Starfleet started building warships in DS9. Section 31 was like the space CIA with the clandestine nefariousness turned up to 11. Numerous episodes dealt with the horrors of war (The Ship, and The Seige of AR-558 to name two that I know the titles of). The show went out of its way not only to explore non-Federation cultures more deeply, but to juxtapose those cultures against the Federation, particularly the Ferengi and the Dominion.
Deep Space Nine wasn't just "darker," it was internally critical of itself. if anything the fundamental content of DS9 was the same we got in TNG, but the main characters actually had to live with consequence because they weren't traveling everywhere and leaving last week's problems forgotten. Its easy to be a saint in paradise (hehe) perhaps, but it's a lot harder to be a saint when you can't just warp speed away from the problem of the week. Enterprise and Voyager had their dark moments too to be fair, but I don't think any series in the franchise really stands up to DS9 for having a rather concise persistence across episodes and seasons at treating itself and its compatriot series' critically.
Thought the first two episodes were very watchable.
Great production values, some good characters (loved Saru, and what was with the Daft Punk guy?!), and definitely felt 'Star Trek', and a humanity in the future, rather than the current-day humanity in space (which, for me, was one of the areas that Enterprise missed the mark)
I liked the time spent focusing on the antagonists - in fact, I was surprised by how much depth they had managed to add to them in just a couple of episodes. They are definitely much more impressive as a concept now, than the later ST series definitions that used to just club each over the head with rocks. Actually pretty scary.
Some nice twists, shocks, neat ideas while having a few homages to the old series (the communicators etc.)
I'm not ready to proclaim it as the next TNG, but think it's definitely done enough for me to watch a few more episodes and see where it goes.
DS9 was absolutely superb, and did indeed go to some very, very dark places by Trek standards. Remember the episodes set on the front lines? Remember that the Federation doesn't exactly do solidering, but committed to the war all the same?
I wrote a long post about this at work during my lunch break. Not to want to write the whole thing again, I'll give the cliffnotes version.
The 2 key points people bring up for the whole "Dark and edgy" morally compromised DS9 are typically.
Now, I've not seen Discovery yet but I can talk about the morality of those two episodes.
Pretty much this. There's a difference between building up characters, making them relatable before examining how they start to crack under the pressures of a war for survival....and having the cast be jerks right from the start because this ain't your dad's Trek, you know? You can't deconstruct characters or settings before you've made the effort of actually constructing them, or the darkness just feels shallow.
So if no one has seen the Klingons in 100 years, how did the main character lose her family? Humans interacted with Klingons back in Enterprise. They would have established policies.
Frazzled wrote: So if no one has seen the Klingons in 100 years, how did the main character lose her family? Humans interacted with Klingons back in Enterprise. They would have established policies.
I guess they just bombarded them from space and no one who saw them up close lived to tell the tale. As for Enterprise I think this is about 100 years after that.
Well I saw the first two (they're on Netflix outside the US if no one mentioned that) and liked them. Really just 2 quibbles:
1 - Who though having several 10 minute scenes in Klingon was a good idea? No really. Especially on a show that's seen on streaming, watching on a screens that vary from a magazine to an envelope in size and you're want us to read subtitles? It's not like the Starfleet crew is speaking 21st C English so why not translate the Klingon?
FEH!
I once tossed a Star Trek book across the room because the first scene was half in Romulan.
2 - Why oh why are we doing the 3rd prequel in a row? Just draw line under TOS and TNG and move to the 24st century. Other than a few lines there's nothing here that requires it to be a prequel.
But overall good episodes, good characters, good show.
I liked how everyone's reinforcements were equidistant away. Like they call for help from people scattered across the system and when they show up they all show up at the same time. No trickling in, just bam, we's all here now. With the exception of one slacker that is.
AduroT wrote: I liked how everyone's reinforcements were equidistant away. Like they call for help from people scattered across the system and when they show up they all show up at the same time. No trickling in, just bam, we's all here now. With the exception of one slacker that is.
I was nice for once to see that the Enter-I mean Disc- I mean um Shenzhou was that it? Is not the only ship in space. And that Star Fleet has well, a fleet.
I kind of didnt like the change to the Klingons way if treating the dead - there was a few TNG and DS9 episodes that showed that the Klingons view their dead as empty shells, and other than shouting to warn Sto'vo'kor of the coming of a warrior, there isnt really much to do with them.
Of course, this sect seems like an ultra religious sect of the Empire, so who knows?
Is this supposed to be an AU universe where the Klingons dont get infected to look more Human? Or are they just skating right over that.
Of course, Star Trek space battles are good, and the fact that they are showing more people getting Spaced (an awful way to go) makes combat in the future that bit more grim. Before, battles in Trek were comparitively clean, nice and orderly with the whole ship blowing up and noone being sucked out into space.
I also kind of like the reversal of the Kirk/Spock dynamic, with the Human being the more calm, measured one and the Vulcan the more impulsive, playing off the cuff one. Its a pity they killed off the Captain right off the bat, they could have done more with it. Though how they write themselves out of the hole they dug with the main character being stripped of rank and imprisoned will probably be a bad piece of writing.
Im betting on a time skip and a 'well, we need all the officers we can get on the front line, so heres your old crew and aged ship, good luck!'
T'kuvma referenced "the black fleet", not "Sto'vo'kor" - so I'd say he's part of a different death-religion (one that comes from the old STEU novels, like "The final reflection", where "the black fleet" was where warriors went after death, not a quasi-viking paradise).
I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.
Starfleet isn't a navy. It's an exploratory group that has warships.
Sure, right. Regardless, that's not how chain of command works in any functional organization.
Spoiler:
She does end up in the brig and then sentenced to jail
One thing I did like in the first episode, that regularly bugged me about previous series, is how when Shenzhou or whatever that ship is, finally reveals the Klingon vessel, they are not facing directly even, nose to nose. .. . Like, they're facing each other, but one is sitting at an angle in relation to the other.
Always did bug me how they treated space as almost a 2D surface in the past, making everything facing flat to each other.
So is the next episode on this Sunday? I don't see it on my TV Guide. It's actually supposed to be on TV in Canada. Any Canadians know what's up with this show? I thought it was on Space but is it actually on Crave?
I'd be watching the latter seasons of DS9 recently and pondering if it was my memory or time that was making it feel underwhelmed, so I watch Discovery with trepidation fearing something akin to The Orville.
Man alive, that's how to do Star Trek! I really liked it.
True the Klingons were a bit jarring at first but that soon faded. They're a bit too Bling is as strong as my criticism goes there.
Great production values I felt and the strong Female characters were really nice to see. Michelle Yeoh was a pleasant suprise and Burnham looks like a good pivotal chart after to build the show around. It capture the energy of the recent films without the superfluous effects and pastiches.
Definitely one to watch, it ranks up there with The Expanse for good contemporary SciFi.
It grew on me over the two episodes. The Klingon redesign was jarring, I don't know if it will be acknowledged as the previous revision ultimately was (Trials and Tribbilations) or if this is what all klingons look like now.
I don't have a problem with the mutiny of the first officer, but the way it was framed is all wrong. It needs consequences that show she is misguided. Yes, she's been sentenced but I assume she'll be out in no time.
Dramatically speaking, given the long held values ingrained in Star Trek, Starfleet firing first should not be written into the story as the correct way to resolve a situation. They should always offer the hand of peace even when it doesn't work out. They should never fire first without provocation and stories that specifically set up scenarios to get us to cheer on the aggressive mutineer for being the 'mavrick no one will listen to' as they promote a militaristic might-is-right approach to resolving conflict is a bigger deviation from the core of Star Trek than any cosmetic design.
Starfleet should aspire to more than aggression and set an example of optimism in peace. Characters who take the actions of a few to tar a whole species have no place in Starfleet. Even Kirk, whose son's murder left him bitter and angry was able to sit down to dinner with klingons, he didn't mutiny and attack them. He knew what his duty was and rose above his hate. It's sad that in the first episodes of the new series, a main character not only was consumed by that hate, but the story was written specifically justifying her 'forget peace and fire first' approach.
So finished the third episode. Very dark but I'm hooked now. There's some push back against the grimdark in a speech by an engineer guy but it's still dark overall. The idea seems to be The Discovery is a state of the art science vessel that's been co-opted into the war effort much to the chagrin of some officers but happily by other officers like the Captain himself. I'm buying it so far.
Trying to figure out the 'ole Star Trek colour code system for this era. Command seems to be gold and Science silver? Think the cadet may have been wearing bronze but was hard to tell. However, one of the convicts made a remark like "there's a lot of silver for a science vessel" which made it sound like silver was security. Also those cons questioned the black combadges which may actually indicate black ops. Possibly Section 31 is afoot here?
I'm actually really starting to enjoy this more than I thought I would. Same with the Orville, I really hope both of these shows can find some kind of success and avoid early cancellation. There is definitely growing potential in both shows in different ways.
I watched the first three episodes last night - loved them! The only criticism I have is, it is under budget for the amount of work they expect to do with CGI and so there are a few shots in a few scenes that look bad. But I enjoyed the characters and the story. I enjoyed the visual. To me, it felt more like Star Trek than any of the recent movies.
Um.. so... yeah... apparently Starfleet has discovered their own form of grimdarktrek protoculture? I suppose the Augments from the real prime timeline will soon become the Zentraedi with Khan having a half metal faceplate for his inevitable cameo. Also, if you have seasonal allergies, does that exclude you from using the new form of space travel? I suppose you'll have to make due with transgalactic mind melds instead.
Episode 3, good stuff. Engaging story, the sci-fi horror bit was well done, if a bit cliched, and the mix of characters they've thrown together is definitely an intriguing one. Something I think this show had to do was avoid any characters that are just reusing old archetypes and they've done that quite well. Having several of the main cast being slightly to wholly unlikable is a bold choice but one that can definitely pay off, so long as Lorca doesn't go into full moustache-twirling villain mode and Burnham starts to move from regret to redemption.
Tilly and Saru provide a nice counterpoint to that, both seemingly inherently good people... Which given the tone of this show probably means they'll be 'orribly murdered at some point but I hope not.
I do think this show has plenty of legs to get into the same debates and discussions as classic Trek, just from a different angle that's far less played out; you can still have 'no good option' moral quandaries and such from the perspective of people who aren't wholly good like the TOS/TNG crew were. It's a break from tradition, but I think it'll be interesting to see how this new crew interact with such instances when they don't all have an altruistic goal.
Speculation on where it's going:
Spoiler:
I'd not be surprised if the climax of these arcs is Burnham committing mutiny again, but this time against Lorca with the crew behind her and for the right reasons rather than out of hate and revenge. That would tie in nicely with the theme that it's not just what you do, but how and why you do it that makes an action good or bad, and would be a nice way for things to go full circle. Series 2 then sees Burnham promoted up to Captain, given command the Discovery and embarking on an altogether more wholesome mission than all this 'secret weapon' stuff.
Trying to figure out the 'ole Star Trek colour code system for this era. Command seems to be gold and Science silver? Think the cadet may have been wearing bronze but was hard to tell. However, one of the convicts made a remark like "there's a lot of silver for a science vessel" which made it sound like silver was security. Also those cons questioned the black combadges which may actually indicate black ops. Possibly Section 31 is afoot here?
I think the line was 'that's a lot of silver, is this a science vessel'. The head of security was in gold, as were most of the armed crew, and I think most of the lab technicians were in silver, the science officer definitely was. And yeah, I'm assuming the black badges mean this is some kind of spec ops/off the books covert outfit.
Saru and Tilly are nice caricatures of the (especially TNG-era) Federation. Tilly is an insecure overachiever. Saru is haughty but also overcautious.
Then you have Lorca and Landry. He's like a more realistic Kirk - brave and creative but also dangerous and manipulative. And she is a cold surface/molten core True Believer.
I think Stamets is also bringing an angle that is screaming to be explored - is the relationship between science and military really as one-sided in favor of the former as, for example, TNG-era Feds seem to believe? In a way, Stamets's crankiness reminds me of Bones.
There is a great set up here. Michael says she lives by the principles of the Federation but clearly she was willing to mutiny to avert war, which is (and I think he was certainly being honest) Lorca liked about her. I don't think Lorca is a villain. I think he is a more fully developed version of Michael. The challenge here is that Michael envisioned herself as developing into someone like Captain Georgiou whereas she is actually more like Lorca. The other issue is, Georgiou seemed like a person who was fundamentally at peace. That is probably how Michael, raised by Vulcans, wanted to see herself. But, again, she is more like Lorca - an emotional person attracted to conflict.
I expect they plan to have Michael end up as a Captain by the end of this series/start of the next, so what you say about putting her at the crossroads between becoming Lorca and becoming Georgiou is something that they could definitely use as a framing device. From what we've seen, both are definitely 'good' (as in extremely competent and experienced, rather than morally) leaders, and Burnham definitely appears to have the talent and conviction, what remains to be seen is what direction she channels that in.
Interesting point about Stamets as well; initially I just had him down as a bit of a jerk with an inflated ego, but yeah, he is in the position of having his life's work 'requisitioned' by an organisation that is, at this point basically a military one, and then as a direct result of that work, he's lost a lifelong friend. There's some interesting stuff they can cover there, and probably more to him than I've given him credit for.
Yep, roll on the rest of the series. I am really on board with this now, the more I think about it the more I can't wait to see how things go. Especially the crew; now we've seen the actual main cast, rather than the redshirts from the pilot, I can see some really interesting dynamics developing there.
The way I read it, a major theme here is the precarious balance between passion and principal. The captains represent extremes. Georgiou's passion was principle ("Starfleet does not fire first") and Lorca's principle is passion ("context is for kings"). I think Michael will mistrust Lorca because she ultimately mistrusts herself because she wants to live up to Georgiou's example rather than Lorca's. Put it another way, I think Georgiou is what Michael believes is the ideal Starfleet officer whereas Lorca is the reality. If you were to somehow combine Lorca and Georgiou, you would get James T. Kirk.
Frazzled wrote: So...people are paying $6 a month to watch this?
To each his own I suppose. I've been watching/reading reviews. If it was availabe on cable like in Canada, I'd have watched it at least for the first season (like I did with Enterprise). If it was on Netflix like the rest of the world, then I'd have caught up once or twice a year when I renew my subscription to catch up on various series (including right now). Instead, in the US, we can't do either and instead have to pay for an otherwise useless (for me) streaming service at $6-10 a month just to be drip fed episodes once a week. If I could have binged on it on cbs all access then at least they would have gotten one month's membership out of me. Since they chose to do none of the above, I'll pass. YMMV.
Frazzled wrote: So...people are paying $6 a month to watch this?
It's kind of like AOS, there were a TON of people blasting it immediately that wound up playing it wholesale.
Because AOS significantly changed because apparently the criticisms being leveled at it were grounded in truth. You forgot that part.
I was avoiding THAT wicket as I didn't want to turn this into another pro/anti AOS thing, but yeah, the changes made in this series seem at least as polarizing, if not more. I'm shocked they decided to Midichlorian warp travel. I'll wait with baited breath until they are forced to execute Dr. Lang's modular transformation.
Paradigm wrote: Episode 3, good stuff. Engaging story, the sci-fi horror bit was well done, if a bit cliched, and the mix of characters they've thrown together is definitely an intriguing one. Something I think this show had to do was avoid any characters that are just reusing old archetypes and they've done that quite well. Having several of the main cast being slightly to wholly unlikable is a bold choice but one that can definitely pay off, so long as Lorca doesn't go into full moustache-twirling villain mode and Burnham starts to move from regret to redemption.
Tilly and Saru provide a nice counterpoint to that, both seemingly inherently good people... Which given the tone of this show probably means they'll be 'orribly murdered at some point but I hope not.
I do think this show has plenty of legs to get into the same debates and discussions as classic Trek, just from a different angle that's far less played out; you can still have 'no good option' moral quandaries and such from the perspective of people who aren't wholly good like the TOS/TNG crew were. It's a break from tradition, but I think it'll be interesting to see how this new crew interact with such instances when they don't all have an altruistic goal.
Speculation on where it's going:
Spoiler:
I'd not be surprised if the climax of these arcs is Burnham committing mutiny again, but this time against Lorca with the crew behind her and for the right reasons rather than out of hate and revenge. That would tie in nicely with the theme that it's not just what you do, but how and why you do it that makes an action good or bad, and would be a nice way for things to go full circle. Series 2 then sees Burnham promoted up to Captain, given command the Discovery and embarking on an altogether more wholesome mission than all this 'secret weapon' stuff.
Trying to figure out the 'ole Star Trek colour code system for this era. Command seems to be gold and Science silver? Think the cadet may have been wearing bronze but was hard to tell. However, one of the convicts made a remark like "there's a lot of silver for a science vessel" which made it sound like silver was security. Also those cons questioned the black combadges which may actually indicate black ops. Possibly Section 31 is afoot here?
I think the line was 'that's a lot of silver, is this a science vessel'. The head of security was in gold, as were most of the armed crew, and I think most of the lab technicians were in silver, the science officer definitely was. And yeah, I'm assuming the black badges mean this is some kind of spec ops/off the books covert outfit.
Ah ok. I must have misheard. It makes sense now. If Manchu is right about copper being operations then maybe those gold security officers you saw were actually bronze? Usually those two are lumped together colour-wise for some reason.
Also think you're onto something with what will happen with Burnham and Lorca. Something about that Lorca that seems nefarious. He even must be shrouded in darkness because of an eye condition for extra sinisterness.... but who knows maybe he'll grow on me.
Frazzled wrote: So...people are paying $6 a month to watch this?
Or $10 without commercials. I re-watched the pilot episodes last night and liked them well enough to pay for more. If the quality continues, so will my dollars.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: If Manchu is right about copper being operations then maybe those gold security officers you saw were actually bronze? Usually those two are lumped together colour-wise for some reason.
You can see it fairly clearly here:
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Also think you're onto something with what will happen with Burnham and Lorca. Something about that Lorca that seems nefarious. He even must be shrouded in darkness because of an eye condition for extra sinisterness.... but who knows maybe he'll grow on me.
FYI he can be in normal lighting conditions, the issue is changing lighting conditions (change must be gradual). (1) What was the cause? I think he implied, something to do with the war. (2) Will make going on away missions tough, making more room for Michael to be the main character.
Manchu wrote: (1) What was the cause? I think he implied, something to do with the war. (2) Will make going on away missions tough, making more room for Michael to be the main character.
It was a 'battle injury' and he could just wear shades...
I wasn't overly impressed with the first couple of episodes but this one was a marked improvement (a suspiciously culturally aware Klingon not withstanding). I really didn't like the stupid fungal spores thing though but as it isn't something that makes an appearance in chronologically later Treks its fairly safe to assume that there is something very wrong with the method (giant monsters for example) so it should hopefully sink into the background at some point.
For once none of the characters were annoying as well (aside from Tilly but that was intentional )
A decent 3rd episode. I like how things are shaping up overall.
I also read this series is set in the film ST universe and not the one from ToS, TNG, DS9 etc which might explain a few things.
Paradigm wrote: Episode 3 sent Burnham to Romulus in the mushroom-warp chamber bit, wasn't that destroyed in the new movie timeline?
In the Kelvin timeline movies, Romulus was destroyed sometime after TNG, as Spock is still old-man Spock when it blew up.. . .as this supposedly happens before Kirk, Romulus would still be a thing.
More like subsidising those watching it from torrents.
Netflix apparently have the broadcast rights here (even though CBS now owns one of our commercial broadcasters) - yet there's nothing on netflix I want to watch.
AduroT wrote: They rang out a black alert when they were testing the secret engine thing.
What's a black alert?
If you don't know I can't tell you.
::stuff gets a bit weird for a few moments::
Related, I love that the apparently secret blacks ops dudes advertise such by wearing black badges on their uniforms.
Hey black badges and Edgelord Alert are a masterclass in subtlety compared to the Super Sekrit Shiny Black Latex Suit Agents. Seriously though at this stage it's looking very much like STD is going to be Star Tek: Section 31 Did Nothing Wrong and this whole "your utopian future is a delusion that can only exist because of brave Future Neoliberal Centrists fighting the secret wars you hippy peaceniks are too afraid to" shtick was tired even before the first attempt at it finished, I am less than interested in enduring it a third time.
Manchu wrote: I thought the black alert thing was great. I am fascinated by the idea of our main character being on a Federation ship of secrets.
*thinks back to when "Federation ship of secrets" was the premise for the bad guys that the show's characters had to overcome* Ahh, actual Star Trek.
The episode was fine, it gives me hope that I will be able to settle in and start to enjoy the series.
I still have a problem with the main character though, I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War and this was her road to redemption.
... but as we the audience know, she was in the right in starting that war, and it is Starfleet who should be celebrating Burnham and not punishing her (she punishes herself enough ).
I still like C3P0 and how his relationship with Burnham is unfolding. Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair.
Heard this so many times, from back when DS9 first came out down to this very day. And I have come to the realization, "authenticity" doesn't matter - all that matters is that the content is quality. The AbramsTrek movies weren't bad because they weren't "actual Trek". They were bad because ... they were bad. I mean, even as generic sci fi films, they are pretty mediocre (in reality, the really coast on the Star Trek brand). Similarly, DS9 was and is panned by a lot of people as "not sufficiently Trek" because of its challenging, darker tone. But for most people DS9 is certainly, obviously Star Trek because, by the end, it had told good stores and interesting characters. Discovery is on the same page in those regards, but I don't think it is as dark as DS9 so far.
StygianBeach wrote: I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War
I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.
The mutiny is what muddies the waters. There is so much dialog referring to Michael as the mutineer while cross-referencing her responsibility for the war. Obviously, her mutiny had nothing to do with the war. The war may have been averted if her mutiny had succeeded. But the script confuses the two issues - and I think this is on purpose for two reasons: (1) it shows that Starfleet, needing an explanation for why things went so bad at the Battle at the Binary Stars, basically pinned it on Michael who was guilty of a heinous crime anyhow and (2) it shows that mutiny is such a heinous crime in Federation society that people see a mutineer in the worst possible light, even pretending that one person could be responsible for a war (which is absurd) because of this prejudice.
StygianBeach wrote: Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair
I'm eager to see where they go with her. I think characters like Reginald Barclay and Tilly (and in a slightly different way but the same vein, Julian Bashir) are extremely realistic depictions of how not ever Starfleet officer is an ultra-smooth, super self confident and successful winner.
StygianBeach wrote: DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.
This is also true of how Michael is portrayed.
StygianBeach wrote: DS9 got dark, but it was no darker than the Prime Directive in action.
Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."
There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.
Manchu wrote: Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."
There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.
Manchu wrote: Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."
There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.
Finally got around to watching the first episode, and liked it more than I expected to.
Hate the Klingon redesign. There was no reason to change their appearance, and having them all in different colour variations of the same armour is just lazy and weird.
Exposition was a little overdone in places, but there's enough amusing banter in there to keep it fluffy (I hope Sarek maintains a presence throughout) and if you forget that it's supposed to be before all the other series rather than after, it's sufficiently Trek for me.
Heard this so many times, from back when DS9 first came out down to this very day. And I have come to the realization, "authenticity" doesn't matter - all that matters is that the content is quality. The AbramsTrek movies weren't bad because they weren't "actual Trek". They were bad because ... they were bad. I mean, even as generic sci fi films, they are pretty mediocre (in reality, the really coast on the Star Trek brand). Similarly, DS9 was and is panned by a lot of people as "not sufficiently Trek" because of its challenging, darker tone. But for most people DS9 is certainly, obviously Star Trek because, by the end, it had told good stores and interesting characters. Discovery is on the same page in those regards, but I don't think it is as dark as DS9 so far.
I actually like AbramsTrek. I feel like DS9 is the Beast Wars of the STU, and that's not exactly good in my eyes.
Manchu wrote: Do you also like Bayformers? That's AbramsTrek in my eyes.
The first one was okayish... Everything after that has been like a laser guided autism machine, and a sign that humanity is a disgrace because no matter how bad those movies get people still go to see them at the box office.
I really enjoyed the first episodes.
The effects are awesome and the story looks more and more interesting. Especially the whole plot around all the secrets on the ship.
Also liked the new Star Trek movies btw.
Not sure what you mean. From the beginning, DS9 showed Starfleet in a more realistic way. Chief O'Brien complaining about his job. Other species making convincing arguments about why the Federation is sinister. The inability of the main cast to neatly solve every problem by the end of an episode. This stuff was groundbreaking when the show came out and it turned a lot of people off at the time. Even today, I encounter people who don't like DS9 because it's not "actual Trek."
There is this extremely facile appeal to Gene Roddenberry that has become really popular since the Abrams movies came out and people sought to blame their mediocrity on their relationship to the IP (you know, rather than the scripts). But the execs cut Roddenberry out of the picture way back at the beginning of TNG. His vision for Star Trek has not been what drives the IP since at least 1990. Yes, TNG is a bright, idealistic show compared to how TV developed in the late 90s through the present. But that wasn't because of Roddenberry; it was more because of the episodic nature of television at the time. You had forty some minutes to tell a complete story with a beginning and a middle and an end and the notion was that audiences demanded a happy resolution. Once TV production started to favor arcs over episodes, shows got a lot darker. You can literally see this happen if you watch DS9 on Netflix.
StygianBeach wrote: I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War
I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.
Ya, Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War. Seems like the Klingons really wanted themselves a war and got one. Seems like Klingon Pearl Harbour to me.
Manchu wrote:Do you also like Bayformers? That's AbramsTrek in my eyes.
Absolutely not. And I don't liken the Trek movies to Bayformers, I liken it to The Batman, that animated series from a few years ago. It is its own thing, and I understand the fundamentals are there as well as the changes. AbramsTrek is the same way for me. I get some don't like it, but they aren't objectively bad. Anybody who has ever seen a Uwe Boll movie would know the difference between not prefer and completely terrible.
Except for House of the Dead, it had the benefit of having Erika (Erica?) Durance naked.
StygianBeach wrote: I think I would enjoy everything alot more if was she was in the wrong in starting the Klingon War
I've been thinking about this, too. What actually started the war? A Klingon fleet illegally entered Federation territory and fired on a Federation fleet. Okay well what caused that? A Klingon ship illegally entered Federation space and summoned the Klingon fleet? And what caused that? The Federation claimed territory also claimed by Klingons - the beacon was there and presumably had been there for centuries. The issue was, Michael insisted on flying over to it and managed to kill a Klingon once she was there, albeit it was an accident in the course of self-defense. Remember, Admiral Anderson admonished Michael for that course of action before basically accusing her of being a racist. At that point, she might have already been lined up for disciplinary action - maybe the same would have been true for Captain Georgiou, who clearly felt the call with Admiral went very poorly.
Ya, Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War. Seems like the Klingons really wanted themselves a war and got one. Seems like Klingon Pearl Harbour to me.
True, she was not solely responsible for the war, but she did play into the hands of a fanatical moustache twirling madlod. My main problem is not that she started the war or not, the war had to start somehow after all. My main problem is that the show presents her solution as the best solution that no one listened to. So she is presented as being in the right to mutiny, this annoys me. It just tries too hard to make the audience feel sorry for her, it is too much Mary-sue for my tastes. If there was a peaceful solution to the initial encounter that was overlooked because of her actions, I could get onboard with her as a character. As she stands she is too perfect, both morally, physically and intellectually. She is just too hard on herself.
StygianBeach wrote: Tilly is lazy character writing, but I do like the actresses hair
I'm eager to see where they go with her. I think characters like Reginald Barclay and Tilly (and in a slightly different way but the same vein, Julian Bashir) are extremely realistic depictions of how not ever Starfleet officer is an ultra-smooth, super self confident and successful winner.
Tilly is a winner just by being a cadet on a starfleet spaceship, Jordy from TNG was hardly self confident either. She is lazy character because of her need to explain everything, she's an exposition 'get out of jail free' card. It already has me imagining future episodes where Tilly creates situation by not simply staying quite. Or when the Discovery takes on a new member, who will turn out to be Burnhams rival. Tilly will do a speech about this new member in a similar vein to how she did a speech about Burnham to introduce them.
Of course, it is only one episode in so I may be judging this one too early.
StygianBeach wrote: DS9 did not present Sisko's underhand actions as heroic but as tragic acts of desperation.
This is also true of how Michael is portrayed.
I disagree.
I suspect this is because you misunderstand how Michael is being characterized. To wit:
StygianBeach wrote: My main problem is that the show presents her solution as the best solution that no one listened to. So she is presented as being in the right to mutiny, this annoys me.
Oh no no no. She wasn't right at all.
Spoiler:
Using the Vulcan strategy isn't just about shooting first this time. It is a commitment to shoot first every time. "We come in peace" is not an empty phrase for the Federation; it is the truth of their identity. Despite being smart and confident and having earned her captain's trust, Michael hasn't learned or forgets this. Georgiou even tells her, I taught you better than this.
The truth is, Michael fethed up really, really badly. The show does not cut her a break on this, as per her conversation with Saru on the Discovery when he flat out says if she causes trouble he will do a better job protecting his captain than she did hers.
StygianBeach wrote: She is lazy character because of her need to explain everything
First, dialog is a legitimate means of exposition. Second, Tilly is not an omniscient narrator; she's a character and delivers her lines from a very distinctive POV. A character with a distinctive POV is not the product of lazy writing.
Just Tony wrote: And I don't liken the Trek movies to Bayformers
But I do. That was my point. As a Transformers fan, I wanted you to think about how you feel about the Bayformers films. That's how, as a Star Trek fan, I feel about AbramsTrek.
LordofHats wrote: I refuse to watch until it is put on television or another outlet where I don't pay $6 just to watch the only show anyone will pay for.
Agreed. I was going to give the series a shot but am not signing up for yet another streaming service.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Burnham is guilty of mutiny but I don't see how she's responsible for the War.
She isn't. People look for simple answers to hard questions. It's easy to blame Michael. She insisted on investigating the beacon. If the ultimate outcome was positive, maybe she'd be cited for courage or even promoted. In that case, Saru would have been judged too timid. As things turned out, Saru was the one who was promoted. And Michael, the mutineer, got the blame.
Last episode was really a step back. Truly stupid death for the security officer. That was some dumb writing and makes me worried for the future of the show.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Last episode was really a step back. Truly stupid death for the security officer. That was some dumb writing and makes me worried for the future of the show.
I didn't really like that either, was kind of an eh episode. Hopefully the next is better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: OK got a chance to watch it and yeah ...
Spoiler:
Landry's death was cheap - I mean character death is a high cost, you had better get a good return. At least in this episode, losing Landry did not feel impactful. Nobody even mourns her, on screen. Plus how she died is anti-sympathetic. Suicide by willful ignorance? I get the feeling the actress wanted off the show/got fired and so the character needed to be written out ASAP.
I'm also not too happy with this "poor misunderstood creature" angle. Well, it has good parts. I like that Michael is shown identifying and challenging her own biases as part of her analysis - this is pretty nice to see science portrayed as something more than off-screen magic. But the inevitable torture a cute thing to save lives conflict feels a little pat; hopefully it will be solved by the next episode. So the other big deal from this episode is, wow a lot of Klingon-POV scenes. OTOH it is to the show's credit that they are doing the Klingon scenes in Klingon. That's pretty daring, having long, fully sub-titled scenes played by actors in very heavy effects make up. OTOH, there is a reason it's daring, right? The Klingon scenes feel pretty ponderous - except for the bad Klingon dude (can't recall name) who has a lot more energy and dynamism than Voq and his girlfriend.
My major issue 4 episodes in is that I actually dont really like any of the characters.
The two I was warming to - the original captain and the security officer are now toast.
Im tired of Michaels broody, angsty-guilt, the engineering officer really annoys me, Tilly is ok but one dimensional thus far, the new captain is okish and I just dont get the Klingons at all.
Its definitely plot/story based so far with little in terms of actually developing/growing to like the main cast.
Sorry about the Spoilers, thought we were in a spoilers-away zone. Anyway, I hope Manchu is right about some kind of behind the scenes problem because I've seen Red Shirts have more impactful deaths than that. Even more annoying because I think she could have been a good character.
Regarding spoilers, because this is an ongoing series I think we better try to use the tags. I saw someone had posted in the thread and clicked to see if it was about something I had already been discussing about previous episodes - nope, major spoiler about new episode! So yeah, the tags will be useful.
Good point about certain Redshirts having longer, more meaningful lives. And yes I agree I really liked her and am sorry to see her go. Although
Spoiler:
I liked her a lot less when I saw her behave like a moron in that episode.
Manchu wrote: Regarding spoilers, because this is an ongoing series I think we better try to use the tags. I saw someone had posted in the thread and clicked to see if it was about something I had already been discussing about previous episodes - nope, major spoiler about new episode! So yeah, the tags will be useful.
Good point about certain Redshirts having longer, more meaningful lives. And yes I agree I really liked her and am sorry to see her go. Although
Spoiler:
I liked her a lot less when I saw her behave like a moron in that episode.
Yes, that's what made it even worse. And I think there is need of a character like her. She's strikes me as a hardliner, militaristic type (how often have we heard someone yell "set phasers to kill!!" in trek?). Doesn't mean she was born that way but many in Starfleet would have been pushed to that after 6 months of war. I think the show has done a good job of having equal representation from the pragmatic and idealistic camps. Lorca is obviously subscribes to the former school of thought and a guy like that always needs a right hand man of the same mentality. I would've been some serious cash after episode 3 that would have been her.
I expected something was gonna happen because she wasn't listed as a regular cast member. But the show is pretty idealist-heavy anyhow: Michael, Saru, Tilly, and Stamets are all in that camp.
But I guess we are about to meet Harry Mudd, a practical man if there ever was one.
I am glad they are making another Star Trek show. I am big star trek fan I have seen seen almost every star trek movie or TVshow. But i hope it will not be all about Klingons. I Think i have seen enough Klingon war stuff. I would like to see them go “Where no man has gone before”
Manchu wrote: I expected something was gonna happen because she wasn't listed as a regular cast member. But the show is pretty idealist-heavy anyhow: Michael, Saru, Tilly, and Stamets are all in that camp.
But I guess we are about to meet Harry Mudd, a practical man if there ever was one.
That's what I mean. Lorca needs Landry in his camp. He may need a goon. But I don't mean she should just be a villain. If you can take someone like that and show their point of view and humanize them...you'd have some good writing. Instead we got whatever that was supposed to be. Anyway, a lot of shoulda-couldas that don't matter now.
I wonder who will replace her as Chief of Security. Hopefully not Micheal but I don't see any other candidates right now.
I have a thing for tsundere girls and Landry seemed a bit like that except she was tough to everyone other than Lorca. She seemed a little gooey with him, both at the end of episode 103 and during the failed combat simulation in 104. What a waste.
Oh man Michael as chief ops officer? Noooo thanks. I guess this is where they will introduce Ash Tyler (although he is only a Lt).
I'd guess Burnham. If Lorca is trying to mould her to his way of thinking then it's the perfect place for her, since most of the idealists seem to be in Science so it gets her away from their influence and under his.
It also puts her in a position to be part of the traditional 'Bridge Crew' setup so she can have more interactions with those characters on a moment-to-moment basis, rather than just seeing Saru in a corridor or being called into Lorca's office.
She's already wearing silver. Her background is xeno anthropology (surely the correct term would be xenology?) and quantum physics. Lorca did assign her a R&D mission but, to your point Paradigm, he also assigned Landry. It's definitely a silver/copper assignment, given it is basically weapons dev.
Wonder what Saru would think of Michael as ops chief.
Paradigm wrote: I'd guess Burnham. If Lorca is trying to mould her to his way of thinking then it's the perfect place for her, since most of the idealists seem to be in Science so it gets her away from their influence and under his.
It also puts her in a position to be part of the traditional 'Bridge Crew' setup so she can have more interactions with those characters on a moment-to-moment basis, rather than just seeing Saru in a corridor or being called into Lorca's office.
Burnham is the one right on the line between the two. Everyone thinks she's a tough guy renegade because of the whole mutiny thing but she's just big, old, softy paragon deep down. You can see it on her face when it appears the spore drive may be a torture device for that macroscopic-mite thing. I don't think the show can go on in the direction were Burnham is a win-at-all-costs type of person. I'm pretty sure we're going for a redemption story arc here.
That's why I wouldn't be surprised to see a completely new character as the Chief of Security.
I was going to give up on this after ep 3 but thought I'd give it one more as the first two weren't really part of it. Managed to fall asleep halfway through ep 4 and have no real motivation to try again so it's lost me. I'll happily stick with the Orville (until it's inevitably cancelled).
Presenting this via CBS All Access really encourages the viewer to think of each episode as make or break, which is terrible. No show has uniformly good episodes. This is especially true in arc-driven TV because some episodes are just gonna be the space between set up and pay off. Episode 104 was definitely one of those.
I like the way its exploring the distinction between the Federation's ideals and the reality, and how Burnham navigates that.
Spoiler:
I think that whereas in the pilot she chose expediency over idealism by trying to fire first, eventually she'll go the other way when it becomes more clear the tardigrade is agonised by being tied to the spore drive. Animal torture is pretty incompatible with Federation principles, even though it gives them a massive strategic advantage. I expect Burnham to release the creature and let it escape eventually. This also explains why the spore drive is never mentioned again in Trek.
Caught up with episode 4 and still enjoying it but for the PREQUEL PROBLEM.
It this is 10 years before Kirk and Spock...
Why can shuttles go to warp?
Why does Lorca have a tribble and a Gorn skeleton?
Why does starfleet have holograms for everything including mirrors?
Why are the uniforms different?
Why is everyone using the arrowhead symbol?
Blah blah blah...
I'm just assuming this is a century after Voyager and the problems go away.
OK, also annoyed with the all-Klingon scenes, I mean really? I assume you're already translating the starfleet dialogue since they're certainly not speaking 21st C English so why not the Klingons too?
OK, also annoyed with the all-Klingon scenes, I mean really? I assume you're already translating the starfleet dialogue since they're certainly not speaking 21st C English so why not the Klingons too?
But over all still pretty good.
Hey anyone remember that time fans were sued on the grounds that the Klingon language was copyrighted and the common counter argument was "fans really made it and all of six words are ever uttered on screen anyway"? Eh? Anyone? *puts on tinfoil hat*
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Caught up with episode 4 and still enjoying it but for the PREQUEL PROBLEM.
It this is 10 years before Kirk and Spock...
Why can shuttles go to warp?
Why does Lorca have a tribble and a Gorn skeleton?
Why does starfleet have holograms for everything including mirrors?
Why are the uniforms different?
Why is everyone using the arrowhead symbol?
Blah blah blah...
I'm just assuming this is a century after Voyager and the problems go away.
OK, also annoyed with the all-Klingon scenes, I mean really? I assume you're already translating the starfleet dialogue since they're certainly not speaking 21st C English so why not the Klingons too?
But over all still pretty good.
Because it's in reality a reboot but CBS was too afraid to call it that and instead mislead fans into thinking it's prime timeline to not completely as much of the fanbase before the show even aired? I'd have grudgingly accepted it as a reboot but being obviously lied to on top of the drip feed from behind a paywall airing is too much. I loved me some disco era space cowboy Battlestar Galactica growing up and into adulthood but I loved the 2006ish reboot as well. Of course, that had great plots, asthetics that updated yet honored the original, and good acting which certainly helped... I didn't see any of those in the first 3 episodes of STD.
TBH continuity across decades and decades is exhausting.
And I'd have respected that choice and judged the show based on its own merits if they had done that (CBS paywall notwithstanding)... but sadly they didn't. They specifically said it's prime set within only a few years of TOS and yet almost nothing is consistent beyond some simple bridge beeps and boops. I fully expected them to update the effects and style but I hoped it would have been at least asthetically similar in some way to TOS. The good example I like to use for that are the JJverse uniforms that were updated and have their own unique additions yet are distinctly still related to TOS. I'd also have been fine with the tech in JJ if they had just kept the primary grey/yellow/red/blue/green scheme instead of going with the metallic/white/blue. You can update TOS without losing it's unique character IMO. STD didn't bother with any of that and feels only slightly more similar to TOS than it does to Stargate Universe.
Like I said I'm enjoying it, and I'm not going to get hung up on nerd stuff, but I just can't see why Paramount is so obsessed with prequels for Star Trek.
Say it started with '50 years after the return of Voyager' no tech issues, no continuity issues, you alter like a half dozen lines of dialogue, you can use Ferengi and Borg and Dominion and whoever...
What's the point of the earlier time frame other than to piss off the people who are most likely to pay to see this?
Since Shield Of Tomorrow has started airing, I've been back into Star Trek Online and it's been really great. - that starts around 40 years after Voyager and even folds in Trek 09 into its main plot.
Story works great too with references to old Trek, plus that are sequels to older ones but doesn't require you to know the original episodes
There's apparently two (or more) fan film groups making the further adventures of Kirk and Spock, which makes the studio's mania for revisiting (but not really) that era all the more puzzling.
I've seen some of New Voyages and it was definitely OK.
Only just learned about Star Trek Continues the other day, will have to check them out when I have time to watch a fan film based on a 50 year old TV show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_Continues
Since the Axanar lawsuit and subsequent guidelines, both of those big name long running TOS fan series have effectively shut down or are in the process of doing so to comply with the guidelines (which had an exception for shows already in some phase of production). IIRC New Voyages hasn't had an episode in a while and Continues is about to release their last two this month and next (it's a two part fanseries finale).
I'd recommend watching both though as each has good episodes if you're a TOS purist fan.
Yes, the Discovery is ridiculously more advanced than the Enterprise which hasn't even launched yet but I guess that could be chalked up to design choices by Starfleet. (obviously, it's just one of the many problems with always just doing presequels). I don't know what you all mean by "reboot". Do you mean you think all the other shows didn't happen or something? I don't think that's true. In that After Trek show one of the creators was talking about how they do have canon conversations and they want to use Romulans but can't right now because they are not seen physically until TOS. I think the bizarre appearance of the Klingons will be explained by some sci-fi reason eventually.
Yeah, Klingons wanted to genetically engineer Khan-style super men but the upshot was making Klingons look like swarthy humans, TOS-style. That was from ENT. In DS9, it comes up but Word just says Klingons don't like to talk about it.
And new they've been redesigned a 3rd time as hairless spiky monster men.
Which can be fine, my headcanon has always been the TOS guys were Southern Klingons and the Movie/TNG guys were Northern Klingons. Imagine some aliens landing in Kenya and then in Sweden and trying to explain what humans look like. Since the Klingon Empire was 10,000+ years old and spread across thousands of worlds and had genetic engineering some variation is to be expected. It becomes a problem when the current series just makes the rest of the Klingons disappear for the new look.
Manchu wrote: The answer to both Kid_Kyoto and KamikazeCanuk's questions: here
Congratulations, Mr. Manchu. You found what may be the first TVTropes that I don't discount automatically upon realizing someone yet again linked to TVTropes. Well played, sir.
I'm kind of ruining myself as I have yet to watch a single episode and can't control myself enough to stay away from the spoiler tags. Oh well, nobody to blame but myself.
. . .
). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.
).
