Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:41 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 15,759
RT has it at 85% with critics and 45% with viewers. Almost the exact opposite of the Orville - critics hated it and viewers loved it, while here critics love it and viewers are mixed.

I haven't seen the premiere, but I'm not hearing anything that'd inspire me to pay for yet another streaming service. Maybe if it was on Netflix like it is in every country other than this one, which is probably where it'll end up once All-Access tanks.
  #52  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:14 AM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
I liked it pretty well for a series premier. Usually I'm a little disappointed with the actors and characters and i have to get used to them, but most of the characters were easy on the eyes and I was looking forward to learning more about them. There was some sort of robot character? Looked sort of robotish, but maybe just an alien with a helmet?

Well, the premier was a fake out. Crew gone, except for the science officer I guess. Now I have to meet a whole new crew, and I'll probably be disappointed. I like the guy who is going to be the new captain, assuming he lives long enough.

The re-re-re-reimagined Klingons are fine. Who cares? They're just the bad guys.

The main character, Michael (really? Michael?) is kinda boring. There shouldn't really be a main character anyway. It's supposed to be about the crew, and not just centered around one character.

So, I liked it better than most Star Trek show premiers, but since the third episode is really a pilot reboot, it's kinda hard to say.
  #53  
Old 09-25-2017, 05:15 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,551
Haven't seen it yet (on DVR), but in this Trek fan's opinion, 'rebooting' the Klingons is entirely in keeping with Star Trek (compare TOS vs movie and TNG Klingons) tradition.
  #54  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:02 AM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,163
I enjoyed it but I think CBS did themselves a disservice by not airing Episodes one and two together as a combined two hour Pilot as I don't think Episode one alone sold the series or told the full story well enough. I was also a little sour because they delayed the streaming premiere to 8:48 pm to match the Football overrun on the network. That was dumb and annoying. Worse: 8:48 came an went and the show still wasn't up on the streaming service. I ended up watching the first episode on broadcast TV and the only reason I didn't miss the first five minutes is I had the foresight to have my DVR on CBS so I could rewind the live TV back to the beginning. I was a little miffed about that.

The first episode was good. The visuals were excellent and well made but it didn't really feel like Star Trek to me yet. Just felt like Well Made Sci Fi Show

I watched the two episodes back to back and I am a little sleepy so I don't know what was in which episode so I will spoiler my more specific comments.

SPOILER:
I'm okay with the Klingons looking and acting different. They have looked at least four different way already in all of Trek so what's one more? Stating that the Federation hadn't encountered the Klingons for 100 years (ie since the show Enterprise) invalidates several novels but it happens, plus later they sort of walked it back and implied there were some conflicts in those hundred years. I do think subtitling them completely was not a smart choice. They should have done that for a few minutes and then transitioned to English making it clear they were still really speaking Klingon. I do like we are seeing vicious Klingons again. I think having them be allies in the newer Trek's for so long made them a little tame.

Having full fledged war is an interesting choice but the battle didn't feel like Star Trek. Like it or hate it, Trek battles have a rhythm with weapons that charge and shields back and forth. Even big battles. This felt more like Star Wars (or the recent Trek Movies). Side Note in Trek History: I am thinking maybe we will end up seeing the Battle of Donatu V before the show ends although the time line is a little wonky because Spock said that happened 20 years ago not 10.

The main reason I felt they should have combined these two into a single show is it is only combined they set up the series. In theory this is all just back story to set up Michael's character when she joins the titular Star Ship (presumably next week). It actually could have been fleshed out in flashbacks while the real story starts.



I would have preferred the new Star Trek to just be "A ship full of interesting characters explores space". I think Trek has been away long enough that that feels fresh again and I think it's why I like The Orville more than it probably deserves because it scratches that itch but this is intriguing enough and I will get used to it I think. To be honest I don't think we have even see the "real" show yet. This was all set up. I wanted to love this and I only like it but I do like it and will keep watching.

One last note: someone above complained that they had a cure for Radiation sickness. Realistic or not Trek has had that since the days of TOS and it has come up enough times over the series that I can tell you the name of it off the top of my head: Hyronalin

Last edited by Quimby; 09-25-2017 at 06:07 AM.
  #55  
Old 09-25-2017, 06:52 AM
Cardigan's Avatar
Cardigan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,226
I wasn't particularly bothered by the rather SG_1/Goa'uld-looking Klingons. Yes, the first episode seemed to focus heavily on some conflict on the bridge and had more action than you'd expect to see on an inaugural episode from this franchise, but it is WAY too soon for me to write this show off right out of the gate. I'm confident the writers will provide some more thoughtful shows (or at least more thoughtful than Enterprise) as the season and show progress. I bet the first episode was intended to just be a 'grabber'

Last edited by Cardigan; 09-25-2017 at 06:56 AM.
  #56  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:38 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 28,895
I had no clue they were not going to show even a complete 1st story. F' CBS.

The show had good moments and many weak one like the Klingon Orcs. Why change them yet again?

They only introduced 3 characters so far, one can't act and the other is a terrible character. At least the Vulcan trained action girl was interesting and could believably act.
  #57  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:18 AM
AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
She couldn't relay information to the captain from her hospital bed because...?
Because on Star Trek: Discombobulated, everyone, including those with Vulcan training, runs around like chickens without heads behaving irrationally.
  #58  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:19 AM
StarvingButStrong's Avatar
StarvingButStrong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,638
Overall, I didn't like it. It's lost the optimism and sense of wonder and gone heavy on action battles -- that simply isn't Trek for me.

If it survives a season, and fan opinion of it is stellar, well, I'll give it another try. Until then I'm out.
  #59  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:36 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
She couldn't relay information to the captain from her hospital bed because...?
Because... hero/maverick.

And what was the stupidity of landing on the craft? What could go wrong with that? I found Chinese Janeway to be pretty much like American Janeway-- not interesting. And yeah. the main character is a female name "Michael"? That makes sense. I liked her on The Walking Dead, but her character here is more annoying than anything. And what's up with the alien Science Officer guy? Is his race/species congenitally scared shitless all the time? They can't get a Science Officer in the entire Federation who isn't a scaredy cat?
  #60  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:56 AM
Algernon is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 2,732
I was sort of excited about this show leading up to the airing. Now? Not so much.

Others have articulated my irritations with the plot and characters. My rant here is about CBS.

I have a cable subscription and an AppleTV. I subscribe to Netflix and Hulu for obvious reasons. But every other** streaming service is free on the AppleTV if you already are paying for the access via cable.

But not CBS!! Paying a monthly subscription fee would make sense if someone wanted access to the CBS content but they are not paying for cable. It does not make sense for those of us who are already paying for access!

Needless to say I will not be paying extra to CBS to stream this show.

Grrrrrrrr.

** (It should be noted that some of the streaming apps are better than others at offering their full cable content.)
__________________
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana." (Groucho Marx; but also used to test a language recognition algorithm)
"The essential is invisible to the eye." (The Little Prince)
  #61  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:06 AM
Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,574
OK, I haven't read the thread. Has anyone mentioned the Klingons?

Seriously. The Tolkien estate should sue. 'Look. If you dress them up as Egyptians, they're still orcs!' I'm not diggin' 'em.

Discovery takes place about 10 years before Star Trek. In that time, the Klingons looked like dark-complected humans. They became the way we know them today in Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was fine. Everyone knew the original series was cheesy. And in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine they acknowledged that species had changed in the hundred years between Kirk and Picard. (Worf: 'We do not discuss it with outsiders.') But the Klingons didn't change through three series and I-don't-know-how-many movies. They're established. The writers had to come up with something to explain the difference in appearance between Star Trek and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that were caused by differing budgets and make-up techniques, so they could make 'Trials and Tribble-ations'. I don't think that established that Klingons are quasi-shapeshifters.

When [i]ST:TNG[i] came out, it was easy to change things up. The series took place many decades after Star Trek. Everyone accepted that aliens' appearances would change because the show actually had a budget. And Star Trek (the original series) didn't get a lot of airplay. Today, there the Star Trek marathons, BBC America shows various series about eight hours a day, and H&I shows episodes from all of the series (plus the cartoon version on Saturdays). It's too late to radically change a major species in the series.

Also, I think the uniforms should be closer to the original series.
  #62  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:26 AM
Anduinel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 327
Sounds like I'm waiting for the DVDs, at best.
  #63  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:11 AM
mlees is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 7,509
Regarding Burnham's mutiny, all I can fan-wank is that she is continuing to suffer from some kind of trauma from her childhood (and Sarek had tried to plaster over with his mind meld). Her actions in regard to the Klingons, therefore, isn't rational. In fact, it over rides her years of training in the Vulcan disciplines. The backstory to the "Vulcan Hello" gives her the final push to do what she wants to do anyways.

She tries to explain to the Captain (and others, at the very end) that her loyalty to her crew mates super-ceded her oaths to Federation/Starfleet Regulations, as necessary to "save lives". That seems to me to be a little bit at odds with what I imagine to be whatever Vulcan and Starfleet Academy training she may have had. I wonder if they will explain this better.

"Star Fleet does not fire first." Really, Captain? I suggest that, odds are, that an ironclad adherence to this doctrine is a good way to end up dead some day. (And doesn't Kirk shoot first a couple times? )

Last edited by mlees; 09-25-2017 at 10:12 AM.
  #64  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:20 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Star Trek whatever series has always tried to address issues that are current when the show airs. It didn't surprise me that the writers were invoking things like The Iraq War and the situation with North Korea and even Black Lives Matter (White Klingon Lives Matter, too!).
  #65  
Old 09-25-2017, 11:16 AM
Quimby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
Star Trek whatever series has always tried to address issues that are current when the show airs. It didn't surprise me that the writers were invoking things like The Iraq War and the situation with North Korea and even Black Lives Matter (White Klingon Lives Matter, too!).
I have also seen some people say that T'Kuvma's speechifying was basically "Make Klingon Great Again" which I honestly didn't pick up on.
  #66  
Old 09-25-2017, 11:20 AM
erysichthon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
RT has it at 85% with critics and 45% with viewers. Almost the exact opposite of the Orville - critics hated it and viewers loved it, while here critics love it and viewers are mixed.
Well, now I'm interested. I think the critics are right about The Orville, and I honestly don't understand why people are swooning over it. I may have to check out this new Star Trek.

The CBS All Access thing isn't an insurmountable issue for me. I'm a cord-cutter and get no usable over-the-air signal, and there are a few other CBS shows I'd watch (like Survivor). However, I think the business model is shaky and I can't see it lasting more than a couple of years.
  #67  
Old 09-25-2017, 11:25 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 59,727
Which ST universe is this supposed to be taking place in? There is the original Trek, with its established history. There is the ST:Enterprise which, while supposedly set in the past of Original T, brought in history, science and whole alien species which are never referenced in its own supposed future. There is ST: Reboot-The Movies.
Or is this another complete reboot that isn't going to follow any of other established timelines?

edited to add: Capt. Michael seems she was taken straight from fan fiction from 20 years ago-Pure Mary Sue.

Last edited by Czarcasm; 09-25-2017 at 11:29 AM.
  #68  
Old 09-25-2017, 12:18 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,776
I read somewhere (maybe a comment here?) where someone was looking forward to Discovery because they were tired of all the modern grim SF shows and wanted some positivism.

Ha!

Good luck with that.
  #69  
Old 09-25-2017, 12:34 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by erysichthon View Post
Well, now I'm interested. I think the critics are right about The Orville, and I honestly don't understand why people are swooning over it. I may have to check out this new Star Trek.
For me, I feel like TO has more of the feel of TOS/TNG, which is what I grew up with. I don't bond to the Trek universe Abrams created for the movies. They just seem like a generic action movie in space with characters and ships from Trek in name only. TO seems like Trek, but a comedy version. STD seems more like a TV version of the Abrams movies.

The thing that really tanked STD for me was the mutiny scene. The captain would have been justified executing her on the spot. The mutiny scene failed here for a couple of reasons: 1) Her justification was flimsy and based on her rigid view of Klingon behavior, and 2) We had not built up any trust in her judgment. Sure, there are plenty of times when past crews did their own thing, but that was for more justified reasons. Plus, we had long histories with that crew and trusted their decision. And it was dumb of CBS to make that be a cliffhanger, because I'm not going to sign up to see how she get out of her stupid mistake.
  #70  
Old 09-25-2017, 12:40 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny L.A. View Post
OK, I haven't read the thread. Has anyone mentioned the Klingons?

Seriously. The Tolkien estate should sue. 'Look. If you dress them up as Egyptians, they're still orcs!' I'm not diggin' 'em.

Discovery takes place about 10 years before Star Trek. In that time, the Klingons looked like dark-complected humans. They became the way we know them today in Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was fine. Everyone knew the original series was cheesy. And in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine they acknowledged that species had changed in the hundred years between Kirk and Picard. (Worf: 'We do not discuss it with outsiders.') But the Klingons didn't change through three series and I-don't-know-how-many movies. They're established. The writers had to come up with something to explain the difference in appearance between Star Trek and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that were caused by differing budgets and make-up techniques, so they could make 'Trials and Tribble-ations'. I don't think that established that Klingons are quasi-shapeshifters.
"Modern" Klingons appeared in the TOS movies (without explanation, of course.)
I don't recall it being even mentioned until that show, where they kind of had to.


Quote:
Also, I think the uniforms should be closer to the original series.
Yes. I watched Trials and Tribble-ations recently, and it struck me how much brighter TOS was, especially uniforms. I suspect they can't get away with miniskirts any more, but it is all so damn gloomy.
  #71  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:12 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Mere Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,631
The Klingons reminded me of the Romulans in Nemesis. The special effects were interesting, but it all requires too much suspension of what I already know about Trek.
  #72  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:34 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
I read somewhere (maybe a comment here?) where someone was looking forward to Discovery because they were tired of all the modern grim SF shows and wanted some positivism.

Ha!

Good luck with that.
I'm not sure I'm the one you're thinking of, but I did say that, too. And based on this thread, I will not be watching this latest butchering of the ST concept.

If each Star Trek iteration reflects the times of which it was made, what does this series say about current day? That we all hate each other, and can't get along even in the simplest things? That every problem can only be solved by violence? Is this Donald Trump's Star Trek?
  #73  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:41 PM
Half Man Half Wit's Avatar
Half Man Half Wit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,517
I'm honestly puzzled about the critical response here (likewise with the post-2009 movies, so maybe I just don't get it anymore). I mean, even ignoring that I just don't think this was very Star Trek, I frankly don't see how this was any good, let alone worthy of the 90% rating it currently has on Rotten Tomatoes. The characters were inconsistent and flat, the plot paperthin: humans meet aliens, they shoot at each other for nebulous reasons.

Still, I'm gonna give it a shot; it doesn't seem like much from the first two episodes is going to carry over into the series proper, so I'll wait and see.
  #74  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:00 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
I'm not sure I'm the one you're thinking of, but I did say that, too. And based on this thread, I will not be watching this latest butchering of the ST concept.
No, that wasn't the specific comment I was thinking of--someone had actually used the term positivism or positive SF. I've seen the second episode and preview of the rest of the season through (cough, cough) alternative sources, and Discovery is to classic Trek what Rouge One is to the Ewok scenes in Jedi. (Not in a positive way, but in a "that much more grim and taking-itself-seriously" way.)
  #75  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:09 PM
levdrakon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 17,348
The timeline confuses me a little. At one point, they mentioned the date was 2200-something. 2240 or some such? Then they mentioned they met the Klingons like, 200 years ago. So it sounds like we meet the Klingons sometime this century, in the 2000s. Seems too soon in the future for us to be developing warp drive and galavanting around the galaxy.

Speaking of galaxy, how was the beacon supposed to alert the other Klingons around the galaxy? They even mentioned they'd be coming from across the galaxy. No way warp drives in this universe can cross whole galaxies that fast and a light beam, no matter how bright, would take 100,000 years to get to the other side of the galaxy. Sarek mentioned they'd detected "a new star." Well, no you wouldn't have for a number of years, if it was just normal ol' light.

As for the Vulcans concluding it's perfectly logical to shoot first when it comes to Klingons - I like that actually. To me, that feels very Vulcan. I've always thought the Vulcans, while choosing to be generally peaceful and minding their own business, would nevertheless be a very advanced and dangerous species to mess with. I've always thought the Vulcans should have some ridiculously deadly warships they don't use often, and you reaaaaally don't want them to.
  #76  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:35 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
The timeline confuses me a little. At one point, they mentioned the date was 2200-something. 2240 or some such? Then they mentioned they met the Klingons like, 200 years ago. So it sounds like we meet the Klingons sometime this century, in the 2000s. Seems too soon in the future for us to be developing warp drive and galavanting around the galaxy.

Speaking of galaxy, how was the beacon supposed to alert the other Klingons around the galaxy? They even mentioned they'd be coming from across the galaxy. No way warp drives in this universe can cross whole galaxies that fast and a light beam, no matter how bright, would take 100,000 years to get to the other side of the galaxy. Sarek mentioned they'd detected "a new star." Well, no you wouldn't have for a number of years, if it was just normal ol' light.

As for the Vulcans concluding it's perfectly logical to shoot first when it comes to Klingons - I like that actually. To me, that feels very Vulcan. I've always thought the Vulcans, while choosing to be generally peaceful and minding their own business, would nevertheless be a very advanced and dangerous species to mess with. I've always thought the Vulcans should have some ridiculously deadly warships they don't use often, and you reaaaaally don't want them to.
The logical part yeah i agree. But otherwise they're seemingly explore-averse and seem to have been in a tech rut, hamstrung perhaps by logic navel-gazing.

I do wish we had seen more of Earth-Vulcans 'special relationship' over the various series.

Last edited by Dale Sams; 09-25-2017 at 03:35 PM.
  #77  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:42 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,516
Also again for the purposes of fanwank, I'm going to point out that (And i dont care what the writer of the TNG ep 'First Contact' says) the first ep of Enterprise destroys the timeline we knew before it aired. The movie First Contact does it again. There's a little 'circular temporal activity' possibly, but we cant know all that was meant to happen.
  #78  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:45 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
The timeline confuses me a little. At one point, they mentioned the date was 2200-something. 2240 or some such? Then they mentioned they met the Klingons like, 200 years ago. So it sounds like we meet the Klingons sometime this century, in the 2000s. Seems too soon in the future for us to be developing warp drive and galavanting around the galaxy.
Warp drive was invented (on Earth) in 2063. Khan's interstellar sleeper ship was launched in the 1990s after the Eugenics Wars took place in 1993.

Star Trek's time line isn't exactly real-world canon.
  #79  
Old 09-25-2017, 03:51 PM
AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
If each Star Trek iteration reflects the times of which it was made, what does this series say about current day? That we all hate each other, and can't get along even in the simplest things? That every problem can only be solved by violence? Is this Donald Trump's Star Trek?
Yes, this is Trump Trek. Number One had the ship Locked and Loaded ready to hit the Klingons with Fire and Fury.

The Klingon ship was patterned after Trump Tower with every surface covered with gaudy gold.

  #80  
Old 09-25-2017, 05:19 PM
Barbarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: is french for rental
Posts: 5,679
I feel like I watched the first decent Star Trek movie in many years.

No, it's not TOS or even the Next Generation's Star Trek, but that ship sailed many years ago.

This is Star Trek for people who have been watching Game of Thrones, post-BSG, and other modern TV: the style and pacing is different, but that's a generational change in the medium itself.

It was not perfect -- nothing is -- but when you consider that these two episodes are just the set up for a series about a different vessel... well I'm plenty intrigued, and will be watching next week and for the next two months.
__________________
First thing we do is, we kill all the market researchers.
  #81  
Old 09-25-2017, 05:42 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,102
This one is definitely better than the new movies. Which is faint praise indeed.

The article on it I read in the Times talks about how Earth just reached Utopia status. Not in the first episode, that's for sure, but maybe later.

I think a big problem with this and even the last shows is that the show runners basically don't get Star Trek and what made it such a phenomenon. I suspect that of the 86 or so executive produces only Roddenberry's son even watched it as a kid.

I don't know about ST-D, but I sensed an amazing lack of imagination in the later shows. I gave up on DS9 after season 4 when I discovered that the Dominion War basically was all the major plot they had. It is like they had no other ideas of how to fill up the shows. When Roddenberry shut down making the show a war show with Errand of Mercy, he knew exactly what he was doing.

I know that this is how it is done these days, but ST-TOS was so good because of the contributions of lots of writers besides the show staff. Would any of them dreamed up Amok Time, which is so very Sturgeon. City on the Edge of Forever? Tribbles? The Doomsday Machine? It is easy on a non-serial show, and you have to fix up the scripts so they don't violate show rules, but the shot of imagination is something the later shows, and the new movies, lack.
  #82  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:08 PM
Telperion's Avatar
Telperion is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I watched Trials and Tribble-ations recently, and it struck me how much brighter TOS was, especially uniforms. I suspect they can't get away with miniskirts any more, but it is all so damn gloomy.
I think they went with the "Track suits designed by Otto von Bismarck" look, which is certainly something else.
  #83  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:15 PM
Paintcharge's Avatar
Paintcharge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: 10 sq miles of reality
Posts: 2,069
Anyone else have trouble with the CBS stream getting audio out of sync? I sure as hell am not paying for that bullshit.
  #84  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:38 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
The timeline confuses me a little. At one point, they mentioned the date was 2200-something. 2240 or some such? Then they mentioned they met the Klingons like, 200 years ago. So it sounds like we meet the Klingons sometime this century, in the 2000s. Seems too soon in the future for us to be developing warp drive and galavanting around the galaxy.

Speaking of galaxy, how was the beacon supposed to alert the other Klingons around the galaxy? They even mentioned they'd be coming from across the galaxy. No way warp drives in this universe can cross whole galaxies that fast and a light beam, no matter how bright, would take 100,000 years to get to the other side of the galaxy. Sarek mentioned they'd detected "a new star." Well, no you wouldn't have for a number of years, if it was just normal ol' light.

As for the Vulcans concluding it's perfectly logical to shoot first when it comes to Klingons - I like that actually. To me, that feels very Vulcan. I've always thought the Vulcans, while choosing to be generally peaceful and minding their own business, would nevertheless be a very advanced and dangerous species to mess with. I've always thought the Vulcans should have some ridiculously deadly warships they don't use often, and you reaaaaally don't want them to.
Reminds me of an Enterprise episode where Tucker and Reed (IIRC) are stranded in a shuttle with no engines/radio and only have hours of air left. They ignite some fuel hoping that the Enterprise which is "only" a quarter of a light-year away will see it.

Enterprise sees it and rescues them with minutes to spare. Only problem is that the Enterprise wouldn't have seen the signal for three months. <sigh>

This is why I keep to SF literature for the most part.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  #85  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:40 PM
Aquadementia's Avatar
Aquadementia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,867
Other thoughts:

The opening credits reminded me of a Bond film and I liked how it highlighted how some of the equipment was like in TOS.

I liked the guy breed for meat. But when he says he's feels his end near I think I'll just be standing on the other side of the bridge if you don't mind.

This may be more in IMHO territory but #1 having a man's name does make some sense. Parents have been doing that kind of thing for a long time. Girls get boys names or they give their kids a name they probably wanted to give to the dog. In the future a good percentage of men will have names like Scraps or Attaboy. Then a generation later women will have those names.

Was that bridge office with the electronic thing over their face a robot? Because I looked up and got a brief look and thought "Are those boobs. Did they build a robot with boobs? About time Star Trek. #equality."

The more I think of it the less logical shooting first is. If you are going to make a habit of firing on Klingons you better not show mercy or they will really think you are weak. It can only lead to total war.
Killing a single Klingon in combat or destroying a ship might get you respect, but destroying what looks like a sacred temple may be unforgivable.
Plus it's not like they both just dropped out of warp and spotted each other. They had plenty of time to size each other up and the Klingons were only acting defensively. They could easily have attacked when they decloaked and had the advantage. If the Federation ship was to stupid too back off a bit when they turned on the lights that's just their idiocy.

Last edited by Aquadementia; 09-25-2017 at 07:43 PM.
  #86  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:41 PM
Cat Whisperer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lethbridge, AB.
Posts: 49,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
For me, I feel like TO has more of the feel of TOS/TNG, which is what I grew up with. I don't bond to the Trek universe Abrams created for the movies. They just seem like a generic action movie in space with characters and ships from Trek in name only. TO seems like Trek, but a comedy version. STD seems more like a TV version of the Abrams movies.
Nail on the head. I have absolutely no love for JJ's version of Star Trek - he has completely missed the point of alll of it, and this show is most definitely a version of JJ's Star Trek, not the Star Trek that I grew up with and loved. I didn't hate Discovery, but I like it better when I apply "World War Z" logic to it - don't think of it as Star Trek, just a science fiction show that happens, for some unknown reason, to include the words "Star Trek" in the title.
__________________
"Your guilty consciences may make you vote Democratic, but secretly you all yearn for a Republican president to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king!"
- S. Bob
  #87  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:44 PM
AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
Reminds me of an Enterprise episode where Tucker and Reed (IIRC) are stranded in a shuttle with no engines/radio and only have hours of air left. They ignite some fuel hoping that the Enterprise which is "only" a quarter of a light-year away will see it.

Enterprise sees it and rescues them with minutes to spare. Only problem is that the Enterprise wouldn't have seen the signal for three months. <sigh>
You are talking about "The Galileo Seven" episode from TOS.

Who are Tucker and Reed? Are they from one of those new fangled Treks the kids like to watch?
  #88  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:44 PM
TheMysteryWriter's Avatar
TheMysteryWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 172
This is what I wrote on Facebook last night after watching both episodes:

Stiscovery. WOW. That was sooo amazing. It was everything I've always wanted from Star Trek but never got. It basically isn't Star Trek, at all. So much darker. Continuing story lines. Real shit that actually matters. It feels like Stargate SGU, as far as how totally different it is from the source material. Only actually GOOD. Stupendously good. Amazaterrifcus (amazing and terrific).

I love, love, love Michael! Yes, mutiny was not the brightest idea, but she was right. They should have fired first. I love her character because all she wanted was to save her mentor and the new friends she'd to come to care about. She wants this so much she is willing to do whatever it takes to make it happen - and in the end she fails spectacularly.

To me that is wonderful characterization. And judging from the preview of the rest of the series she has so far to grow. Which I think is awesome!

Killjoys has competition now for my new favorite show. Killjoys has humor though, Discovery is very grim. But I love it.
  #89  
Old 09-25-2017, 07:51 PM
TheMysteryWriter's Avatar
TheMysteryWriter is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 172
Also Michael isn't just a male name. It's more popular for boys, but King David had a wife called Michel in the Bible. And Mrs. Walton was played by Michael Learned and she was born in 1939. So Michael for girls has been around for a long time, it's just not super common.
  #90  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:06 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,768
Michael is a bog-standard (in the 20th/21st century) Hebrew name praising God. It is not intrinsically masculine or feminine except by popular custom.

The daughter of Saul was named Michal, which is a different name.
  #91  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:14 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMysteryWriter View Post
Also Michael isn't just a male name. It's more popular for boys, but King David had a wife called Michel in the Bible. And Mrs. Walton was played by Michael Learned and she was born in 1939. So Michael for girls has been around for a long time, it's just not super common.
I think part of the problem is that for kids born in the 60s, it was THE most common boy's name. I know so many Michaels, I can't even count them.
  #92  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:20 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 2,768
Is the character being named Michael = "who is like God?", also a named archangel, supposed to be significant? I guess we'll find out.

ETA eg "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."

Last edited by DPRK; 09-25-2017 at 08:24 PM.
  #93  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:29 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogSignal View Post
You are talking about "The Galileo Seven" episode from TOS.

Who are Tucker and Reed? Are they from one of those new fangled Treks the kids like to watch?
I know, right? TOS did it better. Except I didn't see how Spock was behaving irrationally. He had no other choice. Throw a Hail Mary vs. living a few minutes longer.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  #94  
Old 09-25-2017, 08:46 PM
alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 14,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Warp drive was invented (on Earth) in 2063. Khan's interstellar sleeper ship was launched in the 1990s after the Eugenics Wars took place in 1993.

Star Trek's time line isn't exactly real-world canon.
And first contact between Humans & Klingons occurred in 2151 per the pilot of Star Trek: Enterprise. Vulcans apparently had their first contact with the Klingons 150 years before that (circa the year 2000).
  #95  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:13 PM
AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by standingwave View Post
I know, right? TOS did it better. Except I didn't see how Spock was behaving irrationally. He had no other choice. Throw a Hail Mary vs. living a few minutes longer.
Yes, Scotty understood it was like "sending up a flare."
  #96  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:19 PM
ssgenius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 714
The opening scene shows how unrealistic it is

It's unrealistic when a ship from orbit can find a trace of tracks in the sand (in a storm) representing a "A"
The best satellite (Geo-1) currently has a resolution of 16 inches (in black and white). Colour is 5.4 feet
That would just barely pick up their tracks at best assuming ideal conditions and they knew where to look.

It could be argued that in the future the optics could improve somewhat but still it would be a stroke of luck to find them.

Last edited by ssgenius; 09-25-2017 at 09:20 PM.
  #97  
Old 09-25-2017, 09:33 PM
AnalogSignal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I know that this is how it is done these days, but ST-TOS was so good because of the contributions of lots of writers besides the show staff. Would any of them dreamed up Amok Time, which is so very Sturgeon. City on the Edge of Forever? Tribbles? The Doomsday Machine? It is easy on a non-serial show, and you have to fix up the scripts so they don't violate show rules, but the shot of imagination is something the later shows, and the new movies, lack.
I agree. Good sci-fi writers are clearly missing in the new series. I would prefer they focus completely on story, characters, and acting. I don't need a lot of special effects, expensive sets, and complicated makeup for aliens. I would actually be happy if they did it like a theater piece with minimal sets.
  #98  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:02 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 23,998
Well, I just saw it and I loved it.

I really don't get the requirement here to over-analyze everything.

It's a TV show; it's entertainment.

I was entertained, therefore I like it.
  #99  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:07 PM
simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 11,024
I liked that it didnt have a 'happy ending' - it set up the conflict well and explained both the Klingon person's POV as well as Michael's response to it - and I like that it didn't work out - she wasn't given command for 'orginal thinking' and (without seeing any previews) she is being punished for her actions.

I'm understandably curious as to where they take it.

And I really hate having to pay for the privelege of watching a ton of fucking commercials during the show.
  #100  
Old 09-25-2017, 10:45 PM
Dale Sams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,516
Utter nitpick: I've always hated Abrams pupupupupupupupupupupupupupupu weapons and that the new series picked it up.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017