Yes, the glaring lack of continuity-awareness from those producing this show is not promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by spshu
And I wouldn't consider one change that just took a really long time to explain as "frequently" changing appearance.
Printable View
Yes, the glaring lack of continuity-awareness from those producing this show is not promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by spshu
And I wouldn't consider one change that just took a really long time to explain as "frequently" changing appearance.
the blue Klingon's puts me off, and the Abram's style 'action' will ruin it for me as well, but it airs today on Netflix so I will have to wait and see.
just finished watching both episodes, production quality is great, and overall enjoyed it, but the changes in the Klingon's (they don't look like Trek Klingon's to me) and the continued use of 'Abram's style action' is disappointing.
Though I will say it was better than expected.
As I am not married to any particular aesthetic and simply take the show as a new take on Star Trek. I fully remember the shouts of NEEEEERDRAAAEEEGGGG over TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT...
1. The new ship designs are fine for me. We are not getting back the TOS look. Let's just get over that, shall we?
2. Uniforms...I'm ambiguous about ATM.
3. I find it funny that the social commentary was coming from the Klingons about the Federation and the Klingon Leader practiced Klingon meritocracy as opposed to the standard picking someone because of bloodline
4. John. M Ford Klingons may apply :D. The Black Fleet Reference was a complete surprise.
this is going to be interesting
Liking the characters, tech seems more advanced then TOS era tech but seems in line with what we have tech wise. But the Klingons; the whole xenophobic, Klingon supremacist cult like thing was nice, but having a hard time fitting them into everything that we "know" about the culture of the Klingons. They could have been another race and not hurt anything.
But maybe it'll be cleared up in later episodes.
Well the 'Black Fleet' theology was a analogue to Vallhala. People also forget that in TOS that the Klingons often described themselves as "We are Hunters. We take what we need." And perceived all other species as weak. The Federations integration of different species into it's heirarchy must have been particularly galling and inspiring of contempt to them. The leader (his name escapes me) was just more vocal about it. And as he was looking for something to unify the 24 great houses.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky
I still reserve judgment since I want to give it a chance. It has been a rocky start out of the gate in my opinion.
for me what spoiled it somewhat was the 'new style' Abram's started, focusing on action over story lines and plot. As mentioned above it is also out of sync with the established technology level (for early Federation 23rd century), but again that's Abram's influence, even though it is set in the 'original' timeline and not the "Kelvin Timeline" Abram's introduced.
I would have loved if they had tied it in with Enterprise, and have Micheal Burnham be Trip (Charles Tucker III) and T'pol's 1/2 human, 1/2 Vulcan hybrid child (the first to have ever been born) who would be about 80 years old (only a young adult for a Vulcan) by the timeline set for Discovery.
I'm with you there. Just watched it yesterday. All though, I thought that Michelle Yeoh was great as the captain. I don't know if I will watch any more of them.
Discovery is getting savaged on YouTube, if that is any indication of anything, lots of people saying that the writers/producers have destroyed the franchise with over the top SJW/political statements and not producing a show with a spirit of a similar vein of Trek products.
this vid puts some light on what the show may be about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoW8Sq8-hr4&t=319s
Trek products being about heroic space communists.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveMan
Not sure why people are all "They got's SJW in our Starry Treck!!"
Trek has always. I mean ALWAYS. Once again for those of you in the back: ALWAYS been about SJW's in space. Whether it's the stupidity of racism, the rights of minorities, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, or the dangers of falling into fascism, Star Fleet has always been a bunch of SJW's showing up, telling your culture why you're wrong with a moving speech, and fixing the issue. If this is news to you, then I'm not sure what show you've been watching all these years.
yeah we all knew that, what most are saying is Discovery is going WAY over the top with the SJW and far left platform. As I have said I have been enjoying The Orville more, I will still watch Discovery (we have nothing else of Trek available), but they are spoiling the brand IMHO. The technology disparity is the major thing that is really rubbing against me, holo tech all through the vessel, 'spore drives' that remind me of the Blink drive in Dark Matter that is better and more advanced than any drive we have seen (seems they can instantaneously go anywhere in the galaxy) etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky
It's a bit late for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveMan
true enough, Abrams did that already. I should have said 'spoiling the brand further'Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
I have to say STD isn't getting any better, and they are stuffing up the technology level worse and worse with every episode. Episode 6 did explain why they didn't go with Trip and T'pols daughter, as they tied in other story threads that would have come in conflict (and rewrite an iconic character arc).
The tech level disparity is why I would love them to go FORWARD in the Trek Timeline (original timeline not the Abrams abortion), they could go stupid with all manner of advance tech and not stuff up the established canon.
Every episode I see pisses me off more than the last. They have clearly decided that they will do whatever they want and long term fans can go get bent.
mirrors my thinking. The problem is the critics love STD, and the fans hate it. Opposite for The Orville, critics hate it and the fans love it. STD doesn't have anything Trekkie about it except for a thin veneer and name. I have watched a lot of Youtube vids absolutely rubbishing STD (which is warranted) but I don't think the writers/producers care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pericles
What is up with the Sarek character? (he didn't accept his 1/2 Vulcan son Spook as too human and yet now they are saying he is somehow enamoured with a pure human:confused::confused::confused:) and changed the Klingons to the point of not being able to recognise them (to fire on them first would only make Klingons charge into battle, not be cowards and retreat), plus Vulcan's are pacifists, Sarek would not recommend firing first:mad::confused:
They don't care and don't care what fans think.
technically, if they like it, then they're fans too.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveMan
true, but I don't put critics and fans in the same category, and I think everyone knew what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tatterdemalion King
It's just a shame, they could have made it true to concept and gave us a real Trek series, but instead they pandered to the masses and produce another generic hollywood action based explosion fest:mad:
Discovery wouldn't be a bad show if they stopped calling it Trek. It fails as Trek on so many levels that there really aren't words to describe how badly it fails.
Or at least admit it's a different timeline. Embracing the multiverse and exploring the concept would go far to appease purists and neo-fans alike. Something similar to what Enterprise did with the Mirror Universe/Defiant two-parter. 'Course that would need Moonves to extract his head from his anus. Doing a cross-over with the real prime universe where they encounter Pike's Enterprise and a young Spock might be... interesting. They could even use Star Trek Continues' sets redressed now that that fan series is wrapping up.
It seems that CBS has a problem with lying to viewers. First it was that "Benedict Cumberbatch is not playing Khan". This was a flat-out lie. They should have gone with the vaguely misleading rumours like when Karl Urban "let slip" that Cumberbatch was playing Gary Mitchell. This would have generated interest and those who'd guessed Khan would have felt vindicated. Now, it's Burnham is the First Officer. Nope, she's a former First Officer and rankless convicted mutineer 7 episodes into an 8-episode mini-season. CBS in general, and Les Moonvess in particular, have nothing but contempt for viewers, new or old. Discovery is moderately watchable generis "sci-fi", but it is most assuredly NOT Star Trek as it is.
we only have to suffer through one more episode (just watched episode 8 and they said episode 9 is the finale) hopefully it won't get renewed for a second season.
Cumberbatch is the in TV series? As Paramount has done the movies since the split.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton
Actually, this is just the fall finale. It will be back in the spring with I think another 6 episodes. And it’s been greenlit for a 2nd Season (mich like Orville)Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveMan
thanks for the correction mate, and yes I do remember them saying 'fall season finale' now that you mention it. I honestly don't know how they could greenlight a second season, I don't know (or have seen) any Trek fan that likes it. There must be a fan base (and we aren't doing it any favors by watching it as ratings/viewership numbers is what drives renewal decisions) watching it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arknight
Actually, the Discovery series is produced under the Bad Robot licence, so technically it's an offshoot of the movies. But yeah, the whole post-Viacom disintegration has completely screwed up the Star Trek rights, so while Disco runs on CBS's pay network, it's run by the movie people, which is why it doesn't care about continuity and looks like JJ Dreck. Star Trek is no longer anything but a corporate branding. Trek est mort, vive l'Orville.Quote:
Originally Posted by spshu
Huh? The latest series of Trek movies were under a license from CBS to Paramount as CBS has the copyrights to Star Trek (Paramount only holding copyrights to the films). Since, CBS was not intending to do another Trek series any time soon they seem to have agreed in that licensing agreement to not produce a series until January of 2017. Only Alex Kurtzman, co-writer of the films Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness, came over to executive produce. CBS Studios seem to be running the show, not Bad Robot or Paramount. CBS's pay channel is Showtime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Owen E Oulton
It's been renewed. I just consider it and Alt-verse and roll it from there
I don't get why you call it 'Star Trek' and don't make it look like its an artefact of the 60s.
I was trepidacious about the series, and I feel rightfully so having watched it...
Battlestar Treklactica sucks
‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Showrunners Exit; Alex Kurtzman Takes Over
Variety article
Quote:
Executive producers and showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg are exiting “Star Trek: Discovery,” Variety has confirmed. Executive producer and co-creator Alex Kurtzman will take over showrunner duties for season two.
Interesting....Quote:
Sources tell Variety that tension had been building in the writers room as work continued on season two, which remains set to premiere in 2019.
season 2 (episode 1) is airing now and it is actually worse than season 1 from what I have seen. Plus there are a heap of 'short Treks' which, again are just as bad as ST.D. Every reviewer on YouTube I have seen has savaged ST.D, the whole thing seems to be going from bad to worse.
We're clearly not watching the same second season....Quote:
Originally Posted by WaveMan
what makes you think that they have improved from season 1 mate? I am honestly asking and not trying to troll you.Quote:
Originally Posted by PGoodman13
Overall I think the Michael Burnham is atrocious and thoroughly unlikeable. I hate that they make the shows focus on a secondary character and not on the captain as all the other Trek's have been. The continuity problems continue. The writing is ordinary to say the least.
Dammit to Himmel-Hop; will EVERYONE get OFF that GODDAMN CLICHE?
Too many have flown off the handle, escalating simple opinion, or perhaps some biased poem or political tirade into some retarded "bleh u suck lol" Witch Hunter groinal zit. ENOUGH. Without that OR the imagined Social Movement bombast;
the series IS GOOD< it just... kind OF has to do with previous series, and throws in whimsical new uniforms and photogenic tricks.
ALL of All of you 2nd age Monkeys take it from here.:p
what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteo
The discontinuity alone makes me hate ST.D, and the rest just adds to my displeasure.