|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2017 17:32:19 GMT -5
Thought this was more interesting than some of the actual trailer footage we've seen so far. Playing catch-up so cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Sept 23, 2017 18:36:32 GMT -5
One fan's opinion:  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Sept 23, 2017 18:50:18 GMT -5
I was really discouraged by alot of the pre-show stuff... they're using their own uniforms, their own version of the tech, and their own version of Klingons, while claiming it's in the 'prime' Trek universe... that annoys me immensely.
Just have it be it's own thing.. that would be fine.. but don't tell me it fits in then don't fit it in. Either they're going to ignore that stuff and annoy me, or not have a good show and spend all their time explaining stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 24, 2017 20:38:34 GMT -5
I was really discouraged by alot of the pre-show stuff... they're using their own uniforms, their own version of the tech, and their own version of Klingons, while claiming it's in the 'prime' Trek universe... that annoys me immensely. Just have it be it's own thing.. that would be fine.. but don't tell me it fits in then don't fit it in. Either they're going to ignore that stuff and annoy me, or not have a good show and spend all their time explaining stuff. Eh, it's not as if the Klingons have had a very consistant look through the years so what's the big deal with another? Personally, the new look reminds me of the look from Star Trek VI:   It's certainly more stylized but not really all that different than the previous ridge patterns. The armor is the biggest difference, but again there have been variations in the past and seeing as how these guys represent a sort of throw back cult a more antiquated look makes sense...plus it looks cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2017 21:12:27 GMT -5
Amy and I watched the first episode and liked it. We'll probably be signing up for CBS All Access something this week when we get the chance, depending how everything else goes with all the balls in the air right now.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 25, 2017 5:59:21 GMT -5
I was really discouraged by alot of the pre-show stuff... they're using their own uniforms, their own version of the tech, and their own version of Klingons, while claiming it's in the 'prime' Trek universe... that annoys me immensely. Just have it be it's own thing.. that would be fine.. but don't tell me it fits in then don't fit it in. Either they're going to ignore that stuff and annoy me, or not have a good show and spend all their time explaining stuff. Eh, it's not as if the Klingons have had a very consistant look through the years so what's the big deal with another? I think it's that these Klingons look like the ones from Into Darkness more than they do the ones from TOS or TNG. That would be no problem at all if the studio meant Discovery to belong to its new Trek timeline (which would also explain all the modern looking tech) but if we try to shoehorn them into the original timeline we need all sorts of explanations that will stretch our willing suspension of disbelief. Kind of like bringing in a never-mentioned human quasi-sister for Spock, really. (Echoes of Sybock... arrrrrrgh....) |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 25, 2017 7:03:07 GMT -5
Eh, it's not as if the Klingons have had a very consistant look through the years so what's the big deal with another? I think it's that these Klingons look like the ones from Into Darkness more than they do the ones from TOS or TNG. That would be no problem at all if the studio meant Discovery to belong to its new Trek timeline (which would also explain all the modern looking tech) but if we try to shoehorn them into the original timeline we need all sorts of explanations that will stretch our willing suspension of disbelief. Kind of like bringing in a never-mentioned human quasi-sister for Spock, really. (Echoes of Sybock... arrrrrrgh....) I never really thought the ones from Into Darkness really looked that out of place either:  But then again I loved Star Trek VI. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 25, 2017 7:59:33 GMT -5
That's a good point, thwhtguardian. ST VI was one of my favourites too. Nevertheless I did get the impression, upon seeing it, that an attempt was made to make them look a little more human when compared to the ST I and ST III Klingons (who seemed to have a trilobite on their forehead and had very heavy eyebrows. The TNG and DS9 Klingons also had a somewhat more outré appearance). In hindsight, though, I must agree with you: these "new" guys aren't all that different from other Klingons we've seen before. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Sept 25, 2017 8:53:23 GMT -5
My thoughts on Discovery from watching only the 1 hour preview on CBS last night. MEH. Looks like it is following in the foot steps of Star Trek Enterprise and continues to rewrite TOS. Michelle Yeoh makes a great Starfleet Captain. Number 1 is very unlikable in every possible way. Adopted sister to Spock? Funny that was never mentioned. Commits mutiny and wants to instigate War. Not very Starfleet or Roddenberry envisioning. Didn't learn a damn thing from being brought up under Vulcan tutelage and Sarek's guidance. Asked if what do if stranded and her 1st response is to give up and decide to break protocol with exposing herself to the inhabitants. Not like her Captain who says I would try to escape. This show is NOTHING like Roddenberry's vision and hope for a better tomorrow. It is mired in TODAY's attitudes and visions.
While they tried to make the Science Officer come across as sympathetic with the explanation of his existence as being prey bred to be cattle for killing it only made him all the more pathetic. IF he was able to overcome his breeding to being Starfleet then he shouldn't come across as being so cowardly. Which in itself is believable in a person but not in someone who has trained to become a Starfleet officer. He wouldn't last long acting that way on missions.
Klingons are now more alien looking why? Because we have the budget. Big deal. Now they all look alike and many looked more mask like than ever. Now Klingon's can look like B5 Narn? Prefer the more human Klingon's of Next Generation as they look more believable and each Klingon is unique and not made from a cookie cutter mold. All the Klingon spoken came across as unrealistic as it felt as none of the actors were actually speaking a language and were more like spouting disconnected words. No emoting or emphasis given to what being said so it all sounded the same. Reminds me of bad high school plays where youth who have no acting skills simply shout their lines out over an audience.
OHHH, look at all of the the darkened sets and back lighting and all the extraneous mechanical/technical designs and styling's trying overly hard to make it all look futuristic and alien and even less like TOS. Is it only 10 years away from Kirk's time and everything must make a giant advance to the simpler style? So glad I won't be watching this...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 11:16:12 GMT -5
It is mired in TODAY's attitudes and visions. and if you were watching the original Trek in the mid to late 60s as it was being aired, you would have said the same thing about it. Roddenberry's vision was a product of the progressive hope for the future of that time period and is of that time period. It was of its time, the problem is most people experienced Trek outside of its context of being in its time. This Trek is of its time just as classic Trek was of its time. That's emulating what Roddenberry did not imitating it. The show is not flawless, but it has potential. It's better than ST: TNG was in its first handful of episodes. I watched the first 3-4 episodes of TNG when it came out and was so turned off I didn't watch another until late in Season 2 and went back to see what I had missed. It took a while for that iteration of Trek to find its footing and I thought it had less potential in its first 3 or 4 episodes than I saw here, so I am hopeful that this show will find its footing too despite some of the flaws and shortcomings in the debut episode. -M |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 25, 2017 11:57:13 GMT -5
It is mired in TODAY's attitudes and visions. and if you were watching the original Trek in the mid to late 60s as it was being aired, you would have said the same thing about it. Roddenberry's vision was a product of the progressive hope for the future of that time period and is of that time period. It was of its time, the problem is most people experienced Trek outside of its context of being in its time. This Trek is of its time just as classic Trek was of its time. That's emulating what Roddenberry did not imitating it. The show is not flawless, but it has potential. It's better than ST: TNG was in its first handful of episodes. I watched the first 3-4 episodes of TNG when it came out and was so turned off I didn't watch another until late in Season 2 and went back to see what I had missed. It took a while for that iteration of Trek to find its footing and I thought it had less potential in its first 3 or 4 episodes than I saw here, so I am hopeful that this show will find its footing too despite some of the flaws and shortcomings in the debut episode. -M I definitely agree with the comparison to the opening of TNG, but I'll take it further and say Discovery was also more promising than the first two pilots for the TOS as well. Sci-fi shows often take a little time to find their footing so the fact that this one had a pretty interesting start gives me hope for a solid series. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Sept 25, 2017 14:06:20 GMT -5
It is mired in TODAY's attitudes and visions. and if you were watching the original Trek in the mid to late 60s as it was being aired, you would have said the same thing about it. Roddenberry's vision was a product of the progressive hope for the future of that time period and is of that time period. It was of its time, the problem is most people experienced Trek outside of its context of being in its time. This Trek is of its time just as classic Trek was of its time. That's emulating what Roddenberry did not imitating it. The show is not flawless, but it has potential. It's better than ST: TNG was in its first handful of episodes. I watched the first 3-4 episodes of TNG when it came out and was so turned off I didn't watch another until late in Season 2 and went back to see what I had missed. It took a while for that iteration of Trek to find its footing and I thought it had less potential in its first 3 or 4 episodes than I saw here, so I am hopeful that this show will find its footing too despite some of the flaws and shortcomings in the debut episode. -M You are correct the mrp. I do see potential but what is frustrating is that they are pushing and selling this as Star Trek but it and Enterprise to a certain extent are retroactively changing what came before them. Now if they were to say TOS is dated and obsolete and NOT canon then maybe it would be okay or if they said this was part of the new "Kelvan" move timeline's history then even that could work. From Next Generation on they had no problems following the Roddenberry style and vision without adhering religiously to it. I can like both Enterprise and Discovery for what they are in being different from the original and yet the original's up through the end of their movie series have ingrained a certain emotional evocation of feeling and style which says Star Trek where these new iterations are not. It may partly be the idea of brand name recognition that is to fault. Corporate wants the name Star Trek because that name sells and carry weight behind it but they only want the name brand wanting it to be their version of "Star Trek" as they choose what they want and don't want from the history. Just because it has the name Star Trek doesn't make it Star Trek to me. This is like novels in a way where the original author has passed away and they continue using the author's name while using multiple ghost writers. Hoping to keep the brand alive and smelling and tasting like the original yet it isn't. Some are so devoted they will blindly follow, some will embrace the newest concept and the original fans will usually move on to something else because the product is no longer what captured their attention. The same can be said for comic books. There is almost no resemblance or enjoyment for many of us who grew up with them because the hero's/villain's and style of story no longer hold any interest for us as they have "evolved" and "updated" over time. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 25, 2017 14:19:09 GMT -5
and if you were watching the original Trek in the mid to late 60s as it was being aired, you would have said the same thing about it. Roddenberry's vision was a product of the progressive hope for the future of that time period and is of that time period. It was of its time, the problem is most people experienced Trek outside of its context of being in its time. This Trek is of its time just as classic Trek was of its time. That's emulating what Roddenberry did not imitating it. The show is not flawless, but it has potential. It's better than ST: TNG was in its first handful of episodes. I watched the first 3-4 episodes of TNG when it came out and was so turned off I didn't watch another until late in Season 2 and went back to see what I had missed. It took a while for that iteration of Trek to find its footing and I thought it had less potential in its first 3 or 4 episodes than I saw here, so I am hopeful that this show will find its footing too despite some of the flaws and shortcomings in the debut episode. -M You are correct the mrp. I do see potential but what is frustrating is that they are pushing and selling this as Star Trek but it and Enterprise to a certain extent are retroactively changing what came before them. Now if they were to say TOS is dated and obsolete and NOT canon then maybe it would be okay or if they said this was part of the new "Kelvan" move timeline's history then even that could work. From Next Generation on they had no problems following the Roddenberry style and vision without adhering religiously to it. I can like both Enterprise and Discovery for what they are in being different from the original and yet the original's up through the end of their movie series have ingrained a certain emotional evocation of feeling and style which says Star Trek where these new iterations are not. It may partly be the idea of brand name recognition that is to fault. Corporate wants the name Star Trek because that name sells and carry weight behind it but they only want the name brand wanting it to be their version of "Star Trek" as they choose what they want and don't want from the history. Just because it has the name Star Trek doesn't make it Star Trek to me. This is like novels in a way where the original author has passed away and they continue using the author's name while using multiple ghost writers. Hoping to keep the brand alive and smelling and tasting like the original yet it isn't. Some are so devoted they will blindly follow, some will embrace the newest concept and the original fans will usually move on to something else because the product is no longer what captured their attention. The same can be said for comic books. There is almost no resemblance or enjoyment for many of us who grew up with them because the hero's/villain's and style of story no longer hold any interest for us as they have "evolved" and "updated" over time. I don't understand that criticism myself, especially since I absolutely remember the same exact criticism used against the latter seasons of TNG, and especially against DS9 and in my mind those seasons and show are some of the very best that Star Trek has ever been. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Sept 25, 2017 14:30:35 GMT -5
and if you were watching the original Trek in the mid to late 60s as it was being aired, you would have said the same thing about it. Roddenberry's vision was a product of the progressive hope for the future of that time period and is of that time period. It was of its time, the problem is most people experienced Trek outside of its context of being in its time. This Trek is of its time just as classic Trek was of its time. That's emulating what Roddenberry did not imitating it. The show is not flawless, but it has potential. It's better than ST: TNG was in its first handful of episodes. I watched the first 3-4 episodes of TNG when it came out and was so turned off I didn't watch another until late in Season 2 and went back to see what I had missed. It took a while for that iteration of Trek to find its footing and I thought it had less potential in its first 3 or 4 episodes than I saw here, so I am hopeful that this show will find its footing too despite some of the flaws and shortcomings in the debut episode. -M You are correct the mrp. I do see potential but what is frustrating is that they are pushing and selling this as Star Trek but it and Enterprise to a certain extent are retroactively changing what came before them. Now if they were to say TOS is dated and obsolete and NOT canon then maybe it would be okay or if they said this was part of the new "Kelvin" move timeline's history then even that could work. From Next Generation on they had no problems following the Roddenberry style and vision without adhering religiously to it. I can like both Enterprise and Discovery for what they are in being different from the original and yet the original's up through the end of their movie series have ingrained a certain emotional evocation of feeling and style which says Star Trek where these new iterations are not. It's like the Nolan Batman movie. I prefer not to have to twist my brain into knots trying to square them with the continuity of the Adam West TV shows. The Star Trek movies are now set in a new timeline; why not do the same on TV? No need to justify tech that looks too recent relative to that of TOS, no need to justify new twists like Spock having a sister, no need to justify the existence of Klingons we've never heard of before, and we get the added bonus of not having to deal with two separate Trek timelines being exploited at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Sept 25, 2017 15:14:04 GMT -5
You are correct the mrp. I do see potential but what is frustrating is that they are pushing and selling this as Star Trek but it and Enterprise to a certain extent are retroactively changing what came before them. Now if they were to say TOS is dated and obsolete and NOT canon then maybe it would be okay or if they said this was part of the new "Kelvin" move timeline's history then even that could work. From Next Generation on they had no problems following the Roddenberry style and vision without adhering religiously to it. I can like both Enterprise and Discovery for what they are in being different from the original and yet the original's up through the end of their movie series have ingrained a certain emotional evocation of feeling and style which says Star Trek where these new iterations are not. It's like the Nolan Batman movie. I prefer not to have to twist my brain into knots trying to square them with the continuity of the Adam West TV shows. The Star Trek movies are now set in a new timeline; why not do the same on TV? No need to justify tech that looks too recent relative to that of TOS, no need to justify new twists like Spock having a sister, no need to justify the existence of Klingons we've never heard of before, and we get the added bonus of not having to deal with two separate Trek timelines being exploited at the same time. I don't see too much reason to justify the tech not matching, that was brought up in Enterprise as well, and my answer was always the tech looks the way it does in TOS because that's what the future looked like in the 60's. However, that look had to change over time as our own technology has outpaced the vision and budget of the creators of the show. To recreate that exact same look would certainly tickle every nostalgic bone in my Star Trek body but it would feel almost anachronistic as a show in the present trying to portray the future. It's the same with the Batman comparison, I don't trip over trying to square the Nolan movies with the Adam West show, or the comics of today with the comics of the past; I simply chalk up stylistic differences to being a product of their time and enjoy the ride. And doing so doesn't mean you can't have a sense of continuity, it just means not getting too picky about it as any long form fictional version of continuity is going to fall apart pretty easily if you look at it too closely. Continuity only exists if you think of it in broad strokes and that's true of all the Trek that went on from the beginning of the show on up to the films, TNG, DS9 and voyager too...and any other fiction like Batman, Superman and Spider-Man as well. |
|
