Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×
fredzfrog

Woo! Star trek Discovery! (spoilers, probably)

Recommended Posts

Hey folks, so, new trek, whats your thoughts?

 

Me? I've missed it a bit. This one looks rather fresh and JJ Abrams style, but aparantly from the original series timeline. I'd put forward that it may be it's own timeline, but who knows.

 

New Klingons! They do look a lot more beastly..

 

Starfleet tech looks nice too.. And the crack of the incoming warps was awesome.

 

Onto procedures tho, why is it always the senior staff/bridge officers who go on away missions. Surely with a complement of about 200 personnel on board they could have a dedicated assault team. Yes yes, I know, peace love and unity, thats the federation. But even tng had section 31.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it's mandatory for any landing party to have an expendable junior crew member who has never been identified in any previous episodes, and will be cannon fodder in any altercation :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not reading this.

I am not reading this.

 

I've got 2 eps here and will get back to this thread once I've at least watched the first.

 

I suppose if it's not up to expectations I should give it a chance. But the ST universe for me has been a big disappointment in recent times.

Not a fan of reboots and rewriting history as it seems the new movies are doing.

Lost interest in ST: Ent after a short time due to it being somewhat of a turd.

 

But on the other hand - ST: TNG - it was a miracle that it survived beyond the first 2 years. There were very few decent episodes surrounded by astonishingly bad ones. The excellent casting (except the series 2 doctor) is probably what kept it treading water until the good storylines started coming through in the 3rd year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't seen it yet. Will grab it when it comes out on bluray.

 

Onto procedures tho, why is it always the senior staff/bridge officers who go on away missions. Surely with a complement of about 200 personnel on board they could have a dedicated assault team. Yes yes, I know, peace love and unity, thats the federation. But even tng had section 31.

 

Always bugged me too, but I accept that that's they way they organise their cast. Senior bridge crew are the people with the most character development, so they do the interaction with the character of the week.

 

In my view it's a decision for a small key cast with a skattering of low development cast. The paycheck and marquee status is tied to the military rank, so the captain needs to be on the away missions.

 

Worked that way in all the ST series, and also in B5, Same thing on many more 'contemporary' shows too (The last ship, some procedurals)

 

More realistic structure was something like SG1 for comparison, and the highest rank (The general or base leader) was part of the supporting ensemble - the main cast were mid-rank personnel who went on missions.

The ranks are probably a bit high, with colonels and majors running and shooting, but they weren't trying to run the country/command and visit ever where shoot everything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some nice space effects.

 

The PC'ness going on is cringeworthy at times though. And please, the most senior human male on the bridge seems to be the shitkicker ensign/helmsman?

The science officer is a wimp, and could become this series version of Nelix (as in annoying).

First ep ends on a cliffhanger so you have to watch the second. I might leave it for tomorrow.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PCness?

 

Crew of USS Discovery:

Captain - Gabriel Lorca, white human male. (Acceptable)
First Officer - Michael Burnham, black human female. (Trying to sneak this through with a man's name. Disgraceful. Black women have no place on a Star Trek bridge)
Science Officer - Saru, alien male. (Probably promoting some sort of nauseating liberal agenda. Who knows what filth they're pushing these days)
Medical Officer - Paul Stamets, white human male. (Acceptab- NO WAIT HE'S A GAY HOMOSEXUAL. Completely unrealistic. No real navy would harbour such a deviant. Not to mention a medical doctor should know better)
Lieutenant - Ash Tyler, brown human male. (Suspicious. Probably just trying to appease all the terrorist apologist fans)
Cadet - Sylvia Tilly, white human female. (Yet ANOTHER woman. This is an insult to real servicemen everywhere)
And this is only the main characters. Imagine what supporting cast horrors await at the planet Transexual in the galaxy Transylvania (not confirmed, but their most likely destination). I hope no children are permitted to view this subversive propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crew of USS Discovery:

 

Either you are joking, or you have never watched any version of Star Trek. I'm assuming the former, but the internet has shown me things you people would never believe. ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't realise he was the Captain - I went in without any spoilering research beforehand.

 

But still, the walking on eggshells is just so blatant at times. FFS, the Klingons on the verge of vapourizing them and they're worried about respecting their "customs".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But still, the walking on eggshells is just so blatant at times. FFS, the Klingons on the verge of vapourizing them and they're worried about respecting their "customs"...

Somewhat (!) off-topic and will probably end up going to Hell in a handcart for this, but seriously pondering translating "Klingon" to "Muslim"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sure... but I suppose it is Star Trek and it's virtually always been a vehicle of the idealism of the day.

 

Just in this case it seems to overshadow just about everything else going on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spoilers for something like Star Trek? i guess ive never associated it with plot twists and big reveals that could be spoiled. well, i suppose there were some killer TNG and Voyager eps that couldve been ruined. but the joy of those shows was in seeing how the team approached a problem — ie. it was mostly in the process itself, which is largely unspoilerable.

 

 

i dunno, the whole franchise seems old hat to me now. it always verged on the intolerably twee, and lacked any balls. i do want something with a large dose of idealism, but i dont know if i can go back to that. and whilst the JJ Abrams shit has more verve, its flashy and trashy, and lacking in brains. so i am finding it hard to muster any enthusiasm for this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The franchise has a lot of value but that counts against it in a way. At least it's not gone the ridiculous path of Terminator (yet). But the reboot and rewriting of accepted history has been annoying this last 15 years.

Personally I'd have preferred if they'd not had Ent and continued the existing storyline with something like "Academy" - even if it did mean something like Wesley Crusher as an SFA professor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Crew of USS Discovery:

Either you are joking, or you have never watched any version of Star Trek. I'm assuming the former, but the internet has shown me things you people would never believe. ;p

 

 

As silly as it is, my post was heavily inspired by some real discussions happening on Star Trek fan forums.
My actual thoughts on the prologue (first two episodes):
- High production values, everything looks great.
- Some pacing issues, clunky writing, and poor dialogue (all pretty standard for a Trek series, though, to be fair).
- Characterisation is pretty bland for what appears to be a story-driven narrative.
It's only the beginning of the series, though. There's some good ideas and the Federation-Klingon War (*SPOILER!*) should be interesting to watch. However, if they fail to breathe life into any of the characters over the next couple of episodes I'll struggle to stick with it.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The casting to me seems like they're diversity target try-hards.

 

I suppose we should bring TNG in - at the time it started Levar Burton (LaForge) was probably the highest profile actor, previously being on Roots, and I think Gates McFadden and Michael Dorn had a few minor parts on serial dramas (ignoring John DeLancy who was not a regular but was very well known at the time from his long run on Days of Our Lives).

 

Just whether the character development occurs I agree might mean whether the show lives or dies. IMO Patrick Stewart almost solely kept TNG afloat during the dud eps on the first 2 years, though the attribution there is probably way more towards acting quality than character development. ST: Ent was a fail IMO because it lacked both.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ST: Ent was a fail IMO because it lacked both.

...True. Trekkies will stand for an awful lot of bullshit if there's just the rare flower, though, which is why it lasted as long as it did (4 years?). IMHO, what killed it stone dead was Scott Dracula Bakula. That plank of wood would lose an acting contest to Keanu Reeves - he has not been in anything that lasted since Quantum Leap, and that one was kept in spite of him by interesting stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The casting to me seems like they're diversity target try-hards.

 

I suppose we should bring TNG in - at the time it started Levar Burton (LaForge) was probably the highest profile actor, previously being on Roots, and I think Gates McFadden and Michael Dorn had a few minor parts on serial dramas (ignoring John DeLancy who was not a regular but was very well known at the time from his long run on Days of Our Lives).

 

Just whether the character development occurs I agree might mean whether the show lives or dies. IMO Patrick Stewart almost solely kept TNG afloat during the dud eps on the first 2 years, though the attribution there is probably way more towards acting quality than character development. ST: Ent was a fail IMO because it lacked both.

 

Doesn't bother me either way, as far as casting diversity goes. Black, alien, transgender, whatever - all that stuff is of little significance compared to overall personality and actions. Picard isn't much-loved merely because he's white and a man, after all. He'd be just as popular if, all else being the same, the character was Asian and a woman. Having a "diverse" cast (ie. not all white men), though, has always been a theme of Star Trek - and sci-fi in general. Sexuality is just another facet of that but similarly doesn't substitute for proper characterisation by itself.

 

ST:TNG was certainly carried heavily by Patrick Stewart, but also had an easier time due to its episodic nature. The characters themselves were less important than the fanciful tale being told, from start to finish, during the length of a single episode. ST:D (unfortunate acronym) is going for a series-long story arc instead so character development will be critical to its success. There's huge potential here: could be the best Trek series ever, or the worst.

 

I haven't seen ST:E, so can't comment on that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Patrick's delivery could not sustain us / me over the consistent use of the holo-deck to make the story for most of the latter episodes. As with most long running shows the writers get stale. Scott and his dog that seemed to live permanently in Scott's tiny cell of a room annoyed me rather a lot. Such total lack of proper care for the animal !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog? TNG had Data's cat Spot as the only recurring animal that I recall. The hilarious thing though is that they fucked up and we ended up with a transgender cat.

 

The writing in TNG - IMO some of the best episodes were in the last series. Examples being Descent 2, Gambit (2 parts), Parallels, Pegasus, Lower Decks, Genesis, Preemptive Strike and All Good Things. 9 outstanding from a series of 25 isn't too bad.

At the other end, you'd be hard pressed to find 9 decent episodes in the first 3 years (OK, I'll give it a go).

 

Series 1 - The Naked Now, Where no-one has Gone Before, Datalore.

Series 2 - Contagion, Time Squared, Q Who.

Series 3 - Booby Trap, The Enemy, Yesterday's Enterprise, Hollow Pursuits, Best of Both Worlds 1.

 

 

OK, I found 11 and this is going on distant memory but IMO the heyday of TNG was the end of S3 right through till the end. One of few serialised TV shows without a jumping the shark moment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Patrick's delivery could not sustain us / me over the consistent use of the holo-deck to make the story for most of the latter episodes. As with most long running shows the writers get stale. Scott and his dog that seemed to live permanently in Scott's tiny cell of a room annoyed me rather a lot. Such total lack of proper care for the animal !

 

Yeah, I never liked the Holodeck. You've already got a show set in a fantastical sci-fi universe with limitless possibilities - and to then have so many stories set in a magical Daydream Land safely on board the ship where nothing has any consequence. Mind-boggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog?

ST: Ent. Commander Archer has a pet pooch on the ship. In all the episodes it barely leaves his room. It used to annoy me. Archer was sooo into doing the right thing

in every other facet of his existence ... but he never seemed to take his dog for walkies !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - I thought you were referring to TNG in the whole post... shows how little I watched or remember Ent. I didn't even realise he had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO Patrick Stewart almost solely kept TNG afloat during the dud eps on the first 2 years, though the attribution there is probably way more towards acting quality than character development.

when that show started, i wasnt ready to accept him as the captain of the Enterprise. i was like, "who the fuck is this stodgy old bald cunt?" this guy is the new Shatman?

 

but yeah, he quickly destroyed that impression, and carried the show for a long time.

 

 

Trekkies will stand for an awful lot of bullshit if there's just the rare flower, though, which is why it [sT:Ent] lasted as long as it did (4 years?). IMHO, what killed it stone dead was Scott Dracula Bakula. That plank of wood would lose an acting contest to Keanu Reeves - he has not been in anything that lasted since Quantum Leap, and that one was kept in spite of him by interesting stories.

 

so true. count Bakula sucked the life out of what little it had going for it.

 

that show was like an aberration that transpired on an alternate time line of television history. it never happened, did it? no, it didnt.

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Episode 3. The story kicks off and I found it pretty enthralling (surprising, since I'm not much of a Star Trek fan). The characters are a lot more interesting than those of the prologue episodes, too - even the ones carried across.

 

Mystery, humour, horror, action - if they can keep this up, I'll definitely be sticking with it. I enjoyed this episode alone more than either of those JJ Abrams movies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×