BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Off Topic and Forum Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: Tymers Realm on 18 May 2017, 12:33:55

Title: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 18 May 2017, 12:33:55
And here it is...  (link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxe_ugmIVM))
Oh dear gawd...

I'm grateful We'll only have to see the pilot aired on actual TV.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Sharpnel on 18 May 2017, 12:53:09
Well, the ships is a dramatic improvement over what was revealed previously.

However, WTF did they do with the Klingons? They couldn't stick with the Next Gen look, they had to go even uglier. They look more like the Uruk-hai from LotR than they do like Klingons.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Clangador on 18 May 2017, 14:11:34
I'm keeping my fingers crossed, but I'm not optimistic.  :(
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Mech42ace on 18 May 2017, 14:39:14
I want to be excited, I mean it's more Star Trek to watch, but every time I get excited I remember the paywall it'll be behind, and I think of how they are blatantly exploiting the fans that they do have, instead of making new fans. It just seems like a money grab to me, and I just can't get past that.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: elf25s on 18 May 2017, 14:54:42
ok...why do i hear old trekkies chanting...burn it burn it burn it with fire!

as far as i am concerned lets see what it does before i break out my torch....
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 18 May 2017, 15:39:24
ok...why do i hear old trekkies chanting...burn it burn it burn it with fire!

as far as i am concerned lets see what it does before i break out my torch....
Only for the pilot. After that you have to pay for CBS Access to see the rest of the episodes.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 18 May 2017, 16:31:56
It looks like movie level production, and I have a feeling it takes place in the alternate JJ verse.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 May 2017, 16:53:42
It looks like movie level production, and I have a feeling it takes place in the alternate JJ verse.

It's confirmed as in the Prime universe.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Ruger on 18 May 2017, 20:38:03
From what I saw, the ship doesn't look near as bad as it did before...if that was the Discovery...

But I agree on the Klingons...

Ruger
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Atlas3060 on 18 May 2017, 22:55:01
It's confirmed as in the Prime universe.
Prime timeline, but seems like JJ (Kelvin) Klingons.
I'm not going to say "burn it with torches", but neither will I go out of my way to watch this honestly.

Let the new generation of Trekkies have this one. Have fun folks.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 19 May 2017, 00:26:05
From the sound of it, they wanted a Klingon look that was a hybrid of the Original Series and Next Generation.  I'm...not sure they succeeded.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: YingJanshi on 19 May 2017, 01:04:21
I wish I could get excited about this...aesthetics aside, the whole paywall thing is a dealbreaker for me. I just don't see it carrying their streaming service like they're hoping it will. Maybe I'm wrong, but from every Trek fan I've talked to, it's the same for them. Which is a shame, because if it doesn't work like CBS is hoping, it'll be a long time before they greenlight another series for the franchise.

It does look cool, I'll give them that though. And having Michelle Yeoh in a recurring role is great. (Would watch it just for her scenes to be honest.) Did anyone else get the vibe that the captain of the Discovery is half-Vulcan? And yeah, it does appear that someone got in some good thwacks with the ugly-stick on the Klingons. :P
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 May 2017, 01:42:06
Prime timeline, but seems like JJ (Kelvin) Klingons.
I'm not going to say "burn it with torches", but neither will I go out of my way to watch this honestly.

Let the new generation of Trekkies have this one. Have fun folks.

It's going to be on Netflix here, so I'll watch it.

At this point, I have to say I really don't care about visual incongruities between this and TOS/Enterprise.  Trying to tie a prequel to how a TV show looked 50 years ago is a recipe for disaster in terms of mass appeal.  Use the Macross justification if you must - everything is a fictionalisation of "true" events, and depending on budget and when it was made determine how things looks.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Atlas3060 on 20 May 2017, 14:41:57
It's going to be on Netflix here, so I'll watch it.

At this point, I have to say I really don't care about visual incongruities between this and TOS/Enterprise.  Trying to tie a prequel to how a TV show looked 50 years ago is a recipe for disaster in terms of mass appeal.
I dunno, if you toned down the lens flare and put some colors in that weren't "Apple Store White", the look from the first reboot movie worked for me as a decent prequel. Am I asking for old sets that look 40+ years old? No, but with budgets and technology we have now there can be a sense of something close to a prequel and still look good.

Take The Force Awakens for example. A sequel to the old Star Wars: yet in terms of design, focus, and colors it still felt like it was part of a Universe that was created decades ago.

Now this show may do something like that, but from what I can tell the Klingons just don't look good...that's all.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Øystein on 20 May 2017, 15:35:54
My only comment about this is:

GIMME GIMME GIMME!
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 20 May 2017, 16:37:58
I dunno, if you toned down the lens flare and put some colors in that weren't "Apple Store White", the look from the first reboot movie worked for me as a decent prequel. Am I asking for old sets that look 40+ years old? No, but with budgets and technology we have now there can be a sense of something close to a prequel and still look good.

Take The Force Awakens for example. A sequel to the old Star Wars: yet in terms of design, focus, and colors it still felt like it was part of a Universe that was created decades ago.

Now this show may do something like that, but from what I can tell the Klingons just don't look good...that's all.

I think there's a big difference between matching a low-budget TV series from 50 years ago and making it look good in these hi-def days, and doing the same for a 40 year-old movie that spent the bulk of its budget on effects.

Though I do agree that the MacBook Enterprise was a good update of the look and feel of the original series, that Discovery isn't doing the same is nowhere near a dealbreaker for me.  If it's good, and it fits the Trek idiom well enough, I'll be happy.  The visuals looks more than competant, even if they don't match what's gone before particularly well.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: mikecj on 20 May 2017, 16:55:41
The bridge looked huge; I'd have thought something closer to the Franklin/NX01 would have been more likely
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 20 May 2017, 18:42:53
I'll watch a couple episodes, to give it a chance, but frankly my opinion at this point is MEH. I know they've said it's prime timeline, but the appearance gives more of a JJ vibe. Personally, I'd call it JJ-verse and avoid much of the 'burn it with fire' crowd. YMMV.

The ship shown in the trailer is probably the Shenzhou (sp?) not the Discovery.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: I am Belch II on 20 May 2017, 19:40:06
The previews made it look a lot better then what I was told about it before. I still don't like the fact that I have to pay a whole different system to watch it.
The first season went from 13 to 15 episodes.
Title: Re: First look at Star Trek: Discovery...
Post by: scatcat on 20 May 2017, 20:06:49
This is all flash and no soul.

This series is clearly relying on special effects to hide a lack of story. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Title: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 26 May 2017, 23:08:59
They just released another trailer on youtube for Discovery few days ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxe_ugmIVM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dxe_ugmIVM)

Essentially you get fuller feel for everything.  The new trailer shows a ship (It may not be Discovery) show casing the main character, the initial brush up with the Klingons and so forth.

It looks sharp. It is set 10 years before Kirk so i have reservations about it.  So i'm just treating it as a revision universe. It's too hightech and feel for it too different now from the classic television series. Understandably so, non-trekie may not want to see 1960s style television show that maybe more primitive than what they've seen in the threaters.

So if viewable i'll see it.   I don't think CBS's writes came up with retro-series i'd be die hard for, but trailer looks sharp.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 27 May 2017, 09:24:36
That's supposed to be the Shenzou in the trailer, based on her captain.  We'll see what happens to Disco as far as what the ship finally looks like.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 27 May 2017, 10:21:00
Yea, I posted that trailer here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57532.0) and...  I'm really disappointed.

If it was a post- ST:Nemesis series, I might be more open about it. But as a pre-ToS series, no thanks. And it isn't about the characters, it's the visuals. They are totally off mark that close to ToS.

As I mentioned in my thread's OP:
I'm grateful We'll only have to see the pilot aired on actual TV.

Since it's gonna be behind CBS' paywall (US) or Netflix (Everywhere else) beyond the pilot, if it seriously tanks (and I feel it will...) the only ones out are those who paid for CBS All-access.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 May 2017, 11:51:27
Yea, I posted that trailer here (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=57532.0) and...  I'm really disappointed.

If it was a post- ST:Nemesis series, I might be more open about it. But as a pre-ToS series, no thanks. And it isn't about the characters, it's the visuals. They are totally off mark that close to ToS.

As I mentioned in my thread's OP:
Since it's gonna be behind CBS' paywall (US) or Netflix (Everywhere else) beyond the pilot, if it seriously tanks (and I feel it will...) the only ones out are those who paid for CBS All-access.

Im going to watch it for my Star Trek liking, but I wish it would move on in the time line where ST10 left off.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 27 May 2017, 11:58:37
Im going to watch it for my Star Trek liking, but I wish it would move on in the time line where ST10 left off.
Funny that, a fan-made film came out before the kestopo rules CBS/Paramount came in record things.  It's called Star Trek: Renegade.  The trailer was awesome.  My father was showing off his sony player/internet hook up and came apon it.  I was bad mouthing the video for Discovery, then we saw that from 2015.  It's leagues better in sense it's intouch with the what had been established before.  Alot of old school actors and it was produced by Tim Russ. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 May 2017, 15:23:33
IT almost seemed to me that the Orville trailer seemed more like Star Trek to me then the Discovery trailer.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 27 May 2017, 16:29:49
Orville seems like an attempt to capture Galaxy Quest and not quite getting there.  But I'll watch it :)

But I'm revved up for Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 27 May 2017, 16:44:52
https://youtu.be/3I3y3_QmBsQ (https://youtu.be/3I3y3_QmBsQ)

This video gives a really good rundown on the show news (both rumor and press releases). And also gives a good bit about where Axanar fits in. (Yes, that production strayed too far, but the only reason CBS/Paramount came down so hard was because the new show was in development by that point. It doesn't bode well when fans are more excited about a fan-made production rather than a new official one.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 27 May 2017, 17:07:21
It would have avoided a lot of the fan hate that STB got last spring had TPTB just bought out Axanar (rights, story ideas) but nooooo, they had to be [Censored] about it. I could give two farts and a shift of my buttocks about STD atm... yes, it looks beautiful, but I fall back on old Navy lessons learned. Sure she's a cutie but those STD's the HM's warned us about during the port brief...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 27 May 2017, 17:37:36
If I watch it at all, it will be to see Michelle Yeoh as a star ship captain.  I'm using her image for a JumpShip captain in a game I used to run here.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 27 May 2017, 20:12:02
the only reason CBS/Paramount came down so hard was because the new show was in development by that point

No, it's not.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Feenix74 on 27 May 2017, 20:41:17
Im going to watch it for my Star Trek liking, but I wish it would move on in the time line where ST10 left off.

We are waiting for the release of Wraith of ilKhan before they can advance the timeline  ^-^
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 28 May 2017, 14:42:44
No, it's not.

Oh don't quash their trekkie nerdrage with such things as fact about copyright, trademarks and the obligation to stop infrinctions to keep your rights.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 28 May 2017, 15:21:28
It would have avoided a lot of the fan hate that STB got last spring had TPTB just bought out Axanar (rights, story ideas) but nooooo, they had to be [Censored] about it. I could give two farts and a shift of my buttocks about STD atm... yes, it looks beautiful, but I fall back on old Navy lessons learned. Sure she's a cutie but those STD's the HM's warned us about during the port brief...

As someone whom I suspect has been a Star Trek fan longer than some of them have been alive, I'm really not getting the Star Trek Beyond hate.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 28 May 2017, 17:39:15
Oh don't quash their trekkie nerdrage with such things as fact about copyright, trademarks and the obligation to stop infrinctions to keep your rights.

Oh, CBS/Paramount had every right to step in. What's unfortunate about this whole debacle is that they could have protected their copyright and still earned the good graces of the fans. Because, well, they may own the IP, but it is the fans that make it profitable. Drive away fans, and it will won't be profitable to put any work into the franchise.

I don't really care about the Axanar movie one way or the other (nor do I really care about any of the other fan productions). But, it should be noted that up until this point CBS has given tacit approval for all of them. And in the case of Axanar, the team behind it had been in contact with multiple people at CBS (including executives) and all such contacts had been positive. The Axanar crew had even offered to pay any "profits" made to CBS. That was refused. Even JJ Abrams was trying to get CBS to drop the suit.

Anyway, the heart of the matter to me isn't whether Axanar went to far (which they clearly did, and have acknowledged such), but rather the way CBS reacted with their a"guidelines"; so how does one protect your intellectual property without alienating the fans that buy it from you. Because yes, legally you own it, but everyone that enjoys it, owns their experience of it.

Let's take another example: Topps sends a C&D letter to Amazon to take down all of the unlicensed BattleTech fiction from the Kindle store (yes, there actually is quite a bit on there, don't believe me, I'll PM you links), which is quite within their rights and duty to do so. But on top of that, they then say that if you want to write BattleTech fanfiction it can be no longer than a single paragraph and you are not allowed to upload it anywhere online. How quickly will that alienate the fans?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 28 May 2017, 18:10:23
Oh, CBS/Paramount had every right to step in. What's unfortunate about this whole debacle is that they could have protected their copyright and still earned the good graces of the fans. Because, well, they may own the IP, but it is the fans that make it profitable. Drive away fans, and it will won't be profitable to put any work into the franchise.

I don't really care about the Axanar movie one way or the other (nor do I really care about any of the other fan productions). But, it should be noted that up until this point CBS has given tacit approval for all of them. And in the case of Axanar, the team behind it had been in contact with multiple people at CBS (including executives) and all such contacts had been positive. The Axanar crew had even offered to pay any "profits" made to CBS. That was refused. Even JJ Abrams was trying to get CBS to drop the suit.

Anyway, the heart of the matter to me isn't whether Axanar went to far (which they clearly did, and have acknowledged such), but rather the way CBS reacted with their a"guidelines"; so how does one protect your intellectual property without alienating the fans that buy it from you. Because yes, legally you own it, but everyone that enjoys it, owns their experience of it.

Let's take another example: Topps sends a C&D letter to Amazon to take down all of the unlicensed BattleTech fiction from the Kindle store (yes, there actually is quite a bit on there, don't believe me, I'll PM you links), which is quite within their rights and duty to do so. But on top of that, they then say that if you want to write BattleTech fanfiction it can be no longer than a single paragraph and you are not allowed to upload it anywhere online. How quickly will that alienate the fans?

Axanar is a case of us having a good thing, and then one guy takes it too far and that good thing gets taken away.  Paramount had gotten wise to keeping the fans on-side in the 90s when they stopped threatening to sue people for making websites with the LCARS look and feel, and they were turning a blind eye to fan films.

But Axanar changed that because Jon Peters decided to do two things - he was selling Axanar branded merchandise like model kits and coffee; and he publicly stated that the studio they put together to make Axanar would be maintained and used for commercial productions.  In short, he was personally profiting from Paramount's IP.

They literally had no choice but to act.  And maybe their guidelines are excessively harsh, but the message Jon Peters sent to Paramount was if they gave fandom an inch, eventually someone in fandom would take a mile.

I'm of the opinion that any fan who's mad at Paramount needs to turn their ire in a different direction.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 28 May 2017, 18:24:17
Yeah, Axanar being turned into a commercial for a new production company is probably a bridge too far.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 28 May 2017, 18:29:38
Well, come what may with Discovery, I'm currently watching another prequel series...my new complete series boxed set of Star Trek: Enterprise...just finished off the first season...soon to start into the second...

That gives me complete collections of TOS (remastered), TAS, DS9, and now STE. Only have the first season of Voyager though, and some of the mini-collections (Klingons, Time Travel, Captains' Picks) for stuff for TNG, but those have a lot of my favorite episodes for TNG...I do have most of the movies too though...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: elf25s on 29 May 2017, 18:37:28
sorry just  a feeling it will not live too long...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 29 May 2017, 19:55:52
I was under the impression they were doing one season. Next season, new characters, ship, storyline, and era.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 30 May 2017, 16:14:52
So it seems this show will be a reboot of sorts: because it isn't set in the "Prime" universe, nor in the "Abramsverse", but in its own new continuity. All apparently because the writers don't want to be constrained by existing continuity.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 30 May 2017, 16:23:23
So it seems this show will be a reboot of sorts: because it isn't set in the "Prime" universe, nor in the "Abramsverse", but in its own new continuity. All apparently because the writers don't want to be constrained by existing continuity.
I have to agree with the new continuity thing.  If the ownership agrees its new retake of the universe then i think it will be accepted.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 30 May 2017, 16:52:20
So it seems this show will be a reboot of sorts: because it isn't set in the "Prime" universe, nor in the "Abramsverse", but in its own new continuity. All apparently because the writers don't want to be constrained by existing continuity.

Just curious, where has this been stated?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 30 May 2017, 17:52:55
Just curious, where has this been stated?

It hasn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 30 May 2017, 18:23:11
In which case could we not post rumor and innuendo that has no attributable source that contradicts previously published statements from those involved in producing the show as if it were known facts?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 22 June 2017, 09:43:53
More details on the series. (http://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2017/06/21/star-trek-discovery-jason-isaacs-captain-lorca/)

Initially stuff in the video are precursors to Discovery getting started.  The main character still not the lead but she is the "captain" of a ship from the way it's reading out. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 22 June 2017, 11:00:38
More details on the series. (http://comicbook.com/tv-shows/2017/06/21/star-trek-discovery-jason-isaacs-captain-lorca/)

Initially stuff in the video are precursors to Discovery getting started.  The main character still not the lead but she is the "captain" of a ship from the way it's reading out. 

Um, sorry? Not sure I understand...
I thought the lead was the First officer of the Discovery?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 22 June 2017, 12:33:23
Um, sorry? Not sure I understand...
I thought the lead was the First officer of the Discovery?
Sorry i got confused about way the article initially described it.  I thought they were going change the roll of the XO as she was the executive officer of the ship we see in the promos but then get's her own ship later. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 June 2017, 16:31:58
No she isnt the Captain. So the star of the show isnt the Captain of the ship. Different.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 22 June 2017, 17:35:32
Sorry i got confused about way the article initially described it.  I thought they were going change the roll of the XO as she was the executive officer of the ship we see in the promos but then get's her own ship later. 

Ah. Yeah, the trailer does tend to make it sound that way doesn't it? Maybe she will be series end.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 23 June 2017, 00:38:10
So it seems this show will be a reboot of sorts: because it isn't set in the "Prime" universe, nor in the "Abramsverse", but in its own new continuity. All apparently because the writers don't want to be constrained by existing continuity.

Seriously?  I hadn't heard that... hmm...

Well, I can hold out for The Orville then.

Paul
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 23 June 2017, 01:04:58
Seriously?  I hadn't heard that... hmm...

Well, I can hold out for The Orville then.

Paul

That's nothing official mind you, just my interpretation of everything I've heard and read so far.
(And yeah, in hindsight I should have made that more clear.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 23 June 2017, 05:18:55
Yeah, they're saying it's in the Prime universe, but that does not prevent them from rebooting TOS, TNG, etc. anyway.

I dunno about this particular show. The trailers just aren't gripping me. Show me the damn ships!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 23 June 2017, 09:41:59
I'm treating this as reboot despite what they said.  Trailer alone was bit off for pre-TOS era.

Classic Star Trek Universe ended when movie reboots got going.  I honestly don't think anyone at CBS/Paramount cares at this point how they present Star Trek just as long as they make their money from it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 23 June 2017, 09:53:31
Oh hey I forgot about this one earlier....

Look at the new uniforms. See how they all have the Starfleet emblem that everyone from Kirk's crew up to DS9/Voyager wore (looks kinda like an off kilter arrowhead)?

Yeeeeaaah...there's one problem with that: in Kirk's time that was the emblem for the Enterprise only, not Starfleet as a whole. (See, back then each ship had their own emblem.) It was TNG that made it the emblem for Starfleet as a whole.

And if Discovery is set 10 years before Kirk, then either April or Pike are in charge of the Enterprise (which means the Enterprise is in service and so the Discovery can't be using the same emblem as a ship emblem...)

I know that's a tiny nitpicking thing...but it just shows nobody is doing their homework...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 June 2017, 11:38:16
Oh hey I forgot about this one earlier....

Look at the new uniforms. See how they all have the Starfleet emblem that everyone from Kirk's crew up to DS9/Voyager wore (looks kinda like an off kilter arrowhead)?

Yeeeeaaah...there's one problem with that: in Kirk's time that was the emblem for the Enterprise only, not Starfleet as a whole. (See, back then each ship had their own emblem.) It was TNG that made it the emblem for Starfleet as a whole.

And if Discovery is set 10 years before Kirk, then either April or Pike are in charge of the Enterprise (which means the Enterprise is in service and so the Discovery can't be using the same emblem as a ship emblem...)

I know that's a tiny nitpicking thing...but it just shows nobody is doing their homework...
was it really explicitly stated within the shows that the emblem was only for the Enterprise in Kirk's time?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 23 June 2017, 12:19:17
was it really explicitly stated within the shows that the emblem was only for the Enterprise in Kirk's time?

Yes. every other starfleet fleet crew had their own ship's emblem on their uniform. Each ship, startbase (and even I believe shuttle) has their own emblem. Sort of like each of the NASA mission patches.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Assignment_patch (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Assignment_patch)

(It was Star Trek: The Motion Picture that adopted that Delta Shield as the emblem for the entire organization.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 23 June 2017, 12:53:58
was it really explicitly stated within the shows that the emblem was only for the Enterprise in Kirk's time?
Old canon it was.  When you see crews of other Starships, you saw completely different insignias on their uniforms.

When the original series movies happened, i don't think it was said (i forget the source it's been decades since i read/heard of it) but because of the success of Enterprise's original 5 year mission and things she did during it. Her ship emblem became emblem of star fleet itself.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 23 June 2017, 13:44:57
Old canon it was.  When you see crews of other Starships, you saw completely different insignias on their uniforms.

When the original series movies happened, i don't think it was said (i forget the source it's been decades since i read/heard of it) but because of the success of Enterprise's original 5 year mission and things she did during it. Her ship emblem became emblem of star fleet itself.

Though, it should be pointed out that there were a couple times where uniforms were recycled. (Crewmen of other ships using Enterprise uniforms). But any command officers shown always had the emblem of their ship on their uniform.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 25 June 2017, 13:52:07
This belongs here. 

(http://i.imgur.com/7q2LZ5w.jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 June 2017, 15:27:15
The more I see things and trailers about Discovery....it almost makes not want to watch it. So many spoilers and fluff about the show and what its going to be is starting to turn me off on it. I think I will need to live in a bubble when it comes to Discovery until Sept when it comes out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 25 June 2017, 18:02:50
Unless they change their plans, i suspect we will only see the pilot episode and it's gone to CBS-Exclusive land.

So there will likely be no worries having watch it if it's not something that good.

I think if it were different era or new version of the universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 26 June 2017, 00:33:29
I'm with you Belch. Discovery just isn't rustling my jimmies in all the right ways.  I'm not like "Yay new Star Trek soon!"  I'm more "Okay so when's The Orville out?"
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 June 2017, 11:35:19
I'm with you Belch. Discovery just isn't rustling my jimmies in all the right ways.  I'm not like "Yay new Star Trek soon!"  I'm more "Okay so when's The Orville out?"


I have seen so much taking apart Discovery on Youtube and just trying to avoid it is like going thru a minefield or the closest non warfare version of it. They take apart the uniforms, the ships, the Klingons, the computer displays, the transporter, to the color on the walls. Its just to much to me. Im glad they have a great cast and actors that want to be apart of the show form guest stars to other stuff. I hope this show lasts for a couple seasons and I hope Orville lasts a couple of seasons also.
When I saw the previews of Orville and Discovery I was blown away by both of them.
The Orville seemed more Star Trek to me then Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: William J. Pennington on 26 June 2017, 21:26:15
This show already has a 'soon to be cancelled' vibe. I think Orville will eat its llunch...if Discovery actually makes it to screen in 2018.

I think CBS would be better off cancelling it now, and starting anew. Scrap the idea of a show in this setting. Go back to  last point in the timeline by a next gen show/movie, jump ahead  20 or so years, and do a general release series (or at least put it on something other than that stupid CBS paid service). Stop retconning, stop time travelling, stop prequeling, stop tripping over the feet of continuity.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 26 June 2017, 23:15:49
Prepare for major interpersonal drama!

http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/news/a55868/star-trek-discovery-changes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 26 June 2017, 23:35:54
Meh...wasn't that rule already basically broken by TNG?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 27 June 2017, 01:12:28
Meh...wasn't that rule already basically broken by TNG?

Sure was, on several occasions.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 27 June 2017, 01:24:47
Meh...wasn't that rule already basically broken by TNG?

Not by conflict within the crew itself, Pulaski aside.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 27 June 2017, 01:36:58
I think Orville will eat its llunch...

Ha ha. The Orville has the stink of a one-season wonder (if it lasts that long) all over it. It's going to flop and flop hard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 15 July 2017, 12:42:46
Ha ha. The Orville has the stink of a one-season wonder (if it lasts that long) all over it. It's going to flop and flop hard.
I think it's a better question of which one is going to flop harder-the Orville's got a fairly (relative) low budget look compared to Discovery, but it's not taking an unwiped dump on the setting, continuity, etc. while claiming not to.

let's take a look at some things...

1. Marching Band uniforms-Discovery's crew is wearing them.  Fandom for decades h as managed period-setting accuracy with a tiny fraction of the budget CBS lathered on to this.  Goldshirt/blueshirt/redshirt, they're identifiable, the 23rd century Starfleet uniform even got a nice update from the Abrams movies while retaining the basics and key appearance.  the 'look' of Starfleet in that era is a known factor.

2. How ****** hard is it to do a Klingon?? not difficult. Fans  have been doing the costuming and makeup for years on a fraction of the budget, and it doesn't require forty pounds of latex and foam rubber.  Somehow, CBS needed "Klingon" that can't turn their heads, facially emote, etc. etc. because of the sheer weight and complexity of the prosthetics.  Watch the (brief)) appearance of ST:D's Klingons-Not Michael dorn, or Hertzler, or anyone could make that look like anything more 'real' than a poorly constructed muppet or guy in a rubber suit-complete with a zipper up the back to the scalp.  I feel sorry for the stuntmen stuffed into those getups.

3. Ship shots.  CBS rolled out t heir ship-shot, and it got panned, hard.  recycling the concept art from Phase II, they forgot why that concept was abandoned in the first place. It looks AWKWARD.

4. Marketing Buzz choices.  Shows go to demographic  pandering when the people running them know they have all hat and no cattle.  the whole "Look at how many social justice boxes we ticked!" is pretty much an advertising that the writing for the show is going to suck. because it shows where the studio actually  put it's priorities.  Details like who's sleeping with whom are things you slide in as the  show progresses and elements like character development take form.  It's the conflict of "Show me don't tell me".  CBS chose to tell instead of show...

contrast wth Orville:

We find out in the trailer that the captain is the captain because they need BODIES.  the token alien urinates once a year, and the inbuilt conflict is shown, rather than told between the cap and his exec. and it's made absolutely clear from the first second onward, that this is supposed to be a comedy, so gags and hints of gags are immediate and apparent.  My own p rediction is that the Orville won't make it a full season, but it'll still have a better reaction than ST:D has.  Why?

1. cost.  even in the  trailer, Orville's production team focused their budget on things needed for the show.  The stiff alien can still emote, still lets the actor act, the uniforms are simple enough, and it's not re-visioning the asthetics of a known show and period.  someone act ually thought about the layout of the bridge, etc.
2. Teaser's clean, indicates the showrunner knows what he's doing.  Yes, Orville is a riff off of Galaxy-Quest, it's a riff off of Star Trek, and it's shamelessly so, but they managed to get a more trek-like look than the Trek series CBS is putting forward.
3. "Show me don't tell me"-not once in the trailer does the voiceover say "Comedy" or "Hilarious", no laugh track was evident, etc. etc.



Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 15 July 2017, 14:09:17
*shrug*

Their show, their universe. They are free to do whatever they want with it (and am it seems).
I just don't get the nerdrage and sense that you are *entitled* to make them follow some of the horrid stuff that came in the previous 50 years.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: glitterboy2098 on 15 July 2017, 14:18:56
2. How ****** hard is it to do a Klingon?? not difficult. Fans  have been doing the costuming and makeup for years on a fraction of the budget, and it doesn't require forty pounds of latex and foam rubber.  Somehow, CBS needed "Klingon" that can't turn their heads, facially emote, etc. etc. because of the sheer weight and complexity of the prosthetics.  Watch the (brief)) appearance of ST:D's Klingons-Not Michael dorn, or Hertzler, or anyone could make that look like anything more 'real' than a poorly constructed muppet or guy in a rubber suit-complete with a zipper up the back to the scalp.  I feel sorry for the stuntmen stuffed into those getups.

not to mention we have two canon prime timeline klingon makeups that have been proven using modern shows. you have the ridge head klingons from TMP onwards, and you have the "human augment" klingons from TOS, which got great makeup work in ENT and showed that with the right costuming you can still tell they are klingons. and by canon both should be around in the timeframe of discovery. Discovery has the potential to give us a look into the klingon society between ENT and TOS, show us the social struggles between the ridge and human type klingons, and why the human types were all we saw in TOS.

instead they went with these.. things. apparently just to reuse the abrams-verse makeup that was widely panned by even the abrams-verse fans, and was a huge continuity problem for those films as well. (one of many problems said series of films has in relation to the prime timeline, even the parts of the prime timeline that originated before the universes diverged)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 15 July 2017, 16:12:48
*shrug*

Their show, their universe. They are free to do whatever they want with it (and am it seems).
I just don't get the nerdrage and sense that you are *entitled* to make them follow some of the horrid stuff that came in the previous 50 years.



A lot of the outrage is hugely overblown for sure. And they shouldn't have to make something that is slavishly connected to how the show should look in the '60s. It also makes lots of sense to try to cash in on the aesthetic of the Abrams movies.

All of that said, there should be some respect paid to all of those that worked on the show before and what they put into it.

And in a real way, the fans do have a certain...ownership isn't the right word, let's go with investment in the IP. Star Trek has become part of the cultural landscape in a way few other IPs have. Everyone that interacts in anyway with it, they own that interaction. It's not simply sitting there passively watching something, those who invest in it, are fully interacting with it. (Whether that's through Cons or fanclubs or what have you.) So I think that's partly with that sense of "ownership" comes from.

Are CBS/Paramount entitled to do whatever they want with the IP? Certainly. Could they completely reboot the franchise, wipe everything out, start over completely? Again, without a doubt. However, there is one thing to remember: if they take it too far, if they remove people's since of investment in it, they run the very real risk of alienating the fans to the point where they stop supporting the IP. No support = no money = no IP.

Again, I will admit the vast majority of the criticisms are pretty trivial and nit-picking. And some people will simply never be satisfied.

(As an example, what would the reaction here be if TPTB suddenly decided they needed to revamp the BattleTech IP to get new players. First up, they add aliens, then they rewrite the 4th Succession War to have the Combine and Capellans win. Then change the Clans into the genecaste?)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 15 July 2017, 21:50:27
I won't go nuts about Discovery anymore. Let me state right now, i've NOT see Discovery yet, so please don't shoot me. I tend to have trouble expressing myself so i maybe speaking here on accident.

So I apologize for anything maybe bit off here.

If there reaction, it's because the feel of Star Trek has shifted bit more from base line that was considered what made Star Trek what it is.   There always going to be people who remember how things were, how we feel it and should be. 
To me:  Star Trek is telling a self-contained story, perhaps inner dialog into what is the human condition of current day. Certainly, the original TOS did that in it's day.  ST:TNG was continuation of that mentality. It managed to carry it on and improve on it once Gene past away.  ST:DS9 broaden the universe, uniquely while other series was still going as did Voyage did later.  DS9 was bit darker in some senses, challenging the original vision of the Gene Roddenberry of his Utopia like society of peoples of various races facing off and being challenged by different ways of governance or outright hostile to the Federation.  TNG continues on, with final retirement of the original crew of the Enterprise passing the torch to TNG and it's era of new heroes and crews.  Voyager tried get Star Trek back into hopping the galaxy, running into fresh new races and things beyond that well explored Federation borders had seem run out of stuff to find.

The movies kept TNG going, but became main event sort thing. With some good and not so great stories.

Then Abrams comes in to refresh the franchise, with different vision. More a popcorn adventure mentality dropping off on real science for more science fictional physics.  Which is fine, but i don't think Paramount handled so well.   New Franchise of Abram's Star Trek was revision of universe while claiming nothing in the old timeline had change.  Alot of it had alot holes in it.  While Enterprise, trying work on foundation of Star Trek: First Contact which changed alot Star Trek lore of how early years of Star Trek universe was setup. Enterprise was very bold try establish what early year of the Trek universe was like. Changing some established history which was though established.  Again this is my opinion. 

What's my point? 

Discovery and all the information about it so far that has come out for it seems to suggest the show is more a high tech setting than the TOS was. A updated previous time. Which again i would be fine if weren't fact that just won't line up to the original TOS series, which studios insist is still canon and part of SAME timeline. That's kinda a stickpoint with me.  If there going revise the universe, just say so. Stop cover all possible marketing aspects of.  The studios don't seem to have good feel for how Star Trek is to the fandom (I'm talking about people love it and were inspired by it.).

I do hope I'm wrong, and Discovery is a great series.  However, i have doubts.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 24 September 2017, 22:22:45
Nope...not liking the new Klingons, and especially not their ships...give me the good old no frills, militaristic-with-nothing-to-excess warships like the D4, D5, D7, the K't'inga, the Bird of Prey (22nd or 23rd/24th century versions), the Vor'cha, Negh'var, etc., not these weirdly pseudo-organic-looking things...

Story in first episode wasn't too bad, and at least we had the Klingons howling to let the dead know a warrior was on his way, but otherwise...nope...

And doesn't appear to be worth paying just for the privilege of seeing the rest of the season...will wait for DVD or the like...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: qc mech3 on 24 September 2017, 22:52:27
Just saw the 1st episode and it look to me the studio decided to take Axenar's script and mix it with classic lore and Abram's look to try to make a quick buck.  :-\ ??? ??? :(

I think I'll stick watching the Orville...  #P
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 September 2017, 23:11:05
Am I the only one who saw the Klingon at the beginning and said "hey, it's Ronin the Accuser?"
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: trboturtle on 24 September 2017, 23:33:50
Seen the first episode, and......

It isn't something I'm going out of my way to watch.

Craig
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 24 September 2017, 23:48:42
I've yet to see it.  I take it i sadly was right that, Discovery was mishandled by CBS?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mech42ace on 25 September 2017, 00:17:22
Yeah, It really didn't grab my attention at all. Was it cool to see Star Trek on TV again? Sure. But it all felt like a push to subscribe to their streaming service. Don't have any intention to go out of my way to watch it.

Especially with their streaming service that seams to be taking advantage of the existing Trek fanbase instead of actually having it on TV to reach a new audience. It just seems abusive to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 25 September 2017, 02:01:18
I'll stick with the Orville.  Not paying CBS for anymore migraine inducing lens flare and lackluster Klingon drivel.  After the premier, i feel the need to rewatch Enterprise and see how that crew destroyed the Klingon Council... which led to whatever it was I just saw.

Oh and maybe get a science advisor with more than a third graders comprehension of space sciences - yikes!

Paul
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 September 2017, 08:35:53
The visual and the epic of the sets were really awesome. The action parts were awesome. The story was really lacking and they still blew the canon history out of the stars.

I dont know what to think of it. Not as impressed as I thought, and not as disappointed as I thought I would be.

It reminds me of the Star Trek JJ versions. It has the Star Trek feel to it....but its not.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 25 September 2017, 08:47:00
I enjoyed it and being in the UK I already pay for Netflix so roll it out
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 25 September 2017, 10:52:16
I enjoyed it - and I'll keep watching it.

Orville has been....bleh. Trying to figure out what it want to be. Not daring to be funny enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 September 2017, 11:26:22
Cant make my mind about it...

Looks like JJ Trek (lots of lens flare) and remade look for ships and Klingons (which I dont like - reminds me of hairless big primates).

An half baked story that wasnt necessary to get people into it IMO.

Lets see whats in store... Hope I have but the future in motion always is... oh wait...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 25 September 2017, 11:26:45
Huh...looks like they are splitting the season in half. First half will run till November, then the second half picks up in January.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 25 September 2017, 11:30:32
It was okay, enough that if I didn't have to pay to keep watching it I would keep up with it.

Yeah the Klingons and their ships are ugly but I can put up with the rest.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 25 September 2017, 11:36:25
Wait. What did they do to my precious D7/K'tingas, and how angry should I be?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 September 2017, 11:40:59
Wait. What did they do to my precious D7/K'tingas, and how angry should I be?

IMO you should be very angry. Klingon ships look like WH40K Imperium ships...

Also... they had holographic communications in the show in a time that wasnt supposed to exist yet (IIRC).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 25 September 2017, 11:45:34
IMO you should be very angry. Klingon ships look like WH40K Imperium ships...

I haven't watched it...but is that just the personal ride of the Klingon antagonist, or is that how all of the Klingon ships look?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 September 2017, 11:46:53
I haven't watched it...but is that just the personal ride of the Klingon antagonist, or is that how all of the Klingon ships look?

Most of the ships...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: snewsom2997 on 25 September 2017, 12:04:44
The story was good, changing the Klingon's and the $10 a month paywall for 15 episodes, not so good. CBS is just killing this outright, and waiting for the next series in development.

While in the Prime timeline, I was under the impression that TS-Discovery uses the Movie license, not the Paramount TV license, which is why nothing looks familiar. Why the uniforms are different, why the ships are different, ETC.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 September 2017, 12:22:03
Since I dont know how to get spoiler tags in here Ill let more people see the show and Ill rant on that "story was good" thing later. Not saying Im right or wrong... just think its not that good (and expected if you know Star Trek backstory).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: William J. Pennington on 25 September 2017, 12:36:16
Well, I gave it a shot. Frankly, I wouldn't sign up for the rest if the paywall was lowered to pennies. And I'm sad about that. I would have loved a series to share with my kids--their first new Trek series they could hopefully latch on to and make their own.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 25 September 2017, 12:41:33
Wait. What did they do to my precious D7/K'tingas, and how angry should I be?

Orders of magnitude above "extremely"....

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 25 September 2017, 13:22:01
Overall I liked it

I don't mind the Klingons - if they are supposed to be half way between the "augment-infected" Klingons from Enterprise/the TOS and the Movie/Next Gen ones - I can live with it.  In all honesty I'd have preferred full on movie Klingon but I can live with it.  I loved that 90% of the Klingon speech was actually in Klingon.

I liked the terms Photon torpedoes - phasers etc

The uniforms are supposed to be half way step between Enterprise and TOS so again heading in right direction

I didn't like the holographic communication system - that was stupid - that they basically appeared to be standing in the room - that breaks so many trek rules it hacked me off.  But would it put me off?  No.

I'd have liked to see D7's or Birds of Prey instead of what was shown though the smaller ships seem to be a step in the right direction towards Birds of Prey while the main guy's ship is more symbolic than a line ship (he carries a graveyard with him weird)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 September 2017, 16:58:21
The short little shot of the Klingon ships looked nothing like anything before in Star Trek history.
The only thing I could think with the different Klingons and ships is that they are a "lost" race of Klingons with different tech, customs, and other things.

this is why i dont really like prequels....rewrite of history we all know and love.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 September 2017, 17:53:06
To be honest, I've always found it annoying how monocultural alien races were always portrayed in Star Trek (and science fiction in general, but Star Trek is partially responsible for that).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 September 2017, 18:20:49
I really enjoyed this, but I don't know if I'd be willing to pay $8 per month to watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 25 September 2017, 23:50:17
I take it i sadly was right that, Discovery was mishandled by CBS?

No.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 25 September 2017, 23:54:11
Yes, it was. They're making us pay for it. I will not be able to watch it as I am not willing to pay for something that should be on broadcast TV. If it were a pay network like Amazon Prime, Netflix or Hulu, it would be different. However CBS is a Broadcast network and thus I find it reprehensible that they charge for the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 26 September 2017, 00:29:35
Welcome to the new age of television. Broadcast revenues are down because people tivo the shows and skip the adverts. Which means advertisers are unwilling to pay as much for their slots.

As such, the networks needs to find new forms of revenue and online streaming services is the future and you will see more and more networks forming their own seperate service - Disney is doing it by pulling all their stuff from other services in 2019.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 26 September 2017, 01:11:56
*nod*

I do get all that and understand that the reality of modern TV is changing, so they need to find more ways to pay for their shows.

Where I take issue is that I don't want to have to pay $100 to watch one show, especially since I'd have to get a new device to stream it on if I want to watch it on the big screen*.

*Because I detest commercials and yes while I watch more shows on CBS I struggle to think of another that I'd stream via their service unless I could convince certain other parties to cut the TV bill completely.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 26 September 2017, 01:35:32
No.

If we disregard the pay to view mentality.  Put it on CBS proper and it will get a consistent following.  Unless they are afraid of something?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 September 2017, 01:54:53
IIRC, the last ad I saw for it listed it as TV-MA so it's theoretically possible that future episodes might have more extreme content than we'd normally see on a broadcast show from CBS.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 26 September 2017, 02:38:09
Full disclosure, I haven't watched the series, and probably won't. However, after seeing an image of the new Klingons, I have to ask.

When did the Drazi cross universes and take up residence in the Klingon Empire? Did Sheridan find another spooky alien space door again?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 September 2017, 05:12:12
Full disclosure, I haven't watched the series, and probably won't. However, after seeing an image of the new Klingons, I have to ask.

When did the Drazi cross universes and take up residence in the Klingon Empire? Did Sheridan find another spooky alien space door again?

Drazi!!! That is awesome, didnt notice it before and now I see it!!!

I just hate rewrites of history things I grew up with as a kid and loved every second. For a while about the Klingons I thought they were talking about the Romulans. I don't ever remember the Klingons keeping to themselves for a hundred years and not involve themselfs in anything with the Federation or others. Just that alone kinda made my hairs curl.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: NeonKnight on 26 September 2017, 06:16:11
If we disregard the pay to view mentality.  Put it on CBS proper and it will get a consistent following.  Unless they are afraid of something?

Bwahahahaaaaaaa:

http://www.cbr.com/how-where-to-watch-star-trek-discovery/

Quote
Lucky Canadians. While the rest of the world has to figure out the right app to download and how to stream it to their TV, Canadians are just chilling. If you live in Canada, you can watch Star Trek: Discovery on the Space Channel, starting Sunday, September 24 at 8:30PM ET. Each episode will air on subsequent Sundays at 8:30PM ET.

If you can’t catch Discovery at its regular date and time, each episode can be found through participating On Demand channels, as well as the Space Go app. If you are anti-Space Channel, you can stream the series through the CraveTV streaming service starting Monday, September 25 at 10PM ET. Of course, access to Discovery on the CraveTV app requires a monthly subscription fee to the service.

Finally, if you prefer the French-language version of the series, Canadian viewers can watch Discovery on Z channel every Sunday, starting on September 24 at 9PM ET.

That said, I was ok with the changes. Gotta keep it fresh for the new folks, like my wife who's only familir with the Reboot by JJ Abrams
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 September 2017, 09:38:31
IIRC, the last ad I saw for it listed it as TV-MA so it's theoretically possible that future episodes might have more extreme content than we'd normally see on a broadcast show from CBS.
It's already guaranteed.
Quote
the FCC only controls the airwaves, not services like cable and streaming. That’s one reason why even basic cable shows like The Walking Dead can show a level of gore, nudity and cussing even ABC couldn’t even imagine in the middle of the night when most kids are in bed.

So will Discovery take advantage of the fact that there are no belly button censors around?

“The showrunners were like, ‘Oh yeah, we could do that. Of course, the response is, ‘As long as it serves the story.’ But yeah.”
http://geeknation.com/are-we-getting-an-r-rated-star-trek/ (may be NSFW)

There were also statements early on that they were going to be able to do things that they couldn't do even on Hannibal, since it's not broadcast, and the showrunners were excited at the prospect.  So yeah, expect to get some extreme content coming.  (Granted, not that Trek doesn't have a history of that, even back to TOS - see link)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 September 2017, 10:26:36
A small gif from the shows twitter account of a scene showing the ships (Shenzou on the left Kilingons on the right) for those curious.

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/912164968455213057 (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/912164968455213057)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 September 2017, 10:34:35
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/912158460577378304

Someone please tell me that was merely a camo masking or such and not a real cloaking device >.>
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 26 September 2017, 10:40:04
Where I take issue is that I don't want to have to pay $100 to watch one show, especially since I'd have to get a new device to stream it on if I want to watch it on the big screen*.
Or you can wait until the season is over, pay $10 and watch it during that month.

Lots of people do it with GoT on HBO.

Depends on if you must be current or if you can wait.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 September 2017, 10:42:41
https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/912158460577378304

Someone please tell me that was merely a camo masking or such and not a real cloaking device >.>

I looked like a "Cloaking device" to me. But the Franklin had "image refractors" ....so is it that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 September 2017, 10:52:46
I looked like a "Cloaking device" to me. But the Franklin had "image refractors" ....so is it that.
At least it looks like everyone on that world didn't have working or highly sensitive sensors (like how our "baddie" didn't realize someone was using transporter or actively scanning the surface of his world.) So those image refractors did their job very well hiding Franklin from everyone's plain eyes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: idea weenie on 26 September 2017, 12:28:21
Why not use an electrical vehicle to travel across the planet instead of walking?  It could have carried a larger comms rig to punch through the interference. 

Instead of using 'recalibrating', just use focusing.  Unless recalibrate has been redefined in the future.

Use a probe instead of a person to check something out.  Also if there are potential comms issues, send a pair of probes.  One to investigate, one to relay comms.

Were they able to have medical data, but not comms?

I'd like to know why the comms relay was so close to the debris field.  Couldn't it have been placed farther away?

Only three main characters currently (CO, XO, Science officer)

Klingon leader is politicking, selecting people to meet the Federation and die, and challenging anyone who believes otherwise.  The first died and was turned into a martyr.  His brother doubted and the leader doubted his honor.  Then the no-family-name stepped up and showed his fanaticism.

Bridge had windows, but no shades to cover them (and the shades could have had displays on the inside).

That 'new star' occurring was hot news in the Federation ('trending')

Overall, the first episode didn't grab me quite as much as I wanted.  Hopefully CBS pulls a stunt where they release it on their web site, but also on the television, but delayed.  1 month might be right.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 26 September 2017, 13:41:04
Or you can wait until the season is over, pay $10 and watch it during that month.

Lots of people do it with GoT on HBO.

Depends on if you must be current or if you can wait.

With other factors involved it still doesn't make sense unless there were some other show to make it worth it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 26 September 2017, 15:04:35
*shrug* your choice.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 26 September 2017, 15:53:26
That is the thing for me.

I don't hate it, it was actually okay but it isn't good enough I'd go out of my way to spend money on either.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 26 September 2017, 17:06:21
If I watch it at all, it will be to see Michelle Yeoh as a star ship captain. 
I was actually excited for a moment when I saw her in the trailer, until I found out she wasn't the captain of the Discovery.   >:(
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 26 September 2017, 17:34:16
Or you can wait until the season is over, pay $10 and watch it during that month.
CBS has previously announced that they will not be keeping the whole series available on CBS All Access.  Only the last couple of episodes.  So, no paying for one month and binge watching.  :(
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 September 2017, 18:47:17
CBS has previously announced that they will not be keeping the whole series available on CBS All Access.  Only the last couple of episodes.  So, no paying for one month and binge watching.  :(

Wait, what?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 26 September 2017, 19:21:24
I just hate rewrites of history things I grew up with as a kid and loved every second. For a while about the Klingons I thought they were talking about the Romulans. I don't ever remember the Klingons keeping to themselves for a hundred years and not involve themselfs in anything with the Federation or others. Just that alone kinda made my hairs curl.

Actually, in the old FASA continuity, there was a period much like this, but it was only for about five years...during this period, they pulled their fleets from the borders of Federation and Romulan space so they could fight the "Demon War" against the Kinshaya...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 September 2017, 20:55:18
CBS has previously announced that they will not be keeping the whole series available on CBS All Access.  Only the last couple of episodes.  So, no paying for one month and binge watching.  :(

So they want people to stream it without allowing them to do one of the main features people use streaming services for?

Yeah, watching this train wreck is going to be fun.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 26 September 2017, 21:20:45
CBS has previously announced that they will not be keeping the whole series available on CBS All Access.  Only the last couple of episodes.  So, no paying for one month and binge watching.  :(

Got a source for that? Cause I find that hard to believe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: William J. Pennington on 26 September 2017, 22:09:10
I just searched. Didnt find an article saying anywhere CBS would prevent end of season binge watching. There has to be a limit to their stupidity, after all.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 26 September 2017, 22:56:11
I watched the pilot. Here's what I came away with:

1. They managed to make Klingons, speaking Klingon, giving speeches that should be filled with foreboding, menace, and charisma...boring.  All that expense in the redesign and frankly, they should've just knucked down and used Claymation, with the speech rendered via voice-booth and mixing.  The Nu-Klingons were lifeless and stiff, more 'rubber suit' than TOS Gorn.  For as visually busy as the sets were, the actors and extras in the background might as well have been animatronic statues.
2. T'Kuvma's four nostrils didn't communicate menace in the close-up, the pallid 'torchbearer' replacement scene was just...dead. The funeral scene was too long, and again, it was visually about as exciting as the observation of paint drying.  The lines were delivered without emotion, or reverence.  It was like listening to an expense report being read, or powerpoint.

3. The Main Character.  the actress is absolutely beautiful, she's really gorgeous, hot even, really pretty.  I'm told she's very talented, I don't know. I didn't see that.  Maybe if her character wasn't written as an irresponsible moron, an educated idiot, "The very model of a modern starfleet Officer!!"(sung to the tune of "Model Major General" from gilbert and sullivan)

4. Space visuals and planet scene: outstanding visuals, really, really great visuals, amazing visuals, did I mention the special effects and external space visuals? Lovely, truly amazing work.

5. Supporting cast: Michelle Yeoh didn't disappoint. Probably the best thing in the show, perhaps because whatever blundering idiot wrote the main character didn't have enough time to make her a ****** idiot.

Outcome:

Special Effects Pron.  Not worth catching part two, this is grocery-store-bargain-CD fodder or something you buy for someone you don't really like as a white elephant gift in the office christmas pool.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 September 2017, 05:03:19
$6 bucks if you want limited commercials.....have no idea what that means, or $10 bucks for no commercials. Hopefully this CBS thing will fail and be on normal streaming services like Amazon or Netflix.

The Klingons were speaking Klingon and that was pretty neat, but boy do they talk sloooow.
The visuals of the ships and the surronding space was awesome.
Didn't understand the worker with the Huge Daft Punk Style Helmet. Im sure we will find out whats going on there.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 27 September 2017, 10:33:30
Got a source for that? Cause I find that hard to believe.

FWIW, The Good Fight, CBS' other online-only show, has all ten episodes of its first season available on All Access. I would expect the same for Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 27 September 2017, 12:31:53
(http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/download/Number/4703/filename/ST-D_klingon.PNG)

Star Trek Discovery on Netflix has the option to subtitle in klingon. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 27 September 2017, 12:49:41
Star Trek Discovery on Netflix has the option to subtitle in klingon. :D
.... :o
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 27 September 2017, 13:15:29


Star Trek Discovery on Netflix has the option to subtitle in klingon. :D
Available everywhere Netflix does business except the USA and, perhaps, Canada.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 27 September 2017, 13:27:22
Available everywhere Netflix does business except the USA and, perhaps, Canada.

That's right, not on Netflix here in Canada. We get to watch in on Space (a cable channel here). Oh joy  ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 27 September 2017, 14:43:43
So basically everywhere else also ahve to pay to watch Star Trek Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 September 2017, 14:50:56
Yes, but most of them are able to get it using a pay service that's much larger and has more and better content than what we're stuck with in the US.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 27 September 2017, 14:57:58
Got a source for that? Cause I find that hard to believe.
Sorry, I've been following this mess online since it was first announced.  I remember reading that and discussing it with others, but at this point I have no idea where I read it or what the source was, other than it seemed legit at the time.  Maybe I'm wrong.   :-\
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 27 September 2017, 16:55:14
Yes, but most of them are able to get it using a pay service that's much larger and has more and better content than what we're stuck with in the US.

I think CBS is hopping to cash in on the younger crowd that is starting to get away from traditional TV.  Scary part is it just might work out for them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 27 September 2017, 18:43:56
It's a direction that TV is heading in.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 27 September 2017, 19:14:01
I'm not super against it either.  I just would like them to make use of existing streaming services rather than them trying their own.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 27 September 2017, 23:35:40
I'm not super against it either.  I just would like them to make use of existing streaming services rather than them trying their own.

Not a chance - it'll go in the opposite direction. You will see more and more pull out of Hulu and Netflix to start their own services.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 28 September 2017, 00:02:23
Yeah I know and I rather suspect the masses will reward them for it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 28 September 2017, 09:17:34
Having not long watched it, the show was....eeeehhh...  It was all show, no underwear.  Lots of razzle dazzle and sound, with not too much substance.  Wasn't impressed with the main character.  Not really that good.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 28 September 2017, 11:30:15
Not a chance - it'll go in the opposite direction. You will see more and more pull out of Hulu and Netflix to start their own services.
I'm going to do what I can to resist that.  I canceled my traditional cable TV service earlier this year and subscribed to Netflix and Hulu.  I'm very satisfied with that but what I don't want to do is have to subscribe to a dozen different streaming services to get one program from each.  For around $10 a month I get more movies and TV shows from Netflix that I can watch.  For $10 I would get one show from CBS All Access.  So, no, not going to support that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 28 September 2017, 13:36:18
But that $10 a month for Star Trek will help them fund more shows...at least that's what their thinking is.

Honestly they should have invested in more shows than just Discovery and The Good Fight at launch instead of hoping Discovery will carry it till they get around to adding new shows.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 28 September 2017, 15:15:29
I suspect that because CBS doesn't have their shows on Hulu and Netflix having such a delay for any of their shows that people wanting to stream other existing shows will also help propel the service and make that $10 a month a bit easier to swallow.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 28 September 2017, 16:42:15
They have over 2 million subscribers already due to their other programming, with an increase of 30% in the last 6 months.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 28 September 2017, 16:46:17
I'd be surprised if they're not making a profit from the Netflix deal alone.  Paramount are very good at extracting money from Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 September 2017, 17:37:14
They have all the Series on CBS Prime....I wonder how much longer Netflix will have it also.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 29 September 2017, 11:40:27
I think CBS is hopping to cash in on the younger crowd that is starting to get away from traditional TV.  Scary part is it just might work out for them.
Not just the "younger crowd" that's getting away from traditional TV services.  I dropped my cable TV earlier this year, and for less than half my previous cost I watch Netflix and Hulu now.  I just could not put up with paying all that money for the half-dozen shows I was actually watching every month.

My complaint about the way they are presenting STD isn't that its only offered on a pay service, its that its only offered on an overpriced pay service that does not offer me anything else I want to watch, at the almost same price as Netflix or Hulu.  I'd rather they just offered it on Netflix or Hulu, or as a second choice as a much cheaper CBS only service. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 29 September 2017, 11:44:45
And that is kind of what gets me about it too.  They have deals with Netflix in certain regions so why can't they just do that for all regions?

Which is the part about younger audiences I was getting at.  While older may be making the switch too I am willing to bet they are less likely to pay for yet another streaming service.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 29 September 2017, 12:12:16
And that is kind of what gets me about it too.  They have deals with Netflix in certain regions so why can't they just do that for all regions?
Because CBS does not get that much revenue from putting a premium show on Netflix. The subscription fee for Netflix gets slip for a ton of right owners.
I'm pretty sure CBS will earn more from 100,000 viewers on CBS all Acess than for 1 million viewers on Netflix.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 29 September 2017, 13:22:02
I was watching STD ep's 1 and 2 again and, its still at best alright, it looks stunning, the sets, the CGI, all very very good stuff. 

But the characters are forgettable save Saru who seemed to be like a more lanky C3-PO to me.  I'm honestly okay with the changes to the Klingons, sure i'd prefer if they called them another name, but eehh,, the Klingons have gone from Mexicans in Gold lame to knobble headed space vikings so this take on them is alright.

I liked T'kuvma, and the Captain but the main character was just sooooo dumb!  She made a LOAD of really bad, emotionally fueled decisions, the worst being not the mutiny, but at the end.  She has a chance to stun T'kuv'ma and capture him but nope RAEG and shoots him in the back, which could probably be the worst thing as its dishonourable to kill someone like that in Klingon eyes. 

She was just bland, and made a buttload of bad decisions that would take Janeway at least 2 episodes to equal (and then go full hypocrite in episode 3 and have a go at someone for doing what she just did, but I digress).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: garhkal on 29 September 2017, 13:38:36
I'm going to do what I can to resist that.  I canceled my traditional cable TV service earlier this year and subscribed to Netflix and Hulu.  I'm very satisfied with that but what I don't want to do is have to subscribe to a dozen different streaming services to get one program from each.  For around $10 a month I get more movies and TV shows from Netflix that I can watch.  For $10 I would get one show from CBS All Access.  So, no, not going to support that.

ANd if that's the route they are all going, then i guess i won't be watching Tv.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 29 September 2017, 13:53:52
She made a LOAD of really bad, emotionally fueled decisions, the worst being not the mutiny, but at the end. 
This is the thing that grates on my nerves the most.   >:(

In the ST movie reboot, the thing that bothered me the most was the totally implausible idea that any military organization would pull a known troublemaker out of the academy, before he even graduated, jump him several ranks, and make him captain of a major warship.

Now, I'm expected to believe that they are going to pull a mutineer out of prison and make her the first officer of a major warship?

GAH!   ::)

ANd if that's the route they are all going, then i guess i won't be watching Tv.
Honestly, I spend less time in front of the TV now, simply because I only turn it on when I want to actually watch something.  I don't sit there for two hours surfing through 100+ channels of trash over and over, looking for something worth watching.  And I'm fine with that.   Gives me more time to paint miniatures!  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 29 September 2017, 14:01:32
Now, I'm expected to believe that they are going to pull a mutineer out of prison and make her the first officer of a major warship?


The previews of the upcoming episodes show that Burnham is not the first officer on Discovery. And Discovery isn't a warship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 29 September 2017, 15:14:34
It's a Star Fleet vessel, isn't it?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 29 September 2017, 15:24:51
The previews of the upcoming episodes show that Burnham is not the first officer on Discovery. And Discovery isn't a warship.
Does Discovery have phasers and photon torpedoes?  Then its a warship.

In any case, this is totally irrelevant to the fact that she should be in jail, not serving on any kind of federation starship.   ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 29 September 2017, 15:26:10
It's a Star Fleet vessel, isn't it?

Wessel.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 29 September 2017, 15:27:58
I was watching STD ep's 1 and 2 again and, its still at best alright, it looks stunning, the sets, the CGI, all very very good stuff. 

But the characters are forgettable save Saru who seemed to be like a more lanky C3-PO to me.  I'm honestly okay with the changes to the Klingons, sure i'd prefer if they called them another name, but eehh,, the Klingons have gone from Mexicans in Gold lame to knobble headed space vikings so this take on them is alright.

I liked T'kuvma, and the Captain but the main character was just sooooo dumb!  She made a LOAD of really bad, emotionally fueled decisions, the worst being not the mutiny, but at the end.  She has a chance to stun T'kuv'ma and capture him but nope RAEG and shoots him in the back, which could probably be the worst thing as its dishonourable to kill someone like that in Klingon eyes. 

She was just bland, and made a buttload of bad decisions that would take Janeway at least 2 episodes to equal (and then go full hypocrite in episode 3 and have a go at someone for doing what she just did, but I digress).

see, I got a completely different impression on the discovery "Klingons" than you did-they took a race that was athletic, passionate, aggressive, loud, bold, and boisterous, and turned them into hobbling soft-talking wimps in latex and gold corsets, with expressionless faces and lemming-like behaviours.

Whether you're talking the "Puerto ricans in gold Lame'" or the "Ridge-headed space vikings" the constant thread with Klingons that they violated, was the easy, 'kick me if you dare' attitude with the fluid, arrogant motion and expressive nature.

T'Kuvma and his ilk have one facial expression (forced by the masks they're using), and his powerful, rabble-rousing speech sounded and was delivered like a quarterly report from a failing retail chain.

In simplest terms, they took everything good about Klingons away, and replaced it with overdressed gaudy junk, most of which looked exactly like what it is-extruded plastic with gilded paint and WAAAAYYYY too much latex.

The Nu-Trek Klingons clearly aren't the kind that enjoys an off-color joke, or a drink, or outsmarting an opponent, or (hate to say it) a good fight, they're just kind of bland, passive, whiny, overdressed and overdecorated schmucks.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 29 September 2017, 16:06:25
Does Discovery have phasers and photon torpedoes?  Then its a warship.

As I understand it, Discovery is explicitly a science ship, like an Oberth class.

Quote
In any case, this is totally irrelevant to the fact that she should be in jail, not serving on any kind of federation starship.   ::)

From the previews, it looks like she's part of a penal unit, or in a Tom Paris type situation. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 29 September 2017, 16:23:48
I'm glad they got rid of the TNG Klingon look. I've personally always thought it looked absolutely ridiculous.

The Nu-Trek Klingons clearly aren't the kind that enjoys an off-color joke, or a drink, or outsmarting an opponent, or (hate to say it) a good fight

Given that the only ones we've really seen much of so far were a religious fanatic and his followers, I'm not so sure you can make that claim just yet. It'd be like judging all TNG-era Klingons by the uptight way Worf acts.

There were two things I didn't like about these new Klingons:

1. While it was cool to get entire scenes in their language, it really slowed things to a halt. I hope they don't do it too much in future episodes.

2. I hated the outfits T'Kuvma and his followers wore. I hope that's not going to be standard Klingon attire. (Of course, I also hated the previous "dorky death metal band" outfits too.)

Everything else, I'm cool with. I liked that they seemed more alien that the TNG-era dudes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 29 September 2017, 16:36:25
I'm glad they got rid of the TNG Klingon look. I've personally always thought it looked absolutely ridiculous.

Given that the only ones we've really seen much of so far were a religious fanatic and his followers, I'm not so sure you can make that claim just yet. It'd be like judging all TNG-era Klingons by the uptight way Worf acts.

There were two things I didn't like about these new Klingons:

1. While it was cool to get entire scenes in their language, it really slowed things to a halt. I hope they don't do it too much in future episodes.

2. I hated the outfits T'Kuvma and his followers wore. I hope that's not going to be standard Klingon attire. (Of course, I also hated the previous "dorky death metal band" outfits too.)

Everything else, I'm cool with. I liked that they seemed more alien that the TNG-era dudes.

Seriously!? More alien than the TNG/DS9 dudes????

Cant believe I read that. Discovery Klingons look like hairless primates in a carnival party (even taking into account that these guys are the leaders of each house and assume they are the only ones who dress like that but lets see what the future holds...).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 29 September 2017, 17:11:44
Seriously!? More alien than the TNG/DS9 dudes????

Given that those guys didn't seem very alien at all, yes.

I truly cannot overstate the depth of my hatred for TNG-era Klingons. Not at first, but I definitely grew to loathe them before TNG ended and that opinion was not changed by anything in DS9 or Voyager. I hate the way they look. I hate the culture they were given. I hate the storylines they were put through. I hate how the fans gush over them. I groaned every time an episode ended up involving them in a major way. They were a colossal joke. Good riddance.

The only one I didn't mind was Martok. And at least Gowron was funny to look at in a good way. Oh, and Kruge was okay too.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 29 September 2017, 17:18:31
I'm fine with the Klingons looking more alien, but did they have to give them a rubber mask? How are the actors supposed to emote? Tone it back enough so they can have some actual CHARACTER.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 29 September 2017, 19:10:54
Are there any Andorians in Discovery yet? They were one of the very few things I enjoyed about the Enterprise show.
I wanna see more Andorians darnit!!


Given that those guys didn't seem very alien at all, yes.

I truly cannot overstate the depth of my hatred for TNG-era Klingons. Not at first, but I definitely grew to loathe them before TNG ended and that opinion was not changed by anything in DS9 or Voyager. I hate the way they look. I hate the culture they were given. I hate the storylines they were put through. I hate how the fans gush over them. I groaned every time an episode ended up involving them in a major way. They were a colossal joke. Good riddance.

The only one I didn't mind was Martok. And at least Gowron was funny to look at in a good way. Oh, and Kruge was okay too.

Eh...I just always hated how the roles of the TOS Klingons/Romulans were switched in TNG so that the Klingons went from being conniving backstabby rogues to honor bound overly emotional warriors and the Romulans went from honor bound overly emotional warriors to conniving backstabby rogues.  The TOS Romulans have always felt like they fit the whole "off-shoot of Vulcans thing" a lot better than the TNG era ones: like this is how the Vulcans were before Surak.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 29 September 2017, 19:32:34
Are there any Andorians in Discovery yet? They were one of the very few things I enjoyed about the Enterprise show.
I wanna see more Andorians darnit!!

One of the Starfleet ships that showed up for the battle was the Shran, but I don't believe we saw any Andorians.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 30 September 2017, 04:17:05
I'm glad they got rid of the TNG Klingon look. I've personally always thought it looked absolutely ridiculous.

Given that the only ones we've really seen much of so far were a religious fanatic and his followers, I'm not so sure you can make that claim just yet. It'd be like judging all TNG-era Klingons by the uptight way Worf acts.

There were two things I didn't like about these new Klingons:

1. While it was cool to get entire scenes in their language, it really slowed things to a halt. I hope they don't do it too much in future episodes.

2. I hated the outfits T'Kuvma and his followers wore. I hope that's not going to be standard Klingon attire. (Of course, I also hated the previous "dorky death metal band" outfits too.)

Everything else, I'm cool with. I liked that they seemed more alien that the TNG-era dudes.

1. it's not just that it was in th'lingan-hol, but that the lines were delivered with about as much emotion, feeling, and character as the exciting task of observing and describing the drying of housepaint.  Watch Star Trek III-That's how deliver whole scenes in the Klingon language.
2. Ep. 2 shows that yes, that's 'standard wear' for the Nuklingons, even kids wear the latex corsets with t he metallic accents. and notably, they all move that same way, and aside from airbrushing, "They really do all look alike now."

as I said, everything that was GOOD about Klingons (the attitude, the liveliness) was removed.  Maybe they should've paid for Claymation and recorded lines on a separate track before mixing?  or got Jim Henson's legacy company to do them? something, anything, but expressionless, slow-and-awkward, lifeless statues they put on the screen.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 30 September 2017, 05:01:13
1. it's not just that it was in th'lingan-hol, but that the lines were delivered with about as much emotion, feeling, and character as the exciting task of observing and describing the drying of housepaint.  Watch Star Trek III-That's how deliver whole scenes in the Klingon language.

No, the problem wasn't the use of the Klingon dialogue, it was the way Chris Obi in particular delivered his lines. The house leaders in the hologram were fine.

Quote
2. Ep. 2 shows that yes, that's 'standard wear' for the Nuklingons, even kids wear the latex corsets with t he metallic accents. and notably, they all move that same way, and aside from airbrushing, "They really do all look alike now."

Well, no, in fact. Ep 2 shows the leaders of the Klingon houses (or, at least, the six or seven out of twenty-four that we see in the hologram) dressed differently from T'Kuvma and his crew. And from each other, which is a nice change from the TNG-era Klingons.

Quote
as I said, everything that was GOOD about Klingons (the attitude, the liveliness) was removed.

You say good, I say annoying and ridiculous.

Quote
Maybe they should've paid for Claymation and recorded lines on a separate track before mixing?  or got Jim Henson's legacy company to do them? something, anything, but expressionless, slow-and-awkward, lifeless statues they put on the screen.

Again, you're judging all the new Klingons by T'Kuvma, who is a special case and, judging by the performance of the holographic house leaders, not at all typical.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 30 September 2017, 05:03:30
Plus, the house leaders looked to act like Klingon nobility in TNG and DS9 - obsessed with their position, aristocratic, looking down on the commoner...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 30 September 2017, 09:21:14
Eh...I just always hated how the roles of the TOS Klingons/Romulans were switched in TNG so that the Klingons went from being conniving backstabby rogues to honor bound overly emotional warriors and the Romulans went from honor bound overly emotional warriors to conniving backstabby rogues.  The TOS Romulans have always felt like they fit the whole "off-shoot of Vulcans thing" a lot better than the TNG era ones: like this is how the Vulcans were before Surak.
As I understand, in TOS the Klingons and the Romulans represented two Cold Wars powers; USSR and CCP China respectively. This was so the audience at the time could relate to the show  ;D

The Romulans' inspirations are drawn from the Roman Empire (The government structure/Empire and the Military Nobility (virtue))  and CCP China (The Byzantine 'high class' society of power grabbing and backstabbing). Tal Shiar (Secret Police and part of the Byzantine political culture) and the Imperial Navy are at odds with each other.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Romulan

The section on the Society is a good account of what I said about the inspiration sources for the Romulans.

On another topic;
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/dis1.htm#thevulcanhello
Does anyone agree with any of the points the reviewer brought up?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 30 September 2017, 12:13:08
On another topic;
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/episodes/dis1.htm#thevulcanhello
Does anyone agree with any of the points the reviewer brought up?

I agree. Im even going to pretend this is on Ambramsverse past instead of Prime Universe so I can watch the show (and out of curiosity to see where this leads/ends).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 30 September 2017, 12:44:12
https://youtu.be/ZcTvrxwP6Is (https://youtu.be/ZcTvrxwP6Is)

Hm...that theme is going to take a bit getting used to I think. It's good...just needs to be a bit more...upbeat?
At least it's waaay better than the theme for Enterprise (of course that's a pretty low bar to begin with).

I know I'm going to be in the minority with this: but from seeing it in here, I think I actually like the looks for the Discovery. It's a cool looking ship. It looks like something Roddenberry might have come up with (in fact it does kind of remind me of some of the early concept art for the USS Enterprise).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 30 September 2017, 14:37:57
(in fact it does kind of remind me of some of the early concept art for the USS Enterprise).
.....it is BASED on an early concept art.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 30 September 2017, 14:45:04
The concept art for Planet of the Titans, which was one of the Trek sequel ideas in the conga line that eventually became TMP.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 30 September 2017, 15:07:50
I'm glad they got rid of the TNG Klingon look. I've personally always thought it looked absolutely ridiculous.

Everything else, I'm cool with. I liked that they seemed more alien that the TNG-era dudes.

Let me preface my response here with the following: I've only seen the first episode, and am not willing to pay to see the rest (at least until it comes out on DVD), as, if I were Canadian, I'd be seeing it on Space tv for no extra cost...

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by the "TNG Klingon look"...the TNG Klingons look no different from the movie era Klingons, which first appeared in Star Trek the Motion Picture (or Motionless Picture, as some prefer...I mostly only watch the opening sequence to see the sweet, sweet K't'inga action...), and continued on into Star Trek III, Star Trek IV (minorly), Star Trek V, Star Trek VI and Star Trek Generations (which brought the movies into the TNG era).

So what exactly makes a movie era Klingon different from a TNG era Klingon?

As to looking alike, etc., or less human...the TOS Klingons looked FAR more human, and just as alike as the movie era/TNG ones...why not complain about those?

Personally, I loved the movie and TNG era Klingons, especially once we started learning more of their culture, rather than just seeing snippets here and there...

I personally would love to see these new Klingons being the first of the ones that tried to get around the "fix" that Phlox was forced to make for the human augment DNA with which they tried to change themselves...but that the movie era/TNG era Klingons were the real Klingons...or at least make them an offshoot branch of the klingons, similar to the Remans...that way, we wouldn't loose decades of history with yet another useless retcon...

Heck...just use the old FASA ST RPG reasoning...the movie/TNG era Klingons are the purebloods, the TOS ones are human-fusion Klingons (which is basically the tact that Enterprise took), and these new ones could be a fusion with another species...

BTW, I've read that there are supposed to be some ideas from The Final Reflection used with the Klingons on Discovery...maybe even introducing klin zha...would really like to see that...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 30 September 2017, 16:19:47
Let me preface my response here with the following: I've only seen the first episode, and am not willing to pay to see the rest (at least until it comes out on DVD), as, if I were Canadian, I'd be seeing it on Space tv for no extra cost...

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by the "TNG Klingon look"...the TNG Klingons look no different from the movie era Klingons, which first appeared in Star Trek the Motion Picture (or Motionless Picture, as some prefer...I mostly only watch the opening sequence to see the sweet, sweet K't'inga action...), and continued on into Star Trek III, Star Trek IV (minorly), Star Trek V, Star Trek VI and Star Trek Generations (which brought the movies into the TNG era).

So what exactly makes a movie era Klingon different from a TNG era Klingon?

Nothing. It's just that while that look was introduced in the original movies, it was tweaked for TV and the Klingons themselves were explored far more in the various modern series than they were in the movies. Easier to say "TNG-era Klingons" knowing that most people in the discussion will know that they were essentially the same look as the movie Klingons without requiring unnecessary detours into pedantry.

Quote
As to looking alike, etc., or less human...the TOS Klingons looked FAR more human, and just as alike as the movie era/TNG ones...why not complain about those?

Because I have no problems with TOS-style Klingons. It's the movie/TNG Klingons that I think look and act stupid.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 30 September 2017, 17:07:36
https://youtu.be/ZcTvrxwP6Is (https://youtu.be/ZcTvrxwP6Is)

Hm...that theme is going to take a bit getting used to I think. It's good...just needs to be a bit more...upbeat?
At least it's waaay better than the theme for Enterprise (of course that's a pretty low bar to begin with).

The opening is WAAAAAAYYYYYY too 'Lost/Fringe' for my tastes, but that makes sense.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 30 September 2017, 23:54:29
I kind of get where Cannonshop is coming from.

While I don't care their culture has been changed again what I take issue with is how dull everything they do has been so far.

As ridiculous as the TNG portrayal of honor is more a suggestion than an absolute, which is nothing new, punching bags they at least were not boring.

Their appearance, as bad as I can agree that it was even if I didn't mind all of it did not turn me off the way Discovery Klingons do.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 01 October 2017, 00:05:28
While I don't care their culture has been changed again what I take issue with is how dull everything they do has been so far.

So far? It's been one or two episodes (depending on how much of the premiere you saw). They haven't really done much yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 01 October 2017, 16:20:01
I completely missed it and i can't find a on-demand source try watch it.  So i guess won't be seeing it for years then. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 01 October 2017, 16:58:15
I completely missed it and i can't find a on-demand source try watch it.  So i guess won't be seeing it for years then.
Only on CBS All Access. Not on hula or Netflix. But they're allowing Netflix to show it....outside the USA and Canada.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 01 October 2017, 17:00:08
Only on CBS All Access. Not on hula or Netflix. But they're allowing Netflix to show it....outside the USA and Canada.
Because there is no CBS all acess outside the US. Partly because they have already licensed the rights to many of their shows in variously ways outside the US.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 01 October 2017, 17:02:58
Netflix has a global (outside the US, Canada and China) deal with CBS for the Star Trek TV series, including Discovery.  I'd be willing to bet that it's offset a massive percentage of the cost of the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: NeonKnight on 01 October 2017, 17:47:15
As stated before, it also available on regular Cable in Canada on the SPACE Channel:

https://www.space.ca/show/star-trek-discovery/
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 01 October 2017, 18:24:54
As stated before, it also available on regular Cable in Canada on the SPACE Channel:

https://www.space.ca/show/star-trek-discovery/
Regionally banned for me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 01 October 2017, 20:07:17
So far? It's been one or two episodes (depending on how much of the premiere you saw). They haven't really done much yet.

Considering they knew going in they would have one chance to sell people on why they should watch the show before it went behind a pay wall, I'd say it is fair to condemn them for not making sure the Klingons were not boring from the get go.

Ultimately though I think that is my problem with the show.  It actually wasn't that bad unless you go in determined to hate it but at the same time it wasn't good enough I'd pay extra money to keep watching it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 October 2017, 23:11:01
Considering they knew going in they would have one chance to sell people on why they should watch the show before it went behind a pay wall, I'd say it is fair to condemn them for not making sure the Klingons were not boring from the get go.

Ultimately though I think that is my problem with the show.  It actually wasn't that bad unless you go in determined to hate it but at the same time it wasn't good enough I'd pay extra money to keep watching it.
The 'look' change wasn't what killed it for me, it was two things:

1. They made their antagonists boring.  The 'new look' could've been great-if it didn't come off so completely wooden once the picture was in motion, if these nu-Klingons weren't so lemming-like in group scenes, if they weren't all moving so stiffly in every motion scene, if they had the ability to have anything but ONE expression (the one molded into the mask).
boring.
2. Burnham wasn't such an idiot.  by the third time I wanted to scream "are you stupid?" at the screen (she was doing the spacewalk and was out of contact, so decided to take a stroll on the object.  jesus, she hadn't even one-shotted the Klingon yet...)

it's like they spent the entire writing budget on those amazing visuals in space, and the entire direction budget to hire Michelle Yeoh as the galaxy's most expensive redshirt.

by the end of the first hour, I didn't want the second...but my roomies did.

as for the klingons in ep. 2 'acting just like tng" that's complete and utter horse shit.  They were identically as wooden, and nearly identical in their expressionless, emotion-less, wooden delivery of lines.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 02 October 2017, 00:33:32
Netflix has a global (outside the US, Canada and China) deal with CBS for the Star Trek TV series, including Discovery.  I'd be willing to bet that it's offset a massive percentage of the cost of the show.

Not so sure - remember that Netflix has deals with tons of networks, not to mention their own streaming shows. That $10/month needs to cover all that as well as running costs, espesially as they have no advertisment income.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 October 2017, 02:48:13
I'm sure that having the international distribution rights to the show gained Netflix plenty of new subscriptions.  Certainly it's a better deal than what we're getting in the US.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 October 2017, 06:09:19
Already saw episode 3 (on Netflix)... Ill wait for more people to see it before posting anything.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 October 2017, 06:53:17
I've also watched episode 3 and continue to enjoy the show
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 October 2017, 07:03:20
Not so sure - remember that Netflix has deals with tons of networks, not to mention their own streaming shows. That $10/month needs to cover all that as well as running costs, espesially as they have no advertisment income.

bear in mind that Paramount made a profit on TMP before the movie was in theatres. They're really good at this
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 02 October 2017, 07:49:37
I've also watched episode 3 and continue to enjoy the show

Same Discovery looks interesting shame about the Glenn though
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 02 October 2017, 13:49:41
As I understand it, Discovery is explicitly a science ship, like an Oberth class.
TOS Enterprise and TNG Enterprise were nominal exploratory vessels, but they were heavily armed and regularly took part in combat operations.  What the show choses to call the Discovery is irrelevant.  If it has photon torpedoes and phasers (and I'll bet the farm it does) then its a ship capable of combat, i.e. a warship.

Quote
From the previews, it looks like she's part of a penal unit, or in a Tom Paris type situation.
Tom Paris on the Voyager was a special case.  Just like Chakotay and B'Elanna Torres, they were used by the Captain because they ship was in an emergency situation, possibly permanently out of contact with the Federation, and IIRC short handed.  None of those three would have been put into positions of authority on the ship in normal situations by any sane military organization. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 02 October 2017, 14:29:25
So ep 3 was the ACTUAL premier, given that eps 1&2 are an extended prologue. Still not getting a Trek vibe. Were this any other sci fi, it'd be ok. As Trek, it's still ok. But it's not gripping. I don't CARE about any of the characters, what's happening to them, or the pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. I give it one more episode, then I'm out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 02 October 2017, 14:40:38
TOS Enterprise and TNG Enterprise were nominal exploratory vessels, but they were heavily armed and regularly took part in combat operations.  What the show choses to call the Discovery is irrelevant.  If it has photon torpedoes and phasers (and I'll bet the farm it does) then its a ship capable of combat, i.e. a warship.

Spoken like a true ToS Klingon, it's got guns - must be a battlecruiser.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 02 October 2017, 14:42:37
Spoken like a true ToS Klingon, it's got guns - must be a battlecruiser.

Preview for ep 4 has Lorca calling Discovery a warship, ergo, it's a warship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 02 October 2017, 14:54:05
Preview for ep 4 has Lorca calling Discovery a warship, ergo, it's a warship.

No, warships are designed only for combat; an armed merchant man is not a warship. The first warship designed by Starfleet was the Defiant from DS9, also Starfleet is not a hardline military organization like the US Navy.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 02 October 2017, 15:06:38
Starfleet is not a hardline military organization like the US Navy.
It did come close though when you go by The Undiscovered Country...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 October 2017, 18:12:05
No, warships are designed only for combat; an armed merchant man is not a warship. The first warship designed by Starfleet was the Defiant from DS9, also Starfleet is not a hardline military organization like the US Navy.

The TOS Enterprise and the Enterprise D had superior firepower to the standard Klingon battlecruisers of each era.  The Defiant's biggest difference was that when compared to a Galaxy or similar class ship, it wasn't designed to do anything but fight.  The Enterprise E wasn't technically a warship and it was a hell of a lot more powerful than the Defiant.  Arguing that ships with that much firepower aren't warships is not really believable: when the Federation went to war, those were the types of ships they brought out and they did pretty darned well with them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 02 October 2017, 19:05:55
No, warships are designed only for combat; an armed merchant man is not a warship. The first warship designed by Starfleet was the Defiant from DS9, also Starfleet is not a hardline military organization like the US Navy.
Not quite true... Many warships are designed to support things in addition to combat (pick an amphib... they can do HA/DR quite well, and carriers aren't bad either; hell, anything that can catch a helo can do SAR like nobody's business).

And honestly, the US Navy was conceived to do more than just warfighting.  Check the Constitution: "maintain" a Navy, and "raise" armies.  Our job jar has always had more than war in it...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 02 October 2017, 19:24:31
I'd like to mention that Star Trek is always influx.  During the TNG run, that Scotty had mentioned that he had servered on various ships including Frigates.  Clearly a military type of ship.  Frigates are listed in the Star Trek Encyclopedia.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 October 2017, 19:52:55
I can see both points of view as true and false at the same time.

The problem is what Star Trek gave us through the series as to what role(s) UFP is supposed to be (have).

Ignoring Abramsverse the other series where UFP is present (in the universe timeline - after Enterprise) the Federation ships were supposed to be a sort of pacekeeping/exploratory ships but only with self defense capabilities (some classes better at it while others worse). Starting with DS9 where for the first time the Federation is at war in decades the design philosophy changed (after the defeat at Wolf 359 - hence the Defiant class) to give better warmongering capabilities and attacking foes instead of a defending attitude (and IIRC this is mentioned by a couple of characters in one of the SITREPs when the Defiant is introduced in the show).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 02 October 2017, 20:41:21
I'm honestly shocked at the replies trying do declare science, exploration, and diplomatic ships as warships simply because they can defend themselves well. Is an Oberth class now a warship because it has phasers? A Nebula because of torpedo launchers? How about a Danube class runabout? Apparently a Voth City ship is just a massive warship now...
That's a bit hyperbolic, but you get my drift right? Just because they can be used in combat does not mean they are warships.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 02 October 2017, 20:51:03
I'd say it's the culture behind a ship that defines it.  A ship is an object a tool like a spade or hammer.  You can use a ship to explore or you can use it to fight just like you can use a hammer to build or kill
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 October 2017, 21:13:00
I'm honestly shocked at the replies trying do declare science, exploration, and diplomatic ships as warships simply because they can defend themselves well.

When your science, exploration, and diplomatic ships have enough firepower and shields to be more than a match for the purpose-built warships of your very hostile neighbors, the distinction becomes fuzzy.  This is one of the reasons that all the Federation's neighbors are so wary of it: it can build a ship capable of killing all multicellular life on a planet, then claims that it's not a combat vessel yet still sends it out to fight whenever the Borg or Dominion are feeling frisky.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 02 October 2017, 21:17:15
Yep, I think that's the key right there... When it takes planet killing firepower to "defend yourself well", you've crossed the line into "that's a warship"...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 02 October 2017, 23:17:10
When your science, exploration, and diplomatic ships have enough firepower and shields to be more than a match for the purpose-built warships of your very hostile neighbors, the distinction becomes fuzzy.  This is one of the reasons that all the Federation's neighbors are so wary of it: it can build a ship capable of killing all multicellular life on a planet, then claims that it's not a combat vessel yet still sends it out to fight whenever the Borg or Dominion are feeling frisky.
Considering Errand of Mercy was on Saturday night on MeTV, that's a distinction that should be made.  The Enterprise starts the episode by sinking a Klingon cruiser that fired first, ducked and ran when the Klingon fleet showed up, and returned with a Federation combat force willing to go to war in Organia orbit.

You can arm science ships and research vessels for self protection, but you don't willingly bring those into battle.
Preview for ep 4 has Lorca calling Discovery a warship, ergo, it's a warship.
If the in-character captain of the ship says she's a battlewagon, she's a battlewagon.  It may be a fantastic one or a poor one, but quality doesn't make the soul of a vessel.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 03 October 2017, 00:47:04
You can arm science ships and research vessels for self protection, but you don't willingly bring those into battle.

You do if they're the only thing you've got...Wolf 359.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 03 October 2017, 05:09:35
You do if they're the only thing you've got...Wolf 359.

Hence my post above. Up until that the Federation wasnt considering making/using true warships (like the Klingons, Cardassians and so on) as a design philosophy. Wolf 359 changed that.

EDIT = A funny idea came to mind... thinking Jacques Cousteau Calypso trending through the seas but armed with 152mm guns and Exocet missiles.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: THUD on 03 October 2017, 05:34:19
I read something the other day that summarizes my experience with the two parter perfectly. (If it was from someone here I apologize ) It's the best bit of Mass Effect fanfic that you will ever see. But it doesn't feel like Trek to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 03 October 2017, 06:35:49
I think I'll judge the whole series instead of judging three episodes

There are bit of this I don't like there are bits I do

At the moment I'm getting a feeling that this whole series is going to set up Michael as the new commander of Discovery for a series 2 it just seems like all of this is back story just a feeling
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 03 October 2017, 12:10:07
I think I'll judge the whole series instead of judging three episodes

There are bit of this I don't like there are bits I do

At the moment I'm getting a feeling that this whole series is going to set up Michael as the new commander of Discovery for a series 2 it just seems like all of this is back story just a feeling

I'm sure there would be several of us who would be willing to do so, if it didn't mean having to fork over extra money above and beyond what we're currently paying for television service in order to have the opportunity to judge whether we like the show, or feel it's crap.

Personally, from what I've heard of the three episodes released thus far, I'm not inclined to spend the money to watch something that will make me want to fling a bat'leth at my TV.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 03 October 2017, 12:18:51
You have a bat'leth O0

I'm sure it'll end up on US Netflix let's be honest anyone who has compared the two knows the US version is way superior
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 03 October 2017, 12:32:20
You have a bat'leth O0

Not at present.  I threw it through my TV when they cancelled Enterprise.

Quote
I'm sure it'll end up on US Netflix let's be honest anyone who has compared the two knows the US version is way superior

Nope.  Entire purpose of this is to force subscribers to CBS All Access, for the goal of forcing higher negotiation prices with Netflix and Amazon for streaming other CBS shows.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 03 October 2017, 13:21:34
I do suspect that either way this will result in a win for CBS.

Either they'll get their increased revenue from Amazon, Netflix, and any other streaming services they wish or they'll get enough people subscribed that they can just make a go at having their own streaming service.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 October 2017, 13:22:21
Nope.  Entire purpose of this is to force subscribers to CBS All Access, for the goal of forcing higher negotiation prices with Netflix and Amazon for streaming other CBS shows.

Yeah, but if CBS All Access fails, which seems likely if they don't have any other shows to bring people in, then Netflix is likely to end up with Discovery (of course, there's also a high probability that Discovery will be canned, as well).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 03 October 2017, 13:40:15
From people I know who've seen it, it looks like a running theme is going to be an exploration of morality over pragmatism, the 'soul' of Star Fleet, so to speak. Is Star Fleet a military organization at heart, or is it the science and exploration fleet they've always stated they are? Hawks or Doves? They've touched on this before, but they've never really explored that question at great depth.

As is, the Discovery is NCC-1031.  I doubt that's a coincidence.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 October 2017, 14:09:22
Tom Paris on the Voyager was a special case.  Just like Chakotay and B'Elanna Torres, they were used by the Captain because they ship was in an emergency situation, possibly permanently out of contact with the Federation, and IIRC short handed.  None of those three would have been put into positions of authority on the ship in normal situations by any sane military organization. 

This far, Burnham looks to be the same sort of special case as Paris was nominally in at the start of Voyager.  And unless the cut of the episode on CBS all-access is majorly different from the one on Netflix outside the US, Brunham isn't in a position of authority.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 03 October 2017, 14:18:15


As is, the Discovery is NCC-1031.  I doubt that's a coincidence.

I did not notice that - fun
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 03 October 2017, 14:58:31
I thought I read somewhere that CBS will eventually pull all of the Star Trek shows from US NetFlix?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 03 October 2017, 15:06:32
Yeah, but if CBS All Access fails, which seems likely if they don't have any other shows to bring people in, then Netflix is likely to end up with Discovery (of course, there's also a high probability that Discovery will be canned, as well).

CBS All Access had 2 million subscribers before Discovery came out - and had increased by half a million in the last 6 months.

So they have plenty of other legs to stand on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 03 October 2017, 15:15:25
one thing to remember is according to the information I remember the constitution class was officially a heavy cruiser, the excelsior class was a battleship, and I am not exactly sure what the galaxy class was actually defined as.

Starfleet has always been to me a cross between a paramilitary force, and a full up military, and that "confusion" is reflected at various levels throughout the entire universe.

now nominally most of the main line vessels that were stars of their respective series were tasked with exploration missions, they usually had enough weapons to defend themselves just fine thank you if the "natives were restless/nasty" but they weren't intended as front line combatants until the defiant.
the difference is actually rather significant, were the federation ships armed heavily enough to qualify as warships? I would tend to say definitely, but they weren't typically "true warships" in the sense that everything about them was dedicated to getting the most offensive and defensive capability possible crammed into the smallest package that can do the job.... until the defiant in TNG/DS9 when the "warmongers" got a loud enough voice to be listened to after the borg incidents such as wolf 359.

thinking about the various shows and the ships "intent"  enterprise first warp 5 ship for earth, explore the neighborhood and push back the frontier.

TOS constitution class, explore, the region, push back the frontier, do some "policeing" duties when you run into known hostile powers, (sort of cowboys/western in space)

TNG pretty much the same as TOS as duties, just given a bigger stick, due to the more hostile threats possible in the era, kind of added the whole Calvary coming to the rescue...

DS9 outpost on the edge of the frontier, hold the fort, and work to provide stability to the region while the government figures out what they can/ want to do in the area.

Voyager,  craft intended for local patrols got thrown across the galaxy and....
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 03 October 2017, 15:19:31
Ignoring Abramsverse the other series where UFP is present (in the universe timeline - after Enterprise) the Federation ships were supposed to be a sort of pacekeeping/exploratory ships but only with self defense capabilities (some classes better at it while others worse). Starting with DS9 where for the first time the Federation is at war in decades the design philosophy changed (after the defeat at Wolf 359 - hence the Defiant class) to give better warmongering capabilities and attacking foes instead of a defending attitude (and IIRC this is mentioned by a couple of characters in one of the SITREPs when the Defiant is introduced in the show).

Look up the Cardassian War. It was a simmering conflict going on for 30 (50?) Years before they finally reached some sort of  agreement in Season 5 or 6 of the Next Generation. The Federation was at war. The Borg and then the Dominion were the reasons why Star Fleet needed both powerful and cheep ships that could do what they did in large numbers.

I'm surprised we didn't get to see whole squadrons of the things by the end of DS9.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 October 2017, 15:26:26
I have this theory that the Federation/Cardassian war was incredibly one-sided and Starfleet didn't need a massive military presence to keep them at bay.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 03 October 2017, 15:29:08
The Galaxy-Class was an Explorer-type ship, as per the TNG technical manual.



Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 03 October 2017, 15:45:50
My favorite classification is the (very non-canon) one for the Sovereign: Enhanced Deterrence Explorer. ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 October 2017, 16:03:19
The Federation always said they are not for war but for peace. Its hard to be peaceful when you have "warships" to everyone that wasn't the Federation they knew there ships were Warships.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 03 October 2017, 16:10:05
Yeah, but if CBS All Access fails, which seems likely if they don't have any other shows to bring people in, then Netflix is likely to end up with Discovery (of course, there's also a high probability that Discovery will be canned, as well).

I wouldn't bet on All Access failing any time soon.

And they are bringing other original shows to All Access. The one that looks most interesting to me is a drama about this guy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)).

I thought I read somewhere that CBS will eventually pull all of the Star Trek shows from US NetFlix?

I haven't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did so. There's really little benefit to them leaving those shows at Netflix if they are going to be running their own streaming service.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mdauben on 03 October 2017, 16:22:10
I do suspect that either way this will result in a win for CBS.

Either they'll get their increased revenue from Amazon, Netflix, and any other streaming services they wish or they'll get enough people subscribed that they can just make a go at having their own streaming service.
Or STD will tank due to lack of viewers. 

CBS All Access had 2 million subscribers before Discovery came out - and had increased by half a million in the last 6 months.

So they have plenty of other legs to stand on.
And they spent how many tens of millions in production costs on a season of STD to generate that 1/2 million extra subscribers? 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 03 October 2017, 16:28:44
I have this theory that the Federation/Cardassian war was incredibly one-sided and Starfleet didn't need a massive military presence to keep them at bay.

Mine is that it's given in "galactic standard" years so was really only 3 months.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 October 2017, 16:42:33
And they are bringing other original shows to All Access. The one that looks most interesting to me is a drama about this guy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)).


ooooooooh
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 03 October 2017, 16:56:50
Or STD will tank due to lack of viewers. 
And they spent how many tens of millions in production costs on a season of STD to generate that 1/2 million extra subscribers?
That half million increase was from february to august when they hit 2million, long before STD premiered. How much has been added since then is unknown.

They've only said that the first episode og STD. had the largest ever single day signup for the service - the previous being during the Grammys.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 03 October 2017, 17:05:24
Considering that from what I am reading just the Netflix deal has already paid for ST:D it wouldn't take much for CBS All Access to pay off for CBS.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 03 October 2017, 17:29:45
This is just a random thought, but I kind of wish they'd named the show something else: ST:D is rather... unfortunate...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 03 October 2017, 17:35:08
Look up the Cardassian War. It was a simmering conflict going on for 30 (50?) Years before they finally reached some sort of  agreement in Season 5 or 6 of the Next Generation. The Federation was at war. The Borg and then the Dominion were the reasons why Star Fleet needed both powerful and cheep ships that could do what they did in large numbers.

I'm surprised we didn't get to see whole squadrons of the things by the end of DS9.

30 years (give or take - from 2347-2350s and up until 2360s in a "hot" cold war) according to http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation-Cardassian_War (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Federation-Cardassian_War).

It wasnt considered a "serious" war for the Federation. It was "only" a border war so it was thought that what Federation had was enough to held the enemy at bay and forcing it to accept an armistice. For reference the Battle of Wolf 359 was on 2367 and the Dominion War started on 2373.

EDIT = the writers of the shows/books had too much liberty to make up stuff and didnt care for a logical progression of the Federation war time effectiveness... I think...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 October 2017, 17:54:00
This is just a random thought, but I kind of wish they'd named the show something else: ST:D is rather... unfortunate...

The official abbreviation is DSC, though Memory Alpha and other fan sites are using DIS for consistency with VOY and ENT
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 03 October 2017, 19:00:16
one thing to remember is according to the information I remember the constitution class was officially a heavy cruiser, the excelsior class was a battleship, and I am not exactly sure what the galaxy class was actually defined as.

You appear to be thinking in terms of the old FASA RPG. In the various series, I believe both the Constitution and Excelsior classes were deemed heavy cruisers (of their time periods...as was the Ambassador-class for the Enterprise-C). The Galaxy class were defined as "Explorers"...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 03 October 2017, 19:42:46
You appear to be thinking in terms of the old FASA RPG. In the various series, I believe both the Constitution and Excelsior classes were deemed heavy cruisers (of their time periods...as was the Ambassador-class for the Enterprise-C). The Galaxy class were defined as "Explorers"...

Ruger

Star Trek III data screens list the Constitution class as heavy cruisers.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 03 October 2017, 20:02:39
The Fed Cardassian war, was a war, but never a full scale the Federation is in Danger war. The Federation had a huge advantage in the Space front. A Nebula class was more then enough to cause problems for the Cardies. The Federation never took it to them like a invasion, attacked huge sectors, core worlds, and beyond.
As ships got replaced then the classification changed. The Excelsior was a Battleship at one point then turned into just a cruiser.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 03 October 2017, 21:18:09
The Federation had a huge advantage in the Space front. A Nebula class was more then enough to cause problems for the Cardies
The various appearances on screen of the Nebulas fighting Cardassians would seem to suggest otherwise. The Phoenix only took out an unknown warship and still took heavy damage from the single salvo it got off. Likewise, the Honshu was easily dispatched by the Cardassians when carrying Dukat and Sisko. Beyond that, we have no information, at least not that I can recall, that says the Federation was running roughshod over the Cardassians in space.

The Federation never took it to them like a invasion, attacked huge sectors, core worlds, and beyond.
What? Setlik III was most certainly an invasion. And in any case, just because your core worlds aren't attacked does not mean it's not a "real" war. The continental United States was not attacked (I'm not counting submarine shellings or hot air bombs) during WWII yet no one would dispute that the US was on a full war footing and suffered substantial casualties.

The Excelsior was a Battleship at one point then turned into just a cruiser.
I'm sorry but do you have a source for this? If the Constitutions were, canonically as per Star Trek III, heavy cruisers then I have a hard time believing that the Excelsior was considered a "better" ship than that. On top of that, "battleship" is hardly a term I can see Rodenberry, who was very much still in the middle of things when Star Trek III was filmed, signing off on. It's just not a very appropriate term for how Starfleet was viewed.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 October 2017, 21:45:34
I'm pretty sure I am Belch was referring to the Federation/Cardassian war that had broken out before the events of The Next Generation, not the fight against the Cardassians during the Dominion War.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 03 October 2017, 21:57:15
I'm pretty sure I am Belch was referring to the Federation/Cardassian war that had broken out before the events of The Next Generation, not the fight against the Cardassians during the Dominion War.
I agree. Setlik III was the massacre that Captain Maxwell (TNG: The Wounded) lost his family in. Likewise, the Phoenix destroyed the unknown Cardassian warship during the events of The Wounded. The Honshu was indeed destroyed during the Dominion War but the rest of my points are very much about the earlier Federation/Cardassian War.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 03 October 2017, 23:02:53
Grey, he might be referring to Star Fleet Battles or the various computer games, in referring the Excelsior-Class as a Battleship (BB). If anything, the Ex would be a Battle Cruiser, simply because of the number of Phaser Turrets angles it covers on the primary hull (5, as opposed to 3 seen on Ent & Reliant's hull). In the movies (and TV) it was never referred to what kind of military class, thus comparing to Star Fleet's Navy but Not Navy conventions...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 04 October 2017, 05:10:34
What I was saying the Federation never really tried to invade Cardassian space, they were on a defensive footing over a offensive footing. The Federation had some crap diplomats and lost more worlds that way then in the actual fighting. The Cardassians did have a advantage over the Stargazer (out of date ship) and made Picard turn tale and run.
I wasn't talking anything about the Dominion War, that is when they got a upgrade in tech and tactics with the help of their major allies in the Dominion.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 October 2017, 07:27:48
Not at present.  I threw it through my TV when they cancelled Enterprise.


... just as it was getting good. It helped that they finally got writers on the show that understood the Star Trek universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 04 October 2017, 07:34:12
The Cardassians did have a advantage over the Stargazer (out of date ship) and made Picard turn tale and run.
But that's not true either. The Cardassians had such an advantage over the Stargazer because Picard lowered his shields (again, cited in the episodes "The Wounded"). That's not an advantage you can extrapolate to the entire war.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 04 October 2017, 08:54:41
... just as it was getting good. It helped that they finally got writers on the show that understood the Star Trek universe.

Yup Enterprise was getting to the good part when they canned it the actors were getting comfortable it was working shame it lost viewers before then
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Foxx Ital on 04 October 2017, 09:35:56
It was on upn during its deathspin right? I think that contributed a little bit, had it been on a more successful channel it might have done better. But i agree it got canned as it was getting its rhythm.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 04 October 2017, 10:58:14
Yup Enterprise was getting to the good part when they canned it

A show that is just getting good after four seasons deserves to be canceled. Hell, should have been canceled sooner.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 04 October 2017, 11:05:59
A show that is just getting good after four seasons deserves to be canceled. Hell, should have been canceled sooner.
Yeah. "Let's do a throwback show and fill in all the holes. Actually, let's introduce more time travel in the first episode, new races that all have no relevance to TOS, TNG, DS9, or VOY, and then hold off on explaining any backstory until we know we're about to be cancelled."

How could that have gone wrong?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 04 October 2017, 11:22:57
I would of been more of a fan of Enterprise if the Xindi War was just deleted at all. That is where I turned it off. Season 4 was some of the best writing and stories of the show. If they could of done that a couple years earlier it might just of made it all 7 seasons. There should of been more Tellerites and from what I read the Kizinti from the Cartoon and Star Fleet Battles would of shown up. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 04 October 2017, 13:24:31
I would of been more of a fan of Enterprise if the Xindi War was just deleted at all. That is where I turned it off. Season 4 was some of the best writing and stories of the show. If they could of done that a couple years earlier it might just of made it all 7 seasons. There should of been more Tellerites and from what I read the Kizinti from the Cartoon and Star Fleet Battles would of shown up.
The Earth-Romulan War. IN full.
The NX Refit that would actually show a design lineage to NCC-1701 and beyond.
These are what we would have had ENT gotten another season.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 04 October 2017, 14:25:47
Keep in mind that the Cardassian War was a key backstory development for a lot of characters, especially DS9. O'Brien had something to tell of a battle. Sisko. From what I read on Memory-Alpha, there were a lot of brushfires going on in all that time.



Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 04 October 2017, 20:46:10
Keep in mind that the Cardassian War was a key backstory development for a lot of characters, especially DS9. O'Brien had something to tell of a battle. Sisko. From what I read on Memory-Alpha, there were a lot of brushfires going on in all that time.

Thats why I called a "hot" cold war in my previous post.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: idea weenie on 04 October 2017, 20:50:12
Keep in mind that the Cardassian War was a key backstory development for a lot of characters, especially DS9. O'Brien had something to tell of a battle. Sisko. From what I read on Memory-Alpha, there were a lot of brushfires going on in all that time.

Plus the Demilitarized Zone after the war, where some Federation colonies wound up in Cardassian territory, and vice versa.  You even had he Federation going back later and giving the Cardassians more worlds (i.e. Journey's End (http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Journey%27s_End_(episode))).  There is even Pre-Emptive strike (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_Strike_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)) where the Federation was protecting a Cardassian ship from the Maquis (former Federation citizens that now live in the Demilitarized Zone).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 05 October 2017, 16:03:21
Do not watch if you don't want to be spoiled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-oIpBzNUcI

Seriously that's what the ship Discovery is about?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 05 October 2017, 16:13:15
Do not watch if you don't want to be spoiled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-oIpBzNUcI

Seriously that's what the ship Discovery is about?

Wait...what...I...what...how...what...good god...what have they done?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 October 2017, 16:30:43
Well, if they find there's something hugely destructive in all this, maybe a Starflight/Starflight 2 thing of "oh god we were using actual sapient living creatures as fuel" it would make sense why we never hear about it later.  The fact it seems to only work for 'where you were before' based on those entanglement canisters (assuming again that's legit) also gives it drawbacks, but...

Hey at least they're being creative, but I do hope to see a proper warp core engine room on Disco.  Haven't seen any of it, does it have one?  (I mean it's got nacelles)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 05 October 2017, 16:37:21
So does the ship have a regular warp drive and this is just some secret prototype kind of thing? Please tell me that isn't the main form of propulsion on the ship...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 05 October 2017, 16:54:10
The warp drive is visible at the back of the engineering set.  It looks more like the warp drive on the TOS engineering set, there's no big pulsating tube like in the movies and TNG (which was because they used the same set, of course)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 05 October 2017, 17:36:20
I also find this video interesting... spoilering risk...  ;D

https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4 (https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Pht on 06 October 2017, 01:16:43
Saw the first episode; not going to spend money to see if they can make it any better.

Frankly, CBS tying this behind a paywall reminds me of DX10 being tied to vista for no other reason than to try and force people off of xp.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 06 October 2017, 10:02:03
I also find this video interesting... spoilering risk...  ;D

https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4 (https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4)
yeah that came on after the clip I posted. I find that theory very intriguing and does appear to make Discovery fit "neatly" into the lineup of the Shows and the setting.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 06 October 2017, 10:30:37
I also find this video interesting... spoilering risk...  ;D

https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4 (https://youtu.be/KoW8Sq8-hr4)
yeah that came on after the clip I posted. I find that theory very intriguing and does appear to make Discovery fit "neatly" into the lineup of the Shows and the setting.
That's pretty interesting theory.  I do wonder if this is true is how Captain Garth fits into the original canon as a fallen "Hero".  If theory is true, his activities on Discovery would not be known publically.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 06 October 2017, 14:59:53
One thing that happened a fair bit in Trek is that the characters would encounter a Starfleet ship or officer who had gone too far, become morally conflicted, or was 'bad' in some other way.  Kirk, Picard, Sisko, hell even Janeway got in on that action!  Discovery is the story of one of those ships.  We don't know enough yet to say that Lorca is an antagonist, or a sympathetic figure who's gone too far, or something else (maybe he's just got a flair for the dramatic?) - but part of the story is going to be exploring him as a person.

Basically, this is In The Pale Moonlight - the series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 06 October 2017, 15:23:20
I dont understand the Shroom-drive but it was perfect "Star Trek" technology. Using a science to make things better.

The Shroom-drive kinda reminds me of that Voyager episode with the Equinox that was killing aliens and using them as fuel for a super warp drive to get home.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 06 October 2017, 15:26:23
Lieutenant Stametz on the show is named after a real-life Mycologst, who was on After Trek last week.  He seemed not dismissive of the spore drive, but he did seem to be into his metaphysics (and psilocybin)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 06 October 2017, 17:57:03
That's pretty interesting theory.  I do wonder if this is true is how Captain Garth fits into the original canon as a fallen "Hero".  If theory is true, his activities on Discovery would not be known publically.

I like the theory it would be a different take and so far would fit with what's been seen

One thing that happened a fair bit in Trek is that the characters would encounter a Starfleet ship or officer who had gone too far, become morally conflicted, or was 'bad' in some other way.  Kirk, Picard, Sisko, hell even Janeway got in on that action!  Discovery is the story of one of those ships.  We don't know enough yet to say that Lorca is an antagonist, or a sympathetic figure who's gone too far, or something else (maybe he's just got a flair for the dramatic?) - but part of the story is going to be exploring him as a person.

Basically, this is In The Pale Moonlight - the series.

I've no issues with that the idea that Discovery is on the wrong path and it's new recruit is trying to set it right from the inside.  Will she succeed or Will it corrupt her?

I said before I think that this season is essentially the story of how she becomes Discovery's CO.  Lorca as a fallen "hero/mentor" could be interesting
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 07 October 2017, 02:14:13
Haven't actually watched it yet, but isn't she already corrupted? I mean, she was in prison...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 07 October 2017, 02:41:31
Haven't actually watched it yet, but isn't she already corrupted? I mean, she was in prison...

She did what she thought was the only course of action (not necessarily the right course) unfortunately it was against her captains orders and she had to assault said captain to do it

In all honesty to me it was an immature move for someone in her position she let personal bias rule her head
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 October 2017, 03:27:10
A rather emotional and illogical move for someone who grew up under Sarek and was said to be very much like a Vulcan herself...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 04:00:59
It's almost as if they wrote her to be some sort of flawed character!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 07 October 2017, 04:45:55
It's almost as if they wrote her to be some sort of flawed character!

Know you want to defend her-'cuz she's played by a pretty actress from a show you probably also watched and loved...but.

Bunny Burnham's behaviours (alliteration, neat) BEFORE she attempted mutiny, even before she oneshots the first Klingon she meets, is an example of some seriously bad writing of a character and some ridiculously bad setup.

Take her by the context as shown.  This is supposed to be a senior officer with seven years' experience, not your college roomie or your freaky ex-girlfriend.

she consistently doesn't act the part of someone who actually knows what they're doing, or has the experiences and expertise to have survived a seven year tour on an exploration, patrol, or even littoral vessel.

She acts instead like a vacationer on a chartered boat-and that's before she nerve-pinches her friend and commanding officer as step one in a mutiny.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 04:49:44
Know you want to defend her-'cuz she's played by a pretty actress from a show you probably also watched and loved...but.

Never seen her in a show before Discovery, and am incapable of finding celebrities attractive.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 07 October 2017, 11:48:01
Never seen her in a show before Discovery, and am incapable of finding celebrities attractive.

Then, I  suggest you watch it (the first two episodes) again. Maybe with a friend who's done a dangerous job or served in the military.  Watch how many times they facepalm before she even reaches the Klingon, or monitor the disgusted sighs as each successively improbable thing happens because Burnham.  We're not talking 'Flawed' here, we're talking 'blindingly unrealistic', she's supposed to be a full commander, an XO, and she's behaving like a boot shake-and-bake butterbar with emotional problems and a commander who's never disciplined her undisciplined (though very shapely) ass. 

In the THIRD episode, it's even revealed she didn't attend the Academy (much less graduate), so she's an unqualified person in what appears to have been an unearned position in the first two episodes-a position gained in the manner of a 19th century modern major general, perhaps.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 07 October 2017, 12:24:36
I'm surprised Star Fleet functions at all with such light punishment for mutiny.  It looks all too easy to steal a ship.  Mutineers simply don't belong on the same side of the air lock with the crew.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 12:42:41
Then, I  suggest you watch it (the first two episodes) again. Maybe with a friend who's done a dangerous job or served in the military.  Watch how many times they facepalm before she even reaches the Klingon, or monitor the disgusted sighs as each successively improbable thing happens because Burnham.  We're not talking 'Flawed' here, we're talking 'blindingly unrealistic', she's supposed to be a full commander, an XO, and she's behaving like a boot shake-and-bake butterbar with emotional problems and a commander who's never disciplined her undisciplined (though very shapely) ass. 

In the THIRD episode, it's even revealed she didn't attend the Academy (much less graduate), so she's an unqualified person in what appears to have been an unearned position in the first two episodes-a position gained in the manner of a 19th century modern major general, perhaps.

In all honesty, I don't care about such criticisms because this is Star Trek we're talking about.  Realism went out the window 50 years ago.  It's pointless nitpicking.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 07 October 2017, 16:36:38
It's almost as if they wrote her to be some sort of flawed character!
Flawed would be fine, but it's all the OTHER characters in the show telling her how cold and logical she is that is the problem.  If it was a "For someone raised by Vulcans you're a serious cowboy" that'd be fine, but it's done completely serious that she's a total cold-fish logic-only type which...isn't what we are shown.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 16:46:31
Flawed would be fine, but it's all the OTHER characters in the show telling her how cold and logical she is that is the problem.  If it was a "For someone raised by Vulcans you're a serious cowboy" that'd be fine, but it's done completely serious that she's a total cold-fish logic-only type which...isn't what we are shown.

Who's actually said that though?  Captain Georgiou was all about putting Burnham back in touch with her human side.  When Burnham spoke with Sarek he noted she was allowing her emotions to override her logic.  And Lieutenant Stamets seemed confused that she wasn't a Vulcan based on what information Captain Lorca had sent him.  I don't recall anyone else talking about her Vulcan heritage in relation to logic.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 07 October 2017, 17:15:10
Before for it was old TOS series, won't a Vulcan being emotional be technically a Romulan? 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 07 October 2017, 17:25:19
Before for it was old TOS series, won't a Vulcan being emotional be technically a Romulan?

Nope. Romulans are a culture distinct from Vulcan's, even an emotional one. You wouldn't call Sybok a Romulan, would you?



On a different tac, some of us view Discovery as a dumpster fire, and some of us enjoy it. Oddly enough, that doesn't mean we can't coexist. Let those who enjoy it watch it, the rest will find something else to watch.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 17:26:41
Before for it was old TOS series, won't a Vulcan being emotional be technically a Romulan? 

Trek is very clear that Vulcans are incredibly emotional, to the point that if they don't keep it in check, they can't control themselves.  Hence the devotion to logic
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 07 October 2017, 17:56:24
Who's actually said that though?  Captain Georgiou was all about putting Burnham back in touch with her human side.  When Burnham spoke with Sarek he noted she was allowing her emotions to override her logic.  And Lieutenant Stamets seemed confused that she wasn't a Vulcan based on what information Captain Lorca had sent him.  I don't recall anyone else talking about her Vulcan heritage in relation to logic.

thing is, at no point in the first two episodes, did she act logically.  I've seen eight year olds who used more logical thinking than Burnham.  "Logical" doesn't mean "Wooden", anymore than repetition of memorized facts equals useful intelligence.

as portrayed, she's credited with virtues she doesn't display or actually indicate having, and competencies that, on camera, are absent precisely where they logically should be seen.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 October 2017, 17:58:52
thing is, at no point in the first two episodes, did she act logically.  I've seen eight year olds who used more logical thinking than Burnham.  "Logical" doesn't mean "Wooden", anymore than repetition of memorized facts equals useful intelligence.

as portrayed, she's credited with virtues she doesn't display or actually indicate having, and competencies that, on camera, are absent precisely where they logically should be seen.

Have you considered not watching the show?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Foxx Ital on 07 October 2017, 20:15:34
I'm enjoying it, i dig the throw the rules out the window during war shtick,specially with star trek. Its nice to see them acting flawed as all hell.  Plus its just plain nice seeing federation getting its hands dirty on their way to attempting to get to ST:TNG lvl of peace (preborg of course)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 07 October 2017, 23:27:24
I'm enjoying it, i dig the throw the rules out the window during war shtick,specially with star trek. Its nice to see them acting flawed as all hell.  Plus its just plain nice seeing federation getting its hands dirty on their way to attempting to get to ST:TNG lvl of peace (preborg of course)
Problem Fox, is that they're doing it using the stupidest methods in history.  You don't toss the rules pell-mell, you do so strategically and tactically.  As far as "Flawed" goes, these aren't FLAWED, they're DISFUNCTIONAL.  Burnham is written like a 1980's "Renegade Cop" (come to think of it, that might explain the blue uniforms.  "TJ HOOKER IN SPAAAAACE!!! (but without Bill Shatner.))
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 08 October 2017, 01:52:05
I found her behavior to be very logical - it was 100% based on the vulcan experience with the Klingons. That the only respect-building they know was brute force. Shoot first and don't ask. The problem is that her captain thought it 100% based on her hatred of the Klingons for killing her parents. Hence she did what she did in order to follow the diplomatic guidelines from Sarek (shoot first, and shoot hard).

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 08 October 2017, 02:58:28
I found her behavior to be very logical - it was 100% based on the vulcan experience with the Klingons. That the only respect-building they know was brute force. Shoot first and don't ask. The problem is that her captain thought it 100% based on her hatred of the Klingons for killing her parents. Hence she did what she did in order to follow the diplomatic guidelines from Sarek (shoot first, and shoot hard).

except it was entirely NOT logical-the Vulcan experience required multiple such 'greetings' to have any effect whatsoever.  In the immediate situation she was in, she acted impulsively and irrationally from the start, with only the thinnest (micron thin) excuse of the Vulcan lesson-a lesson she didn't have the luxury of using several to several dozen to several hundred ships to establish over a period of time that a VULCAN (300+year lifespan) would term "Eventually".

Further, as a supposed expert Xenologist, with a bad experience regarding Klingons in her past, she didn't bother to ask before then how the Vulcans got them to stop shooting? really??  it wasn't covered in her education or her tutelage under Sarek? she never bothered raise the question before??  and she's supposed to be this expert Xeno-anthropologist on a ship that's running near the Klingon border for the last Seven years????

and is she supposed t be over 100 years old?? how could she be a sole survivor when it's stated the Klingons haven't been raiding across the border or talking to anyone for a bloody century???

Further, her behaviour isn't logical because:
1. backup was inbound but hours out
2. the Klingons didn't immediately attack, htey were already behaving 'strangely', making the Vulcan lesson questionable at best as a precedent.
3. she acted on emotion when she chose to start a shouting match with her commanding officer on the bridge.
4. she acted purely on emotion when she 'nerve pinched' her CO.  (paradoxically, when Bones was walking around with Spock's Katra, he couldn't make it work, but Burnham could...hmmm.)
5. The LOGICAL course, before committing to an act of mutiny, is to wait for backup, because you know you've got it coming.  Observe, and Report, because if they're changing their tactics, known tactics likely won't work. (case in  point: Georgiua gives in to her and doesn't toss her in the brig, ass-over-teakettle and swallow the key-what Burnham did, would pretty much put anyone who isn't in a badly written marysue role under constant armed guard with the codes and accesses changed. It's a frikking act of Mutiny.)

Burnham acted both unreasonably, and illogically from about the moment she woke up-and that's not including her actions PRIOR to meeting her first live klingon since childhood.  Logically, when the mission says "Flyby" and "19 minutes before the radiation damage can't be fixed" you don't linger after discovering your comms don't work.  It's a LONG walk to shelter when can't call a cab. (this is FAR different from continuing a surface mission with no comms on a class-M or other inhabitable  planet.  she doesn't have that excuse.)

Furthermore, she's doing this act of mutiny against someone who's already, on screen, demonstrated superior situational and tactical awareness (the whole planet-desert thing) as well as superior grasp of resourceful problem solving.  It is NOT logical to usurp someone who's not only your legal superior, legitimate superior, but also intellectual superior in a stress situation.

she did this.

want one more? Radiation. She's contaminated, and not finished cleaning the contamination out or off, when she barrels up, in person, to the bridge while there's a perfectly serviceable intercom right on the wall of the sickbay, so that she wouldn't be contaminating every deck-plate and passer-by she encountered on her way up there.

My point is, in all of her on-screen actions, when she's not being illogical, she's being outright stupid

and by 'stupid' I mean Porn-starlet-scream-queen stupid.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 October 2017, 05:00:16
except it was entirely NOT logical-the Vulcan experience required multiple such 'greetings' to have any effect whatsoever.  In the immediate situation she was in, she acted impulsively and irrationally from the start, with only the thinnest (micron thin) excuse of the Vulcan lesson-a lesson she didn't have the luxury of using several to several dozen to several hundred ships to establish over a period of time that a VULCAN (300+year lifespan) would term "Eventually".

Further, as a supposed expert Xenologist, with a bad experience regarding Klingons in her past, she didn't bother to ask before then how the Vulcans got them to stop shooting? really??  it wasn't covered in her education or her tutelage under Sarek? she never bothered raise the question before??  and she's supposed to be this expert Xeno-anthropologist on a ship that's running near the Klingon border for the last Seven years????

and is she supposed t be over 100 years old?? how could she be a sole survivor when it's stated the Klingons haven't been raiding across the border or talking to anyone for a bloody century???

Further, her behaviour isn't logical because:
1. backup was inbound but hours out
2. the Klingons didn't immediately attack, htey were already behaving 'strangely', making the Vulcan lesson questionable at best as a precedent.
3. she acted on emotion when she chose to start a shouting match with her commanding officer on the bridge.
4. she acted purely on emotion when she 'nerve pinched' her CO.  (paradoxically, when Bones was walking around with Spock's Katra, he couldn't make it work, but Burnham could...hmmm.)
5. The LOGICAL course, before committing to an act of mutiny, is to wait for backup, because you know you've got it coming.  Observe, and Report, because if they're changing their tactics, known tactics likely won't work. (case in  point: Georgiua gives in to her and doesn't toss her in the brig, ass-over-teakettle and swallow the key-what Burnham did, would pretty much put anyone who isn't in a badly written marysue role under constant armed guard with the codes and accesses changed. It's a frikking act of Mutiny.)

Burnham acted both unreasonably, and illogically from about the moment she woke up-and that's not including her actions PRIOR to meeting her first live klingon since childhood.  Logically, when the mission says "Flyby" and "19 minutes before the radiation damage can't be fixed" you don't linger after discovering your comms don't work.  It's a LONG walk to shelter when can't call a cab. (this is FAR different from continuing a surface mission with no comms on a class-M or other inhabitable  planet.  she doesn't have that excuse.)

Furthermore, she's doing this act of mutiny against someone who's already, on screen, demonstrated superior situational and tactical awareness (the whole planet-desert thing) as well as superior grasp of resourceful problem solving.  It is NOT logical to usurp someone who's not only your legal superior, legitimate superior, but also intellectual superior in a stress situation.

she did this.

want one more? Radiation. She's contaminated, and not finished cleaning the contamination out or off, when she barrels up, in person, to the bridge while there's a perfectly serviceable intercom right on the wall of the sickbay, so that she wouldn't be contaminating every deck-plate and passer-by she encountered on her way up there.

My point is, in all of her on-screen actions, when she's not being illogical, she's being outright stupid

and by 'stupid' I mean Porn-starlet-scream-queen stupid.

Seriously, have you ever considered not watching the show?  It's an option.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Trace Coburn on 08 October 2017, 05:10:43
   [copper]
  OK, folks.  Speaking as somebody who just went on beta-blockers, I’m seeing some signs of elevated blood-pressures in this thread.  I would strongly recommend that everyone take a step back.
  I haven’t seen Star Trek: Discovery, but then I’m one of those dinosaurs who expects his TV shows to actually be shown, y’know, on TV, not a streaming service.  I have no brief for or against the show itself, though this discussion is not encouraging me to seek it out.  Even so, I would point out that TV writers have been bungling their intended characterisations and catastrophically failing to do the research as long as the medium has existed.  It’s not a matter of life and death, even when perceived in an iconic franchise like Star Trek.  And if you want to get into a shouting match over your disappointment?  This is not the place to hold it.
  / [copper]
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 October 2017, 11:05:30
Even so, I would point out that TV writers have been bungling their intended characterisations and catastrophically failing to do the research as long as the medium has existed.  It’s not a matter of life and death, even when perceived in an iconic franchise like Star Trek
However, I would point out that the writers and producers for this show have and should have the 5 shows and 12 movies to learn what went right and what went wrong. Honestly, what I have heard so far it seems a lot of them didn't learn from history in order to do better than what went before them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 08 October 2017, 11:19:52
However, I would point out that the writers and producers for this show have and should have the 5 shows and 12 movies to learn what went right and what went wrong. Honestly, what I have heard so far it seems a lot of them didn't learn from history in order to do better than what went before them.

Except thats wrong - the show is so far heads and tails above both Voyager and Enterprise. And if you judge it to the first 3 TNG episode it leaves them far in the dust. (TNG took over a season to get watchable).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 October 2017, 11:27:59
The other thing to consider is that no show is perfect.  Trace isn't talking about Trek specifically, but every single TV show ever made.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 08 October 2017, 12:08:26
The other thing to consider is that no show is perfect.  Trace isn't talking about Trek specifically, but every single TV show ever made.
I don't know about that. I think Netflix's House of Cards is damned near perfect.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 08 October 2017, 13:12:23
I don't know about that. I think Netflix's House of Cards is damned near perfect.

The original version was better...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: idea weenie on 08 October 2017, 14:50:55
want one more? Radiation. She's contaminated, and not finished cleaning the contamination out or off, when she barrels up, in person, to the bridge while there's a perfectly serviceable intercom right on the wall of the sickbay, so that she wouldn't be contaminating every deck-plate and passer-by she encountered on her way up there.

That's not how radiation works.  Anything that was actually radioactive would have been removed from her before starting the treatment for the cellular repair.  If you are irradiated it does not mean you are radioactive, it means you have received radiation, and have potentially radioactive material on you.  The first is a medical treatment (that she was undergoing), and the second is solved by scrubbing really well, and separating the radioactive material you remove so you don't create localized hot spots.

The reason it was bad that she left is because she halted her treatment partway through, instead of just calling the bridge as she should have done.


As an example of dealing with irradiated people, watch Dr No, when Bond and Ms Ryder are captured and have radiation contamination removed.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 October 2017, 16:04:01
Except thats wrong - the show is so far heads and tails above both Voyager and Enterprise. And if you judge it to the first 3 TNG episode it leaves them far in the dust. (TNG took over a season to get watchable).
The problem is.... that you would have to subscribe to CBS All Access to see if it got better past the first 2 episodes (prelude as 3rd episode is the actual pilot or start of the Discovery's story) if you live in USA.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 October 2017, 16:43:55
The problem is.... that you would have to subscribe to CBS All Access to see if it got better past the first 2 episodes (prelude as 3rd episode is the actual pilot or start of the Discovery's story) if you live in USA.

If you're not going to subscribe to CBS All Access anyway, does it matter if it got better?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 08 October 2017, 17:12:20
If you're not going to subscribe to CBS All Access anyway, does it matter if it got better?
Yeah, so this will be the first time a Star Trek series won't be fully broadcast on public TV. More power to CBS....
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 08 October 2017, 17:22:53
You've brought it upon yourselves by using all means available to avoid the revenue stream of the networks by TiVo and other means to skip the advertisments they need need for broadcast TV.

So they need to find new revenue models, and stream is that model.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 October 2017, 17:35:39
Yeah, so this will be the first time a Star Trek series won't be fully broadcast on public TV. More power to CBS....

In Ireland, Star Trek hasn't been on a free to view TV channel since 1994 or so. This is nothing new outside of the US.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 09 October 2017, 05:24:31
Episode 4 - the some space action finally (but all too brief) and the show gets weirder... I like it.  Even more unsure about the Discovery's weird saucer design but hey ho it is what it is.

"Particle Drive" interesting twist the ship's navigator is an interesting character

I like the Klingon storyline seems to be heading in an interesting way
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 09 October 2017, 11:54:45
I loved the klingon homeage to captain Georgiou....


Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 09 October 2017, 16:07:53
Didn't enjoy this one as much as the prior 3.  The meat of the plot was good - Burnham and the Tardigrade and the Klingon stuff - but pretty much everything the miners said was cheesy as hell.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 09 October 2017, 19:48:30
The episode was a lot more Star Trek to me then the others. The show has a lot furher to go then that to have the Star Trek feel to me. The Discovery is like a very angry dark pirate ship that does things off the grid to win a war. It almost reminds me of the Pegasus from the redo of Battlestar Galatica. Cain and Lorka have some things in common to me.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Jaim Magnus on 09 October 2017, 20:26:43
Meh, this show has failed to get me to care about it in any way, shape, or form, so I'm done with it.

To those who enjoy it, I hope it continues to do so.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 11 October 2017, 02:15:18
In the THIRD episode, it's even revealed she didn't attend the Academy (much less graduate), so she's an unqualified person in what appears to have been an unearned position in the first two episodes-a position gained in the manner of a 19th century modern major general, perhaps.

Wait...wait... she is NOT an SFA grad?   :o  Even nuKirk was an SFA grad... who skipped all the grades between Cadet and Captain... but hey, he is a grad.

Ok... so... how did she get a commission?   ???

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 11 October 2017, 02:47:09
I think she graduated from the Vulcan Science Academy it's possible they class both as equal - for teaching wise (I'd think that would be the case)

It was also stated that she joined the ship 8 years (before the plot) IIRC so it's possible she raised through the ranks to Commander while on the ship
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 11 October 2017, 07:17:38
I think she graduated from the Vulcan Science Academy it's possible they class both as equal - for teaching wise (I'd think that would be the case)

It was also stated that she joined the ship 8 years (before the plot) IIRC so it's possible she raised through the ranks to Commander while on the ship
Wow, she attend the James Kirk School of Gifted officers?  Commander in 8 years is insane.  The original James Kirk was 35 years old when he made Captain.  The writers are really lacking in sense of reality. It takes 15-20 years to be commanding officer, she should needed maybe 10 at least.  I don't care how super ubber you are.

JJ Abrams promotion of Kirk within month to Captain was simply utterly unbelievable. There more than knowledge that comes being a commanding officer, it's experience in the field and being able to communicate/manage other people and unenlisted people.  That still goes for Star Fleet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 October 2017, 17:32:50
Wow, she attend the James Kirk School of Gifted officers?  Commander in 8 years is insane.  The original James Kirk was 35 years old when he made Captain.  The writers are really lacking in sense of reality. It takes 15-20 years to be commanding officer, she should needed maybe 10 at least.  I don't care how super ubber you are.
 

Riker went from wet behind the ears helm officer on the Pegasus to first officer on the Enterprise in 5 years.  And turned down his first command two years after that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 11 October 2017, 17:40:21
In universe reality was thrown out the airlock some time ago...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 October 2017, 17:49:35
I submit Star Fleet has never had a minimum time in service requirement like there is in modern military service.

Evidence: All the times Checkov was left in command of the Enterprise in TOS.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 11 October 2017, 19:28:08
I think we need something to lighten things up around here. Trek isn't supposed to be depressing or divisive...

https://youtu.be/OjNKyoRudOQ (https://youtu.be/OjNKyoRudOQ)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 11 October 2017, 21:01:46
I think we need something to lighten things up around here. Trek isn't supposed to be depressing or divisive...

https://youtu.be/OjNKyoRudOQ (https://youtu.be/OjNKyoRudOQ)

That... was not what I expected (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA7lv1SDzno).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 12 October 2017, 09:35:40
That... was not what I expected (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA7lv1SDzno).
And that went completely over the heads of 4-6 year old kids that happened to watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 12 October 2017, 09:52:10
That... was not what I expected (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA7lv1SDzno).
Being oBlivious to the contents, mayBE a good thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 18 October 2017, 23:12:18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jldnOkg16f8
Can we talk about the fact that the actual ship (seen around 0:39 mark) is called a D7 in dialogue? Just... wow. That was the last straw, now ST:D is on my blacklist.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 18 October 2017, 23:16:23
I think this is the first Star Trek series I'm actually not actively trying to watch.  It's too removed for me to believe this is Star Trek of the past. Seriously.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 00:25:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jldnOkg16f8
Can we talk about the fact that the actual ship (seen around 0:39 mark) is called a D7 in dialogue? Just... wow. That was the last straw, now ST:D is on my blacklist.

So...yeah. It's angry mob time. You a torch or pitchfork kinda guy?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 19 October 2017, 01:33:18
it isn't a D-7 because they cannot use a proper D-7, just like a lot of STD cannot use elements from TOS...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 19 October 2017, 02:03:59
it isn't a D-7 because they cannot use a proper D-7, just like a lot of STD cannot use elements from TOS...

Says who?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 02:15:56
I think this is the first Star Trek series I'm actually not actively trying to watch.  It's too removed for me to believe this is Star Trek of the past. Seriously.

Like, it's fine if you don't like Discovery, but aside from the exact swear word that Tilly used in episode 5, there's literally nothing in Discovery that hasn't been in Trek before.
Title: Re: made popular by Commander Riker, of course
Post by: VanVelding on 19 October 2017, 02:19:41
Riker went from wet behind the ears helm officer on the Pegasus to first officer on the Enterprise in 5 years.  And turned down his first command two years after that.
He turned down the opportunity to command the Drake before TNG even started ("The Arsenal of Freedom"). Riker's been turning down commands since before turning down commands became cool.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 19 October 2017, 06:09:42
Says who?

That's a good question Axanar which Discovery is not at all based upon couldn't but Discovery is 100% licensed Trek as far as I know

Me I like it.  Does it not use things from the past or change them a little? yes have I decided I still like show? also appears yes it has many elements of trek that we've seen countless times before a couple of wardrobe changes or CGI fixes are not enough to make me turn off

Think of it another way an old D7 beside Discovery would look stupid.  An ancient looking Discovery would not attract audiences
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 09:24:37
Does it not use things from the past or change them a little? yes have I decided I still like show? also appears yes it has many elements of trek that we've seen countless times before a couple of wardrobe changes or CGI fixes are not enough to make me turn off

Think of it another way an old D7 beside Discovery would look stupid.  An ancient looking Discovery would not attract audiences
I don't know about you but the impression I got is that they're trying to avoid TOS elements in order to not associate the show with Axanar.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: snewsom2997 on 19 October 2017, 09:50:32
Says who?

Discovery was licensed using the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek, the movie license. Not the ToS, TNG, DS9, etc TV License. All of the ships we are familiar with and what not come from the TV License, the original Paramount License.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 19 October 2017, 09:54:58
Yes and no TOS would unfortunately look like Axanar but I get the feeling they are trying to give the show it's own feel

Placing it in the past they've honestly screwed up the same storyline but set in the future would have made more sense it would have explained the tech differences the look of the ships and the differences with the Klingons

But they didn't instead they've gone for a different look which looks quite advanced but I won't judge the show on that I like how it's developing story and character wise

I often think I'd TOS or TNG was done now they'd look radically different visually it's just how CGI and filming are changing they change to suite audiences
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 19 October 2017, 09:56:20
Discovery was licensed using the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek, the movie license. Not the ToS, TNG, DS9, etc TV License. All of the ships we are familiar with and what not come from the TV License, the original Paramount License.

Discovery is set in the Prime universe not film reboot verse
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 10:04:19
Think of it another way an old D7 beside Discovery would look stupid.  An ancient looking Discovery would not attract audiences
Using an old D7 would look stupid. Using a spruced up D7 like a Kt'inga or some other derivative(See TMP, TNG, STVI, VOY, Into Darkness. I think DS9 went back to the old ones, and don't know if ENT ever showed any.) would have gotten you accolades from the fans.

I don't mind continuity errors. A setting that has lasted as long as Trek and been under so many writers and producers, such things are inevitable and coming up with explanations to make them fit is part of the fun of being a fan. But this? This isn't a continuity error where somebody forgot a detail and nobody on the production team caught it. This was deliberate. They knew D7 Battlecruisers. I can believe that a writer or producer knew the name but not the image, but an entire production team of such and nobody bothered to even Google the things? No. This is deliberately erasing all that came before.

At least Abrams had the bare decency to make up his own timeline.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: snewsom2997 on 19 October 2017, 10:05:32
Discovery is set in the Prime universe not film reboot verse

But the license to make discovery is from the reboot verse.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 10:13:17
But the license to make discovery is from the reboot verse.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/2e47bbbf3ee4c19faa8b44f2381e95cc/tumblr_inline_mxznmi3VDJ1r3zat8.png)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 19 October 2017, 10:37:05
This last episode namedropped both Christopher Pike and Jonathan Archer, as well as Robert April, Matthew Decker and Philippa Georgiou. They were all listed as Star Fleets most decorated captains.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: snewsom2997 on 19 October 2017, 10:41:59
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/2e47bbbf3ee4c19faa8b44f2381e95cc/tumblr_inline_mxznmi3VDJ1r3zat8.png)

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Trek_corporate_history

2005 – present)
    Viacom had purchased CBS Corporation in 2000. They split in 2005. The old Viacom then became CBS Corporation. Its holding Paramount Television became CBS Paramount Network Television. CBS Television Distribution formed soon after and took over distribution of past Star Trek shows. In 2009, CBS Paramount Network Television became CBS Television Studios. Star Trek: Discovery will be produced under this ownership

In the 2005 Viacom/CBS split, the old Viacom became the CBS Corporation and a new Viacom was created. This new company owns Paramount Pictures, which in turn owns the Trek films. Paramount Pictures produced Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond under license from CBS Television Studios. Paramount also continues to distribute DVDs of the TV series on behalf of CBS. The split marked the occasion that the former Paramount Television was formally separated from Paramount Pictures; until this point in time the television company had always been a subsidiary division of Paramount Pictures.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 10:46:35
Where's the part that explicitly says they cannot use elements of what came before?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 11:05:47
Discovery was licensed using the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek, the movie license. Not the ToS, TNG, DS9, etc TV License. All of the ships we are familiar with and what not come from the TV License, the original Paramount License.
Paramount got the MOVIES. CBS got the SHOWS. That is how the split of the IP was done for them.

Also, your citation basically stated the same thing I just said.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 19 October 2017, 11:09:07
the Licensiing argument was debunked six months ago.  It was first promulgated by the blogger "Midnight'sEdge" on his Youtube show.

Weirdo, you're absolutely dead right-this isn't a continuity error, and it's not a case of licensing conflicts.  This is simply erasing all that came before because the owner of the IP wanted to erase it and create it over again in his own image.  I mean, it should've been obvious when they stripped the Klingons of everything that made them cool and engaging and replaced them with generic space-monsters that use the language but none of the visual cues (beyond some ridges on their heads), none of the cultural cues (except repeating the name "Kahless" in the first episode), and deliberately stomping all over the rest of the visual language of the setting.

It's 'Star Trek" because that's what's on the box, but it only has superficial, passing references to Star Trek mostly employed to exploit name recogition and a fandom that would buy used toiletpaper if it's got an Official Star Trek seal on it.

Hey, you know, can't argue too hard-the move worked. CBS is making money, and there are a host of people who'll defend to the death how 'authentic' and such it is, even in the face of the most ridiculous and unnecessary changes, because it has 'Star Trek' on the box.

But it's fundamentally LESS respectful of the original than even the JJAbrams movies are, and that's a deliberate and intentional creative decision by the IP holder.

Thus, the "Official Prime Timeline" seal, which can't be changed by fandom, it's there unless or until there's another IP holder who can or will change it (unlikely.)

MY problem with it, is that taken as a separate product, on it's own merits alone, ignoring the Trek seal, it doesn't hold up.  The characters are bland, boring, and unlikeable, the villains are one-dimensional, the whole thing takes itself too seriously and has no life, joy, or humour in it.  The Universe they present isn't merely 'dark', it's Dull and lifeless.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 11:12:30
From Wikipedia on ST: Discovery

"...and revealed that it would be set in the "Prime Timeline" (which includes the previous Star Trek series, but not the modern reboot films) to keep the concurrent series and films separate, so "we don't have to track anything [happening in the films] and they don't have to track what we're doing".[45] "

Source 45. Trendacosta, Katharine (July 23, 2016). "Star Trek: Discovery Officially Takes Place in the Prime Universe". io9. United States: Univision Communications. Archived from the original on July 28, 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2016.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 19 October 2017, 12:12:22
Between multiple timelines and paying to watch the TV show, I'm done with Star Trek. Its far too taxing to try and follow with my limited time and money.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 19 October 2017, 12:23:34
Personally this is bad.  Essentially, old/Classic Star Trek Timeline is TOS-To-ST:Nemesis.  Anything after that is it's own thing.  Trek-Movieverse (From Star Trek Film)  ST: Enterprise  being part of the canon was changed/altered from the beginning a bit because way it protrayed the universe after Star Trek: First Contact.  Borg/Enterprise-D thing changed everything. Heck, TOS said First Contact with Vulcans happened completely different from way it was in First Contact.

Anyways, Discovery (to me) is the beginning of a new Trekverse on television and CBS Television won't admit it is.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 19 October 2017, 13:06:36
I mean, it should've been obvious when they stripped the Klingons of everything that made them cool and engaging and replaced them with generic space-monsters that use the language but none of the visual cues (beyond some ridges on their heads), none of the cultural cues (except repeating the name "Kahless" in the first episode), and deliberately stomping all over the rest of the visual language of the setting.
Thank god that they did.

I'm pretty certain we won't get Klingons claiming Shakepare was theirs and quoting them all through the series anymore.

That alone is worth rebooting the entire franchise and klingons. Good ****** riddance to Kang and his like.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 14:01:24
Thank god that they did.

I'm pretty certain we won't get Klingons claiming Shakepare was theirs and quoting them all through the series anymore.

That alone is worth rebooting the entire franchise and klingons. Good ****** riddance to Kang and his like.
They did beyond the Undiscovered County?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 19 October 2017, 14:20:24
Thank god that they did.

I'm pretty certain we won't get Klingons claiming Shakepare was theirs and quoting them all through the series anymore.

That alone is worth rebooting the entire franchise and klingons. Good ****** riddance to Kang and his like.


Hey now, Kang and Martok are the two coolest Klingons ever!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 14:31:15
Weirdo, you're absolutely dead right-this isn't a continuity error, and it's not a case of licensing conflicts.  This is simply erasing all that came before because the owner of the IP wanted to erase it and create it over again in his own image. 

No it's not.  D7s are right there in every other Trek appearance just as they were before.  Discovery just looks different.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 14:52:52
Unnecessarily so. If it's the same timeline how do you reconcile the D7s seen everywhere else with the stuff in Discovery?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 19 October 2017, 14:56:03
They missed a great opportunity to use the B-4 joke again.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 14:57:33
Unnecessarily so. If it's the same timeline how do you reconcile the D7s seen everywhere else with the stuff in Discovery?

I don't bother.  It's literally meaningless.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 15:15:18
For you, perhaps. For me, watching big starships strut their stuff is the payoff I look forward to when watching sci-fi. (Probably why BSG was such a disappointment for me. The nature of that show was that the ships were settings instead of characters in their own right, with very few exceptions.) You see it as a minor detail you can ignore. I see it as an insult that removes any remaining motivation to watch this.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 15:17:58
For you, perhaps. For me, watching big starships strut their stuff is the payoff I look forward to when watching sci-fi. (Probably why BSG was such a disappointment for me. The nature of that show was that the ships were settings instead of characters in their own right, with very few exceptions.) You see it as a minor detail you can ignore. I see it as an insult that removes any remaining motivation to watch this.

But there's still a spaceship there strutting its stuff.  It just looks different to a spaceship in a 50-year old TV show with the same name.

Like, in the Macross TV show, the SDF-1 looks one way.  In Do You Remember Love, the SDF-1 looks different.  Both are set at the same time - they're two versions of the same story.  And both are right there, just as valid as one another.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 15:37:57
Except both of those SDFs-1 closely resemble each other. If you've seen one, you don't need things spelled out for you when you see the second - you know an SDF when you see it.

There have been many D7-type ships throughout Star Trek, and if you've seen one, you know exactly what you're saying when you look at another, even the 'warbirds' in Into Darkness. That thing on Discovery has as much resemblance to any D7 as the 1860s ironclad sitting on my desk.

Anyway, it has been said before that this is a thread for people who are actually interested in this show. Since that group no longer includes me, I'll bow out now for the time being, at least.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 15:45:19
Except both of those SDFs-1 closely resemble each other. If you've seen one, you don't need things spelled out for you when you see the second - you know an SDF when you see it.

There have been many D7-type ships throughout Star Trek, and if you've seen one, you know exactly what you're saying when you look at another, even the 'warbirds' in Into Darkness. That thing on Discovery has as much resemblance to any D7 as the 1860s ironclad sitting on my desk.

It's got a long neck with a bulbous section at the front, a body that flares out at the back and has warp nacelles on the ends of its wings.  I was able to pick out clear D7 lookalikes in the battle of the Binary Stars
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 16:22:28
It's got a long neck with a bulbous section at the front, a body that flares out at the back and has warp nacelles on the ends of its wings.  I was able to pick out clear D7 lookalikes in the battle of the Binary Stars
Yet. This triangular ship has been called a D7 in dialogue and both of us know it is NOT a D7 lookalike as defined by other shows.
That's the problem, all they had to do was to say "klingon battlecruiser!" or "C(any number)!" or "D6!". No, they specifically chose to designate it as a D7.

And this is not due to artistic style 'difference' unlike the Star Wars Rebels. At least on that Disney said if there were any difference in how some ships/tech look, it's due to artistic style unless it is specifically for a different reason (older model and such).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 19 October 2017, 16:29:15
That's why i'm saying it's own universe and rule of cool is what rules this version.  They're throwing old names in there so people knows what they are.

I'd imaging the Enterprise won't remotely look like what it did in tv show when it show up.  Old Classic Star Trek, the Constitution Class Starships were introduced into during THIS conflict Discovery suppose to cover if not totally changed. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 16:36:28
That's why i'm saying it's own universe and rule of cool is what rules this version.  They're throwing old names in there so people knows what they are.

I'd imaging the Enterprise won't remotely look like what it did in tv show when it show up.  Old Classic Star Trek, the Constitution Class Starships were introduced into during THIS conflict Discovery suppose to cover if not totally changed.
Yeah too bad, the show is part of the prime timeline. People who have seen the new movies and this show for the first time will be surprised when they start looking up the older shows...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 16:43:51
Yet. This triangular ship has been called a D7 in dialogue and both of us know it is NOT a D7 lookalike as defined by other shows.
That's the problem, all they had to do was to say "klingon battlecruiser!" or "C(any number)!" or "D6!". No, they specifically chose to designate it as a D7.


Well, the ship isn't triangular.  We see a closeup of the point where the neck meets the wings when it warps in over the shuttle, but it's quite clear much of it is off-screen, and what we see is not inconsistent with the TOS D7 - it just tapers into the neck instead of having a flat drive section.  Flip a D7 model or mini over, take a camera, and zoom in on the front of the stardrive until it takes up almost all the frame.  I guarantee you the shape will be similar to what loomed over Lorca's shuttle in episode 5.

But even if they totally redesigned the D7 so it looks like  more like a Starfighter from Buck Rogers, I'm not sure how that makes the show bad.  Gene Roddenberry didn't give a hoot about visual consistency, he literally said he didn't care that the Klingons looked different in TMP vs TOS, and that fans should just imagine they always looked the way they do now. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 17:16:37
  Gene Roddenberry didn't give a hoot about visual consistency, he literally said he didn't care that the Klingons looked different in TMP vs TOS, and that fans should just imagine they always looked the way they do now.
Which make sense only because, out of universe, make up for that kind of effect was really costly. Just look at the pointed ears. Which was why most of the Romulan background characters in Balance of Terror were wearing helmets.

In-universe, we had the answer from the ENT show regarding the Human Augment virus.

Also, you did see the youtube clip by Trekyard that impose the TOS D7 over the foreign "D7", where I posted the link to on previous page? It is VERY different. If you look closely, they couldn't remove the alien D7 image from the tractor beam itself giving you a good comparison of how they are so different.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 17:38:53
In-universe, we had the answer from the ENT show regarding the Human Augment virus.

Which was close to Enterprise's greatest sin. DS9 gave the best explanation for the change in Klingon appearance.

Quote
Also, you did see the youtube clip by Trekyard that impose the TOS D7 over the foreign "D7", where I posted the link to on previous page? It is VERY different. If you look closely, they couldn't remove the alien D7 image from the tractor beam itself giving you a good comparison of how they are so different.

I have now, and it really doesn't do much, except if you fiddle with the scale and perspective you can prove whatever you want.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 19 October 2017, 17:40:58
Yeah, I'm exiting this thread and following Weirdo out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 18:18:15
Yeah, I'm exiting this thread and following Weirdo out.

OK, so on the off-chance you return to the thread, detailed reasons why that video doesn't hold water for me:

They change the context of the shot by reframing it.  In Discovery, the nuD7 is too large to fit in the shot, it's overwhelming the tiny shuttle and we never get a good look at it.  Here, every single shot shows the full extent of an OG D7.  It's not a valid comparison from a cinematographic point of view.

On that same note, they decide to go from the shuttle being below the D7's stardrive section and drawn into its middle by the tractor beam, to the tractor pulling the shuttle forward and in front of the ship.  So not only do they change the framing, that actually change the action of the scene, which is intellectually dishonest.

Assuming they measured the length of the shuttle and used it to extrapolate how big an OG D7 was by comparison, they best they've proven is that they changed the size of the ship.  And OK, that's a change that's arguably unnecessary, but find me an episode of Trek that explains why the crew complement of a Bird of Prey changes between Search for Spock and TNG?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 October 2017, 18:53:30
Assuming they measured the length of the shuttle and used it to extrapolate how big an OG D7 was by comparison, they best they've proven is that they changed the size of the ship.  And OK, that's a change that's arguably unnecessary, but find me an episode of Trek that explains why the crew complement of a Bird of Prey changes between Search for Spock and TNG?

Do we know that they were the same model of Bird of Prey?  I thought there were newer, updated Birds used in TNG.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 October 2017, 19:15:12
Do we know that they were the same model of Bird of Prey?  I thought there were newer, updated Birds used in TNG.

That's the official explanation, but it's never stated in any show
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mendrugo on 19 October 2017, 19:23:51
"Rascals" names the smaller, older ships "B'Rel" class, while "Yesterday's Enterprise" names the bigger (but visually identical) version the "K'Vort" class.  (In actuality, the same effects shots were re-used in both episodes.)

Scale-wise, though, several critics have pointed out that the size of the "Bounty" "B'Rel" in "The Voyage Home" is inconsistent throughout the movie, appearing compact (relative to the crew seen walking up the boarding ramp) in the model shots on Vulcan, but massive compared to the whaling vessel later on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 19 October 2017, 20:02:22
OK, so on the off-chance you return to the thread, detailed reasons why that video doesn't hold water for me:

They change the context of the shot by reframing it.  In Discovery, the nuD7 is too large to fit in the shot, it's overwhelming the tiny shuttle and we never get a good look at it.  Here, every single shot shows the full extent of an OG D7.  It's not a valid comparison from a cinematographic point of view.

On that same note, they decide to go from the shuttle being below the D7's stardrive section and drawn into its middle by the tractor beam, to the tractor pulling the shuttle forward and in front of the ship.  So not only do they change the framing, that actually change the action of the scene, which is intellectually dishonest.

Assuming they measured the length of the shuttle and used it to extrapolate how big an OG D7 was by comparison, they best they've proven is that they changed the size of the ship.  And OK, that's a change that's arguably unnecessary, but find me an episode of Trek that explains why the crew complement of a Bird of Prey changes between Search for Spock and TNG?

I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. Got a better view of the ship that may or may not be a D7?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 19 October 2017, 21:30:15
I hope that it isn't a true D7 battlecruiser. Maybe a actual D6 battlecruiser.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 October 2017, 23:38:56
To be honest, it's not like Star Trek has a good record when it comes to consistency.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 20 October 2017, 01:52:12
I'm perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. Got a better view of the ship that may or may not be a D7?

No, because we don't have a shot of the whole ship yet.   Now for all we know the parts of the ship that were off screen were a duck and a pair of frying pans, but even then I don't see how the D7 having a duck for a front section makes this show bad.  If you don't like the design when and if we see the whole thing, the original D7 is still over there, and something tells me they won't stop making merch out of it, or using it in other shows and movies if the producers of said hypothetical shows or movie want to.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 20 October 2017, 07:35:39
I hope that it isn't a true D7 battlecruiser. Maybe a actual D6 battlecruiser.
In a clip, i thought the computer said "Klingon D7 Class Battlecruiser".
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 20 October 2017, 07:56:13
In a clip, i thought the computer said "Klingon D7 Class Battlecruiser".
It did.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 20 October 2017, 11:11:38
I'm following Weirdo out the door too.  The Shark has been jumped, my interest in seeing anything more from "Star Trek" has been cured.  This is what they've done with it, fine...whatever. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 20 October 2017, 23:45:03
Another one that is going to join Weirdo fellowship... the more I see this Star Trek the less I like it...

The only thing its still keeping me interested (by a thread) is to see where theyre going with this whole jump drive tech... which is never spoken of in "the future" timeline... (a.k.a. past shows).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 October 2017, 03:59:13
I'm guessing that they either discover that it poses a threat to the integrity of reality or it gets sabotaged by some sort of quantum fungicide.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 21 October 2017, 04:16:34
Or the whole powered by the soul of a forsaken child thing...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 21 October 2017, 04:25:33
Or there is a mis-jump and the Discovery is lost and Star Fleet gives up on the tech...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 21 October 2017, 07:50:39
Or there is a mis-jump and the Discovery is lost and Star Fleet gives up on the tech...
or misjumps and wrecks havoc in the Battletech Universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 21 October 2017, 11:28:53
Or there is a mis-jump and the Discovery is lost and Star Fleet gives up on the tech...

If I've learned one thing about Federation scientists, it's that the more disastrous a technology is, the more likely they are to research it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 21 October 2017, 11:39:53
Its possible that the misjump maybe method of removing a unknown the ship and unknown drive from the time line until further events.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 21 October 2017, 12:37:34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8NbY-FYyo

A bit more footage of the ship. Weirdo, yeah they done...insert your favorite F word here.. it up.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 21 October 2017, 17:12:53
That is WAY to long for me to watch on silent(which is the only way I can watch YouTube in peace). When do they actually show the whole thing?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 21 October 2017, 17:16:46
7:15 is the first time...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 21 October 2017, 18:01:48
That is WAY to long for me to watch on silent(which is the only way I can watch YouTube in peace). When do they actually show the whole thing?
2:34 for the first showing of the above and rear quarter
2:41 for the close up of the ship from the Prelude's battle
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 21 October 2017, 19:36:56
I will agree with that one dude that the classic D-7 is "by far one of the most iconic ships from Star Trek" but his opinion lost all legitimacy with me when he continued by calling it "one of the most mean and aggressive-looking ships". Anyone who looks at a classic D-7 and sees mean and aggressive must live in a fluffy bunny world where everything is sweetness and light. That is the least mean-looking ship even in TOS, let alone the entirety of Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 21 October 2017, 19:53:26
I will agree with that one dude that the classic D-7 is "by far one of the most iconic ships from Star Trek" but his opinion lost all legitimacy with me when he continued by calling it "one of the most mean and aggressive-looking ships". Anyone who looks at a classic D-7 and sees mean and aggressive must live in a fluffy bunny world where everything is sweetness and light. That is the least mean-looking ship even in TOS, let alone the entirety of Trek.

??? There were not that many ships shown on screen in TOS...let's see...Constitution-class, Romulan Bird of Prey, the First Federation sphere (of spheres) ship, the Tholian webspinner ship (and variations thereof), and the Klingon D7 (and the Romulan Stormbird version thereof)...that's all that come to mind for me from the actual original series...the animated series adds a few more, and then the Miranda-class, Excelsior-class, Oberth-class, Klingon Bird of Prey and K't'inga (which is just a variant of the D7 really) from the movies...

Which do you consider meaner looking than the D7 in TOS? I could maybe see the Webspinner or the Klingon Bird of Prey, but I don't see the others as meaner (and note, I am lumping the D7 and the K't'inga together as one design, as the latter is basically just an upgraded D7)...

Or is there something I'm forgetting?

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 21 October 2017, 19:54:59
I love the detail the old FASA books added to the ships.  I owned all the books.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 21 October 2017, 20:03:22
I will agree with that one dude that the classic D-7 is "by far one of the most iconic ships from Star Trek" but his opinion lost all legitimacy with me when he continued by calling it "one of the most mean and aggressive-looking ships". Anyone who looks at a classic D-7 and sees mean and aggressive must live in a fluffy bunny world where everything is sweetness and light. That is the least mean-looking ship even in TOS, let alone the entirety of Trek.

Um, I agree with him. It and the Romulan Warbird are the two most aggressive looking ships in TOS. Granted, as Rugar mentions above, there isn't really much to compare it to. The way the secondary hull flares out behind the command section has always reminded me a hawk swooping down on its prey with its wings spread out behind it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 22 October 2017, 02:13:19
Sorry for coming late to this chat, but what does STD's D-7 look like?  Is it that rather bulky looking thing or the one that looks like a rack of ribs that's been folded over?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 October 2017, 03:22:31
Sorry for coming late to this chat, but what does STD's D-7 look like?  Is it that rather bulky looking thing or the one that looks like a rack of ribs that's been folded over?

If the Trekyards people are correct in their speculation, it looks a bit like a Star Destroyer, but there has not been a clear shot of the ship in the show yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 22 October 2017, 03:39:34
If the Trekyards people are correct in their speculation, it looks a bit like a Star Destroyer, but there has not been a clear shot of the ship in the show yet.

(https://i0.wp.com/media2.slashfilm.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/startrek-discovery-spacebattle-orangeskies.jpg)

I thought it (the D7 analogue) was the one 2nd on the left from Tkuvma's ship, they had a twin pod like arrangement and a neck/bridge section that kind of looked like a Klingon vessel, but instead the body is nestled between the two big side pods.  The one above Tkuvma's flagship, the big bent down one I thought was the show's B'rel analogue as its small and agile.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 October 2017, 05:00:42
To me the Klingon Ships look more like Romulan ships to me. With the birdwings and design. IMO.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 October 2017, 05:17:48
 
To me the Klingon Ships look more like Romulan ships to me. With the birdwings and design. IMO.

Apparently they were going to use Romulans as the antagonists in Discovery but changed direction during pre-production.  But even that's not an original decision to Discovery: The original plan for Search for Spock was that the antagonists would be Romulans rather than Klingons, and the ship being a Bird of Prey is a holdover from before that changed.  And that's why Klingons have cloaking devices in post-movie Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 22 October 2017, 09:19:15

Apparently they were going to use Romulans as the antagonists in Discovery but changed direction during pre-production.  But even that's not an original decision to Discovery: The original plan for Search for Spock was that the antagonists would be Romulans rather than Klingons, and the ship being a Bird of Prey is a holdover from before that changed.  And that's why Klingons have cloaking devices in post-movie Trek.

My understanding was that in Search for Spock, the ship was to be Romulan, stolen by the Klingons...hence why the old FASA Star Trek RPG had the Romulans having developed the scout-type Bird of Prey, and trading some to the Klingons, who then developed larger cruiser and frigate types (with the frigate one being the largest with the heaviest armament, hull and shields), which, in turn, led to the Romulans developing their own cruiser model (which was superior to the Klingon version, and basically equivalent to the second model of the Klingon frigate version)...

Of course, everything since in the shows and movies has negated those theories and events, like so much of the rest of the old FASA RPG...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 October 2017, 10:24:58
After they changed the story to use the Klingons they had a scene in an early draft of the script explaining that the Bird of Prey was a stolen Romulan ship, but it was dropped long before filming.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 22 October 2017, 10:57:45
Sorry for coming late to this chat, but what does STD's D-7 look like?  Is it that rather bulky looking thing or the one that looks like a rack of ribs that's been folded over?
I posted a youtube link above. Here it is again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pS8NbY-FYyo
This is Trekyard's thoughts on the ST:D D7. They also used a TOS D7 for comparison.
1:05 is when Trekyard starts ghosting out their TOS D7 model from the actual STD D7.
2:34 for the first showing of the From-Above and rear quarter
2:41 for the close up of the ship from the Prelude's battle

Also for the record, the ST:D 'reimagined' Klingons are the official look of the *entire* species. When the "clergy" klingon summoned the leaders of the Great Houses of the Empire, they all look like the clergy Klingon. Not resembling the TOS, the Motion Picture, and the TNG Klingons at all (that would have been a great way to show that the Klingons had their own ethnicities like we do).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 October 2017, 12:18:14
When they said "we haven't heard much of the Klingons in a 100 years", that made me say Romulans, with the weird looking ships, the Light of Khless with Wings it screamed Romulan to me.

Its the blowing up the 50 years of history that got us to this point. I don't care about the tech looking better, and other things, its just the history before that is blown out of the water that is upsetting to me.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 22 October 2017, 17:06:57
Of course, everything since in the shows and movies has negated those theories and events, like so much of the rest of the old FASA RPG...

A direct result of Roddenberry and Paramount being absolutely appalled by FASA's handling of the property. The show producers completely misunderstood what made the universe interesting for gamers. They hated that there was so much conflict (both background and in-game), they hated that players would rather use their own PCs over characters from the show, and they hated that FASA made a Next Gen sourcebook without explicit permission - okay, fair enough on the last point.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 October 2017, 18:04:49
In fairness, there's a good bit of circumstantial TOS justification for Klingons with cloaking devices.  The Romulans were using three D7s in the episode The Enterprise Incident, very soon after they'd just lost the subwarp border-raider to the Enterprise.  The Romulans modernized quickly, clearly getting ships from the Klingons, which worked just fine with the Cloaking Device.  And they'd have to trade something to the Klingons to get those ships; while AFAIK it's not stated directly in the episode the implication is certainly possible.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 22 October 2017, 18:30:47
In fairness, there's a good bit of circumstantial TOS justification for Klingons with cloaking devices.  The Romulans were using three D7s in the episode The Enterprise Incident, very soon after they'd just lost the subwarp border-raider to the Enterprise.  The Romulans modernized quickly, clearly getting ships from the Klingons, which worked just fine with the Cloaking Device.  And they'd have to trade something to the Klingons to get those ships; while AFAIK it's not stated directly in the episode the implication is certainly possible.

That's actually something I found extraordinarily stupid in "Balance of Terror"...saying the Romulan Bird of Prey just had impulse propulsion, which everyone translates as being incapable of warp speed...if the ship can't go faster than light, there was no way one ship would be able to hit all those listening posts, much less made the trip from Romulan space in the amount of time it would have had (it would have taken decades, if not centuries to make it between stars...space is BIG after all)...In this instance would agree with the Starfleet Battles interpretation of this, and that they did have warp capability, it just wasn't of a type at which you could fight...

I could easily see the Klingons trading ships and warp combat technology for cloaking technology...and maybe even the plasma torpedo technology (like they did in the FASA RPG)...

BTW, speaking of the D7 and looking predatory, take a look at the image in the middle of this page (taken from some book in the FASA RPG if I'm not mistaken):

http://www.ststcsolda.space/klingons/D-7/D-7.html (http://www.ststcsolda.space/klingons/D-7/D-7.html)

Absolutely love that image...although the stats of the ship in the game never seemed to live up to the vessel's hype to me...should have had at least a forward facing torpedo tube (if not a rear facing one as well), and two more disrupters (which I think I would have as rear facing)...would have loved that vessel...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 October 2017, 18:41:58
That's actually something I found extraordinarily stupid in "Balance of Terror"...saying the Romulan Bird of Prey just had impulse propulsion, which everyone translates as being incapable of warp speed...if the ship can't go faster than light, there was no way one ship would be able to hit all those listening posts, much less made the trip from Romulan space in the amount of time it would have had (it would have taken decades, if not centuries to make it between stars...space is BIG after all)...
Romulans steal the Spore Drive and use it in those ships?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 October 2017, 19:02:59
In fairness, there's a good bit of circumstantial TOS justification for Klingons with cloaking devices.  The Romulans were using three D7s in the episode The Enterprise Incident, very soon after they'd just lost the subwarp border-raider to the Enterprise.  The Romulans modernized quickly, clearly getting ships from the Klingons, which worked just fine with the Cloaking Device.  And they'd have to trade something to the Klingons to get those ships; while AFAIK it's not stated directly in the episode the implication is certainly possible.

Amusingly, the reason the Romulans had D-7s in that episode was to justify the cost of the D-7 model.  They weren't writing enough episodes with Klingons in them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 22 October 2017, 19:17:47
Amusingly, the reason the Romulans had D-7s in that episode was to justify the cost of the D-7 model.  They weren't writing enough episodes with Klingons in them.

I believe I've read that the original model of the Romulan Bird of Prey had also been destroyed as the creator hadn't been paid or somesuch...in any case, it wasn't available for use...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 22 October 2017, 19:20:01
Amusingly, the reason the Romulans had D-7s in that episode was to justify the cost of the D-7 model.  They weren't writing enough episodes with Klingons in them.

Amusingly, to me the D-7 already looks pretty Romulan. Take a Romulan bird of prey, turn it around, flip it over, and add the neck and command section.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 October 2017, 19:51:22
I believe I've read that the original model of the Romulan Bird of Prey had also been destroyed as the creator hadn't been paid or somesuch...in any case, it wasn't available for use...

Ruger

It was a persistent rumour, but according to Memory Alpha, the D7 was in the script from the get-go
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 23 October 2017, 00:37:08
So I've been hearing the last few days All Access has been a no go. (Something on their end is messed up.) Funnily enough every has been saying the only thing that plays is the commercials).
Anyone here been having any issues?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 23 October 2017, 04:18:23
Episode 6 showed up on time on Netflix, so if there is a problem it's not effecting international distribution
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 23 October 2017, 09:59:25
Discovery just got renewed for Season 2.
Dont know if its going to be a CBS Prime only thing.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 October 2017, 10:03:36
That's actually something I found extraordinarily stupid in "Balance of Terror"...saying the Romulan Bird of Prey just had impulse propulsion, which everyone translates as being incapable of warp speed...if the ship can't go faster than light, there was no way one ship would be able to hit all those listening posts, much less made the trip from Romulan space in the amount of time it would have had (it would have taken decades, if not centuries to make it between stars...space is BIG after all)...In this instance would agree with the Starfleet Battles interpretation of this, and that they did have warp capability, it just wasn't of a type at which you could fight...
I always took that to mean that they had impulse for power sources, not that they didn't have warp drives.
The exact line is "their power is simple impulse". Power, not the engine. Nowhere in the episode does Scott say they have only impulse engines. The Romulans kept fretting over their fuel reserve. So the Klingon-Romulan trade gave them access to A/M power source as well better warp drive technology.

I think we went over this same subject in a different thread a long ago  ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 23 October 2017, 11:52:59
If you look at the map of the Romulan Empire in balance of terror, it suggests that it's tiny.

Or that Romulus and Remus weren't in the same solar system, which is equally problematic
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 23 October 2017, 12:30:47
If you look at the map of the Romulan Empire in balance of terror, it suggests that it's tiny.

Or that Romulus and Remus weren't in the same solar system, which is equally problematic
There's also the line by Picard from Insurrection. When he said 100 years ago, that was also roughly the time when the Romulans acquired the D7s.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 23 October 2017, 14:41:59
Regardless of whether you like the show or not, can we all agree that in honour of those dope as all hell T-shirts Burnham and Tilly had on this week, that the show's nickname is now DISCO?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 25 October 2017, 12:58:13
Interesting take on what or how viewers should watch the series. (https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16535404/star-trek-discovery-canon-continuity-spock-michael-burnham-technology-klingons) The Verge article basically says, "Just Enjoy it" see it if let it try entertain you.  That Discovery only loosely follows canon timeline. 

It's a detailed article, it's good way handle the drastic differences it has with old TOS timeline.

It's own thing, based in Star Trek.  Even if CBS won't claim it is or isn't.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 25 October 2017, 13:16:12
I think that is mostly where I am at with ST:D.

If they made it something not Star Trek and I didn't have to exert extra effort into watching it versus the competition it actually wasn't that bad and I could probably follow it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 October 2017, 14:02:43
Hell, I'm enjoying the show no end, but if it wasn't on Netflix here I wouldn't be subscribing to another service to watch it
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 October 2017, 15:23:16
Interesting take on what or how viewers should watch the series. (https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16535404/star-trek-discovery-canon-continuity-spock-michael-burnham-technology-klingons) The Verge article basically says, "Just Enjoy it" see it if let it try entertain you.  That Discovery only loosely follows canon timeline. 

It's a detailed article, it's good way handle the drastic differences it has with old TOS timeline.

It's own thing, based in Star Trek.  Even if CBS won't claim it is or isn't.
One nitpick about that article: ST: TOS wasn't operating on a shoestring budget.

http://startrekmyths.tumblr.com/post/27921273143/star-trek-wasnt-low-budget
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 October 2017, 16:27:50
Interesting take on what or how viewers should watch the series. (https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16535404/star-trek-discovery-canon-continuity-spock-michael-burnham-technology-klingons)

The points in the article are precisely what makes this show too stupid.

Why not advance the timeline and get some new blood (storywise) in the franchise (since they have fine actors already in there)?
Why not take advantage of the same story (the new drive storyline) and try to come up with more original stuff in that advanced timeline?
They could even revisit some characters from DS9/VOY/TNG (most if not all of the actors are alive and could be nice cameos/story hooks) and explore different things in that advanced timeline).

Sorry... rant mode off.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 October 2017, 18:53:57
The points in the article are precisely what makes this show too stupid.

Why not advance the timeline and get some new blood (storywise) in the franchise (since they have fine actors already in there)?
Why not take advantage of the same story (the new drive storyline) and try to come up with more original stuff in that advanced timeline?
They could even revisit some characters from DS9/VOY/TNG (most if not all of the actors are alive and could be nice cameos/story hooks) and explore different things in that advanced timeline).

Sorry... rant mode off.
Exactly this. It would have been neater to have the show start in future because then you are not constrained with having to follow the 'history' that's already ahead of you in the timeline.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 25 October 2017, 20:10:46
The points in the article are precisely what makes this show too stupid.

Why not advance the timeline and get some new blood (storywise) in the franchise (since they have fine actors already in there)?
Why not take advantage of the same story (the new drive storyline) and try to come up with more original stuff in that advanced timeline?
They could even revisit some characters from DS9/VOY/TNG (most if not all of the actors are alive and could be nice cameos/story hooks) and explore different things in that advanced timeline).

Sorry... rant mode off.

No worries, i agree with you. The show isn't for me. I am completely unhappy with Discovery's show runners changing canon to the point where some people have stop caring about continuity to actually watch the show if their old time fans.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 October 2017, 20:21:52
No worries, i agree with you. The show isn't for me. I am completely unhappy with Discovery's show runners changing canon to the point where some people have stop caring about continuity to actually watch the show if their old time fans.

Discovery has changed nothing about Trek continuity. It just looks different.  And Trek has changed the way things look without any explanation dozens of times in the past with no complaints.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 25 October 2017, 23:53:51
Regardless of whether you like the show or not, can we all agree that in honour of those dope as all hell T-shirts Burnham and Tilly had on this week, that the show's nickname is now DISCO?

Well they can't have STD printed on 'em can they :p
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 October 2017, 02:46:56
They're actually selling the DISCO shirts on startrek.com.  I'm totally going to buy one, assuming I don't murder my wallet at a con this weekend.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 October 2017, 07:49:07
Discovery has changed nothing about Trek continuity. It just looks different.  And Trek has changed the way things look without any explanation dozens of times in the past with no complaints.

That was a joke right?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 26 October 2017, 09:00:40
That was a joke right?

No, this is the first time anyone has every complained about any aspect of Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mendrugo on 26 October 2017, 09:37:37
The changes made to the Ferengi between TNG Season 1 and DS9 were generally positive.

It would have been fun if there'd been a scene in DS9 where Quark had a flashback to his first appearance as a Ferengi in TNG, crouching, hissing, and energy whipping.   

Then followed up with a comment about how the worst part of serving aboard a Ferengi Marauder was all the "crouching and hissing," followed by a Rule of Acquisition along the lines of "if your trading partner thinks you're likely to eat them, they might knock off 20% to earn your goodwill."
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 October 2017, 10:56:06
That was a joke right?

Not in the slightest.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 October 2017, 13:05:44
Not in the slightest.

So I guess the problem (as an example) with the klingons changing looks between the shows that even made the writers address it in elegant (sort off) way in the stories dont count... ooooookkk... whatever...

I invite you to read some Star Trek dedicated forums (or Reditt) for more... problems...

Adding Discovery in the mix just makes this laughable.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 26 October 2017, 13:32:00
It took decades before we ever got an In Show explanation for the change in the Klingons. When they first showed up in ST:TMP it was definitely out of left field.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 October 2017, 13:38:08
So I guess the problem (as an example) with the klingons changing looks between the shows that even made the writers address it in elegant (sort off) way in the stories dont count... ooooookkk... whatever...

Did it count when Trills changed look and how the symbionts worked between TNG and DS9?  Has there been an explanation for why the Romulans changed their brow makeup between TOS and TNG, but unlike the klingons when a Romulan showed up in Star Trek VI, he still had the Vulcan-style makeup?  But in Enterprise, the Romulans had the TNG-style makeup?

There are valid criticisms of Discovery, and it's perfectly fine to dislike it.  But anyone who's complaining about how it doesn't fit canon is ignoring all the times the incarnations of Trek they do like ignored or arbitrarily changed canon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 October 2017, 13:49:46
Not going to say anything else about this idiocy... just leave this here:

https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discoverys-biggest-problem-is-that-its-a-pre-1819758511 (https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discoverys-biggest-problem-is-that-its-a-pre-1819758511)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 October 2017, 14:58:35
Yeah like we have been saying, it would have been far better for the show to be set in the future, some time after Nemesis. They may have to adhere to the past but they are not CONSTRAINED by any "future" that's already laid out ahead of the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 26 October 2017, 15:39:32
Yeah like we have been saying, it would have been far better for the show to be set in the future, some time after Nemesis. They may have to adhere to the past but they are not CONSTRAINED by any "future" that's already laid out ahead of the show.

It would have worked very well in the future minus Sarek storyline but I’m sure there are other hardluck case Vulcans
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 26 October 2017, 17:00:27
In all fairness to trek continuity, they time travel so much that the idea of a consistent continuity is probably ridiculous.

Just blame it all on that doorway from the original series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 26 October 2017, 17:01:52
Not counting Q or other superbiengs, how many different methods of time travel have been discovered in the Star Trek Universe?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 26 October 2017, 17:21:26
Let's see...

10 time travel episodes in ENT, 5 in TOS, 1 in TAS, ST:TVH, 12 in TNG, ST:G, ST:FC, 11 in DS9, 12 in VYG, & ST(2009).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 October 2017, 17:27:06
If we're looking at different time travel methods, the guardian of forever is used in both one TOS episode and the TAS one, and a slingshot around the sun is used in another TOS episode and Voyage Home.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 26 October 2017, 18:40:54
Ooh, maybe that's what they're building up to in Discovery. The spore drive screws up everything and they fix things through time travel. In the process altering the timeline to the point that it becomes the original timeline.  :))
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 26 October 2017, 19:22:07
Ooh, maybe that's what they're building up to in Discovery. The spore drive screws up everything and they fix things through time travel. In the process altering the timeline to the point that it becomes the original timeline.  :))

Weirder things have happened...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 26 October 2017, 20:42:19
Has there been signs of the Spore drive messing with time?

Old canon had mentioned Kirk's Enterprise was first to actually breech the time barrier my ship accidentally and later went to visit the past as well in second attempt. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 October 2017, 20:49:23
They say there is going to be Mirror episode. So which way they go with it will be very intresting.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 October 2017, 20:58:00
At least I now know how Star Wars PT haters feel... I guess...

Ooh, maybe that's what they're building up to in Discovery. The spore drive screws up everything and they fix things through time travel. In the process altering the timeline to the point that it becomes the original timeline.  :))

Are you saying that if thats true this is what leads to what we know as the TOS and so on in "Prime Universe" (Spock never talked about a adopted sister for example)?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 26 October 2017, 22:02:09
Are you saying that if thats true this is what leads to what we know as the TOS and so on in "Prime Universe" (Spock never talked about a adopted sister for example)?

Yep. Spock's adopted sister and any other continuity variants are retroactively eaten by space fungus.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 26 October 2017, 22:26:33
Talk about the worst possible "it was all just a dream" ending.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 26 October 2017, 23:47:27
Are you saying that if thats true this is what leads to what we know as the TOS and so on in "Prime Universe" (Spock never talked about a adopted sister for example)?


The same Spock who never told Kirk about his half brother?  The same Spock who didn't tell Kirk that his parents were aboard the Enterprise until Kirk forced his hand?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 26 October 2017, 23:51:41
Same universe where Red Anti-Matter thing and Romulus wasn't destroyed by random Supernova.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 27 October 2017, 10:18:48
Did it count when Trills changed look and how the symbionts worked between TNG and DS9?  Has there been an explanation for why the Romulans changed their brow makeup between TOS and TNG, but unlike the klingons when a Romulan showed up in Star Trek VI, he still had the Vulcan-style makeup?  But in Enterprise, the Romulans had the TNG-style makeup?

There are valid criticisms of Discovery, and it's perfectly fine to dislike it.  But anyone who's complaining about how it doesn't fit canon is ignoring all the times the incarnations of Trek they do like ignored or arbitrarily changed canon.

I think the complaint might better be approached by the question: Does the change make it easier, harder, or the same in terms of the actors delivering lines, moving smoothly, or...y'know, Acting in the makeup.

The TMP/TNG style with Klingons didn't significantly degrade the actors' ability to deliver an interesting character, deliver their lines clearly, emote, perform athletic movements and stunts, etc. etc.

IOW, it didn't make it harder to see them as characters, rather than rubber suits.

Now...Discovery...

the changes are horrible not because they're changes, but because the makeup's so heavy the actors are no longer credible as the characters they portray-they're in "Gorn rubber suit" territory.  Fight scenes become boring, lines are delivered flat (and mispronounced thanks to the oral prosthetics), the 'character' is stripped off leaving only some very expensive makeup and prosthetics.

THIS is the problem with the change.  It's compounded because while the props are heavily detailed, even ornate, they've lost that fundamental that Klingon gear had before-that is, a utilitarian build.  The armor they're given is hard to move around in, and looks like something from a fetishwear outfit, their bladed weapons h ave gone from 'weird but okay it can work' to 'you can't hold it without pointing a sharp bit at yourself, and can't use it credibly or effectively except to kill yourself."  The armor has lots of depressions that act as shot-traps, guaranteeing a wound will most likely be directed inward at your vitals, (look it over)..  Then we get to disruptors with sillyspikes added that aren't useful in melee, provide no benefit in ranged fire, and make carrying it a practice in being really careful not to stab yourself.  In a culture that commonly uses melee fighting, the new version dagger has a grip that will become slippery when wet and a grip shape (for a species with four fingers and a thumb, laid out like human hands) that increases the awkwardness.

this is not "improvement", the changes don't make them more detailed, or more credible, or more threatening.  Instead, the changes make them more generic-rubber-suit-spacemonster-aliens, built to be easily defeated by the protagonist (even to the point that in the second episode, Michelle Yeoh's character basically had to jump on T'Kuvma's dagger to get stabbed.)

the changes to the Bajoran eyebrows made it easier for the actors to play the role, the change to the Ferengi was a deepening of character and culture, and made them easier to use as depth and setting characters rather than monster-of-the-week.  the changes to the Trill also made it easier for actors to act and play and develop characters.

teh changes ST:D did to Klingons make them harder to play, and thus, shallower and less interesting as characters, because they have nothing but 'word of god' that they're even capable of sentient thought.

further, they've been stripped of pretty much all characteristics of Klingons as developed in prior series save one-they're ridged and like to fight.  Unfortunately, this is the single most generic villain-alien trait you can have.

in short, they're boring.  They're boring, because they've been raced right into mediocrity, they're generic and flavourless, flat and uninteresting, only cool in publicity stills.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 27 October 2017, 11:00:32
I think the complaint might better be approached by the question: Does the change make it easier, harder, or the same in terms of the actors delivering lines, moving smoothly, or...y'know, Acting in the makeup.

The TMP/TNG style with Klingons didn't significantly degrade the actors' ability to deliver an interesting character, deliver their lines clearly, emote, perform athletic movements and stunts, etc. etc.

IOW, it didn't make it harder to see them as characters, rather than rubber suits.

This is an arbitrary point.  Which is actually the point I've been making all along.  The initial complaints about the Klingons were "they look different, therefore bad", except for all the other times things were changed.  So now it's "the prosthetics make it harder for the actors to work, therefore bad", except that there have been worse performances by actors in Trek in less makeup, or "they're not convincing", ignoring that the makeup for the Klingons is on a par with that for Saru or Arinam in both coverage and texture, but nobody complains about them.

It's all after the fact justifications.

Quote
Now...Discovery...

the changes are horrible not because they're changes, but because the makeup's so heavy the actors are no longer credible as the characters they portray-they're in "Gorn rubber suit" territory.  Fight scenes become boring, lines are delivered flat (and mispronounced thanks to the oral prosthetics), the 'character' is stripped off leaving only some very expensive makeup and prosthetics.

THIS is the problem with the change.  It's compounded because while the props are heavily detailed, even ornate, they've lost that fundamental that Klingon gear had before-that is, a utilitarian build.  The armor they're given is hard to move around in, and looks like something from a fetishwear outfit, their bladed weapons h ave gone from 'weird but okay it can work' to 'you can't hold it without pointing a sharp bit at yourself, and can't use it credibly or effectively except to kill yourself."  The armor has lots of depressions that act as shot-traps, guaranteeing a wound will most likely be directed inward at your vitals, (look it over)..  Then we get to disruptors with sillyspikes added that aren't useful in melee, provide no benefit in ranged fire, and make carrying it a practice in being really careful not to stab yourself.  In a culture that commonly uses melee fighting, the new version dagger has a grip that will become slippery when wet and a grip shape (for a species with four fingers and a thumb, laid out like human hands) that increases the awkwardness.

this is not "improvement", the changes don't make them more detailed, or more credible, or more threatening.  Instead, the changes make them more generic-rubber-suit-spacemonster-aliens, built to be easily defeated by the protagonist (even to the point that in the second episode, Michelle Yeoh's character basically had to jump on T'Kuvma's dagger to get stabbed.)

the changes to the Bajoran eyebrows made it easier for the actors to play the role, the change to the Ferengi was a deepening of character and culture, and made them easier to use as depth and setting characters rather than monster-of-the-week.  the changes to the Trill also made it easier for actors to act and play and develop characters.

teh changes ST:D did to Klingons make them harder to play, and thus, shallower and less interesting as characters, because they have nothing but 'word of god' that they're even capable of sentient thought.

further, they've been stripped of pretty much all characteristics of Klingons as developed in prior series save one-they're ridged and like to fight.  Unfortunately, this is the single most generic villain-alien trait you can have.

in short, they're boring.  They're boring, because they've been raced right into mediocrity, they're generic and flavourless, flat and uninteresting, only cool in publicity stills.



And this is highly subjective.  There's plenty of people who prefer the Discovery Klingons to their prior incarnations
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 27 October 2017, 12:55:50
Yeah like we have been saying, it would have been far better for the show to be set in the future, some time after Nemesis. They may have to adhere to the past but they are not CONSTRAINED by any "future" that's already laid out ahead of the show.
"They need to stop making series/movies about WWII. Everyone knows the end result and they're constrained by the future that's already ahead of them. "

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 27 October 2017, 13:00:45
This is an arbitrary point.  Which is actually the point I've been making all along.  The initial complaints about the Klingons were "they look different, therefore bad", except for all the other times things were changed.  So now it's "the prosthetics make it harder for the actors to work, therefore bad", except that there have been worse performances by actors in Trek in less makeup, or "they're not convincing", ignoring that the makeup for the Klingons is on a par with that for Saru or Arinam in both coverage and texture, but nobody complains about them.

It's all after the fact justifications.

And this is highly subjective.  There's plenty of people who prefer the Discovery Klingons to their prior incarnations

Lorcan, it's not the coverage-it's HOW the coverage was applied-the actors literally can't act through it.  and it extends to the costumes as well-the motion and movement is arthritic and awkward.  the actor playing Saru only has to deal with the hood, the poor bastards in the Klingork getups have to deal with a full-body corset AND a hood, with gloves, under hot production lighting.

The extensions along the jaw restrict speech, the oral prosthetics also restrict speech-it sounds and looks like someone trying to speak around an oversize retainer or perhaps a broken ball-gag. further, every 'moving' part of the face is similarly restricted.. Saru's 'facial' is limited to a chin, nose, and forehead piece, the rest is paint, but the Klingork makeup is a full-head prosthetic (as shown, incidentally, by the crew at ST:LV).  so yes, it's MORE extensive than Mr. Saru's-and violates pretty much EVERY principle the makeup artists that designed it hound contestants for on their little reality show.

and sure, there are people who like it.  Thre are people who like all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense (Lutefisk, for example), and frankly, most audiences prefer the baddies that get killed on screen to be dehumanized and rendered as generic and stereotypical as possible, Jason from Friday the 13th, for example, or Michael Myers, as opposed to something like Freddy.  quite a few people prefer Jason over Freddy...

Polls tend to show people prefer that villains be stupid, awkward, or dehumanized as much as possible.  in this, the makers of Discovery did a hell of a job-they managed to compound a collection of 19th century racist stereotypes in designing their version of Klingons (up to and including needing a white guy to lead them), while also tapping into the latex fetish market for costuming.

what they didn't make, was an interesting villain.. some interesting promo photos, sure, but in terms of something epic enough to justify the expense? Hardly even hit mediocrity there.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 27 October 2017, 13:19:34
"They need to stop making series/movies about WWII. Everyone knows the end result and they're constrained by the future that's already ahead of them. "

How many WWII movies have a sequel?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 27 October 2017, 13:23:41
How many WWII movies have a sequel?
Spiritually? Quite a few. Literally is a much shorter list.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 27 October 2017, 13:40:48
"They need to stop making series/movies about WWII. Everyone knows the end result and they're constrained by the future that's already ahead of them. "
1. ST:D is set in the Prime timeline/universe. It is supposed to lead up onto the timeline of TOS, yet we can't see that clearly. I mean hell, if you took out the name Star Trek, the names, Vulcan ears, the ST emblem, the audience wouldn't know it's actually Star Trek.

2. 50 years of the movies and shows and instead of going "forward", they went backward once again into the Star Trek universe's past. Having to toe the line without contradicting what the previous shows and movies have established, but so far it's look like they're not trying so hard to stay on that line.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Garrand on 27 October 2017, 13:45:48
Same universe where Red Anti-Matter thing and Romulus wasn't destroyed by random Supernova.

Gawd this was so stupid...

Damon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Garrand on 27 October 2017, 14:04:56
I think the issue people are having with the Klingon remodels is one of continuity. You can say all you want about how some like the remodel; that's irrelevant for someone that does NOT like the remodel. While the point about different make-up/prosthetics for Klingons may be true, continuity isn't broken for them save for the very first appearance: all other subsequent appearances are "credible" variations on Klingon appearance that the continuity is not broken. Similarly for Vulcans, Romulans, etc. There was no point in the MANY years I've watched the show where I was surprised by the remodel of any of these races, and usually any of those remodels can easily be attributed to species variation. But Discovery took that too far, and breaks continuity of the franchise's past, an important draw for a long-running series that has a deep level of world-building that Trek has done. Now that's not to say the past custodians of the franchise were always good about it either; but to use that as an excuse is just that, an excuse IMHO.

Damon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 27 October 2017, 17:24:06
I think the issue people are having with the Klingon remodels is one of continuity. You can say all you want about how some like the remodel; that's irrelevant for someone that does NOT like the remodel. While the point about different make-up/prosthetics for Klingons may be true, continuity isn't broken for them save for the very first appearance: all other subsequent appearances are "credible" variations on Klingon appearance that the continuity is not broken. Similarly for Vulcans, Romulans, etc. There was no point in the MANY years I've watched the show where I was surprised by the remodel of any of these races, and usually any of those remodels can easily be attributed to species variation. But Discovery took that too far, and breaks continuity of the franchise's past, an important draw for a long-running series that has a deep level of world-building that Trek has done. Now that's not to say the past custodians of the franchise were always good about it either; but to use that as an excuse is just that, an excuse IMHO.

Damon.

when it comes to that, you gotta understand: the makers didn't make these changes in a vacuum-there was a feeling and intent behind it.  Per the interviews and panels at ST:LV the redesign was driven by Bryan Fuller, and confirmed after his departure. 

as to what that intent was? well, we've got the official line from the comicon, STLV and other panels reported and available to look at, but I suspect it can be boiled down as simply not liking the Klingons as seen for 17 years of continuous television production and over half the Star Trek movies.

simply put, when you parse out all the rest, it comes down to "We own the IP and we don't like this part of it, so we're going to erase, remake or annihilate it."

The spirit you're looking for, is malicious vandalism.  Spray painting gang tags on a monument and calling it 'art'.  that's all that's behind it, that's all it is, it's why they put care into designing Saru's makeup so the actor could actually apply his acting ability to develop the character, while the Klingorks got a full-body tournequet and the most ridiculous redesign for their...everything, that the budget could afford.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 27 October 2017, 18:26:53
Except by definition it is not vandalism because they do the IP. So they can do whatever they want regardless of what the customers. Because that's all we are: merely customers. We have no direct say in how they should handle it.

That said, we do have an indirect say: by how we spend are money. And if enough people don't like it and don't want to fork over money for it, it will cause CBS to try something different. And if enough casual people like it, it doesn't matter what the purists like. And that's what I think CBS gamble has been: get the purists in the front door, but make it as widely appealing as possible. (Especially since the entire success of All Access seems poised on this single show.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 27 October 2017, 18:33:43
Lorcan, it's not the coverage-it's HOW the coverage was applied-the actors literally can't act through it.  and it extends to the costumes as well-the motion and movement is arthritic and awkward.  the actor playing Saru only has to deal with the hood, the poor bastards in the Klingork getups have to deal with a full-body corset AND a hood, with gloves, under hot production lighting.

And yet, they're fine when they're speaking English, and T'rell's screaming when her face was injured felt pretty real to me at least.  Which suggests that the way they're speaking is a stylistic choice.  Especially if you compare L'Rell's Klingon pronunciation to Mary Chieffo's pronunciation out of makeup in After Trek.

Quote
what they didn't make, was an interesting villain.. some interesting promo photos, sure, but in terms of something epic enough to justify the expense? Hardly even hit mediocrity there.

And as you note, whether the antagonist is interesting or not is subjective.  I felt T'Kuvma was one of the most interesting Klingons.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 27 October 2017, 18:35:04
as to what that intent was? well, we've got the official line from the comicon, STLV and other panels reported and available to look at, but I suspect it can be boiled down as simply not liking the Klingons as seen for 17 years of continuous television production and over half the Star Trek movies.

simply put, when you parse out all the rest, it comes down to "We own the IP and we don't like this part of it, so we're going to erase, remake or annihilate it."

The spirit you're looking for, is malicious vandalism.  Spray painting gang tags on a monument and calling it 'art'. 

They changed the Trill makeup because Terry Farrell's face was "too pretty to cover up".  Was that 'malicious vandalism'?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 27 October 2017, 18:53:27
*snip* (even to the point that in the second episode, Michelle Yeoh's character basically had to jump on T'Kuvma's dagger to get stabbed.)
*snip*
You just made me very glad I didn't go past episode one.  At least she had an appropriate response to a mutineer...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 30 October 2017, 12:11:05
Another great episode,  with the classic groundhog day scenario.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Static on 30 October 2017, 21:17:46
Yeah, I thought they did a good job delivering a solid stand-alone episode while still moving the ball forward on character development--reminded me a bit of Farscape on its better days. Overall, I feel like show's been getting consistently better with almost every episode. I had pretty low expectations when I started the series, but I'm beginning to look forward to new episodes quite a bit. There's still a few bits in every episode that give me a good eyebrow raise though (having a party onboard while they're underway during a time of war--that's synthehol they're drinking, right?).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 31 October 2017, 00:10:55
Except by definition it is not vandalism because they do the IP. So they can do whatever they want regardless of what the customers. Because that's all we are: merely customers. We have no direct say in how they should handle it.

That said, we do have an indirect say: by how we spend are money. And if enough people don't like it and don't want to fork over money for it, it will cause CBS to try something different. And if enough casual people like it, it doesn't matter what the purists like. And that's what I think CBS gamble has been: get the purists in the front door, but make it as widely appealing as possible. (Especially since the entire success of All Access seems poised on this single show.)

Let's say a kid inherits a House from his deceased parents.  Is it vandalism if he trashes the place or not?  I mean, he owns it, right?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 31 October 2017, 00:30:35
It's less like a house and more like a bed and breakfast that he's still expecting to attract paying visitors to.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 October 2017, 03:51:01
Let's say a kid inherits a House from his deceased parents.  Is it vandalism if he trashes the place or not?  I mean, he owns it, right?

It's not vandalism.  Simple.

EDIT:  Let's say a kid inherits a house from his deceased parents and he redecorates in a style you don't like.  Is that vandalism?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 October 2017, 04:37:20
Yeah, I thought they did a good job delivering a solid stand-alone episode while still moving the ball forward on character development--reminded me a bit of Farscape on its better days. Overall, I feel like show's been getting consistently better with almost every episode. I had pretty low expectations when I started the series, but I'm beginning to look forward to new episodes quite a bit. There's still a few bits in every episode that give me a good eyebrow raise though (having a party onboard while they're underway during a time of war--that's synthehol they're drinking, right?).

Synthehol was a TNG addition, and there were a fair few moments of people getting drunk in TOS and the TOS movies.  But people having boozy parties aren't unknown in SF war stories (it happened almost every other week in BSG)

But I feel like the show is drifting more into regular trek with the war as a background thing that surfaces into the plot every once in a while, the preview of next week's episode showed Burnham, Saru and Tyler encountering mysterious glowing things in a forest.  Between that, this weeek's time loop, clumsy racism metaphors and monsters really being gentle, there's a lot of standard Trek boxes being ticked here.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 31 October 2017, 05:05:43
It was Discovery's version of TNG's Cause and Effect. It was a good episode, and more Star Trek then some of the other ones. I was kinda very angry about how the show started that has turned around for me. It still has far to go to me, but now that the show has its footing I can only hope the show does better.

Rainn Wilson as Harry Mudd is just great, he is funny, sarcastic, and really good at what he does. I'm glad he will be in multiple episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Static on 31 October 2017, 11:57:03
Synthehol was a TNG addition, and there were a fair few moments of people getting drunk in TOS and the TOS movies.  But people having boozy parties aren't unknown in SF war stories (it happened almost every other week in BSG)

But I feel like the show is drifting more into regular trek with the war as a background thing that surfaces into the plot every once in a while, the preview of next week's episode showed Burnham, Saru and Tyler encountering mysterious glowing things in a forest.  Between that, this weeek's time loop, clumsy racism metaphors and monsters really being gentle, there's a lot of standard Trek boxes being ticked here.

I can give BSG a pass since IIRC, the drinking wasn't sanctioned most of the time, there was no possibility of shore leave, ever, and their crew compliment was probably larger. It was just hard to believe that Lorca would allow senior officers to get soaked when the Discovery could be relocated to a warzone at almost any moment. Anyway, small complaint; I thought they did a much better job of avoiding the tedium of repetition than Cause and Effect. Also yes, quite excited that there appears to be a cloud creature next week. I'm hoping we might see another go at something like Where No Man Has Gone Before later in the series--it seemed like there might have been something a little sinister about Stamets' transformation when he first plugged into the Spore Drive (it would also explain why it was never used again).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 31 October 2017, 13:28:57
I can give BSG a pass since IIRC, the drinking wasn't sanctioned most of the time, there was no possibility of shore leave, ever, and their crew compliment was probably larger. It was just hard to believe that Lorca would allow senior officers to get soaked when the Discovery could be relocated to a warzone at almost any moment. Anyway, small complaint; I thought they did a much better job of avoiding the tedium of repetition than Cause and Effect. Also yes, quite excited that there appears to be a cloud creature next week. I'm hoping we might see another go at something like Where No Man Has Gone Before later in the series--it seemed like there might have been something a little sinister about Stamets' transformation when he first plugged into the Spore Drive (it would also explain why it was never used again).

who says it's never to be used again??  Seriously now, they've already changed the timeline, if the show doesn't end in a catastrophic cast-killing accident, there's no real reason the owners of the IP have, to NOT make it the warp-drive replacement.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 October 2017, 13:55:51
I can give BSG a pass since IIRC, the drinking wasn't sanctioned most of the time, there was no possibility of shore leave, ever, and their crew compliment was probably larger. It was just hard to believe that Lorca would allow senior officers to get soaked when the Discovery could be relocated to a warzone at almost any moment.

That's a fair point.  Of course, there's at least one raucous party in DS9, Jadzia Dax's hen night/batchelorette party, and at least some of the attendees were visibly hung over afterwards, so not everyone was drinking synthehol.  While the station was close to the front lines of the Dominion War, they definitely weren't in the same boat as Discovery's crew.  All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if Lorca was OK with the party on the premise that the crew needs to blow off steam, or that they have some sort of pill that allows people to negate drunkenness and/or hangovers (and the DS9 peeps hadn't taken them yet in You Are Cordially Invited)

Quote
Anyway, small complaint; I thought they did a much better job of avoiding the tedium of repetition than Cause and Effect. Also yes, quite excited that there appears to be a cloud creature next week. I'm hoping we might see another go at something like Where No Man Has Gone Before later in the series--it seemed like there might have been something a little sinister about Stamets' transformation when he first plugged into the Spore Drive (it would also explain why it was never used again).

We know that Starfleet have the plans for the drive, so presumably something will come up that shelves the system.  Just like Burnham knew about Mudd's time crystals, and why they're not used generally.

Seriously now, they've already changed the timeline

Seriously now, no they haven't
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 31 October 2017, 16:47:41
Seriously now, no they haven't
Does the events recounted by Kirk in TOS as he describes his hero Captain Garth match up what happening in Discovery?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 October 2017, 17:06:24
Does the events recounted by Kirk in TOS as he describes his hero Captain Garth match up what happening in Discovery?

Nothing in Discovery clashes with the description of Garth's exploits in the episode Whom Gods Destroy.  Notably, Kirk doesn't even mention who Garth fought at the battle of Axanar - it's been a fan assumption that he fought the Klingons, which was used in a number of licensed but not canon publications.  And even then, other licensed publications describe Axanar as a battle against the Romulans or the planet's native population.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 31 October 2017, 17:59:31

The CGI is nice and I like the seeming 'Into Darkness/Section 31' angle. Other then that, I think it is bad.

And while I understand that they want to differentiate their IP section from the earlier works, these new Klingons would have worked better if they were used as the Gorn.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 31 October 2017, 18:03:31
The CGI is nice and I like the seeming 'Into Darkness/Section 31' angle. Other then that, I think it is bad.

And while I understand that they want to differentiate their IP section from the earlier works, these new Klingons would have worked better if they were used as the Gorn.
Too bad their first encounter by the Federation is in TOS. Would be violating continuity.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 31 October 2017, 18:35:56
I found some clips online and the Klingons even when speaking english, well I felt pain.  Not emotional pain, physical pain.  It sounded like it was a painful task to even speak, let alone try and emote.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 02 November 2017, 11:15:58
That's a fair point.  Of course, there's at least one raucous party in DS9, Jadzia Dax's hen night/batchelorette party, and at least some of the attendees were visibly hung over afterwards, so not everyone was drinking synthehol.  While the station was close to the front lines of the Dominion War, they definitely weren't in the same boat as Discovery's crew.  All that said, I wouldn't be surprised if Lorca was OK with the party on the premise that the crew needs to blow off steam, or that they have some sort of pill that allows people to negate drunkenness and/or hangovers (and the DS9 peeps hadn't taken them yet in You Are Cordially Invited)

We know that Starfleet have the plans for the drive, so presumably something will come up that shelves the system.  Just like Burnham knew about Mudd's time crystals, and why they're not used generally.

Seriously now, no they haven't

sure they have.  Tribbles, dude.  Instead of being an example of an irresponsible commercial explorer selling them without first knowing anything about them (the reproductive and eating habits especially) we've got one on the desk of Captain Lorca in episode 3 of Discovery-a bit more than a decade before they were discovered.  Second is the Gorn skeleton in Lorca's closet, also more than a decade out of step with the first encounter with the Gorn.  That's two outright anachronisms, and we're still talking only three episodes in.  Should we keep going??  How about changing an established character or two:

1. Sarek-having a loving and supportive relationship with ANY of his kids?? does this fit with ANY prior appearances?  yet Burnham calls him up as her first instinct when encountering Klingons.  she's got his home number too-and he picks up, not a secretary or functionary. (What time IS IT on vulcan, anyway?)
2. Harcourt Fenton Mudd.  Transformed by Discovery from a somewhat greedy, somewhat incompetent rogue and ne'er-do-well out to make money and have a good time flouting the law, to a dangerous covert agent and outright psychopath.  That's usually a transformation that goes The other way-from 'mostly harmless' to 'serious player', not from 'serious player' to 'mostly harmless'.  That's actually a fairily serious case of continuity change right-there.

The "Klingon in a rubber suit" thing is neither here, nor there, except that ten years from now, a mutation that began a hundred years ago is going to become really quite visible, when it's largely completely invisible here, in spite of having been explained already.  THough I suppose the Klingons who can speak and move may have simply out-competed the Klingork models in terms of simple evolution, to include things like the ones who aren't hampered by seventies fetish outfits using weapons that are designed like...well, weapons, instead of being baroque art-pieces that would be pretty much impossible to use effectively, but look badass in the publicity stills and museum exhibits.

so yeah, they took a few minor dumps on continuity already just in the first six episodes, there's no reason for CBS to stop doing it, as long as they can continue to use familiar names and keep putting "Star Trek" on the box.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Istal_Devalis on 02 November 2017, 12:16:27
Klingons never really get past the 'Using weapons that mostly just look cool' thing if the Bat'leth is any indication.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 02 November 2017, 13:25:23
Klingons never really get past the 'Using weapons that mostly just look cool' thing if the Bat'leth is any indication.

funny enough, while it's not a particularly practical weapon, it's also not spectacularly IMpractical...untiil you get to Discovery's version, which has exactly NO way to hold and wield it without pointing it at yourself.

which is kind of a fatal mistake there, shown in the first encounter burny has with a Klingork, she bumps it into him-and through him...by accident.

Take a look at "Disruptor pistols" from TOS, TNG, etc. vs. the "Disruptor pistols" from Discovery, which  kinda look like bronze rings with spiky bits attached, rather than the relatively ergonomic (four fingers and a thumb hold them easily-which even discovery's klingorks possess), angled-grip-with-a-long barrel (which is good for lining up aimed shots, btw).  The spiky bits on Discovery's weapons serve no purpose-they aren't good for knuckle-dusters, nor good for carrying where you'd carry a pistol when you're not using it.  (I really have to wonder about that, it doesn't really 'holster' well, and it's an awkward draw for something with hands and arms shaped like  a Discovery Klingon's hands and arms...)

Then we can go look at their 'warrior dagger' designs, from ST3, through DS9, to Discovery.  in the prior examples, they're made of metal (both types,) ahd have spring-out sharpened guards (both types.)

However, the grip on the Discovery Klingork weapon is going to be real interesting to try and hold on to as soon as it gets wet with...like...the blood of an enemy?  (Slick metal surfaces with scaling laid out to make it slide out of your hand isn't good grip design in ANY culture, if you're going ot use scaling, it needs to either encourage grip or be neutral, and not be angled to make it easier to drop.)

and then, there's the armor...

yes, it's pretty, isn't it? and you can't move around in it, your radius of motion on your limbs is restricted, it's layered to helpfully guide enemy fire and weapons into  your vital organs. it is functionally the OPPOSITE of what armor should do, and that's just looking at the general SHAPE.

I mean, the shape and crafting practically announce "If you wear this into a fight,  you will indeed, die in battle."  and that might be glorious, but nothing is more honorable or glorious than Winning. (and you don't do that dying) which is why DS9 Klingons wear armor and uniforms that provide coverage of vitals, and enable fast, athletic movement, so that you can....y'know, win fights occasionally?

I mean, come on, in the fight scene in episode 3, Michelle Yeoh's character had to practically help T'kuvma stab her.  (either t hat, or she decided to play a person with zero situational awareness and mild mental deficiency either way, it was a fight scene even LESS exciting than watching Jim Kirk apply the two-handed slam-punch..).

Basically, the full Klingork Retcon is taking a faction that was "Worthy Adversaries" and making them "Incompetent buffoons."

which, I guess, is what the modern market was clamoring for...but it demonstrates a defined effort to ignore or remove continuity, and my point stands-if the showrunners decide to keep the Spore Drive, nothing is going to stop them from simply determining that it's in for the rest of the run and all sequels.

Because, y'know, they own the IP and can do with it what they want...and that includes declaring the new to be 'continuous' with the old even when it blatantly isn't.


Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 November 2017, 15:00:20
Stuff he wrote...

My thoughts exactly and much more. Thats why I pretend this isnt Star Trek so I can see where this is going out of curiosity but this is already mangled beyond repair.

They should be sincere with the fans and dump everything that was done so far and start fresh (sort of what Disney did with Star Wars but at least they had the decency to say it - and even at that they didnt dumped everything).

EDIT = crap... said it was the last time I would comment about this... too late I guess... it really bothers me that they did this show this way. Sorry.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 November 2017, 15:26:26
sure they have.  Tribbles, dude.  Instead of being an example of an irresponsible commercial explorer selling them without first knowing anything about them (the reproductive and eating habits especially) we've got one on the desk of Captain Lorca in episode 3 of Discovery-a bit more than a decade before they were discovered. 

Firstly, a tribble appearing on Captain Lorca's desk doesn't magically lessen the moral of The Trouble with Tribbles.  However, you're assuming they were only discovered at that point, when there is nothing in the episode to suggest that.  In fact, the first encounter between humans and Tribbles was in Star Trek: Enterprise.

Quote
Second is the Gorn skeleton in Lorca's closet, also more than a decade out of step with the first encounter with the Gorn. 

This is also conjecture, as all we know is that Lorca has a Gorn skeleton.  And well, I can point to a number of skeletons in museums of lifeforms that humanity has never interacted with,


Quote
1. Sarek-having a loving and supportive relationship with ANY of his kids?? does this fit with ANY prior appearances?  yet Burnham calls him up as her first instinct when encountering Klingons. 

Sarek used Burnham in a social experiment at an age where she couldn't give informed consent.  And he figuratively threw her under a bus when told that he had to choose whether she or Spock would be allowed join the Vulcan Expeditionary Group.  He then lied to Burnham about this choice, telling her that she didn't meet their standards.  He didn't have any regret about this until Spock decided to join Starfleet instead, rendering his choice pointless in hindsight.  When Burnham attempted to use their shared katra to find him, he would prefer to die than show her this memory, and refused to talk to her about it after she successfully melded with him and saved him.

So yeah, Sarek in Discovery is pretty much in line with his character elsewhere, in terms of his relationship with his children.

Quote
she's got his home number too-and he picks up, not a secretary or functionary.  (What time IS IT on vulcan, anyway?)

This literally happened all the time in prior stars trek.

Quote
2. Harcourt Fenton Mudd.  Transformed by Discovery from a somewhat greedy, somewhat incompetent rogue and ne'er-do-well out to make money and have a good time flouting the law, to a dangerous covert agent and outright psychopath.  That's usually a transformation that goes The other way-from 'mostly harmless' to 'serious player', not from 'serious player' to 'mostly harmless'.  That's actually a fairily serious case of continuity change right-there.

Harry Mudd first encountered the crew of the Enterprise while trying to sell three women to a group of miners.  In the 21st century, we have a word for that.  Mudd was always an amoral bastard, he only learned how to be more charming to better disarm his opponents

Quote
The "Klingon in a rubber suit" thing is neither here, nor there, except that ten years from now, a mutation that began a hundred years ago is going to become really quite visible, when it's largely completely invisible here, in spite of having been explained already.  THough I suppose the Klingons who can speak and move may have simply out-competed the Klingork models in terms of simple evolution, to include things like the ones who aren't hampered by seventies fetish outfits using weapons that are designed like...well, weapons, instead of being baroque art-pieces that would be pretty much impossible to use effectively, but look badass in the publicity stills and museum exhibits.

If the change in look to the Klingons is a problem, then it's in the back of a queue that includes the Romulans, Ferengi, and Trills amongst others.

Quote
so yeah, they took a few minor dumps on continuity already just in the first six episodes,

Your incomplete knowledge of canon and use of conjecture does not constitute a dump on continuity.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 02 November 2017, 16:59:27
They should be sincere with the fans and dump everything that was done so far and start fresh (sort of what Disney did with Star Wars but at least they had the decency to say it - and even at that they didnt dumped everything).
Of they can do as they've done, ignore the crying fanbois who think they own the property and can dictate how to run it.

And keep making a show that plenty of us enjoy.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 02 November 2017, 17:15:37
I think that is what annoys me the most about ST:D.

Yeah Star Trek and consistency are two words not likely to be in the same sentence in a positive way but it does really feel like this show is not Star Trek save the name and maybe a couple visual elements and the people behind it don't actually want it to be Star Trek either.

I don't think it is actually a bad show though from what I've been able to see for how it has developed so far.  Just not Star Trek, certainly not prime continuity Star Trek at least.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 November 2017, 17:32:46
I don't think it is actually a bad show though from what I've been able to see for how it has developed so far.  Just not Star Trek, certainly not prime continuity Star Trek at least.

The last three or four episodes have been absolutely Star Trek in tone and attitude.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 02 November 2017, 18:00:06
I will admit it is hard to say from what I can see without doing something unscrupulous.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 November 2017, 18:05:40
I will admit it is hard to say from what I can see without doing something unscrupulous.

That's fair, and I'm sure I said upthread if it wasn't on Netflix here I'd not be subscribing to a new service just to watch it, even though I'm really enjoying it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 02 November 2017, 19:34:24
There are a lot more Star Trek in the newest episodes. That makes me happy. Even if they redo a show or two from the earlier series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 03 November 2017, 00:12:42
I think that is what annoys me the most about ST:D.

Yeah Star Trek and consistency are two words not likely to be in the same sentence in a positive way but it does really feel like this show is not Star Trek save the name and maybe a couple visual elements and the people behind it don't actually want it to be Star Trek either.

I don't think it is actually a bad show though from what I've been able to see for how it has developed so far.  Just not Star Trek, certainly not prime continuity Star Trek at least.

I have finally gotten around to watching the first couple of episodes, and this is my take on it.

Basically, I see this as a complete re-imagining of the Trek universe, more radical in some ways than even the JJverse.  I think the best way to swallow it is to look at it like you would the comics:  both DC and Marvel have multiverses in which things unfold differently, or are even realized completely differently, from a main-focus "Prime" continuity, and so does Star Trek.  This series just takes place in one of the many parallel universes where some things are similar, but many others are completely different.

Put another way, if the continuity represented by TOS and TNG/DS9/Voyager is your original _Squadron Supreme_ series, then ST:D is your _Supreme Power_ re-imagining.  Or, ST:D has about as much to do with that Prime continuity as _Maleficent_ had to do with the original Sleeping Beauty (both the fairy tale and the classic Disney cartoon).

Having said that, yeah, the new Klingons are pretty awful.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 03 November 2017, 00:25:48
*nod*

Just them saying it is supposed to be Prime does make me rather disappointed with a lot of the changes they have made and done in a way that frankly seems disrespectful of what has come before but at the same time I actually wouldn't have too much trouble head canoning each series is it's own continuity.  Maybe even each movie.  Everything makes a lot more sense that way.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 November 2017, 02:43:26
Even if they redo a show or two from the earlier series.

I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 03 November 2017, 05:00:20
I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

"The Naked Then"  ...?

What I would like to see...

Burnham:  You mean...it was YOU, Captain?  *You're* the one who's been making the spore drive work?
Lorca:  Of course it was me!
           [accent changes from southern U.S. to upper-class English]
           You Muggle nincompoops, the lot of you!  Who ever heard of a mass of fungus able to teleport a vessel instantly over dozens of light-years?  Have you any idea what it takes me to make this ship Disapparate over such distances?  I don't know how many wands I'll have to burn out, or how many house-elves I'll need to go through this year!

 ;D  >:D

(there really ought to be a blooper reel that shows Jason Isaacs saying just that...)

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 03 November 2017, 08:23:11
I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

It wont take long... I bet it will happen this season...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 03 November 2017, 10:13:22
I'm surprised we haven't had an episode where a virus transmitted by touch makes the crew act all crazy yet.

I predict a spore drive breach, and in addition to their other properties, the spores are that virus. :)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 03 November 2017, 19:00:19
Burnham:  You mean...it was YOU, Captain?  *You're* the one who's been making the spore drive work?

Y'know, I'd been wondering about his eye.

sure they have.  Tribbles, dude.  Instead of being an example of an irresponsible commercial explorer selling them without first knowing anything about them (the reproductive and eating habits especially) we've got one on the desk of Captain Lorca in episode 3 of Discovery-a bit more than a decade before they were discovered.  Second is the Gorn skeleton in Lorca's closet, also more than a decade out of step with the first encounter with the Gorn. 
<snip>
1. Sarek-having a loving and supportive relationship with ANY of his kids?? does this fit with ANY prior appearances? 
<snip>
2. Harcourt Fenton Mudd.  Transformed by Discovery from a somewhat greedy, somewhat incompetent rogue and ne'er-do-well out to make money and have a good time flouting the law, to a dangerous covert agent and outright psychopath. 
<snip>
ten years from now, a mutation that began a hundred years ago is going to become really quite visible, when it's largely completely invisible here, in spite of having been explained already. 

Lemme preface all this by saying that, although I disagree with you on some points, my disagreements are of a different nature and tenor than Lorcan Nagle's.

0. Technically, the Gorn bones and Tribble only point to Starfleet remaining unfamiliar with Lorca's experiences - which seems to be an intentional and ongoing theme. Given how Discovery (its timeframe, visual style, possibly its narrative and thematic choices) falls between Enterprise and nuTrek, it's also possible that time travel has a role in those anachronisms.
1. I don't think we have any grounds to judge that. Sarek has specific well-established reasons to be distant from Spock, and the other son has barely any screentime. I think they're posing the relationship with Burnham as the cause of Sarek's later emotional disturbances; it's an interesting choice, if not a necessary one.
2. I agree that these are two different characterizations, but it could be argued - and I think not unreasonably so - that a person can have different attitudes and outlooks at different phases in their life.

If your final point refers to Enterprise's explanation for human-looking Klingons, I have to point out that Enterprise was riddled with temporal meddling from start to finish, so their explanation isn't automatically valid outside of their own show. That said, I'm mostly with you on Discovery's Klingons, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned their aberrant funerary practices yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 03 November 2017, 19:38:53
Y'know, I'd been wondering about his eye.

Lemme preface all this by saying that, although I disagree with you on some points, my disagreements are of a different nature and tenor than Lorcan Nagle's.

0. Technically, the Gorn bones and Tribble only point to Starfleet remaining unfamiliar with Lorca's experiences - which seems to be an intentional and ongoing theme. Given how Discovery (its timeframe, visual style, possibly its narrative and thematic choices) falls between Enterprise and nuTrek, it's also possible that time travel has a role in those anachronisms.
1. I don't think we have any grounds to judge that. Sarek has specific well-established reasons to be distant from Spock, and the other son has barely any screentime. I think they're posing the relationship with Burnham as the cause of Sarek's later emotional disturbances; it's an interesting choice, if not a necessary one.
2. I agree that these are two different characterizations, but it could be argued - and I think not unreasonably so - that a person can have different attitudes and outlooks at different phases in their life.

If your final point refers to Enterprise's explanation for human-looking Klingons, I have to point out that Enterprise was riddled with temporal meddling from start to finish, so their explanation isn't automatically valid outside of their own show. That said, I'm mostly with you on Discovery's Klingons, and I'm surprised nobody's mentioned their aberrant funerary practices yet.

I considered it.  Really, I'm kind of 'done with' the whole bleeping debate, honestly-because my objections really don't have a single solitary impact and I know it.

why is this?

2 reasons.

1. It doesn't matter what I think, because CBS owns the IP, and if they say something is so with their IP, even if it means everyone has to wear a pink Tutu to walk in space, then that's what is so in that IP.  'Consistency' is only extant so far as the owner says something is consistent.  CBS says "This is Prime Timeline" then it's prime timeline, even when it makes absolutely zero sense, because CBS owns the property and in th e end, they're the ones with editorial/authorial control.

2. Star Trek has crested that point where the IP owners are more interested in looking backward than forward.  It's a Prequel, and it's a reboot, and it's a retcon, and it's their right to do it because (1).

once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.

and that's what's really bothering me (that, and the crap writing, acting, direction, storyline, plots...but hey, I don't have to watch it, it's optional now.)

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 November 2017, 19:43:28
once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.


Of course, when they did look forward, they got a whole load of crap from the fans for years.  There was a vocal faction of Trek fans that wouldn't shut up about TNG, but they mostly died out by the end of series 3.

Their complaints sounded a lot like the ones raised on this thread, oddly enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 03 November 2017, 20:04:54
*[Edit: Sorry, misread "series" for "season." Strike my statement about TNG and replace it with the assertion that DS9 isn't 'forward-looking.' /Edit]

The first three seasons of TNG had a lot of looking backward. They didn't really start looking forward until midway into season 2.* I'd argue that DS9 is actually the root of the forces troubling Cannonshop, and - I expect you'll disagree with me on this next point - that Enterprise was the most forward-looking of Trek since TOS.

once upon a distant time ago, Star Trek looked Forward, not backward, for inspiration, characters, setting, conflicts etc. etc. etc.  but those days are gone, all the've got left, is the desire to cannibalize what they've inherited, instead of creating new things.

I'm with you. I can quibble the exact mechanics of it, but I agree about the overall, cumulative effect.

(That said, I enjoy what I've seen so far. I've certainly enjoyed much, much worse sci-fi.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 November 2017, 20:20:41
The first three seasons of TNG had a lot of looking backward. They didn't really start looking forward until midway into season 2.

Roddenberry definitely saw TNG as TOS with a different skin, and it wasn't until he was out of the picture that the show grew into its own

Quote
I'd argue that DS9 is actually the root of the forces troubling Cannonshop, and - I expect you'll disagree with me on this next point - that Enterprise was the most forward-looking of Trek since TOS.

Yeah, I see Enterprise as the point where Trek ultimately failed.  TNG found a formula early on and stuck with it, and to differing degrees DS9, Voyager and Enterprise followed through.  But that meant that by the time Enterprise started, the formula had been in use for 14 consecutive years, and 21 series of TV - and it was sorely out of date.  Personally, I was so bored of Star Trek that I had quit watching in 1997 or so.  DS9 is the only series that I didn't finish watching that compelled me to fill in the blanks.  I've seen fewer than 10 episodes of Enterprise in total.

Within 2 years of Enterprise premièring, Battlestar Galactica was on the air, and it showed how creatively bankrupt Star Trek had become.  Enterprise was a relic even before this.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 03 November 2017, 20:34:16
I edited my post while you were writing yours (and then edited again to make the edit more obvious). I could quibble the nature of the different Trek series, but instead I'll say this:

The Trek IP "looks forward" by focusing on exploration, discovery, and high-minded resolutions to social conflict. It's focused outward in a generally positive way.

DS9, although certainly engaging, dwells much more on personal conflicts and lower-minded resolutions. It's focused inward, often ("often" relative to the rest of Trek) in a generally negative way.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 03 November 2017, 20:51:25
Personally, I was so bored of Star Trek

So very much this. I watched a little longer than you did but Trek had become so boring by the time Enterprise came along that I’ve only seen maybe half a season. And I didn’t even bother with the new movies until much later after their release (and I still haven’t seen the third one). I just didn’t care anymore.

But Discovery actually has me interested in Star Trek again.

Now, maybe it too will eventually fall victim to the same forces of mediocrity and repetition that doomed the rest of the franchise but at the moment it’s a breath of fresh air.

And at least the Klingons no longer look like cheap KISS cosplayers.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 03 November 2017, 21:11:22
Eh... Discovery only has me interested in Discovery - not in "Star Trek."

And at least the Klingons no longer look like cheap KISS cosplayers.

The thing I always liked about Klingons was their sense of humor.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 04 November 2017, 01:06:01
DS9 was for me the high point of the Star Trek franchise (I know that it was made to compete with Babylon 5 but I truly loved it and still see a random episode here and there).

Up until Enterprise they moved the setting forward (and parallel if want to take into account the mirror episodes). Starting with Enterprise they seem to have lost any kind of objectiveness. Could be my fault but I enjoy a setting that tells a story (or stories) moving forward (like Battletech). Telling a past event could be interesting of course but force fed it to viewers is a big mistake that they didnt learned with Enterprise (I know that the franchise is old but maybe thats the idea - let the old stuff be old and stop giving a ton of facelifts so that the old timers cant recognize it anymore). Theyre trying again with better prodution values and more... creative freedom but... to be polite... its a big pile of crap.

Ill be very surprised if this show gets past 2 or 3 seasons without some setting turn of events...

Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 04 November 2017, 05:02:40
Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.

De gustibus non est disputandum
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 06:21:20
I edited my post while you were writing yours (and then edited again to make the edit more obvious). I could quibble the nature of the different Trek series, but instead I'll say this:

The Trek IP "looks forward" by focusing on exploration, discovery, and high-minded resolutions to social conflict. It's focused outward in a generally positive way.

DS9, although certainly engaging, dwells much more on personal conflicts and lower-minded resolutions. It's focused inward, often ("often" relative to the rest of Trek) in a generally negative way.

I get where you're coming from, but I think that Trek is better served when it's a compelling drama first, and fitting inside the idiom second.  For example, In The Pale Moonlight is one of my favourite episodes of Trek ever.  And it's focused inwards in a way that even DS9 didn't do that often.  But at the core of the episode is Sisko putting the Vulcan maxim of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or the one.  The last lines of the episode: "I can live with this, I can live with this" is him saying that he sold his soul to save the Federation, and that's a good price.  The same way Spock saved Kirk and the Enterprise at the cost of his life in Wrath of Khan.

To me, that's far more in the idiom of Star Trek than any episode of Voyager or Enterprise that I've seen.

DS9 was for me the high point of the Star Trek franchise (I know that it was made to compete with Babylon 5 but I truly loved it and still see a random episode here and there).


Allegedly made to compete with Babylon 5.  (I say this as a much bigger fan of B5 than DS9, but there's only JMS' allegations to go on that the show was put into production after Paramount's execs read his treatment)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 04 November 2017, 06:34:41
Oh... BTW I enjoy much more the cheap KISS cosplayers version of the Klingons than the drag queens version in Discovery.
And it is more then just looks, their character has also taken a turn for the worst.

But one of the larger problems for this show is that Burnham is completely unlikeable as a character, which is a huge problem as it is more of a character oriented show then a crew oriented show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 06:54:30
And it is more then just looks, their character has also taken a turn for the worst.


See, that's the thing I don't get.  There's been plenty of zealous Klingons, there's been plenty of cruel Klingons, and there's been plenty of manipulative Klingons who talk about honour but never actually are honourable.  How are T'Kuvma and Voq unlike all those hidebound Klingons like the ones who cloned Kahless, how is L'ress not like Kruge, and how is Kol not like Gowron?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 04 November 2017, 08:51:49
See, that's the thing I don't get.  There's been plenty of zealous Klingons, there's been plenty of cruel Klingons, and there's been plenty of manipulative Klingons who talk about honour but never actually are honourable.  How are T'Kuvma and Voq unlike all those hidebound Klingons like the ones who cloned Kahless, how is L'ress not like Kruge, and how is Kol not like Gowron?

completely absent; sense of humour, or sense of life.  Even Kruge had a dark, dry humour.  also absent are any sort of expression.  T'Kuvma, L'ress, Voq-you could replace all of them with text-to-speech engines and get more emotion in their voices as a result, you could replace the actors with claymation and get more expressive and fluid movements and body language.  (That's a transition that usually runs the exact opposite way, btw.)

Kruge-his views had context, there was his commitment, but he also had an existence beyond that commitment that made it clear it was a CHOICE for him.  It was clear all through sT3 that he was actively making a decision, right up to the point where he refused Kirk's aid in his final scene...and it was clear he COULD have chosen differently.  that's what MADE him zealous-the ability to understand there was another way, and to reject it.

(TBH I never read the novelization, I just base that on his appearance on screen.)

Gowron: Humour.  His humour might not have been particularly nice but it was there, along with a sense of cunning in how he operated. His motives were obvious and up-front, but he was also able to comprehend his enemies.  T'Kuvma had no sense of humour, Voq h as no sense of humour-they're just wind-ups in latex fetish gear covered in useless and excessive spike-and-scale motifs.

The Klingons of Discovery are humorless, senseless, soulless, mindless, lifeless collections of negative habits and attributes with no engaging or redeeming traits whatsoever to put their actions into context. 

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 09:48:58
So, basically, they have all the same personality traits except the part you chose to focus on to the exclusion of all others?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 04 November 2017, 09:53:20
So, basically, they have all the same personality traits except the part you chose to focus on to the exclusion of all others?
nope, I'm saying that they don't have personalities.  They have caricatures instead.

essentially being stripped of individuality, personality at all. They're as deep as a paper poster, and really only interesting AS paper posters.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 10:05:25
But they do have personalities. You're claiming they have no individuality while ignoring how they are different.  You're claiming that the thing that stops them from having personalities is that L'Ress and Kol don't have a sense of humour.

And you're claiming that these are why they're different from "classic" Klingons, while ignoring that they're just the same as the Klingons in every other way.

And you're claiming this seven episodes into the series, when the Klingons have had a tiny amount of screen time compared to the Federation cast.  At this point in TNG Worf had about as much screen time as the Klingon cast of Discovery combined, and all we knew about him was "angry" and "honour".
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 04 November 2017, 10:45:22
But they do have personalities. You're claiming they have no individuality while ignoring how they are different.  You're claiming that the thing that stops them from having personalities is that L'Ress and Kol don't have a sense of humour.

And you're claiming that these are why they're different from "classic" Klingons, while ignoring that they're just the same as the Klingons in every other way.

And you're claiming this seven episodes into the series, when the Klingons have had a tiny amount of screen time compared to the Federation cast.  At this point in TNG Worf had about as much screen time as the Klingon cast of Discovery combined, and all we knew about him was "angry" and "honour".

Lorcan, we're just going to disagree on this.  You're "hoping" for development, but while they've got a fraction of Worf's time at seven episodes, that's seven HOURS of television.  Gowron had less cumulative time, and got more development.  These are supposed to be the Main villains in the show, at seven hours, they've got as much development as your typical never-to-be-seen again faceless mook in prior series.  all ANY of them have gotten, is a single trait, amplified to 11, so you're comparing the wrong things here.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 10:51:25
I'm not hoping for development, I'm recognising that they've done character work to begin with and have already expanded on this.  If you don't agree, that's one thing, but to make arbitrary declarations about how this isn't Star Trek because X, while ignoring or making excuses for every other Star Trek also doing X is intellectually dishonest.

It's clear you don't like the show, so at this point, instead of looking for problems with it, why not just stop watching it, and find something more productive to do than complain about it online?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Triptych on 04 November 2017, 10:53:10
I watched the first episode on Netflix. I'm honestly getting tired of the usual cliches of placing the bridge of a starship on top of the hull where it can easily be targeted by the enemy and the usual exploding console bit.

I like the conflict between the crew (even though it goes into unrealistic insubordination territory punishable by firing squad) which was missing in all the TNG shows.

What I dont get is the continuity: this series is supposed to be set before TOS, yet everything is so much more advanced. What happened afterwards in Kirk's timeline? Was there a technological dark age or something?  ???
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 10:54:53
What I dont get is the continuity: this series is supposed to be set before TOS, yet everything is so much more advanced. What happened afterwards in Kirk's timeline? Was there a technological dark age or something?  ???

If they made it look like TOS, it would have made a small number of Trekkies happy, while alienating the general public.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 04 November 2017, 12:33:00
The future of the 1960s isn't really sufficient for a big budget sci-fi series anymore.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 04 November 2017, 12:42:19
If they made it look like TOS, it would have made a small number of Trekkies happy, while alienating the general public.

I guess you can look at it from GR's POV when the TMP Klingon's came to light (That's ALWAYS how they were supposed to look, if we had the same Special Effects back in the 60's)... does it matter? I totally love most the Fan Films made in the past decade that lavishes the TOS esthetic but if the TOS is out, then its merely Classic Coke... and people want New Coke(apparently)...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 04 November 2017, 13:30:34
I have no problem with technology looking more advanced than stuff from the 60s, as long as the 60s stuff still outperforms it whenever you get actual comparison points.

Remember the episodes in Enterprise when mirror folks from that era got ahold of a Constitution? It looked more primitive than the 'contemporary' ships, but when the torpedoes started flying...ouch.

THAT'S how you do tech progression while still keeping the sets and special effects current.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 04 November 2017, 13:36:45
I'm not hoping for development, I'm recognising that they've done character work to begin with and have already expanded on this.  If you don't agree, that's one thing, but to make arbitrary declarations about how this isn't Star Trek because X, while ignoring or making excuses for every other Star Trek also doing X is intellectually dishonest.

It's clear you don't like the show, so at this point, instead of looking for problems with it, why not just stop watching it, and find something more productive to do than complain about it online?

as I said, we're not going to agree.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 04 November 2017, 15:30:25
I watched the first episode on Netflix. I'm honestly getting tired of the usual cliches of placing the bridge of a starship on top of the hull where it can easily be targeted by the enemy and the usual exploding console bit.

Wasn't the Shenzou's (or however it's spelled) bridge placed at the bottom of its saucer section?

Edit: And say what you will about "Enterprise", and even "Voyager", they did keep true to the feeling of exploration that was part and parcel of TOS...well, perhaps not much of season 3 of "Enterprise", but even that one had some, and season 4 showed that it was truly coming back...had the series lasted to season 5, with the Enterprise rebuilt with a secondary hull, and a build up to the Romulan War and the formation of the Federation, it could have been great...

Still a bad series finale in that one...if they had just done a 10 year jump and showed just that storyline rather than making the story about Will Riker...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 04 November 2017, 15:52:16
Wasn't the Shenzou's (or however it's spelled) bridge placed at the bottom of its saucer section?

Edit: And say what you will about "Enterprise", and even "Voyager", they did keep true to the feeling of exploration that was part and parcel of TOS...well, perhaps not much of season 3 of "Enterprise", but even that one had some, and season 4 showed that it was truly coming back...had the series lasted to season 5, with the Enterprise rebuilt with a secondary hull, and a build up to the Romulan War and the formation of the Federation, it could have been great...

Still a bad series finale in that one...if they had just done a 10 year jump and showed just that storyline rather than making the story about Will Riker...

Ruger

It was basically a 'screw you' to the fans that Enterprise had, in spite of the scheduling shell-game and lame theme song, managed to garner and gather...and I think it was intended to be that insulting gesture.  Salting the fields and dumping poison in the well, so to speak, an announcement that B&B absolutely did not want a Trek they didn't control (and with the financial failure of Enterprise, they wouldn't control whatever came next and they knew it..)

looking at Discovery and maybe they were right to try and sabotage the entire franchise like that...at least, on some level.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 04 November 2017, 18:36:29
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Brannon_Braga#Enterprise_.E2.80.93_controversy.2C_atonement.2C_and_defense

Quote
Candidly admitting to his reduced role, Braga has outlined his scaled-down responsibilities for the last season, "I was indeed involved in Ent-season4. But only in a supervisory capacity. Manny was really running that writing staff. I was there to help him fashion stories and give notes, which was only part of the time because Manny was doing an amazing job. I rewrote an episode called "Divergence" I believe. No offense to the credited writer [note: the Reeves-Stevens']. It just needed work and I was happy to help Manny out." [25]

While the season as a whole was generally very well received by the fans – though it did not save the series, as its cancellation had already been decided upon – both Berman and Braga yet again took firmly hold of the reins when it came to producing the last episode, "These Are the Voyages...", also turning out to be the very last of the entire television franchise for the time being. Intended to be "a valentine to all the Star Trek shows", as Braga had put it in 2007 at the below-mentioned VegasCon, the well-meant intention was again met with intense criticism, again resulting in a violent backlash from production staffers and fans alike, causing Berman to admit years later, "I would have never done it if I had known how people were going to react." [26] In 2013, Braga made the even more unusual, but equally magnanimous, gesture of prostration by openly apologizing for the episode to cast and crew of Enterprise, conceding that he and Berman had made a "narcissistic move" in trying to make the episode a "valentine" to Star Trek. He also called it "a crappy episode" (ENT Season 2 Blu-ray-special feature, In Conversation: The First Crew), and "an idiotic move on my part" in 2014, having caused "(...) the only time Scott Bakula got pissed off at me". [27]
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 04 November 2017, 19:16:01
Braga i being a bit of a whiny bitch. It was the Reeves-Stevens' that got Season 4 back on track and made that show worth watching. Braga and Berman, together, nearly destroyed the Star Trek IP.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 04 November 2017, 20:12:32
Braga i being a bit of a whiny bitch.

Because he said he did a rewrite on one script and then accepted blame for a poorly received final episode, all the while praising the job the showrunner was doing that season? That's real whiny, that. ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 04 November 2017, 21:32:27
I've talked to Braga professionally, back when Enterprise was in development. An old friend of mine, who has sadly passed away, had many dealings with him. Braga has his issues, and I certainly don't see eye-to-eye with him on everything, but he really loves Star Trek. He gets more far more hate than he should.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Triptych on 04 November 2017, 22:24:44
If they made it look like TOS, it would have made a small number of Trekkies happy, while alienating the general public.

Fair enough but they should just admit the obvious and proclaim that STD is a reboot of the series. Right now their insistence that its set in the prime universe is making people unhappy because of the total lack of consistency.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 04 November 2017, 22:44:53
Just admit its part of the nuTrek storyline and I would have zero issue with it.

Then they need some scripts that make it work. 

Really easy!   :P
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 04 November 2017, 22:57:53
Fair enough but they should just admit the obvious and proclaim that STD is a reboot of the series. Right now their insistence that its set in the prime universe is making people unhappy because of the total lack of consistency.

Very few people. Not enough to matter.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 04 November 2017, 23:04:01
Very few people. Not enough to matter.

Truth.  They could care less if fans of any of the series care for it. 

Two choices?  Like it or lump it.

P
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 04 November 2017, 23:27:08
It is an uncomfortable truth that people old enough to even have watched Enterprise during it's original run, let alone any of the prior series, are not the majority of the viewing market.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 04 November 2017, 23:58:31
It is an uncomfortable truth that people old enough to even have watched Enterprise during it's original run, let alone any of the prior series, are not the majority of the viewing market.

Enterprise isn't that old. It went off air in '05. That's definitely within the 20s-30s range this show is aimed at.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 05 November 2017, 02:17:00
2017-2005=12 years.

That puts the young end of the target demographic that watched Enterprise at the old end of Discovery at best.

Which means most of the target audience has been replaced with new blood.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 05 November 2017, 03:53:35
Fair enough but they should just admit the obvious and proclaim that STD is a reboot of the series. Right now their insistence that its set in the prime universe is making people unhappy because of the total lack of consistency.

The vast majority of viewers don't care about that though.  Not even the majority of Star Trek fans care about that. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mendrugo on 05 November 2017, 06:42:47
The total lack of consistency is a Star Trek feature, not a bug.  In the pre-wiki era, there was even a multi volume Nit Picker’s Guide to Star Trek pointing out each episode’s inconsistencies (both with internal logic and with premises established by other episodes)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 05 November 2017, 08:04:53
There really hasn't been a prequel that really kept to the original canon.  That is the problem with going back in time to do a show. Yes the tech is better, and yes the story don't fit with the Canon of Star Trek but as long as it's a good show then it won't be a problem in the long run. I'm just glad that it's more Star Trek in episode 6 and 7 vs 1 and 2.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 05 November 2017, 08:50:59
There really hasn't been a prequel that really kept to the original canon. 

Not sure I agree with that. Many decry Enterprise for the way it introduced the Klingons to the humans (it's not like what was in the FASA RPG or The Final Reflection!) or that they looked like the movie-era on Klingons rather than TOS versions (reason given in season 4), or the Romulans to the humans (again, not like the FASA RPG!) or that the Vulcans were hated by many humans and didn't act like the logical, stoic race we knew from TOS and later series (again, addressed in season 4)...and then there's the Temporal Cold War and the whole Xindi affair (which was never mentioned before on any previous series, so obviously, it never happened)...

But the thing is, it actually stayed pretty true to what was actually seen on screen in previous shows...the whole FASA and The Final Reflection quibbles aside (as they were never canon), Enterprise, on the whole, actually either only took what came before and grew it, or addressed the differences with on-screen explanations that stayed within the canon that had come previously to the various shows...I'm on my third or fourth viewing of the entire series since I got the complete series set, and I'm not seeing it as a problem child...

Of course, many had a problem with the design of the NX-01, but, from what I've seen, that would have been addressed in season 5 when a secondary hull was added to the ship...you would have seen a definitive precursor  to the Constitution-class heavy cruiser of TOS...no, it would not have been a truly collaborative effort like the Constitution-class et al were supposed to have been per the FASA RPG, but then again, the latter was never canon in the first place anyways...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 05 November 2017, 09:48:47
The design work in Enterprise is probably the show's strongest point, IMO.  At a point where a lot of shows were going more towards virtual sets (the hanger in BSG, for example is a tiny physical set with green screen backgrounds to allow for a cavernous look), they built so much of the ship practically.  And they added a ton of detail and physical features to the props beyond what the TNG era had - removable power packs in the phase pistols, light-up panels in tricorders - all great touches.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 05 November 2017, 14:21:24
I watched the first episode on Netflix. I'm honestly getting tired of the usual cliches of placing the bridge of a starship on top of the hull where it can easily be targeted by the enemy and the usual exploding console bit.
It wouldn't be Trek without a top bridge, exploding consoles and throwing people around.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 05 November 2017, 15:34:50
One of my all-time favourite moments from Tabletop was Wil Wheaton and Jeri Ryan doing Trek bridge shaking movements in sync (it's in the Star Trek Catan gag reel and extended edition)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 05 November 2017, 17:30:39
Any thoughts on the giant flower from the opening credits? Kinda seems like a season finale kind of thing.

I think that Trek is better served when it's a compelling drama first, and fitting inside the idiom second.  For example, In The Pale Moonlight

Perhaps. But is that what Discovery is doing? Episode Seven, for instance: despite a strong beginning, it is (as Groundhog's Day episodes go) a much more standard example than other Star Trek entries of the type; it doesn't delve into devilish motivations or dilemmas, except superficially; and it doesn't have any fewer plotholes than your average Star Trek plot.

I like the story, I like the characters, but I don't think Discovery's handling of drama is any further ahead (or behind) of its competitors and peers than past Treks were of theirs.

Telling a past event could be interesting of course but force fed it to viewers is a big mistake that they didnt learned with Enterprise

The thing about Enterprise is that it does move forward - the overarching plot is built on time-travel and timeline-hopping, centered on Federation conflicts post-dating Voyager. For most episodes, era shouldn't even matter; the drama and general plot would be the same no matter what year you dressed it in.

Curiously, although some of my favorite Trek episodes come from DS9's Dominion War arc, I'm finding the earlier and later stand-alone, episodic plots much easier to watch. Likewise, I'm finding the more episodic plots from Enterprise's first two seasons easier get interested in, and having a harder time with the third and fourth seasons (which are patterned on DS9 and Voyager, respectively).

and then there's the Temporal Cold War and the whole Xindi affair (which was never mentioned before on any previous series, so obviously, it never happened)...

I kept hoping that the Kzinti were going to be one of the Xindi races.

What I dont get is the continuity: this series is supposed to be set before TOS, yet everything is so much more advanced. What happened afterwards in Kirk's timeline? Was there a technological dark age or something?  ???

The aesthetics are a mid-point between Enterprise (which looks more 21st Century) and the nuTrek movies (which look like the nuTrek movies).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 05 November 2017, 23:15:35
The thing about Enterprise is that it does move forward - the overarching plot is built on time-travel and timeline-hopping, centered on Federation conflicts post-dating Voyager. For most episodes, era shouldn't even matter; the drama and general plot would be the same no matter what year you dressed it in.

No it doesnt. Discovery is set 10 years before TOS. Im talking about that specifically. I dont want anymore stories about Star Trek past (which is what Discovery is doing). I want stories set much after VOY/DS9 (not that Enterprise time-travel and timeline-hopping nonsense).

I dont want easier episodes to watch. I want big overarching stories (hence DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 06 November 2017, 00:57:05
No it doesnt. Discovery is set 10 years before TOS. Im talking about that specifically. I dont want anymore stories about Star Trek past (which is what Discovery is doing). I want stories set much after VOY/DS9 (not that Enterprise time-travel and timeline-hopping nonsense).

I dont want easier episodes to watch. I want big overarching stories (hence DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show).

rules of the game, Kentares-Prequels and reboots are flat easier for modern hollywood, and it's more or less in fashion at the moment.  witness: Gotham, as a prime example.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Triptych on 06 November 2017, 03:52:31
It wouldn't be Trek without a top bridge, exploding consoles and throwing people around.

LOL true. Its like someone shoots at your house and your flat screen TV explodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 06 November 2017, 04:17:31
I can't post it here because of the language, but you guys should go check out "to sue the world", a short piece John Scalzi wrote to promote Redshirts and performed with a variety of friends at cons and signings, which skewers a lot of the standard Trek tropes, including the good old exploding panels.

Search for John Scalzi Wootstock and the top result (with Patrick Rothfuss) is a good quality copy.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 06 November 2017, 11:43:39
LOL true. Its like someone shoots at your house and your flat screen TV explodes.

It's because for all their advances, starfleet is stiil ignorant of the mysterious art of circuit breakers and fuses.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 06 November 2017, 12:56:44
Those are lostech.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 06 November 2017, 13:03:57
https://trekmovie.com/2017/11/05/showrunner-reveals-work-on-star-trek-discovery-season-2-to-begin-in-two-weeks/ (https://trekmovie.com/2017/11/05/showrunner-reveals-work-on-star-trek-discovery-season-2-to-begin-in-two-weeks/)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 06 November 2017, 13:28:32
rules of the game, Kentares-Prequels and reboots are flat easier for modern hollywood, and it's more or less in fashion at the moment.  witness: Gotham, as a prime example.

Lazyness, lack of imagination and a quicker grab of money are the rules...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 06 November 2017, 14:15:16
I dont want easier episodes to watch. I want big overarching stories (hence DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show).

When I say "easy" I mean that the episode is interesting and engaging. I like big overarching stories too, there's just something about DS9's that's losing value for me on this rewatch.

Quote
Discovery is set 10 years before TOS. Im talking about that specifically. I dont want anymore stories about Star Trek past (which is what Discovery is doing). I want stories set much after VOY/DS9 (not that Enterprise time-travel and timeline-hopping nonsense).

So basically, put more focus on the Federation's political situation than on sci-fi novelty or technological futurism? Or would Discovery's plot so far be fine if they just changed the dates and replaced the Klingons with, say, the Cardassians or Jem'Hadar?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 06 November 2017, 18:35:11
So basically, put more focus on the Federation's political situation than on sci-fi novelty or technological futurism? Or would Discovery's plot so far be fine if they just changed the dates and replaced the Klingons with, say, the Cardassians or Jem'Hadar?

Neither (or in a way both). A couple of examples that COULD be interesting (with a small or big timeline jump - pick your flavour depending on whats already canon by past series):

- What are the XXX doing now? (insert your favorite alien former (still?) "enemy" race (i.e. Borg, Jem'Hadar/Dominion, Breen, Species 8472)
- Whats the fallout (if any) of the Dominion War in Federation space (social, political, etc... - timeline jump dependent)?
- What new races/dangers/tech (spore drive anyone?) exist?
- Star Trek split the Milky Way in 4 quadrants. Is nothing more to discover about it? Isnt there anything else beyond?
- Civil War? (not serious but... - only took our own FedCom Civil war idea)
- New danger from beyond the galaxy?
- Explore neighbour galaxy with newly invented spore drive?
- Did past time jumps made by some characters payed off on the long run? (thinking of Janeway in the last VOY episode for example if someone cares about that of course)
- Search for Kirk? (im joking)

Some random general thoughts. If you want I could expand on those or try to come up with more but I guess you get the idea. Im also lazy but at least I dont have to earn my income writing Star Trek episodes.

Damn it. I bet that if we here in this topic join our ideas we can come up with a couple of cool concepts for a Star Trek series that doesnt suck big time and doesnt do past mistakes and doesnt redo canon as we know it.

All can boil down to what style one aims when doing a Star Trek series (storywise I mean).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 07 November 2017, 11:41:30
Huh, so your priority really is that you don't want existing material to be touched. That's understandable.

Damn it. I bet that if we here in this topic join our ideas we can come up with a couple of cool concepts for a Star Trek series that doesnt suck big time and doesnt do past mistakes and doesnt redo canon as we know it.

All can boil down to what style one aims when doing a Star Trek series (storywise I mean).

Well, after my last watch-through of TOS, I wrote this up (http://skiltao.blogspot.com/2016/09/starfleet-starship-uss-absolution.html). It'd be easy enough to scratch the serial numbers off and put it in a newer era.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 07 November 2017, 14:07:46
Huh, so your priority really is that you don't want existing material to be touched. That's understandable.

Thought I was clear enough since my first or second post about this show. I want the future. NOT a rehash of the past.

Quote
Well, after my last watch-through of TOS, I wrote this up (http://skiltao.blogspot.com/2016/09/starfleet-starship-uss-absolution.html). It'd be easy enough to scratch the serial numbers off and put it in a newer era.

No because its done. A couple of good writers could come up with new stuff (could be inspired in previous stories or other sources instead of mangling old ones).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 07 November 2017, 16:35:45
Thought I was clear enough since my first or second post about this show. I want the future. NOT a rehash of the past.

There are many reasons why a person would say they "want the future, not a rehash of the past." Not all of those reasons are straightforward.

Quote
No because its done. A couple of good writers could come up with new stuff (could be inspired in previous stories or other sources instead of mangling old ones).

When I say "file the serial numbers off" I mean to have new characters patterned on these old ones, the way Jadzia was patterned on the Trill from that single episode of TNG.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 07 November 2017, 20:09:52
When I say "file the serial numbers off" I mean to have new characters patterned on these old ones, the way Jadzia was patterned on the Trill from that single episode of TNG.

Misunderstood you. Sorry. Yes. That is an example (a very simple one).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 07 November 2017, 20:49:35
So the Discovery went to Pandora from Avatar! That's all I was thinking about that planet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 November 2017, 20:53:17
When I say "file the serial numbers off" I mean to have new characters patterned on these old ones, the way Jadzia was patterned on the Trill from that single episode of TNG.

See, that's the kind of thing that amuses me, because between TNG and DS9 they changed the look of the Trills, the way the symbiont interacted with the host, and that a host could live after the symbiont was removed.  Compared to that, Discovery is a paragon of canonicity.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 07 November 2017, 21:11:37
See, that's the kind of thing that amuses me, because between TNG and DS9 they changed the look of the Trills, the way the symbiont interacted with the host, and that a host could live after the symbiont was removed.  Compared to that, Discovery is a paragon of canonicity.

Which is way more acceptable than if Enterprise or Discovery made it so Trills had tribal tatoos instead of spots and changed hosts by chest bursting.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 07 November 2017, 22:06:00
See, that's the kind of thing that amuses me, because between TNG and DS9 they changed the look of the Trills, the way the symbiont interacted with the host, and that a host could live after the symbiont was removed.  Compared to that, Discovery is a paragon of canonicity.

The difference is that the stuff about Trills in TNG was from a single, minor episode.  It can be handwaved as early installment weirdness (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EarlyInstallmentWeirdness) from before the canon was set.  Sort of like the way the Dire Wolf was referred to as a dropship in the Blood of Kerensky trilogy instead of a warship.  Discovery is changing things that have been established in canon by many many episodes across multiple series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 07 November 2017, 23:18:22
Neither (or in a way both). A couple of examples that COULD be interesting (with a small or big timeline jump - pick your flavour depending on whats already canon by past series):

- What are the XXX doing now? (insert your favorite alien former (still?) "enemy" race (i.e. Borg, Jem'Hadar/Dominion, Breen, Species 8472)
- Whats the fallout (if any) of the Dominion War in Federation space (social, political, etc... - timeline jump dependent)?
- What new races/dangers/tech (spore drive anyone?) exist?
- Star Trek split the Milky Way in 4 quadrants. Is nothing more to discover about it? Isnt there anything else beyond?
- Civil War? (not serious but... - only took our own FedCom Civil war idea)
- New danger from beyond the galaxy?
- Explore neighbour galaxy with newly invented spore drive?
- Did past time jumps made by some characters payed off on the long run? (thinking of Janeway in the last VOY episode for example if someone cares about that of course)
- Search for Kirk? (im joking)

Some random general thoughts. If you want I could expand on those or try to come up with more but I guess you get the idea. Im also lazy but at least I dont have to earn my income writing Star Trek episodes.

Damn it. I bet that if we here in this topic join our ideas we can come up with a couple of cool concepts for a Star Trek series that doesnt suck big time and doesnt do past mistakes and doesnt redo canon as we know it.

All can boil down to what style one aims when doing a Star Trek series (storywise I mean).


Star Trek Online has the answer to most of your questions. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 07 November 2017, 23:20:51
It wouldn't be Trek without a top bridge, exploding consoles and throwing people around.

That's why the Andorians questioned Earth design stylings.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 November 2017, 03:40:26
Discovery is changing things that have been established in canon by many many episodes across multiple series.

The only things Discovery has changed is visuals.  The actual important content all fits into canon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 November 2017, 07:16:33
The only things Discovery has changed is visuals.  The actual important content all fits into canon.

Here we go again. The "actual important content" doesnt fit canon in anyway. Read my and others posts in this topic about all that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 November 2017, 15:13:29
Here we go again. The "actual important content" doesnt fit canon in anyway. Read my and others posts in this topic about all that.

I have, every point is either conjecture, incorrect, unaware of other canon sources that corroborate Discovery, or makes assumptions that have yet to be borne out as correct.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 November 2017, 15:30:20
I have, every point is either conjecture, incorrect, unaware of other canon sources that corroborate Discovery, or makes assumptions that have yet to be borne out as correct.

Ahahah. Ok. Klingon drag queens fits into which one? Mudd being a psycho? Sarek having an adopted human and no one ever mentioned her? Radically changing ships looks? Starfleet uniforms change once again...

Anyone feel free to add.

Lorcan you need to say it loud: "Im a fanboy and whatever they do Im going to like it... whatever it is!"
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 08 November 2017, 15:33:49
I have, every point is either conjecture, incorrect, unaware of other canon sources that corroborate Discovery, or makes assumptions that have yet to be borne out as correct.
Sorry Lorcan, a lot of people including myself disagree. I know that you like the show, but I think that your post just sounds like a mantra to many of us. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 November 2017, 15:37:20
Ahahah. Ok. For example Klingon drag queens fits into which one?

No male Klingon has been wearing women's clothes as a humorous impersonation.

Sorry Lorcan, a lot of people including myself disagree. I know that you like the show, but I think that your post just sounds like a mantra to many of us. 

And it doesn't stop it being true.  If you don't like the show, that's one thing, and that's fine.  But to claim that it's bad because it breaks canon because of X, Y and Z - but they're not actually breaking canon, that's intellectually dishonest.  And if you think it's bad because it looks different?  That's OK, but to claim it's breaking canon because it looks different, then every Trek breaks canon because they all changed the way things looked without explanation, and therefore it's an invalid complaint.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 November 2017, 15:42:27
And it doesn't stop it being true.  If you don't like the show, that's one thing, and that's fine.  But to claim that it's bad because it breaks canon because of X, Y and Z - but they're not actually breaking canon, that's intellectually dishonest.  And if you think it's bad because it looks different?  That's OK, but to claim it's breaking canon because it looks different, then every Trek breaks canon because they all changed the way things looked without explanation, and therefore it's an invalid complaint.

Now youre being dishonest. They broke canon since episode 1 but you dont want to see it. Thats ok. Just move on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 November 2017, 15:43:42
Now youre being dishonest. They broke canon since episode 1 but you dont want to see it. Thats ok. Just move on.

I'll bite, how did they break canon in episode 1?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 November 2017, 15:55:52
I'll bite, how did they break canon in episode 1?

For what? Whatever I write youre going to reply with your favorite phrase "either conjecture, incorrect, unaware of other canon sources that corroborate Discovery, or makes assumptions that have yet to be borne out as correct... oh and visuals doesnt count" so no point to keep this going. Enjoy Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 08 November 2017, 15:57:28
Okay, EVERYBODY needs to step back, take a few hundred deep breaths, and calm the hell down. [copper]
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 09 November 2017, 02:00:11
*eats Popcorn* So when is the Pillow fight?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 09 November 2017, 08:48:34
*eats Popcorn* So when is the Pillow fight?
*points to the Self-Destruct codes being activated.*  I think we may have a big bang of a finale.

(http://media.riffsy.com/images/b8fdaeb8daa00d0deab93817b5229e98/tenor.gif)

All silliness aside, were all going to be disagreeing with this. Star Trek is very core of science fiction fandom.
Some changes happen, some people will like it and some won't.  At least there passion for it despite changes made people may and may not like.

For me I'm just waiting it out see how this does.  I wasn't crazy about alot things with Discovery. I thought Klingon ships were downright strange from what I've seen of the battle scenes from the pilot.  One them look like flying church steeple i think was Klingon Bird of prey-ish ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 09 November 2017, 10:31:11
*eats Popcorn* So when is the Pillow fight?

Klingons are doing pillow fights now? My how the mighty have fallen....
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 09 November 2017, 10:39:17
Don't be so sure. Pillows can (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/the-punchline-is-no-particular-punchline) be badass (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/these-kids-are-gonna-inherit-mad-intimidation-modifier)...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Foxx Ital on 09 November 2017, 11:23:05
Iv been enjoying the show. The klingons arent very klingy to me, but i remember my biological dad complaining about the ng klingons.
 Im cool with all the changes, especially since if you made a TOS bridge style, it would come off as cheesy. Remaking visuals is par for the course when the previous series have been off air for years. Plus "canon" seems to shift in the wind depending on which show and whos writing.
 Plus, i like hearing spocks dad had a not talked about adopted daughter who he enda up sacrificing for spocks career, only to have that all blow up in his face. My only complaint is there needs to be more mudd and space pew pew battles.
 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 09 November 2017, 15:22:20
Klingons are doing pillow fights now? My how the mighty have fallen....

It's a more practical weapon than the Bat'leth
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 09 November 2017, 16:38:39
*eats Popcorn* So when is the Pillow fight?

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/7ee0ee14422dc944ab76075163f0ffb0/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 09 November 2017, 16:44:00
Okay, Ying brought a pillow to a knife fight, and wins the thread. :))
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 09 November 2017, 22:40:20
+9000! LOLOLOL...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 10 November 2017, 20:30:48
When you enjoyed the new series but your other Trekkie friend didn't...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOPi7-aV4AAd18l?format=jpg)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 13 November 2017, 13:09:34
Yay, and the drive came back to bite them in the tushie as expected :)

But I'm really liking the captain as we've gotten to know him. The right amount of deference to the mission and ingenuity and thinking outside the box.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MarauderD on 13 November 2017, 13:46:16
Yup, I enjoyed it.  A bit more in depth on PTSD than I expected, and man, that was some icky stuff. I cancelled my CBS membership, because I felt I couldn't justify the fee just to watch one show. But I enjoyed the mid season finale, and have had fun thus far.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 November 2017, 13:51:28
I think CBS membership is going to go down a lot after this week.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 November 2017, 14:24:45
And go back up in about 8 weeks, by some coincidence?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 13 November 2017, 14:52:58
I read a comment someplace that the CBS boss has said that Discovery had made a profit before it even aired, due to the Netflix deal.

http://www.fiercecable.com/online-video/moonves-netflix-int-l-sales-pay-for-entire-star-trek-production-cost
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 November 2017, 15:35:41
Not the first time that's happened, either.  I think I noted it upthread, but Star Trek: The Motion Picture made a profit before it opened in theatres.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 05 December 2017, 13:27:29
Well, its just been reported that Quentin Tarantino  is considering taking on a Star Trek film. (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie-debate-1201904094/)

I wonder how that will turn out in comparison to style Discovery currently being done.  I know it's would likely be Star Trek (film) universe, but i do wonder if he goes with it, Tarantino will change it more so than Abrams did.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 05 December 2017, 14:51:50
Well, its just been reported that Quentin Tarantino  is considering taking on a Star Trek film. (http://www.indiewire.com/2017/12/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie-debate-1201904094/)

I wonder how that will turn out in comparison to style Discovery currently being done.  I know it's would likely be Star Trek (film) universe, but i do wonder if he goes with it, Tarantino will change it more so than Abrams did.

Star Trek with a lot more swearing.
Im sorry, but  Im worried about this about a million times more, then with JJ Abrams.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 05 December 2017, 15:53:15
And what about this...

http://collider.com/black-mirror-season-4-trailer-uss-callister-star-trek/#images (http://collider.com/black-mirror-season-4-trailer-uss-callister-star-trek/#images)

 >:D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 05 December 2017, 19:00:10
If Quentin Tarantino did a movie about Klingons - the Klingons we've known for the past 35 years since TMP, SFS, and TNG brought them to us - I'd actually pay to see that.  Imagine Inglorious Batleths if you will.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 06 December 2017, 11:20:56
...Sam Jackson as a Klingon...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 06 December 2017, 12:22:23
...Sam Jackson as a Klingon...

****** no. no nononononononooononononooooooo.

They've tried that horrible shit before - it resulted in some of the most horrible klingon appearances. Quoting Shakepear all over the place.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mendrugo on 06 December 2017, 12:54:48
But he'd have a purple bat'leth...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 06 December 2017, 13:19:01
****** no. no nononononononooononononooooooo.

They've tried that horrible shit before - it resulted in some of the most horrible klingon appearances. Quoting Shakepear all over the place.



Some of us actually like that movie... :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 06 December 2017, 13:40:27
Some of us actually like that movie... :D

I love The Undiscovered Country - it's my top 3-4 Trek movie (after Star Trek and Wrath of Khan and Star Trek: Into Darkness).

But the performances of the klingons like Christopher Plummer really were horrible.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: (SMD)MadCow on 06 December 2017, 14:08:13
But he'd have a purple bat'leth...

At the very least BMF on it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 06 December 2017, 15:26:36
Is there an equivalent to the N-word in Klingon?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 06 December 2017, 15:47:49
Is there an equivalent to the N-word in Klingon?

P'Tagh?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 17 December 2017, 22:26:31
https://youtu.be/O-fGfdba-ac (https://youtu.be/O-fGfdba-ac)


An interesting video for the "Which Captain is Better" debate.




(Also, for anyone that hasn't managed to see it yet, the attachment is a good view of the Discovery. Personally I like it (cutout and all). Though if I did choose to be nitpicky, I'd say the nacelles look more like something from the late Dominion War (such as the Sovereign class) than early Kirk era. But on the whole, I like it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 18 December 2017, 08:25:56
She's really not a bad-looking bird. The few things I'm iffy on (cutout in saucer, nacelles, dark overall paint scheme) I can accept as tweaks for a modern audience.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 18 December 2017, 08:36:12
Aesthetically, the whole design is something you would see during the Dominion War, like you mentioned, and not something you would see pre-TOS. Nice design, just a bit historically inaccurate in the Star Trek universe, IMO.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 18 December 2017, 10:51:40
Aesthetically, the whole design is something you would see during the Dominion War, like you mentioned, and not something you would see pre-TOS. Nice design, just a bit historically inaccurate in the Star Trek universe, IMO.

Asthetically, it's ten years before Kirk, because the IP owner says it is.  I'm sorry, but you have to understand-the owner gets to call the shots with this kind of thing, and Word of God from the owner trumps speculation, logical evolution, or in-universe sense.  (it's why I no longer consider myself a "Fan" of Star Trek on the whole now.)

It's very simple, really-they did a retcon on the universe, but state it's not a retcon, therefore, it's by definition not a retcon, and whatever changes they made, are no longer canon.  this is kind of the purpose of Prequels and reboots.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 18 December 2017, 10:59:03
Asthetically, it's ten years before Kirk, because the IP owner says it is.  I'm sorry, but you have to understand-the owner gets to call the shots with this kind of thing,

Well, up to the point at which the consumer decides they don't like it and stop watching or buying.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 18 December 2017, 11:22:13
Well, up to the point at which the consumer decides they don't like it and stop watching or buying.

Evidence suggests that this is a thing that does not happen enough.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 18 December 2017, 12:08:14
Well, up to the point at which the consumer decides they don't like it and stop watching or buying.

that's a thing that didn't happen.  Discovery did well enough to get a second season, therefore, the call was (business-wise) the right call.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 18 December 2017, 13:49:48
that's a thing that didn't happen.  Discovery did well enough to get a second season, therefore, the call was (business-wise) the right call.

Well, possibly. Maybe they would have had more business if they hadn't. Maybe they wouldn't, its all just speculation.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 18 December 2017, 14:38:30
anyone have any clue what the rotating section of the saucer is supposed to actually accomplish other than look "cool"?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 18 December 2017, 14:41:34
Secrecy and security. If the bathroom is always in motion, it's that much harder to find.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 18 December 2017, 15:13:16
anyone have any clue what the rotating section of the saucer is supposed to actually accomplish other than look "cool"?

It's a restaurant.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 18 December 2017, 15:27:57
anyone have any clue what the rotating section of the saucer is supposed to actually accomplish other than look "cool"?

Something related to the spore drive. But nothing more specific than that, no.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 December 2017, 17:56:24
anyone have any clue what the rotating section of the saucer is supposed to actually accomplish other than look "cool"?

They don't call the ship DISCO because the crew love that stuffy old fashioned music about the buttocks
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 18 December 2017, 19:37:25
Something related to the spore drive. But nothing more specific than that, no.
Every time i hear the spore drive, i keeping thinking about the space-going game Spore. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 19 December 2017, 01:09:24

(Also, for anyone that hasn't managed to see it yet, the attachment is a good view of the Discovery. Personally I like it (cutout and all). Though if I did choose to be nitpicky, I'd say the nacelles look more like something from the late Dominion War (such as the Sovereign class) than early Kirk era. But on the whole, I like it.

Yup. That is much better than what they let leak last year.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 19 December 2017, 15:14:17
Well, possibly. Maybe they would have had more business if they hadn't. Maybe they wouldn't, its all just speculation.
I don't know the answer to that question, I do know that they lost MY business, beyond tracking it in the news sheets.  I'm not a fan of Special-Effects-Porn, and suspect that the writer for "babysitter luvs the Pizza Man/Teen Orgy XIV" might've done a better job with the franchise...but that's my opinion and clearly not shared by enough people that it's worth it to CBS to keep this turd in production.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: qc mech3 on 31 December 2017, 20:47:30
Some tread necro but I was finally able to see more then the first episode this week (up to the episode with the destruction of the flying cemetery) and ll I can say is... not bad. Not excellent but still watchable as a sci-fi show.

I would have like it better if the producers simply recognize they use the Abramverse instead of the classic one (facepalm from Klingons having cloaking before the Romulans and other stuff). A lot of the cringe wort elements would make more sense.

As a Canadian, I'm glad I don't have to pay to see this but even so I found ''The Orville'' a better Star Trek the this.



Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 01 January 2018, 12:29:49
... I found ''The Orville'' a better Star Trek the this.

So much this!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 01 January 2018, 18:43:22
I think Orville is much more Star Trek then Discovery. There was a huge difference at first couple of episodes, but Discovery got some of it back for me. Too much war talk in Discovery to make it Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 01 January 2018, 19:14:13
Too much war talk in Discovery to make it Star Trek.

So, then, how do you reconcile that criteria for what is Star Trek with the fact that other Trek series have mentioned several previous wars involving the Federation or, in the case of DS9, shown such a war over the course of multiple seasons? Does that make them not Trek as well?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 01 January 2018, 19:27:03
So, then, how do you reconcile that criteria for what is Star Trek with the fact that other Trek series have mentioned several previous wars involving the Federation or, in the case of DS9, shown such a war over the course of multiple seasons? Does that make them not Trek as well?

the problem isn't so much "War talk" as "Ignorant war-talk written by writers who've never been in so much as a playground fist-fight".  Discovery retreads tropes that were false when they were used in the 1980s to demonize Vietnam veterans.  Deep Space 9 was about a thousand times more 'accurate' about the effects of war on the warriors and those around them, while being about a million times more respectful of the subject matter, and that in turn, is down to the difference between good writers like Manny Coto and Ron Moore, and no-name almost-teenager hacks that Discovery's writing room is staffed with.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 01 January 2018, 19:39:00
the problem isn't so much "War talk" as "Ignorant war-talk written by writers who've never been in so much as a playground fist-fight".

Since the person whose opinion I was asking about actually did say there was "too much war talk" rather than criticized the kind of war talk present in the series, you'll pardon me if I just ignore the rest of your post.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 01 January 2018, 20:09:41
and no-name almost-teenager hacks that Discovery's writing room is staffed with.

Have you actually paid attention to the writing credits on the show?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 01 January 2018, 20:13:34
Have you actually paid attention to the writing credits on the show?
I think that he was referring to their development level instead of their actual age.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 01 January 2018, 20:15:07
I think that he was referring to their development level instead of their actual age.

Have you paid attention to the writing credits on the show?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 01 January 2018, 20:28:39
Have you paid attention to the writing credits on the show?
So meh, has-been and nobody?

None of them seem to deliver consistent quality, but that criticism can given to most writers.
There are only very few people in the entertainment industry that can be trusted upon to provide quality.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 01 January 2018, 20:41:04
So meh, has-been and nobody?
 

So is meh the guy who co-wrote Darmok, amongst 57 other Trek scripts?  Or is has-been the woman who's written 10 well-recieved Trek novels, or maybe nobody is the guy who co-wrote and directed Star Trek II and VI?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 02 January 2018, 02:59:58
I think that he was referring to their development level instead of their actual age.

Bingo.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 02 January 2018, 03:27:44
So is meh the guy who co-wrote Darmok, amongst 57 other Trek scripts?  Or is has-been the woman who's written 10 well-recieved Trek novels, or maybe nobody is the guy who co-wrote and directed Star Trek II and VI?



They're so busy TRYING to be "Edgy and dark" that it's blatantly obvious that they're trying.  This is not the team you need to write the material they're trying to write, it's like Ruins of a book ("Ruins of Power" from the MWDA property), the writers are trying to work a sub-genre they shouldn't be because they don't do it well.  (it's very likely they don't do it well, because they don't understand the type of writing they're trying to do.  you don't ask Judy Blume to write the prequel to Stephen King's 'It", you don't have Tom Clancy try to handle the prequel to "The Devil Wears Prada", you don't ask Stephen King to do light romantic comedy.  none of those writers you're enamoured with should come within 100 meters of a piece of Military or Dark science fiction.  They don't have the levers to understand it or execute.  If it didn't say 'Star Trek' on the box, it would've died at the Pilot.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 02 January 2018, 06:00:05
I was just saying in the first couple of episodes, it was the start of the Klingon War and a lot of episodes were about that. Star Trek is more about war, its discovery science and exploration and how humanity is going in to the deep space dealing with the other aliens out there. The best couple of Disco shows that I thought was the one with Harry Mudd and the time reset thing, and that one where they were on that planet trying to contact the weird aliens. To me the Klingons had almost a "Romulan" feel to them with the "bird like shape of the beacon ship" the cloaking devices, and being in hiding for a hundred years with very little contact. IMO!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 January 2018, 12:53:55


They're so busy TRYING to be "Edgy and dark" that it's blatantly obvious that they're trying.  This is not the team you need to write the material they're trying to write, it's like Ruins of a book ("Ruins of Power" from the MWDA property), the writers are trying to work a sub-genre they shouldn't be because they don't do it well.  (it's very likely they don't do it well, because they don't understand the type of writing they're trying to do.  you don't ask Judy Blume to write the prequel to Stephen King's 'It", you don't have Tom Clancy try to handle the prequel to "The Devil Wears Prada", you don't ask Stephen King to do light romantic comedy.  none of those writers you're enamoured with should come within 100 meters of a piece of Military or Dark science fiction.  They don't have the levers to understand it or execute.  If it didn't say 'Star Trek' on the box, it would've died at the Pilot.)


That doesn't address the point at all
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cannonshop on 03 January 2018, 00:44:26
I was just saying in the first couple of episodes, it was the start of the Klingon War and a lot of episodes were about that. Star Trek is more about war, its discovery science and exploration and how humanity is going in to the deep space dealing with the other aliens out there. The best couple of Disco shows that I thought was the one with Harry Mudd and the time reset thing, and that one where they were on that planet trying to contact the weird aliens. To me the Klingons had almost a "Romulan" feel to them with the "bird like shape of the beacon ship" the cloaking devices, and being in hiding for a hundred years with very little contact. IMO!

Klingons are whatever the owners of the IP say that they are, full stop.  Everything we in the audience knew about them before Discovery rolled out, no longer applies, and is no longer relevant or canon.

that's what they DID, and as the owners, they have that legal right to do so.

Just like converting Harry Mudd from an amoral, somewhat comical, con-man and snake-oil salesman archetype into a hyperserious homicidal maniac.  whatever he was in TOS no longer applies.  The only  things they kept were the name and the moustache.  (this being because they need to  beat the audience over the head with "This is Star Trek, Honest!! look at all the famous names we drop!!")

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 January 2018, 01:59:43

Just like converting Harry Mudd from an amoral, somewhat comical, con-man and snake-oil salesman archetype into a hyperserious homicidal maniac.  whatever he was in TOS no longer applies.  The only  things they kept were the name and the moustache. 

[/quote]

Have you seen TOS?  Harry Mudd was selling women as sex slaves in his first appearance. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 January 2018, 02:45:29
And Mudd was portrayed as a lovable rogue while he was doing so.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Alexander Knight on 03 January 2018, 02:45:42
Have you seen TOS?  Harry Mudd was selling women as sex slaves in his first appearance.

Having checked the wiki, they were contracted to be brides on a second planet.  Yes, Mudd offered to trade them to the miners in exchange for crystals and Mudd's release.

The episode ends with them having married miners.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 January 2018, 02:56:59
And Mudd was portrayed as a lovable rogue while he was doing so.

And maybe we should be looking more at the immoral choices and actions a person like that is willing to do before he figured out that he can get away with more by hiding his actions behind a smile? Complaining that Mudd isn't a charming conman is IMO missing the wood for the trees with his character.  He was always a horrible shit, we're just seeing him at a point where he hadn't yet fully figured out his protective coverings.

Having checked the wiki, they were contracted to be brides on a second planet.  Yes, Mudd offered to trade them to the miners in exchange for crystals and Mudd's release.

The episode ends with them having married miners.

It's probably well beyond the scope of this board and the rules of the forum to discuss why what Mudd was doing is more de facto sex slavery than de jure, and the problematic nature of the end of the episode.  So let me say that I stand by my statement while acknowledging that it's something of a simplification.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 January 2018, 03:27:43
Well, I was just going to chalk it up to what was acceptable in family entertainment in the 60s vs today.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 January 2018, 03:56:20
Well, I was just going to chalk it up to what was acceptable in family entertainment in the 60s vs today.

That's part of it, of course. But whenever you're writing a story that's part of a long-running franchise and your work is set in a time period covered by the same work in a different era, modern wiring sensibilities mean that you're going to but making a commentary and deconstruction of that original work by the very act of writing, even if you're not going for full on deconstruction like, Galaxy Quest or the USS Callister episode in the new series of Black Mirror do for Trek, or say Watchmen did for superheroes.

Sometimes that's going to be implicit - Captain Georgious and Admiral Cornwall's very appearances in the show are a commentary and refutation of Turnabout, Intruder for example - even if the writers didn't intend it. And sometimes it's going to be more explicit like pulling Mudd's charm back (and let's be honest, he's still charismatic here) to put the horrible acts he hid behind a smile in TOS into context.

And of course, while TOS was very progressive for its time in many ways, it was still deeply misogynistic in others. We can't celebrate the first and ignore the second.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 03 January 2018, 04:31:30
Yeah, "progressive for its day" still means it was a product of its day.

It's not unlike what happened to Quark in-universe in Deep Space 9.  He was for a long time so progressive by Ferengi standards that other Ferengi thought he was insane, doing things like selling medical supplies to refugees at cost (actually at a slight profit) instead of price gouging for all they were worth or allowing his employees to unionize.  But by the end of the show he had instead become hopelessly conservative because Ferengi culture had changed so rapidly while he'd stayed the same.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 03 January 2018, 04:57:29
I've watched TOS and it wasn't just misogynistic.  Which I think is all I'll say to avoid rule 4 territory.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 03 January 2018, 11:13:56
I've watched TOS and it wasn't just misogynistic.  Which I think is all I'll say to avoid rule 4 territory.

Some things continued well into the early days of TNG. I can remember at least one episode where everyone involved looked really uncomfortable the entire time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 03 January 2018, 15:10:42
Hey, who wants to repurpose this thread back to talking about Discovery, and move the psychoanalysis of forum members to someplace that's not anywhere near this forum? :)

(This has been an incredibly subtle hint from your Friendly Neighborhood Mod-Man.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: skiltao on 03 January 2018, 22:48:36
After rewatching TOS a while back, I thought it'd be fun to have the girl-bot from "What Are Little Girls Made Of" as a member of a new ship's bridge crew. Discovery doesn't have something exactly comparable, but I'm enjoying how Michael is just as bad with interpersonal skills. There does also seem to be a female mechanoid of some kind on the bridge; I can't claim that DSC's writers had the same idea as me, but I have to admit I'm tickled at the prospect.

Have you seen TOS?  Harry Mudd was selling women as sex slaves in his first appearance.

You're wrong twice.

First, if you're going to accuse anyone, it's actually Kirk who sells them. The main conflict hinges on the women being free to decline the arrangement, and the Enterprise being endangered if they do. (Accusing Mudd here is like accusing Picard for his role in "Up the Long Ladder.")

Second, the Original Series might have wanted to write a story about sex slavery, but - perhaps because of contemporary sensibilities - they toned it down. What actually appears on screen is a story about three women who want to leave for greener pastures and contract a matchmaker to secure a suitable destination and passage. Quick googling turns up similar practices in the Yukon goldrush, an obvious match for TOS' "wagon train to the stars" motif.

Yes, you could deconstruct the historical practice of matchmaking, and yes, you can write a nearly-identical story in which the character of Mudd is replaced by an evil slaver, and yes, you could deconstruct the affable rogue archetype. I think it would be fine and fair for Discovery to try. But Mudd's appearances in DSC don't do it. You can't even argue that there's a parallel in him "selling out" his fellow humans! In TOS, Mudd was going to collect a fee for helping two willing parties see eye-to-eye, then holds a single ship hostage to secure his own liberty; in DSC's "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad," Mudd is working to no-one's benefit but his own, the thing he's selling wasn't provided to him willingly, and dooming the Discovery's crew is in no way necessary for his freedom (he already has that) or profit (he has ample other means and opportunity).


PS: it's possible that you're trying to make a point by being inexact and careless the same way cannonshop is being hyperbolic. If that's the case, I have to say that in my decade on these forums, I've not found it productive to match hyperbole with hyperbole. It too often reads as escalation.

Captain Georgious and Admiral Cornwall's very appearances in the show are a commentary and refutation of Turnabout, Intruder for example - even if the writers didn't intend it.

Commentary yes, but technically not a refutation. It isn't clear in that episode whether the "glass ceiling" really exists or if the crazy lady crying about a social injustice is in fact just a crazy lady.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 05 January 2018, 16:29:17
Looks like Star Trek Discovery is opening up more venues people can watch it.
Syfy reports that Amazon Video cut deal with CBS to allow them show the their services. (http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-trek-discovery-fans-cbs-cuts-deal-for-all-access-channel-on-amazon-video)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 05 January 2018, 17:03:52
Then I should be able to watch it once I get the blu ray player hooked back up.  Huzzah!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 05 January 2018, 17:58:30
Then I should be able to watch it once I get the blu ray player hooked back up.  Huzzah!

You’ll still have to pay for it. It’s the same $9.99/month charge as doing it through the CBS All Access website, bolted on top of your existing Amazon Prime cost ($10/month or $99/year). Basically, Amazon Channels acts as a kind of hub for signing up for additional services like All Access, HBO, Starz, etc.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 05 January 2018, 18:00:49
Boo!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 05 January 2018, 18:07:37
So it will be on Amazon now. That's good if true
 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 05 January 2018, 18:15:37
So it will be on Amazon now. That's good if true

No, it'll still be on CBS All Access, just linked from Amazon. You'll still need to pay for both Amazon Prime and CBS All Access. There is no price savings, only a tiny bit of convenience.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 05 January 2018, 18:34:43
No, it'll still be on CBS All Access, just linked from Amazon. You'll still need to pay for both Amazon Prime and CBS All Access. There is no price savings, only a tiny bit of convenience.

I don't know if I'd call Amazon's DRM practices a convenience though...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 05 January 2018, 18:47:29
I think the "convenience" is being able to pay through an existing Amazon account rather than having to set up a new account for CBS All Access and being able to stream on any device you can stream Amazon content on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 05 January 2018, 19:23:52
I think the "convenience" is being able to pay through an existing Amazon account rather than having to set up a new account for CBS All Access and being able to stream on any device you can stream Amazon content on.

Which isn't that many. Amazons streaming sevice sucks and with no support for stuff like Chromecast.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 05 January 2018, 20:44:37
I used scarequotes for a reason.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 05 January 2018, 20:46:27
Double charging?  SO this is their scheme to get people to prescribe to CBS Access?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 05 January 2018, 21:08:11
Double charging?  SO this is their scheme to get people to prescribe to CBS Access?

No, it's not double-charging, either. You're just paying for both services. Offering it through Amazon Prime mostly just lets more people know it's available.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 06 January 2018, 07:35:27
As much money as CBS is getting off of Trek Geeks I doubt they will get rid of that source of income. They are also throwing a lot of money on episodes also with sets a fx. So it's the catch of the Series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 06 January 2018, 14:24:03
SO this is their scheme to get people to prescribe to CBS Access?

No, Discovery is their "scheme" to get people to subscribe to All Access.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bosefius on 06 January 2018, 17:48:34
This is anything request to get back to discussion of the series. Sure, discussing how to watch it is fair but getting into business practices, etc isn't. Back to the series itself please.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bosefius on 06 January 2018, 17:50:35
Ok, as a casual Star Trek fan (I've seen a chunk of the other series and TNG, some of DS9, a couple episodes of Voyager and all the movies, I think) is this worth watching. Ignore the monetary cost, sheer enjoyment value for a non-Trekkie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 06 January 2018, 19:10:15
Ok, as a casual Star Trek fan (I've seen a chunk of the other series and TNG, some of DS9, a couple episodes of Voyager and all the movies, I think) is this worth watching. Ignore the monetary cost, sheer enjoyment value for a non-Trekkie.

You'll get two answers:

From those of us who like it: Yes.
From the haters: No.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 06 January 2018, 20:38:03
I can be fair an admit I haven't seen enough to know if I like it or hate it.  Enough to know it has some problems but what Trek series doesn't?  With what I've seen via youtube I'd place it between Enterprise and Voyager.

Best to worst for my viewing pleasure:
DS9(have to admit I didn't like how they handled a lot of the religious aspects but it still had some really good stories)
TNG(I hate to say it but once Gene was largely out of the way it got better and is still aging fairly well)
TOS(the sensibilities of the era have made it not age well in a lot of ways but there are still some good stories)
VOY(they ruined the Borg!)
STD(I can't help it, yes I know it isn't particularly nice but neither is what they did to the D7s and Klingons)
ENT(while it did eventually get good it just took too long and was too bleh before then)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bosefius on 06 January 2018, 22:34:42
You'll get two answers:

From those of us who like it: Yes.
From the haters: No.

Fair enough, do I have to be familiar (beyond passingly) with the universe?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 07 January 2018, 10:47:26
Awesomeness - Jonathan Frakes is directing the mid-season premiere of Discovery:

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/watch-jonathan-frakes-return-to-the-star-trek-directors-chair-in-discovery
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 07 January 2018, 12:41:28
Back on tonight at least in my part of the US.

From what I understand its a Mirror Episode. But Mirror what way??
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 January 2018, 12:59:09
Back on tonight at least in my part of the US.

From what I understand its a Mirror Episode. But Mirror what way??

Speculation is that Lorca brought them to the Mirror Universe or some other alternate dimension when he changed the jump co-ordinates at the end of the last episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 07 January 2018, 16:45:50
Speculation is that Lorca brought them to the Mirror Universe or some other alternate dimension when he changed the jump co-ordinates at the end of the last episode.

My also other guess in this is because this is Directed by Jonathan Frakes and it was leaked (accidently) that this was a "mirror" episode.  So we will see where it goes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 07 January 2018, 17:47:58
My also other guess in this is because this is Directed by Jonathan Frakes and it was leaked (accidently) that this was a "mirror" episode.  So we will see where it goes.

IIRC Frakes dropped a hint about the mirror universe when he confirmed he was directing an episode.  But yeah, there's speculation from the production side one way or another.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 08 January 2018, 04:22:55
Speculation is that Lorca brought them to the Mirror Universe or some other alternate dimension when he changed the jump co-ordinates at the end of the last episode.

Was that actually a slip-up on his part, or "accidentally-on purpose" ?

EDIT:  what if Lorca is actually FROM the Mirror Universe, and his comment about going back "home" was to HIS home?  It would make a lot of his behaviour make sense, if he's a product of the MU's Terran Empire and not the "white hat" Federation...

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: phoenixalpha on 08 January 2018, 05:57:20
I completely agree. My first thought on seeing the last episode was... what if they are from the mirror dimension and they have came through to the original timeline
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 08 January 2018, 06:09:43
I completely agree. My first thought on seeing the last episode was... what if they are from the mirror dimension and they have came through to the original timeline

Nah, the rest of the crew is still too nice to be MU people.  If they were they'd all be conniving backstabbers.  (And the female crewmembers' uniforms would be a lot more revealing.)

Unless this is not the same MU as the one we've seen before in TOS, DS9, and ST:ENT.

A leading fan theory alternative is that if Lorca's NOT from the MU, he's with Section 31, the Federation's secret black ops division, and the whole spore drive project is actually theirs.  We've seen from DS9 that their people don't represent the nicest the organization has to offer.
 
But I'm hoping they've jumped into the MU we know and love.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cyc on 08 January 2018, 06:34:45
New ep has dropped on Netflix Australia, but alas can't watch til my boys are in bed - so will have to console myself with pretty ships - http://www.eaglemoss.com/en-us/sci-fi-fantasy/star-trek-discovery/
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 06:52:39
Well, that episode confirmed the ship's wound up in the mirror universe, I quite liked the call back to the Enterprise mirror universe episode too. Also all-but confirmed one fan theory.


EDIT:  what if Lorca is actually FROM the Mirror Universe, and his comment about going back "home" was to HIS home?  It would make a lot of his behaviour make sense, if he's a product of the MU's Terran Empire and not the "white hat" Federation...


I won't be surprised if that's the case, given mirror Lorca's status as of Discovery's incursion, and his insistence that Discovery and her crew fit in. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 08 January 2018, 11:12:49
Well, that episode confirmed the ship's wound up in the mirror universe, I quite liked the call back to the Enterprise mirror universe episode too. Also all-but confirmed one fan theory.
 

I won't be surprised if that's the case, given mirror Lorca's status as of Discovery's incursion, and his insistence that Discovery and her crew fit in.

So is he going to be growing a goatee then?  ;D

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 January 2018, 11:14:06
Well, that episode confirmed the ship's wound up in the mirror universe, I quite liked the call back to the Enterprise mirror universe episode too. Also all-but confirmed one fan theory.
 

I won't be surprised if that's the case, given mirror Lorca's status as of Discovery's incursion, and his insistence that Discovery and her crew fit in.

Still not liking this show but what if they were in a mirror universe and jumped into another mirror universe though neither of them are "our" universe"???
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 11:53:34
Still not liking this show but what if they were in a mirror universe and jumped into another mirror universe though neither of them are "our" universe"???

A second parallel universe in which the Constitution class USS Defiant also wound up being accidentally sent into an evil parallel universe, but 150 years in its past?

Maybe at this point it's just easier to accept that DISCO is set in the prime timeline?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 08 January 2018, 11:55:17
A second parallel universe in which the Constitution class USS Defiant also wound up being accidentally sent into an evil parallel universe, but 150 years in its past?

Maybe at this point it's just easier to accept that DISCO is set in the prime timeline?

No. Never!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 11:59:07
You could always just enjoy the adventures of Captain Killy!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 08 January 2018, 12:11:24
Putting this show in any timeline other than the Prime one would resolve every issue I have with it to date, and make me much more willing to watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 08 January 2018, 12:28:50
Long Live the Empire!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: phoenixalpha on 08 January 2018, 13:41:32
Putting this show in any timeline other than the Prime one would resolve every issue I have with it to date, and make me much more willing to watch it.

Could be the reason... give viewers a taste of a "different" ST and see how they like it - if not - change it to suit.... so a jump to the MU timeline might suits fans better :)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 13:43:23
According to after trek, this was always the plan. Like, they initially planned to do it in episode 4
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 08 January 2018, 15:38:03
Ok, as a casual Star Trek fan (I've seen a chunk of the other series and TNG, some of DS9, a couple episodes of Voyager and all the movies, I think) is this worth watching. Ignore the monetary cost, sheer enjoyment value for a non-Trekkie.

You'll get two answers:

From the fanboys: Yes!! It's official Star Trek!!!!!!
From those who enjoy good writing: Only if there's nothing else on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 08 January 2018, 16:30:26
OK folks, listen up.

Over the past few days, this thread has generated more mod reports than I care to admit to. I've watched them roll in and let it go to the mods, but at this point I'm stepping in here. Because they don't deserve to have to deal with the grief they're dealing with over this thread.

So. The snarky biting back and forth? The insults? The threadcrapping for the sake of hearing your own e-voice? That stops right now. (And if you don't see much of that scrolling back through the thread? That's because the mods are doing a pretty good job of keeping things cleaned up.)

I'm relatively certain that the people posting in here are adults, who are capable of acting civilized and decent to each other. So, please do that. I'm going to be very, very steamed- above and beyond what I am right now, and that says something- if this thread needs to get locked down because a handful of people can't stop acting like uncontrolled children in here.

If you're here to discuss ST:Discovery like decent people, carry on from this point. If you're in here to just argue that it sucks over and over, your opinion has been heard and maybe it's time to let people who do enjoy it have a thread to discuss it in. And if you're here to insult each other and carry on like animals... well, we're going to have a rough day together.

Tread carefully, people. You're better than this.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 17:19:08
With that in mind:

Ok, as a casual Star Trek fan (I've seen a chunk of the other series and TNG, some of DS9, a couple episodes of Voyager and all the movies, I think) is this worth watching. Ignore the monetary cost, sheer enjoyment value for a non-Trekkie.

Fair enough, do I have to be familiar (beyond passingly) with the universe?

If you know what the Federation is and who the Klingons are, you're pretty golden.  The biggest link to the franchise is that Michael Burnham, the protagonist was raised by Spock's parents, and is a few years older than him.

Speaking as someone who really enjoys the show, it has its ups and downs.  It looks great for the most part, but it's pretty clear they're stretching the budget for CG, as space shots especially are quite quick - the Expanse series 1 was much the same. The cast is mostly excellent, though a lot of people argue the Klingon prosthethics impair the performance of the actors in makeup - I disagree (especially after hearing some of them speaking Klingon outside the costumes). 

In terms of storytelling, the show moves fast.  Most episodes have a done in one A plot, and one or two ongoing B plots from episode to episode.  But for the most part these are resolved or change considerably within an episode or two.  This show burns through plot at a speed normally reserved for Agents of SHIELD.  There are a lot of moments that don't always line up, which leads to a lot of speculation.  Some of that speculation appears to be on the nose, and then other parts could be inconsistent writing.

A lot of the show's detractors claim it's not like real Star Trek, but I disagree.  The show definitely has a lot of Trek themes - even the overt war elements and morally questionable characters hews close to some elements of Deep Space Nine, and after the show takes a few episodes to set up the core cast and plot elements, there's a run of 4 weeks or so where every episode reworked some classic Trek theme or other.

Overall, I'm of the opinion that Discovery is fun, fits the milieu well, and while it has a long way to go, the first half of series 1 is at least as strong, if not stronger than the first series of all the modern Trek shows.  I fully expect it to improve as the years go by.  It's also worth noting that TNG had a similar reaction from Trekkies in the 80s, and it wasn't until the end of series 3 where it shook off that negative image in the fanbase.  But now eveybody loves it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 08 January 2018, 18:08:21
Urgh. Now, I like this show, but ****** do I hate the Mirror Universe.

Totally shocked by Tyler’s shocking act this episode. On the other hand, I didn’t really like that character anyway.

Glad to have the show back. Wish it was doing something other than a Mirror Universe arc. Care far more about what’s going on during the war back in the Prime universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bosefius on 08 January 2018, 18:17:47
With that in mind:

If you know what the Federation is and who the Klingons are, you're pretty golden.  The biggest link to the franchise is that Michael Burnham, the protagonist was raised by Spock's parents, and is a few years older than him.

Speaking as someone who really enjoys the show, it has its ups and downs.  It looks great for the most part, but it's pretty clear they're stretching the budget for CG, as space shots especially are quite quick - the Expanse series 1 was much the same. The cast is mostly excellent, though a lot of people argue the Klingon prosthethics impair the performance of the actors in makeup - I disagree (especially after hearing some of them speaking Klingon outside the costumes). 

In terms of storytelling, the show moves fast.  Most episodes have a done in one A plot, and one or two ongoing B plots from episode to episode.  But for the most part these are resolved or change considerably within an episode or two.  This show burns through plot at a speed normally reserved for Agents of SHIELD.  There are a lot of moments that don't always line up, which leads to a lot of speculation.  Some of that speculation appears to be on the nose, and then other parts could be inconsistent writing.

A lot of the show's detractors claim it's not like real Star Trek, but I disagree.  The show definitely has a lot of Trek themes - even the overt war elements and morally questionable characters hews close to some elements of Deep Space Nine, and after the show takes a few episodes to set up the core cast and plot elements, there's a run of 4 weeks or so where every episode reworked some classic Trek theme or other.

Overall, I'm of the opinion that Discovery is fun, fits the milieu well, and while it has a long way to go, the first half of series 1 is at least as strong, if not stronger than the first series of all the modern Trek shows.  I fully expect it to improve as the years go by.  It's also worth noting that TNG had a similar reaction from Trekkies in the 80s, and it wasn't until the end of series 3 where it shook off that negative image in the fanbase.  But now eveybody loves it.

Thank you, I'll give it a try.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 08 January 2018, 18:33:45
Urgh. Now, I like this show, but ****** do I hate the Mirror Universe.

I was definitely bored of it by the end of DS9, but Tilly talking to the other ship made it all worthwhile.  Also, think of how much effort it must have taken to straighten Mary Wiseman's hair!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 09 January 2018, 05:59:21
The Mirror Universe is a bad evil universe. It is the total opposite of what the Star Trek Prime universe is. I just find it very odd that most people are still alive and doing just fine in fact better in that universe.
I like the Mirror Universe when portrayed as close as it can be to the "Mirror Mirror" episode in TOS. The DS9 versions were not that episode. They were in that  universe but the history and the fall of the empire was a little shaky to me.
I still think that Episode was one of the best Disco episodes up to that point. It had a some good parts and did really good at making it a Mirror episode. I don't have a problem with Ash acting the way he did. It pretty much confirmed all the rumors that were about him. Him killing that Doctor is what a spy would do if his secret is known to the other side.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 09 January 2018, 08:01:54
ST Enterprise arguable had the best episode where they recovered the USS Defiant during the Archer era.  That episode suggested that set into motion rise of the Empire.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 09 January 2018, 13:00:53
Everyone knows the Mirror universe was set in motion by Picard medling with Cochrane and the first contact with Vulcans.

It's detailed in William Shatner's Mirror universe books :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Mendrugo on 09 January 2018, 13:39:15
Everyone knows the Mirror universe was set in motion by Picard medling with Cochrane and the first contact with Vulcans.

It's detailed in William Shatner's Mirror universe books :D

TekWars?  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 09 January 2018, 16:04:11
Everyone knows the Mirror universe was set in motion by Picard medling with Cochrane and the first contact with Vulcans.

It's detailed in William Shatner's Mirror universe books :D

Well, Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens' books that Shatner is credited with...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 10 January 2018, 07:44:13
ST Enterprise arguable had the best episode where they recovered the USS Defiant during the Archer era.  That episode suggested that set into motion rise of the Empire.


I agree it was by fat the best episode of Enterprise!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 10 January 2018, 08:46:08

I agree it was by fat the best episode of Enterprise!
Its too bad ST:D didn't choose try least match the styles /era /tech more. I won't have such repulse what i've seen of it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 10 January 2018, 12:29:31
I've really come around to the style of Discovery. I still don't think it's High Art, but neither will I reject it for doing its own thing. The Klingon Bird of Prey now looking like a Giger-esque nightmare actually made me smile.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 10 January 2018, 13:55:29
I've really come around to the style of Discovery. I still don't think it's High Art, but neither will I reject it for doing its own thing. The Klingon Bird of Prey now looking like a Giger-esque nightmare actually made me smile.
It's not about the style being the issue. It doesn't match the past.  If it resembles something from that era, it would make sense.

If a company says their show is set in the past before Star Trek, it's based (suppose to be) in the past of the original show (not a remake of it, or reimage of it) then it should at least FIT in with it.  That's my main issue.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 10 January 2018, 14:42:41
I'll admit I have a similar mindset and it seems actually disrespectful of the efforts of previous production teams and the fans to try and say this is supposed to be in the past and in the same continuity as TOS.

If they said it wasn't in the past, the same continuity, or preferably both from what I've managed to watch via youtube, I'd certainly have a more vested interest in actually watching this show and probably would have put down the money to at least watch it on my computer.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 10 January 2018, 17:15:39
Star Trek has been wildly visually inconsistent in the past, this is just more of the same.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 10 January 2018, 19:21:31
That is sort of true.

I can accept changing uniforms.  The new ones look far and away better than the TOS uniforms but they do look too different.

I even kind of like the Shenzou, Discovery not so much(secondary hull looks too flat and boring for my taste) but it isn't a deal breaker, and the other Federation ships.  Those all at least look related to what we've seen in TOS and TNG(if a bit fancier and more heavily armed).

TNG changed the look of the Klingons sure but the D7s still looked like TOS D7s.  DS9's D7s also looked like TOS D7s.  VOY even had an episode where a D7 appeared and it still looked like a TOS D7.  So it isn't impossible or even unreasonable that the D7 and Birds of Prey can look like D7s and Birds of Prey as we know them.

The Klingons themselves, I wouldn't mind them if they didn't sound like they were in pain whenever trying to speak their lines or the prosthetics didn't so obviously eliminate range of motion and facial expression.

It is just too much for me to feel worth investing in what I would need to watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 10 January 2018, 20:00:58
Even at the same timeframe things were different, like the transporter effects for the Defiant, Voyager and Enterprise E, even though they were all contemporary ships. That's leaving aside that the Enterprise in TMP is meant to be the same ship we saw in TOS and TAS, and even though it has undergone a refit spaces like engineering are a totally different size and shape.  Or the pre-Enterprise explanation for the TMP Klingons looking different was "we'd always have done them this way if we had the money and the technology"

Like, I get how people want there to be visual continuity, but for the most part Trek is not the place to find it, even when they had concurrent productions.  And yeah, DISCO is more of a radical shift than Trek has done previously, but the prior look and feel wouldn't have worked on TV these days - hell, a big part of why Generations was lit so darkly was to hide how awful the TNG Enterprise sets looked on film.  Ultra HD streaming means that there needs to be an insane level of detail to feel 'real', which isn't necessarily compatible with the look of the TOS or the TNG era.

So, if you need to do a ground-up redesign of the setting, why pick the TOS era to set your new show?  Well, the creators say they had a good story to tell in that era, so that's reason one.  But also, it helps with recognition outside the die-hard fans - and the lesson of the last 15 years is that Trek can't survive on just the die-hard fans.  It sucks if you can't get past the visual differences, but a decision was made early on in the show's production to effectively not cater to you.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 10 January 2018, 20:31:27
The main problem is that they could have told the story at least in a different continuity and not tried to say it is in the same continuity as TOS.  They wouldn't have lost anything by saying it was the same continuity as Abram's reboot or an entirely new continuity.

Hell there has been nothing about the stories I've seen via youtube that indicates it needs to be a prequel series.

Mudd could have been replaced by another character, an original one would have been fine, and maybe a couple lines changes and if you didn't know it was supposed to be a TOS Prequel series that is supposed to be in the same continuity it'd still tell the same stories.

Unless there is a lot more that I've missed.  Which is possible since as mentioned I have only seen the first episode and clips via youtube.

So I don't think my objections are unreasonable and I am certainly not some die-hard fan.  Certainly more of a moderate.  I have admitted the show does look enjoyable enough at times.  It is just not good  enough to overcome my complaints with the decisions they have made and get me emotionally invested enough to make the monetary investment.  Which is ultimately what I think the biggest failure of Discovery is.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: William J. Pennington on 11 January 2018, 00:55:23
well, after a lot of lurking..just goign to wish those wwho enjoy it the best. If this is now the prime timeline, and STD's retcons and behavior are just the way its going to be..well, Trek as a franchise has decided that they dont need TOS fans anymore for their future TV shows. I wish them luck with their franchise.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 01:16:14
The unfortunate truth as Lorcan points out is that ST:D seems to be doing well enough that they can do without the die hards and even more reasonable moderates such as myself.

All good things must come to an end at some point.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 02:57:51

Hell there has been nothing about the stories I've seen via youtube that indicates it needs to be a prequel series.


Bear in mind that a massive proportion of the coverage on YouTube is deliberately distorted by the content creators to induce clicks.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 11 January 2018, 14:46:24
The main problem is that they could have told the story at least in a different continuity and not tried to say it is in the same continuity as TOS.  They wouldn't have lost anything by saying it was the same continuity as Abram's reboot or an entirely new continuity.

Being saying that (sort of) since my first post here. Why doing this instead of making a series pos DS9 or whatever... I want stories set in the future not rehash the "timeline" in the past... enough of that...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 15:15:59
Bear in mind that a massive proportion of the coverage on YouTube is deliberately distorted by the content creators to induce clicks.

Which I am trying to bear in mind but still the actual show dialogue and concepts that are there haven't shown anything that requires a prequel series.

Being saying that (sort of) since my first post here. Why doing this instead of making a series pos DS9 or whatever... I want stories set in the future not rehash the "timeline" in the past... enough of that...

*nod*

Heck even the first episode that I watched in it's entirety could have had one character changed and maybe a depressingly small number lines of dialogue to go with and it could have been a post DS9 story focused around a resurgent hard line traditionalist Klingon faction that was gaining strength and becoming a serious issue for the Federation.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 15:37:52
Well, the writers have said they had a story they wanted to tell in the era, but that could be PR.  Alternatively it could have been a mandate from CBS, because the TOS era has more cultural cachet with the general public, especially in the aftermath of the Kelvin timeline movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 11 January 2018, 17:25:57
It’s probably worth noting that the original plan for the show was not strictly a prequel series. Brian Fuller’s original pitch was an anthology show that would feature a different story and cast each season, starting with a prequel story and progressing through the timeline. I’m not sure if that changed before or after he left the show.

They wouldn't have lost anything by saying it was the same continuity as Abram's reboot or an entirely new continuity.

Well, they couldn’t legally do the first (Paramount has the Kelvin timeline rights, not CBS) and what would be the benefit of splintering the IP even farther with the second?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 17:32:45
It’s probably worth noting that the original plan for the show was not strictly a prequel series. Brian Fuller’s original pitch was an anthology show that would feature a different story and cast each season, starting with a prequel story and progressing through the timeline. I’m not sure if that changed before or after he left the show.


IIRC that changed before, I remember an interview or statement from Fuller before he left where he denied some of the rumours floating around, such as the anthology.  And he still has a script credit for the first episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 17:46:38
Well, the writers have said they had a story they wanted to tell in the era, but that could be PR.  Alternatively it could have been a mandate from CBS, because the TOS era has more cultural cachet with the general public, especially in the aftermath of the Kelvin timeline movies.

Well, they couldn’t legally do the first (Paramount has the Kelvin timeline rights, not CBS) and what would be the benefit of splintering the IP even farther with the second?

Okay legalities I can understand and perhaps the second option would splinter the fan base even more but ultimately if they hadn't been so hide bound to make it a prequel series it would have been better IMHO.  Especially as I have said nothing I have seen so far from direct unedited clips of the show itself would require more than two character changes and a few changes of dialogue to make it a new unexplored era with the added benefits of it neatly strips away a lot of the criticisms leveled at the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 17:55:30
  Especially as I have said nothing I have seen so far from direct unedited clips of the show itself would require more than two character changes and a few changes of dialogue to make it a new unexplored era with the added benefits of it neatly strips away a lot of the criticisms leveled at the show.

Except that the producers likely don't care about those criticisms.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 18:23:04
Probably true.

Which I do find rather disappointing.  They didn't have to alienate as many fans as they have and could have a perfectly fine show without as much criticism if they hadn't been so hide bound to the idea of a prequel series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 18:49:07
Probably true.

Which I do find rather disappointing.  They didn't have to alienate as many fans as they have and could have a perfectly fine show without as much criticism if they hadn't been so hide bound to the idea of a prequel series.

If the choice is alienate a few thousand old-school fans, but gain tens or hundreds of thousands of casual/semi-casual fans as a result, it's a no-brainer though. 

And they're probably thinking of TNG as well.  When it started, TOS fans despised it. Like, imagine the vitriol coming out of some corners at Discovery, but in an age where communication was much more difficult.  And that didn't fade away until series 3.  If the show remains successful they might figure a lot of the people who are staunchly against the show will come around.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 January 2018, 19:11:32
If the choice is alienate a few thousand old-school fans, but gain tens or hundreds of thousands of casual/semi-casual fans as a result, it's a no-brainer though. 

And they're probably thinking of TNG as well.  When it started, TOS fans despised it. Like, imagine the vitriol coming out of some corners at Discovery, but in an age where communication was much more difficult.  And that didn't fade away until series 3.  If the show remains successful they might figure a lot of the people who are staunchly against the show will come around.
I don't think it is an OR situation, I think that they could have gotten more from both groups.   
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 11 January 2018, 19:16:33
I don't think it is an OR situation, I think that they could have gotten more from both groups.   

If the Kelvin movies had been less popular, they would have likely been more interested in appeasing Trekkies.  But if the Kelvin movies had been less popular, they may wouldn't have made a new TV show to begin with.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 11 January 2018, 19:50:15
If the Kelvin movies had been less popular, they would have likely been more interested in appeasing Trekkies.  But if the Kelvin movies had been less popular, they may wouldn't have made a new TV show to begin with.
I think that the Kelvin movies are popular because they are more action packed and have more human conflict, this makes them more relatable for the casual moviegoer. They do however suffer a lot in story/plot structure, but a more effort on that front could have fixed that, and thus made it a better movie for both casuals and trekkies.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 19:57:21
I'm with Maingunnery here.  They could have gotten more with the same effort but different decisions and I don't think the Kelvin movies being popular would have stood in the way of more people watching and enjoying ST:D with said different decisions.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 11 January 2018, 20:16:57
I think that the Kelvin movies are popular because they are more action packed and have more human conflict, this makes them more relatable for the casual moviegoer. They do however suffer a lot in story/plot structure, but a more effort on that front could have fixed that, and thus made it a better movie for both casuals and trekkies.

This. I like (just like) those movies because

a) they said its a different universe/whatever
b) they found a way to explain "our" Spock in there (it isnt perfect but its enough for me)
c) didnt make any radical change to the setting/races in general (except for klingons which I laughed hard at the cinema - like Discovery where theyre very different)

yeah... I like my Klingons the savage race as presented in the other series.

Edit = Discovery could be about those repercussions that "our" timeline had in the decision made by "our" Spock...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 January 2018, 20:49:56
This. I like (just like) those movies because

a) they said its a different universe/whatever
b) they found a way to explain "our" Spock in there (it isnt perfect but its enough for me)
c) didnt make any radical change to the setting/races in general (except for klingons which I laughed hard at the cinema - like Discovery where theyre very different)

yeah... I like my Klingons the savage race as presented in the other series.

Edit = Discovery could be about those repercussions that "our" timeline had in the decision made by "our" Spock...

I do think there is a general underestimation of fans in Hollywood.  Add in what works for the big screen doesn't always work for the small screen.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 12 January 2018, 01:57:29
I do think there is a general underestimation of fans in Hollywood.  Add in what works for the big screen doesn't always work for the small screen.

This is entirely true, but Hollywood logic is not the same as regular person logic.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 12 January 2018, 03:14:35
*nod*

Which I learned to accept a long time ago.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 12 January 2018, 13:19:32
And they're probably thinking of TNG as well.  When it started, TOS fans despised it. Like, imagine the vitriol coming out of some corners at Discovery, but in an age where communication was much more difficult.  And that didn't fade away until series 3.  If the show remains successful they might figure a lot of the people who are staunchly against the show will come around.

This statement is kind of funny, because it doesn't know an age limit, either. I grew up on the Original Series reruns, and then, at age 7-8, they premiered The Next Generation. While I could get behind the crew, especially Wes, I remember thinking "That's not the Enterprise!". 

I even thought the ship looked ugly. As a kid.  In the 80s.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 12 January 2018, 15:05:38
I even thought the ship looked ugly. As a kid.  In the 80s.

Well, yeah, because the Galaxy-class is ugly as shit.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 12 January 2018, 15:15:26
This statement is kind of funny, because it doesn't know an age limit, either. I grew up on the Original Series reruns, and then, at age 7-8, they premiered The Next Generation. While I could get behind the crew, especially Wes, I remember thinking "That's not the Enterprise!". 

I even thought the ship looked ugly. As a kid.  In the 80s.



I wonder if there was some timing to it.  I was a little older than you when TNG premièred, but it took almost 3 years to the day to show up on TV over here.  I'd managed to see Encounter at Farpoint a year before that thanks to most of series 1 getting a home video release prior to that, and I'd read random issues of the DC comics, so I was kinda excited to see more.

So maybe something just changed in 1991?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 12 January 2018, 15:26:37

I think that for many the Galaxy failed to match the expectations, as it truly looks like a cruiseship of diplomacy, not like a true explorer/combat ship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 12 January 2018, 15:29:03
Gene Roddenberry didn't want the thing to look like a Warship.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 12 January 2018, 16:40:54
TNG premiered right about the time my mom started letting me watch live action TV, so I never had a problem with the Enterprise D's appearance.  It was the original Enterprise that I thought looked silly, especially the big radar dish on it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 12 January 2018, 17:45:28
I go back and forth on the Galaxy. Some days I like it, seeing it as elegant and the highly sculpted curves being a constant reminder of the post-scarcity nature of Federation society. Even for the Federation, I suspect the Galaxy, Nebula, and such were designed during particularly good years.

Other days I'm not a fan. The whole thing strikes me as goofy, and the wide saucer and sweeping curves throw me off. No matter the angle I'm looking at the ship from, I get a feeling that there's some weird forced-perspective stuff going on and what I'm seeing isn't the actual ship.

Of course, even on its best days, the Galaxy-class can never hold a candle to a Constitution-refit. 8)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 12 January 2018, 19:05:11
The Galaxy-class is a thing of elegance and beauty. It's my second-favorite vessel design, after the Excelsior.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 12 January 2018, 19:33:09
Whenever I see the Galaxy-class, I have two immediate and visceral reactions:

1. My god, that’s an ugly ship.

2. I picture beardless, collarless season 1 Riker and then desperately try to hold down the vomit. That was... not a good look for Frakes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 12 January 2018, 21:26:39
How are you on other ships of that aesthetic, like the Nebula or Challenger?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 12 January 2018, 22:13:27
How are you on other ships of that aesthetic, like the Nebula or Challenger?

Well, I had to look both of those up on Memory Alpha because I had only the vaguest recollection of the Nebula (kinda sorta recalling it as a TNG-ified version of the Miranda) and no idea at all what the Challenger looked like.

Of the three designs, the Nebula is the least worst. I still don't like the squashed look of the primary hull or the oval saucer and I absolutely detest that style of nacelle. But I don't get a visceral hatred of the design like I do with the Galaxy. It might also be some residual good feeling since the Miranda is one of my absolute favorite Starfleet designs.

The Challenger is just too damn silly looking to hate on. It'd be like mocking some poor talentless kid's macaroni art.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 13 January 2018, 00:07:36
Of course, even on its best days, the Galaxy-class can never hold a candle to a Constitution-refit. 8)

Agreed...

My top three Feddie ships would likely be, in no particular order...

Constitution-class (refit)
Excelsior-class (particularly the refit version, like the Lakota or Enterprise-B)
Ambassador-class

Honorable mention to the Intrepid-class...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 January 2018, 02:37:37
Of course, even on its best days, the Galaxy-class can never hold a candle to a Constitution-refit. 8)
[/quote]

Well that's because even though I like the look and feel of DISCO, the best Trek aesthetic is still the TOS movies
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 13 January 2018, 04:25:04
Gotta pledge my love for the Soyuz class, even if I can only pretend those aren't 400mm gun turrets.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 13 January 2018, 04:45:24
With regards to STD, I...enjoyed it, sure there's some things that make me grind years off my molars, but there's one thing that really sticks out as being just plain bad.

The makeup of the Klingons.

I was watching this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFkZgxtlcws

And got to thinking.  Now I love Babylon 5, but its one of those shows that when it comes to its digital effects has aged badly, but its makeup, especially after season 1 remains top notch. THe show's old now, but if you look at the Drazi, their faces are quite heavily made up with a fair bit of prosthesis on it, but they are able to emote fully and display a wide range of emotions. Why the hell all these years later, are the Klingons from STD as emotive as a desk chair compared to the Drazi which are what...20 odd years old now? Just what did the STD folks do wrong, was it a case of too much prosthesis to try make the Klingons look super different or was it something else?

Even in older shows like DS9 where you had folks with large amount of prosthesis like the Ferengi or the Cardassians, the were able to emote and move a damn sight better than the Klingons of STD did.  Quark and co talked a LOT with their body language, and used hand gestures and arm movments to emphasise points and parts of their conversation that Italians would understand (although our Meditteranian friends can flag down planes with their arm movements :p ).

With Cardassians their heavy prosthesis was countered by some truly superb actors, Garak and Dukat were superb, and the makeup they were was thick but it still let them emote.  Indeed, the most emotive thing about them was the actors who really sold the characters.
The STD Klingons on the other hand from the episodes I watched just tended to stand there, arms hanging at their sides and didn't even seem to use much body language, which was such an important part of DS9's Klingons who, again, were often very animated when they talked.

Another good one with heavy makeup was the Narn. They had big outfits on and everything but again, retained their expressiveness despite a lot of makeup and prosthesis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NsdQzoIXIE

and some more closeups of Narm makeup. Of course this role was done by a SUPERB actor, and the power duet of Londo and G'kar was probably one of the best in the show but still, excellent scene and it shows the advantage of makeup and a small amount of prosthetics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9v1jJ_ATec

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 13 January 2018, 05:57:05
Heh.  Yeah I noticed that about the Klingons right away too.  I've brought it up myself a few times and I even went so far to say as it sounds like the actors are in physical pain trying to deliver their lines at times it is that bad.

And yeah you can see they did go overboard if you watch the fight scenes.  The Klignons do need help from their opponents because their lack of range of motion is noticeable even to my eye.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 January 2018, 06:32:49
See, I'm not sure if this is a prosthethic issue or a stylistic choice.  Mary Chieffo has spoken Klingon once or twice on After Trek, and sounded pretty much the same as when she's in makeup, and her and Kenneth Williams' lines in English don't seem to have the same 'problem'.

It's also worth noting that a significant amount of dialogue in a TV show will always be re-recorded in post, so if the producers thought there was a problem with how the Klingons sounded, they could just re-record all their dialogue.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 13 January 2018, 07:04:13
Well, duh. Babylon 5 > Star Trek. Forever.

Edit: When Star Trek - any Star Trek - has anything approaching this scene, call me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhIAWyGQW8Q
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 January 2018, 07:07:07
Well, duh. Babylon 5 > Star Trek. Forever.

It is known
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 13 January 2018, 07:54:29
Seriously, until Star Trek can bring that level of drama, pathos, and wonder, it will always just be mass-market entertainment to me. That seems to be what its owners and developers want, so I'll give it no more - and no less - consideration. It doesn't matter if Discovery matches TOS, or pre-TOS, because it's just not meant to be particularly meaningful. It's just a show, with nothing more to say than "hey, check this out." Same as all the rest of Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 13 January 2018, 08:10:00
Seriously, until Star Trek can bring that level of drama, pathos, and wonder, it will always just be mass-market entertainment to me. That seems to be what its owners and developers want, so I'll give it no more - and no less - consideration. It doesn't matter if Discovery matches TOS, or pre-TOS, because it's just not meant to be particularly meaningful. It's just a show, with nothing more to say than "hey, check this out." Same as all the rest of Trek.
Yes the average level of B5 is a lot higher then that of ST. When I think of the good of ST I can only think of a few episodes of TNG and DS9.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 13 January 2018, 08:35:14
I think the big thing is that B5 had an interconnected story, and it was very much a character driven thing.  Sure Season 1 was..well...a bit iffy, and then season 5..oh well..but still through it all, the interplay between the characters in it is what gave B5 its biggest strength.

DS9 did this with the Dominion war and got a lot better for it, instead of being new molicule day or Bjoran persicution complex episode 55195.  Once they got a story going, it got very good, and you had the undeniable power trio of Miles, Julian and Garak as well as superb roles from Odo, Quark and many others.  Although Ben's voice modulation did get worse UnTiL HE WaS taLkinG LIkE thIs HAlF thE tImE bless him.  Seriously, what was it with him and putting random emphasis ON words when HE was TALking.

But as good as they were.  G'kar, Londo, Vir, Sherridan, Ivanova, Delenn and many more, are just better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jli3ruqWYlc is superb

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXkIuVLnsFE&t=2s - the bit where you see the Agamemnon charging forwards, heavy large lasers and heavy pulse cannons firing at maximum rate as the music soars.  Hairs go up on the back of my neck and arms every time.

and this scene...still one of the best i've ever seen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2_tNh5q-4M



Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 13 January 2018, 08:40:43
The best DS9 episodes usually involved Garak in some detail
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 13 January 2018, 08:46:17
DS9 was the best of the Star Trek series, to me. Of course, it was built on the proposal for what would become Babylon 5, and had to compete against it, but it had some fantastic episodes. It's too bad Voyager dashed those hopes. You know, I was invited to pitch scripts for Enterprise, but they were ignored because Braga had his ideas for what Star Trek should be.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 January 2018, 09:01:31
Although Ben's voice modulation did get worse UnTiL HE WaS taLkinG LIkE thIs HAlF thE tImE bless him.  Seriously, what was it with him and putting random emphasis ON words when HE was TALking.

Avery Brooks is primarily a stage actor, and as such had different training in terms of how to read lines and pitch his voice.  Patrick Stewart too,  of course - though his training was different to Brooks' and gave arguably better results in the role.  Oddly,  a lot of B5's cast were either cast from theatre or were known as much for their stage and screen acting.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 13 January 2018, 09:06:05
The best DS9 episodes usually involved Garak in some detail

Truth!  Usually with some Quark thrown in for shenanigans, or Bashir for ambiguioulsly gay bromance tension :p (And I say this as a gay man :p )
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 13 January 2018, 09:07:56
Voyager had its moments, and it had the Doctor who was superb, and of all the charcters, was the one who grew the most.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 13 January 2018, 09:08:56
but they were ignored because Braga had his ideas for what Star Trek should be.
And he was wrong
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 January 2018, 12:22:36
DS9 got better over the years. It was start off slow, and got better and better. TNG started off slow was really awesome about season 3 to 5 and went down after that. Voyager it was tough to pick a great season. Voyager seemed like it had great episodes mixed in with some crap episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 13 January 2018, 12:34:31
I wonder...what was DS9's follicle moment? TNG had Riker's face, B5 had Delenn's scalp...what hair can be used to mark DS9's turn for the better?

Voyager seemed like it had great episodes mixed in with some crap episodes.

It is a truth, universally accepted, that Voyager peaked with the wrestling episode. :)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 13 January 2018, 13:14:22
DS9 was the best of the Star Trek series, to me.

QFT. For a long time, it was the only Star Trek series that I had the full thing on DVD (well, other than the set for TAS)...I have since gotten Enterprise and TOS on DVD, as well as all the movies...I still would like to get the remaining 6 seasons of Voyager (I only have the first, and I believe it had 7 total seasons, IIRC)...

Oh, and put me in the camp of finding the story of B5 superior than most of Star Trek...

Now, the question is where would you guys place Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda against these?

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: idea weenie on 13 January 2018, 13:20:43
I wonder...what was DS9's follicle moment? TNG had Riker's face, B5 had Delenn's scalp...what hair can be used to mark DS9's turn for the better?

Sisko's beard


For Andromeda, I prefer the first two seasons, after that it turned into the Kevin Sorbo show.  What would have been good is an episode where Captain Hunt had to do a diplomatic reception on a planet, and the rest of th crew had to take Andromeda out for what seemed to be a minor incident, but they have to use their skills to solve issues.  Show it as Captain Sorbo has encouraged their skills and abilities so they can stand on their own, instead of needing him for everything.

Isn't that what good leaders do, surround themselves with good people, and encourage their growth in capabilities?  A person who is a lousy leader is encouraged to at least organize people, someone who has trouble trusting others learns to open up, someone skilled learns how to teach others, aso.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 13 January 2018, 13:35:56
I wonder...what was DS9's follicle moment? TNG had Riker's face, B5 had Delenn's scalp...what hair can be used to mark DS9's turn for the better?

Sisko shaving his head and growing a beard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 January 2018, 16:04:54
3rd Season of DS9 brought in the Defiant while 3rd season of B5 brought in the White Star.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bedwyr on 13 January 2018, 16:16:24
Avery Brooks is primarily a stage actor, and as such had different training in terms of how to read lines and pitch his voice.  Patrick Stewart too,  of course - though his training was different to Brooks' and gave arguably better results in the role.  Oddly,  a lot of B5's cast were either cast from theatre or were known as much for their stage and screen acting.

Isn't that fundamentally William Shatner's problem and he just never adjusted? Well that and some old (bad) radio drama habits you can still see in Twilight Zone and Dragnet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 13 January 2018, 16:44:52
I'm pretty sure that William Shatner has always played himself.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 January 2018, 16:52:35
Isn't that fundamentally William Shatner's problem and he just never adjusted? Well that and some old (bad) radio drama habits you can still see in Twilight Zone and Dragnet.

For a specific definition of problem, yeah.  Shatner's delivery of lines would work a lot better with dialogue written to match the cadence.  Theatre, especially prior to the last century was written with a different sense of delivery, even ignoring the changes in how English was written and spoken in different centuries, and that plays are often translated into English in different eras too.

But Shatner won two Emmies and a Golden Globe (and yes, two Razzies too), so it's ultimately worked for him
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 13 January 2018, 17:59:47
3rd Season of DS9 brought in the Defiant while 3rd season of B5 brought in the White Star.

I always liked the Defiant much more than the White Star. It just come off as a much more fierce gunship.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 13 January 2018, 18:07:48
I always liked the Defiant much more than the White Star. It just come off as a much more fierce gunship.

That's probably down to DS9's superior special effects budget. ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 January 2018, 18:20:49
I think the White Star was a little better of a ship compared to the Defiant. It's almost the same ship in terms of purpose. The gunship with way to much firepower for its size.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 13 January 2018, 22:45:39
you know the best explanation I have for shatner, in how he emoted in star trek TOS was that he was a classic Shakespearian theater actor.  which basically means if you aren't over acting you aren't acting the part.
with that said some of his "over emphasis" is his style, but to be honest you can see some of the same "style" in Patrick Stewart, but in a lot of ways I feel that Stewart, is a "better" actor in that he has a "wider" range of "characters" that he can bring to life.

of course I think some of that honestly is that wasn't Shatner a lot younger when he got his "big role" than Stewart?
it looks like Shatner was around 34-35 when he was doing Star trek TOS
it looks like Stewart was around 46-47 when he started doing Star trek TNG which is ~10-12 years later, and he did dune and other things first.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bedwyr on 13 January 2018, 22:57:47
you know the best explanation I have for shatner, in how he emoted in star trek TOS was that he was a classic Shakespearian theater actor.  which basically means if you aren't over acting you aren't acting the part.
with that said some of his "over emphasis" is his style, but to be honest you can see some of the same "style" in Patrick Stewart, but in a lot of ways I feel that Stewart, is a "better" actor in that he has a "wider" range of "characters" that he can bring to life.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Although Lorcan is right that we now have different stage acting conventions than we did once before. If you think back to a style of speaking and rhetoric for which people took elocution lessons (think of the pompous black and white news announcer from the 30s), Shatner was somewhere between that and what we see now.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 13 January 2018, 23:01:49
I think the White Star was a little better of a ship compared to the Defiant. It's almost the same ship in terms of purpose. The gunship with way to much firepower for its size.

I still kinda agree with Mack...they sort of look like plucked chickens...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 14 January 2018, 02:31:09
RE B5 and stuff.

Gonna quietly recommend this if you want a good story to read

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/2594689/1/The-Dilgar-War

To say its a bit long is an understatement, but the whole thing is very much worth it and is a superb read.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 14 January 2018, 03:01:28
It IS an interesting thing to bring up DS9 in the context of new Star Trek shows, though.
A LOT of the adverse reactions against Discovery have been that it goes against the nebulous ideal of what Star Trek is.  When DS9 came out and featured conflict between the characters, and ESPECIALLY when it started involving international tensions and eventually war, the same accusations were leveled against it, and while DS9 is often regarded as one of, if not the best, series, there are still those out there who think it's an insult to the Star Trek ethos.

Now, I'm not saying Discovery will be vindicated by history; everything I have seen puts it in the mediocre category: It's not great, but it's also not terrible like much of Enterprise and Voyager were so far, but it IS an interesting thing to think about when people claim it's an insult to Star Trek.  it seems very difficult to actually define what Star Trek IS in a way that both satisfies the majority, and also fits with multiple series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 14 January 2018, 03:18:56
I think STD's problem was that it felt like drama for drama's sake. Almost a case of

"Hi, I'm tara and I'm new here!"
Tara then proceeds to punch someone in the throat whilst yelling something decidedly off colour but in Andorian.  Whilst off screen you can hear the Writers and Directors going "DrrrAaaAaAmMmmmMAAAAHHH!!" like weird ghosts.

DS9's tensions and the like were more in line with the characters and how they were.  Was Major Keira combattative and resentful, of course she was, she's just undergone an occupation that from the sounds of its cruelties and tortures inflicted would have made Himmler nod in approval.

But she grew as a character. STD's characters didn't, at least to me have a personality, they were a list of traits.

Whereas Keira gave us this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVHR0UPHERQ

Duet was one of the greatest episodes of DS9.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 14 January 2018, 03:34:05
Unfortunately that is just the way writing in Hollywood is getting anymore.

Less defined characters and more just a list of traits which you can count on ensures one or two characters are of a perceived minority just for the sake of seeming like the writers/producers are socially aware but all too often fails.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 14 January 2018, 06:52:50
That's kind of what I was getting at. Although Lorcan is right that we now have different stage acting conventions than we did once before. If you think back to a style of speaking and rhetoric for which people took elocution lessons (think of the pompous black and white news announcer from the 30s), Shatner was somewhere between that and what we see now.

BRIAN BLESSED is much the same, he was a highly respected stage actor,  and was doing mostly serious roles when he got into TV.  But his loud bluster played well in the increasingly campy SF, Fantasy and comedy scene in the UK and he wound up being typecast - but he enjoyed it so he was fine, plus he can make money by going to cons and yelling GORDON'S ALIVE?!?!?

It IS an interesting thing to bring up DS9 in the context of new Star Trek shows, though.
A LOT of the adverse reactions against Discovery have been that it goes against the nebulous ideal of what Star Trek is.  When DS9 came out and featured conflict between the characters, and ESPECIALLY when it started involving international tensions and eventually war, the same accusations were leveled against it, and while DS9 is often regarded as one of, if not the best, series, there are still those out there who think it's an insult to the Star Trek ethos.

This is entirely true, and note this infographic Netflix released a while back:

(https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/266840_60_news_hub_multi_630x0.jpg)

Voyager makes up 60% of the most rewatched episodes, and TOS and DS9 don't even get a word in

Quote
Now, I'm not saying Discovery will be vindicated by history; everything I have seen puts it in the mediocre category: It's not great, but it's also not terrible like much of Enterprise and Voyager were so far, but it IS an interesting thing to think about when people claim it's an insult to Star Trek.  it seems very difficult to actually define what Star Trek IS in a way that both satisfies the majority, and also fits with multiple series.

As one of the biggest backers of DISCO on the board, I'm definitely of the opinion that there's a lot of room for improvement, but also, I keep in mind pretty much every Trek after TOS had a ropey first series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 14 January 2018, 11:58:37
OK, finally got around to ep. 10, and they've even made the Terran Empire inconsistent with previous treatments.
--the TE, as shown previously, was NOT "humans only". In fact, as shown in ST:ENT, the Imperial starship crews were actually MORE multiracial than contemporary Prime universe Starfleet crews, but those other species were obviously subservient to the humans, who treated them fairly contemptuously.  And remember mirror-Spock had his own Vulcan henchmen on the mirror-Enterprise.

--the Mirror Universe itself is now more " mirror" in that everything is geo- and astro graphically reflected.  Take a close look at the new TE emblem and you'll see the east-west orientation of Earth's continents has been flipped I.e. L.A. is now on the east coast of North America.  The TOS and ST:ENT versions had the continents in their familiar locations.  There's also Saru's comment that nothing in space is where it should be, directly contradicting Scotty's assertion in "Mirror, Mirror" that phsically, everything in the MU was where it should be (except the protagonists).
--For people who like complaining about the look of the ships, they couldn't even leave the venerable Constitution class alone.  The wireframe graphic of the Defiant shows an extra joint in the nacelle pylons that was not present on either the original model or the TOS movie refit (of the Enterprise).

But the biggest problem???
[sarcasm] THE FEMALE CREWMEMBERS' UNIFORMS!!! [/sarcasm ]

Having got that out of the way...
--Didn't Tilly and Burnham take to their roles a little TOO easily?  Especially Burnham, practically the first thing she had to do was commit a murder.
--Isn't it curious how nobody seems to suspect Lorca's eagerness to assimilate to TE ways, and that he already seems to have a lot of insight into how things work there?  Why didn't anyone think to scan HIS quantum signature?
L'Rell ought to have a ball in this universe.  I would love it if her counterpart is a benevolent, loving Earth mother type.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 14 January 2018, 14:58:18
I would like to see a mirror L'Rell be this peace loving person, that meets up with the other one.
They said that the Defiant wire frame was a Terran Empire upgrade to the Defiant so hopefully that is true and they didnt butcher the all loved Connie.

I wonder who is the Emperor....Michelle Yeoh's charater...Saru...or someone that nobody has a idea who. I think they will be going to that "palace"  at some point
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 14 January 2018, 15:12:45
I'm 100% positive the Emperor is going to be Mirror Georgiou.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 14 January 2018, 18:48:26
I'm 100% positive the Emperor is going to be Mirror Georgiou.

georgiou could be a kid or offspring of Emperor Sato.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 15 January 2018, 01:01:08
I'm of the opinion that mirror-Burnham ascended to command of the Shenzhou the same way mirror-Kirk got command of the Enterprise.

Cheers, Gabe

EDIT:  you guys were right, I was wrong.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Cyc on 15 January 2018, 05:54:30
I'm 100% positive the Emperor is going to be Mirror Georgiou.

I feel Discovery is becoming a tad predictable like this, especially in this episode. As soon as they mentioned Fire Hawk was a great unifying Klingon I knew who he'd be, just like he'd serve to trigger things. Likewise the Stammet's fake-out and who else but the Emperor could be.

Also makes me wonder about Lorca's fear the Defiant intel won't provide them a means to get back is again telegraphing their intentions...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 15 January 2018, 08:21:18
Every Mirror episode has had a mirror counterpart for the key players of the show it's been part of. So it's hardly a surprise to have Georgiou show up.

I'm wondering if the entire back arc (or Chapter 2 as they are calling it), will be Mirror-based. Would be very interesting indeed. I'm loving it :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 15 January 2018, 20:34:43
I haven't yet had a chance to see the latest few episodes of Discovery, but in general, I have never found Mirror Universe episodes particularly engaging.  The characters just seem to be flatter when they cross out half of their character traits and replace them with evil and ambitious.

Data and the EMH, when they had their ethics subroutines deleted or suppressed, were MUCH better, and more frightening and effective villains than any mirror universe baddie has ever been.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 15 January 2018, 20:52:19
When did Data have his ethics subroutine suppressed?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 15 January 2018, 21:18:38
When did Data have his ethics subroutine suppressed?

I believe hes referring to a couple of episodes (Descent part 1 and 2) in TNG where Lore disabled Data ethical subroutines to make him perform experiments on the Borg and La Forge.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 15 January 2018, 21:23:37
Was that a little hint of a smile I saw on Lorca right there at the end, when the Emperor was talking to Burnham?

During the first half of the season, I thought all those "Lorca is Mirror Lorca!" folks were crazy and I still don't see any evidence of it in those episodes (until, of course, right before that final spore jump), but damn if the writers aren't hitting it hard here in the back half.


Oh, and I really don't think the new Klingon prosthetics have anything to do with why they talk the way they do. In this most recent episode we saw Shazad Latif speak in English as a Klingon and Klingon as a human. His English while in Klingon garb didn't seem impeded in the slightest.* His Klingon while in his human form came out exactly the same as it did while in the makeup. I think the way they've been having Klingons speak in this series is just a stylistic choice.

* Of course, it could have been ADRed in post because there were problems with his enunciation while in makeup, but if that were so, they'd almost certainly be doing the same with the Klingon dialog as well, meaning that the delivery is still a stylistic choice rather than impeded somehow.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 15 January 2018, 22:03:21
I wasn't that suprised when Georgio showed up. I figured she was still alive and well in the mirror.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 16 January 2018, 00:06:22
I feel Discovery is becoming a tad predictable like this, especially in this episode. As soon as they mentioned Fire Hawk was a great unifying Klingon I knew who he'd be, just like he'd serve to trigger things. Likewise the Stammet's fake-out and who else but the Emperor could be.

Also makes me wonder about Lorca's fear the Defiant intel won't provide them a means to get back is again telegraphing their intentions...

Well, it seems that passing through the "interphase" made the crew of the Defiant go nuts and they all killed each other.  So that's not an effective way of getting back to the Prime universe.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 16 January 2018, 00:19:19
I wasn't that suprised when Georgio showed up. I figured she was still alive and well in the mirror.

Considering the most common means of advancement in the TE Starfleet, I had thought there was a good chance that mirror-Burnham had already bumped off mirror-Georgiou.  But mirror-Georgiou being Emperor would explain how mirror-Burnham rose a position of "high prestige" within the TE.

As far as Ash is Voq...who couldn't see that coming?  Klingon medical technology must be considerably more advanced than they've been given credit for in past series/movies.
(Anyone remember how in "The Trouble With Tribbles", McCoy was able to detect that Arne Darvin was a Klingon with a simple med-tricorder scan?)  It's almost like they would've needed to create a whole new body for him, that was physiologically human and could pass all but the deepest, most dedicated scans.  An organic android body, if you would.  (If they mention the words "augment virus" I *will* vomit.)

I'm hoping that we get to see mirror-Culber soon, and that Prime-Stamets is horrified to find out that he's an amoral Josef Mengele-type who runs his sickbay as a chamber of horrors and does gruesome experiments on untranquilized living human (or alien) subjects, just because he can.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 16 January 2018, 10:18:27
The Klingons in the Prime have almost the exact same plan as the Terrans in the Mirror Universe.

The Klingon medical tech and Klingon morals don't seem to have a Hippocratic Oath like the Humans. So they can do whatever medically they want with what they can. They have used test subjects and other things on their own people many of times before in episodes of Enterprise.
I think Klingons first aid and other basic medical is lower than Star Fleet but somethings much more advanced.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 16 January 2018, 19:36:45
Isn't that fundamentally William Shatner's problem and he just never adjusted? Well that and some old (bad) radio drama habits you can still see in Twilight Zone and Dragnet.

For a specific definition of problem, yeah.  Shatner's delivery of lines would work a lot better with dialogue written to match the cadence.  Theatre, especially prior to the last century was written with a different sense of delivery, even ignoring the changes in how English was written and spoken in different centuries, and that plays are often translated into English in different eras too.

But Shatner won two Emmies and a Golden Globe (and yes, two Razzies too), so it's ultimately worked for him

And, let's not forget that this was still in the early years of television, so they still hadn't really worked out what really works in front of a camera versus on a stage.

Now, one last thing on the ships, the Galaxy has actually grown on me. I like it well enough. I even had a moment where the Excelsior was just as ugly to me as the Galaxy, and nothing did compare to the Connie Refit. But, seeing the Excelsior in workhorse roles, and knowing it is so common, and kinda big, it too has grown on me.

Didn't have as big an issue with the Intrepid Class Voyager or Defiant. Those worked for me from the start.

I think Voyager worked for me as a series because it was like watching Lost In Space.  The two different crews were effectively extended family forced onto a battleship and sent on an extended cruise. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 16 January 2018, 19:42:38

As far as Ash is Voq...who couldn't see that coming? 

I was primed for this because I'd been exposed to the fan theory (somebody noticed that Shazad Letif was originally cast as Voq, and then 'recast' as Tyler and 'Javid Iqbal' was cast as Voq, but the only evidence of Iqbal's existence was his casting on DISCO) about it, but I was wondering how many other people suspected it before last week when he and L'Rell were talking in the brig.

Quote
Klingon medical technology must be considerably more advanced than they've been given credit for in past series/movies.
(Anyone remember how in "The Trouble With Tribbles", McCoy was able to detect that Arne Darvin was a Klingon with a simple med-tricorder scan?)  It's almost like they would've needed to create a whole new body for him, that was physiologically human and could pass all but the deepest, most dedicated scans. 

Assuming Discovery makes it home, it could be analysing the changes they did to Voq lead to McCoy being able to easily identify Darvin as a Klingon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 16 January 2018, 19:54:33
Now, one last thing on the ships, the Galaxy has actually grown on me. I like it well enough. I even had a moment where the Excelsior was just as ugly to me as the Galaxy, and nothing did compare to the Connie Refit. But, seeing the Excelsior in workhorse roles, and knowing it is so common, and kinda big, it too has grown on me.

I am lucky enough to own two of Ab Mobasher's Excelsior-class sculpts he did for FASA. In miniature form, and especially with Mr. Mobasher's astounding sculpting skills*, that battlewagon is simply drop-dead stunning. It blows any other Star Trek or Star Fleet Battles miniatures right out of the water. They're also huge, which helps.

* In an interview, Ab Mobasher claims that the work he did on the FASA Star Trek line has never been matched, in the sheer level of hyper-fine detail. I absolutely agree.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 16 January 2018, 20:01:19
During the first half of the season, I thought all those "Lorca is Mirror Lorca!" folks were crazy and I still don't see any evidence of it in those episodes (until, of course, right before that final spore jump), but damn if the writers aren't hitting it hard here in the back half.

Let me know if it turns out that Discovery is from an alternate reality another step removed from the Prime universe, with the Mirror universe being that buffer universe. I've always been interested in exploring such concepts, which is one of the reasons I liked Dark Matter and what happened with the Skip Drive.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 17 January 2018, 15:57:28
Let me know if it turns out that Discovery is from an alternate reality another step removed from the Prime universe, with the Mirror universe being that buffer universe...

I already posted here that possibility but it was promptly smashed by the... fa... someone.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 18 January 2018, 05:41:06
I have mixed feelings about the Excelsior.  It IS a nice ship, but I think it look oddly proportioned from certain angles due to the length and placement of the nacelles and the shape of the secondary hull.  The Discovery has the same problem, though in in a somewhat opposite manner and by extension from a different angle.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dubble_g on 21 January 2018, 00:23:02
Just discovered I could get this on Netflix over here, so been binging the first 11 episodes.

In and of itself, it's not necessarily bad, but it's action and intrigue (and WTF wierdness) in space, rather than Star Trek. If you want to do a scifi show but don't want the stuff that made Star Trek unique -- its faith in people, its discussion of moral, political and social issues, its reliance on science rather than violence to solve issues -- then why brand it Star Trek at all?

Other thoughts here (https://one-way-mirror.blogspot.jp/2018/01/to-blandly-go.html).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 27 January 2018, 15:25:48
QFT. For a long time, it was the only Star Trek series that I had the full thing on DVD (well, other than the set for TAS)...I have since gotten Enterprise and TOS on DVD, as well as all the movies...I still would like to get the remaining 6 seasons of Voyager (I only have the first, and I believe it had 7 total seasons, IIRC)...

Well, I can now say that I have all of Voyager...the local FYE had a complete series boxed set...normally their prices are pretty bad (almost double most other locations on a normal day), but they had it on sale for $80 plus sales tax...just over $10 per season isn't bad (comes out to about 50 cents an episode)...

They also gave me a special offer card to try CBS All Access for free for a month...might try it just to see Discovery...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 27 January 2018, 18:51:14

They also gave me a special offer card to try CBS All Access for free for a month...might try it just to see Discovery...

Series 1 finishes up in 3 weeks, I think it is.  If you want to wait till they're all out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 27 January 2018, 20:36:51
Series 1 finishes up in 3 weeks, I think it is.  If you want to wait till they're all out.

Thanks. That was one of the things I needed to check out.

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: VincentFel on 28 January 2018, 09:32:41
I can't make up my mind about this show. After every good episode, I get my hopes up that it'll become better. But then I get slammed with a couple of bad episodes. Not giving up on it though.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 28 January 2018, 13:21:02
With the show coming to the end of Season 1, I wonder how many will drop CBS All Access!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 28 January 2018, 14:17:55
Probably not many in this modern instant gratification society we live in now.  The ability to stream what you want when you want seems to be the way of the future.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 28 January 2018, 15:19:49
I bet there will be a significant number of people cancelling their All Access subs once Discovery's season ends. And then re-upping when S2 starts.

Just like there were people who would cancel HBO between season of The Sopranos or Deadwood or Game of Thrones or whatever only to re-sub when the next season began.

And just as there are people who cancel and re-up Netflix and Hulu as shows come and go from those services.

That is really the wave of the future; only paying for the shows you want to watch when you want to watch them on whatever service they happen to be on and not paying for all of the rest of the stuff you don't wanna see like you have to do with cable at the present time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 28 January 2018, 17:53:38
And the networks are fine with it.

Netflix just posted record earnings in Q4 2017. And passing $100 billion in market value.
It has almost 118 million subscribers world-wide.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 28 January 2018, 18:34:19
Yep, and everyone wants a piece of that pie. Disney has got two streaming services in the works (ESPN Plus and whatever they end up calling the one for their Disney/Pixar/Lucasfilm/Marvel stuff, plus there's the now 60% of Hulu they own), DC Comics has their own streaming service debuting sometime this year, CBS has All Access, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some new ones. The field will only get more crowded as time marches on. And people will move in and out of these various services as shows interest them, rather than being locked into bundled packages of gems nestled in a sea of crap like the cable industry has forced us into for decades now.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 29 January 2018, 14:53:24
This week's episode absolutely crushed it.  One of the writers was on After Trek talking about how this is the episode where the Discovery crew start to form that family we know of from other Trek crews, and the scene with everyone in Engineering was the genesis of that.  And I'm totally down for Captain Saru, and Stamets and Tilly as the Data/Geordi or O'Brien/Nog of DISCO.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Terminax on 29 January 2018, 18:01:19
If it wasn't for the Klingon fiasco, I'd be perfectly happy calling it my favorite Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 30 January 2018, 00:05:43
It was good, but honestly I wish they hadn't gone there with Mirror Lorca.

To me, the story was far more interesting when Lorca was a standard Starfleet captain who had been damaged by his wartime experiences and possibly suffered from PTSD. I was looking forward to a captain with some darkness in him, someone who wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty in pursuit of a noble goal. Now, instead of being a complex character who could be used to explore the effects of war in a way that Trek really hasn't done in the past, he's just another xenophobic, sadistic bastard who is that way not because of his experiences but because he comes from a society where everyone is twisted and evil. Making him a Mirror Lorca was the easy way out and I'm disappointed the writers chose to go that way.

That, and I just plain enjoyed Jason Isaacs' performance. I thought he had a very captainy vibe to him.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Deadborder on 30 January 2018, 01:57:41
It does feel very cop-outy, yeah. I do have to wonder if this was the plan all along or a change in direction after the fact.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 30 January 2018, 02:05:47
It seems to be the original plan, the series finale wrapped filming 2 weeks before the show began.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 30 January 2018, 03:10:09
They can't all be Ben Sisko.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 30 January 2018, 07:40:45
I thought the last episode was good, had some great parts about it. It wasn't perfect. Jason Issacs is a incredible actor plays a good guy and a bad guy very well. He played the combo of both even better in Disco. I'm sad that he is gone. He was one of the characters that I liked the best off of the whole show. I guess I will have to find a different person now. Maybe Georgio will be a good add trying to not be "evil" as much anymore.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 30 January 2018, 12:08:48
It does feel very cop-outy, yeah. I do have to wonder if this was the plan all along or a change in direction after the fact.
Jason Isaac has said it was the plan from the beginning, he had to lie in interviews to keep the secret that he was "Mirror" version until last weeks episode aired.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Deadborder on 30 January 2018, 17:46:17
Jason Isaac has said it was the plan from the beginning, he had to lie in interviews to keep the secret that he was "Mirror" version until last weeks episode aired.

Fair enough then! Although it does still feel lik a bit of a cop-out. Just a planned one.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 30 January 2018, 17:53:02
That's because Star Trek writers have been overusing the Mirror Universe for a long time.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 30 January 2018, 19:55:05
 :))
That's because Star Trek writers have been overusing the Mirror Universe for a long time.
The last series, Enterprise, had what? only two episodes about MU?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 30 January 2018, 20:00:01
:))The last series, Enterprise, had what? only two episodes about MU?

TOS: 1
TNG: ...not recalling any
Voyager: 0
DS9: A LOT (3 or 4 or so?)
Enterprise: 2 (a 2 parter, so one story)

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 30 January 2018, 20:00:52
Honestly, I only feel like DS9 overused the Mirror Universe (and that's more that I didn't find any of them that enjoyable, and more importantly, they didn't feel like they fit).  TNG and Voyager didn't use it at all, and the two parter in Enterprise, was a one-off and was pretty good.  These ones, I rather liked as well.

My main issue with Discovery at the moment is how unsurprising their surprises are.  I can't even complain about spoilers despite having just caught back up with the series, because everyone guessed all the "twists" months ahead of time.  As far as the mirror universe thing goes, people were guessing we'd go there right after Stammets does that gene therapy thing and has some mirror weirdness, and shortly after a bunch of people put the puzzle pieces together regarding Lorca given his un-Starfleet behavior.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 30 January 2018, 21:14:10
From that episode with worf going from one universe to another, there is a lot of "mirror" universes.
Lorca did some really shady stuff in the prime universe but he seemed to be all about the Klingon war and was a good front line captain. He even toned down was the best StarFleet captain with some results against the Klingons. With the jump ahead 9 months it seems like the Federation is on the very much losing end on the war. Much like the status of the Federation in Yesterday's Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 31 January 2018, 01:37:53
DS9: A LOT (3 or 4 or so?)

Now, is 4 out of 176 episodes "a lot"?

Time travel is a far more overused Trek plot, with each show having like a dozen episodes each about it.

Or my pet peeve: Q. Intestesting once, then BLÆH.
TNG: 8 episodes
DS9: 1 episode
VOY: 3 episodes

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 31 January 2018, 01:39:59
From that episode with worf going from one universe to another, there is a lot of "mirror" universes.
Lorca did some really shady stuff in the prime universe but he seemed to be all about the Klingon war and was a good front line captain. He even toned down was the best StarFleet captain with some results against the Klingons. With the jump ahead 9 months it seems like the Federation is on the very much losing end on the war. Much like the status of the Federation in Yesterday's Enterprise.

The question is is Phillipa will replace Lorca as the "dark captain"? She hates the klinks just as much due to her mirror origin, will Star Fleet use her in an "ends justify the means" way?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 January 2018, 02:34:27
The question is is Phillipa will replace Lorca as the "dark captain"? She hates the klinks just as much due to her mirror origin, will Star Fleet use her in an "ends justify the means" way?

 My prediction is that Starfleet will try to use her that way, and it'll lead to a confrontation between her and Burnham that will lead to a conclusion to Burnham's emotional arc for series 1, and allow her to let go of her guilt over Prime Georgiou's death.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 31 January 2018, 07:04:08
DS9: 1 episode

And what an episode it was! One of my favorites.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 31 January 2018, 11:34:33
Q. Intestesting once

Not even that, since the once would be, ugh, “Encounter at Farpoint”.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 31 January 2018, 13:01:53
I always liked Deja Q and Tapestry
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 31 January 2018, 13:10:54

All Good Things, was one of the best uses of the Q.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 31 January 2018, 13:33:25
"Death Wish" remains one of the best Star Trek episodes, IMO.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2018, 21:03:12
Q was also pretty much the perfect foil for Picard, both in character and out of character with deLancie and Stewart chewing the scenery, the script, and the crew when they're on together.  The rest of the chemistry with the cast, especially after the first season or two, really gels beautifully - as does the writing.  "Eat any good books today?"
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 01 February 2018, 23:04:30
TOS: 1
TNG: ...not recalling any
Voyager: 0
DS9: A LOT (3 or 4 or so?)
Enterprise: 2 (a 2 parter, so one story)

Ruger

According to Memory Alpha:

TOS: 2 (and 1 in a "minus universe" - whatever that is)
TNG: 2 (although not specifically on the same "mirror universe" than the others - could be another parallel universe)
Voyager: 0
DS9: 5
Enterprise: 2 parter
DISCO: 5 (until now)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 01 February 2018, 23:10:35
All this talk about the Mirror Universe, reminds me of of TNG episode, Parallels.  This was episode where Worf was being thrown around through multiple universes. They all converged into one place.  With multiple versions of Worf and Enterprise showing up.   I was wondered if they had included a Mirror Universe TNG Enterprise in that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 02 February 2018, 02:36:01
All this talk about the Mirror Universe, reminds me of of TNG episode, Parallels.  This was episode where Worf was being thrown around through multiple universes. They all converged into one place.  With multiple versions of Worf and Enterprise showing up.   I was wondered if they had included a Mirror Universe TNG Enterprise in that.

None of the Enterprises in that episode were explicitly the ISS Enterprise D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 02 February 2018, 08:49:01
All this talk about the Mirror Universe, reminds me of of TNG episode, Parallels.  This was episode where Worf was being thrown around through multiple universes. They all converged into one place.  With multiple versions of Worf and Enterprise showing up.   I was wondered if they had included a Mirror Universe TNG Enterprise in that.

As we saw on DS9, by that point in time, the Terran Empire had fallen and humans were subservient to the Klingon-Cardassian alliance.  So there almost certainly was no ISS Enterprise-D.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 02 February 2018, 10:06:09
As we saw on DS9, by that point in time, the Terran Empire had fallen and humans were subservient to the Klingon-Cardassian alliance.  So there almost certainly was no ISS Enterprise-D.

Cheers, Gabe
But when you go into the Comic Book expanded universe, there IS an ISS Enterprise-D. Man....looking at the cover art depicting Picard as a bad guy was surreal.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 02 February 2018, 11:16:29
It's simple.

Each time someone visited the Mirror Universe, a new version of the Mirror universe branched off. This is consistent with many time travel theories. The changes between each might be small, or big.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 02 February 2018, 11:41:59
Which is why I'm still hoping that the STDisco* Prime universe is one of those offshoots to help explain the wild divergence between Klingon races.





* = Sorry. Still having fun with this acronym.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 02 February 2018, 14:10:43
Which is why I'm still hoping that the STDisco* Prime universe is one of those offshoots to help explain the wild divergence between Klingon races.

I hope not, I like the new klinks :)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 02 February 2018, 17:28:23
The new "Klingons" don't seem as scary looking being bald and really big heads. I hope they are a much bigger story arc for the last episodes in the season.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 02 February 2018, 17:32:30
A picture of toenail clippers in a Walgreens weekly ad is scarier than the old-style Klingons.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 02 February 2018, 17:35:07
A picture of toenail clippers in a Walgreens weekly ad is scarier than the old-style Klingons.
And still they weren't able to improve them in STD.  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 February 2018, 17:38:16
Which is why I'm still hoping that the STDisco* Prime universe is one of those offshoots to help explain the wild divergence between Klingon races.

* = Sorry. Still having fun with this acronym.

If I was a praying guy I would pray for that...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 February 2018, 17:39:39
A picture of toenail clippers in a Walgreens weekly ad is scarier than the old-style Klingons.

The new ones go every week to a SPA, polish their armors clothes in the wildest colors to look like a carnival parade in Rio on Sambadrome.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 02 February 2018, 17:49:25
And still they weren't able to improve them in STD.  ;)

Who says Klingons are supposed to look scary? TOS Klingons certainly didn’t.

The new ones go every week to a SPA, polish their armors clothes in the wildest colors to look like a carnival parade in Rio on Sambadrome.

Not all of the new Klingons dress the way T’Kuvma’s people did, so... okay, whatever.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 02 February 2018, 17:51:10
Not all of the new Klingons dress the way T’Kuvma’s people did, so... okay, whatever.

I wasnt talking about one. I was talking about all of them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 02 February 2018, 22:14:12
But when you go into the Comic Book expanded universe, there IS an ISS Enterprise-D. Man....looking at the cover art depicting Picard as a bad guy was surreal.

There's also the novel "Dark Mirror" that covers similar ground, and was interesting for its suggestion that the mirror-humans' cruelty and barbarism had deep historical roots.  But I don't think either of those are considered canon like DS9.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 02 February 2018, 22:26:00
None of the Star Trek Expanded Universe is considered canon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 03 February 2018, 08:04:55
Actually, if I recall rightly, the novels were supposed to be tied to their own continuity, as is the comics to its own, and the shows to their own.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 February 2018, 09:12:04
Prior to the so-called relaunch books, the Trek novels only had continuity with each other where explicitly stated. So Michael Jan Freidman's books featuring the Stargazer's crew were in continuity, but no effort would be made to keep his version of the Stargazer in line with anyone else's.

Similarly, with the comics changing publishers so many times, Gold Key to IPC to Peter Pan Records to Marvel to DC to Marvel to DC/Wildstorm to Tokyopop to IDW, they generally have internal continuity but even then not always - Marvel and DC's different incarnations don't tie into one another for example.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 03 February 2018, 13:03:34
I've been jonesing for more Prime Timeline Trek ever since Abrams decided continuity was for chumps. The relaunch novels any good?

(You can be generous with the term 'good'. I stuck with the Star Wars EU until mostly through the Vong war.)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 February 2018, 13:52:11
They're very much a mixed bag, with part of the problem being that there's a lot of middling quality books that have major plot points to them. Good jumping on points would be:

Avatar book 1 and 2 - these pick up 6 months after Sisko ascended into the Celestial Temple, with life on DS9 just about back to normal before a rogue Jem'Hadar ship comes through the wormhole and kicks off a new round of chaos.  These books introduce a lot of characters who have increasing levels of importance as the books progress.

Articles of the Federation - this book kicks off slightly after Nemesis and the A Time To... series of TNG novels (which detail the Enterprise's missions between Insurrection and Nemesis, and deals with the aftermath of that movie's events).  It follows the Federation's new President on their first year in office, dealing with diplomatic and political crises.

Resistance - this is the second TNG novel set after Nemesis (the first, Death in Winter is one of those not great but has an important event ones), and details the Enterprise E's first mission after repairs are complete, as Picard gets to grips with his new senior crew members after Riker and Troi's departure.  Their shakedown cruise is interrupted by the return of the Borg, however

Star Trek Titan: Taking Wing- The first book covering Will Riker's tenure as commander of USS Titan.  While outfitting for a long-range expedition to the Large Magellanic Cloud, Titan is instead sent to Romulus in an attempt to help the government remain stable in the aftermath of Shinzon wiping out the senate in Nemesis. 

Star Trek: Destiny - A crossover trilogy in which The Borg return to the Alpha Quadrant with the goal of extermination rather than assimilation.  The events of these novels and their aftermath spread out across all the post-Nemesis novels and represent a major shift in the Trek storyline for years.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 03 February 2018, 15:48:59
They're very much a mixed bag, with part of the problem being that there's a lot of middling quality books that have major plot points to them. Good jumping on points would be:

Star Trek: Destiny - A crossover trilogy in which The Borg return to the Alpha Quadrant with the goal of extermination rather than assimilation.  The events of these novels and their aftermath spread out across all the post-Nemesis novels and represent a major shift in the Trek storyline for years.

I've only been able to find the first of these, but it was quite good...I've also read several of the Stargazer novels, the "Genesis Wave" TNG novels, along with the one where Geordi and Scotty team up again, and a few others...

I've also been enjoying the ST Enterprise novels from Kobayashi Maru, through the Romulan War novels and now with the "Rise of the Federation" series...

Then there are the original crew novels from decades ago...such as the hardcover Mission to Horatius, first of the novels to be released (back in 1968!), and the more recent series, which include some favorites such as The Final Reflection, Dreadnought! (less so, its sequel Battlestations!), Chain of Attack and its sequel, The Final Nexus, The Wounded Sky, the Rihannsu series, Kobayashi Maru (where the stories of Scotty's, Sulu's, Chekov's and, of course, Kirk's turns at taking the stated test, what they did, and the results from that)...there were other good ones, but these are favorites that come immediately to mind...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 03 February 2018, 16:05:24
Oh, and if you're only going to read two Trek novels, read A Stitch in Time by Andrew Robinson, in which Garak writes a series of letters to Bashir about his childhood and the work rebuilding Cardassia after the Dominion War (the childhood section is based on Robinson's character notes during the filming of the show); and The Never-Ending Sacrifice by Una McCormack, which follows Rugal Pa'Dar, the Cardassian adopted by Bajorans but returned to his birth father in the DS9 episode Cardassian after he returns to his birthworld and lives through the following years.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 03 February 2018, 20:47:07
Star Trek: Destiny - A crossover trilogy in which The Borg return to the Alpha Quadrant with the goal of extermination rather than assimilation.  The events of these novels and their aftermath spread out across all the post-Nemesis novels and represent a major shift in the Trek storyline for years.

That sounds interesting. That was one of those things I would be glad they made the new show about that I commented before.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 03 February 2018, 21:31:33
That sounds interesting. That was one of those things I would be glad they made the new show about that I commented before.

The Destiny series is also supposed to reveal the "true" origin of the Borg, if I've understood correctly...even has a tie-in to one of the images in the Star Trek Ships of the Line calendars from a few years back...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 04 February 2018, 08:19:09
uuuuugh....If you want spoilers just PM me for the ST: Destiny.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 04 February 2018, 09:45:12
Have you guys seen this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Nv2R9Acec), some fans made a Quentin Tarantino Star Trek trailer.   It's hilarious!  ;D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 04 February 2018, 11:06:34
Have you guys seen this? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Nv2R9Acec), some fans made a Quentin Tarantino Star Trek trailer.   It's hilarious!  ;D

Gawd that was funny.
Gotta give those at The Nerdist props for that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 11 February 2018, 23:06:05
Has the season finale aired yet?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 12 February 2018, 00:03:43
The Destiny series is also supposed to reveal the "true" origin of the Borg, if I've understood correctly...even has a tie-in to one of the images in the Star Trek Ships of the Line calendars from a few years back...

Ruger

I very much enjoyed them even if the Borg have been used to death it was a decent trilogy
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 February 2018, 05:52:37
The Season Ender has aired but I missed it. Will have to see it tonight.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 12 February 2018, 11:52:23
The Season Ender has aired but I missed it. Will have to see it tonight.

Its interesting but I expected it (though later in the show).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 12 February 2018, 14:01:21
So, that wasn't the best episode of the series, but I enjoyed it overall. The war side of the plot finished up a bit too perfunctory, but this scope has consistently been about the character arcs over the plot at every point, and the character work this week remained very good.

I'll admit that last shot was a woah moment, and I how the writers have an idea of how they're going to move forward from here.

Not that such a plan is necessary, Michael Piller famously wrote the cliffhanger of Best of Both Worlds with no idea how the story was going to go, expecting out to be someone else's problem. And then he decided not to leave the show...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 12 February 2018, 14:23:54
I miss when authors of books actually wrote stories for Star Trek's television.  I don't get good vibes from way these shows come off.

Deep Space Nine and Voyager had more together from story arch feeling sort things.  Each had hit or miss but ...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 12 February 2018, 14:27:26
I miss when authors of books actually wrote stories for Star Trek's television.  I don't get good vibes from way these shows come off.

Sadly, John "Mike" Ford is no longer with us.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 12 February 2018, 14:46:43
I miss when authors of books actually wrote stories for Star Trek's television.  I don't get good vibes from way these shows come off.

Deep Space Nine and Voyager had more together from story arch feeling sort things.  Each had hit or miss but ...

Kirsten Beyer, the main Voyager novelist is a staff writer on the show, has a solo script credit for one episode (the crystal planet one), and is the liaison between the show's writer's room and the tie-in novel writers
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 12 February 2018, 21:02:10
If the picture of the guest cameo appearance I saw earlier today was actually at the end of the episode, I might actually have hope for the series...

I think I actually really liked what they did with it...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 13 February 2018, 01:05:01
That final cameo had me seriously rolling my eyes. I wish the writers didn't feel the need to do it, as I think it's a crutch they should be avoiding as much as possible. It looked nice, though.

As for the season as a whole... I didn't hate it, I didn't love it. But I will be back for season two.

Things I hope they do in season two:

- flesh out the rest of the bridge crew more
- let Burnham loosen up a little
- do NOT bring in Kirk or any of the rest of the classic crew (except, I guess, for the one we're obviously going to get)
- break the season into multiple, smaller arcs
- stay away from time travel
- do some more sciencey or exploratory type missions (are there any Trek races we know are first contacted during this period?)
- do not lose the essential Tillyness of Tilly now that she has gotten some recognition and (presumably) more responsibilities
- just make Saru the damn permanent captain already
- do not update us on L'Rell and Voq/Tyler
- in fact, just avoid Klingons altogether for at least a full season
- no more Mirror Universe episodes

I'm sure I'll think of more things later, but that'll do.



And, oh yeah... ****** Clint Howard! Now, that is someone I'm always glad to see no matter what show it is. And what is this, his third or fourth Trek series to appear in? Nice.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 13 February 2018, 04:09:53
Based on statements by the producers...

- flesh out the rest of the bridge crew more

Seems they want to do this.  They're definitely giving the actors playing the bridge crew a fair bit of spotlight on After Trek

Quote
- do NOT bring in Kirk or any of the rest of the classic crew (except, I guess, for the one we're obviously going to get)

They are very non-committal on what's going to happen with that last shot (presumably because they're still working on the scripts for series 2), but Kirk is in the advanced officer's school right now, if I recall the canon timeline correctly.  If he shows up at all I assume it'll be a cute cameo with him and Tilly

Quote
- do not update us on L'Rell and Voq/Tyler

They've said they're bringing Tyler back at least, but they don't envision he'll be 100% happy with his choice.  So it sounds like they have an interesting idea for his arc at least

And on a personal note
Quote
- just make Saru the damn permanent captain already

Co-signed.  I have an image in my mind that they keep getting waylaid and never make it to Vulcan, or we get a rotating chair of captains who frequently get killed so Saru winds up in charge every week
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 February 2018, 06:00:29
Why did they butcher the USS Enterprise.  They could of done just fine and not have that ship shown, a different Constitution class would of been just fine.

Some of the Icons in Sci-fi the Falcon from Star Wars and now the Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 13 February 2018, 08:01:55
I wouldn't call the Enterprise butchered.  There's a couple cosmetic changes to account for the fact that the original model was so low detail which doesn't fit with today's special effects in general much less the aesthetic of other starfleet ships in this series, but it is still mostly the same.  Not like the travesty that is the Klingons.  And as much as I don't really want to start the next season ganging up with Pike and his crew, that's a bit of fanservice a lot of people have been clamoring for.

My only hope is that this detour keeps Saru in the captain's chair.  I was immediately unhappy when they said they were going to Vulcan to pick up a new captain.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 13 February 2018, 10:26:22
That. THAT is how you update a classic. Keep the overall lines, keep the same feel, stay close enough that people familiar with the old recognize the new instantly. That. Is. Enterprise. The ship we all know and love, updated to modern FX standards. The only real change I saw was the use of angled pylons, that's fine. We know from TMP that refitting a Connie from straight to angled pylons is a thing, so I have no problem believing that they can go from angled to straight pylons before TOS starts. Did anybody catch if she had neck tubes?

I'm not sure if I should approve of the fact that the production team learned from the D7 fiasco, or if I should be murderously pissed that they had the ability to do things right all along and still chose to abuse the KDF the way they did.

Either way, someone needs to make a sturdy model of this new ship, and beat Abrams in the face with it until his ears cave in.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 February 2018, 10:56:46
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWbq4jThUpA

Don't believe so. Where the neck meets the engineering hull there's a squared off section which would indicate space for a future refit of tubes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 13 February 2018, 11:12:28
Give Cryptic six months and I figure the DISCO-prise will be a added skin for their T6 lockbox Connie for STO.
Also looking at the clip there was also openings in the pylons and extensions off the nacelles. Also the end of the nacelles was very TMP-like.
Either way, someone needs to make a sturdy model of this new ship, and beat Abrams in the face with it until his ears cave in.

Full agreement there.
If the DISCO-prise would of been used for the KT films, I would of been a bit more forgiving of them.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 13 February 2018, 12:04:16
If the DISCO-prise would of been used for the KT films, I would of been a bit more forgiving of them.

Same here. I can forgive quite a bit in the story category(let's face it, every incarnation of Star Trek has had it's share of stinkers - my wife and I are watching a loaned set of TAS, and some of that is already "Don't Watch Sober" bad), so long as you get the bloody ships right.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 13 February 2018, 13:53:54
Agree with you guys... at last something I like about this show without hesitation.... the look of Enterprise.

HOWEVER... I'm afraid they'll mangle even more the supposed prime timeline...

In After Trek did I ear wrong or they talked about planing to give an explanation in the show of why Spock never talked about his sister!?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 February 2018, 14:04:42
Agree with you guys... at last something I like about this show without hesitation.... the look of Enterprise.

HOWEVER... I'm afraid they'll mangle even more the supposed prime timeline...

In After Trek did I ear wrong or they talked about planing to give an explanation in the show of why Spock never talked about his sister!?
He never told us about his half brother until said sibling showed up causing trouble. He never told his Captain his parents were coming aboard and who they were until they came aboard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 13 February 2018, 17:52:49
Yeah, honestly, never hearing about Burnham is not even on the list of annoyances considering how much Spock DOESN'T talk about his family even when it turns out to be important.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 13 February 2018, 20:57:41
my wife and I are watching a loaned set of TAS, and some of that is already "Don't Watch Sober" bad), so long as you get the bloody ships right.

OOoooo...have you gotten to the episode with the Kzinti and their pink ships yet?

 :D ;D

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 13 February 2018, 21:32:47
The Big E just looked squished like its to short. It is a great update to the original series ship and I liked it more then the JJ Enterprise.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 13 February 2018, 21:54:53
that DIS-ENT looks more like that fake ENT that made the rounds just prior to the JJ-ENT's appearance... but looks better in some ways. I know people are crying about it but since First Contact, the timeline's been AFU. The ONLY place appropriate for the 1960's ENT to appear in it's glory is the fan films, honestly.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 13 February 2018, 22:18:05
that DIS-ENT looks more like that fake ENT that made the rounds just prior to the JJ-ENT's appearance... but looks better in some ways. I know people are crying about it but since First Contact, the timeline's been AFU. The ONLY place appropriate for the 1960's ENT to appear in it's glory is the fan films, honestly.

"Analysis, Spock?"

"I believe it to be an attempt at communication Captain, one so alien that the Universal Translator could never decipher it."
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 13 February 2018, 22:49:25
What fake ENT?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 14 February 2018, 01:40:58
What fake ENT?

See attached.  CGI image that was floating around before the 2009 movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Giovanni Blasini on 14 February 2018, 01:43:33
Disco-prise is growing on me. Like a fungus. I'm not keen on the swept pylons, though. The rest doesn't seem awful.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 14 February 2018, 02:18:27
OOoooo...have you gotten to the episode with the Kzinti and their pink ships yet?

 :D ;D

Ruger

Fun fact, Filmation's art director was colour blind, and generally another member of staff would check and make sure that everything was coloured correctly before his work went to the animation studios to be copied, but between tight deadlines and the fact that people could compare TAS to TOS, a lot more of the times his work slipped through unchecked were noticeable in the finished work.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 14 February 2018, 02:36:20
It would be very interesting if it turns out their trip through the mirror universe still lands them not back at the home they left.

Old Man's War played around with this concept between FTL travel.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 14 February 2018, 08:50:34
See attached.  CGI image that was floating around before the 2009 movie.

A vast improvement over what we've got. The hideous Bussard cowls are still there, but they aren't the monstrosities that take the final product from pretty good all the way to Medusan in one go.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 14 February 2018, 12:23:49
Why did they butcher the USS Enterprise.  They could of done just fine and not have that ship shown, a different Constitution class would of been just fine.

Some of the Icons in Sci-fi the Falcon from Star Wars and now the Enterprise.

About the Falcon... wait and see... maybe you can be surprised (in a good way)...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 15 February 2018, 09:50:45
Things I hope they do in season two:

- flesh out the rest of the bridge crew more - yes I could barely tell you a thing about them beyond Tilly, Burnham, Saru and Stamets

- let Burnham loosen up a little - yup

- do NOT bring in Kirk or any of the rest of the classic crew (except, I guess, for the one we're obviously going to get) - looks like it's when Pike was I command so before Kirk (around unaired pilot time)

- break the season into multiple, smaller arcs - agreed

- stay away from time travel - Trek can't avoid that

- do some more sciencey or exploratory type missions (are there any Trek races we know are first contacted during this period?) - agreed and not sure

- do not lose the essential Tillyness of Tilly now that she has gotten some recognition and (presumably) more responsibilities - agreed


- just make Saru the damn permanent captain already - YES!

- do not update us on L'Rell and Voq/Tyler - maybe after a break

- in fact, just avoid Klingons altogether for at least a full season - can't see it

- no more Mirror Universe episodes - I think we'll see the emperor again

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 15 February 2018, 13:21:23

Looks like it's when Pike was I command so before Kirk (around unaired pilot time)

The battle of the binary stars was 2 years after The Cage. IIRC Pike's accident is a year or two after the DISCO finale
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 15 February 2018, 13:34:26
I wonder if this could be method of launching a spin off of Star Trek with Enterprise's Captain Pike in command?  Only problem is that they need make sure they don't prematurely do stuff they haven't done or dont have yet in canon by the time Kirk takes command.  Heck Scotty not even a engineer on board yet.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 15 February 2018, 17:11:12
Isn’t this around the time that Kirk was on the Farragut? I know he’s not on Enterprise right now, but I was thinking they could encounter him on Farragut. Not that I want them to, mind you, just that they could.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 15 February 2018, 17:14:38
Kirk graduates from Officer Training School and is assigned to Farragut the same year as the last three episodes of DISCO series 1.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 16 February 2018, 00:36:30
Isn’t this around the time that Kirk was on the Farragut? I know he’s not on Enterprise right now, but I was thinking they could encounter him on Farragut. Not that I want them to, mind you, just that they could.
Doesn't it depend on if CBS is following the original canon?

How long was Kirk on Farragut before it was destroyed?  My impression he wasn't on her for very long.

I remember that he had developed rival in comic book graphic novel who was Farragut survivor.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 16 February 2018, 01:51:03
Not only are the odds of them referencing something from a comic book or novel pretty close to zero, I wouldn't be surprised if they explicitly weren't allowed to, for legal reasons.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 16 February 2018, 07:54:30
Not only are the odds of them referencing something from a comic book or novel pretty close to zero, I wouldn't be surprised if they explicitly weren't allowed to, for legal reasons.
That's too bad.  I enjoyed Shatner's Star Trek: The Ashes of Eden.  I was wondering who owned the copy rights to it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Sharpnel on 16 February 2018, 08:07:52
I binged the whole series this past week on my days off. Good, not great. Like many others I do not like the look of the Klingons. I do not yet if I would watch another season, though. Especially if they have to use Captain Pike and the Enterprise as a crutch to get them through that season.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 16 February 2018, 08:10:45
I would of been very happy if they Didn't show the Enterprise at all. Keep it a hidden. StarFleet has thousands of ships, why do they need to show that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: pensiveswetness on 16 February 2018, 11:39:17
politics. That's why they did that. To make people yap and want to watch more...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 16 February 2018, 12:09:20
politics. That's why they did that. To make people yap and want to watch more...

That’s not politics, that’s fan service.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 16 February 2018, 13:52:22
Was it fan service.....the ship look itself has caused many angry debates. I don't mind the updated look its just squished.
Its just such a icon to Star Trek you don't want to touch it sometimes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 16 February 2018, 14:22:18
As per usual, the fans got what they wanted (they saw the Enterprise) but are unhappy it wasn't what they had imagined (the shitty, no detail model from the 60s)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 16 February 2018, 14:44:18
Was it fan service.....the ship look itself has caused many angry debates. I don't mind the updated look its just squished.
Its just such a icon to Star Trek you don't want to touch it sometimes.

Bear in mind most people who watched the show won't care about minor cosmetic differences and just got psyched by the appearance of the  Enterprise and the theme music playing over the credits. The blue lights, the different nacelle struts, none of that will matter
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mikecj on 16 February 2018, 16:38:55
That’s not politics, that’s fan service.

Nope, she's the only ship in the quadrant... again.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 16 February 2018, 17:47:02
I'm 10 episodes in and will post up my complete thoughts after I finish it. For being in the middle of a war...it certainly doesn't feel like it. They've done a lot of talking and no showing. (So far all the ship-to-ship combat has been par for any regular non-war Trek episode.) And even with the talking they do have, barely any of it really gives any updates on the progress of the war ("in the last week we've lost 7 ships and had to pull back from 3 star systems" etc...)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 16 February 2018, 17:47:34
Weird thing was they got a Priority One distress call from the Enterprise... then the ship sailed right up to them...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 16 February 2018, 17:51:09
Bear in mind most people who watched the show won't care about minor cosmetic differences and just got psyched by the appearance of the  Enterprise and the theme music playing over the credits. The blue lights, the different nacelle struts, none of that will matter

Sadly youre right.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 16 February 2018, 18:04:44
Sadly youre right.

Well, I don't think there's anything sad about that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 16 February 2018, 18:34:26
Well, I don't think there's anything sad about that.

I do.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 16 February 2018, 19:27:15
But there's a new Star Trek show on TV and people are enjoying it, it's been a critical and commercial success.  Is that  sad because the Enterprise looks a little bit different?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 16 February 2018, 19:41:35
Well, I don't think there's anything sad about that.

It’s only sad for those who care more about how things look than their content.

For those of us who care about the story and the characters and for whom the look of the ships, aliens, etc is little more than set dressing and props, it’s not sad at all.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 17 February 2018, 07:57:12
Sadly youre right.

Thank god he's right. Because frankly nitpickets are the death and ruin of any universe.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 17 February 2018, 16:31:47
Thank god he's right. Because frankly nitpickets are the death and ruin of any universe.

Exactly. Nitpicking used to be a fun thing ("Look, the third stormtrooper bangs his head on the doorframe! Ha ha!"). Somewhere along the line, someone decided that any errors or changes are a Bad Thing, and now we're got the current state of affairs, where story potential is hamstrung by the all-powerful Canon.

You know what? ****** canon. If one series decides Klingons should be "Puerto Ricans in gold lame" (thanks, Voltaire!) and another thinks they're best as lobster monsters, fine. It's all made-up anyway.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 17 February 2018, 17:01:15

Sometimes expectations can be too high, for example "Independence Day: Resurgence" I knew exactly what to expect, so I was able to enjoy what it had to offer.
There is also a thing that expectations will increase over time, as most customers naturally expect that future products will be more developed.
This is a problem for older franchises, they need to retain their original appeal, and deliver a better product. The latest hollywood nostalgia products managed to deliver superior graphics, but the story/plot hasn't improved (and in some cases it has become worse).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Garrand on 17 February 2018, 19:19:02
You know what? ****** canon. If one series decides Klingons should be "Puerto Ricans in gold lame" (thanks, Voltaire!) and another thinks they're best as lobster monsters, fine. It's all made-up anyway.

If the Battletech developers took the same position for the Battletech universe, do you think the setting & storyline would be better or worse?

Damon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 17 February 2018, 19:32:15
Well, TPTB did do that with Battletech and obviously the setting is better for it because it allowed us to move past the Unseen images.

And the appearances of multiple characters have changed substantially over the years without significant negative impact.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ColBosch on 17 February 2018, 20:04:53
Well, TPTB did do that with Battletech and obviously the setting is better for it because it allowed us to move past the Unseen images.

And the appearances of multiple characters have changed substantially over the years without significant negative impact.

Exactly. I'd rate the level of internal consistency in BattleTech as actually being about on-par with Star Trek. While the broad strokes are consistent, tons of details vary considerably over the past few decades. Both universes are simply too vast for any one author to memorize every detail, especially as those details change from source to source. A good example is my list of the signatories to the Ares Accords. According to the sources I used, it's accurate. According to others - even from the same authors - it's incorrect. And that's on top of my having to retcon that previous sources had mentioned signatories to the Accords that didn't exist yet!

Ever notice there is no official ruling on why the TR2750 and 3057 ships look so different? Is Maximilian Liao a brilliant schemer or a bumbling madman? What does Melissa Davion look like? Does the Ostscout have hands or not? Do Clan MechWarriors dress like Europeans at the beach, like Lord Humungous's berserkers, or like furry superheroes?

These are all things that change depending on the author, the artist, the story, or the medium. There's probably a thousand more. I'd rather get new stories - please, can we get some new stories? - rather than have everyone at CGL wasting their time tracking them down every inconsistency and trying to make a fictional universe completely consistent.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 17 February 2018, 20:05:25
If the Battletech developers took the same position for the Battletech universe, do you think the setting & storyline would be better or worse?

Damon.

Like when they changed the Inner Sphere map?  Or decided that the Inner Sphere powers never lost the ability to build BattleMechs or Jumpships? Or that the number of JumpShips and DropShips in the Inner Sphere was much larger than stated in the sourcebook of the same name? Or that the Inner Sphere didn't lose access to all Star League tech until well into the Third Succession War?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 17 February 2018, 21:04:49
Well I am certainly the wrong person to ask such a question to.

I probably could have dealt with everything if they didn't insist on calling it a prequel series.  Yeah there were some changes that they made that made me feel they were being deliberately disrespectful and not just to the fans but even that I could have gotten over if they didn't call it a prequel series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Garrand on 18 February 2018, 01:29:23
Like when they changed the Inner Sphere map?  Or decided that the Inner Sphere powers never lost the ability to build BattleMechs or Jumpships? Or that the number of JumpShips and DropShips in the Inner Sphere was much larger than stated in the sourcebook of the same name? Or that the Inner Sphere didn't lose access to all Star League tech until well into the Third Succession War?

A lot of these retcons were done however to make a more consistent & plausible setting.

One of the advantages of following a specific franchise is that you come to expect a certain consistency in the story, such that it grows (both from a story standpoint and -- very important for me --  a world-building standpoint). If there were no consistency between segments of the story, you can lose immersion as well as the expansion of the story and setting. I know some people say that "looks" are unimportant to story. I personally think a consistent look IS important because I am a very visual person; the change in appearance for the Klingons FREX (something that one would NOT expect a change in) was a bridge too far and totally removed me from any sort of immersion with the new show. YMMV and I know not everyone is like this, but for ME it is a big deal & does not add consistency to the universe or story from what came before and what came after (TOS excepted). WHile it is true that Trek has never been perfect about it, Disc didn't even try, which has significantly decreased my enjoyment of what they tried to do.

Also for some people that attention to detail -- while still providing engaging stories -- is a mark of quality writing, not a straight-jacket.

Damon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 February 2018, 02:59:11
A lot of these retcons were done however to make a more consistent & plausible setting.

One of the advantages of following a specific franchise is that you come to expect a certain consistency in the story, such that it grows (both from a story standpoint and -- very important for me --  a world-building standpoint). If there were no consistency between segments of the story, you can lose immersion as well as the expansion of the story and setting. I know some people say that "looks" are unimportant to story. I personally think a consistent look IS important because I am a very visual person; the change in appearance for the Klingons FREX (something that one would NOT expect a change in) was a bridge too far and totally removed me from any sort of immersion with the new show. YMMV and I know not everyone is like this, but for ME it is a big deal & does not add consistency to the universe or story from what came before and what came after (TOS excepted). WHile it is true that Trek has never been perfect about it, Disc didn't even try, which has significantly decreased my enjoyment of what they tried to do.

Also for some people that attention to detail -- while still providing engaging stories -- is a mark of quality writing, not a straight-jacket.

Damon.

The thing is, you could argue that the change to Trek in DISCO, which, let's be clear here are just cosmetic, is to make a more plausible setting by updating the look and feel of Trek to be more acceptable to modern audiences.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 18 February 2018, 04:55:40
The thing is, you could argue that the change to Trek in DISCO, which, let's be clear here are just cosmetic, is to make a more plausible setting by updating the look and feel of Trek to be more acceptable to modern audiences.
Well they seem to have failed there....  ;)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 February 2018, 05:57:01
Well they seem to have failed there....  ;)

The show appears to have been a success, though. Trekkies complaining really means nothing, especially as Enterprise and Nemesis failed partially because they pandered to Trekkies
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 18 February 2018, 06:03:24
The thing is, you could argue that the change to Trek in DISCO, which, let's be clear here are just cosmetic, is to make a more plausible setting by updating the look and feel of Trek to be more acceptable to modern audiences.

All the other cosmetic changes, excepting perhaps the initial change in appearance of the klingons in STTMP, only built upon the already established foundations. It didn't basically take that foundation and flush 50 years of historical images all down the toilet....

Note: I'm talking solely the klingons and their ships here...

Edit: Note, I'm not sure I would have minded the changes to the Klingons so much if they still had the TNG/DS9/Voy/early Enterprise versions, along with, perhaps, some of the old TOS style thrown into the mix (for the Augment virus thing from Enterprise/TOS carry-over), and thus maintained that history...the ships were the other thing that got to...the revised TOS USS Enterprise shows that you can update a design, and not completely demolish what has come before...

As to Dragon Cat's comment below:

Black sheep here I enjoyed enterprise

So did I...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 18 February 2018, 06:28:51
The show appears to have been a success, though. Trekkies complaining really means nothing, especially as Enterprise and Nemesis failed partially because they pandered to Trekkies
I disagree on both matters. It takes more then initial financial success to note it is successful to me (netflix pre-order). Such as, how long does it last or how strong is its positive cultural impact?
It is also a complete mystery to me how one can say that Enterprise and Nemesis pandered to fans, the fans didn't request nor liked them. So to whoever they were 'pandering' to, it wasn't towards the fans.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 18 February 2018, 07:49:02
Black sheep here I enjoyed enterprise
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 18 February 2018, 10:59:07
I disagree on both matters. It takes more then initial financial success to note it is successful to me (netflix pre-order). Such as, how long does it last or how strong is its positive cultural impact?
It is also a complete mystery to me how one can say that Enterprise and Nemesis pandered to fans, the fans didn't request nor liked them. So to whoever they were 'pandering' to, it wasn't towards the fans.

If you watch the making of Nemesis on DVD, the director really strongly indicated he was out to make a certain style of film - action - with only a Trek vinear. He didn't seem to pander to anyone, especially the fans.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 February 2018, 11:16:26
All the other cosmetic changes, excepting perhaps the initial change in appearance of the klingons in STTMP, only built upon the already established foundations. It didn't basically take that foundation and flush 50 years of historical images all down the toilet....

Note: I'm talking solely the klingons and their ships here...

Edit: Note, I'm not sure I would have minded the changes to the Klingons so much if they still had the TNG/DS9/Voy/early Enterprise versions, along with, perhaps, some of the old TOS style thrown into the mix (for the Augment virus thing from Enterprise/TOS carry-over), and thus maintained that history...the ships were the other thing that got to...the revised TOS USS Enterprise shows that you can update a design, and not completely demolish what has come before...

As to Dragon Cat's comment below:

So did I...

Ruger

They didn't flush 50 years of images down the toilet, there's a clear line between the DISCO Klingons and prior versions.

I disagree on both matters. It takes more then initial financial success to note it is successful to me (netflix pre-order). Such as, how long does it last or how strong is its positive cultural impact?

It's successful for now.  Obviously it'll be years before we see how much of a long-term success the show is

Quote
It is also a complete mystery to me how one can say that Enterprise and Nemesis pandered to fans, the fans didn't request nor liked them. So to whoever they were 'pandering' to, it wasn't towards the fans.

The first three years of Enterprise were more of the same from the prior 14 years of Trek, but with all the risk-taking removed (partially because most of the best writers had left), and when that failed, they went in for full-on fanservice and continuity porn.

Nemesis was written by a major Trekkie who wanted to do Wrath of Khan with the TNG cast.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 18 February 2018, 14:03:55
Well, hell, that explains the nebula scene.....
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 18 February 2018, 14:35:44
It's successful for now.  Obviously it'll be years before we see how much of a long-term success the show is
My guess is 2 to 3 seasons, then being cancelled and thrown into the Nemesis pile of history.

Quote
The first three years of Enterprise were more of the same from the prior 14 years of Trek, but with all the risk-taking removed (partially because most of the best writers had left), and when that failed, they went in for full-on fanservice and continuity porn.
The decision to cancel the show was made even before the 4th season was fully written, thus the failure is from the first 3 seasons. 

Quote
Nemesis was written by a major Trekkie who wanted to do Wrath of Khan with the TNG cast.
That sounds it was just straight up incompetence. And the buggy scene does give weight to Daemion's post of it being a wannabe action movie, also a good sign of straight up incompetence.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 18 February 2018, 15:19:00
My guess is 2 to 3 seasons, then being cancelled and thrown into the Nemesis pile of history.

I'm pretty certain you'll be proven wrong on this point. The show is great and don't need 2 decades of Star Trek enclypedias to be enjoyed. I've got several non-Trek interested friends who enjoy the show.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 18 February 2018, 15:52:37
I'm pretty certain you'll be proven wrong on this point. The show is great and don't need 2 decades of Star Trek enclypedias to be enjoyed. I've got several non-Trek interested friends who enjoy the show.
the thing is the complaint some fans have is that they changed a bunch of stuff just for the sake of changing things, and then tried to claim this is the same prime timeline just a few years before the start of the classic star trek.

If they had gone a little bit different route they could have essentially gotten their cake and eaten it too so to speak.

one suggestion was that they could have introduced their new Klingons without totally discarding the "old Klingons"  I have an idea on how they could have done it that makes sense and ties into the old history.

essentially you have groups and "types" of Klingons kind of like the enterprise Zindi.
you have "pure Klingons", Various race Hybrid Klingons, "Augment Klingons" etc.  the advantage of going that method, is that while it gives you a lot more options, it doesn't throw out any of the old canon it actually enhances and embraces it.
the Ships, aspect also could easily work around this Idea by NOT calling that ship a D7 or whatever it was, you have the various ships, but then you say ok this is a "house" fleet and they have design ethic whatever, and then there is the "imperial fleet," which uses the designs we are familiar with, IE there are some ships that are built by and or to specs specified by the overall Klingon government, a frontier fleet, various defense fleets, and also the individual House fleets many of which are just flat out different from each other.

plus they could still "revise" the imperial designs much like they did with the enterprise, IE brought up to modern high res images cgi, levels of detail, but you can still see the classic designs in there. even if its the overall outline, but lots of the small and fine detail is different.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 February 2018, 16:07:03
That sounds it was just straight up incompetence. And the buggy scene does give weight to Daemion's post of it being a wannabe action movie, also a good sign of straight up incompetence.

IIRC, the buggy scene was added at Patrick Stewart's insistence, he was a bit of a petrolhead and wanted to have a fun chase scene in the movie.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 18 February 2018, 16:22:29
I'm pretty certain you'll be proven wrong on this point. The show is great and don't need 2 decades of Star Trek enclypedias to be enjoyed. I've got several non-Trek interested friends who enjoy the show.
The audiences never needed encyclopedias, just the writers so they know there to add stuff ;).
As for getting others to enjoy the show, I see it too. The different tone, the visuals and hype has expanded the viewer base.
But the visuals and hype can't be relied upon long term, and there is still the problem of the fanfiction level writing.
Eventually the extra watchers will drop out for newer/better shows.


IIRC, the buggy scene was added at Patrick Stewart's insistence, he was a bit of a petrolhead and wanted to have a fun chase scene in the movie.
Well not recognizing a bad idea can fall under incompetence.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 18 February 2018, 16:43:43
the thing is the complaint some fans have is that they changed a bunch of stuff just for the sake of changing things, and then tried to claim this is the same prime timeline just a few years before the start of the classic star trek.

If they had gone a little bit different route they could have essentially gotten their cake and eaten it too so to speak.

one suggestion was that they could have introduced their new Klingons without totally discarding the "old Klingons"  I have an idea on how they could have done it that makes sense and ties into the old history.

essentially you have groups and "types" of Klingons kind of like the enterprise Zindi.
you have "pure Klingons", Various race Hybrid Klingons, "Augment Klingons" etc.  the advantage of going that method, is that while it gives you a lot more options, it doesn't throw out any of the old canon it actually enhances and embraces it.
the Ships, aspect also could easily work around this Idea by NOT calling that ship a D7 or whatever it was, you have the various ships, but then you say ok this is a "house" fleet and they have design ethic whatever, and then there is the "imperial fleet," which uses the designs we are familiar with, IE there are some ships that are built by and or to specs specified by the overall Klingon government, a frontier fleet, various defense fleets, and also the individual House fleets many of which are just flat out different from each other.

plus they could still "revise" the imperial designs much like they did with the enterprise, IE brought up to modern high res images cgi, levels of detail, but you can still see the classic designs in there. even if its the overall outline, but lots of the small and fine detail is different.

THIS...so much, this...  O0

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 18 February 2018, 18:31:20
THIS...so much, this...  O0

Ruger

Thirdied...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 18 February 2018, 23:43:15
All the other cosmetic changes, excepting perhaps the initial change in appearance of the klingons in STTMP, only built upon the already established foundations. It didn't basically take that foundation and flush 50 years of historical images all down the toilet....

Note: I'm talking solely the klingons and their ships here...

The Wikipedia page for Discovery season 1 has some additional detail on why they did the Klingons the way they did.  YES, it was a conscious choice, and YES, it was motivated by Bryan Fuller from the get-go (look in the notes for Production):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery_(season_1) (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Discovery_(season_1))
While I can understand their reasons for wanting to go that way, it doesn't change the fact that the final result clashes massively with everything that came before it.

And Mary Chieffo's comments about how they delivered their lines in Klingon just ring hollow. Sorry Mary, but that's not how it comes off to most of us actually watching the show--it sounds like you read the lines phonetically off cue cards, with no idea of what the words are supposed to mean.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 19 February 2018, 03:30:08
I'm pretty certain you'll be proven wrong on this point. The show is great and don't need 2 decades of Star Trek enclypedias to be enjoyed. I've got several non-Trek interested friends who enjoy the show.

One thing that might stop it is if Netflix hit trouble if there’s only distribution in the states on whatever the channel was (I forget) then the fan base may whither that said the likes of Amazon may pick up too
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 19 February 2018, 07:50:30
Question.  Would the split of the CBS and Paramount Studios who divied up the Trek copyrights CBS got TV and Paramount got the film right force each party have to change the appearance of the major aliens as well as their ships?
I know they changed it to be different but is there underlining legal thing which is usually hidden from the viewing public as well?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 19 February 2018, 11:41:56
Question.  Would the split of the CBS and Paramount Studios who divied up the Trek copyrights CBS got TV and Paramount got the film right force each party have to change the appearance of the major aliens as well as their ships?
I know they changed it to be different but is there underlining legal thing which is usually hidden from the viewing public as well?

IF that is the true reason then Star Trek is Fubared for me... but dont think so because then they would need to do the same with Vulcans, Andorians, Orions, etc... i guess...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 19 February 2018, 19:36:44
Which, based on Sarek's Vulcan presence alone, didn't happen.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 19 February 2018, 19:49:44
I'm not certain you can trademark pointy ears and smug superiority without Tolkein's ghost popping up and smacking you in the face.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 19 February 2018, 20:13:00
I'm not certain you can trademark pointy ears and smug superiority without Tolkein's ghost popping up and smacking you in the face.

It's too generic to be trademarked. Same way you can run around the web writing "space marine" everywhere without worrying about GW throwing the book at you.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 February 2018, 20:43:35
And what are Andorians and Orions really known for aside from being blue and green, respectively?

Okay, aside from Orion females being gratuitous fanservice, what is either species known for?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 19 February 2018, 21:04:05
And what are Andorians and Orions really known for aside from being blue and green, respectively?

Okay, aside from Orion females being gratuitous fanservice, what is either species known for?

Andorians were known for blue skin, white, feathery hair, antennae, ferocious tempers, and fighting spirit...

Orions were known for green skin (and showing off a lot of it), slavery, and other assorted criminal activities...ie, the Orion Syndicates and smuggling vessels...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 19 February 2018, 21:08:11
It's too generic to be trademarked. Same way you can run around the web writing "space marine" everywhere without worrying about GW throwing the book at you.

I remember a couple of years ago (or long ago) that they tried to do that. Not sure when it was but ill try to find it and post here.

Edit = https://boingboing.net/2013/02/06/games-workshop-trademark-bully.html (https://boingboing.net/2013/02/06/games-workshop-trademark-bully.html)

Edit 2 = https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online)

Reminds me of someone we know doing similar bullying with something we like...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 19 February 2018, 23:52:08
IIRC, the buggy scene was added at Patrick Stewart's insistence, he was a bit of a petrolhead and wanted to have a fun chase scene in the movie.

Not what I got out of 'The Making Of'. While Stewart may have been all for it, that was still the director and producer and the direction they wanted to go with the film.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 20 February 2018, 02:08:39
If you watch the making of Nemesis on DVD, the director really strongly indicated he was out to make a certain style of film - action - with only a Trek vinear. He didn't seem to pander to anyone, especially the fans.

Um...I would also suggest that was pretty much the approach Justin Lin took with _Star Trek:  Beyond_ ...

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 20 February 2018, 04:06:43
Not what I got out of 'The Making Of'. While Stewart may have been all for it, that was still the director and producer and the direction they wanted to go with the film.



I'm not saying they didn't set out to make a more action-oriented movie, but from what I've heard Stewart wanted a car chase, and that didn't go against what other creative factors wanted for the movie so it went in.  He'd been pushing for Picard to be a more action-oriented character for years, it was part of why Picard and Riker's roles got swapped in First Contact (though again, there were other factors there -  Picard leading the defence of the Enterprise was stronger thematically, and they wanted to cut Riker's role down so Frakes could devote as much time as possible to actually directing)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 20 February 2018, 04:12:32
Not unlike how Shatner got horses into Star Trek V.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 20 February 2018, 14:40:16
Not unlike how Shatner got horses into Star Trek V.

And Generations. IIRC the horse he rode in that was one of his own.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 20 February 2018, 14:54:21
And Generations. IIRC the horse he rode in that was one of his own.

Correct.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 20 February 2018, 19:01:47
Well they seem to have failed there....  ;)

But with the season ending they have the opportunity to set themselves up for success with the "Enterprise" appearing!

Yeah, I laughed myself silly typing that...  ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 22 February 2018, 00:40:03
One thing that might stop it is if Netflix hit trouble if there’s only distribution in the states on whatever the channel was (I forget) then the fan base may whither that said the likes of Amazon may pick up too

Not really, that is pre-digital thinking. It doesn't really matter how well it does in the US, what matter is global ratings and income from all revenue sources.
It is an entirely different business model than airing it on your own channel and being slave to advertisment and ratings, and licensing it to one country at a time.
Just having to deal with one international distribute (Netflix) means the whole revenue stream is fixed by the subscription fees alone and much more predictable.


Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Terminax on 23 February 2018, 14:51:06
But it does have more than one distribution point. Aside from the USA distribution on CBS All Access and now Netflix - Star Trek: Discovery is on Crave TV in Canada, which is run by Bell Canada/CTV as an alternative to Netflix.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 24 March 2018, 19:46:12
An unused scene from the last episode of DISCO series 1 was shown at Wondercon and has shown up in a few places online.  I was linked to this one, but it's the DISCO Netflix twitter and the video they shared is not available in the US

https://twitter.com/StarTrekNetflix/status/977686761823350784

I'm sure it'll be findable soon. It's pretty cool
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: mikecj on 25 March 2018, 13:18:02
Yup, she fits perfectly with them
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 March 2018, 13:42:34
Assuming that scene or similar gets incorporated into series 2, it explains a lot about Discovery's status quo when Burnham came aboard.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 19 June 2018, 16:23:20
So... troubles with tribles???

Not sure if anyone noticed this but here it is...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-showrunners-alex-kurtzman-take-1120416 (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-showrunners-alex-kurtzman-take-1120416)

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 10 September 2018, 05:11:38
Season 2 trailer...

https://youtu.be/0ZGUl_RHuzE (https://youtu.be/0ZGUl_RHuzE)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 10 September 2018, 12:27:20
when is the release date???
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 11 September 2018, 16:37:58
when is the release date???

Sometime in January.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 11 September 2018, 18:29:15
Thing that bothers me with this plot is there dealing with a intergalactic threat.  Canon lore suggests that Federation barely got into the Beta Quadrant (or Alpha), yet their going deal with a Intergalactic threat to the galaxy?!  Admittedly, Discovery game changer, since she breaks canon as in this ship can go ANYWHERE. It's the Tardius.   
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 11 September 2018, 21:08:21
The spore drive was very odd to me. A huge leap in space travel and it was never talked about again or anything close to it in tech.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 11 September 2018, 21:32:37
I think the writing gotten too off track of the premise of the universe. Their burning through earlier era, that not suppose to be that developed or hightech.  Adventure suppose to be higher, vs grandscale this upcoming season is.

If Discovery was set in the TNG or bit past that era, i could possibly by what their doing with the show.  It's just off track city when it's in this early era.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 11 September 2018, 22:56:09
I've already disavowed any claims that ST:D is prime timeline or an actual prequel.  Any names are just a coincidence, yes including the supposed "Klingons".
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 12 September 2018, 01:57:38
Canon lore suggests that Federation barely got into the Beta Quadrant (or Alpha)

The original Enterprise made it to the very edge of the galaxy, and the Enterprise A made it to the galactic core in canon.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 12 September 2018, 04:20:45
The original Enterprise made it to the very edge of the galaxy, and the Enterprise A made it to the galactic core in canon.

Note: the "edge of the galaxy" doesn't necessarily mean the edge of the disk as a function of radius, but could mean the top or bottom edge...that's much closer...

As to the "center of the galaxy", I really have nothing other than I seem to recall reading something somewhere that posited that it wasn't the actual center of the Galaxy...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 12 September 2018, 07:20:04
The original Enterprise made it to the very edge of the galaxy, and the Enterprise A made it to the galactic core in canon.
Not extensively, it pop out briefly and came back which I have to Include original Enterprise brief trip to Andromeda. STO had tendency to do ground breaking for it's time. However, these with Enterprise and her follow-on sisterships of later generations experiencing these incidents happened after words from STD.
However, were talking about Discovery, doing the incredible things  before Enterprise was taken over by Kirk. Last time I check, were also pointing out, that were suppose to be in less high-techish time period, galaxy hopping wasn't normal thing. Delta Quadrant was unheard of, so we run into this problem of Discovery re-writing Star Trek's primary lore for fast ratings, arguably cheapening older shows experiences for fans and wiping out lore.   CBS been arguing with player base this is the prime timeline, which it IS NOT.  Too much been re-done and re-imaged.  If Star Trek Enterprise can AT LEAST get the technology of USS Defiant, during that Mirror-Mirror universe episode done right, then they could have done it with Discovery.

My point, I won't jabber about again.  Is what
I've already disavowed any claims that ST:D is prime timeline or an actual prequel.  Any names are just a coincidence, yes including the supposed "Klingons".
What this guy said.  It's clearly, this is a reimaged Star Trek, this is CBS Canon universe, ITS prime timeline.  I suspect maybe if we the fan base wants to put it, it's they legally can't present the original Star Trek Timeline due to their break up with Viacom.  Movie rights and the Television rights were split down the middle.  That said, it's bad marketing to admit this whole new Trek universe and playing the vague game discounting this different from Gene Roddenberry's original telling of Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 12 September 2018, 07:39:38
Not Discovery related but still Star Trek and re- Picard coming back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe1hKZjCVyM

Whilst its just 'what ifs' and idea spitballing...honestly, i'd watch it.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 12 September 2018, 12:46:21
Disco going back in time before ST:TOS just really backed themselfs into a corner IMO. Its my problem with Prequels you just limit yourself. The ships look way more advanced than what they should be, and you changed the whole history that we know and love with Star Trek.  If they would of stayed in the Prime timeline, and in the future it would of been better to me.

I almost look at there are now 3 timelines with Star Trek and we will see what happens with the new shows coming out.
Prime.....Kelvin....and Disco. 
They redid the Enterprise and made it about 50% larger and made it look like the refit.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 12 September 2018, 13:13:54
To be honest I'm still surprised they didn't bother going forward in the timeline like STO have.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 12 September 2018, 13:24:28
To be honest I'm still surprised they didn't bother going forward in the timeline like STO have.

So then you haven't herd what STO's next update is gonna be called?

Age of Discovery (https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10962253-star-trek-online%3A-age-of-discovery)

And no, I'm not kidding...
So the Feddies are getting a third different starting arc (2410, TOS, DISCO), and I would imagine a DISCO event like the Delta, Temporal, and Gamma events. And from the description, even more temporal/dimensional shenanigans.

Oh joy...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 12 September 2018, 15:53:23
So then you haven't herd what STO's next update is gonna be called?

Age of Discovery (https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10962253-star-trek-online%3A-age-of-discovery)

And no, I'm not kidding...
So the Feddies are getting a third different starting arc (2410, TOS, DISCO), and I would imagine a DISCO event like the Delta, Temporal, and Gamma events. And from the description, even more temporal/dimensional shenanigans.

Oh joy...
Yeah I know, it's because OF the Star Trek Discovery, not because they planned to do that without ST:D in the first place.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 12 September 2018, 16:42:21
If Discovery was set in the TNG or bit past that era, i could possibly by what their doing with the show.  It's just off track city when it's in this early era.

I keep saying that in this topic. Ignoring the nonsense of Spocks halfsister and the looks of the Klingons the rest would be an interesting plot for a pos TNG/Nemesis series... (and were going to have that to add insult to injury...).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 21 September 2018, 20:30:37
If this is true (and interesting IMO) it explains a lot... (and hence my disdain of Discovery and curious about the new series with Picard).

https://youtu.be/jLl17YXrAZY?t=6 (https://youtu.be/jLl17YXrAZY?t=6)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 21 September 2018, 21:23:37
Staying way the hell outside of Rule 4 territory, but it should be noted that Les Moonves is no longer running CBS.  That won't affect things in the immediate since those contracts are signed, production's underway, and there's film in the can already.  Now...what this means for a year or two out from now, good bloody question.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 September 2018, 16:46:16
The spore drive is very intresting. I would just like to know why it never worked properly and was used on a starship in the "future". It would of been a great weapon vs the Dominion.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 22 September 2018, 20:32:17
Especially when it works remarkably well in both general movement and tactical situations, i.e. Discovery's Dragonball-Z-esque keep-teleporting-and-shooting the same ship.  You can't even track it.

I guess it's going to be part of the new Trek canon timeline, if that video's accurate (and plans aren't disrupted with Moonves being removed) to what CBS is doing.  Which, I suppose, we'll have jumpships instead of warpdrive in the future stories, unless Discovery's sunk with all hands at some point and the technology and its notes completely lost.  Not likely.

We'll see where Season 2 leaves us, especially with the report of budget-busting in the early episodes and apparent slashing of things later in the season.  Not that that's new to Star Trek at all, TOS was notorious for scraping budgets especially in S3.  Just how many bottle episodes did they have, again?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 23 September 2018, 12:22:56
We'll see where Season 2 leaves us, especially with the report of budget-busting in the early episodes and apparent slashing of things later in the season.  Not that that's new to Star Trek at all, TOS was notorious for scraping budgets especially in S3.  Just how many bottle episodes did they have, again?

And that is the (BIG) question my friend...

I hate most of the ideas of Discovery (which I made it clear in previous posts so wont bother to write them again) but at least one thing I must praise in season 1 its the production values of the series. Very beautiful to see and well made cinematography and so on...

If they cut that... were going to see TOS type of stories... one (or two) scenarios and stories that go around those two scenarios... in an already... disturbed (for me anyway) series.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 September 2018, 13:22:06
The spore drive is very intresting. I would just like to know why it never worked properly and was used on a starship in the "future". It would of been a great weapon vs the Dominion.

Maybe it's like Listen-Kill Missiles: super powerful for a short time but a new counter gets developed that quickly renders it useless.

Or the Klingons start hosing every Federation ship they encounter with anti-fungal spray.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 23 September 2018, 23:02:59
Or the Klingons decide to do a bit of well poisoning and render the mycelial network useless for EVERYONE.

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 24 September 2018, 04:30:41
Speaking of Star Trek, I'd gladly watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe1hKZjCVyM
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 25 September 2018, 18:08:16
The spore drive is very intresting. I would just like to know why it never worked properly and was used on a starship in the "future". It would of been a great weapon vs the Dominion.

I thought they explained that: while it "worked", it required a living being to control and navigate it, said being not faring too well under such use. So basically the Federation decided to never use it again for ethical reasons.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 September 2018, 23:09:49
I thought they explained that: while it "worked", it required a living being to control and navigate it, said being not faring too well under such use. So basically the Federation decided to never use it again for ethical reasons.
The same ethical reasons that kept the *Romulans*, Klingons, Gorn, and Harry Mudd from ever using it again?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 26 September 2018, 06:49:03
If this is true (and interesting IMO) it explains a lot... (and hence my disdain of Discovery and curious about the new series with Picard).

https://youtu.be/jLl17YXrAZY?t=6 (https://youtu.be/jLl17YXrAZY?t=6)
After watching this video, which I believe to be true since I've tracked what was going on with STD & problems with fan-based attempts to make stories in canon.  I believe Star Trek as we know it is dead. Unless they can pull copyright out of the grips of this crumbling hands of these media giants.  Copy right was severed, but I was shocked that IDIOT in charge hates scifi, even if he does get the boot...Trek is wrecked.  The Picard series can't even be based in current canon he was famous for!  Guy leading it isn't even fan of Star Trek.  So unless someone rescues it, it's dead as we knew it.

Hell, Disney would treated better these people.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 September 2018, 08:00:47
After watching this video, which I believe to be true since I've tracked what was going on with STD & problems with fan-based attempts to make stories in canon.  I believe Star Trek as we know it is dead. Unless they can pull copyright out of the grips of this crumbling hands of these media giants.  Copy right was severed, but I was shocked that IDIOT in charge hates scifi, even if he does get the boot...Trek is wrecked.  The Picard series can't even be based in current canon he was famous for!  Guy leading it isn't even fan of Star Trek.  So unless someone rescues it, it's dead as we knew it.

Hell, Disney would treated better these people.

I agree with most of everything you said there. Disco has changed a lot of the prior history that we all know and love for the last 50 years. It's the problem with the prequels and how it changes the story. I don't know much about the leadership of CBS and Paramount but if they could get together and tap the energy that Trekkes have they can make good story's and make a huge amounts of money for decades to come. They don't need to be all dark like a DC movie but not all light hearted like a TNG episode.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 September 2018, 08:18:38
Im pleased (and sad at the same time) that Im not the only one here with the opinion that the Star Trek I knew since I was a kid is dead... RIP.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 26 September 2018, 08:53:16
The only problem I have about the argument for it (Disco) looking wrong due to being high tech is this.  We have to remember that Star Trek was a low ass budget show, like super low budget (to the point they were borrowing costumes from theateres etc which is why we had so many nazi episodes or folks dressed as native americans and cowboy planets etc).  And it was also a 1960's vision of THE FUTURE!  (dum-dum-dum!)  So this meant swirly disk tapes, levers, ALL THE COLOURS and flashy buttons.

Remember that the jetsons thought we'd have space cities and the like in 2002.   - https://i.redditmedia.com/PoxDrPq-GVSYvvcVzknKa5-Q7HjR-QLKZ8vm11ySQlo.jpg?s=e6d4b17125a41c3f520f5522e14818b7

And if they tried to do that now, and tried to pass it off as the future for us now, we'd honestly laugh at it and it would look shit. Our expectations have changed and grown.  Aliens was 'the future of the 1980's' and Star Trek was '1960's/70's future' Our future = holoscreens, 3D displays etc.  so for me the visual changes make sense because in the year INSERT YEAR HERE assuming we've not nuked ourselves into obilvion or been eaten by an army of sentient cats and got to ST levels of tech then yeah, holoscreens etc would definately be a thing, or their successor or what ever.  It wouldnt' be spinny castettes, grinding gears, flashy buttons and offensively loud primary colour clothing.

Disco's problem wasn't its looks (apart from the Klingons, but that's an entirely different conversation) it was the characters and their interactions.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 September 2018, 08:59:23
Stuff

I disagree. One can update the visuals of an old show to current perception without mangling those visuals you want to... "improve".
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 26 September 2018, 09:19:53
Aliens was 'the future of the 1980's'

No, BattleTech is the future of the 1980s!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: marauder648 on 26 September 2018, 09:32:35
I think that if they went with Retrofuturistic 1970's in 23whateverdate then you'd be able to do it but only if the show wasn't taking itself seriously (see Orville which does it superbly, but its a comedy, not a serious and gritty space show.  Of they have cannonical reason to do so IE NuBSG where the Galactica was analogue as all hell.  With Trek they can't do this because we've seen the march of tech as the shows came on, and yeah it was a bit jarring to see all these super advanced holo displays etc.  But it worked fine visually with the Kelvin-verse ships and interiors etc. 

I just don't think that a serious show trying to pass off big pannels of flashy buttons and beep-boop computers as the future nowdays would work.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: monbvol on 26 September 2018, 12:33:43
Either way after having seen the show there was never any reason for them to have decided to proclaim ST:D a prequel in the prime time line.

For the exact same amount of effort they could have proclaimed it something else, called the aliens something other than Klingons*, and changed a few names/relations and it would have been fine while also preventing a lot of needless ill will from the fans.

*To be fair I agree they look terrible and probably need a redesign so the actors can actually express/emote and talk without sounding like they are causing themselves physical harm even if named something else.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 26 September 2018, 12:38:52
I disagree. One can update the visuals of an old show to current perception without mangling those visuals you want to... "improve".

Not without looking utter horrible and camp. The bridge of TOS was built on what their vision of the furture was on a shoestring budget, but the future went a different path.

I'd love to see a TOS script redone with today's production values, but keeping the whole plot and dialogue as it was, just with todays technology and advances in acting and camera work.

TOS only redeeming qualities is the stories and characters, the production value is mostly on the level of Plan 9 from outer Space.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 26 September 2018, 12:42:34
Not without looking utter horrible and camp. The bridge of TOS was built on what their vision of the furture was on a shoestring budget, but the future went a different path.

I'd love to see a TOS script redone with today's production values, but keeping the whole plot and dialogue as it was, just with todays technology and advances in acting and camera work.
like what JJ did for the Star Trek movies?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 26 September 2018, 12:57:34
If the video is correct, the issue is Paramount and CBS can't really use the main canon.  Original CBS/Viacom could use the original copy right, but they're not doing it.

Legally Movie rights absolutely can't use the original canon even if they wanted to.  Which is another tick of anger for old trek fan I am. This not unlike the events thatt FASA triggered for Battletech when they went they spun of their assets and shutdown. Splitting the copyrights 3-way till Sunday.  Now Star Trek franchise is going through the same thing, but at least Battletech's can use the original canon.

Anyways, sorry to distract.  I'm curious who their going install as Captain of Enterprise, since Spock's not on the ship for season 2, and Pike on Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 26 September 2018, 13:40:36
I'd love to see a TOS script redone with today's production values, but keeping the whole plot and dialogue as it was,


Does, that, include, the, Shatner comma?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 26 September 2018, 14:32:33
like what JJ did for the Star Trek movies?
Without the OMG lensflare and better sense of scale.
Those would be the first improvements I would of done for the KT films...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daemion on 30 September 2018, 07:19:20
I've already disavowed any claims that ST:D is prime timeline or an actual prequel.  Any names are just a coincidence, yes including the supposed "Klingons".

Midnight's Edge on youtube did a good article video on the state of the franchise and explains why you are generally correct, though the people at Paramount and CBS won't admit it.

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 30 September 2018, 08:30:43
Midnight's Edge on youtube did a good article video on the state of the franchise and explains why you are generally correct, though the people at Paramount and CBS won't admit it.
Denial first sign of guilt.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 24 November 2018, 21:36:32
Ok, I went and bought the first season dvd set...just got done watching it...

Overall, not bad...still not sure how well this truly fits into the original universe that it's supposed to be set in, and still REALLY don't like what they did to the Klingons or their ships, but other than that...not really bad...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 November 2018, 06:31:24
Ok, I went and bought the first season dvd set...just got done watching it...

Overall, not bad...still not sure how well this truly fits into the original universe that it's supposed to be set in, and still REALLY don't like what they did to the Klingons or their ships, but other than that...not really bad...

Ruger

It looks like there'll be TNG-style Klingons alongside the DISCO ones in series 2, as well as a TOS-Style D7.

(also, everyone should go check out Calypso, the second Short Trek.  It's fantastic)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 25 November 2018, 06:42:39
It looks like there'll be TNG-style Klingons alongside the DISCO ones in series 2, as well as a TOS-Style D7.

So, going the multiple sub-species of Klingon route, or something else?

Quote
(also, everyone should go check out Calypso, the second Short Trek.  It's fantastic)

Will see what I can do in between various other stuff...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 25 November 2018, 06:58:14
It looks like there'll be TNG-style Klingons alongside the DISCO ones in series 2, as well as a TOS-Style D7.

Can nobody involved with Trek just change their Klingons without turning it into a whole thing?

I mean, jeeze, just own it. You aren't going to make the complainers any happier trying to have it every way.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 November 2018, 09:22:59
Can nobody involved with Trek just change their Klingons without turning it into a whole thing?

I mean, jeeze, just own it. You aren't going to make the complainers any happier trying to have it every way.
To begin with, how do they explain showing the entire leadership of the Houses of the Empire looking like each other and not TNG or TOS style Klingons?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 25 November 2018, 10:38:46
It looks like there'll be TNG-style Klingons alongside the DISCO ones in series 2, as well as a TOS-Style D7.

Its getting ridiculous then... Cant see a good excuse for that to happen except... somekind of mumbo jumbo called timewarped distortion or some shit like that...  :crazy:

Quote
(also, everyone should go check out Calypso, the second Short Trek.  It's fantastic)

Already saw it... very interesting... both per se and in the grand scheme of things... IMO.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 25 November 2018, 11:23:59
Its getting ridiculous then... Cant see a good excuse for that to happen except... somekind of mumbo jumbo called timewarped distortion or some shit like that...  :crazy:

Here's a few ways I could see it happening, and keeping fairly true to what came before:

1) Changes to the timeline due to outside factors. More of a cop-out than anything else though. Way too clichéd and over-used.

2) Multiple sub-species of Klingons. Hard to reconcile why they would not have been revealed before though. Would help to explain the different ships as each group has its own dominant designs.

3) The Disco Klingons were an experiment in trying to overcome the side effects of the cure to the augment virus from Enterprise. Their failure in the war (or just how they ended up fracturing the Empire) led to discontinuing of their lines, restoring the Klingons to both the standard original movie/TNG/DS9/Voy era Klingons, and those affected by the cure to the augment virus. The latter come to dominate the Empire for the next decade or two as it focuses on the Federation, explaining why they are the only ones seen in TOS. This doesn't explain the vastly different ship styles between Disco and what came before.

4) Disco actually is actually an alternate universe from both the Prime and Kelvin universes. This could actually go with any of the above as well.

5) Something else entirely, and distinct from the above.

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 November 2018, 11:35:20
3)  and those affected by the cure to the augment virus. The latter come to dominate the Empire for the next decade or two as it focuses on the Federation, explaining why they are the only ones seen in TOS.
Ruger
actually a better explanation was, not that the Empire was dominated by them, but that the Empire chose to send them or let them to deploy on Klingon-Federation border to seek an honorable death or redeem their shame for having contracted the virus and then having to take the cure.  There was no need to have them be the dominant ethnic of the Empire, simply that they were most widely deployed on the border with Federation.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 25 November 2018, 11:39:33
actually a better explanation was, not that the Empire was dominated by them, but that the Empire chose to send them or let them to deploy on Klingon-Federation border to seek an honorable death or redeem their shame for having contracted the virus and then having to take the cure.  There was no need to have them be the dominant ethnic of the Empire, simply that they were most widely deployed on the border with Federation.

True...sounds better too...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Weirdo on 25 November 2018, 11:44:45
...as well as a TOS-Style D7.

Don't give a flying hoot about the species thing., but if they have a decent explanation for the D7 slap to the face, I may consider borrowing someone else's DVDs of this.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 November 2018, 12:05:02
Here's a few ways I could see it happening, and keeping fairly true to what came before:

1) Changes to the timeline due to outside factors. More of a cop-out than anything else though. Way too clichéd and over-used.

2) Multiple sub-species of Klingons. Hard to reconcile why they would not have been revealed before though. Would help to explain the different ships as each group has its own dominant designs.

3) The Disco Klingons were an experiment in trying to overcome the side effects of the cure to the augment virus from Enterprise. Their failure in the war (or just how they ended up fracturing the Empire) led to discontinuing of their lines, restoring the Klingons to both the standard original movie/TNG/DS9/Voy era Klingons, and those affected by the cure to the augment virus. The latter come to dominate the Empire for the next decade or two as it focuses on the Federation, explaining why they are the only ones seen in TOS. This doesn't explain the vastly different ship styles between Disco and what came before.

4) Disco actually is actually an alternate universe from both the Prime and Kelvin universes. This could actually go with any of the above as well.

5) Something else entirely, and distinct from the above.

Ruger

It's already (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xka6IYCpj4E) been explained.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 November 2018, 12:38:08
So, going the multiple sub-species of Klingon route, or something else?

I'm assuming they'll just have Klingons with hair.  We don't need any sort of explanation.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Liam's Ghost on 25 November 2018, 17:39:20
2) Multiple sub-species of Klingons. Hard to reconcile why they would not have been revealed before though. Would help to explain the different ships as each group has its own dominant designs.

The Klingon Empire is secretly ruled by Deadpool. Whenever his medium awareness (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MediumAwareness) kicks in and lets him know a new series is about to start, he orders a new, completely different generation of klingons created both for marketing purposes and to argue with fans on message boards in the Q Continuum. Unsurprisingly, Q is a fan of TNG Klingons, while Q prefers the originals, and surprisingly Q is a huge fan of the new Disco variety (though he was also a big Babylon Five fan, so the liking the most drazi-like version isn't really a shock).

It's already (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xka6IYCpj4E) been explained.

I would have adored it if they'd just left things like that and never spoke of it again. Just a whimsical nod to the past (like the entire episode in general) without it becoming a whole thing.

Now we've got augment klingons and disco klingons and movie klingons and tng klingons...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 25 November 2018, 18:19:49
To begin with, how do they explain showing the entire leadership of the Houses of the Empire looking like each other and not TNG or TOS style Klingons?

Well, for starters, they didn't show "the entire leadership of the Houses of the Empire"; they showed like 3 or 4 of the 24. So that gives them a lot of room to play.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 November 2018, 20:18:50
Well, for starters, they didn't show "the entire leadership of the Houses of the Empire"; they showed like 3 or 4 of the 24. So that gives them a lot of room to play.
Well, that's a little better.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 25 November 2018, 20:54:43
I thought they had noted somewhere that noe one was using old canon universe because legal reasons.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 November 2018, 22:08:15
I thought they had noted somewhere that noe one was using old canon universe because legal reasons.
CBS can only use the shows and Paramount can only use the movies.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 26 November 2018, 00:20:16
CBS can only use the shows and Paramount can only use the movies.

I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, thought.

Like, I'm fairly certain CBS can use the TOS and TNG movie canon as well as the TV shows' canon.

And I'm likewise fairly certain that Paramount could use the TOS and TNG movie canon, although they obviously chose not to do so.

I'm not aware of any place where any official statement of who could use what has ever been made. There's a lot of speculation and assumptions out there and I just don't know exactly what's correct and what's not.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 26 November 2018, 05:58:02
I just wish in Discovery they would show more flybys and ships of the all fleets. They seemed like that was missed over the last season. Make it a little brighter also. I know space is dark, but Im not in space and need to see a battle.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 26 November 2018, 14:27:17
I would have adored it if they'd just left things like that...

Thats my opinion also...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 26 November 2018, 19:45:22
I don't think it's as clear-cut as that, thought.

Like, I'm fairly certain CBS can use the TOS and TNG movie canon as well as the TV shows' canon.

And I'm likewise fairly certain that Paramount could use the TOS and TNG movie canon, although they obviously chose not to do so.

I'm not aware of any place where any official statement of who could use what has ever been made. There's a lot of speculation and assumptions out there and I just don't know exactly what's correct and what's not.
wasn't Michael Okuda responsible for maintaining/organizing cannon?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 27 November 2018, 08:16:52
wasn't Michael Okuda responsible for maintaining/organizing cannon?

Yes... unless something changed.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 27 November 2018, 18:12:44
Yes... unless something changed.

At one point this was true, but I don’t think Okuda has worked on any official ST production in at least a decade.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 27 November 2018, 20:07:31
The Saru Short Trek looked really good and very different from all the other ones. Doug Jones is a awesome actor glad they are giving him something.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bedwyr on 28 November 2018, 15:21:35
wasn't Michael Okuda responsible for maintaining/organizing cannon?

*canon


(not meant in a disparaging way; just a mild correction)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 28 November 2018, 16:18:31
*canon


(not meant in a disparaging way; just a mild correction)

Maybe he meant...(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffiftiesweb.com%2Ftv%2Fcannon-conrad1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffiftiesweb.com%2Ftv%2Fcannon%2F&docid=jPrGiWxkNxcQAM&tbnid=TRM2ORGG-7-QEM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjO_ab58_feAhXkxYMKHfdOAakQMwhZKAkwCQ..i&w=198&h=250&bih=722&biw=1364&q=cannon%20tv%20show&ved=0ahUKEwjO_ab58_feAhXkxYMKHfdOAakQMwhZKAkwCQ&iact=mrc&uact=8)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Bedwyr on 28 November 2018, 19:59:46
Maybe he meant...(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffiftiesweb.com%2Ftv%2Fcannon-conrad1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffiftiesweb.com%2Ftv%2Fcannon%2F&docid=jPrGiWxkNxcQAM&tbnid=TRM2ORGG-7-QEM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjO_ab58_feAhXkxYMKHfdOAakQMwhZKAkwCQ..i&w=198&h=250&bih=722&biw=1364&q=cannon%20tv%20show&ved=0ahUKEwjO_ab58_feAhXkxYMKHfdOAakQMwhZKAkwCQ&iact=mrc&uact=8)

Ha.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 28 November 2018, 23:26:29
I am old enough that I am happy I can take a poop unassisted still. Grammar Nazi's can [Censored because I'm retired Navy. I know cuss words in 3 languages...I think] :D *snorts in amusement* what are we talking about again. Oh Mike O. I honestly didn't think he was into Star Trek in his life at this point because of how... whored out the IP is. In many ways, BT shares similar baggage (but a lot less financial worth) to Star Trek's discombulated IP status.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 30 November 2018, 17:07:55
At one point this was true, but I don’t think Okuda has worked on any official ST production in at least a decade.

He hasn't been a consultant since Enterprise finished up, but he's written or co-written a few books and worked on the TOS and TNG remasters since then.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 10 December 2018, 11:24:26
Okay this isn't about Discovery, but since this is the newest Trek thread I thought I'd share it here:

https://comicbook.com/startrek/amp/2018/12/09/star-trek-axanar-resumes-production/ (https://comicbook.com/startrek/amp/2018/12/09/star-trek-axanar-resumes-production/)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 10 December 2018, 15:56:11
*yahn* It was a fun idea until one particular [Censored] made a complete mess of it with their finances... now Axanar is irrelevant because not even the GOOD fan shows are active. It's like how Harmony Gold would smite anything fanfic but Paramount & CBS actually jointly owns the collective IP of Star Trek (as well as actually doing something with it). Not interested in a fanfic that is administratively and politically gelded horse...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 10 December 2018, 16:59:19
*yahn* It was a fun idea until one particular [Censored] made a complete mess of it with their finances... now Axanar is irrelevant because not even the GOOD fan shows are active. It's like how Harmony Gold would smite anything fanfic but Paramount & CBS actually jointly owns the collective IP of Star Trek (as well as actually doing something with it). Not interested in a fanfic that is administratively and politically gelded horse...
well yeah now that Axanar has been reformatted to the new "FanFic" rules in order to move forward, it would be somewhat different.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 10 December 2018, 17:51:34
They blead their money fighting those morons to with all those legal fees. I hope they're able to get something through.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 10 December 2018, 18:14:28
I don't understand why people get mad at the IP holders for suing someone wanting to use that IP without permission to make a large production.

Axanar isn't some small-time fan production like what usually gets rightly ignored, they ran a kisckstarter to raise a bunch of money to hire real actors and a real production crew making real sets and props, and they got a ton of press.

And don't forget, even if their swag didn't Say Star Trek on it, they were still using the production of Axanar to sell all kinds of things, so they were still making money off the Star Trek IP even if indirectly.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 10 December 2018, 18:21:46
I don't understand why people get mad at the IP holders for suing someone wanting to use that IP without permission to make a large production.

Axanar isn't some small-time fan production like what usually gets rightly ignored, they ran a kisckstarter to raise a bunch of money to hire real actors and a real production crew making real sets and props, and they got a ton of press.

And don't forget, even if their swag didn't Say Star Trek on it, they were still using the production of Axanar to sell all kinds of things, so they were still making money off the Star Trek IP even if indirectly.
Yeah, but it doesn't change one fact; ST: DISCO is set in the same time frame as Axanar. And you know a lot of nitpickers will point that out.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 10 December 2018, 18:27:26
I don't understand why people get mad at the IP holders for suing someone wanting to use that IP without permission to make a large production.

Axanar isn't some small-time fan production like what usually gets rightly ignored, they ran a kisckstarter to raise a bunch of money to hire real actors and a real production crew making real sets and props, and they got a ton of press.

And don't forget, even if their swag didn't Say Star Trek on it, they were still using the production of Axanar to sell all kinds of things, so they were still making money off the Star Trek IP even if indirectly.
and that's why I'm mad at Axanar: Their very hubris is what killed the other legitimate fan productions. Yes, the IP holders would have done the same thing (demand that the fans stop playing & start PAYING) but it would have not been so political. That Axanar fought the IP holders into a ugly settlement still did the damage: Star Trek Beyond suffered greatly at the box office because the fans were angry at Paramount & CBS (the typical piss-poor marketing was only one nail in the JJ-Trek series coffin)… Why? Somebody has to be them in the story...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 10 December 2018, 21:30:13
Like the live action Transformers movies, the new Star Trek movies are really intended for general box office flicks, not something intended for fans of the original series.  There aren't enough people in the world who care about (or have even heard about) Axanar to have affected Star Trek: Beyond's box office performance.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: roosterboy on 10 December 2018, 21:34:19
Yeah, but it doesn't change one fact; ST: DISCO is set in the same time frame as Axanar. And you know a lot of nitpickers will point that out.

Well, idiots gonna idiot. Nothing you can do about that and there’s no point worrying about it.

That Axanar fought the IP holders into a ugly settlement still did the damage: Star Trek Beyond suffered greatly at the box office because the fans were angry at Paramount & CBS

Ha ha, no.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 13 December 2018, 21:28:44
Well we have trailers for Season 2 now:

https://youtu.be/x6eoD9rQHL4 (https://youtu.be/x6eoD9rQHL4)
https://youtu.be/GeIANVHJtfU (https://youtu.be/GeIANVHJtfU)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 14 December 2018, 06:41:13
Very different Season 2 trailer.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 14 December 2018, 17:05:09
Hmm... looks like Michelle Yeoh is back, so I may have to track down the episodes she's in.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 17 January 2019, 12:00:37
People outside the US and Canada:  Netflix has just added the 4 Short Treks.  Go to DISCO's section, then hit Trailers and Other, and they're at the end of the list.

I strongly recommend checking them out. Calypso, the second one is one of the best pieces of SF I've seen in a long time.  It might  make my all-time top 10 Star Trek episodes.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 17 January 2019, 16:48:01
Michelle Yeoh is getting her own spin-off series set after her "return" to the Prime universe. Probably while acting as an agent of Section 31.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 17 January 2019, 17:51:32
Memory Alpha are explicitly calling it a Section 31 show
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 17 January 2019, 18:00:51
Also starting next week in Star Trek Online, Age of Discovery shifts to Mirror of Discovery (https://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/11055623-mirror-of-discovery-launches-january-23rd%21). There's gonna be two additional Discovery Missions and the Mirror Universe version of Tilly, voiced by Mary Wiseman, appearing. All running along STO's ninth Anniversary.

Also there is gonna be ST: D Mirror Universe outfits available, but they're Lobi only.  :(
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 17 January 2019, 18:21:27
Michelle Yeoh is getting her own spin-off series set after her "return" to the Prime universe. Probably while acting as an agent of Section 31.
Sweet!  I'll definitely have to check that out!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Dragon Cat on 18 January 2019, 07:07:33
Great start tp season two
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 18 January 2019, 07:15:14
I felt they maybe overcompensated on series 1 criticism - I liked most of the jokes, but they were sorta overkill by the end.  The main plot was cool, the new arc is intriguing, Pike was cool, I like nunuSpock's voice at least.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: YingJanshi on 18 January 2019, 13:25:35
Hm, an interesting review of the season premiere. Not sure I like this direction...

https://mashable.com/article/star-trek-discovery-star-wars/ (https://mashable.com/article/star-trek-discovery-star-wars/)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 18 January 2019, 23:44:30
Pike is a welcome breath of fresh air for the show. It seemed like he took over the show and made it better for the crew to rally around. I wish this episode would of been more of a starter then the first episode of season 1.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 20 January 2019, 14:02:48
Still don't get who driving Enterprise while he runs off to command Discovery.  Kirk now in command?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Firesprocket on 20 January 2019, 16:04:10
Still don't get who driving Enterprise while he runs off to command Discovery.  Kirk now in command?
I just got the DVD set for xmas and powered through the first season and saw the trailer posted for the second season so I know Pike is the now the captain of Discovery.  However does it really matter at this point who is Captain of the Enterprise is at this point (without throwing out any spoiler of season 2)?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 20 January 2019, 16:08:23
Still don't get who driving Enterprise while he runs off to command Discovery.  Kirk now in command?

I thought that was very clearly explained in the season opener.

The Enterprise will be in drydock for a long time, thus needs no real driver while it's laid up.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 20 January 2019, 16:16:49
Kirk now in command?
Of course he is, and this time he even made it to Ensign before they gave him the captain's chair!  ::)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 20 January 2019, 22:35:29
https://mashable.com/article/star-trek-discovery-star-wars/ (https://mashable.com/article/star-trek-discovery-star-wars/)
That screams out as someone who will never be pleased. He clearly has one vision of what it must look like and anything else is a failure to him.

I watched that episode and never got a sense that I was watching Star Wars.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 20 January 2019, 23:35:47
I think you've just described every fandom everywhere.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 21 January 2019, 03:11:24
Is there anything in prior canon about Pike having had a command after Enterprise?  Or that Enterprise had another captain between Pike and Kirk?

Cheers, Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 21 January 2019, 03:39:31
Is there anything in prior canon about Pike having had a command after Enterprise?  Or that Enterprise had another captain between Pike and Kirk?

Cheers, Gabe

According to Memory Alpha, Kirk took command of Enterprise immediately after Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.  Star Trek.com says this was in 2262.  The Menagerie takes place in 2267, with Pike's accident in the middle.  For reference, DISCO series 2 is 2257

(edit for slight correction, DISCO series 1 was 2256, series 2 is 2257)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 21 January 2019, 05:57:38
According to Memory Alpha, Kirk took command of Enterprise immediately after Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.  Star Trek.com says this was in 2262.  The Menagerie takes place in 2267, with Pike's accident in the middle.  For reference, DISCO series 2 is 2256

I think the Lore and prior history can be thrown out the window. There was no huge war between the Federation and the Klingons, it was some small battles and a cold war...but nothing to the scope that had the Federation to the breaking point.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 21 January 2019, 06:15:32
I think the Lore and prior history can be thrown out the window. There was no huge war between the Federation and the Klingons, it was some small battles and a cold war...but nothing to the scope that had the Federation to the breaking point.

Supposedly, the Four Years War (back when that was a thing) happened near enough to the time of Kirk that Garth of Izar was still the relatively young man we see in the original series...the actor that played him in "Whom Gods Destroy" was in his mid-30's when the episode was filmed, and if he had been in prison for a few years prior, that conflict would match up well to the conflict shown in Discovery...additionally, the Four Years War has always been described as very hard on the Federation, with the klingons penetrating deep into federation space...

No, I think we can discount this part of the argument...maybe it doesn't match exactly with what was "known" from before, but it's not that far off either...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 21 January 2019, 08:46:34
Franchise is being handled by people who aren't exactly carrying about accruacy or even quality of story anymore.  The original Star Trek was written by authors, who were pretty darn good at writing science fiction novels aside from Roddenberry himself.

I squarely blame state of things on the ownership, it has been reported multiple times that head guy who runs CBS barely has inkling of what Star Trek was about.

When the Fan-Made stuff becomes superior to what is being made by the property owners, it that kinda sends off alarm bells except for the people who don't care. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 21 January 2019, 08:57:39
Franchise is being handled by people who aren't exactly carrying about accruacy or even quality of story anymore.  The original Star Trek was written by authors, who were pretty darn good at writing science fiction novels aside from Roddenberry himself.

Yeah, what do Joe Menosky, Kristen Beyer and Nicholas Meyer know about Star Trek?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 21 January 2019, 09:01:14
Yeah, what do Joe Menosky, Kristen Beyer and Nicholas Meyer know about Star Trek?
I meant when they got Discovery started.  You didn't think it was their choice to make Klingons look completely different from what they've been portrayed for last 30 years right?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 21 January 2019, 10:19:15
I meant when they got Discovery started.  You didn't think it was their choice to make Klingons look completely different from what they've been portrayed for last 30 years right?

Like when they changed how the Klingons looked in TMP?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: hoosierhick on 21 January 2019, 10:29:35
I thought the Four Years War was something FASA cane up with for their Star Trek game?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 21 January 2019, 11:34:51
Like when they changed how the Klingons looked in TMP?
natural progression in the make up. Problem with Discovery was that you can not SEE a link with the Klingons of previous shows and movies. And the discovery makeup was actually very restrictive on the actors, impeding their speech and expressions.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 21 January 2019, 12:00:55
Just where does it say that:

A) Pike won't be reassigned to the Enteprise once it is repaired and his current mission/assignment is over?
B) That a ship captain is reassigned to other duties while his vessel is out of comission?

Kirk was not assigned to the Enterprise when it was under repairs (Heck, he STOLE it to get it back).
Also, nothing in this storyline in Discovery is invalidating that Pike captained the Enterprise when Kirk took over. It's years in the future from where Discovery is right now.

It was made pretty clear that commanding the Enterprise was "a big deal", and the reassignment was so that Pike could continue his current missions to investigate the red light thingiebobs. Which is why he was reassigned to the captaincy of the Discovery over the Saru - the mission was important enough to bypass Saru's rank.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 21 January 2019, 12:43:18
natural progression in the make up. Problem with Discovery was that you can not SEE a link with the Klingons of previous shows and movies. And the discovery makeup was actually very restrictive on the actors, impeding their speech and expressions.

There's a natural progression from blackface to melting a mars bar on someone's head?

And the makeup restricting the actors is... Well, I suppose it might be a thing, except that Mary Cheiffo did her L'Rell voice out of the makeup and it sounded pretty much the same, and ADR is a thing if the sound in the studio wasn't good (and there are scenes they clearly redubbed later).  And Burnham and Tyler pronounced Kahless with an sh sound at the  end just like the Klingons did without having prosthetics.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kentares on 21 January 2019, 12:49:01
They keep mangling the established canon setting (from whatever source) for the sake of having some action with lame ass excuses... seems I'm more demanding than most of you guys (yeah... must be that because I feel the same about the new Star Wars trilogy).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 21 January 2019, 12:57:46
Like when they changed how the Klingons looked in TMP?

How did Voltaire put it?

And what is with the Klingons?
Remember in the day
They looked like Puerto Ricans
And they dressed in gold lame
Now they look like heavy metal rockers from the dead
With frizzy hair
And leather pants
And lobsters on their heads
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 21 January 2019, 18:08:58
if you look at the old novels there is actually (and arguably the enterprise series) there is an explanation of the variant Klingons.  I am not saying its a wonderful explanation for the numbers, but it was there.

basically in the explanation the Klingons had groups that weren't all about genetic purity, so they were mixing genetics with other races to see what happened.

so Arguably the original skin tint makeup Klingons were a combination of human Klingon hybrids and augment virus infected Klingon results/children.  when you started running into the TMP/TNG skull ridge Klingons what you were actually seeing was essentially more pure strain Klingons.

you could also argue that the disco klingons are another offshoot branch although I couldn't tell you exactly what they were mixed with.  I would also argur that ALL the house leaders shouldn't have been unified as whatever the new Klingons are, except in a lot of ways it is a retcon of the universe. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 21 January 2019, 18:20:27
you could also argue that the disco klingons are another offshoot branch although I couldn't tell you exactly what they were mixed with.
Gorn?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 21 January 2019, 19:34:56
The  Klingon War in Discovery was a lot less than 4 years....from what I guess it was about 10 months to a year. The first episode was the start. Discovery picked up Burnham about 2 months in, Lorca stuff and a different universe a couple of months, then overshooting the destination by 8 months with the Federation losing bad. Timeline stuff really went haywire....but that is what happens when you do a prequel. Same thing with Enterprise NX-01 meeting the Klingons in 2151, but the original time line was 2218.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 21 January 2019, 19:53:40
The  Klingon War in Discovery was a lot less than 4 years....from what I guess it was about 10 months to a year. The first episode was the start. Discovery picked up Burnham about 2 months in, Lorca stuff and a different universe a couple of months, then overshooting the destination by 8 months with the Federation losing bad. Timeline stuff really went haywire....but that is what happens when you do a prequel. Same thing with Enterprise NX-01 meeting the Klingons in 2151, but the original time line was 2218.

Which "original timeline"?

Also, per "Balance of Terror", the Earth-Romulan War was fought with what those in TOS would consider primitive weapons (nukes) that allowed no quarter, and there were no visual communications...even in "The Cage"/"The Menagerie", Pike's people were armed with lasers, not phasers...and Enterprise put paid to that well before the Earth-Romulan War...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 21 January 2019, 19:55:10
Which "original timeline"?

Also, per "Balance of Terror", the Earth-Romulan War was fought with what those in TOS would consider primitive weapons (nukes) that allowed no quarter, and there were no visual communications...even in "The Cage"/"The Menagerie", Pike's people were armed with lasers, not phasers...and Enterprise put paid to that well before the Earth-Romulan War...

Ruger
There was NO visual communication... officially. And the cloaking in Enterprise was a MISTAKE and the producers admitted that. That's why that specific thing for the Romulans was never repeated again.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 21 January 2019, 20:53:24
There was NO visual communication... officially. And the cloaking in Enterprise was a MISTAKE and the producers admitted that. That's why that specific thing for the Romulans was never repeated again.

Where did I mention cloaking in my post?

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: R.Tempest on 22 January 2019, 02:05:56
 In TOS timeline Kirk would be Lieutenant at this point - either on the USS Republic (referenced in Court Martial) or on the USS Farragut (referenced in the episode with the blood-drinking cloud entity).
 On an unrelated humorous note it's a shame that Tilly got promoted. Yes she certainly deserved it, but no one has quite epitomized `Space Cadet' as well as her.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 22 January 2019, 08:28:54
In TOS timeline Kirk would be Lieutenant at this point - either on the USS Republic (referenced in Court Martial) or on the USS Farragut (referenced in the episode with the blood-drinking cloud entity).
 On an unrelated humorous note it's a shame that Tilly got promoted. Yes she certainly deserved it, but no one has quite epitomized `Space Cadet' as well as her.

Tilly is a little drunk with power now. She is just a first year ensign. There are hundreds of other people on that ship that have been there longer with more rank that would create a problem. Star Trek has always had that under rank person with a lot more power then they should...at least Harry Kim was part of the command staff and the bridge crew. Tilly dont have that I know of.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 22 January 2019, 08:34:14
Pike is a welcome breath of fresh air for the show. It seemed like he took over the show and made it better for the crew to rally around. I wish this episode would of been more of a starter then the first episode of season 1.

This interpretation of Pike is too informal and easygoing, IMO.  He probably comes closest to the "cowboy in space" that Gene Rodenberry originally envisioned.  OTOH, he also seems pretty unflappable under pressure, which is an invaluable trait in a commander.

(And they even made him look a bit like Bruce Greenwood's version of the character too)

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 22 January 2019, 08:37:29
Tilly is a little drunk with power now. She is just a first year ensign. There are hundreds of other people on that ship that have been there longer with more rank that would create a problem. Star Trek has always had that under rank person with a lot more power then they should...at least Harry Kim was part of the command staff and the bridge crew. Tilly dont have that I know of.

I would so love it if Tilly turned out to be a Section 31 agent and the whole chatterbox thing is just an act--with a real personality a lot closer to the Mirror Universe version that murdered her way to command of Discovery.

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 22 January 2019, 10:47:08
Just where does it say that:

A) Pike won't be reassigned to the Enteprise once it is repaired and his current mission/assignment is over?
B) That a ship captain is reassigned to other duties while his vessel is out of comission?

Kirk was not assigned to the Enterprise when it was under repairs (Heck, he STOLE it to get it back).
Also, nothing in this storyline in Discovery is invalidating that Pike captained the Enterprise when Kirk took over. It's years in the future from where Discovery is right now.

It was made pretty clear that commanding the Enterprise was "a big deal", and the reassignment was so that Pike could continue his current missions to investigate the red light thingiebobs. Which is why he was reassigned to the captaincy of the Discovery over the Saru - the mission was important enough to bypass Saru's rank.

Pike certainly could be reassigned to the Enterprise once it's functional again.  But the key point here is that there's a loophole in canon that's been exploited here.  Up until this point, it looked like Pike commanded the Enterprise right up until his promotion to Fleet Captain (a now apparently obsolete rank, like Commodore) and command was turned over to Kirk.

I was pretty stunned at the revelation that the Enterprise didn't participate in the war against the Klingons and was considered "a weapon of last resort".  If the Federation was as badly on the ropes as implied, EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUTION-CLASS VESSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED.  Compared to Discovery, what is so special about it that Starfleet considered it too valuable to lose?

(well, besides that fact that all further canon depends on its continued existence...)

cheers,

Gabe
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 22 January 2019, 11:17:33
Where did I mention cloaking in my post?


We couldn't see it, it was cloaked.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 January 2019, 11:22:51

I was pretty stunned at the revelation that the Enterprise didn't participate in the war against the Klingons and was considered "a weapon of last resort".  If the Federation was as badly on the ropes as implied, EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUTION-CLASS VESSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED.  Compared to Discovery, what is so special about it that Starfleet considered it too valuable to lose?

(well, besides that fact that all further canon depends on its continued existence...)


That line was a bit WTF for me too, given the Klingons were depicted as being in the Sol system by the time L'Rell managed to call them off.  And like, there's a novel coming out in July about what the Enterprise did during the war - apparently they were out of contact with Earth and stuck in the middle of a conflict inside a tumultuous region of deep space - and the DISCO novels and comics are meant to be canon unless the show contradicts them, Kirsten Beyer is acting as liaison between the show, Pocket Books and IDW to ensure continuity is as smooth as possible,
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 22 January 2019, 12:05:48
Oh, good. now (select and favoritism-ism'd) comics and books are cannon... this can't end poorly, can it not?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 January 2019, 12:29:26
Oh, good. now (select and favoritism-ism'd) comics and books are cannon... this can't end poorly, can it not?

It's the standard for media tie-ins at the moment.  All the new Star Wars novels are canon in a way the EU never was.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 22 January 2019, 13:17:29
They're only canon until the show's writers want to do something different.  I really doubt they're going to consult the comic books as reference material for the show.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 22 January 2019, 13:21:13
That line was a bit WTF for me too, given the Klingons were depicted as being in the Sol system by the time L'Rell managed to call them off.  And like, there's a novel coming out in July about what the Enterprise did during the war - apparently they were out of contact with Earth and stuck in the middle of a conflict inside a tumultuous region of deep space - and the DISCO novels and comics are meant to be canon unless the show contradicts them, Kirsten Beyer is acting as liaison between the show, Pocket Books and IDW to ensure continuity is as smooth as possible,

IIRC, the Fasa RPG timeline for The Four Years War also had the Constitution-class ships withdrawn from fighting in the war due to their value in other capacities...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: gyedid on 22 January 2019, 13:32:12
IIRC, the Fasa RPG timeline for The Four Years War also had the Constitution-class ships withdrawn from fighting in the war due to their value in other capacities...

Ruger

So, do you think that one or more of the writers/producers/etc. played that game and got a good deal of their inspiration for developing the DISCO storyline from it?

Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Ruger on 22 January 2019, 14:01:15
So, do you think that one or more of the writers/producers/etc. played that game and got a good deal of their inspiration for developing the DISCO storyline from it?

Not saying that. Just trying to indicate that a lot of this stuff people are fussing about does have similarities to various things published in the past...

Still doesn't stop me from hating the look of the first season Klingons and most especially their ships (actually, virtually all the ships excepting the Enterprise)...

Ruger
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 22 January 2019, 15:10:21
They're only canon until the show's writers want to do something different.  I really doubt they're going to consult the comic books as reference material for the show.

It's more they're working with the writers to ensure they don't step on the main storytellers' toes, I think. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 23 January 2019, 13:11:05
I just don't understand the hold back of the Connie's and the other ships of the class. I dont think all of them were out on their mission during the time of the war. You have a enemy that is kicking your butt all the way back to the core and wipe you off of it, and you don't want to use your best ships to defend it. I know the Connie's are above and beyond anything the Feds had up to that point, and could change the war for the better and you keep them behind and away. IMO the Discovery and the Spore drive and the ability to jump from one side of the universe to the other is the biggest asset the Feds had, and should of used it better but Lorca had something to do with that.
Sometimes the people that run Starfleet do some of the dumbest tactical moves to the level of First Order in Episode 7 and 8 of Star Wars. I know its for plot and story telling.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: guardiandashi on 23 January 2019, 18:27:02
I just don't understand the hold back of the Connie's and the other ships of the class. I dont think all of them were out on their mission during the time of the war. You have a enemy that is kicking your butt all the way back to the core and wipe you off of it, and you don't want to use your best ships to defend it. I know the Connie's are above and beyond anything the Feds had up to that point, and could change the war for the better and you keep them behind and away. IMO the Discovery and the Spore drive and the ability to jump from one side of the universe to the other is the biggest asset the Feds had, and should of used it better but Lorca had something to do with that.
Sometimes the people that run Starfleet do some of the dumbest tactical moves to the level of First Order in Episode 7 and 8 of Star Wars. I know its for plot and story telling.
in one sense I do get holding them back as the last line of defense of the core worlds, but they held them a bit too long for that also.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 23 January 2019, 22:05:51
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8jHQzB9gw4

LOL, Doomcock does not hold back his ridicule of Season 2 so far...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: GreyWolfActual on 23 January 2019, 22:15:01
Is there something special about this guy? He seems to have relatively few followers but an extremely rabid hated of Discovery.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 24 January 2019, 01:14:00
Is there something special about this guy? He seems to have relatively few followers but an extremely rabid hated of Discovery.
IDK. One of his videos just appeared randomly on my feed and after I watched one, I liked it (his concept). his shick reminded me of older 60 & 70's era Saturday Afternoon local TV hosts like Superhost, Big Chuck & Little John and The Ghoul Show. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 24 January 2019, 13:04:59
Is there something special about this guy?
He is said to have sources and he is quite well known in the YT media review community.
Also the gimmick is quite hilarious.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 January 2019, 00:30:48
Some people have a fanitical devotion to the show, some hate it with a passion. I guess it is like things I things in the world, there is no middle anymore
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: BirdofPrey on 25 January 2019, 04:58:28
I just don't understand the hold back of the Connie's and the other ships of the class. I dont think all of them were out on their mission during the time of the war. You have a enemy that is kicking your butt all the way back to the core and wipe you off of it, and you don't want to use your best ships to defend it. I know the Connie's are above and beyond anything the Feds had up to that point, and could change the war for the better and you keep them behind and away. IMO the Discovery and the Spore drive and the ability to jump from one side of the universe to the other is the biggest asset the Feds had, and should of used it better but Lorca had something to do with that.
Sometimes the people that run Starfleet do some of the dumbest tactical moves to the level of First Order in Episode 7 and 8 of Star Wars. I know its for plot and story telling.
I mean, this is the same Starfleet has sent multiple Enterprises in various states of disrepair on dangerous missions for being the only ship in the sector despite proximity to a starbase.
Not that it excuses some dubious explanations for Discovery related stuff, but there's always been plenty of stupidity to go around in Star Trek.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 January 2019, 05:06:25
Some people have a fanitical devotion to the show, some hate it with a passion. I guess it is like things I things in the world, there is no middle anymore

I think most people who watch the show either like or don't mind it, they just don't have strongly held opinions and as such don't post loads about it online.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 25 January 2019, 07:53:22
As far the dumb things Starfleet is doing at the mercy of different writers. Thing is old TOS was written people who may been exposed to War like Gene who was pilot during WW2.

The people who were writing the DISCO are like not.  Frankly to stay consistant with anything you want have only one or two main writers or show runners who knows what kind tale their telling.  The head people are gone now. Now season two seems more like own series writing wise than last one.

That my opinion.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: HobbesHurlbut on 25 January 2019, 08:27:11
I think most people who watch the show either like or don't mind it, they just don't have strongly held opinions and as such don't post loads about it online.
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/07/23/a-funny-thing-happened-to-star-trek-discovery-editorial/
I don't know about you but when Discovery is trying to copy some of what seem to make Orville more successful than DISCO(detailed by that editorial), I wonder if it's because they're getting fewer views compared to Orville (a million more per Orville episode according to the author).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 25 January 2019, 09:32:06
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/07/23/a-funny-thing-happened-to-star-trek-discovery-editorial/
I don't know about you but when Discovery is trying to copy some of what seem to make Orville more successful than DISCO(detailed by that editorial), I wonder if it's because they're getting fewer views compared to Orville (a million more per Orville episode according to the author).

But that's based entirely on speculation from the trailer, and a piece of data which might not even be true.  And has nothing to do with the point I was making - which is that most people who watch DISCO don't care enough to comment about it one way or another.

But let's talk about that "only 250k" thing for a second.  And let's tie it into some numbers that are publicly available.  The original Twin Peaks was a major hit back in the day, it rated 20 million viewers a week when it began, which dwindled down to around 200,000 when it was cancelled.  Twin Peaks: The Return was considered a ratings success by Showtime, and guess how many viewers it got?  Around 200,000 per episode. 

The metrics for TV have changed, especially where streaming is concerned. First time viewing is far less relevant when a new episode of a show is repeated a few times in the week after it airs, and there's streaming and a far more integrated home video release.  Netflix' great success is in creating a library of shows and movies that you can only get there, and you can watch them at any time.  CBS are trying to do the same thing right now by expanding their Star Trek library and The Good Fight and whatever comes next.  It's less important that everyone watches DISCO the day it's uploaded, and more important that the people who subscribe to watch Star Trek stick around.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Kit deSummersville on 25 January 2019, 09:37:05
Some people have a fanitical devotion to the show, some hate it with a passion. I guess it is like things I things in the world, there is no middle anymore

Sure there is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Middle_(TV_series))!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 25 January 2019, 09:43:36
Sure there is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Middle_(TV_series))!
You're not the boss of me now!
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: hoosierhick on 25 January 2019, 11:01:52
https://fanfilmfactor.com/2018/07/23/a-funny-thing-happened-to-star-trek-discovery-editorial/
I don't know about you but when Discovery is trying to copy some of what seem to make Orville more successful than DISCO(detailed by that editorial), I wonder if it's because they're getting fewer views compared to Orville (a million more per Orville episode according to the author).

Now that's an interesting article.  One evening a couple of weeks ago I had the TV on while I was doing something on the computer with my back to the TV .  A trailer came on that I assumed from the audio was for the upcoming episode of The Orville.  I was very surprised when I turned around and saw it was for Discovery.  It may have been the same trailer that's being talked about at that link.  I'm not saying Discovery is trying to be more like The Orville, but it does sound like they're trying to lighten things up a bit. 
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 25 January 2019, 11:23:29
I would so love it if Tilly turned out to be a Section 31 agent and the whole chatterbox thing is just an act--with a real personality a lot closer to the Mirror Universe version that murdered her way to command of Discovery.

cheers,

Gabe

Oh trust me, "Killy" seems to be interesting.
Just played through the new eps in STO that feature her. She's twisted in a Terran Empire/Mirror Universe way.
The STO Devs even added a slight bit of added dialogue specific to ST: D rolled Characters that she killed the player's Mirror Uni version early on in her career. Very cold...
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 25 January 2019, 13:09:01
As far the dumb things Starfleet is doing at the mercy of different writers. Thing is old TOS was written people who may been exposed to War like Gene who was pilot during WW2.
That is a general problem with media these days.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: I am Belch II on 25 January 2019, 13:57:16
I liked the last epsisode. It was the most Star Trek episode of Discovery and it was good to see. Hope they can do more of that.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Blackhorse 6 on 26 January 2019, 16:12:53
Gorn?


Lol... good answer... I was thinking Cardassian but, your answer is better.   :)
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 29 January 2019, 11:15:11
So...

Apparently in an effort to promote CBS All-Access, they decided to put STD S2, ep 1 up for viewing on YouTube.

Couple quick takeaways:
I thought Tilly was annoying in the STO STD tutorial. Gawd I hate her now. In so much I think I prefer her Mirror Version better...
I always had a problem of Burnham being a step-sibling to Spock. At least daddy admitted it was a mistake.
For the most part, I actually liked the "B" part of the ep (the rescuing of those left of the frigate) and was handled well enough.

Otherwise, yea, I don't think I'd watch STD if offered.
What I found funny is, at the time I viewed it, there were 2.5K likes and 2K dislikes. And that didn't surprise me in the least.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 29 January 2019, 16:26:11
Is Michelle Yeoh in that episode?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Tymers Realm on 29 January 2019, 16:29:20
Not properly.
Both versions oh the character were featured in the S1 recap and S2 upcoming teaser.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Daryk on 29 January 2019, 17:20:55
Rog... I'm only interested as far as her appearances on screen.  As I said very early in this thread, I use her image for a JumpShip Captain.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2019, 08:28:43
Rumor mill is suggesting that Disco is dead; the guy playing Pike is hinting at his time on the show being quite past tense...and supposedly the show is costing around 150 million for season 2 alone.  Again, supposedly, Bad Robot is paying for yet more reshoots...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDHvmfqT25c

He does say that his sources say "no decision" yet, and that could just mean "Pike's been written off the show" but it's still some surprising rumors.  And I checked, S2E1 of Discovery is indeed on youtube.

Huh.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ThePW on 01 February 2019, 10:06:14
It's there... and I still have NO desire to watch it. I have watched everything else when it was aired or shown in movie theaters. I have no desire to watch what they offer now, however.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Wrangler on 01 February 2019, 10:36:44
Eesh, talk about over budgeting themselves into cancellationville.

Did they just write Pike out of the script on purposed or the actor had issue?
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2019, 14:53:25
Unknown re: Pike, I'm only going off the tweets shown in the video.  It is kinda worrisome, and I'm bummed about the rumors over "No one else from TNG in the Picard show" because we all know Michael Dorn's been itching to get that forehead back on.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 01 February 2019, 15:05:11
I think it can also be considered that the actor for Pike is feeding the trolls for pure amusement. His messages can easily be read that way.

Considering the passive-agressive tendencies some trekkies have towards the show I would do that in an instance if I was one of the actor on the show. :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Maingunnery on 01 February 2019, 15:07:20
It is kinda worrisome, and I'm bummed about the rumors over "No one else from TNG in the Picard show" because we all know Michael Dorn's been itching to get that forehead back on.
The Picard show is still in development, its setup might still be changed, especially if there is a corporate restructuring (CBS-Paramount).
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 01 February 2019, 15:16:29
Another point to consider is that Pike was probably never intended to be a permanent character on the show - in all likeliness his mission (investigating the red star thingiebobs) was finished and he returned to the Enterprise.

Considering how many of you have been crying and bitching about him even being a second on the Disovery, maybe you get your wish and he transfers back.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 01 February 2019, 15:25:07
And the show runners are certainly saying they are planning season 3:

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/star-trek-discovery/278955/star-trek-discovery-season-3-already-being-discussed
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: ANS Kamas P81 on 01 February 2019, 15:27:32
Might be good news, and frankly I hope Discovery succeeds anyway - it's like the Kelvin timeline; it's the only Trek that's being made, so we might as well support it so that future Trek ideas don't get tossed aside as not worth the money.
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: Øystein on 01 February 2019, 16:41:54
So the latest episode explains a couple of things:

The lack of a unison klingon fleet, design on the classic TOS designs (D7 etc) only came about after reunification.
The lack of hair was due it being shaven off during the war as a sign of them being at war.

Of course, both can be considered cop-out excuse to please the critics. But at least they are providing explainations to the changes.

Also great to see Georgiou again :D If that is any hint at how her show will be, bring it! :D
Title: Re: Star Trek Discovery
Post by: