Star Trek Discovery
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 106

Thread: Star Trek Discovery

  1. #1

    Star Trek Discovery

    I totally love it!

  2. #2
    Oh yeah, me too! It's the only reason I subscribed to CBS all access. It's great. A biological star drive based on spores... what a notion.
    LOL
    sue

  3. #3
    To add some balance, I found it to be horrible as were the movies by Amrams. It's not Star Trek, it's more like some childish transformers movie.

  4. #4
    Members + MrZippy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Sam Clam's Disco, Calif.
    Age
    69
    Posts
    366
    I'll watch the reruns when it dies in the first season. I'll be danged if I'm going to pay to watch something for broadcast TV. I am a Star Trek fan.
    Went to the first ever convention in San Francisco 1975.
    Charlie the "Balldude" Running FSX With SP1 and SP2 2GHZ processor with 2Gbits Memory Computer running Windows EXPEE (This is not a bladder condition)

  5. #5
    I actually thought it was ok, even though the plotting was a bit uneven with all of those flashbacks.

    What it wasn't, was ten years before Kirk and Spock. No way knowhow. Even the next generation didn't have instant galaxy wide communications and communications holographs.

    And ten years before Spock and Kirk would mean that in that universe, right at that moment, Captain Pike and the Enterprise were tootling around somewhere, maybe even with Spock as first officer. What does the enterprise in this universe look like?

    Nothing like the original series.........!

    Prime timeline, my foot!

    This is either a complete reboot, or a completely different universe.
    Hi

  6. #6
    Neither did Star Trek Voyager, which was the most "far future" of the franchise!

    It's got to be a different universe, or another dimension at least.

    I don't have access to it here so I can't miss what I cannot see anyway.
    Bill Leaming
    3d Modeler Max/GMax
    C & XML Gauge Programmer

    Military Visualizations
    http://milviz.com

    Intel® Core™ i7-3770k 4.2GHz - Crucial 16GB DDR3 - Dual Radeon HD770 1GB DDR5 (Crossfire) - Eco II Watercooling - Win7 64bit
    Intel® Core™ i7-2600k 3.4GHz - Crucial 8GB DDR3 - NVIDIA EVGA GTX-770 SC 4GB - Win7 64bit

  7. #7
    It isn't star Trek, its Star Trek inspired fan fiction.

    Personally I'd far rather have seen something pushing forward again chronologically, post Dominion War/Voyager... but no... 3 rd prequel/re-boot in a row.... yawn...

    Don't even get me started on the "Klingons"
    "Thou shalt maintain thine airspeed lest the ground shalt rise up and smite thee"

  8. #8

    Prequels

    The problem with doing Prequels to any Movie or TV series is that there is an established "History" that the story must tie in to at some point and not contradict. Building a story with those requirements requires A LOT of knowledge of what was in the original series and general premise and a knowledge of the "Physics" of that universe.

    The folks doing Star Trek prequels do not seem to be doing what is required from the descriptions posted thus far.

    - Ivan.

  9. #9

    Icon2

    Some interesting & good comments across the board
    But we have to honest here - a new show in 2017 with cardboard 1960s sets just isn't going to fly these days.

    However, I will agree with some here in that "Discovery" probably fits better in the JJ Abrams "Kelvin" timeline rather than the "Canon" line...

  10. #10
    Hello Panther_99FS,

    I just watched a couple videos of including the trailer.

    My first question is:
    "THIS is a PREquel???"

    The technology here seems to be more advanced than that of the Original Series.

    If you want to design a new alien race, don't call them "Klingons" when they bear no resemblance to anything bearing that name before (after?) them.

    If you just want a new space opera and showcase for modern CGI and special effects, then call it something other than "Star Trek". Be Original!

    - Ivan.

  11. #11

    Icon2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    Hello Panther_99FS,

    I just watched a couple videos of including the trailer.

    My first question is:
    "THIS is a PREquel???"

    The technology here seems to be more advanced than that of the Original Series.

    If you want to design a new alien race, don't call them "Klingons" when they bear no resemblance to anything bearing that name before (after?) them.

    If you just want a new space opera and showcase for modern CGI and special effects, then call it something other than "Star Trek". Be Original!

    - Ivan.
    Ivan,
    -According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.
    -Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit.
    -Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint
    that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....

  12. #12
    Perhaps we should check each statement....

    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post

    -According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.


    ...And we are supposed to believe that these styles of ships / uniforms / equipment evolved into TOS in 10 years?
    Keep in mind also that there were older ships in TOS as well and these 2017 versions do not fit into the "Canon" very well regardless of who is making that statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    -Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit.
    The problem with Prequels is that they need to fit in with existing "Canon". So what we are supposed to believe is that THESE Klingons were the "Real" Klingons of TOS because 10 years is much less than even one Klingon lifespan. THESE Klingons would have still been living and running the Empire during TOS and in a generation would become TNG Klingons? That is what "Canon" would mean in this case.
    If they really wanted to use cool costumes, makeup and CGI, a PREquel wasn't the way to do it. It locks down the story too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    -Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....
    You won't find me defending the "special" effects or primitive sets and models of TOS, but the "Style" as I see it was the universe that this prequel needed to fit into and it clearly does not.
    There was plenty of room for cool CGI, modelling and special effects. Most of the TOS model were very small and lacked detail. A new show could have retained the original designs and improved on the detail that was extremely lacking in the originals and not just re-design everything just because CGI is so easy today.

    In any case, thanks for bringing up the topic of this show. It does not sound like something I will be chasing any time soon.
    I am glad you enjoy it. I have nothing further to add to this topic.

    - Ivan.

  13. #13
    I had this long negative post ready to submit but decided to be brief:

    Here's to this STD abomination dying a quick death.


    Star Trek is dead my friends, it died a long time ago. Let it rest in peace and not dig up it's rotting corpse every few years and pretend that it is still alive.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    Ivan,
    -According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.
    -Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit.
    -Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint
    that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....
    You don't necessarily need cardboard sets.........

    There are ways they could update things while still retaining at least a little of the flavor of the original. Instead, they went off in a completely new direction entirely, creating a show with the Star Trek name and a few recognizable things here and there, (like tribbles) but which diverges so wildly otherwise that at least so far, it's a stretch to accept it as part of the known continuity in any way.

    A while ago, a talented Cg artist showed what a modernized rendition of the Original Enterprise Bridge could look like. Retro-modern, but acceptable, with just the right hint of nostalgia. I would accept the creators going even further than this, but not completely racing off into the blue!

    Hi

  15. #15
    No No, It's not a prequel and its not a reboot. You see, Paramount doesnt own the rights to anything original star trek, besides the movies, and CBS wasnt going to sell them those rights, so, the only thing they have rights too, is JJ Trek, so the very best discovery could be is a prequel too the reboot, if that makes any sense.
    In the meantime, Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan ) has a special project he's been working on thats rumored to be star trek-centric, and CBS is being a it hush about it, but i did hear their cat ate a canary..

  16. #16

    Icon2

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan View Post
    Perhaps we should check each statement....

    [SIZE=3]

    ...And we are supposed to believe that these styles of ships / uniforms / equipment evolved into TOS in 10 years?
    Keep in mind also that there were older ships in TOS as well and these 2017 versions do not fit into the "Canon" very well regardless of who is making that statement.



    The problem with Prequels is that they need to fit in with existing "Canon". So what we are supposed to believe is that THESE Klingons were the "Real" Klingons of TOS because 10 years is much less than even one Klingon lifespan. THESE Klingons would have still been living and running the Empire during TOS and in a generation would become TNG Klingons? That is what "Canon" would mean in this case.
    If they really wanted to use cool costumes, makeup and CGI, a PREquel wasn't the way to do it. It locks down the story too much.



    You won't find me defending the "special" effects or primitive sets and models of TOS, but the "Style" as I see it was the universe that this prequel needed to fit into and it clearly does not.
    There was plenty of room for cool CGI, modelling and special effects. Most of the TOS model were very small and lacked detail. A new show could have retained the original designs and improved on the detail that was extremely lacking in the originals and not just re-design everything just because CGI is so easy today.

    In any case, thanks for bringing up the topic of this show. It does not sound like something I will be chasing any time soon.
    I am glad you enjoy it. I have nothing further to add to this topic.

    - Ivan.
    Ivan,
    You're free to believe whatever you want.

    But current reviews illustrate that it's been a success thus far....The young viewers are where it's at now and us older ones who are flexible and not entrenched into things 50+ years ago.

  17. #17

    Icon2

    Quote Originally Posted by FOO FIGHTER View Post
    I had this long negative post ready to submit but decided to be brief:

    Here's to this STD abomination dying a quick death.


    Star Trek is dead my friends, it died a long time ago. Let it rest in peace and not dig up it's rotting corpse every few years and pretend that it is still alive.
    Whether you're right or wrong will be determined by the longevity of the series....Old fans die, and the key to longevity is to attract the younger crowd which is what this and JJ Abrams are trying to do....

  18. #18

    Icon5

    Quote Originally Posted by HyFlyer View Post
    You don't necessarily need cardboard sets.........

    There are ways they could update things while still retaining at least a little of the flavor of the original. Instead, they went off in a completely new direction entirely, creating a show with the Star Trek name and a few recognizable things here and there, (like tribbles) but which diverges so wildly otherwise that at least so far, it's a stretch to accept it as part of the known continuity in any way.

    A while ago, a talented Cg artist showed what a modernized rendition of the Original Enterprise Bridge could look like. Retro-modern, but acceptable, with just the right hint of nostalgia. I would accept the creators going even further than this, but not completely racing off into the blue!

    Key thing is that you said "I would accept". Well what about the other millions of viewers? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one....

  19. #19

    Lightbulb

    Nearly 10 million viewers....
    And with most things in life, the loudest ones are the most negative ones....
    http://ew.com/tv/2017/09/25/star-tre...overy-ratings/


  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    Key thing is that you said "I would accept". Well what about the other millions of viewers? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one....
    I can only speak for me, and they can only speak for them. Anything else would be illogical.
    For instance, millions of people smoke, but what's that got to do with me?

    I would also submit that many people are likely watching for no other reason than that it's got the Trek name, good or bad. The real trick will be how many are willing to continue to pay to see the show, and how many will instead find ways past that paywall. Already, the episodes are available on Youtube........

    I signed up for CBS AA out of curiosity, only to find that there is literally nothing: not a single other thing on there that interests me in the slightest. In fact, CBS all access is an entertainment desert for me, and I'm not sure how long intense curiosity about the new show can keep me tied to a channel that seems so fundamentally underwhelming.

    I add that the third episode struck me as really strange, and seemed even less like Star Trek than the first two. (Quoting paragraphs from Alice in Wonderland aloud while running for your life? Really?)

    Now, was it an entertaining action adventure sci-fi series with dark overtones, an uneven plot and bouts of squirmingly clunky dialog? Yes. (sci-fi channel)

    Was it Star Trek? Hmmmmmm...........
    Last edited by HyFlyer; October 3rd, 2017 at 06:55.
    Hi

  21. #21
    Charter Member 2016
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Niagara Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    961
    I've only seen one episode, and I don't consider that enough to make an informed judgement. One thing I DON'T do anymore is argue what is and is not "canon". Turning Star Trek into a fundamentalist religion/mystery cult (which is what I insist a particular set of Trek fandom are doing) destroys any enjoyment for me. A suggestion I frequently make for people who enjoy storytelling is that they write fifty pages of anything original; anything that blows wind up your kilts. It doesn't have to be Tolstoy, just no fan fiction. Set yourself a deadline for completing your project and stick to it, then copyright your intellectual property. Go through the process. Finally, if your local news media is like mine there will be literary sections online and in the Sunday paper. There will also be many dedicated literary sites. Find one or more of these, register for an open reading, and read your material in front of people who neither love you or owe you money. I guarantee this will enhance your entire view of what other people write.

    JAMES
    "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

    -William Munny
    Unforgiven (1992)

  22. #22
    It seems to have lost sense of humor.
    Intel Skylake i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor
    Asus MAXIMUS IX HERO ATX LGA1151 Z270 Motherboard
    Corsair Vengeance LPX 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory
    Intel BXTS13X 74.0 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler
    Corsair 750W PSU16Gb
    MSI RX580 Radeon Armor 8Gb
    Windows 10 Home Premium 64
    Windows 7 64
    3 x 21" Acer LED screens

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Eoraptor1 View Post
    I've only seen one episode, and I don't consider that enough to make an informed judgement. One thing I DON'T do anymore is argue what is and is not "canon". Turning Star Trek into a fundamentalist religion/mystery cult (which is what I insist a particular set of Trek fandom are doing) destroys any enjoyment for me. A suggestion I frequently make for people who enjoy storytelling is that they write fifty pages of anything original; anything that blows wind up your kilts. It doesn't have to be Tolstoy, just no fan fiction. Set yourself a deadline for completing your project and stick to it, then copyright your intellectual property. Go through the process. Finally, if your local news media is like mine there will be literary sections online and in the Sunday paper. There will also be many dedicated literary sites. Find one or more of these, register for an open reading, and read your material in front of people who neither love you or owe you money. I guarantee this will enhance your entire view of what other people write.

    JAMES
    Its an old argument, and i've never agreed with it. It's kind of like saying "If you don't like the latest model Nissan, then please start your own car factory etc, etc......"

    There are a zillion variations, but I question the underlying logic/validity. Do you really need to be a farmer to comment on rotten vegetables? Do you need to be a chef before you can decide that the food at a particular restaurant stinks? (etc etc)

    All you can really do is abide by your own sense of taste.

    As for "canon" I think that Star Trek is pretty unique in that it has literally decades of complex lore: an edifice upon which all iterations of the show (and countless books) stand except for the latest movie Treks, which are deliberately set in an alternate universe specifically to escape the restrictions of canon.

    That's an honest decision, and a choice made by the producers that the fans are left to take or leave, but completely violating the existing history while claiming to be attempting to adhere to it smacks of dishonesty. Not surprisingly that's going to be controversial, as people may feel, with some justification, that they were lured by false pretenses.

    If this trek is happening in a different universe, then so be it. If it's a retcon, or total reboot, also fine. But shoehorning a sudden new sibling for spock into the show, completely ignoring the tech level of the previous iterations etc....... You pull that stuff, and you had better expect to be called on it.

    That's not just specific to Trek. You can't abruptly announce that Darth Vader (or Batman!) is really a girl, and expect fans to swallow it with no comment. Not while claiming to be following existing lore.
    Hi

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Panther_99FS View Post
    Whether you're right or wrong will be determined by the longevity of the series....Old fans die, and the key to longevity is to attract the younger crowd which is what this and JJ Abrams are trying to do....
    But the younger crowd isn't being exposed to 'true' Star Trek, what ST was and was meant to be. I shortened my original post for fear of politically derailing the thread, but the simple truth is that STD was intended to be political. Among other things, the producer(s) are on record stating that the Klingons were modeled after Trump/his supporters (IE: they are supposed to be ultra nationalists whackos). This is what Star Trek has devolved into over the years.

    As a conservative, why would I watch this show if it is just going to be bashing me over the head with every episode? To be honest, when I tune into a TV show or go to see a movie I don't want it to be promoting liberalism or conservativism, I just want to be entertained.

    The 'fans' voiced their concerned about the direction STD had apparently taken during production but pretty much received the finger in response. This is the same sort of thing that happened when JJ Trek was in production, only he actually said "f_
    --k you' to the 'fans' that were trying to warn him.

    There are still plenty of us "old fans" around to know the difference between good Trek and bad. For me, Trek began a slow death with STII:TWOK. Yes, it was a good movie, but it was the beginning of Trek conforming to the story instead of the other way around. Continuity was shoved out the window.

    I've read about the rumors surrounding Nicholas Meyer. He was apparently brought in as a Plan B when STD tanked. One report has him making a series about Khan on Ceti Alpha V after Kirk dumped him there. Rumors are just rumors and we will have to wait and see.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails remakes_by_candelagreene-d2yagc8.jpg  

  25. #25
    Charter Member 2016
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Niagara Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    961
    Quote Originally Posted by HyFlyer View Post
    Its an old argument, and i've never agreed with it. It's kind of like saying "If you don't like the latest model Nissan, then please start your own car factory etc, etc......"

    There are a zillion variations, but I question the underlying logic/validity. Do you really need to be a farmer to comment on rotten vegetables? Do you need to be a chef before you can decide that the food at a particular restaurant stinks? (etc etc)

    All you can really do is abide by your own sense of taste.

    As for "canon" I think that Star Trek is pretty unique in that it has literally decades of complex lore: an edifice upon which all iterations of the show (and countless books) stand except for the latest movie Treks, which are deliberately set in an alternate universe specifically to escape the restrictions of canon.

    That's an honest decision, and a choice made by the producers that the fans are left to take or leave, but completely violating the existing history while claiming to be attempting to adhere to it smacks of dishonesty. Not surprisingly that's going to be controversial, as people may feel, with some justification, that they were lured by false pretenses.

    If this trek is happening in a different universe, then so be it. If it's a retcon, or total reboot, also fine. But shoehorning a sudden new sibling for spock into the show, completely ignoring the tech level of the previous iterations etc....... You pull that stuff, and you had better expect to be called on it.

    That's not just specific to Trek. You can't abruptly announce that Darth Vader (or Batman!) is really a girl, and expect fans to swallow it with no comment. Not while claiming to be following existing lore.
    All I said was doing some writing yourself would enhance your experience, and I stand by that. Same with music. You already know what you like, but learning and playing an instrument adds a whole new level of experience. I stand by that comment too.

    JAMES
    "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

    -William Munny
    Unforgiven (1992)

Members who have read this thread: 98

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •