Star Trek: Discovery

[The Ween]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I'm always interested in whatever new Star Trek thing that pops up so I'll give this a shot. It's easier to enjoy these things when you have zero expectations for them though.

I'll watch the FREE one, but that's it.

 

[Matt S]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Fake fans, leave!


Ordered cbs for streaming for just this show's run. I'm all in

 

[The Ween]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I'm far from a fake fan. There's no way I'm paying per month for ONE show. I can always catch it later.

 

[ali032373]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Are they releasing them all at once like House of Cards or Daredevil, or is it once a week like GOT? Thx.

 

[Python]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I'm far from a fake fan. There's no way I'm paying per month for ONE show. I can always catch it later.

I definitely wouldn't pay just for this, and I don't like the emerging trends these days. I'll be watching this simply as it's on Netflix in the UK.

 

[screamingmetal]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I definitely wouldn't pay just for this, and I don't like the emerging trends these days. I'll be watching this simply as it's on Netflix in the UK.

Yeah, like Hulu at first was free with commercials and now it's pay with commercials. If this is on CBS, Netflix, or Amazon Prime, I'll watch it, otherwise I'm just going to watch the premier.
I have a bad feeling that CBS All Suck will remove some of the early episodes as the full first season of ST: D approaches it's final episodes to prevent people from just subscribing for one month and bingeing the show then canceling, seems like the appropriate d-ick move.

 

[KitFisto]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Fake fans, leave!


Ordered cbs for streaming for just this show's run. I'm all in

Fake fans like this crap fest of a show. This isn't Star Trek.

 

[Magpie 7]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

What happened to "if it's not broken don't try to fix it"?

Isn't it obvious ST:TOS and the subsequent films of the TOS and then TNG series and films proved the formula works. Even reruns of TOS still get good ratings so more of the same with new characters and better FX would do well.

Well at least Roddenberry is dead and can't witness it.

 

[guyver1]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Don’t like that it’s on CBS where lately any shows besides comedy and drama go to die

 

[The Ween]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

​Ugh....shut up Oprah!

 

[Darth Snoopy]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

My friend and I thought the show was interesting and we're going half/half on CBS all access ($3 ea.).

 

[Wor-Gar]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Characters weren't strong enough to suck me in based on this lead-in episode.

How many episodes will there be?

 

[The Ween]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I liked parts of it and some of it I didn't.

 

[thecapn]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

Spoilery, kindof, not really, but, just in case:

Spoiler

Anyone else think the characterization of Sarek is off? Like, we saw Sarek around this time in TOS. He and Spock hadn't spoken in years because Spock decided to join Starfleet. Yet now there's this "ward," who has has a (dare I say it) emotionally close connection with that he pushes to join Starfleet? And takes great risks for, unlike his own son?

Now, older Sarek - the one that we saw in the TOS movies and in TNG - that one I can see being more like this. He definitely got more sentimental as he got older (and no, it's still pre-Bendii syndrome). But here? Just seems off.

Also seems forced - so far, I don't see any reason why this HAD to be Sarek. Could've been a new character and worked just as well. Heck, if you really wanted to do right, make it an older, wiser T'Pol or Soval from Enterprise. Would've made for an interesting connection that would've (in my opinion) worked better.

Also, just finished Ep. 2, and a few spoilery reviewy thoughts:

Spoiler

They make a big deal about Georgiou and Burnham being at odds about the course of action she took (mutiny) because it's not the Starfleet way, it's not the human way, to shoot first. So...it's the human way to ignore the rules of civilized warfare and put a bomb on a body? I mean, I probably would've done the same thing, she was backed into a corner, but I'm shocked she didn't have doubts over her decision or say something about it not being ethical after her big stand earlier.

So....why exactly didn't Burnham take T'Kumva? He was RIGHT THERE. She didn't have to kill him. Georgiou gave HER LIFE to try bringing him down without killing him. Was her phaser set on kill by accident or something? Did they change how phasers work again?

Nitpicking Treknology: They can't lock on to Georgiou without a life sign? Huh? Don't they just need a communicator? She obviously has one on her. Hell, they just transported a bomb - you're telling me that bomb had life signs? Not saying it was worth recovering the body, it wouldn't do any good, just that the explanation makes no sense. He should've just said I'm getting you out of there. Could've devoted those extra few seconds to giving Georgiou that doubt above...

I actually didn't really have too many nitpicks until this...just seems like some rushed writing at the end.

Another nitpick, although I'll admit it's lame, but I'm already complaining so - Starfleet doesn't imprison people. Especially not for life. They send 'em to penal colonies for rehabilitation. Not to mention the fact that it seems like imprisonment for life is kindof a severe punishment considering what she did, isn't it? Hell, Chelsea Manning did worse and even she's not in prison anymore. Probably could count a million times in Trek where someone committed mutiny and got a slap on the wrist - how about Kirk and his whole crew in STIII? Or Picard and his whole crew in Insurrection? And that's just a couple examples off the top of my head...

Also, why exactly do people blame Burnham for starting the war? Because she killed the torchbearer? Because she killed T'Kumva and made him a martyr? Because of the mutiny? The Klingons were starting a war. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seems kindof unfair to put that on her shoulders (and for her to blame herself too).

 

[Spartan Rex]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-just-kinda-sucks/

Its about the only thing I agree with on the site.

 

[thecapn]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-just-kinda-sucks/

Its about the only thing I agree with on the site.

Agreed with it except that it's obvious he didn't see part 2 (which is understandable), because

Spoiler

Burnham totally gets screwed over by her actions, that's for sure. Starfleet doesn't take what she did lightly.

I'm not a fan of the subtitled Klingon; I don't usually mind subtitles, but in this case I feel like it took me out of paying attention to the production design, which they spent some serious $$$$ on.

I don't agree about Saru. He's one of the most awesome Trek aliens ever, and that's saying a lot.

Also: The host of "After Trek" is the most annoying person...EVER.

 

[The Ween]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2017/09/25/star-trek-discovery-just-kinda-sucks/

Its about the only thing I agree with on the site.

I agree with it too. I don't like the Captain, the number one or the science officer.

 

[Python]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I watched the first two episodes last night. I also went in expecting very little, so in some ways I quite enjoyed it. It certainly had good and bad aspects which is probably to be expected of early episodes. Despite too many lens flairs, the production values are excellent, this series almost looks as good as the recent movies. Here's to hoping a few more stronger and memorable characters will be introduced shortly however, I can only remember the main group and most of the bridge crew were obscure and forgettable. I'll be watching more for sure, but only because it is shown on Netflix in the UK, there is absolutely no way on Earth that I'd be paying for a separate service just for this.

I really don't like the intro credits however, it didn't feel very star trek at all to me.

 

[thecapn]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

You folks who don't like the crew realize that

Spoiler

Besides Burnham and Saru, the rest are not going to continue as main characters, right? The Discovery has a different captain,
doctor, science officer, etc. Not that you're going to like them for sure, just that it doesn't matter as much if you didn't like these

 

[ali032373]

Re: New Star Trek TV Series in 2017!

I didnt like next gen when it came out. They made some obvious changes. And the characters developed as well.

A lot of times shows need a season to find their legs.