|
NarkyBark posted:Oh no. I just realized that if Tyler is an actual human but with klingon consciousness, they could explain the classic klingon look by... the mating of a human and klingon, which could then end up being their own faction which ends up taking over the empire. Of course, the timing wouldn't really work out for that to be true since the kids need to grow up and all... Based on how quickly Alexander grew up, that might not be a problem...
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Peachfart posted:And this is why all Star Trek since 9/11 is garbage. We already have hundreds of other shows asking that question, and in more suitable settings. 'Optimistic Space Future' isn't the right venue for asking 'Is it *really* torture if they hate our freedoms???' Part of me half seriously wonders if every new Trek project gets run by the same executive that goes "well, this is ok I guess... can we ditch the hippie liberal bullshit though and punch it up?" "Oh, this show is super flashy and if they'd just have the spine to be what it calls itself it would improve ever so much!" Is this really where we're at? I mean really? At least during TNG's first season the only character I actively disliked was Wesley
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
Alexander proved that Klingons are the perfect fast-maturing soldiers long before the Jem'Hadar showed up
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:And this is why all Star Trek since 9/11 is garbage. We already have hundreds of other shows asking that question, and in more suitable settings. 'Optimistic Space Future' isn't the right venue for asking 'Is it *really* torture if they hate our freedoms???' I irrationally blame DS9 fans for constnatly bring up "In the Pale Moonlight" as the best example of Trek handling 'darker' themes instead of "Homefront/Paradise Lost". Regarding design - I don't mind the interiors, the bridge kinda feels like they're going for a TOS-movie style. I do wish they'd go for cleaner, simpler hull designs for the ship exteriors though - that was a big part of TOS's design style, and an intentional choice by Matt Jeffries and Wah Chang, not a budget issue. The idea they had was that stuff would break, so a well designed spaceship wouldn't have anything you'd need to fix on the outside of the hull. And it'd fit in with modern technology that goes for smooth and sleek exteriors on high tech devices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Itzena posted:Wonder what the reaction would be if the explanation is "They've just jumped into the main ST universe from the grimdark parallel one the first half of the series was set in, and they're stuck there now" I would love this! Then they would all have to try and blend into the Original Series universe, or hide out amongst it. That would be the easiest way of the showrunners blending our Discovery into what most old fans know. I am a big fan of the series so far and have had a lot of fun watching it. Lorca and Stamets are my two favourite characters from the show and I am eager to see where the rest of the season ends! It is just a shame the episodes are so short.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
All this continuity and canon talk is really boring. The problems with the show aren't that it doesn't fit into canon, and the show wouldn't be fixed by putting it post Voyager. Anyways, I'm excited for the new episodes  Tighclops posted:They're just trying to have their cake an eat it too with all the continuity bullshit; they know if they keep BSing the nerds about how it's in the same universe as TOS and all the other shows, those same nerds will do the mental gymnastics to make it fit and keep consuming the show no matter how lovely it is. Sure, some of them will bitch but CBS doesn't see that as an issue they can't handle since they've already shown they're willing to do poo poo like astroturf reddit over this show. Meanwhile, they do whatever they want and nobody else is the wiser (although even that may not be entirely true; I've had total normies at work talk to me about this get seriously confused when it's explained to them that STD is meant to go before the original Star Trek) Also my perfectly normal trekkie friend is utterly convinced this series happens 10 years after Enterprise. Drink-Mix Man posted:Star Trek has literally been telling the same story over and over again since 9/11 about whether it's moral to make ~tough ethically gray decisions~ to win war. Angry Salami posted:I irrationally blame DS9 fans for constnatly bring up "In the Pale Moonlight" as the best example of Trek handling 'darker' themes instead of "Homefront/Paradise Lost".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:All this continuity and canon talk is really boring. The problems with the show aren't that it doesn't fit into canon, and the show wouldn't be fixed by putting it post Voyager. Darn, and our goal was to entertain you. Shucks. Also, the show can have multiple kinds of problems simultaneously!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:I irrationally blame DS9 fans for constnatly bring up "In the Pale Moonlight" as the best example of Trek handling 'darker' themes instead of "Homefront/Paradise Lost". Discovery itself definitely fits that idea: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:At this point that is about their only hope. Didn't the mirror universe already have the NCC1701nobloodyABCorD when the prime universe had NX-01? This tech looks about as far ahead The mirror universe theory doesn't make any sense as a continuity fixer because you'd actually be ditching even more continuity with it. Like, if you aren't going to have the Terran Empire in this time period in the mirror universe then what are you even doing? That's a way bigger break with established canon then any of the changes in tech or visuals are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The mirror universe theory doesn't make any sense as a continuity fixer because you'd actually be ditching even more continuity with it. Like, if you aren't going to have the Terran Empire in this time period in the mirror universe then what are you even doing? That's a way bigger break with established canon then any of the changes in tech or visuals are. Easy fix: this is a different parallel dimension, like the one where the Borg take over and ruin Riker’s beard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Militaristic Starfleet officer, desperate and warlike captain, brutal worldview, hatred and fear of Klingons - almost like he’s fought a losing war against them. Yesterday’s Enterprise universe, surely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes, ST has been in "Section 31" mode since DS9, not since 9/11. There is a big difference between how this poo poo was handled in that show and how it's been presented every time since 9/11
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
It comes from the same place, which is narrative of post-Cold-War anxiety about whether American global hegemony is really worth the kind of dirty work it takes to keep it up. DS9 and Voyager lack the obvious racist/xenophobic/!!WAR ON TERROR!! trappings of Ent and STD but the same ideas are there. DS9 reads the narrative through a lens of genuine doubt and fear that we’ll have to destroy the village to save it, which was reasonably daring for the time but hasn’t aged super well as a message. Voyager on the other hand is like Fukuyamist end of history bullshit where we don’t need to consider our ideology or morality at all because if we just put a Star Trek show on TV people will watch it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
skasion posted:Voyager on the other hand is like Fukuyamist end of history bullshit where we don’t need to consider our ideology or morality at all because if we just put a Star Trek show on TV people will watch it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:All this continuity and canon talk is really boring. The problems with the show aren't that it doesn't fit into canon, and the show wouldn't be fixed by putting it post Voyager. It's especially boring because it's an argument with only one side. Show me who is complaining that this isn't Star Trek because it doesn't have colorful walls and miniskirts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Show me who is complaining that this isn't Star Trek because it doesn't have colorful walls and miniskirts. Arglebargle III posted:It would be nice if, when doing a prequel, it either looked something like the time period or looked good. Discovery doesn't seem to do either. We'll find out! Arglebargle III posted:Whoever said this is copying the Expanse is dead on. Everything about the shuttle scene looks like it's from The Expanse, not Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
It looks like The Expanse if you took away the whole "plausible design" thing that show has going for it STD more closely resembles some lovely nightclub
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
STD is bad because the tone of the show is wrong for Star Trek. DS9 was able to get dark by showing a baseline of 'the Federation generally tries to be good', and twisting that. STD starts out of the gate with everyone is a jerk, people break the rules and do bad things with zero moralizing or consequences, and a lack of any sort of sense that the Federation are the good guys.(even in a sarcastic Sisko tone)
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:And this is why all Star Trek since 9/11 is garbage. We already have hundreds of other shows asking that question, and in more suitable settings. 'Optimistic Space Future' isn't the right venue for asking 'Is it *really* torture if they hate our freedoms???' I think its amazing that The Punisher is handling and asking bigger questions than that. They straight up say 'yeah torture is bad and doesn't work' and move on but loving Star Trek is stuck on this amateur hour stuff. The Punisher makes people think about the human condition more than Star Trek. 2017 is a strange year.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:STD is bad because the tone of the show is wrong for Star Trek. DS9 was able to get dark by showing a baseline of 'the Federation generally tries to be good', and twisting that. STD starts out of the gate with everyone is a jerk, people break the rules and do bad things with zero moralizing or consequences, and a lack of any sort of sense that the Federation are the good guys.(even in a sarcastic Sisko tone) I think this gets at it for me. Star Trek at its most distilled has always been morality plays with aliens, and STD completely misses the mark. There are no moral consequences, or even moral quandaries. Lorca is an ends-justify-the-means captain, but what sort of conflict is there in that during a war where apparently anything goes? It's all Section 31 without the Federation. And for those who would say "Star Trek can be different!", yes, it can be. DS9 was different: set on a static space station, centered around the plights of one (highly religious) species, huge story arcs, a black captain (which was a pretty big deal at the time), but at its heart it was basically still morality plays.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
skasion posted:It comes from the same place, which is narrative of post-Cold-War anxiety about whether American global hegemony is really worth the kind of dirty work it takes to keep it up. Close, it was about whether that kind of dirty work is actually necessary at all. DS9 says no, ENT and STD say yes. Voyager says "there's coffee in that nebula"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:it was about whether that kind of dirty work is actually necessary at all. DS9 says no But Sisko can live with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Close, it was about whether that kind of dirty work is actually necessary at all. DS9 says no, ENT and STD say yes. Voyager says "there's coffee in that nebula" ENT and STD are different in that in ENT, the enemy was actually somewhat threatening instead of a complete joke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Militaristic Starfleet officer, desperate and warlike captain, brutal worldview, hatred and fear of Klingons - almost like he’s fought a losing war against them. Yesterday’s Enterprise universe, surely. Yesterday's Enterprise point of divergence hasn't happened yet. That's ages away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Star Trek: Discovery is good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Star Trek: Discovery is good. Counterpoint: It's not good
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:ENT and STD are different in that in ENT, the enemy was actually somewhat threatening instead of a complete joke. The defense has no questions for this witness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Star Trek: Discovery is good. Not only is it good, it also looks great. But I can see the thread is back at the "it's not true star trek because.." which continues to be full of lovely non-arguments
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Atreiden posted:Not only is it good, it also looks great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
TOS is dated but can be fun. TNG is a heavy handed, corny, soap opera that I love because I grew up with it. DS9 is a heavy handed, corny, dark soap opera that I love because I grew up with it and it is for the most part well written and legit good. VOY is a heavy handed, corny, soap opera that I don’t enjoy because I didn’t watch it when it first aired. ENT was boring. DIS is good tv and if you people expected a rehash of TNG you should watch the Orville. If you want Star Trek to survive on television you can’t expect it to be 1995 again. DIS is good, and sperging about continuity between series’ is dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Frankly so far it's a specific kind of good: good enough. The sad thing is it could have been great. But, it is indeed good enough, so we'll keep watching hoping for a glimpse of greatness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Well said. I appreciate the cinematic nature of the show, think it looks gorgeous, with great acting and characters that are growing on me. I'm in increasingly invested in the stories. I dig some of the trippier aspects of the show that have emerged. Now if it would have something more of value to actually say, we'd really be in business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Frankly so far it's a specific kind of good: good enough. Has Star Trek ever had a great first season?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Has Star Trek ever had a great first season? Yeah in 1966.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Pac-Manioc Root posted:Yeah in 1966. Yeah, it has some pretty solid episodes. But still, that's only 1 out of 6.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Ok so here's a thought, spoilers for season-wide observations. So in the first couple episodes, what's her name commits mutiny, trying to do what she sees as the right thing... And she may have actually been right, because it was one bad Klingon trying to rally the others by saying "Watch, they will use their words to do war on us, making us weak." And that's what ended up happening, and it started the war, and Mike is a mutineer, and the fear-based guy hates her. Fine. Now the fear-based guy is the first officer, and there's Mutiny Mike, and they are on the planet with the crystal antenna and then he gives in to the good vibes and tries to do what he thinks is right and attacks his own team, basically exactly what Mike did and got called.a.mutineer. But now the spore drive accident. Will fear-guy have a new respect for Mutiny Mike?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:If you want Star Trek to survive on television you can’t expect it to be 1995 again. If you want Star Trek to survive on television then put a series on television, not a lovely paid access service with no direct competition and no ratings transparency. E: tell us more about extremely good and consistent characterizations, plot beats, story arcs and worldbuilding that makes the show even clear the generously low hurdle of "good enough" McSpanky fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:Well said.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Drink-Mix Man posted:Well said. I'd say that until this cliffhanger I had no real rush to see the next episode. That isn't meaning that it's bad but it hasn't done anything super exciting and there are too many bits in other episodes that annoy me. There's no excuse for the whole L'rell faff in the penultimate episode. Now I'm really curious what's going to happen next so I hope that it stays this way!
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
thexerox123 posted:Has Star Trek ever had a great first season? Not at all, but we are in a different era of planning and show running and Prestige Television so that's less excusable now. But also, it's why I still have hope for greatness rather than merely good-enoughness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 19:30
|
|