Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 81 Next >>
Topic: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - New TV Series Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15700
Posted: September 28 2017 at 9:08pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

I agree, Paul, the second episode was more compelling than the first.
++++++++++

I find this interesting. The reviews are really, really mixed. Some people say that the first episode was better than the second, while other people say the reverse.

There's not really a consensus on this show in any way, aside from near-universal praise for the visual effects.

Based on what I've seen (the first episode only), I can't help but wonder how many people actually think the show is good, and how many are just fooling themselves into thinking it's good, because they want it to be.

As noted, I already gave it a thumbs-down, based on what I saw. Not jaw-droppingly bad, but not good, either. Weak characters, stilted acting, major flaws in logic and plot. We'll see how things shake out, over the weeks to come. Maybe it'll improve, maybe not.

A lot of people are asking the key question: "Is It STAR TREK?". Some are withholding judgment, while others already have their answer. Me, I say, "no".
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: March 17 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 11722
Posted: September 28 2017 at 9:54pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

I don't think there's a TV series that's ever existed that it's been possible, or fair, to judge what it might become based on the first episode.

I see a show that is being beaten with a stick of not offering enough that is new while simultaneously being beaten with a stick of not reproducing exactly what went before; of not being attractive enough to watch more than the first episode while simultaneously being heavily pirated; of being stuck in a timewarp and rehashing established history while being accused of stealing from fan fiction. Of not having strong enough characters but concentrating too heavily on a certain character.

I say let's give it a chance to see what it is and can become before measuring out the coffin. 


Edited by Peter Martin on September 28 2017 at 9:55pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15700
Posted: September 28 2017 at 11:27pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

That's a fair attitude to take, but a pilot is supposed to give some sense of what a series will be like, from week to week.

CBS has taken a rather large gamble by showing only half of a mere prelude to the actual series, and hoping that people would be intrigued enough to pay for more. From a structural point of view, it wouldn't have been hard to have a "regular" DISCOVERY episode interspersed with flashbacks to the backstory, would it? Of course, the key difference here is that this show is designed as a serialized narrative for online streaming and binge-watching. Rather than having a pilot designed to sell the series to a network and an audience, it's just the prologue to a serialized narrative that's already in the can.

Me, I wasn't hooked. If it were on free TV, I'd watch it, mainly to see where it goes and to get some good discussion out of it. But, I don't feel inclined to pay them to say, "Yes, I'd like more of this not-STAR TREK STAR TREK show, please!". 

While it wasn't quite fully-formed, in terms of the cast and style, I don't think anyone can argue that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" wasn't a fantastic pilot episode, and that it didn't give a very good sense of what the weekly series was going to be. "The Vulcan Hello" pales in comparison.

Story and characters are a proper audience hook, not slick production values and mere teases for the actual series to come. Maybe it's not a fair comparison, due to DISCOVERY's structure and delivery system, but here we are. 


Edited by Greg Kirkman on September 29 2017 at 1:25am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: August 12 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1586
Posted: September 29 2017 at 12:41am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

I think the folks calling it Star Trek: Galactica are pretty much spot on. (Not because it looks like BSG, but based on what BSG did with the remake of the original series.) But what worked for me with the Battlestar Galactica remake doesn't work for me with Discovery because the original Star Trek was already good and, quite frankly, the original Battlestar Galactica wasn't that great. As a kid starved for new science fiction that loved Star Trek and Star Wars I could not get into the original BSG at all. Star Trek didn't need to be reinvented and updated to work.Maybe it would be better if they would just admit it's a remake instead of trying to insist it's a prequel to the original series. Even Jar Jar Abrams went with the whole Kelvin timeline thing to leave the original series and its followup series intact and unaffected by his remade version, while this thing is just crapping all over what came before by insisting it's in continuity with the original series.

Edited by Shane Matlock on September 29 2017 at 12:47am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: August 12 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1586
Posted: September 29 2017 at 1:12am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Another thing about this show is that is very puzzling to me is that I"ve read that Netflix funded much of it so that they could show it on Netflix everywhere but the US while allowing CBS All Access the only US streaming rights to it, putting that in direct competition with Netflix in their biggest market? Does that make sense to anyone at all?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15700
Posted: September 29 2017 at 1:34am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

But what worked for me with the Battlestar Galactica remake doesn't work for me with Discovery because the original Star Trek was already good and, quite frankly, the original Battlestar Galactica wasn't that great.
+++++++

I've recently been watching the original GALACTICA for the first time on MeTV, and, as wacky as it is, it has some good ideas and a certain charm to it. I've not seen the rebooted version. By all accounts, the reboot takes the basic premise and fleshes it out.

STAR TREK was great right out of the gate, and, since the original series ended, it's been more of a case of trying to keep it great and/or updating it for later generations. Whereas the original GALACTICA was a good premise in need of better execution.


Note: If nothing else, GALACTICA makes me curse the fates for not giving us more of John Colicos as Kor on STAR TREK. He's deliciously evil as Baltar on GALACTICA. So much fun to watch him having fun in the role!
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15700
Posted: September 29 2017 at 1:35am | IP Logged | 7 post reply

RedLetterMedia's take on DISCOVERY:

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: August 12 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 1586
Posted: September 29 2017 at 2:18am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

Maybe I should give the original Galactica a try. What didn't work for me as a kid could very well work for me as an adult. I honestly remember very little about it other than character names and faces and not liking it so when the remake came along I didn't have much interest but it did suck me in once I started watching it on the recommendation of friends. But the thing I love about the original Star Trek is that it worked for me as a kid and still works for me as an adult. It's truly all ages.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15700
Posted: September 29 2017 at 2:23am | IP Logged | 9 post reply

As has been noted, over the years, TREK absolutely works on two levels.

Watching it as a kid, you mostly latch onto the action and adventure. As an adult, you start sussing out all of the moral, ethical, sexual, and political content. Two totally different experiences contained within one series, because it was written in layers. There are nuances and subtleties that go right over a kid's head, but provide rich food for thought in adult minds.

Thus far, DISCOVERY's two levels are "war" and "war".
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Marten van Wier
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: August 07 2015
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 475
Posted: September 29 2017 at 9:37am | IP Logged | 10 post reply

I am going a bit of subject here now, talking about the writer of the first Discovery novel, David Mack.

* * * *

David Mack, in the first DSC novel crosses over the Shenzhou and Pike's Enterprise

* * * *

I am not a fan of his Star Trek work and his is one of the reasons why I am glad that Star Trek spin off media is in the end non canon. (which is sometimes a shame as well as some spin off media like comics, books, and games is pretty good)

The "trying to fix and preserve canon" thing he has pulled here is not the first time he decided to modify Star Trek lore.

I really hate what he has done to the Borg Collective in the Star Trek Destiny books, pretty much continuing the damage Brannon Braga was already doing in the last couple of seasons.

And in his last Section 31 book he "revealed" that the Federation was not so much the product of people working together but an Artificial Intelligence manipulating societies from behind the scenes. It also established Section 31 or at least took that organization over.
It even foresaw some of the encounters and situations Kirk, Picard, and the others would run into.


So I am pretty much of the opinion you can ignore pretty much everything the man writes regarding Star Trek.
He is one of the reasons why I have come to loathe Pocket Books.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: April 01 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3258
Posted: September 29 2017 at 10:26am | IP Logged | 11 post reply

The "trying to fix and preserve canon" thing he has pulled here is not the first time he decided to modify Star Trek lore.
---------------------------------------------------------
I dunno about the other cases, but in this case, its not his fault.  He was given the task of writing the novel, and told to cross over Pike's Enterprise and the Shenzhou, by then showrunner Bryan Fuller.  At the time, Fuller was pressing to not have all the continuity problems.  Then Fuller left, and every draft Mack got of the script made his task more and more difficult as DSC moved further and further away from anything recognizable in continuity.

I find it hard to blame Mack for this.  The show is what is making MASSIVE changes to Trek Lore, while the new showrunners continue to claim that the show is in continuity.  Mack was stuck just trying to come up with something plausible to make the story he had been hired to tell work.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: March 17 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 11722
Posted: September 29 2017 at 1:21pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Thus far, DISCOVERY's two levels are "war" and "war".

-----------------------------------------------
Greg, this actually made me chuckle.
Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 81 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login