Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Star Trek
Byrne Robotics > Star Trek << Prev Page of 37
Topic: STAR TREK: DISCOVERY - New TV Series Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Victor Perez
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 49
Posted: 17 January 2019 at 3:48pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

Wouldn't it be better to just move on and devote that time to enjoying something you love?”

Like recording 90 minute rants! :)

Enjoyed the new season of Doctor Who because it reminded me of the first season of Tom Baker that I saw in reruns as a little kid. Can’t really pin down what gave me that feelling (would need to hire a Disco-disliking videoranter to do a shot-by-shot tone breakdown I guess!). 

It turns out the gender change wasn’t a big deal at all for me—not because l “didn’t mind” it or “really liked it” or I am somehow better than people who didn’t like it or something, but because weirdly, surprisingly it felt like a non-event. So hard to explain—it sounds cliché, but it was almost as if it was just The Doctor and I forgot to even think about gender? I promise I am not saying I am “genderblind” or something like that (or god forbid that I couldn’t tell what gender she is). It just felt like: here is this character l have been programmed to know and like for decades who is a Timelord and has a tardis and sonic screwdriver and.wow what is she going to do next—and not realizing I just said “she.” But... turning back to Star Trek, I did end up being disappointed by the season finale of Doctor Who because it all seemed resolved in the last five minutes by tecnobabbling the technobabble of the warp dr—I mean the Tardis. Which underscores another reason I liked Disco: didn’t really know what was going to happen next or how each episode or the season was going to end.


Edited by Victor Perez on 17 January 2019 at 3:51pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1049
Posted: 19 January 2019 at 6:21pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply

Just caught up with the Short Treks

I really enjoyed "Calypso" and "The Escape Artist".  Only watched these two so far.

Makes me kind of wish DISCO was the done-in-one anthology show they first proposed.   


Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8298
Posted: 28 January 2019 at 9:39am | IP Logged | 3 post reply

Broke down and watched season1. BTW, this
forum was no help.Some say its great, some
simply like it, some dislike it and some
loathe it.

Me? I'm definitely critical. If this was
NOT Star Trek and all references to that
Universe were removed, it would be an ok
scifi action show. Here are the problems
as I see them.

1.As this show is a prequel to TOS the
tech is ridiculously advanced.

2.The uniforms don't make any sense. They
fit no where between ENTERPRISE, THE CAGE
or WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE.

3. As a character Michael Burnham is a
block of wood.

4.Why does this show have just the one
lead? Every Trek show has been an
ensemble, whether TOS' main trio or all
seven cast members. There are three
regulars on the bridge that we know
nothing about. Everyone we do know about
is in service to Mikey Spock.

5. A P.O.W. is allowed back on active duty
without a psyc eval. and at no point does
he have a regulation to follow about
shaving?

6. We're changing the look of Klingons
again?!? Then I see for season 2, Again,
again?!?
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rob Ocelot
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 December 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1049
Posted: 28 January 2019 at 9:12pm | IP Logged | 4 post reply

1.As this show is a prequel to TOS the 
tech is ridiculously advanced. 


I think as a STAR TREK fan this is the one hangup I'm going to have to put aside if I'm going to enjoy this show on it's own merits.

2.The uniforms don't make any sense. They 
fit no where between ENTERPRISE, THE CAGE 
or WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE. 


Oh, it gets worse.

4.Why does this show have just the one 
lead? Every Trek show has been an 
ensemble, whether TOS' main trio or all 
seven cast members. There are three 
regulars on the bridge that we know 
nothing about. Everyone we do know about 
is in service to Mikey Spock. 


I think they have defended this approach by saying that DISCO is 'going to be unlike every other STAR TREK show'.

(though, they said that about DS-9 and ENTERPRISE back in the day too)

6. We're changing the look of Klingons 
again?!? Then I see for season 2, Again, 
again?!?

They are now saying that these changes were 'part of the plan all along', which doesn't really ring true to their original posturing of  "This is how they are going to look for this show, so deal with it.   Criticism of any kind will get you labelled as a hater".   Whether it was a rights-likeness issue that's now resolved, a conscious design choice that was mapped out to dovetail with the Classic/TNG Klingon look, or just plain pig-headedness on the part of the production I don't think we'll ever be told the truth.   Perhaps it's a combination of all three.

I guess at worst the first season of DISCOVERY kind of falls into the 'rough out the gate, but found it's way and got a lot better' category that includes the first seasons of TNG, DS9, and VOY.   Even BABYLON 5 and the X-FILES had first seasons that were a chore to watch.   

What promising is they appear to have made some conscious effort to improve DISCO for Season 2.   I'm finding it a little easier now to just enjoy the show and not try to figure out where it fits in with the rest of STAR TREK as I'm watching it.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8298
Posted: 03 February 2019 at 7:46am | IP Logged | 5 post reply

Here's how I see it. The show has one lead instead of an
ensemble. I personally find her to be a bit of what some
call, a Mary Sue. She's good at everything, questions
orders and gets away with it. Questioning orders as a
Captain with a loyal crew is easier to grasp. An
indignant crewman goes to the brig.

I think the curly redhead and the first officer are more
interesting. I would also like to know about the three
bridge crew we see on a somewhat regular basis. I think
Ash, as a character, made a good story arch but not as a
regular. Besides, neither Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway or
Archer would let that man on a bridge without a shave.

The, 25 percent different rule, ceases to be a problem if
they had done a sequel instead of a prequel to the canon
mythology. This rule will always make the show feel off.
Some shows do need to find their footing. After watching
the season 2 premiere, I refuse to continue. I don't like
it. It's not the first time. Outside of the Captain
Proton episodes, I didn't like VOYAGER either. So,
whatever.

Hopefully the re-merging with Viacom will help Star Trek
feel like Star Trek again. Also, hopefully Kurtzman will
be sidelined as showrunner. Where Harve Bennett and Nick
Meyer found things in Trek for them to grasp on to.
Kurtzman seems to want to change it to something he or
Bad Robot wants. I'll check back in when the Viacom thing
happens. Hopefully it does before the Picard show.
Although the Picard show being a sequel automatically
makes it less problematic for me.

For those that love the show. Good luck. I hope there's
enough of you to keep it going. I'll stick with THE
ORVILLE. I find it to be humorous enough to be
different, but the adventures and ensemble dynamic makes
it more my thing.

Edited by Stephen Churay on 03 February 2019 at 7:48am
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Victor Perez
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 49
Posted: 03 February 2019 at 8:57am | IP Logged | 6 post reply

<<Questioning orders as a Captain with a loyal crew is easier to grasp. An indignant crewman goes to the brig. 

I think the curly redhead and the first officer are more interesting.>

Curly redhead is the one who belongs in the brig... for endangering the ship with her dark matter experiment and not reporting her hallucinations.

I have enjoyed Rob’s take on season 2. Pretty spot on.

My main reaction to this season’s third episode was “woah, look at the size of those Klingon heads.” Were they that large in season one? Clearly we see now that big head plus house-specific hair/facial hair style gets you to each Klingon we have seen on the big and small screen. But those enormous heads!

The other reaction is that the writing and editing still seems a little choppy in a way I can’t put my finger on... maybe they compacted some scripts to put more stand-alone episodes into the mix? With this last episode, if you were distracted for any three minutes—maybe even as little as 30 seconds—you’d be completely lost the next time those characters appeared on screen. They really packed problem on top of problem for certain members of the crew at a rapid pace. Oh and did the character who visited Michael leave in a snit? Didn’t seem realistic. Not mentioning the name so as not to spoil...

In general, I just can’t go back to the post-TOS formula of interlocking twenty minutes of “this week is it is a Whorf story” with twenty minutes of “and the b-story is Character X isn’t sure of himself but he figures it out in the end.” Interspaced of course, by another 20 minutes of titles, filler and commercials. Television has moved on from that. 

The Orville revisits the format in a kind and gentle way but I must just not care—because I never remember to watch it, or perhaps I am just too interested in what they are going to do with this hot mess called Star Trek Discovery. The Red Angel better be Commander Sinclair. But I would settle for Good Lorca.




Back to Top profile | search
 
Stephen Churay
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 March 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 8298
Posted: 03 February 2019 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

To each, their own, Victor. I've said my
piece about yhe show, and it's not for me.
For your sake, I hope the show goes on.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 15508
Posted: 13 February 2019 at 10:51am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

So, Midnight’s Edge recently released an in-depth report (to be taken with a grain of salt, of course, since some evidence is circumstantial) regarding the legal issues surrounding the STAR TREK franchise. 



Robert Meyer Burnett says that their conclusions line up well with his own experiences—specifically, the legal obstacles he had to navigate—in working on the TNG Blu-Rays.


What it boils down to is that, legally speaking, the so-called “Prime” timeline is NOT the established STAR TREK canon which existed from 1966-2005. Rather, it’s an alternate, rebooted version of STAR TREK which has been licensed out by CBS to Paramount and Bad Reboot. Legally-speaking, the Spock played by Leonard Nimoy in the Abrams films is NOT the Spock (also played by Nimoy) from TOS. Just as the Picard to be played by Patrick Stewart in the upcoming CBS series (which I still believe will not even be made) is NOT the Picard we know from TNG. These alternate versions of characters, concepts, and starships are all legally separate from their classic counterparts, and that’s where the oft-cited “25% different” factor comes into play. 

So, if true, this means it’s all been a con. The selling point of the Abrams movies for many fans was that “the original canon still counts”. That Spock-Prime and Nero came from the TNG era as we knew it, and the time-travel incursion in the 2009 film created a parallel universe which could then go its own way. Well, as it turns out, that Spock is not “our” Spock, and the TNG era that he came from is NOT the TNG era which we know. The new Picard series will therefore also be set in this alternate version of the TNG era, and will therefore—legally—not actually be a legitimate sequel to NEMESIS, despite it being billed as such.

This also means that STD has no relation to actual TOS canon, thank Vaal. It explains why the show lines up much more closely—visually and stylistically—with the Abramsverse than with the original canon (...to say nothing of the fact that they’re both brain-dead products made by people who clearly don’t understand and/or care about STAR TREK). STD basically takes place in the universe where the Kelvin was not destroyed. The Discoprise is not actually the Enterprise from TOS, etc.

On the one hand, this is delightful news, if true. It actually solves some of STD’s problems. It’s now very easy to separate the Abramsverse and STD into their own little pocket reality and simply let them do their own thing (i.e., fail miserably), rather than trying to somehow reconcile them with the canon as it existed from 1966-2005. No longer can the show be criticized form ignoring, rewriting, and/or not lining up with TOS lore. Fans of STD can simply enjoy it for what it is, and fans of the original canon can breathe easy, since STD doesn’t actually impact TOS. So, all of those Memory-Alpha pages really need to be purged of STD content...

On the other hand, CBS, Bad Reboot, and everyone involved really need to stop lying and misdirecting what fans remain into thinking that these new products have anything to do with the STAR TREK they love. AbramsTREK lured fans in with a big lie—Spock-Prime came from the original, 1966-2005 canon, which was then tied in with the new (Abramsverse) canon via time-travel. Same with the Picard show, since that’s being misrepresented as a direct sequel to NEMESIS, as a selling point.

They just need to admit that these are actual, full-on reboots (with certain characters played by their original-canon actors) rather than anything resembling a legitimate continuation of the original canon. They’re (unfortunately) free to remain creatively bankrupt by licensing, rehashing and mangling beloved characters and concepts (...by at least 25%!) from the original canon, but they need to stop lying to people by saying that “you’ll soon see how this all ties into the original canon” and whatnot. Just admit that it’s all a reboot, with no connection to the original series or its spin-offs. 

I actually feel somewhat relieved by all of this, since I have no desire whatsoever for the prior canon to be infected by STD. Legally, it turns out, this isn’t even possible. So, maybe I can pick up David A. Goodman’s upcoming AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MR. SPOCK book without having to read about friggin’ Mikey Burnham teaching Spock how to be Spock, and how she was loved more than Spock by Amanda.

I do indeed feel relieved. However, my concern remains for the legacy of the franchise, more than the quality of future installments. It would be nice if STAR TREK retained its good name and gracefully bowed out of the pop-culture spotlight with its dignity and good memories intact. Of course, the past decade’s worth of TREK projects has been based on nostalgia-milking, awful writing, creative bankruptcy, and mocking/alienating the core fanbase, so that ain’t likely to happen. Just look at the recent (and desperate) promotional piece of the STD cast singing a TREK-themed riff on “Seasons of Love” from RENT, (complete with calling fans “nerds”).

Cringe factor 10, Captain.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Steve De Young
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 April 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 3137
Posted: 13 February 2019 at 3:23pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

Greg, what does legal copyright have to do with the fan concept of 'canon'?  Who cares who owns what copyright?  If CBS says that Disco and TOS are both canon, then as far as they're concerned they're both canon.  If tomorrow they say the opposite, then that will be true as far as they're concerned tomorrow.  You can watch or not watch whatever you like.  Why does CBS publicly crediting or discrediting something affect your enjoyment of it in any way?

Also, I fundamentally don't believe that this is still even the case in terms of copyright.  I know it used to be, because the CBS and Paramount licenses were completely separate.  Star Trek Online, for example, couldn't use anything from the Kelvin timeline IP or the other movies unless it had appeared in an episode of the television shows to which they had the license.  A couple years ago, however, that changed.  The wall came down, and now licensees are able to cross-pollinate.  It was around the same time that they started calling it the 'Kelvin timeline'.

But again, I've got all this stuff on Blu Ray and DVD.  The stuff I like, I rewatch.  The stuff I don't like, I don't rewatch.  Whether or not Star Trek V is currently considered canonical or not, it still sucks.  Whether or not TAS is currently considered canonical or not, I still kind of like its wonkiness.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Tyler Kloster
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2006
Posts: 134
Posted: 13 February 2019 at 3:56pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply

Yeah....I know that Greg and many others on this forum absolutely hate the Abramsverse films as well as the Discovery series and are desperate for them not to "count". Any questions of licenses aside, though, there should be absolutely no doubt that Leonard Nimoy considered himself to be playing the exact same character that he had always been playing in the previous 45 years of the franchise, not an alternate reality version. Patrick Stewart surely considers himself to be playing the exact same Jean-Luc Picard he played for 15 years on both the small and big screens, not an alternate reality Picard. I mean, they lured him to the project in the first place with the pitch of playing the exact same character in a different part of his life.

Real world technicalities aside, they are meant to be a part of the original Star Trek, just as the producers and creators of Discovery have assured us that it is, whether you like the show or not. Clearly many here loathe it. Some, like me and a few others, like it or even love it.

I agree with Steve above. If you don't like it, that's fine. Don't watch it. Why get so worked up over the idea that there's a version of Star Trek that's not for you? Discovery--and the Abrams movies, for that matter---were meant to contribute to the Star Trek legacy, and they have. No one is under any obligation to like them, and they're not less of a Star Trek fan for doing so. 

I personally have little use for Voyager or Enterprise, but I still acknowledge that they contributed to the overall legend of Star Trek even if they weren't for me. I just don't watch them, or I rarely ever do anyway. I let the people who like them do so, and I don't get worked up over there being versions of the franchise that I don't like or how the people who made them hate Star Trek or don't get it or whatever. And I certainly wouldn't be telling the people who do love it that their version of Star Trek doesn't "count".

I just enjoy the Star Trek that I love....the Original Series, the Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, most of the movies (including 2 of the 3 Abramsverse films), and now Discovery. Not everything is for me, and that's okay.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Victor Perez
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 49
Posted: 13 February 2019 at 3:58pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

                           Disco is good?
                     Yes                       No
                     __________________
             Yes  |                |                  |
Disco            |                |                  |
Is                  |                |                  |
Cannon?      -------------------------------
                     |                |                  |
                     |                |                  |
           No      |                |                  |
                      ------------------------------
Back to Top profile | search
 
Victor Perez
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 November 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 49
Posted: 13 February 2019 at 4:40pm | IP Logged | 12 post reply

Re: "Why get so worked up over the idea that there's a version of Star Trek that's not for you?"

It's tricky. While I disagree with Steve's assessment of the quality of the DISCO, and while of course it's not worth getting "so worked up" about anything that isn't about a personally perceived threat to life, liberty, truth and justice, I get where Steve might be coming from.

Cannon is a weird thing. Like, er, many others here, I have read Marvel comics virtually my entire life. That's decades of the crazy good, the just good, and the mediocre, plus various reboots, re-imaginings, and most horribly for me personally, a Young Tony Stark. During the quality-lean times, there was always (heh) a quantum of solace to keep me on board.

Then one day, Jonathan Hickman killed the 616 Marvel Universe and that just went <poof>. I couldn't pick up another Marvel comic (with some rare, self-contained exceptions, like Moon Knight or, for a while, The Ultimates). 

Was I mad at Marvel or Hickman? No! Best. Epic. Ever. Did they do something horrible to my childhood?  Gimme a break, Jar Jar, no. Do I still read non-Marvel comics? Hell yeah. 

What happened?  Not sure--it's like: I just don't care about the characters on the new pages because they are not the ones I grew up with.  I repeat, I am not mad or bitter or anything, it's just...that's not my Tony Stark.

And: anyone shouting at me about how "yeah, yeah, but you should check out the new run of [whatever]"--that falls on the deaf ears the same way my telling someone they should really check out DISCO does.

SO... I think there is something going on about the concept of "cannon" beyond just pickiness and OCD. 

Unexpected bonus discovery: for me, the Marvel movies replaced the comics. Wow, who would have thought?

Bonus mystery: what would happen if Marvel turned into DC and had a cataclysmic event that brought the 616 universe back? I have no idea--the fact that Marvel wasn't DC precisely BECAUSE that stuff didn't happen and made Marvel BETTER than DC is another concept I grew up with. I think I would get over it, though! :) If you made it this far in my post, I probably owe you an apology. :)
Back to Top profile | search
 

If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login
If you are not already registered you must first register

<< Prev Page of 37
  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