New Star Trek series - 2017

[bobbyspangles]

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I don't like the new Klingon look and sound but I will get used to it.

Is it known yet if Michael (lol) is going to be a main character throughout? I can not stand her already.

 

[something daft already!!]

Apart from interstellar travel and matter transportation, some of the Tech seen in Star Trek was tech which was a few decades behind reality. The communicator in TOS was the reason the mobile phone exists. PADD in TNG inspired the glut of Tablets we now have, universal translators, Holodeck (VR headsets), Talking to computers and getting an answer and the Hypospray. I can't remember the point of my statement was now lol.

 

[Uncle Petey]

^That's true.
When I said the 60's idea of future tech, I kinda meant in regards to how things looked vs our current idea of future sci-fi visuals.

 

[Randomface74]

Star Trek: Prison Break
Main character even has the same name.

 

[Shamrock]

Shamrock - as far as I'm aware CBS cannot do a TV show set in the JJ-Trek timeline. It would have to be prime timeline or Yet Another Reboot™.

Ah I didn't realise that. It does seem to imitate the JJ-verse visually somewhat. Sad they got rid of the traditional Klingon Bird of Prey and K't'inga/D7-class ships.

I'm inclined to agree with drunkenmaster about the 'human raised by vulcans' aspect. They should have found some other character hook. It feels like a copy of Spock and Data but not as interesting as either. Also, I found Sonequa Martin-Green's Walking Dead character annoying so associate that with her acting in Discovery.

 

[Steampunk]

A big part of the Trek shows has been about the crew and characters. There's been many episodes that are nothing but character episodes. Maybe CBS thinks they can do what JJ did, forgetting that we already had a massive background of character knowledge from the previous series, so JJ didn't need to explain much about Kirk/Spock/McCoy, as we already know all about them. There are many great characters in Trek, and them working together is one of the mainstays of all the shows and movies.

Discovery needs not just one engaging main character, but several of them that can all work together to be a greater whole than the sum of its parts.

 

[steve5424]

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. I don't like the new Klingon look and sound but I will get used to it.

Is it known yet if Michael (lol) is going to be a main character throughout? I can not stand her already.

MIT was known a long time ago. She is the main character and all focus is on her. The captain of the Discovery and the rest of the crew will take a back seat to her.

 

[JRS]

For anyone who, like me, was a bit confused about some differences in direction and characterisation going from the 1st to 2nd episodes...that's probably because they were directed and the teleplays written by different people.

The overall story is a Bryan Fuller one. Alex Kurtzman contributed to ep 1. The teleplay for 1 was done by Fuller with Akiva Goldsman, directed by David Semel. For 2, the show runners Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts wrote the teleplay and Adam Kane directed.

Now, how is any two-parter supposed to stay remotely consistent with that many cooks adding to the broth?

 

[TallPaul1878]

For anyone who, like me, was a bit confused about some differences in direction and characterisation going from the 1st to 2nd episodes...that's probably because they were directed and the teleplays written by different people.

The overall story is a Bryan Fuller one. Alex Kurtzman contributed to ep 1. The teleplay for 1 was done by Fuller with Akiva Goldsman, directed by David Semel. For 2, the show runners Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts wrote the teleplay and Adam Kane directed.

Now, how is any two-parter supposed to stay remotely consistent with that many cooks adding to the broth?

They completely borked it up in my opinion. In fact the only likeable person was the Klingon war lord and he got killed. I could empathize with him far more than any of the Federation characters.

 

[JediFragger]

Remember, this is a TV show written, cast and produced in 2017. Don't expect strong character development like we got with the old trek series. Those days are over.

:cries:

We'll always have TNG/DS9!!!!!

 

[Efour]

I'm not losing hope over a pilot episode that was designed to be "sexy" and explosive.

It takes at least a series to develop trek characters.

Also don't forget to watch the Orville, which if I can get on with the collage humour is so far so good.

 

[Tombstone]

I'm not losing hope over a pilot episode that was designed to be "sexy" and explosive.

It takes at least a series to develop trek characters.

Also don't forget to watch the Orville, which if I can get on with the collage humour is so far so good.

When is the Orville on over here, I've been waiting to check it out, it will be on Netflix yes?

 

[Nitefly]

She isn't going to be Captain. Episodes 1 and 2 were a prequel really. Episode 3 is where discovery really starts and where we meet the new crew and the ship itself.

What's wrong with the ToS sounds? It's set in that era. It's nothing to do with Picard??

I thought Raymond implied that sounds were from TNG, perhaps I'm mistaken.

As for what's wrong with them - it sounds like a naff sci fi effect from times past, because that's what it is. It's there for nostalgia only.

Sounds good re: the crew!

 

[drunkenmaster]

In his case, yes. The guy basically lives to find a reason for typing up an essay on why someone's wrong, or why something is poorly written etc... Actually, it seems that virtually anything is a good reason to write a convoluted dissertation.

99% of TV and film have plot holes and/or things that could've been written better.
Some people can just chill out without overthinking everything. Some people actively try to find fault with everything.

Given the Trek fan base, this was never going to please everyone, no matter what they did.
What they have done is create something that should appeal to a relative majority.

As for the visuals, do you really think that anyone bar the hardcore ST traditionalists would accept a new Trek series released in 2017 that looks like Trek from the 60's? New audiences wouldn't have it.
Trials and Tribblations was a bit of fun fan service, nothing more.

ToS was a product of it's time. A vision of the future by the day's standards. Times have changed.

Plot holes happen in even my favourite films and tv, the difference between good and bad tv is when there is lots of great content where 90% of the show isn't stupid. With Discovery, almost every scene has someone acting stupid, the dialogue between characters is incredibly awkward, it's like they don't know each other. We have a long standing science officer who everyone acts like they have to explain his actions to the other crew members rather than just let us go hey, he seems like a bit of a coward. Then you have the, she basically shoved him out of the way to do his job, so after 7 years serving on that ship he's either competent and she has to trust him by this point or he wouldn't be there.

Every scene was wrong in some fairly major way, there wasn't 10 good scenes for every 1 bad scene, everything had massive gaping holes. Largely because the writing was bad, when the writing is bad it's going to struggle to have any good scenes.

I mean it opened up with the captain and 1st officer on a planet and the 1st officer explaining to the cap what they were doing there. It was direct for the audience information but delivered in a ham fisted and entirely unnatural way. Would the captain be unaware why they were there, would either of them after years of service and having travelled there specifically to do this need anything about the mission explained to each other while on the planet?

I mean, when I was reading other discussions on the show someone mentioned that the monitor headed robot dude was basically never seen after early in the first episode and I was honestly confused about what he meant. I had to go back to check to even remember one of the bridge crew because rather than longer whole bridge shots, it was all this angled nonsense and fast cutting, I genuinely didn't remember him. I think his only actual line was "that's impossible" as the ship uncloaks. I have no idea what it's name was, I don't know who that chick who appeared to be the pilot was. Even if they aren't in future episodes making 80% of the bridge crew instantly forgettable with no real interaction, no names, it just felt sterile and ridiculous.

 

[steve5424]

Fox are showing in the UK but no date yet.

Its really good and not as much of a comedy as you'd think. A realy good homage to trek. There are even a lot of folk from Trek involved. Guy that played Tom Paris in Voyager directed the second episode.

I watched Discovery again today and do wish it started at episode 3 and just told the prologue as flashbacks throughout the series.

 

[stewski]

:cries:

We'll always have TNG/DS9!!!!!

Deep sleep 9? The only good bits were a clear reaction to Babylon 5 in my opinion!

 

[steve5424]

I thought Raymond implied that sounds were from TNG, perhaps I'm mistaken.

As for what's wrong with them - it sounds like a naff sci fi effect from times past, because that's what it is. It's there for nostalgia only.

Sounds good re: the crew!

But it makes the bridge sound like its working and doing things. Its also good as this is set ten years before Kirk and the Enterprise so its something else they are tying in.

There are ToS sounds as well as some from TNG which is a bit confusing. Door sounds, Transporter sounds(well part of it), bridge sounds are clearly ToS and the comm sounds, Torpedo sounds and a few others are TNG I think.

 

[steve5424]

I mean, when I was reading other discussions on the show someone mentioned that the monitor headed robot dude was basically never seen after early in the first episode and I was honestly confused about what he meant. I had to go back to check to even remember one of the bridge crew because rather than longer whole bridge shots, it was all this angled nonsense and fast cutting, I genuinely didn't remember him. I think his only actual line was "that's impossible" as the ship uncloaks. I have no idea what it's name was, I don't know who that chick who appeared to be the pilot was. Even if they aren't in future episodes making 80% of the bridge crew instantly forgettable with no real interaction, no names, it just felt sterile and ridiculous.

I agree and can only think that none of them were given nems or even referred to because they not not in the rest of the show, they were merely there to set up the plot for Michael Burnham and as I posted this whole plot could really have been told in a few minutes via a flash back in the actual series.

Calling it Discovery but its te 3rd episode before we even get to see the ship or the main cast of the show is really silly.

 

[bobbyspangles]

Fox are showing in the UK but no date yet.

Its really good and not as much of a comedy as you'd think. A realy good homage to trek. There are even a lot of folk from Trek involved. Guy that played Tom Paris in Voyager directed the second episode.

I watched Discovery again today and do wish it started at episode 3 and just told the prologue as flashbacks throughout the series.

And Kasidy Yates as the Doctor.

 

[stewski]

I agree and can only think that none of them were given nems or even referred to because they not not in the rest of the show, they were merely there to set up the plot for Michael Burnham and as I posted this whole plot could really have been told in a few minutes via a flash back in the actual series.

Calling it Discovery but its te 3rd episode before we even get to see the ship or the main cast of the show is really silly.

I'd disagree if you are suggesting that wasn't a good attempt to restart star trek as a series!
I can't even remember what was in the first two episodes of enterprise beyond the worst theme to any show ever.

If it plays out as a good foundation for Discovery is all to find out, but we will be watching...