Author Topic: Star Trek Discovery  (Read 29745 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Liked: 2422
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #100 on: 09/25/2017 11:03 PM »
I'm not against women or other people.  THEY tried to make an issue with the dark and light Klingon, not me.  They should let it go.  Don't mention race.  I just didn't see a lot of men or human men major characters on the earth ship, mostly women and aliens.

Er, you were the one who objected to the race and the women. If you don't like franchises with other races and girls, then try Star Wars...

Oh, wait...

Well, I guess you're outta luck. You'll either have to live with it or stare in the mirror.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8146
  • UK
  • Liked: 1313
  • Likes Given: 168
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #101 on: 09/25/2017 11:14 PM »
Thought the opening two episodes were pretty good. Though the opening scenes on that planet complete with the very clunky dialogue made for hard viewing. But once things got going it improved greatly, though the new Klingon designs were good they did rather get lost in the over busy sets of the Klingon warships. Main cast was OK but guessed Yeohís character wasnít long for this world.

The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
  • Canada
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 444
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #102 on: 09/26/2017 06:26 AM »
....
The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

You do understand they are trying to catch the attention of people that watch most of their video streamed on their smartphone/tablet.

You can not do a modern TV/Cable show about Space and the future without the look and feel of current  show in it's genre.

Think of this streaming series as a reboot after the events of the Enterprise series for viewers born after the start of the 2001-2005 Enterprise series.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8146
  • UK
  • Liked: 1313
  • Likes Given: 168
Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #103 on: 09/26/2017 07:33 AM »
....
The technology is getting ludicrous now in that it stretches belief beyond breaking point that this could be set ten years before the original show, compounded by the fact that it has far more the look of the modern films than any of the past TV shows.

You do understand they are trying to catch the attention of people that watch most of their video streamed on their smartphone/tablet.

You can not do a modern TV/Cable show about Space and the future without the look and feel of current  show in it's genre.

Think of this streaming series as a reboot after the events of the Enterprise series for viewers born after the start of the 2001-2005 Enterprise series.

Yes thatís obvious. Therefore set it in a different universe, maybe the movie universe or another one entirely.
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 07:33 AM by Star One »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3785
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 1384
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #104 on: 09/26/2017 07:48 AM »
I wrote a non-spoiler review of 'Discovery' in The Orville thread. For some reason, I can't cut-and-paste the link into this one. So if no one minds; I'll cut and paste the text here:

** I've watched the first two episodes of Discovery and the first few of The Orville. In my experienced opinion (I've seen all 700-odd Trek episodes and all movies and read dozens of Trek novels) - at this stage; they are both showing more promise than the first Seasons of all the Star trek shows; except the original!!

The Orville has a hard road to hoe - because it is part parody and part tribute to Star Trek. If it were more of a comedy or more of a drama, maybe it would work better... I'm unsure. But since it is finding it's way I would at this stage describe it as slightly weak rather than awful (it isn't) then it may have room for improvement. Even 'Babylon 5' - my favourite 'Space Opera' show ever - was not deemed to be a classic until I think the intrigue of it's main story was well underway by mid-season 2 or thereabouts.

In this day and age of instant gratification - real or perceived - we just don't seem to have the patience to let a TV show find it's feet or grow an audience. I know network executives and now 'the customer' (us) demand an instant classic, must-see, or binge-watching nirvana. But we're rarely going to get that anymore and I for one will watch a show I'm interested in and if it fails to hold my interest by about mid-season; then I'll reassess my viewing priorities. I know life is too short to watch bad TV, movies or music. Demand high standards, by all means.

When I watch Star Trek, I always have high hopes if not high-expectations. I'm seasoned and cynical enough not to have a rose-tinted view of my favourite(ish) set of TV shows ever. My favourite Trek show was Deep Space Nine because of it's huge, ambitious story-telling arc that had noble but nonetheless flawed and complex characters. And it had a dash of comedy, too at times. I don't think it was the best 'Trek show' - but I think it often rivaled the best 'Next Generation' episodes for being the best television of it's era.

...Which brings me to 'Discovery'. First of all - it aint your Grandpa's Trek!! The first couple episodes make this abundantly clear. I mentioned a 'rose tinted' glasses view a couple paragraphs ago. The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise were products of their time. Nobody is doing, or deliberately should make a modern space opera show, exactly the way they did in 1987, 1993, the late 1990s or the early 2000s. No one! I fully realized this when I saw the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot films from 2009 onwards - those films I both like and dislike in roughly equal measure. That's because - I swear to you - I endeavour bloody hard not to be an old-school, rose-tinted, nostalgia wussy 'fanboy'. We have modern special effects, modern censorship standards, 'modern acting', writing and direction, for better or worse. Modern cameras and cinematography techniques...

'Discovery' will have to play out it's agenda and character development with great thought and care. As I said - it is not an old TV show; it is a new one. That doesn't mean, though that it can't have the 'spirit of Star Trek' running through it's veins. Good writing and 'good heart' can bring that online, in time. I for one wont damn it because it doesn't have Shatner, Stewart or Michael Dorn in it. Although it would be really good to see those characters one more time - I don't live for it. If the reboot franchise falls over; and they bring back the T.N.G. timeframe and universe movies with Captain Riker or Worf - I'd be delighted. There's no reason it couldn't be at least good, if not great. But as I said - I don't hold my breath for it. It is almost all in the writing. Science fiction TV and films will fail if the power and logic and heart of the story doesn't work. But Star Trek, along with other famous space operas, will only survive in the long run if it evolves and grows - not puts out pale, repetitive carbon copies of itself.

Apart from my slight confusion about the current remolding of the Klingon race in 'Discovery' - I think I see a real glimmer of hope that something could really grow up out of this show - despite my reservations about it being a slightly unnecessary prequel. TNG, DS9 and Voyager took until their third seasons to find their way and become decent television shows. I don't think 'Discovery' will need that long... :)  **
« Last Edit: 09/26/2017 07:49 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8180
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2949
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #105 on: 09/26/2017 09:26 PM »
Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.
Jeff Bezos has billions to spend on rockets and can go at whatever pace he likes! Wow! What pace is he going at? Well... have you heard of Zeno's paradox?

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1264
  • Likes Given: 3216
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #106 on: 09/26/2017 11:34 PM »
It wasn't Star Trek, it was JJ Trek. I'm holding out hope that we will see traditional Trek in the future, with creative problem solving, interesting characters, and just generally less shooting and lasers. There was a reason that DS9 didn't just start with the Dominion War, and even then was still nuanced enough to avoid having the entire plot of each episode revolving around phasers and photon torpedoes.

Roddenberry is rolling in his grave.
The recent movies have definitely been heavy on the action and light on the promise of the Star Trek universe.  But I'm much more optimistic about the show.  Sure it starts with a traumatized human raised on Vulcan with a "kill them all and let Kahless sort-them out" attitude.  But I thought they made it clear that is not the Federation's modus operandi.

I am hopeful it won't just be a shoot 'em up. Conflict can set the stage for addressing all sort of sticky ethical issues, expose the many facets of enemies and allies.  After all, they need to exit this war in a way that leads to a society that sends Kirk galavanting all over the galaxy.

So while I wish that Discovery was more about discovery, I think the show has a shot at being interesting and ultimately optimistic.
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline mme

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1047
  • Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Virgo Supercluster
  • Liked: 1264
  • Likes Given: 3216
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #107 on: 09/26/2017 11:43 PM »
Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.
Star Trek: Impossible?
Space is not Highlander.  There can, and will, be more than one.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6982
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 622
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #108 on: 09/27/2017 07:52 PM »
RED ALERT - Spoilers ahead for DIS 1x02 and 1x02 - RED ALERT




~*~*~*~




~*~*~*~




~*~*~*~




~*~*~*~





~*~*~*~




~*~*~*~




~*~*~*~





Well... Sorry but I wasn't greatly impressed. There was a lot of interesting potential in the story and characters alike but, in the end, it fell flat.

First and above all else, I reject the notion that this is the best Trek pilot. Where No Man Has Gone Before, Emissary and Caretaker were all greatly superior. The big problems? The actors and actresses playing the Klingons seemed to be barely able to enunciate their lines. Most of the crew of the Shenzhou weren't that much better. The SFX, whilst impressive, mostly came out feeling not Trek. The 'Klingon' ships were something straight out of Warhammer 40,000 as were the 'Klingons' themselves. The script just had too many moments that breached my suspension of disbelief.

Most damning, I failed to really come to care for most of the characters and, from about 3/4 of the way through the first episode I wanted to relieve the protagonist of duty on the grounds of mental and emotional instability. I literally don't like the primary character, the person upon whom, for better or worse, the writers have ensured that this story must hang. I really don't care what happens to her. Similarly, I never really felt more than mild interest about where the story goes.

The positives...? Michelle Yeoh was one of the best Starfleet captains we've had in the franchise. The real Klingons would rightfully put her in the Hall of Heroes. She died as an officer and as a warrior should having done everything right from the start; Kahless himself will embrace her spirit on its arrival in the next life. Beyond that, there were a few moments of mild amusement and interest on my part but that was it.

I commend the effort made on the sets and some of the props but, ultimately, it was wasted effort for a collection of cardboard performances and a dreary script and ill-presented story.

I will watch episode 3 only because I want to know how Burnham gets from imprisoned and probably crazy failure to an officer on the Discovery but, unless it does a great job in convincing me, it will be the last episode of Discovery that I watch.

Ben's Rating: 3.5/10

How would I have done it better? Start during the mission of the Discovery or possibly at the time when Burnham was recruited for the mission and discuss the disastrous events of the pilot only in flashback. You would have immediately got to the here and now, got the audience invested in the crew and, just possibly, made Burnham seem less of a screw-up.
« Last Edit: 09/27/2017 08:05 PM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2155
  • Likes Given: 5090
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #109 on: 09/28/2017 01:42 PM »
Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.
Probably the captain's chair... I got this impression from comments I heard from the actress about this acting opportunity given the political climate in the US...
« Last Edit: 09/28/2017 04:55 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27018
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6910
  • Likes Given: 4872
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #110 on: 09/29/2017 02:46 AM »
It's not Roddenberry. What I mean is, it's cynical and somewhat dystopian. Roddenberry was all "we're all space communists living enlightened lives without money," most clearly in TNG where he had the most creative control. Picard, though he could still make mistakes, had a basically watertight moral compass, and that's what made TNG so unique and rare among scifi. But Star Trek hasn't really been that for a while. DS9 really wasn't that Roddenberryesque, even though fans loved it.

But once you accept that it's much darker than TNG, it's pretty good. Contrary to what many here said, I like what they did with the Klingons a lot. They look different, but so what?? It's a less significant change than from TOS  (where they were basically human) to TNG. I miss the sweet hair, but oh well. They got the Klingon culture and religion spot on. I liked it. They did their research.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3785
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 1384
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #111 on: 09/29/2017 06:41 AM »
I didn't mind the Klingon's change as much as I did their obviously painful, very hard to articulate dental prosphetics - when speaking English, let alone Klingon they were barely understandable. In TNG I know that the actors playing Ferengi often struggled to get clear diction while having to wear the big teeth. At some point they are going to be speaking with Klingons more in English - and they're still going to need subtitles at this rate!
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2123
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #112 on: 09/29/2017 01:42 PM »
Soooo... as I await episode 3, I can't help but speculate about where Michael goes from here. About the only thing I can come up with is Section 31. Now *that* would make for an interesting show.

Now that I've seen the second episode and the preview for the rest of the season, I think you're right about Section 31. It would also match the dark tone of what we've seen so far.

BTW, Discovery is NCC-1031. A possible "easter egg" hint about the show?

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3830
  • Liked: 481
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #113 on: 09/30/2017 04:29 AM »
I've avoided watching Star Trek Discovery so far - because I'd heard the producers were going to make it in the style of Game of Thrones. Apparently, this is what passes for originality in Hollywood these days - just look for whatever's on the landscape that's most successful, and then try to emulate it or incorporate it into your own show.

For instance, Kevin Sorbo famously pushed for the story-arc style in Star Trek: Andromeda -- because it was the "cool" thing to do -- and admittedly there wasn't a whole lot that was compelling about Andromeda to begin with.

Personally, I don't think every possible type of style needs to be reproduced in the Star Trek universe, and Game of Thrones is a little too gritty for it. Formulaic edginess isn't really edgy.
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 04:51 AM by sanman »

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3785
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 1384
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #114 on: 09/30/2017 04:54 AM »
I've been a Star Trek fan for nearly 50 years and pride myself on my (supposed) ability to be objective about the franchise I love. I don't have blind loyalty too it, nor do I act as an overt apologist for it. I have noted in the past that I was quite unhappy with aspects of the modern reboot franchise - but I would not out-and-out trash it. I approached the Discovery series with as few apprehensions and biases as I could. A: I thought another prequel was not necessary B: I would have preferred a series set in the 'Next Generation' timeline, but with a quite different set of characters and ship. A modern show - not made the way it was in the 1990s - but not reeking of too much modernistic violence and 'shaky-cam/lens flares' either.

Clearly: my bias and 'prayers' were not answered. Discovery is a prequel; set ten years before Kirk takes command of the U.S.S. Enterprise. And it's not about Kirk, Spock and company. Though Spock's Dad is a pivotal character!! I think setting it 10 years before, shows that the producers want to have a 7-to-10 year run. Fine with me. Do they want to have Robert April or Chris Pike and their Enterprise make a cameo in Discovery? I'm not holding out for it; but that would be cool if handled properly! And I don't want them to use the JJ Abrams 'reboot' ship design if they do - that would violate the 'prime' timeline they are allegedly using in Discovery. 'Enterprise' the series managed to make good use of a Constitution class ship in their Mirror Universe story. But if they go down that route; I hope they do it right and not cheesily.

As for my reaction to Discovery so far; after only two episodes? I'm not going to make a fanboy commitment to it yet. And although I have reservations about the Klingons who speak with even more difficulty than Marlon Brando with cheeks of cotton wool - I think the show has promise and the star Sonequa Martin-Green has promise and adequate acting chops. I can't emphasize enough that it will almost all be in the writing - no good stories and plot logic for the actors to get their teeth into - then all the flashy special effects and hand-to-hand combat in the galaxy will not make the show fly. Literally.

Will it be successful? I hope so. Will there be enough Star Trek fandom brand loyalty to keep it afloat? I don't know. Will there be enough people who don't like the show because the Klingons have the wrong-shaped Battleth, forehead bumps and they don't like the shape of the ship's engine nacelles? Will those an4l type of folk be numerous enough to sink a promising Space Opera?

God; I hope not... :(
« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 04:57 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 140
  • Edmonton, AB
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #115 on: 09/30/2017 05:30 AM »
After watching the pilot and second episode, I am convinced that the producers and writers were at someone's house smoking a lot of weed when they came up with the great idea of trashing 30 years of Klingon development, culture, history and familiarity to the fan and turn them into black insects. Furthermore, what was the point of making this ten years before Kirk and Spock if the sets and uniforms look 100 years past the Next Generation?

They should have had the same basic architecture, set design (with modern controls, of course) and same uniforms and hair styles as the original series to date it to the same basic TOS. That would have given the faithful Star Trek fan a wonderful sense of familiarity and nostalgia. They insulted every Star Trek fan and put their faith in attracting a new generation who don;t know enough about the Star Trek universe to give a hoot.

Also, why before the original series. You handcuff yourself instead of taking it immediately after the three year mission, where you can tap into all the previous episodes. Bad, bad decisions here.

If I had the controls, it would have begun immediately after The Enterprise Incident, with Starfleet trying to examine the cloaking device Kirk and Spock stole, but they canít open it. The Romulan commander insists she getís sent back, even though knowing she would be facing execution, and the Romulans are also demanding her back.

Romulan agents are successful in destroying the cloaking device, and the Romulan commander (she is never given a name) learns her family has been executed, and decides to stay with the Federation. She will be a key character. The series will be a heightening of the Romulan-Federation cold war with the Klingonís aligning themselves with the Romulans. This would essentially lead to the Enterprise C incident (from Next Generation episode Yesterdayís Enterprise) which would be the end point of the storyline.

I would have maintained the uniforms, (transitioning to the new ones see on The Wrath of Khan) Klingons would be the same as the Next Generation, and less cluttered battle scenes.

Thatís my take. Not impressed at all. They may attract a new generation of fans but let down every traditional fan. Poor writing and terrible dialogue.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10935
  • Liked: 2422
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #116 on: 09/30/2017 11:23 PM »
I'm trying to be as objective as possible about ST:D, as well as The Orville. So I'm trying not to draw conclusions until I've seen a bunch of episodes of each. So far The Orville seems more like Star Trek--because it is ripping off The Next Generation. But it's also rather unimaginative, not simply because it's ripping off The Next Generation, but because it's striving to be a 1990 TV show instead of trying to emulate the themes of Star Trek, but doing it like more modern sci-fi. ST:D, in contrast, is following the style of the recent movies, based upon the assumption that (as Kirk actor Chris Pine has said) modern audiences don't really care about characterization and story and really mostly want action and conflict.*

That said, this article makes a number of great observations about both shows and why and how they differ:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/09/29/seth-macfarlanes-the-orville-is-the-star-trek-show-fans-have-been-waiting-for/#4331574f6da8


"Iíve written at length over the last year about the current contradiction present in the ongoing Star Trek universe. To wit, the recent movies (going back at least to Star Trek: Nemesis and obviously the rebooted continuity) have had to juggle the needs of the many (audiences who crave big-scale blockbuster action) with the needs of the few (hardcore Star Trek fans who prefer more philosophy and less slam-bang spectacle). And Paramountís hopes of turning big-budget sci-fi action into MCU-level overseas grosses have caused the budgets of the most recent Star Trek movies to spin out of control.

Star Trek Beyond cost $185 million and earned just $340m worldwide, temporarily grounding the new variation on Paramountís flagship property. The irony is that the movies cost way too much compared to the actual overseas appeal of the Star Trek movies, and said big budgets and Star Wars-ish action beats have gone toward conventional event movie thrills that have turned off the hardcore fans. Even the most recent two-part pilot for CBS All Accessís Star Trek Discovery was arguably a TV-scaled variation of same, offering huge spectacle to plant its flag in the sand."

SNIP

"Back when Star Trek Beyond was trying to find a director, I suggested that Aaron Sorkin direct, or at least write, the third chapter in the new Trek, arguing that his signature motif (impassioned, intelligent, competent people doing an important job and relishing the opportunity to be good and do good together) was essentially Star Trek in a nutshell. But this comes to mind for two reasons. First, at a glance, Star Trek Discovery may end up being Studio 60 to The Orvilleís 30 Rock. Moreover, MacFarlane has ironically given fans what they claim to want from the sci-fi property.

For the record, the above comparison is not related to quality, merely in terms of initial intentions (a very grandiose sci-fi actioner versus a somewhat self-poking workplace comedy). Truth be told, since Iíve only seen two episodes of Discovery and those two episodes were a glorified prologue and offered few major characters who will reappear regularly, I have no idea what kind of Star Trek show it will be. But, four episodes in, I can already argue that The Orville is exactly the kind of Star Trek show that fans have been clamoring for.

By not having a budget (or requirements) for wall-to-wall spectacle, the hour-long Fox show is forced to focus on character, chemistry, sci-fi plotting and moral debates that have partially defined Gene Roddenberryís property for generations. Yes, to a certain extent itís fan fiction, but then so is so much of our current pop culture entertainment. But by being a network television show, it is forced to be the kind of Star Trek that fans claim the recent movies have neglected in favor of four-quadrant blockbuster thrills. The Orville is not a spoof, but rather a straight-faced Trek show with characters who are funny and can laugh at funny events."

SNIP

"Sans the pressure to be bigger, bolder, faster, and free from the budget and expectations that demand big-scale action sequences and ďthe world is in perilĒ plotting, The Orville uses its adventure of the week format to explore modern-day social issues and tackle current moral dilemmas in a sci-fi venue. I like its characters, and I like that they are good at what they do and seem to like each other. The show is refreshingly progressive in its politics, and optimistic to its core. It is a Star Trek show for folks who want something a bit old-school.

Again, I havenít seen the third episode of Star Trek Discovery, and I frankly donít wish to make it a competition. The best-case scenario is that the CBS show, with a superb lead in Sonequa Martin-Green, offers high-quality, big-scale Star Trek while Foxís ďhomageĒ offers a more traditional Trek which emphasizes cast chemistry and social issues of the day. For those fans who were turned off by the jokey previews and commercials, Iíd suggest giving The Orville another shot, starting perhaps with the second episode which begins to spotlight the supporting cast.

The irony is that, by ripping off rather than revamping and by being hamstrung by network television production values and thus putting an emphasis on character and social parable over sci-fi action, The Orville has a pretty good shot at becoming the kind of Star Trek that fans claim to want so badly. Iím hoping this variation indeed lives long and prospers."


Read the whole article for some good insight and analysis.




*Note: Pine was not indicating that this was a good thing. He said it was simply what audiences expected and what the new Trek movies were catering to.



« Last Edit: 09/30/2017 11:24 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2155
  • Likes Given: 5090
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #117 on: 10/02/2017 01:52 PM »
I saw episode 3... Interesting...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline SpacedX

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Gatineau
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 531
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #118 on: 10/02/2017 02:06 PM »
Yup, I like this show.

IMO, the characters presented in episode 3 and the storyline were interesting. How Michael gets back in lends a dark tone I don't recall in Start Trek but the values are still there. Neat.

Am I the only one who thought the dialog was muffled? Maybe it's a new phase for me (61 lol) but I had to use Closed Caption. Sigh.


Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6982
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 548
  • Likes Given: 622
Re: Star Trek Discovery
« Reply #119 on: 10/02/2017 03:08 PM »
Just a continuity note: A precursor of Section 31 was around prior to the Federation during the mission of the NX-01, so it is unlikely that Discovery could be about the agency's birth. That said, at the time the follow-up series to Star Trek: Voyager was in its earliest gestation, one of the concepts was a Section 31-based 'cloak and dagger in space' series that built on the darker tones of Deep Space Nine. It isn't beyond possibility that this show is the result of someone dusting off those proposals.

FWIW, I'm not sure that I'm interested in watching Star Trek: The Dirty Dozen and that is very much what this is feeling like at the moment.

--- [EDIT] ---

Okay, now I've seen episode 3 and... I'm going to keep this spoiler-free.

So, where to start? Frankly, this crew, this ship and its mission all terrify me. This is no longer even tangentially recognisable as the Federation or Starfleet, nor the world of Star Trek in any of its prior incarnations.

Interesting new ideas and new characters continue to be introduced (including one character that, miracle of miracles, I actually like). There is no doubt that this is an interesting bit of sci-fi we're witnessing here but I rally question if this is Star Trek, even in comparison to its darkest moments in Deep Space Nine. Further, the new technobabble miracle-tech is something not even hinted at in previous Treks, marking this as clearly yet another alternate universe of some description. It certainly isn't the Trek of Kirk's era as it is alleged to be. My rejection of the Discovery and its' mission is instinctual on both artistic and on aesthetic grounds.

So, I'm left with a really hard dilemma here. I'm more than a little interested to see just how badly this all blows up. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I'm interested in watching a ship full of anti-heroes ply their way through the stars led by... well, I'll let everyone else make their own decisions about the good captain's likely psychiatric diagnosis.

So, I'll have to think about this one.

BenRG's Rating: 5/10 (+half a point for the introduction of someone who is, so far, the only genuinely likeable member of the crew.)
« Last Edit: 10/02/2017 07:05 PM by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags: