Jump to content


Photo

What are your thoughts on Star Trek Discovery?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#21 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,127 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 05 November 2017 - 06:15 AM

 

I’m a few years younger than you QB, but I grew up watching all of these in reruns during the 70’s.  Also, including The Brady Bunch, The Flintstones, Hogan’s Heroes, The Addam’s Family, The Munsters, Lost in Space, etc.  I’ve seen every episode of those shows and many multiple times.  My sister and I used to play a game where we would try to be the first to identify the Brady Bunch episode as it started.  Many of them we could guess on the opening shot.  Almost forgot to mention The Twilight Zone.  A personal favorite that I still enjoy watching during the Christmas and 4th of July marathons they’ve been running for years.  The big news this week is CBS is working on a Twilight Zone reboot for All Access.  I might have to subscribe to that service after all…  I agree Rodenberry was bold challenging racial issues with the multicultural cast, first interracial kiss and the race war episode.  If ST had never gone on to be a phenomenon like it did history would still have judged it hugely significant. 

 

Yes, they did attempt to explain it.  Personally, I thought that was a mistake.  They should have just pretended Klingon’s always looked like that and accepted that 1960’s budgets didn’t allow for the elaborate makeup.  If you’re going to say the Discovery Klingon’s are the originals, then we now have 3 states.  That might be ok if Discovery Klingon’s looked good, but they don’t.
 
I don’t think they’ll revisit Khan in Discovery.  Khan is frozen from the 1990’s until TOS, and Discovery occurs in-between.  Maybe you’re thinking of “Into Darkness”?  That was the second reboot movie and it did feature a reimagining of the Wrath of Khan story. Did you see it?
 
I’m not reading the rest of your post as I haven’t had time to watch AHS this week and I'm scared you've got a spoiler in there.

 

Another thing we agree on completely and I remember all those programs.



#22 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 05 November 2017 - 12:04 PM

If you’re going to say the Discovery Klingon’s are the originals, then we now have 3 states.

 
I don’t think they’ll revisit Khan in Discovery.  Khan is frozen from the 1990’s until TOS, and Discovery occurs in-between.  Maybe you’re thinking of “Into Darkness”? 
 
I’m not reading the rest of your post as I haven’t had time to watch AHS this week and I'm scared you've got a spoiler in there.

 

Lol, no, no spoilers there. I was only remarking Bebe hadn't returned to the storyline yet. Not sure who she is really. Maybe his dead mother still :huh: :rolleyes:

 

But it's interesting to know you're going to watch until the end. You remarked you were quite fed up with the politics in the series so I was saying there were only 2 episodes to come so to stick by it until the end. But I didn't need to animate you I see :D ;).

 

As for the Klingons, you made two comments, yes, these Klingons are supposed to be the originals as Discovery comes first, then TOS and then the rest of 'em. I imagine ENT is even before Discovery. Did they show Klingons there too, I can't remember?

 

Yes I did see that young Khan, who is also Sherlock Holmes over here in British TV-series. It was a bit like the new Alien movies, that one, with David setting up for a new storyline. Maybe they are trying to have Khan star in a new ST movie. They've got plenty of parallel universa / universums / universi :wacko: :blink: :rolleyes:.

 

So what I read was a recent article that said there was going to be a new big project asides from Discovery. I imagine that's a movie :huh: but they're always so secretive about it ofcourse.


Lo

#23 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 06 November 2017 - 03:46 PM

Ok, I watched AHS last night.  Thanks for keeping posts spoiler free. :)  I'll stick with AHS.  What I'm not excited about is politics in ST.  Roddenberry addressed moral issues but he avoided politics. 

 

I completely forgot Enterprise had Klingons.  A big mistake that outraged fans as Trek lore up to that point had the Klingon first contact much later.  But they looked like TNG Klingons.  So the disease made them revert to TOS Klingon's, then recover.  I guess Discovery Klingons are another phase of the disease??

 

I haven't heard anything about the plot of the new movie.  I am not a fan of JJ Abrams-Trek though.  



#24 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 06 November 2017 - 05:51 PM

politics in ST.  Roddenberry addressed moral issues but he avoided politics. ..............   I am not a fan of JJ Abrams-Trek

No the project leader is Nicholas Meyer. Do you know him? That's the person in the Dutch article.

 

As for politics, who brought that? Was it Queenbee? I haven't seen it yet. I've now watched the second episode but no politics there.

 

Do you mean TNG went too far in this respect? I'm not too bothered. These are politics of the coming centuries. I'm sure they are not going to bring back the oldschool parties of Reps and Dems <_< -_- :rolleyes:.

 

There's no relation of the Klingons with any party either. They're all about honor. If it's a competition who takes the higher ground I do not know who's taking it in current politics :lol: :D :P.


Lo

#25 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,127 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 06 November 2017 - 10:26 PM

No the project leader is Nicholas Meyer. Do you know him? That's the person in the Dutch article.

 

As for politics, who brought that? Was it Queenbee? I haven't seen it yet. I've now watched the second episode but no politics there.

 

Do you mean TNG went too far in this respect? I'm not too bothered. These are politics of the coming centuries. I'm sure they are not going to bring back the oldschool parties of Reps and Dems <_< -_- :rolleyes:.

 

There's no relation of the Klingons with any party either. They're all about honor. If it's a competition who takes the higher ground I do not know who's taking it in current politics :lol: :D :P.

I didn't mention anything about politics in this topic that I can remember.



#26 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 07 November 2017 - 12:07 AM

No the project leader is Nicholas Meyer. Do you know him? That's the person in the Dutch article.

 

As for politics, who brought that? Was it Queenbee? I haven't seen it yet. I've now watched the second episode but no politics there.

Meyer was the director of Wrath of Khan.  He's also a producer on Discovery. 

 

I thought you were responding to my earlier comment about reading an article where the Discovery writers said the story was an allegory of the current state of US politics.  That’s what I have no appetite for.  They might be able to fairly pull it off, but I have doubts.  This is the kindof thing Roddenberry didn’t do and it’s what made ST so timeless.  He tackled the moral issues without getting political.  I’ll reserve judgment until I see it though. 


Edited by DarthRemark, 07 November 2017 - 12:08 AM.


#27 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 08 November 2017 - 11:55 AM

so timeless

Have you seen more episodes by now? I don't dare discuss the second episode for spoiling yet :rolleyes:. So I'll throw in the FOXnews article of this famous Star Trek character: http://www.foxnews.c...y-humanity.html. So maybe it's not that timeless yet :huh: :o.

Hawking is just like Trump speaking in Asia-conferences at the moment. He actually has two doomsday proheties. Humanity has until 2600 for overpopulating is his second. I'm sure Hawking's dream is the Star Trek politics of that era. Money no longer exists. Mankind comes in peace. And we're going boldly where no man has gone before; his Alpha Centauri will be right down the corner with his new nanocraft-technique: http://www.dailymail...es-caution.html :D :lol: B).
 


Lo

#28 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2017 - 02:03 PM

No I haven't seen it yet.  Thanks for no spoilers. :) I was wrong about the midseason finale.  It's actually this coming weekend.  I saw that All-Access is running a free 7-day promotion right now.  I'll have some free time in a couple of weeks so if it's still going on then I'll probably activate it and powerstream the first 8 eps.  



#29 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 12 November 2017 - 03:53 PM

I just watched the third episode and I think it's starting to be great. I love this 'Michael' who did also very well in TWD. She left at the right time ;). It's deplorable right now in TWD. And I've just read they want to continue TWD for another 50 years (!!). The old success is starting to lift to their heads. They find it's as good as ST that lives for 50 years too...

 

Anyway, for Discovery I won't spoil, but one nice moment was a new figure said she had never heard a woman was called Michael... so she said the exact same thing I said earlier in this topic :wub: :lol: :D. Another thing was there was some new 'B'Elanna science babble' in that spores could make you travel lightyears. I didn't understand that bit by a bit. It's streamed without translation over here so I must do with my poor English. As soon as you see it, you might enlighten me what they mean ^_^ :huh:.


Lo

#30 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 November 2017 - 04:04 PM

Yeah I always hated the technobabble.  Later Trek relied on it like a crutch.  After seeing the pilot I was more concerned that they'd go in the JJ Abrams doesn't-have-to-make-sense-as-long-as-it's-action-packed-and-pretty direction.  I have to say I'm not encouraged by some of the things I've read about Discovery.  Of all of the recent Trek producers I thought Manny Coto understood it best.  He was the guy they brought in to fix Enterprise after Berman and Braga wrecked the first 3 seasons and he did a fantastic job.  That final season of Enterprise had some really good stuff.  I think Paramount is drunk on the $'s of the reboot movies.



#31 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,558 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 15 November 2017 - 07:50 AM

That final season of Enterprise had some really good stuff.  I think Paramount is drunk on the $'s of the reboot movies.


You are saying that the thirst for sci-fi genre movies has out-stripped the public's ability to judge Hollywood's offerings critically. That is, all is well and forgiven with the proper labeling and pedigree.

That may all be accurate, but I don't know that I'd be too hard on the sci-fi public, or even the studios that make the products. I think movie goers in general accept a lot of Hollywood fare uncritically, not just sci-fi fans. If everyone is going to keep forgivingly funding the cash cow sequels for the studios, we're just lucky anything original and of quality ever emerges from that industry. But it still does, I think. At least here and there. Amidst all the CGI there is sometimes a pleasant sparkle of the good. :)

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...604#entry339604

#32 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:35 AM

You are saying that the thirst for sci-fi genre movies has out-stripped the public's ability to judge Hollywood's offerings critically. 

Not exactly.  The above is a true statement, but Trek fans tend to be highly critical.  Paramount wants to expand the fanbase though.  They know that as long as it’s watchable many old fans will tolerate what they produce out of loyalty, so they are free to focus elsewhere.  With the action and eye candy they hope to add a different class of viewers.  They’re changing the formula but they don’t care if it keeps the money flowing.  I’m sure some execs appreciate what made Trek Trek, but it’s a secondary concern.  Like you I don't blame them too much.  The shareholders demand profit and the execs need to do what they need to do.  What's really needed for fans are producers who can bridge the gap and stay faithful to the concept while delivering exceptional entertainment that makes big money.  Sadly, those folks are hard to find.



#33 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 16 November 2017 - 01:45 PM

I just found this piece online... I am not sure you are too happy with it though, Darth, as it mentions the name of Abrams, lol: http://www.denofgeek...e-date-director


Lo

#34 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 17 November 2017 - 01:20 PM

I'm curious, Darth, what you thought of last week's Hawking predictions?


Lo

#35 queenbee1

queenbee1

    Major

  • Tournament Manager
  • 1,127 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Scout

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:18 PM

I'm curious, Darth, what you thought of last week's Hawking predictions?

Huh? What prediction?



#36 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 17 November 2017 - 10:09 PM

Two actually:

this famous Star Trek character: http://www.foxnews.c...y-humanity.html. So maybe it's not that timeless yet :huh: :o.

 

Hawking is just like Trump speaking in Asia-conferences at the moment. He actually has two doomsday proheties. Humanity has until 2600 for overpopulating is his second: http://www.dailymail...es-caution.html :D :lol: B).


Lo

#37 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 November 2017 - 06:03 PM

I'm curious, Darth, what you thought of last week's Hawking predictions?

I agree with Hawking’s concerns.  It’s impossible to predict where AI will go, but for sure it will be game changing.  Quantum computing is a related area.  We’re on the cusp of producing machines that can outthink us and do it faster than we can react.  As discussed on the other thread though, these machines don’t possess free will and we have no reason to believe we’ll be able to impart it.  At their heart they are still just mousetraps that will do what they’ve been told.  So we need to make sure we understand what that is.  
   
"Hawking warned they needed to focus on maximizing benefits for society rather than pure capability."
 
This is a powerful statement that speaks to the heart of the matter.  It’s been true since the stone age.  Can mankind overcome its selfishness?  My guess is “no”, so we will need safeguards.
 
I suspect Quantum computing will introduce tech advances we can’t even dream of today.  The advances of the last 100 years will be tenfold 100 years from now and unimaginable 100 years from that.  Maybe an FTL propulsion will be found possible.  Or maybe a way to teleport over distances (even star systems) will make powered flight obsolete.  But why the concern about going interstellar now?  It’s a pipe dream at current tech levels and it’s highly unlikely that we’ll find a planet just like Earth anyway.  Our focus will be on extending our habitat.  There’s a LOT of unused space on Earth that’s far easier to colonize than another planet.  But eventually we will tap it out.  That’s just math.  Necessity is the mother of invention so future generations will put more resources into those problems as they come into view.

Edited by DarthRemark, 18 November 2017 - 06:04 PM.


#38 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 21 November 2017 - 01:44 PM

Do you think the same about 2600 Queenbee, or likely much sooner? This seems so much a Consciousness topic to me. We just had the below picture of our country which will say the most to Dutchies ofcourse. But every single name of cities and towns are different today than they were generations ago. Which figures a few generations from us mankind will be totally different again, just imagine what we've seen with the Star Trek predictions alone that has come to live with the Ipads, 3Dprinters and main wonder to me the smartphone. I do see a trainwreck here indeed as you figured, Darth. Selfish people will do as they please and we see mankind portrayed in Mugabe today, this 92 year old man that won't stand down and after death wants his young wife to simply take over the presidency... reigning over his grave. Selfish needs will be detremental as power is focused. Today I saw a killerdrone displayed. This is one tiny 'fly' with some munition in it and you can only picture Trump talk to a rally with some selfish terrorist letting loose of the fly which then goes on a kamikaze right into Trump's head. Nothing you can do about it, or having the pope installed behind glass, which is procedure for decades already...

 

DPBsWPdW4AAsReD.jpg


Lo

#39 Lonello

Lonello

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,075 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 25 November 2017 - 11:38 AM

I'm not sure if you've watched, Darth? Weren't you going to see the episodes during Thanksgiving?

Anyway, you did see TWD? If not either, then spoiler alert next ;).

 

I read another good review which paints a perfect picture. It turned into a complete comic for 14 year olds! The Thrashpeople were such a disappointment already, but this reviewer now has all the characters pointed out. Just as they did with AHS remember, for Trump's men and women. It's a nice read I think and it explains why I too find TWD turned to bad while Star Trek (our Sasha's Discovery lol) is much better:

 

...this is the thought I had while Rick and Daryl fought. Far from my colleague Paul Tassi's hope that there's some real tension brewing between Rick and Daryl that could lead to an interesting split in the group, it looks more like two 14-year-olds unable to handle any kind of conflict without coming to blows.

And it's not just Rick and Daryl. Negan talks like a bratty 14-year-old obsessed with puffing himself up and making bad, crude jokes. Eugene looks like a giant four-year-old, perpetually pouting. Gregory is pretty much a one-note spoiled child. Up until last week, Ezekiel was basically in make-believe land, pretending to be a king while speaking his florid Shakespearean.

I finally understand what this show has become: It's actually just a big game that a bunch of teenagers are playing. We're seeing it as though it were a real zombie apocalypse but it's all actually just in their imagination. Negan is the neighborhood bully who joined the game against Rick and his friends' wishes, and what was just a game of zombie make-believe is now a game of all-out-war between two groups of middle-school-aged kids (Negan is a bit older than the other kids but he's been held back a couple times.)

This explains why nobody acts like adults at any point, why  nobody makes intelligent decisions, and why nobody knows how to use a gun. The guns are all toys, which is why we don't see recoil and why they only sometimes remember that ammo runs out and reloading is a thing.

Yes, it all makes sense now. And watching The Walking Dead with this in mind might just make watching the show tolerable. Maybe. Okay, probably not. But just try it with me: Imagine Negan and Rick and Daryl all as boys. Maggie and her infinite pregnancy as a girl. Negan the boy would almost certainly have a real bat, too, though it wouldn't be covered in real barbed wire. Negan the boy would talk about his "steel nutsack" quite a lot, and that would make kids like Rick uncomfortable.

Occasionally they remember this was supposed to be a zombie game and pretend they're killing zombies, but mostly it's just a big pissing contest between hormonal adolescents.


Lo

#40 DarthRemark

DarthRemark

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 469 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 25 November 2017 - 06:18 PM

Indeed, I’ve now seen the first the 9 eps.  My reaction is that it’s a very fun sci-fi genre show that I enjoyed a lot.  But it’s a horrible travesty as a TOS prequel.  Bad decisions everywhere, from changing the Klingon makeup, ship designs, language and motivations, to the tech that’s way too advanced for the timeframe.  As I watched it I kept thinking it would be fantastic if it were set a few decades after TNG.  Everything could work then.  As is it’s a continuity eyesore.  On top of the other recent eyesores it’s safe to say that old Trek is dead and the studio is just going to do what it wants.
 
Taken in a vacuum though it’s a great show.  The production values are movie quality.  They nailed the casting.  Even the ones they killed off were good!  The writing is fairly strong too, especially the dialog.  Around the 4th ep there’s a terse scene where the captain is berating the engineer for being critical of Michael that had a line so laugh out loud funny that I couldn’t remember Trek ever making me laugh that hard.  Plausibility issues keep cropping up though, like when they finally capture Harry Mudd his jilted lover and her dad just happen (out of all the galaxy) to be in a ship that arrives in minutes to take custody of him.  No explanation, we’re just expected to roll with it.  I hope they tighten these kinds of things up but it doesn’t seem to be a priority for them.  I’m reminded of something Gerry Anderson once said about never letting realism get in the way of telling a good story.  The writers appear to be from that school. 
 
I’m not reading the rest of your post as I’m a couple of episodes behind on TWD.  :)

  • queenbee1 likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users