User avatar
Deathtone
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 2863
Joined: May 26, '15, 11:45am
Location: Knox, TN
PSN: elmo_ticklethis
NNID: deathtone
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter

Star Trek Discovery

May 17, '17, 6:35pm

https://youtu.be/4dxe_ugmIVM




Not liking the Star Trek Discovery trailer.. It's giving me the reboot vibes... Hope I'm wrong.
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve

User avatar
Mavryk
Management
Management
Posts: 5114
Joined: May 16, '15, 10:34pm
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
PSN: MavrykDH
Steam: mavryk_darkhaven
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 17, '17, 7:43pm

It's still in the Prime Universe from what I read, though it's supposed to be set around a decade before TOS.

I want to believe, I love Star Trek so much... but this... doesn't look right for the time period. It's going to hit the same resistance as Enterprise did, and it's unnecessary. Plus that it's going to be hidden behind a paywall... I think this show is going to be DOA and kill the Trek name for another decade.
Image
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
nicktorious_BLT
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 3587
Joined: Dec 02, '15, 1:36pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA / Erie, PA
PSN: nicktorious_BIG
Steam: nicktorious_BIG
Contact: Website Facebook Google+ Twitter

Star Trek Discovery

May 17, '17, 8:04pm

Yeah I saw the trailer tonight and I wasn't entirely sold. Don't know how well this is going to do to be honest.

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1121
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 17, '17, 9:49pm

1. Lost Visionary Show Runner ✔
2. Political Casting ✔
3. Paywall'd Obscure App ✔
4. Prequel ✔
5. Bad CGI ✔
6. Poor Trailer ✔

Yep Star Trek Diversity ain't looking too good. But I think it will at least get a second season. CBS invested too much and the number of first month watchers likely will be enough.


Also Star Trek Diversity would have been a far more apt title, as clearly that was their goal in character creation and casting, and the fact that as a prequel they can't actually discover anything new.

Oh and WTF is with the Klingons. THEY WERENT ALL FUGLY UNTIL AFTER TOS. FeelsBadMan Stop rewriting Prime history or spin off another universe ffs.

User avatar
BetoJR
Producer
Posts: 397
Joined: Dec 30, '16, 6:55am
Location: Fortaleza-CE, Brazil
PSN: BetoJR_FOR
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 18, '17, 5:44pm

BuffArms wrote:Also Star Trek Diversity would have been a far more apt title, as clearly that was their goal in character creation and casting

Oh, c'mon, really? Like ST wasn't a franchise known to have a multicultural cast back in the swingin' '60s? Or that had a female captain (who actually managed to get lost), back in the 90's, for a whole great and mostly beloved series? I think you're just trying to get outraged at anything and everything, now.

kftongue
Image

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1121
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 18, '17, 6:49pm

BetoJR wrote:Oh, c'mon, really? Like ST wasn't a franchise known to have a multicultural cast back in the swingin' '60s? Or that had a female captain (who actually managed to get lost), back in the 90's, for a whole great and mostly beloved series? I think you're just trying to get outraged at anything and everything, now.

kftongue


Outraged, no its gotten to the point of retardation that is more funny than angering. I mean they named the lead female character MICHAEL, not Michelle, actually Michael. They gave her a boys name, because they are so progressive. Woooooooo. Its just dumb now, how can you get outraged at that level of stupidity.

Racial and Gender quotas are never going to make for better characters than ones organically created by the writers. But then this show has already lost its lead writer long before even aired. So clearly all they got left is their politics.


Now what I am actually outraged about is what they did to the Klingons. This is supposed to be set in the Prime universe, the one with all the other TV shows, but somehow the Klingons are all fucked up looking before TOS, when they looked Human... Why? Fucking shitty B Team writers cant leave that shit alone. And they dont even look that good either. They couldn't even match TNG's make up.

Now Ive seen people arguing they are not Klingons, but then they cant name what they actually are then, and as this is a prequel you should be able to do that. Unless they are going to have some really stupid storyline where the Federation wipes them out of existence in under 10 years.

User avatar
kento
Best Friend
Posts: 12
Joined: Dec 22, '15, 9:47am
Location: San Francisco
XBL: Daft Bot
PSN: Daft_Bunk
Steam: djkento
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter Twitch

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 18, '17, 7:57pm

BuffArms wrote:
BetoJR wrote: Now what I am actually outraged about is what they did to the Klingons. This is supposed to be set in the Prime universe, the one with all the other TV shows, but somehow the Klingons are all fucked up looking before TOS, when they looked Human... Why? Fucking shitty B Team writers cant leave that shit alone. And they dont even look that good either. They couldn't even match TNG's make up.

Now Ive seen people arguing they are not Klingons, but then they cant name what they actually are then, and as this is a prequel you should be able to do that. Unless they are going to have some really stupid storyline where the Federation wipes them out of existence in under 10 years.


Your reasoning for disliking the show has literally all been explained in canon.

How about you go watch Enterprise, or read wikipedia before trying to excuse your real dislike for the show which is clearly it's multicultural agenda.

Here's an idea... maybe Star Trek just isn't for you.
Image

User avatar
Mavryk
Management
Management
Posts: 5114
Joined: May 16, '15, 10:34pm
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
PSN: MavrykDH
Steam: mavryk_darkhaven
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 18, '17, 8:21pm

BuffArms wrote:Now what I am actually outraged about is what they did to the Klingons. This is supposed to be set in the Prime universe, the one with all the other TV shows, but somehow the Klingons are all fucked up looking before TOS, when they looked Human... Why? Fucking shitty B Team writers cant leave that shit alone. And they dont even look that good either. They couldn't even match TNG's make up.

Now Ive seen people arguing they are not Klingons, but then they cant name what they actually are then, and as this is a prequel you should be able to do that. Unless they are going to have some really stupid storyline where the Federation wipes them out of existence in under 10 years.


If they are Klingons, then I'm on your side mate. But I did hear an interesting theory that may solve the issue. They are Ancient Klingons, as you can tell by the sarcophagus looking things. If true, it looks like the ship (not the Discovery but another one) finds some ancient Klingon burial ship (think Egyptian pyramid with engines) and they accidentally or purposefully wake these Ancient Klingon up some how. That's why they look different AND primitive for the Klingons for the time period. So basically there will be three "versions" of the Klingons during this period, the genetically modified human ones from TOS, the "normal" Klingons like Worf from the Movies and TNG era, and now these Ancient ones (The guy in gold could be Kahless?). While it is a bit of a convoluted idea, it's almost the norm for Star Trek and one I can appreciate.

If they can adequately explain the reasons behind the differences between Disco and TOS, then I will be on board. If they pull a JJ and just change things because of some time travel then it going to kill the interest for me.
Image
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
kento
Best Friend
Posts: 12
Joined: Dec 22, '15, 9:47am
Location: San Francisco
XBL: Daft Bot
PSN: Daft_Bunk
Steam: djkento
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter Twitch

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 18, '17, 8:54pm

Mavryk wrote:
BuffArms wrote: If they can adequately explain the reasons behind the differences between Disco and TOS, then I will be on board. If they pull a JJ and just change things because of some time travel then it going to kill the interest for me.



HERE! It's almost like you guys weren't real fans of Star Trek or something...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klin ... ment_virus
Image

User avatar
Mavryk
Management
Management
Posts: 5114
Joined: May 16, '15, 10:34pm
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
PSN: MavrykDH
Steam: mavryk_darkhaven
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 1:11am

kento wrote:HERE! It's almost like you guys weren't real fans of Star Trek or something...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klin ... ment_virus


What do you mean? I said that there are two versions of Klingon, some that have the virus (human TOS) and the Normal ones (Aka Worf) and this could be a Third on top of those. As they definitely aren't the TNG Klingons. I am well aware of the Trek Timeline :)

That statement was more about the tech, like LCD screens and the huuuge (and awesome looking) main viewscreen. Those are going to be a lot harder to write an excuse for (though I can ignore it for the sake of modern viewers IF the show still has the heart of a Trek show).
Image
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
kento
Best Friend
Posts: 12
Joined: Dec 22, '15, 9:47am
Location: San Francisco
XBL: Daft Bot
PSN: Daft_Bunk
Steam: djkento
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter Twitch

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 1:32am

Mavryk wrote:
kento wrote:HERE! It's almost like you guys weren't real fans of Star Trek or something...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klin ... ment_virus


What do you mean? I said that there are two versions of Klingon, some that have the virus (human TOS) and the Normal ones (Aka Worf) and this could be a Third on top of those. As they definitely aren't the TNG Klingons. I am well aware of the Trek Timeline :)

That statement was more about the tech, like LCD screens and the huuuge (and awesome looking) main viewscreen. Those are going to be a lot harder to write an excuse for (though I can ignore it for the sake of modern viewers IF the show still has the heart of a Trek show).


I have literally zero problem with the show adopting the JJ Abrams style aesthetic. These shows aren't designed for continuity. It's impossible at this point. If this show tried to look retro then it'd end up looking like that god awful comedy Fox is putting out.
Image

User avatar
Eve Narlieth
Baller
Posts: 1106
Joined: May 26, '15, 10:16am
Location: UK
PSN: gabieve

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 3:08am

I'm looking forward to seeing it. Haven't checked the trailer yet because I can't open youtube at work :P

Hope it's better than the JJ films.. Urgh
Image

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1121
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 10:44am

kento wrote:
Mavryk wrote:
BuffArms wrote: If they can adequately explain the reasons behind the differences between Disco and TOS, then I will be on board. If they pull a JJ and just change things because of some time travel then it going to kill the interest for me.



HERE! It's almost like you guys weren't real fans of Star Trek or something...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klin ... ment_virus


Oh so they rewrote it in Enterprise lol, and the makeup is just really bad for the new series then. I'd be more inclined to believe his Ancient Klingon idea.


kento wrote:How about you go watch Enterprise, or read wikipedia before trying to excuse your real dislike for the show which is clearly it's multicultural agenda.

Here's an idea... maybe Star Trek just isn't for you.


Of course I dislike the show for its progressive agenda, as its led to downright retarded character decisions, like giving the female lead a man's name. And Enterprise wasn't for me, but then I guess I have standards which makes me not a real Trek fan. I can live with that.

Just as I can live with watching this Trek as a comedic exercise seeing how stupid it already looks. The "I Can Sense Dead People Alien" should be loads of fun to explain.

User avatar
JerrodDRagon
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 2571
Joined: May 18, '15, 11:24am

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 11:09am

Eve Narlieth wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing it. Haven't checked the trailer yet because I can't open youtube at work :P

Hope it's better than the JJ films.. Urgh

You thought the first one was bad?

I get why people aren't a fan of the second one and the third one was trash but as a non Star Trek Fan it got me into the series at least

For the time's some of the older movies have better idea's but acting wise the new ones destroy them and is the main reason I could not get into the older shows or movies, they seem outdated.

I'm hoping the show is a mix between the two....old school story's with more modern acting and action

User avatar
kento
Best Friend
Posts: 12
Joined: Dec 22, '15, 9:47am
Location: San Francisco
XBL: Daft Bot
PSN: Daft_Bunk
Steam: djkento
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter Twitch

Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 11:11am

Enterprise wasn't for me for totally different reasons. I got tired of how pedestrian and exploitative Star Trek got. After the success of Jeri Ryan's inclusion in Voyager, Star Trek always needed a buxom, emotionally removed woman with short hair in a skin tight outfit. T'Pol was just sexy Spock. it was obnoxious.

But that finale was pretty neat...

As for the progressive thing... those aren't character decisions. Those are creative decisions. Character decisions are what a character does. Also I've met a woman named Michael. She's an actress who was on ER. There are women named Michael. Sorry you don't like it, but it happens, and Michael Michelle is still working today. Really sweet woman too.

I get that you don't like it, but if you don't think Star Trek isn't already the most progressive, left wing, inclusive and diverse main stream property in history, then are you really even a fan. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be funny, or even mean. But think about it... First on screen interracial kiss, a Russian character at the helm of the ship during the height of the cold war... the show has dealt with gay rights, aids, had women in positions of authority and minorities as well...

Were you also freaking out when Sulu was gay in the new film?
Image

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1121
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 12:02pm

kento wrote:Enterprise wasn't for me for totally different reasons. I got tired of how pedestrian and exploitative Star Trek got. After the success of Jeri Ryan's inclusion in Voyager, Star Trek always needed a buxom, emotionally removed woman with short hair in a skin tight outfit. T'Pol was just sexy Spock. it was obnoxious.

But that finale was pretty neat...

As for the progressive thing... those aren't character decisions. Those are creative decisions. Character decisions are what a character does. Also I've met a woman named Michael. She's an actress who was on ER. There are women named Michael. Sorry you don't like it, but it happens, and Michael Michelle is still working today. Really sweet woman too.

I get that you don't like it, but if you don't think Star Trek isn't already the most progressive, left wing, inclusive and diverse main stream property in history, then are you really even a fan. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be funny, or even mean. But think about it... First on screen interracial kiss, a Russian character at the helm of the ship during the height of the cold war... the show has dealt with gay rights, aids, had women in positions of authority and minorities as well...

Were you also freaking out when Sulu was gay in the new film?


Star Trek from the start had skimpily dressed woman and the Captain that fought for them. If you don't like sexy women, are you even really a fan? Why is it you progressive types keep trying to take from Star Trek all the masculinity, all the female sexuality, all the heterosexuality, and then try and act like the parts you like are the real parts, and not that?

Star Trek had diversity, because of the reality that the only likely future is one in which that occurs. Cold war will end, integration will happen, fairly obvious stuff. Not going to have a unified Earth's space fleet all of one race, duh.

But will this new show have a future that is likely to happen, or have a future that is designed around pushing a political viewpoint. It won't have any masculine characters. It wont have Kirk, or even Picard. No the straight male will be relegated to whining about approaching death. In this new Progressive feminist agenda driven narrative. If anyone actually believes that is what will happen in the future, you are a brainwashed fool.

And your whole character decision argument, Its a creative decision not a character decision, what the character's name is, LOL are you trying to come off as an asshole? Why are you making an argument out of that... whats the point... besides to argue for the sake of arguing.

User avatar
Mavryk
Management
Management
Posts: 5114
Joined: May 16, '15, 10:34pm
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
PSN: MavrykDH
Steam: mavryk_darkhaven
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 6:19pm

kento wrote:I have literally zero problem with the show adopting the JJ Abrams style aesthetic. These shows aren't designed for continuity. It's impossible at this point. If this show tried to look retro then it'd end up looking like that god awful comedy Fox is putting out.


Yeah I get that, but why not go post-Nemesis and avoid the tech problem to begin with? Why do they insist on making prequels? Enterprise, JJ, Discovery. Everything recently has been trying to recapture what TOS had, and they will all fail. Why? Because TOS doesn't hold up today, and when you modernize it loses what makes it special. At least with FOX's Orwell they decided to make a Parody of the genre, and it actually works because Cowboy Diplomacy can't work these days without it being a parody of itself.

BuffArms wrote:Oh so they rewrote it in Enterprise lol, and the makeup is just really bad for the new series then. I'd be more inclined to believe his Ancient Klingon idea.


Yeah they retconned the explanation as to why some of the Klingons look human as a failure to copy the human Eugenics program that gave as Khan, but one of the subjects had a virus, and it mutated and spread. The virus removed the Klingon head ridges and generally made them look human. It's not a perfect answer, but hey it's enough.

BuffArms wrote:Of course I dislike the show for its progressive agenda, as its led to downright retarded character decisions, like giving the female lead a man's name. And Enterprise wasn't for me, but then I guess I have standards which makes me not a real Trek fan. I can live with that.


I think the show has always had a progressive agenda. It's one of the few Utopian Earth's in Sci-Fi, and certainly the most popular. Roddenberry pushed that we as humans can do better, and Trek pushed that ideal. From the first inter-racial kiss, to having a Russian on the bridge during the height of the Cold War. It's what Star Trek does best, but I agree that all this information about how progressive they are is a little annoying. Just let it be progressive without advertising it.

Just as I can live with watching this Trek as a comedic exercise seeing how stupid it already looks. The "I Can Sense Dead People Alien" should be loads of fun to explain.


Lot's of animals seem to have a "sixth sense" about incoming danger, I think this guy is just an evolution of that. No doubt he will "sense death" and it will be avoided in the show, bringing up questions if he can actually sense death or if it's a cultural belief based on traditions.

JerrodDRagon wrote:You thought the first one was bad?

I get why people aren't a fan of the second one and the third one was trash but as a non Star Trek Fan it got me into the series at least

For the time's some of the older movies have better idea's but acting wise the new ones destroy them and is the main reason I could not get into the older shows or movies, they seem outdated.

I'm hoping the show is a mix between the two....old school story's with more modern acting and action


As a Trek fan, all of them are bad Star Trek films, but generally good Sci-Fi. Had they been generic Sci-Fi movies, I would probably find them enjoyable. But they lost so much from what I find Star Trek brilliant, it's soul. On top of that they made pointless changes to everything in that world to make it less like Star Trek and more like Star Wars, because Abrams has zero respect for the source material.

kento wrote:Enterprise wasn't for me for totally different reasons. I got tired of how pedestrian and exploitative Star Trek got. After the success of Jeri Ryan's inclusion in Voyager, Star Trek always needed a buxom, emotionally removed woman with short hair in a skin tight outfit. T'Pol was just sexy Spock. it was obnoxious.


I actually really like Enterprise, especially the fourth season. I think it was just hitting its stride, as all of the Trek shows take a few years to really get good.

I get that you don't like it, but if you don't think Star Trek isn't already the most progressive, left wing, inclusive and diverse main stream property in history, then are you really even a fan. I'm serious. I'm not trying to be funny, or even mean. But think about it... First on screen interracial kiss, a Russian character at the helm of the ship during the height of the cold war... the show has dealt with gay rights, aids, had women in positions of authority and minorities as well...


Can we please stop with the "Are you really a fan?". People can love Star Trek for many reasons, and we shouldn't have to try to prove our fandom, it's insulting. I'm a Trekkie, I love and appreciate so much about this franchise, and just because it doesn't line up with someone else's love for the show, doesn't diminish my fandom.

Were you also freaking out when Sulu was gay in the new film?


I did yes. But that was because of the way it was handled prior to the movies release and because I respect Roddenberry's vision for these characters. But in the movie itself I thought it was handled well. They didn't put a spotlight on it, it wasn't an OMG look how progressive we are, it was a "hey look at Sulu with his family", and I appreciate that. But I still side with George Takei on the matter.
Image
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1121
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 19, '17, 6:57pm

Mavryk wrote:Lot's of animals seem to have a "sixth sense" about incoming danger, I think this guy is just an evolution of that. No doubt he will "sense death" and it will be avoided in the show, bringing up questions if he can actually sense death or if it's a cultural belief based on traditions.


But that is based upon being able to feel, hear, smell and then processing that data. I could buy an alien race that could get a sense of danger from being able to smell the increase in adrenaline in the sweat of an angry person 100 ft away, or changing in breathing patterns, or body temp. Or even read brainwaves. But I can't buy an alien that can just "sense" death from a thousands of miles away in the emptiness of space. That is magic, not science fiction. So hopefully it is going to become a joke where he is always like : FeelsBadMan 'I sense death" , and everyone else is like FailFish ThisIsFine SeemsGood

User avatar
Mavryk
Management
Management
Posts: 5114
Joined: May 16, '15, 10:34pm
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
PSN: MavrykDH
Steam: mavryk_darkhaven
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 20, '17, 6:51am

BuffArms wrote:But that is based upon being able to feel, hear, smell and then processing that data. I could buy an alien race that could get a sense of danger from being able to smell the increase in adrenaline in the sweat of an angry person 100 ft away, or changing in breathing patterns, or body temp. Or even read brainwaves. But I can't buy an alien that can just "sense" death from a thousands of miles away in the emptiness of space. That is magic, not science fiction. So hopefully it is going to become a joke where he is always like : FeelsBadMan 'I sense death" , and everyone else is like FailFish ThisIsFine SeemsGood


They could also be part empathic like Troi, and is able sense malicious intent? But we don't know what the context around him 'sensing death' is, whether its local or between space ships.
Image
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Eve Narlieth
Baller
Posts: 1106
Joined: May 26, '15, 10:16am
Location: UK
PSN: gabieve

Re: Star Trek Discovery

May 21, '17, 11:57pm

Mavryk wrote:
JerrodDRagon wrote:You thought the first one was bad?

I get why people aren't a fan of the second one and the third one was trash but as a non Star Trek Fan it got me into the series at least

For the time's some of the older movies have better idea's but acting wise the new ones destroy them and is the main reason I could not get into the older shows or movies, they seem outdated.

I'm hoping the show is a mix between the two....old school story's with more modern acting and action


As a Trek fan, all of them are bad Star Trek films, but generally good Sci-Fi. Had they been generic Sci-Fi movies, I would probably find them enjoyable. But they lost so much from what I find Star Trek brilliant, it's soul. On top of that they made pointless changes to everything in that world to make it less like Star Trek and more like Star Wars, because Abrams has zero respect for the source material.


Can't answer better than him. It's an ok action sci-fi movie, but it doesn't have Star Trek's soul. I personally love TOS and feel that the outdated things are details and adds to the endearment I feel when I watch it. TOS doesn't have to feel modern, it is what it is. I'd expect newer content to feel modern, of course, but not for it to become an action film like it did. The fact that they used old characters made it worst imo, because they changed their personalities so much. Kirk acts like he's a monkey in a circus, Spock suddenly is emotional and Uhura is super wonder woman. There's no nuance in any of the 3 in the new films, and they had nuance before.

Mavryk wrote:I did yes. But that was because of the way it was handled prior to the movies release and because I respect Roddenberry's vision for these characters. But in the movie itself I thought it was handled well. They didn't put a spotlight on it, it wasn't an OMG look how progressive we are, it was a "hey look at Sulu with his family", and I appreciate that. But I still side with George Takei on the matter.


What did George Takei say? I actually thought it was cool that Sulu was gay in the new films, because of Takei. Like a meta (?) reference
Image

Return to “TV Series”