Subscribe
  1. Official Licensee RPF Premium Member DAVIDYR1's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2002
    From
    Toronto, Ontario - Canada!
    Messages
    1,892
    May 18, 2017, 11:22 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #926

    I think it looks pretty damn cool!

    David
  2. Robiwon's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2007
    From
    Danville KY
    Messages
    4,483
    May 18, 2017, 11:52 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #927

    And don't you have to pay to watch this or something?

    The Orville is looking pretty good now huh?????
  3. RPF Premium Member karmajay's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    From
    Wendell, NC
    Messages
    1,020
    May 18, 2017, 12:18 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #928

    I liked the things this article talks about with regards to the new trailer. (possible spoilers inferred from trailer)

    http://io9.gizmodo.com/everything-th...fut-1795328380
  4. AnubisGuard's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2001
    Messages
    782
    May 18, 2017, 12:26 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #929

    Robiwon said: View Post
    The Orville is looking pretty good now huh?????
    Not really? I was disappointed in how cheap Orville looks. (The company I work for was initially in talks to do the post-production for it, and I was really excited about what little I saw. But seeing the finished footage and jokes it just looks chintzy and dumb.)
  5. alienscollection.com's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2002
    Messages
    8,918
    May 18, 2017, 12:27 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #930

  6. SmilingOtter's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 2001
    Messages
    4,455
    May 18, 2017, 12:47 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #931

    It just occurred to me: if Alex Peters had made this trailer, Paramount wouldn't have had any basis to sue him...
  7. KojiroVance's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jun 2009
    Messages
    333
    May 18, 2017, 3:07 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #932

    Looks like a TWOK communicator ... cool!
  8. Zombie_61's Avatar
    Member Since
    Mar 2007
    From
    Southern California
    Messages
    5,098
    May 18, 2017, 11:33 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #933

    SmilingOtter said: View Post
    ...There's no way I can reconcile that look with being 10 years pre-TOS. If it were post-TNG (and without the really odd Klingons) I could get behind it.
    If they had set this halfway between Enterprise and TOS it might be more believable because the interior sets and uniforms look like something that progressed from the Enterprise era. But none of it looks like anything that would have been in use only 10 years before TOS unless Starfleet suddenly decided they needed a complete makeover. As for the JJverse Klingons, if they liked that design so much they should have simply made them a new species. Not that I really care at this point, because I'm not subscribing to CBS All Abscess just to watch one show that hasn't impressed me so far.
  9. RPF Premium Member The Mad Professor's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 2012
    From
    Tampa Bay Area, FL
    Messages
    6,871
    May 18, 2017, 11:54 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #934

    SmilingOtter said: View Post
    I'm certainly not going to PAY to see that.

    There's no way I can reconcile that look with being 10 years pre-TOS. If it were post-TNG (and without the really odd Klingons) I could get behind it.
    There are two rumors floating around about the "Klingons" we saw.

    1) They are Klingons, but an older variety, possibly a breakaway group that evolved differently, similar to Vulcans and Romulans (this is based on the statement made about "ancient Klingons").

    2) They are, in fact, NOT Klingons, but are actually the Hur'q, a species that invaded Qo'noS in the 14th century.
  10. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,658
    May 19, 2017, 2:32 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #935

    The Mad Professor said: View Post
    There are two rumors floating around about the "Klingons" we saw.

    1) They are Klingons, but an older variety, possibly a breakaway group that evolved differently, similar to Vulcans and Romulans (this is based on the statement made about "ancient Klingons").

    2) They are, in fact, NOT Klingons, but are actually the Hur'q, a species that invaded Qo'noS in the 14th century.
    Looked like they were performing the Klingon Death ritual about 1:45 - 1:50 in the trailer.
  11. RPF Premium Member The Terminator's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2011
    From
    Sweden
    Messages
    4,058
    May 19, 2017, 5:04 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #936

    robn1 said: View Post
    Excuse me, I have to go find something to barf in.
    My lap worked for me
  12. Member Since
    Mar 2017
    Messages
    44
    May 19, 2017, 6:44 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #937

    I imagine if this page were around in 1987 there would be all the disgruntled TOS fans hating on TNG for many of the same reasons. Whelp I'll be watching it.
  13. Zardu Hasselfrau! RPF Premium Member JOATRASH FX's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2005
    From
    Exploring other worlds...
    Messages
    3,174
    May 19, 2017, 7:46 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #938

    KrangPrime said: View Post
    and also, is ANYONE else tired of that 'BVVRRMMMMMMM' sound effect used when things slow down yet?

    it's been in every trailer since transformers at least.
    Well, I'll take that sound over the chin-shaking stutter of every on-screen CGI monster since Episode 2. They even seem to have the Xenomorph doing it in the latest Alien.

    My main objection at this point is that they seem to be artificially trying to inflate the "drama" of the new show. (I mean, I love Doug Jones' work, but the stuff they gave him in the trailer was pretty weak.) Plus that the overall look we've seen so far is just so very derivative of several current SciFi shows airing and popular video games. I mean, Trek used to BE the inspiration for most other shows and now it seems to be falling into some kind of copycat thing. I don't mind change and let's face it... trying to believably marry the aesthetics of 1960s Trek with modern design would be incredibly difficult, but ALL Trek until now has had a vey distinct look to it, whereas Discovery (so far) does not stand out.

    Also, I have a hard time warming up to Sonequa Martin-Green after the Walking Dead. As a protagonist, she just doesn't portray believable human empathy, even when under the most tragic circumstances. There's this cold and insincere vibe that she gives off, even when trying to act vulnerable and broken and that might be greatly accentuated if she goes into "command mode". She'd make a great Mirkwood elf in the Hobbit though.
  14. Nakanokalronin's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2000
    Messages
    42
    May 19, 2017, 9:21 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #939

    Danlex9 said: View Post
    I imagine if this page were around in 1987 there would be all the disgruntled TOS fans hating on TNG for many of the same reasons. Whelp I'll be watching it.
    I might if TNG was only 10 years after TOS.
  15. KrangPrime is offline KrangPrime
    May 19, 2017, 9:33 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #940

    Danlex9 said: View Post
    I imagine if this page were around in 1987 there would be all the disgruntled TOS fans hating on TNG for many of the same reasons. Whelp I'll be watching it.
    not a direct sequel set 80 years later.

    it's good to be positive and enjoying it. but some excuses ;o).


    if I remember correctly, the proper excuses for hating tng back then where probably 'no one could replace kirk' ;o)
  16. Member Since
    Jun 2008
    From
    Rocky Point, NY
    Messages
    2,236
    May 19, 2017, 10:36 AM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #941

    KrangPrime said: View Post
    if I remember correctly, the proper excuses for hating tng back then where probably 'no one could replace kirk' ;o)
    That was part of it and also a lot of us just felt that nothing could replace the original. I tried to watch the first episode, Encounter at Farpoint, but only got as far as the trial with Q when I couldn't take it anymore. I only got back into it years later when my mother started watching it and she ask me to tape some episodes for her. I actually got to like some of the stuff I saw. It took a couple of years for TNG to really get good and I'm just glad it wasn't on regular network TV or it would have been cancelled before the end of the first season.
  17. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    May 19, 2017, 1:05 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #942

    They can keep saying it's the Prime-verse, but visually speaking it's clearly the Kelvin/Abrams timeline. Which, if that's the case, fine. Just commit to that. It makes more sense for the brand. But don't get classic fans, who are sticklers for detail, all worked up by saying it's something it isn't.

    I don't get why they just wouldn't pull a TNG and say it was in the future-- like far enough that it wouldn't matter which timeline it was in. Unless there is something inherently married to the core concept that says it has to take place when it does, I just don't get why.

    All THAT said, on its own merits, I think it looks okay. Not sure if I'd pay to watch it, but I will when it hits Netflix.

    BTW, Netflix is handling the foreign distribution and their cut of the trailer is WAY better. I'd link it, but it's blocked now.
  18. Member Since
    Oct 2014
    From
    WA state
    Messages
    1,658
    May 19, 2017, 2:11 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #943

    Danlex9 said: View Post
    I imagine if this page were around in 1987 there would be all the disgruntled TOS fans hating on TNG for many of the same reasons. Whelp I'll be watching it.
    The complaints about TNG before it came out mostly centered around character comparisons. This guy won't be as good as that guy...etc.

    No one was blasting TNG for being a prequel that doesn't fit the timeline, altering established alien races for no good reason, removing focus from the captain, going edgy/dark/gritty, etc.

    @SethS
    Yeah, it's pretty obvious it was supposed to be JJ-verse. And someone realized that wouldn't sell to original Trek fans. And they tried to rebrand it to original Trek.

    Did you notice how alien the Star Trek fanfare sounded at the end of the trailer when they pop the Trek logo? Like it doesn't even belong.
  19. SethS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2016
    From
    Los Angeles
    Messages
    1,491
    May 19, 2017, 3:07 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #944

    The only prequel Trek I want is a movie era series. For my money, Star Trek 2,3,6 and the open of Generations had the best production design ever. That was always my favorite era. Give me an Enterprise B series or just jump to the year 3000 and get away from everything established so everything is new again.

    WHY AM I NOT IN CHARGE OF THESE THINGS
  20. RPF Contest Coordinator RPF Premium Member Michael Bergeron's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    From
    Everybody's lost but me!
    Messages
    21,826
    May 19, 2017, 3:48 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #945

    All I can say is thank God this is coming to Netflix in Canada. I already have an account so I'll give it a go. No way based on what I've seen would I pay specifically for this.
  21. Axlotl's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2001
    Messages
    2,043
    May 19, 2017, 4:20 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #946

    SethS said: View Post
    The only prequel Trek I want is a movie era series. For my money, Star Trek 2,3,6 and the open of Generations had the best production design ever. That was always my favorite era. Give me an Enterprise B series or just jump to the year 3000 and get away from everything established so everything is new again.

    WHY AM I NOT IN CHARGE OF THESE THINGS
    I grok your mouth-music. You should totally be in charge of these things.
  22. jettajeffro's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 2015
    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Messages
    188
    May 19, 2017, 5:11 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #947

  23. KrangPrime is offline KrangPrime
    May 19, 2017, 5:20 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #948

    at least there are still some things most people can agree that it's OK to say 'this looks terrible' without being called a troll for doing so these days ;o)

    don't mind me..just in one of my moods today
  24. Nakanokalronin's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 2000
    Messages
    42
    May 19, 2017, 6:23 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #949

    jettajeffro said: View Post
    Eh, we're all used to a new Star Trek by now. It really has nothing to do with nostalgia or being different really. Visually nothing fits in the time frame. I'm hoping they go to Discovery and everything feels just a little more familiar and makes some sense. Just a tiny bit would be nice. At least one thing fitting correctly would be neat.
    Last edited by Nakanokalronin; May 19, 2017 at 7:00 PM.
  25. MooCriket's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    From
    Annapolis MD
    Messages
    9,299
    May 19, 2017, 8:56 PM - Re: Star Trek: Discovery (2017) #950

    "Biologically determined to sense the oncoming of death". Who was the writer that came up with that? Takes me back to STTNG season one when Troi would spout silly obvious nonsense talk like that.

Similar Threads

  1. Star Wars Celebration 2017--Orlando, FL
    superjedi, Conventions and Prop Parties
    Replies: 205
    Last Post: Apr 24, 2017, 4:52 PM
  2. Discovery Museum NYC Star Wars Exhibit--Blaster Prop Question
    kitbasher, Star Wars Costumes and Props
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Dec 6, 2015, 10:37 AM
  3. Star Wars Greeblie Discovery Thread
    SofaKing01, Star Wars Costumes and Props
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: Jul 25, 2014, 7:41 AM
  4. Star Trek & Star Trek: Into Darkness... To Tour With Live Orchestras
    The Mad Professor, Entertainment and Movie Talk
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Apr 15, 2014, 6:23 PM
  5. Star Trek Movies, As Ranked By Star Trek Con-Goers
    Vivek, Entertainment and Movie Talk
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Aug 13, 2013, 11:07 AM