Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

How are you watching Star Trek: Discovery?

  • Signed up for CBS All Access before watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Signed up for CBS All Access after watching the premiere

    Votes: 13 9.1%
  • Not signing up, but will watch if it's available for free

    Votes: 82 57.3%
  • On Netflix (Non-US viewer)

    Votes: 35 24.5%

  • Total voters
    143
Nothing says seek out new life and new civilizations, exploring in the name of peace and advancing the human condition.
DARK DARK DARK EXPLOSIONS WAR WAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eff you CBS Eff you Moonves. I hope this bombs bad. And I swear I'm hearing the SJW speeches in there already.
 
I think Sonequa looks like she's going to be a pretty decent main character. Although I'm not sure why she isn't captain. That just feels like a "different to be different" thing

Although it does remind me that Sisko started as a commander too. Maybe she'll make Captain if this lasts three seasons?

I hope they don't blame her when it flops. Not her fault the producers don't seem to actually like Star Trek very much.

Also it does bother me that they keep talking about how the captain is always the main character though. In ToS that was true, maybe ENT as well, but for TNG and especially DS9 the show was very much ensemble. In many episodes the captain was barely an extra.

It just reinforces the impression that this is being made by people who haven't actually watched very much Star Trek.
 
Raised by Sarek/Amanda....... Harry Mudd looking and acting nothing at all like Harry Mudd....... A ship that looks FC era........ Star Wars style shields acting as an air lock in the hangar bay..... :facepalm
Nope. They can talk about canon all they want, but this is the b****** lovechild of ENT and the JJ-universe at best. I didn't think my expectations could get any lower, but this looks like an absolute trainwreck.
 
...It doesn't look horrible, but because it looks like a Michael Bay production I can't tell what timeline this is in or when it's supposed to take place.
Is it after Enterprise, but before TOS?
That's how they're trying to sell it to us, yes. But at this point it barely resembles anything that might have happened ten years before the 2009 reboot movie.
 
The ship interiors, the costumes, the lighting, it looks like Tron. And the first line of that song makes me think of the old Coke commercials.
 
My pics from the exhibit at SDCC today:

IMG_5431.JPG

IMG_5432.JPG

IMG_5434.JPG

IMG_5457.JPG

IMG_5433.JPG

IMG_5435.JPG

IMG_5437.JPG

IMG_5438.JPG

IMG_5440.JPG


IMG_5441.JPG

IMG_5442.JPG

IMG_5443.JPG

IMG_5455.JPG

IMG_5454.JPG

IMG_5456.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5444.JPG
    IMG_5444.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 55
That trailer strikes me as emotionally dreary, visually monochromatic, devoid of a sense of hope or humor and stylistically confused. Maybe it'll be a good show on its own terms but it's a far cry from the source material. And that song makes it feel like a promo for Dawson's Creek in Space.

This message brought to you by the Federation's Old Fart Commission, a division of the "Dammit, Jim!" Council.
 
I don't really care anymore what "reality" fictional stories are set in. Things like Star Trek are modern myth-making, and -- like the mythologies of ancient cultures -- I think we could stand to be more flexible when it comes to how consistent it all needs to be.
 
Oh, I'm certainly going to watch the pilot, hoping there'll be something that I can latch onto. (To be honest, while I don't have any strong feelings toward Rainn Wilson, I rather like what I saw of Mudd.)

But there's no way I can see this leading towards the Trek I grew up with.
 
Oh, I'm certainly going to watch the pilot, hoping there'll be something that I can latch onto. (To be honest, while I don't have any strong feelings toward Rainn Wilson, I rather like what I saw of Mudd.)

But there's no way I can see this leading towards the Trek I grew up with.

As I often say in threads regarding STAR WARS, sometimes franchises move into different directions and leave older fans behind in an effort to create a new fan base.
 
As I often say in threads regarding STAR WARS, sometimes franchises move into different directions and leave older fans behind in an effort to create a new fan base.

While true, I don't see that as very likely to work here.

This is not a normal TV show where (since CBS owns it) they can give it a full year to build an audience. Quite the opposite actually, they're giving it ONE episode to build an audience, at which point you have to pay to see the rest. They would seem to be counting on the established Trek fans to pay to watch this online then extol its virtues outward in hopes of reigning in more subscribers to their service. I mean, let's all be honest, that is the exact reason this show exists, for them to sell they're streaming service. If there was no CBS All access, or it was a thriving entity, the show wouldn't be being made.

So, to that end, they're very much depending on the existing fan base. Millenials and cord cutters are not the target audience for CBS All access. As a network they've always skewed to the older demographic (not that there's anything wrong with that), but their streaming service is packed with their owned TV shows dating back the 70's, if not 60's. No the content that a 'new fan base' is going to be interested in paying for.

Everything i've seen doesn't say trek to me. And, admittedly i'm not a huge trek fan, but still, from what i've read, it doesn't say trek to many people. Frankly, a few bits of dialog chance, slight ship design change and removing the insignia's from the uniforms, and people would likely would not have trek crossing their minds while watching the trailer. It's more space story with 'trek' stuck on it to gain audience familiarity which, at this point, seems more likely to backfire.

Someone said something earlier, too, that raises a big issue - their timeline. It was said that 'Pike's Enterprise is supposed to be out there simultaneously'. To which, yeah - going back becomes a problem. Believable science fiction has to look believably advanced versus the current day, It's once reason, i always though trek should go forward. You can't make a passable show in 2017 that is supposed to be concurrent with, or prior to TOS without the new one looked substantially advanced in comparison. Then, apparently, every race except vulcans looked drastically different 5 years prior to TOS than in TOS. Either that, or the two ships never crossed paths with the same aliens.

I get those involved want to make things as believable as possible for a modern day show, but in the process seemed to blow all semblance of continuity out of the water. Stick the show 200 years past TNG, and largely, all those issues go away. Other than the seeming lack of exploration and science.
 
I don't really care anymore what "reality" fictional stories are set in. Things like Star Trek are modern myth-making, and -- like the mythologies of ancient cultures -- I think we could stand to be more flexible when it comes to how consistent it all needs to be.

They are the ones trying to sell it as Prime-Trek. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to be consistent with that.
 
Star Wars they make everything look like it belongs. They make it a priority, they make EXACT replicas of sets and fans are over joyed to see
the same designs from 40 years ago! young and old fans.

Life ain't fair. LOL
 
This is prime canon. Is that really what people want in a new series?

View attachment 746117

Personally I prefer this.
View attachment 746118


There is a happy place in the middle to shoot for between sixties low budget
and something out of a modern video game, in my opinion. Designs can be
made to look retro but up to date. Look at when the new Camaro came out, it's based off a 69.
 
Star Wars they make everything look like it belongs. They make it a priority, they make EXACT replicas of sets and fans are over joyed to see
the same designs from 40 years ago! young and old fans.

Life ain't fair. LOL
Star Wars is set in a different galaxy so it doesn't need to live up to what's changed in our world. Star Trek, on the other hand has to live up to our modern sensibilities and what our ever changing vision of the future looks like.
 
Star Wars is set in a different galaxy so it doesn't need to live up to what's changed in our world. Star Trek, on the other hand has to live up to our modern sensibilities and what our ever changing vision of the future looks like.

Yeah I know there are lots of reasons for it, but it does suck Trek get's stomped on so badly compared to it.

I suspect if SW only fans had to suffer what Trek series fans have they would be just as freaked out.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top