OT: Star Trek Discovery

245678

Comments

  • ebergerlyebergerly Posts: 3,255
    edited September 2017
    By the way, this WAS done succesfully IMO only once in memory. Daniel Craig and the recent crop of incredible James Bonds. Following decades of terrible nonsense after the amazing Sean connery era.
    Post edited by ebergerly on
  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,579

    Saw the first episode on UK Netflix. Hmmm. Maybe slightly whelmed, although not over- or under. There's much to like: the sets, the effects were all good. The new Sarek is top hole. The crew is ... interesting, although that 1st officer and the cowardy tall guy wouldn't be on a ship in my navy (I'm also not holding my breath that she gets the court marshalling & dishonourable discharge she deserves after ep 1)

    But those Klingons. Woe, woe, and thrice woe! (said in the original Klingon, and with subtitles). The masks were awful and very unexpressive. And why change them yet again? The dialogue was. spoken. oh. so. slowly. which. made. those. scenes. really.

    drag.

    (think they got acting lessons from Flash, the sloth in Zootropolis!) Plus the low light in those scenes didn't help.

    I'll watch part two, and maybe part 3 to see if improves. But so far I'm not sold.

  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,899

    I was real little when I started watching the next generation. I watched it because it was a fun show and I liked the moral values and how problems were thought through and solved rather than rush in, guns blazing.

    Mind you, I'm not a huge trekkie and know every minute detail of lore etc. But I enjoy the setting and most of the shows. I watched DS9 and Voyager as well as some of the TOS but then Enterprise came along and I just couldn't watch it. I tried 1 episode and just couldn't.

    First, Scott Beckula didn't feel like a starship captain to me, and then in the 1 episode I did try to watch, there had already been some continuity errors and that just ruined the whole thing for me.

    Now what I'm hearing about this new series, the same thing is happening so I will not be watching this series either.

  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,691
    Pet said:
    considering the timeline that this is set. 10 years before Kirk and a decade after Archer.

     

    If I may correct you on the timeline, Enterprise started in 2151, the year the NX-01 was launched.  The original pilot for TOS was set in 2265.  While I agree that the Klingons look odd, the 100 years difference would give time for, and room story wise,  biological mishaps occuring as a result of an attempt to correct damage done a century earlier, when they tried to augment the super human gene into thier own.  I think less head makeup and going with the "de-evolved feral" Worf look would have been cooler, though still breaking the timeline events of Enterprise. 

  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,691
    RKane_1 said:
     

    Oh, my favourite part was walking in the sand to make a figure when there's a storm. I don't think the writers understand how wind works.

     

    Agreed there again

     

    Lets not forget the fact that during the TOS, that symbol was unique to the USS Enterprise only and was not used by the whole federation until the first or second movie.

  • Singular BluesSingular Blues Posts: 735
    edited September 2017

    Singular: I've always thought that a ship dropping out of warp space/warp bubbles would look like it basically expands into view with some distortion. Of course, that might look silly.

    But hey, the thing is? There's also no SOUND IN SPACE. So it's all just prettied up for coolness. ;)

     

    Modified Alcubierre metrics would probably look like that because they get around the needing more mass energy than there is in the universe by literally making the ship smaller, at least from POV of the outside universe. So as the bubble is shut down the ship would seem to expand into view. But just the basic Alcubierre metric, which is what warp drive is most like, the ship is just suddenly there. It's moving faster than light, so the light from when it arrives a mile away gets to you first, then the light from two miles away, etc. Square cubes get involved, so the farther it was away, the fainter the image. All of those photons are still coming to you at the speed of light, so from your pov, the ship is just there, suddenly, and seems to be fuzzily distending away from you for a bit. As the nearer photons play out, the connection be the ship and its after image would break and the after image would seem to retreat away from you at superluminal speeds. Which would look really, really weird.

    There would also be the effect of the warp bubble, so the after image of the ship would be surrounded by a lensing effect.

     

    wolf359 said:

    "If one takes the terms of warp drive as it is
     described, the ship isn't really moving.
     Subspace is being warped in something
    like the way the Alcubierre metric warps real 
    space, so a ship dropping out of warp would
     appear moving at the same speed it had going in.
    If you timed it right you'd show up not moving
     relative to anyone already there."

     

    Well lets be honest ALL of the warp technology in ALL of the treks
    Fail miserably from a real science perspective because they all ignore
    the time dialation cause by relativity ( see the movie interstellar)

    Other than this movie, the only other fictional space based
    civilization I have seen address the problem is the 
    HALO universe of the popular  Xbox game.

    There they use something called "casual reconciliation"
    to 'Borrow" time from the space time continuim itself,
    to prevent yourself from coming home from an extended warp speed
    trip and finding, your not yet born, great grand children running the farm. 

     

     

    Star Trek warp drive doesn't ignore relativistic effects. With the power of handwavium, it posits space as the thing that is moving, and eliminates them. It would actually work fairly well like it does, with stardates systems to account for time drift (somehow) and all, if you can make space move. Because despite the warp drive normally preventing time travel, just being at star A while you kids are  atStar B means your clocks are of synch because of the relative motion and different gravity. The difference between how time runs on the surface of the Earth and how it runs in orbit has to be accounted for just make GPS work. Relativistic time dilation kicks in rather earlier than we think, because humans can't think fast enough to notice.

    In fact, there's an atomic clock so accurate, some place, that it can detect the difference in the flow of time between the floor and the top of a table.

    But I digress. the Alcubierre metric is free of time effects, on the surface of things, because the ship is never actually moving with respect to space. It just seems that way because space is moving. It's weird. You can make a time machine out of it. It's just not as easy to do as it is with some forms of FTL. So even old trek with their handwavium powered slingshot move was on a scientificaly consitent track. Not they planned it. They just made most of that up. Alcubierre was inspired by Star Trek, after all, and was just messing around. His professor was real impressed by what he did with his free time, and made him turn it into a paper.

    It just turns out, by pure luck, that the way Trek generally depicts the consequences of warp drive match the consequences of the Alcubierre metric. Mostly.

    There's a lot of accidentally right in Star Trek. I just recently realized that starships swooping and banking makes perfect sense, because they have donward pointing antigrav with TWR greater than one. Basically, they have a lift vector, even in space. Suddenly, their manuevering as they sometimes do, makes sense. And them not always doing it that way also makes sense if you assume they can't point that AG vector in any direction they please.

    Trek did not plan this, but it's a consequence of them making the ships able to float on AG. The only question is whether the anti grav is gravity nullification, (which would inconsistent with the visuals, but the visuals don't write the tech manuals) or some kind of force drive that creates the upward vector. In the latter case, the ships would swoop, rather than spin in place. It's more efficient in terms of time. (less so in energy, but energy isn't as much a problem to a near Type II civilization).

    The new Klingons are, again, based on the JJ Klingon. Technically, we only get to see one JJ klingon. The thing is, they turned what they did in Into Darkness up to 11. It's been noted, but so far no one on the production has said why. It might be easier to mass produce the masks, that way, since they are looser, and thus don't have be a perfect face fit, except on the "hero" molds. But they don't sa,y so I speculate. the JJ production solved the issue with helmets for non-hero makeup, so that does suggest the JJ style is more costly in some way, time or money or between.

    Post edited by Singular Blues on
  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,691
    In fact, there's an atomic clock so accurate, some place, that it can detect the difference in the flow of time between the floor and the top of a table

     

    There is one at sea level in England and an other one in Colorado up in the Rocky mountains that prove this.  The farther away from the gravitational center, the faster time moves

  • Mattymanx said:
    RKane_1 said:
     

    Oh, my favourite part was walking in the sand to make a figure when there's a storm. I don't think the writers understand how wind works.

     

    Agreed there again

     

    Lets not forget the fact that during the TOS, that symbol was unique to the USS Enterprise only and was not used by the whole federation until the first or second movie.

     

    This was one of my minor nitpicks when I saw designs for the series. The classic Federation badge was only for the U.S.S. Enterprise until after the TOS 5 year mission when the Enterprise became, essentially, the symbol for all of Starfleet.

    I would've overlooked a little thing like that but this show just piles on too many anachronisms and the Klingons just push it well past a line I'm willing to tolerate.

  • tkdroberttkdrobert Posts: 3,401
    Mattymanx said:
    RKane_1 said:
     

    Oh, my favourite part was walking in the sand to make a figure when there's a storm. I don't think the writers understand how wind works.

     

    Agreed there again

     

    Lets not forget the fact that during the TOS, that symbol was unique to the USS Enterprise only and was not used by the whole federation until the first or second movie.

     

    This was one of my minor nitpicks when I saw designs for the series. The classic Federation badge was only for the U.S.S. Enterprise until after the TOS 5 year mission when the Enterprise became, essentially, the symbol for all of Starfleet.

    I would've overlooked a little thing like that but this show just piles on too many anachronisms and the Klingons just push it well past a line I'm willing to tolerate.

    I didn't know that about the badge.  Although I saw some TOS episodes as a young child (reruns, I'm not that old), I really jumped on the Trek train with the 1st movie and TNG was really my TV show. 

    Anyway, when I saw the new Klingons, I knew that would rub some fans the wrong way.   I really didn't see a reason to change their features.  I would've been fine with a change in costumes and ships though.  Not saying I hate it, but I don't love it either. 

    Doesn't really matter because I won't be watching until the show is available On Demand, US Netflix, or BluRay.

  • Fairly certain the idea of the Starfleet emblem being Enterprise only has been a dead issue since Star Trek became bankable in the 80s. There's too much brand recognition there.

    It was on the Kelvin uniform, and that the exact point the JJ verse splits from the prime.

  • McGyverMcGyver Posts: 5,949

    I just saw this thread and hadn't realized Discovery was already out... I hadn't thought about it much because I have no intention of paying for it separately... But I'm seeing that people are saying it is on Netflix, but I'm not seeing it there, and searching for it just gives a poop pile of inane Netflix suggestions on stuff the algorithm likes to believe will compensate for their inadequacy...

    So... I'm curious... Is it available on Netflix, just not in the U.S.?

  • Yup.

    All Access is not international. So they put it on netflix for everyone but the home crowd.

  • BobvanBobvan Posts: 2,612
    edited September 2017

    Not too bad like ppl are saying trying to go in a different direction then the past. But it's like that Simpson episode where they are all old and Shatner says rolling his eyes "The Klingons again" some cheap looking cgi..

     

    New unis and sets to render yaaay LOL

    Post edited by Bobvan on
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    I think they also experimentally verified frame dragging a while back, which is extra weird and cool.

    (frame dragging: massive rotating bodies 'pull' spacetime along with them, with various weird effects)

  • GreymomGreymom Posts: 1,081

    I was sitting on the living room floor glued to the set from the first episode of ST TOS a half-century ago in a previous millenium.  I have been a fan ever since.  Always glad to see a new variation.

    Watched both episodes of ST-Discovery last night, and although there were some "rough edges", I really liked the show.   The new Klingons will take some getting used to.  Can't see these guys doing Klingon Opera.  Guess the Klingon ships can't fire while cloaked (consistent with the orignal mythos), otherwise they would have an overwhelming advantage. I would have been fine with them keeping the cast and structure the same as in the pilot, but that would have not broken any new ground.  So, I am looking forward to seeing how the "real" show goes.

    Live long and perspire! (I live in Louisiana)   Set phasers on deep fat fry!

     

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617
    edited September 2017

    as an aside, you can block time travel problems if you posit that your FTL has a single reference frame.

    (or more specifically that all travel is always instantaneous wrt one reference frame)

     

    Post edited by Oso3D on
  • GreymomGreymom Posts: 1,081

    I think they also experimentally verified frame dragging a while back, which is extra weird and cool.

    (frame dragging: massive rotating bodies 'pull' spacetime along with them, with various weird effects)

    This is very cool stuff indeed, and once again "Uncle Albert" was right!    Hmmm.    I majored in chemistry, but I had to take some physics, and I sometimes wonder if the real high-boogie astrophyicists aren't just yanking our chains sometimes.  Once in a while, just for fun, do they make an announcement of something weird and cool, just to see our reactions, and then sit around and drink beer and laugh and say "Did you see their faces?  They totally bought that!"   Like, 11 dimensions?   Seriously?

     

  • McGyverMcGyver Posts: 5,949

    Yup.

    All Access is not international. So they put it on netflix for everyone but the home crowd.

    Boy that sucks... Thanks Netflix... That's a F--- Y-- to U.S. customers, eh?

    I guess in retrospect I've heard of that before, but it was in relation to stuff I didn't watch anyway.

    Well, no surprise... People are made of money right?

  • RKane_1 said:
    The captain and first officer going on an enemy ship alone was over the top.
    COMPLETELY agree with you. they least they could have said is there was only enough power to port two and no others (better equipped for combat and less vital to command)were available

    But, this is Star Trek. Is the captain allowed not to do this kind of thing?

  • BeeMKayBeeMKay Posts: 6,871
    McGyver said:

    Yup.

    All Access is not international. So they put it on netflix for everyone but the home crowd.

    Boy that sucks... Thanks Netflix... That's a F--- Y-- to U.S. customers, eh?

    I guess in retrospect I've heard of that before, but it was in relation to stuff I didn't watch anyway.

    Well, no surprise... People are made of money right?

    Well, apparently Netflix is dong this in coop with CBS, and CBS has "first dibs" on the US market, so this is the result.

  • JamesJABJamesJAB Posts: 1,760
    RKane_1 said:
    The captain and first officer going on an enemy ship alone was over the top.
    COMPLETELY agree with you. they least they could have said is there was only enough power to port two and no others (better equipped for combat and less vital to command)were available

    But, this is Star Trek. Is the captain allowed not to do this kind of thing?

    Everyone knows the standard standard starfleet landing party consists of:

    1. Captain
    2. 1st Officer
    3. plot driven main character (Doctor, Engineer, Communications, Security)
    4. Red Shirt Ensign
    5. Red Shirt Ensign

     All in all, I enjoyed the first two episodes of Discovery.  Though I will not be purchasing a subscription to CBS's streaming service,  I will find "other" ways of watching the following episodes.  If the season continues to be good, I will be purchasing it on Blu-Ray to go with the rest of my Star Trek Blu-Ray collection.

  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,691
    edited September 2017
    Mattymanx said:

    Lets not forget the fact that during the TOS, that symbol was unique to the USS Enterprise only and was not used by the whole federation until the first or second movie.

     

    This was one of my minor nitpicks when I saw designs for the series. The classic Federation badge was only for the U.S.S. Enterprise until after the TOS 5 year mission when the Enterprise became, essentially, the symbol for all of Starfleet.

    I would've overlooked a little thing like that but this show just piles on too many anachronisms and the Klingons just push it well past a line I'm willing to tolerate.

    Especially since the Enterprise entered service in 2245 under Capt Chris Pike and as of the first episode of ST:D, has been in service already for 11 years.  WHich means they could have the Enterprise show up with Capt Pike or someone else in command to "save the day".  its not like they can destroy it for the sake of the story

    Post edited by Mattymanx on
  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021
    I liked it, not overly keen on the new Klingons, but there was some great character development in the first episode and action in the second episode. Will definitely be watching in future. Feels a bit the new films and Enterprise mashed together, very slick looking. I'm lucky enough to be in the UK to get this on Netflix. BTW if you have it on Netflix check the language options... It's available in klingon :-D

    OMG, I need to check lol.

    Not keen on the 2 episodes but maybe klingon language makes it better lol.

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021

    Saw the first episode on UK Netflix. Hmmm. Maybe slightly whelmed, although not over- or under. There's much to like: the sets, the effects were all good. The new Sarek is top hole. The crew is ... interesting, although that 1st officer and the cowardy tall guy wouldn't be on a ship in my navy (I'm also not holding my breath that she gets the court marshalling & dishonourable discharge she deserves after ep 1)

    But those Klingons. Woe, woe, and thrice woe! (said in the original Klingon, and with subtitles). The masks were awful and very unexpressive. And why change them yet again? The dialogue was. spoken. oh. so. slowly. which. made. those. scenes. really.

    drag.

    (think they got acting lessons from Flash, the sloth in Zootropolis!) Plus the low light in those scenes didn't help.

    I'll watch part two, and maybe part 3 to see if improves. But so far I'm not sold.

    Totally with you on those * Klingons * I would say rather Reptile species.The slow talk was killing me.

    Not sure I watch the 3rd one, if I do I must be mad lol.

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021
    Mattymanx said:
    Pet said:
    considering the timeline that this is set. 10 years before Kirk and a decade after Archer.

     

    If I may correct you on the timeline, Enterprise started in 2151, the year the NX-01 was launched.  The original pilot for TOS was set in 2265.  While I agree that the Klingons look odd, the 100 years difference would give time for, and room story wise,  biological mishaps occuring as a result of an attempt to correct damage done a century earlier, when they tried to augment the super human gene into thier own.  I think less head makeup and going with the "de-evolved feral" Worf look would have been cooler, though still breaking the timeline events of Enterprise. 

    I googled for the time line and that was what it said. 10 years before Kirk and 1 decade after Archer. Maybe accidents or gene manupulations could have so drasticly changed a whole race but not in evolution. So not sold on those * Klingons *, they also speak so slow.

  • PetraPetra Posts: 1,021
    McGyver said:

    I just saw this thread and hadn't realized Discovery was already out... I hadn't thought about it much because I have no intention of paying for it separately... But I'm seeing that people are saying it is on Netflix, but I'm not seeing it there, and searching for it just gives a poop pile of inane Netflix suggestions on stuff the algorithm likes to believe will compensate for their inadequacy...

    So... I'm curious... Is it available on Netflix, just not in the U.S.?

    We have it on Netflix in the UK and from what I have heard it is not on Netflix US. Not sure about other countries.

  • MattymanxMattymanx Posts: 6,691
    edited September 2017
    Pet said:
    Mattymanx said:
    Pet said:
    considering the timeline that this is set. 10 years before Kirk and a decade after Archer.

     

    If I may correct you on the timeline, Enterprise started in 2151, the year the NX-01 was launched.  The original pilot for TOS was set in 2265.  While I agree that the Klingons look odd, the 100 years difference would give time for, and room story wise,  biological mishaps occuring as a result of an attempt to correct damage done a century earlier, when they tried to augment the super human gene into thier own.  I think less head makeup and going with the "de-evolved feral" Worf look would have been cooler, though still breaking the timeline events of Enterprise. 

    I googled for the time line and that was what it said. 10 years before Kirk and 1 decade after Archer. Maybe accidents or gene manupulations could have so drasticly changed a whole race but not in evolution. So not sold on those * Klingons *, they also speak so slow.

    Wow, really?  Someone seriously did NOT do their home work on that one. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Star_Trek

    Post edited by Mattymanx on
  • CBS and Paramount killed AXANAR for this?! 

  • jakibluejakiblue Posts: 7,281

    I couldn't put my finger on why I disliked the klingon scenes so much and you've just done it! I came away from the show thinking "hmm interesting possibly, i'll give it a few more eps to see what I think, but my god, klingons are BORING!!!". I was hoping they'd forget the whole Klingon thing and just concentrate on whatshername for the rest of the show. And the dialogue was why. Sloooooooooow and boring, plus I couldn't catch any emotion in his voice...it didn't seem to match up with his anger etc that I was getting from the subtitles. 

    I'm not a trekkie fan at all - loathe the original series with Kirk, watched a few of Picard and kinda enjoyed them but not enough to go all out and watch the entire series, and only saw one or two eps of the Scott Bakula one cos I like him. That's it. So I'm not familiar with the trek universe at all, to be honest. But I went into it with fresh eyes and looking forward to a good sci fi series. I had to look it up after watching the first two eps - to find out the timeline etc, had no idea it was set 10 years before the original one and of course, had no idea who Sarek was. LOL. So coming from a non-trekkie who has basically no idea of the Trek universe/timeline but enjoys good sci fi, my opinion is that I'll give it a few more episodes before deciding, as enough happened to make me mildly curious (except the BORING klingons). I think as it goes along and she ends up on her new ship with all the new characters, it'll grab me more. I'm interested that it doesn't revolve around a CAPTAIN, rather a first officer (or whatever she is). 

    ............The dialogue was. spoken. oh. so. slowly. which. made. those. scenes. really.

    drag.

    (think they got acting lessons from Flash, the sloth in Zootropolis!) Plus the low light in those scenes didn't help.

    I'll watch part two, and maybe part 3 to see if improves. But so far I'm not sold.

     

  • jakibluejakiblue Posts: 7,281

    It's on Netflix here in australia, apparently fast tracked so we get the eps just after screening in the US.  

    Pet said:
    McGyver said:

    I just saw this thread and hadn't realized Discovery was already out... I hadn't thought about it much because I have no intention of paying for it separately... But I'm seeing that people are saying it is on Netflix, but I'm not seeing it there, and searching for it just gives a poop pile of inane Netflix suggestions on stuff the algorithm likes to believe will compensate for their inadequacy...

    So... I'm curious... Is it available on Netflix, just not in the U.S.?

    We have it on Netflix in the UK and from what I have heard it is not on Netflix US. Not sure about other countries.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.