OT: Star Trek Discovery

123468

Comments

  • I just finished watching episode 3. I was fully prepared to hate this show.. however, I am finding just the opposite. I'm intrigued and enjoying it. I found Captain Lorca to be quite refreshing.

    I'm even coming around on the subscription issue now... because it dawned me while watching tonight... some of the cool stuff never would have made it onto free TV.

    Just felt like adding my 2 cents when I saw a thread that would let me indulge my Star Trek adn Daz obsessions at the same time. :-)

     

  • prixatprixat Posts: 1,486

    Some interesting possibilities arise after watching episode 3.

    With the ship registry as NCC-1031, is this what will become Section 31?!!!

    This way they can bury any inconsistencies, as Section 31 disappears into secrecy, shadow and rumour it will take the Spore drive, tribbles and Gorn with it.

  • TangoAlphaTangoAlpha Posts: 4,579

    I quite enjoyed episode 3, much moreso than the first two. And of course Hello to Jason Isaacs.

    Still think the worst thing so far has been the Klingons.

  • Timbales said:
    All of them were faithful recreations, all of them worked in the context of the episode, and all of them gave me a warm "I'm home" feeling. I don't get that feeling from the bits I've seen of Discovery.

    Discovery is not your home.

    The key demograpic that the money wants to impress is 18 to 49 years old. TOS is 51. Anyone old enough to have seen TOS in first run (and understood it) is nearly sixty or older.

    If you grew up on Star Wars (no sub title) then the prequels suck. You can give valid reasons for their suckage that are hard to argue with. If you were in the magic kid zone 20 years later, the Prequels and the Clone Wars CG show ARE SW. The originals might even be of lesser quality to you.

    18 years later and there's a  new generation whose SW is going to based on the Sequels. 

    Trek is 51 to SW's 40.

    If you are old enough to have been a part of TOS you are 2 generations removed. Obviously TNG is the next generation after that. Discovery is your child's or grandchild's Star Trek.

    There nothing wrong with oldheads digging the new sexy or not, as the case may be. But to extent that Discovery needs to pander, it needs to pander to TNG because those kids are still closer the middle of the magic age bracket. And there's a lot of elements of the show that carry a bit of the TNG flavor. Not a huge amount, but it feels like a similar thread of homage to that in TNG for TOS. There's a bottle Chateau Picard in Georgiou's ready room. Georgiou has a ready room, as does Lorca. And the thing is, it doesn't need  to pander. Much of the TNG-ness probably comes from the fact that there are a lot of DS9/VOY alumns on staff.

    People oft remark at how the world has changed. Because they remember a time when Revenge of the Nerds made sense as gimmick. But now the Nerds and Geeks are a major econmic force, and huge chunks of pop culture are driven by it, from Stranger Things to Game of Thrones. Comiccon is mandatory promotion.

    TNG had a lot of connection, I think, to TOS through its people, but more than that, it had a need to bow to the Trekker demographic. That day has passed. I won't say it's not nice when they make a nod to the fandom, but it's just going to be a nod at this point. Because they no longer need us. I came to the premier with the mindset that they did need us, because old habits of thought die hard. It's still too early to tell if the show will be a success or not. But the geekdom is much larger than the fandom, and to have made the show feel like home to the oldest segment of the fandom at the expense of everyone else would be, to borrow a phrase, not wise.

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,465
    Timbales said:
    All of them were faithful recreations, all of them worked in the context of the episode, and all of them gave me a warm "I'm home" feeling. I don't get that feeling from the bits I've seen of Discovery.

    Discovery is not your home.

    The key demograpic that the money wants to impress is 18 to 49 years old. TOS is 51. Anyone old enough to have seen TOS in first run (and understood it) is nearly sixty or older.

    If you grew up on Star Wars (no sub title) then the prequels suck. You can give valid reasons for their suckage that are hard to argue with. If you were in the magic kid zone 20 years later, the Prequels and the Clone Wars CG show ARE SW. The originals might even be of lesser quality to you.

    18 years later and there's a  new generation whose SW is going to based on the Sequels. 

    Trek is 51 to SW's 40.

    If you are old enough to have been a part of TOS you are 2 generations removed. Obviously TNG is the next generation after that. Discovery is your child's or grandchild's Star Trek.

    There nothing wrong with oldheads digging the new sexy or not, as the case may be. But to extent that Discovery needs to pander, it needs to pander to TNG because those kids are still closer the middle of the magic age bracket. And there's a lot of elements of the show that carry a bit of the TNG flavor. Not a huge amount, but it feels like a similar thread of homage to that in TNG for TOS. There's a bottle Chateau Picard in Georgiou's ready room. Georgiou has a ready room, as does Lorca. And the thing is, it doesn't need  to pander. Much of the TNG-ness probably comes from the fact that there are a lot of DS9/VOY alumns on staff.

    People oft remark at how the world has changed. Because they remember a time when Revenge of the Nerds made sense as gimmick. But now the Nerds and Geeks are a major econmic force, and huge chunks of pop culture are driven by it, from Stranger Things to Game of Thrones. Comiccon is mandatory promotion.

    TNG had a lot of connection, I think, to TOS through its people, but more than that, it had a need to bow to the Trekker demographic. That day has passed. I won't say it's not nice when they make a nod to the fandom, but it's just going to be a nod at this point. Because they no longer need us. I came to the premier with the mindset that they did need us, because old habits of thought die hard. It's still too early to tell if the show will be a success or not. But the geekdom is much larger than the fandom, and to have made the show feel like home to the oldest segment of the fandom at the expense of everyone else would be, to borrow a phrase, not wise.

    Excellent analysis!!!!

     I agree completely

  • If you grew up on Star Wars (no sub title) then the prequels suck. You can give valid reasons for their suckage that are hard to argue with. If you were in the magic kid zone 20 years later, the Prequels and the Clone Wars CG show ARE SW. The originals might even be of lesser quality to you.

    I grew up on Star Wars. The prequels sucked (mostly TPM). CG Clone Wars was so good it retroactively redeemed RotS.

  • prixat said:

    Some interesting possibilities arise after watching episode 3.

    With the ship registry as NCC-1031, is this what will become Section 31?!!!

    This way they can bury any inconsistencies, as Section 31 disappears into secrecy, shadow and rumour it will take the Spore drive, tribbles and Gorn with it.

    Section 31 were in Enterprise, Malcom Reed worked with them.
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    'You only like X/hate Y' is a dismissive argument.

    The prequels were wooden and just bad movies on a bunch of levels. I grew up with the original movies. You know? I always thought the Ewoks were really really dumb.

    It's possible to actually analyze stuff without just barking out what you've imprinted on.

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617
    edited October 2017

    'You only like X/hate Y because if your age' is a dismissive argument.

    The prequels were wooden and just bad movies on a bunch of levels. I grew up with the original movies. You know? I always thought the Ewoks were really really dumb.

    It's possible to actually analyze stuff without just barking out what you've imprinted on.

    Post edited by Oso3D on
  • I always thought the Ewoks were really really dumb.

    Hear, hear. (I think my dying words will be "why weren't they Wookiees?")

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    Recently we watched the first prequel and then the original movie. The difference was remarkable, just in emoting.

    Although I'll give Ewan McGregor and Ian McDiarmid mad respect for managing to give emotional, dramatic performances despite what had to be leaden directing.

  • TraceSLTraceSL Posts: 513

    Still say they should have done Captain Logs; it would allow them to push the envolope and show storyies from any time or race.  Just three or four shows with a crew and ship and move on, hell, you could film enough shows with one crew and spread them out over a five year mission and a centeral plot with the other captains touching on that plot. 

    But hey, I am not in business...BUT if I were some of my show ideas...Zorro updated to a modern crime drama and Wednesday Adams as a 20 something comedy/drama.  Hey, I should get in the business. :)

  • I'm not in the target demograohic, and am not going to pay a monthly fee to get access to CBS' online archives, so my opinion likely doesn't matter to the producers. The pilot looked OK to me, nothing more. Personally, I'd rather see something new or watch something old that I haven't previously seen before. But I do think that the biggest problem a show like STD faces is that the franchise has been around for over half a century and carries a lot of baggage. It's almost impossible to imagine the creators doing anything truly new at this point without violating some in-show continuity or stylistic history, especially in our contemporary continuity-crazed fan culture. I don't envy them.

  • 'You only like X/hate Y because if your age' is a dismissive argument.

    The prequels were wooden and just bad movies on a bunch of levels. I grew up with the original movies. You know? I always thought the Ewoks were really really dumb.

    It's possible to actually analyze stuff without just barking out what you've imprinted on.

    Good thing no one made that argument, then.

    I did say that "This isn't the way it was in my day" is not a remotely relevant argument anymore, because it isn't. It's not dismissive to say so. It's practical. For a very long time Star Trek fostered an impression that you can go home again, probably because even the producers of Trek felt constrained by fandom.

    The Star Wars analogy merely proves that beloved things can create new fans, even while the old fans keep up a strong running heckle. 

    The Comiccon flavored point was about the fact that formerly geek products have global market now, that is also global in scale.

    The bottom line point, building on the above, was that there was a time when Trek needed its hard core fanbase. That time has passed. Until the power of the geek market dies (which might tomorrow, or might not be for 50 years), CBS has reason to keep hammering a new take on Trek until one kicks off big bucks (like Sony with Spider-Man). That just is what it is.

    It is entirely possible to be critical of any thing at any age. It also perfectly valid to point out when a particular criticism sums to "get off my lawn." In this case, "like home" and TOS set dressing arguments tend to fall into that. They are examples of argument from imprinting and if it's dismissive to point that out, it's because dismissing is the best they deserve. But that wasn't an argument I made until just now. My point was just that there are many more potential viewers who don't come to the show with an baggage at all, and those are now the economic drivers.

    The "get off my lawn" class objections certainly aren't the only criticisms leveled in this thread and what I did write doesn't address anything outside what it says. I could, as there are some otherwise flawed arguments leveled, but I feel that would be overly nitpicky. People like or dislike, then rationalize why. Very rarely does this not work that way. All I mean to underline is the bottom line fact that the Core fanbase for most fandoms has, to borrow a britishism, been made redundant. 

  • The Star Wars analogy merely proves that beloved things can create new fans, even while the old fans keep up a strong running heckle.

    I think you're missing that the CG Clone Wars series was a rousing hit with both old and new SW fans, which is a very strong argument against "you can't go home again."

  • The Star Wars analogy merely proves that beloved things can create new fans, even while the old fans keep up a strong running heckle.

    I think you're missing that the CG Clone Wars series was a rousing hit with both old and new SW fans, which is a very strong argument against "you can't go home again."

    PERHAPS!

    But no. I'm aware of that. Old fans (For certain values of old fans) can't forgive the prequels their flaws. New fans didn't bring baggage to them in the first place.

    I'm not that big on those movies, myself, though RoTS wasn't so bad. But I also look at Star Wars, itself, and see that many of the flaws that stand out in TPM and AotC apply. Star Wars is a Jar Jar from being equally flawed. It breaks down after that because Empire is the best of all Star Wars movies, but that's a pretty high bar.

    There's a certain amount of old school in my analysis, but I do tend to be particular. TPM has, literally, all of the best lightsaber fights ever filmed. That doesn't save it IMO, but it might make a huge difference to someone who came to the franchise without the context of the Trilogy. Clone Wars Anikin manages to be exactly movie Anikin without sounding petulant about it, which is kind of a big deal. But is my impression of the performance based on not being able to square the mivie brat with Darth Vader? I expect so.

    There's always going to be something. If they make a new thing based on an old thing, and I am happy with all the changes they made, it is statisically certain that you won't be. Because you can't please everyone. That's almost a truism. 

    That's what I mean about not being able to go home, and that's why I point out the issues. 

    The set designers in Star Wars did a great job making things look like futuristic. I'm not sure if that's because they almost defined futuristic or if they were just that good. But it's not quite the same issue as with Trek. SW doesn't exist in our timeline (unless you take the opening scroll to be literal, in which case, its in the past). While they keep updating the look of things, they are often things that were only seen for a few minutes, making it hard to tell what changed.

    The Enterprise, as brilliant as much of it is, looks like 1966. Since 2009, the internet has been afire with complaints about the gall of anyone trying to update the designs. And often those complaints are mutually exclusive. This is what I mean about being unable to go home. I'm sure there's someone out there who is just livid that SW updated the fidelity of the holograph projections in Rogue One (much less in the prequels). Those people could not go home.

    There's always gonna be someone left out in the cold, no matter what you do. And as your tribe shrinks (due to entropy, if nothing else) you are just less likely to be a priority in the minds of the next production team.

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 14,617

    Old fans hated prequels, they were criticised for just being 'get off my lawn.'

    Many of same fans liked The Force Awakens and/or Rogue One.

    The 'get off my lawn' critique is true far less often than people use it.

     

  • Old fans hated prequels, they were criticised for just being 'get off my lawn.'

    Many of same fans liked The Force Awakens and/or Rogue One.

    I admit to being highly annoyed that there wasn't a single Bothan in Rogue One. angel

  • Singular BluesSingular Blues Posts: 735
    edited October 2017

    Old fans hated prequels, they were criticised for just being 'get off my lawn.'

    Many of same fans liked The Force Awakens and/or Rogue One.

    I admit to being highly annoyed that there wasn't a single Bothan in Rogue One. angel

    Bothans died getting the plans to Death Star II.

     

    Old fans hated prequels, they were criticised for just being 'get off my lawn.'

    Many of same fans liked The Force Awakens and/or Rogue One.

    The 'get off my lawn' critique is true far less often than people use it.

     

    PERHAPS!

    But it is true wrt to Discovery.

    Late EDIT: There are also old fans who hate TFA because it is, perversely, too like Star Wars. Again, please everyone you cannot, hmm!

    Beware, for I sense you arguing against a stawman. That because it is true the "get off my lawn" is a thing, that all criticism are equal to get off my lawn. I did not say that. I, in fact, specified that I was responding to "feels like home-ism". Home is not a realistic option. Honestly, if it were, a whole class of trek fan film would be impssoble, IMO. But that's a different topic. 

    Post edited by Singular Blues on
  • Old fans hated prequels, they were criticised for just being 'get off my lawn.'

    Many of same fans liked The Force Awakens and/or Rogue One.

    I admit to being highly annoyed that there wasn't a single Bothan in Rogue One. angel

    Bothans died getting the plans to Death Star II.

    Oh damn, that's right. Now I feel better (and maybe someday I can still have my alien espionage story).

  • >With the ship registry as NCC-1031, is this what will become Section 31?!!!

    DAng! I was looking at the registry number when they showed it and saying... there is something I'm supposed to notice here.. but am not. Ug! That was it. Could call.

    >Wednesday Adams as a 20 something comedy/drama. 

    I would sooo watch that! Heck, if they got Christina Ricci to reprise the role... I 'd be quite happy with 37 year old Wednesday Adams. Oh crap, now I have that stuck in my head as something I totally want to watch. indecision

     

  • FirstBastionFirstBastion Posts: 6,006

    A simple quote from the third episode,  says it all.  "Universal law is for lackeys. Context is for kings" 

  • kaotkblisskaotkbliss Posts: 2,899

    My background is as follows:

    I'm fitting in the upper edge of their target if it truely is 49 (I just turned 40 this year) I really enjoyed TNG and VOY, DS9 was really good too. TOS was interesting but I couldn't stand ENT.

    I loved the original SW trillogy and was only really upset that the prequals went to cgi instead of Henson muppets (In order for the muppets to look right and blend in, the lighting was a lot more dramatic) I enjoyed Rouge 1 as well as EP7. Didn't watch any of the animated stuff because I couldn't stand the drawing style.

     

    When it comes to Trek, I understand that props, sets and effects need to keep up with the times and will change (Much as they did with the SW sets) But there's a point when you change it too much and you lose the feel of being in that world. I'm not saying keep the analog switches and cardboard viewscreens, not at all. I know all that must change, but hologram transmissions? really, they didn't have that in the future, so why in the past? It's hard to get the proper feel for that reality when the feeling and technology jumps around so much. It's like they sat around and said "what cool futuristic stuff can we cram in here?" rather than saying "ok, how would the technology we've seen have developed over the years?" 

  • hjakehjake Posts: 600

    What a pile of meh.  indecision

    Anyone else sorely disappointed with it?  I was, and I'm a fairly big sci-fi nerd.  I've watched all the Trek shows.  Grew up on ToS.  And I have nothing against female leads either - I really liked Voyager.  Just the dialog and action with the two leading ladies was uninteresting.  Hoping it gets better.

    At least if it continues to bomb we have the Orville.  I've only watched the first episode of that, and it was much better.

    Just watched the first 3 episodes of THE ORVILLE.  It is great. Didn't know about it thanks for mentioning it.

    As for Discovery. Eh, wait and see a few more episodes before deciding this is not Star Trek. It is a 15 episode New Star Trek alternate universe by looks of it even though the creators deny it.

     

  • TimbalesTimbales Posts: 1,813
    Timbales said:
    All of them were faithful recreations, all of them worked in the context of the episode, and all of them gave me a warm "I'm home" feeling. I don't get that feeling from the bits I've seen of Discovery.

    Discovery is not your home.

    The key demograpic that the money wants to impress is 18 to 49 years old. TOS is 51. Anyone old enough to have seen TOS in first run (and understood it) is nearly sixty or older.

    If you grew up on Star Wars (no sub title) then the prequels suck. You can give valid reasons for their suckage that are hard to argue with. If you were in the magic kid zone 20 years later, the Prequels and the Clone Wars CG show ARE SW. The originals might even be of lesser quality to you.

    18 years later and there's a  new generation whose SW is going to based on the Sequels. 

    Trek is 51 to SW's 40.

    If you are old enough to have been a part of TOS you are 2 generations removed. Obviously TNG is the next generation after that. Discovery is your child's or grandchild's Star Trek.

    There nothing wrong with oldheads digging the new sexy or not, as the case may be. But to extent that Discovery needs to pander, it needs to pander to TNG because those kids are still closer the middle of the magic age bracket. And there's a lot of elements of the show that carry a bit of the TNG flavor. Not a huge amount, but it feels like a similar thread of homage to that in TNG for TOS. There's a bottle Chateau Picard in Georgiou's ready room. Georgiou has a ready room, as does Lorca. And the thing is, it doesn't need  to pander. Much of the TNG-ness probably comes from the fact that there are a lot of DS9/VOY alumns on staff.

    People oft remark at how the world has changed. Because they remember a time when Revenge of the Nerds made sense as gimmick. But now the Nerds and Geeks are a major econmic force, and huge chunks of pop culture are driven by it, from Stranger Things to Game of Thrones. Comiccon is mandatory promotion.

    TNG had a lot of connection, I think, to TOS through its people, but more than that, it had a need to bow to the Trekker demographic. That day has passed. I won't say it's not nice when they make a nod to the fandom, but it's just going to be a nod at this point. Because they no longer need us. I came to the premier with the mindset that they did need us, because old habits of thought die hard. It's still too early to tell if the show will be a success or not. But the geekdom is much larger than the fandom, and to have made the show feel like home to the oldest segment of the fandom at the expense of everyone else would be, to borrow a phrase, not wise.

    I'm within the target demo, thanks. TOS was all reruns when I watched them. TNG was the Trek I started to watch while it aired. I am not so self centered that I expect the world to revolve around me and my wishes, but I will express my opinion on a forum designed for discussion. I don't need to be netsplained on how the world works.
  • Timbales said:

     

    I'm within the target demo, thanks. TOS was all reruns when I watched them. TNG was the Trek I started to watch while it aired. I am not so self centered that I expect the world to revolve around me and my wishes, but I will express my opinion on a forum designed for discussion. I don't need to be netsplained on how the world works.

    I don't need to be netsplained on what you don't need to be netsplained about. But you have the right to say it, so long as you don't break the forum rules.

    So do I.

     

    My background is as follows:

    I'm fitting in the upper edge of their target if it truely is 49 (I just turned 40 this year) I really enjoyed TNG and VOY, DS9 was really good too. TOS was interesting but I couldn't stand ENT.

    I loved the original SW trillogy and was only really upset that the prequals went to cgi instead of Henson muppets (In order for the muppets to look right and blend in, the lighting was a lot more dramatic) I enjoyed Rouge 1 as well as EP7. Didn't watch any of the animated stuff because I couldn't stand the drawing style.

     

    When it comes to Trek, I understand that props, sets and effects need to keep up with the times and will change (Much as they did with the SW sets) But there's a point when you change it too much and you lose the feel of being in that world. I'm not saying keep the analog switches and cardboard viewscreens, not at all. I know all that must change, but hologram transmissions? really, they didn't have that in the future, so why in the past? It's hard to get the proper feel for that reality when the feeling and technology jumps around so much. It's like they sat around and said "what cool futuristic stuff can we cram in here?" rather than saying "ok, how would the technology we've seen have developed over the years?" 

    The thing is, either option is a valid choice. You can cram all the cool things in, or you can try to recreate the past. Either or. six of one, etc.

    Every now and then I read books on Star Trek. It's the same damned books and same damned stuff, but I hope that I'll spot something new in them. Today's example is the Physics of Star Trek. A waste of time, really. I already know more about the physics of Star Trek than is in the book (it's 20th century, and there've been 20 years of noodling about the way Trek works. So, for ex, the section on Transporters goes into the impication of a device that can copy people (physics, not moral) despite the Tech Manual expressly forbidding what it does. But people have looked deep and concluded that the act of using the thing would destroy the ship, and planets.If it didn't, you can always just beam over something and not unbeam it. It would be roughly the same as beaming over 5 or 10 photorps.

    This is not the point.

    The point is that the book quote Roddenberry. "The Enterprise is not a vehicle for going to other stars. It's a vehicle for telling stories." With that fundamental basis, pretty much everything else is up in the air. I mentioned this before, but I assume there simply aren't enough macross fans. Shoji Kawamori, the most personality person behind Macross changes up the universe on a whim. So long as it is recongizably Macross, it's good enough. He get these same complaints. His answer is that if he tells the same story in a different media with differnet people the result looks different. The most extreme case is Macross Frontier, which is a TV show and two movies that tell the same story. In the TV show one character dies, and leaves his childhood not quite girlfriend morning him, ahile the main character gets his deepest wish and refuses to resolve the love triangle. The serious side of his affections target, having been used by the bad guys against her will, grows up a bit, and the magic pixie dream girl declares she won't give up. freeze frame, fade out. In the movies, the guy who died, lives, and eventually goes from not quite to quite with girlfriend, the serios point on the triangle was part of the evil plot, and changed side before falling into coma, the magic pixie dream gril comes out of it way more grim, but keeping a hopeful face, the main character pick one of the girls, says, sorry, I can't love you like that to other and vanishes from space and time. This is the same damned story.

    At the risk of more accusations of netsplaining, whatever that is, Star Trek has no less freedom to rewrite itself. And thus far, we only have definitive evidence that it has changed Spock's family (not the first time that has happened, btw) and the way tech looks. People think there's been other violations, but right now that's actually not established (Nothing said Klingons didn't have cloaking devices before TOS. Just that the Romulans have one so good that the federation feels the need to steal it. And so on).

    If you look into some of the background, you see some very practical choices behind the look of some things in the show. Like they tried a more colorful look for Shenzhou, but it didn't look right on camera tests. Then you see some less than practical choices. Fuller wanted classic department colors, though perhaps no as bright. This was dropped pretty much as soon as Fuller left the show for no other reason than they didn't want to do it. back tro practical, most casual fans simply do not know that the TOS emblem is not the Starfleet symbol. It's become so culturally associated with Star Trek that it wouldn't make an real sense to avoid that anachronism, especially from the merchandising POV. This has dropped for important point in the 1960's to somewhere around the level of how transporter really works verse what they need it do for the story.

    While it is a matter of taste, I think it would be pushing it to think that updating the old brige set with new graphics would just look silly. I mean people have home TVs bigger than the main viewer, and more powerful, too.

    Realism, despite what I said earlier, doesn't enter into it. The most realistic "bridge set" so far filmed is the NDT Comoso Ship of the Imagination bridge. The no interface interface, any surface displays 100% fidelity holoimages, the chair is on demand. You don't actually need to tell it want to do, it responds to your intent.

    But that would look kinda dull in Star Trek. So between silly driven by cleaving to what was put on flim last time and dull driven by being too on point, there's middle ground. And that ground looks like anything. At that point, IMO, the rule of cool takes over. You decide that someone is gonna be pissed at whatever you do, so might as well make if fun foir you, and cool to the girls and boys who sign your paychecks. At this point you begin to balance realism and practical need. Clear displays. Semi realism. They are real. If people buy them when the hit market because they saw them on your show, then you have a leverage. Perhaps enough that you can get them cheap from the manafacturer. Deparment colors? Let us remember that Gold became ops because Stewart did not look good in it. That's it.

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,465


    Watching the tragedy that unfolded  on the bridge of the Shenzhou
    should have left the Old school Die hards pleased that CBS stayed true to the 
    trope of having the shields absorb the energy of enemy fire and redirect it to the 
    workstation/consoles of hapless bridge crew members.angel

  • dragotxdragotx Posts: 1,114
    wolf359 said:


    Watching the tragedy that unfolded  on the bridge of the Shenzhou
    should have left the Old school Die hards pleased that CBS stayed true to the 
    trope of having the shields absorb the energy of enemy fire and redirect it to the 
    workstation/consoles of hapless bridge crew members.angel

    You know, if I was the Cheif Engineer on a Starfleet ship, the very first thing I'd do is run down to the local Walmart and grab a whole bunch of surge supressor power strips to stick on all of the consoles, since BUShips appears to have decided it's best to use those consoles as capacitors for the shields.  

  • edited October 2017

    ST:D looks like an awesome show, the story's pace is set to slow burn though.

    Its not epic, but better than the horrorible writing that was TNG, VOY and ENT under Braga and Berman.  And it is not set in the JJ Abrams Trek universe. So, bonus points for that.

    The story could be awesome. I am curiously optimistic so far.  Also, The Orville is amazing! 

    This CBS All Access exclusive thing was a dumb move.  They deserve the rip off.

    Post edited by dylan_borg_d673e29d8d on
  • RawArtRawArt Posts: 5,357
    edited October 2017

    Again I have enjoyed another episode.......in spite of that dumb-assed security officer releasing the creature knowing her phasors would not harm it *rolls eyes*

    But I have to wonder ...if Vog has to sacrifice everything about himself to the matriarchs of the Mokai..and be remade.....could that be when the klingons get a nudge in their appearance to look closer to what we know?

    (personally I kinda like their new design....except their costumes)

    But if there is a change, that could help some of the purists who are hating on their new look.

    Post edited by RawArt on
Sign In or Register to comment.