Star Trek Discovery?

[crazyfingers]

Just imagine it's a different timeline. Problem solved. I don't see why anyone should worry what happens in TOS or TNG, it's not like they didn't have their own share of ludicruous technology that's used once and then never mentioned again.

So you don't think they should worry at all whether this series fits in with the later timeline (as portrayed in the other series)?
Just change the timeline... not very original. I don't think I would be happy with that.

If they want the loyalty of serious trek fans, whey will need to provide continuity with the series that follow later in the timeline.

That is assuming that Discovery is in the Prime universe and not Nero Shrimp Universe (J.J. Abrams reboot timeline)

As it Is, I don't know what timeline they are in yet.

I just realized I replied to couch_sloth. Couch_sloth, Igree with you.

 

[crazyfingers]

Having done some googling, Discovery is supposed to be in the Prime Universe, not the J.J. Abrams Nero Shrimp timeline. So they will absolutely need to provide a level of continuity to rationally connect DIiscovery to TOS.

Lots of promises in the link below.

http://time.com/4952491/star-trek-discovery-timeline/

I think that they need to do this sooner than later if they don't want core Trek fans to leave.

 

[Underseer]

Having done some googling, Discovery is supposed to be in the Prime Universe, not the J.J. Abrams Nero Shrimp timeline. So they will absolutely need to provide a level of continuity to rationally connect DIiscovery to TOS.

Lots of promises in the link below.

http://time.com/4952491/star-trek-discovery-timeline/

I think that they need to do this sooner than later if they don't want core Trek fans to leave.

Why do they have to keep going back to the pre-TOS period?

Why can't they just tell a story about a less-important corner of the Federation during the TNG/DS9 era?

 

[Jayjay]

Just imagine it's a different timeline. Problem solved. I don't see why anyone should worry what happens in TOS or TNG, it's not like they didn't have their own share of ludicruous technology that's used once and then never mentioned again.

So you don't think they should worry at all whether this series fits in with the later timeline (as portrayed in the other series)?
Just change the timeline... not very original. I don't think I would be happy with that.

You're right, the different timeline reboot is a tired cliche that's been used not just in the ST movies, but in numerous recent tv shows. However I'm not saying the writers should do to explain the spore drive, but rather that the audience should take it as a standalone work that's not tied down by anything that happened in TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voyager. Or any of the movies for that matter.

 

[crazyfingers]

So you don't think they should worry at all whether this series fits in with the later timeline (as portrayed in the other series)?
Just change the timeline... not very original. I don't think I would be happy with that.

You're right, the different timeline reboot is a tired cliche that's been used not just in the ST movies, but in numerous recent tv shows. However I'm not saying the writers should do to explain the spore drive, but rather that the audience should take it as a standalone work that's not tied down by anything that happened in TOS, TNG, DS9 or Voyager. Or any of the movies for that matter.

I doubt many trek fans will accept that. If CBS wants to keep the Trek fan base audience, they will need to provide the continuity within the existing timeline from Enterprise to Voyager.

 

[Sarpedon]

The reviews I've been reading seem pretty abyssmal to moderate. What's the impression of those here who are watching?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The reviews I've been reading seem pretty abyssmal to moderate. What's the impression of those here who are watching?

It's ... ok. It has potential and there are good parts, but there are serious issues as well.

The biggest issue is the Klingons. There are long scenes where, for some reason, they have all the actors going on for minutes at a time talking in Klingon with subtitles instead of just having them speak English. Those scenes are unwatchable, mainly because they need to keep the dialogue very basic to have the subtitle thing work so there's absolutely no flow to the scenes and it's easy to tune out and not really be able to pay attention to whatever the fuck is going on with the Klingons. That's not even getting into the fact that the new Klingon design looks really stupid.

Another huge issue is:

Show

This new transportation system they have doesn't exist in the series which take place in the future. Therefore, you know that the main major plotline they're building up right now is going to end up not going anywhere, despite the fact that they've made it work. That makes this fancy new technology kind of dumb.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reviews I've been reading seem pretty abyssmal to moderate. What's the impression of those here who are watching?

I think the opinion of people here regarding Discovery are more between dull and moderate.

 

[Jayjay]

In episode five they kind of explained why they nobody else is using the spore drive. At least partially. Does that make Discover a better show? No, not in my view. The spore drive arc is a decent star trek story for a single episode. But they have dragged on and on about it for three weeks now, and probably will continue to do so for next few weeks as well. Go boldly where no man has gone before already! Sheesh!

 

[prideandfall]

seriously, if you want to watch star trek, watch the orville - because it's the real star trek on TV right now.

the orville has been building a war between humans and an alien species since the pilot and it's done infinitely better than STD.

it's so funny to me how the JJ abrams space movies that stole the star trek IP and slapped copyrighted names on a generic michael bay movie took a massive shit in terms of franchise appeal by not even remotely being star trek, and then CBS went "we should totally ape that, it'll be awesome."

i just don't understand the way that the pop-culture zeitgeist intuitively gets that if you want a star wars that appeals to people, make a star wars that feels like the old ones, and the studios get that too.
but they utterly fail to grasp that with regards to star trek... STD is like if you were gonna make a TV series based on star wars and decided to ape the aesthetic and tone of the prequels.

 

[J842P]

seriously, if you want to watch star trek, watch the orville - because it's the real star trek on TV right now.

the orville has been building a war between humans and an alien species since the pilot and it's done infinitely better than STD.

it's so funny to me how the JJ abrams space movies that stole the star trek IP and slapped copyrighted names on a generic michael bay movie took a massive shit in terms of franchise appeal by not even remotely being star trek, and then CBS went "we should totally ape that, it'll be awesome."

i just don't understand the way that the pop-culture zeitgeist intuitively gets that if you want a star wars that appeals to people, make a star wars that feels like the old ones, and the studios get that too.
but they utterly fail to grasp that with regards to star trek... STD is like if you were gonna make a TV series based on star wars and decided to ape the aesthetic and tone of the prequels.

From the perspective of the studios, it seems obvious enough to me that the reason they keep making JJ Abrams Star-Treks is because they make lots and lots of money. I do agree that this likely isn't a formula that will translate to TV well. I haven't watched STD, though, so I can't really say much.

 

[prideandfall]

From the perspective of the studios, it seems obvious enough to me that the reason they keep making JJ Abrams Star-Treks is because they make lots and lots of money.

except that they totally don't.

the general rule of thumb for a big blockbuster movie is add at least half again the budget for marketing.
the first one pulled about 385 million worldwide on a 150 million dollar budget, meaning it actually profited like 160 million which is kind of not really that good.
the second one was about 470 million worldwide on a 190 million dollar budget which is a bit better but still puts it well in the lower middle for a big summer blockbuster with a supposedly big IP name.
the third pulled 340 on a 185 budget, which again is not very good.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

by contrast, the force awakens pulled 2 billion on a 245 million dollar budget.

I do agree that this likely isn't a formula that will translate to TV well. I haven't watched STD, though, so I can't really say much.

there is absolutely a market for gritty darkly toned future sci-fi and there are TV shows that do it exceptionally well (see for example The Expanse or to a far lesser extent Dark Matter) but trying to shoehorn an IP into a show that is tonally opposite of the original IP in a direction that nobody really cares about is a not a recipe for a good premise.

 

[Ford]

seriously, if you want to watch star trek, watch the orville - because it's the real star trek on TV right now.

I've watched all the episodes of this so far, and it strikes me as what teenage Seth McFarlane thinks Star Trek should be. A simplified copy of Next Generation with jokes.

I've only seen the first episode of Discovery, but it seems to be a serious effort to make a serious show.

 

[Patooka]

This show isn't doing it for me.

The general consensus seems to be that either Enterprise or Voyager is the weakest of the ST franchise, but I remember enjoying watching those a lot more first time around than I am with Discovery. My big gripe is something I mentioned before and that's the Klingons. Not only do they not look like Klingons; more importantly, they don't act like Klingons. Klingons always had a piratical attitude about them (The best example would be the DS9 episode "Soldiers of the Empire"). The Klingons in Discovery act like space-ISIS. The disparity is exacerbated by all the Klingon dialogue. If something looks like a duck, acts like a duck, but sounds like a cat it is not a cat. It is simply confusing.
As a science fiction show, Discovery doesn't have the big ideas theme that TOS or TNG had, it doesn't have relatable or likeable characters like DS9 or Firefly had, it doesn't have the gritty realism the Expanse has. Everything about this show has been done before and much, much better, and that includes the blatant fan service. Hell, the Star Wars prequels are universally derided, but even they had memorable scenes like the Darth Maul lightsaber duel or Obi-Wan/Anakin fight. Granted, the show is early days, but I'm not optimistic there will even be standout moments like that in the series.

Succinctly, Discovery is doing a wonderful impression of saccharine.

 

[crazyfingers]

Watched the 5th episode tonight. No change in my opinion. We got a view into how the new drive will be killed off. Ethical issues that it exploits a being. Very un-Trek that it took a rogue person(s) to realize that. With Kirk, Picard, Sisco, Janeway or Archer the drive would have been a non-starter from the get-go due to the ethical issues.

Ethics are key to it being Trek. I see little ethics in this show

The Klingons are still not Klingons and the rotating saucer section is not Trek.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

except that they totally don't.

the general rule of thumb for a big blockbuster movie is add at least half again the budget for marketing.
the first one pulled about 385 million worldwide on a 150 million dollar budget, meaning it actually profited like 160 million which is kind of not really that good.
the second one was about 470 million worldwide on a 190 million dollar budget which is a bit better but still puts it well in the lower middle for a big summer blockbuster with a supposedly big IP name.
the third pulled 340 on a 185 budget, which again is not very good.

I was about to respond and say that the last three films have profited very well for Star Trek movies, but that isn't exactly true. In general, while the last three beat the earlier ones in bulk dollars (excluding inflation), the original 6 films were anywhere from 2.5 to 7x box office verses budget, except V... but we don't talk about that one.

Since insurrection, they have made 0.7x to 1.8x the budget for box office return. The movies have been bubblegum'd making it a lot more accessible, but the movie production cost is chomping greatly into the much higher box office returns. The last three films are double to quadruple the earlier box office, but the production cost is double to triple what it was.

 

[Sarpedon]

Quick question, is the rotating saucer section to simulate gravity?

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't know if they have explained the rotating saucer. I hope it's not about gravity. That would be a huge timeline violation.

I sort of though it was perhaps this spore drive.

I'll ask the kids if they have explained it.

 

[prideandfall]

seriously, if you want to watch star trek, watch the orville - because it's the real star trek on TV right now.

I've watched all the episodes of this so far, and it strikes me as what teenage Seth McFarlane thinks Star Trek should be. A simplified copy of Next Generation with jokes.

I've only seen the first episode of Discovery, but it seems to be a serious effort to make a serious show.

what you said here is both true and in no way contradicts what i said that you were replying to, lol.

the orville is more "star trek" in spirit than STD, it's more of a star trek show than STD.
yes, STD is trying (and failing, miserably) to be a serious compelling space drama, but it could be trying to be a pancake wrapped around a sausage on a stick for all the difference it makes to the fact that it is NOT star trek, and the orville is.

 

[crazyfingers]

Kids report no explanation so far why the saucer rotates.