• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Star Trek Discovery

Hello FOO FIGHTER,

Regarding Avatar, I used to hang out a lot at The Trenches, but it got to the point where I realised that I was really a customizer and kit-basher and not a rabid collector as are most of the folks there. Haven't been there in a while especially after all the images stored there went away.

I personally believe there are a lot more than just a handful of TOS episodes with political or social commentary.

FOO FIGHTER said:
I thought TWOK was OK, but that is when they started messing with established canon. In 'Space Seed' Khan and his crew are all about the same age, but in the movie the rest of his crew are many years younger than he is. In the movie, Khan recognizes Chekov but Chekov was not in 'Space Seed'. In the TOS the Enterprise sensors could pick up lifeforms on a planet but the Reliant apparently can't detect a cluster of humans on the desolate and lifeless surface of Ceti Alpha V. Oh god, my nerdness is showing!
Click to expand...

I had always figured that Khan's crew in TWOK were the descendants of his original crew with some license (perhaps the ever present villain of radiation?) to allow for a not quite accurate match up for aging.
Another case of a slightly mismatched timeline was for Commander Sela in TNG. Her chronological age would have been about 21-22 which would have made her awfully young for her rank and that is working on the assumption that she was conceived at the point of the shift in timeline.
I never caught the error with Khan recognizing Chekov. (Perhaps Chekov was onboard Enterprise but just not part of the bridge crew at the time?)
Not being able to pick up a cluster of humans might have something to do with the planetary / atmospheric conditions?

STD: What an unfortunate acronym.
We shall see whether it has the quality to endure or whether it is just entertainment and eye candy for the moment.

- Ivan.
 
Hey Ivan! I'm not much of a collector either but used to do a lot of customization. I was going to do an online comic once upon a time but life didn't allow for that. Still have all of the vehicles, figures and equipment, so maybe one of these days.:wiggle:

Fans/viewers shouldn't have to develop a backstory on their own to justify what they are seeing on the screen, in terms of continuity. This is one of the reasons why I kinda got turned off with the 'make a quick buck' Trek movies in the 80's & 90's. For me, Star Trek died with the TWOK. Everything that came after (including NG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise) were just sci-fi shows pretending to be Star Trek.

Another factor was that CBS/Paramount seemed to absolutely loath Trek fans and would relentlessly shoot themselves in the foot by killing any fan involvement with a vengeance out of fear that they weren't getting their cut. Compare that to George Lucas embracing Star Wars fans and more or less allowing them to participate so long as they didn't become millionaires off of the brand.

Penzoil3 said:
LOL, it's easy. If you don't like it don't watch it. Those of us who like it will be in front of the set on Sunday night.
Click to expand...

And that's what it all boils down to. If you like it, watch it. If you don't, change the channel.
 
Back in the beginning Gene made an attempt to obey the laws of physics where he could and still have a space story. One of the instructions he gave his people who were working on a starship design was "I don't want to see any fire shooting out of it, that would never get us into space faster than light, think of something else". So here we are with Abrams and Discovery with the ship on the ground and dipping down near the ground with rockets shooting out of the bottom of the saucer section. The entire saucer section would have to be a giant fuel tank and even then those little rockets could never lift it. What was the point? Gene said it was built in orbit and never lands which makes sense considering its design. They brought the ship down because they could. A first year physics student to help out can't be that expensive!
 
Terry said:
So here we are with Abrams and Discovery with the ship on the ground and dipping down near the ground with rockets shooting out of the bottom of the saucer section. The entire saucer section would have to be a giant fuel tank and even then those little rockets could never lift it. What was the point? Gene said it was built in orbit and never lands which makes sense considering its design. They brought the ship down because they could. A first year physics student to help out can't be that expensive!
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....Let's see...Voyager landed several times during that series. Enterprise, in the newer movie version was seen firing thrusters to keep it form smashing into the Earth. And fer crying up a stump.. it was seen submerged in an ocean with a big fish at the window scaring the bejeezers outta Scotty!:a1451:
 
Terry said:
Back in the beginning Gene made an attempt to obey the laws of physics where he could and still have a space story. One of the instructions he gave his people who were working on a starship design was "I don't want to see any fire shooting out of it, that would never get us into space faster than light, think of something else". So here we are with Abrams and Discovery with the ship on the ground and dipping down near the ground with rockets shooting out of the bottom of the saucer section. The entire saucer section would have to be a giant fuel tank and even then those little rockets could never lift it. What was the point? Gene said it was built in orbit and never lands which makes sense considering its design. They brought the ship down because they could. A first year physics student to help out can't be that expensive!
Click to expand...

I was reading a novel recently where spacecraft used "countermass" essentially a way to "hide the mass of an object from the universe" so that it became effectively whatever mass/weight was assigned to it.

I've always thought that StarTrek gravity tech had similar practical application, so that for instance, something like Discovery could be given a low effective mass that allowed something like regular action/reaction engines to maneuver it effectively........
 
Hello Aeronca1,

Now THAT was a pretty harsh review. Probably accurate, but harsh.
I guess with all this back and forth, I probably should find and watch at least the first two episodes.

The thing that struck me about this review is that it appears that the Captain and her Exec do not get along.
That sounds like a serious recipe for disaster, especially if it becomes necessary to throw the Executive Officer into the brig.
At that point, she becomes a liability and not an asset and one never needs someone like that as your deputy and certainly not while getting shot at.

- Ivan.
 
I sense some bad grapes within this thread....time will tell though how the series does.

I'm betting that that lot of grapes also hated "Enterprise" too....:mixed-smiley-010:
I thoroughly enjoyed "Enterprise" though....:mixed-smiley-010:


 
Wow Sue!
Tonight's 4th episode was a killer!

All kinds of story arcs going on - I don't even know where to begin! :applause: That crew member death totally caught me by surprise though!
Will have to watch this one again tonight or tomorrow !
 
Saw the fourth episode. Interesting sci-fi? Yeah.

Star Trek?

Nope.

This is absolutely going to turn out to be another Universe.
 
HyFlyer said:
Saw the fourth episode. Interesting sci-fi? Yeah.

Star Trek?

Nope.

This is absolutely going to turn out to be another Universe.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a valid point!
On the one hand, producers say it's CANON, but IMHO, it falls more in line with the JJ Abrams "Kelvin" universe rather than the CANON/TOS universe.

That being said, I'm still enjoying it for what it is - since I don't do any comparisons...
 
Addendum:
IMHO, TNG/VOY/DS9 all got away with elaborate sets and technology because the setting was so far in the future from TOS, that it was deemed "plausible".
However, when you set the stage for pre TOS series, the re-envisioned Star Trek technology clashes with 1960s television technology available in the 60s. ENT faced this issue.

So I would debate that if in the 1960s, today's filming/CGI technology were available to Gene Roddenberry back then, then TOS would have looked really different - i.e. TOS would have looked more like ENT, JJ Abrams "Kelvin" universe, or Discovery...:mixed-smiley-010:
 
Panther_99FS said:
Addendum:

So I would debate that if in the 1960s, today's filming/CGI technology were available to Gene Roddenberry back then, then TOS would have looked really different - i.e. TOS would have looked more like ENT, JJ Abrams "Kelvin" universe, or Discovery...:mixed-smiley-010:
Click to expand...

You could use today's high tech effects back in the 60's and still make every attempt to obey the laws of physics per Gene's orders back then. Abrams and these Discovery people are not even doing science fiction, they are doing fantasy aka Lost in Space!
 
Beyond belief , yes , part of the TOS universe or Gene Roddenberry's vision , Not for a moment , entertaining as hell ? decidedly.

I have been an avid fan of the franchise since I saw the first series air and every iteration and film since , discovery too has its failings, I am going to enjoy having the opportunity to appreciate these as well while they develop a new universe, the past in Star Trek has a habit of getting altered, as has the future .

Will Discovery survive ? , in all probability, I ran the first three back to back on the projector with the full sound system for a cinematic experience and it held up well. An altogether darker universe, all hero's flawed, the federation at war and willing to do anything to win, the only softness seen , a recurring role for the tribble .. Nice !

Best CJ
 
Terry said:
You could use today's high tech effects back in the 60's and still make every attempt to obey the laws of physics per Gene's orders back then. Abrams and these Discovery people are not even doing science fiction, they are doing fantasy aka Lost in Space!
Click to expand...

Understood completely - which is why I put the caveat in that I enjoy it for what it is - without comparison.....Just as I enjoyed the re-envisioned Battlestar Galactica for what it was....without comparison to 1978... :jump:

 
It **appears** to me that folks that have the most problems/issues with Discovery also grew up watching TOS.

Times change and audiences change - again, I saw some of this with the re-envisioned Galactica. The younger folks really loved the re-envisioned series but not that many of them liked the 1978 series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top