• 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

Oh yeah, me too! It's the only reason I subscribed to CBS all access. It's great. A biological star drive based on spores... what a notion.
LOL
sue
 
To add some balance, I found it to be horrible as were the movies by Amrams. It's not Star Trek, it's more like some childish transformers movie.
 
I'll watch the reruns when it dies in the first season. I'll be danged if I'm going to pay to watch something for broadcast TV. I am a Star Trek fan.
Went to the first ever convention in San Francisco 1975.
 
I actually thought it was ok, even though the plotting was a bit uneven with all of those flashbacks.

What it wasn't, was ten years before Kirk and Spock. No way knowhow. Even the next generation didn't have instant galaxy wide communications and communications holographs.

And ten years before Spock and Kirk would mean that in that universe, right at that moment, Captain Pike and the Enterprise were tootling around somewhere, maybe even with Spock as first officer. What does the enterprise in this universe look like?

Nothing like the original series.........!

Prime timeline, my foot!

This is either a complete reboot, or a completely different universe.
 
Neither did Star Trek Voyager, which was the most "far future" of the franchise!

It's got to be a different universe, or another dimension at least.

I don't have access to it here so I can't miss what I cannot see anyway. :pop4:
 
It isn't star Trek, its Star Trek inspired fan fiction.

Personally I'd far rather have seen something pushing forward again chronologically, post Dominion War/Voyager... but no... 3 rd prequel/re-boot in a row.... yawn...

Don't even get me started on the "Klingons" :banghead:
 
Prequels

The problem with doing Prequels to any Movie or TV series is that there is an established "History" that the story must tie in to at some point and not contradict. Building a story with those requirements requires A LOT of knowledge of what was in the original series and general premise and a knowledge of the "Physics" of that universe.

The folks doing Star Trek prequels do not seem to be doing what is required from the descriptions posted thus far.

- Ivan.
 
Some interesting & good comments across the board
But we have to honest here - a new show in 2017 with cardboard 1960s sets just isn't going to fly these days.

However, I will agree with some here in that "Discovery" probably fits better in the JJ Abrams "Kelvin" timeline rather than the "Canon" line...
 
Hello Panther_99FS,

I just watched a couple videos of including the trailer.

My first question is:
"THIS is a PREquel???"

The technology here seems to be more advanced than that of the Original Series.

If you want to design a new alien race, don't call them "Klingons" when they bear no resemblance to anything bearing that name before (after?) them.

If you just want a new space opera and showcase for modern CGI and special effects, then call it something other than "Star Trek". Be Original!

- Ivan.
 
Ivan said:
Hello Panther_99FS,

I just watched a couple videos of including the trailer.

My first question is:
"THIS is a PREquel???"

The technology here seems to be more advanced than that of the Original Series.

If you want to design a new alien race, don't call them "Klingons" when they bear no resemblance to anything bearing that name before (after?) them.

If you just want a new space opera and showcase for modern CGI and special effects, then call it something other than "Star Trek". Be Original!

- Ivan.
Click to expand...

Ivan,
-According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.
-Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit. :mixed-smiley-010:
-Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....:encouragement:
 
Perhaps we should check each statement....

Panther_99FS said:

-According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.
Click to expand...


...And we are supposed to believe that these styles of ships / uniforms / equipment evolved into TOS in 10 years?
Keep in mind also that there were older ships in TOS as well and these 2017 versions do not fit into the "Canon" very well regardless of who is making that statement.

Panther_99FS said:
-Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit. :mixed-smiley-010:
Click to expand...

The problem with Prequels is that they need to fit in with existing "Canon". So what we are supposed to believe is that THESE Klingons were the "Real" Klingons of TOS because 10 years is much less than even one Klingon lifespan. THESE Klingons would have still been living and running the Empire during TOS and in a generation would become TNG Klingons? That is what "Canon" would mean in this case.
If they really wanted to use cool costumes, makeup and CGI, a PREquel wasn't the way to do it. It locks down the story too much.

Panther_99FS said:
-Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint
Click to expand...
Panther_99FS said:
that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....:encouragement:
Click to expand...

You won't find me defending the "special" effects or primitive sets and models of TOS, but the "Style" as I see it was the universe that this prequel needed to fit into and it clearly does not.
There was plenty of room for cool CGI, modelling and special effects. Most of the TOS model were very small and lacked detail. A new show could have retained the original designs and improved on the detail that was extremely lacking in the originals and not just re-design everything just because CGI is so easy today.

In any case, thanks for bringing up the topic of this show. It does not sound like something I will be chasing any time soon.
I am glad you enjoy it. I have nothing further to add to this topic.

- Ivan.
 
I had this long negative post ready to submit but decided to be brief:

Here's to this STD abomination dying a quick death. :ernaehrung004:


Star Trek is dead my friends, it died a long time ago. Let it rest in peace and not dig up it's rotting corpse every few years and pretend that it is still alive.:blue:
 
Panther_99FS said:
Ivan,
-According to CBS, this takes in the "Canon" universe (The Original Series) 10 years before Kirk and the Enterprise.
-Klingons have changed their appearance in each new iteration of Star Trek starting from "The Motion Picture" - so this actually follows suit. :mixed-smiley-010:
-Again, 1960s cardboard sets and paint that simulate the future just won't float in 2017.....:encouragement:
Click to expand...

You don't necessarily need cardboard sets.........

There are ways they could update things while still retaining at least a little of the flavor of the original. Instead, they went off in a completely new direction entirely, creating a show with the Star Trek name and a few recognizable things here and there, (like tribbles) but which diverges so wildly otherwise that at least so far, it's a stretch to accept it as part of the known continuity in any way.

A while ago, a talented Cg artist showed what a modernized rendition of the Original Enterprise Bridge could look like. Retro-modern, but acceptable, with just the right hint of nostalgia. I would accept the creators going even further than this, but not completely racing off into the blue!

 
No No, It's not a prequel and its not a reboot. You see, Paramount doesnt own the rights to anything original star trek, besides the movies, and CBS wasnt going to sell them those rights, so, the only thing they have rights too, is JJ Trek, so the very best discovery could be is a prequel too the reboot, if that makes any sense.
In the meantime, Nicholas Meyer (Wrath of Khan ) has a special project he's been working on thats rumored to be star trek-centric, and CBS is being a it hush about it, but i did hear their cat ate a canary..
 
Ivan said:
Perhaps we should check each statement....



...And we are supposed to believe that these styles of ships / uniforms / equipment evolved into TOS in 10 years?
Keep in mind also that there were older ships in TOS as well and these 2017 versions do not fit into the "Canon" very well regardless of who is making that statement.



The problem with Prequels is that they need to fit in with existing "Canon". So what we are supposed to believe is that THESE Klingons were the "Real" Klingons of TOS because 10 years is much less than even one Klingon lifespan. THESE Klingons would have still been living and running the Empire during TOS and in a generation would become TNG Klingons? That is what "Canon" would mean in this case.
If they really wanted to use cool costumes, makeup and CGI, a PREquel wasn't the way to do it. It locks down the story too much.



You won't find me defending the "special" effects or primitive sets and models of TOS, but the "Style" as I see it was the universe that this prequel needed to fit into and it clearly does not.
There was plenty of room for cool CGI, modelling and special effects. Most of the TOS model were very small and lacked detail. A new show could have retained the original designs and improved on the detail that was extremely lacking in the originals and not just re-design everything just because CGI is so easy today.

In any case, thanks for bringing up the topic of this show. It does not sound like something I will be chasing any time soon.
I am glad you enjoy it. I have nothing further to add to this topic.

- Ivan.
Click to expand...


Ivan,
You're free to believe whatever you want.

But current reviews illustrate that it's been a success thus far....The young viewers are where it's at now and us older ones who are flexible and not entrenched into things 50+ years ago.
 
FOO FIGHTER said:
I had this long negative post ready to submit but decided to be brief:

Here's to this STD abomination dying a quick death. :ernaehrung004:


Star Trek is dead my friends, it died a long time ago. Let it rest in peace and not dig up it's rotting corpse every few years and pretend that it is still alive.:blue:
Click to expand...

Whether you're right or wrong will be determined by the longevity of the series....Old fans die, and the key to longevity is to attract the younger crowd which is what this and JJ Abrams are trying to do....:mixed-smiley-010:
 
HyFlyer said:
You don't necessarily need cardboard sets.........

There are ways they could update things while still retaining at least a little of the flavor of the original. Instead, they went off in a completely new direction entirely, creating a show with the Star Trek name and a few recognizable things here and there, (like tribbles) but which diverges so wildly otherwise that at least so far, it's a stretch to accept it as part of the known continuity in any way.

A while ago, a talented Cg artist showed what a modernized rendition of the Original Enterprise Bridge could look like. Retro-modern, but acceptable, with just the right hint of nostalgia. I would accept the creators going even further than this, but not completely racing off into the blue!

Click to expand...

Key thing is that you said "I would accept". Well what about the other millions of viewers? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one....:mixed-smiley-010:
 
Panther_99FS said:
Key thing is that you said "I would accept". Well what about the other millions of viewers? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one....:mixed-smiley-010:
Click to expand...

I can only speak for me, and they can only speak for them. Anything else would be illogical.
For instance, millions of people smoke, but what's that got to do with me? :jump:

I would also submit that many people are likely watching for no other reason than that it's got the Trek name, good or bad. The real trick will be how many are willing to continue to pay to see the show, and how many will instead find ways past that paywall. Already, the episodes are available on Youtube........

I signed up for CBS AA out of curiosity, only to find that there is literally nothing: not a single other thing on there that interests me in the slightest. In fact, CBS all access is an entertainment desert for me, and I'm not sure how long intense curiosity about the new show can keep me tied to a channel that seems so fundamentally underwhelming.

I add that the third episode struck me as really strange, and seemed even less like Star Trek than the first two. (Quoting paragraphs from Alice in Wonderland aloud while running for your life? Really?)

Now, was it an entertaining action adventure sci-fi series with dark overtones, an uneven plot and bouts of squirmingly clunky dialog? Yes. (sci-fi channel)

Was it Star Trek? Hmmmmmm........... :indecisiveness:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top