Star Trek: Discovery

General Discussion

Star Trek: Discovery premieres Sept. 24. Until then, feel free to discuss the series at large here.

◄ Season Index

67 comments on this review

Yanks
Thu, Sep 7, 2017, 6:41am (UTC -6)
There can only be one!!

I am the first!!! :-)

Can't wait for this series!!

Thank Jammer!!
Gentry
Sat, Sep 9, 2017, 1:15am (UTC -6)
I'm not sure I want another monthly TV service bill, especially for one show. I guess I'll watch the pilot and read reviews, then go from there. Though I'm really looking forward to seeing it. Maybe HBO can go for now.
Chrome
Sat, Sep 9, 2017, 5:45pm (UTC -6)
Looking forward to this, both the show and the reviews. I'm sure they'll be alternatives to All-Access and I'll surely be using them.
Brian
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 4:31pm (UTC -6)
Am I the only one who thinks that Star Trek is done best in the now-old-fashioned format for TV shows, as in 23 or so episodes per season with episodes about 45 minutes in length, as opposed to the modern way of making shows more like mini series with 8-10 episodes a season with 50 minute episodes? I think this approach delivers a more satisfying experience for a show like Star Trek. Also personally hope they make the show similar to Battlestar Galactica in terms of serialization; serialized, but not completely… still with episodes that have their own distinct issue and conclusion but with many interconnected story archs (and a number of multi part episodes). I don’t really want complete serialization in a show like Star Trek, and I think a show about a moving space ship is well suited to this format.

What do you all think (regardless of the format actually used; what would you prefer)?
Chrome
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 4:55pm (UTC -6)
@Brian

Of course, you're right, a full TV season of 24~ episodes is the best format for Star Trek. The problem is people's viewing habits have mostly changed since then, especially those of non-Trek fans who may lack the nostalgia for the good old Trek schedule. I also doubt CBS is willing to invest in Star Trek now as much as Paramount did back in the day with TNG, for example. A huge amount of the Trek fans on this site don't even enjoy the current content of Star Trek (i.e. the movies), so there are hardly any guarantees for the show.

I think since the seasons are short, they'll be fairly well-connected like the seasons of Game of Thrones or a season of Stranger Things. It's got to be easier on the writers to not have to make the occasional fluff episode to fill up a full TV run.
methane
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 8:28pm (UTC -6)
I'm tired of streaming shows that draw out one single story out to a pre-ordained 10 or 13 episode length, even though they only have enough material for 7 episodes or so.

If the new series has enough material to do thirteen 55 minute episodes, I'd be fine with that. Just don't do episodes where they just seem to be passing time.

I haven't gotten to the final season of Enterprise in my rewatch, but I know it improved by making several 2 & 3 part episodes that year. The writers didn't have to come up with 24 stories that year; they focused on developing some of the better ideas over multiple episodes.

If I was running a Star Trek show for a streaming service, I'd want to take full advantage of the lack of time constraints. If I had a story that went for 25 minutes, I'd make a 25 minute episode. If I had an story that went for 2 hours, I'd probably make a 2 hour episode, rather than divide it into 2 or 3 episodes. I'd start the season with a rough idea of how many minutes I wanted to film, not how many episodes.

Having them wildly different lengths would also make each episode feel like an event. I'd remove many "B" and "C" plots that don't have a lot to do with the main episode; if they are good ideas, give them their own smaller episode (or maybe do regular "day in the life" episodes that are basically a bunch of B & C plots strung together).

A lot of "science fiction gimmick" episodes that were tired in Voyager & Enterprise would have worked better if they were cut down to their bare bones without filler. As soon as the idea starts to run out of steam, come to your conclusion. Meanwhile, you could plan several episodes centered around diplomacy and other issues that could benefit from having the running time of a movie.
Cosmic
Tue, Sep 12, 2017, 10:32pm (UTC -6)
I am cautiously optimistic, the last trailer in particular won me over in a couple of ways.

As for the comments about the streaming platform for the show, I wish they would just physically release the show (a first half Season 1.0 release or whatever, since all the episodes aren't finished yet) and allow for general streaming on Netflix. The "exclusive" streaming service idea is one that nobody actually seems excited about.

Oh and the show's newly revealed theme is both subtle and striking in all the right ways. I like it a lot.

Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dYJ2dXKAIs
Dom
Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 4:00pm (UTC -6)
@methane, I second this wholeheartedly. I'm actually quite amazed at how little TV and film have evolved to account for changes in tech and delivery method. Why are shows still constrained to conventions of a bygone era? Why not have different episodes of different lengths? I appreciate that HBO seems to get it, at least to some extent; episodes of Game of Thrones do vary.
Startrekwatcher
Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 7:26pm (UTC -6)
I'm not holding out much hope for this series. I suspect it is going to be based on the storytelling format that television has done to death in last decade or so. That storytelling format involved every episode having flashbacks,too many characters and too much plot and top fastly paced where so much is crammed into an episode that it's a blur viewing it and the audience has to fill in the blanks and a lot of stuff happens offscreen that should be dramatized onscreen. That's not how I like my tv programs. If DIS is like that I'm dropping it out of the gate. It also doesn't help that the people running it are tied to Abrams who I don't think much of as a creative force. But if DIS turns out to be crappy--heavy on visual effects, breakneck pacing, Easter eggs and low on characters and careful storytelling I shouldn't be surprised. Pretty much every subsequent Trek series in the modern era was a lesser product than it's predecessor. Voyager and Enterprise being lesser than TNG and DS9. So DIS will probably be lesser than Voy and Ent

Also the big event that launches the series is the Federation Klingon war. I don't think you're going to top what DS9 did with the Dominion War and the Klingons aren't the fresh Trek race they once were on TOS and early TNG-- so these two things feel like recycling of better done material.

Why they chose not to set the series in 25th century is beyond me? It's not like the producers are using the time period to bring out TOS aesthetics in terms of bridge design, uniforms etc. in fact the whole thing looks more like it IS set in the 25th century than ten years before TOS. In a future setting the writers could not be hamstrung by continuity and canon. They could introduce new races and regions of space rather than limiting it to an area only as large as ToS
Startrekwatcher
Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 7:36pm (UTC -6)
And to further the feeling that the series is recycling DS9 they keep saying in interviews that this series will get to explore whether Roddenberry philosophy can be maintained with the Klingon war. I don't know why they can't just do something fresh and interesting

Gene Roddenberry wisely set the first spinoff--TNG-- a hundred years after TOS and had the writers not using TOS aliens. Ds9 focused on a space station, Bajot, a wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant opening up new avenues. VOY threw the crew into an unknown region of the galaxy. All fresh settings.

I could see ONE spinoff deciding to go back and be a prequel. We got that with ENT laying the groundwork for the Federation and using TOS aliens like Vulcans, Andorians, tellarites etc. and the Abrams films were TOS. I would think that the TOS nostalgia had been satiated between all that and we could move forward again rather than once more going back to ToS with Sarek Klingons etc. that's the problem with Hollywood these days a lot of these properties are given to what are essentially fanboys who are crafting glorified fan fiction rather than good writing. Michael Piller got that. Ira Steven Behr got that. Nicholas Meyer got that. This DIS group I don't think gets it

I'm afraid I'll just have to be satisfied with rewatching Trek in its heyday with TNG and DS9
Startrekwatcher
Thu, Sep 14, 2017, 7:43pm (UTC -6)
I also question the choice to start out fully serialized. My expeeience has been that show's do better if they establish the characters with standalones the first season then launch into serialized storytelling. When shows launch out the gate serialized they usually burn out after one season. And if you're going to do serialization you need to go all in-- no trying to drop a piece of the arc in a standalone you do neither justice. One issue with DS9 was it tried doing a mix of standalone and arc and all it did was make you realize how much you missed the arc material when you had to sit through filler. And if you're going to do full on serialization I'd recommend adopting the more traditional model a la primetime dramas like Dallas or Hill Street Blues--where storytelling was linear, no flashbacks, modest ensemble broken into two or three arcs that lasted half a season or an entire season. None of this LOST style serialization with overly large mythology that drags on for years
Yanks
Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 5:50am (UTC -6)
Cosmic,

I'm with you. Love the music.

I here a little "Enterprising Young Men (ST09)" in there.
Brandon
Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 9:54am (UTC -6)
It would appear that CBS has embargoed reviews before the first day of airing.

Normally that's a sign that they don't have a lot of confidence in the product.

A hopeful interpretation suggests that there might be spoilers so crucial to the format of the series (i.e. perhaps Discovery is from another time - kinda been my hope) that they don't want to risk it getting out.

But I doubt it.
Robert
Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 10:32am (UTC -6)
" If DIS is like that I'm dropping it out of the gate. It also doesn't help that the people running it are tied to Abrams who I don't think much of as a creative force. "

Actually it's worse than that. Abrams has a lot of creative genius in his TV shows (look at Fringe/Alias/Felicity/Lost)... but he inevitably leaves said critically acclaimed brilliant shows after he gets bored of them and leaves them in the hands of Orci/Kurtzman/Lindelof where they plummet in quality.

And this time we don't even get the benefit on Abrams giving us a creative boost head start....
Startrekwatcher
Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 6:50pm (UTC -6)
We'll the problem with Abrams is he is too hung up on his "mystery box" philosophy and worrying about twists. Rather than developing storylines with satisfying payoffs those shows are about playing games with the audience. Id rather have a solid hour with one decent twist or cliffhanger rather than a bunch of scenes to serve the multiple twists
Cosmic
Fri, Sep 15, 2017, 8:30pm (UTC -6)
@Brandon

Hmm. News outlets are claiming it's because they want to keep the twists/secrets under wraps, but you could be right. Might be a bad sign.

If the premiere ends up being below average in quality, I won't be signing up for CBS All-Access. Hope the show ends up being a pleasant surprise for everyone.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 8:13am (UTC -6)
@Brandon

I think people are reading way too much into this embargo thing.

It doesn't mean the show will be bad, nor does it mean that they're trying to keep some fantastic twist a secret.

It simply means that CBS is crazily over-protective and secretive about this series, which - quite frankly - shouldn't be news to anybody who didn't hide under a rock in the past 12 months. This secrecy has been their modus operandi for a long time.
Del_Duio
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 3:22pm (UTC -6)
@ Brian

"Am I the only one who thinks that Star Trek is done best in the now-old-fashioned format for TV shows, as in 23 or so episodes per season with episodes about 45 minutes in length, as opposed to the modern way of making shows more like mini series with 8-10 episodes a season with 50 minute episodes? "

No, I think most of us here think the exact same way when it comes to this.
Mertov
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 7:16pm (UTC -6)
I am with Startrekwatcher his point about moving forward. I sincerely believe that was one of the downfalls of Enterprise early on. Move forward, why go back in time and rehash what we have already seen over 4 decades of Trek watching?

I am reading post-DS9-series novels and I am enjoying them immensely because I don't have to go back to a time where Starfleet officers marvel at traveling at Warp Speed 3.

Sigh...
Startrekwatcher
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 8:26pm (UTC -6)
Yes there's so many added benefits to going forward from TNG/DS9/VOY. You can have all those TOS and TNG era aliens but can also show changes in their societies since the TNG era. The. You can also add new aliens and adversaries without people asking why never heard of them. You also can do radical epic things in terms of events without people asking why it was never mentioned in later shows. Plus there's the unpredictability factor. When doing a prequel you know how things turn out. With a sequel anything can happen and I'd argue a major part of Trek is exploring and encountering the unknown. ENT showed repeatedly that just because a Klingon or Romulan or holodeck is wondrous or new to a prequel crew doesn't make it feel new to us. I'd argue ENT and the TOS Abrams films failed because of a "been there done that better" feel to the stories

Then there's the ability to not have to worry about things being or looking too advanced.
Peremensoe
Mon, Sep 18, 2017, 11:19pm (UTC -6)
I'm actually getting a little excited about having new Trek. If this is better than Voyager and Enterprise, and I think it could be, I will be very happy.

To format, I hope for episodes that are allowed to be as long as they need to be, to each tell a little story, as well as a piece of a bigger one.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 12:32am (UTC -6)
@Startrekwatcher

"Yes there's so many added benefits to going forward from TNG/DS9/VOY. You can have all those TOS and TNG era aliens but can also show changes in their societies since the TNG era."

Yeah.

I, for one, think that we should see the aftermath of the Dominion War. Did the UFP learn of its mistakes? We were just left hanging there.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 7:34am (UTC -6)
Titles of the first 4 episodes revealed:

www.tvguide.com/news/star-trek-discovery-first-four-episode-titles/

If nothing else, DSC will boast the the 2nd longest episode title in Trek history (9 words).
Canjobear
Tue, Sep 19, 2017, 4:16pm (UTC -6)
Sounds like the long dramatic episode names are a throwback to TOS. A good sign.
NCC-1701-Z
Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 1:55am (UTC -6)
That episode 4 title....

This is going to be interesting.
Cosmic
Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 2:17am (UTC -6)
Long and interesting episode titles? I don't actually wanna know what they are, but this all sounds kind of exciting...
Jammer
Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 10:14am (UTC -6)
I'm neither buying nor selling here, just pointing something out: You know another series besides TOS that was really into long and literary episode titles?

Andromeda.

:)

That said, I'm pretty excited about Discovery this Sunday.
Startrekwatcher
Wed, Sep 20, 2017, 8:19pm (UTC -6)
I was rewatching DS9's Circle trilogy and I realized for Trek that's probably the way to go with arcs. It's just long enough to do the material justice and you know payoff won't be forever coming and you're not on the same storyline for weeks and weeks

Plus i tend to find they have more rewatch value than a traditional season long arc which tend to be really rewarding as everything first plays out
NCC-1701-Z
Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 2:45pm (UTC -6)
"You know another series besides TOS that was really into long and literary episode titles? Andromeda."

I hope that's not a bad omen.
Cosmic
Thu, Sep 21, 2017, 4:26pm (UTC -6)
So, the impressions coming from people who saw the first two episodes at the LA premiere have been very positive. Feeling pretty stoked at this point, I can't wait to see it for myself.
Splif420
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 6:27am (UTC -6)
I suspect that the show is going to ignore a lot of the established Canon. And for people who've watch Star Trek for decades, this is gonna be a really big problem. So if the show can't generate a big enough new audience, I suspect the core audience of Trek fans will not find it easy to support the show by watching it. I hope it turns out good, but I suspect I will be greatly disappointed. Fingers crossed!!
methane
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 12:50pm (UTC -6)
Just a note to anyone who's setting their DVRs to record the first episode on CBS: 60 minutes is supposed to start at 7:30 ET/6:30 CT, with Discovery starting 1 hour later. However, CBS is airing a doubleheader in football, so there's a good chance 60 minutes won't start on time. You'll want to add time to your DVRs.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 1:49pm (UTC -6)
Funny how the same people who accused some of us of "prejudging discovery without seeing a single episode" are now arriving at far-reaching conclusions based on things like "long episode titles" and reactions from red carpet screenings (which mean absolutely nothing).

CBS is generating artificial hype and people are swallowing it without even stopping to think for themselves about how they're being manipulated. Guess the marketing guys at CBS know what they're doing after all...
Chrome
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 5:31pm (UTC -6)
@methane

Thanks for reminding me to set the DVR. Football won’t affect us schedule-wise on the West Coast, but my 4 month old probably will. :-)
Paul M.
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 6:33pm (UTC -6)
"Funny how the same people who accused some of us of "prejudging discovery without seeing a single episode" are now arriving at far-reaching conclusions based on things like "long episode titles" and reactions from red carpet screenings (which mean absolutely nothing)."

Le sigh. Le yawning sigh of the tonsils-revealing type.

I trust it's not that hard to notice the difference between:
(a) Huh, these long unusual titles seems cool. Hey, first red carpet impressions are positive. Hope these things bode well for the show!
(b) Prequel! Hate! Dark'n'edgy! Hate! Swearing! Hate! New Klingon design! Hate!
Rahul
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 8:09pm (UTC -6)
Some random thoughts/hopes/expectations a day before the premiere...

There are still episodes I haven't yet seen from TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT so I'm not really starving for new Trek but I am looking forward to another Trek and seeing it as it happens. The hype has been unbelievable especially in this social media era.

I've never been one to be impressed with special effects / technology / costumes / set designs but I'm sure a lot of DSC will be about wowing the casual Trek viewer. For me, as long as the new stuff helps tell the story - great.

What's most interesting to me is that DSC is supposed to take place about 10 years before Kirk/Spock and TOS. I wish it would have gone further into the future from DS9/VOY. I think taking place 10 years before TOS is somewhat limiting, and I certainly wouldn't want to see some gimmick of monkeying with the existing timeline / canon.

The series will again be commenting on problems in today's society no doubt. Apparently there's a gay crew member so some episodes like TNG's "The Outcast" could be done more realistically I suppose. There's the main female actress playing a character named "Michael" - not sure why. And the Klingons have changed completely how they look - needing a good explanation here.

Being 10 years before TOS, what I'd like to see (but probably won't) is some stories touching on things TOS mentioned in its past (like Kirk on the Farragut in "Obsession" or maybe Kodos the Executioner etc.) But of course there will be new races introduced -- like Sura who is actually a fairly senior member of the crew. I'd like to see DSC make use of the Gorn (but that might mess with the timeline from "Arena")

I do hope DSC has some excellent musical scores -- nothing from TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT have approached the caliber and timelessness of TOS musical scores. And I saw some comments about longer titles for episodes -- all for that. Begone with the 1-word bland episode titles!!

Anyhow, less than 24 hours to go now...
Rich Dixon
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 8:24pm (UTC -6)
I can't wait for the series to get underway! I've read good things about it so far. What I'm hoping for is that it follows be same pattern and values the other series shared. It has to maintain the Star Trek model. I'm glad to share my thoughts with this community 🙂
Trent
Sat, Sep 23, 2017, 9:05pm (UTC -6)
Ugh, apparently the show has F bombs.
Startrekwatcher
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 12:06am (UTC -6)
It's too bad the show isn't getting back to basics. The problem with a lot of television nowadays is everything is made more complicated than it needs to be. The two most successful Trek series is just about a group of interesting likable characters on a mission to explore our universe. No need to be well versed in Trek. No end goals like DS9 had of Bajor joining the Federation or ending the Dominion a War; Voyager getting home; ENT chronicling the lead up to the Federation.

This new series really should have done what TNG did for Trek. Just give us good characters on a ship exploring the great unknown in the 25th century on weekly adventures and throw in an occasional multipart episode when appropriate. I find the endless fixation on TOS tiresome. Trek is more than just the classic series and to see so often in last 16 years constantly going back there to be quite silly. The fanwanking when it comes to this era by the people running the various Trek stuff these days to be quite myopic
Cosmic
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 12:24am (UTC -6)
"I trust it's not that hard to notice the difference between:
(a) Huh, these long unusual titles seems cool. Hey, first red carpet impressions are positive. Hope these things bode well for the show!
(b) Prequel! Hate! Dark'n'edgy! Hate! Swearing! Hate! New Klingon design! Hate!"

Yeah, I guess they're the same exact thing in Omicron's world. Shaking my head....
Darren
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 6:52am (UTC -6)
Well, I just signed up for CBS All Access .... I fear that no matter what potential this show might have, it's not going to live up to it, and that no matter how much I might hope to like it ... it's just not going to work. But it's allegedly Star Trek, so I have to give it a try. Between the first week free (with two episodes coming out today) and then just $5.99 for a month's worth (four more), I'll get six episodes to start with. Perhaps after those, I'll know whether I'll be continuing or not.

I wish I could know in advance, so maybe I would've just not signed up at all; but the consolation is, if I do end up liking it and turn out to be wrong in all my suspicions, I won't miss out. And should I find that it indeed isn't truly Star Trek, then I suppose it'll send a clearer message to CBS once I cancel.

It's been a conflicting and disappointing ride--but now, it's nearly time. Engage ...
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 9:34am (UTC -6)
@Paul M.

"I trust it's not that hard to notice the difference between:

(a) Huh, these long unusual titles seems cool. Hey, first red carpet impressions are positive. Hope these things bode well for the show!
(b) Prequel! Hate! Dark'n'edgy! Hate! Swearing! Hate! New Klingon design! Hate!"

I trust it's not that hard to notice the difference between what people like me and Robert any many others have actually posted and the moronic strawman you've just set up.

And my point it that "red carpet screening impression" are completely meaningless. It's 100% aritifical hype (have you ever heard of a negative red carpet reaction for anything?) which means absolutely nothing.

So yes: Getting all excited over those "reviews" is hardly what I'll call a rational response. At least your so called "haters" are basing their opinions on actual content that has been established as being part of the show, rather than on a manipulative marketing hype that means nothing.

And really, this isn't an issue of "pro-Discovery" vs "anti-Discovery". There plenty of people out there who liked what they saw in the trailers and are looking forward for the show, and that's great. There are also many people who have negative opinions on the show for the stupidest reasons (like those who complain about having a black female lead... how these people became Trekkies in the first place, boggles my mind).
Brian
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 11:38am (UTC -6)
I'm not very optimistic about this show... I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like they didn't learn their lessons from Enterprise for one thing, and for another I'm afraid this series will be too Abrahms like for its own good. The Dominon War storyline to me worked well because 1) There were seasons of build up to it, that made us care about the characters and setting and then feel the shock of our beloved Federation going to war. 2) We didn't know how it would turn out, what the total damage would be or if the Federation would even survive. 3) The Dominion was a fresh, exceptionally powerful adversary that brought in new interesting threats for our characters to face, like the Shapeshifting founders, the drug using, cloaking Jem'hadar 4) the threat united the Alpha Quadrant in a galactic "world war".

Basing the series around conflict with the Klingons just can't get me near as excited as I was about the Dominion War. It just feels stale, it's been seen before in TOS and the films. I'm not saying that they couldn't make some good material out of this premise, but it just feels limiting. Even in Voyager, not one of my favorite series BTW, they had the Borg as a good fresh nemesis for our heroes (even if they were a bit neutered compared to how they were originally presented in TNG).
Brandon
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 1:55pm (UTC -6)
I'm still hung up on the part where they're making me pay for my Star Trek.

Get off my lawn!
Paul M.
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 2:34pm (UTC -6)
"And my point it that "red carpet screening impression" are completely meaningless. It's 100% aritifical hype (have you ever heard of a negative red carpet reaction for anything?) which means absolutely nothing. "

Of course I have. Plenty of times early reviews or first impressions of various TV shows have been mixed or negative. That doesn't mean that we should put absolute faith in those, but it's neither stupid nor naive to be enthused by positive news. I will most definitely wait to see the show for myself before I form my own opinion, but that doesn't mean I can't welcome encouraging early words.

That is completely different from what you've been doing on this site for months: incessantly hating and dissing a TV show based on practically nothing that is indicative of the final's product quality. I mean, I get that you might not be overly happy with this continued prequelitis syndrome or that you might not like the Klingon redesign from a purely aesthetic or canonical perspective or that you are uncertain about the implied "darkness" of the setting. But those things, while certainly legitimate things to worry about from a subjective standpoint, stand in no direct correlation with Discovery's level of quality.
Michael
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 6:48pm (UTC -6)
I'm reasonably confident that the powers that be have completely butchered the pre-show publicity. Based on that assumption, I really don't think we know that much about what the show's actually going to be like at this point.
Del_Duio
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 7:57pm (UTC -6)
Well, the theme song doesn't have cheesy singing to it. That's a good start.
Dr McCoy
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 8:01pm (UTC -6)
I’m sold after the first five minutes. The sound of the phaser, the corpuscles, the familiar yet different starting credits music (anythings better than the karaoke bon jovi starting to enterprise). Ive loved everything star trek even the bad stuff so whatever happens its worth it. Love this site btw.
Dr McCoy
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 8:03pm (UTC -6)
@del_duio lol, same thought about the song at the sametime.
Del_Duio
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 8:25pm (UTC -6)
Unless this takes a huge nosedive this is friggin' awesome so far. The production values are incredible and it hasn't been kill kill pew pew the whole time which was a big worry.
MidshipmanNorris
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 10:02pm (UTC -6)
Me, I loved it. I just finished. Hot take:

This is a great amalgamation of everything which makes the Star Trek Universe good. The Klingon Empire is well represented, and if someone wasn't familiar with them, these first 2 eps make you familiar with them. Captain Phillipa and Michael have a decent chemistry, though the peculiarities of Micheal's character did not become apparent for a while.

And therein lies the charm of this show, is how it slowly reveals to you what it's about, keeping you wondering what's going down until the reveal. Keeping you guessing.

It's dark too, but very colorful at the same time. I mean the lighting, it's got kind of a earthy vibe, very rich in values but the neon stuff and the lens flares are toned way down. The bridge looks almost cold on the Shenzhou.

I don't wanna reveal too much about what the story is like, but I will say this: get ready.
Rahul
Sun, Sep 24, 2017, 10:20pm (UTC -6)
My thoughts on the 2nd DSC episode "Battle at the Binary Stars".

So I guess DSC is not putting the title of the episodes on the screen anymore...That's highly disappointing for me. Always look forward to seeing that with every episode of Trek.

We get the flashback of the initial meeting between the captain and Burnham -- starts out pretty acerbic, reminds me of 7 of 9 meeting Janeway. Still struggling to understand how Burnham could subdue the captain and expect to get away with it -- all for TV, I suppose. I wonder how ofter Sarek is going to be showing up for Burnham either through Vulcan long-distance "communication" or katra stuff... Did they mention Spock at all here as a half-brother or whatever of Burnham?

Anyhow, the battle scenes weren't anything special as compared to prior Trek series (mainly DS9). But what was pretty cool was seeing the damaged Shenzhou and how the brig is just there with open space just beyond the forcefield. Nice touch there.

Some clever stuff here with disabling a Klingon ship by sending a warhead to a dead Klingon body in space getting tractored into the ship. This seemed odd to me -- aren't Klingons supposed to consider the dead bodies useless empty shells?

The episode does leave some serious question marks as Burnham is sentenced to life in prison for mutiny and other charges while the captain is apparently killed while trying to take T'Kuvma as a prisoner.

I wasn't sure how the USS Europa, which came to save the Shenzhou got attacked by the Klingon flagship. But it then self destructed and didn't really do enough damage to the Klingon flagship? It was only the explosion created by the warhead the Shenzhou beamed over that disabled the flagship.

The ending wrapped up real quick with Burnham's trial (which is pretty much a no-brainer). And T'Kuvma dies and we are left to assume the captain is dead. What's disappointing is the Klingons -- they were way more interesting in prior Trek episodes. Can they not just speak English?? But more importantly, we're wondering where things will pick up from for the 3rd episode.

2 stars for "Battle at the Binary Stars" -- definitely nothing exceptional in terms of battle scenes (might have helped not to have all the asteroids around), some Klingon deception, some cool visuals, and I'm left with a somewhat unsatisfied feeling.
Chrome
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 11:23am (UTC -6)
I just wanted to say a couple things and didn't want to clog up the episode threads: First, thanks all in advance for marking spoilers, which I see everyone doing. What with CBS's freemium tv plan, I feel like we're all going to end up watching these Discovery episodes at different times.

Second, to chip into the technology continuity debate. Star Trek is at its heart a futurist vision of our time. Don't expect all the quaint futurist visions of the 60s and 90s Treks to come bouncing back into a show made in 2017 *about the future.* Consider the pad from TNG/DS9, for example. It was ubiquitous Trek technology. Remember Nog needing a whole stack of them to pass the Starfleet exam? It seemed advanced when the show aired, but now the single-use pad feels like *past technology*. Something had to be done for Discovery.

I make the same argument for the viewscreen. Now, I love the viewscreen, and it surely had a hand in inspiring what is now the household LCD televison. But it's no longer "future tech". I guess that's why I'm okay with the new 3D holographic com system which, might I add, looks way more Sci-Fi than DS9's abandonware from "For the Uniform".

Anyhow, looking forward to other new gizmos and perhaps the natural complaining associated with them. :-)
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 5:56pm (UTC -6)
A viewscreen capable of displaying info that require FTL sensors is not futuristic enough for you?

Besides, why does EVERYTHING need to be futuristic in a sci fi show? As long as things don't look actually dated, there's nothing wrong with having current tech used - as is - in a sci fi setting.

I mean, captains also sit on chairs. Should we make them sit on something more techy (say... a force-field based seat) just because chairs "aren't futuristic"?

As for PADDS: How are they "past technology"? They're basically amazingly cheap disposable tablets which is (a) incredibly useful and (b) still quite a bit ahead of our current technology. So why *wouldn't* there be such things aboard a 24th century starship?

The only problem with TNG and DS9 PADDS is that they look cheesy and fake for a modern audience. If they ever made a new Trek series during the TNG era, they would obviously need to tweak the design of these items.

For a marvelous example of how to do this right, see how Discovery updated the TOS tricorders and communicators. Funny how the same show that constantly justifies massive changes on the basis of "we aren't in the 1960's anymore", also provide us with the most excellent artistic examples of why this argument is complete BS.
Chrome
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 6:18pm (UTC -6)
"As for PADDS: How are they 'past technology'"

I specifically said one-use pads. If you look at the context of what was said instead of removing it, it's clear no one would need a stack of tablet computers even to study dense material.

"I mean, captains also sit on chairs. Should we make them sit on something more techy"

You mentioned strawmen in an earlier comment, so I think you can figure out the problem with this statement here. But just for the sake of argument, the chairs in TNG still look much more awesome than the chairs of today.

"A viewscreen capable of displaying info that require FTL sensors is not futuristic enough for you? "

The audience doesn't perceive that, though. Trek viewers don't come off as much else than an LCD with graphical data, even if the data represents speeds exceeding the speed of light. Thus, it's nothing special, and it definitely lost the impact the tech had in the early 1980s when it was introduced as special.

Actually, I'm thinking they're right on the money by giving us a taste of AR with the holographic viewers. I'm much more delighted to think of that prospect than a future condemned to the LCDs I'm forced to stare at in the office for 8 hours a day.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Mon, Sep 25, 2017, 8:42pm (UTC -6)
@Chrome
"I specifically said one-use pads. If you look at the context of what was said instead of removing it, it's clear no one would need a stack of tablet computers even to study dense material."

I honestly missed that part. Sorry.

But come to think of it: why not?

Haven't you ever used multiple computers in this way for easier information retrieval? I do it all the time with my laptop and my tablet. It's the digital equivalent of writing little notes on scraps of paper, and I find it extremely useful.

So I disagree completely. Such usage only seems strange to most people today because our tablet computers are still costly enough to be considered "devices" rather than scraps of plastics we can write our notes on. In a world where tablets are as cheap than paper, the scene you've described with Nog would actually be common place.

At any rate, I admit that perhaps I've been wrong about the holograms in Discovery because I was missing the proper context:

I've just did a google image search, and it showed a holographic porjection of Sarek which seems to be a personal message.

If this is the extent of the way the technology was used, I have no problem with it.

If - on the other hand - ordinary ship-to-ship communications are done via such a system, then it's more of a problem.
Chrome
Tue, Sep 26, 2017, 12:44pm (UTC -6)
@OTDP

I'm not saying it's completely wrong to use multiple tablets or multiple screens (which software developers and even people in my trade do). What's weird IS when Nog has a stack of PADDs and that each PADD is treated like a single book, and you need a stack of 10 of them to study. Seriously? Aren't the pads capable of multitasking? Wouldn't you just replicate a PADD with more memory and load more files to it? It made sense in the 90s when microstorage was limited and laptops were huge but nowadays it seems like a waste of hardware. So, two or three PADDs? Fine, cool. Ten? No Nog, you've already failed IT and Organizational Skills 101. Go back to Quark's!

"I've just did a google image search, and it showed a holographic porjection of Sarek which seems to be a personal message.If this is the extent of the way the technology was used, I have no problem with it. "

Well, both the 3D holo-image communications AND window-like communications are used in DSC. So far, this is right, though, that the 3D appearance of a person is used for more personal and important conversations. Kind of like a phone call versus Facetime in our era.
Michael
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:29pm (UTC -6)
The Loony Tunes S.J.W.s screwed this one up. Star Trek used to be about imagination, probing human nature, science and fiction, and drama. Now it's about "diversity," elimination of "toxic" masculinity, and promotion of political agenda.

This video says it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWGho2ufMAI

Good bye, Star Trek, it was nice knowing thee.
Peremensoe
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 5:08pm (UTC -6)
It's difficult to conceive of Star Trek fans who actually think--out loud--that "their kind" means, not humanity, not a fellowship of sentient beings, but just the constructed tribe of "white people."
Chrome
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 5:55pm (UTC -6)
The real shame is some have strayed so far from Trek viewers of the past that they can no longer relax and enjoy an hour of science fiction and instead go for cheap highs from five minute Youtube videos.
Michael
Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 5:56pm (UTC -6)
A much better commentary unpacking the latest incarnation of Star Trek:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBb0hyuIfYQ
Dark-Tzitzimine
Thu, Sep 28, 2017, 2:34am (UTC -6)
Hahaha, I can't take anyone who complains about SJWs seriously.
Brian S.
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 1:22pm (UTC -6)
"Star Trek used to be about imagination, probing human nature, science and fiction, and drama. Now it's about "diversity," elimination of "toxic" masculinity, and promotion of political agenda."

******

Excuse me? Come again? You think NOW it's about *diversity*?!

Seriously, what in the blue hell have you been watching for the last 50 years?

The very first incarnation of Star Trek was all about diversity. Diversity was the central (borderline primary) theme from the start. It's why the Enterprise crew was specifically intentionally shown to be a multi-ethnic, multi-national, even multi-species set of officers. Russian, Scottish, Black, Asian, Female...VULCAN!

The original pilot episode--"The Cage"--had a female first officer because....feminism!

Hell, the character of Spock himself was created specifically to highlight the diversity of the future. This was not an accident, it was intentional and it was a feature of the program which drove its popularity. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

The core of Star Trek is a united egalitarian Federation of diverse peoples, planets, and cultures, and at its center is an Earth where war, hunger, money, and religion are all but gone from humanity.

I truly don't understand people like you, Michael. It's been 50 years. There have been 7 television series, 13 feature-length movies, and countless novels under the Star Trek banner with diversity, social justice, and various progressive political ideals and agendas at their core. If this were still 1968, maybe you could be forgiven for not getting the memo yet. But it's 20-freaking-17.....how is a supposed Star Trek fan, of all people, still offended by the notion of Star Trek captain who has a black-left/white-right face?!


"Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms." - Gene Roddenberry, Social Justice Warrior Admiral
Andy's Friend
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:32pm (UTC -6)
@ Brian S.

You're absolutely right about everything you just wrote. But there is more to it than that. While I cannot presume to speak for Michael, I should say this:

TOS did something amazing: it had its cake and ate it, too. Meaning it created a diverse crew, to promote diversity, as you just wrote. But it didn't do it at the expense of great stories: it told great stories, also. And many of those stories were monuments to humanism: there was a *coherence between the cast and the stories, between style and substance*.

Modern 'Trek' doesn't do this. Modern Trek, meaning the post-Berman age of the J.J. Abrams films, tells atrocious stories. Modern 'Trek' doesn't care to edify, doesn't care to inspire, doesn't care to provoke our thoughts *story wise*.

Therefore, all its diversity is superficial only. And therefore, it becomes extremely frustrating to see such focus on what is but hollow and token diversity. "Look, we have transmorphics and robosexuals among the bridge officers!" This is shallow, and puerile. It's all about style. The stories told simply don't support any claims of humanism. What does it matter, then, that there are transmorphics and robosexuals among the crew, when all is but a cynical, shameless lie?

As I said, I can't presume to speak for Michael. But I for one resent all the emphasis given to the composition of casts, when the stories told are as atrocious as they are. Regrettably, the American public seems to care more about having x% blacks, x% Asians, x% females, and x% robosexuals among the cast than what stories are actually being written and told.

In that sense, all the talk about diversity in 'Star Trek' nowadays strikes me as very tiresome: for not only is it superficial, but even worse, it is cynical, and calculating. It is no longer setting the trend, as it once was: it is merely following it, expecting to get our hard-earned money in return. Diversity doesn't get much more fake than that, does it?
Jammer
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:47pm (UTC -6)
"In that sense, all the talk about diversity in 'Star Trek' nowadays strikes me as very tiresome: for not only is it superficial, but even worse, it is cynical, and calculating. It is no longer setting the trend, as it once was: it is merely following it, expecting to get our hard-earned money in return. Diversity doesn't get much more fake than that, does it?"

That's a harsh interpretation based on assumption. From accounts I have read, it was very important to Bryan Fuller personally to cast Martin-Green. Why necessarily ascribe that to cynical calculating greed? And it is still too early to assume Discovery will have nothing to say storywise. Maybe it will be good or maybe it won't, but we don't know that yet.
Andy's Friend
Fri, Sep 29, 2017, 4:58pm (UTC -6)
@ Jammer

Indeed. I was referring to the three latest films, for as I also just wrote, I haven't seen Discovery, and I don't presume to be categorical on what I haven't seen. And in any case, a pilot episode, and one without most of the crew absent at that, is not enough to give anyone a clear indication, of course. Let's see what happens, and hope for the best.
OmicronThetaDeltaPhi
Sat, Sep 30, 2017, 12:53pm (UTC -6)
@Andy's Friend
"In that sense, all the talk about diversity in 'Star Trek' nowadays strikes me as very tiresome"

I agree. So why are you talking about it so much? "cynical"? "calculated"? The creators of Discovery just did their expected job here, and they should niether be attacked nor praised for it. This should be a complete non-issue.

Submit a comment





◄ Season Index

▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.