Star trek

Necromance old blog posts, talk about Shamus' books or videos, or discuss allied projects like Errant Signal
Forum rules
This forum is not for swiping blog threads. Avoid talking about blog posts less than a month old.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:40 pm

I watched it.I did not like it.It wasnt particularly bad or particularly good.But it does have one major bad thing that drove me away:the visuals are bad.The sets are too dark,the klingons are too stupid*,and other than ship exteriors nothing looks like trek**.Still,it could improve.But with the heavy focus on the action,and all the changes to klingons and the bridge,I dont think so.

On the subject of klingons:How the hell did they manage to mess up the teeth like this?The old shows that were made in the 90s had klingons with false teeth and none of them sounded as bad as these guys,whether they spoke english or klingon.I get how speaking a weird language with those things in mouths is extremely difficult,but if they managed to do it in the 90s,how come they cant do it today?

*Whose idea was for the opening shot to be that horrendous close up of that awful make up?
**Ok,the communicators do,but we see one for maybe couple of seconds in one scene.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:00 pm

I'll repeat what I said when I first saw the trailer... it just doesn't feel like Star Trek.

I agree on the visuals and the Klingons - both are awful - it's like as if this version of Klingon doesn't know how to speak or something. Are they all infants? Why do they speak like they've only just learned how to use their vocal chords in the last 5 years?? And they look stupid. They look more like Orcs from Lord of the Rings than anything even resembling a Klingon.

On the visuals, I really hated the bridge as well. It has Abrams' influence all over it and I hated it in the movies and I hate it now. I also didn't like the space battle. Too much going on with shots fired not to hit your enemy but to brag about how big your budget it is. Is this Star Wars? Why are phaser cannons blue and green and red and basically every colour EXCEPT for the traditional orange?

It just doesn't work as Star Trek for me. Every season of Star Trek I have ever seen has that episodic nature to it where there may, sometimes, be an over-arching plot but most of the time it's a "space exploration of the week" story and I don't think we're going to get that with Discovery. I am pretty sure we are going to get a season-long arc of fighting the Klingons where every episode leads into the next seamlessly. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it adds to the whole "not feeling like Star Trek" thing I have going on.

However... I do think that as a stand alone space opera (without all of the Star Trek branding) it has got some promise. The plot was silly but it was also intriguing and I can see it forming the basis of a good season (especially as it learns to find its place). I didn't like Saru or the Captain but I did not mind Michael at all. As a female lead I think she is already better than Janeway ever was. I think that's what I'm going to do. I'm going to watch it as some random sci-fi show about spaceships and stupid looking aliens. I'll probably enjoy it more that way.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:35 pm

Well, maybe the different phaser colors are a reference to TOS Balance of Terror. Phasers were blue there, only later being set as orange, and Discovery takes place a decade before I think. Then again, I don't remember what the color of the phasers were in Abrams Trek, just that there were a lot of guns; I think they may have been multi-colored too.

Also, the visuals drawing from Abrams Trek is hardly a surprise, Kurtzman is a showrunner here after all.

I came on here to talk about Balance of Terror, actually. I think it's the best depiction of naval combat I've ever seen for TV. And by best, I don't mean realistic or anything. It had tension and stakes and good acting and just a smidge of tragedy. It does something that a lot of shows miss on: it gives a "lose" condition that isn't reliant on the deaths of the main cast or their setting. You become genre savvy enough, you know that that sort of thing doesn't happen on episodic TV, so the question turns from "do they get out of this" to "how do they inevitably get out of this", which is a lot less gripping. By instead changing the lose condition to "the Romulans get away", which is presented as very plausible, you have proper stakes. Plus, just the general action is very good. Despite being much older than the rest of Trek, Kirk's command feels a lot more professional and military than any of the other captains. For me, him matching wits with the Romulan Commander felt a bit like being told a legend all your life, and then seeing the legend for yourself and discovering it to be true. The other shows puff up Kirk a lot, so it's a surprise to me that it actually had some merit rather than the franchise just patting itself on the back.

So far I'm being very surprised. The Romulans existed on the show before Klingons? I thought TOS was all about the Klingon Cold War. So far the show is relying very little on its own mythology. From the decades of gags, I thought TOS would be chained to certain tropes, but so far that's not the case. I don't find Shatner to be over-acting, at least not beyond what the show calls for. Klingons aren't around yet. Redshirts don't die every episode. TNG feels a lot more beholden to Trek tropes than TOS does. That could easily change, given I'm only a sixth of the way through, but as of this moment I'm very surprised and pleased.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:41 pm

Phasers firing orange beams was something established in TNG and beyond. Back in TOS, they were sometimes red, green or blue (TOS did not have a whole lot of consistency). As DSC takes place before TOS, it may be a reference to that.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Tue Sep 26, 2017 11:54 pm

Admittedly I have only seen a smattering of TOS episodes so it is likely I am being influenced by the later series'.

That being said, having just recently finished up watching Star Trek: Enterprise I'm pretty sure their phaser cannon was also orange and that series was set ~100 years before TOS?

Anyway it's a small complaint almost to the point of irrelevance when weighing it up against Discovery's other flaws (as a Star Trek series).
User avatar
John

Re: Star trek

Postby John » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:31 am

So does anybody know which continuity Discovery is supposed to be in? I know basically nothing about the show and have yet to see a review that could be called enthusiastic but I might conceivably watch it some day. I guess. Unless it's in the new movie timeline, that is. I know it probably isn't fair to the show but I hate the new movies too much to want anything further to do with that continuity.
User avatar
Ringwraith

Re: Star trek

Postby Ringwraith » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:39 am

Before the original series in its timeline.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:44 am

Yes, it's in the original continuity.

I also would have had trouble watching a TV series based on the movie continuity...
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:52 am

John wrote:So does anybody know which continuity Discovery is supposed to be in?


The continuity where spock has an adopted human sister.

I kid.Mostly.Sareks scenes were both good and overused.

John wrote:a review that could be called enthusiastic


Just look up any review from a newspaper then,they are all praising the show.Like Andrew said,as a not trek it is a far stronger show.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:24 am

Having finally caught up on the two episodes, here is what I thought as a lifelong Star Trek fan.

I liked it. The constant dutch angles and lens flares were sort of disorienting (they were really bad on any scene with the bridge), but I think I eventually got used to them.

Aside from that, though, I liked it. It was intense and riveting. I'm very curious to see where they take this show. It looks like it will be more storyarc based than episodic, like Deep Space Nine.

I really don't care about the Klingons' appearance. But then I'm one of the few Trekkies who didn't feel they needed to explain why Klingons look different in TOS and later series. I am more curious about their religious beliefs. That seems to go against what I know about Klingons, but it might be that this is some kind of cult. Or that's the impression I got, anyway. If they are moving away from the "Planet of Hats" thing, I'm okay with that.

I do wish they had chosen a different alien for the science officer than making up a new one. I've always felt like Star Trek has too many alien races as it is. But maybe they have some specific reason for going this route, I don't know. I would have liked to have seen an Andorian or Tellarite on the bridge instead. But then again, maybe there will be one. We haven't even actually seen the titular Discovery yet.

After hearing about the troubled production of this show, I was pretty worried. But so far, I'm pretty happy with it. I only hope it doesn't lose steam later in the season.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:33 am

JadedDM wrote:But then I'm one of the few Trekkies who didn't feel they needed to explain why Klingons look different in TOS and later series.


Few?I thought that worfs "We do not discuss it with outsiders" line formed a sort of consensus when it comes to this and that most fans accepted it.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:02 am

I wish! The whole ENT episode that explains why they look different was produced because fans kept bringing it up so much. Those very same fans are now demanding to know why the Klingons look different in DIS, too.
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:03 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:The continuity where spock has an adopted human sister.

I kid.Mostly.Sareks scenes were both good and overused.

I am actually looking forward to see how they explain the fact that Spock never mentions an adoptive sister in TOS.

Apparently there is a reason but if it's something as contrived as Sarek never told anyone because embarrassment... well... that would be pretty bad.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:17 am

Sarek thought it was only logical to never mention one to the other.

Seriously,the guy has a fetish for red blooded aliens*.Of course he would be embarrassed about that.

*What do vulcans call space aliens?Extra vulcanians?
Last edited by Daemian Lucifer on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:17 am

As a general rule, Spock never really talked about his family. I mean, he sure never mentioned Sybok until he showed up.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:21 am

JadedDM wrote:As a general rule, Spock never really talked about his family. I mean, he sure never mentioned Sybok until he showed up.


Who is this sybok you are referring to?Is he a character from that movie that they were planning but never actually made?
User avatar
Andrew

Re: Star trek

Postby Andrew » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:24 am

Heh, both of those answers still feel like an easy out to me but I suppose we will see!

Agree with Daemian though that the Sarek scenes were, by and large, pretty damn good.

Curious on what people think of Michael as the lead and, more importantly, the actress? She was the one on Walking Dead who I remember saying really only has one expression - deadpan. Do we like/not like her? Or is it too early to say?
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:26 am

Andrew wrote:Curious on what people think of Michael as the lead and, more importantly, the actress? She was the one on Walking Dead who I remember saying really only has one expression - deadpan. Do we like/not like her? Or is it too early to say?


Considering what character she was playing,she was fine.Both playing it as a "stoic vulcan" and as a "loosened up vulcan".
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:15 am

I stopped watching The Walking Dead after season 2, so I've never seen her before. But she seemed a pretty good actress to me in DIS.
User avatar
Supahewok

Re: Star trek

Postby Supahewok » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:37 am

Daemian Lucifer wrote:
JadedDM wrote:But then I'm one of the few Trekkies who didn't feel they needed to explain why Klingons look different in TOS and later series.


Few?I thought that worfs "We do not discuss it with outsiders" line formed a sort of consensus when it comes to this and that most fans accepted it.

Well, to be fair, that line only finally came up, what, 10 years after TNG's debut?
User avatar
krellen
Location: The City in New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Star trek

Postby krellen » Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:40 am

JadedDM wrote:I wish! The whole ENT episode that explains why they look different was produced because fans kept bringing it up so much. Those very same fans are now demanding to know why the Klingons look different in DIS, too.

You're mistaking "fans" for "people that loudly complain about things online". No one really cared about the Klingon remodel (which came when The Motion Picture was released), and the vast majority of Trekkies find Enterprise's need to explain smooth-headed Klingons to be silly.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Wed Sep 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Daemian Lucifer wrote:Few?I thought that worfs "We do not discuss it with outsiders" line formed a sort of consensus when it comes to this and that most fans accepted it.

That was a brilliant line. It put a lampshade on it. Then promptly turned off the lamp.
User avatar
Daemian Lucifer

Re: Star trek

Postby Daemian Lucifer » Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:57 pm

JadedDM wrote:But she seemed a pretty good actress to me in DIS.


I still maintain that we should abbreviate it to ST:D.

Steve C wrote:
Daemian Lucifer wrote:Few?I thought that worfs "We do not discuss it with outsiders" line formed a sort of consensus when it comes to this and that most fans accepted it.

That was a brilliant line. It put a lampshade on it. Then promptly turned off the lamp.


The whole episode was brilliant.A true love letter to the original,and an impressive usage of (at the time) new technology.
User avatar
JadedDM

Re: Star trek

Postby JadedDM » Wed Sep 27, 2017 5:58 pm

I still maintain that we should abbreviate it to ST:D.

I promise that joke isn't as funny as you think it is. Also, I've seen it so many times it feels played out long before the show actually started.
Steve C

Re: Star trek

Postby Steve C » Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:17 pm

I finished watching the first episode of Discovery. As others have said it's not Star Trek. Sigh. We are never going to see the likes of ST:TNG again.

It reminds me of Enterprise and that's not a complement. I plan on watching the 2nd continuation of the 1st episode. I doubt I'll watch more. I was not impressed. That seemed to be what it was going for; designed from start to finish to impress. Not to 'be good' but to be flashy. The show is out to prove "less is more" is wrong and only proves that "more is more" is crap.

It's got elements of being good. Then other elements destroy it by being intolerable. Like the camerawork. I know! Let's show that we are on a ship by having the camera angle tilt back and forth until the audience is sick! Isn't that a great idea? Or closeups to show what great makeup we have. Except it's terrible. A lighter touch would have been better. (They put a gaming PC on some girl's head! For a 1 second pan shot!) Good things I will say is that it is infinitely better than the last Star Trek movie. The captain carries her scenes and the other lead can hold her own. I would call them by name I can't remember any of the characters names nor the name of the ship.

My one line summary of Discovery is:
"It's like Enterprise and the Star Trek movie reboot had a baby that kept the best things from both. Too bad both of the parents had awful genes."

Return to “Twenty Sided Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest