Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Star Trek Discovery


15 replies to this topic

#1
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,790 posts
Anyone else watching?
  • pavonis +1 this

#2
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,250 posts
Nope!
But I'll probably do a month long subscription at some point and binge it.

#3
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Validating
  • 8,857 posts

No.  I saw the first pilot episode on TV and it was my last.  I wasn't feeling it.

 

I've read about a few episodes, and I am aware they are trying to revamp it some with Pike in season 2, but I haven't read anything that gives me any need to watch.    

 

I might watch if you post that you are now writing for that show and are going to fix that hot mess though, Tank!



#4
Kyrian

Kyrian

    I'm back

  • Member
  • 11,384 posts

My partner and I watched the first season, we're just waiting for a time when we can both sit down and start the binge of season 2.



#5
zambingo

zambingo

    The Human Torch

  • Member
  • 3,223 posts
Im intrigued by it, would watch if it was syndicated or broadcast, but I already pay for three streaming services plus cable.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#6
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,904 posts

I am. It's fine. I like Trek, I know the lore, and even though the visuals are different, I accept it. I always figure the depiction is an approximation of the "real" Trek universe. 

 

I think the second season is shaping up well. So far it's been interesting, and I like getting to know the bridge crew characters a little more. At least they're getting some development. Anson Mount as Pike is really good. It almost seems a shame to have to put him back on the Enterprise eventually. 



#7
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,790 posts
Here's what I am feeling--

1. I see what they've done for S2. They set up this frame of a serialized arc with these "red space" phenomena, they chase them down, and each one there will be part of the larger red angel mystery, but the A story can focus on a very Trek-like one off story (like New Eden). Clever, but it time will tell if it holds up.

2. I think the term Mary Sue is inherently sexist, and I constantly see it applied to Burnham. I know there is a male version, but the concept of a character that is good at everything was never decried by fandom until it happened with female characters. That said, a character sans flaws who is good at everything is never a great thing to hang a show on, and if ever have I seen an insanely over the top example of it-- it's Burnham.

3. I'd marry Tilly in a heartbeat.

4. I still don't see why this show had to be a prequel. In fact, I think had they pulled a TNG and just jumped to the far future it could have explained all the tech, new aliens, changes to familiar things and pretty much everything. The only thing the prequel gives them is Michael having grown up with Spock, and I haven't seen anything that is worth that. She could have been a human raised by Vulcans with an estranged brother-- it being Spock gets them nothing.

5. I enjoy this show as a fun sci-fi serial adventure, it's when I try to reconcile it as Trek that it falls apart.

6. The production design and FX are still the best thing going for it. Makes me pine for a Mass Effect TV show.
  • pavonis +1 this

#8
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Validating
  • 8,857 posts

 

 

5. I enjoy this show as a fun sci-fi serial adventure, it's when I try to reconcile it as Trek that it falls apart.

I haven't watched (maybe I will if I start hearing good things about season 2) but I have been spoiled on season 1, and seen reviews of it, so I have an overall general understanding of the plot and events. This isn't intended to talk trash about Discovery at all, so no offense intended to anyone who does like Discovery. But even though it's supposed to be the prime timeline, you just can't think of this show as anything but a different Star Trek universe (it certainly isn't Roddenberry era or Berman era Trek), be it different timeline or alternate reality similar to the JJ films, if one is a canon nerd like me.   Probably most people don't care about the incongruities, though. 

 

 

 

 

6. The production design and FX are still the best thing going for it. Makes me pine for a Mass Effect TV show.

The FX and CGI do look nice.  Nearly movie quality.  A Mass Effect show would be cool. 


  • Kyrian +1 this

#9
Kyrian

Kyrian

    I'm back

  • Member
  • 11,384 posts

3. I'd marry Tilly in a heartbeat.
 

I'll fight you for her. Her Mirror Universe alter ego was unbelievably hot.

 

The FX and CGI do look nice.  Nearly movie quality.  A Mass Effect show would be cool. 

 

Shut up and take my money. A Mass Erect series set during the First Contact War? Yes ****ing please.



#10
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,790 posts
Too bad the response to Andromeda killed Hollywood's interest. Thanks EA.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#11
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,904 posts

4. I still don't see why this show had to be a prequel. In fact, I think had they pulled a TNG and just jumped to the far future it could have explained all the tech, new aliens, changes to familiar things and pretty much everything. The only thing the prequel gives them is Michael having grown up with Spock, and I haven't seen anything that is worth that. She could have been a human raised by Vulcans with an estranged brother-- it being Spock gets them nothing.

I like that it's a prequel. There's still lots of stuff to do in the 23rd century. Not that I expected Discovery to answer these questions, but since they went there -

 

  • The Pike-Spock relationship In "The Cage" Pike and Spock barely interact and don't seem close (at least no closer than any other officers), but in "The Menagerie" Spock is willing to hijack the Enterprise to take Pike to Talos IV. How did that relationship develop? Maybe we will get some insight there.
  • Why is it the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor? Pike has a medal of valor named after him in the 24th century, and is already considered one of Starfleet's finest captains in the 2250s. I'm interested in seeing more of Pike's exploits. Show us why he's one of the greatest Starfleet officers in history. What do you have to do above and beyond the normal Starfleet behavior to earn that level of recognition? Discovery may be our chance to see that.  
  • Does Pike actually return to Enterprise after commanding Discovery? "The Menagerie" has Kirk stating he met Pike when Pike was promoted to fleet captain, and that Kirk "took over the Enterprise from him". Does that mean Pike was still the commanding officer at that time, or was Pike in charge of the change of command ceremony? Maybe a stretch, there, but Trek canon has a lot of little holes in it, so it can stretch a bit. 
  • Did Spock learn a thing or two about mutiny from his foster sibling? He commandeered the Enterprise again in "Amok Time" (more or less, since he wasn't quite in his right mind), and didn't get punished at all. So much for being the best First Officer in the fleet - he's basically mutinied more often than Michael Burnham with far fewer consequences. Maybe she taught him how not to conduct a mutiny!

Sarek definitely has a thing for humans. Two human wives and a human foster daughter. How many other Vulcans would take a human into their family? How many other Vulcans married humans? Kirk didn't seem surprised the Vulcan ambassador had a human wife. Since he knew Spock has half-human, but not that Sarek and Amanda were his parents, what does that imply about human-Vulcan marriages? Are they common enough to make it unremarkable? Getting some insight into 23rd century Vulcan isn't a bad idea to me.

 

At least we have a Picard-centered limited series to give us a glimpse into the late 24th century, post-Nemesis galaxy. Maybe they'll develop a far-future Trek series next, maybe using the Short Trek episode "Calypso" as a jumping off point?



#12
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,790 posts
That's all just nerd **** though. It's stuff we Trekkies like to spin out on and wonder about, but it doesn't matter ultimately. We've seen time and time again that the second a production slots into an established time period it's always a cluster and nerds get mad at the inevitable retcons.

if there's one thing that Solo taught us it's that if you take every little aside and detail meant to establish backstory and character an then hang a plot on it, it can be fun, but ultimately inconsequential.

And NO one outside of Trekfans knows or cares about any of that.

From a pure narrative/story standpoint there's nothing about it being a prequel that's been essential, and I'd argue it's created more trouble than it's worth.

#13
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,904 posts

From a narrative/story standpoint, what's the point of making it at all? I don't know anything about how series are developed, so why do producers/writers choose one genre and setting over another? Trek has automatic appeal and recognition, so I get why they picked that brand. But do they do background research with focus groups? Did they check to see if setting a new show in Trek's relative future would get better ratings? I guess we'll see if Picard's new series gets better viewership than Disco, and we'll be able to compare it to the next 23rd century series. But are ratings/viewership meaningful metrics anymore? If Disco is aimed at the general public, then putting it on a streaming platform doesn't seem like a good way to go. I know they are trying to migrate to the new format of TV service and attract viewers, but Trek isn't enough to hang a network on, is it? If it's really just aimed at the Trek fans who were far more likely to pay to see a new show anyway, then hanging an entire series on some details that just established backstory a long time ago might be just the way to attract those target viewers. Even if they pay just to hate-watch it. 

 

:shrug:



#14
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,790 posts
Studios want IP that has both pop culture relevance as well as a dedicated following.

They will go with just being relevant, but they won't go with just having nerd cred. It's not enough. Doesn't matter how much the aggro fanboys think they are the heroes for tanking Solo, their numbers aren't big enough.

The idea is to have the fanbase (which as you say will even hate watch) as a good foundation, but still be appealing to a general audience. Trek ticks that box for sure. That was the whole reason behind the JJ films going back to Kirk. They hung it on what everybody in the world knows.

I wasn't trying to be pejorative with saying what you wanted was too nerdy-- my point is, that is not general knowledge Trek. People know spaceships, Federation, aggro Klingons, etc.

Being a prequel is splitting the fanbase because the continuity snobs can't deal. Had they done what TNG did and just gone ahead and been in the clear, they wouldn't be splitting the base. If they wanted to really do a prequel and risk that, they need a better reason than having Sarek as a step dad.

You're not wrong by the way, but when you say you want to know why there's a medal named after Pike, that's not a detail general audiences care about. But if you sold them on a show about the Enterprise before Kirk took command starring its original Captain, Pike, that hits it at an angle that's more interesting.

It's all marketing.
  • pavonis +1 this

#15
pavonis

pavonis

    Member

  • Member
  • 6,904 posts

I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. Trek has immediate pop culture recognition. Which means, if they're going to do more Trek, and take JJ's Trek as a model of (moderate?) success, then revisiting TOS characters and settings makes total sense. Why gamble on new characters in a 24th century setting when recent success has been in the 23rd century settings? So I do wonder why they needed to establish their main character as having a connection to Spock. A brand new character in a prequel era that could have crossed paths with Spock, et al, without violating any "canon" should have been enough to quiet the continuity snobs. So I can only wonder what the motive to connect Michael Burnham to Spock through Sarek was.

 

And since the comparably recognizable characters from the 24th century are Picard and Data, and they're making a Picard series, I guess it's smart to build off a pre-existing familiarity rather than gamble with a new character.  I say let them try all these ideas, and see which ones stick. Seems like that's what they're doing anyway. A Section 31 show is in the works. A new animated series, too. Why not a West Wing Trek, or an Academy Trek? Even the weirdest ideas might find an outlet on TV soon. It's kind of exciting, but something will piss off some part of the fanbase. 



#16
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Validating
  • 8,857 posts

Edit

 

Ignore this post..I was going to say something, but no need. 





Reply to this topic