Zaphod42 posted:

I just hate when people take a loved IP and change everything about it.

Astroman posted:

because most of us never wanted another prequel in the first place. I wasn't burning to see a show set in Kirk/Pike's time, and if there was one I'd want it to be an episode or a tv movie, not an entire series. This show would have been perfectly serviceable if it were set in the 25th century with the exact same plot and characters (minus the name Sarek for the Vulcan) and all the same tech. The fact that they didn't do it was simply because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too--they felt they had to do a show similar to JJ Trek with all those references, but like JJ Trek update it and make it ultra modern, and Fuller just didn't give a poo poo about established Star Trek history.

Astroman posted:

Because for Star Trek fans, this is kinda what a lot of us do, and have done, since the 60s. It was Star Trek fans in the 60s/70s analyzing minutia and speculating about the larger fictional universe that led to more inclusion of consistent continuity in the 80s and 90s shows despite the network execs caring for nothing of the sort. This helped greatly pave the way to the more deep, serialized, continuity and reference heavy "Golden Age of TV" we see across genres now.

Star Trek has had a pretty consistent history and worldbuilding over the past 30 years especially, and where it hasn't, stuff like "retconning" was pretty much invented by Star Trek fans. To see a show set pretty much in Kirk's time but with technology vastly in advance of it flys in the face of decades of that worldbuilding. Especially so if, as was suggested a few posts back, they show us Pike's Enterprise and it looks the same as these other ships.

To say we're whining because we want some fuddy duddy grognard 60s throwback is disingenuous too, because most of us never wanted another prequel in the first place. I wasn't burning to see a show set in Kirk/Pike's time, and if there was one I'd want it to be an episode or a tv movie, not an entire series. This show would have been perfectly serviceable if it were set in the 25th century with the exact same plot and characters (minus the name Sarek for the Vulcan) and all the same tech. The fact that they didn't do it was simply because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too--they felt they had to do a show similar to JJ Trek with all those references, but like JJ Trek update it and make it ultra modern, and Fuller just didn't give a poo poo about established Star Trek history.

For those who say you can't show a futuristic tv show and have it relateable without it being ultra futuristic to the viewers, what about BSG? For those who say you can't revisit a 60s era in a modern scifi show without updating it, how do you explain the fact that in a few months we'll be seeing a Doctor Who episode with un-updated 60s TARDIS sets? Shouldn't they have updated the First Doctor's TARDIS to with touchscreens?

All this could have also been avoided if they'd just have come out and said "we're doing a reboot." But again, have your cake and eat it too.

marktheando posted:

Did people want this to be episodic planet of the week stuff rather than serialised? Seeing a lot of complaints that Burnham's character arc isn't complete two episodes in.

marktheando posted:

Did people want this to be episodic planet of the week stuff rather than serialised? Seeing a lot of complaints that Burnham's character arc isn't complete two episodes in.

caps on caps on caps posted:

I still don't get what y'all problem is with new visuals. If Pike's ship looks modern and like something that could actually exist in the future, but everything else of the lore stays intact, nothing is lost.
Just pretend that there are different visualizations of the same novel and this one is the modern one.

If you still prefer a bridge and uniforms that look retarded and can not represent the future as we now know, then there's still TOS to watch.
But the tradeoff of this Groknard poo poo is that you can never ever introduce a new generation to Star Trek, or make new Trekkies, because the future you propose including all of TOS is just no longer believable.

And it doesn't really matter what century the new series is set in. There's no reason 1701 should have looked like that ever, from todays perspective, and there is no in-lore explanation that actually makes sense.

Instead, by revamping the design, we can preserve the stories, the morals, ideas and the entire lore for a new generation, which is absolutely fine and good. I just don't understand why something as goofy as TOS NEEDS to remain the actual and true look of this universe even though it means that the Star Trek universe CAN NOT be our future.
Instead change the visuals, keep the continuity and the whole deal can be our future again, Kirk, Picard and the whole shebang. Why care about a few buttons.

Ramadu posted:

did you just not read what he wrote or did you just like assume or what here

your posts are all arguing with things that arent being said

Atreiden posted:

It has been made abundantly clear through the flashbacks that Michael hates the Klingons for killing her parents and wiping out the research outpost she lived on in an unprovoked attack. Attacks that happen so often that the vulcan learning program ask about number of survivors from the latest klingon attack. We also see her arrive 7 years prior on the shenzhou as a human trying to act Vulcan. Through the 7 years, it's clear that the captain made her more human again and was not just her superior, but a mother-figure. A klingon then kills her right in front of Michael, who in an emotional response, that makes perfect sense taking in the all the prior information into account, kills the klingon.
But yes she totally needed to say that out loud

socialsecurity posted:

Not that the attacks don't happen often but those questions were obviously interjected into the system directly for her to see if they would provoke an emotion response.

DrNutt posted:

E: whoops had my Star trek threads mixed up

Gorn Myson posted:

You probably shouldn't post it in there either, because it was a really dumb reading.

well why not posted:

this is the rub for me, we're like 15% of the way through the series and people expect everything to be wrapped up with a captain's log and a neat resolution. We were never promised that and it was a mistake to expect that. This isn't TNG part 3, it's a new series and we should judge it as so.

Milky Moor posted:

precision posted:

i just think it'd be funny if someone tried to say in all seriousness that this pilot was somehow in any way worse than like 99% of the entire first 2 seasons of TNG

because lol

CPColin posted:

I still don't get how Michael's slow jump at the Klingon managed to get him to stab himself and get herself knocked out in one move.

precision posted:

The thing that Trekkies hate the most is Star Trek.

Raged posted:

Exactly. While most normal people who are fans of Star Trek are really enjoying the show

Raged posted:

Exactly. While most normal people who are fans of Star Trek are really enjoying the show

Obfuscation posted:

I watched the episodes, kinda liked them, then checked what internet has to say about it and

Apparently people have really strong opinions about Star Trek.

Caros posted:

Also, i know it is petty of me, but can I just say, radiation does not work that way.

Obfuscation posted:

Apparently people have really strong opinions about Star Trek.

AceOfFlames posted:

So I have no means to watch this show but everyone keeps mentioning violent prisons? Is there like a specific scene or something? Sounds kinda odd for Trek, I'd always pictured their prisons like the fancy ones in Norway.

CPColin posted:

Probably the to-the-second countdown to the lethal dose.