Gaz-L posted:

Also, minor point, and I realise this is probably partly down to SA being SA, but I'm pretty sure the abbreviation is DSC, not STD.

Porpoise With A Purpose posted:

literally everyone everywhere is calling it STD

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Woah hold on, first, Sarek didn't say "this is what you guys should do," as a matter of fact he explicitly said that it might not necessarily apply to their situation and that she needed to be really careful with how she used that information.


Also, if I remember right, Burnham basically presented it as "we need to just start attacking every Klingon ship we see until they back off and ask for terms call us for a chat." That's not diplomacy at all, that's just a de facto state of war. Can you see how people might be resistant to the suggestion that Klingons are just savage bumpheads who only understand violence? Because that's really what that boils down to.

Gaz-L posted:

Actually, checking Memory Alpha, they're using DIS.

And beyond the juvenile joke, it's not like we call Enterprise 'STE'. Or Star Trek Deep Space 9 'STDS'

None of the other shows have the ST in the short form, because it's assumed.

Gaz-L posted:

Also, minor point, and I realise this is probably partly down to SA being SA, but I'm pretty sure the abbreviation is DSC, not STD.

Gaz-L posted:

Also, minor point, and I realise this is probably partly down to SA being SA, but I'm pretty sure the abbreviation is DSC, not STD.

CaveGrinch posted:

Funny how people so quickly forget the fifty episodes of Next Gen we had to wade through before it even got to be consistently okay.

CaveGrinch posted:

Funny how people so quickly forget the fifty episodes of Next Gen we had to wade through before it even got to be consistently okay.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

There's a couple good opinions in the thread, I can tell they're good because I agree with them.

Zaphod42 posted:

We don't need anything for Enterprise because there's no reason to talk about it. :taylor:

And we do call it DS9, for Deep Space Nine, the name. STDS9 is the same thing just longer, so of course you shorten it.

The show is called "Star Trek Discovery". STD is the most natural abbreviation. Deal with it. If they didn't want that, they should have called it something else. Especially since it has nothing to do with discovery!

CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:

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.

Lovely Joe Stalin posted:

Discovery managed to be well paced and interesting. It established it's main character with depth, established the antagonists as an actual culture distinct and rounded. All while looking visually more exciting and beautiful than Trek has ever managed.
Was it perfect? No. Was it better than the other Trek openers (and a pretty loving large percentage of all Trek episodes across all series)? Yes.

People whining about the pronunciation of Klingon. People complaining that things which were clearly shown in dialogue or shot weren't obvious enough (presumably because they were too busy posting their hatred instead of watching). People complaining that the sets/ships/actual human actors were not made out of crepe pape and fidget spinners because that breaks continuity with the embarrassing schlock made fifty-one years ago are mentally loving deficient.

Pastamania posted:

Encounter at Farpoint would have been a much better episode if Riker punched Picard in the face in his ready room and then started screaming at Tasha to fire torpedoes at the Jellyfish.

Arglebargle III posted:

As a Trek fan, the thing I dislike about it most is how tired it is. Star Trek has done the spiky dark post 9/11 aliens thing before and both times it's been awful. Enterprise and Nemesis are low points in the franchise. Trek2009 wasn't a whole lot better and also featured spiky post 9/11 aliens. Beam over to the enemy ship at the end so our heroes can punch them, yadda yadda. It's boring and it's a misunderstanding of what popular Star Trek was about. 2009 received a fairly tepid response and Nemesis and Enterprise were rightly panned for their dark action movie take on Trek. That's not what the franchise is good at.

This dovetails with my other main problem with the show, which is that Trek prequels are played out. In the first 30 minutes there was a lot of cool new stuff that we haven't had in Trek before, like using robotic daughter ships or routine EVA to check something out in person. Even phrases like "tech hygiene" sound new, which is something that Trek has always embraced when it's good. TNG wasn't TOS over again, it clearly had its roots in the late 80s and late 80s conceptions of what this positive aspirational future could look like. Discovery gets to be new and good for about 30 minutes before it's dragged back down into its prequel premise. There's Klingons and hull breaches and spiky green and black ships of enormous size and space battles and we've all seen this before. The story beats from there are all very rote aside from Michael's freakout.

Discovery looked for all the world like a sequel when it started showing and talking about things in our future, the future of people in 2017. When it's thrown back into Trek prequel purgatory its like being dragged back in time to no longer even scifi but some sort of weird mishmash of retcon and period piece and focus grouped nostalgia for a broadcast era franchise. It manages to be both new and tired and boring at the same time.

This isn't even getting into the military themes and prison fight that clash pretty hard with Star Trek but strongly resemble prestige dramas from the last 20 years. Even if you aren't attached to the idea of Trek as an aspiration for the people of the time in which it airs, putting a prequel to a 60s show on with explicit callbacks to the fiction of the 60s with atmosphere and themes from recent prestige dramas ends up with a muddled aesthetic and uncertain theme. This is born out by all the people wondering whether the show thinks that Michael's actions were justified or not -- the show's tone is muddled.

CAPTAIN CAPSLOCK posted:

Is Voyager abbreviated to STV or V?

(This is the silliest argument and I love it)

fadam posted:

I like how snide and lovely Sarek in this, but I don't understand why they didn't just write him as a different guy. It's not that cool of a reference and it would have been nice to see them do whatever they want with the character instead of having to maintain even a tiny bit of continuity.

Zaphod42 posted:

This but for everything.

Why are the not-Klingons not just called something else?

Zaphod42 posted:

Then you could do the cool Battlestar thing where you have everybody doubting if somebody is secretly a spy. Doesn't work when Klingons stick out like a sore thumb.

appropriatemetaphor posted:

if they weren't klingons then people would bitch about 'why have we never heard of these guys???? are we to believe???'

Powered Descent posted:

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Frankly, any portrayal of the future that isn't just humanity dwindling in number as we try to cope with a dead or dying planet after we repeatedly burn it to the ground, never to recover, is wildly, unrealistically optimistic, so I don't get the complaints that it's too dark.

Too optimistic, if anything.

r.y.f.s.o. posted:

Frankly, any portrayal of the future that isn't just humanity dwindling in number as we try to cope with a dead or dying planet after we repeatedly burn it to the ground, never to recover, is wildly, unrealistically optimistic, so I don't get the complaints that it's too dark.

Too optimistic, if anything.

Zaphod42 posted:

What? Seriously? If it was a matter of life or death we could have self-sustaining moon, martian, or space colonies in like a decade.

I mean we shouldn't waste resources unnecessarily or anything, I'm generally all for environmentalism. But if the cost of human technological advancement is that we have to use up the Earth, but then we can terraform all the other planets we want... is that so extremely grimdark?

You lack vision. Roddenberry had vision.

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

I've changed my opinion. Seeing so many nerds butt hurt by this show I've decided I like it and look forward to hate watching it next to walking dead.

Also, nice ui choice:

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

I've changed my opinion. Seeing so many nerds butt hurt by this show I've decided I like it and look forward to hate watching it next to walking dead.

Also, nice ui choice:

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

I've changed my opinion. Seeing so many nerds butt hurt by this show I've decided I like it and look forward to hate watching it next to walking dead.

Also, nice ui choice:

Bardeh posted:

lmao is this a serious post

'just use it all up, we can always *waves hands vaguely toward the sky* build a moonbase or whatever'

quote:

I mean we shouldn't waste resources unnecessarily or anything, I'm generally all for environmentalism.

Gonz posted:

FIRE TORPEDO sorta looks like FREE TOBACCO.