|
Astroman posted:LOL did you really just say "TOS Sux and everyone who likes it is a pedo?" No, he really didn't.
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
Well, compared to the first 90 minutes of every other Trek, Discovery was Oscar worthy. High hopes going forward.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Deep Space 9 was better. Arglebargle III posted:Hey, The Emissary is a really good pilot. The Vulcan Hello (lol) has higher production values but as a pilot doesn't work as well IMO. The Emissary wasn't as bad as, say Voyager's or Encounter at Fuckpoint, but it was still incredibly boring and 'pilot-y'. 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. It's not Trek series X. it was never going to be Trek series X. It could never be Trek series X. Because the Trek programmes you are pining for already exist and the continual attempts to recreate them through the televisual equivalent of homoeopathic water memory is what took the franchise off the air. If you want Discovery to be whatever came before then you want the death of the franchise. Because that is what the failure of Discovery will be. Certainly for a decade, maybe forever. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Also, I'm sorry but if you genuinely think Voyager is good then you are a pod person and your disguise isn't working.Fidel Cuckstro posted:This is all actually incorrect and wrong. Your post has a more interesting and fleshed out plot than The Emissary.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Oh, and as to the Orville. Yeah, I can see how people want that instead of Discovery. It's schlocky, poorly acted pablum which would be right up the alley of people who enjoy episodes involving hopskotch or science fiction which revolves around hanging out in a sanitised 60's casino lounge. Meanwhile, audiences in the numbers required to keep a franchise alive will be watching The Expanse, Westworld, Game of Thrones etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
It's a completely different context and shot choices. There's nothing sexual about the scene (unless you're a weirdo) it merely conveys urgency. It's about as far from the T'pol poo poo as you could get while still having a person in underwear in a medical setting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
skasion posted:It's definitely eye candy but nothing unusually trashy for Trek, unlike the decon gel. She is covered in radiation lesions. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Oh yeah, wanna stick my dick in that hole. And that one. And that one there by her temple. So necrotic, mmm. *Fap fap fap*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
They didn't die because they advocated diplomacy. They died because their cultural insensitivity and wilful ignorance meant that they didn't actually employ diplomacy and allow for the other culture's beliefs and perspective. They were told how to talk to the Klingons, and instead chose to only consider the Federation's terms. That was kind of the whole point. They never altered their position, which was inflammatory and offensive to the Klingons. It's what the Klingon gambit was predicated upon, that the insult would be repeated in front of the council members. Had they taken the Vulcan advice then the antagonist would have been made to look a fool.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Why the gently caress would I want a back story episode for a second string character before the introduction of the main character and the establishing of the world in which the series takes place? What you are describing is the classically bad storytelling which leads to the vast majority of pilots, and especially Trek ones, being unrepresentative shite. It is a bad form of storytelling that came about because of the constraints under which programmes were pitched to networks and which now, for shows like this, is obsolete. And yeah, loving bravo "we''ll never get a good Trek show again" because by show you seem to mean time travel to the past. Excessive nostalgia is unhealthy. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Sep 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
You know what else they didn't have back in the day when the other Trek shows started? A metastasised viewer base who were invested in hating them before they got off the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
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. They could have just threatened them. Anything but do what the Klingons despise and the firebrand was planning on. They knew the psychology they were working with and ignored it. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Sep 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:I followed The Bloop's advice and downloaded this after all. The tactic named "The Vulcan Hello" is shooting first? I mean lol, if that is not the 100% opposite of Star Trek then I don't know what is. This has got to already be in the mirror universe, holy poo poo. Congrats on not being able to follow the plot of, of all things, a Star Trek episode. CaveGrinch posted:Just when you think you've seen the worst SA thread in a long time... leave it to you neckbeards to piss on the first two episodes of something seemingly decent. They love Star Trek so much they are willing to conform to the Trekkie stereotype even at the cost of making GBS threads on the last chance this failed franchise has. So much so that many had decided on this course of action before the episodes even aired.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Can anyone think of a reason why this first two parter needs to be a prequel with Klingons and not a sequel with some new aliens that don't look like Klingons? I can't. Because then the Trekkies complaining about it being an established antagonist species would be complaining that it isn't Star Trek without an established antagonist species. And they can't go forward because Star Trek's lovely continuity was written into a cul-de-sac with the accumulated time travel and Voyager shite. Frankly, I'm happy that it is a prequal just so we don't have the inevitable parade of sad fat cameos from TNG/DS9/Voyager characters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Look, only a nerd would expect writers or creators to pay attention to nerd poo poo like that. This is prestige tv. This is about answering deeper questions like: is preemptive war good? How sad will war make you? Will our fans jerk off to laser fights between spaceships? Star Trek. The primogenitor of internal-inconsistency and throw-away lines to excuse lazy writing. I mean gently caress man, of all the things to choose to try and pick the programme apart for, you went with the most authentically Trek part of the script.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
Then I apologise. To err is lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
The RLM re:View was taking great pains to be reasonable and fair. I wasn't at all surprised that Mike was being open minded about it. Or that they both dismissed Orville as fan fiction trash.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
vermin posted:Yeesh, Mike. For a guy who gives handjobs to optimistic old Trek at every opportunity you'd think he'd have liked Orville. Why? Orville is not old Trek. It is a cliche of a satirical depiction of Trek without any self-awareness. More to the point, it is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:The Klingon motivation seemed weak. Didn't help that the actors seemed like they were really struggling with the prosthetics. How the gently caress did you manage to misunderstand that plot so completely?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I feel like 50% of the posts in this thread exist because people are not paying attention to the show when they watch it. When you've decided to hate-watch something sight unseen, some of that plot's going to get missed as you furiously masturbate about how the plot doesn't make sense. Flatscan posted:More like 75% of the posts in TVIV. Seriously, put down your phone and close your laptop and suddenly watching TV becomes a whole different experience where plots actually make sense. That is the other possibility, that a frightening number of people around here really are too lazy/stupid to actually watch a TV programme. It certainly explains the appeal of pablum like Orville. You could be comatose and still follow that. Intellectually it's only ever about two steps away from singing "The Wheels on the Bus". On Orville chat, I will give it one thing. Its sets and costumes look relatively good, considering that every other aspect of it has the feel of a sub-The Guild web series.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
It was the focus of an extreme close-up shot. That is the cinematographic equivalent of shouting in your face. If that wasn't enough there was then her reaction shot, again in close-up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:They probably should have established the blue-to-red light thing in an unrelated scene and I get that people could miss the light but other not so miss-able clues that she changed phaser settings include the fact that the guy got a gaping hole through his chest just after stabbing the captain the show established the main character had a complicated but very close friendship with. Well, they were pretty loving explicit and heavy handed in explaining the beacon and people on this very page haven't understood that. It's not a problem with the programme not explaining. It's some of the viewers, and I'll be generous here, not paying sufficient attention.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Everyone is an rear end in a top hat except me, shrieked the tremendous rear end in a top hat Nah he's right, Orville poo poo should gently caress off to it's own thread.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Has it not occurred to you sadbrains that maybe the angle they are going for is that this is the story of a dark early period in the Federation's history, which leads to the happier one we are more familiar with?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Oh, and btw, this fourth episode that people are raving about was literally a retread of the old TOS episode For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky, just with much less likeable characters. Is that what people really want out of Star Trek? Warmed over stories they've seen before with even worse writing and poo poo jokes? That's exactly what they want. Regardless of it being what killed the TV franchise for over a decade, and regardless of all that stuff being available already on blu-ray, two or three times per story. Because god forbid there should be any exploration of new areas, fresh looks at civilisations, or bold steps in their Star Trek. And don't even dream of asking them to allow time for that voyage to happen. That's not what Trek is about. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Sep 30, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Numlock posted:So I've managed to avoid spoilers for this series mostly because I assumed it would be terrible. Maybe go and re-evaluate your life if it upsets you that much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
You know who would have really, really hated Star Trek Discovery and loved Orville? Aatrek.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:As a non-Star Trek watcher that was what I pictured a good Star Trek episode to be like! There was weird alien monsters with little or no explanation, You shut the gently caress up. You aren't an actual Star Trek fan. This isn't for you!. This could be literally their favourite episodes of their favourite Trek series displaced into the present, and these people would still hate it. They are toxic fans. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:31
|
|
, weirdly suspicious characters, and a bunch of cool space poo poo. I'm glad they had the two part pilot so they could jump right in to a story like this on the proper ship.
|
Set phasers to owned and beam me back to my safespace.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Really though, the writers assume they don't have to explain this because they aren't telling you anything they think you haven't seen a dozen times before. Why is he scuttling the ship? Because that's something that happens at the end of a lot of episodes and movies. You've seen those right? Just fill in the blanks. Totes hack writing to assume your viewers have the wit and awareness to follow a simple story. Much better to just have the gruel spooned into your mouth every step of the way so that dummies don't feel dumb about being too dumb to watch an episode of Trek.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
EatinCake posted:If this was all staged, was the pilot from the start of the episode ok? Did the ship manage to rescue her? I feel like it would be pretty easy to show her as a background character later in the episode if so. If not, man. What a dick captain. Who do you think was flying the shuttle when it left at the end? The whole thing was staged, so yes, the Discovery rescued the pilot and then sent her on her way again with the prisoners. It's not something that they need to waste time on in the script if they assume the viewer is capable of putting two and two together.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
It's kinda sad you've chosen to die on the hill of hate-watching Discovery. By virtue of it not being nearly as bad as you pretend you're having to stretch to the point mental sub-normality to invent flaws with it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Or you genuinely are this dumb of a oval office.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why would they bother simulating the death of the pilot? They didn't, she simply lost her tether. They tractor the shuttle in and beam the pilot onboard. They don't show the pilot again because there is no value to giving it screen time. They show the other prisoners again because they wanted the attack in the canteen, which presumably was one of the captain's tests. Hence the security chief letting it happen. Seriously, you might as well be getting hung up on where her work clothes came from or how they print the ship's crest on pillow cases.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:it's funny how you're so incredibly angry at trekkies making GBS threads on the show yet you can't be bothered to say anything nice about the show yourself Arglebargle III posted:Oh okay. There's nothing on screen to suggest the pilot survives or that her distress was fake but okay. I didn't say her distress was fake. Why would it be? If the intent was to create the appearance of happenstance, why would the prison officer know in advance?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:there's other people in the thread who've come out saying they liked the episode, but that aside, if everyone here is too stupid or too disingenuous to hold a discussion with then what are you even doing here lol I don't believe a discussion of the programme's good points is possible at present. That doesn't mean that the lazy/invented criticisms shouldn't be challenged. Why should this be an echo chamber for, by your own admission, people who are only interested in shitposting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Shuttle is diverted because as is stated by the captain, he has carte blanche to get his mission done and he wants Michael. Shuttle runs into difficulty in proximity to Discovery. Pilot is lost. Shuttle is recovered, pilot is presumably rescued. Shuttle is sterilised. Shuttle resumes its course with convicts and pilot, but sans Michael. That all happens on screen, except for the rescue of the pilot and the departure of the prisoners. Of the last two, one is stated as fact by the first officer, and the other is implied by common sense and the aforementioned sickbay call.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Comrade Fakename posted:Why do people even give a gently caress about the shuttle pilot? You don't see what happens to her because it doesn't matter. They are bereft of valid for things to criticise, the inconsequential plot element that is the shuttle pilot is something they are clinging to because as preposterous as it is, they can try to build criticism around it. Some real desperation to be part of the perceived in-group going on here. Farmer Crack-rear end posted:but the problem is, you don't have any such contributions to make, because you're really just here to throw a pretend tantrum about those terrible nerds. It's interesting that you seem invested in the idea that someone who likes the programme can't be posting in good faith. 4000 Dollar Suit posted:God I expected some awful piece of poo poo based on what you people have been saying, show is drat awesome. Yeah, sadbrains be cray.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
And More posted:The people who criticise this show have somehow said more nice things about it than you. I've got a sneaking suspicion that you actually find STD mediocre. Oh yeah, that would be totally borne out by that time I said Discovery was better than a significant percentage of all Trek episodes ever, and had the best two-part opener of any Trek series, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 12:53 |
|
|
And More posted:Oh yeah, there it is. The one positive comment. Maybe you could try expanding on that. Sure. No episode or combination of episodes of Voyager was as good as any of the three Discovery episodes so far. Many DS9 episodes particularly in the first and last season weren't as good. TNG has plenty of episodes far far worse than these three episodes. In terms of plot, dialogue, drama, effects, and basic acting Discovery is towering over an awful lot of older Star Trek episodes. Discovery is a very pretty, competently made programme with acceptable to good acting right from the off. No character has been as outright poo poo as Neelix, Janeway, or Quantum Leap. None of them are as blandly one dimensional Kim, Tuvok, or S1 Kira. And none of them are just outright racist caricatures like Chakotay, or the space Oirish. Nothing thus far has run so nonsensically contrary to Federation values as the response to Space 9/11, or the introduction of Section 31 (set edginess to blunt). There has been no hopskotch aliens or hilarious gender-swap alien pregnancies. Discovery is off to an amazing start by Trek standards. marktheando posted:Well you say that it's as subtle as a truck, but half this thread is people not understanding the basic plot. Stop being hyper-defensive of your waifu programme. Decius posted:Like asking repeatedly "How did Michael know where to go on the Glenn?" when she even says "all Starfleet ships are designed similarly, so this should work..." before doing her rescue thing. The series so far has been really unsubtle and spelled out basically everything and still people have trouble following it. Your pro-paying attention bias is showing. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 18:49
|
|