Trickjaw posted:

Not that it really matters BMJ, but the trailer for is locked in the UK.

marktheando posted:

I will never understand this attitude that updating sets, costumes and makeup to modern standards is somehow disrespectful to the old show. The reason this show doesn't look like a show from 1966 is because it is 2017 now.

Discovery may well be bad, but it won't be bad because of the Klingon makeup or the starfleet uniforms.

marktheando posted:

I would not have a problem with this look in a pre TNG setting either, no. If they did something in that time period a uniform change away from the TNG pyjamas would be most welcome.

And being respectful to the 60 million dead of the bloodiest war in history, that is still within living memory, is wildly different from changing up the look of a fictional tv show, holy poo poo.

Sir Kodiak posted:

Yeah, it makes it seem like all that time spent absorbing the details of a fictional universe was wasted. If a new Star Trek show won't respect that investment, what will?

Arglebargle III posted:

No, there is paid with ads and pay more for no ads.

MichiganCubbie posted:

I thought that they were going to keep using Majel Barrett for the computer.

The Bloop posted:

I am admittedly somewhat torn because I am a dork nerd trekkie but this sort of slavish obsession with canon would keep it from being relevant to a new audience. It just doesnt matter.

skasion posted:

Tbh Georgiou would be more than justified in just shooting her right there, assaulting and incapacitating your commanding officer so you can mutinously start a shooting war as a show of force is reprehensible act.

The Bloop posted:

not a single familiar klingon ship. oh well

pospysyl posted:

The Sarek call is a good example of why the holographic communication is pretty bad. In Star Trek, communication is very deliberate. You have to go to a special room, get the screen ready, and arrange an appointment. While that may not be a good extrapolation of modern day technology, it's important because it makes the ship feel like it's on the frontier. The ship is often isolated, and help isn't always at hand. The crew needs to make decisions on their own. If they can call up anybody in the universe on a whim, that's lost. There'll never be an episode where they have to come up with a solution with limited time and resources because they can just call up Star Fleet or the smartest Vulcan in the universe for an answer, unless you perpetually introduce some BS about how there's "interference". The ship is never isolated, so the stakes are lower. It's kind of like how cellphones dramatically changed how Law and Order episodes are plotted.

vermin posted:

Finding it kind of hard to have faith of the heart right now

Mr. Apollo posted:

Yeah I caught the date, but what's the significance?

Porpoise With A Purpose posted:

The show is okay but i want to know what this daft punk guy is.

marktheando posted:

Haha Netflix has an option for Klingon subtitles.

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

So mike is spocks step sister? Funny he never mentioned it.

Milky Moor posted:

Lord Krangdar posted:

I don't really get the extreme focus on adherence to canon/continuity by so many fans of this franchise. If it helps you enjoy the series, or it helps the writers write it, then its all good. If not, throw it out the drat airlock. Why keep it around just to get in the way?

I've never heard of comic readers getting mad that Batman's costume and physical dimensions change constantly depending on who draws him, like its ruining their immersion. That sort of thing is just accepted in other franchises (another obvious example is James Bond). Yet for this series the same sort of criticisms are endless. Why?

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.

Kesper North posted:

I love Star Trek. Always have. Earliest memory is of watching TOS in syndication with my mom. And you know what? I love Discovery. I agree with most (not all, but most) of their choices. To me, it feels like Star Trek grown up, in a good way, and I'm really looking forward to the rest of the series.

All Access is of course the Achilles heel that will probably lead to this being a single-season show.