Star Trek: Discovery

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
TOS may not have aged well special effects-wise, but the stories remain great. My wife started watching TOS with me recently for the first time and is loving it.
DS9 beat any other station hands down.
 
TOS may not have aged well special effects-wise, but the stories remain great.
I totally agree with this. I have never been a big Trek fan. Always have been more of a Star Wars guy. But I have been watching a lot more Tek on TV as of late. (It's been playing a lot on Me TV) I way more appreciate and understand the attraction to TOS.
DS9 beat any other station hands down.
I've watched a lot of syndicated Trek back in the day. Between TNG and DS9, I way prefer DS9, but its no Babylon 5 though. Better in many different ways, at least to me.
 
Personally, the original series is still my favorite. Apart from a few episodes, I really, really dislike TNG and what the writers turned the Federation into...and IMO (and one of my biggest pet peeves) totally misunderstood and misrepresented the Prime Directive. DS9 was good but didn't really feel like Star Trek. Voyager was drek with a few episodes that weren't too bad. Enterprise had fewer standout episodes, but I enjoyed it more overall than most of the previous series. The movies have been a disappointment after TMP which remains my favorite despite needing a severe editing pass and a rethink of the ship uniforms.

I wish Discovery wasn't a prequel...but it looks good. And I'm really tired of disliking Trek.
 
The Original Series and Deep Space Nine are tied for my favorite Star Trek. They're both great but in different ways. The Next Generation is in the middle. I grew up watching it (I was about eleven when it premiered), but IMO it hasn't aged well. It feels stuck as a remnant of the late '80s/early '90s. Tied for the worst Star Trek are Voyager and Enterprise. Voyager felt like TNG without the spirit and with more technobabble and Borg of the week. Enterprise... Well...

 
The movies have been a disappointment after TMP which remains my favorite despite needing a severe editing pass and a rethink of the ship uniforms.
The uniforms were an issue in TMP. But it's alsp the closest Trek ever came do doing real science fiction, as opposed to their usualbrand of Hornblower-inspired space opera. And if you think that Wrath of Khan was a disappointment, then all I can do is shake my head and walk away to the sound of The incredible Hulk closing theme.

 
Also, since I'm on this subject. Star Trek sucks.

The OS was pretty good. Decent stories and interesting themes. The spirit of Roddenberry's futurism.

I hate TNG. I hate it more than I hate fire ants. I'd rather watch the Star Wars prequels, I hate it so much.

I agree with your opinions on each shows, but I would say it was Roddenberry's futurism that made TNG bad, not what made OS good.

The OS had a wider range of influences. D.C. Fontana was a story editor that really cared about the consistency of the setting, and it is notable how the show declined when she left the position on the third season. It was also that rare show that actually brought in honest-to-god, established science-fiction writers at times, as opposed to just having TV writers mimic the trappings of science-fiction.

With TNG, Roddenberry had fallen in love with his own myth. Rather than the simple "Wagon Train to the stars" pitch of the original, he now had a vision of the future, and it was a poor vision as far as interesting television is concerned. Insisting on a vision of the future where humans never have any conflict against the wishes of all your writers is the core problem with that show.

I've watched a lot of syndicated Trek back in the day. Between TNG and DS9, I way prefer DS9, but its no Babylon 5 though. Better in many different ways, at least to me.

I'm doing reviews of Babylon 5 on the Bedrock Podcast with Brendan Davis at the moment. I watched the show back in the day, and Brendan has never seen it. We are only up to episode 8, and I am really impressed with how well it holds up. I was a little worried it might be embarrassingly dated and I would be stuck reviewing 5 seasons of it.

I think I might actually be enjoying it more now then I did back in the '90s. If there is one thing Babylon 5 is not, that thing is cool. Being cool mattered a lot more to me in my 20s, so Babylon 5 was something I liked despite it not being cool. Now I don't give a crap about cool, so it is no longer a mitigating factor on my enjoyment.

Anyway, I have been meaning to do "Where I watch" thread here, but I keep getting sidetracked. I'll try and get that started today so I can talk about B5 without derailing the Star Trek thread. I was responsible for the Anchovy Derail, and I don't want to get a bad reputation here.
 
I agree with your opinions on each shows, but I would say it was Roddenberry's futurism that made TNG bad, not what made OS good.

The OS had a wider range of influences. D.C. Fontana was a story editor that really cared about the consistency of the setting, and it is notable how the show declined when she left the position on the third season. It was also that rare show that actually brought in honest-to-god, established science-fiction writers at times, as opposed to just having TV writers mimic the trappings of science-fiction.

With TNG, Roddenberry had fallen in love with his own myth. Rather than the simple "Wagon Train to the stars" pitch of the original, he now had a vision of the future, and it was a poor vision as far as interesting television is concerned. Insisting on a vision of the future where humans never have any conflict against the wishes of all your writers is the core problem with that show.

This was an extremely useful analysis, Baulderstone. Thank you.

Re: B5. B5 is probably one of my favorite TV series ever simply because it plucked at my emotions in ways very few media productions ever have.
 
I just want a Star Trek that is a mix of the Hornblower in space WITH exploration of the unknown. It CAN work. Why are they so reluctant?

...well I don't have an answer, but I'm sure that there's way to do that.
 
The uniforms were an issue in TMP. But it's alsp the closest Trek ever came do doing real science fiction, as opposed to their usualbrand of Hornblower-inspired space opera. And if you think that Wrath of Khan was a disappointment, then all I can do is shake my head and walk away to the sound of The incredible Hulk closing theme.

No, Wrath of Khan wasn't a disappointment. What was a disappointment was that, with the exception of IV and VI to a lesser degree, every other Star Trek movie was an attempt to recreate WoK. Every one involved some type of hyper-competent bad guy that they have to fight. Every. Single. One. So, WoK was fine the first time, and is my 2nd favorite Trek movie.
 
I didn't enjoy TNG so I blew off DS9 and Voyager after a handful of episodes each.

I never saw Enterprise. Is it worth watching?
 
No, Wrath of Khan wasn't a disappointment. What was a disappointment was that, with the exception of IV and VI to a lesser degree, every other Star Trek movie was an attempt to recreate WoK. Every one involved some type of hyper-competent bad guy that they have to fight. Every. Single. One. So, WoK was fine the first time, and is my 2nd favorite Trek movie.
It's true. Right down to the JJ Abrams movies. And as well as the hyper competent bad guy, there's a scene where the Enterprise gets massively damage in order to force fake drama and mirror the scene in WoK where the Reliant blasts big holes in Enterprise. Only without the why behind that scene to give it any gravitas. And fact that we've seen this over and over and over robbing the scene of any impact.

As for IV, I'm in the minority that can't stand that movie. I don't find Star Trek, a series about Boldly Going turning into a mid 80s eco-comedy set in San Fransico to be particularly Star trek. Or particularly entertaining. Too many of the wrong questions go unanswered, while the Message gets hammered over and over and over. And when a film starts out preachy, then ends as parody, it's got issues.
 
As for IV, I'm in the minority that can't stand that movie. I don't find Star Trek, a series about Boldly Going turning into a mid 80s eco-comedy set in San Fransico to be particularly Star trek. Or particularly entertaining. Too many of the wrong questions go unanswered, while the Message gets hammered over and over and over. And when a film starts out preachy, then ends as parody, it's got issues.
While I agree with Tom B's comment that it deserves some credit for not being a clone of WoK, it just used another formula. It's a completely cliche '80s fish-out-water comedy, and nor even a particularly good one, in my opinion.
 
There's a reason that Paramount Pictures originally planned on casting Eddie Murphy in The Voyage Home. When he couldn't do the film, Paramount wrote his character out and wrote Dr. Gillian Taylor in.
 
No, Wrath of Khan wasn't a disappointment. What was a disappointment was that, with the exception of IV and VI to a lesser degree, every other Star Trek movie was an attempt to recreate WoK. Every one involved some type of hyper-competent bad guy that they have to fight. Every. Single. One. So, WoK was fine the first time, and is my 2nd favorite Trek movie.

WoK was a perfect storm. It tied in with a great TOS episode, it had a good villain played a scenery-chewing Ricardo Montalban, it had a good script that felt genuinely surprising ("This is Ceti Alpha V!"). It directly benefitted from the good writing of TOS. I don't think that's happening again.

BTW, Abrams Trek II (Into Darkness or something) was a horribly self-indulgent remake. I hated it with a passion, worse even than Abrams Trek I. Abrams Trek III was almost okay, though — arguably a better WoK remake than its predecessor. ;)
 
Wow, a lot more negativity towards TOS on this forum than I expected. :sad:
 
Yeah, it is surprising.

I love TOS but much of that love is from watching it in the early 70s as well as dealing with licensed stuff (RPGs, board games, novels) over the years. I've never watched a complete series all the way through.

I do like more movies than The Wrath of Khan. I enjoyed First Contact, for example. I've seen all the Trek movies and I'd say those two are my favorite. I agree that the idea that humans don't have conflict anymore was silly.

Also as it turns out I'll be able to watch more than the premiere episode of Discovery. I'm not going to make any judgments until I see it.
 
I didn't enjoy TNG so I blew off DS9 and Voyager after a handful of episodes each.

I never saw Enterprise. Is it worth watching?

Enterprise and Voyager are both terrible. Voyager had a lot of promise, but it was essentially squandered by the third episode. A lone Starfleet starship stranded in the Delta Quadrant, 70 years away from home, with some of the crew Maquis rebels. The whole Maquis rebel crew plotline though was mostly wrapped up at the end of the second episode with Chakotay saying, "Because she's the Captain." :rolleyes: Then instead of exploring strange new worlds and new civilizations on Voyager's way back to the Beta Quadrant, it became a Borg of the week show by the fourth season. Then there's the technobabble...

Anyway, I would recommend giving DS9 another go. The first two seasons are okie, but it gets good in the third season, and very good in the fourth season. If you must, skip to the third season.

BTW, Abrams Trek II (Into Darkness or something) was a horribly self-indulgent remake. I hated it with a passion, worse even than Abrams Trek I. Abrams Trek III was almost okay, though — arguably a better WoK remake than its predecessor. ;)

I'm one of those weirdo hardcore Trekkers that actually really like the Kelvin Timeline films. They're not the same Star Trek as before, but that's the point. Star Trek went so far up its own rear between Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek: Nemesis that it needed a reboot with a fresh new take to breathe some life into it. Star Trek (2009) did that, successfully. It was both familiar and new at the same time. Now granted they were more action-oriented than prior Star Trek, but that's part of what made it different and new, and more accessible to the non-nerds. Into Darkness was a decent film. It both explored post-9/11 America in a way that made sense for Star Trek, and showed the growth James T. Kirk needed to actually deserve the Captain's chair. What hurt the film was J.J. Abrams' insistence on hiding the identity of Khan, and the ridiculousness of interstellar beaming.
 
I'm one of those weirdo hardcore Trekkers that actually really like the Kelvin Timeline films. They're not the same Star Trek as before, but that's the point. Star Trek went so far up its own rear between Voyager, Enterprise, and Star Trek: Nemesis that it needed a reboot with a fresh new take to breathe some life into it. Star Trek (2009) did that, successfully. It was both familiar and new at the same time. Now granted they were more action-oriented than prior Star Trek, but that's part of what made it different and new, and more accessible to the non-nerds. Into Darkness was a decent film. It both explored post-9/11 America in a way that made sense for Star Trek, and showed the growth James T. Kirk needed to actually deserve the Captain's chair. What hurt the film was J.J. Abrams' insistence on hiding the identity of Khan, and the ridiculousness of interstellar beaming.

Whatever the failings of the franchise, Abrams Trek is shit.

The problem with the Kelvin timeline is that Abrams & co. have no sense of scale, or pacing, or consequences, or creativity TBH.

Vulcan gets blown up in the first movie and this gets only token mentions.

Interstellar beaming is a huge game changer (as in, who the fuck needs spaceships) and everybody is like "naaah, let's bury this."

Villains are always over-the-top and nearly interchangeable, existing only as the Federation-hating maniac of the week.

Chris Pine has the personality and acting talent of a lawn chair. (And when you're falling short of filling William Shatner's shoes, brother, that's saying something.) They should've switched him and Hemsworth. Pretty sure he might have some chemistry with someone (anyone) else in the crew — Quinto, Urban and Saldana put up pretty good performances.

Simon Fucking Pegg. I trust I don't have to explain this one.

Every flick is a rushed action movie like 90% of what Hollywood puts out, distinguishable only by the ST visual identity. (Admittedly a mistake some TNG movies made.)

As for post-9/11 America, Cap 2 did it better and with a much appreciated post-Snowden side order of fuck you, Big Data.
 
This is a personal thing, but I demand a much higher bar for TV shows than for movies. I am okay with a movie if I'm amused for 2 hours, but TV show better prove its worth for me to keep watching after the first episode. Thus, I've been okay with almost all the Trek films (some great, most okay and a few turds). But that might be because I rarely pay top dollar for a movie. LA has a great 2nd run theater and the big screen handles the rest. If I was dropping real cash for a movie, I'd probably become more demanding.
 
IV had its own issues, but as I said, at least it broke the Khan mold. First Contact wasn't bad and was probably the only other movie I actually enjoyed.

I liked Enterprise more than I disliked it. It never had any real stand-out episodes, but I enjoyed it more episode-to-episode than most of the other series. DS9 was better...but didn't really feel like Trek to me.

It's hard to describe my problems with Abrams' Trek. Part of it is just the sheer disregard for time and distance. The plot needs Kirk on the Klingon homeworld, so we'll beam him there. The fleet needs to fly into an ambush...so it takes only a few minutes to reach Vulcan. The Enterprise will travel at warp for some time after leaving Vulcan, but somehow when Kirk is kicked off in a shuttle...itself stupid...he lands on a habitable planet closer to Vulcan than the Moon is to Earth just so Spock can watch Vulcan die...large in the sky. The Enterprise is now far larger than before, with an engine room full of pipes moving liquid around for no apparent reason. Because that's funny. Space is big...except in Abramsverse where everything is right next to each other. At least Beyond had some entertaining bits and less (but not no) incredible stupidity. And Yorktown was cool.
 
The disregard for time, distance and plot logic seems to have become ubiquitous in "blockbuster" films. To me, its a problem that appears to have gotten worse in the past decade. Which is weird because many TV shows have become better about these issues in the same period and oddly, I don't see the same levels of casual illogic in lower budgeted theatrical fare.
 
IV had its own issues, but as I said, at least it broke the Khan mold. First Contact wasn't bad and was probably the only other movie I actually enjoyed.

The Khan thing only really came in for the last two TNG movies. And all three of the Kelvin Timeline movies.
 
My one question is how you get Michelle Yeoh for this and NOT make her the main character.
She's overqualified for the job.
 
Rumour has it she dies early and gets replaced by her #2
 
Because it means that the show will definitely not be as "family friendly" as the prior Star Trek shows. And some people are still offended by its usage, (not as many people as thirty years ago, but still).
 
Thank you for clarifying.
Our concept of family friendly is more based on what the characters do rather than what they say.
 
I'm glad that they're respecting SOME continuity. Although I get the feeling that they're doing so reluctantly ("sacred cows"). I mean, it's not just about stodgy "immersion" or Puritanism. It's about maintaining a setting, a world. If you start fucking around and not giving a shit about established history, then why even call it Star Trek? Eg: they're not touching Romulans, 'cause that race was only actually seen during TOS-era.

I wish I could watch it.
 
So, I like the original series best, though there are more bad episodes than good. TNG has better actors, better special effects, a bigger budget and still falls flat most of the time. Babylon V is more my thing but it has its faults. What I'd really love to see is a remastered version that can even out the messes its brushes with cancellation brought.

I really dislike everything I've seen and heard about Discovery so far. Dropping the f-bomb is just more proof that Paramount has dropped the ball.
 
And, I've watched the first episode, and I mostly liked it. However, ending on a cliff hanger and advertising that part two is exclusive on Space Channel was, well, cheap and obnoxious in the extreme. Also, lots of ads. And the Klingons are still really over designed, though their behaviour and language are consistent with prior Trek. I liked the logical diplomatic approach the Vulcans took to making peace with the Klingons. I may break down and pay to watch this. Crow will be eaten :smile:
 
I might chime in with my opinions on all the Treks when I have more time, but after watching Orville, I have to think the best way to do Trek is...to not do Trek.

Take the same exact concept, a human exploration vessel, do the exact same thing with it, ie. classic sci-fi examinations of technology's effects on people, as well as social commentary (hopefully without being completely one-sided) as well as good old-fashioned space stuff (awesome space combats, cool aliens, etc), only do it without the Trek IP.

You'd have a few years to make one helluva show before the brand was worth enough for corporations to destroy it. :grin:
 
I watched the first two episodes of Discovery this afternoon. Little sad that Netflix isn't dropping the whole thing n one go, but that's what happens when ut's a distribution deal rather than the Netflix Original it claims to be.

Overall, I have to say, it was ok. I can see potential, but I also saw drama for the same of drama. And a Lot of waiting around for someone to do something. And of course, it suffers hugely because the prequel looks way more flash than the original. Complete with holographic displays on the ship and nifty heads up displays in the space suits.

Why they don't make these things in a post-Voyager era, I don't know.
 
Yeah why are they so compelled to make prequels to the other series and insist on making the technology FAR more advanced-looking?

Why can't they do NEW stuff and move forward with new stories, new aliens etc... They don't seem to give a shit about tradition, so why not take a risk? Casting 2 female leads and gay characters ISN'T a risk anymore. Give me a break.
 
Okay, fair enough: you can go back to the roots and still innovate, however I'd argue that they're not going back to the roots of Star Trek at all.

Space is big. They could easily make a new series about the Federation exploring a new, unknown sector. They could have had a new colony or base of operations (space station) with lots of inter-personal conflict and social issues to deal with. And they could throw all the past stuff away, never looking back. I mean, why not?
 
Why is "retro" in, as well as trying to be an "edge-lord"? Hmmm ... maybe some OSR people could tell us what that's about. o_O

I still think Edgelord sounds like an awesome compliment or OP prestige class.
 
I agree there, I'm more interested in something new and different, then when it's there, it gets cancelled, like Dark Matter did. I have been watching the marathon of NuBSG on SyFy, and as when I saw it the first time (NuBSG), I liked it for what it was even though it had a sort of ridiculous theme of the Cylons being uber-people talking about God, meh. As well as watching the old one, which was definitely lighter, and thinking, why are they remaking this? It seems time and energy could be spent making something new. To make things worse, when I look at On Demand, there are Twilight and Avengers/X Men in the sci fi genre section, and it's like, oh please don't make my sci fi favorites have to compete with vampires and supers.

Yeah, put me down for wanting something new.
 
I watched the first two episodes tonight. Commander Michael Burnham definitely felt Mary Sue-ish, and the 3D holograms felt out of place for Star Trek, but other than that I thought it was a pretty good Star Trek pilot. I wasn't sure what to think of the "new" Klingons before, but now I actually have to say that I like 'em.

The first Discovery novel comes out tomorrow already. I'll buy the eBook version and read it over the weekend.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top