Discovery Trailer

Well, I finally started the show. I did the 7 day free trial, and I'm going to binge the season then cancel before the trial is up.

I LOVE THE SHOW!

I think it's awesome. It will take its place along side the other great science fiction TV shows: Babylon 5, Firefly, and the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica.

The acting, on all counts, is grades above what is normally par for a Trek TV show. There is not a single character that isn't done well.

I love the flawed Captain. I love the hippy, red-haired chick that can't stop talking. And, to my own surprise, I'm good with Michael being a name for a female character. I accepted that a lot more easily than I thought I would.

I was even worried about the gay couple that was in the news about the show, but, again to my surprise, it's not "in your face to make a point and say LOOK AT ME" and done very well and realistically.

I'm about half way through the season. I'm about to watch show #7.

I love how the story intertwines with established canon, yet gives us something different. That moment where Michael learns that Sarek chose Spock to go to the Vulcan Academy instead of her was just devastating. I love the human experience--that's what Star Trek is all about.

The spore drive, too: Man, that's a cool Trek idea. I'm interested to see how they're going to make it not viable (because, obviously, Starfleet doesn't use it in the future). Something is rotten in Denmark there.

And, the episodes with the spore drive and the creature, too. That was a damn cool Trek moment when it was finally free and zipped on out the far reaches of the galaxy. Incredible.

Although I'm not sold on the Toxic Avenger look of the Klingons, I do like how they're being portrayed. The broken Houses. The political fighting. The "Choose Your Pain" did more to show the beasts as they are--ruthless--than anything I've seen about Klingons (and this includes the moment when Kirk's son got killed). Yet, we also see that they have a deep, long, detailed culture, too.

I just think it is a bad-assed show.





That said, there are a couple of things I don't really like. As I said above, I'm not sold on the new Klingons. They don't look real, and they look like the Toxic Avenger who can't move his head on his neck.

The Starfleet uniforms, too, look like what a steward or porter would wear on a Federation luxury starliner.

I don't like the rank hidden inside the Starfleet arrowhead. It's impossible to see, gold pips on a gold metal badge.

Just about everything else is damn cool.

And, I think the show has the best acting of any Star Trek show, ever, including the new movies. It's good stuff.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Man, Harcourt Fenton Mudd is definitely not like his alter self in the original show. This is definitely not the same universe as TOS. The original Mudd is a bumbling, sometimes lovable, rouge of questionable morals who is prone to fall backwards into trouble. And, he hated his wife, Stella.

This Mudd is a James Bond criminal Mastermind.





But, I'll say this: At least the show isn't giving us stuff that was worn out long ago with the other Trek shows, like the Borg, the Mirrior Universe, etc.

What we're getting is new, fresh, and in my case, addictive.
 

Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean X is too. It doesn’t mean X is positive.

“Being shot in the gut sucks!”
“But what about being shot in the face? That's so much worse.”

Beating the flayed horse of TNG's first season doesn't change the problems with Discovery. It's just a deflection. Hence, logical fallacy.

I think you're missing my point.

Every Star Trek series, with the possible exception of TOS, started weak and got a lot stronger as time went on. Although in Enterprise's case, it took about four more seasons to get good. :D But, the later seasons are almost always better than the first.

If Discovery stays true to that, then the next season is going to be fuggin' fantastic.

and:

And if you want to show good triumph over evil, you need to show how hard being good can be - the victory will come eventually, but it requires sacrifices and dealing with setback without sacrificing your ideals. If good was easy, everyone would be good. But being designed for a serialized format, the triumph of good can happen at the end of a season, not at the end of each episode.

QFT. This is exactly what I'm taking away from the show.
 

I think you're missing my point.

Every Star Trek series, with the possible exception of TOS, started weak and got a lot stronger as time went on. Although in Enterprise's case, it took about four more seasons to get good. :D But, the later seasons are almost always better than the first.

If Discovery stays true to that, then the next season is going to be fuggin' fantastic.
Or it could be like Voyager and just stay the same in terms of quality. Or it could be like TOS and see a decline in quality.
Or it could act like an independent and unrelated show and it's quality will be entirely unrelated to the quality of shows from 25 years ago...

But, again, none of the shows improved on their own. In every case where there was a marked improvement (TNG, DS9, ENT) it occurred after a major staffing change (Michael Piller in TNG, Ira Steven Behr in DS9, and Manny Coto in ENT. Plus assorted producer changes.)
Is there any sign of staffing changes in Discovery? No. And the following season will likely more Kurtzman, since he doesn't even have the remains of Fuller's script to work off of.
 

In one episode, the computer is asked to list the most decorated Captains in Starfleet.

It lists...

Robert April (one of the original names for the character that became James T. Kirk)

Jonathan Archer (From Enterprise)

Christopher Pike (From TOS episode, The Menagerie)

Matthew Decker (Whom we see die in TOS episode, The Doomsday Machine. Commordor Decker, father of Will Decker, Captain of the Enterprise who merged with V'Ger).

Philippa Georgiou (one of the Captains featured in Discovery).



What about Garth of Izar? Wasn't he supposed to be Starfleet's most decorated Captain....ever?
 

Or it could be like Voyager and just stay the same in terms of quality. Or it could be like TOS and see a decline in quality.
Or it could act like an independent and unrelated show and it's quality will be entirely unrelated to the quality of shows from 25 years ago...

But, again, none of the shows improved on their own. In every case where there was a marked improvement (TNG, DS9, ENT) it occurred after a major staffing change (Michael Piller in TNG, Ira Steven Behr in DS9, and Manny Coto in ENT. Plus assorted producer changes.)
Is there any sign of staffing changes in Discovery? No. And the following season will likely more Kurtzman, since he doesn't even have the remains of Fuller's script to work off of.

Actually, rewatching Voyager, it got a lot better in seasons 2-4 before really dying off in the last few seasons.

But, again, time will tell. ST:Disco is starting miles ahead of pretty much any other ST series. Even if it just stays where it is, it will still be among the best Trek ever produced.
 

Saying X is better than Y doesn't mean X is too. It doesn’t mean X is positive.

“Being shot in the gut sucks!”
“But what about being shot in the face? That's so much worse.”

Beating the flayed horse of TNG's first season doesn't change the problems with Discovery. It's just a deflection. Hence, logical fallacy.

Only if you forget that you're talking mostly to avid Trek viewers, who were convinced to stay avid Trek viewers by these shows, even if their latter seasons were often considered better than their earlier.

In short. Discovery is great. Directly compared to the first season of TNG, it's not even a contest. I have some doubts they can achieve the same degree of improvement as TNG did in its later seasons, but on the other hand, it doesn't need to.
 



Remove ads

Top