Discussion in 'Misc. TV Series' started by Thread Manager, Oct 23, 2017.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]518815[/split]
So after talking to the mods they agreed instead of re-naming the other Trek thread to create a new one for this show. So here is the place we can talk everything Star Trek: Discovery.
Below is a info-graphic with what we know now about Discovery.
Teaser Trailer #1
Teaser Trailer #2 (Ship Reveal)
Star Trek: Discovery premiers on CBS in January of 2017. After the pilot the show will air on CBS All Access in the U.S. and Canada while Netflix will distribute it across the rest of the globe.
Good for the show. Though I've yet to see Discovery, it's nice to have another Star Trek show on television that, from what I hear, is at least received well by some.
Haven't watched it yet either but anytime a show gets a second season I'm willing to give it chance.
Tired of getting burned by one and done seasons.
Forbes and Tv club reviews have been summing up a lot of my thoughts on the show:
Try The Orville. It is more Star Trek than Discovery is, which despite being in the continuity ignores the history of Star Trek more than Orville does.
I'm glad they got a 2nd season but I hope they do some major retooling.
To me, a renewal now sends the wrong message. Sure, DSC might've met CBS's expectations in terms of subscriber count, but there's been no self-reflection or acknowledgement of the shows many flaws by its producers. I fear all this will do is embolden them to continue on as they have been and make more of the same mistakes.
Try both...it's allowed. But go into The Orville knowing that it is attempting to be a dramedy. The "dra" part is okay at best but the "medy" isn't funny.
I've been keeping up with Discovery through reviews and such to see how the first season pans out and I notice a lot of the criticism and defense mirrors what happened with Stargate Universe.
I never saw SGU but you are not the first person I've seen bring that up as a point of comparison.
Agreed for the most part. It's gotten a couple good chuckles out of me, though.
I still prefer Discovery, but both are worth checking out, imo. They are so dramatically different, at least one of them is likely to work for anyone craving some new Trek.
I watched After Trek and they said the war stuff will only be this season. Next season will be something different.
I've seen some of The Orville by virtue of it coming right after Gotham, but not an entire episode. The most I've seen was the one featuring Charlize Theron. But since the show is still fairly new and not that deep into it's run, I'll probably play catch-up on it sooner rather than later.
I don't get much of the criticism.
Other than the way the Klingons look, I don't see any faults.
I love this Trek. Feels like what DS9 would be if shown on HBO. I just wish we got more of alien crew members on the Discovery.
And I was shocked the female security officer bit the dust in episode 4.
So basically you enjoy the imaginary science of the previous shows more than the imaginary science of this show.
Not sure what real world Stamets' research has to do with anything. They named a character after him, that's all.
We fuel our vehicles with the liquefied remains of dinosaurs. So the starship using some sort of quantum biology to travel isn't that hard for me to accept. Besides this show is set 200+ years in the future. Think about the difference between 1817 and 2017. Its possible that they might know a thing or two that we dont.
This was the first episode I couldn't force myself to finish. Just something off about it. Tilly was more annoying than usual, Lorca's begging was poorly handled, Frain was majorly miscast as Sarek, the stupid subplot with the Admiral... it all just added up to make it unwatchable for me.
Good thing there's only three episodes left this year, not sure I could stomach any more.
I like Tilly. She's one of the few bright spots in a cast of otherwise dour and downbeat characters.
She feels like she's from a completely different show than the rest of the characters.
That's what I've said before. It's like she's from some old Joss Whedon show.
I do wish we had SOME idea what was happening with the Spore Drive. I mean is this network that they refer to sentient? They act like the driver has to communicate with the network to go somewhere but communication implies at least some form of intelligence on the part of the network. How did these spores disperse through the galaxy?
These are all fairly huge galaxy shattering implications, implying a whole order of life previously un-thought of, but they seem to have been relegated to blurbs.
And Stamets, too, depending on how the writers want him to behave in any particular behavior.
I swear, one of the biggest issues the show has is consistency, especially in regards to character and tone. They have got to make up their minds on who these characters are and their personalities (most of the characters appear schizophrenic so far), and they need to decide what kind of show they want to make. Action, drama, horror, comedy? Telling a serial story means they need to pick one, they don't have the luxury of an episodic structure where they could mix things up.
Yeah I've said that before too. They're both like rejects from Dollhouse or Buffy supporting players/ guest stars or something.
Disagree with Stamets personality being inconsistent. I mean yes in the latest episode he was acting different, but it's not a coincidence that his change in behavior follows the episode where he injects himself with the whatchamacallit, and has that time delayed mirror thing happen.