Attended the premiere - no spoilers

[BillJ]

I that it was a great choice. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Same here. But Trek's serious business, and nothing says serious like an orchestral theme.

 

[Gepard]

Of all the subgroups of fandom of which I am a part, I think the loneliest will remain 'Faith of the Heart was a perfectly decent choice'

Terrible cover, though. The Rod Stewart original sounds 100x better.

 

[Longinus]

That is how I think prequels should be, generally speaking. Narrative wise they should be the what the films would have been had they been written first. To write them otherwise, unless its a flash back where it takes place in the narrative present but presents material from the narrative past, just makes zero sense to me. You're writing a story that is intended to be the beginning of the story, so it should read(/view?) like the beginning of the story.

Prequels almost never work like that. Granted, due the numbering one could imagine that the Star Wars prequels were meant to work like that, but they didn't. And on the list of thing wrong with them 'confusing numbering' is not gonna even make it on the first page.

But with Trek there is absolutely no reason to insist that they should be seen in in-universe chronological order. That makes about as much sense than insisting that I need to see 'Agatha Christie's Poirot' before watching 'Midsomer Murders' because the former is set in the thirties and the latter in the present(ish) day.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Of all the subgroups of fandom of which I am a part, I think the loneliest will remain 'Faith of the Heart was a perfectly decent choice'

I would love to see this as a Star Trek theme some day:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I definitely preferred it over the completely bland and forgettable intros of DS9 and Voyager.

Voyager's was bland and lifeless. DS9's was freakin' awesome. So haunting!

 

[Krandor]

Theme song for next Trek series....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^^^ Well, between Shatner and President Trump, "Rocket Man" has now been ruined.

 

[uniderth]

I'm guessing you didn't get my joke.

I guess so. But then again, as soon as I read that second line I got caught up in the song.

You do not appear to have any ability to suspend your disbelief. If I'm to take everything you say at face value (and part of me thinks you're just having fun with us, which is fine), then I don't really know how to explain to you that what you're asking for simply does not happen. The level of meticulousness you're demanding would be literally impossible. All TV series have had "early installment weirdness" and it's just a method of working the kinks out of scripts. No one can, or should, be beholden to that. Star Trek is a television show. It's not real life. It has often, frequently, throughout its existence, contradicted itself wildly to a point where I'm not sure how you're able to still be a fan, assuming you really are serious about this and assuming that you apply the same demands to every single episode or film in every single series. This "crossing of i's and dotting of t's" you need in order to be satisfied just isn't ever going to happen, in any franchise, anywhere.

I'm both serious and having fun. I realize that my commitment to detail could be considered by a few people to be extreme so i have no problem poking fun at myself. But at the same time Rogue One was so close to getting it right. It's so sad I will never have the desire to own it or watch it again.

Whereas most people, especially the creators, look back on those early episodes as, if not missteps, at least displaying teething problems. They had ideas later on that were better, more successful, and that frankly they like more. Those ideas became famous, and became the 'truth' of the franchise to most viewers. The idea of going back to The Cage, or Encounter at Farpoint, and using that as the end goal for a new TV show, without any of the later refinements, just seems unpalatable to most and would lose the majority of viewers in a sort of 'what the hell are Vulcanians' haze of confusion. Most shows go through a moment where they "grow the beard". It's understandable that a prequel writer doesn't want to shave it off again. I'm not saying that you are wrong to want that, I'm just a little sad that you can't enjoy prequels almost by default.

See if I was producing a TV show and had that early Installment weirdness, then needed to make a prequel. Even if the early stuff has some bad moments, my brain would immediately go into problem solving mode and try and find a way to make it work. It would be torture for me to just pretend it never happened.

[/quote]But considering you can't accept the Animated Series because of the literal reality of the cartoon presentation,[/quote]

I enjoy the Animated series but as a sort of "what if." I don't consider the events depicted to have "actually" occured in universe. More like a vague presentation of what the "real" episodes would have been if they were converted to cartoon form.

After all, the idea that the entire Star Trek Universe was converted into cartoons for two season is so bizarre that i can't accept it as canon. Though that would make for quite the interesting story.

I think I'm probably fighting a losing battle convincing you to accept phasers and tribbles as part of the immutable 'background' of the show

Hand Lasers or Bust

Prequels almost never work like that.

That's probably why I've never enjoyed any.

Granted, due the numbering one could imagine that the Star Wars prequels were meant to work like that, but they didn't. And on the list of thing wrong with them 'confusing numbering' is not gonna even make it on the first page.

But with Trek there is absolutely no reason to insist that they should be seen in in-universe chronological order. That makes about as much sense than insisting that I need to see 'Agatha Christie's Poirot' before watching 'Midsomer Murders' because the former is set in the thirties and the latter in the present(ish) day.

I've never seen either of those, so they don't work as a reference for me.

 

[Jarvisimo]

Theme song for next Trek series....

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

This is amazing!!!!!!!! And beautifully shot.

 

[Krandor]

This is amazing!!!!!!!! And beautifully shot.

It really is. It was filmed up on the international space station.

 

[uniderth]

It really is. It was filmed up on the international space station.

There is no up in space.

 

[Longinus]

That's probably why I've never enjoyed any.

Then perhaps you should adjust your expectations. Simply put, your definition of 'prequel' is wrong.

I've never seen either of those, so they don't work as a reference for me.

It really doesn't matter, the comparison works just as well with 'any show with historic setting' and 'any show with modern setting'. (Though everyone should see 'Poirot'. David Suchet is amazing in it.)

 

[Rahul]

Very lucky to be able to attend. Tremendous showing of support from CBS with a number of older series regulars attending including Shatner, Nichols, Frakes and more. Many production people as well. The two-parter was shown.

The crowd was genetically destined to love this iteration of Star Trek ... regardless it was extremely well received. Gorgeous. Interesting. Enough meat to start a debate. Some fireworks. Really interesting start.

Blew Orville out of the sky IMHO.

I can’t say that All-Access is a good idea but this looks to be a show worth watching.

Two questions:
Barring a visual reboot (of yourse it's not going to look like a 60s tv-show), but regarding the content of what was shown:

1) Does it fit narratively with TOS? (Aka, is the univers a "pre-TOS"-one, without Romulans running around etc.)
2) Does it fit with the TNG-era shows? (Those which went much further in the lore/redid some stuff, like the klingons)

And finally:
3) Which previous Trek-series would you describe it to be the closest to?

 

[Rahul]

Blew Orville out of the sky IMHO.

What does one have to do with the other?

That's like saying First Contact was better than Galaxy Quest.

Hey there! First Contact might be fine, and the best TNG-movie. But Galaxy Quest was definitely better!

(Also: I'm really wondering if the second episode of Discovery will have more viewers than the second episode of The Orville!!)

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

There is no up in space.

There's no crying In space baseball, because in space no one can hear you scream.

 

[BillJ]

(Also: I'm really wondering if the second episode of Discovery will have more viewers than the second episode of The Orville!!)

Gonna depend on how much "The Vulcan Hello" wows viewers.

 

[Roald]

Over the years, I've actually really started hating the attitudes towards Galaxy Quest, and later Axanar, and now The Orville.... I don't hate those films or series, but I hate it when ST fans say things like: 'Orville looks more ST than real ST' or 'Axanar is the film that the FANS want' or 'GQ is the best Trek film ever made'... Each to his own, but I always feel that it's a stab in the back of ST...

 

[Rahul]

Gonna depend on how much "The Vulcan Hello" wows viewers.

WIll the second episode be available on cable? Or is it already on All-Access?
Because that'd be IMO the make-or-break point for Discovery.

Betting on much more viewers for Discovery for the premier episode, but for more viewers of The Orville to continue to watching the second episode, than new people subscribing to All Access for the next Trek episode.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

There's no crying In space baseball, because in space no one can hear you scream.

And there's no crying in Spaceballs, because you're too busy laughing.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Over the years, I've actually really started hating the attitudes towards Galaxy Quest, and later Axanar, and now The Orville.... I don't hate those films or series, but I hate it when ST fans say things like: 'Orville looks more ST than real ST' or 'Axanar is the film that the FANS want' or 'GQ is the best Trek film ever made'... Each to his own, but I always feel that it's a stab in the back of ST...

Yeah, it feels very wrong. It's like "I'd rather watch someone else's fanfic or parody than the real thing." I don't understand that mindset in the slightest.

 

[Rahul]

Over the years, I've actually really started hating the attitudes towards Galaxy Quest, and later Axanar, and now The Orville.... I don't hate those films or series, but I hate it when ST fans say things like: 'Orville looks more ST than real ST' or 'Axanar is the film that the FANS want' or 'GQ is the best Trek film ever made'... Each to his own, but I always feel that it's a stab in the back of ST...

TOS movies > Star Trek 09 > Galaxy Quest > TNG movies > Into Darkness/Beyond

There. Fight me.
I'm not including Axanar, because that's clearly a fan production, and not a professional, polished product. ANd as such clearly lacking on many fronts, and really only there for nostalgia. Galaxy Quest though got major props for very, very elaborate and expensive make-up effects, special effects, and a good blend of costumes and CG for it's aliens, added to very high-profile actors (Alan Rickman! Sigourney Weaver! Monk! Tim Allen! The nerdy guy!) and avery, very great script that would hold the movie together even without the Trek connection. In fact, I'd say it was much more professional than any of the Trek television episodes (although not the movies).