Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?

[Mirror Mirror]

And what makes you so utterly convinced it will have this "retro look"?

Just venting my fears is all. I really hope they do not, but in the past they have stuck to that gods awful 1960's look. I did not mind it in TOS as its a 1960's TV show, they all looked goofy. But even by the 70's they knew that look was super dated. I am just hoping they do not stick with that dated look when there is simply zero need to do so.

 

[Galileo7]

No.

 

[David.Blue]

The complaint about a "prequel" makes little sense to me. By this logic Schindler's List is pointless because it happened in the past. Ditto anything by Shakespeare. The premise here seems to be that a new Star Trek series must deal with events that reshape history in a big way. A premise I myself do not buy. When I think of many of my favorite episodes of each series, most are about stories small in scale but deep in meaning. After all "The Conscience of the King" (TOS) changed nothing about the Federation's relationship with the Romulans or some such. Ditto "Who Watches the Watchers" (TNG) or "Duet" (DS9).

 

[Mirror Mirror]

cross-posting this from facebook, b/c i can't think of anything else new to say about this. i am totally stunned with the level of negativity and hostility toward the show. personally, i am totally stoked, and i think it sounds quite awesome.

& i thought "in a mirror darkly" looked *great*.

--personally, i don't get the antipathy toward telling trek stories that predate the original series. i thought (and still think) that ENT had, in theory, maybe the best series premise of them all (the first warp-driven starship to leave earth? yeah, maybe arguably they messed up a bit on execution, but that's a killer premise). re telling some 24th century stories that follow up the end of the dominion war, etc etc - might be fun, and nobody's saying that can't/won't be done eventually, but i totally understand the position of the studio that 90s-era trek got a bit too bogged down in its own continuity - it's off-putting and confusing for new viewers.

Everything but the defiant * in "In a mirror darkly" looked great. I also thought ENT had such potential. However, what I am saying is that the clear 1960's set on a modern show was simply jarring and made the whole thing look really freaking goofy. As you can guess by my name, I rather liked the two episodes as a whole, I think they just missed the mark by not updating the ship as not to look goofy as all hell.

Edit" *Ok the Gorn needed work as well if we are being honest

 

[uniderth]

Nope. I don't hate Star Trek: Discovery. I haven't even seen it yet. Am I optimistic about it. I'm trying to be. None of the mains stuff said about the series has made me doubt. But the little things like "re-envision" and stuff are what make me leery. It's like someone saying we're going to do a show set during the Civil War. But we're going to re-envision it. It will have some of the basic stuff, but the look will be updates to meet modern standards, and people will get to say "Oh Shit." Well if you're going to do that it really isn't set during the civil war is it.

If it's not going to fit with what has already been established, just be honest and admit that upfront. Have the courage to say this isn't set ten years before Kirk's mission, but is set in our own version of what that time period would be like. Admit that its not part of the same continuity, becasue you're taking such a radical departure from what has already been established.

If you're not making it different, then have the guts to make it look like what has already been established beige, goosenecks, printouts, and all.

I haven't seen it so I don't know what they're doing. It's just that phrases like "ten years before Kirk's mission" and "re envision" seem incompatible to me. Just like "Roman Empire" and "super zapper spaceship blasters" would be incompatible.

 

[euphorik]

...Ok the Gorn needed work as well if we are being honest

no argument there! CGI does not age well.

 

[stardream]

I just hate the fact that we probably won't get a Breen on the bridge.....

 

[Mirror Mirror]

no argument there! CGI does not age well.

No, it does not. Yet the other CGI of that episode looks fine. Like all things its about the skill involved. The Gorn was just not well down, even at the time. I think the gorn need to be CGI, but it needs to be well done CGI

 

[JeffinOakland]

I was initially a little disappointed it isn't set after DS9/VOY but I'm still excited for it.

 

[Jax]

I haven't heard much in the way that makes me particularly excited for STD...

*The awful concept of the ship

* It now seems to be post Kelvin and pre Kirk (10 years before) but still set in the prime Universe, why not pre Kelvin then.

* Fuller seems intent to make this TOS 2.0 from his interviews and while I like the TOS movies and characters, I haver never loved the TOS show.

* Am hearing rumors the bridge crew might not even be the centric role of the show but below deck characters? Doesn't really interest me as an idea. You could argue DS9 kind of did this with some of it characters but the station setting allowed this rather than a ship setting.

I do like the idea of another female lead however and the rumors of a more diverse cast. I will watch with an open mind despite my issues but I am not excited anymore quite frankly.

 

[euphorik]

It's a good thing there was no internet back when "The Next Generation" started. It would have been mauled by Trek fans:
- "What is this ugly ship? That's not the Enterprise!"
- "Who is this old bald British guy? He isn't dashing enough to be captain!"
- "100 years after TOS? Who wants to see that?"
- "A psychologist and a teenager on the bridge? Children on the ship?"
etc. etc. Well, we know how that turned out don't we?

nailed it. absolutely *nailed* it.

all of this stuff (and more) was said (and repeated, and repeated, and repeated) at the time. it was wrong then, and it sounds even more ridiculous now, with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Kor]

It's a good thing there was no internet back when "The Next Generation" started. It would have been mauled by Trek fans:
- "What is this ugly ship? That's not the Enterprise!"
- "Who is this old bald British guy? He isn't dashing enough to be captain!"
- "100 years after TOS? Who wants to see that?"
- "A psychologist and a teenager on the bridge? Children on the ship?"
etc. etc. Well, we know how that turned out don't we?

That generally sums up my views of TNG.

Anyway, I am cautiously optimistic about STD. When we're finally able to catch STD in January, then we will know for sure.

Kor

 

[Kemaiku]

I don't "hate" it, but I'm growing less and less interested in the general premise now that we know it's another prime universe series and another fucking prequel.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

So, I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the new show will be a tech manual for all the 60s era tech we didn't have explanations for?

I'm really confused.

I was replying to the person above who was unhappy that the show was going in a retro direction, in terms of art. I pointed out that it might not be, and also that TOS's technology only looks old, but actually was far more advanced than anything we could dream of today - i.e. that visual cues do not determine how advanced something is, in the setting - and that even if Discovery goes with state of the art polymer jumpsuits, it can still believably be a prequel to TOS.

 

[Nyotarules]

Hating a tv show that has not been aired yet is illogical.

 

[Campe]

I don't hate Discovery. I don't know enough about it to really even be convinced to care one way or another at this point. Everything we've seen so far is window dressing. I'd like some substantive information on plot and characters before I can answer that question fairly.

At the moment my reaction is: "Okay, there's a new Star Trek in January. Great. What's it going to be about?"

 

[Dukhat]

I just love that we're getting a new Star Trek show. I don't give a rat's ass what time period or what universe it's set in. I don't give a rat's ass what the ship looks like or what its name or registry number is. All I care about is good storytelling and characters I care about.

 

[uniderth]

I don't give a rat's ass ...

Good, because I don't need any more rat's asses.

 

[Crazyewok]

Do t know why people are bitching thats is a prequel, we knew that anyway from the ships registration number.

 

[Jax]

What is this ugly ship? That's not the Enterprise!"
A psychologist and a teenager on the bridge? Children on the ship?

I have never found the ENT-D to be ugly but the teenager on the bridge was stupid

Discovery wished it was as good looking as the Galaxy class starship.