Kurtzman gets 5 1/2 year deal with 3 new shows in the works

[CorporalClegg]

"Preconceptions" ...
That pretty much answers any problems that many folks have with the DISCOVERY version of Spock's Family.

"Dismissive" and "reductive" pretty much answers this post.

 

[DaveyNY]

"Dismissive" and "reductive" pretty much answers this post.

And attacking the poster (even if it's bass-ackwards) instead of the post is pretty much not an allowable answer around here.

Especially since my post is neither dismissive nor reductive by any standard.
It's a statement of somewhat proven fact by past individual admissions here on this very BBS.

 

[Noname Given]

I have to disagree with you Dukhat. We've never seen the characters in this time period before (other than Spock in 'The Cage'). We don't know how they acted. People can change.

We're still several years out from their appearances in TOS.

Plus in TOS first pilot, "The Cage", Spock is seen openly smiling <--- so yeah they've decided to fill in the younger years of Spock we never saw (except for a brief glimpse in the TAS episode, "Yesteryear') - as well as the 12 years that he served under Captain Christopher Pike, which we never saw previously either.

So no this is not a version of Spock that everybody already knows, nor should we. We now get to see what happened to change Spock into the character many know and love from TOS going forward.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Of the subsequent Spocks, I like Peck. I could never truly buy into Quinto because he leaned too heavy on the angst, never truly feeling like a person that's at peace which is essential for me regarding Spock. Obviously intentional by the filmmakers, but it's just something I could never get past.

Peck, aside from his strife with Burnham, at least has a light touch to his character that makes me buy that this is a younger Spock that worked under Pike's command. I do like that the show addresses the smile that we saw on him in "The Cage".

 

[Dukhat]

And attacking the poster (even if it's bass-ackwards) instead of the post is pretty much not an allowable answer around here.

Especially since my post is neither dismissive nor reductive by any standard.
It's a statement of somewhat proven fact by past individual admissions here on this very BBS.

Yet one could argue that your post about ‘preconceptions’ could easily have been a subtle attack on what I wrote. I’m not saying that’s what you did; I’m just pointing out that one could interpret it that way.

And, by the way, not that this is directed at you personally, but I stand by what I wrote. There is no grand plan to morph Peck’s Spock into the character we saw at the start of ‘The Cage’ because of his past experiences in DSC and SNW. Why should they do that? Trying to fit everything into a perfect little box so it all ties in 100% with TOS is not their intention. They'll tell you that it all fits, but that's about the extent of their trying.

 

[fireproof78]

Of the subsequent Spocks, I like Peck. I could never truly buy into Quinto because he leaned too heavy on the angst, never truly feeling like a person that's at peace which is essential for me regarding Spock. Obviously intentional by the filmmakers, but it's just something I could never get past.

Peck, aside from his strife with Burnham, at least has a light touch to his character that makes me buy that this is a younger Spock that worked under Pike's command. I do like that the show addresses the smile that we saw on him in "The Cage".

I like Quinto a lot. Peck is still on the warning process but I think he is well set up to move from the Cage to Where No Man Has Gone Before. Especially with Number One as a mentor figure.

 

[EnderAKH]

Peck looked so much better with the beard. I'm just sayin'.

 

[Jadeb]

Peck looked so much better with the beard. I'm just sayin'.

I quite liked Peck’s portrayal, but his clean-shaven appearance struck me as a bit cosplay Spock. Hope they can tweak the look (particularly the wig) for SNW.

 

[CorporalClegg]

And attacking the poster (even if it's bass-ackwards) instead of the post is pretty much not an allowable answer around here.

Especially since my post is neither dismissive nor reductive by any standard.
It's a statement of somewhat proven fact by past individual admissions here on this very BBS.

In what alternative dimension could this possibly be construed as 'attacking the poster', given I deliberately parroted the words and ended the fucking sentence with 'this post'?

Also, it's reductive because it inherently reduces all arguments on a topic down to only a single possible cause. It is dismissive because it therefore inherently dismisses any other point of contention.

Also Also, singular confessional opinions that confirm your bias are not facts. Everest's peak sits @ 8800m is a fact.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Christ, two hours of Robert Meyer Burnett?

No one should endure RMB for even two minutes.