Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 0:35:37 GMT
Finally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 1:56:24 GMT
Blocked !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 2:09:59 GMT
Yeah, CBS have just done that for some reason.
Fuck knows why.
|
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on May 18, 2017 2:18:35 GMT
This may suffice:
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 10:35:10 GMT
Blocked here too, Dan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 10:38:57 GMT
Here it is:
I'm not tingling though!
|
|
|
|
Post by mangekyoalleluia on May 18, 2017 10:58:10 GMT
Meh, not a Trekkie so this does nothing for me. May dabble in it just out of curiosity though.
|
|
|
|
Post by knowlto on May 18, 2017 11:06:24 GMT
I wish they'd quit making prequels. I'm a lot more interested in a story when I don't know how it's going to turn out. Also, why does their ship look so much more futuristic than Kirk's Enterprise if it's supposed to be taking place 10 years earlier?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 18, 2017 12:28:40 GMT
I wish they'd quit making prequels. I'm a lot more interested in a story when I don't know how it's going to turn out. Also, why does their ship look so much more futuristic than Kirk's Enterprise if it's supposed to be taking place 10 years earlier? Totally agree about the prequels. There isn't any tension when you know how the larger story turns out. As far as the design goes, same can be said for most if not all sci-fi prequels-- Star Wars prequels and Prometheus come to mind. I want to like this show, but I have to say I'm going to pass. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on May 18, 2017 12:41:35 GMT
I wish they'd quit making prequels. I'm a lot more interested in a story when I don't know how it's going to turn out. Also, why does their ship look so much more futuristic than Kirk's Enterprise if it's supposed to be taking place 10 years earlier? Totally agree about the prequels. There isn't any tension when you know how the larger story turns out. As far as the design goes, same can be said for most if not all sci-fi prequels-- Star Wars prequels and Prometheus come to mind. I want to like this show, but I have to say I'm going to pass. What is the "larger story" of Star Trek, exactly? I mean all the Star Trek shows take place in the same universe but for all intents and purposes are their own entity. Where's the "tension" supposed to come from anyway? It's not like it's a plot-driven show. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 18, 2017 12:49:42 GMT
Totally agree about the prequels. There isn't any tension when you know how the larger story turns out. As far as the design goes, same can be said for most if not all sci-fi prequels-- Star Wars prequels and Prometheus come to mind. I want to like this show, but I have to say I'm going to pass. What is the "larger story" of Star Trek, exactly? I mean all the Star Trek shows take place in the same universe but for all intents and purposes are their own entity. Where's the "tension" supposed to come from anyway? It's not like it's a plot-driven show. The larger story would be the one involving the characters people have been watching for 50 years now, all of which take place after this. The story presents itself as having universal stakes yet we know everything must be resolved as the rest of the story has already played itself out on the small screen as well as on film. As far as being plot driven, it depends on which show you're talking about. DSN was absolutely plot driven, for example. Either way I'm not interested in a new crew when I know their adventures don't mean anything, because they are never mentioned later in this shared universe. This is the problem with prequels. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 12:55:18 GMT
The point of Star Trek is space. If Discovery goes right while the Enterprise went left, you've basically got new aliens, new planets and new adventures.
As such, when it's set is pretty irrelevant.
Not sure I'm that blown away by the trailer though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 18, 2017 13:18:40 GMT
The point of Star Trek is space. If Discovery goes right while the Enterprise went left, you've basically got new aliens, new planets and new adventures. As such, when it's set is pretty irrelevant. Not sure I'm that blown away by the trailer though. I disagree. The point of Star Trek was always social commentary and the human condition, as is the case with any truly great sci-fi. But that's a separate conversation entirely. Regarding when it's set, they could have "gone right where the enterprise goes left" and set it at the same time as the OS or TNG. If anything that would be more compelling to ST fans for the Easter Egg potential alone. It's not like there aren't more stories to tell in the ST universe where the Enterprise isn't involved. Why not set it after DSN, Voyager, etc? (The real answer there is it's easier to write a story involving the Klingons than to have to create your own overarching plotlines.) Ultimately I feel like the trailer tried too hard to make the story seem bigger than it needed to be, considering it's a prequel. It doesn't look terrible by any means, I just don't feel compelled to watch it. |
|
|
|
Post by sdm3 on May 18, 2017 13:33:28 GMT
What is the "larger story" of Star Trek, exactly? I mean all the Star Trek shows take place in the same universe but for all intents and purposes are their own entity. Where's the "tension" supposed to come from anyway? It's not like it's a plot-driven show. The larger story would be the one involving the characters people have been watching for 50 years now, all of which take place after this. The story presents itself as having universal stakes yet we know everything must be resolved as the rest of the story has already played itself out on the small screen as well as on film. As far as being plot driven, it depends on which show you're talking about. DSN was absolutely plot driven, for example. Either way I'm not interested in a new crew when I know their adventures don't mean anything, because they are never mentioned later in this shared universe. This is the problem with prequels. I realize DS9 was plot-driven but where was the "tension" coming from there? That the Federation might win or lose the Dominion War? That was never really in doubt, because the plot is really beside the point when it comes to what Star Trek is really about. Like you said, it's about the human condition and social commentary, both of which can be explored with or without the knowledge that the new crew's adventures "matter" to the larger story. For me personally, I'm interested in the storytelling rather than plot, if that makes sense. As such I don't need it to be especially significant to Kirk's story. Hey, it's a new Trek series two decades since the last decent one. I'll more than give it a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 18, 2017 13:55:00 GMT
The larger story would be the one involving the characters people have been watching for 50 years now, all of which take place after this. The story presents itself as having universal stakes yet we know everything must be resolved as the rest of the story has already played itself out on the small screen as well as on film. As far as being plot driven, it depends on which show you're talking about. DSN was absolutely plot driven, for example. Either way I'm not interested in a new crew when I know their adventures don't mean anything, because they are never mentioned later in this shared universe. This is the problem with prequels. I realize DS9 was plot-driven but where was the "tension" coming from there? That the Federation might win or lose the Dominion War? That was never really in doubt, because the plot is really beside the point when it comes to what Star Trek is really about. Like you said, it's about the human condition and social commentary, both of which can be explored with or without the knowledge that the new crew's adventures "matter" to the larger story. For me personally, I'm interested in the storytelling rather than plot, if that makes sense. As such I don't need it to be especially significant to Kirk's story. Hey, it's a new Trek series two decades since the last decent one. I'll more than give it a chance. I see where you're coming from. I don't need the plot to be relevant to Kirk or Picard or anyone else; again I just thought the trailer was a bit overblown for what should feel like a separate set of adventures that's never mentioned elsewhere in ST canon. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on May 18, 2017 14:03:48 GMT
Remember the "Star Trek: Enterprise" titles? They were pretty decent:
|
|
|
|
Post by MrFurious on May 18, 2017 14:38:43 GMT
Looking forward to seeing Sasha from TWD in this one. Watched everything Trek from TNG onwards but only a few seasons of DS9.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 14:50:52 GMT
The point of Star Trek is space. If Discovery goes right while the Enterprise went left, you've basically got new aliens, new planets and new adventures. As such, when it's set is pretty irrelevant. Not sure I'm that blown away by the trailer though. I disagree. The point of Star Trek was always social commentary and the human condition, as is the case with any truly great sci-fi. But that's a separate conversation entirely. Regarding when it's set, they could have "gone right where the enterprise goes left" and set it at the same time as the OS or TNG. If anything that would be more compelling to ST fans for the Easter Egg potential alone. It's not like there aren't more stories to tell in the ST universe where the Enterprise isn't involved. Why not set it after DSN, Voyager, etc? (The real answer there is it's easier to write a story involving the Klingons than to have to create your own overarching plotlines.) Ultimately I feel like the trailer tried too hard to make the story seem bigger than it needed to be, considering it's a prequel. It doesn't look terrible by any means, I just don't feel compelled to watch it. Star Trek being about social commentary is overplayed. The original series posited a utopian humanity but as soon as they encounter aliens, they're allowed to blow them to shit. TNG then took it to the worst extreme where we only do things for our personal betterment (were you to believe Picard, we practically don't even shit anymore). Trek can be set in any time. Being set post Voyager doesn't present any further opportunities for storytelling than pre Voyager. This show will succeed based on characters, ongoing narrative and originality. Hardcore fans want more of the same but more of the same is exactly what got Trek cancelled. |
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on May 18, 2017 15:17:57 GMT
Agreed, which is why I've enjoyed 2 of the 3 reboot flicks. Didn't like Into Darkness because it pretended not to be a remake of Khan but ultimately was just that. I hope ST fans enjoy this show, but I don't think it'll be a priority of mine to watch it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 16:16:48 GMT
The only thing that looks promising is the 13 episode long arc.
20+ episodic installments that have nothing to do with each other has had its day.
Fewer episodes plus a season long arc is the way to go.
|
|
