Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 20:52:52 GMT
This is a very good series. To me a big surprise and a pleasant one. Its different but thats ok. A Trek show like the 60's or 90/00's wouldnt have worked in the golden age of tv.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 13:48:21 GMT
Slow start aside, I've enjoyed it. They really didn't need the two episodes before getting to Discovery though; pretty pointless. A few words of dialogue about Burnham being a rebel, kicked out of Starfleet etc would have sufficed. So far, I'd say she's actually the least interesting and least likeable of the characters.
Stamets is the stand out character (along with Saru).
|
|
|
Post by azzajones on Nov 21, 2017 23:05:13 GMT
Definitely feel like the first two eps should've been the backstory for the show, which would be revealed throughout the show via dialog or flashbacks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 2:15:10 GMT
A Trek show like the 60's or 90/00's wouldnt have worked in the golden age of tv. If one accepts that, one wonders why they were stupid enough to set it in the 60s era, then. Why not just set it after Nemesis and then do whatever you like? Hint : the answer is that they set out to deliberately make a show that damaged Star Trek as a whole.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 23:52:29 GMT
A Trek show like the 60's or 90/00's wouldnt have worked in the golden age of tv. If one accepts that, one wonders why they were stupid enough to set it in the 60s era, then. Why not just set it after Nemesis and then do whatever you like? Does the original series have a monopoly on that era? Given the enormity of the Trek universe, it makes sense to utilise knowledge of the future to be able to frame stories in this setting. Enterprise got it badly wrong but the theory was always sound. Tin foil hats at the ready.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 0:06:18 GMT
If one accepts that, one wonders why they were stupid enough to set it in the 60s era, then. Why not just set it after Nemesis and then do whatever you like? Does the original series have a monopoly on that era? What an odd question. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. The original series established the look of the Federation and Starfleet of that era. If I set a story in ancient Rome, it needs to look like ancient Rome. I can't set a story in ancient Rome and then put jet fighters and submarines and computers and smartphones and space rockets in it on the grounds that "audiences today won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome." (At least, I can't unless I'm aiming for a fairly particular artistic effect, such as seen in for eg 'Jesus Christ, Superstar'. But Discovery isn't doing that.) "Audiences won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome" is not a reason to make your show about ancient Rome look like something else, even if you believe the statement to be true. It's a reason to not set your show in ancient Rome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 1:15:24 GMT
Does the original series have a monopoly on that era? What an odd question. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. The original series established the look of the Federation and Starfleet of that era. If I set a story in ancient Rome, it needs to look like ancient Rome. I can't set a story in ancient Rome and then put jet fighters and submarines and computers and smartphones and space rockets in it on the grounds that "audiences today won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome." (At least, I can't unless I'm aiming for a fairly particular artistic effect, such as seen in for eg 'Jesus Christ, Superstar'. But Discovery isn't doing that.) "Audiences won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome" is not a reason to make your show about ancient Rome look like something else, even if you believe the statement to be true. It's a reason to not set your show in ancient Rome. Except the 23rd century isn't a real place; ancient Rome is. You're arguing that the show should have a 23rd century aesthetic as imagined by a 1960s TV show. From a television point of view, that's not realistic and even from the point of view of establishing how ships, uniforms and whatnot should look, it's also pretty limiting. Uniform-wise, Discovery clearly suggests that the Enterprise style jumps-suit were still common at that point. Perhaps the show will even show us why that eventually changed but as for the ship's look, of course it had to be updated. None of these shows are set in our reality anyway since the original series tells us there was a world war in the 1990s so I don't see the problem especially when this show is toying with alternative realities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 1:52:45 GMT
What an odd question. I'm not sure what it has to do with what I said. The original series established the look of the Federation and Starfleet of that era. If I set a story in ancient Rome, it needs to look like ancient Rome. I can't set a story in ancient Rome and then put jet fighters and submarines and computers and smartphones and space rockets in it on the grounds that "audiences today won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome." (At least, I can't unless I'm aiming for a fairly particular artistic effect, such as seen in for eg 'Jesus Christ, Superstar'. But Discovery isn't doing that.) "Audiences won't accept something that looks like ancient Rome" is not a reason to make your show about ancient Rome look like something else, even if you believe the statement to be true. It's a reason to not set your show in ancient Rome. Except the 23rd century isn't a real place; ancient Rome is. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. If you are going to set your story in the world of that 1960s TV show then yes, you have decided to do exactly that. And if you didn't want to do that, then you are a damn moron for making that decision in the first place. I disagree, but it really doesn't matter. Let's assume you're right, and such a look is not "realistic". Then set the show in some part of the timeline that doesn't make that lack of realism necessary. They could have set Discovery in the post Nemesis era. Why not? What's so all-fired important about making it a prequel in the first place? What has doing that actually accomplished that couldn't have equally well been accomplished in the post Nemesis era? As far as I can see the ONLY thing Discovery being a prequel has achieved is that the show has taken a giant shit on TOS. Well done. Which we know to be false, since we've seen what uniforms look like in The Cage, which took place two years before Discovery. Sow hat Discovery actually suggests is that the Enterprise style jump suits were abandoned... and then something vaguely like them was reintroduced, only with weirdly cut collars and bizarre gold crap all over them... and then that was abandoned and the TOS uniforms introduced a few years later. Which is ridiculous. I would be DELIGHTED if this show is set in an alternate reality. That would be the single smartest and best thing Discovery could possibly do. Set it in an alternate universe and the show could look like whatever it wanted and do whatever it wanted, and from the point of view of the Prime universe none of it would matter a damn. I can't say I would suddenly like the show. The ship is still ugly, the protagonist is still deeply hateable, and horribly badly acted, the writing is still terrible... but at least I would just be able to not care about it, rather than despising it and having to use phrases like "raped my childhood" unironically for the first time. Unfortunately the producers have been completely insistent since long before the show aired that it is set in the Prime universe. Now if you want to argue that they are lying, then I think you have a point. I suspect they have indeed been lying all along. So we can have those tinfoil hats in a matching pair.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 13:07:41 GMT
Except the 23rd century isn't a real place; ancient Rome is. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Your point was, a show should look like the era it's set in. Well, since that era doesn't exist, you can make it look however you want. The original series does not have a monopoly on what the 23rd century should look like at all. Saying otherwise is absurd. Not really. Most people will accept the limitations of a sci-fi show made in the '60s and allow for an "updated" interpretation of that era. Firstly, I think you're taking the whole thing a little too seriously. Secondly, why shouldn't it take a dump on TOS? That show had some abysmal crap in it. I'm not sure it's worth building a shrine to. Who says the uniform is... um... uniform throughout Starfleet? It might not be. Plus, Discovery isn't a standard explore-new-worlds crew (they might well be section 31). In either case, it's not a big deal. Again, probably taking it a little too seriously. TOS doesn't deserve hero worship anymore than Discovery deserves to be despised.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2017 15:53:24 GMT
So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the point. Your point was, a show should look like the era it's set in. Well, since that era doesn't exist But the era does exist within the fictional context of the show. I can show you pictures of it and everything. Of course it does. It invented that era. If you are going to set a Star Trek series in that era it needs to resonate with what that era has been established to look like. To do otherwise is simply to make an objective creative error. Yes, really. If so then most people are wrong. Too seriously compared to what? I'm not aware there were rules on the subject, so I assume you mean too seriously compared to how you think it should be taken? Well, I think you don't treat it seriously enough compared to how I think it should be taken. So we're even. So to be clear, your opinion is not "Discovery isn't taking a dump on TOS" but rather "Discovery is taking a dump on TOS, the producers are lying about that, and I have no problem with it"? Wow. You even negated your own point by referring to what the word "uniform" means right there in the question. How efficient! It is a creative error. Generally I've no real problem with creative errors. They happen all the time. My general rule is that I'll happily forgive a creative error if I get the impression from a work that they are actually trying to produce something that is good and falling short. If the errors seem to stem from laziness, lack of caring, incompetence, etc, then I am a lot less forgiving. Discovery seems to be nothing but creative errors. This sounds like hyperbole, but honestly, I cannot think of a creative decision this show has made that isn't wrong. Including the big ones - the visual design aesthetic of the show is wrong and terrible in every single aspect, the characters, the casting, the writing... it's all just utter rubbish. And the sad thing is that this show could have been awesome. The Axanar fan movie looked pretty damn good - covered similar events, going into the background of the Klingon War, but did so in a way that was far better than Discovery on every single level. CBS could have made a high quality version of it if they'd wanted - but instead they crushed it, the first time they've ever done that to a fan production, because they knew their own show was garbage in comparison. Hmmm. So when you're right you're right, and when you're wrong I'm taking it too seriously? Nice. Maybe an extra tinfoil hat for you then.
|
|