Discovery 1x01 & 1x02 – 2-part premiere [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]

silverharp · 26-09-2017 09:34AM

I caught somewhere that this being a Paramount Bad Robot production their licence precludes them from going down the Prime timeline.

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 09:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The long distance mind meld is straight out of beta canon.

Why can people not just get over the Klingons and tech, it's ****ing tiring at this stage.

I think there's two sides of this particular coin: I'm not totally against the changes, but they were jarring as hell all the same, especially as they added nothing or didn't feel particularly necessary. Overall, I kind liked the new aesthetic (though the Shenzhou was pretty uggly and over-designed), even the uniforms, the blue of the uniform really popped & the properly multi-species bridge was a good touch too. The holograms though weren't so important that a viewscreen couldn't have sufficed; heck, they could have made the video calls on their communicators and at least that would have had an echo in our real world & Skype.

Oddly enough, the most egregious anachronism for me was what appeared to be a robotic crew-member on the Shenzhou; I'm no canon expert, so maybe there's already precedent of AIs in the Federation prior to Data, but there wasn't definitely a Daft Punk style robot on the bridge.

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 09:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The one thing I found a bit unfortunate was the fact that this, I believe, was the first ever Trek franchise not to have Majel Barrett as the voice of the computer. Understandable, given that she's dead, but it just hit me when I was watching it.

Yeah that was a bit sad; but I had read she recorded a tonne of words, phrases and technobabble before her passing, for the explicit purpose that if they wanted to they could keep using her voice in future. I guess that was either not true, or else the production decided against using that audio dictionary.

26-09-2017 09:42AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah that was a bit sad; but I had read she recorded a tonne of words, phrases and technobabble before her passing, for the explicit purpose that if they wanted to they could keep using her voice in future. I guess that was either not true, or else the production decided against using that audio dictionary.

silverharp wrote: »

I caught somewhere that this being a Paramount Bad Robot production their licence precludes them from going down the Prime timeline.

If what silverharp said is true, then I wonder whether they were also precluded from using the audiosamples she had recorded?

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 09:46AM

silverharp wrote: »

I caught somewhere that this being a Paramount Bad Robot production their licence precludes them from going down the Prime timeline.

It's not a Bad Robot production, it's CBS (All Access online service) & Netflix. AFAIK, Paramount only have the license to the Kirk era & the movies' settings, whereas CBS have the license to everything else, DS9, Enterprise, etc. There's prob. a bit more to it than that but that's the just; a total legal mess basically, and there's no way Discovery could have been set in the Kelvinverse as CBS simply don't have the rights to it.

meep · 26-09-2017 09:49AM

Biggest problem for me was the clunky dialog and slegdhammer exposition.

Right at the beginning, Captain and First Officer were trekking on the waterless planet. Their mission was to enable the well. Despite the fact that they would have briefed on the mission before landing, the proceeded to outline all the details of what they wre about in a conversation style that suggested they had just met.

And they did it again when they boarded the Klingon ship. They chatted through the plan. And why did captain and first officer go over there together and alone? Surely a few redshirts would have been advisable?

Bacchus · 26-09-2017 10:04AM

Watched the first episode last night and while I enjoyed it, it does not feel like the Star Trek of old. You can actually directly compare the opening episode to TOS Balance of Terror. It's essentially the same plot (although in TOS it was a self contained story). Yes, Discovery is visually impressive and there is a nice pace to it but TOS had buckets more tension and was far more interesting despite a slower, more ruminative pace. While in TOS, Kirk and Spock would trash out their ideas and talk about it, here Michael just shoots her captain because she disagrees. WTF!?

So, yes I enjoyed it but this is nothing like TOS or TNG. It might take a while to find its feet and we could end up more on the DS9 end of the Star Trek spectrum (with war and all) which I'd be more than happy with.

Highlight of the show for me is Saru. They've managed to come up with a bridge member who isn't just a logical and emotionless alien (Spock, Data, Tuvok, T'Pol).

Optimus Prime · 26-09-2017 10:04AM

For me, i enjoyed it, i liked the story, the characters etc. its just stupid to replace the look of the old ones, their make up was atrocious, it looked terrible, like a big fibre glass helmet that could be cracked open with a tap of a hammer. they sounded like their mouth was stuffed with cotton balls, a previous poster mentioned this as well. there was ZERO point in changing them like this, even their ships didnt look klingon. They gained nothing with this change other than to annoy long time star trek fans.

The show has other issues all mentioned in previous posts, the tech etc, but for me all of those could have been forgiven, i know we live in a different time.

BUT THE klingons, come on.. i just cant wrap my head around it.

26-09-2017 10:11AM

Optimus Prime wrote: »

BUT THE klingons, come on.. i just cant wrap my head around it.

You're right. I just wish the Klingons went back to being regular people who just had tans.

Oh. And beards.

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 10:42AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You're right. I just wish the Klingons went back to being regular people who just had tans.

Oh. And beards.

I think if they just kept (some of) the hair, it might have alleviated most of the aesthetic quibbles; the baldness just feels a little too far from the 'mould' of the Worf style Klingons, especially when combined with those stiff looking costumes. The glam-rocker uniforms were always a little too goofy for my tastes, but these new ones don't entirely work for me either. It combines into something that strays a touch too far from the 'norm'.

Greyjoy · 26-09-2017 10:51AM

It was a mixed bag for me. I liked it a lot more than I expected but I've still got reservations. The technical continuity with the original series didn't bother me as much as I expected apart from the holo-communicators. They're something so much more advanced than the original series it felt really jarring, it felt like I was watching "Mass Effect: the tv series" rather than a prequel to TOS.

Burnham as a character I found very unlikeable. Hopefully the rest of the series will give her a redemptive arc. But the writers are going to have to jump through a lot of hoops to justify her serving on another Starfleet ship at this stage.

I'm still not sold on the Klingon redesign. The prosthetics that the actors have to mumble their lines through makes the Klingon dialogue a slog to get through. I don't know why they didn't just use the old trope of having one or two lines in Klingon then have the actors switch to english. The audience would understand that they're just speaking in their native language. It might help the klingon actors get their lines out easier.

All in all it was entertaining but I'd agree with earlier posters that if this was a 'generic' SF show this series would be fine but it doesn't feel like Trek yet.

Optimus Prime · 26-09-2017 10:55AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're right. I just wish the Klingons went back to being regular people who just had tans.

Oh. And beards.

The thing about those is, they evolved and where explained within the continuity. But now BLAM total change of the look of everything established in 60 years of Star Trek. Facial features , ships. And they don’t even look good! It was an unnecessary change as opposed to a change that was needed like the updated effects and technology. That’s why it grates with me so much. But hey, just my opinion on it !

It’s funny when the best Star Trek on TV is the Orville. The third episode is what Star Trek should be.

26-09-2017 11:01AM

Optimus Prime wrote: »

The thing about those is, they evolved and where explained within the continuity. But now BLAM total change of the look of everything established in 60 years of Star Trek. Facial features , ships. And they don’t even look good! It was an unnecessary change as opposed to a change that was needed like the updated effects and technology. That’s why it grates with me so much. But hey, just my opinion on it !

It’s funny when the best Star Trek on TV is the Orville. The third episode is what Star Trek should be.

TBH, wasn't it only explained in Enterprise? I could be totally wrong (I'm not that knowledgable on the cannon), but I believe this was the first attempt at actually explaining the difference between the two costumes. I know in the great Trials and Tribble-ations Worf brushes it aside when they notice the difference between them.

So, we only need wait about 14 years and we might get an explanation behind these.

26-09-2017 11:03AM

Oh stop, it was 15 years before they attempted a retro explanation to TNG Klingons

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 11:03AM

Greyjoy wrote: »

[...]
All in all it was entertaining but I'd agree with earlier posters that if this was a 'generic' SF show this series would be fine but it doesn't feel like Trek yet.

I'm curious - what specifically would you want to see that it would then 'feel' like Trek? I'm not trying to be a troll or flippant, it's just that for me I saw enough of the trimmings of the Federation in that first episode that it felt like Trek to me. Nothing to the forefront, but it was there all the same.

Let's presume it doesn't just come down to prosthetics, technological accuracy in the canon or anything aesthetic - because frankly the Klingons' changing facial features should be give pause enough about maintaining a strict canon accuracy: in which case, what's left that should identify anything as uniquely Trek? What makes a show uniquely Trekkie?

Even across the older series there was divergence enough that the question remains valid: should we want the swashbuckling romance adventures of ToS? The celibate sanctimony of TNG? The morally grey, frontier justice of DS9? Put against each other those three shows alone had enough variance that you could have claimed they all came from different franchise IMO.

Or is it just that we want Trek to be whatever form it was when we grew up, or experienced it first? Just a retread of the same shapes, sounds and forms that it had back in the 80s / 90s / 00s and not a futon or LCARS out of place please? Cos I've seen that in The Orville and creatively it's a pretty bankrupt experience - as shallow as any Hollywood reboot or churned-out sequel.

Bacchus · 26-09-2017 11:11AM

Oh, forgot to say, I really like the opening credits - the music and the move away from the title ship sailing past comets, planets, suns, asteroid belts, etc.

Goodshape · 26-09-2017 11:17AM

I don't mind the new look of the Klingons at all. There seems to be a lot of variation, and we've only seen a handful of the houses, so I'm really interested to see more.

But having said that... the main Klingon character in these first two episodes really seemed to chew on his dialogue one word at a time, and kinda looked like he was struggling to see past the rim of his own forehead. I wasn't that bothered by it but listening to him talk at length was just a little exhausting.

Other Klingons, and even younger T'Kuvma in flashbacks, were much easer to listen to and looked less constrained by their headgear. For that reason only, I was happy enough T'Kuvma didn't make it out of the episode.

Greyjoy · 26-09-2017 11:23AM

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm curious - what specifically would you want to see that it would then 'feel' like Trek? I'm not trying to be a troll or flippant, it's just that for me I saw enough of the trimmings of the Federation in that first episode that it felt like Trek to me. Nothing to the forefront, but it was there all the same.

For me the new show had the 'trimmings' of Trek/Federation but no substance. Off the top of my head what defines Trek for me is an ensemble cast SF with a strong core of optimism about the future. This two-parter didn't have either of those concepts. Now I expect once we actually get to the Discovery itself in the 3rd episode the show will start to display more of the 'traditional' aspects of Trek as we're introduced to the new ship and its crew. But I think it was a mistake to spend the first 2 eps on what is essentially a prologue for just Burnham herself.

Evade · 26-09-2017 11:43AM

pixelburp wrote: »

Oddly enough, the most egregious anachronism for me was what appeared to be a robotic crew-member on the Shenzhou; I'm no canon expert, so maybe there's already precedent of AIs in the Federation prior to Data, but there wasn't definitely a Daft Punk style robot on the bridge.

I think that might be some sort of environment suit or maybe some kind of vr display. When they're evacuating she gets up and you can clearly see she's a woman and has very human looking hands.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh stop, it was 15 years before they attempted a retro explanation to TNG Klingons

More like 25. They're not TNG Klingons they're TMP Klingons.

Optimus Prime · 26-09-2017 11:49AM

True I know it was only touched on in ds9 then explained away in enterprise. But it was done. Now you have these new looking Klingons with fancy new ships plonked in the middle. I guess I just like things to make sense, and throwing these new looking lads in just throws the whole thing off for me. It makes the past shows seem irrelevant and that to me is annoying because I love them.

Like I said I can forgive the tech issues etc but th Klingons just don’t line up in my head which is why I have an issue with it. Otherwise I liked it.

_Kaiser_ · 26-09-2017 11:59AM

It's best compared to the JJ films because ultimately that's pretty much what they've done in series format.

Sure the names and terms and references are there for the most part, but the entire tone and feel of the show is completely different in everything from visuals to characterisation.

Just like JJ's films things are now darker, grittier, with a cast that argue and bicker and who it can be hard to get behind at times. Like I said last night, it's more BSG than TNG.

And that's fine, but it's not "classic Trek" and the producers insisting that all this happens before the events of TOS (and forget the technology arguments.. In less than 10 years we're supposed to believe that all this internal and external conflict will be resolved) is just an unnecessary annoyance to a lot of long-term viewers.

All they had to do is say it was a prequel to Star Trek 09. Problem solved!

26-09-2017 12:01PM

Evade wrote: »

More like 25. They're not TNG Klingons they're TMP Klingons.

I had that first but changed it as I wanted to give the example of the change in the TV series (a movie change can be hand waved away as spectacle)

But... Yes exactly. The gnashing of teeth on this makes no sense, as there is already history surrounding exactly this topic

26-09-2017 12:02PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's best compared to the JJ films because ultimately that's pretty much what they've done in series format.

Sure the names and terms and references are there for the most part, but the entire tone and feel of the show is completely different in everything from visuals to characterisation.

Just like JJ's films things are now darker, grittier, with a cast that argue and bicker and who it can be hard to get behind at times. Like I said last night, it's more BSG than TNG.

And that's fine, but it's not "classic Trek" and the producers insisting that all this happens before the events of TOS (and forget the technology arguments.. In less than 10 years we're supposed to believe that all this internal and external conflict will be resolved) is just an unnecessary annoyance to a lot of long-term viewers.

All they had to do is say it was a prequel to Star Trek 09. Problem solved!

CBS owns the TV rights only

_Kaiser_ · 26-09-2017 12:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

CBS owns the TV rights only

Yep, the Midnight's Edge videos went through it and it just seems like a complicated mess regarding rights, but we have what we have.

What remains to be seen though is whether people will pay CBS to watch it.. Sure they got record sign-ups, but from what I've read there's a 7-day trial period of the service (which would cover episodes 1&2, possibly 3) but very little else on the service and ads to boot (unless you pay for a higher package).

pixelburp · 26-09-2017 12:12PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Just like JJ's films things are now darker, grittier, with a cast that argue and bicker and who it can be hard to get behind at times. Like I said last night, it's more BSG than TNG.

Now wait now, the Kelvinverse was many things, but 'darker and grittier'? They were a little rougher around the edges here and there, but by and large they were big, loud shouty films - not dark & gritty. Wrath of Khan and the best 80s films were downbeat thrillers about revenge, and getting old or irrelevant - Trek 2009 was bubblegum with adolescent touches. Sure, even Into Darkness' Admiral-gone-bad was just aping a long-standing tradition of the Federation promoting all the wrong people

And as for the arguing & bickering bit, do you remember DS9? I mean I'm rewatching the whole lot at the moment, and most of the cast are in a near constant state of argument. Even one of its core characters, Miles O'Brien, is defined by having an argumentative relationship with his two closest people - ie, his wife & best friend.

Goodshape · 26-09-2017 12:12PM

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

It's best compared to the JJ films because ultimately that's pretty much what they've done in series format.

....

All they had to do is say it was a prequel to Star Trek 09. Problem solved!

I really didn't feel that at all. Visually some of it looked similar to the Kelvin movies but the tone was totally different. The interior Starfleet sets were *much* closer to the original movies than the new movies. It looked nothing like the ST09 bright-white bridge set. Nothing like any of that ship, thankfully.

The demeanour of the characters was much closer to what Trek should be than those movies ever where – e.g. "Why are we fighting?! We're Starfleet! We're explorers, not soldiers!", and the continued insistence that any question of shooting first is out of the question.

Evade · 26-09-2017 12:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

But... Yes exactly. The gnashing of teeth on this makes no sense, as there is already history surrounding exactly this topic

The biggest issue I had was with the second coming's spikey costumes but that appears to be just them. Religious zealots in wacky clothes is pretty normal. The rest of the Klingon costumes do seem to fit with other Klingon clothes. I do think they would have looked better with hair.

JeffKenna · 26-09-2017 12:32PM

I actually thought it was a very entertaining two shows. Looking forward to next Mondays installment.

wes · 26-09-2017 12:58PM

Enjoyed the first 2 eps. The extended prologue, I think was a good idea. We get to see Michael's origin story basically, and get to see where she is coming from.

Goodshape · 26-09-2017 01:05PM

Worst part of the episode was the lighting in the courtroom scene at the very end. What a bizarre choice. Like they didn't want to "reveal" to us what Starfleet looks like yet.

Really strange and out of place.

Discovery 1x01 & 1x02 – 2-part premiere [** SPOILERS WITHIN **]

Comments

Discovery 1x01 & 1x02 – 2-part premiere [ SPOILERS WITHIN ]