Star Trek: Discovery

[MillCreek]

We are 25 minutes into the first episode, and my wife and I are saying 'meh'.  We will see what the next 35 minutes has for us.

[Ben]

I've got it buffering on the DVR (for FF purposes) and am just about to start watching. Despite my posts regarding the potential for politics by the writers,  I didn't want to write it off without actually watching the first couple of episodes to see for myself.

[TommyGunn]

I think I've had enough "re-imaging"  of the STAR TREK  universe.   
I think I'll slip in my DVD  of "The Cage"  and watch Jeffrey Hunter play Captain Pike if I want old school STAR TREK.

[Ben]

So far I'm with Millcreek on the "meh". They are trying too hard to make the crew dialogue "clever", and right now I'm getting that "the Federation knows whats best for you" air of superiority times ten over TNG. I also don't know why they needed to physically redesign the Klingons again.

I'll try another episode, but what the heck is it with "sign up for CBS all access to watch episode 2"? It's apparently available right now over the interwebz, but I'm not signing up for CBS anything. I'm assuming it will be available on the TV next Sunday? Or maybe Hulu tomorrow.

[erictank]

So far I'm with Millcreek on the "meh". They are trying too hard to make the crew dialogue "clever", and right now I'm getting that "the Federation knows whats best for you" air of superiority times ten over TNG. I also don't know why they needed to physically redesign the Klingons again.

I'll try another episode, but what the heck is it with "sign up for CBS all access to watch episode 2"? It's apparently available right now over the interwebz, but I'm not signing up for CBS anything. I'm assuming it will be available on the TV next Sunday? Or maybe Hulu tomorrow.

Nope.  *NO* over-the-air Star Trek, unless CBS comes to its senses.  All airings of STD from here on are on All Access *ONLY*.  $10/month (allegedly) ad-free, or $6/month with commercials.

Between that and the unnecessary changes to continuity, I will not be watching even though I rather enjoyed episode 0.5.  I'll wait until the season is complete, and binge it on their free trial of All Access, then decide if it is worth maintaining an additional expense imposed only on US viewers (everywhere else in the *WORLD* gets it on Netflix; US viewers are locked out of that and must pay for All Access to watch Star Trek).

[K Frame]

Forgot all about it, darn it.


And wait, it's NOT a broadcast TV show?

It's only going to be available on, and last night was "here's you'r taste, now you're addicted"?

Thanks, but no thanks if that's the case.

EI: Yep, that looks like the case. Not going to discover Discovery. Simple as that.

[mtnbkr]

I was on the fence before knowing about the online-only component (and not through a service I currently subscribe to).  Oh well, I won't even bother.

Chris

[BobR]

it's NOT a broadcast TV show?

It's only going to be available on, and last night was "here's you'r taste, now you're addicted"?

Thanks, but no thanks

I have to agree, it's not crack!!!!

I was going to watch it and then read the fine print about CBS Access, I will let them discover without me.

bob

[HankB]

. . . I also don't know why they needed to physically redesign the Klingons again . . .

Was wondering the same thing.

I'll wait until the season is complete, and binge it on their free trial of All Access, then decide if it is worth maintaining an additional expense imposed only on US viewers

Agree with the first part (binge watching) but I will NOT repeat NOT pay one red cent to a US company (CBS) which will charge Americans a separate fee they don't charge foreigners who will have it included on Netflix. <expletive> them.

[Ben]

Yeah, found out it was all-access only for the entire rest of the season when I hit a couple of ST forums after I posted here last night. Apparently the idea was to have this one broadcast segment hook everyone so they'd pay to watch the series.

Posts from people who did pay indicated the second part of the opener was better than the first (though even rabid fans had a lot of complaints about the direction of this series). If so, CBS really screwed up. If you want to bring in non-rabid ST viewers, you put the exciting stuff in the teaser. I generally like ST, despite my complaints about it (Post TOS of course. Kirk is the only captain. :) ), but I absolutely don't like it enough to pay CBS as a follow up to an episode that was so lackluster. Perhaps I'll watch the DVDs via Netflix when or if they're released. Or not.  I simply don't care enough about it either way.

[Ben]

I was on the fence before knowing about the online-only component (and not through a service I currently subscribe to).  Oh well, I won't even bother.

Chris

Interesting tangent: Cable companies lost tons of business to online services because of ease, options, and price. If the online service models begin to change to having to sign up for a dozen services to watch shows you like, they're heading down the same basic road of cable, where people are paying $100/mo to get 5000 channels to watch 10 shows.

CBS, et al. are broadcast network dinosaurs that are "too little, too late" trying to jump on the modern content bandwagon. Not to mention that they're just not creating that many good shows. Even shows I like, such as Big Bang Theory, are watched by me when they hit DVD. I'm just about ready to watch the last season of BBT this week on Netflix DVD.

[MillCreek]

After finishing the episode last night, my wife and I agreed that we would probably watch it when (not if) it gets to one of our streaming services like Netflix or Amazon.  But there is no way in heck we would pay a separate fee to watch it.  And what is with all the JJ Abrams lens flare?

[K Frame]

"Even shows I like, such as Big Bang Theory, are watched by me when they hit DVD. "

Wow. So very passive...

[TommyGunn]

 ..... I also don't know why they needed to physically redesign the Klingons again. ....

I wonder that too.  I understood that Worf in TNG was different ....even somewhat explained it .... as the original series had a pittance budget, and  TNG, with a better budget, wanted to make them look even more different.*
But this iteration of .... Klingons...ICK!  Maybe they're Klingoons.

But since I likely won't be watching the series .....  


*Edit:  Yea it was STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE  that first offered the Klingon mod. 2.0 version.
I just recollected that so no need to remind me.  But TNG carried it over, wisely.

[Ben]

I wonder that too.  I understood that Worf in TNG was different ....even somewhat explained it .... as the original series had a pittance budget, and  TNG, with a better budget, wanted to make them look even more different.*

IIRC, the explanation was that there were two different lines of Klingons, much like us and Neanderthal, and the boneheads wiped out the smoothheads. So why they couldn't keep the canon boneheads, I do not know. I can't recall if we actually saw a Klingon in the JJ Abrams movies, or if they were always wearing full armor.

[Fitz]

I thought it was good. It wasn't great. My biggest complaint is with the senseless changes to the klingons

They've gone from "proud warrior race " to "xenophobic evil monsters" which is out of character IMO

And the prosthetics are cumbersome enough that they all sound like they're speaking through a mouth full of peanut butter and marbles

That said, I enjoyed it. I did note that in the second episode the plot really drove home the point that the federations diplomacy-first, all talk, we come in peace" nonsense was a liability in dealing with klingons

[Sindawe]

IIRC, the explanation was that there were two different lines of Klingons, much like us and Neanderthal, and the boneheads wiped out the smoothheads. So why they couldn't keep the canon boneheads, I do not know. I can't recall if we actually saw a Klingon in the JJ Abrams movies, or if they were always wearing full armor.

We saw Klingons in the 2nd JJ Abrams movie.  The did look different when compared to classic Klingons and Klingons 2.0.

There is a story arc on ST:Enterprise that details why Klingons looked different in TOS vs. later iterations.  Actually makes some sense within the framework of that 'verse.  And one episode of TS:DS9 touched on it as well when Sisco & Co. payed a visit to space station K-7 while the station was having a bit of trouble with the little furry things. 

From the reviews I've seen of the new series it looks like I'm not missing much this go around.

[mtnbkr]

I finally got around to watching Ep 1.  I like it.  Not enough to pay for it, but if it was available for free, I'd watch it...for now.

Chris

[Nightfall]

Between the mediocre reviews, being stuck behind a pay service I have no interest in, and the cast virtue signaling by "taking a knee" (https://www.instagram.com/p/BZc6T7mA5YX/), I think I'll pass on this one.

[MechAg94]

https://youtu.be/-6Zc8Co2H3w
Honest Trailers.  Not the same Star Trek, but really funny. 

[never_retreat]

Ya, because your not going to have to look hard to find it on an alternate "cough" site the next day for free.

[zxcvbob]

Wife and I watched about 10 minutes of a recent episode, which I suppose was about Klingons.  It was boring; we turned it off.  Not sure if I'll give it a second chance.

[erictank]

Yes, the smooth-forehead vs. bumpy-forehead thing was addressed in a couple of episodes of Enterprise - the Empire used genetically-enhanced human embryos to try to create Klingons with Khan-like characteristics to use against the Federation.  The virus they used to make the mods... started killing them.  They were able to stop it, but when stopped early, the physical and neural changes resulted in the creation of the smooth-forehead, more-cunning/less-honorable TOS Klingons.  So the bumpy-forehead versions are the original genotype.  And those changes could, eventually, be at least cosmetically altered - remember that Kang, Kor, and Koloth (from TOS) all appeared, played by the original actors, as bumpy-forehead Klingons in DS9's 'Blood Oath'.

I did not like the JJverse Klingons.  Why would the appearance of the Nerada in the timeline 20 years before TOS change the Klingon genome?  Are they, perhaps, Romulan-fusion Klingons?  Did the Empire not learn its lesson with the Klingon Augment Virus (that created the TOS Klingons) that nearly killed the Klingons?  What's up with that?

Now we have the Klingorcs, and no basis for those MAJOR changes to everything we've ever seen in ANY Trek prior to now.  On top of the poor application of makeup and the false tiger-shark teeth (part of what we've never seen in any Klingon prior to now) they have to wear so that they sound like they're talking around a mouthful of rocks.

If this had been set in the JJverse, or even in Prime but 150-200 years after Picard, with the Empire having split from the Federation after a poor Fed response to a major disaster in the Empire that ended up resulting in the changes to the Klingorcs that we saw?  I'd have FAR fewer issues over the changes to continuity.  The more-advanced tech shown would fit right in to either situation, as well.  The story, as shown in the first half (on-air portion) of the pilot, would have worked almost as-is - couldn't use Sarek, obviously, but that was a poor choice anyways.  Burnham didn't need a connection to Spock's family that was never even mentioned in FIFTY YEARS of Trek. 

[Brad Johnson]

First we had STTOS. Then we had STTMP, STTNG, and STV. After decades of doing strange things in odd places I guess an STD is no surprise.

Brad

[Ben]

Yes, the smooth-forehead vs. bumpy-forehead thing was addressed in a couple of episodes of Enterprise - the Empire used genetically-enhanced human embryos to try to create Klingons with Khan-like characteristics to use against the Federation.

Ah, okay. I forgot about that.

And yeah, the new teeth were another irritating thing to me in STD. Just listening to the actors try to talk semi-intelligibly through the fake teeth was a distraction.