Fanedit Forums

Full Version: Star Trek Discovery
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
One thing I think we can all agree on though: it's better than The Orville.  Wink
It was fine. I think I need to wait until they've done some actual Treking to the Stars in order to Discover things before passing judgement.



Liked:

- Sonequa Martin-Green's performance. Interesting the way her Vulcan and Human teachers seem to have left her a bit messed up and conflicted mentally, in way we haven't seen before
- The new guy playing Sarek was perfect. Not sure we needed to see Sarek again but whatever.
- Great scoring.
- Looked dazzling for a TV show and not at all like the blandly lit TV set-based ST of old. Maybe a bit too dazzling and the bridge feels a bit too darkly lit and oppressive. JJ-Trek got it right with that optimistic bright clean white paneling.

Disliked:

- Choppily edited and incoherently directed fight scenes. The familiar fighting style of TNG and DS was often hokey but at least we knew who was hitting who and who was winning/losing.
- Oodles of technobabble but without any of the actual clever science-based plotting concepts that ST TV is usually famous for. Technobabble is what ST usually has to insert, in order to make the high-concept ideas understandable. Not just there to make the show sound intelligent.
- Not sold on the lasers sound or look. Phasers are a classic Trek thing. Take them away and it just looks and sounds like everything else. SoundFX really define a sci-fi show/film.
- The death of Yeoh had no impact for me because we all knew Jason Isaccs was waiting in the wings.... but who doesn't love Jason Isaccs, so looking forward to that.
- The Star Wars style holograms were irritating. I guess you can tell when a show isn't holding your attention when you instantly get annoyed when a hologram of Sarek leans on a table that doesn't exist in the same space as his physical form.

I'm very much intrigued to see where this goes, as long as this two part opener was a prologue of sorts and not how the whole season will be.
I haven't seen anything past the first episode, but here are my opinions so far.

Likes:

- Doug Jones' character is intriguing and well-played. The idea that his species was

raised in slavery as death-detectors
is fascinating, an opens up a lot of potential for him to be a sort of

death-sensing equivalent of Deanna Troi.

- It was neat to see Michelle Yeoh, although she wasn't given much to do.

- Some of the special effects were good, and the opening desert scene looked like something out of a big-budget movie.

 - Jason Isaacs is an intriguing choice to play the captain, but I can't really give an opinion of his portrayal at this point (having not seen past the first episode).

Dislikes:

- It breaks continuity with the Prime universe by showing Starfleet as having more advanced technology than in the original series, introduces a bizarre and jarring new version of the Klingons (both in appearance and characterization), and otherwise reinvents the wheel in ways that I just don't think it needed reinventing. 

- So far, I don't like how the Klingon plot is shaping up. It all seems very new and bizarre compared to what we've seen of the Klingons in the past. They're going for a "this isn't your grandfather's Star Trek" approach, which doesn't strongly appeal me, as I happen to be one of those that likes my grandfather's Star Trek just fine. 

- The lead character, Michael Burnham. I find her to be mostly boring, and often downright unlikable. There's something about how she's portrayed that seems "off" to me. The best way that I can describe it is that the show seems very badly to want us to buy her as the best thing since sliced bread, but then gives us insufficient reason (in both writing and performance) to actually view her as anything other than dull, dangerously brash, and affected by an irritating condition that could best be described as "resting sulky glare face". It even goes so far as to reveal her to be semi-related to Spock (I don't consider this a spoiler since it was widely-advertised and mentioned earlier in this thread), in what comes across as a desperate last-ditch attempt to give the audience some reason to find her interesting.

Worst of all, her mutiny at the end makes her come across as arrogant and reckeless.
Maybe the following episodes make her more likable. I'm not sure. 

- The music. It's typical 2000s television scoring, eminently forgettable (except when Alexander Courage's original theme kicks in now and then), functioning more as bland sound design than as actual music, and featuring a main theme that is replete with the typical endlessly-repeating "dun-dun-dun-dun-dun-dun" chord progressions that composers use ad nauseum these days. Normally, I'd just shrug it off as coming with the territory of a modern show, but it's now less easy to forgive after "The Orville" proved that great television scoring can still exist today.

- The visuals. I was actually impressed with how big-budget the opening desert scene looked, but became less and less impressed the more I got to see starships (interior and exterior) and outer space. It has a J. J. Abrams-inspired look (complete with lens flares and manic camera-work), but without the flair and prettiness that Abrams was able to bring to that look. The lighting and set design, in particular, are unpleasant. There's also the nagging feeling that some of the lighting and cinematography is designed to try to hide the deficiencies of the show's CGI effects. With the sole exception of "Star Trek Continues" (which comes as reasonably close to capturing the beauty of the original series as can be expected with its budget), each Star Trek show has looked less good than the last. "Star Trek" (1966) was downright gorgeous, with saturated colors, atmospheric lighting worthy of a Golden Age movie, and wonderfully minimalistic set design. "The Next Generation" (in its HD restored version) is beautiful, but with slightly bland lighting, and somewhat less aesthetically-pleasing (albeit still fairly pleasant) set design. After that, each new series was less visually-pleasing than the last, culminating with the utterly dull-looking "Enterprise". I'd say that "Discovery" falls somewhere near the level of "Enterprise" visually, probably a bit worse.
i enjoyed the premiere but the thing that kept distracting me was that michaels character(number 1) kept barking out orders and over ruling the captain (for a while at the beginning of the episode i thought she was the captain not michelle yeoh). another nitpick i had was the the "phasers" im not 100% swayed on the projectille shot instead if a beam shot i thought the flasback scene in the second half of the premiere would have been beter placed to explain michael in the first episode but thats just me
 Only time will tell if the series will still keep my interests or if they will trail off.by the promo for the rest of the series it looks like the discovery ship is like a "second chance prison vessell" of sorts. so thats new.
(09-25-2017, 12:16 PM)Q2 Wrote: [ -> ]One thing I think we can all agree on though: it's better than The Orville.  Wink

i think the orville would be a better series if they removed 90% of the "i hate my ex j" jokes. its starting to feel like married with children in space.
I've only seen one episode of "The Orville" (the third episode), and I was surprised at how good it was. It felt like TNG-era Star Trek, complete with serious exploration of philosophical concepts, but with a little more humor. In fact, it felt a lot more like Star Trek to me than "Star Trek: Discovery" did. I think that it has a lot of potential. Refine the writing a bit and remove a few of the lowbrow jokes here and there, and it could grow into a great show. Even TNG took a while to hit its stride. Seth McFarlane has said that he's aiming for something similar in tone to "M.A.S.H." That's a pretty intriguing way to approach a space exploration series, and I'm hoping that it succeeds.
This review by Trekmovie pretty much sums my feelings about the first two episodes
https://trekmovie.com/2017/09/24/review-...t-a-pilot/

Season One trailer.... spoilers!!!!!!!


After a second watch, I think I enjoyed the first two episodes even more.  It is fun and still feels like Trek at its core.

I have come to terms that we may never get a proper Prime Universe prequel, at least not as long as it is being produced by Paramount instead of CBS due to rights issues.   Though it is interesting that based on all the scuttlebutt Bryan Fuller was fighting for a more retro look in terms of technology and costumes but got vetoed by TPTB.  We also know he had approached Michael Dorn to play an ancestor of Worf's, so his plan for the Klingons may have been quite different than what we ended up with.

But what we did end up with was very entertaining imo.  I mean,  I strongly dislike the Klingon new look.  And I don't know why, but it really bugs me how they changed the Phasers lol.  And there are probably a dozen more nitpicks I could list... sigh...Most of the changes seem to be changes for change sake, rather than improvements.

But in terms of story and characters, I thoroughly enjoyed the premiere. Smile
^ Did you feel the second half of the premier was better than the first?
(09-28-2017, 08:50 AM)Rogue-theX Wrote: [ -> ]^ Did you feel the second half of the premier was better than the first?

Absolutely!  Big Grin 
The first half was all set-up and awkward exposition, the second half was all pay off.   
I think it was an idiot move by CBS to only air part one on Network TV.   They should have broadcasted it as a 2 hour movie event.  I am actually surprised how little promotion CBS did for this premiere.   Even though it ends on a cliffhanger, part one was not engaging enough (to me at least) that I would not feel motivated to subscribe for more.

However, the twist ending of part two is another story.  That definitely made me want to watch more!
(09-27-2017, 06:28 PM)bionicbob Wrote: [ -> ]at least not as long as it is being produced by Paramount instead of CBS due to rights issues

I don't understand. What rights issues?   How do they interfere with doing a proper Trek prequel?
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28