Sci-Fi Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

sci-fi-dude

1963, 1899 called they want every thing back....
Here is a simple formula, if one writes a move, a series, and or just one tv show, for me and many others, just stick to the plot, stick to humor, don't attack ones beliefs just because their beliefs are different. They are all about ratings, and they probably question why their shows begin to suck. ;)I could write a cool series about sci fi and not attack folks values and beliefs. I just bet folks would watch it. Its so simple a beginning writer could do it. And spare me and others the politics, its boring, and its re-hashed too much. Back to the drawing board holly weird.....
 
With those standards can you enjoy any sci-fi or TV at all? Hollywood leans left, the left leans atheist, it's just the way things are. You can say The Simpsons doesn't believe in God but the characters still go to church. God has even been in multiple episodes. Flanders is portrayed as one of the most decent, moral and best friends anyone could have, not as a fool or idiot. Homer is the one people make fun of, he's the stooge, and he's the one with the most complaints about going to church. Marge is in the solid believer category. Lisa is finding her own path but it isn't atheism.
 

sci-fi-dude

1963, 1899 called they want every thing back....
With those standards can you enjoy any sci-fi or TV at all? Hollywood leans left, the left leans atheist, it's just the way things are. You can say The Simpsons doesn't believe in God but the characters still go to church. God has even been in multiple episodes. Flanders is portrayed as one of the most decent, moral and best friends anyone could have, not as a fool or idiot. Homer is the one people make fun of, he's the stooge, and he's the one with the most complaints about going to church. Marge is in the solid believer category. Lisa is finding her own path but it isn't atheism.
Good write up, but holly weird needs to dial it back, they are pc for everyone but the other half of America, they need to practice what they preach. like I said I will enjoy the silly shows, until the anti-God bs comes out, then I mutes it, or change the channel. Holly weird needs more guys like Tim Allen, hes funny as hell, but leans more to the right, the whole planet isn't left, thank God for that. Warp speed Scotty, Btw, Mel Brooks is probably the funniest sci-fi and general movie writer of all time, and he succeeded in not stepping on anybodys toes in the process. PC sucks, and so does hollywierd, Less polotics and more entertainment, we do pay their salaries you know...;););)
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
the space critter laying an egg, and it turns out female which in turn causes them to be upset is also an indicator.
Wait... maybe I missed something in that episode, but how does Bortus laying an egg and it being a girl indicate a non-existence of God?
 

sci-fi-dude

1963, 1899 called they want every thing back....
Wait... maybe I missed something in that episode, but how does Bortus laying an egg and it being a girl indicate a non-existence of God?
Kevin, that's part of the mystique of Seth Mcfairlane, he has indicated in his family guy, and other series that there is no God, also when he was in the hanger he was anti-religion, that's his view, not mine. Now all his shows are awesome and intertaining. The critter laying an egg is the politics half of my dealy bob, its odd ball, and off. One can write a comedy, and a sci-fi without ragging on some ones faith. Don't get me wrong, I dig his stuff, I feel that he as others should dial it back a tad.....Sci-fi dude....
 

Tom

An Old Friend
What’s with All the Hate for ‘Star Trek: Discovery’?
What’s with All the Hate for ‘Star Trek: Discovery’?

The Aricle said:
Star Trek fans have been waiting over a decade for a new Star Trek TV show, so many fans were excited when Star Trek: Discovery finally aired back in September. But since its launch the show seems to have been met with an usually high degree of hostility from viewers, who have questioned everything from its uniforms to its ship designs. Writer Sara Lynn Michener thinks those concerns are overblown.
It also said:
Another point of contention is that the show is available exclusively through CBS All Access, a new monthly streaming service. Many fans have revolted at the prospect of having to sign up for yet another service just to watch Star Trek, but Michener says she welcomes the opportunity to support the show and watch it ad-free. “People should be bending over backward to pay money for good science fiction,” she says. “Because it deserves it, it’s worth it.”
I'm getting the impression that Michener doesn't really like Star Trek fans???
Science fiction author Anthony Ha agrees, noting that Star Trek has always had a political agenda. He says it was odd to see people complaining about the Discovery actors ‘politicizing’ Star Trek by expressing solidarity with protesting NFL players.
“Look, if you disagree with that—well, you’re wrong there too, but at least that’s a position you can take,” he says. “But if you’re saying ‘Star Trek should not be political,’ that is a completely invalid and dumb position.”
Seems to me that the attitude is more take what we give you, we don't care what you want. Gimmie your money.

I still haven't watched it, won't watch it till the season is complete.
I'm curious how it comes across as one long show with no breaks or personal reflection between the episodes. Will It give me a different take than those who watch episode by episode?
How vital are the pauses between episodes to the likeability of a show?
 

sci-fi-dude

1963, 1899 called they want every thing back....
Man, everything is pay t.v., Protest the bull patootie Merica, don't pay for it like a chump. Go on the cheap and save money. :cool:
 

Jethro

Moderator
Staff member
What’s with All the Hate for ‘Star Trek: Discovery’?
What’s with All the Hate for ‘Star Trek: Discovery’?



I'm getting the impression that Michener doesn't really like Star Trek fans???

Seems to me that the attitude is more take what we give you, we don't care what you want. Gimmie your money.

I still haven't watched it, won't watch it till the season is complete.
I'm curious how it comes across as one long show with no breaks or personal reflection between the episodes. Will It give me a different take than those who watch episode by episode?
How vital are the pauses between episodes to the likeability of a show?

It's a weird first season Tom, just when you think it's built to the season ending cliff hanger, and no new episodes appear, it pops up again. Has lost me during the second half already, man have seen this plot a dozen times. Mind am now gulping down season 2 of Van Helsing, they finally worked out to go full throttle on the horror content :winner:
 

astonwest

Writing Fool
Writer
I'm just glad that CBS finally came to their senses (or maybe because there just wasn't anything else new showing on due to the pandemic?) and started showing season 1 on the normal CBS station. Finally caught up with the first ten episodes on my DVR...

The first few episodes were quite hokey, in my opinion. I think it's hard for them to piece together storylines from TOS and Enterprise and put something in between that makes sense.

The whole "spore" drive is just bizarre, although it does make for interesting plot lines. However, I never did figure out why they couldn't just inject someone else with the DNA like they did the engineer-turned-prophet.

When they took a turn to the alternate universe, I immediately asked my wife "Did they just pull a Voyager and send them way off to desperately find their way home?" Also, I figured something had to happen to prevent the defeat of the cloaking technology via their algorithms. That said, as much as they were confident they would lose the war without it, assuming they don't change the timelines more than they did, how do they survive for 4+ more subsequent series?

I rolled my eyes at the "holodeck" battlefield simulation...

The plot line with the new security officer (and in the first ten episodes, I haven't fully reached a point where it's revealed, but fairly certain we have it figured out) was actually quite well done. It does, however, seem like they are trying to go all Game of Thrones and just keep killing characters that have been around a bit.

Actually, it's probably good how many characters they've killed off thus far, because most of the characters haven't been ones I've wanted to invest time in anyway. Not sure why they have gone so far out of their way to make so many of their characters unlikeable.

Hoping they will bring out the later seasons, but if they don't, I imagine I will still stick with my already-paid-for satellite provider CBS station. Still not paying extra.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
I have 13 episodes of season 3 now. Haven't watched them yet.
I guess I'll get around to it eventually.
That's how I feel about it.
Not what I consider 'must see tv'.

My son, on the other hand, loves the show?
I'm guessing TOS, TNG and DS9 jaded me a bit.

Didn't really care for Star Trek: Picard either.
 

ralfy

Cadet
The main problem with this show is similar to that of the other: the writing's not very good. The main cause is that ideas--which I don't mind--are forced rather than revealed in a subtle manner. Also, they cram too much, leading to hurried exposition and poor character development. Those, in turn, sometimes lead to plot holes and non-sympathetic characters.
 

Tom

An Old Friend
After watching all three seasons back to back, I think they should call this show " Star Trek: Michael Burnham". Its all about her. Goddess of the Galaxy.
 

Kevin

Code Monkey
Staff member
I haven't see any of Star Trek: Discovery since the first season so, in anticipation of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and as some mental stress relief, I did a marathon viewing on Paramount+ of all four seasons up to the current episode. 😲

Having watched all of the episodes in a row, my view of the show has changed a bit.

S1: I still think S1 with the Klingons is bonkers but, in hindsight with a fresh perspective, and understanding the legal issues at the time that prevents the show from using designs from the prior series, I think the overall story line wasn't awful. Certainly interesting though not that well written.

S2: The "Red Angel" was... bizarre. V'oq/Tyler? Bizarre. And the idea that some of Spock's records were "missing" because they were stolen? Apparently the writer of that particular scene didn't get the memo about how digital data works. Captain Pike and the glimpses of life aboard the Enterprise in a period post The Cage and pre Kirk were far more interesting then the main Discovery setting and is easy to see what led to Strange New Worlds being pitched. Harking back to the visual style of S1, the "armor" uniforms of the Mirror Universe look like something that would be used if there was ever a Star Trek: The Musical Broadway show.

S3: Couldn't help but think "Wait, wasn't this the premise of Andromeda?!". After that initial response the ol' memory kicked in that Andromeda was itself based on a Roddenberry concept for an undeveloped Trek series. It hurts the brain a bit thinking that a Star Trek show bears more than a passing resemblance to a non-Trek show that was based on a concept by the Trek creator intended to be a Trek show. The embracing of a brutal Mirror Universe emperor as a crew member? WTF?! Overall, though, the writing seems to have been improved over S1 & S2. Being free of trying to retcon the series certainly allows a lot more freedom.

S4: OK, did anybody not guess how the Burnham/Book relationship was going to turn out? It was a bit of a given that it was going to happen. And Zora? Did the writers watch Legends of Tomorrow and think, "Hey, that ship thing, that's a good idea, let's use it!". :facepalm:

OK, some bad writing and plot holes aside, as a whole the series is watchable. There have certainly been worse shows that were far more popular. I do have a problem though with one particular item though, to the point that watching some scenes lose their impact because of being distracted. That problem? The main character of Michael Burnham.

As some of the prior comments immediately above allude to, the use of the character as the Star Trek 'messiah' is so over the top that even when other characters bluntly tell her that she is not responsible for everybody & everything the story just moves on and doesn't address it. The problem is compounded by how the actress plays the character. Why the heck is she whispering nearly every single line?! It is bizarre watching scenes where the characters she is interacting with are talking in a normal tones and she whispers everything. And notice how she tilts her head? Between the head tilt and whispering it's like she is either about to cry at any given moment or go full on crazy. When not whispering while making over exaggerated facial expressions the other mood portrayed is giddy. It's one or the other, take your choice.

It's a shame, really, because watching the whole series like that there are some interesting ideas presented but by centering literally every story line around Burnham, and with how the character is portrayed, the main character is also the worst thing about the show. Instead of a show where characters are presented as equals in importance, as a team, Discovery instead is written so that everybody else is just there to ultimately be background noise to Burnham.

I'll keep watching as episodes are released if for no other reason than seeing if the Kovich character is ever explained with a backstory. Having caught up I'm starting the viewing of Picard next.
 

astonwest

Writing Fool
Writer
I haven't see any of Star Trek: Discovery since the first season so, in anticipation of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, and as some mental stress relief, I did a marathon viewing on Paramount+ of all four seasons up to the current episode. 😲
I haven't seen anything but season 1, when it was being broadcast on CBS during early in the pandemic and a lack of new content on their network (I assume).

Maybe I'll ask for the other seasons on DVD for Christmas this year or something.
 
Top