June 14, 2017 at 6:49 pm #19612
Did someone say Batguano?
Sorry, I have nothing useful to add to this thread. 😉June 19, 2017 at 11:35 am #19654
We have a date:
However, there’s also this [LINK]:
While only the first episode will be shown on broadcast television, the second episode will be available on the 24th to CBS All Access subscribers after 9:30pm. The first eight episodes of Discovery’s 15-episode debut season will be available on CBS All Access every Sunday between September 24th and November 5th. The remaining seven episodes will air in January 2018.
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Earl.
June 23, 2017 at 9:27 pm #19745
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Earl.
Have you seen the transporter room shot from the Entertainment Weekly article? First off, it looks like H.G. Wells designed the transporter – giant spinning steampunk wheels behind them, with a poorly constructed background between them. It absolutely does not fit in with Star Trek technology. Secondly, they are wearing body armor. That’s something we’ve never seen before. No away teams in the history of Trek have ever put on any kind of protection (which is probably why they lost so many redshirts, to be honest), but these two do. The anachronisms are getting Trekkies in a bit of a tizzy.June 24, 2017 at 4:59 pm #19755
Next thing you know they’ll actually put seatbelts on the bridge… no way.July 22, 2017 at 8:41 pm #20671
New trailer from SDCC.July 24, 2017 at 2:15 pm #20684
I continue to be underwhelmed and unimpressed. It doesn’t look like something I would be interested in.
I’ve said this before, but why didn’t they simply set this in the post-Voyager future? That way, they could play around with things any way they like and push the envelope. Why another prequel? It just limits the possibilities to a certain extent.
I want to see the future.July 31, 2017 at 8:54 pm #20725
I came across this YouTube video, and it made everything click together, why the visual aspect of the show looks so different to the Original Series. It doesn’t have as much to do with parallel timelines as it does with the CBS/Viacom/Paramount split years back.August 1, 2017 at 12:54 am #20727
“You can not operate in this room unless you believe that you are Superman, and whatever happens, you’re capable of solving the problem.” – Gene KranzAugust 2, 2017 at 2:20 am #20732
Fascinating stuff from the Entertainment Weekly cover article. [LINK]
According to Entertainment Weekly, Bryan Fuller’s original pitch to CBS had the show starting in Discovery‘s time, but then moving through the eras of Kirk and Picard and then going beyond that, reaching a time period that hasn’t been seen in Star Trek before. He wanted to do something like American Horror Story, which resets its storyline each season, and described it as a “platform for a universe of Star Trek shows.” However CBS decided to create a single serialized show and see how it performed before agreeing to anything that elaborate.
The article also noted some other elements of Fuller’s vision for Discovery that have been set aside, including: “a more heavily allegorical and complex story line,” and his original idea for Starfleet uniforms, which were “a subdued spin on the original series’ trio of primary colors.”
The article details that there were significant clashes between CBS and Fuller during 2016. These included issues with going over the budget of $6 million/episode. Fuller also disagreed with CBS hiring David Semel to direct the pilot. Semel is a two-time Emmy nominee and veteran of television, notably many procedurals like Madam Secretary and Code Black, and is particularly known for directing pilots. Apparently Fuller wanted a more visionary director and had even reached out to longtime Simon Pegg collaborator Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Baby Driver). Fuller and Semel are said to have “clashed in pre-production” on the pilot for Discovery.
But the “biggest clash” was the schedule. The original plan for CBS was to launch the show in January of 2017, which was the soonest CBS could do a new Star Trek TV series based on an agreement after Viacom and CBS split in 2005. Heavily invested in their new streaming service, CBS felt that Discovery “could be the franchise that really puts All Access on the map.” Development time and pre-production continued to push the date back and CBS grew concerned about Fuller’s split commitments, notably with American Gods.
All of this led to CBS letting Fuller go in October 2016.
Man, I kinda want to see that multi-era show he originally had in mind.August 3, 2017 at 11:38 pm #20743
That’s the idea I’ve been saying the show should be. Having a new cast every year means they don’t have to worry about actors demanding higher wages during those three-year renegotiations that they hate to deal with so much. Each yearly run of episodes can be about the pivotal moment in each iteration of Starfleet ships named Discovery, which can span from the Enterprise era (they could finally show us the Romulan war that way) all the way to the eventual collapse of the Federation (Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda style). And it can fill in gaps of eras we don’t know much about, like the interim between TOS and TNG. If a season doesn’t work too well, don’t worry because there’s another one next year with a new crew and storyline.
I don’t think they’ll be able to do something like that, considering the IP is split between CBS and Paramount and there’ll be legal issues to wrangle with. If they just told us that legal issues due to the parent company’s split means that Discovery has to be set in it’s own universe, apart from the Kelvin or Prime timelines, they’ll get a lot less gnashing of teeth and filling of adult diapers from the public over discrepancies in canon.September 25, 2017 at 2:19 am #21423
Well, it premiered tonight – did anybody else watch it? I just finished episode 2, and I’ve got to say that I like where this is going. I know all the sticklers will be freaking out about the redesigns of the Klingons and the drastically upgraded look of the Starfleet bridge and ships, but I don’t care. They’re going for the Babylon 5-style story arc, and I couldn’t be more pleased.
Honestly, they could easily have set this series a hundred years past Voyager and the new look would still fit in really well. Their technology looks incredibly advanced over TNG, DS9, and Voyager, which is going to really upset a minority of fans (I remember so many people freaking out over the look of the NX-01, I can see those same people crapping their pants over this show). I understand why Bryan Fuller was so upset at the president of CBS wanting to completely overhaul the visual style of Trek. Again, I don’t care… to get viewers nowadays you can’t have cardboard sets, blinky lights and glass beads as your modern, high-tech bridge. Millenials won’t watch a new Trek if it hasn’t been visually upgraded, I totally understand that. All I care about is the story, and it’s looking like Fuller did a good job in that department.
I do have a few qualms about some actors, though. James Frain as Sarek isn’t even close to Leonard’s performance, and the Klingon leader speaks like he’s got a mouth full of marshmallows. I do like Sarek’s… for lack of a better word, “affection” for Michael Burnham. He seemed rough on her as a child, but had a more nuanced paternal take on the character when she was older. I’m interested in seeing how they resolve the conundrum that Spock has never mentioned having an adopted human sister before.September 25, 2017 at 3:13 am #21425
Beware, massive spoilers follow. If you haven’t seen the entire two-part premiere, skip this until later.
Yeah, I’m in, even if the first two episodes reminded me a lot, structurally, of Babylon 5: In The Beginning.
- First officer who everyone agrees is ready for their own command
- First contact (or first contact in a long time) with an alien race
- Alien race is dominated by a warrior caste
- First contact goes badly, accidentally starting a war
- Let’s sneak the aliens a nuke!
- Alien leader is of a more spiritual bent, gets killed, is now a martyr
- Fallen alien leader’s adherents will avenge him
- We are now at war!
Then again…who’s going to remember that but me? That movie was 19 years ago.
Massive, massive amounts of references to past Trek (even stuff that’s technically in the future). I agree with Steve about the look – that has happened before, it’ll happen again, and it doesn’t matter as much as the story does, and I kind of want a Shenzhou I can fly around the room.
I had an awful gut feeling that actors of the stature of Michelle Yeoh and Chris Obi were limited time offers on not just a TV budget, but a streaming-only TV budget. I was right.
I love the double bluff they pulled on us: everyone was so freaked out about the transporter room that was shown. Turns out it was the Shenzhou’s transporter room, and that ship was probably nearing retirement when Burnham first came aboard. I bet the Discovery’s transporter room is more “traditional” and they did that just to screw with our heads and see how much fandom would howl.
I liked Burnham logic-ing the ship’s computer to death to escape her predicament in the brig. Kirk would be proud – although he would’ve talked the computer into destroying itself.
The opening titles are very GoT/Westworld influenced. Gotta love that big musical flourish when “Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry” appears though. Liking the music so far.September 26, 2017 at 6:55 am #21431
Well, I kept an open mind and was even looking forward to it just before it premiered. So far, it hasn’t grabbed me too much or done a whole lot for me. I will continue to watch and see where it goes. I’m hoping I’ll change my mind and start to get into it more. I do love the lead character, Michael Burhnam, and it was well-casted. I love Michelle Yeoh but I knew she wouldn’t last, so I was pretty bummed about that.
I will say that I can’t stand the new Klingons at all. There is nothing I like about them at all. They suck. All of them sound like they have a wad of cotton in their mouths. It’s like they crossbred the Kazon with the Pakleds. Ugh.
I still think that if they wanted to tell this story, they could and should have set it in the future, beyond what we’ve seen before. Then they could have carte blanche and do whatever they wanted. Star Trek should be all about moving forward, not filling in the gaps.September 26, 2017 at 4:53 pm #21436
I’m not terribly interested and I only saw the part of the show that was on CBS TV. I REALLY lost interest when the first officer give her Captain the Vulcan neck pinch and committed mutiny (and probably treason). I can see why she did it: she was frustrated that her Captain was trapped in the idiot plot trope.
The thing is, a lot of this was so very predictable that I spent a lot of my time watching the show rolling my eyes. The damaged space station with a mysterious object hidden in the asteroid field? IT’S A TRAP! The first officer takes a risk to fly down there in her space suit? IT’S A TRAP! Burhnam suffers from idiot plot syndrome too.
When they announced that I can see the second episode only on their streaming site (which I knew beforehand) my reaction was “NOPE!” I won’t even do the free trial because I know that is a lure that will end with me spending money I don’t want to spend. Heck, I won’t even go looking for pirated copies of episode two because I don’t think the show is worth the effort to watch. I don’t hate the show – it’s pretty to look at – but I don’t think it’s worth any extra effort to watch. If it was on free TV like many other shows, I might watch it. Or not. The mutiny thing pissed me off so I don’t care about Burhnam. I cared more about the captain.
I wasn’t likely to spend money on the CBS streaming anyway since my rallying cry concerning online content for the past 7 years has been “not one more penny!” My combined Comcast/phone/Netflix monthly bill is more than what my car payments were and, when I made that realization I was determined not to spend any more money on online content. Amazon has a movies I can watch online for $2.99? That’s nice. NO! Comcast has the first season of a show I really want to watch for $29.99? Cool. NO!
Now I WILL pay for DVDs and Blue Rays of movies because those I can watch at anytime without fear of them going away without even a moments notice. NetFlix used to have a whole library of old movies I wanted to watch and I quickly put them on my streaming list. They are almost all gone now. If I want a reliable library of movies and TV shows I want to watch, I’ll have to build that library myself like I did back in the “old days” when VCR tapes were the thing and DVDs were new.September 26, 2017 at 7:55 pm #21439
I’m looking forward to watching the spinoff prequel series which will focus on T’Kuvma’s previous career as Charlie Brown’s teacher.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.