• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
But you also think about the concept of Starfleet HQ and the Academy, which suddenly don't make sense in the context of an interstellar empire. For someone from the far end of the Federation, it would take as long to get to San Francisco as it would to them to take the classes and graduate from the academy.
The level of centralisation that we see on-screen in Star Trek is nonsense, yes, and you're right that we're just not meant to think about it. There's also manifestations of this in things like where the ships get built (almost always one of the three shipyards near Earth), who crews them (very heavily human) and even how they're named (almost all named after people, places and cultural touchstones from Earth). A lot of this is just to keep things relatable to TV viewers - a lot of the time whenever the show needed to talk about how the Federation runs, the solution taken was just to fall back on US bureaucratic institutions. If the US Naval Academy was called the US Naval University, the show would probably have had Starfleet University.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,971
The Andorians looked... I dunno, off, to me. Anybody else?

Didn't mind the episode but it will take a bit to get used to the different tone and atmosphere. The premiere, like multiple outlets opined, is very Star Wars-ish.
 

Deleted member 77016

User requested account closure
Banned
Aug 4, 2020
244
Tone wise this reminded me of nuWho more than Star Wars.

Maybe the way something bright and flashy and nonsensical happens every 5 minutes.
 

Deleted member 18400

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,585
The amount of joy Martin-Greene seems to get from being a part of Star Trek just makes me love her. I don't even care about all the whiney ass star trek fans I see on this forum and others.


Like, come on man, how do you not appreciate an actor that is so into her part of such a large series.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,971
andorians always look off to me no matter when or where they appear in any star trek show

I think Shran was probably the most respectable looking andorian I ever saw
on that note where the hell has Jeffrey Combs been, he needs to get a character on this show
Yeah, no doubt about that. The prosthetics/make-up looked overdone and a little caricature-ish compared to Shran and the other Andorian appearances in Enterprise.

And hell fucking yes to Jeff Combs coming back to Star Trek in any or multiple roles. The guy is phenomenal and his range is ridiculous. He could play a shitload of interesting characters.
 
Oct 27, 2017
12,971
Tone wise this reminded me of nuWho more than Star Wars.

Maybe the way something bright and flashy and nonsensical happens every 5 minutes.
Never watched Doctor Who (I know lol) so I can't comment on that but atmospherically I'm not opposed to the tone they're going for as their circumstances and timeframe has to distinguish itself from what we're used to but yeah, the premiere was very liberal in its fantastical and flashy action scenes. The previews seem or portend more of that throughout this season but as long as it's balanced with more grounded and human moments and not overdone, I don't think it will be an issue.

Glad the series is kind of breaking away from its narrative formula and taking a risk. Probably the biggest one we've seen since DS9.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,409
The amount of joy Martin-Greene seems to get from being a part of Star Trek just makes me love her. I don't even care about all the whiney ass star trek fans I see on this forum and others.


Like, come on man, how do you not appreciate an actor that is so into her part of such a large series.
Because all she does is make melodramatic super serious speeches and/or cry? Like nothing against her personally or even the character really, but the way the Burnham is written and portrayed completely lacks any sense of "joy" or fun. She's in tears every episode. It gets old after 3 seasons. It's not being whiney, those are just the facts.
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,641
You gotta love SMG, she's pure joy
On the topic of Michael, I have felt for some time that Burnham is a little too dire all the time and I'd like to see more emotional variety
SMG is such a warm joyful person it's sad to not see that utilized in her character
I get that Burnham has a vulcan upbringing that would restrict her emotional range, but we're three seasons in take the chains off
When I saw trailers for S3 I was excited to see her wildly laughing. thought that maybe three season in they were ready to let the character expand her emotional range
But then the first episode reveals that's strictly because she's under the influence against her will, so I assume the rest of the season we'll be back to the constant concerned stare
i hope not, let SMG be a little more SMG please

it took picard a couple seasons too, early jean luc was real stiff
fingers crossed for MB in S3
 

StallionDan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,705
And implicitly the general sense of apprehension it created. I.e. the Federation couldn't promise to keep them safe, between both the random ass destruction of a widely distributed mineral, but also the subsequent difficulties in getting around and doing anything. This has been an issue for Star Trek's spacefaring civilisation from the start, whether by our chronology (ie, starting with TOS) or starting with their chronology (ie, starting with the NX-01); remote colonies, ships, and even some member worlds can't be entirely assured that anyone can actually reach them in good time if they need help because of how far away they are from the rest of civilisation. Sure, some ships that weren't blown the fuck up might have a functioning quantum slipstream so a hundred year journey is just a week, but can you trust you're gonna be top of the list for a response with everything going to shit? Why not take matters in your own hands, rather than wait for Starfleet to rebuild and find an alternative that may not be feasible? I mean, sure, they won't like it, but they can't tell you what to do if you were to say... leave.
We've seen that this far into the future they have tech that makes interstellar ship travel irrelevant. They can travel anywhere instantly. Even Slipstream is outdated and pointless.

That's without the Spore drive tech. But also, the Spore drive exists too...

This episode threw in some excuses for Slipstream not being an option, but I doubt it will even attempt to address the above, nevermind other races who achieve warp without dilithium.

Also it's been 900 years and they are still using 23rd century power methods anyway? Wtf...
 
Oct 31, 2017
6,747
The premier was a lot more silly than I expected. Burnham's interrogation scene was great and I legit laughed out loud as soon as she said "damn". Her delivery that entire scene was really fun.

The bird alien dude randomly asking "Can I shoot her?!" was pure cheese but it set up the biggest action sequence of the episode which was very cool.

They did real good to introduce Book. A thief with a heart of gold pressed Latium... sweet.
But by the end of the episode, he might be too squeaky clean.

Only "big" problem with this episode was the lack of Saru/Disco crew but the season trailer was dope. Lots of shots of Owo, Detmer & Rhys but I didn't see any Bryce and kinda worried if he's still on the show lmao. It looks like Detmer will get more to do, finally. I also spotted Nan, who I kinda forgot about lol.

Really excited for the rest of the season & happy that season 4 is already being produced. Let the haters watch a season 2 supercut of Pike while the rest of us enjoy watching Commander Burnham do science & kick ass. I'm specifically here for it.
 
Last edited:

firehawk12

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,158
The level of centralisation that we see on-screen in Star Trek is nonsense, yes, and you're right that we're just not meant to think about it. There's also manifestations of this in things like where the ships get built (almost always one of the three shipyards near Earth), who crews them (very heavily human) and even how they're named (almost all named after people, places and cultural touchstones from Earth). A lot of this is just to keep things relatable to TV viewers - a lot of the time whenever the show needed to talk about how the Federation runs, the solution taken was just to fall back on US bureaucratic institutions. If the US Naval Academy was called the US Naval University, the show would probably have had Starfleet University.
Now I feel like someone should write a Silmarillion for Star Trek to explain this shit. lol
 

DrEvil

Developer
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
2,628
Canada
Only "big" problem with this episode was the lack of Saru/Disco crew but the season trailer was dope.


if the temporal wormhole had the same rules as ST09, the time dilation between Burnham and Discovery will likely lead to a few years between their respective arrivals.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first two episodes are introducing us & Burnham to the new future we're in, with some healthy time jumping montage action for her "search" for the Discovery, with the end of Ep 3 being when disco pops in, probably... lets say... 2-5 years later.

Burnham has long hair in some of the preview materials that have been out for a while, and it takes time for hair to grow.. so...
 

McNum

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,181
Denmark
I liked this episode, my only issue would be that those weapons they used are totally Mega Busters and there's nothing anyone can say to make me think otherwise. Paint them blue and it's there.

Also I really hope the end of the episode signals what this season is about, because I am so in for a season starting with the new Federation being three determined people and a flag in a derelict space station, and they're about to take the galaxy by storm.

The galaxy won't know what hit it.
 

Chiaroscuro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,685
It was odd seeing Michael so freely disintegrating people on this episode. Well, I guess it is on brand, "we come in peace ". (Klingons were right)
 

Shorty11857

Member
Oct 25, 2017
828
Enjoyed the premiere looking forward to the season

Honest question are there any worthwhile youtubers to watch that discuss Trek? Feels like most just have a weird agenda
 

Deleted member 5028

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,724
I liked this episode, my only issue would be that those weapons they used are totally Mega Busters and there's nothing anyone can say to make me think otherwise. Paint them blue and it's there.
Hell yeah. Im trying to remember what the two handled weapon reminds me off too. Definitely seen that somewhere before
 

Dougald

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,937
So they're going to use the spore drive tech to rebuild the Federation, right?

It was odd seeing Michael so freely disintegrating people on this episode. Well, I guess it is on brand, "we come in peace ". (Klingons were right)

Yeah, I didn't love that either. I know "phasers to stun" was just to get around censors of the time, but it was done too casually for me and was my only big complaint of the episode
 

Deleted member 5028

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,724
It was odd seeing Michael so freely disintegrating people on this episode. Well, I guess it is on brand, "we come in peace ". (Klingons were right)
I was fine with it. She is 930 years into a time she has no idea of, being chased and shot at by people with the only weapon she has access to and doesnt know if it has a stun setting
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,427
All the 'no...Starfleet can't be gone...' stuff really had me cringing, why is Michael so attached to that in particular? Wouldn't she be attached to their mission more than the name and rank? I hope they do more to justify the reason for Starfleet needing to be re-established beyond 'we're from 200 years in the past and we know better about how to run society'.
 

rsfour

Member
Oct 26, 2017
16,717
She didn't kill anyone, it obviously sent people via instant disintegration teleportation to some holding area.
 

Kalor

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,620
Finished the episode and it was pretty great. Nice to have Discovery back, and they had some real good looking shooting locations for this episode.

Because all she does is make melodramatic super serious speeches and/or cry? Like nothing against her personally or even the character really, but the way the Burnham is written and portrayed completely lacks any sense of "joy" or fun. She's in tears every episode. It gets old after 3 seasons. It's not being whiney, those are just the facts.

The season 3 premiere was full of Burnham being in constant awe at future stuff, or the part where she was high on whatever space drugs she was sprayed with. The character is a lot more than speeches and crying, even in the previous seasons. It's not remotely a "fact".
 

Aiii

何これ
Member
Oct 24, 2017
8,176
The level of centralisation that we see on-screen in Star Trek is nonsense, yes, and you're right that we're just not meant to think about it. There's also manifestations of this in things like where the ships get built (almost always one of the three shipyards near Earth), who crews them (very heavily human) and even how they're named (almost all named after people, places and cultural touchstones from Earth). A lot of this is just to keep things relatable to TV viewers - a lot of the time whenever the show needed to talk about how the Federation runs, the solution taken was just to fall back on US bureaucratic institutions. If the US Naval Academy was called the US Naval University, the show would probably have had Starfleet University.
The most obvious reason is that Star Trek was a 90s show (and earlier) and doing an entire crew of non-humans would have required a huge special effects, makeup, and props budget. Sure you could suffice by making them all like the Vulcans, just small variations on humans, but you'd never get a crew full of full body makeup aliens and especially not a variety of non humans in a pre-cgi and much more shoestring budget world.

I'm sure even a couple of episodes of Discovery could have funded a full season of TNG.
 

Chiaroscuro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,685
What was she meant to do?

at least express regret for that? Asking about non-lethal weapon when possible? Agree that in a normal situation most people would act just like she did but would express some kind of regret later. And this is a Star Trek show só there is some level of Star Fllet Officer integrity.
 

Deleted member 5028

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,724
at least express regret for that? Asking about non-lethal weapon when possible? Agree that in a normal situation most people would act just like she did but would express some kind of regret later. And this is a Star Trek show só there is some level of Star Fllet Officer integrity.
Ah the Starfleet purity test. This show isnt for you
 

Chiaroscuro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,685
Ah the Starfleet purity test. This show isnt for you

I am not a ST purity fan. Discovery is an amazing show and Lorca was a great character (context is for kings). I am not saying that she shouldn't do what she did but seeing her doing that without any acknowledgement or regret is a little off character for me. Not that ST shows shouldn't have killings.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,680
How I feel about those online who are still desperately trying to drag down everyone else who dare to like new Star Trek content and not whine 24/7 about how everything after TNG/DS9 sucks:

Seems a little like establishing a perimeter or enclave around discourse, tbh. 'It isn't for you, go away'. Isn't there at least some value in discussion the nature of what Star Trek is or could be? Are viewers to simply engage with it uncritically and only post about how they love it? I guess I'm wondering what people think the most interesting discussions to come out of these things are to be.

I think both 'This isn't real Star Trek' and 'Fuck the haters' are equally uninteresting avenues of discussion to go down. Aside from this stuff, it seems like it's mostly going over theories as to why such and such circumstance is this way or that way. I suppose for me anyway, that's not super interesting either, but I can see why people focus on that when there isn't a lot of ideas to unpack.

Goes back to some of what I was saying earlier - Star Trek being kind of 'stuck' in the sense that it's taken on the shape of contemporary popular media, almost like superhero films. They can be very spectacular and entertaining, but ultimately somewhat hollow in how they can potentially enrich the thinking of those that engage with them. I don't think this makes contemporary Star Trek 'bad'(distinctions that to me don't matter anyways), but a little bereft of some of the richness it once held, conceptually.
 

Wrexis

Member
Nov 4, 2017
21,224
Seems a little like establishing a perimeter or enclave around discourse, tbh. 'It isn't for you, go away'. Isn't there at least some value in discussion the nature of what Star Trek is or could be? Are viewers to simply engage with it uncritically and only post about how they love it?

There is a very deep seated issue in Star Trek fandom where "the nature of what Star Trek" is rooted in what the fans grew up watching, not realizing 20-30 years have passed. So the extremes that you mentioned are fair points, but for me personally it's just been done so many times in the last couple of years that I'm tired of the #NotMyTrek stuff. I guess go watch Strange New Worlds as that show seems to be designed for what people are complaining about.
 

LewieP

Member
Oct 26, 2017
18,091
There is a very deep seated issue in Star Trek fandom where "the nature of what Star Trek" is rooted in what the fans grew up watching, not realizing 20-30 years have passed. So the extremes that you mentioned are fair points, but for me personally it's just been done so many times in the last couple of years that I'm tired of the #NotMyTrek stuff. I guess go watch Strange New Worlds as that show seems to be designed for what people are complaining about.
Not really.

I want Trek to evolve without losing what made me love it. I don't want it to be a nostalgic recreation of what came before.

I kinda don't like how thick Discovery and especially the Kelvin movies are with "hey remember this thing". I'll of course remain open minded though.
 

Amnesty

Member
Nov 7, 2017
2,680
There is a very deep seated issue in Star Trek fandom where "the nature of what Star Trek" is rooted in what the fans grew up watching, not realizing 20-30 years have passed. So the extremes that you mentioned are fair points, but for me personally it's just been done so many times in the last couple of years that I'm tired of the #NotMyTrek stuff.
Right, I get that, but is that what's happening here in most of the Star Trek threads on this forum? I guess there's probably some but it seems almost like there's more people on the defensive trying to ward off what are mostly phantoms from other corners of the internet.

I do wonder if there's limits to the potential discourse in series like contemporary Star Trek, because they're not very idea focused and are closer to superhero films or action sci fi of the past. And to reiterate, that's not a negative quality but I can definitely see how it would leave a lot of people disappointed in the direction and have them looking for where to go in discussing it. It's only natural when something changes from higher concept ethical/philisophical trappings to a more popularized form where those aspects are more limited.

To some extent I think it was somewhat inevitable that Star Trek has ended up where it is. I can remember during the years without any series, seeing the discourse form more around stuff like faction conflict and ship nerdery than around the ideas present, so it seems like a natural path for Star Trek to become what it is now as I think those engaged with the ideas or concepts in Star Trek were probably comparatively in the minority. It almost seems bizarre in a way that there ever even was something like TNG that was super popular but carried some deeper ideas or the potential for provoking thoughtful discourse surrounding things like colonialism, post capitalism, or what a human being is and anything else that came up. The way these ideas arose and the form they took often used the power of the thought experiment as a conceptual device to engage people. That's also pretty strange, that TNG was sort of a popularized form of that and I don't think has really been able to enter the mainstream again very easily. It's the trouble with serialized television and it's strict adherence to plot as an all encompassing structure.

On another semi related note -I think that the focus on calling out talk about past series as nostalgic is a unfortunate kind of dismissiveness. One of the most fruitful avenues of producing 'new' ideas is to mine the past and to excavate it, rearticulating it in contemporary (and potentially future) parlance. The focus on rhetoric of nostalgia and using it as a finger wag is to close one's mind to this enrichment and part of howI think being so invested in popular forms can be somewhat inhibiting. There's definitely a lot of unreflective adoration of the past too, and that's also limiting but it's like some of the discussions between these poles have people ending up like Lazarus from Those Old Scientists era. Caught in this eternal struggle/trap.
 

Sir Hound

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,195
at least express regret for that? Asking about non-lethal weapon when possible? Agree that in a normal situation most people would act just like she did but would express some kind of regret later. And this is a Star Trek show só there is some level of Star Fllet Officer integrity.
I dunno man I think we misremember a lot of how people generally act in Star Trek, I do agree though that it'd be more ideal for this sort of stuff to land a blow on the character. But I suppose they want to concentrate on the whole ending up in the future stuff.
 

Alexandros

Member
Oct 26, 2017
17,795
The amount of joy Martin-Greene seems to get from being a part of Star Trek just makes me love her. I don't even care about all the whiney ass star trek fans I see on this forum and others.


Like, come on man, how do you not appreciate an actor that is so into her part of such a large series.

Martin-Green is absolutely not the issue with Discovery. She is more than capable of leading the series. The problem with Discovery (and much, much, much more so with Picard) is the writers and/or showrunners.
 

obin_gam

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,030
Sollefteå, Sweden
After watching ep 1 of S3... I want that hour back please...

Im sorry, but what the fuck is this show suppose to be??? Nothing works in terms if plotting, style, narrativ, characters, charm and entertainment.
 

Pizza Dog

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,475
After watching ep 1 of S3... I want that hour back please...

Im sorry, but what the fuck is this show suppose to be??? Nothing works in terms if plotting, style, narrativ, characters, charm and entertainment.
Nothing works? I feel like you need to watch some actually bad TV before you throw around deliberately facetious comments like that. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't make it broken, badly made or "not Star Trek".
 

Revali

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,394
Rito Village
6/10 episode I'd say. The writing is still mediocre, which sucks because from what I've seen the actors have the chops to do so much more. I'm kind of baffled as to why they went with a spontaneous dilithium explosion as an explanation for "the Burn" when Voyager already established that an Omega particle accident could lead to seemingly the same situation, but perhaps we'll find out more in future episodes. It makes sense that Book wouldn't know all the details given how long ago it happened.

Then again, the writers have a history of introducing new pieces of lore that are seemingly the same as ideas already present in the series. The "struggle is pointless" line and the imagery of the nanites infecting Captain Leland felt like the showrunners wanted to include the Borg but got cold feet at the last second. It's a bit too blatant to just be a nod to the older shows. Another example would be the Spore Drive which could've been tied to the Iconians, who infamously ruled large swaths of space without the use of starships, and the early imagery of the red angel was clearly at least inspired by the Iconians' design from Star Trek: Online.

None of that is enough to put me off the show since it still has a lot of potential; it's just irksome how it keeps happening. It has a similar feel to mystery boxes where interesting questions and comparisons are hinted at but never lead anywhere.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,029
Good scene setter episode. Last 5 minutes kinda felt like an open world game. When they were talking about losing contact with further sectors and unfurling the flag I was half expecting a little bit of the map to fill in and a bunch of missions to pop up
 

chrominance

Sky Van Gogh
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,548
Finally sat down to watch the premiere, and... so far I like it? Like it's definitely triggered stronger emotions in me than probably 80% of Discovery's run so far. If Discovery season 3 is leaning into the Firefly + Don Quixote thing, I'm on board. I was a huge sucker for the end of the episode where they meet the one guy who's been keeping the lights on for the Federation (like I was literally going in my head PLEASE GIVE HIM A COMMISSION). Also, please please please give Burnham psychotropic drugs on a regular basis, she's way more fun this way!

I totally get the criticisms of the Federation and how terrible it is, both as a hegemonic force throughout all of Star Trek and the specific new things Discovery and Picard have bolted onto it, and it would be nice to see Discovery explore that more. But I think it's probably asking too much to expect a Star Trek show to ever truly repudiate the mere concept of the Federation as unworkable or fatally flawed. If Discovery subverts my expectations, all the better, but if it just manages to be a good season of TV while still basically saying "the ideals of the Federation, they're good actually," I'll be okay with it.
 

CorrisD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
804
I actually really enjoyed the episode.

I've always been a bit on the fence with Discovery. That it was placed before TOS and went with more modern aesthetics than any of the other ST series besides the "Kelvin Timeline". The newer tech and new alien species looks felt weird when other ST shows that travelled to previous eras "respected" as it were the look of TOS. To me besides the Spock family thing they decided on that no one asked for, the basis and themes of the show have always felt like something that should come after Voyager.
Season One eventually got going and was good, and Season Two got much better with the introduction of Pike who I feel was a really great character to reuse from that time frame and gelled well with the existing characters.

So going into Season Three I was super worried about what their reasoning for the collapse of the Federation and Starfleet was going to be. They are pretty much bookending the universe fir any future stories that we have yet to see with the reasoning they would decide on as to why everything fell apart.

We might not have a lot of details on "the burn" so far besides the massive loss of dilithium, but I can say I'm generally alright with it so far. From what we've seen and has been said the burn was a galaxy wide event, every space fairing species would have been affected by it, and suddenly a base component of technology for interstellar travel essentially disappears over night.

I think a lot of fans had assumed it would be some omega particle like event and subspace was going to have been destroyed making warp travel impossible, which also would have worked I feel making the reliance on Discovery's technology even more important than just dilithium now being sparse. But I'm happy the Federation didn't just "fail", it seemingly didn't get too full of itself or too big, it like many other galactic governmental entities would have all had the same problem when "the burn" happened.

Going from the wreckage of ships and the station and a few lines, dilithium going "boom" likely took out most of Starfleets and pretty much everyone else's ships, that would have been a monumental loss of life and technology in one go across the galaxy.

I can totally understand why everyone would suddenly worry it would happen again. If for instance every single plane all at the same time fell out of the sky at once and no one knew why, even though a few planes could then still take off after, I couldn't see people just carrying on and using them as much as we do. It would cause a massive disruption to how the world currently works.

So it was nice going into this era and not knowing anything about it, there was a couple references to events and technology we knew about before, but everything else is new. I hope we don't end up too much like Andromeda, but I think the show can really develop from this sort of clean slate, possibly to the point that maybe this should have been the main idea behind the Discovery tv show from the start and not two seasons down the road. I do wonder if Pike and the Discovery era Enteprise characters hadn't been so well received if we would be getting a Discovery spin off set in this era that would be a more classic like Star Trek series, that would deal with more of the day to day return of the Federation and Starfleet side and could run parallel to Discovery's story.

So yea, I'm kind of excited which is nice and I'm looking forward to what comes next. Especially after Picard felt it went a bit flat, but lower decks totally knocked it out of the park with that last episode.

I also apologise and didn't realise how much I had waffled on for in this post.
 

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,029
Wondering if this is setting up such a 'bad timeline' that they'll try and reset it somehow to get the 'good old days' of the federation back? Quite often what they do with time travel storylines
 

Deleted member 14568

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,910
The newer tech and new alien species looks felt weird when other ST shows that travelled to previous eras "respected" as it were the look of TOS.
meh i'm glad they didn't recreate the TOS aesthetic that stuff doesn't belong in a 20xx production and i hope at the end of SNW they don't downgrade the enterprise to her TOS look
 

CorrisD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
804
meh i'm glad they didn't recreate the TOS aesthetic that stuff doesn't belong in a 20xx production and i hope at the end of SNW they don't downgrade the enterprise to her TOS look

That really comes from the main issue I have when Discovery started, that the first season could have easily taken place after Voyager and besides a couple character changes and story points that really didn't matter in the end would fit in fine aesthetically and technologically.

But anyway, it's an old subject that we don't need to get into 2 seasons down the road, and just why I was iffy on Discovery to begin with.
 

Kazooie

Member
Jul 17, 2019
5,008
So now they fully turned Star Trek into some lousy Star Wars-style action-fantasy romp? I had a bad opinion about the majority of seasons 1 & 2, but even after those disappointments, the start to season 3 managed to appal me in a surprising way. The pilot episode of Star Trek Picard remains the only really good piece of content since the franchise was "resurrected". In my eyes.