Star Trek: One More Time

[Montrovant]

One of the problems with sci-fi prequels is that visual technology improves, and that ends up making the technology of the movie or show seem more advanced.

Which is why I didn't understand their choice in setting.

On another note:

It has been reported that CBS hired Nicholas Meyer to do something Star Trek. I am wondering if he is developing a new series just in case/when it fails.

I saw that they have "first reactions" but don't see well known Trekkies like Dan Murrell or Scott Collura, or a well known TV critic like Alan Sepinwall.

I am going to watch at least the first episode. I subscribe to All Access anyway since getting rid of cable for the few shows my wife and I watch.

I just get the feeling that CBS at this point are taking the money and running. I just wonder if Netflix will file a law suit.

What would Netflix sue for?

Even when it's not a prequel, if movies or shows take place in the same timeline but are made many years apart, they often look like they are from different times. Watch the first Star Trek movie, then watch The Undiscovered Country. Improvements in visual effects might lead you to believe they are from very different time periods. And of course, the Star Trek reboot looks much more advanced in a lot of ways.

I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

What would Netflix sue for?

There was talk about sueing using a lemon law type of arrangement. Basically CBS knowingly sold them a bad product.

I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.

I am not sure how much of Discovery is Fuller anymore

 

[Windparadox]

Will you watch? I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series. The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide

`
Not a chance. More network/hollywood garbage.

 

[Montrovant]

What would Netflix sue for?

There was talk about sueing using a lemon law type of arrangement. Basically CBS knowingly sold them a bad product.

I don't know why Fuller wanted to make a show from close to, but before, TOS timeline. I agree that it seems like a bit of an odd decision, just as I think Enterprise was an odd choice. Star Trek can always do more stories either in the same time or in the future. Going to the past is limiting.

I am not sure how much of Discovery is Fuller anymore

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure the time period was something from while Fuller was still in charge.

 

[Synthaholic]

The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.

Yeah, except for when they got it right, giving all the awards to Silence Of The Lambs. Or Unforgiven. Or Titanic. Or As Good As It Gets. Or . . . how many more do you need?

 

[Synthaholic]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies.

You poor cuck. Better find your safe space now before they're all gone!

Safe space? You idiot, you don't even know the FUCKING DEFINITION of a "safe space", you horse's ass! Explaining what I like or dislike about a certain entertainment IS NOT GETTING SCARED AND TRAUMATIZED!!!! It's simply a matter of expressing an opinion, that's all, you poor, drooling vegetable.

You obviously have a fear of Social Justice Warriors. Just hide, like your gut tells you.

They are boring and silly.

Well, at least you're not afraid of them like Will Munny.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie. Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.

I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies. I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible. All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm. In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.

JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise. He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters. His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through. I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.

I don't agree about Chris Pine. I think he's a fine Kirk. He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto. And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese. I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott. He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.

The problem is that the studios demand action sequences. The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.

 

[Montrovant]

The only time the Oscars got it completely right was when they gave at least a record dozen awards to the most epic movie of all time, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King for 2003.

Yeah, except for when they got it right, giving all the awards to Silence Of The Lambs. Or Unforgiven. Or Titanic. Or As Good As It Gets. Or . . . how many more do you need? View attachment 150969

Titanic was an overrated mess. As Good As It Gets was good, but just good, far from great. I'd have picked Good Will Hunting over As Good As It Gets, and certainly over Titanic. Unforgiven is also overrated, but less so than Titanic; Unforgiven is a good movie, but too often people seem to think it is some sort of masterpiece. Of course, the only other movie nominated for best picture in 93 that I watched was A Few Good Men, and I hardly even remember that, so Unforgiven may have been the best of the choices. Silence of the Lambs was excellent, I'll certainly agree with that movie deserving awards.

 

[theHawk]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie. Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.

I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies. I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible. All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm. In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.

JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise. He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters. His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through. I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.

I don't agree about Chris Pine. I think he's a fine Kirk. He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto. And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese. I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott. He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.

The problem is that the studios demand action sequences. The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.

Yup, this is the Michael Bay era, no critical thinking or interesting plot allowed. Movies must adhere to the standard recipe to appease the low IQ masses: lots of CGI, over the top action sequences, and a diverse cast.

 

[JoeB131]

Will you watch?

I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series. The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.

Probably not, but for different reasons.

First and foremost, here we have Viacom trying to milk money out of Trekkies. they know some Trekkies will pay for CBS on demand to watch this show. They could do just as well putting a Trek show on the CW, where all the nerds are already hanging out.

Second, it looks like they are taking another big whizzz on continuity.

 

[JoeB131]

I do agree that the original series was the least "libtarded" and most intellectually reasonable, least politically partisan, no question of that.

Um, no. You are just too young to remember that back then, the Original Series WAS very progressive and risk taking.

At a time when black folks were being hosed and attacked by dogs for merely trying to exercise their right to vote, you had a character who was a black woman who was an officer!

And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nope, from everything I've heard about ST: Discovery it will be every bit as clumsy, SJW-harrassing the viewer (other Star Trek let their diversity function as a casual, everyday thing) embarrassing and horribly dumbed down as Jar Jar Abrams horrid mockery of Star Trek movies. I can't tell you how the hyperactive, jackhammer-in-the-brain, stupid 2009 cine-feces ended because I walked out during the last half hour. I hated it so bad that I figured whatever I paid to get in, it was worth MORE to get out. Not only is it the worst Star Trek I've ever seen, not only is it the worst movie I've ever seen, but I've NEVER seen a megabudget movie more incompetent on a technical level. The lens flares, obnoxious set design lighting & cinematography, etc., etc. J.J. Abrams Trek has zero redeeming qualities of any kind. I haven't watched any newer Trek since that 2009 utter miscarriage of sci-fi.

My point being, everything points to Discovery as being in the same DELIBERATELY dumbed-down, obnoxious vein. And has so many talentless idiots involved, NOTHING good can come from it.

If the 2009 Star Trek is the worst movie you have ever seen, you must have seen very few movies.

The 2009 reboot is a fantastic movie. Karl Urban is a perfect Dr. McCoy.

I think the reboots were ok movies, but they weren't good Star Trek movies. I agree Karl Urban was a perfect McCoy, but the new Kirk was terrible. All they did was make him a wild cowboy, if you watch the old show, young Kirk was very calculating and calm. In the movies when he was much older he was more of a cowboy, but he wasn't like that when he was young.

JJ Abrams ruined the Star Trek franchise. He turned it into a Michael Bay action movie in space using regurgitated Star Trek characters. His TV show Lost was one of the worst sci-fi shows I ever sat through. I knew he would ruin Star Wars as well and he sure as hell did, that movie was a flaming pile of garbage.

I don't agree about Chris Pine. I think he's a fine Kirk. He's just not an obviously fantastic choice, like Karl Urban and Zachary Quinto. And John Cho is a good Sulu, even though he's Korean, not Japanese. I'm not totally sold on Simon Pegg as Montgomery Scott. He's okay, but I keep seeing Benjy from the 1Mission:Impossible series.

The problem is that the studios demand action sequences. The old cool, more thoughtful Kirk is a waste of screen time that could be used for a phasor battle.

Yup, this is the Michael Bay era, no critical thinking or interesting plot allowed. Movies must adhere to the standard recipe to appease the low IQ masses: lots of CGI, over the top action sequences, and a diverse cast.

Not only the Michael Bay era, more importantly the Overseas Era. A lot of these action movies make a ton of money overseas, so complicated dialogue with a Western, or specifically U.S. sensibility is frowned upon. Make it translate into any culture. Guns and explosions do that.

 

[Synthaholic]

And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.

Frank Gorshin. I always liked him. He was a great Riddler.

 

[WillMunny]

I do agree that the original series was the least "libtarded" and most intellectually reasonable, least politically partisan, no question of that.

Um, no. You are just too young to remember that back then, the Original Series WAS very progressive and risk taking.

At a time when black folks were being hosed and attacked by dogs for merely trying to exercise their right to vote, you had a character who was a black woman who was an officer!

And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.

Wrong, previous series were classical, moderate liberalism. As opposed to today's hateful, raging, chip-on-shoulder, American-hating, white-hating, violent liberal hatemongering and delusional, destructive behavior we see today. Star Trek's liberalism used a light touch; you modern liberals use a sledgehammer.

 

[boedicca]

Will you watch?

I'll probably watch the opener out of curiosity but won't pay money to CBS to see the series. The premise is not fresh beyond the lady Captain and XO.

'Star Trek: Discovery' to Tackle Trump-Era Political Divide

I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty icepick.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And the episode with the two-toned aliens fighting to the death? That was a direct commentary on a time when we had race riots going on.

Frank Gorshin. I always liked him. He was a great Riddler.

I didn't like him. He was white on the left side.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong, previous series were classical, moderate liberalism. As opposed to today's hateful, raging, chip-on-shoulder, American-hating, white-hating, violent liberal hatemongering and delusional, destructive behavior we see today. Star Trek's liberalism used a light touch; you modern liberals use a sledgehammer.

Well, that's only because Conservatives have gotten dumber. You've gone from the intellect of a Nixon to the stupidity of a Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, having just watched this abortion.

Yes, this was awful. It actually made the Motion Picture look fast paced.

Not to mention you can't understand a word Michelle Yoeh is saying half the time. (I know that she isn't going to be a series regular, so there's that.)

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Well, watched Discovery. It was gawd-awful.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

All I can say is after watching both episodes: I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. Which isn't saying much because I thought I was going to be angry after watching it.

I think it would have helped my enjoyment more if they tried to make it look like it took place in the Prime Universe and not the Abram's Universe.